Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:58:39.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ritual and Popular Religion in Catholic Germany at the Time of the Reformation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2011

R. W. Scribner
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

‘Popular religion’ has of late been a much-discussed subject among historians of early modern Europe. Most of the best work has been on France, by French and North American scholars, while for Germany the subject is virtually ignored. Oddly enough, serious scholarship on ‘popular’ or ‘folk’ religion began in Germany at the opening of this century, and by the 1920s a major new field of historical enquiry had been established under the banner of religiöse Volkskunde. However, historians left the study of German popular religion to folklorists, a tendency perhaps reinforced by the rather dubious reputation the discipline of Volkskunde acquired under the Nazi regime. Both before and after 1945, folklore scholars have contributed numerous important studies of popular religion in early modern Germany, but historians have been reluctant to follow in their footsteps. Some of this reluctance may be explained by the absence of precise definition as to what is meant by ‘popular religion’. It is often defined through the use of polar opposites, in terms such as ‘official’ and ‘popular’ religion. The former is institutional religion, the latter that which deviates from institutional norms. Another definition invokes an opposition between theory and practice.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , January 1984 , pp. 47 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See the recent discussion by Davis, Natalie, ‘From “popular religion” to religious cultures’, Reformation Europe: a guide to research, ed. Ozment, S. E., St Louis, Miss. 1982, 321–41Google Scholar. Even the studies on Germany cited there are from French scholars such as Bernard Vogler.

2 On religiose Volkskunde see Yoder, D., ‘Toward a definition of folk religion’, Western Folklore, xxxiii (1974), 2–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for a general survey, Weber-Kellermann, I., Deutsche Volkskunde zwischen Cermanistik und Sozialwissenschaft, Stuttgart 1969CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 See, for example, excellent works such as Veit, L. A., Volksfrommes Brauchtum und Kirche im deutschen Mittelalter, Freiburg i. Br. 1936Google Scholar; Veit, L. A. and Lenhart, L., Kirche und Volksfrömmigkeit im Zeitalter des Barock, Freiburg i. Br. 1956Google Scholar; Kramer, K. S., Volksleben in Hochstift Bamberg (1500–1800), Würzburg 1957Google Scholar; idem, Volksleben im Fürstentum Ansbach und seinen Nachbargebieten (1500–1800), Würzburg 1961Google Scholar; Brückner, W., (ed.), Volkserzählung und Reformation, Berlin 1974Google Scholar.

4 For these definitions, Yoder, ‘Folk religion’, 7–14; Davis, ‘Popular religion’, 321–4.

5 This is but an abbreviated list: for fuller bibliography see Davis, op. cit. 336–41 and more broadly Yoder, D., ‘Introductory bibliography on folk religion’, Western Folklore, xxxiii (1974), 16–34Google Scholar.

6 See, for example, two excellent studies: Freudenthal, H., Das Feuer im deutschen Glauben uni Branch, Berlin 1931Google Scholar; Hindringer, R., Weiheross und Rossweiht, Munich 1932Google Scholar.

7 Davis, ‘Popular religion’, 331–3; Bossy, J., ‘Essai de sociographie de la messe, 1200–1700’, Annales ESC, xxxvi (1981), 44–70Google Scholar, which focused, however, largely on the canon of the Mass.

8 See Davis, ‘Popular religion’, 331 and the literature cited there.

9 I have excluded matters such as ‘civic ritual’, and concentrated more closely on the liturgy, while not being unmindful of the fact that the links between the two are very close. For examples of this, see Pythian-Adams, C., ‘Ceremony and the citizen: the communal year at Coventry’, The Early Modern Town: a reader, ed. Clark, P., London 1976, 106–28Google Scholar; James, M., ‘Ritual, drama and social body in the late medieval English town’, Past and Present, xcviii (1983), 3–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 The sources available for such a study are rather variable in extent and quality. Few provide a comprehensive overview of liturgical practice at the end of the Middle Ages. Indeed, it was the absence of suitable handbooks for the parish clergy which led to demands during the fifteenth century for their provision: see Franz, A., ‘Zur Geschichte der gedruckten Passauer Ritualien’, Thtologisch-praktisch Monats-Schrift, ix (1899), 76–8Google Scholar. Outlines of Catholic ritual practice are possible, however, by bringing together a number of disparate sources, including the various handbooks used by the parish clergy. The basic types of source are- as follows:

1. Directories, giving instructions on the variable parts of the Mass as used throughout the year. See, for example, Directorium Missae, F. Hcumann, Mainz 1509, for the diocese of Mainz.

2. Processionals, giving details of the processions, with the appropriate prayers and antiphons used throughout the year. Sec, for example, Zinsmeier, P., ‘Einc unbekanntc Quelle zur Geschichte der mittelalterlichen Liturgie im Konstanzer Miinster’, geitschrift Jtir die Geschichte des Oberrheins, civ (1956), 52–104Google Scholar, with text of a MS Processionale ecclesiae Constantiensis of c. 1517–19.

3. Ritual books (Rituale, also called Agenden, Manuale, Obsequiale), which provided details of the main liturgical formulae and observances other than those in the Mass. Sec Dold, P. A., Die Konstanzer Ritualien in ihre Entwicklung von 1482–1731. Münster 1923Google Scholar; Stapper, R., Die alteste Agende des Bistums Miinster, Münster 1906, esp. 31–2Google Scholar. Where these were largely to do with benedictions they were called Benedictionale. 4. Parish handbooks, usually written by a parish priest for his own use; for examples see notes 11, 16. The absence of a reliable parish handbook setting out all a parish priest needed to know occasioned such individual efforts, and was first remedied by Michael Lochmaier, Parrochiale curatorum, M. Lotter, Leipzig 1499.

