Opera, Politics and Religion in Hamburg

1678-1715
by W. GORDON MARIGOLD

W hile the origins and theological development of early Pietism

have been carefully studied—one thinks of the work of
scholars like Aland, Blaufuß, Kruse, Leube, and Wallmann—
relatively little attention has been paid to problems involved in the
spread of Pietism, particularly in areas where it was not welcomed.
Often there seems to be a simplistic assumption that Pietism, pre-
sumably by osmosis, gradually permeated the Lutheran church of
the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Closer exam-
ination suggests that the spread of Pietism can be studied only by
looking closely at developments in a number of separate political
units in the Protestant portions of the Holy Roman Empire. Only
thus can one reconcile the Pietistic development of Halle with the
fierce Orthodoxy of neighboring Leipzig or Wittenberg. In a num-
ber of areas, notably Hamburg and Leipzig, early Pietism was
soundly defeated, and made its mark only much later. Hamburg,
where the conflict between Pietism and Orthodoxy took on violent
forms and where this conflict was closely tied to both cultural and
political life, offers the opportunity for a particularly fascinating
study. The existence of voluminous, if often mutually contradic-
tory, contemporary documents makes such a study feasible.
We are not concerned here with the development of Pietistic
thought or Pietistic theology. It was religious attitudes, often ex-
pressed in quite predictable ways, that led to conflict in Hamburg,
particularly when such attitudes came into conflict with written or
perceived dogma. The figures dealt with here are by no means all
Pietists as that term is understood by many knowledgeable theo-
logians today.1 Their views encompass Calvinistic or crypto-
Calvinistic ideas, some ideas that an Anglo-Saxon will roughly de-
scribe as Puritan, and some ideas that are normally connected to
smaller sects like the Moravian Brethren. A difficult, though sub-
sidiary, question may be whether those who accepted the label
" Spenerianer" actually agreed with Spener.
Almost totally excluded from this largely historical discussion is
any consideration of who was "right" or "wrong," if, in fact, that
question had any relevance at all at the time. The men here called

65
66 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY

Pietists all wanted to reform the Lutheran church of their time, in

part by introducing new practices, but above all by modifying the
attitudes of the structured church. Their opponents rarely spoke to
the question of the desirability of any changes. They regarded the
proposed modifications as contrary to the doctrine and received
practice of the church as established, in their view at least, by Mar-
tin Luther. Whether Lutheranism had in fact become too rigid and
conservative or too clearly identified with the existing political and
social structure is a question not easily answered. Probably the an-
swer would vary greatly from one place to another. With the ben-
efit of hindsight, perhaps most modern scholars would agree that
Pietism did offer something new and necessary, but the defenders
of Orthodoxy in Hamburg, like their well-known Leipzig contem-
poraries, saw only a dilution of the faith or even an outright heresy.
As is generally known, Spener himself was not clear about the
relationship between state and church. His opponents claimed,
with some justice, that he really wanted separation of the two only
where his supporters were in the minority. 2 None of the Hamburg
Pietists openly advocated any alteration of the church-state struc-
ture, possibly because the peculiar structure of the Hamburg church
made such changes extremely difficult.
The period from 1678 to 1715 encompasses the series of distur-
bances known as the "Unruhen." These include two so-called
"opera wars," a religious controversy known to Hamburg histo-
rians as the "Priesterstreif (priests' dispute), and a popular uprising
with complicated causes. In all of these disturbances, the conflict
between Pietism and Orthodoxy played a major rôle. The dates
themselves are not arbitrarily chosen. The Hamburg opera opened
its doors in 1678, while 1715 marks the end of the activities of the
Imperial Commission that brought peace to the troubled city and
rewrote its constitution.
While the same basic problems were to be found in many Ger-
man states, the political and religious structure of Hamburg made
it in some respects particularly vulnerable. In 1650, the city, basi-
cally unscathed by the Thirty Years' War, had about 125,000 inhab-
itants, probably 150,000 by 1700. In size it was second only to Vi-
enna among German-language cities and was incomparably the
largest of the city states, the Imperial Free Cities. The city did not
have a real constitution. That of 1528/29, known as the "langer
Rezeß" (long treaty), was highly regarded, but was, in fact, only
 OPERA, POLITICS A N D RELIGION 67

a compilation of traditional freedoms. It did not address many of

the problems of a city that had, by 1650, a working class in the mod-
ern sense. The city was governed by a council (Rat) of about forty
members, usually chosen from the relatively small number of tra-
ditionally "electable" families. A larger council, chosen from the
organizations that succeeded the medieval guilds and containing
representatives of each parish, had, in general, limited influence but
did have the power to approve or reject the imposition of taxes. 3
The city's very existence depended on trade and hence on harmo-
nious relations with its neighbors and with the emperor. Even the
legal status of Hamburg was not entirely clear. Though it had in
practice been a free city (freie Reichsstadt) for many years, Denmark
did not give up its claims to sovereignty until well into the eigh-
teenth century. 4 As late as 1685, Denmark seized some outlying
districts and bombarded the city. The support of the emperor was
hence really crucial. The city was in many respects cosmopolitan,
with a large number of foreign residents, many of them non-
Lutherans.
The religious situation was at least equally unsatisfactory. Unlike
most German states, notably all the Protestant Imperial Cities,
Hamburg had no consistory, that is, there was no legally anchored
buffer between state and clergy and no body that could define and
maintain limits of responsibility. Furthermore, after 1593, the city
had no superintendent. All clergy were members of the Ministe-
rium, a group that had few legal powers. It was presided over by
the Senior, the senior principal pastor in terms of service, whose
only power lay in the fact that he acted as group spokesman and
was hence potentially able to influence the Rat. During the Unruhen
there were numerous instances of pastors who refused to accept the
majority decisions of the Ministerium.
The clergy possessed, by tradition, "potestas interna," which was
taken to mean the regulation of dogma and liturgy. The Rat as po-
litical governor had "potestas extrema" and "cura religionist which
included the administration of church property, the appointment
of pastors, the rights and duties of patron, and the right, indeed the
obligation, to preserve and enforce conformity to pure Lutheran
teaching. Obviously the dividing line was not entirely clear.
Throughout the period, the Rat was consistently orthodox. It was
understandably always reluctant to make religious judgments, par-
ticularly when these might affect other areas. Obviously, however,
68 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY

the Rat could be involved in any case where the Ministerium was un-
able to reach agreement.
The presence of numerous non-Lutherans in the city was a per-
petual source of friction. The existence of numerous Protestant
groups—usually referred to as Schwärmer, enthusiasts, and the
like—in Altona, then Danish-ruled and enjoying much greater re-
ligious freedom than applied in Denmark itself, made the Hamburg
clergy apprehensive. All embassies or diplomatic missions were al-
lowed to have their own chapels, but only members of the house-
hold were permitted to attend. There were regular complaints that
the Reformed (i.e. Calvinist) services of the ambassador of Bremen
were frequented by local residents. The Rat clearly approved of this
kind of regulation, but made an issue of it only when prodded by
the clergy. The establishment of a Catholic church, however,
caused a furor as late as 1719. This reaction would, of course, have
been the same in any part of Europe at the time. The building of
a Catholic church in Braunschweig, about six years earlier, caused
a similar uproar.
The very structure of the Hamburg parishes was not without ef-
fect on the disturbances of the late seventeenth century. The city
was divided into only five parishes—hence the so-called Haupt-
kirchen (main churches)—although there were numerous subsidiary
churches and chapels and, of course, a number of clergy in each par-
ish. By 1650, the parishes reflected the social levels of the city. We
shall find, for example, that the large working-class parish of St.
Jacob's played a major rôle. The cathedral was a well-endowed col-
legiate establishment without influence on local church affairs,
though of some importance as a cultural center. There is no indi-
cation that any of the early Hamburg Pietists seriously wanted to
change the church structure, although Horb seems to have advo-
cated the separation of church and state on one occasion.
One local custom almost invited trouble. Public announcements
of all kinds were made from the pulpit, i.e. the pastors served as
speakers for the state, and the parishes took on some of the char-
acteristics of political wards. Certainly the possibility of abusing the
freedom of the pulpit was there. While the issue attracted wide at-
tention only during the anti-Pietist fervor of the early 1690s, one
suspects that the problem had existed for many years.
Civic unrest had been frequent in Hamburg before 1678. How-
ever, the known instances involved unloved lord mayors, supposed
 OPERA, POLITICS AND RELIGION 69

