No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 April 2015
In 1986, eight years after he had published his Luther's House of Learning, Gerald Strauss published his Law, Resistance, and the State, his second major attempt to deal with the emergence, nature, and functioning of the early modern territorial state in the Holy Roman Empire. This significant contribution to the interconnection of law and the Reformation deserves the attention of all who are committed to the study of both subjects. As far as I know, the book has not been examined in terms of these two subjects, though it is now available for some time. The following observations deal, therefore, with the book as a whole, especially problems of method, and in this connection the emphasis is on the opposition to Roman law. And then Strauss's view of the Reformation and its connection with the opposition to Roman law will be discussed. But first a brief view of the book.
1. Luther's House of Learning: Indoctrination of the Young in the German Reformation (Johns Hopkins U Press, 1978)Google Scholar; see also Strauss, Gerald, The Social Function of Schools in the Lutheran Reformation, in 28 History of Education Quarterly 191–206 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a critique of the book, see Oberman, Heiko A., Martin Luther: Vorläufer der Reformation, in Jüngel, Eberhardet al, eds, Verifikationen. Festschrift für Gerhard Ebeling zum 70. Geburtstag 91–119 (Mohr Verlag, 1982)Google Scholar; Kittelson, James M., Successes and Failures in the German Reformation: The Report from Strasbourg, in 73 Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 153–75 (1982)Google Scholar; Hendrix, Scott H., Luther's Impact on the Sixteenth Century, 16 Sixteenth Century Journal 3–14 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For Luther and education, see now also Reiner Preul, Erziehung bei Luther—Luthers Bedeutung für die Erziehung, in id, ed, Luther und die praktische Theologie. Beiträge zum kirchlichen Handeln in der Gegenwart 47-70 (Elwert Verlag, 1989); Schwarz, Reinhard, Luther als Erzieher des Volkes, 57 Luther-Jahrbuch 114–27 (1990)Google Scholar.
2. Law, Resistance, and the State: The Opposition to Roman Law in Reformation Germany (Princeton U Press, 1986)Google Scholar. In the following, page references given in parentheses or without siglum or short-title refer to this book—Robisheaux, Thomas, Rural Society and the Search for Order in Early Modern Germany (Cambridge U Press, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar presents a different picture of the situation in a territory than is suggested in Strauss's book; so does Grube, Walter, Der Stuttgarter Landtag 1457–1957Google Scholar. Von den Landständen zum demokratischen Parlament (Klett Verlag, 1957)Google Scholar. Cf Strauss's picture with Grube, 197-236.
3. See especially chapter 2. For the role of the jurists in the formation of the early modern European state, see now also Schnurr, Roman, ed, Die Rolle der Juristen bei der Entstehung des modernen Staates (Verlag Duncker and Humblot, 1986)Google Scholar. Strauss speaks of the “imagination” of the rulers and of their “plans for a ‘well-ordered police state’” (150), or of their “objectives” to be met (151), or of their “dynamic strategy … to absorb remaining enclaves of feudal independence.” (140) Or: “Good policy, order, and uniformity … served [“the ruling circles”] as operational targets.” (97) Or: “Concentration [of the legal system and of power] was the strategy at the summits of political power.” (96) On the one hand, there were “princely strategists,” on the other hand, there was “the intended victim of the would-be sovereign prince … the late feudal society.” (243) Rulers and jurists might have had 'sinister reasons' when they demanded that those who submitted grievances be specific by giving names, etc (256) Jurists had a “’rational’ goal toward which” they “labored,” namely, “a ruthless levelling program directed against all the ‘irrational,’ ‘outmoded’ features of their familiar social landscape.” (164) See also 96 ff, 136-145, 152, 191, 258, 271, 288. Reading this book and remembering some of those bumbling rulers who desperately tried to keep the wolf of bankruptcy away from the door (for example, Casimir and Georg of Brandenburg-Ansbach-Kulmbach), or of some of the men in the civil or judicial administration (for example, Lazarus Spengler, Georg Vogler, Johann von Schwarzenberg, Gregor Briick), one cannot help but wonder whether Strauss does not occasionally get a bit carried away.
4. Both books, but particularly Law, Resistance, and the State, have to be seen against the background of Blaschke's, KarlheinzWechselwirkungen zwischen der Reformation und dem Aufbau des Territorialstaates, 9 Der Staat. Zeitschrift für Staatslehre, öffentliches Recht und Verfassungsgeschichte 347–64 (1970)Google Scholar (see also Blaschke, Karlheinz, The Reformation and the Rise of the Territorial State, translation by Brady, Thomas A., in Tracy, James D., ed, Luther and the Modern State in Germany 61–75 (Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1986)Google Scholar, and Gerhard Oestreich's concept of Sozialdisziplinierung. (For this concept, see Schulze, Winfried, Gerhard Oestreichs Begriff ‘Sozialdisziplinierung in der frühen Neuzeit’, in 14 Zeitschrift für historische Forschung 265–302 (1987)Google Scholar; in general, see Hsia, R. Po-Chia, Social Discipline in the Reformation. Central Europe 1550-1750 (Routledge, 1989)Google Scholar. And in both books Strauss works with an understanding of the Reformation which in terms of the sources raises questions. In Luther's House of Learning, for example, he writes: “indoctrination could scarcely have achieved the hoped-for universal transformation of the individual and society. Thus the pedagogical endeavor failed. Its break-down brought to an end the most ambitious, radical, far-reaching, and fervently pursued hope of the Protestant Reformation. … [I]f it was [the Reformation's] central purpose to make people—all people—think, feel, and act as Christians, to imbue them with a Christian mind-set, motivational drive, and way of life, [the Reformation] failed.” Strauss, , Luther's House of Learning at 307Google Scholar (cited in note 1) (emphases mine). Quod demonstrandum erat! What does this understanding of the Reformation have to do with Luther's message about justification by faith and his view of the existence of the believer in this world as simul iustus et peccatorl Where does Luther speak of such a society-wide moral transformation? Was Luther ever this sort of Karlstadt or Müntzer? See also Oberman, Martin Luther (cited in note 1).
5. Strauss, , Law, Resistance, and the State at 210 (cited in note 2)Google Scholar.
6. Strauss speaks of those who were “disadvantaged” (191), or of “the common man.” (128 ff) Yet he never gives clear socio-economic profiles of people; see especially chapter 2. Rather, in broad strokes he paints a picture of two groups: the conservatives and the innovators, those who were against Roman law because they supposedly were victimized by it, and those who were for Roman law because they supposedly profited from it.
7. It seems to me that Strauss makes too much of this hatred for the legal profession. To make a statement as general as he sometimes makes his: There was hardly a profession or craft in the sixteenth century which, at one time or the other, was not “under indictment.”
8. Strauss mentions the Peasants' War (for example, 283). But as far as I see, he does not use it as explanation for the final defeat of the opposition to Roman law and to all for which he makes Roman law stand. He seems to see in the defeat of the peasants only one instance of retreat, a falling back of the opposition which stood in the way of the “forward march of the dominant state.” (271) He creates the impression that Roman law, those jurists and rulers, won, because the opposition faded away. Whatever he does say that could be considered an explanation of this defeat is too thin to accomplish this; see, for example, 158, 249, 265, 291. There is, of course, always religion and the church, especially the Reformation with its supposed pro-law position (see below, [II]) which are to explain this defeat. “[The rulers'] plans for a ‘well-ordered police state’ envisaged a politically passive role for their hardworking, disciplined, and submissive subjects. In close coordination with the leaders of the reorganized Reformation [see, however, the titles by Sommer and Hagenmaier, cited in note 10] and Counter-Reformation churches, they labored diligently to centralize politics and concentrate initiative and control. [Strauss footnotes this sentence with a reference to his Luther's House of Learning (cited in note 1)]. And in a purely formal way they succeeded.” (150 ff) Once “political resistance in any form [was] defamed by calling it a sin against God,” and once “ ‘Christian freedom’ came to be defined as a condition exclusively spiritual in its rightful expression” (283), it was all over for the opposition. One wonders what Strauss would say about this defeat of the opposition to Roman law and to all for which he makes Roman law stand if there never had been a Reformation.
