Reforming Church History: The Impact of the Reformation on Early Modern European Historiography 3515134247, 9783515134248

Citation preview

Reforming Church History The Impact of the Reformation on Early Modern European Historiography

Edited by Daniel Gehrt, Markus Matthias and Sascha Salatowsky

Kulturwissenschaften Franz Steiner Verlag

Gothaer Forschungen zur Frühen Neuzeit | 22

Gothaer Forschungen zur Frühen Neuzeit Herausgegeben vom Forschungszentrum und der Forschungsbibliothek Gotha der Universität Erfurt Schriftleitung: Martin Mulsow und Kathrin Paasch Band 22

Reforming Church History The Impact of the Reformation on Early Modern European Historiography Edited by Daniel Gehrt, Markus Matthias and Sascha Salatowsky

Franz Steiner Verlag

Gedruckt mit freundlicher Unterstützung der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft.

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek: Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über abrufbar. Dieses Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist unzulässig und strafbar. © Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 2023 www.steiner-verlag.de Layout und Herstellung durch den Verlag Druck: Beltz Grafische Betriebe, Bad Langensalza Gedruckt auf säurefreiem, alterungsbeständigem Papier. Printed in Germany. ISBN 978-3-515-13424-8 (Print) ISBN 978-3-515-13426-2 (E-Book)

PREFACE The essays presented in this volume arose in connection with continuing efforts of the Gotha Research Library to incorporate its outstanding collections on the history of the Reformation and Protestantism into respective international discourses. Most recently, surviving letters and documents related to the multifarious activities of the theologian, church councilor, historian, and library director Ernst Salomon Cyprian at the Gotha court from 1713 until his death in 1745 were cataloged. The collection consists in part of approximately 4,000 letters, exchanged within a communication network extending beyond the Holy Roman Empire into parts of France, England, the Low Countries, Scandinavia, the Russian Empire, Italy, and Switzerland. This correspondence readily proves that Cyprian’s religiopolitical influence was by no means limited to the duchy of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg, but that it also made its mark on various Lutheran communities and regions throughout Europe and on negotiations and controversial issues at the imperial level. Furthermore, the collection mirrors Cyprian’s diverse scholarly activities, especially his ambitious projects related to sixteenth, seventeenth, and contemporary early eighteenth-century church history. He not only built up his own private library to this end. Under his direction, the respective collections at the Gotha court library grew at an unprecedented rate, making it today one of Germany’s leading centers for manuscript and printed sources on early modern church history and particularly on the Reformation. From 2014 to 2019, the German Research Foundation funded the cataloging of all manuscripts in this collection in print 1 and in the online union catalog Kalliope.2 Combing meticulously through this extensive material has opened new insights into Cyprian’s various spheres of action and into greater political, religious, and intellectual developments in the first half of the eighteenth century. These findings call for a reexamination of Cyprian’s role in the history of eighteenth-century Europe. Whereas a groundbreaking conference organized by Ernst Koch and Johannes Wallmann in 1995 focused on the biography of this fascinating historical figure and his impact in respect to “late Lutheran Orthodoxy,” “Pietism,” and the “early Enlightenment,” 3 a fully different approach was taken in the conference held from October 1 to 3, 2018, in the Duke Ernest Cabinet of the Gotha Research Library

1

2 3

Katalog der Handschriften aus dem Nachlass Ernst Salomon Cyprians (1673–1745): Aus den Sammlungen der Herzog von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha’schen Stiftung für Kunst und Wissenschaft sowie aus den Beständen des Landesarchivs Thüringen – Staatsarchiv Gotha und der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirchengemeinde Gotha, Augustinerkloster (Ed. Daniel Gehrt). Wiesbaden 2021. http://kalliope.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/de/index.html (last accessed: December 20, 2021). Ernst Koch, Johannes Wallmann (eds.): Ernst Salomon Cyprian (1673–1745) zwischen Orthodoxie, Pietismus und Frühaufklärung. Gotha 1996.

6

Preface

from which the papers in this anthology arose. The participants investigated the impact of the Reformations on efforts of theologians and other scholars in various parts of Europe from the sixteenth to the beginning of the early Enlightenment in the eighteenth century to “reform” church history. Besides fulfilling a desideratum in historiographical studies, the papers form a backdrop for highlighting how the historiographical works on the Reformation that Cyprian both collected and composed in Gotha fit into the greater picture. The German Research Foundation has our gratitude for sponsoring the international conference and funding the publication of this anthology. We also thank JanLuca Albrecht for his contribution to the redactional work that included typesetting and creating an index of persons. Gotha, Amsterdam, and Coburg Daniel Gehrt, Markus Matthias, and Sascha Salatowsky

TABLE OF CONTENTS Daniel Gehrt, Markus Matthias and Sascha Salatowsky Introduction ........................................................................................................... 9 1. EMERGING NARRATIVES Kenneth G. Appold Reformation History in the Eyes of Early-Modern Catholics ............................ 19 Martin Rothkegel History Written by the Victims: Reformation as Reflected in Sixteenth-Century Hutterite Chronicles................ 29 2. CULTIVATING PROTESTANT PERSPECTIVES Daniel Bohnert Reformationsgeschichtsschreibung im Umfeld der Wittenberger Universitätstheologie des frühen 17. Jahrhunderts ................. 75 Bruce Gordon History and Reformation in Swiss Reformed Bibles .......................................... 95 Aza Goudriaan The Reformation and Early “Historical Theology”: Heinrich Alting and John Forbes of Corse ...................................................... 113 Markus Matthias Agitur de animae salute: Geschichtliches Denken in Veit Ludwig von Seckendorffs Historia Lutheranismi ...................................................................................... 127 Steffie Schmidt Luther and the Goths: Reformation in the Swedish Historiography of the Seventeenth Century ....... 153

8

Table of Contents

3. HISTORIOGRAPHIC CONTENTIONS Andreea Badea Lutheranism as Heresy: Louis Maimbourg’s Gallican View of Church History ................................... 179 Sascha Salatowsky Looking Back into the Past: New Understanding of Church History in the Early Modern Period .............. 193 Pablo Toribio The Reformation in Antitrinitarian Accounts of Church History .................... 229 4. CHANGING APPROACHES Daniel Gehrt Arguing for the Moral Necessity of Reformation History: Ernst Salomon Cyprian’s Historiographic Use of Natural Law in Defense of the Lutheran Church .................................................................. 243 Wolf-Friedrich Schäufele Between Continuity and Discontinuity: The Narrative of Witnesses of the Evangelical Truth and the Reformation as an Era in Writings by Jacques Basnage and Christoph Matthäus Pfaff ................................................................................. 271 Markus Friedrich The Church Historian’s Desk: Barthold Nicolaus Krohn and His Working Papers ......................................... 281

Index of Authors .............................................................................................. 307 Index of Abbreviations .................................................................................... 309 Index of Persons............................................................................................... 311

INTRODUCTION Daniel Gehrt, Markus Matthias, and Sascha Salatowsky Modern historiography, both idealistic and post-idealistic, is characterized by the awareness that “explored” events or occurrences of human action in their uniqueness and multiplicity only acquire meaning through philosophical consideration. 1 It is irrelevant whether this meaning is inherent in the events or projected onto them, as long as the (moral-) philosophical concept and the historical facts mutually illuminate each other, i.e., the concept can be verified “empirically” or the facts can generate “historical experiential knowledge.” The science of history (in the broad sense) thus becomes the medium of a meaningful explanation of one’s own present for the sake of the future. Without such an appropriative approach, which paradoxically also guides contextualist or deconstructivist conceptions, it would remain a simple (narrative) enumeration of histories (polyhistory). As is well known, such a modern historiography of the Reformation as a universally accepted historical epoch of immense impact does not begin until Leopold von Ranke’s six-volume Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation (1839– 1847). Since then, there have been quite different approaches to this church historical phenomenon and “global historical” epoch, which, however, is not what is at issue here. 2 Rather, we are concerned with the question of how the Reformation, as a process of internal church reform, renewal, or upheaval, shaped the way contemporary actors and their successors dealt with history in the pre-modern era. Due to the Reformation’s orientation on the source of Christianity in the double sense of the temporal origin and the untainted foundation of faith and piety, the Reformation generation strove to trace a historical line back to the beginnings of 1 2

It is well known that the Greek verb forming the root of the word “historic” means “to explore,” originally in respect to artefacts of natural history. For approaches of international Reformation research since the second half of the twentieth century, see the essays in: Archive for Reformation History 100 (2009), and in: Politics and Reformations: Essays in Honor of Thomas A. Brady, Jr. Vol. 1: Histories and Reformations. Leiden et al. 2007; furthermore, Thomas Kaufmann: “Evangelische Reformationsgeschichtsforschung nach 1945: Gottfried Seebaß zum 70. Geburtstag”, in: Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 104 (2007), pp. 404–454; Wim Janse: “La Réforme protestante aux Pays-Bas: Tournants dans l’historiographie du XX siècle”, in: Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses 80 (2004), pp. 76–92 (see Reformation & Renaissance Review, 6 [2004], pp. 179–202); Cinquant’ anni di storiografia italiana sulla riforma e i movimenti ereticali in Italia 1950–2000: XL convegno di studi sulla riforma e sui movimenti religiosi in Italia, 2002. For modern research controversies or paradigma, see Stefan Ehrenpreis, Ute Lotz-Heumann (eds.): Reformation und konfessionelles Zeitalter. Darmstadt 2002. On older approachs, see Archive for Reformation History 101 (2010) and Bulletin de la Societie de l’ Historie du Protestantimsie Francais 155 (2009).

10

Daniel Gehrt, Markus Matthias, and Sascha Salatowsky

Christianity, also under the premise of the article of faith upholding the unity, catholicity, and holiness of the Church. Because of their apocalyptic expectations that made the end of history appear to approach nearer with every sign of the times revealed (drawing on images of the Apocalypse of John), the reformers could not ascribe any separate “epochal” significance to their own time, especially not in respect to general political (universal) history. 3 From a historical and humanistic viewpoint, it was foremost a matter of critically examining the present state of affairs in relation to early Christianity, first in respect to biblical canon, then to orthodox dogma, and finally to the scholarly theology of the church fathers. The latter, the science of patrology, would flourish in the seventeenth century (Johann Gerhard, Johann Gottfried Olearius, and the Bollandists and Maurinists). Consequently, it was also necessary to cope with the problem of postulating a historical continuity from early Christianity to one’s own time. Thus, “modern church historiography […] is a child of the Lutheran Reformation.” 4 It begins 5 with Matthias Flacius, that is with the Magdeburg Centuries 6 and his Catalogus testium veritatis. 7 Incorporating ecclesiastical doctrine (doctrina) into the historical account of the Centuries was of great significance because it considerably expanded the previous concept of history with intellectually, spiritually, and culturally defined

3 4

5

6

7

Matthias Pohlig: Zwischen Gelehrsamkeit und konfessioneller Identitätsstiftung, lutherische Kirchen- und Universalgeschichtsschreibung 1546–1617. Tübingen 2007, p. 499. Eduard Fueter: Geschichte der neueren Historiographie. Oldenburg 1911 (Zurich 1985 = repr. of third edition from 1936), p. 246; see also p. 250. Fueter errs, however, when claiming that it did not arise through the novelty of the subject, but rather exclusively through the needs of confessional polemics. For one cannot ignore that the historical problem to be solved was new and by no means simply the realization of one of Luther’s suggestions (Martin Luther: Werke: Kritische Ausgabe. Vol. 50. Weimar 1914, pp. 3–5). In other respects, namely with regard to the relationship between world history and church history, Philipp Melanchthon was programmatic and his editing of Carion’s Chronica could be regarded as the first example of Protestant historiography. On Carion, see Mark A. Lotito: The Reformation of Historical Thought. Leiden et al. 2019; Malte von Spankeren: “Das Mittelalter im Dienst der Reformation: Die Chronica Carions und Melanchthons von 1532: Zur Vermittlung mittelalterlicher Geschichtskonzeptionen in die protestantische Historiographie”, in: Theologische Literaturzeitung 142 (2017), cols. 639–643. Cf. Pohlig: Gelehrsamkeit, pp. 157–269, esp. 175–189. Ecclesiastica historia integram ecclesiae Christi ideam quantum ad locum, propagationem, persecutionem, tranquillit[atem], doctrin[as], haereses, ceremonias, guberationem, schismata, synodos, personas, miracula, martyria, religiones extra ecclesiam. Singulari diligentia et fide ex vetustissimis et optimis historicis, patribus et aliis scriptoribus congesta per aliquot studiosos et pios viros in urbe Magdeburgica. 13 vols. Basel 1559–1574 (the second edition, printed in Basel in 1624, was revised from a Reformed perspective). The most recent comprehensive study on this work: Harald Bollbuck: Wahrheitszeugnis, Gottes Auftrag und Zeitkritik: Die Kirchengeschichte der Magdeburger Zenturien und ihre Arbeitstechniken. Wiesbaden 2014. Catalogus testivm veritatis, qvi ante nostram aetatem reclamarunt Papae. Opus uaria rerum […] scitu dignißimarum, cognitione refertum, ac […] necessarium. Cum Praefatione Mathiae Flacii Illyrici. Basel 1556. Cf. Pohlig: Gelehrsamkeit, pp. 294–341 and Wolf-Friedrich Schäufele’s contribution in this volume.

Introduction

11

topoi. 8 On the other hand, the Centuries may have fallen rather short of humanistic aspirations in respect to its historical-critical achievement and its annalistic and soteriological mode of presenting history. 9 This early Protestant ecclesiastical historiography written for apologetic purposes is quite well researched, including the works of its confessional opponents (e.g., Caesar Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici a Christo nato ad annum 1198, 12 vols., 1588–1607; later continued by other authors). 10 From the beginning, authors tended to draw out their historical depictions into the present (for the Centuries, an unprinted draft for the fourteenth to sixteenth century exists in the Duke August Library of Wolfenbüttel), without, however, seeing themselves temporally distanced from the Reformation. 11 Comparable phenomena can also be found in political historiography. 12 Only later generations had to develop a “historical” relationship to the Reformation as an epochal prehistory of their own confessional standpoint. This raised the question of how the events of the early sixteenth century were to be perceived, selected, and narrated as a completed process and then as a past age of church history.13 In general, one may say that the first historians of the “bygone” Reformation still had a view of history characterized to a certain degree by Christian salvation history, but not necessarily by Augustinian dualism, and that they used historiography for safeguarding dogma, for legally and apologetically protecting vested rights, for promoting confessional identity, or for teaching pragmatic precepts for life. 8

9

10 11 12 13

Fueter: Geschichte, p. 250: “Die Zenturiatoren behandelten nicht nur sozusagen die kirchlichen Haupt- und Staatsaktionen, sondern auch die in der politischen Historiographie bisher ganz vernachlässigte innere Geschichte, die Veränderungen in Lehre, Kultur usw. Ihre allerdings dürftigen Notizen über die außerchristlichen Religionen legten sogar gewissermaßen den Grund zur Religionsgeschichte.” Fueter: Geschichte, pp. 251–253 (opposed, for example, to Ferdinand Christian Baur: Die Epochen der kirchlichen Geschichtsschreibung. Tübingen 1852 [repr. Hildesheim 1962], pp. 39– 71). See the overview of the following works influenced by the Centuries that Fueter did not highly praise: Foxe’s Acts and Monuments on the English Church (pp. 253–257), Knox and Calderwood on the Scottish Church (pp. 257–259), Bullinger and Beza on the Swiss Church (pp. 259–263), and Salat on the Catholic Church (pp. 263–267). Cf. Christian Moser: Die Dignität des Ereignisses: Studien zu Heinrich Bullingers Reformationsgeschichtsschreibung. Vols. 1–2. Leiden et al. 2012. Fueter: Geschichte, p. 263 (early writings against the Centuries), 263–265 (Baronius). Cf. Katrina Beth Olds: “The ‘False chronicles’, Cardinal Baronio, and sacred history in Counter-Reformation Spain”, in: The Catholic historical review 100 (2014), pp. 1–26. Cf. Lucas Osiander: Epitome historiae ecclesiasticae, Centuria. 16 vols. Tübingen 1607. Johannes Sleidan: De statu religionis et reipublicae Carolo Quinto Caesare Commentarii. Strasbourg 1555ff. In 2017, a conference entitled “Die frühe Historisierung der Reformation: Reformation und Reformatoren in Biographien, Enzyklopädien und Geschichtsschreibung des späten 16., 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts” was held in Bad Homburg. No anthology of the contributions was produced, but some papers were published individually. See the conference report by Ellinor Schweighöfer, online under: www.hsozkult.de/conferencereport/id/tagungsberichte-7203 (last accessed: 28 June 2022).

12

Daniel Gehrt, Markus Matthias, and Sascha Salatowsky

Matthias Pohlig has presented a quite differentiated picture of this second period of Reformation historiography, which is admittedly limited to German-speaking Lutheranism. 14 He has not only examined actual works of church history, but also other forms of memorial practice (calendars, sermons, etc.) in his study and has shown that Lutheran historiography could be composed kaleidoscopically from diverse contexts of argumentation. Comparable studies for other denominations and for the later, premodern period 15 have been few and far between in the last twenty years. 16 When the confessional plurality of Christianity was politically guaranteed “forever,” 17 the problem of how to hold on to the presupposition of the unity and uniqueness of the Church through the upheavals of the Reformation intensified. Historical thinking, because of its own plausibility, played a major role in the sciences and in the society of the post-Reformation era, even detached from the questions of church politics and theology. Nevertheless, it can be assumed that the Reformation raised many questions, the treatment of which also shaped historical inquiry. Indicative of a change in attitude towards the science of history as a result of the Reformation, the first chair of church history was installed in Helmstedt in 1650, shortly after the Peace of Westphalia. At the same time (1651), Johann Heinrich 14 Matthias Pohlig: Zwischen Gelehrsamkeit und konfessioneller Identitätsstiftung, lutherische Kirchen- und Universalgeschichtsschreibung 1546–1617. Tübingen 2007. 15 See the overview of historical thought in the Reformation and Early Modern Period (with secondary literature) in: Gustav Adolf Benrath: Art. “Geschichte/ Geschichtsschreibung/ Geschichtsphilosophie VII.1 16. bis 18. Jahrhundert“, in: Theologische Realenzyklopädie 12 (1984), pp. 630–643 (Martin Luther, Philipp Melanchthon, martyr chronicles, Jacques Bénigne Bossuet, Sebastian Franck, Gottfried Arnold; followed by those detached from the Christian Augustinian worldview: Jean Bodin, Isaac de La Peyrère, Georg Horn, Pierre Bayle, Lord Bolingbroke, Voltaire, eighteenth-century historical philosophy). 16 Reference can be made here to several studies on individual figures: Wolf-Friedrich Schäufele: “Caspar Sagittarius (1643–1694) als Historiograph der Reformation”, in: Kathrin Paasch, Christopher Spehr, Siegrid Westphal (eds.): Reformatio et memoria: Protestantische Erinnerungsräume und Erinnerungsstrategien in der Frühen Neuzeit. Göttingen 2020, pp. 69–83; Amy Graves-Monroe: Post tenebras lex: Preuves et propagande dans l’historiographie engagée de Simon Goulart (1543–1628). Geneva 2012; John Vidmar: “John Lingard’s history of the English reformation: History or apologetics?”, in: The Catholic Historical Review 85 (1999), pp. 383–419; Alexandra Kess: Johann Sleidan and the Protestant vision of history. Ashgate 2008. – Among the comprehensive studies and anthologies worth mentioning here: John Vidmar: English Catholic Historians and the English Reformation, 1585–1954. Brighton et al. 2019; Carina L. Johnson, David M. Luebke, Marjorie E. Plummer, Jesse Spohnholz (eds.): Archaeologies of Confession: Writing the German Reformation 1517–2017. New York, Oxford 2017; Stefania Biagetti: Il mito della riforma italiana nella storiografia dal XVI al XIX secolo. Milan 2007; Stefan Benz: Zwischen Tradition und Kritik: Katholische Geschichtsschreibung im barocken Heiligen Römischen Reich. Husum 2003; Frieder Ludwig: “Kirchengeschichte als Ketzergeschichte: Die Hinrichtung Michael Servets in Genf vor 450 Jahren und die Anfänge der neueren kirchlichen Historiographie im 18. Jahrhundert”, in: Theologische Zeitschrift 59 (2003), pp. 113–136. 17 See the clause used when establishing the date of restitution for the ecclesiastical dominions under the empire in article V § 14 IPO: “Si vero, quod Deus prohibeat, de religionis dissidiis amicabiliter convenire non possit, nihilominus haec conventio perpetua sit & pax semper duratura.”

Introduction

13

Hottinger’s Historia ecclesiastica, a Christian church history embedded in a general history of religion, appeared. The historical-apologetic or scholarly interest flourished especially in theology in the second half of the seventeenth century, producing a whole series of collections of historical information until the mid-eighteenth century (Epitome, Compendium, Summarium, Nucleus Historiae Ecclesiasticae, Historia ecclesiastica). As temporal distance increased, not only did a theory of the Reformation gradually develop in the last quarter of the seventeenth century, 18 but the inner-church actions or events of the early sixteenth century were combined into an overarching unity, for example, as a history of the Lutheran Reformation (Veit Ludwig von Seckendorff) or as the beginning of an epoch (Christoph Cellarius 19). 20 At the same time, the apocalyptic worldview lost ground, and in Pietism 21 the Reformation was seen as the beginning of a task that was never completed in one’s own time, primarily in respect to (church) life, less clearly in respect to theological doctrine. In respect to its programmatic view of history, this also included the Unparteiische Kirchen- und Ketzerhistorie by the radical Pietist Gottfried Arnold (1699–1700). Historiographical research, as a product of modern historical thinking, has paid little attention to post-Reformation historiography precisely because it has been interested in the precursors of its own historical thinking. In the classic history of modern historiography by Eduard Fueter, 22 only a few works from the Reformation or post-Reformation periods are discussed. The anthology Geschichtsdiskurs published by Wolfgang Küttler, Jörn Rüsen, and Ernst Schulin 23 also hardly addresses historiography before the eighteenth century.

18 Theodor Mahlmann: Art. “Reformation”, in: Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie 8 (1992), pp. 416–427, here: 419. 19 Christoph Cellarius: Historia vniversalis breviter ac perspicve exposita, in antiqvam, et medii aevi ac novam divisa, cum notis perpetuis. Jena 1702; see there (pp. 13f.) the division into three epochs, namely the pagan antiquity (until Constantine the Great), the Middle Ages (until the conquest of Constantinople [1456]), and the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as the modern times. 20 See the overview in: Luise Schorn-Schütte: “Kleine Historiographiegeschichte der Reformation”, in: Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 2016; online under: https://www.bpb.de/shop/zeitschriften/apuz/239243/kleine-historiografiegeschichte-der-reformation/ (last accessed: 28 June 2022). 21 In their interpretation of the Apocalypse of John (1696 and 1730, respectively), Johanna Eleonora Petersen and David Israel Dimpel view the Reformation as the dawn of the Philadelphian Church Age (Rev 3:7–13) and of a millennial kingdom yet to come (Rev 20). See Markus Matthias: “Der Geist auf den Mägden: Zum Zusammenhang von Enthusiasmus und Geschichtsauffassung im mitteldeutschen Pietismus”, in: Pietismus und Neuzeit 43 (2018), pp. 69–99, here: 94f. 22 Fueter: Geschichte, pp. 246–271. On historiography in the Early Modern Period, see Franz von Wegele: Geschichte der Deutschen Historiographie seit dem Auftreten des Humanismus. Munich 1885 [reprint 1965, online edition 2020], pp. 178–338 (Die deutsche Geschichtsschreibung unter der Einwirkung der Reformation) and 733–744 (Die alte, die Kirchen- und Literaturgeschichte [des polyhistorischen Zeitalters]). 23 Wolfgang Küttler, Jörn Rüsen, Ernst Schulin (eds.): Geschichtsdiskurs. 5 vols. Frankfurt am Main 1993–1999; most noteworthy for our context is the article by Ursula Goldenbaum in vol. 2 (Anfänge modernen historischen Denkens, 1994): “Die philosophische Methodendiskus-

14

Daniel Gehrt, Markus Matthias, and Sascha Salatowsky

With the contributions to the present volume, we want to draw attention to what we consider insufficiently researched historiographical works on the Reformation from the sixteenth to eighteenth century. The aim is to take stock of those questions with which the historians of the Reformation were confronted, and thus of the influence of the Reformation on historical inquiry itself. Alongside the writings themselves, historical conditions of their origins and methodological aspects come into view. Whether the history of historiography can or must be revised on the basis of the results cannot yet be answered. The first two papers of this volume present early examples of emerging narratives of the Reformation that differed significantly from each other. Kenneth Appold examines the first work of Johannes Cochlaeus on the history of the Reformation. This anti-Lutheran writing set standards in terms of content and method in the spirit of humanism and could thus also become the starting point for interconfessional discussion. Martin Rothkegel offers a bibliographically oriented account of the special conditions of the emergence of a Reformation historiography from a victim perspective among the Hutterites of the sixteenth century. In the second section, the authors investigate various examples of how Protestant perspectives of the Reformations were cultivated in the seventeenth century. Daniel Bohnert’s contribution shows, by example of the major work on church history by Eusebius Bohemus , how in early seventeenth-century Wittenberg one is completely in the historiographical tradition constituted by Matthias Flacius, both with regard to history as a humanistic-critical method for revealing the original truth and with regard to the ecclesiological-apologetic objective and the usefulness of history as a teacher of a virtuous or pious and blessed life. Bruce Gordon uses the development of the Reformed Swiss Bible translation to show the perceived, temporal, and internal distance of contemporaries in Zurich at the beginning of the eighteenth century from Zwingli’s Reformation. Accordingly, the past did not have to be reconstructed as much as it had to be emulated “in spirit.” The present was to be reshaped against the background of history. It is not by chance that the beginning of a scientifically reflected history of theology as opposed to a history of the church or dogma can be found in seventeenth century Protestantism. Aza Goudriaan examines concepts of this kind developed by two Reformed theologians. While Heinrich Alting presented the preservation of and fall from true doctrine under a dualistic understanding of history, thus providing dogmatics with historical material for individual loci, John Forbes was concerned with the legitimacy of the doctrine he represented through an exposition of Catholic, i.e., early church doctrine. For Markus Matthias, Veit Ludwig von Seckendorff’s Historia Lutheranismi (1688/92) is a work born of the need to legitimize historically one’s own confessional and

sion des 17. Jahrhunderts in ihrer Bedeutung für den Modernisierungsschub in der Historiographie” (pp. 148–161), according to which the „Hochschätzung der demonstrativischen Erkenntnis [sc. des Rationalismus] […] ja den neuen Raum einer methodisch und theoretisch geleiteten Erfahrungswissenschaft, die der Gewißheit der demonstrativischen Erkenntnis so nahe wie möglich kommt, erst auf[spannt]“ (p. 157).

Introduction

15

intellectual position. By striving to juxtapose an objective history of the Reformation against an ideological narrative, Seckendorff preludes the modern understanding of history. As Steffie Schmidt shows, the particular challenge of Swedish historiography since the Reformation period lay in the need to combine the royal or national (Gothic) narrative tradition with the existing Lutheran tradition. This was especially successful in the figure of Gustav Vasa, although the question remained how royal political action could be synchronized with Luther’s Reformation activity without impairing the intrinsic meaning of national (royal) history. The studies in the third section underscore the historiographic contentions between representatives of various denominations. Andreea Badea shows how the Gallican author Louis Maimbourg used the history of Protestantism to criminalize it, thereby furthering the political and absolutist interests of the Sun King. Sascha Salatowsky differentiates between a rather static view of a historia sacra by Roman authors, in which heretical developments repeatedly storm the church represented by the papacy, and a Protestant understanding of history as a dynamic process of decay and reform (historia ecclesiastica). This difference in understanding also affected the patrology of each confession. Pablo Toribio’s contribution brings another unorthodox view of the Reformation to the fore. The Unitarians, Antitrinitarians (Stanisław Lubieniecki, Benedykt Wiszowaty) or modern “Arians” (Christoph Sand, Daniel Zwicker) partly represented a progressive Reformation history that only found its theological conclusion with Unitarian theology, while their historical point of reference was before the orthodox fourth century. The final section of this volume provides three examples of changing approaches to Reformation history in the eighteenth century. Daniel Gehrt introduces Ernst Salomon Cyprian’s work on the history of the Reformation and points to his reception of Christian natural law thought, allowing him to claim seemingly modern moral philosophical values such as freedom of conscience, the abolition of superstition, and the political independence of the state from the papacy as (necessary) achievements of the Reformation. Wolf-Friedrich Schäufele shows the vitality of the argument of truth witnesses in the Reformation histories written by Jacques Basnage and Christoph Matthäus Pfaff in the early eighteenth century. This is accompanied by a relativization of an apocalyptic and, in this sense, epochal understanding of the Reformation. Markus Friedrich takes a material approach by describing the conditions of production under which Barthold Nikolaus Krohn conceived and published his Geschichte der Wiedertäufer outside the University in Hamburg. Many milestones of Reformation historiography have been left undone and still await closer examination. In addition to the works mentioned by Fueter, one might think of Lucas Osiander, Johann Heinrich Boeckler, Adam Rechenberg, Johann Andreas Schmidt, Johann Friedrich Hottinger, Georg Horn, Friedrich Spanheim, Sébastien le Nain de Tillemont, Robert Bellarmine , Caesar Baronius, Alexander Natalis, Claude Fleury, Johann Paul Reinhard, or Johann Lorenz von Mosheim.

1. EMERGING NARRATIVES

REFORMATION HISTORY IN THE EYES OF EARLY MODERN CATHOLICS Kenneth G. Appold Abstract: While Reformation historiography is typically viewed as a Protestant endeavor, Roman Catholic authors have developed a tradition of their own, and began doing so during the Reformation itself. This essay examines the contributions of one of the first Catholic writers of “Reformation history”, Johannes Cochläus, shedding light on his methods, priorities, and on his debt to Humanism, particularly as evidenced in his Luther Commentaries. Zusammenfassung: Während die Reformationsgeschichtsschreibung in der Regel als protestantisches Unterfangen betrachtet wird, haben römisch-katholische Autoren eine eigene Tradition entwickelt, und zwar bereits während der Reformation selbst. Dieser Aufsatz untersucht die Beiträge eines der ersten katholischen Autoren der „Reformationsgeschichte“, Johannes Cochläus, und beleuchtet seine Methoden, Prioritäten und seine Verpflichtung zum Humanismus, welche sich insbesondere in seinen „Luther-Kommentaren“ niederschlagen.

Johann Sleidanus has often been called the “father of Reformation history.” 1 Sleidanus’ Commentaries, appearing in 1555, represent a monumental effort to tell the story of the Reformation from a putatively objective standpoint. That aim was itself remarkable: during an age riven by religious strife and characterized by the desire of each party to discredit or even anathematize all others, Sleidanus strove to present history in a way that would be persuasive to more than just his own partisan co-religionists. To do this, he relied heavily on his scholarly method: he based his account on a thorough and exhaustive reading of primary sources. Unfortunately, as we know, that striving towards non-partisan credibility fell flat. Sleidanus was immediately attacked by Roman Catholic scholars who saw him not as the first Reformation historian, but as the first Protestant Reformation historian. One of the first to publish a work against Sleidanus was the Parisian Franciscan Simon Fontaine, whose Histoire catholique de nostre temps, touchant l’estat de la religion Chrestienne appeared in 1558. 2 A closer look at Fontaine’s book, however, reveals that most of it was plagiarized almost verbatim from an early work – namely 1 2

Cf. Alexandra Kess: Johann Sleidan and the Protestant Vision of History. Aldershot 2008, p. 109. Cf. Adolf Herte: Das katholische Lutherbild im Bann der Lutherkommentare des Cochläus. Vol. I: Von der Mitte des 16. bis zur Mitte des 18. Jahrhunderts. Inland und Ausland. Münster 1943, p. 8.

20

Kenneth G. Appold

the Luther Commentaries of Johannes Cochläus. 3 Though the plagiarism may be surprising, the dependence on Cochläus was not. After all, Sleidanus himself had Cochläus in his sights when he composed his work and perhaps even when he chose its title: both are called “Commentaries.” Moving on through the list of early Catholic works that engage Sleidanus directly or indirectly, the dependence on Cochläus remains obvious, and, according to Adolf Herte, central. It may seem odd that authors sought to refute Sleidanus by appealing to a text that had appeared before that of Sleidanus, but at the very least it testifies to the enormous influence and durable quality of Cochläus’ work. Would it be more accurate to name Cochläus, and not Sleidanus, the “father of Reformation history”? Herte, in any case, has traced Cochläus’ influence through Catholic Reformation historiography all the way into the twentieth century. Reformation histories written by Protestants, on the other hand, are less conspicuously indebted to Cochläus. In fact, many of them don’t mention him at all. When they do, they typically dismiss him simply as a Catholic polemicist and opponent of Luther. 4 In other words, not only Reformation historiography itself, but even its meta-history – which includes the reception and canonization of particular authors – has long reflected confessional biases and preferences. That taking of sides, the lining up behind Cochläus or Sleidanus, to name but two early figures, began during the Reformation itself and is both a product of the times as well as a symptom of the event. The Reformation was marked by a breakdown in communication, an inability and perhaps even an unwillingness to communicate effectively. Before turning to a closer examination of Cochläus himself, I would like to spend a moment underscoring this point because it forms the context out of which Cochläus emerged. Arguably, the breakdown in communication between Luther and his interlocutors in Rome began in the aftermath of the “95 Theses.” One can trace the development nicely in the exchanges between Luther and Silvester Prierias over the spring and summer of 1518. It is obvious even at the level of their topic: Luther submitted theses on indulgences, and Prierias responded with a defense of papal authority. In terms of content, too, there was little chance of genuine dialogue. Prierias’ defense of the papacy was extremely ideological even by Roman standards of the day, and Luther found little to say in return. Their style was very different, as well. Prieras sounds very much like a bureaucrat or functionary, laying out his case in declarative and slightly condescending terms, while Luther remains true to his academic’s open-ended pursuit of truth. This was not a recipe for productive dialogue. As frustration grew and their material conversation ground to a standstill, they moved from discussing theology to attacking each other personally. Sides were drawn, and they now included not merely their respective theological positions, but also their persons. In Prierias’ view, Luther was not simply mistaken, he was a heretic. And for 3 4

Ibid., p. 9. A slightly more balanced, albeit extremely brief assessment of Cochläus appears in Thomas Kaufmann: Geschichte der Reformation in Deutschland. Berlin 2009, pp. 476–480. Some biographers of Luther make more mention of Cochläus. E.g. Lyndal Roper: Martin Luther: Renegade and Prophet. New York 2017.

Reformation History in the Eyes of Early-Modern Roman Catholics

21

Luther, Prierias was no longer a credible or even competent conversation partner. It was in that unfortunate exchange that confessional polemic was born. It is perhaps too easy to describe the failed communication between Prierias and Luther in personal terms – as if it were the result of their individual limitations. That may have been true, as well, but there were also structural and cultural factors that need to be kept in mind. Luther had launched a theological critique of church practices, and his call to reform during the first years of the Reformation was based heavily in theology. Rome, while accustomed to hearing cries for church reform, especially at the councils up to and including Lateran V, typically focused on practical reform measures, such as correcting absenteeism, or prohibiting simony and concubinage. The curia was not well equipped to deal with initiatives articulated in a theological idiom – and this may well have contributed to Prierias’ disorientation. In his view, doctrinal questions were not subject to debate, they came to Rome so that people like Prierias could determine if they were heretical. These factors are significant when assessing Cochläus’ polemical writings. Polemical discourse seems to be the product of breakdowns in communication, and because of their partisan nature, are viewed with distaste by most academics today. We tend to overlook, however, that polemic, at least as practiced during much of the confessional age, is not an abandonment of reasoned discourse – though that may have been the case between Prierias and Luther. Nor does it signal a surrender to emotion and partisan passion. Polemics have rules of their own. And that is especially the case with Cochläus. Some of those rules are rhetorical, and early-modern polemicists, especially those with humanistic training, had an impressive arsenal of rhetorical devices, allusions and conventions at their disposal. I will not be focusing on those, however. In the following study, I would instead like to draw our attention to the way in which Cochläus uses historical method in his polemics, and what that tells us about his historiography in general. Cochläus was born in 1479, which makes him just a few years older than Luther; the two belong to roughly the same generation, Cochläus Franconian, Luther a Saxon. Unlike Luther, whose father rose from peasant stock into the mercantile bourgeoisie, Cochläus had clergymen in his extended family and after the death of his father was schooled in Latin by his uncle, a priest. 5 University studies followed in Cologne, earning him a Magister artium in 1507, and qualifying him for studies in theology. Two years later he was named professor by that same faculty. Again, the dates line up roughly with those of Luther, except for the conspicuous difference that Luther, unlike Cochläus, entered a religious order, the Augustinian Hermits. In 1510, Cochläus left Cologne to become rector of the Saint Lawrence School in Nuremberg, near where he was born. He spent the next five years there as a teacher, significant not only for the pedagogical experience it afforded him but also

5

Cf. Remigius Bäumer: Johannes Cochläus (1479–1552). Leben und Werk im Dienst der katholischen Reform. Münster 1980, p. 14. Cf. also Monique Samuel Scheyder: Johannes Cochläus. Humaniste et adversaire de Luther. Nancy 1993.

22

Kenneth G. Appold

because it ensconced him firmly within the highest circles of Nuremberg’s exceptionally fertile humanists. He lived in the home of Anton Kress, 6 provost of Saint Lawrence, and became close friends with Willibald Pirckheimer. It was Pirckheimer’s famous library he used, and it was Pirckheimer’s two nephews he accompanied on what would become a pivotal experience in his life: a trip to Rome in 1515. When he left for Italy that year, he had all the appearances of an up-andcoming humanist: reform-minded, progressive, literate and intellectually broad. 7 His record of publications to that point showed as much promise and interest for music as for theology. And he was traveling to the heartland of the Renaissance. When he returned to Germany in 1520, he was a Catholic priest. These two things – humanist and priest – would not need to be contradictory. In Cochläus’ case, many scholars have seen his move towards ordination in Rome as coinciding with a renewed commitment to the church, and to the papal hierarchy in particular. Evidence for such a “turn” in Cochläus’ life comes from his changing attitude towards Martin Luther. As late as 1519, he wrote positively of Luther to Willibald Pirckheimer. 8 By 1520, those feelings had changed 180 degrees; he was now Luther’s critic. Had Cochläus turned into a papal loyalist in Rome? His most comprehensive biographer, Martin Spahn, writing in 1898, 9 conjectured that Cochläus had been introduced to the Oratory of Divine Love by Jerome Aleander, and that this influence exposed him to the compelling charisma of moderate reformers loyal to Rome. Hubert Jedin examined these claims further in his dissertation on Cochläus’ treatise on free will, and rebutted them persuasively: there is no evidence Cochläus had any contact at all with either the Oratory or with Aleander while in Rome. He did meet Aleander later, and even spent time with him at the Diet of Worms in 1521, but that was after Cochläus’ turn against Luther. Jedin concludes that the reasons for Cochläus’ apparent change of heart will likely remain a mystery, but he offers one very suggestive observation: it is very plausible that Cochläus had always been loyal to Rome, but that this commitment had not found full expression previously. The overall atmosphere in the Eternal City may, according to Jedin, have had a stimulating influence on Cochläus’ intellectual and spiritual development, so that embracing ordination and papal authority did not seem to him as regressive, conservative steps but rather as moments of growth and spiritual expansion. 10 This is an important point because it tells us something about Cochläus’ mentality as he turned his critical attention to Luther. Cochläus did not abandon his humanist conditioning and methods, and he did not see himself as a conservative 6

On Kress, cf. Antonia Landois: Gelehrtentum und Patrizierstand. Wirkungskreise des Nürnberger Humanisten Sixtus Tucher (1459–1507). Tübingen 2014, pp. 60ff. 7 For more on Cochläus’ humanist education and leanings, cf. Hubert Jedin: Des Johannes Cochlaeus Streitschrift de libero arbitrio hominis (1525). Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der vortridentinischen katholischen Theologie. Breslau 1927, pp. 97–113. 8 Cf. Bäumer: Cochläus, p. 20. 9 Martin Spahn: Johannes Cochläus. Ein Lebensbild aus der Zeit der Kirchenspaltung. Berlin 1898. 10 Jedin: Cochlaeus, pp. 118–121.

Reformation History in the Eyes of Early-Modern Roman Catholics

23

rejecting reform. His criticism of Luther arose not so much from a preceding change of heart as it did from his engagement with Luther’s writings – most notably two of the Reformer’s seminal publications of 1520: the address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation and On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. These works struck one chord that appalled Cochläus particularly: the apparent collapse of a distinction between clergy and laity, which thereby opened the door to an entirely destructive ecclesiology. 11 This would become a dominant theme in Cochläus’ criticism of Luther. Whereas Cajetan, after meeting Luther in Augsburg in 1518, concluded that Luther wanted to “create a new church,” Cochläus fears that Luther, if left unhindered, would leave the world with no church at all. The turn against Luther did not mean that Cochläus had given up all hope of bringing the Reformer, whom he suspected of egotism and vanity, back into obedience to Rome. At Worms, Cochläus met with Luther and, perhaps naively, discussed practical steps to that effect. The encounter went badly for Cochläus, who soon found himself on the receiving end of Luther’s growing taste for ridiculing his opponents publicly. 12 Cochläus began writing against Luther; more specifically, he began writing against Luther’s own writings. 13 At first, he concentrated on countering the Reformer’s sacramentology. Soon, though, the titles began to indicate where Cochläus’ deeper interests lay. So, for example, reads the title of a work of 1523: Glos und Comment auff den XIII. Artikel von rechtem Messhalten widr Lutherische zwispaltung. Not only does Cochläus signal his opposition to Luther’s reform of the mass, but he also indicates why this is so important to him: with these reforms, Lutherans are dividing the church. Cochläus’ decision to publish the work in German rather than the Latin he had favored for most of his other writings, also indicates his aim for a broader audience – in Germany, of course. In fact, Cochläus’ concern for preventing the disunity of the church goes hand in hand with another aim: that of German unity. This, too, is a consistent theme in the writings themselves, and occasionally makes its way into his titles, such as Ein Christliche vermanung der heyligen Statt Rom an das Teütschland, yr Tochter im Christlichen Glauben, published the following year, in 1524. Interestingly, Cochläus accuses Luther not only of diving the church in two, but of fomenting multiple divisions upon division. From Zwiespalt Cochläus moves on to the Seven Heads of Martin Luther. 14 And there we have one of the most enduring of all polemical tropes issued

11 This point is made by Bäumer: Cochläus, p. 21; but is widely established in the literature on Cochläus and readily evident in Cochläus’ own writings. 12 Bäumer: Cochläus, pp. 23f. 13 For a comprehensive list of Cochläus’ publications, cf. Scheyder: Cochläus, pp. 717–731. 14 Johannes Cochläus: Sieben Köpffe Martini Luthers Vom Hochwirdigen Sacrament des Altars. Leipzig 1529.

24

Kenneth G. Appold

against Protestantism: its so-called “fissiparousness.” 15 In Cochläus’ mind, however, that splitting of the church has equally negative implications for society as a whole, in this case for the German nation. Cochläus continued writing ad hoc theological responses to Luther throughout the 1520’s and 1530’s, long after he moved from the court of Albrecht of Mainz to that of George of Saxony, in Dresden (1528/29), to the cathedral of Meissen (1535), and finally to Breslau (1539). There he remained for the rest of his life, punctuating his repose with frequent trips to other destinations. One trip, however, would be denied him: despite his great hopes for a council and his persistent agitation on its behalf among both Catholics and Protestants, he would never make it to the Council of Trent. Trent, though relying heavily on Cochläus’ groundbreaking assessments of Luther, took place without his personal participation. The prospect of that council inspired Cochläus to the greatest of all his works: his Commentaries on the Deeds and Writings of Martin Luther (1549). 16 Cochläus had begun the work during the 1530s, probably in 1532. Its original plan revolved around drawing parallels between Luther and Jan Hus, thereby linking these two reform movements, the one current, the other already condemned, and using that proximity to expose the dangers inherent to Luther’s project. 17 That plan fell apart, and Cochläus tossed the Hussite pieces into print on their own while suspending his work on Luther. After moving to Breslau, he resumed his research and finally brought it to a close after Luther’s death in 1546, publishing the results three years later. His aim was to provide a tool for the deliberations in Trent. Several things are noteworthy about style and approach of the Luther Commentaries. First, and most conspicuous, is Cochläus’ astonishing thoroughness. Though confining himself largely to printed works – unlike Sleidanus, who drew heavily on manuscripts and unpublished documents – Cochläus collected and digested almost every major and minor work of Luther one could expect him to find. These were supported by other documents, such as official pronouncements from various princely courts, imperial edicts, and correspondence involving Luther and concerning Luther. 18 Much like Sleidanus after him, Cochläus builds his reliability upon a foundation of academic rigor. And in classic humanistic spirit, that means turning to primary sources.

15 This trope was reheated recently by Brad Gregory: The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society. Cambridge 2012, passim. Significantly, Cochläus’ writings against other groups, such as the Anabaptists, follow his familiar pattern of laying primary blame on Luther: the Anabaptists may be seditious and heretical, but without Luther, they would not be at all. 16 Johannes Cochläus: Commentaria Ioannis Cochlaei, de actis et scriptis Martini Lutheri Saxonis, Chronographice, Ex ordine ab Anno Domini M.D.XVII. usque ad Annum M.D.XLVI. Inclusiue, fideliter conscripta. Mainz 1549. 17 Cf. Adolf Herte: Die Lutherkommentare des Johannes Cochläus. Kritische Studie zur Geschichtsschreibung im Zeitalter der Glaubensspaltung. Münster 1935, pp. 2ff. 18 A comprehensive listing of Cochläus’ sources is provided by Herte: Lutherkommentare, pp. 28–226.

Reformation History in the Eyes of Early-Modern Roman Catholics

25

Second, Cochläus’ approach to Reformation history-writing focuses on the person of Martin Luther. This may well be his most enduring legacy. Even Lutheran Reformation historians have often followed him in that regard more closely than Sleidanus, conceiving their histories of the Reformation as extended biographies of Luther. That is due to a variety of factors, including cultural narrow-mindedness, hagiography, and, somewhat more positively, an appreciation for the unique role of Luther’s theology in driving the historical narrative. For Catholics, especially in the pre-ecumenical age, that indebtedness to Cochläus was even more emphatic: inasmuch as the Reformation signified the destruction of church unity, Martin Luther was lifted up as the cause, as destroyer in chief. Third, Cochläus, as his title’s wording indicates, follows a chronological construction; despite engaging Luther’s theology, he does not adopt a thematic structure, but instead works his way through Luther’s life and work year by year. A closer look at individual sections of Cochläus’ Commentaries illustrates these aspects of his approach and also reveals additional subtleties. Especially interesting is the section on the momentous year 1525. 19 Much of that year was overshadowed by the Peasants’ War – a topic Cochläus treated independently in another work published at the time of the event itself. 20 But it was also the year of Luther’s marriage, and a time when his troubled relationships with two other Protestant Reformers, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt and Thomas Müntzer experienced decisive turns. Cochläus manages to weave all of this together into a surprisingly coherent narrative. That cohesion has a fairly simple explanation: everything bad that happened – and it was a lot – was Luther’s fault. And everything good that happened was upon further examination also bad and also Luther’s fault. At the heart of the narrative is the peasants’ conflict. Before turning to those events, however, Cochläus examines Luther’s relationship with first Karlstadt and then Müntzer. This is tricky. One could hardly expect Cochläus to sympathize with any of these figures, and one wonders how he will navigate between them. His solution, again, is to blame Luther. Karlstadt clearly transgresses badly, in Cochläus’ eyes, by engaging in iconoclasm, administering the eucharist in both kinds, and getting married. But in doing so, he simply puts into action what Luther himself had taught. In that regard, Luther is the cause and inspiration of Karlstadt’s errors. But even more troubling is the fact that Luther, rather than praise Karlstadt for carrying out his project so faithfully while he himself consorted with the devil on the Wartburg, turns on Karlstadt and incites the princes to banish him from Wittenberg and Saxony. In other words, Luther’s flaws are both theological and moral. And instead of having to side with one Protestant over the other, Cochläus uses the conflict to condemn them both but ultimately to place the greater blame on Luther. Cochläus applies a similar strategy to Luther’s relationship with Müntzer, but his most nuanced thinking comes in his treatment of the peasants. While he views 19 Cochläus: Commentaria, pp. 104–125. 20 Johannes Cochläus: Wider die reubischen und mordischen rotten der bawren […]. Cologne 1525; Latin: Adversus latrocinantes et raptorias cohorts rusticorum Mar. Lutherus […]. Cologne 1525.

26

Kenneth G. Appold

the peasants as clearly seditious, he sees the primary fault again with Luther. With respect to the peasants, this approach allows Cochläus to do two things: he can acknowledge the treacherous quality of the peasants’ uprising and the social chaos it unleashes while at the same sympathizing with them as victims of Luther’s false teaching. As for Luther, Cochläus condemns him both for leading the peasants astray with his theology, especially with his teaching of a priesthood of all believers and its implicit anticlericalism, and for abandoning the peasants in their hour of greatest need – for entirely selfish reasons. In Cochläus’ view – and he goes line by line through Luther’s texts – Luther began by criticizing the princes and encouraging the peasants, then, when he saw the revolution crumble beneath the weight of the princes’ sword, he opportunistically switched sides and egged the princes on as they slaughtered the common people. Cochläus catalogues the peasant deaths and thereby also the princely atrocities, but takes some of the sting out of his social commentary by pinning the blame again on Luther. To add insult to injury, Luther marks the highpoint of this terrible tragedy by choosing precisely that moment to celebrate his marriage. Of course, the marriage itself is also deplorable because Luther was a priest and his bride a nun, thereby invalidating two sets of vows, but its immorality is made even worse by Luther’s macabre sense of timing. Luther’s wedding becomes a multi-dimensional transgression that spans both the personal and the social. All of this is tied together by Cochläus’ overarching narrative theme: Luther’s false teaching and personal immorality have social consequences that ultimately destroy the unity of the church and splinter German society. It would be important to trace these features of Cochläus’ Reformation historiography further. Respecting the constraints of time, however, I will stop here. The examples given do shed some light on the nature of Cochläus’ project, though. His history-writing is thoroughly polemical. But that polemic is not irrational or unfounded. Although Cochläus engages in occasional rhetorical excesses, his work has a precise purpose and follows a coherent strategy. It is also remarkably well researched and grounded in close reading of Luther’s texts. As a result, it would be unfair to dismiss the work as irredeemably partisan – as most Protestants have done. Many of Cochläus’ points require careful consideration and, when appropriate, equally careful rebuttal. That is, in my estimation, especially true of Cochläus’ treatment of Luther’s role in the peasants’ conflict – which is arguably more reasonable than Luther’s own writings on that topic. Cochläus’ polemical historiography follows rules and has definable methods. Perhaps more significant, though, is Cochläus’ indebtedness to the spirit of humanism. His reverence for primary sources; his attention to morality – both personal and social; his appreciation of the value of teacher and teaching, even if mainly seen in the negative examples of Luther; and his devotion to German national unity are all hallmarks of a particular brand of northern humanism. In Cochläus’ view, Luther betrays those values both in deed and in word, and this, as much as the charge that Luther defies papal authority, is why he feels compelled to raise his voice against the Reformer. The way Cochläus does this marks a form of progress in the history of early-modern polemical discourse. When compared to the complete breakdown of communication during the early years of the Reformation, Cochläus’ Luther

Reformation History in the Eyes of Early-Modern Roman Catholics

27

Commentaries represent a much more ordered, methodologically accountable, and effective mode of communication – a rebuilding of civil discourse between deeply estranged parties that, for all its shortcomings, opens a door to dialogue. While Cochläus’ particular wish that such a dialogue take place at Trent remained unfulfilled, his work helped launch a legacy of theological controversialism that came to define the ensuing Confessional Age and continues, in heavily modified form, to the present day.

HISTORY WRITTEN BY THE VICTIMS Reformation as Reflected in Sixteenth-Century Hutterite Chronicles Martin Rothkegel Abstract: The Church of the Hutterian Brethren in Moravia, founded in 1533, was joined by numerous Anabaptist religious migrants from the Upper German-speaking area until about 1620. In the pacifist-communitarian community, numbering about 20,000 people around 1600, the ability to read was the rule. To supply the communities with reading materials, the Hutterites, who did not own a printing press, created an effective system of manuscript production. Historiographical texts and chronicles form a special group of texts. In 1580/81, the Great Chronicle was commissioned by the church leadership and continued until 1665. This compilation was preceded by several shorter historiographical works. They remained in use alongside the official chronicle because they were of practical use as handy compendia. Characteristic of Hutterite historiography is a critical view of Luther, Zwingli, and the Reformation, although the individual authors set different emphases. Zusammenfassung: Der 1533 entstandenen Kirche der Hutterischen Brüder in Mähren schlossen sich bis etwa 1620 zahlreiche täuferische Glaubensmigranten aus dem oberdeutschen Sprachraum an. In der pazifistisch-kommunitären Gemeinschaft, die um 1600 etwa 20.000 Personen umfasste, war Lesefähigkeit die Regel. Zur Versorgung der Gemeinden mit Lesestoffen schufen die Hutterer, die keine Druckerpresse besaßen, ein effektives System der Handschriftenproduktion. Eine besondere Textgruppe bilden historiographische Texte und Chroniken. 1580/81 entstand im Auftrag der Kirchenleitung das Große Geschichtsbuch, das bis 1665 fortgesetzt wurde. Dieser Kompilation waren mehrere kürzere historiographische Werke vorausgegangen. Sie blieben neben der offiziellen Chronik in Gebrauch, da sie als handliche Kompendien von praktischem Nutzen waren. Charakteristisch für die hutterische Historiographie ist eine kritische Sicht Luthers, Zwinglis und der Reformation, wobei die einzelnen Verfasser durchaus unterschiedliche Akzente setzten.

1. THE BOOKS OF THE CHURCH OF GOD IN MORAVIA With an estimated total of 20,0000 adherents (including non-baptized children and youth) by the end of the sixteenth century, 1 the Hutterian Brethren constituted a

1

Jiří Pajer: Studie o novokřtěncích [Studies on the Anabaptists]. Strážnice 2006, pp. 61–68.

30

Martin Rothkegel

large minority church in an age unfavorable for nonconformist expressions of religion. Fiercely persecuted by both Catholic and Protestant authorities, tens of thousands of Anabaptists from Southern Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Northern Italy, and other regions emigrated to Southern Moravia between 1527 and 1622. Many of them joined the Hutterites, a group named after the South Tyrolean lay preacher Jacob Hutter (executed as a heretic in 1536). As a result of leadership conflicts with other Anabaptist preachers, Hutter assumed the sole leadership of an Anabaptist refugee congregation in Auspitz (Hustopeče) in 1533. Auspitz became the mother church of an expanding network of filial congregations in Moravia, the land which God had assigned to his church to have a period of rest from persecution, the “place in the wilderness” prepared for the bride of Christ (Rev. 12:6). Hutter was regarded by his followers as an apostle sent by God to restore the true church, 1,200 years after the defection of the Roman church under Constantine the Great. 2 Practicing a strictly communitarian and pacifist way of life, the Hutterites founded community settlements in towns, villages, and hamlets on the dominions of tolerant nobles. In the last decade of the sixteenth century, there were 54 Hutterite colonies (Haushaben, Bruderhöfe) on the estates of 28 aristocrats. 3 The Hutterite colonies were granted a high degree of autonomous self-administration. They were no regular subjects of the landlords, but enjoyed a special status defined by mutual agreements. The economic basis of the Hutterite church was the high-quality artisanal production of the Hutterite crafts and the qualified professional services of the Hutterite surgeons, millers, cellarers, and farm managers. The artificial sociocultural microcosm of the Hutterites was custom-tailored to theological principles shared by many Anabaptists. Entering the Hutterite church was deemed a reliable way to salvation by many who had lost confidence in the doctrines, ethics, and politics of the magisterial reformers. 4 For almost a century, the fame of the “people of the Lord” living a godly life in distant Moravia, the call to “come out of Babylon” and to join the “house of God in Sion,” had a significance for persecuted Anabaptists throughout Europe comparable to the fascination which New England would have for seventeenth-century English Puritans. 5 Waves of persecution reached Moravia in 1535/36, following the defeat of the Münster Anabaptists, and in 1547/52, after the defeat of the Schmalkaldic League, when King Ferdinand I enforced severe measures against Protestants, Bohemian Brethren, and Anabaptists in the lands of the Bohemian Crown. The Hutterites saw themselves repeatedly compelled to relocate their headquarters. From the last third of the sixteenth century to the expulsion of the Hutterites from Moravia in 1622, 2 3 4 5

Werner O. Packull: Hutterite Beginnings: Communitarian Experiments during the Reformation. Baltimore, London 1995. Pajer: Studie o novokřtěncích, pp. 51–60. Martin Rothkegel: “Anabaptism in Moravia and Silesia”, in: John D. Roth, James M. Stayer (eds.): A Companion to Anabaptism and Spiritualism, 1521–1700. Leiden 2007, pp. 163–215, 198–204. Martin Rothkegel: “Mähren als Gelobtes Land: Migrationserfahrung und Heilsgeschichte bei den Hutterischen Brüdern“, in: Petr Hrachovec et al. (eds.): Reformation als Kommunikationsprozess: Die böhmischen Kronländer und Sachsen. Cologne 2021, pp. 361–379.

History Written by the Victims

31

following the defeat of the Protestant estates at the White Mountain near Prague in 1620, the administrative center of the Hutterite church and the seat of their elders (or bishops) was in Neumühl (Nové Nlýny) near Nikolsburg (Mikulov), a colony of more than 1,000 inhabitants. 6 While converts from all classes of society joined the Hutterite church, including peasants, urban craftsmen, clergy and even nobles, Hutterite culture was genuinely urban, based on the culture of the artisan class in South German cities. Able converts were expected to learn a craft. All children of the community (including the girls) were taught to read and write standard High German. Latin was not taught in Hutterite schools, and academic education was altogether rejected as “inflating” (1 Cor. 8:1) and “worldly” knowledge. In contrast to the contemporary Bohemian Brethren and the Antitrinitarian Polish Brethren, who operated church-owned institutions of higher learning, the Hutterites intentionally restricted themselves to knowledge available in the vernacular language. Bible reading was a fundamental religious practice and was deemed obligatory for all believers. 7 The Hutterites’ church leadership undertook great efforts to provide each member with a copy of the New Testament and other approved doctrinal and devotional reading materials. The pivotal problem to be solved was the lack of access to a printing press. Around 1565 the Hutterites introduced an effective system of manuscript multiplication and book binding. The earliest preserved Hutterite manuscript dates from 1564. It seems that by this time the entire written heritage of the community was collected and systematically transcribed into clean copies by professionally trained scribes. All members of the community were encouraged to compile manuscript books for their personal use from official master copies which contained a deliberately selected “canon” of reading materials which were approved of as suitable for ordinary church members. The chronicles belonged to the category of texts which were primarily intended for ordained ministers, both economic managers, or “servants of temporal affairs” (Diener der Notdurft), and preachers, or “servants of the divine Word” (Diener des Wortes). Chronicles, but also biblical commentaries, were usually copied by professional scribes. Hutterite manuscripts imitated contemporary prints. In contrast to medieval manuscripts, they usually have a title page, often including biblical motto verses and the place and date of copying (but only in a few cases the name of the author). Paratexts like prefaces, tables of content, alphabetic indices of proper names (or chronological indices in the case of chronicles), Bible references and paragraph headings on the margins, and of course folio numbers facilitate the use of the volumes. From ca. 1565 on, all books, manuscripts, and printed works alike, which were approved of for use within the community, were bound in characteristic,

6 7

For an overall survey of the Hutterite church in that period, see Astrid von Schlachta: Hutterische Konfession und Tradition (1578–1619): Etabliertes Leben zwischen Ordnung und Ambivalenz. Mainz 2003. Martin Rothkegel: “The Living Word: Uses of the Holy Scriptures among Sixteenth-Century Anabaptists in Moravia”, in: Mennonite Quarterly Review (July 2015), pp. 357–403.

32

Martin Rothkegel

quite costly leather covers with blind-tooled ornaments and brass clasps and corner pieces. Books printed before 1565, even volumes that had obviously been in use by Hutterite readers for decades, were rebound in the Hutterite binding shops in the same way as books recently brought in by incoming converts. The bindings enabled the Hutterite ministers to control more easily the circulation of reading materials among the members and to sort out inappropriate texts. For modern research, the characteristic bindings are a reliable distinguishing feature to identify manuscripts and prints of Hutterite provenance. 8

Fig. 1: Rubbing of a Hutterite binding (no. 415: Pécs, Egyetem Központi Könyvtára, Klimo gyűjtemény, V.IV.9, Concordantiae maiores Bibliae, Strasbourg 1530). Image: Theologische Hochschule Elstal.

8

Martin Rothkegel: “Zur Buchkultur der Hutterischen Brüder in Mähren und Ungarn im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert”, in: Tünde Katona, Detlef Haberland (eds.): Kultur und Literatur der Frühen Neuzeit im Donau-Karpatenraum: Transregionale Bedeutung und eigene Identität. Szeged 2014, pp. 261–300.

History Written by the Victims

33

2. THE REDISCOVERY OF HUTTERITE HISTORIOGRAPHY Today, around 300 manuscripts (ranging from thin booklets to large codices) of Hutterite origin are located in European libraries, archives, museums, and private collections, comprising altogether ca. 110,000 written pages (mostly in octavo and quarto). 9 Most of these manuscripts were confiscated in Western Slovakia between 1740 and 1770, when wagons full of books were collected in the four Hutterite settlements which still existed around the mid-eighteenth century. The ecclesiastical authorities that carried out the confiscations were instructed to keep only one copy of each text, caeteri comburendi. 10 A large part of the original Hutterite book property had been destroyed much earlier when many of the Hutterite colonies in Southern Moravia were looted and burned during the first years of the Thirty Years’ War. Since the Hutterites transmitted a relatively small corpus of approved or “canonical” reading materials in numerous copies, a substantial part of sixteenth and seventeenth-century Hutterite literature is nonetheless still preserved. The Hutterian Brethren circulated their historiographical texts only in manuscript form and were wary of allowing them to fall into the hands of outsiders. Until the violent book confiscations by the Hungarian authorities in the eighteenth century, stripping the dwindling Hutterite community in Western Slovakia of their literary heritage, merely a few Hutterite chronicles and martyr books came into the hands of non-Hutterites, and it was not before the late nineteenth century that the existence of an ample historiographical tradition produced by the Hutterites during the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries became known to a wider public. One of the first non-Hutterites who had access to a Hutterite historical manuscript was Hans de Ries, elder of a Waterlander Mennonite congregation in Alkmaar, who translated numerous passages gleaned from a (now lost) Hutterite martyr book into Dutch and included them in his own martyrological compilation, Historie der martelaren, published in 1615. 11 De Ries’ work was one of the sources from which the Mennonite preacher Tieleman Jansz van Bragt compiled his famous Martyrs’ Mirror, first published in 1660. It eventually became the most successful historiographical work of the Anabaptist tradition. Through the reeditions and translations of the Martyrs’ Mirror, many sixteenth-century Hutterite martyr stories continued to be read in Mennonite and Amish circles up to the present, although their Hutterite origin was soon forgotten. 12 9 Rothkegel: Buchkultur, p. 278. 10 Cf. Maria H. Krisztinkovich: “Anabaptist Book Confiscations in Hungary during the Eighteenth Century”, in: Mennonite Quarterly Review 39 (1965), pp. 125–146. 11 Hans de Ries: Historie der martelaren, ofte Waerachtighe getuygen Iesu Christi die ď Evangelische waerheyt in veelderley tormenten betuygt ende met haer bloet bevesticht hebben sint het jaer 1524 tot desen tyt toe. Haarlem 1615. Cf. Piet Visser: “Het doperse mirakel van het onverbrande bloempje: Terug naar de bron van een onbekend lied over martelaar Leonhard Keyser”, in: Doopsgezinde Bijdragen, new series 17 (1991), pp. 11–30. 12 The second print of Bragt’s work was illustrated with numerous copperplates by Jan Luyken: Tieleman Jansz van Bragt: Het Bloedigh Tooneel, Of Martelaers Spiegel Der Doops-Gesinde

34

Martin Rothkegel

In the mid-seventeenth century, the physician Daniel Zwicker, a Unitarian from Gdańsk, came in touch with the Hutterites in Western Slovakia. He joined their community in 1654, and for a short period of time he championed the fantastical project to unite the Hutterites and the harried remnants of the Socinian congregations in Poland. Zwicker moved to Amsterdam in 1657. His large library, which was auctioned in 1679, included a Hutterite martyr book which is probably identical with a manuscript preserved in the Mennonite library at Amsterdam (now Amsterdam, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Doopsgezinde bibliotheek, HS 65–54). 13 Another Hutterite codex from Zwicker’s library, a chronicle, came into the possession of the Socinian scholar Benedykt Wiszowaty. 14 This manuscript passed through several private libraries, including those of the Lutheran theologians Johann Caspar Carsted in Berlin, 15 Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten in Halle, 16 and Barthold Nicolaus Krohn in Hamburg. Krohn donated the volume to the municipal library in Hamburg (now Hamburg, Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, cod. theol. 2133). 17 In

13 14 15

16 17

Of Weereloose Christenen, […] Den Tweede Druk. Amsterdam 1685; facsimile Haarlem 1984. On the reception of the Martyrs’ Mirror, cf. Brad S. Gregory: Salvation at Stake: Christian Martyrdom in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge MA, London 1999, pp. 231–249; Peter Burschel: Sterben und Unsterblichkeit: Zur Kultur des Martyriums in der frühen Neuzeit. Munich 2004, pp. 178–195; John D. Roth: “The complex legacy of the Martyrs Mirror among Mennonites in North America”, in: Mennonite Quarterly Review 87 (2013), pp. 277–316. Peter G. Bietenholz: Daniel Zwicker, 1612–1678: Peace, Tolerance and God the One and Only. Firenze 1997, p. 191 (no. 294), 235. [Benedykt Wiszowaty (ed.)]: Bibliotheca Ant-Trinitatiorum, […] Opus Posthumum Christophori Chr. Sandii. Freistadii [i.e. Amsterdam] 1684, pp. 16f.; reprint: Christophori Sandii Bibliotheca Antitrinitariorum (Ed. Lech Szczucki). Warszawa 1967. Johann Gustav Reinbeck: Zweyter Theil Der Betrachtungen über die Jn der Augspurgischen Confeßion enthaltene und damit verknüpfte Göttliche Wahrheiten. Berlin, Leipzig 1733, pp. 464f.; [Johann Carl Conrad] Oelrichs: “Nachricht von einem Manuscript, welches die Geschichte der Wiedertäufer von 1524–1654 erzählet”, in: Historisches Portefeuille Zur Kenntniß der gegenwärtigen und vergangenen Zeit 4/II (Vienna et al. 1785), pp. 691–698. Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten: Nachrichten von einer Hallischen Bibliothek VIII/46 (Halle 1751), pp. 287f.; Bibliothecae Bavmgartenianae Pars I. Halle 1765, p. 83, no. 176. Martin Rothkegel: “Hutterische Handschriften in Hamburg”, in: Mennonitische Geschichtsblätter 54 (1997), pp. 116–152; on Krohn and his library see now: Markus Friedrich: “Ein Hamburger Historiker der Täuferbewegung: Barthold Nikolaus Krohn (1722–1795) und seine Monographie über Melchior Hoffman (um 1495–ca. 1543)”, in: Jochen Burgtorf, Christian Hoffarth, Sebastian Kubon (eds.): Von Hamburg nach Java. Studien zur mittelalterlichen, neuen und digitalen Geschichte. Festschrift zu Ehren von Jürgen Sarnowsky. Göttingen 2020, pp. 241–262; idem: “Von Zürich nach Frankfurt nach Hamburg: Die Reise der Quellenexzerpte Johann Heinrich Otts (1617–1682) durch Mitteleuropa und Konrad Zacharias Uffenbachs Rolle für die Täufergeschichtsschreibung des 18. Jahrhunderts”, in: Markus Friedrich, Monika Müller (eds.): Zacharias Konrad von Uffenbach: Büchersammler und Polyhistor in der Gelehrtenkultur um 1700. Berlin, Boston 2021, pp. 265–289. See also the essay by Friedrich in the present volume.

History Written by the Victims

35

the mid-nineteenth century, it was copied twice. Extracts were published in German in 1850 and 1878 18 and in English translation in 1853. 19 Other Hutterite historiographic manuscripts accessible to eighteenth and early nineteenth-century scholars were a chronicle once owned by the Lutheran theologian Hieronymus Scholz in Breslau (now Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka, IV D 8); 20 another chronicle described by the Transylvanian Lutheran theologian Johann Seivert (now Cluj-Napoca, Biblioteca Centrală Universitară Lucian Blaga, Mss. 3217); 21 a martyr book in the St Elisabeth Church Library in Breslau (now Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka, R 414); 22 and a short, but quite remarkable Hutterite catalogue of martyrs owned by Georg Veesenmeyer in Ulm (now München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cgm 5353). 23 An additional chronicle once owned by the Lutheran theologian Johann Peter Süßmilch in Berlin seems to be lost. 24 While earlier scholars had made only sporadic use of Hutterite sources, the Austro-Moravian lawyer and historian Josef Beck published a groundbreaking edition of Hutterite chronicle texts in 1883, setting the foundation for all subsequent research into the history of the Hutterites and of sixteenth-century Anabaptism in general. 25 Beck compiled his edition from dozens of codices which he had identified, in addition to the few texts known to previous research, in several AustroHungarian libraries. The compilation covered the period down to 1694 and contained an appendix based on additional archival sources from 1700 to 1855. Beck

18 Gregor Wolný: “Die Wiedertäufer in Mähren”, in: Archiv für die Kunde österreichischer Geschichts-Quellen 5 (1850), pp. 67–138; Adam Wolf: Geschichtliche Bilder aus Österreich. Vol. 1. Vienna 1878, pp. 67–112: “Die Wiedertäufer, 1524–1622.” 19 Text portions appeared in the footnotes to an English translation of van Bragt’s Martyrs’ Mirror, Edward Bean Underhill (ed.): A Martyrology of the Churches of Christ, Commonly Called Baptists, During the Era of the Reformation. Vol. 2. London 1853. 20 A generation before the volume came into the library of Hieronymus Scholz, parts of it were copied by the Silesian Lutheran theologian Christian Ezechiel (1678–1758). His excerpts are now located in Leipzig, Universitätsbibliothek, Ms 091 (II), fol. 103r, 104r–111v. 21 Johann Seivert: “Vom Ursprunge der Wiedertaufer in Ungern und Siebenbürgen”, in: Ungrisches Magazin oder Beyträge zur Ungrischen Geschichte, Geographie, Naturwissenschaft und der dahin einschlagenden Litteratur 3 (Preßburg 1783), pp. 214–221. 22 K[arl] T[raugott] Heinze: “Das Heldenbuch der Wiedertäufer”, in: Idunna und Hermode: Eine Alterthumszeitung 20 (May 15, 1813), pp. 97–100. 23 Georg Veesenmeyer: “Etwas zur Auswanderung der Evangelischen Salzburger im Jahre 1732, und von den Wiedertäufern im Salzburgischen im sechzehnten Jahrhunderte”, in: Zeitschrift für die historische Theologie 2 (1832), pp. 243–258. 24 Catalogus Praestantissimi Thesauri Exquisitissimorum Et Rariorum In Omni Studiorum Et Linguarum Genere Librorum, Quos Magno Labore Ac Sumtu Collegit, Dum Superabat, D. Joannes Petrus Süssmilch. Berlin 1768, p. 490, no. 32. 25 Josef Beck (ed.): Die Geschichts-Bücher der Wiedertäufer in Oesterreich-Ungarn. Vienna 1883; reprint Nieuwkoop 1967. On Beck see Christian Beck-Mannagetta: Josef (Ritter von) Beck und seine Familie in der Zeit während des Vormärz bis nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg: Vom Landarbeiter zu Regierungsmitgliedern. Spillern 2014, pp. 138–146.

36

Martin Rothkegel

believed that the octavo and small quarto manuscripts which he used were just extracts gleaned from an official, more elaborate church chronicle. 26 Shortly before the First World War, the North American Hutterian Brethren commenced a correspondence with Rudolf Wolkan, professor of German literature at the University of Vienna. The Hutterite elder Elias Walter, Jr. sent Wolkan the transcription of a voluminous folio chronicle entitled Chronicle of our Church (Unnserer gemain geschicht buech), written in 1581 with continuations to 1665. Wolkan came to the conclusion that this large chronicle, often referred to as the Great Chronicle, was the official master copy whose existence had been postulated by Beck, and supervised the print in 1923 of an edition in modernized orthography based on the (occasionally flawed) transcription received from Walter. 27 In 1940, Andreas Johannes Friedrich Zieglschmid, professor of German at Northwestern University (Evanston, IL), visited a Hutterite colony in South Dakota and was granted access to the original 1581 manuscript of the Great Chronicle. Zieglschmid decided to re-publish the entire text in a diplomatic transcription which appeared in 1943. 28 Later, a second, mutilated codex of the Great Chronicle, penned in 1580 by the same scribes and covering the same period of time as the 1581 copy, was discovered at a Hutterite colony in Montana. 29 The North American Hutterites possess yet another, much more recent chronicle, authored by the Hutterite elder Johannes Waldner in Southern Russia. It covers the period down to 1802. A first attempt to publish this late document of Hutterite historiography was undertaken in 1931 by Eberhard Arnold, founder of a neo-Hutterite community in Germany, but only a few sheets of paper were actually printed. 30 In 1947, Zieglschmid published a complete edition of Waldner’s work, enlarged by a compilation of documents illustrating the subsequent history of the Hutterites from 1802 to the present. 31 Ever since the publication of Beck’s, Wolkan’s, and Zieglschmid’s editions, the Hutterite chronicles have ranked among the sources most often referred to in publications on Anabaptist history, but only a handful of studies has been devoted to Hutterite historiography as such, mostly with a focus on the Anabaptist perception of history rather than on a philological analysis of the Hutterite manuscript

26 Beck: Geschichts-Bücher, p. XXXV. 27 Rudolf Wolkan (ed.): Geschicht-Buch der Hutterischen Brüder. Edited by the Hutterite Brethren in America and Canada by Rudolf Wolkan in Vienna. Standoff Colony near Macleod, Alberta, Canada, Vienna 1923; reprint Twilight Colony, Falher, Alberta, Canada 1990. 28 A[ndreas] J[ohannes] F[riedrich] Zieglschmid (ed.): Die älteste Chronik der Hutterischen Brüder: Ein Sprachdenkmal aus frühneuhochdeutscher Zeit. Ithaca NY 1943. 29 Cf. The Chronicle of the Hutterian Brethren, Volume I, known as Das große Geschichtsbuch der Hutterischen Brüder. Translated and edited by the Hutterian Brethren. Rifton NY et al. 1987, p. XVI, and appendix 6, plates 1, 3, 5, 7, 9. 30 [Eberhard Arnold (ed.)]: Auszug und kurzer Durchgang unserer Gemein Geschichtbuch. [Rhön-Bruderhof, ca. 1931], p. 90. 31 A[ndreas] J[ohannes] F[riedrich] Zieglschmid (ed.): Das Klein-Geschichtsbuch der Hutterischen Brüder. Philadelphia PA 1947.

History Written by the Victims

37

tradition. 32 An analytical study of Hutterite historiography based on the full range of available manuscripts is still a desideratum. No serious attempt has been undertaken to distinguish between the various chronical and martyrological works contained in the “minor” manuscripts and to analyze their interrelations with the official Great Chronicle published by Wolkan and Zieglschmid. It is obvious that the Hutterite chroniclers and martyrologists of the late sixteenth century drew on sources like contemporary German translations of Flavius Josephus and of patristic texts, on Sebastian Franck’s chronicles and other printed sources, and on a wide range of early Anabaptist texts. However, a systematic analysis of the sources used in Hutterite historiographic texts is still lacking. All the more remarkable is the achievement of Matthias Rauert who published a research note on Hutterite historiography in 1999. Based on codicological and paleographical details, Rauert observed that the task of periodically updating the official Great Chronicle, and the continuation of the “minor” chronicles fell into the competency of the “scribes of the brotherhood” or “secretaries to the elders” (Brüderschreiber, der Ältesten Brüder Schreiber). The first known holder of this office was Hauprecht Zapff, who served as “secretary to the elders” from ca. 1564 to 1594, the last was Hänsel Esdras. 33 We will return to Rauert’s observations below (3.4). Other in-depth studies of Hutterite historiographic texts were published by Werner O. Packull in 1998 34 and recently by Günter Vogler. 35 Unfortunately, the catalogue of Hutterite manuscripts which was compiled by Rauert and the present author from 2001 to 2003 did not include an equally thorough analysis of the various versions of the Hutterite chronicles and contains a 32 Josef Szövérffy: “Die Hutterischen Brüder und die Vergangenheit: Vorbemerkungen zur sog. ‘ältesten’ hutterischen Chronik”, in: Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 82 (1963), pp. 338– 362; Robert Friedmann: Die Schriften der Huterischen Täufergemeinschaften: Gesamtkatalog ihrer Manuskriptbücher, ihrer Schreiber und ihrer Literatur 1529–1667. Vienna et al. 1965, pp. 174–176; Hartmut Kugler: “Das ‘Dicke Buch’ der Gemeinde Gottes: Zur literarischen Selbstdarstellung der Huterischen Täufergemeinschaft”, in: Ludger Grenzmann, Karl Stackmann (eds.): Literatur und Laienbildung im Spätmittelalter und in der Reformationszeit. Stuttgart 1984, pp. 152–172; Geoffrey Dipple: “‘Yet, from time to time there were men who protested against these evils:’ Anabaptism and Medieval Heresy”, in: Bruce Gordon (ed.): Protestant History and Identity in Sixteenth-Century Europe. Vol. 1: The Medieval Inheritance. Aldershot 1996, pp. 123–137; Peter Burschel: “Zur Geschichtstheologie der Täufer”, in: Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 95 (2004), pp. 132–155, here: 135–146; idem: Sterben und Unsterblichkeit, pp. 159–179; Geoffrey Dipple: “‘Just as in the Time of the Apostles: Uses of History in the Radical Reformation“. Kitchener, Ontario 2005, pp. 149–160, 257–265. 33 Matthias H. Rauert: “Die ‘Brüder-Schreiber’ in Mähren: Zur kollektiven Historiographie der hutterischen Täufer”, in: Mennonitische Geschichtsblätter 56 (1999), pp. 103–138. I thank Dr. Rauert for making available to me also his unpublished paper, Matthias H. Rauert: “Erwählung durch Leiden: Zur Charakteristik des huterischen Chronik-Typs ‘Geschicht Buech der Martterer Christy’”. [1997]. 34 Werner O. Packull: “An Early Hutterite Account of Anabaptist Founders”, in: Mennonite Quarterly Review 72 (1998), pp. 53–68. 35 Günter Vogler: Thomas Müntzer – ein Märtyrer? Überlegungen zu einer bisher nicht edierten Handschrift. Mühlhausen 2019.

38

Martin Rothkegel

number of imprecise attributions. 36 The catalogue numbers introduced in the Katalog der hutterischen Handschriften will be used in the following sections for references to manuscripts in European collections. 3. SIXTEENTH AND EARLY SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY HUTTERITE HISTORIOGRAPHICAL TEXTS: A TENTATIVE SURVEY The following survey of Hutterite historiography is a first attempt to discern, classify, characterize, and date the various sixteenth and early seventeenth-century historiographical texts preserved in Hutterite manuscripts. 37 The present study is limited to prose texts. Future research should also include martyr songs 38 and historical ballads, which in some cases antedate the treatments of the same subjects in martyrological and historiographical prose works. In other cases, the songs are mere versifications of extant prose texts. While many questions must remain open at the present stage of research, it will become clear that Hutterite attitudes towards Luther, Zwingli, and the Reformation were not completely consistent, but featured slightly differing emphases set by individual authors. 3.1 Early Texts This section is devoted to historiographical texts authored by members of the Hutterite church before ca. 1565, i.e. before the time when the community introduced an organized system of manuscript multiplication, book binding, and book distribution. Leaving aside the numerous anonymous treatises on biblical history and the ancient church preserved in Hutterite manuscripts, the following selection focuses on material referring to events in the sixteenth century. The earliest dated work in question is the vivid and remarkably well written Account of the Schism at Auspitz in 1533 (Ein anzaigung vom zwispalt der gmain in Märhern, with several variants). The anonymous author, an eyewitness of the

36 Katalog der hutterischen Handschriften und der Drucke aus hutterischem Besitz in Europa (Ed. Matthias H. Rauert, Martin Rothkegel, Gottfried Seebaß †). Gütersloh 2011. 37 The study is based on notes taken between 1995 and 2003 during on-site examinations of all relevant manuscripts located in European collections (2011 in the case of a codex located in Waterloo, Ontario); on our catalogue descriptions published in the Katalog der hutterischen Handschriften; and on complete reproductions of nos. 21, 22, 34, 35, 41, 61, 291, 292, 340, 352, 356, 382, 404, 448, further of the codex located in Waterloo, Ontario. Thanks go to Gary Waltner and PD Dr. Astrid von Schlachta (Mennonitische Forschungsstelle, Weierhof), Joe A. Springer (Mennonite Historical Library, Goshen, Indiana), Kenny Wollmann (Hutterian Brethren Book Centre, McGregor, Manitoba, Canada), and Emmy Maendel (Community Churches International) for making microfilms and scans of several Hutterite codices available to me. 38 Cf. Ursula Lieseberg: Studien zum Märtyrerlied der Täufer im 16. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt am Main et al. 1991, pp. 107–147.

History Written by the Victims

39

events, finished the writing on November 22, 1533. The text describes the failed attempt to gather all Anabaptist refugees in Moravia professing the principles of strict communitarianism and nonviolence into one unified church. The conflict between the rival leaders escalated between August and October 1533, resulting in the rise of the Hutterian Brethren as a distinct group under the leadership of Jacob Hutter with headquarters in the Southern Moravian town of Auspitz (Hustopeče). An appendix summarizes the allegations raised against Hutter by his rival Gabriel Ascherham. The text was probably intended as an apologetic circular manifesto to be distributed in manuscript copies to Anabaptist leaders and groups who were undecided which side they should take in the schism. 39 The Account of the Schism is preserved as an independent text unit in the following manuscript collections of martyr letters and theological or devotional treatises: no. 34 (1570): Bratislava, Archív mesta Bratislava, Hab. 5, fol. 371r–385v (Beck’s codex “Nr. I”); no. 448 (1577): Wien, Universitätsbibliothek, I 87.708, fol. 105r–119v (Beck’s codex “Nr. IV”); no. 356 (1581): Esztergom, Főegyházmegyei Könyvtár, MSS. III. 128, fol. 289r–307r (Beck’s codex “O”); no. 41 (1592), Archív mesta Bratislavy, Hab. 12, fol. 3r–41r (Beck’s codex “Nr. XIV”). In other codices, the text is combined with later Hutterite chronicles. The full text of the Account follows as a sequel to most copies of the Origin of the Church by A. L. (see below, 3.5): no. 3 (1638): Alba Iulia, Biblioteca Naţională, Filiala Batthyaneum, Ms. II–119, fol. 26r–35r; no. 337 (1640): Budapest, Országos Széchényi Könyvtár, Quart. Germ. 852, fol. 22v–31r; no. 311 (1642): Budapest, Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem Könyvtára, Ab 15, fol. 23v–32v (Beck’ codex “P”); no. 45 (1655): Bratislava, Archív mesta Bratislav, Hab. 16, fol. 49v–59r (Beck’s codex “XII”). An edited version of the Account is integrated into the Description of the Events from the Beginning of the World to the Present Time (3.2.1), sometimes in a longer form reproducing most of the text verbatim (e.g. in nos. 351, 338 and 454), sometimes in form of a condensed digest (e.g. in no. 22; for details see below, 3.2.1). An edited version of the Account is also found in Hauprecht Zapff’s Great Chronicle (see below, 3.2.2). 40 Among the numerous anonymous and undated early Anabaptist texts preserved in Hutterite manuscripts, several interesting pieces may have originated in the first two or three decades of the Hutterite church. These include the short texts On Infant Baptism, how it was Introduced (Von dem kindertauff, wie er aufkommen sei) and On Images and Idols, how they were Introduced into the Roman Church and Abolished and Eventually Reintroduced (Von den bildern und götzen, wie die sein in die Römisch kirchen komen und wider daraus unnd wider darein). The piece on infant baptism is preserved in: no. 12 (1574), Alba Iulia, Biblioteca Naţională, Filiala Batthyaneum, Ms. III–104, fol. 14r–16r; no. 335 (ca. 1585), Budapest, Országos Széchényi Könyvtár, Oct. Germ. 330, fol. 17r–19v; no. 41 (1592), Archív mesta Bratislavy, Hab. 12, fol. 77v–79r; no. 49 (ca. 1650),

39 For the historical context cf. Packull: Hutterite Beginnings, pp. 224–235. 40 Zieglschmid: Älteste Chronik, pp. 105–119.

40

Martin Rothkegel

ibid., Hab. 20, fol. 171r–172v. The writing argues that infant baptism was introduced at the time when the bishops of Rome began to domineer over other bishops and churches. In order to increase their power, the popes followed Augustine’s advice to make people believe that infants who died without baptism would not partake in eternal bliss. Infant baptism with its invented ceremonies has been practiced in Latin down to the present time. Martin Luther simply translated the liturgy into German, but the German version is as unfounded as the Latin. The writing on images is preserved only in two copies, in both cases directly following the piece on infant baptism: no. 12 (1574), Alba Iulia, Biblioteca Naţională, Filiala Batthyaneum, Ms. III–104, fol. 16r–18v; no. 335 (ca. 1585), Budapest, Országos Széchényi Könyvtár, Oct. Germ. 330, fol. 19v–22v. Images have pagan origins. King Herod erected an image of the Roman emperor in Jerusalem. Pope Liberius introduced images into the churches, Augustine argued that they are the illiterate layman’s Bible. Whenever an Arian or iconoclastic emperor tried to remove the images from the churches, the popes and synods reintroduced them. From 792 on, they eventually remained in the churches. In 1522, Ulrich Zwingli enforced their removal from the churches he reformed (gereformiert). Not only in seven Swiss cantons, but also in some cities of the Empire the images were destroyed, but then reintroduced under the influence of Martin Luther in 1545; in Saxony and wherever Luther’s influence prevailed, they have never been removed at all. Even on Luther’s grave there is an image. The two text units seem to have the same origin and must be dated after 1546 based on the reference to Luther’s grave. The same two manuscripts contain a short treatise entitled On the German Lands and the Beginning of the Church of God (Von dem Deütschen lannd unnd anfang der gemain Gottes darinnen): no. 12 (1574), Alba Iulia, Biblioteca Naţională, Filiala Batthyaneum, Ms. III–104, fol. 21v–25r; no. 335 (ca. 1585), Budapest, Országos Széchényi Könyvtár, Oct. Germ. 330, fol. 28r–31r. The text states that the Word of God and Gospel of Jesus Christ have been proclaimed in Germany since 1525/26, the time directly following the Peasants’ War. The Peasants’ War broke out in 1524 as a result of the people’s worldly (fleischlich) understanding of Martin Luther’s doctrine of evangelical freedom. Albeit God separated the rebellious from the godly, both were persecuted and killed alike when the Swabian League took bloody revenge for the uprising. The first seven bishops and servants of the divine Word of the church of God were Balthasar Hubmaier, Thomas Müntzer – who was unjustly blamed for the Peasants’ War –, Michael Sattler, Ludwig Haetzer, Hans Denck, Melchior Rinck, and Melchior Hoffman. The successors of the seven founders were Leonhard Kaiser, Hans Hut, Leonhard Schiemer, Hans Feyerer, Eitelhans Langenmantel, and finally two Hutterites: Jacob Hutter and Onophrius Griesinger. This selection of founding figures is peculiar because the first Anabaptists in Zurich, Conrad Grebel and Felix Mantz, are not mentioned, whereas Thomas Müntzer is given special attention. The piece refers to Melchior Hoffman as deceased († 1543/44) and to Melchior Rinck as living in perpetual prison. Rinck was still alive in 1553, the year of his death is unknown. Werner O. Packull suggested that the brief account, obviously designed for memorizing the names of the fourteen

History Written by the Victims

41

founders, originated in the late 1550s or early 1560s, 41 but there is no conclusive reason to exclude an earlier date. The significance of Thomas Müntzer for the Hutterites is even more emphasized in a catalogue of martyrs recently published by Günter Vogler. 42 The text On the Martyrs in the German Lands who have been Slain by the Roman Church from 1525 to 1558 (Von den marterern Teütschen landen, so von der Römischen kürchen ertödt sein worden vom 1525. jar bis auff das 1558. jar) is preserved in no. 404 (1572): München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cgm 5353, fol. 1r–14r. The slim unbound booklet (29 fol., 149×102 mm) was probably designed to be carried by Hutterite missionaries sent out from Moravia to the Empire. An earlier example of a “portable martyrology” was confiscated in 1531 with the papers of Julius Lober, an emissary of the proto-Hutterite church of Auspitz.43 Its purpose was apparently to increase the authority of the Auspitz church since martyrdom was considered a mark of the true church. Indeed, the number of Hutterite men, women and even youth who were executed by Catholic, Reformed, and Lutheran authorities was enormous. While modern estimates vary considerably, a Hutterite martyr treatise of 1581 gives a number of no less than 2,168 executions. 44 On the Martyrs in the German Lands starts with a section devoted to Thomas Müntzer. Müntzer is praised as an outstanding theologian who resisted the Roman and the Lutheran church (wider die Römisch und auch die Luterisch kürch). Müntzer’s doctrine of God and God’s living Word was directed against the preachers of the dead letter (von seinem lebendigmachenden wort wider alle buechstäbler). He was wrongly accused of instigating the Peasants’ War and cruelly executed, but God revealed Müntzer’s innocence to the hearts of many godly people. The second martyr is Balthasar Hubmaier, whose biography and whose doctrine of free will are summarized with some remarkably accurate detail, followed by Michael Sattler and other early evangelical and Anabaptist martyrs down to Jacob Hutter, with whom the treatise originally ended. The text was secondarily expanded by an appendix (fol. 14v–18v) listing protoHutterite and Hutterite martyrs, male and female, to 1558/59. A second appendix (fol. 19r–25v) lists martyrs executed from 1525 to 1571 by territories and places. Of later origin are two additions (fol. 25v–26v) referring to executions from 1574 to 1588. One of the additions is penned by Hauprecht Zapff, inferring that this manuscript was available to him when editing the Great Chronicle. As to the date of origin, the earliest version of the treatise On the Martyrs in the German Lands, ending with Jacob Hutter, may go back to the 1540s. The textual relation between no. 404 and the martyrological catalogues compiled or copied by Wastel (Sebastian) Kremser (no. 35 [1580/81]: Bratislava, Archív mesta Bratislavy, 41 Packull: Early Hutterite Account, pp. 61f. 42 Vogler: Thomas Müntzer, pp. 34–66. 43 The list is printed in: Karl Schornbaum (ed.): Bayern, II. Abteilung. Gütersloh 1951, pp. 278f. Cf. Burschel: Sterben und Unsterblichkeit, pp. 159–161. 44 No. 356 (1581): Esztergom, Főegyházmegyei Könyvtár, MSS. III. 128, fol. 286v.

42

Martin Rothkegel

Hab. 6, fol. 72r–81v, 574r–584r) and Caspar Artlof (no. 356 [1581]: Esztergom, Főegyházmegyei Könyvtár, MSS. III. 128, fol. 280r–286v), in neither of which Müntzer is mentioned, needs further clarification. At least one more piece should be mentioned in this section: a remarkably well written monograph on the persecution of the Anabaptists in Moravia, 1547 to 1552, whose original title is unknown. It was contained in a now lost Hutterite codex which Johann Heinrich Ott, a Reformed theologian in Zurich, copied in 1659. 45 Most of the text was included almost verbatim by Hauprecht Zapff into the Great Chronicle. 46 In its original form, preserved in Ott’s copy, the texts start with a “prologue in heaven:” Satan receives permission to tempt the believers through suffering. The measures taken by Ferdinand I against the Anabaptists in Moravia are described in vivid detail. The account, written after 1561 as an admonition to the youth, is based on oral testimonies and three ballads written during the persecution. 47 The fact that the writing is not preserved as an independent text unit in other Hutterite manuscripts (besides the lost codex copied by Ott) indicates that it did not belong to the “canon” of reading materials authorized by the church leadership for multiplication. 3.2 Caspar Braitmichel Caspar Braitmichel was a Silesian by birth and a tailor by profession. It is unknown when he joined the Hutterites in Southern Moravia, but he is perhaps the Caspar mentioned in the Account of the Schism at Auspitz in 1533, and some researchers have even suggested that he was the author of that anonymous piece (though without plausible arguments). 48 In 1538, Braitmichel was elected economic manager (Diener der Notdurft) of a Hutterite communitarian settlement, in 1548 preacher (Diener des Wortes). Besides historiographical writings, he composed several hymns and one pastoral letter to imprisoned fellow believers (1568). 49 He died on February 27, 1573, in Austerlitz (Slavkov u Brna).

45 Ott’s copy is located in Hamburg, Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, Cod. theol. 1760, ad annum 1547, pp. 1–15. Cf. Katalog der hutterischen Handschriften, pp. 1008f., no. 380. 46 Zieglschmid: Älteste Chronik, p. 316, line 18–20; 316, line 27–317, line 17–18; 319, line 20– 320, line 5; 321, line 12–340, line 1. The part corresponding with p. 317, line 12–319, line 16 is missing in Ott’s copy because the codex from which he copied was damaged. On the text, cf. Rothkegel: Hutterische Handschriften, pp. 135–137. 47 Ibid., p. 137. The ballads are printed in: Die Lieder der Hutterischen Brüder. Fifth edition [first published: Scottdale PA 1914]. Macmillan Colony, Cayley, Alberta 1983, pp. 161–175. 48 Friedmann: Schriften der Huterischen Täufergemeinschaften, p. 108; Packull: Hutterite Beginnings, p. 225. 49 Caspar Braitmichel, Valtan Hörl, and Jörg Rader (Wagner): Letter to the prisoners at Alzey. Kostel (Podivín), March 4, 1568, preserved in no. 12 (1574): Alba Iulia, Biblioteca Naţională, Filiala Batthyaneum, Ms. III–104, fol. 106v–114v, no. 356 (1581): Esztergom, Főegyházmegyei Könyvtár, MSS. III. 128, fol. 36v–43r, no. 13 (1615); Alba Iulia, Biblioteca Naţională, Filiala Batthyaneum, Ms. III–107, fol. 327r–334v. Braitmichel’s hymns are printed in: Lieder der Hutterischen Brüder, pp. 697–703.

History Written by the Victims

43

Braitmichel’s contribution to Hutterite historiography consists of a treatise on biblical chronology from the creation to Christ, preserved as the first part of the Description of the Events from the Beginning of the World to the Present Time, and of a chronicle covering the period from the creation of the world to 1542, lost in its original form, which became the basis of the Great Chronicle edited and expanded by Hauprecht Zapff in 1580/81. Neither of Braitmichel’s works can be dated precisely. Most probably, Braitmichel was already a minister when he wrote the piece on biblical history and thus had privileged access to books and sufficient leisure for intensive study. This would point to a date after 1548, maybe in the 1550s. The preliminary version of the Great Chronicle must have been started considerably later, probably not before the 1560s. It seems that Braitmichel was still working on it in 1570 and planned to depict the story of the Hutterite church up to that year. This can be inferred from a note added to a copy of the Account of the Schism at Auspitz in 1533 which reads: “Further, how the church of Christ was gathered and how she grew, item the persecution of the Hutterian Brethren inside and outside the land [of Moravia], and how certain persons defected to other denominations and got lost in the world, what has happened during 45 years, from 1525 to 1570: this has been described in detail, I was told, by Caspar Braitmichel, a minister of this church. I refer you thither. For the time being, be content with this short account.” 50 3.2.1 The Description of the Events from the Beginning of the World to the Present Time (Beschreibung der Geschichten von Anfang der Welt bis auf die jetzige Zeit) attributed to Caspar Braitmichel, ca. 1550s A manuscript penned in 1591 (no. 351) contains a chronicle entitled Description of the Events with a Concise Survey of how God Dealt with His Believers, to His Own Glory, from the Beginning of the World to the Present Time, Strongly Manifesting and Revealing Himself to Them, Composed by Caspar Braitmichel or Tailor. And Now on St Michael’s Day [September 29] in the Year 1591 Continued by C. K. (Beschreibung der geschichten mit kurtzem begriff, wie und was Gott mit seinen glaubigen im selbs zum ruem von anfanng der wellt gehandlet, und bis auff die jetzige zeit sich krefftig in inenn bewisen und erzaigett hat, durch Casper Braitmichel oder Schneider gestellt, unnd jetz wider das 1591 jar an S. Michaeli angfangen zu schreiben, C. K.).

50 No. 45, Archív mesta Bratislavy, Hab. 16, fol. 58v–59r: “Wie sich aber weiter die gmain Christi gesamlet und vermeert hat, item die verfolgung in und ausserhalb des landts über die Huetterischen brüeder und gemain, auch sonderlichen personen, die andern gmainen sindt abgangen unnd in die welt verrunnen, solches ist vom Casspar Brädtmichel, dienner der gemain, wie ich hör, weitlauffiger berschriben worden, was in 45 jaren, das ist vom 25igsten biß auf das 70isten jar verloffen hat, dahin weiß ich dich, nim dißmal mit disem kurtzen bericht verguett.”

44

Martin Rothkegel

Fig. 2: Title page of the Description of the Events from the Beginning of the World to the Present Time, copy dated 1591 (no. 351: Esztergom, Főegyházmegyei Könyvtár, MSS. III. 112). Image: Mennonitische Forschungsstelle Weierhof.

The Description of the Events from the Beginning of the World to the Present Time is extant in at least nine manuscripts, though with substantial variants and in seven cases without the author’s name. In a tentative chronological order (with some of the datings being uncertain), the following manuscripts are known: no. 340 [late sixteenth century]: Cluj-Napoca, Biblioteca Centrală Universitară Lucian Blaga, Mss. 2665, fol. 91r–172v; no. 351 (1591): Esztergom, Főegyházmegyei Könyvtár, MSS. III. 112, fol. 1r–109v (Beck’s codex “I”); no. 22 (1592): Amsterdam, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Doopsgezinde bibliotheek, Hs 65–53, part 1, fol. 1r–78v; no. 8 (1630): Alba Iulia, Biblioteca Naţională, Filiala Batthyaneum, Ms. III–93, fol. 2r– 74r; 51 no. 435 (1642): Sibiu, Zentralarchiv der Evangelischen Kirche A. B. in Rumänien, Ms. 1, fol. 187r–255r (inserted into a martyrological compilation, cf. below, 3.7); no. 4 (1648): Alba Iulia, Biblioteca Naţională, Filiala Batthyaneum,

51 No. 8 has a preface to the reader, a more extensive version of which is also found in no. 454. The preface states that the chronicle covers the period from the creation of the world to the restitution of the true church (which must refer to the emergence of the Hutterites in 1533). As this preface is missing in the earliest manuscripts, it is probably a secondary addition.

History Written by the Victims

45

Ms. II–122, p. 21–136; no. 338 (1650): Budapest, Országos Széchényi Könyvtár, Quart. Germ. 921, fol. 1r–63v (Beck’s codex “K”); no. 454 (1654): Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka, IV D 8, fol. 1r–60r (Beck’s codex “H”); without number (1653/54): Waterloo, Ontario, Conrad Grebel University College, fol. 10r–61v (incomplete in the beginning). 52 The narrative starts with the creation of the world. Modifying the Augustinian schema of six ages of the world (with a seventh yet to come), history from the creation to the present time is divided into seven periods, 53 indicated by subheadings. The account of the first six ages is based on the Old Testament and Josephus: 1) the first period (1656 years) from creation to the deluge, 2) the second period (368 years) from the deluge to Abraham, 3) the third period (645 years) from Abraham to the Exodus, 4) the fourth period (528 years) from the Exodus to Samuel, 5) the fifth period (514 years) from Saul to the Babylonian Captivity, 6) the sixth period (658 years) from the Babylonian Captivity to Christ. The focus of the account of the first six ages is biblical chronology. According to Braitmichel, Christ was born anno mundi 4369. Numerous references to the works of Josephus on the margins of no. 340 indicate that this peculiar calculation was based on independent research. One may wonder what motivated Braitmichel to invest so much effort into revising the chronological calculations proposed in the appendices of contemporary Bible editions, 54 in Sebastian Franck’s Chronica, or by Johannes Carion and other Protestant authors of the sixteenth century. One possible explanation is that according to Braitmichel’s calculation the year 1531, the founding year of the mother church of the Hutterian Brethren in Auspitz, was anno mundi 5900. If Braitmichel expected a 6,000-year duration of the world from creation to consummation, as many adherents of the Reformation did, 55 the beginning of the Hutterites would coincide with the beginning of the last century of the world. The following section of the writing covering the “seventh age of the world” from the incarnation of Christ to the present is considerably longer than the account of the first six ages in all manuscripts, but its contents vary considerably. Two groups of manuscripts can be discerned:

52 Werner O. Packull: “A Seventeenth-Century Hutterite Codex: A Description”, in: Canadian Journal of History/Annales canadiennes d’histoire 65 (1991), pp. 373–378. 53 This is peculiar, but not unique. For sporadic patristic and medieval examples, cf. Roderich Schmidt: “Aetates mundi: Die Weltalter als Gliederungsprinzip der Geschichte”, in: Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 67 (1955/56), pp. 288–317. 54 E.g. in: Bible, German, 2°. Zürich1536, fol. ccciii: “Warhaffte und gewüsse iarzal aller zyten vn[d] jaren von Adamen an bisz vff Jesum Christum/ vnd vff dises gegenwirtig jar M. D. XXXVI. jar, gezogen vß der heilligen Biblischen geschrifft.” 55 On the 6000-years schema cf. Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann: Philosophia perennis: Historische Umrisse abendländischer Spiritualität in Antike, Mittelalter und Früher Neuzeit. Frankfurt am Main 1998, pp. 635–645; Volker Leppin: Antichrist und Jüngster Tag: Das Profil apokalyptischer Flugschriftenpublizistik im deutschen Luthertum 1548–1618. Gütersloh 1999, pp. 130– 139; idem: “Humanistische Gelehrsamkeit und Zukunftsansage: Philipp Melanchthon und das Chronicon Carionis”, in: Klaus Bergdolt, Walther Ludwig, Daniel Schäfer (eds.): Zukunftsvoraussagen in der Renaissance. Wiesbaden 2005, pp. 131–142.

46

Martin Rothkegel

A. The longer version: In nos. 351 (1591), 8 (1630), 338 (1650), and 454 (1654), and in the codex without catalogue number in Waterloo, Ontario, Conrad Grebel University College (1653/54), the “seventh period” is divided into six subsections. At least four of these subsections – the second, the third, the fifth, and the sixth – are verbatim copies or edited versions of short treatises which are also preserved as independent text units in other manuscripts: 1) “On the Roman emperors” (apparently based on Sebastian Franck). 2) “On the Apostles and the first bishops installed by them” (also based on Sebastian Franck), also preserved as an independent treatise in no. 352 (1572), Esztergom, Főegyházmegyei Könyvtár, MSS. III. 124, fol. 176r–194r; no. 12 (1574), Alba Iulia, Biblioteca Naţională, Filiala Batthyaneum, Ms. III–104, fol. 2r–14r; no. 335 (ca. 1585), Budapest, Országos Széchényi Könyvtár, Oct. Germ. 330, fol. 3r–17r; no. 54 (ca. 1565–1590), Archív mesta Bratislavy, Hab. 25, fol. 150r–159r; no. 41 (1592), Archív mesta Bratislavy, Hab. 12, fol. 65r–77r; no. 49 (ca. 1650), ibid., Hab. 20, fol. 158v–172v. 3) “On the persecutions of the first churches” (again based on Sebastian Franck), also preserved as an independent treatise in no. 12 (1574), Alba Iulia, Biblioteca Naţională, Filiala Batthyaneum, Ms. III–104, fol. 18v–21v; no. 335 (ca. 1585), Budapest, Országos Széchényi Könyvtár, Oct. Germ. 330, fol. 22v–28r. 4) “On the arrival of the Gospel to the various nations,” a series of testes veritatis from ancient heretics to the Hussites and other recent movements and individuals, based on Sebastian Franck. 56 5) “On the German lands and the beginning of the Church of God,” i.e. on the failure of Luther’s and Zwingli’s Reformations, the beginning of Anabaptism in Zurich 1525, the subsequent spread of the Anabaptist movement, and the rise of the Hutterite church. Except for the opening sentence, this subsection has a completely different text than the piece with the same title mentioned in 3.1. 6) “On the schism at Auspitz in 1533.” This is an edited version of the treatise mentioned above in 3.1. B. The shorter version: In two of the earliest manuscripts, nos. 340 (late sixteenth century) and 22 (1592), the description of the seventh age of the world is less elaborate. The events between the age of the Apostles and the restitution of believers’ baptism in Zurich 1525 are briefly summarized, highlighting the persecutions under the Roman emperors, the defection of the Roman church under the popes, and the witnesses of truth in the Middle Ages (with no. 22 being even briefer than no. 340). Like in the more elaborate version, the chronicle ends with the account of the schism at Auspitz in 1533, based on the treatise mentioned above in 3.1.

56 Most of this subsection is printed in: Beck Josef: “Wickliff, Hus, Rohač, Luther und Zwingli, dann die Pikarditen, was sie den mährisch-huterischen Neu- oder Wiedertäufern waren. Nach Handschriften dieser Täufer mitgetheilt”, in: Schriften der historisch-statistischen Sektion der k. k. mähr.-schles. Gesellschaft zur Beförderung des Ackerbaues, der Natur- und Landeskunde 14 (1865), pp. 425–438, here: 431–435.

History Written by the Victims

47

To sum up, the Description of the Events from the Beginning of the World to the Present Time which is ascribed to Braitmichel on the title page of no. 351 extends from the creation of the world to 1533, but the manuscripts contain a fairly uniform text only for the period from the creation to Christ. For the period from the Apostles to 1525, one group of manuscripts has an elaborate account consisting of six subsections (nos. 351, 8, 338, and 454, and the codex in Waterloo), whereas the other group bridges the time between the Apostles and 1525 with a much briefer summary (nos. 340 and 22). Yet another version is contained in no. 4, penned by the Polish Hutterite Lorenz Simon from Landshut (Łańcut), in 1648, who expanded the text by inserting catalogues of ancient and medieval martyrs from other sources. It seems that both versions, the longer and the shorter, are the result of secondary enlargement, and that Braitmichel’s original work comprised only the part on biblical chronology from the creation to Christ which all manuscripts have in common (with the inevitable variants, though). In the preface to the Great Chronicle, Braitmichel states that he previously composed a “short, but well-grounded account” from the creation to Christ, based on the Bible and Josephus. Braitmichel continues: “The thought often occurred to me that God might at some time bestow courage and zeal upon a pious man to describe the whole dawning of grace and the beginning of His church in this latter time, and what had subsequently happened within the church. But because this has not happened so far,” Braitmichel himself undertook the task of compiling the Great Chronicle from his own memories and from many oral and written sources. Due to the frailty of age, though, he saw himself compelled to discontinue his work after finishing an entry for 1542. 57 This testimony obviously refers only to the first part of the Description of the Events from the Beginning of the World to the Present Time, from the creation to Christ, as a piece which Braitmichel had written some time before the Great Chronicle. Braitmichel explicitly states that he knew of no account of the period from the time of Christ to the present when he started to work on the Great Chronicle. Accordingly, the whole second part of the Description of the Events from the Beginning of the World to the Present Time from the Apostles to 1533, the shorter as well as the longer version, must be secondary additions to Braitmichel’s original text. As to the authorship of the additions and their relation to the Great Chronicle, no precise conclusions can be drawn at present. At any rate, the whole second part of the Description from the Apostles to 1533 has close parallels in the Great Chronicle. The fifth subsection of the “seventh period” entitled On the German Lands and the Beginning of the Church of God, one of the parts secondarily added to Braitmichel’s treatise, deals with the Reformation. According to the unknown author, the full light of the Gospel rose first around 1524 to 1526, after the Peasants’ War. 58 In other words, the full truth was revealed only with the rise of the Anabaptist movement and Luther was only a predecessor of the restauration of the true church, a failing prophet who fell short of the divine mission entrusted to him.

57 Zieglschmid: Älteste Chronik, pp. LXVII–LXIX. 58 Beck: Geschichts-Bücher, pp. 10f.

48

Martin Rothkegel

The author rejects the theory that there had always been a true church over the course of centuries between the apostasy of the church under Constantine and the present. Although there had been various groups and individuals of the intermediate period who made a good start, the light of truth was eventually suppressed and extinguished completely by the tyranny of the Roman church. Only the Bohemian Brethren (die Pickarten oder Waldenser genannt) preserved a little spark of truth. 59 By raising up Martin Luther in 1519, under the rule of Emperor Charles V, God started to gradually rekindle the light of his truth in the darkness (den hellen schein und glantz göttlicher warheit abermals gar fein gmälich angefangen auffzuplasen und mit grosser beschaidenheit das licht aus der finsternusz herfür tragen lassen). Why did God let this happen in Germany? Probably because the Germans have always been an utterly rude and uneducated nation, as the ancient historians testify, a land the Apostles of Christ never reached, thus fulfilling the prophecy in Isaiah 55:5 that God would call a nation that does not know him. 60 Luther and Ulrich Zwingli unmasked the Babylonian harlot “as with claps of thunder” (gleich wie mit donnerschlägen). They made a good start, but soon the light of truth went out in them. It was like mending an old kettle and only making a bigger hole; they struck the jug from the pope’s hand but kept the broken pieces in their own. In any case, the Hutterite author does not doubt (denen wirs auch nit abschlahen) 61 that those who died as martyrs for Luther’s doctrine in good faith – like the Augustinian monks in Brussels in 1523 or Caspar Tauber in Vienna in 1524 – will be saved. Luther and Zwingli, divided among themselves over the teaching of the Lord’s Supper, allied themselves with the secular powers and forced the people to accept their doctrines by coercion, thus erecting a new Babylon, split into two sects (in 2 völcker zertailt worden, daz newe Babel damit anzuzaigen): but faith cannot be forced by men, but is a gift of God (so doch der glaub nit gewalt der menschen, sondern ein gab gottes ist). 62 In the same year, 1525, God by his mercy decided to let the light of his truth rise in full brightness (den wahren morgenstern, das licht seiner warheit in völligem schein herfür wellen bringen) and to restore his true church (ein ainigs volkh abgesundert von allen völkern). For this purpose, he raised up Balthasar Hubmaier, Conrad Grebel, Felix Mantz, and Jörg [Blaurock] who brought the first congregation of baptized believers together in Zurich. The subsequent cruel persecution of the Anabaptists by Zwingli and his followers unmistakably demonstrated of what spirit they were. 63 The rest of the section is devoted to the evolution of the restored true church from her beginnings in Zurich to Hutter’s congregation in Auspitz, in which the true church on earth “subsists” (using the term coined by the Second Vatican

59 Ibid., p. 11. 60 Ibid. 61 No. 22 (1592): Amsterdam, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Doopsgezinde bibliotheek, Hs 65–53, part 1, fol. 18r. 62 Beck: Geschichts-Bücher, pp. 14f. 63 Ibid., pp. 16f.

History Written by the Victims

49

Council is probably appropriate to characterize the virtually, but not absolutely exclusivist ecclesiology of the Hutterites). 3.2.2 Braitmichel’s contribution to the Great Chronicle (Unserer Gemein Geschichtbuch), edited and enlarged by Hauprecht Zapff in 1580/81 The Great Chronicle or Chronicle of our Church (Unnserer gemain geschichtbuech) is preserved in two folio manuscripts, a mutilated codex begun in 1580 64 and a complete codex begun in 1581. The text of the latter was published in diplomatic transcription by Zieglschmid. 65 Both manuscripts were penned by Hauprecht Zapff, the “secretary to the board of elders” in the headquarters of the Hutterite church in Neumühl (Nové Mlýny), 66 and bound with many sheets of blank paper after the text. A

Fig. 3: Title page of Hauprecht Zapff’s Great Chronicle, master copy dated 1581. Image: Zieglschmid (ed.): Älteste Chronik, plate I.

64 Chronicle of the Hutterian Brethren, p. XVI. 65 Zieglschmid: Älteste Chronik. 66 On Zapff, cf. Martin Rothkegel (ed.): Hauprecht Zapff, Johannes der Evangelist über alle Kapitel erklärt: Ein täuferischer Bibelkommentar von 1597. McGregor, Manitoba 2017, pp. vii–xx.

