1. Weigelt, Horst, “Interpretations of Pietism in the Research of Contemporary German Church Historians,” Church History 39 (1970): 236–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. Pietismus und Neuzeit: Ein Jahrbuch zur Geschichte des neueren Protestantismus (1974- ). Geschichte des Pietismus, vol. 1: Der Pietismus vom siebzehnten bis zum frühen achtzehnten Jahrhundert, ed. Martin Brecht, vol. 2: Der Pietismus im achtzehnten Jahrhundert, ed. Brecht, Martin and Deppermann, Klaus, vol. 3: Der Pietismus im neunzehnten und zwanzigsten Jahrhundert, ed. Gäbler, Ulrich (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992–2000)Google Scholar. A fourth volume dealing with thematic issues, Glaubenswelt und Lebenswelt des Pietismus, edited by Hartmut Lehmann, is being prepared for publication. The first international congress on Pietism was held 28 Aug. 2001 to 1 Sept. 2001 in Halle and included over 150 presentations by scholars from eighteen countries. Publication of the conference proceedings is planned.

3. Stoeffler, F. Ernest, The Rise of Evangelical Pietism (Leiden: Brill, 1965), 1–3Google Scholar. Brown, Dale W., Understanding Pietism, rev. ed. (Nappanee: Evangel, 1996), 11–14Google Scholar.

4. Robin Leaver discusses the problems of using a diffuse concept of Pietism to characterize Johann Sebastian Bach as a Pietist in “Bach and Pietism,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 55 (1991): 5–22Google Scholar.

5. The following cannot provide a complete overview of the burgeoning bibliography on Pietism. The best review in English is Ward, W. R., “German Pietism, 1670–1750,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 44 (1993): 476–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Helpful bibliographies are also found i n each of the chapters of the new Geschichte des Pietismus. The yearbook Pietismus und Neuzeit publishes an exhaustive, international bibliography of Pietism and related topics each year. A concise but now outdated review in English is Weigelt's “Interpretations of Pietism.” The Bibliothek der Franckeschen Stiftungen maintains an online database of articles on Pietism at http://192.124.243.55/katalog.htm.

6. Wallmann, Johannes, “Was ist Pietismus?” Pietismus und Neuzeit, 20 (1994): 13Google Scholar.

7. On these early interpretations, Ibid.., 13–20.

8. Ritschl, Albrecht, Geschichte des Pietismus, 3 vols. (Bonn: Marcus, 1880–1886)Google Scholar. Ritschl's “Prolegomena” to the first volume, in which he lays out his understanding of Pietism, was translated in Ritschl, Albrecht, Three Essays, ed. Hefner, Philip (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), 53–147Google Scholar.

9. Heppe, Heinrich, Geschichte des Pietismus und der Mystik in der reformirten Kirche, namentlich der Niederlande (Leiden: Brill, 1879), 1–52Google Scholar.

10. For an overview of the older historiography see Weigelt, “Interpretations of Pietism” and Schmidt, Martin, “Epochen der Pietismusforschung,” in Pietismus und Reveil (Leiden: Brill, 1978), 22–79Google Scholar.

11. Brecht's views on the origins of Pietism are set out in three relatively short articles: “Die Umstrittenheit des Gegenstandes und die Begründung der vorliegenden Konzeption,” Geschichte des Pietismus, ed. Brecht, Martin (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993)Google Scholar: 1:3–10, the 1996 article “Pietismus” in TRE, vol. 20, 606–13, and “Probleme der Pierismusforschung,” Dutch Review of Church History 76 (1997): 227-37Google Scholar. Brecht builds on and to a certain extent corrects the work of the American F. Ernest Stoeffler, who proposed a sweeping definition of Pietism beginning with late sixteenth century English Puritanism. See Stoeffler, 1–23 and below.

12. Brecht, “Pietismus,” 607.

13. Brecht, “Probleme der Pietismusforschung,” 231–32.

14. On the problems of reformers within Lutheran Orthodoxy and their relationship to Pietism see Wallmann, Johannes, “Pietismus und Orthodoxie. Überlegungen und Fragen zur Pietismusforschung,” in Geist und Geschichte der Reformation, ed. Liebing, Hans and Scholder, Klaus (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1966)Google Scholar, 425–30 and Strom, Jonathan, Orthodoxy and Reform: The Clergy in Seventeenth Century Rostock (Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1999)Google Scholar, 13–14.