9. Strauss underscores that this new state was not yet the state of Absolutism, and that there was a difference between the political reality and the ambitions of the rulers. “Political omnipotence by any late modern measure was beyond the capacities of the rulers of the time”; yet this new state was a police state nevertheless. (150) See also 72, 97, 98, 268 ff. For the emergence of the modern state, see also Poggi, Gianfranco, The Development of the Modern State: A Sociological Introduction (Stanford U Press, 1978)Google Scholar.
10. The reader will have to decide whether Strauss has an anti-Protestant, or anti-Luther, bias. Yet the fact that Strauss qualifies his chapter on “Law and Religion” (emphasis mine) with “The Reformation,” and then examines only some of the Radicals, Luther, Melanchthon, and some Lutherans for their stand on matters of law, makes one wonder. Throughout the book Strauss works heavily with materials drawn from the history of Bavaria which, as is known, strongly embraced Roman Catholicism. For a balanced picture of the impact of “religion” on the situation it would seem necessary that he have examined also the Roman Catholic position on matters of law. As it is now, the book gives the impression that only the Radicals and the Lutherans had anything at all to say about Roman law, the jurists, and the rulers. Further, recent scholarship has established the affinity which existed between Zwingli's thought and that of some of the Radicals. On page 128, Strauss mentions the “pronounced Zwinglian sympathies” of Gaismair; as far as I see, he quotes ca. three lines from Zwingli (54, 197), but he uses over twenty pages to deal with Luther! Finally, since Strauss connects the consolidation of the German sovereign, police state with the Lutheran Reformation, it would seem necessary to consider now also the argument of Helmut Quaritsch (Souveränität. Entstehung und Entwicklung des Begriffs in Frankreich und Deutschland vom 13. Jh. bis 1806 (Verlag Duncker and Humblot, 1986))Google Scholar to the effect that the term “sovereign” and the reality behind this term was a French import into the German landscape of political thought and reality. And for the clarification of the image of the Lutheran pastor and theologian (one of those “leaders of the reorganized Reformation”; as in note 8) as a servile servant of the prince (Fürstenknecht) one should now consider Sommer, Wolfgang, Gottesfurcht und Fürstenherrschaft. Studien zum Obrigkeitsverständnis Johann Arndts und lutherischer Hofprediger zur Zeit der altprotestantischen Orthodoxie (Verlag Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Hagenmaier, Monika, Predigt und Policey. Der gesellschaftspolitische Diskurs zwischen Kirche und Obrigkeit in Ulm 1614–1639 (Nomos Verlag, 1989)Google Scholar; in general, see Eiert, Werner, 2 Morphologie des Luthertums 291–395 (Beck Verlag, 1932)Google Scholar.
11. The liveliness of the author's way of writing sometimes leads him to a lack of precision, particularly when he deals with the realities which are to stand behind certain technical terms. See below, (II). Further, “natürlich recht” is not identical with “natural rights,” as these terms are generally understood (31).
12. Deutsche Rechtsaltertümer (1828). See also Handwörterbuch zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte, Erler, Adalbert and Kaufmann, Ekkehard, eds, 1:1806–1808 (Schmidt Verlag, 1977, incomplete)Google Scholar (“HRG”).
13. Das deutsche Genossenschaftsrecht (1868–1913), 4 volsGoogle Scholar; Die Genossenschaftstheorie und die deutsche Rechtssprechung (1887). See also HRG at 1:1522-1527; 1684-1687 (cited in note 12).
14. Recht und Verfassung im Mittelalter, in 120 Historische Zeitschrift 1–79 (1919; special edition, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15. That during the Third Reich consequences have been drawn from these concepts, which had a devastating impact on German society, need not be pursued in the present context.
16. For details, documentation, and literature, see Kroeschell, Karl, Germanisches Recht als Forschungsproblem, in Festschrift für Hans Thieme zu seinem 80. Geburtstag 3–19 (Thorbecke Verlag, 1986)Google Scholar.
17. Strauss, , Law, Resistance, and the State at 243 (cited in note 2)Google Scholar.
18. It is commonly accepted that the term “kaiserlich Recht,” which can be found in the 1495 constitution (for example, § 24) of the Reichskammergericht (Imperial Cameral Court), refers to Roman law. One has to be careful, however, not to press the content of the term. “The emperor's law,” or “the law of the Empire,” could also contain laws which were issued by the emperors of the Middle Ages, particularly of the later Middle Ages. See also Strauss's note 38 on page 69. For the use of the term, see also HRG at 2:563-565 (cited in note 12); Stölzel, Adolf, Die Entwicklung der gelehrten Rechtssprechung, 2 Billigkeits und Rechtspflege der Rezeptionszeit in Jülich-Berg, Bayern, Sachsen und Brandenburg 55–96 (Vahlen Verlag, 1910)Google Scholar. In general, see Gross, Hanns, Empire and Sovereignty. A History of the Public Law Literature in the Holy Roman Empire, 1599-1804, 53–57 (U of Chicago Press, 1973)Google Scholar.
19. Nor would his predecessors; for some details, see Heinrich Koller, Probleme der Schriftlichkeit und Verwaltung unter Kaiser Friedrich III., and Isenmann, Eberhard, Integrations-und Konsolidierungsprobleme der Reichsordnung in der zweiten Hälfte des 15. Jahrhunderts, in Seibt, Ferdinand and Eberhard, Winfried, eds, Europa 1500. Integrationsprozesse im Widerstreit: Staaten, Regionen, Personenverbände, Christenheit, 96–114, 115–49 (Klett-Cotta Verlag, 1987)Google Scholar.
20. Andlau's book is also known as Libellus de caesarea maiestate or De Imperio Romano. Andlau assigned to the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire all the rights and privileges which the Roman emperors supposedly had exercised. For Andlau, see HRG at 3:1634-1636 (cited in note 12); Neue deutsche Biographie, edited by the Historische Kommission bei der bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1:270 (Verlag Duncker and Humblot, 1953)Google Scholar.
21. What Strauss presents about the public law of the Empire (69-71, 74 ff, 138-140) does justice neither to the legal conditions nor to the political dynamics of the day. These materials one-sidedly (from the viewpoint of the territorial states) deal with the issues. One is particularly struck by the short shrift which he makes of the right of the Imperial estates to resist the emperor (238).
22. See, for example, Strauss, , Law, Resistance, and the State at 150 ff, 238 (cited in note 2)Google Scholar.
23. See also above, [2], the comments made on Strauss's way of dealing with the work of Peter von Andlau.
24. See also note 3. Luther, too, is presented as a conniver; he used his great rhetorical gifts to manipulate the people in an effort to assure the acceptance of his message. For details, see Krodel, Gottfried G., Luther and the Opposition to Roman Law in Germany, in 58 Luther-Jahrbuch 13–42 (1991)Google Scholar.
25. For the role of religion, see Strauss, , Law, Resistance, and the State at 210Google Scholar (cited in note 2), see notes 56 and 57 below. For Strauss, the actions of rulers in matters pertaining to church and religion, are determined by raison d'etat. He does not grant the possibility that a ruler might have acted out of religious convictions or concerns for his faith. See, for example, id 137-40, 150-53, 270 f. For the Fürstenspiegel literature, see Singer, Bruno, Die Fürstenspiegel in Deutschland im Zeitalter des Humanismus und der Reformation (Fink Verlag, 1981)Google Scholar; Estes, James M., Officium principis Christiani: Erasmus and the Origins of the Protestant State Church, 83 Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 49–72 (1992)Google Scholar; Schmidt, see note 78 below.
26. See Wolf, Erik, Große Rechtsdenker der deutschen Geistesgeschichte 73–100 (Mohr Verlag, 1939)Google Scholar; HRG at 4:1561-1564 (cited in note 12).
