Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:58:43.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Emperor and the Exiles: The Clash of Religion and Politics in the Late Sixteenth Century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Jill Raitt
Jill Raitt
Affiliation:
professor of religious studies in University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, Missouri.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In his palace in Prague on 16 December 1585, the Holy Roman Emperor Rudolph II was plainly annoyed. The Holy League of the powerful French Roman Catholic Guise family and their puppet, King Henry III, were putting pressure on their coreligionist to deal with his vassal, Frederick, count of Montbéliard and Württemberg. In a fine hand with many impressive flourishes, Rudolph's secretary prepared the angry emperor's letter to Frederick, warning him “in a friendly way” to obey at once and to send away the French Protestant exiles seeking refuge in the county of Montbéliard. If Frederick refused, he would fall under Rudolph's displeasure and incur imperial wrath and punishment (Kaiserlichen ungnad und straff).

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , June 1983 , pp. 145 - 156
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1983

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

I am indebted to the National Endowment for the Humanities and to the American Council of Learned Societies for funds permitting extensive archival research, part of which is reflected in this article.

1. Emperor Rudolph II to Count Frederick, 16 December 1585, fonds Montbéliard, Paris National Archives K 2186 (hereafter cited as AN-K plus number).

2. JrRice, Eugene F., The Foundations of Early Modern Europe, 1460–1559 (New York, 1970), p. 165.Google Scholar

3. Compare Lindsay, T. M., A History of the Reformation, 2 vols., vol. 1,Google ScholarThe Reformation in Germany from its Beginning to the Religious Peace of Augsburg, 2d ed. (Edinburgh, 1907; reprint ed., New York, 1959), pp. 397–399.Google Scholar

4. Viénot, John, Histoire de la Réforme dans le pays de Montbéliard depuis les origines jusqu ä la mort de Pierre Toussain, 1524 -1573, 2 vols. (Paris, 1900), 1:14.Google Scholar

5. Ibid., pp. 49–53.

6. Ibid., pp. 54–55.

7. Brecht, Martin, Kirchenordnung und Kirchenucht in Württemberg vom 16. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart, 1967).Google Scholar

8. Raitt, Jill, “Three Inter-related Principles in Calvin's Unique Doctrine of Infant Baptism,” The Sixteenth Century Journal 6 (Spring 1980): 57–58.Google Scholar The issue of single or double predestination had not yet become an issue. Toussain accepted predestination and therefore Calvin's argument.

9. Koib, Robert, “Jakob Andreae,” in Shapers of Traditions in Germany, Switzerland, and Poland, 1500–1600, ed. Jill, Raitt (New Haven, 1981), pp. 53–68.Google Scholar

10. Viénot, 1:226, 338. On the manducatio indignorum, Toussain could appeal to the explanation of Bucer which distinguished the faithless from the unworthy. In the French translation of the Wittenberg Concord, signed by Toussain in 1562, there occurs this passage: “aulcuns l'oyent sans aulcune foy, lesquelx ne l'entendans tant qu'à eulx touche, ilz ne reçoipvent rien, fors un vain bruict de paroles…” (quoted in Viènot, 2:299).

11. Ibid., 1:313; compare ibid., 2:248–252.

12. Ibid., 1:340–343, 2:292–293.

13. Ibid., 2:295.

14. Ibid., 2:307–309.

15. Duvernoy, Charles, Ephémerides du comté de Montbéliard (Besançon, 1832), p. 386.Google Scholar

16. John Casimir to Count Frederick, 7 October 1577, AN-K 2187. Compare Frederick's letter to Casimir's friend and envoy, Pierre Beutterich, in Hauptstaatsarchiv Stuttgart, A 63, Bü 54.

17. Duvernoy, p. 386.

18. Ibid., pp. 104, 154.

19. Sutherland, N. M., The Huguenol Struggle for Recognition (New Haven, 1980), pp. 364–365.Google Scholar

20. Archduke Ferdinand to Count Frederick, 5 December 1585; Duke Ludwig to Count Frederick, 7 December 1585; Emperor Rudolph II to Count Frederick, 16 December 1585, AN-K 2186. I acknowledge here the paleographic assistance of Ricarda Froehlich, who transcribed these difficult German letters and helped with the translations.

