71 - 27,439

BUCK, Lawrence Paul, 1944- THE CONTAINMENT OF CIVIL INSURRECTION: NURNBERG AND THE PEASANTS' REVOLT, 1524-1525.

The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1971 History, medieval

i University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan s i :.

Q Copyright by

Lawrence Paul Buck 1971

THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED THE CONTAINMENT OF CIVIL INSURRECTION: NURNBERG AND THE PEASANTS* REVOLT, 1524-1525

DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By Lawrence Paul Buck, B.A., M.A,

jjg jjg 5*5

The Ohio State University 1971

Approved by

Department of History PLEASE NOTE:

Some pages have indistinct print. Filmed as received.

UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research for this dissertation was completed - while I was a Fulbright Graduate Fellow in Germany. I would like to acknowledge my appreciation to Dr. Gerhard Hirschmann, Director of the Nttrnberg City Archive, and to Dr. Otto Puchner, Director of the Bavarian State Archive, Nttrnberg. Both men were very generous in opening to me the vast sources in their care. I also wish to thank my family and my friends for their continual encouragement. I am deeply indebted to my adviser, Professor Harold J. Grimm, who has assisted me in every aspect of this work, and whose example as a scholar and teacher has stood as a constant source of inspiration for me.

ii VITA

October 6, 1944 Born - Pittsburg, Kansas 1966*...... B.A., Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas 1966-196 7..... Woodrow Wilson Fellow, Department of History, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1967*..•••••••• M.A., The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio 1967-1969*••••• NDEA Fellow, Department of History, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1969-1970 ,.... Fulbright Graduate Fellow, Friedrich- Alexander-Universitat, Erlangen, Germany 1970-1971••••«• Teaching Associate, Department of History, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

PUBLICATIONS "Die Haltung der Nflrnberger Bauernschaft im Bauernkrieg," AltnCrnberger Landschaft. Mitteilungen. XIX IDecember, 19^0J, 59-77*

FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Renaissance and Reformation. Professor Harold J. Grimm Medieval Europe and England* Professor Franklin J, Pegues Tudor and Stuart England* Professor R. Clayton Roberts Early Modern Europe* Professor John C, Rule iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... ii

VITA ...... ill

LIST OF TABLES...... v

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS...... vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...... vii

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

CHAPTER

i. n !5r n b e r g *s c o n c e r n with THEp e a s a n t r y . . 6 II. URBAN DISCONTENT, 1524 ...... 36 III. RURAL DISCONTENT, 1524 ...... 66 IV. RURAL DISCONTENT, 1525 ...... 88 V. NtiRNBERG»S REACTION TO THE THREAT OF ATTACK, 1525 ...... 142 VI. CONCLUSION ...... 165

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 180

iv LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Register of Peasant Rebels ...... 114 2. Tax Values of Nttrnberg Holdings in Communi­ ties with Rebellious Peasants 131 3. Absentes: Nflrnberg peasants who did not appear to take the oath of purgation and who therefore were suspected of rebellious activity ...... 137

v LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

1. Ntlrnberg Territory in the Sixteenth Century • ••••••••• ...... 18 2. Ntlrnberg Villages with Rebellious Peasants. 136

vi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ARG Archiv ftlr Reformationsgeschichte BB Letters (Briefbtlcher) of the Ntlrnberg City Council, located in the Staatsarchiv, Ntlrnberg. FI. Gulden LK Rural district (Landkreis). MQR Mennonite Quarterly Review. MVGN Mitteilungen des Vereins ftlr Geschichte der Stadt toUrnberg. NKirchA Landeskirchliches Archiv» Ntlrnberg. Pf. Gerhard Pfeiffer, Quellen zur N&rnberger Reformationsgeschichte. ("Einzelarbeiten aus der. Kircnengeschichte Bayerns,1* Vol. XLV). Nurnberg: Selbstverlag des Vereins ftlr bayerische Kirchengeschichte, 196S. PfBr Section of letters contained in Pf. PfRs Section of memoranda (Rat3chl8ge) con­ tained in Pf. PfRv Section of protocol from the Ntlrnberg City Council meetings contained in Pf. RB Minutes from the meetings of the Ntlrnberg City Council fRatsbucher); located in the Staatsarchiv, Ntlrnberg. Ratschl.b. Collections of memoranda submitted to the Ntlrnberg Council; located in the Staatsar­ chiv Ntlrnberg (Ratschlagbtlcher).

RV Protocol from the Ntlrnberg City Council meetings (Ratsverl8sse h StAN.

vii StAN Staatsarchiv, Ntlrnberg WA D. Martin Luthers Werke (Weimar, 1SS3- WHerzAugBibl Herzog August Bibliothek, WolfenbSttel.

viii INTRODUCTION

The early sixteenth century witnessed several devel- • opments of momentous importance for the future of Germany. Politically it saw the completion of the construction of territorial states, spheres of hegemony dominated by par­ ticularistic interests. Religiously, the first part of the century experienced the rapid spread of the Lutheran Reformation and the concomitant reorganization of large sections of life which it brought with it. Socially, there were discontent and revolt. The government of the free imperial city of Ntlrnberg was greatly affected by all three of these developments. During the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries it had gradually expanded its political domain so that by the early part of the sixteenth century it possessed a terri­ torial state over which it exercised judicial and ' administrative authority. It had acquired this power, however, at the expense of neighboring authorities with which the City Council had constant conflicts on questions of jurisdictional competence. If at any time a neighboring prince or bishop was able to assert his authority over a nNtirnberg" subject, he threatened the Council’s position.

1 The imperial city was also affected by the spread of the Reformation, which had its beginnings in the city with a circle of humanists whose sodality was variously known as the Staupitziana. Aug;ustiniana. and Martini ana. This group soon won the governing Council over to the ideas of the Reformation. Thus, the victory of the Protestant party at the Nttrnberg Religious Colloquy of March, 1525, signaled official sanction of the Reformation in Nflrnberg. At the same time that the Colloquy was going on the Council was facing the very real threat of the agrarian uprising known as the Peasants* Revolt. The danger came from dissatisfied inhabitants in its territory as well as from revolutionary subjects in the city, sympathetic with the rural dissidents. It was compounded by the threat of attack on the part of the peasant armies encamped to the north of the city’s domain. The Council’s response to the Peasants’ Revolt was greatly influenced by considerations growing out of the fact that it was a government which possessed a territorial state and which had adopted the teachings of the Reforma­ tion. As the ruler of a territorial state the authority over which had been recently acquired the Council was placed in a delicate position. If revolt flared up in its territory, neighboring princes might attempt to reassert their power in the Council’s domain either to repress the rebellion or to punish the rebels. As a governor which had accepted Reformation teachings it was also in a delicate position, for Catholic critics of the Reformation contin­ ually asserted that it was the preaching of the Reformers which had caused the peasants to revolt in the first place. To ward off this criticism it was therefore necessary to demonstrate by example that it was possible to propagate Reformation teachings and yet not instigate revolt. The Council’s policy, therefore, was to take what­ ever steps necessary to avoid revolt in its holdings. To retain good relations with the peasant armies and yet live up to its obligations to the Swabian League it attempted to follow a policy of neutrality toward both parties. However, the Councils position was made difficult by the presence of wide-spread dissatisfaction within its popu­ lace. The extent of dissidence and revolt in the Council’s domain has been cursorily treated by the two best accounts of Ntlrnberg’s involvement in the uprising of the peasants. Consequently, the relationship between the Council’s actions and the threat which it faced have not been made clear. The thesis of the following study is that the presence of a significant amount of revolutionary sentiment

Johann Kamann, Nurnberg im Bauernkrieg (N&rnberg: Jahres-Bericht uber die KBnigl. kreis-Realschule, 1&78)* hereafter cited as Kamann; Adolf Engelhardt, ‘'Ntlrnberg im Bauernkrieg,” MVGN. XXXIII (19367. Hereafter cited as Engelhardt, MVGN, XXXIII. in the Ntlrnberg domain (heretofore largely undocumented) posed so serious a threat to the city government that it was forced to adopt a conciliatory policy toward its own dissidents. At first the Council tried to contain revolt within its populace by repeatedly issuing exhortations and warnings, by exiling radicals, and, in two instances, by executing rebels. This "repressive" policy was followed until about May 20, 1525* when the threat of attack from foreign peasant armies compounded by the fear that its own urban and rural dissidents would join the attackers made the situation so dangerous that the Council reversed itself, taking far-reaching remedial steps, hoping thereby to conciliate its rebellious populace and thus guard its flanks should the foreign insurgents attack. The array of the Swabian League defeated the menacing forces of the peasants at the crucial moment and thus the most dangerous eventuality was averted. However the gravity of the situation had already prompted the Council to act to redress many of the grievances of its urban and rural subjects. Thus, for the lower classes of Ntlrnberg, in contrast to those of other areas of Germany, the immediate result of the Peasants* Revolt was a temporary bettering of conditions. By taking a quantitative approach the following study hopes to document the extent of revolutionary sentiment to be found in Ntlrnberg and its hinterland during the Peasants* Revolt, and to show the effect which this had on the policies of the City Council CHAPTER I

nUrnberg’s CONCERN WITH THE PEASANTRY

In the summer of 1525 the city of NUrnberg was faced with the possibility of imminent attack by the peasant hordes besieging Y/Urzburg and Bamberg. The danger to the city was compounded by the fact that a large section of the municipal population sympathized with the demands of the peasantry, and by the fact that there was a significant amount of revolutionary sentiment among the peasants who lived within the territory owned and governed by NUrnberg. The city government feared that if the peasant armies moved against NUrnberg, both urban and rural sympathizers might openly join them. Thus NUrnberg would find itself attacked not only from outside but also from within its city walls. The avoidance of this most dangerous of eventualities was the guiding principle for the NUrnberg government during the Peasants’ Revolt. In order better to understand the threat to the city posed by a coalition of these three factions (foreign peasants, NUrnberg peasants, and urban sympathizers) it is necessary to look more closely at the social and govern­ mental structure of NUrnberg, at the city’s territory and the peasants resident therein, and at the development of the Peasants* Revolt outside of the NUrnberg territory. It is impossible to describe the governmental system in NUrnberg without also describing the structure of society, for, essentially, all governing authority rested with one class. It would therefore be helpful first to look at the composition of the municipal society, and then at the governmental organization. The urban population may be divided into three classes, a small, wealthy upper class, a wide middle group consisting chiefly of mastercraftsraen and shopkeepers, and a large lower class. One scholar has estimated that the upper section might compose 6-3$, the middle level about 60%, and the lower group about 33% of the total popula- tion.-*- The chief source of wealth for the upper class was commerce. Throughout the later Middle Ages the number of wealthy commercial families steadily grew. However, in NUrnberg, as elsewhere in Germany, the old wealth of the city began to f o m into a closed corporation, an exclusive

^Rudolf Endres, MZur Einwohnerzahl und Bevolkerungs- struktur NUrnbergs im 15./l6. Jahrhundert,1' MVGN. LVII (1970), 57. Endres has recently re-examined the question of the population of Nurnberg in the sixteenth century. His convincing argument places the population size at 40,000-50,000. Hereafter cited as Endres, MVGN. LVII. patriciate. In 1521 the governing City Council closed the ranks of the patriciate by defining the qualifications of membership. According to the ruling, “those Families who used to dance in the Rathaus in the olden days, and who still dance there”^ were patricians (Geschlechter). These individuals formed the hereditary elite of the upper stratum of society which also included another group known as the Erbare. It was represented by wealthy and respect­ able families which, though important, nevertheless held a position below that of the patricians. The patriciate dominated not only the upper class but indeed all classes in Ntlrnberg, for it controlled all power in the government. The largest group within the municipal social strati­ fication was the middle group of master craftsmen and shopkeepers. The large size of this class may be accounted for to a certain extent by the fact that Ntlrnberg was not only a commercial city, but also an important center for industrial production. Although there were no autonomous guild organizations in the city,3 there were nevertheless organized crafts with master craftsmen who owned workshops and employed Journeymen and artisans. The more well-to-do

Quoted in Gerald Strauss, Nuremberg in the Sixteenth Century (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966), p. 79. Hereafter cited as Strauss.

^All guild organizations had been abolished after an unsuccessful artisan revolt in 1343-49. Ibid.. p. 50. master craftsmen plus substantial small bussinessmen made up a large, stable middle section of society# For the purposes of this study it is the lower class of the municipal population which is the most interesting, for from this group came many of those who sympathized with the peasant rebels# This group may be divided into an "upper" lower class which enjoyed a fairly secure income but which nevertheless was forced to live at the subsis­ tence level, and a lower group of the very poor. The upper stratum included most of the dependent wage earners such as artisans, journeymen, merchantsT assistants, day-laborers, piece workers, lower-level city employees, and some of the poorer master craftsmen.^ A certain policy of the Nurnberg office of construction (Bauamt) provides clear documentation of the economic straits of this groups The workers employed by the Bauamt were paid at noon, before they went home for lunch, so that "when they go to eat, they may take the money to their wives and children# ”5 clearly this "upper" lower group lived at the subsistence level; its members were able to provide food and clothing under normal conditions, but

^Endres, WGN. LVII, 262-264.

^Quoted in Ibid.. p. 262. 10 they were the first to suffer the effects of war, famine, or inflation. The "lower1* lower class consisted of the very poor, that is, the sick, the homeless paupers, the habitually unemployed, and the beggers. The plight of these cast-offs of society was alleviated somewhat by the many eleemosynary endowments in Ntlrnberg; nevertheless, though they may have fared somewhat better than the poor in other cities, their existence was still a piteous one. The two levels of the lower class formed a volatile element in Ntlrnberg society; it was chiefly to the members of this group that the various popular, social-reforming preachers appealed. The City Council recognized the danger posed by the leaders of the lower classes; indeed, the only persons in Ntlrnberg executed for civil insurrection at the time of the Peasants* Revolt were leaders of the urban lower classes. The lower stratum of society was excluded from involvement in the government of the city, for, as men­ tioned above, virtually all power rested with the forty- three patrician families of the upper class. These municipal aristocrats governed the city and its territory through the City Council. A description and analysis of the governmental structure of Ntlrnberg is made easier by the information given by a Nttrnberg legalist and adviser to the City 11 Council, Christoph Scheurl, who, in 1516, wrote a letter to Johann Staupitz, a former colleague of his at Wittenberg University, who had became the Vicar General of the Obser- vantine Augustinians in Germany. In his letter Scheurl gave an inside view of the structure and operation of the city government.^

All power, executive, legislative, and judicial, lay with the Little Council, which was divided into one group of thirty-four patricians, and one group of eight commoners. Being basically without power, the commoners were of little importance. The thirty-four patricians were divided into two bodies, eight so-called Alte Genannte and twenty-six Mayors (Bfirgermeister). The Alte Genannte are also of only minor concern, for they held no particular offices, and, according to their pleasure, could either vote or not in the Council sessions. Hence, authority rested chiefly with the twenty-six Mayors, half of which number held the office of Junior Mayor, the other half that of Senior Mayor. Every four weeks another set of two (one junior, one senior) would be chosen as Governing Mayors. According to Scheurl,

Christoph Scheurl, "Epistel fiber die Verfassung der Reichsstadt Nttrnberg, 15l6,n Die Chroniken der deutschen StSdte. Mfirnberg. ed. C. Hegel (Leipzig: Verlag von G. Hirzel, 1874), XI, 761-804. Large sections of this docu­ ment are translated into English in Strauss, pp. 58-67. 12 The two Governing Mayors are obliged to spend nearly all their time in their office or on the streets. They must hear complaints, settle arguments, urge debtors to pay, make peace between litigating parties. The Senior Governing Mayor receives ambassadors and emissaries, opens all official letters and reads them the moment they arrive. . . . He convenes the Council, . . . informs its members about current business, puts the question and counts the votes. . . .7 Seven Elders (Hitere Herren) were chosen from the thirteen Senior Mayors to form an inner board which was competent to deliberate on all matters which came before the Council. Again quoting Scheurl, . . . all power lies with the Seven Elders, for these men meet daily to discuss confiden­ tial and grave matters before appraising the members of the Council. The real power is therefore theirs alone; their junior colleagues in the Council know and can do relatively little.° When the Elders met in private they were joined by the Senior Governing Mayor. From the seven Elders three Captains General (Oberste HauptmHnner) were chosen, who were entrusted with the keys to the city gates, with the city’s seals, and with the imperial regalia (which the Emperor had consigned to the city for safe keeping). Of the three Captains General, two served also as City Treasurers (one senior, one junior)

^Strauss, p. 61.

*Ibid., p. 63. known as Losunger after the city’s chief tax the Losung. ”The Senior losunger. that is to say, the man first named to this post, is the highest officer of the whole Council and is regarded as the first man in the city.”9 It is thus apparent that within the higher echelons of authority there was considerable over-lapping of responsibility. The Senior Losunger acted also as a Captain General, was on the board of Seven Elders, and, at least for four weeks out of the year, acted as a Governing Mayor. Scheurl was certainly correct in his assessment that ”the real power” belonged to the Seven Elders. However, one must not overemphasize the position of the Seven Elders, for all decisions were made in the name of the Council as a vrhole. The families and fortunes of the patricians were often linked by marriages, which no doubt helped to forge a consensus within the patriciate. Further, every Council member had to swear an oath to follow the will of the majority, whatever his own opinion might be; no minority opinions or dissenting arguments were ever made public. It is therefore difficult to establish specific responsibility for Council policies and actions with accuracy. Certainly the Seven Elders were the most important decisionmakers, but they by no means acted on their own responsibility alone. The decision-making process in the Council was cumbersome; First of all, conflicting opinions were heard from experts and from the five or six legal advisers retained full-time by the city. Then both the Elders and the .full Council would weigh the advantages and disadvantages of an action. After careful consideration, a vote would be taken and the will of the majority would then have to be accepted by every councilor. Only the forty-three patrician families were ratsfBhig. i.e., eligible to become members of the twenty- six Mayors in the Small Council. There was, however, a certain amount of governmental involvement (if not authority) permitted to the rest of the upper class and some of the middle class of Nurnberg society through the Great Council (Grosser Rat), the members of which were called the Genannte. It existed primarily to ratify the decisions of the Small Council. The patrician Council consulted the Genannte when new taxes were imposed, when war was declared, or when the general populace was to be warned of impending dangers. For example, during the peasant uprisings, when there was muttering in the city and open support for the demands of the peasantry, the Great Council was summoned and instructed to use its influence 15 among the populace to prevent civil disorder.1° The size of the Great Council was not fixed by law, but usually consisted of about 200 men who, according to Scheurl, !t. • • are honorable men who earn their living in respectable business /Gewerbe/, not lowly manual work, except for a few, whose skills are specially useful to the city. • • Thus, about 200 persons of the non­ patrician population were slightly involved in the city government. Of the rest of the population, those who were citi­ zens were required to swear the oath of citizenship once a year in which they promised to observe, without reserva­ tion, the laxcs of the city. Not all the city’s inhabitants were citizens, for, only those persons with an estate worth at least 100 gulden were allowed to acquire citizen­ ship. in this way the city protected itself against the possibility of poor men becoming citizens and then becoming burdens to the municipality.

RB 12, 224v -246v , in Gerhard Pfeiffer, Quellen zur Nfirnberger Reformationsgeschichte (,!Einzelarbeiten aus der Kirchengeschichte Bayerns,” Vol. XLV: Nurnberg: Selbstver- lag des Vereins fur Bayerische Kirchengeschichte, 1968), pp* 3-5» Hereafter cited as Pf•; Strauss, p. 59.

^Strauss, p. 59.

12Endres, MVGN. LVII, 261. Citizens and non-citizens alike were governed by the Council which also made all appointments to governmental offices. Certain parts of the municipal bureaucracy are of particular interest from the point of view of the peasantry and the Peasants’ Revolt. For example, Nttrnberg had seven Military Captains (Kriegsherren). appointed to be respon­ sible for the defense of the city in time of danger; during the disturbances in 1524-1525 these men had to carry out many of the Council’s directives. To try cases involving residents in the countryside there existed the Peasant Court (Bauerngericht). However, before discussing this court in greater detail it is necessary to examine the city’s land holdings and the peasantry resident on them. Nttrnberg acquired an extensive domain as a result of a policy of expansion of its authority and consequently of its territorial size. The problems of provision and pro­ tection made this expansionist policy wise. To supply itself with materials for industry and construction as well as with foodstuffs for its population, Nttrnberg needed to possess a hinterland. A territory surrounding the city would also serve as a ‘‘buffer zone” and thus make protection of the city and of the land-holdings of indi­ vidual Nurnberg burghers easier. Finally, since Nttrnberg’s economy depended to a large extent upon trade, it was important that the city fathers be able to protect 17 mercantile traffic in the area around its walls. The land acquired by territorial expansion may be divided into two parts, the alte Landschaft, i.e., the land possessed before the War of the Bavarian Succession in 1504? and the neue Landschaft. or, land acquired as a result of the cityfs participation in the war. The land within the alte Landschaft either belonged to the city directly, or else was governed indirectly by the Council because it belonged to Nttrnberg citizens or to a Nttrnberg religious institution. The alte Landschaft included the Sebald forest north of the Pegnitz, the Lorenz forest south of the Pegnitz, the so-called Knoblauchsland stretching to the north-west of the city, the non-forested area to the south around Kornburg, and the Ant Lichtenau to the west. In general, the borders of the alte Landschaft were the "drel Grenzwasser" ^ (three water- borders), namely, the (Erlanger) Schwabach to the north, the Regnitz to the west, and the Schwarzach to the south. The eastern border was originally that of the Lorenz and

See especially Fritz Schnelbogl, "Die wirtschaft- liche Bedeutung ihres Landgebietes fttr die Reichsstadt Nttrnberg,11 Beitrttge zur Vlirbschaftsgeschichte Nurnbergs ("Be it rage zur Geschichte und Kultur der Stadt NUrnbergs," Vol. II, No. Is Nttrnberg: Selbstverlag des Stadtrats zu Nttrnberg, 1967), 261-317* Hereafter cited as Schnelbogl, BWN, I.

1Z|Tbid. ■ p. 261. FIGURE 1--N0RNBERG TERRITORY IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY

The b Orbberc te rr ito ri

Sixteenth Century . Village

0 Seat o f TerritorialU Admnietntti■or

Beret

Engeljhal b BrnB E R G ^A Sg e U o r f Sebald forests; however, this situation was changed by the acquisition of more land to the east. In 1427 Burgrave Frederick sold to Nurnberg nearly all of his rights over the Sebald and Lorenz forests. This, however, did not mean that the city became the sole lord in the imperial forests, for many others still had claims to rights and privileges in them.1^ Also in the early fifteenth century Nurnberg acquired the imperial fortress; with it went the Amt der Veste which included Buch, Schnepfenreuth, Hofles, Schnigling, Dflrrhof, and Wohrd. In 1406 the Council had purchased the Amt Lichtenau with about eight villages plus mills, and a fortress. In 1462 the city purchased Brunn, in 1502 Schwarzenbruck, in 1503 Hiltpoltstein (near GrHfenberg). This collection of holdings made up the area which the Council governed directly. The rest of the alte Landschaft was "Nurnberg” by right of belonging to citizens or religious institutions of the city. For example, the patrician family Geuder pos­ sessed Heroldsberg, Bruck, Gross-and Kleingeschaidt, Behringersdorf, and Herpersdorf. Eschenau belonged to the

^Heinz Dannenbauer, Die Entstehung des Territoriums der Reichsstadt Nilrnberg (Stuttgart! Kohlhammer, 1923)* p. 113, hereafter cited as Dannenbauer. 20 Muffel family, Grafenberg belonged to the Haller family in the fourteenth century; in the sixteenth century the Tetzel family took it over. Finally, institutions such as the parish churches of St, Lorenz and St, Sebald, or the Heilig-Geist-Spital or the cloisters of St, Egidien and St, Clara held extensive lands for which Nurnberg acted as protector and defender (Vogt), After the Reformation, most of the real estate of such religious institutions came under municipal administration. In 1504 Nttrnberg increased its territory tremen­ dously by obtaining the so-called neue Landschaft, that area gained through the Bavarian War of Succession. Nttrnberg became involved in this war on the promise from the Emperor that it could retain all the land which it conquered. The war revolved around the question of the succession after the death of Duke George the Rich of Landshut. His throne and land should have gone to his enemy, Duke Albrecht of Bavaria-Munich. Duke George, however, had chosen his daughter Elizabeth as his heir, and had accepted her husband, Ruprecht of the Palatinate, as his Mson,n Ruprecht, his wife Elizabeth, and his father Elector Philip of the Palatinate were opposed by the Emperor, Duke Albrecht, the Swabian League, and Nilrnberg. The latter group of allies was victorious and Nttrnberg thereby made the following additions to its territory: Lauf on the Pegnitz, Hersbruck, Reicheneck, 21 Altdorf, Stierberg, Betzenstein, Grunsberg, Dienschwang, Heimburg, Heinsburg, Velden, plus the Vogtei over the cloisters Weissenohe, Engelthal, Gnadenberg, and Henfenfeld fortress.1? Prior to the addition of the neue Landschaft. Nurnberg governed about 22,000 peasants in the country­ side.1^ The addition of the new land approximately doubled the numbers of Nurnberg peasants; especially Altdorf, Lauf, and Hersbruck contained many inhabitants.1^ Thus after 1504 Nttrnberg possessed a more or less homogenous territory, contained within the following borders; to the west, the Rednitz and Regnitz rivers; to the south, the Schwarzach river (from the Rednitz to near Rasch); to the north, about ten kilometers along the Schwabach river from the Regnitz, and then in an arch to the north-east in the direction of Bronn; to the east, in general, a line running east of Betzenstein, Velden, Eschenbach, Alfeld, and Rasch. Only Lichtenau lay outside this area.

17ibid.. p. iaa. lfS Ibid., p. 165. The statistic is from 1497* 19 Ibid.. p. 188. Exact numbers of the population added by acquisition of the neue Landschaft are not available. .. SchnelbSgl, BV/N. I, 308, contends that the population of both the old and the new territory might have been about twice that of the city itself. > 22 For the purposes of governance and control the countryside was organized into two separate (though over­ lapping) schemes. The older of the two was the system of captaincies, which was originally established in the mid­ fifteenth century as machinery for the exaction of mili­ tary service from the city*s rural subjects. The peasants were grouped into village captaincies (Dorfhauptmann- schaften) and several such local divisions were then united in an Oberhauptmannschaft. At the time of the Peasantsf Revolt there were 736 villages organized into forty-seven captaincies.2° Justice in the countryside was administered by the Peasant Court (Land-nnd Bauemgericht). Its jurisdiction extended to all peasants, smallholders, hereditary tenants, and their dependents. In other words, this court had competence in all controversies arising among the rural population of the territory. It also adjudicated cases between rural tenants on the one hand, and private land 21 owners and land-owning institutions on the other.

^9stAN, Bauernverzeichnis No. 1. See also Julia Schnelbogl, "Die Reichskleinodien in Nurnberg, 1A24-1523,” MVGN. LI (1962), 115; and Hans Hubert Hofmann, Nurnberg- FUrth historischer Atlas von Bavern. Teil Franfcen (Munich: Kommission fttr bayerische Landesgescnichte, 1954)* P* 59# hereafter cited as Hofmann, Atlas.

^•Ibid.. p. 57. See also Horst Espig, "Das Bauern- gericht von Nurnberg" (Dissertation, University of Erlangen, 1937)# PP* 20-21. 23 Christoph Scheurl mentioned the Peasant Court in his description of the city governmenti Finally, we have the Peasant Court /Bauerngeri.cht7 composed of younger members of the Greater Council# This Court is regarded also as a kind of school for the training -of the sons of our distinguished Councillors, and for this reason its number is not fixed, but increases or decreases as it pleases the Councillors* If a young patrician does well on this Court, has learned the speech and procedures of judi­ cial affairs, shows an active and clever mind, he is elevated to the Civil Court, and ultimately, perhaps, to the Council itself* . . . ^ The Council, through its representatives, chose one peasant from each village as captain, who was considered especially worthy of trust, and who acted as both a mili­ tary and an administrative official* He led the peasants of his village if they were called up for military service, and in general acted as the Councils representative in the countryside. Existing alongside the captaincies was the Office of Territorial Administration (Landnflegeramt) which was created after the acquisition of the new territory in an attempt to establish a better organized governmental machinery* There were five territorial administrators fLandnflegern) at the top of the bureaucracy (four chosen from, the small Council and one chosen from the Genannte).

22 Strauss, p* 66* The countryside was divided into thirteen administration districts with an administrator chosen from the Nilrnberg

patriciate placed over e a c h , 2 ^ These men governed the territory for the Council. The residents of this domain formed by no means a homogeneous group; there were both economic and social differences within the peasantry.^ In general the rural population may be divided into three groups; tenant farmers (Haussassen). cotters (Hintersassen). and other rural dwellers associated with the peasantry (Beisassen). The group of tenant farmers (also called Hausgesessene. Ansassige. Gemeine. Erbleute. Beerbte. Gtttler, and arme I.eute) consisted of two groups: (l) the Bauer who was a tenant (Erbpttchter or Zinsbauer) with an heriditary claim to the possession of his land and with consequent rights and duties, and (2) the Kobler. or poor tenant farmer, who held a much smaller piece of land than the Bauer and consequently could produce only a subsistence living for his family.

