The Conversion of Jacob Reihing: Academic Controversy and the Professorial Ideal in Confessional Germany

The Conversion of Jacob Reihing: Academic Controversy and the Professorial Ideal in Confessional... Abstract This article examines the case of the controversial seventeenth-century theologian Jacob Reihing. In 1621 Reihing fled Pfalz-Neuburg, where he had played an instrumental role in re-Catholicizing the territory, to seek asylum in Württemberg. His defection provoked shock and dismay in political, religious and academic circles in Pfalz-Neuburg and Bavaria. In Stuttgart Reihing was granted the protection of the duke and sent to the University of Tübingen. Jesuits and Catholic princes made a series of interventions, first in an effort to encourage Reihing to return to the fold and then to blacken his name. In spite of these pressures, the endorsements of the duke of Württemberg continued apace: Reihing was allowed a very public ceremony of conversion and was appointed professor of theology in Tübingen. The task of rehabilitating the former Jesuit fell largely to the University of Tübingen. Its professors attempted to refashion Reihing as an archetypal Lutheran scholar and carefully tended his public image over the remaining years of his life. For their part the Jesuits intensified their attempts at character assassination. The battle over Reihing’s reputation continued until and, indeed, beyond his death. This article explores the controversies generated by Reihing’s conversion and subsequent life and career and examines in particular the struggle over his reputation. In doing so it addresses a wider clash of ideals governing academic identities, lifestyles and behaviours in which scholars and institutions divided by confession participated. Jacob Reihing was a remarkable convert. His flight from Catholic Neuburg to Lutheran Stuttgart in January 1621 was the first act in a drama of individual religious conversion that rapidly drew a cast of other actors onto the stage. Reihing’s case provided an outlet for a broader set of tensions which had been brewing toxically in the fragmenting worlds of politics, religion and learning since the Peace of Augsburg had established the coexistence of Lutheranism and Catholicism in the Empire over sixty years earlier. More immediately, Reihing’s defection occurred in the context of the immense political turmoil that followed the Battle of White Mountain in November 1620, an unambiguous victory for the Emperor and his Catholic allies. Prior to his conversion, Reihing had been a prominent Catholic theologian, ardent and famed in polemic against Lutheran beliefs and, crucially, one of the most influential agents of the Counter-Reformation in the territory of Pfalz-Neuburg. His conversion pitted the various Lutheran interests of Württemberg—duke, church and university—against the Counter-Reformation powers in Pfalz-Neuburg and Bavaria—Wittelsbach princes, the Catholic church (in particular the Jesuit order), the universities of Ingolstadt and Dillingen and Jesuit colleges in Neuburg and Augsburg. Reihing’s profile was such that his case quickly became the subject of very public commentary. Not only was it debated in printed pamphlets—some learned in tone, many less so—it also seemed worthy of printed news, fed the gossip mill and even became a topic for humorous song.1 Given this visibility, the Reihing affair quickly developed into a struggle over reputation. The wounded Catholics sought to save face, while the fortunate Lutherans endeavoured to highlight the Catholic discomfiture and trumpet their victory. The battle between these competing forces was waged primarily over the image of Reihing. The Catholics moved to assassinate his character and to undermine his claims of a spiritual awakening. The Lutherans exploited his conversion to highlight the perceived errors of the Counter-Reformation initiatives of the Bavarian and Pfalz-Neuburg Wittelsbachs. They also sought to rehabilitate the former Jesuit and to refashion him according to an idealized image of the virtuous Protestant professor. In this way the dispute over Reihing came to serve as a vehicle for a broader contest of longer gestation between competing visions of how scholars, in particular theologians, ought to live and to interact with the world. This article interrogates the history, character and implications of the competitive alternative stagings of Reihing as a theologian redeemed and a theologian apostatical. One of the many consequences of the Reformation for the universities of the Empire was a division of ideals of academic social character and behaviour along confessional lines. This divergence was most evident in relation to the issue of marriage within the university. Martin Luther’s marriage in 1525 set in train a process of change whereby the expectations of how a professor should live and interact with society were fundamentally revised in Protestant areas. This was to be a slow process, however, and the habit of celibacy proved difficult to displace despite concerted efforts within Lutheran universities to bring about a change of mores.2 By the closing decades of the sixteenth century, however, a culture of professorial marriage had taken root in Protestant universities, which in turn led to the emergence of academic families who wielded influence within these institutions.3 In spite of the prevailing tradition of celibacy, married professors were also to be found in Catholic universities, although in limited numbers. The growing dominance of the Jesuit order at German Catholic universities in the later sixteenth century led to renewed clericalization and had the effect of further reducing the incidence of married scholars.4 These opposing confessional modes of academic social behaviour had become entrenched by the end of the century and were at the heart of the conflict that arose over Reihing. The confessionalization of the academic world was also experienced on an institutional level and led to the division of universities into rival confessional camps.5 As a man of learning, Reihing’s defection amounted to a rejection not only of his Catholic beliefs but also of the academic system within which they had been inculcated. In this context Reihing’s removal to and eventual matriculation at the University of Tübingen was particularly pointed. Not only was that institution a prominent centre of Lutheran orthodoxy, it was also to the fore in contests with the intellectual apparatus of the Counter-Reformation. It had become established as a place of refuge for evangelical intellectuals fleeing Catholic ‘oppression’ over the course of the sixteenth century. On the other side of this religious and intellectual divide were the University of Ingolstadt and its satellites, Reihing’s former almae matres. Rivalry between these institutions had been building over the course of the sixteenth century as confessional divisions intensified. I: Reihing Runs On 5 January 1621 Reihing secretly departed from Neuburg and travelled to Stuttgart to renounce Catholicism and seek asylum from the Lutheran duke of Württemberg, Johann Frederick.6 Prior to this act, Reihing had had an exemplary career as a Jesuit theologian, Catholic polemicist and Counter-Reformation agitator.7 Reihing had been born into a patrician family in Augsburg in 1579. He was educated by the Jesuits in Augsburg and later at the University of Ingolstadt. He took vows in 1599 and was ordained a Jesuit priest in 1604. He taught in various capacities at Innsbruck and Munich and eventually at Ingolstadt, where he was appointed professor of philosophy in 1608. He received a doctorate in theology from Dillingen in 1613.8 Aided by this doctoral promotion, Reihing’s career took a decidedly political turn in November 1613 with his appointment, alongside another Jesuit, Anton Welser, to the post of court chaplain to Magdalena of Bavaria, sister of the Bavarian duke, Maximilian.9 In the same month, Magdalena married Wolfgang Wilhelm, the Wittelsbach heir to the Lutheran county of Pfalz-Neuburg and a clandestine Catholic.10 Reihing assumed the role of court chaplain to Wolfgang Wilhelm after the latter made public his Catholicism in May 1614.11 Upon his accession later that year, Wolfgang Wilhelm initiated the re-Catholicization of his territory. Reihing played a pivotal role, serving on the Reform Commission which directed the reintroduction of Catholicism. He was also central in the establishment of the Jesuit college at Neuburg.12 During this time Reihing became active as a polemicist, with his most significant contribution his 1620 Catholisches Handbuch, which was envisaged as a counterblast to the work of Dresden court preacher and pillar of Lutheran orthodoxy Matthias Hoë.13 Reihing’s desertion of the cause he had so vigorously championed represented a significant blow to the reputation of the Counter-Reformation project in Pfalz-Neuburg and its supporters in Bavaria.14 The fact that Reihing had fled into the clutches of a neighbouring Lutheran power that was a member of the Protestant Union was also particularly problematic for the Wittelsbach princes. In this way the Reihing affair was shaped by and fed the macro political-religious and military tensions of the 1620s, which inevitably served to heighten the political impact of Reihing’s conversion.15 Reihing’s defection occurred at a point of crisis in the politics of the Empire. Emperor Ferdinand II and the Catholic League, led by Maximilian of Bavaria, were in the ascendant following the Battle of White Mountain in 1620. This had left the Protestant Union, in which Württemberg played an important role, in a state of profound disarray and it was eventually dissolved in May 1621.16 Furthermore between 1620 and 1622 the military conflict came dangerously close to Württemberg. In autumn 1620 Spanish troops under Ambrogio Spinola invaded the Rhenish Palatinate, outnumbering the forces of the Protestant Union.17 In early 1622, once the Upper Palatinate had succumbed to the army of the Catholic League, led in the field by Count Tilly and commanded by Maximilian of Bavaria, this force made its way to the Rhenish Palatinate, where over the course of a year it defeated Protestant forces at Wimpfen, Heidelberg and Höchst am Main.18 During this time, Johann Friedrich of Württemberg attempted to follow a policy of neutrality.19 This was tested by occasional incursions by Tilly’s army and demands for logistical support from Maximilian.20 Only with difficulty did Johann Friedrich avoid the placement of Bavarian troops in Heilbronn by offering instead to permit the quartering of troops from the Swabian Kreis, an administrative region of Holy Roman Empire. In this context it is interesting that Johann Friedrich entertained the spectacle that was Reihing’s quest for asylum and the events that followed. Axel Gotthard has suggested that he sought to demonstrate his credentials as a good Protestant.21 Indeed, given the duke’s carefully observed neutrality in this time of crisis, occasions to demonstrate a commitment to the Protestant cause other than militarily were especially valuable. Reihing’s defection presented an opportunity to disrupt the Counter-Reformation agenda of the Bavarian duke which had been advancing steadily since the Donauwörth affair in 1607.22 The conversion of Wolfgang Wilhelm to Catholicism, which was facilitated by Maximilian, had represented another significant reversal, especially for the Lutheran party within the Protestant Union.23 The pursuit of a hard re-Catholicization of Pfalz-Neuburg, which was encouraged by Maximilian, was a further indication of the aggressive agenda being pursued.24 Reihing’s defection from a seemingly rampant cause presented a rare chance to interrupt its progress and offered some potential for political gain. Reihing was not the first religious refugee to make his way from Catholic lands to Württemberg in search of asylum.25 His case, however, was distinct in terms of the wide attention it garnered and the extent of the political response. Reihing was an exemplary representative of the intellectual world of the Counter-Reformation: a Jesuit theologian with impeccable schooling and established intellectual credentials, a confessor to the mighty, with all of the concomitant political influence, and a soldier for the Counter-Reformation on the ground in Pfalz-Neuburg. In addition to the political implications of his defection, Reihing’s status as a theologian was also significant in accounting for the impact of his conversion. Scholars in general and theologians in particular were central in constructing and supporting the intellectual foundations of confessional orthodoxies in the wake of the Peace of Augsburg, and much controversy arose when a scholar abandoned one confession in favour of another.26 This reality is borne out by the notice generated by the conversions of prominent men of learning such as Christoph Besold, Jacob Ernst Steinauer, Paul Helmreich and Caspar Franck. Such established scholars found refuge in universities or other centres of learning with relative ease. In addition to these converts, other men of (at least some) learning sought sanctuary in universities having elected, or been forced into, exile on grounds of confession. In the case of the University of Tübingen they formed a steady stream of would-be converts and exules christi.27 These minor figures made little or no impact on the affairs of the powerful. They were attracted to Tübingen by the prospect of sanctuary, at least for a time, in the ducal Stipendium, an institutional structure that provided accommodation and support for chosen scholars to aid them in their university studies. The lucky ones were eventually offered casual teaching at the university, or opportunities in schools or ministry. In the context of these experiences, Reihing’s career at the university is quite exceptional. Reihing’s defection was an unanticipated boon for the Württemberg powers. Following an examination by prominent theologians at the court in Stuttgart, Reihing was granted provisional asylum and sent to Tübingen, where he was placed under the protection of the university. Thus began a process of rehabilitation whereby Reihing was gradually absorbed into the Lutheran fold. His transformation from renegade Jesuit to Lutheran theologian was carefully stage-managed by his new political and academic masters and was marked by a series of significant milestones: a public retraction in Tübingen in November 1621; his marriage in 1622; his appointment as extraordinary professor of theology also in 1622; his installation in a more established professorial post in 1625; and finally his death in 1628, which was used as an opportunity to commemorate him as an exemplary member of Tübingen’s academic society and a model Lutheran professor. These milestones signalled a gradual and increasingly enthusiastic acceptance of Reihing among Württemberg’s Lutheran elites. They affected the acculturation of Reihing to the specific social and cultural norms of the Lutheran professoriate whilst cleansing him of his Jesuitical attributes. These very public moments of becoming provided a means of staging this transformation. II: Betwixt and Between Reihing’s defection was unexpected, both in Stuttgart and in Neuburg. According to one gleeful Lutheran source, Reihing’s mysterious departure led to the circulation of wild rumours in Neuburg, where it was ventured that he might have been sent on a mission to India or had been accosted and murdered by Lutherans.28 In Stuttgart, Reihing was subjected to examination by theologians Lucas Osiander and Theodor Thumm. His performance having satisfied his interlocutors, Reihing was granted provisional asylum and was sent to Tübingen, where he was to be provided for and offered the protection of the university.29 It was at this point that the first ambivalent public utterances concerning Reihing emerged from Stuttgart and Tübingen. Thumm published a report shortly after the duke’s decision to grant Reihing asylum.30 This provides details of the examination of Reihing in Stuttgart and of the positive findings of the Lutheran theologians, and it relates the subsequent decision of the duke to offer sanctuary and financial support as well as the decision to send him to the university.31 Characterizing Reihing as an inquisitor, the report describes Reihing’s activities in Pfalz-Neuburg, placing him at the heart of its Counter-Reformation.32 When noting Reihing’s spiritual transformation Thumm makes sure to emphasize that Reihing’s eyes had been opened by the evangelical writings of Hoë. Thumm’s report is followed by verse attributed to Reihing.33 In this we find a contrite man who acknowledges his failings during his tenure as the pope’s vassal.34 The verse offers a particularly detailed account of Catholic reform in Pfalz-Neuburg and as such serves as a type of whistle-blower’s report. It claims that the reforms have been particularly damaging to the territory’s inhabitants, with the closure of schools, the forbidding of singing and harsh treatment for those refusing to convert, in the form of a sentence of exile and the levying of an impoverishing departure tax.35 Reihing makes clear his prominence in the instigation of these policies, portraying himself as the duke’s ‘Eye and Hand’ and noting the importance of his Catholisches Handbuch as a guiding force.36 Reihing is thus represented, apparently by his own admission, as an unsavoury participant in a flawed Jesuit project in Pfalz-Neuburg. The period between the tentative granting of asylum and eventual acceptance into the Lutheran fold proved difficult for the would-be convert. Once they became aware of the facts of Reihing’s disappearance, the Jesuits attempted to rescue the situation. The Jesuit provincial, Christoph Grenzing, wrote to Reihing with that goal in mind.37 Grenzing made an accusation that Reihing’s defection was not the result of a spiritual