The Social Identity in the Late Medieval German City:
The
Civic Donation to the Church in Nuremberg
Akiko HARADA
In the study of medieval German cities, the
question of urban identity is often researched through chronicles, [1]
city seals, [2]
or cityscapes. [3]
In this paper, however, I investigate civic donations to parish churches so as
to elucidate urban social identity. As far as I know, very few studies in this
field undertake this approach. [4]
The term “social identity” comes from
social psychology, which distinguishes personal and the social identity.
Through the interaction of personal and social identity, the “self-identity” of
social psychology is formed. However, given its focus, this paper is
unconcerned with the details of “self-identity” formation. Rather, we are interested in defining social identity or “group
identity.” Social identity thus involves the consciousness of belonging to a
group, in this paper, to the urban community.
In his famous work Imperial City and Reformation (1962), [5]
Bernd Moeller characterizes the late medieval urban community as a “sacred
society.” His view has been strongly criticized by British and American social
historians, who regard it as too harmonious. In fact, it is widely accepted
that there were tensions and conflicts within the city at any time. However,
this situation did not prevent burghers from being conscious of belonging to an
urban community. As Moeller emphasizes, the German city of the late Middle Ages tended to view itself as a miniature corpus christianum,
and the civic council took responsibility for the religious life of the
burghers. In this sense, the late medieval city can be considered as a “sacred
society.” Recently, Moeller’s concept has been evaluated in the study of late
medieval German city.[6]
This paper discusses the civic social
identity by examining the donations of the burghers to parish churches. The
foundation of this identity on the notion of “sacred society” plays a role in
this matter. Nuremberg is chosen as an example to be discussed in this paper,
because it is not the episcopal but imperial city.
The imperial cities including Nuremberg had great autonomy and were little
influenced by bishops. This characteristic allows us to consider the situation
of a more civic identity. It makes use not only of
written sources but also other evidence such as church facilities, as
historical sources. Nuremberg had another practical advantage. This city, where
iconoclasm almost never appeared during the Reformation, provides various
historical sources not only of written sources but also of church facilities.
Nuremberg was one of the biggest cities in
medieval Germany. Around 1500, it probably had a population of about 50,000.
Despite its size, Nuremberg had only two parishes, St. Sebald
and St. Lawrence, each of which covered a distinct part of the city. The St. Sebald parish contains the older part of the city, namely
the northern bank of the river Pegnitz where the
imperial castle was situated and imperial Ministerialen who later consisted
in the governing class of the city resided; the city eventually extended into
the other bank. This newer part is the St. Lawrence parish and small merchants
and craftsmen settled there. [7]
In the first place, I would like to
consider the difference in the social roles of the two parish churches by
investigating the artifacts of their church choirs.
St. Sebald’s
grave is located at the center of the choir of St. Sebaldus
Church. [8]
St. Sebald was the urban patron of Nuremberg; it was
consecrated in 1425 through the Roman Curia. According to the town’s
chronicles, political ceremonies ware always held in St. Sebald:
“Anno Domini 1361, the year when a son of the Emperor [= Charles IV] was born
in Nuremberg and was named Wenceslaus, the child was not baptized for five and
a half weeks, until all seven Electors came to Nuremberg; and on the day before
Saint Veitz’s day, when people led the Empress under
a gold canopy from the castle to Saint Sebolt [= Sebald].” [9]
Charles IV intended a tacit manifesto, since his son was to be the next
Emperor. In 1431, Cardinal Julian, before the main altar of St. Sebald, presented the Margrave of Brandenburg and his
knights a cross to serve in the struggle against the Hussites.
The king and other lords were present. [10]
When the Emperor and the prelates, such as legates or bishops, entered into the
city, they were led first to St. Sebaldus Church to
celebrate Mass. [11] The
above-mentioned sources clearly show that St. Sebald
often served as a space for political representation. In contrast, we find no
record of political celebrations, which took place only at St. Lawrence.
Since 1397, the bones of Sebald have been preserved in a silver reliquary. From 1507
to 1519, Master Peter Vischer and his sons made a
housing of brass for this reliquary to protect it from theft. (In fact, St. Sebaldus Church had been robbed of it in past.[12])
We find several entries in the city council’s resolutions involving its
creation, such as payments to Peter Vischer. In
addition, on 11 July 1514, the council demanded that Vischer
promptly complete the work and sent two councilors to him, probably because of
a delay. On October 3, it lent him the urban casting house at the White Tower
for four years. About six months before the setting of the brass housing, on
January 21, 1519, the council asked the Genannten, the larger council, for its financial support. [13]
The council had apparently been conscious
of the importance of St. Sebaldus Church and the need
to represent its status and dignity to the “outside” world. The upkeep and
protection of the relic was, therefore, among its essential duties.
