1. The points of departure for all modern scholarship have been the two essays by Joachimsen, Paul, “Renaissance, Humanismus, und Reformation,” in Gesammelte Aufsätze: Beiträge zu Renaissance, Humanismus, und Reformation, zur Historiographie und zum deutschen Staatsgedanken (Aalen, 1970), pp. 127–47,Google Scholar and Ritter, Gerhard, “Die Geschichtliche Bedeutung des deutschen Humanismus,” Historische Zeitschrift 127 (1923): 393–453.CrossRefGoogle ScholarMoeller, Bernd, “Die deutschen Humanisten und die Anfänge der Reformation,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 70 (1959): 46–61,Google Scholar and Spitz, Lewis W., The Religious Renaissance of the German Humanists (Cambridge, Mass., 1963), are the best modern treatments.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For the argument that Luther provided the answers to religious questions posed by the humanists, see Bouwsma, William J., “Renaissance and Reformation,” in Luther and the Dawn of the Modern Era: Papers for the Fourth International Congress for Luther Research, ed. Oberman, Heiko A., Studies in the History of Christian Thought, vol. 8 (Leiden, 1974), pp. 127–49.Google Scholar

2. In particular, Kohls, Ernst-Wilhelm, Die Theologie des Erasmus, 2 vols. (Basel, 1966),Google Scholar and Bainton, Roland, Erasmus of Christendom (New York, 1969).Google Scholar

3. For summaries, see Gäbler, Ulrich, “Zwingli-Forschung seit 1960,” Theologische Literaturzeitung 96 (1971): 482–88,Google Scholar and, for an insightful critique, idem, Huldrych Zwingli im 20. Jahrhundert: Forschungsberkht und annotierte Bibliographie (Zurich, 1975), esp. pp. 39ff.Google Scholar See also the brief account in Gestrich, Christoph, Zwingli als Theologe: Glaube und Geist beim Zürcher Reformator, Studien zur Dogmengeschichte und Systematischen Theologie, vol. 20 (Zurich, 1967), pp. 13–19.Google Scholar

4. Maurer, Wilhelm, Der junge Melanchthon, 2 vols. (Gütersloh, 1967–1969).Google Scholar

5. Krüger, Friedhelm, Bucer und Erasmus: Eine Untersuchung zum Einfluss des Erasmus auf die Theologie Martin Bucers, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte Mainz, vol. 57 (Wiesbaden, 1970),Google Scholarand Kittelson, James M., “Martin Bucer and the Sacramentarian Controversy: The Origins of His Policy of Concord,” Archive for Reformation History 64 (1973): 166–83, for a somewhat different approach.Google Scholar

6. To the remark of, for example, Moeller, Bernd, Johannes Zwick und die Reformation in Konstanz (Heidelberg, 1961), p. 49,Google Scholar“So bleibt Zwick in gewisser Weise sein Leben lang Humanist und Schüler des Juristen, Weniger die Rechtfertigung als Trost, eher die Rechtfertigung als Ansporn is tseine reformatorische Entdeckung,” compare the conclusions of Kittelson, James M., Wolfgang Capito from Humanist to Reformer, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought, vol. 17 (Leiden, 1975), esp. pp. 1–7, 238–45.Google Scholar

7. Notably, Seebass, Gottfried, Das Reformatorische Werk des Andreas Osiander, Einzelarbeiten aus der Kirchengeschichte Bayerns, vol. 44 (Nürnberg, 1967),Google Scholar and Höss, Irmgard, Georg Spalatin: Ein Leben in der Zeit des Humanismus und der Reformation (Weimar, 1956).Google Scholar

8. Following Ritter and Moeller, as cited in n. 1, Spitz, German Humanists, p. 292, concludes, “The result [of the younger humanists’ conversion] was a gradual reversion in later years to a synergism and a spiritualized view of the Sacrament, so that both Luther's teaching on justification and of the real presence in the Sacrament encountered resistance due in no small measure to the early conditioning of many churchmen in the religious thought of the German humanists.” For their efforts at concord, see Stupperich, Robert, Der Humanismus und die Wiedervereinigung der Konfessionen, Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte, vol. 53 (Leipzig, 1936).Google Scholar The suggestion that Protestant Scholasticism originated with the converted humanists comes from Ritter, “Geschichtliche Bedeutung,” pp. 450–51.