traitors (usually persons suspected of dealing with Denmark), and

other political figures. In 1685-86 the treason trial of Schnitger and
Jastram marked the end of a series. Until the advent of Pietism, re-
ligion played little or no part.
We shall discover that there is no agreement on the causes of the
later disturbances, but the first "opera war" causes few problems.
A public opera had been proposed as early as 1674, a n d the theatre
was actually opened four years later. The opera was founded as a
joint stock company by Gerhard Schott (1641-1702), a lawyer who
later became a member of the ruling senate. The founders included
several council members and prominent church musicians, but also
neighboring noblemen who considered Hamburg their cultural
center. From the very beginning the opera was regarded as a kind
of tourist attraction. There were special performances for visiting
dignitaries, probably as early as 1682, and the Rat was always well-
disposed toward the new venture, which was the first public opera
outside Italy. 5
The actual founding of the opera does not seem to have caused
much fuss.6 While a number of examples of clerical opposition to
theatre can be found in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the
Lutheran church as such, following Luther's lead, was neutral on
the subject and may in fact be said to have favored drama. 7 Almost
all cases of clerical opposition are from small towns or rural areas,
and the objections are usually based on misbehavior and not on a
fundamental opposition to the theatre.
Opera was theoretically open to some objections that did not ap-
ply to spoken theatre. The seductive power of music was seen as
an additional danger. Worse was the fact that German opera in-
cluded female singers from the very beginning. Otherwise females
on stage remained rare in German areas until well after 1700. It
would be understandable, too, if opposition to opera surfaced
where, as in Hamburg, the opera was open to all. For various ob-
vious reasons, court opera was less likely to arouse open criticism.
However, while opera was potentially vulnerable, it was, as we
shall see, able to benefit from a strong theological argument.
It is likely that the appearance of Spener's Pia Desideria in 1675
helped precipitate the first "opera war," which was in fact some-
thing of a one-man crusade.8 Anton Reiser, pastor of St. Jacob's,
was a rabid opponent of all theatre. He was born in Augsburg in
1628, studied theology in Strasbourg, and then became Lutheran
70 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY

pastor in Pressburg (Bratislava), where his tactlessness aroused the

anger of the Catholic majority. He was actually condemned to
death, but fled and spent some years as pastor in Öhringen before
being called to Hamburg, where he died in 1686. In many respects
Reiser may reasonably be described as a forerunner of Spener.
He attacked the opera in numerous sermons, but most obviously
in the massive Theatromania (Ratzeburg 1682), whose subtitle refers
to the powers of darkness!9 Only about fifteen of its several hun-
dred pages refer specifically to Hamburg. Reiser had clearly never
visited the opera and he relies on the familiar arguments of the more
ascetic Church Fathers. There must be almost a hundred references
to Tertullian. Reiser was clearly not influential and the Rat paid little
attention. He had tried to prevent the reopening of the opera after
the Lenten break in 1679 and a further interval caused by an out-
break of the plague, which was, for Reiser, clearly a proof of God's
disapproval of opera, but his efforts did not even lead to an official
discussion in council meetings. Christoph Rauch, a South German
actor, editor, and translator living in Hamburg, published Theat-
rophania (Hannover 1682) as a reply to Reiser's book. Rauch offers
a reasonable defense of opera and challenges the relevance of Rei-
ser's authorities to the Hamburg situation. An immediate reply by
Reiser shows only that he had not bothered to read Rauch's book!
The first opera war simply petered out, particularly after the death
of Reiser in 1686. It may be mentioned that the opera clearly tried
to blunt any possible attacks. The very first opera presented was
Adam und Eva (1678), and the number of biblical operas during the
early years is striking. There is also a noticeable absence of scandal
about the performers, particularly about the female ones.
The most interesting product of the first skirmishes appeared a
little belatedly in 1688. This was Hinrich Elmenhorst's Dramatolo-
gia (Hamburg 1688). Elmenhorst (163 2-1703) was educated in Wit-
tenberg and Leipzig, came to Hamburg as archdeacon of St. Cathe-
rine's in 1660, and remained there, eventually as pastor, until his
death. He wrote at least three successful opera libretti, the best of
them probably Polyeuct (1688), based very freely on Corneille's fa-
mous play. At least one of his poems was used by J. S. Bach in the
Schemelli Gesangbuch, and three cantata texts are attributed to him. IO
Elmenhorst's career exemplifies one of the puzzling aspects of the
time. He is known to have sided with the Orthodox majority in the
arguments of the 1690s, and a printed sermon of 1692 is a restrained
 OPERA, POLITICS AND RELIGION 7i

attack on Horb and "enthusiasm," already pilloried in Polyeuct.

Hinckelmann, most moderate of the Pietists, was a colleague at St.
Catherine's for some years, while the Hauptpastor (principal pas-
tor), Volckmar, was strictly Orthodox. The three seem to have
worked together without noticeable friction.11 While there were,
of course, replies to Elmenhorst's defense of opera, he himself was
not attacked, either for writing the defense or for writing opera li-
bretti. Apparently no one, not even the Pietists, saw either as con-
duct unbecoming a clergyman. 12
Dramatologia is clearly the work of an opera and theatre lover
with a tremendous knowledge of dramatic literature and theory
from ancient Greece to contemporary France, Germany, Italy, and
Holland. One cannot expect a Lutheran clergyman ofthat time to
reject out-of-hand the anti-theatre utterances of the Fathers, but El-
menhorst cites less severe judgments by equally valid authorities
and insists that the most severe judgments of the Church Fathers
resulted from the conditions in the theatre as they knew it. This
does not, according to Elmenhorst, apply to the morally unexcep-
tionable and even educational Hamburg opera. More important:
Elmenhorst indicates in his subtitle the argument that was to prove
crucial a couple of years later, although it is not apparently a central
argument for him. He asserts that operas can be sanctioned by the
church as Mittel-Dinge (literally, "things in the middle"), i.e. adi-
aphora, since there can be no relevant theological position on opera,
an entirely new form.
The second "opera war" began in 1690. During the late 1680s the
situation in Hamburg had changed, and the events of 1690 are
clearly the first test of strength for emerging Pietism in the city.
This struggle led to, or perhaps, more accurately, became entwined
with, the theological disputes that led to real civic unrest.
Since the new clerical appointments, made by the Rat of course,
were of critical importance, we shall consider them in some detail.
Johann Winckler (1642-1705) was considered for positions both at
St. Peter's and at St. Nikolai in 1683 and early 1684, but he was re-
jected because he was a supporter of Spener. Through the influence
of two rich merchants, he was appointed to St. Michael's late in
1684. Winckler was born in Saxony in 1642, attended St. Thomas'
school in Leipzig, and took a doctorate in philosophy at Jena in
1664. He apparently studied theology in Tübingen, but we do not
know where or when he finished his studies. He was attached to
72 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY

