L '24.... LIT. .,. ”no-u D J n .4 ..; 'r. q .0 273“ 5"“ ~~ 24%,: - , 5:. 4:53: $26 1???? '- \u e -.6 ..- 3:2 ‘J unfit, 6. I my . 4‘}, ‘ f [I 6'26»- 1:15.12 '14?" 14‘ :2 W4" 22.”, I WM" 7 wwwx “6616/1" *'<(<}_'\rfj'w . 0 -‘},;1".:". .32“: . . 60$; .6‘,‘;;,".‘j‘ Q: .35 :3. '4' V. ‘.' a. a 33“ -Zi‘sx . ASA: 6:. I 2 MM ,5." 26:12 ( j‘hw .fiN V11, ,- fil/ffip ‘14,; 53:3": (L. 22;"; 11;.1’1'3‘ 61;: H6}: :62 .2 ' 1.1;! '.' . 2. ‘.“-‘.’ 4- (fix? 1": 'Yl'rf. .12 1 2 fl ’2,” . ”2' if 2.62%": ""7"! "'1‘ '4 ‘.'}f'l'l -1,_ 11654626 3661’ 1311f I“ :( '.’(kjr'. ‘.J lift; (41/316,111 1“ “:14; "afléflgf «6.6» " ' -' ., I .. ; d .66 6-6» 61‘ §£r§ . ""i- ' £226.62 22.22): -A'1 ( ’.‘3 .421," V “4" If. '.'..fgffi'";a "‘1' 3'" ‘ x I 63:"; ’.'. ‘.2- "f. \ H'?s§"g..'..'. «:66. 6: \'- \4 .' ‘n ’.Ilrflzl", 4 613‘?“ :(!":;\ .\ ”:2‘::.‘;4 24.23-12.32 2 '2 " . 2 Ii 4‘22}: .3., . ‘I.\; .. ' .5. .r}: I' u ‘.“?“ it A. \7" » h A .44. ‘2 «‘Q‘ \‘o' I ' I ‘ e11}?'"‘§“~‘3<"'52? 6- 36¢: {12(1;¢ '4‘; :1. 1.4‘ ‘I f» '41-. id! - 1:. :9- 3‘14": . ‘3‘ 5 > ‘fii 66.6"" ”(,2 $121611 h) €R$ “1'1“ \VIA; fyvggy1/JH)E61{§§$6“ 111111 6% "kW-11116361 11:1»?11" 24’” (9,6114% 312%.. l’l‘ .1? fa» ‘)E‘j"‘% 23263" ..i1‘7 the council, directly threatening the hegemony of a group so closely tied through kinship, marriage and god-parentage, and challenging the very foundations of social harmony.26 In an incident in 1527, Linhart Leiniger, a rentier and vintner who ranked twenty-fourth in Kitzingen, in terms of tax assessments, raped and beat a local widow, Magdelena Frennckin, so severely that she required extensive medical attention.27 Leiniger's local political influence, indicated by the intercession of the territorial steward on his behalf, explains his disregard of two stern judgments against him, and the ultimate diminuation of punishment to a light fine, with the added stipulation that he display more kindness toward his wife. Since the law prescribed the death penalty for rape (not to mention penalties he should have accrued for assault and adultery), we are obviously dealing here with an abominable creature of no small importance in the community. However, despite his influence, Leiniger never succeeded in gaining access to the elite. Political apathy on his part was certainly not a factor. In the 26. Accusations of adultery cost two council members their seats, in cases so infamous that they came ix: the attention of the margrave himself: Batori & Ueyrauch, 265. On the threat of violence to the community through conjugal misconduct: Batori 8 Ueyrauch, 260- 266; Ruggiero, 76, 156-170; Owen-Hughes, 12-15. On the disintegrating character of sexual offenses among elites: weisser, 40. 27. Bdhm, 134; MSUSpC, M81270. A judgement for medical expenses of 20fl. was awarded, one third the yearly salary of city physician. 49 uprising of 1525, Leiniger actively participated in the committee established to run the municipality after popular take-over.28 With the return of the council after the revolt, Leiniger once again found himself outside the ruling elite. His case illustrates that neither wealth, nor local influence was always enough to offset standards of moral fitness by which all potential candidates for council office were judged. Blatant deviation from social norms endangered group hegemony and resulted in ostracism by the elite, who also found it necessary to maintain a modicum ”of moral integrity in order to legitimize their privileged status. Consequently, the subjective criteria of moral differentiation provoked indignation among the parvenu, who then sought redress to their political unenfranchisement through other than legitimate channels, linking them in common cause with the forces of popular unrest. "here the Elite go to Eat No better portrait of Kitzingen's urban elite survives than the guest lists to the annual Martini banquet, hosted by the council on St. Martin's day (11 November) at public expense and marking the end of the 29 fiscal year. These rosters read like a veritable "who's who?" of the Kitzingen elite, literally demarcated at this yearly gathering. The 28. Arnold, "Sozialstruktur," 211; Béhm, 45-46. He was never tried for his participation. 29. Neyrauch, 138-140. 50 approximately 60 guests encompassed two percent of inhabitants of Kitzingen while associated costs amounted to one and one-half percent of the city's annual budget. Seating arrangements, crucial to a harmonious table setting, reflected the perceived social status of each guest. The head table was reserved for the mayor, influential members of the inner council, the deacon of St. John's, the parish Church, physicians and the territorial officials. Various ecclesiastes, the school headmaster and the remaining members of the inner council usually sat at the second table. Perimeter elements of the local elite, including the four representatives of the commune and younger members of the outer council, found themselves on the periphery, at the sixth table. The Martini banquet provides a unique illustration of the elite circle at Kitzingen. It enables us to visualize the structure of this strata through the eyes of its contemporary membership, revealing that the urban elite of the Late Middle Ages consisted of more than the political oligarchy. Martini also symbolized the social isolation of the commune and the elite's own perceptions of their differentiation from it. The commune was not merely constitutionally impotent: "Once a year, the elite of Kitzingen gorged themselves at the. expense of 'their' city".30 30. Veyrauch, 140. 51 The Church, the Elite and the Reformation The Catholic Church formed a third element in the political and social structure at Kitzingen. As such, it was imbued with immunities in the community that conflicted with the jurisdiction of the territorial state and the urban elite. Although the church's institutional representatives can be considered edites in their own right, their status in Kitzingen, like that of the territorial operatives, was tangential rather than endemic to the urban social hierarchy, as they derived sanction from an outside agency. This original differentiation stood in stark contrast to the status awarded locally to the’ urban elite, inherent in communal structure. Once again, the same contrast existed between the local elite and territorial officials. However, the goals of those two exogenous forces (Church and State) were fundamentally different. As we have seen, the margraves pursued a secular policy of territorial conglomeration in conjunction with the local establishment, and rooted hi a similar ideological current, namely, maintenance cH‘ the common weal.31 The Church, (H) the other hand, supported a supra-regional strategy of unification under an ecclesiological banner, the respublica christiana, thereby seeking to interpose a foreign authority in the commune's internal affairs without regard for the elite's insistence on a degree of local autonomy.32 31. See above, chap. II, especially pgs. 21, 35-37. 32. On the implications of a similar conflict between Venice and the Church, see: Bouwsma, 1-51. 52 Church-city tensions in Kitzingen originated with the long- standing struggle between the town council and the Benedictine nunnery over the patronage rights of prebends, the pastorate and jurisdictional 33 Since the city was originally an imperial benefice and competency. the monastery was a ‘hHJ-fledged participant iri the imperial estate system, both had recourse iri internal disputes to plead their case 34 Additionally, the nunnery could avail itself on before the Emperor. the episcopal court at NOrzburg and the Holy See at Rome, both empowered to render verdicts with ecclesiastical weaponry. However, in the end, it was the territorial state which proved best able not only to mediate local conflict, but also to enforce its decisions, either through threat of force or political alienation. The domination of ecclesiastical courts and the treaty with Vflrzburg resolving overlapping jurisdiction, effectively' limited the authority of Church agencies within the territory.35 An earlier treaty , concluded by the bishopric and the margraviate in 1477, temporarily settled a quarrel between the nunnery and the city, delineating the nunnery's rights concerning its forest and market privileges, wine regulations and official appointees (Customs agent, toll master on the 36 Main bridge, etc.). Another lengthy dispute ensued concerning the 33. Details of this struggle are found in Demandt & Rublack, 9- 34. 34. Monumenta Boicg, 43; Oestreich, 142. 35. See above, pgs. 16-17, 22. 36. Demandt G Rublack, 14. 53 nunnery's patronage rights over the parish church and the local hospital, which increasingly involved the margrave as arbiter. On the eve of the Reformation, these struggles resulted in absolute gains by the council in economic privileges and patronage rights, the reduced influence of the episcopal court at UOrzburg and greater reliance on the territorial lord in the deliberation of internal disputes. One of the most heated misunderstandings pertained to the cloister's judicial rights of asylum and pardon. In imitation of Matthew 27:15, the abbess was permitted to demand of the council release of any one prisoner yearly. Furthermore, should a fugitive escape to any of the cloister buildings, he was placed in the custody of the abbess and could not be removed. These included the cloister itself and the hospital, which are mentioned in list of the abbess' rights in 1519, as well as the parish church of St. John.37 The latter's stance as a place of sanctuary is indicated in an Urfehde of 1523, which recounts the' escape of a prisoner after arrest.38 He managed to flee to St. John's, but gave himself up voluntarily after extorting promises of leniency from the council. The council kept its word, releasing him with a light fine of 1fl., but requiring him to provide seven compurgators, almost one fourth of the total compurgators appearing iri all eighteen Urfehd-Verschreibunge . In this case, a criminal was virtually able to hold the council to blackmail, though 37. These rights, published in the original, are found in: Demandt & Rublack, 142-143. 38. MSUSpC, MS 1258. 54 the unusually heavy requirements for compurgators reflects a contemporary propensity for sophistry, inherent in promises given under duress.39 The intrusion of the abbess upon communal jurisdiction presented the council with many serious incidents, of which this is but one example. In the case of the yearly pardon, the council had no recourse but to grant the abbess' wish. The cloister offered exceptional status to nfiscreants, potentially damaging the council's ability to render equal judgement to all and secure certain punishment of those disturbing communal tranquility. This challenge to the council's authority was widely recognized and in some cities, when the tocsin was sounded, the citizenry was not only to close the town gates to impede a fleeing criminal, but also to physically block entrance to churches and monasteries.”0 The council responded to the cloister's juridical undermining of their authority in 1498, entreating Emperor Maximilian I to rescind the abbess' privileges. Indeed, they hoped that a former resident of Kitzingen, currently serving as imperial chancellor, would intervene on their behalf. Their attempts met with success and the Emperor revoked 39. Indeed, it was this type of double-handedness which Sachs sought to expose: see above, p.34. Although Germans tend to refer to this kind of deceptive logic as Bauernschlauheit, it was not limited to the peasantry: see below, pgs. 78, 85. ‘0. Rublack, 29. 