15. Klaus Deppermann, “Der englische Puritanismus” Geschichte des Pietismus, 1:11–55.

16. Johannes van den Berg, “Die Frömmigkeitsbestrebungen in den Niederlanden,” Geschichte des Pietismus, 1:57–61.

17. See, for instance, Peter Schicketanz's new interpretation, which despite the chronology of its title, endorses Brecht's view of Pietism: Der Pietismus von 1675 bis 1800, vol. 3/1 Kirchengeschichte in Einzeldarstellungen (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2001)Google Scholar, 16–17.

18. Johannes Wallmann, Der Pietismus, vol. 4/O1 Die Kirche in Ihrer Geschichte (Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 10Google Scholar.

19. Wallmann contrasted Spener's emphasis sharply with Johann Arndt, “Die Mittelpunktstellung der Bibel, die wir überall im Pietismus finden, geht nicht auf Johann Arndt zurück.& Zum selbständigen Studium der Heiligen Schrift hat Arndt aber keine Anleitung gegeben. Mahnungen zum Bibellesen finden wir bei ihm nicht.” Wallmann, Johannes“Was ist Pietismus?” Pietismus und Neuzeit 21 (1994): 22Google Scholar. Wallmann elaborates this fundamental change in Lutheranism in his essay “Vom Katechismuschristenrum zum Bibelchristenrum. Zu Bibelverständnis im Pietismus,” in Die Zukunft des Schriftprinzips, ed. Ziegert, Richard (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994) 30–56Google Scholar.

20. Wallmann identifies the origins of Reformed Pietism with Theodor Undereyck in Germany and Jean de Labadie in the Netherlands. See, Wallmann, Pietismus, 25–32.

21. Wallmann, Johannes, “Fehlstart. Zur Konzeption von Band 1 der neuen ‘Geschichte des Pietismus’,” Pietismus und Neuzeit 20 (1994): 220Google Scholar.

22. See his discussion of the nadere Reformatie as precursor to Undereyck and Labadie. Wallmann, Pietismus, 24–25.

23. Wallmann sees the reform efforts in Lutheran Orthdoxy, which concentrated on the reform of the entire Volkskirche, as having a fundamentally different character than the Pietist reforms, which focused on reform through small groups within the church. Wallmann, Johannes, Philipp Jakob Spener und die Anfänge des Pietismus, 2d ed. (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr 1986), 24–33Google Scholar. On this point see also: Sträter, Udo, Meditation und Kirchenreform in der lutherischen Kirche des 17. Jahrhunderts (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1995), 149-56Google Scholar.

24. Brecht, Martin, “Zur Konzeption der Geschichte des Pietismus. Eine Entgegnung auf Johannes Wallmann,” Pietismus und Neuzeit 22 (1996): 228Google Scholar.

25. Lehmann's primary concern was to account for Pietism within Württemberg, but his definition has broad implications for Pietist movements outside Württemberg. On his definition see Lehmann, Hartmut, Pietismus und weltliche Ordnung in Württemberg vom 17. bis 20. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1969), 14–21Google Scholar. This section is reprinted as Lehmann, Hartmut, “Zur Definition des ‘Pietismus’,” Zur neueren Pietismusforschung, ed. Greschat, Martin (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1977), 82–90Google Scholar.

26. Lehmann, Hartmut, “‘Absonderung’ und ‘Gemeinschaft’ im frühen Pietismus. Allgemeinhistorische und sozialpsychologische Überlegungen zur Enstehung und Entwicklung des Pietismus,” Pietismus und Neuzeit 4 (1997/1998): 74Google Scholar. More recently, see also “Grenzüberschreirungen und Grenzziehung im Pietismus” Pietismus und Neuzeit 27 (2001): 11–18Google Scholar.

27. Lehmann identified Spener as representative of the first generation of Pietists, Francke of the second, and Zinzendorf for the third. See Lehmann, Hartmut, “Der Pietismus im alten Reich,” Historische Zeitschrift 214 (1972): 85–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28. Lehmann, “Absonderung,” 76.