9. This theme has been well treated by Spitz, Lewis W., “Humanism in the Reformation,” in Renaissance Studies in Honor of Hans Baron, ed. Molho, Anthony and Tedeschi, John A., Biblioteca Storica Sansoni, vol. 49 (Firenze, 1971), pp. 644ff., who, in the manner of Joachimsen, uses Melanchthon as his model and limits the discussion to high culture and the public school.Google Scholar For an invaluable treatment of the literature on these points, see idem, “The Course of German Humanism,” in Itinerarium Italicum: The Profile of the Italian Renaissance in the Mirror of Its European Transformations, ed. Oberman, Heiko A. with Brady, Thomas A. Jr., Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought, vol. 14 (Leiden, 1975), pp. 371–436.Google Scholar

10. The emphasis upon a shared skepticism toward general propositions is not to deny the argument of Kristeller, P. O., Renaissance Thought: The Classic, Scholastic, and Humanist Strains (New York, 1961), pp. 3–23,Google Scholar that humanism was predominantly a literary, rather than a philosophical, movement, but to affirm the extension of that argument by Bouwsma, William J., Venice and the Defense of Republican Liberty (Berkeley, Calif., 1968), pp. 1–11, who points to a shared preference for the concrete and a consequent skepticism about the abstract and universal.Google Scholar

11. For the impact of humanism upon Luther, see, most recently, Oberman, Heiko A., “Headwaters of the Reformation: Initia Lutheri—Initia Reformationis,” in Luther and the Dawn of the Modern Era, pp. 40–88, esp. 69–84,Google Scholar and the response of Spitz, Lewis W., “Headwaters of the Reformation: Studia Humanitatis, Luther Senior, et Initia Reformationis,”Google Scholaribid., pp. 89–116, esp. 112–16.

12. On the Marxists, see Friesen, Abraham, Reformation and Utopia: The Marxist Interpretation of the Reformation and Its Antecedents, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte Mainz, vol. 71 (Wiesbaden, 1974), and, for a recent effort from the camp of the functionalist sociologists,Google ScholarSwanson, Guy, Religion and Regime (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1967).Google Scholar

13. On Pforzheim's school, see Sexauer, Ottmar, “Pforzheim zur Zeit Reuchlins, ein Kulturbild,” in Joannes Reuchlin, 1455–1522: Festgabe seiner Vaterstadt Pforzheim zur 500. Wiederkehr seines Geburtstages, ed. Krebs, Manfred (Pforzheim, 1955).Google Scholar For Basel, Staehelin, Adrian, Die Einführung der Ehescheidung in Basel zur Zeit der Reformation, Basler Studien zur Rechtswissenschaft, vol. 45 (Basel, 1957).Google Scholar

14. The standard discussions of the origins of poor relief are Winckelmann, Otto, Das Fürsorgewesen der Stadt Strassburg, Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte, vol. 5 (Leipzig, 1922), and his many essays cited there.Google Scholar

15. See, inter alia, Bataillon, Marcel, “J. L. Vives, réformateur de la bienfaisance,” Bibliothèque d'humanisme et renaissance 14 (1952): 141–58,Google Scholar who offers the curious judgment that Vives's horror at begging derived from “le puritanisme bourgeois,” and Hexter, J. H., More's Utopia (New York, 1965).Google Scholar

16. Joachimsen, Gesammelte Aufsätze, pp. 134–35. See also Maurer, Wilhelm, Das Verhältnis des Staates zur Kirche nach humanistischer Anschauung, vornehmlich bei Erasmus (Giessen, 1930), esp. pp. 19–25, who is mildly guilty of anachronism.Google Scholar

17. Kisch, Guido, Erasmus und die Jurisprudenz seiner Zeit, Basler Studien zur Rechtswissenschaft, vol. 56 (Basel, 1960), esp. pp. 55ff., 133ff., 346.Google Scholar For Melanchthon's adoption of the idea, idem, Melanchthons Rechts- und Soziallehre (Berlin, 1962), esp. pp. 168–83.Google Scholar

18. Winckelmann, Fürsorgewesen, pp. 63–64.

19. Kisch, Erasmus, pp. 55ff. For Erasmus's attachment to simplicitas in general, see portions throughout Tracy, James D., Erasmus: The Growth of a Mind, Travaux d'humanisme et renaissance, vol. 126 (Geneva, 1972).Google Scholar

20. Stupperich, Robert, ed., Martini Buceri Opera Omnia, 1st Ser. Martin Bucers Deutsche Schriften (Gütersloh, 1960), 1: 373–76.Google Scholar Winckelmann, Fürsorgewesen, pp. 77–80.

