Skip to navigation – Site map

HomeL’Atelier du CRH22 bisReconstructing the Catholic Churc...

Reconstructing the Catholic Church and Restituting the Power of the Sovereign: The Clergy in the Composite Monarchy of the Habsburgs during the Seventeenth Century

Marie-Élizabeth Ducreux
Translated by Vicki-Marie Petrick (vicki-marie.petrick@orange.fr)

Abstracts

Can Catholic clergy be considered as a social, political, and even pastoral category, reconstructed within certain historical and historiographical circumstances, outside of its ecclesiological definition? Are the clergy a body or a social group whose overarching identity would erase differences of situations and constraints? The present article explores this avenue in the framework of the composite monarchy of the Habsburgs in seventeenth-century Central Europe. It will take into account the scales of interactions and conflicts between actors and structures. It will also draw attention to the effects of the clergy’s double-allegiance to the Catholic Church and to a local political body. In each land composing this monarchy, then, the question arises of the existence of a category that is also a border, constitutional or statutory, that historians and jurists readily perceive as stable: that of the political representation of the clergy as a body. At the end of the fifteenth or at the beginning of the sixteenth century, all the lands over which the younger branch of the Habsburgs were to find themselves reigning, from 1526 on, possessed their own diet, each with its own dynamics and particularities, with its own history. As practices and rules differed, this clergy of a composite monarchy is therefore taken here as a transversal object, indissociably linked to local settings in which its members’ possibilities of action lay.

Top of page

Full text

1Can Catholic clergy be considered as a social, political, and even pastoral category, reconstructed in certain historical and historiographical circumstances, outside of its ecclesiological definition? Are the clergy a body or a social group whose overarching identity would erase differences of situations and constraints? Can we attempt to envisage it as an object on the scale of a monarchy composed of lands and territories which each possessed its own clergy, that is to say that of the Habsburgs in the early modern period? After 1620 Ferdinand II began the process of recatholicization in the Czech and Austrian lands, continued by his son Ferdinand III (1637-1657) and his grandson Leopold I (1657-1705). This process offers the opportunity to ask such questions that are rarely addressed beyond the classic distinction between political, princely, and nobiliary recatholicization on one hand and Catholic reform on the other. This traditional partition does not account for the scales of interactions and of conflicts between the actors and the structures, and it sets up a sub-disciplinary and conceptual border. That border is all the more resistant in that it is surrounded by as many national historiographies as there are languages and territorial borders today in this vast space. Taking such tangled intersections into account is one of the challenges this text proposes to take up.

  • 1 Petr Maťa, « Wer waren die Landstände? Betrachtungen zu den böhmischen und österreichischen “Kernlä (...)

2For each land concerned there is also the question of another category’s existence, which is also a border, constitutional or statutory, and which historians and jurists readily perceive as stable: that of the political representation of the clergy as body. For the clergy to have been an order in a territorial assembly, a categorization must have taken place at some point in the course of time. In other words, there must have been a classification of persons, or groups, admitted in these structures of representation and exchange with the sovereign. At the end of the fifteenth or the beginning of the sixteenth century, this was what happened in all the lands over which the younger branch of the Habsburgs was to find itself reigning from 1526 onward. Each had its own diet, with its dynamics and particularities, and with its own history.1 The practices and rules, however, differed. The clergy of a composite monarchy is therefore taken here as a transversal object, indissociably linked to local settings in which its members’ possibilities of action lay.

3In the present state of the question, this narrowly focused essay on the position of the clergy in the composite monarchy of the Habsburgs can only be a brief experiment in writing: that of a comparative construction in which one case encompasses others, and which reveals the difficulty in explicating the clergy as theoretical category outside of precise situations.

Constructing the Framework: Borders Both Tangible and Mobile in the Seventeenth Century

  • 2 It is a vast question which has inspired an immense bibliography. A very clear summary is given by  (...)

4In the “lands of the Emperor” – that is the kingdoms and provinces over which the Habsburgs of Vienna reigned as sovereign princes – in many ways the position of the clergy challenges categories and borders. These can be historiographical, spatial, and sociopolitical, sometimes even ritual, and doctrinal. In each of the lands over which a prince of the younger branch of the Habsburgs effectively reigned as king (Hungary, Bohemia, part of Dalmatia, Croatia, and Slavonia) or archduke (Lower and Upper Austria), duke (Styria, Carinthia, Carniola and in Silesia), margrave (Moravia), count (in the Tyrol and at Gorizia), etc., the configurations mobilizing ecclesiastical actors experienced various evolutions in the course of the seventeenth century. Their king, archduke, duke, margrave, or count was the emperor. In these lands, however, he reigned as territorial sovereign exercising his power over a space that, in each case, was distinct and distinct too from the Holy Roman Empire. This was so even with cases in which some of them belonged to the Empire on otherwise diverse terms.2 The sovereign was still the essential principle of unity in this conglomerate of territories. Besides, the political and civil jurisdictional borders only rarely matched up with those of the dioceses, in the case of the hereditary Austrian lands, while they corresponded in the kingdoms of Bohemia and Hungary. There was, however, one important caveat with the latter since the borders had become partially virtual or nominal in regions under Ottoman rule. In contrast, the partition of monastic and congregational provinces coincided almost nowhere with the territorial borders of the lands.

5The case of the clergy of Hungary, Austria and Bohemia allows us also then to confront realizations of spatiality. Many factors contributed to practices of transversality between territorial entities and the action of the dynasty. For example, the defense of borders against Ottoman proximity produced interactions among neighboring countries (Styria and Croatia), and sometimes made others autonomous in this domain (Moravia). In contrast, in Hungary, where a third of the land was under the government of the Sublime Porte (the central government of the Ottoman empire), it led to the removal of the construction and the upkeep of a line of strongholds from the kingdom’s institutions, directly placed under the authority of the Vienna War Council. Stemming from this were early repercussions on the taxation of the clergy as well as on its financial subordination to the Chamber of Hungary which emanated from the Court Chamber, the dynasty’s tax authority.

6The question of the funding of the Catholic Church was a heated debate everywhere, in contexts which were historically determined in different ways. It intersected, in fact, with the question of the conceptions of the regalia and of the domain of the prince, but also with those of royal patronage. It was in these areas that the affirmation of the prince’s sovereignty confronted the pope’s over the clergy of the Roman Church. This occurred through the clash of notions such as the freedom of the Church (Libertas Ecclesiae) on one hand and on the other of rights and freedoms of the Emperor in each of his own lands. This leads us directly to address the question of the double allegiance of the Catholic clergy, a clergy that, as such, fell under the Roman Church, but was also “local.” The latter term bears a meaning that transversal contexts and situations within the monarchy, as signaled above, invite us to ponder. The double allegiance of the clergy connected it first of all to the authority of the pope, while integrating it into the community of pastors of the Roman Church, but beyond that it connected them to a concrete diocese, a regular province, and to an abbey or a monastery. Next, that transversality stemmed from the enrollment – or from the presence without statutory formalization – of bishops, prelates, abbots, and sometimes canons and commanders of military orders, in the diets of lands or provinces, as individuals or as bodies – for the distinction is not always either clear or effective. One can debate these two poles. Finally, there was the absence of consensus between Rome and the Emperor concerning the existence and the modalities of a relationship of subjection over the bishops and the abbots of the latter’s own lands. Confronted with princes who thought of themselves as instituted by God and their representatives on earth, responsible for the salvation of their subjects, but who were also protectors of the Church in their lands, this double allegiance had very conflictual effects. The question must then be asked, which cannot in fact be answered except by the actors in the context of actions: to whom does the clergyman belong and under what conditions?

  • 3 On all these points see Antal Molnár, Le Saint-Siège, Raguse et les missions catholiques de la Hong (...)

