• Contenu principal
  • Menu
OpenEdition Books
  • Accueil
  • Catalogue de 15519 livres
  • Éditeurs
  • Auteurs
  • Facebook
  • X
  • Partager
    • Facebook

    • X

    • Accueil
    • Catalogue de 15519 livres
    • Éditeurs
    • Auteurs
  • Ressources numériques en sciences humaines et sociales

    • OpenEdition
  • Nos plateformes

    • OpenEdition Books
    • OpenEdition Journals
    • Hypothèses
    • Calenda
  • Bibliothèques

    • OpenEdition Freemium
  • Suivez-nous

  • Lettre d’information
OpenEdition Search

Redirection vers OpenEdition Search.

À quel endroit ?
  • Publications de l’École française de Rom...
  • ›
  • Collection de l'École française de Rome...
  • ›
  • Les réformes de l’Observance en Europe (...
  • ›
  • Deuxième Partie. Les appuis politiques d...
  • ›
  • The support of the Observant movement by...
  • Publications de l’École française de Rom...
  • Publications de l’École française de Rome
    Publications de l’École française de Rome
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Liens vers le livre
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Formats de lecture

    Plan

    Plan détaillé Texte intégral A centre of observance: Nuremberg External communication: Ulm The significance of families: Strasbourg Conclusion Notes de bas de page Auteur

    Les réformes de l’Observance en Europe (XIVe-XVIe siècle)

    Ce livre est recensé par

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    The support of the Observant movement by the city councils of Nuremberg, Strasbourg and Ulm

    Tjark Wegner

    p. 213-230

    Résumés

    This paper focuses on three important cities of the Empire which had largely emancipated themselves from their rulers and were thus able to pursue their own agendas regarding local religious institutions during the fifteenth century: Nuremberg, Strasbourg and Ulm. The three examples show that the town councils also attempted to intervene in internal affairs and influence religious life within the monasteries. The introduction of the Observant reform was mostly supported by the majority of the council. Not only religious and economic aspects could have played a role here, but also the formation of factions within the city and family strategies were of particular importance. The councils, or rather their influential parts, often spared neither effort nor expense to enforce their will, with or without the clergy’s support.

    Au XVe siècle, Nuremberg, Strasbourg et Ulm étaient trois villes importantes de l’Empire qui s’étaient largement émancipées de leurs souverains et étaient donc en mesure de poursuivre leurs propres politiques de soutien à des institutions religieuses locales. Ces trois exemples montrent que les conseils municipaux ont tenté d’intervenir dans les affaires internes et d’influencer la vie religieuse au sein des monastères. Dans chaque ville, l’introduction de la réforme observante a été soutenue par la majorité du conseil. Outre les aspects religieux et économiques, la formation de factions au sein de la ville et les stratégies familiales ont également joué un rôle important. Les conseils, ou plutôt leurs membres influents, n’ont souvent ménagé ni leurs efforts ni leurs dépenses pour imposer leur volonté, avec ou sans le soutien du clergé.

    Entrées d’index

    Mots-clés : Dominicains, franciscains, Clarisses, stratégies familiales, politique municipale, XVe siècle, Nuremberg, Strasbourg, Ulm

    Keywords : Dominicans, Franciscans, Poor Clares, family strategies, council policy, fifteenth century, Nuremberg, Strasbourg, Ulm

    Note de l’auteur

    My thanks to Uwe Meyerdirks (Tübingen) and Benjamin Pope (Manchester) for helping me with the translation. I would like also to thank Katharina Huss (Tübingen) for information and discussion about the Nuremberg monasteries and for providing the corresponding literature.
    Acronyms used for the archives: StAL = Staatsarchiv Ludwigsburg; StAN = Staatsarchiv Nürnberg; StadtAU = Stadtarchiv Ulm.
    Texte intégral A centre of observance: Nuremberg External communication: Ulm The significance of families: Strasbourg Conclusion Notes de bas de page Auteur

    Texte intégral

    Wirdiger und lieber her uns ist aber furbracht word(en) wie etliche unzymbliche lud unordenliche geprechen in dem Closter zu sant Claren bey uns zu Nuremberg sein die wir uns teyls nicht gut horen noch sehen, und darauff haben wir dem ersame pruder Conrad de(n) lesmeyster des Closters zu Bamberg paarfussen ordens geschriben und gebette darumb zu uns in einer kurtzu zu kome solich geprechen helffen zu wenden und abzunemen.1

    1With these words, written in 1429, the city council of Nuremberg addressed the provincial of the Franciscan Province in Strasbourg. This incident exemplifies the extent to which the urban authorities controlled the inner life of the local monastery of the Poor Clares. In itself this situation is not surprising, since the relationship between municipal councils and regional rulers and the spiritual institutions within their dominions has long been a focal point of research, especially since Kießling’s groundbreaking study of the relationship between city and clergy/religious and their institutions at Augsburg.2 The old paradigm, which maintained that late medieval conventual monks and nuns did not lead a rule-compliant spiritual life and contributed to the decline of the church, held for a long time. This interpretation was relativized in the second half of the twentieth century. In the German-speaking lands, this persistent narrative, which long followed the observants’ own partisan description of the fifteenth century disputes,3 was based on two facts in particular: First, on the survival or the loss of sources, since the written records of the generally stricter factions of the orders have been much better preserved; and second, in historiography, the topoi of decline and decay that were long applied to the entire Late Middle Ages, and to the monasteries in particular.4 Dieter Mertens and Kaspar Elm have provided some of the far-reaching inspiration for new Central European research on the Observant movement. Mertens drew attention to the problem of the subjective perception,5 while Elm’s volume reviewed the state of research of the 1980s and significantly stimulated further research into monastic reforms across the orders.6 Aspects of church history,7 of educational and social history have become increasingly important.8 In addition, numerous works on regional and urban history have appeared, including some projects focusing on single monasteries, which shed light on a wide range of questions.9 The role and integration of observance within the processes of “territorialisation” has been discussed more frequently, for example, by Stievermann for Württemberg, Neidiger for Basel and Württemberg, Schröder for Esslingen, Hirbodian for Strasbourg, and Wegner for Ulm.10

    2This paper focuses on three case studies: Nuremberg, Strasbourg and Ulm – three important cities of the Empire which had largely emancipated themselves from their rulers11 and were thus able to pursue their own agendas regarding local religious institutions during the fifteenth century.12 Moreover, all three cities were regional hubs of communication between other cities, as has been convincingly demonstrated.13 This point will be important in the following reflections, as the “municipal government’s strategy” and the communication of the city councils are at the centre of interest.

    A centre of observance: Nuremberg14

    3The Franconian metropole of Nuremberg is repeatedly referenced in research on the Observant Movement in Germany.15 Yet surprisingly there is no modern comprehensive and systematic study of the Observant movement in the city.16 We have only studies of individual houses, for example the Dominican Sisters17 or the Poor Clares.18 Nuremberg is characterised by numerous long-established religious institutions,19 although there are fewer religious houses than in the larger episcopal cities such as Strasbourg and Mainz.20

    4The first Nuremberg convent to be reformed was that of the Dominicans. According to Johannes Meyer, it was the city’s council which enforced an observant reform of the Dominicans. The superior general of the Dominicans, Raymond of Capua, followed a request of the council and asked at the same time to protect the reform brothers if problems should arise during the reform process.21 Most likely, there was no trouble.22 In this case, the council can thus be identified as the initiator and supporter of the reform. But at the local female Dominican monastery, members of the order seem to have been the first to promote the introduction of observance. For example, Konrad of Prussia, a famous Dominican reformer, obtained for himself in 1396 authority to reform from the papal curia. Some time later, supported by the council, he tried to enforce reform but failed due to the resistance of the nuns. After another attempt to introduce observance, during which, according to Meyer,23 the women had been outwitted, they successfully appealed to Raymond of Capua. As Meyer points out, the nuns were strengthened in their actions by wol gelerten schul pfaffen.24 As a result, only enclosure could be enforced.25 Thirty more years passed before another reform attempt is recorded. Johannes Meyer reports in detail the motivation of the Nuremberg Council: allegedly, a dying citizen had promised his wife to bequeath her his estates if she entered the observant Dominican nunnery in Schönensteinbach, as she had planned. Otherwise, he would leave the same goods to someone else. Shortly after the husband’s death, the widow, according to Meyer, wanted to enter the aforementioned monastery:

    Waz die sach waz darumm der ratz zu Nürenberg warb zu reformieren daz closter zu sanct Katharinen [...] Daz sagtent yr die swöstren [von Schönensteinbach] zu, und do sy sich dar zu schickt und mit yrem gut so ver von der statt und land faren wolt, do lait sich der rat dar in, daz an söliche frow, so ver von in wolt faren, won vor och vil frowen mit grossem gut uss der statt gen Stainbach komen warent. Do maint die frow, sy suchte nit anders denn got und gaistlichs leben und begert an closterfrow zu werden, da man den orden hielt nach der regel und satzung des selben ordens, und gab dem rat für [...] daz daz frowen closter zu sancta Katherina der selben statt also reformiert wurd, daz es zu sölicher volkomenhait köm als Schönensteinbach, so wölt sy da beliben.26

    5How far this account of the episode is to be trusted remains to be seen. But the same chronicler also records a reliable letter of Johannes Nider,27 an observant Dominican who had been prior in Nuremberg for same time. The letter shows that the citizens of Nuremberg and the observant Dominicans actually sent a messenger to Schönensteinbach with the request to send reform sisters to the Franconian city.28 Again, the council had become active, though the motivation mentioned here is less flattering than the reasons frequently given in chronicles, such as the desire to enable divine worship:29 In this case the council wanted to prevent the export of capital. Obviously, the city authorities and local religious collaborated with the orders to achieve their aim.30 At the same time, the initiative for reform was taken by individuals within the secular sphere of the city rather than by the council.31 This suggests that while the networks of religious orders have frequently been investigated in the context of the introduction of observance,32 more focus should be put on connections and communication between cities, even with regard to individual initiatives.33

    6When the observance was finally introduced, there was resistance similar to that at the end of the fourteenth century, and the sisters again turned to their secular acquaintances and relatives. However, thanks to the reform supporters’ willingness to compromise, the embarrassing situation of seeing reform fail once again was avoided, and the former nuns were largely integrated into the observant convent.34 Subsequently both monasteries, that of the women and that of the men, developed into centres of reform.35