55 the cloister's privileges of asylum and pardon."1 The abbess, unwilling,to surrender her customary rights, remanded the case to the margrave, Frederick V, who nullified the imperial edict and reinstated the abbess' privileges. He further took advantage of the situation by attaching a proviso, restricting the abbess' freedom of employment and granting the margrave effective veto powers. Perhaps this codicil placated the councilmen; now they too could appeal to the margrave with the added assurance that the abbess would consider his judgement binding. Certainly: with the Emperor very far away, the council felt the immediate physical proximity of the margrave's operatives more directly and their symbolic presence strengthened his position concretely. Regardless 0W motivation, neither party' ever appealed beyond the margrave again in this matter, although disputes continued until the mid-sixteenth century.”2 Once again, internal conflict had abetted the territorial policy' of centralization through the tacit agreement of aggrieved parties on the role of the margrave in arbitration. A second source of Church-city tensions, and that most closely associated ‘with the initium reformationis at Kitzingen, was the struggle over parish administration, exercised iri absentia. Because this abuse was particularly blatant, it provided the impetus necessary for the council to enact reforms upon the lines of the Vittenberg 41. The revocation appears in: Demandt & Rublack, 120-122. ‘2. For example, a case involving the cloister's water rights was deferred to the jurisdiction of the hundred court in 1525: MSUSpC, M81265. S6 movement. As it became increasingly apparent that the Bishop of Ufirzburg was unwilling to cooperate with them, members of the council and the elite took their grievances to the margrave, who proved only too willing to preside over the matter, but remained extremely ambivalent in his statements concerning religious reform, in an attempt to foster good will among all aggrieved parties. The council expressed several major concerns in this affair. They desired that prebends flowing from the commune be used to insure the pure preaching of God's word and the proper catechization of the parishioners. There was a correlating interest that those receiving prebends not do so in absentia.‘3 Johann von Uirsberg, the cathedral deacon of Eichstitt, had been selected by the papal curia in 1502 to fill vacancies in the parish at Kitzingen. He was accused by the council of chronic absenteeism and withholding the funds necessary to install a reasonably articulate parish administrator. Additionally, Virsberg placed one cH‘ the most important prebends of the parish church, which entailed the management of several acres of vineyards and a farmhouse, under the control of another administrator in absentia. This ”prebend hunter", as he was locally known, concurrently held five stipends iri other locales, a blatant violation of canon law. His management siphoned away still more funds from the pool available for the employment of an acceptable parish clergy.4‘ 43. Demandt 8 Rublack, 36-46. 44. Demandt 8 Rublack, 46-50. S7 The council moved against this situation in 1522. Initiating a quarrel over Uirsberg's direction of the parish in absentia, they addressed themselves to the margrave, Casimir, who intervened on their behalf at Nflrzburg. VOrzburg offered the council two new candidates and, in 1523, Johannes Schenk von Sunau, a former Franciscan monk, was designated parish administrator. It seems likely that the council had been apprised 10f his theologically reformist tendencies, and Schenk ‘5 Uhen Schenk immediately abolished a number of liturgical ceremonies. was removed by NOrzburg for reformist activities in 1525, his successor was decided upon through joint negotiations by the council and lilirzburg.“6 The new administrator, Martin Meglin, also actively supported the Reformation in his parish."7 Negotiations over parish administration reveal that the council was solely concerned with conditions in the local church which affected public welfare rather than the state of the universal Church, as references to the rights of the Bishop or the curia are conspicuously absent from diplomatic correspondence.”8 Until the rigidification of the territorial Church in 1528, the council was able to exercise a hitherto unknown degree of autonomy in the selection of its parish head and actively insure the 45. A local chronicler, Johann Beringer, commented on his liturgical changes: Demandt 8 Rublack, 288. Rublack suggests that the council was active in the selection process: Ibid., 45. Béhm refers to Schenk as “the first evangelical parish priest (or, more correctly, parish administrator)": 6. Maurer specifically refers to Schenk as "Lutheran": 517. 46. For transcripts of these negotiations: Demandt 8 Rublack, 233-235. ' 47. On Meglin's activities: Maurer, 517-521. 28. Demandt 8 Rublack, 39. 58 preaching of the pure Gospel, primary demands of the reform movement in the Sturmjahren.49 This autonomy in the selection of religious officials, albeit short-lived, requires a caveat to the total exclusion of clergy from the urban elite. The influence and authority of Schenk and Meglin were, at least partially, endogenously legitimized, and endemic to their status within the community, rather than an outside agency. A similar method employed by the council to establish autonomy in internal religious affairs was the endowment of a lay preachership in 1517/18.50 As the lay preacher owed his status to perceptions of his authority originating from within the commune, he may also be considered a member of the urban elite. Lay preacherships were set up by burghers to integrate religion more effectively into communal life and their use illustrates an acute need exhibited by the pious laity for spiritual guidance. Ozment suggests that there was a direct correlation between lay preachers and Protestant leadership in the community.51 Concentrating on biblical sermons in the vernacular, the message of the lay preacher was ideologically powerful and more accessible to the laity. In 1522, the preachership in Kitzingen was occupied by Christoph Mofmann, a Vittenberg theology student with ties to the early movement of Luther and Karlstadt in that city. Once 49. However, this did not necessarily include participation by the commune: Blickle, Gemeinde Reformation. 93-94. 50_ Maurer, 521. 5‘. Cities, 38-43. 59 again, whether consciously or intuitively, the council had sided with the forces of reform as a 'vehicle to enhance their autonomy and ideologically justify the pre-eminence of the local congregation at the expense of the universal Roman Church. The most empirically significant maneuver of the council was to communalize local prebends and charities, iri order to oversee their just distribution and avoid having them funneled off into the pockets of “prebend hunters". This policy was enacted with the close support of the margrave. In 1523, the council was able to gain control of the most important prebends in the parish and, in 1525, all clerical incomes were made taxable.52 The monies collected were to provide for the spiritual welfare of the community, paying the salaries of the parish administrator, local deacons and the lay preachership. In addition they were to form the basis of the community chest, set up in 1523. Kitzingen was among the first cities of the Empire to communalize charitable organs, placing disposal of funds in the hands of a "beggar's" judge.53 It was his responsibility to oversee the granting of relief and to prevent begging in the city, which was forbidden by God. The religious impulse behind the community chest is similar to 52. Demandt & Rublack, 49-50, 85. 53. On the role of the beggar's judge and the creation of the community chest at Kitzingen, see: Demandt 8 Rublack, 51-57. 60 that given in the wittenberg city ordinance of 1521, composed by 54 In this regard, Karlstadt during Luther's seclusion in the Uartburg. the policy followed at Kitzingen is attributable to the work of religious reformers. The emplacement of a community chest in Kitzingen was managed the by private secretary of Margrave Casimir, George 55 Vogler had Vogler, a vehement supporter of the Protestant movement. been personally won over by Luther in 1521, and he worked closely with another well-known reformer, Freiherr Johann von Schwarzenberg, author of the Bambergensis, to institute religious reform in the margraviate. The local impulse for installation of the community chest at Kitzingen can be traced to the lay preacher, Hofmann.56 Presumably, his experience in Vittenberg provided him with the model for its implementation. Additionally, his actions exemplify the manner in which a non-councillor member of the local elite could exert influence over the city, as well as how the desires of the council for autonomy were intermingled in reform theology through the acceptance of Protestant social policies. 5‘. Simon, 228-229. 55. A biographical sketch of AVogler and his role in the Reformation iri the margraviate is found in: Engel, 134-139. The diplomatic correspondence between the council, Vogler and the margrave, including a personal note of thanks to Vogler by the council for his assistance in setting up the community chest, appears in: Demandt G Rublack, 216-219. 56. Krodel, 148. 61 The Reformation from above The struggles between the ciVy council and Church institutions demonstrate the willingness of the urban elite to unite itself with the reform movement against the supra-regional strategy of the Church for several reasons. First, it was an abstraction, whose goals conflicted with immediacy of urban norms (the common weal) in the realm of everyday experience. Second, the Church vulgarized secular activities and was arrogantly demeaning to the assiduous burgher. Thirdly, its paternalistic intrusions into the communal autonomy undermined the authority of the local elite. In Kitzingen, the elite was not hostile to religious reform movement. Rather, they were the motivating force behind the institution of reform measures. This is not to say that the Reformation represented a clear break with the past. These measures were the culmination of a long standing drive for the localization of authority and coincided with the interests of the territorial state. Reformation programs influenced the implementation of change and enhanced the territorial dependence of the local elite, who relied increasingly (”T the intervention of the margrave iri their struggle against local Church. For these reasons, the Sturmiahren represent a readjustment of the political superstructure in Kitzingen. In several cases, clear acceptance of the new religious profession by members of the local elite is ascertainable, but, for most part, 57 confessional preference remains unclear. Nonetheless, the 57. Batori G Neyrauch, 266-272. 