Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 February 2009
The conflicts between episcopal and Habsburg provincial authorities in late sixteenth-century Upper and Lower Austria can be seen in some ways as a continuation of the investiture controversies of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The long roots of these later conflicts have been pointed out by local historians of Upper Austria like Karl Eder and Rudolf Zinnhobler. The early modern connections help to explain the particular course of religious reform in the Habsburg Hereditary Lands.
1 Eder, Karl, Studien zur Refomationsgeschichte Oberösterreichs (Línz, 1932–1936), 2:44Google Scholar; and Zinnhobler, Rudolf, ed., Die Passauer Bistumsmatrikeln für das westliche Offizialat (Passau, 1972–1984), 1:74–75Google Scholar. See also Pastor, Ludwig von, History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages (London, 1952), 19:63Google Scholar.
2 For the sake of simplicity, the title “emperor” will be used when referring to Maximilian II, even though the powers discussed derive not from his imperial title but—for the most part—from his office as Landesfürst. “Emperor” seems less unwieldy than any possible English translation of the German term. It is also the case that the documents in question here refer to Maximilian using this title. (The same holds true for discussions of seignorial holdings associated with the Landesfürst; the castle at Steyr in Upper Austria, for example, although legally in the control of the imperial authorities as Landesfürsten, was always referred to as the “imperial castle.”) An overemphasis on the legal formalities masks the reality of political power in this period: it is not based on the legal claims adjudicated by modern-day historians, but on the ability of a particular party at a particular time to have its point accepted. Karl Eder reminds us that often disputes between authorities became an issue of simple “might makes right.” Eder, Studien 1:40.
3 The Klosterrat has, to date, been the subject of surprisingly little research. Evans, R. J. W. has pointed this fact out in The Making of the Habsburg Monarchy, 1550–1700 (Oxford, 1979), 61Google Scholar. The only work entirely devoted to the Klosterrat is Sattek, Johann, “Der niederösterreichische Klosterrat. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Staatkirchentums in Österreich im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert” (diss., University of Vienna, 1950)Google Scholar. One of the factors complicating research is the scattered nature of the sources dealing with this institution. See Sattek, “Klosterrat” 138–39, and Josef Kraft, “Zur Geschichte der Klosterrates” (Niederösterreichisches Landesarchiv [NÖLA], Vienna, typewritten manuscript). W. Latzke's article in the published inventory of the Vienna Haus-, Hof-, und Staatsarchiv (HHStA) details the history of the holdings from the Klosterrat that ended up in that repository: “Die Klosterarchive,” ed. Bittner, Ludwig and Gross, Lothar, in Gesamtinventar des Wiener Haus-, Hof-, und Staatsarchivs aufgebaut auf der Geschichte des Archivs und seiner Bestände (Vienna, 1936–1940), 3:298–305Google Scholar. NÖLA, Klosterrat Carton 209, which held reports dealing with Upper Austria, was burned in the 1927 Justizpalast fire (see the typewritten index of the NÖLA Klosterrat holdings, 4:562).
4 This generalization holds true for much of the literature on the Counter-Reformation, especially those works dealing with the Habsburgs or Central Europe. Bireley, Robert, Religion and Politics in the Age of the Counterreformation: Emperor Ferdinand II, William Lamormain, S.J., and the Formation of Imperial Policy (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1981)Google Scholar; Dickens, A. G., The Counter-Reformation (Norwich, England, 1969)Google Scholar; O'Connell, Marvin R., The Counter-Reformation, 1559–1610 (New York, 1974)Google Scholar; Olin, John C., The Catholic Reformation: Savonarola to Ignatius Loyola: Reform in the Church, 1495–1540 (New York, 1969)Google Scholar; and Wright, A. D., The Counter-Reformation: Catholic Europe and the Non-Christian World (New York, 1982)Google Scholar. The standard church history of Austria, Tomek, Ernst, Kirchengeschkhte Österreichs (Innsbruck, 1949)Google Scholar, follows the same path, as does the ostensibly more socially oriented Hsia, R. Po-chia, Social Discipline in the Reformation: Central Europe, 1550–1750 (New York, 1989)Google Scholar. See also Reinhard, Wolfgang, “Reformation, Counter-Reformation and the Early Modern State: A Reassessment,” Catholic Historical Review 75 (1989): 383–404Google Scholar.