27. Große Rechtsdenker, at 81 ff, 83-89.
28. See, for example, Grube, , Stuttgarter Landtag at 203–05 (cited in note 2)Google Scholar.
29. See Friedensburg, Walter, ed, Kurmärkische Ständeakten aus der Regierungszeit Kurfürst Joachims II., 1:1535–1550 (Verlag Duncker and Humblot, 1913)Google Scholar, No. 16 (March 14, 1540), Introduction and § 11. (Roman law had been used in the territory for civil cases—thus Roman law had replaced the old law in personal matters [inheritances]—and the cities petitioned that it should be used also for criminal cases.) See also Strauss, , Law, Resistance and the State at 124 (cited in note 2)Google Scholar.
30. See, for example, Strauss, , Law, Resistance, and the State at 25 ff, 104 ff, 107, 113 ff, 160–163, 272, 283–290, 292 (cited in note 2)Google Scholar.
31. Heinz Angermeier has demonstrated (Die Vorstellungen des gemeinen Mannes von Staat und Reich im deutschen Bauernkrieg, in 53 Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte 329–43, especially 333 ff, 339, 341 ff (1966))Google Scholar that one of the expectations of the peasants was what we would call “social services” rendered by the state.
32. Even Strauss seems to hint at this; see Strauss, , Law, Resistance, and the State at 24 ff, 124, 160 ff, 273 ff (cited in note 2)Google Scholar.
33. See, for example, id at 107, 114-116, 161, 272, 274-278, 292 ff (cited in note 2).
34. For the ideas of the gemeine Mann on matters of law, the state and society, see Angermeier, (cited in note 31); Buszello, Horst, Die Staatsvorstellung des ‘gemeinen Mannes’ im deutschen Bauernkrieg, 4 Historische Zeitschrift, Beiheft N.F. 273–95 (1975)Google Scholar; Ganseuer, Frank, Der Staat des “gemeinen Mannes”. Gattungstypologie und Programmatik des politischen Schrifttums von Reformation und Bauernkrieg (Lang Verlag, 1985)Google Scholar.
35. For the Imperial level, see above, [2].
36. This question does not originate in the hindsight of the historian, as Strauss might argue (x, 128, 244). It does originate, however, in some familiarity with the judicial conditions on the local level.
37. See, for example, Seibt, Ferdinand, Zu einem neuen Begriff von der Krise des Spätmittelalters, in Eberhard, Winfried and Heimann, Heinz-Dieter, eds, Ferdinand Seibt: Mittelalter und Gegenwart. Ausgewählte Aufsätze. Festgabe zu seinem 60. Geburtstag 218–34 (Thorbecke Verlag, 1987)Google Scholar; Seibt, Ferdinand, Europa 1500—Integration im Widerstreit, and Heimann, Heinz-Dieter, Europa 1500: ‘Ordnung schaffen’ und ‘Sich-Einordnenlassen’ als Koordinaten eines Strukturprofils, in Seibt-Eberhard, , Europa 1500 at 9–23, 526–63Google Scholar (cited in note 19), 9-23, 526563; van Dülmen, Richard, Reformation als Revolution. Soziale Bewegung und religiöser Radikalismus in der deutschen Reformation 9–22 (Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1977)Google Scholar; Goertz, Hans-Jürgen, Pfaffenhaß und groß Geschrei, Die reformatorischen Bewegungen in Deutschland 1517-1529, 33–51 (Beck Verlag, 1987)Google Scholar; Wohlfeil, Rainer, Reformation in sozialgeschichtlicher Betrachtungsweise, in Hoyer, Siegfried, ed, Reform, Reformation, Revolution 95–104, esp. 96 f. (Karl Marx Universität, 1980)Google Scholar.
38. This is the impression which I received, notwithstanding the statement on page 169 to the effect that
lawyers did not invent the work they were prepared to do. Early forms of capitalism in the cities brought about conditions nearly ideal for the proliferation of a legal profession, as did the concurrent breakup of the feudal system, which proceeded largely as a sequence of litigating thrusts and parries in matters of landed properties and the immunities and privileges adhering to them. A more dynamic society generated new legal problems.
Strauss, , Law, Resistance, and the State at 169 (cited in note 2)Google Scholar.
The issue was not only a more dynamic society, but the fact that the traditional judicial system tied to local lordships was incapable or unwilling to maintain law and order. The prosecution of poachers would be a good example. For details from Württemberg, see Grube, , Stuttgarter Landtag at 200, 204, 230 ff (cited in note 2)Google Scholar.
39. See also above, [1].
40. Strauss occasionally mentions economic problems (for example, 169, 292 ff). But he does not give economics the weight which it should have.
41. From the wealth of material available on the social history of the Reformation and th debate on this subject, see Dickens, A.G., The German Nation and Martin Luther (Edwar Arnold, 1974)Google Scholar; Midelfort, H.C. Erik, Toward a Social History of Ideas in the German Reformation, in Sessions, Kyle C. and Bebb, Phillip N., eds, Pietas et Societas. New Trends in Reformo tion Social History. Essays in Memory of Harold J. Grimm 11–21 (Sixteenth Century Jourm Publishers, 1985)Google Scholar; Rublack, Hans-Christoph, Reformation and Society, in Hoffmar, Manfred ed, Luther, Martin and the Modern Mind. Freedom, Conscience, Toleration, Rights 237–7 (Mellen Press, 1985)Google Scholar; Wohlfeil, Reformation in sozialgeschichtlicher Betrachtungsweise, (cite in note 37); Scribner, Robert W., Is there a Social History of the Reformation? 4 Social History 483–505 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and his The Reformation as a Social Movement, in Mommsen, Wolfgang J.et al., eds, Stadtbürgertum und Adel in der Reformation: Studien zur Sozialgeschichte der Reformation in England und Deutschland 49–79 (Klett-Cotta Verlag, 1979)Google Scholar; Goertz, , Pfaffenhaß 18–29, 235–50 (cited in note 37)Google Scholar; Brady, Thomas A., ‘The Social History of the Reformation’ between ‘Romantic Idealism’ and ‘Sociologism’: A Reply, in Mommsen, , Stadtbürgertum un Adel, 40–44Google Scholar.
42. See also Krodel, , 58 Luther-Jahrbuch at 13–42 (cited in note 24)Google Scholar.
43. For Luther and law, see, for example, Heckel, Johannes, Lex charitatis. Eine juristische Untersuchung über das Recht in der Theologie Martin Luthers, 2nd ed rev by Heckel, Martin (Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1973)Google Scholar; Heckel, Martin, Luther und das Recht. Zur Rechtstheologie Martin Luthers, 36 Neue juristische Wochenschrift 2521–57 (1983)Google Scholar; Mau, Rudolf, Das Verhältnis von Glauben und Recht nach dem Verständnis Luthers, in 84 Zeitschrift der Savigny Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung 170–95 (1984)Google Scholar; Günther, Gerhard, Martin Luther und das Recht, in Steinmetz, Max and Brendler, Gerhard, eds, Weltwirkung der Reformation, 233–50Google Scholar, Internationales Symposium anläßlich der 450-Jahr-Feier der Reformation in Wittenberg vom 24. bis 26. Oktober 1967 (Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1969); Scholler, Heinrich, Martin Luther on Jurisprudence, Freedom, Conscience, Law, 15 Valparaiso Univ L Rev 265–81 (1981)Google Scholar; Gottfried G. Krodel, Luther-an Anti-nomian?, forthcoming. In general, see Berman, Harold J. and Witte, John Jr., The Transformation of Western Legal Philosophy in Lutheran Germany, 62 S Cal L Rev 1573–1660 (1989)Google Scholar. For the role of language in law, and thus of communication, see Grossfeld, Bernhard, Language and the Law, 50 J of Air Law & Commerce 793–803 (1985)Google Scholar. For the role of language in the history of society in general, see Burke, Peter and Porter, Roy, eds, The Social History of Language 1–20 (Cambridge U Press, 1987)Google Scholar. For Luther the communicator, see Krodel, , Lutherand the Opposition at 13–42 (cited in note 24)Google Scholar; in general, see Waswo, Richard, Language and Meaning in the Renaissance 235–49 (Princeton U Press, 1987)Google Scholar. (Marginally, as far as I see, Strauss does not deal in detail with the book by Johannes Heckel, which has to be considered the masterwork on Luther and law.)
