Oxford German Studies, 43.

4, 335344, December 2014

INTRODUCTION

THE GERMAN MIDDLE AGES IN THE

SIXTEENTH TO EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES:
RECEPTION AND TRANSFORMATION
NICOLE EICHENBERGER, RACHA KIRAKOSIAN

AND

EDMUND WAREHAM

THE EARLY MODERN RECEPTION OF MEDIEVAL HISTORIOGRAPHY

Do the German Middle Ages end with the Reformation, or, borrowing Jacques le
Goffs words: Must we really cut history into slices?1 Despite the fact that the first
part of this question is undoubtedly too one-dimensional, processes of continuity
and transformation from the Middle Ages to the Early Modern Period concerning
German textuality are only recently being addressed. This might be due to the
strong divisions between periods and confessional boundaries that have
traditionally dominated discourses in German history and historiography. This
journal issue presents five case studies that attempt to overcome rigid paradigms
and to contribute to a growing interest in intersections of historical periods.
The Early Modern reception of Jakob Twinger von Konigshofens late-medieval
chronicle serves as a first example of phenomena of continuity. When publishing
the chronicle of Jakob Twinger von Konigshofen in 1698,2 the Strasbourg jurist,
Johann Schilter, declared that seithero in den drey hundert Jahren/ nachdem diese
Chronicke geschrieben/ das edle studium historicum durch viel herrliche ingenia
weit mehr und bestandiger augearbeitet worden ist (Prologue, 1 XVIII). If this
was the case, why edit and publish a medieval chronicle? Schilter presents a
number of reasons in his prologue, which shed light on how the medieval text and
its value for contemporaries were perceived in the late seventeenth century. Schilter
begins by highlighting the long tradition of historical writing in the German
language, confronting the assertion of Twinger that hardly any works of history
are written in German. Schilter admits that German historical writing cannot

In his last published work, Jacques le Goff argues for an essential extension of the Middle
Ages that consisted in a succession of renewals. Renaissance then was nothing but the final subperiod of a long Middle Ages (quune ultime sous-periode dun long Moyen Age), Jacques le
Goff, Faut-il vraiment decouper lhistoire en tranches? (Paris: Seuil, 2014).
2
Die Alteste Teutsche so wol Allgemeine Als insonderheit Elsassische und Stra burgische
Chronicke/ Von Jacob von Konigshoven/ Priestern in Stra burg/ Von Anfang der Welt bi ins Jahr
nach Christi Geburth MCCCLXXXVI beschrieben. Anjetzo zum ersten mal heraus und mit
Historischen Anmerckungen in Truck gegeben von D. Johann Schiltern (Strasbourg: Josias Stadel,
1698).
# W. S. Maney & Son Ltd 2014