Emil Reieke, Geschichte der Stadt Nttrnberg (Nttrn­ berg: Joh. Phil. Raw* schen Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1396), pp. 523-529, hereafter cited as Reicke. 24 Fred Graff, ttDie soziale und wirtschaftliche Lage der Bauern im Nttrnberger Gebiet zur Zeit des Bauern- krieges," Jahresbericht des historischen Vereins fttr Mittelfranken. LVI (1909). 52-55. hereafter cited as Graff. JHVMr~LVI. 25 The class of cotters (Hintersassen) was made up of BestSndner and Ehehalte. The former was the lowest class of individuals in the countryside; it included day laborers, workers in areas of rural production (such as at Ziegelhtttten where bricks were made), beggers, and the like. In short, the BestHndnertum was a kind of rural "proletariat."25 The Ehehalte were domestic servants and hired helpers living with the more substantial peasants. It was this class of Hintersassen which, in the Peasants* Revolt, formed the most impetuous and volatile element. The City Council in its mandate of April 21, 1525* recog- nized this fact, for it especially warned "geprote diener und eehalten” (that is, Hintersassen) to be obedient and remain quiet.The rural villages also understood the nature of this class; some villages in fact had laws restricting the number of Bestandner permitted to live in the village.2? The third group of residents in the countryside were the Beisassen. that is, the other rural residents such as innkeepers, keepers of bath houses, butchers, millers, and smiths. The village priest was usually also included within this class.

^Dannenbauer, p. 164.

26PfBr 193. 27Graff, JHVM. LVI, 55. All the inhabitants of the territory, whether they lived on land owned directly by the municipality or on land owned by citizens or religious institutions of the city, were protected by right of residence within the Nttrnberg Vogtei, or area of governance and protection. As Vogt, the Council required its peasants to recognize its authority by an oath of obedience. The city also exacted military service from its rural subjects; this meant that Nttrnberg peasants had the right to bear anus, a privilege which many of the German peasants no longer had. Further, the Council collected an indirect tax on beverages (called Ungeld and collected only in certain villages) and other so-called ”1andesherrlichew taxes. The peasantry was burdened with many kinds of dues which might be paid either in money or in kind. At one time the distinction had been made between those dues paid to the governing authority, the Landesherr. and those paid to the landlord, the Grundherr. However, by the early sixteenth century this distinction was no longer carefully made. In general one may say that most of the payments made to the city’s Landpflegeramt were nlandesherrliche™ taxes, collected by right of the fact that Nttrnberg was Vogt and therefore Landesherr of its territory. However, if the city owned the land directly, or if a Nurnberg patrician or religious institution owned the land, then "grundherrliche" payments would be col­ lected.2^ Of all the "grundherrliche" dues the most important was the ground-rent (Grundzins). paid to the owner of the property (Grundherr). Originally a payment in kind, by the early sixteenth century it had often been commuted to

money payments.2^ Ground-rents were usually paid twice a year, at V/alpurgis and Michaelmas. Other obligations to the landlord included the Viehzins, a tax on the peasant’s cattle usually consisting of a money payment, and the Handlon. a transfer fee paid when property changed hands. If a peasant sold some wood, for example, the landlord might collect a certain percent of the price for himself.3® At the time of the Peasants’ Revolt it was the obli­ gation to pay tithes (Zehnten). which the peasantry found most grievous. There were three kinds of tithes, the "great,” the "small,” and the "living" tithe. They were all originally ecclesiastical; however, by the early

2 Ibid.. pp. 34-36. See also "Grundherrschaft,” Sachworterbuch zur deutschen Geschichte. eds. Hellmuth Rbssler and Giinther Franz (Munich: R."" Oldenbourg, 195^)» p. 375» hereafter cited as Rossler, Sachworterbuch z. d. Geschichte: Otto Brunner, Land und Herrschaft ^Wiesbaden: Rudolf M. Rohrer Verlag, 1959 p. 361.

29Graff, JHVM. LVI, p. 25. 28 sixteenth century the distinction between tithes paid to religious authorities and those paid to secular author­ ities had largely disappeared. In general one may say

that the small tithe more often formed the income of a priest while the great tithe more often had fallen into the hands of private persons.31 The living tithe (known also as Blutzehnt or Hauszehnt) was paid on foals, calves, lambs, swine, goats, ducks, hens, and fish. The small tithe was paid on buckwheat, millet, peas, hay, hops, herbs, turnips, hemp, and flax. The great tithe was levied on rye, wheat, spelt, barley, and oats.^2 The Nttrnberg peasants were not only required to pay the dues mentioned above, but also to perfom certain personal services, the so-caj.led Fronen or compulsory labors.33 One of these has already been mentioned, namely, military service. Of the peacetime services three are worthy of note: At the time of harvest, a peasant might have to do field work (Flurfronen) for his lord. At other unspecified times he might have to help build bridges or roads (Baufronen), or, finally, he might have to provide

^ Werner Sprung, f,Zehnten und Zehntrechte vun Nurn- berg,” MVGN, LV (1967/6&), 2, hereafter cited as Sprung, MVGN, LV. On tithes in general see "Zehnt,” Rossler, Sachworterbuch z. d. Geschichte. pp. 1444-1445.

^2See RB 13, 13v, quoted in Kamann, p. 44. 33qraff, JHVM. LVI, 39-51. 29 his lord with fire wood (Holzfronen). These required personal services were not quite so odious as they might appear, for the peasants often received pay for their labor. It was not uncommon for one to receive twelve pfennigs a day for doing harvest work. Other kinds of labor might be paid as much as twenty-four or even thirty-two pfennigs per day. It was possible for an individual to purchase freedom from personal services, but this did not often take place for the cost was very high.34-

Such was the economic condition of the Nurnberg peasantry in the early sixteenth century when rural discon­ tent began to erupt into open revolt throughout southern Germany. Before looking at the specific example of the Nttrnberg revolt, it would be helpful to sketch the general outlines of the Peasants* Revolt so that the involvement of Nttrnbergers may be viewed in proper perspective.^ The first uprisings of the Peasants* Revolt took

place in the summer of 1 5 2 4 in Forchheim,36 Sttthlingen,

3*Tbid.. pp. 46-43*

^The following narrative depends heavily upon the work of Gttnther Franz, Per deutsche Bauernkrieg (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1965). Hereafter cited as Franz.

^The Forchheim revolt is of special significance for Nttrnberg and will be dealt with at greater length below. 30 and Mtthlhausen. The disturbance at Sttthlingen was initi­ ated June 23, 1524* when the countess of Lftpfen-Stdhlingen demanded that her peasants gather snails while they were busy with their harvest* The uprising quickly spread during the summer of 1524; in the fall a compromise and uneasy peace were reached between the Count of Stfthlingen and his peasantry. Throughout the winter of 1524-1525 tensions continued to grow, and unrest continued to spread. By mid-March, 1525, an area of peasant disturbance stretched from the Black Forest to Augsburg and from the Danube to Lake Constance. Many malcontents assembled in the vicinity of Memmingon; in March Sebastian Lotzer published the Twelve Articles which he wrote for the peasant parliament at Memmingen. These called for congregational autonomy in the selection of the pastor, abolition of the small tithe and all remnants of serfdom, permission for the poor to hunt wild game and collect wood from the forests, abolition of excessive or extraordinary services or dues, adjustment of ground-rents to bring them in line with the production of the land holding, re-institution of customary law, resti­ tution of common fields to the community, and the aboli­ tion of heriot. A “Christian Union’1 was formed at Memmingen in May which brought together peasant bands from Lake Constance, Baltringen, and the Algau. 31 The leader of the forces opposing the peasants was Georg Truchsess, commander of the army of the Swabian League. In April the forces of the League numbered 7,000; those of the Christian Union, 12,000. To avoid a poten­ tially disastrous confrontation and to free himself for action elsewhere in Germany, Georg signed the Weingarten Treaty, April 17, 1525, which acceded to some of the demands of the Swabian peasants and established a tenuous peace. The center of revolt in Thuringia was Mtthlhausen, a town which had had difficulties since early in 1523 when the radical reformer, Heinrich Pfeiffer, had come there as pastor. Much of the problem centered around Pfeiffer’s desire to increase the representation of the lower classes on the town council. Pfeiffer’s refoms attracted another revolutionary, Thomas Mttntzer. Although the two suffered intermittent reverses, by the spring of 1525 the rebels were in control of the city and Mtthlhausen became the center of revolt in Thuringia. -The rebellion, however, was short-lived; on May 15, Mttntzer*s peasant array was defeated by the combined forces of Landgrave Philip of Hesse, Duke George of Saxony, and Duke Henry of Braunschweig. Both Mttntzer and Pfeiffer were beheaded. Another area of insurrection was Tyrol where the peasants, led by Michael Gaismair sought to set up a peasant commonwealth based upon equality among men. 32 The Tyrolese revolt lasted through the summer and was not finally suppressed until November, 1525. One of the largest, and, from the point of view of Nttrnberg history, the most important of the peasant uprisings was the one in Franconia, the centers of which were Wttrzburg and Bamberg. Revolt began at Bamberg on April 10, 1525# and quickly received reinforcements from outside the city. Soon SCOO peasants were encamped in two groups within the city itself. After only four days, through intelligent negotiations and concessions the Bishop of Bamberg was able to reestablish peace. However, insti­ gated by the example of the surrounding peasant groups (especially those at wttrzburg) the revolt began anew May 14. Three peasant groups were formed and in only a few days nearly 200 cloisters and fortresses had been destroyed. The peasants seem intentionally to have con­ fined themselves to the lands of the bishop, but the city of Nttrnberg was nevertheless concerned enough about the presence of a peasant army at Bamberg that it helped work out another temporary truce between the peasants and the bishop. The rebel army remained in existence until mid- June when the forces of the Swabian League occupied Bamberg. In May, 1525, three peasant groups came together and began besieging the Marienburg, the famous old fortress in 33 Wttrzburg. One of these three was the array of the Tauber Valley, which had its beginnings on the night of March 22- 23, 1525, when peasants from the Rothenburg territory began gathering. They soon chose captains and a council. The man who emerged as their leader was the unprincipled nobleman, Stephan von Menzingen, a long-standing opponent of the patrician-dominated Council of Rothenburg. A settlement between the Council and the dissidents was pre­ cluded by the fact that foreigners soon began to join the Rothenberg peasant band; they made more extensive demands which concerned their own particular grievances. This enlarged peasant mass began to move about the Tauber valley, forcing various noblemen to accept agree­ ments favorable to the peasantry. As it moved up the Tauber River it was joined by peasants from wttrzburg and from the lands of the Teutonic Knights. The idealistic, intelligent, well-traveled, and successful nobleman, Florian Geyer, emerged as the most important leader of the Tauber Valley army.37 Another group which joined in the siege at Wttrzburg was the one from the Neckar Valley and the Oden Forest. On March 26 peasants from two small villages came together to

3 *7 tt Walther Peter Fuchs, "Florian Geyer," Frankische Lebensbilder (Wurzburg: Kommissionsverlag Ferdinand SchJMngKTT967), XII, 109-140. 34 form the basis of the Oden Forest troop. Their leader was the well-educated and high-minded Wendel Hipler, foraerly secretary to the counts of Hohenlohe. The Oden Forest peasants quickly united with rebels from the Neckar Valley who had begun banding together late in March, 1525> led by the infamous jHcklein Rohrbach. The Neckar Valley corps included peasants from Heilbronn and from the lands of the Counts of Hohenlohe. The combined Neckar Valley-Oden Forest army, numbering several thousand, forced the Counts of Hohenlohe to accept the Twelve Articles. On April 16 this group, in the most cruel of all acts of the peasant rebels, executed Count Ludwig of Helfenstein in the so-called deed of Weinsberg. A third peasant contingent came from north of the Bishopric of Wilrzburg, between the Main river and the Thuringian forest. Early in April one band from this region occupied the cloister at Bildhausen; other assembled peasants from the area then attached themselves and thus the Bildhausen group came into being. The Bildhausen group, like the one from the Tauber valley, proceeded to carry out acts of violence against cloisters in the region. May 6 these three peasant armies came together in the area around Wilrzburg in a united force numbering about 15,000. The three contingents remained independent but

^^Franz, pp. 203-204. Only part of the Bildhausen group was at Wilrzburg; many peasants had returned to their homes in fear. 35 each sent five representatives to a governing council. Intimidated by the size of the peasant legion, the city of Wttrzburg pledged its support and also sent five representa­ tives to the council. After an initial, nearly-successful attempt at storming the Marienburg, the peasants settled down to a month-long, ineffectual siege of the fortress. It was late in May that this united peasant a m y presented the greatest threatj May 20 the Nttrnberg Council learned that it had plans for attacking the imperial city. These plans were thwarted when the forces of the Swabian League defeated the peasants and occupied Wttrzburg June S, 1525. However, by that time the threat posed by the presence of an army at Wttrzburg had long since worked its effect on the policy-making of the Nurnberg Council. The city fathers feared that if the armies to the north should attack Nttrnberg, they would find comrades in arms within the Nttrnberg populace. To understand why the Council did not trust its own subjects it is necessary next to examine the unrest of the lower classes both in the city and in the countryside. CHAPTER II

URBAN DISCONTENT, 1524

In the year 1524 social unrest within the Nurnberg city walls challenged the Council's authority both in matters of religion and in matters of secular government. Street-corner preachers declaimed their heterodox religious ideas to large crowds attracted principally from the lower classes of society. Nttrnberg printers and their journeymen, ignoring the Council's attempts at censorship, illicitly printed the pamphlets of radicals such as Muntzer and Carlstadt. Book sellers found so wide a market for such works that the Council had to initiate rigorous con­ trol over their shops in order to enforce its decree against unauthorized books. To the city fathers' chagrin, the urban populace began discussing sacramentarian ideas in the inns and public houses of the city. Stimulated by this discussion, artisans and journeymen began developing their own ideas not only on religious issues, but also on questions of sovereignty and political authority. Thus not only the Council’s right to determine religious orthodoxy, but its very right to govern secular affairs was called into question. Two men tried to 36 37 organize opposition to the beverage tax and one individual took it upon himself to recruit a following of 100 men from the city with which to help the peasants in the countryside who were simultaneously beginning to put for­ ward demands and to evince signs of social unrest. The challenge to the authority of the Council was intimately related to the question of religious orthodoxy for, in a state where the secular power defines right belief, heterodoxy implies a challenge to that governing authority. The city fathers realized this fact and, there­ fore, saw in all doctrines which opposed the stated religion, an attack upon the state itself. The city government dealt fiiroly with those who challenged its authority in religious and in secular matters. In so doing it left a valuable record in the notes of its Council meetings by means of v?hich the his­ torian can document the unrest within the municipality. It is interesting to note that those attracted to heterodox religious ideas as well as those who directly challenged the CouncilTs secular authority in the year 1524 generally came from the lower classes of urban society, from journey­ men painters, journeymen printers, cloth workers,

Austin P. Evans, An Episode in the Struggle for Religious Freedom. The 'Sectaries of Nuremberg 1524-152# '(New Yorlc: Columbia University Press'^ 1924)» P« 97* Hereafter cited as Evans. 33 carpenters, and innkeepers. One of the Council’s advisers, the Lutheran preacher Andreas Osiander, realized the appeal which heterodox religious ideas had for the lower classes. He was con­ vinced that the unrest within the lower urban classes and the peasantry resulted from the preaching of those whom he called ’♦Vfinkelpredifcer.n2 These were usually untrained, lay preachers who spoke in the cities and countryside on religious and social topics. Generally only the names of these street-corner preachers are known; they themselves have seldom left any written record by which they may be judged. The historian must therefore turn to the scanty and prejudicial documentation to be found in the archives of the governing authorities who had dealings with them. During the years 1524-1525 the Nttrnberg City Council was plagued by a rash of such public orators. Record of their activities comes from the minutes of the meetings of the Council as it took action against them. For exam­ ple, on May 9, 1524# the Council dealt with an artisan (vingerhuter— thimblemaker) lay preacher who had asked some peasants to defend him while he preached. The patricians were always wary of the gathering of crowds;

2Andreas Osiander, fiber den rechten Heilsweg und die Mittel den Aufruhr Kttnfti/j zu verhuten. Sent ember- 1525. NKi'rchA, Fen. IV, ' 9&S" 23# 2(3r"TjP7----- 39 the fact that the center of attraction was an artisan street-corner preacher with a bodyguard of peasants gave cause for an immediate investigation.^ Another artisan who wanted to take up preaching was the linen-weaver journeyman (Leinweber knecht) Gallus N. The Council, however, immediately enjoined him from public preaching.4- The government obviously was afraid of the crowds which Gallus attracted, otherwise it would not have specified that he was forbidden to preach ’’publicly.” Other entries in the Council’s minutes tell of intriguing incidents in the Nttrnberg churches. For exam­ ple, on March 23, 1524, a ’’Frau Voglin” set herself up in the Snital church with a bottle of wine and began preaching. For this offense she was summoned and interro­ gated by the Council members.'* A certain Hans Nussdorffer was reprimanded on account of the disturbance which he caused on a Sunday morning in the St. Sebald Church.

% V 703 , 9v; Karl Schornbaum, ”Zur Lebensgeschichte des Bauern von wShrd,” MVGN. XLIII (1952), 439, hereafter cited as Schornbaum, MVGN. XLIII; Gunther Bauer, Anfange t8uferischer GemeindeSildungen in Franken (Nurnberg: Selbstverlag des' Vereins ftlr bay'erische' Kirchengeschichte, 1966), p. 117, hereafter cited as Bauer.

^RB 12, 233r; RV 703, 7v; Schornbaum, MVGN. XLIII, 439; Bauer, p. 117; and Franz von Soden, Beitrage zur Geschichte der Reformation und der Sitten iener Zeit '(Nttrnberg: Verlag von Bauer und Raspe, 1855j, p. l63, hereafter cited as Soden.

% V 701, 14r; Soden, p. 169. 40 He was ordered to abstain from further disturbances or he would be punished.0 By far the most interesting of all the self-pro­ claimed preachers in Nttrnberg, however, was the so-called Peasant of WBhrd, Diepold Beringer. He appeared in the Nttrnberg area in December, 1523, and began preaching in Wtthrd and Thon, suburbs of the city. Passing himself off as a peasant who could neither read nor write, when invited to the houses of his listeners he would put his boots on the table and if given a book he would hold it upside down to show that he was illiterate. Anthon Kreuzer, a con­ temporary chronicler, citing the following incident, insists that Beringer was in fact a cleric from Swabia: One day in the city on the Saumarkt he was spoken to by an unknown woman, who said to him, dear pastor, what are you doing here? Then he replied: Oh, be quiet, so that no one hears you. Someone heard this exchange and secretly asked the woman who he was. She answered that he was her pastor in a village in Swabia.7 It would appear that Kreuzer*s judgment was correct, for, in the sermon which he preached in wBhrd, Beringer made some philological distinctions regarding the translation of

6RV 712, 11v; PfRv 297.

"^Anthon Kreutzer, Nttrnbergische Chronik. quoted in Georg Ernst Waldau, Veimischte Beitrttge zur~Geschichte der Stadt Nttrnberg (Nttrnberg: iiu eigenen Verlag, 178$), III, 4I7, hereafter cited as Waldau, III. 41 Latin and Hebrew into German which the average peasant d could not have done. His listeners, however, thought that he was a peasant inspired by the Holy Ghost.^ He drew large crowds from the surrounding villages and from the city of Nurnberg.1® Anton Kreuzer reports that he was more popular than a bagpiper.11 Although his biggest appeal was to the lower classes, the wealthy and educated also went to hear him. Even George Spalatin, the court secretary of Frederick the Wise, when he was in Nttrnberg, went out to hear Beringer and wrote of him, “On the fifth holiday after Epiphany we heard Diebold Schuster from Aichenbrunnen, a peasant from the Augsburg region so learned in theology by word of mouth, that it appeared to be miraculous to all the 19 listeners. *

g Diepold Beringer, Ein Sermon geprediget vom Pattern zu Werdt/ bei Ntirmberg/ von dem freyen willen des MenscKen. tohrnberg Stadtbibliothek Nor. 596 4°, \3v. Hereafter cited as Beringer, NSB.

9Anton Kreutzer in Kamann, p. 10.

10Clas Apel, Chronik der stat Ntimber g. NiSrnberg Stadtbibliothek, 24r, estimates the crowds at 300 people.

llwDas hBrte man gerne, lieber dann Sackpf eiff en,'* in Waldau, III, 416.

12Quoted in Kamann, p. 10, “feria quinta post Epiphanias audivimus Dieboldum Schuster ex Aichenbrunnen, rusticum August, dioc. theologiae sic doctum ex auditu, ut miraculo sit cunctis audientibus.” 42 The Council considered the large assemblies which Diepold attracted dangerous, and therefore from February 23 to May 10, 1524# warned him five times to cease his public

p r e a c h i n g . it is interesting to note that the Council prohibited only “public” preaching; it evidently was more afraid of the presence of public assemblies than of what Diepold had to say. The directive of February 29 statesi In the name of the Council once again forbid the Peasant /Diepold7 to preach publicly in any assembly of the people. However, where he is invited home by anyone, it shall not be .. forbidden to him to impart spiritual teaching.^ Since Beringer ignored the government’s directive and continued to hold public sermons he was summoned before the Council and interrogated. He answered that ”. . . he was not a preacher, nor did he assume this office; how­ ever, he was requested by his neighbors to give them Christian instruction from the Gospel, and out of brotherly love he could not refuse them. • • The Council then threatened to expel him from Nurnberg if he did not cease his preaching. From Nttrnberg Diepold went to Kitzingen where he printed some of his sermons. While he was still in

13RV 700, 9v; RV 700, 14r; RV 703# 7v; RV 703, 9v; RV 703, lOv; quoted in Schornbaum, MVGN. XLIII, 4BB-4G9.

1Z|RV 700, 14r in Ibid.. p. 4$9. Also RB 12, 223v.

15RB 12, 23Sv. 43 Nflrnberg one of his sermons had been published; a listener had copied it down and had had the manuscript printed by Hieronymus Hotzel, a N&rnberg printer.1^ This sermon was reprinted eight times from February to May, 1524* In May Diepold finally brought out his own version, in the intro­ duction of which he complained that the individual who had made the first copy had done so without Diepold*s knowl­ edge and had only got about half of the content anyway.1? The fortuitous publication of Beringerfs sermon provides the historian with the opportunity for discovering the actual content of one of these street-corner sermons. Beringer*s homily concerns freedom of the will and prayers to saints. He begins by quoting extensively from the Scriptures to show that man has no free will; that God controls all. Man is incapable of doing good except when motivated by God; Rom. 7: 19, "For the good that I would I do not: but the evil that I would not that I do." Indeed, man cannot even come to Christ of his own will; John 6; 44, "No man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him."

1^Otto Clemen, "Der Bauer von wBhrd," BeitrSge zur Reformationsgeschichte. II (1902), 90.

Johann BartholomSus Riederer, Nachrichten zur Kirchen-Gelehrten- und Bflchergeschichte (Altdorf: tiOrenz Schilpfel, 1765)» 'II, % , quoting Beringer. Here­ after cited as Riederer. 44 The second part of the sermon, dealing with prayers to saints is much more interesting for the purposes of this study. Diepold begins with an anticlerical attack, saying that for a long time men have clung to the saints and shoved God under their feet. This has happened because priests and monks have misled the people. He then pro­ ceeds to quote profusely from the Scriptures to prove that one should not render honor to the saints or pray to them. The saints were humble and did not want to be given reverence when they were here on earth, much less now. Further, God has commanded, “Thou shalt pray to the Lord thy God and Him only shalt thou serve.” Beringer is most radical when he expounds on how it happens that saints are prayed tos . . . our priests and monks have misled us and, in an evil way, have dressed up man-made pictures, and have falsified these with a false and deceptive form. They have poured oil in the back of the head of one, so that it runs out through the eyes. On another one they have poured blood, so that it has “sweated” blood, and all such like. Then they have said, look, isn»t that a mirac­ ulous sign. Thus the poor, simple peasants have run to them and have invoked the saints and have abandoned God.18 This is virulent anticlericalism and implied icono- clasm. The npoor, simple peasants” have been “duped” by the clergy who use pictures of the saints which are “rigged

1^Baringer, NSB, 2v. 45 up" with deceptive devices* Beringer suggests that the money spent on "idols" would better be given to the poor.^ Considering the fact that Beringer*s audiences chiefly consisted of "poor, simple peasants” and their urban counterparts who had been "duped” by the clergy, it is obvious why the Council considered him and the crowds which he drew dangerous. There is certainly no direct appeal to violence in his sermon. However, his anticleri­ calism and implied iconoclasra and his sympathy for the poor peasantry both in his sermon and in his own life style certainly made it clear which side he would support in the struggle between peasants and ecclesiastical lords. One of the reprints of his sermon provides a graphic illustration of his relation to the Peasants* Revolt. The title page of one of these contained the picture of a peasant with a flail in his left hand.2^ The peasant armed with a flail was a common iconographic symbol for the peasants in the Peasants* Revolt. Little-known, unauthorized lay preachers such as Diepold Beringer were not the only poles around which the social-revolutionary elements of Nurnberg gravitated.

•^This comment is not found in the Nflrnberg copy; see Riederer, p. 7&. Of) Ibid.. p. 71, and Heinrich Wilhelm Bensen, Geschichte des Bauernkriegs in Ostfranken (Erlangen: PalmTsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, I840), p . 356, hereafter cited as Bensen, BK in Ostfranken. 46 Indeed, during the year 1524 the Nttrnberg authorities had to deal with the disruptive influence of well-known left- wing preachers like Thomas Mttntzer and Andreas Carlstadt and their adherents. The firebrand Thomas Mttntzer, destined to become a leader of the peasants in the Peasantsf Revolt, came to Nttrnberg in the fall of 1524 after having been expelled from Mtthlhausen for trying to take over the government and establish a theocracy. Mttntzer, who was vigorously opposed by Martin Luther, came to Nttrnberg to have printed a defense of his position against the Wittenberg reformer. He stayed in Nttrnberg about four week^ presumably at the house of Johann Denck, the rector of the St. Sebald school. Mttntzer had two works published in Nttrnberg, one in October, and another in December, 1524* He had given the manuscript of the first, the Ausgetrttckte emplossung des falschen Glaubens der ungetrewen welt durchs gezefignus des Euangelions Luce vorgetragen der elenden erbermlichen Christenheyt zur innerung ires irsals. to his acquaintance and follower, the colporteur Hans Hut.21 This bookbinder

Hans Hut, while in Nttrnberg, was a follower of Thomas Mttntzer. In the summer of 1525 Hut preached to the peasants at Bibra, saying that the subjects should murder all the authorities, for the opportune time had arrived; the power was in their hands. See George Williams, The Radical Reformation (Philadelphia; The Westminster Press, 1962), p. 80, hereafter cited as Williams. Hut accompanied the peasants to the battle of Frankenhausen to sell his books but escaped the battle; after the Peasants1 Revolt 47 and peddler contracted with the journeymen of the Nttrnberg printer Johann Hergot to print 500 copies of Mttntzer*s manuscript surreptitiously.^2 The Council soon learned of this arrangement and had the text of Mttntzer*s work examined by the preacher of the

St. Sebald Church, Dominicus Schleupner. ^3 Upon his recommendation the Council confiscated all available copies of the tract, since it served • • unrest more than

Christian and brotherly l o v e ."24 Of the 500 tracts, only 400 could be called in, for 100 copies had already been sent to Augsburg.^ The four journeymen who had printed the pamphlet were arrested, jailed for two days and two nights, but later released after being warned never again to print any­ thing without having it first approved by the authorities. he gave up his social-revolutionary ideas and, together with Hans Denck, whom he had met during his 1524 visit to Nttrnberg, became a leader of the Anabaptists.

22Gerog Baring, “Hans Denck und Thomas Mttntzer in Nttrnberg," ARG, L (1959), 152. hereafter cited as Baring, ARG L; and Gttnther Franz (ed.), Thomas Mttntzer Schriften und Briefe ("Quellen and Forschungen zur Heformations- geschichte," Vol. XXXIII; Gtttersloh: Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 196B), 265, hereafter cited as Mttntzer, QFR. XXXIII.

23RV 709, 14r; PfRv 1S9.

709, lSr; PfRv 19$.

2^RB 12, 26£v ; Pfeiffer p. 27, note 19#; fltflntzer, QFR. XXXIII, 265. 4$ In a stroke of generosity, the Council repaid Hut for the cost of the printing of the 400 confiscated books. Not many weeks after this incident, Mttntzer had another work printed in Nttrnberg, his Hoch verursachte Schutzrede und antwort wider das Gaistlosse Sanfftlebende fleysch zu Wittenberg welches mit verkttrter weysse durch den Diepstal der heiligen Schrift die erbermdliche Christenheit also gantz .iamerlichen besudelt hat. Although this tract was not printed until mid-December, 1524* Mttntzer evidently had the manuscript with him when he came to Nttrnberg in October.27 It has been suggested that while in the imperial city Mttntzer made some changes in his manuscript, adding 2$ references to the plight of the urban workers. If this is correct, it would suggest a significant contact between Mttntzer and the urban lower classes. If Mttntzerfs letter of December, 1524# to Christoph Meinhard in Eisleben is to be believed, it would appear that Mttntzer was very popular in Nttrnberg: I could have played a fine game with the people of Nttrnberg if I had wanted to stir up revolt,

26RV 709# Ittr; PfRv 19$; RB 12, 26$v.