44. Strauss undergirds here the results of his Luther's House of Learning (cited in note 1) to the effect that the Reformation in Germany was a failure; see also his Success and Failure in the German Reformation, 67 Past and Present 30–63 (05 1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See further, Kittelson, Successes and Failures (cited in note 1).
45. Luther's House of Learning (cited in note 1).
46. A quarter of a century ago Franz Lau has spoken of “The Reformation Unleashed” and of “The Development of Reformed Church Order” (“Anbruch und Wildwuchs der Reformation”; “Die Entstehung reformatorischen Kirchentums”); see Lau, Franz and Bizer, Ernst, A History of the Reformation in Germany to 1555, Hardy, Brian A., trans (Adam and Charles Black, 1969)Google Scholar (the German original was published in 1964). For the debate on Lau's term “Wildwuchs” (wild growth), see Moeller, Bernd, Was wurde in der Frühzeit der Reformation in den deutschen Städten gepredigt?, 75 Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 176–93 (1984)Google Scholar (contra), and Karant-Nunn, Susan C., What was preached in German Cities in the Early Years of the Reformation: Wildwuchs versus Lutheran Unity, in Bebb, Phillip N. and Marshall, Sherrin, eds, The Process of Change in Early Modern Europe. Essays in Honor of Miriam Usher Chrisman 81–96 (Ohio U Press, 1988)Google Scholar (pro). Regardless how one evaluates Lau's term (eine nicht glückliche Formulierung; so Bräuer, Siegfried, in 102 Theologische Literaturzeitung 58 (1977)Google Scholar; “ein nicht eben glückliche[s] Thema”; so Brecht, Martin in 25.I/II Verkündigung und Forschung 110 (1980)Google Scholar, it seems to me that the term does justice to the situation in the early 1520s; see also Krodel, Gottfried G., ‘Evangelische Bewegung’—Luther—Anfänge der lutherischen Landeskirche: Die ersten Jahre der Reformation im Schnittpunkt von Kirchengeschichte und Sozialgeschichte, in Hauschild, Wolf-Dieteret al, eds, Luthers Wirkung. Festschrift für Martin Brecht zum 60. Geburtstag 9–45, especially 20 (Calwer Verlag, 1992)Google Scholar. One should not understand the term in a negative way and use it to designate only those positions and efforts which were different from those of Luther (as Bräuer seems to do), thus suggesting that Luther represented the “good growth” and everything else the “wild growth.” Martin Haas is to the point when he writes: “Damit [Wildwuchs der Reformation] bezeichnet [Lau] das Phänomen, daß auf der Basis des postulierten Biblizismus und der damit verbundenen Verkündigung des Wortes eine Vielzahl von reformatorischen Richtungen zu leben begann. Die gemeinsame Haltung war die biblizistisch orientierte Kritik an der Kirche, doch die Frage, wo, in welchem Ausmaße und mit welchen Mitteln Reformen durchzuführen seien, wurde vorerst noch kaum beantwortet. … [While the following sentence raises questions, it is helpful nevertheless.] Mit Recht könnte man noch über Lau hinausgehen und auch die Frühzeit der später dominierenden Reformatoren als Wildwuchs bezeichnen, weil ihre Lehre noch keineswegs ausgeglichen und gefestigt war.” See his Der Weg der Täufer in die Absonderung, in Goertz, Hans-Jürgen, ed, Umstrittenes Täufertum 1525-1975 50–78, especially 55, 57 (Verlag Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1975)Google Scholar—Berndt Hamm (Volksreformation—Stadtreformation—Fürstenreformation: Zur Problematik reformationshistorischer Klassifizierungen, forthcoming) is now successfully challenging the phase model.
47. For the beginnings of Luther and the beginnings of the Reformation, and their relationship to each other, see Dickens, German Nation (cited in note 41); Heiko A. Oberman, Headwaters of the Reformation: Initio Lutheri - Initio Reformationis, and Spitz, Lewis W., Headwaters of the Reformation: Studio Humanitatis, Luther Senior, et Initio Reformationis, in Oberman, Heiko A., ed, Luther and the Dawn of the Modern Era. Papers for the Fourth International Congress for Luther Research 40–116 (Brill Press, 1974)Google Scholar. In his contribution to the Ebeling Festschrift (cited in note 1), Oberman contrasts (115) Luther's “ur-christliche Naherwartung im Wissen um die endzeitliche Bedrohung des Evangeliums durch den Antichrist”—the basis on which Luther developed an ethos of the interim, designed to bring about, not a society-wide moral or spiritual transformation (so Strauss, as in note 4), but the creation of ecclesiastical and social conditions (a “Besserung” of conditions, a Reformation, a new äußere Ordnung and Zucht, accomplished through the ecclesiastical visitations) so that the gospel and its proclamation may be able to gather the true believers and strengthen them against the attacks of the devil and his Antichrist (Id at 104-106, 111-114, 116 ff)—to Melanchton's “Vertrauen auf evangelische Aufklärung in Predigt und Schule. Bei Melanchton konnte die ‘Besserung,’ die für Luther die Sammlung der Gläubigen in den Wehen der Endzeit ermöglicht, zu jener ‘Reformation’ werden, die unseren Sprachgebrauch bis heute bestimmt. Erasmianische Bildung und reformatorische Theologie sind hier zur Geschichtsmacht zusammengewachsen, die den neuzeitlichen Protestantismus bis tief in dessen Selbstverständnis hinein geprägt und Luther als ‘Vorreformator’ zurückgelassen hat.” (Id at 117.) Oberman contrasts Luther and the “Strategie der Visitationen” (Id at 115) to Melanchthon's theological positions and affirms the two phase model, but does so on a theological and not a social or political basis. Regardless how one evaluates details in Oberman's argumentation, he is correct in placing Luther and his reformation into a strictly theological, religious frame; a passage such as one can find in Luther's preface (1528) to Von Priesterehe des würdigen Herrn Licentiaten Stephan Klingebeil 26 (D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, 530.7–531.29 (Böhlau Verlag, 1909)Google Scholar sufficiently documents this, and even Strauss seems to agree with this understanding of this passage (241). In Luther's ethos of the interim this theological element is creatively coordinated with the social conditions of the day. Goertz's criticism of Oberman originates in an understanding of “reformation” in which this theological element is replaced with social ones; see Pfaffenhaß at 235 (cited in note 37). (For the fact that Oberman's view is not quite as peculiar as one has to assume on the basis of Goertz's remark, see Dülmen, , Reformation als Revolution at 30–34Google Scholar (cited in note 37)—Strauss places the beginnings of the Reformation under an umbrella marked “Anti-Roman Law,” and this label shapes his image of the Reformation as a whole. For Goertz (Pfaffenhaß), anticlericalism plays the same role that Strauss's Anti-Roman Law umbrella plays. (One wonders with how many more umbrellas social historians will come up and thus reduce a higly complex situation to a catchword.) See also Hamm (cited in note 46). Goertz never defines anticlericalism, nor does he differentiate between anticlericalism as such and anti-Romanism, or between criticism of the conduct of the clergy and criticism of their function in the process of salvation. Bernd Moeller has argued (Luther und die Städte, in Gemeinsame Kommission der Rheinisch-Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Stiftung, Gerda Henkel, ed, Aus der Lutherforschung. Drei Vorträge 9–26, especially 14 (Westdeutscher Verlag, 1983)Google Scholar, that the role which Pfaffenhaß played in the cities is not clear-cut. (See also Kießling, Rolf, Bürgerliche Gesellschaft und Kirche in Augsburg im Spätmittelalter: Ein Beitrag zur Strukturanalyse der oberdeutschen Reichsstadt 306–08, 349–52 (Mühlberger Verlag, 1971)Google Scholar. Even in the countryside, at least around Rothenburg, Pfaffenhaß and reformation as a religious event may not simply be coor dinated; see Vice, Roy L., The Village Clergy near Rothenburg ob der Tauber and the Peasants' War, 82 Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 123–46 (1991)Google Scholar. For a view of anticlericalism at the eve of the Reformation, from which one would have to draw conclusions which would result in a picture different than Goertz's, see Lang, Peter T., Würfel, Wein und Wettersegen. Klerus und Gläubige im Bistum Eichstätt am Vorabend der Reformation, in Press, Volker and Stievermannn, Dieter, eds, Martin Luther. Probleme seiner Zeit 219–43, especially 236 ff (Klett-Cotta Verlag, 1986)Google Scholar; for a view of the role of anticlericalism, which is different than the one presented by Goertz, see van Dülmen, Richard, Volksfrömmigkeit und konfessionelles Christentum im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert, 11 Geschichte und Gesellschaft. Zeitschrift für Historische Sozialwissenschaft, Sonderheft, 14–30, especially 21 ff (1986)Google Scholar.