In addition to such liturgical aids, there is much invaluable material to be found in:

5. Synodal statutes: see Blattau, J. J., Statuta synodalia, ordinationes et mandata Archidioecesis Trevirensis, Trier 1844 (3 vols. for the period up to 1715); Dalham, F., Concilia Salisburgensia provincialia et dioecesana, Augsburg 1788Google Scholar; and, more generally, Hartzheim, J., Concilia Germaniae, Cologne 1763–1765Google Scholar, esp. vols v-vi for the period 1400–1564, and Binterim, A. J., Pragmatische Geschichte der deutschen National-, Provincial- und vorzuglichen Dioecesan-concilien, vols. v-vii, Mainz 1848Google Scholar.

6. Accounts of Catholic practice provoked by the Reformation: see, for example, Wessel, F., Schilderungdeskalholischen Gottesdienstesin Stralsundkurz vorder Kirchenverbesserung, ed. Zober, E., Stralsund 1837Google Scholar; and Schilling, A., ‘Die religiosen und kirchlichen Zustande der ehemaligen Reichsstadt Biberach unmittelbar vor Einfuhrung der Reformation’, Freiburger Diocesan Archiv, xix (1887), 1–191Google Scholar, which provide respectively a Protestant and a Catholic account.

7. ‘Ethnographic’ accounts in chronicles and similar works, for example, Sebastian Franck, Weltbuch, 1534; Johannes Boemus, De omnium gentium ritibus, 1520, for descriptions of religious and secular customs in Franconia; or Johannes Kessler, Sabbata, E. Egli and R. Schoch (eds.), St Gallen 1902, 50–62 on St Gallen.

11 This accords fully with the modern liturgical year, see Pascher, J., Das liturgische Jahr, Munich, 1963Google Scholar. The sixteenth-century practice is attested by Falk, F., Die pfarramtlichen Aufzeichnungen (Liber consuetudinum) des Florenlius Diel zu St Christoph in Mainz (1491), Freiburg i. Br. 1904Google Scholar; Greving, J., Johann Ecks Pfarrbuch für U. L. Frau in Ingolstadt, Münster 1908Google Scholar; Gütz, J. B., Das Pfarrbuch des Stephen May in Hilpoltstein vom Jahr 1511, Miinster 1926Google Scholar.

12 See Grotefend, H., Taschenbuch der Zeitrechnung des deutschen Mittelalters, 10th edn, Hanover 1960, 12Google Scholar.

13 On this paragraph, Veit, Brauchtum und Kirche, 93–4.

14 Ibid. The solemn (gebannte) and less solemn (ungebannte) feasts were carefully noted throughout the account of the liturgy in Biberach, written by an unknown cleric some time around 1530, see Schilling, ‘Biberach’, 92–145, passim. For diocesan stipulation of solemn feasts, see Hartzheim, Concilia Germaniae, v. 32 (Würzburg 1407); 619 (Bamberg, 1491).

15 Schilling, ‘Biberach’, 92–114, passim. Seventeen of the Saints’ Days were obligatory, making twenty-four with those of the Virgin. Roughly two-thirds of these fell in the second half of the calendar year, and so in the period which made the greatest demands for agricultural work. In 1438 the Synod of Brixen complained of the number of feasts which fell within the summer months, when folk were preoccupied with the harvest; see Eisentraut, E., Feier der Sonn- und Festtage seit dem Ittztcn Jahrhundert des Mittelalters, Würzburg 1914, 46Google Scholar.

16 For full descriptions of the manner of celebrating a solemn feast, see Schilling ‘Biberach’, 93–5 (here New Year's Day); also Gotz, Pfarrbuch 27–33. On the Vesper procession, Hoeynck, F. A., Geschichtc der kircklichen Liturgie des Bisthums Augsburgs, Augsburg 1889, 189–97Google Scholar. On the Salve, Gotz, Pfarrbuch, 33 and Tibus, A., Die Jacobipfarre in Miinster von 1508–1523, Miinster 1885Google Scholar (a book kept by the parish priest Bernard Dreygewolt), 2.

17 On processions for asperging and incensing, Haimerl, X., Das Prozessionswesen des Bistums Bamberg im Mittelalter, Munich 1937, 128–41Google Scholar.

18 Gütz, Pfarrbuch 27n, 30. According to the Constance ProcessionaU, there were eight occasions when relics were set out on the main altar of the minster: Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, the Assumption, the Birth of the Virgin, and the feasts of SS Pelagius, Martin and Conrad: Zinsmeier, ‘Unbekannte Quelle’, 64.

19 Schilling, ‘Biberach’, 113; Hoeynck, Bisthum Augsburgs, 179.

20 For a description of a lesser feast see Schilling, ‘Biberach’, 101, on St Mark's Day (hat man gefeurtt, abernit beirn Pann). On the weekly blessing of'holy water’, see Franz, A., Diekirchlichen Benediktionen im Mittelalter, 2 vols., Freiburgi. Br. 1909, i. 60Google Scholar, 99; Reifenberg, H., Sakramente, Sakramenlalien und Ritualien im Bistum Mainz seit dem Spdtmittelaller, 2 vols., Miinster 1971–1972, i. 557–66Google Scholar.

