Pub Date : 2020-10-01DOI: 10.14315/arg-2020-1110110
Y. Krumenacker
Charlotte Arbaleste, the wife of Duplessis-Mornay, was banned from the Last Supper in Montauban in 1584: her hair was considered immodest by Pastor Bérault. This episode, reported in a memoir by Charlotte Arbaleste, is indicative of the Calvinist offensive against luxurious clothing and too conspicuous hairstyles at the end of the century. This offensive, which is based on some texts from Holy Scripture and especially on Tertullian and Cyprian, was led mainly by Pastor Daneau, in several books, and by the consistories of the Montauban area. Above all, it reveals a male desire to dictate their dress to women, to differentiate between genders in order to prioritize them: female hairdressing must be a sign of women’s inferiority compared to men. Faced with these claims, Charlotte Arbaleste presents herself as a free woman with the same skills as men, even if, for tactical reasons, she claims to owe her husband obedience. La coiffure de Charlotte Arbaleste 245
{"title":"La coiffure de Charlotte Arbaleste","authors":"Y. Krumenacker","doi":"10.14315/arg-2020-1110110","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14315/arg-2020-1110110","url":null,"abstract":"Charlotte Arbaleste, the wife of Duplessis-Mornay, was banned from the Last Supper in Montauban in 1584: her hair was considered immodest by Pastor Bérault. This episode, reported in a memoir by Charlotte Arbaleste, is indicative of the Calvinist offensive against luxurious clothing and too conspicuous hairstyles at the end of the century. This offensive, which is based on some texts from Holy Scripture and especially on Tertullian and Cyprian, was led mainly by Pastor Daneau, in several books, and by the consistories of the Montauban area. Above all, it reveals a male desire to dictate their dress to women, to differentiate between genders in order to prioritize them: female hairdressing must be a sign of women’s inferiority compared to men. Faced with these claims, Charlotte Arbaleste presents herself as a free woman with the same skills as men, even if, for tactical reasons, she claims to owe her husband obedience. La coiffure de Charlotte Arbaleste 245","PeriodicalId":42621,"journal":{"name":"ARCHIV FUR REFORMATIONSGESCHICHTE-ARCHIVE FOR REFORMATION HISTORY","volume":"111 1","pages":"217 - 245"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42020808","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-01DOI: 10.14315/arg-2020-1110104
Danny Lehmann
On 16March 1530, a book that would soon have a profound impact on Christian-Jewish relations was printed in Augsburg. Der gantz Jüdisch glaub (The Entire Jewish Faith) was, according to its title page, the work of a local teacher of Hebrew, Anthonius Margaritha; in a matter of weeks, some of the most influential figures in the Holy Roman Empire would be familiar with his name. In June – after the book had been printed for a second time – Margaritha was summoned, at the behest of Emperor Charles V, to defend his writing in a public debate. The following year, the book was printed twice more, in Augsburg and in Leipzig, and through the end of the sixteenth century, another three or four times, in Cologne and in Frankfurt am Main.1
{"title":"“Such an Illumination Cannot Occur”: Anthonius Margaritha, the Reformation, and the Polemic against the Jews","authors":"Danny Lehmann","doi":"10.14315/arg-2020-1110104","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14315/arg-2020-1110104","url":null,"abstract":"On 16March 1530, a book that would soon have a profound impact on Christian-Jewish relations was printed in Augsburg. Der gantz Jüdisch glaub (The Entire Jewish Faith) was, according to its title page, the work of a local teacher of Hebrew, Anthonius Margaritha; in a matter of weeks, some of the most influential figures in the Holy Roman Empire would be familiar with his name. In June – after the book had been printed for a second time – Margaritha was summoned, at the behest of Emperor Charles V, to defend his writing in a public debate. The following year, the book was printed twice more, in Augsburg and in Leipzig, and through the end of the sixteenth century, another three or four times, in Cologne and in Frankfurt am Main.1","PeriodicalId":42621,"journal":{"name":"ARCHIV FUR REFORMATIONSGESCHICHTE-ARCHIVE FOR REFORMATION HISTORY","volume":"111 1","pages":"55 - 77"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47834488","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-01DOI: 10.14315/arg-2020-1110103
Claudio César Rizzuto