DOI: 10.1179/0078719114Z.00000000070

336

NICOLE EICHENBERGER, RACHA KIRAKOSIAN AND EDMUND WAREHAM

boast a figure like Herodotus or Tacitus, but from an early point, history has been
transmitted in verse, either orally or in writing, as the example of the Old Norse
Edda shows (1 III). This leads to the issues of the history of language and of
writing in German-speaking areas. Schilter rejects the claim that the alten
Teutschen keine Buchstaben noch Schrifften gehabt [hatten] (1 II), by sketching
out a history of writing which leads from runes to Carolingian Minuscule.
According to Schilter, Otfried von Weienburgs criticism of the Barbarey of the
German language refers only to its phonetic qualities (1 VII). Schilter maintains
that, in spite of the developed language and script, only a few historical works are
transmitted because of the monopoly of der Runer/ der Sckalder/ der Drutten/ der
Barden und der Meister-Sanger (1 IIX) in the production of literature, which was
mostly composed in verse. He also refers to the monopoly of the Clerisey in the
written transmission of literature, who found it easier to write in Latin over
German language weil jene mehr als die Teutsche in den Clostern und Schulen
gelehrt worden (1 IIX). This is the background Schilter sketches for the medieval
author Jakob Twinger von Konigshofen, who wrote in vernacular prose and for
lay readers.
Schilter applauds Twingers serious, scholarly approach in his writing of history,
noting that for sources he used diejenigen lateinischen Historienschreiber/ so
damahls auf den Vniversitaten/ in Clostern und unter den Gelehrten vor die besten
und vornehmsten gehalten worden (1 XV).3 Schilter displays an awareness here of
historical distance and recognises the level of knowledge of Twingers time. He
also emphasises the importance of the Twinger chronicle for the local history of
Strasbourg and the Alsace, since the majority of recent regional chronicles refer to
Twingers work. Lastly, Schilter points to the interest in the edition in terms of
language history:
Denn obwol solche Werck nicht in heutiger hochteutscher Sprache
beschrieben ist/ So hat man doch auch nicht unbillig Bedencken getragen
ichtwas daran zu andern/ oder die alten teutschen Worte und Redensarten in
heutiges hochteutsches zu versetzen [] man hat auch andern Nutzen
hiervon/ da man dadurch diejenigen Worte/ so Alters wegen zwar nicht
mehr insgemein ublich/ jedoch in alten Brieffschafften/ Privilegien/ Registern
und dergleichen befindlich/ und in foro von streitenden Partheyen anders
und anders augedeutet werden [besser verstehen lernt] (1 XIX).
His interest, therefore, was not just framed in terms of content. Indeed, Schilter
defends himself against criticism by arguing from a point of view that favours
intellectual history:
Es benimmt auch ferner dieser Chronicke nichts/ da ein und andere Fabel
und Historischer Irrthum darinn befindlich/ denn solches nicht dem autor,

For a discussion of Twingers use of sources see Racha Kirakosian, Wie eine Legende
Geschichte macht: Das Gottesurteil der heiligen Richgard im spatmittelalterlichen Straburg, in
Schreiben und Lesen in der Stadt: Literaturbetrieb im spatmittelalterlichen Stra burg, ed. by
Stephen Mossman, Nigel F. Palmer and Felix Heinzer, Kulturtopographie des alemannischen
Raums, 4 (Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2012), pp. 23976 (pp. 24950).

INTRODUCTION

337

sondern seinen Vorgangern und Lateinischen Scribenten zuzuschreiben/ ja

den alten fabelischen Zeiten selbsten [] Es ist aber gleichwol nicht gar ohn
einigen Nutzen: Inmassen ein gro Stuck der Historischen Wissenschaft es
ist/ da man au solchen Schrifften und Buchern dennoch ersiehet/ was in
jedem hundert Jahren vor Meynungen und Wahne vor Wahrheit gehalten
worden (1 XXI).
Schilters views on the medieval text also become evident in the main body of his
edition. He adds explanations and detailed historical annotations to the text. The
edition does not, of course, correspond to the demands of modern editorial
principles, but he nevertheless engages with a medieval text in a scholarly way,
documenting its conceptual and linguistic differences explicitly.4 The books
layout marginal comments, reference systems, and the use of apparatus points
to a critical approach as well.
A very different relationship to the original text can be seen in a manuscript,
which was written some hundred years before Schilters edition.5 The
Donaueschingen manuscript 514 was written in the first decade of the seventeenth
century in Strasbourg and resembles a modern book through its use of Baroque
titles and a variety of scripts written in different colours. The external form of the
book should not, however, be seen as a reflection of historical distance to the
original text. Twingers text has been modernised and the chronicle is presented in
a rhymed prologue as morally edifying. The old text is seamlessly integrated into
the new world of the compiler or scribe of the manuscript through the use of small
changes in content, above all concerning the confessional change in Strasbourg.
This can be illustrated in the contents of the book, specifically in the chapter
dedicated to the history of the papacy (see Fig. 1):
Der Dritte Theyl Sagt von allen Bapsten zu Rom, So sydt Christi Geburt,
vnnd De Apostels Petri Zeiten, alda gewesen seindt, bi auff die Zeit, da
man zalt, 1390 Jahr, auch was einer gestifftet vnnd auffgesezt, bi sie ihr
Tolle Mes gancz zusammen geflickt, vnnd die einfaltige welt, wie noch,
damit bethoret haben (3v).
In contrast to Twingers text, where the chapter summary ends with the laws
passed by the Popes, in this manuscript, the passage becomes an anti-Catholic
polemic of a Protestant writer. He does not reflect any further upon Catholic laws
but merely refers to Strasbourgs confession at the time. The chapter on papal
history was not to the scribe or editors liking and this is shown by the fact only