62 Reformation and its incumbent theological baggage made a definite impression upon the process of secularization in Kitzingen. By utilizing religious reform as the vehicle of social change, the councillors were guided by the example of policies ideologically stamped by Luther and Karlstadt. However, by challenging the religious institution which had ideologically legitimized the extant social order, the flood gates were opened for a torrent of religiously founded theories of social reconstitution. Mindful of this, the elite consciously sought to exclude the commune from involvement in the process of religious reform. Vhen the margrave requested that a public election be held to choose communal representatives to oversee fiscal operation 01 the community chest, the council protested. To avoid creating an additional forum for the articulation of communal grievances, they recommended that those representatives already elected to oversee the city budget at the annual communal gathering simply be assigned this additional duty, as it appeared to them “neither useful, 58 A well-founded fear nor good to congregate the commune too often". of communal unrest was also prompting the elite to tuntivate closer ties with the territorial state. Their fears were based on a long tradition of popular unrest in Kitzingen and their recognition that the climate of reform might offer an ideological for further agitation. These fears were confirmed by the events of 1525. 58. “gunckt uns guch nicht nutz oder flt sey ein gemein offt Zuuersgmeln.': Demandt & Rublack, 218. The council felt strong enough about the matter to repeat that request in a subsequent letter to Vogler: Demandt & Rublack, 219. 63 IV. SOCIAL PROTEST AND THE REFORM OF THE COMMON MAN Although the politically unenfranchised, non-elite members of society at Kitzingen, were viewed by the ruling strata as encompassing a monolithic group under the heading "subjects" (Untertgnen), the commune was actually a composite of identifiable, heterogeneous segments (H‘ the population. Its constituency ranged from merchant- rentiers in the upper strata, who had not gained access to the elite circle, down to the commonest day laborers. Legally, members of the commune were politically impotent. The only route of political articulation open to them was civil unrest, rooted in heightened perceptions of social differentiation which, at times, grew strong enough to tax the contractual fibers of communal hegemony and the social consensus. Vhen tensions flared from latent stress points in the social fabric, individual segments, or even the entire heterogenous group erupted iri protest and even violent revolt. The history' of Kitzingen is marked by several specific uprisings which, for the members of the elite, were of communal origin. Closer examination reveals that each individual case differed in its social composition, goals, and motivation. By examining incidents of social protest, we can define the components of this socially generalized grouping and analyze both the impulses prompting open unrest and the binding influences which sometimes fused its varied elements together. The 63 64 history of unrest at Kitzingen displays elements of continuity, and culminated in the uprising of the commune in 1525. Early Incidents of Open Unrest One of the earliest recorded examples of violent unrest in the city was the Armleder uprising of 1336, a regional pogrom directed against the rural and urban Franconian Jewry. The participants, a coalition of peasants, urban lower classes and the lower nobility, savagely united in a massacre of Jewish communities from the Tauber valley to Kitzingen in the north, until they were eventually defeated en route to Vfirzburg. Headed by the robber knight, Arnold von Uissigheim, who was subsequently beheaded after the movement was crushed, the participants were motivated by indebtedness and anti- semitic religious prejudice, loosely based on a crusade-like, Christian 1 ideology. Lorenz Fries, a sixteenth-century Franconian chronicler, records the events in Kjtzingen as follows: How the Common Man Rebelled against the Jews. In the aforementioned year [1336]... the common man at Rdttingen, Aub, Bad Mergentheim, Uffenheim, Crautheim, and yet other locales rebelled and slew the Jews around them... They then began to move on Kitzingen and, when the citizens 1. Arnold considers the nexus between an atavistic religious ideology and empirical circumstance resulting from poor agricultural conditions as the motives for the pogrom: “Armledererhebung,” 55-60. His inferences to a linear connection between this event and the rising of the Tauber valley army during the Peasants' Var of 1525 are quite convincing. A regional proclivity? 65 and council barred their entry, the common citizenry forcefully took the keys from the citizens to the gates and opened them; thereafter the senseless mob entered the city and slew all the Jews there...2 The council's attempt to spare its Jewish subjects was logically consistent with their policy of exorbitant taxation, which provided enormous assets for the town's coffers. Uhat is telling, however, is Fries' juxtaposing of the "citizens and council" with the "common citizenry", inferring opposition between Kitzingen's elite and the group interchangeably referred to as the '"common man", the "common citizenry“ and the “senseless mob“. It is important to bear in mind that these remarks stem from the hand of an elite, who had experienced the events of 1525 first hand. Viewed from above, the mob was dangerous to public welfare, and commonly believed to be prone to insanity, whereas rulers were "endowed with special wisdom by the creator".3 The “Armleder“ uprising also reveals the intimate connection between segments of the commune and its rural hinterland. A second instance of open unrest took place in 1430. This conflict directly reflected antagonisms between the commune and the ruling elite, related to the most concrete differentiation between the 2. "Vie sigh der gemain man entbért hat wider die Juden. In dem obbenenten Jgre (1336)... entboret sich der gemein man zu Rothingen. Awe, Mergetheim, Uffenheim, Crauthaim und gnderen mehr orten und erschlugen die Juden bei inen... Sie zogen gich anfangs uf KitzingenI und wiewol burger und rgthe die nicht einlgssen molten. so ngmen doch die gemainen buggere den burgeren die schlussel zun thorn mit gewalt und sperten die thore uf: glso rOckt der unginig pof in die stgt und erschlugen glle Juden daselbst...: Arnold, "Armledererhebung," 47. 3. Rublack, 32, 43-44. 66 two, the division of Kitzingen into neighborhoods. Sometime around 1428, the inner city had been divided from the outer city by a high wall with a series of towers and a moat, an undertaking in which all 1. members of the commune had been "invited" to participate. Other parts of the city were guarded by simple fences and trenches, although, much later, stronger defensive works were erected. The five gates leading from the inner city to the outer city and the Main bridge to Etwashausen were closed at night, opening again shortly before dawn, 'creating the impression of a city within a city. It was a crime to transit to or from the inner city by night, as one visitor discovered 5 in 1526, much to his dismay. Inside the confines of its walls lived 180 of the “most eminent in the whole citizenry“, as if in a "happy, 6 mighty palace“. It was truly a “crass demonstration of the social, economic and political distance between the city's quartersl".7 Nhen a fire broke out in the inner city on a night in 1430,-a crowd of outer-city dwellers appeared before a gate, requesting 8 permission to join in its extinguishment. Upon refusal, "they" 4. Arnold, “Sozialstruktur,” 177-183. S. The unfortunate visitor from the nearby town of Kaltensondheim staged an ill-fated break-out attempt while under the influence of alcohol, but he was later released under oath: MSUSpC, M81268. 6. "mic ein lfistig, gewaltigfiSchloB neben dem Kloster. hgt es bei 180 Bfirger. dgrunter 12st die Stattlichsten in der ganzen BO erschaft':' Bernbeck, 5-6. 7. Batori 8 Ueyrauch, 241. 8. The council's version of the event can be found in : Arnold, "Sozialstruktur," 205-208. 67 2 _ '4 ,‘40' FIGURE 4 KITZINGEN AND ENVIRONS IN 1628 An aquarelle by painter Georg Martin. Note that, by this time the outer city was also protected by walls and trenches, although Etwashausen remained devoid of extensive fortifications. The monastery lies in the north-east corner of Kitzingen, across from the northern wall of the inner city, easily identifiable by its inner courtyard. For a detailed description of the layout of the city, see Kemmeter's introduction to Batori G Neyrauch, 18-26. 68 threatened to force their way in. At this juncture, entrance was granted, whereupon "they" proceeded to open other gates and fell to looting the houses of the wealthy. Eventually, the commune could only be dispersed after the council had agreed to present a series of demands to the city's overlords, at this time the bishop of NOrzburg and the margrave jointly. These demands included the co-option by the council of two representatives from the commune to review the municipal fisc, which was accepted under the proviso of secrecy, and permission for members of the commune to carry candles iri public processions, accepted with the stipulation that they be devoid of all special markings which might indicate an impulse to form guild organizations. The tensions between neighborhoods embody perceived differentiation with a sound basis in empirical reality. A breakdown of Kitzingen's sixteenth-century population according to neighborhood (Table 1.) reveals an absolute ratio of 7 : 3 for the two suburbs ahd the inner city respectively. This compares with crude ratios of 1 : 2, respectively, in terms of wealth and the councilors' place of residence. Socially, the inner city was the hub of the community. Not only was the parish church located within its confines, but it also housed the market, the granary and the city hall, and controlled access to the Main bridge. For inhabitants of the outer city and the transfluvial suburb of Etwashausen, virtually the only public gathering placed in their neighborhoods were the taverns in each quarter, which also generated enormous tax revenues for the city fisc. At the same time, the cumulative effects of alcoholic consumption and heated public 69 debate, for which these institutions provided a primary forum, made the taverns a focal points of civic unrest in the neighborhoods, and another symbol of differentiation in the city. TABLE 1 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF NEIGHBORHOODS IN KITZINGEN IN RELATIVE TERMS OF POPULATION, HEALTH AND PREDOMINANCE ON THE TOUN COUNCIL IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY9 Inner City Outer City Etwashausen Population 1.5 : 2.5 - 1 (As an absolute ratio) Uealth 61.3% : 20.2% (In %, based on liquid assets in 1520)* 13.9% Domicile of 11.4 : 4 Councilmen (As an absolute ratio) .0 an. * - the 4.2% remainder reflects the category "other". . Source: Batori & Neyrauch, 150, 242. 70 A third recorded incidence of open unrest occurred in 1511. It was provoked by a territorial levy of 800fl. on Kitzingen to help fund the margrave's campaign against Venice, adding substantially to the already high annual fiscal requirements of the overlord.10 In response, the commune elected .a committee of thirty-four members to present grievances to the council and margrave concerning the manner in which taxes were apportioned. The committee was headed by Endres Marckart, a wealthy- land owner with no political affiliations.11 Although the course of the uprising is unclear, subsequent negotiations with the margrave, Frederick V, reveal the participants' goals. Their primary aims were twofold. The agitators desired more regulatory input in the budgetary procedures of city government. This was granted, and the number of communal representatives on the city fisc was increased to four, although the restriction of secrecy continued to hamper their effectiveness. Two continued to be co-opted for life by the council, as per the agreement of 1430, while the new members were to be elected annually by communal assembly. Furthermore, communal enfranchisement in political affairs was demanded in the form of elected quartermasters (Viertelmeister) from each neighborhood, who would attend all councillor sessions. Based on the experience of UOrzburg, where a similar system of quartermasters had resulted in increased agitation 10. Concerning the budgetary demands on the city: Arnold, "Sozialstruktur,' 184-187; Bernbeck, 83-86. 