17/2/2017 HNetReviews

GerdSchwerhoff.ZungenwieSchwerter:Blasphemiein
alteuropischenGesellschaften12001650.Konstanz:Universittsverlag
KonstanzUVK,2005.361S.EUR34.00(cloth),ISBN978389669
7165.

ReviewedbyDavidM.Luebke(DepartmentofHistory,Universityof
Oregon)
PublishedonHGerman(March,2007)

ZoundsofImpiety?

In1507,thecivicauthoritiesofRothenburgobderTaubercondemnedamannamedMax
Behrforblasphemy.Inpunishmentforhiscrime,Behrwaspilloried,histonguewascutout,
andhisforeheadwasbrandedwithglowinghotirons.Asafinalindignity,Behrwasbanished
foreverbeyondthecitywalls,asentencewhich,incombinationwiththestigmathatattached
tohisphysicalmutilations,wastantamounttodeath.Hisgruesomeordealshowsthatpenal
sanctionsagainstblasphemywereno"papertiger"andsometimesmatchedtheferocityof
condemnationspronouncedbytheologians(pp.142143).Behr,moreover,escapedtheworst:
asSusannaBurghartz,FranciscaLoetz,andothershaveshown,civicauthoritieswerenot
aboveimposingtheultimatepenaltyonblasphemers.[1]GerdSchwerhoffremindsusthat
spectacularpunishmentssuchasBehr'smustnotobscurethemorecomplex,everyday
realitiesofpenalpracticewithregardtoblasphemy.Farmorecommonthanexecutionor
mutilationweremilderpunishments,suchasmoneyfinesortemporaryexilethat
correspondedtolesserformsofthecrime.Punishmentsalsovariedgreatlyfromoneplaceto
thenext:theeightyfourpeopleexecutedforblasphemyinZrichbetween1501and1747,
madeupfully27percentofallcapitalpunishments,butduringthesameperiod,Nuremberg
onlyexecutedfourpeopleforblasphemy,allofthembefore1560.Moreover,blasphemy
casesmadeuponlyaminisculeproportionofallprosecutionseveninrelativelybloodthirsty
Zurich,nomorethan23percent.Inmostplaces,blasphemyattractedonlyatinyfractionof
theofficialenergiesthatweredevotedtotheprosecutionofcrimesagainstpersonand
property.[2]

Thesecontrastsspeaktothelongrunningdiscrepancybetweenthetheologicalstatusof
blasphemyanditsutterubiquityineverydayspeech,anincongruityatthecoreof
Schwerhoff'smonumentalnewstudy.Fromthemomentofitsentryintotheologicaldiscourse
withAlexanderofHales'sSummaTheologica(1245),blasphemywasdefinedasanassault
againstthehonorofGodandclassifiedwiththeworstofallsins(p.44).Butiftheaimhad
beentodisciplinetongues,itwastolittleavail.Despiteallthethreatsandfulminations,agap
betweenthenormandsocialpracticeremainedconstant,moreorless,forhalfamillennium.
ForSchwerhoffthisisacrucialpoint:blasphemyisnottheproductofmodernity,asmany
stillargue.Itspersistenceinthefaceoftheologicalandlegalcensureshouldberegardedasa
fundamentalstructureofpremodernEuropeanreligiousculture,aphenomenonsuigeneris
seateddeepinLatinChristianity'sheart(p.300).SchwerhoffthusalignshimselfwithLucien
FebvreandJohanHuizinga,whoregardedblasphemynotasasignoftrueimpietybutrather
astheexpressionofamentalitysothoroughly"permeatedbyreligion...thatthedistance
betweentheearthlyandthespiritualwasindangerofbeingobliteratedatanymoment,"and
maintainsacautiousdistancefromthelikesofKeithThomasandJeanDelumeau,whose
accountsofblasphemywereembeddedinmacronarrativesofconflictandacculturationthat
disposedthemtohearinthese"sinsofthetongue"theechoesofreligiousskepticism,
perhapssympathywithheretics,andmaybeevenatheism.[3]Buttheseintellectualdebtsdo
notresultinastaticimageofblasphemy'shistory.Schwerhoffisdeterminedtosituate
blasphemyintheshiftingpatternsofeverydaysociabilityandsolaythefoundationsfor"a
historyofreligion"thataccommodatesboth"ferventprayer"and"everydayprofanity."