27Baring, ARC, L, 153-154.

2^Baring, ARG. L, 175# "Erst seit seinem Aufenthalt in der Reichsstadt tauchen bei ihm Worte von der Not der Handwerker auf.n 49 a charge made against me by liars. . . . Many Nttrnbergers urged me to preach, but I answered that I had not come to the city for that purpose, but rather to answer my enemies in print.2° In the same letter Mttntzer expressed his concern about the plight of the poor artisans: nThe sweat of the artisans tastes sweet to the lords, sweet, but turns to bitter gall.”^ This statement of sympathy for the urban poor, combined with the possible addition of references to artisans in his writings,^ and the reference to his own popularity among the Nttrnbergers, implies a close contact between Mttntzer and the dissatisfied poor of Nttrnberg. Certainly the Council feared him, for it confiscated his second work, the Hochverursachte Schutzrede. shortly after it had been printed. One of Mttntzerfs associates, Heinrich Pfeifer, the radical preacher of Mtthlhausen, who had come to Nttrnberg with Mttntzer, set about trying to build up a following. Two works were discovered in his possession which he apparently intended to have printed in Nurnberg.^2 The

29Mttntzer, QFR, XXXIII, 450.

3°Ibid.

faring, ARG, L, 153-154, 175.

^2Theodor Kolde, MHans Denck und die gottlosen Maler von Nurnberg,” BeitrUge zur baverischen Kirchengeschichte. VIII (1902), llf hereafter cited as Kolde. BBN. vIII. 50 Council had the cleric Andreas Osiander evaluate these and, according to his comments, it appears that Pfeifer proposed to carry out a spiritual reform by use of force.33 In Osiander*s opinion, Pfeifer's ideas could lead to ”. • • murder, revolt, /and/ changes in government. . . On October 29, 1524, Pfeifer was called before the Council and ordered to leave the city for undertaking to create a following by disputations, which the Council considered unchristian and misleading.35 Recent research has rightly emphasized the theologi­ cal nature of Mttntzer*s writings printed in N t t r n b e r g nevertheless, the insurrectionary nature of the Hochverur­ sachte Schutzrede cannot be denied. In it Mttntzer makes an eloquent plea for a bettering of the condition of the lower classes: The ground of usury, theft, and robbery is our lords and princes, who claim all creatures as their own. All must be theirs— the fish in the water, the birds in the air, the harvest of the

33Ibid.. pp. 12, 23-30.

34Ibid.. p. 30.

35RB 12, 267v; RV 709, 14r; PfRv 190.

^Thomas Nipperdey, “Theologie und Revolution bei Thcmas Mttntzer,’* ARG. LTV (1963), 145-1&lj Hans J. Hiller- brand, “Thomas Mttntzer*s Last Tract Against Luther,” MQR. XXXVIII (1964), 20-36, hereafter cited as Hillerbrand. MQR. XXXVIII; Eric W. Gritsch, Ref ormer Without a Church (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1907)• 51 earth (Isa, 5)« They proclaim the so-called command of God among the poor, saying, “God commanded that you shall not steal.” But this does not help them, since they suppress all men, pinch and flay the poor farmer, the artisan and all the living (Micha 3)» If someone steals the smallest thing, he must hang. . . . Since the princes do not want to get rid of the cause of insurrection it is their own fault that the poor man becomes their enemy. How, under these conditions, could things ever be changed? If I say this, I am rebellious. So let it be.37 Another well-known radical preacher whose influence was felt in Nttrnberg was Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt. He had differed with Luther over the interpretation of the sacrament of the altar, insisting that the bread and wine in the sacrament are “merely reminders1* of Christ *s sacri­ fice.^ This absolute denial of the real presence was the basis for the Sacramentarian controversy. Carlstadt, before he had fully developed his thoughts on the sacra­ ment, had had cordial ties to Nttrnberg. In 1519 he had dedicated his Von Anbetung und Ehrerbietung der Zeichen des

neuen Testaments to “his beloved patron” Albrecht D u r e r . 3 9 However, his teachings on the sacrament were not welcome in Nttrnberg.

^Translated in Hillerbrand, MQR. XXXVIII, p. 23.

■^Roland Bainton, Here I Stand (New York: Mentor Books, 1950), p. 206.

39Kolde, BBK, VIII, 16. 52 In October, 1524, one of Carlstadtfs students, Martin Reinhart, brought Carlstadt's fully sacramentarian work, Von dem widerchristlichen Missbrauch des Herrn Brot und Kelch. to Nttrnberg to have it published. Reinhart himself had also had close relations to the city, having dedicated an edition of the articles presented by the Bohemian Brethren to the Council of Basel in 1430 to the Nurnbergers Anthon Tucher, Hieronymus Ebner, Willibald Pirckheimer, and the whole NUrnberg Council.^® Reinhart apparently gave the manuscript of Carl- stadt»s work to a "foreign vagabond" who in turn gave it to the Nttrnberg printer, Hieronymus HcJltzel.^ The Council, fearing that unauthorized religious ideas might lead to sedition, ordered all copies to be confiscated, and ordered an investigation to discover who had published the pamphlet.^ December 17* 152/|* it was discovered that Httltzel had printed the unauthorized work; he was immedi­ ately arrested,^ reprimanded for illicit printing, and questioned about what else he might have printed.^

^°Ibid.. p. IB; and Williams, pp. 151-152.

^-RV 711, 9r-9v; PfRv 229-233.

711, Br; PfRv 22B.

^ R V 711, 9v; PfRv 231.

^ R V 711, lOv; PfRv 235. 53 Martin Reinhart was dealt with more firmly. On the same day as H&Ltzel^ arrest, he was ordered to leave the city with his wife and children within one day, or he too would be arrested. The expulsion of Reinhart, however, did not put a stop to the activity of the followers of Carlstadt. December 28, Erasmus Wisperger, a scribe (teutscher schreiber), was arrested for having publicly read on the market from Carlstadt1 s "booklet."^

45RV 711, 9v; PfRv 233.

711, l6v; PfRv 243; Kolde, BBK, VIII, 18.

^7RV 711, 17v; PfRv 248.

711, 19r; PfRv 255.

49RV 712, 9r; PfRv 286 and PfRv 298. lower-middle and lower classes. The rapid spread of Carl­ stadt *s interpretation within this group gave the Council much concern. Erasmus Wisperger1 s public reading on the market shows the potential for disorder which discussion of heterodox ideas about the sacrament posed. Apparently public discussion of the nature of the sacrament had become widespread, for one even finds references to discus­ sions in the Nttrnberg inns. A certain innkeeper, Marx von Wiblingen, was called before the Council and asked to give an account of a discussion which took place in his inn and the names of those who took p a r t . ^ O in the public discus­ sion of unauthorized “left-wing1* interpretations of the sacrament the Council perceived a dangerous threat to public order. The heart of the question was theological, but in the eyes of the city fathers it had implications for social disturbance. In at least one instance the fears of the Council proved to be well-founded. The case of the so-called three "godless painters" involved not only heterodox sacra- mentarian ideas but also a direct denial of the Council*s authority in secular matters.^

5°RV 710, 2r; PfRv 703; Kolde, BBK, VIII, 16.

Another painter, Hans Greiffenberger, had come into conflict with the Council over his ideas about the Eucha­ rist and over some anti-papal cartoons which he had made. Since he **. . • had made a street-corner preacher of him­ self and had tried to corrupt others. • ." the Council 55 The three “godless painters’* were journeymen painters from the school of Albrecht Dttrer, namely, Sebald Behaim, his brother Barthel Behaim, and Georg Pentz. On January 10, 1525# the Council sent for the Behaim brothers to be examined about their unchristian attitude toward the sacra­ ment of the altar and baptism.The Nttrnberg preachers we re asked to remonstrate with them and to advise the Council how to treat them. Four days later the Behaim brothers plus George Pentz were further interrogated regarding their attitude toward secular authority, the public proclamation of their views, and the support they received from fellow journeymen or other individuals.^ On January 16 the Council ordered that they be questioned further.^

intervened. It reprimanded him for his paintings and his sacramcntarian ideas, and had Andreas Osiander instruct him in “correct” belief. See Thurman E. Philoon, “Hans Greiffenberger and the Reformation in Nuernberg,” MQR, XXXVI (1962) 61-75; RV 709, l6r; PfRv 196; RV 710, 2r; PfRv 202; Bauer, p. 119; Kolde, BBK, VIII, 12-15*

52RV 712, 4v; PfRv 276.

53RV 712, 8r; PfRv 280

54RV 712, 8v; PfRv 283. Also examined with the Behaim brothers and Georg Pentz were Ludwig Krug, a gold­ smith, and Sebald Baumhauer, most likely the son of a painter and sexton at the St. Sebald Church. Krug’s response to the examination is not given. Neither Krug nor Baumhauer were exiled; they apparently accepted instruction from the Ntfrnberg divines. Kolde, BBK. VIII, 64 and 66. Their statement of belief took the form of answers

to six questions placed by the Council’s e x a m i n e r s . ^5 The answers of Barthel Behaim, with which his brother con­ curred, were as follows: (1) Do you believe there is a God? Yes. (2) What do you think about Christ? I have no opinion about Christ. (3) Do you believe in the Holy Gospel and the Word of God in the Scriptures? I do not know if it is holy. (4) What do you believe about the sacrament of the altar? I have no opinion. (5) What do you believe about baptism? Nothing. (6) Do you believe in a secular authority (weltliche Obrigkeit) and do you recognize the Council of Nttrnberg as lord over your life and over things external (was ausserlich ist)? No. The answers of Georg Pentz varied only slightly: (1) I have a feeling, but don’t know what I truly believe about God. (2) I have no opinion about Christ. (3) I cannot believe the Scriptures. (4) I have no opinion about the sacrament of the altar. (5) I have no opinion about baptism. (6) I know of no other lord than God alone.

Ibid., p. 65, and Evans, p. S3 . In the Councilfs records, the case of the three "godless painters” is closely associated with that of the rector of the school connected to the St. Sebald Church, Johann Denck. Unlike the painters, Denck did not reject the Council’s civil authority. He was tried and eventually expelled from Nttrnberg for religious heterodoxy alone. RV 712, 14r; PfRv 307. 57 Sebald BaumhauerTs reply was less radical; (1) I feel there is a God* (2) Christ is almighty from the Father* (3) I cannot believe of my own power, but Christ has opened the Scriptures to me through faith. (4) I am not certain about the sacrament of the altar. (5) Baptism is an exterior sign. (6) In so far as they /the coun­ cilors at N3rnberg7 have power from God, they are our authority (Oberer). As if their heterodox religious ideas and their denial of the Council’s secular authority were not enough, the denial of the Council’s secular authority were not enough, the Behaim brothers and Georg Pentz seem also to have been implicated in some sort of seditious plot. Acting either on a legitimate lead, or possibly only on rumor, the Council ordered an investigation of the painters’ dealings with a sword smith of Erlangen. ^ The Council records do not mention what came of this investi­ gation. Both the legal and the theological advisers were asked to recommend punishment for the painters. Jurists and theologians alike found the painters guilty of blasphemy and opposition to the civil power. The former (including Scheurl, Protzer, and Marstaller) recommended leniency; the three had already been punished enough by

56RV 712, lOr; PfRv 290; Bauer, p. 121. 5* their two weeks of imprisonment. They should merely be instructed and cautioned. The theologians (including the preachers of St. Sebald, St. Lorenz, the Augustinian cloister, and St. Egidien), however, were not so liberal; they feared that if the painters should find like-minded followers the result would be ". • • the spilling of blood, and the destruction of civil peace** (Blutvergiessen und ZerstBrung bflrgerlichen Friedens). They therefore recom­ mended banishment.57 The Council chose to follow the advice of the theologians and the painters were expelled. This incident is of particular interest for it pro­ vides an example of the simultaneous incidence of heterodox religious ideas and rejection of secular authority. The Council feared that these painters had other supporters among the journeymen of Nflrnberg.5^ Although the records give no indication of the numbers of sympathizers, the fact that they are mentioned may be taken as yet another indication of a lower-class movement of theological and political ferment. Journeymen painters were not the only artisans who dared to oppose the Council; several of the city*s printers also presented the government with problems of control.

57Kolde, BBK, VIII, 63-69.

5SRV 712, 3r; PfRv 230. 59 By the very nature of their craft, printers were in an important position, for they dominated an important means for the dissemination of new ideas. If, therefore, the Council wanted to control the Nifrnberg populace it would necessarily have to supervise the printers. A decree of December 14, 1502, formed the basis for the first official policy of censorship in the imperial city. {An earlier decree of 1491 had attempted to repress one particular work rather than set up general control.) All printers were summoned to take an oath that they would print nothing which had not first been presented, examined, and approved by the official c e n s o r , 59 who, at the time of the Peasants1 Revolt was the Ratschreiber. Lazarus

Spengler. This ordinance was renewed in 1521 and 1524. December, 1524, book dealers were also placed under the control of censorship; they were allowed to offer for sale only those books approved by the Council.^® In May, 1525> the oath was extended to typesetters! As has already been mentioned, four journeymen of the printer Hans Hergot illicitly printed Thomas Muntzer»s

^Arnd Mftller, "Zensurpolitik der Reichsstadt Nttrn­ berg," MVGN, XLIX (1959), 72.

60RV 711, 9r; PfRv 230.

61RV 717, 14r; PfRv 721. 60 Ausgedrttckte EntblBssung. Hergot was absent when this took place but nevertheless seems to have been a sympa­ thizer with the radicals. He was, for example, warned by the Council to stop offering “revolutionary pamphlets1* for

s a l e . it was for the sale of one such pamphlet that he met his death. In 1527> Hergot offered for sale a booklet entitled Von der newen wandlung evnes Christlichen lebens. This work, probably printed in Leipzig, dealt with agrarian communism and revolution.^3 Written in one copy of this pamphlet (now in the Leipzig city library) is the comment, “The rebellious booklet of Hans Hergot of NSrnberg, because of which he was executed here with the sword. Another printer who came into conflict with the N'ttrnberg city fathers was Hieronymus Holtzel. His first encounter with the Council resulted from his printing one of Carlstadt*s pamphlets. At that time (December, 1524) he was interrogated, reprimanded, and then let go.

Heinrich Grimm, “Die BuchfHhrer des deutschen Kulturbereichs und ihre Niederlassungsorte in der Zeit- spanne 1490 bis um 1550,“ Archiv ft!r Geschichte des Buchwesens. VII, No. 5/6 (I966), 1226.

63Ibid.

64Ibid.. p. 1226.

65RV 711, 9r-9v; PfRv 229, 231, 232, 235; see above, p. 12. 61 Only a few months later (May 15, 1525), he was again arrested, this time for delivering an "evil, improper speech. "^6 YJhile he was still in prison, the Council intercepted a letter from the peasant army at wBrzburg to HBltzel, which contained "many poisonious statements” (vil giftiger clausel). which HBltzel was to make public to his other Christian brothers in Nilrnberg.^7 This discovery prompted further examinations of HBltzel. During the last week of May, 1525, he was examined four times (the use of torture being approved). Under questioning, HBltzel admitted having printed an unauthorized book, the content of which, in the CouncilTs opinion, could only cause "disturbance, uprising, and the spilling of blood" (ufrur. emnorung. und plutvereiessen).^ The Council immediately confiscated all copies it could find, but several had already been taken by the Nurnberger Marx Kiener to the peasant army at Bamberg, there to be sold. The Council warned the Bamberg authorities of this 69 and urged them to confiscate the booklet. 7

66RV 716, 27r; PfRv 641. 6?BB 39* 220r» pfBr 215» 6% B 90, lOv ff.; PfBr 236. 69The- Council records mention neither the title nor the author of this revolutionary pamphlet. The fate of HBltzel is also not mentioned. See RV 717, 4v; PfRv 676; RV 717, 6r; PfRv 690; RV 717, 10r; Pf Rv 701; RV 717, 13y, PfRv 719; RV 71.7, 19r; PfRv 741; BB 90, lOv ff.; PfBr 236. 62 Hieronymus HBltzel was only one of several artisans who embraced social-revolutionary ideas and urged support for the peasants* The carpenter Stefan Ptthler favored the peasants and hoped to recruit 100 sympathizers to back them in their demands.70 Two other members of the Nurnberg artisan class, namely Hans, a draper’s apprentice (Tuchknappe) from Nttrn- berg, and an innkeeper from wBhrd named Ulrich Aberhan blatently opposed the Council’s authority, July 1, 1524* they were arrested for their "angry, blameworthy, tumul­ tuous" (pBss. streflich. aufrttrig) speeches ,7*1' They had publicly urged the Nttrnberg citizenry to organize for the abolition of the Ungeld, an indirect beverage tax levied in Nttrnberg, Hersbruck, Gostenhof, WBhrd, and Feucht.7^ The Council interpreted the speeches of Ulrich Aberhan and Hans of Nttrnberg as an open renunciation of its authority. Their suggestion that the citizens organize to oppose the tax was a threat to public order; therefore, they were executed July 5, 1524.73

7°RV 704, 15v; PfRv 23.

71RV 703, 3v; PfRv 54-

72Nttrnberg Stadtrechnungen, 1524, 154v-155r; 1525, 174r-174v. 73RV 704, 19r; PfRv 32; RV 703, 3v; PfRv 54; RB 12, 250r; Kamann p. 10; Bensen, BK in Ostfranken, 353-352; Graff, JHVM, LVI, 160. Ulrich Aberhan and Hans of Nurnberg These two men, like the three "godless painters," challenged the authority of the Council directly. Other social and religious radicals challenged the Council in a more indirect manner, by embracing heterodox ideas about the sacrament, by sympathizing with the rebellious peasants in the Nttrnberg hinterland, or by surreptitiously printing writings banned in Nttrnberg. Most of the rebels came from the artisan class, the middle to lower-middle class of urban workers. They included one thimble maker, one linen weaver, one book binder, four journeymen printers, two innkeepers, three journeymen painters, two printers, one carpenter, and one draper^ apprentice. There is some proof that those who supported hetero­ dox religious ideas in Nurnberg in 1524 were the same ones who supported the peasants1 cause in 1525* The best example of this concatenation of interests is Hieronymus Httltzel. Hans Hergot might also be placed in this group, although his position as a religious radical is less well documented. Thomas Mttntzer and Hans Hut, radical sec­ tarians in 1524, became leaders of the peasants in 1525. They, however, were only visitors to Nttrnberg, and their influence in the city, though apparently significant, is nevertheless difficult to measure. have the distinction of being the only persons executed for sedition in Nttrnberg during the period of the peasant dis­ turbances. 64 Most of those individuals called before the Council as unauthorized lay preachers as well as those interro­ gated because of their part in the Sacramentarian Contro­ versy were more concerned with religious ideas than with social reform. However, the anticlericalism and implied . iconoclasm of Diepold Beringer were certainly themes which reappeared in the Peasants1 Revolt in 1525* In the Council’s view, proponents of heterodox religious ideas posed nearly as great a threat to peace and order within society as did those who directly denied the government’s secular authority. Advocates of sectarian ideas generally attracted followers from the lower echelons of society; therefore, when they spoke in public they drew together in unlawful assemblies elements from the urban lower classes. The Council, probably remembering the attempted revolution in 134&, was always suspicious of unauthorized assemblies of its citizens. Furthermore, in a polity where religious orthodoxy is defined by the government, a deviation from orthodoxy is an implied threat to the authority of that government. However, the most dangerous of all social radicals were the three "godless painters” and the two opponents of the Ungeld. for they were men who directly challenged or denied the secular authority of the government* The seriousness of their offenses may be judged by the punish­ ments imposed: The three painters were expelled from the 65 city; the two tax opponents were executed. The espousal of socially and religiously radical ideas in Nttrnberg was a serious threat to the Council in the year 1524, for, at the same time, rumblings of dissent began to occur in the countryside. The Council feared (and who could better know the danger) that the dissatis­ fied group in the city might offer aid to the discontented elements in the countryside. The case of Stefan Ptthler, the Nttrnberg carpenter who wanted to recruit 100 men to aid the peasants in their demands, is a classic example of what the Council feared. To understand the threat which the city government faced, it is necessary to look next at the disturbances in the territory during 1524. CHAPTER III

RURAL DISCONTENT, 1524

Most of the disturbances which took place in the Nttrnberg hinterland in 1524 had to do with the refusal of the rural inhabitants to pay their tithes. Anti-tithe rebellions erupted throughout southern Gennany during 1524; although they occurred more or less simultaneously, they nevertheless remained unorganized and purely local in nature.^- The Nvlrnberg peasants, like their counterparts in other sections of the country, were obliged to pay the "great11 tithe, the "small” tithe, and the "living" tithe. Like their compeers, they too began to refuse to deliver up their payments during the summer of 1524« The tithes had originally constituted the wages for clerics; their collection was based on the Mosaic law, Lev. 27: 30, "And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord*s: it is holy unto the Lord." In 779 Charlemagne had made the payment of tithes an obligation of all subjects in

■^Franz, p. 94*

66 2 the Frankish empire. During the Middle Ages laymen were often invested with the privilege of collecting tithes.^ By the early sixteenth century the right of collection had, in many instances, been alienated from the Church. Especially, the right to collect the "great11 tithe had found its way into the hands of private individuals.^ In his informative article, Werner Sprung has described the tithe obligations of the villages around Nttrnberg. 'From his discussion there emerges the intricate pattern of overlapping authority of numerous Nttrnberg and and non-Nttrnberg, ecclesiastical and secular lords. The collegiate church of St. Stephan’s in Bamberg, the clois­ ters at Ebrach and Engelthal, the St. Sebald and St. Lorenz Landalmosenttmter. the Helig-Geist-Spital. and the Muffel, Holzschuher, Loffelholz and Behaim families (among others) all had rights to the collection of tithes within the city’s territory.5 The administration of the levying of these assess­ ments fell to the tithe farmer (Zehender— Zehntpttchter). When the harvest was brought in he would be present to

^Sprung, MVGN, LV, 2.

%ossler, Sachworterbuch z. d. Geschichte. p. 1444.

^Sprung, MVGN. LV, 3 6S ensure that one tenth was left as payment. Before the Reformation a recalcitrant peasant might be threatened with excommunication if he refused to pay. This was the fate of the residents of Rothenbach (near Schweinau) in 1446.^ One of the most important instances of opposition to tithe payment occurred at Forchheim, a village north of Nttrnberg, on May 26, 1524* Many historians cite Forchheim as the first incident in the Peasants* Revolt. It was certainly the first instance where there is documentary evidence that the instigator was a cleric.^ Forchheim is also the first example of burghers and peasants working a together from the very beginning to obtain their demands. The disturbance at Forchheim is of special interest to this study for it had great influence on the Nurnberg peasants; it seems to have provided them with an impetus to revolt; in any case, it certainly illicited support and sympathy from Nttrnberg burghers.9 Forchheim did not lie within the Nttrnberg territory; rather, it belonged to the Bishop at Bamberg. In May, 1524, the citizens of this small town illegally fished in

6Ibid., p. 5.

^Franz, p. 95.

*Ibid.

9 Ibid. a pond, the rights to which belonged to the cathedral prior at Bamberg. This was considered a serious offense; on May 26 an official came to Forchheim to take steps against such disobedience. His attempt, however, caused a public uprising. A certain Ullein von Pegnitz called the crowd together in the churchyard and, with the cry ”Es muss sein,1* attacked the public buildings, plundered the archive, damaged the town hall, and deposed the City Council.That night the surrounding villages were aroused; on the next morning 500 peasants gathered in Forchheim. YJithin only a few days, the entire area was, as one official wrote, “surging and rebellious1* (wogig und aufrtlhrisch) The rebels drew up a list of five grievances, demanding that hunting and fishing be free, that the tithe be reduced to one thirtieth of the grain (paid not to the cathedral prior but to the bishop himself, that the annates (Weihsteuer) be abolished, that nobles and clerics bear civil responsibilities (including taxes) like other citi­ zens, and that clerics be tried before temporal, not

Konrad Kupfer, Geschichte einer alben frSnkischen Stadt (Nttrnberg: Frankenverlag Lorenz Spihdler, I960), p. 57, hereafter cited as Kupfer.

■^Konrad Kupfer, “Forchheim im Bauernaufstand und Markgrafenkrieg,11 Die Stimme Frankens. XXVI, No. 1 (I960), 11. 70 ecclesiastical courts.12 The cathedral chapter, upon the first news of the uprising, requested that Bishop Weigand of Bamberg summon certain priests who supposedly had caused the revolt. One individual implicated in the affair was JBrg Kreutzer, a preacher at Forchheim, who was understood by his parish­ ioners to have applied the concept of Christian freedom to social and economic questions.1^ Kreutzer was arrested and punished by confinement for several months.1^ The rebellion was short lived; early in June Bishop Weigand suppressed the insurrection with several hundred men, about forty burghers and peasants were punished. Although of short duration, the Forchheim revolt neverthe­ less seems to have been of significance for the Nvlrnberg peasants, some of whom directly supported the Forchheimers. On May 2# the Council deemed it necessary to warn Nttrn- bergers living in Hausen that they should not take part in the revolt at Forchheim, but rather remain '‘unengaged in

12Gflnther Franz, Quellen zur Geschichte des Bauern- kriegs (Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 1963), p. 315*

^Kupfer, p. 57; J. Edmund JBrg, Deutschland in der Revolutions-Periode von 1522-1526 (Freihurg: Herder*sche Verlagshandlung, 185l), p. 144* hereafter cited as Jorg.

^Franz, p. 95* makes the point that this is the first instance where there is documentary evidence of a priest*s involvement in the causation of peasant rebel­ lion. 71 all ways.”15 Other Nttrnbergers, following the example of Forchheim, began organizing their own tithe rebellions. It appears that Nttrnberg peasants, like those at Forchheim, were incited to revolt by clerical preaching against tithes. J. E. JBrg notes several clerics through­ out southern Germany who openly opposed the tithe system.17 The best documented case of such opposition in the Nttrn­ berg territory is that of the assistant pastor (Frtthmesser) at Kraftshof. July 27, 1524, the Council ordered an investigation into the charge that he had told his congre­ gation they were obliged to tithe only the thirtieth sheaf 1 A of grain. ° Evidently the charges proved to be substan­ tial enough to warrant a further investigation; three days later the priest was summoned and interrogated.19 Another example of clerical opposition to tithe- payment is that of a certain priest named Melchior who spoke at an anti-tithe protest meeting at Poppenreuth.

15RV 704, 2v.

-^This, at least, was the way the Nttrnberg Council interpreted the various peasant insurrections which erupted in its territory shortly after the Forchheim disturbance, cf., BB&7, 60r; BB 87, 66v. 17jJJrg> p. 251.

iaRV 706, 5rj PfRv 110.

19RV 706, 3r; PfRv 119. Although the records contain no specific comments on the content of his remarks, considering the nature of the assembly it is easy to surmise his topic. June 7 Melchior the priest was summoned for questioning.20 These two cases give at least some indication of clerical support for opposition to the tithes in the countryside. Whether these two men are typical of the Nttrnberg rural clergy is difficult to say. In any case, late in May and early in June, 1524, Nttrnberg peasants, possibly following the lead of Forchheim, and possibly urged on by rebellious clerics, began refusing to pay their tithes. Evidently the Council was well informed of the attitude of its peasants on this issue, for, on May 20, just as the rebellion was beginning, it issued a mandate warning its subjects not to be a party to any withholding of tithes. The May 20 mandate was formally decreed in the Counc-1 and about 100 copies of it were circulated to all o.i the captaincies (Hauptmannschaften) in the countryside. X . -states^- that the Council has learned that its rural iuo:; )cts have undertaken to unite and oppose the payment oi tithes, duties, taxes, and payments in kind, and,

20RV 704, Hr; PfRv 1$.

21RB 12, 241r-241v; Kamann, pp. 40-41* further, have attempted to justify their undertakings in the name of the Gospel. According to the mandate, the Council finds such action grievous, and considers it to be the work of those who are not Christians and who hope to use the Gospel for their own purposes. Everyone who is a Christian knows that one is obliged to render unto God the things which are Godfs and to the secular authority, the things which belong to it. Furthermore, out of brotherly love every Christian is obliged to perform that for which he is responsible, just as he would have others do. Although all Christians have been freed in their consciences through the blood and death of their Savior, nevertheless, this freedom does not include freedom from external obligations (eusserlichen schuldigen purden). Accordingly, in the decree the Council requested its subjects, who are obliged not only by the divine word of their Savior, but also by their governing authority, to cease their improper action and to undertake neither in word nor in deed to unite against their lords, but rather to continue to pay their tithes, taxes, duties, and pay­ ments in kind as they have done in the past. If this request is not followed the Council promised resolutely to punish the disobedient so as to make clear that it would not tolerate such defiance. From this mandate it is clear that the city fathers thought religious motivation lay behind the rural 74 rebellion. They accused the peasants of hiding behind the name of the Gospel and claiming that Christian freedom meant freedom from secular responsibilities. On this point the Council anticipated arguments which both Osiander and Luther made against the peasants in 1525.^ The man­ date is also typically Lutheran when it argues that tithes should be paid because tithe-lords are part of the secular

authority ordained by G o d . ^ 3 The firm stand which the Council took at the conclu­ sion of the decree is also worthy of note. The peasants were ordered to cease organizing against their lords and to pay up what they owed; the disobedient were threatened with exemplary punishment.