29. Hans Leube, “Pietismus” in Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart 2d ed. (1930), 4:1250–61, reprinted in Orthodoxie und Pietismus: Gesammelte Studien, ed. Schmidt, Martin (Bielefeld: Luther-Verlag, 1975), 113-28.Google Scholar Gierl emphasizes this position from the aspect of the history of communication but does not understand Pietism exclusively in this sense. Gierl, Martin, Pietismus und Aufklärung: Theologische Polemik und die Kommunikationsreform der Wissenschaft am Ende des 17. Jahrhunderts (Güttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997)Google Scholar, esp. 258–59. Yeide identifies the origins of Pietism primarily with Francke. Yeide, Harry, Studies in Classical Pietism: The Flowering of the Ecclesiola (New York: Peter Lang, 1997)Google Scholar. xiii, 1, 37.

30. This is not, however, always the case. Though Lehmann and Wallmann are close in their understandings of the origins of Pietism and share a number of criteria, Lehmann sees Pietism extending beyond the eighteenth century into the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, whereas Wallmann is more cautious. See Lehmann, Hartmut, Pietismus und weltliche Ordnung in Württemberg vom 17. bis zum 20. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1969)Google Scholar as well as his more recent reflections in “Die Neue Lage.” For Wallmann, “Fehlstart,” 29.

31. Leube is representative, Orthodoxie und Pietismus, 122–23.

32. See Martin Brecht, “Der Spätpietismus—ein vergessenes oder vernachlässigtes Kapitel der protestantischen Kirchengeschichte” in Pietismus und Neuzeit 10 (1984): 124–51. Brecht later questions the use of Spätpietismus and suggests in its place, “nachaufklärerischer Pietismus.” or postenlightenment Pietism. Ausgewählte Aufsätze, Band II: Pietismus (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1997), 557Google Scholar. Stoeffler referred to this late eighteenth century phase as Neo-Pietism. Stoeffler, F. Ernest, German Pietism During the Eighteenth Century (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 241-42Google Scholar.

33. Hartmut Lehmann presents a defense of this controversial extension in “Die Neue Lage” in Geschichte des Pietismus, 3:1–26.

34. Examples of this older approach can be seen, for instance, in the work of Schmidt, Martin in Der Pietismus als theologische Erscheinung: Gesammelte Studien zur des Pietismus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Hirsch, Emanuel, Geschichte der neuern evangelischen Theologie (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Verlag, 1951)Google Scholar, 2:1–207, and F. Ernest Stoeffler, Rise of Evangelical Pietism.

35. This approach to “schwarmerischer Pietismus” is clear, for instance, in Beyreuther, Erich, Der geschichtliche Auftrag des Pietismus in der Gegenwart (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1963), 9–10Google Scholar, where he identifies radical Pietism with the “grotesque, ridiculous, confused, [and] repulsive” elements of the movement. Others such as Hirsch gave radical (schwarmerischer) Pietism an entirely different genealogy from “ecclesial” Pietism, making it not so much an aberration as a separate movement altogether. Hirsch, 2:208–9.

36. Schneider, Hans, “Der radikale Pietismus in der neueren Forschung” Pietismus und Neuzeit 8 (1982): 15–42Google Scholar and 9 (1983): 117–52, here esp. 9:131–40.

