No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Lay Community and Church Instituions of the Lahngau in the Late Middle ages
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 December 2008
Extract
The relationship of the lay community to clerical institutions during the Middle Ages and especially in the pre–Reformation Era has long been a subject of methodical investigation. It has, however, proven extremely difficult to gain reliable evidence regarding subjective attitudes towards the clergy. Once the basic literary sources have been culled, further elucidation of the development of attitudes on the part of the majority of the people tends to become vague and hesitant or to rely on post hoc explanations. In this brief study, I have experimented with a statistical approach to the problem by tabulating the records of donations to three church institutions of the Lahngau in order to be able to trace, if at all possible, the evolution of attitudes which they reflect. I have, furthermore, attempted to test the hypothesis that the subjective attitudes of a social class towards a church institution are partially conditioned by the effective power exercised on the institution in question at the local level by the donor group.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 1969
References
1. Cf. especially the systematic work of Hashagen, J., Staat und Kirche vor der Reformation (Essen, 1931).Google Scholar For a succinct general discussion of the position of the Church in the urban community in the pre–Reformation era, see Frölich, K., “Kirche und städtisches Verfassungsleben im Mittelalter,” Zeitschrift der Savigny–Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonische Abteliung, XXII (1933).Google Scholar
2. Gensicke, H., Landesgeschitchte des Westerwaldes (“Veröffentlichungen der Historischen Kommission für Nassau,” XIII, Wiesbaden, 1958), p. I.Google Scholar
3. Keyser, E., ed., Hessisches Städtebuch (Stuttgart, 1957), p. 317 (hereafter HS).Google Scholar
4. Struck, M., ed., Quellen zur Geschichte der Klöster und Stifte im Gebiet der mittleren Lahn bis zum Ausgang des Mittelaters (“Veröffentlichungen der Historischen Kommission für Nassau,” XII [ in four parts], Wiesbaden, 1956), Pt. II, Nos. 589a, 609a. Hereafter these volumes will be cited as QG, with part and document number.Google Scholar
5. Gensicke, , op. cit., Map VII, pp. 64ff.Google Scholar
6. QG, II, 75.
7. Ibid., I, 1253; II, 155.
8. Gensicke, , op. cit., p. 98.Google Scholar
9. QG, I, 36; HS, p. 318. But the influence of the Archbishop of Mainz declined once the Prior's office was thoroughly separated from the rest of the chapter during the thirteenth century (Demandt, K. E., Geschichte des Landes Hessen [Kassel and Basel, 1959], p. 335).Google Scholar
10. Gensicke, , op. cit., p. 245. See also Demandt, op. cit., pp. 304–305.Google Scholar
11. Gensicke, , op. cit., p. 246.Google Scholar
12. Ibid., p. 249.
13. HS, pp. 314–18.
14. Compare the tabulation in Schirmacher, E., Limburg an der Lahn (“Veröffentlichungen der Historischen Kommission für Nassau,” XVI, Wiesbaden, 1963), p. 265.Google Scholar
15. Gensicke, , op. cit., Map IIGoogle Scholar; Becker, W., “Das Archiv der Stadt Limburg an der Lahn,” Annalen des Vereins für Nassauische Altertumskunde, XIV (1877), 310.Google Scholar
16. HS, p. 316.
17. Ibid., p. 317.
18. QG, I, 450.
19. Becker, , op. cit., p. 311;Google ScholarDiemar, H., ed., Die Chroniken des W. Gerstenberg von Frankenberg (“Veröffentlichungen der Historischen Kommission für Hessen und Waldeck,” VII, Pt. I, Marburg, 1909), p. 283;Google ScholarQG, I, 136. From 1409 to 1420, Count Adolf von Nassau–Dillenburg was enfeoffed with the Imperial one–third share of Limburg as heir of the last Lord of Limburg. Upon his death in 1420, the entire territory fell to Trier. Soon, however, Trier was forced to pawn part of its holding, only regaining a full one–half share of Limburg in 1482 (Demandt, op. cit., pp. 336–37).