Spener before 1671. Winckler held posts as pastor or superintendent

in Homburg von der Höhe, Braubach, Darmstadt, Mannheim, and
Wertheim before going to Hamburg. He died there in 1705. At
Braubach and elsewhere he introduced some Spenerian reforms and
encountered difficulties as a result. Although Winckler was the
leader of Pietism in Hamburg, he was in general a moderating in-
fluence. His most lasting contribution to the city lay in the devel-
opment of a system of elementary schools.
Winckler clearly enjoyed influential support. In 1685, he man-
aged to have Spener's brother-in-law, Johann Heinrich Horb, ap-
pointed to St. Nikolai. Winckler was definitely trying to expand the
Pietist bridgehead and he did not scruple to attest that Horb was
free of Spenerian ideas. Horb, born in Colmar in 1645, was a stu-
dent of Spener in Strasbourg. He attended the universities of Jena,
Leipzig, Wittenberg, Helmstedt, and Kiel. In 1671 he married
Spener's sister. Before going to Hamburg, Horb was for a time lec-
turer in Strasbourg and pastor in Bischweiler, Trarbach, and Winds-
heim. He was regarded as a good pastor but was determined to in-
troduce private devotions and other Spenerian ideas and was
incautious and tactless in so doing.
The third Pietist, Abraham Hinckelmann, was named to St.
Catherine's in 1689. Born near Leipzig in 1652, he received the mas-
ter's degree in theology from Wittenberg, and, in 1687, the doc-
torate from Kiel. He was active as a schoolman and pastor in
Gardeleben, Lübeck, Hamburg (deacon at St. Nikolai), and
Hessen-Darmstadt before his final appointment in Hamburg,
where he died in 1695. Although he was a bitter opponent of opera,
he was in most respects the least aggressive of the Pietists and he
was an admirer of the scholarly Pietist-baiter Dr. Mayer. He is re-
membered as an orientalist whose annotated translation of the Ko-
ran was used for over a century.
Anton Reiser was replaced at St. Jacob's by Johann Friedrich
Mayer, leader of the Orthodox faction and key figure in the strug-
gles of the 1690S. Mayer was born in Leipzig in 1650 as son of the
pastor of St. Thomas'. He took arts degrees at Leipzig in 1666 and
1668, studied theology in Strasbourg, and returned to Leipzig,
where he received the bachelor of theology degree in 1671, the li-
centiate in 1673, and the doctorate in 1674. After short terms as pas-
tor near Leipzig, he became professor of theology at Wittenberg in
1684. At first Mayer supported some of Spener's reforms, but he
 OPERA, POLITICS AND RELIGION 73

soon began to see a danger of separatism. Spener preached against

the neglect of Christian marriage, clearly referring to Mayer,
whose marriage had been dissolved by the consistory. This, as well
as Mayer's conservative position, led Spener to block Mayer's ad-
vancement in Wittenberg. After going to Hamburg, Mayer became
professor at the Gymnasium (academy) there and at the university
in Kiel. He left Hamburg in 1701 to become superintendent and
professor at the university in Greifswald, then Swedish-ruled.
Mayer was considered to be, together with Calov, the greatest de-
fender of Lutheran Orthodoxy, and even his detractors considered
him the greatest preacher of the day. He corresponded with Leib-
niz. His library of 18,000 volumes was much visited and was made
available to serious students. 13
Throughout the entire period the majority of the clergy was of
Orthodox persuasion. The Rat clearly did not knowingly appoint
Pietists, except for the apparently manipulated appointment of
Winckler, and in fact none were appointed after Hinckelmann in
1689.
The course of the second opera war can be outlined quickly. Per-
formances were cancelled in 1685/86 because of political condi-
tions, and the announced reopening in 1687 led to protests. Winck-
ler and Horb both preached against the opera, despite an
admonition by the Rat.I4 Supporters of the opera, probably en-
couraged by the Rat, sought opinions from various theological
faculties—notably Rostock and Wittenberg—and from Dr.
Mayer. I5 All answers were either neutral or favorable to the opera.
At the request of the Rat, the Ministerium considered the question,
and the overwhelming majority favored "Tolerierung. " Winckler,
for reasons of conscience, refused to agree, and since he was for-
bidden by the Rat to preach on the subject, he published an open
letter to his congregation explaining his position. A request to
Spener for an opinion brought sympathy but no real support, ap-
parently to the surprise of Winckler and Horb. Spener referred to
the concept of adiaphora and found "nichts Gründliches" against the
opera other than, in his words, "Jen Verlust der edlen Zeit, die Gele-
genheit zum Bösen und den jetzigen allgemeinen betrübten Zustand, da
wir auch sonst erlaubte Ergötzlichkeit billich zu massigen haben/'16 The
Rat requested an answer to Winckler's objections from Mayer, who
had no difficulty in destroying Winckler's feeble arguments but did
so in needlessly brutal fashion. For various reasons Winckler did
74 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY

not pursue the matter, and for all practical purposes the last attempt
to close the opera was over. No serious attack on theatre in Ham-
burg was mounted until the Pietist-inspired objections of the 1760s
a n d 1770S.
In the anti-opera statements as well as in Spener's letter, a new
element emerges. Spener refers to waste of time and to temptation.
In Winckler's writings, the concept "sinful waste of time" appears,
and the feeling that frivolity was itself to be condemned, if only as
a waste of time, recurs in the course of the Hamburg disputes. His-
torically there was little support for this position in the Lutheran
church, and it was certainly foreign to men like Elmenhorst and
Mayer, both of wThom undoubtedly loved both music and theatre.
Some of the Pietist statements will remind an English-speaking
reader of the distrust of pleasure associated with the Puritans.
The second opera war was not in itself very serious, but it had
three results that greatly affected developments to come. In the first
place, the Rat was, for the first time in the seventeenth century,
forced to become involved in serious religious arguments; sec-
ondly, public attention was focused on the Ministerium-, and thirdly,
Winckler's refusal to accept the decision of the majority of his col-
leagues and his public disagreement showTed that a rift existed
among the clergy and that a unified position was impossible or ex-
tremely difficult to achieve.
Before examining the "Priesterstreif' or "Horb affair" and its un-
fortunate consequences, we may consider briefly two general is-
sues, one of them perhaps peculiar to Hamburg. Both deserve more
extended consideration than they have yet received or than they can
receive here.
The question of Pietist distrust of or opposition to scholarship
and learning surfaces periodically in studies of seventeenth-century
culture. 17 In so far as it is true at all, the argument surely applies
to later Pietism rather than to the emerging Pietism under discus-
sion here. Spener himself was no enemy of learning, although he
is occasionally visibly torn between logic and emotion. It is true,
however, that the Hamburg Pietists were remarkably inept theo-
logians. Neither Winckler nor Horb was able to debate with the
learned Mayer. Their arguments against opera come close to rely-
ing on "my conscience tells me" rather than on theologically or his-
torically tenable arguments, and Winckler in later disputes shows
a tendency to use arguments that were not applicable to the
 OPERA, POLITICS A N D RELIGION 75

Lutheran church. Horb in particular was prone to replace logic with

emotion. Whether cold theological reasoning and a constant appeal
to unchangeable traditions should be the determining factor in re­
ligious discussions is, of course, a moot point, but their apparently
inferior ability in arguing their own case certainly hurt the Ham­
burg Pietists. Only Hinckelmann can be considered a scholar and
he not in the field of theology. Mayer, on the other hand, was a
truly learned man and notable theologian. 1 8
The second issue is perhaps more important and certainly more
particularly applicable to Hamburg. It is often assumed on the basis
of their allegedly greater concern for social issues and their desire
to implement less formal and rigid services that Pietists were sup­
ported by the lower or lower-middle classes and opposed by the en­
trenched clergy and traditional political leaders. I 9 This was not the
case in Hamburg. Winckler, as we have seen, owed his appoint­
ment to the support of two wealthy merchants, and his "power
base" was in his own parish, St. Michael's, the newest and richest
of Hamburg parishes. Despite Reiser's tenure at St. Jacob's, that
large, working-class parish was the center of Orthodox sentiment,
as was the adjoining parish of St. Peter's. More to the point, per­
haps, is the fact that Horb, and to a lesser extent Winckler, made
himself very unpopular with the workers of the city. Horb tried un­
successfully to abolish the traditional trade processions and the var­
ious traditional Handwerker spiele (workmen's plays) associated with
the promotion of apprentices to the status of journeyman and the
like. 2 0 The result was that the masses were easily roused against
Horb.
In general, the Pietist pastors in Hamburg seem to have enjoyed
the support of their own parishioners, but it seems to have been per­
sonal sympathy, not approval of their ideas. Winckler, particularly
in his later years, was widely admired and sometimes defended as
a "good man," but none of his ideas, except for those connected
with public education, made many converts.
The really violent disputes within the Ministerium began with the
establishment in 1687 of Winckler's Collegium Pietatis, ζ typically
Pietist institution that we might call "Bible study." Horb estab­
lished one of his own in the same year. Such extra-liturgical meet­
ings were generally regarded as excesses. Both men required the
ability to read on the part of participants and were decried as elitists,
since much of the population was thus excluded. 21 This argument
76 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY

rings somewhat false, since those who raised it opposed the meet-
ings anyway! These groups became so popular that Mayer held one
of his own, based, to be sure, on a controversial theme.
Opposition to these Privatkonvente increased.22 They could not
be justified by Lutheran doctrine or tradition, at least as interpreted
by the Orthodox of Leipzig and Hamburg, and were regarded as
potentially "separatist. " This fear, based in part on the assumption
that sects active in Altona, Stade, Celle, and other neighboring cit-
ies wished to gain entrance to Hamburg, was not entirely without
foundation. In Hamburg itself there were probably some groups
dissatisfied with the rigid Ministerium which was unwilling to grant
any significant rôle to the laity. Winckler, incidentally, was no
more liberal in this respect. Horb was more radical and supported,
if only briefly, the idea of the priesthood of all believers. The Pri-
vatkonvente were forbidden in 1689, as was the propagation of a
number of religious writings, among them works by Böhme,
Schwenckfeld, Weigel, andPenn. The action was, of course, taken
by the Rat, presumably at the urging of the Ministerium or at least
of its Senior, Schulz.
The direct conflict between Pietists and Orthodox began in 1690
with the question of an oath of conformity. This was a device to
obligate all clergy to conform to Orthodox Lutheran dogma and
to avoid and condemn any transgression against it. The formula
was placed before the Ministerium March 14, 1690. The suspicion
that Mayer and not Schulz was its author is not borne out by con-
temporary documents. Horb and Hinckelmann refused to sign,
while Winckler signed but later attempted to withdraw his signa-
ture. The Rat, occupied with Danish claims and unwilling to inter-
fere in theological disputes, delayed consideration for some months
and then decided to take no action. The result was most unsatis-
factory. The three Pietists had ignored the majority decision of the
clergy without punishment, while the Ministerium had, again with
no penalty, exceeded its powers, for conformity to Lutheran teach-
ing was a matter for the Rat.
Horb presented Spenerian views in sermons and published at-
tacks against the Orthodox majority. On January 24, 1691, Mayer
published a major Streitschrift (pamphlet), Abgenöhtigte Schutzschrift
Rev. Ministerii ("A Necessary Defense of the Clergy"), two thou-
sand copies of which were confiscated next day by the Rat, con-
cerned only with keeping the peace. In March 1691, Schulz, writing
 OPERA, POLITICS AND RELIGION 77

on behalf of the Ministerium, made an appeal to the public, while

Winckler praised the wisdom of the Rat, i.e. in doing nothing. It
is at this point that the lack of public support for the Pietists be-
comes crucial.
Many Hamburg historians adopt an unhistorical view of the
struggle about the oath of conformity. The formula may have been
reactionary, overly conservative, or even theologically suspect, but
the Pietists were opposing the accepted norms of their church as in-
terpreted by the majority of their colleagues. It was the duty of the
Senior, Schulz, to defend the unity of Lutheran belief and he was
entitled to expect support from the Rat. Because of the peculiar
structure of the Hamburg church, the Ministerium, which presum-
ably had the training to make a decision, had limited power to en-
force it. The Rat had the power, but, scarcely equipped to make
theological judgments and apparently recognizing this, was reluc-
tant to do so. The system assumed the existence of a unified Mi-
nisterium acting as advisor to the Rat. Although it was almost cer-
tainly in agreement with the terms of the oath, the Rat was simply
unwilling to accept the fact that unity within the Ministerium no
longer existed.
Senior Schulz was no villain. He acted with the unqualified sup-
port of a substantial majority of the Hamburg clergy. The sugges-
tion, found in older chroniclers, that he was not qualified to act as
chairman because of a prejudice against Pietism makes no sense un-
less Horb, Winckler, and Hinckelmann are to be disqualified be-
cause of a prejudice against the Orthodoxy of their colleagues.23
The next step was a result of the carelessness (or worse) of Horb.
It was normal practice for pastors to distribute edifying writings at
New Year's. On New Year's Eve, 1692, Horb had a booklet
printed which was a translation by Beckhoff, a lawyer in Stade, of
a work by the French Protestant Pierre Poiret. 24 Horb contributed
a short introduction; he may not have read the booklet and certainly
was at first unaware of its origin. The essentially harmless little
book is Calvinist-oriented and does contain statements contrary to
Lutheran beliefs of that time. Unfortunately, the widely read
Mayer recognized the book immediately. Despite the pleas of
Hinckelmann, still an admirer of the scholar Mayer, the latter
preached against the heretical booklet and wrote a nasty but theo-
logically correct pamphlet against it and against Horb. Since Horb
had in fact been either stupid, careless, or heretical, Mayer's task
78 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY

was easy. The Rat, still seeking peace, imposed a general ban on dis-
cussion of the matter. However, Horb ignored the ban and re-
sponded to Mayer from the pulpit, calling his opponents Pharisees
and comparing his innocence to that of Christ. This his opponents
understandably considered blasphemy.
In the absence of the three Pietists, the Ministerium decided to
proceed against Horb with the help of the Rat. The Orthodox ma-
jority was determined to make an example of Horb, although he
was by now ready to give in on all fronts and the Rat still hoped
for reconciliation. Probably the only solution would have been for
the Rat to take the affair entirely into its own hands, but one can
sympathize with the reluctance ofthat body to do so.
On April 25, 1693, Winckler began a series of sermons with the
theme "Der unrechtmässig verquackerte gute Lutheraner . . . in etlichen
Predigten aus Luc. VI. v. 22-26 vorgestellet" ("The good Lutheran
unjustly accused of being a Quaker, presented in some sermons
based on Luke 6, verses 22-26"). 2S There he accused the Ministerium
of unchristian behavior. Unfortunately, Winckler's defense of
Horb, while (perhaps) morally convincing, is logically weak.
Winckler must have realized that Horb had laid himself open to dis-
cipline up to and including dismissal according to the terms of
church law. The Rat attempted to bring about a truce by means of
a decree declaring the issue dead, but Schulz, Mayer, and two oth-
ers threatened to announce their resignations the next Sunday. The
Rat, fearing open revolt, wisely overlooked this disobedience.
Horb was boycotted by most of his colleagues—for example, they
refused to join him, as would have been customary, in funeral pro-
cessions. He was threatened by crowds, possibly physically at-
tacked, and had to be given a police guard.
Since the Ministerium was not prepared to let the matter rest but
did not have the authority to dismiss Horb, it mobilized the pop-
ulace to put pressure on the Rat. This fatal step, an innovation so
far as we know, was largely the work of J. F. Mayer, and it is in
fact only at this point (1694) that one can, on the basis of the doc-
uments, blame Mayer for the disturbances. 26
It was easy to mobilize the Ämter, the representatives of the gen-
eral populace, against Horb. When a declaration to support him
was circulated in his own parish, only twenty-six percent of the
signées were from the artisan or working classes. The people's rep-
resentatives dominated a series of council meetings—on one occa-
 O P E R A , POLITICS A N D RELIGION 79