In the Antijovio (1567), explorer and conqueror of the Colombian territories Gonzalo Jiménez de Quesada described the number of revolts and riots in the kingdoms of Charles V and globally at the time of the Comunidades of Castile in 1520–1521. He employed a “cosmological” explanation, asserting that the movement of the planets or another celestial phenomenon was the cause of such upheavals.1 Seeing causal relationships between the uprisings occurring during the early 1520s was not unique to Gonzalo Jiménez de Quesada. This article analyzes primary sources that linked Martin Luther to the Comunero Revolt of 1520–1521 in Castile. First, the article will examine the early impact of news about Luther on Spain and its possible relationship to the revolt of the Comunidades. Then, it will discuss certain sources that made a posteriori comparisons or established a direct relationship between Luther and the comuneros. I argue that the inaccuracies likely involved in making these assumptions should be contextualized within a traditional discourse on heresy and rebellion. As is often pointed out, the falsehoods or fictions of a culture can tell us as much about this culture as its “truths” can.2 Finally, the article will discuss the
在《Antijovio》（1567年）中，哥伦比亚领土的探险家和征服者Gonzalo Jiménez de Quesada描述了1520年至1521年卡斯蒂利亚社区时期查理五世王国和全球的起义和骚乱次数。他采用了“宇宙学”的解释，声称行星的运动或其他天体现象是这种动乱的原因。1看到15世纪20年代初发生的起义之间的因果关系并不是Gonzalo Jiménez de Quesada独有的。本文分析了将马丁·路德与1520-1521年卡斯蒂利亚科穆内罗起义联系起来的主要来源。首先，本文将考察路德新闻对西班牙的早期影响及其与社区起义的可能关系。然后，它将讨论某些来源，这些来源进行了后验比较，或在路德和康穆内罗斯之间建立了直接关系。我认为，做出这些假设可能涉及的不准确之处应该放在关于异端和叛乱的传统话语中。正如人们经常指出的那样，一种文化的虚假或虚构可以告诉我们关于这种文化的信息，就像它的“真相”一样。2最后，本文将讨论
{"title":"The Comunero Revolt and Luther’s Impact on Castile: Rebellion, Heresy, and Ecclesiastical Reform Impulses, 1520–1521","authors":"Claudio César Rizzuto","doi":"10.14315/arg-2020-1110103","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14315/arg-2020-1110103","url":null,"abstract":"In the Antijovio (1567), explorer and conqueror of the Colombian territories Gonzalo Jiménez de Quesada described the number of revolts and riots in the kingdoms of Charles V and globally at the time of the Comunidades of Castile in 1520–1521. He employed a “cosmological” explanation, asserting that the movement of the planets or another celestial phenomenon was the cause of such upheavals.1 Seeing causal relationships between the uprisings occurring during the early 1520s was not unique to Gonzalo Jiménez de Quesada. This article analyzes primary sources that linked Martin Luther to the Comunero Revolt of 1520–1521 in Castile. First, the article will examine the early impact of news about Luther on Spain and its possible relationship to the revolt of the Comunidades. Then, it will discuss certain sources that made a posteriori comparisons or established a direct relationship between Luther and the comuneros. I argue that the inaccuracies likely involved in making these assumptions should be contextualized within a traditional discourse on heresy and rebellion. As is often pointed out, the falsehoods or fictions of a culture can tell us as much about this culture as its “truths” can.2 Finally, the article will discuss the","PeriodicalId":42621,"journal":{"name":"ARCHIV FUR REFORMATIONSGESCHICHTE-ARCHIVE FOR REFORMATION HISTORY","volume":"111 1","pages":"31 - 54"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44504345","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-01DOI: 10.14315/arg-2020-1110109
L. Vermeersch
In August 1566, chronicle writer Marcus Van Vaernewijck noticed the vigor with which a young man debated a Calvinist preacher during one of the illegal hedge-preachings in Ghent. Van Vaernewijck identified the man as an Anabaptist. Anabaptists, he continued, were known for their clever debating tricks, a skill they had mastered because they were inspired by the arguments in the letters and songs that had been written by imprisoned and eventually executed Anabaptists.1 Most of these texts were compiled in the martyrology entitled Het Offer des Heeren (hereafter abbreviated as ODH).2 The popularity of this compilation suggests that printed communication played an important role in the dissemination of Anabaptist ideas. Yet Van Vaernewijck’s comment illustrates how the content of those printed texts also reached citizens through complex processes of medial interactions. The printed content was not simply read, it was also circulated and mediated through oral and performative communication. Most of the scholarship on these printed martyr texts has focused on the theological message of the text itself, but since the non-textual communication and iteration of the ideas within the text were at least as important as the text itself, this article seeks to analyze the form and functions of those medial interactions in the urban context of Ghent. Its central argument is that the content of early modern print must be analyzed as both the result and the subject of