20. Franz, G., Der deutsche Bauernkrieg (4th ed., Darmstadt, 1956), p. 235; HS, p. 317.Google Scholar
21. Rossel, K., ed., Die Limburger Chronik des Johannes, Supplement to Annalen des Vereins für Nassauisches Altertumskunde, VI, Pt. 2 (1859), p. 12.Google Scholar Wolfhagen is ostensibly talking of the pre–Plague era. But in fact he seems to be reflecting his own impressions from the post–Plague era. Wolfhagen, identified by Wyss, A., Die Limburger Chronik des Tilemann Ehlen von Wolfhagen (“Monumenta Germaniae Historica,” IV, Pt. I [1883], with an appendix of “Limburger Urkunden”), as the author of the Chronicle of John, was an immigrant to Limburg who arrived sometime after the Plague. Hence, he obtained his knowledge of the preceding period from hearsay. Furthermore, documentary evidence exists to prove the financial difficulties of the church in the pre–Plague era (see below, p. 40).Google Scholar
22. Gensicke, , op. cit., Map III.Google Scholar
23. QG, II, 383 ff.
24. Ibid., II, 32–33.
25. Ibid., I, 165a, 166, etc.
26. Although the motives for donations ranged from simple piety to exculpation from sinful acts (QG, I, 102, in which a noble widow attempts to earn forgiveness on behalf of her deceased husband for his sins), the simple fact of a major donation above and beyond basic Church taxes indicates at least a minimally favorable attitude towards the Church, though it does not rule out the possibility of suspicions of its integrity.
27. The value of standard phraseology is, of course, nearly nil. But occasionally more revealing, non-standardized remarks do seep into a document regarding donations.
28. QG, I, 173.
29. Maschke, E., “Verfassungs–und soziale Kräfte in der deutschen Stadt des späten Mittelalters, vornehmlich in Oberdeutschland,” Vierteljahrsschrift für Sozial–und Writschaftsgeschichte, XXXXVI (1959), 441.Google Scholar
30. QG, I, 212, 220, 236, etc.
31. Ibid., I, 947.
32. HS, p. 316.
33. Handbuch der historischen Stätten Deutschlands, IV (Stuttgart, 1960), 83.Google Scholar
34. QG, II, pp. 1–6.
35. Ibid., I, 1f.
36. Ibid., II, 325ff.
37. From 1403 until 1486, the Count of Katzenelnbogen held the Vogtei; thereafter, the Count of Nassau. Ibid., I, 1253; II, 155.
38. Ibid., II, 3.
39. Ibid., II, 46. Though this rapidly became a standard formula in bequests, it is never-theless quite significant in this connection, since it is one of the first of its kind in the entire region.
40. See above, p. 23.
41. QG, I, 65.
42. Ibid., II, 408.
43. Ibid., II, 472.
44. Cf. Bosl, K., Die Reichsministerialitat der Salier und Staufer (“Schriften der Monumenta Germaniae Historica,” x, two Pts., Stuttgart, 1950);Google ScholarQG, I, 60.
45. QG, II, 356.
46. Ibid., II, 453.
47. Ibid., II, 394a.
48. Ibid., I, 2, 4, 6, 9.
49. Ibid., I, 13, 18, 28.
50. Ritter, G., Die Heidelberger Universität, Pt. I (Heidelberg, 1936), p. 44,Google Scholar adduces a failure of trust in the Church on the part of the nobility to account for this widespread dearth in donations. That does not, however, explain the changed pattern of donations at their resumption in 1279. Other factors must clearly have been involved.
51. QG, I, 49, 65.
52. Ibid., I, 21.
53. Ibid., I, 26.
54. Ibid., I, 36. The dispute over control of the office of Prior had been raging since 1232. The struggle enhanced the influence of the Archbishop of Trier over the chapter as a whole while reducing the power of Mainz (Demandt, op. cit., p. 335). See also footnote 9.