21 I follow here Dix, Gregory, The Shape of the Liturgy, London 1943Google Scholar, in using the narrow sense of the Liturgy’ to mean the central act of Christian worship, the Eucharist or Lord's Supper (rather than the broader sense of the solemn corporate worship officially organised by the Church). Thus, although processions may be preparatory to the liturgy, they are not essential to it: see Haimerl, Bistums Bamberg, 1, for this view. Similarly, the canonical hours grew up in the fourth century as a period of meditation and preparation for the Eucharist, especially in monastic communities, Dix, op. cit., 323–4, 328–9, although clearly only two of the eight (vespers and matins) were observed in German parish churches at the end.of the Middle Ages.

22 On the Salve, see note 16 above; on the various kinds of procession, see Haimerl, Bistums Bambcrg, and, more broadly. Pascher, J., ‘Die Prozession’, Liturgisches Jahrbuch, xviii (1968), 113–20Google Scholar. On the popularity of the asperges procession before mass as something allowing lay participation, Meyer, H. B., Luther und die Messe, Paderborn 1965, 24Google Scholar.

23 ‘Magical ritual’ will be defined more precisely in the discussion below. ‘Folklorised ritual’ is based on J. Delumeau's notion of folklorised Christianity’; see Catholicism between Luther and Voltaire, London 1977, 166–7Google Scholar. However, the discussion which follows will relate the notion more closely to ritual practice.

24 On functiones sacrae see Reifenberg, Sakramente, Sakramentalien, i. 700–4 and his earlier article, ‘Zeichenhafte Liturgie. Zur Phänomenologie der “Sakramentalien”’, Liturgisches Jahrbuch, xvii (1967), 233–40Google Scholar. For the ceremony of the Washing of the Feet, see ibid., 705–6 for Mainz; Zinsmeier, ‘Unbekannte Quelle’, 73, for Constance; and for Meissen, Breviarius denuo revisus el emendatu Ceremonias, Ritum canendi, legendi, ceterasque consuetudines in choro insignis et ingenue Misnen. Ecclesiae observandos, M. Lotter, Leipzig 1520, fo Fiv.

25 On the Grablegung, Haimerl, Bislums Bamberg, 22–4; Reifenberg, Sakramente, Sakramentalien, i. 710–17 (for Mainz and Würzburg); Kessler, Sabbata, 53 (St Gallen).

26 Haimerl, Bistums Bamberg, 27–30; Dresen, A., ‘Die Feier der Hochfeste in der Stiftskirche zu Gerresheim’, Annalen des historischen Vereinsfur den Niederrhein, cxv (1929), 213Google Scholar.

27 Schilling, ‘Biberach’, 127–32; Haimerl, Bistums Bamberg, 23. Sebastian Franck mentions the use of a life-size figure (ein grosses Menschenbild). The tomb could also be set up outside the church, see t he 1520 Meissen Breviarius, fo. D6v.

28 K. Ribbeck, Geschichte der Stadt Essen, Essen 1915, i. 67.

29 Schilling, ‘Biberach’, 131; for Augsburg, Hoeynck, Bisthums Augsburgs, 222; for Bamberg, Haimerl, Bistums Bamberg, 27; for Mainz, Reifenberg, Sakramente, Sakramentalien, i. 735–6.

30 See Stemmler, T., LiturgischeFeiern undgeisllicheSpiele, Tübingen 1970, 4Google Scholar; Wickham, G., The Medieval Theatre, London 1980, 24–43Google Scholar.

31 This is close to the notion used by Fischer, Balthasar, ’Liturgie und Volksfrömmigkeit’, Liturgisches Jahrbuch, xvii (1967), 129–43Google Scholar, esp. 134 of liturgieerganzende Volksfrömmigkeit, elements of lay piety complementary to the liturgy, which stand outside but alongside it. An interesting example of non-liturgical, folklorist elements is found in Gerresheim, where during Christmas vespers in the collegial church the officiating canon took off his surplice and distributed pepper cakes, while the choir sang carols; afterwards the verger distributed a special (possibly blessed) wine, Dresen, ‘Hochfeste zu Gerresheim’, 209–10.

32 Schilling, ‘Biberach’, 117–20.

33 The figure on the ass was not always a statue, but sometimes a cleric, see Beitl, R. (ed.), Wörterbuch der deutschen Volkskundt, 3rd edn, Stuttgart 1974, 630Google Scholar.

34 For the more formal liturgical celebration, Haimerl, Bistums Bamberg, 107–21; Reifenberg, Sakramente, Sakramentalien, i. 642–58; for continuity with the dern liturgy, as well as origins in the early Church, Pascher, Das liturgische Jahr, 115.

35 Liturgical handbooks tended to omit mentions of the Palmesel, and evidence for its use often has to be found in sources outside them, see Zinsmeier, ‘Unbekannte Quelle’, 70 n for Constance; the 1511 ritual book for Salzburg explicitly describes the ceremony as taking place using a crucifix, Obsequiale secundum rubricam alme ecclesiae Saltzburgen, Jacob de Pfortzheim, Basel, 1511 (British Library 3405. eee. 20), fos. 23–26v. On the earliest use of the Palmesel (970 in Augsburg), Beitl, Wörterbuch, 630.

36 Zinsmeier, ‘Unbekannte Quelle’, 70–1.

37 For the liturgical version, Hoeynck, Bisthums Augsburgs, 212 for Augsburg; the Breviarius of 1520 for Meissen, fo. Fi; for the Biberach interpretation, Schilling, ‘Biberach‘, 121. The modern form, and the earliest usage in the ninth century, is mentioned in Pascher, Das liturgische Jahr, 130.