37. For a discussion of these problems, see Schneider, “Der radikale Pietismus im 17. Jahrhundert” in Geschichte des Pietismus, 1:392–94. See also, Johannes Wallmann, Der Pietismus, 80, 81 and Goertz, Hans-Jürgen, Religiöse Bewegungen in der frühen Neuzeit. (München: R. Oldenbourg, 1993), 100–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38. Schrader, Hans-Jürgen, Literaturproduktion und Büchermarkt des radikalen Pietismus: Johann Henrich Reitz’ “Historie der Wiedergebohrnen” und ihr geschichtlicher Kontext (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989)Google Scholar. See also Shantz, Douglas H., “The Master Work of a Minor Prophet: The Literary Career of the Radical Pietist Court Preacher Conrad Broske,” in Rezeption und Reform: Festschrift für Hans Schneider zu seinem 60. Geburtstag, ed. Breul-Kunkel, Wolgang and Vogel, Lothar (Darmstadt: Verlag der Hessischen Kirchengeschichtlichen Vereinigung, 2001) 213-37Google Scholar, Hoffmann, Barbara, Radikalpietismus um 1700: Der Streit um das Recht auf eine neue Gesellschaft. (Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 1996)Google Scholar, Temme, Willi, Krise der Leiblichkeit: Die Sozietät der Mutter Eva (Buttlarsche Rotte) und der radikale Pietismus urn 1700 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Goldschmidt, Stephan, Johann Konrad Dippel (1673–1734): seine radikalpietistische Theologie und ihre Entstehung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39. On the relationship of Zinzendorf and the Moravians to Pietism, see Dietrich Meyer, “Zinzendorf und Herrnhut” in Geschichte des Pietismus 2:5–34, 80–87.

40. See Johann F. G. Goeters, “Der reformierte Pietismus in Deutschland 1650–1690” in Geschichte des Pietismus 1:241–42 and Dellsperger, Rudolf, Die Anfange des Pietismus Bern (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 9–22Google Scholar. Reformed Pietism outside Germany and Switzerland remains more problematic. See below.

41. This reevaluation of Lutheran orthodoxy began in the 1920s with Leube, Hans, Die Reformideen in der deutschen lutherischen Kirche zur Zeit der Orthodoxie (Leipzig: & Franke, 1924)Google Scholar. More recently, see especially the work of Wallmann, Johannes, “Pietismus und Orthodoxie: Überlegungen und Fragen zur Pietismusforschung” in Geist und Geschichte der Reformation (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1966)Google Scholar, 418–42 and Wallmann, Johannes, “Die Eigenart der Straβburger lutherischen Orthodoxie im 17. Jahrhundert. Apokalyptisches Endzeitbewuβtsein und konfessionelle Polemik bei Johann Conrad Dannhauer” in Theologie und Frömmigkeit im Zeitalter des Barock (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 87–104Google Scholar. In a detailed case study, Sabine Holtz offers a corrective to older stereotypes of Lutheran orthodoxy in Theologie und Alltag. Lehre und Leben in den Predigten der Tübinger Theologen 1550–1750 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1993)Google Scholar.

42. For the Nordic countries, see the essays in the second volume of the Geschichte des Pietismus by Manfred Jakubowski-Tiessen, Ingun Montgomery, and Pentti Laasonen, 2:446–541 and the essay by Laasonen in the third volume, Geschichte des Pietismus, 3:321–51. See also Poul Lindhardt, Skandinavische Kirchengeschichte seit dem 16. Jahrhundert, vol. M3 Die Kirche in Ihrer Geschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982)Google Scholar, 243–45, 264–65, 284–86.

43. Hope, Nicholas, German and Scandinavian Protestantism 1700–1918 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995)Google Scholar, esp. 154–65.

44. See, for example, the essays in Halle und Osteuropa. Zur europäischen Ausstrahlung des hallischen Pietismus, ed. Wallmann, Johannes and Sträter, Udo (Halle: Verlag der Franckeschen Stiftungen/Max Niemeyer Tübingen, 1998)Google Scholar as well as Der Pietismus in seiner europäischen und auβereuropäischen Ausstrahlung, ed Laasonen, Pentti and Wallmann, Johannes (Helsinki: Suomen Kirkkohistoriallinen Seura, 1992)Google Scholar. See also the new history of Hungarian Pietism focusing on the Trans-Danube: Csepregi, Zoltáan, Magyar pietizmus, 1700–1756: tanulmány és forrásgyujtemény a dunántuli pietizmus történetéhez (Budapest: Teológiai Irodalmi Egyesület, 2000)Google Scholar, German summary, 311–19.

45. See the reservations of Johannes van den Berg, Geschichte des Pietismus, 1:58. A good discussion of the nadere Reformatie in English is van Lieburg, Fred A., “From Pure Church to Pious Culture: The Further Reformation in the Seventeenth-Century Dutch Republic,” in Later Calvinism, ed. Murphy, David Graham (Kirksville, Mo: Sixteenth Century Journal Pub, 1994), 409-30Google Scholar.