    7The development of the other great mendicant order with a presence in the city, the Franciscans, has also been described in detail:36 in the 1440s the council, possibly in consultation with some local Franciscans, turned to the Papal Curia for a possible reform of the local Franciscan convent. The Pope responded to the requests of the city council and decided at the beginning of 1446 that observance was to be introduced in Nuremberg and that the citizens were to be given free control over the “superfluous goods” of the Franciscans.37 Thereafter, according to previous studies, the council, together with the local guardian, Albert Büchelbach, turned to the responsible custodian, Nikolaus Caroli. Caroli arrived with thirteen reforming monks, most of them from Heidelberg, and implemented the reform, supported by the abbot of the already reformed Schottenstift (Order of Saint Benedict) and the priests of Nuremberg’s two large parishes as well as five city representatives and other participants. No contemporary resistance is reported. Later on, however, the former vice-guardian protested against his dismissal during the introduction of the reform. The now disposable possessions of the Franciscan monastery were transferred to the New Hospital.38 Once the process had been successfully completed,39 the council turned to the monastery of the Poor Clares – although one version of the Chronicle of St Clare credits the role of the initiator of reform to the abbess herself.40 Already in 1407, the city authorities had contacted the Franciscan provincial John Leonis to point out the bad reputation of the Franciscan “Lesmeister” (i.e. vice-guardian), who was also corrupting the Poor Clares.41 The council’s reply to the provincial shows the success of his activities: Leonis seems to have responded to the request, since according to the Nuremberg council, the Poor Clares now lived according to the rules.42 Nevertheless, in the following years, the councilors wrote again and again in similar matters concerning the Poor Clare monastery to the successor of Leonis and members of the Bamberg Franciscan community.43 In 1448 they addressed the Pope because of the reform of the Poor Clares. Since there was apparently no official reaction from the Curia, the council instructed its envoy Nikolaus Muffel to ensure that an appropriate bull was issued when he went to Rome in the entourage of Frederick’s III journey to Rome for his imperial coronation.44 Once success had finally been reported in April 1452,45 the Poor Clares were officially attached to the observant branch of the Order. In addition to the vicar of the observant Province Nikolaus Caroli, the abbot of the Schottenstift, the local guardian, the two mentioned town priests and town representatives were again present at the implementation of observance.46 There is no evidence of any resistance on the part of the nuns, but the memory was kept alive in the monastery that it was the Nuremberg council that had advocated the introduction of observance.47 With regard to the gap in the written records from 1448 to 1452, Heinrich Fürst pointed out that the observance had already been lived in the Poor Clare monastery earlier – at the latest when Klara Gundelfinger took up her position in October 1450 – and that the events of 1452 were a formal confirmation of norms already in practice.48 If this argument is followed, there is a high probability that the council, the Franciscans, the Poor Clares and their families were all in agreement with the introduction of the reform, which in turn makes it likely that there was no real dispute about the reform measures of 1452. Although the Council had supported the observants in principle, some of their measures also provoked resistance from some of the citizens of Nuremberg: For example, the patrician Franz Waldstromer opposed a restructuring of the arma et insigna at the family tomb in the Franciscan church by the guardian Johannes Alphart by obtaining a pontifical letter, ne illorum memoria, qui clari et benefactores loci vestri [i.e. the Franciscans] fuerunt, obscuretur.49 When the memoria and representation of his family seemed to be endangered, the patrician must have reached the point that he decided to end the patronage of the Franciscans, which his family had long since supported.50

    8All in all, and notwithstanding the limitations of the sources, the case of Nuremberg clearly demonstrates several significant points.51 The council often concerned itself with the inner life of the local monasteries, both among the mendicants and beyond. The activities of the council are partly recorded in chronicles, such as that of Johannes Meyer or the Nuremberg Poor Clares,52 but especially in the missive books, the so-called “Briefbücher” (i.e. letter books), in which the city’s communication with external institutions and individuals is registered. In addition, there are some brief notes in the council books, which do not, however, contain everything that was debated in the council.53 Nevertheless, the various ways of life of monks and nuns were discussed there, with a clear emphasis on the Poor Clares.54 However, it often remains unclear why the various spiritual institutions are discussed: for example, in a passage concerning the Poor Clares and the Dominicans, it is mentioned that they should be consulted um ein gepreche wegen55 (on account of an irregularity), but no further details are given. The council actively promoted reform in a number of places, sometimes initiating it and supporting it elsewhere.56 Possibly – as Katharina Huss recently put it – this is one of the reasons why Nuremberg must be seen as a centre for reform across the orders.57 In the context of the reform, the council addressed religious in particular, both within the different orders and beyond, up to – of necessity – the Curia in Rome. In enforcing its interests, the council clearly relied partly on the city’s parish priests – it had already acquired the presentation rights of the parish churches in town.58 However, the efforts of the council to assist the Observant movement seem to have spread beyond the city. Not only numerous monasteries, such as those of the Poor Clares and Dominican Sisters, were reformed by the Nuremberg nuns and monks.59 The council itself was also asked for help with reform by both other cities and authorities, for example the bishop of Magdeburg and the duke of Bavaria.60 The actions of the Nuremberg council on a local level demonstrate the specific contours of the pre-Reformation ecclesiastical regime in the city: the councilors were obviously interested in expanding their influence over women’s religious communities and other spiritual institutions in the city.61 But there are also examples of resistance, at least against individual measures taken by the observants, as the example of Franz Waldstromer has shown.

    External communication: Ulm

    9As far as the mendicant orders are concerned, Ulm hosted only one Dominican and one Franciscan monastery within its walls. A third was founded about three kilometres outside the gates: the Clarissan monastery Söflingen. The first verifiable attempt to introduce the reform in one of these three monasteries is attested at Söflingen during the 1430s. At this stage, the council of Ulm was apparently not the initiator, but supported the attempt. This changed in the 1460s.62 Again Johannes Meyer testifies to the process for the Dominican Order:

    Anno domini MCCCCLXV do ward der convent zu Ulm reformiert […] in dem mayen durch unsern wirdigen vatter provincial, maister Peter Wellen, der personlich von Basel mit ylen gen Ulm fur, als im umb sölich die statt von Ulm mit ir aygen botschaft ernstlich schrieb.63

    10And indeed, a letter of the bishop of Constance, dated not by year but by day, seems to confirm the initiative of the aldermen: in this letter, the bishop informed Peter Wellen that the people of Ulm had turned to him, complaining that the way of life in their Dominican monastery was unpleasant. The case lay beyond his jurisdiction, however, so he turned to Wellen.64 Subsequently, a busy exchange of letters developed between the Ulm council, which continued to urge the introduction of observance, and Peter Wellen.65 In this, the council always stressed the role of the religious as an example to urban society and the hope that the introduction of observance would improve worship and praise.66

    11Shortly after the Dominican monastery was successfully reformed, the council of Ulm prepared to introduce the observance at the houses of the Poor Clares, Franciscans and Augustinian Canons, too. Evidently the council saw a need to better inform itself in these matters. Therefore, in October 1465, the city authorities began to gather information about the reforms of monasteries in other cities. After this, the first efforts to acquire a reform bull become apparent.67 On this occasion, they asked in Speyer and Heilbronn about recent reforms which had taken place there: despite learning that Heilbronn had “only” carried out the Martinian reform, they were able to obtain important information from the Heilbronn authorities, who listed both their costs and contact persons in Rome, and described the resistance of the nuns. Heilbronn also sent the Ulm councilors – at their explicit request – a copy of the reform bull.68 An exchange between the cities touching on curial matters was a relatively common occurrence in the late Middle Ages.69 Subsequently, the Ulm council started detailed preparations for reform and asked Duke Ludwig IX of Bavaria-Landshut, among others, for letters of recommendation in their business with the Pope.70

    12This serves to outline the approximate procedure that the council again employed in the 1480s, after its reform program had failed in the 1460s: the council can be identified as the unambiguous initiator of the introduction of observance, with its members attempting to obtain information and implement it in a targeted fashion. They used their connections with the other imperial cities and contacted sovereigns and the emperor in order to influence the Curia in as many ways as possible. In addition, the procurators in Rome should be considered: in the 1480s, the city of Ulm had recourse to the same specialist, Dr Veit Meller, as had Nuremberg and Count Eberhard of Württemberg, who supported the city council of Ulm in his quest for reform from 1482.71 Eberhard’s support is not only evident in numerous letters, but also in Glassberger’s well-known chronicle, in which the author notes that the pope had issued the reform bull ad instantiam et preces illustris viri Eberhardi senioris, comitis de Württemberga et montis Pelgardi, ac oppidanorum ipsius oppidi Ulmae Constantiensis diocesis72. It deserves emphasis that the Ulm authorities always attached importance to the fact that it was not they themselves who acquired the reform bull; by this means they tried to forestall allegations by the conventual religious and their families that the citizens wanted to introduce the reform in order to gain greater political control – precisely this accusation appears again and again in disputes around the legitimacy of the reform.73 The Council also co-operated with the observant parties of the order, without whom the introduction of reform could not be achieved. Members of other orders were consulted, too: thus the Benedictine monks from Blaubeuren and Hirsau also supported the council in the implementation of the observance.74 As a measure against the resistance of unwilling religious, the citizens of Ulm tried to keep their actions secret, which was only possible to a limited extent, as shown by individual letters to nuns in Söflingen: they were partly informed about the plans of the council.75 This also points to one aspect which I would like to illustrate with reference to Strasbourg: the importance of the families.