http://www.hnet.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=13004 1/4
17/2/2017 HNetReviews
Part1,"TheHistoryofaStigma,"exposestheevolutionofblasphemyasanitemof
theologicaldiscourse,asaninstrumentofstigmatization,andasanobjectoflegislationand
criminalprosecution.Insofarasaccusationsofblasphemywereusedtostigmatizeheretics
andJews,Schwerhoff'saccountreinforcesR.I.Moore'sthesesaboutthe"formationofa
persecutingsociety"inlatemedievalEurope,aconnectionalsomadebyCorinneLeveleuxin
herrecentstudyofblasphemyinlatemedievalFrance.[4]ButSchwerhoffisalsokeento
exposetheconceptualandpracticalambiguitiesthatmarkedeveryaspectofblasphemy's
treatment.Nocondemnationofblasphemystoodwithoutqualification:withtheir
representationsofblasphemyasalatterdayverbalcrucifixion,latemedievalexempla
reinforcedAlexanderofHales'sshrilldenunciations.Suchdramatizationswerealsotempered
byconsiderationsofmotive,offeredbyThomasAquinasandothers,whichhadtheeffectof
minimizingthesinwhentheblasphemerintendednoinjurytoGod'shonor.

Thismixtureof"resolutecondemnation"andtrivializationlefttheologicaldiscourseopentoa
surprisinglybroadarrayofpunishmentsandremedies.Similarambiguitiescharacterizedthe
treatmentofhereticsandespeciallyJews.Accusationsofblasphemyagainstthemlong
predatedchargesofritualmurderand,ifanything,intensifiedduringthecenturyof
Reformation.Butthispersecutiondidnotpreventsixteenthcenturymoralists,including
MartinLuther,fromcontrastingpiousJewsandMuslimsfavorablywithfoulmouthed
Christians.Protestantreformsofpublicmoralityentailedanintensifiedattackagainst
blasphemousspeech,butthischangetoowasquantitative,notqualitative.Schwerhoff'sstory
isthereforeoneofstrongcontinuitiesbetweenlatemedievalandearlymodernconstructions
ofblasphemy:exceptfortheadditionof"papists"totherosteroftargetsforstigmatization,
theReformationbroughtfewsignificantchanges.

Schwerhoff'schaptersontheprosecutionofblasphemylikewisetellastoryofstrong
continuities.ThesentencethatBehrsufferedin1507reproducedsomeofthepunishments
recommendedin1231byEmperorFrederickIIintheConstitutionsofMelfi.Inmakinga
crimeofblasphemy,however,latemedievalurbangovernmentsassumeda"pioneeringrole"
bydevelopingamultitieredsystemofpunishments(p.181),finelycalibratedtothestatusof
theoffenderandtheseverityoftheoffense.HereSchwerhofffocusesonGermanevidence,
butrecentworkonItaliancitiesindicatesthis"urbanoffensive"extendedbeyondtheEmpire's
frontiers.[5]ThisargumentaddsanotherimportantqualificationtoMoore'sthesisthatlate
medievalstigmatizationpracticeswereboundupwiththeconsolidationofpapalandroyal
power:inSchwerhoff'sretelling,kingsandprinceswerebothlatetofollowthecities'
initiativeandinconsistentwhentheydidsopriorto1550.

Schwerhoff'saccountofthis"urbanoffensive"alsodebunkstheargumentthatitentaileda
hostiletakeoverofecclesiasticaljurisdictionsandshowsinsteadthatmostcanonistsgreeted
thecampaignasawelcomeinterventionbyauthoritiesbetterequippedtocombatthecrime.
Thecities'hierarchyofpenaltiesforblasphemyalsoreproducedinlawthewiderangeof
punishmentsprefiguredintheologicaldiscourse.Inthisconnection,too,theReformation
functionedasacatalystfortheintensificationofprosecution,butwasnotasourceofmajor
changesinlaworprosecutorialpractice.Behindallthisactivity,Schwerhoffargues,wasan
anxiousperceptionthatblasphemycompromisedtheintegrityofoathsand,byextension,
impugnedthelegitimacyofcivicauthority,whichresultedinthetendencyofroyaljuriststo
drawanalogiesbetweenblasphemyandlsemajestandtheexpectation,sharedbyall
Christianmagistrates,regardlessofrankorconfession,thatGodwouldavengehimself
againstanycommunitythatfailedtodefendhishonor.Thereluctanceofordinarysubjectsto
denounceblasphemyonlyheightenedthesefears.