22 Luther, in his '’.Admonition to Peace: Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants," 1525, accused the rebels of using the name "Christian" as a "cloak" for their "impatient, disorderly, unchristian undertaking." WA, XVIII, 314* In bis answer to the third article of the peasants, he denies that Christian freedom implies freedom from external bonds: "A serf can be a Christian, and have Christian freedom." WA, XVIII, 327. Likewise, Osiander, in his Eyn schBne. fast ntitzliche Sermon, vber das Euan- gelion Matthei am xvi.j, WiierzAugBibl. printed in April, 1525, asserts tbat Christian freedom does not free one from civil responsibilities (10v) and further, that the rebels are not furthering God’s Word, but rather their own carnal desires (12v).

^ I n 1522 Luther had justified obedience to the state by use of Matt 22: lC-21, in his "Temporal Authority, to What Extent it is to be Obeyed," WA, XI, 266. This biblical passage was obviously in the mind of the author of the mandate of May 20. However, in his answer to article two of the Twelve Articles Luther used a dif­ ferent argument, namely, that refusing to pay tithes was a form of robbery and therefore wrong. WA, XVIII, 325-326. 75 The fact that the mandate was promulgated May 20 indicates the efficiency of the Council*s intelligence- gathering apparatus. The first reference in the RatsverlHsse to tithe opposition is an entry of May 19*2^” All of.the other anti-tithe assemblies and peasant leagues date from after May 20. Apparently the Council was aware of public opinion in the countryside; it may even have previously deliberated on a policy toward tithes, for, at the first sign of overt activity it was prepared to act with the publication of a stern decree. The problem, however, did not go away simply because an order was issued against it. For example, May 21 the city government investigated a league of peasants orga­ nized at Rehdorf (southwest of NUrnberg) in opposition to tithe-payment.2^ Six days later another such league was investigated at Heuchling (LK Lauf a. d. Pegnitz).2^ June 4 it came to light that a peasant assembly was planned at Reichelsdorf; the Council immediately warned the com­ munity to permit no such gathering.2?

703, l6r.

25RV 703, 19r.

26RV 703, 2r.

27RV 704, 9r; PfRv 14; BB S7, 60v. 76 The two most important anti-tithe assemblies with which the Council had to deal were those at GrossgrSndlach and Poppenreuth. The Grossgrttndlach meeting took place on Sunday, May 29, 1524* Six days earlier, however, the Council knew of the plans and ordered one or two spies to be sent out to see what the rebels would undertake. ^ The government made no attempt to prevent the assembly, but rather observed it and then immediately called in the peasant leaders. Two days after the meeting seven leaders were summoned before the Council, thoroughly interrogated, and told to discontinue their opposition to tithes. Further, they were instructed to inform the Council of any similar activity in the future, and they were forbidden to go to the Poppenreuth meeting.2^ This assembly took place on June 1. Nurnberg warned its citizens living in Poppenreuth not to take part in the meeting, but rather to observe it and to report anything of interest to the C o u n c i l . As at Grossgrllndlach, so also at Poppenreuth no specific measures were taken to suppress the gathering. The city fathers simply satisfied themselves with observations and investigations after the

2SRV 703, 19v; May 23, 1524.

29RV 704, 4v; RB 12, 242v-243r; Pf., p. 1.

3°RV 704, 6r; PfRv 3. 77 fact. June 7 four leaders, "Melchior the priest, Sebolt Lintz, Michel LBsel, and the young Y/almaister" were summoned and examined concerning their insurrectionary speeches at Poppenreuth.31 There is evidence of urban support for the peasant demands at both of these important assemblies. A certain "Muleisen Metzger" was interrogated concerning which artisans were at the Grossgrttndlach meeting and which ones made "improper speeches" (vil ungeschicht red).32 A cer­ tain Nttrnberg carpenter, Stefan Ptthler, was arrested for urging support for the rebels at Poppenreuth and Reichels- dorf, and for stating that he wished to recruit 100 men to support the peasants in their demands.The Ptthler affair so disturbed the Council that it launched a full investi­ gation.^

On May 28 a certain Haintz Vollat of Grossreuth was questioned regarding "... why several persons from the community here /in Nurnberg7 have supposedly allied them­ selves with the peasantry.”^ Four days later two Nurnberg

31RV 704, Hr; PfRv 18.

32RV 704, 4v.

704, llv; PfRv 19; RV 704, 15v; PfRv 28.

34Ry 704, I2v; PfRv 21; RV 704, 14v; RV 704, 19r; PfRv 32; RV 705, 19r. 3 % V 704, 3r. 78 artisans, a coppersmith and a cutler were summoned and

examined about their attitude toward the peasant rebels. ^ Clas Apel in his chronicle indicates just how wide­ spread the support was among the urban lower classes for the rural insurrection: **As the disturbance increased from day to day at all places, ray lords also had concern in the city, for all of the common people were on the

peasants* side."37 Urban sympathy for the rural rebels was expressed in public speeches made throughout the city against the Council and in the posting of anti-government placards in the churches and other public places.In an attempt to suppress such sedition, the Council immediately took several steps. First, to reinforce its basis of authority, it called together the Great Council (Genannte) to inform them of the situation and to enlist their support. (That this part of the constitutional machinery was brought into play shows the gravity of the situation.) They were told of the speeches and placards, and informed that, in the

26RV 704, 7v; PfRv 8.

^Kamann, p. 9. Evidence of urban support for the peasants canes also from RB 12, 244v f£, in Pf. pp. 3-5; and BB 87, 72v.

3gRB 12, 244 v; Pf., p. 3. 79 Council^ opinion, it was the "poor, propertyless citi­ zenry" (armen. unvermoglichen burgerschaft) which caused the disturbance.39 The Council then asked the Genannte to attempt to convince the common people of the govern­ ments good offices, and to dissuade them from sedition. Further, the Genannte were asked to inform the Council of any insurrection of which they heard. Next, the Council issued a mandate to the ward captains (Viertelmeister) which was in turn to be made public to the common people.^ This decree pointed out the favorable position of the Nurnberg lower classes: "The common man is situated more honorably and profitably in this city than anywhere else in the Empire."^ He is provided with eleemosynary institutions and, in times of ruining inflation (furfallender teurung). is given a supply of grain, bread, lard, salt, cabbage, and other provisions. Since he is so well treated, he clearly has no reason to revolt. Realizing that many peasant sympathizers came from the artisan classes, the Council further appointed certain men who were to negotiate with the sworn masters (that is, the leaders) of all the crafts.

39lbid.

^■9rB 12, 245r-246r; Pf. p. 4; Mandate of June 7, 1524, in Stadtarchiv Nttrnberg, Repertorium A6.

^ R B 12, 245v; Pf. p. 4. Finally, a public convocation was held before the city hall, at which the commonality was told that the seditious speeches and placards we re contrary both to their civil duty (burgerliche verpflichtung) and to the word of God and the Holy Gospel, The citizenry was reminded of its oath of citizenship and warned to abstain from seditious activity under threat of severe punishment. In addition a reward of fifty gulden was promised for any information about the authors of the placards or those who might have posted them. The informant was promised immunity from prosecution should he be implicated in an affair.^2 • Another measure, taken not to suppress the rebel­ lion, but rather as protection against it, demonstrates the gravity of the situation. The ward captains were instructed to inform their captains to draw up lists of responsible citizens (tuglichen burger) who could be relied on for mustering up in case of necessity. The lists were to include the names of those who could ride, and those who regularly mustered under the troop leader (rottmeister). In reaction against the threat of insurrection the Council stepped up its intelligence-gathering operations. May 31 an observer was sent out to obtain information on

12, 246v,; Pf. p. 5. £l the undertakings and resolutions of the peasantry*^ June 2 another observer was sent to see if the peasants were going to hold an assembly at the inn near St. Jacobfs Church, and, if so, what kind of discussions might take place.^ June 10 the Council wrote to the authorities at Lauf, Altdorf, Velden, and Betzenstein asking them to observe the peasantry and to send in the names of those who took part in any seditious activity.^ In order further to clarify its position toward tithe-collection, the city government turned to its legal advisers for direction. In a short brief (Ratschlag) dated June 14* the lawyers suggested that the Council once again send out an order to the peasants asking them to pay their tithes as they had done in the past. The Council was advised to take a firm stand on the collection of tithes, for, otherwise, tithe lords such as the Bishops of Eichstatt or Bamberg might attempt to take action of their own and thereby intrude upon and weaken the authority which the Council exercised within its own territory.^

704* 6r; PfRv 4.

704, &r; PfRv 11.

^ B B £7, 6£v.

^Ratschl.b. 4, 134r; PfRs 2. In a more detailed brief of June 23, the juriscon­ sults provided further clarification of the problem. They argued that tithes are a form of legal property recognized by the secular authority. The Council has no power to abolish tithes or their collection within its territory in the face of imperial law which recognizes their legality. The city should tell its peasantry to report individual grievances, which may then be redressed; however, the general question of tithe payment can only be answered by an imperial Diet. The legal advisers were convinced that the threat posed to the authority of the tithe-lords was an indirect threat to the entire municipal government, for, in their opinion, the peasants would not be willing to stop at freedom from tithes. The jurisconsults, in other words, reaffirmed the policy of strict enforcement of tithe-collection stated in the mandate of May 20. Although this decree was made public, and restated according to directives of June and June 23,^9 and in a letter of June 10,5° scattered incidents of antitithe rebellion continued to occur.

^Ratschl.b. 4, 13Br ff.; PfRs 3-

4*RV 704, 12r; PfRv 20.

^ R V 705, lv; PfRv 33.

^°To Lauf, Altdorf, Velden, and Betzenstien, BB 37, 63r-69r. June 23 the peasants of Henfenfeld were ordered to deliver their levy to their p r i e s t ; ^ on the same day the Captain of Steinbtthl was ordered to consign his hay tithe.During the first week of July residents at

F euc h t 5 3 and at Heroldsberg54 were admonished for their obstinacy. From July 7 to July 11 the Council negotiated with the Nttrnbergers of Buch who owed tithes to St. Stephan*s at Bamberg. The imperial city realized the danger to its authority if the Bishop of Bamberg should attempt to make collection himself. To avoid entanglement \idth both peasants and the Bishop, the city fathers devoted special attention to this case. July 7 the disobedient vie re threatened with imprisonment;^ those who promised to pay had their names recorded and were given special praise. ^ Certain individuals were arrested and then promised freedom in return for their consent to pay up.37

51RV 705, 2r; PfRv 40; BB $7, 92r-92v.

52RV 705, lr; PfRv 39.

53RV 705, Sr, PfRv 52.

5/|RV 705, 10v; PfRv 56.

55RV 705, 14r; PfRv 70.

56RV 705, 14v.

57RV 705, 15r; PfRv 75; RV 705, l6r; PfRv Bl. At the same time that the residents of Buch were demonstrating their opposition, other peasants were doing the same. Examples may be found at Gostenhof,^

RUckersdorf ,59 Grossgrttndlach,^0 Grossreuth h. d. Veste,^*

Geschaid,^2 and V a c h . ^ 3 Recalcitrant activity in June and July was characterized not only by refusal to pay the tithes but also by malicious destruction of them. Some­ times they were left exposed to the weather; in other instances they were put to the torch.^ Faced with continued disobedience in the countryside, and reassured by the firm stand taken by its legal advisers, the Council developed an even stronger policy, which it put into practice in July. For one thing, the city fathers, upon the request of specific tithe-lords, began sending Council functionaries out into the country­ side to order the peasants in specific instances to honor

58RV 705, 13r; PfRv 65.

59RV 705, 14r; PfRv 69.

6oRV 705, 15v; PfRv 76.

6lIbid.

62LK Erlangen. RV 705, 17r; PfRv S3 .

63lK Fttrth. RV 705, 22v; PfRv 97, and RV 706, lv; PfRv 101.

64rv 705, 2r; PfRv 40; RV 705, 13r; PfRv 65; RB 12, 253r, in Pf. p. 14, RV 706, 2v; PfRv 102. $5 obligations.^ Further, the Council began making more arrests and jailing more individuals who refused to pay. ° Another step which the city government took was to promise to help certain lords in taking the tithes out of the barns of those peasants who refused to pay them freely. This pledge, however, seems only to have been made in instances which involved St. Stephanfs in Bamberg.^7 On the night of July 22 some of the grain tithes which were piled up in the fields were put to the torch. In response to this the government promulgated a decree the next day, stating that it had decided on stern and j’ust punishment for the arsonists. The Council offered a reward of fifty gulden to anyone who would point out whom the arsonists were. Further, it promised to keep the informer *s name secret, and to grant him immunity from punishment should he be implicated as an accomplice.^ The records do not tell whether the culprits were appre­ hended.

65RV 705, llv; PfRv 60; RV 705, 13r; PfRv 62, 63; RV 705, 15r; PfRv 74; RV 705, 19r; PfRv S3.

66RV 705, 14r; PfRv 71.

67RV 705, 19r; PfRv S3; RV 705, 20r; PfRv 90; RV 705, 20v; PfRv 92.

/LA RB 12, 253r; Pf. p. 14. 36 Occasional instances of anti-tithe activity occurred after the decree of July 23, at Lohe^9 and at Neuhof.7® The Council continued to take firm action, as is evident by the arrest of four peasants who were placed in the city hall prison (LochgefHngnis) for examination.7-1- Later in the year, in October and December, more peasants, from Leinburg and Seukendorf were threatened with being arrested for their recalcitrance.72 Residents from Erlanstegen were threatened with having their goods seized if they would not pay what they owed.73 In general, one may say that after the end of July the incidents of open opposition to payment became less frequent. The grievances were not redressed; however, with the approach of winter the problem went away of its own accord. The Council1s stern tactics seem to have been successful in enforcing the payment of tithes. The problem, however, was not solved; the rancor which it precipitated continued to ferment in the minds of the rural inhabitants through'the winter of 1524-25•

69July 29, RV 706, 7r; PfRv 117.

7 ° L K Flirth, July 30, 1524, RV 706, 3r; PfRv 120.

71RV 706, 5r.

720ctober 6, RV 709, 6v; December 22, RV 711, 12v.

73RV 703, 3v; PfRv 166. ‘In the spring and early summer of 1525* when peasants elsewhere in southern Germany rose up in revolt, the N u m ­ bers peasants, dissatisfied because their grievances about tithes had not been redressed, sympathized with their compeers and, in some instances, gave open expression to their dissatisfaction. The story of withholding of tithes in the Nttrnberg territory in 1524 is thus most accurately seen as the background out of which the revolutionary sentiment of 1525 developed. CHAPTER IV

RURAL DISCONTENT, 1525

Throughout the summer of 1524 the main point of con­ tention between the Nttrnberg Council and its rural subjects was the refusal of the latter to pay their tithes. This issue remained alive in 1525; however, the Council made some changes in its policies and thereby helped to lessen the tensions caused by the enforcement of tithe collec­ tion. On April 1 it ordered that “When the Council is petitioned regarding tithes, one should be very careful; /aid should be granted only after/ careful consideration and advice and not in a hurry as last year.”1 Accordingly, the city government remained more or less uninvolved with the problem of tithes. Nevertheless, their collection continued to be a source of difficulty until the Council, faced with the constantly increasing danger of union between the Nttrnberg rebels and the peasant armies to the o north, dramatically reversed its policies.*’

^RV 715, 4r; PfRv 461.

2see below, Chapter 5*

aa 39

Howevsr, in the summer of 1525 other problems came to the fore; the government was confronted with a pea­ santry which was reacting to various grievances, expressing its dissatisfaction by various forms of insurrection. The Council responded in a very sophisticated manner; instead of simply observing and investigating after the fact, as it had the year before, it began to take preventive measures, attempting at every point to dissuade its sub­ jects from participating in the rebellion. As the danger increased it also took steps to protect itself and its populace. It redressed some grievances, but was not always able to prevent its subjects from taking part in insurrectionary activity. One complaint which came to be of particular importance in 1525 concerned the damage done to Nfirnberg crops by wild game which roamed out of the Margrave's game preserve. In fact, the only written protest lodged with the Council by the inhabitants of its territory dealt precisely with this topic. Early in April^ the Nflrnberg peasantry sent the following supplication to the Council: Wise, honorable, favorable, beloved Lords! Out of great and well-known necessity we herewith submit to your princely honors (as we often did last year) the following list of our unbearable grievances and hardships for you to examine, obediently requesting that you favorably hear them and give us paternal and

^Before April 10, 1525, for dating see RV 715, llv 90 true help in this matter; We, together with the villages, hamlets, and farms of our neighbors lie so close to the hunting grounds of the Margrave of Brandenburg that the wild game can always easily reach our fields. . . . In many places great herds of wild game numbering sixty, seventy or eighty head (Stucken) have been seen running unchased through our fields, feeding on and trampling the grain and fruit; also wild pigs root up our fields and meadows to such an extent, that many fields planted with grain are so badly destroyed that, since the har­ vest is worthless, the fields are tilled again leaving the produce completely unused. • • • And he who at one time has poached a little or is evily and wrongfully accused on that account is arrested and blinded; also some, in whom no guilt is proven, are tortured and crippled as much as if they had killed people...... In many places we must protect our fields in broad daylight with those whom we need for other work; at night, when we need peace just as other men, we must guard so that the wild game vail not damage the fruit. . . . Our humble and urgent request to your honors is that you write on our behalf to the gracious lords, the captains and council of the honorable Swabian League, and ask them graciously to consider this our great burden and to deal with our gracious lord, the Margrave. . . .^ The peasants proposed that either the Margrave reduce the amount of game bordering their lands so that their fields would be safe, or that they be given permission to shoot the the animals which did damage to their crops.^

^Gunther Franz, Quellen zur Geschichte des Bauern- kriees (Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 1^63), pp. 317-319, hereafter cited as Franz, Quellen.

5Ibid., p. 319. 91 The Council, realizing the justice of the complaint, and fearing that if the problem were not resolved it might become a cause for revolt, immediately began to intercede / with the League and the Margrave. April 26 the Swabian League sent NQrnberg a copy of a letter from the Margrave who, on April IS had written that the charges were false, but that he had ordered his hunters to hunt as much as they cared to, ignoring the closed season. He would allow the peasants to enclose their fields and to drive away the wild game.? The next day the Margravefs decision was made public.** Early in May Margrave Casimir gave his subjects per­ mission to shoot the wild game.^ This right was also extended to Ntirnbergers as a result of the careful and persistent intercession of the CouncilThe city fathers were successful in redressing one of the most serious grievances of the peasants. It must be remembered, how­ ever, that the problem was not resolved until the rural

6BB 69, 104v ff., 107v f., Il6v ff.; PfBr 161, 162, 167, 169.

?Pf., p. 391, note.

V 716, 9v; PfRv 561.

9rv 716, 17r; PfRv 595.

10RB 13, 23v. 92 insurrection was at the height of its fury. Damage done by wild game may therefore be included as one of the factors which contributed to dissatisfaction among the residents of the countryside. Another grievance which now came to the fore centered around the privileged position of the clergy. Anticlerical sentiment was evident both in the city and in the country­ side in 1525* Lazarus Spengler wrote to Clemens Volckamer that on the first day of the religious discussion in Nttrn- berg many people gathered and waited for the monks, who were taunted and jeered.^ Likewise Charitas Pirckheimer, abbess of St. Clara’s cloister in Nttrnberg, wrote in her memoirs of rowdies who daily threaten “to expel us, or to plunder or burn the monastery.Anticlericalism was to be found in the countryside as well, at Mogeldorf,^ Kalch-

reuth,^ Pillenreuth,-^ Engelthal,-*-^ and Grossgrundlach.-*-7

1;LS I, L 73, Nr. 10; PfBr 141. 12Caritas Pirckheimer, Die Denkwttrdigkeiten der Caritas Pirckheimer. ed. Josef Pfanner 1Landshut:Solanus Druck, 1961), p."'65. ^ R V 715, 13r; PfRv 493, April 11, 1525. 1^RV 716, 4v; PfRv 532, April 21, 1525. RV 717, 12r, PfRv 714, May 23, 1525.

•*■5 At Pillenreuth peasants from Feucht and Wendel- stein were involved, RV 716, 5v; PfRv 536, April 22, 1525. l6RV 716, 22r; PfRv 614, May 10, 1525. 17RV 717, 3v; PfRv 671, May 19, 1525. Early in May the secular and spiritual advisers to the Council submitted, upon request, a memorandum which stated some of the grievances felt by the common man against the clerical estate* For one thing, the common­ ality resented the fact that the clergy was free from civil responsibilities yet enjoyed the benefits of citizen­ ship: MOut of this disparity, that the priests are free from other taxes, property tax (losung) and indirect tax (ungelt). no little calumny and impatience has arisen among the common man, who bears all such burdens and in addition must earn his livelihood with the work of his hand3 and the sweat of his brow.nxt> That the clergy openly kept concubines also seems to have caused discontent* The advisers recommended in this same brief that the clerics be given eight days to stop keeping concubines, to marry them, or else to face punish­ ment. The consultants further warned the Council that if it neglected the situation, it could expect disturbance and revolt, for the common man felt very strongly against the clergy. The clerics should be forced to accept the oath of citizenship and the concomitant duties and responsibilities for their own protection, in order to divert the wrath of

^Ratschl.b. 5, 23v; PfRs 44* p« 234* 94 the common man.**-9 Acting on the suggestions of this brief, the Council decided, May 10, to require all priests in the city either to become citizens or to leave the city, and either to marry or stop keeping their concubines.20 One week later it wrote to various villages in the countryside, urging them to require their clergy to do the same.2-1- Thus, just as in the case of the damage done by wild game, so also in the problem of anticlericalism, the Council acted decis­ ively to redress a serious grievance. However, it did not act until mid-May, by which time revolutionary sentiment among the peasantry was at its height. The Council*s measures no doubt helped lessen tensions, but since they were taken so late, anticlerical sentiment must also be counted among the causes for disturbance. There were, no doubt, other reasons why Nllrnberg peasants were willing to join the rebel armies. Some indication of what these might have been may be found in the documents pertaining to the Council’s investigation

19Ibid.

2 0 R v 716, 22v; PfRv 615; RB 13, 7v, f., Pf., pp. 62-63.

2lBB 69, 209r f .; PfBr 210. 95 into seditious activity in the fall of 1525*^ These grievances, however, seem to be peculiar to particular individuals or specific regions, lacking the general appeal of such issues as tithes, anticlericalism, or damage done by wild game. For various reasons, in the months of March, April, and May, 1525, individuals resident in the Nttrnberg terri­ tory began coming together in unlawful peasant assemblies, and, in some instances, leaving the Nflrnberg domain to join other peasant groups quartered in bordering areas. These nearby rebel forces exercised a strong influence on Nflrn- berg subjects; they provided a means through which Nflrn- bergers could express their discontent. The Council was able to forestall the building of a peasant army within its domain, but it could not always prevent its subjects from joining their rebellious compeers. The course of events at Wttrzburg and Bamberg has already been related in Chapter I. Nflrnbergers from Bruck, Eltersdorf, Feucht, and Grossgrttndlach joined the rebels at wflrzburg; several persons, including at least one from

Lichtenhof, went to the army at Bamberg.2-*

22cf., Table 1.

23cf., Table 1; BB 39, 131v; and Johann Milliner, "Annalium der loblichen reichstatt Niirnberg, *' St AN, 4o6v, hereafter cited as Milliner, An. 96 Another peasant army which attracted Nftrnbergers was the one located on the MSssinger Berg near ObermHssing (LK Hilpoltstein). It came into existence April 21, 1525* and rapidly increased in size until it numbered about 5,000 by April.26. During its short life it captured the fortress at Obermassing and plundered nearby villages and cloisters.2^ Nttrriberg peasants from Feucht and Wendel-

stein^5 and a Nttrnberg captain named Jorg Grossel2^ went to the Massinger Berg# The Council, fearing the influence of the ObermSssing rebels, immediately began negotiations, both with the peasant army and with its own subjects.27 The threat proved to be short lived; on the night of May 1 the army dissolved after having been threatened by the OA k military forces of the authorities.*60 Nurnberg dissidents no doubt returned home from Obermassing early in May. The peasant army of the Ries, located near N8rd- lingen, also attracted Ndmbergers. March 29 three small

^Sebastian Englert, Per Massinger Bauernhaufe und die Haltung der bedrohten FUrst.cn (Eichstkitt : Programrades Kg. "Gymnasiums JsichstStt," 1895)» P • 17, hereafter cited as Englert.

25cf., Table 1.

2^Gr8ssel*s residence is undetermined, cf., RV 716, 6v; PfRv 542.

27RV 716, 5r; PfRv 534; and RV 716, 7r; PfRv 543.

Franz, p. 216; Englert, p. ii. 97 peasant groups came together at Deiningen.2^ Large numbers of lansquenets were represented in the Ries group, which was one of the most peaceful of all. After having tempo­ rarily disbanded, it reassembled late in April. April 17# realizing the attraction which it held for Nftrnberg rebels, the Council wrote to the officials at NSrdlingen, asking them to discover the names of NUrnbergers who had come there, and the villages from which they had come.May 5 the peasant army of the Ries was defeated by the forces of the Margrave of Brandenburg, which almost certainly meant that rebellious N&rnbergers returned from the Ries early in May. Late in March, 1525,31 a disturbance began at Neustadt on the Aisch; by May 5 a group of about 3,000 rebels had captured the city.32 May 11 the Council began negotiations with the dissidents, trying to ensure that they would not incite any Nftrnbergers to revolt.33 Despite the Council's efforts, Nflrnbergers from at least eight

2%ranz, pp., 213-215*

3°RV 715, 15v; PfRv 504; BB 59, Il6r-ll6v.

31BB 59, 55r.

32Georg Ludwig Lehners, Geschichte der Stadt Neustadt an der Aisch (Neustadt a. d. Aisch: Selbstverlag des Verfassers, 1534), P* 169.

33cf., Table 1. 9& villages joined the assembly on the Aisch.34 Hay 27 the Neustadt group sent letters to the Nvtrnberg populace and to the Council, asking for "cannon, swords, ammunition, powder, pikes, and provisions."35 Noting its allegiance to the Swabian League, the government refused the request. Early in May Margrave Casimir arrived in the area of Neustadt with armed forces, but he did not immediately attack. May 29 the assembly on the Aisch, fearing the Margrave, dissolved. Neunkirchen on the Brand, which lay just outside the Nflrnberg territory to the north, was the scene of a peasant disturbance which was characterised by iconoclastic activity. A group of peasants, including some Nurnbergers, carried pictures out of the church at Neunkirchen, dese­ crated a picture of the Virgin, and had themselves carried about the church on a bier.^^ The Council corresponded with this assembly, requesting that it not damage property belonging to Nflrnbergers and that it not incite other

3/|,cf., Table 1.

^ B B £9, 239r; Kamann, p. 51.

^Fritz Schnelbogl, "Die ’bSuerliche Aufruhr* in Speikern und in der Pfarr Biihl 1525,** Die Fundgrube. XI, Nr. 1 (1935), 7» Fritz Schnelbogl, Lauf-Sclinaittach. eine Helmatgeschichte (Lauf a. d. Pegnitz! Schriftenreihe des Stadtarchivs jLauf a. d. Pegnitz, 1941)> p* 100; RB 13, 17Sv-179r. 99 Nttrribergers to revolt*^ Nevertheless, before the dis­ turbance of 1525 was finally suppressed, at least twenty- six subjects of the imperial city had been attracted to Neunkirchen.^ Two other peasant groups to the north of the terri­ tory had their ranks augmented by NUrnbergers. Late in May the city fathers wrote to the peasants assembled "on the mountain near Kunreuth" (LK Forchheim), asking them to honor an earlier promise not to instigate revolt among Nttrnbergers.^9 Not far from Kunreuth is Kirchehrenbach (LK Forchheim) where a gathering of rebels attracted persons from at least three Nurnberg villagesThe Kirchehrenbach dissidents requested munitions from the imperial city; June 3 the Council refused this request.41 During the spring of 1525 peasant assemblies also took place within the Nurnberg territory. One such enter­ prise came to light March 10: Residents of Kalchreuth, under the leadership of Hans Hofinan, decided to go to

37BB 89, 225r-226v, May 23, 1525; BB 89, 238r, May 23, 1525.

3*cf., Table 1.

39BB 89, 223v.

40cf., Table 1.

41BB90, 7r. 100 Swabia, there to join the rebels.The Council ordered an immediate investigation into the "assembly and conspiracy" at Kalchreuth; seven individuals were arrested but the government was unable to prevent the remainder of the com- plot from carrying out the plan. A similar project was uncovered at Kraftshof. On the night of April 9 four men sounded the tocsin, urging the residents to join the rebellion. The situation seems to have remained uneasy well into the next month, for, May 16 the Council sent a messenger to order the rebels at Kraftshof to disassemble and go home.4-4* April 19 peasant meetings at Eschenau and Engelthal are mentioned in the Council*s records; BartholoraSus Haller was sent to negotiate with the rebels.43 At the former meeting it is unclear what took place. At the latter village, however, it appears that the problem centered around damage done to peasant crops by roaming wild game. The Council informed the Engelthal dissidents that they

4'2Hofman may have been involved in anti-tithe activity in 1524, cf., RV 705, 6r, 6v, Bv; PfRv 46, 46, 53; he certainly was involved in anticlerical activity in April, 1525, RV 716, 4v; PfRv 532. See also RV 714, 10r; PfRv 3^9.

4-3rv 714, 6r, Sr; PfRv 376, 376, 360.