sion fifteen hundred of them joined ranks against two hundred

more moderate citizens—and on September 30, 1693, the Ämter re-
fused to vote taxes until Horb was dismissed. Since a debt payment
to Brandenburg was due November 1, they were in a strong po-
sition. On November 23, the Rat, under heavy pressure which in-
cluded the physical intimidation of council members, decreed
Horb's dismissal. Despite decrees, a so-called "amnesty," and
other conciliatory efforts, unrest continued, and one councilman
lost his office for speaking in Horb's favor. Hatred of the unfortu-
nate Horb was so great that when he died (1695) he could not be
buried in Hamburg.
To what an extent the theological dispute had become a popular
event is clear from contemporary accounts. A "Quackerlied"
(Quaker song) against Horb was a bestseller in 1693, and children
played "Horbianer und Mayerianer."27 Winckler gave a last sermon
in support of Horb under heavy police protection. Pamphlets,
among them examples by Hinckelmann, Winckler, and Mayer,
were numerous and, by modern standards, often unedifying or
downright scurrilous. Contrary to what Geffcken would have us
believe, pamphlets like Winckler's Geschlagener Vortrab ("Vain
Advance") are scarcely more edifying than those of his
opponents. 28
Technically the Rat would have had grounds for dismissing vir-
tually all of Hamburg's clergy. The stated grounds were heresy,
disobedience, and the propagation of Streitschriften. The third had
never been invoked and was probably intended to be used only in
rather specific cases. Horb was clearly guilty of heresy. While all
of the clergy were guilty of at least technical disobedience during
the troubles, the actual definition of disobedience was somewhat
vague. The clergy were rightly confident that the Rat would not
proceed against them—the dismissal of the whole group was sim-
ply not a viable option.
After 1693, the situation becomes less clear. The rebellious Jaco-
biter, so-called because their strength was centered in Mayer's par-
ish of St. Jacob, were not easily pacified. They forced illegal council
elections, terrorized the Rat, and insisted on supposed rights that
had, in fact, never existed. It may be mentioned that many of the
rebels were not full citizens with voting rights, if only because of
the financial obligations involved. The empire and Hamburg's
neighbors became so concerned that the emperor appointed an Im-
8ο LUTHERAN QUARTERLY

perial Commission (1697-98), to consist of members of the Lower

Saxon Circle to which Hamburg belonged. 2 9 The Rat did not dare
to accept such an investigative commission, particularly since the
imperial ambassador is reputed to have said that Mayer must be ex­
pelled from the city. This would not have been practically possible
even if it had been legally justifiable, an assumption that is, more­
over, very doubtful.
Clearly the Ministerium had paid dearly for its victory. Only
Mayer had any control over the mob and he, one suspects, only to
a limited extent. The idea that one could use the mob for one spe­
cific purpose and then send it home proved false.
To us, the cost of getting rid of Horb, i.e. near anarchy, was out
of all proportion to Horb's transgression. Mayer and his allies un­
doubtedly took a more serious view of theological disagreement
than we, and felt that heresy must be stamped out at any cost. Con­
temporary sources give us no reason to doubt the depth or sincerity
of their convictions. The legend that Mayer regretted his rôle in
Horb's dismissal is almost certainly the fabrication of a later time
when Horb was considered and referred to as one of the martyrs
of Pietism. 30
Mayer, without doubt an autocrat, was not content to be "the
pope of Hamburg" ("der Papst Hamburgs9'), to quote a contempo-
rary reference, by will of the common people. He had certainly en-
visaged a strengthened Ministerium, probably under his influence.
Schulz died in 1699, and Winckler automatically succeeded him as
Senior. Although Winckler tried to conciliate his colleagues, his ap-
pointment certainly strengthened Mayer's desire to find a position
elsewhere. His disappointment with developments in the city can
be seen in a sermon in which he actually attacked the people's rep-
resentatives. To be fair, Mayer would probably have accepted the
attractive post offered him in Greifswald at any time, for he was
clearly never satisfied to be only a pastor. In 1701 he became su-
perintendent and professor in Greifswald. A number of scurrilous
attacks and the realization that he was not universally supported
may have strengthened his resolve. He was referred to as "Münzers
Spießgeselle" ("Münzer's boon companion"), and a number of
pamphlets directed against him were among those burned by the
city bailiff.31
In retrospect it seems obvious that Pietism was dead in Hamburg
after 1693. Horb was gone, Hinckelmann died in 1695, and Winck-
 OPERA, POLITICS AND RELIGION 81

1er either changed his views or, more probably, became more tact-
ful and cautious. After easily surviving an attempt to expel him
(!693), he became a rather quiet and unobtrusive figure, active
above all in establishing a school system. 32 It is in fact easier to ad-
mire Winckler in his later years! At St. Peter's, Senior Schulz was
replaced by Christian Krumbholtz, whom we shall meet again as
rebel leader. Mayer was succeeded by the peace-loving, Orthodox
novelist-pastor Johannes Riemer; and later appointments, that of
Erdmann Neumeister, for example, strengthened the Orthodox
faction. Only after 1750 does Pietism reappear, this time success-
fully, in Hamburg.
The modern scholar is tempted to consider the troubles after
1693 a s examples of social unrest or even as early examples of class
conflict.33 According to contemporary accounts this is only very
marginally true. Strange as it may seem to us today, the masses do
seem to have been motivated by religious Concerns, no matter how
imperfectly understood. No doubt the rebels enjoyed a taste of un-
accustomed power, but they made no attempt to correct the quite
real inequities in the social and political system. The Jacobiter con-
sidered themselves the protectors of the true Lutheran faith and, af-
ter 1701, perhaps Mayer's heirs in defending it against a weak or
foot-dragging Rat. The irony is that the Rat was throughout as Or-
thodox as anyone could wish.
The leaders of the rebels in the last phase of the disturbances were
not illiterate non-citizens. The best-known of them was Baltzer or
Balthasar Stücke (also Stielcke, Stilke, etc.) an upholsterer who ac-
quired full citizenship in 1685. At Stilcke's trial (1709-11) he
claimed, to be sure, that he was discriminated against as a poor
man, but this seems almost a proforma remark. He repeatedly stated
that he was a defender of the true Lutheran religion, and he unques-
tionably considered Pastor Krumbholtz, who was on trial at the
same time, God's spokesman.34 It is probably fair to say that from
1680 on—as a result of a series of purely political crises—the pop-
ulation at large distrusted the Rat and that it took very little to pro-
voke open rebellion.
Contrary to all logic, Mayer's acceptance ofthe position in Greifs-
wald did not end the disturbances.35 The existing documents deal-
ing with his resignation and the attendant problems are so contra-
dictory as to be of limited help. In particular, we shall probably
never know what part Mayer himself played. The majority of his
82 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY

parishioners refused to accept the fact of his resignation and cer-

tainly believed that he would consider returning to them. A dele-
gation, including Stücke, actually went to Greifswald to persuade
Mayer to continue as their pastor. Though Mayer did delay his for-
mal resignation until some time after he had left Hamburg, it is
difficult to believe that he would actually have reconsidered. At any
rate, thejacobiter forced the Rat to consider the question of his being
recalled and eventually demanded a part in choosing Mayer's suc-
cessor. This was clearly in defiance of the law, since the appoint-
ment of clergy was the prerogative of the Rat.
The question of whether Mayer could legally be recalled or per-
haps reaffirmed or not produced a mass of publications ranging
from the learned to the abusive. Much of the argument was of a
kind calculated to delight the heart of any ecclesiastical lawyer.
Winckler, who of course did not want Mayer back, made his last
controversial appearance with a number of pamphlets that do not
add to his reputation as a theologian. His arguments depend en-
tirely on points of canon law that were not considered binding by
the Lutheran church, as Winckler must or at least should have
known.
From 1701 to 1708, the rebels had a moral leader in Dr. Christian
Krumbholtz. Born near Dresden in 1665, Krumbholtz studied at
Wittenberg and Leipzig and then went to Pressburg (Bratislava) as
deacon. He was expelled by the emperor for causing disturbances,
probably for overt anti-Catholic statements. He went to St. Sophia
in Dresden in either 1694 or 1696 and succeeded Schulz at St. Peter's
in Hamburg in 1700. A year later he received a doctorate from Kiel.
It is difficult to explain Krumbholtz' rôle except as evidence of
a desire for personal powrer. He supported the rebels and attacked
their opponents from the pulpit, and it was in fact for abusing the
power of the pulpit that he was later indicted. At this stage, no other
pastor was deeply involved on either side. From the viewpoint of
an Orthodox pastor there were no real issues at stake after 1701, and
there is no indication that Krumbholtz sought to enhance the power
of the Ministerium. As a group, that body played little or no part
in the last phase of the rebellion, though it may be said to its credit
that there were mild efforts to censure Krumbholtz.
Under Stilcke's leadership, the rebels were in effect rulers of the
city until 1708. They dismissed and intimidated council members,
dominated council meetings in totally illegal fashion, and contin-
 OPERA, POLITICS AND RELIGION 83