In St. Lawrence, the tabernacle in the form
of a tower (Sakramentshaus)[14]
and The Annunciation (Englischer Gruß)[15]
were private donations by famous counselors. The tabernacle was given by the
then churchwarden (Kirchenpfleger)
of fabrica ecclesiae[16]
to St. Lawrence, Hans Imhoff, and carved by Master
Adam Kraft between 1493 and 1496. The private contract of these two men for its
creation is extant.[17]
The Annunciation was donated by Anton Tucher and
chiseled by Master Veit Stoss
from 1517 to 1518. Anton Tucher was a Losunger, quasi mayor of Nuremberg, and the churchwarden of
St. Sebald at the time. The fact that he decorated
the choir of St. Laurence in spite of his position at St. Sebald
seems, at first, strange. However, his cousin Lorenz and his brother Sixtus Tucher were former
provosts of St. Lawrence, and he was related by blood to some of its priests.
No written contract exists for The Annunciation, but it is recorded in Anton’s
housekeeping book.[18]
What is common to Hans and Anton’s
donations? Both are set at the most conspicuous places in these churches. Even
more expensive donations were placed in St. Lawrence. For example, while the
altar of St. Anne cost 1200 guilders and that of St. Roch
1050 guilders, the tabernacle was purchased for only 770 guilders and The
Annunciation 550 guilders.[19]
We may call the two donations “a visual strategy of patricians.” In those
times, only altars donated by the clergy could be placed in the choir of St.
Lawrence. Therefore, lay donors could show their families’ influence only
through such extraordinary monumental artworks. Imhoff
and Tucher belonged, furthermore, to the newer
patrician families. In Nuremberg, almost half of the old patrician houses
became extinct or moved away from the city between 1332 and 1521. As a result,
new families were accepted into the patrician class. Tucher
attained patrician status in 1340 and Imhoff in 1437.[20]
Through their ecclesial donations, they demonstrated their political successes
to other citizens. In summary, St. Sebald served as a
symbol of the city to the outside world and St. Lawrence that of the burghers to
the internal one.
Social obligation as a motive for donations
emerges from an analysis of stained glasses. In earlier studies, religious
motives and representations of donor families have been seen as reasons for
medieval donation. Here, I would like to add social obligation in connection
with administrative church positions. The stained glass in the two parish
churches in Nuremberg was cared for by the families that had donated it; in fact,
the civic council required such preservation and repair.
Here is a table with names of the windows
in St. Sebald. The table demonstrates
Table 1.
The names of the windows in the eastern choir of St. Sebald
|
I. Emperor
Maximilian |
|||
|
N. II. |
[Bishop] Bamberg |
S. II. |
Margrave [Brandenburg] |
|
N. III. |
Stromer |
S. III. |
Pfinzing
[←Volchtel] |
|
N. IV. |
Fürer |
S. IV. |
Haller |
|
N. V. |
Tucher |
S. V. |
Schürstab |
|
N. VI. |
Mendel |
S. VI. |
Beheim |
|
－ |
|
S. VII. |
Volckamer |
|
N. VIII. |
Grundherr |
S. VIII. |
Imhoff |
|
N. IX. |
Geudel |
S. IX. |
Paumgartner |
Sources: Fehring, Günter P./Ress, Anton. Stadt
Nürnberg (Kurzinventar). 2nd ed. pp. xx – xx.
that stained glass functioned as familial
monuments and that the families of churchwardens or sub-churchwardens (Kirchenmeister)
were donors. The glass was given for several years after the completion of the
new choir between 1379 and 1386. Four windows –marked in boldface in the table–
were donated by families of churchwardens or sub-churchwardens. In the case of
window N. VIII, the donor Michael Grundherr was a churchwarden.
Regarding N. V., Berthold Tucher, its donor, had
served as sub-churchwarden from 1333 to 1352. The donor S. V. was Leupold Schülctab; his father had
been sub-churchwardens from 1350 to 1355. S. III had been called formerly “the
window of the Volchtel,” that was given by Heinrich Volchtel, who the last churchwarden in this period; he
played a significant role in the reconstruction of the eastern choir. These
donors appear to have donated out of a sense of obligation, which probably
arose from their social positions as churchwardens or sub-churchwardens.
New tendency about donations can be
observed just before the Reformation. For example, donations
of sacred objects for Mass, such as vestments, chalices, monstrances, and for communal liturgical commitments, etc.