21. Staehelin, Ernst, Das Theologische Lebenswerk des Johannes Oekolampads, Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte, vol. 21 (Leipzig, 1939), pp. 161–62.Google ScholarDürr, Emil and Roth, Paul, eds., Aktensammlung zur Geschichte der Basler Reformation (Basel, 1922), vol. 2, #224, for the ordinance.Google Scholar For Zurich the standard work remains Köhler, Walther, Züricher Ehegericht und Genfer Konsistorium, Quellen und Abhandlungen zur Schweizerischen Reformationsgeschichte, vol. 1 (Leipzig, 1932).Google Scholar

22. Hoss, Spalatin, pp. 328–30, 369–70. Moeller, Zwick, pp. 96–97.

23. See Kohls, Ernst-Wilhelm, Die Schule bei Martin Bucer in ihrem Verhältnis zu Kirche und Obrigkeit, Pädagogische Forschungen: Veröffentlichungen des Comenius-Instituts, vol. 22 (Heidelberg, 1962), pp. 121–29, and n. 49 below for reservations regarding his argument.Google Scholar

24. Edited in Roth, Friedrich, Augsburgs Reformationsgeschichte (Munich, 1907), 3: 207ff.Google Scholar The role of rural economic dislocation in creating conditions for social welfare programs is reflected in this ordinance in the prohibition of “foreign beggars,” which may however also refer to mendicants. See Bataillon, “Vives,” p. 141, and Davis, Natalie Zemon, “Poor Relief, Humanism, and Heresy: The Case of Lyons,” Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History, ed. Bowsky, William, 5 (1968): 217–75.Google Scholar

25. Sehling, Emil, Die evangelische Krichenordnungen des XVI. Jahrhunderts (Tübingen, 1961), 11:23–32, for the ordinances.Google Scholar On Luther's possible influence, see Grimm, Harold J., “Luther's Contribution to the Sixteenth-Century Organization of Poor Relief,” Archive for Reformation History 61 (1970): 222–34.Google Scholar For a similar argument regarding developments in Strasbourg, Winckelmann, Fürsorgewesen, pp. 77–80. For a comparative case outside the scope of this essay, see Kingdon, Robert M., “Social Welfare in Calvin's Geneva,” American Historical Review 76 (1971): 50–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

26. Roth, Erich, Die Reformation in Siebenbürgen (Graz, 1962), pp. 59–62, and 197–202 for the memorandum itself.Google Scholar

27. On Vögeli, see the very valuable Vögeli, Alfred, ed., Jorg Vögeli: Schriften zur Reformation in Konstanz, 1519–1538, Schriften zur Kirchen- und Rechtsgeschichte, vol. 29 (Tübingen, 1972).Google Scholar

28. The conclusion of Franz, Günther, Der Deutsche Bauernkrieg (Munich, 1933), esp. pp. 7–72, that the Peasants' War of 1524–25 followed the basic pattern of peasant up risings from the fourteenth century onward is inescapable.Google Scholar On the other hand, the effort of Hillerbrand, Hans J., “The Reformation and the German Peasants' War,” in The Social History of the Reformation, ed. Buck, Lawrence P. and Zophy, Jonathan W. (Columbus, Ohio, 1972), to suggest that religious reform remained entirely unrelated goes beyond the evidence he submits.Google Scholar Most recently, see Blickle, Peter, Die Revolution von 1525 (Munich, 1975), esp. pp. 89–103.Google Scholar

29. For a detailed treatment of this issue in the work of one reformer, see Kittelson, James M., “Wolfgang Capito, the Council, and Reform Strasbourg,” Archive for Reformation History 63 (1972): 126–50.Google Scholar

30. See Kittelson, Capito, pp. 120–22, for his involvement in the Peasants' War.

31. Estes, James M., “Church Order and the Christian Magistrate according to Johannes Brenz,” Archive for Reformation History 59 (1968): 5–25.Google Scholar

32. Bucers Deutsche Schriften, 1: 173.Google Scholar

33. Staehelin, Oecolampadius, pp. 461–62. The reasons Oecolampadius gave for asking the authorities to sponsor a debate with Eck in 1526 are indicative of his general position: “die warhayt gefunden, die zweispaltigkeit dess volksz hingenommen und ain warer frid und ainigkeit under dem Christenlichen volck gaufhet wirde….” Dürr, and Roth, , Aktensammlung, vol. 2, #260.Google Scholar