5 The standard survey of the investiture controversies is Blumenthal, Uta-Renate, The Investiture Controversy: Church and Monarchy from the Ninth to the Twelfth Century, trans. Blumenthal, (Philadelphia, 1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; originally published as Der lnvestiturstreit (Stuttgart, Berlin, Cologne, and Mainz, 1982). On Worms and the emperors, see ibid., 172–73. See also Tellenbach, Gerd, Church, State and Christian Society at the Time of the Investiture Contest, trans. Bennett, R. F. (New Jersey, 1979), 120–25Google Scholar; originally published as Libertas. Kirche und Weltordnung im Zeitalter des Investiturstreites (Leipzig, 1936). For the theoretical context, see Folz, Robert, The Concept of Empire in Western Europe from the Fifth to the Fourteenth Century, trans. Ogilvie, Sheila Ann (Westport, Conn., 1969)Google Scholar; originally published as L'idée d'Empire dans I'Occident du Ve au XlVe siècle (Paris, 1953).
6 This interpretation of the imperial system of government has been strongly criticized by Reuter, Timothy, “The ‘Imperial Church System’ of the Ottonian and Salian Rulers: A Reconsideration,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 33 (07 1982): 347–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7 One of the leading German exponents of the Reichskirchensystem interpretation is Josef Fleckenstein. He defends his interpretation versus Reuter, in “Problematik und Gestalt der ottonischsalischen Reichskirche,” in Reich und Kirche vor dem lnvestiturstreit. Vorträge beim wissenschaftlichen Kolloquium aus Anlaβ des achtzigsten Geburtstag von Gerd Tellenbach, ed. Schmid, Karl (Sigmaringen, 1985), 83–98Google Scholar. See also Die, Fleckenstein'sHofkapelle der ottonisch-salischen Reichskirche (Schriften der Monumenta Germaniae Historica XVI, part 2, 1966)Google Scholar. For surveys of the literature on the question, see Santifaller, Leo, “Zur Geschichte des ottonische-salischen Reichskirchensystems,” Sitzungsberichte der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophische-historische Klasse 229 (1964)Google Scholar.
8 An introduction to and overview of the diocese of Passau and its history is provided by Passau, Bischöfliches Ordinariat, Handbuch des Bistums Passau (Passau, 1958)Google Scholar. On Emperor Ferdinand I, see Fichtner, Paula Sutter, Ferdinand I of Austria: The Politics of Dynasticism in the Age of the Reformation (New York, 1982)Google Scholar.
9 For a discussion of the correspondence between the emperor and the bishop concerning joint visitations, see Patrouch, Joseph F., “Methods of Cultural Manipulation: The Counter-Reformation in the Habsburg Province of Upper Austria, 1570–1650” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1991, 79–111)Google Scholar. On the visitations generally, see Waissenberger, Robert, “Die hauptsächlichen Visitationen in Österreich ob und unter der Enns, sowie in Innerösterreich in der Zeit von 1528 bis 1580” (diss., University of Vienna, 1949)Google Scholar. Visitations have been the subject of extensive research and debate. For an introduction to the subject in the German-speaking lands, see Lang, Peter Thaddaeus, “Reform in Wandel. Die katholische Visitationsinterrogatorien des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts,” in Kirche und Visitation. Beiträge zur Erforschung des frühneuzeitlichen Visitationswesens in Europa, ed. Lang, Peter Thaddeus and Zeeden, Ernst Walter (Stuttgart, 1984), 131–90Google Scholar; and Molitor, Hansgeorg and Zeeden, Ernst Walter, eds., Die Visitation im Dienst der kirchlichen Reform (Münster, 1967)Google Scholar.
10 HHStA, Klosterratarchiv (KR) 14, “Visitationsbuch.” This report appends Maximilian's instructions of 1566. The quotations that follow in the text are taken from this document. The authority under which the appointees were acting was based on princely prerogatives over the Hereditary Lands, not imperial rights in the Holy Roman Empire (even though the representatives were called “imperial appointees” and used the added social authority this gave them in practice when they interacted with others).
11 ”…ob sy auch rechte Religiosen Sein. oder allain Zum Schein benennt unnd fürgestöllt werden.” Ibid.