48. Der Bauernkrieg und das angebliche Ende der lutherischen Reformation als spontaner Volksbewegung, 26 Luther-Jahrbuch 109–34 (1959)Google Scholar. For the problems connected with the term “Volksbewegung,” see Hillerbrand, Hans J., Reformation und Bauernkrieg, in Brendler, Gerhard and Laube, Adolf, eds, Der deutsche Bauernkrieg 1524/25. Geschichte - Traditionen -Lehren 123–29, especially 125-27 (Akademie Verlag, 1977)Google Scholar.
49. See discussion at text accompanying notes 34-35.
50. See also Oberman, Heiko A., The Gospel of Social Unrest: 450 Years After the So-Called ‘German Peasants' War’ of 1525, 69 Harvard Theological Revue 103–29, especially 113–16 (1976)Google Scholar.
51. Notwithstanding his statement in note 56 on page 210 (see note 57 below).
52. See also Luther's House of Learning at 313 (cited in note 1), n 50: “Luther himself blurred the division between secular and ecclesiastical competences and—in any case—events soon passed him by. What Luther meant in matters of education … has little to do with what governments did after ca. 1530.”
53. For the continuation of the text, see above, the first paragraph of the text quoted from pages 223 ff.
54. See above, the last paragraph of the text quoted from pages 223 ff.
55. Taking his point of departure with anticlericalism, Goertz speakes (Pfaffenhaß at 23550 (cited in note 37)) of the “revolutionäre Dynamik reformatorischer Bewegungen.” (Emphasis added).
56. Quod demonstrandum erat. For Strauss's evidence—one page in an article by Scribner—see 197, n 16. On the basis of a quantitative analysis of 3000 Flugschriften, Köhler, Hans-Joachim demonstrated (Erste Schritte zu einem Meinungsprofil der frühen Reformationszeit, in Press-Stievermann, at 244–81Google Scholar (cited in note 47)) that “die Rolle der Hl. Schrift als Quelle der Lehre” “das mit Abstand meistdiskutierte Thema ist,” and this not only in those texts which were favorable to Luther (259).
57. Strauss, , Law, Resistance, and the State at 197Google Scholar (cited in note 2). How is one to balance this statement with Strauss's affirmation (210, n 56) to the effect that it seems to him that it is not “religion” which “is always the primary arena of experience” but that it is “mundane life what matters,” “then [i.e., in the first half of the sixteenth century] as now”? If this was indeed so, then obviously people would not “above all other things” be interested in what the gospel has to tell them regarding their lives. Or equally obviously “religious justification” for any “drastic change” (196) was meaningless and unneccesary, and so was the conforming of human laws to divine commandments (197). If it was the mundane life that mattered to people, why would “everyone” agree with Luther that “the honor due to God should be humankind's overriding concern”? (223) It seems to me here is a contradiction in the evaluation of the role of religion in the lives of the people of early sixteenth century Germany. Working with the differentiation between private and official religion, Dülmen develops (Volksfrömmigkeit (cited in note 47)) a balanced and more positive view of the role religion played in the lives of the people.
58. Strauss, Gerald, transl and ed, Manifestations of Discontent in Germany on the Eve of the Reformation: A Collection of Documents (Indiana U Press, 1971)Google Scholar; see also the collections of sources (in English and German), dealing with the “forerunners of the Reformation,” edited by Gustav A. Benrath, or Matthew Spinka, or Heiko A. Oberman.
59. For an example of how Strauss works with Luther's Address, see Krodel, , Luther and the Opposition at 21 ff (cited in note 24)Google Scholar.
60. See also id at 26-37.
61. See above, the end of the text quoted from pages 223 ff.
62. On the basis of the “given,” Luther's success, Strauss engages in some kind of histoire régressive, not by way of sources but by way of speculation.
63. For Strauss there was one reformation which had many parties and scenarios. Rainer Wohlfeil sees in the Reformation many movements in which religious and social elements interacted. But he also clearly differentiates between “Reformation” as an event of religious-churchly renewal, and the effects which proceeded from this event and their impact on society. See his Einführung in die Geschichte der deutschen Reformation 71–73 (Beck Verlag, 1982)Google Scholar, his Reformation als frühbürgerliche Revolution? in Reuter, Fritz, ed, 1521. Luther in Worms. 1971. Ansprachen, Vorträge, Predigten und Berichte zum 450 Jahrgedenken 44–59, esp 57–59 (Worms: Stadtarchiv, 1973)Google Scholar, and his Reformation in sozialgeschichtlicher Betrachtungsweise at 99-100 (cited in note 37). Goertz, (Pfaffenhaß at 235 ffGoogle Scholar (cited in note 37)) speaks of a narrow and a wide understanding of the Reformation. So also do Wohlfeil, (Reformation als frühbürgerliche Revolution? at 58)Google Scholar and Wilhelm Maurer (cited in this note, below); he, as early as 1961, spoke of the Reformation stride and late dicta, yet delivered a picture quite different from that of Goertz. Following Wohlfeil, (Einführung, at 50, 96–113)Google Scholar, Goertz also speaks of “die reformatorischen Bewegungen” (see the subtitle of his Pfaffenhaß, and id at 245). He also poses the question (11) who understands the Reformation better—the church historian or the secular historian? This question demonstrates a lack of clarity regarding the nature of the church and of the work of the church historian. It also demonstrates the fog which presently hovers over the history of the Reformation. (See also Oberman, Heiko A., Werden und Wertung der Reformation. Thesen und Tatsachen, in Bäumer, Remigius, ed, Reformatio ecclesiae. Beiträge zu kirchlichen Reformbemühungen von der alten Kirche bis zur Neuzeit. Festgabe für Erwin Iserloh 487–503, especially 490-93 (Schöningh Verlag, 1980))Google Scholar. In light of Maurer's, WilhelmReformation (in Galling, Kurt, ed, 5 Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 858–73, esp. 859, 863 f. (3rd ed, Mohr Verlag, 1961))Google Scholar, Goertz's question is superfluous. (See also Brecht, , Verkündigung und Forschung at 74 ffGoogle Scholar (cited in note 46). For church historians the history of the Reformation was never as much “theologisiert” as Goertz suggests (17) because the church is not a civitas platonica but an institution of this world, granted a special one, but an institution nevertheless. If one wishes to come to terms with “das Signifikante” not of the “Reformationszeit,” as Goertz, argues (Pfaffenhaß at 235)Google Scholar but of the phenomenon “the Reformation,” then it seems that Goertz's book is not very helpful. To raise just one question: What is the term “Reformationszeit” to mean? For Goertz the term designates a period with an unspecified terminus a quo which ends in 1529 and which was shaped by anticlericalism. Apparently after 1529 a new “Zeit” begins; beyond generalities this terminus ad quern is not substantiated, however. In any case, the work of social historians, such as Strauss and Goertz, raises important questions for both the church historian and the secular historian. May one in connection with the first half of the sixteenth century label every manifestation of change— desired, intended, accomplished—with the term “the Reformation”? (See also below, [3.3].) Where in the first half of the sixteenth century is the fine line between Reformation and revolution? Has the time come to replace the term “the Reformation” with “reforming movements”?