21. Count Frederick to Elector Palatine John Casimir, 6 January 1586, AN-K 2186.

22. “…vnnd inn summa arme Elende vertribene leutt, die (wie Ich selbsten) von Gott wünschten, dass Mompelgart inn seiner gelegenheit annderst beschaffen, vnnd also entlegen, dass sie nicht alhie, sonnder daheimbden beij dem Irigen ruig vnnd sicher sein möchten” (Frederick to Rudolph II, 20 January 1586, AN-K 2186).

23. “Dass Ich aber mitt Ihnen em christliches mittleiden hat, beschicht aus der von Gott selbs anbeuolhener liebe, auch behertzigung, dass (da Gott vor seie) sein Allmacht vnns vnnserer vilfeltigen sünden wegen mitt der gleichen ruthen vnnd Exilien heimsuchte, wir ebenmessige christliche Brüderlich Hospitalitet gem suchen” (ibid.).

24. “Dann Ich sonnsten solches an meine nechstuerwannte clags weis gelangen zu lassen vnnd vff mittel, wie Ich dergleichen vngegrünten antragens berhaben sein möchte, zutrachten notturffsiglich getrungen würde” (ibid.).

25. Casimir to Frederick, 18 April 1586 and 23 January 1586. On 10 April 1586, Frederick wrote to Basel, Strassbur, Murbach, Colmar, Schlettstaft, Besançon, Entsisheim, and the governor of Burgundy. On 5 May 1586, Schlettstatt responded, followed by Strassburg on 10 May and Reÿchenweÿh on 11 (AN-K 2186).

26. “Dann soltte gleich E.L. selbsten, auch annderer zuuersicht entgegen, ain mahl vonn Inen, (welche nitt allezeitt so offennbar, sonnder wie in religione, allso vill mehr auch in annderen hanndlungen schlupferig vnnd ongewis,)…” (Duke Ludwig to Count Frederick, 21 April 1586, AN-K 2186).

27. Andreae, Jakob, Acta Collouquii Montio Belligartensis (Tübingen, 1587) p. 1.Google Scholar

28. Labarthe, O. and Tripet, M., eds. Registres de la Compagnie des Pasteurs de Genève, Volume 5, 1583–1586 (Geneva, 1976), p. 97.Google Scholar

29. “… confessionem nostram, de illa horribiliter traduxerunt, insumantes earn Ut cyclopicam barbaricam …” (Lutz to Count Frederick, 16 October 1586, AN-K 2186).

30. Ibid.

31. Count Frederick to magistrates of Montbéliard, 16 December 1586, AN-K 2186.

32. Count Frederick to magistrates of Montbéliard, , 13 11 1588, AN-K 2186; Duvernoy, p. 153.Google Scholar

33. Tuetey, Alexandre, Les Allemands en France et l'invasion du Comté Montbéliard par les Lorrains, 1587–1588, d'après-des documents inédite (Paris, 1883), pp. 199–200.Google Scholar

34. Duvernoy, p. 153.

35. Tuetey, p. 212.

36. Ibid., pp. 207, 209–211, 379–382, 385–390.

37. Frederick to the magistrates of Montbéliard, 2 May 1594, AN-K 2187.

38. POster, P., Le Colloque de Monlbéliard (1586,): Étude histortque (Geneva, 1873), p. 81.Google Scholar

39. Ibid., pp. 28, 55–56, 60–61.

40. “Cela n'a pas empêché nos églises de conserver toujours le souvenir de leur origine. Elle se sont toujours rappelé que ce fut Farel qui, le premier, leur prêcha la Réforme et que, pendant plus d'un siècle, elles furent attachées aux doctrines de Calvin; elles n'ont jamais oublié non plus que ce fut en grande partie pour des raisons politiques que les princes. faisant violence aux consciences, ont imposé aux fidéles la Confession d'Augsbourg.” Ibid., pp. 81–82.