See Carl Hegel (ed.), Die Chronik des Jacob Twinger von Konigshofen 1400 (1415), in
Die Chroniken der oberrheinischen Stadte: Stra burg, vol. 1: Die Chroniken der deutschen Stadte
vom 14. bis ins 16. Jahrhundert, 8 (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1870), pp. 22627.
5
Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, Cod. Donaueschingen 514. See Nicole Eichenberger
and Christoph Mackert, Uberarbeitung und Online-Publikation der Erschlieungsergebnisse aus
dem DFG-Projekt zur Neukatalogisierung der ehemals Donaueschinger Handschriften in der
Badischen Landesbibliothek Karlsruhe, in collaboration with Ute Obhof and employing
preparatory work by Wolfgang Runschke and Sabine Lutkemeyer ,http://www.manuscriptamediaevalia.de/dokumente/html/obj31576374. (accessed 31 July 2014).

338

FIG. 1.

NICOLE EICHENBERGER, RACHA KIRAKOSIAN AND EDMUND WAREHAM

Badische Landesbibliothek Karlsruhe, Cod. Donaueschingen 514, fol. 3v

INTRODUCTION

339

details of the first seventy-four popes (until Severinus, who died in 640) are
provided. Following this, fifteen pages are left blank, before the next chapter on
the bishops of Strasbourg begins. Alongside these gaps, additions have been
seamlessly inserted into the older text. For example, in the chapter on economic
developments in Strasbourg (257r264r), which is based on the beginning of
Twingers chronicle, reports are continued until 1585. A similar process of
continuation can be seen in the list of Strasbourg Ammeister (city officials), which
begins with an extract from Twingers chronicle, but then provides in table form
a list of names, dates, and guild membership of all Ammeister from 1349 until
1609 (209r224r). On the two following pages, the table is already outlined for the
addition of further names.
The fact that Twingers chronicle was open to productive reception and
appropriation can already be seen in medieval manuscripts.6 Various personal notes
about family events of later owners can be found in certain manuscripts, notably the
Kunast manuscript, unearthed by Peter Schmidt.7 The main body of this manuscript
was written in the late fourteenth century. By the late fifteenth century, it was
already in fragments and emended and added to (including illustrations) by its then
owner, the Strasbourg knight Hans von Hungerstein.8 The extensive additions to the
manuscript show not only the significance that this one-hundred-year-old manuscript already had for recipients in the late fifteenth century, but also an
individualistic approach towards historical knowledge, as seen, for example,
through Hans von Hungersteins reports about experiences of war from his youth,
which he adds to the text.9 The illustrations in which depictions of Maximilian I
play a particularly prominent role help to actualise the historical text and relate it
to the owners own world. A continuation was intended from the outset, seen once
more by the presence of blank pages, which were bound into the body of the book
and continued by later owners until 1607.10
The three examples of textual witnesses of Twingers chronicle illustrate how
the productive reception of older texts can already be seen in the Middle Ages, but
could be continued in quite different forms in the Early Modern period. Rather
than emerging as a subsequent linear development, reflective scholarly engagement
stands alongside modes of reception that sought to create identity or simply sought
to actualise and continue. Such phenomena of reception, appropriation, and
transformation of medieval texts and concepts in the Early Modern period lie at
the heart of this volume.

THE DIVIDE BETWEEN THE PERIODS

The question of when the Middle Ages end and the Early Modern period begins,
has long interested and continues to interest historians, literary scholars, and

Peter Schmidt, Historiographie und personliche Aneignung von Geschichte: Die

wiederentdeckte Kunastsche Handschrift der Straburger Chronik des Jakob Twinger von
Konigshofen, in Schreiben und Lesen in der Stadt, pp. 33777 (p. 342).
7
Washington, DC, National Gallery of Art, The Woodner Collection, inv. no. 2006.11.15.
8
Schmidt, Historiographie, pp. 34255.
9
Schmidt, Historiographie, p. 34546.
10
Schmidt, Historiographie, p. 342.