7But this Catholic clergy, as we have said, was not only “Roman,” it was also local. This “localism” did not emerge with the birth in 1526 of what is conventionally called the “Habsburg Monarchy.” Nor was it born with the reaffirmation by the Council of Trent (1542-1563) of the Catholic articles of faith, concomitant with the large-scale reform of moral, disciplinary, and theological education of the clergy and with the updating of the norms of the Church. In Hungary and in the associated Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, for example, this “local” was part of a spatial layering that since 1526, and even more so since 1541, tallied with the overlapping of three different sovereignties without, however, merging with it. It must be noted that, for all the examples and factions present – the emperor, the sultan, and the prince of Transylvania – the claim to sovereignty encompassed the whole of the space of the Kingdom of Hungary, despite concrete divisions. There, the land-owning nobility who lived from that point on in the Habsburgian North of the country laid claim to maintaining its seigniorial rights and its patronage. Too, there were the competing claims of the Hungarian Church to exercise its jurisdiction without accounting for recent lines of territorial partitions, in other words, in the dioceses under Turkish domination. In such places, the bishops, non-residents, in spite of Rome’s wish, had become, de facto, titular bishops. The effective, but sporadic and sparse, presence of a missionary Catholic clergy – or lack thereof – in Ottoman and Transylvanian zones, put the papacy, the king of Hungary, and the bishops in confrontation with each other. In these Ottoman zones, as in free cities of so-called “royal” Hungary, Catholic clergy competed with the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate which claimed jurisdiction over the south of Hungary and over the Bosnian Franciscans. We find again this competition between Catholicism and the Orthodox Church in the area of Uniatism, but also in the conflicts of patronage with the Protestant middle nobility, under whom villagers remaining Catholic suffered.3 Finally, this “localism,” everywhere, dealt primarily with a particular aspect of the organization of the political body, a symbolic concern but also a political and fiscal one, that is, the modalities of the clergy’s position in orders and diets. Such is the second part of this essay.

Temporal and Spiritual: The Porosity of Borders

  • 4 Alessandro Catalano, « Riforma catolica e fragilità giuridica : i decreti del Concilio di Trento e (...)
  • 5 István Fazekas, “Wirkung der Trienter Reformen auf den niederen Klerus », in : Marta Fata, András F(...)

8The implication of sovereigns in the defense, and – in Czech and Austrian lands – in the restoration of Catholicism, made the adhesion to the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholicism a central question. And yet, precisely, it had become after 1620 the only publicly allowed religion in the Austrian lands, since it was that of the prince, and was the only legal one in Czech lands. Thus, a reimposed Catholicism redrew the border between the religious reform promoted by Rome and that promoted by the sovereign and the nobles in their domains. Within the Catholic Church, the dogmas had been restudied and proclaimed in the canons or decrees of the Council of Trent. They were supposed to apply universally throughout Christendom and consequently to the whole of the Catholic clergy. By the end of the Council (1563) the papal nuncios occupied themselves with getting them admitted and ratified by the prelates in each entity of the monarchy, and unsuccessfully attempted to do the same before the civil authorities. In the provinces of the younger branch of the Habsburgs, neither diets nor sovereigns received them as law. In Bohemia, they were received in 1605 during the only diocesan synod able to be held in the seventeenth century in spite of the opposition of the sovereign and the grand officers of the kingdom. Such personages made it known that the clergy’s acceptance could well bring on the internal sphere of clerical discipline, in other words, the “spiritual,” but that this in no way concerned the State.4 From 1611 onward, according to this same restriction to the purely “spiritual,” the bishops and canons of Hungary conformed to all or part of the decrees of Trent during several synods of the kingdom’s clergy.5 The non-receipt of the decrees of the Council of Trent outside of clerics was one of the areas where the sovereign power of princes and the authority of the pope as head of the church clashed. Sovereign law, public law, and Church decrees concerning true doctrine and the reform of the clergy were clearly distinguished. This went further: if the archbishops and the bishops exercised their canonical rights over their clergymen, the sovereign did not always respect them. He would extend to spiritual matters on one hand and on the other to the immunity of the clergy, the exercise of his temporal rights.

  • 6 Hans Kiewning (éd.), Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland, Abteilung 17. Jahrhundert, I, Nuntiatur des (...)
  • 7 Hans Kiewning (éd.), Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland, Abteilung 17. Jahrhundert, I, Nuntiatur des (...)
  • 8 2 April 1644, National Archives of Prague (Národní archiv), collection APA, F 29, box 3935.

9Through certain operations, borders may diverge and put back into contact what had seemed separated. I will give only one detailed example. In the seventeenth century, the sovereigns of Vienna would go so far as encroaching upon doctrinal and liturgical competence, as well as upon the authority of bishops. This would occur when the symbolic construction of the dynasty’s legitimacy, through their allegedly exceptional piety, demanded it. With the content of the Church’s doctrine being neither entirely immutable nor always consensual and unequivocal, the cardinals at Trent had left aside the clarification of polemical points. Among them was the meaning to be given to the “immaculate” conception of the Virgin and, consequently, also her designation. While in 1622, Pope Gregory XV had forbidden debate on the subject, in 1642, Pope Urban VIII fulminated the bull Universa per orbem that demoted several holy days of obligation to the rank of simple optional feast days. Among these was the feast of the Conception of the Virgin, without the descriptor of Immaculate. Moreover, in 1644 Urban VIII forbade use of the term. For Ferdinand III (1637-1657), these elements – the absence of theological decision, the ceremonial downgrade, but also the pope’s refusal to decide in favor of the House of Austria’s interpretation – were an opportunity to impose Habsburg choices. He could not manage, any more than his father Ferdinand ii could in 1625 and 1628, to convince the pope to establish the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin as dogma.6 As he had already done for all the papal bulls since 1641, he refused to publish the two without his placet. Further to that, in his States, he supported the most elevated ceremonial modalities (or ranking) for this holy day, referring to its name of “Immaculate,” rendering it a sign of subjection to the dynasty.7 Ferdinand III kept or, as the case may be, imposed, the holy day of obligation in all his lands and forbade his bishops from applying the Roman reform of the liturgical calendar. Yet Rome recognized some room to act to all its ordinaries in the implementation of liturgies specific to their diocese. But in this case, in some of his own lands, the will of the sovereign took precedence. We can see valuable information in the 1644 reprimand addressed to Andreas Kocker, the officialis or judicial vicar, of the archbishop of Prague, and in his response. Kocker had allowed the content of the bull to be published and thus to apply papal orders concerning feast days. These were to fall under temporal public law (jus publicus temporalis) and the King’s rule and not spiritual law.8 The clergy of Austrian and Czech lands yielded and conformed prayers and liturgical calendars to the sovereign’s will before a compromise with the pope could be found. The pontiff eventually gave special permission to celebrate this feast in the Habsburg style in the lands of the House of Austria. The emperor only placed himself openly in the domain of theological definition in his private requests to the pope, relayed by his agents and the nuncios. He did not do so publicly. In that capacity he stayed within the purview of his sovereign rights. Still, in point of fact, the border was blurred and acts spoke volumes.

  • 9 Alessandro Catalano, « Vos ecclesiastici sempre diversum (occlamandi desiderio) ab aillis vultis. L (...)
  • 10 Brigitte Basdevant-Gaudemet, Alain Tallon, « Introduction », in : Patrick Arabayre, Brigitte Basdev (...)
  • 11 See : Jiří Havlík, Jan Fridrich z Valdštejna. Arcibiskup a mecenáš doby baroka, Prague, Vyšehrad, 2 (...)
  • 12 Jiří David, « Die Mährischen Landtage in der zweiten Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts », in Gerhard A(...)