crisis but a consequence of sins of the flesh. Grenzing urged Reihing to return and insisted that he had nothing to fear from the society should he do so. Once it became clear that Reihing would not return willingly, the accusations about his private life were disseminated more publicly. An anonymous verse was circulated in which it was claimed that Reihing had impregnated a young woman at the Neuburg court and that his flight was motivated by fear of punishment for this indiscretion.38 Eventually Wolfgang Wilhelm, the Jesuits and Maximilian of Bavaria made the accusation their own and a commission was sent to Tübingen to represent the Catholic interests.39 Unsurprisingly, it found against Reihing and requested that he be arrested and delivered to them. On 15 February 1621 Reihing’s formal response to the charges was sent to Stuttgart. Johann Frederick elected to accept Reihing’s account of events and made firm his commitment to the fugitive. At this point, it was decided that Reihing should make a public retraction of his Catholic beliefs. This event occurred on 23 November 1621 after an anxious wait for Reihing. Reihing did not go undefended in print during this time of uncertainty. One anonymous rhyme, the Gründtlicher Bericht, took the Jesuits to task in an accessible and humorous manner. Although the imprint does not indicate place of publication or authorship, the content strongly suggests a mediation of the sentiments of the Lutheran authorities in Württemberg. The Gründtlicher Bericht invokes the examples of Paul the Apostle, Martin Luther and Pier Paolo Vergerio, the one-time papal nuncio turned evangelical who ended his days in Tübingen, to position Reihing’s conversion within a select history of the evangelical cause.40 This provides a context for a report on the re-Catholicizing of Pfalz-Neuburg and Reihing’s role in it.41 The text also goads the Catholic interests embarrassed by Reihing’s defection. The bemused reaction of the Neuburg Jesuits to the disappearance of Reihing, for example, is a source of mirth: when his absence became conspicuous, one Jesuit, the rhyme suggests, declared that he was probably meditating somewhere, another that he had gone out walking, a third that he had left for Ingolstadt; a fourth Jesuit went to search for him in his rooms; a fifth sought him out in the library; a sixth in the printer’s workshop; a seventh in the chapel; and another looked for him in the college.42 When Reihing revealed himself in Ulm on route to Stuttgart and such explanations were no longer tenable, the Jesuits resorted, the text suggests, to questioning the motives for his departure.43 This mocking portrayal of Jesuit disarray is followed by a more sober account of the accusation that Reihing had fled Neuburg in order to escape the consequences of a pregnancy resulting from a sexual liaison.44 The Jesuits, it is maintained, were behind this deception and went to great efforts to fabricate evidence of Reihing’s indiscretion by seeking out a suitable victim.45 The Gründtlicher Bericht dismisses these claims as shameful slander.46 The uncertainty that was attached to Reihing in Thumm’s Schreiben vnd Relation is far less evident in the Gründtlicher Bericht. The pamphlet advances Reihing’s cause and prepares its readers for the more complete rehabilitation that would follow. Another anonymous publication in defence of Reihing may also belong to this period (Fig. 1). The content of this illustrated broadsheet suggests a shared timing and purpose with the Gründtlicher Bericht.47 The illustration depicts a dramatic scene of contrasts in which Jesuits busy themselves with the destruction of a church while a group of Protestants constructs a godly temple. The scene is contextualized in the text of the broadsheet: inspired by a hellish spirit the Jesuits pursue the destruction of the evangelical church in Pfalz-Neuburg. With the conversion of Reihing, a Saul-become-Paul to godly Christians, the Catholics have suffered a notable reversal and what they now destroy shall be, with God’s blessing, rebuilt. Figure 1: View largeDownload slide Broadsheet depicting the fight over the church, with a text celebrating Reihing’s conversion to Protestantism Source: Jesuitische Niderreissung Hergegen Christliche/ Apostolische vnd Euangelische Aufferbawung der betrübten/ armen und betrangten Kirchen Gottes allhier auff Erden (n.p., [1620]), VD17 1:089550G, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preußischer Kulturbesitz. Figure 1: View largeDownload slide Broadsheet depicting the fight over the church, with a text celebrating Reihing’s conversion to Protestantism Source: Jesuitische Niderreissung Hergegen Christliche/ Apostolische vnd Euangelische Aufferbawung der betrübten/ armen und betrangten Kirchen Gottes allhier auff Erden (n.p., [1620]), VD17 1:089550G, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preußischer Kulturbesitz. The Catholic claims about Reihing’s misbehaviour proved debilitating. One revealing incident which highlights Reihing’s vulnerability during this liminal period occurred in October 1621, when a row broke out at the table of Johann Martin Rauscher, professor at the University of Tübingen.48 The altercation involved a noble Polish student, Stephan Bojanovski, and Eleutherius Christophorus von Schlick, Count of Passaun, a noble soldier recently arrived in Tübingen. The quarrel became heated and von Schlick challenged Bojanovski to a duel with pistols. Von Schlick also threatened to shoot two other prominent figures associated with the university: Jacob Reihing and Johann Ulrich Pregitzer of Ulm. In his testimony, von Schlick explains that he had heard reports that Reihing had abandoned his church not on grounds of conviction but to escape the consequences of a reckless liaison with a woman.49 This alleged outrage led von Schlick to express publicly (at Rauscher’s table) a desire to shoot Reihing. Since von Schlick was an experienced soldier these threats caused alarm in the university. Given the fact that he was not matriculated in the university, questions of jurisdiction arose and the matter was referred to the duke, who had ordered von Schlick’s arrest.50 Following an initial probe von Schlick was effectively banished from Tübingen, whereupon he took up residence in Rottenburg.51 There followed a lengthy investigation which continued into the summer of 1622.52 During the enquiry another alarming report emerged of von Schlick’s malign intentions towards Reihing. Ludwig Feickelmann, pastor in Ebingen, reported that an (unnamed) acquaintance of his had encountered von Schlick at an inn in Rottenburg, where the latter declared his intention to harm Reihing.53 This lingering menace and premeditation gave rise to additional concerns for Reihing’s safety and an immediate response from the duke, who advised the university of the threat and admonished that Reihing should not travel outside Tübingen.54 Reihing was at his most vulnerable during this time. The tenuous nature of his position in Tübingen was aggravated by the actions of his Catholic detractors. Discussion of his case led to discord and the threat of violence. In such circumstances, Reihing’s personal safety was in doubt. Crucially, however, he was protected by the duke, who worked to limit the risks to which Reihing was exposed. III: The Public Retraction On 23 November 1621, the rehabilitation of Reihing was advanced with the opportunity to repair his image by denouncing Catholicism and embracing the evangelical ‘truth’. This carefully choreographed event was staged in the Stiftskirche in Tübingen before an audience that included the duke, the ducal family, members of the university and other dignitaries. Reihing’s retraction was printed in Latin and German in advance of the event. Such was the demand for this text, that second and third printings of the German version were circulated in 1621.55 The stage for Reihing’s conversion was set by Osiander, who opened proceedings in the Stiftskirche. His sermon was also made available in print, although only after Reihing’s retraction.56 The sermon begins with a comparison between Reihing and Paul the Apostle. Paul too was a persecutor of the righteous saved by the light of truth, which, for Osiander, made Reihing’s conversion more remarkable and served to emphasize the potency of the evangelical message. Paul is not the only point of comparison. Other reformers from Jan Hus to Luther to Pier Paolo Vergerio, are referenced in a rhetoric which seeks to insert Reihing within a tradition of evangelical awakening. Indeed Osiander’s sermon was printed alongside the text of Vergerio’s retraction, providing a framework within which the readership might interpret and appreciate Reihing’s conversion. The scene was thus set for a great evangelical victory. The printed forms of Reihing’s oration of retraction suggest that he rose to the occasion. His oration begins, like Osiander’s sermon, with a quotation from Scripture, in this case from Psalm 124, verses 6–8: ‘Praise be to the LORD, who has not let us be torn by their teeth. We have escaped like a bird from the fowler’s snare; the snare has been broken, and we have escaped. Our help is in the name of the LORD, the Maker of heaven and earth’.57 Thus established, a tone of unbridled joy at liberation from false belief resounds throughout the text. For example, in praise of his new discovery of evangelical truth, Reihing exclaims: ‘Thus will I speak, thus will I sing, thus will I write, as long as my tongue and hands shall stir’.58 Sparking with the enthusiasm of a convert, Reihing indulges audience expectations with pointed attacks on Catholic education and theology. He reports that the curriculum in Catholic schools and universities is orientated exclusively towards the works of scholastic theologians rather than the study of Scripture and insists that in such settings one is more likely to find scholars absorbed in a copy of Aquinas than in a Bible.59 Therein, he insists, lies the persistent ignorance of Catholic scholars and the helpless situation of the laity.60 Such miseducation is presented as the cause of his own past error.61 This prompts him to provide details of his Jesuit past and to unveil a narrative of his eventual theological transformation.62 Reihing then elaborates on his new-found objections to Catholic beliefs and institutions with a lengthy discourse on nine snares of Catholic belief (linking to Psalm 124, quoted in his opening).63 These snares mainly refer to standard Lutheran theological objections which permits him to discuss the principles of sola scriptura and sola fide, sacraments, transubstantiation, purgatory and remission from sins. Towards the end of Reihing’s list of snares, he diverts from matters of theology to address more immediate concerns. Snare number eight refers to the dishonourable slanders of the Jesuits against him. In the German version of his retraction he quotes directly the slanderous poem and letter in circulation that accused him of having impregnated a young woman at the Neuburg court.64 Reihing proceeds to offer a spirited defence against these charges.65 This argument leads him nicely to the bitterness of his final snare, in which excoriates the Jesuits for their inability to trust the motives and explanations of a man whose mind they spent years training. His address closes with a short formal retraction and a prayer of thanksgiving. With his retraction Reihing concluded his first outing as an adherent of the Augsburg Confession and as a putative professor (he was appointed to a newly created extraordinary post shortly afterwards). He had obviously impressed his ducal master, for eight days later he was called to preach a sermon at the Württemberg court.66 The duke was by this point eager to parade this unexpected prize of a reformed Jesuit. IV: The Jesuit Reaction Although unsuccessful in their efforts to have him arrested, Reihing’s new Catholic enemies did not let up in their campaign against him. Printed texts emerged as the key battleground in the struggle over Reihing’s reputation. In a remarkable feat of ingenuity, by infiltrating the print-works of Alexander Cellius in Tübingen the Jesuits obtained an exemplar of Reihing’s retraction prior to its publication.67 They used the window of opportunity to survey the text and frame a response in good time for Reihing’s public conversion. The most remarkable of the Jesuit responses was their propelling of a convert of their own into the limelight. This convert was one Thomas Veith of Neuburg, who, it was stated, had been a Lutheran pastor in Schnürpflingen from 1616 until 1621. According to published versions of Veith’s retraction, his Lutheran beliefs had been gradually eroded during this time in Schnürpflingen.68 The reintroduction of Catholicism to Veith’s Neuburg homeland was reported to have instigated this process, which was accelerated by his exposure to Catholic writings and clarified in private conversations with the abbot of Wiblingen and other neighbouring learned priests.69 As a result the pastor renounced his old beliefs and became a religious exile.70 He was reported to have been given refuge by the bishop of Augsburg, which led to a public retraction in Dillingen on 6 January 1622. Veith’s published retraction is in many respects an inversion of Reihing’s. Its title mirrors Reihing’s work and it too presents a discourse on snares of religious falsehood. There are also echoes of Reihing’s tale in Veith’s conversion narrative: his errors were the result of miseducation; he served as an agent of a false church; he discovered the truth in theological writings; he abandoned a clerical post, fled a territory and became a religious refugee; he found an opportunity to renounce publically his former beliefs in the learned setting of a university. Doubts have been cast over Veith’s authorship of this pamphlet and by extension over his very existence. The Bayerische Staatsbibliothek and Das Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachraum erschienenen Drucke des 17. Jahrhunderts (VD17) records of the retraction maintain that Thomas Vitus (i.e. Veith) was a pseudonym for Jesuit Laurenz Forer, who is listed without qualification in the catalogues as its author.71 It is not surprising that doubts about Veith’s authorship first surfaced in the writings of various Tübingen Lutherans.72 Evidence does suggest that Veith was not a fabrication. His existence is suggested by the survival of a letter of 12 March 1621 that is attributed to him.73 Written in Latin and addressed to the abbot of Wiblingen, the text mentions Veith’s shifting confessional allegiances and his new-found interest in the writings of Catholic authors. Reference is made in the retraction to Veith’s dealings with the abbot, so it possible that this letter was planted in order to deceive anyone who might wish to investigate the case.74 The letter is not in Forer’s hand, although this does not rule out such a ruse.75 The church records of Schnürpflingen do not exclude the possibility that Veith existed, for while they contain no reference to Veith, the identity of the pastor in Schnürpflingen between 1616 and 1632 is not recorded, and the records of his tenure, potentially from 1616 to 1621, might have been lost or even destroyed.76 The presence of a contemporary description of Veith’s revocation in the records of the University of Dillingen also advances the probability of his existence.77 Fabrication of a phantom such as Veith by the bishop of Augsburg and the Jesuits at Dillingen would have constituted a major gamble on their part, for the discovery of a deceit of this magnitude would have significantly damaged their reputations. We have reason, therefore, to believe in Veith’s existence and conversion; whether he was in fact the author of the retraction is more doubtful. Following the publication of Reihing’s retraction, responses by Jesuits Georg Stengel, Simon Felix, Laurenz Forer and Andreas Forner appeared in print. Stengel’s very direct attack on Reihing is representative of the general tone of this material.78 It contains much invective against Reihing, who was characterized variously as a wolf in sheep’s clothing and a chameleon.79 Much of the commentary on Reihing’s wickedness is unveiled in the dedications. Stengel insists that he will not spare Reihing since Reihing has spared neither the Catholic Church nor the Society of Jesus.80 Stengel offers a lengthy riposte in twenty points to Reihing’s specific charges against the Catholic religion as laid out in his discourse on the nine snares. Stengel’s intervention was to be one of many such texts in a pamphlet war on theological matters that would be waged by scholars from Tübingen, Ingolstadt and Dillingen for the remainder of Reihing’s life. V: The Family Man Reihing’s transformation from Jesuit to Lutheran professor was accelerated by his marriage in May 1622.81 Reihing’s quest for a wife was encouraged by Thumm.82 After an unsuccessful first foray into the marriage market, a suitable candidate was found in Maria Welser, daughter of the deceased Augsburg patrician Anton Felix Welser. Owing to fears of Jesuit meddling, it was decided that the wedding should be celebrated in Bebenhausen rather than Augsburg.83 The drive to find a wife for Reihing can be viewed as part of a general project to manage and affirm Reihing’s spiritual and social transformation. By following in the footsteps of the early reformers in taking a wife, which in turn lent legitimacy to the act, Reihing sought to cleanse himself of his priestly character. Support for his marriage was also a clear signal of commitment to Reihing’s cause on the part of the Tübingen professors and the Stuttgart authorities. Reihing’s marriage was celebrated in print by his colleagues at Tübingen with the publication of the Hymenaeo Iacobi Reihingi, which contained twenty-two poems composed by professors, students and churchmen.84 By the 1620s the publication of