1566年8月，编年史作家Marcus Van vaernewijack注意到，在根特的一次非法的场外布道中，一个年轻人与一个加尔文主义传教士辩论时，表现出了极大的活力。Van Vaernewijck确认这名男子是再洗礼派教徒。他继续说，再洗礼派教徒以他们聪明的辩论技巧而闻名，他们之所以掌握了这一技能，是因为他们受到了被监禁和最终被处决的再洗礼派教徒所写的信件和歌曲中的论点的启发。1这些文本大多被汇编在题为《heet Offer des Heeren》(以下简称为ODH)的殉道著作中这本汇编的流行表明，印刷传播在再洗礼派思想的传播中发挥了重要作用。然而，Van Vaernewijck的评论说明了这些印刷文本的内容是如何通过复杂的媒体互动过程到达公民手中的。印刷的内容不仅仅是阅读，它还通过口头和表演交流进行传播和调解。大多数关于这些印刷殉道者文本的学术研究都集中在文本本身的神学信息上，但由于文本中非文本的交流和思想的迭代至少与文本本身一样重要，本文试图分析这些媒介互动在根特城市背景下的形式和功能。它的中心论点是，早期现代印刷的内容必须同时作为结果和主题来分析
{"title":"Mennonite Martyrs and Multimedia: On the Form and Function of Intermediality in Reformation Communication","authors":"L. Vermeersch","doi":"10.14315/arg-2020-1110109","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14315/arg-2020-1110109","url":null,"abstract":"In August 1566, chronicle writer Marcus Van Vaernewijck noticed the vigor with which a young man debated a Calvinist preacher during one of the illegal hedge-preachings in Ghent. Van Vaernewijck identified the man as an Anabaptist. Anabaptists, he continued, were known for their clever debating tricks, a skill they had mastered because they were inspired by the arguments in the letters and songs that had been written by imprisoned and eventually executed Anabaptists.1 Most of these texts were compiled in the martyrology entitled Het Offer des Heeren (hereafter abbreviated as ODH).2 The popularity of this compilation suggests that printed communication played an important role in the dissemination of Anabaptist ideas. Yet Van Vaernewijck’s comment illustrates how the content of those printed texts also reached citizens through complex processes of medial interactions. The printed content was not simply read, it was also circulated and mediated through oral and performative communication. Most of the scholarship on these printed martyr texts has focused on the theological message of the text itself, but since the non-textual communication and iteration of the ideas within the text were at least as important as the text itself, this article seeks to analyze the form and functions of those medial interactions in the urban context of Ghent. Its central argument is that the content of early modern print must be analyzed as both the result and the subject of","PeriodicalId":42621,"journal":{"name":"ARCHIV FUR REFORMATIONSGESCHICHTE-ARCHIVE FOR REFORMATION HISTORY","volume":"111 1","pages":"194 - 216"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43294901","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-01DOI: 10.14315/arg-2020-1110112
C. Kooi
As we make our way through the twenty-first century, the Reformation anniversaries continue to crop up. At a remove of four or five hundred years, the religious tumults that afflicted early modern Europe can seem very far away indeed from our own more secularized era. Germany’s official commemoration in 2017 of the five hundredth anniversary of Martin Luther’s protest, the Lutherjahr, sometimes presented the Wittenberg monk more as a martyr to freedom of conscience than the deeply passionate and partisan Christian believer and thinker that he in fact was.1 Indeed much of the Reformation year commemorations of 2017 were at pains to explain to twenty-first century audiences why so many sixteenth-century Europeans were so stirred up about abstract questions of theological speculation. From the perspective of five hundred years, the past can be a foreign country indeed. Still, many of us working in Reformation studies had opportunities in 2017 to share our expertise with popular audiences, and in this respect the public commemorations, as problematic as they could sometimes be, were good certainly for the field. Among the Reformation anniversaries observed this past year, 2019, is that of the National Synod of Dordrecht, which took place from November 1618 to May 1619, a milestone event in the history of early modern Reformed Protestantism. The Synod of Dordrecht (sometimes called “Dordt”) was a gathering of delegates from the provincial synods of the Reformed Church of the Dutch Republic, its theological faculties, and the States General, as well as a number of foreign representatives from Protestant Europe, that attempted to settle once and for all the precise theological identity of the church. The meeting was a watershed development in the evolution of the Reformed Church, which had only been legally and freely established less than fifty years earlier in 1572, when the provinces of Holland and Zeeland won their independence from Spanish suzerainty during the Revolt of the Netherlands. It was also an important moment in the history of international Calvinism, and the spiritual heirs of Dordt across the globe have been among the most active in celebrating the Synod’s quadricentennial.
