This book presents a contemporary, eyewitness account of the life of Martin Luther translated into English. Johannes Cochlaeus (1479–1552) was present in the great hall at the Diet of Worms on April 18, 1521 when Luther made his famous declaration before Emperor Charles V: ‘Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen’. Afterward, Cochlaeus sought Luther out, met him at his inn, and privately debated with him. Luther wrote of Cochlaeus, ‘may God long preserve this most pious man, born to guard and teach the Gospel of His church, together with His word, Amen’. However, the confrontation left Cochlaeus convinced that Luther was an impious and malevolent man. Over the next twnety-five years, Cochlaeus barely escaped the Peasant's War with his life. He debated with Melanchthon and the reformers of Augsburg. It was Cochlaeus who conducted the authorities to the clandestine printing press in Cologne, where William Tyndale was preparing the first English translation of the New Testament (1525). For an eyewitness account of the Reformation—and the beginnings of the Catholic Counter-Reformation—no other historical document matches the first-hand experience of Cochlaeus. After Luther's death, it was rumoured that demons seized the reformer on his death-bed and dragged him off to Hell. In response to these rumours, Luther's friend and colleague Philip Melanchthon wrote and published a brief encomium of the reformer in 1548. Cochlaeus consequently completed and published his monumental life of Luther in 1549.
Bordering intimacy is a study of how borders and dominant forms of intimacy, such as family, are central to the governance of postcolonial states such as Britain. The book explores the connected history between contemporary border regimes and the policing of family with the role of borders under European and British empires. Building upon postcolonial, decolonial and black feminist theory, the investigation centres on how colonial bordering is remade in contemporary Britain through appeals to protect, sustain and make family life. Not only was family central to the making of colonial racism but claims to family continue to remake, shore up but also hide the organisation of racialised violence in liberal states. Drawing on historical investigations, the book investigates the continuity of colonial rule in numerous areas of contemporary government – family visa regimes, the policing of sham marriages, counterterror strategies, deprivation of citizenship, policing tactics, integration policy. In doing this, the book re-theorises how we think of the connection between liberal government, race, family, borders and empire. In using Britain as a case, this opens up further insights into the international/global circulations of liberal empire and its relationship to violence.
By expanding the geographical scope of the history of violence and war, this
volume challenges both Western and state-centric narratives of the decline of
violence and its relationship to modernity. It highlights instead similarities
across early modernity in terms of representations, legitimations, applications
of, and motivations for violence. It seeks to integrate methodologies of the
study of violence into the history of war, thereby extending the historical
significance of both fields of research. Thirteen case studies outline the
myriad ways in which large-scale violence was understood and used by states and
non-state actors throughout the early modern period across Africa, Asia, the
Americas, the Atlantic, and Europe, demonstrating that it was far more complex
than would be suggested by simple narratives of conquest and resistance.
Moreover, key features of imperial violence apply equally to large-scale
violence within societies. As the authors argue, violence was a continuum,
ranging from small-scale, local actions to full-blown war. The latter was
privileged legally and increasingly associated with states during early
modernity, but its legitimacy was frequently contested and many of its violent
forms, such as raiding and destruction of buildings and crops, could be found in
activities not officially classed as war.
civil servants were subsequently admonished to strictly enforce, banned all
forms of pastoral medical therapy. Clergymen in violation of this law were
threatened with severe punishment. 16 However, the practice of following and administering this
decree was discontinued after some time. In 1841, the chaplain of the
Siegburg mental institution, Reverend Löhr, had to ask the Cologne
Generalvikar to intercede against the practice of exorcising
Diplomacy, cross-border patronage, and the negotiation of subsidy
alliances in the north-western part of the Holy Roman Empire (late seventeenth
, Allemagne, vol. 133, fol. 164r, Servien to Mazarin,
14 July 1656.
17 His political biography is detailed in Margarethe Hintereicher, Georg
Christian von Hessen-Homburg (1626–1677): Offizier, Diplomat und Regent
in den Jahrzehnten nach dem Dreissigjährigen Krieg (Darmstadt: Hessische
Historische Kommission, 1985).
18 Hintereicher, Georg Christian, pp. 89–133; Tilman Haug, Ungleiche
Außenbeziehungen und grenzüberschreitende Patronage: Frankreich und
die geistlichen Kurfürsten 1648–1679 (Cologne: Böhlau, 2015), pp. 179–192.
Subsidies, diplomacy, and state formation
encouraged to continue their education at a school
for advanced theology; and Institoris probably studied theology at the studium
generale at Cologne, which, after St. Jacques in Paris, was the most prestigious
Dominican school in fifteenth-century Europe. There he would have studied
and lectured on sacred scripture, the Sentences of Peter Lombard, and the theology of Thomas Aquinas. All in all a degree of Master of Theology required
at least fourteen years of higher education, but, since friars were required to
teach as lectors at provincial schools for between five and
– Gesellschaft – Krieg: Studien zur
bellizistischen Disposition des absoluten Fürstenstaates, ed. by Johannes
Kunisch (Cologne: Böhlau, 1992), pp. 1–41.
12 Carl Brinkmann, ‘Charles II and the Bishop of Münster in the Anglo-Dutch
War of 1665–6’, The English Historical Review 21 (1906), 686–698 (p.
686); cf. Tilman Haug, Nadir Weber, and Christian Windler, ‘Einleitung’,
in Protegierte und Protektoren: Asymmetrische politische Beziehungen
zwischen Partnerschaft und Dominanz (16. bis frühes 20. Jahrhundert), ed. by
Tilman Haug, Nadir Weber, and Christian Windler (Cologne: Böhlau
common features and are, in fact, entangled in their use in the early
modern international system. Research on protection could thus
1 Protegierte und Protektoren: Asymmetrische politische Beziehungen zwi
schen Partnerschaft und Dominanz (16. bis frühes 20. Jahrhundert), ed. by
Tilman Haug, Nadir Weber, and Christian Windler, Externa: Geschichte der
Außenbeziehungen in neuen Perspektiven, 9 (Cologne: Böhlau Verlag, 2016);
Rainer Babel, Garde et protection: Der Königsschutz in der französischen
Außenpolitik vom 15. bis zum 17. Jahrhundert, Beihefte der Francia, 72
Third Reich, and among
other things he laid down the guiding principles for a new Nazi education
of teachers. However, in his writings Baeumler was more preoccupied with
the school than with the university. See Barbara Schneider, Die Höhere
Schule im Nationalsozialismus (Cologne, 2000).
The discovery of Humboldt
university. Scholars and scientists from all disciplines had been carried
away by enthusiasm for the war and enrolled in the service of the
nation. Both students and professors had enlisted and fallen in battle,
and ordinary academic work had suffered
Apostasy and Jewish identity
regarding the names of the converts, R. Tam notes, as if in passing, the
names of two apostates hailing from different towns: ‘Did you ever hear of
a convert named Asher of Cologne or Avran of Sens?’ His answer implies
that these were converts from prominent families, that he knew of cases
from Germany as well, and that the general public related to these converts
to Christianity by labeling them with derogatory names or nicknames in
order to avoid calling them by their new Christian names. And, although