10An analogous reasoning over the border between the temporal and the spiritual was used at the Diet of Bohemia, continuously from its reopening in 1627.9 This time the issue was not the manner of celebrating a feast day demoted by the pope, but rather the absence of the clergy’s fiscal autonomy and the precedence of the law of the kingdom over canon law. The conflicts with the order of the clergy reached a peak under Leopold I at the end of the seventeenth century. The papacy at that point sided with the estate of the clergy, and a compromise was then to be negotiated with the emperor. This saved face and honor for Rome, but in practice untied the hands of the sovereign. Such forcing of matters, and such compromises, may be linked to the modern notion of “juridical pluralism”. A recent book understands this notion as supporting the political practices of sovereigns that drew from the same source of divine order and claimed, all of them, to incarnate it. They based their rationale as much on canon law as on all sorts of rulings, customs, jurisprudence, and legislation.10 Actors of such conflicts, however, sometimes wanted to embrace a stable border between spiritualia and temporalia, that is between what belonged to God – and to his clergy which was supposed to manage the patrimonium Christi – and what belonged to the sovereign. It was indeed to oppose such a border that around 1690, Johann Friedrich of Waldstein, an Archbishop of Prague, obstinately battled to maintain the immunity of the clergy in its theoretical Roman purity.11. Outside of Bohemia, we find traces of similar conflicts over ecclesiastical immunity and the interpretation of the role of prelates in the diet and the offices of the country. Or again there could be conflicts concerning the presence of the decisive vote of imperial commissioners in the election of abbots, also documented for instance in Moravia and Silesia, and in the hereditary Austrian lands. Such disagreements could also be found concerning certain abbeys of great aristocratic domains in the West of Hungary, by way of encroachment upon the competence of the “Council for Monasteries” (Klosterrat), of Vienna in service to the royal tax authorities.12

Authority and Ritual as Substitutes for Confessional Clarity: Norms, Practices and the Nature of the Clergy

  • 13 August Franzen, Zölibat und Priesterrehe in der Anseinandersetzung der Reformationzeit und der kath (...)
  • 14 Gustave Constant, Concession à l’Allemagne de la communion sous les deux espèces. Étude sur les déb (...)
  • 15 Gustave Constant, Concession à l’Allemagne de la communion sous les deux espèces, op. cit., p. 1040 (...)

11The lines between doctrinal meaning and practice, between discipline and ecclesial identity of the clergy, had been crossed by the Habsburgs well before the affair of the 1642 bull. The Eucharist and the celibacy of priests, two matters of dogma and faith indissociably linked to ritual practice and even to the definition of the Catholic clergy, had been a much more general issue between 1560 and 1622. These matters were, moreover, a real confessional border, a marker of essential differentiation between Catholics on one hand and on the other, the Protestants or in Czech lands the Utraquists, in other words the Hussites. In the Council of Trent’s last phase, from April 1522 to January 1562, Emperor Ferdinand I placed two conditions on his active support, which were, for his lands and in the Empire, the acceptance of Communion under both kinds for the laity, and a tolerance for priests’ marriage.13 The question of communion under both kinds directly subverted the border between heterodoxy and orthodoxy, as well as the borders between ritual, orthodoxy, and doctrine. The final border upset was the one at the very heart of the definition of dogma and its connection with discipline which allowed for coexistence between prelates and lay actors – most often sovereigns. In this way, the defense of Catholicism against the Protestant Reformation opened up a space between acceptable and unacceptable that was incessantly reworked, a space filled with contexts, interactions and conflicts between sovereigns and bishops. In this precise case, it was the political vision of the Emperor, King of Bohemia, Archduke of Austria, etc., on the necessity of obtaining modifications of the Catholic rite in territories confronted by Hussitism and the Reformation. The concession (the indult) which dispensed lay people from Church common law for communion from the chalice was granted to Emperor Ferdinand I by Pius IV, on April 16, 1564. It concerned the archdioceses of Mainz, Cologne, Trier, in the Empire, of Salzburg in the Empire and in the hereditary Austrian lands, Esztergom in Hungary and Prague in Czech lands. As early as 1571 the Pope reversed this concession in Bavaria, and in 1584 it was revoked by Gregory XIII generally, with two exceptions, precisely for the two kingdoms of the Emperor, Hungary, with the archdiocese of Esztergom and Utraquist Bohemia, and Moravia, with the archdiocese of Prague. 14. In Hungary it was abolished in 1604. In the lands of the Hussites the issue had another dimension, that of bringing Utraquist priests – who had been separated from Catholicism through the theological and ritual comprehension of Communion – back under the authority of the Archbishop of Prague. In this area the suppression only took place in 1622, a little more than a year after the failure of the rebellion of Protestant estates against Ferdinand II. In Silesia it was suppressed in 1628.15.

  • 16 Communication of Cardinal Harrach to Urban viii on the state of the Archdiocese of Prague 1632-1637 (...)
  • 17 Péter Tusor, « Problems and possibilities of Catholic Confessionalization in Upper Hungary around 1 (...)
  • 18 Ferenc Galla, “Magyar tárgyú pápai felhatalmazások, felmentések és kiválságok a katolikus megújhodá (...)

12In practice, however, the border between heterodoxy and orthodoxy of parish clergy, made up in great part by reintegrated Utraquist priests, was, in the Kingdom of Bohemia, far from having managed reunification in the same way. For two or three decades more, lack of sufficient priests and diocesan seminaries to create them meant that former Utraquist priests remained in place and others were appointed. In far-off filial churches, teachers and cantors filled in for the lack of clerics. This sometimes occurred according to the wishes of the lords exercising their right of patronage by not providing for the parishes of their domains. In place of the sacrifice of the Mass, those laymen substituted postils and songs in the vernacular, which, until about 1680, extended in such places a type of divine service habitually found among non-Catholics.16 These practices were common too, though for different reasons, in regions of Hungary shared between the Habsburgs, the Ottomans and the Prince of Transylvania, regions which were a tangle of confessional allegiances and conflicts of jurisdiction. The glaring lack of catholic priests, the persecutions they suffered from cities and from the Protestant middle nobility, as well as from local Ottoman authorities, led bishops to allow “licensed” laymen to preach, and to teach how to sing in the vernacular. They even brought in Jesuits as well as Bosnian, Hungarian and Dalmatian-Italian Franciscans, sent in part from the Roman Congregation for the Propaganda of the Faith, but also Polish Uniate priests, in place of a local secular clergy.17 In these situations, it is difficult to speak of the Catholic lower clergy as a social group or even as a compact social body, and even less so as reformed according to Tridentine prescriptions. This can be seen quite clearly in Hungary in the requests before the papacy for dispensations from applying the Council’s decrees, requests made by bishops who nonetheless had adopted these decrees.18

  • 19 Fanny Cosandey, Le Rang, Paris, Gallimard, 2018, p. 343.

13The corollary question, which we must now return to, is that of knowing if the clerics were perceived as a body anyway, and if this was so, who was part of this body? And if they were indeed a body, were they such in the Church or in the State, or both? Fanny Cosandey has written that in France, corporative allegiance “proves to be a fluctuating data point. The actors take hold of it or not according to circumstances, and the contours of these bodies blur as soon as it is a question of drawing their features.”19 What is the state of affairs in a composite monarchy in which the multiplicity of territorial clergy is the rule?

Defining the Catholic Clergy: Social Body, Order, or Estate?

  • 20 On all these points and on the way in which the Council of Trent understood and redefined the sacra (...)
  • 21 Rev. Pius Pietrzyk, O.P, The Power of Orders and the Power of Jurisdiction: A theological and jurid (...)
  • 22 Brigitte Basdevant-Gaudemet, Alain Tallon, « Introduction », in Patrick Arabayre, Brigitte Basdevan (...)