12 ”…ob, wie unnd warlnn sy bermainen, daβ beβere Wirtschaft angereihtet, unnd der Uncosten geringert, unnd eingezogen werden möchte.” Ibid.
13 On Hillinger, an important player in the controversies between the episcopal and the Habsburg authorities (at various times he represented one side, then the other), see Patrouch, “Methods of Cultural Manipulation,” 108–9. Hillinger continued his inspection tour after writing this report. He signed the inventory of Garsten Abbey on November 23, 1566. HHStA, KR 9.
14 Sattek, “Klosterrat,” 12.
15 Oberösterreichisches Landesarchiv (OÖLA), Herrschaftsarchiv (HA) Seisenberg, Handschrift (HS) 107, contains documents from 1567 dealing with the reform of the monasteries (fols. 76–150). See also Eder, Studien 2:127; Sattek, “Klosterrat,” 13–14; Hujber, Wendelin, ”Der Prelatenstand des Landes ob der Enns, 1600–1620. Beiträge zur seiner und der Geschichte der Landschaft im Zeitalter der Gegenreformation” (diss., University of Vienna, 1972, 26)Google Scholar; and Hammer-Purgstall, Joseph, Khlesl's des Cardinals, Directors des geheimen Cabinets, Leben (Vienna, 1847), 1:32–33Google Scholar.
16 A copy is to be found in Archiv des Bistums Passau (ABP), Ordinariatsarchiv (OA), no. 281. Bishop Urban did not know of the emperor's intentions and, having found out about them, wrote the Passau Offizial in Vienna asking for a copy. Sattek, “Klosterrat,” 21.
17 ”… auf niemandts Anweisung bedroeung, noch Zwang, sonnder freyes aigens willens.” ABP, OA, no. 281.
18 ”Ires unnderschiedlichen Erbarn Habits gebrauchen, damit ain Orden von dem anndern, Auch die Religiosen von den Weltlichen Priestern, unnd Layen, erkhenndt werden mugen.” Ibid.
19 ”…unnd annder Gesind.” Ibid.
20 Sattek, “Klosterrat,” 22.
21 Some of the various documents used by the Klosterrat to justify their claims are found printed in Hammer-Purgstall, Khlesl's 1, documents section, 19.
22 Ibid. 1:35.
23 Eder, Studien 1:316–24, details the various secular claims over church rights and properties, particularly the Spolienrecht. For literature on the “right to the spoils,” as well as a discussion of various Italian examples, see Ginzburg, Carlo and the Bologna Seminar, “Ritual Pillages: A Preface to Research in Progress,” in Microhistory and the Lost Peoples of Europe, ed. Muir, Edward and Ruggiero, Guido (Baltimore, 1991), 20–41Google Scholar.
24 Patrouch, “Methods of Cultural Manipulation,” 268–69; and Schellhass, Karl, Der Dominikaner Felician Ninguardia und die Gegenreformation in Süddeutschland und Österreich 1560–83 (Rome, 1930–1939), 1:55–65Google Scholar.
25 Von Pastor, History of the Popes 18:267–68. See also Schmitz, Philibert, Histoire de I'Ordre de Saint Benoit, 2nd ed., (Paris, 1948–1956), 4:117Google Scholar. The entire visitation is outlined by Mayr, Michael, “Cardinal Commendones Kloster- und Kirchen-Visitation von 1569 in den Diöcesen Passau und Salzburg,” Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Benediktinerordens und seiner Zweige 14 (1893): 385–98, 567–89Google Scholar.
26 “On the visitation generally, see Tomek, Kirchengeschichte 2:415–16; Eder, Studien 2:131–33; and Waissenberger, “Die hauptsächlichen Visitationen,” 107–8.
27 Eder puts it so: “[D]ie Form der Eheschlieβung beachteten sie als alten Brauch, nicht als Verfügung des Tridentinums.” Eder, Studien 2:132.
28 Patrouch, “Methods of Cultural Manipulation,” 202–5, discusses how the parish clergy could benefit financially from marriage regulations.
29 Sattek, “Klosterrat,” 55.
30 The monasteries and the parish clergy were some of the most important owners of seignorial rights in the Habsburgs' Hereditary Lands. Controversies related to them over the jurisdiction of the Habsburg princely authorities were endemic. For one example from 1603, see the disputes over the installation of clergy in the city of Freistadt as reflected in the documents of OÖLA, StA Freistadt, AB 524.