ued to regard themselves as defenders of the true Lutheran faith. In

1708, an Imperial Commission supported by troops entered the
city. Stücke, Krumbholtz, and a few others were put on trial —
those two were sentenced to life imprisonment—and the city was
given a new constitution, written largely by Count Damián Hugo
von Schönborn as leader of the commission. This constitution re-
mained in force until 1806.
There are enormous numbers of pamphlets, published sermons,
and so on from this period. Some of them are both fascinating and
amusing, but all are so partisan that it is difficult to form a fair pic-
ture. Considering the absence of any Pietist strength, the amount
of "Pietist-bashing" is surprising. The learned Sebastian Edzardi
published Die Gottlosigkeit des Pietistischen Schwärmer Hauffens
("The Godlessness of the mob of Pietistic Enthusiasts,'' Witten-
berg, 1703) in which the works of Spener, Arnold, and others are
dissected with analytical malice. Johann Heinrich Feustking, a
prominent pastor from neighboring Schleswig-Holstein, contrib-
uted Gynaeceum Haeretico Fanaticum (Frankfurt and Leipzig, 1704),
a violently anti-feminine examination of female sectarians of all
sorts. Most influential was Samuel Schelwig's widely read book
Die Sectierische Pietisterey (Sectarian Pietism) published at Danzig in
169o.36 Faber du Faur's characterization of Schei wig would apply
equally well to several Hamburg pastors of the time.
Schei wig was one of the most militant of the orthodox Lutherans; his main
aversion was Pietism, which he combated with fury and an enormous expen-
diture of rudeness, even vulgarity. Although originally he was a friend of
Spener, he subsequently turned directly against the latter and characterized his
teaching as ravings, as Enthusiasmus. There can be no doubt that Schelwig cor-
rectly noticed the unhealthy elements in Pietism and recognized them for what
they really were, but his conviction that the new movement was utterly
worthless—sheer schism and sectarianism—made him blind to its positive fea-
tures. Finally, making a list of 150 errors which he attributed to Spener, he
became lost in abstruse details, although he was followed in this direction by
not a few Lutheran theologians and professors. The fact that the violent Schel-
wig, who often employed far from spiritual weapons, was nevertheless a fa-
vorite with his pupils during the time when he served as conrector of the Gym-
nasium in Thorn, shows that he possessed more humane characteristics than
those he displayed in theological controversy. 37

One of the most brilliant pamphlets and an excellent example of

successful satire was Pietistischer Catechismus (1706), a virulent dis-
section of Pietism by the otherwise undistinguished Hartwig Bam-
84 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY

bamius. Bambamius' pamphlet provoked equally virulent replies

from the writer and opera librettist Barthold Feind. How pervasive
religious issues were can be seen from the fact that Friedrich Chris-
tian Feustking—a pastor and librettist who was the brother of the
previously mentioned Johann Heinrich Feustking—tried to smear
the same Feind as an enemy of true religion in the course of what
had begun as a purely literary quarrel. 38
While the determined reiteration of Orthodox Lutheranism is
certainly still present during the final years of the Hamburg distur-
bances, it is simply not possible· to find a single consistent expla-
nation that will account for the near anarchy of this period. It is
probably significant that the rewritten constitution shows essen-
tially a myriad of small changes designed to remove friction in areas
ranging from the behavior of the clergy to restrictions on trade.
Johann Winckler may have exerted a certain moderating influ-
ence as Senior until his death in 1705, but he appears to have taken
little part in the troubles. It is not likely that Winckler had a great
deal of influence within the Ministerium, where he was at that period
the only opponent of strict Orthodoxy. It is possible that there was,
or that the rebels thought there was, lingering Pietist sentiment in
Winckler's wealthy parish. For whatever reason, one of the works
illegally burned by order of the rebel-dominated council was a lau-
datory obituary for Winckler that Feind wrote for his weekly pub-
lication Relationes Curiosae.
Barthold Feind and at least one other writer raise questions to
which at present we know no answers. Feind was born in Hamburg
in 1678, studied in Wittenberg and Halle, and returned to Hamburg
in 1703 to practice law. 39 His fame as a writer rests on a series of
opera libretti performed from 1705 on. In an early work, a trans-
lation of a satire by the Dutch writer Jeremías de Decker, Feind in-
troduced remarks critical of Krumbholtz, and in his one play, Das
verwirrte Haus Jacob (1703), he attacked the rebels by name. His
pamphlets against Krumbholtz were burned and he was exiled for
a brief period and even hanged in effigy. Unfortunately we know
nothing of Feind's religious beliefs. On the basis of his known ca-
reer and his writings, it is unlikely that he was deeply religious at
all. As a librettist, he was certainly not a Pietist. However, he
clearly admired Winckler, whereas, on the other hand, his political
writings contain no remarks against Mayer. Since effective oppo-
sition to opera did not exist by the time Feind began to write, it is
 OPERA, POLITICS AND RELIGION 85

conceivable that Winckler posed no apparent threat to the librettist

who then, by comparison to Krumbholtz, found him admirable.
It is also possible that Feind as a lawyer and a man with some ties
to the established hierarchy of Hamburg was simply a political con-
servative who chose friend and foe on that basis alone.
At least equally puzzling is the position of Sebastian Edzardi
(1673-173 6). Edzardi, professor of logic and metaphysics at the
Akademisches Gymnasium, a learned theologian and a brilliant
pamphleteer, attacked abuses in every religious camp at some time
in his career.40 In the period in question he attacked Krumbholtz
and his supporters and, at least by implication, praised Winckler.
Since Edzardi regarded Pietism as a heresy and tended to lump it
with Calvinism, his position is hard to explain. Here too one is
forced to assume a dislike of political rebellion in any form, even
if it supported Orthodox Lutheranism.
One is inclined to view the years 1701-1708 as a time when a
combination of religious unrest, political distrust, and weak gov-
ernment produced anarchy. Religious Orthodoxy scarcely needed
defending any longer. If religion faced an enemy in Hamburg by
1705, it was probably increasing secularization. Despite the un-
doubted spirituality of Brockes' poetry, it clearly heralds pantheism
and other forms of Enlightened religious thought. Furthermore,
the totally secular works of writers like Hunold were arguably
more typical of Hamburg literature. The opera avoided religious
questions and attracted no adverse publicity. I know of no religious
objections to it after 1693. Censorship occasionally touched the op-
era, but the objections were purely political.41
Any account of the Hamburg Unruhen that focuses on their re-
ligious component is ultimately faced with two questions: 1. Why
did Pietism not benefit from the defeat of the rebels who so obvi-
ously associated themselves with Orthodoxy and 2. Why did Pi-
etism fail to establish a firm foothold in the first place? It is doubtful
whether a final answer to either question is possible, but some ideas
suggest themselves. These suggestions are based primarily on con-
temporary documents.
By 1708, three years after Winckler's death, there were no Pietist
pastors to take advantage of any weakness among the Orthodox.
Furthermore, Krumbholtz does not seem to have been considered
a legitimate leader of the Orthodox faction but rather as a black
sheep or rotten apple. Most of the Hamburg pastors stayed aloof
86 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY

from the disturbances of 1701-1708. Riemer, Mayer's successor,

clearly had very little influence on the behavior of his own parish-
ioners. If one goes through the hundreds of pamphlets from the
Krumbholtz years, one finds, to be sure, some clerical support for
Krumbholtz, but at least as many clerical expressions of disap-
proval. His support came largely from pastors in rural areas and oc-
casionally from some who felt that attacks on a clergyman were^er
se deplorable. It has been mentioned already that the Rat, though
regarded as theologically lukewarm by Krumbholtz' followers,
was in fact quite solidly Orthodox, probably increasingly so after
Winckler's death. The leader of the Imperial Commission, Damián
Hugo von Schönborn, was himself a Catholic prelate. He tried very
hard to remain truly neutral in religious matters and dealt, when
necessary, with the existing religious structure, i.e. with the
Ministerium.42
The reasons for the failure of early Pietism to gain a solid foot-
hold in Hamburg are harder to pinpoint. One reason was certainly
the strength and vigor of Hamburg Orthodoxy with its traditional
ties to Wittenberg and Leipzig. Another was the absence of the
usual church structure—the Ministerium could be taken over only
by a majority or else by a determined minority faced with less de-
termined opponents. The Rat was, furthermore, opposed to all
forms of "enthusiasm," in part for political reasons and in part be-
cause of its understandable reluctance to revise or cast off the ac-
cepted religious tradition that it was sworn to uphold. We shall
leave to theologians the question of whether Pietism did in fact
threaten basic church doctrine or not. Certainly both the Rat and
the majority of the clergy thought that it did.
A major cause of failure was the hostility of the poor and
working-class population toward the Pietists. The three early Pi-
etists in Hamburg simply did not have wide support. Only St.
Michael's, the notoriously rich parish, was for a time firmly behind
Winckler and probably prepared to endorse his reforms. A number
of prominent members of that parish had close family or business
ties to the Netherlands and may well have been influenced by Dutch
Calvinism and the various Protestant sects active there. The fact re-
mains that in the German city with the largest working-class pop-
ulation, Pietism signally failed to reach that segment of the city's
inhabitants. This cannot be explained only by the determined op-
position of Mayer, who, autocrat though he was, was effective as
 OPERA, POLITICS AND RELIGION 87

the pastor of a working-class parish. Much of Hamburg's populace

was, in the modern phrase, simply "turned off" by Pietism as it was
represented in that city.
It would, I think, be most unwise to attempt to generalize on the
basis of developments in Hamburg. The failure of early Pietism in
other areas, notably Leipzig, has undoubtedly quite different
causes. No other Protestant German city had a population even ap-
proaching that of Hamburg and no other had its almost modern
population mix. Elsewhere, successful opposition to Pietism was
more likely to result from a determined theological faculty, the per-
sonal preferences of a ruler, or the like. Only separate studies of in-
dividual areas can supply answers to our questions.
Whether we should deplore the defeat of Pietism in Hamburg is
another question. The cultural flourishing of Hamburg in the fields
of church music, opera, and perhaps literature, would scarcely have
been possible if the early Pietists had had their way. It is hard to
imagine the activities of Keiser, Handel, Telemann, Mattheson, or
C. P. E. Bach in a Pietist environment. Unfortunately it was not
possible in the Hamburg of the late seventeenth century to adopt
peacefully desirable religious reforms in a moderate form suitable
to the flourishing and developing metropolis. For this we can blame
not only all parties involved but also the tenor of the age.

NOTES
1. In the Hamburg writings of the time a number of terms are used virtually
interchangeably—the most frequent are "Pietist," "Enthusiast," "Schwärmer" (virtually
synonymous with "Enthusiast"), "Qudcker" or "Quacker," and "Spenerianer." While
there are frequent allusions to the works of Penn, one suspects that of those involved
in the Hamburg disputes only Mayer and perhaps Edzardi actually knew anything
about Quakers.
2. See Martin Kruse, Speners Kritik am landesherrlichen Kirchenregiment und ihre Vor-
geschichte (Witten, 1971), 13 ff. English-language works dealing specifically with the re-
ligious struggles in Hamburg are not known to me. Some helpful material may be
found in two books by F. Ernest Stoeffler (The Rise of Evangelical Pietism, Leiden, 1965
and German Pietism during the Eighteenth Century, Leiden, 1973)·
3. See Hermann Rückleben, Die Niederwerfung der hamburgischen Ratsgewalt. Kirch-
liche Bewegungen und bürgerliche Unruhen im ausgehenden 17. Jahrhundert (Hamburg,
1970). To avoid confusion, the German term Rat is generally used throughout this ar-
ticle to designate the small governing body. Its members are referred to as councilmen.
This does involve ignoring some technical distinctions that are not relevant to· the
present argument.
4. Danish claims were legally abandoned only in the Treaty of Rastatt (1714) and
at the end of the Nordic War (1721).
88 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY

5. For the history and development of the Hamburg opera see W. W. Bartmuss,
Die Hamburger Barockoper, Ph.D. diss., Jena, 1925; M. Gloria Flaherty, In Defense of Op-
era: A Survey of German Critical Writings on Operafrom1678 to 1770, Ph.D. diss., Johns
Hopkins, 1965; Hellmuth Christian Wolff, Die Barockoper in Hamburg (1678-1738), 2
vols. (Wolfenbtittel, 1957)· All three contain extensive bibliographies.
6. Bibliographical note: Virtually all statements relating to the disturbances, includ-
ing the opera wars, are based on contemporary documents. To avoid a totally unman-
ageable apparatus, specific references are given in only a few cases. Hundreds of pam-
phlets (Streitschriften) are contained in the numerous collected volumes of
"Hamburgensia," "Horbiana, " "Pietistica, " and the like in the Staatsarchiv Hamburg and
in the Herzog August Bibliothek in Wolfenbüttel. Both collections also have copies of
Protocollum & Acta In Peinlicher Sachen Fiscalis in Criminalibus Ex Officio Inquirentis u
Anklägers Contra Christian Krumbholtz/. . . Anno 1711. . . Hamburg and Protocollum &
Acta . . . Contra Baltzer Stielcken/. . . Anno 1711. . . Hamburg, the records of the trials
of the rebel leaders. The Staatsarchiv Hamburg holds parish records (absolutely com-
plete from about 1650) and, of course, complete records of council meetings. There
are less extensive holdings in libraries in Berlin, Kiel, London, and elsewhere. A single
large volume containing about 250 items is in the Krauth Memorial Library of Lutheran
Theological Seminary, Philadelphia. It comes from the library of Johannes Geffcken.
7. Schuldrama ("School Theatre") was a common feature of schools in Lutheran ar-
eas. It often functioned as quasi-civic theatre and produced playwrights of some qual-
ity, the most notable being Christian Weise (1642-1708). For information on the re-
lationship of church and theatre see Monika Diebel, Grundlagen und Erscheinungsformen
der Theaterfeindlichkeit deutscher protestantischer Geistlicher im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert
Ph.D. diss., Vienna, 1968; Ernst Hövel, Der Kampf der Geistlichkeit gegen das Theater
in Deutschland im 17. Jahrhundert, Ph.D. diss., Münster, i9i2;Heddy Neumeister, Geist-
lichkeit und Literatur. Zur Literatursoziologie des 17. Jahrhunderts (Münster, 1931). Diebel
and Hövel both concentrate on small rural areas to support the contention that German
Protestantism was basically opposed to theatre.
8. I have used the excellent edition of Pia Desideria published by Kurt Aland (Berlin,
1940). All baroque books are referred to in this article by convenient short titles.
9. Despite their titles, Theatromania, Theatrophania, and Dramatologia were all writ-
ten in German. The copies used are in the Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel.
10. The best-known collection of Elmenhorst's religious poetry, Geistreiche Lieder
(Lüneburg, 1700), has recently been issued in facsimile by Georg Olms Verlag,
Hildesheim and NewT York. A facsimile oí Dramatologia is to appear in Leipzig.
11. Johannes Geffcken ("Der erste Streit über die Zulässigkeit des Schauspiels (1677-
1688)," Zeitschrift des Vereinsfür hamburgische Geschichte 3, no. 1 (1851): 1-33) mentions
Elmenhorst's attacks on Winckler in 1687. Geffcken is considered fairly reliable, but
he did not document his articles, and I have found no confirmation of this statement.
12. At least one other Hamburg clergyman of the period, Friedrich Christian Feust-
king, also wrote libretti. The issue surfaced in more virulent form about seventy years
later. See Johannes Geffcken, "Der Streit über die Sittlichkeit des Schauspiels im Jahre
1769,** Zeitschrift des Vereins für hamburgische Geschichte 3, no. 1 (1851): 56-77. See also
William E. Pettig, Literary Antipietism in Germany during thefirstHalf of the Eighteenth
Century, Stanford German Studies (N. Y. and Bern: Lang, 1984).
13. See Johann Heinrich Balthasar, Bibliotheca May enana (Berlin, 1715) and F. L.
Hoffmann, "Hamburgische Bibliophilen, Bibliographen und Litteraturhistoriker, 16; Johan
Friedrich Mayer," Serapeum 26 (1865): 209-22 and 225-36.
14. A general muzzling order, always for a specific subject—usually political—was
the normal, if infrequently used, form of censorship used by the Rat.
 OPERA, POLITICS AND RELIGION 89