The patrician Peter Harsdörfer
donated one of the hymns for the Virgin Mary, the Salve Regina to St. Sebaldus Church in
1479. In his donation’s document, he expressed that he has “planned an eternal
donation for the help and comfort of my forefathers and all believers’ souls.”[21]
An additional donation was made by Margarethe Haller,
who was not related to Harsdörfer. She gave to the
Rich Alms (Reichs Almosen) that
Nuremberg’s citizen Burckhart Sailer
had founded in 1388, the fund for women who has just given birth that was
founded by Hans Tucher and the fund for lepers that at
the same time.[22] It
follows from what has been said thus far that the contribution of the Salve
Regina by Peter Harsdörfer was equated with alms.
Peter Harsdörfer
donation’s document states that “mean working people can come to it (Salve Regina service) and hold the
service as well.”[23]
About twenty-five years later, Peter Imhoff, the
oldest son of Hans Imhoff, and Ulrich Kiffhaber together donated Salve Regina services to St. Lawrence Church. In a book of official
documents concerning St. Lawrence, one finds the following words: “[For] their
forefathers, posterity and all believers’ souls (alle glaubigen selen)”;
furthermore, “mean hand-working people were moreover guided to such services,
graces, and indulgences; in this they are prepared to gain eternal bliss.”
[24]
In other documents regarding the donation of a Mass on the anniversary of
someone’s death (Jahrtag),
we find similar descriptions, such as “[for] all believers’ souls.” This is not
a new formulation; however, it appears in documents offering donations for alle glaubigen selen in Nuremberg, especially in the 1480s. It is
essential to emphasize that "mean people”, namely the poor, at the Salve Regina service received not
material assistance for their bodies, but spiritual assistance for their souls.
In Nuremberg, the Salve Regina was an ecclesiastical measure for urban society,
because St. Mary had been conceived as a patron saint against the plague and
drought in Meddle Ages. In the plague year 1483, the council requested that all
clergymen in the city sing the hymn to the Holy Mother every day after vespers.[25]
Peter Imhoff and his brothers donated the Altar dedicated
to St. Roch －the patron against the plague－ to St. Lawrence
Church in 1483.[26] Just
before the donation of the Salve Regina
service by Peter Harsdörfer, an unprecedented drought
hit this area.[27] The
council begged churches and monasteries within the city for processions or
prayers to seek divine assistance. In summary, the Salve Regina was donated when the city suffered under the weight of
the plague or the drought. Thus, donors made gifts not only for the salvation
of themself and their relatives but also for that of
the entire urban community.
Let me summarize the
main findings of this paper that emerge through a consideration of choir
artifacts. In Nuremberg, public and politically significant ceremonies were
quite frequently held in St. Sebaldus Church, to
which the council paid careful attention. This parish church represented this
imperial city to the “outside” world. In comparison, the patriciate
donated freely to St. Lawrence, which was beyond the control of the council.
Here, comparatively new patrician families revealed their high social standing
in the urban community through donations that were focused on the “inside” of
the town. Second, the analysis of stained glasses makes clear that social
obligation was a motive for ecclesial donations. Previous research speaks of no
more than spiritual intentions and the demonstration of family authority.
Finally, during the crises of plague or drought, one of the hymns for the
Virgin Mary, the Salve Regina, was
donated for the sake of the whole urban community.
Thus, burger donations had two dimensions.
One was the desire to belong to the urban community, which is indicated, in
particular, through the donations of the Salve
Regina and of stained glasses. The other is the demonstration of a donor’s
social position in the community, as in the cases of the artifacts in the
choir of St. Lawrence. However, almost all of civic donations appear simultaneously
to contain these two motives such as a front and a rear side of a coin.
ABBREVIATIONS
Chr.
Hegel, Karl ed. Die Chroniken der
fränkischen Städte. Nürnberg. Bde. 1 – 5, Leipzig 1862 – 1874 [ND:
Stuttgart 1961].
NRV Hampe, Thodor. Nürnberger Ratsverlässe über Kunst und Künstler im Zeitalter der
Spätgotik und Renaissance. vol. 1: (1449) 1474 – 1570. Wien/Leipzig, 1904.
StAN Staatsarchiv Nürnberg
[1] E.g. Schmidt, Heinrich. Die deutschen Städtechroniken
als Spiegel des bürgerlichen Selbstverständnisses im Spätmittelalter.
Göttingen, 1958. Cf. idem. “Bürgerliches Selbstverständnis und
städtische Geschichtsschreibung im deutschen Spätmittelalter,” in Johanek, Peter. ed. Städtische
Geschichtsschreibung im Spätmittelalter und in der Frühen Neuzeit.
Köln/Weimar/Wien, 2000, pp. 1 – 17.
[2] E.g. Späth, Markus ed. Die Bildlichkeit korporativer Siegel im Mittelalter. Kunstgechichte und Geschichte im Gespräch. Köln, 2009; Furukawa, Masayuki. “The Study Trend of the Medieval German City Seals and „the Representaion of Cities,” in Medieval European Studies 2 (2010), pp.161 – 178 (English Summary: p. 239).