14These questions – celibacy, the Communion of the laity, whether or not to substitute authorized laymen wherever priests were lacking – challenged the border between the laity and priests, that is the very conception of the nature of the Catholic Church. We must now specify how that Church defined the Catholic clergy. A Catholic cleric, secular or regular, is a man consecrated by the Sacrament of Holy Orders, because he has been received in the priesthood – the sacerdotal office – or at the very least a part of the minor and major orders. It is in this sense that he belongs to the Roman Church. The sacerdotal office bestows upon the ordained priest the capacity to offer up the sacrifice of the Mass through which, in Catholic dogma, the bread and the wine change into the body and blood of Christ. It also allows him to give absolution for sins through the Sacrament of Penance. It situates the ordained priest in the apostolic continuity of the Church as instituted by Christ. Ordination is therefore the sacrament which consecrates a man as priest, but also makes him share in the potestas ordinis (sacramental power) and in the potestas iurisdictionis (power given by the concession of an ecclesial role).20 In addition, bishops receive the episcopal consecration which grants them the capacity of governing within the Church. This is what, in 1563, the twenty-third session of the Council of Trent worked towards reaffirming, while abstaining from specifying what constituted the nature of the sacred character of the order (potestas ordinis). Instead, they remained content to condemn those who interpreted it only in terms of temporal powers.21 Thus, at the center of Catholicity, the nature of the relationship attaching a category of prelates, that is the bishops, to the pope, had not been entirely clarified. As we are reminded by the editors of a volume bearing on the conflicts between sovereigns and the clergy, “the priests, at Trent, made the episcopacy the driving force of pastoral reform that they meant to implement. They did not however wish to make any pronouncement on the nature of the power of the bishop. Does a diocesan bishop receive his jurisdictional power directly from Christ or is this jurisdiction bestowed upon him through the pope’s intermediary? For over three centuries, this theological uncertainty weighed on ecclesiology in condemning to failure any attempt at making explicit the bishop’s relationship of dependence, with regard to the pope.”22

15Beyond ecclesiological definitions, however, Old Regime clergy is designated as an organized body in the political structures of European kingdoms. This body is also called order, that is the order of the clergy or ordo ecclesiasticus. A first difficulty immediately arises from this since the clergy, in a society, is also a status or an estate, that is the status ecclesiasticus. The difference between these notions is not clear, as the primary sources are not explicit on this point. Finally, in the historiography of social groups, the clergy is seen as a social category characterized in two ways. Firstly, it is characterized by the privileges it enjoyed, in particular those of taxes and exemption. Secondly it is characterized by its pastoral activity, even if there is a consensus on the inequality of both income and rank between prelates and abbots of the upper clergy and priests of the lower clergy. In Old Regime societies, the privileges of these men consecrated and ordained by a bishop or a mitered abbot were often justified by the nature of their principal occupation. That occupation was the care of matters divine and sacred, of matters belonging to the Catholic religion. The primary sources and the treatises on institutions and on public law often raised them to the first place in societal hierarchy. However, what does this mean, “first place” and what kind of first place is it? The meaning given to the term is, indeed, not unequivocal. This first place might refer to rank. It can also be a degree in the political and social structures of a kingdom or a country. It says little about the capacity to occupy an office.

  • 23 Charles Loyseau, Traite des ordres et simples dignitez par Charles Loyseau Parisien, Châteaudun, Ab (...)
  • 24 Ibid.
  • 25 G. Alberigo (dir.), Les Conciles œcuméniques 2**. Les décrets, de Trente à Vatican ii, Paris, Le Ce (...)
  • 26 Charles Loyseau, Traite des ordres et simples dignitez par Charles Loyseau Parisien, Châteaudun, Ab (...)
  • 27 Laurent Villemin, « Sacramentalité de l’épiscopat et conciliarisme du xvie au xviiisiècle », in P (...)

16A detour among the definitions produced in France by the jurisconsult Charles Loyseau shows that obscurities and overlaps also in this country resist any acts of classification and characterization of the orders. In the Traité des Ordres [Treatise of the Orders] published in 1610, he defines the clergy (not the prelates) as an order, and the first of all of them in France. He places their members among those who govern. It is because the clergy is an order, like that of the nobility or the third estate that it is called to participate in matters of State. For “the order can be defined as dignity with aptitude for public power.”23 But Loyseau had already explained that the seigniory and the office, the subjects of his two other treatises, were also dignities. The difference lay in the relationship to public power. The office is “Dignity with public power,” the seigniory is “Dignity with public power in property,” while the order has only the aptitude for this public power.24 For the French jurisconsult, the order of the clergy, but also the “ecclesiastical orders” composing it – for here intervenes a hierarchization within the context of the clergy that we find again in a different and anti-Protestant sense in the deliberations of the Council of Trent25 – are “true and pure orders” that is, “Dignities with neither administration nor function, except to serve at the altar.”26 It seems to me that the order of the clergy here would indeed be a body comprising all the men consecrated to the service of God. We can see a connection, but also a gap, between this and the medieval canonical definition of the order within the Church. The latter confers sacramental power upon ordained priests, and upon bishops a jurisdictional power. Since Hugh of Saint Victor (d. 1141), many canonists long defined this power as an office, in the sense of a function, a responsibility.27 Unfortunately, it was precisely this clarification that the Council of Trent left hanging.

  • 28 Declaration of the king, Henry III cited in Pierre Blet, « L’ordre du clergé au xviie siècle », Rev (...)
  • 29 István Werbőczy, The customary law of renowned Kingdom of Hungary: work in three parts rendered by (...)
  • 30 Robert Descimon, « Chercher de nouvelles voies pour interpréter les phénomènes nobiliaires dans la (...)
  • 31 Alessandro Catalano, « “Il Stato ecclesiastico è tanto deforme, che il reformarlo ha del metamorfic (...)

17The situation was not identical in France, but similar, as it was in many countries. Because – or in spite – of the fundamental, ancient, and common distinction between laypeople who “handle profane matters”28 and men committed to the service of God, the clergy was reputed to be the first order of them all in many kingdoms and lands too. As in France, it may theoretically occupy the first rank and claim precedence over all the other bearers of dignities. In practice, things were less simple. I will take a first example from Hungary. Until 1848, the Tripartitum (1517) served in practice as constitution of the kingdom, together with laws voted in the diet that have been ratified by the king. This customary law made no distinction between nobles and prelates since the latter were in fact nobles. “Although spiritual persons designated by our Lord and Savior as mediators of the redemption of men be considered as of greater quality than lay persons, all the lords, prelates, church rectors, barons and other magnates, nobles and notables of this Kingdom of Hungary enjoy, however, by reason of their nobility and temporal property, the same liberty of exemption and immunity […] For this reason they live under one and the same law.”29 The “ordo ecclesiasticus,” excepting its sacramental aspect and the dignity it confers, remains then a difficult entity to grasp outside of social, political, economic, and fiscal situations, in which clerics are implicated. On this subject we can quote almost word for word what Robert Descimon, about the noble order in France, wrote twenty years ago. It “appears then as placed within various relationships that connect it with other actors or social factors and illustrates its difference.”30 In Habsburg lands, the two terms, ordo and status ecclesiasticus – even when referring to the recognized capacity of persons or groups to sit in diets – seem ambivalent and sometimes synonymous. They are in any case susceptible to being used in various ways according to the contexts and the cases. This ambivalence is, according to the Italian historian Alessandro Catalano, an “intrinsic ambiguity” found in numerous official documents as early as the sixteenth century. It is this aspect that we must now explicate somewhat further.31

Order and Estate: Dignity and Offices in Civil Political Structures
The Status Ecclesiasticus in Diets and Constitutions

18In the primary sources, the term “order” is rarely used to designate the groups sending representatives to these diets, outside of a Latin expression that encompasses them all status et ordines, the estates and orders, which is not specific. It can be found everywhere, but it is especially widespread in Hungary, where it even seems to be used systematically both within diets and without. In the usage there, it designates metonymically both the diet and the persons and entities – counties (comitatus) and cities, certain abbeys, and superiors of religious orders – who could and must be convoked to the diets by the sovereign. Other than in Hungary, as concerns diets, it is the term of “estates” and not of orders that is habitually used. This does not coincide everywhere with a division into sub-assemblies separated within distinct chambers or in groups producing their own votum. In any event, practices evolve, even in case of regulations and of “law of the land” writs which theoretically had legal power. Let us see, then, how to grasp, among the estates, the estate of clergy. This status ecclesiasticus is also known as Prälatenstand in German, duchovenský stav in Czech, and egyázi rend in Hungarian historiography, as in this case the primary sources only use the Latin. In German as in Czech, there is a second term, Geistlicher Stand, duchovní stav which designates rather the clerical estate in relation to lay estate and is not systematically a juridical category of political representation. It is, though, these last two expressions retained by the German and Czech 1627 versions of the renewed Constitution of the kingdom (Verneuerte Landesordnung, Obnovené zřízení zemské), to specify the prerogatives and the composition of the estate of clergy as reintroduced into the orders of the kingdom.