{"title":"The Synod of Dordrecht after Four Hundred Years","authors":"C. Kooi","doi":"10.14315/arg-2020-1110112","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14315/arg-2020-1110112","url":null,"abstract":"As we make our way through the twenty-first century, the Reformation anniversaries continue to crop up. At a remove of four or five hundred years, the religious tumults that afflicted early modern Europe can seem very far away indeed from our own more secularized era. Germany’s official commemoration in 2017 of the five hundredth anniversary of Martin Luther’s protest, the Lutherjahr, sometimes presented the Wittenberg monk more as a martyr to freedom of conscience than the deeply passionate and partisan Christian believer and thinker that he in fact was.1 Indeed much of the Reformation year commemorations of 2017 were at pains to explain to twenty-first century audiences why so many sixteenth-century Europeans were so stirred up about abstract questions of theological speculation. From the perspective of five hundred years, the past can be a foreign country indeed. Still, many of us working in Reformation studies had opportunities in 2017 to share our expertise with popular audiences, and in this respect the public commemorations, as problematic as they could sometimes be, were good certainly for the field. Among the Reformation anniversaries observed this past year, 2019, is that of the National Synod of Dordrecht, which took place from November 1618 to May 1619, a milestone event in the history of early modern Reformed Protestantism. The Synod of Dordrecht (sometimes called “Dordt”) was a gathering of delegates from the provincial synods of the Reformed Church of the Dutch Republic, its theological faculties, and the States General, as well as a number of foreign representatives from Protestant Europe, that attempted to settle once and for all the precise theological identity of the church. The meeting was a watershed development in the evolution of the Reformed Church, which had only been legally and freely established less than fifty years earlier in 1572, when the provinces of Holland and Zeeland won their independence from Spanish suzerainty during the Revolt of the Netherlands. It was also an important moment in the history of international Calvinism, and the spiritual heirs of Dordt across the globe have been among the most active in celebrating the Synod’s quadricentennial.","PeriodicalId":42621,"journal":{"name":"ARCHIV FUR REFORMATIONSGESCHICHTE-ARCHIVE FOR REFORMATION HISTORY","volume":"111 1","pages":"289 - 300"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47442823","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-01DOI: 10.14315/arg-2020-1110106
Zachary Purvis
On 24 June 1535, nineteen men met in secret in the free imperial city of Cologne, each from a different place across Europe, both near, from the archbishopric of Cologne, and far, from Edinburgh to Madrid, London to Lyon, Danzig to Venice. Where exactly they met in Cologne is unknown, for they came and went by stealth as a precautionary measure against the dangers of their sensitive mission. Wherever it was, they assembled at the behest of Hermann von Wied (1477–1552), Cologne’s archbishop-elector, in order to refute allegations that the Order of Masonic Brothers derived from the Knights Templar and now conspired: to regain once glorious former possessions; to take revenge on the papacy, princes, and other powers whose ancestors had executed the Templars’s last Grand Master; to incite riots; and to proselytize for new members, testing candidates with bodily torture and requiring them to pledge under oath that they, too, would carry out the same ends under strict rules of secrecy. Seeking peace, not blood, the delegates to this clandestine congress produced a document that countered the charges and encouraged their beleaguered brothers. Written on ancient parchment in Latin with use of a cipher, the document described the real history, objective, and constitution of Freemasonry in clearly Christian terms. The delegates, of special importance to the Reformation, made nineteen identical versions of the document to be delivered to their nineteen cities; each delegate, the master of a lodge, signed his own name in ordinary letters at the end – including Philip Melanchthon (1497–1560). This describes briefly the making of the document known as the Charter of Cologne (Kölner Urkunde).1 The story is an explosive one. For historians, the