11. A prosopographical characterization of Marckart is found in: B6tori G Neyrauch, 842-843. On his connection to the uprising of 1511, see: Arnold, “Sozialstruktur,” 185. 71 by the commune, this request was denied. The council and margrave concurred that such a system might only lead to further unrest by the commune and it had no precedence in the traditional pattern of government at Kitzingen. Although spatial differentiation had, once again, proved a source of tension, a newer component was conspicuous in demands for broader representation on the council. Evidenced by Marckart's leadership on the committee, the parvenu of the upper strata had, for the first time, visibly attempted to bridge a perceived anomaly in status and make their way into the elite as the elected representatives of the commune. All three examples of early unrest in Kitzingen display currents of unrest which would reappear in the rebellion of 1525. The sentiments of the elite toward the commune, echoed in Fries' characterization of it as an unruly mob, were shared by the margrave. His decision, subsequent to the uprising of 1511, to continue to restrict communal participation in internal political affairs by blocking the incorporation of quartermasters, reinforced the existing social structure. This gained for the margrave the affinity of the local elite, while, simultaneously confirming their dependence on his support in internal disputes with the commune. A half-hearted concession, granting increased representation to the' commune on the fisc, did litthe to diffuse intra-neighborhood strains (”1 municipal cohesion. Nor' did the margrave gratify the ambitions of would-be elites, who felt cheated by their social agglomeration with the masses. 72 Class Antagonisms? The Strike of 1522 Mass uprisings represent the most visible manifestations of social disintegration iri a community. Nevertheless, properties of social discord are also discernable in protests of much smaller proportions. In 1522, seven vintagers were charged by the hundred court with having formed a "secret conspiracy and alliance", illegally pitting themselves “against an ordinance of the honorable council and, thus against the 12 commune and citizenry of Kitzingen". These seven took to the streets and, partially through force, coerced nine other vintagers, later 13 charged with collusion, to join them. On that day, these sixteen failed to report for work in the vineyards, in violation of the council's decree forbidding unauthorized absences, meeting instead in a 14 tavern. There, according to the official account, they plotted to 12. "Das wir wider eins Erbernn ratz ordnumgi und alsot wider gmmeine stat und burgerschgfft zu kitzingen frevenlich gesetzt und ein mgimliche conspirationn und bundtnus ...": MSUSpC, M81256. 13. "unnd an solichem unserem furnemen nit gesettigtj sonder ander mer dinstknecjt zu kitzingen dahin geraitzt verhutztj und zum tail auf der gassennl und under der stat thornn angespjochen und bewegt auch zumitail mit gewalt dahingpracht/ daB sie unnd wir an eim arbait tag vonn unser hernn arbait in glosser zal in ein wirtzhaus unbewust unnser mern zusamen gangenn unnd unsernn hernn aufi Irer mmpait gegrgtennl": MSUSpC, M81256; "Das wir in die conspiration und bundtnus so etlichfiheckers jesellennl unnd dinstknecht zu kitzingfl wider eins erbernn Ratz ordnung und also wider gemeine stat unnd Engerschafft zu kitzingen furgenomen habenn/ irenn hern aufizudreten unnd sie zuzwingen Inenn gidegggngezaigte eins ratz Ordnung wein in daB veld zugeben etc. gedretenn unnd in Ir' zech unndggeselschafft komgm unser zum,tailgmufgestupft dmmit wir dann unns denselben Ir bundtnus tailhafftig gemacht dargm gehelt unnd bewilligt habennl: MSUSpC, M81257. 1‘. KTStA, NLN, M8335; BaStB, CG 5037, 1,2. The latter document suggests penalizing malingerers with gaol or the insane asylum ("Qefihalben mit dem thurnl oder Narrenhaus strgffen“), a comment on the work ethic of the late medieval burgher. 73 force their employer to serve them wine during the workday, also contrary' to a decree restricting its consumption in the fields.15 Following the commotion, perhaps heightened by the effects of alcohol, the sixteen were apprehended. The seven instigators were banished for an indefinite period, after having given renewed oaths of loyalty in an Urfehde. The other nine were confined on bread and water for several days and then released, swearing to refrain from further participation in secret organizations. The exact status of Kitzingen's vintagers in the community is not completely clear. It does appear that most of them came from outside the city, either originating from the city's hinterland «or regions beyond, and that they were boarded with local residents during the seasonal employment periods of several months in both the Spring and Fall.16 Vintagers worked in Kitzingen for day-wages, which were posted 17 before the city hall at the beginning of each season. They numbered about 1,000, making this force of non-indigenous laborers roughly equal 15. KTStA, wLw, ws335; BaStB, cc 5037, 2. ‘5. Of the sixteen involved in the incident of 1522, fifteen originated from outside the city, several coming from the immediate hinterland (Albertshofen, Buchbrunn, Herrsbruck) and others from as distant as Schweinfurt and Neissenburg. The same pattern recurs among their compurgators, many of whom were not residents of the city. The vintagers are specifically referred to as "vineyard workers, residing at Kitzingen“ (“glle diser zeit weingart knecht in dinstenn zu kitzingen mgnhgfft“): MSUSpC, M881256, 1257. Regulations stipulating board in addition to wages are found in: KTStA, NLU, M8335; BaStB, CG 5037, 4-5. 17. "so mmn yedes Jags Inn der fostenn am Rathaus pflegt anzuschlmgenl": BaStB, CG 5037, 2. 74 18 Regulations concerning to one third of the city's normal population. the conduct of vintagers in the fields indicate that they were engaged in a labor intensive industry conducted on a large scale, rather than merely renting plots, as was the procedure for viticulture in regions of France.19 This type of viticulture seems to have been endemic to many parts of the Empire, and the migrant population of vintagers, especially from the fourteenth century onwards, took on the proportions of a wage-earning class with volatile social propensities.20 The dissatisfaction displayed by the vintagers in the strike of 1522 stemmed from working conditions, although the given extent of their grievances, i.e. a desire to disobey their employers and local authorities concerning the consumption of wine, was most certainly colored by a desire on the part of the council to downplay the incident. In particular, one could point to their wages as a source of displeasure; while the average wage-laborer in Kitzingen received some 40pf. per day, a vintager earned from 6-30pf., depending on job, sex, age and whether board was provided.21 The stirrings of group consciousness are present in the strike, as it manifests a consensus among practitioners of a common profession on a set of grievances, 18. On their numbers, see: Béhm, 16. The population of Kitzingen in the sixteenth century was about 3,000: see above, pg. 1. 19. This is the procedure which DeVries indicates for France in general: 67. 20. Feldbauer gives such indices for vineyard laborers in Austria: 234-243. 2‘. Arnold, "Bauernkrieg," 18; BaStB, cc 5037, 1,4,5; KTStA, wlw, w5335. 75 within the framework of an industry for market production undertaken 22 In this sense, they were part of a through expropriation of labor. proto-proletarian class, presuming they engaged in agricultural pursuits when not employed in viticulture. Coupled with their status as outsiders, which enhanced a sense of group identity, the migrant vintagers defied integration into the communal ideal of the Late Middle Ages. Given the poor living conditions and a degree of group-unity which existed among the migrant vintagers of Kitzingen, the council was wary of their necessary, but potentially disruptive cohabitation in the city. Special ordinances, publicly issued each year to control theft, consumption of produce and the fixing of wages, were directed 23 A specifically at migrants. more general ordinance sought to prohibit the festive spirit which reigned among the vintagers en route to and from the fields.24 Shrieking and merry-making was officially condemned as a public disturbance and an insult to God. In the interests of civic tranquility and the common weal, the council saw fit to create an ordinance was to restrain outward displays of group identity' and control the potentially dangerous outbursts of the insubordinate mob. 22. Feldbauer detects vague impulses among vintagers to establish guild-like institutions to provide for social welfare, indicating a sense of group/class identity: 242-243. On the process of proletarianization in pre-industrial Europe: Tilly, 1-86. 23. BaStB, cc 5037, 1,2. 2‘. BaStB, cc 5037, 4,5. 76 As a group, the vintagers were singled out as a possible catalyst for unrest. As part of a class, they were purposefully associated with their comrades iri indigence, the- urban poor. This seemingly minor incident in 1522 was an indicator of lower-class antagonisms that did not escape the attention of the urban elite. Just prior to the actual outbreak of revolt iri 1525, the council and territorial operatives addressed the following warning to the margrave on 27 March, as unrest spread throughout Franconia: “...since, at this time, when the vineyard work ‘hs at its peak there may be, in our estimate, about one thousand foreign workers here in Kitzingen, and the poor common man generally tends toward the same unrest, therefore, we recommend, that it will be necessary to give no small attention to such strangers and also, in part, to those inhabitants burdened with poverty,"25 The Reformation as Social Protest 0n the evening of 17 April, 1525, rumors of an approaching, mounted contingent reached the ears of patrons in a tavern in 26 Etwashausen. Alarm spread quickly, first to another tavern in the 25. "... also unser achtens itzo ob tausent frembder mfbeiter hier zu K. sein magen, und der arm gemeingmmnn ob dergleichen mufruren gemgimiglich geneigt sein, dermmlben bemgggn gir. das alhie nit ein cleinvgufsehen'uf solgme frembde. guch zum_5eil auf die inmgner. die mit mgmut bglmden. zu mgben not seingmurtmflz Bahm, 16. 