50

Martin Rothkegel

note added to Braitmichel’s preface states that the elder (or bishop) Hans Kräl and his secretary Zapff continued Braitmichel’s work. It seems that Zapff was commissioned by Kräl with the task of editing and copying the unfinished work bequeathed by Braitmichel, and to compose the continuation from 1542 to the present. Only the 1581 copy has been described in detail. 67 In this copy, Zapff’s handwriting ends with an entry referring to November 20, 1591. Zapff worked on the chronicle at least until 1593. The latter date appears in an ornamental letter in the table of contents prefixed to the chronicle text. Zapff apparently ended his work on the chronicle when he was elected preacher in 1594. 68 The chronicle was continued on the blank sheets to 1665 by six subsequent scribes. Five of them were Zapff’s successors in the office of “secretaries to the elders:” the names of the first two continuators (entries for 1591/92 and 1593–1613) are unknown, but their handwriting appears also in contemporary archival materials, the third (entries for 1614– 1623) was Heinrich Boxler, the fourth (entries for 1624–1628) was Hans Scheuffel, the sixth and last continuator (entries for 1660–1665) was Hänsel Esdras. The fifth continuator, Andreas Ehrenpreis (entries for 1629–1660) was not a secretary, but an elder or bishop of the Hutterite church. 69 These paleographical observations indicate that by 1580 the continuation of the chronicle, once begun as a personal initiative by Caspar Braitmichel, fell within the competence of the central leadership of the Hutterite church. The two folio manuscripts appear to have been master copies of an official church chronicle which was updated continuously (but not necessarily at annual intervals) in a brief and plain annalistic style. As mentioned above, the Great Chronicle has a preface by Caspar Braitmichel. The preface bears no date. It was written by Braitmichel when his failing vision forced him to terminate his work with the description of events in 1542. This must have been some time prior to his death in 1573. Braitmichel’s original manuscript is lost. It remains uncertain to what extent Zapff edited or expanded Braitmichel’s work when copying it into the two official master copies of the church chronicle in 1580/81. It is, however, certainly more accurate to consider the Great Chronicle in its preserved form the result of Zapff’s editorial efforts rather than to ascribe the text from the beginning to 1542 to Braitmichel. The first part of the Great Chronicle, devoted to biblical history from the creation to the Apostles, appears to be an edited version of Braitmichel’s earlier treatise on biblical chronology, i.e. of the first part of the Description of the Events from the Beginning of the World to the Present Time. The biblical chronology of the Great Chronicle differs slightly from that of the Description with 1656, 367 (instead of 368), 645, 528, 584 (instead of 514), and 582 (instead of 658) years for the six periods from creation to incarnation, thus dating the birth of Christ to anno mundi 4362 instead of 4369. Again, the focus on chronology is striking. Zapff deemed it necessary 67 Zieglschmid: Älteste Chronik, pp. xxiii–xxx. 68 Ibid., p. 569. 69 Rauert: Brüder-Schreiber, p. 109.

History Written by the Victims

51

to add a note explaining why the traditional calculation of 430 years from the vocation of Abraham to the Exodus is inaccurate. 70 For the passage devoted to the incarnation of Christ, Zapff drew on the Origin of the Church of Christ by the non-identified A. L. (3.5), but adjusted the opening phrase (Nachdem die völle der zeit herzue komen war und vast 4000 jar vollendet waren) to his own chronology (unnd mer als vier tausend dreyhundert und sechtzig jar verlauffen). 71 The sections of the Great Chronicle dealing with the period from the Apostles to 1533 feature numerous verbatim parallels with the corresponding second part of the Description of the Events, but there are also substantial differences. A more thorough comparison may lead to a plausible reconstruction of the relation between the two texts. Besides the Description, Zapff used also the Origin of the Church and Ambrosius Resch’s Concise Manual (3.3). As the head of the administration and the central scriptorium of the brotherhood, Zapff had access to a large number of printed and manuscript sources. Several source texts are inserted verbatim into the vivid and well-informed narrative, including the Account of the schism in Auspitz, 1533 and several letters by Jacob Hutter and other early Hutterite leaders. Special attention is given to the “servants of the Word,” i.e. preachers, and “servants of temporal affairs,” i.e. economic managers, whose elections, confirmations, and deaths, or depositions, respectively, are recorded virtually completely. The paragraphs devoted to Luther’s and Zwingli’s Reformations in the Great Chronicle follow closely the subsection “On the German Lands and the Beginning of the Church of God” in the second part of the Description of the Events from the Beginning of the World to the Present Time (3.2.1) with numerous additions, omissions, and modifications. For example, Zapff dated the beginning of Luther’s activity to 1517 under Emperor Maximilian instead of 1519 under Emperor Charles V. Zapff deleted the clause affirming that those who died as martyrs for Luther’s doctrine in good faith will be saved: the Augustinians burned in Brussels in 1523 and Caspar Tauber executed in Vienna 1524 now appear as poor victims seduced by Luther’s doctrine rather than as martyrs of the true faith. 72 Thomas Müntzer, celebrated as a martyr and one of the founding fathers of the Hutterites in other Hutterite texts, is not mentioned at all, 73 nor is Ludwig Haetzer’s explicit rejection of the Trinitarian dogma, which is quoted approvingly in many of the “minor” chronicles. 74 The omission of Müntzer and his silence on Haetzer’s heterodox doctrines does not mean that Zapff was theologically more orthodox or more moderate than the other Hutterite chroniclers. 75 Rather, his view of history was shaped by a tendency 70 71 72 73

Zieglschmid: Älteste Chronik, p. 10. Ibid., p. 26; cf. Beck: Geschichts-Bücher, p. 7. Zieglschmid: Älteste Chronik, pp. 43f. Cf. Vogler: Thomas Müntzer, p. 12, even speaks of Müntzer’s intentional “elimination” in the official Hutterite church chronicle. 74 Zieglschmid: Älteste Chronik, p. 64; Beck: Geschichts-Bücher, p. 34. 75 For a brief assessment of Zappf’s theological views, cf. Rothkegel: Hauprecht Zapff, Johannes, pp. xi–xiii.

52

Martin Rothkegel

towards confessional exclusivism. For Zapff, there could be no true martyrs outside the true church, and his rejection of Luther and Zwingli was unambiguous: “However much they reviled the pope in other respects, they followed him in the practice of infant baptism, taking over from him the leaven that gives rise to all kinds of evil, the very gateway to false Christianity. The pope had just as little scriptural foundation for infant baptism as for purgatory, the mass, the worship of saints, letters of indulgence, and the like. Luther and Zwingli defended their teaching with the sword, as they had learned from the antichrist, their father and chief.” 76 3.3 Ambrosius Resch, Concise Well-Grounded Manual (Kleines gründliches Denkbüchel), ca. 1550s–ca. 1590 Little is known about Ambrosius Resch’s background and biography. As his name is not mentioned among the elections of preachers and economic managers in the Great Chronicle, it seems that he did not hold an ecclesiastical office in the Hutterite church. Several chronicle manuscripts, however, contain a note on his death on December 22, 1592, in Kostel (Podivín). 77 Resch joined the Hutterian Brethren no later than 1550. This can be deduced from the reference in his chronicle to a letter written by a Franconian Anabaptist prisoner, Hans Bair from Lichtenfels, to the Hutterite elders in Moravia shown to him in this year (hab ich im anno 1550. jar sein aigne hanndtgeschrifft gesehen, die er den dazumall den eltesten bruedern in die gemain zuegeschrieben hat). 78 Resch was probably sent out as a Hutterite missionary to the Tyrol in 1550 79 and once more some time prior to 1561. 80 Besides his chronicle, Resch compiled a monumental verbal concordance of the Bible based on the German translation as printed in the early Zurich Bible editions. The original clean copy is preserved in Gotha (no. 378, Gotha, Forschungsbibliothek, Chart. A 292). It was penned by a team of professionally trained scribes (probably including Resch himself) on ca. 1900 pages in folio between 1588 and 1592 and is the largest Hutterite codex known today. 81 Accordingly, Resch was able to work until shortly before his death in 1592. Further, a project as demanding and costly as the voluminous concordance must have been commissioned by the

76 Chronicle of the Hutterian Brethren, p. 60; Zieglschmid: Älteste Chronik, p. 44. 77 Beck: Geschichts-Bücher, p. 318. 78 No. 22 (1592): Amsterdam, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Doopsgezinde bibliotheek, Hs 65–53, part 2, fol. 17v. 79 Grete Mecenseffy, Matthias Schmelzer (eds.): Österreich. Part III. Gütersloh 1983, p. 660. 80 Johann Loserth: “Der Anabaptismus in Tirol vom Jahre 1536 bis zu seinem Erlöschen: Aus den hinterlassenen Papieren des Hofrathes Dr. Josef R. von Beck”, in: Archiv für österreichische Geschichte 79 (1893), pp. 127–276, here: 232. 81 There is a copy of this concordance penned in 1642 by elder Andreas Ehrenpreis: no. 238, Slovenský národný archív, Knižnica Bratislavskej kapituly, Haer. 188.

History Written by the Victims

53

leadership of the Hutterite church. One may assume that Resch worked as a professional scribe for the brotherhood, maybe at the seat of the elder or bishop in Neumühl (Nové Mlýny) in chief secretary Hauprecht Zapff’s team. The chronicler had a contemporary namesake, a ducal bailiff in Württemberg who died in the same year 1592. This Ambrosius Resch was married to Katharina Kolb, a half-sister of Philipp Melanchthon. It is unknown whether the Hutterite chronicler and the Lutheran administrator were related. 82 Resch’s authorship of the chronicle is explicitly stated in a copy dated 1602 (no. 15) with the title A Concise Well-Grounded Manual which Comprises and Records what has Happened to the True Christian Believers since 1524, and how the Church of God was Restored and Grew, Initially Compiled by Ambrosius Resch (Ein klaines gründtliches denckhbüechl, darinnen wirt begriffen unnd angezaigt, was sich seid dem 1524. jar mit den recht christgläubigen menschen hat zugetragen, unnd wie

Fig. 4: Title page of Ambrosius Resch, Concise Well-Grounded Manual, copy dated 1591 (no. 351: Esztergom, Főegyházmegyei Könyvtár, MSS. III. 112). Image: Mennonitische Forschungsstelle Weierhof.

82 Gustav Bossert: “Herzog Christoph und Melanchthons Schwester”, in: Besondere Beilage zum Staats-Anzeiger für Württemberg, Nr. 14 &15 (Stuttgart, October 1, 1908), pp. 222–230. I thank Prof. Gunter Vogler (Erkner, Berlin) for sending me a copy of Bossert’s research note.

54

Martin Rothkegel

sich die gmain Gottes widerumb hat angefangen unnd vermeert ist worden, anfenckhlich durch Ambrosium Reesch zusamengetragen). Additionally, several copies bear Resch’s initials “A. R.” (nos. 428, 351, 31, 4), and many contain a note on Resch’s death in 1592, explicitly calling him the “initiator of this booklet.” 83 Resch’s chronicle is preserved in at least nineteen manuscripts, listed here in a tentative chronological order (tentative because some codices are dated based on dates explicitly given in the text, others are dated based on supralibros, indicating the date of binding rather than copying): no. 418 (1584): Praha, Univerzita Karlova, Evangelická teologická fakulta, 1 T 231 (fragments), part 2, fol. 1r–15v (incomplete in the beginning), part 3, fol. 1r–49r (all leaves of this manuscript are damaged, most of the text is lost); no. 428 (1590): Praha, Strahovská knihovna, DV II 1, fol. 1r–179v; no. 22 (1591): Amsterdam, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Doopsgezinde bibliotheek, Hs 65–53, part 2, fol. 1r–131v; no. 351 (1592): Esztergom, Főegyházmegyei Könyvtár, MSS. III. 112, fol. 110r–312v (Beck’s codex “I”); no. 15 (1602): Alba Iulia, Biblioteca Naţională, Filiala Batthyaneum, Ms. III–118, fol. 1r– 140v; no. 292 (1610): Brno, Moravský zemský archiv, G 10, č. 573, fol. 67r–330v (Beck’s codex “B”); no. 31 (1616): Bratislava, Archív mesta Bratislavy, Hab. 1, fol. 2r–146v (Beck’s codex “A”); no. 341 (1631): Cluj-Napoca, Biblioteca Centrală Universitară Lucian Blaga, Mss. 3217, fol. 44r–291r; no. 313 (1634): Budapest, Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem Könyvtára, Ab 17, fol. 1r–281v (Beck’s codex “C”); no. 382 (1637): Hamburg, Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, cod. theol. 2133, fol. 26r–27v, 53v–243v (Beck’s codex “E”); no. 8 (1630): Alba Iulia, Biblioteca Naţională, Filiala Batthyaneum, Ms. III–93, fol. 74r–327v; no. 291 (1640): Brno, Moravský zemský archiv, G 10, č. 563, fol. 23r–25v, 50r–284v (Beck’s codex “F”); no. 4 (1648), Alba Iulia, Biblioteca Naţională, Filiala Batthyaneum, Ms. II–122, p. 139–775; no. 357 (1648): Esztergom, Főegyházmegyei Könyvtár, MSS. III. 133, fol. *2r–*4v, 79r–292r (Beck’s codex “F”); no. 33 (nineteenth-century excerpts from a lost manuscript of 1648): Bratislava, Archív mesta Bratislavy, Hab. 4, fol. 1r–117v; no. 338 (1650): Budapest, Országos Széchényi Könyvtár, Quart. Germ. 921, fol. 64r–222v (Beck’s codex “K”); no. 454 (1654), Biblioteka Uniwersytecka, Wrocław, Sign. IV D 8, fol. 60r–236v; without number (1654): Waterloo, Ontario, Conrad Grebel University College, fol. 62r–177r; 84 no. 370 (1662): Esztergom, Főegyházmegyei Könyvtár, MSS. III. 197, fol. *2r–*4v, 67v– 265r (Beck’s codex “L”). The codices feature numerous variants, additions, and omissions. In the earliest manuscript, no. 418, of which only fragments are preserved, Resch’s chronicle formed the second and third part of a collection of historiographical texts. The volume started with a copy of the Origin of the Church of Christ (see below, 3.5), followed by a German translation of the treatise That Peter never came to Rome published in 1520 by the Bohemian humanist Oldřich Velenský, 85 and a piece (of which only the 83 Beck: Geschichts-Bücher, p. 318. 84 Packull: Seventeenth-Century Hutterite Codex. 85 On him, cf. A[ntoine] J[an] Lamping: Ulrichus Velenus (Oldřich Velenský) and his Treatise against the Papacy. Leiden 1976.

History Written by the Victims

55

title is preserved) on the false Christians who used violence to defend their cause from the fall of the church under Constantine to the Schmalkaldic War in 1546/47. The second part of the volume, of which only a few fragments have survived, apparently contained the text of Resch’s chronicle for the years 1524 to 1549. The third part of the volume begins with a new title: “The third part of this book: On the elections of servants, both of the Word and of temporal affairs, and those who have passed away, and what else happened in the church” (Das drittail dises buechs: Von erwellung der diener, baider, im wort und notturfft, und vil deren endtschlaffen ind, auch was sich sonst der gmain ). The text starts with a “schematism” which enumerates the entire body of ministers of the Hutterite church in 1550, comprising 17 ministers of the Gospel and 28 economic managers, and continues to 1584. In other cases (nos. 22, 351, 8, 4, 338), Resch’s Manual is combined in one volume with the Description of the Events from the Beginning of the World to the Present Time, with Resch’s text serving as a continuation of the Description. Sometimes (e.g. in nos. 382, 291, 357, 33, 370) the text of Resch’s chronicle is amalgamated with parts of the Description or of the Origin of the Church of Christ (see below, 3.5). In all manuscripts, except for nos. 418 and 341, the text starts with Resch’s undated preface to the reader: Many brethren have been asking Resch to share with them the records which he had been keeping for many years on the elections of ministers, both of temporal affairs and of the Gospel (inen daselbe auch mit zu taillen, wie und was sich in der gemain zue getragen habe und welche brüeder in die ämpter kumen sein). Thus, he decided to compile a short account on the ministers and martyrs of the church of God from 1524 to the present, based on oral and written testimonies. In many cases, he was not able to determine the month and day of the reported events. The readers are requested to complement the chronicle if they have reliable additional information. 86 The chronicle itself consists of unconnected entries in annalistic order, starting with a short description of the trial and execution of the early evangelical martyr Caspar Tauber in Vienna in 1524. It continues with a section on the rise of Anabaptism in Zurich in 1525 and its persecution by Zwingli. After a sequel of early Anabaptist martyrdoms, the entries increasingly concentrate on events in the emerging Hutterite church, the fates of the Hutterite martyrs, and the elections of Hutterite ministers. Like in no. 418, the entry for 1550 starts in the other manuscripts with a “schematism” of the Hutterite ministers (though with 31 instead of 28 servants of temporal affairs), but without the title page which separates the “schematism” from the preceding text in no. 418. Many entries have close parallels in the Great Chronicle, with Resch often being more concise. It is difficult to determine the year with which Resch’s work originally ended. In the extant manuscripts, originating in Resch’s lifetime, the original texts (written by the earliest scribal hands in the respective volumes) end with entries for 1584 (no. 418), 1586 (no. 22), 1590 (no. 428), and 1591 (no. 351).

86 Beck: Geschichts-Bücher, pp. 3f.

56

Martin Rothkegel

Resch stated in the preface that he had been recording over a period of many years “what has happened in the church and which brethren entered the ministry.” This corresponds closely with the title prefixed to the 1550 “schematism” in no. 418, “On the elections of servants, both of the Word and of temporal affairs, and those who have passed away, and what else happened in the church.” Hence, the first version of Resch’s work probably started with the 1550 “schematism.” Following the requests of several brethren, Resch expanded this first version by adding a section on the period from 1524 to 1549 and by continuing it to the present. This expanded version, now entitled A Concise Manual, was brought into circulation in multiple copies from 1584 on. In light of the numerous parallels between Resch’s Manual and the Great Chronicle, one of the texts must have been the source of the other. Zapff and Resch worked at the same time: Zapff started editing and expanding Braitmichel’s unfinished work in 1580, and Resch continued to work on his Manual probably until 1591. However, based on several observations, it seems more probable that the Great Chronicle is dependent on the Manual rather than vice versa. One argument for this assumption, albeit inconclusive, is that Resch claimed in his preface that he based his account directly on “the [oral] testimonies and the writings of the faithful brethren” (der fromen brüeder zeugnus und geschrifften). Literary vanity was foreign to the humble minded Hutterites, and it seems unlikely that Resch would have pretended to work from primary sources if he had simply extracted information from the Great Chronicle. Another inference can be drawn from an observation in no. 428, a manuscript penned in 1590. This codex contains a reference to the arrest of a Hutterite, Hans Häberle called Strohscheiter (“roof-thatcher”), on June 18, 1585, in Straubing in Bavaria (anno 1585, den 18. Juni, ist der brueder Hanss Strohscheitter oder Häberle, ein gemeiner brueder, zu Straubing im Bairlanndt gefangen wordenn). The entry is found neither in the Great Chronicle nor in more recent copies of the Manual. In no. 428, it was crossed out by a later scribe who continued Resch’s Manual after 1590, with the marginal note “became an apostate” (ist abgestanten). Resch obviously wrote the entry on Häberle’s arrest independently from the Great Chronicle, but the paragraph later turned out to be premature. While more cogent and more precise conclusions would require a systematic comparison of the parallel passages, it seems most probable that Resch’s Manual was not an extract of the Great Chronicle, but an original work. In other words, Zapff presumably used Resch’s Manual as a source for the description of the period from 1524 to ca. 1590 when he edited the Great Chronicle. Resch’s Concise Manual was a “pocket chronicle” composed for the practical use of Hutterite ministers, and the sheer number of preserved copies – more than we have of most printed works by authors of the Radical Reformation – points to a veritable serial production in the scriptoria of the brotherhood. In the preface, Resch expressed his intention to provide knowledge of practical relevance for the “brethren in ministry” in a fashion “as reliable as possible, but brief, without long comments” (auffs treulichest, doch kürtzlich, on lange umbreden). Hence, his text does not contain elaborate reflections on salvation history and the failures of Luther and

History Written by the Victims

57

Zwingli; it does not even explain why he decided to commence his chronicle with the execution of Caspar Tauber in Vienna in 1524. Strikingly, Resch included non-Anabaptist evangelicals among the martyrs of the true faith, starting with Tauber. In the cases of Leonhard Kaiser and Georg Wagner (brueder [!] Jerg Wagner), both executed in 1527, it is unclear whether Resch was aware that the two were not Anabaptists. Depicting Tauber as martyr for the true faith in 1524 implies that the true faith existed before the true church was restored. However, the reader is not told whether the true faith was recovered only with the Reformation or had been there even before. The restauration of the true church began with the proto-Anabaptists of Zurich (1525), made gradual progress in Balthasar Hubmaier’s church in Nikolsburg (1526), in the Austerlitz congregation (1528), and in the Auspitz congregation (1531), and was eventually consummated with Jacob Hutter’s rise to leadership in 1533. Resch claimed the whole range of early Anabaptist traditions for the Hutterite church, and regarded pre-1533 Anabaptists of differing, even contradictory convictions altogether as martyrs of the divine truth, e.g. Balthasar Hubmaier (hat also die getlich warhait, und sovil er vonn Got erkennt hat, riterlich mit seinem bluet bezeugt) and his wife (hat auch die gotlich warhait mir irem pluet bezeugt), 87 Hans Hut, Michael Sattler, Leonhard Schiemer, Hans Schlaffer, and Ludwig Haetzer. One peculiarity of the earliest Resch manuscripts is that Resch generously assigned the title of “apostle” to Hutterite preachers and missionaries. 88 The question of whether contemporary preachers have authority equal to that of the ancient Apostles was highly controversial among the Anabaptists. 89 The Hutterites tended to affirm this, but usually they honored only Jacob Hutter expressly as “apostle.” 90 In later copies of Resch’s Concise Manual, the use of the title “apostle” tended to be reduced or eliminated. 3.4 The continuations of Resch’s Concise Manual after 1590 In contrast to the Description of the Events from the Beginning of the World, ending with the conflict in Auspitz in 1533 in all extant manuscripts, Resch’s Concise Manual was expanded beyond the lifetime of the author in at least seventeen manuscripts: to 1594 in no. 22, to 1623 in no. 15, to 1625 in no. 341, to 1627 in no. 428, to 1640 in no. 31, to 1642 in no. 4, to 1654 in no. 382 and in the codex located in

87 No. 22 (1591): Amsterdam, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Doopsgezinde bibliotheek, Hs 65–53, part 2, fol. 18r. 88 E.g. in the 1550 “schematism” in no. 418 (Praha, Univerzita Karlova, Evangelická teologická fakulta, 1 T 23, part 3, fol. 2r); further Beck: Geschicht-Bücher, p. 193 (Michael Martschiller or Matschidel, prisoner in Vienna in 1549). 89 Cf. Packull: Hutterite Beginnings, pp. 133–158. 90 Cf. Martin Rothkegel: “The Living Word: Uses of the Holy Scriptures among Sixteenth-Century Anabaptists in Moravia”, in: Mennonite Quarterly Review 89 (2015), pp. 357–403, here: 386–388.

58

Martin Rothkegel

Conrad Grebel College (Waterloo, Ontario), to 1665 in no. 292, to 1668 in no. 351, to 1674 in no. 370, to 1681 in no. 33, to 1682 in no. 313, to 1694 in nos. 291 and 338, to 1708 in no. 8, and even to 1747 in the case of no. 357. Almost all copies of Resch’s chronicle were explicitly designed for being continued in the future. This can be concluded from the composition of the codices: the second oldest extant manuscript, no. 428 (1590), was bound when it had 190 written pages (to 1590) and 296 blank pages. The blank pages were successively filled by six other scribes with continuations to 1627. No. 22 (1592) had 186 written pages (to 1585) and 256 blank pages at the time of binding, no. 15 (1602) had 164 written pages (to 1602) and 132 blank pages. The same can be observed for the rest of the codices. Even in the latest known copy, no. 370 (1662), 54 pages were left blank for the anticipated future history of the “true church of God.” One wonders whether the continuously decreasing number of blank pages is proportional to the expected remaining duration of the “last age of the world,” but in general Hutterite sources do not reveal much about apocalyptic speculations. The continuations were not individual or private records composed by the owners of the volumes, but they are more or less uniform in all manuscripts. While the manuscripts contain numerous variant readings as well as additions and omissions, all versions appear to be derived from a common source. This source seems to have been the Great Chronicle, the official annalistic records kept by the church leadership, which existed in at least two master copies (see above, 3.2.2). 91 The updates were carried out in irregular intervals, as can be inferred from the changes of scribal hands in the codices. In the following table the scribe who penned the text portion from 1524 to his own present time is always designated as m1, the continuators who penned the updates are designated as m2, m3 etc., with the years to which the last entries of their text portions refer (which are probably also the years in which or shortly after which the updates were penned): No. (date of binding)

m1

m2

m3

m4

m5

m6

m7

No. 428 (1590)

1524–1590

–1600

–1602

–1611

–1619

–1623

–1627

No. 22 (1591)

1524–1586

–1590

–1594

No. 351 (1592)

1524–1591

–1600

–1622

–1648

–1668

No. 15 (1602)

1524–1602

–1619

–1623

No. 31 (1616)

1524–1592

–1594

–1595

–1602

–1613

–1615

–1621

m8

m9

–1625

–1640

91 After 1665, when no blank pages were left in the two master copies of the Great Chronicle, a copy of the Concise Manual, the octavo codex no. 357, probably served as the official master copy until 1694. Cf. Katalog der hutterischen Handschriften, p. 878.

59

History Written by the Victims No. (date of binding)

m1

m2

m3

m4

No. 8 (1630)

1524–1632

–1645

–1694

–1708

No. 313 (1634)

1524–1625

–1639

–1655

–1663

No. 382 (1637)

1524–1639

–1654

No. 291 (1640)

1524–1639

–1641

–1668

–1694

No. 357 (1648)

1524–1660

–1665

–1694

–1747

No. 338 (1650)

1524–1663

–1665

–1694

No. 370 (1662)

1524–1660

–1674

m5

m6

m7

–1668

–1674

–1682

m8

m9

Table 1: Chronicle updates

We know that the Hutterites had the rule that when members or ministers of the church died, all books that were in the possession of the deceased had to be handed over to the preachers or economic managers for redistribution. 92 It seems that on these (and probably also on other) occasions, the chronicles were sent to a central scriptorium to be updated by professional scribes. Sometimes this was done by the “secretary to the elders” himself, who was also in charge of updating the official Great Chronicle, sometimes the updates were carried out by assistant scribes. At any rate, as Matthias Rauert first observed, the same scribal hands which continued the Great Chronicle can also be discerned in the update text portions of several Concise Manual copies. In the middle of the seventeenth century, the bishop Andreas Ehrenpreis and the bookbinder and professional copyist Isaac Dreller were involved in updating many of the extant chronicle manuscripts. 93 3.5 A. L., Origin of the Church of Christ (Ankunft der Kirche Christi), probably 1570 Another important work of Hutterite historiography is entitled Origin of the Church of Christ. The short, but remarkable piece is preserved in at least a dozen codices. In all cases, it is combined with or inserted into other historiographic texts, serving as a prelude or a supplement to other works. Only four manuscripts contain the original title: no. 418 (1584): Praha, Univerzita Karlova, Evangelická teologická fakulta, 1 T 231 (fragments), part 1, fol. 1r–50r; no. 3 (1638): Alba Iulia, Biblioteca

92 Rothkegel: Buchkultur, p. 284. 93 Rauert: Brüder-Schreiber, pp. 109–116.

60

Martin Rothkegel

Naţională, Filiala Batthyaneum, Ms. II–119, fol. 1r–25v; no. 311 (1642): Budapest, Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem Könyvtára, Ab 15, fol. 1r–23v (Beck’s codex “P”); no. 45 (1655): Bratislava, Archív mesta Bratislavy, Hab. 16, fol. 2r–49r (Beck’s codex “XII”), copied from a manuscript dated 1585. In six manuscripts the text or parts of it are inserted without a separate title into the text of Ambrosius Resch’s Concise Manual, mostly between Resch’s preface and the beginning of Resch’s account (Caspar Tauber’s execution in Vienna in 1524): no. 292 (1610) Brno, Moravský zemský archiv, G 10, č. 573, fol. 38r–67r (Beck’s codex “B”); no. 382 (1637): Hamburg, Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, cod. theol. 2133, fol. 27v–53v (Beck’s codex “E”); no. 291 (1640): Brno, Moravský zemský archiv, G 10, č. 563, fol. 25v–49v (Beck’s codex “F”); no. 357 (1648): Esztergom, Főegyházmegyei Könyvtár, MSS. III. 133, fol. 1r–33r (Beck’s codex “F”); no. 33 (nineteenth-century excerpts from a lost manuscript of 1648): Bratislava, Archív mesta Bratislavy, Hab. 4; no. 370 (1662): Esztergom, Főegyházmegyei Könyvtár, MSS. III. 197, fol. 1r–32r (Beck’s codex “L”).

Fig. 5: Title page of A. L., Origin of the Church of Christ, copy dated 1638 (no. 3: Alba Iulia, Biblioteca Naţională, Filiala Batthyaneum, Ms. II–119). Image: Mennonitische Forschungsstelle Weierhof.

History Written by the Victims

61

In three manuscripts, the Origin of the Church of Christ is prefixed to the Hutterite History of the Martyrs (see below, 3.6) as an introduction. This is the case with nos. 3 (1638) and 311 (1642), both listed above, and in one additional codex, no. 337 (1640): Budapest, Országos Széchényi Könyvtár, Quart. Germ. 852, fol. 2r–22r. Further, a partial copy of the Origin of the Church of Christ is found in The Book of the Holy Martyrs of God and Witnesses of Christ the Lord (Das buch von den heilligen martern Gottes und zeugen Christi des Herres, see below, 3.7), a voluminous martyrological compilation preserved in a seventeenth-century copy of 957 written pages, no. 435 (1642): Sibiu, Zentralarchiv der Evangelischen Kirche A. B. in Rumänien, Ms. 1, fol. 163r–186v. The title in the oldest, but fragmentary manuscript, no. 418, reads as follows: Origin of the Church of Christ in Jerusalem after His Birth and Ascension AD 33½ Down to Our Present Time, AD 1525. Additionally, the Church of Antichrist is Described, how She always has been Persecuting the former Down to the Present Hour. A. L. (er kiri zu Jeru, seiner geimelfart ½ bis auf 25. Darnert auch des hichrists kirchen aichnet, wie dise diejenigen allezeit verfolgt hat bis auf dise stunndt. A. L.). 94 The initials “A. L.” (which do not appear in any other manuscript of the Origin) seem to refer to the author, whose full name is not known. One Andreas Lehner was elected preacher in 1587 (confirmed in 1590, † 1595), 95 one Abraham Laub became servant of temporal affairs in 1593 († 1612),96 but there is no evidence for assuming that one of these composed the writing. The text begins with a summary account, based on the Bible and Josephus, from the incarnation of Christ, which took place “almost 4000 years” (vast 4000 jar) after the creation, to the martyrdoms of the Apostles. 97 “Almost 4000 years” obviously alludes to the calculations proposed by Johannes Carion, Philipp Melanchthon, and Johann Funck, according to which Christ was born in anno mundi

94 The unusual date “33½”, referring to Pentecost and Ascension, caused scribal errors in other manuscripts. Two codices read “332,” the third even reads “1585.” In two manuscripts, the date 1525 is replaced by 1570. Cf. no. 3 (1638), Alba Iulia, Biblioteca Naţională, Filiala Batthyaneum, Ms. II–119, fol. 1r: Ankunfft der kirchen Christy zu Jerusalem, nach seiner gepurt und himelfart Anno 332 bis auff dise unsere zeit etc. Anno 1570. Darneben wirtt auch des antychristen versamlung, wie dise jenige allzeit bis auff dise stundt vervolgt hat, verzaichnet; no. 311 (1642), Budapest, Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem Könyvtára, Ab 15, fol. 1r: Ankunfft der kierchen Christy zu Hierusalem nach seiner geburt und himelfart anno 332 bis auf disse unsre zeit anno 1570. Darneben wirt auch des antechristen versamlung, wie dise jenige allzeitt bis auf disse stundt verfolgt hatt, verzaichnet; no. 45 (1655), Bratislava, Archív mesta Bratislavy, Hab. 16, fol. 2r: Ankunfft der kürchen Christy zu Jerusalem nach seiner geburtt und himelfart. Anno 1585. Darneben wirt auch des antechrist gedacht, wie diejenigen allezeit bis auff dise stundt vervolgt hat, hierin verzaichnet. 95 Zieglschmid: Älteste Chronik, pp. 551, 553, 570. 96 Ibid., pp. 567, 657. 97 Printed in Beck: Geschichts-Bücher, pp. 7–9 (Nachdem die völle der zeit herzue komen war […]). Cf. Zieglschmid: Älteste Chronik, pp. 26f. (Zapff’s adaptation of the passage).

62

Martin Rothkegel

3954, 3944, or 3963. 98 Just like their Lutheran contemporaries, the Hutterites considered chronology as evidence for the reliability of the Holy Scriptures, and probably they, too, based apocalyptic expectations on such calculations. The Hutterite preoccupation with chronology, also documented by handwritten chronological treatises bound into some of the preserved bibles of Hutterite provenance, 99 would deserve a more thorough examination. The next section 100 describes a spiritual succession of the true church, continually persecuted by the church of antichrist from Antiquity to the Reformation. Over the course of centuries, the true church was sometimes so suppressed that one might wonder whether she still existed (das man kaum hat sehen können, ob auch ein kirch sey). But God has never allowed His church to be completely extinguished, otherwise the article of faith professing “one Christian church and communion of saints” would be in vain. While sometimes hardly visible (fingerzaigig), there have always been groups of true believers forming the true church of their age. Whenever one group declined spiritually, God built up his church in another place and nation, until the Word of God eventually came to the unworthy Germans in these latter days (an uns unwürdige Teutschen in disen letzten zeiten). The description of the tribulations of the true church in Antiquity follows the traditional pattern of the ten persecutions. After the end of the persecutions, and after the corruption of the Roman church through worldly power under Constantine, Donatus and Arius stood up as witnesses of truth against the increasingly prevalent power of antichrist. The paragraph on Arius is especially interesting because the Hutterite author explicitly rejects the orthodox dogma and professes an Antitrinitarian Christology (which he ascribes to Arius). 101

98 A copy of Carion’s Chronicle in a Hutterite bookbinding is preserved among books which were confiscated from the Hutterites in the 1740s: no. 23, Slovenský národný archív, Knižnica Bratislavskej kapituly, Haer. 39: Johannes Carion: Chronica. Wittenberg [1532]. Cf. Mark A. Lotito: The Reformation of Historical Thought. Leiden, Boston 2020, pp. 129f., 188; Matthias Pohlig: Zwischen Gelehrsamkeit und konfessioneller Indentitätsstiftung: Lutherische Kirchenund Universalgeschichtsschreibung 1546–1617. Tübingen 2007, pp. 207–224. 99 E.g. no. 70, Bratislava, Lyceálna knižnica, V. teol. 55, Bible, German. Zürich 1530: Register der regenten, hertzogen, richter und königen Israels von Abraham biß auff Cristum; no. 247, Slovenský národný archív, Knižnica Bratislavskej kapituly, Haer. 207, Bible, German. Zürich 1530: Register der regenten, hertzogen, richter und künigen Israels von Abraham bis auff Cristum; no. 322, Budapest, Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem Könyvtára, Ant. 2641, Bible, German. Worms 1529: Warhafftige und gewüsse jarzal aller zeyten und jaren von Adamen biß auf Jesum Christum (an edited copy of the chronological appendix of a Zurich Bible edition). 100 Beck prints only the beginning of this section, Beck: Geschichts-Bücher, pp. 9f. (Nun ist das fundament des christlichen glaubens durch die Apostel hin und wider in den lendern gelegt worden […]). 101 No. 292 (1610) Brno, Moravský zemský archiv, G 10, č. 573, fol. 52v–53r: “Anno 344 entstuendt der beredt und geleert man bis zum wunder, Arrius, ein bischoff zu Alexandria in Egipten, straffende die Römische kirch des irrthumbs halb, das sy Gott, den Vatter und Schöpffer aller creaturen, Jesum Christum, den menschen und Gottes Sun, nicht recht underschaiden leeret, sunder bede zusamen, ja ain wesen, supstantz und nattur vermischent. Nenntent den Vatter von natur Gott, den Sun aber einen menschen, underschid | in von dem Vatter dergestalt, das diser

History Written by the Victims

63

From AD 400 to 1500, the account is divided into sections by century, obviously following the innovative schema newly introduced by the Magdeburg Centuries. 102 How did the Hutterite author, A. L., know about it? Even if A. L. knew Latin (which is not unlikely in his case, although most Hutterite authors did not), the costly volumes were certainly out of his reach. The selection of medieval testes veritatis – including among others Allmaricus (i.e. Amalric of Bena), 103 Peter Waldo, Fra Dolcino, John Wyclif, and Jan Hus – partially overlaps with that of Matthias Flacius’s Catalogus (1556) and other contemporary Protestant historiographic constructs. It is unclear, however, whether any additional sources were available to the author besides Sebastian Franck. A. L. laments that at the beginning of the sixteenth century, the clergy of the antichristian Roman church was in such a completely desolate state that “ungodliness and finances were altogether the daily bread of these holy people” (wie nun alles gottloß weßen und finantzen auff ein hauffen diser heilligen leüt täglich brot war).104 Whereas Erasmus of Rotterdam, a luminary of the German people (zier deutscher nacion), pointed at the evils of popery only decently and politely in his Latin writings, Martin Luther valiantly stripped off the robe of the Roman harlot in the front and in the back. But what Luther did was just like demolishing an old house without building a new one. When Ulrich Zwingli joined Luther’s struggle against popery, the two soon started to quarrel over the sacrament, resulting in the rise of two rude and impenitent sects whose piety consists of nothing else than inflating knowledge, eating meat on fast days, marrying, and reviling monks and clergy. 105

102

103 104 105

mensch und Sun Gottes göttlicher nattur allain mer dann alle andere gemaine menschen thailhafftig were, als: ‘Der Vatter, der in mir ist’ [John 14:10], sagt nit: Der Sun nach der Gotthait thuet dise werckh. Und umb diser gemainschafft und tailhafftigkeit willen wirt auch Christus Gott genennt. Und wo die schrifft von der ainigkeit Gottes des Vatters und Suns redt, verstuendten sy die ainigkeit nit der göttlichen nattur halben, sonder des willens, als: ‘Der pflantzt und der da begeust seind ains.’ So hie ains wirt für ein nattur oder wesen genommen, so ist Paulus und Apollo ein mensch gewest, 1. Cor. 3 [8]. Sonder wie man von zwayen gueten freünden redt, sy sein ains, maint man, sy sein fridlich ains willens unnd sinns. Also wirt ains von Christo und seiner gemain, Joan. 17 [11, 21], auch verstanden. Item Joan. 10 [30], Gal. 3 [28]: ‘Ir sind all ains in Christo’ – aber nit ein ding. Diser Arrius het ein grossen anhang von vilen berüembten leiten in orient und occident, doch von dem gegentail als auffrüerer und widertauffer übel berichtet.” The paragraph is based on Sebastian Franck: Chronica. Ulm 1536 (facsimile Darmstadt 1969). Part 3, fol. 88v–89r. The short paragraph on Arius in the Great Chronicle abstains from explicit assent to Arius’s doctrine, Zieglschmid: Älteste Chronik, p. 35. Cf. Johannes Burkhardt: Die Entstehung der modernen Jahrhundertrechnung: Ursprung und Ausbildung einer historiographischen Technik von Flacius bis Ranke. Göppingen 1971; Heinz Scheible: Die Entstehung der Magdeburger Zenturien: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der historiographischen Methode. Gütersloh 1966; Harald Bollbuck: Wahrheitszeugnis, Gottes Auftrag und Zeitkritik: Die Kirchengeschichte der Magdeburger Zenturien und ihre Arbeitstechniken. Wiesbaden 2014. Cf. Franck: Chronica, part 3, fol. 91r. No. 3 (1638), Alba Iulia, Biblioteca Naţională, Filiala Batthyaneum, Ms. II–119, fol. 21v. Beck: Geschichts-Bücher, p. 12, note 2.

64

Martin Rothkegel

The account continues: Driven by divine zeal, Thomas Müntzer, Hans Denck, Ludwig Haetzer, and others delved deeper into unmasking the seduction of antichrist in 1525 and came to recognize the two signs of the beast: infant baptism and the doctrine of real presence in the Lord’s Supper. They recognized that the true church must be completely separate from the world and live according to the commandments of Christ. In order to form such a church, God raised up certain men in Switzerland such as Balthasar Hubmaier, Conrad Grebel, Felix Mantz, and Georg [Blaurock] from Chur. 106 It seems that the text originally ended at this point. This is in agreement with the wording of the title in the earliest manuscript, no. 418 (1584), according to which the text describes the period from Christ “down to our present time, AD 1525.” In most manuscripts (nos. 311, 292, 382, 291, 357, 370), though, a paragraph on Thomas Müntzer is appended, which is an extract of the piece entitled On the Martyrs in the German Lands Slain by the Roman Church, 1525–1558 (see above, 3.1). Further, in manuscripts nos. 45, 3, 311, and 337, the Origin of the Church of Christ is followed by the Account of the Schism at Auspitz in 1533 (3.1). To bridge the gap between 1525 and the schism at Auspitz in 1533, these manuscripts insert a text passage compiled from other Hutterite chronicles. Two manuscripts, nos. 3 and 311, claim on the title page that the account leads down to 1570 (bis auf dise unsere zeit anno 1570), but none of the preserved manuscripts is continued beyond 1533. In any case, it seems that the Origin of the Church of Christ was indeed composed in or shortly after 1570 by the unidentified author A. L., and that he originally intended to continue down to 1570. This can be inferred from the observation that he started the section on the sixteenth century with a subheading “AD 1500 down to the 70th year” (Anno 1500 biß auf das 70. jar). The assumption that the Origin of the Church of Christ was written in the 1570s corresponds to the observation that the text was used in 1580/81 by Hauprecht Zapff in the Great Chronicle, some passages of which are obviously dependent on the Origin. 107 However, Zapff did not adopt A. L.’s theory that the true church had existed throughout all centuries following Christ or his chronology, nor did Zapff share the sympathy with controversial figures like Arius and Thomas Müntzer expressed by A. L. in the Origin. 3.6 History of the Martyrs (Geschichtbuch der Märtyrer Christi), after 1605 As noted above (3.1), the Moravian Anabaptists started to compile lists and catalogues of martyrs as early as 1531, and several extant Hutterite martyrological texts seem to antedate the release of the major mid-sixteenth-century Protestant martyr-

106 Printed in: Ibid. 107 E.g. Zieglschmid: Älteste Chronik, pp. 26f., is based on the opening section of the Origin, cf. Beck: Geschichts-Bücher, pp. 7–9 (“Nachdem die völle der zeit herzue komen war […]”).

History Written by the Victims

65

ologies by Ludwig Rabus (1552), Jean Crespin (1554), Adrian Cornelisz van Haemstede (1559), John Foxe (1559, 1563), and Heinrich Pantaleon (1563). 108 These highly popular Lutheran and Reformed martyr books seem to have inspired the compilation of “private” Hutterite martyr books like the one in Wastel Kremser’s personal devotional collection of 1580/81, no. 35: Bratislava, Archív mesta Bratislavy, Hab. 6, fol. 72r–81v and 574r–584r (from the Apostles to 1563), and another in Caspar Artlof’s devotional collection of 1581, no. 356: Esztergom, Főegyházmegyei Könyvtár, MSS. III. 128, fol. 280r–286v (from 1524 to 1565, partially based on Ambrosius Resch’s Concise Manual). Another martyrological compilation similar to Wastel Kremser’s is contained in no. 435 (1642), Sibiu, Zentralarchiv der Evangelischen Kirche A. B. in Rumänien, Ms. 1, fol. 138v–153v (from Polycarp of Smyrna to 1558). In contrast to no. 404 (see above, 3.1), Thomas Müntzer is not mentioned in these three manuscripts. At some point of time after 1605, the Hutterite church leadership deemed it necessary to respond to the need for an official Hutterite martyr book by releasing the History of the Martyrs, preserved in at least ten manuscripts: no. 349 (1616): Esztergom, Főegyházmegyei Könyvtár, MSS. II. 505, fol. *1r–199r (Beck’s codex “Q”); no. 32 [first third of the seventeenth century]: Bratislava, Archív mesta Bratislavy, Hab. 2, 1r–282v (incomplete, the beginning and the end of the text are missing; Beck’s codex “M”); no. 456 (1635): Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka, R 414, fol. 1r–224v; no. 3 (1638): Alba Iulia, Biblioteca Naţională, Filiala Batthyaneum, Ms. II–119, fol. 36r–227v; no. 23 (1640): Amsterdam, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Doopsgezinde bibliotheek, Hs 65–54, fol. 1r–205v; no. 337 (1640): Budapest, Országos Széchényi Könyvtár, Quart. Germ. 852, fol. 32r–196v; no. 311 (1642): Budapest, Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem Könyvtára, Ab 15, fol. 33r–194r (Beck’s codex “P”); no. 435 (1641): Sibiu, Zentralarchiv der Evangelischen Kirche A. B. in Rumänien, Ms. 1, fol. 270v–488v; no. 348 (1647): Esztergom, Főegyházmegyei Könyvtár, MSS. II. 296, *1r–190v (Beck’s codex “R”); no. 414 (1649): Pécs, Egyetem Központi Könyvtára, Klimo gyűjtemény, X.X.14, fol. *1r–*9v, 1r–158v. The title of the martyr book reads in the oldest preserved manuscript, no. 349: History Book of the Martyrs of Christ, who have been Executed for the Sake of Faith and the Divine Truth in this Our Time in All Places in the German Land, by Fire, Water, and the Sword, and have Borne Witness by Their Blood: What was Dealt with Them, and how Manly, Sincere, and Steadfast They were; further, how Fierce Persecution, Cross, and Tribulation the Church has Suffered in this Time; very Consoling to Read for all Godly. Rev. 13 [10]: Here is the Patience and the Faith of the Saints. Matt. 10 [22], 24 [13]: He that Endureth to the End shall be Saved (Geschicht buech der martterer Christy, welche zue disser unsserer zeit an allen ortten im Teütschen land umb des glaubens und der göttlichen warhait willen durch

108 On the mid-seventeenth-century Protestant martyrology, cf. Gregory: Salvation at Stake; Burschel: Sterben und Unsterblichkeit; further: Andrea Strübind, Klaas-Dieter Voss (eds.): Märtyrerbücher und ihre Bedeutung für konfessionelle Identität und Spiritualität in der Frühen Neuzeit: Interkonfessionelle und interdisziplinäre Beiträge zur Erforschung einer Buchgattung. Tübingen 2019.

66

Martin Rothkegel

feuer, wasser und schwert hingericht seindt worden und mit irem bluet bezeugt haben, was mit innen gehandlet, wie sie so mandlich, redlich und standhafftig gewessen sein, auch was schwärer vervolgung, creitz und triebsall die gemain disser zeit erlitten hat, allen fromen gar tröstlich zu lesen. Apoca. 13: Hie ist die gedult und glaub der heilligen. Math. 10. 24: Wer biß ans endt beharret, der wirt sällig). The same wording (with slight variations) is found in nos. 3, 23, 311, 435, 348, and 414.

Fig. 6: Title page of the History of the Martyrs, copy dated 1640 (no. 23: Amsterdam, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Doopsgezinde bibliotheek, Hs 65– 54). Image: Mennonitische Forschungsstelle Weierhof.

All ten examined manuscripts have a lengthy preface: Apostle Paul admonished the believers to remember the martyrs (Heb. 13:7), and Esdras (2 Esd. 2:42–48) saw the glorious fold of the martyrs on Mount Sion. They are examples of faithful steadfastness for the believers. The present book cannot enumerate all of them; many more have been executed for the sake of faith in the German lands, especially in the beginning [probably referring to the initial years of the Reformation or the Anabaptist movement]. The faithful have always been persecuted. Abel was the first and many followed in the Old Testament. Christ himself and his Apostles were not spared. The ancient church historians like Eusebius of Caesarea describe the persecutions of the early Christians. They were not called saints by their contemporaries,

History Written by the Victims

67

but heretics, rebels, and seducers, just as the witnesses of Jesus of present time are still being reviled by their persecutors. After the Roman emperors, the Roman popes and the church of antichrist, the Babylonian harlot, started to persecute innocent people for the sake of faith, especially in Italy and Germany. The preface continues: This martyr book is devoted to the martyrs of the present time. Now, in the last age of the world, the voice of the turtle dove is heard again (Song 2:12), and God lets the light of faith and undefiled truth burst out everywhere in the German lands, and the church, the Christian mother, gathers her children. How much blood is now being shed in the German lands! The persecutors try to suppress the faith by all means, but persons of both sexes, young and old, have remained steadfast to the end. Some of them died before they had received water baptism but were baptized by their own blood. Many did not live to join the [Hutterite] church, but died for the truth that they had merely heard, understood, and believed in. But woe betide the persecutors and those in power! At the Last Judgement, their victims will be resurrected, and the persecutors will be judged. Emperor, king, and peasant will be equal, the laws and mandates of the worldly rulers will be void, the princes will not be princes anymore, and the lords no longer lords. Then they will see whom they pierced (John 19:37), and God alone will rule. God will put an end to all human authorities; their hourglass will not run forever. 109 The main part of the martyr book starts with two short introductory paragraphs: First, the author (or compiler) points out that the following catalogue of martyrs is limited to recent events and to the German lands. It does not contain all true martyrs, but especially those of the Hutterite church because reliable information is available on them (saying so, the author implies that there were true martyrs also outside the Hutterite church). The second paragraph explains that from 1519 on, Luther and Zwingli unmasked the iniquity of popery and kindled a “partial” light (und zum tail ein liecht aufgesteckht) but did not follow it themselves. They allied themselves with the worldly power, the power of darkness, and as a result their followers are ungodly people. In the beginning, however, there were some who embraced Luther’s and Zwingli’s teachings in good faith and died as true martyrs. The catalogue of true martyrs starts with the Augustinians in Brussels († 1523) and Caspar Tauber († 1524). All following martyrs were Anabaptists (or were regarded as such by the author): Felix Mantz († 1527), Wolfgang Uliman († 1530), Melchior Veit, the prisoners in Zurich mentioned by Balthasar Hubmaier († 1525/26), 110 Balthasar Hubmaier and his wife († 1528), Martin Göschl (died in lifelong prison after being arrested in 1528), and so on. For the period from 1531, virtually all included martyr stories referring to persons affiliated with or somehow connected with the Hutterites. Thomas Müntzer is not mentioned at all, and it seems that his name had intentionally been deleted from the list of “official” Hutterite martyrs after 1580. 109 The text is printed (with a misleading ascription to the Hutterite martyr Hans Mändel) in: Die Hutterischen Epistel 1527 bis 1763. Vol. IV. (Ed. Hutterite Brethren in America). Elie, Manitoba 1991, pp. 360–379. 110 Cf. Gunnar Westin, Torsten Bergsten (eds.): Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften. Gütersloh 1962, pp. 169f.

68

Martin Rothkegel

In the earliest manuscript, no. 349, the text originally ended with the story of the Hutterites Hans Polzinger and Marx Eder who were executed in Ried in Bavaria in 1605 (the rest of the manuscript is a secondary addition by another hand). The conclusion that the History of the Martyrs originally spanned from 1523 to 1605 is confirmed by the observations that in no. 23 the index includes only the stories to 1605 (although in this copy the text is actually continued down to 1618) and that in no. 311 there is a clear cesura after the Polzinger-Eder story (1605), followed by a continuation starting with a new subheading. Hence, the History of the Martyrs must have been compiled no earlier than 1605. Except for the preface, it is not an original work. The martyr stories are mostly verbatim extracts from the Great Chronicle, sometimes with added devotional reflections on the glory of martyrdom and the divine reward of the faithful. 111 Since we know that martyr texts belonged to the reading materials which Hutterite rank and file member were recommended for their spiritual edification, 112 it seems plausible that the martyr book was compiled with the intention of providing a digest of the Great Chronicle for the lay reader. In contrast, the continuations of the Concise Manual, which was intended for the use of the ministry (both preachers and managers), render the entries of the Great Chronicle on martyrdoms in a condensed form only, but contain a much wider selection of information, including all entries on the elections, confirmations, and deaths of ministers, and most entries on the purchase and abandonment of colonies and other real estate. The History of the Martyrs was secondarily updated at least two times. The first addition goes to 1618, down to the martyrdom of Jost Wilhelm and Christina Brünner, two non-baptized sympathizers of the Anabaptist cause who were executed in 1618 near Bregenz before they were able to join the Hutterite church. 113 Manuscripts nos. 456, 3, 23, 337, 311, and 435 end with their story. Another continuation was added after 1622 and describes (with horrific details) the sufferings of the Hutterites in Moravia from the beginning of the Thirty Years War to their expulsion from Moravia in 1622. This second expansion, which corresponds with a passage in some copies of the Concise Manual, 114 is included in manuscripts nos. 349, 348, and 414. It was intended as a formal conclusion of the martyr book and ends with the following lamentation: to describe all cruelties of the imperial troops and their allies would fill a whole large book. The atrocities were so excessive that heaven and earth might have trembled. God will not leave the evildoers unpunished. 115

111 This conclusion is based on a word-by-word comparison between random samples of the History of the Martyrs (no. 3, fol. 75v–76r 1523; no. 23, fol. 136v–137r, 192v–193r; no. 348, fol. 132v–133r 1559, 1560; no. 435, fol. 460v–461) and the corresponding passages in the Great Chronicle, Zieglschmid: Älteste Chronik. 112 Rothkegel: Buchkultur, p. 292. 113 Cf. Zieglschmid: Älteste Chronik, pp. 701–704. 114 Based on a comparison between no. 414, fol. 156r and the copy of the Concise Manual located in Conrad Grebel University College, Waterloo, fol. 140r–141r. 115 Cf. Beck: Geschichts-Bücher, p. 405.

History Written by the Victims

69

3.7 Other Seventeenth-Century Texts From the preceding sections it appears that by 1580, the leadership of the Hutterite church increasingly made historiography an official task of the secretaries of the elders and their assistant scribes. The official chroniclers phrased the annual entries in the master copies of the Great Chronicle and occasionally updated the minor codices on that basis. Also, the History of the Martyrs, issued in the first decade of the seventeenth century, had its origin most probably in the official scriptorium of the church leadership. It seems that besides the continuations of the official church chronicle, very few new historiographical texts were composed and circulated as independent text units. One such case was the monographic Description of the Unprecedented, Horrific Tribulation which Befell, besides other People, the Rebellious Hungarians in the Year 1605 (Beschreibung des zuvorhin unerhörten schröckhlichen triebsals, welcher sich neben andern leitten auch uber die rebelischen Ungern zue getragen hatt im 1605. jar), secondarily inserted into the History of the Martyrs in manuscript no. 311 (Budapest, Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem Könyvtára, Ab 15, fol. 194r–205v). The vivid and detailed account describes the sufferings of the Hutterites during the war between the Calvinist prince of Transylvania, István Bocskai, and Giorgio Basta, commander of the Habsburg troops. While the Hutterites were accused by Catholic clergy and Habsburg authorities of sympathizing with Bocskai’s cause, they became the target of Bocskai’s Turkish auxiliary troops which looted Western Slovakia and Southern Moravia in 1605. Almost one third of all Hutterite colonies then existing in Moravia and most of the Hutterite outposts on the Slovakian side of the border were destroyed, many members were killed, and 238 Hutterite children, women, and men were sold into slavery in the Ottoman Empire. 116 A list of the victims of 1605, killed or captured, with notes on their fates until 1616 is probably based on records kept by the Hutterite church administration, but can also be read as a martyrological text (no. 61, Bratislava, Lyceálna knižnica, Rkp. zv. 200, fol. 1r–7r). Not a narrative text, but also worth mentioning here is a collection of letters written by the Hutterite miller Salomon Böger on his journey from Moravia to Constantinople from 1607 to 1610. Böger’s wife was one of the Hutterite captives enslaved in 1605 and sold to the Ottoman Empire. With the permission of the brotherhood, Böger traveled via Buda, Belgrade, and Adrianople to Constantinople and back to Western Slovakia. On his way, he ransomed several Hutterite captives, but could not find his wife. A second journey brought him as far as Nicea (İznik), where he was eventually murdered. The unusual correspondence, 116 On the effects of the Bocskai uprising on Moravia, cf. František Kameníček (ed.): Prameny ke vpádům Bočkajovců na Moravu a k ratifikaci míru vídeňského od zemí koruny české roku 1605–1606 [Sources on the raids of Bosckai’s troops in Moravia and on the ratification of the Peace of Vienna by the Lands of the Bohemian Crown, 1605–1606]. Praha 1894; Josef Polišenský, Jiří Hrubeš: “Bocskaiovy vpády na Moravu r. 1605 a její ohlas ve veřejném mínění” [Bocskai’s raids in Moravia in 1605 as reflected by public opinion], in: Historické štúdie (Bratislava) 7 (1961), pp. 133–159.

70

Martin Rothkegel

full of remarkable details, is preserved in the same (quite flawed) nineteenth-century copy of a lost Hutterite codex (ibid., fol. 7v–54v) as the lists of the victims. As no other manuscript copy of Böger’s collected correspondence is known, it is possible that the collection was kept in the archives of the Hutterite elders but not circulated as reading material in multiple copies. 117 Other lists of Hutterite wartime victims, edited in the fashion of martyrological texts, exist for the victims of raids by Catholic troops from 1618 to 1623 (ibid., fol. 55r–64r), 118 and for the victims of a raid by Catholic troops in 1620, preserved in one case as an appendix to a chronicle and in another case among the martyr songs of a handwritten Hutterite song book: no. 351 (addition penned in 1650): Esztergom, Főegyházmegyei Könyvtár, MSS. III. 112, fol. **21v–**23v; no. 312 (1643): Budapest, Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem Könyvtára, Ab 16, fol. 402. The inclusion of the long victim list in an ordinary member’s song book indicates that such lists were not merely archival documents serving the practical needs of the Hutterite church administration, but that they were also issued as martyrological reading material for the congregation. The last work to be mentioned here probably dates from the period after the expulsion of the Hutterites from Moravia in 1622 when the community was forced to withdraw to the dominions of Protestant noble patrons on Hungarian territory, mostly in Western Slovakia, but also in Burgenland and Transylvania. The manuscript is an exceptionally voluminous martyrology of 956 written pages in large quarto, entitled The Book of God’s Holy Martyrs and Witnesses of Christ the Lord, Briefly Described in Four Parts (Das buch von den heilligen martern Gottes und zeugen Christi des Herres, in vier thail kurtz beschriben). The only extant copy (no. 435, Sibiu, Zentralarchiv der Evangelischen Kirche A. B. in Rumänien, Ms. 1) was copied by Jakob Meyer, a Hutterite sickle smith in Groß-Schützen (Veľké Leváre, Western Slovakia) in 1642. The four books deal 1) with the blood witnesses of the Old Testament, 2) the martyrs of the New Testament from the Innocent Children of Bethlehem to Polycarp of Smyrna, 3) with the martyrs from Polycarp to Constantine the Great, and 4) from Constantine the Great to 1561 (but actually to 1618). Each part has a separate preface. According to the preface to the fourth part, the baptism of Constantine marks the turning point in church history: right from the moment when she was not persecuted any more herself, the Roman church started to persecute all those who refused to revere the pope like God on earth (Do wendet sich das spil umb, und hueb darnach an die Römisch kürch zu vervolgen und zu tödten mit iren taufften kaissern, und verbeutten alle die für ketzer, so es nit mit inen hielten und den Römischen bischoff nit für den höchsten Gott auff erden hielten, und ein vücari sein 117 Robert Friedmann: “Adventures of an Anabaptist in Turkey, 1607–1610”, in: Mennonite Quarterly Review 17 (1943), pp. 73–86; Martin Rothkegel: “Od Nových Mlýnů až po Turecko, 1607–1610: Jak novokřtěnecký mlynář Salomon Pöger hledal svou Turky unesenou manželku” [From Neumühl to Turkey, 1607–1610: How the Anabaptist miller Salomon Böger searched for his wife, kidnapped by the Turks], in: Studia Moravica (Olomouc) 3 (2005), pp. 13–21. 118 Cf. Beck: Geschichts-Bücher, pp. 377–379, 387–391, 400–402, 412, 421–424.

History Written by the Victims

71

müeste oder statthalter Christy, und die Römisch kürch für ein muetter und haupt aller anderen hielt und glaubt). The work has not yet been analyzed in depth. At first glance, it seems that the first parts are compilations largely based on printed sources of Protestant provenance like Ludwig Rabus’ Lutheran martyr book. Part four is a combination of four Hutterite texts. The first is a catalogue of martyrs from the fourth-century Donatists to the Hutterite martyrs of the sixteenth century. This text, covering the period down to 1558 with an addendum referring to 1561, is related to the early Hutterite martyrologies mentioned above in 3.1. The second, third, and fourth subsections are the Description of the Events from the Beginning of the World to the Present Time (3.2.1), the Origin of the Church (3.5), and the History of the Martyrs in its expanded version extending to 1618 (3.6). 1618 is thus the terminus post quem for the extensive compilation. Sickle smith Jakob Meyer’s poor penmanship, his phonetic orthography, and the numerous scribal mistakes, distorting almost all proper names and the occasionally inserted Latin words, make it appear impossible that Meyer himself was the compiler. It seems that besides the updates to the Great Chronicle and the Concise Manual no additional original narrative historiographical prose texts were authored by the Hutterites after their expulsion from Moravia in 1622. The once flourishing community, still numbering ca. 10,000 or even 15,000 persons after the expulsion, dwindled to about 1,000 souls during the seventeenth century. 119 Even though the production of elaborate manuscripts and bookbindings continued to about 1660 in the remaining Hutterite colonies in Western Slovakia and Transylvania, the overall tendency of Hutterite religion and of the Hutterite way of life became increasingly backward oriented and eventually anachronistic. The revival of the Hutterite tradition in the second half of the eighteenth century and the later fates of the community in North America fall beyond the scope of the present survey. 4. CONCLUSION The distinction between several original works of Hutterite historiography proposed in this preliminary exploration leads to a more complex picture of the Hutterite chronicles than Beck’s, Wolkan’s, and Zieglschmid’s text editions seemed to suggest. Three major historiographical works were composed and released for multiplication between 1570 and 1590: The brief Origin of the Church of Christ by A. L., probably composed in 1570; the Description of the Events from the Beginning of the World to the Present Time based on a chronological treatise by Caspar Braitmichel probably written in the 1550s, but secondarily expanded; and the Concise Well-Grounded Manual by Ambrosius Resch, based on records kept since the 1550s, but released for multiplication in expanded versions since the 1580s. 119 Cf. Thomas Winkelbauer: “Die Vertreibung der Hutterer aus Mähren 1622: Massenexodus oder Abzug der letzten Standhaften?”, in: Mennonitische Geschichtsblätter 61 (2004), pp. 65– 96; Pajer: Studie o novokřtěncích, pp. 61–68.

72

Martin Rothkegel

Hauprecht Zapff’s Great Chronicle of 1580/81 marks the transition from individual historiographic projects to official annalistic historiography falling within the competency of the Hutterite church leadership. The History of the Martyrs of ca. 1605, which is actually just a compilation of extracts gleaned from the Great Chronicle, was apparently released by the church leadership in order to replace “private” martyrological compilations by an official, authorized Hutterite martyr book. The Hutterite chronicles belong to the rare cases of Early Modern historiography authored by victims rather than by victors. An experience of disappointment, betrayal, and persecution by the magisterial reformers determined the Hutterite perception of the Reformation. While all Hutterite chroniclers describe the rise of Luther and Zwingli as a decisive turn in salvation history which eventually led to the restauration of the true apostolic church, they articulated nuanced views on the questions whether there was a true church during the period of time between the fall of the Roman church under Constantine the Great and the restauration of believers’ baptism in 1525; whether the testes veritatis of the dark intermediate age professed the full truth or had only an imperfect faith; and whether Luther’s and Zwingli’s doctrines were sufficient for salvation to those who died as martyrs for their cause before 1525. The high appreciation for Thomas Müntzer as a founder of Anabaptism and martyr of the truth was “eliminated” (to use Günter Vogler’s expression) in official Hutterite historiography after 1580, but Müntzer’s memory was kept alive in late sixteenth and seventeenth-century copies of the Origin of the Church (even in the latest copy dated 1662). Antitrinitarian views as those of the ancient heretic Arius and of the Anabaptist martyr Ludwig Haetzer were approved in many copies of the “minor chronicles,” but were not mentioned in the official Great Chronicle or the History of the Martyrs. According to the Hutterites, Luther and Zwingli were prophets sent by God. However, they did not only fall short of their mission, but eventually became instruments of antichrist just like the pope and the whole Roman church before them. The “signs of the beast” marking the distinction between the true Christians and the realm of antichrist are sometimes identified with infant baptism and the doctrine of transubstantiation or real presence. Most important, though, is that the true church, in contrast to Luther and Zwingli, does not enforce faith by violence and persecution because “faith is a gift of God and cannot be forced.” 120

120 Beck: Geschichts-Bücher, p. 15.

2. CULTIVATING PROTESTANT PERSPECTIVES

REFORMATIONSGESCHICHTSSCHREIBUNG IM UMFELD DER WITTENBERGER UNIVERSITÄTSTHEOLOGIE DES FRÜHEN 17. JAHRHUNDERTS Daniel Bohnert Abstract: The interest in the Reformation as a subject of Lutheran Church historiography is inextricably connected with the memorial and apologetic interests of later Lutheran theologians in the life and work of Martin Luther. As part of a comprehensive church history from its beginnings, the Wittenberg theologian Eusebius Bohemus provides in his Epitome (1626) a short history of the Reformation, the life and work of Luther and early Lutheranism until the Book of Concord (1580). The Epitome was intended as a continuation of the work of the same name written by the Strasbourg theologian Johannes Pappus on the history of the old church. Unlike others who offer comprehensive collections of material, Bohemus provides just a brief survey. The paper examines the approach taken by Bohemus, the concept behind his work and selected parts. The guiding question is in which way and to what end church historiography of the Reformation and Lutheranism was practiced in relation to Wittenberg university theology in the early seventeenth century. Zusammenfassung: Das Interesse an der Reformation als Gegenstand einer lutherischen kirchlichen Historiographie ist nicht zu trennen von dem memorialen und apologetischen sowie identitätsstiftenden Interesse an Leben und Werk Martin Luthers seitens der Reformatoren der zweiten und dritten Generation. Teil einer umfassenden kirchenhistorischen Darstellung von Anbeginn wurden die Reformation, das Leben und Wirken Luthers und die Geschichte des jungen Luthertums bis zum Konkordienbuch (1580) in der Epitome (1626) des angehenden Theologen Eusebius Bohemus. Es handelt sich dabei um eine Fortschreibung des gleichnamigen Werkes des Straßburger lutherischen Theologen Johannes Pappus zur Geschichte der Alten Kirche. Während andere Zeitgenossen umfassende Materialsammlungen aufbieten, gibt die Epitome des Bohemus einen kurzen Überblick. In dem Beitrag werden Ansatz und Konzeption der Epitome sowie ausgewählte Abschnitte untersucht. Erkenntnisleitend ist die Frage, auf welche Weise und mit welchen Zielen im Umfeld der Wittenberger Universitätstheologie des frühen 17. Jahrhunderts kirchliche Historiographie der Reformation und des jungen Luthertums betrieben wurde.

Das Interesse an der Reformation als Gegenstand einer lutherischen kirchlichen Historiographie ist nicht zu trennen von dem zunächst memorialen und sodann apologetischen sowie identitätsstiftenden Interesse an Leben und Werk Martin Luthers seitens der Reformatoren der zweiten und dritten Generation. 1 Teil einer umfassenden kirchenhistorischen Darstellung von Anbeginn wurden die Reformation, das 1

Vgl. die grundlegende Untersuchung von Matthias Pohlig: Zwischen Gelehrsamkeit und konfessioneller Identitätsstiftung: Lutherische Kirchen- und Universalgeschichtsschreibung 1546–

76

Daniel Bohnert

Leben und Wirken Luthers und die Geschichte des jungen Luthertums bis zur Veröffentlichung des Konkordienbuchs (1580) in der Epitome Historiae Ecclesiasticae (1626) des angehenden Theologen Eusebius Bohemus. 2 Dieser war ein Schüler des Wittenberger Theologieprofessors, Stadtkirchenpfarrers und Generalsuperintendenten des Kurkreises Friedrich Balduin, der in seinen Schriften immer wieder zur Beschäftigung mit der Kirchengeschichte anregte und von dem ebenfalls ein (handschriftlicher) Entwurf zur Geschichte der Alten Kirche überliefert ist. 3 Es handelt sich bei der Epitome des Bohemus um eine Fortschreibung des gleichnamigen Werkes des Straßburger lutherischen Theologen Johannes Pappus zur Geschichte der Alten Kirche, welche dazu dienen sollte, die Geschichte der Reformation und des Luthertums in den Rahmen der gesamten kirchlichen Historiographie einzufügen. 4

2

3

4

1617. Tübingen 2007 sowie exemplarisch Hans-Peter Hasse: „Die Lutherbiographie von Nikolaus Selnecker: Selneckers Berufung auf die Autorität Luthers im Normenstreit der Konfessionalisierung in Kursachsen“, in: Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 86 (1995), S. 91–123. Eusebius Bohemus: Epitome historiae Ecclesiasticae novi testamenti. Continens brevem narrationem & expositionem Praecognitorum Chronologicorum Item: I. Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum, II. Conversionis Gentium, III. Persecutionum & Martyriorum, IV. Haeresium […] / Ex quibus Membra quatuor priora, olim Johannes Pappus […] in Epitome sua paucis inchoavit, quae iam de novo […] sunt recognita […] augmentata, […] Omnia etiam ad haec nostra usque tempora fideliter continuata. Wittenberg 1626. Hinzuweisen ist außerdem auf Eusebius Bohemus: Historische Relation und Beschreibung der evangelischen Churfürsten zu Sachsen. Wittenberg 1626. Zu Balduin vgl. Daniel Bohnert: Wittenberger Universitätstheologie im frühen 17. Jahrhundert. Eine Fallstudie zu Friedrich Balduin (1575–1627). Tübingen 2017, S. 224, 229 (und 379 für den Hinweis auf die bisher nicht untersuchte Handschrift De veteris Ecclesiae statu et conditione ab Apostolis usque ad Constantini tempora, Commentariorum). Johannes Pappus: [Epitome] Historiae ecclesiasticae de conversionibus gentium, persecutionibus ecclesiae, haeresibus et conciliis oecumenis, epitome. Straßburg 1584 [21596]. Vgl. auch die Wittenberger Ausgabe: Ders.: Epitome historiae ecclesiasticae: De conversionibus gentium, persecutionibus eclesiae, haeresibus, & conciliis oecumenicus, ex praecipuis scriptoribus ecclesiasticis collecta. Wittenberg 1604, 21612. Vgl. dazu die Hinweise bei Euan Cameron: „One Reformation or many? Protestant identities in the later Reformation in Germany“, in: Ole Peter Grell, Bob Scribner (Hg.): Tolerance and Intolerance in the European Reformation. Cambridge 2002, S. 108–127; ders.: „Primitivism, Patristics, and Polemic in Protestant Visions of Early Christianity“, in: Katherine Van Liere, Simon Ditchfield, Howard Louthan (Hg.): Sacred History: Uses of the Christian Past in the Renaissance World. Oxford 2012, S. 27–51. Vgl. weiterhin die Hinweise bei Pohlig: Zwischen Gelehrsamkeit und konfessioneller Identitätsstiftung, S. 242–243, 271, 400–402 sowie speziell zu Pappus J. Horning: Johannes Pappus von Lindau. Straßburg 1891; Hans-Werner Gensichen: Damnamus. Die Verwerfung von Irrlehre bei Luther und im Luthertum des 16. Jahrhunderts. Berlin 1955, S. 134–143; „Pappus: Johannes P.“, in: Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie 25 (1887), S. 163–164; „Pappus, Johannes“, in: Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon 6 (1993), Sp. 1497–1502.

Reformationsgeschichtsschreibung im Umfeld der Wittenberger Universitätstheologie

77

Während kontroverstheologisch motivierte und zugleich historiographisch relevante Werke wie etwa die Concordia concors (1614) 5 von Leonhard Hutter umfassende Materialsammlungen aufbieten, gibt die Epitome des Bohemus einen konzisen Überblick. 6 In Ermangelung eingehender Untersuchungen zu diesem Problemzusammenhang sind im Folgenden zunächst Ansatz und Konzeption der Epitome sowie ausgewählte Abschnitte zu untersuchen. Dabei soll neben dem Fokus auf Inhalt und Form der Darstellung ein besonderes Augenmerk auf der Frage nach der Abfassungsintention, dem Verständnis von Kirchengeschichtsschreibung sowie der Gewichtung des dargebotenen Stoffes und den benutzten Quellen liegen. Erkenntnisleitend ist die Frage, auf welche Weise und mit welchen Zielen im Umfeld der Wittenberger Universitätstheologie des frühen 17. Jahrhunderts kirchliche Historiographie der Reformation und des jungen Luthertums betrieben worden ist. Ihre Beantwortung erfolgt in vier Schritten: 1) Zunächst ist eine kurze Betrachtung von Leben und Werk des Verfassers Eusebius Bohemus vorzunehmen – mit Fokus auf die Bildungsbiografie, besonders, insoweit sie das Feld der kirchlichen Historiographie berührt. 2) Sodann erfolgt eine Spurensuche zur theologischen Kirchengeschichtsbetrachtung innerhalb der Wittenberger Universitätstheologie des frühen 17. Jahrhunderts – mit besonderem Blick auf Friedrich Balduin, den Lehrer von Bohemus. 3) Es schließt sich eine kurze Analyse der Vorrede der Epitome an, in der Bohemus Aufgaben und Funktionen kirchlicher Historiographie und ihre methodische Umsetzung thematisiert, sowie eine Skizze des Werkaufbaus. 4) 4) Schließlich erfolgt eine kurze Betrachtung ausgewählter Aspekte aus seiner Darbietung von Leben, Reformation und Sterben Martin Luthers als gleichsam Kernstück dieser Reformationsgeschichtsdarstellung.

5

6

Leonhard Hutter: Concordia concors. De origine et progressu formulae concordiae ecclesiarum confessionis augustanae. 2 Bde. Wittenberg 1614/16. Es handelte sich dabei um eine umfassende Replik auf die Concordia discors (1607) des Schweizer reformierten Theologen Rudolph Hospinian. Vgl. dazu das Göttinger Dissertationsprojekt von Lars Röser: Konfessionalisierung und Expertenkultur. Leonhard Hutter als lutherischer Kontroverstheologe. Pappus: Epitome, S. 14 begründet die Wahl des Genres unter Hinweis auf die bessere Auffindbarkeit der wichtigen Daten: „Cùm autem varia illa sit, & multiplex: constitui breuem quandam illius επιτομήν, tanquam in Tabella aliqua proponere: vt quæ apud tam multos Authores quasi dispersa iacent, eorum memoriam, quoties volumus, faciliùs repetamus.“

78

Daniel Bohnert

1. EUSEBIUS BOHEMUS – LEBEN UND WERK Eusebius Bohemus wurde am 4. Mai 1598 als Sohn des Archidiakonus und späteren Pfarrers und Superintendenten in Zwickau Eusebius Bohemus d. Ä. ebendort geboren. 7 Der akademisch gebildete Vater unterrichtete seinen Sohn zunächst in den alten Sprachen und Grundlagen des Wissens. Anschließend besuchte der junge Bohemus die Schulen seines Heimatortes – zuletzt das hochangesehene Gymnasium. Am 12. Oktober 1618 immatrikulierte er sich an der Universität Wittenberg (Leucorea), wo bereits sein Vater studiert hatte. 8 Am 1. April 1623 wurde Bohemus unter dem Dekanat des Professors für Logik und Metaphysik Jakob Martini an der dortigen Philosophischen Fakultät zum Magister Artium promoviert. 9 Bereits zuvor hatte er den einflussreichen Theologieprofessor Friedrich Balduin kennengelernt, der den ersten Rang unter den an der Leucorea lehrenden Theologen bekleidete, mithin den Titel Professor primarius führte und zugleich als Stadtkirchenpfarrer, Generalsuperintendent und Konsistorialassessor amtierte. 10 Seine wohl nicht zuletzt durch den guten Namen des Vaters geförderten Kontakte, aber auch seine akademischen Leistungen dürften Bohemus den Erhalt des kurfürstlichen Stipendiums

7

Zu seiner Biographie vgl. Stadtkirchenarchiv (im Folgenden StKA) Wittenberg, Wittenberger Ordiniertenbuch, Bd. VI (1605–1627), Nr. 804; Tobias Schmidt: Chronica Cygnea Oder Beschreibung Der sehr alten, Löblichen, und Churfürstlichen Stadt Zwickau: Von derselben Lager, Erbauung, Gebäuden, Einwohnern, Gelegenheit, von ihren Regenten, wie auch Beampten in Geist- und Weltlichen Stande. Zwickau 1656, S. 399; Johann Chr. Erdmann: Memoria Diaconorum Wittenbergensium. Wittenberg 1789; ders.: Nachricht von den Mitgliedern des geistlichen Ministeriums an der Stadt und Pfarrkirche, wie auch Pestdiaconis in Wittenberg vom Anfange des 16ten Jahrhunderts bis auf gegenwärtige Zeit, aus glaubwürdigen Urkunden mitgetheilt. Wittenberg 1801, Nr. 67 [nennt 1598 als Geburtsjahr]; ders.: Supplemente und Berichtigungen zur Biographie der Wittenbergerischen Diaconen vom Anfange des 16. Jahrhunderts an bis auf gegenwärtige Zeit. Wittenberg 1808; Karl A. Hennicke: Beiträge zur Ergänzung und Berichtigung des Jöcher’schen Allgemeinen Gelehrten Lexikon’s und des Meusel’schen Lexikon’s der von 1750 bis 1800 verstorbenen teutschen Schriftsteller. Drittes Stück. Leipzig 1812, S. 24; sowie für eine Würdigung von Leben und Werk Daniel Bohnert, Markus Wriedt: Theologiae Alumni Vitebergenses. Die graduierten Absolventen der Theologischen Fakultät und deren Beitrag zu Distribution und Diffusion der Wittenberger Theologie (1502 bis 1648). Leipzig 2020. 8 Vgl. die entsprechenden Matrikeleinträge: Eusebius Bohemus d. Ä. (SS 1581, Nr. 84). URL: https://www.civ-online.org/de/service/datenbank/#/matrikel/59cbe9a4d310d83800000e 73?offset=167 (letzter Zugriff: 31.01.2021); Eusebius Bohemus d. J. (SS 1618, Nr. 276). URL: https://www.civ-online.org/de/service/datenbank/#/matrikel/59cbe9a4d310d8380000bf fa?offset=1 (letzter Zugriff: 31.01.2021). 9 Universitätsarchiv Halle, Rep. I, XXXXV, Nr. I, Bd. 3: Philosophisches Dekanatsbuch (1600– 1650), Bl. 124r. 10 Der zum Tode von Dorothea Balduin – der ersten Ehefrau des genannten Theologen – durch den Kantor der Wittenberger Schlosskirche Johann Dilliger herausgegebenen Trauerschrift hatte Bohemus ein Trauergedicht beigefügt. Vgl. Johann Dilliger: Schönes Trostsprüchlein. Genommen aus den Klagliedern Jeremiae/ Cap. 3, 22. Und mit 5. Stimmen zum Trost und Erquickung den hinderlassenen verfertiget: Bey den tödlichen Abgang aus dieser recht elenden Welt […] Der […] Dorotheen Meisnerin. Wittenberg 1622.

Reformationsgeschichtsschreibung im Umfeld der Wittenberger Universitätstheologie

79

beschert haben. 11 Nach Auskunft der entsprechenden Stipendiatenmatrikel erhielt er – zuvor Exspektant – seit dem ersten Quartal 1623 neben weiteren 51 Philosophie- und Theologiestudenten jährlich 30 fl aus landesherrlichen Mitteln. 12 Akademische Lehrtätigkeit an der Philosophischen und Vertiefung der Studien an der Theologischen Fakultät gingen fortan Hand in Hand: Dem Eintrag in die Stipendiatenmatrikel zum zweiten Quartal 1624 – seit dem ersten Quartal erhielt er indes bereits 40 fl pro Jahr – folgt die Bemerkung des Ephorus: „In Theologicis benè proficit.“ 13 Zugleich führte Bohemus seit Oktober 1624 den Titel eines Magister legens und ergänzte damit das offizielle Lehrangebot der Philosophischen Fakultät. 14 An der Theologischen Fakultät der Leucorea lehrten Anfang der 1620er Jahre neben Friedrich Balduin noch Balthasar Meisner, Wolfgang Franz und Nikolaus Hunnius sowie der ebenfalls bereits erwähnte, nunmehr in die oberste Fakultät aufgerückte Jakob Martini. 15 So disputierte Bohemus am 17. August 1625 unter dem Vorsitz Meisners im Rahmen eines theologischen Kollegiums De Systematis Theologicis über das Thema De Religione Lutherana, quam comprehendit Augustana Confessio et Formula Concordiae. 16 In diesen Jahren des vertieften Theologiestudiums dürfte die Epitome entstanden sein, deren Vorrede auf den 1. Mai 1626 datiert. Die Epitome markierte in gewisser Weise auch zunächst das Ende seines akademischen Studiums. Mit dem Eintrag in die Stipendiatenmatrikel zum dritten Quartal 1626 berichtet der Ephorus bereits von seinem Ausscheiden: „Proximis Diebus Designatus Diaconus Ecclesiae Witebergensis.“ Am 12. September 1626 wurde Bohemus zum vierten Diakonus an die Wittenberger Stadtpfarrkirche berufen. 17 Am Tag darauf erfolgten Examen und Ordination durch Balduin, den Bo-

11 Zur frühen Geschichte des landesherrlichen Stipendienwesens an der Universität Wittenberg vgl. Ulrike Ludwig: Das landesherrliche Stipendienwesen an der Universität Wittenberg unter den ernestinischen Kurfürsten von Sachsen. Leipzig 2019. Für die zweite Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts liegen mit Andreas Gössner: Die Studenten an der Universität Wittenberg. Studien zur Kulturgeschichte des studentischen Alltags und zum Stipendienwesen in der zweiten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts. Leipzig 2003 erste Ergebnisse vor. Für die erste Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts fehlen entsprechende Untersuchungen gänzlich. 12 Städtische Sammlungen Wittenberg (ehemals Ratsarchiv), Stipendiatenverzeichnis (1605– 1660), Bl. 123r, 126v, 129r. 13 Ebd., Bl. 140v. 14 UA Halle, Rep. I, XXXXV, Nr. I, Bd. 3. 15 Armin Kohnle, Beate Kusche (Hg.): Professorenbuch der Theologischen Fakultät der Universität Wittenberg 1502 bis 1815/17. Leipzig 2016, S. 249. 16 Balthasar Meisner: In Systematis Theologici Partem Primam Generalem De Religione Et Eius Articulis Generatim consideratis Disputatio III. De Religione Lutherana / Quam Comprehendit. Augstana Confessio Et Formula Concordiae [Resp.: Eusebius Bohemus]. Wittenberg 1625. 17 Städtische Sammlungen Wittenberg 327 Des Rats zu Wittenberg Ius Patronatus die Bestellung derer Kirchen- und Schuldiener und derselben Vocationes (1569–1650). Darin befinden sich auch Aktenstücke zur Berufung des Diakonus Eusebius Bohemus (Bl. 392ff.).

80

Daniel Bohnert

hemus in dem Eintrag in das Wittenberger Ordiniertenbuch als seinen Patron bezeichnet. 18 1628 rückte er zum dritten, 1631 zum zweiten Diakonus der Wittenberger Stadtkirche auf. Überdies oblag Bohemus weiterhin theologischen Studien: Am 24. November 1630 disputierte er unter dem Vorsitz Paul Röbers im großen Auditorium über das Fundament der lutherischen Lehre Aprosōpolēpsias Divinae Specimen. 19 Die Disputation dürfte im Rahmen der Vorbereitungen zu dem umfassenden Hauptwerk von Bohemus entstanden sein, welches unter dem Titel Aprosopolepsia Divina (1631) publiziert wurde. 20 1632 wurde Bohemus als Pfarrer und Superintendent nach Zwickau berufen, welches Amt er am 27. Januar 1633 übernahm. Die Stelle war vakant geworden, weil Laurentius Andreae zum Stiftssuperintendenten nach Merseburg berufen worden war. Damit hatte Bohemus auch die Inspektion der Eingepfarrten auf dem Lande inne. Vor seinem Dienstantritt in Zwickau sollte er das theologische Lizentiat erwerben: Am 19. Juni 1632 disputierte er dazu unter dem Vorsitz Wilhelm Leysers über die „genuine“ antiquitas (Übereinstimmung mit den Vätern der Alten Kirche) des Augsburgischen Bekenntnisses De Augustanae Confessionis Germana Antiquitate. Bohemus – zu diesem Zeitpunkt bereits designierter Pfarrer und Superintendent von Zwickau – war nur eine sehr kurze Zeit im Amt beschieden: Schon am 30. Juni 1633 verstarb er in seiner Heimatstadt Zwickau an der Pest. Zweimal war der Wittenberger Theologe verheiratet. Am 21. November 1626 hatte er Christina Berger, die Tochter des Wittenberger Bürgermeisters und Verlegers Clemens Berger geheiratet. Nach ihrem frühen Tod ehelichte Bohemus am 7. Januar/17. Januar 1632 Christina, die Tochter des Martin Röber, Pfarrer zu St. Ulrich in Halle (Saale) und Assessor des königlich-schwedischen Konsistoriums. Sie war die Schwester des späteren Stadtpfarrers und Generalsuperintendenten von Wittenberg Paul Röber. Aus erster Ehe sind ein Sohn namens Eusebius und zwei Töchter, Marie Elisabeth und Christine, hervorgegangen, aus zweiter Ehe ein Sohn namens Johannes. 2. SPURENSUCHE IN DER WITTENBERGER UNIVERSITÄTSTHEOLOGIE Im Folgenden ist die Frage zu klären, ob und inwieweit Bohemus – vermittelt durch seine Lehrer – zur Beschäftigung mit der Kirchengeschichte angeregt worden sein könnte. Es liegt nahe, zunächst im Umfeld seines akademischen Lehrers sowie Vorgesetzten und Kollegen an der Wittenberger Stadtpfarrkirche Friedrich Balduin zu

18 StKA Wittenberg, Wittenberger Ordiniertenbuch, Bd. VI (1605–1627), Nr. 804. 19 Paul Röber: Aprosōpolēpsias Divinae Specimen, Doctrinae huius fundamenta constituens, & exemplo voluntatis divinae quoad thesin declarans [Resp.: Eusebius Bohemus]. Wittenberg 1630. 20 Eusebius Bohemus: Aprosopolepsia Divina, Plurimarum fidei Christianae partium mater. Sive tractatus Peculiaris: continens Fundamenta Aprosōpolēpsias divinae generalia & specialia: Explicata per doctrinam de Universali Dei, In Salutis negotio, Voluntate, & Defensa contra Calvinanos & Pontificios. Wittenberg 1631.

Reformationsgeschichtsschreibung im Umfeld der Wittenberger Universitätstheologie

81

suchen, der in seinem Schüler Bohemus möglicherweise ein Interesse an der Kirchengeschichte geweckt hat. 21 Balduin hat zwei Werke hinterlassen, die unmittelbar sein besonderes Interesse an der Kirchengeschichte belegen. Es handelt sich dabei zum einen um eine Promotionsdisputation (disputatio solennis […] pro licentiâ consequendi gradum doctoratus) mit dem Titel De vera Christi ecclesia ante tempora D. Lutheri, durante Papatu von 1617, 22 zum anderen um einen unvollendet gebliebenen und unveröffentlichten, lediglich handschriftlich vorliegenden Traktat unklarer Datierung, überschrieben mit: De veteris Ecclesiae statu et conditione ab Apostolis usque ad Constantini tempora, Commentariorum liber primus, das in der Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel aufbewahrt wird. 23 Beide Werke lassen sich nicht direkt mit Bohemus in Verbindung bringen, eröffnen jedoch den Blick auf die Frage, ob und inwieweit Kirchengeschichte Teil des akademischen Studiums in der Wittenberger Universitätstheologie des frühen 17. Jahrhunderts gewesen ist. Die Promotionsdisputation von 1617 stand im Zeichen der ersten Säkularfeier (jubilæo evangelico) des sogenannten Thesenanschlags Luthers. 24 Die Thesen sollten die Frage beantworten, ob es in der Zeitaltern vor der Reformation, mithin unter dem Papsttum, keine wahre Kirche gegeben habe, wenn diese erst durch den Dienst Luthers wiederhergestellt worden sei. 25 Es ging also einerseits um den Erweis der antiquitas, der Übereinstimmung der lutherischen Kirche mit der alten, wahren Kirche, andererseits um die Abwehr des Vorwurfs der illegitimen Neuerung, der von römisch-katholischen Theologen erhoben wurde: Etwa von Johannes Pistorius – der die lutherische „novae fidei Ecclesiam, aus freyer Lufft entsprungen/ und eine newgleubige Kirch“ nannte, und von Kardinal Robert Bellarmin SJ. 26 Balduin und sein Schüler Gilbert de Spaignart wollten zeigen, 21 Zur Biografie Balduin vgl. Bohnert: Universitätstheologie, S. 37–122. 22 Friedrich Balduin: Disputatio Solennis De Vera Christi Ecclesia Ante Tempora D. Lutheri, Durante Papatu [4. Juli 1617, Resp. Christian Gilbert de Spaignart]. Wittenberg 1617. 23 De veteris Ecclesiae statu et conditione ab Apostolis usque ad Constantini tempora, Commentariorum liber primus [Manuskript der Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel, unveröffentlicht], Bl. 1r. Das zweite Buch des Werkes trägt die Überschrift „De moribus veterum Christianorum & Ecclesię statu ab morte Apostolorum vsque ad Constantinum“ (Bl. 21r). Das dritte Buch handelt „De Certaminibus veterum Christianorum“ (Bl. 40v). 24 Balduin: De Vera Christi Ecclesia, Bl. 2r. 25 Ebd., Bl. 2r–v: „[…] quàm mirabiliter denique à Deo ad hæc usque tempora conservatum fuerit; hæc omnia alius sunt operæ ac otii: jam hoc tantùm in controversiam venit: Si per ministerium Lutheri demum Ecclesia instaurata fuit: num ante Lutherum per aliquos secula nulla extiterit vera Ecclesia, vel, quia hoc absurdum est dicere, ubi et quænàm ea fuerit?“ 26 Balduin: De Vera Christi Ecclesia, Bl. 2v, aber etwa auch 8v sowie 17v: „Unde invictâ consequentiâ inferimus, Ecclesiam nostram, quam ab Instauratore eius, Lutheranam vocamus, non esse novam, sed quamplures habuisse, qui ei nomina sua dederunt, & antequam de Papatu quidquam constaret, & cum Papatus summam tyrannidem exerceret: neque dubitamus […] Non enim hic de persona Lutheri, non de urbe Româ quaestio est, sed de doctrina Christi & Apostolorum […].“ Vgl. zu diesem Problemfeld Klaus Haendler: Wort und Glaube bei Melanchthon. Eine Untersuchung über die Voraussetzungen und Grundlagen des melanchthonischen Kirchenbegriffs. Gütersloh 1968, S. 199–204; Markus Wriedt: „Theologische Innovation und konservatives Beharren bei Martin Luther und Philipp Melanchthon“, in: Werner Zager (Hg.):

82

Daniel Bohnert

1) dass das Papsttum die wahre Kirche weder sei noch jemals gewesen sei (Papatum non esse, nec fuisse unquam Ecclesiam veram), 2) dass Gott die wahre Kirche zu allen Zeiten, mithin auch im Papsttum bewahrt habe (In Papatu semper Deum conservasse Ecclesiam veram) und 3) wo und welcher Gestalt jene wahre Kirche gewesen sei (Vbinam et quae fuerit illa Ecclesia). Die entsprechend in drei Teile untergliederte Betrachtung der Geschichte der wahren Kirche hat ihren theologischen Ort mithin in der Ekklesiologie. Der Definition des Papsttums als kirchliche Hierarchie unter dem sichtbaren Haupte des römischen Pontifex, der sich als Sachverwalter Christi auf Erden geriere, stellt der Verfasser die der wahren Kirche entgegen, welche Paulus auf das Fundament der Propheten und Apostel gesetzt habe, und sichert diese unter Verweis auf altkirchliche Zeugnisse ab. 27 Die lehrmäßigen Differenzen – etwa in der Lehre von der Rechtfertigung aus dem Glauben allein, in der Annahme, dass die Schrift nicht Maß des Glaubens und Norm der Kontroversen sein könne, oder in der Sakramentenlehre – hätten hier ihren Grund. Es könne mithin kaum negiert werden, dass das Papsttum zahlreiche Lehren erdacht habe, die nicht auf die Apostel oder die Väter gründeten. Dies entferne sie von der wahren Kirche. 28 Argumentiert Balduin also bereits im ersten Teil historisch, geht er im zweiten und dritten Teil der Promotionsdisputation noch stärker auf konkrete Beispiele aus der Kirchengeschichte ein. Nachdem er in dem (kurzen) zweiten Teil gezeigt hat, dass es während der Zeit des Papsttums immer die wahre Kirche gegeben habe, die das reine Wort Gottes bewahrt habe, entbietet Balduin in dem ungleich umfassenderen dritten Teil einige Konkretisierungen. Die Gestalt der wahren Kirche in der Zeit des Papsttums beschreibt er differenziert – einerseits als verborgen, andererseits als offenbar. 29 Die zweite Gruppe erfährt weitere Unterscheidung in diejenigen, welche inmitten des Papsttums, und diejenigen, welche außerhalb dieser Gemeinschaft lebten. 30 Erstere klassifiziert er wiederum in vier Typen – die infantes, confessores, martyres und moribundi. Die confessores identifiziert Balduin mit kirchlichen Schriftstellern und nennt in Anlehnung an den

27 28 29

30

Martin Luther und die Freiheit. Darmstadt 2010, S. 59–80 [wiederabgedruckt in: Markus Wriedt: Scriptura loquens. Beiträge zur Kirchen- und Theologiegeschichte des Spätmittelalters und der Reformationszeit, hg. von Albrecht Beutel, Daniel Bohnert. Leipzig 2018, S. 387–414]. Balduin: De Vera Christi Ecclesia, Bl. 2r–3v. Ebd., Bl. 6v–7r: „Neque enim Ecclesiæ est, nova invenire dogmata, sed inventa, hoc est, à Christo & Apostolis tradita, fideliter custodire, & progagare.“ Als Beispiel führt Balduin die Lehre vom Primat des Papstes an. Ebd., Bl. 9r: „Unde sit, quòd non semper eadem facies fuit Ecclesiae, durante Paptu: nam tum temporis partim latuit, partim manifesta fuit: hoc est, partim hominibus ignoti, Deo verò probè cogniti fuerunt, qui doctrinam verè Lutheranam de fundamentalibus fidei articulis, inprimis de justificatione nostri coram Deo, amplexi sunt, partim manifesti fuerunt, quorum aliqui doctrinam illam palàm professi Papæ Romano tanquam filio perditionis animosè contradixerunt.“ Ebd., Bl. 11v.

Reformationsgeschichtsschreibung im Umfeld der Wittenberger Universitätstheologie

83

Catalogus testium veritatis (1556) des Matthias Flacius Illyricus unter einigen anderen Nicolaus von Lyra, Johannes Wyclif oder den Verfasser der Theologia deutsch. 31 Als Märtyrer führt er beispielsweise Jan Hus, Hieronymus von Prag und Girolamo Savonarola an, der 1498 hingerichtet worden war. 32 Auch aus der Gruppe der moribundi, welche sich auf dem Totenbett zur wahren Kirche bekannt hätten, zählt er einige Beispiele auf. Für die außerhalb der Gemeinschaft des Papsttums lebenden Zeugen der wahren Kirche führt Balduin unter anderem Beispiele aus der Kirche des Ostens, aber auch – mit Einschränkungen – die Waldenser an. 33 Insgesamt zeigt sich, dass die Beschäftigung mit der Kirchengeschichte in der Wittenberger Universitätstheologie des frühen 17. Jahrhunderts sich der kontroverstheologisch motivierten Infragestellung und dem Bemühen um Abgrenzung gegen römisch-katholische Theologen verdankte. Es ging sodann um ekklesiologische Selbstvergewisserung und Legitimierung der als den Lutheranern eigen behaupteten Tradition, die mit Formen der Idealisierung der Urkirche (primitiva ecclesia) als Teil einer Verfallstheorie des Christentums einherging. 34 Damit scheint ein nahtloses Anknüpfen an die ersten Werke der lutherischen Geschichtsschreibung des Flacius vorzuliegen. Im späteren 16. und im 17. Jahrhundert bildet sich dazu eine eigenständige Tradition der Reformationshistoriographie ebenfalls als theologische Geschichtsschreibung aus: eine territoriale Reformationshistoriographie. 35 Dem gleichsam komplementär verstärkt sich das Bedürfnis der Dokumentation der Glaubens- und Lebensvollzüge für die Nachwelt. Mit der Aneignung der Tradition im Rahmen der theologischen Geschichtsschreibung soll die Legitimität der jeweils eigenen Theologie exponiert werden. Das Argument der antiquitas als Bestandteil der notae ecclesiae spielte dabei eine wichtige Rolle. Die Geschichte als

31 Ebd., Bl. 12r. 32 Ebd., Bl. 13r. 33 Ebd., Bl. 14v–17v. Zum Konzept der Wahrheitszeugen bei Flacius vgl. Wolf-Friedrich Schäufele: Matthias Flacius Illyricus und die Konzeption der Zeugenschaft im Catalogus testium veritatis, in: Irene Dingel, Johannes Hund, Luka Ilić (Hg.): Matthias Flacius Illyricus: Biographische Kontexte, theologische Wirkungen, historische Rezeption. Göttingen 2019, S. 159–174. Siehe auch Schäufeles Beitrag im vorliegenden Sammelband. 34 Vgl. dazu Ulrich Volp: „Idealisierung der Urkirche (ecclesia primitiva)“, in: Europäische Geschichte online. URL: http://ieg-ego.eu/de/threads/modelle-und-stereotypen/modell-antike/ulrichvolp-idealisierung-der-urkirche-ecclesia-primitiva#InsertNoteID_18 (letzter Zugriff: 20.12.2021). 35 Vgl. exemplarisch Daniel Cramer: Das Grosse Pomrische Kirchen Chronicon D. Danielis Crameri: Das ist Beschreibung Und Außführlicher Bericht, was sich fürnemblich in Religions Sachen, von Enderung der Heydenschafft her, im Land zu Pomren, und zugehörigem Fürstenthumb Rügen, auch Graff- und Herrschafften, bey noch wehrendem Christenthumb, und dabey verlauffener Evangelischer Reformation, biß auff kegenwertige Zeit, begeben und zugetragen hat. Auß vielen Glaubwürdigen Alten und Newen Scribenten, Uhrkunden Archiven und andern Denckwürdigen Nachrichtungen fleissig zusammen getragen, und in richtige Jahrzeit verfasset. Auch in Vier unterschiedliche Bücher […] abgetheilet. Alt Stettin 1628 [ND: Hildesheim et al. 2009]. Bei dem Verfasser Daniel Cramer handelte es sich ebenfalls um einen Absolventen der Wittenberger Theologischen Fakultät.

84

Daniel Bohnert

Errungenschaft der Universitätsreformen unter humanistischen Vorzeichen scheint sich dabei in den Dienst des konfessionellen theologischen Interesses zu fügen. 3. DIE EPITOME DES EUSEBIUS BOHEMUS – AUFGABEN UND FUNKTIONEN THEOLOGISCHER HISTORIOGRAPHIE 3.1 Zur Einordnung des Werkes Im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert dürfte Eusebius Bohemus Sachkennern kein unbeschriebenes Blatt gewesen sein. Der Schulmann Johann Christian Nehring hatte Bohemus unter diejenigen Gelehrten gezählt, welche „die gantze Kirchen-Historie beschrieben“ hätten. 36 Auch der aufgrund seines Werkes Historie der Gelehrsamkeit (1752/54) namhafte Johann Andreas Fabricius hatte den Wittenberger Theologen darin zu „denjenigen, welche sich um die Kirchengeschichte verdient gemacht“ hätten gerechnet. 37 Selbst der bekannte radikalpietistische Theologe Gottfried Arnold hatte in seiner bis heute wirkmächtigen Kirchen- und Ketzer Historie (1699/1700) auf die Epitome von Bohemus Bezug genommen. 38 Der Göttinger Kirchenhistoriker Christian Wilhelm Franz Walch hatte die Überlieferungsgeschichte der Epitome skizziert: Als Erstausgabe nennt er diejenige des Johannes Pappus zu Straßburg 1584 (erst die zweite, verbesserte Ausgabe, Straßburg 1596, führte den Begriff der Epitome am Beginn des Haupttitels), 39 sodann sei die Fortsetzung des Bohemus zu Wittenberg 1626 erschienen und schließlich 1661/62 die Erweiterung von Heinrich Kipping zu Frankfurt am Main. 40 Bohemus hat mit seiner Epitome als Neuherausgeber, Kompilator und Fortschreiber des gleichnamigen Werkes von Pappus gewirkt. 41 Dabei lässt sich der Begriff der Epitome (ἐπιτομή) als Replik auf 36 Vgl. Johann Chr. Nehring: Kurtze Einleitung in die Universal-Historie und Geographie: nebst einer Chronologischen Tabell. Cölln an der Spree 1699, S. 107. 37 Vgl. Johann A. Fabricius: Abriß einer allgemeinen Historie der Gelehrsamkeit. Dritter Band. Leipzig 1754, S. 1059. 38 Gottfried Arnold: Unpartheyische Kirchen- und Ketzer-Historie, Vom Anfang des Neuen Testaments Biß auf das Jahr Christi 1688. Frankfurt am Main 1729, z.B. S. 782. 39 Pappus: Historiae ecclesiasticae. 40 Christian Wilhelm Franz Walch: Grundsäze der zur Kirchenhistorie des neuen Testaments nöthigen Vorbereitungslehren und Bücherkäntniß. Göttingen 1773, S. 92. Vgl. Johannes Pappus: Epitome Historiae Ecclesiasticae. De Conversionibus gentium, persecutionibus Ecclesiae, Haeresibus, & Conciliis Oecumenicis: Ex praecipuis Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis collecta. Studio & Opera Johannis Pappi, Doct. Theol. Recognovit, Auctariis & Notis variis illustravit M. Henricus Kipping. Frankfurt am Main 1662, 21677. Kippings Ausgabe orientierte sich enger am Original und enthielt lediglich eine eigene Leserwidmung sowie eigenständige Anhänge – Auctoria und Supplementa Historica. 41 Vgl. auch die entsprechende Widmung an den Leser bei Bohemus: Epitome, Bl. 13v. Schon im ersten Kapitel der von Bohemus bearbeiteten Epitome des Pappus, zeigt sich, dass jener durchaus auch inhaltliche Ergänzungen und Erweiterungen vornahm. Noch bevor der ursprüngliche

Reformationsgeschichtsschreibung im Umfeld der Wittenberger Universitätstheologie

85

antike Tradition verstehen – im Sinne eines kurzgefassten Geschichtswerkes. 42 Sodann bezeichnet Bohemus im Untertitel – womit er sich indes von Pappus unterscheidet – das von ihm Dargebotene als Erzählung (narratio) und Erklärung (expositio), möglicherweise andeutend, dass Geschichte der Deutung bedarf. 43 Das Werk selbst bietet einige weiterführende Informationen zur Komposition: Bohemus schildert seine Suche nach einem solchen historischen Kompendium während der Studienzeit in Wittenberg, aus dem Ursprung und Fortentwicklung des Luthertums sowie die Irrlehren der Gegner gleichermaßen zu schöpfen wären. Dabei sei ihm die Epitome des Straßburger Lutheraners Johannes Pappus zu Händen gekommen, die er zunächst als sehr brauchbar empfunden, jedoch rasch den Entschluss gefasst habe, das, was dort fehle, nachzutragen und das Werk um die neueste Kirchengeschichte (recentiora) zu ergänzen. 44 Erste Beratungen mit dem erfahrenen Wittenberger Verleger, seinem künftigen Schwiegervater Clemens Berger, der bereits zahlreiche Bücher angesehener Theologen verlegt hatte, 45 verliefen offenbar erfolgreich: Dieser habe sich zur Neuherausgabe der Epitome entschieden und gefordert (petens), die neue Ausgabe erstens von typographischen Fehlern zu reinigen, zweitens um Notwendiges (necessariis in locis) zu ergänzen und drittens, um die neueste Kirchengeschichte zu erweitern. Ein etwaiger Hinweis auf eine Anregung durch

42

43 44 45

Text von Pappus erscheint („Etsi autem non eadem est […].“) bietet Bohemus einen kurzen Zusatz über Autorität und Vortrefflichkeit der Heiligen Schrift („Autóritas et præstantia sacræ Scripturæ“). Vgl. ebd., S. 41f. Auch das vorbereitende Kapitel „De Præcognitis quibusdam chronologicis ad meliorem historiarum et temporum cognitionem necessariis“ ist ein eigenständiger Beitrag von Bohemus und verdiente gesonderte Betrachtung. Vgl. ebd., S. 1–40. In dem lateinisch-griechisch-deutschen Wörterbuch des Gothaer Schulrektors Andreas Reyher finden sich unter dem Lemma „Epitome“ – einer Ableitung aus dem Griechischen η επιτομη – als Synonyme die Begriffe „Breviarium“ und „Compendium“, die in der deutschen Sprache mit „Auszug“ oder „kurtzer Begriff“ wiedergegeben werden (bezugnehmend auf Cicero ad Atticum 13,8). Vgl. die von Christian Juncker überarbeitete und erweiterte Ausgabe: Andreas Reyher: Theatrum Latino-Germanico-Graecum sive Lexicon linguae latinae: in quo ordine nativo vocabulorum latinorum origines, genera, flexiones, significationes variae […] continentur. Leipzig 1712, S. 785. Unter dem Lemma „Breviarium“ findet sich die Erklärung, es handele sich um ein „opus concisum“ gemäß Sueton, Augustus 101,6. Bohemus: Epitome, Bl. 1r. Zu Johann Georg I. vgl. Axel Gotthard: „Johann Georg I. (1611– 1656)“, in: Frank-Lothar Kroll (Hg.): Die Herrscher Sachsens. Markgrafen, Kurfürsten, Könige 1089–1918. München 2007, S. 137–147. Ebd., Bl. 9r. Vgl. Paul Röber: Das beste und edelste Buch in der Welt/ nemlich das Buch des heiligen Geistes/ in welchem von Christo geschrieben ist/ Aus dem 40. Psalm/ v. 7. Im Buch ist von mir geschrieben […]: Bey Christlicher Leichbegengnis Des […] Clement Bergers/ Bürgermeisters/ und vornehmen Buchführers/ in Witteberg/ welcher im jetzo schwebenden 1629. Jahr am 10. Monatstag Februarii […] verschieden/ und folgendes Sontags Esto mihi in der PfarrKirchen alldar in sein Ruhbettlein versetzt worden ist. Wittenberg 1629, S. 51.

86

Daniel Bohnert

seinen akademischen Lehrer Balduin findet sich nicht. 46 Im Rahmen seiner Revision habe Bohemus die Belegstellen (sedes materiarum) in den Historien angegeben. 47 Es handelt sich also mitnichten um eine bloße Neuausgabe, sondern vielmehr um eine überarbeitete Neuherausgabe mit eigenständigem Beitrag von Bohemus, der die gut ausgestattete Bibliothek des Buchdruckers Berger nutzen durfte. Die Epitome selbst enthält Praecognita zur Chronologie, sodann entsprechend der Vorlage Ausführungen erstens zu kirchlichen Schriftstellern, zweitens zur Bekehrung der Völker, drittens zu Verfolgung und Martyrien, viertens zu Häresien und Konzilien sowie fünftens zu Reinigung und Verkündigung der wahren Kirche und christlichen Religion. Mit dem fünften Teil setzt Bohemus die Vorlage von Pappus eigenständig fort. 3.2 „[…] ut ex illis quoque Doctrinam sinceram & veram à falsa […] dignoscamus“ – Grund und Ziel des Werkes Die dem sächsischen Kurfürsten Johann Georg I. (reg. 1611–1656) gewidmete, auf den 1. Mai 1626 datierte Vorrede lässt neben der Abfassungsintention auch Bohemus’ Auffassung über Funktionen und Ziele theologischer Kirchengeschichtsschreibung deutlich werden. 48 Dem Adressaten gleichsam entgegeneilend, betont der angehende Theologe die grundlegende Bedeutung der Geschichte einerseits für die Glückseligkeit des menschlichen Lebens (allgemein), andererseits für den Zustand der (politischen) Herrschaft. Denn diese beiden könnten durch sorgfältige Pflege der Tugenden (curâ virtutum) sowie durch Meiden von Lastern (fugâ vitiorum) nicht nur bewahrt, sondern auch verbessert werden. 49 Dies zu leisten schicke sich die Überlieferung der Geschichte (historiarum monumenta) in besondere Weise als Gehilfin an. Kaum zufällig verweist Bohemus – seine Geschichtsauffassung auf das klassische Altertum gründend – für diesen Ansatz auf Julius Capitolinus, einen der sechs Scriptores Historiae Augustae, dem er den Satz zuweist: „In der Geschichte müssen von den Geschichtsschreibern diejenigen Aspekte benannt werden, welche zu meiden oder welchen zu folgen seien.“ Verstärkt wird diese Prägung durch den Verweis auf Ciceros De Oratore, der die Geschichte als Lehrmeisterin des Lebens (historia magistra vitae) gepriesen habe. Geschichte dient nach Bohemus weiterhin dem Unterricht (informatio) sowie der Veredelung (expolitio). Diese funktionalen Bestimmungen bezieht er sodann auf die im konfessionellen Luthertum gebräuchliche Unterscheidung von Lehre (doctrina) und Leben (vita), die er zum Auswahlkriterium für Inhalt und Form der

46 Dass die Theologische Fakultät, Balduin eingeschlossen, hinter dem Werk des Bohemus stand, zeigt sich an den würdigenden Epigrammen von Friedrich Balduin, Balthasar Meisner und Jakob Martini. Vgl. ebd., Bl. 12r. 47 Vgl. Reyher: Theatrum, S. 785. 48 Bohemus: Epitome, Bl. 2r–11v. 49 Ebd., Bl. 2r–v.

Reformationsgeschichtsschreibung im Umfeld der Wittenberger Universitätstheologie

87

Darstellung erhebt. 50 Die so verstandene Geschichte hat die Aufgabe zu zeigen, welcher Lehrauffassung und welcher Lebensweise der Mensch zu folgen oder welcher er sich zu erwehren habe. 51 Dieser gleichsam dualistische Ansatz soll Gewissheit auf der Seite des Rezipienten erzeugen und verweist zugleich auf den Zweck der Indienstnahme für die Kontroverstheologie. Bohemus präzisiert sodann sein Verständnis von Lehre (doctrina), wenn er postuliert, dass der Seele (anima) des Menschen zwei Arten von Wissen eingepflanzt werden könnten: Die erste Art des Wissens übersteige den menschlichen Verstand. Bohemus nennt diese „sacra & theologica“. Die zweite Art des Wissens gehe aus dem menschlichen Verstand und seinem Erfindungsvermögen hervor, seien mithin „ratione & inventione humana excogitata“. Bohemus bezeichnet letztere als profane oder philosophische Arten des Wissens. Beide gehören zur Kirchengeschichte. Die Notwendigkeit theologischer Lehre sowie der Betrachtung der Geschichte theologischer Lehrbildung begründet Bohemus mit dem Verweis auf die Erbsündenlehre, die er freilich nur rudimentär skizziert. 52 In ihr sieht er die Ursache für die lehrmäßige Verwirrung und ihre Folgen, die indes beide Arten des Wissens, die heilige/theologische ebenso wie die profane/philosophische beträfen. Bohemus argumentiert, dass die Verwirrung der letztgenannten gar wiederum auf die Theologie zurückwirke. 53 Die Überlieferung und Analyse der Scharnierstellen in der Lehrentwicklung scheint für Bohemus entscheidende Aufgabe der Kirchengeschichte. Dieser von dem angehenden Theologen durchaus universal verstandenen Disziplin – er möchte sowohl den Ursprung (initium) als auch die Fortentwicklung (progressus) der heiligen Lehre (doctrina sacra) betrachten – wohnt mithin ein normativer Grund inne. 50 Diese findet sich bereits bei Luther selbst. Vgl. Gensichen: Damnamus, S. 58f. sowie für den Begriff der doctrina nach Melanchthon Haendler: Wort und Glaube, S. 72. Vgl. auch speziell für die Wittenberger Theologen die entsprechenden Passagen in August Tholuck: Der Geist der lutherischen Theologen Wittenbergs im Verlaufe des 17. Jahrhunderts, theilweise nach handschriftlichen Quellen. Hamburg, Gotha 1852, S. 48–160 sowie zur Lebendigkeit des religiösen Empfindens Hans Leube: Die Reformideen in der deutschen lutherischen Kirche zur Zeit der Orthodoxie. Leipzig 1924, S. 140–180. Vgl. auch die Studie von Sabine Holtz: Theologie und Alltag. Lehre und Leben in den Predigten der Tübinger Theologen 1550–1750. Tübingen 1993. 51 Bohemus: Epitome, Bl. 2v–3r: „Per Doctrinae relationem mens humana in antea cognitis informatur, & quid approbandum quidque reprobandum sit in iis, quae sub docendi formam cadunt, certa redditur. Sunt autem ea, quae docendo animis hominum implantari possunt, in respectu duplici. Vel denim concernunt ista, quae captum nostrum sibi soli relictum penitus transcendunt, vel talia quae ratione & inventione humana excogitata, aliis cognoscenda & addiscenda proponuntur.“ 52 Ebd., Bl. 3r: „Etsi enim suâ naturâ omnia in bonitate à Deo sunt creata, tamen postea ex nimia hominis elatione, incredulitate, & à Deo defectione Diaboli instinctu & nequitia suscepta, malum intravit in mundum, talisque malitiam etiam mentem humanam infecit, obnubilavit atque depravavit.“ Vgl. zu den Debatten um die Ur- und Erbsünde im Wittenberg des frühen 17. Jahrhunderts die entsprechenden Abschnitte bei Anselm Schubert: Das Ende der Sünde. Anthropologie und Erbsünde zwischen Reformation und Aufklärung. Göttingen 2002. 53 Bohemus: Epitome, Bl. 3v–4r: „[…] sed etiam in Theologia, ubi verae Philosophiae principiorum & axiomatum inconvenienti & vitiosa applicatione, Mysteria Divina, mensurare & ponderare sategerunt […].“

88

Daniel Bohnert

Als Quellen der historischen Erkenntnis (cognitio) sowie des historischen Wissens (scientia) benennt Bohemus an erster Stelle die biblische Offenbarung, sodann die kirchliche Überlieferung. Niemals könne der Mensch einen Grad der Weisheit erlangen, der ihm eine Erkenntnis gleichsam aus sich heraus ermögliche. Vor dem Hintergrund dieser schöpfungstheologisch begründeten epistemologischen Grenzziehung – der Mensch ist zu einer eignen Vervollkommnung nicht fähig und mithin ganz und gar auf das Wort Gottes angewiesen – verdeutlicht Bohemus die Notwendigkeit fortwährender Verkündigung und mithin Bestätigung des Wortes Gottes. Die eingangs gebrauchte Unterscheidung von Lehre und Leben nimmt Bohemus sodann insofern auf, als er die heilige Lehre unter Verweis auf 2 Petr 1,2 als Frömmigkeitslehre bestimmt (doctrina pietatis) und unter Verweis auf 1 Tim 4,8 die eschatologische Perspektive (pietas habet promissionem hujus & futurae vitae) benennt. 54 Frömmigkeit leite den Menschen zur Nachahmung (imitatio) und Nachfolge an, die sowohl Inhalt als auch Form der heilsamen Lehre in wahrem Glauben und reinem Herzen einschließe. 55 Die Häretiker und ihre Häresien, welche die Lehre unter der äußerlichen Gestalt der Heiligkeit oder das Wort Gottes durch Zusätze verfälschten, existierten seit apostolischer Zeit. 56 Vor allem die Einheit der Kirche sei durch diese bedroht. Die Kirchengeschichte (historia ecclesiastica) 57 bezeuge dies hinreichend, so Bohemus unter Referenz auf Chrysostomus’ Homilia 46 in Mattheum. 58 Geschichtswerke, die aus den Schriften der Häretiker schöpften, könnten dazu durchaus konsultiert werden. Die Aufgabe der Kirchengeschichte besteht für Bohemus allerdings nicht alleine in der Rekonstruktion der Lehrentwicklung, mithin gleichsam in der Dogmen-

54 Ebd., Bl. 4r–v: „Vera illa & sincera Doctrina Sacra aliàs specioso nomine Doctrina Pietatis appellatur. I. Quia fontem omnis sanctitatis & pietatis Spiritum sanctum agnoscit autorem. Spiritu enim sancto inspirati, locuti sunt sancti Dei homines. 2. Petr. 1. II. Quia pios devotosque habet & exigit Doctores. III. Quia tales efficit requiritque auditores & studiosos. IV. Quia virtutem illam inprimis, cui meritò inter reliquas principem tribuimus locum, commendat, urget atque defendit. Haec virtus, nempe Pietas, ad omnia utilis est, & habet promissionem huius & future vitae. 1. Timot. 4. v. 8.“ 55 Ebd.: „Haec igitur nobis imitanda & sequenda proponuntur, ut ad eorum normam & formam, pari modo Doctrinae salvificae verâ fide puraque corde adhaereamus, nullis infortuniis aut tribulationibus nos frangi patiamur, sed militemus bonam militiam, servemus fidem & bonam conscientiam.“ 56 Vor ebendiesen habe man sich zu hüten, wie Bohemus unter Anführung zweier alttestamentlicher Belegstellen und vier weiterer aus den Paulinischen Briefen bestätigt, sie brächten Feuer vor den Altar Gottes, stünden gegen die Wahrheit auf, mahnten andere wider die Kirche und zertrennten die Einheit der Kirche. 57 Pappus: Epitome, Bl. 9r differenziert historia sacra und historia ecclesiastica, wobei erstere „ipso Scripturæ Sacræ Canone continetur: à Mose, & Prophetis edita in vetere Testamento: ab Euangelistis autem, & Apostolos in nouo“, die historia ecclesiastica hingegen als diejenige, die „post Euangelistas & Apostolos ab alijs Ecclesiasticis viris conscripta est“ bezeichnet. Die Autorität der historia sacra freilich sei größer (S. 8). 58 Ebd., Bl. 5v.