46. Attempting to counter the terminological confusion surrounding Pietism and “nadere Reformatie” in the Netherlands, Cornells Graafland, Willem op't Hof, and Fred A. van Lieburg lay out their understanding of the terms in “Nadere Reformatie: opnieuw een poging tot begripsbepaling.” Documentieblad Nadere Reformatie 19 (1995): 105-84Google Scholar. A German summary is found in op't Hof, Willem J., “Die nähere Reformation und der niederländische Reformierte Pietismus und ihr Verhältnis zum deutschen Pietismus.” Dutch Review of Church History 78 (1998): 161-83Google Scholar, here 163–66. Op't Hof stresses in particular the influence of English Puritanism on the nadere Reformatie.

47. Wallmann, Der Pietismus, 24–31.

48. Durnbaugh, Donald F., “Radikaler Pietismus als Grundlage deutsch-amerikanischer kommunaler Siedlungen.” Pietismus und Neuzeit 16 (1990): 112-31Google Scholar and Deppermann, Klaus, “Pennsylvanien als Asyl des frühen deutschen Pietismus.” In Pietismus und Neuzeit 10 (1984): 190–212Google Scholar.

49. For a brief overview of Brethren historiography and past ambivalence on its Pietist roots, see Durnbaugh, Donald F., “Brethren in Early American Church Life,” in Continental Pietism and Early American Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 222-27Google Scholar.

50. As Hans Schneider has pointed out, the first monograph treatment of radical Pietism n i any language was the dissertation by the Brethren scholar, Chauncey, David Ensign “Radical Pietism” (Ph.D., Boston University, 1955)Google Scholar, which remains the best overview in English of radical groups to date; see Schneider, “Der radikale Pietismus in der neueren Forschung,” 32–33. An English translation of Schneider's contributions to the first two volumes of the Geschichte des Pietismus on radical Pietism is being prepared for publication by the Scarecrow Press in its Pietist and Wesleyan Studies Series.

51. Stoeffler, F. Ernest, ed., Continental Pietism and Early American Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976)Google Scholar.

52. See Marcus, Ivan G., Piety and Society: The Jewish Pietists of Medieval Germany. (Leiden: Brill, 1981)Google Scholar, esp. 23–25. Marcus emphasizes the distinctive nature of Jewish Pietists who insist that they fulfill not only God's explicit will but also God's implicit or hidden will. Marcus makes a brief comparison to English Puritans but none at all to continental Pietism. Ibid.., 16, 57. See also Marcus, Ivan G., “The Devotional Ideals of Ashkenazic Pietism,” in Jewish Spirituality, ed. Green, Arthur (New York: Crossroad, 1986)Google Scholar, 1:356–66.

53. Lovelace sees Mather's “Pietism” as an important influence on the development of the Great Awakening. While Mather corresponded with Francke and had great respect for German Pietism, Lovelace interprets this as affinity rather than direct influence. Lovelace, Richard F., The American Pietism of Cotton Mather: Origins of American Evan-gelicalism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Christian University Press, 1979)Google Scholar, vii-ix, 36–38, 287. Lefferts A. Loetscher also employs “Pietism” in a similar manner in his book, Facing the Enlightenment and Pietism: Archibald Alexander and the Founding of Princeton Theological Seminary (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1983)Google Scholar.

54. Beyond these characteristics, McLoughlin's understanding of Pietism is not well defined, and although he contrasts this “American pietism” to Puritanism, he makes no connection at all to continental Pietist movements. McLoughlin, William G., Isaac Backus and the American Pietistic Tradition (Boston: Little Brown, 1967)Google Scholar, esp. 231–33.

55. Stoeffler's books remains the most comprehensive work on early Pietism in English. He lays out his definition of Pietism in the introduction to the first volume: Stoeffler, F. Ernest, The Rise of Evangelical Pietism (Leiden: Brill, 1965), 1–23Google Scholar. Although he limits Pietism to the early modern period, he links it to the broad “experiential tradition” that runs through the history of the church, including medieval mysticism. Stoeffler followed this with a second volume focused, however, exclusively on German Pietism: German Pietism During the Eighteenth Century (Leiden: Brill, 1973)Google Scholar.