38 For these customs, Schilling, op. cit., 125; for Hof in upper Franconia, ‘Die Chronik des M. Enoch Widmann’, Hohenzollerische Forschungen, ii (1893), 232–3Google Scholar (a chronicle account from c. 1592); for north Germany, N. Gryse, Spegel des Antichristlischen Pawestdoms, Rostock 1593, Fo. Kk3v. For the Judas interpretation, Kramer, K. S., Bauern and Burger im nachmittelatterlichen Unterfranken, Würzburg 1957Google Scholar, III.

39 For Leipzig, Schneider, Zacharias, Chronicon Lipsiense, das isl: Gemeine Beschreibung der … Stadt Leipzig, Leipzig 1655, 161Google Scholar. This was often linked in folk customs with a Judasfeuer, in which a puppet of J u d a s was burned; the fire itself had links to the Easter fire, and to the coals used to kindle it on the eve of Easter, see Freudenthal, Das Feuer, 274 and Bachthold-Staubli, H. (ed.), Handworterbuch des deutschen Aberglaubens, 12 vols, Berlin and Leipzig 1927–1942Google Scholar, ii. 1441; iv. 804–6; vii. 851; viii. 992.

40 See Obsequialis secundum dioceses Augusten. morem, Erhard Radolt, Augsburg 1487, fo. xxxviv for Augsburg; Haimerl, Bistums Bamberg, 27–30 for Bamberg.

41 ‘Widmann’, 231; for Protestant mockery of this ceremony, see Romisch Kirchen Postill, 1562 (British Library, 11515. a. 49), fo. B71: Umb die Kirchen mil im lauffen (sc. the crucifix) I Biss das er kommelfur die Thur | Dan einer/ragt wer ist dqfur | Er antwort im ein holzner Rex | Der wirdt machen ein newes lex.

42 Schneider, Chronicon Lipsiense, 161; Haimerl, Bistums Bamberg, 30 (on Bamberg and Nuremberg).

43 Schilling, ‘Biberach’ 136; Vcit, Brauchtum und Kirche, 103; ‘Widmann’, 234. In the Augsburg liturgy, the ritual included incensing and asperging the image, see the 1487 Obsequiale, fo. xli. For this as a ‘sacred performance’, Reifenberg, Sakramente und Sakramentalien, i. 746. The image used could be quite elaborate: in 1533 Anton Fugger funded an image of Christ seated on a rainbow, with the Holy Spirit and surrounded by angels, see Die Chroniken der deutschen Stddte vom 14. bis 16. Jht: Augsburg, Hegel, C., (ed.), Leipzig 1894, iv. 341Google Scholar. In that year the figure became a bone of contention between Catholic and Protestant, when the opening was closed to prevent the raising of the figure, then reopened to allow the ceremony to take place, ibid., 341–2. There followed a struggle in which the figure crashed to the floor, see Roth, F., Augsburgs Rcformationsgeschichle, Munich 1904, ii. 120–2Google Scholar. A similar ceremony of raising an image of the Virgin on the feast of the Assumption is attested for Halle: Miiller, N., ‘Zur Geschichte des Gottesdienstes der Domkirche zu Berlin in den Jahren 1540–98’, Jahrbuchjur brandenburgische Kirchengeschichte, ii/iii (1906), 523Google Scholarn (citing the Halle Breviarius of Albrecht of Mainz); and for Schwerin, Agenda Dioz. Schwerin 1521, in Schonfelder, A. (ed.), Liturgische Bibliothek. Sammlunggottesdienstlicher Biicher aus dem deutschen Mittelalter, Paderborn 1906, n. xxiiiGoogle Scholar.

44 On this custom see Falk, Florentius Diel, 32; Schilling, ‘Biberach’, 139; Schneider, Chronicon Lipsiense, 162 (in Leipzig, almonds and raisins were also showered down); Wessel, Stralsund, n; ‘Widmann’, 234.

45 Rieder, O., ’Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte des Hochstifts Eichstatt’, Kollektaneen-Blatt fir die Geschichte Bayerns, i (1886Google Scholar), 48. The water was intended to symbolise baptism, Reifenberg, Sakramente, Sakramentalien, i. 746; however, it was sometimes regarded as too irreverent and prohibited, for example in 1451 in St Castor in Koblenz: Blattau, Statuta, etc., i. 362; and by Johann Eck in his parish in Inglostadt: Greving, Ingolstadt, 157. The Pfingstvogel was related to fertility customs: the person so chosen was clad in foliage and carried through the fields on Whit Monday to beseech mild, warm weather for the harvest; see Sax, J., Die Bischöfe und Reichsförsttn von Eichstddt, Landshut 1885, ii. 566Google Scholar, for prohibition of the custom in 1696; see also Bachthold-Staubli, vi. 1694 and Birlinger, A., Aus Schwaben. Sagen, Legenden, Abcrglauben, Sitten, Rechtsbrduche, Wiesbaden 1874, ii. 106–7Google Scholar.

46 To the examples already mentioned of the Judasjagd, Judasvtrbrennen and Pfingstvogel (see notes 39, 45), can be added two other customs to be discussed below, the Oslergang and ‘rocking the cradle’ at Christmas. It should be mentioned at this point that there does not appear to have been any essential difference between town and country in terms of the basic forms of these rituals, though clearly towns would have celebrated more elaborately, and the performance would often have been a form of'civic ritual'.