26. The origin of the rumor is unknown: Béhm, 35-36; Hammer, 145. Arnold indicates that it may have been part of a well-planned conspiracy: “Bauernkrieg,” 19-20. Bétori debates this, indicating the 77 outer city, and, subsequently, to the rest of the city as the tocsin was sounded, calling a muster. In the course of the night, and throughout the next day, the communal forces which had been called to arms managed to procure the keys to the city and were holding the council and territorial officials at bay. The exchequer was arrested and incarcerated in the debtor's prison, while the remaining representatives of the legitimate government were compelled In: work with the crowd to avoid bloodshed. The steward accepted the commune's demands, and a committee of fifty, incorporating eight members of the council, as well as six elected quartermasters, two from the inner city, three from the outer city and one from Etwashausen, was set up to oversee the city. The non-elite members of the committee came from the parvenu and individuals of lower-middling economic status, with an average annual tax assessment of around 7fl each.27 The commune, in turn, joined in an oath of renewed loyalty to the margrave and to the newly established committee, which now represented the city in place of the council. The forces of the commune and the status quo then settled into an uneasy truce, occupying their time with the restoration of public order. The revolt entered a second stage, when the committee discovered they were unable to control the more radical impulses of the commune. subsequent call to arms may have been undertaken in anticipation of orders from the margrave: “Ratsherren,” 150. 27. The figure is based upon the 1521 assessment of forty-four members: Arnold, 'Sozialstruktur“, 208-214. For examples of annual payments juxtaposed with accumulated wealth, c.f. : Bstori G Neyrauch, 313-879. 78 In response to their dilemma, the committee called upon Florian Geyer, the leader of the Tauber Valley peasants' army, to come to their aid. The committee's primary concern was to control hotheads in the commune, who advocated sacking the nunnery. Geyer established a “New Order" in the city on the twenty-seventh of April, based upon the articles of the Tauber Valley Army, steeped in principles of evangelic freedom.28 A second committee, reduced in size to twenty-four members and more restricted in terms of wealth, was established. The second committee represented the attainment of elite status by members of the parvenu.29 Having increased their status through participation iri the general revolt, this element now revealed its basic conservatism by cooperating with the elite in a policy of retrenchment, and fifty particularly troublesome burghers were dispatched to the peasant army. Still, the "New Order" was unable to dissuade the commune from following its impulse to sack the nunnery, which occurred in mid-May in the most violent, local episode of the revolt. On the seventh of June, Margrave Casimir re-entered the city at the head of two thousand troops from the Swabian League. Despite his promise to spare the lives of all its inhabitants, he had sixty agitators blinded and exiled. The sack of the Benedictine nunnery offers one instance which can be examined for possible traces of a connection between the communal revolt and Reformation theology. The nunnery was certainly an obstacle 28. The contents of the articles are found in: Lenk, 114. 29. Though not necessarily identical with the most wealthy, non- elite burghers: Batori, “Ratsherren,” 158-160. 79 to communal autonomy, and yet, it was the committee, comprised of former council members and the parvenu, who strove so hard to protect it, prompted by cues from the margrave and the relatives of the sisters.30 The primary motivation for its sack originated among the city‘s lower and lower-middle classes, who resented its economic privilege and the burden of taxation it placed on the community in the form of the tithe, wine taxes and its ownership of surrounding woodlands, in addition to the accumulated wealth stored within its 31 confines. Vhen the sack occurred in May, the mob absconded with a great amount of livestock and produce, part of which was sent to the rebellious peasant army.32 During the pillage, holy relics were profaned and the skull of Hadeloga, the founder and patron of Kitzingen, was bowled about in the street.33 He can illustrate antagonisms against the cloister on a personal level through the investigation of one member of the commune, who most outspokenly advocated plundering it from the onset of the uprising. This was Hans Mann, owner of a gristmill for the sharpening of weapons 34 and the grinding of powder. Mann was granted a contract by the abbess in 1524, to operate his mill along the Erharder creek, which 30. Arnold, “Bauernkrieg,” 27. 31. Arnold, “Bauernkrieg,” 20-21, 23-24; Demandt & Rublack, 71-72. 32. Arnold, "Bauernkrieg," 27-28. 33. Biihm, 75. 34. Arnold, "Bauernkrieg," 21, 30, 34; Ibid., "8ozialstruktur," 211. 80 35 In September 1525, Mann was also supplied the nunnery with water. charged with having diverted the: cloister's water for his own uses during a drought, as well as having joined with the rebellious peasants, in violation of a territorial order.36 During the revolt, he was. part of the first committee, but his lower-middling status and radical views resulted in exclusion from the second. In the first days of the revolt, he participated in the arrest of the» exchequer and publicly threatened the council chambers with a ballista. His antipathy for the “cloister derives from his resentment of their privileged water rights, as well as his contractual obligations to the abbess. Resentment toward the nunnery, though it certainly pre-dated the revolt, was never before manifested in the demands of the commune during previous outbreaks of unrest. For this reason, it can readily be associated with a nearly universal impulse among agitators in the Peasants' Var, prompted by emorbitant taxation and resulting in the destruction of numerous cloisters and castles throughout Franconia.37 Even Erasmus recognized in the Peasants' Var a supra-regional, anti- .0. monastical proclivity, stemming from the cloister's privileged 35. Bernbeck, 92. ..- 36. Béhm, 13-14; MSUSpC, M81265. 37. .An interesting synopsis 'of the various tithes, taxes and perennial levies inflicted upon subjectsflmand the mass antipathy for manifold privileges exercised by a myriad of nobles and clergymen in Franconia, is provided by: Endres, 65-70, 75-78. 81 38 Regional grievance lists provide concrete evidence for a status. connection between the antipathy directed against economic privilege and the Reformation. The articles of the Tauber Valley army state that dues not founded in Holy Scripture shall no longer be paid, that any castles or structures which epitomized the oppression of the common man should be sacked and burned and that both the laity and clergy would, henceforth, be bound by the reformed interpretation of the Gospel.39 A peasants' oath, taken at Dettelsbach in Kitzingen's hinterland at the beginning of May 1525, also stipulated that dues to any lord, whether secular or ecclesiastical, should no longer be rendered.”0 Although no extant document furnishes a theological foundation for local antagonisms against the nunnery in Kitzingen at the onset of the uprising, circumstantial evidence suggests that a connection between theology and social protest also exist in this instance. Theological 38. Erasmus' comment, from a letter the Uillibald Pirckheimer, written in August 1525, is found in: Oberman, 166. ' 39. "Und mittler Zeit soll man keinemfiHerrn weder Zins. Zehent. Gult, Handlohn, Hauptrecht oder dergleichen nichts geben, solang bis durch die Hochgelehrten der heiligen, géttlichen, wahrn Schrift ein Reformation gufgericht werde. gas man geistlicher und weltlicher Oberkeit schuldig sei zu leisten oder nit... Item es sollen auch schedliche SchloB, Vasserheuser und BefestigungL7daraus ggmeinem Mann bisher hohe, merkliche Beschwerung zugestanden sein, eingebrochen oder gusgebrannt werden, doch darinnen von fremder Hab ist. soll ihnen soferr sie Bruder sein w6llen und,mider gemeine Versammlung nit getan haben. widerfahrn. und was fur Gescmutzt in solichen Heusern vorhanden. soll gemeiner Versammlung zugestellt werden...Und beschlieBlich- was die Reformation und Ordnung. so von der Mochgelehrten der Heiligen Schrift. wie obstehet. beschlossen wurd, ausweist. des sollt sich ieder Geistlicher und weltlicher hinfur gghorsamlich halten.“: Lenk, 114. ‘0. “Ich soll und will, dieweil wir uns in die Versammlung der Bauerschaft getgn haben. keinemfigeistlichen oder weltlichen Fursten kein Zoll. Zins. Steuer oder Zehent nicht gebenLibis zu Austrag und Ende der Sachen, und einen Gott. ein Herren zu haben. Das helf mi;_ Gott und das Heilig Evamgelium im Namen des Allmechtigen.':' Lenk, 122. 82 justification for the sack of the nunnery can be sought in the work of reform theologians in Kitzingen, prior to the Peasants' Var. The men in question are Diepold Berringer, pseudonymously referred to as the Bauern of thrd, and Dr. Andreas Bodenstein, alias Karlstadt. Berringer was an illiterate, lay preacher who received permission from the council, under popular pressure, to preach in Kitzingen on three occasions iri May 1524, until he was ousted by order of the margrave at the end of that same month."1 He held his last sermon on 29 May, when he preached against idolatry before a crowd estimated at 8,000."2 Later that same year, Karlstadt passed through Kitzingen on his way to Rothenburg, tarrying for several days. His influence in the city seems to have been limited, as the residents, apparently aware of his break with Luther over the sacrament of communion, shied from his sermons."3 Still, his actions, especially the dismantling of monastic institutions at lHttenberg in 1522, and his literary works strongly recommending the same course of action as part of religious reform, may have reached segments of society in Kitzingen, either through personal 41. A general description of his activities are found in: Bernbeck, 93; Demandt & Rublack, 58-60. Correspondence between the margrave and the council concerning Berringer is cited in: Bohm, 125- 129. 42. The sermon was published later that same year in Nuremberg, under the title, “A sermon on idolatry preached at Kitzingen in Franconia by the peasant who can neither write nor read“. Even if we assume that the figure of 8,000, more that twice the population of the city, is somewhat exaggerated, nonetheless, it is clear that the sermon reached a wide audience with great potential influence on the inhabitants of Kitzingen and its hinterland: Demandt & Rublack, 58, #8 G #9. ‘3. Bernbeck, 93; Bdhm, 130; Maurer, 498; Simon, 230. 83 contact with Karlstadt himself, through the Uittenberg-trained lay preacher, Hofmann, or through the parish priest, Martiri Meglin, who possessed a volume of Karlstadt's works.‘4 Although this evidence is circumstantial, it would be anachronistic to insist that this unprecedented incident occurred in a vacuum, outside the currents of reform theology. Even Margrave Casimir claimed that the Peasants' Uar was initiated by disobedient subjects in his realm, who, either through the misinterpretation of scripture by unlearned preachers, or through the use of the Gospel as a cover for their own selfish gain, challenged the legitimacy of the authorities to collect their rightful dues.45 Therefore, on April seventh, 1525, he ordered that a sermon be preached throughout the territory against what he saw as the dangerous misinterpretations of Christian freedom, which caused unrest among the common man.‘6 He also required that any theological literature distributed in the margraviate first be approved by his administration. His primary concern was its political, rather ‘4. On Karlstadt's theology and activities in Nittenberg during Luther's absence: Maurer, 495-502; Simon, 227-230. ' His definitive work on the dismantling of monastical institutions, Vongmbtuhung der Bylderl Und das keyn Betdler unther den Christen seyn soll, is republished in: Simon, 231-279, especially pt. 2. Karlstadt was apparently a personal friend of the territorial exchequer in Kitzingen, Konrad Gutmann: Arnold, “Bauernkrieg,” 17. On Hofmann's academic career in Uittenberg: Maurer, 521. A collected volume of Karlstadt's works appears in inventory of books owned by Martin Meglin: Demandt 8 Rublack, 316, #40. ‘5. Arnold,""Bauernkrieg," 18-19; Bonn, 26; Demandt 8. Rublack, 72; Krodel, 164-165. “ ‘6. The text of this sermon, composed by the pmrish priest of the territorial capital at Ansbach, Johann Rurer, appears in: Bfihm, 27-34. A biography of Rurer can be found in: Maurer, 476-480. 