56. His definition of Pietism differs insofar as it is derived primarily from theological criteria, for which he has been criticized. See Lehmann, Pietismus und weltliche Ordnung, 13.

57. For his understanding of “pietistic Puritanism,” Stoeffler draws heavily on the work of Heppe and Lang, August, Puritanismus und Pietismus: Studien zu ihrer Entwicklung von M. Butzer bis zum Methodismus (Neukirchen: Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins, 1941)Google Scholar.

58. Egon W. Gerdes's formulation of “classical Pietism” has been influential on North American scholars. Gerdes, “Pietism: Classical and Modern; a Comparison of Two Representative Descriptions,” Concordia Theological Monthly 39 (1968): 257-68Google Scholar. Though Dale Brown is sympathetic to Stoeffler's approach, he largely follows Gerdes in his depiction of Pietism by focusing on Spener and Francke. Brown, Dale, Understanding Pietism, rev. ed. (Nappanee, Ind.: Evangel, 1996), 25–28Google Scholar. Yeide also employs “classical Pietism,” though he identifies it primarily with Francke and not Spener. Yeide, xiii, 1, 37.

59. For this approach see Lindberg, Carter, The Third Reformation? Charismatic Movements and the Lutheran Tradition (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1983), 131-79Google Scholar and Lund, Eric, “Second Age of the Reformation,” in Christian Spirituality: Post-Reformation and Modern, ed. Dupre, Louis et al. (New York: Crossroad, 1989), 213-39Google Scholar. Lindberg sees Lutheran Pietism as a bridge between the sixteenth-century Reformation and the charismatic movements of the twentieth century.

60. With respect to the German territories, the “second Reformation” most often refers to the confessional turn toward Calvinism in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. See Cohn, Henry J., “The territorial princes in Germany's Second Reformation, 1559–1622,” in International Calvinism, 1541–1715 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 135-65Google Scholar and Nischan, Bodo, Prince, People, and Confession: The Second Reformation in Brandenburg (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. To avoid confusion on this point, Dutch scholars recommend that the nadere Reformatie be translated in English as “further Reformation” rather than “second Reformation” as it is sometimes done. Graafland, op't Hof, and Lieburg, “Nadere Reformatie,” 115–16. Cf. Schroeder, Carl, In Quest of Pentecost: Jodocus van Lodenstein and the Dutch Second Reformation (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2001)Google Scholar.

61. For a description of the “religion of the heart” in this sense, see Campbell, Ted, The Religion of the Heart: A Study of European Religious Life in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1991), 2–3Google Scholar. For Campbell, Pietism began with William Ames and Teellinck in the Low Countries, yet he devotes most of his attention to the Lutheran Pietists Spener, Francke, and Zinzendorf. Ibid.., 57–63.

62. For Ward, Pietism is primarily but not exclusively a Lutheran phenomenon. Ward, W. Reginald, The Protestant Evangelical Awakening (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer sity Press, 1992), 57–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Ward's description of Pietism in his Christianity under the Ancien Regime, 1648–1789 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 72–89Google Scholar.

63. Beeke, Joel R. and Pronk, Cornelis “Biographical Introduction,” in Frelinghuysen, Theodorus Jacobus and Beeke, Joel R., Forerunner of the Great Awakening: Sermons by Theodorus Jacobus Frelinghuysen (1691–1747), (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000)Google Scholar, xxix. Cf. Tanis, James, Dutch Calvinistic Pietism in the Middle Colonies. A Study in the Life and Theology of Theodorus Jacobus Frelinghuysen (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1967)Google Scholar.

64. Godfroid, Michel, “Le Piétisme allemand a-t-il existé? Histoire d'un concept fait pour la polémique.” Etudes Germaniques 26 (1971): 34Google Scholar, 45. Godfroid allows that Pietism narrowly limited to German movements of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries might, however, be appropriate. Ibid.., 44. Godfroid's article was translated as: “Gab es den deutschen Pietismus? Geschichte eines zur Polemik geschaffenen Begriffs,” in Zur neueren Pietismusforschung, 91–110.