55. QG, I, 87.
56. HS, p. 317.
57. QG, I, 87.
58. Angermeier, H., “Städtebunde und Landfrieden im 14. Jahrhundert,” Historisches Jahrbuch, LXXVI (1957), 37f.;Google Scholar now also his recent volume Königtum und Landfriede im Deutschen Spätmittelalter (Munich, 1966).Google Scholar
59. Foltz, M., ed., Friedberger Urkundenbuch (“Veröffentlichungen der Historischen Kommission für Hessen und Waldeck,” III, Pt. I, Marburg), No. 360.Google Scholar According to Demandt, op. cit., p. 336, this represented the Lord of Limburg's despairing effort to retain some autonomy from Trier. It failed, however, when Emperor Louis died.
60. Friedberger Urkundenbuch, No. 362.
61. Messerschmidt, W., Der rheinische Städtebund von 1381–89 (Marburg, 1907), p. 8.Google Scholar
62. Angermeier, , op. cit., pp. 38ff.Google Scholar
63. Wyss, , op. cit., p. 73; Friedberger Urkundenbuch, No. 620.Google Scholar
64. QG, I, 450.
65. Ibid., I, 113.
66. Loc. cit. In the thirteenth century, they often were in fact the Lord's agents or appointees, e.g., “Ludwig der Münzer” or “Sybold der Zöllner.” Evincing his relation to the Lord, Ludwig had to obtain his approval when he made a bequest to the church (QG, I, 83), a formality never repeated in later donations.
67. Ibid., I, 113. Presumably this service could be transformed into a money payment. At any rate, it should not be viewed as demeaning (Kuske, B., Köln, der Rhein und das Reich [Cologne, 1956], p. 121).Google Scholar Hence, the pledge spread downwards into Bürger circles. In 1366, a cleric (QG, I, 547) and a Schöffe (QG, I, 538) respectively pledged a Bürger.
68. Ibid., I, 136.
69. Friedberger Urkundenbuch, No. 264. But in 1329 as well the Archbishop of Trier obtained the right of entry with retainers into Limburg (Demandt, op. cit., p. 335).
70. QG, I, 206.
71. Ibid., I, 224.
72. It is hard to see why the urban community was unable to raise the necessary sums. Perhaps it was heavily committed financially in the construction of the new walls, begun in 1343 (cf. Schirmacher, op. cit., p. 298).
73. Ibid., pp. 273ff. The increasing influence of the Archbishop of Trier over the Lord of Limburg culminated in 1374 when the Archbishop obtained the right to enfeoff the Lord with the Imperial one-third share. This ceremony was then duly carried out in 1380 (Demandt, op. cit., p. 336).
74. Cf. Maschke, “Verfassungs- und soziale Kräfte,” p. 312; Miiller, K. O., Die Oberschwäbische Reichsstädte (“Darstellungen aus der Württembergischen Geschichte,” VIII, Stuttgart, 1912), pp. 82ff., 115ff.Google Scholar
75. Ibid., pp. 115, 160, 189f.
76. Cf. Czok, K., “Zunftkämpfe, Zunftrevolution oder Bürgerkämpfe,” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl–Marx Universität Leipzig, VIII (1958–1959), 129ff.Google Scholar
77. Hanneschläger, K., “Ulms Verfassung bis zum Schwörbrief von 1397,” Ulm und Obserschwaben, xxxv (1958), 48, 68ff.Google Scholar