4”4-rv 715, 11 v; RV 716, 26v; cf., Table 1.

45RV 716, lv, 7v; PfRv 510, 545. 101 might take steps to protect their fields so long as they did not abuse the privilege. It is possible to discover the location and extent of civil unrest in the Nurnberg territory not only from references in the Councils minutes, but also from the protocol of an investigation into the disturbance, ordered in September, 1525.4^ At that time all Nflrnberg peasants were required to take an oath of purgation, swearing that they had not been with any peasant army either in person or by proxy, that they had neither aided nor counseled others to take part in revolt, and that they had in no way urged others to rebel against their lords.47 Those who could not swear the oath were examined about their activi­ ties, and punishments were then imposed.4** By looking at the protocol of these examinations, which previously has been ignored by the best accounts of Nurnberg in the Peasants* Revolt, it is possible to determine in which areas of the territory revolt took

46RV 717, 26v; RV 720, 22v; RV 721, 4r.

47RB 13, 35r-35v.

4* W 723, 7r. The city«s financial accounts for 1525 record that 176 Rhenish gulden, one new pound, six­ teen shillings, and six haliers were received from the rebellious peasants as 1fPaurn Straff,** StAN, Stadtrech- nungen, 1525, 176r. 102 place, and what actually happened.^ By then comparing this list of names with the tax rolls (Bauernverzeichnis No. 1) it is possible to gain at least some impression of the economic standing of the peasant rebels. Table 1 and the accompanying map demonstrate that there were four areas from which most of the rebels came,

^Kamann and Engelhardt do not deal with the protocol of this examination. The protocol from which the names in Table 1 are taken is contained in several incomplete frag­ ments to be found in the Staatsarchiv Nurnberg, including S I, L 563, No. 6, Item 13, dated October 12, 1525; Item 14, of October 22, 1525; Item 15, of October 9, 1525; Items 19, 20, and 23, all undated; as well as S I, L 570, No. 5, Items 2, 4, and 5, all undated; and S I, L 514, No. #7, Item 1, dated July 31, 1525* The fines and punishments of the peasants for their revolutionary activity are to be found partially in the above, but also in the Ntirnberger Stadtrechnungsbelege, Einzelbelege 1570 and 1614. The tax values for the tables are taken from the Nurnberger BUrger- und Bauernverzeichnisse, No. 1, StAN Repertorium 55b, 1529, which records the information gathered for the levying of a one percent tax on both real and personal property in the captaincies. The Bauernverzeichnis has been followed when possible in the orthography of the names. The absence of a tax value indicates that the respective peasant did not have a holding (Hof). This was the case if he was a day laborer, or if he Had not inher­ ited a holding (or would not, in the instance of second sons), or if he had either died or left the NUrnberg terri­ tory between 1525 and 1529. Many of the persons listed as rebels in 1525, and not listed in the tax records in 1529 had probably been expelled from the territory for rebel­ lion, according to an order of October 23, 1526, RB 13, l69v-170r. With the help of Herr Hans Kreutzer, Staatsar­ chiv Nurnberg, the orthography of the villages has been modernized, and the district (Landkreis) has been supplied to aid in orientation. The tables and the discussion of seditious activity in the NUrnberg territory are a revised version of my MDie Haltung der Nurnberger Bauernschaft im Bauernkrieg," Altnttrnberger Landschaft, Mitteilungen. XIX (December, 19701,' '53-77. ror aid in the preparation of this article I wish to thank Dr. Fritz SchnelbBgl and Herr Hans Kreutzer of the Staatsarchiv, Nurnberg, and my friend, Herr Wolfgang von Lonski, Hamburg University. To the east of the city, residents of Brunn, Unterhaidel- bach, and Leinburg^O illegally fished near Engelthal. (The one individual from Engelthal might also be included in this group although his specific deed is not described in the sources*) -Other villages to the east from which rebels came include Diepersdorf, Haimendorf, Rothenbach, Letten, Wetzendorf, Rtlckersdorf, Ottensoos, Heuchling, Kuhnhof, Reichenschwand, Oberndorf, Leuzenberg, Oberkrumbach, Speikern, Rollhofen, Himmelgarten, and Lauf on the Pegnitz.-^ For nine of these villages information on the specific offense is not available; peasants from the other seven communities took part in the disturbance at Neunkirchen. (The rebels of Lauf also may have been involved at Neun­ kirchen. Directly around the city and in the so-called Knoblauchsland to the north, there existed a second area of disturbance, including the communities of MSgeldorf, Laufamholz, Erlenstegen, Ziegelstein, Lohe, Buch,

^ cf., RV 716, 7v; PfRv 546. The Council happened upon a unique solution for the problem of illegal fishing; May 2 it ordered all apothecaries to cease making or dis­ tributing fishhooksJ RB 13, 6r; PfRv 5#1 note.

^Evidence of unrest at Lauf on the Pegnitz cranes not from the protocol of the investigation, but from RV 716, llr; PfRv 567; RV 717, lv; PfRv 656, RV 717, 2r; PfRv 660.

52RV 717, 2r; PfRv 660* 104 Kraftshof, Steinach, Grossgrflndlach, Tennenlohe, Elters- dorf, and Bruck. Peasants from this region do not display a consistency of revolutionary activity. Three of these communities were represented in the peasant disturbances at Neustadt on the Aisch, four at Neunkirchen, and the rest went to various other places. For example, some persons from Bruck went to Neunkirchen, others went as far as Wttrzburg. To the south lay a third group of rebellious villages, including Gaismannshof, SteinbUhl, Gebersdorf, Untergal- genhof, Lichtenhof, Eibach, Reichelsdorf, Pillenreuth, Ziegelhfttte, Wendelstein, Kleinschwarzenlohe, Grosschwar- zenlohe, Raubersried, and Feucht. Here again there is no organized activity apparent. Peasants from two of these communities were on the MSssinger Berg, another was as far away as Wtfrzburg. A final area of disturbance lay far to the north­ west of the city, in Burgweisach, Kleinweisach, Pretzdorf, Hombeer, Kornhofstadt, and Dietersdorf. All peasants from this area were involved in the sacking of Anthon von Vesstenberg’s house.^ It is regrettable that the investigators did not record more of the specific offenses, for they provide an

53StAN SI, L 574, No. $7, Item 1 105 intriguing insight into the Peasants* Revolt. It is interesting to note that some persons sent bread to the peasant armies rather than personally taking part, for example those at Bruck, Eltersdorf, and Steinach. Several individuals claimed they were forced by their neighbors to join the rebels, such as those at Kraftshof, Oberndorf, Wetzendorf, and Ziegelstein; others went only out of curi­ osity, as did those of Grossgr&idlach, Ruckersdorf, Laufamholz, and Pillenreuth; still others went by order of their community, which was true of those at Bruck, Kraftshof, and Wendelstein. Significantly, five captains are included among the list of rebels. This was especially dangerous for the Council for, appointed by the Territorial Administrator (Landpfleger). these men were considered to be trustworthy local leaders. Cunz Schaller, captain from Heuchling, was especially brazen; he apparently threatened to fine his peasants one half gulden each if they did not join him in revoltJ He himself was given the sizeable fine of ten gulden. Another rebellious captain, Hanns Spengler of Gebersdorf, was not only fined twelve gulden but also removed from his office. From the list of tax values in Table 1 it is possible to gain a general idea of the economic standing of the peasant rebels. By far the majority may be classified as «poor." Most of the rebels who are found in the tax 106 records had taxable resources of less than 100 gulden. Many of those who are not listed were no doubt property- less day-laborers. Nine peasants are noted as cotters (BestSndner). that is, persons who held a low position within the social scale. The contention that this group formed one of the most volatile elements in the Peasants*

Revolt therefore seems to be well f o u n d e d . ^4 To place the tax values from Table 1 in perspective, a second list was compiled. Table 2 gives a broad survey of the economic standing of all Ndrribergers in the villages concerned. The rebels are indicated by parentheses. At the low end of the scale are those with tax values of less than fifty gulden; at the opposite extreme are those whose tax value was greater than 600 gulden. The list headed "propertyless1* includes those rebels who have no holding listed in the tax rolls for 1529* This group no doubt contains many poor, propertyless day laborers, as well as an undetermined number of individuals exiled for their rebellious activity (in accordance with a decree of 1526).55 The value of Table 2 is that it shows that about half of all rebels who held tenures (Hofe) had a tax value of less than 100 gulden. If one takes into consideration

54Graff, JHVM. LVI, 54

55RB 13, l69v-170r. . 107 the probable group of day laborers included in the "prop- ertyless column, the conclusion must be that a large majority of all dissidents were "poor.4* Table 3 lists another 136 so-called "absentes,** persons who did not appear to take the oath of purgation and whom the Council therefore suspected of seditious activity.56 It is thus clear that a significant amount of revo­ lutionary sentiment existed in the Nttrnberg territory in the summer of 1525. The Council reacted to this challenge with measures to prevent revolt where possible and to pro­ tect against it where necessary. As mentioned above, the city fathers negotiated with the peasant armies located in the vicinity of the territory, requesting the leaders not to incite Nilrnbergers to rebellion. 57 The Council further alerted all Territorial Administrators of the

^ This list is contained in StAN, S I, L $70, No. 5, Item 14. It is duplicated in part in the following sources: S I, L 563, No. 6 , Item 12, dated October 10, 1525; Item 14, dated October 22, 1$2$; and Item 13, undated. The tax values are taken from the Bauernverzeichnis No. 1. The orthography of the village names has been modernized and the Landkreis has been provided. For the orthography of the individual peasant names, the Bauernverzeichnis has been followed where possible. If the peasant had no holding, the spelling in S I, L 570, No. $, Item 14 was followed.

^The Council referred to these negotiations as part of a general policy in a letter to Betzenstein, May 17, 1525, BB 39, 210v. 10& danger, ordering them immediately to report any attempt which the peasants might make to band together or meet in assemblies.^ Hoping to provide itself with even more immediate information than the high-born Territorial Administrators could provide, the city fathers ordered the peasant cap­ tains to send them unopened and at the government»s expense

any letter which might be received.59 Since revolt often spread from village to village by written messages, this was an important move. To gather information and to provide a legally sanctioned form of protest, the Council arranged that "hearings” be held in the countryside. April 25 the patricians Barthel Haller and Seyfried Coler were ordered to go into the villages in the territory to give Nurnberg subjects a chance to air their complaints and grievances. Haller and Coler were directed to deal with the peasants /L r \ in a "suitable, fraternal, and just” way. w In addition to these overt measures designed to diminish the likelihood of disturbance, the Council also attempted to dissuade its subjects from insurrection by

5SRV 714, 17r; PfRv 417.

59RV 715, 6r, April 4, 1525.

^°RB 13, 5r-5v; Kamann, p. 13; Engelhardt, MVCN, XXXIII, 190. 109 warnings and exhortations. For example, early in April it had Andreas Osiander*s sermon, Eyn Sch8ne fast niltzliche Sermon vber das Euangelion Matthei am xvii Do Christus den Zolpfennig bezalet. Von gehorsam weltlicher Obrigkait. Von gebrauch Christenlicher und weltlicher Frevhait. Von GBtlicher fttrsichtigkait. printed and circulated throughout the territory. The sermon1 s argument was based on the same scrip­ tural passage as Luther had used in his Secular Authority; To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed (1522), namely, Rom. 13:

1-3: Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Who­ soever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. Osiander, however, carried his exegesis further than Luther, not only forbidding the peasants to revolt, but blaming the injustice which they had to suffer upon their own sinfulness: /the higher powers/ are ordained by God, whether they act justly or unjustly, whether they are believers or unbelievers, they are ordained by God, and no subject should resist them with force; rather, he should consider that he has earned such a government because of his sins. . . . If one wants to free himself from

RV 715, 9v; PfRv 4&>» This sermon is to be found in the Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbilttel, catalogued 194 4 Th 4° (22). Hereafter cited as Osiander, WHerz- AugBibl, 194 4 Th 4° (22). 110 an evil, tyrannical government. . • then he must put away the sin with.which he has earned an evil government. One can easily understand why this sermon appealed to the Council. It, however, was not the only exhortation to peace which came from the government in the spring of 1525. April 20 a "proclamation, order, and warning” was issued to the "community, subjects, and common people in the countryside” (gemainer stat underthanen und armleut auf dem land) in which the peasants were warned that they should not come together in unlawful assemblies; that they should not allow themselves to be incited to rebellion by foreign rebels; and that, if necessary, the Council felt fully justified in calling upon the forces of the Swabian League to suppress disturbance. The threat of the use of force was implicit rather than direct, but nevertheless perfectly clear. In conjunction with this general warning, the Council also sent messengers to various villages, urging specific groups of peasants to remain quiescent. In April

620siander, WHerzAugBibl, 194 4 Th 4° (22), 6v-7r.

^ R B 13, lv-3r; Kamann 41-43- At this same time separate proclamations were made to the Genannte and to the ward captains in the city, see below, Chapter 5- Ill and May warnings were sent to Buch,^ Filrth,^ Btthl,^ RBttenbach on the Aisch,^7 and to Lonnerstadt.^ In spite of the Council’s many efforts it became clear that many dissidents would not heed its warnings. It therefore took certain measures to protect its sub­ jects, should insurrection spread in the territory. 1200 soldiers were recruited from the Nurnberg citizenry for 69 the maintenance of order. ^ Well-armed garrisons were then set up, ranging in size from three men to as many as forty men, in Altdorf, Hauseck, Hersbruck, Hohenstein, Lauf, Lichtenau, Reicheneck, and Stirberg.^0 The

6Z,RV 715, 10v.

6% V 715, 13 v; PfRv 495.

66RV 716, lv; PfRv 512.

67rv 716, lv; PfRv 511.

6gRV 716, 21r; PfRv 611.

^ B B 39, 133r-133v; Clas Apel, "Chronik der Stadt Mlzmberg,11 Nilrnberg Stadtbibliothek, 24v-25r, 26r; Reicke, p. 323. The Council feared that if it brought in foreign mercenaries, its subjects might fear that the soldiers would be used against them and thus take cause for revolt. BB 39, 132r. See also Stadtarchiv Nurnberg, 21 April, 1525, Mandate, Rep. A 6.

^°For full information on the staffing of these garrisons and the wages given the soldiers see StAN, S I, L 563, No. 6, Items 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, B, 9, 10, 11 and 16. See also RV 716, 4r, 4v, 3v; PfRv 531, 533, 550; BB 39, 139r; BB 90, 21r. 112 documents clearly show that the garrisons were at their fullest strength from mid-May to mid-June, thus indicating that the Council felt this time to be the period of great­ est danger. The forces in the countryside were to keep the peace, protect Nllrnbergers in case of disturbance, arrest all rebels, and keep the peasant captains under surveillance.7^ The latter duty indicates that the Council realized it could not fully trust its captains. Soldiers were also stationed at the city gates to observe all persons entering or leaving the municipality; only those who would swear that they had not been with the rebellious peasants were allowed entrance.72 Two of the city gates (Vestnertor and Hallertor) were ordered closed for the duration of the danger. The other entrances were closed at night, but opened one half hour after day break, after the tower watchman had carefully checked to see that no peasant armies were to be seen in the vicinity of the city.73 Rural dissidents threatened the welfare of the nuns in the cloisters at Engelthal and Pillenreuth; since the

71BB S9, 103r.

72RV 716, 2Sr.

73Engelhardt, MVGN, XXXIII, 191, and RB 13, 13r. 113 Council was responsible for their protection, it sent emissaries to them, urging them to come to Nttrnberg to take refuge behind the city walls. The religious of Pillenreuth accepted the offer and were housed with the patrician, Conrad Haller. The nuns at Engelthal at first objected; May 15 the Council informed them that it could not be responsible for their protection if they would not either come to Nttrnberg or, if they preferred, go to Hersbruck.74

The immediate danger which the nuns faced came from dissident Nttrribergers. However, as the Council fully realized, a much more serious threat was posed by the peasant annies encamped at V7ttrzburg and Bamberg. Should these forces have decided to move southward against Nttrnberg, they would have found allies not only among rebels in the countryside, but also among sympathizers within the city. To understand this situation, it is necessary next to look at the Councilfs relations with dissatisfied elements in the city, and with the peasant armies to the north.

74BB £9, 200v-201r; PfBr 20£. RV 716, 22r, 25 v, 26r, 26v, 27v; PfRv 614, 631, 633, 635, 643. BB £9, 195r-195v, PfBr 206; Kamann 13-14; Engelhardt, MVGN, XXXIII, 191 • TABLE 1 REGISTER OF PEASANT REBELS

Name Tax Value Penalty Offense

BRUCK (LK Erlangen) Getzman, Cuntz fl. 29 fl. was at Neunkirchen. Miller, Petter was at Wiirzburg. Muller, Marc BestSndner was at Neunkirchen. Schleicher, Hanns fl. 20 was at Wurzburg. Schultheis, Cuntz fl. 50 fl. was at wUrzburg; sent bread to the peasants at Neustadt /a.d. Aisch/ Winkler, Engellhardt fl. 35 was at Neunkirchen by order of his village. BRUNN (LK Nbg) Edt, Hanns fished at Engelthal. BUCH (Stadt Nbg) Hagenmullner, Barthel said that he was in the inn of (Innkeeper) Katherine Haller in Buch, that he had previously sworn neither oath nor vow to anyone, and that, out of poverty, he went to the peasants at Neustadt to serve as a soldier. He stayed with them for fourteen days but helped neither in plunder­ ing nor in burning. TABLE 1— Continued

Name Tax Value Penalty Offense

BURGWEISACH (LK HSchstadt a. d. Aisch) Englhard, Hanns took part in the destruction of Anthon von .Vesstenbergfs house and movable goods in Neustadt. Samelman, Jacob Same as above. DIEPERSDORF (LK Nbg) Nuener, Fritz was at Neunkirchen for one day. Puchler, Cuntz fl. 296 fl. 1 rode out to buy illegally caught fish from the peasants. SchBnl, Steffann fl. 53 Same as above. Schwesser, Hanns fl. 1 was at Neunkirchen. Walther, Hanns fl. SO fl. 1 rode out to buy illegally caught fish from the peasants. DIETERSDORF (LK HBchstadt a. d. Aisch) Linck, Heintz took part in the destruction of Anthon von Vesstenberg’s house and movable goods in Neustadt. EIBACH (Stadt Nbg) Praun, Peter fl* 300 6 days spoke angrily and acted in the arrogantly. "Loch1* Schmidlein, Hanns prolle fl* 21 fl. 1 was with the peasants. H H vn TABLE 1— Continued

Name Tax Value Penalty Offense

ELTERSDORF (LK Erlangen) Alt, Hanns BestSndner was at Neunkirchen. Edelman, Martin fl. 135 fl. 3 Sent bread to the peasants at Neustadt a.d.A. Hoffund, Hanns t was at the battle at Wttrzburg, Hoffman, Hanns BestSndner fl. 1 was with the peasants at Wurzburg. Koler, Fritz fi. 30 was with the peasants, Schreyder, Henstlein Bestandner was at Neunkirchen. Sporl, Hanns fl. 1 was at Neunkirchen. Wylich, Hanns was at Neunkirchen. ENGELTHAL (LK Hersbruck) Mayr, Hanns fl. 1/4 took part in revolt. ERLENSTEGEN (Stadt Nbg) Diem, Wolff said that at the time of the Peasants’ Revolt he was at Ebern for three days with the peasants; he is a poor journey­ man, and his neighbors forced him to go.

FEUCHT (LK Nbg) Ot, Haintz fl. 1 was at wdrzburg with the peasants. Proll, Thomas fl. 30 Same as above. 116 Zeynerlein, Utz was on the Missinger Berg. TABLE 1— Continued

Name Tax Value Penalty Offense

GAISMANNSHOF (Stadt Nbg) Reck, Ulrich fl. 150 fl. said that he was with the peasants at Piber. GEBERSDORP (Stadt Nbg) Mantl, Erhart exiled found guilty of revolt. from Nbg, Spengler, Hanns fl. 250 fl. 12 (Captain) was at Neustadt for removed fourteen days. from office GROSSGRllNDLACH (LK Fttrth) Gutzer, Leonhart was with the peasants for three days. (Kirchehrenbach?) Mair, Hanns fl. 36 went to Furth to see the peasants. Puhler, Michel fl. 50 fl. 4 was at Wurzburg with the (Innkeeper) peasants. Wilhelm, Hanns fl. 170 fl. 3 was with the peasants at Kirchehrenbach for three days. GROSSCHWARZENLOHE (LK Schwabach) Flaischman, Hanns der J. fl. 120 fl. 1 was with the peasants, Herman, Hanns fl. 1 was with the peasants, Herman, Jorg fl. 1 was with the peasants, 117 Steffan, Fritz was with the peasants. TABLE 1— Continued

Name Tax Value Penalty Offense

HAIMENDORF (LK Nbg) N., Peter was with the peasants; did not appear. HEUCHLING (LK Lauf a. d. Pegnitz) Adam, Leonhart fl. i/2 took part in revolt, Friderich, Cuntz fl. 42 fl. i/2 took part in revolt, Gertner, Hanns fl. 22 fl. 1/2 took part in revolt, rrrsfr TVTt fl. ss fl. 1 took part in revolt, fl. 125 fl. 1/2 took part in revolt, Koler, Clas fl. so took part in revolt, Koler, Eberhard fl. 26 took part in revolt, Neyld, Cuntz fl. 1/2 took part in revolt, Neydl, Michel took part in revolt, Ortl, Leonhart fl. 1/2 took part in revolt, Osterreicher, Ulrich fl. 275 fl. 1 took part in revolt, Paulein, Hanns der A. fl. 59 fitted himself out for and began to revolt, Paur, Hanns fl. 1/2 took part in revolt, Pirckel Herman fl. 145 fl. 1 took part in revolt, Ramolt, Cuntz fl. i/2 took part in revolt, Rauscher, Leonhard fl. 3$ fl. i/2 took part in revolt, Riestner, Veit fl. 29 fl. 1/2 took part in revolt. Schaller, Cuntz fl. 175 fl. 10 (Captain) asked his people to take part in revolt. (In case they refused, \ gulden fine?), Schmid, Enndres fl. 50 fl. !/2 took part in revolt, Stahel, Hanns fl. 100 fl. 1/2 took part in revolt, Straim, Cuntz took part in revolt. TABLE 1— Continued

Name Tax Value Penalty Offense

Sychart, Hanns fl* 30 fl* l/2 took part in revolt* HIMMELGARTEN (LK Lauf a. d. Pegnitz) Guendl, Cuntz fl. 1/2 took part in revolt. HQMBEER (LK Neustadt a. d. Aisch) Hartung, Hanns fl. lBO took part in the destruction of Anthon von VesstenbergTs house and movable goods in Neustadt. Hoftaan, Hanns fl. 95 Same as above, Hoftaan, Heintz fl. 120 Same as above, Linck, Margaretha „ fl. 35 Same as above, Plencker, Hanns der A. fl. 250 Same as above, Resch, Cuntz fl. 35 Same as above Senffte, Cuntz fl. 155 Same as above Vogels, Hanns fl. 110 Same as above Weigl, Caspar fl. 95 Same as above KLEINSCHWARZENLOHE (LK Schwabach) Kreutzer, Paulus Bestandner fl. 1 was with the peasants, Lesche, Jacob fl. 2 was with the peasants. KLEINWEISACH (LK Hfcchstadt a. d. Aisch) Hoftaan, Hanns fl* 75 took part in the destruction of Anthon von Vesstenberg*s house and movable goods in Neustadt. TABLE 1— Continued

Name Tax Value Penalty Offense

KORNHOFSTADT (LK Scheinfeld) Heidegenus, Hanns took part in the destruction of Anthon von Vesstenberg,s house and movable goods in Neustadt. KRAFTSHOF (Stadt Nbg) Aichler, Cuntz exiled during the recent revolt, he from was forceably sent by his com- Nbg. raunity (Uttenreut) to Erenpach /Kirchehrenbach?7« While he was there, Uttenreut was burned. Thereafter, he was in Neunkirchen for three days, and then returned home. Packofen, Hanns BestSndner exiled he said, he was a Bestandner from at Erenpach during the recent Nbg. revolt. When revolt began, he went with the peasants, at the urging of his community, for the lot had fallen to him, and they threatened and forced him to do so. He stayed S days with the peasants, and then received | gulden payment from

a widow and went with them for 120 another S days. TABLE 1— •Continued

Name Tax Value Penalty Offense

KUHNHOF (LK Lauf a. d. Pegnitz) Puockl, Haintz took part in revolt. LAUFAMHOLZ (Stadt Nbg) Kolb, Fritz fl. j 1 wanted to see the peasants at Kirchehrenbach. LEINBURG (LK Nbg) Fryess, Hanns fished at Engelthal. Hagn, Frytz fl. 1 1/4 fished at Engelthal. Heypell, Hanns fl. 26 fl. 1 fished at Engelthal. Merll, Eberlen fished at Engelthal. Peckell, Jorg fished at Engelthal. Prechell, Hanns fl. 142 fl. 1 fished at Englethal. Schurbach, Hanns fl. 12# fl. 1 fished at Engelthal. Sperll, Hanns fished at Englethal. Walther, Leinhardt fl. 1/2 fished at Englethal, Pegnitz) Hagen, Herman fl. 1/2 took part in revolt, Lengenfelder, Symon fl. 1/2 took part in revolt, Parth, Hanns fl. 50 fl. !/2 took part in revolt, Pint, Hanns fl. !/2 took part in revolt, Reprecht, Leonhart fl. 1/2 took part in revolt. LEUZENBERG (LK Hersbruck) Fugel, Hanns fl. 700 was at Neunkirchen. 121 Potzner, Hanns (?) fl. 112 was at Neunkirchen. TABLE 1— Continued

Name Tax Value Penalty Offense

LIGHTENHOF (Stadt Nbg) Helmreich, Pangratz exiled said that he was in Bamberg with from Nbg. the peasants, however, that he did not participate in any wrongful action. LOHE (Stadt Nbg) Bischof, Hanns fl. 130 (Captain) was in Neustadt for three days. Schaubler, Clas BestHndner said that of his own free will he wanted to join Duke Hanns as a soldier; on the way he passed the peasants at Neustadt and had to stay with them for £ days, for they did not want to let him go free. He received provisions but no money for his service, and took no part in plundering and destruction. M0GELDORF (Stadt Nbg) Rottner, Wolff fl. was with the peasants in Franconia.