84 than theological content. However, the targets of the revolt at Kitzingen imply that politics and reform theology were closely linked iri a communal impulse for social change, based upon principles of religious reform. This religious ideology provided the cohesive bond which made the revolt of 1525 the most powerful incident of social protest in Kitzingen's, indeed, in the Empire's history. Kitzingen and the Revolt of the Common Man The question that remains is to what extent the specific events in Kitzingen relate to the course of the Peasants' Uar in general. Blickle maintains that, in all their manifestations, the uprisings of 1525 were interconnected and represented a revolt of the common man: The common man was the peasant, the miner, the resident of a territorial town; in the imperial cities he was the townsman ineligible for public office. Insofar as the common man constituted the: counterpart of the lord, we should 'really speak of a rising of the common man. And iri view of the social structure of the revolution it is high time to bid farewell to the Peasants' Var, or at least to use that word with such discretion that it helps rather than hinders our understanding of the phenomenon of 1525.47 If we are to establish that the uprising in Kitzingen was integral to a revolt of the common man, then it is necessary to show that it was a conscious program of social change undertaken by individuals who, though politically unenfranchised, had a vested interest in social 47. The Revolution. 124. 85 reconstitution. That conscious program need not have been written, but merely understood by the participants, and in keeping with the goals of the broader movement. An anonymous chronicler of the history of Nuremberg idescribed the Peasants' Var at Kitzingen in the following entry for 1525: Thereafter, the Margrave Casimir was also in action, and came to Kitzingen, where his peasants were also in revolt. They claimed that they no longer wished to render their lord this and that. Further, they desired free access to water, woods and wildlife and they no longer wished to see their lord in those parts. Therefore, the he ordered some sixty of them to have their eyes put out, so that they could see him no more.“8 Casimir, and some recent historiographers as well, have inferred that the revolt hi Kitzingen stemmed simply from ther opportunistic motivation to take advantage of the confusion of the Peasants' Var, in order to impose social and economic change along a local agenda, and that the Reformation merely acted as a "iustitiae praetextu"; but, by adopting the gravamina of the Tauber valley army, the uprising linked itself inexorably with a wide ranging program of social and religious 49 50 reform. This program justified the revolt along evangelical lines. (’8. "Nachdem Nar Marggraff Kamias auch auf/ und kam gegen kitzingl do warren seine pauern auch auf/ und woltenn IremvHerren auch gas und Ihennes nit mer geben/ Aucmrwolt sie dasgmasserl den waldtl und das gewildt frei haben/ undggolten Iren Herren nit mer darumb ansehen. Also lieB er Irer sechtzigle die augenn auBsteckenn und siemgtso plindt mmb kriegen/ dgmit gje Inn nit mer gnsehenn kundenn/“: gmronicg der §£g§t NOrnberg, 107. ‘9. ,Arnold implies that the outbreak of revolt at Kitzingen was spontaneous and unrelated to the larger conflagration: “Bauernkrieg,” 19. Rublack states that the events of the Peasants' Var at Kitzingen were in no way related to the Reformation there. And yet, Blickle has clearly shown that, although the Tauber Articles were not the same as 86 It encompassed secularization and greater enfranchisement in the city, as well as the grievances of the peasantry suggested by the anonymous Nuremberg chronicler. while the two former goals were endemic to the movement at Kitzingen from its beginnings, it remains to be shown whether sympathy for the plight of the peasantry already existed among the urban populace, or was imposed after Geyer established the “New Order", through an alliance which the committee felt compelled to accept, in the face of internal pressure. Clues are provided by the mass support among the city's lower and lower-middle economic strata for the uprising, estimated at seventy- five percent, and the supply of willing volunteers ready to join the 51 These are indications of the peasants after the alliance was cut. close ties which the commune maintained with Kitzingen's hinterland, augmented through the central authority's policy of juridical integration and sustained by the city's dependence on a migrant-labdr supply. Three» of the cases from the hundred court at Kitzingen, originating in the wake of the uprising, involved inhabitants of the city's hinterland. Two of the' three' manuscripts indicate that the the famous "Twelve Articles", they contained the outline of a program of political reform. By accepting this program, the city became part of a supra-regional rebellion: The Rebellion, 59, 141-143; Gemeinde Reformgtion. 83-85. 50. Arnold suggests that the citizens were called upon to help defend the Gospel from the outbreak of the revolt, although he indicates that this became part of a conscious program only after the intercession 0W Geyer: "Bauernkrieg," 22, 25-26. Blickle confers: figmeinde Reformation. 83-84. 51. Arnold, "Bauernkrieg," 23, 25. 87 52 In both cases, the victims were representatives of the margrave. accused felt confident enough to threaten territorial officials publicly. The existing tumult is implicitly given as the source of dissidence, supporting the suspicion of contemporaries that the revolt fostered a general contempt among the populace for the existing authorities, attaching regional significance to cases that might otherwise been dealt with as matters of local insubordination. The third case involved a peasant from Bibergau, who participated in the storming and damaging of a: local nobleman's castle.S3 His death sentence was commuted to an eternal Urfehde by the margrave, even though the nobleman continued to insist upon his execution. This provides us with a clear example of a local peasant in the insurgent forces who participated in an attack on the local privilege. Uhat is significant about this particular case is that the accused was tried on Friday, 2 April 1525, ten days before the outbreak of revolt in Kitzingen and twenty days before the city coupled its revolt with the program of the rebellious peasantry. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the accused was motivated by a fundamental questioning of the social order, inherent not only to the movement as a whole, but in Kitzingen's hinterland as well. hi keeping with the goals of the peasant forces articles, this action was anti-feudal in character, directed at the privileges of the nobility exercised over wood, water wildlife, and. feudal dues. These impulses are related to the 52. MSUSpC, M881263, 1288. 53. MSUSpC, M81264. 88 motivation behind the storm of the cloister in Kitzingen by the lower classes, and their willingness to support the rebellious peasants. Analysis of the Peasants' revolt at Kitzingen suggests the following conclusions. First, while the parvenu rode the tide of popular unrest in 1525, their intent was to climb into the elite strata on the backs of the lower classes. Upon reaching that level, as part of the first and second committees, the middle and upper class burgers revealed their true icolors by joining with the elite against the radical program of the commune. This move is best described as a reaction by the parvenu against their agglomeration with the rank-and- file members of the commune, the common man. However, a revolutionary impulse for genuine social reconstitution did exist among the lower and lower middle strata of the commune. Reformation theology not only provided a catalyst for that impulse, but also a coherent program with which to implement aspirations for social change. Finally, a strong nexus between the motives and actions of the urban lower classes and their rural counterparts suggests that the revolt at Kitzingen had aspects which were at once local and supra-regional in scope. By viewing events of 1525 in this light, the sharp contrast between the communal revolt at Kitzingen and the rising iri its rural hinterland blurs. 88 89 V. THE END OF THE STURMJAHREN The failure of the rebellion in June, 1525, marked the end of the commune's chances for realizing their aspirations of fundamental, social reconstitution through the Reformation. Those who remained loyal to the cause of social change based upon religious ideals formed the core of the Franconian Anabaptist movement, which advocated 1 As for apathetic rejection of defeat through withdrawal from society. Kitzingen, Casimir's revenge was swift and brutal. Not only did he have some sixty participants in the revolt blinded, but he also ordered major reparations from the city in excess of 13,000fl., as well as over 1,000fl. in damages to be paid to the cloister.2 These sums were raised through general levies on the population over the next several years. Nhat continued to elude Casimir was a rational policy in regards to the Reformation. The revolt had cost him dearly in terms of the territorial fisc and the disruption it caused for the local economy, contributing to the ultimate failure of his political intrigues at the 1. On the rejection of society by the Anabaptists: Blickle, "Social Protest,“ 9-12. Concerning the origins of the Anabaptist movement in Franconia: Seebafi, 152-156. 2. Arnold, "Bauernkrieg," 28, 31. 89 90 3 imperial level. Casimir failed to realize the potential political support he might have won through a more clearly stated religious l. policy. Casimir, although he blamed the revolt on the influence of reformed preachers, did not recognize its mass appeal as a popular movement, with a spiritual dynamic powerful enough to expand throughout 5 Franconia despite his failure to back it. It was not until after his death in 1527, with the ascension of his brother, George the Pious, that the territorial lord accepted the Reformation as an ally, tailoring it to his own purposes. Blickle considers this step, taken by territorial lords throughout the Empire, the end of the Sturmjahren and the onset of the princely reform from above, which sought to: ...separate social protest from Reformation theology, in order to prevent fundamental structural changes in the political order... This happened in the favor bestowed upon the Nittenberg version of the Reformation, not the ZOrich or Strasbourg versions. Zwingli and Bucar pressed for the Christianization of the political order as well , while Luther always accorded the authorities their historical prerogatives: their Christianity was something desirable, 3. Figures confirming the fiscal insolvency of the margraviate at the end of Casimir's reign are~ given in: Schornbaum, 13. On Casimir's imperial designs: Krodel, 156-157. 