Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-pwrkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-10T02:13:22.991Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Craig M. Koslofsky, The Reformation of the Dead: Death and Ritual in Early Modern Germany, 1450–1700. (London: Macmillan, 2000. xiii + 223 pp.).

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2002

Helmut
Affiliation:
University of Michigan

Abstract

“In the myddest of our lyvynge / Death compaseth us rounde about.” These lines from a popular medieval hymn, transmitted in eleventh-century St. Gallen, serve as a fitting epigram to Craig Koslofsky's study on The Reformation of the Dead. In this well-argued, stimulating book, the author traces the fate of the dead in early modern Germany from the eve of the Reformation to the eighteenth century. He approaches “the history of death” (Philippe Ariès) from the social order of the living. Drawing on the anthropology of ritual, Koslofsky explores the art of dying, funeral rites, and the topography of burial places. In a series of fascinating episodes Koslofsky skillfully applies the insight that “liminality” provides an “opportunity” to act (p. 8). In Leipzig in 1536, for instance, various urban groups clashed over what was perceived as a threat to traditional burial practice when Duke George of Saxony mandated that, for the sake of hygiene, the dead were to be interred outside the city walls. This ordinance instigated varied responses and severe resistance. University professors insisted on their right to be buried intramurally. Mendicant monasteries expressed fears of losing control over religious life in the city. The whole dispute occurred in an atmosphere of heightened confessional strife. Burial in places other than the churchyard signified either a dead person's dishonorable status or allegiance to Reformation ideas (though Duke George was Catholic). A tenuous settlement was reached when the Duke granted privileges to professors and required the payment of extra fees for city burials.

Type
CSSH Notes
Copyright
© 2001 Society for Comparative Study of Society and History

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.)