    The significance of families: Strasbourg

    13This discussion will focus on the reform of the Dominican sisters’ monasteries, following the results of Sigrid Hirbodian.76 During a city council debate in the 1460s, Ludwig von Müllenheim spoke against the planned reform of the local Dominican monastery of St Agnes and threatened physical violence if the project were implemented.77 This move, however, only postponed matters, and the council eventually decided to continue with its original plan. As in the Nuremberg example and the 1460s reform program in Ulm, the written record is poor.78 However, on the basis of the social composition of both the monasteries and the council, Sigrid Hirbodian identifies various fault lines, which illustrate the potentially significant impact such disputes could have on the debates surrounding the introduction of observance. It is not by chance, according to Hirbodian, that it was under the first prioress from a guild family that the reform was initiated in St Agnes.79 A small group of guild families had previously managed to occupy the office of the Ammeister – the most powerful position in the city of Strasbourg. This small group aspired to the status of the Constofler, the noble Strasbourg patricians. In this, they were supported by the patrician families who had previously lost power and status. The other guild members of the city resisted this, for fear that it would restore the former predominance of the Constoflers in the city. While this resistance led to the failure of cooperation on the municipal level, the alliance mentioned above was able to prevail in the introduction of observance, and by this means they ousted the noble families from the monastery, since the latter did not want their daughters to live in a strictly observant reformed monastery.80 The noble families of Strasbourg then allied themselves with, among others, the bishop of Strasbourg, whose subsequent attempt to intervene was vehemently opposed. The other people of Strasbourg regarded such an interaction as a potential threat, especially since the city of Mainz had recently been reconquered by its episcopal ruler. Finally, the Strasbourg example shows that the nuns often had to follow a familial strategy.81

    14It thus becomes clear that the previous statements regarding the council’s support must be considered in a more nuanced way: It was not always the entire council which was responsible for the decisions. Rather, it is best to consider to the “assertive party” of the council, not only but also in the context of support for reform. For Nuremberg, the sources are too inconclusive, but there are comparable indications for Ulm: in some cases, there were opponents of the observance in the council who could not assert themselves, but at least partially warned their female relatives in the monastery about imminent steps toward reform.82 As in Strasbourg, it was in particular (although not exclusively) the families of the regional lower nobility in Ulm who took their daughters out of the monastery in the context of the introduction of the reform. In Ulm however, it can also be observed that these were noblemen in service to Bavaria rather than those in service to Württemberg.83 This is probably due to the support of the count of Württemberg for the introduction of reforms in the community of Poor Clares at Söflingen and emphasizes the relevance of territorial political interests in the field of monastic reforms, as in other matters.

    Conclusion

    15Although the three cities presented here differ to some extent in their basic characteristics (such as the social composition of the council or the various spiritual institutions),84 there are some similarities which, while they cannot be fully proven (partly due to a lack of sources), can nevertheless be briefly summarized by way of conclusion.

    16First of all, it should be noted that despite the aforementioned differences between the three cities, for example in terms of their size and importance, the councils pursued a comparable approach for the ecclesiastical institutions. However, this is due to the fact that the three councils were able to advance an inner-city church regulation owing to their relatively high level of emancipation from the city ruler.

    17Often, we find resistance to the introduction of observance among religious, especially nuns. Clearly, the women had often (though not always) to follow a familial strategy; sometimes opposition arose within the city and resisted reform. Although councils often supported or even initiated reform, a final decision in favour of reform did not mean that such an opinion was unanimous, even among the leading families. If the sources mention, for example, a bishop or other religious persons rather than the council as an initiator of reform, the urban elite can nevertheless be responsible to a considerable extent, as shown by the example of Ulm. In the case of Strasbourg and – with some restrictions – Ulm, it is also clear that reform measures could serve, among other things, as leverage for ousting an aristocratic faction from the monasteries and thus either opening up more prestigious convents for the citizens’ own daughters or for winning the convents exclusively for them.85 In the case of the Franciscan monasteries there are also potential economic interests, since the goods of these monasteries, which were considered superfluous, could be transferred to hospitals, which were mostly under the strict supervision of the council – as at Nuremberg, Ulm, and elsewhere.86 The development of a program of governance for the pre-Reformation church in the cities may also be seen in the participation of priests from parishes for which the council had acquired at least the right of presentation, if not the patronage of the benefice. The examples of Nuremberg and Ulm also show the connections between the cities, which corresponded on the subject of monastic reform and supported each other, and – partly on mutual recommendation – also relied on the same staff in Rome. These explanations, which concentrate on the aspects of power, politics, and economy as well as familial strategies, are not intended to deny that the persons involved, whether city councilors, religious, priests, noblemen or others, were motivated by distinctly religious convictions. As always, monocausal approaches are an insufficient explanation, especially when, as in cities, numerous people are involved in the decision-making process, even though the decision-making competence (or perhaps better, the direction-setting competence) was held by only a few families.

    Notes de bas de page

    1“Honorable and dear master, we were told that in the monastery of St Clare here in Nuremberg, some ill-mannered people do unseemly things, that we partly do not want to hear or see, which is why we have written to the honorable Brother Konrad, lector of the Franciscan Monastery in Bamberg, and asked him to come to us soon to help put an end to such problems.” StAN, Nürnberger Briefbuch 8, fol. 141v/142r.

    2Kießling 1971.

    3See e.g. Mertens 1996, p. 157-181.

    4Elm 1980. For the confessionally conditioned points of view see Elm 1980, p. 203f.; for the sources also Hirbodian 2012. For the relativization of the old topoi, see Muschiol 2008, p. 15f.

    5Mertens 2001 and 1996.

    6Elm 1980.

    7See i.a. Muschiol 2008 and 2016; Neidhardt 2017; Steinke 2006; Köpf 1992; Hamm – Lentes 2001.

    8See i.a. Schlotheuber 2004 und 2007, Williams-Krapp 1986/1987 i.a., with a focus on the social history see Schmitt (Hirbodian) 2001 and Hirbodian 2012 and 2016.

    9Kemper, 2006, p. 16, has already emphasized that the history of individual convents was given particular consideration in earlier research. Of course, although unremarked by Kemper, these works are a precondition for larger, comparative studies. Thus, even today studies are still undertaken on individual reforms or at least with smaller geographical foci; see also the following note.

    10This enumeration is similar to Schmitt’s (Hirbodian) 2001, p. 268.

    11See for example Schmitt (Hirbodian) 2001; Schröder 1987; Stievermann 1985; Neidiger 1993 and 1998; Wegner 2017 and 2023.

    12For Ulm at least, this statement should be relativized from the 1520s onwards, when Ulm, like other cities, was on the defensive against Charles V and had to fear military intervention by the emperor because of their support for the Protestant Reformation: see Wegner 2017, p. 392-403 (Wegner 2023).

    13For the relationship between cities and the role which larger cities played as communication hubs for the surrounding cities, see Schmitt (Hirbodian) 2008, p. 283-288, communication centers: p. 287f. See also Jörg 2010, p. 82, 84. For Ulm, see Kreutz 2005, p. 221; for Nuremberg see Seyboth 2019.

    14I would like to thank Katharina Huss (Tübingen) for information and discussion about the Nuremberg monasteries and for providing the corresponding literature.

    15Its central function is demonstrated by numerous examples. See for example Neidhardt 2017, i.a. p. 165-170, 404f., also Meyer 1908, p. 66. Nuremberg Dominicans were also frequently present at the introduction of reforms, for example in Vienna. (ibid. p. 148f.), Landshut (p. 153f.), Cologne (p. 157f.) und Chur (p. 159f.); see also Kist 1963, p. 33, who wrote about the propagation of observance by the Nuremberg Convent: “von Berlin bis Halle, von Bozen bis Köln, von Basel bis Wien erstreckte sich die Reformtätigkeit der Nürnberger Dominikaner”. The monastery of the Poor Clares in Nuremberg reformed the convents in Brixen (Bressanone, cf. Rübsamen 1997, no 6652), Bamberg, Eger, the so called Angerkloster in Munich and (indirectly) Pfullingen in Württemberg: see Kist 1963, p. 44.

    16For Nuremberg in general see Kist 1963, p. 31-45.

    17Steinke 2006.

    18Kist 1929; Durwen – Vosding 2012; Pickel 1913a; Fürst 1953 and 1982.

    19For an overview see Kist 1963, p. 31 or http://www.hdbg.eu/kloster.

    20This may of course be explained by the greater age of some bishop cities and their size as well as by the attraction of the diocesan seat; the numerous regional monastery encyclopaedias and reference works for southern Germany allow a comparison, see e.g. http://www.kloester-bw.de; http://www.hdbg.eu/kloster; Pfälzisches Klosterlexikon; Handbuch der Stiftskirchen in Baden-Württemberg. Strasbourg, however, had a pronounced sacral topography and is more comparable with Cologne than with the other cities of the Empire: see Schmitt (Hirbodian) 2001, p. 3.

    21Kist 1963, p. 32; Hillenbrand 1989, p. 239f; for Johannes Meyer, see ibid. p. 224f.

    22Kist 1963, p. 32, Meyer 1908, p. 12. Of course, in this context, one has to consider the one-sided situation, which does not completely preclude a ‘silent’ or simply no longer verifiable resistance. Later, Prior Johannes Nider became an important supporter of observance: see Kist 1963, p. 34f.; Neidhardt 2017, p. 37.

    23Kist 1963, p. 34; Hillenbrand 1989, p. 241; Steinke 2006, p. 19-21; Meyer 1908, p. 13.

    24Which translates as: well taught school clergymen, Meyer 1908, p. 13.

    25For the developments concerning the Nuremberg Dominicans and the first attempts to reform the Poor Clare monastery, see Kist 1963, p. 32-34; Steinke 2006, p. 19-23 and Hillenbrand 1989, p. 235.

    26“Concerning the issue why the Nuremberg Council wanted to reform the monastery of St Catherine [...] The sisters [of Schönensteinbach] promised her [to reform the convent] and when she prepared herself for it and wanted to travel with her belongings so far away from the city and the country, the council was displeased that such a woman wanted to go so far away, even though many women with great wealth had gone from the city [Nuremberg] to Steinbach before. The woman said that she was looking for nothing but God and spiritual life and would like to become a nun, as the order was held according to the rules and statutes of the same order, and she told the council that if the convent of St Clare (of Nuremberg) were to be reformed, so that it would be as perfect as Schönensteinbach, she would stay there.” Meyer 1908, p. 66f.

    27In his letter to the sisters in Schönensteinbach, Nider lists eight points by which he tried to convince them to send reform sisters to Franconia: Meyer 1908, p. 61-64.

    28Meyer 1908, p. 64f; Kist 1963, p. 35; Hillenbrand 1989, p. 241f.

    29See i.a. Hillebrand 1989, p. 239-262. For Nuremberg, with reference to the cura religionis of the council see Steinke 2006, p. 24-28; Uffmann 2008, p. 43-45; and regarding Ulm Wegner 2017, i.a. p. 239-242 (Wegner 2023).

    30Meyer 1908, p. 64f.