Reformationsgeschichtsschreibung im Umfeld der Wittenberger Universitätstheologie

89

geschichte, sondern auch in der Betrachtung des Lebens der Menschen, ihrer Handlungen (actiones) und Gebräuche (mores). 59 Dabei fänden sich Exempel sowohl frommen als auch lasterhaften Lebens bereits in der Heiligen Schrift, aber eben auch in der Kirchengeschichte. Stets sei als Norm und Maß anzunehmen, ob und inwieweit sie den Spuren Christi folgten. Die Betrachtung der Geschichte der Menschen, ihrer Handlungen und Gebräuche differenziert Bohemus sodann in ante und post mortem, und entfaltet daraus die Unterscheidung von vita exemplaris und vita memorialis. Die Akteure der Kirchengeschichte, die aufgrund ihres vorbildlichen Lebens betrachtet werden, zeichneten sich nach Bohemus durch wahrhaften Glauben und Verwerfung von Häresien sowie menschlichen Begierden aus. Dadurch hätten sie sich vita memorialis erworben, indem sie auch nach ihrem zeitlichen Tod die Herzen vieler Menschen zu ähnlichen Handlungen und Lebensweisen bewegten. Diese Anregung zur Nachfolge (successio), dass die Tugenden der Frommen in den ihnen nachfolgenden Gläubigen lebten, sichert Bohemus mit Isidors De summo bono ab. 60 Auch die Exempel der Lasterhaften und Häretiker dienten diesem Ziel. Darunter versteht er nicht nur diejenigen, die mit Waffengewalt wider die Wahrheit stritten, sondern auch diejenigen, die lasterhaft lebten. Die Negativfolie derselben helfe, die wahre Lehre von der falschen durch Vergleich (collatio) zu unterscheiden und zu verstehen, auf welche Weise der wahre Kultus (religio) über die Epochen hinweg trotz Widerständen erhalten und bewahrt wurde. 61 Der Wittenberger Theologe Eusebius Bohemus versteht Kirchengeschichte mithin einerseits als Geschichte der Lehrentwicklung (Dogmengeschichte), welche gleichsam am Widerspruch geschärft umso effektiver der Bestätigung, Bewahrung und Verteidigung der wahren lutherischen Lehre dienen kann. Damit trägt jene dazu bei, diejenigen Kernaufgaben des Predigers zu erfüllen, wie sie in der lutherischen Amtstheologie des frühen 17. Jahrhunderts reflektiert wurden. 62 Andererseits versteht Bohemus Kirchengeschichte als Geschichte des Lebens und der Memoria der Akteure (Personengeschichte), die den Adressaten zur Nachahmung und Nachfolge anreizen und anleiten sollten.

59 Pappus: Epitome, Bl. 4r nennt darüber hinaus auch Trost (consolatio) als Nutzen der Kirchengeschichte: „non modò ad testimonium perpetui de vera doctrina consensus, & refutationem subinde in idem ecclesiæ theatrum reductarum hęreseωn, sed etiam ad consolationem inter tàm varia & multiplicia pericula […].“ 60 Die Menschen seien dann gut, wenn sie ihre Handlungen und Lebensweisen zu einem guten Leben formten, konstatiert er weiter unter Verweis auf Ambrosius. 61 Bohemus: Epitome, Bl. 8r–v: „Cum ergo tanta ex historicorum Ecclesiasticorum scriptis quoque promanet utilitas, aequum est & salutare, ut ex illis quoque Doctrinam sinceram & veram à falsa, quod per collationem facilè fieri potest, dignoscamus; postea discamus, quomodo Religio vera singulis temporibus purè conservata, ab impiorum deliriis oppugnata sed non expugnata fuerit.“ 62 Vgl. Bohnert: Universitätstheologie, S. 238–243.

90

Daniel Bohnert

3.3 Die Verzahnung von kirchlicher Geschichte, Dogmatik und Apologetik – Luthers Handeln und Luthers Amt anhand der Epitome Der fünfte Teil des Werkes, mithin der eigenständige Beitrag des Bohemus zur Epitome, handelt von der Reinigung, Verteidigung und Verkündigung der wahren Kirche und Lehre (De Miranda Repurgatione, Defensione & propagatione verae Ecclesiae & doctrinae). 63 Dieser Teil besteht aus sechs Abschnitten (membra), die im Einzelnen über den Begriff der lutherischen Kirche (1), die Geschichte der Confessio Augustana (2), die Geschichte der Schmalkaldischen Artikel (3), Leben, Reformationswerk und Sterben Martin Luthers (4), die Geschichte von Konkordienformel und Konkordienbuch (5) und den Passauer Vertrag und den Augsburger Religionsfrieden (6) handeln. Mit der Konzeption dieses Abschnitts nimmt Bohemus die Reformation als eigene Epoche in den Blick und setzt sie zugleich in den Rahmen des göttlichen Heilsplans. In der Darstellung lässt sich der Verfasser weniger von der Chronologie der Ereignisse leiten, sondern durch ein apologetisches Interesse 64 sowie den Ansatz, Geschichte der Lehrentwicklung sowie Ereignis- und Personengeschichte zu verknüpfen. Bohemus verfolgt das Ziel, die Geschichte des jungen Luthertums als Fortsetzung der Geschichte der alten apostolischen, wahren Kirche zu entwerfen, und knüpft damit in der Sache an die Reformatoren Luther und Melanchthon an. 65 Er konzipiert diese als Geschichte der lutherischen Bekenntnisse, indem er die Confessio Augustana, die Schmalkaldischen Artikel sowie die Konkordienformel fokussiert. Stets antizipiert Bohemus etwaige Einwürfe der theologischen Gegner und ist darum bemüht, dem Leser lehrmäßige Klarheit und Deutlichkeit zu vermitteln, etwa wenn er in diesem Kontext auf das Verhältnis von Bibel und Bekenntnis eingeht oder die Confessio Augustana den altkirchlichen Bekenntnissen nachordnet. 66 Dabei muss er auf Melanchthons Apologie, ja überhaupt die Rolle des Praeceptor Germaniae eingehen und sich dem Einwand römisch-katholischer Theologen stellen, die das lutherische Bekenntnis ob seiner Variation angriffen. 67 Bisweilen verfolgt Bohemus die rhetorische Strategie, die theologischen Gegner nicht alleine zu widerlegen, sondern gleichsam progressiv in die Argumentation einzubinden, etwa wenn er Robert Bellarmin wider dessen Intention affirmativ zitiert, um den Nachweis eines Merkmals der wahren, lutherischen Kirche zu

63 Bohemus: Epitome, S. 1069–1140. 64 Insbesondere ebd., S. 1069–1077. 65 Etwa wenn er S. 1078 schreibt: „Sic appellabatur Symbolum Nicænum ab Urbe Nicæa; Chalcedonense à Chalcedone. Causa appellationis est, ut poßit discerni à reliquis aliis editionibus corruptis.“ Vgl. auch ebd., S. 1085, wo Bohemus die Kennzeichen (notae) der religio Lutherana benennt. 66 Ebd., S. 1081: „Conscripta autem est Augustana Confessio, non ut per se & ex se habeat rationem regulae & normae infallibilis veritatis, sitque sacris literis æquiparanda.“ und ebd., S. 1082: „Postponenda est autem Augustana Confeßio Symbolis tribus Oecumenicis, quia authoritate & antiquitate illis est inferior.“ 67 Ebd., S. 1091–1100.

Reformationsgeschichtsschreibung im Umfeld der Wittenberger Universitätstheologie

91

führen. 68 Um einige konkrete Beispiele zu geben, die das theologische Geschichtswerk von Bohemus auszeichnen, ist das vierte Kapitel über Leben, Reformation und Sterben Luthers näher zu betrachten. In rhetorisch-stilistischer Hinsicht tritt die das Werk insgesamt ausmachende sprachliche und begriffliche Prägnanz hervor, das Bemühen um Reduktion auf Kernaussagen sowie gute Verständlichkeit, was auf den Entstehungskontext (Theologiestudium) ebenso wie auf den möglicherweise intendierten Adressatenkreis (Theologiestudenten) hinweist. So offeriert Bohemus bereits mit dem ersten Satz eine konzise Zusammenfassung des gesamten Kapitels: Er beschreibt Luther als Mönch, der in seinem Gewissen von den Irrtümern des Papsttums überzeugt worden sei, die göttliche Wahrheit erkannt habe und durch einen einzigartigen Antrieb des Heiligen Geistes zur Reformation der Kirche erweckt worden sei; ferner habe Luther in seinen Schriften die erkannte himmlische Wahrheit anderen erklärt, verkündigt und verteidigt sowie sein ganzes Leben lang an ihr festgehalten. 69 Dass das Leben Luthers überhaupt thematisiert werden müsse, erklärt Bohemus unter Hinweis auf die üblen Nachreden der theologischen Gegner. Holzschnittartig schildert er Geburt, erste Ausbildung und Studium, Eintritt in den Augustinereremitenorden, Gründung der Universität Wittenberg, Luthers Berufung und Doktorat, den sogenannten Thesenanschlag, das Verhör durch Kardinal Cajetan, die Wittenberger Bücherverbrennungen, den Wormser Reichstag, Luthers Ehe, das Marburger Religionsgespräch, das Augsburgische Bekenntnis. Der Bericht umfasst lediglich acht Seiten und endet ebenso unvermittelt wie er begonnen hat. Einige Aspekte freilich erscheinen der näheren Betrachtung wert. In besonderer Weise exponiert Bohemus Luthers frühe Bibel- und Augustinusstudien. Bereits in seiner Zeit als Mönch im Orden der Augustineremiten sei er darin so weit fortgeschritten, dass er bald darauf durch lectio und meditatio der Paulusbriefe den Artikel von der Rechtfertigung des Sünders kraft der Gnade Gottes kennengelernt und erforscht habe. 70 Es ist gewiss kein Zufall, dass Bohemus diesen Aspekt erneut aufgreift, wenn er die Doktorpromotion Luthers (1512) sowie die Aufgaben schildert,

68 Ebd., S. 1089. Vgl. zur rhetorischen Strategie lutherischer Theologen die Hinweise bei Kenneth G. Appold: „Abraham Calovs Auseinandersetzung mit der tridentinischen Rechtfertigungslehre“, in: Udo Sträter (Hg.): Zur Rechtfertigungslehre in der lutherischen Orthodoxie. Leipzig 2003, S. 71–80. 69 Ebd., S. 1104: „Beatus Lutherus initio Monachus ad praedicationem verbi ordinarie & mediate vocatus, postea in conscientia de erroribus Pontificiorum convictus, veritatem Divinam agnovit, ad Reformationem Ecclesiae singulari Spiritus sancti instinctu excitatus est, scriptis suis plane divinis semel agnitam veritatem coelestem aliis exlicavit, longè lateque propagavit, & mascule defendit, in qua usque ad extremum vitae halitum constanter permansit.“ 70 Ebd., S. 1106: „In illo totus evolvendis Bibliis Sacris insudavit, & scripta Augustini volvit & revolvit. Postea studio Monachi alicujus grandaevi foelicis in Sacris fecit profectus, articulumque de Iustificatione hominis peccatoris coram Deo, ex diligenti lectione & meditatione Epistolarum Paulinarum, cognovit atque didicit.“

92

Daniel Bohnert

die mit seinem Amt als Theologieprofessor an der Universität Wittenberg verbunden waren. 71 Bohemus betont zunächst die kurfürstliche Unterstützung der theologischen Doktorpromotion – die indes bei den Landeskindern unter den Absolventen der Theologischen Fakultät beinahe zur Regel werden sollte. Dieser habe Luthers Begabung, die Gewichtigkeit seiner Worte und die Kraft seiner Predigten erkannt. So sei ihm das Amt aufgetragen worden, die Paulusbriefe auszulegen, woraus Luthers Kommentar zum Römerbrief entstanden sei, der die Missstände hinsichtlich der guten Werke und das Verdienst Christi, seinen stellvertretenden Sühnetod aus der alleinigen Norm des Glaubens, nämlich aus der Heiligen Schrift, belegt habe. 72 – An diesen Bericht vom Leben des Reformators schließt sich unmittelbar eine Betrachtung des Amtes sowie des Todes Luthers an. Diese Ausführungen verdanken sich der kontroverstheologischen Bestreitung vonseiten der sogenannten Päpstler (Pontificii), die negierten, dass Luther von Gott berufen und mithin nicht rechtmäßig zum Reformationswerk bestellt und sein Amt nicht göttlichen Ursprungs sei. 73 Bohemus erklärt, dass in Hinsicht auf Luthers Vokation zweierlei betrachtet werden müsse: Einerseits sei er 1508 von Johann von Staupitz in seine Wittenberger theologische Professur berufen, von dem Gründungsrektor Martin Pollich von Mellerstadt Studenten und Volk anvertraut und von Kurfürst Friedrich dem Weisen bestätigt worden. Damit ist für Bohemus die Rechtmäßigkeit der Berufung auf Professur und ins Predigtamt durch den status politicus evident. Andererseits habe Luther 1517 das Reformationswerk ex instinctu divino begonnen, womit Bohemus auf die göttliche Sendung anspielt. Er weist nun am historischen Material nach, dass die weltliche Berufung ordinaria et mediata erfolgt sei, i.e. nach apostolischer Praxis. Die göttliche Vokation zum Reformationswerk führt er hingegen auf den göttlichen Antrieb Luthers, vermittelt durch demütige und eifrige lectio und meditatio des Wortes Gottes zurück, was durch sechs Belege untermauert: Verkündigung der mit dem Wort Gottes in allem übereinstimmenden Lehre (1), höchst machtvolle Verteidigung gegen das Papsttum (2), Verstockung des Papsttums (3),

71 Ebd., S. 1107: „Hoc postquam Electori Fridrico innotuit, illius Excellens ingenium, verborumque gravi-tatem, vim & energiam in Concionibus non sine admiratione cognovit, sumptibus suis circa annum 1511. Insignia & Privilegia Doctoratus ipsi offerri curavit. Demandabatur ipsi officium publicè Epistolas Paulinas interpretandi, quod sereno suscepit vultu, siquidem illarum meditatione vehementer delectabatur. Orsus ergo est explicationem Epistolae ad Romanos, in qua simul errores de bonis operibus & externa sanctimonia, singulari dexteritate refellit, meritum Christi solùm pro peccatorum expiatione sufficiens esse docuit, & ex Scriptura, tanquam norma fidei unica, probavit.“ 72 Ebd.: „Demandabatur ipsi officium publicè Epistolas Paulinas interpretandi, quod sereno suscepit vultu, siquidem illarum meditatione vehementer delectabatur. Orsus ergo est explicationem Epistolae ad Romanos, in qua simul errores de bonis operibus & externa sanctimonia, singulari dexteritate refellit, meritum Christi solùm pro peccatorum expiatione sufficiens esse docuit, & ex Scriptura, tanquam norma fidei unica, probavit.“ 73 Ebd., S. 1111.

Reformationsgeschichtsschreibung im Umfeld der Wittenberger Universitätstheologie

93

die wunderbare und überraschende Ausbreitung (4), Verkündigung und Bewahrung (5) und die apostolische Predigt (6). 74 4. STEIGBÜGELHALTERIN DER LUTHERISCHEN DOGMATIK? Wie ist die Kirchengeschichtsschreibung im Umfeld der Wittenberger Universitätstheologie des frühen 17. Jahrhunderts zu bewerten? Der humanistischen Tradition verpflichtet bestimmt Eusebius Bohemus in der Epitome die Geschichte als Lehrmeisterin des Lebens, die den Menschen zur Nachahmung anrege. Die konfessionelle Indienstnahme dieser Tradition vollzieht er, indem er die theologische Unterscheidung von Lehre und Leben i.S. des konfessionellen Luthertums zum Gestaltungsprinzip der kirchlichen Historiographie erhebt: Aufgabe der Geschichtsschreibung sei es, wahre Lehre und beispielhaftes Leben aufzuzeigen. Dabei sollten auch die Ursachen und Gründe für die Abweichungen von der Lehrnorm benannt werden. Dies sei fortwährend nötig, da Bohemus – theologisch-anthropologisch begründet (Ur-/Erbsündenlehre) – eine beständige Gefahr der Devianz sieht. Man mag in dieser Zweckbestimmung von Geschichte eine utilitaristische und entsprechend funktionalisierte Auffassung wittern; mehr noch: Eine auf diesen Leitlinien aufgebaute Betrachtung der Geschichte der Reformation legt eine enge Verbindung von Kirchengeschichte und Dogmatik nahe. Warum nimmt dann das Leben Luthers in der Darstellung von Bohemus einen verhältnismäßig kleinen Raum ein? Möglicherweise erschienen in dem Bemühen, die reformatorische Theologie Luthers aus ihren historischen Entstehungsbedingungen zu lösen und durch konsequente Methodisierung und Systematisierung zu universalisieren, überbordender Personenkult und anmaßende Heroisierung als deplatziert. Möglicherweise aber genügte eine Skizze im Dienste der Funktionalisierung der Causa Lutheri. Gleichwohl ist füglich zu bezweifeln, dass Kirchengeschichte in der Wittenberger Universitätstheologie lediglich gleichsam als Steigbügelhalterin der lutherischen Dogmatik aufgefasst worden ist. Schon ein flüchtiger Blick auf die von Bohemus benutzten Quellen im Index Historicorum & aliorum qui in hac Epitome citantur 75 sowie im Durchgang des Werkes zeigt, dass die beschriebene Indienstnahme der Kirchengeschichte keineswegs den Dispens des humanistischen Rufs zu den Quellen sowie einer redlichen Wahrheitssuche bedeutete. Dass die Bewertung und Beurteilung des aufgefundenen historischen Materials sich für Bohemus ohne jeden Zweifel der lutheri-

74 Ebd., S. 1113: „Nam nullum est dubium, quin singulari instinctu Spiritus sancti, per lectionem & meditationem Verbi studiosam & devotam, Lucernâ illâ veritatis fuerit illuminatus, & ad opus reformationis Ecclesiasticae, & repurgationis doctrinae à coeno & fermento papistico excitatus. Hoc confirmat: 1. Doctrinae cum verbo Dei per omnia consentientis praedicatio. 2. Potentissima contra Pontificios defensio. 3. Pontificiorum obstupefactio. 4. mirabilis & insperata dilatatio. 5. Felicissima propagatio, & ad nos usque conservatio. 6. Apostolica praedicatio.“ 75 Ebd., S. 1144–1148.

94

Daniel Bohnert

schen Theologie fügt, steht auf einem anderen Blatt. Eine umfassende Untersuchung zur Wittenberger Reformationsgeschichtsschreibung des 17. Jahrhunderts steht aber noch aus.

HISTORY AND REFORMATION IN SWISS REFORMED BIBLES Bruce Gordon Abstract: The Biblical culture of the Swiss Reformation and Post-Reformation offers a fruitful way of examining a culture of historical change. The Bibles of the Reformation, notably the new translations in Zurich, were deeply historical in character, expressing the contingent nature of translation and the need for multiple versions of scripture. Yet, at the same time they defined a particularly Swiss identity. By the seventeenth century the needs of the Reformed faith had changed. The Reformation was still claimed as an authoritative moment, but the relationship had altered. The desire for a new, more international understanding of the Reformed faith required different forms of Bible. The Reformation was relativized. The claim to historical authority went hand in hand with a need to transform biblical culture. Zusammenfassung: Die Bibelkultur der Schweizer Reformation und Nachreformation bietet eine ergiebige Möglichkeit, um die Kultur der historischen Veränderung zu untersuchen. Die Bibeln der Reformation, insbesondere die neuen Übersetzungen in Zürich, besaßen einen stark historischen Charakter, der die kulturelle Bedingtheit von Übersetzungen und die Notwendigkeit für mehrere Fassungen der Heiligen Schrift zum Ausdruck brachte. Dennoch markierten sie gleichzeitig eine spezifisch schweizerische Identität. Bis zum 17. Jahrhundert hatten sich die Bedürfnisse des reformierten Glaubens geändert. Die Reformation verfügte immer noch über eine autoritative Kraft, aber das Verhältnis zu ihr änderte sich. Der Wunsch nach einem neuen, mehr internationalen Verständnis des reformierten Glaubens benötigte verschiedene Gestalten der Bibel. Die Reformation wurde relativiert. Der Anspruch auf historische Autorität ging Hand in Hand mit dem Bedürfnis, die biblische Kultur umzuwandeln.

January 2019 marked the five hundredth anniversary of Ulrich Zwingli’s arrival in Zurich and the beginning of his preaching in the Grossmünster, its principal church. 1 The occasion was marked by civic events, conferences, church services, and by the appearance of well-funded biopic of the reformer. The commemorations belonged to a long tradition of Reformation anniversaries dating back to the sixteenth century. 2 The recent spate of commemorations reminded us of how the reli-

1 2

On commemoration culture in Zurich in 2019 for Zwingli anniversary, see Bruce Gordon, Randolf C. Head: “Zwingli’s Ambivalent Anniversary 2019: An Ereignisbericht”, in: Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 111 (2020), pp. 7–30. I have treated the Reformation and memory in Bruce Gordon: “History and Memory”, in: Ulinka Rublack (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of the Protestant Reformations. Oxford 2017, pp. 765–786. Thomas Fuchs: „Reformation, Tradition und Geschichte: Erinnerungsstrategien der reformatorischen Bewegung“, in: Joachim Eibach, Marcus Sandl (eds.): Protestantische

96

Bruce Gordon

gious tumults of the sixteenth century continue to be reinterpreted to address contemporary cultures. 3 How was the Reformation to be remembered, we might ask, and what was its relevance in a world from which it was increasingly distant? 1. WIDER-GEDÄCHTNUSS Like Martin Luther and John Calvin, Zwingli remains a difficult person to commemorate, but for different reasons. Whereas they died in the beds surrounded by friends, the Swiss reformer perished at the battle of Kappel in 1531. There was neither a funeral nor a grave. 4 Even Zwingli’s contemporaries were deeply disturbed by the manner of his death, wondering whether he had compromised the Gospel by supporting armed conflict. Nevertheless, by the eighteenth century, celebrations of the Zurich Reformation had become an established part of civic and church life. We can look to the example of 1719 when, in marking two hundred years since Zwingli’s arrival in Zurich, a short work appeared in the city from the press of Gessner entitled Bericht von dem zur dankbezeugender Wider-gedächtnuss der vor 200 Jahren von Gott gegeben höchst-seligen Reformation in der Stadt und Landschaft Zürich. 5 The text was printed for the festivities at the beginning of January, marking the date when the reformer had begun to preach in the Grossmünster. The stated purpose of the Bericht was to educate lay people on the nature of the Reformation, its historical purpose and theological teaching. Above all, it was to explain the continuing relevance of the Reformation for the contemporary church as a source for spiritual renewal. The Bericht was deeply pious in character, offered

3

4

5

Identität und Erinnerung. Göttingen 2003, pp. 71–84; Judith Pollmann: “Introduction: On the Early Modernity of Modern Memory”, in: Erika Kuijpers, Judith Pollmann, Johannes Müller, Jasper van der Steen (eds.): Memory before Modernity: Practices of Memory in Early Modern Europe. Leiden 2013; Stan M. Landry: Memory and German Nationalism, 1817–1917. New York 2014; James M. Stayer: Martin Luther, German Saviour: German Evangelical Theological Factions and the Interpretation of Luther, 1917–1933. Montreal 2000; John R. Gillis (ed.): Commemorations: The Politics of National Identity. Princeton 1996; Paul Connerton: How Societies Remember. Cambridge 1998. Thomas Fuchs: “Reformation, Tradition und Geschichte. Errinnerungsstrategien der reformatorischen Bewegung”, in: Joachim Eibach, Marcus Sandl (eds.): Protestantische Identität und Erinnerung. Göttingen 2003, pp. 71–84; Alexandra Walsham: “History, Memory, and the English Reformation”, in: The Historical Journal 55 (2012), pp. 899–938. A selection of works on Zwingli’s life in Rudolf Staehelin: Huldreich Zwingli: Sein Leben und Wirken nach den Quellen dargestellt. 2 vols. Basel 1895–1897; Gottfried W. Locher: Die Zwinglische Reformation im Rahmen der europäischen Kirchengeschichte. Göttingen 1979; George R. Potter: Zwingli. Cambridge 1976; Ulrich Gäbler: Huldrych Zwingli: Life and Work. Philadelphia 1986; Peter Opitz: Ulrich Zwingli: Prophet, Ketzer, Pionier Des Protestantismus. Zurich 2015; Bruce Gordon: “Huldrych Zwingli”, in: The Expository Times 126 (2015), pp. 1–12. Bericht Von dem zur danckbezeugender Wider-Gedächtnuß Der vor 200. Jahren von Gott gegeben Höchst-seligen Reformation Jn der Stadt und Landschaft Zürich/ Auf den 1. und 2. Tag Jenner 1719. angestelten Jubel-Jahre/ Samt Einem nothwendigen Nachricht/ von dem Werck Der Reformation Selbst […]. [Zurich 1719].

History and Reformation in Swiss Reformed Bibles

97

to the praise of the Lord and the building of the faith. 6 Its format affords us insight on how the Reformation was viewed by a wider public and why it required explanation or even defence. The little book, running to just over a hundred pages, consisted of approximately seventy questions about the nature and purpose of the Reformation. It had an almost catechetical character in which extensive and comprehensive answers were offered to each question. The driving concern of the anonymous author (or authors) of the Bericht was to explain how the Reformation remained relevant for the life of the church removed by two centuries. Why, in other words, should the event be commemorated and what was its continuing importance in a society much changed from the sixteenth century. The very existence of the book strongly suggests that for many members of the laity the connection between the Reformation and the contemporary world was no longer self-evident. This impression is further confirmed by the questions posed. Why, the Bericht opened, was 1719 to be marked as a jubilee year? 7 The author replied with an explanation of how the Reformation was no mere human event but rather divine intervention in history: God had acted to restore his Word and purify the church, and the reformers were his prophets. Zwingli’s arrival in Zurich in 1519 – the event being celebrated – was not simply an historical event, but directly connected to present concerns. It was a model for reform that spoke to the failing condition of the church in the eighteenth century. Reformation was not a one-time occurrence, but an ongoing process of renewal. Zwingli was a model of the prophetic reform desperately required two centuries later. The Reformation, therefore, had multiple significances: it was a historic event for the Swiss, a crucial part of their heritage; a moment when God’s hand was felt in history; and the establishment of a standard to be preserved by posterity. 8 The Bericht presented the Reformation as exemplary, but with a clear historical purpose. As such, it revealed the crucial aspect of commemoration: the past was not something to be reconstructed, but rather to be emulated in spirit. It was recoverable through embracing its genius, as a model of spiritual reform, and not nostalgia. The act of remembrance was to rekindle the work of the Spirit that had moved the reformers and their contemporaries to restore the church. But that recovery did not mean a return to the past two hundred years later; it was an act of what the Bericht named WiderGedächtnuss – a transformation of the present through engagement with the past. If the church of 1719 did not reform itself, it risked losing its connection with the past, with the Reformation as a dynamic force in history. This concern was reflected in the response to the question, “what is to be understood by the Reformation?” To recall the events of the sixteenth century was to accept God’s restoration of the Gospel in order to free burdened consciences. 9 The biblical text cited was Isaiah 1:14, “I hate your new moons and your appointed feasts; they have become a burden to me, I am weary of bearing them.” 6 7 8 9

Bericht, p. 2. Bericht, p. 8. Bericht, p. 15. Bericht, p. 20

98

Bruce Gordon

Historical memory and commemoration were generative of action; to recall was to move to restore the contemporary to the divine commandment implemented by Zwingli and his followers. The Reformation was a standard for the purity of faith, an imagined past in a similar vein in which the reformers themselves had looked to the early church. Clearly attentive to current attitudes, the Bericht addressed “what should one understand by the Reformation.” The reply was that it was the restoration of reine Lehr, the extirpation of error, the purification of God’s church and the liberation of consciences. 10 The temple was cleansed and the people led out of Egypt and Babylon. The very word “Reformation” meant Verbesserung, a state in which original truths were restored. In investigating what the authors intended by Wider-Gedächtnuss and Verbesserung we find an urgent need not to confuse reform with any form of innovation. Reform is a restoration of the past through accommodation to the present, through recapturing of the spirit of an age when faith had been rightly taught and lived. Zwingli and his followers had not introduced new doctrines, but had exegeted the Bible, preached and written in accord with the fathers of the early church. Emphatically the blessed Reformation (gesegnete Reformation) restored nothing other than God’s Word revealed in holy scripture. That truth had been the witness of the early church to which the reformers had looked. 11 The Bericht offered a position in line with Reformed perspective on the historical nature of the faith: although the truth was often obscured, it had never been extinguished. There had been an ever so slight continuity with the past in which the light had been preserved. God would never abandon his church, regardless of how small the rump. The truth could not be lost, but reformation was its restoration. This conception of the historicity of the Gospel involved a sustained attack on the Roman church, a repudiation of the papal antichrist and false intrigues of the Council of Trent. In contrast to the churches of the Reformation, Rome was built on human traditions and laws that invoked a false understanding of history. 12 The history of the church could be traced in terms of the rise of antichrist and the flourishing of corruption. Yet, even in those dark days some reforming figures had risen up, such as Jan Hus and others, who had preserved the light of the Gospel. While the church was torn between Christ and antichrist, God had made provision for the Gospel to survive. Just as for the Israelites in the Old Testament, God had raised up “invisible” men and women who held to the true faith as God. Even when it appeared that all had been lost, he never permitted his truth to vanish. 13 Reform was continuity with the truth that survived ever so precariously; its restoration through the Reformation was by no means innovation but reclamation. 14

10 11 12 13 14

Bericht, p. 20. Bericht, p. 21. Bericht, p. 26. Bericht, pp. 36f. Bericht, pp. 50–52.

History and Reformation in Swiss Reformed Bibles

99

Above all, Reformation was a return to the Word of God as expressed in the Bible. Ulrich Zwingli, whose life was outlined in the Bericht, was above all a prophet of scripture. 15 The Zurich reformer’s understanding of prophecy was primarily as interpreter of the Bible, not as a seer of the future. His life was presented as a model of fidelity to God’s Word in his preaching, interpretation and translation of the holy text. No mention was made in the Bericht of the reformer’s more controversial aspects, such as his fierce encounters with the Anabaptists and death in battle in 1531. In the vita his prophetic calling was confirmed through his preaching, interpretations and translations of the Bible. The Bericht emphasized the unity of the Reformation, passing over differences between Zwingli and Martin Luther. They were both giants of the Church. 2. BIBLE AND HISTORY The purpose of the 1719 Reformation anniversary as articulated in the Bericht offers a window on the complex relationship between the events of the sixteenth century and their later commemoration. In many respects, the Reformation marked a historical moment that served as the standard for future reforms of church and society. It was invoked as authoritative, something of an arcadia to which there must be a return. Yet, the relationship, as we shall see, was problematic. This challenge is cast in relief when we look to the evolution of the Bible, primarily in Zurich, in the post-Reformation period. The connection between the Bible and historical imagination offers us a path towards investigating the evolving ways in which a book could be understood as a marker of identity and continuity while itself undergoing changes that reflected evolving concerns and priorities. In this essay, I wish to discuss how the Reformation Bible was always a historical book culturally shaped by text, language, translation and doctrine. It reflected competing impulses to both claiming the past and engaging the present drawn through the recognition of the growing temporal distance of the Reformation. The vernacular Bible that emerged in Zurich in 1531 was an expression of the distinctive identity of the Swiss. 16 To a degree it was self-consciously fashioned as distinct from the work of Martin Luther and his circle in Wittenberg. Through the seventeenth century, the Reformation Bible continued to exercise considerable authority as a foundation of the faith, but it was slowly and subtlety transformed to meet changing historical and theological needs. Swiss vernacular Bibles of the seventeenth century reflected a Janus-like need to look to the past while embracing a religious landscape in transition. Of particular 15 Bericht, pp. 64f. 16 Traudel Himmighöfer: Die Zürcher Bibel bis zum Tode Zwinglis (1531): Darstellung and Bibliographie. Mainz 1995. On the influence of Erasmus on the Zurich church in its formation of biblical exegesis, see Christine Christ-von Wedel: “Erasmus und die Zürcher Reformatoren: Huldrych Zwingli, Leo Jud, Konrad Pellikan, Heinrich Bullinger und Theodor Bibliander”, in: Eadem, Urs B. Leu (eds.): Erasmus in Zürich. Zurich 2007, pp. 77–166.

100

Bruce Gordon

interest for this essay is the evolving interpretation of the Reformation as an authoritative event in the formation of Reformed churches in the later period. We find during the seventeenth century a rhetoric of fidelity to the events of the sixteenth in terms of claims to its legacy while, at the same time, a distinctive shift towards a more international and less Swiss identity. The manner in which the Bibles of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries addressed Reformation translations takes us to the complex ways in which the past was interpreted for the present. The case is further entangled in the problems posed by the Reformation Bible as a text. The variegated approaches to the Bible as symbol of the Reformation should not surprise us, given that there was never any consensus among the Swiss Reformed churches on an authoritative translation, as there was among Lutherans. The Swiss had a distinctly different approach to what constituted a Bible for the people.17 There was no one vernacular Bible for the German-speaking Swiss Reformation. Zurich produced its complete translation during the 1530s, but in Basel and Bern the Luther Bible was preeminent. In many churches both were to be found. There is no direct line to be traced between the Reformation and Reformed posterity in terms of a particular Bible. 3. ORIGINS The creation of the vernacular Bible in Zurich took place over the course of the 1520s, following the introduction of the Reformation at Easter 1525. In the early editions of the Bible in Zurich the scholars had to rely heavily on Luther’s translation. Zwingli and his colleagues were fully persuaded that the Bible had to be available in the dialect of the people, and work was begun on producing an Alemannic translation. Further, the growing theological divide between Zurich and Wittenberg required significant revisions to the critical apparatus. That goal, however, required years of work. From June 1525, almost every day of the week the leading scholars of the city met in the Grossmünster to carry out exegesis of the Old Testament. These meetings, later known as the Prophezei, were intended to provide for the preaching of the Word and a vernacular Bible. 18 Across the Limmat River in the Fraumünster, a similar exercise was carried out for the New Testament. Until both testaments could be translated, the Zurichers had to rely on the Luther Bible, which they modified both in terms of language and theological glosses. It was not until 1530 that a full Swiss translation of both testaments was completed, but the Luther translation was still evident in the text. This Bible was by no means an endpoint, for during the following decade it continued to be revised with new translations 17 See Urs Leu: “The Book- and Reading-Culture in Basle and Zurich During the Sixteenth Century”, in: Malcolm Walsby, Graeme Kemp (eds.): The Book Triumphant: Print in Transition in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Leiden 2011, pp. 295–319. 18 On the Prophezei, see Himmighöfer: Die Zürcher Bibel, pp. 213–235; Bruce Gordon: The Swiss Reformation. Manchester 2002, pp. 232–239.

History and Reformation in Swiss Reformed Bibles

101

from Hebrew and Greek appearing as the Zurich scholars progressed through the books of scripture. 19 By the middle years of the 1530s the Zurich scholars had produced their own translations of all the biblical books, an endeavour overseen by Leo Jud and Konrad Pellikan. Translation of the Bible was for Zwingli central to the prophetic work of the church. 20 Prophets, following the words of Paul, were primarily interpreters of the Word. Zwingli outlined the union of scholarship and piety in the work of the biblical interpreter: For he explains the texts which were just read in Latin, Greek and Hebrew with all diligence and in a fully reliable way, indicating how the passage under discussion was discussed by previous exegetes, what the opinion was of Jewish and Catholic interpreters, which resemblance there is with other texts from Scripture, which the coherence, structure and force of the words, which the eminence, characteristics, force and elegance of the sentence, and to which subject it should all be related. In short [the prophet should indicate] what the true meaning (genuinus sensus) and the application (usus et fructus) of this passage is, that is, how one can learn faith, piety, holiness, righteousness and steadfastness from it. 21

The folio Bible that appeared in Zurich from Froschauer’s press was the jewel of the Swiss Reformation. 22 This visually stunning folio edition of 1531 was highly theological in nature, containing a preface by Zwingli and a phalanx of parallel texts and annotations (over 14,000). Most remarkable were the 190 woodcuts by Hans Holbein. 23 Beautiful and theologically attentive this Bible may have been, but the Zurich translation project was by no means exhausted. Despite enormous pride in their work, the Zurich scholars continuously stressed the contingency of their labours. They did not view their translation as authoritative in itself, but rather as existing in a community of texts in which different versions would be in conversation. In this respect they differed significantly from both the Catholics and Lutherans. The Reformed rejected the idea of one fixed version with an especial status. Translation, they argued was an ongoing process that would change over time. Zwingli in his preface argued against having one authoritative

19 Johann Jakob Mezger: Geschichte der deutschen Bibelübersetzungen in der schweizerisch-reformirten Kirche von der Reformation bis zur Gegenwart: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der reformirten Kirche. Basel 1876, pp. 119–121. 20 On Zwingli’s exegetical methods, see Peter Opitz: “Zwingli’s Exegesis of the Old Testament”, in: Magne Saebo (ed.): Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of its Interpretation. Vol. 2. Göttingen 2005, pp. 419–428. 21 Cited in Daniël Timmermann: Heinrich Bullinger on Prophecy and the Prophetic Office (1523– 1538). Göttingen 2015, p. 282. 22 Hans Rudolf Lavater-Brine: “Die Froschaur-Bibel 1531”, in: Christoph Sigrist (ed.): Die Zürcher Bibel von 1531: Enstehung, Verbreitung, Wirkung. Zurich 2011, pp. 64–141. 23 David H. Price: “Hans Holbein the Younger and Reformation Bible Production”, in: Church History 86 (2017), pp. 998–1040.

102

Bruce Gordon

translation of the Bible, citing Augustine as support for the value of multiple translations. 24 No one translation could hope to be perfect, yet all must seek through learning and submission to the Spirit to render the Word as faithfully as possible. The argument against perfection was also for Zwingli a defence of the Zurich project of translating the Bible into German when other versions were available, in particular the work from Wittenberg, although Luther’s name was never mentioned. This argument was based on a historical claim to the biblical culture of the early church, where, above all in the time of Augustine, there had been numerous translations of scripture. The Zurichers drew from the church father that a plurality of translations was by no means a limitation, but rather demonstrated the vitality of the work of the Holy Spirit. Each version was prepared as faithfully as possible, however no one translation should be considered official. 25 This perspective insisted that the work of Wittenberg and Zurich scholars should not be placed in opposition. Rather, a spirit of fraternity should prevail in which they both rejoiced in the achievements of the other. “How”, Zwingli asked, “should it harm the Wittenberg church that the Old and New Testaments have been freshly translated? […] Further that the servants of the church in Zurich have prepared a notable and unique translation, as here follows, of the prophets, Job, the Psalms, and the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs?” 26 The argument laid out by Zwingli became a foundation of subsequent Reformed biblical culture in which there was a readiness to accept new translations alongside established ones. As to the text, Zwingli set down the principles by which the scholars in Zurich had worked. They had followed the Hebrew closely and eschewed literal translations in favour of capturing the sense, not the letter, of the text. 27 Their model was the work of Jerome on his Latin Bible. Theologically, Zwingli did not follow Luther’s emphasis on law and Gospel, but rather underscored the role of election: faith alone as a gift of God enabled a person to understand scripture. The Old Testament showed forth God in his power, wisdom, goodness and justice, and the promises of election were fulfilled in the New Testament, binding the two parts of the Bible in one narrative of covenant. The New Testament is the full expression of what is prefigured in the Old, namely Jesus Christ. 28 The Zurich Bible was intended to serve the church; it was financed by the state in order that parishes and laity might afford a copy. It was to be the means by which the Word of God was brought to the people through preaching. 29 A particular emphasis of the Zurich church was upon the Bible not only as a book of faith, but as a guide for the practical Christian life. Yet, although Zwingli argued that scripture was open to all who believed, there was not equality of interpretation. Only those 24 Die gantze Bibel/ der ursprünglichen ebraischen und griechischen Waarheyt nach auffs aller treüwlichest verteütschet. Zurich 1531, fol. 3r. 25 Die gantze Bibel, fol. 3v. 26 Die gantze Bibel, fol. 3v. 27 Die gantze Bibel, fol. 4r. 28 Die gantze Bibel, fol 5r–v. 29 Die gantze Bibel, fol. 6r.

History and Reformation in Swiss Reformed Bibles

103

who had been educated in the ancient languages had access to the inner wisdom of the text: the book was given to all, but not all are able to interpret it. 30 The 1530/31 Bible emphasized the clerical nature of the Zurich reformation. Ordained, educated pastors alone could interpret; the faithful should receive. Following Zwingli’s death in October 1531 the Zurich Bible continued to be revised extensively and widely used, although never as an official translation of the Swiss Reformation. Zwingli had been the lead figure in the creation of the Bible, but his demise by no means retarded philological and theological work on the text. A full revision of the 1531 Bible came in 1539/40 after the arrival in Zurich of the Jewish convert Michael Adam, who worked with Jud and Pellikan.31 The revisions were to be found in improvements of language, the addition of theological glosses, and the inclusion of concordances first prepared for 1536 and 1538 printings. 4. NEXT GENERATION Zwingli’s arguments on the relationship between translation and historical identity were developed by his successor Heinrich Bullinger. One of the major changes to the 1540 Zurich Bible was the addition of a new preface written by Bullinger. His extensive account of the Bible and its history remained the preface for all editions of the Bible until the mid-seventeenth century. Bullinger’s understanding of scripture and history emerged over the first decade of his tenure in three key works: De scripturae sanctae authoritate (1538), his preface to the Zurich Latin Bible of 1539 and in the preface to the Zurich Latin Bible of 1543. Writing at a time when the Zurich and Swiss Reformed churches were under fierce attack from both Catholics and Lutherans, Bullinger saw his role as defender of orthodoxy. In this respect he repeatedly made the connection between the Zurich Bible scholars and the fathers of the early church. His historical arguments were grounded in the primacy of the Bible in the life of the Church. In De sanctae scripturae, Bullinger countered Catholic arguments by stating that scripture predated the church: What is now written was for the earlier generations the living voice of God, which first to our fathers and forefathers from God himself through the mediation of the angels was announced. Later generations through the recommendation and sermons of the fathers wrote as a text and it was delivered by hand. Through the voice of God was the holy community of the fathers assembled. Thus, the Word of God is much older and greater than the Church. 32

The authority of scripture was confirmed through the godly legitimization of the first biblical author, Moses. Bullinger retained Zwingli’s emphasis on the historical 30 Die gantze Bibel, fol. 6v. 31 On printing in Zurich, see Paul Leemann-van Elck: Die Offizin Froschauer: Zürichs berühmte Druckerei im 16. Jahrhundert: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Buchdruckerkunst anlässlich der Halbjahrtausendfeier ihrer Erfindung. Zurich 1940; Joachim Staedtke: Anfänge und erste Blützeit der Zürcher Buchdrucks. Zurich 1965. 32 De scripturae sanctae authoritate, certitudine, firmitate et absoluta perfectione, deque Episcoporum, qui verbi dei ministri sunt, institutione & functione, […]. Zurich 1538, fol. A3v.

104

Bruce Gordon

nature of the Bible, but he developed his arguments in greater detail and with more appeal to the evolution of the text. Historical legitimacy was grounded in the symbiotic relationship between faith and Gospel. The church is, however, a gathering of persons. And even if it were a gathering of saints the effect of faith by which we are made holy is not to make us no longer people. According to this, we reasonably admit that the Gospel has its authority from the Church. But we must add it does not receive it as if from a magistrate or judge, but rather as if from a witness, or, as we have just said, from someone who counsels […]. And therefore, the strength of faith lies also in the truth of the Gospel. The Church bears witness to that truth; to its belief that it is a true proclamation by the Apostles of Christ. Because this is what the church learned from and took from the Apostles of Christ. 33

Bullinger’s preface to the Zurich German Bible first appeared in Latin in 1539 for a Bible that combined Sebastian Münster’s translation of the Old Testament with Erasmus’ New Testament. Bullinger’s Latin preface was rendered into German for the Zurich vernacular Bible that appeared the following year. 34 Bullinger sought to do several things in his preface: establish the origins and nature of the Bible; consider the canonicity and content of the books; and to set out the lineage of biblical wisdom in relationship to the philosophy of antiquity. 35 The attack on the ethical teaching of the pagan philosophers led Bullinger into a virulent assault on Aristotle, whose commentaries, he claimed, “no one understands.” As support for his view, Bullinger cited Juan Luis Vives, the Spanish humanist and noted opponent of Aristotle’s philosophy. 36 Bullinger described Aristotle’s works on ethics as full of immoral teaching in sharp contrast to the writings of “pious” Plato. 37 He referred to Justin Martyr’s Discourse to the Greeks where Plato is compared to Moses and the prophets because he spoke of the one God. The preface was remarkably polemical, a product of the fierce confessional debates of the 1530s. Bullinger claimed that the Zurichers, in contrast to their opponents possessed the “true philosophy of the Bible.” Not only was the head of the Zurich church taking aim at the Lutherans, but he offered a surprisingly sharp assault on classical culture, accusing Roman authors of teaching “false philosophy.” The ancient historians, poets and philosophers only pointed the way to lies and delusions. Bullinger’s principal interest was in the connection between language and truth: the Bible 33 De scriptura, fol. D3v. 34 Die gantze Bibel, das ist, Alle Bücher allts vnnd neüws Testaments: den vrsprünglichen Spraachen nach, auffs aller treüwlichest verteütschet: darzu sind yetz und kommen ein schön vnd volkom[m]en Register oder Zeyger über die gantzen Bibel: die Jarzal vnd Rächnung der Zeyten von Adamen biss an Christum, mit sampt gwüssen Concordantzen, Argumenten, Zalen vnd Figuren. Zurich 1540. 35 On Bullinger’s preface to the Zurich Bible, see Bruce Gordon: “‘Our Philosophy’, Heinrich Bullinger’s Preface to the 1539 Latin Bible”, in: Christian Moser, Peter Opitz (eds.): Bewegung und Beharrung. Aspekte des reformierten Protestantismus, 1520–1650. Leiden 2009, pp. 283– 295. 36 On Bullinger’s extensive use of Vives, see Christian Moser: Die Dignitate des Ereignisses: Studien zu Heinrich Bullingers Reformationsgeschichtsschreibung. Leiden 2008, pp. 206–216. 37 De gantze Bibel (1540), fol. B5r

History and Reformation in Swiss Reformed Bibles

105

was written in a language that all could understand and not in polished rhetoric: eloquence had nothing to do with truth. 38 A good example was Hebrew, a language that many scholars of antiquity and his own day treated with disdain. Bullinger turned to the Bible itself, revisiting a theme crucial to Zwingli. The Bible, he wrote, was to be spoken of in the plural both in terms of both its books and because of multiple translations. In other words, from the beginning the Bible had never been one book, but a collection, and no translation could claim preeminence. At the same time, the Bible was not simply another human book, and Bullinger was eager to clarify the difference between the sacred and classical texts. Moses was the “father” of scripture, and the Pentateuch contained vera sapientia. That wisdom is highly practical, a guide to how one was to live and form society. 39 Bullinger had particular scorn for the ancient historians, reiterating the traditional Christian contention that Heroditus was the “father of lies.” 40 History, like philosophy, was found only in scripture and was known to the ancient Israelites. Bullinger, a student of history, saw the Bible in an adversarial relationship to the writers of antiquity, who could only guess at the truth and provided as many answers as there were days in the week. 41 Four years later, a Latin Bible produced by a group of Zurich scholars appeared under the name Biblia sacrosancta. 42 Bullinger, who did not take a direct hand in the translation, wrote the extensive preface, which was printed alongside the Latin preface from 1539. Among the many questions addressed, Bullinger turned to the subject of translation and history. The preface returned to the question of multiple translations of scripture and drew once more on the witness of Augustine and Jerome. 43 What he found in the fathers was proof for the historical contingency of biblical translation. Augustine’s remarks, cited by Zwingli, were once more employed to demonstrate that the early church never had one authoritative translation, but a range of works. Further, that multiplicity was not viewed as a problem. Turning to Jerome, Bullinger argued that the church has always exercised its “liberty” in accepting and rejecting translations, and this privilege, according to the Zurich writers, was supported by Jerome’s own remarks from the prefaces to his biblical commentaries. Bullinger cited Jerome’s preface to the Pentateuch. Pious work, yet perilous presumption, to change the old and aging language of the world, to carry it back to infancy, for to judge others is to invite judging by all of them. Is there indeed

38 39 40 41 42

Die Gantze Bibel (1540), fol. A2r. Die Gantze Bibel (1540), fol. B4v. Die Gantze Bibel (1540), fol. B6r. Die Gantze Bibel (1540), fol. B5r. Biblia Sacrosancta Testame[n]ti Veteris & Noui/ è sacra Hebraeorum lingua Graecorúmque fontibus, consultis simul orthodoxis interpretib. religiosissime translata in sermonem Latinum; authores omnemq[ue] totius operis rationem ex subiecta intelliges praefatione. Zurich 1543. 43 On the 1543 Bible, see Bruce Gordon: “Remembering Jerome and Forgetting Zwingli: The Zurich Latin Bible of 1543 and the Establishment of Heinrich Bullinger’s Church”, in: Zwingliana 41 (2014), pp. 1–33; Claire Gantet: “La Religion et ses mots: La Bible latine de Zurich (1543) entre la tradition et l’innovation”, in: Zwingliana 23 (1996), pp. 143–167.

106

Bruce Gordon any learned or unlearned man, who when he picks up the volume in his hand, and takes a single taste of it, and sees what he will have read to differ, might not instantly raise his voice, calling me a forger, proclaiming me now to be a sacrilegious man, that I might dare to add, to change, or to correct anything in the old books? 44

Bullinger found in Jerome testimony to translation as an ongoing, provisional work that was constantly being refined. Difference has always existed because translation was a human work. The head of the Zurich church sought to reclaim Jerome from any – Catholic – argument for the fixed authority of the Vulgate. Any work of rendering the Bible into the language of the people was necessarily built on what had come before. What, therefore […] do we condemn the ancients? By no means! But after the studies of the pious in the House of God we do what we are able, and we offer in the tabernacle of God what we are able according to our portion of strength, knowing that the riches of one does not sully the poverty of others. 45

Following these references to Jerome, the preface turned to Augustine’s De doctrina Christiana (2 ch. 11), most certain is that the ancient churches of east and west used very many and diverse copies and translations, which holily they did not believe and assert to be of any harm to the churches, but of great use. 46

There was a certain irony in how the story of the Bible played out in the Swiss Reformation. The Zurich Bible that emerged in 1531 and continued to be revised through the century was never adopted as an official text of the churches. With many of the Swiss churches, such as Basel, Bern and St. Gallen, preferring the Luther Bible. Unlike Protestant Germany, a community of translations existed among the Swiss churches in which Zurich and Luther versions were frequently read together. That often tense relationship played a significant role in the development of the Reformed Bible in the seventeenth century. 5. CHANGES The first significant alterations to the Zurich Reformation Bible came in the latter half of the sixteenth century, when it became increasingly clear that a revised version was required to fit the growing culture of Reformed Calvinism and eventually of orthodoxy. Two notable developments are evident in the 1589 (reprinted 1597) Bible printed by Johannes Wolf. 47 First, much of the paratextual material, which in

44 45 46 47

Biblia sacrosancta, fol. α2r. Biblia sacrosancta, fol. α5r. Biblia sacrosancta, fol. α5r. I have been able to consult the 1597 edition. Biblia: das ist alle Bücher Alts und Newes Testaments/ den ursprünglichen Sprachen nach auff das trewlichst verteütschet unnd jetzt von Newem wider ubersehen; darzuo ist kommen ein ordentliche Abteilung aller Capiteln in gewisse

History and Reformation in Swiss Reformed Bibles

107

the Reformation editions had been somewhat limited, were heavily augmented by material from David Pareus, reformer in Heidelberg. The result was a distinct theological shift in the Bible in both its emphasis on Christology and the covenant. 48 The 1589 edition reflected a changing Reformed world in which the Swiss were increasingly peripheral. The intellectual centres of Calvinism had shifted to Geneva, Heidelberg and Leiden. Swiss biblical culture was being drawn into a wider European circle, reflected by the increasing number of students from Zurich, Bern and Basel travelling to Geneva, France, the Empire and the Low Countries to advance their theological studies. 49 New doctrinal and exegetical impulses were flowing into the Swiss churches, broadening their foundations beyond the work of Zwingli and Bullinger. There were also significant internal developments. Although the Zurich Council had supported the vernacular Bible from the early days, towards the end of the century it took a more interventionist role. With the 1589 edition the Bible became an official publication of the state. Nevertheless, the text of the Bible largely remained the work of Zwingli, Bullinger and their circle. The first major linguistic revision of the Zurich reformation Bible came in 1629 by Johann Jakob Breitinger, who was commissioned by the state to begin work on a revised Bible. 50 Despite his claims to continuity, Breitinger made extensive linguistic revisions to the text, marking a significant break with the language of the Reformation. Nevertheless, in his preface he was eager to demonstrate that the revised translation was very much in harmony with the doctrines of the Reformation, which were drawn from God’s Word. Many of Breitinger’s changes were motivated by a desire to return to the Bible to a purer form of Swiss dialect. Breitinger saw his work as recovering the true Swiss origins of the Reformation Bible. The translations of the Bible since the Reformation, he argued, had introduced numerous foreign words and expressions unfamiliar to the Swiss people. 51 Further, Breitinger framed his work in terms of drawing a more accurate rendering of the Greek into the vernacular. In this respect, he continued the Zurich discourse of linking fidelity of translation with piety. Breitinger also enhanced and expanded the detailed concordance, which allowed him to make significant linguistic changes.

48 49

50 51

Versicul, sampt jedes capitels aussführlichen Summarien, auch nohtwendigen Concordantzen, Chronicken, Landtafeln, newen Figuren und einem vollkommnen Register. Zurich 1597. The central theological arguments are laid out in the Kurzer summarischer der gantzen Heiligen Schrifft beider Testamenten. On Herborn, see Gerhard Menk: Die Hohe Schule Herborn in ihrer Frühzeit (1584–1660). Wiesbaden 1981; Karin Maag: Seminary or University: The Genevan Academy and Reformed Higher Education, 1560–1620. Aldershot 1995, pp. 129–146; Anja-Silvia Göing: “Die Ausbildung reformierter Prediger in Zurich 1531–1575. Vorstellung eines pädagogischen Projekts”, in: Herman J. Selderhuis, Markus Wriedt (eds.): Bildung und Konfession. Tübingen 2006, pp. 293–310. Biblia: das ist alle Bücher des alten und neuwen Testaments, den ursprünglichen Spraachen nach auff das treuwlich ist verteutschet und jetz von neuwem wider ubersehen […]. Zurich 1638. Mezger: Geschichte der deutschen Bibelübersetzungen, p. 222. Mezger: Geschichte der deutschen Bibelübersetzungen, p. 223

108

Bruce Gordon

Yet, appearances can be deceiving. An examination of the text reveals something quite different from what Breitinger claimed. In many respects, his linguistic revisions formed a clear break with the Zurich Reformation Bible that he held in such esteem. Scholarship and rhetoric were in a complex relationship as Breitinger looked to restore a vision of the Zurich reformation as authentically Swiss while in fact seeking to move beyond a provincialism towards a more international Bible that served a broader Reformed church in Europe. He did this by beginning a process that would continue through the seventeenth century of moving the Zurich Bible to a more standardized form of high German. The printing was a huge success, and the Bible was reprinted in 1638, 1642 and 1656 virtually unaltered. 52 Without doubt, Breitinger was preparing the ground for a new translation. 53 This desire would take time, appearing in its fullness in the years 1665 to 1667. 54 The 1665/67 editions signaled a desire for a new translation of the Zurich Bible. The quest for the first complete retranslation of the Bible since the Reformation was fostered by a series of expectations. There was widespread belief that despite the work of Breitinger the Reformation Bible was dated and no longer serviceable for the contemporary church. 55 Confessional unity was another major concern. Zurich wanted a Bible that would be used in common by the Swiss churches, where for the most part the Luther Bible was predominant. It was unlikely that Basel would be interested, but the Zurich was eager to win over Bern. The traditional rivalry between the two, however, made such agreement impossible. The desire for confessional unity moved forward the need for a more standardized language, and the Zurich clergy declared themselves in favour of more High German orthography. The work of the various committees began in 1660 and took five years as they worked through not only the biblical languages, but the Latin and vernacular translations, including German, French, Italian and English Bibles. Once again, we find a clear tension between historical and theological identity and contemporary concerns. The prefatorial material casts the new Bible as a return to the purity of the Reformation, embracing in its translation methods the work of the original reformers. In fact, however, they shifted the Zurich Bible much closer to high German orthography. Yet, once more we find a clear distancing from the Reformation in the methodology with which the scholars worked. Unlike the reformers of the 1520s and 30s, who had endeavoured to work as closely as possible with the Hebrew and Greek, the scholars of the Collegium biblicum in Zurich greatly augmented their translation from the original languages with use of a range of translations – not least of which was the 1528 Latin translation of Pagninus. 56 It was an approach that in significant 52 Mezger: Geschichte der deutschen Bibelübersetzungen, p. 227. 53 Mezger: Geschichte der deutschen Bibelübersetzungen, pp. 229f. 54 Biblia: Das ist, Alle Bücher der heiligen Schrift: Auss den Grundsprachen treulich und wol verteutschet, aufs neue, und mit fleiss widerum übersehen: Mit dienstlichen Vorreden: begrifflichen Abtheilungen der Capitlen: abgesezten Versen: nothwendigen Concordanzen, und einem nutzlichen Register. Zurich 1667. 55 Mezger: Geschichte der deutschen Bibelübersetzung, p. 231. 56 Mezger: Geschichte der deutschen Bibelübersetzungen, p. 233.

History and Reformation in Swiss Reformed Bibles

109

respects relativized the work of the Swiss reformers by reducing their translation from being authoritative to being one among other translations consulted. The Zurich Bible no longer possessed any particular status despite the narrative of restoration. Once more we find that shift to High German meant above all a turn to the Luther Bible. 57 This was evident throughout the translation, from the Psalms to the Epistles. The movement to replace Swiss idioms with High German, notably the Luther Bible, had found its fulfillment. The Bible reflected a significant linguistic change in Zurich, where High German was increasingly known. The example of the Bible was reflected in other forms of literature. The claim of the Reformation inheritance and legacy went hand in hand with a major theological realignment that moved away from Zwingli and Bullinger towards Calvinist orthodoxy. In fact, it is notable that while the seventeenth-century prefaces invoke the Reformation as the decisive moment in the cleansing of the church from false doctrine, not a single appeal is made to the particular reformers Zwingli or Bullinger. They had been replaced by contemporary authors. Following the conclusion of the Thirty Years’ War Zurich students were once again travelling to Herborn and Leiden where they became part of the wider Reformed theological culture. The Zurich Bible of 1665/67 mapped that international culture. 6. PISCATOR BIBLE IN BERN The other major development of Swiss biblical culture in the seventeenth century took place in Zurich’s rival, Bern. In 1660, when the magistrates commissioned the work on the new Zurich bible their intention was to create a work that would unite all the Swiss Reformed churches. Overtures were made to Basel, Schaffhausen, Bern and other co-religionists. The reception was not warm. Basel, as we have noted, remained firmly attached to the Luther Bible, as did Schaffhausen and St Gallen. Bern was in a different position. It had never had its own Bible and the churches in the city and rural territories used both Luther and the Zurich Bible. 58 The large Anabaptist communities were deeply attached to the Zurich Bible, while in the city it was the Luther translation that prevailed. Bern declined Zurich’s offer for a series of reasons, not least because it wanted to determine its own situation. In many respects the choice was rather unexpected and unusual. The third form of German Bible available in Bern was the translation by Johann Piscator in Herborn. 59 His work was distinguished by great philological skill and scholarly rigor

57 Mezger: Geschichte der deutschen Bibelübersetzungen, pp. 250–252 58 Kurt Guggisberg: Bernische Kirchengeschichte. Bern 1958, pp. 373–378. 59 Biblia, das ist: alle Bücher Heil. Schrifft Alten und Newen Testaments auss hebreischer und griechischer Spraach, in welchen sie anfangs von den Propheten und Aposteln geschriben, jetzund aufs new verteutscht: auch eines jeden Buchs und Capitels Inhalt, samt beygefügten Concordantzen, und angehängter Erklärung der tunckeln Geschichten, Worten, Reden und Sachen, aufs kürtzest und einfaltigst verfasset: ferner die Apocrypha, das ist, die Bücher, welche von

110

Bruce Gordon

more than by beauty of language. The connection between Bern and Piscator was in part due to family connections, but there was more. By the late sixteenth century theological students from Bern were regularly travelling to Herborn for their studies, where they became familiar with the edition. Already by 1616 Bernese students were instructed to use the Piscator Bible as the best available translation. 60 Unlike the Luther and Zurich Bibles, which were intended to be easily accessible for the laity, the Piscator Bible emphasized its closeness to the original languages. This aspect appealed to the Bernese magistrates who sought a Bible that was theologically close to Calvinism. The association between the Piscator Bible, which they studied in Herborn, and Calvinist orthodoxy, which was increasingly dominant in Bern, was very close. 61 The Bernese magistrates played a direct role in the commissioning of the Bible, which was slightly edited to pare down Piscator’s extensive notes. The 500 copies printed bore the insignia of the bear, representing the city. 62 In order to make the Bible affordable for churches and lay people the price was subsidized by the magistrates. The Piscator Bible embodied the Bernese church’s sense of preserving the orthodoxy of the Reformation. It was a defence of Calvinist orthodoxy, but also a marker of historical and theological identity. Nevertheless, the Bible did not prove a great success, and in time both scholars and churches moved back towards the Luther Bible. 63 To get a clearer sense of this we turn briefly to the extensive address to the magistrates written for the introduction of the state Bible in 1684. The address appeared before Piscator’s letter to the reader. The model the author of the dedication created for the Bernese council was of King Joash (2 Kings 12), who, as the text says, at his coronation held both scepter and book. The scepter as the sign of royal authority, and the book as the renewal of the covenant. Joash the king who reformed the church by restoring the temple. The book’s authors equated the temple scrolls with the Piscator Bible and the magistrates were reminded that it was the divinely commanded means by which God declared his Word was to be proclaimed and true religion protected. As Joash was charged with the book of the law, so the Bernese magistrates were given the Piscator Bible. It was the role of the magistrates to ensure that the pure Gospel was preached and the people have access to the Word in their own language. The dedication then placed the work of the magistrates in the context of the Reformation.64 As the story of Joash demonstrated, God intervened at certain moments in history to restore true religion and to raise rulers who would cast their crowns before the true king of kings. This, the text continues, is what happened over a century ago

60 61 62 63 64

alters her an das Alte Testament angehengt werden, wiewol sie nicht durch prophetischen Geist, noch in hebreischer Spraach geschriben sind, aufs new verteutscht. Bern 1684. Karl J. Lüthi: “Die Berner Piscator-Bible”, in: Mitteilungsblatt der Schweizerischen Bibliophilen-Gesellschaft-bulletin de la Société Suisse des Bibliophiles 1–2 (1946), p. 42. Guggisberg: Bernische Kirchengeschichte, pp. 376f. Biblia, “Zuschrifft”, n.p. Guggisber: Bernische Kirchengeschichte, p. 378. Biblia, “Zuschrifft”, n.p.

History and Reformation in Swiss Reformed Bibles

111

with the Reformation, having heard the cries of those who suffered in exile in Babylon. 65 Their consciences were tethered by antichrist, they sat in the darkness of ignorance, were lost in superstition. The text continues to identify the central role played by the rulers in the Reformation moment. It was through their actions that the church was restored and the Gospel established. The rulers of the Reformation had been Joash. Now with this new Bible, that moment was to be regained. The rulers of 1684 were to return to the model of the Reformation magistrates in Bern. The fruits of godly government were peace and fraternal concord as the people heard the Word and were instructed. They would also pray and sing his name. For this reason, they commended the Piscator Bible, which the magistrates were to publish in their name as an official Bible and were to make available to even the humbles of people through their financial support. The Bible was the means by which true religion would be restored and flourish – it would guarantee peace and order through the land. 66 7. CONCLUSION In later early modern period, the historical and theological claim to the Reformation as the decisive moment in the restoration of the church remained central to the Bible projects. This is evident in the genealogy of the Bibles drawn up by Johann Kaspar Ulrich for the 1755 Zurich Bible. 67 However, in significant ways the principles of the Reformation were altered. The Reformation translations had no particular authority as texts in any way similar to Luther’s Bible. Beginning with Breitinger in 1638 and then more fully in 1650 they were largely abandoned. Their prefaces were no longer printed. Further, the central claim of the Reformation Bibles for a multiple of translations, or a community of texts in the service of the church was relinquished in favour of an official Bible, a normative translation, such as we have seen in both Zurich and Bern. The Swiss Bibles of the seventeenth century reflect a spectrum of historical views towards the Reformation. In Basel, the Luther Bible remained the basis of church and academic life. Bern had moved in another direction adopting the Piscator Bible as its official sacred text, deciding, like Basel, to move beyond the boundaries of the Swiss Confederation. In the end, the Luther Bible prevailed in Bern as well. It is in Zurich that we find the most striking historical development. In many respects, the scholars of the seventeenth century retained the Reformation emphasis on the fluid nature of translation, but their intentions were quite different. They 65 Biblia, “Zuschrifft”, n.p. 66 Biblia, “Zuschrifft”, n.p. 67 Biblia: das ist, die ganze Heilige Schrift Alten und Neuen Testaments, aus den Grundsprachen treulich wol verteutschet/ mit dienstlichen Vorreden, begreiflichen Abtheilungen der Capitel, vielen Auslegungen und Nuzanwendungen, auch genauer Anmerkung der Parallelstellen, und nothwendigen Concordanzen, herausgegeben durch Johann Caspar Ulrich, Pfr. zum FrauMünster. Zurich 1755/56.

112

Bruce Gordon

continued to hold up the Reformation as a historical model to be recaptured, yet their purpose lay in attempting to move away from the vernacular culture formulated in the 1520s towards a more standardized text that reflected the international range of the Reformed churches. The Reformation increasingly became a rhetorical tool in the service of a historical and theological identity while its goals were reinterpreted to reflect the needs of a changing world. In terms of translation, however, the Reformation Bibles were replaced with works that no longer sought to capture the vernacular of the Swiss people, but aspired to a high German and more international readership. What the Bibles demonstrate is both the claim to the Reformation as an authoritative moment historically and theologically but also the ways in which its legacy was reworked and interpreted, marking the proximity and distance of the sixteenth-century event.

THE REFORMATION AND EARLY “HISTORICAL THEOLOGY” Heinrich Alting and John Forbes of Corse Aza Goudriaan Abstract: By taking the history of Christian doctrine as a specific theme of investigation, Heinrich Alting (Theologia historica sive systematis historici loca quatuor, 1664; a posthumous volume of lectures originally given in 1635) and John Forbes of Corse (Instructiones historico-theologicae, 1645) ventured into the largely untrodden field of what they called “historical theology.” The two works were written independently from each other, although as a student in Heidelberg Forbes had met with Alting. Alting aimed for a systematic historical survey of individual loci while Forbes offered historical analyses of selected themes. Both works reveal a Reformed theological agenda and a clear interest in the historical continuity or catholicity of Reformed doctrine. Alting regarded fundamental doctrinal continuity as compatible with a succession of periods of Old and New Testament history that included, as the latest era, a period of “the decline of antichrist” that started in 1517 and lasted into Alting’s own day. Zusammenfassung: Indem sie die Geschichte der christlichen Lehre als spezifisches Untersuchungsthema aufnahmen, gingen Heinrich Alting (Theologia historica sive systematis historici loca quatuor, 1664; ein posthum erschienener Band mit Vorlesungen, die ursprünglich 1635 gehalten wurden) und John Forbes of Corse (Instructiones historico-theologicae, 1645) auf das weitgehend unbetretene Gebiet dessen, was sie „historische Theologie“ nannten. Die beiden Werke entstanden unabhängig voneinander, obwohl Forbes als Student in Heidelberg Alting kennengelernt hatte. Alting gab einen systematisch-historischen Überblick über einzelne Loci, während Forbes ausgewählte Themen analysierte. Beide Werke lassen eine reformierte theologische Agenda und ein klares Interesse an der historischen Kontinuität oder Katholizität der reformierten Lehre erkennen. Alting betrachtete die grundsätzliche Kontinuität der Lehre als vereinbar mit einer Abfolge von Perioden der alttestamentlichen und neutestamentlichen Geschichte, die als jüngste Epoche eine Periode des „Niedergangs des Antichristen“ einschloss, die 1517 begann und bis in die Zeit Altings andauerte.

1. TWO WORKS ON HISTORICAL THEOLOGY In a recent lexicon entry on “historical theology,” the German church historian Ulrich Köpf notes that the beginnings of the so-called historical theology or Theologiegeschichte can be traced, in essence, to the Early Church, to Irenaeus’s heresiology (Adversus haereses) and Jerome’s survey of the actions and writings of ‘Illustrious men’. Explicit reflections, however, on the history of theology and its place and function in the encyclopedia of theology began only, writes Köpf, “in the era of old Protestant orthodoxy (im Zeitalter der altprotestantischen Orthodoxie).” The first example that

114

Aza Goudriaan

he mentions is Johann Franz Buddeus, the author of a Historico-theological Introduction to the Entire Theology and its Individual Parts (Isagoge historica-theologica ad theologiam universam singulasque eius partes) published in 1727. 1 In 2002, a few years before Köpf’s entry was published, Michael MurrmannKahl wrote the entry on “Theologiegeschichte/Theologiegeschichtsschreibung” for the Theologische Realenzyklopädie. In it, he did not attempt to trace back the origins of the discipline to the Early Church, nor even to Johann Franz Buddeus, arguing instead that the “modern historical theology was formed in the Sattelzeit (Koselleck) of 1750–1850 as a part of the history of the learned university theology,” in marked distinction from Church History as an institutional history, on the one hand, and from the history of dogma, as being concerned with ecclesiastical dogma, on the other hand. 2 Obviously, Murmann-Kahl used a much narrower definition than Köpf did, and his chronology differed accordingly. Whatever the precise genealogy and the exact definition of historical theology may be, we know for a fact that already in the first half of the seventeenth century Heinrich Alting and John Forbes of Corse authored works under the explicit label of “historical theology” (including the adjective form of “historico-theological”). Given the prevalence of the term historia ecclesiastica (ἐκκλησιαστικη ἱστορια) from the early fourth century onwards when Eusebius of Caesarea coined the term, Alting’s and Forbes’s preference for the term “historical theology” suggests that they had something different in mind, and indeed, the Instructiones historico-theologicae (1645) of the Scottish theologian John Forbes are still mentioned as one of the earliest examples of Dogmengeschichte as an emerging separate discipline. 3 The same is true, though apparently to a lesser extent, of Alting’s work. 4 Alting wrote earlier than Forbes. He died in 1644 before having seen the publication of his 1 2 3

4

Ulrich Köpf: “Theologiegeschichte/Theologiegeschichtsschreibung”, in: Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Vol. 8. Tübingen 42005, pp. 315–321, here: 315. Michael Murrmann-Kahl: “Theologiegeschichte/Theologiegeschichtsschreibung”, in: Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Vol. 33. Berlin 2002, pp. 344–349, here: 344. Thus e.g. Gerhard May: “Dogmengeschichte/Dogmengeschichtsschreibung”, in: Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Vol. 2. Tübingen 41999, pp. 915–920, here: 916; cf. Wolf-Dieter Hauschild: “Dogmengeschichtsschreibung”, in: Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Vol. 9. Berlin 1982, pp. 116–125, here: 116. See, however, Thomas Klöckner: Heinrich Alting (1583–1644): Lebensbild und Bedeutung für die reformierte Historiographie und Dogmengeschichtsschreibung des 17. Jahrhunderts. Göttingen 2019; Pierre-Olivier Léchot: “Entre irénisme et controverse: La réécriture historique de la différence confessionelle chez le théologien palatin Heinrich Alting (1583–1644)”, in: Bertrand Forclaz (ed.): L’expérience de la différence religieuse dans l’Europe moderne (XVIe– XVIIIe siècles). Neûchatel 2012, pp. 349–369, here: 349, 353; Gustav Adolf Benrath: Reformierte Kirchengeschichtsschreibung an der Universität Heidelberg im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert. Speyer 1963, pp. 62f.; “D. Nauta ‘Hendrik (Henricus) Alting’”, in: Biografisch Lexicon voor de geschiedenis van het Nederlandse Protestantisme. Vol. 2. Kampen 1983, pp. 22–24, here: 23: “In zijn Theologia historica onderscheidt hij de theologia dogmatica van de historica; hij verstaat eronder de ‘dogmatum narratio’ en de ‘historia religionis et omnium ejus dogmatum.’ Hij was daarmee een van de eersten die de dogmageschiedenis als afzonderlijk vak invoerden, zij het dan dat de behandeling locusgewijze gebeurde en ook beperkt bleef tot slechts enkele loci.”

The Reformation and Early “Historical Theology”

115

Theologia historica sive systematis historici loca quatuor, a series of university lectures which included, in the introduction, an explicit defense of the “existence” (existentia) of historical theology. 5 Heinrich Alting was born in Emden in 1583. Having studied under Johann Piscator in Herborn, he worked as a professor in Heidelberg from 1613 until 1622, and in Groningen from 1627 onwards, where he taught for the rest of his life until he died in 1644. As a Heidelberg Professor he was a delegate to the Synod of Dordt in 1618/19. 6 His work Theologia historica was published by his son, Jacob Alting, 7 twenty years after Heinrich’s death. Jacob mentioned on the title page that the work was based on university lectures that his father gave in Groningen (In inclyta Academia Groningae et Omlandiae publicis Praelectionibus proposita). Internal data (see below) suggest that these lectures were held in 1635. As the title indicated, the work comprised only “four loci of an historical system”: theology, Scripture, the doctrine of God, and predestination. John Forbes, the son of the Aberdonian bishop Patrick Forbes, was born in 1593. He became the first professor of divinity at the Aberdeen King’s College in Scotland, which chair he was forced to quit in 1641 because of his refusal to endorse the Solemn League and Covenant. He then went to the Netherlands where he lived until 1646. After returning to Scotland, he stayed in Corse until he died in 1648. 8 As a student in Heidelberg between 1612 and 1615, Forbes met Heinrich Alting as one of his teachers. 9 Klöckner, who has noted this historical link between Forbes and Alting, thinks that Forbes attended Alting’s Heidelberg course on the theological loci, and that given the later date (1635) of Alting’s Groningen lectures on historical theology a direct relation between Forbes’s and Alting’s works on historical theology cannot be proven. 10 In fact, both Forbes and Alting could never have

5

Henricus Alting: Theologia historica, sive systematis historici loca quatuor. In inclyta Groningae et Omlandiae publicis Praelectionibus proposita. Amsterdam 1664, pp. 1–8, here: 2–4. 6 Klöckner: Alting; Christoph Strohm: “Alting, 2. Heinrich”, in: Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Vol. 1. Tübingen 41998, p. 475; “D. Nauta ‘Hendrik (Henricus) Alting’”, pp. 22–24; Benrath: Kirchengeschichtsschreibung, pp. 46–79. 7 Christoph Strohm: “Alting, 3. Jacob”, in: Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Vol. 1. Tübingen 41998), p. 475. 8 David George Mullan: “Forbes, John, of Corse (1593–1648),” in: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004). URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/9836 (last accessed: 14 December 2021); H.R. Sefton: “Forbes, John (1593–1648)”, in: Nigel M. de S. Cameron et al. (eds.): Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology. Downers Grove, IL 1993, p. 328; Aaron Clay Denlinger: “The Aberdeen Doctors and Henry Scougal”, in: David Fergusson, Mark W. Elliott (eds.): The History of Scottish Theology. Vol. 1: Celtic Origins to Reformed Orthodoxy. Oxford 2019, pp. 279–295; Aaron Clay Denlinger: “Swimming with the Reformed Tide: John Forbes of Corse (1593–1648) on Double Predestination and Particular Redemption”, in: Journal of Ecclesiastical History 66 (2015), pp. 67–89; G.D. Henderson: Religious Life in Seventeenth-Century Scotland. Cambridge 1937 (repr. 2011), index s.v. John Forbes of Corse, Andrew L. Drummond: The Kirk and the Continent. Edinburgh 1956, pp. 87–91. 9 Klöckner: Alting, pp. 134f. Mullan: Forbes. 10 Klöckner: Alting, pp. 134f., 178, 283.

116

Aza Goudriaan

quoted each other’s printed historical writings: Alting’s historical works were printed posthumously after the publication of Forbes’s Instructiones historicae-theologicae and Forbes’s magnum opus appeared first after Alting’s death. 11 With respect to his years of study in Heidelberg, Forbes mentioned David Pareus as a significant teacher. 12 Alting is recognized in a very indirect manner in the heading preceding Samuel Maresius’s endorsement of the Instructiones, where Forbes mentioned that since the death of Alting, Maresius’s “colleague of blessed memory,” Maresius had been the only professor of theology at Groningen “for nearly a whole year already” and that at the time of writing Maresius was also the rector of the University of Groningen. This can be read as a tribute to Alting insofar as Forbes could very well have left out Alting’s name while still making the point that his endorser Maresius was a busy man with significant responsibilities. 13 In any case, it is a remarkable coincidence that the authors of these two early works of an explicitly “historical theological” nature had a meeting point in Heidelberg. In connection with the present volume’s interest in the rise of the Reformation as an era in early modern European historiography, the following three questions seem to be worth asking: (1) Were Alting and Forbes, when they lectured or wrote on historical theology, attempting to shape a new academic subdiscipline or theological genre? (2) To what extent does their concept of “historical theology” itself reveal an agenda that depends on Reformation theology? (3) What roles did Alting and Forbes attribute to the Reformation in their historical narratives? Both Alting and Forbes placed the sixteenth century within the scope of their historical theology. Their chronologies extended almost to their own day: Forbes mentioned in the title of his work that it covered the period “from the Apostolic times until the first years [tempora] of the seventeenth century” and Alting’s periodization of history started from creation and ended with the era of the decline of antichrist, a process that Alting considered to have been underway for more than a century at the time when he wrote.

11 Alting’s Historiae sacrae et profanae compendium was published in 1691; the Historia ecclesiae Palatinae in 1701. See Klöckner: Alting. 12 Forbes: Instructiones, p. 426: “Praeceptor meus beatae memoriae David Pareus.” Pareus is also quoted on p. 531. Cf. George Garden: “Reverendi viri Joh. Forbesius a Corse vita”, in: John Forbes of Corse: Opera omnia. Vol. 1. Amsterdam 1703, pp. 6f.: “[…] postea in exteras regiones profectus, in Universitate Heydelbergensi sub cura D. Paræi Theologi celeberrimi, Sedani etiam, ac in aliis inclytis superioris et inferioris Germaniæ Academiis, Theologiæ studuit, scripta Patrum diligenter evolvit, ac sanctæ linguæ Hebraicæ operam dedit […]” (italics there). 13 Forbes: Instructiones, fol. d3v: “Iudicium reverendi et insignis Theologi, D. SAMUELIS MARESII, qui ab obitu collegae sui beatae memoriae D. HENRICI ALTINGI, onus Professionis Theologicae in Academia Groningo–Omlandica, annum jam pene integrum, solus sustinuit, accedente etiam officio magnifici Rectoris ejusdem Academiae” (capitals there).

The Reformation and Early “Historical Theology”

117

2. HISTORICAL THEOLOGY In teaching historical theology, Alting’s purpose was to show “the origin, progress, depravation, and restauration of theological doctrine throughout its individual chapters or loci.” 14 Alting defined historical theology as follows: Historical theology, then, is a historical system that dissects and narrates the doctrine of religion and its accidents according to the various eras or periods of the Church, in order that the perpetual conservation of true doctrine and the succession of the true Church can be shown. 15

The eras of the history of the Church were divided into two main periods, one of the Old Testament and another of the New Testament. The Old Testament comprised three main periods, the first from creation to Moses, the second from Moses to the Babylonian captivity, and the third from the Babylonian captivity until Christ. Each one of these Old Testament periods was subdivided into three shorter periods. The New Testament era had two main periods: one from Christ to antichrist, a period of about 606 years that was subdivided into three shorter periods of Church growth. The second main era of New Testament history started with the emergence of antichrist and lasted till Alting’s own day, about 1029 years. This chronology suggests that, if Alting took the New Testament chronology to have started in the year zero, Alting gave these lectures in the year 1635. 16 Alting discussed a number of objections against the treatment of historical theology as such. One objection was that history and doctrine are separate fields and should not be intermingled. The number of subdisciplines in theology should not be multiplied without necessity, and dogmatics could very well deal with the historical element, indeed – claimed the objection – it could not be properly explained without integrating historical data. Alting, however, noting that biblical history included both doctrinal teaching and historical events, argued that if for later scholars it was legitimate to focus on persons and events rather than doctrines, it was likewise fair to concentrate on doctrines instead of persons and events. Moreover, the Bible itself included passages in which doctrine was taught “in a historical order” (he mentioned Deuteronomy, the Psalms, and Hebrews 11). In addition, Alting noted that in many disciplines – like medicine, philosophy, or law – histories of those particular disciplines had been written. In like manner, a “history of religion and all its doctrines” was needed. And in fact, there were already piecemeal discourses of historical theology – historical discussions of particular loci – in existing 14 Alting: Theologia historica, p. 2: “[…] ultimo loco subjungam Theologiam Historicam, ut originem, propagationem, depravationem et restaurationem doctrinae Theologicae per singula ejus capita sive Locos ex monumentis fide dignis cognoscere possitis.” 15 Alting: Theologia historica, p. 5: “Est igitur Theologia Historica systema historicum, doctrinam religionis ejusque accidentia secundum variae Ecclesiae aetates sive periodos dispescens atque enarrans: quo ita de perpetua verae doctrinae conservatione, veraeque Ecclesiae successione constare possit.” Compare the explanation of the definition, ibid., pp. 5–8. 16 Same conclusion (1635) in Klöckner: Alting, p. 24, and Benrath: Kirchengeschichtsschreibung, p. 63.

118

Aza Goudriaan

works of theologians. So, to the objection that history and dogma are separate fields, Alting responded that they were distinct “not in the thing [itself] but in the form of consideration.” Moreover, to the objection that the historical narrative could very well be integrated into dogmatics, Alting responded that a proper distinction of methods was more productive, more practical given the enormous amount of material, and more helpful pedagogically because this vast material could be taught gradually in a learning trajectory. Finally, Alting warned that “if the historical narrative is absent in one place, and only half present in another, it suffers almost everywhere from a considerable confusion” – a point that he said had already been made by Andreas Hyperius. 17 Alting’s defense of historical theology as a legitimate subdiscipline may seem to presuppose that in reality it was not yet an established theological genre. Still, Alting knew quite a few authors who “produced an historical account, and thereby some historical theology of either many or several loci of doctrine (qui sive de plerisque sive de quibusdam doctrinae locis historicam narrationem, eoque Theologiam quandam Historicam concinnarunt).” He mentioned both patristic and early modern examples: […] from the Fathers are rightly considered to be of this class: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Epiphanius, Augustine. From the more recent [writers] the most famous are Bullinger, Hyperius, Jewel, Flacius Illyricus, the Magdeburg Centurians, Chemnitz, Danaeus, Buchholz [Bucholzer], Duplessis Mornay, Perkins, Ussher, [and] others. 18

Alting gave a nearly identical list of “historical theologians (Theologi Historici)” on the next page, where he added Johann Wigand while leaving out Abraham Bucholzer, William Perkins, and James Ussher. 19 All of these authors provided in a more or less limited manner what Alting wanted to pursue for its own sake and in complete fashion. During his lifetime Alting only completed the first four loci – theology, Scripture, God, and the divine decrees including predestination. These four topics corresponded neatly with the order of loci in Altings own Loci communes, tum didactici tum elenchtici. There the series comprised seventeen loci in total, 20 whereas in the Theologia historica Alting intended to cover “twenty loci,” as the most common themes that a complete doctrinal history should include. 21 Thus, while there were partial precedents of historical theology, it seems that Alting considered his own plan to write a historical theology structured according to a complete sequence of basic loci of doctrinal theology an original contribution. (It is noteworthy that all the early modern predecessors in the field that Alting listed were Protestants, both Lutheran and Reformed: none were Roman Catholic – a point that will need attention in the next section).

17 18 19 20

Alting: Theologia historica, pp. 3f. Cf. Klöckner: Alting, pp. 286–288. Alting: Theologia historica, p. 4. Alting: Theologia historica, p. 5. Alting: Scriptorum theologicorum Heidelbergensium tomus primus continens locos communes cum didacticos, tum elenchticos. Amsterdam 1662, parts 1 and 2. 21 Alting: Theologia historica, p. 6; Klöckner: Alting, p. 290: “Absichtserklärung.”

The Reformation and Early “Historical Theology”

119

While Alting gave a specific defense of his relatively innovative decision to study doctrinal theology from a historical angle, John Forbes devoted less space to an explanation of the purpose of his work in terms of the disciplinary approach. Nonetheless, both he and some of the endorsements by contemporary scholars show an awareness of the relative newness of this work. In a “preface to the reader on the occasion and scope of this historico-theological work” Forbes referred to people who “could not bear the light of” Scripture, and claimed that the consensus of the ancient church was in their favor – obviously a reference to Roman Catholics. It was in this environment, Forbes wrote, that a new chair (novam Professionem Theologicam) was established at the University of Aberdeen for teaching “theological history” (Historia Theologica). An Aberdeen synod mandated this study, with the intention of having “Catholic antiquity” vindicated. Forbes held this new chair from 27 April 1620 onwards, 22 devoting his efforts to “historico-theological studies (studia Historico-Theologica)” and attempting to ascertain “which were the truly Catholic doctrines and which the inventions of the heterodox.” 23 Forbes himself, then, indicated that his work was the result of a new initiative to vindicate Catholic antiquity, specifically to refute the historical claims of Roman Catholics. For him, historical theology was an academic endeavor aimed at showing the true catholicity of the Reformation. 24 That Protestant aim, of course, antedated the Aberdeen chair, but for Aberdeen the chair was new and the mandate of the Aberdeen synod to work on what would become the Instructiones historico-theologicae was probably unique. The relative newness of the approach was also expressed in the book approbation written by the Leiden professors Johannes Polyander, Jacobus Trigland, and Frederic Spanheim. Forbes had obviously shopped for approbations from numerous scholars: the book has no fewer than six iudicia signed by an even larger number of Dutch university professors. In the approbation by the Leiden professors, placed first in the series, the Leiden scholars wrote they were very pleased to see that someone had picked up “that nearly abandoned study of historical theology (desertum 22 Mullan: Forbes. 23 Forbes: Instructiones, fol. d1–d1v, here: d1v: Forbes to André Rivet: “Ad scribendum hoc opus, jubente Aberdoniensi Synodo, animum appuli.” Henderson: Religious Life, p. 37, mentions a synod meeting at Aberdeen in April 1620, but notes (p. 247, n. 41) that the minutes of Aberdeen synods until 1651 are no longer extant. Some synodal minutes (sixth session, 27 April 1620), however, regarding Forbes’s ordination and his nomination to the professorship at King’s College in Aberdeen have been printed in John Forbes: Disputationes theologicae, duae, habitae in inclyta Aberdonensia academia in magno auditorio Collegii Regii mense Februario anno 1620. Pro publica SS. Theologiae professione. Edinburgh 1620, pp. 16–18. Cf. Fasti Aberdonenses: Selections from the Records of the University and King’s College of Aberdeen, 1494–1854. Aberdeen 1854, p. xlv, n. 2. These minutes say nothing about the need for Forbes to work in the field of historical theology. 24 See also Nicholas Thompson: “Where Was Your Church Before Luther? History and Catholicity in Early Seventeenth-Century Aberdonian Theology”, in: Aaron Clay Denlinger (ed.): Reformed Orthodoxy in Scotland: Essays on Scottish Theology 1560–1775. London 2015, pp. 67–82, here: esp. pp. 68–73 and 80–82 on Forbes. Denlinger: John Forbes of Corse, pp. 73f.

120

Aza Goudriaan

illud propemodum Historicae-Theologiae studium).” The professors added that it had been a wish of quite a few scholars for some time that someone would produce a methodical survey of dogmatics that was also historical in the sense of discussing “according to the series of theological loci” the “various periods of sacred doctrine,” analyzing emerging heresies and what the Church had said in response to them.25 The way in which the Leiden professors described the existing lacuna suggests that they felt no such work was actually available on the book market. This gap was being filled by Forbes. André Rivet appreciated the combination of doctrinal and historical theology as well, but without indicating that he considered the blending itself innovative. 26 Still, as we have seen, both Forbes and his Leiden recommenders expressed some awareness that Forbes was breaking new ground, both on the Aberdeen chair and in this particular work. Nonetheless, Forbes provided few reflections on historical theology as a (new) subdiscipline or genre. 3. A PROTESTANT ENDEAVOUR Were the historical theologies of Alting and Forbes typically Protestant products? Historical arguments played an important role in the debates between Roman Catholics and Protestants during the sixteenth century. In itself, an academic discourse on the history of doctrine could be developed independently from any Reformation conviction. Yet in both Alting and Forbes, albeit in different ways, the concept of historical theology was clearly shaped by a Reformation theology. In the case of Alting, the very definition of historical theology shows that it was a normative discipline that distinguished between orthodoxy and heresy, true Christianity and the works of antichrist. This was the definition:

25 The “iudicium” of the Leiden professors in: Forbes: Instructiones, fol. d3r: “Iamdudum sane hoc a Magnis Viris serio desideratum fuit, ut quae Dogmaticae Theologiae felicitas est, ea etiam Historicae esset, et ut ex Antiquitate Ecclesiastica cum accuratione aliqua et Methodo exacta, secundum seriem locorum Theologicorum, eruentur doctrinae sacrae periodi variae, haeresium nascentium prima molimina, adultarum progressus et incrementa, ut et sufflamina ab Ecclesia veteri objecta errorum rchitectis.” This was actually the program of Alting rather than that of Forbes, but Alting’s lectures were not yet available in print at the time. 26 The “iudicium” of André Rivet in: Forbes: Instructiones, fol. d4r: “Placuit mihi admodum haec res Theologicas tractandi ratio, in qua cum dogmatibus conjungitur Historia rerum ecclesiasticarum, atque ita accurate tractantur dogmata fidei, ut non solum, quid ex sacra Scriptra de iis statuendum sit, demonstretur; sed etiam, uno velut intuitu, quid de eisdem censuerit purior antiquitas, et qua ratione exortis haeresibus variis obviam iverit, easque profligaverit, manifestum fiat.”

The Reformation and Early “Historical Theology”

121

Historical theology, then, is a historical system that dissects and narrates the doctrine of religion and its accidents according to the various eras or periods of the Church, in order that the perpetual conservation of true doctrine and the succession of the true Church can be shown. 27

The continuity of “true doctrine” (vera doctrina), and the “succession of the true Church” (verae Ecclesiae successio) were what historical theology should point out. The main organizing principle of the work were dogmatic loci and the discussion within individual loci is structured chronologically. Alting’s discussion of the “matter” of historical theology, namely “the doctrine of religion with its accidents” mentioned in the definition above, confirms the Reformed – or at least the Protestant – profile of the discipline. Accidents of religious doctrine, wrote Alting, were “both the depravation and the restoration and reinstatement of the doctrine of religion.” The decisive criterion for identifying these is “the Word of God as the unique norm of faith and worship.” Historical theology, then, as Alting envisioned it, had a normative character: it distinguished truth from falsity, and depravations from reformations, based on the Word of God as the sole decisive criterion. The chronology is another element that demonstrates clear Protestant conviction, especially in the subdivision of the New Testament era that was Alting’s own day. Alting described the period from the seventh century until 1517 as a period of the emergence of antichrist, whereas he saw the time from 1517 as the period of the decline of antichrist. This chronology, an ordering principle in his historical theology, clearly defined Alting’s own time as the period that began with Luther’s reformational activity. In the light of this agenda, it is not surprising that the early modern authors that Alting mentioned as having written in the field of historical theology were all Protestants: both Lutherans (the Magdeburg Centurians, Matthias Flacius Illyricus, Martin Chemnitz, Abraham Buchholzer, Johann Wigand) and Reformed writers (Heinrich Bullinger, Andreas Hyperius, John Jewel, Lambert Daneau, Philippe Duplessis Mornay, William Perkins, James Ussher). 28 The agenda of the genre being intimately connected with Reformation theology, it is not really conceivable that a Roman Catholic scholar could endorse its principles or illustrate its accomplishments. In Forbes, as we have seen, the motive for writing the Instructiones was apologetical. His work was intended to be a defense of the catholicity of Protestantism or, more precisely, of Reformed Christianity. The historical theology of Forbes was, therefore, confessional in its aim. His method or general approach, however, was somewhat eclectic. His work differs markedly from Alting’s by its much larger scope, its wider display of learning, and its clear emphasis on the Early Church. Forbes’s work consists of a number of capita selecta of historical theology rather 27 Alting: Theologia historica, p. 5, quoted above: “Est igitur Theologia Historica systema historicum, doctrinam religionis ejusque accidentia secundum variae Ecclesiae aetates sive periodos dispescens atque enarrans: quo ita de perpetua verae doctrinae conservatione, veraeque Ecclesiae successione constare possit.” 28 Alting: Theologia historica, pp. 4f.

122

Aza Goudriaan

than a consistent sequential discussion of theological loci as found in Alting. The work as a whole was intended to consist of twenty-five books of which the present volume encompassed the following sixteen: 29 Book 1: “On God” Book 2: “On the mystery of the incarnation” Book 3: “On the varying situation of churches, and many heresies and disagreements, and on the fifth ecumenical council and several other councils; and indeed on the state of things after the Council of Chalcedon until the times of Emperor Heraclius. On the political government of Italy until Charlemagne” Book 4: “On Muhammad, his impiety and followers. On holy war and several other wars” Book 5: “On the Monothelites and on the Roman pope Honorius, a Monothelite heretic” Book 6: “Against the heresy of the Adoptionists” Book 7: “On the object of religious worship and on the ecumenical councils named seventh and eighth” Book 8: “On the Pelagian heresy, and its remnants, where [we speak] about the grace of God and the free choice of the human being, and on several related questions” Book 9: “On the sacraments in general: where [we speak] about the nature, efficacy, and number of the sacraments of the New Testament” Book 10: “On Baptism, against the Donatists and the Papists, and the errors of several others” Book 11: “On the Eucharist” Book 12: “On penitence and several related questions against the errors of the Gnostics, the followers of Felicissimus, Lutherans, Novatianists, Papists, etc.” Book 13: “On purgatory and indulgences for the dead” Book 14: “On the unity of the Church and on schism” Book 15: “On the primacy of the Apostle Peter” Book 16: “On the successors of Peter and the other Apostles” 30

Certain themes that normally are part of a presentation of loci are present, such as the doctrine of God, Christology, the sacraments, ecclesiology, but other loci are left out, such as creation or eschatology. On the other hand, specific themes of historical theology are discussed in detail, such as councils, or particular heresies such as Adoptionism or Pelagianism. Forbes discusses Islam between a book on councils and Italian politics until Charlemagne and a book on Monothelites. The selection of themes and their sequence in Forbes’s Instructiones seem to reveal an apologetic theological agenda aimed specifically but not exclusively against Roman Catholic theology rather than a general agenda for the method of the discipline as such. 31

29 Henderson: Religious Life, p. 278, n. 67. 30 Cf. Forbes: Instructiones, fol. c1r–c4v. 31 Considering the usual praise for Forbes as one of Scotland’s major theologians (illustrative quotes are given by Denlinger: The Aberdeen Doctors, p. 279), G.D. Henderson gave a remarkably critical assessment of Forbes’s Instructiones as having a “lack of constructive teaching” and using an unstable “scheme of treatment”: Religious Life, pp. 277–279: “The proportions throughout are not good, fullness of treatment varying without reason shown, and chapters being of all lenghts […]. There is selection, but there is no attempt at critical judgment as to an author’s reliability.”

The Reformation and Early “Historical Theology”

123

4. THE ROLE OF THE REFORMATION In Alting’s definition of historical theology the element of continuity (“the perpetual conservation of true doctrine”) played a significant role. Likewise, Forbes’s effort to defend true catholicity in particular against the Roman Catholics is characterized by an inherent interest in doctrinal continuity between the Church of the Reformation and the preceding history of theology – if not so much the medieval history, then in any case the Early Church. Alting considered the Reformation to be a part of a larger development, namely the era of the emergence and decline of the antichrist who had both political and ecclesiastical power, the history of which went through three stages. From about the year 606 the antichrist emerged, a development that took about 470 years. Then, from about 1076 antichrist reigned for a period of about 441 years, but finally, in about the year 1517 (1635 minus 118 years), antichrist began to decline – a process that continued up to Alting’s day. 32 The period from 1517 to Alting’s own day, in other words, was the third subsection of the second and last period of New Testament history, a period that from the early seventh century onwards saw the rise, dominance, and decline of antichrist (the first period of New Testament history had started with Christ and lasted until the emergence of antichrist in about 606). In Alting’s understanding, the period of the decline of antichrist that started in 1517 was not a completed era but an ongoing process in his own day. For Alting, even though the period that began in 1517 had a common denominator (the decline of antichrist), theologically it was not a homogeneous period. Its description as the period of the decline of antichrist suggests a gradual process, implying that this period is not radically different from the preceding era, at least not initially. Moreover, as far as theological doctrine is concerned, the sections on the Reformation period in the individual loci contain discussions of a wide variety of positions. Alting normally considered Roman Catholic positions, the views of Anabaptists, Socinians, Lutherans, and those of the Reformed churches. This reveals a few significant characteristics of Alting’s view of the Reformation. In the first place: the Reformation era, as Alting saw it, was a period of fierce debates between fundamentally different positions. Secondly, if continuity was an important theme of Alting, he meant the continuity of orthodoxy, a continuity that he found throughout history, but that was constantly opposed by competing theological views, even in the Reformation era. Alting’s interest in the continuity of orthodoxy made it impossible to consider the Reformation as a period that was radically different from all that preceded. The historical theology of Forbes includes unambiguous criticism of Roman Catholic theology in defense of the Reformed faith. This is obviously the case with respect to the doctrine of the sacraments, in particular the Eucharist, and also in ecclesiology and with respect to the papacy. This is not, however, equivalent to considering the Reformation as an era. The Reformation period as such does not

32 For the chronology, see Alting: Theologia historica, pp. 6f.

124

Aza Goudriaan

seem to be a significant theme for Forbes. In book eight, on Pelagianism, ample attention is given to Pelagius, Augustine, and post-Augustinian theology, but the book seems organized according to systematic viewpoints rather than according to chronology. There are occasional chapters on specific historical positions, such as the position of Augustine, or of Remigius of Lyons on a particular point, 33 or the position of the Dutch Remonstrants. 34 There are also sections on the patristic testimonies in favor of justification by faith alone. 35 While this historical theology has been written in support of Reformed theology, it does not routinely consider the history of Protestant theology itself as an object of investigation. It is important, however, to note that there are exceptions, for example a discussion of John Calvin’s view on the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, 36 or “the doctrine of today’s Roman Church” on purgatory. 37 Forbes also included a “judgement of the faculty of theology, of the University of Aberdeen, on the peace and concord of the Protestant churches” 38 where many references to Protestant literature are found, but here the purpose is theological rather than historiographical. In short, if Forbes makes a historiographical claim with respect to the Reformation as an era, it is mainly that the Reformation is legitimized by its continuity with orthodox positions in the preceding ages, primarily the patristic age. Forbes’s theological agenda consisted of tracing the continuity of truth rather than identifying innovation. 5. CONCLUSION Alting, Forbes, and some of Forbes’s early readers show a modest awareness of the relative originality of their projects of historical theology as the specific study of the history of doctrine. Their works of historical theology were expressions of a Reformed theological agenda that intended to demonstrate the continuity of biblical truth throughout all historical changes (Alting) and the catholicity of the Reformed faith (Forbes). For both Alting and Forbes, then, the continuity of true doctrine was a major concern. On other points, however, their approaches differed significantly. Alting aimed for a systematic discussion of loci whereas Forbes delved into capita selecta. The Reformation, for Alting the last sub-period of New Testament history to receive specific attention, was for Forbes rarely itself an object of historical theological analysis. The Instructiones of Forbes accordingly did little to promote a historiographical focus on the Reformation as a separate period of theology. In Alting’s Theologia historica the period from 1517 until his own day was considered a historical era of its own, and it received separate attention in each of the loci that

33 34 35 36 37 38

Forbes: Instructiones, p. 407. Ibid., pp. 434f. Ibid., pp. 424–429. Ibid., pp. 623–625. Ibid., pp. 670f. Ibid., pp. 723–732.

The Reformation and Early “Historical Theology”

125

were discussed. Significantly, however, this period was still the era in which Alting lived, which means that for him the Reformation was not yet a completed era of the past. The situation would change in Georg Hornius who, while being heavily influenced by Alting, introduced new chronological subdivisions suggesting that the Reformation was a period of the past, distinct from “our times.” 39

39 Klöckner: Alting, pp. 336–344, here: 340.

AGITUR DE ANIMAE SALUTE Geschichtliches Denken in Veit Ludwig von Seckendorffs Historia Lutheranismi Markus Matthias Abstract: Veit Ludwig von Seckendorff’s Historia Lutheranismi, first published between 1688 and 1692, is considered to be the first scholarly presentation of the history of the Reformation due to the abundance of used and cited sources and their critical treatment, but is historiographically assigned to pre-modern historiography. The reconstruction of the emergence of the work and the comparison with Maimbourg’s Histoire du Lutheranisme show in the case of Seckendorff that the Reformation and the split of the Western Church have at least stimulated modern historical thinking, as it has been described primarily by Reinhart Koselleck. Zusammenfassung: Veit Ludwig von Seckendorffs Historia Lutheranismi, zuerst erschienen zwischen 1688 und 1692, gilt wegen des Reichtums an benutzten und zitierten Quellen sowie des kritischen Umgangs mit ihnen als erste wissenschaftliche Darstellung der Reformationsgeschichte, wird aber historiographisch der vormodernen Geschichtsschreibung zugeordnet. Die Rekonstruktion der Entstehungsgeschichte des Werkes sowie der Vergleich mit Maimbourgs Histoire du Lutheranisme zeigen am Beispiel von Seckendorff, dass Reformation und westlichen Kirchenspaltung das moderne geschichtliche Denken, wie es vor allem Reinhart Koselleck beschrieben hat, zumindest befördert hat.

Der fränkische Edelmann Veit Ludwig von Seckendorff, geheimer Rat in sächsischen und in brandenburgischen Diensten, ist als Staatsmann, Staatstheoretiker, Kameralist, historischer Gelehrter und als Gründungskanzler der Universität Halle bekannt. 1 Was hier interessiert, ist seine auch Historia Lutheranismi 2 ge-

1

2

Eine gründliche Übersicht, auch über die Forschungsdesiderate, bietet Dietrich Blaufuß: „Seckendorff, Veit Ludwig von (1626–1692)“, in: Theologische Realenzyklopädie 30 (1999), S. 719– 727; vgl. die biographisch orientierte Abhandlung von Solveig Strauch: Veit Ludwig von Seckendorff (1626–1692). Reformationsgeschichtsschreibung – Reformation des Lebens – Selbstbestimmung zwischen lutherischer Orthodoxie, Pietismus und Frühaufklärung. Münster 2005; dies.: „Veit Ludwig von Seckendorff als Reformationshistoriker“, in: Jans Joachim Kessler, Jutta Penndorf (Hg.): Spalatin in Altenburg. Eine Stadt plant ihre Ausstellung. Protokollband zum Kolloquium „Georg Spalatin und Altenburg“ […]. Halle (Saale) 2012, S. 146–155. So der Schmutztitel meiner Ausgabe 1692. – Ich unterscheide im Folgenden zur leichteren Orientierung zwischen dem eigentlichen Commentarius (1692) und den verschiedenen Vor- und

128

Markus Matthias

nannte Reformationsgeschichte, veranlasst durch ein Buch des französischen Jesuiten Louis Maimbourg, das 1680 in Paris unter dem Titel Histoire du Lutheranisme erschienen war. 3 Seckendorffs Historia Lutheranismi, an der er seit seiner mit dem Tod Moritz’ von Sachsen-Zeitz erfolgten Entpflichtung arbeitete, ist in mehreren Stufen entstanden. Zunächst erschien mit der Jahresangabe 1688 und einer Vorrede vom 20. Dezember 1686 ein Kommentar im Quartformat zum ersten Teil (livre) von Maimbourg, der aus dem eigentlichen Textband und einem ergänzenden Band mit Quellennachweisen bestand, im folgenden Jahr ergänzt um einen weiteren Band mit Quellenauszügen in Duodez mit Vorrede vom 31. März 1689. 4 Die zweite (als solche nicht gekennzeichnete), am stärksten verbreitete 5 und deutlich erweiterte Fassung von 1692 6 integriert Darstellung und Quellen des ersten Bandes einschließlich des Supplementbandes, geht auf die ersten drei (S. 1–300)

3

4

5 6

Nachworten: Ad Lectorem Admonitio (1692), Praeloquium Ad Cordatos et Aequuos Lectores, Priori Editioni Libri I. Praefixum (1692=1688), Epilogus (1692, darin, Sp. 694B–698A, integriert Epilogus 1688) (Kursivierung von mir; zitiert jeweils nach der Ausgabe von 1692). Histoire du Lutheranisme par Le P. Louis Maimbourg, de la Compagnie de Jesus. Paris: Sebastien Mabre-Cramoisy, 1680. Avec Approbation Et Privilege. [15] Bl., 480 S., [12] Bl. – mit zwei „zweiten“ Auflagen: Paris: Mabre-Cramoisy 21680/81 und [Amsterdam]: [Elzevier] 2 1681; ferner Paris: Mabre-Cramoisy 1682; Paris: Mabre-Cramoisy 1686/87; Paris: MabreCromoisy 1723; bibliographisch unvollständig verzeichnet in: Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jésus 5. Nouvelle édition par Carlos Sommervogel. Brüssel 1894, Sp. [343–356] 352f. (Nr. 19). – Vgl. Adolf Herte: Das katholische Lutherbild im Bann der Lutherkommentare des Cochläus. Bd. 1. Münster 1943, S. 174–181. Veit Ludwig von Seckendorff: Commentarius Historicus et Apologeticus De Lutheranismo, Sive De Reformatione Religionis ductu D. Martini Lutheri In magna Germaniae parte, aliisqve regionibus, & speciatim in Saxonia recepta & stabilita: In qvo Ludovici Maimburgii Jesuitae Historia Lutheranismi Anno M DC LXXX Parisiis Gallice edita, Latine versa exhibetur, corrigitur, et suppletur […]. Frankfurt am Main, Leipzig 1688 (in Quarto) (Haupttext auf 464 Seiten), zusammen mit den „Additiones, sive Libri Primi Pars Altera, in qva ex Auctoribus manuscriptis & editis, rarioribus praesertim, plurima illustrantur & supplentur“ (Haupttext auf 368 Seiten, kein eigenes vollwertiges Titelblatt, kein Kolophon, neue Seitenzählung, neue Blattbezeichnungen beginnend mit Bogen a. – An den betreffenden Stellen wird im Textband am Rand auf die „Additiones“ verwiesen; Anneliese Wolf: Die Historiographie Veit Ludwigs von Seckendorf nach seinem „Commentarius historicus et apologeticus de Lutheranismo.“ Diss. Leipzig 1925, S. 21, nennt als Titel: „Emendenda et Supplenda“). – Viti Ludovici a Seckendorf […] Supplementum Ad Librum Primum Commentarii Histor. & Apologetici De Lutheranismo Maximam partem ex Archivis & MS. collectum, & Tomo Secundo Operis, Loco Speciminis & prodromi praemissum. Leipzig 1689 (6 Bl., 180 S., 6 Bl.). Siehe den Aufruf zur Subskription bei Anm. 32. Zum Titel siehe S. 141f. – Erschienen zur Herbstmesse 1691. Vgl. Dietrich Blaufuß: „Veit Ludwig von Seckendorfs Commentarius de Lutheranismo (1692) und der Beitrag des Augsburger Seniors Gottlieb Spizel“, in: Zeitschrift für bayerische Kirchengeschichte 39 (1970), S. 138–164, 269–276, hier: 138. – Die postume Ausgabe 1694, die die Errata der Ausgabe von 1692 verarbeitet, ist nach Wolf: Historiographie, S. 12, und Lewis William Spitz: A Critical Evaluation of Veit Ludwig von Seckendorf as a Church Historian, Diss. Chicago: Divinity school 1943, S. 132f., seitengleich.