15. See Rückleben (η. 3) for detailed discussion and the text of Mayer's statement.
Exact dating of all the documents, which are in the Staatsarchiv Hamburg, is problem­
atic.
16. Translation: Spener found "No basic objection" other than "the loss of valuable
time, the opportunity for evil, and the present generally dismal situation, when we
should properly moderate otherwise permissible pleasures." Spener's complete reply
was published in Leipzig (no date).
17. See most recently Leonard Forster, " * Charlatanería eruditorum' zwischen Barock
und Aufklärung in Deutschland. Mit dem Versuch einer Bibliographie, " Res Publica Luterana,
Wolfenbütteler Arbeiten zur Barockforschung 14, pt. 1 (1987): 203-20 and Wolfgang
Martens, "Hallescher Pietismus und Gelehrsamkeit oder vom 'allzu großen Mißtrauen in
dieWissenschaften\" ibid., pt. 2:497-523.
18. Incomplete but useful lists of the writings of all those concerned in Hans Schrö-
der, Lexikon der hamburgischen Schrifisteller bis zur Gegenwart, Vol. 2 (Hamburg, 1854).
See also W. Gordon Marigold, "Der Hamburger Klerus gegen Ende des 17. Jahrhunderts:
Gedanken zum Brauch und Mißbrauch der Gelehrsamkeit," Res Publica Litteraria. Wolfen-
bütteler Arbeiten zur Barockforschung 14, (1987): pt. 2: 14, pt. 2 (1987): 465-96.
19. See Pettig (n. 12), with valuable bibliography.
20. See W. Gordon Marigold, "Barthold Feind und die Satire in Hamburg am Anfang
des Î8. Jahrhunderts," Daphnis 14, no. 4 (1985): 803-31.
21. There are still no reliable studies of the literacy rate. Many estimate that in Ger-
man cities at least 50% of the population was literate. Note that Stücke, the leader of
the rebels and a relatively poor artisan, was able, probably with some help, to write
pamphlets on his own behalf. His numerous children all attended a parish school.
22. "Privat," as used in discussions of religious matters, clearly means "outside of
regular church services" or "extra-liturgical."
23. For a strongly pro-Pietist view see Johannes Geffcken, Johann Winckler und die
Hamburgische Kirche seiner Zeit (Î684-Î705), (Hamburg, 1861), 7off and Dr. Gallois,
Hamburgische Chronik von den ältesten Zeiten bis auf die Jetztzeit, Vol. 3, Vom Beginn der
bürgerlichen Unruhen bis zur Vollendung des Hauptrecesses 17Î3 (Hamburg, 1862). Both
apparently relied heavily on G. Ν. Bärmann, Hamburgische Chronik Í. und 2. Teil (Ham-
burg, 1822) and on C. M. Reinhold, Hamburgische Chronik von Entstehung der Stadt bis
auf unsere Tage, 2 vols. (Hamburg, 1820). All four works are full of factual errors and
offer no documentation. Reinhold in particular does not even consider the possibility
of sincere, convinced opposition to Pietism.
24. Detailed discussion in Johann Heinrich Hock, Bilder aus der Geschichte der harn-
burgischen Kirche seit der Reformation (Hamburg, 1900), 78ff.
25. Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel, Ts 320 and Staatsarchiv Hamburg,
Streitschriften um Horb. The term "verquackert," probably because of its sound, was
frequently and usually inaccurately used as a term of abuse.
26. What has become a routine practice of blaming Mayer for any problems from
1693 on seems to be based primarily on heavily pro-Pietist accounts, none of them well
documented and none of them contemporary with the events (see n. 23). Mayer was
not likeable, at least in his writings, but contemporary sources give little reason to ques-
tion his sincerity. Hinckelmann's charge that Mayer was motivated by personal dislike
of Spener contains a grain of truth but studiously ignores Mayer's sound, if pedantic,
arguments against Pietism.
27. Rückleben (η. 3), 193.
28. Geffcken, Winckler (n. 23). At least 200 Streitschriften appeared in 1692-93. (The
normal English equivalent "pamphlet" or "controversial pamphlet" does not seem en­
tirely appropriate for works that range from four to two hundred pages.)
90 LUTHERAN QUARTERLY

29. Other members of this subdivision of the Holy Roman Empire included
Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel, Bremen. Brandenburg, Denmark, and Sweden (the last
two because of their possessions within the Empire).
30. The rather sentimental account of Mayer's repentance when he found himself
beside Horb's grave in Steinbeck first appears, as far as can be determined, in Bärmann
(η. 23), 388, and even there as hearsay. It is unlikely on several counts.
31. Inflammatory pamphlets published anonymously or pseudonymously were
quite legally subject to public burning, although transparent or well-known pseud­
onyms were usually accepted as real names. Between 1701 and 1708 the rebels forced
through a more stringent law—not considered valid by the Imperial Commission or
by the Rat after 1708—under which several works critical of Krumbholtz were de­
stroyed.
32. Winckler appears in the pamphlets frequently as either a symbol or as a red flag,
depending on the author's sympathies. However, his public rôle was quite limited.
3 3. Many recent histories and critical works either avoid detailed treatment of the
Unruhen or seem uncomfortable with the causes of them. See, for example, Uwe-K.
Ketelsen, Die Xaturpoesie der norddeutschen Fruhaufklarung. Poesie als Sprache der Ver-
söhnung: alter Unwersaltsmus und neues Weltbild (Stuttgart, 1974); Eckart Kleßmann, Ge-
schichte der Stadt Hamburg (Hamburg, 1981); Hans-Dieter Loose, ed., Hamburg. Ge-
schichte der Stadt und ihrer Bewohner, Vol. 1. Von den Anfangen bis zur Reichsgründung
(Hamburg, 1981); Percy Ernst Schramm, Xeun Generationen Dreihundert Jahre "Kul-
turgeschichte" im Lichte der Schicksale einer Hamburger Burgerfamilie (1648-1948), 2 vols.
(Göttingen, 1963-64).
34. See Protocollum & Acta . . Stielcken (n. 6).
35. For the later period of the Unruhen see W. Gordon Marigold, ed., Barthold Feind,
Das verwirrte Haus Jacob [1703] (Bern and Frankfurt am Mam: Lang, 1983); idem, "Die
politischen Schriften Barthold Feinds," Daphms 13, no. 3 (1984): 477-523.
36. The German term "Pietisterey" instead of "Pietismus"* has a derogatory conno-
tation not easy to render in English—perhaps "Pietizing."
37. Curt von Faber du Faur, German Baroque Literature. A Catalogue of the Collection
in the Yale University Library (New Haven. 1958), 380-1.
38. Full treatment of Bambamius and Feustking in Marigold, "Politische Schriften"
(η. 35).
39. Extensive biographical material in Marigold, Jacob (n. 35); idem, "Politische
Schriften" (η. 35); idem, "Unbekannte Schriften des Hamburger Literaten Barthold Feind,"
Daphmx 10, no. 2/3 (1981): 269-323.
40. See Marigold, "Politische Schriften" (n. 35).
41. See W. Gordon Marigold, "Politics, Religion, and Opera. Problems of the
Hamburg Opera 1678-1720," Mosaic 18, no. 4 (1985): 49-60.
42. The full record of the Imperial Commission's proceedings is found in the old
imperial archives in Vienna. Numerous documents also in Hamburg, Wolfenbüttel,
and in the Schönborn family archives in the Staatsarchiv Würzburg. Inevitably,
Damián Hugo was accused of prejudice because of his Catholicism, particularly by
Krumbholtz' lawyers. The accusations do not actually indicate which of the two Prot-
estant parties he supposedly favored or why!
 ^ s
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.