  • 32 I use a manuscript copy of the University Library of Budapest (Egyetemi Könyvtár), call number AB 5 (...)
  • 33 « Remedia pro restitutione Provinciarum praedictarum », Bibliothèque Universitaire de Budapest (Egy (...)
  • 34 On all these points see: Anton Gindely, Geschichte der Gegenreformation in Böhmen, Leipzig, Duncker (...)
  • 35 The most recent work on the cassa salis is: Petr Honč, « Solní smlouva a správa cassa salis v letec (...)

19While to our eyes these terms lack clarity, it is not certain that they were perceived as unclear by contemporaries, who did not theorize about it. One must therefore refer the texts where they appear in contexts of situations and of actions. One, which is not the simplest, concerns only the lands of the Habsburg Monarchy, where the clergy had been excluded from the diet and did not appear there from the beginning of the fifteenth century until 1627: Bohemia. Let us turn to Guillaume Lamormaini. A Jesuit from Luxembourg and future confessor to Ferdinand II, the emperor had entrusted him to appear before the Roman curia in 1621-1623, with the responsibility of defending the initial projects concerning the return of the clergy to the country's institutions. The priest commented on the opinions formulated by two great Catholic Czech lords, Martinitz and Slavata.32 There Lamormaini described the status ecclesiasticus as “destroyed by the proscription of Catholics and by the seizure of churches and ecclesiastical property” by the Hussites and Utraquists since the fifteenth century. It was thus nonexistent as an order and destitute as a body. Yet the Jesuit immediately juxtaposed this with a status saecularis that was also “ruined,” if only recently. And this ruin was not attributed to the 1618-1620 period of the rebellion of the estates of the Kingdom. It was perpetrated before that: “In the times having preceded [that] which took place under the pseudo-king, the Palatine elector [i.e in 1619]” 33– which I suggest understanding as designating the 1609 concession of religious freedom to all the inhabitants of the kingdom. The adoption of a legalized Confessio Bohemica, joining together all the Hussite and Protestant currents, was for Lamormaini the beginning of the end of truly legitimate institutions, that is to say both Catholic and uncontested before the Habsburg dynasty. This “secular estate” encompassed the diet and the kingdom's institutions controlled by the nobility until its 1620 defeat. The diet was not only secular but also lay, since it was without ecclesiastics and which, at the date of Lamormaini’s statement, was temporarily suspended but not abolished. During this period of suspension, the border that Lamormaini described did not separate two orders, two estates, lay and religious. On the contrary, it abolished the border established over three centuries by successive “heretics,” in such a way as to rebuild the clergy. During these six or seven years of reflection on the reform of laws and institutions, opinions clashed in Vienna, Prague and Rome over the way to successfully manage this. Must the clergy be authorized to hold high offices? Must the Church recover its confiscated and secularized property? Was the clergy taxable outside of free gifts or extraordinary impositions? What prelates could have a seat in the diets and under what conditions?34 Only the last two points were decided in the new Landesordnung, or territorial law code. The terms, however, were so succinct that several times over it was necessary to re-specify which ecclesiastical dignitary was admitted to the diet. This occurred as the abbeys were progressively rebuilt or regained their autonomy and when two new bishops were added in 1655 and 1664 to the Archbishop of Prague, who had become primate of the kingdom. One of the difficulties of the laconic writing of the text in 1627 stemmed from how it seemed to demand that all present wear the infula, or miter, without evoking, for instance, the possible presence of canons who might or might not wear such insignia. In order to recompose the names and qualities of those present at each diet, one must then consult their acts, private correspondence, and journals of the diet held by some ecclesiastics, or again lists periodically giving the names and qualities of those admitted. In Bohemia, they never exceeded twenty or thirty. The status ecclesiasticus, although recreated by the king and promoted to first order of the kingdom, was continually up against the hostility and encroachments of the great officers. These latter continued to think of their own order, that of the aristocracy, as superior. They denied the separate votes of the status ecclesiasticus an autonomous value when the two noble orders (and the emperor's commissioner) had adjudicated differently. The alienated and secularized property of the clergy of Bohemia was not restituted. Instead, in 1630, a contract was agreed to between the papacy and the emperor. Through this Cassa salis ecclesiastica, the emperor committed to pay to the Church fifteen kreutzers on each barrel of salt imported into Bohemia. The distribution between clerics was established and managed by the archbishopric, but the final control went to the Chamber – the royal tax authorities.35 The money was also used, sometimes especially used, to finance the Turkish wars of Leopold I. In Moravia, the estate of clergy was also recognized as the first of them all in the renewed constitution of 1628 and defined in a manner comparable to what had been ruled for Bohemia, nonetheless including the canons of the Olomouc chapter. Yet before 1628, the prelates were seated with the aristocracy and did not constitute a separate estate, even if it was the Bishop of Olomouc who, apart from a few interruptions before this period, assumed the highest office of the margraviate, the office of Captain General of the country, an office which he later regained in the seventeenth century.

  • 36 Marcello Bonazza, « Tiroler Ständewesen und Fürstbistum Trient. Bemerkungen zu einer Variante der S (...)
  • 37 For more details on the orders in Austrian lands: Helmuth Stradal, « Die Prälaten » dans Ernst Bruc (...)
  • 38 William D. Godsey, The Sinews of Habsburg Power: Lower Austria in a Fiscal-Military State 1650-1820(...)

20Let us continue with the hereditary Austrian lands. Except for the effects of the Protestant Reformation that could be found in all the Habsburg lands of the sixteenth century, these were the only ones with a continuity – but not an immutability – of tradition concerning the presence of the clergy within the different diets. They are also the only ones to not integrate a “national” framework of dioceses. Besides the exclaves and enclaves of about fifteen dioceses belonging both to Italy and to the Empire, the majority of Austria in fact, belonged to the dioceses of Salzburg and Passau, two ecclesiastical principalities outside the borders of the Habsburg lands, and to the Patriarchate of Aquilea, whose seat was in Northern Italy. This allegiance could happen one of two ways. On one hand it could be direct, without a local bishop, in which case sometimes a Vizedom (vice-dominus) could represent the archbishop of Salzburg and the bishop of Bamberg at the diet of Carinthia. Among other solutions, the cathedral chapter and the abbots had a particular and often conflictual role in territorial assemblies. On the other hand, it could be indirect and rested upon non-voting bishops that were nonetheless “dependent” on the archdiocese in question (such was the case for the dioceses of Gurk, Lavant, Seckau, dependent on Salzburg). In these lands, the term spoken of is Prälatenstand, the prelate estate, and not, for the most part, of the estate of clergy. But who were these “prelates?” Bishops did not count among them, as foreigners possessing nothing in Austrian lands. These bishops might sit with the Herrenstand in the Herrensbank, “the bench of lords,” that is the native aristocracy (the Bishop of Passau or his representative in Lower Austria, representatives of the bishops of Bamberg and Freising in Carinthia, etc.). Or they might be only invited to and tolerated in the diets (Bishops of Brixen and of Trent in the Tyrol36). Or they might have a shifting position, like the Bishop of Pedena (Pičan in present-day Croatia) at the diet of Carniola. Foreign origin cannot be the decisive element in this disposition. These bishops united with the group of noble “inhabitants.” The group from Vienna, a strictly Austrian diocese detached from that of Passau and created in 1469 by request of the Emperor Frederick III, also sat with the high nobility on the “the bench of lords.” Too, there were numerous and often rich abbots and medieval religious orders, such as Benedictines, canons of Saint Augustine, and Premonstratensians constituting the “first order” or the “first estate” in Lower and Upper Austria.37 As William Godsey has remarked, however, this estate was never designated as such in the archives of Lower Austria.38

  • 39 Many of these lists are published for Hungary by : Tatjana Guszarova, « A 17. századi magyar ország (...)
  • 40 Studies on the Hungarian diets in the seventeenth century are rare, and rarer still those on the re (...)
  • 41 For example: National Archives of Hungary (NL), Hungarian State Archives (MOL), Budapest, call numb (...)