NEUSES (LK Schwabach) n Grafft, Hanns Bestandner was with the peasants. TABLE 1— Continued

Name Tax Value Penalty Offense

OBERKRUMBACH (LK Hersbruck) Anpass, Cuntz fl. 2 took part in revolt, Lufft, Hanns fl. 4 took part in revolt, OBERNDORF (LK Hersbruck) Amon, Hanns fl. 130 was at Neunkirchen. Anpass, Hanns fl. 200 was at Neunkirchen. Is sup­ posed to have acted wrongfully and to have destroyed villages, Gerstacker, Cuntz fl. 150 fl. 4 insulted Hanns Anpass and asked him who his lord was, in answer to which Anpass named his lord in Ndrnberg. Gerstacker answered that the peasants had become lords, and his lord was lord no longer! Gerstacker, Hanns fl. 55 fl. 1 was in Neunkirchen. Kalb, Cuntz fl. 350 fl. 2 insulted Hanns Anpass and con­ demned him for not wanting to help destroy the villages. Kalb*s son is supposed to have gone with a peasant army, Peck, Hanns fl. 310 fl. 10 was at Neunkirchen. Threatened to take Anpass* cow away from him if he would not go with Peck to Neunkirchen. Peurlein, Cuntz fl. 2 was at Neunkirchen. TABLE 1— Continued

Name Tax Value Penalty Offense

(OBERNDORF) Scheffer, Hanns der A. fl. 150 fl. 2 was at Neunkirchen; said that he was summoned by Jorg Scholl, a Vierer (C-emeindevertreter= representative of the com- munity,) Scheffer, Hanns der J. fl. SO fl. 1 was at Neunkirchen. „ Scholl, Jorg fl. 140 fl. 2 summoned Hanns Scheffer d. A.,and Hanns Hesen, a farmer from Leuzenberg, to revolt. OTTENSOOS (LK Lauf a. d. Pegnitz) Pruner, Fritz summoned others to revolt and began rebellion, Peck, Henslein fl. 130 was before the market at Neun­ kirchen but did not go in. Fugs, Linhardt fl. 54 went to but did not enter Neunkirchen. Kemmather, Erhardt fl. 1° Same as above. Wernlein, Hanns fl. SO fl. 1 Same as above PILLENREUTH (LK Schwabach) Gunter, Wolf fl. 1/2 was with the peasants but only to see them in peace. PRETZDORF (LK Hochstadt a. d. Aisch) Frannck, Hanns fl. 55 took part in the destruction ofH Anthon von Vesstenberg’s house jo and movable goods in Neustadt. TABLE 1— Continued

Name Tax Value Penalty Offense

(PRETZDORF) Kremer, Heintz fl. 50 took part in the destruction of Anthon von Vesstenberg’s house and movable goods in Neustadt. Plenckner, Hanns fl. 250 Same as above. Rossner, Heintz fl. 65 Same as above. Schlemner, Hanns Same as above. RAUBERSRIED (LK Schwabach) Fulgat, Jorg fl. 1 took part in revolt, Fulgat, Sebotl fl. 1 took part in revolt, Mayer, Erhart fl. 1 took part in revolt. REICHELSDORF (Stadt Nbg) Paur, Haintz fl. 525 (Captain) in spite of his oath, he is supposed to have taken part in revolt, according to information from his lord. REICHENSCHWAND (LK Hersbruck) Penckolt, Hanns fl. 400 fl. 3 took part in revolt. REUTLES (LK Fxirth) Harscher, Fritz fl. 200 fl. 6 was with the peasants,

r 6'tHENBACH (LK Nbg) Ruprecht, Hanns was with the peasants— did not appear. VtJO TABLE 1— Continued

Name Tax Value Penalty Offense

ROLLHOFEN (LK Lauf a. d. Pegnitz) Hoffman, Fritz fl. 300 fl. 2 was at Neunkirchen. Thrumer, Hertll fl. 170 was at Neunkirchen. Thrumer, Jobst fl. 50 was at Neunkirchen. RflcKERSDORF (LK Lauf a. d. Pegnitz) Dotzer, Cuntz fl. 70 took part in revolt, Hafner, Ullein fl. 200 fl. 1 (Captain) took part in revolt. Lehner, Ot took part in revolt, Mair, Cuntz fl. 1 took part in revolt. Rauch, Hanns took part in revolt, Slosser, Jorg wanted only to see the peasants, Stockel, HaintzStockel, Han fl. 2g fl. 1/2 took part in revolt. Teurl, Peter fl. 100 took part in revolt, Thumler, Hanns took part in revolt, Wagner, Hanns took part in revolt, Wernlein, Hanns took part in revolt, Oser, Jorg (Innkeeper) fl. 399 fl. 2 took part in revolt, Zeiss, Hanns fl. 1 wanted only to see the peasants SPEIKERN (LK Lauf a. d. Pegnitz) Adelman, Cuntz fl. 70 took part in revolt, Foderei*, Hanns fl. 30 fl. 1 was at Neunkirchen; told Jorg Mullner, that he should stay in Neunkirchen, for Foderer xvanted to bring 400 men. Hauer, Frytz fl. 210 fl. 2 took part in revolt. Hauer, Hanns fl. 500 took part in revolt, Haussner, Michl fl. 500 took part in revolt. TABLE 1— Continued

Name Tax Value Penalty Offense

Hoffer, Hanns fl. 40 fl. 1 took part in revolt, Kernmather, Sebastian fl. 130 fl. 2 took part in revolt, Mulner, Jorg fl. 150 fl. 2 took part in revolt, Trummer, Cuntz fl. 45 fl. took part in revolt, yon Speickern, Symon fl. 1/2 took part in revolt. STEINACH (LK FUrth) Gursing, Fritz fl. 770 did not want to swear the oath /of purgation/. Wacker, Jorg fl. 350 fl. 3 sent bread to a peasant army. STEINBtfHL (Stadt Nbg) Rudolff, Hanns exiled summoned others to revolt; said from. he is a shopkeeper (Kramer) Nbg.’ and, because of his business, went back and forth to the peasants. Toberlein, Hanns fl. 1 said that he only wanted to see the peasants, but spent no nights with them. TENNENLOHE (LK Erlangen) Koler, Hanns fl. 185 fl. 1 was at Neunkirchen. Proschel, Hanns fl. 240 fl. 1 wanted to buy some things from the peasants at Neunkirchen.

Roth, Hanns fl. 600 fl. 1 wanted to buy some things from 127 the peasants at Neunkirchen. TABLE 1— Continued

Name Tax Value Penalty Offense

TRUBACH (Obertrubach, LK Pegnitz} Eber, Wolff fl. 1/2 took part in revolt. UNTERHAIDELBACH (LK Nbg) Schon, Steffan fl. 1 (Captain) fished at Engelthal(?) UNTERGALGENHOF (Stadt Nbg) Flad, Wolf a mercenary, was with the peasants at Olting. Morech, Clos was summoned by the peasants and, thereafter, went with them for eight days. Morch, Hanns exiled summoned others to revolt from Nbg WENDELSTEIN (LK Schwabach) Erg, Veit fl. 150 fl. 5 s^nt to the peasants on the Massinger Berg by his community. Herdegen, Hanns fl. 91 fl. 1 Same as above, Kreutzer, Hanns fl. 37 fl. 2 took part in revolt, Kesler, Hanns d. J. fl. 75 fl. 3 sent to the peasants on the MHssinger Berg by his com­ munity. Lemel, Haintz (BestSndner) fl. 17 fl. 3 Same as above, Steinhamm, Jorg fl. 2 took part in revolt, Volckhart, Ullein fl. a fl. 2 took part in revolt. TABLE 1— Continued

Name Tax Value Penalty Offense

WETZENDORF (LK Lauf a. d. Pegnitz) Graw, Georg fl* 250 d. 10 suspected of revolt; did not want to swear the oath & purgation/. Ortelein, Fritz fl. 100 together with Hanns Stetten­ perger, summoned Peter Teurl to rebellion. Pauel, Hanns d. J. or d. X. unclear which of the two sum­ moned others to revolt, and was in Ottensoos. Schelkraut, Fritz d. 10 went to join the peasants, Schelkraut, Veit d. 10 went to join the peasants, Schuser, Stephen d. 10 suspected of revolt, Stettenperger, Hanns together with Fritz Ortlein, summoned Peter Teurl to rebellion. Zitzman, Enndres fl. 37 fl. took part in revolt. ZIEGELSTEIN (Stadt Nbg) Hack, Hanns BestSndner exiled summoned others to revolt; from Nbg. said he was duped by his neighbor to go to Hasslach and join the peasants, but took no overt action against anyone. n ZIEGELHUTTE (Stadt Nbg) Kiess, Cuntz exiled summoned others to revolt. from Nbg, TABLE 1— Continued

Name Tax Value Penalty Offense

ZIEGELHUTTE (Stadt Nbg) Pfas, Hanns was with the peasants; said he was fined by the Territor­ ial Administrator at Hiltpoltstein.

H VO O TABLE 2 TAX VALUES OF NURNBERG HOLDINGS IN COMMUNITIES WITH REBELLIOUS PEASANTS

Community Holdings According to Tax Values Given in Gulden* Property- 1- 50- 100- 200- 300- 400- 500- 600+ less(?) 49 99 199 299 399 499. 599

Bruck (1) 9(4) 13(1) 5 9 2 0 2 3 Brunn (1) 0 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 Buch (1) 6 4 . 6 9 7 1 3 1 Burgweisach (2)

Diepersdorf (2) 6 10(2) 5 5(1) 0 1 0 0 Dietersdorf (1) 3 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 Eibech 2(1) 7 11 4 3(1) 2 0 0 Eltersdorf (3) 10(4) 4 5(1) 5 4 4 0 3 Engelthal (1) Erlenstegen (1) 4 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 Feucht (2) 14(1) 10 S 5 1 2 2 2 Gaismanshof 0 0 2(1) 2 0 1 0 0 TABLE 2— Continued

Community Holdings According to Tax Values Given in Gulden* Property- 1- 50- 100- 200- 300- 400- 500- 600+ less(?) 49 99 199 299 399 499 599

Gebersdorf (1) 2 0 0 3(1) 0 0 1 1 Grossgrflndlach (1) 15(1) 12(1) 11(1) 7 0 1 1 1 Gross- schwarzenlohe (3) 4 3 (1) 4 2 3 1 1 Haimendorf (1) 0 1 3 4 1 0 0 0 Heuchling (7) 7(5) 7(5) 4(4) 1(2) 0 0 0 0 Himmelgarten (1) Hombeer 2(2) 3(2) 5(5) 1(1) 0 0 0 0 Klein- schwarzenlohe (1) 4(1) 3 3 0 3 1 0 4 Kleinweisach 1 1(1) 1 0 0 0 0 0 KornhBfstadt (1) Kraftshof (2) 18 9 5 2 0 0 3 1 Kuhnhof (1) TABLE 2— Continued

Community Holdings According to Tax Values Given in Gulden* Property-■ 1- 50- 100- 200- •300- 400- 500- 600+ less{?) 49 99 199 299 399 499 599

Laufamholz (1 ) 9 13 4 5 0 0 1 2 Leinburg (6 ) au) 8 1 1 (2 ) 7 6 2 1 3 Letten (4) 0 2 (1 ) 1 0 0 0 0 0 Leuzenberg 0 0 1 (1 ) 0 0 0 0 1 (1 ) Lichtenhof (1 ) 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 Lohe (1 ) 2 6 4(1) 6 5 0 0 6 MBgeldorf (1 ) 14 9 3 4 0 1 2 0 Neuses (1 ) 0 1 2 2 2 0 0 2 Oberkrumbach (2 ) Oberndorf (1 ) 0 2 (2 ) 4(4) 2 (1 ) 2 (2 ) 0 1 0 Ottensoos (1 ) 12 3(3) 4(1) 4 1 0 0 0 Pillenreuth (1 ) Pretzdorf (1 ) 1 4(3) 0 1 (1 ) 0 0 0 0 TABLE 2— Continued

Community Holdings Accordin,g to Tax Values Given in Gulden* Property- 1- 50- 100- 200- 300- 400- 500- 600+ lessl?) 49 99 199 299 399 499 599

Raubersried (3) 6 0 1 1 3 2 0 1 Reichelsdorf 6 5 2 1 3 1 3(1) 0 Reichenschwand 0 0 0 0 0 1(1) 0 0 Reutles 2 5 4 1(1) 0 0 0 0 RSthenbach (1) Rollhofen 0 1(1) 1(1) 0 1(1) 0 0 0 Rftckersdorf (6) 6(1) 4(1) 2(1) 2(1) 1(1) 1 0 1 Speikern 6(3) 3(1) 5(3) 4(1) 0 0 1(2) 0 Steinach (1) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1(1) Steinbuhl (2) 10 1 3 1 0 0 1 2 Tennenlohe 4 3 5(1) d(D 3 0 0 4(1) Trubach 1(1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unterhaidelbach (1) TABLE 2— Continued

Community Holdings According to Tax Values Given in Gulden* Property-- 1- 20- 100- 200- '300- 400- 500- 600+ less (? ) 49 99 199 299 399 499 599

Untergalgenhof (3) 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Wendelstein (1 ) 1S(3) 22(2 ) 11 (1 ) 4 3 1 2 7 Wetzendorf (4) 2 (1 ) 3 4(1) 5(1) 0 2 0 5 Ziegelstein (1 ) 11 5 5 0 2 0 0 0 Ziegelhtttte (2 ) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

^Parentheses indicate rebels.

H VjO Vi 136

FIGURE 2— NURNBERG VILLAGES WITH REBELLIOUS PEASANTS*

t UKferOnittft

•TennQMtoAe x o tlfy c ftn ObrzntmtHKh- KfafyswtAftf* * f ’eufles P itltn m r f tubxhof &0zM6trf tu r im ts a th • S^eiktm qna-qratid/ait VrttzAorf\ \ KtmUinS %f(ounkof hombu'DAM*- • • • • T»«« ; h______*6btm lcrf VamljSftiaiSt KlVtisa p e r « ),r. f utismemmhof 9 • t ( j t n i o r f w eikm hof &iv*i* Mntfjaidtlbadu • qtoeworf ZtU H H • JftOnnbadi kk*m TiSckbadf * “**»%* I •€***, J tte n fk tt . XStmnbCKh'

to ta tf ALTDQRF Ttutkb o PfykkMtrf f*$*nlt*HS9K tyfftenbacft 8 SrefziHjarfaH' VaffetrftoftH' 9k&tf6er£ 9 H’tn d e ls ts in ^ ^ ’ 4 7afelft9f Vfdiopptrtkof 1 Sihdtni&ftt SOdtiwhif 11 M lztrsfa f fteurtr •&•frttbersritd 2 (fosfenfjof €tiHhr$aQt*fiof IZQrossmtffik.dM tjr.SthrarzaibSu SSM hMU 7&*{kmdfyU 13 XlitnrtH#t &cLU

This map taken from Lawrence P. Buck, "Die Haltung der Nflrnberger Bauernschaft im Bauernkrieg,n Altnttrnbereer Landschaft. Mitteilungen. XIX (December, 19 7 & ) 9 7b• TABLE 3

ABSENTES: nBr NBERG PEASANTS WHO DID NOT APPEAR TO TAKE THE OATH OP PURGATION ------AND WHO THEREFORE WERE SUSPECTED OF REBELLIOUS ACTIVITY.

Name Tax Value Name Tax Value of the of the Holding Holding

ALTENFURT (LK Nbg) DIEPERSDORF (LK Nbg) Rot, Hanns Gretl, Hanns Hafner, Haintz fl. 20 BOXDORF (LK Fttrth) Wagner, Steffan fl. 70 Peltzer, Hanns Peck, Haintz „ fl. 250 ERLENSTEGEN (Stadt Nbg) Peck, Hanns d. A. fl. 350 Ulmaister, Jorg Widraan, Hanns fl. 55 BRETZENGARTEN (Stadt Nbg) Dorn, Steffan FISCHBACH (LK Nbg) Pirndoner, Peter BRUCK (LK Erlangen) Geger, Cuntz fl. 26 GERSDORF (LK Nbg) Marsch, Hanns Schmid, Hanns Neythart, Hanns fl. 300 Neythart, Martin fl. 250 GOSTENHOF (Stadt Nbg) Werlein, Hanns Durner, Cuntz Freitag, Fritz DEUTENBACH (LK Nbg) Geyersperger, Sebasten Lemmerraan, Endres Hulbolt, Cuntz d. J. fl. 500 Neuner, Fritz Pecht, Hanns fl. 220 TABLE 3— Continued

Name Tax Value Name Tax Value of the of the Holding Holding

(GOSTENHOF) GROSSCHWARZENLOHE (LK Schwabach) Reutman, Hanns Schmid, Jorg fl. 220 Schmid, Cuntz d. J* HADERm UhLE (Stadt Nbg) GROSSGRUNDLACH (LK Furth) No one appeared to take the Drescher, Hanns oath. (There vrere 9 Nftrn- Hofhan, Jorg bergers in HadermiJhle.) Puler, Michel (Innkeeper) fl. 50 Wacker, Jorg HAGENHAUSEN (LK Nbg) Zigler, Cuntz Mulner, Hanns (Innkeeper) GROSSREUTH (Stadt Nbg) HAIMENDORF (LK Nbg) Flaischman, Hanns fl. 12 Dinckelmeir, Cuntz fl. 200 Grafe, Cuntz fl. 60 Dinckelmeir,' Jorg fl. 50 Ganans, Hanns Hafner, Peter Hegenberger, Hanns fl. SO Widman, Ulrich fl. ISO Hirt, Hanns Hurlmess, Hanns fl. 355 HOFLES (Stadt Nbg) Kisskalt, Hanns Eb erhart, Hanns Schmidt, Cuntz fl. 130 Pauman, Fritz Schneider, Hanns Schmid, Jorg Vischer, Hanns Stenntz, Ullein fl. 410 Vollat, Haintz fl. 191 Wagner, Peter fl. 142 KETZELSHOF (Stadt Nbg) Zigler, Hanns Loss, Jorg Zoll, Peter fl. 2636 Osterlein, Jorg TABLE 3— Continued

Name Tax Value Name Tax Value of the of the Holding Holding

KITZENAU (=Scheerau LK Nbg) KdHBERG (Stadt Nbg) Castler, Hanns Ostendorfer, Hanns KLEINGRtJNDLACH (LK Fttrth) LICHTENHOF (Stadt Nbg) Guman, Hanns Weiss, Endreas fl. 60 KLEINREUTH (Stadt Nbg) LOHHOF (Stadt Nbg) Dratz, Veyt fl. 30 Paur, Eberlein fl. 300 Flaischman, Fritz Gotz, Cuntz fl. 909 MALMSBACH (LK Nbg) Hurlmess, Sebolt fl. lS9 N., Jorg der Rotin Knecht Minderlein, Ott fl. 100 Vischer, Thomas Och, Haintz fl. 266 „ Ochsel, Albrecht MOGELDORF (Stadt Nbg) Ponacker, Hanns fl. 43 Peringer, Hanns Rodner, Haintz fl. 285 Pfanolt, Claus Vierling, Jorg fl. 140 Kessler, Jacob K8NIGSMUHLE (LK Filrth) NEUNHOF (Stadt ISJbg) Crafft, Hanns Hennsslein, Heintzleins Hirt, Erla KORNBURG (LK Schwabach) Kerapfer, Hanns Bestandner fl. 4 ^ Goiler, Jorg Manser, Sebolt Reichart, Peter Popp, Endres fl. 5 Prul, Karl fl. 365 Schlecht, Leonhart TABLE 3— Continued

Name Tax Value Name Tax Value of the of the Holding Holding

(NEUNHOF) SCHOPPERSHOF (St. Nbg) Schmid, Jorg Gabler, Haintz Vorster, Cuntz kun Meusei, Haintz OBERGALGENHOF (Stadt Nbg) SPEIKERN (LK Lauf a. d. Pegnitz) Schlecht, N. Prenner, Michel PATTENHOFEN (LK Nbg) STEINB0HL (Stadt Nbg) Mair, Jorg Gerkhaymer, Ebolt Speiser, Mertin REICHELSDORF (Stadt Nbg) Angerer, Jorg SONDERSB^HL (Stadt Nbg) Mair, Hanns fl. 60 Arnolt, Hanns Franck, Hanns fl. 150 REUTLES (LK Fttrth) Mulner, Hanns fl. 130 Ber, Wolf TAFELHOF (Stadt Nbg) R0THENBACH bei Schweinau (Stadt Nbg) Kerner, Endres Weigl, Endres Kisenpaum, Hanns BestSndner fl. 25 Sylber Nagl, Symon ROTHENBACH bei St. Wolfgang (LK Schwabach) THON (Stadt Nbg) Renner, Ulein Crafft, Hanns fl. 247 Strobel, Ulrich fl. 390 Gartner, Ulrich fl. 530 Hofler, Hanns fl. 942 TABLE 3— Continued

Name Tax Value Name Tax Value of the of the Holding Holding

(THON) WORZELDORF (LK Schwabach)' Pessolt, Herman Franck, Hanns Rodner, Hanns ' Rodner, Ulrich fl. 300 ZIEGELSTEIN (Stadt Nbg) Kellner, Jorg UNTERGALGENHOF (Stadt Nbg) Prechtl, Peter Schmid, Haintz Vorster, Jorg WEICKERSHOF (Stadt Fxlrth) Masster, Hanns fl. 350 Reck, Hanns WENDELSTEIN (LK Schwabach) Volckart, Seitz Wagner, Jacob WETZENDORF (Stadt Nbg) Och, Hanns, Eschenloher Hof Paur, Walther, zu S. Johannes Vischer, Hanns, zur Schnepfenreuth Wurfpain, Hanns CHAPTER V

nI5rnberg*s reaction to the threat op attack, 1525

The existence of a group of urban malcontents chal­ lenged the authority of the Nttrnberg Council and posed the danger of civil insurrection in the summer of 1524* The government, by means of execution and exile was able to control the situation, but, since the measures taken were more repressive than remedial, difficulties between the Council and its urban subjects appeared again the next year. Evidence of the causes and consequences of urban dissatisfaction is less copious for 1525 than for the year before, but it is nevertheless clear that there was a significant amount of revolutionary sentiment within the NUrnberg urban population, and that this caused the city fathers to fear that the urban dissidents might join with the rural-rebels should the city be attacked by the peasant armies at wflrzburg. These armies threatened to move against the city in May, 1525* The Council was thus faced with the awesome possibility of simultaneous aggres­ sion from without and revolt from within. This danger prompted it to take certain drastic steps to redress its citizens* grievances. 142 143 It seems clear that these reforms, instituted by governmental mandates of May 23 and June 2 were taken in response to the ever-increasing threat of attack which reached its most dangerous proportions late in May, 1525* As a result of.the Councilfs remedial measures, the dissi­ dents seem to have been conciliated. However, it is difficult to discover how successful these measures were, for the forces of the Swabian League defeated the peasant armies besieging wUrzburg early in June, and the imminent threat of attack thus dissipated. Hence the allegiance of the NUrnberg populace was never brought to the crucial test. The fact that the worst consequences were avoided, however, should not blind one to the extent of urban dis­ content or to the seriousness of the Council*s situation. It is the purpose of the following chapter to describe this situation and to document the threat which prompted the Council to reverse its policy and to adopt a more con­ ciliatory attitude toward its dissident subjects. The wide dissemination in NUrnberg of the Twelve Articles of the Swabian Peasants indicates that the urban populace was sympathetic with peasant demands. In a letter of March 24, 1525, to its representatives at the Swabian League, the Council referred to this work as having been "given great consideration by the common man in the cities and countryside,” and as having "received wide dissemination 144 in our city.”1 In his critical edition of the Articles, Alfred GcJtze mentions four possible printings of them in Nttrnberg.2 One of these seems to have been made by Hieronymus HBltzel,^ who, the year before, had printed one of Carlstadt’s works, as well as another pamphlet which the Council confiscated because of its social revolutionary content. HBltzel was imprisoned in May, 1525* for deliv­ ering an "evil, improper speech** in Nttrnberg.^ While he was in prison the Council intercepted a letter from the peasant army at Wurzburg to HBltzel which urged the printer to arouse support for the peasant cause among the Nvirnberg populace. If Gotze is correct, it appears that Nilmberg printers did much to create popular support for the peasant cause. Until late in May, 1525* the Council attempted to control or avert civil insurrection in its city by means of warnings, exhortations, and the issuance of mandates. In an April 21 directive to the ward captains, it warned of certain Nttrnbergers who dared to foment rebellion among

■^GOnther Franz, Quellen. p. 320; BB £9, 47r.

^Alfred GBtze, **Die zwolf Artikel der Bauern, 1525*’* Historische Viertel.iahrschrift. V (1902), pp. 19* 20, 22, W l

3Ibid.. p. 30.

716, 27r; PfRv 641. 145 the urban and rural subjects.'* The captains were asked to attempt to dissuade the citizenry from sedition, to report all such activity to a Mayor or other Council member, to pay special attention to the artisans’ involvement in rebellion, and, finally, to urge their own servants (Knecht, diener und eehalten) to be faithful and obedient. Prom this mandate it is clear that the government was especially suspicious of the artisans, workers, and servants resident within its walls. The seriousness of the danger is apparent from the fact that the Great Council (Genannte) was assembled and informed of ’’all kinds of inopportune speeches against the £ Council which are totally unwarranted.” Members of the Great Council were requested to attempt to dissuade others from insurrection and to inform a Mayor of any disturbance. One factor which helped create excitement about and sympathy for the peasant cause was a rumor, circulated and popularly believed in the city, to the effect that the Swabian League had lost the war to the peasants; that the latter had defeated a force of 1300 mounted soldiers of the League. The Council wrote its representatives at the League that no arguments could convince the populace of

^Stadtarchiv Nttrnberg, Ratsmandat 21 April, 1525; PfBr 193; RV 716, 3v; PfRv 526.

6BB 13, lr; Pf. p. 71. 146 the error of this report.7 It may have been in an attempt to counter this canard that the Council had the Treaty of Weingarten printed.^ This agreement was concluded between the pea­ sants of the Algau and Lake Constance regions and the Swabian League; it was made because the League’s commander, Georg Truchsess, hesitated to join battle since his forces were outnumbered 12,000 to 7*000.^ The peasants, though they held the upper hand, feared combat, for their forces had just been defeated thirteen days earlier at Leipheim. They promised to disband their armies, to swear obedience to their lords, and to pay all of their dues and obliga­ tions until a court of arbitration could meet to decide on their grievances. The Weingarten Treaty was thus a negotiated victory for the League in the face of over­ whelming military odds. If Pfeiffer is correct in identifying the treaty of the League3,0 (pundtischen vertrag) mentioned in the documents as the Weingarten Treaty, then it would appear that the Council was attempting to counter rumor of peasant military success with factual argument

7BB 69, 132v-133r.

% V 716, 9v; PfRv $60, see especially note 560.

^Franz, p. 133*

10RV 7i 6, 9v ; PfRv 560. 147 to the contrary. The Councilfs attempts to dissuade its urban sub­ jects from supporting the peasantry seem to have had little success; in May its letters speak of ’’revolt among our citizenry which increases and grows stronger each day, and of ’’our community which is most impertinent, wanton, and improper (which is the most alarming thing for us).”'1'2 Hoping to contain the growing urban dis­ turbance, the Council attempted to cut off communication between its citizens and peasant rebels. To this end it ordered the guards at the city gates to watch espe­ cially for foreign peasants and messengers who might be bringing letters from the insurgents to specific Nurn- bergers or to the community as a whole.^ This measure, taken May 20, had immediate results; on the same day the Council intercepted a letter to the imprisoned printer, Hieronymus HBltzel, written for the array at wUrzburg by one of the leaders, the pastor at Mergentheim, Bernhard Bubenleben, containing **many poisonious statements” which the printer was to dissimi- nate in uHrnberg.^

1:LBB 39, 220v; May 20, 1525. 12BB 39, 231 v; PfBr 219; May 26, 1525. ^ B B 13, 13r. ■^BB 39, 220r; PfBr 215; Milliner, An. 466v. During the last week of May the Council took further steps to control communication between the rebels and its citizenry. For example, it wrote to the peasants assembled at Bamberg warning them not to incite revolt in Nilrriberg through letters, as certain rebellious Nttmbergers in their assembly had suggested.^ it also wrote to the peasant army on the Aisch, bitterly complaining about letters sent to the community as a whole rather than to the Council, which attempted to circumvent the authority • of the latter and to arouse dissent within the populace. May 27 the insurgents at Wttrzburg wrote to the Ntlrnberg citizenry, urging it to attempt to induce the Council to support their movement.1? The letters to the community were confiscated at the city gates. May 29 the Council intercepted two more letters from the wttrzburg array to the Nttrnberg populace.1** Their attempt to foment rebellion within the citi­ zenry was not the only danger which the peasant armies posed for the Ntlrnberg authorities. They also demanded that the Council compromise its stated policy of neutrality

1^BB £9, 236v ; Kamann, p. 50.

1^bb £9, 239r; Kamann, p. 51,

l7Mttllner, An., 457 r.

1**BB £9, 250r; Kamann, p. 52. 149 and give or sell them munitions with which to carry on the war. Behind this request there stood the threat of reprisal if they were refused. The first such petition for aid came from the assembly at Schmalkalden early in MayThe Council replied that its situation was so dangerous that it needed all of its munitions for its own protection. Besides, its policy was one of neutrality, and since it had refused to equip certain princes and magistrates it must also refuse the peasants. May 13 a delegation from Wftrzburg representing the Oden Forest and Necker Valley peasant armies presented another such request. The-Council, taking this opportunity to put forth a full statement of its policy of neutrality, told the peasants that it had never opposed them, had always sympathized with the suffering caused them by feuding nobles, had attempted to maintain the Holy Gospel and redress grievances, and, except for the rendering of aid to the Swabian League, to which it was bound by oath, it had always denied aid to princes opposing the peasants. The Council urged the rebels not to advance against the city because, if they did, they would cause Nllrnbergers to revolt, and because, as a free imperial city and a

19RV 716, 19r; PfRv 604; BB 69, 170r; PfBr 202; Gflnther Franz, 0. Merx, Walther Peter Fuchs (eds.), -Akten zur Geschichte des Bauernkriegs in Mitteldeutschland. Vol'. II (Aalen: Scientia Verlag, 1964), *414« 150 member of the Swabian League, it could not join i n union with the peasantry anyway. Besides, if the armies came they would suffer from a shortage of provisions because of the barren soil around Ntlrnberg (durren podens und erdtreichs)!2^ The delegates replied that their intention was to attack the Margrave, who, acting against God, honor, law, and justice had hurt many people including Nurnberg. They therefore wanted the Council to provide them with cannon, gunpowder, and men. The city fathers replied that since the Margrave was a member of the Swabian League it could not provide material to be used against him. The representatives responded that if this were the CouncilTs final answer, it must be willing to accept the consequences of its decision; should Ntlrnberg later need aid from the peasants, it would be denied. The delegates stated that it might iirell be that the Council would need the peasants before they would need it. The chronicler Milliner remarks that after saying this the peasants "left with such defiance and arrogance, as if the whole world belonged to them, and they secretly declared to certain persons that they intended to tolerate no house in the entire country which was better than a peasantfs house.n23-

20RB 13, 8 v f.; Pf. pp. B5-S6. ^Milliner, An., 455 r. 151 Another request for munitions to be used against the Margrave came from the peasant assembly on the Aisch; this petition was denied May 27*22 On June 3 Nflrnberg denied yet another appeal for material, this time from the rebels gathered at Kirchehrenbach.23 Although the Council*s official policy was to refuse sale of military provisions to the peasants, it did not attempt to enforce this regulation so rigorously as to create a point of contention between itself and its citi­ zenry. In fact, it clearly stated to its representatives at the Swabian League that, if it had forbidden its citi­ zens to sell or send anything to the peasants, then it would have had the greatest and most destructive war in its own city; therefore, it was tolerant of its citizens* providing munitions for the rebels.2^ Various chroniclers make note of the provisions which the insurgents obtained in NOrnberg;23 one mentions that the peasants obtained

22BB £9, 239 r; Kamann p. 51*

23BB 90, 7r.

2/*BB 90, 19r; PfBr 241.