Agitur de animae salute

129

von Maimbourgs sechs Büchern ein und umfasst nun im Folioformat: Vorrede und Einleitung auf 50 Seiten, ein ausführliches Inhaltsverzeichnis auf 84 Seiten und schließlich für die drei Bücher 319, 219 und 700 Seiten, abgeschlossen mit einem Nachwort und aufwendigen Registern von 150 Seiten. Zieht man das engere Schriftbild in Rechnung, so würde ich den Umfang von Seckendorffs Haupttext gegenüber den ersten drei Büchern der Histoire auf das Zwanzigfache schätzen. In seinem Commentarius geht Seckendorff so vor, dass er den gesamten Text von Maimbourg (wegen der allgemeinen Unkenntnis des Französischen) ins Lateinische 7 übersetzt, dann in einzelne, mit Nummern (bzw. in der Erstauflage mit alphabetisch bezeichneten Paragraphen) versehene Abschnitte (sectiones) unterteilt, die er dann einzeln bespricht, wobei er seine Kommentare als durchlaufend nummerierte Paragraphen zählt. Die einzelnen Paragraphen beziehen sich in der Regel auf verschiedene Aussagen der Sektionen, so dass er zu einer Sektion mehrere Paragraphen schreiben kann. 8 Ohne die Abschnitte von Maimbourg lassen sich die Paragraphen – mit etwas redaktioneller Arbeit – zu einer eigenen Historia Lutheranismi oder Historia Reformationis Religionis zusammenziehen, wie überhaupt das ursprüngliche Konzept einer apologetischen Entgegnung immer mehr von der historischen und kritischen Darstellung überformt wird (siehe unten). 9

7

8 9

Nach Wolf: Historiographie, S. 65f. übersetzt Seckendorff sehr genau und entstellt den Text auch dort nicht, wo er zur Erläuterung etwas von einer wörtlichen Übersetzung abweicht. – Eine exemplarische Beschreibung von Seckendorffs Eingehen auf Maimbourgs Text (Vorhaltungen, Überprüfung, Korrektur und Gegendarstellung) gibt Wolf: Historiographie, S. 66–76. Ihrem nivellierenden Urteil, dass die Darstellung der Standpunkte beider Autoren gleichwertig seien und ein richtiges Bild sich erst aus der Verbindung beider ergeben haben würde (S. 71, 73), kann ich mich jedenfalls im Blick auf die von ihr angeführten Beispiele nicht anschließen, weil die wissenschaftliche Verantwortung sich bei beiden doch deutlich unterscheidet. Auf diese kleinen Abschnitte beziehen sich dann (auch in editorischer Hinsicht sehr sinnvoll) die Angaben in den Indices (Admonitio, Bl. #6r). Diesen Umstand hat man sich später zunutze gemacht, um Seckendorffs Darstellung ohne den Maimbourgschen Bezugstext und in genauerer chronologischer Folge (übersetzt) als eigenständige Reformationsgeschichte herauszugeben (siehe Anm. 60). – Aber schon Seckendorff hatte die durch die Bindung an Maimbourg gegebene, doppelte Schwäche seines Werkes erkannt, dass er sich nämlich a) an dessen chronologische Darbietung des Stoffes hielt und b) andere vergleichbare, aktuelle Darstellungen (Jacques-Bénigne Bousset: Histoire des variations des Églises protestantes. Paris 1688; verschiedene Ketzergeschichten von Antoine Varillas; und Odorico Rinaldi: Annales Ecclesiastici Ab Anno MCXCVIII Vbi Card. Baronivs Desinit. Avctore Odorico Raynaldo Tarvisino Congregationis Oratorii Presbytero. Rom 1646ff.) nicht in gleichem Maße widerlegte: „Non dissimulo, si horum autorum libri prius ad me pervenissent, quam maximam operis partam absolvissem, mutaturum me forte institutum fuisse; potuissem enim omissa versione & relatione librorum Maimburgii, historiam ex documentis, quibus instructus fui, explicatius & meliori ordine proponere, dein scriptorum istorum recentiorum renovatas & refossas ex veterum maleferiatorum scriptorum sterquiliniis calumnias & nugas sigillatim [d.h. hier wohl anmerkungsweise] indicare & refutare“ (Admonitio, Bl. #5v); vgl. Epilogus, S. 695B: statt Maimbourg zu folgen, hätte er besser die Geschichte „commodiori & accuratiori ordine“ behandelt. – Wolf: Historiographie, S. 82, nennt das zurecht einen „für die weitere Entwicklung der polemisch-apologetischen Historiographie bedeutsamen Gedanken.“

130

Markus Matthias

Das erste Buch umfasst die Jahre vom Beginn der Reformation (1517) bis zu Luthers Streit mit Erasmus (1524) in 64 Sektionen, auf die Seckendorff mit insgesamt 184 Paragraphen antwortet. Das zweite Buch behandelt den Zeitraum von den Bauernkriegen (1525) bis zum Reichstag von Augsburg (1530) und enthält 35 Sektionen mit 84 Paragraphen. Der dritte Teil handelt von der Gründung des Schmalkaldischen Bundes (1531) bis zum Tod Luthers (1546) und dem Religionsgespräch von Regensburg (1546) und umfasst 37 Sektionen mit 141 Paragraphen. Die anderen drei Bücher Maimbourgs vom Schmalkaldischen Krieg (1547) über das Interim (Buch 4), den Augsburger Religionsfrieden bis zum Trienter Konzil (Buch 5) und das Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts (Buch 6) hat Seckendorff nicht mehr kommentiert. 10 Er hat freilich darauf hinweisen können, dass es für diese Abschnitte bereits vorbildliche 11 oder jedenfalls hinreichende Darstellungen gab. 12 Als letzte Ebene (nach Vorlage und Kommentar) fügt Seckendorff den einzelnen Paragraphen „Additio[nes]“ an, nämlich Quellenauszüge oder -abschriften als Belege für seine Gegendarstellung. Alle wichtigen Ereignisse der deutschen Reformationsgeschichte, die auch noch heute erzählt werden, finden sich, gut dokumentiert, schon in seinem Werk, noch dazu erstmals in einen historischen Zusammenhang gebracht. 13

10 Admonitio, Bl. #5r; Epilogus, S. 694A. 11 Seckendorff nennt die Quellensammlung zum Schmalkaldischen (Deutschen) Krieg durch den Weimarer Archivar Friedrich Hortleder als Vorbild seiner eigenen Darstellung: Friedrich Hortleder: Der römischen Keyser= und Königlichen Maiesteten, Auch deß Heiligen Römischen Reichs Geistlicher unnd Weltlicher Stände, […] Handlungen und Außschreiben, Send=Brieffe, Bericht, Vnderricht, Klag= und Supplication-Schrifften, […] vnd viel andere treffliche Schrifften vnd Kunden mehr: [1] Von den Ursachen deß Teutschen Kriegs Käiser Carls deß Fünften, wider die Schmalkaldische BundsOberste Chur= und Fürsten, Sachsen und Hessen, und Ihrer Chur= und F. G. G. Mitverwandte, Anno 1546. und 47. Frankfurt am Main 1617; [2] Von Rechtmässigkeit/ Anfang/ Fort- und endlichen Außgang deß Teutschen Kriegs Keyser Carls deß Fünfften/ wider die Schmalkaldische Bundsoberste/ Chur= und Fürsten/ Sachsen und Hessen und I. Chur- und Fürstl. G.G. Mitverwandte. Vom Jahr 1546. biß auff das Jahr 1558. Ordentlich zusammen gebracht/ an vielen Orten bewärt und erklärt. Gotha, Nürnberg 1645 (Praeloquium, Bl. a3r). 12 Admonitio, Bl. #5r. – Die Geschichte des Passauer Feldzuges, gemeint ist wohl der Fürstenaufstand von 1552, sowie des Dreißigjährigen Krieges („[historia] motuum nostro saeculo post morten Matthiae Imperatoris ad pacem usque VVestphalicam exortorum [1619–1648]“) sei bekannt. Auch über die innerprotestantischen Streitigkeiten sei mehr als genug geschrieben. Über die Geschichte (nicht die Lehre) des Tridentinischen Konzils könne, so wünschenswert es wäre, ein Protestant nicht schreiben, weil den Protestanten die Archive nicht zugänglich seien; um so wertvoller sei die bekannte, unter einem Pseudonym veröffentlichte, quellenkundige Darstellung von Paulus Sarpius: Istoria del concilio Tridentini. London 1619. 13 In diesem Sinne verstehe ich Veronika Albrecht-Birkner: „Seckendorff, Veit Ludwig von“, in: Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart4 7 (2004), S. 1085f., Seckendorff habe die „erste wiss. Darstellung der Gesch. der Reformation bis 1546“ geschrieben. Ihre Datierung des Commentarius auf 1688/89 ist freilich irreführend.

Agitur de animae salute

131

Der biographische Hintergrund 14 von Seckendorffs Historia Lutheranismi ist ein zweifacher, der sich auch in dem gemischten literarischen Genus 15 des Werkes widerspiegelt. Der aktuelle Anlass war das ihm 1681 durch einen jungen Edelmann überbrachte Buch Maimbourgs, 16 nach dessen Lektüre er davon überzeugt war, dass von lutherischer Seite darauf reagiert werden müsse. Aber schon dreißig Jahre zuvor, zu Beginn seiner Gothaer Amtszeit (1645–1664), war er von Ernst I. dem Frommen darauf angesprochen worden, dass jemand außer einer genauen politischen Geschichte der Ernestiner bis in die Gegenwart („Historia politica accurata & continuata“) 17 auch eine „vollständigere Geschichte der in der Religionsangelegenheit vorgenommenen Handlungen“ („perfectiorem aliquam actorum in causa religionis Historiam“) schreiben müsse, nämlich „mit welcher Absicht und in welcher Abfolge die Reformation der Religion durchgeführt worden sei, und wie sie aus kleinen Anfängen bis zu einem solchen Stand vorangekommen sei, dass die Nachwelt ihn kaum hinreichend bewundern könne“ („quo consilio & successu Religionis Reformatio tractata fuerit, utque a levibus initiis in eum statum processerit, quem posteritas vix admirari satis potuit“). „Er sagte: ‚Das ist sicher ein Fingerzeig Gottes gewesen; undankbar sind wir, die wir diesen nicht erkennen und die Erinnerung an so ausgezeichnete Sachen nicht sorgfältiger bewahren und weitergeben‘“ („Dei, ajebat, profecto digitus is fuit; ingrati sumus, qui hunc non agnoscimus, memoriamque rerum tam illustrium non accuratior conservamus & propagamus“). 18 Die aus den menschlichen Handlungen sich ergebende geschichtliche Entwicklung der Reformation (aus kleinen Anfängen) sollte in den Augen des Herzogs mithin auch für die darin unterstellte göttliche Providenz transparent sein. Für dieses Projekt versprach der Herzog das von ihm gesammelte bzw. aus dem Ernestischen Gesamtarchiv in Weimar herausgelöste Material, „centena & plura Actorum volumina“, zur Verfügung zu stellen. 19 Seit dieser Zeit kannte Seckendorff wohl auch das Ernestinische Gesamtarchiv (in Weimar). 20 Aber erst mit seinem Ausscheiden aus dem politischen Dienst Anfang 1682, nachdem er Moritz von Sachsen-Zeitz seit 1664 14 Zum Folgenden vgl. weitere Einzelheiten bei Strauch: Reformationsgeschichtsschreibung, S. 5–21, und Wolf: Historiographie, S. 6–40. 15 Praeloquium, Bl. b3r: „Sic mixtum aliquod scripti genus enatum est, inter Historicum & Apologeticum.“ – Eine vergleichbare Arbeit oder Probe stellt Seckendorffs, von Kaspar Sagittarius veröffentlichte Dissertation aus dem Jahre 1685/86 dar mit dem Titel: Dissertatio Historica Et Apologetica Pro Doctrina Doct. Lvtheri De Missa Sive Confvtatio Renovatae adversus Doct. Lvthervm, & qvi Sententiam Eivs seqvuntur, calumniae impudentissimae, Ab Abbate quodam, in tractatu Gallico An. 1684. Lutetiae edito, qui Latine versus simul exhibetur […]. Jena 1687, gegen Louis Géraud de Cordemoy; siehe den Bezug darauf in Commentarius I, § 102 (S. 166– 169); vgl. Wolf: Historiographie, S. 11, 20. 16 Praeloquium, Bl. a2r. 17 Praeloquium, Bl. a3v. 18 Praeloquium, Bl. a3r. – Vgl. Daniel Gehrt: Ernestinische Konfessionspolitik. Bekenntnisbildung, Herrschaftskonsolidierung und dynastische Identitätsstiftung vom Augsburger Interim 1548 bis zur Konkordienformel 1577. Leipzig 2011. 19 Praeloquium, Bl. a3v. 20 Admonitio, Bl. #4r.

132

Markus Matthias

bis zu dessen Tod am 4. Dezember 1681 gedient hatte, ließen sich beide Aufgaben, die apologetische gegen Maimbourg und die von Ernst I. angestoßene historische, angehen und sogar zusammenführen. 21 Von Herbst 1683 bis August 1684 22 hat Seckendorff Maimbourgs Buch zunächst nur aus dem Französischen ins Lateinische übersetzt, bevor er daranging, es zu widerlegen. 23 Seckendorffs erste Fassung, seine Entgegnung auf Maimbourgs erstes Buch, war Ende 1686 fertig (Vorrede vom 20. Dezember 1686). Für den ersten Teil seines Commentarius, also für die Zeit von 1517 bis 1524, in der Luther weitgehend auf sich allein gestellt geblieben war, 24 hat Seckendorff weniger aus den Archiven geschöpft, sondern vor allem auf die gesammelten Werke Luthers zurückgegriffen, die er aus der Leipziger Universitätsbibliothek beziehen konnte (erste Jenaer Ausgabe von 1555/56–1558 und Altenburger Ausgabe von 1661–1664). 25 Erst im September 1688 besuchte Seckendorff wieder das kaum erschlossene Ernestinische Gesamtarchiv in Weimar, um nun zusammen mit dem Archivar Tobias Pfanner 26 insgesamt 420 Bände („quadringenta supra viginti“) aus der Zeit zwischen 1517 und 1546 auszusuchen, um sie seiner (weiteren) Reformationsgeschichte zugrunde zu legen. 27 Dabei habe er alles selbst durchgesehen und exzerpiert, weil er sich nicht auf das Urteil anderer verlassen wollte. Eine Hilfskraft („amanuensis“) 28 habe er nur für Abschriften ganzer Texte herangezogen, die entweder im Buch abgedruckt werden sollten oder die für seine eigene Quellensammlung brauchbar waren. Ihm war es dabei wichtig, dass die Dokumente wiedergefunden und der Inhalt also überprüft werden konnte. Und in der Tat überzeugt das Buch durch seine genauen Quellenangaben, auch von Archivmaterial. 29 Weil Seckendorff im Archiv (und in anderen Quellen) aber auch viel Material fand, das für die Dokumentation des 1. Buches wichtig war, ließ er noch 1689 (in geringerer Auflagenstärke) den Supplementband im Druck folgen, der erstmals aus dem Ernestinischen Gesamtarchiv in Weimar schöpfte. 30 Da auch nach dem Abschluss dieser ersten Auflage von 1688/89 immer mehr interessantes Material zum Vorschein kam, sich auch für die folgenden Bände ein größerer Umfang abzeichnete und Seckendorff „täglich dazulernte“, entstand der 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Praeloquium, Bl. b4r. Wolf: Historiographie, S. 17; vgl. Strauch: Reformationsgeschichtsschreibung, S. 11. Praeloquium, Bl. b4r. Praeloquium, Bl. d1v. Praeloquium, Bl. c4v. Praeloquium, Bl. b2v. Dazu kam die Unterstützung des „Caroli Frisii“ (Carl von Friesen) und von „Männer aus Altenburg und Zeitz“ (Praeloquium, Bl. c4v). Admonitio, Bl. #4r. Zum Folgenden siehe Admonitio, Bl. #4v. Admonitio, Bl. #4v–5r: Die angegebenen Fundorte beziehen sich auf das auch heute noch in Gebrauch stehende Findbuch (Registratur) des Archivs (freundliche Mitteilung des Thüringischen Landesarchivs Weimar vom 25.8.2020). Unvorgreifflicher Vorschlag Den Commentarium Historico-Apologeticum de Lutheranismo, Tit. Veit Ludwigs von Seckendorff betreffende. [Meuselwitz den 31. Martii 1690], S. [1]; vgl. Wolf: Historiographie, S. 25f.

Agitur de animae salute

133

Entschluss, den ersten Band überarbeitet, zusammen mit den beiden folgenden erneut, nun im Folioformat, herauszugeben, mit Bereicherungen an mehr als 150 Stellen, wobei die Quellen nun in der Darstellung am passenden Ort integriert wurden. 31 Um das Unternehmen verlegerisch unterbringen zu können, wurde von ihm (in der dritten Person) im März 1690 32 ein Aufruf zur Subskription der beiden ersten Teile veröffentlicht, demzufolge die Obrigkeiten verfügen möchten, dass in den ihnen unterstehenden Kirchengemeinden das Werk, nicht zuletzt zur Stärkung der reformatorischen Identität, angeschafft werden sollte. Der Preis wurde mit weniger als 4 Reichstalern angegeben. Neben seinem ersten Versuch von 1688/89 konnte Seckendorff für die beiden Bücher, die ursprünglich im Jahre 1691 ausgeliefert werden sollten, eine Übersicht über die zu behandelnden Themen vorlegen. Dieser Aufruf an die Obrigkeiten zur Subskription erklärt nicht nur die relativ weite Verbreitung der Neuausgabe von 1692, sondern dürfte auch zur breiten Rezeption von Seckendorffs Bild der Reformationsgeschichte beigetragen haben. Für den Historiker bestimmten die Menge und Bedeutung der Quellen den Umfang seiner einzelnen Bände, während Maimbourg als Schriftsteller auf die Ausgewogenheit der einzelnen Teile geachtet hatte. 33 Bei der Behandlung der ‚Fürstenreformationen‘ im zweiten und dritten Band benutzte Seckendorff vor allem das Material aus dem Ernestinischen Gesamtarchiv und weiteres vereinzeltes Material aus Gotha (über Wilhelm Ernst Tentzel). 34 Herzog Rudolf August von BraunschweigWolfenbüttel versorgte ihn mit neuerer Forschungsliteratur zu den einzelnen, in den

31 Die Masse des Materials, vor allem auch im zweiten und dritten Buch, machten den Druck im größeren Folioformat nötig; angesichts dieser Anreicherung erschien ihm der freilich zu bedauernde Wertverlust des ersten Bandes von 1688 verkraftbar. – Eine nähere Analyse der Unterschiede zwischen erster und zweiter Auflage bietet Wolf: Historiographie, S. 29–31 mit Anm. 122–127 auf S. 149; zu den Verhandlungen mit dem Verlag siehe Wolf: Historiographie, S. 31–33. Zur positiven Rezeption siehe Wolf: Historiographie, S. 33–35; die einzige protestantische Kritik kam offenbar von Pierre Bayle, der 1682 mit einer „Critique génerale Maimbourgs Historie du Calvinisme“ von 1682 erwidert hatte, und bezog sich auf den zu großen Umfang (Lettres Choisies De Mr. Bayle Avec Des Remarques. Bd. 1. Rotterdam 1714, S. 346– 351: Lettre CI [101], A Mr. Minutoli, Rotterdam, 3.12.1691: „La Réponse de Mr. Seckendorf (8) au Luthéranisme de Maimbourg a été imprimée in folio, en deux bons Volumes. L’Ouvrage est curieux par l’assemblage de plusieurs Pieces Authentiques, que l’Auteur a tirées de diverses Archives; mais, la longueur rebute“ (S. 349f.). 32 Unvorgreifflicher Vorschlag. – Nach Wolf: Historiographie, S. 32, gab es daraufhin mindestens 425 Bestellungen. 33 Admonitio, Bl. #5r. 34 Vgl. Wolf: Historiographie, S. 24. – Hier ist besonders auf den vornehmlich in der Forschungsbibliothek Gotha befindlichen Nachlass von Georg Spalatin als Sekretär Friedrichs des Weisen hinzuweisen (Praeloquium, Bl. c4v); siehe die Übersicht in Kalliope unter der URL: https://kalliope-verbund.info (letzter Zugriff: 27. Januar 2022); vgl. Christine Weide: Georg Spalatins Briefwechsel. Studien zu Überlieferung und Bestand (1505–1525). Leipzig 2014; und Daniel Gehrt: „Spalatiniana in der Forschungsbibliothek Gotha“, in: Kessler und Penndorf: Spalatin in Altenburg, S. 95–102 (zu den Abschriften und komplizierten Weg der Originale durch die verschiedenen Teilungen der Ernestiner).

134

Markus Matthias

Texten vorkommenden Personen; diese Information wurde dem Personen- und Sachindex als „scholia“ angehängt. 35 Schließlich beschränkte sich Seckendorff apologetisch nicht auf eine Widerlegung von Maimbourg, sondern ging auch auf die Polemik anderer, neuerer, römisch-katholischer Autoren ein. Hier sind insbesondere Francesco Maria Sforza Pallavicino 36 SJ mit seiner gegen Petrus Suavis (Paolo Sarpi) 37 gerichteten Geschichte des Trienter Konzils und Antoine Varillas’ Geschichten der Häresien 38 zu nennen. Andere könnten nicht besprochen werden, wie zum Beispiel die Polemik von Paolo Segneri SJ (L’incredulo senza scusa, Bologna 1690). 39 Als Ausnahme unter den römisch-katholischen Autoren rühmt Seckendorff die Darstellungen von Jacques-Auguste de Thou (Thuanus). 40 Für die Interpretation dieser als Quellensammlung unzureichend erforschten Reformationsgeschichte, 41 übergehe ich an dieser Stelle Seckendorffs Biographie, 35 Admonitio, Bl. #6r. 36 Francesco Maria Sforza Pallavicino SJ: Vera Concilii Tridentini Historia Contra falsam Petri Suavis Polani narrationem scripta & asserta […] Primum Italico Idiomate in lucem edita, deinde ab ipso Auctore aucta & revisa, ac Latinè reddita a P. Johanne Baptista Giattino […]. Antwerpen 1673. 37 Siehe Anm. 12. 38 Johann Henrich Heidegger: […] Tumulus Tridentini Concilii. Zürich 21690; das Vorwort zur 2. Auflage (Praefatio novissima, Bl. *4r) erwähnt Seckendorff als Widerleger von Varillas (Varillasio) (vgl. Admonitio, Bl. #5v). 39 Admonitio, Bl. #5v. 40 Praeloquium, Bl. b1r. 41 Speziell zur Historia Lutheranismi sind hier zu nennen: (1) Wolf: Historiographie. Es handelt sich bei dieser nur umständlich zu beschaffenden und als Microfiche nur schwer lesbaren Arbeit um die noch immer materialreichste Untersuchung. Nach einer Einleitung über die Geschichtsschreibung von der Reformationszeit bis ins 18. Jahrhundert (S. 1–5) geht sie in einem ersten Teil (S. 6–40) auf die äußeren Entstehungsbedingungen des Commentarius ein: „1) Das Leben Seckendorfs und die für seine Entwicklung zum Geschichtsschreiber der Reformationszeit bedeutsamen Faktoren; 2) Die bisherige Forschung über Seckendorf, seine Anschauungen und seine Werke; 3) Der commentarius Seckendorfs und die Commentare des Sleidan; 4) Das Zustandekommen des commentarius de Lutheranismo. […]; 5) Die Beurteilung des commentarius durch die Zeitgenossen; 6) Die Übersetzungen des Werkes und ihre Bedeutung für seine Verbreitung.“ In einem zweiten Teil (S. 41–63) untersucht sie „Die Voraussetzungen für die Abfassung des commentarius“ und speziell: „1) Die Beweggründe, die Seckendorf zur Abfassung des commentarius trieben; 2) Seckendorfs Beurteilung der Entwicklungsfaktoren; 3) Die von Seckendorf an den Geschichtsschreiber gestellten Anforderungen; 4) Seckendorf und einzelne seiner Vorgänger auf dem Gebiete der Geschichtsschreibung und der Widerlegung Maimbourgs; 5) Der Parteistandpunkt Seckendorfs und seine tolerante Gesinnung.“ In einem dritten Teil (S. 63–136) bestimmt sie „Die historische Arbeitsweise Seckendorfs“, näherhin „1) Die Polemik und Apologetik nach Form und Inhalt […]; 2) Die Benutzung und Kritik der Quellen und Literatur; 3) Die Komposition des Werkes […]; 4) Die Art der Charakteristik.“ Die (stellenweise überhaupt nicht lesbaren) Anmerkungen (S. 139–178) und ein Nachwort (S. 179) beschließen die Dissertation. (2) Spitz: Seckendorf, wovon die als „essential portion“ bezeichneten Kapitel 6–7 (S. 130–172) 1946 separat gedruckt (und verfilmt) wurden. Spitz gibt (zeitbedingt) eine recht genaue Beschreibung des Buches als eines solchen, ferner einzelne inhaltliche Beobachtungen, die ihm

Agitur de animae salute

135

seine akademische und berufliche Laufbahn, ebenso wie sein Studium bei dem bedeutenden Straßburger Historiker Johann Heinrich Boeckler und Seckendorffs frühere Beschäftigungen mit der Reformationsgeschichte, sondern versuche, Seckendorffs Art der Geschichtsschreibung aus dem Werk selbst zu erheben. Mir geht es hier allein um seine Einordung in die Geschichte der Historiographie: 42 Haben das unerhörte Zerbrechen der westlichen Kirche und dessen politische und theologische Bewältigung in den Reichsreligionsfrieden (1555 und 1648) als epochale Ereignisse Einfluss auf das Verständnis von Geschichte bei Seckendorff? Eine historiographische Würdigung und Einordnung will ich in vier Schritten vorzunehmen versuchen: 1) Die Bedeutung von Maimbourgs Histoire du Lutheranisme 2) Maimbourgs historische Methode am Beispiel des Ablassstreites als Beginn der Reformation 3) Seckendorffs Gegenentwurf des Ablassstreites 4) Seckendorffs historiographischer Anspruch und Ansatz

dazu dienen, Seckendorffs Commentarius in die Entwicklung der (kirchlichen) Historiographie zwischen Bartholomaeus Platina und Johann Lorenz (von) Mosheim einzuordnen, wobei er den Commentarius als ein traditionell kontroverstheologisches Werk versteht, das immerhin den Übergang zu einer neuen Epoche bildet, die Spitz (mit vielen anderen) erst mit Mosheim gekommen sieht. (3) Blaufuß: Seckendorfs Commentarius. Blaufuß stützt sich inhaltlich hauptsächlich auf Wolf, versammelt weiteres Material und zeigt am Beispiel Gottlieb Spizels, wie Seckendorff an sein Material gekommen ist. Seine späteren Beiträge, (a) „Der fränkische Edelmann Veit Ludwig von Seckendorff (1626–1692) als Reformationshistoriker“, in: Jahrbuch für fränkische Landesforschung 36 (1976), S. 81–91, und (b) Spener und Seckendorf, in: Programm und Exempel. Engi/Schweiz 1996, S. 104–127 (auch in: Dietrich Blaufuß: Korrespondierender Pietismus. Ausgewählte Beiträge. Hg. von Wolfgang Sommer, Gerhard Philipp Wolf. Leipzig 2003, S. 77–110), bieten für Seckendorff inhaltlich keine neuen Erkenntnisse. (4) Strauch: Reformationsgeschichtsschreibung bietet wohl viele historische Nachrichten über die Entstehung des Commentarius (S. 5–21), auch eine Interpretation des Frontispiz’ (S. 169– 174), aber keine treffsichere Interpretation. Undeutlich bleibt, wie ausführlich sie das Archivmaterial ausgewertet hat. Auch hätte sie die Ergebnisse von Wolf stärker in ihre Arbeit integrieren sollen. Ihre Einordung des Werkes in die Geschichte der Historiographie (S. 132–143) ist nicht analytisch genug. 42 In Geschichten der allgemeinen Historiographie scheint mir Seckendorff häufig zu Unrecht unterschätzt oder übergangen zu werden; vgl. z.B. Eduard Fueter: Geschichte der neueren Historiographie. München, Berlin 31936, S. 267 („Seckendorfs Apologie hielt sich an das bewährte Muster Sleidans; neue Bahnen sind von ihm nicht eingeschlagen worden.“), oder Christian Simon: Historiographie. Eine Einführung. Stuttgart 1996 (keine Erwähnung); vgl. Wolf: Historiographie, S. 13f., dass Seckendorff „auch in der Quellenbenutzung und Stoffanordnung, in der Bewertung der politischen und kirchlichen Ereignisse, der historischen Entwicklung und ihrer Träger sowie deren Charakteristik und nicht zuletzt in der apologetisch-polemischen Tendenz von Sleidan abweicht“ (S. 14). – Strauch: Reformationsgeschichtsschreibung, S. 132, sucht zu einfach nach „aufklärerischen Merkmalen“ in der Geschichtsschreibung Seckendorffs.

136

Markus Matthias

1. DIE BEDEUTUNG VON MAIMBOURGS HISTOIRE DU LUTHERANISME Anlass 43 und Gegenstand des Kommentars war, wie gesagt, die Historie du Lutheranisme des Jesuiten Louis Maimbourg, aus dessen Feder mehrere Ketzergeschichten hervorgegangen sind. Maimbourgs Werk galt und gilt manchem als sachlich unbedeutend; eigene Quellenstudien hat er nicht betrieben; wo er Quellen nennt, hat er sie offenbar aus seiner geschichtlichen Hauptquelle bezogen, nämlich der Darstellung von Johannes Cochläus. 44 Maimbourg sei nur deshalb nicht vergessen, weil Seckendorff ihn kommentiert habe. Meines Erachtens unterschätzt man damit aber die Sprengkraft, die diesem Buch (zumindest für einen aufrechten Lutheraner) innewohnte. Louis Maimbourg ist durch und durch gallikanisch-royalistisch gesinnt. Liest man die Zueignung 45 seines Werkes an den Sonnenkönig Ludwig XIV., dann fällt diese nicht nur durch ihren subalternen Ton auf, sondern Maimbourg erweist sich auch als Ideologe der restriktiven und absolutistischen Religionspolitik Ludwigs XIV. , die schließlich in der Aufhebung des Ediktes von Nantes (1598) im Jahr 1685 und in der Beeinträchtigung der lutherischen Religionsausübung in den durch die sog. Reunionskriege neu eroberten Gebieten des Elsass gipfelte. So lobt Maimbourg die scharfen Edikte, mit denen seit 1662 den bislang geduldeten Protestanten ihre bürgerliche Grundlage genommen wurde. Ludwig habe mit Verordnungen mehr erreicht als seine Vorgänger in den Hugenottenkriegen 1562–1598 mit Feuer und Schwert. Dabei vertritt Maimbourg publizistisch die einfache Staatsdoktrin, dass ein König in seinem Königreich nur eine Religion dulden dürfe. Zurecht sieht Seckendorff in dieser Position nicht nur ein mangelndes Verständnis, sondern auch eine tatsächliche Gefährdung der besondere Rechtssituation, der komplizierten Friedensordnung und der besonderen, neuen Form der Toleranz im Heiligen Römischen Reich nach dem Westfälischen Frieden, die er nun auch durch die kriegerischen Einfälle Ludwigs XIV. im Neunjährigen (Pfälzischen Erbfolge-) Krieg real bedroht sieht. 46 Letztlich ständen bei einer allgemeinen Durchsetzung von Maimbourgs historischer Sicht nicht nur die Glaubensfreiheit der Lutheraner, sondern die (geistesgeschichtlichen) Errungenschaften der reichsrechtlichen Friedensordnung, zumindest für die neu eroberten Gebiete, auf dem Spiel. 47

43 Vgl. hierzu die autobiographischen Hinweise in Admonitio, Bl. #4r–#6v, Praeloquium, Bl. a2r–d6v und Epilogus, S. 694–700. – Zu Maimbourgs antipäpstlicher Motivation siehe Wolf: Historiographie, S. 63–65, und Strauch: Reformationsgeschichtsschreibung, S. 5–9. 44 Siehe den Beitrag von Kenneth G. Appold im vorliegenden Sammelband. – Weitere wichtige Gewährsleute sind Lorenz Surius (Sauer), Florimond de Raemond, Jean de Sponde und Pallavicino (siehe Anm. 36). 45 Maimbourg: Historie, Bl. a3r–e2v. 46 Supplementum, Praeloquium, Bl. (§) 2r–v. 47 Praeloquium, Bl. b1v; vgl. Epilogus, S. 694A; vgl. das Lob der besonderen Form der Toleranz im deutschen Reich (Epilogus, S. 695B): „Ea moderatione in Germania omnes esse oportet, in qua sanctissimis pacis legibus modus positus est, intra quem, diversa licet circa religionem

Agitur de animae salute

137

2. MAIMBOURGS HISTORISCHE METHODE AM BEISPIEL DES ABLASSSTREITES ALS BEGINN DER REFORMATION In seiner Darstellung des „Luthertums“ (als Name einer Sekte) 48 beginnt Maimbourg bei dem durch Luther ausgelösten Ablassstreit. Geschickt verteilt er dessen Anfänge auf zwei Männer mit je unterschiedlichen Motiven, nämlich auf Johann von Staupitz, der aus persönlicher Kränkung sich an den Dominikanern habe rächen wollen, und auf Martin Luther, dem zwar große intellektuelle Gaben und ein stupender Fleiß, aber schwere charakterliche Schwächen wie vor allem Geltungssucht bescheinigt werden. Durch die Verteilung der Motive, also die Behauptung, dass beide Agenten je ihre eigenen Motive hatten, soll deutlich werden, dass die Predigt des Ablasses von beiden nur zum Anlass genommen wurde, ihre privaten, noch dazu unterschiedlichen Ziele zu verfolgen. So sei das schädliche Schisma inmitten einer an sich stabilen, ja friedlichen Situation der Kirche eigentlich zufällig oder jedenfalls ohne wirklichen Sachgrund aufgekommen. Denn die ganze kirchliche Theologie der Buße hält Maimbourg für unangreifbar. In der Tat, so gibt Maimbourg zu, seien in der Kirche immer wieder Missstände eingerissen. Das gelte für die Alte Kirche wie für den Beginn des 16. Jahrhunderts. Diese Realitäten seien aber kein Grund, an den römisch-katholischen Wahrheiten zu zweifeln. Maimbourg kommt dann ausführlich auf die damalige Ablasspraxis, den Missbrauch des Ablasses unter Albrecht von Brandenburg und das verschwenderische Leben Leos X. zu sprechen. Kein Historiker werde das bestreiten wollen. Man könne auch nicht übersehen, dass dieser Missbrauch der Anlass („occasion“) für die Entstehung des Lutheranismus gewesen sei. Der historische, zufällige Missbrauch gebe aber nicht das Recht, den Ablass und die katholische Bußpraxis abzuschaffen. Die Ablasskampagne sei für Staupitz in Wahrheit nur der Anlass gewesen, um gegen die Dominikaner zu kämpfen. Staupitz wird (mit Cochläus 49) als ein geist-

sentientes, tranquille vivere & pro communi patriae consilia & vires jungere possumus & debemus. Exteris itaque potissimum, quorum bilis in nos despumat, & qui, ubi possunt, moliuntur aut civibus nostris suggerunt suae methodi, qua unitatem religionis domi procurant, exempla, in Commentario hoc meo oppono, quae conducere existimo ad repellendas calumnias, quibus reformationem religionis, quam Lutheranismum vocant, diffamare sparsis tot historiis & libellis non cessent.“ Vgl. Praeloquium, Bl. d2v–d3r: Die Durchsetzung der wahren Religion konnte nie (Kreuzzüge) und kann auch heute nicht durch Gewalt oder Verleumdung erfolgen, vielmehr ist äußerlich Friede zu halten und sogar (wie das im Krieg gegen die Türken unter Leopold I. ja geschehe) zu kooperieren. 48 Vgl. Commentarius, S. 698A: Der Name der Lutheraner sei „ignominiae causa olim inventum.“ 49 Johannes Cochläus: Commentaria Ioannis Cochlaei, de actis et scriptis Martini Lvtheri saxonis, Chronographice, Ex ordine ab Anno Domini M. D. XVII. usque ad Annum M. D. XLVI. Inclusivè, fideliter conscripta. Adiunctis Duobus Indicibus, & Edicto Wormaciensi. […] Apud S. Victorem prope Moguntiam, ex officina Francisci Behem typographi 1549 (später auch als „Historia […]“); siehe dazu kritisch Herte: Das katholische Lutherbild, wonach „fast die gesammte katholische Lutherliteratur von Luthers Tod bis tief ins 20. Jahrhundert hinein im

138

Markus Matthias

reicher Mann gezeichnet, von großen Qualitäten, rechtschaffen, eloquent, sehr geschätzt von Friedrich dem Weisen, der ihn für seine neu eingerichtete Universität brauchte. Typisch für Maimbourg ist es dann, dass er Mutmaßungen über mögliche Motive von Staupitz anstellt: Entweder war Staupitz böse darüber, dass man die Dominikaner seinem Orden in der Verwaltung des Ablasses vorgezogen hatte, oder er war wirklich über die Unordnung der Ablasskampagne (also über Missbrauch) entsetzt. In jedem Fall fasste er – aus persönlichen oder zeitbedingten Gründen – den Entschluss, sich mit aller Kraft den Dominikanern zu widersetzen. Und da er meinte, eine Hilfe zu brauchen, bediente er sich Luthers, der ihm dafür auf Grund seines Ansehens sowie seiner intellektuellen und organisatorischen Fähigkeiten am besten geeignet schien. Auch über Luther erzählt Maimbourg viel Gutes und weist die früheren Dämonisierungen zurück. Er sei „le plus belle esprit & le plus habile homme de son Orde en Allemagne“ gewesen. Allerdings war seine Seele erfüllt von „un grand fonds d’orgueil et de presomption“, was ihn zur Geringschätzung alles dessen veranlasste, was nicht seiner Meinung entsprach. Mit dieser Brutalität traktierte er alle, die seiner Häresie nicht folgten, ohne Respekt vor Kaiser, Papst oder König. Unfähig, etwas zu widerrufen, was er einmal herausposaunt hatte, cholerisch, herrsch- und rachsüchtig etc. „Voilà le veritable caractère de Martin Luther.“ Methodisch kann man Maimbourgs Art der Geschichtsschreibung als eine Form pragmatischer Geschichtsschreibung bezeichnen, insofern er sich um ein natürliches Bild der Akteure und des ganzen Hergangs der Kirchenspaltung bemüht. Indem Maimbourg die Entstehung des Luthertums als den kontingenten Synergieeffekt unterschiedlicher menschlicher Charaktere beschreibt, bleibt er einer Tradition verhaftet, die Geschichte(n) als Auswirkungen menschlicher Fehler (und Tugenden) sieht und insofern als Exempel erzählt. Maimbourg verzichtet ebenso auf geschichtstheologische Erwägungen wie auf Dämonisierungen der handelnden Personen, vielmehr hebt er den menschlichen Charakter der handelnden Personen hervor, womit er seiner Darstellung einen undogmatischen, aufklärerischen, ja unparteiischen Schein gibt. 50 Die Geschichte der Reformation wird historisch ausschließlich mit den Motiven, (vorgefassten) Meinungen und Leidenschaften innerweltlich und psychologisch scheinbar plausibel erklärt, aber damit von Maimbourg zugleich kritisch entwertet. 51 Selbst große Veränderungen wie die Kirchenspaltung finden Banne ein und desselben Werkes gestanden hat. Dieses Werk sind die Kommentare des Cochläus“ (1, S. IX); vgl. dazu leicht differenzierend Hubert Jedin: „Wandlungen des Lutherbildes in der Katholischen Kirchengeschichtsschreibung“, in: Karl Forster (Hg.): Wandlungen des Lutherbildes. Würzburg 1966, S. 77–191, bes. 80–83. 50 Das hat auch Seckendorff gesehen (Praeloquium, Bl. a2v). 51 Als Theoretiker dieser Histoire raisonée wird merkwürdigerweise gerne der eher als Autor von historischen Romanen hervorgetretene César Vichard de Saint-Réal mit seinem Werk De l’usage de l’histoire, 1671 zitiert: „Savoir, c’est connaître les choses par leurs causes; ainsi savoir l’Historie, c’est connaître les hommes qui en fournissent la matière, c’est juger les hommes sainement; étudier l’Historie, c’est étudier les motifs, les oponions et les passions des hommes, pour en connaître tous les ressorts, les tours et les détours, enfin toutes les illusions qu’elles

Agitur de animae salute

139

ihren Ausgangspunkt in den sehr persönlichen Motiven oder Charaktereigenschaften der Akteure. Indem die unterstellten Motive menschliche, nämlich eigennützige Motive sind, wird die ganze daraus hervorgegangene Entwicklung delegitimiert, ja gar nicht als Geschichte (im modernen Sinn) wahrgenommen. Die theologische und kirchenpolitische Sachfrage (Argumentation) sowie der genaue Zusammenhang der Geschehnisse treten vollständig hinter den unterstellten Motiven zurück. Maimbourg tritt damit in der Tat hinter den politischen Geist des Westfälischen Friedens mit der politisch-rechtlichen Anerkennung der Kirchenspaltung als neuer Realität zurück. Was setzt Seckendorff dagegen? 3. SECKENDORFFS GEGENENTWURF DES ABLASSSTREITES Zunächst fällt auf, dass Seckendorff den Blick von den Personen auf die Sachfragen lenkt. Im § 2 seines Textes widerspricht Seckendorff dem Jesuiten in zwei zentralen Punkten: (1) Der Friede, der zu Beginn der Reformation angeblich herrschte, war kein wahrer Friede, und (2) der Papst hatte (und hat) keinen Anspruch auf einen nach göttlichem Recht gebotenen Gehorsam. Denn (1) der wahre Friede müsse sowohl in der Lehre (Glaubensgegenstand) wie in der Zucht (Frömmigkeit im Sinne des gottgefälligen Handelns) zuerst auf Gott gerichtet sein; d.h. einen wirklichen Frieden, der nämlich nicht den Keim der Zersetzung in sich trägt, kann es nur da geben, wo Gott wahrhaftig geglaubt und gedient wird. Zudem sei (2) die Frage, ob dem Papst damals (und heute) der Gehorsam zukomme, den man den wahren Verkündern des Wortes Gottes und Seelsorgern erweise. Nicht nur die Legitimität, sondern eigentlich die Notwendigkeit der Reformation hängt von diesen Sachfragen ab. Beides (die historische Faktizität eines echten Friedens und die theologische Legitimität des geschuldeten Gehorsams) seien zu prüfen, um das reformatorische Wirken Luthers richtig beurteilen zu können. Schon hier wird deutlich, dass Seckendorff sowohl im Blick auf die historischen Umstände wie im Blick auf die kirchenrechtliche Frage die objektive Wahrheitsfrage stellt, statt nach möglichen subjektiven Motiven der handelnden Personen zu suchen. Was die historischen Voraussetzungen betrifft, habe Maimbourg den in den historischen Zeugnissen dokumentierten verfallenen Zustand der Kirche nicht erkannt, obwohl er ihn gerade aus französischer Perspektive hätte sehen müssen. Sollte der Zustand, wie nachweisbar, eine Besserung (im Sinne eines wahren Friedens) bedurft haben, so könne man den zu korrigierenden Zustand nicht loben, noch dürfe man Luther für seine Bemühung um eine Reformation beschimpfen. Zeugnisse für die Reformbedürftigkeit der Kirche und der damaligen Lehre gebe es aber savent faire aux esprits, et les surprises qu’elles font aux coeurs“ (zitiert nach Fritz Wagner: Die Anfänge der modernen Geschichtswissenschaft im 17. Jahrhundert. München 1979, S. 8); zum ganzen vgl. Wolf-Friedrich Schäufele: „Geschichtsbewusstsein und Geschichtsschreibung um 1700“, in: Wolfgang Breul, Jan Carsten Schnur (Hg.): Geschichtsbewusstsein und Zukunftserwartung in Pietismus und Erweckungsbewegung. Göttingen 2013, S. 29–55.

140

Markus Matthias

hinreichend viele, die beweisen, dass eine Reformation erforderlich, mithin notwendig war. Als Belege beruft sich Seckendorff auf verschiedene vorreformatorische Autoren, zitiert zum Teil ihre Texte und hängt seinen Ausführungen dann noch fünf Seiten an, in denen er meist längere Quellenauszüge bietet. Darin präsentiert er in einer ersten „Additio“ das ausführliche Zeugnis des Friedrich Myconius über den Zustand der Kirche in Sachsen vor der Reformation (Historia reformationis),52 also konkret für das Territorium, in dem Luther lebte und wirkte. (In einer zweiten kurzen „Additio“ geht Seckendorff auf das Leben des inzwischen verstorbenen Maimbourg ein.) In einer dritten dokumentiert er die Rufe nach einem Reformkonzil, und in einer vierten „Additio“ folgen hochrangige Dokumente über den Zustand der Kirche im 15. Jahrhundert. Die Sachfrage nach dem göttlichen Recht der päpstlichen Autorität (2) ist indes theologisch (biblisch) zu klären. In vergleichbarer Weise unternimmt es Seckendorff (3) im Folgenden, den Mutmaßungen Maimbourgs über die Motive der Akteure kritisch entgegenzutreten, indem er ihre in den Quellen dokumentierten Äußerungen beim Wort nimmt. Zum Beispiel hatte Maimbourg Luther unterstellt, dass er nur zum Schein offen über die Kraft der Ablässe habe diskutieren wollen, in Wahrheit hätte er sie in seinen Predigten und Schriften schon vor den Ablassthesen abgelehnt. 53 Gegen diese Verdächtigungen und angemaßten Blicke ins Innere Luthers stellt Seckendorff die in den Quellen zu findenden Äußerungen. 54 Denn Luther habe sich in der den Thesen angehängten protestatio der Heiligen Schrift, den in der römischen Kirche rezipierten Kirchenvätern, den Canones und Dekreten sowie dem Urteil aller seiner Oberen unterworfen. 55 Also sei Luther sich seiner Position damals noch nicht sicher gewesen. In vergleichbarer Weise argumentiert Seckendorff gegen die weiteren unterstellten Motive des von Maimbourg kolportierten Geschichtsbildes, nämlich das 52 Friedrich Myconius: Geschichte der Reformation. Hg. von Otto Clemen. Mit einem Nachwort von Helmut Claus. Gotha 1990 (Nachdruck der Ausgabe Leipzig, 1914). 53 Commentarius 1, Sect. II (S. 24): „Hac occasione Archiepiscopo theses nonaginta quinque misit, quas eodem die profesto omnium Sanctorum, portis Ecclesiae Wittenbergensis affixerat, non ut eas tanquam certas & veras, ut ait, assereret, sed ut disputatione legitima examinerentur, ad eruendam veritatem. Sed jam plures ex illis satis clare affirmaverat in concionibus de indulgentia & poenitentia habitis. Et fatendum est, esse inter eas, quae verae sunt, & optime defendi possunt; sed sunt etiam multae prorsus falsae, adversus thesaurum Ecclesiae, potestatem Papae, & pretium indulgentiarum pugnantes, quas malitiosus hic & astutus doctor abolere nitebatur, quamvis simularet, ac si tantum instrui desideraret.“ (= Maimbourg: Histoire, S. 17f.). 54 Commentarius 1, § 11 (S. 24): „Hic quoque interiora Lutheri scrutatur Maimburgius, & jam astutiam eruit, postquam ambitionem protraxit, utrumque sine fundamento.“ Vgl. Commentarius 3, § 90.1 (S. 370) zu den Mutmaßungen über die „animi Caesarei interiora”. – Hinter diesem anderen Ansatz Seckendorffs steht sicher auch eine religiöse (vgl. z.B. 1 Samuel 16,7) und theologisch-konfessionelle Einsicht. 55 Die protestatio gehört zu den Resolutiones von 1518 (so tatsächlich richtig die Jenaer Ausgabe von 1556 in Band 1, Bl. 79v; vgl. die falsch korrigierende Zuweisung zu den 95 Thesen im Catalogus singularum partium auf Bl. ee4r); siehe Martin Luther: Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Werke (im Folgenden: WA). Bd. 1. Weimar 1883, S. 232, 529f.

Agitur de animae salute

141

Interesse der (fürstlichen) Obrigkeiten, sich an dem leerstehenden oder säkularisierten Kirchengut zu bereichern, und den Wunsch des gemeinen Volkes, sich der kirchlichen Disziplin zu entziehen. 56 Auch diesen Vorwürfen hält Seckendorff historische Fakten entgegen, auch wenn er die genannten Akteure nicht von allen menschlichen Fehlern freisprechen möchte. 57 Die Äußerungen der Beteiligten werden darüber hinaus von Seckendorff auf ihre historische Konsistenz mit anderen Aussagen überprüft bzw. untermauert. Die Mutmaßung Maimbourgs, Staupitz habe Luther benutzt, um gegen die Dominikaner vorzugehen, lässt sich zum Beispiel mit Luthers brieflicher Bitte an Staupitz widerlegen, dass sich Staupitz nicht in den Streit hineinziehen lassen möge. 58 Mit dieser Orientierung an den Sachfragen und den Vorgängen im Einzelnen (Ablasshandel, theologischer Austausch zwischen Staupitz und Luther, Luthers Gemeindemitglieder als Erwerber des Ablasses usw.) beginnt Seckendorff seine Rekonstruktion des Beginns der Reformation. 4. SECKENDORFFS HISTORIOGRAPHISCHER ANSPRUCH UND ANSATZ Seckendorff, der sicherlich kein großer Geschichtsschreiber 59 war, war sich des eigenartigen Charakters seines Werkes wohl bewusst, der sich im Text seines barocken Titels widerspiegelt: COMMENTARIUS HISTORICUS ET APOLOGETICUS De LUTHERANISMO, Sive DE REFORMATIONE RELIGIONIS ductu D. MARTINI LUTHERI in magna Germaniae parte aliisque regionibus, & speciatim in SAXONIA recepta & stabilita: IN QUO EX LUDOVICI MAIMBURGII JESUITAE HISTORIA LUTHERANISMI Anno M DC LXXX Parisiis Gallice edita LIBRI TRES ab anno 1517. ad annum 1546. Latine versi exhibentur, corriguntur, & ex Manuscriptis aliisque rarioribus libris plurimis supplentur; Simul & aliorum quorundam Scriptorum errores aut calumniae examinantur. […] Eo fine Ut ad veram & exactiorem notitiam rei gestae, & ad depulsionem calumniarum, ex fide dignis monumentis,

56 Praeloquium, Bl. b4v, c2r–c4r. 57 Epilogus, S. 699B. 58 Commentarius 1, § 19 (S. 32); vgl. WA 1, S. 525–527, hier: 527:1f. (Widmungsbrief der Resolutiones von 1518 an Staupitz). 59 Nach Wolf: Historiographie, bleibt Seckendorff wegen der Anordnung des Stoffes nach chronologischen statt nach ideellen Geschichtspunkten (S. 91), wegen der mangelnden Darstellung der historischen Persönlichkeiten „in ihrer Totalität, ihrem innersten Kern und ihrem geistigen Wesen“ (S. 119–128, bes. 120) und der mangelnden genetischen Betrachtungsweise der vormodernen Geschichtsschreibung verhaftet (S. 136). Andererseits habe Seckendorff es viel besser als seine Vorgänger verstanden, die Quellen in eine durchlaufende Darstellung zu integrieren (S. 57f., 87). Zudem stellt sie fest, dass gerade „die Einmischung des eigenen Urteils und die Geltendmachung der protestantischen Gesinnung, die ihm zum Parteischriftsteller werden ließ, […] seinem ganzen Werke einen einheitlichen Zug verliehen haben“ (S. 107). Zu seinen schriftstellerischen Qualitäten siehe Wolf: Historiographie, S. 111–119.

142

Markus Matthias denuo via pateat: Pro honore DEI, & pace Ecclesiae, justaque defensione pietatis & virtutis, a Majoribus 60 in negotio Reformationis ostensae. […].

(a) Für Seckendorff ergab sich nach der Lektüre Maimbourgs folgende Alternative: Der leichtere Weg sei, das Unwahre und Feindselige in Maimbourgs Darstellung zu exzerpieren und zu widerlegen; so könnte man Maimbourgs Buch mit einem wenig umfangreichen Kommentar neu herausgeben. Das wäre dann ein apologetischer Kommentar zu Maimbourgs Historie du Lutheranisme. Der andere, mühsamere Weg sei, von neuem eine wahrhaftige 61 und vollständige 62 Geschichte der Reformation der Religion zu schreiben. Dann würde die wahre Geschichte, neben die Schriften Maimbourgs und anderer ähnlicher Autoren gelegt, ihre Hoheit (maiestas) und ihr Licht (lux) erscheinen lassen, vor deren Anblick die Schemen der Unwahrheiten und Verdächtigungen fliehen müssten. 63 Das wäre dann ein historischer Kommentar zu dem Hergang der Geschichte (res gesta). Faktisch hat Seckendorff beide Wege, auch äußerlich in der oben beschriebenen Struktur, kombiniert (Commentarius Historicus Et Apologeticus).

60 Eine deutsche Übersetzung und Bearbeitung (nach einem ersten Versuch von Wilhelm Ernst Tentzel: Historischer Bericht vom Anfang und ersten Fortgang der Reformation Lvtheri. Zur Erläuterung des Hn. v. Seckendorff Historie des Lutherthums, […] mitgetheilet von Ernst Salomon Cyprian […]. Gotha 1717) bietet mit redaktioneller Bearbeitung Elias Frick (Herrn Veit Ludewigs von Seckendorff Ausführliche Historie des Lutherthums und der heilsamen Reformation. Leipzig 1714); eine eher zusammenfassende Übersetzung stammt von Christian Friedrich Junius, fortgeführt von Benjamin Lindner und Gottlob Emanuel Gründler (Compendium Seckendorfianum oder Kurzgefaßte Reformations-Geschichte. Frankfurt am Main 1755); dieses wiederum bearbeitete Johann Friedrich Roos (Reformations-Geschichte in einem Auszug aus Veit Ludwig von Seckendorf Historia Lutheranismi. Tübingen 1781–1788), auch französisch (Histoire De La Réformation De L’Église Chrétienne En Allemagne Tome I–IV. Basel 1784/85); zur Sache siehe Wolf: Historiographie, S. 36–40; bes. dort auch das die Bezeichnung „Supplementum Seckendorffianum“ im Titel tragende Werk von Johann Joachim Müller: Historie von der Evangelischen Ständte Protestation und Appellation. Wieder und von dem ReichsAbschied zu Speyer 1529. Jena 1705. 61 Admonitio, Bl. #6r: Er habe die Sachen beim rechten Namen nennen müssen, entsprechend der Freiheit, die ihm durch die öffentlichen Gesetze gegeben sei; er habe die Sache nicht verraten können, die er eingesehen habe, und die Gründe für die Kirchenspaltung nicht verschwiegen. Vgl. Epilogus, S. 695A: Für das Bemühen um Wahrhaftigkeit gebe es auch angesichts seines Alters allen Grund: „senecta tamen mea, tantoque propius instans in tribunali divino comparitio, acriori ad id urget stimulo.“ 62 Praeloquium, Bl. a4v: „plenius nempe quoddam opus, quo tota rerum circa Reformationem & postea gestarum series exposita esset, additis, ubi haberi possent, documentis, quibus contradictiones solidissime repelluntur.“ 63 Praeloquium, Bl. a4v: „[A]lio operosiori, si vera & plena Historia Lutheranismi denuo ederetur, in qua veritas, cum Maimburgii aliorumque ei similium scriptis collata, majestatem lucemque suam ostenderet, ejusque conspectu mendaciorum & calumniarum spectra ultro diffugerent“. – Vgl. Reinhart Koselleck, Christian Meier, Odilo Engels, Horst Günther: Art. „Geschichte, Historie“, in: Otto Brunner, Werner Conze, Reinhart Koselleck (Hg.): Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland. Stuttgart 21975, S. 593–717, hier: 666f.

Agitur de animae salute

143

(b) Was Seckendorff hier mit seiner Materialsammlung tut, ist keine historia im herkömmlichen Sinn, will auch laut des Titels keine solche sein. Historia meint ja den Bericht, die Erzählung vom Geschehenen (auf Grund der „notitia rei gestae“). Seckendorff schreibt dagegen einen Kommentar, nicht nur zu Maimbourgs Buch, sondern zum Geschehen der Reformation, das man (im Ergebnis) mit dem Luthertum identifizieren kann, weil sie sich unter Führung Luthers in weiten Teilen Deutschlands, besonders Sachsen, durchgesetzt hat. Der Kommentar bietet mit seiner Materialsammlung zunächst den Zugang zu einer wahren und genaueren Kenntnis 64 des Geschehens selbst („ad veram & exactiorem notitiam rei gestae“), indem er zeitgenössische Berichte bzw. Überrestquellen präsentiert. Freilich geht es nicht nur um die Aufzählung oder Dokumentation des äußeren Geschehens, sondern vor allem auch um Gründe, Ursachen und Anlässe. Eine besondere Wertschätzung erfahren daher die in den Archiven bewahrten Briefe und Protokolle der handelnden Personen als situationsgebundene, persönliche Überrestquellen. In ihnen darf man offenbar nicht nur die ungeschminkte, weil vertraulich kommunizierte Wahrheit, sondern auch die ursprüngliche (aus dem historischen Kontext zu verstehende) Begründung für das jeweilige Handeln erwarten. Damit wird nicht nur das Geschehen als solches (eventus), sondern werden auch die sachlichen Gründe (causae humanorum actionum) der handelnden Personen, mithin der innere Wirkungszusammenhang bzw. das Geschehen als Folge menschlicher Entscheidungen (interior historia) deutlich. 65 Dabei fordert Seckendorff sowohl für die Dokumente (fide dignis documentis) wie für ihre Darbietung durch ihn Vertrauen ein. 66 Die Dokumente präsentieren die nachweisbare Geschichte dessen, was getan oder geäußert wurde; hier ist kein Platz

64 Vgl. Koselleck u.a.: Art. Geschichte, Historie, S. 643. 65 Vgl. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz an V.L. von Seckendorff, [Anfang April?] 1684 (Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, 1. Reihe: Allgemeiner politischer und historischer Briefwechsel. Bd. 4. Leipzig 1950, Nr. 374, S. 461–463, hier: 462:9–14): „Caeterum magnam locupletationem sibi interior Historia, qvae non eventus tantùm, sed et causas humanarum actionum tractat, à Tibi promittit, nec dignius facilè argumentum eligi aut tanto argumento dignior scriptor desiderari potest. Certe à Constantini M. aevo nulla in Christiana Occidentis republica major rerum commutatio intra tam paucos annos contigit qvàm qvae superiori aevo visa est.“ – Mit der (im Deutschen verblassten) Komparativbildung („interior“) betont Leibniz wohl die ursächliche Verbundenheit zwischen Handlungsgründen und Geschehnissen; vgl. Anm. 67. – Wolf: Historiographie, S. 84, stellt zurecht fest, dass sich Seckendorffs Material hierin nicht nur quantitativ, sondern auch qualitativ von dem Sleidanusʼ und anderer unterscheidet. 66 Epilogus, S. 694B: „Ante omnia vero veritatis & bonae fidei, in referendis, quae ad historiam pertinent, rationem habui.“

144

Markus Matthias

für Mutmaßungen über charakterliche Eigenschaften oder verborgene Motive. 67 Insofern entfernt sich Seckendorff mit seinem Commentarius von dem Verständnis von Geschichte als Teil der ars poetica. 68 (c) Neben die Präsentation der Überrestquellen und ihrer Prüfung auf Konsistenz tritt das Kriterium einer angestrebten Vollständigkeit 69 und in diesem Sinne Genauigkeit der geschichtlichen Darstellung. 70 Zu diesem Zweck einer möglichst umfassenden Materialsammlung hat Seckendorff eine weitreichende gelehrte Korrespondenz geführt. 71 So gelingt es Seckendorff, auch über den unmittelbaren Wirkungskreis Luthers (und der sächsischen Herrscher) hinauszugreifen und zu zeigen, 67 Es gehe bei der Kommentierung der Geschehnisse („Commentarios rerum gestarum“) nicht nur darum, die Handlungen und ihre Folgen, sondern auch die Gründe für das Handeln zu überliefern, freilich nicht solche, die die Einbildungskraft des Schreibers sich vorstellt, sondern die in den (dokumentierten) Überlegungen geäußert wurden („in quibus non solum acta & eventus, sed & rationes agendi, nec ex ingenio scribentis effictae, verum in deliberationibus tractatae traderentur“; Praeloquium, Bl. a3v). 68 Vgl. Praeloquium, Bl. b1r, wonach ein Buch, das (um der Wahrheit willen) zum größten Teil aus archivalischen Quellen bestehe, denen verdrießlich sei, die lieber durch die rasche Abfolge von Geschehnissen unterhalten werden möchten. 69 Praeloquium, Bl. a3v: „perfectiorem aliquam actorum in causa religionis Historiam“; „Historia politica accurata & continuata“; „de perfecta & vera [historia] loquor.“ Vgl. Admonitio, Bl. #5r: Statt einer Erwiderung auf die anderen Teile von Maimbourgs Historie bevorzuge er eine Ergänzung der jetzigen Bücher durch weitere Quellen, die nämlich den Verlauf der Reformation in anderen Kirchen(gemeinden) dokumentieren. Vgl. Praeloquium, Bl. b1r: Es bleibe trotz der großen Ernte von Johannes Sleidanus noch immer in den Archiven eine Nachlese übrig; es sei nötig, neue Quellen zu erschließen, statt die alten zu wiederholen oder aus ihnen neues zusammenzubasteln, wie das auch auf protestantischer, vor allem aber auf römisch-katholischer Seite geschehe. 70 Zur „punktuellen“ Genauigkeit siehe Anm. 89 (Epilogus, S. 694B, 695B). 71 Siehe dazu (wohl noch unvollständig und wenig systematisch) Wolf: Historiographie, S. 17– 28, 83f. Zu erwähnen wäre auch noch das von Wolf: Historiographie, S. 21, 144, erwähnte Rundschreiben (Epistola circularis) an die Theologen vom 9.7.1688 mit der Bitte um Mithilfe; bereits vom 1.1.1688 (Meuselsitz, Cal. Jan. 1688) datiert das Rundschreiben: Antistitibus evangelicarum dioecesium […] Germania […] officia sua […] offert […] Vitus Ludovicus Seckendorff, Meuselwitz 1688 (UB Jena). In seinem zwei Quartblätter umfassenden, dreiseitigen Rundbrief an die höherrangigen evangelischen Pfarrer Deutschlands (Dekane, Superintendenten und Pfarrer von wichtigen Städten), besonders außerhalb des Herzog- und Kurfürstentums Sachsen, forderte Seckendorff diese auf, Material zur Geschichte der „Fürstenreformationen“ („historiam reformationis, auspiciis Principum & Magistratuum […] susceptae“; S. [2]) ab 1525, also für den zweiten und dritten Band seines Werkes, zu nennen und ihm zur Verfügung zu stellen, wobei er sich auf den bereits im Herbst 1687 („praeterito autumno“; S. [1]) erschienenen Kommentar zum ersten Buch von Maimbourgs Histoire du Lutheranisme als Beispiel berufen konnte. Er erneuerte damit seine bereits in den „Additiones“ von 1687 (dort S. 5; S. [1]) veröffentlichten Aufruf. Das Material, Manuskripte und seltene Bücher, sollte über den Verleger Gleditsch in Leipzig geschickt werden, und Seckendorff versprach die unbeschadete Rückgabe. Ferner forderte er die Geistlichen auf, sich mit ihrem Ansehen bei ihren Obrigkeiten dafür einzusetzen, dass treuen und fleißigen Männern der Auftrag erteilt werde, anhand von verlässlichen Dokumenten (offenbar aus den Archiven) die regionale Reformationsgeschichte der wichtigeren Territorien zu schreiben, wo solche noch nicht existierten. Diese Bitte um aktive

Agitur de animae salute

145

wie die Evangeliumsbotschaft auch in anderen Regionen und Ländern eine Reformation befördert hat. Hier geht es freilich nicht um ein abstraktes, archivalisches Interesse um Vollständigkeit. Vielmehr, erst wenn der Verlauf des Geschehens in allen wesentlichen Zusammenhängen und umfassend beschrieben ist, indem alle zur Verfügung stehenden Dokumente in ihn integriert sind, hat der wissenschaftliche Historiker sein Werk getan, weil erst so das Geschehen eindeutig bewertbar wird. Zugleich wird auf diese Weise die eigene Dynamik des Geschehens, losgelöst von der menschlichen Planbarkeit, aufgedeckt. (d) Schließlich erfordert der Erfolg der Reformation ein Verständnis Luthers, das ihn gerade von seiner besten Seite zeigt; denn nur so habe er die Menschen – gestützt auf seine aus der Heiligen Schrift gezogenen Argumente – gewinnen und den Autoritäts- und Machtapparat Roms „zerpflücken“ können. Der Erfolg verlangt nach Erklärung, und die liegt notwendig in der Bedeutung der historischen Personen. Luther möge in Worten und Werken gesündigt haben und gestrauchelt sein; das sei eben der menschlichen Schwachheit zuzurechnen, würde aber seiner biblisch begründeten Lehre und Frömmigkeit und seiner historischen Bedeutung keinen Abbruch tun. 72 (Insofern wäre es nicht nur sachlich ungerecht, sondern auch historisch unplausibel, die lutherische Lehre von der Lebensführung Luthers oder seinen gelegentlich harten Worten her zu beurteilen.) Für Luther übernimmt er dessen Selbsteinschätzung, dass er sich erst aus Vorurteilen und Irrtümer herausarbeiten musste, sich also entwickelte. 73 Die aus den Schriften und Briefen Luthers selbst nachgezeichnete geistige und geistliche Entwicklung weist eine deutliche Folgerichtigkeit auf. Auch dies ist für das Verständnis der Reformation als eines Prozesses wichtig. Seckendorff bleibt historiographisch der pragmatischen Ebene der menschlichen Handlungen verpflichtet. 74 Aber er wertet sie auf Basis der Fakten (geäußerte Mithilfe war, wie Seckendorff selbst sagt, dem Missverhältnis seines hohen Alters und der Größe der Aufgabe geschuldet. Seckendorffs Hang zur Vollständigkeit zeigt sich schließlich auch darin, dass er bat, ihm auch mögliche Fehlanzeigen mitzuteilen, also anzugeben, wo über das bisher aus dem ersten Band, aus Sleidanus, Chytraeus und anderen Autoritäten Bekannte hinaus nichts berichtet werden könne. 72 Praeloquium, Bl. d2r: „Nunc Lutherum ex ipso Luthero eruo, formo, depingo, & ab ea parte conspiciendum admirandumque sisto, qua is mihi pulcherrimus optimusque visus est. Ab illa nempe, qua hominum mentes, propositis ex coelesti Scripturarum thesauro argumentis, convicit, tantamque, quae ei opponebatur, autoritatis & potentiae machinam veluti folia, aut chartaceos pictosve muros, disjecit. Patebit hinc, quo respectu Lutherani simus, quid in eo venerati secutique fuerint majores nostri, & quam inique nobiscum & frivole etiam atque impudenter agant, qui nos ad mores viri, aut ad duriuscula ejus dicta aut scripta ablegant; in quibus excerpendis, mutilandis, cavillandis, improbam sane, certe Christianis minime dignam, consumunt operam. Peccaverit, lapsus sit, verbis factisve, (longe quidem levius mitiusque quam inimici & aemuli ejus tradidere) id nobis humanae imbecillitatis argumentum dat, at doctrinae fideique nullum adfert detrimentum, cujus fundamentum scimus ubi quaerendum sit.“ 73 Commentarius 1, § 14.1–2 (S. 30); vgl. Praeloquium, Bl. d1v. 74 Zu Recht bestreitet Strauch: Reformationsgeschichtsschreibung, S. 136–138, gegen Wolf: Historiographie, S. 43–45 mit Anmerkungen 172–181 (S. 153f.), dass Seckendorff Geschichte als

146

Markus Matthias

Beweggründe, chronologische Abfolge und historischer Kontext), der Konsistenz und des Erfolges positiv auf. Das Geschehen erhält den Charakter einer in sich stringenten Abfolge. Die chronologische Anordnung des Stoffes ist hier keine annalistische Aufzählung, sondern zeigt, wie sich die Dinge in Wahrheit nach und nach, zum Teil auf Grund von Zufällen oder kontingenten menschlichen Entscheidungen entwickelt haben. (e) Seckendorffs Commentarius zeichnet sich durch wissenschaftliche Kritik 75 aus. Dabei steht die philologische Textkritik 76 nicht im Vordergrund, wohl aber die Wägung der Verlässlichkeit der Dokumente für das Nachzeichnen der Geschehnisse (Prinzip der Autopsie, Quellennachweis und Gewährleistung der Nachprüfbarkeit, Klärung der Autorschaft der Dokumente). Insofern steht Seckendorff als einzelner Wissenschaftler zeitlich, sachlich und methodisch ebenbürtig neben den historiographischen Großunternehmen der Mauriner und Bollandisten in Frankreich. 77 (f) Seckendorff versteht seine Auseinandersetzung mit Maimbourg an einer Stelle als „historiam historiae opponere.“ 78 Das ist kaum so zu verstehen, dass hier der einen Historie auf derselben Ebene eine andere gegenübergestellt wird. Vermutlich hatte Seckendorff die Vorstellung, dass die urkundliche Darstellung des

75

76

77

78

durch Gott determiniert versteht, was ja nicht daran zu hindern braucht, an die hinter dem Geschehen wirksame, aber nicht einsehbare göttliche Providenz zu glauben. Zum „objektiven“ Umgang mit seinen Quellen (Auswahl, Präsentation, Wiedergabe) siehe Wolf: Historiographie, S. 84–117 mit Anm. 316–367 auf S. 163f. – Hierher gehört auch die selbstkritische Haltung hinsichtlich seines Buches, das nicht nur Druck(er)fehler, sondern Fehler des Autors enthalte (Strauch: Reformationsgeschichtsschreibung, S. 19; vgl. den Hinweis auf der vorletzten Seite der Ausgabe 1688 unter der Correctio, dass nicht nur dem Abschreiber oder Drucker, sondern auch dem Korrektur lesenden Autor Textfehler entgangen seien). Siehe z.B. die sachliche Enttarnung eines angeblichen Textes von Melanchthon und Luther (Copia eorum, quae Martinus Lutherus & Philippus Melanchthon cum adhaerentibus civitatibus & aliquot Germaniae Principibus admiserunt [siehe Corpus Reformatorum. Hg. von Karl Gottlieb Bretschneider. Bd. 3. Halle 1836, Sp. 831–834]), in: Commentarius 3, § 73 Add. 2 (S. 228–230; vgl. Spitz: Seckendorf, S. 153–156); zur Sache siehe Martin Luther: Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Briefwechsel. Bd. 8. Weimar 1938, S. 602f. (Kurfürst Johann Friedrich an Luther und Melanchthon, 13.11.1539). Das übersieht m.E. Schäufele: Geschichtsbewusstsein, S. 48–50. – Das gilt umso mehr, als Seckendorff mit vielerlei altersdingten (Admonitio, Bl. #5r), gesundheitlichen (Epilogus, S. 694), politischen (Praeloquium, Bl. b1r, Epilogus, S. 694A) und wirtschaftlichen Schwierigkeiten (Feuersbrunst in Meuselwitz, 1686) (Praeloquium, Bl. b2v) zu kämpfen hatte. Praeloquium, Bl. b1v. – Vgl. Praeloquium, Bl. a3r: Für die partes historici (historischen Gegenstandsbereich) benötige man einen erfahrenen, in den Verhandlungen geübten Staatsmann, dem alle geheimen Dokumente anvertraut werden können. Ein solcher liefere einen commentarius (Protokoll) zu den res gestae, d.h. keine historia im herkömmlichen Sinn. – Neuartig war wohl schon der Anspruch Seckendorffs, die eigentlich theologische Frage durch eine historische Beschreibung der Geschehnisse beantworten zu wollen; jedenfalls wurde ihm (auch aus den eigenen Reihen) vorgeworfen, sich als theologischer Laie geäußert zu haben (Praeloquium, Bl. d4r).

Agitur de animae salute

147

äußeren, politischen Geschehens, wie der Staatsmann sie aus den Quellen rekonstruiert und mit ihnen verbunden sein lässt, 79 der oben beschriebenen „pragmatischmoralischen“ Erzählung des Theologen auf eine fundamentale Art gegenübersteht. Die durch den Commentarius präsentierten Geschehnisse formieren sich zu einer eigenen Art von „Geschichte“, die nicht einfach auf Grund dogmatischer Erkenntnis, sondern nach eigenen „historischen“ Kriterien beurteilt werden muss. Methodisch war dieser Aufgabe eher der auf das menschliche Handeln gerichtete Staatsmann als der dogmatisch urteilende Theologe gewachsen. 80 Bedeutungsvoll ist dabei, dass eine theologische oder geistige Wahrheit durch den Verlauf der äußeren Geschichte bekräftigt wird. (g) Seckendorff beschreibt die Reformationsgeschichte nicht als Zeitgenosse, sondern aus einer zeitlichen wie sachlichen Distanz. In der Tat sieht Seckendorff in seiner eigenen Zeit die Gefahr einer Destabilisierung der evangelischen Kirche von innen heraus. Manche hielten die Reformation für ein Unglück, andere spotteten über die Vorfahren, dass sie für eine unwichtige Glaubensüberzeugung so viel Gefahr ausgestanden hätten. Auch gelehrte Leute schauten auf die Geschehnisse der Reformation und Luthers Schriften mit Abschätzung herab. Wie der mit ihm befreundete Philipp Jacob Spener nimmt Seckendorff eine Abnahme evangelischer Überzeugungen wahr, die es nun historisch zu stabilisieren gälte. 81 Gegenüber Menschen, die die konfessionellen Unterschiede kleinreden und die Ansicht vertreten, dass die Kirchenscheidung eigentlich unnötig gewesen sei, muss die Sache selbst erneut klar vor Augen gestellt werden. Man dürfe nicht aus der gegenwärtigen Situation auf die Situation in der Vergangenheit schließen, könne die Reformation nicht verstehen, wenn man von der gegenwärtigen Situation ausgehe. Sonst misstraue man der Rechtmäßigkeit der eigenen Vorfahren. Seckendorff fordert hier nicht weniger als das Bewusstsein der historischen Abständigkeit 82 und zugleich der geschichtlichen Bedeutung der Reformation ein. Die Klage über die Kirchenspaltung und der Schluss von der gegenwärtigen Situation, in der der römische Katholizismus als Folge der Reformation und der eigenen inneren Reform besser dastehe, während manche Protestanten in ihrem Lebenswandel religiösen Ernst vermissen ließen, auf die Zeit der Reformation, gäben der Kritik an der Kirchenspaltung den Schein des Glaubwürdigen („credibilis“), verkennten 79 „Facta, quae retuli, documentis suis constant“ (S. 695B). Vgl. Maimbourg: Histoire, S. 14: “les causes, & […] les motifs, en quoy consiste l’ame de l’Historie”; vgl. Anm. 51. 80 In der Wahrnehmung von Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (siehe Anm. 84) hat sich der konfessionelle Gegensatz zu seiner Zeit ganz auf die politische Ebene verschoben, was man wohl auch als ein „historiae historiam opponere“ verstehen kann. 81 Nicht von ungefähr beschließt er seinen Epilogus mit einem Kernzitat pietistischer Bibelhermeneutik, nämlich mit Joh 7,17 (Epilogus, S. 700B). Vgl. Praeloquium, Bl. b3v, wonach die Gefährdung des (Religions-) Friedens auch als Strafe Gottes an einem laschen evangelischen Christentum zu sehen sei. 82 Vgl. Wolf: Historiographie, S. 14, 134f. – Das gilt zum Beispiel auch für den veränderten Sprachgebrauch: Commentarius 3, § 134.8 (S. 643); siehe Strauch: Reformationsgeschichtsschreibung, S. 139.

148

Markus Matthias

aber den Unterschied der Zeiten und die theologisch-historische Tatsache, dass nicht die Protestanten Schismatiker seien, sondern der Papst auf Grund seines iure divino beanspruchten Herrschaftsanspruches. 83 Die evangelische Wahrheit, die heute als selbstverständlich oder trivial vorausgesetzt wird, musste in der Vergangenheit erkämpft werden. Daher muss die geschichtliche Notwendigkeit 84 und Bedeutung der Reformation historisch begründet werden, indem man sich von neuem einen Zugang zu den reformatorischen Geschehnissen verschafft („Eo fine Ut […] denuo via pateat“). Diese Kenntnis wiederum diene der Ehre Gottes, dem (äußerlichen wie innerlichen) Frieden der Kirche und der gerechten Verteidigung der Frömmigkeit und Tugend, die die Vorfahren in den Reformationshändeln gezeigt hätten. Damit richtet sich der Historiker an die eigene Konfessionsgemeinschaft. Er will die Zeitgenossen über die geschehene Reformation der Religion aufklären und sie dazu anhalten, ihr Leben entsprechend einzurichten bzw. zu bessern. Offenbar ist die Reformation – wegen ihres revolutionären Umbruchs – nicht mehr im eigenen „Erfahrungsraum“ 85 situiert, sie ist nicht einfach zugänglich und kann auch nicht einfach aktualisiert werden. Historia wird also nicht nur eingesetzt, um – wie in Rechtsfragen oder in der Reichspublizistik – den eigenen (Wahrheits-) Anspruch nach außen rhetorisch bzw. apologetisch zu legitimieren, sondern um die historische Sachfrage als gegenwärtiges Problem zu aktualisieren bzw. sich in die historische Situation zurückzuversetzen, um daraus die eigene, veränderte Gegenwart zu verstehen. Erst so wird zum Beispiel das gegenwärtig tolerantere Verhältnis der Konfessionen untereinander als Ergebnis der Reformation und der sich daran anschließenden katholischen Reform im Tridentinum richtig erkannt. Für diese Ak-

83 Praeloquium, Bl. b4v–c2r. 84 Zum Verständnis der (historischen, nämlich nicht dogmatischen) Notwendigkeit der Reformation siehe Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz an V.L. von Seckendorff, [Anfang April?] 1684 [wie Anm. 65], hier: S. 461:20–30: „judicantes politicum potiùs qvàm theologicum esse negotium, nec tam de veritate religionis qvàm jure armorum agi, qvando nonnulli hodie non tam gesta principum ob haeresin infamant qvàm potiùs ob belli calamitates religionem Protestantium traducunt, tanqvam tot malorum svasorem. Itaqve in hoc conflictu non haereseos, sed violentiae, sed rebellionis depellendum est crimen. Qvanqvam ut ingenuè dicam qvod sentio, etiam si subinde de ipsa reformandi necessitate erit disputandum, non ego causam Protestantium tutiùs Hulsemanno alicui aut Scherzero, qvàm Seckendorfio credi putem, eruditione pari, autoritate et fide apud exteros etiam superiori. Et certè Viri illustris, doctrina, pietate, integritate, reipublicae administratione conspicui sententia apud homines prudentes et probos diversae partis majus habere pondus solet, qvàm exqvisitissima disputatio celeberrimi Theologi, sed ipso munere suo adversariis odiosi et suspecti.“ 85 Reinhart Koselleck: „Erfahrungsraum und Erwartungshorizont – zwei historische Kategorien“, in: Ders. (Hg.): Vergangene Zukunft. Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten. Frankfurt am Main 4 1985, S. 349–375, bes. 368f. – Es fällt auf, dass Seckendorffs Plan einer Reformationsgeschichte Leibniz dazu veranlasst hat, die Reformation als ein Ereignis der geschichtlichen „Beschleunigung“ („major rerum commutatio intra tam paucos annos“) innerhalb des christlichen Westens zu deuten (wie Anm. 65).

Agitur de animae salute

149

tualisierung sind nicht nur die Berufung auf die Augenzeugen, sondern ihre quellenmäßige Vergegenwärtigung und die genaue Kenntnis des Geschehenen so wichtig. (h) Seckendorff gehört zu den ersten, die sich auf diese Weise explizit ihrer eigenen, persönlichen Geschichte vergewissern, Geschichte also positiv als Begründung des eigenen historischen Standpunktes anerkennen. 86 So wiederholt Seckendorff im Epilog der Neuauflage, was er schon am Ende der ersten Ausgabe geschrieben hatte: Er habe das Werk nicht nur anderen, sondern auch sich selbst zu Dienst und Nutzen angefertigt. Er habe die Streitpunkte wegen ihrer Bedeutung im Einzelnen genau untersucht, „als ob ich mich erst jetzt entscheiden müsste, auf welche Seite ich treten soll.“ Insofern habe sein Unternehmen ein gefährliches intellektuelles Wagnis dargestellt. Der Historiker versteht sich selbst und vergewissert sich seines „moralischen“ Standpunktes, indem er ihn mit Hilfe der historischen Methode beglaubigt 87 bzw. die historischen Ereignisse als Durchsetzung der (von ihm anerkannten) Wahrheit wahrnimmt und gleichsam durchlebt. Das erfordert selbstverständlich unbedingte Aufrichtigkeit, mithin auch prinzipiell neutrale Objektivität oder „Unparteilichkeit“, die einer perspektivischen Urteilsbildung indes nicht widersprechen. 88 Denn diese historia fordert eine Entscheidung, eine existentielle Positionsbestimmung. Es gehe immerhin „um der Seele Seligkeit.“ 89 Auch in

86 Darin unterscheidet Seckendorff sich z.B. von Johannes Sleidanus, der Reformationsgeschichte erstens als Zeitgeschichte (De statu religionis et rei publicae Carolo V. Caesare commentarii, 1555), zweitens reichspublizistisch (vgl. Fueter: Geschichte, S. 201–203) und drittens summarisch schrieb. – Bei aller Anerkennung für Sleidanus weist Seckendorff übrigens zurecht darauf hin (siehe Praeloquium, Bl. a4v–a5r), dass bei ihm viele Dokumente aus den Archiven der beteiligten Fürsten fehlten. Zu seiner gegenwärtigen, eher kritischen Bewertung siehe Johannes Süßmann: „Sleidanus, Johannes“, in: Neue Deutsche Biographie 24 (2010), S. 499f. 87 Epilogus, S. 695A (siehe Anm. 89): Seckendorff wurde gerade durch die (sachlich falsche) Polemik der römisch-katholischen Autoren in seinem seit Jugend angeeigneten Glauben bestärkt. 88 Vgl. Koselleck: Zukunft [wie Anm. 91], S. 185–187, bes. 189, zustimmend zu Martin Chladenius, „daß perspektivische Urteilsbildung und Parteilichkeit nicht identisch seien.“ – Ein schönes Beispiel ist die Präsentation der Argumente beider Seiten während der Leipziger Disputation 1519: Commentarius 1, § 54–56 (S. 72–80; vgl. Spitz: Seckendorf, S. 157). – Für Wolf: Historiographie, S. 4, macht die mangelnde konfessonelle Unparteilichkeit oder historische Unbefangenheit den einen von zwei Mängel der Geschichtsschreibung des 17. Jahrhunderts einschließlich des Commentarius gegenüber der aufklärerischen Geschichtsschreibung (vgl. Anm. 92) aus. 89 Epilogus, S. 694B–695A: „Mihi tamen non minus quam aliis scripsi; nec dissimulo, me, ut gravitas causae poposcit, singula controversiarum, quae tangenda fuerunt, puncta ita expendisse, quasi statuendum mihi nunc esset, in quas partes ire debirem. Id meditationis & examinis genus etsi periculosum esse videatur, nec omnibus forte expediat, putavi tamen pro qualicunque rerum, quam habeo, notitia, nihil magis ad firmandam in veritatis professione mentem conducere. Agitur de animae salute, quam qui non summa inquirit dilgentia, & inventam omnibus rebus praefert, Christianus dici potest, re non est. […] Mirifice vero laetor (id quod in elaboratione hujus Commentarii saepe mihi per Dei gratiam contigit) cum speciose licet & subtiliter ex adverso excogitata & prolata pervestigans, nihil deprehendo, quod ejus, in qua natus & educatus sum & adhuc versor, Ecclesiae fidem convellere valeat. […]. Ita sentiens, ut dixi, ad

150

Markus Matthias

dieser Hinsicht unterscheidet sich Seckendorffs Commentarius von vielen anderen Geschichtswerken des 17. Jahrhunderts. 90 Reinhart Koselleck 91 hat gezeigt, dass sich um 1750, also zwei Generationen nach Seckendorffs Commentarius, in Deutschland ein neues Verständnis von Geschichte etabliert hat, das sich unter anderem durch folgende Charakteristika von dem vormodernen Geschichtsverständnis unterscheidet: (1) Das Bewusstsein von der Standpunktgebundenheit 92 des Geschichtsschreibers, der seine Fragen an die Geschichte stellt, hier in der Perspektive dessen, der sich (a) als für Luther Partei ergreifend zu erkennen gibt, 93 (b) seinen Standpunkt als Ergebnis historischer Handlungen versteht und (c) eben aus und zum Zwecke der Affirmation seines Standpunktes mit historischer Kritik auf das Geschehene zurückblickt. (2) Die Konvergenz von Bericht (historia) und Geschehen (res gesta) in dem (späteren) neuen Singular des deutschen Wortes „Geschichte“, hier über den Commentarius, der als Gegenentwurf zur Histoire die Abfolge des Geschehens und die einzelnen Handlungen der beteiligten Personen genau und möglichst vollständig dokumentiert, als übergreifende (geistes-) geschichtliche Bewegung (bis in die eigene Gegenwart) wahrnimmt und so den Zugang zu dem Geschehen selbst eröffnet. 94

90

91 92

93 94

laborem hunc scribendi accessi, ut mihi ipsi quoque scriberem, utque in veritate tam historica quam dogmatica magis magisque firmarer.“ Vgl. Fueter: Geschichte, S. 309, über die gelehrten Geschichtsschreiber des 17. Jahrhunderts, für die das genaue Zitieren eine feste Regel war; allerding, „den historischen Stoff geistig oder künstlerisch zu verarbeiten, lag nicht in ihrer Absicht.“ – Vgl. Wolf: Historiographie, S. 4, die für diese Zeit einschließlich des Commentarius’ bemerkt, dass eine lebendige Anschauung vom Verlauf der Geschichte als einer Entwicklung fehle, die erst dort zutagetrete, wo Geschichte als von Ideen durchdrungen verstanden und entsprechend in einzelne Phasen gegliedert werde. Reinhart Koselleck: Vergangene Zukunft. Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten. Frankfurt am Main 41985; vgl. ders. u.a.: Art. Geschichte, Historie. Vgl. Koselleck u.a.: Art. Geschichte, Historie, S. 662: „Erst durch eine subjektive, standpunktgebundene Leistung des Historikers enthüllt sich jene Einheit der Geschichte, die dann zunehmend in der geschichtlichen Wirklichkeit selbst gefunden werden sollte.“ Das übersieht Wolf: Historiographie, S. 60–62, 104–107 mit Anm. 368–374 auf S. 164f., wenn sie immer wieder den „Parteienstandpunkt“ Seckendorffs kritisiert. Vgl. Praeloquium, Bl. d4r: Er könne als jemand, der zugunsten von Luther schreibe, denen, die Luther verdammen, nicht gefallen („Scio equidem, non posse me pro Luthero scribentem Lutheri comdemnatoribus placere“). Vgl. Koselleck u.a.: Art. Geschichte, Historie, S. 649–653. – Zurecht bemerkt und illustriert Wolf: Historiographie, S. 45–49, dass Seckendorffs Geschichtsbetrachtung noch zu sehr dazu neigt, die Reformationsgeschichte als eine historische „Insel“ zu betrachten, ohne sie als Teil eines allgemeinen, eben geschichtlichen Zusammenhangs zu sehen (vgl. S. 56, 58). Dagegen ist freilich einzuwenden, dass es einen objektiven Zusammenhang nicht gibt, sondern sich eine solche zusammenhängende Geschichte eben immer nur perspektivisch ergibt. Entsprechend ist die Frage des Zusammenhanges von Bauernkrieg und Reformation durchaus unterschiedlich zu bewerten. Seckendorff hat sich, natürlich aus apologetischem Interesse, dafür entschieden, die Bauernkriege auf andere Ursachen und Motive zurückzuführen als die Reformation. Dadurch verliert seine Darstellung freilich nicht per se den Zusammenhang aus dem Auge.

Agitur de animae salute

151

(3) Die Ablösung des Topos von der historia als magistra vitae. Seckendorff schreibt keine Historie, in der ein festes Geschichtsbild den Hintergrund für die moralischen Wechselfälle des menschlichen Lebens bildet, die rhetorisch als exempla eingesetzt werden können. Diese Funktion tritt vielmehr hinter der Frage der Notwendigkeit, der Größe der Veränderung und des (moralischen) Erfolgs der Reformation der Religion vollständig zurück. 95 Der geschichtliche Verlauf wird zum Medium der Reflexion über die (eigentlich überhistorische) Wahrheitsfrage. 96 (4) Die eigene Gegenwart wird zum Adressaten des Geschichtsschreibers. 97 Die von Koselleck beschriebenen Differenzen und semantischen Verschiebungen zwischen vormoderner und moderner Geschichtsauffassung lassen sich als solche gut beschreiben, es ist aber nicht möglich, die Etappen dieses Prozesses präzise mit einzelnen Personen oder Werken zu verbinden. Unter der Beachtung dieser historischen Unschärferelation des nicht mehr und noch nicht 98 stellt sich im Blick auf die bei Seckendorff beobachtete Eigenart der Geschichtsschreibung die Frage, ob nicht gerade die Reformation, einmündend in den geistesgeschichtlich epochalen Westfälischen Frieden, als große geistige, soziale und politische Krise der (westlichen) Kirche ein treibender Faktor dieses Entwicklungsprozesses war.

95 Vgl. Koselleck u.a.: Art. Geschichte, Historie, S. 642f. Auffällig ist hier die Lücke zwischen dem 16. und dem 18. Jahrhundert. 96 Vgl. Koselleck u.a.: Art. Geschichte, Historie, S. 646 („theoretische Leistung“). Vgl. den Schluss des Zitats in Anm. 89 („in veritate […]“). 97 Vgl. Koselleck u.a.: Art. Geschichte, Historie, S. 643. 98 Vgl. Koselleck u.a.: Art. Geschichte, Historie, S. 594 („der moderne Geschichtsbegriff [hat] viele der alten Sinnzonen in sich gebündelt“; „Neue Bedeutungen sind hinzugekommen, die sprachlich früher auf einen Begriff zu bringen noch nicht möglich war“). Den ganzen Artikel durchziehen Formulierungen, die in dem vormodernen Geschichtsverständnis lediglich Ansätze oder vereinzeltes Auftauchen von Elementen des modernen Geschichtsbegriffs sehen. – Wolf: Historiographie, S. 137f., situiert Seckendorff zwischen vormoderner und moderner Geschichtsschreibung.

LUTHER AND THE GOTHS Reformation in the Swedish Historiography of the Seventeenth Century Steffie Schmidt Abstract: The Swedish historiography of the seventeenth century was strongly influenced both by the Gothic tradition following Johannes Magnus’s Historia and by the Lutheran national identity. Under these conditions, depicting the Reformation period turned out to be challenging. This paper examines how the Reformation was outlined when the Gothic narrative concentrating on the Swedish monarchs and the German narrative concentrating on Martin Luther converged. By taking a closer look at the writings of Laurentius Paulinus Gothus, Johannes Baazius, Jordanus Edenius, and Erik Benzelius, the conceptions of Swedish theologians will be analysed. Zusammenfassung: Die schwedische Geschichtsschreibung des 17. Jahrhunderts wurde sowohl durch die götizistische Tradition, wie sie in der Historia des Johannes Magnus wirkungsreich formuliert worden war, als auch durch das nationale Selbstverständnis als lutherisch stark geprägt. Unter diesen Bedingungen erwies sich speziell die Konzeption der Reformationszeit als herausfordernd. Dieser Beitrag untersucht, wie die Reformation dargestellt wurde, als die götizistische Erzähltradition, die sich auf die schwedischen Könige konzentrierte, und die deutsche Erzähltradition, die den Fokus auf Luther legte, aufeinander trafen. Dabei werden am Beispiel von Laurentius Paulinus Gothus, Johannes Baazius, Jordanus Edenius und Erik Benzelius die historischen Entwürfe schwedischer Theologen analysiert.

Sweden’s expansive politics during the so-called Era of Great Power (stormaktstiden, ca. 1611–1718) 1 aroused a keen interest in the Swedish past. The idea of Gothicism provided the most powerful conception of history at the time, tracing the roots of the Swedish people back to the Goths of the Migration Period. By means of the Gothic myth, the monarch could strengthen his position internally and justify his claim to supremacy on the external level. 2 Although Gothicism was not re-

1 2

In Swedish historiography, the period from Gustav II Adolf’s accession in 1611 to Charles XII’s death in 1718 is usually referred to as stormaktstiden. Cf. Stefan Donecker, Roland Steinacher: “Der König der Schweden, Goten und Vandalen: Königstitulatur und Vandalenrezeption im frühneuzeitlichen Schweden”, in: Helmut Reimitz, Bernhard Zeller (eds.): Vergangenheit und Vergegenwärtigung: Frühes Mittelalter und europäische Erinnerungskultur. Vienna 2009, pp. 169–203, here: 178: “In der schwedischen Großmachtzeit entwickelte sich der Gotizismus zu einem Instrument einer autoritativen Staatlichkeit, das innenpolitisch eine Orientierung auf den mythisch überhöhten König, außenpolitisch eine aggressive Expansion legitimierte.”

154

Steffie Schmidt

stricted exclusively to Sweden but spread throughout many parts of Europe, it contributed in particular to the formation of a Swedish national identity. 3 Swedish Gothicism was already an issue at the Council of Basel in 1434, 4 but it was Johannes Magnus who elaborated the old myth for the first time and therefore may be considered the father of Swedish Gothicism.5 His Historia continued to influence historiography throughout the seventeenth century. 6 Besides the Gothic myth, Lutheranism became a vital part of the Swedish identity under Gustav II Adolf. Therefore, it may be assumed that historiographers sought to demonstrate that the kingdom was Lutheran to the core. Magnus’s Historia did not prove quite helpful in this regard because it held a hostile view of the Reformation. Hence, it may be expected that the prevailing Gothic narrative needed to be reformulated. Matters were further complicated by the fact that even in Swedish national historiography Luther’s contribution to the Reformation could hardly be ignored. Thus, the question remains how the German Reformation tradition could be adapted to Gothic historiography. Proceeding from Johannes Magnus’s conception of the Gothic myth, this paper investigates how the Reformation was depicted in Swedish historiography over the

3

4

5

6

Cf. Andreas Zellhuber: Der gotische Weg in den deutschen Krieg – Gustav Adolf und der schwedische Gotizismus. Augsburg 2002, pp. 19–41; Inken Schmidt-Voges: De antiqua claritate et clara antiquitate Gothorum: Gotizismus als Identitätsmodell im frühneuzeitlichen Schweden. Frankfurt am Main 2004, pp. 45–59. At the Council of Basel, Nicolaus Ragvaldi, the Bishop of Växjö, claimed an honoured place in the assembly by appealing to the Gothic myth and consequently to the historical primacy of the Swedish people. He came into conflict with the Spanish spokesman, who argued similarly. Cf. Josef Svennung: Zur Geschichte des Goticismus. Stockholm 1967, pp. 34–43; Frauke Hillebrecht: Skandinavien – die Heimat der Goten? Der Götizismus als Gerüst eines nordischschwedischen Identitätsbewußtseins. Berlin 1997, p. 5; Patrik Hall: Den svenskaste historien: Nationalism i Sverige under sex sekler. Stockholm 2000, pp. 18f. Cf. e.g. Zellhuber: Weg, p. 49; Bo Lindberg: “Ära och nytta: Historia och historieskrivning i det tidigmoderna Sverige”, in: Gunnar Artéus, Klas Åmark (eds.): Historieskrivningen i Sverige. Lund 2012, pp. 9–39, here: 14. Schirrmeister and Schlelein describe Magnus’s Historia as the “Initialzündung des schwedischen Gotizismus”, see Albert Schirrmeister, Stefan Schlelein: “Orte der Fremdheit: Zwischen Aneignung und Distanzierung: Voraussetzungen und Funktionen von ‘Fremdheit’ bei humanistischen Geschichtsschreibern”, in: Susanne Rau, Birgit Studt (eds.): Geschichte schreiben: Ein Quellen- und Studienhandbuch zur Historiografie (ca. 1350–1750). Berlin 2010, pp. 138–168, here: 147. Attempts to establish a connection from the ancient Goths to the Swedes had been made since the High Middle Ages, cf. Donecker, Steinacher: König, p. 177. Johannes Magnus: Historia […] de omnibvs Gothorvm Sveonvmque regibvs […]. Rome 1554. Hall rates the Historia as the ‘canoncial manifestation’ of Gothicism that was the basis of almost every Swedish cultural manifestation during the stormaktstid. He regards the Historia as possibly the most significant achievement of Swedish historiography: “Men sitt kanoniska uttryck får göticismen först med Johannes Magnus, Sveriges siste effektive katolske ärkebiskop […]. Under stormaktstiden kom detta verk att bli källan till i princip alla svenska kulturyttringar. Det är troligen den mest betydelsefulla historieverk som skrivits i Sverige […].” Hall: Historien, p. 23.

Luther and the Goths

155

seventeenth century. Johannes Magnus and his Historia have been analysed in detail. 7 As far as I can ascertain, the historiography of the stormaktstid, especially the depiction of Sweden’s Lutheran past, has attracted less attention than the developments of Danish historiography that have been thoroughly examined by Karen Skovgaard-Petersen. 8 The Swedish theologians’ contributions have been particularly neglected although conceptualising national history along these lines was a task for theologians, too. This paper aims at providing an initial overview based on a few prominent examples. First of all, Laurentius Paulinus, Bishop of Strängnäs, needs to be mentioned. He conceived an extensive history of the North commonly associated with the Gothic tradition derived directly from Magnus. This applies to Johannes Baazius, too. His work is of particular interest as the first outline of Swedish church history. Finally, Jordanus Edenius’s and Erik Benzelius’s textbooks will be examined. They were published after church history had taken hold in academic teaching in the second half of the century. Exploring these examples will show how Swedish church historiography was modified towards the end of the stormaktstid when the Gothic myth was gradually losing its persuasive power. 1. JOHANNES MAGNUS’S POLEMICS AGAINST THE REFORMATION The Historia 9 came about in exceptional circumstances. Johannes Magnus was the last Catholic Archbishop of Sweden consecrated by the Pope. But he left Sweden

7

8

9

Cf. especially Kurt Johannesson: The Renaissance of the Goths in Sixteenth-Century Sweden: Johannes and Olaus Magnus as Politicians and Historians. Translated and edited by James Larson. Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford 1991; Schmidt-Voges: De antiqua claritate; Astrid Nilsson: Johannes Magnus and the Composition of Truth: Historia de omnibus Gothorum Sueonumque regibus. Lund 2016. Magnus’s Historia has recently been published in Swedish translation and with comments by Kurt Johannesson and Hans Helander (2018). Unfortunately, it was not available for this study. See note 12 for further literature. Similar to Gustav II Adolf, the Danish king Christian IV was also interested in promoting national history. This manifested itself in the works of Johannes Pontanus (“Rerum Danicarum historia”, 1631) and Johannes Meursius (“Historia Danica”, 1630–1638) that are examined by Karen Skovgaard-Petersen: Historiography at the Court of Christian IV (1588–1648): Studies in the Latin Histories of Denmark by Johannes Pontanus and Johannes Meursius. Copenhagen 2002. Even Skovgaard-Petersen assumes a connection between Christian IV’s involvement in the Thirty Years’ War and his impatience in having a national history published in 1625, cf. Skovgaard-Petersen: Historiography, p. 30. It is not surprising that the developments in Swedish historiography were followed up by the Danish regime, particularly in the early 1620s, cf. Skovgaard-Petersen: Historiography, p. 28. The political tensions between Sweden and Denmark in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries did not only lead to military conflicts but also found a literary expression. Skovgaard-Petersen refers to a “literary feud”, see Karen Skovgaard-Petersen: “Political Polemics in Early Modern Scandinavia”, in: Anne Eriksen, Jón Viðar Sigurðsson (eds.): Negotiating Pasts in the Nordic Countries. Interdisciplinary Studies in History and Memory. Lund 2009, pp. 79–98, here: 79, concerning national historiography, too. See above note 6.

156

Steffie Schmidt

when he fell into Gustav (Eriksson) Vasa’s disfavour in 1526 and was quickly replaced by the Swedish reformer Laurentius Petri in 1531. 10 Hence, his magnum opus was written in exile. It was probably completed in Venice in 1540 and posthumously published by his brother Olaus in Rome in 1554. 11 After a brief topographical description of Scandinavia, Magnus’s history of the Goths begins with Japhet’s son Magog, that means Noah’s grandson, who is regarded as the Goths’ ancestor and first king. 12 The succession of Gothic kings since Magog comprises more than two hundred rulers who had reigned either in Sweden or abroad. 13 The Historia provides an origin myth of the new Swedish kingdom and motivates its expansive politics at the same time. 14 Although Magnus is critical of the current ruler, King Gustav, the Historia is thoroughly patriotic. 15 As mentioned above, Magnus was not the first to trace the Swedes back to the ancient Goths. Inserting them in a biblical framework was by no means controversial. 16 The Historia stands out especially because it paints an exceedingly detailed picture of the Swedish ancestors – based to a great extent on Magnus’s imagination. 17

10 Magnus supported Gustav Vasa’s national politics so that he was elected archbishop in 1523. His election, however, was not confirmed by the Pope because his predecessor Gustav Trolle was considered the legitimate archbishop. Gustav Trolle had backed the Danish King Christian II, which culminated in his inglorious involvement in the Stockholm Bloodbath (1520). While Gustav Vasa and his adherents were forcing back the Danes, Trolle escaped to Denmark. The Curia turned from Trolle first in 1533 so that Magnus, who had incessantly agitated against the Lutheran heresy spreading in his home country, could be consecrated as bishop. Cf. Sten Lindroth: “Johannes Magnus”, in: Svenskt Biografiskt Lexikon. Vol. 20. Stockholm 1975, pp. 220–226. 11 Cf. Johannesson: Renaissance, p. 73. The Historia was reprinted in Basel (1558), in Cologne (1567) and even in Wittenberg (1617) and translated into Swedish by Ericus Schroderus (1620), cf. Nilsson: Johannes Magnus, pp. 51f. 12 The Historia is analysed in detail in Johan Nordström: Johannes Magnus och den götiska romantiken: Akademiska föreläsningar 1929 utgivna av Michaelisgillet. Stockholm 1975, pp. 115–215; Johannesson: Renaissance, pp. 73–138; Nilsson: Johannes Magnus. Cf. also Schmidt-Voges: De antiqua claritate, pp. 95–113; Zellhuber: Weg, pp. 49–59. The sources Magnus relied on are listed in Schmidt-Voges: De antiqua claritate, p. 98. 13 Cf. Lindberg: Ära, p. 14. 14 Cf. Olaf Mörke: “Bataver, Eidgenossen und Goten: Gründungs- und Begründungsmythen in den Niederlanden, der Schweiz und Schweden in der Frühen Neuzeit”, in: Helmut Berding (ed.): Mythos und Nation: Studien zur Entwicklung des kollektiven Bewußtseins in der Neuzeit 3. Frankfurt am Main 1996, pp. 104–132, here: 117f. 15 The patriotism in the Historia implicates that it was deeply anti-Danish. Thus, it did not remain unanswered in Danish historiography, cf. Skovgaard-Petersen: Historiography, pp. 121f.; Skovgaard-Petersen: Polemics, pp. 82–84. Skovgaard-Petersen shows that the dispute with the Historia is still reflected in Pontanus’s and Meursius’s works (see above note 8), affirming “its status as the Swedish national history in the Swedish Great Age of Power.” 16 Cf. Skovgaard-Petersen: Historiography, p. 94. 17 Cf. Skovgaard-Petersen: Historiography, p. 94: “What is remarkable in Magnus’s version is his number of details from these remote times in combination with his aggressive patriotism. Magnus had to rely on his own imagination. Not afraid of deliberate falsifications, he claims support from sources he does not know and manipulates those he does know.”

Luther and the Goths

157

It is not surprising that Johannes Magnus as the legitimate archbishop bereft of his authority was neither keen on Luther nor on the church reform movement in Sweden. Both his literary focus on the Gothic kings and people and his attempt to avoid straining relations with the Vasa dynasty prevented him from attacking the Reformation openly. Thus, he chose to act more subtly by just inserting annotations into the line of narration. The events in Sweden are specifically reflected in two sections. 18 When Johannes Magnus comments on the tyrannical king Gostagus – an allusion to King Gustav – he compares the emergence of the Lutheran heresies of his day with the former advance of the Islam, criticizing the royal inaction. 19 This comparison degrades Lutheranism to a kind of paganism. 20 Perhaps Magnus even hoped to find the military support of European monarchs by matching the Lutheran threat with the Turkish menace. 21 Furthermore, he alludes to the Swedish reformers when explaining how the Roman Emperor Valens provided the Goths with Arian bishops and scholars. He mentions a bishop called Ulfilas in particular, who was regarded as a true apostle of Christ but turned out to be the Antichrist instead. 22 According to Magnus, Ulfilas translated the Bible into the Gothic vernacular for the first time in order to spread his impiety. 23 The Bible translation can be brought into connection with Laurentius Andreae. Magnus probably brings the Bible translation into focus because he himself was engaged in this project shortly before fleeing Sweden. 24 Having enlisted royal support, Andreae even surpassed Ulfilas’s godless actions: he did not only falsify the Holy Gospel but also compelled the vulgar to read it. 25 Magnus eagerly underlines that Andreae’s former studies in Rome did not inspire him to this action. But Magnus certainly had his Italian audience in mind when invalidating this possible assumption. Andreae is depicted as a lethargic, sometimes wicked character, who came under Olaus Petri’s sinister influence as an old man. Petri is charged with

18 Cf. Nilsson: Johannes Magnus, pp. 165–167. 19 Cf. Magnus: Historia, p. 300: “Ethnicus enim erat, & illi infelici tempori reseruatus, quo spurcissimus Mahumetes suae vesaniae doctrinam seducendis hominibus obtrusit: quam nec Sabinianus Papa ob suam ignauiam, nec Imperator Phocas ob suam stupidam imprudentiam, auertere curauerunt. Nec multum differre illa secula ab hoc infelicissimo aeuo nostro, in quo Lutheranae haereses ab illis plurimum defensantur, a quibus (si vllus esset pietati locus) plurimum expugnari deberent.” Cf. Hall: Historien, pp. 33f. 20 Cf. Nilsson: Johannes Magnus, pp. 165f. Cf. also Johannesson: Renaissance, p. 132. 21 Cf. Schmidt-Voges: De antiqua claritate, p. 106. 22 Cf. Magnus: Historia, p. 477. 23 Cf. Magnus: Historia, p. 477. 24 Cf. Lindroth: Johannes Magnus, p. 221. Lindroth numbers the humanist Magnus among the exponents of Swedish Reform Catholicism. That explains why Magnus was initially openminded about the idea of translating the Bible into Swedish. 25 Cf. Magnus: Historia, p. 477: “Cuius execrandam impietatem nostro aeuo quidam Laurentius Andreae Strengenensis Archidiaconus imitatus, sanctissimum Christi euangelium passim & in plurimis locis corrupit, corruptumque simplici Gothorum plebi legendum obtrusit, additis etiam ex Regis autoritate grauibus minis, ne quis tam enormibus eius erroribus reniteretur.”

158

Steffie Schmidt

transferring “the heretics’ ineffable impiety” from Wittenberg to Sweden. 26 Petri and Andreae led the king astray and destroyed the authority of the Catholic Church. 27 Thus, it seems to be fair that they were sentenced to death when they conspired against the king. Magnus concludes his brief account of the Reformation by mentioning that both reformers ended in desperate poverty after they had bought their freedom. 28 This must have given Magnus a sense of satisfaction since he had barely escaped death, too, and was dependent on the support of foreign patrons. Gustav Vasa recognized the allusions to himself and warned his sons. Nevertheless, they were not reluctant to study the Historia thoroughly. 29 The high regnal numbers that Eric (XIV, King 1560–1568) and Charles (IX, King 1604–1611) chose later prove that they accepted Magnus’s listing of the Gothic kings as true. 2. THE REFORMATION IN THE GOTHIC TRADITION: LAURENTIUS PAULINUS (GOTHUS) According to Skovgaard-Petersen, the “historiographical activity in Sweden in the first four decades of the seventeenth century” may be considered “rather modest.”30 26 Cf. Magnus: Historia, p. 477. 27 Cf. Magnus: Historia, pp. 477f. 28 Cf. Magnus: Historia, p. 478: “Tandem post innumeras & intolerabiles miserias, in numerum nonnullorum, qui vitae Regis insidiabantur, inciderunt, fuissent que confestim ob id, & corruptam per eos patriae historiam, ignominiosa morte in patibulo consumpti, nisi ingenti aere vsque ad extremam inopiam se redemissent.” The remark that they were doomed because of their plot against the king and because they had corrupted the history of the patria might hint at Olaus Petri’s historical work. Olaus Petri suggested a different perception of Swedish history in his Swensk Cröneka, cf. Olaus Petri: “En Swensk Cröneka”, in: Bengt Hesselmann (ed.): Samlade Skrifter af Olavus Petri 4. Uppsala 1917, pp. 1–298. It was written in the 1520s but was not published until the early nineteenth century. Petri’s Swensk Cröneka was exceptional at his time; for example, he voiced doubts about the Gothic myth. Gustav Vasa disapproved of Petri’s work, too, and prohibited the printing because he felt criticized by Petri. Cf. Lindberg: Ära, p. 17. Mörke explains why Gustav Vasa preferred Magnus’s historical construction to Petri’s, cf. Mörke: Bataver, pp. 120f: “Das Werk [Petri’s Swensk Cröneka, S.S.], das sich um eine nicht-mythologisierende Darstellung im Sinn der Orientierung an ereignisgeschichtlicher Verifizierbarkeit bemühte, paßte nicht in das Konzept einer im Entstehen begriffenen Nation, die ihre Kohärenz vor allem aus der historisch-mythologisch konstruierten Überlegenheit gegenüber einer Umwelt schöpfte, die zu dem Zeitpunkt, als der Gotenmythos zu greifen begann, realpolitisch dem jungen schwedischen Königtum noch massiv überlegen war.” When Petri was on trial for treason in 1539/40, passages from the Swensk Cröneka were brought against him, cf. Donecker, Steinacher: König, p. 181. The Swensk Cröneka is examined in: Schmidt-Voges: De antiqua claritate, pp. 114–125; Lindberg: Ära, pp. 15–17; Hall: Historien, pp. 35–37. 29 Cf. Hall: Historien, p. 33. 30 Skovgaard-Petersen: Historiography, p. 123. According to Skovgaard-Petersen, the status of Magnus’s Historia “as the Swedish national history in the Swedish Great Age of Power” (p. 122) was responsible for the lack of new historiographical outlines in the early seventeenth century, whereas it caused an increased productivity in this field in Denmark at the same time, cf. Skovgaard-Petersen: Historiography, pp. 123f.

Luther and the Goths

159

Laurentius Paulinus’s Historiae Arctoae Libri Tres, 31 however, form an exception. They show exemplarily how the prevailing Gothic tradition could accommodate Protestant concerns. Laurentius Paulinus (Gothus) is particularly known for his Ramist views and opposition against Aristotle’s revival in academia. 32 As Bishop of Strängnäs, he reformed the administration of the diocese and established the famous academic high school (gymnasium) in 1526, the second educational institution of its kind in Sweden. 33 The Ethica christiana, a Swedish exposition of Luther’s Small Catechism, comprising no less than 3,700 pages printed in seven volumes from 1617 to 1630, may be considered his magnum opus. Its summary, the Thesaurus catecheticus published 1631, proved highly popular. Less attention has been payed to the Historiae Arctoae Libri Tres so far. They were printed in 1636, right before Paulinus was appointed Swedish Archbishop in 1637. Skovgaard-Petersen reflects upon a possible connection with Meursius’s and Pontanus’s historical accounts published in 1630/31 34 although she does not find any allusions in the Historiae Arctoae Libri Tres to the Danish counterparts. 35 Paulinus combines a topographical and a chronological approach for his depiction of the history of the North which is integrated into Salvation history. Thus, he starts with the creation in the first book. He reproduces the common Gothic notion of Magog’s emigration to Scandinavia after the Flood. Thereafter, he turns to the realms of the North. At first, he delineates the location and borders of the northern world before he proceeds to the condition of the Swedish-Gothic kingdom. Due to this functional approach, he describes the religion of the area as one aspect among others. 36 Paulinus attributes the dissemination of the true religion in the North to Magog. 37 However, it was gradually replaced by paganism until the Christian message reached the North in the time of the apostles. 38 It did not prove lasting: the Swedes had again returned to paganism by the time Charlemagne sent learned men to this 31 Laurentius Paulinus: Historiae Arctoae Libri Tres. Strängnäs 1636. 32 This aspect has particularly been examined by Sellberg, cf. Erland Sellberg: “A Conflict about Ethics. The Ramist Laurentius Paulinus Gothus”, in: Inger Ekrem, Minna Skafte Jensen, Egil Kraggerud (eds.): Reformation and Latin Literature in Northern Europe. Oslo 1996, pp. 237– 245; Erland Sellberg: Kyrkan och den tidigmoderna staten: En konflikt om Aristoteles, utbildning och makt. Stockholm 2010. 33 On Paulinus cf. Olle Hellström: “Laurentius Paulinus Gothus” , in: Svenskt Biografiskt Lexikon. Vol 22. Stockholm 1979, pp. 369–376. Cf. also Herman Lundström: Laurentius Paulinus Gothus. Hans Lif och Verksamhet (1565–1646). I. II. (1565–1637). Upsala 1893; Herman Lundström: Laurentius Paulinus Gothus: Hans Lif och Verksamhet (1565–1646). III. Paulinus såsom Ärkebiskop och Prokansler (1637–1646). Upsala 1898. 34 See above note 8. 35 Cf. Skovgaard-Petersen: Historiography, p. 123. 36 “Caput XXXIIX: De Relligione [!] & Officiarijs Ecclesiasticis,” cf. Paulinus: Historiae Arctoae Libri Tres, Part 1, pp. 122–128. 37 Cf. Paulinus: Historiae Arctoae Libri Tres, Part 1, p. 122. 38 Cf. Paulinus: Historiae Arctoae Libri Tres, Part 1, p. 124.

160

Steffie Schmidt

area some centuries later. 39 According to Paulinus, these new beginnings were undermined by the papal claim of primacy emerging since Bonifacius III in the early seventh century. 40 The gospel was then darkened by papal superstition for more than seven hundred years. In this context, the Reformation does not appear as a specific, precisely datable period: it is rather integrated into this cycle of revelation and obfuscation of the “true” religion. Even though Luther is introduced as the new Elia, he plays just a minor role in comparison to Gustav Vasa. Luther set the stage for Gustav Vasa who was first among the European kings to appreciate his message. 41 The recourse to the Reformation is used to confirm the Swedish claim of primacy already established by the Gothic myth. In the following sections, Paulinus concentrates on the reformatory events in Sweden. He is eager to point out that Gustav Vasa spread the pure doctrine of the gospel devoutly and untiringly, putting his life and belongings at risk. 42 Gustav Vasa was depicted as the most active protagonist in this narrative and his presence guaranteed doctrinal orthodoxy. Thus, the Anabaptist heresy could only infiltrate Stockholm and its vicinity while the king was visiting Malmö for a time. 43 Gustav Vasa did not only initiate the Reformation in his kingdom, but he was also responsible for its progress and lasting effectiveness. Among other things, he pursued a personnel policy favouring reformers and promoted the translation of the Bible. Simply financially supporting Swedish students reflected his connection to the Wittenberg reformers. 44 The second and the third book continue the line of Swedish and Gothic rulers since the Flood. The books deal with the domestic and foreign kings respectively.