21As we have seen in Hungary, the Tripartitum, the customary constitution which had never been officialized, made no distinction between clergy and nobles, except for the nuance of a greater dignity granted the former by the spiritual nature of their primary occupations. A sizeable change occurred in 1608 in the context of negotiations preceding the coronation of Archduke Matthias as King of Hungary. The aristocracy was distinguished from the rest of the nobility. The diet split into two chambers, upper and lower, and the “noble” clergy, far from gathering into a separate order, was divided between the two chambers. As in Bohemia, but also in other Habsburg lands, we have lists of documents that were not systematically preserved and which designated more often the institution they represented than specifying their name. By virtue of these lists, we can look a little more closely and observe changes in the distribution of the religious in one or the other of these two chambers.39 Very rarely in fact, an article of law, such as that very specific one adopted by the diet of the coronation of the Emperor Matthias as King of Hungary in 1608, clearly established which members of the clergy could be seated or excluded. Most of the time, however, it concerned often contradictory references to the “ancient” customary law, or disputes over rank, precedence and the dignity of a religious order as compared to another that determined the presence of those who were not bishops.40 Canons and bishops, including certain titular bishops – though in practice not all of them – were seated from then on with the magnates of the upper chamber, with certain abbots. Other abbots and representatives of religious orders were only given a place in the lower chamber among representatives of cities and provincial noble assemblies, the counties (comitatus). This was the case with Moravian and Austrian abbots seated in their country with the first order, foreigners in Hungary, but representing abandoned Hungarian abbeys that they had restored. Such abbeys became thereafter daughter houses of their own abbeys, since they had been rebuilt by these Moravian and Austrian abbots. Sometimes no particular place had been planned for, as with the superior of a native religious order, the Pauline Fathers (Order of Saint Paul the First Hermit). Over the seventeenth century, this order was shuttled between the lower and upper chambers. There was also the example of the presence of a few Jesuits in the lower chamber, prohibited from the diet in 1608, although we do find two representatives for them starting in 1637-1640. This marks an essential difference with the Austrian and Czech lands, which gave seats only to bishops and abbots wearing miter and infula, one or two commanders of military orders, and sometimes canons. But this division of the status ecclesiasticus into two chambers was divided again by the confessional fracture that lasted in the diets until 1711-1723. Indeed, the Protestants, limited to the lower chamber with the deputies of towns and noble counties, systematically presented their grievances (gravamina) to the sovereign, complaining of that the treaties of 1606 and 1608, assuring their rights and a recognition as status evangelicorum were not respected.41 Starting with the diet of 1628, it seems these gravamina evangelicorum were confronted with gravamina catholicorum. In practice this came from the Catholic magnates and the upper clergy. Thus, the status ecclesiasticus, assimilated to an order as it had been in France remains elusive in Hungary.

22It is therefore difficult to extract one sole principle defining the clergy in the diets and justifying their presence. The honor and the dignity of their consecrated estate were of course often affirmed. They were even certainly the primary factors in the clashes and the conflicts concerning rank and precedence that were everywhere. The reasons could be the absence of such and such a prelate, the choice of “bench,” of the “session,” or, to use a word from today, of the group where members of the clergy sat in the official sense, or simply had a chair, as the case may be. The capacity to fill a high office existed, but it was not homogeneous and was carried out in contextual and juridical contexts that have little to do with each other. This can be seen for example in Hungary, where the primate was chancellor of the kingdom. It can be seen in Moravia and in Carniola as well, where the bishop could be captain-general of the country. Being native to the land was not always enough. The possession of ecclesiastical properties enrolled in the records of the kingdom in Bohemia, of the king in Hungary, or of the margraviate in Moravia was a stronger argument. But it is not exclusive to Austria, and the question of its boundary with the understanding of autochthony should be closely reexamined in situations of interlocking allegiances and sovereignties in the Austrian lands, which were also circles of the Empire. Finally, the border with the aristocracy proves to be crossable, be it the “bench” of lords in Austria, or the group of magnates in Hungary – but also in other configurations, the border with the lower nobility, according to the keys of analysis that for the most part remain to be clarified. In contrast, what makes an “estate of clergy” endure in the Habsburg diets, with different intensity and practices in Hungary, indeed in the Tyrol on one hand, and on the other in Austrian or Czech lands, is fiscal necessity: the vote of contributions that the Landesordnungen, the territorial law codes of each of the lands, and the customary law, affirmed as uniquely voluntary and free, so long as the rights of the sovereign incurred no violation. In the final analysis, this is a functionalist understanding. It cannot hide, however, that this “estate of clergy” – with its blurred contours asking us to reflect on its definition – did indeed exist for its members. It existed as a right and a claim that was always to be upheld, in relation to the nobility, the country’s institutions and the sovereign. It also existed in relation to an ecclesiastical hierarchy often exterior to the borders of their kingdom, archduchy, duchy, etc. Let us now return to the distinction between superiors and abbots of religious orders whose specific provinces were often trans-local, indeed European on one hand and on the other the bishops, far fewer – except in Hungary – than these “prelates” or “non-prelates” in Habsburg lands. For them, the question of double allegiance to the Roman Church went directly back to the pope.

  • 42 This rescript is reproduced by: Jiří M. Havlík, Jan Bedřich z Valdštejna a jeho spory o daně na tur (...)
  • 43 Ferdinand de Bojani, Innocent XI . Sa correspondance avec ses nonces (21 Septembre 1676-31 Décembre (...)
  • 44 State Archives of the District of Prague (SOA), Waldstein family collection (RAV), inv. 3291, call (...)
  • 45 State Archives of the District of Prague (SOA), Waldstein family collection (RAV), inv. 4418, dossi (...)

23Thus, to end with, we return to the double allegiance to the Roman Church. In fact, I will conclude in addressing the boundaries between autonomy, clerical immunity, distinguishing temporal and spiritual, princely authority, and the authority of the Church. I will take one example, once again from Bohemia. It may seem paradoxical but is so only in appearance. Let us return then to Johann Friedrich of Waldstein, the above-mentioned archbishop of Prague. After two generations of prelates having sat at the diet and after the king’s granting the recreation of the order of the clergy, this prelate made himself defender of an ideal conception of the freedom of the Church in the kingdom. He also defended the entire autonomy of an order of the clergy that it would seem the law of the land guaranteed, granted anew, as we have seen, by the king in 1627. At the beginning of the month of December 1692, after long years of repeated conflict, this archbishop threatened the grand officers of the kingdom with excommunication. These officers had persuaded the emperor that he had, de jure regio, that is without the agreement of the estates, the right to tax the clergy. Such an attack against ecclesiastical immunity, the prelate argued, could not take place. The law of the kingdom prohibited it. The property of the Church was Christ’s patrimony and the emperor could not claim to touch it without the agreement of the pope, to whom the archbishop appealed. Leopold I prohibited recourse to excommunication in his States without his own permission, and in a rescript of 31 December, 1692 continued in this tone “We would indeed deign to admit that you are the head of the Church that you have been spiritually entrusted with, we would indeed deign to allow each member obeying the diet his liberty of speech. We cannot, however, allow you to consider yourself as head of the order of the clergy in temporal circumstances and allow the vote of all the clergy to depend on your private judgment.”42 The prelate, accused the sovereign, was contravening the oath of fealty demanded of the bishops of the country. This oath, however, had already been subject to complaints by Rome as early as 1679.43 The estate of the clergy refused to appear at the diet and in 1693 was accused of the crime of lèse-majesté. They were ordered to return and to sit. Waldstein refused until his death in the Spring of 1694. A Burgundian priest and imperial diplomat, Antide Dunod de Charnage, his friend and agent in Vienna, left behind an account of his agony. In it, Waldstein prayed on his deathbed for an emperor whose bad counselors, confusing temporal and spiritual, flouting the rights of the clergy to the point of reconsidering the presence of a status ecclesiasticus at the diet of Bohemia, placed his soul in danger of eternal perdition.44 In an account spread shortly after, a Premonstratensian nun claimed to have had a nocturnal apparition of the Archbishop’s soul, justified by God in heaven for not having sinned against the rights of his Church.45 Thus entering into the world of the supernatural, the border between temporal and spiritual eluded the contingencies of this world here below.