23Leonhard Gasstl, MPauern-Rais,11 quoted in Sebas­ tian Englert, Per Massinger Bauernhaufe und die Haltung der bedrohten FUrsten (Bichstatt: Programm des Kgl. Gymnasiums feichsthtt, lfi95)> p. xii; Milliner, Annalium 457v; Lorenz Fries, Geschichte des Bauernkrieges in Ostfranken (Wllrzburgj Henner and Schhffler, l£7?) > p. 6'7. 152 three centners of gunpowder. 2^ Late in May the Council ordered Nttrriberg gunpowder makers to deliver all their production to the Council.27 Whether this was an attempt to cut off the illicit supply of munitions to the peasants or merely a measure taken to ensure adequate reserves for the city’s protection is unclear. Although in its correspondence of April and early May the Council repeatedly spoke of the peasant threat as a real danger,2** it nevertheless appears that after mid-May the peril reached its most serious proportions. May 13 the peasant delegation from Wurzburg departed threatening to leave no house standing which was better than a peasant’s house; two days later the Council wrote to Christoph Kress, its representative at the Swabian League, demanding that the forces of the League come from Swabia to Franconia, or at least that 400 to 500 cavalrymen and 3,000 infantrymen be sent to render aid.2^ This request for aid was repeated May 17^° and May IS.-*1

2^Fries, Ibid.. p. 67. 27RV 716, 30v, May 17, 1525; RV 717, 4v, May 20, 1525. 2gBB 39, 73r, 133v-135r, 152v-154r, 174v-175v; RB 13, 3v ff. 29BB 39, 205r-206v. 3°RV 716, 30v. 31RV 717, 2r; PfRv 663. 153 The danger grew radically worse in mid-May princi­ pally because at that time the army at wttrzburg decided to change its battle plan, diverting the planned campaign against Margrave Casimir to an offensive against the Ntlrn- berg territory* This the Council learned on the afternoon of May 20 when a Nttrnberg “spy" whose best friend was one of the most important leaders of the peasant army, returned to make his report. He revealed that "the army /at wflrz- burg7 has given up its strategy of attacking the Margrave, and has concluded and is preparing shortly to overrun us /Mrnberg7 and intends to leave none of our houses or country villages (Flecken) standing."^ Upon learning this the Council immediately sent off another urgent request to Clemens Volckamer, asking that troops from the League be sent immediately.33 The desperateness of the situation is evident from the fact that W o days later yet another demand for aid was sent with the added threat that Nurnberg would not send any money to support the League if troops were not forth­ coming.^ Fearing that the League could not be relied on for military support, the Council sent to the Lake Constance

32BB 39, 219v.

33BB 39, 220v. 3i*BB 39, 224r-224v. 154 region, hoping to hire mercenaries for the protection of the city. Its agents informed it, however, that there were no soldiers there to be hired.35 Leonhard von Eck, Chancellor to the Duke of Bavaria, gave an accurate description of NUrnberg’s situation after May 20 in a letter to Duke Wilhelm dated May 25# 1525s The situation in Ntlrnberg is such that, if aid is not sent them within eight days their city will be lost. For they have neither courage, arras, or reason, and those who previously wanted to rule the whole world, who were known for and have boasted about their arms, power, and reason are now no longer safe /even/ in their bathhouses, and don’t know, how to keep their city from the peasants. On May 25, the same day that Eck wrote this comment, the Council received word from Clemens Volckamer that the League had given permission for the sending of 200 cavalry­ men and 2,000 infantrymen to Nttrnberg, for use in case of dire necessity. However by that time the situation had already reached its most dangerous proportions, and the Council, hoping to avert rebellion within its own domain should the Wttrzburg rebels attack, had reversed its policy, adopting a more conciliatory stance toward its own dissidents.

35BB 89, 231v.

^Friedrich Roth, Die Einfflhrung der Reformation in Nflrnberg. 1517-152#. nach den Quellen dargestellt (V/Urz- bu'rg: A. Stuoners Verlagsbuchnandlung, lo8*>), p. 170* 155 The first major policy reversal came in a mandate of May,23 which dealt vrith the payment of tithes in the countryside. The following document was decreed in Council and circulated in printed form: Out of Christian motivation and for the maintenance of Christian peace and unity among its subjects and common people regarding tithes, and because heretofore all kinds of revolts, improprieties, and acts of violence have taken place among the subjects of other lords and authori­ ties, the honorable Council of the city of Niirnberg resolves, orders, and desires that /the following ordinance/ be maintained and followed exactly by all its citizens and subjects and their dependents. Namely, that all the living tithes such as /those on/ foals, calves, lambs, pigs, goats, ducks, hens, fish, and the like, and like­ wise the small tithe which men call the dead tithe, such as /tithes on/ buckwheat, millet, peas, hay, hops, herbs, turnips, plants, hemp, flax, and all other legumes be completely dead and abolished and no citizen or subject of the Council, neither spiritual nor temporal, nor any dependent of the same may henceforth claim, demand or take /them/. But concerning the hard or great tithe, it shall be taken or given only on the following grains, namely /on/ rye, wheat, spelt, barley, and oats; yet where, at certain places, according to tradition a fifth, a twentieth, or thirtieth part or no tithe at all is taken or given from the tenancies, there it shall henceforth so remain, regardless of this order of the honorable Council. The promulgation of this decree was a radical step for the Council. Only one year before, its jurisconsults had informed it that abolition of the tithe would be

37rv 717, Br; PfRv 692; RB 13, 13v; Kamann, pp. 43-44* 156 contrary to imperial law and beyond its legal competence.3** Throughout 1524 it had strongly resisted such a move, seeking rather to attack the problem by means of stern exhortations and warnings. Its peasantry, however, had remained dissatisfied. Now, faced with attack from out­ side, it abolished by executive fiat the living and small tithes in an attempt to conciliate the dissidents. With this decision two questions immediately were raised: Must Nttrnberg subjects pay dues to non-Ndrnberg tithe lords, and, might Ndrnberg tithe lords continue to collect payments from non-Ndrriberg subjects. June 30 it was decided that ’’Ndrnbergers from whom the small tithe is demanded by foreign lords. • • are responsible for making payment as they have done in the p a s t . "39 August 10 the Council informed the nuns of Pillenreuth that they might continue to demand tithes from foreigners, such as from margraviate or Eichstdtt subjects.4® The other quarter from which a threat to the Council came was the dissatisfied urban proletariat. Attempting to guard its flanks from this direction also the Council

3dRatschl. b. 4, 13 6r ff.; PfRs 3.

39RV 716, llr; PfRv 762.

4°RV 720, 2r. 157 made some sweeping policy changes which affected its urban subjects. May 23, the same day on which the new tithe ordinance was promulgated, it ordered consideration of a brief on taxes and ground rents in the city. Out of this deliberation developed an extensive ordinance which was proclaimed June 2. Its purpose was to conciliate the urban dissidents, especially the poor, by lightening the burden of taxation and other payments for which they had previously been responsible.^ The mandate of June 2 consists of eight specific concessions, the first of which allowed leaseholders to free their tenancies of tributes and ground rents by means of a money payments First, the honorable Council has considered the fact that many persons in Ndrnberg are in many way3 greatly aggrieved because the inheritance of their domicile and other holdings situated in Ndrnberg must remain burdened for ever and ever with tributes (wevsaten) and perpetual ground rents (ewigen aigenzinsen) and, even if the leaseholders do properly acquire the money with which to redeem their inheritance (erbrecht) /freeing it/ from the burden of such perpetual tribute and ground rents, it is not within their power to do so, because /the tributes and ground rents7 have been sold in perpetuity; furthermore, this situa­ tion has not served the common good. /therefore/, in order that a Christian,

^■RB 13, l6v-19r; Kamann, pp. 44-4#. Incomplete copies may also be found in Staatsarchiv Nurnberg, S II, L 92, No. 23, and in Stadtarchiv Ndrnberg, Ratsmandat 2 June, 1525. An edited version is also in PfBr 231•' 153 honorable way, profitable for the common man, may be followed, let it henceforth be observed: that in the future at any time of the year it shall be within the power and option of every citizen of this city Nttrriberg to buy back from the landlord of those holdings, and to discontinue all and every tribute and ground rent by which his house or-other holdings situated in NUrn- berg have heretofore been burdened, regard­ less of whether they were sold as irre­ deemable and in perpetuity, /according to the following schedule/: Namely, a per­ petual annuity in the amount of a gulden of municipal valuation /is to be redeemed with/ twenty-seven gulden; a perpetual annuity in the amount of a Rhenish gulden with twenty- five gulden; a perpetual payment in kind of hens or butter, and any other perpetual trib­ ute to be found in this city /is to be redeemed/ at the rate of one pfennig tribute to twenty-five pfennigs /payment/. If, how­ ever, the same tribute should not be rated or if any other difficulties should arise between the landlords and the lease holders, the Council will properly decide according to justice and equity; however /In such a way/ that the ground rents and tribute will not be redeemed separately but rather together and at one time with a prescribed purchase price and in gold. • . .42 The second clause, taking into consideration the rise in price of gold, granted permission for house rents (aigen-. gatter und hausszins) to be paid in silver coinage rather than in gold: And since the citizens of this city, in the payment of their house rent have strongly complained about the valuation or rise in the price of gold, in order to help the common man in this matter and likewise to redress this grievance, henceforth all the Council’s citizens in this city shall be

^Kamann, pp. 44-45 159 allowed to pay their house rent in silver coinage /according to the following rate/: for one Rhenish gulden, eight pounds and twelve pfennigs or fifteen Batzen: and for one gulden of municipal valuation, nine pounds and two pfennigs; likewise the leaseholders or Bestandner shall not be responsible for paying their lords for their ground rent or bouse rent any more than is here stated. Under certain conditions, the third concession opened up property ownership and more precisely rights of inher­ itance to persons who formerly had not been owners of real estate Heretofore, in accordance with the /Tegal/ ’’Reformation” of the city, every landlord has been offered the right of inheritance to the houses, sheds, or gardens situated in this city, which he possessed, when /such holdings/ were sold. He then has had the option and authority to retain for him­ self the right of inheritance /to that property/ which was offered for sale and sold or to allow it to devolve to the purchaser. So that again in such /matters just equality may be ’’Reformation” shall be followed in the sale of advertised inheritance rights which lie in this city NUrnberg and they shall /first7 be offered to every landlord. He shall*"then have the power to retain for himself at the set price the right of inheritance which is advertised, offered, and sold /with the stipulation/ however, that he accept and retain such property or holding directly for himself or one of his children and for no one else. If /he chooses7 not /to purchase the inheritance right/he shall then be obliged in all other cases to allow the sold holding to devolve to the purchaser without any burdens and at the

43Ibid.. p. 45 ' ; 160 value at which it was offered him and to agree to the closed purchase as the land- lord.H Fourth, the Council lightened the burden of the indi­ rect beverage tax (Ungeld) by removing the requirement that it be paid entirely in gold. The significance of this policy change becomes apparent when one recalls that only one year before two men, a draper’s apprentice from Nttrnberg and an innkeeper from wBhrd, had been put to death for urging the Nttrnberg citizenry to organize in opposition to the beverage tax. In making this concession the Council made special note of the grievances of inn­ keepers and other beverage venders: Furthermore, . • • the common beverage tax (Ungeld) traditionally has been collected for the faithful maintenance of this city and the common good, /and/ has been paid by everyone only in gold. However, since many citizens of this city, especially those who must make their living with beverages, /such as/ keepers of wine taverns, innkeepers, and beer brewers, have strongly complained, . . . the honorable Council orders that henceforth the common beverage tax be paid only half in gold /and/ the other half in good silver coinage /according to the following schedule/, namely, for one Rhenish gulden, eight pounds twelve pfennigs or fifteen Batzen. and for one gulden of /city/ valuation. • . nine pounds and twelve pfennigs. This is indeed a measure which, in the Council’s opinion, considering the high value of gold, the situation of the city, and the current conditions, should appease every citizen of

^ I b i d ., pp. 45-46. 161 this city and which properly should in no way cause grievance.45 Conditions for the collection of another municipal levy, the market tax (Marktgeld) were changed in the fifth concession. The Council abolished the "great market tax” (gross marckgelt) which was collected from house to house five times a year; "common stallage" (marckmaister

gewenlichen marckgelt). however, continued to be collected •• In addition, the great market tax which heretofore has been paid annually at the usual Quatember /Wednesday to Saturday after Invocavit. Pentecost, September 14, and December 12/ and on Michaelmas /Sep­ tember 2^7 by the citizens and which has been called for and collected from house to house by the servant of the city judge, shall be completely abolished and no longer paid or given. However, the common stallage (marckmaister gewenlichen marckgelt) shall continue /to be collected/ as before.4° The Council lightened not only secular but also ecclesiastical levies; fees for the performance of church orders were abolished: Heretofore the priors of both parish churches, the preachers and other sacristans, as well as both parsonages (pfarhBfe) have been abundantly supplied by the annual revenues of the churches, which have been called stipends, such as the daily offering and other /such payments/, which the citizenry of this city has had to pay. However, since such revenues are not based on the Word of God, . . • and since they have been

45Ibid.. p. 46.

^Ibid. 162 somewhat grievous for-the common man, especially for the poor and impecunious, the Council has completely abolished this same revenue and has ordered that hence­ forth nothing at all be given as any kind of offering for administering the sacra­ ment, hearing confessions, baptizing children, saying of masses for the dead, and all such like, whatever they be called.47 The seventh stipulation of the June 2 mandate called for the deduction of 100 gulden from the tax value of all citizens in the calculation of their tax assessments. Thus, poor persons with a tax value of less than 100 gulden were granted tax exemption: It is generally known what excessive costs the Council has incurred on account of daily attacks, feuds, military manoeuvres, and aid to the Empire and the /Hwabian/ League .... Thus, for the maintenance of this honorable city government and out of great necessity in this difficult situation the Council has undertaken to make a common tax assessment among its citizenry, in which, however, the common poor citizen of this city shall be given special considera­ tion. Each of the Council*s citizens shall deduct 100 gulden from the amount of his goods on which he normally would have to pay taxes, and shall not be responsible for giving a tax assessment for this amount. Thus the common man with a wealth of about 100 gulden or less is completely freed this time from this tax assessment, as well as from the four pounds which he heretofore had to give, and the well-to-do must carry the burden of this tax assessment for the poor. . • .4°

*-7Ibid.. pp. 46-47.

^ Ibid.. p. 47. 163 Finally, the Council restated its policy of pro- I viding its poor artisans with a supply of grain in times of inflation: In addition, in case of inflation the Council i'ri.11 be willing to provide for its community with its supply of grain which it orders and maintains at great cost. Accordingly, at times of such inflation /the Council/ hereto­ fore has always acted faithfully and has always allowed the poor and impecunious artisans who were needy to bake from the same supply, and it has distributed /supplies/ for a pfennig which were of much greater value;49 The June 2 mandate concluded with the warning that if, in spite of these changes, any Ndrnberg citizens or subjects should undertake to call the Council’s authority into question by criticizing its government, it intended to punish these persons in such a way as to make an example of them for others. If the peasant araies had attacked the N&rnberg territory as they were threatening to do, then one could accurately appraise the efficacy of the Council’s policy changes contained in the mandates of May 23 and June 2. Had Ndrnbergers refused to join attacking peasant armies, then it would be easy to say that the Council’s policy of conciliation had fostered such loyalty. As it happened, however, the forces of the Swabian League defeated the peasants encamped around Wdrzburg in the battles of

4 9 Ibid. KBnigshofen, June 2, and Ingolstadt, June 4. Consequently the peasant armies were destroyed, the possibility of attack disappeared, and the allegiance of the Councilfs subjects was never seriously tested. The threat, however, had lasted long enough and had been serious enough to prompt the Council to make sweeping policy changes which benefited both its urban and rural subjects. In hindsight it is clear that after June 4 the danger to constituted authorities posed by peasant rebel­ lion was past. The Niimberg Council, however, did not immediately realize this fact; consequently it continued to follow policies aimed at conciliating the peasantry, and avoiding cause for conflict or revolt. Its treatment of the peasantry after June 4 thus forms the concluding chapter of the history of the Ntlrnberg City Council and the great Peasants1 War. CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSION

The Peasants* War in Franconia, though long in coming, ended very quickly with the victory of the forces of the Swabian League over the insurgents at wttrzburg and Bamberg. Shortly after the victories at KBnigshofen and Ingolstadt^ Georg Truchsess, upon the invitation of the Bishop of Bamberg, moved his army up the Main, victor­ iously entering Bamberg June 17* 1525. Thereafter, with the benefit of hindsight one may say that the Peasants* Revolt in Franconia was over. The Ndrnberg Council, how­ ever, could not be certain that the rebellion had ended,

and therefore continued to follow policies designed to avoid the likelihood of further disturbance. One may see other reasons for the various measures which the Council took, but in spite of secondary or ulterior motives, it appears that the directing principle of its policy was the avoidance of any occasion for rebellion. The question of how to avoid insurrection in the future was apparently uppermost in the minds of important Nflrnbergers in the summer and fall of 1525. Andreas Osiander was so concerned that he wrote out his ideas in 165 166 the form of a lengthy memorandum entitled "fiber den rechten Heilsweg und die Mittel den Aufruhr Kflnftig zu verhuten."^ Garitas Pirckheimer was pleased with Osiander and noted in

her memoirs, "would to God that he had taught how the dis­ turbance is to be avoided before so many people had been

killed; nevertheless, it is good that he teaches how the disturbance is to be avoided in the future. God grant that it happens / s o / » . . ."^ This same topic was on the mind of the influential secretary to the Council, Lazarus Spengler, who was so pleased with Osianderfs work that he transcribed in his own hand a copy of this lengthy memo­ randum. ^

■^-NKirchA, Fen IV, 906 2°, 20r ff. The date of compo­ sition for this memorandum is uncertain; Caritas Pirck­ heimer mentions it in her memoirs at the same time that she notes that Philip Melanchthon has been called to come to N&rnberg (see note 2 below). The Council asked Melanch­ thon to come to Nttrnberg to aid in the establishment of a Gymnasium September 16, 1525* The word "KUnftig" in the title implies that the disturbance has already taken place. It thus appears that this memorandum was written between June and September, 1525« Although Dr. Gottfried Seebass dated this composition "March-May" in his list of Osiander*s works, he nevertheless has indicated agreement with my sug­ gested dating. I wish to thank Dr, Seebass for his helpful advice and suggestions regarding this memorandum.

^Caritas Pirckheimer, Die Denkwttrdigkeiten der Caritas Pirckheimer. ed. Josef Pfanner (Landshut: Solanus-Druck, 196l),p.i03.

^The copy of Osiander1s memorandum extant in the Landeskirchliches Archiv Nttrnbergis the one made by Spengler. 167 Osiander*s brief was written with a dual purpose*

First, as the title makes clear, he hoped to suggest means by which peasant revolt might be avoided in the future. Second, however, from the content it is clear that he was trying to counter Catholic criticism that the Reformation was the cause of rebellion* Various defenders of the Catholic Church steadfastly maintained that the Lutheran movement initiated the revolt; the Council made note of such criticism as early as March, 1525*^ Osiander took this charge seriously for he was one of the guiding lights of the Reformation in Nilrnberg, and the imperial city was in the process of officially adopting the Refor­ mation during the spring and summer of 1525* Osiander conceived of the causation of the Peasants* Revolt entirely in religious terms. Briefly, he main­ tained that wfalse pastors** ffalschen hirten, i. e*, Catholics) have turned to the secular authorities asking them to suppress God*s Word as preached by the reformers. This has been one cause for revolt. Where the Word of God has been suppressed and not preached publicly the common people have been forced to seek it out and hear it secretly. The clandestine preaching of unauthorized lay preachers

*BB 69, 26r, PfBr 14$; BB 69, 47v, PfBr 157. One of the more adament Catholic critics on this point was Johannes CochlHus. See Martin Spahn, Johannes Cochl8u3 (Berlin: Felix L. Dames, 1696), pp. 122 and 346. 168 (Winkelprediger) can not allow questions by which the cor­

rectness of what is taught may be discovered; therefore, it often misleads people. Furthermore, according to Osiander

such preachers speak without God's help, and besides, only "disbelieving, godless rogues" (unglaubigen gotlosen puben) undertake such preaching. Thus he concludes that by its very nature the preaching of unauthorized laymen causes revolt. To avoid future rebellion he suggests that the secular authorities attempt to discover the error of unauthorized preaching, provide for the unhindered propa­ gation of the Holy Word of God, and, to this end, secure good Christian preachers. Osiander thus centers on religious causes and solutions, ignoring social and eco­ nomic grievances. His memorandum does, however, demon­ strate the concern with avoidance of future revolt prevalent in Nflrnberg in the late summer and fall of 1525* This concern was given concrete expression in various policies of the Council after the defeat of the peasant rebels in the first half of June. A s mentioned above, the forces of the Swabian League commanded by Georg Truchsess, together with an army commanded by Margrave

Casimir, entered Bamberg June 17* 1525* Eight days later the troops led by Truchsess left Bamberg to return to

Swabia. News of this plan aroused fear in the minds of the city fathers that the movement of plundering hoards of soldiers through the Nurnberg countryside would do great damage and possibly cause rebellion among the peasants. The Council itself stated that the forces of the League nspare no one and are more destructive as an ally than as an e n e m y . "5 The government immediately directed its representative with the League, Christoph Kress, to attempt to divert the movement of the array away from the city. 6 Hoping to identify and thereby protect its peasants the Council had placards of the city’s coat of arms made and sold to those peasants who wanted to buy them.^ Every individual who purchased such a placard (at the cost of five pfennigs) had toswear that he was a Nurnberg subject and that he had not taken part in the revolt.** In all,

1626 placards were sold. Elaborate precautions were also taken for the entrance of the army into the city. Side streets were barricaded with chains, and according to an order of

June 22,

^Franz, p. 211.

SrV 713, 5r.

?RV 713, 4v.

*RV 713, 5v; S I, L 563, No. 6, Item 4. 170 at the entry of the League’s array, all passages in the city gates should be occu­ pied, each with three files /of soldiers/, who shall stand under the gate with a Genannter. Also, order a mastergunner to be at every tower and outwork. And /when the soldiers enter7, place the two sauads of foreign soldiers before the Tiergartner Tor. . • • Order the night watch in every parish to consist of 200 soldiers, half of them foreign and half of them Nttrnberg. In addition, let the sentry in every parish ride with fourteen horses. By day, place 100 soldiers in the city hall and 100 soldiers at the Heilsbronner Tor.“

These elaborate preparations proved to be unneces­ sary; the army avoided most of the Council’s territory, following an itinerary through Forchheim, Fttrth, Nttmberg, to Gunzenhausen and Nordlingen.10 However, had the Council not taken immediate steps to prevent the plun­ dering hoards from descending on its territory, a new cause for civil insurrection might have developed. The Margrave of Brandenburg also posed a danger to Ndrnberg peasants and thus to civil peace. During May the Council had used the threat of reprisals from the Margrave as a lever to force or encourage its peasantry to remain quiet and obedient. At the same time it had repeatedly premised to defend all obedient peasants from any punish­ ment I11 Early in September, 1525, the Margrave summoned

9RV 713, 6v.

■^Kamann, p. 29 •

716, 2Sv. 171 several Nurnberg subjects from various villages to his courts to try them for their involvement in the rebellion.*2 The Council immediately protested, stating that all those summoned had been forbidden to appear. Always sensitive about the question of legal jurisdiction in its territory,

Nflrnberg contended that the Margraves had no authority over the individuals summoned. Furthermore, should the Margraves punish these persons they might take this as a cause to renew the rebellion. *-3 Another difficulty which arose after the defeat of the rebels in Franconia wa3 the flight of foreign insur­ gents to the imperial city and its territory where they hoped to find refuge from punishment. Prior to June 8 the Council did not attempt to ban foreigners escaping judgmert for their participation in disturbances. However, pressed by the Swabian League to do so*-**’ and no doubt fearing the effect which large numbers of foreign dissidents might have on its own populace, the Council ordered the guards at the city gates to allow no one entrance who had been connected with a rebellious peasant assembly. Foreigners living with innkeepers in the city were also warned to

12RV 720, 20r; RV 722, lv, 2r; BB 90, 196r.

13BB 90, 19Sr.

H r v 717, 21r. 172 leave the city if they had participated in the rebel­

l i o n . ^ Similar warnings were repeated June 10 ,

June 15*^7 and June 1 7 * ^ In July a general directive was sent to all Territorial Administrators forbidding them to allow strangers who had been involved in the insurrection to reside in any rural villagesa similar order was also sent to the captains in the countryside.2® August 30 the strongest decree of all was issued: Send for the foreigners who were involved in the revolt of the peasants and who are now dwelling here and have them henceforth swear to avoid the city and its territory until they bring a discharge or passport (abschid oder pass porten) from their lord. • • .21

Two days later a thorough search of all Nurnberg inns revealed seventeen foreigners who were forced to swear to depart from the city until they could prove that their lords had granted them free leave.22

15RV 717, 21r; RB 13, 20v. l6RV 717, 23v; RB 13, 21r. 17RV 713, 2v. lSRV 713, 3r; RB 13, 23r-24r. 19RV 713, I6r. 20RV 719, 6r. ^ R V 720, 17r. 22S I, L 563, No. 6, Item 6. A similar canvassing of the inns on August 12 had discovered twenty-four sus­ picious foreigners. The Council’s measures with regard to foreigners seeking refuge in its territory were taken partially because of pressure from the Swabian League but also as a deterrent to future revolt. Similar motivation may be found behind the decision to carry out a thorough investi­ gation and punishment of rebels in its own territory. Not long after the defeat of the Franconian insurgents the League demanded that the Nurnberg city government take steps to punish its rebels. 23 This order by no means ran i counter to the Council's intention; as early as June 10 it began considering how to treat its rebellious subjects.2^ Having previously threatened to punish the disobedient, the Council no doubt now felt it necessary to do so as a deterrent to possible rebellion in the future. The government's first move was to request advice from its jurisconsults regarding the principle to be followed in imposing punishment. These men replied in a brief of June 10, 1525# in which they stated the maxim that **the misdeed of a group is less deserving of punish­ ment than that of a single person" (ein gemevn oder grosse menge misshandl. das es etwas weniger streflich sey dann evner sondern person verhandlung).25 They suggested that

23b b 90, 133r; Kamann, p. 30.

2Z*HV 717, 23v; PfRv 750; RV 717, 26v; PfRv 765. 2%atschl.b. 5, 43v; Pf. p. 250. 174 this fact be taken into consideration when imposing pun­

ishments. Furthermore, every case is different; there­ fore, the government should proceed carefully, thoroughly informing itself of the circumstances of each case and thus act so as not to provoke its subjects or citizens. In other words, the Council should be careful not to allow its punishments to become the cause for grievance or disturbance. After further consideration2^ the following decision was made on September 9: It is ordered that those in the captaincies in the countryside who took part in the recent unrest and disturbance are to be punished; according to the individual*s involvement in the matter, power is given to set the punish­ ment high or low, in accordance with the 0_ condition of the persons and / t h e i r / wealth.27 An oath of purgation was used to discover who was guilty of revolt. Representatives of the Council went out into the countryside, called peasants from various villages together, and had them swear a three-part oath; (1) ”that they had neither in person nor by proxy been present at assemblies of rebellious peasants,” (2) ”that they had neither aided or counseled others to take part in revolt,” (3) ”that they had neither in word nor deed urged or

26RV 720, 22v.

27RV 721, 4r. 175 caused the subjects of other authorities to rebel against their lords. According to an order of November 9, those who could not take the oath were examined regarding their offense and punishments were then imposed. ^9 Following the recom­ mendation of its jurisconsults the Council thus investi­ gated each case individually and fines were imposed

according to the seriousness of the crime. Those simply caught up in the frenzy of a mass movement were fined less severely than were the leaders and instigators.Alto­ gether eight persons were exiled and 176 Rhenish gulden, one new pound, sixteen shillings, and six haliers were collected from rebellious peasants as Paurn Straff Furthermore, all rebels had to surrender their weapons. The Nurnberg peasantry, unlike many of their compeers, had traditionally possessed the right to bear arms. Disarming the rebels demonstrates the Council’s determination to

^ R B 35r-35v» See also S I, L 563, No. 6, Item 17, 3r-3v; and S I, L 7, No. 17, Item 9.

2%tV 723, 7r; RB 13, 44v. For the records of this investigation see above, Chapter 4, note 49.

3oSchnelbligl, D M , I, 316.

^StAN, Stadtrechnungen 1525, 176r. See Chapter 4 , Table #L.