340

NICOLE EICHENBERGER, RACHA KIRAKOSIAN AND EDMUND WAREHAM

theologians.11 In recent years historians particularly medieval historians have

sought to see less of an abrupt break between periods but rather emphasise a
degree of continuity. In speaking of a long Middle Ages, they have sought to
bridge the gap between the medieval and modern worlds and to see the
transformation between the two periods as a gradual one, over a period of at
least 300 years beginning around 1500. Modernist historians have, on the other
hand, stressed moments of discontinuity, not least in religious and cultural affairs
and in scientific and geographical discoveries.12
The field of Germanistik has a keen interest in periodisation, but approaches
the topic from a different perspective to other disciplines.13 Within literary studies
there is great interest in the reception of medieval literature and culture. There is,
though, a tendency to focus on its reception in the post-Romantic period, whilst
its reception in the Early Modern period has rarely been thematised. Many
recently published volumes focus exclusively on the later time period.14 The
investigation of the reception of the Middle Ages in popular culture has also
proved fruitful.15 This issue seeks to challenge a single-period approach by
bringing the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries to the fore. In 1983, Johannes
Janota referred to these centuries as a terra incognita in terms of understanding
the reception of the Middle Ages. There are perhaps certain reasons for this. First,
the period remains arguably sandwiched between the interests of Alt- and
Neugermanisten within university departments, traditionally under the watch of
the latter. This rough division highlights the need for closer examination of the
period. Secondly, as Joachim Bumke has noted, one can only talk of reception
when the endpoint of the Middle Ages is clearly defined. The tendency to see the
period from the fourteenth to seventeenth centuries in terms of continuity
necessarily avoids endpoints, which makes it hard to speak of reception in a

11
James Muldoon, Bridging the MedievalModern Divide: Medieval Themes in the World
of the Reformation (Farnham: Ashgate, 2013); Dorothea Klein, Wann endet das Spatmittelalter
in der Geschichte der deutschen Literatur?, in Forschungen zur deutschen Literatur des
Spatmittelalters. Festschrift fur Johannes Janota, ed. by Horst Brunner and Werner WilliamsKrapp (Tubingen: Niemeyer, 2003), pp. 299316; Reinhart Staats, Epochengrenzen der
Geschichte in kirchenhistorischer Diskussion (Gutersloh: Kaiser, 2002); Rudiger Schnell,
Mediavistik und Fruhneuzeitforschung: Konnen sie zusammen nicht kommen? Uberlegungen
anlalich einer Neuerscheinung, Archiv fur Kulturgeschichte, 82 (2000), 22738. For a general
re-evaluation of the concept of Alteritat, which had an important influence on periodization, see
the volume Wie anders war das Mittelalter? Fragen an das Konzept der Alteritat, ed. by Manuel
Braun, Aventiuren, 9 (Gottingen: V&R Unipress, 2013); concerning the Early Modern period see
especially Rudiger Schnell, Alteritat der Neuzeit: Versuch eines Perspektivenwechsels, in Wie
anders war das Mittelalter?, pp. 4194.
12
Muldoon, Bridging the MedievalModern Divide, pp. 24.
13
Rezeptionskulturen: Funfhundert Jahre literarischer Mittelalterrezeption zwischen Kanon
und Popularkultur, ed. by Matthias Herweg and Stefan Keppler-Tasaki, Trends in Medieval
Philology, 27 (Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2012).
14
Manufacturing Middle Ages: Entangled History of Medievalism in Nineteenth-Century
Europe, ed. by Patrick J. Geary and Gabor Klaniczay, National Cultivation of Culture, 6 (Leiden:
Brill, 2013); Das Bild vom Mittelalter, ed. by Johannes Grabmayer, Schriftenreihe der Akademie
Friesach. Neue Folge, 3 (Klagenfurt: Institut fur Geschichte Klagenfurt, 2013).
15
Alles heldenhaft, grausam und schmutzig? Mittelalterrezeption in der Popularkultur, ed.
by Christian Rohr, Austria. Forschung und Wissenschaft. Geschichte, 7 (Zurich: LIT, 2011);
Bettina Bildhauer, Filming the Middle Ages (London: Reaktion Books, 2011).