78. QG, I, 60, 107.
79. Similarly, in 1292 at Ulm the “capitaneus” and 10 “zunft maester” issued a document authorizing the sale of land by an Ulmer citizen to the monastery of Bebenhausen (Ulmer Urkundenbuch, 1 [1873], No. 171). This function on the part of the Bürgermeister should not be underrated. Land ownership in the medieval commune is one of the major, if not the major, constituent factors in the social and legal structure of the community (cf. Maschke, E.,“Continuité sociale et Histoire urbaine médiévale,” Annales, I5é année [1960], p. 940). Why two Bürgermeister appear in certain documents remains puzzling. Possibly one was the Altbürgermeister who had now been replaced. This was often the case in Ulm in documents of the post–1346 period.Google Scholar
80. Ritter, , op. cit., p. 97, n. 3.Google Scholar
81. Hanneschläger, , op. cit., p. 48.Google Scholar
82. HS, p. 316.
83. Loc. cit.
84. QG, I, 450.
85. As late as 1343 (QG, I, 305), the Bürgermeister signed documents individually.
86. Rossel, , op. cit., pp. 62ff.Google Scholar; HS, p. 317, notes that the patriciate of Limburg was intermarried with those of Frankfurt, Friedberg, and Gelnhausen. Cf. Maschke, “Verfassungs–und soziale Kräfte.”
87. Rossel, , op. cit., p. 12Google Scholar. Due allowance must be made for exaggeration—2000 is hardly credible for a community of at most 3–4000 in the post–Plague decade.
88. Ibid., p. 38.
89. Ibid., pp. 65ff. Trier had also gained one–third of the lordship of Limburg directly from the Crown (HS, p. 317).
90. Schirmacher, , op. cit., p. 275.Google Scholar
91. Wyss, , op. cit., “Limburger Urkunden,” No. 51. Schirmacher, op. cit., p. 276, in contrast to earlier historians, considers this formal treaty to mark the crowning moment in Limburg's striving towards full autonomy during the fourteenth centuryGoogle Scholar. Though this might be correct in a legalistic sense, it is totally misleading in political terms. The defeat of the cities in the war of 1387–89 (cf. below, pp. 44–45) had negative repercussions even for a non–belligerent like Limburg.
92. QG, I, 965, 981.
93. See below, p. 39.
94. QG, I, 60. The last mention of the functioning seigneurial court dates from 1293.
95. Ibid., I, 137.
96. Ibid., I, 382.
97. Schirmacher, , op. cit., p. 275.Google Scholar
98. QG, II, 512.
99. Ibid., II, 211.
100. Ibid., II, 603.
101. Ibid., II, 606.
102. Ibid., II, 643. Schelling, R., “Der Jurist Ulrich Krafft und das schwäbische städtische Wirtschaftsrecht im späten Mittelater und zu Beginn der Neuzeit” (unpub. diss., Tübingen, 1954), pp. 47f., describes certain parallel developments in the Church of Our Lady of Ulm during the first decade of the sixteenth centuryGoogle Scholar. During the fifteenth century, two separate fraternities, one for clerics and one for laymen, had developed in the church. Their parallel lives, however, had often become entangled and produced various disputes. Dr. Ulrich Krafft, as city priest since 1501, brought the contending bodies together by integrating them into one fraternity managed by a college of six, three from each faction. In case the six were evenly split on any matter, the city priest was empowered to cast the deciding vote. Once again, in short, clerical caste–exclusiveness was abrogated in an effort to attain civic harmony.
103. QG, I, 121, 179.
104. Ibid., I, 399.
105. Ibid., I, 389, 400, 486, etc.
106. Ibid., II, 209.
107. See p. 23, above.
108. Schirmacher, , op. cit., chronological table facing p. 380.Google Scholar
109. QG, I, 426.
110. Ibid., I, 148–51, 155–56.
111. Ibid., I, 543.
112. Ibid., I, 161.
113. Loc. cit.
114. Ibid., I, 159, 171. The incorporation of the Church of Camberg did not proceed without a serious conflict within the Church of St. George. A furious struggle developed between the Prior and his chapter over the distribution of the spoils which, the chapter rightly suspected, the Prior wanted to retain for his own use. The united opposition of the chapter forced the Prior to abandon his schemes (ibid., IV, “Zusätze,” 174).