47 Johann Eck, in warning against the abuse of the Ascension ceremony, cautioned ‘ne devotio solvatur in jocum et risum’, Greving, Ingolstadt, 156. The same view was probably behind the stipulation of Florentius Diet for his parish in Mainz that only reliable folk, ‘ganz zuverlassige, bescheidene und vorsichtige Leute’, be allowed up in the roof for the Ascension ceremony. Eck took a similar line in other ceremonies such as Christmas plays held in church, and on the ‘Johannes-wine’, blessed wine distributed on the feast of John the Evangelist (27 December), ibid., 132–3.

48 Binterim, Pragmatische Geschichle, v. 264, vii. 30. The 1510 criticism from the Augsburg preacher Petrus Wickran ‘contra petulantiam et lascivam circuitonem sacerdotum in Octava Innocentium’, ibid., vii. 29n.

49 Binterim, op. cit., v, 264; Hartzheim, Conciliagermaniae, iii. 642. On disputes that arose from excesses on such occasions see Moser, H., ‘Archivalisches zu Jahreslaufbrauchen der Oberpfalz’, Bayerisches Jahrbuchjur Volkskunde (1955), 167Google Scholar (on Regensburg in 1269). The custom was also outlawed in the collegiate church of St Castor in Koblenz in 1451 and again in 1583: Blattau, Slatuta, etc., i. 361, 365; ii. 339.

50 See Hoeynck, Bistums Augsburgs, 201 on the celebration in Augsburg; Zinsmeier, ’Unbekannte Quelle’, 65–5 on Constance, in both of which it seems to have been allowed as a dignified ceremony. In Constance there was also a St Nicholas celebration, Zinsmeier, op. cit., 65n. For the St Gregory Kinderbischof, Schilling, ‘Biberach’, ioo; for this custom as late as the eighteenth century, Diinninger, J. and Schopf, H., Brduche und Feste im frdnkischen Jahreslauf, Kulmbach 1971, 69–71Google Scholar. Sebastian Franck, Weltbuch, 1534, fo. cxxxir mentions also the custom of a Kinderkonig on Innocents’ Day, a custom for which there is also evidence from the late fourteenth century in Ruffach, see Mone, F. J., ‘Volkssitten und Gebrauche’, Zeitschriftjiir die Geschichte des Oberrheins, xx (1867), 78Google Scholar. For an overview of the different kinds of children's celebrations, see Falk, F., Die Schul- und Kinderfeste im Mittelalter, Frankfurt 1880Google Scholar (= Frankfurter zeitgemässe Broschüre, ed. P. Haffner, i).

51 Hartzheim, Concilia germaniae, v. 382: ‘alii larvales et theatrales jocos, alii chores et tripudia marium et mulierum facientes, homines ad spectacula et cachinationes movent, alii commessationes et convivia ibid em preparent’. This article also included a prohibition of the Boy Bishop.

52 Franck, Weltbuch, fo. 1 v for Franconia; Schilling, ‘Biberach’, 11 2 for Biberach; Moser, ‘Oberpfalz’, 166 for the Upper Palatinate.

53 Schilling, op. cit., 131–2.

54 Reifenberg, SakTamente, Sakramenlalien, i. 735–6.

55 Veit, Brauchtum und Kirche, 101.

56 Haimerl, Bistums Bamberg, 26–7; Reifenberg, Sakramente, Sakramentalien, i. 741–2, although the Bamberg version was more elaborate than that in Mainz.

57 Binterim, Pragmatisch Geschichte, vii. 356–7; Hartzheim, Concilia Germaniae, v. 944. Sometimes the priest was mounted, so that it became a eucharistic Umritt, see Hindringer, Weiheross, 113. The basis of complaint seems to have been the unsuitability of popular jocularity in a eucharistic procession, especially in those cases which involved eating and drinking in the procession, turning it into a Lustgang: see Birlinger, Aus Schwaben, ii. 81; and criticism of similar behaviour in the Corpus Christi procession from the 1549 provincial Synod of Cologne, Hartzheim, op. cit., vi. 558.

58 On the 1435 prohibition, repeated by the 1447 Synod of Eichstett, see note 51 above; on Stralsund, Wessel, Stralsund, 4; on eighteenth-century prohibitions, Diinninger and Schopf, Brduche und Fesle, 11–12.

59 Hartzheim, Concilia germaniae, vi. 498. Provincial Synods of Cologne also, condemned plays and mumming in 1536 and 1549, ibid., vi. 265, 556.

60 See the prohibition of the notion by the 1316 Synod of Worms, cited Alt, H., Theatre und Kirche, Berlin 1846, 348Google Scholar.

61 Eisentraut, Feier der Sonn- und Festtage, 47–8.

62 On the Candlemas liturgy see Götz, Pfarrbuch, 35; Reifenberg, Sakramente, Sakramentalien, 630, 634–7; Schilling, ‘Biberach’, 97–8; Wessel, Slralsund, 5. For the best overview of the development of this very old ceremony, Franz, Benediktion, i. 442–56. On the pious uses, ibid., 457; on the symbolism, Freudenthal, Das Feuer, 127–9.

