Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-31T16:15:37.826Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Johannes Brenz and the Institutionalization of the Reformation in Württemberg

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

James M. Estes
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since World War II Reformation scholarship, both in Germany and outside it, has tended increasingly to turn away from an all too exclusive concentration on Luther and Saxony in order to look at other reformers and other areas. Johannes Brenz (1499–1570) is one of those reformers, and the Duchy of Württemberg, where Brenz's career reached its fulfillment, is one of those areas.

Type
Articles
Information
Central European History , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 1973 , pp. 44 - 59
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 1973

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.)

References

This article presents the text, slightly modified and with footnotes added, of an address delivered before a joint session of the American Society for Reformation Research and the American Historical Association on Dec. 28, 1971, in New York.

1. Several of the more recent contributions to Brenz studies are cited in the ensuing footnotes. Special attention should be called to the new critical edition of Brenz's works, one volume of which has appeared to date (see n. 42 below). There is still no modern biography of Brenz, and no up-to-date history of the Reformation in Württemberg.

2. Printed in Reyscher, August Ludwig, ed., Vollständige, historisch und kritisch bearbeitete Sammlung der württembergischen Geseze (Stuttgart and Tübingen, 1828–1851), VIII, 106–284; XI–1, 2–9; XI–2, 24–126. Hereafter cited as “Reyscher.”Google Scholar

3. “Die Anfänge der Konsistorialverfassung im lutherischen Deutschland,” Historische Zeitschrift, CII (1909), 1–30.Google Scholar

4. See, for example, Elton, G. R., Reformation Europe, 1517–1559 (Fontana paperback, London, 1963), p. 157.Google Scholar

5. Müller, , op. cit., pp. 14–17.Google Scholar

6. Brecht, Martin, “Die Ordnung der württembergischen Kirche im Zeitalter der Reformation,” in the same author's Kirchenordnung und Kirchenzucht in Württemberg vom 16. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart, 1967), pp. 9–52Google Scholar; see p. 10. Hereafter cited as “Brecht.”

7. Reyscher, VIII, 114–67.

8. Ernst, Viktor, ed., Briefwechsel des Herzogs Christoph von Wirtemberg, I (Stuttgart, 1899), No. 179 (pp. 182ff.).Google Scholar

9. Reyscher, , VIII, 114–15.Google Scholar

10. ibid., VIII, 111.

11. On Brenz's view of the Christian magistrate see Estes, James M., “Church Order and the Christian Magistrate According to Johannes Brenz,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, LIX (1968), 5–23;Google Scholar and the same author's “The Two Kingdoms and the State Church According to Johannes Brenz and an Anonymous Colleague,” ibid., LXI (1970), 35–49.

12. Reyscher, XI–1, 2–9; XI–2, 24–126.

13. The document establishing the authorship of this section of the church order is published in Geschichte des humanistischen Schulwesens in Württemberg, published by the Württembergische Kommission für Landesgeschichte (Stuttgart, 1912), I, 510–11.Google Scholar

14. Sattler, Christian Friedrich, Geschichte des Herzogthums Würtenberg unter der Regierung der Herzogen, IV (Tübingen, 1771), “Beilagen,” pp. 86–97.Google Scholar On Brenz's authorship, see Heerbrand, Jacob, Oratio funebris de vita et morte reverendi viri…D. Ioannis Brentii… (Tübingen, 1570), p. 45.Google Scholar Cf. Reyscher, , XI–2, 63–91.Google Scholar

15. Pressel, Theodor, ed., Anecdota Brentiana (Tübingen, 1868), pp. 33–39. Hereafter cited as “Pressel.”Google Scholar

16. Detailed documentation of this point would be unduly cumbersome. Suffice it to say that Christopher routinely sought Brenz's advice on all ecclesiastical matters and that he usually followed that advice. The duke frequently wrote in the margin of memoranda that came across his desk: “Soll meinem lieben getreuen Brentio zum Besehen zugeschickt werden.” Hartmann, Julius and Jäger, Karl, Johann Brenz (Hamburg, 1840), II, 241.Google ScholarCf. Rauscher, Julius, Württembergische Reformationsgeschichte (Stuttgart, 1934), p. 182.Google Scholar Only with respect to ecclesiastical discipline did Christopher sometimes bridle at Brenz's advice (see pp. 57–58 below), but Brenz had his way nevertheless.