39 Cf. Paulinus: Historiae Arctoae Libri Tres, Part 1, p. 124. In the second book, these events are headlined “De Prima Euangelij in regno Sveo-Gothico propagatione,” see Paulinus: Historiae Arctoae Libri Tres, Part 2, p. 90. He seems to distinguish Magog’s introduction of the true religion and the apostles’ preaching from the missionaries’ activities in the early nineth century because he attributes the first propagation of the gospel to the latter. A second and a third propagation of the gospel follow in the tenth century, cf. Paulinus: Historiae Arctoae Libri Tres, Part 2, pp. 105f. 40 Cf. Paulinus: Historiae Arctoae Libri Tres, Part 1, p. 125. 41 Cf. Paulinus: Historiae Arctoae Libri Tres, Part 1, pp. 125f. 42 Cf. Paulinus: Historiae Arctoae Libri Tres, Part 1, pp. 125f.: “Corruptelae doctrinae Euangelicae, sub prioribus aliquot Pontificibus in Ecclesiam invectae, multis modis auctae & confirmatae fuerunt, Quibus ut universus orbis Christianus, Ita quoq[ue] hic Septentrionalis excaecatus, idolomanias & superstitiones Pontificias obvijs ulnis amplectebatur, & tanquam thesaurum aliquem caelitus demissum magno zelo fovebat, & ultra annos 700 usq[ue] ad tempora novissimi Eliae D D. Lutheri, & serenissimi R. Gustavi I. pientissimae memoriae, strenue tutabatur ac defendebat. Hic enim inter omnes Europae reges primus fuit, qui puram Euangelij doctrinam, a B. Luthero Vitebergae propositam, & ab erroribus Pontificiis vindicatam ac repurgatam, amplexus est, eamq[ue] circa universam Sveciam & Gothiam, non minori pietate & industria, quam vitae fortunarumq[ue] periculo feliciter propagare caepit.” 43 Cf. Paulinus: Historiae Arctoae Libri Tres, Part 1, p. 126. 44 Cf. Paulinus: Historiae Arctoae Libri Tres, Part 1, p. 127.

Luther and the Goths

161

Paulinus applies the model of the four monarchies, common among Protestant historians. In contrast to Magnus, he arranges the monarchs and events of the national history and those of the universal history in two columns side by side. 45 By doing so, he describes the progress of the Reformation in the Holy Roman Empire as part of the universal history. Since the account of universal history is directed by the Swedish rulers and the power relations in Sweden shifted several times in the early sixteenth century, Paulinus felt obliged to explain the beginnings of the Lutheran Reformation several times. In the context of the Sture regime, 46 he recapitulates Luther’s studies and academic career. Interestingly enough, his public opposition against the indulgence is first reflected when dealing with Albert Krantz, the theologian and well-known chronicler of the North. 47 Reading Luther’s theses on his deathbed, he attested the pointlessness of the monk’s venture against the mighty Pope according to Paulinus with the words: “O frater […] abi in cellam tuam, & dic, Miserere mei Deus!” 48 Paulinus shows that Krantz failed to recognize Luther’s divine task. Krantz is portrayed as an exponent of past times. Maybe Paulinus intended to render Krantz’s historical work obsolete, too, because he did not recognize the signs of the times. Paulinus subsequently reports on the indulgence controversy, declaring the posting of the 95 theses to be the initiation of the Reformation. 49 Having touched upon the early years of the Reformation in the context of Christian II’s tyrannical rule, too, Paulinus explicitly deals with the beginning of the Reformation again when treating Gustav Vasa because he does not start with his accession but gives an account of his whole life. 50 This time he opens the Reformation theme with a disputation submitted by Luther against the scholastic view of free will. 51 He wants to show that Luther was moved to oppose the papal delusions

45 Wifstrand Schiebe identifies Paulinus’s annotations in a copy of Jacobus Gislonis’s Chronologia at the Uppsala University Library providing evidence of Paulinus’s preparatory work, cf. Marianne Wifstrand Schiebe: Annius von Viterbo und die schwedische Historiographie des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts. Uppsala 1992, p. 28, note 42, 46. 46 “Cap. LXVIII. De optima duorum Sturaeorum, Svanthonis & Stenonis junioris, gubernatione,” cf. Paulinus: Historiae Arctoae Libri Tres, Part 2, pp. 173–182. 47 On Krantz, cf. Ulrich Andermann: Albert Krantz. Wissenschaft und Historiographie um 1500. Weimar 1999; Harald Bollbuck: Geschichts- und Raummodelle bei Albert Krantz (um 1448– 1517) und David Chytraeus (1530–1600): Transformationen des historischen Diskurses im 16. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt am Main 2006. 48 Paulinus: Historiae Arctoae Libri Tres, Part 2, p. 177. This incident is placed in the year 1514 although it obviously belongs to the year 1517. Perhaps Paulinus did not want to place special emphasis on it, preferring to focus on the actual indulgence controversy when it comes to the year 1517. 49 Cf. Paulinus: Historiae Arctoae Libri Tres, Part 2, p. 178. 50 “Caput LXX. De optima Monarchia Sveo-Gothica, sub Gustavo I., ” cf. Paulinus: Historiae Arctoae Libri Tres, Part 2, pp. 196–260. 51 He is probably referring to the “Quaestio de viribus et voluntate hominis sine gratia disputata” (cf. below note 119). His wording (see note 52) points to Luther’s controversy with Erasmus.

162

Steffie Schmidt

because of his divine mission already in 1516. 52 Paulinus refers to the disputation as a sort of foretaste of what is to come because he possibly wanted to prevent his audience from viewing Erasmus as the initiator of the ecclesiastical reforms. Hence, when Paulinus subsequently deals with Erasmus’s edition of the New Testament, first published in 1516, he is eager to characterize it merely as a tool for reform. 53 In the context of the indulgence controversy, Paulinus now concentrates on Luther’s frame of mind when making his criticism public. 54 Gustav Vasa’s battle against the Danish tyrant and Luther’s campaign against the Pope are visually paralleled in what follows. As the Reformation in Sweden is depicted within national history, it actually turns into a period of Gustav Vasa’s life, lasting from 1524 to 1527. 55 Hence, Gustav Vasa did not devote himself to the reform of the church until 1524. That does not argue for the claim that Gustav Vasa was first among the European rulers to adopt the reformatory concern as stated above. Paulinus extenuates the chronological order by hinting at the preceding consultations with Laurentius Andreae, Olaus Petri, and other theologians. 56 Johannes Magnus’s inglorious role in these years is considered, too. At first, he was admonished by Gustav Vasa to refrain from superstition and idolatry. At a later date, he was rebuked because he did not abide by the decrees that had been issued. According to Paulinus, he stole away, taking the oldest records and chronicles of the kingdom with him. 57 Thus, Magnus’s history of the Goths is denigrated because it is the result of a theft. At the same time, Paulinus explains why it has not been replaced so far. In this way, he both confirms the reliability of the Historia and distances himself from its author. Compared to Magnus’s Historia, the view on the Reformation has changed fundamentally although Paulinus does not dismiss the tradition of Gothicism shaped by Magnus. The Reformation is integrated into the Gothic myth instead. It is regarded as a national, royal project, largely independent from the events in Wittenberg.

52 Cf. Paulinus: Historiae Arctoae Libri Tres, Part 2, p. 200: “Lutherus hoc anno [1516] Vittembergae proposuit publ. Disputationem, contra Scholasticorum sententiam de Libero arbitrio. Ex qua adparet, jam tum D. Lutherum S. Sancto excitatum, ad oppugnandum Pontificios errores.” 53 Cf. Paulinus: Historiae Arctoae Libri Tres, Part 2, p. 200: “Eodem tempore [1516] Erasmus Roterod. nova versione Novi Testamenti, & Annotationibus in id opus, inclaruit; Qui ipsius labor, etiam aliquid adjumenti ad doctrinae Euangelicae repurgationem attulit.” 54 Cf. Paulinus: Historiae Arctoae Libri Tres, Part 2, p. 200. 55 “V. Religionis Reformatio, gravis admodum ac molesta”, cf. Paulinus: Historiae Arctoae Libri Tres, Part 2, pp. 220–226. 56 Cf. Paulinus: Historiae Arctoae Libri Tres, Part 2, p. 220: “Cognita Religionis, per electum DEi organon D D. Lutherum, reformatione Wittebergae suscepta, & re cum M. Laurentio Andreae Cancellario suo, M. Olavo Petri Nerikiano, aliisq[ue] sinceris Theologis accurate deliberata, ad Haereseos Pontificiae expurgationem R. Gustavus A. C. 1524. se totum convertit.” 57 Cf. Paulinus: Historiae Arctoae Libri Tres, Part 2, pp. 220, 224.

Luther and the Goths

163

3. THE BEGINNINGS OF SWEDISH CHURCH HISTORY: JOHANNES BAAZIUS Similar to Paulinus, Johannes Baazius the Elder, pastor of Jönköping, was engaged in the reform of the educational system. 58 He was not admired by bishops like Paulinus because he endorsed the royal plans of founding a “consistorium generale” in the 1620s and the 1630s that threatened the episcopal influence. He even attacked Paulinus personally, characterizing his episcopal leadership as despotic. 59 Leading politicians, however, held him in such high esteem that he was given the task of writing the history of the Swedish church by the regency council governing on behalf of Gustav II Adolf’s underage daughter Christina. His Inventarium Ecclesiae Sveo-Gothorum 60 was published in 1642. It was the first outline of Swedish church history. 61 Lundin claims a connection between Baazius’s Inventarium and his church-political aims, referring to a draft of the Inventarium that can be found among his papers. 62 He assumes that Baazius’s sponsors intervened at some point and prevented the Inventarium from becoming an offence to the bishops. 63 Baazius’s conception reveals that even church history could be influenced by Gothicism in the tradition of Johannes Magnus. He introduces his church history by providing evidence of Magog’s settlement in Scandinavia and the Goths’ origin from Magog. Baazius provides linguistic considerations to demonstrate the age of the Goths: for example, he claims an affinity between the runes and Hebrew and counts the Gothic language among those emerging from the Babel mixture of languages.64 He adds a topographical description, too, recounting the Goths’ strength before turning to the topic of religion. Swedish church history begins with the religion of the oldest Goths or rather “Sveo-Goths” in Baazius’s wording. They descended from Noah’s progeny, who certainly possessed the true knowledge of God and religious 58 On Baazius, cf. Rurik Holm: “Joannes (Jöns) Baazius d.ä.”, in: Svenskt Biografisk Lexikon. Vol 2. Stockholm 1920, pp. 515–521. 59 Cf. Hellström: Laurentius Paulinus Gothus, p. 371. Cf. also Lundström: Laurentius Paulinus Gothus I. II. , pp. 154–158. 60 Johannes Baazius: Inventarium Ecclesiae Sveo-Gothorum Continens Integram Historiam Eccles. Svec. Libris VIII Descriptam. Incipiendo A Vetustate Et Religione hujus gentis in Scandia primo residentis: quando & qua occasione sit facta illius conversio ab Ethnicismo ad Christianam fidem. & perducendo Seriem hujus Ecclesiae; per quamlibet illius fortunam, usq[ue] ad praesentem annum Christi M. DC. XLII. opus elaboratum. Linköping 1642. 61 Cf. Ingun Montgomery: Enhetskyrkans tid. Stockholm 2002, p. 56. According to Holm, Gustav II Adolf probably already had in mind to commission a Swedish church history, cf. Holm: Joannes (Jöns) Baazius d.ä., p. 519. 62 Cf. Hans Lundin: Joannes Baazius’ kyrkliga reformprogram. Stockholm 1944, pp. 2f. According to this draft, Baazius initially intended to start with “prolegomena de necessiate verae religionis et ecclesiae Christi conservatione” where he wanted to comment on questions like the most adequate model of church governance including the authorities’ participation. He also planned to expose the history of his own conflicts with the bishops in detail. 63 Cf. Lundin: Reformprogram, p. 3. 64 Cf. Baazius: Inventarium, pp. 25, 28.

164

Steffie Schmidt

worship, but they gradually turned towards idolatry like other peoples so that God had to reveal himself a second time. 65 Baazius particularly depicts the worship that was practised in Uppsala. Since the biblical testimony states that the gospel was preached all over the world by the apostles, Baazius assumes, like Paulinus, that it was preached in Scandinavia, too. 66 He, however, provides reasons why the Goths were not converted to Christianity on this occasion. 67 The Christianization of the Goths is characterized as a difficult and protracted process. After outlining how Christianity finally came to flourish, he turns to the introduction of the papal heresy. He emphasizes the Goths’ resistance against the papal dominion, for example, by installing bishops without papal approval. The second book of the Inventarium deals with the Reformation that according to Baazius had been predicted in the Bible. 68 Hence, the Reformation of the church is a period predetermined by God, and it was initiated by Luther’s revelation in 1517. 69 The Reformation is linked to the indulgence controversy and the Diet of Worms. Luther is praised for his courageousness and manfulness. The Gothic myth providing reasons for the primacy of the Swedish nation over all other nations is incorporated into Baazius’s description of the Reformation history and transferred to the Protestant community: Baazius points out that the Sveo-Gothic nation was not last among those nations assuming reformatory concerns. 70 Consequently, Baazius needs to link the reformatory events in the Holy Roman Empire at an early point with the Swedish history. Similar to Paulinus, he thus seeks to prove that Gustav Vasa took notice of the Lutheran cause at an early date. In contrast to Paulinus, he connects this with Gustav Vasa’s stay in Lübeck in 1519. 71 In addition, Baazius mentions Laurentius and Olaus Petri, who returned to Sweden shortly afterwards. They are characterized as Luther’s disciples, who had been taught by Luther himself about the reasons for reforming the church. 72 Baazius finds support for his argumentation in a “Historia Gustav.”, probably referring to Erik Jörensson Tegel’s Swedish history of Gustav Vasa published in

65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

Cf. Baazius: Inventarium, p. 61. Cf. Baazius: Inventarium, p. 73. Cf. Baazius: Inventarium, p. 74. “Liber II. Annotans Reformationem Ecclesiae Svec. Illustrata Veritate Evangelij,” cf. Baazius: Inventarium, pp. 149–283. Cf. Baazius: Inventarium, p. 150. Cf. Baazius: Inventarium, p. 150. Cf. Baazius: Inventarium, p. 150: “Nam Hiria [!] Gustav. par. I f. 6. dicit nominatum Producem Gustavum Erici fuisse Lubeca An. Chr. 1519, ubi audivit rumorem de reformanda Ecclesia Christi per Lutherum, & abjicienda superstitione papistica.” Cf. Baazius: Inventarium, p. 150: “Additq[ue] eadem Historia f. 97. venisse paulo post in Sveciam duos Lutheri discipulos, M. Laurentium Petri & M. Olaum fratres Nericios, qui in Academia Wittebergensi studuerant, & ex ore Lutheri causas reformandi Ecclesiam Christi didicerant.”

Luther and the Goths

165

1622. 73 Comparing Baazius’s narration and this source is quite instructive and reveals Baazius’s intention. Tegel does indeed report on Gustav Vasa’s stay in Lübeck from the autumn of 1519 to the spring of 1520. 74 However, he merely outlines Christian II’s efforts to have Gustav Vasa handed over. He neither touches upon the Reformation in the Holy Roman Empire nor Gustav Vasa’s awareness of it. The second passage that Baazius hints at refers to the year 1524. In this context, Tegel states that several Swedish scholars returned from Wittenberg to Sweden at the beginning of Gustav Vasa’s reign. In contrast to Baazius, he stresses that they had studied under Luther, Melanchthon, and other learned men. 75 Baazius’s focus on Luther is not predefined by his source. Olaus Petri was among these Swedish scholars. Tegel attributes the initial propagation of the evangelical teaching in following with the Wittenberg example to him. 76 In Tegel’s view, the reformatory ideas spread in Sweden through Petri’s work as a teacher at the school of Strängnäs. Consequently, Gustav Vasa came in contact with the Lutheran ideas only when he heard some of Petri’s disciples preaching. The king is described as completely unaware of the current religious developments; according to Tegel, he asked his chancellor Laurentius Andreae if he had heard about this teaching and if it had a lasting effect. 77 Only now – in the year 1524 – Gustav Vasa was enlightened by Laurentius Andreae about the papal delusions and the movement Luther had launched, and how Luther undermined the clergy’s claim to power. 78 Gustav Vasa even sent his scouts to the Holy Roman Empire to have this information confirmed. After hearing that those things Laurentius Andreae had described really had happened, he became an adherent of Luther. Thus, he ensured that Swedish students attended foreign universities and called learnt men from abroad in his services so that the reformatory message could be spread throughout Sweden. 79

73 Erik Jörensson Tegel: Then Stoormechtighe/ Höghborne Furstes och Christelighe Herres/ Her Gustaffs/ Fordom Sweriges/ Göthes/ och Wendes Konungs etc. Historia/ Om hans Kon Maytz. lofflige Regeringh och merckelige Handlingar: vthi twä Deeler författad/ Korteligen och sanfärdheligen sammandragen och beskreffuen. Stockholm 1622. Skovgaard-Petersen: Historiography, p. 122, characterizes the history, that was probably commissioned by Charles IX, as a “reaction against Huitfeldt’s work.” 74 Cf. Tegel: Gustaffs Historia, pp. 6f. 75 Cf. Tegel: Gustaffs Historia, p. 97: “I första Konungh Gustaffs Regementz begynnelse/ wore någhre lärdhe Män kompne heem til Swerige ifrån Tydschland/ som hadhe studeret vthi Wittenberg/ och ther hört Doctor Mårthen Luther/ Philippum Melanchthon/ och andra höglärdhe Män fleere […].” 76 Cf. Tegel: Gustaffs Historia, p. 97: “[…] hwilken [Olaus Petri, S.S.] begynte först Ewangelij rätta lära här i Rijket vthsprijda/ effter then reformeringh som i Wittenbergh giord war […].” 77 Cf. Tegel: Gustaffs Historia, p. 97: “[…] så wijdt/ at Konungh Gustaff fick sielff höra någhre vnge Män Predica/ som Mester Oluffs Discipler warit hadhe/ hwilkes Predican hans Kön. May. behagadhe/ och förthenskull frågade sin Cantzler Mester Lars Andreae, om han hadhe förnummet/ hwadh thet skulle wara för een Lärdom/ och om then skulle haffua någhet beståndh medh sigh.” 78 Cf. Tegel: Gustaffs Historia, pp. 97f. 79 Cf. Tegel: Gustaffs Historia, pp. 98.

166

Steffie Schmidt

Baazius refers to Tegel’s history but makes fundamental changes. The striking difference is that according to Baazius, Gustav Vasa had already been acquainted with the Lutheran cause when the Swedish reformers approached him. Tegel’s account, however, makes the reader wonder at Gustav Vasa’s total ignorance of what was going on in the Holy Roman Empire as late as 1524. Tegel suggests that Gustav Vasa was particularly fascinated by the opportunity to disempower the bishops, whereas Baazius hints at spiritual deficiencies. In contrast to Tegel, Baazius leaves no doubt that the Swedish Reformation directly derived from Luther alone. Baazius strives to strengthen Gustav Vasa’s role in the Swedish Reformation unlike Tegel. His conception of Swedish church history is a typical exponent of Sweden’s stormaktstid. Perhaps Baazius’s outline must be seen as an attack on and warning against the powerful bishops of his day like Paulinus, who refused to accept governmental influence on ecclesiastical affairs, when denying the theologians’ crucial part in the Swedish Reformation. Subsequently, Baazius reasons why the Reformation of the Swedish church became necessary and why it was hampered at the same time. 80 Religious motives are alleged, indeed, but the national cause is given priority: both the papal and the Danish impact on the “patria” needed to be abolished because both proved to be tyrannical. 81 Only then does Baazius recapitulate the progress of Reformation in Sweden. He particularly pays attention to colloquy between Petrus Galle and Olaus Petri ascribed to the year 1524. 82 In this way, Baazius avoids conveying the impression that the Reformation in Sweden was solely imposed by royal resolution, demonstrating that a discussion took place similar to the colloquies that marked the Reformation abroad. The reformatory progress in Sweden is linked to the situation in the Holy Roman Empire only once, namely when the king received the envoys of the Protestant rulers in Stockholm in 1537. Baazius intends to describe the association of the Swedish and German reformatory churches. 83 This chapter is of particular importance because it both explains and mirrors the Swedish intervention in the Thirty Years’ War. According to Baazius, the Protestant rulers – the Elector of Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse are mentioned – sent their envoys to the neighbouring kingdoms who adhered to the reformed religion to win their friendship because their status of faith was threatened by the Emperor’s dominance. Baazius conveys the impression that the Reformation was established in Sweden without foreign assistance and even without foreign knowledge: in his narration, Gustav Vasa needs to

80 Cf. Baazius: Inventarium, pp. 151–159. 81 Cf. Baazius: Inventarium, pp. 154f. 82 Cf. Baazius: Inventarium, pp. 164–202. Such a disputation probably never took place, cf. Steffie Schmidt: Professoren im Norden: Lutherische Gelehrsamkeit in der Frühen Neuzeit am Beispiel der theologischen Fakultäten in Kopenhagen und Uppsala. Göttingen 2018, p. 166 with note 164. 83 “Cap. XXIV. Unio Reformatorum Ecclesiarum in Svecia & Germania”, cf. Baazius: Inventarium, pp. 260f.

Luther and the Goths

167

explain his long-standing engagement for the reformatory cause and affirm the consensus in religion. 84 His guests received his promise 85 to defend the true gospel; apparently they were not clear about Gustav Vasa’s position. In response to the king’s promise, they vowed that this alliance of the evangelical religion would be preserved perpetually. 86 Again, Baazius refers to Tegel’s Historia in this context but makes definite alterations. Tegel does not depict the foreign Protestant rulers as threatened by the Emperor, he describes an alliance aimed at mutual benefit. According to Tegel, it was actually the Danish King who made Gustav Vasa aware of the advantages. He suggested that the Protestant rulers could support Gustav Vasa militarily while he aided them financially. 87 Furthermore, Gustav Vasa did not deliver any statement of the confessional status in Sweden but only expressed his acceptance. Following Tegel’s account, the Swedish King lacked military forces, according to Baazius, he promised to assist the German Protestants in their distress. Thus, Baazius’s exposition rather reflects the situation of the first half of the seventeenth century, explaining why Gustav II Adolf entered the Thirty Years’ War. 88 The second book ends with Gustav Vasa’s religious testament. 89 The last sentence summarizes how the king shall be held in memory as the one who freed the Swedish people from the yoke of the Antichrist on the one hand and from Christian II’s tyranny on the other. 90 Baazius closely connects the Reformation period with Gustav Vasa’s reign. Reformation is regarded as the central period of Swedish church history because Baazius devotes the entire second part of his work to this topic. He seems to take Gustav Vasa’s death for the end of this period because he only intended to relate history up to John III’s reign in the third book. 91 In view of Erik XIV’s Calvinist and John III’s Catholic preferences respectively, the history

84 Cf. Baazius: Inventarium, p. 260: “Respondebat pius Rex se jam dudum veritatem Evangelicae Religionis elegisse, & procurasse ut in patria praedicatio pura Evangelij sonaret, verusq[ue] usus Sacramentorum vigeret: quare se libenter consentire ait Rex Gustavus in syncerae Religionis veritatem, etiam se curaturum promisit, ne a sua parte quicquam desideretur, quod ad Evangelij veraeq[ue] fidei defensionem pertineat.” 85 Cf. above note 84. 86 Cf. Baazius: Inventarium, pp. 260f. 87 Cf. Tegel: Gustaffs Historia, p. 104: “Theßlijkes sende ock Konung Christian i Danmarck/ Her Axel Bragde til Konung Gustaff om samma wärff/ att honom syntes wara rådeligit/ thet hans Kon. Mt. wille giffua sigh/ vthi samma Förbundh medh the Ewangeliske Chur och Furster/ Herrer och Städher/ ther til han wille wara hans Kon. Mt. förforderligh/ giffuandes före/ att the Tydske Furster kunde tiena hans Kon. Mt. medh Ryttare och Landzknechter när behoof giordes/ och hans Kon. Mt. hielpa them igen medh Sölffuer och Penningar.” 88 Gustav II Adolf’s involvement in the war is outlined quite briefly, cf. Baazius: Inventarium, pp. 771–774. 89 Cf. Baazius: Inventarium, pp. 280–283. 90 Cf. Baazius: Inventarium, p. 283. 91 “Liber III. Continuans Historiam a Morte Regis Gustavi I. Ad Finem Regiminis Joh III. Praeter alia memorabilia tractatur hic Actio Liturgica,” cf. Baazius: Inventarium, p. 284.

168

Steffie Schmidt

of the following years deals with the endangerment of Gustav Vasa’s religious heritage. Baazius continues his delineation of Swedish church history up to the year 1642 so that his outline ranges from Magog to the present day. 4. THE REFORMATION AS A PERIOD OF NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY: JORDANUS EDENIUS’S AND ERIK BENZELIUS’S TEXTBOOKS In 1655, Uppsala University received new statutes that officially introduced the teaching of church history in connection with the exegetical lessons at the Faculty of Theology. 92 In general, the innovations at Uppsala University were a model for the other universities in the Swedish territory. In this case, the universities in Åbo and Lund followed the example of Uppsala in 1661 and 1666 respectively. 93 Schedules of lectures that have survived show that the professors took the guidelines of the statutes seriously. In addition, church history became a popular topic for private lessons offered by professors. 94 However, the professors could first draw on textbooks written by local scholars in the late seventeenth century. 95 In this context, Edenius’s and Benzelius’s compendia need to be mentioned. Both were professors of theology at Uppsala University so that a correlation between their teachings and these textbooks may be assumed. Jordanus Edenius has not been in the focus of research so far. His appointment to the fourth professorship of theology in 1659 was controversial. 96 However, he did not hold this position for many years; he died in 1666. The title of the Epitome Historiae Ecclesiasticae Novi Testamenti 97 itself reveals that the book is geared at academic teaching. Since it was edited by Johannes Gezelius in Åbo, the Epitome, published posthumously without the author’s name, was probably intended for Finnish academia. Gezelius hid the author’s identity perhaps due to Edenius’s dubious reputation. 98 As fourth professor of theology,

92 93 94 95 96

Cf. Schmidt: Professoren, p. 107. Cf. Ragnar Askmark: Svensk prästutbildning fram till år 1700. Stockholm 1943, p. 306. Cf. Schmidt: Professoren, pp. 160–162. Cf. Askmark: Prästutbildning, p. 307. Cf. Schmidt: Professoren, p. 203. On Edenius, cf. Arne Eklund: “Edenius, Jordan (Jordanus Nicolai)”, in: Svenskt Biografiskt Lexikon. Vol. 12. Stockholm 1949, pp. 111–114; on his peregrinatio academica, cf. Schmidt: Professoren, pp. 258–261. 97 Jordanus Edenius: Epitome Historiae Ecclesiasticae Novi Testamenti, Ante Aliqvot Annos Ab eximio qvodam in patria Theologo Jam in coelis beato, cum cura adornata. Et, In usum juventutis Academiae, nunc primum publicata. Åbo 1681. 98 In the preface, Gezelius simply characterises him as a deceased doctor and professor. He states that the Epitome had been popular earlier so that it was copied many times. That explains the mistakes in his own copy that had been made approximately twenty years before. Thus, it is unlikely that Gezelius withheld the author’s identity because he did not know it. Cf. Edenius: Epitome, fol. [A1v].

Luther and the Goths

169

Edenius mainly dealt with dogmatics. He had possibly drafted the Epitome earlier when he strove to become professor of history. 99 In contrast to Edenius, Erik Benzelius 100 may be considered one of the most powerful men within the Swedish church of his day. He was apparently chosen for the professorship of history at Uppsala University because he extended his peregrinatio academica to study history in Leiden. 101 In 1668, he became a full professor of theology. He had worked at the Faculty of Theology for about twenty years when he was elected to the episcopate of Strängnäs in 1687. His Breviarium historiae ecclesiasticae 102 was printed in 1695 after he had left the university, but before he would become archbishop in 1700. Similar to the Epitome, the title of the Breviarium indicates that the book arose from and was intended for a teaching context. Benzelius wanted to provide students with a consistent – and probably authorised – account of his instruction. His notebook, preserved at the Uppsala University Library, and the large number of student manuscripts that have been passed down attest that he was engaged in church history to a special degree during his many years of teaching. 103 Although they originated in a university context, both Edenius’s and Benzelius’s outlines additionally influenced the church historical teaching at the academic high schools (gymnasier). The 1693 school ordinance even prescribed to study Edenius’s Epitome. 104 It claimed to focus on the Reformation period. 105 This suggests that the point of interest had gradually shifted from the glorious prehistory of the Goths to the Reformation period parallel to the establishment of church history as a distinct subject of theology. According to Askmark, the Epitome was still used at academic high schools well after 1693. But it was eventually replaced by the Breviarium that became the standard textbook of the eighteenth century. 106 99 Edenius had had to content himself with an assistant position at the arts faculty since 1656 until he was appointed as fourth professor of theology in 1659. His academic career encountered resistance at Uppsala University resulting in him being overlooked when the professorship of history became vacant, cf. Eklund: Edenius, Jordan, pp. 112f. 100 On Benzelius, cf. Rurik Holm: “Benzelius, släkt. 1. Eric Benzelius d.ä.”, in: Svenskt Biografiskt Lexikon 3. Stockholm 1922, pp. 233–242. 101 He left an account of his journeys, cf. Schmidt: Professoren, pp. 238–245. 102 Erik Benzelius: Breviarium historiæ ecclesiasticæ, veteris et novi testamenti, Discentium usui destinatum, iteratis vicibus juventuti propositum, multorum desideriis expetitum […]. Strängnäs 1695. 103 Schmidt: Professoren, pp. 163, note 147; 175. 104 The authorship was obviously uncertain because the school ordinance literally urges to read “thet förnemste af Historia Ecclesiastica Bunonis eller den, som kallas Edenii.” Cf. Bror Rudolf Hall (ed.): Sveriges allmänna läroverksstadgar 1561–1905. IV–VI: 1693, 1724 och 1807 års skolordningar. Lund 1922, p. 12; Askmark: Prästutbildning, p. 309. 105 Cf. Hall: Läroverksstadgar, pp. 12f: “[…] beflijtandes sig om at Historia Reformationis blifwer dem [the pupils, S.S.] wäl i Minnet intryckt.” 106 Cf. Askmark: Prästutbildning, p. 309; Holm: Eric Benzelius d.ä., p. 236. The Breviarium experienced six editions (1695, 1699, 1717, 1743, 1802, 1849). The second edition was even published in Strängnäs. His well-known son, Erik Benzelius the Younger, took care of the third edition, which was published in Uppsala. After that, the Breviarium was published in Göteborg.

170

Steffie Schmidt

Provided that the Epitome and the Breviarium were originally composed during their authors’ academic career (Edenius: 1656–1666; Benzelius: 1665–1687), the differences compared to Baazius’s 1642 Inventarium could hardly be more salient. The conceptions of the later works reveal that Swedish church history was trying to catch up with international standards. Both Edenius and Benzelius decided to structure their outlines by centuries, which are analysed as subject to recurrent aspects. Thus, their works may be considered reflections, admittedly quite delayed reflections, of the Magdeburg Centuries. 107 The authors obviously feel obliged to elaborate on their approach, reckoning that it could not be taken for granted in Swedish historiography. Edenius briefly distances himself from the traditional division of the New Testament history into four periods comprising the history of the Church 1) under pagan rulers, 2) under Christian authorities until the rise of Mohammed and the Popes, 3) under the tyranny of these exceptional adversaries of the Church, and 4) after the outset of the Reformation. 108 In contrast to Edenius, Benzelius deals with the Old and New Testament history. He recognises eight periods of the Old Testament history whereas he approaches New Testament history century by century. He discusses the possibility of dividing New Testament history into five periods but then prefers adhering to the centuries for the sake of simplicity. 109 In following the Magdeburg Centuries, Benzelius identifies ten objects of investigation in the particular centuries. 110 But he does not strive for completeness. He admits that it is not suitable to examine every aspect for each century. 111 Edenius, however, roughly settles for five aspects determined by the existing religious orientations: Christianity, Islam, paganism, Judaism, and Christian heresies and schisms. The Reformation is thus addressed in the sixteenth century under the

107

108 109

110 111

Anders Henrik Stamberg continued the Breviarium up to the present day in 1802 (Västerås, published again in 1849). In addition, an excerpt for teaching purposes was delivered by Nils Hufwedsson Dal and a Swedish translation by Johan Bäckström in 1734. Edenius’s Epitome was only published a second time in Åbo in 1708, reflecting its decreasing importance. On the Magdeburg Centuries, cf. Heinz Scheible: Die Entstehung der Magdeburger Zenturien: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der historiographischen Methode. Gütersloh 1966; Ronald Ernst Diener: The Magdeburg Centuries: A Bibliothecal and Historiographical Analysis. Diss. masch. Cambridge, MA 1978; Harald Bollbuck: Wahrheitszeugnis, Gottes Auftrag und Zeitkritik: Die Kirchengeschichte der Magdeburger Zenturien und ihre Arbeitstechniken. Wiesbaden 2014. Cf. Edenius: Epitome, p. [1]. The proposed periods are 1) the life of Christ up to the Ascension, 2) the emergence of the Church under the reign of the pagan emperors up to Constantin, 3) the development of the Church under the reign of the Christian emperors beginning with Constantin up to the rise of the Antichrist within Church, that means the alleged tyranny of the Pope, dating back to the seventh century according to Benzelius, 4) the disorderly papal reign up to the Reformation started by Luther in the early sixteenth century, and last 5) from the famous Reformation up to the present day. Cf. Benzelius: Breviarium, pp. 120f. The remarkable difference compared to Edenius is that the latter names two adversaries of the Church: apart from the Popes, the threat of the Islam is taken seriously. Cf. Benzelius: Breviarium, pp. 124f. Cf. Benzelius: Breviarium, p. 125.

Luther and the Goths

171

aspect of Christianity. Edenius differentiates between three periods: the time before the Reformation, the Reformation itself, and the time after the Reformation.112 Hence, the Reformation has turned into a definable period in his conception, starting with the 95 theses in 1517 and ending with the Augsburg Confession in 1530. It is a period that is almost exclusively dominated by the events of the German Reformation – in Edenius’s outline, the development in Sweden only plays a minor role. The Reformation in Sweden is still accredited to Gustav Vasa, but its beginnings are postponed to the year 1527 and correlated to the general spread of the reformatory religion in the Holy Roman Empire. 113 By pointing out that disputations preceded the introduction of Reformation, the impression of a decisive royal impact recedes further into the background. The decision to join the reformatory movement rather appears as the result of a negotiation process the king was hardly involved in. Surprisingly enough, the 1527 Västerås assembly (riksdag) is even portrayed as a disputation and equated with the disputation in Uppsala that Baazius already extensively referred to in connection with the year 1524. 114 In Edenius’s description, the participants of both events change places so that Petrus Galle and Olaus Petri could discuss matters at the Västerås assembly. 115 It is noteworthy that the development of the Swedish Reformation is merely brought up once and in a remarkable way as well. Perhaps this variant arose when copying the manuscript. Nevertheless, Edenius’s conception shows that he was less interested in the Swedish Reformation than in the Reformation in the Holy Roman Empire. The impression of a Reformation through negotiation is reenforced by the second reference to the Swedish situation that surprisingly pertains to the period after the Reformation: at the 1593 Uppsala Synod (Uppsala möte), all Swedish estates accepted the Augsburg Confession. 116 As stated above, Benzelius’s textbook comprises Old and New Testament history. He has a genuine interest in the line of thought that appears in the Bible and dissociates himself explicitly from those who take a more imaginative approach to the Bible to trace back the origins of their nation as far as possible.117 Even though Benzelius does not refer to Swedish authors in particular, his remarks obviously indicate that the Gothic myth and its prevalence in biblical history had been overcome. Benzelius takes a new approach when addressing the sixteenth century. He seems to seek completeness while accepting repetitions to combine two forms of presentation. Firstly, Benzelius subdivides the century into six minor periods and 112 Cf. Edenius: Epitome, pp. 131–141. 113 Cf. Edenius: Epitome, p. 136: “A. 1527. […] Propagatur tamen religio late per Germaniam: & in Svecia qvoqve opera Gustavi suscipitur, instituta prius gravi disputatione, primum Upsaliae, inter Episcopos & caeteros regni proceres; hinc Arosiae, inter Petrum Gallum, Pontificium, & M. Olaum Petri, Orthodoxum.” 114 Cf. Baazius: Inventarium, pp. 164–202. 115 See above note 113. 116 Cf. Edenius: Epitome, p. 14: “A. 1593. in Concilio Upsaliensi, ab universis Sveciae ordinibus Augustana confessio suscipitur, & exinde Pontificiorum conatibus summa diligentia resistitur.” 117 Cf. Benzelius: Breviarium, p. 30.

172

Steffie Schmidt

describes the course of events in a chronological order. Secondly, he analyses the century by proceeding from the points of interest he had identified above in a style similar to the Magdeburg Centuries. The first turning point Benzelius discerns is quite astonishing because it marks the year 1516 as the beginning of the Reformation. 118 He refers to Luther’s academic disputation against Roman doctrine 119 in a way that it appears crucial for him to make his criticism public. 120 Compared with Luther’s disputation, the indulgence controversy is explicitly characterised as a continuation of an undertaking that has already begun. The Swiss Reformation, however, is initiated in 1519 according to Benzelius. He is eager to point out that Luther was originally not in the least inspired by Zwingli, perhaps in an attempt to dismiss views held by Swiss historians. 121 On another occasion, Benzelius refers to Johann Heinrich Hottinger, whose monumental work is largely based on Bullinger when it comes to Zwingli. 122 Professor Johannes Hiort’s statement concerning his instructional progress in New Testament history reveals that Hottinger was even considered for academic teaching at Lund University in the early 1670s. 123 Hottinger himself had contacts to Swedish scholars, too. The prospective professors Erik Odhelius and Jordanus Edenius signed his autograph book 124 and Hottinger wrote a letter to Odhelius in 1653. 125 Since Odhelius was Benzelius’s father-in-law, it seems natural that Benzelius was familiar with Hottinger’s historical work.

118 Cf. Benzelius: Breviarium, p. 310. The first period that precedes the Reformation ranges “ab initio hujus seculi usque ad coeptam reformationem, per annos circiter 15.” 119 “Quaestio de viribus et voluntate hominis sine gratia disputata.” 120 Cf. Benzelius: Breviarium, p. 313: “Sequitur sub intervallo Secundo Reformatio ipsa quae initium aliquod habere visa est, cum anno hujus Seculi 16. receptam Romanae Ecclesiae doctrinam de viribus & voluntate hominis sine gratia, publice in Academia Wittebergensi impugnaret Martinus Lutherus, Theologiae Doctor & Professor, ex ordine Augustiniano.” 121 Cf. Benzelius: Breviarium, p. 316: “Hoc eodem anno [1519, S.S.] indulgentias Papales in Helvetia impugnare coepit Ulricus Zvinglius, qui Tiguri docendi munere fungebatur. Falluntur autem & fallunt, qui scribere audent, Lutherum accepisse a Zvinglio primam occasionem cogitandi de Reformatione.” 122 Johann Heinrich Hottinger: Historiae Ecclesiasticae, Novi Testamenti […] Pars […]. 9 vols. Zurich 1651–1655, 1665–1667. Cf. Benzelius: Breviarium, p. 313; Schmidt: Professoren, p. 164. On Hottinger and his reference to Bullinger, cf. Christian Moser: Die Dignität des Ereignisses: Studien zu Heinrich Bullingers Reformationsgeschichtsschreibung. Vol 1. Leiden, Boston 2012, p. 436. 123 Handlingar rörande Lunds universitet under Gustaf Otto Stenbocks kansleriat (I). Methodus et Progressus Lectionum publicarum S. S. Theol: Professoris M. Johannis Frider: Hiortii, 6 August 1672. Lunds Universitetsbibliotek, Underv. [Lund]. Cf. Schmidt: Professoren, p. 193. 124 [Stammbuch von Johann Heinrich Hottinger]. Zürich [et al.] 1638–1667, Zentralbibliothek Zürich, Ms D 207ac, URL: http://doi.org/10.7891/e-manuscripta-53861 (last accessed: February 27, 2022), p. [277]. 125 Letter from Johann Heinrich Hottinger to Erik Odhelius. Zurich, 20 March 1653, Stiftsbibliotek Linköping, Br 2, no. 58. Cf. Schmidt: Professoren, p. 165.

Luther and the Goths

173

The Reformation itself 126 ends before the promulgation of the Augsburg Confession in 1530, which introduces the third period of the sixteenth century. In addition, Benzelius regards Luther’s death in 1546, the Peace of Augsburg in 1555, which he describes as the confirmation and solemn declaration of the Peace of Passau, and finally the publication of the Formula of Concord in 1580 127 as the decisive turning points of the sixteenth century. 128 Although Benzelius stated that he wanted to leave national church history to others, 129 he refers to it quite frequently in the context of the sixteenth century. Yet, the developments in Sweden are subordinated to the chronological structure set by the German events. 130 Benzelius clearly stands in Baazius’s tradition when stating that Gustav Vasa recognised the reformatory concerns as early as 1519 during his stay in Lübeck. 131 He has the same intention as Baazius because in his view, the king had made up his mind to conduct reforms upon his own initiative before Laurentius and Olaus Petri returned to Sweden to support him. 132 Benzelius marks the year 1521 as the official beginning of the Swedish Reformation. 133 That means that Gustav Vasa, as soon as he was declared regent (riksföreståndare), engaged in introducing the Reformation while at the same time fighting against the Danish forces. Benzelius even creates the impression that Gustav Vasa and his assistants travelled through Sweden to convince people of the true doctrine in that year. Perhaps he intends to suggest that the Swedish Reformation was on the fast track whereas Luther and his message failed at the Diet of Worms. Benzelius’s focus on Gustav Vasa as the driving force of the Reformation recalls Paulinus’s and Baazius’s conceptions indeed. 134 By referring to the “Septentrionis Regna”, Benzelius indicates that both Nordic Kingdoms adopted the religion according to the gospel at the very beginning.135

126 See above note 120. 127 In a Swedish context, the value Benzelius assigns to the Formula of Concord is perhaps in need of explanation. In fact, only in 1663 a so-called “religionsplakat” declared the importance of the Book of Concord for ecclesiastical instruction. The 1686 church ordinance, the “Kyrkolag”, approved the importance of the Book of Concord as an explanation of Christian doctrine, cf. Schmidt: Professoren, pp. 158f. with note 132. When Benzelius taught church history at Uppsala University, the Formula of Concord and the Book of Concord probably attracted greater attention in Sweden than in the Holy Roman Empire. 128 Cf. Benzelius: Breviarium, p. 310. 129 Cf. Benzelius: Breviarium, Ad lectorem: “Status Ecclesiae in patria nostra non nisi paucis attingitur, cum justam ejus expositionem sibi deposcant aliorum labores.” 130 On Benzelius’s depiction of the Swedish Reformation, cf. also Schmidt: Professoren, pp. 165– 168. 131 Cf. Benzelius: Breviarium, p. 321. 132 Cf. Benzelius: Breviarium, pp. 321f. 133 Cf. Benzelius: Breviarium, p. 322. 134 He even refers to Paulinus specifically for the years 1523 and 1524, cf. Benzelius: Breviarium, p. 324. 135 Cf. Benzelius: Breviarium, p. 344: “Septentrionis Regna ferme inter prima coeptae reformationis initia Euangelicam religionem recepisse, supra indicatum est.” Similarily Benzelius: Breviarium, p. 321: “Sub eodem hoc intervallo [i.e. 1516–1529, S.S.], promota est Christianae

174

Steffie Schmidt

The traditional aversion of the neighbours towards each other is hardly reflected in his depiction of the Swedish Reformation; he actually does not pay particular attention to Denmark apart from constructing the image of the genuine and firm Protestants in the North. Johannes Magnus, the authority when it comes to the Gothic myth, is again characterised as a thief of the old national records evading the task of translating the Bible. 136 Although the 1524 Uppsala Colloquy is mentioned, too, 137 Benzelius does not outline a negotiation process like Edenius; the important assemblies (riksdagar) of the late 1520s are simply enumerated. 138 Even the significance of the 1593 Uppsala Synod is diminished because it is equated with the 1572 Uppsala Synod. 139 King John III is not mentioned, but Benzelius obviously still feels obliged to avert any doubts on Sweden’s uninterrupted orthodoxy because he emphasizes that the profession of the orthodox faith was stabilised on this occasion. Since Benzelius, as opposed to Baazius and Paulinus, surpresses Erik XIV’s and John III’s reigns entirely in his account of the Reformation century, the 1593 Uppsala Synod can consequently not be distinguished as an essential turning point. 140 5. CONCLUSION By drawing on the Gothic myth, Sweden claimed to be a decisive part of world history. 141 This brief overview of Swedish historiography during the Era of Great Power has shown that by drawing on the Reformation, Sweden additionally claimed to be a decisive part of Protestant history. Only at the end of the seventeenth century, the Protestant aspect of national identity seems to have been valued higher than the Swedish origins from the Goths. Benzelius’s textbook demonstrates that the Gothic myth gradually lost plausibility in church history, releasing its grip on Old Testament History in particular. The tradition of a chronological, monarch-centred way of presentation that was constituted by Magnus’s Historia raised the question if and how German and Swedish Reformation history could be interrelated. Paulinus describes them as running parallel to each other, at least visually. The course of Swedish national history, however, adjusts the chronological order related to the German Reformation.

136 137 138 139 140 141

religionis reformatio non tantum per varias in Imperio Germanico provincias & urbes, sed & in Septentrionem hunc nostrum.” Cf. Benzelius: Breviarium, pp. 322f. Cf. Benzelius: Breviarium, p. 322. Later on, Benzelius hints with reference to Baazius at two disputations that had taken place in Uppsala in 1524 and 1527, cf. Benzelius: Breviarium, p. 358. Cf. Benzelius: Breviarium, p. 323: “His autem malis per sana consilia mature provisum est in comitiis quae habita Stockholmiae 1526. Arosiae 1527. Strengnesiae 1528. Örebrogiae 1529. &c.” Cf. Benzelius: Breviarium, pp. 358f. As for the 1593 Uppsala Synod, cf. also Benzelius: Breviarium, p. 347. Cf. Schmidt: Professoren, p. 167. Cf. Lindberg: Ära, p. 13.

Luther and the Goths

175

Baazius decides to disregard the latter as far as possible. In Edenius’s and Benzelius’s compositions, however, the Swedish Reformation is integrated into the sequence of German events. Their works reflect the attempt to break away from the national tradition by orienting themselves towards the Magdeburg Centuries although Benzelius does not consistently stick to this conception in his treatment of the sixteenth century. The theologians propose various dates in regard to the exact initiation and ending of the Reformation period. Paulinus’s conception is most notable. The variants he presents mirror an ongoing flexibility in this question. Not only does he suggest two possible starting points – 1516 or 1517 –, he even integrates the Reformation both in a cyclic and a linear conception of history. Whether Luther’s Reformation started in 1516 or 1517 had obviously not been determined by the late seventeenth century. Baazius seems to draw a line in 1521, Edenius in 1530, and Benzelius in 1529. In the style of Magnus’s Historia, Paulinus concentrates on the monarchs’ fortunes so that the Swedish Reformation becomes a period of Gustav Vasa’s life. Baazius enhances this view by closely connecting the Swedish Reformation to the king’s entire reign. He tries to prove most persuasively that Sweden may claim primacy among the Protestant nations by referring to Gustav Vasa’s adoption of Lutheran ideas as originating in the year 1519 and thereby going beyond Tegel’s history of the king. Benzelius follows this conception, choosing the year 1521 for the official initiation of the Swedish Reformation. His Breviarium shows that the stability of Lutheran orthodoxy in Swedish history became as crucial as its early inauguration. Edenius’s outline, however, most distinctly heralds a new kind of church historiography by integrating the reformatory progress in Sweden in a quite international perspective and by postponing its beginning to the year 1527. Nevertheless, the preference for Benzelius’s Breviarium in teaching reveals that Edenius’s reevaluation did not gain public acceptance.

3. HISTORIOGRAPHIC CONTENTIONS

LUTHERANISM AS HERESEY Louis Maimbourg’s Gallican View of Church History Andreea Badea Abstract: Louis Maimbourg was inextricably connected to the Sun Kingʼs propaganda machine. He wrote historical books in which he explained to a broad French audience why the expulsion of the Huguenots and the ecclesiastical separation from Rome were compelling prerequisites for a Gallican political and ecclesiological ideology. Hence, he incriminates the Reformation and frames Protestantism as nothing more than another doomed heresy in the long history of Catholicism. The Catholic Church distinguishes itself from the Protestant sects as the legitimate Church through its unity. However, at the center of this universal Catholic Church, Maimbourg sees the French king, Paris, and the Sorbonne. Zusammenfassung: Der Name Louis Maimbourg ist unzertrennlich verbunden mit der Propagandamaschine des Sonnenkönigs. In seinen für Ludwig XIV. verfassten Geschichtswerken erklärte er einem breiten französischen Publikum die Vertreibung der Hugenotten und die kirchliche Trennung von Rom als Voraussetzungen für eine gallikanisch geprägte politische und ekklesiologische Ideologie. In diesem Sinne versteht er auch die Kriminalisierung der Reformation als zwingend im gallikanischen Kampf gegen den Protestantismus, den er letztlich als nichts anderes wahrnimmt als eine weitere bald wieder verschwundene Sekte. Den Unterschied zu den Sekten macht die Einheit der katholischen als rechtmäßige Kirche. Im Zentrum dieser universalen katholischen Kirche sieht er jedoch den französischen König, Paris und die Sorbonne.

It is a well-known commonplace that the various reformations fundamentally changed Europe from north to south, with no exceptions. 1 Yet the various early modern historiographers approached the outcomes of these developments very differently. While Lutheran and Calvinist authors intensively investigated this phenomenon as the founding instant of a new era, Catholic historiography did not react to it as a contingent moment and, accordingly, did not see it as a line of demarcation separating a before from an after. 2 Martin Luther, John Calvin, and other reformers were always regarded as heresiarchs, and the subsequent confessionalization was at 1 2

I wish to thank Erika Milbourne for the linguistic revision of this paper and Marco Cavarzere for his helpful comments. Stefan Benz: “Katholische Historiographie im 17. Jahrhundert: Was war vor Pez?”, in: Thomas Wallnig et al. (eds.): Europäische Geschichtskulturen um 1700 zwischen Gelehrsamkeit, Politik und Konfession. Berlin et al. 2012, pp. 43–74, here: 71.

180

Andreea Badea

best understood as a schism in the hope that the Catholic Church would soon reabsorb the apostates. 3 Despite this, the way in which different authors dealt with Martin Luther and the Reformations varied significantly. The specific form of their engagement, the scope of their narrative, and their attention to the Reformation depended on their proximity to Protestant territories and their involvement in the respective local religiopolitical debates. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that Spanish or Italian authors in the seventeenth century did not tend to be engaged in the study of the Reformation, while in other regions authors wrote entire volumes on various aspects of the movement. These differences in historiography are symptomatic of the diversity of early modern Catholicism. The various Christian centres in Western Europe developed specific media tools to communicate their contents internally to their own believers, and to distinguish themselves from the rest externally. Historiography was part of this set of tools because it made it possible to communicate the different ecclesiologies. As such, different authorities took historiography into their religiopolitical service. So when Catholic historians wrote books about the Reformation, it was out of socio-political necessity. This is also the case in France under the Sun King. We will focus on this specifically French context in what follows. Louis XIV had made the expulsion of the Huguenots from their territories and ecclesiastical demarcation from Rome the starting point of his political and ecclesiological ideology. Both were unpopular decisions that had to be communicated to his subjects through various propaganda channels. Historiography played a central role in this process. The most prominent among the French historians was Louis Maimbourg, who made a name for himself as a crowd pleaser and who was read intensively by many. 4 He was so popular that scholarly authorities like Pierre Bayle and Veit Ludwig von Seckendorff considered it their duty to refute him, to prevent giving him sovereignty over the interpretation of history and over ecclesiological truth. Maimbourg took the line of loyalty to the Bourbons and especially to Louis XIV. Consequently, his books inevitably tackled challenging issues to communicate royal measures. 5 Below, we will see how he deals with the Reformation and distances himself from conventional strategies of demonization to ultimately offer well-founded historical proof of the heresy of Martin Luther and his Reformation, and to demonstrate that this denomination is currently destroying itself due to its falsehood. Through the history of Lutheranism, Maimbourg also aimed to lay the foundations for the presentation of Calvinism as a far more dangerous heresy to be fought at all costs, thus repeatedly justifying Louis’ boundary work both internally and externally.

3

4 5

One of the most prominent examples of this attitude is Robert Bellarmine, see Sascha Salatowsky’s essay in this volume. On Bellarmine’s view of Lutheran ecclesiology, cf. Anselm Schubert: “Bellarmin und die lutherische Ekklesiologie im konfessionellen Zeitalter”, in: Evangelische Theologie 75 (2015), pp. 135–151. Jean Louis Quantin: Le Catholicisme classique et les péres de l’église: Un retour aux sources (1669–1713). Paris 1999, p. 238. Ibid., pp. 235f.

Lutheranism as Heresey

181

1. THE MAKING OF GALLICAN HISTORIOGRAPHY Unlike Lutheran historiography, which is concerned with church history as historia ecclesiastica, Catholic Church history always has a sacral framework. 6 Yet histories of the Reformation or of Lutheranism were never seen as part of the past, but as belonging to the political and religious present and, therefore, as highly sensitive throughout the early modern period. Many Catholic authorities prohibited the historiographical study of the Reformation for this very reason. This also explains why so few scholars studied the history of other denominations; they tried to avoid connecting church history too closely to political history. The starting point, however, which all Catholic historians had to respect, was the official conception of the ecclesia semper eadem. When they wrote about the history of the Church, they were forced to imply Catholic universality and uniformity, and thus to silently ignore the presence of divergent interpretations among Catholic theologians themselves. 7 Under these circumstances, the papal Curia regarded historiography with increasing suspicion. The problem that historiographical works faced always remained the same: they were not allowed to mention conflicts, since the possibility of open dissent did not exist in the Catholic world. 8 Needless to say, the forms in which Church history was written changed depending on the political and religious context. In France, where the kings entrusted their memory to the hands of officially selected historiographers and generously endowed the office of court historiographer, Church history quickly took on a decidedly “royal” and “national” flavor. 9 Louis XIV expanded this concept to such an extent as to stage himself as the champion of the Catholic Church, as a victorious crusader averting all dangers from France. 10 He even appointed himself the center 6 7

See Sascha Salatowsky’s essay in this volume. Regarding the quest for dissent in historiography and for Catholic understanding of universal truth in dealing with historiographical works: Andreea Badea: “Credibility of the Past: Writing and Censoring History within Seventeenth-Century Catholicism”, in: Eadem, Bruno Boute, Marco Cavarzere, Steven Vanden Broecke (eds.): Making Truth in Early Modern Catholicism. Amsterdam 2021, p. 191–210. 8 On the Roman approach to the question of dissent and different interpretations of truth cf. Badea et al.: Making Truth. 9 Chantal Grell: “Les historiographes en France XIVe–XVIIIe siècles”, in: Eadem (ed.): Les historiographes en Europe de la fin du Moyen Âge à la Révolution. Paris 2006, pp. 127–156, here: 127f. Cf. also Markus Völkel: “Clio bei Hofe: Einleitende Überlegungen zum Hof als Produktionsstätte von Geschichtsschreibung”, in: Markus Völkel, Arno Strohmeyer (eds.): Historiographie an europäischen Höfen (16.–18. Jahrhundert): Studien zum Hof als Produktionsort von Geschichtsschreibung und historischer Repräsentation. Berlin 2009, pp. 9–35, here: 22f. 10 Jean Orcibal: “Les ‘supercroisades’ de Louis XIV (1683–1689)”, in: Tarcisius Jan van Bavel, Martijn Schrama (eds.): Jansenénius et le jansénisme dans les Pays-Bas: Mélanges Lucien Ceyssens. Louvain 1982, pp. 138–147. His research was taken up by Jean Louis Quantin and applied to historiography, cf. Jean Louis Quantin: “Croisades et supercroisades: Les ‘Histoires’ de Maimbourg et la politique de Louis XIV”, in: Chantal Grell, Werner Paravicini, Jürgen Voss (eds.): Le princes et l’histoire du XIVe au XVIIIe siècle. Bonn 1999, pp. 619–644, here: 636.

182

Andreea Badea

of a state project and had artists from all areas work on his behalf to “fabricate” a divine image of himself as ruler. 11 In other words, he on the one hand used the timehonored court offices for this purpose, while simultaneously also employing other artists and scholars. In the field of historiography, this meant that he did not merely rely on the work of court historiographers but employed additional scholars as well. In this context, a central actor was the bishop of Paris, François Harlay de Champvallon. He was highly controversial both morally and politically, had a reputation for being a flatterer of the king, and led such a scandalous life that after his shameful death it was almost impossible to find a priest willing to celebrate his funeral. 12 At the same time, Harlay de Champvallon was also a staunch supporter of a Gallican solution for France, fought Jansenism in the front line, and later played a major role in the expulsion of the Huguenots from the country. 13 Champvallon also supervised the Gallican propaganda machine active since the early 1680s and based mainly on historiography. To this end, he collaborated in particular with the former Jesuit Louis Maimbourg, whose books he followed closely in weekly work meetings; 14 the layman Antoine Varillas also enjoyed his favor. The main characteristic of these authors was that they wrote in French to be understood by the broadest possible audience. Furthermore, they distinguished themselves through a pleasant, affecting way of writing. Although they wrote extensively about their methodological integrity and made efforts to validate their works’ contents with sources, their books closely resembled the novels and gallant literature of the time. As a result, they were as popular among simpler and less welleducated people as among the educated elite. 2. HISTORIOGRAPHY AS SERVICE TO THE KING Louis Maimbourg came from the traditionally pro-Spanish and ultramontane Lorraine. Therefore, it is little wonder that, as a descendant of a family that strongly supported the Catholic reform, he entered the Society of Jesus in 1626.15 However, he did not maintain the ideological distance of his homeland from the French crown but instead positioned himself in the pro-royal camp through his publications. In

11 Cf. Peter Burke: The Fabrication of Louis XIV. New Haven 1992, p. 37. Particularly on this topic Grell: Les historiographes en France, p. 146, cf. also Orest Ranum: Artisans of Glory: Writers and Historical Thought in Seventeenth-Century France. Chapel Hill 1980, pp. 6–9. Still fundamental for this question is Quantin: Croisades et supercroisades, p. 621. 12 Cf. Henri Daniel-Rops: The church in the seventeenth century. New York 1963, p. 397. 13 Daniel-Rops: The church in the seventeenth century, p. 395. 14 Quantin: Croisades et supercroisades, p. 629. 15 Cf. Jean Pascal Gay: “Les ‘Histoires’ de Louis Maimbourg ou le roman jésuite de l’antiromanisme gallican”, in: Sylvio Hermann de Fransceschi (ed.): Histoires antiromaines, Chrétiens et Sociétés. Documents et Mémoires 15. Lyon 2011, pp. 29–40, here: 37 and Quantin: Croisades et supercroisades, p. 623.

Lutheranism as Heresey

183

1639 he had already written a panegyric poem on Louis XIII, and in 1641 he composed a similar work on the French kings. With these activities, however, he did not in any way distance himself from his order. In recent years, Jean Pascal Gay has repeatedly shown that in the seventeenth century the Society of Jesus became increasingly open to Gallicanism and that Maimbourg fits well into this context. 16 In the following years, Maimbourg was active as a “scriptor” and increasingly made a name for himself thanks to his anti-Jansenist stance. He took this position so far that, in his letters to Rome, the nuncio in Paris was happy to associate himself with the Jesuit as a supporter of Maimbourg’s anti-Jansenist texts. 17 Unlike other historians, Maimbourg was not a librarian and never held the office of “historiographe du Roy,” and so was not officially charged with writing the history of the French crown. Nevertheless, he may be considered a “veritable historian official,” 18 as all his books were published by the official “imprimeur du Roy” and all were highly controversial. His first historical work, the Histoire de l’Arianisme, should already be understood as anti-Jansenist controversial literature. 19 At the same time, it resounds with the anti-Roman tones that he formulated increasingly clearly in his subsequent books. Until his death, further Histoires followed annually, from a history of iconoclasts and the Roman Empire to the history of Calvinism and Lutheranism. Moreover, as time passed, his interest in deviants from the true faith became more apparent; before his death, he had even begun to write a history of English schism. 20 In his works, Maimbourg repeatedly studied several “variations of Christianity.” Again and again, he presented them as a succession of heresies from antiquity up until his own time. It is therefore reasonable to assume that he did not consider Calvinism or Lutheranism to be anything other than further splits from the church. 21 In a prominent place, right at the beginning of the first chapter of the Histoire du Lutheranisme, he describes the Protestant movements as “ces derniéres Hérésies qui ont séparé de l’église Catholique une grande partie de l’Occident.” 22

16 For the Gallican approach within the Society of Jesus see Jean-Pascal Gay: Jesuit Civil Wars: Theology, Politics and Government under Tirso González (1687–1705), pp. 13–17. Cf. also idem: Les ‘Histoires’ de Louis Maimbourg, p. 38. 17 Vatican City, Archives of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (ACDF), Stanza Storica, F-2-e, fol. 197r. Cf. also Jean-Pascal Gay: “Le ‘cas Maimbourg’: La possibilité d’un gallicanisme jésuite au XVIIe siècle”, in: Revue historique 672 (2014), pp. 783–831, here: 788–789. 18 Quantin: Le Catholicisme classique, p. 235. 19 Cf. Gay: Les “Histoires” de Louis Maimbourg, pp. 39f. and Quantin: Croisades et Supercroisades, p. 620., see also idem: Le Catholicisme classique, p. 231. 20 Quantin: Croisades et Supercroisades, p. 621. 21 Cf. Gilles Declercq: “L’Histoire du Calvinisme de Louis Maimbourg et sa reception par la critique protestante”, in: Louis Godard de Donville (ed.): De la mort du Colbert à la révocation de l’édit de Nantes : Un monde nouveau? Actes du XIVe colloque du C.M.R. 17 (janvier 1984). Marseille 1984, pp. 199–214, here: 200. 22 Louis Maimbourg: Histoire du Luthéranisme. Paris 1680, p. 1.

184

Andreea Badea

Nevertheless, Maimbourg’s main enemy was within Catholicism; this explains why his books should also be seen as permanent intra-Catholic boundary work. In his first books on early Christian and medieval heresies, he repeatedly drew parallels with Jansenism when he wished to underline how dangerous they had been for the church. In the following years, his increasingly clear criticism of Rome finally drew the Curia’s attention. In 1679, the Congregation of the Index decided to classify the Histoire du grand schisme d’Occident 23 published one year earlier, as worthy of prohibition. It was not immediately banned thanks to the Cardinal Secretary of State, Alderano Cybo, who suggested that Maimbourg might tacitly improve his book in order to escape prohibition. What followed, however, was not mutual cooperation, for Maimbourg, and with him his Parisian supporters, tried to further heighten his anti-Roman position by seeking open conflict with the Curia and presenting himself as party to and victim of the ongoing dispute over regalia between the Pope and the Sun King. 24 This French tactic proved successful: subsequently, Maimbourg’s books were no longer inspected by the Congregation of the Index but by the Suprema Congregatio, the Roman Inquisition, and each was immediately banned. In other words, they were given the attention they had sought. Meanwhile, Maimbourg had established himself so firmly as a militant loyal to the king and as an anti-Roman Gallican that the Society of Jesus was forced to expel him on January 7, 1681, on Innocent XI’s explicit orders. 25 This step, intended to be defamatory, only served to consolidate his image as a steadfast warrior in the king’s service. Beyond the question of heresy, a second element is present in all the Histoires, namely the homage to Louis XIV: in each work, Maimbourg created new images of Louis as the ideal sovereign. The king’s publisher, who printed the new edition of the complete Histoires of 1686, summed up this fervor by stating that Maimbourg was always “on the side of truth and reason, always willing to adjust his actions and words to Your Majesty’s intentions.” 26 Maimbourg had already made it clear in the Histoire de l’heresie des Iconoclastes that he considered himself accountable to the king alone, stating in his dedication that a prince like Louis, who performed great deeds, lacked only a faithful historiographer: Sire, when there is a King capable of doing just a few of the great things that Your Majesty has done in less time than it would take to recount them all in detail, there is little need for either orators or poets, whose duty it is to embellish the subjects they deal with, and to give them that sparkle, which comes from an art, which is always accused of being somewhat a flatterer, even though it speaks the truth. Such a prince needs only a historian with a reputation for sincerity,

23 Louis Maimbourg: Histoire du grand schisme d’Occident. Paris 1678. 24 Cf. Andreea Badea: “Nell’ordine del Re Sole: Storiografia tra propaganda e censura nel tardo Seicento”, in: Alejandro Cifres (ed.): L’Inquisizione romana e i suoi archivi: A vent’anni dall’apertura dell’ACDF. Rome 2019, pp. 245–254, here: 249f. 25 ACDF, Sanctum Officium, Censura Librorum 1680–1682, no. 2, fol. 9r. 26 Sebastien Mabre-Cramoisy (ed.): Les Histoires du sieur Maimbourg, cy-devant Jesuite. Vol. 1. Paris 1686. Epitre, s.p. [p. 3]: “veû du parti de la vérité & de la raison, on l’a toûjours veû régler ses actions et ses paroles sur les intentions de Vostre Majesté.”

Lutheranism as Heresey

185

who, by recounting naively and without artifice actions that will be admired throughout the centuries, will himself become immortal. It is, Sire, for this reason, that a simple and faithful history of Your Reign will be, without a doubt, the most splendid panegyric ever created: and if, in the condition in which I find myself, I still dare to have any ambition, it will be that of being obliged to work on such a heroic subject. 27

This at a time when the king usually paid two “Historiographs du Roy” simultaneously! Maimbourg’s Histoires reached a broad audience. His style was appealing, and his readers savored his books without considering whether they were historical works or novels. 28 His works were also customarily printed in plain octavo so that interested buyers could obtain them cheaply. They were aimed mainly at non-academic circles, including women and those of average education, who were not interested in scholarly treatises but considered reading a form of entertainment and were among the primary consumers of historical novels and short stories. 29 These were the same social groups targeted by Louis XIV’s increasingly refined propaganda machine and to whom the “fabrications” were thus communicated. 30 At a time when the idea of the crusade no longer worked as an identifying element, and in the absence of a specific French campaign against “the pagans,” Maimbourg created a new vision of Gallican “croisades” and “supercroisades” with each of his Histoires. 31 Their unspoken but omnipresent hero is the Sun King himself, and the books always denounce or undermine those whom Maimbourg identified as religious and political enemies of the Crown of France. At the same time, this prepared the ideological foundations for unpopular decisions, such as the Gallican articles and the repeal of the Edict of Nantes.

27 “Sire, quand il se rencontre un Roi, qui peut faire seulement une partie des grandes choses que V. M. a faites en moins de temps qu’il n’en faudroit pour les bien dire toutes en détail, on n’a guere besoin, ni d’orateurs, ni de Poëtes, dont le propre est d’embellir les sujets qu’ils traitent, & de leur donner cet éclat, qui vient d’un Art, que l’on accuse toûjours d’être un peu flateur, quand même il dit la vérité. Il ne faut à ce Prince, qu’un Historien qui ait la réputation d’être sincère, et qui en racontant naïvement, et sans artifice, des actions qui seront admirées de tous les siècles, se rendra lui-même immortel. C’est, Sire, par cette raison, qu'une simple et fidelle Histoire de Vostre Regne sera, sans contredit, le plus beau Panégyrique qu’on ait jamais fait: & si, dans la condition où je suis, j’osois encore avoire quelque ambition, ce seroit asseûrément celle d’être obligé de travailler sur un sujet si héroïque.” Louis Maimbourg: Histoire de l’hérésie des Iconoclastes et de la translation de l’empire aux françois. Paris 1674, Epitre, s.p. [pp. 2f.]. See also Quantin: Croisades et supercroisades, p. 622. 28 Quantin: Le Catholicisme classique, p. 238. 29 Quantin: Le Catholicisme classique, pp. 235–237. 30 On the question of royal propaganda in the time of Louis XIV, cf. Joseph Klaits: Printed Propaganda under Louis XIV: Absolute Monarchy and Public Opinion. Princeton 1976, pp. 12–34. Under Colbert in particular, science and the arts were activated to stage the king’s magnificence in terms of almost overwhelming grandeur and splendor, cf. Burke: Fabrication, pp. 50–59. 31 Quantin: Croisades et supercroisades, p. 636.

186

Andreea Badea

3. “ANIMANT FORT À SE DISTINGUER PAR LA NOUVEAUTÉ DE SA DOCTRINE” 32 The Histoire du Lutheranisme of 1680 and the Histoire du Calvinisme published one year later were, of course, also part of this series of “Croisades et Supercroisades.” Both books received much more attention throughout Europe than the other Histoires because their judgments of other denominations and Maimbourg’s working methods triggered a reaction on the part of important learned authorities such as Veit Ludwig von Seckendorff and Pierre Bayle. Maimbourg seems to have been aware of the polemical significance of his works, as he introduced the Histoire du Lutheranisme by remarking that the “dernieres Hérésies” were a subject that still aroused displeasure and dissatisfaction among those who were party to the dispute or whose ancestors had been involved in the events. 33 He presents Europe before the Reformation as a place of peace and profound tranquility, in which the upheavals triggered by Calvin and Luther had created the conditions for a multitude of wars and episodes of unrest. Nonetheless, he wrote that it was his duty as a historian to grasp the soul of history by recording the backgrounds and motives of those responsible for the revolution triggered by the Reformation. In his opinion, this would make it possible to tell more than just the usual stories, which he already considered to be sufficiently well known. 34 He then moves on to the great dogmatic framework of his book and explains the Catholic doctrine of grace. Almost in the form of an instruction manual, he describes the role of Jesus Christ, the martyrs, and individual atonement for sin, emphasizing that this system is coherent and correct in his eyes. 35 He then transitions into his interpretation of the falsity of the Lutheran doctrine of grace by expressing understanding for Luther’s criticism of the Roman practice of indulgences. In this context, he elaborates on St. Cyprian’s awareness of the potential for abuse to be committed even with the holiest of things: Saint Cyprian complained quite often about these abuses; sometimes that the martyrs indiscriminately give their letters to all kinds of sinners; sometimes that the bishops granted these indulgences to them too early and too easily; and at times even that the martyrs, and simple priests, had the presumption to grant indulgences although it was the prerogative of the bishops alone to grant. 36

Yet, though anger at every form of abuse had always been just, this “does not give the right to attack the holy thing that is being abused, as they did in a brutal fashion. 32 33 34 35 36

Maimbourg: Histoire du Luthéranisme, p. 15. Maimbourg: Histoire du Luthéranisme, p. 2. Maimbourg: Histoire du Luthéranisme, pp. 2f. Maimbourg: Histoire du Luthéranisme, pp. 4f. “Saint Cyprien s’est plaint assez souvent de ces abus; tantost de ce que les Martyrs donnoient sans discernement leurs lettres à toutes sortes de pécheurs; tantost de ce que les Eveques leur accordoient trop tost, & trop facilement, ces Indulgences; & quelquefois mesme de ce que des Martyrs, & de simples Prestres, avoient eu la présomption de donner l’Indulgence qu’il n’appartenoit qu’aux Evêques d’accorder.” Maimbourg: Histoire du Luthéranisme, p. 6.

Lutheranism as Heresey

187

Now this is precisely what the author of the schism and heresy of which I speak did on the occasion that I am going to describe.” 37 Maimbourg blames Pope Leo X, accused of attempting to enrich his family, for the scandal surrounding the trade in indulgences in the pre-Reformation period, and sees him much more as a secular prince than a pope. According to Maimbourg, the megalomania of the spoiled Medici descendant had led him to place the supervision of indulgences in the hands of the Archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg Albrecht of Brandenburg. While stressing that Albrecht was a thoroughly honorable man, who two years later was rewarded for his merits with the Cardinal’s purple, he nevertheless emphasizes the difficulty of implementing this sale of indulgences. For Maimbourg, the problem was that the Dominican Johannes Tetzel had been entrusted with this task, thus immediately identifying the second culprit in the outbreak of the Reformation after Leo, namely the Order of Preachers. The Dominicans are accused of inflating prices to such an extent that even beggars were afraid that they would not receive their alms because their benefactors had been completely impoverished by the purchase of expensive indulgences. 38 The Jesuit even goes a step further and insists that the complaints about indulgences and the abuses of the Dominicans were already cited during the Council of Trent as the reason for the outbreak of the Reformation. By naming the Council Fathers, he validates his statement, only to relativize it again afterward. After voicing his general suspicion of the Black Friars and allowing his readers to absorb this view, he once again downplays his accusation. Repeatedly, he advances in his descriptions in an almost excessively accusatory manner, only to subsequently retract his assertions as far as possible. Through this method, he on the one hand shapes his readers’ perceptions by bluntly introducing them to assertions that are unverifiable or challenging to maintain in a striking manner. On the other hand, by immediately withdrawing them, he protects himself from his critics, to whom he can reply that he has retracted his previous assertions. Adopting a conciliatory tone, he emphasizes that such an important order as the Dominicans should not be sweepingly condemned simply because some of its German members had acted in a dishonest way, unbeknownst to their superiors. 39 The resulting disorder, however, convinced Johann von Staupitz, vicar general of the Augustinians in the Empire, that action should be taken against Tetzel. Maimbourg praised the Superior General for his wisdom and emphasized his closeness to Elector Frederick of Saxony. At the same time, he left open the question of whether Staupitz had been angry simply because of the indulgences, or whether he was taking a position against the constitution of the Church more generally. Maimbourg’s description of Staupitz shows the extent to which he adhered to the customs of his time by portraying noble dignitaries in mild terms while blaming their agents 37 “[…] ne donne pas droit de s’en prendre, comme ils ont fait brutalement, à la chose sainte dont on abuse. Or c’est là justement ce que l’Auteur du Schisme & de l’Hérésie dont je parle, fit a cette occasion que je vais dire.” Maimbourg: Histoire du Luthéranisme, p. 7. 38 Maimbourg: Histoire du Lutheranisme, pp. 8–18. 39 Maimbourg: Histoire du Lutheranisme, p. 11.

188

Andreea Badea

for any difficulties. Adopting this strategy, the Jesuit divided blame for the Reformation between the pope – always criticized as a collective singular – and the lower ranks of the church hierarchy. According to Maimbourg, however, Staupitz’s anger was motivated by another element; in passing, he introduces the idea that the Dominicans had taken over areas in the Empire that had previously been the province of the Augustinians, and that this too might be an excellent reason to be angry with the Order of Preachers. 40 Maimbourg recounts that Staupitz wanted to do something about the abuse of indulgences and secured the support of one of the most talented professors among his friars. By doing so, Maimbourg again distinguishes between leaders and subalterns; the superior of the order speaking out is presented as justified criticism while the poor implementation of the critique is left to Luther. Thanks to these tools, he succeeds simultaneously in doing justice to his pretense of avoiding controversy, yet without renouncing explicit interdenominational criticism. Occasionally, he even takes the opportunity to write that he wishes to study Lutheranism according to methodologically verifiable parameters, avoiding the low ground of grubby polemics. Immediately afterwards, he proves how serious he is about this concern, yet only by dissociating himself from the most shocking and outdated strategies of insult. As such, he dismisses the Catholic myths that the devil begot Luther in his father’s form. According to Maimbourg, the aim should not be to dishonor and humiliate Luther’s mother with such stories, nor to include the transcendental level and dehumanize Luther in his wickedness. Instead, Maimbourg intends to explain how a single person could become a heresiarch: He [i.e. Luther] was born in Eisleben in the county of Mansfeld in the year 1483, not of an incubus, as some people, in order to make him more odious, have written without any semblance of truth, but as other men are born; and there was never any doubt that since he became a heresiarch, which he could easily have been without the need to substitute his father Hans Luther for a Devil Hans Luther, and to dishonor his mother Margaret Lindeman by such an infamous birth. 41

Even Maimbourg’s harsh critic Veit Ludwig von Seckendorff pays tribute to this effort at de-demonizing and humanizing his target. Yet, he considered this very aspect to be the particular danger of the book: ultimately, it should not be forgotten that the

40 Maimbourg: Histoire du Lutheranisme, p. 12. On Staupitz’s role in the Reformation and Luther’s intellectual proximity to his superior, cf. Volker Leppin: Die fremde Reformation. Luthers mystische Wurzeln. Munich 2016. 41 “Il [Luther] nasquit à Islebe Ville du Comté de Mansfeld l’an mil quatre cens quatre-vingtstrois, non pas d’un Incube, ainsi que quelques-uns, pour le rendre plus odieux, l’ont écrit sans aucune apparence de vérité, mais comme naissent les autres hommes; & l’on n’en a jamais douté, que depuis qu’il devint hérésiarque, ce qu’il a bien pû estre, sans qu’il soit besoin pour cela de substituër un Diable à la place de son père Jean Luder, & de déshonorer sa mère Marguerite Lindeman par une si infame naissance.” Maimbourg: Histoire du Lutheranisme, p. 13.

Lutheranism as Heresey

189

now former Jesuit understood the Reformation and Lutheranism in a thoroughly negative light as heresy. 42 For this reason, he also reverses the Lutheran narrative when he contextualizes the idea that God enlightened Luther and that he acted almost as God’s instrument and mouthpiece. Yet he praises the industriousness, thirst for knowledge, and hard work of the reformer and identifies this as the driving force behind his new doctrine. Maimbourg summarizes Luther’s academic career, not without admiration, and also finds words of praise for his learned persona: He is a man of a lively and subtle mind, naturally eloquent, talkative, and cultivated in his language, infinitely industrious and so assiduous in his study that he sometimes spends whole days on it, without even giving himself the time to take a bite to eat; this earned him a very considerable knowledge of the languages and of the Fathers, to the reading of which, and above all that of Saint Augustine, of which he made very poor use, he was very attached, against the custom of the theologians of his time. 43

Yet even in this thoroughly positive description, we already find the seeds of heresy, namely the intensive engagement with Augustine, with which Luther had already gone against the prevailing opinion of his time. By referring to Augustine and the intensive study of his writings, Maimbourg at the same time makes a connection to Jansenism, which he traces through all his Histoires as the meta-heresy. Luther’s striving for knowledge and commitment to his work were excessively pronounced. The dark power underlying these positive qualities were for Maimbourg devastating not only to Luther’s further career but also to European history as a whole. Although Luther could present his views in a pleasant voice, his arrogance and presumption were nevertheless very marked. They came into play when anyone contradicted him, earning him a reputation as a merciless debater. Maimbourg describes the reformer as a sanguine choleric who disrespected authority, wished to rise above everyone as a teacher, and built his heresies on the ruins of scholasticism. He was: angry, vindictive, imperious, always wanting to be the master, and very keen to stand out for the novelty of his doctrine, which he wanted to establish in his school on the ruins of those of the greatest geniuses, the knowledge of Aristotle, S. Thomas, Scotus, S. Bonaventure, and other scholastics whom he claimed had corrupted the true philosophy, and the solid truth of the Christian theology. This is the true character of Martin Luther, in which it may be said that there was a great mixture of some good and many bad qualities, and that he was much more promiscuous

42 Cf. the otherwise outdated Solveig Strauch: Veit Ludwig von Seckendorff (1626–1692): Reformationsgeschichtsschreibung – Reformation des Lebens – Selbstbestimmung zwischen lutherischer Orthodoxie, Pietismus und Frühaufklärung. Münster 2005, p. 8. 43 “C’estoit un homme d’un esprit vif & subtil, naturellement éloquent, disert, & poli dans sa langue, infiniment laborieux & si assidu à l’étude, qu’il y passoit quelquefois les jours entiers, sans mesme se donner le loisir de prendre un morceau; ce qui lui acquit une assez grande connoissance des Langues & des Peres, à la lecture desquels, & sur tout à celle de Saint Augustin, dont il fit un très-mauvais usage, il s’estoit fort attaché, contre l’ordinaire des Théologiens de son temps.” Maimbourg: Histoire du Luthéranisme, pp. 14f.

190

Andreea Badea in spirit than in morals, and in his life, which was always considered to be fairly regular, while he lived in the cloister before his heresy, which ended up corrupting his mind and heart. 44

In Maimbourg’s eyes, the former Augustinian’s constancy is also why Staupitz commissioned him to write against the Dominicans who had participated in the trade in indulgences for St. Peter’s Basilica. 45 A controversy between religious orders as the trigger for the Reformation – what could be more Catholic or more banal? Yet though Maimbourg suggests that the development of heresy might also have stemmed from Luther’s character flaws since he loved to be the center of attention, the historian still emphasizes Luther’s interest in pastoral care and in protecting believers from dogmatic uncertainty. Finally, this is why Maimbourg assumes that Luther ultimately turned to the Archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg, and why he nailed his theses to the door of the church in Wittenberg. 46 This willingness to expose himself and an unwavering persistence in his opinions are characteristics that can be interpreted both positively and negatively. They are particularly important to Maimbourg because they are what make Luther obstinate and thus deserving of punishment. Persistence in heresy is presented with canonical precision as its most salient characteristic, even to his less educated readers. Accordingly, it is hardly surprising that he makes Luther’s appearance before the diet of Worms in 1521 the pivotal scene illustrating the sin of perseverance in heresy. Here he has Luther say: that he does not hold to the popes, nor to the councils which have often erred, but only to the Word of God, which he believed to have on his side, and which is the only judge that he admits: that is why his conscience is bound by this divine Word: if one wants him to retract himself in conscience, it is necessary to show him, by this same Word of God, that he was mistaken. 47

Maimbourg also clarifies that Luther, with his heresy, belonged to a specific tradition whose protagonists had already been condemned at the Council of Constance.

44 “[Il était] colère, vindicatif, impérieux, voulant toûjours être le maistre, & animant fort à se distinguer par la nouveauté de sa doctrine, qu’il vouloit établir dans son école sur les ruines de celles des plus grands génies, sçavoir d’Aristote, de S. Thomas, de Scot, de S. Bonaventure, & des autres Scholastiques qu’il disoit avoir corrompu la vraye Philosophie, & les solides veritez de la Théologie Chrestienne. Voilà le véritable caractère de Martin Luther, dans lequel on peut dire qu’il y eût un grand mélange de quelques bonnes & de plusieurs mauvaises qualitez, & qu’il fut bien plus débauché encore dans l’esprit que dans les mœurs, & dans sa vie, laquelle passa toûjours pour assez régulière tandis qu’il vescut dans le Cloistre avant son hérésie, qui acheva de luy corrompre l’esprit & le cœur.” Maimbourg: Histoire du Lutheranisme, pp. 15f. 45 Maimbourg: Histoire du Lutheranisme, p. 16. 46 Maimbourg: Histoire du Lutheranisme, p. 17. 47 “[…] qu’il ne s’en tiendroit ni aux Papes, ni aux Conciles qui avoient souvent erré, mail à la seule parole de Dieu, laquelle il croyoit avoir de son costé, & qui estoit l’unique juge qu’il reconnoissoit: c’est pourquoy ques a conscience estant liée par cette divine parole, so l’on vouloir qu’il se pust rétracter en conscience, il falloit luy montrer par cette mesme parole de Dieu, qu’il s’estoit trompé.” Maimbourg: Histoire du Lutheranisme, pp. 53f.

Lutheranism as Heresey

191

The heresies of Wyclif and Hus, however, had perished, and to signal Maimbourg’s strong expectation that the same fate would befall Lutheranism, he had Luther end his address to the diet of Worms with the words of the biblical figure Gamaliel: “If this enterprise comes from men, it cannot last long: and if it comes from God, you will never be able to ruin it.” 48 In some ways, this passage forms a counterpoint to the end of the book, namely the conversion of Christina of Sweden to Catholicism in 1654. With this act on the part of the daughter of the great protector of Lutheranism, Maimbourg sees the fulfillment of Gamaliel’s words: the false religion of Lutheranism ends as it had begun. In the Longue durée of the Histoires, the book on Lutheranism is more a prelude than an independent explanatory reference work; Maimbourg wrote it as an introduction to his own account of Calvinism. Few Lutherans lived in France, and the concerns of Lutheran princes in Europe affected France’s political interests only to a minor extent. As such, this denomination could be marginalized, and the book could conclude almost with a ray of hope for Catholic universalism. For Maimbourg, the much greater danger to the church had only arisen from Lutheranism and only Louis could face such a threat because, ultimately, it was his task to eradicate heresy. 49 At the same time, it becomes clear that the Roy tres Chrestien was the only one in a position to take up the secular sword in defense of the church. His former adversary, the emperor, no longer plays any part as a defender of the true faith in this context, instead vanishing behind the numerous princes of his empire. Moreover, he had not yet found a solution to the heresies, so that their initiators failed entirely by their own hand. By contrast, the French king, in accordance with the medieval idea of the crusade, fought against the disorder caused by the Swiss sects and against the infidels in his own country because only he has a notion of the true church and of the purity of the faith. Maimbourg sees the role of the king’s sacral counterpart here as fulfilled by the theologians of the Sorbonne, who, in his opinion, strengthen the king; by this he also transfers the spiritual sword from the hand of its original bearer, the pope, to another. In doing so, he completely appropriated the Gelasian theory, according to which the pope was initially considered the spiritual protector of Christendom, with the Roman emperor as its secular protector, for France. Maimbourg’s narrative presents France as the only place of true faith, at the same time explaining the need for a radical, militant attack on Calvinism. The latter was to materialize in the repeal of the Edict of Nantes and its traumatic consequences. 4. CONCLUSIONS The criminalization of the Reformation is an integral part of the Gallican struggle against Protestantism. In this context, Maimbourg also understands the existence of 48 “Si cette entreprise vient des hommes, cela ne peut long-temps durer: & si elle vient de Dieu, vous ne la pourrez jamais ruiner.” Maimbourg: Histoire du Lutheranisme, p. 54. 49 Louis Maimbourg: Histoire du Calvinisme. Paris 1682, Epitre s.p. [pp. 3–5].

192

Andreea Badea

heresies as a vital part of the church. Only by combating them can the church continually reassert its truth. In accordance with this logic, Lutheranism can only be understood as another touchstone, but one whose zenith has passed. Maimbourg’s conviction that the unity of the church is the crucial difference between the true, i.e. Catholic or Gallican church and the Protestant sects, is strongly present in both the history of Lutheranism and the history of Calvinism. However, he did not just speak out against other denominations as other interdenominational critics of his time did. Rather, Maimbourg opposes Rome as the central authority of Catholicism, for the Catholicism of which he speaks has its highest dogmatic court in the Sorbonne and is protected and defended by Louis XIV. While this Catholicism drew its strength from the absolute authority of a church supported by the king, which enjoined each individual to abandon private opinions in favor of a higher general truth, the heretics pursued their own individual views, allowing for a multitude of postulates. Yet, their diversity and coexistence represent the fundamental proof for Maimbourg that they can never be true.

LOOKING BACK INTO THE PAST New Understanding of Church History in the Early Modern Period Sascha Salatowsky Abstract: The article examines the question of what effects the schism between the Catholic and Protestant churches had on denominationally oriented church historiography in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. While the Catholics, defending the unity of Scripture and tradition, espoused a rather static model of church history in which progress but no substantial change was possible, Protestants developed a new understanding of church history as a dynamic process that allowed ups and downs. This will be exemplified by the (re)assessment of the Church Fathers in the three major denominations. For this purpose, important historiographies of Catholic and Protestant authors, namely Matthias Flacius, Caesar Baronius, Isaac Casaubon, Johann Gerhard, Georg Calixtus, André Rivet, and Jean Daillé, will be analysed. Zusammenfassung: Der Beitrag geht der Frage nach, welche Auswirkungen der Bruch zwischen der katholischen und protestantischen Kirche auf die konfessionell geprägte Kirchengeschichtsschreibung im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert hatte. Während die Katholiken in der Einheit von Schrift und Tradition die Kirchengeschichte als eher statisch verstanden, in der zwar Fortschritt, aber kein substantieller Wandel möglich war, entwickelten die Protestanten ein neues Verständnis von ihr als einem dynamischen Prozess, der Höhen und Tiefen zuließ. Dies soll exemplarisch an der (Neu-)Bewertung der Kirchenväter in den drei großen Konfessionen gezeigt werden. Hierfür werden wichtige Historiographien katholischer und protestantischer Autoren, nämlich Matthias Flacius, Caesar Baronius, Isaac Casaubon, Johann Gerhard, Georg Calixtus, André Rivet und Jean Daillé, analysiert.

1. INTRODUCTION With the Reformation, a new era 1 began, and, as a result, a new understanding of church history. 2 The schism dividing the one Western Christian church into many denominations – Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists, but also “dissident groups” – led to a division of church history into the time before the Reformation and the time after it. On all sides, 1517 marked a turning point in church history. Two random examples may illustrate this fact. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine S.J., who “became 1

2

Reinhart Koselleck points out that the term “reformation” was used “first as threshold term, as epoch term, then as period term.” Reinhart Koselleck: “Neuzeit: Zur Semantik moderner Bewegungsbegriffe”, in: Vergangene Zukunft. Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten. Frankfurt am Main 92015, pp. 300–348, here: 307. – All translations, unless otherwise noted, are my own. I would like to thank Daniel Gehrt for his corrections and his invaluable comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

194

Sascha Salatowsky

the chief spokesman for Tridentine Catholicism in the last decade of the sixteenth century,” 3 stressed in his Chronologia brevis (1613) that “Martin Luther, German heretic and father of all heretics, began in 1517 to disrupt the church, and continued to do so until 1546, when he miserably died.” 4 The Lutheran theologian and historian Christoph Cellarius, who was one of the first scholars to use the threefold division of Historia antiqua, Historia medii aevi and Historia nova to describe epochs of Western history, 5 emphasized the turning point of 1517 in his Historia nova (1696) in a very similar way: “Especially the reform of the church merits that we start the New History, distinct from the Middle Ages, with the sixteenth century or more suitably with the beginning of the Reformation.” 6 Further examples could easily be found. 7 However, does this turning point indicate a new understanding of church history as a consequence of the Reformation? This question stands at the heart of my essay. In recent decades, many studies on church history in early modern Europe have been published. 8 One of the central questions was and still is in which way a difference in the understanding of church history between Catholics and Protestants can 3

4

5 6 7

8

Quentin D. Stewart: Lutheran Patristic Catholicity: The Vincentian Canon and the Consensus Patrum in Lutheran Orthodoxy. Zurich 2015, p. 129. Stewart calls Bellarmine also the “Nemesis of Lutheran Orthodoxy” (ibid.). On Bellarmine and his impact on post-Tridentine Catholicism, see Stefania Tutino: Empire of Souls: Robert Bellarmin and Christian Commonwealth. Oxford 2010. Robert Bellarmine: Chronologia brevis ab orbe condito usque ad annum Domini M.DC.XIII. Leuven 1613, pars altera, fol. Kkk4v–Lll1r: “Martinus Lutherus Germanus haeresiarcha, & Pater haeresiarcharum anno Domini 1517. perturbare coepit Ecclesiam, & perturbavit usque ad annum 1546. in quo misere obiit.” The labeling of Luther as pater haeresiarcharum is unique. No other “heretic” – neither Simon Magus, “the first of all heretics” (ibid., fol. Zz4v), nor antiTrinitarians such as Paul of Samosata, Arius, and Photinus, and not even John Calvin or Michael Servetus – were called in this way. Yet, all these “heretics” are part of the index haereticorum, which is strictly separated from the “common” chronology of the popes and emperors, who are the true and right rulers of the spiritual and earthly world. With this juxtaposition Bellarmine, following here Augustine, highlighted the difference between the two cities of God and the devil. Cf. Karl Heussi: “Altertum, Mittelalter und Neuzeit in der Kirchengeschichte: Ein Beitrag zum Problem der historischen Periodisierung. Tübingen 1921 (Repr. Darmstadt 1969), pp. 11f.; Koselleck: Neuzeit, pp. 306–308. Cf. Cellarius: Historia nova. Halle 1696, p. 3: “Inprimis ecclesiae reformatio meretur, ut Novam Historiam distinctam ab illa quae Medii Aevi fuit, ex saeculo decimo sexto aut prope illius initia, auspicemur.” See, e.g., the statement of the Reformed theologian Heinrich Alting that the beginning of the Reformation “we will not be able to deduce more correctly from anywhere” than from the year 1517. Quoted by Thomas Klöckner: Heinrich Alting (1583–1644): Lebensbild und Bedeutung für die reformierte Historiografie und Dogmengeschichtsschreibung des 17. Jahrhunderts. Göttingen 2019, p. 208. For an excellent overview, see Dmitri Levitin: “Historiographical Review: From Sacred History to the History of Religion: Paganism, Judaism, and Christianity in European Historiography from Reformation to ʻEnlightenmentʼ”, in: The Historical Journal 55/4 (2012), pp. 1117– 1160, esp. 1142–1157.

Looking Back into the Past

195

be recognised. That there was a difference is beyond doubt. Markus Völkel, for example, stresses that both denominations offered various confessional concepts of (church) history, i.e., a “Catholic continuity and a Protestant discontinuity.” 9 According to the Catholics, church history is from the very beginning a “sacred history” of the one (Western) church, symbolized in the unbroken succession of the Roman bishops, starting with Apostle Peter and ending with the return of the Lord. At all times, there were saints and martyrs who were willing to die for the truth faith, which is represented in the Catholic Church alone. Church History is not the plain chronological history of “earthly” events, but the historia plenior, i.e., the enrichment of profane history with the history of legends, miracles, and holy life as clear signs of the holiness of the Roman world.10 The Catholic church represents the institution that includes the Papacy, bishops, parishes, canon (church) law, and the curia, and it represents the written and oral tradition of God’s economy. Everything one needs for salvation is known and administered by the Catholic church, the guardian of the holy church history. According to the Protestants, church history is, in contrast, from the fourth, fifth or at the latest from the sixth century onwards – there was no consensus here – a history of decay: many deviations arise from the primitive simplicity of the ancient church and the Roman bishop is ultimately recognized as the Antichrist. There is therefore no continuity between the old and the present (Catholic) church but a discontinuity, a “time break” 11 that requires a return to the primordial origins of the church. Of course, the Protestants agreed with the Catholics that the old is better than the new (eo antiquior, eo purior). The apostolic truth is normative, for it embodies the unchanging word of God. And it is also true that God acts in the world to fulfil his prophecy of salvation history, which is the “true” sacred history. 12 But in the eyes of the Protestants, it was precisely the tragedy of Christianity that this history was not immediately realized but broken, and a symbol of this break was the apostate Catholic church. To keep alive the memory of the true church, God repeatedly sends what the Lutheran Matthias Flacius Illyricus referred to as “witnesses to the truth” (testes veritatis). 13 The presence of critics of the papacy church 9

10 11 12 13

Markus Völkel: “Wie man Kirchengeschichte schreiben soll: Struktur und Erzählung als konkurrierende Modelle der Kirchengeschichtsschreibung im konfessionellen Zeitalter”, in: Arndt Brendecke et al. (eds.): Die Autorität der Zeit in der Frühen Neuzeit. Berlin 2007, pp. 455–489, here: 458. Cf. Simon Ditchfield: “What was Sacred History? (Mostly Roman) Catholic Uses of the Christian Past after Trent”, in: Katherine van Liere et al. (eds.): Sacred History: Uses of the Christian Past in the Renaissance World. Oxford 2012, pp. 72–97. Völkel: Wie man Kirchengeschichte schreiben soll, p. 466. Cf. Harald Bollbuck: Wahrheitszeugnis, Gottes Auftrag und Zeitkritik: Die Kirchengeschichte der Magdeburger Zenturien und ihre Arbeitstechniken. Wiesbaden 2014, p. 366. Cf. Matthias Flacius: Catalogus testium veritatis auctorium. Quo Monumenta & Testimonia hactenus desiderata, nec edita, primum producuntur; aut extantia, sed nondum allata, apponuntur; vel vetera & concessa augentur, illustrantur, atque in integrum restituuntur. Basel 1556. On this topic, see Irena Backus: Historical Method and Confessional Identity in the era of the Reformation (1378–1615). Leiden et al. 2003, pp. 343–350; Matthias Pohlig: Zwischen

196

Sascha Salatowsky

is thus continually guaranteed. This Protestant idea corresponds to the concept of a visible and invisible church. According to this concept, the “true” invisible church – represented by the elect – acts within the visible church as the “true” Christian power. In this respect Euan Cameron is right when he says: “Protestant history was always ‘ecclesiastical history,’ the history of the ecclesia, the congregation, the community living its religious life. One rarely if ever finds the term ‘historia sacra’ in the writings of the first generation of reformers.” 14 The Reformers rejected the opinion that anything in human life could be made ‘sacred’, not even history. This different understanding of what church history really is – a historia sacra or a historia ecclesiastica – caused constant tensions between Catholics and Protestants alike. In this essay I would like to demonstrate that the different views on the past of the church were the reason for these tensions in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. I want to confirm the thesis that the Protestants were forced to develop a new understanding of church history, which overcame the old model of a ‘static’ history in favour of a new model of history as an ongoing process. The starting point of my considerations is Peter Meinholdʼs view that the “principle of a legitimation through history“ 15 distinguishes the model of the Protestants from that of the Catholics. This legitimation through history – realised in a historia ecclesiastica – requires the demonstration that the “true” (invisible) church has existed at all times and that history is a dynamic process with ups and downs. In contrast, the Catholic legitimation in history needs the verification that church history was and is, as it were, always the same. Church history became on both sides an indispensable factor in the construction of a confessional self-identity that determines who is to be considered a Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist or so. 16 If this view can be verified, then it seems justified to speak on the one hand of a new under-

Gelehrsamkeit und konfessioneller Identitätsstiftung: Lutherische Kirchen- und Universalgeschichtsschreibung 1546–1617. Tübingen 2007, pp. 301–322; Bollbuck: Wahrheitszeugnis, pp. 80–103. 14 Euan Cameron: “Primitivism, Patristics, and Polemic in Protestant Visions of Early Christianity”, in: Sacred History, pp. 27–51, here: 29. In a similar way Charles H. and Katherine George describe the different church concepts of Catholics and Protestants: “Hence just as Roman Catholicism maintained the all-inclusiveness of the church by conceiving its division into two horizontal strata – a saintly, typically clerical, elite at the top and the mass of the laity at the bottom – so Protestantism, in its major forms, accomplished the same purpose by conceiving this division in terms of vertical sections, as it were: an invisible church of the elect and a visible church which included both the elect and the damned.” Charles H. and Katherine George: The Protestant Mind of English Reformation, 1570–1640. Princeton 1961, p. 315. 15 Peter Meinhold: Geschichte der kirchlichen Historiographie. 2 vols. Freiburg im Breisgau et al. 1967, here: Vol. 1, p. 397. 16 See Bruce Gordon: “The Changing Face of Protestant History and Identity in the Sixteenth Century”, in: Idem (ed.): Protestant History and Identity in Sixteenth-Century Europe. Ashgate 1996, pp. 1–22; Pohlig: Gelehrsamkeit, p. 270. Pohlig describes church history as a “discourse of identity.”

Looking Back into the Past

197

standing of church history in the Protestant camp as a consequence of the Reformations, and on the other hand of a complex process of both ʻtheologizationʼ and confessionalization of church history in the different denominations. Both modifications run parallel, as could be shown by many examples. The Catholics, for instance, argued that the Donation of Constantine was a Roman imperial decree by which the emperor Constantine the Great transferred authority to the pope over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire. The Protestants, in contrast, regarded this decree as a forgery, referring to findings of the Italian humanist and Catholic priest Lorenzo Valla. 17 Another example is the reform of the Julian calendar initiated by Pope Gregory XIII. From a scientific perspective this reform was absolutely necessary but became a confessional bone of contention. 18 Almost all Protestants were convinced that it would be completely unacceptable to follow a pope on such a question. One of the most important examples of this process of confessionalization of church history concerns the function of the Church Fathers in history, which will be the main topic of this essay. It also reveals the new understanding of church history in the Protestant camp as a consequence of this reassessment of the Church Fathers. The Catholics repeatedly asserted a concensus ecclesiae, claiming that all scholars had at all times taught in agreement with each other. This formed the basis for the conclusion that the entire church could not err. Bellarmine, for example, affirmatively quoted the famous Commonitorium of Vincent of Lérins – with its threefold criteria of universality, antiquity, and consent – in order to distinguish Catholic truth from heresy: “Moreover, in the Catholic church itself, all possible care must be taken that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, and by everyone. For this is really and truly Catholic, as the name and reason for the matter explain, to embrace all as a whole.” 19 Bellarmine concluded that the norm by which one determines the Catholic sense of dogma is found in the

17 Cf. Harald Bollbuck: “Kritik, Exegese, Berufung: Matthias Flacius Illyricus und die Praxis der Magdeburger Zenturien”, in: Irene Dingel et al. (eds.): Matthias Flacius Illyricus: Biographische Kontexte, theologische Wirkungen, historische Rezeption. Göttingen 2019, pp. 135–158, here: 141f. 18 Cf. Olaf Pederson: “The Ecclesiastical Calendar and the Life of the Church”, in: George V. Coyne et al. (eds.): Gregorian Reform of the Calendar. Proceedings of the Vatican Conference to commemorate its 400th Anniversary 1582–1982. Rome 1983, pp. 17–74; Edith Koller: “Die Suche nach der richtigen Zeit – Die Auseinandersetzung um die Autorisierung der Gregorianischen Kalenderreform im Alten Reich”, in: Autorität der Zeit, pp. 233–255, here: 247. 19 Vincent of Lérins: Commonitorium II, pp. 5f., in: Patrologia latina (hereafter PL), vol. 50, p. 640: “In ipsa item catholica ecclesia magnopere curandum est ut id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est. Hoc est etenim vere proprieque catholicum quod ipsa vis nominis ratioque declarat, quae omnia fere universaliter comprehendit.” Quoted from the English translation: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm (last accessed February 11, 2022). I will return to this concept in section 2.

198

Sascha Salatowsky

conciliar decrees – the last of which was issued at the Council of Trent in 1563 20 – and the consensus of the Fathers. 21 The reactions of the Protestants were twofold. On the one hand, most of the “orthodox” Lutherans and Calvinists opposed this interpretation of the Vincentian Canon by claiming that the consensus was shattered, as Quentin Stewart has convincingly shown in his study on Lutheran Patristic Catholicity. 22 They argued that the Fathers could and, indeed, did err in matters of faith. Therefore, the so-called consensus patrum cannot become a rule of faith (regula fidei). This reassessment of the quality of the writings of the Fathers led to a devaluation of their dignity and stronger subordination of their teachings to Holy Scripture. On the other hand, other Protestants were convinced that a return to the consensus antiquitatis was the “unique” path that could lead to a reunion of the one Christian church. The Church Fathers represented the “golden” age of Christianity, where true teachings are found in its pristine purity, where concord and harmony reigned and no dissent disturbed the church, and where the battle against all forms of heresy was successful. These Protestants fought vigorously for an irenic theology that would be able to overcome the schism of western Christianity. This may be sufficient to sketch the task of this essay. In the second section, I will identify the premises underlying the relation of the denominations to their understanding of true antiquity. Flacius and the other contributors to the Magdeburg Centuries were without a doubt “pioneers” of a new understanding of church historiography. They demanded that such a work should describe all details of church history – not just the history of the saints and martyrs – in order to unveil the “true” antiquity. With the Magdeburg Centuries, church history became a battlefield of different denominations. This chain reaction will be shown by examining the response of the Italian Cardinal Caesar Baronius to the Centuriators and in turn of the Dutch classical scholar and philologist Isaac Casaubon to Baronius. In the following sections, I want to demonstrate the change in the understanding of the Church Fathers, whose exceptional status among Catholics was qualified by Lutherans and Reformed alike. I will limit myself here to the explanation of different positions within Protestantism. The third section focuses on the German Lutheran camp, juxtaposing the “orthodox” position of Johann Gerhard with the highly controversial position of the Helmstedt theologian Georg Calixtus. 20 Cf. Heinrich Denzinger: Enchiridion symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum. Freiburg im Breisgau 381999, no. 1507 (Decree on the Vulgate Edition of the Bible and the Interpretation of Holy Scripture), p. 498: “Praeterea ad coercenda petulantia ingenia decernit, ut nemo, suae prudentiae innixus, in rebus fidei et morum, ad aedificationem doctrinae christianae pertinentium, sacram Scripturam ad suos sensus contorquens, contra eum sensum, quem tenuit et tenet sancta mater Ecclesia, cuius est iudicare de vero sensu et interpretatione Scripturarum sanctarum, aut etiam contra unanimem consensum Patrum ipsam Scripturam sacram interpretari audeat […].” 21 Robert Bellarmine: Disputationes de controversiis Christianae fidei, adversus huius temporis haereticos, tribus tomis comprehensae. Ingolstadt 1587, here: t. I, l. III, c. VIII, p. 236: “Normam autem sensus Catholici, ibidem aperte ostendit esse, Conciliorum decreta, consensionem Patrum, & similia.” 22 Stewart: Lutheran Patristic Catholicity, p. 138.

Looking Back into the Past

199

The fourth and last section deals with the Reformed camp represented here by the French Huguenots André Rivet and Jean Daillé. Both of them opened the field for the development of a “historical sense” of history. All authors were famous in their time, shaped the discourse beyond their own denominations, and introduced innovative aspects into church historiography that were still being discussed in the Enlightenment. I would like to emphasize that this study does not claim to provide a complete overview of this topic, let alone of this epoch. 2. FLACIUS, BARONIUS, AND CASAUBON: IN SEARCH OF THE TRUE ANTIQUITY In the time before the Reformation, the Catholic church was based on the fundamental principle of the unity of antiquity and the consensus with the Fathers. There was no essential difference in the doctrine between the ancient Christians and the Catholic church. In his famous Summa theologica, Thomas Aquinas, for example, concludes “that as far as the substance of the articles of the faith is concerned, there has been no increase with the passage of time, since whatever later Fathers took on faith was contained in the faith of the earlier Fathers, at least implicitly.” 23 Contrary to the belief of the Cathars and Waldensians that the true Christian faith is not represented by the Roman church and that it is necessary to return to the original form of the poor church, Thomas denied any decline of the Catholic church. According to him, there are only two epochs in the history of salvation, namely the time of the Old Covenant and the time of the New Covenant. It is therefore evident that there “will be no other status succeeding the present status of the New Law. For the status of the New Law succeeded the status of the Old Law in the way that the more perfect succeeds the less perfect.” 24 But who would be foolish enough to claim that the status of the present life could be more perfect than the status of the New Law? All doctrinal progress in the church – Thomas emphasised in the tradition of Vincent 25 – can only be understand as a “development” within the Catholic tradition, 23 Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologica (ST) II 2, q. 1, a. 7: “Sic igitur dicendum est quod, quantum ad substantiam articulorum fidei, non est factum eorum augmentum per temporum successionem: quia quaecumque posteriores crediderunt continebantur in fide praecedentium Patrum, licet implicite.” The English translation is quoted from: https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/ summa -translation/Part%202-2/st2-2-ques01.pdf (last accessed February 11, 2022). For Aquinas’ historiography, cf. Meinhold: Geschichte, vol. 1, pp. 216–224; on his reception of the Church Fathers, see Leo J. Elders: “Thomas Aquinas and the Fathers of the Church”, in: Irena Backus (ed.): The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists. 2 vols. Brill 1997, here: vol. 1, pp. 337–366. 24 Thomas Aquinas: ST I 2, q. 106, a. 4: “Et sic huic statui novae legis nullus alius status succedet. Successit enim status novae legis statui veteris legis tanquam perfectior imperfectiori.” The English translation is quoted from: https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/summa-translation/ Part% 201-2/st1-2-ques106.pdf (last accessed February 11, 2022). 25 Cf. Vincent of Lérins: Commonitorium I 26, in: PL 50, pp. 667f.: “Sed forsitan dicit aliquis: Nullusne ergo in Ecclesia Christi profectus habebitur Religionis? Habeatur plane, et maximus.