63 See Freudenthal, op. cit., 128–9 on the gradual development of an apotropaic element in the blessing, from the twelfth century onwards; and on the different kinds and uses, 132–9. For Protestant criticism of these uses, Franck, Wtltbuch, fo. cxxxir; Gryse, Anthhristlischcn Pawestdoms, fo. Jj4v; Römisch Kitchen Postill, fo. B3v-B4r; A. Osiander, Bedencken auffder Interim, 1549 (British Library 3906. e. 14), fo. C1r – all especially singling out their use for weather magic and expulsion of the devil.

64 Franz, i. 470–507, esp. 476 on the symbolism of the palms; on the apotropaic uses, Schilling, 120 and Bartholomaeus Wagner, Der Laycn Kirchen Spiegel, Thierhaupten, 1594 (British Library 4829. aa. 24), fo. 71r.

65 Franz, Benediktion, i. 398–413; Reifenberg, Sakramente, Sakramentalien, i. 614 – 19; Pascher, J., ‘Die Krauterweihe am 15. August’, Liturgisches Jahrbuch xvii (1967), 176–81Google Scholar. On the custom in the modern liturgy (as a form of piety), Pascher, Das liturgische Jahr, 635–8. On the symbolism, Stapper, R., Die dlteste Agende des Bistums Miinster, Miinster 1906, 108–9Google Scholar and Pascher, op. cit., 178.

66 Franz, op. cit. i. 407; Wessel, Stralsund, 17.

67 This was different from baptismal water: see Franz, op. cit., i. 53–61 on the different kinds.

68 Ibid., 202–5.

69 Hindringer, Wciheross, 97–8.

70 Franz, op. cit., i. 201–20 passim.

71 Binterim, Pragmatische Geschichle, vii, 376; Franz, op. cit., i. 205–6, 212. On the thurificatio domorum, see Franz, op. cit., i. 423; Gotz, Pfaubuch, 34. This does not seem to have been customary in the diocese of Mainz until the seventeenth century, Reifenberg, Sakramente, Sakramentalien, ii. 466; however, it was in use in the diocese of Salzburg in 1511, with a formula in the Obsequiale of that year, fo. 114v.

72 For a detailed discussion of ‘weather processions’ and supplicatory processions in general, Haimerl, Bis turns Bamberg, 8–22; see also Reifenberg, op. cit. i. 680–2; Schilling, ‘Biberach’, 101, 134; Gotz, Pfanbuch, 35.

73 On the procedure, see Eck's stipulations for Ingolstadt, Greving, Ingolstadt, 155; and Hoeynck, Bisthums Augsburg, 171–2.

74 Binterim, Pragmatisch Geschichte, vii. 357, 536–7; Browe, P., Die Verehrung der Eucharistie im Mittelalter, Munich 1933, 123–6Google Scholar.

75 Binterim, op. cit., vii. 472,486; there was a similar prohibition at the Synod of Kamin in 1454, ibid., 386.

76 Ibid., 377.

77 Hartzheim, Concilia germaniae, v. 944; Salzburg Obsequiale of 1511 fo. 102.

78 See 1487 Salzburg Obsequiale, fo. xcv; for Constance Dold, Konstanzer Ritualcn, 166; for Basel 1503, Harzheim, op. cit., vi. 8; for Cologne 1536, ibid., 293.

79 Franz, A., Die Messe im deulschen Miltelalter, Freiburg i. Br. 1902, 96–7Google Scholar.

80 Ibid., 87–92.

81 Ibid., 107–13.

82 Browe, Eucharistie 131; Franz, Benediktionm, ii. 106, 110 where he mentions a similar practice with a relic of the True Cross. There are formulae for the Wettersegen in the 1487 Augsburg Obsequiale, fo. xc; in Dold, Konstanzer Ritualen, 154; and in Hoeynck, Bisthums Augsburg, 428–31 (a fourteenth-century formula). In the diocese of Mainz, there seems to have been no officially approved formula during the early modern period, the earliest being 1742; Reifenberg, Sakramente, Sakramenlalien, ii. 477.

83 On ‘holy water’ in general see Franz, Benediktionen, i. 99–109; Reifenberg, Sakramcnte, Sakramentalien, i. 557–66. Weekly blessing was normal practice according to the 1487 Augsburg Obsequiale, fo. i, while the 1440 and 1480 Synods of Freising, and the 1490 provincial Synod of Salzburg encouraged participation by granting 40 days indulgence, Hartzheim, Concilia germaniae, v. 274, 520, 575.

84 See Franz, Benediktionen, i. 154–92, passim.

86 Bartsch, E., Die Sachbeschworung der rdmischen Liturgie, Miinster 1967, 337Google Scholar arguesthat the formulae are to be seen as a kind of metaphorical speech, in which objects are addressed as creatures or created matter, but not as things with life of their own (a concept close to Reifenberg's ‘zeichenhafte Liturgie’, see note 24). Similarly, Dinkel, P., Das Wesen der ordentlichen Realbenediktionen in der katholischen Kirche, Erlangen 1847, 69–70Google Scholar argues that such spirits are present outside, not inside the objects. However, there was clearly a common view in the period that sacred persons could inhabit a material object, for example, in the personality of a saint inherent in an image: see my comments in ‘Interpreting religion in early modern Europe’, European Studies Review, xiii (1983), 94–5Google Scholar. The question of animism and the nature of the demonic in the early modern period requires a detailed study.

86 Bartsch, Sachbeschworung, 339–40. On medieval views of the powers of demons, Franz, Benediktionen, ii. 19–37, 514–28.

87 Ibid., 344–7; see also Reifenberg, Sakramente, Sakramentalien, i. 535 on the interrelation between benedictions and exorcisms.