34. Walton, Robert C., Zwingli's Theocracy (Toronto, 1967), esp. pp. 30–49.Google Scholar

35. Moeller, Zwick, pp. 115–16. The most recent and thoroughly researched study of Blaurer is Lewis, Marcia K., “Ambrosius Blaurer and the Reformation in Constance” (Ph.D. diss., University of Iowa, 1974).Google Scholar

36. Sehling, , Kirchenordnungen, 11: 131.Google Scholar For Spengler's version, Roth, Siebenbürgen, pp. 197–207. On the importance of this issue in Nuremberg, see Strauss, Gerald, “Protestant Dogma and City Government: The Case of Nuremberg,” Past and Present, no. 36 (1967): 38–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The first article in the series of ordinances that established the Reformation in Basel reads that all citizens “Ir werdenn schweren, dz ir den burgernn, gemeinlich armen und richenn, der stat Basel unnd alien denen, die zu uch gehören, nach uwerem vermögen beraten und beholffen syennd, yegklichem zu sinem rechten, ouch dz ir der stat nutz, ere, unnd lob furderen den gemeinen nutz truwlich hanndthaben unnd inn dem allem zu dem höchsten die ere gotts uffhenn….” Dürr, and Roth, , Aktensammlung, vol. 3, #387. Oecolampadius of course did not compose this declaration, but compare it to his request for a disputation, n. 33 above.Google Scholar

37. Seebass, Osiander, p. 147.

38. Kittelson, “Capito,” pp. 126–40. Exceptions in Strasbourg would be Brunfels and Engelbrecht.

39. Staehelin, Oecolampadius, pp. 461–62. Dürr, and Roth, , Aktensammlung, vol. 3, #387.Google Scholar

40. Höss, Spalatin, pp. 276–77, 324–26.

41. Kittelson, Capito, pp. 207–37, for a discussion of the carryover of humanist culture generally, in areas other than education.

42. Kisch, Melanchthon, pp. 80–90.

43. It is in the area of education alone, and with Melanchthon in particular, that Joachimsen, Gesammelte Aufsätze, pp. 144–47, discovers a continuity between humanism and the Reformation.

44. Hoss, Spalatin, pp. 276–77, 372. Moeller, Zwick, p. 73, n. 123. Estes, James M., “Johannes Brenz and the Problem of Ecclesiastical Discipline,” Church History 41 (1972): 464–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45. Edited in Roth, Augsburgs Reformationsgeschichte, p. 360. Consequently, adherents to the old religious order were guilty of treason too.

46. Sehling, , Kirchenordnungen, 11: 132.Google Scholar Even the exercise of the ban was limited to individuals who had clearly sinned against God and the neighbor, and was to be employed for their improvement, not their damnation.

47. See the petitions in Krebs, Manfred and Rott, Hans Georg, eds., Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer (Gütersloh, 1960), 8: 473–74,Google Scholar and Chrisman, Miriam Usher, Strasbourg and the Reform: A Study in the Process of Change (New Haven, Conn., 1967), pp. 224–25.Google Scholar The standard work remains Ballardi, Werner, Die Geschichte des “Christlichen Gemeinschafts” in Strassburg (1546/1550), Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte, vol. 63 (Leipzig, 1924).Google Scholar

48. Sperl, Adolf, Melanchthon zwischen Humanismus und Reformation: Eine Untersuchung über den Wandel des Traditionsverständnisses bei Melanchthon und die damit zusammnenhängenden Grundfragen seiner Theologie, Forschungen zur Geschichte und Lehre des Protestantismus, vol. 15 (Munich, 1959), pp. 148–54.Google Scholar

49. Kohls, Schule bei Bucer, pp. 121–29, and Maurer, Verhältnis des Staates zur Kirche, pp. 19–25, who confuse “Christliche Obrigkeit” with “Staat.”

50. Bouwsma, Venice, pp. 431–35, 441–42, 460–62, for the Venetian counterpart to many of the ideas discussed here.

51. Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte (Tübingen, 1948), 1: 370ff.Google Scholar

52. Trinkaus, Charles, In Our Image and Likeness (Chicago, 1971), 2: 766–67.Google Scholar