115. Ibid., I, 235, 249, 254.
116. Ibid., I, 147a.
117. Ibid., I, 796.
118. Rossel, , op. cit., p. 16. The Plague struck Limburg in 1349, 1356, 1386, and 1490 (HS, p. 315).Google Scholar
119. Rossel, , op. cit., p. 16. Wolfhagen's description of the ceremonies, processions, and flagellations is his artistic chef–d' ouevre.Google Scholar
120. Lütge, F., “Das 14./15. Jahrhundert in der Sozial– und Wirtschaftsgeschichte,” Jahrbücher für Nationalōkonomie und Statistik, CLXII (1950), 180ff.Google Scholar
121. Rossel, , op. cit., p. 16.Google Scholar
122. Lütge, , op. cit., pp. 185ff.Google Scholar
123. Kelter, E., “Das deutsche Wirtschaftsleben des 14. und 15. Jahrhundert im Schatten der Pestepidemien,” Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, CLXV (1953), 200ff.Google Scholar
124. QG, I, 435, 436. The self–confidence of the Limburg Bürgerschaft was most graphically expressed in the construction of the new, expanded city walls commencing in 1343 (Schirmacher, op. cit., p. 298).
125. See Kelter, op. cit., pp. 202f., for a striking parallel to this formulation on the level of inter–city competition.
126. QG, I, 279.
127. Ibid., I, 829.
128. Ibid., I, 876.
129. HS, pp. 317–18. The Archbishop of Trier was in an ideal position to expand his power in Limburg after the extinction of the Lord's dynasty. But he was forced by fiscal exigencies to pawn his rights in Limburg to the Landgrave of Hesse and the Count of Katzenelnbogen in 1420.
130. Schirmacher, , op. cit., p. 265.Google Scholar
131. See above, p. 24.
132. See above, p. 28.
133. The lack of any correlating materials prohibits even a tentative explanation for the precise incidence of this gap.
134. Ritter, , op. cit., pp. 52ff.Google Scholar
135. QG, I, 721.
136. Hinneschiedt, D., Die Politik König Wenzels gegenüber Fürsten und Städten im Südwesten des Reiches, Part I (bis 1384) (1891), pp. 11ff., 18f., 20fGoogle Scholar. This still seems to be the only effort to unravel the problem of the relationship between the dispute regarding papal allegiance and the power struggles among the estates of the Empire. According to Hinneschiedt, the tendency of the cities to reject submission to Pope Urban is a direct effect of the efforts of the princes, especially of Count Palatine Ruprecht, to force this allegiance upon the cities through membership in princely–dominated leagues pledged to support Urban. The cities, conversely, hoped to use the promise of future adherence to Rome as a bargaining–counter.
137. Messerschmidt, , op. cit., p. 95.Google Scholar
138. Wyss, , op. cit., p. 81.Google Scholar
139. Ritter, , op. cit., pp. 52ff.Google Scholar
140. See above, p. 37.
141. Cf. Hashagen, J., op. cit.Google Scholar
142. QG, I, 387, 389, 452.
143. Ibid., I, 1122.
144. Ibid., I, 1084.
145. See above, p. 43.
146. QG, I, 1349.
147. Cf. Naujoks, E., Obrigkeitsgedanke, Zunftverfassung und Reformation (“Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für geschichtliche Landeskunde in Baden–Wittemberg,” Series B, III, Stuttgart, 1958).Google Scholar
148. In 1380, the Imperial one–third share of the suzerainty of Limburg had been transferred to the Archbishop of Trier, thereby giving him a full two–thirds share upon the demise of the Limburg dynasty as opposed to the one–third share in the possession of Hesse (cf. Schirmacher, op. cit., p. 275).
149. HS, p. 317.
150. Ibid., p. 318.
151. QG, I, 1406.
152. As opposed to the view of Czok, K., “Zur Volksbewegungen in den deutschen Städten des 14. Jh.,” Tagung der Sektion Mediävistik der deutschen Historiker Gesellschaft, I (Berlin, 1960), 164–65.Google Scholar