Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-nqrmd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-21T00:14:53.768Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2009

R. J. W. Evans
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Articles By David Sorkin and Edmund Kern have a common starting point. Both address aspects of the reform movement that unfolded in the Habsburg lands under Maria Theresa. They underline an argument made by much recent work on the subject that the movement in question, though committed to substantial changes in the social and cultural fabric, was fundamentally Catholic in its inspiration and only loosely and partially aligned with either the great intellectual challenge of the Enlightenment or the fuller and later program of reconstruction that has come to be known in the Austrian context as Josephinism. Both writers acknowledge the powerful contributory stimulus from abroad to the new climate of ideas generated in the monarchy by the travails of the mid-eighteenth century, but submit that those ideas besically arose out of a domestic evolution, especially within ecclesiastical circles.

Information

Type
Forum: Counter-Reformation, Reform Catholicism, and the Enlightenment
Information
Austrian History Yearbook , Volume 30 , January 1999 , pp. 229 - 235
Copyright
Copyright © Center for Austrian Studies, University of Minnesota 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 David, Sorkin, Moses Mendelssohn and the Religious Enlightenment (Berkeley, 1996)Google Scholar; compare idem, “From Context to Comparison: The German Haskalah and Reform Catholicism,” Tel-Aviver Jahrbuch für Deutsche Geschichte, 1991, 23–58.Google Scholar

2 Compare, however, the earlier approach of Emile, Appolis, Le tiers parti catholique au XVIIIe siècle, entre jansénistes et zelanti (Paris, 1960).Google Scholar

3 Jürgen, Habermas, Strukturwandel de Öffentlichkeit. Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft (Neuwied, 1962).Google Scholar Compare the latest discussion in Hull, Isabel V., Sexuality, State, and Civil Society in Germany, 1700–1815, (Ithaca, N.Y., 1996)Google Scholar, and Blanning, T.C.W., “Frederick te Great and German Culture,” in Royal and Republican Sovereignty in Early Modern Europe, ed. Robert, Oresko, G.C., Gibbs, and H.M., Scott (Cambridge, 1997), 527–50.Google Scholar

4 Summary by Evans, R. J. W. in Die Universität in Alteuropa, ed. Alexander, Patschowsky and Horst, Rabe (Konstanz, 1994), 183–204, at 196ff.Google Scholar

5 Compare the important study by Michael, Pammer, Glaubensabfall und wahre Andacht. Barock-religiosität, Reformkatholizismus, und Laizismus in Oberösterreich, 1700–1820 (Munich, 1994).Google Scholar

6 See Joachim, Bahlcke, “‘Vexatio dat intellectum’. Klerus, Stäandeverfassung und Staatskirchentum in Ungarn zur Zeit Maria Theresias,” Berichte und Beiträge des Geisteswissenschaftlichen Zentrums Geschichte und Kultur Ostmitteleuropas 1997, 91–107Google Scholar, Compare István, Bitskey, Il Collegio Germanico-Ungarico di Roma (Rome, 1996), especially 127ff.Google Scholar

7 Despite all the excellent work on the rise and fall of witch-hunting in separate territories of the Habsburgs, there is still no general account. A sketch, with the earlier bibliography, is in Evans, R. J. W., The Making of the Habsburg Monarchy (Oxford, 1979), 400ff.Google Scholar

8 John, Komlos, Nutrition and Economic Development in the Eighteenth-Century Habsburg Monarchy: An Anthropometric History (Princeton, N.J., 1989).Google Scholar

9 Gábor, Klaniczay, The Uses of Supernatural Power (Cambridge, 1990), especially 168–88.Google Scholar Compare Paul, Barber, Vampires, Burial, and Death: Folklore and Reality (New Haven, Conn., 1988).Google Scholar An overall study of the Orthodox issue, embracing Romanians, Ruthenes, and Serbs and addressing intellectual as well as socioeconomic and political aspects, remains a great desideratum of eighteenth-century Austrian studies; the diplomatic background is indicated in Roider, Karl A., Austria's Eastern Question, 1700–90 (Princeton, N.J., 1982).Google Scholar

10 Important recent analyses are those by John, Tedeschi in Early Modern European Witchcraft: Centres and Peripheries, ed. Bengt, Ankarloo and Gustav, Henningsen (Oxford, 1990), 83–118Google Scholar and Ian, Bostridge in Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe, ed. Jonathan, Barry, Marianne, Hester, and Gareth, Roberts (Cambridge, 1996), 309–34.Google Scholar

11 Antonius, de Haen, De Magia Liber (Leipzig, 1774).Google Scholar Compare Boersma, G., Antonius de Haen. Leven en werk (Assen, 1963,Google Scholar and Peter, Hersche, Der Spätjansenismus in Österreich (Vienna, 1977), 118–24.Google Scholar

12 Important new collections are Heinz, Schilling, ed, Kirchenzucht und Sozialdisziplinierung im frühneuzeitlichen Europa (Berlin, 1994)Google Scholar, and Wolfgang, Reinhard and Schillingg, , eds., Die katholische Konfessionalisierung (Gütersloh, 1995). Compare Heinrich Richard Schmidt, “Sozialdisziplinierung? Ein Plädoyer für das Ende des Etatismus in der Konfessionalisierungsforschung,” Historische Zeitschrift 265 (1997): 639–82.Google Scholar

13 See my essay “Die Grenzen der Konfessionalisierung. Die Folgen der Gegenreformation für die Habsburgerländer,” in Konfessionalisierung. Wirkungen des religiösen Wandels im 16. und. 17. Jahrhundert in Staat, Gesellschaft und Kultur, ed. Joachim Bahlcke and Arno Strohmeyer (Wiesbaden, 1999).Google Scholar

14 Peter, Burke, Popular Culture in Early Modern Europe (London, 1978).Google Scholar