epithalamia and other material celebrating the weddings of scholars had become common in Protestant universities.85 The Hymenaeo Iacobi Reihingi followed the conventions of such academic wedding pamphlets in containing a range of authors and spread of topics. These celebratory acts provoked a furious response from the Jesuits. Their first salvo came in the form of two anonymous pamphlets: the short Ein klein wolverdientes Trinck-Gelt and the longer Valetudinarium Musis Novis, which has been attributed to Georg Stengel.86 Both works target Reihing, the wedding celebrations and the poets of the Hymenaneo. The Tübingen scholar Conrad Cellarius came to the defence of Reihing, Maria Welser and the maligned poets by publishing a rejoinder to the insults levelled against them in the Valetudinarium.87 Cellarius’s retort did not go unanswered by the Jesuits, who published two more tracts: the Aesculapius Cunradi Cellarii, again attributed to Stengel, and Andreas Forner’s Convivium Semicalvino Evangelicum.88 A further work attacking the nuptials, the Tricinium Nuptiale, was published in Ingolstadt at some point during 1622. Since it does not refer to the other pamphlets, it is difficult to position within the sequence of the exchange.89 Assaults on Reihing’s character abound in the Jesuit literature. Forner’s attacks in the Convivium Semicalvino Evangelicum are representative. Reihing, Forner claims, had every chance to follow a godly path. He had benefitted from a Catholic education which in turn had led him to profess vows of chastity, poverty and obedience, all of which he had now broken. For Forner, Reihing’s marriage represented a far greater sin than adultery since it had led to the betrayal of his vows of priesthood. In the anonymous Ein klein wolverdientes Trinck-Gelt the suitability of Reihing for married life is questioned. The text quotes a passage from Martin Luther’s Table Talk in which he ponders how new husbands cope with the novelty of waking next to a pair of pigtails in the early stages of marriage.90 This pamphlet not only mocks Reihing but also targets the very practice of marriage advocated by Lutheran scholars. One of the chief targets of the Jesuits’ attack was the wedding celebration. Such an occasion gave licence to those wishing to imagine festive excess. In addition, the attack on this aspect of the event was also an assault on the community of Protestant scholars at Tübingen and their way of life. Forner’s Convivium Semicalvino Evangelicum is built around the humorous formal artifice of separate descriptions of twenty courses served at the wedding feast. Each course attacks an aspect of the wedding or of Reihing’s character. Forner’s sixth ‘dish’ draws attention to the fact that the wedding is celebrated in a time of war.91 This fails to dampen the festive mood of the wedding party, a fact which highlights the party’s moral poverty. Throughout the text, the reader is left in little doubt about the sinful indulgence of the revellers. The feast is shown to be an immodest occasion where the professors satisfy their various appetites unrestrained. They celebrate an unchaste marriage in a manner which befits its moral delinquency. The acts and ceremonies of community building in the Protestant university are thus tainted by an irreverent worldliness. The most striking aspect of the Jesuit denunciation of the wedding is the attack on the poetry published in celebration of it. This features in each of the Ingolstadt publications and is the central focus of the Valetudinarium and the Trinck-Gelt. In the Trinck-Gelt the Tübingen poets are accused of venality. The Valetudinarium ridicules their ignorance and stupidity. The title, the term for an ancient Roman infirmary, advertises the author’s purpose: he is establishing a hospital to tend to these crippled, irrational, impure, insipid and stupid poets, with each of these five maladies discussed in turn with examples drawn from the Hymenaeo. With red pen in hand, the author dissects the poetry of the Hymenaeo, highlighting a litany of compositional errors in order to lay bare the intellectual poverty of those who would celebrate such a wedding. The purposes of the Jesuit invectives are clear. In the first instance they serve to discredit Reihing, his supporters and their celebration of his wedding. Tübingen is portrayed as a site of corruption and a haven for the dim-witted scholar. More generally, the Jesuits seek to undermine Lutheran attempts to fortify and celebrate the extension of their scholarly community through marriage. The celebratory wedding pamphlet becomes a focus for the Jesuit attacks. Given that such publications were instrumental in the promotion of an ideal of the married scholar within Protestant universities, it is not surprising that the Jesuits chose the Tübingen epithalamia as their target. VI: Last Years In 1626, in a preface to a work by Reihing, the Tübingen theologians declared him to be ‘our kind, much-loved colleague and brother in Christ’.92 These sentiments, which succinctly emphasize Reihing’s conformity to comfortable ideals of academic character, signalled an unambiguous endorsement of the one-time Jesuit. Yet such public utterances disguised a more complicated reality. Although Reihing managed to forge a relatively stable career in Tübingen, his progress was not unimpeded.93 Reihing’s first appointment, made in 1622, was unusual in that his position was established for him directly by the duke. 94 The pay was low and Reihing was initially subject to a high degree of supervision of his writings and lectures (the former were subject to the approval of the censor in Stuttgart; the latter had to be approved by the faculty of theology).95 Reihing was sensitive to his uncertain status and he conveyed his apprehensions in his frequent letters to Johann Conrad Brodbeck, the ducal chamber secretary. Reihing’s persistent and well-directed pleading eventually secured an improvement in his pay and conditions. The departure of Melchior Nicolai from his post as extraordinary professor of theology in 1625 presented Reihing with an opportunity for betterment.96 Unlike the post that Reihing had held since 1622, Nicolai’s extraordinary professorship was established and commanded a certain status in the institution. An epistolary campaign by Reihing proved successful and his appointment to the position was eventually secured through ducal intervention. The terms of this appointment led to a minor dispute between the university and the ruler relating to concessions on preaching responsibilities, from which Reihing was excused by ducal order.97 The established professors objected on the grounds that preaching was a core duty of the post and that they did not enjoy such terms. An accommodation was reached which led Reihing to assume some preaching duties. In addition to this issue, administrative records also reveal some local questioning of the salary awarded to Reihing.98 These negotiations can be viewed as typical manifestations of mundane academic politics, in which issues of precedence, hierarchy and salaries were at stake. Also in play in these minor struggles was the question of the university’s autonomy, its independence of the princely administration. All in all, however, these private interactions were not intended to disrupt Reihing’s public image as a respected Tübingen theologian. During the last years of his life, Reihing’s reputation and status continued to be contested in print. Reihing’s Jesuit detractors, including Forer, Felix and Stengel, maintained their campaign against him and his writings. In a literary tit-for-tat each new publication produced a hostile response focused on debunking or ridiculing its content. Reihing’s credibility and the authenticity of his conversion continued to be foci of Jesuit commentary. Ultimately these contestations became rather self-contained and their wider impact was diminished through repetition. One remarkable feat of public self-contortion stands out in these final years. In a two-volume work published in German Reihing refuted the ideas expressed in his own Catholisches Handbuch of 1620, which had been published in turn as a refutation of Hoë’s Evangelisches Handbüchlein.99 Reihing’s taking it upon himself to refute his own work was a remarkable and potentially humiliating act of self-scrutiny. The text is introduced by four prefatory pieces which contextualize and characterize Reihing’s extended exercise in self-criticism. The first, a dedication to Johann Georg of Saxony, who, like his court preacher Hoë, was a central figure in Lutheran orthodoxy,100 is used to unveil a narrative of how Reihing had come to publish the Catholisches Handbuch and why he was now retracting the opinions he had expressed there. A second prefatory section provides a platform for the Tübingen theologians to contextualize Reihing’s work and an opportunity for them to voice their support for the exercise. This is followed by a preface to the reader by Reihing, in which he targets his Jesuit opponents and their writings against him and thus frames the work within this reputational battle and envisages it as an instrument to defend his character. The final prefatory voice is that of Hoë, who offers his endorsement of Reihing. VII: Reihing at Rest After a short illness, Reihing died on 5 May 1628. He was mourned very publicly by his colleagues in Tübingen. The conventional formulae of academic public mourning were applied, with the staging of a public funeral attended by significant figures and the printing of a commemorative sermon, a funeral oration, an official funeral notice and a portrait. This suggests that within only a few years, Reihing had made a rather remarkable transition in status from the shadowy figure of a Jesuit convert to run of the mill Lutheran professor who died leaving a pensioned wife and child.101 Reihing’s conformity to this pleasant archetype is evident not only in how he was remembered by his colleagues but also in the content of the commemorative texts.102 They have an inevitable focus on his life and achievements during his brief years as a Lutheran professor, with an emphasis on matters social: his personality and his qualities as teacher, colleague, husband and father.103 These conventional details serve to emphasize the extent to which Reihing came to conform to an archetypal model of a Lutheran professor in his final years. Details of Reihing’s problematical pre-Tübingen life are not suppressed but are discussed within the framework of a narrative on the liberating effect of Scripture and Lutheran theology on an intelligent mind which had been kept in ignorance. Gone are the sharper edges of criticism and uncertainty about Reihing’s integrity that are in evidence in the Lutheran texts of 1621 and 1622. A softening of the narrative is evident, for example, in Osiander’s description of Reihling’s childhood in the sermon he preached at Reihing’s funeral.104 Osiander bends the truth by stating that both of Reihing’s parents had died before he entered the Jesuit college in Augsburg at the age of eight; at the time his mother was still living (indeed there is evidence his mother was alive in 1627).105 Imagined as an orphan, the young Reihing appears even more vulnerable as he is pulled helplessly into the clutches of the malign Jesuit order, where he becomes a victim of miseducation and indoctrination. Despite this bad start Reihing ultimately found his way to knowledge of Scripture. The core message is clear: the truly learned, sensitive scholar, however misdirected in his education, will recognize the truth when confronted with it. Reihing thus becomes an emblem of evangelical truth. VIII: Conclusion Reihing’s defection was an unexpected gain for the duke of Württemberg and the Tübingen Lutherans at a time of great political peril. The chief value of Reihing’s defection was as propaganda, as a humiliating blow to the Counter-Reformation agendas of Wolfgang Wilhelm of Pfalz-Neuburg and Maximilian of Bavaria. Questions about Reihing’s credibility hung the air for some time and only when the Catholic Commission’s investigation had concluded did Johann Frederick decide to commit to Reihing. The result was a quite a remarkable rehabilitation, carefully managed by the duke through his secretary Brodbeck and the Tübingen professors. Step by step, the Jesuit scholar became a Lutheran scholar: first his public retraction, then his marriage and appointment as an extraordinary professor; and finally his promotion to an established professorial position. These transitions were matched by a series of representations which increasingly defined Reihing according to a Lutheran professorial archetype. The Jesuits continued to work to disrupt these representations and malign Reihing’s reputation. His marriage provoked their particular ire, and their response reveals how the struggle over Reihing fed into broader conflicts involving the universities of Tübingen and Ingolstadt as the chief representatives of rival Lutheran and Catholic academic cultures. Reihing’s reputation and image became grist for a broader dispute about the moral and social integrity of opposing ideals of how the scholar should live and interact with society. This debate around Reihing did not end with his death or that of his Jesuit detractors, for it continued within the memorial and historical traditions of each confession throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and indeed echoes of it continued to sound in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.106 These reworkings reveal Reihing’s value as an emblem of either betrayal or redemption within opposing confessional traditions. More than anything they reveal the persistent potency of the initial antagonistic representations of the man that followed his conversion in 1621. Footnotes 1 The Frankfurt Semestral featured a report on Reihing: Relationis Historicae Semestralis Continuatio (Frankfurt/Main, 1621), Das Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachraum erschienenen Drucke des 17. Jahrhunderts (VD17) 39:124356C, pp. 102–3. 2 See, for example, G. Algazi, ‘Scholars in Households: Refiguring the Learned Habitus, 1480–1550’, Science in Context, 16, 1–2 (2003), pp. 9–42. On the efforts to encourage academic marriage see R. Kirwan, Empowerment and Representation at the University in Early Modern Germany: Helmstedt and Würzburg, 1576–1634 (Wiesbaden, 2009), pp. 143–72. 3 See, for example, M. Asche, ‘Über den Nutzen von Landesuniversitäten in der Frühen Neuzeit—Leistung und Grenzen der protestantische “Familienuniversität”‘, in P. Herde and A. Schindling (eds), Universität Würzburg und Wissenschaft in der Neuzeit: Beiträge zur Bildungsgeschichte. Gewidmet Peter Baumgart anläßlich seines 65. Geburtstages (Würzburg, 1998), pp. 133–49. 4 K. Hengst, Jesuiten an Universitäten und Jesuitenuniversitäten: zur Geschichte der Universitäten in der Oberdeutschen und Rheinischen Provinz der Gesellschaft Jesu im Zeitalter der konfessionellen Auseinandersetzung (Paderborn, 1981). 5 On the antagonism between Lutheran theologians and the Jesuits see T. Kaufmann, Konfession und Kultur: lutherischer Protestantismus in der zweiten Hälfte des Reformationsjahrhunderts (Tübingen, 2006), pp. 205–99. See especially the discussion of the impact of a sequence of defections from the Jesuit order, pp. 268–84. 6 K. F. Ledderhose, D. Jakob Reihing, der bekehrte Jesuit (Barmen, [1889]); J. Schall, Doktor Jakob Reihing, einst Jesuit, dann (Konvertit) evangelischer Christ, 1579–1628 (Halle/Salle, 1894); K. Schwindel, D. Jakob Reihing: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Gegenreformation (Munich, 1931); A. Schmid, ‘Reihing, Jakob’, in L. Boehm et al. (eds), Biographisches Lexikon der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, vol.1: Ingolstadt-Landshut 1472–1826 (Berlin, 1998), pp. 332–3; H. Altmann, ‘Reihing, Jakob’, in Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon (BBKL), vol. 14 (Herzberg, 1998), col. 1400–7; Altmann, ‘Reihing, Jakob’, in Neue Deutsche Biographie (NDB), vol. 21 (Berlin, 2003), pp. 330–1; R. Reinhold, ‘Reihing, Jacob’, in Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. 7 (Tübingen, 2004), col. 237. For a general overview of confessional deviance and mobility among scholars see M. Asche, ‘Von Konfessionseiden und gelehrten Glaubensflüchtlingen, von Konvertiten und heterodoxen Gelehrten: Mobilitätsphänomene konfessionell devianter Professoren zwischen obrigkeitlicher Duldung, Landesverweis und freiwilligem Abzug’, in H. P. Jürgens and T. Weller (eds), Religion und Mobilität: zum Verhältnis von raumbezogener Mobilität und religiöser Identitätsbildung im frühneuzeitlichen Europa (Göttingen, 2010), pp. 375–400. 7 See, for example, J. Oswald, ‘Der Jesuit Jakob Reihing’, Neuburger Kollektaneenblatt, 161 (2013), pp. 16–41. 8 See R. H. Seitz, ‘Pfalzgraf Wolfgang Wilhelm (1578–1653)—ein Neuburger Fürst’, in Lebensbilder aus dem Bistum Augsburg: vom Mittelalter bis in die neueste Zeit, 39 (2005), pp. 107–28, here p. 117; Oswald, ‘Der Jesuit Jakob Reihing’, p. 20. 9 Altmann, ‘Reihing, Jakob’, BBKL, vol. 14, col. 1400. 10 It is generally assumed that Wolfgang Wilhelm converted to Catholicism and aligned himself with the Bavarian Wittelsbachs in order to secure succession in Jülich-Cleves-Berg. See A. Herzig, Der Zwang zum wahren Glauben: Rekatholisierung vom 16. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert (Göttingen, 2000), pp. 59–64; E. O. Mader, ‘Staatsräson und Konversion: politische Theorie und praktische Politik als Entscheidungshintergründe für den Übertritt Wolfgang Wilhelms von Pfalz-Neuburg zum Katholizismus’, in H. Kugeler, C. Sepp and G Wolf (eds), Internationale Beziehungen in der Frühen Neuzeit: Ansätze und Perspektiven (Münster, 2006), pp. 120–50; G. Immler, ‘Maximilian von Bayern und Wolfgang Wilhelm von Pfalz-Neuburg: zwei Wittelsbacher zwischen konfessioneller Solidarität und machtpolitischer Konkurrenz’, in A. Schmid and H. Rumschöttel (eds), Wittelsbacher-Studien (Munich, 2013), pp. 375–87. 