    31Cf. the edition of the “chronicle” of Konrad Herdegen: Herdegen 1874; ibid. p. 15-46 the chronicle is reprinted, ibid. p. 19, a transfer of benefice to this monastery is noted. Ibid., fn. 10, the editor argues that Schreibers’ financial support contributed to the introduction of the reform, which is also shown by other sources which could not be consulted for this paper.

    32See i.a. Muschiol 2016; see also Neidiger 2003, p. 211. Basel wrote to Nuremberg: denselben üwer orden hieltent, als zu schönensteinbach und zu Kolmar und zu Nürnberg an andren enden gehalten wird ("to keep your order in such a condition as it is the case in Schönensteinbach, Colmar and Nürnberg").

    33Cf. recently Wegner 2017, p. 173-175 (Wegner 2023), henceforward see the project of Katharina Huss.

    34Kist 1963, p. 35; Meyer 1908, p. 64f.

    35Neidhardt 2017, p. 37; for the female monastery see also Hillenbrand 1989, p. 219f. In addition to the monasteries that were reformed from the two Nuremberg convents, there is, for example, the St Katharina convent in St Gallen, which was not incorporated into the order, but was in close contact with the Nuremberg Dominican Sisters and asked the sisters for practical instructions on all kinds of questions in order to lead a life that was as close as possible to observance, cf. Neidhardt 2017, p. 165-170.

    36Kist 1963, p. 41f; Kraus 1950, p. 69f; Schmidt 1913, p. 23-25.

    37Kist 1963, p. 41; Kraus 1950, p. 69f. See also the Chronicle of St Katharina in the State Archive of Nuremberg (StAN) in which, in addition to its own reform, those of the local Franciscan monastery and some convents reformed by the Nuremberg Sisters are described: StAN Reichsstadt Nürnberg, Kloster St Klara, Akten, Bd. 1, fol. 28r/v (for the transfer of the “superfluous goods”). According to Kraus, the real impulse came from the Franciscans themselves, who, since the brothers in favor of reform were a minority under the Guardian Büchelbach, had turned to the Council.

    38As noted above, the one-sided source situation must be considered if no resistance to reform is apparent. On the reform see Kist 1963, p. 41f; Schmidt 1913, p. 24. Pickel 1913b, p. 5f, 9, mentions the complaint of the vice-guardian Ulrich Auracher of 22 January 1458; see further StAN, Reichsstadt Nürnberg, Kloster St Klara, Akten, vol. 1, fol. 28r on the persons involved: Konrad Kunhoff, Heinrich Lenburg (doctor and licentiate of the rights), further Karl Holz Schuler, Berthold Nuczel, Nicolaus Muffel, Mattheus Ebner, Konrad Baumgärtner and vil als wol geistlich und gelerter als auch weltlich purg(er) der gemelte(n) stat Barmberg (“many clergies and scholars, as well as secular citizens of the mentioned city of Bamberg”); ibid. the transfer of the “superfluous goods” is mentioned (fol. 28r/v).

    39The introduction of reform was rarely the final end of reform measures and the necessary visits to a convent. For the example of the Nuremberg Franciscan monastery, an entry in the register of incoming letters (Briefeingangsregister) from 1450 could indicate this: Item ein brief von Niclas Muffel, von des gardians wegen zu den Barfussen (“Item a letter from Niclas Muffel, about the guardian of the Franciscans”). It may, however, relate to a different background: Rübsamen 1997, no 1553. As in 1456, the council again turned to Pope Calixtus III to support the observants within the Nuremberg monastery against the conventuals who had allegedly returned. There were also complaints about the Nuremberg Franciscans, especially during Büchelbach’s absence from 1454 to 1458, cf. in particular Pickel 1913b, p. 8-11.

    40StAN, Reichsstadt Nürnberg, Kloster St Klara, Akten, vol. 1, fol. 30r. My thanks to Katharina Huss (Tübingen) for alerting me to the fact that this description can be found in the final version in Munich. The role of the abbess is also mentioned by Kist 1963, p. 43; another interpretation can be found in Kraus 1950, p. 70: “Ohne Rücksicht auf die Ordensleitung oder auf die Meinung der Ordensfrauen von St Klara erteilte er [i.e. der Rat] dem Klosterpfleger Niklas Muffel […] den Auftrag, an der Kurie die Erlaubnis zur Überführung des Klarissenklosters in die reformierte Straßburger Franziskanerprovinz einzuholen”.

    41Kist 1929, p. 21 und StAN, Reichsstadt Nürnberg, Briefbuch 1, fol. 212r: The provincial should seek to eliminate this deficit almechtig got lobe und er, ewn convent hie nutz und frume und uns lieb und freuntschaft wegen (“the almighty God for praise and glory, for the benefit of your convent here and also out of friendship to us”).

    42Kist 1929, p. 22-34 with reference to StAN, Reichsstadt Nürnberg, Briefbuch 2, fol. 92. According to this, the Poor Clares had asked the Nuremberg council to write to the provincial with the request that the present situation should be maintained from now on.

    43Kist 1929, p. 22-34; StAN Reichsstadt Nürnberg, Briefbuch 5, fol. 40v/41r; vol. 7, fol. 211v/212r and 222v; vol. 8, fol. 135, 141v/142r, 161, 216r/v; vol. 9, fol. 46v/47r: these are in particular members of the Bamberg Franciscan monastery and the provincials of the Strasbourg Province.

    44Also mentioned in StAN, Reichsstadt Nürnberg, Kloster St Klara, Akten, vol. 1, fol. 30r. Already described in detail by Kist 1929, p. 52f; Kraus 1950, p. 70; Pickel 1913a, p. 167-171; Fürst p. 19. Muffel was also an important expert for the Nuremberg Council in numerous other matters, as can be seen in his numerous activities not only at the Curia, but especially at the royal court, see Rübsamen 1997, nos 1782, 1831, 1841, 1935, 1953, 2163, 3197, 3447 (e.g. report on the reform bull of the Nuremberg Poor Clares).

    45The corresponding letter from Nikolaus Muffel obviously did not arrive in the imperial city until May 1452. The reform of the convent of the Poor Clares was not the only matter with which Muffel was charged by the Nuremberg council on mission to the Curia, see Rübsamen 1997, no 3447: Item ain brief vom Muffel, etlich gehandelt stuck am hof, der bestettigung andrer brief an die fursten, auch der juden wegen, und dabey ein bull, die von Sant Claren antreffend, [etc]. (“Item a letter from Muffel, about some matters discussed at high court, the confirmation of other letters to the dukes, also about the Jews, and among them a bull concerning the monastery of St Clare, etc.”).

    46Kist 1963, p. 42f. The Carthusian prior Johannes was also present. Before the actual introduction of observance, Johannes Kapistranus, the observant provincial Vicar Nikolaus Caroli, the local Franciscan guardian Albert Büchelbach, the confessor Johann Gur and the already mentioned Nikolaus Muffel visited the Poor Clare Monastery: see Pickel 1913a, p. 194.

    47See, for example, StAN Akten Reichsstadt Nürnberg, Kloster St Klara, Akten, no 15, ibid. no 2, fol. 1r: brief des Abtz zu sant Dilling insigel den haben die herr des Ratz außpracht nach dem uns sie geholffen hab(en) das wir unt(er) die observantz kume(n) sind (“a letter sealed by the abbot of Sant Dillingen, which the councillors issued after they had helped us to join the observance”). This certainly refers to the vidimus of the papal reform bull, which is mentioned in the Poor Clares’ chronicle: StAN, Reichsstadt Nürnberg, Kloster St Klara, Akten, vol. 1, fol. 30r.

    48Fürst 1982, p. 96f, regarding to Kist 1963, p. 52.

    49Glassberger 1887, p. 471.

    50Fleischmann 2008, p. 1070.

    51The other monasteries cannot be discussed within the scope of this paper due to the limited extent of research and publications and the corresponding sources, and also for reasons of space. For example, the role of the city council in the reform of the local Benedictine Convention remains entirely vague: the tradition is strongly influenced by topoi and offers the well-known picture of decline, also in economic terms. For example, the ornaments of the Benedictines had been pledged to Jews. The initiative for reform, inspired by the Council of Constance, came from the Benedictine provincial chapter, see Kist 1963, p. 36f. Even less clear is the situation regarding the local Carmelite monastery, which apparently joined the observance in 1466 at the latest, cf. ibid., p. 38. With the Augustinian canons, on the other hand, we find indications of support for the observance, but the council did not act proactively in this case. As in Ulm, we also find indications in Nuremberg that the reform was repeatedly carried out by the canons, although in both cases the exact background remains unclear, cf. ibid., p. 38f.

    52On the authorship of the Nuremberg Poor Clares Chronicle see Durwen – Vosding 2012, p. 5-7. It can therefore be assumed that Caritas Pirckheimer edited the Nuremberg concept version; Prioress Appolonia Tucher has been proposed as the author, until this remains unproven. The influence of Nikolaus Glassberger can be assumed. Three versions have been conserved: a fair copy in the Bavarian National Museum, and Latin and vernacular drafts in the Nuremberg State Archives, whereby the vernacular Nuremberg version was used for this article: StAN, Reichsstadt Nürnberg, Kloster St Klara, Akten, vol. 1. A comparison of the three different versions was not possible due to lack of time. A critical edition is available for a part of the chronicle, Durwen – Vosding 2012.

    53An ongoing project at the State Archive in Nuremberg is trying to establish which matters and discussions were recorded, and which were omitted.

    54StAN, Reichsstadt Nürnberg, Briefbücher; StAN, Reichsstadt Nürnberg, Ratskanzlei, Ratsbuch 1a, 1b, 1c und 2.

    55StAN, Reichsstadt Nürnberg, Ratsbuch no 1, p. 63, dated 14 June 1402.

    56StAN, Reichsstadt Nürnberg, Ratsbuch no 1c, fol. 92v: Item die von Eger ist v(er)gönnt und zügesagt etliche frawen zü Sant Claren in volgen zu lassen das die die observancz in anfahen soll zu halten acte feria quarta ante Jacobi [24 July 1465] (“item to those of Cheb is promised that a few women of St Clare will be sent to them so that the observance can begin, [date]”). In the separate papers on the various spiritual institutions, the council is also repeatedly mentioned as initiator of reform, so that this is not at all new.