64. Die Ursachen der Reformation 91–99 (Oldenbourg Verlag, 1917)Google Scholar.
65. See, for example, Karl Holl contra Johannes Haller in Holl, Karl, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte, 1 Luther 468, n 1 (6th ed, Mohr Verlag, 1932)Google Scholar.
66. See also Krodel, , 58 Luther and the Opposition at 16–19, 35–37 (cited in note 24)Google Scholar.
67. For Strauss's promises supposedly made by Luther, see also McCue, James F., Luther and the Problem of Popular Preaching, 16 Sixteenth Century Journal 33–43 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. McCue demonstrated that for his audience Luther made salvation a goal more difficult to be reached than the Medieval church had made it, notwithstanding the sola gratia and sola fide principles. The implementation of these principles demanded from the individual faith in terms of a personally responsible listening and responding to God's word as law and gospel.
68. See also Oberman, , Vorldufer at 94Google Scholar (cited in note 1), and id, n 18.
69. And what Luther supposedly promised the people, or what people supposedly heard Luther promise them, was a sort of Utopian escape from present legal conditions (41, 223, 239), a “transformation” of the legal conditions of the day. See also note 4.
70. See above, the last paragraph of the text quoted from pages 223 ff.
71. For the following, see Krodel, , ‘Evangelische Bewegung’ at 10–14 (cited in note 46)Google Scholar.
72. See, for example, Eugene F. Rice, The Meanings of ‘Evangelical’, and Bouwsma, William J., Intervention re Father McConica's Application of the Term ‘Evangelical’ to Erasmus, in Trinkaus, Charles and Oberman, Heiko A., eds, The Pursuit of Holiness in Late Medieval and Renaissance Religion. Papers from the Michigan Conference 472–76 (Brill Press, 1974)Google Scholar.
73. See the activities of the so-called “evangelical Catholics” in the 1530s.
74. In this connection the case study by Demandt, Dieter (Patronat und Pflegschaft im spätmittelalterlichen Kirchenwesen der Stadt Eger, 27 Bohemia. Jahrbuch des Collegium Carolinum 37–55 (1986))Google Scholar is of interest, even though the author concentrates on the later Middle Ages and deals with a city government and not a territorial ruler. He demonstrates that through the foundations of mass stipends and their control and other actions, the city council ‘elbowed’ its way into ecclesiastical affairs, but did so for no other reasons than to promote religiosity and serve the church. See also Stievermann, Schulze, and Stark, (cited in notes 8182); Schröcker, Sebastian, Die Kirchenpflegschaft. Die Verwaltung des Niederkirchenvermögens durch Laien seit dem ausgehenden Mittelalter (Schöningh Verlag, 1934)Google Scholar. The materials, which Sieglerschmidt, Jörn (Territorialstaat und Kirchenregiment. Studien zur Rechtsdogmatik des Kirchenpatronatsrechts im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert (Böhlau Verlag, 1987))Google Scholar produced, suggest that in terms of the role of the laity in the church in connection with the Patronatsrecht the solution worked out in the landesherrliche Kirchenregiment was an improvement over the medieval situation.
75. For this concept, see the Fürstenspiegel books (cited in note 25) and the fascinating article by Rainer, and Wohlfeil, Trudl, Stände und Konfessionen. Lucas Cranach d.J.: ‘Die Predigt Johannes des Täufers' Bartholomäus Bruyn d. Ä.: ‘Die Drei Stände der Christenheil’ im Vergleich, in Timmermann, Heiner, ed, Die Bildung des frühmodernen Staates—Stände und Konfessionen 263–92 (Dadder Verlag, 1989)Google Scholar; see also Schmidt, Niedersächsisches (cited in note 78), and Stürner, Peccatum und Potestas (cited in note 92).
76. See Krodel, , ‘Evangelische Bewegung’ at 15–19 (cited in note 46)Google Scholar.
77. Strauss, , (Law, Resistance, and the State at 271, n 112, also 268, n 103 (cited in note 2))Google Scholar supports his weighty statement (“By the middle of the sixteenth century …”) with a broad reference to Blaschke's “Wechselwirkungen,” as in note 4, and by arguing that Blaschke makes “this argument … for Saxony, and by implication for other Protestant territories.” Whether this essay-like article can support the weight of Strauss's position may be questioned; those “implications” look to me to be suggestions for further work rather than final statements that could carry the weight of such a far-reaching statement as Strauss makes. This is, of course, a matter of the personal understanding of an author's way of writing, but certainly it would have been preferable had Strauss produced details from the wealth of materials, mentioned on p. 347 of Blaschke's article. Notwithstanding one's admiration for Blascke's work, if Strauss wishes his position to have any weight, then it seems to me he has to produce more material than this reference. Blanket statements, such as Strauss makes here, are of little value unless they are supported by detailed investigations of local situations. As Blascke affirms, he deals only with one case; and as he argues on the basis of the situation in the Oberlausitz (361 f.), there were exceptions to the rule (or to say it differently, things are not always as clear-cut as they appear at a first glance). Bofinger, Wilhelm F. (Kirche und werdender Territorialstaat. Eine Untersuchung zur Kirchenreform Herzog Ulrichs von Württemberg, 65 Blätter für wüt-tembergische Kirchengeschichte 75–149 (1965))Google Scholar and Grube, (Stuttgarter Landtag, at 182 ff, 187, 192 ff, 227–31Google Scholar (cited in note 2)) present another case study with different shadings in the picture. (“Vom Landtag selbst [i.e., from the estates, Strauss's “heart of resistance” of the ambitions of rulers and jurists; 240] ging der Anstoß aus, die neue Kirchenverfassung in die landständische Verfassung einzuschmelzen.” So Grube, 227). And from my own work in the Margraviate of Brandenburg-Ansbach-Kulmbach, I know that the situation was again slightly different than Blaschke and Strauss suggest. For the future developments, see, Robisheaux, (cited in note 2); Bofinger, Wilhelm F., Zur Rolle des Luthertums in der Geschichte des deutschen Ständeparlamentarismus, in Liebing, Heinz and Scholder, Klaus, eds, Geist und Geschichte der Reformation. Festgabe Hanns Rücken zum 65 Geburtstag 397–417 (De Gruyter Verlag 1966)Google Scholar; Press, Volker, Der Typ des absolutistischen Fürsten in Süddeutschland, in Vogler, Günter, ed, Europäische Herrscher. Ihre Rolle bei der Gestaltung von Politik und Gesellschaft vom 16. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert 123–41 (Böhlau Verlag, 1988)Google Scholar.
78. In addition to the materials cited by Strauss in note 187 on page 234, see also, Karl Holl, Luther und das landesherrliche Kirchenregiment, in Holl, , Luther at 326–80 (cited in note 65)Google Scholar; Junghans, Helmar, Freiheit und Ordnung bei Luther während der Wittenberger Bewegung und der Visitationen, 97 Theologische Literaturzeitung 95–104 (1972)Google Scholar; Spitz, Lewis W., Luther's Ecclesiology and his Concept of the Prince as Notbischof, 22 Church History 113–41 (1953)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Höß, Irmgard, The Lutheran Church of the Reformation: Problems of its Formation and Organization in the Middle and North German Territories, in Buck, Lawrence and Zophy, Jonathan, eds, The Social History of the Reformation. In Honor of Harold J. Grimm 317–39 (Ohio State University Press, 1972)Google Scholar; Schmidt, Heinrich, Kirchenregiment und Landesherrschaft im Selbstverständnis niedersächsischer Fürsten des 16. Jahrhunderts, 56 Niedersächsisches Jahrbuch für Landesgeschichte 31–58 (1984)Google Scholar; Schwanhäusser, Gertrud, Das Gesetzgebungsrecht der evangelischen Kirche unter dem Einfluss des landesherrlichen Kirchenregiments im 16. Jahrhundert (Claudius Verlag, 1967)Google Scholar; Sieglerschmidt (cited in note 74). For what amounts to a revisionist—and one might add, quite intriguing—view of the role of the ruler as Notbischof, see Oberman, , Vorläufer at 105 ff, 112–14 (cited in note 1)Google Scholar.