65. For a recent discussion of the inherent problems in defining Pietism, see Gierl, 206–59.

66. A critical Spener edition proposed by the Historische Kommission zur Erforschung des Pietismus in the 1960s will probably never be realized. On the history and problems of Spener editions, see von Padberg, Lutz E., “Zur Edition der Schriften von Philipp Jakob Spener,” Jahrbuch für evangelikale Theologie 8 (1994): 85–117Google Scholar. Two volumes in a much more modest but well annotated selection (Die Werke Philipp Jakob Speners, Studienaus gabe: Die Grundschriften ed. Aland, Kurt and Koster, Beate [Giessen: Brunnen Verlag, 1996-]Google Scholar) have appeared. Critical editions of Francke's work were also planned in the series, Texte zur Geschichte des Pietismus Abteilung II, but only three volumes have appeared, all before 1989 (August Hermann Francke, Streitschriften, edited by Erhard Peschke, vol. 1, Texte zur Geschichte des Pietismus: Abt. 2, August Hermann Francke, Schriften und Predigten [Berlin: de Gruyter, 1981] and Predigten, vols. 9–10, Texte zur Geschichte des Pietismus. Abt. 2. August Hermann Francke, Schriften und Predigten [Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987–1989]Google Scholar). Further work on the planned edition appears stalled. Dietrich Meyer announced an extensive critical edition of Zinzendorf's works in 1986, which has yet to appear: Meyer, Dietrich, “Zum Programm einer zehnbändigen Zinzendorf-Ausgabe,” Pietismus und Neuzeit 12 (1986): 145-61Google Scholar.

67. Wallmann, Johannes, “Überlegungen und Vorschläge zu einer Edition des Spenerschen Briefwechsels, zunächst aus der Frankfurter Zeit (1666–1686),” Pietismus und Neuzeit 11 (1985): 345Google Scholar.

68. Texte zur Geschichte des Pietismus includes selected critical editions of the printed works of Francke, Tersteegen, and Oeringer as well as editions of letters and journals by von Canstein, Mühlenberg, Hahn, and Lavater. The most recent publication in this series is Lavater, Johann Caspar, Reisetagebticher, ed. Weigelt, Horst, 2 vols. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997)Google Scholar.

69. Spener, Philipp Jakob, Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit 1666–1686, ed. Wallmann, Johannes et al. (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1992-)Google Scholar. The first three volumes of this series (through 1678) have been published. An initial volume in a second series covering Spener's Dresden years, also edited by Wallmann, is nearing publication as well.

70. The Olms reprint edition of Spener's work began in 1979: Spener, Philipp Jakob, Schriften, ed. Beyreuther, Erich (Hildesheim: Olms, 1979-)Google Scholar and includes thus far 28 volumes under 16 headings. The more extensive Zinzendorf reprint edition, also published by Olms, began in 1962 and covers a wide range of Zinzendorf's work as well as related material including Antizinzendorfiana in Ludwig von Zinzendorf, Nikolaus, Schriften, ed. Beyreuther, Erich and Meyer, Gerhard (Hildesheim: Olms, 1962-)Google Scholar.

71. Lehmann, Hartmut, “Vorüberlegungen zu einer Sozialgeschichte des Pietismus im 17./18. Jahrhundert,” Pietismus und Neuzeit 21 (1995): 69–83Google Scholar, here 69.

72. Merry E. Wiesner surveys the literature succinctly on women and the Reformation in Gender, Church, and State in Early Modern Germany (London: Longman, 1998), 200–203Google Scholar.

73. Feustking, Johann HeinrichGynaeceum haeretico fanaticum, oder, Historie und Beschreibung der falschen Prophetinnen, Quäckerinnen, Schwärmerinnen und andern sectirischen und begeisterten Weibes-Personen, ed. Gossmann, Elisabeth (Munich: Iudicium, 1998 [1704]), 117Google Scholar.

74. The play, published anonymously in 1636, is translated in Luise Gottsched, Adelgunde, Pietism in Petticoats and Other Comedies, ed. Kerth, Thomas and Russell, John Raymond (Columbia, S.C.: Camden House, 1994)Google Scholar.