Top of page

Notes

1 Petr Maťa, « Wer waren die Landstände? Betrachtungen zu den böhmischen und österreichischen “Kernländern” der Habsburgermonarchie im 17. und frühen 18. Jahrhundert », in Gerhard Ammerer, William D. Godsey, Martin Scheutz, Peter Urbanitsch, Alfred Stefan Weiß (éds.), Bündnispartner und Konkurrenten des Ländesfürsten? Die Stände in der Habsburgermonarchie, Vienna-Munich, Oldenbourg Verlag, 2007, p. 68-89.

2 It is a vast question which has inspired an immense bibliography. A very clear summary is given by : Axel Gotthard, « Die habsburgischen Länder und das Alte Reich », in Michael Hochedlinger, Petr Maťa, Thomas Winkelbauer, Verwaltungsgeschichte der Habsburgermonarchie in der Frühen Neuzeit, vol. 1/1, Vienna 2019, Böhlau, p. 360-374.

3 On all these points see Antal Molnár, Le Saint-Siège, Raguse et les missions catholiques de la Hongrie ottomane 1572-1647, Rome-Budapest, Academia d'Ungheria–Bibliothèque Nationale de Hongrie, 2007 ; Pál Fodor, „The Ottomans and their Christians in Hungary“, in Eszter Andor, István György Tóth, Frontiers of Faith, Budapest, Central European University, 2001, p. 137-148 ; Markus Koller, Ein Gesellschaft im Wandel. Die osmanische Herrschaft in Ungarn im 17. Jahrhundert (1606-1683), Stuttgart, Steiner, 2010, especially p. 72-110.

4 Alessandro Catalano, « Riforma catolica e fragilità giuridica : i decreti del Concilio di Trento e la Boemia », in : Péter Tusor, Matteo Sanfilippo (éds.), Il papato e le chiese locale – studi. The Papacy and the Local Churches. Studies, Viterbo, Sette Città, 2014, p. 121-146; Alessandro Catalano, « “Il Stato ecclesiastico è tanto deforme, che il reformarlo ha del metamorfico”. La riconquista spirituale della Boemia e la situazione politico-religiosa all’inizio della Guerra dei Trent’anni », in José Martinez Millán, Rubén González Cuerva, Manuel Rivero Rodriguez (éds.), La Corte de Felipe IV . Reconfiguración de la Monarquía católica T. IV. Los Reinos i la politica internacional, vol. 1. De la Monarquía universal a la Monarquía católica. La guerre de los Treinta Aňos, Madrid, Polifemo, 2018, p. 173-210, ici p. 174-175.

5 István Fazekas, “Wirkung der Trienter Reformen auf den niederen Klerus », in : Marta Fata, András Forgó, Gabriele Haug-Moritz, Anton Schindling, Das Trienter Konzil und seine Rezeption im Ungarn des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts, Münster, Aschendorff, 2019, p. 121-143, here p. 128-133.

6 Hans Kiewning (éd.), Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland, Abteilung 17. Jahrhundert, I, Nuntiatur des Pallotto. 1628-1630, vol. 1, n°s77 et 93, Berlin, A. Bath, 1895, p. 196, 220-221.

7 Hans Kiewning (éd.), Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland, Abteilung 17. Jahrhundert, I, Nuntiatur des Pallotto. 1628-1630, vol. 1, n°s77 et 93, Berlin, A. Bath, 1895, p. 196, 220-221.

8 2 April 1644, National Archives of Prague (Národní archiv), collection APA, F 29, box 3935.

9 Alessandro Catalano, « Vos ecclesiastici sempre diversum (occlamandi desiderio) ab aillis vultis. Le rôle de l’ordre des prélats à la diète de Bohême après 1627 », xviie siècle, 2011/1, n° 250, p. 19-30.

10 Brigitte Basdevant-Gaudemet, Alain Tallon, « Introduction », in : Patrick Arabayre, Brigitte Basdevant-Gaudemet, Les clercs et les princes. Doctrines et pratiques de l’autorité ecclésiastique à l’époque moderne, Paris, École nationale des Chartes, 2013, p. 8.

11 See : Jiří Havlík, Jan Fridrich z Valdštejna. Arcibiskup a mecenáš doby baroka, Prague, Vyšehrad, 2016, p. 147-228.

12 Jiří David, « Die Mährischen Landtage in der zweiten Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts », in Gerhard Ammerer, William D. Godsey, Martin Scheutz, Peter Urbanitsch, Alfred Stefan Weiß (éds.), Bündnispartner und Konkurrenten des Ländesfürsten? Die Stände in der Habsburgermonarchie, Wien–München, Oldenbourg Verlag, p. 128-151, here p. 142-146 ; István Fazekas, « Adalélok a fraknoi uradalom és a kismártoni grófság rekatólízációjához“, A Raday gyűtemény évkönyve 7, 1994, p. 126-145.

13 August Franzen, Zölibat und Priesterrehe in der Anseinandersetzung der Reformationzeit und der katholischen Reform des 16. Jahrhunderts, Münster, Aschendorff, 1969, p. 79-85 ; Gustave Constant, Concession à l’Allemagne de la communion sous les deux espèces. Étude sur les débuts de la réforme catholique en Allemagne (1548-1621), 2 vol., Paris, de Boccard, 1923 ; František Kavka, Anna Skýbová, Husitský epilog na koncilu tridentském a původní koncepce habsburské rekatolizace Čech : Počátky obnoveného pražského arcibiskupstvi 1561-1580, Prague, Univerzita Karlova, 1968.

14 Gustave Constant, Concession à l’Allemagne de la communion sous les deux espèces. Étude sur les débuts de la réforme catholique en Allemagne (1548-1621), 2 vol., Paris, de Boccard, 1923, p. 896.

15 Gustave Constant, Concession à l’Allemagne de la communion sous les deux espèces, op. cit., p. 1040-1041.

16 Communication of Cardinal Harrach to Urban viii on the state of the Archdiocese of Prague 1632-1637, National Archives of Prague (NA), collection sbírka opisů, Řím-Barberini, box 13, fasc.I/6, fol.3 ; Marie-Elizabeth Ducreux, « La reconquête catholique de l’espace bohémien », Revue des études Slaves, 60-3, 1988, p. 685-702.

17 Péter Tusor, « Problems and possibilities of Catholic Confessionalization in Upper Hungary around 1640 », in Maria Elisabeth Brunert, András Forgó, Arno Strohmeyer (éds.), Kirche und Kulturtransfer. Ungarn und Zentraleuropa in der Frühen Neuzeit, Münster, Aschendorff, 2019, p. 87-104, here p. 95 ; Péter Tusor, « Lippay György egri püspök (1637-1642) jelentése felsőmagyárország vallási helyzetéről », Levéltári Közlemények 2002, p. 119-141. The Hungarian Uniates were slavic Ruthenians.

18 Ferenc Galla, “Magyar tárgyú pápai felhatalmazások, felmentések és kiválságok a katolikus megújhodás korából“, Levéltári Közlemények, 1946, p. 71-169.

19 Fanny Cosandey, Le Rang, Paris, Gallimard, 2018, p. 343.

20 On all these points and on the way in which the Council of Trent understood and redefined the sacrament of ordination: Josef Freitag, Sacramentum ordinis auf dem Konzil von Trient. Ausgeblendeter Dissens und erreichter Konsens, Innsbruck-Wien, Tyrolia Verlag, 1991. Sur la potestas ordinis et la potestas iurisdictionis : Rev. Pius Pietrzyk, O.P, The Power of Orders and the Power of Jurisdiction : A theological and juridical Examination, thesis for the licentiate in canon law, Pontificia Università San Tommaso d'Aquino 2014 (disponible en ligne : https://www.academia.edu/11736609/The_Power_of_Orders_and_the_Power_of_Jurisdiction_A_Theological_and_Juridical_Examination, consulted April 8, 2019).

21 Rev. Pius Pietrzyk, O.P, The Power of Orders and the Power of Jurisdiction: A theological and juridical Examination, thesis for the licentiate in canon law, Pontificia Università San Tommaso d'Aquino 2014, p. 26.