{"title":"When Melanchthon Became a Freemason: The So-Called 1535 Charter of Cologne and Its Long Aftermath","authors":"Zachary Purvis","doi":"10.14315/arg-2020-1110106","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14315/arg-2020-1110106","url":null,"abstract":"On 24 June 1535, nineteen men met in secret in the free imperial city of Cologne, each from a different place across Europe, both near, from the archbishopric of Cologne, and far, from Edinburgh to Madrid, London to Lyon, Danzig to Venice. Where exactly they met in Cologne is unknown, for they came and went by stealth as a precautionary measure against the dangers of their sensitive mission. Wherever it was, they assembled at the behest of Hermann von Wied (1477–1552), Cologne’s archbishop-elector, in order to refute allegations that the Order of Masonic Brothers derived from the Knights Templar and now conspired: to regain once glorious former possessions; to take revenge on the papacy, princes, and other powers whose ancestors had executed the Templars’s last Grand Master; to incite riots; and to proselytize for new members, testing candidates with bodily torture and requiring them to pledge under oath that they, too, would carry out the same ends under strict rules of secrecy. Seeking peace, not blood, the delegates to this clandestine congress produced a document that countered the charges and encouraged their beleaguered brothers. Written on ancient parchment in Latin with use of a cipher, the document described the real history, objective, and constitution of Freemasonry in clearly Christian terms. The delegates, of special importance to the Reformation, made nineteen identical versions of the document to be delivered to their nineteen cities; each delegate, the master of a lodge, signed his own name in ordinary letters at the end – including Philip Melanchthon (1497–1560). This describes briefly the making of the document known as the Charter of Cologne (Kölner Urkunde).1 The story is an explosive one. For historians, the","PeriodicalId":42621,"journal":{"name":"ARCHIV FUR REFORMATIONSGESCHICHTE-ARCHIVE FOR REFORMATION HISTORY","volume":"111 1","pages":"109 - 142"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47302331","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-01DOI: 10.14315/arg-2020-1110113
M. Friedrich
On March 17, 1751, in the Free and Imperial City of Hamburg eleven young Mennonites converted to the Lutheran faith. The ceremony took place in the church of St. Petri. All the neophytes belonged to the Goverts, a prominent and influential Mennonite family who lived in the neighboring town of Altona.1 This was a spectacular success for orthodox Lutheranism in a time and a city where inter-confessional conflicts were still common.2 One of the persons involved in converting the Goverts family was Barthold Nicolaus Krohn (1722– 1795).3 Krohn hailed from Hamburg where his father worked as an imperial
{"title":"Reformation History between Accident, Ambition, and Anguish: Barthold Nicolaus Krohn (1722–1795) and his Project for a General History of Anabaptism","authors":"M. Friedrich","doi":"10.14315/arg-2020-1110113","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14315/arg-2020-1110113","url":null,"abstract":"On March 17, 1751, in the Free and Imperial City of Hamburg eleven young Mennonites converted to the Lutheran faith. The ceremony took place in the church of St. Petri. All the neophytes belonged to the Goverts, a prominent and influential Mennonite family who lived in the neighboring town of Altona.1 This was a spectacular success for orthodox Lutheranism in a time and a city where inter-confessional conflicts were still common.2 One of the persons involved in converting the Goverts family was Barthold Nicolaus Krohn (1722– 1795).3 Krohn hailed from Hamburg where his father worked as an imperial","PeriodicalId":42621,"journal":{"name":"ARCHIV FUR REFORMATIONSGESCHICHTE-ARCHIVE FOR REFORMATION HISTORY","volume":"111 1","pages":"301 - 329"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42261678","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-01DOI: 10.14315/arg-2020-1110111
J. Geraerts