17. One source tells us that Brenz himself prepared the text (Brecht, p. 49, citing a letter of Duke Christopher, Apr. 7, 1559, not included in Ernst's edition of Christopher's correspondence), while another tells us that a young jurist did so under Brenz's supervision (von Schnurrer, Christian Friedrich, Erläuterungen der Württembergischen Kirchen-Reformations- und Gelehrten-Geschichte [Tübingen, 1798], p. 273Google Scholar, citing the funeral oration, 1584, for Caspar Wild).

18. See Brecht, p. 36, n. 98.

19. Pfalz-Neuburg (1553), see Hauptstaatsarchiv Stuttgart, A63, B. 10, 3–8; Rheinpfalz (1558), see Pressel, pp. 447–50.

20. See below, pp. 57–58.

21. What follows is a summary of Reyscher, VIII, 245–56, 269–70, 273–82.

22. What I have to say here on the topic of ecclesiastical discipline is a brief summary of part of the contents of an article, “Johannes Brenz and the Problem of Ecclesiastical Discipline,” which is scheduled for publication in Church History in the December 1972 issue.

23. The proposal is contained in a memorandum entitled “Reformation der Kirchen in dem Hellischen Land,” printed in Richter, Aemilius Ludwig, ed., Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des sechszehnten Jahrhunderts, I (Weimar, 1846), 45–46.Google Scholar

24. Pressel, pp. 117–18.

25. “Bedenken der Marggräfischen Theologen über die Marggräflich-Brandenburg-und Nürnbergische Kirchenordnung,” printed in Strobel, Georg Theodor, ed., Miscellaneen Literarischen Inhalts…zwote Sammlung (Nürnberg, 1779), pp. 151–62; see esp. pp. 153–56.Google Scholar

26. Pressel, pp. 166–70.

27. Brecht, pp. 23–27.

28. Reyscher, VIII, 69–80. Cf. Brecht, pp. 28–29.

29. See above, p. 54.

30. Hartmann, and Jäger, , op. cit., II, 78–80Google Scholar; Gmelin, Julius, Hällische Geschichte (Schwäbisch Hall, 1899), pp. 757–58.Google Scholar The original sources used by these authors have apparently been lost.

31. Brecht, p. 30.

32. Reyscher, VIII, 79–80.

33. ibid., VIII, 80–92.

34. Brecht, p. 31.

35. ibid., pp. 33–34.

36. ibid., p. 35.

37. Reyscher, VIII, 100–105.

38. For a fully documented discussion of the problem of ecclesiastical discipline in this period of Bren's career, see the article referred to in footnote 22 above.

39. For a brief resumé of the controversy, see Brecht, pp. 42–45.

40. Ernst, Viktor, “Die Entstehung des württembergischen Kirchenguts,” Württembergische Jahrbücher für Statistik und Landeskunde, 1911, pp. 377–424Google Scholar; see esp. pp. 399–414.

41. Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, XI (1914), 285–86 (“Gutachten wegen Verwertung des Kirchenguts,” 1526);Google ScholarKöhler, Walther, Bibliographia Brenziana (Berlin, 1904), pp. 390–91Google Scholar (Brenz to the city council of Schwäbisch Hall, Jan. 28, 1531).

42. In his commentary on the Twelve Articles of the peasants; see Brenz, Johannes, Frühschriften, Teil I, ed. Brecht, Martin et al. (Tübingen, 1970), p. 149.Google Scholar

43. In Visitation Ordinance of 1553, for example, the Stuttgart Provost (Brenz) appears to be subordinate to the Landhofmeister with respect to superintendence over the consistory, while in the Church Order of 1559 they are clearly assigned equal rank. See Reyscher, VIII, 100, 273.

44. Brecht, p. 35.

45. ibid., p. 51.