    57In future, see the work of Katharina Huss; the significance of Nuremberg as a cross-over centre of the Observant movement is dealt with in the project mentioned above.

    58Kraus 1950, p. 10-15 concerning the acquisition of the right of presentation through the papal curia in Rome.

    59Cf. fn. 15 of this paper.

    60Rübsamen 1997, no 3221 and no 3395 for Albert, duke of Bavaria, whereby the first letter seems to have been initiated not only by him but also by his wife (von hertzog Albrecht von Beyrn und seiner gemaheln); no 4531 for the Archbishop of Magdeburg, who asked for reform monks for the Dominican monastery in Halle.

    61Mentioned before i.a. by Steinke 2006, p. 26f.

    62On the reform trial of 1434/36, see Frank 1980, p. 85-87; Wegner 2017, p. 234-238 (Wegner 2023).

    63“In the year of the Lord 1465, the convent in Ulm was reformed […] in May by our honorable father, the Provincial Master, Peter Wellen, who personally hurried from Basel to Ulm when the city of Ulm wrote to him with its own message” (Meyer 1908, p. 158).

    64Wegner 2017, p. 240 (Wegner 2023); StadtAU A [1294], letter no 1, allegedly from April 6, 1460, but more likely from April 6, 1464: Burkhard was not bishop of Constance until 1462. Only a copy of the letter is known. This document is more likely a copy than a draft, since only one addition corresponding to about one line can be found, and it would be unusual to find a draft in the Ulm archives. To judge from its contents, the letter must have been written before the letter of the mayor and the council to Peter Wellen of January 4, 1465, so that if the date of April 6 is correct – and there is nothing to suggest otherwise – the letter can most probably be dated April 6, 1464. McCandless 2015, p. 176f also developed parallel assumptions on the dating of the letter and came to a similar conclusion.

    65Wegner 2017, p. 240-244 (Wegner 2023).

    66Wegner 2017, p. 244f. (Wegner 2023); McCandless 2015; p.181, ibid. p. 175-190 for the Dominican monastery in Ulm with a focus on the introduction of observance there.

    67Wegner 2017, p. 248 (Wegner 2023).

    68Wegner 2017, p. 248-252 (Wegner 2023); for the letter to Speyer see StadtAU A [5412] (= U 5284). Similarly, already noted by Frank 1980, p. 89. McCandless 2015, p. 193 and Miller 1940, p. 29 interpret this passage slightly differently. They assume that although the pope had been in favour of the transfer of the Speyer monastery to the observance, the religious had already adopted the Martinian Reform. This is the constitution Pope Martin V adopted in Assisi in 1430: see also Miller 1940, p. 29. For the letter to Heilbronn and their answer see StAL B 189 III Bü 21, letter of December 19 to Dem ersamen wysen Hannsen Ayren dem Jüngen Burgermaister zu Hailpronn in sinem abwesen dem Burgermaister daselbs (“the honorable, wise Hans Ayren, the young mayor of Heilbronn, in case of his absence, the local mayor”). See also 1940, p. 28; Frank 1980, p. 88; McCandless 2015, p. 193. Frank writes that the council of Ulm had inquired about both the Franciscan and the Poor Clare convents in Heilbronn. The letters they received however, do not mention the Poor Clare monastery at all, but refer exclusively to the Franciscan convent. Since both Miller and Frank were mainly concerned with the Poor Clare monastery, they seem to over-emphasize the importance of the Söflingen monastery. Since the Poor Clare monasteries both in Heilbronn and near Ulm were in a relationship of dependence to the Franciscan monasteries which ministered to them through the cura monialium, it was probably a matter of course for contemporaries to reform first the male monastery and then the female monastery or both at the same time. Moreover, it can be seen from Heilbronn’s reply that the reform of the Poor Clare monastery was not yet complete at the time of the Ulm inquiry. For the reform in Heilbronn cf. StAL B 189 III Bü 21; Zimmermann – Schrenk 1993, p. 76f; Ehrenfried 1977, p. 19-22.

    69Regarding the exchange between Nuremberg and Ulm, see, for example, the numerous entries in the edition of the register of incoming letters in Nuremberg: Rübsamen 1997, nos 1624, 2414, 2930, 5358, 6347, 6397, 6650 (if dem von Senis refers to Cardinal Senensis; no 3197, however, mit bede zu Senis gegeben, could possibly mean delegates from Sienna); in matters concerning the Imperial Court, see ibid. no 2880.

    70StadtAU A [1294], letter no 17 of 18th February 1466, also mentioned by Miller 1940, p. 28, with partial transcription in footnote 54. See further McCandless 2015, p. 190, with partial transcription ibid. fn. 60.

    71For Nuremberg see Kraus 1950, p. 79; on Eberhard im Bart and Ulm see Miller 1969, p. 177f; Miller 1940, p. 271; Stievermann 1989, p. 144; Wegner 2017, p. 160; 180-183; 297-299 i.a. (Wegner 2023).

    72Glassberger 1887, p. 489.

    73Wegner 2017, p. 296-299 (preparations for the reform), p. 330 (on allegations of power-political manoeuvres by the council of Ulm) and p. 358-366 (concerning the litigation). See also Wegner 2023.

    74Already Miller 1969, p. 178 underlines the relationship between Eberhard im Bart and the two abbots. Heinrich Fabri of Blaubeuren already worked for the count and later duke of Württemberg when the University of Tübingen was founded. Eberhard probably had a close relationship with Heinrich, see Stievermann 1985, p. 94. Heinrich Eberhard was also useful in other church affairs, see Stievermann 1989, p. 257, 272f. For Abbot Georg Maiser von Berg of Hirsau see Schreiner 1987, p. 287, 396. Georg has not otherwise appeared as a reformer. Within the research literature, his abbatiate of just two years is for the most part assesed negatively, this remark already similarly mentioned by Wegner 2017, p. 300 (Wegner 2023) and with regard to the networks of the counts of Württemberg p. 160f.

    75Miller 1940, p. 38; more detailed on this basis, Wegner, 2017, p. 296f. (Wegner 2023).

    76Schmitt (Hirbodian) 2001; see also, among other articles by the same author, Hirbodian 2011, 2012, 2014 and 2016. On the settlement of the mendicants in Strasbourg, see Rüther 1998.

    77Hirbodian 2012, p. 1.

    78See for Nuremberg the previous notes; for Ulm see Wegner, 2017, p. 239-264 – in comparison, it becomes clear that the sources concerning the disputes over the observance from the Franciscan convents and the city of Ulm between 1482 and 1487 can be described as far above average. The same applies to Hirbodian’s observations on Strasbourg, see Hirbodian 2012, p. 6; Schmitt (Hirbodian) 2001, p. 3f.

    79Hirbodian 2012, p. 6.

    80Hirbodian 2012, p. 6-9; for the issue that the nobility did not want their family members to live in observance, with regard to Mertens 1996, p. 180. Concerning the Ammeister with reference to Martin Alioth’s study on the guilds and patricians in Strasbourg.

    81Hirbodian 2012.

    82Wegner 2017, p. 307 (Wegner 2023).

    83Wegner 2017, p. 332f. (Wegner 2023).

    84For Strasbourg see Schmitt (Hirbodian) 2001, p. 73-88; for Ulm Wegner 2017 and 2023, especially the chapter on actors and networks, for Nuremberg see partly the literature mentioned above and in future the work of Katharina Huss (Tübingen).

    85See i.a. Schmitt (Hirbodian) 2001, p. 326f; subsequently for Ulm see Wegner 2017, p. 190f, 332f (Wegner 2023), whereby – as mentioned above – there is a difference between noblemen in Bavarian service and noblemen in Württemberg service.

    86Neidiger considers the importance of goods transfers to be less significant, see Neidiger 1989, p. 564.

    Auteur

    • Tjark Wegner

      Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, tjark.wegner@uni-tuebingen.de

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

    Voir plus de livres
    Le Thermalisme en Toscane à la fin du Moyen Âge

    Le Thermalisme en Toscane à la fin du Moyen Âge

    Les bains siennois de la fin du XIIIe siècle au début du XVIe siècle

    Didier Boisseuil

    2002

    Rome et la Révolution française

    Rome et la Révolution française

    La théologie politique et la politique du Saint-Siège devant la Révolution française (1789-1799)

    Gérard Pelletier

    2004

    Le juste marché

    Le juste marché

    Le système annonaire romain aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles

    Monica Martinat

    2004

    Gilles Caillotin, pèlerin

    Gilles Caillotin, pèlerin

    Le retour de Rome d’un sergier rémois, 1724

    Dominique Julia (dir.)

    2006

    Sainte-Marie-Majeure

    Sainte-Marie-Majeure

    Une basilique de Rome dans l’histoire de la ville et de son église (Ve-XIIIe siècle)

    Victor Saxer

    2001

    Offices et papauté (XIVe-XVIIe siècle)

    Offices et papauté (XIVe-XVIIe siècle)

    Charges, hommes, destins

    Armand Jamme et Olivier Poncet (dir.)

    2005

    La politique au naturel

    La politique au naturel

    Comportement des hommes politiques et représentations publiques en France et en Italie du XIXe au XXIe siècle

    Fabrice D’Almeida

    2007

    Pittura rupestre medievale

    Pittura rupestre medievale

    Lazio e campania settentrionale (secoli VI-XIII)

    Simone Piazza

    2006

    La Colonne Trajane et les Forums impériaux

    La Colonne Trajane et les Forums impériaux

    Martin Galinier

    2007

    La Réforme en France et en Italie

    La Réforme en France et en Italie

    Contacts, comparaisons et contrastes

    Philip Benedict, Silvana Seidel Menchi et Alain Tallon (dir.)

    2007

    Pratiques sociales et politiques judiciaires dans les villes de l’Occident à la fin du Moyen Âge

    Pratiques sociales et politiques judiciaires dans les villes de l’Occident à la fin du Moyen Âge

    Jacques Chiffoleau, Claude Gauvard et Andrea Zorzi (dir.)