31 “… das mann vleissige erkhungigung halten sol was fuer Religion, Gotsdienst und Geistliches leben und Wandl In den Clostern gehalten, gebet, und Insunderhait die Catholisch Religion defendiert werde.” Letter from Raidt to Passau, dated Vienna, June 9, 1575, ABP, OA, no. 281.
32 Ibid.
33 “… das mir dises guet werckh gern befürdert.” Ibid., copy of letter from Urban to Reformationscommissioners Thomas Hellinger and Matheus Preur, dated Passau, June 17, 1575.
34 Ibid., copy of letter from Urban to Raidt dated Passau, June 17, 1575.
35 Ibid., copy of letter from Urban to Raidt dated Passau, June 28, 1575.
36 Ibid., instruction dated Passau, June 28, 1575, signed and sealed by Urban.
37 “Ob nit etlich auβgesprungen.” Ibid.
38 “Ob sy glauben, das die Heillig Meβ, ain Opfer seye.” Ibid.
39 “Wie sie dem uebergeblieben. Hostien unnd Pluet thun, obs sie es wieder, unnder die unconsecrirten Hostien, unnd wein vermengen, oder obs siees selbs, unnderainannder ausser der meβ, in der khirchen, oder anhaimbs im Hauβ niessen, und verzeren.” Ibid.
40 Ibid. See copy of letter from Urban to Raidt and Schwarz dated Passau, June 27, 1575. Urban wrote that he did not expect such treatment from Hillinger and the provost of Saint Dorothea's in Vienna, both of whom were commission members and also clerics. Note that Hillinger had been variously a representative of the bishop and of the Klosterrat. The conflicts between the competing authorities could result in an individual switching sides. It was also possible for one person to represent both episcopal and princely claims. See Patrouch, “Methods of Cultural Manipulation,” 314–19.
41 ABP, OA, no. 281, copy of letter from Urban to visitation commission dated Passau, June 27, 1575.
42 Ibid., copy of letter from Urban to visitation commission dated Passau, August 5, 1575.
43 Ibid., letter from Hillinger and Prauer to Urban dated Melk, August 8, 1575.
44 Ibid., copy of letter from Urban to emperor dated Passau, August 15, 1575.
45 Waissenberger, “Die hauptsächlichen Visitationen,” 111; and Eder, Studien 2:142.
46 HHStA KR 15/1, “Geistliches Expeditions Buch.”
47 Ibid., fol. 4. The administrator (Pfleger) of Freistadt, Joachim Stänngl, was ordered to turn over the financial records dealing with three benefices.
48 Ibid., fol. 53.
49 Ibid., fol. 16, letter dated September 12, 1579, to abbot of Kremsmünster telling him to collect the entire contribution from the Upper Austrian prelates; fols. 41, 87, order repeated, November 10, 1579, and March 13, 1580; fol. 190, abbots of Kremsmünster and Lambach asked to help with the contribution, October 21, 1580; fol. 217, additional letter to abbot of Kremsmünster about contribution dated December 23, 1580; fol. 224, letter to abbot of Kremsmünster ordering him to collect contribution from prelates who had not yet complied, January 17, 1581; and fol. 235, repeat order dated February 9, 1581. Apparently, the abbot admitted he could not collect the owed taxes (fol. 238). This did him little good. On February 10, 1581, he was ordered again to collect the outstanding contribution (fol. 248).
50 Ibid., fols. 18–19, entry dated September 17, 1579.
51 Ibid., fol. 3, Klosterrat order to Passau Offizial (who was also the parish priest in Krems) to remove Michael Maier, August 11, 1579. On September 6, 1579, the dean of Enns was ordered to tell Maier to appear before the Klosterrat (fol. 12). Maier made an agreement with his successor on October 3, 1579 (fol. 21), but there was apparently some dispute over its stipulations (fol. 27).
52 “Seines VerPrechens willen.” Ibid., fols. 28, 31.
53 Ibid., fol. 191, order dated October 27, 1580. For the literature on Gleink, together with a detailed analysis of the financial standing of the abbey, see Patrouch, “Methods of Cultural Manipulation,” 137–236.