11 Altmann, ‘Reihing, Jakob’, NDB, vol. 21, p. 331. 12 Oswald, ‘Der Jesuit Jakob Reihing’, p. 133. 13 Reihing, Catholisches Handbuch. Wieder das vermeindte Evangelische Handbüchlein Matthiae Hoe (Neuburg, 1620), VD17 12:110591F. 14 It was not to be the only such desertion. In 1627 another prominent figure in Wolfgang Wilhelm’s administration, Christian Fischer, also abandoned his prince and confession and sought asylum in Stuttgart: Universitätsarchiv Tübingen (UAT) 12/3, 217–30. 15 See, for example, A. Gotthard, Konfession und Staatsräson: die Außenpolitik Württembergs unter Herzog Johann Friedrich (1608–1628) (Stuttgart, 1992); A. L. Thomas, A House Divided: Wittelsbach Confessional Court Cultures in the Holy Roman Empire, c. 1550–1650 (Leiden, 2010). 16 G. Parker and S. Adams, ‘Europe and the Palatine War’, in G. Parker (ed.), The Thirty Years’ War (2nd edn, London and New York, 1997; 1st edn, 1984), pp. 55–63, here p. 57. 17 Ibid., p. 54. 18 Ibid., pp. 57–8. 19 Gotthard, Konfession, pp. 350–434. 20 Ibid., p. 373. 21 Ibid., p. 321. 22 J. Whaley, Germany and the Holy Roman Empire, vol. 1: Maximilian I to the Peace of Westphalia: 1493–1648 (Oxford, 2012), p. 421. 23 Ibid., pp. 426–7; D. Albrecht, Maximilian I. von Bayern 1573–1651 (Munich, 1998), pp. 465–71. 24 Albrecht, Maximilian I., pp. 471–2; F. Nadwornicek, ‘Pfalz-Neuburg’, in A. Schindling and W. Ziegler (eds), Die Territorien des Reichs im Zeitalter der Reformation und Konfessionalisierung: Land und Konfession 1500–1650, vol. 1: Der Südosten (Münster, 1989), pp. 44–55, here p. 53. 25 On the ius emigrandi see M. Asche, ‘Auswanderungsrecht und Migration aus Glaubensgründen—Kenntnisstand und Forschungsperspektiven zur ius emigrandi Regelung des Augsburger Religionsfriedens’, in H. Schilling and H. Smolinsky (eds), Der Augsburger Religionsfrieden 1555 (Gütersloh, 2007), pp. 75–104. 26 On the phenomenon of learned conversion see L. Boehm, ‘Konversion: einige historische Aspekte aus der christlichen Frömmigkeitsgeschichte mit Beispielen von Professoren der alten Universität Ingolstadt’, in K. Krämer and A. Paus (eds), Die Weite des Mysteriums: christliche Identität im Dialog (Freiburg/Breisgau, 2000), pp. 522–48, and M. Pohlig, ‘Gelehrter Frömmigkeitsstil und das Problem der Konfessionswahl: Christoph Besolds Konversion zum Katholizismus’, in U. Lotz-Heumann, J. F. Mißfelder and M. Pohlig (eds), Konversion und Konfession in der Frühen Neuzeit (Gütersloh, 2007), pp. 323–52. 27 The university offered asylum to learned religious converts and exiles during this period, primarily in the form of sanctuary in the ducal Stipendium. I am currently investigating the experiences of these learned refugees as part of a broader study of scholarly conversion in the Empire in the years c.1555–1648. This project is funded by the Gerda Henkel Stiftung. 28 Gründtlicher Bericht/ Von der Wunderbahren Bekehrung von dem Pabstumb zum H. Evangelio/ Herrn Jacobi Reihing/ … (n.p., 1621), VD17 1:638809B, pp. 18–19. 29 The procedure for dealing with learned converts was established on 7 October 1607 by ducal order and Reihing’s treatment in the early stages was typical of the norm. See, for example, UAT 12/3, 73. 30 Schreiben vnd Relation/ wegen Pater Jacob Reihings/ gewesten Jesuiten/ so nach Stuetgart kommen/ Anno 1621 (n.p., 1621), VD17 14:070966P. The publication of such a report on an asylum seeker was highly unusual. 31 Ibid., pp. 1–2. 32 Ibid., p. 1: ‘ … vnd ein Jesuiter Pater so sich in die achthalb Jahr für einen Hoffprediger /Inquisitorn vnd Auffsteher der verk[e]hrten Ketzereyen (wie diese Männer zu reden pflegen) zu Newburg gebrauchen lassen / angeben / mit fürgeben/ daß in Widerlegung deß Herren D. Hoe Büchlein jm[e] die Warheit dermassen vnder die Augen geschienen /…’. 33 One would have to wonder whether this verse was composed by Reihing himself. The format, tone, style and character of the piece do not match his other writings. 34 Here he admits to his disordered priorities, particularly in privileging the papacy over Scripture: Schreiben vnd Relation, p. 2. 35 Ibid., pp. 2–3, 5–6. 36 Ibid., p. 5. 37 UAT 12/3, 149; Schwindel, Reihing, pp. 80–1. 38 This Schandlied is reproduced in the German language version of Reihing’s retraction, Laquei Pontificii contriti, Das ist/ Schuldige Underthänigste Dancksagung/ Jacob Reihings/ Geschlechters von Augspurg/ der H. Schrifft Doctors: Daß er durch Gottes Hülffe auß den Stricken der Bäpstischen Irrthumben heraußgerissen/ und errettet worden (Tübingen, 1621), VD17 12:107912L, pp. 35–9. Reihing’s purpose was to refute the accusations levelled against him in the verse. 39 Schwindel, Reihing, pp. 85–93. 40 Gründtlicher Bericht, pp. 1–8. 41 Ibid., pp. 9–12. 42 Ibid., p. 16. 43 Ibid., pp. 19–20. 44 Ibid., pp. 20–1. On p. 20: ‘Vnd hab in seiner Nachbarschafft/ Mit einer Jungfraw gut kundtschafft/ Die er vor einem viertel Jahr/ Verfelt hab/ vnd geschwängert gar/ Drumb hab er außgerissen eben/ Er müst sonst die Tauffsuppen geben/ ...’. 45 Ibid., p. 20: ‘Dann als das Maidlin auß geheiß/ Besichtigt wurd mit allem fleiß/ Ward sie noch zur selbigen stunden/ Von der Hebam ein Jungfraw funden.’ 46 Ibid., p. 20: ‘O schand vnd spott/ O Lugen groß/ ...’. 47 Jesuitische Niderreissung Hergegen Christliche/ Apostolische vnd Euangelische Aufferbawung der betrübten/ armen und betrangten Kirchen Gottes allhier auff Erden (n.p., [1620]), VD17 1:089550G. For a discussion of this work see C. P. Warncke, Sprechende Bilder—sichtbare Worte: das Bildverständnis in der frühen Neuzeit (Wiesbaden, 1987), pp. 255–79, and M. Niemetz, Antijesuitische Bildpublizistik in der Frühen Neuzeit: Geschichte, Ikonographie und Ikonologie (Regensburg, 2008), pp. 99–100. 48 These events and the Senate’s response are recorded in UAT 2/13, 194 and 195 (both 26 Oct. 1621). Records of the investigation that followed are contained in UAT 9/6, 19, nos. 26–40. 49 UAT 9/6, 19, no. 37, undated. 50 UAT 9/6, 19, no. 26, dated 7 Nov. 1621. 51 UAT 2/13, 20, dated 21 Nov. 1621. 52 UAT, 9/6, 19, nos. 26–40. 53 UAT 9/6, 19, no. 30: copy of Ludwig Feickelman to Eberhard Gilgen, dated 1 Dec. 1621. 54 UAT 9/6, 19, no. 32: ducal instruction to the University of Tübingen, dated 7 Dec. 1621. See also UAT 2/13, 209: senate protocol of 9 Dec. 1621 affording protection to Reihing. 55 Reihing, Laquei Pontificii contriti: Quibus Adiuvante Domino liberatus, Liberatori Suo Ter Opt. Max. Libenter, Merito, Publicas, Solemnesque Gratias, In Illustri Et Orthodoxa Tubingensi Academia, dicere voluit, Anno Christi MDCXXI. ... (Tübingen, 1621), VD17 12:107892G, and Reihing, Laquei Pontificii contriti, Das ist/ Schuldige Underthänigste Dancksagung/ Jacob Reihings/ Geschlechters von Augspurg/ der H. Schrifft Doctors: Daß er durch Gottes Hülffe auß den Stricken der Bäpstischen Irrthumben heraußgerissen/ und errettet worden (Tübingen, 1621), VD17 12:107912L. Two other German editions were published in 1621: one printed in Kempten (VD17 12:107921K) and a second published without details of the place of publication (VD17 39:121371Q). Further German editions were published in 1622 (VD17 12:107654L and VD17 39:130668B), 1626 (VD17 3:312013E) and 1629 (VD17 56:740772K). On revocation sermons in general see A. Schunka, ‘Transgressionen: Revokationspredigten von Konvertiten im mitteldeutschen Raum im 17. Jahrhundert’, in Lotz-Heumann, Mißfelder and Pohlig (eds), Konversion und Konfession, pp. 491–516; and S. Rütter, Konstruktion von Bekenntnisidentität in Konversionsschriften der Frühen Neuzeit (Berlin, 2014), esp. pp. 181–241 for a comparative, corpus-linguistic analysis of retraction texts. 56 Lucas Osiander, Christliche Erinnerung Bey dem Revocations-Actu, … / den 23. Novembris/ Anno 1621. zu Tübingen/ in der Kirchen zu S. Georgen/ D. Jacob Reyhing/ … / Die Papistische Lehr offentlich Widerruffen/ und sich zu der Reinen Evangelischen Lehr/ ohngeEnderter Augspurgischer Confession bekennet (Tübingen, 1622), VD17 12:117592U. 57 Reihing, Laquei Pontificii contriti (German version), p. 1: ‘Gelobet sey der HERR/ daß er vns nicht gibet zum Raube in ihre Zähne. Vnser Seele ist entrunnen/ wie ein Vogel/ dem Stricke deß Voglers. Der Strick ist zurissen/ vnd wir sind loß. Vnser Hülffe stehet im Namen deß HERRN/ der Himmel vnd Erden gemacht hat.’ English translation from the NIV. 58 Ibid., p. 3: ‘Also wil ich sagen/ also wil ich singen/ also wil ich schreiben / so lang sich meine Zung vnd Hand würdt rhüren.’ 59 Ibid., p. 8: ‘Sie ziehen deß Thomae von Aquin Bücher mehrer in den Händen vmb/ als die Bibel. Auff ihren Hohenschulen ist ein grosser Hauff deren/ die deß Thomae von Aquin Summam außlegen hören: Deren aber/ die der Biblischen Bücher Außlegung beywohnen/ seyn sehr wenig.’ 60 Ibid., p. 9: ‘Die Gelehrte vnd Geistliche lesen sie selten vnd wenig: Die Vngelehrte vnd Layen nie/ oder selten. Und würdt noch ferrner den Layen die Lesung der H. Bibel nicht gerhaten/ sondern widerrhaten: ja wol auch mit gewissem Geding verbotten.’ 61 Ibid., pp. 9–10. 62 Ibid., p. 10. 63 Ibid., pp. 11–50. 64 Ibid., pp. 36–9. 65 Ibid., pp. 41–3. 66 Reihing, Sermon, Von dem vermeinten Bäpstischen Meß-Opffer: Den 30. Novemb. Anno 1621. An dem Fest deß Heiligen Apostels Andreae/ zu Stuttgart ... gehalten ... (Tübingen, 1621), VD17 14:670923C. 67 The theft of the exemplar was a source of particular concern to Reihing and the university. See UAT 12/3, 121–141 and UAT 2/13, 198, 199, 207, 208, 386–7. 68 Thomas Veith, Laquei Lutherani Ad Veram Christi Ecclesiam Contriti (Dillingen, [1622]), VD17 12:111014D. A German version was also printed under the title Laquei Lutherani Contriti Das ist: Schuldige Underthänigste Dancksagung/ Thomae Viti von Newburg an der Thonaw/ gebürtig/ und in der Pfaltz vor diesem in die drey un[d] dreyssig/ wie auch hernach zu Schnirpflingen in die fünff Jahr geweßten Lutherischen Predigers/ Das er durch Gottes Hilff auß den Stricken der Lutherischen Irrthumben herauß gerissen unnd errettet worden (Dillingen, 1622), VD17 12:111019S. 69 Ibid., dedicatory epistle to the bishop of Augsburg, pp. 3–5. 70 Ibid., dedicatory epistle, p. 5. 71 See the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek and VD17 catalogue records for VD17 12:111014D. 72 Disbelief over the authorship was expressed by the Tübingen authors, including Reihing in his Dissertatio de Vera Christi in terris Ecclesià, Adversùs Larvatum Iesuitam Dilinganum (Tübingen, 1622), VD17 12:141845K, see especially the ‘Parodia Catulliana IN TH. VITVLVM’, pp. 41–2. Various Jesuit authors hotly disputed this contention including Simon Felix, who devoted a chapter of his Vulpecula Tubingensis, Demoliens Vineam Ecclesiae Christi (Dillingen, 1622), VD17 12:108337H, to Veith’s defence: ‘Caput II: Thomas Vitus à Calumniis vindicatur’, pp. 7–12. Nonetheless, the idea that Forer was the text’s author was disseminated later in the century by a Catholic author, Philippus Alegambe, in Bibliotheca Scriptorum Societatis Jesu (Antwerp, 1643), p. 296. See also Schwindel, Reihing, pp. 10, 132–3. 73 Landesarchiv Baden Württemberg—Staatsarchiv Ludwigsburg, StAL B 532 II Bü 272: Veith to the abbot of Wiblingen, 12 Mar. 1621. 74 Veith, Schuldige Underthänigste Dancksagung, p. 4. 75 For an example of Forer’s hand see Laurenz Forer to Matthäus Rader, 2 Dec. 1621, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 1611.f.150. 76 For a description of Veith’s tenure in Schnürpflingen see Kurt Schebesta, ‘Die Schnürpflinger Chronik’ (1950): http://www.schnuerpflingen.de/gemeindeinfo/geschichte/chronik, accessed 26 July 2016. According to Schebesta, Veith found security in the service of the bishop of Augsburg after his conversion. 77 ‘Acta universitatis Dilinganae’, vol. 1: 1551–1632, ff. 296–7, Studienbibliothek Dillingen XV 226–1. 78 Stengel’s work was published in German and Latin versions: Vermeint-Päbstische/ aigentlich-Lutherische Fallstrick Deß Armseelig- und auß Göttlicher verhängnus ubel verstrickten Manns/ Jacobi Reihing Augustani / … (Ingolstadt, 1622), VD17 12:113524W, and Dissertatio De Laqueis Pontificiis nomine, re Lutheranis: Quos, Irato Deo, misere illaqueatus Jacobus Reihing Augustanus Texuit; … (Ingolstadt, 1622), VD17 12:111691R. 79 Stengel, Vermeint-Päbstische/ aigentlich-Lutherische Fallstrick, ‘An der Leser’. 80 Ibid., ‘An der Leser’, [1]: ‘Lasse dir nicht frembd fürkommen/ Günstiger Leser/ daß ich dem Reihing nicht verschone/ dann er weder der Catholischen Kirchen / noch der Societet verschonet hat.’ 81 UAT 2/13, 207, 257, 259. Reihing’s letters to Brodbeck from January 1622 (Landesarchiv Baden-Württemberg—Hauptstaatsarchiv Stuttgart A 63 Bü 85, nos. 23–43) discuss various aspects of the engagement, the wedding and its aftermath. 82 Schwindel, Reihing, pp. 140–1. 83 UAT 2/13, 257, 259. 84 Hymenaeo Jacobi Reihingi, Patricii Augustani, Theologiae Doctoris et Professoris Tubingensis, Sponsi, & Mariae Velserae, Antonii Felicis, Patricii Augustani, F. Sponsae Sacrum Ab Amicis (Tübingen, 1622), VD17 12:152248G. 85 See, for example, R. Kirwan, ‘Scholarly Reputations and Institutional Prestige: The Fashioning of the Public Image of the University of Helmstedt, 1576–1680’, History of Universities, 25, 2 (2011), pp. 51–79, here pp. 61–6. 86 [Georg Stengel], Valetudinarium Musis Novis, Et XXII. Poetis Vetulis, Frigidis, Nudis, Edentulis, Claudis, &c. Hymenaeum Jacobi Reihingi Praedicantis non minus inscite, quam impie, hoc est, praedicantice celebrantibus, Ab Apolline Et Veris Christianisque Musis commiserationis ergo erectum & attributum (Ingolstadt, 1622), VD17 12:645847C, and Ein klein wolverdientes Trinck-Gelt Für die XXII. Poeten/ so deß außgesprungenen Jacob Reihings Ehrnreiches Hochzeit-Fest mit sonders saubern und wolgehobelten Versen nach besten vermögen gezieret: … (Ingolstadt, 1622), VD17 12:111822P. 87 Conrad Cellarius, Tonstrina, Aedilibus Valetudinarii Poetici, Ingolstadii Novis Musis & viginti duobus Poetis, hymenaeum Jacobi Reihingi celebrantibus nuper erecti: ... (Tübingen, 1622), VD17 12:141880X. 88 [Georg Stengel], Aesculapius Cunradi Cellarii, Seu Pars Secunda Valetudinarii Poetici, Musis Novis Et XXII Poetis, …: Nunc Insigniter locupletati & dilatati de Cunradi Cellarii Tonstrina Apollinis Fisco addicta (Ingolstadt, 1622), VD17 12:656266H, and Andreas Forner, Convivium Semicalvino-Evangelicum Hymenaeo Jacobi Reihingi Patricii Augustani, Theologiae Doctoris, & Professoris Tubingensis, Apostatae Sponsi: Et Mariae Welserae Patriciae Augustanae Sponsae Sacrum (Ingolstadt, 1622), VD17 1:076610V. 89 Tricinium Nuptiale Jacobo Reihingo novo Nuptiatori/ A Tribus Sanctis Patribus Basilio, Chrysostomo, Et Ambrosio Decantatum Cum tribus Epicitharismatis, B. Davidis, S. Augustini, & S. Cypriani (Ingolstadt, 1622), VD17 12:655952E. 90 Trinck-Gelt, pp. 2–3. 91 Forner, Convivium, pp. 14–19: Ferculum VI. 92 Reihing, In zween Theil abgetheilte Retractation, und gründtliche Widerlegung/ seines falschgenandten Catholischen Handbuchs: … (Tübingen, 1626), VD17 12:110109M and 12:110103R. Here part 1, ‘An den Christlichen Leser[.] Vorred Der Württembergischen Theologen’: ‘... vnsern freundtlichen vilgeliebten Collegam, vnd in Christo Brudern’. 93 E. Conrad, Die Lehrstühle der Universität Tübingen und ihre Inhaber (1477–1927) (Tübingen, 1960), p. 152; Schwindel, Reihing, pp. 128–31. 94 B. Zaschka, Die Lehrstühle der Universität Tübingen im Dreißigjährigen Krieg: zur sozialen Wirklichkeit von Professoren im vorklassischen Zeitalter (Tübingen, 1993), pp. 80–3; S. Holtz, Theologie und Alltag: Lehre und Leben in den Predigten der Tübinger Theologen 1550–1750 (Tübingen, 1993), pp. 19–20. 95 Zaschka, Die Lehrstühle, pp. 82–3; Schwindel, Reihing, p. 130. The following protocols of the academic senate from January to October 1622 adjudicate Reihing’s remuneration: UAT 2/13 218, 232, 233, 319. Reihing’s terms are also discussed in the records of the faculty of theology: UAT 12/1, 23–28b. 96 Zaschka, Die Lehrstühle, p. 83; Schwindel, Reihing, pp. 163–5. 97 UAT 2/14, 346. 98 UAT 2/14, 357: the response of the senate to a query from Dr David Magirus concerning Reihing’s salary, 2 Mar. 1626. 99 Reihing, In zween Theil abgetheilte Retractation (1626). The university was keen to support Reihing in this effort and rewarded him with an honorarium of 8 Reichsthaler: UAT 2/14, 428 and 437v. 100 Hans Knapp, Matthias Hoe von Hoenegg und sein Eingreifen in die Politik und Publizistik des Dreissigjährigen Krieges (Halle/Saale, 1902). 101 A senatorial protocol of 2 Jan. 1626 considers and grants a request from Maria Welser for additional support: UAT 2/15, 214. 102 Lucas Osiander, Christliche Leichpredig/ Bey der Begräbnuß/ Weilund deß ... Herren/ Jacobi Reihings/ der Heyligen Schrifft Doctoris und berhümten Professoris zu Tübingen: ... (Tübingen, 1628), VD17 39:139476W, and Johann Martin Rauscher, Laudatio Funebris Praeclari Theologi Jacobi Reihingi (Tübingen, 1629), VD17 12:123365X. 103 See, for example, Osiander, Christliche Leichpredig, pp. 30–1. 104 Ibid., p. 27. 105 Altmann, ‘Reihing, Jakob’, BBKL, vol. 14, col. 1400. 106 See, for example, among many, Andreas Carolus, Memorabilia Ecclesiastica Seculi à Nato Christo Decimi Septimi, vol. 1 (Tübingen, 1697), VD17 12:116603U, pp. 527–8; Franz Xaver Kropf, Historia Provinciae Societatis Jesu, Germaniae Superioris, Pars Quarta (Munich, 1746), pp. 253–67; Debler, ‘Das Leben des Dr. Jakob Reihing’, in W. Marriott (ed.), Der Wahre Protestant, vol. 3 (Basel, 1854), pp. 3–26. © The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the German History Society. All rights reserved. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png German History Oxford University Press

The Conversion of Jacob Reihing: Academic Controversy and the Professorial Ideal in Confessional Germany

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ou_press/the-conversion-of-jacob-reihing-academic-controversy-and-the-VlleZ2ct0i
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the German History Society. All rights reserved.