[3] E.g. Roeck, Bernd. “Identität und Stadtbild. Zur Selbstdarstellung der deutschen Stadt
im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert,” in Chittolini,
Giorgio and Johanek, Peter eds. Aspekte
und Komponenten der städtischen Identität in Italien und Deutschland (14, - 16,
Jahrhundert).
Bologna/Berlin, 2003, pp. 11 – 24.
[4] As an exception, Heinzmann,
Guido. Gemeinschaft und Identität spätmittelalter- licher Kleinstädte
Westfalens. Eine mentatitätsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung der Städte Dorsten, Haltern, Hamm, Lünen, Recklinghausen und
Werne. Norderstedt, 2006.
[5] Moeller, Bernd. Reichsstadt und Reformation. Gütersloh, 1962. Rev. ed. Berlin (Ost),
1987; Trans. Chenou, Albert. Genève, 1966; Midelfort, H. C. Erik and Edwards,
Mark U. Jr. Philadelphia, 1972; 森田安一 (Morita, Yasukazu), 棟居洋 (Munesue, Hiroshi) et al. 石引正志 (Ishibiki, Masashi). Tokyo, 1990.
[6] E.g.: Bünz, Enno. “Klerus und Bürger. Die Bedeutung der Kirche für die Identität deutscher Städte im Spätmittelalter,” in Chittolini, G. and Johanek, P. eds. op. cit, pp. 351 – 389.
[7] About the outline of Nuremberg: Diefenbacher,
Michael, Bezerstedt, Horst-Dieter et al. Bauernfeind, Martina. Kleine Nürnberger Stadtgeschichte. Regensburg, 2012.
[8] About Sebaldusgrab: Fehring,
Günter P. and Ress, Anton. Stadt Nürnberg. Kurzinventar. 2nd ed. p.
131.
[9] Chr., vol. 4, p. 126.
[10] Chr., vol. 1, p. 382.
[11] Examples of Emperors: Chr., vol. 3, p. 363; vol. 5, p. 500. Prelates:
Chr., vol. 1, p.410; Chr., vol. 5, p. 643.
[12] NRV. No. 246; Hoffmann, Friedrich Wilhelm. Die
Sebalduskirche in Nürnberg. Wien, 1912, p.164 and 166.
[13] NRV. No. 1167; Fehring and Ress. op. cit. p. 131.
[14] Fehring and Ress. op. cit. p. xxx
[15] Fehring and Ress. op. cit. p. xxx
[16] Fabrica ecclesiae (Ger.:
Kirchenfabrik) that …
[17] Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Imhoff-Archiv, Schublade XI, Fasc. 31, Nr. 3a. (qrt. in Schleif, Corine. Donatio et memoria. Stifter, Stiftungen und Motivationen an Beispielen aus der Lorenzkirche in Nürnberg. München, 1990. here at pp. 242 – 244.)
[18] Stolz, Georg. “Der Engelsgruß in St. Lorenz in Nürnberg. Stiftung und Schicksal,” in idem ed. Der Englische Gruss des Veit Stoß zu St. Lorenz in Nürnberg. München, 1983, pp. 1 – 22. hier at p. 2.
[19] Schleif. op. cit. p. 229.
[20] About each of Nuremberg’s patrician families: Fleischmann, Peter. Rat und Patriziat in Nürnberg. 3 vols. Neustadt an der Aisch, 2008.
[21] StAN, Rep. 8, No. 45, “auch mein, meinen vorfordern vnnd allen glaubigen selen zu hilff vnd zu troste, ein ewig stiffttung zu thun furgenommen …”
[22] StAN, Rep. 8, No. 158.
[23] StAN, Rep. 8, No. 45, “das gemain arbeittsam volck auch dartzu
komen vnd andacht empfhahen mug …”
[24] Ibid., “irer
vorfordern vnnd nachkomen, auch allen glaubigen selen, auch damit
das gemain hanndtwercksvolk
zu solichen gotlichen diensten, gnaden, vnd ablassen mer geraitzt, durch welich
sie ewige seligkait zu erlangen geschickt werden …“
[25] StAN, Rep. 60b, No. 11, fol. 301(qrd. in Dormeier. op. cit. p. 35).
[26] Dormeier, Heinrich. “St. Rochus, die Pest und die Imhoffs in Nürnberg vor und während der Reformation. Eine spätgotischer Altar in seinem religiös-liturgischen, wirtschaftlich-rechtlichen und sozialen Umfeld,” in Anzeiger des Germanischen Nationalmuseums (1985), pp. 7 – 72.
[27] Diefenbacher, Michael ed. Johannes Müllner. Die Annalen der Reichsstadt Nürnberg von 1623, vol. 3. Nürnberg, 2003, p. 49.