79. For the beginnings of an evangelical ecclesiastical law, see Sprengler-Ruppenthal, Anneliese, Zu den theologischen Grundlagen reformatorischen Kirchenrechts, 85 Jahrbuch für niedersächsische Kirchengeschichte 67–85 (1987)Google Scholar, and Blaschke, , Wechselwirkungen at 356 (cited in note 4)Google Scholar. It would be interesting to pursue the potential which Luther's ideas for the functioning of a canonicly elected diocesan bishop, or the well-known events in Prussia, had, or could have had, for the development of an evangelical ecclesiastical law. Luther presented these ideas in 1522, and he reshaped them in 1530 in connection with the Diet of Augsburg. For Luther, see Gottfried G. Krodel, Luther und das Bischofsamt nach seinem Buch ‘Widerden falsch genannten geistlichen Stand des Papstes und der Bischöfe’, and Decot, Rolf, Luthers Kompromißvorschlag an die Bischöfe auf dem Augsburger Reichstag 1530, in Brecht, Martin, ed, Martin Luther und das Bischofsamt 27–65, 109–119 (Calwer Verlag, 1990)Google Scholar. For the events in Prussia, see Höß, Irmgard, Episcopus evangelicus. Versuche mit dem Bischofsamt im deutschen Luthertum des 16. Jahrhunderts, in Iserloh, Erwin, ed, Confessio Augustana und Confutatio. Der Augsburger Reichstag 1530 und die Einheit der Kirche. Internationales Symposium der Gesellschaft zur Herausgabe des Corpus Catholicorum in Augsburg vom 3.-7. 09 1979, 499–516, especially 512–16 (Aschendorff Verlag, 1980)Google Scholar, and her The Lutheran Church of the Reformation, (cited in note 78). For further details, see Maurer, Wilhelm, Historical Commentary on the Augsburg Confession, Anderson, H. George, trans, 59–85 (Fortress Press, 1986)Google Scholar; Irmgard Höß, Luther und die Bischofseinsetzung in Merseburg und Kammin, and Delius, Hans-Ulrich, Das Naumburger Bischofsexperiment und Martin Luther, in Brecht, , Luther und das Bischofsamt at 123n40Google Scholar. It is noteworthy that in 1522 Luther was not alone in his hope that some—unnamed—canonicly elected bishops would tolerate the preaching of the gospel and undertake the necessary reforms within the church. Sometime in 1521 Johann Eberlin of Günzburg published, among other booklets, his Sieben fromm, aber trostlos Pfaffen klagen ihre Not einer dem andern and his Der frommen Pfaffen Trost. In the Trost for the fifth priest, Eberlin makes some remarkably positive statements about what one could consider ‘crypto-Lutheran’ attitudes and actions of some-unnamed-bishops. See 2 Enders, Ludwig, ed, Johann Eberlin von Günzburg. Sämtliche Schriften, 91 ff (Niemeyer Verlag, 1900)Google Scholar (note the new title of this vol. 2); for Eberlin, see Heger, Günther, Johann Eberlin von Günzburg und seine Vorstellungen über eine Reform in Reich und Kirche (Verlag Duncker and Humblot, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Ganseuer, at 236-79, 316-50 (cited in note 4).
80. For details, see Hendrix, Scott H., Luther and the Papacy. Stages in a Reformation Conflict 68–70 (Fortress Press, 1981)Google Scholar; 3 Wrede, Adolf, ed, Deutsche Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Karl V., 421.12-.23, 746.3-747.5 (repr ed Verlag Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1963)Google Scholar; Grundmann, Herbert, Landgraf Philipp von Hessen auf dem Augsburger Reichstag 1530 10 (Bertelsmann Verlag, 1959)Google Scholar, and passim, and his Valentin von Tetleben. Protokoll des Augsburger Reichstages 1530 (Verlag Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1958)Google Scholar, index, s.v. “Konzil” and s.v. “Hessen: Landgraf Philipp”; Müller, Gerhard, Die römische Kurie und die Reformation 1523-1534. Kirche und Politik während des Pontifikates Clemens' VII (Mohn Verlag, 1969)Google Scholar.
81. Die Problematik des spätmittelalterlichen Landeskirchentums am Beispiel Sachsens, 10 Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 352–62, especially 361 (1959)Google Scholar; for a slightly different view, see Maurer, Wilhelm, Die Entstehung des Landeskirchentums in der Reformation, in Fuchs, , Staat und Kirche at 69–78 (cited below)Google Scholar. Höß's position can be confirmed with Dieter Stievermann, Die fürstenbergische Klosterpolitik bis ins Reformationszeitalter. Ein Beitrag zum herrschaftlichen Vogteiverständnis und zum landesherrlichen Kirchenregiment, 33 Schriften des Vereins für Geschichte und Naturgeschichte der Baar 85–99 (1980)Google Scholar. See also Schulze and Stievermann, in this note below, and Stievermann in note 82 below; Hahn, Peter Michael, Kirchenschutz und Landesherrschaft in der Mark Brandenburg im späten 15. und frühen 16. Jahrhundert, 28 Jahrbuch für die Geschichte Mittel und Ostdeutschlands 179–280 (1979)Google Scholar. Strauss writes (268 ff):
A century of mostly futile, at best fragmentary, efforts to subject the church to some kind of reform [in light of the article by Höß, just cited, and the article by Koller and the books by Schulze and Stievermann, cited in this note, below, this statement does not do justice to the situation] had created a vast reservoir of public support for swift strokes by resolute governments, irrespective of a ruler's or magistrate's stance for or against Protestantism. Disciplining the clergy … was coming to be accepted as a political responsibility, as was the resolution of disputes among fractious theologians. Everywhere the church was in urgent need of material help, on a scale that only the government could organize. [Was this situation the fault of the rulers? If it was the church's own fault, then the rulers who, on the basis of a tradition which reached back to Romans, chapt. 13, felt responsible for the physical and spiritual well-being of their subjects, were not only justified but obligated to step into this situation.] In these circumstances the church visitations carried on from the late 1520s, first in Protestant, later also in Catholic, states naturally led to the building of territorially organized church administrations under the aegis of the prince. This was the pattern as much in Catholic as in Protestant lands.
Strauss, , Law, Resistance, and the State at 268 ff (cited in note 2)Google Scholar.
For the late medieval Kirchenregiment of the state, see Ziegler, Adolf W., Religion, Kirche und Staat in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Ein Handbuch, 1 Geschichte 283 ff, 285–87 (Manz Verlag, 1969)Google Scholar; Schultze, Alfred, Stadtgemeinde und Kirche im Mittelalter, in Festgabe für Rudolph Sohm. Dargebracht zum goldenen Doktorjubiläum von Freunden, Schülern und Verehrern 103–42 (Verlag Duncker and Humblot, 1914)Google Scholar, and his Stadtgemeinde und Reformation (Mohr Verlag, 1918)Google Scholar; Pfeiffer, Gerhard, Das Verhältnis von politischer und kirchlicher Gemeinde in den deutschen Reichsstädten, in Fuchs, Walther Peter, ed, Staat und Kirche im Wandel der Jahrhunderte 77–99 (Kohlhammer Verlag, 1966)Google Scholar; Heitzenröder, Wolfram, Reichsstädte und Kirche in der Wetterau. Der Einfluß des städtischen Rats auf die geistlichen Institute vor der Reformation (Kramer Verlag, 1982)Google Scholar; Kießling, (cited in note 47); Schröcker, (cited in note 74); Diestelkamp, Adolf, Die geistliche Gerichtsbarkeit in den zur Diözese Halberstadt gehörigen Teilen der Kurmark, der wettinischen Gebiete, der Grafschaft Mansfeld und des Herzogtums Braunschweig im 15. und in der ersten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts, 8 Sachsen und Anhalt 163–267 (1932)Google Scholar; Koller, Gerda, Princeps in ecclesia. Untersuchungen zur Kirchenpolitik Herzog Albrechts V. von Osterreich, 124 Archiv für österreichische Geschichte 3–231 (1964)Google Scholar; Rankl, Helmut, Das vorreformatorische landesherrliche Kirchenregiment in Bayern (1378–1526) (München: Stadtarchiv, 1971)Google Scholar; Stievermann, Dieter, Landesherrschaft und Klosterwesen im spätmittelalterlichen Württemberg (Thorbecke Verlag, 1989)Google Scholar; Schulze, Manfred, Fürsten und Reformation. Geistliche Reformpolitik weltlicher Fürsten vor der Reformation (Mohr Verlag, 1991)Google Scholar. One topic in the development of the (pre-Reformation and Reformation) secular control over the church, which Strauss overlooks, is the Priestereid (the oath sworn by a priest to a secular patron); see, for example, Krodel, Gottfried G., State and Church in Brandenburg Ansbach-Kulmbach, 1524-1526, 5 Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History 138–213, especially 150, n 23, 161 ff (1968)Google Scholar; Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des XVI. Jahrhunderts, 11. Bayern I: Franken 70, 107–09 (Mohr Verlag, 1961)Google Scholar; Neumaier, Helmut, Territorium und ius circa sacra. Die spätmittelalterlichen Priestereide in der Grafschaft Hohenlohe, 82 Blätter für württembergische Kirchengeschichte 5–37 (1982)Google Scholar.