ISSN
0266-3554
eISSN
1477-089X
D.O.I.
10.1093/gerhis/ghx125
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract This article examines the case of the controversial seventeenth-century theologian Jacob Reihing. In 1621 Reihing fled Pfalz-Neuburg, where he had played an instrumental role in re-Catholicizing the territory, to seek asylum in Württemberg. His defection provoked shock and dismay in political, religious and academic circles in Pfalz-Neuburg and Bavaria. In Stuttgart Reihing was granted the protection of the duke and sent to the University of Tübingen. Jesuits and Catholic princes made a series of interventions, first in an effort to encourage Reihing to return to the fold and then to blacken his name. In spite of these pressures, the endorsements of the duke of Württemberg continued apace: Reihing was allowed a very public ceremony of conversion and was appointed professor of theology in Tübingen. The task of rehabilitating the former Jesuit fell largely to the University of Tübingen. Its professors attempted to refashion Reihing as an archetypal Lutheran scholar and carefully tended his public image over the remaining years of his life. For their part the Jesuits intensified their attempts at character assassination. The battle over Reihing’s reputation continued until and, indeed, beyond his death. This article explores the controversies generated by Reihing’s conversion and subsequent life and career and examines in particular the struggle over his reputation. In doing so it addresses a wider clash of ideals governing academic identities, lifestyles and behaviours in which scholars and institutions divided by confession participated. Jacob Reihing was a remarkable convert. His flight from Catholic Neuburg to Lutheran Stuttgart in January 1621 was the first act in a drama of individual religious conversion that rapidly drew a cast of other actors onto the stage. Reihing’s case provided an outlet for a broader set of tensions which had been brewing toxically in the fragmenting worlds of politics, religion and learning since the Peace of Augsburg had established the coexistence of Lutheranism and Catholicism in the Empire over sixty years earlier. More immediately, Reihing’s defection occurred in the context of the immense political turmoil that followed the Battle of White Mountain in November 1620, an unambiguous victory for the Emperor and his Catholic allies. Prior to his conversion, Reihing had been a prominent Catholic theologian, ardent and famed in polemic against Lutheran beliefs and, crucially, one of the most influential agents of the Counter-Reformation in the territory of Pfalz-Neuburg. His conversion pitted the various Lutheran interests of Württemberg—duke, church and university—against the Counter-Reformation powers in Pfalz-Neuburg and Bavaria—Wittelsbach princes, the Catholic church (in particular the Jesuit order), the universities of Ingolstadt and Dillingen and Jesuit colleges in Neuburg and Augsburg. Reihing’s profile was such that his case quickly became the subject of very public commentary. Not only was it debated in printed pamphlets—some learned in tone, many less so—it also seemed worthy of printed news, fed the gossip mill and even became a topic for humorous song.1 Given this visibility, the Reihing affair quickly developed into a struggle over reputation. The wounded Catholics sought to save face, while the fortunate Lutherans endeavoured to highlight the Catholic discomfiture and trumpet their victory. The battle between these competing forces was waged primarily over the image of Reihing. The Catholics moved to assassinate his character and to undermine his claims of a spiritual awakening. The Lutherans exploited his conversion to highlight the perceived errors of the Counter-Reformation initiatives of the Bavarian and Pfalz-Neuburg Wittelsbachs. They also sought to rehabilitate the former Jesuit and to refashion him according to an idealized image of the virtuous Protestant professor. In this way the dispute over Reihing came to serve as a vehicle for a broader contest of longer gestation between competing visions of how scholars, in particular theologians, ought to live and to interact with the world. This article interrogates the history, character and implications of the competitive alternative stagings of Reihing as a theologian redeemed and a theologian apostatical. One of the many consequences of the Reformation for the universities of the Empire was a division of ideals of academic social character and behaviour along confessional lines. This divergence was most evident in relation to the issue of marriage within the university. Martin Luther’s marriage in 1525 set in train a process of change whereby the expectations of how a professor should live and interact with society were fundamentally revised in Protestant areas. This was to be a slow process, however, and the habit of celibacy proved difficult to displace despite concerted efforts within Lutheran universities to bring about a change of mores.2 By the closing decades of the sixteenth century, however, a culture of professorial marriage had taken root in Protestant universities, which in turn led to the emergence of academic families who wielded influence within these institutions.3 In spite of the prevailing tradition of celibacy, married professors were also to be found in Catholic universities, although in limited numbers. The growing dominance of the Jesuit order at German Catholic universities in the later sixteenth century led to renewed clericalization and had the effect of further reducing the incidence of married scholars.4 These opposing confessional modes of academic social behaviour had become entrenched by the end of the century and were at the heart of the conflict that arose over Reihing. The confessionalization of the academic world was also experienced on an institutional level and led to the division of universities into rival confessional camps.5 As a man of learning, Reihing’s defection amounted to a rejection not only of his Catholic beliefs but also of the academic system within which they had been inculcated. In this context Reihing’s removal to and eventual matriculation at the University of Tübingen was particularly pointed. Not only was that institution a prominent centre of Lutheran orthodoxy, it was also to the fore in contests with the intellectual apparatus of the Counter-Reformation. It had become established as a place of refuge for evangelical intellectuals fleeing Catholic ‘oppression’ over the course of the sixteenth century. On the other side of this religious and intellectual divide were the University of Ingolstadt and its satellites, Reihing’s former almae matres. Rivalry between these institutions had been building over the course of the sixteenth century as confessional divisions intensified. I: Reihing Runs On 5 January 1621 Reihing secretly departed from Neuburg and travelled to Stuttgart to renounce Catholicism and seek asylum from the Lutheran duke of Württemberg, Johann Frederick.6 Prior to this act, Reihing had had an exemplary career as a Jesuit theologian, Catholic polemicist and Counter-Reformation agitator.7 Reihing had been born into a patrician family in Augsburg in 1579. He was educated by the Jesuits in Augsburg and later at the University of Ingolstadt. He took vows in 1599 and was ordained a Jesuit priest in 1604. He taught in various capacities at Innsbruck and Munich and eventually at Ingolstadt, where he was appointed professor of philosophy in 1608. He received a doctorate in theology from Dillingen in 1613.8 Aided by this doctoral promotion, Reihing’s career took a decidedly political turn in November 1613 with his appointment, alongside another Jesuit, Anton Welser, to the post of court chaplain to Magdalena of Bavaria, sister of the Bavarian duke, Maximilian.9 In the same month, Magdalena married Wolfgang Wilhelm, the Wittelsbach heir to the Lutheran county of Pfalz-Neuburg and a clandestine Catholic.10 Reihing assumed the role of court chaplain to Wolfgang Wilhelm after the latter made public his Catholicism in May 1614.11 Upon his accession later that year, Wolfgang Wilhelm initiated the re-Catholicization of his territory. Reihing played a pivotal role, serving on the Reform Commission which directed the reintroduction of Catholicism. He was also central in the establishment of the Jesuit college at Neuburg.12 During this time Reihing became active as a polemicist, with his most significant contribution his 1620 Catholisches Handbuch, which was envisaged as a counterblast to the work of Dresden court preacher and pillar of Lutheran orthodoxy Matthias Hoë.13 Reihing’s desertion of the cause he had so vigorously championed represented a significant blow to the reputation of the Counter-Reformation project in Pfalz-Neuburg and its supporters in Bavaria.14 The fact that Reihing had fled into the clutches of a neighbouring Lutheran power that was a member of the Protestant Union was also particularly problematic for the Wittelsbach princes. In this way the Reihing affair was shaped by and fed the macro political-religious and military tensions of the 1620s, which inevitably served to heighten the political impact of Reihing’s conversion.15 Reihing’s defection occurred at a point of crisis in the politics of the Empire. Emperor Ferdinand II and the Catholic League, led by Maximilian of Bavaria, were in the ascendant following the Battle of White Mountain in 1620. This had left the Protestant Union, in which Württemberg played an important role, in a state of profound disarray and it was eventually dissolved in May 1621.16 Furthermore between 1620 and 1622 the military conflict came dangerously close to Württemberg. In autumn 1620 Spanish troops under Ambrogio Spinola invaded the Rhenish Palatinate, outnumbering the forces of the Protestant Union.17 In early 1622, once the Upper Palatinate had succumbed to the army of the Catholic League, led in the field by Count Tilly and commanded by Maximilian of Bavaria, this force made its way to the Rhenish Palatinate, where over the course of a year it defeated Protestant forces at Wimpfen, Heidelberg and Höchst am Main.18 During this time, Johann Friedrich of Württemberg attempted to follow a policy of neutrality.19 This was tested by occasional incursions by Tilly’s army and demands for logistical support from Maximilian.20 Only with difficulty did Johann Friedrich avoid the placement of Bavarian troops in Heilbronn by offering instead to permit the quartering of troops from the Swabian Kreis, an administrative region of Holy Roman Empire. In this context it is interesting that Johann Friedrich entertained the spectacle that was Reihing’s quest for asylum and the events that followed. Axel Gotthard has suggested that he sought to demonstrate his credentials as a good Protestant.21 Indeed, given the duke’s carefully observed neutrality in this time of crisis, occasions to demonstrate a commitment to the Protestant cause other than militarily were especially valuable. Reihing’s defection presented an opportunity to disrupt the Counter-Reformation agenda of the Bavarian duke which had been advancing steadily since the Donauwörth affair in 1607.22 The conversion of Wolfgang Wilhelm to Catholicism, which was facilitated by Maximilian, had represented another significant reversal, especially for the Lutheran party within the Protestant Union.23 The pursuit of a hard re-Catholicization of Pfalz-Neuburg, which was encouraged by Maximilian, was a further indication of the aggressive agenda being pursued.24 Reihing’s defection from a seemingly rampant cause presented a rare chance to interrupt its progress and offered some potential for political gain. Reihing was not the first religious refugee to make his way from Catholic lands to Württemberg in search of asylum.25 His case, however, was distinct in terms of the wide attention it garnered and the extent of the political response. Reihing was an exemplary representative of the intellectual world of the Counter-Reformation: a Jesuit theologian with impeccable schooling and established intellectual credentials, a confessor to the mighty, with all of the concomitant political influence, and a soldier for the Counter-Reformation on the ground in Pfalz-Neuburg. In addition to the political implications of his defection, Reihing’s status as a theologian was also significant in accounting for the impact of his conversion. Scholars in general and theologians in particular were central in constructing and supporting the intellectual foundations of confessional orthodoxies in the wake of the Peace of Augsburg, and much controversy arose when a scholar abandoned one confession in favour of another.26 This reality is borne out by the notice generated by the conversions of prominent men of learning such as Christoph Besold, Jacob Ernst Steinauer, Paul Helmreich and Caspar Franck. Such established scholars found refuge in universities or other centres of learning with relative ease. In addition to these converts, other men of (at least some) learning sought sanctuary in universities having elected, or been forced into, exile on grounds of confession. In the case of the University of Tübingen they formed a steady stream of would-be converts and exules christi.27 These minor figures made little or no impact on the affairs of the powerful. They were attracted to Tübingen by the prospect of sanctuary, at least for a time, in the ducal Stipendium, an institutional structure that provided accommodation and support for chosen scholars to aid them in their university studies. The lucky ones were eventually offered casual teaching at the university, or opportunities in schools or ministry. In the context of these experiences, Reihing’s career at the university is quite exceptional. Reihing’s defection was an unanticipated boon for the Württemberg powers. Following an examination by prominent theologians at the court in Stuttgart, Reihing was granted provisional asylum and sent to Tübingen, where he was placed under the protection of the university. Thus began a process of rehabilitation whereby Reihing was gradually absorbed into the Lutheran fold. His transformation from renegade Jesuit to Lutheran theologian was carefully stage-managed by his new political and academic masters and was marked by a series of significant milestones: a public retraction in Tübingen in November 1621; his marriage in 1622; his appointment as extraordinary professor of theology also in 1622; his installation in a more established professorial post in 1625; and finally his death in 1628, which was used as an opportunity to commemorate him as an exemplary member of Tübingen’s academic society and a model Lutheran professor. These milestones signalled a gradual and increasingly enthusiastic acceptance of Reihing among Württemberg’s Lutheran elites. They affected the acculturation of Reihing to the specific social and cultural norms of the Lutheran professoriate whilst cleansing him of his Jesuitical attributes. These very public moments of becoming provided a means of staging this transformation. II: Betwixt and Between Reihing’s defection was unexpected, both in Stuttgart and in Neuburg. According to one gleeful Lutheran source, Reihing’s mysterious departure led to the circulation of wild rumours in Neuburg, where it was ventured that he might have been sent on a mission to India or had been accosted and murdered by Lutherans.28 In Stuttgart, Reihing was subjected to examination by theologians Lucas Osiander and Theodor Thumm. His performance having satisfied his interlocutors, Reihing was granted provisional asylum and was sent to Tübingen, where he was to be provided for and offered the protection of the university.29 It was at this point that the first ambivalent public utterances concerning Reihing emerged from Stuttgart and Tübingen. Thumm published a report shortly after the duke’s decision to grant Reihing asylum.30 This provides details of the examination of Reihing in Stuttgart and of the positive findings of the Lutheran theologians, and it relates the subsequent decision of the duke to offer sanctuary and financial support as well as the decision to send him to the university.31 Characterizing Reihing as an inquisitor, the report describes Reihing’s activities in Pfalz-Neuburg, placing him at the heart of its Counter-Reformation.32 When noting Reihing’s spiritual transformation Thumm makes sure to emphasize that Reihing’s eyes had been opened by the evangelical writings of Hoë. Thumm’s report is followed by verse attributed to Reihing.33 In this we find a contrite man who acknowledges his failings during his tenure as the pope’s vassal.34 The verse offers a particularly detailed account of Catholic reform in Pfalz-Neuburg and as such serves as a type of whistle-blower’s report. It claims that the reforms have been particularly damaging to the territory’s inhabitants, with the closure of schools, the forbidding of singing and harsh treatment for those refusing to convert, in the form of a sentence of exile and the levying of an impoverishing departure tax.35 Reihing makes clear his prominence in the instigation of these policies, portraying himself as the duke’s ‘Eye and Hand’ and noting the importance of his Catholisches Handbuch as a guiding force.36 Reihing is thus represented, apparently by his own admission, as an unsavoury participant in a flawed Jesuit project in Pfalz-Neuburg. The period between the tentative granting of asylum and eventual acceptance into the Lutheran fold proved difficult for the would-be convert. Once they became aware of the facts of Reihing’s disappearance, the Jesuits attempted to rescue the situation. The Jesuit provincial, Christoph Grenzing, wrote to Reihing with that goal in mind.37 Grenzing made an accusation that Reihing’s defection was not the result of a spiritual