“No single provision of the entire council affected the Catholic laity more than Tametsi,” wrote John O’Malley in his recent history of the Council of Trent.1 Attempting to regulate the widely varying marriage practices, combat clandestine marriages, and establish the Church’s authority over this sacrament and important rite of passage, the Council stipulated that a valid marriage required the presence of a “parish priest or of another priest authorized by the parish priest or by the ordinary and in the presence of two or three witnesses.”2 Marriages contracted in another manner would be declared “invalid and null”, while punishment awaited those involved in concluding such a marriage.3 No less significant than Tametsi, at least for Dutch Catholics, were the decrees promulgated by the various Provincial States of the nascent Dutch Republic. Largely issued in the 1580s and 1590s, these decrees required marriages to be solemnized either in the presence of a Reformed minister or a municipal officer.4 The resulting mismatch between canon and secular law had grave consequences for Catholics living in the Dutch Republic. Marriages that were valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church were discarded by the secular authorities, and vice versa.5 This article studies the debates waged among Catholic clergy-
约翰·奥马利（John O'Malley）在其《特伦特议会近代史》（council of Trent）一书中写道：“整个议会中没有任何一项条款比塔梅西（Tametsi）对天主教俗人的影响更大。”，理事会规定，有效的婚姻需要“教区牧师或教区牧师或普通人授权的另一名牧师在场，并有两三名证人在场”。2以另一种方式缔结的婚姻将被宣布为“无效”，而参与缔结此类婚姻的人将受到惩罚。3其重要性不亚于Tametsi，至少对荷兰天主教徒来说，是新生的荷兰共和国各省颁布的法令。这些法令主要发布于1580年代和1590年代，要求在改革派牧师或市政官员在场的情况下举行婚礼。4由此导致的正教和世俗法律之间的不匹配对居住在荷兰共和国的天主教徒产生了严重后果。在天主教会眼中有效的婚姻被世俗当局抛弃，反之亦然。5本文研究了天主教神职人员之间的争论-
{"title":"Caught between Canon and Secular Law: Catholic Marriage Practices in the Dutch Golden Age","authors":"J. Geraerts","doi":"10.14315/arg-2020-1110111","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14315/arg-2020-1110111","url":null,"abstract":"“No single provision of the entire council affected the Catholic laity more than Tametsi,” wrote John O’Malley in his recent history of the Council of Trent.1 Attempting to regulate the widely varying marriage practices, combat clandestine marriages, and establish the Church’s authority over this sacrament and important rite of passage, the Council stipulated that a valid marriage required the presence of a “parish priest or of another priest authorized by the parish priest or by the ordinary and in the presence of two or three witnesses.”2 Marriages contracted in another manner would be declared “invalid and null”, while punishment awaited those involved in concluding such a marriage.3 No less significant than Tametsi, at least for Dutch Catholics, were the decrees promulgated by the various Provincial States of the nascent Dutch Republic. Largely issued in the 1580s and 1590s, these decrees required marriages to be solemnized either in the presence of a Reformed minister or a municipal officer.4 The resulting mismatch between canon and secular law had grave consequences for Catholics living in the Dutch Republic. Marriages that were valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church were discarded by the secular authorities, and vice versa.5 This article studies the debates waged among Catholic clergy-","PeriodicalId":42621,"journal":{"name":"ARCHIV FUR REFORMATIONSGESCHICHTE-ARCHIVE FOR REFORMATION HISTORY","volume":"111 1","pages":"246 - 288"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41330023","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-01DOI: 10.14315/arg-2020-1110105
T. McIntosh
Since at least the early twentieth century, German scholars of the Reformation have discussed critically the remark in Martin Luther’s letter of 21 July 1530 to his friend and associate Justus Jonas that “Satan still lives and well sensed that your Apology [Augsburg Confession] stepped softly and had ignored the articles about purgatory, the cult of the saints, and especially the antichristian pope.”1 Despite disagreeing about the remark’s precise significance in relation to
{"title":"Luther, Melanchthon, and the Specter of Zwingli during the Diet of Augsburg in 1530","authors":"T. McIntosh","doi":"10.14315/arg-2020-1110105","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14315/arg-2020-1110105","url":null,"abstract":"Since at least the early twentieth century, German scholars of the Reformation have discussed critically the remark in Martin Luther’s letter of 21 July 1530 to his friend and associate Justus Jonas that “Satan still lives and well sensed that your Apology [Augsburg Confession] stepped softly and had ignored the articles about purgatory, the cult of the saints, and especially the antichristian pope.”1 Despite disagreeing about the remark’s precise significance in relation to","PeriodicalId":42621,"journal":{"name":"ARCHIV FUR REFORMATIONSGESCHICHTE-ARCHIVE FOR REFORMATION HISTORY","volume":"111 1","pages":"78 - 108"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45205054","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：