2. Krodel bluntly points out, “Casimir's whole attitude clearly reveals that he had not the least understanding of the religious situation in his country ,"(150) and "Margrave Casimir does not seem to have understood this appeal from his people (*to usurp the functions of the Roman Church),'(156) as well as “It was Casimir's tragedy that he was ready' to act decisively regarding the legal and religious situation in his country, but that he was not ready, or able, to affirm clear religious convictions"(156). 5. Krodel, 160. 91 not something mandatory.6 It is no coincidence that the Zfirich Reformation, which initially enjoyed considerable support in Upper Germany, was driven out of the empire and that Strasbourg, with its urban satellites, was forced to assimilate itself along Vittenberg lines. In this way, the Reformation found its manifold original perspectives reduced and politically neutralized.7 At a diet held in Ansbach, the territorial capital, on 2-3 March 1528, George proclaimed a clear, regional Church ordinance, guaranteeing the freedom to preach the Gospel purely and openly, albeit .. . within acceptable guidelines.8 George also declared himself head of the territorial Church, exercising control over the installment and replacement of all regional Church officials, and the internal affairs of monasteries and prebends. In doing so, he elevated himself to the status of a lay’ bishop, involving him hi a subsequent and lengthy struggle with the three leading ecclesiastes in Franconia, the Bishops of Bamberg, Eichstidt and VUrzburg. The Sturmjahren ended with the definitive elimination of local and popular autonomy in regional Church affairs. However, this stormy epoch was merely the prelude to inter- regional wars of religion, culminating in the disaster of 1618-1648. 6. NB* - Here, Blickle refers tol Luther's support of secular authority, based prominently upon Romans, 13: 1-5. An informative analysis of Luther's contemplations on authority and the law can be foumd in G. Strauss, Law, Resistance and the State, 199-239. Also, Blickle's statements on Zwingli and Bucer could be applied to the programs of Karlstadt and the rebellious peasant armies as well: see Laube, 219. ' 7. Blickle, "Social Protest," 18. 8. On the course of the proceedings: Schornbaum, 14-15. 92 Kitzingen in the Sturmiahren: Continuity and Change Although the Reformation brought about fundamental changes in Kitzingen's socio-political constitution by effectively crippling the power of the Roman Church, it also provided an active vocabulary for social discourse on long-standing matters of internal tensions. In this respect, the reception of the Reformation by Kitzingen highlighted pre-existing structures and long term historical processes, and modified them as well through its highly charged theological message. In this specific case, the course of the Sturmfihren was unique in several aspects, but still retained others of supra-regional significance. This territorial city, one of the earliest recipients of the Protestant movement, challenges the assumption that the Reformation first took hold in free-imperial cities. The Reformation at Kitzingen should not be interpreted as a move towards complete, communal autonomy. Instead, it strengthened the bond between city and territory by sending a message from the urban elite to the margrave, in effect requesting intervention on their behalf against the forces of the Church. That it took so long for the state to reply was more a result of Casimir's failure to take a clear stance on the issue than any other factor. If the advent ow reform iri Kitzingen coincided with the nascent territdrial state's process of consolidation, then it acted as an accelerator rather than a sign of the margrave's initial imposition of a conscious program of reform. 93 The reception of the Reformation at Kitzingen is of great interest, being a rare instance when a reform movement was whole- heartedly accepted by an established urban elite in the absence of any recognizable pressure from elements of the unenfranchised commune. Popular pressure on that council to allow the lay preacher, Diepold Berringer, to conduct services hi the; city followed only after the elite had already initiated reforms affecting ceremony, the municipal institutionalization of prebends and the formation of a public charity, the community chest, and a full six years after the creation of a lay preachership in the city by the elite. The struggle which eventually developed between the urban elite and the commune was not over the initiation of reform, but rather the scope of social reconstitution that the reforms were to envelop. The city presented a united front against Church intervention in favor of rule by the common weal, but the question, resolved in 1525, was haw that was to be insured. The urban elite clearly preferred the imposition of the common weal by those fit to rule over the incorporation of the commune, which held dangerous possibilities of mob rule. This promoted a desire among the elite to integrate themselves into the growing system of estates, only beginning to develop among the nascent territorial states of the Empire in the sixteenth century, thereby affixing their allegiance to the margraviate and leading them to consistently oppose communal demands for broadened enfranchisement. The role of the non-elite upper strata in the events of 1525, and 94 1511 as well, was twofold. On the one hand, they were liilling to utilize the opportunity presented by popular unrest to challenge their exclusion from the elite. On the other, they did not support social reconstitution, but simply wished to have access to the upper echelons of the existing structure and avoid agglomeration with the masses. Having achieved that status in the opening phases of the revolt of 1525 as members of the newly appointed committees, they then joined with the elite in a policy of retrenchment, reacting conservatively to radical demands for the destiuction of the nunnery and support of the regional revolt, eventually displaying restrictive tendencies by decreasing the size of the second committee and enacting an ordinance, the "New Order", to reimpose order. The chief desire of the parvenu was to attain status in a society of orders, and perhaps it is their actions that best earn the appellation of opportunism. Kitzingen lacked a corporate tradition of guild participation, bat the corporative ideal was a strong impulse among members of the commune. The lower-middling and lower class inhabitants supported a more radical view of social reconstitution, and hence, a more radical idiom of reform. Their viewpoint was manifest in recourse to collective action hi the city's long history of social unrest. In 1525, the impulse for revolt originated from these elements of the commune. It was their pressure which led to the decision to join with the rebellious armies of the regional revolt in the assault on noble and ecclesiastical privilege and they instigated the sack of the nunnery in the city. In the past, the common man supported the 95 corporative ideal, but lacked an endemic frame of reference (e.g. guild organizations) within which a coherent program of social change could be implemented. 1525 differed from earlier instances of civic unrest, as it was provided with a format within the theological framework of radical reformers and the articles and gravamina of the rebellious peasantry. The influence of reformers and the demands of the rural revolt on the lower classes iri Kitzingen is difficult to gage. The physical presence of reform preachers, such as Berringer and Karlstadt, as well as the iconoclastic and anti-monastical content of their theology certainly provided justification for the attack on .Kitzingen's cloister. The lower classes of the city also had a long tradition of close ties with the hinterland. Indeed, late medieval and early modern cities, in general, experienced surplus population growth largely through immigration rather than indigenous reproduction. This type of urban growth has been characterized tn! one modern historian as "the ruralization of the towns".9 Though no clear records concerning the size or rate of immigration for Kitzingen's lower classes is available, we do possess approximations on the number of seasonal, migrant laborers who flocked, en masse, to the city from its hinterland for many months of the year. Annually, the urban and rural lower classes were gathered together, collectively sharing tales of indigence and poor working conditions over spirits in the taverns on the outskirts of A 9. Lewin discusses this in relation to the Soviet reaction following the depopulation of cities after the Civil war: 17, 211-213, 303. 96 the municipality, beyond the refuge cH‘ the urban elite iri the inner city. Their relationship coalesced iri the ALnggg; uprising of 1336 and again during the fateful events of 1525. The greater success of the later was in no small way due to ideological support found in the corporative theology of reformers which gained widespread appeal in the sixteenth century, but traces its roots to the corporative theological movements of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Vhether the elite and the state were aware of the close ties between the urban and rural lower classes remains to be ascertained. Their mutual policy' of integrating the hinterland into the central judicial system and the council's fear that vintagens and the urban lower class might support each other in civic unrest10 seems to indicate that they were. If this is the case, then analysis of late medieval social structure based solely on estates ought to be modified to acknowledge the existence of class-consciousness among contemporaries. This also suggests that more emphasis be placed on class as a serious criterion for the examination of the social topography of the sixteenth century, and less on analysis which draws sharp lines between the urban and rural landscape. 10. See above, pg. 76. BLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY PRIMARY SOURCES Unpublished Vorks East Lansing, Michigan State University Special Collection: Criminal Collection, M881254-1270. Chronica der Statt Nfirnberg. MSUSpC, M81230. Kitzingen, Stadtsarchiv: Zehnt und Zehntstreitigkeiten, Folio "Zehntgericht 1480- 1512, Dok. Criminalia", M8333. Neinbau, Laubordnung und Neinhandel 1498-1624. M8335. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek; Handschriften Abteilung: Codex Germanicus 5037, "Sammlung frank. Neinbergordnungen 1549- 1623." Kartensammlung: Rotenhan, Sebastian A. Franconiae Orientalis. Mapp XI, 279 zh. Published Vorks Bernbeck, Friedrick. Kitzinger Chronik des Friedrich Bernbecks 745- 1565, ed. Bachmann, Leopold. Kitzingen, 1975. 97 98 Bambergensis: Die Carolina und ihre Vorgfingerinnen, vol. 2, Die Bambergische Halsgerichtsordnung, eds. Kohler, J. 8 Scheel, Uilly. Halle, 1902. Bbhm, Ludwig. "Kitzingen und der Bauernkrieg: nach den Originalakten des Kitzinger Stadtarchivs," Archiv des Historischen Vereins von Unterfranken und Aschaffenberg, 36 (1893): 1-185. Carolina: Die Peinliche Gerichtsordnung Kaiser Karls V. von 1532, ed. Radbruch, Gustav. Reclam, Stuttgart, 1975. Franz, GOnther (ed.). Guellen zur Geschichte des Bauernkrieges. Munich, 1963. Hammer, Hieronymus. Geschichte des Kitzinger Bauernkrieges. In: Uieland, Michael (ed.). Die Stadt UOrzburg im Bauernkriege. A chronicle by Martin Cronthal. Ufirzburg, 1887: 142-153. Lenk, Nerner (ed.). Dokumente aus dem Deutschen Bauernkrieg. R6derberg, Frankfurt am Main, 1983. Monumenta Boica. 40, #26, 1870. Sachs, Hans. Meistergesénge, Fastnachtspiele, Schwénke, ed. Geiger, Eugen. Reclam, Stuttgart, 1981. Scheurl, Christoph. "Epistel," Die Chroniken der deutschen Stédten: Nurnberg, vol. 5. 