200

Sascha Salatowsky

never as a change or even as a transformation of it. What can be achieved is a deeper understanding of the doctrines of the Bible and the Evangelists, which is already present in the beginnings, even if in a still undeveloped form, so that certain times in the history of salvation can be compared to the childhood and youth of man. Progress does not mean to know more than the past but to describe the original knowledge more precisely. According to Thomas, church history has a clearly defined straight-line structure: It is not a dynamic process with an “open” future. The beginning of the Reformation did not change much in the Catholic understanding of church history in general. As noted above, the Lutherans and Calvinists alike were defined, similar to the Waldensians, as heretics who stood outside the Catholic church and were therefore not part of the sacred, i.e., biblical history. However, with the publication of the Magdeburg Centuries, first printed between 1559 and 1574 in eleven volumes in Basel covering the history of the church from the origins until the end of the thirteenth century, the situation changed significantly. 26 Matthias Flacius Illyricus, one of Philipp Melanchthonʼs former students, but now a staunch “Gnesio-Lutheran”, initiated with some colleagues, among them Johann Wigand, the “first comprehensive Protestant presentation of church history.” 27 This momentous project aimed to prove that the historiography of the Catholic church is totally inadequate and flawed. 28 The full title makes explicitly clear that the Centuriators wanted to describe the “whole idea” of the church of Christ. 29

26

27 28

29

[…] Siquidem ad profectum pertinet ut in semetipsum unaquaeque res amplificetur; ad permutationem vero, ut aliquid ex alio in aliud transvertatur. Crescat igitur oportet et multum vehementerque proficiat tam singulorum quam omnium, tam unius hominis quam totius Ecclesiae, aetatum ac seculorum gradibus, intelligentia, scientia, sapientia, sed in suo duntaxat genere, in eodem scilicet dogmate, eodem sensu, eademque scientia.” According to Vincent, growth and progress require identity. Cf. Ecclesiastica historia integram ecclesiae Christi ideam, quantum ad locum, propagationem, persecutionem, tranquillitatem, doctrinam, haereses, ceremonias, gubernationem, schismata, synodos, personas, miracula, martyria, religiones extra ecclesiam, & statum imperij politicum attinet, secundum singulas centurias, perspicuo ordine complectens singulari diligentia & fide ex vetustissimis & optimis historicis, patribus, & aliis scriptoribus congesta per aliquot studiosos & pios viros in urbe Magdeburgica. 11 vols. Basel 1559–1574. I use the first volume of the Basel edition from 1564. On the Magdeburg Centuries, see Heinz Scheible: Die Entstehung der Magdeburger Zenturien: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der historiographischen Methode. Gütersloh 1966; Bollbuck: Wahrheitszeugnis, pp. 105–277. Meinhold: Geschichte, vol. 1, p. 276. Another hidden opponent was Melanchthon, who was aware that the Magdeburg Centuries were an attack on his work Carionʼs Chronicle, first published in 1532. Cf. Pohlig: Gelehrsamkeit, pp. 381–384; Mark A. Lotito: The Reformation of Historical Thought. Leiden et al. 2019, pp. 242–245. See the English translation of the title: An Ecclesiastical History, embracing the whole idea of the Church of Christ, pertaining to as much as the Place, Propagation, Persecution, Tranquillity, Doctrine, Heresies, Ceremonies, Government, Schisms, Synods, People, Miracles, Martyrs, Rites outside of the Church, and the political situation of the empire, [sorted] in clearly visible order by single centuries: having been compiled with remarkable diligence and faith from the

Looking Back into the Past

201

In the preface to the first volume, the Centuriators criticised the old and more recent church historians from Eusebius of Caesarea to Marcus Antonius Coccius Sabellicus for not giving an appropriate description of the whole church history. 30 Previous authors did not say anything about the “form of the doctrine,” which is, however, the “core of the true Church.” 31 They did not even mention the “core doctrines” of Christianity, such as the remission of sins or the imputation of justice through faith in Christ. One learns nothing about the places and expansions of the church, the times of persecution and tranquility, about heresies, the meaning and change of church ceremonies, about governance, synods, persons, miracles, and so on. The church history of the Centuriators, divided into single centuries forming an annalistic chronological framework, 32 contains all these things. “In summa: Our church history resembles a cornucopia of all church affairs prepared with love and care. Whoever wants to know something in any area of Christian faith and church affairs can draw from this source.” 33 The Centuriators were convinced that they were publishing for the first time a Christian church history worthy of the name at all. With this Lutheran project the struggle for a “true” church history in the early modern era had begun. The relationship of the Centuriators to the Church Fathers was determined by how far the latter had strayed away from the origins of the church. As a guiding rule, they quoted Tertullianʼs famous sentence: “Whatever is first is also the truest.” 34 In practice, this meant that the Church Fathers of the first centuries were held in higher esteem than the later ones. But this esteem had its limits: “The antiquitates does not have a value in itself in the eyes of the Centuriators,” 35 as Enrico Norelli rightly points out. Antiquity is not good and true in and of itself. The first and next following centuries 36 of the church are good and true only because they contain the

30 31 32 33

34 35 36

most ancient and best historians, patriarchs, and other writers: By some dedicated and pious men in the city of Magdeburg. Cf. Ecclesiastica historia, vol. 1, praef., fol. a4v–a5r. About the fundamental role of doctrine for the Lutheran portrayal of history, see Robert Kolb: For All the Saints: Changing Perceptions of Martyrdom and Sainthood in the Lutheran Reformation. Macon GA 1987, p. 97; Gordon: The Changing Face, pp. 14f. Cf. Völkel: Wie man Kirchengeschichte schreiben soll, pp. 465–470. Ecclesiastica historia, vol. 1, praef., fol. b1r: “In summa, est veluti quoddam copiae cornu omnium Ecclesiasticorum materiarum & negociorum, maxima diligentia & solertia comparatum. In quacunque igitur religionis Ecclesiasticarumque rerum parte quis aliquid scire volet, inde haurire poterit.” Tertullian: Adversus Praxean 2,2: “Haereses iam hinc praeiudicatum sit id esse, verum quodcunque primum, id esse adulterum quodcunque posterius.” Quoted in: Ecclesiastica historia, vol. 1, praef., fol. a6v. Enrico Norelli: “The Authority attributed to the Early Church in the Centuries of Magdeburg and in the Ecclesiastical Annals of Caesar Baronius”, in: Reception of the Church Fathers, vol. 2, pp. 745–775, here: 754. In his Catalogus testium veritatis (Basel 1556), Flacius had already noticed that the “seeds of error” were sown in the church not earlier than the third century, but that the abuses became particularly extensive and detrimental first after 600: “Post sub trecentesimum circiter Domini annum, coeperunt quidem paulatim errorum & abusum quorundam, qui iam in Papatu grassantur,

202

Sascha Salatowsky

Apostolic doctrine in its integrity and purity. The Centuriators reproved the “bad” opinions of antiquity, where the connection between “truth” and “doctrine” was lost. Of particular significance for the Centuriators was the “right” foundation of doctrine, its compliancy with the principle of the sola scriptura. In this perspective, to quote Norelli again, “the veneration of Antiquity which is considered important, and which certainly constitutes a humanist feature in the Centuries, could not go beyond a simple honour, and does not suppose any normative value attributed to Antiquity.” 37 As soon as church history began to play a prominent role in Lutheran historiography, it was reduced to its function as a witness to the original and normative rule of the Holy Scriptures, representing the Word of God. The Magdeburg Centuries were perceived by the Catholic church as a provocation, and soon answered by the Annales ecclesiastici of Caesar Baronius, an ecclesiastical historian of the Oratorian order. 38 This work was first published in twelve volumes between 1588 and 1607 in Rome. 39 Without referring to the Centuriators expressly, Baronius accused in the preface of the first volume some recentiores of spreading lies about the “true” Christian, i.e., Catholic church. Contrary to their statement that they would only collect the facts of antiquity, they did nothing else than accumulate lies. 40 His emphasis on the contrast between truth and lie, between the true believer of Jesus Christi and the Antichrist leaves no doubt that Baronius saw the Catholic church on the right path to salvation. He confirmed Aquinas’ position that the church of Rome had not undergone any significant changes or interruptions between the earliest centuries and contemporary times, but it had remained “always the same” (semper eadem) since its Apostolic origins. 41 According

37 38 39 40

41

semina in Ecclesia spargi: non tamen ea tanta ac tam perniciosa fuere usque ad sexcentesimum ferme Domini annum, ut non nostrae potius ea religio, quam Papisticae consenserit, eiusque formam retulerit.” Matthias Flacius: Catalogus testium veritatis: qui ante nostram aetatem Pontifici Romano, eiusque erroribus reclamarunt. Strasbourg 1562, praef., fol. a5r. Norelli: Authority, p. 755. For the life and work of Baronius, see Cyriac K. Pullapilly: Caesar Baronius: Counter-Reformation Historian. London 1975; Hubert Jedin: Kardinal Caesar Baronius: Der Anfang der katholischen Kirchengeschichtsschreibung im 16. Jahrhundert. Münster 1978. Caesar Baronius: Annales Ecclesiastici tomus primus-duodecimus: Rom 1588–1607. With further editions in the seventeenth century inter alia in Antwerp, Cologne, Paris, and Rome. Cf. Baronius: Annales Ecclesiastici I, praef., p. 1: “Fuere namque e recentioribus nonnulli, qui antiquorum res gestae se collecturos professi, nihil aliud conati sunt, nisi ut mendacia coarcervantes, aditum hunc nobis apertum obstruerent, & patentem viam regiam impedirent […].” For the reception of this work in Germany see Stefan Benz: Zwischen Tradition und Kritik: Katholische Geschichtsschreibung im barocken Heiligen Römischen Reich. Husum 2003, pp. 38–48; Markus Völkel: Caesar Baronius in Deutschland im 17. Jahrhundert”, in: Massimo Firpo (ed.): Nunc alia tempora, alii mores: Storici e storia in età postridentina. Florence 2005, pp. 517–543. Cf. Baronius: Annales Ecclesiastici, vol. I, praef., p. 5: “Ad haec Catholicae Ecclesiae visibilem monarchiam a Christo Domino institutam, super Petrum fundatam, ac per eos legitimos, verosque successores, Romanos nimirum Pontifices, inviolate conservatam, religiose custoditam, neque umquam interruptam, vel intermissam, sed perpetuo continuatam,

Looking Back into the Past

203

to this “narrative”, 42 there was no decline of doctrines, rites, and ceremonies in the Catholic church. Against the innovators of the time, Baronius and other Catholics insisted that the antiquity of the traditions and the power of the Catholic church continued to exist. 43 There is, therefore, no need or justification for differentiating between the first three or five centuries and the later centuries constituting an alleged “decay processes” in the church. Baronius described in sharp contrast to the Magdeburg Centuries a history of Christianity free from all forms of defects, fractions, and contradictions. However, leaving aside all dogmatic differences and polemics, an interesting similarity between Catholics and Protestants can be observed in the understanding and purpose of church history: On both sides, church history in its established version has a ‘static’ structure, though for different reasons. According to Baronius, church history is an integral part of sacred history administrated by the institution of the Church of Rome. “From the first volume of the Annales,” as Guiseppe Antonio Guazelli puts it, “the history of the true Church was presented as a history of true doctrine, defended by the Catholics […] against the heretics.” 44 The Catholics did not doubt that there was, is, and will be no change in church, history, and dogma, no difference between the names “Catholicus,” “Romanus,” and “Christianus”. The Centuriators saw it differently: Church history demonstrates that at all times the church in which God operates has existed through His incomprehensible goodness and omnipotence. 45 Furthermore, church history demonstrates at all times the congruency between each individual article of faith. From these points of view, a historical development was neither possible nor intended in the church histories of Catholics and Lutherans. History was in the end a divine, not a human work. Church history serves only as a preservation or, at best, restoration of the old. Every innovation was therefore a taboo. The purpose of church history, too, was described in the Magdeburg Centuries and the Annales ecclesiastici in a very similar way: It was the task of affirming the identity of one’s own denomination and rejecting any criticism as falsification of the true history of the Christian church. 46

42 43 44

45 46

semperque huius mystici corporis Christi, quod est Ecclesia, unum caput visibile, cui pareant membra cetera, esse cognitum & observatum per singula tempora demonstrabimus.” Guiseppe Antonio Guazelli: “Cesare Baronio and the Roman Catholic Vision of the Early Church”, in: Sacred History, pp. 52–71, here: 61. Cf. Baronius: Annales Ecclesiastici, vol. I, epis. ded. (to Pope Sixtus V.), fol. *2v: “[…] praesertim contra novatores nostri temporis, pro sacrarum Traditionum antiquitate, Ac. S. Romanae Catholicae Ecclesiae potestate.” Guazelli: Cesare Baronio, p. 61. See also the conclusion of Völkel, who describes the main features of Baroniusʼ programme: “Das vierte Prinzip besteht in der Erkenntnis, dass die Kirche die menschliche Zeit erfüllt, dass es aber eine Zeit ohne wirkliche Veränderung und Entwicklung ist. Die Annales kennen so gut wie keine theologische Lehrentwicklung: Alles ist Anfang und Anfang ist immer.” Völkel: Caesar Baronius, pp. 520f. Cf. Ecclesiastica historia, vol. I, praef., fol. a6r: “Est fidei articulus, credere Ecclesiam sanctam catholicam: docet igitur historia eiusmodi Ecclesiastica, quod omnibus aetatibus mirabili Dei clementia & potentia […].” See Backus: Historical method, pp. 358–370; 375–382; Pohlig: Gelehrsamkeit.

204

Sascha Salatowsky

That polemics and dogmatics of the time influenced the historiography of scholars and philologists can be demonstrated by the French humanist and Protestant scholar Isaac Casaubon. 47 His main target in the work De rebus sacris & ecclesiasticis exercitationes XVI (1614) 48 was precisely Baronius’s Annales ecclesiastici and his view of church history as “semper eadem.” 49 Casaubon believed that the high esteem of the Church Fathers had to be reserved for those of the first three centuries, the time of the church’s childhood and innocence. 50 He was convinced that ancientness was and still is an essential feature of the heavenly truth. “Truth” assumes therefore a historical meaning and has to be reconstructed by historians. According to Casaubon, the only norm of faith is the phrase of the Apostle Judas: “that which has always been handed down” (quae semel fuit tradita). 51 In his preface to King James of England, Casaubon described almost the whole church history as a history of decay, commencing shortly after the rise of Christianity and caused by the “love of novelty” (amor novitatis) afflicting both Arians and Catholics. Casaubon articulated a simple criterion for discriminating between “true” and “false” Christians: “They are certainly heretics, if they are innovators.”52 With this view, Casaubon confirmed in a way the Centuriators’ and Baronius’s “static” understanding of church history. History is nothing that has to be shaped actively by people. Consequently, historiography is characterized by a gaze toward

47 Casaubon was born of a Huguenot family during the Wars of Religion. During his life in France, he remained true to this faith, although Catholics tried to convert him. Later in his life, he was convinced that the Anglican church came closest to the consensus of antiquity. As Anthony Grafton puts it, Casaubon “searched for a brand of Protestantism more faithful than Calvinʼs to tradition.” Anthony Grafton: “Protestant versus Prophet: Isaac Casaubon on Hermes Trismegistus”, in: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 46 (1983), pp. 78–93, here: 79; Reprint in Anthony Grafton: Defenders of the Text: The Tradition of Scholarship in an Age of Science, 1450–1800. Cambridge MA et al. 1994, pp. 145–161, here: 147. The most comprehensive study of Casaubonʼs biography is still Mark Pattison: Isaac Casaubon, 1559– 1614. London 1875. For the complexity of Casaubonʼs theological position, with some political dimensions, see Nicholas Hardy: Critisicm and Confession: The Bible in the Seventeenth Century Republic of Letters. Oxford 2017, esp. pp. 79–100. On Casaubonʼs Hebraism, see Anthony Grafton, Joanna Weinberg: “I have always loved the Holy Tongue.” Isaac Casaubon, the Jews, and a Forgotten Chapter in Renaissance Scholarship. Cambridge MA et al. 2011. 48 Cf. Isaac Casaubon: De rebus sacris & ecclesiasticis excercitationes XVI. Ad Cardinal. Baronij Prolegomena in Annales. Frankfurt am Main 21615. The first edition was printed in London. For an excellent description of the genesis and contents of the Excercitationes, see Hardy: Critisicm, pp. 100–151. 49 On this conflict, see also Pattison: Casaubon, pp. 362–383; Grafton, Weinberg: Casaubon, pp. 164–230. It was in this context that Casaubon demonstrated the forgery of the corpus Hermeticum. Cf. Grafton: Protestant versus Prophet. 50 Cf. Casaubon: Exercitationes, prol., fol. e3r: “Tribus primis seculis, quae Ecclesiae infantia, & tempus innocentiae dici possunt, Christiani homines in praxi verae pietatis, magis quam ipsius scientiae Theoria, fuerunt occupati.” 51 Casaubon: De rebus sacris, praef., fol. c1v: “Volumus scire, quae sit vera fides? Ea est auctore Jua Apostolo Quae semel fuit tradita.” Emphasis in original. 52 Cf. Casaubon: De rebus sacris, praef., fol. c1v: “Sunt sane haeretici, si novatores.”

Looking Back into the Past

205

the “golden” age of early Christianity. However, the enemies of the “true” doctrine must be actively fought. Casaubon accused the new Arians (i.e., Socinians) to contend with the Reformation instead of engaging against the Roman pope. 53 He called the Racovian Catechism, the Socinian confession, a “satanic book” and its authors a “spawn of the devil.” The other foe, the Roman pope, turned the evangelical light into darkness, the simplicity of true piety into superstition, Christian liberty into the worst servitude, and even the whole legitimacy of the church was subjected to the pope. 54 According to Casaubon, the struggle against these two enemies of the true Christian religion explains the historical necessity of the Reformation aimed at restoring “true” antiquity. The early phase of the Reformation, Casaubon stated, was easy to realise because the theology of its adversaries abounded in false doctrines, unheard of in the ancient church (prisca ecclesia). He was convinced that a single argument was enough to unveil the falsity of any opposing position: “It had not been that way in the beginning.” 55 In this context, Casaubon praises the Magdeburg Centuries, composed by erudite scholars, as useful and good for the church of these times. Unfortunately, the old foe, the Catholic church, has already responded with Baroniusʼ much grander project. Casaubon was fair enough to appreciate Baroniusʼ erudition and diligence to compose such a universal history of the church. However, he criticised Baronius strongly for his contempt of (historical) truth. According to Casaubon, the history, which had been a testimony of truth among the pagans, became a testimony of falsehood with Baronius. Casaubon accuses Baronius of falsifying church history, inventing stories and constantly proclaiming anachronisms – all for the sake of disavowing the “true” antiquity, representing the “true” doctrines of early Christianity. 56 The French scholar unfolded here his specific model of history: The earlier, the truer; and the earliest is there from the beginning. Everything else is a human invention that falsifies history. Casaubon was therefore very hesitant to historicize history and doctrines. It was his aim to demonstrate the consensus of antiquity. He did not maintain that the early church of the Fathers was without controversies, but rather he argued that they did not affect the articles relevant to salvation. Nevertheless, this model did not go without criticism. Casaubonʼs friend, the Dutch philosopher and scholar Daniel Heinsius, offered a penetrating critique of this ahistorical position, as Nicholas Hardy shows in his brilliant study: According to Heinsius, “Casaubon had only cited patristic texts that dealt ‘intentionally’ (de industria) with the relationship between original doctrines and current ones. As a result, he had failed to acknowledge that the writings of the Fathers abundantly bore 53 Cf. Casaubon: De rebus sacris, praef., fol. b4v: “[…] quae, obsecro, haec iniquitas est, reformationi ex iis sectis invidiam commovere, quas ut radicitus extirparent, et auctores et assertores reformationis tantum gravissimorum laborum sustinuerunt?” 54 Cf. Casaubon: De rebus sacris, praef., fol. a4v. 55 Cf. Casaubon: De rebus sacris, praef., fol. c4r: “[…] initio reformationis facile erat, vel unico illo argumento, Non ita fuit a principio […].” 56 Cf. Casaubon: De rebus sacris, praef., fol. c4v–d1r.

206

Sascha Salatowsky

witness to doctrinal change over time, regardless of their own explicit statements on the matter.” 57 At this point the “modern” idea that history is more than the reconstruction of the past becomes visible: It is the way in which historians see the past from different perspectives, depending on their knowledge – a changing factor in history – and on their specific intentions and confessional “imprints.” Consequently, history would become a more vivid and dynamic process in the future. This innovative approach pursued by most of the succeeding Protestant church historians will be shown in the next two sections. 3. GERHARD AND CALIXTUS: LIMITING THE AUTHORITY OF THE PAST The task of differentiating accurately between the “true” antiquity of early Christianity and the decline of the church in the course of Roman papacy, directed the attention of all confessions to the Church Fathers. 58 The first centuries of Christianity were perceived as the “golden” age of the church because the Fathers “were the principal witnesses to the beliefs, institution, and piety of the early church.” 59 They were closest to the Apostles and to the original message of Jesus Christ. They embodied – that was the firm belief of almost all theologians, historians, and humanists of this time – personal piety, pastoral excellence, and scholarly integrity. Patristic learning and knowledge of church history therefore became an essential part of scholarship. Many critical editions of the Fathers in Greek or Latin were printed, several works were translated into the vernacular, numerous commentaries were published. Although Johann Gerhard, professor in Jena and one of the most prominent Lutheran theologians of the seventeenth century, did not coin the new term “patrologia” – it was probably used for the first time in print by the German engraver Raphael Custos 60 –, it was his influential work of the same name – published posthumously in 1653 by his son Johann Ernst Gerhard – that illustrates the 57 Hardy: Criticism, p. 91. 58 With regard to the present subject, see especially the articles of Ralph Keen (on the CounterReformation), Irena Backus (on the Calvinists), Dominique Bertrand (on the Jesuits), and JeanLouis Quantin (on the Roman Catholics) in the second volume of Reception of the Church Fathers (pp. 701–774, 839–865, 951–1008). It is astonishing that this volume does not contain an article about the reception of the Church Fathers in seventeenth-century Lutheran theology. However, see the valuable study of Stewart: Lutheran Patristic Catholicity. 59 John Spurr: “ʻA special kindness for dead bishopsʼ: The Church, History, and Testimony in Seventeenth-Century Protestantismʼ”, in: Huntington Library Quarterly 68, 1–2 (2005), pp. 313–334, here: 319. 60 Cf. Raphael Custos: Πατρολογια, id est, descriptio S. patrum Graecorum, et Latinorum, qui in Augustana Bibliotheca visuntur. Augsburg 1624. However, the idea of a patrology was much older, as Gustav Adolf Benrath stresses: “Unter den deutschen Reformierten war [Abraham] Scultetus der erste, der eine Patrologie geschrieben hat.” Benrath: Kirchengeschichtsschreibung, p. 23. See Abraham Scultetus: Medullae theologiae patrum pars prima: In qua theologia clarissimorum

Looking Back into the Past

207

enormous role of the Church Fathers in forming an appropriate understanding of Christian church history and for the development of its doctrines. 61 However, patristics formed no less a fundamental bone of contention between the different denominations than the issue of antiquity itself. The dispute about the concept of the consensus antiquitatis – formulated and represented anew by Georg Calixtus, professor of theology in Helmstedt, in order to find an “irenic” balance between Catholics and Protestants alike – can serve as an excellent example for this kind of argument. In his Confessio catholica (1634–1637), a compendious four-volume work, Gerhard gave a comprehensive answer to the Catholic question: “Where was the Lutheran church before Luther?” Gerhard referred not only to the Waldensians but also to many other “confessors of the heavenly truth” 62 to make clear that God never exists without church, that church never exists without truth, and that truth never exists without confessors. The “true” church was, however, hidden for long times beneath the corrupted church of the Roman papacy with its false doctrines and ceremonies and with its false interpretation of the Bible. A reformation was therefore necessary, and it was Martin Luther who initiated it. According to Gerhard, Luther did the work of the Reformation not as an inventor of a new doctrine but as liberator of the old faith. Luther was not an initiator of a new church but a purifier of the old veteris ecclesiae doctorum, qui ante Nicaenum Concilium floruerunt, methodo analytica & synthetica expressa, & a Roberti Bellarmini corruptelis vindicata est. 4 vols. [s.l. = Amberg and Neustadt an der Haardt] 1598–1613. Backus points out that Scultetusʼ “intention was simply to retrieve for the Protestant Church those representatives of the golden era of patristic theology whose writings seemed to serve as a support for the most characteristic points of Roman Catholic doctrine […] and also to show that the Protestant Church was as orthodox as the early Church at its best […].” Irena Backus: “The Fathers and Calvinist Orthodoxy: Patristic Scholarship: The Bible and the Fathers according to Abraham Scultetus (1566–1624) and André Rivet (1571/73–1651): The case of Basil of Casarea”, in: Reception of the Church Fathers, vol. 2, pp. 839–865, here: 843. For a more detailed description of this work, see ibid., pp. 842–855; Benrath: Kirchengeschichtsschreibung, pp. 21–27. 61 Cf. Johann Gerhard: Patrologia, sive de primitivae ecclesiae Christianae doctorum vita ac lucubrationibus opusculum posthumum. Jena 1653 (31673). For a second example of this Lutheran tradition, see Johann Gottfried Olearius: Abacus patrologicus, sive primitivae & succedaneae, usque ad Augustae Reformationis a theandro Luthero peractae periodum, ecclesiae Christianae patrum atque doctorum […] alphabetica enumeratio. Jena 1673. Meinhold states: “Auch das Werk von Olearius ist ein Beweis dafür, dass gerade die Hochschätzung der Antiquität und das Bestreben des Nachweises einer Identität der Lehren der evangelischen Kirchen mit den Lehren der Alten Kirche zu einer intensiven Beschäftigung mit den Vätern geführt hat.” Meinhold: Geschichte, vol. 1, p. 374. 62 Johann Gerhard: Confessionis Catholicae, in qua doctrina Catholica et Evangelica, quam ecclesiae Augustanae confessioni addictae profitentur, ex Romano-Catholicorum Scriptorum suffragiis confirmatur […] liber I. Jena 1634 (21661), praef., fol. b4v: “Sed praeter Waldenses etiam alii complures veritatis coelestis confessores produci possunt […].” Bengt Hägglund stressed that the aim of this work “was clearly a fruitful dialogue instead of an unilateral polemic.“ Bengt Hägglund: “Polemics and Dialogue in John Gerhardʼs Confessio catholica”, in: Lutheran Quarterly 14 (2000), pp. 159–172, here: 161. The controversial and confessional spirit of this age was, however, not amenable to Gerhardʼs efforts.

208

Sascha Salatowsky

one. He separated the precious from the inferior, the divine from the human, Christian from anti-Christian things, things that were mixed-up in the Catholic church. Gerhardʼs goal of demonstrating the Lutheran faith as the true confessio catholica can be summed up in the following sentence: Luther “did not separate himself from the Catholic church, which was preserved in the midst of the papacy, nor from the Catholic faith, but he purified church and faith from the corruptions, errors, and superstitions that had been introduced into them or had been added.” 63 The Lutheran church, therefore, corresponds with the doctrines of the Apostles and the old church, including the Church Fathers. According to Stewart, Gerhard’s “rich use of patristic citations was driven by the desire to demonstrate the continuity of Lutheran dogma with ‘witnesses’ from the ancient church.” 64 In the preface of Gerhardʼs Patrologia, his son Johann Ernst Gerhard rejected the accusation of the Catholics that the Lutherans dismissed the writings of the Fathers. On the contrary, they willingly admitted that their writings are useful for the knowledge of the history of the church and the ancient heresies, as well as for a better understanding of Scripture. However, what the Lutherans rejected is that the writings of the Fathers be upheld as regula fidei and as the single or major norm for the interpretation of the Bible. 65 Johann Ernst Gerhard defended and confirmed here the classical Lutheran position, also of his father, that only the Bible is entitled to this status. This was exactly the point Johann Gerhard wanted to emphasise in his Methodus studii theologici of 1620. There are two main rules for reading the Fathers: First, “the writings of the Fathers are not the norm of truth in the church.” Second, “the writings of the Fathers should not to be eliminated from the church.” 66 Against the opinion of the Catholics, who had exaggerated the authority of the Fathers, Gerhard argued here that they do indeed possess some authority, but it is not divine. They were “not divinities, but very bright lights.” 67

63 Cf. Gerhard: Confessio catholica, vol. I, lib. I, pars I, c. IV, fol. 94a: “[…] proinde non discessit [sc. Luther] ab Ecclesia Catholica in medio Papatu conservata, nec a fide Catholica, sed Ecclesiam & fidem a corruptelis, erroribus ac superstitionibus in eam invectis & superadditis repurgavit.” 64 Stewart: Lutheran Patristic Catholicity, p. 135. 65 Cf. Gerhard: Patrologia, ded. [written by Johann Ernst Gerhard], fol. a2v. 66 Cf. Johann Gerhard: Methodus studii theologici, publicis praelectionibus in Academia Jenensi anno 1617. exposita. Jena 1620, s. V, c. III, p. 244: “Membrum I. Patrum scripta non sunt norma veritatis in Ecclesia.” p. 255: “Membrum II. Patrum scripta non sunt ex Ecclesia eliminanda.” For an interpretation of this work, see Benjamin T.G. Mayes: “Lumina, non Numina: Patristic Authority According to Lutheran Arch-Theologian Johann Gerhard”, in: Jordan J. Ballor et al. (eds.): Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a Theological Tradition. Leiden et al. 2013, pp. 457– 470. 67 Gerhard: Methodus, s. V, c. III, p. 256: “Non ideo nulla debetur Patrum scripta autoritas, si divina eis negetur: non sunt fidei judices, testes tamen atque indices: non sunt Numina, sed praeclare tamen lumina […].”

Looking Back into the Past

209

Johann Gerhard formulated here more precisely than Martin Chemnitz or Aegidius Hunnius 68 before him that Catholicity does not automatically mean a general consensus in all doctrinal questions and interpretive difficulties of the Scripture but a “limited consensus” 69 that depends on the question where the true Catholic religion really is. In the chapter De Patribus of his Confessio catholica, Gerhard confirmed his thesis: “The writings of the Fathers are not a rule of faith, but are to be judged by scripture, and whatever agrees with Scripture is to be accepted just as whatever disagrees with it can and must be rejected. Nevertheless, the fathers ought to be granted their due honour.” 70 Gerhard was looking here for a balance between a total rejection of the writings of the Church Fathers and their authority in the Catholic church. He stressed that the Lutherans gratefully acknowledge them as salutary instruments by which God taught and continues to teach his church. However, the dicta Patrum are not to be regarded equally with those of the Holy Scriptures. The Fathers as “witnesses” are “informers” of the heavenly truth but not the absolute and authentic “judges” of it. Especially in the case of the Christian mysteries one has to admit that the testimony of the Fathers is important, but it remains a human testimony. 71 This is a very remarkable relativization of the Church Fathers, as Stewart notes: “Although Gerhard acknowledges a general consensus of the Fathers and agrees that the church of the first five hundred years was the true church despite the beginning of decay in the same period, the threefold criteria of the Vincentian Canon were shattered.” 72 The result is clear: While the Dominican Melchior Cano stressed in his Loci theologici, published for the first time posthumously in 1563, that “the doctrine of Holy Fathers and the tradition of the church” 73 are so closely linked together that they cannot be divided, Gerhard diligently proved that the writings of the Fathers are not without err. On the contrary: The Fathers have “often”

68 For the position of Chemnitz and Hunnius, see Stewart: Lutheran Patristic Catholicity, pp. 55– 124, 131–134. 69 Stewart: Lutheran Patristic Catholicity, p. 134. 70 Gerhard: Confessio catholica, l. I, p. II, c. XIII, fol. 549v: “Patrum scripta non sunt fidei regula, sed de illis ex Scriptura judicandum, & quicquid cum illa congruit, acceptandum, quod vero ab ea dissidet, salva, quae Patribus debetur, reverentia, repudiari potest ac debet.” Cf. Stewart: Lutheran Patristic Catholicity, p. 138. 71 Cf. Gerhard: Confessio catholica, l. I, p. II, c. XIII, fol. 550v. 72 Stewart: Lutheran Patristic Catholicity, p. 143. If pondered to the end, all theologians, even Luther and all reformers, offer only one further interpretation of Scripture in an ongoing process. 73 Melchior Cano: Locorum theologicorum libri duodecim, in: Opera. Vienna 1754, here: vol. VII, c. III, p. 421: “Haec igitur duo ita sunt connexa atque conjuncta, ut divelli ac dissociari non possint, doctrina sanctorum Patrum, & Ecclesiae traditio.” It should be mentioned that history became an essential part of theology for Cano: “Certe quantum historiae cognitione Theologus indigeat, vel illi abunde magno argumento sunt, qui ejus ignoratione sunt in varios errores lapsi.” Ibid., vol. l. XI, c. II, p. 517. See Gundolf Gieraths: “Melchior Cano und die Geschichtswissenschaft”, in: Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 9 (1962), pp. 3–29.

210

Sascha Salatowsky

been wrong, as even the Catholics acknowledge. 74 And a “unanimous consensus of the Fathers” never existed, as Gerhard proved with seven arguments. 75 First, the Fathers did not consent among themselves in all points of doctrine or in their exposition of Scripture. Second, the consensus of the Fathers was not always a rule of faith or a guide for interpretating Scripture, nor did it always have the power of authoritative judgement, as if it were an absolute and infallible rule, and so forth. Already in his Loci theologici (1610–1622), Gerhard repeatedly emphasized the task of researching history, observing historical circumstances, and accepting human fallibility as a fact. On the one hand, he acknowledged the view that the church of the first five hundred years was indeed the “true” church. On the other hand, he was convinced that from the very beginning the history of the church was marked by decay, which had also been caused by the Church Fathers. He noted in his locus De ecclesia with reference to the Centuriators: “Indeed it is certain that the ancient church in the first 500 years was the true church and held to apostolic doctrine; however, no one can deny that [the church] began to mix the stipulations of human traditions and opinions with apostolic doctrine, as can be shown from the Fathers […].” 76 Gerhard developed here his conviction that the writings of the Fathers cannot claim any authority for the Christian faith. This critical approach allows the Fathers to become a more vivid part of church history with its ups and downs. In other words: Gerhard, as it were, historicizes the works of the Fathers: They dealt only with the topics and controversies of their time. 77 At this point, the important fact becomes visible that the “philological historicization of Scripture,”78 performed by humanists from Erasmus to Casaubon and Jean le Clerc, ran parallel with the theological historicization of the Fathers. In this regard, Gerhard set a starting point for a new concept of church history, but it came with serious consequences that some Lutheran theologians and historians, such as Georg Calixtus, were unwilling to accept.

74 Cf. Gerhard: Confessio catholica, l. I, p. II, c. XIII, fol. 565v: “Quod agnoscunt [sc. Catholici] Patres saepius erra[vi]sse.” See also Gerhard: Loci V, lc. 22, c. XI, sect. VI, § 204, fol. 456r. In his Patrologia, Gerhard enumerated the errors of every Church Father, regardless of his fame. 75 Cf. Gerhard: Confessio catholica, l. I, p. II, c. XIII, fol. 556v–557r. For a detailed description of these arguments, see Stewart: Lutheran Patristic Catholicity, pp. 140f. 76 Gerhard: Loci theologici cum pro adstruenda veritate tum pro destruenda quorumvis contradicentium falsitate per theses nervose solide et copiose explicati. 9 vols. Jena 1610–1622. I quote from the edition of Eduard Preuss (Berlin 1863–1875), here: vol. 5, lc. 22, c. XI, sect. VI, § 204, fol. 454r: “Certum quidem est, antiquam ecclesiam primis quingentis annis veram ecclesiam fuisse et apostolicam doctrinam tenuisse, negari interim nequit, apostolicae doctrinae admisceri coepisse stipulas humanarum traditionum et opinionum, ut ex scriptis patrum ostendi potest, qua de re videantur Centuriae hist. Madgeburgensis in c. de inclinatione doctrinae.” 77 Cf. Gerhard: Confessio catholica, l. I, p. II, c. XIII, fol. 553v: “Patres tractant tantum de suorum temporum causis ac controversiis, Scriptura generalem, ac proinde sufficientem normam proponit.” 78 Levitin: Historiographical Review, p. 1147.

Looking Back into the Past

211

Instead, Calixtus 79 became “one of the most controversial and influential theologians in the Holy Roman German Empire in the seventeenth century.” 80 Moreover, he took, as Stewart rightly points out, a “significant departure” 81 from the concept of Gerhard and other “orthodox” theologians. Calixtus developed a specific irenic theology, 82 based primarily on Vincent of Lérinsʼs Commonitorium, which work he reissued in 1629 together with Augustineʼs De doctrina christiana. 83 In the lengthy introduction, Calixtus justified this double-edition by arguing that Augustine shows in his work the way in which the Christian people must be taught everything that is necessary for salvation, from which it must be drawn and with which instruments Scripture must be interpreted. Vincent, in turn, teaches, in which way we can fight against the heretics and, if they are obstinate, to ultimately refute them with reasons that they dare not deny. 84 Calixtus took on Vincentʼs concept of strengthening his own belief against the frauds of heretics in two ways: “first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the tradition of the Catholic church.” 85 However, Calixtus stressed very forcefully that not every tradition is useful; the only legitimate one must include the three

79 Gerhard called him a “Theologus eximius” (Confessio catholica, l. II, p. III, art. XXIII, c. VIII, fol. 839r). 80 Christian Thorsten Callisen: “Georg Calixtus, Isaac Casaubon, and the Consensus of Antiquity”, in: Journal of the History of Ideas 73/1 (2012), pp. 1–23, here: 1. Callisen shows convincingly that Calixtusʼs understanding of the consensus of antiquity “bears remarkable similarities to Isaac Casaubonʼs vision of the primitive church.” Ibid., p. 21. This fact illustrates the enormous importance of this idea for early modern church historiography. 81 Stewart: Lutheran Patristic Catholicity, pp. 143f. 82 For an excellent introduction of the historical setting, in which Calixtus formulated his idea of a re-union first between Lutherans and Calvinists and second between Protestants and Catholics, see Hans Leube: Kalvinismus und Luthertum im Zeitalter der Orthodoxie. Leipzig 1928, pp. 257–305. See also Andreas Merkt: Das patristische Prinzip: Eine Studie zur theologischen Bedeutung der Kirchenväter. Leiden et al. 2001, pp. 37–75. 83 Cf. Georg Calixtus: Sancti Patris et doctoris Aureli Augustini espicopi Hipponensis de doctrina christiana libri IV; de fide et symbolo liber unus: Vincentii Lerinensis commonitorium. [With an introduction by Calixtus.] Helmstedt 1629. This was the first book published in Calixtusʼ own printing press. – I quote here from the reprint in: Georg Calixtus: Werke in Auswahl, vol. 1 (Ed. Inge Mager). Göttingen 1978, pp. 369–418. 84 Calixtus: Prooemium, p. 370: “Nempe ostendit Augustinus, quomodo populos Christianus omnia ad salutem necessaria docendus sit, unde ea haurire et quibus adminiculis Scripturas, quae ista cuncta suppeditent, interpretari oporteat, denique qua ratione quae proponuntur efferri debeant, ut animos apte subeant et efficaciter commoveant. Vincentius vero docet, quo pacto cum haereticis congredi et, cum pervicaces sint, ita eos constringere possimus, ut elabi nequeant et ex iis, quae ipsi negare non audent, convincantur.” 85 Calixtus: Prooemium, p. 379: “Dicit [sc. Vincent of Lérins] sub initium (cap. 1) fidem contra exsurgentium haereticorum fraudes duplici modo muniendam esse, ʻprimo divinae legis auctoritate, tum deinde ecclesiae catholicae traditione.” Cf. Vincent of Lérins: Commonitorium, vol. I 2, in: PL 50, pp. 625–686, here: 639f.

212

Sascha Salatowsky

criteria of Vincent: “Universality, antiquity, and the consensus of antiquity itself.” 86 These criteria are brought together by Vincent in his above-mentioned sentence that a Christian holds the faith which has been believed everywhere, always, and by everyone. 87 Of course, Calixtus was aware that the past is not identical with the present time. Because of the increasing decay of the church since the sixth century – due to the superstitions and corruptions of the Roman Catholic Church –, universality applies only potentially to the church of the present. Calixtus was also aware that the criterion “everywhere” is difficult to fulfil since, according to Vincent, “a large part of the church” could fall away from the truth. More important were the criteria of ancientness and consensus of antiquity, merging “into one operative principle since antiquity is the touchstone of Calixtʼs system.” 88 Calixtus was convinced that those Christians who rely on antiquity receive a higher degree of certainty and are faced with less difficulties. A central condition for this agenda was the deep conviction that everything necessary to believe for salvation was completely and perfectly introduced and spread by the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and that it was announced by the Apostles and handed down by the churches (sic!) in such a manner that nothing new could be added. 89 Calixtus here established the concept of a “fides semel tradita,” a historically transmitted faith that began with Christ and led without any interruption directly to the Apostles and the early Church Fathers. Therefore, it is Christ alone who secures the stability, uniformity, and perpetuity of the articles of faith. According to Calixtus, the “fides semel tradita” is the firm basis for achieving a deep agreement among many or all Christians. It must be much more than what can be read in the writings of two or three Church Fathers, and it excludes their private opinions. Against this background, Calixtus developed his idea of the “consensus quinquesaecularis.” 90 According to this concept, a doctrine that was introduced just two, three, or four centuries ago cannot belong to this antiquity. Only a doctrine that is at least a thousand years old (i.e., reaching back at least to the year 600) can be

86 Calixtus: Prooemium, p. 381: “Legitimae itaque traditionis trex iuxta Vincentium notae sunt: Universitas, Antiquitas et in ipsa antiquitate Consensio […].” Cf. Vincent of Lérins: Commonitorium, vol. I 24, II 29 and 33, in: PL 50, pp. 670, 677, 686. 87 See note 19. Calixtus quoted here also a sentence of his teacher, the humanist and professor of philosophy in Helmstedt Johannes Caselius: “Quae religiosissimi omnibus seculis, omnibus locis inter se consentientia tradiderunt, ea demum sunt ἀληθῶς καθολικά.” Calixtus: Prooemium, p. 382. Cf. Johannes Caselius: Ad Laurentium Scheurlum, novum academiae Juliae hospitem. Helmstedt 1594. 88 Stewart: Lutheran Patristic Catholicity, p. 156. 89 Calixtus: Prooemium, p. 384: “Ante omnia vero certum est quibuscumque credendis vel agendis ad salutem opus sit, ea a Christo Servatore plene et perfecte instituta et promulgata nec non ab Apostolis in mundo praedicta et ecclesiis tradita fuisse, atque adeo nihil, quod huc faceret, novi exinde adici potuisse.” 90 The term consensus quinquesaecularis was probably introduced by the Lutheran theologian Johann Georg Dorsche in Strasbourg, but it satisfies Calixtus’s intention. Cf. Merkt: Das patristische Prinzip, p. 106.

Looking Back into the Past

213

considered part of “genuine antiquity.” 91 This means that only the first five centuries belonged to this antiquity and formed the “concensus primorum seculorum,” as Calixtus emphasised: “In summa, if the Church Fathers from the first century onward, which includes the Apostles themselves and the canonical writers, and for the next four centuries agree with your view, then you come closest to the title ʻantiquityʼ.” 92 At this point a further clarification is necessary: All doctrines must be equally preserved by one and the same consensus “openly, frequently, and perseveringly.” 93 As a result, for Calixtus the Apostolic Creed became the ecumenical norm of the church, as it still is. 94 Calixtus, however, was sharply criticised by many orthodox Lutherans for his deviation from the common Lutheran understanding of church history. They were perturbed, first, by the fact that the idea of irenicism was first formulated by Catholic scholars like Georg Witzel, Georg Cassander, and Mark Anton de Dominis, to whom Calixtus actually referred. According to Andreas Merkt, the reason for Calixtusʼs acceptance of this position is obvious: “They [sc. the Catholics] create that peculiar connection between irenicism and the principle of the Fathers that Calixtus elevated to a systematic programme.” 95 More important for the Lutheransʼ criticism of Calixtus, however, which led to the so-called syncretistic controversy, 96 was another fact: As mentioned above, Calixtus declared tradition the “secondary principle of faith” 97 after Scripture, a concept that was condemned, e.g., by Abraham Calov, who accused Calixtus of introducing a new and, even worse, false doctrine. Calov questions the certainty of the “consensus partum;” he is not able to find a single article of faith in which a consensus is evident or verifiable. This also holds true for the most essential doctrines for salvation like the trinity, the highest and

91 Calixtus: Prooemium, p. 386: “Quod itaque non nisi aetatem mille aut mille ducentorum sive etiam paulo plurium annorum habet, etiamsi respectu nostri antiquum sit, comparatum tamen ad genuinam, qua de nunc agimus, antiquitatem, posteritati et novitati accensebitur, tantum abest pro antiquo habendum esse quod vix duo, tria vel ad summum quatuor aut quinque secula superat.” See Merkt: Das patristische Prinzip, p. 105: “Calixt unterscheidet also die echte Antike (bis etwa 600) von der uneigentlichen Antike (bis ca. 1200) und der darauf folgenden Vergangenheit.” 92 Calixtus: Prooemium, p. 393: “Ad summum, si a primo, ad quod Apostoli ipsi et scriptores canonici pertinent, proxima quatuor secula in tuam sententiam consenserint [sc. Patres], praescriptione antiquitatis vicisti.” 93 Calixtus: Prooemium, p. 388: “Recte itaque Vincentius (cap. 4 [sic!]): ʻcollatas inter se maiorum consulat sententias, eorum duntaxat, qui diversi licet temporibus et locis in unius tamen ecclesiae catholicae communione et fide permanentes magistri probabiles exstiterunt, et quid non unus aut duo tantum, sed omnes pariter uno eodemque consensu aperte, frequenter, perseveranter tenuisse, scripsisse, docuisse cognoverit, id sibi quoque intelligat absque ulla dubitatione credendum.ʼ” Cf. Vincent of Lérins: Commonitorium, vol. I 3, in: PL 50, p. 641. 94 Cf. Stewart: Lutheran Patristic Catholicity, p. 154. 95 Merkt: Das patristische Prinzip, p. 28. For a description of this irenic agenda of the Catholics, see ibid., pp. 28–36. 96 Cf. Merkt: Das patristische Prinzip, pp. 45–54, 121–172; Stewart: Lutheran Patristic Catholicity, pp. 149f., 159–162. 97 Stewart: Lutheran Patristic Catholicity, p. 154.

214

Sascha Salatowsky

primary mystery of faith. 98 Calov listed in the chapter De traditione patrum quinqueseculari of the first volume of his Systema theologicarum (1655) a total of fourteen arguments against the idea of a “consensus antiquitatis.” Although he did not deny that the testimony of the Church Fathers can serve as an “argumentum quoddam secundarium,” he dismissed the consensus as a principle of Christian faith or a rule for interpreting Scripture. 99 Calov and other “orthodox” Lutherans like Johann Hülsemann aimed here at securing the importance of the Confessio Augustana, the Formula of Concord and the Wittenberg Reformation in general. 100 For that and many other reasons, they formulated the Consensus repetitus fidei (composed in 1655, first printed in 1664 in the Consilia theologica Witebergensia) against Calixtus as an attempt to verify the “true” Lutheran doctrine. 101 In point seven, they rejected those scholars who teach that the writings of the Church Fathers must be regarded as “apostolic words” and as the “unfolded and unsealed Scripture,” and that in addition to Scripture, which they call the “implicit tradition,” there

98 Cf. Abraham Calov: Systema locorum theologicorum. Vol. 1. Wittenberg 1655, prol., c. II, s. II, q. X, pp. 420–439, here: 422–423. On this work, see Merkt: Das patristische Prinzip, pp. 149–153; Stewart: Lutheran Patristic Catholicity, pp. 162–165. 99 Cf. Calov: Systema I, prol., c. II, s. II, q. X, p. 421: “Quanquam vero admittamus, adhiberi posse consensum Patrum ceu testimonium, & ut argumentum quoddam secundarium, sive confirmatorium, sive confutatorium, nequaquam tamen concedendum, testimonium Ecclesiae, vel traditionem, sive e consensu, sive a Patribus priorum quinque seculorum petatur, esse principium fidei Christianae, aut normam interpretationis Scripturae, vel etiam medium adeo necessarium, ut sine illo, sola Scriptura, non possint ora adversariis obturari.” 100 Calixtus acknowledged the great importance of Luther, whom he called “ὁ θεόπνευστος” (Apparatus theologici et fragmenti historiae ecclesiae occidentalis. Editio altera. Helmstedt 21661, p. 154 [Ed. Mager, vol. 1, p. 241]), for a restoration of the ancient church. See the summary of Stewart: Lutheran Patristic Catholicity, p. 153: “Unlike his orthodox contemporaries, however, Calixt sees the Reformation itself as nothing other than an attempt to return to the purity of the ancient church and not a single novelty. Therefore the fruit of the Reformation is not so much the discovery of the Gospel – Calixt mentions justification by faith only in passing – but rather liberation from papal tyranny, purification of the church from superstition, the proper use of the sacraments, renewal of the study and use of Scripture, and the full recognition of Christ as sole mediator between God and man.” 101 Cf. Consensus repetitus fidei vere Lutheranae in illis capitibus, quae contra puram et invariatam Augustanam Confessionem aliosque libros symbolicos in Formula Concordiae comprehenses scriptis publicis hodieque impugnant D. Georgius Calixtus. professor Helmstadiensis, eiusdemque complices (1655). Edidit Ernestus Lud. Theodor. Henke. Marburg 1847. Leube strongly criticized this “new” confession. He spoke of a “Versagen dieser Theologen bei der Abfassung der neuen Bekenntnisschrift” (Leube: Kalvinismus und Luthertum, p. 337) because they missed the idea of Calixtusʼs irenicism. For a short overview of this renewed consensus, see Stewart: Lutheran Patristic Catholicity, pp. 167–170. For a more comprehensive study, see Timothy R. Schmeling: “Strenuus Christi Athleta: Abraham Calov (1612–1686): Sainted Doctor and Defender of the Church”, in: Lutheran Synod Quarterly, 44/4 (2004), pp. 357–399; Heinz Staemmler: Die Auseinandersetzung der kursächsischen Theologen mit dem Helmstedter Synkretismus: Eine Studie zum „Consensus repetitus fidei vere Lutheranae“ (1655) und den Diskussionen um ihn. Waltrop 2005, esp. pp. 193–266.

Looking Back into the Past

215

is also a “church tradition.” 102 It perturbed Calov and other Lutherans that Holy Scripture, the guiding principle of faith, is equated here with church tradition. This undermined the principle of sola scriptura, espoused by the Wittenberg Reformation. They reaffirmed the sufficiency of Scripture regarding all things necessary to be known and believed for salvation, and they explicitly denied the Catholic tradition or the consensus of antiquity as a secondary principle of faith. 103 The ancient consensus is human and not God-given. Calixtusʼs critics confirmed Gerhardʼs view that the symbols of the early church – including the Apostolic Creed – were limited by the historical circumstances that were responsible for the formulation of specific articles. The problem with the symbols is not that they do not contain the “true” Lutheran belief, but that they are not rich in doctrinal content. 104 Calixtusʼs view, as the reproach ran, neglects the developments that have taken place in the meantime. It would be “anachronistic” to transfer historical circumstances of an ancient age to the present day. 105 This was, however, not the aim of Calixtus. He believed instead that if the various Christian confessions could recognize a shared heritage, they would be able to reunite as one church. Calixtus developed therefore a different understanding of church history, which he tried to establish in his work Apparatus theologici, 106 an introduction to the study of theology. In the first chapters, he described disciplines necessary for theologians. Beside logic, metaphysics, philosophy in general, rhetoric, the study of languages and literature, ethics, and politics, he mentioned history as an important part of this education. According to Meinhold, Calixtus stressed in his work “in a for his time new way the interdependence of church and world history.” 107 He differentiated clearly between the history of salvation (sacra historia) and the history of the church (historia ecclesiastica) that is part of civil history (historia civilis). 108 The history of salvation deals strictly speaking only with Jesus

102 Cf. Consensus repetitus fidei, art. prooemialis, § 7, p. 6: “Reiicimus eos, quo docent, pro verbo apostolico et scriptura explicata habendum esse, quod doctores veteris ecclesiae in scriptis, quae adhuc superant, uno ore docent, et tanquam apostolicum se accepisse tradunt, et praeter scripturam quam implicitam traditionem dicunt, dari scripturam explicatam, quae sit traditio ecclesiastica.” Referring to Calixtus: De autoritate antiquitatis ecclesiasticae. Helmstedt 1639. For this context, see Staemmler: Auseinandersetzung, pp. 232f. 103 Cf. Consensus repetitus fidei, art. prooemialis, § 8–9, pp. 7f. 104 For this opinion, see Leube: Kalvinismus und Luthertum, p. 341. 105 Cf. Merkt: Das patristische Prinzip, p. 151. 106 A first draft was composed and published by Calixtus in 1628. However, it remained unfinished until his death in 1656. It was published in the same year in a revised version by his son Friedrich Ulrich Calixtus. For the history of this work, see Inge Mager: “Einleitung”, in: Calixt: Werke in Auswahl (Ed. eadem), vol. 1, pp. 37–47. This collection contains also a reprint of the second edition, ibid., pp. 48–364. 107 Meinhold: Geschichte, vol. 1, p. 357. 108 Calixtus: Apparatus theologici, pp. 29f. (Ed. Mager, vol. 1, p. 88): “Sed nos despiciamus, quid emolumenti historia, quae extra sacras literas est, Theologo conferat. Illam vero, quam Ecclesiasticam vocant adeo extra controversiam esse existimo, ut absque ea cognita Theologi proprie

216

Sascha Salatowsky

Christ as the redeemer of the world. This history is revealed only in Scripture and is a subject of dogmatics. It is crucial that Calixtus understood Holy Scripture as a continuous history that includes the description of the states and kingdoms of the time and politics. Church history and civil history are closely linked together.109 The changes in church and state usually take place at the same time, mutually influencing each other. According to Calixtus, church history can neither be passed down nor understood without civil history. 110 Church history is an important argumentative aid for theologians because they can use it to affirm doctrines and reject errors. In this respect, Calixtus stressed, “the history of the church does not rest on any heavenly revelation, but relies solely on care, diligence, and human faith.”111 Calixtus treated church history here as an independent work. It is man’s work, not God’s. A theologian engaging in controversies with his opponents needs to know what the church was like at what time, what happened in it, what struggles or divisions arose and evolved, what doctrines were opposed in which way and how they were defended, and finally, what heresies when and on which occasion originated and how they were extinguished again. 112 Calixtusʼs understanding of history is twofold: On the one hand, he was a strong representative of “traditionalism” 113 in the sense that he advocated the idea of the consensus of antiquity of the first five hundred years of the church, in which doctrine was present in perfection, clarity, and simplicity. Traditionalism represents here rather a static than a dynamic understanding of history: The beginning is pristine, but then followed by decay. According to Calixtus, the task is to return to the beginning in order to improve the current status of the church. The consensus of antiquity becomes the critical norm for the assessment of all historical developments. It is therefore the criterion for the evaluation of the Reformation, too. This is precisely the point where Meinholdʼs criticism rightly sets in: “In a peculiar unhistorical way, Calixtus understood the Reformation as the return to antiquity, which he also presented in a completely unhistorical way.” 114 On the other hand, Calixtus opened up the field of history insofar as he merged civil and church history.

109 110 111

112 113 114

ita dicti titulum nemini quisquam sanus sit concessurus. Praeterquam enim quod novisse oportet, quid singulis seculis & temporibus in Ecclesia Christi gestum fuerit, suppeditat Ecclesiastica historia Theologo secundariam quandam argumentandi rationem, qua ad confirmanda dogmata & refellendos errores utatur […].” Calixtus: Apparatus theologici, p. 165 (Ed. Mager, vol. 1, p. 252): “[…] sed defendendae quoque veritatis incumbentibus, necessaria est Historia ecclesiastica, quae cum civili ita plerumque cohaeret, ut alteram absque altera nemo satis adsequi aut animo possit comprehendere.” Cf. Calixtus: Apparatus theologici, p. 30 (Ed. Mager, vol. 1, p. 89): “Hinc igitur fit, ut absque historia civili tradit aut intelligi Ecclesiastica non possit […].” Cf. Calixtus: Apparatus theologici, p. 30 (Ed. Mager, vol. 1, pp. 88f.): “Ad haec ipsa, quam dicimus, Ecclesiastica historia neutiquam peculiari aliqua coelesti revelatione, sed cura & industria, quin etiam fide humana nititur.” For the context, see Merkt: Das patristische Prinzip, pp. 91–95. Cf. Calixtus: Apparatus theologici, p. 165 (Ed. Mager, vol. 1, p. 253). Meinhold: Geschichte, vol. 1, p. 358. See also Leube: Kalvinismus und Luthertum, p. 272. Meinhold: Geschichte, vol. 1, p. 358.

Looking Back into the Past

217

The latter became part of the former. In this way, a process of “dynamization” and, in a sense, of “secularization” of church history began. This lengthy process was influenced by civil and political matters that formed specific historical circumstances affecting the church and its understanding of history. From this perspective, progress is possible in a way in church history. However, it is a progress in which the church grows while remaining substantially the same. 4. RIVET AND DAILLÉ: PROCLAIMING THE HISTORICITY OF THE PAST The concept of patrology was probably first realised by the Reformed theologian Abraham Scultetus. 115 The Lutherans, the Reformed, and Anglicans 116 too used their knowledge of the history of the Church Fathers to battle the Roman Catholics and, in the course of the seventeenth century, to develop a new critical attitude to ancient texts. It is above all two Huguenots “who, with great intellectual acuity, reexamined the assumptions of historiography of the seventeenth century and drew conclusions from them for a new understanding of historiography,” 117 namely André Rivet and Jean Daillé. Based on the same Protestant principles – especially the principle of sola scriptura – these two French theologians, belonging to the “orthodox” Reformed camp, developed similar views on historiography – despite all doctrinal and national differences. In France, there was a great conflict between Catholics and Huguenots in politics and church. The Edict of Nantes, signed in April 1598 by King Henry IV of France, granted the Calvinist Protestants of France substantial rights in the nation, which was still considered essentially Catholic at the time. In the Netherlands, Calvinism was fragmented by the formation of various theological parties, culminating in the controversy triggered by the rise of Arminianism at the Synod of Dordt in 1619. 118 André Rivet is an excellent example for illustrating this conflict. In 1620 he was called to Leiden as professor of theology – as the successor of the Arminian leader Simon Episcopius. It did not take long before he was involved in a severe 115 See footnote 60. 116 Prompted by Casaubon, Anglicans like William Beveridge and William Cave defended the concept of traditionalism. See Leube: Kalvinismus und Luthertum, pp. 352–354. For a detailed description of the complex situation in England, which is not the focus here, see Jean-Louis Quantin: The Church of England and Christian Antiquity: The Construction of a Confessional Identity in the Seventeenth Century. Oxford 2009; idem: “The Fathers in Seventeenth Century Anglican Theology”, in: Reception of the Church Fathers, vol. 2, pp. 987–1008. According to Quantin, after the restoration it “cannot be denied that, at that stage, Anglican theories of patristic authority had become hardly compatible with those of Continental Protestants.” Ibid., p. 993. See also the harsh criticism of Leube: Kalvinismus und Luthertum, p. 356. 117 Meinhold: Geschichte, vol. 1, p. 396: “Es sind zwei reformierte Theologen, die mit großer gedanklicher Schärfe die Voraussetzungen der historischen Arbeiten des 17. Jahrhunderts überdacht und von ihnen aus den Konsequenzen für eine neue Auffassung der geschichtlichen Arbeiten gezogen haben.“ 118 Cf. Aza Goudriaan (ed.): Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619). Leiden et al. 2011.

218

Sascha Salatowsky

dispute with the Arminian Hugo Grotius, among others, about the concept of tradition. 119 Grotius, like Calixtus, defended in opposition to Rivet the view that the Christian church needs a “historical” corrective to judge which doctrines are an essential part of it. He answered the vexed question why the Apostles did not pass on all important things in writing as follows: “Because they wrote by occasion that which the time and not the body of doctrine and regimen bears.” 120 Here Grotius clearly took up to the position of Vincent, who demanded the acceptance of the tradition which was passed on by the Apostles, which can be found everywhere (ubique) in the Christian churches and which has no other origin. According to Rivet, however, this position was no longer convincing in light of the new and deep knowledge of church history which was achieved in the last few decades. What was his position? Backus describes Rivet’s Tractatus de autoritate patrum – prefixed to his Criticus sacer (1612) 121 – as “a moderate and reasoned call for a critical and historical assessment of the Fathers before one appeals to their authority in works of biblical exegesis or controversy.” 122 Rivet, actually, did not deny the authority of the Church Fathers in general. He emphasized, however, that the Fathers, who lived before the time of the scholastics, that is, in the first millennium, must be treated differently. Special attention must be given to the “condition of times,” 123 which is subject to change. In accordance with Casaubon, Rivet was convinced that the closer the Fathers were to the Apostles, the more authority they have. To justify this, he referred to the fact that audacity increases the further people are from the time of the Apostles. Rivet recognised a serious schism of the church around the year 640. The Antichrist already raised his head as Phocas, the Byzantine Emperor, 119 Cf. Hans Bots: “Hugo Grotius et André Rivet: Deux lumières opposées, deux vocations contradictoires”, in: Henk Nellen, Edwin Rabbie (eds.): Hugo Grotius, Theologian: Essays in Honour of Guillaume H.M. Posthumus Meyjes. Leiden et al. 1994, pp. 145–155. 120 Hugo Grotius: “Votum pro pace ecclesiastica contra examen Andreae Riveti, & alios irreconciliabiles”, in: Idem: Operum theologicorum tomus quartus, continens opuscula diversa. Basel 1732, pp. 653–676, here: 673: “Cur ergo, inquit, eadem quae tradiderant Apostoli non & scripsere? dicam: quia scripsere ex occasione nata, & quae tempus ferebat, non aliquod σύστημα [corpus] doctrinae ac regiminis.” See Leube: Kalvinismus und Luthertum, pp. 268– 270. 121 Cf. André Rivet: Critici sacri libri IV. In quibus expenduntur, confirmantur, defenduntur, vel rejiciuntur censurae doctorum tam ex orthodoxis quam ex pontificiis, in scripta quae patribus plerisque priscorum et puriorem saeculorum incogitantia vel error affinxit aut dolus malus supposuit. Praefixus est tractatus, de patrum autoritate, errorum causis et nothorum notis. Geneva 31626. There were at least six editions of this work in the seventeenth century. On the hermeneutics of Rivet and for a historical classification and contextualisation of his work, see Anthony Ossa-Richardson: “The Naked Truth of Scripture: André Rivet between Bellarmine and Grotius”, in: Dirk van Miert et al. (ed.): Scriptural Authority and Biblical Criticism in the Dutch Golden Age: Godʼs Word Questioned. Oxford 2017, pp. 109–130. 122 Backus: The Fathers and Calvinist Orthodoxy, p. 857. 123 Cf. Rivet: Tractatus, c. I, p. 3: “Inter Doctores primae classis, qui nondum oborta Theologia scholastica floruerunt, aliqua etiam est adhibenda distinctio. Etsi enim quaelibet aetas Doctores suos celebres protulerit; habenda nihilominus est ratio temporum.”

Looking Back into the Past

219

finally approved the “tyrannical” power of the pope over all bishops in 607. Therefore, those Fathers affiliated with the pope, especially Gregory I, have only made invalid, even inept arguments from this time on. They stand in contrast to the old Fathers who flourished before this schism, and who were far removed from the ambitions and activities of parties. 124 Rivet confirmed here the common view of the Protestants that the Roman church was responsible for the decline of Christianity and that it was definitely necessary to return to the views and arguments of the ancient Fathers before this schism. According to Rivet, the authority of the Fathers is subject to certain conditions: the prestige of ministry and dignity depends on the fact that the Fathers were considered as scholars and priests in the church, the prestige of the times on the fact that they flourished closest to the time of the Apostles, the prestige of knowledge on the fact that they were more erudite, and finally, the prestige of conscience on the fact that their lives were more blameless, less subject to ambition, greed, envy, and other vices. Rivet formulated here some objective and subjective criteria that must be fulfilled before one can speak of a church authority. However, the most important point here is the distinction between divine and human testimonies. The difficulty is that “it must be admitted that the testimony of the Fathers is not of the first kind [i.e. divine], insofar as it depends on their authority.” 125 This view is not without consequences: Dicta sanctorum Patrum, which are not part of Holy Scriptures, can only be considered as human testimonies, which may be false. The authority of the Fathers is therefore dependent on the authority of the Scripture: “We believe the Scriptures for their own sake, but we believe the Fathers only because of their consensus with them.” 126 By upholding the sola-scriptura-principle, Rivet limited the authority and importance of the Fathers. While the Holy Scriptures strengthen Christian faith, the works of the Fathers – provided that they are revealed as divine testimonies by the Scriptures or the Holy Spirit – consolidate the consensus of antiquity, make possible a knowledge of church history, and kindle the true worship of God in the pious. Under this condition, the writings of the Fathers can be admired. At the same time their deviations from the Bible must be rejected. With these qualifications a free attitude towards the Fathers is possible, as Rivet proved by quoting Augustine in a letter to Jerome: For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were 124 Cf. Rivet: Tractatus, c. I, p. 5: “Quia igitur manifesta facta est scissura in Ecclesia, circa annum 640. & schismate facto Papa illi parti, quae vere factio erat se signiferum dedit, ex eoque tempore factionem illam fovit; ideo a patribus illis qui ab eo anno Papae adhaeserunt, nullum nisi invalidum, imo ineptum argumentum duci potest. Antiquos igitur Patres, qui ante hoc schisma in Ecclesia Romana floruerunt, quique partium studiis & factionibus longius remoti fuerunt, eo loco quo debent habemus.” 125 Rivet: Tractatus, c. II, p. 8: “Primi generis [sc. divinum] non esse testimonium Patrum, quatenus ab eorum autoritate pendet, in confesso esse debet.” 126 Rivet: Tractatus, c. II, p. 9: “Scripturae igitur credimus propter se, Patribus autem propter consensum cum illa […].”

220

Sascha Salatowsky completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason. 127

Rivet appreciated this libertas iudicandi more highly than a slavish attachment to the (possibly false) views of the Fathers. For an “orthodox” theologian, Rivet stressed in great honesty that not only persons of greater authority, but every reader and listener has the right to freely judge the writings of the Fathers. 128 This liberty, however, must not be used to undermine the canonical books to which human reason is subject. This devaluation of the Fathers is also visible, when Rivet denied – with reference to Cardinal Thomas Cajetan – that an interpretation deviating from the view of the Fathers is necessarily wrong. Moreover, in line with Cajetan, he refused to accept anything as a rule of faith simply because it is derived from the writings of all or most of the Fathers and handed down by the consensus of authorities. 129 Rivet offered here a different reading of the canon of Vincent of Lérins, regarding it – in opposition to the view of Casaubon and Calixtus described above – as a historical document only applicable to Vincentʼs own time. According to Rivet, it is wrong to establish a continuous and universal rule that is useful only for a specific time, and it is also wrong to extend what is needed to expose and refute heresies to every kind of question, doubt, and interpretation of Scriptures. 130 Furthermore, Rivet deemed it necessary to name the errors and shortcomings of the Fathers in order to safeguard the true faith against all forms of deviation. Here he placed himself in the 127 Augustine: Ad Hier., ep. LXXXII (PL 33, pp. 275–291, here: 277): “Ego enim fateor charitati tuae, solis eis scripturarum libris qui jam Canonici appellantur, didici hunc honorem timoremque deferre, ut nullam eorum autorem scribendo aliquid errasse, firmissime credam. Ac si aliquid in eis offendere Litteris, quod videatur contrarium veritati; nihil aliud, quam vel mendacium esse codicem, vel interpretem non assecutum esse quod dictum est, vel me minime intellexisse, non ambigam. Alios autem ita lego, ut quantalibet sanctitate doctrinaque praepolleant, non ideo verum putem, quod ipsi ita senserunt vel scripserunt; sed quia mihi vel per illos auctores canonicos, vel probabili rationem, quod a vero non abhorreat, persuadere potuerunt.” Quoted in Rivet: Tractatus, c. II, p. 10. The English translation is quoted from: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102082.htm (last accessed February 11, 2022). 128 Cf. Rivet: Tractatus, c. IV, p. 24. 129 Cf. Rivet: Tractatus, c. V, p. 30. 130 Rivet: Tractatus, c. V, pp. 31f.: “Ad testimonium Vincentij Lerinensis, respondeo, admitti fallaciam a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. Quia non agit de omni genere quaestionum quae possunt controverti, sed quomodo reprehendi poterant prophanae haeresium novitates, quae recens erant exortae suo tempore […] prolatis & collatis veterum magistrorum concordantibus sibimet sententiis. Neque enim semper, neque omnes haereses hoc modo, inquit ille, expugnandae sunt. Ergo male perpetua et universalis regula constituitur, quae ad aliquod tempus et aliquorum ratione utilis est, male etiam quod de haeresibus detegendis et confutandis dicitur, ad omne genus quaestionum, dubitationum et interpretationum Scripturarum extenditur.”

Looking Back into the Past

221

tradition of the Centuriators, Scultetus, and others Protestants, who have diligently pointed out in opposition to the “papists” the peculiar and unusual opinions of the Fathers, their errors and idle talks. 131 The result is clear: in accordance with Gerhard, Rivet appreciated the Fathers only as witnesses and announcers of the truth, while the Bible is the final authority for them and all of us. 132 The Fathers have therefore no independent significance for teachings. Reading their writings is a purely historical work for scholars and contributes nothing to the current controversies. This assessment was taken up and reinforced by Jean Daillé – “au milieu du XVIIe siècle […] peut-être la figure la plus importante du clergé protestant français” 133 – in his Traité de lʼemploy des saints Pères pour le jugement des différends qui sont aujourdʼhui en la religion. First published in 1632 in French, 134 it became influential in Western Europe mostly through its English (1651) and Latin translations (1655). 135 According to Quantin, this book “marquerait un ‘changement dans l’appréciation des Pères entre XVIe et XVIIe siècles chez les protestants’, en revenant à des principes sur la subordination des Pères à l’Écriture que les théologiens protestants de la génération précédente auraient perdus de vue.” 136 To put it briefly, this work is a “manuel anti-patristique” 137 with two different targets. On the one hand, Daillé fought against the Catholic view by showing how small and unstable the fundament for their tradition-based faith is and that the new style of arguments, developed especially by the French Jesuit controversialist François Véron, would

131 Rivet: Tractatus, c. IX, pp. 55f. It should be mentioned here that Rivet even recognised a sort of Platonizing theology by the Church Fathers, although he did not go into detail here (ibid., p. 60). 132 Rivet: Tractatus, c. II, p. 11: “Patres igitur nos etiam agnoscimus veritatis testes & indices, Scripturas vero & Patrum & nostrum omnium judices.” 133 Jean-Louis Quantin: “Un manuel anti-patristique. Contexte et signification du ʻTraité de lʼemploi des saints Pèresʼ de Jean Daillé (1632)”, in: Günther Frank et al. (eds.): Die Patristik in der Frühen Neuzeit: Die Relektüre der Kirchenväter in den Wissenschaften des 15. bis 18. Jahrhunderts. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 2006, pp. 299–325, here: 300. 134 Cf. Jean Daillé: Traité de lʼemploi des saints Pères pour le jugement des différends qui sont aujourdʼhui en la religion. Paris 1632. For Leube “gehört das Werk sowohl nach der von seinem Verfasser angewandten Anordnunge des Stoffes, als auch nach dem Inhalt zu den besten Schöpfungen der Theologie überhaupt.” Leube: Kalvinismus und Luthertum, p. 356. 135 Cf. Jean Daillé: De usu patrum ad ea definienda religionis capita, quae sunt hodie controversa, libri duo. Geneva 1655. With at least three further editions in 1656, 1686 and 1692. Jean Daillé: A Treatise concerning the Right Use of the Fathers in the Decision of the Controversies that are at this day in Religion. London 1651. A second edition was printed in 1675. I will quote from the first English edition and in brackets from the first Latin edition. – On the reception of Daillé’s work in England, see Jean-Louis Quantin: The Church of England and Christian Antiquity: The Construction of a Confessional Identity in the 17th Century. Oxford 2009, pp. 238–250. 136 Quantin: Un manuel anti-patristique, p. 301. Quantin quoted here Mario Turchetti: “Jean Daillé et son Traicté de l’employ des Saincts Peres (1632): Aperçu sur les changements des critères d’appréciation des Pères de l’Église entre le XVIe et le XVIIe siècles”, in: Emmanuel Bury, Bernard Meunier (eds.): Les Pères de l’Église au XVIIe siècle. Paris 1993, pp. 69–85. 137 Quantin: Un manuel anti-patristique.

222

Sascha Salatowsky

have devastating results if applied to the Catholic sources, namely the Church Fathers. 138 On the other hand, he disputed with the Anglican church, denying its concept of traditionalism as an essential part of its anti-Catholic claim of representing the true, historically proven Christian faith. One of his opponents was the Anglican Matthew Scrivener, who recognised and accepted that Daillé in his “very learned treatise” has undeniably “destroyed all authority” 139 of the Fathers. Nonetheless, he tried to show that Scripture, which is indeed the law for all Christians, cannot “be its own interpreter.” It needs a judge, and this judge can only be the Church Fathers and the most serious scholars, constituting the “authority of the Church knowledge and wisdom” capable of resolving the religious controversies, as Lérins has shown by the contradictions of the heretical interpretations. 140 Daillé did exactly the opposite in his De usu patrum. Already in the very first sentence of the synopsis Daillé formulated the fundamental change in the understanding of the Fathers, which he was willing to undertake: “The Fathers cannot be the Judges of the Controversies in Religion at this day betwixt the Papist and the Protestant.” 141 Daillé argued from the very beginning against the view of the Roman Catholics. According to their position, the Fathers had a special significance alongside Scriptures for the presentation of the articles of faith, which are clearly delivered in the Scriptures, expressly set down by the ancient Fathers, and received by the greatest part of all Christians in all ages. Daillé rejected this view for two reasons: 1) It is, if not impossible, at least very difficult to find out what the Fathers thought about those controversies; 2) Because their opinion is not infallible and without all dangers of errors, they cannot have such a sufficient authority for satisfying the understanding. 142 138 Quantin: Un manuel anti-patristique, p. 310, emphasized that the work had also a specific French connection: “Sa [sc. L’ouvrage] cible n’était pas simplement la doctrine catholique romaine du consensus des Pères en général, mais bien la reformulation que venait d’en donner le principal champion du catholicisme en France, le cardinal Du Perron.” 139 Matthew Scrivener: Apologia pro S. Ecclesiae Patribus adversus Joannem Dallaeum de Usu Patrum, &c. Accedit Apologia pro Ecclesia Anglicana adversus nuperum schisma. London 1672, praef., fol. A3r: “Quod ad antiquitatem attinet, non est quod nimis de ea simus solliciti: Dallaeus enim, Vir in Veteribus exercitatissimus, Doctissimo Tractatu, omnem ejus fregit autoritatem.” Scrivener’s opponents were the Puritans of his time. 140 Cf. Scrivener: Apologia, p. I, c. II, p. 9: “Scripturam enim formaliter vel seipsam interpretari, uti mox dicetur, vel de sua Litera judicare non posse, hinc ratione manifestissima colligitur […]. Nec alio quam sui ipsius testimonio egemus. In iis enim (Petrus affirmat [sc. 2 Petr 3:16]) quaedam difficilia intellectu, quae indocti & instabiles depravant ad suam ipsorum perditionem. Cujus vocem sequuntur Patres sancti, & Viri Gravissimi: Vincentius enim Lyrinenses sic, Quanquam sit perfectus Scripturarum Canon, sibi satis superque ad omnia sufficiens, opus est tamen, ut ei Ecclesiasticae Intelligentiae jungatur autoritas; quia nimirum Scripturarum Sacram pro sua altitudine non uno eodemque sensu universi accipiunt; sed ejus altitudine aliter atque aliter, alius atque alius interpretatur, ut pene quot homines tot illic sententiae erui possint.” Cf. Lérins: Commonitorium, vol. I 2, in: PL 50, p. 640. For the position of Scrivener see Quantin: The Church of England, pp. 331–338. 141 Cf. Daillé: De usu patrum, Synopsis, fol. **3r (*3r). 142 Cf. Daillé: De usu patrum, praef., fol. A2v (¶¶¶ 2v–¶¶¶ 3r).

Looking Back into the Past

223

To demonstrate the first reason, Daillé listed a total of eleven arguments. I would like to mention here only the most important ones. The first argument concerns the material basis of our knowledge of the writings of the Fathers. The writings that have survived are few in number, especially those from the first three centuries. Daillé did not deny that the Christian religion was at its height of perfection in the beginning. Purity is dependent on the proximity to the Apostles. However, apart from the encroachment of corruption into the church, and regardless of possible changes in doctrines, the paucity of the Fathers’ writings from the first three centuries still poses a problem. 143 On such a narrow base it is not possible to answer many crucial questions. Another main problem is that the existing writings of the Fathers deal with things that are of little relevance for contemporary controversies. According to Daillé, the historical circumstances of the writings of the Fathers must be taken into account: “For the matters whereof they treat are of a very different nature.” 144 Like Rivet, Daillé referred to the “necessity of the times of the Fathers” (ratio suorum temporum) for discerning the historical focus of their doctrines. The adversaries of their times – the pagans, the “hard-hearted” Jews, and early heretics such as Arius and Pelagius – were totally different from those of the present time. Daillé emphasized therefore the necessity of a historicization of the past with its particular questions and discourses. Another fundamental problem is the questionable authorship of some writings attributed to the Fathers. Some have been forged, others altered or corrupted by time or ignorance. 145 Apart from that, do we know the true meaning of the writings of the Fathers? They are sometimes hard to understand because of the languages (Syriac, Arabic etc.), idioms, and rhetorical figures they used. Beyond philological and hermeneutical problems, there is for Daillé the general difficulty of knowing whether the Fathers always held only one opinion (the supposed consensus of antiquity), what status they gave their faith, a necessary or a probable one, and finally whether they present their own particular opinion or that of the whole Christian church. 146 Daillé advocated here a moderate type of scepticism that was expressed in the central question: “And after all this, whether you take the Church for the Collective Body of Christians, or only for the Body of the Clergy, or Pastors; it is notwithstanding Impossible to know, what the Belief of the whole Church in any age hath been […].” 147 Richard Popkin has convincingly shown that Daillé was well aware of the problem of a complete scepticism such as the “catastrophic Pyrrhonism” 148 of the Veronian style that destroys everything, the grounds of science, the meaning of knowledge, and, even worse, of Christian faith. 143 144 145 146 147

Cf. Daillé: De usu patrum, l. I, c. I, pp. 2–4 (pp. 2–5). Daillé: De usu patrum, l. I, c. II, p. 8 (p. 8). Cf. Daillé: De usu patrum, l. I, c. III, p. 11 (p. 11); c. IV, p. 34 (p. 60). Cf. Daillé: De usu patrum, l. I, c. V–IX, pp. 69–136 (pp. 120–180). Cf. Daillé: De usu patrum, Synopsis, fol. 3v–4r (fol. 4r). See also ibid., l. I, c. IX, p. 156 (p. 196): “Who is he that will undertake to give us an Account, what the opinion is of all the Clergy of one City onely; I do not say of a Kingdom, or of all Christendom; touching all the Articles of Religion? Who would be able to perform this, if he should undertake it?” 148 Richard Popkin: The History of Scepticism. From Savonarola to Bayle. Oxford 22003, p. 71.

224

Sascha Salatowsky

“But I shal passe by all these minute punctilioes, as more suitable to the enquiries of the Pyrrhonians and Academics, whose businesse it is to question all things; then of Christians who onely seek, in simplicity and sincerity of heart, whereon to build their faith.” 149 Yet, it was only a small step to apply the philological and hermeneutical weapons that Daillé had used in his work to diminish the authority of the Church Fathers against Scripture itself. Only some years later, the French Oratorian and Bible scholar Richard Simon published his Histoire critique du Vieux Testament (1678) and his Histoire critique du texte du Nouveau Testament (1689). 150 In both works, he used more or less the same critical arguments as Daillé in order to show the problems concerning the origin and character of the various books of Holy Scriptures. However, the confessional difference between the Catholics and Protestants remains visible at every point: According to Simon, criticism of the Bible poses no doctrinal or historical problems for the Catholic church insofar as the continuous tradition, which represents the true regula fidei, remains unbroken. Safeguarding this tradition is different from defending biblical criticism, as Daillé did. To demonstrate the second reason – the Fathers lack sufficient authority because their testimonies are not always certain or true – Daillé listed in the second book of his treatise five arguments. He first recalled the obligation of every author making reference to the Fathers: He must first clarify whether the Father he quotes lived and wrote in the first ages of Christianity, whether the authorship is questionable, whether the doctrine presented is absolutely clear and so forth. 151 A distinction must be also made between a witness, who trustfully and truly testified what the belief of the church was at that time, and a scholar, who, based on his knowledge and erudition, proposes merely his own personal opinion. Daillé left no doubt that the Fathers could not serve as witnesses in this regard because they did not pass on the definitive truths needed for the recognition of their authority. At this point he rejected the attempt of the “greatest Admirers of the Fathers” to distinguish between those Fathers de jure and those de facto in order to uphold the universal significance of the Fathers and to attribute the errors to the special circumstances of a single person. For Daillé, this distinction is not correct in this context: “Now, the Condition of the Churches Belief, in every particular age, is matter of Fact, and not of Right; and a point of History, and not an Article of Faith.” 152 Thus, if the Fathers were mistaken not only in single aspects but in decisive points, their testimonies should not to be accepted as infallible. 153 149 Cf. Daillé: De usu patrum, l. I, c. IV, p. 36 (p. 62). For the position of Veron, see Popkin: History of Scepticism, pp. 68–74. 150 Cf. Sascha Müller: Kritik und Theologie: Christliche Glaubens- und Schrifthermeneutik nach Richard Simon (1638–1712). St. Ottilien 2004, pp. 183–209. 151 Cf. Daillé: De usu patrum, l. II, c. I, p. 2 [new pagination of the second book] (p. 204). 152 Daillé: De usu patrum, l. II, c. I, p. 4 (p. 205). Italics in original. 153 Precisely in this context, Daillé quoted some examples that the Jesuit Denis Pétau gave in his edition (Paris, 1622) of the works of Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, to show that Catholics, too, must admit that the testimonies of the Fathers cannot bind us. Cf. Daillé: De usu patrum, l. II, c. I, pp. 6–8 (pp. 208f.). However, the contrast between these two positions remains clear.

Looking Back into the Past

225

Essentially, the Fathers discredited themselves by testifying incongruently with each other. 154 They were wrong in many areas, not just in a few. They contradicted each other and maintained different opinions in matters of great importance. The truth is, as Daillé soberly stated, that neither the Catholics nor the Protestants recognised the Fathers as their judges, but rejected them boldly and without any scruple. The Protestants refused what the Fathers had taught in contradiction or addition to Scripture, and the Catholics rejected what stood in opposition to the resolutions of the popes and councils. Daillé was willing to draw a clear conclusion from this: Seeing therefore that both Parties attribute the Supream Authority to some other Judges, the Fathers, though perhaps their Resolutions should be grounded on Divine Authority, could never be able […] to clear their Differences, to reconcile the two Parties. 155

Daillé compiled an impressive list of Protestant and Catholic authors – including John Calvin, Martin Bucer, Philipp Melanchthon, Martin Luther, Theodore Beza, Thomas Cajetan, Melchior Cano, the Jesuits Denis Pétau, Juan Maldonado, Bellarmine, and Baronius –, all of whom did not accept the Fathers as judges, but instead continuously rejected or corrected them. 156 At the end of his book, Daillé confirmed the Protestant view that the only judge of theological and religious controversies and the only rule of Christian faith and its doctrines is Scripture alone, written by divine inspiration and endowed with the highest authority of both parties, Catholics and Protestants alike. 157 More clearly than Rivet, Daillé acknowledged the fact that the historicity of all events and thoughts prevent their use for apologetic reasons. If there is a decline of the church, then there is simply no historical value for measuring further develop-

154 155 156 157

In his Dogmata theologica (1643 and 1650), Pétau defended the Catholic position that the Fathers, after the Bible and the Councils, were only the third in the hierarchy of authority. They could only serve for two kinds of arguments: “Unum [sc. genus argumentorum] est necessarium et quantum in hac doctrina licet ἀποδείκτικον, quod certam habet et ad essentiam cogentem concludendi firmitatem. Alterum nonnisi probabile est. Horum prius ex illis quae supra posui, principiis ducitur, Scriptura et interprete Scripturae catholica Ecclesia, atque ab eadem Ecclesia receptis conciliis. Posterius variis ex locis arcessitur.” Dogmata theologica. Tomus primus. Editio nova. Paris 1865, prol., c. II, fol. 9v. The councils granted the Fathers their authority. Here Pétau quoted also Lérins’s Commonitorium with the three criteria of universality, antiquity, and consensus. Finally, he referred to the two extremes to be considered when using the Fathers: First, in their fight against the enemies of the church they often went to the other extreme in order to bring them back to the recta norma. Second, they did not treat all things in the same way, at the same time and under the same circumstances (ibid., fol. 14r–15r). The result is a reduction of the importance of the Fathers and a strengthening of the church’s function as regulator and judge of controversies. On this work, see Michael Hofmann: Theologie, Dogma und Dogmenentwicklung im theologischen Werk Denis Petau’s: Mit einem biographischen und einem bibliographischen Anhang. Bern 1976. Cf. Daillé: De usu patrum, l. II, c. I, p. 1 (p. 203). Daillé: De usu patrum, Synopsis, fol. 4v (*4v); cf. ibid., l. II, c. VI, p. 126 (p. 305). Cf. Daillé: De usu patrum, l. II, c. VI, pp. 131–141 (pp. 309–319). Cf. Daillé: De usu patrum, l. II, c. VI, pp. 181f. (pp. 362f.).

226

Sascha Salatowsky

ments. However, the tension between the absolute authority of Scripture, the historical distance to the ancientness of the Fathers, and the idea of a historical development remained unresolved in his work. Nonetheless Meinhold is absolutely right in stressing the positive aspects of Rivet’s and Daillé’s impressive programme: The emphasis on historical distance and the conception of historical development are intimately connected […] and trigger a new, plastic way of seeing history. The notion of the past as a compact entity limited to certain centuries is thus broken at the decisive point. With the dissolution of antiquity as such a closed entity is also connected the abolition of its unconditional authority for the following times and the concept of the historical understanding of historical phenomena, which are to be understood from their time-bound nature and from the historicity attached to them. 158

The beginning of a “historical understanding” becomes visible here in the Reformed camp, which, still, understands history as a process of decay, but nevertheless recognizes that each time transforms and changes the tradition handed down to it with its own ideas and concepts. 5. CONCLUDING REMARKS Each of the Christian authors presented here understood history as a history of salvation. This understanding reflected the meaning of history as something that had a defined end for every Christian, whether positive or negative. The idea that history could have a meaning beyond the history of salvation transcended the thinking of these scholars and the common people. Every dogmatic work of that time ended therefore with a chapter on the last things as the assumed endpoint of history. However, it was inevitable that the reassessment of church history, discussed here on the basis of the change in the understanding of the Church Fathers, would lead to a change in the understanding of history in general. The emergence of a philosophy of history in the course of the eighteenth century exemplifies that history increasingly lost its strict ties to the church. 159 The preoccupation with one’s own Christian history, which became more uncertain the more one devoted oneself to it, also made the future fluctuate. Change seemed to become the new constant of historical

158 Meinhold: Geschichte, vol. I, p. 397: “Die Betonung der historischen Distanz und die Konzeption der historischen Entwicklung hängen […] innerlich zusammen und veranlassen eine neue, plastische Art des historischen Sehens. Die Vorstellung von der Vergangenheit als einer kompakten, auf bestimmte Jahrhunderte zu begrenzenden Größe wird damit an der entscheidenden Stelle durchbrochen. Mit der Auflösung der Antiquität als einer solchen geschlossenen Größe ist auch die Aufhebung ihrer unbedingten Autorität für die folgenden Zeiten verbunden und der Begriff des geschichtlichen Verstehens von historischen Erscheinungen, die aus ihrer Zeitgebundenheit und von der ihnen anhaftenden Geschichtlichkeit her zu begreifen sind, gegeben.” 159 Cf. Karl Löwith: Meaning in history: The theological implications of the philosophy of history. Chicago IL 1949; Andreas Urs Sommer: Sinnstiftung durch Geschichte: Zur Entstehung spekulativ-universalistischer Geschichtsphilosophie zwischen Bayle und Kant. Basel 2006.

Looking Back into the Past

227

knowledge. The historicization of the Church Fathers and the Bible itself and viewing the future as a path to human perfection opened the horizon of history. Human existence progresses inevitably within this contingency.

THE REFORMATION IN ANTITRINITARIAN ACCOUNTS OF CHURCH HISTORY Pablo Toribio “Neque enim me latet facilius esse inventis addere et via jam trita aliorum premere vestigia.” Benedykt Wiszowaty: Bibliotheca Anti-Trinitariorum (1684) Abstract: This paper investigates how the Reformation was understood and represented as a historical period in early modern antitrinitarian accounts of Church History. Among the writings examined are two produced in Transylvania, De vera et falsa cognitione (1568) and Unitario-Ecclesiastica Historia Transylvanica (ca. 1779), and the major works by Daniel Zwicker, Stanisław Lubieniecki, Christoph Sand, Andrzej and Benedykt Wiszowaty written and / or published in Amsterdam between 1658 and 1685. Most of these accounts share a progressive view of the Reformation, meaning that it is seen as a process whose fulfilment is usually associated with millenarian expectations. However, the historical presentations are diverse and it does not seem possible to speak of an exclusively antitrinitarian view of the Reformation. Zusammenfassung: Dieser Beitrag geht der Frage nach, wie die Reformation als historische Epoche in der antitrinitarischen Geschichtsschreibung der Frühen Neuzeit verstanden und dargestellt wurde. Untersucht werden unter anderem zwei siebenbürgische Werke, De vera et falsa cognitione (1568) und Unitario-Ecclesiastica Historia Transylvanica (ca. 1779), sowie die Hauptwerke von Daniel Zwicker, Stanisław Lubieniecki, Christoph Sand, Andrzej und Benedykt Wiszowaty, die zwischen 1658 und 1685 in Amsterdam verfasst und / oder veröffentlicht wurden. Die meisten dieser Darstellungen teilen ein progressives Verständnis der Reformation, was bedeutet, dass diese als Prozess verstanden wird, dessen Erfüllung in der Regel mit millenaristischen Erwartungen verbunden ist. Die historischen Darstellungen sind jedoch vielfältig und es scheint nicht möglich, von einem ausschließlich antitrinitarischen Verständnis der Reformation zu sprechen.

1. A SOCINIAN FULFILLMENT OF THE REFORMATION? It is well known that seventeenth-century Socinians saw their movement as the fulfillment of the Reformation: Tota ruit Babylon! Disjecit tecta Lutherus, / muros Calvinus, sed fundamenta Socinus. 1 These verses are first attested by Jan Amos 1

I have written these pages as a tenured researcher at the Institute for Mediterranean and Near Eastern Languages and Cultures of the Spanish National Research Council (ILC, CSIC, Madrid) and as a member of the Project “Edición y estudio de textos bíblicos y parabíblicos” (FFI2017-86726-P), funded by the Agencia Estatal de Investigación and Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (European Union). I am indebted to the Scaliger Institute of the University

230

Pablo Toribio

Comenius, who claims in outrage to have heard them from the Socinians who were trying to proselytize him in the 1650s. 2 I have not found this couplet in any texts actually written by Socinians, but much the same idea is expressed in the Narratio compendiosa penned by Andrzej Wiszowaty and included in the Bibliotheca AntiTrinitariorum (1684) published by his son Benedykt: Postquam autem orbi Christiano nox ista atra, errorum in religionem pedetentim introductorum, per aliquot secula incubuisset; rursus postliminio, divina adspirante gratia, dies veritatis divinae revertens, gradatim, ut fieri assolet, coepit affulgere. Lutheri, Zuinglii, Calvini, Mennonis, velut aurorae ac diluculi apparitio praecessit, hanc deinceps solis reducis clariores radii sequebantur. Circiter annum a Christo nato 1546, in Italiae ditione Veneta, apud Vincentiam, de religionis negotio colloquia atque collegia sunt inchoata, a sociis fere 40 […]. 3

After the “dark night” that fell upon the Church in late Antiquity, as Wiszowaty writes, all doctrinal errors started to be gradually removed: “first came Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Mennon, like the dawn and the daybreak, as it were, and then the brighter beams of the returning sun followed.” This brightness started to shine in the year 1546, the first concrete date given by the Socinian author, not in relation to Martin Luther’s death, as one might expect, but in relation to the legendary meetings in Vicenza near Venice, in which Lelio Sozzini, the first hero of Wiszowaty’s story, is reported to have taken part. The plot then swiftly shifts from Italy to Switzerland and from there to Poland where the main narrative develops.

2

3

of Leiden, who accepted me as a visiting fellow in the summer of 2018, as I am to Mihály Balázs and Gizella Keserű for their generosity and hospitality in Szeged earlier that year, as well as for their valuable remarks on Transylvanian Unitarianism. I thank the organizers of the conference “Reforming Church History” for their kind invitation and their assistance during the publication process. Jan Amos Comenius: De irenico irenicorum, hoc est, conditionibus pacis a Socini secta reliquo christiano orbi oblatis, ad omnes christianos facta admonitio. Amsterdam 1660, p. 191 (see Philip Knijff, Sibbe Jan Visser, Piet Visser: Bibliographia Sociniana: A bibliographical reference tool for the study of Dutch Socinianism and Antitrinitarianism. Hilversum, Amsterdam 2004, p. 169). My attention was drawn to this reference by Paul C. H. Lim: Mystery unveiled: The crisis of the Trinity in early modern England. Oxford 2012, p. 333, note 47. From Bock onwards, the verses are usually quoted with the renderings ruet instead of ruit, and destruxit instead of disjecit (Friedrich Samuel Bock: Historia Antitrinitariorum, maxime Socinianismi et Socinianorum. Vol. 2. Königsberg, Leipzig 1784, p. 723). See also Sascha Salatowsky: “‘Nunquam à clarissima Scripturae luce recedere’: Die Koinzidenz von Vernunft, Logik und Exegese bei den Sozinianern”, in: Günter Frank, Stephan Meier-Oeser (eds.): Hermeneutik, Methodenlehre, Exegese: Zur Theorie der Interpretation in der Frühen Neuzeit. Stuttgart-Bad Canstatt, 2011, pp. 305–336, here: 309. Andrzej Wiszowaty: “Narratio compendiosa quomodo in Polonia a Trinitariis Reformatis separati sunt Christiani Unitarii”, in: Christoph Sand, [Benedykt Wiszowaty]: Bibliotheca AntiTrinitariorum, sive Catalogus scriptorum et succincta narratio de vita eorum auctorum, qui praeterito et hoc seculo vulgo receptum dogma de tribus in unico Deo per omnia aequalibus personis vel impugnarunt, vel docuerunt solum Patrem D. N. J. Christi esse illum verum seu altissimum Deum, opus posthumum Christophori Chr. Sandii, accedunt alia quaedam scripta […] quae omnia simul juncta compendium historiae ecclesiasticae Unitariorum, qui Sociniani vulgo audiunt, exhibent. Freistadii [Amsterdam] 1684, pp. 209–215, here: 209f.

The Reformation in Antitrinitarian Accounts

231

2. MILLENARIAN EXPECTATIONS AMONG EARLY ANTITRINITARIANS Things had been depicted differently a century earlier. De falsa et vera cognitione (1568), the “first international manifesto of European antitrinitarianism,” 4 was jointly published by the Polish and Transylvanian antitrinitarian churches in a time when Socinianism was not yet in existence, but there had been public controversies over the Trinity for over three decades. The first chapter of the second book of De vera et falsa cognitione, dealing with “the way in which Christ reinstates his Church” (Quomodo Christus suam instauret ecclesiam), includes some noteworthy remarks on the concept of “Reformation”. 5 Some wonder, as the text states, why the full truth was not reestablished (restituta) at once; everything is rather being purified step by step (sensim et per partes omnia repurgentur): the destruction of the Antichrist has not started at the foundations, but at “the end of the creed,” that is, with the purification of doctrines pertaining to the remission of sins and justification. The reason is that humanity would have been blinded if the full light had suddenly shone at once, and humans would have returned terrified to the darkness. “Luther was aroused by God as Moses in this present final stage of the old age of the world” (fol. AAiv), and after him other and better reformers (meliores reformatores), such as Calvin. But there was still a desert to cross, forty years of wandering in which it was possible to fall into temptation and to lose one’s way. As Moses died before he could reach the land of promise, the aforementioned reformers did not manage to arrive at the full truth, and even acted and committed sins against it: Luther and Zwingli are blamed for their murderous persecution of Anabaptists, Calvin for the death of Servetus, and so on. All of them, both “magisterial” and “radical” reformers, as they would be referred to today, are called here “explorers” (exploratores) of the land of promise, as an explicit reference to Numbers 13–14. Since some fruits brought by the explorers from this new land caused fear among the people, notably the “fruits” regarding the “knowledge of the true God and of Christ” (fructus alios praecipuos cognitionis veri Dei et Christi, fol. AAiiiv), and this even turned the explorers against each other, God punished his people by having them wander for forty years through the desert.

4 5

As referred to by Carlos Gilly: “Erasmo, la Reforma radical y los heterodoxos radicales españoles”, in: Tomás Martínez Romero (ed.): Les lletres hispàniques als segles xvi, xvii i xviii. Castelló de la Plana 2005, pp. 225–376, here: 225. De falsa et vera unius Dei Patris, Filii et Spiritus Sancti cognitione libri duo, authoribus ministris Ecclesiarum consentientium in Sarmatia, et Transylvania. Albae Iuliae [1568], vol. l.2, chapter 1, fol. AAir–BBiiv. See the facsimile edition: De falsa et vera unius Dei Patris, Filii et Spiritus Sancti cognitione libri duo (Alba Julia 1568), introduced by Antal Pirnát. Budapest 1988, pp. 121–132, together with the discussion provided by Mihály Balázs: Early Transylvanian Antitrinitarianism (1566–1571): From Servet to Palaeologus. Baden-Baden, Bouxwiller 1996.

232

Pablo Toribio

There was a clear expectation of the imminent fulfillment of God’s plan in Miguel Servet’s Christianismi restitutio (1553). The same expectation can be perceived in De vera et falsa cognitione, which incorporates lengthy sections from the book of the Spaniard. 6 In the chapter discussed (not taken from Servet), the millenarian 7 expectation is graphically hinted at by the capital letters of the word quadraginta (forty): God in his anger has forced his people to wander through the desert of the Antichrist “for forty years already” (fol. AAivr): Quare Deus iratus a terra Chanaan eos repressit, nec exploratores permisit videre amplius terram illam, sed eos in deserto interfecit: populum etiam illis addictum retroverti, et errare iam annis QUADRAGINTA per desertum Antichristi coegit, ita ut nunc primum, nos eorum infantes eo introducat, aperiens nobis mysteria veritatis suae, quae illi repudiarunt, et hucusque abominantur.

The immediate implication is obviously that the culmination of God’s work is about to come. Since the preface of De falsa et vera cognitione was signed in 1567, the forty years of wandering must have started in 1527, which happens to be the year of the publication of Martin Borrhaus’ De operibus Dei. This work came to be taken retrospectively as the earliest landmark of early modern antitrinitarianism. 8 The imminent fulfillment of God’s plan for his Church is described with words from the lexical fields of instauratio, restitutio and repurgatio. However, there are also instances of the word reformatio: the authors describe how they, antitrinitarians, had been Lutherans until they “saw other and better reformations” (alias meliores reformationes, fol. Aiiv). The text speaks of “reformations” and “reformers” in an external sense, but it also points to a spiritual reformation, animorum reformatio, which only very few reformers pursued (fol. BBiir): Quod autem mox non exerantur solida illius restitutionis indicia, mirari desinito, oportet enim adhuc modicum varios Antichristos in reformatis Ecclesiis regnare, qui tamen Dei verbo destituti, propediem una cum suis partubus uti Capito 9 et Cellarius praedixerunt perituri sunt […]. Iam enim procacitas, arrogantia et illorum sycophantia omnibus nota est: Vident et pueri quales fructus peperint tot illorum conatus, et an sit aliqua inter illos animorum reformatio:

6

7

8

9

See Balázs: Early Transylvanian Antitrinitarianism, pp. 135–151, and Howard Hotson: “Arianism and Millenarianism: The link between two heresies from Servetus to Socinus”, in: John Christian Laursen, Richard H. Popkin (eds.): Millenarianism and Messianism in early modern European culture. Vol. IV: Continental millenarians: Protestants, Catholics, heretics. Dordrecht 2001, pp. 9–35. Throughout this paper I use the term “millenarian” in the general sense implying the belief that “something monumental would happen that would transform human existence and bring an end to human history as we know it,” as described by Richard H. Popkin: “Introduction to the Millenarianism and Messianism series”, in: Laursen, Popkin: Millenarianism, vol. IV, p. vii. See Irena Backus: “Martin Borrahus (Cellarius)”, in: André Séguenny (ed.): Bibliotheca dissidentium: Répertoire des non conformistes religieux des seizième et dix-septième siècles. Vol. 2. Baden-Baden 1981, pp. 39–41; on the relation of this work to Servet, see Carlos Gilly: Spanien und der Basler Buchdruck bis 1600. Basel 1985, pp. 292f. As corrected by Balázs: Early Transylvanian Antitrinitarianism, p. 37; the original misreads “Capnio”.

The Reformation in Antitrinitarian Accounts

233

adeo enim frigent apud rabulas illas maledicas omnia sancta opera, ut ignoremus, an decem vere pii inveniri possint, qui sub illorum ferulis fuerint educati.

For the authors of De vera et falsa cognitione, the time of the reformations is a historical period, actually the very last period of human history, that starts with Luther and will very soon finish with the destruction of the Antichrist, when God himself will carry out the restitution of his Church (Iam instare tempora restitutionis generalis Ecclesiae Christi, fol. BBiv). This narrative thus contains a visible millenarian component, in keeping with its literary tradition. The millenarian component becomes highly emphasized in a contemporary and closely related text written in Hungarian by one of the authors involved in the publication of De vera et falsa cognitione, the Bishop of Cluj, Ferenc Dávid. In this work, Martin Borrhaus’ De operibus Dei is explicitly referred to, as are Luther’s theses of the year 1517. 10 Even if the latter does not yet appear in the prominent position that it will later acquire in Church historiography, it does play a role in Dávid’s numerological speculations. 3. CONFESSIONALIZATION AND ECUMENISM: LUBIENIECKI AND THE TWO WISZOWATYS What happened to the view expressed by the authors of De vera et falsa cognitione after one hundred years of divergent developments in antritrinitarianism? That the term “Reformed” came to refer to a single branch of Protestantism, as opposed to “Unitarians”, is visible in the title of Andrzej Wiszowaty’s Narratio compendiosa quomodo in Polonia a Trinitariis Reformatis separati sunt Christiani Unitarii, the short text that opened our survey. However, in spite of his “confessionalized” perspective, 11 Wiszowaty still implies a “Reformation” in general terms when he refers, playing with the Latin participles, to “the Reformed, who still need to be reformed” (Reformati [adhuc reformandi], p. 215). As for the millenarian component, it is conspicuously absent in Wiszowaty’s account. This is in keeping with the scholarly observation that Socinians came to reject the idea of an “external” millennium and preferred instead to cautiously adhere to the idea of a future “spiritual” one. 12 However, this is not exactly true for the work of Stanisław Lubieniecki, who was, after Andrzej Wiszowaty, the leading figure of the Socinian generation who experienced the exile. 13 10 See Balázs: Early Transylvanian Antitrinitarianism, pp. 154f.; Ferenc Dávid: Rövid magyarázat. Alba Julia 1567, repr. Kolozsvár 1910, pp. 41f. 11 This perspective is also visible in the prominence given to Lelio Sozzini in Wiszowaty’s account, together with the obscuration of other actors who did not come to belong to the Socinian tradition. Strictly, the term “confession” cannot be applied to Socinianism since its adherents consistently rejected the adoption of an official “confession”. They did form, however, a welldefined religious community with a tradition of its own. 12 See Hotson: Arianism and Millenarianism. 13 See now Maike Sach: “Glaubensflüchtling, Nachrichtenagent und Wissenschaftskommunikator: Der Sozinianer Stanisław Lubieniecki im norddeutschen Exil”, in: Kęstutis Daugirdas,

234

Pablo Toribio

In the first chapter of Lubieniecki’s Historia Reformationis Polonicae (1685), 14 it is possible to find a quite original version of the theory of a cyclical Reformation, as George H. Williams has put forward. 15 According to Lubieniecki, there have been several restitutions of religion. 16 He explicitly mentions two, the one brought to the Jews by Joshua and the one brought by the celestial Joshua, that is, by Jesus. In both cases there was a forerunner: Moses was the forerunner of Joshua, and John the Baptist the forerunner of Jesus. And in each case, the restored purity of religion lasted only one hundred and eleven years. Now, according to Lubieniecki, there was a period of one thousand five hundred seventeen years between the crossing of the Red Sea and the birth of John the Baptist, the pure religion being proclaimed thirty years after the latter, when Jesus reached adulthood; it retained its purity during the apostolic age, for one hundred and eleven years. Luther’s action in the year 1517 is explicitly compared to Moses and the crossing of the Red Sea, and the Reformation is said to have attained its completeness “around the year 1550.” The reader is left to deduce the implications on his own: if pure religion can only last one hundred and eleven years, then the fateful corruption of the latest Reformation was to happen between the years 1658 and 1660, precisely the years when the royal decree of expulsion of the Socinians from Poland was proclaimed and enacted. Nam sicut Ecclesia Judaica post Ann a nato Josua Duce centessimum undecimum, ita et Christiana eodem annorum spatio elapso post natum caelestem Josuam, corrumpi caepta est. Et sicut illa post liberationem ex tristi servitute Aegyptiaca et duce Mose per mare rubrum, hostes Aegyptiacos suffocans transitum in tutum littus salutis, ita et haec post liberationem ex tristissima servitute satanica, et duce caelesti Mose nostro per mare rubrum sanguinis in cruce effusi, omnes Aegypti spiritualis hostes suffocans, fideles vero lavans et servans in tutum aeternae salutis littus transitum, annos circiter 70 in integritate permansit […]. Porro sicut a transitu Israelitarum per mare rubrum, et a salute duce Mose parta, ad Joannis, qui caelestis Mosis aeternae salutis nuncium laetum ferentis, praecursor extitit, nativitatem, anni 1517, ita totidem anni ad reformationem a Luthero caeptam, et partam veritate libertatem, intercedunt. Denique ut instituta Christi Ecclesia impleta illa ab exodo Israelitarum ad Christi praecursorem annorum 1517 periodo, intra 5 annorum septenarios plenam libertatem sanguine Christi partam, ita et restituta Ecclesia, impleta simili ad exordium reformationis periodo post annos 30, circa anum scil 1550, perfectam reformationem et libertatem divino beneficio consecuta. 17

14

15 16 17

Christian Volkmar Witt (eds.): Gegeneinander glauben, miteinander forschen? Paradigmenwechsel frühneuzeitlicher Wissenschaftskulturen. Göttingen 2022, pp. 147–176. Stanisław Lubieniecki: Historia Reformationis Polonicae, in qua tum Reformatorum, tum Antitrinitariorum origo et progressus in Polonia et finitimis Provinciis narrantur, authore Stanislao Lubieniecio, Equite Polono. Freistadii [Amsterdam] 1685 (see Knijff: Bibliographia, p. 84). Also available in an extensively commented English translation: Stanislas Lubieniecki: History of the Polish Reformation and nine related documents (Ed. George Huntston Williams). Minneapolis MN 1995. Lubieniecki: History, p. 24. It is worth noting that a contemporary antitrinitarian that also conceived of cyclical religious restorations was Isaac Newton: see Cornelis J. Schilt: Isaac Newton and the study of chronology: Prophecy, history and method. Amsterdam 2021, pp. 145–146, with further bibliography. Lubieniecki: Historia, pp. 4f.; Lubieniecki, History, p. 82.

The Reformation in Antitrinitarian Accounts

235

The exact number “one thousand five hundred seventeen” does not appear, as far as Williams can say, 18 in any of the chronographic works available to Lubieniecki. It seems quite obvious that Lubieniecki’s manipulation responds to his wish to adhere to the presentation in De vera et falsa cognitione, which included the acknowledgment of Luther as the landmark opening the Reformation period and the comparison of Luther to Moses, and thus the idea of a progressive Reformation that only reaches its completion once the doctrine of the Trinity is rejected. In this regard, it is worth noting that Lubieniecki also uses Wiszowaty’s metaphor of the light slowly becoming brighter in order not to hurt human eyes with its sudden shining. 19 On the other hand, of course, Lubieniecki recognizes the Socinian variant of antitrinitarianism as the only one that brings about the fulfillment of the Reformation, and in doing so he marginalizes other variants, particularly the one prevalent in Transylvania at the time he was writing. Also, in keeping with the Socinian position he refuses to put forward a concrete date for the millennium, while notwithstanding hinting at its future coming: “Yet we dare not rashly invade the secret sanctuary of [God’s] counsels, nor curiously explore those movements of the times which Christ testifies the Father has placed in his own power” (referring to Mark 13:32). 20 The case is notably different in the historiographical work of the editor of Lubieniecki’s Historia, Benedykt Wiszowaty. The son of the celebrated Andrzej Wiszowaty, Benedykt, carried out in a silent and self-effacing way, as Lech Szczucki appropriately described it, 21 an editorial work of crucial relevance for the reception of Socinianism and Socinian literature by scholars from the eighteenth century onwards. He is in fact the author of most of the aforementioned Bibliotheca Anti-Trinitariorum (Amsterdam 1684), which is usually referred to in scholarship as a posthumous work of Christoph Sand, precisely because Wiszowaty entitled it that way. He also edited Lubieniecki’s Historia Reformationis Polonicae based on a lost manuscript. More relevant to our present discussion, he also reacted to Christoph Sand’s Nucleus historiae ecclesiasticae (1669 and 1676) with his own, still unpublished, Medulla historiae ecclesiasticae (ca. 1685). 22 18 Lubieniecki: History, p. 415. 19 Lubieniecki: Historia, p. 13: “Postquam ita Deus homines in tenebricosum idololatriae et variorum commentorum carcerem detrusos per certos gradus in admirabilem veritatis caelestis lucem reduceret, satis declarabat non tantum non esse retrocedendum […] sed ulterius assuetis paulatim tenuiori luci oculis progrediendum […].” See Lubieniecki: History, p. 89. 20 Lubieniecki: History, p. 82; Lubieniecki: Historia, p. 5. 21 Lech Szczucki: “Socinian historiography in the late seventeenth century: Benedykt Wiszowaty and his Medulla historiae ecclesiasticae”, in: Frank Forrester Church, Timothy George (eds.): Continuity and Discontinuity in Church History: Essays presented to George Huntston Willliams. Leiden 1979, pp. 285–300, here: 289. 22 See Szczucki: Socinian historiography, and for some additional comments, Pablo Toribio: “Representaciones antitrinitarias de la historia eclesiástica: El caso de la Medulla historiae ecclesiasticae (ca. 1685) de Benedykt Wiszowaty”, in: Astrid Steiner-Weber, Franz Römer (eds.): Acta conventus Neo-Latini Vindobonensis: Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Congress of Neo-Latin Studies (Vienna 2015). Leiden 2018, pp. 712–719. For what follows I rely on my own, direct reading of the three manuscripts preserving the text held in Hamburg and

236

Pablo Toribio

Benedykt Wiszowaty intends to prove in his Medulla that the original Christians were the “Nazarenes”, who rejected the existence of Christ before his human birth, and that there had been adherents to this truth in every single period of history. This is the very same scheme that Sand had applied in his Nucleus, with the difference that Sand had claimed that original Christianity had been preserved by the Arians – who did believe in Christ’s pre-mundane existence −, consequently accusing Socinians of doctrinal novelty. Wiszowaty concentrates his polemic with his deceased friend in a small number of controversial pre-Nicaean figures, particularly Paul of Samosata, and for the rest he reproduces the scheme available in Sand’s Nucleus. What is striking in Wiszowaty’s Medulla in respect to our topic is the absolute absence of Luther as well as the very sparse use of the term “Reformation”. Wiszowaty uses it only once in a way reminiscent of the aforementioned opposition reformati / reformandi found in his father’s Narratio compendiosa. He states that Andreas Dudith “first adhered to the Reformed, that is, the followers of Calvin, but then, he saw that there was no full reformation in religion among them […].”23 There is no explicit statement about the supposedly perfect Reformation brought about by Socinianism. Polish Socinians are referred to in a highly sketchy form at the end of the final chapter, immediately after acknowledging the continuing existence of Unitarians in Transylvania and Hungary. Mention is made of the particularly fierce persecution of Polish Socinians, but there is no reference to their alleged perfection of doctrine. And there is also absolutely no trace of apocalypticism. 4. TWO OUTSIDERS: SAND AND ZWICKER Wiszowaty’s cumulative story might convey the general impression that the massive presence of heterodoxy and pluralism within Christianity throughout its entire history makes the universality claims of the Roman Church unsustainable. Precisely this point had been explicitly made by Christoph Sand in his Nucleus historiae ecclesiasticae, first published in Amsterdam in 1669. 24 This is the first work of our

Cluj-Napoca. On the latter see Elemér Lakó: The manuscripts of the Unitarian college of Cluj / Koloszvár in the Library of the Academy in Cluj-Napoca. Vol. 1. Szeged 1997, pp. 99, 109 (cf. Szczucki: Socinian historiography, pp. 289f.; Toribio: Representaciones, p. 717). 23 “Is [Dudithius] pontificiorum sacris valedicto reformatis Calvini sequacibus se adjunxit, verum cum nec inter hos perfectam reformationem in religione esse cerneret, ulterius processit strenuusque vulgaris de Trinitate opinionis oppugnator, veritatis vero propugnator extitit ad exitum usque, quem habuit anno 1589” (Hamburg, Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, cod. theol. 1819, p. 345; my emphasis). 24 Christoph Sand: Nucleus historiae ecclesiasticae, cui praefixus est tractatus de veteribus scriptoribus ecclesiasticis. Cosmopoli [Amsterdam] 1669; idem: Nucleus historiae ecclesiasticae, exhibitus in historia Arianorum, tribus libris comprehensa, quibus praefixus est tractatus de veteribus scriptoribus ecclesiasticis, secunda editio ab authore locupletata et emendata. Coloniae [Amsterdam] 1676; idem: Appendix addendorum, confirmandorum et emendandorum ad Nucleum historiae ecclesiasticae, in qua sub finem adduntur tres epistolae, quarum primam est

The Reformation in Antitrinitarian Accounts

237

survey written by someone who did not belong intellectually to any defined Christian denomination. Christoph Sand grew up in the Lutheran environment of Königsberg but inherited the “Arian” leanings of his father, who had been deprived of his public office because of them. Sand the Younger lived as a religious outsider in Amsterdam and Hamburg, made his living as proof-corrector, and died at the age of 36 in the Dutch capital after publishing a number of polemical works in which he criticized both the “orthodox” and the Socinian understanding of the Trinity. 25 At several points in the Nucleus, Sand makes his polemical claim that the adherence to tradition proclaimed by Roman Catholicism can be turned against itself by proving that the “orthodox” tradition was essentially “Arian” until the fourth century. When the Church of England minister, Samuel Gardiner, wrote a defense of the pre-Nicaean Fathers against Sand’s Nucleus, Sand replied that Protestants should welcome his work since it was aimed at undermining Catholic claims about tradition and substantiating the importance of adhering to Scripture alone. 26 On the other hand, Sand explicitly claimed that adherence to the doctrine of a co-substantial Trinity is both heretical and proper to Roman Catholicism: Unde probavimus nullum haereticum ante Arium in articulo de Trinitate cum Ario credidisse; nullum haereticum ante Socinum eadem de Verbo cum Socino docuisse; quin potius omnes haereticos tum in aliis multis, tum in eo quod crediderunt unum esse Deum, Patrem, Filium et Spiritum Sanctum, unam substantiam et tres personas, cum Ecclesia Romana consensisse cumque ea tandem in unum corpus coaluisse et in Pontificem Romanum cessisse. 27

Sand’s actual intentions are highly elusive in all of his works. In the case of the Nucleus and in respect to the present topic, a disparity can be detected between the external structure of the work and the resulting image of the Reformation. The historical exposition consists of three parts (“books”) of about the same length: the first deals with the first three centuries of Christianity, the second deals exclusively with the fourth century, and the third is devoted to all remaining Christian history. As can be seen, the Reformation is not given any definite role in the outer structure.

autoris ejusdem ad D. Samuelem Gardinerum scripta in defensionem sui Nuclei historiae ecclesiasticae, secunda D. Gardineri responsoria, tertia authoris responsoria est ad epistolam D. Gardineri. Coloniae [Amsterdam] 1678. See Knijff: Bibliographia, p. 134. 25 For further bibliographical information on Sand, with additional information on his intellectual and political activities, see Pablo Toribio: “The Latin Translation of Philosophical Transactions (1671–1681)”, in: Rocío G. Sumillera, Jan Surman, Katharina Kühn (eds.): Translation in Knowledge, Knowledge in Translation. Amsterdam 2020, pp. 123–143; and idem: “An Antitrinitarian Proofreader of Roman Catholic Scholarship: Christoph Sand’s Correspondence (1676–1680) with Pierre-Daniel Huet and Athanasius Kircher”, in: Lias: Journal of Early Modern Intellectual Culture and its Sources 48:2 (2021), pp. 307–382. 26 Sand: Appendix, p. 95: “Ego enim contra Pontificios in usum Protestantium scripsi Nucleum meum Historiae Ecclesiasticae.” 27 Sand: Nucleus (1669), vol. l.1, p. 96. On Gardiner’s reaction to Sand, see Dmitri Levitin: Ancient Wisdom in the Age of the New Science: Histories of Philosophy in England, c. 1640– 1670. Cambridge 2015, pp. 504f.

238

Pablo Toribio

However, the second book on fourth-century history finishes with this noteworthy statement: Haec cum consideramus, secure asseverare non dubitamus, isto quidem seculo ortum esse Regnum Magni Antichristi, at sexcentesimo a nato Christo anno illum maxime potentiam suam exseruisse, in facie Ecclesiae deformanda. Caeterum non pauci fuerunt et seculo praeterito et praesente, qui veritatem Catholicam denuo ex latebris ductam propagarunt, inter quos celeberrimi fuerunt D. Lutherus et Calvinus, at totalis Antichristi destructio demum exspectanda est in Regno Christi glorioso. Faxit autem Deus Opt Max ut adventus Filii sui cum sanctis Angelis nostris accidat temporibus. 28

On the one hand, Sand’s claim that the Antichrist was born in the fourth century is completely unorthodox since it links the doctrine of the Trinity with the corruption of the Church – incidentally, this claim is at least as old as Servet. 29 On the other hand, Sand does not refer by name to any “radical” reformer as Wiszowaty does and he also does not emphasize the progressiveness of the Reformation. “The destruction of the Antichrist” does not need to be taken as anything more than the defeat of Roman Catholicism in the traditional way of mainstream Protestant exegesis. In the third book, Sand will have us believe that both Luther and Calvin were Arians. 30 The real purpose of Sand’s Nucleus still needs to be studied in detail. However, its construction of a historical Arian continuity certainly serves polemical rather than historiographical purposes. This is further confirmed when we find Sand expressing different, more nuanced opinions in his private correspondence. 31 The case is quite different in the most immediate precedent of Sand’s narrative, the Irenicum irenicorum (1658) written by Daniel Zwicker. 32 Like Sand, Zwicker was an eastern Prussian (from Danzig) who lived his final years as a religious outsider in Amsterdam. Like Sand after him, Zwicker also takes the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity 28 Sand: Nucleus (1669), vol. l.2, p. 156. Same text in Sand: Nucleus (1676), vol. l.2, p. 260, modified only with the substitution of contingat instead of accidat. 29 Miguel Servet: Christianismi restitutio. [Vienna] 1553, p. 666; see Ramón Teja: “Costantino visto da un ariano moderno: La Historia ecclesiastica di Isaac Newton”, in: Lietta De Salvo, Elena Calibri, Marilena Casella (eds.): Fra Costantino e i Vandali: Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi per Enzo Aiello (1957–2013) (Messina, 29/30 ottobre 2015). Bari 2016, pp. 279–288, here: pp. 286f. 30 See Sand: Nucleus (1669), vol. l.3, p. 110: “D. Lutherum Arianum fuisse probaverunt Possevinus […]. De Calvino idem demonstrarunt et Pontificii et Lutherani.” 31 As in his undated letter (1668/1669) to Johannes Becius (Amsterdam, Universiteitsbibliotheek, OTM, hs: Bc 156), where he puts forward doubts concerning Luther’s rejection of the comma Johanneum. See Pablo Toribio: “Notas sobre la correspondencia manuscrita de Christoph Sand”, in: Florian Schaffenrath, María Teresa Santamaría Hernández (eds.): Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Albasitensis. Leiden 2020, pp. 598–609. 32 Daniel Zwicker: Irenicum irenicorum, seu Reconciliatioris Christianorum hodiernorum norma triplex, Sana omnium Ratio, Scriptura Sacra, et Traditiones […]. [Amsterdam] 1658 (see Knijff: Bibliographia, p. 139). See the detailed study by Peter G. Bietenholz: Daniel Zwicker (1612–1678): Peace, tolerance and God the one and only. Firenze 1997. On the Irenicum and the Nucleus, see Levitin: Ancient wisdom, pp. 483–485 with further bibliography.