crisis but a consequence of sins of the flesh. Grenzing urged Reihing to return and insisted that he had nothing to fear from the society should he do so. Once it became clear that Reihing would not return willingly, the accusations about his private life were disseminated more publicly. An anonymous verse was circulated in which it was claimed that Reihing had impregnated a young woman at the Neuburg court and that his flight was motivated by fear of punishment for this indiscretion.38 Eventually Wolfgang Wilhelm, the Jesuits and Maximilian of Bavaria made the accusation their own and a commission was sent to Tübingen to represent the Catholic interests.39 Unsurprisingly, it found against Reihing and requested that he be arrested and delivered to them. On 15 February 1621 Reihing’s formal response to the charges was sent to Stuttgart. Johann Frederick elected to accept Reihing’s account of events and made firm his commitment to the fugitive. At this point, it was decided that Reihing should make a public retraction of his Catholic beliefs. This event occurred on 23 November 1621 after an anxious wait for Reihing. Reihing did not go undefended in print during this time of uncertainty. One anonymous rhyme, the Gründtlicher Bericht, took the Jesuits to task in an accessible and humorous manner. Although the imprint does not indicate place of publication or authorship, the content strongly suggests a mediation of the sentiments of the Lutheran authorities in Württemberg. The Gründtlicher Bericht invokes the examples of Paul the Apostle, Martin Luther and Pier Paolo Vergerio, the one-time papal nuncio turned evangelical who ended his days in Tübingen, to position Reihing’s conversion within a select history of the evangelical cause.40 This provides a context for a report on the re-Catholicizing of Pfalz-Neuburg and Reihing’s role in it.41 The text also goads the Catholic interests embarrassed by Reihing’s defection. The bemused reaction of the Neuburg Jesuits to the disappearance of Reihing, for example, is a source of mirth: when his absence became conspicuous, one Jesuit, the rhyme suggests, declared that he was probably meditating somewhere, another that he had gone out walking, a third that he had left for Ingolstadt; a fourth Jesuit went to search for him in his rooms; a fifth sought him out in the library; a sixth in the printer’s workshop; a seventh in the chapel; and another looked for him in the college.42 When Reihing revealed himself in Ulm on route to Stuttgart and such explanations were no longer tenable, the Jesuits resorted, the text suggests, to questioning the motives for his departure.43 This mocking portrayal of Jesuit disarray is followed by a more sober account of the accusation that Reihing had fled Neuburg in order to escape the consequences of a pregnancy resulting from a sexual liaison.44 The Jesuits, it is maintained, were behind this deception and went to great efforts to fabricate evidence of Reihing’s indiscretion by seeking out a suitable victim.45 The Gründtlicher Bericht dismisses these claims as shameful slander.46 The uncertainty that was attached to Reihing in Thumm’s Schreiben vnd Relation is far less evident in the Gründtlicher Bericht. The pamphlet advances Reihing’s cause and prepares its readers for the more complete rehabilitation that would follow. Another anonymous publication in defence of Reihing may also belong to this period (Fig. 1). The content of this illustrated broadsheet suggests a shared timing and purpose with the Gründtlicher Bericht.47 The illustration depicts a dramatic scene of contrasts in which Jesuits busy themselves with the destruction of a church while a group of Protestants constructs a godly temple. The scene is contextualized in the text of the broadsheet: inspired by a hellish spirit the Jesuits pursue the destruction of the evangelical church in Pfalz-Neuburg. With the conversion of Reihing, a Saul-become-Paul to godly Christians, the Catholics have suffered a notable reversal and what they now destroy shall be, with God’s blessing, rebuilt. Figure 1: View largeDownload slide Broadsheet depicting the fight over the church, with a text celebrating Reihing’s conversion to Protestantism Source: Jesuitische Niderreissung Hergegen Christliche/ Apostolische vnd Euangelische Aufferbawung der betrübten/ armen und betrangten Kirchen Gottes allhier auff Erden (n.p., [1620]), VD17 1:089550G, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preußischer Kulturbesitz. Figure 1: View largeDownload slide Broadsheet depicting the fight over the church, with a text celebrating Reihing’s conversion to Protestantism Source: Jesuitische Niderreissung Hergegen Christliche/ Apostolische vnd Euangelische Aufferbawung der betrübten/ armen und betrangten Kirchen Gottes allhier auff Erden (n.p., [1620]), VD17 1:089550G, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preußischer Kulturbesitz. The Catholic claims about Reihing’s misbehaviour proved debilitating. One revealing incident which highlights Reihing’s vulnerability during this liminal period occurred in October 1621, when a row broke out at the table of Johann Martin Rauscher, professor at the University of Tübingen.48 The altercation involved a noble Polish student, Stephan Bojanovski, and Eleutherius Christophorus von Schlick, Count of Passaun, a noble soldier recently arrived in Tübingen. The quarrel became heated and von Schlick challenged Bojanovski to a duel with pistols. Von Schlick also threatened to shoot two other prominent figures associated with the university: Jacob Reihing and Johann Ulrich Pregitzer of Ulm. In his testimony, von Schlick explains that he had heard reports that Reihing had abandoned his church not on grounds of conviction but to escape the consequences of a reckless liaison with a woman.49 This alleged outrage led von Schlick to express publicly (at Rauscher’s table) a desire to shoot Reihing. Since von Schlick was an experienced soldier these threats caused alarm in the university. Given the fact that he was not matriculated in the university, questions of jurisdiction arose and the matter was referred to the duke, who had ordered von Schlick’s arrest.50 Following an initial probe von Schlick was effectively banished from Tübingen, whereupon he took up residence in Rottenburg.51 There followed a lengthy investigation which continued into the summer of 1622.52 During the enquiry another alarming report emerged of von Schlick’s malign intentions towards Reihing. Ludwig Feickelmann, pastor in Ebingen, reported that an (unnamed) acquaintance of his had encountered von Schlick at an inn in Rottenburg, where the latter declared his intention to harm Reihing.53 This lingering menace and premeditation gave rise to additional concerns for Reihing’s safety and an immediate response from the duke, who advised the university of the threat and admonished that Reihing should not travel outside Tübingen.54 Reihing was at his most vulnerable during this time. The tenuous nature of his position in Tübingen was aggravated by the actions of his Catholic detractors. Discussion of his case led to discord and the threat of violence. In such circumstances, Reihing’s personal safety was in doubt. Crucially, however, he was protected by the duke, who worked to limit the risks to which Reihing was exposed. III: The Public Retraction On 23 November 1621, the rehabilitation of Reihing was advanced with the opportunity to repair his image by denouncing Catholicism and embracing the evangelical ‘truth’. This carefully choreographed event was staged in the Stiftskirche in Tübingen before an audience that included the duke, the ducal family, members of the university and other dignitaries. Reihing’s retraction was printed in Latin and German in advance of the event. Such was the demand for this text, that second and third printings of the German version were circulated in 1621.55 The stage for Reihing’s conversion was set by Osiander, who opened proceedings in the Stiftskirche. His sermon was also made available in print, although only after Reihing’s retraction.56 The sermon begins with a comparison between Reihing and Paul the Apostle. Paul too was a persecutor of the righteous saved by the light of truth, which, for Osiander, made Reihing’s conversion more remarkable and served to emphasize the potency of the evangelical message. Paul is not the only point of comparison. Other reformers from Jan Hus to Luther to Pier Paolo Vergerio, are referenced in a rhetoric which seeks to insert Reihing within a tradition of evangelical awakening. Indeed Osiander’s sermon was printed alongside the text of Vergerio’s retraction, providing a framework within which the readership might interpret and appreciate Reihing’s conversion. The scene was thus set for a great evangelical victory. The printed forms of Reihing’s oration of retraction suggest that he rose to the occasion. His oration begins, like Osiander’s sermon, with a quotation from Scripture, in this case from Psalm 124, verses 6–8: ‘Praise be to the LORD, who has not let us be torn by their teeth. We have escaped like a bird from the fowler’s snare; the snare has been broken, and we have escaped. Our help is in the name of the LORD, the Maker of heaven and earth’.57 Thus established, a tone of unbridled joy at liberation from false belief resounds throughout the text. For example, in praise of his new discovery of evangelical truth, Reihing exclaims: ‘Thus will I speak, thus will I sing, thus will I write, as long as my tongue and hands shall stir’.58 Sparking with the enthusiasm of a convert, Reihing indulges audience expectations with pointed attacks on Catholic education and theology. He reports that the curriculum in Catholic schools and universities is orientated exclusively towards the works of scholastic theologians rather than the study of Scripture and insists that in such settings one is more likely to find scholars absorbed in a copy of Aquinas than in a Bible.59 Therein, he insists, lies the persistent ignorance of Catholic scholars and the helpless situation of the laity.60 Such miseducation is presented as the cause of his own past error.61 This prompts him to provide details of his Jesuit past and to unveil a narrative of his eventual theological transformation.62 Reihing then elaborates on his new-found objections to Catholic beliefs and institutions with a lengthy discourse on nine snares of Catholic belief (linking to Psalm 124, quoted in his opening).63 These snares mainly refer to standard Lutheran theological objections which permits him to discuss the principles of sola scriptura and sola fide, sacraments, transubstantiation, purgatory and remission from sins. Towards the end of Reihing’s list of snares, he diverts from matters of theology to address more immediate concerns. Snare number eight refers to the dishonourable slanders of the Jesuits against him. In the German version of his retraction he quotes directly the slanderous poem and letter in circulation that accused him of having impregnated a young woman at the Neuburg court.64 Reihing proceeds to offer a spirited defence against these charges.65 This argument leads him nicely to the bitterness of his final snare, in which excoriates the Jesuits for their inability to trust the motives and explanations of a man whose mind they spent years training. His address closes with a short formal retraction and a prayer of thanksgiving. With his retraction Reihing concluded his first outing as an adherent of the Augsburg Confession and as a putative professor (he was appointed to a newly created extraordinary post shortly afterwards). He had obviously impressed his ducal master, for eight days later he was called to preach a sermon at the Württemberg court.66 The duke was by this point eager to parade this unexpected prize of a reformed Jesuit. IV: The Jesuit Reaction Although unsuccessful in their efforts to have him arrested, Reihing’s new Catholic enemies did not let up in their campaign against him. Printed texts emerged as the key battleground in the struggle over Reihing’s reputation. In a remarkable feat of ingenuity, by infiltrating the print-works of Alexander Cellius in Tübingen the Jesuits obtained an exemplar of Reihing’s retraction prior to its publication.67 They used the window of opportunity to survey the text and frame a response in good time for Reihing’s public conversion. The most remarkable of the Jesuit responses was their propelling of a convert of their own into the limelight. This convert was one Thomas Veith of Neuburg, who, it was stated, had been a Lutheran pastor in Schnürpflingen from 1616 until 1621. According to published versions of Veith’s retraction, his Lutheran beliefs had been gradually eroded during this time in Schnürpflingen.68 The reintroduction of Catholicism to Veith’s Neuburg homeland was reported to have instigated this process, which was accelerated by his exposure to Catholic writings and clarified in private conversations with the abbot of Wiblingen and other neighbouring learned priests.69 As a result the pastor renounced his old beliefs and became a religious exile.70 He was reported to have been given refuge by the bishop of Augsburg, which led to a public retraction in Dillingen on 6 January 1622. Veith’s published retraction is in many respects an inversion of Reihing’s. Its title mirrors Reihing’s work and it too presents a discourse on snares of religious falsehood. There are also echoes of Reihing’s tale in Veith’s conversion narrative: his errors were the result of miseducation; he served as an agent of a false church; he discovered the truth in theological writings; he abandoned a clerical post, fled a territory and became a religious refugee; he found an opportunity to renounce publically his former beliefs in the learned setting of a university. Doubts have been cast over Veith’s authorship of this pamphlet and by extension over his very existence. The Bayerische Staatsbibliothek and Das Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachraum erschienenen Drucke des 17. Jahrhunderts (VD17) records of the retraction maintain that Thomas Vitus (i.e. Veith) was a pseudonym for Jesuit Laurenz Forer, who is listed without qualification in the catalogues as its author.71 It is not surprising that doubts about Veith’s authorship first surfaced in the writings of various Tübingen Lutherans.72 Evidence does suggest that Veith was not a fabrication. His existence is suggested by the survival of a letter of 12 March 1621 that is attributed to him.73 Written in Latin and addressed to the abbot of Wiblingen, the text mentions Veith’s shifting confessional allegiances and his new-found interest in the writings of Catholic authors. Reference is made in the retraction to Veith’s dealings with the abbot, so it possible that this letter was planted in order to deceive anyone who might wish to investigate the case.74 The letter is not in Forer’s hand, although this does not rule out such a ruse.75 The church records of Schnürpflingen do not exclude the possibility that Veith existed, for while they contain no reference to Veith, the identity of the pastor in Schnürpflingen between 1616 and 1632 is not recorded, and the records of his tenure, potentially from 1616 to 1621, might have been lost or even destroyed.76 The presence of a contemporary description of Veith’s revocation in the records of the University of Dillingen also advances the probability of his existence.77 Fabrication of a phantom such as Veith by the bishop of Augsburg and the Jesuits at Dillingen would have constituted a major gamble on their part, for the discovery of a deceit of this magnitude would have significantly damaged their reputations. We have reason, therefore, to believe in Veith’s existence and conversion; whether he was in fact the author of the retraction is more doubtful. Following the publication of Reihing’s retraction, responses by Jesuits Georg Stengel, Simon Felix, Laurenz Forer and Andreas Forner appeared in print. Stengel’s very direct attack on Reihing is representative of the general tone of this material.78 It contains much invective against Reihing, who was characterized variously as a wolf in sheep’s clothing and a chameleon.79 Much of the commentary on Reihing’s wickedness is unveiled in the dedications. Stengel insists that he will not spare Reihing since Reihing has spared neither the Catholic Church nor the Society of Jesus.80 Stengel offers a lengthy riposte in twenty points to Reihing’s specific charges against the Catholic religion as laid out in his discourse on the nine snares. Stengel’s intervention was to be one of many such texts in a pamphlet war on theological matters that would be waged by scholars from Tübingen, Ingolstadt and Dillingen for the remainder of Reihing’s life. V: The Family Man Reihing’s transformation from Jesuit to Lutheran professor was accelerated by his marriage in May 1622.81 Reihing’s quest for a wife was encouraged by Thumm.82 After an unsuccessful first foray into the marriage market, a suitable candidate was found in Maria Welser, daughter of the deceased Augsburg patrician Anton Felix Welser. Owing to fears of Jesuit meddling, it was decided that the wedding should be celebrated in Bebenhausen rather than Augsburg.83 The drive to find a wife for Reihing can be viewed as part of a general project to manage and affirm Reihing’s spiritual and social transformation. By following in the footsteps of the early reformers in taking a wife, which in turn lent legitimacy to the act, Reihing sought to cleanse himself of his priestly character. Support for his marriage was also a clear signal of commitment to Reihing’s cause on the part of the Tübingen professors and the Stuttgart authorities. Reihing’s marriage was celebrated in print by his colleagues at Tübingen with the publication of the Hymenaeo Iacobi Reihingi, which