88 Obsequiale, fo. Iv: ‘… et quicquid ex eo tactum vel respersum fuerit, careat omnia immundicia, omnique impignatione spiritualis nequicia, per Christum dominum nostrum … ut quicquid in domibus vel locis fidelium hec unda resperserit, careat omnia immundicia, liberatur a noxa, non illic resideat spiritus pestilens, non aura corrumpens.’ The same formula is used in the Constance Ritual, Dold, Konstanzcr Ritualen 167–8.

89 Franz, Benediktionen, i. 109.

90 Ibid., i. 33. Bartsch, Sachbeschwörung, 349, would deny this, but he is primarily concerned to establish the liturgical legitimacy of the practices, and so gives only marginal attention to elements of folk belief. Reifenberg, in reviewing Bartsch in Liturgisches Jahrbuch, xix (1969), 251–2Google Scholar held that he was too willing to put the best construction on the old formulae. Reifenberg argued that there was a good deal of basis for animism in the old texts. Even Bartsch, op. cit., 349, had to admit that it is possible to interpret the texts through a ‘naive-realistic’ notion of efficacy.

91 The enumeration is taken from an Agenda sive Benedictionale commune, Thomas Wolf, Basel, 1520 (British Library C.64 d.l), which contains one of the largest collections of such benedictions. Perhaps this attests to its popularity as a non-official ritual book; there were four such Agenda commune in print between 1487 and 1520: see Franz, Benediktionen, i. XXXI.

92 Formula reformationis ecclesiae per Imperatorem Carolum V in comitiis Angustanis, 1548, reprinted in Blattau, Statuta, etc., 154. Probst, F., Kirchliche Benediktionen und ihre Verwaltung, Tübingen 1857, 49–60Google Scholar discusses the question in terms of a virtus habitualis inherent in persons or objects, which is sacralised by benediction; this is an inherent virtue, from which such objects gain their efficacy, especially that of driving off demons. Later, however, Probst distinguishes between two kinds of virtus involved, ibid., 79. This discussion still leaves the matter of physical or spiritual efficacy unresolved.

93 Franz, Benediktionen, i. 30.

94 Obsequiale, fo. xxii: ‘ut quod populus tuus tua veneratione hodierna die corporaliter agit, hoc spiritualiter summa devocione perficiat’.

95 See Bartsch, Sachbeschwörung, 354–417, passim.

96 Fos. xlviiv; xlviii-xlixv. See also Franz, Benediktionen, i. 381–8; ii. 9–12; Hindringer, Weiheross, 97–100. A blessing for oats was still in use in Bamberg, Mainz and Würzburg in 1928–32, Reifenberg, Sakramente, Sakramentalien, ii. 486, although not linked to St Stephen's Day.

97 Franz, Bentdiktionen, i. 118–19. Written in 1433, this was the first and most well-known monograph on Weihwasser, produced for the Council ofBasel. Luther took it as representative of Catholic superstition, see Werke, Weimar 1883, 1, 668–73.

98 Franz, i. 13 makes this an essential part of his definition of Sacramentals.

99 Sacramentals have attracted little attention since the monumental discussion of them by Adolf Franz in 1909, especially their links to folk religion. Works by Bartsch, Dinkel and Probst are more concerned to justify their modern use in the Catholic Church. Reifenberg's massive study of Sacraments and Sacramentals in use in the diocese of Mainz from c. 1400 until the present day concentrates narrowly on the acceptable usages, but is invaluable for historical development of the liturgy.

100 Franz, Benediktionen, i. 17–18; Probst, Benediktion, 53. The 1548 Augsburg Formula reformationis expressed it as follows: ‘Non quidem propter speciem operum, aut signum externorum vim et meritum; sed quod ad varios pietatis usus valeat: nee item, quod in ipsis fiducia salutatis sit locanda, sed quia exercitia quaedam sunt, quibus corpus simulmente and Deum seu cultum eius attrahatur’, Blattau, Statuta, etc. 153, a formulation clearly influenced by Lutheran attacks on good works, which presented such ‘ceremonies’ as pietatis incitamenta quaedam et alimenta, and left the question of efficacy undefined.

101 Franz, Benediktionen, i. 12–18; Stöber, A., Zur Geschichte des Volks-Aberglaubens im Anfange des xvi. Jhts. Aus der Emeis von Dr. Joh. Geiler von Kaisersberg, Basel 1875, 52Google Scholar.

102 This was expressed explicitly by Bartholomaeus Wagner in 1594 in discussing benedictions. Wagner linked the two as follows: … ‘auch Gott der Herr neben den geistlichen weyhungen und Seegen auch den Seegen dem zeitlichen geben und verlyhen … und an inen Gott der Herr erfült, wann ir meine gebot werd halten, solt ir gluck und hail haben, Kirchen Spiegel, fo. 72V. Wagner goes on to argue that the neglect of such benedictions has led to the dearth, hail and lightning which were plaguing the time.

103 The gathering of the herbs to be blessed on the Assumption, for example, enabled layfolk not only to choose those with popular ‘magical’ associations, but also to use spells and magical formulae as they did so: Pascher, ‘Kräuterweihe’. As examples of the numerous uses to which the blessed objects could be put, Freudenthal, Dai Feuer, 133–9; candles to predict the future, to expel demons, to protect in childbirth; used at ‘rain masses’ and in weather processions; their smoke used against evil spirits; used to make wax crosses to place on house lintels, ceilings, wagons and ploughs, or in orchards and cattle stalls.