The Reformation in Antitrinitarian Accounts

239

to be the result of pernicious Gnostic heresies. However, he does not ascribe this error exclusively to Roman Catholicism. Much on the contrary, he explicitly claims that all the Churches of his time – including Roman Catholicism! – are Churches of Christ and each of them has a valuable component. Zwicker envisages the end of Christian controversies not in terms of “the destruction of the Antichrist,” but in terms of peaceful reunion. However, the first crucial step towards this reunion must be the renouncement of the doctrine of the Trinity. Also, unlike Sand – and unlike all authors of this survey – Zwicker does not seem to believe that a real Reformation has taken place. His point of departure is the fragmentation of Christianity, and there is scarcely room for apocalyptic language in his highly utopian proposal for a general Reformation. 33 5. CONCLUSIONS Around 1779, the historiographers of the Unitarian Church of Transylvania had no doubts when it came to identifying the beginning of their story: in 1517 Luther “attempted” a reformation of the Church, and it was in the course that this reformation took in Transylvania that the origins of their Unitarian Church were to be found: LIBER PRIMUS CAPUT I. De primordio reformationis per Martinum Lutherum tentatae. Deinde: Quomodo ejus doctrina in Transylvaniam irrepsit? Ac de controversia de caena Domini circa A. C. 1557 circiter mota, usque A. 1564 agitata in synodis et disputata. 34

It is symptomatic that the quotation in the next paragraph, referring to Luther’s action in 1517, comes from a late seventeenth-century Lutheran work. 35 There is little doubt as to which narrative had succeeded and to which precise historical period the term “Reformation” had started to refer. However, some echoes remain of the antitrinitarian ideas on Church history developed in the two preceding centuries, traceable in the concept of a progressive Reformation slightly suggested by the word tentatae. The most persistent idea of early modern antitrinitarian accounts of Church history was indeed the progressiveness of the Reformation. According to their authors, Luther did not accomplish the Reformation of the Church, but triggered a process that would eventually lead to the full Reformation. This eventual fulfillment was, as everywhere else in the Protestant world, closely associated with millenarian expectations, which later in the period tended to be removed, particularly in the case 33 For the few echoes of apocalypticism present in Zwicker’s works, see Bietenholz: Daniel Zwicker, pp. 75, 176. 34 János Kénosi Tőzsér, István Uzoni Fosztó: Unitario-Ecclesiastica historia Transylvanica. Liber I– II (Ed. János Káldos, intr. Mihály Balázs, rev. Miklós Laczkovics). Budapest 2002, p. 97. 35 Georg Haner: Historia ecclesiarum Transylvanicarum. Frankfurt am Main, Leipzig 1694, p. 142. The source is expressly referred to by the authors.

240

Pablo Toribio

of Socinianism, and replaced by a confessional fulfillment – that is, the full Reformation was to be found in a single Christian group. However, it is not possible to speak of a single antitrinitarian view of Church history, and this can be particularly observed in the colorful picture of late seventeenth-century Socinianism: Lubieniecki’s calculations reveal his unexpressed millenarian expectations; neither Andrzej Wiszowaty nor his son Benedykt grant Luther even an inaugural role in their accounts; Benedykt Wiszowaty does not write on the birth and progress of the Reformation but on the historical survival of a highly fictional antritrinitarian remnant. Non-Socinian, antitrinitarian authors of the same period also provide divergent views: whereas Sand combines the image he would hand down to Wiszowaty, that of a surviving antitrinitarian remnant, with the explicit hope of an external millennium, Zwicker’s expectations are not directed towards the fulfillment of the Reformation but towards the reunification of a fragmented Christianity.

4. CHANGING APPROACHES

ARGUING FOR THE MORAL NECESSITY OF REFORMATION HISTORY Ernst Salomon Cyprian’s Historiographic Use of Natural Law in Defense of the Lutheran Church Daniel Gehrt Abstract: Ernst Salomon Cyprian undertook several projects related to the historiography of the Reformation. They arose largely in reaction to contemporary theological, philosophical, and political debates questioning the authority of state churches, doctrinal writings, and the existing divisions between the Lutheran and Reformed Church. These writings can be categorized into three major groups: 1) letters from notable persons in the sixteenth century preserved in the ducal library in Gotha, 2) prints and preliminary work that formed part of his lifelong endeavor to refute Gottfried Arnold’s History of Heretics, and 3) works originating in various political contexts. Especially in the writings directed against the History of Heretics, Cyprian argued for the moral necessity of Reformation history, attributing the freedom of conscience, the abolishment of superstitious beliefs and practices, and the independence of states from the political influence of the papacy to the achievements of the Reformation. This argumentation was strongly influenced by the works of Hugo Grotius and the discourse on natural law. Zusammenfassung: Ernst Salomon Cyprian nahm zahlreiche historiographische Projekte zur Reformation in Angriff. Sie entstanden großenteils in Reaktion auf zeitgenössische theologische, philosophische und politische Kontroversen, die die Autorität der Staatskirchen, dogmatische Werke und bestehende Abgrenzungen zwischen der lutherischen und reformierten Kirche infrage stellten. Diese Schriften können in drei Hauptgruppen eingeteilt werden: 1) Briefe von prominenten Personen aus dem 16. Jahrhundert in der Herzoglichen Bibliothek Gotha; 2) Drucke und vorläufige Arbeiten, die Teile seiner lebenslangen Bestrebung bildeten, Gottfried Arnolds „Ketzer-Historie“ zu widerlegen; und 3) Werke, die aus verschiedenen politischen Kontexten entstanden. Besonders in den Schriften, die gegen die „Ketzer-Historie“ gerichtet waren, argumentierte Cyprian für die moralische Notwendigkeit von Reformationsgeschichte. Dabei schrieb er die Gewissensfreiheit, die Abschaffung des Aberglaubens und die Unabhängigkeit der Staaten vom politischen Einfluss des Papsttums den Errungenschaften der Reformation zu. Diese Argumentation wurde von den Werken von Hugo Grotius und dem naturrechtlichen Diskurs stark beeinflusst.

Although the Gotha church councilor, historian, and library director Ernst Salomon Cyprian was recognized by his contemporaries in the first half of the eighteenth century as one of the foremost scholars in Reformation history, he has become a

244

Daniel Gehrt

fleeting figure in the major works on church historiography in the following centuries. 1 This fate befell him largely on account of the fact that he never published a comprehensive coherent narrative of the Reformation and that his most extensive contribution to the historiography of this era entitled Necessary Defense of the Evangelical Church against Arnold’s History of Heretics 2 was not published in his own name, but rather in that of his long-standing assistant of little notoriety Georg Grosch. This belated response to Gottfried Arnold’s momentous History of Heretics 3 printed 45 years earlier had little impact on the historiography of its time and soon fell into oblivion. Nonetheless, Cyprian secured himself a niche in the memory of many Reformation historians through the publication of hundreds of original letters and documents from the manuscript volumes of the ducal library at the Friedenstein Palace, today forming one of the core collections of the Gotha Research Library. In 1996, Gustav Adolf Benrath made a first attempt at characterizing Cyprian’s writings related to Reformation history. His assessments require, however, some modifications. Firstly, he claimed that Cyprian’s work stood firmly in the tradition of Lutheran Orthodox historiography. This holds true for his assertion of a causal relationship between the rise of the papacy and the decline of the church after the Apostolic Age and for his understanding of the Reformation as a resurgence of true religion. However, a closer look at his works reveals that Cyprian was in some respects a forerunner in this field. Secondly, Benrath stated that Cyprian’s writings were of a predominantly apologetic nature. This cannot be denied. Confronted with spiritual and philosophical movements of his time threatening to uproot traditional Lutheran churches, Cyprian defended the legitimacy of state controlled Lutheran churches and of the body of authoritative confessional writings published in 1580 in the Book of Concord constituting their doctrinal foundation. In these contentions, he frequently resorted to historiography to assert his point of view. These works were of a more argumentative than narrative nature. Thirdly, Benrath observed that Cyprian concentrated his efforts on publishing primary sources that he largely allowed to speak for themselves. 4 New findings that have been unearthed in the recent process of cataloging the manuscripts connected with Cyprian’s various duties at

1

2 3 4

Such as in: A.G. Dickens, Johann Tonkin: The Reformation in Historical Thought. Cambridge, MA 1985. Klaus Wetzel who devotes a whole section of his monography to Cyprian represents the exception: Klaus Wetzel: Theologische Kirchengeschichtsschreibung im deutschen Protestantismus 1660–1760. Giessen, Basel 1983, pp. 302–308. [Ernst Salomon Cyprian], Georg Grosch: […] Nothwendige Verthaidigung der evangelischen Kirche wider die Arnoldische Ketzerhistori […]. Frankfurt am Main, Leipzig 1745 (VD18 1073905X). Gottfried Arnold: […] Unparteyische Kirchen- und Ketzer-Historie/ von Anfang des Neuen Testaments biß auff das Jahr Christi 1688. [Leipzig], Frankfurt am Main 1699/1700 (VD17 12:116527G, 23:686306K). Cf. Gustav Adolf Benrath: “Ernst Salomon Cyprian als Reformationshistoriker”, in: Ernst Koch, Johannes Wallmann (eds.): Ernst Salomon Cyprian (1673–1745) zwischen Orthodoxie, Pietismus und Frühaufklärung. Gotha 1996, pp. 36–48.

Arguing for the Moral Necessity of Reformation History

245

the Gotha court and his historiographic projects 5 reveal, however, that the series of primary sources that Cyprian published on the occasion of the bicentennial commemoration of the Reformation in 1717 were actually an advance print of an appendix for his plan to compose an all-embracing history of Christianity from 1500 to 1700. This project never reached its full completion. Since Cyprian’s stance in contemporary theological, philosophical, and political debates questioning the authority of state churches, doctrinal writings, and the existing divisions between the Lutheran and Reformed Church was strongly reflected in his historiographical works on the Reformation, this study will initially sketch out the church policies that Cyprian advocated in juxtaposition to those upheld by his main adversaries. This is followed by a comprehensive overview of Cyprian’s projects related to Reformation history. It does not only take the published works into account, but also the plans that were conceived and initiated, but never came to fruition. These can be largely divided into major categories defined by long-term strategies and goals. Whereas some chiefly served a representative function for the ducal library at the Friedenstein Palace, others stood in connection with Cyprian’s Defense of the Evangelical Church. Merely a few publications originated in different contexts. Thirdly, the study will investigate into Cyprian’s special interest in Reformation history and reveal why and how he argued for its necessity. Fourthly, the influence of the contemporary discourse on natural law and the works of Hugo Grotius on Cyprian’s argumentation is discussed, unveiling a whole new perspective on the writings of the Gotha church councilor. In conclusion, an attempt is made to define Cyprian’s role in the history of Protestant church historiography. 1. INTELLECTUAL CONTENTIONS WITH ARNOLD, THOMASIUS, AND PFAFF Born in 1673 as son of a pharmacist in the Franconian town of Ostheim, Cyprian attended school in the nearby cities of Salzungen and Schleusingen. 6 He enrolled at the Universities of Leipzig and Jena, focusing his studies initially on medicine and 5

6

The results of the cataloguing project are available online in the union catalogue Kalliope (http://kalliope.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/de/index.html [last accessed: December 20, 2021]); and in print: Katalog der Handschriften aus dem Nachlass Ernst Salomon Cyprians (1673– 1745): Aus den Sammlungen der Herzog von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha’schen Stiftung für Kunst und Wissenschaft sowie aus den Beständen des Landesarchivs Thüringen – Staatsarchiv Gotha und der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirchengemeinde Gotha, Augustinerkloster (Ed. Daniel Gehrt). Wiesbaden 2021. On Cyprian’s life and work cf. especially Koch, Wallmann: Cyprian; Erdmann Rudolph Fischer: Das Leben Ernst Salomon Cyprians […]. Leipzig 1749 (VD18 11391111); Herbert Oppel: „D. Ernst Salomon Cyprian, Direktor des Gymnasium Casimirianum Academicum zu Coburg (1700–1713) und sein Briefwechsel mit Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz“, in: Jahrbuch der Coburger Landesstiftung 23 (1978), pp. 35–82.

246

Daniel Gehrt

later on theology. His special interest in church history prompted him in 1698 to follow his mentor Johann Andreas Schmidt to Helmstedt where he was granted a position as extraordinary professor of history and logic. Particularly his adroit rebuttals of Gottfried Arnold’s Impartial History of the Church and Heretics, 7 an innovative and highly controversial two-volume work printed in the years 1699 and 1700, gained Cyprian a reputation as historian. Subsequently, he was accepted into the Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin in 1703 upon Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz’s recommendation. Among the early achievements of this rising star in the field of history was a multi-commented edition of St. Jerome’s writing On Illustrious Men and the supplement to this series of 135 biographies of significant figures of the Christian Church and their writings up to the fourth century composed a century later by Gennadius of Massilia. 8 In 1705, Cyprian published a biography of the Italian philosopher Tommaso Campanella commissioned by King George I of Great Britain. 9 In 1700, the Ernestine dukes Frederick II of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg and Henry of Saxe-Römhild had granted Cyprian a position as professor of theology and director of the Casimirianum in the Franconian town of Coburg, a school whose curriculum equaled to a considerable degree that of a university. 10 The princes had a particular interest in Cyprian’s historiographical work, financing, for example, his travels to the Netherlands in 1704 to gather information on diverse denominations such as the Anabaptists, Socinians, Deists, Arminians, Jansenists, and Labadists for studies on contemporary church history. 11 In 1713, Duke Frederick II made Cyprian his church councilor in the west Thuringian town of Gotha, where the renowned scholar remained until his death in 1745. 12 Alongside his other duties at the Friedenstein Palace, Cyprian was instructed – time permitting – to pursue the completion

7

Ernst Salomon Cyprian: […] Allgemeine Anmerckungen über Gottfried Arnolds Kirchen- und Ketzer-Historie […]. Helmstedt 1700 (VD17 3:001002B, also: VD17 23:234105G, 12:116699Y, 12:118829X). 8 Sophronius Eusebius Hieronymus: […] Catalogvs Scriptorvm Ecclesiasticorvm Sev De Viris Illvstribvs Liber […] (Ed. Ernst Salomon Cyprian). Frankfurt [am Main], Leipzig [1700] (VD18 12449482); Gennadius of Massilia: […] Liber De Scriptoribvs Ecclesiasticis […] (Ed. Ernst Salomon Cyprian). Jena 1703 (VD18 10451803). 9 Ernst Salomon Cyprian: Vita Et Philosophia Th. Campanellæ. […]. Amsterdam 1705. Cf. Oppel: Cyprian 1700–1713, p. 42. 10 Cf. Heinrich Beck: Festschrift für die Feier des dreihundertjährigen Bestehens des Gymnasium Casimirianum in Coburg 1605–1905. Coburg [1905]; Festschrift zum 350jährigen Bestehen des Gymnasium Casimirianum Coburg. Coburg 1955; Musarum Sedes 1605–2005: Festschrift zum 400-jährigen Bestehen des Gymnasiums Casimirianum Coburg. Coburg 2005. 11 Cf. Fischer: Cyprian, pp. 18f.; Oppel: Cyprian 1700–1713, p. 55; and letters in: Forschungsbibliothek Gotha (henceforth: FB Gotha), Chart. A 423, fol. 104r–107v. Cyprian’s travel notes in: FB Gotha, Chart. A 297, pp. 419–430. 12 On Cyprian’s work in Gotha cf. Ernst Koch: “Kirchenleitung in Übergangszeiten. Zum Lebenswerk von Ernst Salomon Cyprian (1673–1745)”, in: Jürgen Diestelmann, Wolfgang Schilhahn (eds.): Einträchtig Lehren: Festschrift für Bischof Dr. Jobst Schöne. Groß Oesingen 1997, pp. 286–298.

Arguing for the Moral Necessity of Reformation History

247

of a comprehensive church history. 13 Cyprian also served as director of the court library. In this office, he vigorously expanded the collections, especially those pertaining to his own scholarly interests, and promoted the fame of the library across Europa through various publications and his extensive correspondence. 14 Cyprian was an avid opponent of various philosophers and theologians breaking away from the Lutheran church in its established form. These included radical fractions of the Pietistic movement, exponents of views substantiating religious indifference or atheism, and advocates of a Protestant union. Although Cyprian held a doctorate in theology, he preferred to implement historiography over doctrinal treatises when engaging in these spiritual, intellectual, and political controversies. To understand the underlying aims of his historiographical works, it is thus necessary to outline Cyprian’s stance in the respective debates. Cyprian’s Necessary Defense of the Evangelical Church against Arnold’s History of Heretics, published in 1745 by Georg Grosch, has recently gained the attention of historians as a point of departure for examining the methods and strategies of the Gotha church counselor for refuting the deconstruction of traditional Protestant historiography in Gottfried Arnold’s Impartial History of the Church and Heretics at the turn of the century. 15 This momentous work on the history of Christianity from its origins up to the year 1688 immediately ignited an intensive discourse in academic circles. Beyond the claims of objectivity, Arnold’s history was impartial or nonpartisan in the sense that it was not written from a specific confessional viewpoint. Instead, Arnold constructed a line of continuity connecting the “true church” of the Apostolic Age to that of contemporary times through depictions of the lives and spirituality of various individuals and religious minority groups that had been stigmatized by the established church as heterodox or heretical. Arnold argued that spiritual love was constitutive for true Christianity. He thereby responded to an acute concern of contemporary movements of religious renewal within Protestantism that had become widespread in the last quarter of the seventeenth century especially through the influential writings and activities of the Pietist Philipp Jacob Spener. In his work, Arnold endowed spiritualists and other separatist religious groups with historical roots anchored in the primitive church.

13 Landesarchiv Thüringen – Staatsarchiv Gotha (henceforth: LATh – StA Gotha), Geheimes Archiv UU III Nr. 18, fol. 3r–8v, here: 7r–v. Instruction from Duke Frederick II for Cyprian, Friedenstein Palace, [August 1], 1713. 14 Cyprian’s official correspondence during his years in Gotha is preserved in: FB Gotha, Chart. A 422–447. Cf. Gehrt: Nachlass Cyprians, pp. 145–359. 15 C. Scott Dixon: “Faith and History on the Eve of Enlightenment: Ernst Salomon Cyprian, Gottfried Arnold, and the History of Heretics”, in: The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 57 (2006), pp. 33–54; Daniel Gehrt: “Gottfried Arnold und Ernst Salomon Cyprian im Ringen um die historische Deutung des Christentums seit der Reformation”, in: Sascha Salatowsky (ed.): Im Kampf um die Seelen: Glauben im Thüringen der Frühen Neuzeit: Katalog zur Ausstellung der Forschungsbibliothek Gotha der Universität Erfurt vom 30. April bis 9. Juli 2017. Gotha 2017, pp. 51–61; Hans Schneider: “Cyprians Auseinandersetzung mit Gottfried Arnolds Kirchenund Ketzerhistorie”, in: Koch, Wallmann: Cyprian, pp. 111–135.

248

Daniel Gehrt

His portrayal of worship of the first Christians corresponded greatly with characteristic features of the controversial collegia pietatis, i.e., privately organized assemblies of believers without the supervision of a pastor or priest for joint religious edification. Not dogma, but rather a vibrant inner piety of the heart, spirituality, and the rejection of worldliness became the focus of being Christian. Accordingly, Arnold radically undermined all major institutionalized churches, holding the view that the rise of the territorial churches under the authority of the Lutheran princes catalyzed the decline of the church that had begun in the fourth century as Constantine the Great established Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire. In Arnold’s historical narrative, the rise of church hierarchies and dogmatization led to the repeated suppression of piety. In his radical reinterpretation of Protestant church historiography, the Reformation had failed to provide an impetus for continual religious renewal. Instead, it quickly proved to be merely a brief resurgence of true religiosity. Arnold found an eminent supporter in Christian Thomasius, philosopher and exponent of the Early Enlightenment. Thomasius praised the History of Heresies as the most useful book sui generis ever to have been written apart from the bible. 16 He subsequently based his university lectures in Halle related to ecclesiastical history on this work. 17 Pursuing Arnold’s theory of the causal relationship between the institutionalization and decline of the church further in his History of the Contention between the Empire and Priesthood, he traced the corruption of the pristine church back to the incipient congregational structures manifested in the emergence of the hierarchal system of presbyters, deacons, and bishops at the end of the first century. 18 Thomasius stripped institutional churches of their legitimacy, placing the right to determine external forms of worship within the authority of secular powers. In doing so, he consequently abandoned the traditional legal arguments of Protestants for justifying the power and influence of the prince in the church by defining him as summus episcopus. Instead, Thomasius perceived the territorial lord ideally as princeps absolutus whose authority proceeded from his superioritas territorialis, subordinating all under his sovereignty, including the clergy. At the twilight of his life, Cyprian adversely criticized the writings of Arnold and Thomasius that had had a significant impact on contemporary religious views

16 Cf. Ernst Salomon Cyprian: Erläuterung des einfältigen Urtheils, Welches D. Christian Thomasius […] von der Arnoldischen Ketzer-Historie gefället hat. Nebst einem Königlichen Rescript von Thomasii Atheistischen Lehrsätzen (Ed. Erdmann Rudolph Fischer). Coburg 1748 (VD18 10877592), fol. A8r. 17 Cf. Dixon: Faith and History, p. 38. 18 Christian Thomasius: Historia Contentionis Inter Imperium Et Sacerdotium Breviter Delineata Usque Ad Seculum XVI. […]. Halle 1722. Cf. Stephan Buchholz: “Historia contentionis inter Imperium et Sacerdotium. Kirchengeschichte in der Sicht von Christian Thomasius und Gottfried Arnold”, in: Friedrich Vollhardt (ed.): Christian Thomasius (1655–1728): Neue Forschungen im Kontext der Frühaufklärung. Tübingen 1997, pp. 165–177.

Arguing for the Moral Necessity of Reformation History

249

in his Rational Warning of the Error of Indifference to Services to God or Religions. 19 The posthumously published Explanation of the Simplistic Judgement that Christian Thomasius Passed on the Arnoldian History of Heretics was even more explicit. 20 Although peace and stability in society were central issues for both Thomasius and Cyprian, they had diametrically opposing views on the means of securing these. Whereas Cyprian saw the need to strengthen existing state churches, Thomasius called for their abolishment. 21 Contrary to the principles of love and freedom of conscience, these institutions and everything connected to them, including dogma, religious oaths, the binding character of the sacraments, consistories, and church discipline, were, according to Arnold and Thomasius, coercive in nature. Thus, the sovereignty of the prince was to be strengthen over against the rival power of the church in order to eliminate this coercion, subdue confessional conflicts, and to maintain harmony and security. Cyprian, on the other hand, upheld the freedom of conscience provided by the Peace of Westphalia, a freedom limited to the theological positions officially recognized by imperial law. He regarded the authoritative confessional writings of the Lutheran church as irrefutable, biblically and rationally founded expressions of faith. 22 From this standpoint, they served as norms for judging orthodoxy and as argumentative arsenals for countering heterodox and radical religious thought. Arnold and Thomasius’ indifference towards confessional distinctions, dogma and church ceremonies opened in Cyprian’s opinion the gateways to atheism and libertinism, leading to social disruption. 23 Like Thomasius, Cyprian was an avid proponent of state sovereignty. Whereas he regarded the establishment of municipal and terri-

19 Ernst Salomon Cyprian: Vernünfftige Warnung für dem Irrthum von Gleichgültigkeit derer Gottesdienste, oder Religionen, zu Stärckung der Glaubigen und Erhaltung gemeiner Ruhe […]. Gotha 1744 (VD18 90093046). 20 Ernst Salomon Cyprian: Erläutherung des einfältigen Urtheils, Welches D. Christian Thomasius […] von der Arnoldischen Ketzer-Historie gefället hat. Nebst einem Königlichen Rescript von Thomasii Atheistischen Lehrsätzen (Ed. Erdmann Rudolf Fischer). Coburg 1748 (VD18 10877592). 21 On Thomasius’ stance on the relationship between church and state cf., for example, Buchholz: Historia contentionis; Horst Dreitzel: “Christliche Aufklärung durch fürstlichen Absolutismus: Thomasius und die Destruktion des frühneuzeitlichen Konfessionsstaats”, in: Friedrich Vollhardt (ed.): Christian Thomasius (1655–1728): Neue Forschungen im Kontext der Frühaufklärung. Tübingen 1997, pp. 17–50; Markus Matthias: “Johann Benedikt Carpzov und Christian Thomasius: Umstrittene Religions- und Gewissensfreiheit”, in: Stefan Michel, Andres Straßberger (eds.): Eruditio – Confessio – Pietas: Konitinuität und Wandel in der lutherischen Konfessionskultur am Ende des 17. Jahrhunderts: Das Beispiel Johann Benedikt Carpzovs (1639– 1699). Leipzig 2009, pp. 223–247. 22 Cf. Concordien-Büchlein, Deutsch/ Darinnen: I. Die drey Häupt-Symbola: II. Die Augspurg. Confeßion: III. Die Schmalkald. Artickel: IV. Die eilff Artickel, welche man eigentlich nennet die Formul Concordiä: Für die Kirchen im Fürstenthumb Gotha/ […] (Ed. Ernst Salomon Cyprian). Gotha 1714 (VD18 12918903), fol. B8r. 23 Cf. Ulman Weiß: “Das Vermächtnis des Vizepräsidenten: Die Warnung vor Rationalismus und religiöser Radikalität”, in: Koch, Wallmann: Cyprian, pp. 217–232, here: 223f.

250

Daniel Gehrt

torial churches independent of the Roman Papacy as one of the greatest achievements to this end, the Protestant churches became in Thomasius’ view a new detrimental rival for power and influence. Although Cyprian openly denounced separatists and others commonly referred to in ecclesiastical historiography as “radical Pietists,” he was nonetheless weary of directly condemning those Pietistic groups that remained integrated within existing state and church structures. 24 To provoke deeper divisions by this means would have counteracted his very goal of refortifying the Lutheran church on a whole. 25 Thus, his public criticism of Pietistic movements headed by Spener and August Hermann Francke took on much subtler forms. This can be well observed in his influential textbook surveying the history of Christianity from the Peace of Westphalia to the year 1723. 26 Indicatively, Cyprian did not treat this more conservative form of Pietism separately, but rather included it as part of the chapter on the Evangelical, that is Lutheran Church. 27 Without attacking the theologians in Halle and their spiritual precursor Spener head on, Cyprian delivered a series of side blows, for example, by citing quotes from other authors conveying the message that various detrimental tendencies in the church, such as the alleged increase in heresy, fanaticism, separatism, and indifferentism, had their origins in Pietism. Not Spener, Francke, and the other Halle theologians themselves, but rather several of their followers developed pernicious aberrations of their thinking and teaching. These discrediting statements aroused an apologetic response from the theologians in Halle

24 Weigelt also made this observation in his study on Cyprian’s contention with Pietism in Coburg and called for a differentiated approach to Cyprian’s role as polemicist and a revision of the widespread cliché that Cyprian was in general a public adversary of Pietism. Cf. Horst Weigelt: “Cyprians Auseinandersetzung mit separatistischen Pietisten in Coburg während seines Direktorates am Collegium Casimirianum”, in: Koch, Wallmann: Cyprian, pp. 96–110, here: 106. This cliché is nevertheless still fostered today, most recently in: Alexander Schunka: “Fighting or Fostering Confessional Plurality? Ernst Salomon Cyprian as Historian of Lutheranism in the Early Eighteenth Century”, in: Carina L. Johnson et al. (eds.): Archeologies of Confession: Writing the German Reformation 1517–2017. New York, Oxford 2017, pp. 151–172. A much more pronounced case of distortive generalizations in describing Cyprian’s relationship to Pietism can be found in: Wolfgang Miersemann: “Ernst Salomon Cyprians Schrift De propagatione haeresium per cantilenas von 1708 im Kontext der Kontroverse über neue geistliche Gesänge um 1700”, in: Koch, Wallmann: Cyprian, pp. 167–186. 25 Consequently, Cyprian had attempted to propagate an image of unity within Lutheranism in his Hilaria evangelica from 1719 by also publishing documents and speeches held at such centers of Pietism as the Universities of Halle and Giessen. Cf. Harm Cordes: “Ernst Salomon Cyprian als Chronist des Reformationsjubiläums von 1717”, in: Klaus Tanner (ed.): Konstruktion von Geschichte. Jubelrede – Predigt – protestantische Historiographie. Leipzig 2012, pp. 89–103, here: 98–101. 26 Ernst Salomon Cyprian: Compendium Historiae Ecclesiasticae […] a pace Westphalica ad nostra vsque tempora deductum […]. Gotha 1723 (VD18 10815481). 27 Cf. Cyprian: Compendium, esp. pp. 134–143, but also, for example, pp. 258f., 296.

Arguing for the Moral Necessity of Reformation History

251

in 1725. 28 In this pamphlet, they also objected to the fact that Cyprian had eliminated the continuation of Veit Ludwig von Seckendorff’s Compendium of Ecclesiastical History published by Spener’s son-in-law Adam Rechenberg in 1705. 29 Seckendorff had structured his compact universal church history according to centuries, ending the second of two volumes with a chapter focusing on the first three decades of the seventeenth century. After the turn of the century, Rechenberg composed a chapter embracing the 1600s on a whole, shedding a positive light on Pietistic movements especially in the last 20 pages. Cyprian did not fuel the controversy with the Halle theologians by responding to the accusations. 30 In 1727, he rejected the offer of the Wittenberg publisher Georg Markus Knoch to support the completion of the so-called Acta pietistica, a history of Pietism from 1666 to 1692 that the Gdansk theology professor Samuel Schelwig had worked on for many years until his death in 1715. 31 Cyprian argued that such a publication would jeopardize chances of re-stabilizing the Lutheran Church crumbling from within. 32 Instead, he recommended waiting to see if the Pietisterey, as he pejoratively put it, would lose its momentum after the recent death of Francke. 33 All in all, Cyprian never wrote a monography on Pietism for such strategic reasons. 28 The Faculty of Theology of the University of Halle: […] Epicrisis Apologetica In Partem Aliqvam Historiae Ecclesiasticae Recentioris, In Compendio Gothano, Novissime Continvatae […]. Halle 1725 (VD18 10810641). On this controversy cf. Fischer: Cyprian, pp. 105–107; Fortgesetzte Sammlung Von Alten und Neuen Theologischen Sachen […] (1725), pp. 826– 849; Christian Peters: “‘Daraus der Lärm des Pietismi entstanden’: Die Leipziger Unruhen von 1689/90 und ihre Deutung durch Spener und die hallischen Pietisten”, in: Pietismus und Neuzeit 23 (1997), pp. 103–130, here: 113; Wetzel: Kirchengeschichtsschreibung, p. 305. 29 Veit Ludwig von Seckendorff, [Adam Rechenberg]: Compendium Historiæ Ecclesiasticæ […]. Vol. 2. Leipzig, Gotha 1705 (VD18 90722523), Cap. V., Sectio III: De Rebus seculi decimi septimi, pp. 819–884. Without mentioning Rechenberg’s name, Cyprian discredited his continuation of the compendium in the preface to his 1715 edition of Myconius’ history of the Reformation as unauthorized and partisan. Friedrich Myconius: […] Historia Reformationis, vom Jahr Christi 1517, bis 1542 […] (Ed. Ernst Salomon Cyprian). Gotha 1715 (VD18 90020995), p. 31. 30 Sebastian Edzardi came, however, to Cyprian’s defense in a treatise published under the pseudonym Johann Jacobi: Vindiciæ […] Ern. Salom. Cypriani […] Adversus Epicrisin, Qua ab Ordine Theologico Hallensi acerbissime fuit impetitus […]. S.l. 1725 (VD18 13656864). The author is unveiled in: Fischer: Cyprian, p. 106. 31 See the four letters from Schelwig to Cyprian in 1702/03 in: FB Gotha, Chart. A 422, pp. 73– 112. On Schelwig’s planned history of Pietism, cf. Theodor Wotschke: “Eine verschollene Geschichte des Pietismus”, in: Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 46 (1928), pp. 430–440; idem: “Hallische Kundschafter und Zuträger in Wittenberg”, in: Theologische Studien und Kritiken 101 (1929), pp. 313–336, here: 332. 32 See letter from Knoch to [Cyprian], Wittenberg, November 16, 1727, in: FB Gotha, Chart. A 307, pp. 769–776, 781–182; letter from [Cyprian] to [Knoch], s.l. December 3, 1727, in: Ibid., pp. 777–780. 33 The death of Francke on June 8, 1727, evidently played a critical role in Cyprian’s decision since he had apparently promised earlier to compose a continuation of Schelwig’s history up to the year 1726. Cf. Wotschke: Verschollene Geschichte, pp. 434–436. Rough draft outlines of his plans for writing a Historia Pietismi can be found in: FB Gotha, Chart. A 302, pp. 609f.;

252

Daniel Gehrt

Cyprian’s interest in preserving the confessional identity of the Lutheran Church became especially apparent in his efforts to thwart attempts in the Corpus Evangelicorum from 1720 to 1722 to form a union between the Lutheran and Reformed Churches. 34 The Catholic Church had gained immense political strength in the German Empire especially after the Catholic branch of the House of Wittelsbach had gained the rule of the Electoral Palatinate in 1685 and Elector Frederick August I of Saxony had converted to Catholicism in 1697 before his coronation as the new king of Poland. Repressive measures taken against the Reformed Church in the Electoral Palatinate in 1719 induced efforts to tighten the Protestants ranks by forming a union. Chief advocate of this proposal was Christoph Matthaeus Pfaff, chancellor of the University of Tübingen and exponent of German Enlightenment theology. A consensus was to be established solely on fundamental articles of faith that were crucial for salvation. Pfaff argued that this criterion excluded such innerProtestant doctrinal differences as those on Christology, the sacraments, and predestination. The spread of polemics through publications and from the pulpit was to be prohibited and irenic theologians were to be installed in influential church offices. The long-term goal was the establishment of a religious peace between the Protestant courts and a unified church community. Cyprian, however, believed that such a union ignoring theological differences would ultimately seal the demise of the Lutheran Church. He defended this view also through a two-chapter historical narrative of the Reformation in his Elicited Instruction on the Church Union of the Protestants. 35 Postulating a pristine unity within the Evangelical movement across Europe, Cyprian presented Andreas von Karlstadt and above all Ulrich Zwingli as two agitators forcing a division. In addition, he negatively interpreted the rise of Reformed churches as the establishment of religious communities that did not adhere to the Augsburg Confession and for this reason ought to have been excluded from the Peace of Augsburg. Cyprian thus portrayed Reformed theologians as separatists and conspirators, accusing them of manipulating princes to drift away from the Lutheran Church and to establish illegal religious bodies within the German Empire.

Chart. A 307, pp. 153–184, 191–192. In refusing his support, Cyprian also expressed doubts of whether sufficient documents had been collected to compose such a scholarly work. 34 Cf. Wolf-Friedrich Schäufele: Christoph Matthäus Pfaff und die Kirchenunionsbestrebungen des Corpus Evangelicorum 1717–1726. Mainz 1998, pp. 181–188; idem: “Ernst Salomon Cyprian, Christoph Matthäus Pfaff und die Regensburger Kirchenunionsbestrebungen”, in: Koch, Wallmann: Cyprian, pp. 187–201. 35 Ernst Salomon Cyprian: Abgetrungener Unterricht von Kirchlicher Vereinigung der Protestanten aus Liebe zur nothleidenden Warheit abgefasset mit historischen Original-Documenten bestärcket […]. Vol. 1. Frankfurt am Main, Leipzig 1722 (VD18 11386258), pp. 151–281. Cf. Schäufele: Cyprian, p. 196.

Arguing for the Moral Necessity of Reformation History

253

2. PUBLICATIONS AND UNCOMPLETED PROJECTS RELATED TO REFORMATION HISTORY When viewing Cyprian’s publications and uncompleted projects related to Reformation history on a whole, they can be grouped into three general categories. The first group consists of collections of published letters from renowned scholars of the past preserved at the ducal library at the Friedenstein Palace. After taking inventory of the manuscript collections within his first year as director of the library he published a catalogue in 1714 describing a large selection of these volumes as well as a series of 117 letters, representing prominent scholars from all three established confessions in Christianity in the sixteenth century. 36 On occasion of the bicentennial commemoration of the Reformation in 1717, Duke Frederick II promoted the publication of a new comprehensive edition of Philipp Melanchthon’s letters under Cyprian’s supervision. 37 However, the task of editing the estimated 6,000 letters within the prescribed two-year period proved insurmountable. In 1743, Cyprian published an extensive collection of 296 letters pertaining largely to the Council of Trent entitled The Archive of the Roman Church of the Sixteenth Century. 38 In the preface, he announced a follow-up project on the Greek Orthodox Church. Preliminary work was begun on the respective letters, including those pertaining to the efforts of Tübingen professors to establish contact with the patriarch of Constantinople in the 1570s, but the work came to an abrupt halt with Cyprian’s death in 1745. 39 These projects transcended all denominational differences. As clearly stated in the preface to The Archive of the Roman Church, the primary purpose of these editions was to make select sources of erudition from the court library available to scholars across Europe, thereby increasing the fame of the collections and the reputation of the dukes as patrons of the arts and sciences. For this reason, the Latin language was chosen in all four cases. The other projects and published works related to Reformation history were composed in German and were to a large extent part of Cyprian’s lifelong endeavor to comprehensively and systematically refute the sixteenth and seventeenth book of the first volume of Gottfried Arnold’s Impartial History of the Church and Heretics,

36 Ernst Salomon Cyprian: Clarorvm Virorvm Epistolae CXVII. E Bibliothecae Gothanae Avtographis […]. Leipzig 1714 (VD18 11387688). 37 Cf. Daniel Gehrt, Kathrin Paasch (eds.): Melanchthon in Gotha: Eine Sammlungs- und Forschungsgeschichte. Gotha 2016, pp. 52–60. 38 Tabvlarivm Ecclesiae Romanae Secvli Decimi Sexti, In Qvo Monvmenta, Restitvti Calicis Evcharistici, Totivsqve Concilii Tridentini Historiam Mirifice Illlvstrantia, Continentvr. […] (Ed. Ernst Salomon Cyprian). Frankfurt am Main, Leipzig 1743 (VD18 10741062). 39 Cf. ibid., fol. b4r. Cyprian’s assistant Georg Grosch prepared transcriptions of letters in the manuscript volumes Chart. A 386 and Chart. A 407 in the FB Gotha that were to be published and commented. Cf. Katalog der Reformationshandschriften: Aus den Sammlungen der Herzog von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha’schen Stiftung für Kunst und Wissenschaft (Ed. Daniel Gehrt). Wiesbaden 2015, pp. 700–705 (Chart. A 386), 789–799 (Chart. A 407). On the discontinuation of the project cf. Fischer: Cyprian, p. 94.

254

Daniel Gehrt

dealing with the history of Christianity from 1500 to 1688. This work is regarded as the first monumental history of the church written in the German language. Due to the sheer magnitude of the project, Cyprian merely succeeded in completing certain parts. In connection with the Reformation jubilee in 1717, he published a fourpart collection of primary sources in the ducal library which he not only regarded as additions to Veit Ludwig von Seckendorff’s Commentary on Lutheranism, but also to his planned refutation of the History of Heretics. Thus, he wrote in the preface of the first volume without explicitly mentioning Arnold: After I have, on occasion of the second Evangelical jubilee, sufficiently discussed the beginning and initial continuation of the Reformation from indisputable sources, I will not edit anything individually in the future, but rather I will, with God’s gracious succor, integrate them into the general church history that I am now writing in the German language and that will continue from the beginning of the Reformation up to our own times. 40

This collection of primary sources encompassed 132 letters and documents, dealing especially with the causa Lutheri in the years 1518 to 1522 41 and contemporary historical accounts of the Reformation composed in the early 1540s by the superintendents Friedrich Myconius in Gotha42 and Georg Spalatin in Altenburg. 43 By 1740, Cyprian no longer felt that he had the strength to fulfill his plan of refuting Arnold’s work and entrusted the project to his assistant Georg Grosch, then pastor in Friedrichroda. In 1745, a few months before his mentor’s death, Grosch published the first volume entitled Necessary Defense of the Evangelical Church against Arnold’s History of Heretics. 44 Cyprian was not only the spiritus rector of 40 Wilhelm Ernst Tentzel: […] Historischer Bericht vom Anfang und ersten Fortgang der Reformation Lvtheri […] (Ed. Ernst Salomon Cyprian). Leipzig 1717 (VD18 1042170X), fol. a8v: “Nachdem ich aber, bei Gelegenheit des andern evangelischen Jubel-Festes, den Anfang und ersten Fortgang der Reformation aus unläugbaren documenten […] sattsam erläutert habe; so werde ich hinkünfftig davon nichts eintzeln ediren, sondern sie unter Gottes gnedigem Beystand, der allgemeinen Kirchen-historie einverleiben, welche ich in teutscher Sprach zu verfertigen, und vom Anfang der Reformation biß auf unsere Zeiten zu continuiren begriffen bin.” 41 Tentzel: Historischer Bericht; Der andere Theil Nützlicher Uhrkunden, Zur Erläuterung Der ersten Reformations-Geschichte […] (Ed. Ernst Salomon Cyprian). Leipzig 1718. 42 Friedrich Myconius: […] Historia Reformationis vom Jahr Christi 1517. bis 1542 […]. Leipzig 1718 (VD18 1142320X). Modern edition based on the original (FB Gotha, Chart. A 339, fol. 1r–47v) in: Friedrich Myconius: Geschichte der Reformation (Ed. Otto Clemen). Gotha 2 1990. On this work, cf. Harald Bollbuck: “Martin Luther in der Geschichtsschreibung zwischen Reformation und Aufklärung”, in: Hole Rößler (ed.): Luthermania: Ansichten einer Kultfigur. Wiesbaden 2017, pp. 47–68, here: 50f.; idem: “Die Reformationsgsgeschichte des Friedrich Myconius”, in: Daniel Gehrt, Kathrin Paasch (eds.): Friedrich Myconius (1490– 1546): Vom Franziskaner zum Reformator. Stuttgart 2020, pp. 225–244. 43 Georg Spalatin: […] Annales Reformationis Oder Jahr-Bücher von der Reformation Lvtheri […] (Ed. Ernst Salomon Cyprian). Leipzig 1718. Only the first volume (FB Gotha, Chart. A 340) is extant today. Cyprian, however, also published the second volume (Chart. A 341). Cf. Daniel Gehrt: “Georg Spalatin als Historiograph der Reformation”, in: Armin Kohnle, Christina Meckelnborg, Uwe Schirmer (eds.): Georg Spalatin: Steuermann der Reformation. Ausstellungskatalog. Halle 2014, pp. 126–136, here: 129–133. 44 Cyprian, Grosch: Nothwendige Verthaidigung.

Arguing for the Moral Necessity of Reformation History

255

this publication, but he also wrote six chapters himself. 45 This 884-page folio-size volume was structured precisely according to Arnold’s work, chapter for chapter, paragraph for paragraph, sub-paragraph for sub-paragraph. It was, however, merely a response to the first 16 chapters pertaining to the sixteenth century. Chapters 17 to 34, let alone those on the seventeenth century were never materialized. 46 These would have comprised three equally large folio volumes. An extensive appendix of primary sources expanding the pool of material already published in the years 1717 and 1718 was also announced in the preface, but never reached completion. The third and final group of publications related to the Reformation arose in the contexts of various politically explosive religious contentions. Thus, they were strongly apologetic in nature and written in the vernacular, the language of politics. The first one entitled Convincing Instruction on the Origins and Growth of the Papacy along with a Protective Brief for the Reformation first appeared as an individual publication in 1719 and was reprinted five times in German and translated into Dutch and Slovakian. 47 An earlier version had been prefixed to Cyprian’s documentation of the bicentennial commemoration of the Reformation in Central and Northern Europe that had been published months earlier. 48 It was a 30-chapter response to criticism expressed especially by Catholics against this celebration. In this work, Cyprian examined the history of the Church from the Apostolic Age up to the Reformation, arguing among other things that the papacy was an illegitimate and corrupt institution and that it weakened the sovereignty of secular states in Europe. In the last seven chapters, he attempted to prove the legitimacy and universal benefits of the Reformation as well as the peaceful nature of its expansion. The second book in this group, Elicited Instruction on the Church Union of the Protestants, was published in 1722. 49 As discussed above, it arose in connection 45 Chapters 1–4, 13 and 16. The rough draft of the first chapter in: FB Gotha, Chart. A 302, pp. 593–608. Cf. Fischer, Das Leben Cyprians, pp. 76–78. 46 Cyprian wrote or began writing rough drafts for chapters XVII (on the theological colloquies), XX (on the controversies with Schwenkfeld) and XXVIII (on the Synergists). The manuscripts are in: FB Gotha, Chart. A 1358, fol. 540r–573v (XVII), Chart. A 302, pp. 507–522 (XX), 423–440 (XXVIII). 47 Ernst Salomon Cyprian: Uberzeugende Belehrung vom Ursprung und Wachstum des Papstthums nebst einer Schutz-Schrifft vor die Reformation, aus avthentiqven Uhrkunden abgefasset […]. Gotha 1719 (VD18 10987142). On this work cf. Joachim Bahlcke: “Der slowakische Prediger Matej Bahil und der preußisch-österreichische Antagonismus. Beobachtungen zur Europäisierung der ungarischen Religionsfrage im 18. Jahrhundert”, in: Idem (ed.): Glaubensflüchtlinge: Ursachen, Formen und Auswirkungen frühneuzeitlicher Konfessionsmigration in Europa. Berlin 2008, pp. 307–334, here: 316f.; Koch: Kirchenleitung, pp. 292f. 48 Ernst Salomon Cyprian: Hilaria Evangelica, Oder Theologisch-Historischer Bericht Vom Andern Evangelischen Jubel-Fest […]. Gotha 1719 (VD18 90010523), Bericht, pp. 1–190. Cf. Christian Volkmar Witt: “Wie und warum ein Reformationsjubiläum zu feiern ist: Ernst Salomon Cyprians Hilaria Evangelica”, in: Dirk Niefanger, Dirk Rose (eds.): “Gesammelt und ans Licht gestellet”: Poesie, Musik und Theologie in Anthologien in der ersten Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts. Hildesheim et al. 2019, pp. 147–172. 49 Cyprian: Unterricht von Kirchlicher Vereinigung der Protestanten. Cf. Schäufele: Cyprian, p. 196.

256

Daniel Gehrt

with the internal negotiations of the Corpus Evangelicorum. From his staunch Lutheran position, Cyprian presented various arguments that made all possibilities of forming a union with the Reformed Churches appear utterly futile. He began by examining the approval of the doctrines of election and the merits of Christ at the Synod of Dordrecht in 1619, presenting them as doctrinal errors that Reformed theologians unremittingly defended and propagated up to his day. The middle section contained a historical narrative of the Reformation intent on proving that early representatives of the Reformed Church were solely responsible for the great divide within Protestantism. 50 Cyprian endowed this book with an appendix composed of 37 letters and documents from the beginning of the sixteenth century to the year 1721. 16 of these were from the voluminous collection of original letters from John Calvin and Theodore Beza’s correspondence that the ducal Library in Gotha had recently acquired. 51 The third and last book in this group is Cyprian’s History of the Augsburg Confession, a monography endowed with two appendices containing an edition of the confession itself and a series of 44 primary sources. Seizing the heightened public interest during the bicentennial commemoration in 1730, Cyprian published this work in order to undergird his position in the various contemporary controversies questioning the significance of doctrinal distinction. 52 As the consensual doctrinal basis of the Evangelical Church and an integral part of the Peace of Westphalia, the Augsburg Confession was for the Gotha church counselor of crucial importance for the legitimacy of a church body. Cyprian decisively differentiated between the original version written in 1530 – the Invariata – and the revised version from 1540 – the Variata. Cyprian regarded the latter, accommodating sacramental teachings of the Reformed Churches, as a betrayal of Luther’s teachings. 53 The alterations ultimately allowed for the integration of the Reformed Churches into the Peace of Augsburg from 1555. In the Defense of the Evangelical Church published 15 years later, the official recognition of the Invariata became the touchstone defining the consummation of the Reformation in Cyprian’s church historical narratives of various towns, principalities, and kingdoms in Europe. 54

50 Cyprian: Unterricht von Kirchlicher Vereinigung der Protestanten, pp. 151–281. 51 FB Gotha, Chart. A 404–405. They are catalogued in: Gehrt: Reformationshandschriften, pp. 751–785. 52 Ernst Salomon Cyprian: Historia der Augspurgischen Confession […]. Gotha 1730 (VD18 1524542X). The history was complemented by the following biographical work written by the Gotha secretary and antiquarian Christian Sigismund Liebe: Lebens-Beschreibungen der Vornehmsten Theologorvm sowohl Evangelischer als Päbstischer Welche an. 1530. den Reichs-Tag zu Augspurg besucht, und an denen wegen Ubergabe der Augspurgischen Confeßion angestellten Religions-Handlungen Theil genommen […]. Gotha 1730 (VD18 14821729). 53 Cf. Gehrt, Paasch: Melanchthon, pp. 55f. 54 See the section on the marvelous expansion of Lutheranism below.

Arguing for the Moral Necessity of Reformation History

257

3. THE MORAL NECESSITY OF REFORMATION HISTORY AND ITS POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS Since Ernst Salomon Cyprian originally intended on composing a monumental work that also encompassed contemporary church history, he did not only assiduously collect prints and manuscripts on the Reformation, but also, for example, on various Pietistic movements. However, for the afore-mentioned reasons, he never published a work on the latter topic. Instead, he concentrated his efforts on the sixteenth century. As his biographer Erdmann Rudolph Fischer stated: “Dr. Cyprian justifiably revered Luther’s Reformation as the most important event that took place in the church after the Apostolic Age.” 55 Cyprian himself spoke in superlative terms when assessing the significance of the Augsburg Confession: “From Constantine the Great to our own time, no book has emerged from which the Roman emperors and other Christian princes have gained such great benefits as from this confessional writing.” 56 Cyprian revealed his special interest in preserving the cultural memory of the Reformation in the prefaces to several writings. In one, he poignantly wrote: Although history preserves the remembrance of everything noteworthy that has happened in time, which is recorded as a lesson for the following years and thus for the betterment of the times, from oblivion and with its pen transforms time virtually into eternity, it has, as is widely bemoaned, no enemy more detrimental than the repeatedly mentioned extremely ungrateful times that, as experience sadly shows, removes, corrupts, and destroys all documents and resources, even the stone and ore-armed monuments of virtuous deeds at every opportunity. 57

Here Cyprian reaffirmed the essential role that historiography plays in memorial culture alongside stone monuments. Allowing developments of the past that have greatly improved society as well as those who fought for these achievements slip 55 Fischer: Cyprian, p. 67: “Es hielte nemlich Herr D. Cyprian die Reformation Lutheri mit Grund der Wahrheit für das allerwichtigste Werck, so sich nach der Apostel Zeiten in der Kirchen zugetragen.” 56 Cyprian: Historia der Augspurgischen Confession, fol. a2v: “Es ist auch von dem grossen Constantin an bis auf unsere Zeit niemahls ein Buch ans Licht getreten, welches denen Römischen Kaysern, und andern Christlichen Fürsten, so grosse Vortheile erworben hat, als itztbesagtes Glaubens-Bekäntnis.” 57 Wilhelm Ernst Tentzel: […] Historischer Bericht vom Anfang und ersten Fortgang der Reformation Lvtheri, Zur Erläuterung des Hn. v. Seckendorff Historie des Lutherthums, mit grossem Fleiß erstattet, und nunmehro in diesem andern Evangelischen Jubel=Jahr, Nebst einer besondern Vorrede, auch nützlichen, noch niemahls publicirten Uhrkunden und nöthigen Registern mitgetheilet von D. Ernst Salomon Cyprian. Leipzig 1717 (VD18 1042170X), fol. a2r–v: “WJewohl die Historie das Andencken von allem, was merckwürdiges in der Zeit vorgehet, denen folgenden Jahren zur Lehre, und also denen Zeiten zur Besserung aufzeichnet, der Vergessenheit entreisset, und vermittelst ihrer Feder die Zeit gleichsam zur Ewigkeit machet; so hat sie doch, nach der gemeinen Klage, keinen schädlichern Feind/ als die mehrgedachte sehr undanckbare Zeit, indem die traurige Erfahrung lehret, daß diese jener alle Uhrkunden und Hülffs-Mittel, ja selbst die durch Stein und Ertz bewaffnete Anerinnerungen vortrefflicher Thaten, nach Möglichkeit, hinweg nimmet, verderbet und zu nichte machet.”

258

Daniel Gehrt

into oblivion can, according to him, lead to ingratitude, disregard or even contempt for such movements and their champions. Due to the extraordinary significance that he placed on the Reformation, Cyprian considered it an outright moral obligation to promote its recollection through historiography and the publication of related primary sources. For this reason, he prioritized his work on the sixteenth century over that on the seventeenth century. Cyprian had drawn out his argumentation distinctly in the preface to the 1715 edition of his publication of Friedrich Myconius’ history of the Reformation. 58 Like the previously quoted preface, he also began this one by arguing that the failure to recognize the necessity of an historic event and its importance for the development of society inevitably leads to an inappropriate state of ingratitude. He applied this maxim particularly to the Reformation. Cyprian followed by citing examples proving that several of those who remained faithful to the Roman Catholic Church, including the German emperor, the king of France, and many cardinals, openly acknowledged the urgent need for reforms pertaining to faith and life and to the church head and its members. Recognizing the deplorable state of the church at Luther’s time was for Cyprian the first step towards gaining an appreciation for the overall achievements of the Reformation. However, as he bemoaned, many of his Protestant contemporaries were ignorant of their indebtedness to the Wittenberg reformers. Thus, his following references to self-criticism within the Roman Catholic Church and positive allusions to the Reformation from its members served primarily as rhetoric devices to indicate how readily implicit the benefits of Luther’s reforms must be to adherents of the Evangelical faith. Cyprian listed an array of positive developments that certain Catholics attributed to the Reformation. These included the refinement and burgeoning of philological studies and other academic disciplines that could be applied to theology and other forms of erudition. Cyprian claimed that Catholics also believed to have profited from various impulses from Luther such as the promotion of catechesis, the cultivation of biblically founded and rhetorically polished preaching, the introduction of the vernacular language and hymns into church services, and the revitalization of church history studies. In addition, the far-reaching impacts of the Reformation politically strengthened both Catholic and Protestant potentates since the pope was no longer in a position to incite wars, bloodbaths, and countless other conflicts in the German Empire by excommunicating its emperor or princes and absolving subjects from the allegiance and obedience to their rulers. Beyond the independence from the alleged tyranny of the papacy, those of the Evangelical faith also gained freedom of conscience and pure teaching. Cyprian presented this line of argumentation in greater depth in 1719 in his Convincing Instruction on the Origins and Growth of the Papacy and in 1730 in his

58 Myconius: Historia Reformationis. Some lines of this argumentation can already be discerned in Cyprian’s preface to the 1714 edition of the Book of Concord: Concordien-Büchlein […] Für die Kirchen im Fürstenthum Gotha/ Auf gnädigsten special-Befehl […]. Gotha 1714 (VD18 12918903), fol. A2r–C11r.

Arguing for the Moral Necessity of Reformation History

259

History of the Augsburg Confession. In general, he attributed three major achievements to the Reformation that changed society and the political state of affairs: 1) The independence of secular powers in Europe from the political influence of the Roman Papacy and, as a result, an increase in peace 2) The freedom of conscience 3) The abolishment of superstitious beliefs and practices and improvements in education and scholarship. Cyprian also avidly pointed out who deserved special gratitude for these achievements. In doing so, his argumentation for the moral necessity of Reformation history took on political implications. In his general remarks, he referred to the princes of Brandenburg and Hesse as promotors of the cause. However, he repeatedly emphasized the decisive role of the Ernestine electors of Saxony and was prompt to refute demeaning accusations held against them by contemporary historians. For example, in response to part 2, book 16, chapter 7, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph 1 of Gottfried Arnold’s Impartial History of the Church and Heretics, Cyprian and Grosch forewent dealing with Arnold’s assertion that histories of the Reformation tended to focus just on the Lutheran Church and to overlook the Reformed Church, although they principally formed a single church – a disturbing claim for Cyprian who had published vehemently against advocates of a Protestant union in the 1720s 59 –, but instead they concentrated on tackling Arnold’s reproach that Elector Frederick III of Saxony had responded “sleepily” or “spiritlessly” (schläfrig) to Luther’s reforms. They countered by interpreting the elector’s apparent neutrality in the matter as a cautious and wise diplomatic policy. 60 Against all other claims, Cyprian traced the existing freedom of conscience in the early eigh-teenth century back to the Augsburg Confession and the achievements of Frederick’s brother John at the diet of Augsburg in 1530. 61 In his preface to Myconius’ history, Cyprian depicted Elector John Frederick I, son of John, as a heroic champion who at his own great risk defended the Protestant cause against the emperor and his allies in the Smalcaldic War and ultimately suffered devastating losses, including the electoral title and the corresponding lands centered around Wittenberg. In his argumentation, Cyprian defended the legacy of John Frederick against the discrediting claims of Arnold and other critics that the prince had been merely pursuing power and other worldly interests in his actions leading to the war. 62 The issue of secularization, i.e., the confiscation of church land and property, laid at the heart of this debate. In his rebuttal, Cyprian claimed that Catholic rulers allegedly exploited church revenues to augment the splendor of their courts, whereas Protestant princes diverted funds from secularized cloisters to support education and the social welfare of their subjects. With such arguments, he upheld the well-cultivated and heavily propagated 59 60 61 62

Cf. Schäufele: Cyprian. Cf. Cyprian, Grosch: Nothwendige Verthaidigung, pp. 156f. Cf. Cyprian: Historia der Augspurgischen Confession, fol. b2v. Cf. Gehrt: Arnold und Cyprian, pp. 56f.

260

Daniel Gehrt

identity of the Ernestine dynasty as authoritative guardians of Luther’s theological heritage. 63 In return, the Ernestine princes, particularly the dukes of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg, provided him extensive resources for his historiographic projects. Cyprian’s argumentation had practical political relevance, for example, when discussions arose in 1717 over the question of who should assume the directorate of the Corpus Evangelicorum after the announcement that not only the incumbent, Elector Frederick August I of Saxony, King of Poland and Lithuania, but also his same-named son had converted to Catholicism. For this discourse, Cyprian drafted a writing, claiming that his territorial lord, Duke Frederick II of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg, was undisputedly the most suitable candidate particularly because of his lineal descent and the merits and sacrifices of his forefathers which rulers across Europe profited from. 64 4. ARGUMENTATIVE STRATEGIES INSPIRED BY GROTIUS AND THE THEORY OF NATURAL LAW A closer examination of Ernst Salomon Cyprian’s argumentation especially in his works related to the refutation of Gottfried Arnold’s History of Heretics reveals that it was markedly influenced by the discourse on natural law and the relationship between church and state. Especially state sovereignty and the freedom of conscience that Cyprian regarded as achievements of the Reformation were central issues in the discourse on natural law after the Peace of Westphalia. 65 Cyprian’s argument of ingratitude was an implicit reference to the fundamental obligation of all religious communities in their natural state to grant God thankfulness and praise. Presumably, Cyprian developed this argumentative strategy to effectively counter Christian Thomasius, a theorist of natural law, who like Arnold radically undermined the legitimacy of state churches. Cyprian also reproached both for developing views that defenders of atheism and libertinism could build upon for their cause. That Cyprian regarded the writings of Thomasius as equally threatening as those of Arnold was clearly expressed in his treatise entitled Rational Warning Against the

63 Cf. Gehrt: Arnold und Cyprian; Daniel Gehrt: “Ernst Salomon Cyprian und die Erinnerungspolitik Herzog Friedrichs II. von Sachsen-Gotha-Altenburg im Rahmen des Reformationsjubiläums 1717”, in: Kathrin Paasch, Christopher Spehr, Siegrid Westphal (eds.): Reformatio & Memoria: Protestantische Erinnerungsräume und Erinnerungsstrategien in der Frühen Neuzeit. Göttingen, pp. 117–154; Siegrid Westphal: “Nach dem Verlust der Kurwürde: Die Ausbildung konfessioneller Identität anstelle politischer Macht bei den Ernestinern”, in: Martin Wrede, Horst Carl (eds.): Zwischen Schande und Ehre: Erinnerungsbrüche und die Kontinuität des Hauses. Legitimationsmuster und Traditionsverständnis des frühneuzeitlichen Adels in Umbruch und Krise. Mainz 2007, pp. 173–192. 64 FB Gotha, Chart. A 302, pp. 141–148. 65 Cf., for example, Thomas Hahn: Staat und Kirche im deutschen Naturrecht: Das natürliche Kirchenrecht des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts (ca. 1680 bis ca. 1850). Tübingen 2012, pp. 16–25.

Arguing for the Moral Necessity of Reformation History

261

Error of Indifference to Services to God or Religions from 1744 and the posthumously published treatise Explanation of Thomasius’ Simplistic Judgement of Arnold’s History of Heretics from 1748. 66 Cyprian held Hugo Grotius, a key figure in the development of natural law, in high esteem. In 1699, he presided over an academic debate in Helmstedt based on Grotius’ famous treatise On the Law of War and Peace. 67 In 1709, he published a new edition of Grotius’ writing On the Truth of the Christian Religion with additional commentary of his own. This was reprinted in 1726. 68 In his last will and testament, Cyprian bequeathed his personal copy of the 1701 Amsterdam edition of the work On the Law of War and Peace strewn with countless handwritten annotations to the ducal library at the Friedenstein Palace. 69 This was Cyprian’s most cherished book followed by the Bible and Luther’s Catechism. 70 As is commonly known, On the Truth of the Christian Religion, printed in its final authorized version in 1640, was an apologetic work in defense of the Christian religion against atheism, heathenism, Judaism, and Islam. 71 Grotius intended to prove the truth of the Christian faith, using exclusively rational arguments and historical testimonies as a universally accepted basis of argumentation. In addressing non-Christians, biblical doctrines were ultimately non-persuasive. Grotius consequently subordinated them to ethics. The influence of Grotius and other theorists of natural law on Cyprian’s historiographical works can thus be recognized in the unexpected absence of theological arguments. 72 Cyprian neither discussed nor compared doctrines. This would have been fruitless since Arnold and his supporters

66 Ernst Salomon Cyprian: Vernünfftige Warnung für dem Irrthum von Gleichgültigkeit derer Gottesdienste, oder Religionen […]. Gotha 1744 (VD18 90093046); idem: Erläuterung des einfältigen Urtheils, Welches D. Christian Thomasius […] von der Arnoldischen Ketzer-Historie gefälltet hat […] (Ed. Erdmann Rudolph Fischer). Coburg 1748 (VD18 10877592). On Cyprian’s criticism of Thomasius cf. Fischer: Cyprian, pp. 42–44; Gehrt: Arnold und Cyprian, pp. 54f. 67 Ernst Salomon Cyprian: […] De Jure Regio ad Grot. I. B. P. l. IV. Amplissimæ Facultatis Philosophicæ indultu Eruditorum sententias colligent Præses M. Ernestus Salomo Cyprianus, Ostheimensis Francus, & Respondens Adolphus Henricus Trumphius, Goslariensis. ad d. […] Mart. M DC IC. in Auditorio Philosophorum. Helmstedt [1699]. 68 Hugo Grotius: […] De Veritate Religionis Christianae. Editio Novissima, In Qva Eivsdem Annotationes Ipsivs Textvs Verbis Svbiectae Svnt. Accedvnt Ern. Sal. Cypriani Analecta. Leipzig 1709. Second edition in 1726: VD18 10811303. On both editions cf. Jan-Paul Heering: Hugo Grotius as Apologist for the Christian Religion: A Study of his Work De veritate religionis christianae (1640). Translated by. J.C. Grayson. Leiden, Boston 2004, pp. 233f. 69 FB Gotha, Chart. B 1427. 70 Erdmann Rudolph Fischer: Das Leben Ernst Salomon Cyprians […]. Leipzig 1749 (VD18 11391111), p. 46: “Nebst dem Worte Gottes und Lutheri Catechismo war sein liebstes Buch Grotius de iure belli & pacis, den er Standes-Personen offt erkläret, selbsten aber fast täglich zur Gemüths-Vergnügungen gelesen hat.” 71 Cf., for example, Heering: Grotius as Apologist. 72 The Elicited Instruction on the Church Union of the Protestants represents a minor exception. It lacks natural law arguments, and since the question of truth and the teachings of the Sacrament of the Altar and predestination played a significant role in the discourse on a possible

262

Daniel Gehrt

regarded fixed doctrines as largely irrelevant or detrimental. Consequently, Cyprian also abstained from employing the narrative of “witnesses of the truth” (testes veritatis) common in Protestant church historiography since the Magdeburg Centuries to prove the continual preservation of the true religion within a history of decline from the Apostolic Age to the Reformation. Jan Hus, who already in the early Reformation was interpreted by Protestants as Luther’s precursor, also remained unmentioned. Instead, Cyprian presented emperors and other secular powers as those providing impulses for the reform of the church over the centuries. 73 The issues that Cyprian dealt with intensively in connection with the Reformation are rather of a political, social, economic or moral nature. These were all part of his strategy to win broad approval for his arguments. Although the discourse on natural law was very prevalent in the first half of the eighteenth century, applying it to the Reformation distinguishes Cyprian from other historians of his time. 74 By doing so, he contributed to the rationalization of church history. 5. EUROPEAN NETWORKS AND THE “MARVELOUS EXPANSION” OF LUTHERANISM A striking feature of Cyprian’s Necessary Defense of the Evangelical Church is its extensive European scope. The seventh chapter “On the Remaining Circumstances of the Reformation, Especially the Time and Place, When and Where it Happened” exceedingly surpasses all other chapters in length. Whereas Cyprian devoted 238 folio-size pages to this topic, 75 the corresponding chapter in the first edition of Arnold’s History of Heretics filled merely 13 folio-size pages. 76 This is a relatively average-length chapter in Arnold’s opus magnum. As one contemporary reviewer pointed out, such a broad and in-depth treatment of the spread of the Reformation was at that time unprecedented. 77 Cyprian meticulously adhered to the 24-membered structure dictated by Arnold’s work, pursuing the expansion of the Reformation from Central Germany to the north and east up to Prussia and Gdansk and then in several influential cities and minor territories. Finally, he turned his attention

73 74

75 76

77

union, Cyprian touched upon the theological differences without expounding upon them in depth. Cf. Schäufele: Cyprian, p. 196. Cf., for example, Cyprian: Historia der Augspurgischen Confession, p. 2. Christian Thomasius dealt with the sixteenth century in his History of the Contention between the Empire and Priesthood, but instead of examining the German Reformation, he focused on the relationship between the French king, a truly sovereign ruler, and the church. Thomasius: Historia Contentionis. Cyprian, Grosch: Nothwendige Verthaidigung, pp. 156–393. Arnold: Ketzer-Historie 2, book 16, pp. 63–75. The longest chapter in Arnold’s work is chapter XXII “On Theophrast Paracelsus and the other so-called enthusiasts, also some individual persons in the sixteenth century who did not confess to any party and mostly did not hold a public office.” Ibid., pp. 312–329. Cf. Zuverläßige Nachrichten von dem gegenwärtigen Zustande, Veränderung und Wachsthum der Wissenschaften 65 (1745), pp. 305–324, here: 319–321.

Arguing for the Moral Necessity of Reformation History

263

to the peripheries of the movement in the Habsburg realm stretching from Bohemia to Slovenia. Switzerland, the Low Countries, the Scandinavian kingdoms, England, Hungary, the Baltic region, Moscow, Spain, Italy, and France followed. Due to the detail of the accounts, Cyprian – unlike Arnold – subdivided each of the 24 paragraphs. The longest one filling 27 pages and containing 17 subdivisions was dedicated to the kingdoms of Sweden and Denmark. Cyprian conceived the Reformation in Sweden as an especially lengthy and wavering process that reached its consummation in 1593 when the synod of Uppsala solemnly declared the Lutheran faith as defined by the unaltered Augsburg Confession the official religion of the kingdom. Arnold had made no reference to this event that was in his view insignificant for the history of the “true” church. In his treatment of Denmark, Arnold predominantly focused on negative qualities that he ascribed to King Christian II, including the sovereign’s interest in the Reformation as merely a means of capitalizing on church property, his tyranny and the brutality he employed to maintain Sweden under his power in the early 1520s. Cyprian, on the other hand, also dealt with the establishment of Lutheranism in the kingdom und Christian’s successors Frederick I, Christian III, and Frederick II, concluding this paragraph with positive reference to the kings’ orders to translate the Bible into Danish and Islandic and the expulsion of Anabaptists and others “fanatics” in 1574 whose teachings were not in accord with the Augsburg Confession. Cyprian’s interest in outlining the European dimensions of the Reformation had already arisen in the early years of his research. In order to acquire pertinent information on Sweden, for example, he had been in contact with Erik Benzelius the Younger, library director and professor of theology at the University of Uppsala and later bishop of Göteborg and Linköping respectively, at least since 1707. 78 At the same, this correspondence served political goals. In his letters, Cyprian attempted to gain the solidarity of the Swedish Church in order to fortify the Lutheran churches in the German Empire. This is one indication that Cyprian’s European perspective was partially motivated by the foreign church policy of the dukes of Saxe-Gotha. 79 Indicative of this policy was the attempt of Duke Ernest I in 1648 to establish a general synod to settle the differences between the adherents to the Augsburg Confession and to stifle future controversies. Failing to gain the crucial support of the elector of Saxony, these plans quickly shattered. To similar ends, Ernest founded the so-called Collegium Hunnianum in 1670. This institution endowed with 200,000 Reichstaler was named after the Lübeck superintendent Nikolaus Hunnius who in the middle of the Thirty Years’ War had conceived the idea of

78 Cf. Laasonen: Norden. 79 Cf. August Beck: Ernst der Fromme, Herzog zu Sachsen-Gotha und Altenburg: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des siebenzehnten Jahrhunderts. Vol. 1. Weimar 1865, pp. 617–634; Johann Heinrich Gelbke: Herzog Ernst der Erste genannt der Fromme zu Gotha als Mensch und Regent. […]. Vol. 2. Gotha 1810, pp. 1–27; Roswitha Jacobsen, Hans-Jörg Ruge (eds.): Ernst der Fromme (1601–1675) Staatsmann und Reformer. Bucha 2002, pp. 387f.; Andreas Klinger: Der Gothaer Fürstenstaat: Herrschaft, Konfession und Dynastie unter Herzog Ernst dem Frommen. Husum 2002, pp. 77–79.

264

Daniel Gehrt

an international supervisory authority for the Lutheran Churches in Europa. A group of distinguished theologians were to control and censor church activities and theological writings to secure unity. In order to realize this vision, Ernest dispatched his son Albrecht to Lutheran courts throughout the German Empire and the kingdoms of Denmark and Sweden. Fearing that the project could jeopardize the existing balance of power between the Lutheran states and elicit the Catholic states to form a new alliance of their own, many, including the elector of Saxony, the director of the Corpus Evangelicorum, opposed the idea. Although the nascent foundation was dissolved before it could operate, Ernest made efforts at the same time to form international alliances to strengthen Lutheran churches across Europe. The duke intensified his diplomatic relations, for example, to Moscow and explored possibilities of collaborating with the Greek Orthodox and Ethiopian Church. 80 In addition, he offered political protection and financial support to important Lutheran exclaves in Europe, including Moscow, Utrecht, and London. 81 Cyprian’s territorial lord, Frederick II, pursued a similar policy at a time when the established Lutheran churches were drastically weakened by separatist movements, conversions of princes to the Reformed and Catholic faith and inner theological controversies. In this precarious situation “the Lutheran Evangelical congregations in and outside the German Empire, in Poland and Hungary no less than those on the French and Holland borders, resorted to the ducal court in Gotha if they were oppressed by ruling authorities who did not favor their confession.”82 Cyprian played a key role in this pan-Lutheran protective policy. His official correspondence reveals the efforts of the Gotha court to gather information about the state of the Lutheran churches in and beyond those in the German Empire and the kingdoms of Denmark-Norway and Sweden 83 and to aid isolated congregations in

80 Cf. Juliane Brandsch: “Die diplomatischen Beziehungen zwischen Sachsen-Gotha und Russland in den 70er und 80er Jahren des 17. Jahrhunderts”, in: Jacobsen, Ruge: Ernst der Fromme, p. 137–148. 81 Wolfgang Sommer: “Einleitung”, in: Idem (ed.): Kommunikationsstrukturen im europäischen Luthertum der Frühen Neuzeit. Gütersloh 2005, pp. 7–14, here: 12. 82 FB Gotha, Chart. A 305, pp. 933–936, here: 933: Anonymous memorandum, Gotha, November 6, 1720. 83 Cf. Pentti Laasonen: “Die Rezeption der deutschen Spätorthodoxie im Norden: Ernst Salomon Cyprian und Erik Benzelius d.J. ”, in: Koch, Wallmann: Cyprian, pp. 71–83.

Arguing for the Moral Necessity of Reformation History

265

the Russian Empire, 84 Greater Poland, 85 Silesia, 86 Western and Northern Hungary, 87 Geneva, 88 the Netherlands, 89 and London. 90 Due to this pivotal role of the Gotha church counselor, it was natural that the lecturer for Oriental languages at the University of Leipzig, Georg Jacob Kehr, reported to Cyprian in 1724 that 20

84 See the letters from the general superintendent of the German Evangelical churches in Russia, Barthold Vaget, and from the rector of the Lutheran church school on the outskirts of Moscow, Christian Haumann, in: FB Gotha, Chart. A 425, fol. 334r–337v; Chart. A 426, fol. 427r–v; Chart. A 428, fol. 78r–82v. Cf. Theodor Wotschke: “Schulkämpfe in Petersburg”, in: Jahrbücher für Kultur und Geschichte der Slaven 1 (1925), pp. 179–188, here: 186–188. 85 See, for example, the letter from the senior generalis in Greater Poland, Christoph Arnold, in: FB Gotha, Chart. A 425, fol. 309r–320v. 86 See, for example, the 27 letters from Gottfried Balthasar Scharff, deacon and later pastor primarius of the Evangelical Church of Peace in Schweidnitz (today Świdnica), in: FB Gotha, Chart. A 430, fol. 355r–v; 357r–364v; Chart. A 432, fol. 133r–134v, 136r–v, 139r–v; 186r– 189v; Chart. A 434, fol. 113r–120v; Chart. 435, fol. 208r–211v; 331r–352v; Chart. A 436, fol. 54r–55v; 56r–75v; Chart. A 437, fol. 71r–72v; Chart. A 438, fol. 184r–188v; Chart. A 439, fol. 40r–41v; 110r–111v; 214r–215v; Chart. A 440, fol. 249r–250v; Chart. A 441, fol. 190r– 192v, 195r–v; Chart. A 442, fol. 68r–73v; Chart. A 444, fol. 184r–v, 186ar–v; 185r–186v, 187r–v, 191r–v; 372ar–v, 375r–v; 376r–389v; Chart. A 445, fol. 65r–68v; 69r–72v. Edited in: Theodor Wotschke: “Scharffs Briefe an Cyprian”, in: Correspondenzblatt des Vereins für Geschichte der evangelischen Kirche Schlesiens 18 (1925), pp. 1–72. 87 See, for example, the 28 letters from the Evangelical Pastor Johann Sigmund Pilgram in Oedenburg (today Sopron), in: FB Gotha, Chart. A 425, fol. 474r–475v; Chart. A 426, fol. 530r– 541v; Chart. A 428, fol. 83r–87v; Chart. A 429, fol. 391r–403v; Chart. A 430, fol. 102r–106v, 375r–378v; Chart. A 432, fol. 178r–185v; Chart. A 433, fol. 110r–115v; Chart. A 434, fol. 158r–159v; Chart. A 436, fol. 105r–106v; Chart. A 437, fol. 67r–70v; Chart. A 438, fol. 89r–91v; Chart. A 440, fol. 211r–222v; Chart. A 441, fol. 198r–199v; Chart. B 1903, fol. 44r–45v; and the 3 letters from Johann Jacob Langjahr (fl. 1695–1719), preacher of the Danish legation in Vienna, in: LATh – StA Gotha, Oberkonsistorium Geneneralia Loc. 26 no. 6, fol. 15r–30v. Cf. Bálint Keserü: “Cyprian in Ungarn”, in: Koch, Wallmann: Cyprian, pp. 84–95. 88 The Lutheran congregation in Geneva stood under the protection and patronage of the dukes of Gotha since 1731 and Cyprian served as the first curator of the congregation. Cf. Ernst Koch: “Die Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirche in Genf und der Gothaer Hof”, in: Wolfgang Sommer (ed.): Kommunikationsstrukturen im europäischen Luthertum der Frühen Neuzeit. Gütersloh 2005, pp. 51–69, here: 61–68. 89 Besides having contact with Caspar van den Broeck, the secretary of the Lutheran congregation in Amsterdam (see FB Gotha, Chart. A 424, fol. 17r–v; Chart. A 425, fol. 338r–338v), Cyprian informed himself on the situation in the Netherlands through his own study tour there in 1704 (see FB Gotha, Chart. A 297, pp. 419–430; Chart. A 423, fol. 104r–107v) as well as through those of others, including Johann Georg Köberling from 1714 to 1716 (see FB Gotha, Chart. A 424, fol. 184r–197v) and Christian Sigismund Liebe and Georg Grosch in 1722 (see FB Gotha, Chart. A 446, fol. 287r–356v). 90 See, for example, the 18 letters from Balthasar Mentzer in the years 1717 to 1722 when he served as pastor of the Lutheran congregation at Trinity Church in London, in: FB Gotha, Chart. A 424, fol. 18r–22v; Chart. A 425, fol. 339r–352v; Chart. A 426, fol. 304r–309v, 311r– 321v, 323r–324v; Chart. A 435, fol. 159r–160v; Evangelical Lutheran Church Congregation of Gotha, Augustinian Monastery, 4 A/2, fol. 59r–v.

266

Daniel Gehrt

Lutheran families in Constantinople were in need of a pastor. 91 Rallying Lutheran congregation across Europe to actively participate in the celebrations of the bicentennial commemoration of the Reformation 1717 and documenting these festivities in a voluminous print entitled Hilaria evangelica 92 represent paramount examples of the avid pursuit of this policy. 93 Contributors to the latter project supplied Cyprian with a wealth of material on Reformation history from across Europe. 94 Surprisingly, the Dresden superintendent Valentin Ernst Löscher could not convince Cyprian to support his attempt in 1720 to establish an authoritative European network of Orthodox Lutheran theologians to preserve religious peace, refute adversaries, and promote piety. 95 This was probably due to the fact that proposals of establishing similar international supervisory authorities, such as the Collegium Hunnianum, had all proved infeasible in the past. Instead, he continued to strengthen interconnections as representative of the ducal court in Gotha outside of institutional structures. This foreign policy promoted a historiographic approach with a European scope. Another source of inspiration for Cyprian’s extensive portrayal of the expansion of Lutheranism throughout Europe was presumably Hugo Grotius. Alongside rationalism, testimonies of history formed a major pillar of his argumentative strategy. These included miracles, such as those performed by Christ and the apostles.96 Based on the premise that the best or true religion would be the one most widespread, Grotius presented the explosive expansion of the Christian religion in the first centuries of its existence as a marvelous act or manifestation of divine providence. 97 Analogously, Cyprian referred to the spread of the purified Word of God throughout Europe in the sixteenth century and then to India and the New World as “miraculous” (wunderbar, wundersame Ausbreitung) in his history of the Augsburg Confession. 98 He regarded this as proof that God held a protective hand over the Reformation movement and promoted its flourishment. For this reason, Cyprian strove at every opportunity to emphasize the wide expansion, strength, and solidity of the Lutheran churches. This was, for example, one of the chief motiving factors

91 FB Gotha, Chart. A 429, fol. 474r–480v, here: 475r–v. 92 Cyprian: Hilaria. 93 Cf. Gehrt: Cyprian und die Erinnerungspolitik Herzog Friedrichs II., pp. 123–128. See also the digital exhibition “Hilaria evangelica: Das Reformationsjubiläum von 1717 in Europa“ under the URL: https://ausstellungen.thulb.uni-jena.de/die-ausstellungen/ (last accessed, July 13, 2022). 94 See the list of prints and manuscripts sent to Cyprian and the Leipzig publishers in: Cyprian: Hilaria, book 2, pp. 1044–1094. 95 A copy of Löscher’s proposal can be found in: FB Gotha, Chart. A 425, fol. 301r–302v. Cf. Theodor Wotschke: “Löschers Bemühungen um einen Theologenbund”, in: Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 47 (1928), pp. 145–161. 96 Cf. Heering: Grotius as Apologist, pp. 89–91. 97 See book 2, articles 20 to 22 of De veritate religionis christianae. Cf. Heering: Grotius as Apologist, p. 125. 98 Cyprian: Historia der Augspurgischen Confession, pp. 90–95.

Arguing for the Moral Necessity of Reformation History

267

for elaborately documenting the celebrations of the bicentennial commemoration of the Reformation. 6. CYPRIAN’S PLACE IN THE HISTORY OF PROTESTANT CHURCH HISTORIOGRAPHY Ernst Salomon Cyprian’s unique implementation of natural law arguments in his historiographic works on the Reformation revealed here for the first time requires further investigation. Especially an in-depth study of Cyprian’s most widely received publication Convincing Instruction on the Origins and Growth of the Papacy along with a Protective Brief for the Reformation promises interesting insights. The Gotha historian regarded the argumentation of this book to be so sound, rational, and universally affirmative that he claimed that it was irrefutable. 99 Of additional interest is whether or not the writings of Tommaso Campanella also had an influence his argumentation. Cyprian had dealt intensively with this Italian philosopher as professor in Helmstedt and Coburg and possessed a copy of the notorious treatise On the Three Impostors of the Religions that Campanella refuted in his work originally entitled Identification of the True Universal Religion and later Atheism Conquered. 100 At the end of this brief overview of Cyprian’s historiographic writings on the Reformation, their distinct characteristics and underlying arguments and the specific political and intellectual contexts of their origins, the question of Cyprian’s place in the history of Protestant church historiography still remains. His understanding of the rise of the papacy as a history of decline for the Christian Church was conventional. However, Cyprian did not remain completely rooted in the established traditions as historians have claimed hitherto. 101 In several respects, he ventured off to new shores. Cyprian and Grosch’s Necessary Defense was based on the typical division of history into centuries, but this was simply dictated by the underlying structure that Gottfried Arnold had chosen for his History of Heretics. Cyprian, however, had broken with this structural model in his Compendium of Ecclesiastical History from 1723. 102 In contrast to Veit Ludwig von Seckendorff and Adam Rechenberg who were still bound to this tradition, Cyprian divided his continuation of this universal church history for the time period from the Thirty Years’ War until the present day 99 Cf. Cyprian: Belehrung, fol. c3r. 100 Modern edition: Tommaso Campanella: L’ateismo trionfato, overo Riconoscimento filosofico della religione universale contra l’antichristianesmo macchiavellesco (Ed. Germana Ernst). Pisa 2004. Cyprian’s manuscript copy of the Three Impostors in: FB Gotha, Chart. A 294, pp. 5–36. 101 Cf., for example, Benrath: Cyprian als Reformationshistoriker, esp. pp. 37f.; Schunka: Plurality, esp. p. 156. 102 Cyprian: Compendium historiae ecclesiasticae. Cf. Wetzel: Kirchengeschichtsschreibung, pp. 305f.

268

Daniel Gehrt

into various churches or religious groups: the Greek Orthodox Church, the three established Christian churches, and groups that had distanced or separated themselves from these churches. Both Cyprian and Valentin Ernst Löscher are regarded as late Orthodox Lutheran theologians, but a fleeting comparison between the publications of the Gotha church councilor and the Dresden superintendent’s three-volume history of the early years of the Reformation from 1517 to 1519 printed between 1720 and 1729 103 reveals striking differences. Löscher’s attacks against the Roman Catholic Church were, for example, much more blatant and explicit. He also argued theologically, directly refuting alleged errors of this kind. He operated implicitly with the concept of testes veritatis by differing between two parties in his introductory overview of the rise and decline of the Christian church in the first 15 centuries of its existence, namely: Christians who in their teaching remained true disciples of Jesus and those who gradually lost sight of some of these truths, who became fond of worldly things and who suffered spiritual shipwreck. 104 Cyprian, on the other hand, excluded theological arguments and references to testes veritatis by adopting the theory of natural law and Grotius’ argumentative methods. 105 This approach to Reformation history appears to be singular. In effect, it can be seen as a contribution to the “secularization” and “rationalization” of church history. This is a newly revealed side of Cyprian that had remained hidden for a long time behind the clichés connected with labeling him as a late Orthodox Lutheran theologian and it is a side worth investigating in more depth.

103 Valentin Ernst Löscher: Vollständige Reformations-Acta und Documenta oder umständliche Vorstellung des Evangelischen Reformations-Wercks/ mit Einrückung des darzu dienlichen, theils noch nie gedruckten/ Nachrichten/ So daß dieses Werk zugleich vor Theologische Annales dienen kann/ […]. 3 vols. Leipzig 1720–1729 (VD18 11082860). 104 Cf. Löscher: Reformations-Acta 1, pp. 1–33, here: 23. Seckendorff also operated with the concept of testes veritatis in his Compendium historiae ecclesiasticae. 105 On the widespread use of testes veritatis in protestant historiography cf. Mattias Pohlig: Zwischen Gelehrsamkeit und konfessioneller Identitätsstiftung. Tübingen 2007, pp. 294–334; and Wolf-Friedrich Schäufele’s essay in the present volume.

Arguing for the Moral Necessity of Reformation History

269

APPENDIX Publications related to Reformation history that were initiated and in part completed by Cyprian 1. Editions of scholarly letters preserved at the ducal library in Gotha Clarorvm Virorvm Epistolae CXVII. E Bibliothecae Gothanae Avtographis […] (Ed. Ernst Salomon Cyprian). Leipzig: Jo[ann] Friedr[ich] Gleditsch and son, 1714 (VD18 11387688). Publication of 117 letters. Uncompleted edition of Philipp Melanchthon’s letters, 1717. The publication of approximately 6,000 letters was planned. Tabvlarivm Ecclesiae Romanae Secvli Decimi Sexti, In Qvo Monvmenta, Restitvti Calicis Evcharistici, Totivsqve Concilii Tridentini Historiam Mirifice Illlvstrantia, Continentvr. […] (Ed. Ernst Salomon Cyprian). Frankfurt am Main, Leipzig: Wolfg[ang] Ludwig Spring, 1743 (VD18 10741062). Publication of 296 letters. Uncompleted edition of letters related to the Greek Orthodox Church, after 1743. 2. Publications related to the rebuttal of Arnold’s History of Heretics Friedrich Myconius: […] Historia Reformationis vom Jahr Christi 1517. bis 1542. Aus des Autoris autographo […] (Ed. Ernst Salomon Cyprian). Gotha: Johann Andreas Schallen, 1715 (VD18 90020995, second edition in 1718: 1142320X). Wilhelm Ernst Tentzel: […] Historischer Bericht vom Anfang und ersten Fortgang der Reformation Lvtheri, Zur Erläuterung des Hn. v. Seckendorff Historie des Lutherthums, mit grossem Fleiß erstattet, und nunmehro in diesem andern Evangelischen Jubel=Jahr, Nebst einer besondern Vorrede, auch nützlichen, noch niemahls publicirten Uhrkunden […] mitgetheilet von D. Ernst Salomon Cyprian. Leipzig: Johann Ludwig Gleditsch und Moritz Georg Weidmann, 1717 (VD18 1042170X). Der andere Theil Nützlicher Uhrkunden, Zur Erläuterung Der ersten ReformationsGeschichte, Und Bestärckung so wohl des Herrn von Seckendorff Historie des Lutherthums, Als Wilh. Ernst Tenzelii Berichts vom Anfang der Reformation, […] (Ed. Ernst Salomon Cyprian). Leipzig: Johann Ludwig Gleditsch and Moritz Georg Weidmann, 1718. Georg Spalatin: […] Annales Reformationis Oder Jahr-Bücher von der Reformation Lvtheri, aus dessen Avtographo ans Licht gestellet […] (Ed. Ernst Salomon Cyprian). Leipzig: Johann Ludwig Gleditsch and Moritz Georg Weidmann, 1718.

270

Daniel Gehrt

Ernst Salomon Cyprian and Georg Grosch: […] Nothwendige Verthaidigung der evangelischen Kirche wider die Arnoldische Ketzerhistorie, Worinnen Das XVI. und XVII. Buch gedachten historischen Wercks, vom Jahr Christi 1500. an, bis aufs Jahr 1700. nach Ordnung aller Capitel und Paragraphorum erläutert, verbessert, ergäntzet, und, wo es nöthig, widerleget, auch sonsten mancherley wichtig Materien abgehandelt werden, Nebst vielen Original-Uhrkunden, und einer ausführlichen Vorrede Ern. Sal. Cypriani […]. Frankfurt am Main, Leipzig: Wolfgang Ludwig Spring, 1745 (VD18 1073905X). A refutation of book 16, chapters 1–16 of Arnold’s History of Heretics. Unfinished volumes of the refutation of book 16, chapters 17–32 and book 17 of Arnold’s History of Heretics. 3. Publications originating in different contexts Ernst Salomon Cyprian: Uberzeugende Belehrung vom Ursprung und Wachstum des Papstthums nebst einer Schutz-Schrifft vor die Reformation, aus avthentiqven Uhrkunden abgefasset […] Gotha: [Johann Andreas] Reyher, 1719 (VD18 10987142, further editions until 1769: 10978771, 10174184, 1074147X, 12393126). First version in: Idem: Hilaria Evangelica, Oder Theologisch-Historischer Bericht Vom Andern Evangelischen Jubel-Fest, […]. Gotha: Moritz Georg Weidmann, 1719 (VD18 90010523), Bericht, p. 1–190. Abgetrungener Unterricht von Kirchlicher Vereinigung der Protestanten aus Liebe zur nothleidenden Warheit abgefasset mit historischen Original-Documenten bestärcket […]. Frankfurt am Main, Leipzig: Moritz Georg Weidemann, 1722 (VD18 11386258, second edition in 1726: 10209980), p. 151–281. Publication of 16 letters from Calvin’s and Beza’s correspondence among other letters and documents. Ernst Salomon Cyprian: Historia der Augspurgischen Confession […]. Gotha 1730 (VD18 1524542X, second edition in 1730: 1138624X, third edition in 1731: 10970274). Publication of the Augsburg Confession and 44 letters and documents.

BETWEEN CONTINUITY AND DISCONTINUITY The Narrative of Witnesses of the Evangelical Truth and the Reformation as an Era in Writings by Jacques Basnage and Christoph Matthäus Pfaff Wolf-Friedrich Schäufele Abstract: In the older Protestant historiography, tension existed between the theological notion of a continuity of the Reformation with pre-Reformation “witnesses of the truth” and the perception of the Reformation as a caesura and an era of its own. Examining the writings of the Reformed French theologian Jacques Basnage and the German Lutheran Christoph Matthäus Pfaff shows that the narrative of the Protestant “testes veritatis” had by no means disappeared in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries but that it was still vital. Both authors therefore did not yet use the term “Reformation” exclusively as a designation for an historic era, but also in a broader sense for various earlier efforts at church reform. Zusammenfassung: Die kontroverstheologisch motivierte Betonung der historischen Kontinuität der Reformation zu vorreformatorischen „Wahrheitszeugen“ stand in der älteren protestantischen Historiographie in Spannung zur Wahrnehmung der Reformation als Zäsur und Epoche. Am Beispiel des reformierten französischen Theologen Jacques Basnage und des deutschen Lutheraners Christoph Matthäus Pfaff lässt sich zeigen, dass das Narrativ der evangelischen „Wahrheitszeugen“ im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert keineswegs verschwunden, sondern noch immer vital war. Beide Autoren gebrauchten den Begriff „Reformation“ daher noch nicht exklusiv als Epochenbezeichnung, sondern auch in einem weiteren Sinne für frühere Bestrebungen zur Kirchenreform.

1. THE REFORMATION CONCEPT OF HISTORY In confrontation with the Roman Church, the churches of the Reformation were forced early on to historicize themselves and to develop their own concept of history. 1 The dispute about the legitimacy of the Reformation was carried out not only in the field of dogmatics but also in the field of history. Given the premodern conviction that age is a criterion of truth, the reformers had to avert the charge that their

1

See Wolf-Friedrich Schäufele: “Die Selbsthistorisierung der Reformation mittels der Konzeption evangelischer Wahrheitszeugen”, in: Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 128 (2017), pp. 156–170; idem: “‘Vorreformation’ und ‘erste Reformation’ als historiographische Konzepte: Bestandsaufnahme und Problemanzeige”, in: Andrea Strübind, Tobias Weger (eds.): Jan Hus – 600 Jahre Erste Reformation. Munich 2015, pp. 209–231.

272

Wolf-Friedrich Schäufele

doctrine was an improper innovation. And they had to face the accusation that Luther was not justified in tackling the reform of the Church, an area of action reserved exclusively for the pope and bishops. The reformers responded to both accusations with historical arguments. Against the accusation of introducing new and therefore erroneous doctrines, the reformers asserted that they merely had restored the ancient religion of Christ and the apostles from which the Roman Church had deviated; in fact, the Church of Rome and the “Papists” were the actual innovators and adulterers of the ancient gospel. But since the Church of Christ could never have perished, the reformers referred to alleged precursors of the Reformation, witnesses of the truth (testes veritatis), as Matthias Flacius called them. 2 These were supposed to have boldly testified to the gospel and the evangelical truth even in the time of the highest corruption of the Roman Church. This conviction of the degradation of the Roman Church and of the succession of witnesses of the evangelical truth became essential for the historical self-understanding of the Reformation. It can be clearly found, for instance, in Luther’s work On the Councils and the Church and in Calvin’s Letter to Sadoleto and was a concept underlying the Magdeburg Centuries and the Catalogus Testium Veritatis by Matthias Flacius. 3 Incidentally, the conviction of living in the last days before the Second Coming of Christ was widespread in all branches of the Reformation, but especially in Lutheranism. Among the latter, this manifested itself in a distinctive apocalyptic interpretation of history based on judgments of Luther himself. 4 Accordingly, Luther and the Reformation he had spearheaded constituted the last and decisive era in the history of salvation. By exposing the papacy as the Antichrist, Luther unleashed the eschatological conflict between Christ and Antichrist and the end of the world became imminent. Luther himself was soon understood by his adherents as a prophet and identified with the third Elijah and the angel of the eternal gospel of Rev. 14:6. Both strategies of historical legitimization – the concept of precursors of the Reformation and the idea of the Reformation as a milestone in the history of salvation – have determined for a long time the self-understanding of Reformation Churches and their view of their own history. The notion of precursors of the Reformation and witnesses to the truth tended to relativize the caesura quality of the Reformation and to level it into the larger continuum of church history. On the other 2

3

4

Matthias Flacius: Catalogus testium veritatis, qui ante nostram aetatem reclamarunt Papae […]. Basel 1556, ²1562. The term “testes veritatis” only appears in the titel. See Wolf-Friedrich Schäufele: “Matthias Flacius Illyricus und die Konzeption der Zeugenschaft im Catalogus testium veritatis”, in: Irene Dingel, Johannes Hund, Luka Ilić (eds.): Matthias Flacius Illyricus: Biographische Kontexte, theologische Wirkungen, historische Rezeption. Göttingen 2019, pp. 159–174. Martin Luther: “Von den Konziliis und Kirchen”, in: Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Vol. 50, Weimar 1914, pp. 509–653; John Calvin: “Ad Sadoleti Epistolam”, in: CalvinStudienausgabe (Ed. Eberhard Busch et al.). Vol. 1.1. Neukirchen-Vluyn 1994, pp. 337–429, here: esp. 368–370. For Flacius see above note 2. See e.g. Volker Leppin: Antichrist und Jüngster Tag: Das Profil apokalyptischer Flugschriftenpublizistik im deutschen Luthertum 1548–1618. Gütersloh 1999.

Between Continuity and Discontinuity

273

hand, the apocalyptic interpretation of Luther and the Reformation made them stand out as a salvific end-time event directly wrought by God and as an era detached from earlier periods of church history. Both narratives were widespread, especially in Lutheranism, but the idea of precursors of the Reformation was familiar to the Reformed as well. In the age of Pietism and Enlightenment, both narratives lost their plausibility. Luther was no longer featured as a champion of salvation history, but as an ordinary human being with both strengths and weaknesses. And according to a hypothesis posed by Matthias Pohlig, in the seventeenth century the narrative of witnesses of the truth would have “imploded” because of its own inner contradictions. 5 The assumption seems reasonable that the demise of these two narratives has contributed to the modernization of the historical assessment of the Reformation. In particular abandoning the narrative of the witnesses of truth should have fostered the perception of the caesura quality of the Reformation and its appreciation as a historical era of its own. In this paper I will examine this assumption by reviewing central writings of two lesserknown but in their time quite prominent theologians of the later seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries: the French Reformed Jacques Basnage and the Württemberg Lutheran Christoph Matthäus Pfaff. 2. JACQUES BASNAGE AND HIS HISTOIRE DE LA RELIGION DES EGLISES RÉFORMÉES Jacques Basnage was born in Rouen in 1653 as an offspring of a Huguenot family of pastors. 6 After studying in Saumur, Geneva and Sedan, he worked since 1676 as a Reformed pastor in his hometown. After the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 he had to leave the country and found refuge in the Netherlands, where he served as pastor of the Walloon church in Rotterdam since 1691 and of the French church in The Hague since 1709. A modern author called him “le plus grand pasteur du Refuge des Provinces-Unies.” 7 In his theology, Basnage, being a close friend of Pierre Bayle, was to a certain degree influenced by the early Enlightenment. Among his numerous writings were

5 6 7

Matthias Pohlig: Zwischen Gelehrsamkeit und konfessioneller Identitätsstiftung: Lutherische Kirchen- und Universalgeschichtsschreibung 1546–1617. Tübingen 2007, pp. 338–341. On Basnage’s life see Gerald Cerny: Theology, Politics and Letters at the Crossroads of European Civilization: Jacques Basnage and the Baylean Huguenot Refugees in the Dutch Republic. Dordrecht 1987, pp. 9–178. François Laplanche: L’écriture, le sacré et l’histoire: érudits et politiques protestants devant la bible en France au XVIIe siècle. Amsterdam 1986, p. 608.

274

Wolf-Friedrich Schäufele

above all important historical works. For example, Basnage, appointed official historian of the Dutch States General, wrote the Annales des Provinces-Unies 8 and a notable Histoire des Juifs. 9 Of particular interest here, however, is his elaborate Histoire de la Religion des Eglises réformées (History of the religion of the Reformed Churches). Unfortunately, Basnage’s presentation of church history is nearly unknown today. Written in an elegant, appealing style, ingenious in argument and of high scholarly standards, it is a highly original work. Throughout his lifetime, Basnage kept on revising and expanding it. 10 The first edition of the Histoire de la Religion des Eglises réformées was printed in Rotterdam in 1690 and covered the period from the ninth century up to that time. 11 Within one decade Basnage made this work the nucleus of a comprehensive account of the entire history of the church from Christ up to his time; in this monumental Histoire de l’Eglise depuis Jésus-Christ jusqu’à présent, 12 published in 1699, Basnage’s initial history of the Reformed churches constituted the last of four main parts. In 1721 Basnage nevertheless had another extended edition of his original Histoire de la Religion des Eglises réformées printed in five small volumes. 13 A third and final edition of this work appeared posthumously in 1725, with another 300 pages on the first eight centuries of Christianity added. 14 The particular profile of these writings derives from the confessional context in which Basnage conceived them. He responded with his writing to the renowned major work of the Bishop of Meaux Jacques Bénigne Bossuet, the famous Histoire des variations des Eglises Protestantes (“History of the variations of the Protestant Churches”), published in 1688. 15 Bossuet had taken advantage of the historical changes in the teaching and worship of the Protestant churches as an argument against their truth. According to him, truth was indivisible and immutable, and had been preserved unchanged throughout the centuries in the Roman Church alone, while the Protestants, by their inconstancy, had exposed themselves as innovators and adulterers of the truth. In the eleventh book of his Histoire, Bossuet had expressly denied that the Protestants stood in the succession of the true Church. In contrast, Basnage tried to prove with his historical survey the “succession de l’Eglise” (the succession 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15

Jacques Basnage: Annales des Provinces-Unies. 2 vols. The Hague 1719–1726. See Cerny: Theology, pp. 269–290. Jacques Basnage: L’histoire et la religion des Juifs depuis Jésus-Christ jusqu’à present. Rotterdam 1706. Further editions: Rotterdam 1711; The Hague 1716 (15 vols.). See Jonathan M. Elukin: “Jacques Basnage and the History of the Jews”, in: Journal of the History of Ideas 53 (1992), pp. 603–630; Cerny: Theology, pp. 181–202; Laplanche: L’écriture, pp. 608–617. Cerny: Theology, pp. 211–216. Jacques Basnage: Histoire de la Religion des Eglises réformées. 2 vols. Rotterdam 1690. Jacques Basnage: Histoire de l’Eglise depuis Jésus-Christ jusqu’à present. 2 vols. Rotterdam 1699. Jacques Basnage: Histoire de la Religion des Eglises réformées. 5 vols. Rotterdam 1721. Jacques Basnage: Histoire de la Religion des Eglises réformées depuis Jésus-Christ jusqu’à present. 2 vols. Rotterdam 1725. Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet: Histoire des variations des Eglises Protestantes. 2 vols. Paris 1688. See Cerny: Theology, pp. 204–210.

Between Continuity and Discontinuity

275

of the Church) and the “perpétuité de la foi” (the constancy of the faith) in Protestantism.16 Thus, we are not dealing here with a historiography sine ira et studio, but a historically fashioned form of confessional theological polemics. The Histoire de la Religion des Eglises Reformées is very rich in historical material and of great erudition. 17 Technically, it is a comprehensive, original elaboration of the old narrative of precursors of the Reformation and witnesses to the evangelical truth, inspired by Flacius’ Catalogus testium veritatis. 18 Even in the midst of gross superstition there were always outstanding theologians and considerable parts of the Church who, like stars in the night, defied error and prevented the truth from being completely destroyed. 19 Therefore, Basnageʼs historical account did not begin with Zwingli or Calvin and not even with Luther, but rather it went back to the ninth century: still then, despite mounting errors and abuses, the evangelical doctrine proclaimed by the apostles and, of course, perfectly congruent with the teachings of the Reformed in Basnage’s time, had survived in France and in England, but especially in Piedmont, in the diocese of Turin, where Bishop Claudius of Turin had opposed the worship of images and relics. 20 Basnage calls Claudius “un Pere de la Reformation” (a Father of the Reformation), 21 and states about Claudius’ contemporary, Bishop Leidrad of Lyons (c. 745–821): “Leydrade […] étoit donc veritablement de la religion reformée” (Leidrad was truly of the Reformed confession). 22 Although various aberrations had arisen, they were rejected by the majority of the theologians and bishops, and the truth was not yet suppressed. On the whole, it is undeniable that Protestant faith still dominated in the ninth century. 23 In the tenth century, 24 errors and abuses also spread into France, such as the realistic interpretation of the Last Supper, which was especially scorned by Basnage, and all its consequences including the doctrine of transubstantiation, the worship of the consecrated wafer and the worship of saints, their relics and images. But still at that time there were many and prominent opponents of these doctrines and practices

16 See the subtitle of his work: “Dans laquelle on voit la Succession de leur Eglise; la Perpétuité de leur Foy; principalement depuis la VIII. Siecle; l’établissement de la Reformation; la Perseverance dans les mêmes Dogmes depuis la Reformation jusqu’à present.” 17 To the following remarks cf. Cerny: Theology, pp. 216–231. 18 On the influence of Flacius see Basnage: Historie de la Religion (1721), vol. 1, p. 5. 19 “Cependant comme dans la nuit la plus obscure, on le laisse pas d’appercevoir des étoiles qui jettent quelque lueur: au milieu des superstitions les plus grossieres, on ne laisse pas de remarquer des Theologiens celebres, & même des parties considerables de l’Eglise qui se sont opposées à l’erreur, & qui par leur opposition ont empêché que la vérité ne fut entierement détruite”; Basnage: Historie de la Religion (1721), vol. 1, p. 25. 20 Basnage: Histoire de la Religion (1721), pp. 49–56. About Claudius see Pascal Boulhol: Claude de Turin: un évêque iconoclaste dans l’Occident carolingien. Paris 2002. 21 Basnage: Histoire de la Religion (1721), p. 53. 22 Ibid., p. 59. 23 Ibid., p. 66: “[…] que nôtre Religion étoit encore regnante au neuviéme siecle […].” 24 Ibid., pp. 67–125.

276

Wolf-Friedrich Schäufele

who could openly express their disapproval without any fear of sanctions. Thus, the faith did not perish completely, and the succession of the true church continued. 25 Since the eleventh century 26, the opposition against ecclesiastical aberrations crystallized in the formation of various separatist communities that became targets of bloody persecutions. In four of these communities, Basnage saw “quatre branches differentes d’une succession suivie” (four branches of one ongoing succession). 27 First and foremost were the followers of Peter Brusius and the Cathars – Basnage speaks of “Albigenses” (Albigeois) – who were not at all Manichaeans, but upright Evangelicals. 28 The same views were held by the Waldenses, named after Peter Waldo. However, these were actually much older and went back to Piedmontese followers of Claudius of Turin. 29 The English Lollards, the third branch, had not followed the errors and scholastic subtleties of their master John Wyclif, but only his evangelical doctrine. 30 The fourth branch consisted of the “Bohemians” – more precisely, the Taborites and the Bohemian Brethren – who stood in both the Waldensian and the Lollard traditions. 31 John Hus, whom he disregarded as an adherent of transubstantiation, and Jerome of Prague had in Basnage’s view little or nothing to do with them; intermixing error and truth, they cannot be considered true martyrs. 32 In these four movements, Basnage saw the historic continuity of the Church guaranteed right up to the churches of the Reformation. 33 In addition, he also thought it possible that there had been “Fideles cachez,” hidden believers within the Roman Church. 34 Thus in this historical review, it is not the Reformation which is the major caesura, but the ninth century, until which the original purity of the

25 Ibid., p. 111: “Nous concluons de tous ces faits, que la succession de l’Eglise ne fut point entierement interrompue pendant le X. Siecle, parce que la foi n’y perit point, & que les erreurs grossieres qui commençoient à s’épandre n’avoient point penetré toutes les parties de l’Eglise.” 26 Ibid., pp. 126–144. 27 Basnage: Histoire de la Religion (1721), vol. 2, p. 336. 28 Basnage: Histoire de la Religion (1721), vol. 1, pp. 187–425. 29 Basnage: Histoire de la Religion (1721), vol. 2, pp. 54–76. 30 Ibid., pp. 138–182. 31 Ibid., pp. 211–242. 32 Ibid., pp. 188–210. Cf. ibid., p. 209: “[…] nous ne reclamions pas ces deux Docteurs pour nos veritables Martyrs, parce qu’ils ont mêlé l’erreur avec la vérité […].” 33 Ibid., p. 336: “Ainsi nous lui [i.e. Bossuet] avons découvert quatre branches differentes d’une succession suivie, les Albigeois qui commençent dans l’onziéme siecle & qui ont eu un si grand nombre de predecesseurs, parce que diverses parties de l’Eglise se separoient à même tems pour combattre l’erreur qui commençoit à triompher; ils ont, dis-je, eu tant de predecesseurs qu’il est difficile de désigner particulierement leurs veritables peres. Les Vaudois qui leur ont succedé en France & en Italie. Les Lollards depuis Viclef en Angleterre; & ces mêmes Vaudois & Lollards sous le nom de Bohemiens en Boheme, en Autriche & dans la Moravie. lesquels subsistoient au tems de la Reformation.” 34 Ibid., pp. 318–337.

Between Continuity and Discontinuity

277

Church was still preserved, or even more, as particularly evident in the larger Histoire de l’Eglise, the eleventh century with the rise of the Albigenses. 35 The faith and worship of the Reformed are not at all new but fully in line with that of the older witnesses. Basnage is thus still clearly committed to the narrative of witnesses of the truth as it had been elaborated especially by Matthias Flacius, whom he mentions several times as a voucher. Nevertheless, Basnage makes his own, quite uncommon points, as for instance in his atypical contempt of Wyclif and Hus. And, even more important, with his reference to the Cathars (Albigenses), he gives his Protestant narrative of history a national French perspective – much like John Foxe had done in his famous Book of Martyrs, which depicted the history of the true Church from a national English perspective. 36 By relativizing the Reformation through the witness narrative, Basnage can use the term “Reformation” (in French: “la Reforme”, “la Reformation”) without hesitation also for earlier aspirations for reform. Thus he speaks of the reforms of Pope Gregory the Great as the “reformation de Gregoire I.”, or of the “Reformation” of the Waldenses or the “Reformation de l’Eglise” sought by Wyclif. 37 3. CHRISTOPH MATTHÄUS PFAFF AND HIS INSTITUTIONES HISTORIAE ECCLESIASTICAE Christoph Matthäus Pfaff came from a long line of Lutheran pastors in Württemberg. 38 His father had been a professor of theology at the University of Tübingen since 1701, and in 1717 Pfaff junior also received a full professorship there at the 35 Basnage starts with the eleventh century in the 24th “book” of this work, covering “l’Histoire des Albigeois, des Vaudois, & des Eglises de Boheme, depuis l’onzième siecle jusqu’au tems de la Reformation en 1517” (Basnage: Histoire de l’Eglise, vol. 2, p. 1386). Cf. ibid., p. 1387: “Que devint alors l’Eglise? […] Il faudroit reconoître du moins qu’elle perdit sa forme visible, qu’elle cessa d’être la ville assise sur la montagne, & avoir recours à un petit nombre de Fideles cachez, si Dieu pour la conserver d’une manière plus éclatante, n’avoit fait naître les Albigeois, au tems que l’erreur triomphant de la verité, alloit la charger de fers comme une esclave, & l’empêcher de paroître.” 36 Martin Ohst: “Protestantische Hagiographie: Einige Bemerkungen zu John Foxe’s ‘Acts and monuments’”, in: Berndt Hamm (ed.): Sakralität zwischen Antike und Neuzeit. Stuttgart 2007, pp. 275–287; Wolf-Friedrich Schäufele: “Protestantisches Märtyrergedenken im frühneuzeitlichen England: John Foxe und das ‘Book of Martyrs’”, in: Ebernburg-Hefte 43 (2009), pp. 35– 59 = Blätter für Pfälzische Kirchengeschichte 76 (2009), pp. 367–391; Mark Greengrass, Matthew Phillpott: “John Bale, John Foxe and the Reformation of the English Past”, in: Archive of Reformation History 101 (2010), pp. 275–288. 37 Basnage: Histoire de la Religion (1721), vol. 1, p. 79; ibid., vol. 2, pp. 74, 146. 38 On his biography see Wolf-Friedrich Schäufele: “Pfaff, Christoph Matthäus”, in: Neue Deutsche Biographie 20 (2001), pp. 290f.; idem: “Christoph Matthäus Pfaff (1686–1760) als Tübinger Universitätskanzler und Professor”, in: Ulrich Köpf (ed.): Die Universität Tübingen zwischen Orthodoxie, Pietismus und Aufklärung. Ostfildern 2014, pp. 123–156. On his theology: Arnold F. Stolzenburg: Die Theologie des Jo. Franc. Buddeus und des Chr. Matth. Pfaff: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Aufklärung in Deutschland. Berlin 1926.