32RB 13, 24v. 176 minimize the danger of revolt in the future. The government * s attempt in the summer and fall of 1525 to avoid any possibility of future insurrection was consistent with the policy which it had followed through­ out the entire Peasants* Revolt, the underlying principle of which was the containment of civil insurrection in the Nttrnberg territory so that it would not become a battle­

field for the war. It was imperative that this policy succeed for if it failed then the Council would be placed in an untenable position. For one thing its jurisdictional authority in its territorial state would be threatened by neighboring princes and bishops who were ready to sieze any oppor­ tunity to extend their power into the Council’s recently acquired sphere of hegemony. Furthermore, the Council was in the process of adopting the Reformation and beginning the reorganization of society which this move implied. Catholic opponents were quick to charge that the preaching

of the Reformation had caused the revolt. The Council, having accepted Luther’s teaching, was obliged to prove this charge erroneous by showing that it was possible to propagate Reformation teaching and yet not initiate civil insurrection. Thus, had wide-spread peasant warfare errupted in the Ntlrnberg territory, it would have threat­ ened not only the Council’s political but also its religious position. Therefore it was absolutely essential 177 that the city government prevent the occurrence of hos­ tilities in its domain. To accomplish this task it was necessary to contain rebellion coming from several quarters. There were, for example, the rural dissidents resident in the Nttrnberg

territory who, in many instances, joined in the rebellion

sweeping Germany in the years 1524-1525* If possible, the Council had to prevent them from joining the rebels; more importantly it had to keep them from forming a peasant

army of their own. It was for this reason that the Council was so strongly opposed to illegal peasant assem­ blies in its territory. In addition, dissatisfied residents within the city walls also posed the threat of rebellion. There had, no doubt, been dissatisfaction within the city before 1524- 1525, but the Peasants* Revolt provided a cause around which these dissidents could unite. Friedrich Engels referred to the members of this volatile stratum of society prior to the Peasants* Revolt as the "plebeian opposition," and asserted that the revolt of the peasants transformed this group into a party for the first time.^

Engels* use of the term "party" seems to imply more organi­ zation than was actually evident among the Nurnberg

^Friedrich,Engels, The Peasant War in Germany, in The German Revolutions, ed. Leonard Krieger (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967)* P» 30. 173 lower-class dissidents in the years 1524-1525; neverthe­ less, he is correct in pointing to the Peasants* Revolt as a catalyst which gave a certain amount of coherence to the urban dissidents. Though not necessarily a "party11 there certainly was a "group" of urban rebels in the imperial city which was sympathetic to the peasant cause, and which hoped to see Nttrnberg become a battleground for the war. The members of this group included artisans*

apprentices, journeymen, and radical printers among others. The Council needed not only to contain insurrection within its populace but also to limit the influence exercised by peasant armies surrounding its territory, hence the careful negotiations with all the neighboring peasant armies and the concurrent attempt to keep Nttrn- bergers from joining then. The most serious threat from the foreign armies arose late in May; May 20 it was learned that the Franconian peasant army encamped near wHrzburg intended to divert its planned campaign against the Mar­ grave to an assult against Nflrnberg. Knowledge of this fact initiated some rather radical changes in the Council’s policies toward its dissidents. Hoping to conciliate its dissatisfied subjects the Council took various remedial measures designed to redress grievances and thereby win the allegiance of these persons should the threatened attack materialize. The military success of the Swabian League prevented the assult from 179 taking place; nevertheless, the possibility of it had its effect on the Council*s policies. Thus, the thesis of this study is that the Nllrnberg Council, reacting to the threat of imminent attack, adopted a conciliatory attitude toward its own malcontents. By so doing it hoped to guard against insurrection in the case of attack. This study has attempted to give a clear and quantitative assessment of the extent of rebellious senti­ ment to be found within the Nurnberg populace. It has further tried to place the entire story in the context of the creation of territorial states and the spread of the Reformation, which were both affecting the imperial city of Nllrnberg at the time. Hoping to guard its flanks the Council took steps which redressed grievances and bettered the condition of the Nllrnberg urban and rural lower classes. After the suppression of peasant rebellion in Franconia, Nllrnberg continued carefully to avoid the revival of hostilities. Consequently, Nllrnberg peasants suffered much less than did their compeers in other parts of Germany as a result of the Peasants* Revolt. Because it had successfully con­ tained insurrection and avoided hostilities in its domain the Council was better able to maintain sovereignty within its territory and deflect criticism from opponents of the

Reformation. BIBLIOGRAPHY

!• Primary Sources

A. Manuscripts Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Kress Familienarchiv, Nllrnberg. XXX, D, No. 20. Landeskirchliches Archiv, Andreas Osiander, Gutachten Nllrnberg. ”uber den rechten Heilsweg * und die Mittel, den Aufruhr Kunftig zu verhlltten.” Fen. IV 906 2°. Staatsarchiy, Nllrnberg. Btlrger- und Bauernverzeich- nis No. 1. Staatsarchiv, Nllrnberg. BriefbUcher, Nos. #7-91. Staatsarchiv, Nllrnberg. Milliner, Johann. ”Annalium der loblichen riechstatt Nllrnberg.”

Staatsarchiv, Nllrnberg. Ratsbllcher, Nos. 12-13• Staatsarchiv, Nllrnberg. Ratschlagbllcher, Nos. 4-5• Staatsarchiv, Nllrnberg. RatsverlSsse, Nos. 693-724. Staatsarchiv, Nllrnberg. S I, L 7, No. 17, IS. S I, L 563, No. 6, 37. S I, L 570, No. 5. S I, L 574, No. $7. Staatsarchiv, Nllrnberg. Stadtrechnungen, No. 162. Staatsarchiv, Nllrnberg. Stadtrechnungsbelege, Einzelbelege, Nos. 1570, 1614. Stadtarchiv, Nllrnberg. Mandate. 131 Stadtbibliothek, Nllrnberg. Apel, Clas. "Chronik der stat Nurnberg.'*

B. Printed Materials Beringer, Diepold. Evn Sermon geprediget vom Pawren zu Werdt bev Nllrnberg. 1525• Stadtbibliothek, Nllrnberg.

Franz, Gvlnther; Merx, Otto; Fuchs, Walther Peter (eds.). Akten zur Geschichte des Bauernkrieges in Mittel- deutschland. 2~Vols. Aalen; Scientia Verlag 1923. Franz, Gllnther (ed.). Der deutsche Bauernkrieg. Aktenband. Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 193 3 • ______. (ed.). Deutsches Bauerntum. 2 Vols. Weimar: Verlag Hermann Bohlaus, 194$. . (ed.). Quellen zur Geschichte des Bauern­ krieges. Munich: A, Oldenbourg, i$63. . (ed.). Quellen zur Geschichte des deutschen Bauemstande3 in der Neuzeit. Munich: R. Olden­ bourg, 1^63. “ . (ed.). Thomas Mllntzer Schriften und Briefe ('•Quellen und Forscbungen zur Reforraationsgeschichte," Vol. XXXIII). Gfltersloh: Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1963.

GStze, Alfred, (ed.). "Die zwSlf Artikel der Bauern, 1525," Historische Vlertel.iahrschrift. V (1902), 1-33. Hegei, C. (ed.). Die Chroniken der deutschen StHdte. Nllrnberg. "Christoph"ScheurlsEpistel Uber die Verfassung der Reichsstadt Nllrnberg, 1516." Vol. XI. Leipzig: Verlag von G. Hirzel, 1374. Pp. 731-304. Kaczerowsky, Klaus (ed.). Flugschriften des Bauernkrieges ("Rowohlts Klassiker der Literatur und der Wissen- schaft," Vol. XXXIII). Rowohlt: Reinbek bei Ham­ burg, 1970. Klllpfel, Karl August (ed.). Urkunden zur Geschichte des Schw3bischen Bundes ("Bibliothek des litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart," Vol. XXXI). Stuttgart: Bibliothek des litterarischen Vereins, 1353* 1*2 D. Martin Luthers Werke. Weimar: Hermann Bohlaus Nach- folger, 1&#. Osiander, Andreas, Evn Schone fast ntttzllche Sermon vber das Euangelion. Matthei am, xvii. Do christus''den Zolpfenning bezalet. NUmbers. 1523* Herzog August kibliothek, Wolfenbuttel• Pfanner, Josef (ed.)• Die Denkwttrdigkeiten der Caritas Pirckheimer, Landshut: Solanus-Druck, 1962, Pfeiffer, Gerhard (ed.), Quellen zur Nflrnberger Reformationsgeschichte (^Einzelarbeiten aus der Kirchengeschichte Bayerns," Vol. XLV). Nllrnberg: Selbstverlag des Vereins fllr bayerische Kirchengeschichte, 1966. Riederer, Johann (ed.). Nachrichten zur Kirchen-. Gelehrten- und Bllchergeschichte. 4 Vols. Altdorf: Lorenz Schltpfel, 1765 • SchnelbBgl, Fritz; Hoftaann, Hanns Hubert (eds.). "Gelegen- hait der landsschaft mitsampt den furten und helltten darinnen, Eine politisch-statistische, wehr-und verkehrsgeograpische Beschreibung des Grossraums urn Nllmberg zu Beginn des 16. Jahrhunderts." Altnurn- berger Landschaft. Mitteilungen. I (1952), 1-125* Waldau, Georg Ernst (ed.). Neue BevtrSge zur Geschichte der Stadt Nurnberg. 4 Vols. Nllrnberg, 1791.

II. Secondary Accounts

Angermeier, Heinz. "Die Vorstellung des gemeinen Mannes von Staat und Reich im deutschen Bauernkrieg,n Social-und Wirtschaftsgeschichte. LIII (November. r 9-5 5 'J, 3 2 9 ^ 3 5 1 . ---- Bainton, Roland H. Here I Stand. New York: Mentor Books, 1950. Barge, Hermann. Andreas Bodenstein yon Karlshadt. 2 Vols. Leipzig: Friedrich Brandstetter, 1905. Baring, Georg. "Hans Denck und Thomas M&itzer in Nllrnberg," Archiv fllr Reformationsgeschichte. L (1959), 145-lSO. 133 Baron, Hans. nReligion and Politics in the German Imperial Cities during the Reformation," The English Histori­ cal Review. LII (1937), 405-427# 614-633. Bauer, Gttnther. AnfSnge tauferischer Gemeindebildungen in Franken ("Einzelarbeiten aus der Kirchengeschichte Bayerns," Vol. XLIII). Nllrnberg: Selbstverlag des Vereins fflr bayerische Kirchengeschichte, 1966. Bax, E. Belfort. The Peasants* War in Germany. London: Swan Sonnenschein and Co., 1899. Bensen, Heinrich Wilhelm. Geschichte des Bauernkriegs in Ostfranken. Erlangen: Palm*schen Verlagsbuch- handlung, IS40 . Bensing, Manfred. "Charakter, Organization und Rolle der »fiaufenf im deutschen Bauernkrieg, 1524-26” Geschichtsunterricht und Staatsburgerkunde. I (January, 1963), 46-54. Benzing, Josef. Die Frtthdrucke der Hofbibliothek Aschaffenburg bis zum' Jahre l'55d. Aschaffenburg: Paul Pattioch Verlag, I968 . Bergdolt, Johannes. Die Freie Reichsstadt Windsheim im Zeitalter der Reformation. Leipzig:- A^ bei'chertsche Verlagsbuclihandlung, 1921. BBckmann, Paul. "Der gemeine Mann in den Flugschriften der Reformation," Deutsche Viertel.iahrschrift fttr Literaturwissenschaft und Geisstesgeschichte. XXII, Pt.2, 1944, 186-230. Brunner, Otto. Land und Herrschaft. Wiesbaden: Rudolf M. Rohrer Verlag, 1959. Buck, Lawrence P. "Die Haltung der Ntlrnberger Bauern- schaft im Bauernkrieg," Altnflrnberger Landschaft. Mitteilungen. XIX (December, 1^70J, 50-^7. Clasen, Claus-Peter. "Nuernberg in the History of Anabaptism," The Mennonite Quarterly Review. XXXIX (January, 1965 ), Clemen, Otto. "Der Bauer von WBhrd," BeitrBge zur Reformationsgeschichte. II (1902J, 85-96. Coutts, Alfred. Hans Penck. 1495-1527. Humanist and Heretic. Edinburgh: Macniven and Wallace, 1927* 134 Czok, Karl. "RevolutionHre Volk3bewegung in mitteldeut- schen StHdten zur Zeit von Reformation und Bauern­ krieg," in 450 Jahre Reformation. Leo Stern and Max Steinmetz, eds. Berlin: Deutsche Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1967* Dannenbauei% Heinz. Die Entstehung des Territoriums der Reichstadt Nllrnberg T"Arbeiten zur deutschen Rechts- und Verfassungsgeschichte,11 Vol. VII). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1928. Endres, Rudolf. nDer Zehnt in Eorchheim (bei Beilngries), Ein Lehen der Grafen von Ottingen.n Mitteilungen des Vereins fur Geschichte der Stadt Nurnberg. LI xzmrww.— . "Zur Einwohnerzahl und Bevolkerungsstruktur Mrnbergs im 15./l6. Jahrhundert," Mitteilungen des Vereins fttr Geschichte der Stadt Nllrnberg. Lvll '(1W),'242-271'. Engelhardt, Adolf. "Die Reformation in Nurnberg," Mitteilungen des Vereins fur Geschichte der Stadt NttrnberF. (1939). Engels, Friedrich. The Peasant War in Germany in The German Revolutions. Edited by Leonard Krieger. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967* Englert, Sebastian. Der Missinger Bauernhaufe und die Haltung der bedrohten FUrsten. felchstMtt: £ro- gramm des Kgl. Gymnasiums Eichstatt, 1395• Epstein, A. D. "Reformation und Bauernkrieg in Deutschland als erste burgerliche Revolution," Sovnetwissenschaft. Gesellschaftswissenschaftl. Beitrage. ill (March. 1958), 3^3-393 • Espig, Horst. Das Bauemgericht von Nllrnberg. W&rzburg: Buchdruckerei Richard Mayr, 1937* Evans, Austin P. An Episode in the Struggle for Religious Freedom. The Sectaries ol Nuremberg 1524-1528. New York: Columbia University Press, 1924* Fay, Sidney B. "The Roman Law and the German Peasants," American Historical Review. XVI (1911), 234-254» 135 Fellmann, Walter (ed*). Hans Penck Schriften. ("Quellen und Forsehungen zur Reformationsgeschichte," Vol. XXIV, Pt. 3*7 Gutersloh; Gutersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, I960. Franz, Eugen. Nflrnberg Kaiser und Reich; Studien zur reichsstBdtischen Aussenpolitik. Munich: 6. H. feeck*sche VerlagsbuchHandlung, 1930. Franz, Gttnther. Bttcherkunde zur Geschichte des deutschen Bauerntums. Berlin; Neumann, 1933.

______• Per deutsche Bauernkrieg. Darmstadt; Wissen- schaftliche Buchgesellsckaft, 1965. . "Die Entstehung der *Zwolf Artikel* der deutschen Bauernschaft," Archiv fife* Reformationsgeschichte. XXXVI (1939), 193-213. Friedmann, Robert. "Thomas MUntzer*s Relation to Anabaptism," The Mennonite Quarterly Review. XXXI (1957), 75-37. Friesen, Abraham. "Thomas Mdntzer in Marxist Thought," Church History. XXXIV (1965), 306-27. Fronmttller, Georg Tobias Christoph. Chronik der Stadt Flirth. Fttrth: J. Ludw. Schmids Verlag, 1872. Fuchs, Walther Peter. "Der Bauernkrieg von 1525 als MassenphBnomen," Massenwahn in Geschichte und Gegenwart. ein TagungsbericHt. Stuttgart: Klett- Verlag. . "Florian Geyer," in FrBnkische Lebensbilder. Vol. III. Edited by Gerhard Pfeiffer. WUrzburg: Kommissionsverlag Ferdinand SchBningh, 1967. GBtze, Alfred. "Die Artikel der Bauern 1525," Historische Viertel.iahrschrift. IV (1901), 1-32.

Graff, Fred. "Die soziale und wirtschaftliche Lage der Bauern im Nttrnberger Gebiet zur Zeit des Bauern­ krieges," Jahresbericht des Historischen Vereins ftlr Mittelfranken. LVI (1909) 1-162. Greenfield, Kent Roberts. "Sumptuary Laws in Nuernberg," Johns Hopkins University Studies. XXXVI (1913), 7-135. 136 Grimm, Harold J. "Luther, Luther*s Critics, and the Peasant Revolt," Lutheran Quarterly. XIX (1946), 115-132. . "The Reformation and Urban Social Classes in Germany," in Luther Erasmus and the Reformation. Edited by John C. olin. New York: Pordham Uni- versity Press, 1969* pp. 75-36. . The Reformation Era. New York; The Macmillan Co., i9i>4* 1965. . "The Relations of Luther and Melanchthon with the Townsmen," in Luther und Melanchthon. Referate des zweiten Internationalen Lutherlorscherkongresses. Edited by Vilmos Vajta. Gbttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, I960, pp. 32-43. . "Social Forces in the German Reformation," SHurch History. XXXI (1962), 3-13. Grimm, Heinrich. "Die Buchftihrer des deutschen Kultur- bereichs und ihre Niederlassungsorte in der Zeit- spanne 1490 bis urn 1550," Archiv fttr Geschichte des Buchwesens. VII, No. 5/6 (1966J, pp.“il53-iV72. Gritsch, Eric W. Reformer Without a Church. Philadel­ phia: Fortress Press, 1967. Grotefend, H. Taschenbuch der Zeitrechnung des deutschen Mittelalters und der Neuzeit. Hannover: Hahnsche kuchhandlung,' I960. Hagelstange, Alfred. Sflddeutsches Bauernleben im Mittelalter. Leipzig: Verlag von Dunckerand Humbolt, 1^93. Haupt, Herman. Die religiBsen Sekten in Franken vor der Reformation. WUrzburg: A. ^tubers Buch-und Kunsthandlung, 1332. Hillerbrand, Hans J. "Anabaptism and the Reformation," Church History. XXIX (I960), 404-23. . "The Origin of Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism Archiv fUr Reformationsgeschichte. LIII (1962), 152-30.

______. "Thomas Mttntzer»s Last Tract Against Luther," Mennonite Quarterly Review. XXXVIII (1964)» 20-36. 137 Hirschmann, Gerhard. Das Landgebiet der ehemaligen Reichsstadt Ntlrnber'g ("Familiengeschichtlicner Wegweiser durch Stadt und Land," Vol. XVII). Berchtesgadens Verlag Degener and Co., 1951. Hoftaann, Hans Hubert. f,Die Einrichtung des Nilrnberger Landpflegamts,11 Altnllrnberger Landschaft. Mitteilungen. XII 11963), 57-64. . Nllrnberg-Fttrth Historschen Atlas von Bayern. Teil Franken. Munich: Commission i'Ur Bayerische Landesge schi chte, 1954* Holborn, Hajo. "Social Basis of the German Reformation," Church History V, (1936) 330-339. jHger, Carl. "Markgraf Casimir und der Bauernkrieg in den sUdlichen GrenzSmtern des Fttrstentums unterhalb des Gebirgs," Mitteilungen des Vereins fur Geschichte der Stadt Nllrnberg. iX (1892). 17-164'. Janssen, Johannes. History of the German People at the Close of the Middle Ages'! Translated by A. M. Christie. St. Louis, Missouri: B. Herder, 1900. J8rg, Joseph Edmund. Deutschland in der Revolutions- Periode v o n 1522-1526. Freiburg: Herder*sche Veirlagshandlung, 1851. Kamann, Johann. Nllrnberg im Bauernkrieg. Nllrnberg: Jahres-Bericht liber die Kbnigl. kreis- Realschule, 1878. Kolde, Theodor. "Hans Denck und die gottlosen Maler von Nllrnberg," BeitrSge zur bayerischen Kirchen­ geschichte. VIII (1902J pp. l-3i;4^-^2.

. "Zum Prozess des Johann Denk und der *drei gottlosen Maler* von Nurnberg," in Kirchenge schi cht- liche Studien. Hermann Reuter zum 7fr. ' Geburtstag Gewidmet~ Leipzig: J. C. Hinri'chs*sche Buchhand- lung, 1888, pp. 228-250. Kunstmann, Hartmut H. Zauberwahn und Hexenprozess in der Reichsstadt Nllrnberg. Nllrnberg: Selpstverlag des Vereins ftlr Geschichte der Stadt Nurnberg, 1970. 188 Kupfer, Konrad. Forchheim. Geschichte einer alten frHnk- ischen Stadt. Mrnberg:Frankenverlag Lorenz Spindler, I960.

. "Forchheim im Bauernaufstand und Markgrafen- krieg," Die Stimme Frankens. XXVI, No. 1, (I960). pp. 11-13 . Kusch, Eugen. Nflrnberg. Lebensbild einer Stadt. N U m - berg: Verlag NUrnberger^resse, 1966. Lau, Franz. "Der Bauernkrieg und das angebliche Ende der lutherischen Reformation als spontaner Volksbewe- gung," Luther-Jahrbuch. XXVI (1959)# 109-134* Lehners, Georg Ludwig. Geschichte der Stadt Neustadt an der Aisch. Neustadt a.d.A.: Selbstverlag des Verfassers, 1834. Lochner. Georg. Reformationsgeschichte der Reichsstadt Nurnberg. Nurnberg, Verlag von J. !A. Steins 1845* Ludewig# Georg. Die Politik Nttrnberg3 in Zeitalter der Reformation (von 1520-1534). Gottingen:' Vanden- hoeck and kuprecht, 1893* Meyer, Christian. Geschichte der Burggrafschaft Nurnberg und der snateren Markgrafschaften Ansbach und Bavreuth ("Tilbinger Studlen filr Schwhbische und Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte," Vol. II, No. 1). Tubingen: Verlag der H. Laupp’schen Buchhandlung, 1908. Meyer, Julie. "Die Entstehung d^s Patriziats in Nttrnberg," Mitteilungen des Vereins fur Geschichte der Stadt NUrhberg7xXVlI’"n.928 J T-W. ------

Moeller, Bemd. Reichsstadt und Reformation. ("Schriften des Vereins fur keformationsgeschichte," Vol. LXIX, No. 180.) Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1962. MBller, Wilhelm. Andreas Osiander. Leben und ausgewahlte Schriften. Elberfelds Verlag R. I. ^riderichs, w f t r . Mttller, Arnd. "Zensurpolitik der Reichsstadt Nttrnberg, von der Einftthrung der Buchdruckerkunst bis zum Ende der Reichsstadtzeit," Mitteilungen des Vereins fur Geschichte der Stadt Nttrnberg. XLIX (1959J, 66-169* 139 Nipperdey, Thomas. "Theologie und Revolution bei Thomas Mttntzer," Archiv fUr Reformationsgeschichte. LIV (1963), 145-131. Pfeiffer, Gerhard. "Die Einfflhrung der Reformation in NUrnberg als kirchenrechtliches und bekenntniskund- liches Problem," Blotter fur deutsche Landesgeschichte. LXXXIX (1952), 112-133* . FrSnkische Bibliographie. ("VerBffentlichung der Gesellschaft fUr Fr&nki3che Geschichte," Ser. IE, Vol. I. J. Wttrzburg: Kommissionsverlag Ferdinand SchBningh, 1965. ______. (ed.) Nflrnberg— Geschichte einer europaischen Stadt. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1971. Philoon, Thurman E. "Hans Greiffenberger and the Reforma­ tion in Nuernberg," Mennonite Quarterly Review. XXXVI (1962), 61-75. Ranke, Leopold von. History of the Reformation in Germany. Trans, by Sarah Austin. London: George Routledge and Sons, Ltd., 1905. Reicke, Emil. Geschichte der Stadt Nllrnberg. Nurnberg: Joh. Phil. Raw* schen Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1396. RBssler, Hellmuth and Franz, Gdnther (eds.). SachwBrter- buch zur deutschen Geschichte. Munich: R. Olden­ bourg, 1953. Roth, Friedrich. Die Einfflhrung der Reformation in Nttrn- berg. 1517-1528. Wtlrzburg: A. Stubners Verlags- bucnnandlung, 1335. Rupp, Ernest Gordon. "Andres Karlstadt and Reformation Puritanism," The Journal of Theological Studies. New Series X, Pt. 2 (October 195$J, 368-326. . Patterns of the Reformation. Philadelphia: Fortress )?ress, 1£69'. . "Thomas Mttntzer, Hans Huth, and the ’Gospel of all Creatures*," Bulletin of the John Rylands Library. XLIII (196lJ, 4 9 2 - ® . Scheidel, Gustav. Kritik der Villinger Chronik. Ansbach: C. Brtigel & Sohn, 1335• 190

SchnelbBgl, Fritz. "Die *bHuerlichen Aufruhr* in Speikern und in der Pfarr Btthl 1525,11 Die Fundgrube. XI No. 1 (1935), 7-B. . "Die frHnkischen ReichsstSdte," Zeitschrift fSr bayerische Landesgeschichte. XXXI, No. 2 (1968), 421-! 474» . "Die wirtschaftliche Bedeutung ihres tl Eandgebietes fttr die Reichsstadt Nurnberg," Beitrage zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte Nilrnbergs ("BeitrHge zur Geschichteftund kultur der Stadt Nurnberg, Vol. II, No. 1). Nurnberg: Selbstverlag des Stadtrats zu Nttrnberg, 1967* . Lauf-Schnaittach. eine Heimatgeschichte. Lauf a.d. t’egnitz: Schriftenreihe des Stadtarchivs Lauf a.d. Pegnitz, 1941• Schnelbogl, Julia. "Die Reichskleinodien in|fNurnberg 1424-1523," Mitteilungen des Vereins fur Geschichte der Stadt Nllrnberg, Li (1962J, 7^-159. Schombaura, Karl. Die Stellung des Markgrafen Kasimir von Brandenburg zur reformatori schen Bewe gung in den Jahren 1524 bis 1527 auf Grunci archivalischen frorschuhg'en. Ntlrnberg: G. L. Knoll, 1900. . "Zur Lebensgeschichte des Bauern von wShrd," Mitteilungen des Vereins fur Geschichte der Stadt Nllrnberg. XLlll (1952). p p . 488-4^9. Schultheiss, Werner. Kleine Geschichte Nflrnbergs. Nllrn­ berg: Franckenverlag Lorenz Spindler, 1966• Seebass, Gottfried. Der reformatorische Werk des Andreas Osiander ("Einzelarbeiten aus der Kirchengeschichte Bayerns," Vol. XLIV). Nilrnberg: Verein filr Bayer- ische Kirchengeschichte, 1967* . "Die Reformation in Nllrnberg," Mitteilungen des Vereins fur Geschichte der Stadt Nurnberg. Lv ■(1967-6'^ J," 252Tf.---- Sessions, Kyle C. Reformation and Authority: The Meaning of the Peasants* RevoltI Lexington, Mass.: D. C . Heath and Co., 1968. Smirin, M. M. Die Volksreformation des Thomas fltflnzer und der grosse Bauernkrieg*! SerITnr,-^ietTTerrag7—~ ~ 19557 191 Smith, William. "A Description of thet|Cittie of Norem- berg, Mitteilungen des Vereins fur Geschichte der Stadt Mriiberg. XLVIll (1958). 19A-2A5. Soden, Franz von. BeitrSge zur Geschichte der Reformation und der Sitten -iener Zeit. Nurnberg; Verlag von Bauer and Raspe, 1855. Spahn, Martin. Johannes CochlSus. ein Lebensbild aus der Zeit der Kir'chenspaltung. Berlin: Felix L. Dames. i m . Sprung, Werner. "Zehnten und Zehntrechte um Ntlrnberg," Mitteilungen des Vereins ftlr Geschichte der Stadt Nijrnberg. Lv (1967-63). 1-73. Stayer, James M. "Terrorism, the Peasants* War, and the *Wiedertalifer, *" Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte. LVI (1965), 2 2 7 - 2 % T . Stolze, Wilhelm. Per deutsche Bauernkrieg. Halle a.S: Verlag von Max Niemeyer, 1907* . "Die Lage des deutschen Bauernstandes im Zeitalter des Bauernkrieges," Luther Jahrbuch. VI (1924), 36-51. . "Die 12 Artikel von 1525 und ihr Verfasser," Historische Zeitschrift. New Series LV (1903),

. Zur Vorgeschichte des Bauernkrieges. Verfassungs-. Verwaltungs-und Wirtschaftsgeschichte vornehmlich SUdwestdeutschlands im ausgehenden Mittelalter. Leipzig: Verlag von Duncker and Humbolt, 1900. Strauss, Gerald. (ed. and trans.). Manifestations of Discontent in Germany on the Eve of the kefoimatTon. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University tress, 1971. ______• Nuremberg in the Sixteenth Century. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966. . "Protestant Dogma and City Government: The Case of Nuremberg." Past and Present. No. 36 (April, 1967), 38-561. 192 Thomas, Max, Markgraf Kasimir von Brandenburg im Bauern- kriege. Gotha: Friedrich Andreas t’ertnes, 1897* Tschaikowskaja, 0. G, "Ober den Charakter der Reformation und des Bauernkrieges in Deutschland,'* Sow.let- wissenschaft Gesellschaftswissenschaftl. Beitrage. VI [ 1 9 5 7 ) , 721-73& Waldmann, D. "Nttrnberg Rechts-'Reformation* von 14B4 , '* Mitteilungen des Vereins fur Geschichte der Stadt toUrnberg, XVIII (1908). 1-93. Weigand, Hermann. **A Close-up of the German Peasants* War," Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences. XXXV (May. 19L2), 1-32. Weill, Alexander. Per Bauernkrieg. Weimar: Gustav Kiepenheuer Verlag, 19471* Will Georg Andreas. BeitrBge zur frSnkischen Kirchen- historie. Nttrnherg: Martin Jacob Bauer,' 1*770• Williams, George H. The Radical Reformation. Philadel­ phia: The Westminster Press, 1962. Winkler, Johann. "Der Guterbesitz der Nilrnberger Kirchenstiftungen unter der Verwaltung des Landalraosenamtes im 16. Jahrhundert. " Mitteilungen des Vereins fttr Geschichte der Stadt Numberg. xLvlT \mbT, 16&-296T Zimmermann, Wilhelm. Geschichte des grossen Bauernkrieges. 2 Vols. Leipzig! F. W. Hendel Verlag, 1939#