2nd ed., Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Gdttingen, 1961: 785-804. Simon, Karl (ed.). ’ Deutscme Flugschriften zur Reformation (1520- 1525). Reclam, Stuttgart, 1980. Tacitus. Dialogus, Agricola, Germania, eds. Capps, E., Page, T.E. 8 Rouse, N.H.D. New York, 1932. SECONDARY LITERATURE Arnold, Klaus. "Die Armledererhebung in Franken 1336," Mainfrfinkisches Jahrbuch fur Geschichte und Kunst. 26 (1974): 33-62. _____ . "Die. Stadt Kitzingen im Bauernkrieg," Mainfrfinkisches _ghrbuch fOr Geschichte umg Kunst, 27 (1975): 11-50. . "DorfweistOmer in Franken," Zeitschrift fOr bgverische Landesgeschichte, 38 (1975): 819-876. 99 . "Spitmittelalterliche Sozialstruktur, BOrgeropposition und Bauernkrieg in der Stadt Kitzingen," Jahrbuch fUr frénkische Landesforschung, 36 (1976): 173-214. Bétori, Ingrid. "Besitzstrukturen in der Stadt Kitzingen zur Zeit der Reformation," in: Rabe, Horst (ed.). Festgabe fUr Ernst Halter Zeeden zum 60. Geburtstag. MOnster, 1976: 128-141. 8 Neyrauch, Erdmann. Die BOrgerliche Elite der Stadt Kitzingen. Klett Cotta, Stuttgart, 1982. _____ . "Rathsherren und AufrOhrer. Soziale und 6konomische Verhfiltnisse in der Stadt Kitzingen zur Zeit des Bauernkriegs und der Reformation," in: Mommsen, Nolgang (ed.). Stadtbfirgertum und Adel in der Reformation. Studien zur Sozingeschichte der Reformation in England und Deutschland. Klett-Gotta, Stuttgart, 1979. Beyerle, Franz. "Der Ursprung der BOrgschaft: Ein Deutungsversuch vom germanischen Rechte her," Zeitschrift der Savignv-Stiftung fur Rechtsgeschichte- Germanistische Abteilung, 47 (1927): 567-645. Blickle, Peter. Gemeindereformation. Oldenbourg, Munich, 1987. _____ . The Revolution of 1525. Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, 1981. . "Social Protest and Reformation Theology," in: Greyerz, Kaspar von (ed.). Religion- Politics and Socigl Protest. George Allen 8 Unwin, London, 1984. Boockmann, Andrea. Urfehde und ewige Gefangenschaft im mittelalterlichen Gdttingen. Vandenhoeck 8 Ruprecht, Géttingen, 1980. Bouwsma, Villiam J. Venice and the Defense of Republican Liberty. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1968. Brady, Thomas A. Ruling Clgss. Regime and Reformation gt Strgsbourg 1520-1555. Leiden, 1978. . Turning Swiss: Cities and Empire, 1450-1550. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985. Brecht, Martin. "Der theologische Hintergrund der Zwblf Artikel der Bauernschaft in Schwaben von 1525," Zeitschrift fur girchengegchichte, 85 (1974): 30-64. Chojnacki, Stanley. "Dowries and Kinsmen," JourngJ of [nterdigciplingry History. 5 (1975): 571-600. 100 Demandt, Dieter & Rublack, Hans-Christoph. Stadt und Kirche in Kitzingen. Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart, 1978. De Vries, Jan. Econgmy of Europe in an Age of Crisis: 1600-1750. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1976. Diestelkamp, Bernhard. "Zur Krise des Reichsrechts im 16. Jahrhundert," in: Angermeier, Heinz (ed.). Sékulgre Aspekte der Reformationszeit. Oldenbourg, Munich, 1983: 49-75. Dilcher, Gerhard. "Zur Geschichte und Aufgabe des Begriffs Genossenschaft," in: Dilcher, Gerhard G Diestelkamp, Bernhard (eds.). Recht, Gericht und genossenschaft. Schmidt, Berlin, 1986: 114-123. Dinklage, Karl. flBeitrége zur mittelalterlichen Geschichte der Zehntgerichte in Franken," Mainfrfinkisches Jahrbuch fOr Geschichte und Kunst, 4 (1952): 33-90. . "Ouellen zur mittelalterlichen Geschichte der Zentgerichte in Franken," Mainfrénkischesgighrbuch fur Geschichte und Kunst, 5 (1953): 40-90. Ebel, Nilhelm. Die Rostocker Urfehden: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des deutschen Strgfrechts. Hinstroff, Rostock, 1938. Endres, Rudolf. "Der Bauernkrieg in Franken," in: Blickle, Peter. Der Deutsche Bgmernkrigg von 1525. Uissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, 1985: 127-183. . "Zur Sozialbkonomische Lage und sozialpsychischen Einstellung des 'Gemeinen Mannes': Der Kloster- und Burgensturm in Franken 1525," in: Nehler, Hans-Ulrich (ed.). Der Deutsche Bauernkrieg: 1524-1526. G6ttingen, 1975: 6‘-78. Engel, Nilhelm. A Commentary to: GrOnenwald, Elisabeth. "Das Portrét des Kanzlers Georg Vogler," figinfrénkisches Jghresbuch fur Geschichte und Kunst. 2 (1950): 130-139. Engels, Friedrich. Der Deutsche Bauernkrieg. Berlin, 1946. Feldbauer, Peter. "Lohnarbeit hn Osterreichischen Ueinbau," Zeitschrift fOr Bayeriscme Lgndesgeschichte, 38 (1975):227-243. Fuchs, Nalther Peter. Qms Zeitalter der Reformation. In the series: Hmndbuch der deutschen Geschichte, vol. 8. D.T.V., 5th ed., Munich, 1983. Franz, GOnther. Der Deutsche Bauernkrieg. Darmstadt, 1956. 101 Hock, Bernd-Joachim. Kitzingen im DreiBigjahrigen Krieg. Published Dissertation, Tfibingen, 1981. Karant-Nunn, Susan C. "Continuity and Change: Some Effects of the Reformation on the Uomen of Zwickau," Sixteenth Century Journal, 13 (1982): 17-42. Kemmeter, Ernst. "Das Ratshaus in der Geschichte der Stadt Kitzingen," figinfrgnkisches Jahrbuch fOr Kunst und Geschichte, 17 (1965): 29-43. _____ . Ein Gang durch die Geschichte der Stgdt Kitzingen. Hégner, Kitzingen, 1968. Knapp, Hermann. Die Zenten des Hochstifts UOrzburg. 3 vols., Guttentag, Berlin, 1907. Krodel, Gottfried. "State and Church in Brandenburg-Ansbach-Kulmbach 1524-1526," in: Bowsky, Nilliam (ed.). Studies in Medieval and Rengissgnce Hi§tory. U. of Nebraska, Lincoln, 1968: 137-213. Kunstmann, Hartmut H. Zauberwahn und HexenprozeB in der Reichstadt Nflrnberg. Stadtsarchiv, Nuremberg, 1970. Lau, Franz. "Der Bauernkrieg und das angebliche Ende der lutherischen Reformation als spontanter Volksbewegung," Luther Jahrbuch, 26 (1959): 109-134. Laube, Adolf. "Radikalitfit als Forschungsproblem‘ der frOhen Reformationsgeschichte," Lgitschrift fur Geschichtswissenschaft. 35 (1987): 218-230. ' Lenman, Bruce 8 Parker, Geoffrey. "The State and Criminal Law in Early Modern Europe," in: Gatrell, V.A.C., Lenman, Bruce 8- Parker, Geoffrey. Crime and the Law. Europa Publications, London, 1980: 11-48. Lewin, Moshe. The Making of the Soviet System: Essays on the Social History of Interwar Russia. Pantheon, New York, 1985. Lutz, Robert Hermann. Ner gar der gemeine Mann?. Oldenbourg, Munich, 1979. Maurer, Justus. Prediger im Bauernkrieg. Calwer, Stuttgart, 1979. Midelfort, H.CF Erik. Nitch Hunting in Southwestern German12i1562- 1684. Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1972. Moeller, Bernd. imperigl Cities and the Reformation. Labyrinth, Durham, 1982. 102 Nipperdey, Thomas. Reformation. Revolution und Utopie. Géttingen, 1975. Oberman, Heiko. "Tumultus Rusticorum: vom Klosterkrieg zum Ffirstensieg," Zeitschrift fOr Kirchengeschichte, 85 (1974): 157-172. Oestrich, Gerhard. Verfassungsgeschichte vom Ende des Mittelglters bis zum Ende desgmlten Reiches. In the series: Gebhardt, figndbuch der deutschen Geschichte. vol. 11. D.T.V., 5th ed., Munich, 1983. Owen-Hughes, Diane. "Representing the Family: Portraits and Purposes in Early Modern Europe," Journgl of Interdisciplinary History. 19 (1986): 7-38. Ozment, Steven. Reformation Europe: A Guide to Research. St. Louis, 1982. . The Reformation in the Cities. Yale, New Haven, 1975. . Hhen Fathers Ruled. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1983. Ruggiero, Guido. Violence in Egrly Modern Venice. Rutgers University Press, Princeton, 1980. Rublack, Hans-Christoph. "Political and Social Norms in Urban Communities in the Holy Roman Empire," in: Greyerz, Kaspar von (ed.). Religiom, Politics 9nd Socigl Protest. George Allen & Unwin, London, 1984: 24-60. Safley, Thomas Max. "Marital Litigation in the Diocese of Constance, 1551-1620," Sixteenth Century Journal, 12 (1981): 61-77. Scherzer, Halter. "Die alten Mainbrficken Unterfrankens und ihre Baulasttrfiger," Hfirzburger Diézesangeschichtsblfitter. 20 (1958): 154-177. Schornbaum, Karl. Zur Politik des Margrafen Georg von Brandenburg. Theodor Ackermann, Munich, 1906. Scribner, Robert H. "Civic Unity and the Reformation in Erfurt," Past and Present. 66 (1975): 29-60. . "Interpreting Religion in Early Modern Europe," Eurogean §§udies Reyiew, 13 (1983): 89-105. Seebafl, Gottfried. "Bauernkrieg und Taufertum in Franken," Zeitschrift fOr Kirchgnggschichte, 85 (1974): 140-156. 103 Sellert, Holfgang. "Die Krise des Straf- und Strafprozeflrechts und ihre Uberwindung im 16. Jahrhundert durch Rezeption und Sékularization," in: Angermeier, Heinz (ed.). sakulare Aspgkte der Reformationszeit. Oldenbourg, Munich, 1983: 27-48. Silnon, Mattiiias. "Eine urflseacirtete Flngschriift zur Reformationsgeschichte der Markgrafschaft Brandenburg-Ansbach," Zeitschrift fur bayerische Kirchengeschichte, 22 (1953): 183-192. Smirin, M.M. Narodnaya Reformgtsia Tomasa Myuntsera i Velikaya Krest'yanskaya Voyna. Akademiya Nauk, Moscow, 1947. Strauss, Gerald. Law, Resistance, and the State. Princeton, 1985. . Nurembeng in the Sixteenth Century: City Politics and Life between the Middle Ages and Modern Times. University of Indiana Press, Bloomington, 1976. Tilly, Charles. "Demographic Origins of the European Proletariat," in: Levine, David (ed.). Proletarianization and Family History. Orlando Academic Press, Orlando, 1984: 1-86. Heber, Heinrich. Kitzingen. (Historischer Atlas von Bayern, Teil Franken, Reihe 1, Heft 16) Munich, 1967. Heisser, Michael R. Crime and Punishment in Early Modern Europe. Harvester Press, Hassocks, 1979. Heyrauch, Erdmann. "Kulinarischer Ritus und Gesellschaftliche Elite: Die Martini-Mahlzeiten in Kitzingen (16./17. Jahrhundert)," Mainfrénkisches Jahrbuch fflr Kunst und Geschichte. 32 (1980): 136-145. REFERENCE HORKS Atlas des deutschen Reiches. Berlin, 1922. Franz, GOnther G Rossler, Hellmuth (eds.). Sachwdrterbuch zur deutschen Geschichte. Oldenbourg, Munich, 1956. Grotefend, Hermann. Taschenbuch der Zeitrechnung des deutschen Mittelalters und der Neuzeit. 12th ed., Hahnsche, Hannover, 1982. Haberkern, Eugen G Hallach, Joseph Friedrich. Hilfswérterbuch fOr Historiker. 7th ed., UTB, TObingen, 1987. 104 Spindler, Max 8 Diepholder, Gertrud. Bayerischer Geschichtsatlas. Bayerischer Schulbuch, 1969. LXI ., - :4; Tears? memIT‘V.‘ .- i eru- < w -. .- . ...-n- l elm-g e rv'e-r-"c -u--.r- agx I ff},:1"iu',;' . . .' I 1 ' . ' i r ' I I‘ ,- .1 I ' I. . V. ' ' '% J"£’$&'11;;\i%i '57:“.1‘: .' . . . t . . 2'1, I i, n..- . _ - . ..v . ,. .. 8,81%“ 78 .0... I83; - -- 1.;- 4 . .- , . ‘ -‘ I i‘f‘ 1 1.371%? I ' A ' i ' ' 'r' '5, z r, I ~'~ _. .- . ‘- _ . '. r '1. .. II”; . ,‘.-’81;'1I;t:1;;-:\321{I '. I . 9‘)“ I ,5. 1. “I -. .' . .. . .43” 13;.) , . 7. . , 3' II _ . .I 2’) . Aron ' . J 51 3f; _ . -. .. . .. .- . I . . I ‘. ‘1')? ‘ ~ .‘ . 1 I _ ., a, x. , .- . . .- -. . .91 v", .- , 9in , ‘ -. ,‘ . . -. .7- ,- , . U ' . J51 I '5‘ 4 i2‘1\¥_1,\' 30‘. R, - l -.l . ‘ “id?! Fighi '11. If“: . . \ :3 ”7‘ ”3:59:31; 3":33% 'éi‘gg '1' ‘ my ’38“... w .5, ii 1.93% $.88}, .iIWtI $18 819.15;th ’H‘: p \883383-‘1. [17:2 59%, 0&1. i. Ht), 484 .-‘ng‘ga .. .1 '. ~' pg- Is. 'fw'. . ‘ ‘K a, '1 ' v o x. r.: .13.? ‘ 1 new} I ,. ’C 51:88" "31’" , . 1 L. . ,5)? RE I if:.-{ ‘WV‘Q‘C 4-»; V '«II 05'?- 9W 4. a --ggg. r--, i “ ' 1'“. ,I . ,, >1} 8 . -. 88838 $83"? 1 v.63 676‘?” $1" 9 1.11"- .i‘.’ 4.793 ‘0. ,. “f -1 888- ‘1 .t i “ ‘0“ “ “7:18:15”; :' \‘IK‘: 8‘5} '33”: {in}: - . 8438818,: JII I ‘ is» 83.8». 41 it '1}:in (1313:“ vein-dc.- (.NVT‘X ‘u-sr .i V1 1 Id 1 . ‘ H; i ' . é“? 41):“ “flax $9553! ;.I1“\ 1% 1 . ' I? '.‘. ' , I s ' ' L ' ‘ ‘ k . ‘18.,3‘3 ’1“lj;JII 9‘8 “I“ 185“.11§:8"‘18~‘i.:*".'.“I3-.III - firm!" “>53 1,151,“? 5‘76 r ‘ \' ‘35? 9‘ 3"“ ‘13.); It)? ' 887.1-8 38: .~ ~ (‘19,... t 5'. e ‘, §_I %\I 8.11:»: ii”: i; 0'38 :1: iii-1.53: “’.‘k\ o- (32‘; ., ilfi‘f‘fi‘fi ”23. ~- 23;;- i .i‘\