INTRODUCTION

341

traditional sense.16 Bumke further points to the close fusion of the fifteenth and
sixteenth centuries in terms of reception: Weitertradierung, aktualisierende
Bearbeitung, Ruckgriff und Wiederentdeckung lassen sich im 15. und 16.
Jahrhundert nicht deutlich trennen.17 When interest does exist, there is also a
tendency to focus almost exclusively on fictional, secular texts. In a recent article,
Johannes Klaus Kipf takes Sebastian Brants Freidank, Georg Wickrams
Metamorphosis Ovidij, and Martin Opitzs edition of the Annolied, as well as
the reception of Classical Antiquity amongst German humanists at the beginning
of the sixteenth century, as examples of the way in which medieval reception can
be understood. Kipf argues that there is less of a need to specify endpoints for the
Middle Ages, but rather to have an awareness of when the past becomes
apparent: Bewusstsein sprachlicher Alteritat and Bewusstsein historischer
Distanz constitute his two key criteria.18 As such, Kipf does not understand
the reworkings and adaptation of medieval material in sixteenth-century prose
novels (by authors such as Hans Sachs) in the same light as the conscious
reception of medieval works.19

THE DIVIDE BETWEEN SECULAR AND RELIGIOUS TEXTS

More can be done to understand the relationship between the Middle Ages and the
Early Modern period, as well as the processes of reception and tradition, in terms
of genre and context. With more overtly literary texts, the focus of Kipfs work,
philological and cultural historical difference and separation between the two
periods play a more decisive role than with genres such as historical writing, which
must be understood more in terms of continuity. It was not unusual for medieval
chronicles to be transmitted, continued, and amended in the later period, as we
have seen in the case of Twinger. Institutional histories, such as the Lives of
founders of monastic houses (the focus of two articles in this issue) can also be
understood in this light and they served a specific need for the new readership.
Furthermore, religious literature offers a specific set of circumstances, which, in
contrast to worldly literature, has a greater claim to generality and continuity, a
phenomenon which was particularly evident in the Counter-Reformation movement. Religious literature does not feature in Kipfs emphasis on awareness, but
must surely be considered in this light as well. Turning back to the past and more
often than not to a specifically medieval past was a common leitmotiv of the
religious literature of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. A key difference
with the pre-fifteenth-century period was, however, that the past could be
interpreted and understood in confessional terms.20

16
Joachim Bumke, Phasen der Mittelalter-Rezeption: Einleitung, in Mittelalter-Rezeption:
Ein Symposium, ed. by Peter Wapnewski (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1986), p. 7.
17
Bumke, Phasen der Mittelalter-Rezeption, pp. 78.
18
Johannes Klaus Kipf, Wann beginnt im deutschen Sprachraum die Mittelalterrezeption?
Vergleichende Beobachtungen zu Rezeptionsweisen volkssprachlicher und lateinischer mittelalterlicher Literatur (ca. 14501600), in Rezeptionskulturen, pp. 1549 (p. 34).
19
Kipf, Wann beginnt im deutschen Sprachraum die Mittelalterrezeption?, pp. 3536.
20
See, for example, Arnoud S. Q. Visser, Reading Augustine in the Reformation: The
Flexibility of Intellectual Authority in Europe, 15001620 (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2011).