75. “Die Geschichte des Pietismus ist zu einem wesentlichen Teil die Geschichte einzelner führender und traditionsbildender Gestalten” Wallmann, Der Pietismus, 11.

76. Witt, Ulrike, Bekehrung, Bildung und Biographie: Frauen im Umkreis des Halleschen Pietismus (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1996), 1–21Google Scholar. The fourth volume of the Geschichte des Pietismus (forthcoming 2003) will include a section by Ruth Albrecht devoted to women in Pietism. Albrecht has also completed a Habilitationsschrift on Johanna Eleonora Petersen, the best known woman in early Pietism, which will be published shortly.

77. Willi Temme, Krise der Leiblichkeit and Hoffmann, Radikalpietismus urn 1700.

78. Bach, Jeff, Voices of the Turtledoves: The Mystical Language of the Ephrata Cloister (University Park: Perm State University Press, forthcoming 2002)Google Scholar and “Maria Eicher of Ephrata,” Brethren Life and Thought 42 (1997): 117-57Google Scholar.

79. Irwin, Joyce, “Anna Maria van Schurman and Antoinette Bourignon,” Church History 60 (1991): 301-15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

80. See Smaby, Beverly Prior, “Female Piety among Eighteenth Century Moravians,” Pennsylvania History 64 Special Supplement (1997): 151-67Google Scholar, Faull, Katherine, Moravian Women's Memoirs: Their Related Lives, 1750–1820 (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1997)Google Scholar, Atwood, Craig, “The Mother of God's People,” Church History 68 (1999): 886–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Fogleman, Aaron Spencer, “Jesus ist weiblich: Die herrnhutische Herausforderung in den deutschen Gemeinden Nordamerikas im 18. Jahrhundert,” Historische Anthropologie 9 (2001): 167-94CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

81. The literature on confessionalization has grown enormously in recent years. Most research focuses on the Empire. However, Schilling extends it far beyond the German territories. Schilling, Heinz, “Das konfessionelle Europa. Die Konfessionalisierung der europäischen Länder seit Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts und ihre Folgen fur Kirche, Staat, Gesellschaft und Kultur,” in Konfessionalisierung in Ostmitteleuropa. Wirkungen des religiösen Wandels im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert in Staat, Gesellschaft und Kultur, ed. Bahlcke, Joachim and Strohmeyer, Arno (Stuttgart: Fritz Steiner Verlag, 1999), 13–62Google Scholar. For a vigorous defense of confessionalization, see Wolfgang Reinhard, “‘Konfessionalisierung’ auf dem Prüfstand,” in Bahlcke and Strohmeyer. See also Hsia, R. Pochia, Social Discipline in the Reformation: Central Europe, 1550–1750 (London: Routledge, 1989), 1–9Google Scholar, and Harrington, Joel and Smith, Helmut Walser, “Confessionalization, Community, and State Building in Germany, 1555–1870,” Journal of Modern History 69 (1997): 81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

82. For an extended critique of the confessionalization paradigm on this basis see Schmidt, Heinrich Richard, “Sozialdisziplinierung? Ein Plädoyer für das Ende des Etatismus in der Konfessionalisierungsforschung” Historische Zeitschrift 265 (1997): 639-82Google Scholar. Marc Foster also criticizes confessionalization as a model for Catholic Germany in Forster, Marc R., Catholic Revival in the Age of the Baroque: Religious Identity in Southwest Germany, 1550–1750 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 13–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Andrew Pettegree, in particular, questions the extension of confessionalization beyond the Empire: “Confessionalization in North Western Europe,” in Bahlcke and Strohmeyer, 105–20.

83. Hudson, D. Dennis, Protestant origins in India: Tamil Evangelical Christians, 1706–1835 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000)Google Scholar.

84. Bosch, David Jacobus, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1991) 252-61Google Scholar.

85. See, for instance, Renate Wilson's work on Halle Pietism and eighteenth-century medicine in North America: Pious Traders in Medicine: A German Pharmaceutical Network in Eighteenth-century North America (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000)Google Scholar as well as the review article by Fogleman, Aaron: “Native Americans, Pietists, and Colonial North American History” Pietismus und Neuzeit 27 (2001): 277-95Google Scholar.