Ifpart1examines"sinsofthetongue"fromthestandpointofthosewhowouldabolishthem,
part2,"TheMeaningsofaSpeechAct,"isdevotedtoblasphemyassocialpractice.Here
Schwerhoffarguesthatblasphemyisbestunderstoodasaformof"selffashioning"that
enabledmalestoasserttheirautonomythroughwordsofdefiantdisrespect.Thesechapters
focusonthelesser,"conventional"formsofblasphemy,suchasthecolorfullexiconof
spontaneousprofanationsthatfilledtheairofinnsandtaverns.Schwerhoff'sanalysisof
blasphemyprosecutionsreveals,tonogreatsurprise,thattheoverwhelmingmajorityofthe
accusedweremaleandthatsociallymarginaloritinerantgroups(suchascarters,boatmen,
soldiers,daylaborers,executioners,andother"dishonorable"people)supplieda
disproportionatenumberoftheculprits.Norisitsurprisingthatswearingoccurredmostoften
insettingspregnantwithmaleaggressiondrinkingand,especially,gamesofchance,that
"classicsocialsiteofswearing"(p.306).

Themostoriginalcontributionofpart2isSchwerhoff'sanalysisofblasphemyasaspeech
act.Initstypical,agonisticcontext,blasphemousswearingwasoftenapreludetophysical
violence.Butthathardlyexhaustedthefullrangeofitspotentialmeanings.Schwerhoff

http://www.hnet.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=13004 2/4
17/2/2017 HNetReviews
arguesthatblasphemyshouldalsoberegardedasa"codeofmanliness"thatsimultaneously
reproducedsocialdistinctionsandpromotedhomosocialintegrationacrosstheboundariesof
socialrankorcitizenship.Inagonisticsituations,blasphemyfunctionedasa"flexible
communicativecode"thatenabledmalesbothtoasserttheirautonomyandlayclaimtothe
commonbondsofmanliness.Thismayexplainwhywomenwererarelyamongthedefendants
inblasphemyprosecutionsandtheprominenceamongblasphemersofmaleswholacked
accesstomoreestablishedsourcesofmasculinehonor,suchasasecurepositionamonga
community'shouseholdheads.Atalltimes,thecontextofblasphemywasdecisive:an
otherwiselegitimateoath,ifutteredovercardsorinanalehouse,couldcountamongthe
rankestblasphemies.

Whatthenofblasphemy'splaceinthehistoryofreligion?TwoofSchwerhoff'sargumentsare
pertinenthere.Thefirsthastodowiththeterminologyoflessercurses.Schwerhoff'scontent
analysisrevealsamultitudeofoathspermembradeihead,limbs,hair,sweat,internal
organsaseeminglyendlesslistofpartsandeffluvia(pp.196221).Fromthemidsixteenth
centuryon,thisrosterseemstohavecontractedtoashorterlistofoathsonthesacraments
andthePassionthecorpse,wounds,sufferingofChrist,andsoon.Theologianscondemned
alltheseutterancesinpredictableterms:oathspermembradeiconstitutedanimpermissible
appropriationofthebodyofChrist.ButSchwerhoffwarnsagainstreadingintothese
condemnationsagrowingconflictbetweenhighcultureandlow.Swearingpermembradei,in
hisview,reflectedthepreoccupationoflatemedievalChristianswiththecorporalityof
Christ.OathsonthebodyandwoundsofChristderivedforcefromthefactoftheirubiquity
intheimageryoflatemedievalreligiosity.Inasecondargument,Schwerhoffrevisitsthe
questionofwhetherblasphemycouldindicateunbelief(pp.289299).Tobesure,a"small
minorityofvirtuosoblasphemers"rejectedChristianreligionassuch(p.307)morestriking,
though,isthedegreetowhichblasphemyremainedwithinaChristianframeofreference.
Schwerhoff'sanswerthusreinforceshisargumentagainstinterpretingblasphemyasevidence
oftheBakhtinian"twocultures"model.