342

NICOLE EICHENBERGER, RACHA KIRAKOSIAN AND EDMUND WAREHAM

It remains clear that the various phenomena at work in different genres show
how difficult it is to pinpoint linear developments. Rather, it is important to
understand that selective developments, adaptations, and transformations took
place and each was dependent on a specific context. Dorothea Klein speaks of the
dominance of religious themes from the Middle Ages up to and including the
Neuzeit and argues that such dominance ist [ein] epochenubergreifendes
Merkmal und zu unspezifisch, als dass sie zur Periodisierung taugte.21 Herweg
and Keppler-Tasaki speak of the longue duree in terms of religious literature and
point to the continued reception of prayer books, saints lives, and devotional
works through the medium of print.22 Such a view fails, though, to take into
account the specific context of how these works were received, specifically in a
confessional age. Within the field of religious literature, the fifteenth century is
commonly understood as an age of reception, when saints lives and mystical
writings, often written in the fourteenth century, were widely transmitted.
Reception history must not be excluded as a category of periodisation, particularly
when properly understood within the specific contexts of its time.

TRANSGRESSING DIVISIONS: RECEPTION AND TRANSFORMATION

Reception can, of course, be understood in various ways: in terms of the physical
transmission of a medieval text in manuscript or print form, in terms of the
evaluation and interpretation of such texts, and lastly, and most significantly for
our issue, in terms of productive reception, whereby texts are adapted, changed
and transformed. As James Muldoon has argued, the process of framing the debate
in terms of continuity versus change could perhaps be refined. Indeed, Hans-Gert
Roloff argues that Rezeptionsliteratur must be integrated as an inherent part of
the literary history of Early Modern Germany. The term Rezeptionsliteratur is
problematic, since it is neither a genre nor a text-type, and terms closely associated
with it translation, reworking, adaptation have not been fully integrated into
literary-theoretical discussions.23 Yet, Roloff points to a continued tradition from
the mid-fifteenth to the seventeenth century of the translation of works into
German from didactic religious literature such as Thomas a` Kempiss Imitatio
Christi, to the interests of German humanists in Latin and Italian texts, to
Johannes Fischarts adapted translation of Rabelais.24 Such literature immediately

21

Klein, Wann endet das Spatmittelalter?, pp. 30001.

Matthias Herweg and Stefan Keppler-Tasaki, Mittelalterrezeption: Gegenstande und
Theorieansatze eines Forschungsgebiets im Schnittpunkt von Mediavistik, Fruhneuzeit- und
Moderneforschung, in Rezeptionskulturen, pp. 112 (p. 3). A recent example of the continued
reception of a medieval work is Maximilian von Habsburg, Catholic and Protestant Translations
of the Imitatio Christi, 14251650: From Late Medieval Classic to Early Modern Bestseller
(Farnham: Ashgate, 2011).
23
Hans-Gert Roloff, Die Bedeutung der Rezeptionsliteratur: Zum Konzept und zur
Tagung, in Die Bedeutung der Rezeptionsliteratur fur Bildung und Kultur der fruhen Neuzeit
(14001750): Beitrage zur ersten Arbeitstagung in Eisenstadt (Marz 2011), ed. by Alfred Noe and
Hans-Gert Roloff, Jahrbuch fur internationale Germanistik, 109 (Bern etc.: Peter Lang, 2012),
pp. 1125 (p. 14).
24
Roloff, Die Bedeutung der Rezeptionsliteratur, pp. 1416.
22