    2007

    Souverain et pontife

    Souverain et pontife

    Recherches prosopographiques sur la Curie Romaine à l’âge de la Restauration (1814-1846)

    Philippe Bountry

    2002

    Voir plus de livres
    1 / 12
    Le Thermalisme en Toscane à la fin du Moyen Âge

    Le Thermalisme en Toscane à la fin du Moyen Âge

    Les bains siennois de la fin du XIIIe siècle au début du XVIe siècle

    Didier Boisseuil

    2002

    Rome et la Révolution française

    Rome et la Révolution française

    La théologie politique et la politique du Saint-Siège devant la Révolution française (1789-1799)

    Gérard Pelletier

    2004

    Le juste marché

    Le juste marché

    Le système annonaire romain aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles

    Monica Martinat

    2004

    Gilles Caillotin, pèlerin

    Gilles Caillotin, pèlerin

    Le retour de Rome d’un sergier rémois, 1724

    Dominique Julia (dir.)

    2006

    Sainte-Marie-Majeure

    Sainte-Marie-Majeure

    Une basilique de Rome dans l’histoire de la ville et de son église (Ve-XIIIe siècle)

    Victor Saxer

    2001

    Offices et papauté (XIVe-XVIIe siècle)

    Offices et papauté (XIVe-XVIIe siècle)

    Charges, hommes, destins

    Armand Jamme et Olivier Poncet (dir.)

    2005

    La politique au naturel

    La politique au naturel

    Comportement des hommes politiques et représentations publiques en France et en Italie du XIXe au XXIe siècle

    Fabrice D’Almeida

    2007

    Pittura rupestre medievale

    Pittura rupestre medievale

    Lazio e campania settentrionale (secoli VI-XIII)

    Simone Piazza

    2006

    La Colonne Trajane et les Forums impériaux

    La Colonne Trajane et les Forums impériaux

    Martin Galinier

    2007

    La Réforme en France et en Italie

    La Réforme en France et en Italie

    Contacts, comparaisons et contrastes

    Philip Benedict, Silvana Seidel Menchi et Alain Tallon (dir.)

    2007

    Pratiques sociales et politiques judiciaires dans les villes de l’Occident à la fin du Moyen Âge

    Pratiques sociales et politiques judiciaires dans les villes de l’Occident à la fin du Moyen Âge

    Jacques Chiffoleau, Claude Gauvard et Andrea Zorzi (dir.)

    2007

    Souverain et pontife

    Souverain et pontife

    Recherches prosopographiques sur la Curie Romaine à l’âge de la Restauration (1814-1846)

    Philippe Bountry

    2002

    Accès ouvert

    Accès ouvert freemium

    ePub

    PDF

    PDF du chapitre

    Suggérer l’acquisition à votre bibliothèque

    Acheter

    Édition imprimée

    Publications de l’École française de Rome
    • amazon.fr
    • decitre.fr
    • mollat.com
    • leslibraires.fr
    • placedeslibraires.fr
    ePub / PDF

    1“Honorable and dear master, we were told that in the monastery of St Clare here in Nuremberg, some ill-mannered people do unseemly things, that we partly do not want to hear or see, which is why we have written to the honorable Brother Konrad, lector of the Franciscan Monastery in Bamberg, and asked him to come to us soon to help put an end to such problems.” StAN, Nürnberger Briefbuch 8, fol. 141v/142r.

    2Kießling 1971.

    3See e.g. Mertens 1996, p. 157-181.

    4Elm 1980. For the confessionally conditioned points of view see Elm 1980, p. 203f.; for the sources also Hirbodian 2012. For the relativization of the old topoi, see Muschiol 2008, p. 15f.

    5Mertens 2001 and 1996.

    6Elm 1980.

    7See i.a. Muschiol 2008 and 2016; Neidhardt 2017; Steinke 2006; Köpf 1992; Hamm – Lentes 2001.

    8See i.a. Schlotheuber 2004 und 2007, Williams-Krapp 1986/1987 i.a., with a focus on the social history see Schmitt (Hirbodian) 2001 and Hirbodian 2012 and 2016.

    9Kemper, 2006, p. 16, has already emphasized that the history of individual convents was given particular consideration in earlier research. Of course, although unremarked by Kemper, these works are a precondition for larger, comparative studies. Thus, even today studies are still undertaken on individual reforms or at least with smaller geographical foci; see also the following note.

    10This enumeration is similar to Schmitt’s (Hirbodian) 2001, p. 268.

    11See for example Schmitt (Hirbodian) 2001; Schröder 1987; Stievermann 1985; Neidiger 1993 and 1998; Wegner 2017 and 2023.

    12For Ulm at least, this statement should be relativized from the 1520s onwards, when Ulm, like other cities, was on the defensive against Charles V and had to fear military intervention by the emperor because of their support for the Protestant Reformation: see Wegner 2017, p. 392-403 (Wegner 2023).

    13For the relationship between cities and the role which larger cities played as communication hubs for the surrounding cities, see Schmitt (Hirbodian) 2008, p. 283-288, communication centers: p. 287f. See also Jörg 2010, p. 82, 84. For Ulm, see Kreutz 2005, p. 221; for Nuremberg see Seyboth 2019.

    14I would like to thank Katharina Huss (Tübingen) for information and discussion about the Nuremberg monasteries and for providing the corresponding literature.

    15Its central function is demonstrated by numerous examples. See for example Neidhardt 2017, i.a. p. 165-170, 404f., also Meyer 1908, p. 66. Nuremberg Dominicans were also frequently present at the introduction of reforms, for example in Vienna. (ibid. p. 148f.), Landshut (p. 153f.), Cologne (p. 157f.) und Chur (p. 159f.); see also Kist 1963, p. 33, who wrote about the propagation of observance by the Nuremberg Convent: “von Berlin bis Halle, von Bozen bis Köln, von Basel bis Wien erstreckte sich die Reformtätigkeit der Nürnberger Dominikaner”. The monastery of the Poor Clares in Nuremberg reformed the convents in Brixen (Bressanone, cf. Rübsamen 1997, no 6652), Bamberg, Eger, the so called Angerkloster in Munich and (indirectly) Pfullingen in Württemberg: see Kist 1963, p. 44.

    16For Nuremberg in general see Kist 1963, p. 31-45.

    17Steinke 2006.

    18Kist 1929; Durwen – Vosding 2012; Pickel 1913a; Fürst 1953 and 1982.

    19For an overview see Kist 1963, p. 31 or http://www.hdbg.eu/kloster.

    20This may of course be explained by the greater age of some bishop cities and their size as well as by the attraction of the diocesan seat; the numerous regional monastery encyclopaedias and reference works for southern Germany allow a comparison, see e.g. http://www.kloester-bw.de; http://www.hdbg.eu/kloster; Pfälzisches Klosterlexikon; Handbuch der Stiftskirchen in Baden-Württemberg. Strasbourg, however, had a pronounced sacral topography and is more comparable with Cologne than with the other cities of the Empire: see Schmitt (Hirbodian) 2001, p. 3.

    21Kist 1963, p. 32; Hillenbrand 1989, p. 239f; for Johannes Meyer, see ibid. p. 224f.

    22Kist 1963, p. 32, Meyer 1908, p. 12. Of course, in this context, one has to consider the one-sided situation, which does not completely preclude a ‘silent’ or simply no longer verifiable resistance. Later, Prior Johannes Nider became an important supporter of observance: see Kist 1963, p. 34f.; Neidhardt 2017, p. 37.

    23Kist 1963, p. 34; Hillenbrand 1989, p. 241; Steinke 2006, p. 19-21; Meyer 1908, p. 13.

    24Which translates as: well taught school clergymen, Meyer 1908, p. 13.

    25For the developments concerning the Nuremberg Dominicans and the first attempts to reform the Poor Clare monastery, see Kist 1963, p. 32-34; Steinke 2006, p. 19-23 and Hillenbrand 1989, p. 235.

    26“Concerning the issue why the Nuremberg Council wanted to reform the monastery of St Catherine [...] The sisters [of Schönensteinbach] promised her [to reform the convent] and when she prepared herself for it and wanted to travel with her belongings so far away from the city and the country, the council was displeased that such a woman wanted to go so far away, even though many women with great wealth had gone from the city [Nuremberg] to Steinbach before. The woman said that she was looking for nothing but God and spiritual life and would like to become a nun, as the order was held according to the rules and statutes of the same order, and she told the council that if the convent of St Clare (of Nuremberg) were to be reformed, so that it would be as perfect as Schönensteinbach, she would stay there.” Meyer 1908, p. 66f.

    27In his letter to the sisters in Schönensteinbach, Nider lists eight points by which he tried to convince them to send reform sisters to Franconia: Meyer 1908, p. 61-64.

    28Meyer 1908, p. 64f; Kist 1963, p. 35; Hillenbrand 1989, p. 241f.

    29See i.a. Hillebrand 1989, p. 239-262. For Nuremberg, with reference to the cura religionis of the council see Steinke 2006, p. 24-28; Uffmann 2008, p. 43-45; and regarding Ulm Wegner 2017, i.a. p. 239-242 (Wegner 2023).

    30Meyer 1908, p. 64f.

    31Cf. the edition of the “chronicle” of Konrad Herdegen: Herdegen 1874; ibid. p. 15-46 the chronicle is reprinted, ibid. p. 19, a transfer of benefice to this monastery is noted. Ibid., fn. 10, the editor argues that Schreibers’ financial support contributed to the introduction of the reform, which is also shown by other sources which could not be consulted for this paper.

    32See i.a. Muschiol 2016; see also Neidiger 2003, p. 211. Basel wrote to Nuremberg: denselben üwer orden hieltent, als zu schönensteinbach und zu Kolmar und zu Nürnberg an andren enden gehalten wird ("to keep your order in such a condition as it is the case in Schönensteinbach, Colmar and Nürnberg").

    33Cf. recently Wegner 2017, p. 173-175 (Wegner 2023), henceforward see the project of Katharina Huss.

    34Kist 1963, p. 35; Meyer 1908, p. 64f.

    35Neidhardt 2017, p. 37; for the female monastery see also Hillenbrand 1989, p. 219f. In addition to the monasteries that were reformed from the two Nuremberg convents, there is, for example, the St Katharina convent in St Gallen, which was not incorporated into the order, but was in close contact with the Nuremberg Dominican Sisters and asked the sisters for practical instructions on all kinds of questions in order to lead a life that was as close as possible to observance, cf. Neidhardt 2017, p. 165-170.

    36Kist 1963, p. 41f; Kraus 1950, p. 69f; Schmidt 1913, p. 23-25.