contained twenty-two poems composed by professors, students and churchmen.84 By the 1620s the publication of epithalamia and other material celebrating the weddings of scholars had become common in Protestant universities.85 The Hymenaeo Iacobi Reihingi followed the conventions of such academic wedding pamphlets in containing a range of authors and spread of topics. These celebratory acts provoked a furious response from the Jesuits. Their first salvo came in the form of two anonymous pamphlets: the short Ein klein wolverdientes Trinck-Gelt and the longer Valetudinarium Musis Novis, which has been attributed to Georg Stengel.86 Both works target Reihing, the wedding celebrations and the poets of the Hymenaneo. The Tübingen scholar Conrad Cellarius came to the defence of Reihing, Maria Welser and the maligned poets by publishing a rejoinder to the insults levelled against them in the Valetudinarium.87 Cellarius’s retort did not go unanswered by the Jesuits, who published two more tracts: the Aesculapius Cunradi Cellarii, again attributed to Stengel, and Andreas Forner’s Convivium Semicalvino Evangelicum.88 A further work attacking the nuptials, the Tricinium Nuptiale, was published in Ingolstadt at some point during 1622. Since it does not refer to the other pamphlets, it is difficult to position within the sequence of the exchange.89 Assaults on Reihing’s character abound in the Jesuit literature. Forner’s attacks in the Convivium Semicalvino Evangelicum are representative. Reihing, Forner claims, had every chance to follow a godly path. He had benefitted from a Catholic education which in turn had led him to profess vows of chastity, poverty and obedience, all of which he had now broken. For Forner, Reihing’s marriage represented a far greater sin than adultery since it had led to the betrayal of his vows of priesthood. In the anonymous Ein klein wolverdientes Trinck-Gelt the suitability of Reihing for married life is questioned. The text quotes a passage from Martin Luther’s Table Talk in which he ponders how new husbands cope with the novelty of waking next to a pair of pigtails in the early stages of marriage.90 This pamphlet not only mocks Reihing but also targets the very practice of marriage advocated by Lutheran scholars. One of the chief targets of the Jesuits’ attack was the wedding celebration. Such an occasion gave licence to those wishing to imagine festive excess. In addition, the attack on this aspect of the event was also an assault on the community of Protestant scholars at Tübingen and their way of life. Forner’s Convivium Semicalvino Evangelicum is built around the humorous formal artifice of separate descriptions of twenty courses served at the wedding feast. Each course attacks an aspect of the wedding or of Reihing’s character. Forner’s sixth ‘dish’ draws attention to the fact that the wedding is celebrated in a time of war.91 This fails to dampen the festive mood of the wedding party, a fact which highlights the party’s moral poverty. Throughout the text, the reader is left in little doubt about the sinful indulgence of the revellers. The feast is shown to be an immodest occasion where the professors satisfy their various appetites unrestrained. They celebrate an unchaste marriage in a manner which befits its moral delinquency. The acts and ceremonies of community building in the Protestant university are thus tainted by an irreverent worldliness. The most striking aspect of the Jesuit denunciation of the wedding is the attack on the poetry published in celebration of it. This features in each of the Ingolstadt publications and is the central focus of the Valetudinarium and the Trinck-Gelt. In the Trinck-Gelt the Tübingen poets are accused of venality. The Valetudinarium ridicules their ignorance and stupidity. The title, the term for an ancient Roman infirmary, advertises the author’s purpose: he is establishing a hospital to tend to these crippled, irrational, impure, insipid and stupid poets, with each of these five maladies discussed in turn with examples drawn from the Hymenaeo. With red pen in hand, the author dissects the poetry of the Hymenaeo, highlighting a litany of compositional errors in order to lay bare the intellectual poverty of those who would celebrate such a wedding. The purposes of the Jesuit invectives are clear. In the first instance they serve to discredit Reihing, his supporters and their celebration of his wedding. Tübingen is portrayed as a site of corruption and a haven for the dim-witted scholar. More generally, the Jesuits seek to undermine Lutheran attempts to fortify and celebrate the extension of their scholarly community through marriage. The celebratory wedding pamphlet becomes a focus for the Jesuit attacks. Given that such publications were instrumental in the promotion of an ideal of the married scholar within Protestant universities, it is not surprising that the Jesuits chose the Tübingen epithalamia as their target. VI: Last Years In 1626, in a preface to a work by Reihing, the Tübingen theologians declared him to be ‘our kind, much-loved colleague and brother in Christ’.92 These sentiments, which succinctly emphasize Reihing’s conformity to comfortable ideals of academic character, signalled an unambiguous endorsement of the one-time Jesuit. Yet such public utterances disguised a more complicated reality. Although Reihing managed to forge a relatively stable career in Tübingen, his progress was not unimpeded.93 Reihing’s first appointment, made in 1622, was unusual in that his position was established for him directly by the duke. 94 The pay was low and Reihing was initially subject to a high degree of supervision of his writings and lectures (the former were subject to the approval of the censor in Stuttgart; the latter had to be approved by the faculty of theology).95 Reihing was sensitive to his uncertain status and he conveyed his apprehensions in his frequent letters to Johann Conrad Brodbeck, the ducal chamber secretary. Reihing’s persistent and well-directed pleading eventually secured an improvement in his pay and conditions. The departure of Melchior Nicolai from his post as extraordinary professor of theology in 1625 presented Reihing with an opportunity for betterment.96 Unlike the post that Reihing had held since 1622, Nicolai’s extraordinary professorship was established and commanded a certain status in the institution. An epistolary campaign by Reihing proved successful and his appointment to the position was eventually secured through ducal intervention. The terms of this appointment led to a minor dispute between the university and the ruler relating to concessions on preaching responsibilities, from which Reihing was excused by ducal order.97 The established professors objected on the grounds that preaching was a core duty of the post and that they did not enjoy such terms. An accommodation was reached which led Reihing to assume some preaching duties. In addition to this issue, administrative records also reveal some local questioning of the salary awarded to Reihing.98 These negotiations can be viewed as typical manifestations of mundane academic politics, in which issues of precedence, hierarchy and salaries were at stake. Also in play in these minor struggles was the question of the university’s autonomy, its independence of the princely administration. All in all, however, these private interactions were not intended to disrupt Reihing’s public image as a respected Tübingen theologian. During the last years of his life, Reihing’s reputation and status continued to be contested in print. Reihing’s Jesuit detractors, including Forer, Felix and Stengel, maintained their campaign against him and his writings. In a literary tit-for-tat each new publication produced a hostile response focused on debunking or ridiculing its content. Reihing’s credibility and the authenticity of his conversion continued to be foci of Jesuit commentary. Ultimately these contestations became rather self-contained and their wider impact was diminished through repetition. One remarkable feat of public self-contortion stands out in these final years. In a two-volume work published in German Reihing refuted the ideas expressed in his own Catholisches Handbuch of 1620, which had been published in turn as a refutation of Hoë’s Evangelisches Handbüchlein.99 Reihing’s taking it upon himself to refute his own work was a remarkable and potentially humiliating act of self-scrutiny. The text is introduced by four prefatory pieces which contextualize and characterize Reihing’s extended exercise in self-criticism. The first, a dedication to Johann Georg of Saxony, who, like his court preacher Hoë, was a central figure in Lutheran orthodoxy,100 is used to unveil a narrative of how Reihing had come to publish the Catholisches Handbuch and why he was now retracting the opinions he had expressed there. A second prefatory section provides a platform for the Tübingen theologians to contextualize Reihing’s work and an opportunity for them to voice their support for the exercise. This is followed by a preface to the reader by Reihing, in which he targets his Jesuit opponents and their writings against him and thus frames the work within this reputational battle and envisages it as an instrument to defend his character. The final prefatory voice is that of Hoë, who offers his endorsement of Reihing. VII: Reihing at Rest After a short illness, Reihing died on 5 May 1628. He was mourned very publicly by his colleagues in Tübingen. The conventional formulae of academic public mourning were applied, with the staging of a public funeral attended by significant figures and the printing of a commemorative sermon, a funeral oration, an official funeral notice and a portrait. This suggests that within only a few years, Reihing had made a rather remarkable transition in status from the shadowy figure of a Jesuit convert to run of the mill Lutheran professor who died leaving a pensioned wife and child.101 Reihing’s conformity to this pleasant archetype is evident not only in how he was remembered by his colleagues but also in the content of the commemorative texts.102 They have an inevitable focus on his life and achievements during his brief years as a Lutheran professor, with an emphasis on matters social: his personality and his qualities as teacher, colleague, husband and father.103 These conventional details serve to emphasize the extent to which Reihing came to conform to an archetypal model of a Lutheran professor in his final years. Details of Reihing’s problematical pre-Tübingen life are not suppressed but are discussed within the framework of a narrative on the liberating effect of Scripture and Lutheran theology on an intelligent mind which had been kept in ignorance. Gone are the sharper edges of criticism and uncertainty about Reihing’s integrity that are in evidence in the Lutheran texts of 1621 and 1622. A softening of the narrative is evident, for example, in Osiander’s description of Reihling’s childhood in the sermon he preached at Reihing’s funeral.104 Osiander bends the truth by stating that both of Reihing’s parents had died before he entered the Jesuit college in Augsburg at the age of eight; at the time his mother was still living (indeed there is evidence his mother was alive in 1627).105 Imagined as an orphan, the young Reihing appears even more vulnerable as he is pulled helplessly into the clutches of the malign Jesuit order, where he becomes a victim of miseducation and indoctrination. Despite this bad start Reihing ultimately found his way to knowledge of Scripture. The core message is clear: the truly learned, sensitive scholar, however misdirected in his education, will recognize the truth when confronted with it. Reihing thus becomes an emblem of evangelical truth. VIII: Conclusion Reihing’s defection was an unexpected gain for the duke of Württemberg and the Tübingen Lutherans at a time of great political peril. The chief value of Reihing’s defection was as propaganda, as a humiliating blow to the Counter-Reformation agendas of Wolfgang Wilhelm of Pfalz-Neuburg and Maximilian of Bavaria. Questions about Reihing’s credibility hung the air for some time and only when the Catholic Commission’s investigation had concluded did Johann Frederick decide to commit to Reihing. The result was a quite a remarkable rehabilitation, carefully managed by the duke through his secretary Brodbeck and the Tübingen professors. Step by step, the Jesuit scholar became a Lutheran scholar: first his public retraction, then his marriage and appointment as an extraordinary professor; and finally his promotion to an established professorial position. These transitions were matched by a series of representations which increasingly defined Reihing according to a Lutheran professorial archetype. The Jesuits continued to work to disrupt these representations and malign Reihing’s reputation. His marriage provoked their particular ire, and their response reveals how the struggle over Reihing fed into broader conflicts involving the universities of Tübingen and Ingolstadt as the chief representatives of rival Lutheran and Catholic academic cultures. Reihing’s reputation and image became grist for a broader dispute about the moral and social integrity of opposing ideals of how the scholar should live and interact with society. This debate around Reihing did not end with his death or that of his Jesuit detractors, for it continued within the memorial and historical traditions of each confession throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and indeed echoes of it continued to sound in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.106 These reworkings reveal Reihing’s value as an emblem of either betrayal or redemption within opposing confessional traditions. More than anything they reveal the persistent potency of the initial antagonistic representations of the man that followed his conversion in 1621. Footnotes 1 The Frankfurt Semestral featured a report on Reihing: Relationis Historicae Semestralis Continuatio (Frankfurt/Main, 1621), Das Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachraum erschienenen Drucke des 17. Jahrhunderts (VD17) 39:124356C, pp. 102–3. 2 See, for example, G. Algazi, ‘Scholars in Households: Refiguring the Learned Habitus, 1480–1550’, Science in Context, 16, 1–2 (2003), pp. 9–42. On the efforts to encourage academic marriage see R. Kirwan, Empowerment and Representation at the University in Early Modern Germany: Helmstedt and Würzburg, 1576–1634 (Wiesbaden, 2009), pp. 143–72. 3 See, for example, M. Asche, ‘Über den Nutzen von Landesuniversitäten in der Frühen Neuzeit—Leistung und Grenzen der protestantische “Familienuniversität”‘, in P. Herde and A. Schindling (eds), Universität Würzburg und Wissenschaft in der Neuzeit: Beiträge zur Bildungsgeschichte. Gewidmet Peter Baumgart anläßlich seines 65. Geburtstages (Würzburg, 1998), pp. 133–49. 4 K. Hengst, Jesuiten an Universitäten und Jesuitenuniversitäten: zur Geschichte der Universitäten in der Oberdeutschen und Rheinischen Provinz der Gesellschaft Jesu im Zeitalter der konfessionellen Auseinandersetzung (Paderborn, 1981). 5 On the antagonism between Lutheran theologians and the Jesuits see T. Kaufmann, Konfession und Kultur: lutherischer Protestantismus in der zweiten Hälfte des Reformationsjahrhunderts (Tübingen, 2006), pp. 205–99. See especially the discussion of the impact of a sequence of defections from the Jesuit order, pp. 268–84. 6 K. F. Ledderhose, D. Jakob Reihing, der bekehrte Jesuit (Barmen, [1889]); J. Schall, Doktor Jakob Reihing, einst Jesuit, dann (Konvertit) evangelischer Christ, 1579–1628 (Halle/Salle, 1894); K. Schwindel, D. Jakob Reihing: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Gegenreformation (Munich, 1931); A. Schmid, ‘Reihing, Jakob’, in L. Boehm et al. (eds), Biographisches Lexikon der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, vol.1: Ingolstadt-Landshut 1472–1826 (Berlin, 1998), pp. 332–3; H. Altmann, ‘Reihing, Jakob’, in Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon (BBKL), vol. 14 (Herzberg, 1998), col. 1400–7; Altmann, ‘Reihing, Jakob’, in Neue Deutsche Biographie (NDB), vol. 21 (Berlin, 2003), pp. 330–1; R. Reinhold, ‘Reihing, Jacob’, in Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. 7 (Tübingen, 2004), col. 237. For a general overview of confessional deviance and mobility among scholars see M. Asche, ‘Von Konfessionseiden und gelehrten Glaubensflüchtlingen, von Konvertiten und heterodoxen Gelehrten: Mobilitätsphänomene konfessionell devianter Professoren zwischen obrigkeitlicher Duldung, Landesverweis und freiwilligem Abzug’, in H. P. Jürgens and T. Weller (eds), Religion und Mobilität: zum Verhältnis von raumbezogener Mobilität und religiöser Identitätsbildung im frühneuzeitlichen Europa (Göttingen, 2010), pp. 375–400. 7 See, for example, J. Oswald, ‘Der Jesuit Jakob Reihing’, Neuburger Kollektaneenblatt, 161 (2013), pp. 16–41. 8 See R. H. Seitz, ‘Pfalzgraf Wolfgang Wilhelm (1578–1653)—ein Neuburger Fürst’, in Lebensbilder aus dem Bistum Augsburg: vom Mittelalter bis in die neueste Zeit, 39 (2005), pp. 107–28, here p. 117; Oswald, ‘Der Jesuit Jakob Reihing’, p. 20. 9 Altmann, ‘Reihing, Jakob’, BBKL, vol. 14, col. 1400. 10 It is generally assumed that Wolfgang Wilhelm converted to Catholicism and aligned himself with the Bavarian Wittelsbachs in order to secure succession in Jülich-Cleves-Berg. See A. Herzig, Der Zwang zum wahren Glauben: Rekatholisierung vom 16. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert (Göttingen, 2000), pp. 59–64; E. O. Mader, ‘Staatsräson und Konversion: politische Theorie und praktische Politik als Entscheidungshintergründe für den Übertritt Wolfgang Wilhelms von Pfalz-Neuburg zum Katholizismus’, in H. Kugeler, C. Sepp and G Wolf (eds), Internationale Beziehungen in der Frühen Neuzeit: Ansätze und Perspektiven (Münster, 2006), pp. 120–50; G. Immler, ‘Maximilian von Bayern und Wolfgang Wilhelm von Pfalz-Neuburg: zwei Wittelsbacher zwischen konfessioneller Solidarität und machtpolitischer Konkurrenz’, in A. Schmid and H. Rumschöttel (eds), Wittelsbacher-Studien (Munich, 2013), pp. 375–87. 