82. For the penetration of the state (in this case city governments) into ecclesiastical affairs in matters of charities, see, for example, Stark, Theodor, Die christliche Wohltätigkeit im Mittelalter und in der Reformationszeit in den ostschwäbischen Reichsstädten (Verlag des Vereins für bayerische Kirchengeschichte, 1926)Google Scholar. See also note 74. Regarding the city of Nürnberg, for example, one could arrive at results similar to those of Stark, Demandt, and Sieglerschmidt. It is important to remember that in some cases this ‘elbowing’ into ecclesiastical affairs by secular authorities was done with the consent of ecclesiastical authorities, sometimes even upon their request. See, for example, Stievermann, Dieter, Die württembergische Klosterreform des 15. Jahrhunderts, 44 Zeitschrift für württembergische Landesgeschichte 65–104 (1985)Google Scholar.
83. Further, it seems to me that there is a difference between carrying the Reformation with it and establishing it as a territorial church (271), a difference which Strauss seems not to see.
84. It seems to me that future scholarship will have to pay attention (more so than is done in the available literature, including Strauss; see 43-48, 191 ff, 196) to what was a dramatic shift in the claim of legitimacy on the part of those who opposed the innovations caused by non-traditional law. That legitimacy was derived from the defense of the good, old law. It also was derived from divine law and justice. (For details, see, for example, Blickle, Peter, Das göttliche Recht der Bauern und die göttliche Gerechtigkeit der Reformatoren, 68 Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 351–69 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Oberman, , The Gospel of Social Unrest at 120–23 (cited in note 50)Google Scholar; Becker, Winfried, ‘Göttliches Wort,’ ‘Göttliches Recht,’ ‘göttliche Gerechtigkeit.’ Die Politisierung theologischer Begriffe? 4 Historische Zeitschrift. Beiheft N.F. 232–63 (1975)Google Scholar; Günther, Gerhard, ‘Altes Recht,’ ‘Göttliches Recht’ und ‘Römisches Recht’ in der Zeit der Reformation und des Bauernkrieges, 14 Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl Marx Universität Leipzig. Gesellschafts und sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe 427–34 (1965)Google Scholar; Ganseuer, at 128-30 (cited in note 34). For the wider context, see Brecht, Martin, Divine Right and Human Rights in Luther, in Hoffmann, , Martin Luther at 61–84 (cited in note 41)Google Scholar; Dreier, Ralf, Göttliches und menschliches Recht, 32 Zeitschrift für evangelisches Kirchenrecht 289–316 (1987))Google Scholar. With this second rationale an element of religious radicalism appeared among the opposition to new or foreign law and proceedings based upon it. Did this rationale and its use precede or follow Luther's appearance on the stage of German history? The Bundschuh movement and probably also the rising anticlericalism suggest that this shift, and thus the religious, churchly radicalization of the opposition, was not caused by the Lutheran Reformation, (“führt jedenfalls von Luthers göttlicher Gerechtigkeit kein Weg zum Göttlichen Recht der Bauern”; so Blickle, as in this note above, 363).
85. See also note 83.
86. For two case studies from the heart of the Empire, see Werner Rösener, Landesherrliche Integration und innere Konsoldierung im württembergischen Territorialstaat des ausgehenden Mittelalters, and Stornier, Wilhem, Die innere Konsolidierung der wittelsbachischen Territorialstaaten in Bayern im 15. Jahrhundert, in Seibt-Eberhard, , Europa 1500 150–74, 175–94 (cited in note 19)Google Scholar. And for a territory on the margin of the Empire, see Jean-Marie Cauchies, Die burgundischen Niederlande unter Erzherzog Philipp dem Schönen (1494-1506): Ein doppelter Integrationsproze, id at 27-52.
87. See Krodel, , Luther and the Opposition at 22–37 (cited in note 24)Google Scholar.
88. The state-church relationship was not a one-way street, as Strauss suggests here when he makes the state the culprit. But it was, as he states at another place (196), a “mutually beneficial close association.” And in that association the church encroached as much on the state as vice versa. One only has to remember the competition which existed between the ecclesiastical and the secular court systems. Strauss overlooks this wider perspective of the problem when he sees in the encroachment of the state upon the church one reason for the consolidation of the ruler's authority in ecclesiastical matters. That encroachment, of course, was a reason; but taking it by itself, as Strauss does, does not give an adequate picture of the state-church relationship.
89. Höß, on the other hand, argued (as in note 81, 361, n 11) that “der Übergang zur Reformation sogar Rückschläge für die landesfürstliche Kirchenherrschaft bringen konnte,” and substantiated this argument with a reference to conditions in Hesse.
90. In light of the Regensburg Assembly of 1524 and its resolution, one may argue that Rome “bestowed” as much “aid and comfort” on those power-hungry rulers and their ambitions, as any Lutheran theologian of the day might have done. (See Pfeilschifter, Georg, ed, 1 Acta Reformationis Catholicae Ecclesiam Germaniae Concernentia Saeculi XVI, 334–44 (Pustet Verlag, 1959)Google Scholar, and the materials originating with this assembly; in general, see Winkler, Gerhard B., Der Regensburger Konvent (27.Juni-7.Juli 1524) und die deutsche Glaubensspaltung, in Bäumer, , Reformatio ecclesiae at 413–25 (cited in note 63))Google Scholar. And the situation in the fifteenth century, particularly the concordats (see Ziegler (cited in note 81)), demonstrates that the actions of the ecclesiastical diplomats at that assembly were by no means something new and to be explained with the Lutheran Reformation which offered those “unprecedented possibilities of expansion to the early modern state.” (268.) Certainly, the dukes of Austria and Bavaria did no longer need such aid and comfort for the building-up of their states; see Stornier (cited in note 86), Koller and Rankl (cited in note 81).
91. Expanding the argumentation of Wilhelm Maurer and the materials which he presented (Das Verhältnis des Staates zur Kirche nach humanistischer Anschauung, vornehmlich bei Erasmus (Töpelmann Verlag, 1930))Google Scholar, Estes, (cited in note 25), demonstrates that before the Lutheran theologians assigned the cura religionis to the ruler, Erasmus had done so, and when the Lutherans (Spalatin and Brenz) developed their position they heavily used Erasmus.
92. See, however, for example, Stürner, Wolfgang, Peccatum und Potestas. Der Sündenfall und die Entstehung der herrscherlichen Gewalt im mittelalterlichen Staatsdenken (Thorbecke Verlag, 1987)Google Scholar.
93. His short phrases on pages 196 and 224 do not carry the weight of his position.