104 For examples, see notes 39, 45, 50, 57, 59, 63, 80, 103.

105 Hartzheim, Concilia germaniae, vi. 284 (prohibition of the 1536 provincial Synod of Cologne); and Eisentraut, Feier der Sonn- und Festtage, 26, for condemnations by Jean Gerson in 1408.

106 Binterim, Pragmatisch Gesckichte, ii/2. 521–89, with a catalogue of thirty-one practices collected by St Boniface and condemned by a German council in 793. For a systematic treatment of ‘superstitions’ as they-were attacked by the Church up to the thirteenth century, see Harmening, D., Superstitio. Uberlieferungs- und theoriegeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur kirchlich-theologischm Aberglaubensliteratur des Mittelalters, Berlin 1979Google Scholar.

107 See Binterim, op. cit. vii. 258–62 on Cusa's influence from 1451, which probably led to the reforming statutes of diocesan and provincial synods of the 1450s and their re-affirmation of later fifteenth-century synods. The first attempt at sixteenth-century reform can be found in the ‘Regensburger Reformation’ of 1524, Hartzheim, Concilia germaniae, vi. 196–204, which had little impact, although Eck attempted to implement it in his parish in Ingolstadt, Greving, Ingolstadt, 120–1, but even there without great effect. More thorough in intent, at least, were synods such as the provincial ones of Cologne in 1536, 1548 and 1549, and those set up in the wake of the 1548 Formula reformationis of Charles v, such as the Synod of Trier of 1548, and the synods of Mainz and Augsburg of 1549. See Hartzheim, op. cit., vi. 235–763, passim.

108 Dold, Konstanzer Ritualen, 166; 1487 Obsequiale, fo. xcv (repeated in the 1499 edn, British Library IA 6780).

109 Binterim, Pragmatisch Geschichte, vii. 377, 386, 486; Hartzheim, op. cit., v. 408, 646, 944.

110 Binterim. op. cit., vii. 322; Dalham, Concilia Salzburgensis, 508; Hartzheim, op. cit., vi. 8, 293, 499.

111 Eisentraut, Feier der Sonn- und Festtage, 48; Hoeynck, Bisthums Augsburgi, 284–8.

112 Binterim, op. cit., vii. 236; Hartzheim, op. cit. vi. 130, 293.

113 Blattau, Statuta, i etc., 362.

114 Hoeynck, op. cit., 168.

115 Wagner, Kirchen Spiegel, fo. 71V.

116 Ibid., fo. 71r, and see note 71 above. These days were known as the Rauchnächte, usually constituted by the three or four solemn feasts within the Christmas cycle (Christmas, New Year, Epiphany; sometimes St Thomas on 29 December, sometimes Christmas Eve). There was a thurificatio domorum on these days, and they were associated with various folk customs such as masking, processions and noisemaking. See Bächthold-Stäubli, Handwörterbuch, vii. 529–32; and Franz, Benediktionen, i. 423; ii. 133, for the blessings.

117 Hindringer, Weihtross, 105.

118 Ibid., 96.

119 Burke, P., Popular Culture in Early Modern Europe, London 1978, 23–9Google Scholar.

120 See Meyer, H. B., Luther und die Messe, Paderborn 1965Google Scholar.

121 For supplicatory processions, Zeeden, E. W., Katholische Überlieferungen in den lutherischcn Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jakrhunderts, Münster 1959, 49–50Google Scholar.

122 See Klingner, E., Luther undder deutsche Volksaberglaubc, Berlin 1912, 18–65Google Scholar on Luther's beliefs in the Devil and demons in general, esp. 45 on his own use of exorcism; on baptismal water, which Luther calls ‘ein göttlich, himmlisch, heilig und selig Wasser’, Pfannenschmid, H., Das Weihwasser im heidnischen und christlichen Cultus, Hanover 1869, 134–5Google Scholar; on Protestant beliefs in signs, omens, etc. see Brückner, Volkserzählung, 326–92, 394–416. On Lutheran ‘miracles’, see my forthcoming article ‘Incombustible Luther: the image of the reformer in early modern Germany’.

123 On the continuity in general, Zeeden, Kirchenordnungen, 47–60; and Franz, ‘Passauer Ritualien’ 289, who points out that Protestant ritual books were often largely German versions of the old Catholic books, so much so that the bishop of Passau complained in 1586 about the danger of priests being misled into using them. On Brandenburg, Müller, ‘Domkirche zu Berlin’.

124 See Weiss, R., ‘Grundzüge einer protestantischen Volkskultur’, Schweizerisches Archiv für Volkskunde, lxi, 1965, 75–91Google Scholar.

125 Veit, Brauchtum und Kirche, 57.

126 On these points see Delumeau, J., ‘Les Réformateurs et la superstition’, in Actes du Colloque l'Amiral de Coligny el son Temps, Paris 1974, 451–87Google Scholar; Scribner, R. W., ‘Interpreting religion in early modern Europe’, European Studies Review, xiii (1983), 89–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Strauss, G., Luther's House of Learning, Baltimore 1978Google Scholar, esp. chs. 12–14; Fenlon, Dermot, ‘Interpretations of Catholic History’, this Journal, xxxiii (1982), 256–65Google Scholar.

127 For a useful guide to methodology, see Phythian-Adams, C., Local History and Folklore: a new framework, London 1975Google Scholar. I am grateful to Susan Brigden for calling my attention to this work.