ThesprawlingbreadthofSchwerhoff'sresearchspareshimerrorsofinterpretationthathave
marredmorefocusedstudiessuchastheargumentthataperceivedneedtoimposelinguistic
uniformityonciviccommunitiesadequatelyexplainstheurbanoffensiveagainstblasphemy.
Onehesitatestosuggestthathemighthavegonefurther,andyet,givenSchwerhoff's
emphasisonblasphemyasspeechact,onewonderswhythesepagesdoesnotincludemore
discussioninthesetermsofhowtheologiansconceptualizedblasphemy.How,onewonders,
didscholasticsmanagetotrivializeimpulsiveblasphemiesiftheyalsobelievedthatthevery
spontaneityofspeechexposedaperson'smost"intimaterelationshiptothesacredorderof
things"?[6]Alargercriticismhastodowiththedifferencebetween"socialdisciplining"and
confessionalization.Onnearlyeverypoint,Schwerhoff'sanalysisshowsthatblasphemywas
largelyimpervioustotheeffectsoftheReformation,CatholicReform,andtheformationof
confessionalreligiousidentitiesandthatdespiteconfessionaldifferences,sixteenthcentury
authoritiesrarelydeviatedfromawellestablished,commonapproachtotheproblem.Nordo
confessionallyspecificstylesofblasphemyseemtohaveemerged.Ifindeedblasphemywasa
phenomenonofthelonguedure,thenSchwerhoff'saccountofferspowerfulevidenceforthe
resilienceofpopularreligioussensibilitiestotheconformistpressuresofconfessionalization.
Inthatcase,too,theremightbemoretothe"twocultures"modelthanSchwerhoffallows.

Notes

[1].SusannaBurghartz,Leib,EhreundGut:DelinquenzinZrichEndedes14.Jahrhunderts
(Zrich:Chronos,1990)andFranciscaLoetz,MitGotthandeln:VondenZrcher
GotteslsterernderFrhenNeuzeitzueinerKulturgeschichtedesReligisen(Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht,2002).

[2].ForZurichsee,FranciscaLoetz,MitGotthandeln,181forNurembergsee,Richardvan
Dlmen,TheatreofHorror:CrimeandPunishmentinEarlyModernGermany(Cambridge:
PolityPress,1990),142.

[3].JohanHuizinga,TheAutumnoftheMiddleAges,trans.RodneyJ.PaytonandUlrich
Mammitzsch(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1996),179.

[4].R.I.Moore,TheFormationofaPersecutingSociety:PowerandDevianceinWestern
Europe,9501250(NewYork:Blackwell,1987)andCorinneLeveleux,Laparoleinterdite:
LeblasphmedanslaFrancemdivale(XVIIIeXVIesicles):Dupchaucrime(Paris:De
Boccard,2001).

[5].ElizabethHorodowich,"CivicIdentityandtheControlofBlasphemyinSixteenth
CenturyVenice,"PastandPresent181(2003):334.
http://www.hnet.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=13004 3/4
17/2/2017 HNetReviews
[6].MaureenFlynn,"BlasphemyandthePlayofAngerinSixteenthCenturySpain,"Past&
Present149(1995):2956.

Ifthereisadditionaldiscussionofthisreview,youmayaccessitthroughthenetwork,at:
https://networks.hnet.org/hgerman.

Citation:DavidM.Luebke.ReviewofSchwerhoff,Gerd,ZungenwieSchwerter:
BlasphemieinalteuropischenGesellschaften12001650.HGerman,HNetReviews.
March,2007.
URL:http://www.hnet.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=13004

Copyright2007byHNet,allrightsreserved.HNetpermitstheredistributionand
reprintingofthisworkfornonprofit,educationalpurposes,withfullandaccurateattribution
totheauthor,weblocation,dateofpublication,originatinglist,andHNet:Humanities&
SocialSciencesOnline.Foranyotherproposeduse,contacttheReviewseditorialstaffat
hbooks@mail.hnet.msu.edu.

Humanities&Social
SciencesOnline

Copyright19952017ContactUs
RSS|Validate:HTML|CSS

http://www.hnet.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=13004 4/4