22 Brigitte Basdevant-Gaudemet, Alain Tallon, « Introduction », in Patrick Arabayre, Brigitte Basdevant-Gaudemet, Les Clercs et les princes. Doctrines et pratiques de l’autorité ecclésiastique à l’époque moderne, Paris, École nationale des Chartes, 2013, p. 9.

23 Charles Loyseau, Traite des ordres et simples dignitez par Charles Loyseau Parisien, Châteaudun, Abel l’Angelier, 1610, p. 4.

24 Ibid.

25 G. Alberigo (dir.), Les Conciles œcuméniques 2**. Les décrets, de Trente à Vatican ii, Paris, Le Cerf, 1994, p. 1509, 1511.

26 Charles Loyseau, Traite des ordres et simples dignitez par Charles Loyseau Parisien, Châteaudun, Abel l’Angelier, 1610, p. 4.

27 Laurent Villemin, « Sacramentalité de l’épiscopat et conciliarisme du xvie au xviiisiècle », in Patrick Arabeyre, Brigitte Basdevant-Gaudemet, Les Clercs et les princes. Doctrines et pratiques de l’autorité ecclésiastique à l’époque moderne, Paris, École nationale des Chartes, 2013, p. 341-353, ici p. 342-343. Canon theologians like Bellarmin took up the discussion elsewhere.

28 Declaration of the king, Henry III cited in Pierre Blet, « L’ordre du clergé au xviie siècle », Revue d’histoire de l’Église de France, 54, 152, 1968, p. 5-26, here p. 5.

29 István Werbőczy, The customary law of renowned Kingdom of Hungary: work in three parts rendered by Stephen Werbőczy, the Tripartitum, edited by János M. Bak, Péter Banyó and Martyn Rady, Idyllwild, Charles Schlacks, 2003, p. 46-49, first part, title 2 : « De prima parte iurium et consuetudinum regni in speciali ; et primo quod personae spirituales quam seculares, una et eadem libertate untuntur » (Translation M.E.D. then V.M.P.).

30 Robert Descimon, « Chercher de nouvelles voies pour interpréter les phénomènes nobiliaires dans la France moderne. La noblesse « essence » ou rapport social ? », Revue d’Histoire moderne et contemporaine, 46-1, January-March 1999, p. 5-21, here p. 8.

31 Alessandro Catalano, « “Il Stato ecclesiastico è tanto deforme, che il reformarlo ha del metamorfico”. La riconquista spirituale della Boemia e la situazione politico-religiosa all’inizio della Guerra dei Trent’anni », dans José Martinez Millán, Rubén González Cuerva, Manuel Rivero Rodriguez (éds.), La Corte de Felipe IV. Reconfiguración de la Monarquía católica T. IV : Los Reinos i la politica internacional, vol. 1. De la Monarquía universal a la Monarquía católica. La guerre de los Treinta Aňos, Madrid, Polifemo, 2018, p. 173-210, ici p. 173.

32 I use a manuscript copy of the University Library of Budapest (Egyetemi Könyvtár), call number AB 50, p. 179-186, here p. 179.

33 « Remedia pro restitutione Provinciarum praedictarum », Bibliothèque Universitaire de Budapest (Egyetemi Könyvtár), call number AB 50, p. 179-180.

34 On all these points see: Anton Gindely, Geschichte der Gegenreformation in Böhmen, Leipzig, Duncker & Humblot, 1894; Lutz Rentzow, Die Entstehungs–und Wirkungsgeschichte der Vernewerten Landesordnung für das Königreich Böhmen von 1627, Berlin–Bern–New-York–Paris–Wien, Peter Lang, 1998.

35 The most recent work on the cassa salis is: Petr Honč, « Solní smlouva a správa cassa salis v letech 1630-1710 », Folia Historica Bohemica 31/2, 2016, p. 169-198.

36 Marcello Bonazza, « Tiroler Ständewesen und Fürstbistum Trient. Bemerkungen zu einer Variante der Ständeverfassung”, in Gerhard Ammerer, William D. Godsey, Martin Scheutz, Peter Urbanitsch, Alfred Stefan Weiß (éds.), Bündnispartner und Konkurrenten des Ländesfürsten? Die Stände in der Habsburgermonarchie, Wien-München, Oldenbourg Verlag, p. 172-193.

37 For more details on the orders in Austrian lands: Helmuth Stradal, « Die Prälaten » dans Ernst Bruckmüller, Michael Mitterauer, Helmuth Stradal, Herrschaftsstruktur und Ständebildung vol. 3, Vienne-Munich, Böhlau, 1973, p. 53-114.

38 William D. Godsey, The Sinews of Habsburg Power: Lower Austria in a Fiscal-Military State 1650-1820, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2018, p. 40.

39 Many of these lists are published for Hungary by : Tatjana Guszarova, « A 17. századi magyar országgyűlések résztvevői“, Levéltári Közlemények, 76, 2005, II, p. 93-148.

40 Studies on the Hungarian diets in the seventeenth century are rare, and rarer still those on the representation of the clergy. A recent study is an exception : Zsófia Kádár, « Szertesrendek a 17. századi magyar országgyűléseken », in Tamás Dobszay, István H. Németh, József Pap, István M. Szíjártó, Rendi országgyűlés –polgári parlament. Érdekképviselet és törvényhozás Magyarországon a 15. százasdtól 1918-ig, Budapest–Eger, Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár –Eszterházy Károly Egyetem, 2020, p. 67-80.

41 For example: National Archives of Hungary (NL), Hungarian State Archives (MOL), Budapest, call number  N12, Regnicolaris Levéltár, Diaetae Antiquae, Fasc C Lad L, diet of 1646, N° 72, Querella status evangelici.

42 This rescript is reproduced by: Jiří M. Havlík, Jan Bedřich z Valdštejna a jeho spory o daně na turecké války (1682-1694), typed doctoral thesis, Charles University of Prague, 2008, p. 121.

43 Ferdinand de Bojani, Innocent XI . Sa correspondance avec ses nonces (21 Septembre 1676-31 Décembre 1679). Seconde partie : Affaires ecclésiastiques et le gouvernement de Rome, Rome, Desclée et Cie, 1910, p. 173,

44 State Archives of the District of Prague (SOA), Waldstein family collection (RAV), inv. 3291, call number 1-25/18, carton 24.

45 State Archives of the District of Prague (SOA), Waldstein family collection (RAV), inv. 4418, dossier I/2, carton 256.

Top of page

References

Electronic reference

Marie-Élizabeth Ducreux, “Reconstructing the Catholic Church and Restituting the Power of the Sovereign: The Clergy in the Composite Monarchy of the Habsburgs during the Seventeenth Century”L’Atelier du Centre de recherches historiques [Online], 22 bis | 2021, Online since 15 February 2020, connection on 11 April 2021. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/acrh/12201; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/acrh.12201

Top of page

About the author

Marie-Élizabeth Ducreux

Marie-Élizabeth Ducreux is a Professor Emerita at the CNRS (French National Centre for Scientific Research), member of the CRH (Centre for Historical Studies) and of the RhiSOP Group (Research in the Social History of the Political), and of the LABEX (Laboratory of Excellence) HASTEC. Her current work bears on the history of the Habsburg Monarchy of Central Europe in the early modern period, enlarging on her first specialization in religious, political, and cultural history of Bohemia. She is also writing a cross-border history of Europe in the world, starting with Central Europe. Her current research concerns issues of the sacrality and legitimacy of the Kingdoms of Bohemia and Hungary in the seventeenth century, analyzed through the interactions between local actors of the religious and the political on one hand and on the other the sovereigns, within a larger European dimension (in particular, Rome, the Holy Roman Empire, and Poland). Among her recent publications is Dévotion et Légitimation. Patronages sacrés dans l’Europe des Habsbourg, Presses universitaires de Liège, 2016.

By this author

Top of page

Copyright

Licence Creative Commons
L'Atelier du Centre de recherches historiques – Revue électronique du CRH est mis à disposition selon les termes de la licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 3.0 France.

Top of page
  • Logo CRH - Centre de recherches historiques
  • Logo DOAJ - Directory of Open Access Journals
  • OpenEdition Journals
Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search