278

Wolf-Friedrich Schäufele

young age of thirty; as early as 1720 he became professor primarius and chancellor of the university and held both these offices for over 35 years. Pfaff owed his rapid career to his good relations with the Württemberg court: from 1706 to 1709 he had received a ducal grant for his academic tour of Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands and England, during which he also visited Basnage in Rotterdam. In his later writings Pfaff repeatedly praised the older Reformed theologian. 39 Later on, Pfaff had been a traveling companion of the Württemberg hereditary prince to Turin, The Hague, Flanders and Paris; maybe he had met Basnage again in The Hague. Pfaff read and wrote French, and he was familiar with the writings of Basnage. As a theologian he took a stance between Orthodoxy, Pietism and the early Enlightenment. A special concern of this prolific writer was the creation of an ecclesiastical union between the Reformed and the Lutherans in Germany and beyond. 40 Here we are particularly interested in his textbook on ecclesiastical history entitled Institutiones historiae ecclesiasticae, which was first published in 1721 and republished in 1727. 41 Although Pfaff stated that he had only wanted to provide a terse outline for teaching purposes and reserve the drafting of a substantial church history for a later date, 42 which, of course, never happened, the Institutiones constituted a comprehensive and veritable authoritative work on ecclesiastical historiography. Unlike Basnage’s Histoire, no immediate apologetical purpose is discernible here. But Pfaff had dealt with various works by Bossuet 43 and we can presume that the problem of the historical legitimacy of the Reformation also motivated him. The plot of Pfaff’s historiography is more conservative than that of Basnage. To be sure, he does not attempt to work out the succession of the true church the same way as Basnage, and the witnesses of truth are not at the center of his interest. But even Pfaff allows the “testes veritatis” to play a considerable role, and he, too, does not clearly emphasize the caesura quality of the Reformation. Indeed in the prolegomena chapter Pfaff proposes a division of church history into four periods (“epochae”) – from Emperor Augustus to Constantine, from Constantine to Charlemagne and the beginning of the schism with the Eastern Churches (in the controversies over images and the “filioque”), from Charlemagne to the “reformatio Ecclesiae” and from the Reformation 39 Christoph Matthäus Pfaff: Jacobus Benignus Bossuetus […] ubi in libro de variationibus ecclesiarum protestantium generale hoc praeiudicium […] ursit, rem acu plane non tetigit. Tübingen 1720, p. 4: “Theologus Hagiensis longè excellentissimus, & cujus amicitia summo nobis in pretio est, Jacobus Basnagius”; Christoph Matthäus Pfaff: Animadversiones historico-theologicae in Jacobi Basnagii, Theologi Hagiensis Reformati, Historiam Religionis Ecclesiarum Protestantium. Tübingen 1722, p. 34: “Certè tantum est, quo Virum doctissimum prosequimur, aestimium, tantum, quod meritis, quod eruditioni, quod virtutibus ejus ponimus, pretium, ut non possimus non cum summo honoris praefamine ejus semper meminisse. Itaque benè feret, speramus, hanc scriptionem nostram […] Vir clarissimus, atque eodem amoris & benevolentiae affectu, quem olim nobis testatum fecit, nos porro exosculabitur.” 40 See Wolf-Friedrich Schäufele: Christoph Matthäus Pfaff und die Kirchenunionsbestrebungen des Corpus Evangelicorum 1717–1726. Mainz 1998. 41 Christoph Matthäus Pfaff: Institutiones historiae ecclesiasticae. Tübingen 1717, ²1727. 42 Pfaff: Institutiones, pp. 30f., 35. 43 See above all Pfaff: Jacobus Benignus Bossuetus.

Between Continuity and Discontinuity

279

to the present day. 44 But this division, in which the Reformation features as an epochal turn, is of no importance at all in his work. Rather, Pfaff follows the traditional century pattern already employed by the Magdeburg Centuriators and by the German radical pietist Gottfried Arnold. 45 The decline of the church, which according to Basnage began in the tenth century, had its origins, in Pfaff’s view, in the time of Emperor Constantine. 46 Thus Pfaff does not, like Luther, perceive the year 607 when Emperor Phocas awarded Pope Boniface III the title of an ecumenical patriarch as the decisive turning point. 47 Instead, he revives a medieval topos 48 that was also widespread on the so-called left wing of the Reformation and had left traces with some radical Pietists of his own time including Gottfried Arnold. 49 On the other hand, he records the “testes veritatis” of each age in a special chapter, beginning with the eighth century. 50 Pfaff also reserves a separate column for the “testes” of each century in the synoptic tables printed in the appendix of the book. 51 The repertoire of names is quite conventional. Flacius and later authors, including James Ussher, John Forbes of Corse, Friedrich Spanheim and even Basnage, serve him as authorities. Regarding the twelfth century, Pfaff clearly refers to Basnage by presenting the teachings of the Waldensians and Albigenses as coinciding with those of modern Protestants in many respects. 52 Unlike Basnage, however, Pfaff also praises Wyclif and Hus as veritable predecessors of the Reformation, 53 just like the Hussites and Savonarola. 54 Although Pfaff qualifies the entire sixteenth century as the “seculum reformationis” 55 his emphasis on the witnesses of 44 Pfaff: Institutiones, pp. 75f. 45 Ecclesiastica Historia integram ecclesiae Christi ideam […]. 13 vols. Basel 1559–1574. Gottfried Arnold: Unparteyische Kirchen- und Ketzer-Historie. 2 vols. Frankfurt am Main 1699–1700. 46 Pfaff: Institutiones, pp. 193, 207: “Aliam faciem externam nacta est hoc seculo Ecclesia Christiana converso ad Christianismum Constantino M. Imperatore […] Seculum hoc multis jam superstitionibus fuit maculatum, ab Ethnicismo maximè oriundis.” 47 John M. Headley: Luther’s View of Church History. New Haven, London 1963, pp. 190–193; Rolf Decot: “Die Entstehung des Papsttums: Martin Luthers historische Sicht in seiner Schrift ‘Wider das Papsttum zu Rom, vom Teufel gestiftet’ (1545)”, in: Ralph Melville et al. (eds.): Deutschland und Europa in der Neuzeit: Festschrift für Karl Otmar von Aretin zum 65. Geburtstag. Vol. 1. Stuttgart 1988, pp. 133–154. 48 Cf. Wolf-Friedrich Schäufele: “Defecit Ecclesia”: Die Verfallsidee in der Kirchengeschichtsanschauung des Mittelalters. Mainz 2005, passim. 49 Cf. Gottfried Arnold: Die Erste Liebe (Ed. Hans Schneider). Leipzig 2002, pp. 101–119 (extracts from book 8: “Von dem Verfall des Christenthums / vornehmlich unter und nach Constantino Magno von der ersten Lauterkeit”). 50 Pfaff: Institutiones, pp. 344 note (a), 417–422, 463f., 549–557, 603–605, 646–648, 708–719. 51 Ibid., pp. 966–1000. 52 Ibid., pp. 555f.: “Praecipui denique testes veritatis, qui hoc aevo floruere, fuere Waldenses […] & Albigenses […]” (ibid., pp. 551–554). “Doctrina ipsorum haec erat: Romanam Ecclesiam esse Babylonem, Idololatricam, Tyrannicam, superstitiosam, eademque fuit in multis, quae hodie Protestantium est, retentis tamen & crassissimis subinde erroribus Pontificiis […].” 53 Ibid., pp. 647f., 708f. 54 Ibid., pp. 711–718. 55 Ibid., p. 750: “Nemo nescit, seculum hoc XVI, esse seculum Reformationis […].”

280

Wolf-Friedrich Schäufele

truth puts the focus on continuity rather than on discontinuity between the reformers and earlier periods of ecclesiastical history. Accordingly, Pfaff, too, does not employ the term “reformatio” exclusively for the sixteenth century Reformation, but speaks, for instance, of Wyclif or the fifteenth-century reform councils, as striving for a “reformatio”. 56 4. RESULTS With Basnage and Pfaff we have examined a Reformed and a Lutheran theologian and their ecclesiastical historiography. Although they belonged to different generations, both lived around the same time – in the second half of the seventeenth and the first half of the eighteenth century – and had met each other at least once. Pfaff was familiar with Basnage’s writings. Both were influenced by the early Enlightenment and tended to view the differences between Lutherans and Reformed as not fundamentally significant. Both of them were members of the polyglot, international and interconfessional republic of scholars. In their historiography of the Reformation there is no trace of the former appraisal of the person of Luther and of the Reformation as part of the apocalyptic drama of salvation history. This, one of the two narratives fundamental to the historical self-interpretation of the early (Lutheran) Reformation, had clearly become obsolete. The situation is quite different with the second narrative, that of witnesses of the evangelical truth. Contrary to Matthias Pohlig’s hypothesis of the “implosion” of the discourse of witnesses of the truth in the seventeenth century, this historical narrative proved to be surprisingly vital. It still played an essential role in Pfaff’s writings, and Basnage even expanded and perpetuated it in an original way. Therefore, the widespread view that this narrative was exclusively prevalent in Lutheranism needs to be corrected. The truth-witness narrative led both authors to a certain relativization and leveling of the epochal quality of the Reformation. “Reformation” as a concern and as an event occurred in the writings of both well before “the” Reformation of the sixteenth century. The main reason for the persistence of the witness narrative lies in the continuing challenge of Roman Catholic controversial theology, which had a prominent exponent in Bossuet in the seventeenth century. But in a modified form, this narrative ultimately lasted right into the twentieth century. The idea of witnesses of the truth neither “imploded” nor disappeared, but rather it was ultimately transformed into other concepts like “Vorreformatoren” (“reformers before the Reformation”), popular in nineteenth-century historiography, and “forerunners of the Reformation” in the twentieth century. 57 In contrast to the original view, however, these concepts proved to be more compatible with a stronger emphasis on the caesura character of the Reformation.

56 Ibid., pp. 647, 708. 57 Schäufele: Selbsthistorisierung, pp. 168f.

THE CHURCH HISTORIAN’S DESK Barthold Nicolaus Krohn and His Working Papers Markus Friedrich Abstract: This paper examines the working methods of an early modern church historian in detail. Barthold Nicolaus Krohn from Hamburg left behind a large number of working papers and preparatory documents for his unfinished project of a universal history of Anabaptism. These documents make it possible to reconstruct the daily course of research work down to the smallest detail. In particular, they show that the creation of historical narratives depended on a variety of preparatory practices of writing and paperwork. In line with recent research approaches, which overall emphasize the materiality and physical nature of knowledge production, the paper shows how research, critical method, handwriting and historical interpretation or narration were interconnected in the Age of Enlightenment. Zusammenfassung: Dieser Beitrag untersucht die Arbeitsweisen eines frühneuzeitlichen Kirchenhistorikers im Detail. Barthold Nicolaus Krohn aus Hamburg hat eine große Zahl an Arbeitspapieren und vorbereitenden Unterlagen für sein unvollendetes Projekt einer Universalen Geschichte des Täufertums hinterlassen. Diese Unterlagen erlauben es, den alltäglichen Gang der Forschungsarbeit bis ins kleinste Detail zu rekonstruieren. Es zeigt sich insbesondere, dass die Erschaffung historischer Narrative von vielfältigen vorbereitenden Praktiken des Schreibens und der gezielten Papierarbeit abhängig war. Im Einklang mit jüngeren Forschungsansätzen, die insgesamt die Materialität und physische Natur der Wissensproduktion betonen, zeigt der Beitrag auf, wie Recherche, kritische Methode, Handschriftlichkeit und historische Interpretation bzw. Narration im Zeitalter der Aufklärung miteinander verbunden waren.

In 1758, a remarkable book on the History of the early Reformation, Barthold Nicolaus Krohn’s Geschichte der fanatischen und enthusiastischen Wiedertäufer vornehmlich in Niederdeutschland: Melchior Hofmann und die Sekte der Hofmannianer (History of the fanatic and enthusiastic Anabaptists mostly in Northern Germany: Melchior Hofmann and the sect of Hofmannians) appeared in Leipzig. This was a detailed 500-page monograph, depicting the life, theology, and tragic end of Melchior Hoffman, an enigmatic figure of the Radical Reformation. Krohn and his work are interesting for modern historians for a variety of reasons.

282

Markus Friedrich

First, the book, in and of itself, merits a closer analysis. 1 Hoffman, the subject of the monograph, was an early follower of Luther who eventually rejected the magisterial Reformation and became a key inspiration for later generations of spiritualists. Krohn’s treatment of Hoffman is mostly fair-minded and balanced. The book discusses Anabaptist history in the spirit of mid-eighteenth-century moderate Enlightenment and shares the movement’s new “impartial” attitude towards understanding heterodoxy. Even more importantly, Krohn convincingly attempts to understand Hoffman’s radicalization in historical terms. This is neither simply another dogmatic critique of Anabaptist theology nor merely anti-Anabaptist polemics in historiographical disguise. Rather, Krohn relied on contextual explanations to gain an understanding of how Hoffman ended up thinking the way he did. From Krohn’s perspective, Anabaptism needed to be treated as a social affair, a movement strongly shaped by environment and context. Furthermore, the movement deserved an approach more nuanced than those commonly applied at the time. Krohn took particular care to portray Hoffman’s pacifism as an alternative to the violence of the Radical Reformation that culminated in Münster in 1535. This approach allowed for – and also implied – some sympathy for Hoffman as a historical figure, even though Krohn himself did not have any affinity to unorthodox theology. Krohn’s monograph on Hoffman, therefore, is a good example to illustrate just how much historization, even of unwelcome religious history, had become possible by the mid-eighteenth century. Second, Krohn’s life sheds significant light on the practice of church history outside the universities. 2 In the Holy Roman Empire, church history had found its place among the theological disciplines by the mid-eighteenth century, and this process of institutionalization certainly boosted relevant activities. 3 Yet, Krohn’s example reminds us of the fact that much research and publication happened outside the universities, too. Social and intellectual boundaries between university professors and city pastors, in particular, remained porous, as all theologians shared a 1

2 3

For a more extensive discussion of the book, see Markus Friedrich: “Ein Hamburger Historiker der Täuferbewegung: Barthold Nikolaus Krohn (1722–1795) und seine Monographie über Melchior Hoffman (um 1495–ca. 1543)”, in: Jochen Burgtorf, Sebastian Kubon, Christian Hoffarth (eds.): Von Hamburg nach Java: Festschrift für Jürgen Sarnowsky. Göttingen 2020, pp. 241–262. The abbreviation SUB refers to “Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, Hamburg.” Markus Friedrich: “Reformation History between Accident, Ambition, and Anguish: Barthold Nicolaus Krohn (1722–1795) and his Project for a General History of Anabaptism”, in: Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 111 (2020), pp. 301–329. Emil Clemens Scherer: Geschichte und Kirchengeschichte an den deutschen Universitäten. Freiburg 1927. Karl Völker: Die Kirchengeschichtsschreibung der Aufklärung. Tübingen 1921. For broader perspectives, see Dirk Fleischer: Zwischen Tradition und Fortschritt: Der Strukturwandel der protestantischen Kirchengeschichtsschreibung im deutschsprachigen Diskurs der Aufklärung. 2 vols. Waltrop 2006; Klaus Wetzel: Theologische Kirchengeschichtsschreibung im deutschen Protestantismus 1660–1760. Gießen, Mainz 1983, p. 310. The most advanced point of reference from a methodological perspective, although discussing only a previous period, remains Matthias Pohlig: Zwischen Gelehrsamkeit und konfessioneller Identitätsstiftung: Lutherische Kirchen- und Universalgeschichtsschreibung 1546–1617. Tübingen 2007.

The Church Historian’s Desk

283

common academic training and scholarly self-understanding. 4 Still, writing Reformation history outside the support structures of a university professorship brought its own challenges. Krohn, who was born in Hamburg in 1722 and died as a respected city pastor there in 1795, was active in Reformation historiography only for a short period of his long life, roughly from the late 1740s to the early 1760s. These were the years from the completion of his university training till his call as pastor, and in many ways, his historiographical work appears as a pastime of an underemployed academic during his long waiting years. Originally, this was a largely unplanned activity. Krohn began with research on the Anabaptists in his hometown and the surrounding regions. Over the years, however, his investigations gradually morphed into a large-scale project. Eventually, he announced a plan to produce an encyclopedic set of works covering all of Anabaptist history. This plan proved to be too ambitious. When he finally became pastor, his attention soon turned away from historiography. While a wide range of manuscript papers clearly documents an ongoing dedication to the history of the Radical Reformation well into the 1760s, only one publication ever resulted from these efforts, his monograph from 1758. As Krohn’s case demonstrates, Anabaptist history was a particularly challenging topic for a parttime historian. Few resources were available, and the young Hamburg theologian, lacking significant support, was easily overwhelmed by the research. Krohn eventually turned to the Republic of Letters and actively solicited help from scholars and churchmen near and far, including such luminaries of Reformation History as Daniel Gerdes in Groningen, Christoph August Heumann in Göttingen, Bartholomäus Riederer in Nuremberg, or Johann Georg Schelhorn in Memmingen. 5 His relative success in finding sources points to the potentials of ‘crowdsourcing’ in eighteenth-century historiography. His numerous letters clearly show that Reformation historiography had become a well-established field of research within which individual inquiries could be successfully answered through first-, second- or third-hand communication. They also illustrate, however, that, within

4

5

For a classic statement of the social continuum between pastors and other academically trained elites, see Luise Schorn-Schütte: Evangelische Geistlichkeit in der Frühneuzeit: Deren Anteil an der Entfaltung frühmoderner Staatlichkeit und Gesellschaft: Dargestellt am Beispiel des Fürstentums Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel, der Landgrafschaft Hessen-Kassel und der Stadt Braunschweig (16.–18. Jahrhundert). Gütersloh 1996. For a comparative assessment, see C. Scott Dixon, Luise Schorn-Schütte (eds.): The Protestant clergy of early modern Europe. Basingstoke et al. 2003. On these figures, most of which are only inadequately treated in modern scholarship, see Cornelis Augustijn: “Das Bild der Reformation bei Daniel Gerdes und Johann Lorenz Mosheim”, in: Nederlands archief voor keerkgeschiedenis 64 (1984), pp. 78–90. Martin Mulsow, Kasper Risbijerg Eskildsen, Helmut Zedelmaier (eds.): Christoph August Heumann (1681–1764): Gelehrte Praxis zwischen christlichem Humanismus und Aufklärung. Stuttgart 2017. Friedrich Braun (ed.): Georg Schelhorns Briefwechsel. Munich 1930. Andreas Gößner: “Johann Georg Schelhorn d.Ä. (1694–1773)”, in: Veröffentlichungen der Schwäbischen Forschungsgemeinschaft bei der Kommission für Bayerische Land 16 (2004), pp. 103–120. There is, to my knowledge, no substantial historiographical treatment of Riederer.

284

Markus Friedrich

this larger field of (contemporary) Church History, the smaller and more adventurous field of Anabaptist historiography was still only emerging. Krohn’s case highlights the enormous and manifold challenges of historical research into phenomena of heresy, unorthodox theology, and religious radicalism. 6 The openness of the field perhaps attracted institutional outsiders such as Krohn, but also quickly exhausted their support structures. His actual achievements are only even more impressive given these important difficulties. This paper takes yet another approach. 7 It examines the remarkable cache of working papers that the Hamburg historian left behind as material evidence of his daily working routines and uses them to reconstruct Krohn’s working habits. In particular, the remaining papers, which relate both to his successfully completed work on Hoffman and to his many conceived, yet unwritten future volumes, allow for a closer look at how Krohn transformed his reading of sources and secondary literature into hypotheses, assumptions, conjectures, or facts. From his remaining manuscripts, the many steps involved in preparing a convincing historical narrative emerge. It will also become clear that most steps of historical research crucially relied, or even depended on handwriting. The relationship between handwriting and historiographical judgment was by no means only instrumental. Handwriting was much more than merely an external tool of an otherwise exclusively mental process of coming to terms with the past. Quite to the contrary, the physical act of writing things down often was in and of itself a defining moment of understanding the past. 8 This act not only recorded the

6

7

8

On the early modern historiography of heresy, see, e.g., John Christian Laursen (ed.): Histories of Heresy in Early Modern Europe: For, against, and beyond Persecution and Toleration. New York NY 2002. Ian Hunter, John Christian Laursen, Cary J. Nederman (eds.): Heresy in Transition: Transforming Ideas of Heresy in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Aldershot 2005. Bridget Heal, Anorthe Kremers (eds.): Radicalism and dissent in the world of protestant reform. Göttingen, Bristol CT 2017. Krohn also owned an important library, which may deserve further analysis; see Catalogus Bibliothecae, Praestantissimorum, Qui Ad Theologiam, Philologiam Et Historiam Spectant, Librorum Selectum Complectentis: Libros Collegit, Et Literariis Catalogum Animadversionibus Instruxit Bartholdus Nicolaus Krohn, Pastor Ad D. Mar. Magdal.: Libri Publica Auctionis Lege Divendentur D. VII Mens. Jun. MDCCXCVI. Hamburg 21796. Furthermore, Krohn’s role in his Hamburg context may deserve additional investigation; the starting point for a study of his religious and pastoral work is Frank Hatje: “Gott zu Ehren der Armut zum Besten”. Hospital zum Heiligen Geist und Marien-Magdalenen-Kloster in der Geschichte Hamburgs vom Mittelalter bis in die Gegenwart. Hamburg 2002. Scholarly literature on the writing techniques of historians, on their daily working practices, and the relevance of paper-based forms of knowledge management have only started to appear quite recently; inspiring work includes Henning Trüper: “Das Klein-Klein der Arbeit: Die Notizführung des Historikers François Louis Ganshof”, in: Österreichische Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft 18 (2007), pp. 82–104; idem: “Unordnungssysteme: Zur Praxis der Notizführung bei Johan Huizinga”, in: Zeitenblicke 10 (2011). URL: https://www.zeitenblicke.de/ 2011/1/Trueper (last accessed: 17 December 2021).

The Church Historian’s Desk

285

results of intellectual judgment, but also sometimes truly created what Krohn eventually considered reliable knowledge about the past. 9 Often enough, his writing practices (and their graphical results) suggested solutions to historiographical problems or nudged him towards some sort of conclusion. The ways in which Krohn wrote things down were, at least partly, responsible for how he ended up understanding that past. A closer look at some of the working papers, thus, promises to yield new insight into how historians actually created an understanding of the past they felt comfortable enough with to narrate it in public media. 10 1. KROHN’S PAPERS: A BRIEF SURVEY Krohn used different types of manuscripts in the process of understanding the past. To begin with, he kept a considerable number of incoming letters very carefully.11 Almost all of Krohn’s (remaining) letters contain details of historiographical work, mentioning, for instance, bibliographical references or biographical details or, although much more rarely, general assessments of Reformation history. This is not personal correspondence, although some of the letters inevitably also touch upon non-historiographical matters. Krohn’s carefully curated collection of letters was not so much an archive of private exchanges, but rather a consciously created tool for scholarly work. Krohn himself highlighted the focused nature of his letter collection by calling it in very specific terms “Meine Wiedertaufrische Corresp. oder Commercium litterarium de rebus Anabap.” 12 These letters helped Krohn to acquire and locate a wide range of sources. Many of these were available to him only in manuscript form, either because they had never been printed (e.g. administrative records or legal documentation) or because the prints were exceedingly rare. Several volumes of manuscript copies and excerpts of archival records and assorted materials were part of Krohn’s collection. Krohn did not compile the majority himself. Instead of working intensively in archives himself, he relied on collections of documents that he acquired from his friends and acquaintances. Johann Konrad Füssli, for instance, a very well-informed

9

Pioneering investigations of the relationship between modes of handwriting, organizing existing knowledge, and producing new work include William H. Sherman: Used Books: Marking Readers in Renaissance England. Philadelphia 2008. Ann Blair: Too Much to Know: Managing Scholarly Information before the Modern Age. New Haven CT 2010. Jeffrey Todd Knight: Bound to read: Compilations, collections, and the making of Renaissance literature. Philadelphia PA 2013. A seminal starting point remains Anthony Grafton, Lisa Jardine: “‘Studied for Action’. How Gabriel Harvey read his Livy”, in: Past & Present 129 (1990), pp. 30–78. See also the essays collected in: Christian Hoffmann (ed.): Daten sichern: Schreiben und Zeichnen als Verfahren der Aufzeichnung. Zurich, Berlin 2008. 10 For a broader exploration of such an approach, see also Markus Friedrich, Jacob Schilling (eds.): Praktiken frühneuzeitlicher Historiografie. Berlin 2019. 11 SUB Cod.Theol. 1208 and 1209. 12 SUB Cod.Theol. 1179, fol. 7v.

286

Markus Friedrich

Zurich church historian, allowed him in March of 1762 to copy three of his manuscript volumes of collected sources. 13 In 1760, moreover, Krohn managed to buy the nearly century-old collection of Anabaptist sources compiled by the Swiss historian Johann Heinrich Ott. 14 Thus, an elaborate system of sharing copies and excerpts of sources (and of re-copying these copies and excerpts) provided church historians like Krohn with access to primary archival material. Moreover, Krohn habitually also worked with handwritten copies of printed texts. Prints by and about the (early) Anabaptists were often extremely rare and difficult to come by. Krohn and his peers clearly understood that printing per se did not ensure the preservation of the literary output of marginalized groups such as the Anabaptists. 15 Hand copying was the only option to acquire texts of such printed books. Often enough, Krohn did the menial work of copying printed literature himself. His library contained dozens of such manuscript copies of printed sixteenth-century books, 16 including significant titles by such prominent Anabaptist as Thomas Müntzer, 17 Balthasar Hubmaier, 18 or Bernhard Rothmann. 19 In addition to these manuscript corpora, a good dozen volumes is filled with handwritten notes preparing the (planned) volumes of his encyclopedia of Anabaptist history. 20 Krohn dedicated different notebooks to different parts of his project. There are ledgers on Anabaptist bibliography and on relevant biographies. There are also notebooks dedicated to the preparation of planned forthcoming monographs, even though these never materialized. These notebooks, discussed below in more detail, highlight Krohn’s attempts to organize, evaluate, and understand the historical evidence he was relying on. Finally, it is worth noting that Krohn extensively cross-referenced his various manuscripts. Many of the letters, for instance, are quoted on bibliographical sheets that in turn clearly reference some of the chronological tables or bio-bibliographical 13 The original is in Zentalbibliothek Zürich B 163–165 (which I have not seen). Krohn’s copy is SUB Cod.Theol. 1174–1176. Only Cod.Theol. 1176 survived World War II. It is not entirely clear why a contemporary hand labelled these copies as “Manuscripta Feuerliana” (fol. Ir). Perhaps a simple accident, writing “Feuerlein” for “Füssli”? 14 On this, see Markus Friedrich: “Von Zürich nach Frankfurt nach Hamburg: Die Reise der Quellenexzerpte Johann Heinrich Otts (1617–1682) durch Mitteleuropa und Conrad Zacharias Uffenbachs Rolle für die Täufergeschichtsschreibung des 18. Jahrhunderts”, in: Idem, Monika E. Müller (eds.): Conrad Zacharias Uffenbach: Büchersammler und Polyhistor in der Gelehrtenkultur um 1700. Berlin, Boston 2020, pp. 265–290. 15 See also, with further references to Krohn, Markus Friedrich: “Loss and Circumstances: How Early Modern Europe Discovered the ‘Material Text’”, in: Jörg B. Quenzer (ed.): Exploring Written Artefacts. Berlin 2021, pp. 913–932. 16 SUB Cod.Theol. 1191–1207, 1769–1789. A significant number of these codices has been destroyed in World War II; we only know that they existed and what they contained. Most of these volumes are very thin, as the original texts were short. 17 SUB Cod.Theol. 1778: Thomas Müntzer: Protestation oder Erbietung, 1524. 18 SUB Cod.Theol. 1773: Balthasar Hubmaier: Achtzehnte Schlußrede so betreffende eyn gantz Christlich leben, war an es gelegen ist, Disputiert zu Waldtshut MDXXIIII. 19 SUB Cod.Theol. 1781: Bernhard Rothmann: Von irdischer und zeitlicher Gewalt. 20 SUB Cod.Theol. 1177–1190.

The Church Historian’s Desk

287

lists that Krohn liked to produce. These were not isolated notebooks, quite to the contrary. While Krohn did distinguish materially between different tasks, steps, and procedures of research – hence different manuscripts: letters, sources, notebooks –, he nevertheless considered these steps and procedures as interconnected and mutually supportive. Clearly, he understood his multi-faceted set of working documents as a well-organized system of interlocking parts. 2. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL WORKING ROUTINES At the time of Krohn’s research, Anabaptist history – or the history of the Radical Reformation more generally – still lacked anything like a clearly defined corpus of relevant sources or a body of standard secondary literature. It was, very much, still a field ‘in the making’. While theologians could draw on a standard repertoire of dogmatic arguments against Anabaptism since the sixteenth century, no comprehensive body of historical facts or narratives had yet emerged. Compiling a complete bibliography, thus, was one of Krohn’s primary goals and formed a foundation for his work. It was, therefore, no wonder that he spoke frequently about his bibliographic activities. Krohn, however, wanted to go beyond merely collecting authors’ names and titles of relevant books. Rather, he aimed at a “critical history of writers.” 21 According to Krohn, critically evaluating published work and sources was particularly necessary in scholarly fields that were ripe with strife. When it came to heresy in particular, most of the available material was either incomplete or one-sided or, very frequently, both. While older treatments of Anabaptism could and should be taken into account, they nevertheless needed to be carefully evaluated. Quoting Pierre Bayle, whose probing skepticism Krohn clearly admired, he called one-sided and unfair treatments “partial” (parteylich), and “partiality” was a “mother of lies.” 22

21 “Critische Geschichte der Schriftsteller”; several times in SUB Cod.Theol. 1177, no foliation (first page). 22 SUB Cod.Theol. 1177, inside of cover. Krohn references “Pet. Bayle Dict: art. Indes (B),” which I have not been able to identify.

288

Markus Friedrich

“Impartiality”, by contrast, was a key epistemic value for Krohn and the Enlightenment. 23 Correcting errors and pointing out partisan attitudes, thus, became an important historiographical obligation. 24 Reading needed to be “critical” in order to establish which authors were “reliable” (glaubwürdig) and “impartial” (unpartheyisch). In one revealing passage, Krohn outlined his bibliographic goals further. On the one hand, integrating all relevant material helped to shed as much light on Anabaptist history as possible. Bibliographic work was an empirical necessity. On the other hand, and more importantly, bibliographic work provided access to a contextualized understanding of why people said and wrote certain things at certain times in certain forms and styles. Bibliographic research, Krohn stated, helped elucidate “the history of dogmatics and argumentative practices, that is: the history of attacks on and defenses of specific dogmas.” 25 In other words, a critical study of sources and literature would contribute significantly to historicizing the nature and content of (anti-)Anabaptist reasoning. Bibliographic investigation, therefore, revealed the particular historical nature of the style, content, and format of theological discourse. This led Krohn occasionally to a new, nuanced understanding of the value of certain sources for historians. When realizing, for instance, that certain texts originated in hotly contested polemical exchanges, this might affect the historian’s willingness to rely on them. In fact, Krohn put considerable effort into reconstructing polemical exchanges as communicative events in a way vaguely resembling modern approaches of media history. 26 Establishing the exact position of individual works in 23 On “impartiality” as a key epistemic value, now see Tim Somers: “The ‘Impartiality’ of Narcissus Luttrell’s reading practices and historical writing, 1679–1710”, in: The Historical Journal 62 (2019), pp. 921–941; and Martin Mulsow: “Impartiality, Individualisation, and the Historiography of Religion: Tobias Pfanner on the Rituals of the Ancient Church”, in: Otto BerndChristian, Susanne Rau, Jörg Rüpke (eds.): History and religion: Narrating a Religious Past. Berlin, Boston MA 2015, pp. 257–268. Cf. also Fleischer: Zwischen Tradition und Fortschritt, pp. 66f., and multiple times passim. See also Matthias Noller: Kirchliche Historiographie zwischen Wissenschaft und religiöser Sinnstiftung: David Cranz (1723–1777) als Geschichtsschreiber der Erneuerten Brüderunität. Wiesbaden 2016, pp. 93f. for a relevant case study. 24 For the tradition of “critical” bibliography see, e.g., Helmut Zedelmaier: “Historia literaria: Über den epistemologischen Ort des gelehrten Wissens in der ersten Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts”, in: Das achtzehnte Jahrhundert 22 (1998), pp. 10–21. Idem: Bibliotheca universalis und Bibliotheca selecta: Das Problem der Ordnung des gelehrten Wissens in der frühen Neuzeit. Cologne 1992. Martin Gierl: “Bestandsaufnahme im gelehrten Bereich: Zur Entwicklung der “Historia literaria” im 18. Jahrhundert”, in: Thomas Behme, Manfred Dunger, Martin Gierl (eds.): Denkhorizonte und Handlungsspielräume: Historische Studien für Rudolf Vierhaus zum 70. Geburtstag, Göttingen 1992, pp. 53–80. Frank Grunert, Friedrich Vollhardt (eds.): Historia literaria: Neuordnungen des Wissens im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert. Berlin 2007. 25 SUB Cod.Theol. 1178, inside of cover: “Von dem Nutzen, den man aus einer historischen Nachricht oder Biblioth. überhaupt u. besonders der Schriftsteller der Wiedertäufer pro et contra ziehen kann. 1. Es lassen sich dadurch oft Dunkelheiten in der Geschichte und Lichtstellen [… erkennen?]. 2. Es kann die Historie dogmatum et argumentandi rationis, it: offendendi et defendendi dogmata in licht gesetzt werden. Man sieht näml., wan u. auf wen Ort ein Satz bewiesen, angeriffen u vertheidigt ist, u wen in neuer Zeit dabey für veränderung vorgangen.” 26 A good example is SUB Cod.Theol. 1177, fol. 100r.

The Church Historian’s Desk

289

a larger set of printed or manuscript exchanges through careful reconstruction of bibliographic chronology, thus, was of key importance. Krohn recognized that polemical situations called for authors to behave in a certain literary manner. “Polemical pamphlet” was, in fact, a distinct bibliographical category for Krohn, and it was a category which put such texts’ content and form into perspective. 27 Clearly, works originating in heated and polemical debates had to be taken with a grain of salt. Other criteria beyond the communicative context, too, helped Krohn to evaluate individual sources and works. In general, he was astutely aware of the fact that many relevant books had complicated printing histories, and he did what he could to distinguish between different editions, reprints, and versions of texts. 28 Krohn had, moreover, an acute sense of anachronism, which could discredit a work immediately. 29 Krohn also preferred books based on work with authentic manuscript sources. 30 These and other criteria could lead the historian to definitive and harsh judgments. Calling an author “erroneous” was one way of expressing disdain, while “unreliable” was another negative epithet. 31 One of Krohn’s manuscripts shows how he went about his bibliographical work after the publication of the Hoffman book in 1758. 32 Once his monograph had appeared, he took one copy of the substantial bibliography (Zweytes Register) printed at the end of the book, cut it up into small snippets (one per author) and glued these fragments into a large empty folio book. 33 Newly found works or newly discovered authors were later entered in between these snippets. Krohn eventually created a hybrid document, combining recycled print-material with different forms of manuscript notations, thus reappropriating (his own) publication as a starting point for the ongoing bibliographical research. 34 Some of this additional information appeared on small pieces of paper that were also glued into the ledger. Other pieces 27 SUB Cod.Theol. 1177, e.g. fol. 16r: “Streitschrift”. 28 See, e.g., SUB Cod.Theol. 1773, fol. 4r, a careful discussion of editions of a text by Balthasar Hubmaier. 29 See, e.g., SUB Cod.Theol. 1183, fol. 10v. See SUB Cod.Theol. 1177, back side of title page: “Schriftsteller erzählen oft etwas, ohne daß es mögl. gewesen ist, daß sie haben vorher sehen können, welche folgen daraus gezeit wären. Daraus entsteht ein Kennzeichen ihrer Glaubwürdigkeit.” 30 On Nicolaus Blesdik, for instance: “Blesdiks Glaubwürdigkeit erhellt auch daraus: daß er die Handschriften zum Theil, von denen von welchen er schrieb[,] in händen hatte: v.e. von Menno, Adam Pastor,” see SUB Cod.Theol. 1177, no pages (ad nomen). 31 Both appear in Krohn’s statement about the Catholic writer Arnold Meshovius, from Cologne, SUB Cod.Theol. 1177, fol. 45r. 32 The following concerns SUB Cod.Theol. 1177. 33 Interestingly, Krohn had already quoted his own planned future works in his monograph as forthcoming, and this self-quotation of a planned (but never materialized) work was duly also integrated into this working manuscript, SUB Cod.Theol. 1177, fol. 39r: “Krohn, Barth. Nic., dessen versprochene vorläufige Einleitung in die gesammte allgemeine Geschichte der Wiedertäufer und Taufgesinnten.” 34 The widely shared practice of continuous reappropriations of printed works through manuscript writing deserves much further study. Printed books were frequently the material objects that literally supported the creation of new information through handwriting; see, e.g, Knight: Bound to read.

290

Markus Friedrich

of paper became part of the ledger as loose inserata. 35 All in all, the bibliographical notebook became a messy working document, full of marginalia, underlined words and phrases, additions, and corrections, all of this in different handwritings, inks, and obviously created over a considerable period of time. Krohn was interested in bibliographic classification as well. The extant manuscripts reveal several organizing principles for the future bibliography of Anabaptist works, although it is not entirely clear how Krohn would have structured his critical history of Anabaptist literature had it ever appeared. At one point, Krohn claimed explicitly that he wished to combine a chronological and alphabetical order, 36 but at least occasionally, he may have also preferred geographical criteria. Relying on chronology corresponded to Krohn’s historicizing approach to print communication. Understanding the print market as a sequence of interrelated publication events required establishing a reliable temporal ordering of publications.37 A geographical structure, too, fit well with Krohn’s historiographic method. He generally approached (early) Anabaptism in geographic categories, highlighting the regional dynamics of Reformation history. Without denying a broader, supra-regional impact for some of the printed and manuscript sources, Krohn still insisted strongly on embedding them in local or regional contexts. In addition, Krohn also thought about structuring the mass of bibliographical information according to subject matter. At one point, he suggested a tripartite classification, dividing Anabaptism-related works into “dogmatic”, “polemical”, and “historical” genres. 38 Krohn occasionally refined this rudimentary typology by adding additional, more circumscribed categories, including a section for “exegetical” works and one for “fanatic” writings. 39 While it remains unclear from the fragments how Krohn’s bibliographic work would have looked in finished form, his notes do show that he constantly strove to collect new titles and references. Furthermore, his notes document his ongoing struggle to make historical sense out of bibliographic information as such. Contextualizing sources or literature and creating meaningful systems of bibliographical organization were more than simply preparatory necessities – especially in a field so fraught with conflicts of interpretation. Rather, these activities were a first major step towards discerning truth from error, facts from fables.

35 Several single leaves contained lists of Anabaptist works that he had gathered elsewhere or received by mail; see, e.g., SUB Cod.Theol. 1177, before fol. 79, fol. 144r. 36 Evidence for all these possibly contradictory protocols in SUB Cod.Theol. 1177. “Chronologisch (und d. alphabetisch),” first page. “Nach den Secten und der Chronologie,” verso of the title page. 37 SUB Cod. Theol 1177, inside of front cover: “nur [durch] historische Erzählung, wie u. durch welche Veranlassung eine Schrift der andern gefolget ist, oder welches ihre bisonder absicht nur gewesen sey [… kann] Glaubwürdigkeit erwiesen werden.” 38 SUB Cod.Theol. 1177, back side of title page. 39 SUB Cod.Theol. 1177, fol. 16r. He never spelled out how he defined any of these terms.

The Church Historian’s Desk

291

3. READING FOR RESEARCH AND THE ROAD TO KNOWLEDGE Krohn’s papers provide some important insight into his actual reading practices. We may start with one routine practice that is largely absent in his remaining working materials. The Hamburg church historian did not rely extensively on marking, underlining, or adding marginalia to the manuscripts he read, even when he possessed them. 40 All of these were important and popular scholarly practices, yet neither the manuscript volumes of sources he owned nor the very few books that can be traced to his library show significant material signs of Krohn directly engaging with the text as he read it. 41 Given Krohn’s otherwise obsessive habit of writing down thoughts, ideas, and comments, the lack thereof is all the more conspicuous. What Krohn did in many instances, however, was to use the empty flyleaves of his manuscript codices, and even the inner sides of the bookbindings, to note down reflections on the texts in these codices. 42 Often, these notes seem to contain his first and preliminary reflections on what he had just read. As such, these writings on the front and back parts of the codices are direct results of his readings. Still, spatially and conceptually they are separated from the actual text they refer to. Accordingly, these notes, while clearly being preliminary and provisional, are not casual in style or spontaneous in their tone. Krohn wrote no exclamations, nor did he use his writing simply to mark his assent (or dissent). His notations are no running commentary to the text documenting undigested impressions. Rather, these reading notes are argumentative in nature, often divided into several (often numbered) points. Frequently, these notes discuss the text under consideration in its entirety, trying to place it into the broader context of Krohn’s research. In many cases, a thicket of secondary or even tertiary considerations, often written down in different inks and handwritings at later times, eventually surrounded these first remarks as Krohn reread his sources and initial comments. Occasionally, a text required so much commentary over time that Krohn ran out of space. The different layers of commentary could no longer fit together at one location on the empty pages at the beginning or end of the codex. Krohn was forced to write down different interpretative steps onto different sections of the page. Still, he wanted to make sure that the connection among the notations remained apparent. In such cases, he frequently connected the notes written at different times graphically by using lines or brackets.

40 On underlining and marginalia in general, see, e.g., Sherman: Used Books. 41 I have gone through the entirety of Krohn’s manuscripts and have not found significant traces of underlining or marginalia in his clean copies of previous texts/sources. Currently, only six titles of his library in the Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg can be verifiably connected to Krohn through his ex libris (there is no systematic cataloguing of provenance), none of which touches on matters of Anabaptist history. 42 Such notes did not necessarily exclusively focus on the text in the codex, see, e.g., the bibliographical reference from the library of Michael Richey, a prominent Hamburg schoolman and intellectual of the Enlightenment, in SUB Cod.Theol. 1783.

292

Markus Friedrich

Consider, for instance, the typical case of Krohn’s manuscript copy of Martin Bucer’s 1533 (printed) book Handlung inn den offentlichen Gesprech zu Strassburg. 43 Krohn himself had presumably made this handwritten copy on February 26, 1757.44 The Handlung recounted an exchange Bucer had had with Melchior Hoffman, imprisoned in Strasbourg. What was still unclear for eighteenth-century church historians, according to Krohn’s own words, was the broader context of this meeting. 45 There seems to have been a provincial synod in Strasbourg around the same time. However, Krohn and his peers “had no information” on it. Upon obtaining Bucer’s Handlung, Krohn immediately entertained the thought that this text might yield insights into this provincial synod. Krohn knew that Bucer had promised to publish a book on this meeting – “perhaps” (vielleicht) it was this one. 46 Linking Bucer’s Handlung to that meeting, however, was far from straightforward. A note on the inside of the back cover of this codex illustrates how Krohn dealt with this initial idea: In paragraph 6 [of Bucer’s booklet], one can seemingly find a trace of the discussion held in Strasbourg in June 1533 by order of the local magistrate and in which M. Hofmann was allowed to participate. [This I think is the case], because 1) the chronology fits well, 2) Hospinian, too, says that Bucer has undertaken such a colloquium by order of the Strasbourg authorities. Yet there remains a doubtful issue, namely the question of how Bucer could have called the Lutherans ‘opponents of the truth’ and ‘purveyors of errors’ [in such a context], especially since he wanted to cooperate with them. 47

43 SUB Cod.Theol. 1771, first and last pages of the codex, including the interior sides of the binding. 44 SUB Cod.Theol. 1771, title page: “NB: Dieses gegenwärtige MSS ist nach dem gedruckten Original, welches mir H. Magnif. Dr. Feuerlein, auß Göttingen, aus seiner bibliothek eingeschickt hat, abgeschrieben. 1757. d. 26. Febr. B.N.Krohn. R. M. Cand.” The Göttingen professor Jakob Wilhelm Feuerlein was Krohn’s most important mentor. Bucer’s text, once it had become available to Krohn, became an important source and, thus, figures prominently in his printed monograph, see Krohn: Hofmann, pp. 275–296. 45 For the historiographical background of Krohn’s approach to Bucer’s text, see Krohn: Hofmann, pp. 278–286. Krohn worked hard to clarify the events of summer 1533, not least by adducing fresh sources, including editions of the letters of Caspar Schwenckfeld (also forwarded by Feuerlein), who was also present in Strasbourg in June 1533 and whose ideas were (potentially) also a subject of the meeting. The Schwenckfeld letters appear also in the manuscript notes of SUB Cod.Theol. 1771. Based on his findings, Krohn provided a broader narrative about this provincial synod beyond the Hoffman causa, hoping that this would shed additional light on why his protagonist’s case was handled the way it was. 46 SUB Cod.Theol. 1771: “Vielleicht kömmt hier etwas von dem Strasburg. Synodo 1533 11. Jun vor. Butzer hat diese Schrift in dieser Handlung mit Hofmann §211 versprochen.” 47 SUB Cod.Theol. 1771, fol. 47r–v: “In dieser Stelle [§6] scheint mir einige Spuhr angetroffen zu werden, von dem Synodo der zu Strasburg 1533 in Junio auf Befehl des Magistrats gehalten ist, u. bey desen Gelegenheit M. Hofmann zum Gespräch gelassen ist. Denn 1) stimmt die Zeit überein, 2) sagt auch Hospin. daß des v. Butzer hin unternommen hat, auch auf Befehl der Strasburgisch. Obrigkeit vorgenommen sey. Doch bleibt dabeiy besonders der Zweifel, wie Butzer die Lutheraner als Widersprecher der Wahrh., die auch verschied. Irthummer vorbringen beschribe u. mit ihnen in Straßb. handlen konnen, da er zu mahl sie zugewinnen suchte.”

The Church Historian’s Desk

293

We are less concerned with the factual details of Krohn’s reconstruction of the summer of 1533 in Strasbourg than with the ways in which the historian went about learning about that summer. Krohn’s note shows, first, his well-argued and thoughtful, though still initial and (as we will see) premature take on an important question. The historian made a numbered sequence of arguments. The note also lays open how Krohn consciously read sources explicitly against a context of other readings. The wording of this paragraph requires attention as well. The written source contains only a “trace” (Spuhr) of a historical event. Judging from this metaphor, Krohn assumed that the past somehow impressed itself into the written record, and not entirely at the will of the sources’ authors. He seems to assume that there was an ‘overflow’ of meaning and information in the historical records, far surpassing what the author (Bucer) intended to say with their writings. Krohn was highly aware of the possibility that historical evidence might tell the historian more than meets the eye at first glance. Given the right approach, historians may follow the feeble “trace” that ‘the past’ leaves in the sources, for instance by connecting it to additional evidence. In this particular case, Krohn brought in another testimony (Hospinian) to do so. Evidently, Krohn continuously filtered his current readings through the results of his previous readings. Such forms of reading offered new results, but they immediately also raised new questions. In this case, how could Bucer’s rhetorical attitude be squared with Krohn’s reconstruction of past events? Such unanswered questions and lingering doubts required the historian to pay continuous attention to individual pieces of evidence as his work progressed. Krohn inevitably started commenting on his previous comments, talking to himself as he wrote. 48 In the case under consideration here, he revisited the above quoted paragraph of notes in May 1760. At that moment, Bartholomäus Riederer, from Altdorf, alerted Krohn to yet another printed text of the sixteenth century, again associated with Bucer and Strasbourg. Was this the text that Krohn had been looking for? The historian now wrote down a second version of events, updating and correcting his previous reconstruction. Unfortunately, there was no space on the page available anymore in the immediate neighborhood of the first paragraph, so Krohn had to place it in a different section of the page. It was important for Krohn, however, to connect the two spatially distant, yet intellectually related notations. To do so, he drew a long and winding hand-drawn line linking the two blocks of writing. The sequentiality of research resulted in different layers of writing, and if the different notations were spatially separated, a graphic form of reconnecting them was needed so that the evolution of thought could be retraced. These observations show that reading for research was a long and complicated process for Krohn. It entailed making preliminary conclusions, followed by a series of later revisions and reconsiderations. All of these procedures 48 For another example, see SUB Cod.Theol. 1181, no pages (ad anno 1536). At first, Krohn wrote: “Alle die Menno vor 1536 zum Wiedertäufer machen, begehen einen gewissen fehler. Z.B. Hamelmann Opp. Geneal. Hist. 828.” At a later stage, however, he wrote a marginal note to this: “NB. diese Meynung ist mir jetzo zweifelhaft; ich glaube daß Hamelmann gewissermaßen recht habe.”

294

Markus Friedrich

were based on and resulted in specific acts of handwriting. In fact, the slowness and piecemeal evolution of thought resulted in the eventual graphical fragmentation of the mise-en-page of Krohn’s handwritten notes. Their seemingly ephemeral status and graphical messiness notwithstanding, these notations were of crucial importance for Krohn’s intellectual work as a historian. 4. READING TRIGGERS COMMUNICATION: THE PRAGMATIC ROLE OF KROHN’S LETTERS As Riederer’s letter just quoted above also shows, the historian’s intellectual progress depended on external input. Reading and communication were connected. Krohn relied heavily on correspondence. In his daily working, letters could assume de facto the status of secondary literature. Important letters full of reliable details, such as the one by the Zurich scholar and clergyman Johann Jakob Breitinger from April 12, 1760, reappear frequently as evidence in Krohn’s manuscripts. 49 Deep and direct connections existed between letter writing and historiographical research. The working papers, inversely, also show, how patterns of correspondence, in Krohn’s particular case at least, followed the necessities of historiographical knowledge-production. The need to contact one of his acquaintances often arose as Krohn tried to clarify specific points of Anabaptist history. When reaching an impasse of research, he would occasionally proceed by penning lists of “letters to be written.” Usually, such reminders were very specific, stating that a particular person could potentially help with explicit and concrete information about this or that detail. 50 The decision to engage in epistolary exchanges often resulted, in highly pragmatic (or, perhaps, even slightly opportunistic) fashion, from Krohn’s research difficulties. Krohn’s papers, thus, allow us in unusually specific ways to reconnect his letters to his other working papers. Embedding early modern scholarly correspondence into the daily working routines in such ways, if possible, may contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the Republic of Letter’s epistolary exchange system. For many of the scions of the erudite world, including famous individuals such as Nicolas Claude Fabri de Peiresc or Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, correspondence was, at least partially, an end in and of itself. 51 Writing letters was part of their scholarly persona. This image, however, does not quite fit for Barthold Nicolaus 49 Quoted, e.g., in SUB Cod.Theol. 1182, no pages (after folio 31v, ad annum 1531, and the quarto verso before fol. 33r). There are further references to this letter throughout this manuscript. 50 Very good examples are in SUB Cod.Theol. 1187, fol. 15r–v. 51 For a powerful, and influential, brief statement about letter writing as a “moral duty” for early modern scholars, being “more than a system for collecting and exchanging information”, see Anthony Grafton: “A Sketch Map of a Lost Continent: The Republic of Letters”, in: Republic of Letters: A Journal for the Study of Knowledge, Politics, and the Arts 1 (2009), pp. 1–18, here: 9f. For a brilliant case study of a prominent example, see Howard Hotson: “Leibniz’s network”, in: Maria Rosa Antognazza (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of Leibniz. New York NY 2018, pp. 563–590.

The Church Historian’s Desk

295

Krohn. His example rather shows that for some members of the Republic of Letters the role and relevance of correspondence may have been more modest and pragmatic. 52 Exchange was highly important for him, too, yet it frequently rested on practical considerations. Krohn certainly did not aspire to be a mediator or hub of communication. If letter writing was not exactly a nuisance for him, it certainly was largely pragmatic in nature. Krohn’s letters also illustrate the enormous amounts of pragmatism and realism that permeated scholarly interactions from yet another point of view. Consider his exchanges with the head librarian of Gotha, Karl Julius Schläger. 53 Among the many difficulties involved in communal scholarly activities, Schläger’s letters highlight the significant amount of (deserved) distrust that shaped the exchange of manuscripts or printed books. Schläger allowed Krohn to borrow printed material from Gotha, though only after following a strict security protocol. Schläger sent the requested volumes to Gotha’s diplomatic envoy (Agent) in Hamburg, one Mr. Kern, who would hand them over to Krohn for a period of three months against a written quittance. Before sending them, the librarians would actually attach a monetary value to the volumes – this amount Krohn would have to pay in case he lost them.54 Concerning manuscripts, it seems, Schläger was even more restrictive, and would not send them to Hamburg at all. Rather he suggested copying in Gotha. 55 This was 52 Ann Goldgar, in her influential book Impolite Learning: Conduct and Community in the Republic of letters 1680–1750 (London 1995), was among the first to question in sustained ways the idealistic notions of a selfless culture of communication among early modern scholars. My argument here follows her insistence of a more pragmatic and mundane dimension of correspondence, although Krohn does not fit her broader point about an inherently antagonistic and combative habitus. To the best of my knowledge, Krohn never had anything like a scholarly polemic or an intellectual battle with anyone. 53 Schläger himself was not primarily interested in church history; his major field of expertise was numismatics. There is only little work done on Schläger; a rather negative assessment with a few basic biographical data can be found in Gerhard Pachnike: Gothaer Bibliothekare: Dreißig Kurzbiographien in chronologischer Folge. Gotha 1958, pp. 10–12. Schläger also used the correspondence to discredit Hamburg’s major library of St. Johannis. This important collection, according to Schläger, was hardly accessible and “under lock and seal;” Schläger to Krohn, August 1, 1759, SUB Cod.Theol. 1208, fol. 217r–218r: “So starcke Siegel und Schlösser den Eingang in die dortige also genante öffentliche Bibliothek verhindern oder viel mehr unmöglich machen: so gerne eröfne ich die hiesige Hochfürstl. Friedensteinische einem jeden welcher sie zur Aufnahme der Wissenschafften gebrauchen will und kan.” Things were very different at Gotha, Schläger claimed. The library there was generally open and accessible for all those who work “for the growth of the liberal arts and deep learning.” The policy at Gotha was to “let people participate in her treasures, as long as special circumstances do not prohibit this;” Schläger to Krohn, June 17, 1759, SUB Cod.Theol. 1208, fol. 185r–186r: “einzig und allein auf den Wachsthum gutter Künste und grundlicher Wissenschafften,” “jedermann an ihren Schätzen Theil nehmen lassen; wo nicht besondere Umstände solches verbieten.” 54 Schläger to Krohn, June 17, 1759, SUB Cod.Theol. 1208, fol. 185r–186r. Such a tightly organized protocol may have been somewhat unusual, at least Krohn tried to work around it, but Schläger insisted; see Schläger to Krohn, August 7, 1759, and November 10, 1759, SUB Cod.Theol. 1208, fol. 222r, 244r–v. 55 Schläger to Krohn, June 17, 1759, SUB Cod.Theol. 1208, fol. 185r–186r.

296

Markus Friedrich

more difficult than expected, however. It was next to impossible to find qualified copyists in Gotha, or so Schläger claimed. 56 When he finally found a capable person, one “Perrin”, he charged a very high price. Perrin knew the local market and exploited the circumstances. 57 Thus from Krohn’s letters, a picture of a mid-eighteenth-century Republic of Letters emerges that is largely shaped by a rather pragmatic usage of the traditional tools of scholarly communication. Krohn’s case clearly shows, on the one hand, how well the mechanisms of erudite solidarity and exchange continued to work – otherwise, he would never have gotten as far as he actually did. On the other hand, there is little exalted enthusiasm or high-flying moralizing about these matters. Letters are written and exchanged often quite matter-of-factly as need arose, and research developments necessitated. The scholarly infrastructure that the well-established practices of the Republic of Letters customarily provided, were used pragmatically. This continued to be highly efficient, yet equally striking is the efficient, yet very sober and highly pragmatic attitude that suffused so much of Krohn’s communication. Schläger’s equally typical blend of realism, pragmatism, and cooperation mirrored this broader attitude. 58 5. ORGANIZING INFORMATION AND PREPARING NARRATIVES: THE NOTEBOOKS FOR THE (PLANNED) MONOGRAPHS Much of the actual note-taking, list-making, and fact-finding occurred in a series of (numbered) notebooks that corresponded to Krohn’s grandiose plan for his encyclopedia of Radical Reformation history. He imagined a series of connected works covering different regions, movements, and leaders of Anabaptism in Central Europe. Had this ambitious project come to fruition, Krohn’s multi-volume history of

56 See also Schläger to Will, March 4, 1760, Stadtbibliothek Nürnberg Will. III.456.Autogr. (folder 2), no pages. 57 Schläger to Krohn, January 23, 1760, SUB Cod.Theol. 1209, fol. 11r: “weiß, daß er hiesiges Orts der eintzige sey, der zu dergleichen Arbeit zu gebrauchen: daher er dann seine Arbeit ins Geld hält; jedoch liefert er auch tüchtige Arbeit”. Ibid., fol. 10r is one of the very rare ego documents of early modern scribes. Perrin sent the following note to Schläger: “Monsieur, Apres avoir examiné l'ouvrage qu’il vous a plû me communiquer, j’ai l’honneur de vous dire, Monsieur, qu’il m’est impossible de pouvoir le faire à moins de Vingt Ecus, ainsi si vous trouvés à propos que je le copie pour ce prix là, j’attens vos ordres et suis avec le plus profond respect.” 58 This was by no means unique to Krohn. Among his correspondents, Füssli from Zurich comes across as equally pragmatic and goal-oriented. He approached Krohn mostly to push his own agenda: Füssli needed to find a printer for his forthcoming publications and had set his hopes on some of the Hamburg firms. To the best of my knowledge, Krohn does not seem to have made this issue his top priority. He may have, thus, countered Füssli’s pragmatic and agendadriven need for communication with his customary amount of pragmatic reluctance to engage in any forms of scholarly exchange beyond the absolutely necessary minimum.

The Church Historian’s Desk

297

Anabaptism would have been indeed universal in scope. 59 Krohn seems to have “planned” this encyclopedia in a systematic fashion at one point and seems to have intended to work on all volumes at the same time. 60 This impression in any case emerges from a review of his notebooks. For each of the planned future volumes, he prepared a quarto booklet, suggesting a systematic layout of the future workflow. Besides a substantial ledger on Hoffman (no number), there are individual booklets on Upper German theologians (no number), 61 on Menno Simons (no number), 62 Zurich from 1523 to 1561 (notebook no. 3), 63 the city of Münster (no. 4), 64 Thomas Müntzer and the Peasants’ War (no. 5), 65 the Anabaptists in Thuringia, Hessia, and Franconia (no. 6), 66 and Upper Germany (no. 7). 67 In addition, he probably planned a volume on Hamburg, Altona, and Schleswig-Holstein; at least his research on these areas had started in February 1752. 68 While some of these volumes are very heavily used, others are half-empty or contain only a few isolated notes. While Krohn seems to have initiated work on all volumes at the same time, his pace of research was quite different in his many sub-projects. In several of these booklets, Krohn organized his notes in (roughly) chronological form. 69 Proceeding in annalistic form was a well-established practice in early modern historiography. In the field of Anabaptist history, a highly regarded role model existed with Johann Heinrich Ott’s Annales Anabaptistorum (Zurich 1672),

59 Krohn did notice, albeit mostly only in passing, the global dimension of his topic. He mentioned “Pennsylvania” in a letter to Ludwig Harboe, ca. 1753/54, SUB Cod.Theol. 1208, fol. 12r. He may have taken this very generic reference from the similarly unspecific statement in Burgmann: Dissertatio, p. 4. Krohn also referred once to George Keith, the Philadelphia Quaker, see SUB Cod.Theol. 1178, fol. 81r. 60 The rhetoric of “plan” and “planning” is rather prominent in Krohn’s writings. He seems to have subscribed to mid-eighteenth-century historiography’s obsession with rational structuring of historical narrative, see Fleischer: Zwischen Tradition und Fortschritt, pp. 409–412. Only a few years after Krohn ended his historiographical activities, Johann Christoph Gatterer published a theoretical work entitled Vom historischen Plan (1767). 61 SUB Cod.Theol. 1187. The theologians included were Grebel, Mantz, Hubmaier, Denck, and Hutter. SUB Cod.Theol. 1189 seems to contain the corresponding chronological tables. This was the volume that Krohn intended to publish next, see Krohn to Breitinger, June 29, 1764, Zentralbibliothek Zürich, Ms.Bodmer 21.51. 62 SUB Cod.Theol. 1181. 63 SUB Cod.Theol. 1182. 64 SUB Cod.Theol. 1183. 65 SUB Cod.Theol. 1184. 66 SUB Cod.Theol. 1185. These Krohn considered being the “remnants” (“Überbleibsel”) of Müntzer’s party. 67 SUB Cod.Theol. 1186. Cf. also SUB Cod.Theol. 1187, a “selection” of materials on Upper Germany. 68 SUB Cod.Theol. 1179. The date appears on fol. 8r, the actual title page of the ledger. Krohn also owned some important sources for Hamburg and Altona’s contemporary Anabaptist history, e.g. SUB Cod.Theol. 1787, a small volume containing eighteenth-century materials on local separatists. 69 These volumes include SUB Cod.Theol. 1184–1186.

298

Markus Friedrich

a book that was of great importance for Krohn. 70 However, times had changed since this major work had appeared. For Krohn, working almost a century after Ott, the year-by-year-structure was no longer an acceptable form for publishing his research; it was no goal in itself anymore, but only a starting point, a convenient first container for sorting incoming information. Following a recent consensus among a new generation of (Protestant) Church historians, Krohn felt that proper historiography was to be distinguished from a merely annalistic presentation. Historiography strove for establishing and narrating a causally connected sequence of events, not just isolated events as such. 71 As Krohn progressed with his research, he restructured his material according to a much more complex system. During the preparation of the Hoffman-book, Krohn had established a specific way of structuring his work. He divided it into “periods” (Perioden) and “pieces” ([Haupt]Stücke). Krohn, thus, relied on a chronological framework combined with a focus on narrating key historical turning points. Handling chronology had changed. It was no longer simply a pre-defined and entirely formal series of years that structured the presentation of research. Now, the rhythm of chronological organization depended on specific features of history itself. Time was structured and periods were defined by characteristic developments or contexts. This form of internal organization seems to have satisfied Krohn, for he also applied it to his planned future volumes. Some of the notebooks, in fact, are inscribed preemptively with similarly structured tables of content. More precisely, Krohn used the future tables of content to graphically structure and divide the notebooks, as the different chapter and sub-chapter headlines are spread out to cover the entire ledger from front to back, transforming the notebook de facto into a commonplace book whose loci correspond directly to future chapter titles. Below each ‘chapter’, about half a page or so of empty paper could be found. Into these blank spaces, Krohn over time wrote hundreds of mostly brief excerpts from sources or literature. In effect, thus, historical research progressed in a constant process of clustering quotations and excerpts or bibliographical references according to a general, pre-conceived “plan” or table of contents. Creation of historical knowledge, therefore, happened by spatially assembling snippets of textual evidence. Repeatedly, this collection of excerpts and references would grow beyond initial expectations. This had several consequences. On a material level, the collection of notes eventually exhausted the space available on the pages of the notebooks. To alleviate this situation, many of the original quarto notebooks were interspersed with additional blank folio sheets. One could call this “interleaved manuscripts,” in parallel to the much better known phenomena in the realm of printed books. 72 As the format and type of folio sheets used for interleaving is consistent, it may well be that this interleaving of several of Krohn’s notebooks 70 See Friedrich: Die Reise. 71 On this, see also Noller: Historiographie, pp. 97f. 72 See Arndt Brendecke: “‘Durchschossene Exemplare’: Über eine Schnittstelle zwischen Handschrift und Druck”, in: Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwesens 59 (2005), pp. 50–64.

The Church Historian’s Desk

299

was done at the same time. 73 Clearly, the author seems to have anticipated a significant future need for additional writing space. Researching over long years and returning to the same issues repeatedly, Krohn created highly complicated fact sheets that are visually stunning due to their enormous graphic complexity. Many of his notebooks are battlefields of daily historiographical work. Average pages contain dozens of blocks of handwriting, often written at different angles and in different inks and handwritings. More than once, Krohn ran out of space where he needed it. Additional notations then had to be placed in corners of the page where they did not belong, often separated by other, previous rectangular fields of handwriting. Once again, Krohn frequently used hand drawn lines to connect such disjointed inscriptions. All of these notations, though, share a few similarities. While differing in length, they are usually all rather concise, rarely more than a few short lines. Furthermore, most of the notes follow a standard setup. They contain some bibliographical references, at times with verbatim quotations, usually underlined. Often, a few interpretative remarks by Krohn frame these references (plus quotations), indicating what he thought the reference would tell. Often, he also named one or more research issues – small or large – that the reference supposedly addressed. Many of Krohn’s notations, thus, also work as notes to himself, making sure he would later remember what he found relevant in the quoted passage and where it fit into the overall scheme of things. As Krohn worked tirelessly, each page needs to be read in diachronic fashion, indicating how the author’s knowledge base broadened, how he revisited initial ideas, and how he sought to improve his own work. Taken as a whole, these pages show that a proper research attitude, for an Enlightened church historian such as Krohn, clearly implied the habitus of constantly revisiting sources and interpretations, and keeping up a constant (virtual) discussion with himself as well as other scholars and their books. 6. BREAKING DOWN LARGE QUESTIONS: THE CREATION OF FACTOIDS Among this vast body of notes and notations, one type stands out in particular: expressly formulated research questions, often starting with the opening word “Quaeritur” as signifier. These research questions show Krohn’s attitude towards historiographical research in condensed form. First, such questions indicate that Krohn very consciously identified the lacunae of his knowledge. He openly reminded him-

73 Further support for this assumption comes from the fact that several quarto booklets that are de facto unused are also interleaved, e.g. SUB Cod.Theol. 1185 and 1186. Obviously, Krohn drafted his entire project at one time, but never got to actually working out all parts. Nevertheless, at some point he had (optimistically) all his ledgers supplied with additional interleaved blank folio pages.

300

Markus Friedrich

self of what was still unclear. Secondly, these questions helped to manage the gargantuan research program, perhaps also psychologically. Taken together, these questions seem to work much in the way of to-do-lists for historical inquiry. Lists are currently understood as important media tools for organizing information and knowledge, albeit in a variety of (potentially contradicting) ways. 74 Lists of research questions follow the general logic of lists insofar as they promote a thinking in discrete, itemized units. 75 Often, these questions were factual in nature and could be presented in the form of a yes/no-binary, for instance when Krohn asked if a certain document was produced “before” another event. 76 In this particular case, Krohn answered not only with a simple “yes”, but also added the actual date of the document under consideration. Other questions were real to-do-lists and served as reminders of open issues, for example: “We have to look up what can be found about friends of Hoffman in a) the Rhineland; b) in Brabant; c) in Holland; d) in England.” 77 In similar spirit, Krohn occasionally also wrote down lists of books yet to read or acquire. 78 Agendas like these transformed research into a sequence of distinctive and contained activities. Not least, these tactics made research manageable. One could answer one question at a time. Historical investigation turned out to be a long, yet finite series of discrete fact-finding problems that was patiently to be worked through. The papers show how Krohn went about answering his long list of research questions. More precisely, we can see in detail how his continuous reading was targeted towards solving the more or less clearly defined historical problems that each quaeritur flagged. Once research questions had been established (whether in writing or only mentally), they guided Krohn’s reading. He approached most of the sources and literature with a mindset bent on distilling literature and sources into evidential statements helpful for solving specific riddles or for distinguishing true from false opinions. Krohn read sources for the answers they suggested to the questions he had posed. Sources were evidence, and Krohn was mostly interested in the 74 Recent literature includes, among other titles, Robert E. Belknap: The list: The uses and pleasures of cataloguing. New Haven CT 2004; Madeleine Jeay: Le commerce des mots: L’usage des listes dans la littérature médiévale (XIIe–XVe siècles). Geneva 2006; Umberto Eco: The infinity of Lists: An illustrated essay. New York NY 2009; Marie Houllemare: “Seeing the Empire Through Lists and Charts: French Colonial Records in the Eighteenth Century”, in: Journal of Early Modern History 22 (2018), pp. 371–391; Gregorio Salinero, Jiménez Melón, Miguel Ángel (eds.): Le temps des listes. Représenter, savoir et croire à l’époque moderne. Brussel 2018. 75 On “to-do-lists” or, rather, on “desiderata lists”, see Vera Keller: Knowledge and the Public Interest. New York NY 2015. 76 SUB Cod.Theol. 1180, folio sheet following quarto sheet “8”, at bottom (ad annum 1528): “NB, Es fragt sich, ob Franz Burghardi Schreiben, an Pet. Suavencus eher abgelaßen ist ehe die Streitigkeit zwischen Schuldert und Hofmann anging? R. Ja, dz 24. Juli.” 77 SUB Cod.Theol. 1180, quarto sheet “26”: “Man muß nachsehen, was man finde von den Hofmannianern, in diesen Zeiten: a) um den Rhein herum. b) in Braband c) in Holland d) in Engelland.” This is followed on the next page by “e) Frankreich.” I take “man muß nachsehen” as an equivalent to “quaeritur.” 78 SUB Cod.Theol. 1183, inner side of back cover: a list of “Noch zu conferierende Bücher” followed by a list of 14 items of “Schon durchgesehene Schriften.”

The Church Historian’s Desk

301

facts that they actually helped to establish. Krohn’s notebooks, therefore, although containing many verbatim quotations, ultimately were not so much compilations of quotes. Rather, Krohn’s reading notes drew factual conclusions about open points or formulated answers (sometimes definitive, sometimes preliminary) to research questions. Answering these itemized research questions took place in the form of short written passages. Graphically speaking, Krohn’s itemizing approach to research resulted in myriads of small and compartmentalized blocks of handwriting. These blocks of handwriting eventually became the building blocks of Krohn’s historical narrative. The next section explores how this happened. 7. FROM STRUCTURED EVIDENCE TO HISTORICAL NARRATION No manuscript drafts of Krohn’s sole monograph have survived. Whether producing historiographical narratives was easy or difficult for Krohn, we therefore cannot know. Did he require many attempts to find the words and phrases that he ultimately considered suitable and convincing? Did he correct himself frequently or was he able to write (almost) ready to print? Without drafts, none of these questions can be answered. Nevertheless, Krohn’s notebooks, too, tell several stories about the production of historiographical narratives. Krohn’s case indicates that the narrative shape of historiography often emerged not so much out of ‘literary’ concerns, but rather originated directly in the factfinding phases of historical work. 79 There are numerous very close parallels between the pertinent manuscript notebook and printed narrative of the Hoffman book. Krohn occasionally even transferred formulations that had survived several rounds of rethinking from his notebooks quasi-verbatim to his printed monograph. 80 In these cases, the compartmentalized blocks of handwriting into which Krohn condensed his thinking as he answered one research question after another had eventually solidified into kernels of a historical narrative. The wording that Krohn had used to answer individual research questions, if factually satisfying, simply remained in place once the process of “writing” began. Narrating Anabaptist history, thus, often started with expanding well-considered pastiches of preliminary notes into coherent text. In other words, Krohn’s papers show how the painstaking and critical analysis of literature and sources provided the scaffolding for later narrative presentation, and not just in terms of empirical information, but also in terms of formulation. However, the match between manuscript material and printed narrative is not perfect. There are pieces of information in the manuscript that never made it into print, while significant bodies of information in the printed book have no or only 79 The following summarizes a comparison between Krohn: Hofmann, and SUB Cod.Theol. 1180. 80 The most obvious example of this are the very numerous and often lengthy footnotes of the printed text. The relevant role of his research notes for the narrative is apparent, however, throughout the entire book.

302

Markus Friedrich

little parallel in the notebooks. In particular, manuscript notes usually did not serve as a basis for interpretative sections of the book that transcended the level of factual statements. Consider, for instance, Krohn’s telling of the events after Hoffman’s arrival in Stockholm in 1524. 81 The preparatory manuscript has all the details and facts that the printed text narrates. Yet, for the printed version, Krohn also produced several rhetorically charged lines in which he condemned the masses and their “vainglorious” agitation during that episode. He assessed popular unrest negatively, for it counteracted the Reformation’s hope for order and moderation. On another occasion, he interpretatively framed sixteenth-century events, carefully reconstructed through painstaking research with much primary source material, by anachronistically relating them to contemporary eighteenth-century quarrels with radical Pietism. On more than one occasion, for instance, Hoffman is negatively associated with Nicolaus von Zinzendorf. 82 This kind of narrative framing, usually, is not well documented in his notebooks. How would Krohn have created these polemical passages? And how did he write the other passages which were less obviously polemical? How did he create the ‘tone’ and ‘mood’ of his presentation? At least the polemical passages quoted above probably did not need any detailed preparation. It may very well be that they were readily at hand through literary sources and the theological Zeitgeist. The association of Anabaptism and mid-eighteenth-century radical Pietism, for instance, that supported some of Krohn’s most negative passages in his monograph, was widely shared among church historians at the time and could be found in any number of works that Krohn had read. 83 The same could be said about the discourse of elitism and the anti-populist sentiment obvious in Krohn’s version of the Stockholm episode. Interpreting and narrating the facts, thus, was occasionally perhaps much less difficult than getting the historical facts right. These are only some of the most extreme cases, however. In general, the interpretative tone of the monograph is sober and Krohn’s taking of sides is much more subtle. In the many less obviously polemical passages, the actual finding of words must have been more challenging. Given Krohn’s consistently fair and newly historical approach to understanding the Radical Reformation, the actual processes of finding the right words to express the characteristically well-balanced assessment of Hoffman cannot have been simple. For the great majority of his text, Krohn could and did not simply rely on prefabricated polemical schemata of interpretation. What is obvious from his few isolated and fragmentary general statements about the art of historical narration is only that Krohn carefully attempted to ‘tune’ his tone.84 How this worked in practice, however, is impossible to say. 81 The following summarizes a careful comparison of Krohn: Geschichte Hofmanns, p. 33, and SUB Hamburg Cod.Theol. 1180, unpag. (see the folio next to the quarto-sheet marked “4”). 82 E.g., Krohn: Hofmann, p. 277. 83 E.g. Augustijn: Das Bild der Reformation, pp. 83, 88, with reference to Gerdes and Mosheim, two of Krohn’s major points of reference. 84 See, e.g., the important fragment in SUB Cod.Theol. 1183, fol. 1r: “Ein Geschicht schreiber muß auch seine Erzählung und Erläuterung bis auf seinen gewissen Punct treiben und nicht

The Church Historian’s Desk

303

To conclude: The process of creating a convincing narrative for Anabaptist history, in Krohn’s case, seems to fall into at least two different sub-processes, only one of which is still recoverable today. On the one hand, Krohn’s well-documented research practices clearly and directly fed into the final text, sometimes even verbatim. There was a seamless integration of research and narration. On the other hand, a different and today largely invisible set of literary practices must have guided what could be called the ‘interpretative’ and ‘narrative work’ that is, inevitably, also part of historiography. These practices are not well documented in the remaining papers. While research and narration/interpretation must not be separated too drastically, the evidence under consideration here suggests to the very least that the working routines of daily research work were kept materially separate from any interpretative and narrative activities. 85 8. THE PRELIMINARY STATUS OF HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE Taken as a whole, the Krohn papers show that researching the Radical Reformation was a slow and difficult process, full of necessary retractions and revisions of preliminary results. The manuscripts highlight the fragile status of historical knowledge, especially in emerging and contested fields like Anabaptist history. Krohn’s notebooks are material evidence, indeed a physical manifestation of the difficulties involved. In particular, the visual appearance of some of Krohn’s sheets highlights his thoroughness and stubbornness in approaching the issues at hand, but also showcases the preliminary, unfinished, and, indeed, unfinishable business of history writing. In only slightly less spectacular form, the very same ambivalence and fragility of historical knowledge also emerges from reading Krohn’s printed monograph. This book, too, is full of self-critical and self-reflective remarks about lacking or inconclusive evidence, about doubtful historical interpretations, and about the constant need to revisit preliminary conclusions. While some of the research problems were practical in nature or were specific to the marginal field of Anabaptist history, Krohn’s graphically visible struggles to navigate the thickets of historical materials were also part of a larger phenomenon. Taken together, Krohn’s working papers are a manifestation of the renewed methodological and heuristic impetus that led eighteenth-century historians out of the Phyrrhonistic crisis of the decades around 1700. He and his peers had become ac-

weiter. Geht er nicht bis dahin an, so versteht der leser nicht oder doch nicht recht. Treibt er die Sache über den Punct, so eclelt (?) der leser u. er legt ihn weg. Die beste Probe davir ist, dz man sich frage: was einen hier noch zum verstand fehle! oder auch was ich füg[lich] nicht wissen kann, in die Sache doch völlig einzusehen.” 85 On the changing relationship between research and narration, see, e.g., Gerrit Walther: “‘Vergegenwärtigung’: Forschung und Darstellung in der deutschen Geschichtswissenschaft des 19. Jahrhunderts”, in: Werner Freitag (ed.): Halle und die deutsche Geschichtswissenschaft um 1900. Halle 2004, pp. 78–96.

304

Markus Friedrich

customed to a new consensus about the relatively weak epistemic status of historiography. 86 They accepted the idea that historiographical reconstructions of the past could never aspire to absolute certainty. “Certainty” was an elusive goal and could be approached only through a long process of research even in the best of cases. Only rarely and only concerning minor factual details, it seems, did Krohn personally claim to be moving from hypothesis through probability to certainty. 87 Most often, he was happy enough to reach “probability”. The concept appears very frequently in the manuscripts. 88 Even the production of probability however, and this is what the Krohn papers illustrate so graphically, required an ongoing fight for understanding a myriad of difficult, fragmentary, and one-sided materials. Such analysis could rely on an impressive array of sophisticated methodologies provided by new disciplines such as diplomatics that had matured into fact-ascertaining auxiliary sciences of historiography one generation before Krohn. 89 Although there are next to no explicit statements by Krohn about diplomatics or related methodologies, it is nevertheless obvious that a similar attitude of being critical towards sources permeates his work, too. From reviewing factual claims and preliminary conclusions, drawn from extensive readings, which resulted in clusters of consecutively acquired, yet graphically integrated notes, such “probable” ideas about historical events, causations, and contexts eventually emerged. Probability, however, was not only a weak concept in terms of epistemological theory, but also, and more importantly for the practicing historian, because it emerged only (if at all) out of an enormously laborious, winding, self-contradictory, and unsettling process of hard daily interpretative work. This is what is most obvious from looking at historiographical working materials such as the Krohn papers. 9. CONCLUSION If reading is one basic operation in the process of understanding the past, then writing about reading is historiography’s second basic procedure. As Krohn’s papers show, reading and writing were so intimately intertwined that it is next to impossible to separate them. His research manuscripts illustrate furthermore in exemplary

86 For a brief, but very lucid exposition of the changing epistemological culture, see Maria Rosa Antognazza: “Leibniz as historian”, in: Eadem (ed.): The Oxford handbook of Leibniz. New York NY 2018, pp. 591–608, here: 603–607. 87 Note the semantic evolution from “believing” to “being sure” in SUB Cod.Theol. 1187, fol. 7r: “Quaeritur: zu welcher Zeit. NB. Ich glaube dies alles gehört […] 1525 in Nov. und December.” There follows a different notation, from a different moment: “[…] bin ich nun gewiß.” 88 “Ich halte es für wahrscheinlich,” “Mir scheint es wahrscheinlich,” etc.: E.g. in SUB Cod.Theol. 1180, no foliation (folio sheet [bottom] after quarto sheet “6”; quarto sheet “5” [bottom]). 89 Maciej Dorna: Mabillon und andere: Die Anfänge der Diplomatik: Aus dem Polnischen übersetzt von Martin Faber. Wiesbaden 2019. See also Thomas Wallnig: Critical Monks: The German Benedictines, 1680–1740. Boston MA 2019.

The Church Historian’s Desk

305

fashion, how individual acts of handwriting not only supported or enabled the creation of historiographical results, but also often were the very moment of knowledge production. On the one hand, the temporally extended material process of producing letters and words by putting quill to paper sharpened vague ideas by externalizing them and making them, perhaps for the very first time, explicit and reviewable. Later, revisions of initial thoughts may become necessary, yet such secondary reflections always presupposed the first, initial notations as objects to comment on. On the other hand, the graphic result of these processes of writing, a page full of notes, marginalia, and addenda, through its visual appearance, prompted new insights or suggested probability of fact or established connections and historical patterns. This could happen through any number of layout features, including for instance the visual clustering of coherent pieces of evidence. Hand-drawn graphic features highlighted some connections of evidence and made them visually conspicuous, for instance when thickly executed lines connected disjointed notations. Special graphical tools of organizing information, moreover, such as (numbered) lists or tables, would further assist the production of historiographical insight simply by inscribing new evidence into a prefabricated and graphically dominant matrix of interpretation. As Krohn jotted down thoughts, remarks, and notes and allotted them space on the pages of his notebooks, the material and graphical act of handwriting not only mirrored and expressed his intellectual process of understanding the past, it actually also created meaning. Historians like Krohn, on the one hand, used handwriting simply as a tool. On the other hand, the material results of their writing practices, i.e. the notebooks that they produced over time, shaped and guided their understanding of the past. Each of the myriad acts of handwriting that structured and drove Krohn’s process of research was, in its own nuanced way, a point of no return in the shaping of historical understanding. Krohn’s papers, therefore, are a monument to the historian’s dependence on advanced techniques of handwriting.

INDEX OF AUTHORS Badea, Andreea: Dr. phil.; researcher at the Goethe University of Frankfurt am Main; research interests: history of knowledge, religious history, history of historiography, and censorship. Contact: [email protected] Kenneth G. Appold: James Hastings Nichols Professor of Reformation History at Princeton Theological Seminary; research interests: history of early modern theology and culture, with a current emphasis on the German Peasants’ War. Contact: [email protected] Bohnert, Daniel: Dr. phil.; student teacher at the Johannes Kepler School in Neuhof and the Ulrich von Hutten Gymnasium in Schlüchtern; research interests: history of biblical exegesis in the early modern period. Contact: [email protected] Gehrt, Daniel: Dr. phil.; research associate at the Research Library of Gotha; research interests: early modern manuscripts, historic bookbindings, sixteenth and seventeenth-century church and educational history, the Reformation and its reception. Contact: [email protected] Gordon, Bruce: Ph.D.; Titus Street Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Yale University; research interests: Swiss Reformation, Reformed tradition, death and dying in medieval and early modern cultures, reception of the Reformation, cultures of memory, and biography writing. Contact: [email protected] Goudriaan, Aza: Dr. theol.; guest professor of historical theology at ETF Leuven, Belgium; associate professor of church history/historical theology at PThU Amsterdam/Groningen, the Netherlands; research interests: history of theology and philosophy, especially in the early modern period. Contact: [email protected] Friedrich, Markus: Dr. phil.; Professor of Early Modern History at the University of Hamburg; research interests: history of Christianity, the Society of Jesus, the history of knowledge and the humanities. Contact: [email protected]

308

Index of Autors

Matthias, Markus: Dr. theol.; Professor of history and theology of Martin Luther and Lutheranism (Lutherana) at the Protestant Theological University in Amsterdam-Groningen; research interests: History and theology of Lutheranism 1500– 1800, especially Luther, Lutheran Orthodoxy and Lutheran Pietism. Contact: [email protected] Rothkegel, Martin: Dr. phil., Dr. theol. habil.; professor of History of Christianity at the Baptist Theological Seminary of Elstal near Berlin; research interest: early modern religious nonconformity. Contact: [email protected] Salatowsky, Sascha: Dr. phil.; Director of the Coburg State Library; main research interests: History of philosophy in the early modern period, Aristotelianism, Socinianism, relationship between philosophy and theology. Contact: [email protected] Schäufele, Wolf-Friedrich: Dr. theol.; Professor of Church History at the University of Marburg; research interests: European Christianity of the late Middle Ages, the Reformation, and the early modern period, ecclesiastical historiography. Contact: [email protected] Schmidt, Steffie: Dr. theol.; Junior Professor of History of Christianity at the University of Osnabrück; research interests: Scandinavian church history in the early modern period, ecclesiastical historiography, history of Anabaptism. Contact: [email protected] Toribio, Pablo: Dr. phil.; tenured researcher at the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC); research interests: Neo-Latin, textual criticism, early modern intellectual history. Contact: [email protected]

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS al. Anm. ACDF AD BC Bd(e). b. bes. Bl. c. ca. cf. col(s). ebd. ed(s). e.g. esp. f./ff. FB fig. fl fl. fol. Hg. ibid. i.e. i.S. LATh – StA m.e. n. ND no(s). n.p.

alia Anmerkung(en) Archives of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith anno domini before Christ Band/Bände born besonders Blatt/Blätter century circa confer column(s) ebenda editor(s) exempli gratia especially following / folgend(e) Forschungsbibliothek figure Florentiner Gulden floruit folio(s) Herausgeber ibidem id est in Sache Landesarchiv Thüringen – Staatsarchiv meines Erachtens note Nachdruck number(s) no page

310 p(p). PL repr. Resp. S. s.l. s.p. Sp. ST StKA SUB VD16 VD17 VD18 vgl. vol(s.) z.B.

Index of Abbreviations

page(s) Patrologia latina reprint Respondent Seite(n) sine loco sine pagina Spalte(n) Summa Theologica Stadtkirchenarchiv Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich erschienenen Drucke des XVI. Jahrhunderts. VD16. Online under: www.vd16.de Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich erschienenen Drucke des 17. Jahrhunderts. Online under: www.vd17.de Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich erschienenen Drucke des 18. Jahrhunderts. Online under: www.vd18.de vergleiche volume(s) zum Beispiel

INDEX OF PERSONS Adam, Michael 103 Albrecht, Saxe-Coburg, Duke (1648–1699) 264 Albrecht I, Mainz, Archbishop, Elector, Kardinal (1490–1545) 187 Aleander, Jerome (1480–1542) 22 Allmaricus († ca. 1206) 63 Alting, Heinrich (1583–1644) 14, 113–125, 194 Alting, Jacob (1618–1679) 115 Andreae, Laurentius (1594–1633) 80, 157f., 162, 165 Aristotle (384–322) 104, 159, 189f. Arius (ca. 260–327) 62–64, 72, 194, 223 Arnold, Christoph († 1727) 265 Arnold, Eberhard (1883–1935) 36 Arnold, Gottfried (1666–1714) 12f., 84, 243f., 246–249, 253–255, 259–263, 267, 269f., 279 Artlof, Caspar 42, 65 Ascherham, Gabriel († 1545) 39 August, Braunschweig-Lüneburg, Herzog, (1579–1666) 11, 81 Augustine of Hippo (354–430) 40, 91, 102, 105, 106, 118, 124, 189, 194, 211, 219f. Augustus, Roman Empire, Emperor (63 BC– 14 AD) 85, 278 Baazius, Johannes (1581–1649) 153, 155, 163–168, 170f., 173–175 Bäckström, Johann (fl. 1734–1745) 170 Bahil, Matej (1706–1761) 255 Bair, Hans 52 Balduin, Dorothea, b. Meißner (1585–1622) 78 Balduin, Friedrich (1575–1627) 76–83, 86 Bale, John (1495–1563) 277 Baronius, Caesar (1538–1607) 11, 15, 193, 198f., 201–205, 225 Basnage de Beauval, Jacques (ca. 1653– 1723) 15, 271, 273–280 Basta, Giorgio (1550–1607) 69 Baumgarten, Siegmund Jakob (1706–1757) 34

Bayle, Pierre (1647–1706) 12, 133, 180, 186, 223, 226, 273, 287 Becius, Johannes (ca. 1626–1680) 238 Beck, Josef (1815–1887) 35, 36, 39, 44–48, 51f., 54f., 57, 60–65, 68, 70–72 Behem, Franz (1500–1582) 137 Bellarmine, Robert (1542–1621) 15, 81, 90, 180, 193f., 197f., 207, 218, 225 Benzelius, Erik the Elder (1632–1709) 153, 155, 168–175 Benzelius, Erik the Younger (1675–1743) 169, 263f. Berger, Clemens (1563–1629) 80, 85 Beverdige, William (1637–1708) 217 Beza, Theodore (1519–1605) 11, 225, 256, 270 Bibliander, Theodor (ca. 1504–1564) 99 Blaurock, Jörg (ca. 1492–1529) 48 Blesdik, Nicolaus 289 Bock, Friedrich Samuel (1716–1785) 230 Bodenstein, Andreas, alias von Karlstadt (ca. 1486–1541) 25, 252 Bodin, Jean (ca. 1529–1596) 12 Boeckler, Johann Heinrich (1611–1672) 15, 135 Böger, Salomon 69f. Bohemus, Christina, b. Berger (1606–1629) 80 Bohemus, Christina, b. Röber (*1612) 80 Bohemus, Eusebius the Elder (1561–1631) 78 Bohemus, Eusebius the Younger (1598– 1633) 14, 75–81, 84–93 Bolingbroke, Henry St. John (1678–1751) 12 Bonaventure (ca. 1217–1274) 189f. Boniface III, Pope († 607) 160, 279 Borrhaus, Martin (1499–1564) 232f. Bossuet, Jacques Bénigne (1627–1704) 274, 276, 278, 280 Boxler, Heinrich 50 Braitmichel, Caspar († 1573) 42f., 45, 47, 49f., 56, 71 Breitinger, Johann Jakob (1575–1645) 107f., 111

312

Index of Persons

Breitinger, Johann Jakob (1701–1776) 294, 297 Bretschneider, Karl Gottlieb (1776–1848) 146 Broeck, Caspar van den (fl. 1713–1717) 265 Brünner, Christina 68 Bucer, Martin (1491–1551) 225, 292f. Buchholzer, Abraham (1529–1584) 118, 121 Buddeus, Johann Franz (1667–1729) 114, 277 Bullinger, Heinrich (1504–1575) 11, 99, 101, 103–107, 109, 118, 121, 172 Burghardi, Franz (ca. 1518–1590) 300 Cajetan, Thomas (1469–1534) 23, 91, 220, 225 Calderwood, David (1575–1650) 11 Calixt, Friedrich Ulrich (1622–1701) 215 Calixtus, Georg (1586–1656) 193, 198, 206f., 210–216, 218, 220 Calov, Abraham (1612–1686) 91, 213–215 Calvin, John (1509–1564) 80, 96, 124, 179, 186, 194, 204, 225, 229–231, 236, 238, 256, 270, 272, 275 Campanella, Tommaso (1568–1639) 246, 267 Cano, Melchior (1509–1560) 209, 225 Capitolinus, Julius 86 Carion, Johannes (1499–1537) 10, 45, 61f., 200 Carpzov, Johann Benedikt (1639–1699) 249 Carsted, Johann Caspar (1684–1752) 34 Casaubon, Isaac (1559–1614) 193, 198f., 204f., 210f., 217f., 220 Caselius, Johannes (1533–1613) 212 Cassander, Georg (1513–1566) 213 Cave, William (1637–1713) 217 Cellarius, Christoph (1638–1707) 13, 194, 232 Champvallon, François Harlay de (1625– 1695) 182 Charlemagne, Holy Roman Empire, Emperor, (747–814) 122, 159, 278 Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, Emperor (1500–1558) 48, 51, 130 Charles IX, Sweden, King (1550–1611) 158, 165 Charles XII, Sweden, King (1682–1718) 153

Chemnitz, Martin (1522–1586) 118, 121, 209 Chladenius, Martin (1710–1759) 149 Christian II, Denmark, King (1481–1559) 156, 161, 165, 167, 263 Christian III, Denmark, King (1503–1559) 263 Christian IV, Denmark, King (1577–1648) 155 Christoph, Württemberg, Herzog (1515– 1568) 53 Chytraeus, David (1530–1600) 145, 161 Cicero, Marcus Tullius (106 BC–43 BC) 85, 86 Claudius of Turin († ca. 827) 275f. Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–215) 118 Clerc, Jean le (1657–1736) 210 Cochläus, Johannes (1479–1552) 14, 19– 27, 128, 136–138 Colbert, Jean-Baptiste (1661–1683) 183, 185 Comenius, Jan Amos (1592–1670) 230 Constantine I, Roman Empire, Emperor (ca. 280–337) 13, 30, 48, 55, 62, 70, 72, 197, 248, 257, 278f. Cordemoy, Louis Géraud de (1651–1722) 131 Cornelisz van Haemstede, Adrian (1525– 1562) 65 Cramer, Daniel (1568–1637) 83 Cranz, David (1723–1777) 288 Crespin, Jean (1520–1572) 65 Custos, Raphael (1590–1664) 206 Cybo, Alderano (1613–1700) 184 Cyprian, Ernst Salomon (1673–1745) 5f., 15, 142, 243–270 Cyprian, Thaschus Caecilius (ca. 200–258) 186 Daillé, Jean (1594–1670) 193, 199, 217, 221–226 Dal, Nils Hufwedsson (1690–1740) 170 Daneau, Lambert (1530–1595) 118, 121 Dávid, Ferenc (1510–1579) 233 Denck, Hans (ca. 1495–1527) 40, 64, 297 Dilliger, Johann (1593–1647) 78 Dominis, Mark Anton de (1560–1624) 213 Donatus, Aelius (ca. 4th c.) 62 Dorsche, Johann Georg (1597–1659) 212 Dreller, Isaac 59 Dudith, Andreas (1533–1589) 236 Duns Scotus, John (ca. 1266–1308) 189f.

Index of Persons Duplessis Mornay, Philippe (1549–1623) 118, 121 Edenius, Jordanus (1624–1666) 153, 155, 168–172, 174f. Eder, Marx († 1605) 68 Edzardi, Sebastian (1673–1737) 251 Ehrenpreis, Andreas 50, 52, 59 Epiphanius of Constantia (ca. 315–403) 118, 224 Episcopius, Simon (1583–1643) 217 Erasmus, Desiderius (ca. 1466–1536) 63 Erasmus, Desiderius (ca. 1469–1536) 99, 104, 130, 161f., 210 Erik XIV, Sweden, King (1533–1577) 167, 174 Ernest I, Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg, Duke (1601–1675) 5, 131f., 263f. Esdras, Hänsel († 1672) 37, 50, 66 Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260–339) 66, 114, 201 Ezechiel, Christian (1678–1758) 35 Fabricius, Johann Andreas (1696–1769) 84 Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Empire, Emperor (1503–1564) 30, 42 Feuerlein, Jakob Wilhelm (1689–1766) 292 Feyerer, Hans 40 Fischer, Erdmann Rudolph (1687–1776) 245f., 248f., 251, 253, 255, 257, 261 Flacius, Matthias (1520–1575) 10, 14, 63, 83, 118, 121, 193, 195, 197–202, 272, 275, 277, 279 Fleury, Claude (1640–1723) 15 Fontaine, Simon (fl. 1558) 19 Forbes of Corse, John (1593–1648) 14, 113–116, 119–124, 279 Forbes, Patrick (1564–1635) 115 Foxe, John (1516/17–1587) 11 Foxe, John (ca. 1516–1587) 65, 277 Fra Dolcino († ca. 1307) 63 Franck, Sebastian (ca. 1499–ca. 1542) 12, 37, 45f., 63 Francke, August Hermann (1663–1727) 250f. Franz, Wolfgang (1564–1628) 79 Frederick I, Denmark, King (1471–1533) 263 Frederick II, Denmark, King (1534–1588) 263 Frederick II, Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg, Duke (1676–1732) 246f., 253, 260, 264

313

Frederick III, Saxony, Elector (1463–1525) 133, 138, 187, 259 Frederick August I, Saxony (1670–1733) 252, 260 Frick, Elias (1673–1751) 142 Frider, Johannis 172 Friesen, Carl von (1619–1686) 132 Froschauer, Christoph (ca. 1490–ca. 1564) 101, 103 Funck, Johann (1518–1566) 61 Füssli, Johann Konrad (1704–1775) 285, 296 Galle, Petrus (fl. 1524) 166, 171 Gardiner, Samuel (1619–1686) 237 Gatterer, Johann Christoph (1727–1799) 297 Gelbke, Johann Heinrich (1746–1822) 263 Gennadius of Massilia († ca. 496) 246 George I, Great Britain, King (1660–1727) 246 George, Saxony, Duke (1471–1539) 24 Gerdes, Daniel (1698–1765) 283, 302 Gerhard, Johann (1582–1637) 10, 193, 198, 206–211, 221 Gerhard, Johann Ernst (1621–1668) 206, 208 Gessner, David (1647–1729) 96 Gezelius, Johannes the Elder (1615–1690) 168 Giattini, Giovanni Battista. (1600–1672) 134 Gilbert de Spaignart, Christian (1583–1632) 81 Gislonis, Jacobus (fl. 1598) 161 Gleditsch, Johann Friedrich (1653–1716) 269 Gleditsch, Johann Ludwig (1663–1741) 269 González, Tirso (1687–1705) 183 Göschl, Martin (fl. 1528) 67 Goulart, Simon (1543–1628) 12 Grebel, Conrad (ca. 1498–1526) 40, 45f., 48, 54, 58, 64, 68 Gregory I, Pope (ca. 542–604) 219, 277 Gregory XIII, Pope (1502–1585) 197 Griesinger, Onophrius († 1538) 40 Grosch, Georg (1698–1771) 244, 247, 253f., 259, 262, 265, 267, 270 Grotius, Hugo (1583–1645) 218, 243, 245, 260f., 266, 268 Gründler, Gottlob Emanuel (1705–1757) 142

314

Index of Persons

Gustav I, Sweden, King (1496–1560) 15, 156–158, 160–162, 164–168, 171, 173, 175 Gustav II Adolf, Sweden, King (1594–1632) 153–155, 163, 167

Innocent XI, Pope (1611–1689) 184 Irenaeus, Lugdunensis (ca. 140–ca. 202) 113, 118 István Bocskai, Transylvania, Prince (1557– 1606) 69

Häberle, Hans (fl. 1585) 56 Haetzer, Ludwig (ca. 1500–1529) 40, 51, 57, 64, 72 Haner, Georg (1672–1740) 239 Harboe, Ludwig (1709–1783) 297 Haumann, Christian (1682–1734) 265 Heidegger, Johann Henrich (1633–1698) 134 Heinsius, Daniel (1580–1655) 205 Henke, Ernst Ludwig Theodor (1804–1872) 214 Henry IV, France, King (1553–1610) 217 Henry, Saxe-Römhild, Duke (1650–1710) 246 Heraclius, Byzantine Empire, Emperor (ca. 575–641) 122 Herod I, Judea, King (73–4 BC) 40 Heroditus (ca. 485–424 BC) 105 Heumann, Christoph August (1681–1764) 283 Hieronymus → Jerome Hiort, Johannes 172 Hoffmann, Melchior (ca. 1490–ca. 1543) 34, 40, 281f., 292, 297, 300–302 Holbein, Hans (ca. 1497–ca. 1543) 101 Honorius I, Pope († 638) 122 Hörl, Valtan 42 Hornius, Georg (1620–1670) 12, 15, 125 Hortleder, Friedrich (1579–1640) 130 Hospinian, Rudolph (1547–1626) 77, 292f. Hottinger, Johann Heinrich (1620–1667) 13, 15, 172 Hubmaier, Balthasar (ca. 1485–1528) 40f., 48, 57, 64, 67, 286, 289 Huet, Pierre Daniel (1630–1721) 237 Huitfeldt, Arild (1546–1609) 165 Hülsemann, Johann (1602–1661) 214 Hunnius, Aegidius (1550–1603) 209 Hunnius, Nikolaus (1585–1643) 79, 263 Hus, Jan (ca. 1370–1415) 24, 46, 63, 83, 98, 191, 262, 271, 276f., 279 Hut, Hans (ca. 1490–1527) 40, 57 Hutter, Jacob (ca. 1500–1536) 30, 39–41, 48, 51, 57 Hutter, Leonhard (1564–1616) 77 Hyperius, Andreas (1511–1564) 118, 121

James I, England, King (1566–1625) 204 Jansz van Bragt, Tielemann (1625–1664) 33, 35 Jerome (ca. 347–ca. 420) 102, 105f., 113, 219, 246 Jerome of Prague (ca. 1379–1416) 83, 276 Jewel, John (1522–1571) 118, 121 Joash, Judah, King (ca. 840–ca. 801 BC) 110f. Johann Georg I, Saxony, Elector (1585– 1656) 85f. Johannes, Chrysostomus (ca. 344–407) 88 John Frederick I, Saxony, Elector (1503– 1554) 146, 259 John III, Sweden, King (1537–1592) 167, 174 John, Saxony, Elector (1468–1532) 259 Josephus, Flavius (37–100) 37, 45, 47 Jud, Leo (1482–1542) 99, 101, 103 Junius, Christian Friedrich († 1747) 142 Kant, Immanuel (1724–1804) 226 Karlstadt → Bodenstein Kehr, Georg Jacob (1692–1740) 265 Keith, George (ca. 1638–1716) 297 Keyser, Leonhard (ca. 1480–1527) 33, 40, 57 Kipping, Heinrich (1623–1678) 84 Kircher, Athanasius (1602–1680) 237 Knoch, Georg Markus (1695–1759) 251 Knox, John (ca. 1514–1572) 11 Köberling, Johann Georg (fl. 1702–1716) 265 Kolb, Katharina 53 Kräl, Hans († 1583) 50 Krantz, Albert (ca. 1448–1517) 161 Kremser, Wastel (Sebastian) 41, 65 Kress, Anton (1478–1513) 22 Krohn, Barthold Nicolaus (1722–1795) 15, 34, 281–305 Krohn, Barthold Nikolaus (1722–1795) 34, 282, 284, 286f., 289, 291–293, 295– 297, 299, 301f. La Peyrère, Isaac de (1594–1676) 12 Langenmantel, Eitelhans († 1528) 40

Index of Persons Langjahr, Johann Jacob (fl. 1695–1719) 265 Laub, Abraham († 1612) 61 Le Nain de Tillemont, Sébastien (1637– 1698) 15 Lehner, Andreas 61 Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm (1646–1716) 143, 147f., 245, 294, 304 Leidrad of Lyons (ca. 745–821) 275 Leo X, Pope (1475–1521) 137, 187 Leopold I, Holy Roman Empire, Emperor (1640–1705) 137 Lérins, Vincent of († ca. 445) 197, 199, 211–213, 222, 225 Leysers, Wilhelm (1592–1649) 80 Liberius, Pope († 366) 40 Liebe, Christian Sigismund (1687–1736) 256, 265 Lindner, Benjamin (1694–1754) 142 Lingard, John (1771–1851) 12 Lober, Julius 41 Löscher, Valentin Ernst (1673–1749) 266, 268 Louis XIII, France, King (1601–1643) 183 Louis XIV, France, King (1638–1715) 136, 179–182, 184f., 192 Lubieniecki, Stanisław (1623–1675) 15, 229, 233–235, 240 Ludwig XIV, France, King (1638–1715) 15, 179, 180, 184f. Luther, Hans (1459–1530) 188 Luther, Margaret, b. Lindemann (1459– 1531) 188 Luther, Martin (1483–1546) 10, 12, 15, 19– 26, 29, 38, 40, 46–48, 51f., 56, 63, 67, 72, 75–77, 81f., 87, 90–93, 96, 99f., 102, 106, 108–111, 119, 121, 130, 132, 137–141, 143–147, 150, 153f., 157, 159, 160–162, 164–166, 170, 172f., 175, 179f., 186, 188–191, 194, 207– 209, 214, 225, 230f., 233–236, 238– 240, 254, 256–262, 272f., 275, 279f., 282, 308 Luttrell, Narcissus (1657–1732) 288 Mabre-Cramosy, Sebastien (ca. 1637–1687) 128, 184 Magnus, Johannes (1488–1544) 153–158, 161–163, 174f. Magnus, Olaus (1490–1557) 155 Magus, Simon († 65) 194 Maimbourg, Louis (1610–1686) 15, 127– 144, 146f., 179–192

315

Maldonado, Juan (1533–1583) 225 Mändel, Hans († 1561) 67 Mantz, Felix (1500–1527) 40, 48, 64, 67, 297 Maresius, Samuel (1599–1673) 116 Martini, Jakob (1570–1649) 78f., 86 Martschiller (Matschidel), Michael (fl. 1549) 57 Martyr, Justin († ca. 165) 104, 118 Maximilian I, Holy Roman Empire, Emperor (1459–1519) 51 Meisner, Balthasar (1587–1626) 79, 86 Melanchthon, Philipp (1497–1560) 10, 12, 45, 53, 61, 81, 87, 90, 146, 165, 200, 225, 253, 256, 269 Mellerstadt, Martin Pollich von (ca. 14551513) 92 Mentzer, Balthasar (1679–1741) 265 Meshovius, Arnold (1591–1667) 289 Meursius, Johannes (1579–1639) 155f., 159 Meyer, Jakob (fl. 1642) 70f. Minutoli, Vincent (1639-1709) 133 Moritz, Sachsen-Zeitz, Herzog (1619–1681) 128, 131 Mosheim, Johann Lorenz von (1693–1755) 15, 135, 283, 302 Müller, Johann Joachim (1665–1731) 142 Müntzer, Thomas (ca. 1489–1525) 25, 37, 40–42, 51, 64f., 67, 72, 286, 297 Myconius, Friedrich (1490–1546) 140, 251, 254, 258f., 269 Natalis, Alexander (1639–1724) 15 Nehring, Johann Christian (1671–1736) 84 Newton, Isaac (1642–1727) 234, 238 Nicolaus of Lyra (ca. 1270–1349) 83 Odhelius, Erik (1620–1666) 172 Oelrichs, Johann Carl Conrad (1722–1798) 34 Olearius, Johann Gottfried (1635–1711) 10, 207 Ott, Johann Heinrich (1617–1682) 34, 42, 286, 297f. Palaeologus, Jacobus (ca. 1520–1585) 231 Pallavicino, Francesco Maria Sforza (1607– 1667) 134, 136 Pantaleon, Heinrich (1522–1595) 65 Pappus, Johannes (1549–1610) 75–77, 84– 86, 88f. Paracelsus, Theophrast (ca. 1493–1541) 262

316

Index of Persons

Pareus, David (1548–1622) 107, 116 Pastor, Adam († ca. 1560/70) 289 Paulinus (Gothus), Laurentius (1565–1646) 153, 155, 158–164, 166, 173–175 Peiresc, Nicolas Claude Fabri de (1580– 1637) 294 Pelagius (ca. 360–ca. 422) 124, 223 Pellikan, Konrad (1478–1556) 99, 101 Perkins, William (1558–1602) 118, 121 Pétau, Denis (1583–1652) 224f. Petri, Laurentius (1499–1573) 156, 164, 173 Petri, Olaus (1493–1552) 157f., 162, 164– 166, 171, 173 Petrus, Brusius († ca. 1132) 276 Pfaff, Christoph Matthäus (1686–1760) 15, 245, 252, 271, 273, 277–280 Pfanner, Tobias (1641–1716) 132, 288 Phocas, Byzantine Empire, Emperor (547– 610) 157, 218, 279 Photinus († 376) 194 Pilgram, Johann Sigmund (1682–1739) 265 Pirckheimer, Willibald (1470–1530) 22 Piscator, Johann (1546–1625) 109–111, 115 Pistorius, Johannes (1546–1608) 81 Platina, Bartholomaeus (1421–1481) 135 Plato (428/27–ca. 348/47) 104 Polyander, Johannes (1568–1646) 119 Polzinger, Hans († 1605) 68 Pontanus, Johannes Isaacus (1571–1639) 155f., 159 Prierias, Silvester (ca. 1456–1527) 20f. Rabus, Ludwig (ca. 1524–1592) 65, 71 Rader, Jörg 42 Raemond, Florimond de (1540–1601) 136 Ragvaldi, Nicolaus (ca. 1380–1448) 154 Ranke, Leopold von (1795–1886) 9, 63 Rechenberg, Adam (1642–1721) 15, 251, 267 Reinbeck, Johann Gustav (1682–1741) 34 Reinhard, Johann Paul (1722–1779) 15 Remigius of Lyon († 875) 124 Resch, Ambrosius (ca. 1550–ca. 1590) 51– 58, 60, 65, 71 Reyher, Andreas (1601–1673) 85 Reyher, Johann Andreas (1681–1759) 270 Richey, Michael (1678–1761) 291 Riederer, Bartholomäus (1720–1771) 283, 293f. Ries, Hans de (1553–1638) 33 Rinaldi, Odorico (1595–1671) 129

Rinck, Melchior (ca. 1493–ca. 1545) 40 Rivet, André (1572–1651) 119f., 193, 199, 207, 217–221, 223, 225f. Röber, Martin (1583–1633) 80 Röber, Paul (1587–1651) 80, 85 Roos, Johann Friedrich (1757–1804) 142 Rothmann, Bernhard (ca. 1495–ca. 1535) 286 Rudolf August, Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel, Herzog (1627–1704) 133 Sabellicus, Marcus Antonius Coccius (1436–1506) 201 Sabinianus, Pope († 606) 157 Sadoleto, Jacopo (1477–1547) 272 Sagittarius, Kaspar (1643–1694) 12, 131 Saint-Réal, César Vichard de (1639–1692) 138 Samosata, Paul of (ca. 200–275) 194, 236 Sand, Christoph (1644–1680) 15, 34, 229f., 235–240 Sarpius, Paulus (1552–1623) 130 Sattler, Michael (ca. 1490–1527) 40f., 57 Savonarola, Girolamo (1452–1498) 83, 223, 279 Schallen, Johann Andreas (fl. 1704–1714) 269 Scharff, Gottfried Balthasar (1676–1744) 265 Schelhorn, Johann Georg the Elder (1694– 1773) 283 Schelwig, Samuel (1643–1715) 251 Scheuffel, Hans 50 Schiemer, Leonhard († 1528) 40, 57 Schlaffer, Hans (ca. 1490–1528) 57 Schläger, Karl Julius (1706–1786) 295f. Schmidt, Johann Andreas (1652–1726) 15, 246 Scholz, Hieronymus (1723–1807) 35 Schroderus, Ericus Benedicti (ca. 1575– 1647) 156 Schwenckfeld, Caspar (ca. 1489–ca. 1561) 292 Scrivener, Matthew (1622–1688) 222 Scultetus, Abraham (1566–1624) 206f., 217, 221 Seckendorff, Veit Ludwig von (1626–1692) 13–15, 127–136, 138–151, 180, 186, 188f., 251, 254, 257, 267–269 Segneri, Paolo (1624–1694) 134 Seivert, Johann (1735–1785) 35 Selnecker, Nikolaus (ca. 1530–1592) 76

Index of Persons Servet, Miguel (1509/11–1553) 12, 194, 231f., 238 Simon, Lorenz (fl. 1648) 47 Simon, Richard (1638–1712) 224 Simons, Menno (1496–1561) 230, 289, 293, 297 Sixtus V, Pope (1529–1590) 203 Sleidanus, Johann (1506–1556) 11f., 19f., 24f., 134f., 143–145, 149 Sommervogel, Carlos (1834–1902) 128 Sozzini, Fausto (ca. 1539–1604) 232 Sozzini, Lelio (1525–1562) 230, 233 Spahn, Martin (1875–1945) 22 Spalatin, Georg (1484–1545) 127, 133, 254, 269 Spanheim, Friedrich the Elder (1600–1649) 119 Spanheim, Friedrich the Younger (1632– 1710) 15, 279 Spener, Philipp Jacob (1635–1705) 135, 147, 247, 250f. Spizel, Gottlieb (1639–1691) 128, 135 Sponde, Jean de (1557–1595) 136 Spring, Wolfgang Ludwig († 1746) 269f. Stamberg, Anders Henrik (1759–1840) 170 Staupitz, Johann von (ca. 1465–1524) 92, 137f., 141, 187f., 190 Stenbock, Gustaf Otto (1614–1685) 172 Suavis, Petrus (1552–1623) 134 Surius (Sauer), Lorenz (1522–1578) 136 Süssmilch, Johann Peter (1707–1767) 35 Tauber, Caspar († 1524) 48, 51, 55, 57, 60, 67 Tegel, Erik Jörensson (ca. 1563–1636) 164– 167, 175 Tentzel, Wilhelm Ernst (1659–1707) 133, 142, 254, 257, 269 Tertullian (ca. 150–ca. 230) 118, 201 Tetzel, Johannes (ca. 1460–1519) 187 Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) 189f., 199, 202 Thomasius, Christian (1655–1728) 245, 248–250, 260–262 Thou, Jacques-Auguste de (1553–1617) 134 Trigland, Jacobus (1583–1654) 119 Trolle, Gustav (1488–1535) 156 Trumph, Adolph Heinrich (1675–1715) 261 Tucher, Sixtus (1459–1507) 22 Uffenbach, Conrad Zacharias (1683–1734) 34, 286

317

Ulfilas (ca. 311–ca. 382) 157 Uliman, Wolfgang († 1530) 67 Ulrich, Johann Kaspar (1705–1768) 111 Ussher, James (1581–1656) 118, 121, 279 Vaget, Barthold (1656–1724) 265 Valens, Roman Emperor (ca. 328–378) 157 Valla, Lorenzo (1407–1457) 197 Varillas, Antoine (1624–1696) 129, 134, 182 Veesenmeyer, Georg (1760–1832) 35 Veit, Melchior 67 Velenus, Ulrichus (1495–1531) 54 Véron, François (1575–1649) 221 Vincent of Lérins († ca. 445) 197, 211, 218, 220, 222 Viterbo, Annius von (1437–1502) 161 Vives, Juan Luis (1492–1540) 104 Voltaire (1694–1778) 12 Wagner, Georg († 1527) 57 Walch, Christian Wilhelm Franz (1726– 1784) 84 Waldner, Johannes (1749–1824) 36 Waldo, Peter († ca. 1218) 63, 276 Walter, Elias Jr. (1862–1938) 36 Weidmann, Moritz Georg (1686–1743) 269f. Wigand, Johann (1523–1587) 118, 121, 200 Wilhelm, Jost 68 Wiszowaty, Andrzej (1608–1678) 229f., 233, 235, 240 Wiszowaty, Benedykt (ca. 1649–ca. 1704) 15, 34, 229f., 235f., 240 Witzel, Georg (1500–1573) 213 Wolf, Johannes (1564–1627) 106 Wolkan, Rudolf (1860–1927) 36f., 71 Wyclif, John (ca. 1324–1384) 46, 63, 191, 276f., 279f. Zapff, Hauprecht († 1630) 37, 39, 41–43, 49–53, 56, 61, 64, 72 Zieglschmid, Andreas Johannes Friedrich (1903–1950) 36f., 39, 42, 47, 49–52, 61, 63f., 68, 71 Zinzendorf, Nicolaus von (1700–1760) 302 Zwicker, Daniel (1612–1678) 15, 34, 229, 236, 238–240 Zwingli, Ulrich (1484–1531) 14, 29, 38, 40, 46, 48, 51f., 55, 57, 63, 67, 72, 95–103, 105, 107, 109, 172, 230f., 252, 275

The reformation of the Western Church was a series of momentous events that uprooted many things previously taken for granted. In the wake of these dramatic changes, adherents to the various emerging confessional cultures in the sixteenth century sought assurance with the help of historiography. They created specific narratives of the events surrounding the Reformation and a historical continuity from early Christianity to legitimize their own religious teaching and practice.

Subsequently, the Reformation, as a process of reform, renewal, or upheaval of church and society, shaped the way contemporary actors and the following generations dealt with history in the pre-modern era. The authors of the present volume pursue inquiries into these and other related developments, taking a wide range of denominational perspectives in various European contexts into account, until well into the eighteenth century.

ISBN 978-3-515-13424-8

www.steiner-verlag.de

9 783515 134248

Franz Steiner Verlag