INTRODUCTION

343

focuses attention on the recipients, given that a translation from the original
language served an explicit purpose and readership. These recipients should not,
however, be seen as fixed entities, for they were at liberty to interpret the new
work in different ways. As Roloff argues, it remains to be seen what reasons were
behind the reception of specific texts, whether interest lay in the thoughts and ideas
of the original text, in the original author and his or her intentions, or in the
specific interests of the recipient, who sought to integrate the text into his or her
world view.25 The concept of transformation lends further refinement to the
understanding of specific dynamics when it comes to the transmission of medieval
texts. Transformation presents itself as a flexible form of reception, providing
insights into the context of the reception that allow us to (re-)interpret the status of
the medieval text in its specific Early Modern situation. As such we can trace
reception phenomena without being weighed down by the dichotomy of change
and continuity or by seeing a sharp distinction between the periods. We can
describe and evaluate conscious and unconscious processes of reception and
transformation in equal measure.
Medieval ideas and institutions continued to be used in later periods but had a
new context and different purposes.26 Herweg and Keppler-Tasaki argue that in
methodisch-theoretischer Beziehung [] die Umakzentuierung von motiv- und
stoffgeschichtlichen Fallstudien hin zu diskurs-, institutionen-, formen- und
mediengeschichtlichen Fragestellungen [gefordert ist].27 However, as we have
seen, not enough individual case studies of the pre-Romantic period have been
undertaken to allow more general statements relating to discursive questions.
James Muldoon argues for the need to build up a wider picture of individual
details before piecing together a wider meta-narrative on the issue.28 As Muldoon
puts it, there is a need to understand the way in which many ideas, practices and
institutions defined as medieval continued to operate in a changing world,
although modified to fit new circumstances.29 Such an approach is particularly
pertinent in trying to understand the reception of medieval texts, including
religious ones, as some of the articles in this present issue attempt to do. It
recognises both the continuity of tradition in the choice of text, but also the way in
which its reception could be adapted and reformulated to suit a specific context.
Furthermore, it is as relevant for religious texts as for the secular literature that
bridges the fifteenth/sixteenth century divide, such as Schwankliteratur or drama.
This issue aims to transgress divisions, providing five case studies of ways in
which the subject can be approached. Stefan Seeber takes the secular love stories in
Sigmund Feyerabends Buch der Liebe as his focus, arguing that it challenges
Niklas Luhmanns periodisation of love conceptions. For Luhmann, there was an
almost teleological development. Seeber challenges such a view within wider
understandings of the development of the novel as a genre in the sixteenth century.
Three of the articles in this volume concern female religiosity and the ways in
which literature by, for or about women was adapted for the context of the

25
26
27
28
29

Roloff, Die Bedeutung der Rezeptionsliteratur, p. 22.

Muldoon, Bridging the MedievalModern Divide, p. 16.
Herwerg and Keppler-Tasaki, Mittelalterrezeption, p. 7.
Muldoon, Bridging the MedievalModern Divide, p. 2.
Muldoon, Bridging the MedievalModern Divide, p. 7.

344

NICOLE EICHENBERGER, RACHA KIRAKOSIAN AND EDMUND WAREHAM

Counter-Reformation. As we have seen, religious literature has been viewed as too

broad and generalised to permit making wider statements about periodisation.
Edmund Wareham examines the case of Professor Jodocus Lorichius, who
translated and reworked medieval texts for groups of nuns in South-West
Germany and drew upon models of monastic reform from several different time
periods. Lorichius looked to the past to provide guidance for the nuns in the
present. Racha Kirakosian compares a seventeenth-century Flemish version of a
medieval Life to its original German version, that, now redated, was produced in
the first half of the sixteenth century. The analysis of a Mary Magdalene legend,
copied in the same context, further highlights the dynamics of rhetorics of sanctity
across the periods. Nicole Eichenberger traces the reworkings of the life of a
fourteenth-century nun to stress how such adaptations were grounded in the later
history of the community. Transformation in all three cases could take on different
forms translations from and into German, corrections and additions, placement
alongside new material but the common aim was to make such material suitable
for a new confessional context. Christine Putzos contribution acts as a bridge
between the religious and the secular spheres through her analysis of Daniel
Sudermanns collection of medieval literature. Putzo argues that Sudermann was
conscious of the medieval past in a special way, having more than just a didactic
interest in it and being attracted purely by the material itself.
Five individual case studies can only touch the surface of what is an ever
evolving field of research. They show, though, that much can be done by engaging
with questions relating to the traditional periodisation boundaries. Not only do
the examples tell us about the reception of specific medieval texts, they also tell us
about the literary historical situation of the Early Modern period. In that respect,
they create a certain synergy between different disciplines and (traditional) time
periods. Within the field of religious literature alone there is scope for a greater
variety of work. Within the Catholic context, literature for and by non-religious
women could be investigated, as well as other lay and clerical groups. Lutheran
and Calvinistic literature and its relation to the Middle Ages also poses a whole
new set of questions. Within the secular field, this issue has offered two possible
approaches in terms of collecting, on the one hand, and using material to
challenge more modern periodisation theories, on the other. There remains a sense
that there is more material in libraries and archives to find.