11 Altmann, ‘Reihing, Jakob’, NDB, vol. 21, p. 331. 12 Oswald, ‘Der Jesuit Jakob Reihing’, p. 133. 13 Reihing, Catholisches Handbuch. Wieder das vermeindte Evangelische Handbüchlein Matthiae Hoe (Neuburg, 1620), VD17 12:110591F. 14 It was not to be the only such desertion. In 1627 another prominent figure in Wolfgang Wilhelm’s administration, Christian Fischer, also abandoned his prince and confession and sought asylum in Stuttgart: Universitätsarchiv Tübingen (UAT) 12/3, 217–30. 15 See, for example, A. Gotthard, Konfession und Staatsräson: die Außenpolitik Württembergs unter Herzog Johann Friedrich (1608–1628) (Stuttgart, 1992); A. L. Thomas, A House Divided: Wittelsbach Confessional Court Cultures in the Holy Roman Empire, c. 1550–1650 (Leiden, 2010). 16 G. Parker and S. Adams, ‘Europe and the Palatine War’, in G. Parker (ed.), The Thirty Years’ War (2nd edn, London and New York, 1997; 1st edn, 1984), pp. 55–63, here p. 57. 17 Ibid., p. 54. 18 Ibid., pp. 57–8. 19 Gotthard, Konfession, pp. 350–434. 20 Ibid., p. 373. 21 Ibid., p. 321. 22 J. Whaley, Germany and the Holy Roman Empire, vol. 1: Maximilian I to the Peace of Westphalia: 1493–1648 (Oxford, 2012), p. 421. 23 Ibid., pp. 426–7; D. Albrecht, Maximilian I. von Bayern 1573–1651 (Munich, 1998), pp. 465–71. 24 Albrecht, Maximilian I., pp. 471–2; F. Nadwornicek, ‘Pfalz-Neuburg’, in A. Schindling and W. Ziegler (eds), Die Territorien des Reichs im Zeitalter der Reformation und Konfessionalisierung: Land und Konfession 1500–1650, vol. 1: Der Südosten (Münster, 1989), pp. 44–55, here p. 53. 25 On the ius emigrandi see M. Asche, ‘Auswanderungsrecht und Migration aus Glaubensgründen—Kenntnisstand und Forschungsperspektiven zur ius emigrandi Regelung des Augsburger Religionsfriedens’, in H. Schilling and H. Smolinsky (eds), Der Augsburger Religionsfrieden 1555 (Gütersloh, 2007), pp. 75–104. 26 On the phenomenon of learned conversion see L. Boehm, ‘Konversion: einige historische Aspekte aus der christlichen Frömmigkeitsgeschichte mit Beispielen von Professoren der alten Universität Ingolstadt’, in K. Krämer and A. Paus (eds), Die Weite des Mysteriums: christliche Identität im Dialog (Freiburg/Breisgau, 2000), pp. 522–48, and M. Pohlig, ‘Gelehrter Frömmigkeitsstil und das Problem der Konfessionswahl: Christoph Besolds Konversion zum Katholizismus’, in U. Lotz-Heumann, J. F. Mißfelder and M. Pohlig (eds), Konversion und Konfession in der Frühen Neuzeit (Gütersloh, 2007), pp. 323–52. 27 The university offered asylum to learned religious converts and exiles during this period, primarily in the form of sanctuary in the ducal Stipendium. I am currently investigating the experiences of these learned refugees as part of a broader study of scholarly conversion in the Empire in the years c.1555–1648. This project is funded by the Gerda Henkel Stiftung. 28 Gründtlicher Bericht/ Von der Wunderbahren Bekehrung von dem Pabstumb zum H. Evangelio/ Herrn Jacobi Reihing/ … (n.p., 1621), VD17 1:638809B, pp. 18–19. 29 The procedure for dealing with learned converts was established on 7 October 1607 by ducal order and Reihing’s treatment in the early stages was typical of the norm. See, for example, UAT 12/3, 73. 30 Schreiben vnd Relation/ wegen Pater Jacob Reihings/ gewesten Jesuiten/ so nach Stuetgart kommen/ Anno 1621 (n.p., 1621), VD17 14:070966P. The publication of such a report on an asylum seeker was highly unusual. 31 Ibid., pp. 1–2. 32 Ibid., p. 1: ‘ … vnd ein Jesuiter Pater so sich in die achthalb Jahr für einen Hoffprediger /Inquisitorn vnd Auffsteher der verk[e]hrten Ketzereyen (wie diese Männer zu reden pflegen) zu Newburg gebrauchen lassen / angeben / mit fürgeben/ daß in Widerlegung deß Herren D. Hoe Büchlein jm[e] die Warheit dermassen vnder die Augen geschienen /…’. 33 One would have to wonder whether this verse was composed by Reihing himself. The format, tone, style and character of the piece do not match his other writings. 34 Here he admits to his disordered priorities, particularly in privileging the papacy over Scripture: Schreiben vnd Relation, p. 2. 35 Ibid., pp. 2–3, 5–6. 36 Ibid., p. 5. 37 UAT 12/3, 149; Schwindel, Reihing, pp. 80–1. 38 This Schandlied is reproduced in the German language version of Reihing’s retraction, Laquei Pontificii contriti, Das ist/ Schuldige Underthänigste Dancksagung/ Jacob Reihings/ Geschlechters von Augspurg/ der H. Schrifft Doctors: Daß er durch Gottes Hülffe auß den Stricken der Bäpstischen Irrthumben heraußgerissen/ und errettet worden (Tübingen, 1621), VD17 12:107912L, pp. 35–9. Reihing’s purpose was to refute the accusations levelled against him in the verse. 39 Schwindel, Reihing, pp. 85–93. 40 Gründtlicher Bericht, pp. 1–8. 41 Ibid., pp. 9–12. 42 Ibid., p. 16. 43 Ibid., pp. 19–20. 44 Ibid., pp. 20–1. On p. 20: ‘Vnd hab in seiner Nachbarschafft/ Mit einer Jungfraw gut kundtschafft/ Die er vor einem viertel Jahr/ Verfelt hab/ vnd geschwängert gar/ Drumb hab er außgerissen eben/ Er müst sonst die Tauffsuppen geben/ ...’. 45 Ibid., p. 20: ‘Dann als das Maidlin auß geheiß/ Besichtigt wurd mit allem fleiß/ Ward sie noch zur selbigen stunden/ Von der Hebam ein Jungfraw funden.’ 46 Ibid., p. 20: ‘O schand vnd spott/ O Lugen groß/ ...’. 47 Jesuitische Niderreissung Hergegen Christliche/ Apostolische vnd Euangelische Aufferbawung der betrübten/ armen und betrangten Kirchen Gottes allhier auff Erden (n.p., [1620]), VD17 1:089550G. For a discussion of this work see C. P. Warncke, Sprechende Bilder—sichtbare Worte: das Bildverständnis in der frühen Neuzeit (Wiesbaden, 1987), pp. 255–79, and M. Niemetz, Antijesuitische Bildpublizistik in der Frühen Neuzeit: Geschichte, Ikonographie und Ikonologie (Regensburg, 2008), pp. 99–100. 48 These events and the Senate’s response are recorded in UAT 2/13, 194 and 195 (both 26 Oct. 1621). Records of the investigation that followed are contained in UAT 9/6, 19, nos. 26–40. 49 UAT 9/6, 19, no. 37, undated. 50 UAT 9/6, 19, no. 26, dated 7 Nov. 1621. 51 UAT 2/13, 20, dated 21 Nov. 1621. 52 UAT, 9/6, 19, nos. 26–40. 53 UAT 9/6, 19, no. 30: copy of Ludwig Feickelman to Eberhard Gilgen, dated 1 Dec. 1621. 54 UAT 9/6, 19, no. 32: ducal instruction to the University of Tübingen, dated 7 Dec. 1621. See also UAT 2/13, 209: senate protocol of 9 Dec. 1621 affording protection to Reihing. 55 Reihing, Laquei Pontificii contriti: Quibus Adiuvante Domino liberatus, Liberatori Suo Ter Opt. Max. Libenter, Merito, Publicas, Solemnesque Gratias, In Illustri Et Orthodoxa Tubingensi Academia, dicere voluit, Anno Christi MDCXXI. ... (Tübingen, 1621), VD17 12:107892G, and Reihing, Laquei Pontificii contriti, Das ist/ Schuldige Underthänigste Dancksagung/ Jacob Reihings/ Geschlechters von Augspurg/ der H. Schrifft Doctors: Daß er durch Gottes Hülffe auß den Stricken der Bäpstischen Irrthumben heraußgerissen/ und errettet worden (Tübingen, 1621), VD17 12:107912L. Two other German editions were published in 1621: one printed in Kempten (VD17 12:107921K) and a second published without details of the place of publication (VD17 39:121371Q). Further German editions were published in 1622 (VD17 12:107654L and VD17 39:130668B), 1626 (VD17 3:312013E) and 1629 (VD17 56:740772K). On revocation sermons in general see A. Schunka, ‘Transgressionen: Revokationspredigten von Konvertiten im mitteldeutschen Raum im 17. Jahrhundert’, in Lotz-Heumann, Mißfelder and Pohlig (eds), Konversion und Konfession, pp. 491–516; and S. Rütter, Konstruktion von Bekenntnisidentität in Konversionsschriften der Frühen Neuzeit (Berlin, 2014), esp. pp. 181–241 for a comparative, corpus-linguistic analysis of retraction texts. 56 Lucas Osiander, Christliche Erinnerung Bey dem Revocations-Actu, … / den 23. Novembris/ Anno 1621. zu Tübingen/ in der Kirchen zu S. Georgen/ D. Jacob Reyhing/ … / Die Papistische Lehr offentlich Widerruffen/ und sich zu der Reinen Evangelischen Lehr/ ohngeEnderter Augspurgischer Confession bekennet (Tübingen, 1622), VD17 12:117592U. 57 Reihing, Laquei Pontificii contriti (German version), p. 1: ‘Gelobet sey der HERR/ daß er vns nicht gibet zum Raube in ihre Zähne. Vnser Seele ist entrunnen/ wie ein Vogel/ dem Stricke deß Voglers. Der Strick ist zurissen/ vnd wir sind loß. Vnser Hülffe stehet im Namen deß HERRN/ der Himmel vnd Erden gemacht hat.’ English translation from the NIV. 58 Ibid., p. 3: ‘Also wil ich sagen/ also wil ich singen/ also wil ich schreiben / so lang sich meine Zung vnd Hand würdt rhüren.’ 59 Ibid., p. 8: ‘Sie ziehen deß Thomae von Aquin Bücher mehrer in den Händen vmb/ als die Bibel. Auff ihren Hohenschulen ist ein grosser Hauff deren/ die deß Thomae von Aquin Summam außlegen hören: Deren aber/ die der Biblischen Bücher Außlegung beywohnen/ seyn sehr wenig.’ 60 Ibid., p. 9: ‘Die Gelehrte vnd Geistliche lesen sie selten vnd wenig: Die Vngelehrte vnd Layen nie/ oder selten. Und würdt noch ferrner den Layen die Lesung der H. Bibel nicht gerhaten/ sondern widerrhaten: ja wol auch mit gewissem Geding verbotten.’ 61 Ibid., pp. 9–10. 62 Ibid., p. 10. 63 Ibid., pp. 11–50. 64 Ibid., pp. 36–9. 65 Ibid., pp. 41–3. 66 Reihing, Sermon, Von dem vermeinten Bäpstischen Meß-Opffer: Den 30. Novemb. Anno 1621. An dem Fest deß Heiligen Apostels Andreae/ zu Stuttgart ... gehalten ... (Tübingen, 1621), VD17 14:670923C. 67 The theft of the exemplar was a source of particular concern to Reihing and the university. See UAT 12/3, 121–141 and UAT 2/13, 198, 199, 207, 208, 386–7. 68 Thomas Veith, Laquei Lutherani Ad Veram Christi Ecclesiam Contriti (Dillingen, [1622]), VD17 12:111014D. A German version was also printed under the title Laquei Lutherani Contriti Das ist: Schuldige Underthänigste Dancksagung/ Thomae Viti von Newburg an der Thonaw/ gebürtig/ und in der Pfaltz vor diesem in die drey un[d] dreyssig/ wie auch hernach zu Schnirpflingen in die fünff Jahr geweßten Lutherischen Predigers/ Das er durch Gottes Hilff auß den Stricken der Lutherischen Irrthumben herauß gerissen unnd errettet worden (Dillingen, 1622), VD17 12:111019S. 69 Ibid., dedicatory epistle to the bishop of Augsburg, pp. 3–5. 70 Ibid., dedicatory epistle, p. 5. 71 See the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek and VD17 catalogue records for VD17 12:111014D. 72 Disbelief over the authorship was expressed by the Tübingen authors, including Reihing in his Dissertatio de Vera Christi in terris Ecclesià, Adversùs Larvatum Iesuitam Dilinganum (Tübingen, 1622), VD17 12:141845K, see especially the ‘Parodia Catulliana IN TH. VITVLVM’, pp. 41–2. Various Jesuit authors hotly disputed this contention including Simon Felix, who devoted a chapter of his Vulpecula Tubingensis, Demoliens Vineam Ecclesiae Christi (Dillingen, 1622), VD17 12:108337H, to Veith’s defence: ‘Caput II: Thomas Vitus à Calumniis vindicatur’, pp. 7–12. Nonetheless, the idea that Forer was the text’s author was disseminated later in the century by a Catholic author, Philippus Alegambe, in Bibliotheca Scriptorum Societatis Jesu (Antwerp, 1643), p. 296. See also Schwindel, Reihing, pp. 10, 132–3. 73 Landesarchiv Baden Württemberg—Staatsarchiv Ludwigsburg, StAL B 532 II Bü 272: Veith to the abbot of Wiblingen, 12 Mar. 1621. 74 Veith, Schuldige Underthänigste Dancksagung, p. 4. 75 For an example of Forer’s hand see Laurenz Forer to Matthäus Rader, 2 Dec. 1621, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 1611.f.150. 76 For a description of Veith’s tenure in Schnürpflingen see Kurt Schebesta, ‘Die Schnürpflinger Chronik’ (1950): http://www.schnuerpflingen.de/gemeindeinfo/geschichte/chronik, accessed 26 July 2016. According to Schebesta, Veith found security in the service of the bishop of Augsburg after his conversion. 77 ‘Acta universitatis Dilinganae’, vol. 1: 1551–1632, ff. 296–7, Studienbibliothek Dillingen XV 226–1. 78 Stengel’s work was published in German and Latin versions: Vermeint-Päbstische/ aigentlich-Lutherische Fallstrick Deß Armseelig- und auß Göttlicher verhängnus ubel verstrickten Manns/ Jacobi Reihing Augustani / … (Ingolstadt, 1622), VD17 12:113524W, and Dissertatio De Laqueis Pontificiis nomine, re Lutheranis: Quos, Irato Deo, misere illaqueatus Jacobus Reihing Augustanus Texuit; … (Ingolstadt, 1622), VD17 12:111691R. 79 Stengel, Vermeint-Päbstische/ aigentlich-Lutherische Fallstrick, ‘An der Leser’. 80 Ibid., ‘An der Leser’, [1]: ‘Lasse dir nicht frembd fürkommen/ Günstiger Leser/ daß ich dem Reihing nicht verschone/ dann er weder der Catholischen Kirchen / noch der Societet verschonet hat.’ 81 UAT 2/13, 207, 257, 259. Reihing’s letters to Brodbeck from January 1622 (Landesarchiv Baden-Württemberg—Hauptstaatsarchiv Stuttgart A 63 Bü 85, nos. 23–43) discuss various aspects of the engagement, the wedding and its aftermath. 82 Schwindel, Reihing, pp. 140–1. 83 UAT 2/13, 257, 259. 84 Hymenaeo Jacobi Reihingi, Patricii Augustani, Theologiae Doctoris et Professoris Tubingensis, Sponsi, & Mariae Velserae, Antonii Felicis, Patricii Augustani, F. Sponsae Sacrum Ab Amicis (Tübingen, 1622), VD17 12:152248G. 85 See, for example, R. Kirwan, ‘Scholarly Reputations and Institutional Prestige: The Fashioning of the Public Image of the University of Helmstedt, 1576–1680’, History of Universities, 25, 2 (2011), pp. 51–79, here pp. 61–6. 86 [Georg Stengel], Valetudinarium Musis Novis, Et XXII. Poetis Vetulis, Frigidis, Nudis, Edentulis, Claudis, &c. Hymenaeum Jacobi Reihingi Praedicantis non minus inscite, quam impie, hoc est, praedicantice celebrantibus, Ab Apolline Et Veris Christianisque Musis commiserationis ergo erectum & attributum (Ingolstadt, 1622), VD17 12:645847C, and Ein klein wolverdientes Trinck-Gelt Für die XXII. Poeten/ so deß außgesprungenen Jacob Reihings Ehrnreiches Hochzeit-Fest mit sonders saubern und wolgehobelten Versen nach besten vermögen gezieret: … (Ingolstadt, 1622), VD17 12:111822P. 87 Conrad Cellarius, Tonstrina, Aedilibus Valetudinarii Poetici, Ingolstadii Novis Musis & viginti duobus Poetis, hymenaeum Jacobi Reihingi celebrantibus nuper erecti: ... (Tübingen, 1622), VD17 12:141880X. 88 [Georg Stengel], Aesculapius Cunradi Cellarii, Seu Pars Secunda Valetudinarii Poetici, Musis Novis Et XXII Poetis, …: Nunc Insigniter locupletati & dilatati de Cunradi Cellarii Tonstrina Apollinis Fisco addicta (Ingolstadt, 1622), VD17 12:656266H, and Andreas Forner, Convivium Semicalvino-Evangelicum Hymenaeo Jacobi Reihingi Patricii Augustani, Theologiae Doctoris, & Professoris Tubingensis, Apostatae Sponsi: Et Mariae Welserae Patriciae Augustanae Sponsae Sacrum (Ingolstadt, 1622), VD17 1:076610V. 89 Tricinium Nuptiale Jacobo Reihingo novo Nuptiatori/ A Tribus Sanctis Patribus Basilio, Chrysostomo, Et Ambrosio Decantatum Cum tribus Epicitharismatis, B. Davidis, S. Augustini, & S. Cypriani (Ingolstadt, 1622), VD17 12:655952E. 90 Trinck-Gelt, pp. 2–3. 91 Forner, Convivium, pp. 14–19: Ferculum VI. 92 Reihing, In zween Theil abgetheilte Retractation, und gründtliche Widerlegung/ seines falschgenandten Catholischen Handbuchs: … (Tübingen, 1626), VD17 12:110109M and 12:110103R. Here part 1, ‘An den Christlichen Leser[.] Vorred Der Württembergischen Theologen’: ‘... vnsern freundtlichen vilgeliebten Collegam, vnd in Christo Brudern’. 93 E. Conrad, Die Lehrstühle der Universität Tübingen und ihre Inhaber (1477–1927) (Tübingen, 1960), p. 152; Schwindel, Reihing, pp. 128–31. 94 B. Zaschka, Die Lehrstühle der Universität Tübingen im Dreißigjährigen Krieg: zur sozialen Wirklichkeit von Professoren im vorklassischen Zeitalter (Tübingen, 1993), pp. 80–3; S. Holtz, Theologie und Alltag: Lehre und Leben in den Predigten der Tübinger Theologen 1550–1750 (Tübingen, 1993), pp. 19–20. 95 Zaschka, Die Lehrstühle, pp. 82–3; Schwindel, Reihing, p. 130. The following protocols of the academic senate from January to October 1622 adjudicate Reihing’s remuneration: UAT 2/13 218, 232, 233, 319. Reihing’s terms are also discussed in the records of the faculty of theology: UAT 12/1, 23–28b. 96 Zaschka, Die Lehrstühle, p. 83; Schwindel, Reihing, pp. 163–5. 97 UAT 2/14, 346. 98 UAT 2/14, 357: the response of the senate to a query from Dr David Magirus concerning Reihing’s salary, 2 Mar. 1626. 99 Reihing, In zween Theil abgetheilte Retractation (1626). The university was keen to support Reihing in this effort and rewarded him with an honorarium of 8 Reichsthaler: UAT 2/14, 428 and 437v. 100 Hans Knapp, Matthias Hoe von Hoenegg und sein Eingreifen in die Politik und Publizistik des Dreissigjährigen Krieges (Halle/Saale, 1902). 101 A senatorial protocol of 2 Jan. 1626 considers and grants a request from Maria Welser for additional support: UAT 2/15, 214. 102 Lucas Osiander, Christliche Leichpredig/ Bey der Begräbnuß/ Weilund deß ... Herren/ Jacobi Reihings/ der Heyligen Schrifft Doctoris und berhümten Professoris zu Tübingen: ... (Tübingen, 1628), VD17 39:139476W, and Johann Martin Rauscher, Laudatio Funebris Praeclari Theologi Jacobi Reihingi (Tübingen, 1629), VD17 12:123365X. 103 See, for example, Osiander, Christliche Leichpredig, pp. 30–1. 104 Ibid., p. 27. 105 Altmann, ‘Reihing, Jakob’, BBKL, vol. 14, col. 1400. 106 See, for example, among many, Andreas Carolus, Memorabilia Ecclesiastica Seculi à Nato Christo Decimi Septimi, vol. 1 (Tübingen, 1697), VD17 12:116603U, pp. 527–8; Franz Xaver Kropf, Historia Provinciae Societatis Jesu, Germaniae Superioris, Pars Quarta (Munich, 1746), pp. 253–67; Debler, ‘Das Leben des Dr. Jakob Reihing’, in W. Marriott (ed.), Der Wahre Protestant, vol. 3 (Basel, 1854), pp. 3–26. © The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the German History Society. All rights reserved.

Journal

German HistoryOxford University Press

Published: Mar 1, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off