    37Kist 1963, p. 41; Kraus 1950, p. 69f. See also the Chronicle of St Katharina in the State Archive of Nuremberg (StAN) in which, in addition to its own reform, those of the local Franciscan monastery and some convents reformed by the Nuremberg Sisters are described: StAN Reichsstadt Nürnberg, Kloster St Klara, Akten, Bd. 1, fol. 28r/v (for the transfer of the “superfluous goods”). According to Kraus, the real impulse came from the Franciscans themselves, who, since the brothers in favor of reform were a minority under the Guardian Büchelbach, had turned to the Council.

    38As noted above, the one-sided source situation must be considered if no resistance to reform is apparent. On the reform see Kist 1963, p. 41f; Schmidt 1913, p. 24. Pickel 1913b, p. 5f, 9, mentions the complaint of the vice-guardian Ulrich Auracher of 22 January 1458; see further StAN, Reichsstadt Nürnberg, Kloster St Klara, Akten, vol. 1, fol. 28r on the persons involved: Konrad Kunhoff, Heinrich Lenburg (doctor and licentiate of the rights), further Karl Holz Schuler, Berthold Nuczel, Nicolaus Muffel, Mattheus Ebner, Konrad Baumgärtner and vil als wol geistlich und gelerter als auch weltlich purg(er) der gemelte(n) stat Barmberg (“many clergies and scholars, as well as secular citizens of the mentioned city of Bamberg”); ibid. the transfer of the “superfluous goods” is mentioned (fol. 28r/v).

    39The introduction of reform was rarely the final end of reform measures and the necessary visits to a convent. For the example of the Nuremberg Franciscan monastery, an entry in the register of incoming letters (Briefeingangsregister) from 1450 could indicate this: Item ein brief von Niclas Muffel, von des gardians wegen zu den Barfussen (“Item a letter from Niclas Muffel, about the guardian of the Franciscans”). It may, however, relate to a different background: Rübsamen 1997, no 1553. As in 1456, the council again turned to Pope Calixtus III to support the observants within the Nuremberg monastery against the conventuals who had allegedly returned. There were also complaints about the Nuremberg Franciscans, especially during Büchelbach’s absence from 1454 to 1458, cf. in particular Pickel 1913b, p. 8-11.

    40StAN, Reichsstadt Nürnberg, Kloster St Klara, Akten, vol. 1, fol. 30r. My thanks to Katharina Huss (Tübingen) for alerting me to the fact that this description can be found in the final version in Munich. The role of the abbess is also mentioned by Kist 1963, p. 43; another interpretation can be found in Kraus 1950, p. 70: “Ohne Rücksicht auf die Ordensleitung oder auf die Meinung der Ordensfrauen von St Klara erteilte er [i.e. der Rat] dem Klosterpfleger Niklas Muffel […] den Auftrag, an der Kurie die Erlaubnis zur Überführung des Klarissenklosters in die reformierte Straßburger Franziskanerprovinz einzuholen”.

    41Kist 1929, p. 21 und StAN, Reichsstadt Nürnberg, Briefbuch 1, fol. 212r: The provincial should seek to eliminate this deficit almechtig got lobe und er, ewn convent hie nutz und frume und uns lieb und freuntschaft wegen (“the almighty God for praise and glory, for the benefit of your convent here and also out of friendship to us”).

    42Kist 1929, p. 22-34 with reference to StAN, Reichsstadt Nürnberg, Briefbuch 2, fol. 92. According to this, the Poor Clares had asked the Nuremberg council to write to the provincial with the request that the present situation should be maintained from now on.

    43Kist 1929, p. 22-34; StAN Reichsstadt Nürnberg, Briefbuch 5, fol. 40v/41r; vol. 7, fol. 211v/212r and 222v; vol. 8, fol. 135, 141v/142r, 161, 216r/v; vol. 9, fol. 46v/47r: these are in particular members of the Bamberg Franciscan monastery and the provincials of the Strasbourg Province.

    44Also mentioned in StAN, Reichsstadt Nürnberg, Kloster St Klara, Akten, vol. 1, fol. 30r. Already described in detail by Kist 1929, p. 52f; Kraus 1950, p. 70; Pickel 1913a, p. 167-171; Fürst p. 19. Muffel was also an important expert for the Nuremberg Council in numerous other matters, as can be seen in his numerous activities not only at the Curia, but especially at the royal court, see Rübsamen 1997, nos 1782, 1831, 1841, 1935, 1953, 2163, 3197, 3447 (e.g. report on the reform bull of the Nuremberg Poor Clares).

    45The corresponding letter from Nikolaus Muffel obviously did not arrive in the imperial city until May 1452. The reform of the convent of the Poor Clares was not the only matter with which Muffel was charged by the Nuremberg council on mission to the Curia, see Rübsamen 1997, no 3447: Item ain brief vom Muffel, etlich gehandelt stuck am hof, der bestettigung andrer brief an die fursten, auch der juden wegen, und dabey ein bull, die von Sant Claren antreffend, [etc]. (“Item a letter from Muffel, about some matters discussed at high court, the confirmation of other letters to the dukes, also about the Jews, and among them a bull concerning the monastery of St Clare, etc.”).

    46Kist 1963, p. 42f. The Carthusian prior Johannes was also present. Before the actual introduction of observance, Johannes Kapistranus, the observant provincial Vicar Nikolaus Caroli, the local Franciscan guardian Albert Büchelbach, the confessor Johann Gur and the already mentioned Nikolaus Muffel visited the Poor Clare Monastery: see Pickel 1913a, p. 194.

    47See, for example, StAN Akten Reichsstadt Nürnberg, Kloster St Klara, Akten, no 15, ibid. no 2, fol. 1r: brief des Abtz zu sant Dilling insigel den haben die herr des Ratz außpracht nach dem uns sie geholffen hab(en) das wir unt(er) die observantz kume(n) sind (“a letter sealed by the abbot of Sant Dillingen, which the councillors issued after they had helped us to join the observance”). This certainly refers to the vidimus of the papal reform bull, which is mentioned in the Poor Clares’ chronicle: StAN, Reichsstadt Nürnberg, Kloster St Klara, Akten, vol. 1, fol. 30r.

    48Fürst 1982, p. 96f, regarding to Kist 1963, p. 52.

    49Glassberger 1887, p. 471.

    50Fleischmann 2008, p. 1070.

    51The other monasteries cannot be discussed within the scope of this paper due to the limited extent of research and publications and the corresponding sources, and also for reasons of space. For example, the role of the city council in the reform of the local Benedictine Convention remains entirely vague: the tradition is strongly influenced by topoi and offers the well-known picture of decline, also in economic terms. For example, the ornaments of the Benedictines had been pledged to Jews. The initiative for reform, inspired by the Council of Constance, came from the Benedictine provincial chapter, see Kist 1963, p. 36f. Even less clear is the situation regarding the local Carmelite monastery, which apparently joined the observance in 1466 at the latest, cf. ibid., p. 38. With the Augustinian canons, on the other hand, we find indications of support for the observance, but the council did not act proactively in this case. As in Ulm, we also find indications in Nuremberg that the reform was repeatedly carried out by the canons, although in both cases the exact background remains unclear, cf. ibid., p. 38f.

    52On the authorship of the Nuremberg Poor Clares Chronicle see Durwen – Vosding 2012, p. 5-7. It can therefore be assumed that Caritas Pirckheimer edited the Nuremberg concept version; Prioress Appolonia Tucher has been proposed as the author, until this remains unproven. The influence of Nikolaus Glassberger can be assumed. Three versions have been conserved: a fair copy in the Bavarian National Museum, and Latin and vernacular drafts in the Nuremberg State Archives, whereby the vernacular Nuremberg version was used for this article: StAN, Reichsstadt Nürnberg, Kloster St Klara, Akten, vol. 1. A comparison of the three different versions was not possible due to lack of time. A critical edition is available for a part of the chronicle, Durwen – Vosding 2012.

    53An ongoing project at the State Archive in Nuremberg is trying to establish which matters and discussions were recorded, and which were omitted.

    54StAN, Reichsstadt Nürnberg, Briefbücher; StAN, Reichsstadt Nürnberg, Ratskanzlei, Ratsbuch 1a, 1b, 1c und 2.

    55StAN, Reichsstadt Nürnberg, Ratsbuch no 1, p. 63, dated 14 June 1402.

    56StAN, Reichsstadt Nürnberg, Ratsbuch no 1c, fol. 92v: Item die von Eger ist v(er)gönnt und zügesagt etliche frawen zü Sant Claren in volgen zu lassen das die die observancz in anfahen soll zu halten acte feria quarta ante Jacobi [24 July 1465] (“item to those of Cheb is promised that a few women of St Clare will be sent to them so that the observance can begin, [date]”). In the separate papers on the various spiritual institutions, the council is also repeatedly mentioned as initiator of reform, so that this is not at all new.

    57In future, see the work of Katharina Huss; the significance of Nuremberg as a cross-over centre of the Observant movement is dealt with in the project mentioned above.

    58Kraus 1950, p. 10-15 concerning the acquisition of the right of presentation through the papal curia in Rome.

    59Cf. fn. 15 of this paper.

    60Rübsamen 1997, no 3221 and no 3395 for Albert, duke of Bavaria, whereby the first letter seems to have been initiated not only by him but also by his wife (von hertzog Albrecht von Beyrn und seiner gemaheln); no 4531 for the Archbishop of Magdeburg, who asked for reform monks for the Dominican monastery in Halle.

    61Mentioned before i.a. by Steinke 2006, p. 26f.

    62On the reform trial of 1434/36, see Frank 1980, p. 85-87; Wegner 2017, p. 234-238 (Wegner 2023).

    63“In the year of the Lord 1465, the convent in Ulm was reformed […] in May by our honorable father, the Provincial Master, Peter Wellen, who personally hurried from Basel to Ulm when the city of Ulm wrote to him with its own message” (Meyer 1908, p. 158).

    64Wegner 2017, p. 240 (Wegner 2023); StadtAU A [1294], letter no 1, allegedly from April 6, 1460, but more likely from April 6, 1464: Burkhard was not bishop of Constance until 1462. Only a copy of the letter is known. This document is more likely a copy than a draft, since only one addition corresponding to about one line can be found, and it would be unusual to find a draft in the Ulm archives. To judge from its contents, the letter must have been written before the letter of the mayor and the council to Peter Wellen of January 4, 1465, so that if the date of April 6 is correct – and there is nothing to suggest otherwise – the letter can most probably be dated April 6, 1464. McCandless 2015, p. 176f also developed parallel assumptions on the dating of the letter and came to a similar conclusion.