54 See, for example, HHStA KR 15/1, fol. 87, order dated March 10, 1580, for such an instance in Gleink.
55 Ibid., fol. 72, report dated February 9, 1580.
56 Ibid., fol. 246, entry dated February 21, 1581.
57 On the 1576 synod, see Eder, Studien 2:138–42.
58 For Klesl, see Hammer-Purgstall, Khlesl's, and Rainer, Johann, “Kardinal Melchior Klesl (1552–1630). Vom ‘Generalreformator’ zum Ausgleichspolitiker,” Römische Quarialschrift 49 (1964): 22–33Google Scholar. The most detailed treatment of his conflicts with the imperial authorities in Lower Austria is to be found in Wiedemann, Theodor, Geschichte der Reformation und Gegenreformation im Lande unter der Enns (Prague, 1879–1886)Google Scholar. See also Evans, Making of the Habsburg Monarchy, 43, 62 (where it is pointed out that Klesl still awaits a full modern examination).
59 On the calendar, see Eder, Studien 2:185–89. Some local communes refused the new calendar, particularly in the Salzkammergut. For the plans about the Offizial in Linz, see ibid. 2:159–60.
60 Sattek, “Klosterrat,” 66.
61 Eder, Studien 2:224–30.
62 This “Passauer Vertrag” is briefly discussed in Eder, Studien 2:250–51, 306. The text on which the following discussion is based is to be found in ABP, OA, no. 10050. It appears to be one of the original copies of the treaty, signed by Urban and Rudolf. A copy is also to be found in OÖLA, HA Seissenburg, HS 107, 959–74. A printed version is in ABP, OA, no. 3214. Even parish archives eventually received a copy. See OÖLA, StA Freistadt, AB 557.
63 Eder, Studien 2:251, n. 3.
64 “…doch das er Catholisch sye.” See the text of the treaty in ABP, OA, no. 3214.
65 The Bavarian dukes appointed a commission similar to the Klosterrat to supervise the monasteries in their territories. Bauerreis, Romuald, Kirchengeschichte Bayerns (Saint Ottilien, 1949–1970), 5:68–71Google Scholar. The dukes used their support of the papacy to push for further rights over the church in Bavaria. See Strauss, Gerald, “The Religious Policies of Dukes Wilhelm and Ludwig of Bavaria in the First Decade of the Protestant Era,” Church History 28 (1959): 350–73, at 365CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Buxbaum, Engelbert M., Petrus Canisius und die kirchliche Emeuerung des Herzogtums Bayern, 1549–1556 (Rome, 1973)Google Scholar; Lanzinner, Maximilian, Fürst, Räte und Landstände. Die Entstehung der Zentralbehörden in Bayern 1511–1598 (Göttingen, 1980)Google Scholar; Seifert, Arno, Weltlicher Staat und Kirchenreform. Die Seminarpolitik Bayems im 16. Jahrhundert (Münster, 1978)Google Scholar; and Stieve, Felix, Das kirchliche Polizeiregiment in Baiern unter Maximilian I, 1595–1651 (Munich, 1876)Google Scholar.
66 Bayrisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, Munich, Passauer Blechkastenarchiv, Kasten 34, “Geistliche Policeii Christl. Wanndl und Schullen,” no. 2, “Ungehorsame Comunicanten, Reformation, und ausschaffung der burger und unterthanen in bistum und stadt Passau, so nit Catholisch werden wollen, und dergleich betr. 1580 bis 1646.” See also no. 3, “Sonn- u. feyertägliches arbeiten und gottes dienst betr. 1548, 1602, 1619, et 1645.” The various activities legislated against are too numerous to mention here. Decrees were also issued versus certain guild celebrations, for the Forty Hours Devotion, and so on. The decrees and cases versus blasphemy, adultery, and drunkenness (no. 9, “Mandata wegen des Gotteslästerern, Ehebruch und trunckenheit 1530 bis 1644”) recall cases before various seignorial courts of Upper Austria. See Patrouch, “Methods of Cultural Manipulation,” 256–57. Commissioners were sent into the countryside to investigate married couples who no longer lived together and to order the women to return to their husbands.
67 The order from Bishop Leopold Wilhelm is dated Ebelsberg, July 27, 1643. The corresponding report is undated. Both are to be found in ABP, OA, no. 1978.