    65Wegner 2017, p. 240-244 (Wegner 2023).

    66Wegner 2017, p. 244f. (Wegner 2023); McCandless 2015; p.181, ibid. p. 175-190 for the Dominican monastery in Ulm with a focus on the introduction of observance there.

    67Wegner 2017, p. 248 (Wegner 2023).

    68Wegner 2017, p. 248-252 (Wegner 2023); for the letter to Speyer see StadtAU A [5412] (= U 5284). Similarly, already noted by Frank 1980, p. 89. McCandless 2015, p. 193 and Miller 1940, p. 29 interpret this passage slightly differently. They assume that although the pope had been in favour of the transfer of the Speyer monastery to the observance, the religious had already adopted the Martinian Reform. This is the constitution Pope Martin V adopted in Assisi in 1430: see also Miller 1940, p. 29. For the letter to Heilbronn and their answer see StAL B 189 III Bü 21, letter of December 19 to Dem ersamen wysen Hannsen Ayren dem Jüngen Burgermaister zu Hailpronn in sinem abwesen dem Burgermaister daselbs (“the honorable, wise Hans Ayren, the young mayor of Heilbronn, in case of his absence, the local mayor”). See also 1940, p. 28; Frank 1980, p. 88; McCandless 2015, p. 193. Frank writes that the council of Ulm had inquired about both the Franciscan and the Poor Clare convents in Heilbronn. The letters they received however, do not mention the Poor Clare monastery at all, but refer exclusively to the Franciscan convent. Since both Miller and Frank were mainly concerned with the Poor Clare monastery, they seem to over-emphasize the importance of the Söflingen monastery. Since the Poor Clare monasteries both in Heilbronn and near Ulm were in a relationship of dependence to the Franciscan monasteries which ministered to them through the cura monialium, it was probably a matter of course for contemporaries to reform first the male monastery and then the female monastery or both at the same time. Moreover, it can be seen from Heilbronn’s reply that the reform of the Poor Clare monastery was not yet complete at the time of the Ulm inquiry. For the reform in Heilbronn cf. StAL B 189 III Bü 21; Zimmermann – Schrenk 1993, p. 76f; Ehrenfried 1977, p. 19-22.

    69Regarding the exchange between Nuremberg and Ulm, see, for example, the numerous entries in the edition of the register of incoming letters in Nuremberg: Rübsamen 1997, nos 1624, 2414, 2930, 5358, 6347, 6397, 6650 (if dem von Senis refers to Cardinal Senensis; no 3197, however, mit bede zu Senis gegeben, could possibly mean delegates from Sienna); in matters concerning the Imperial Court, see ibid. no 2880.

    70StadtAU A [1294], letter no 17 of 18th February 1466, also mentioned by Miller 1940, p. 28, with partial transcription in footnote 54. See further McCandless 2015, p. 190, with partial transcription ibid. fn. 60.

    71For Nuremberg see Kraus 1950, p. 79; on Eberhard im Bart and Ulm see Miller 1969, p. 177f; Miller 1940, p. 271; Stievermann 1989, p. 144; Wegner 2017, p. 160; 180-183; 297-299 i.a. (Wegner 2023).

    72Glassberger 1887, p. 489.

    73Wegner 2017, p. 296-299 (preparations for the reform), p. 330 (on allegations of power-political manoeuvres by the council of Ulm) and p. 358-366 (concerning the litigation). See also Wegner 2023.

    74Already Miller 1969, p. 178 underlines the relationship between Eberhard im Bart and the two abbots. Heinrich Fabri of Blaubeuren already worked for the count and later duke of Württemberg when the University of Tübingen was founded. Eberhard probably had a close relationship with Heinrich, see Stievermann 1985, p. 94. Heinrich Eberhard was also useful in other church affairs, see Stievermann 1989, p. 257, 272f. For Abbot Georg Maiser von Berg of Hirsau see Schreiner 1987, p. 287, 396. Georg has not otherwise appeared as a reformer. Within the research literature, his abbatiate of just two years is for the most part assesed negatively, this remark already similarly mentioned by Wegner 2017, p. 300 (Wegner 2023) and with regard to the networks of the counts of Württemberg p. 160f.

    75Miller 1940, p. 38; more detailed on this basis, Wegner, 2017, p. 296f. (Wegner 2023).

    76Schmitt (Hirbodian) 2001; see also, among other articles by the same author, Hirbodian 2011, 2012, 2014 and 2016. On the settlement of the mendicants in Strasbourg, see Rüther 1998.

    77Hirbodian 2012, p. 1.

    78See for Nuremberg the previous notes; for Ulm see Wegner, 2017, p. 239-264 – in comparison, it becomes clear that the sources concerning the disputes over the observance from the Franciscan convents and the city of Ulm between 1482 and 1487 can be described as far above average. The same applies to Hirbodian’s observations on Strasbourg, see Hirbodian 2012, p. 6; Schmitt (Hirbodian) 2001, p. 3f.

    79Hirbodian 2012, p. 6.

    80Hirbodian 2012, p. 6-9; for the issue that the nobility did not want their family members to live in observance, with regard to Mertens 1996, p. 180. Concerning the Ammeister with reference to Martin Alioth’s study on the guilds and patricians in Strasbourg.

    81Hirbodian 2012.

    82Wegner 2017, p. 307 (Wegner 2023).

    83Wegner 2017, p. 332f. (Wegner 2023).

    84For Strasbourg see Schmitt (Hirbodian) 2001, p. 73-88; for Ulm Wegner 2017 and 2023, especially the chapter on actors and networks, for Nuremberg see partly the literature mentioned above and in future the work of Katharina Huss (Tübingen).

    85See i.a. Schmitt (Hirbodian) 2001, p. 326f; subsequently for Ulm see Wegner 2017, p. 190f, 332f (Wegner 2023), whereby – as mentioned above – there is a difference between noblemen in Bavarian service and noblemen in Württemberg service.

    86Neidiger considers the importance of goods transfers to be less significant, see Neidiger 1989, p. 564.

    Les réformes de l’Observance en Europe (XIVe-XVIe siècle)

    X Facebook Email

    Les réformes de l’Observance en Europe (XIVe-XVIe siècle)

    Ce livre est diffusé en accès ouvert freemium. L’accès à la lecture en ligne est disponible. L’accès aux versions PDF et ePub est réservé aux bibliothèques l’ayant acquis. Vous pouvez vous connecter à votre bibliothèque à l’adresse suivante : https://freemium.openedition.org/oebooks

    Suggérer l’acquisition à votre bibliothèque Acheter ce livre aux formats PDF et ePub

    Si vous avez des questions, vous pouvez nous écrire à access[at]openedition.org

    Les réformes de l’Observance en Europe (XIVe-XVIe siècle)

    Vérifiez si votre bibliothèque a déjà acquis ce livre : authentifiez-vous à OpenEdition Freemium for Books.

    Vous pouvez suggérer à votre bibliothèque d’acquérir un ou plusieurs livres publiés sur OpenEdition Books. N’hésitez pas à lui indiquer nos coordonnées : access[at]openedition.org

    Vous pouvez également nous indiquer, à l’aide du formulaire suivant, les coordonnées de votre bibliothèque afin que nous la contactions pour lui suggérer l’achat de ce livre. Les champs suivis de (*) sont obligatoires.

    Veuillez, s’il vous plaît, remplir tous les champs.

    La syntaxe de l’email est incorrecte.

    Référence numérique du chapitre

    Format

    Wegner, T. (2025). The support of the Observant movement by the city councils of Nuremberg, Strasbourg and Ulm. In C. Andenna, M. Benedetti, S. Duval, H. Morvan, & L. Viallet (éds.), Les réformes de l’Observance en Europe (XIVe-XVIe siècle) (1‑). Publications de l’École française de Rome. https://doi.org/10.4000/13k3c
    Wegner, Tjark. « The Support of the Observant Movement by the City Councils of Nuremberg, Strasbourg and Ulm ». In Les réformes De l’Observance En Europe (XIVe-XVIe siècle), édité par Cristina Andenna, Marina Benedetti, Sylvie Duval, Haude Morvan, et Ludovic Viallet. Rome: Publications de l’École française de Rome, 2025. https://doi.org/10.4000/13k3c.
    Wegner, Tjark. « The Support of the Observant Movement by the City Councils of Nuremberg, Strasbourg and Ulm ». Les réformes De l’Observance En Europe (XIVe-XVIe siècle), édité par Cristina Andenna et al., Publications de l’École française de Rome, 2025, https://doi.org/10.4000/13k3c.

    Référence numérique du livre

    Format

    Andenna, C., Benedetti, M., Duval, S., Morvan, H., & Viallet, L. (éds.). (2025). Les réformes de l’Observance en Europe (XIVe-XVIe siècle) (1‑). Publications de l’École française de Rome. https://doi.org/10.4000/13k35
    Andenna, Cristina, Marina Benedetti, Sylvie Duval, Haude Morvan, et Ludovic Viallet, éd. Les réformes de l’Observance en Europe (XIVe-XVIe siècle). Rome: Publications de l’École française de Rome, 2025. https://doi.org/10.4000/13k35.
    Andenna, Cristina, et al., éditeurs. Les réformes de l’Observance en Europe (XIVe-XVIe siècle). Publications de l’École française de Rome, 2025, https://doi.org/10.4000/13k35.
    Compatible avec Zotero Zotero

    1 / 3

    Publications de l’École française de Rome

    Publications de l’École française de Rome

    • Mentions légales
    • Plan du site
    • Se connecter

    Suivez-nous

    • Flux RSS

    URL : https://publications.efrome.it

    Email : publication@efrome.it

    Adresse :

    Piazza Navona, 62

    I-00186

    Roma

    Italia

    OpenEdition
    • Candidater à OpenEdition Books
    • Connaître le programme OpenEdition Freemium
    • Commander des livres
    • S’abonner à la lettre d’OpenEdition
    • CGU d’OpenEdition Books
    • Accessibilité : partiellement conforme
    • Données personnelles
    • Gestion des cookies
    • Système de signalement