We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
Imperial law strictly prohibited religious novelty in eighteenth-century Germany. The Westphalian Peace accords of 1648, which served as the constitutional framework for the German empire until Napoleon, banned all public expression objectionable to the three sanctioned churches: the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Calvinist or Reformed. Various ordinances applied the Westphalian definitions broadly, but the jurisdictional quilt of the empire frustrated implementation. In particular, noble patrons could enable a writer accused of spreading heterodox, antichurch, or even anti-Christian views to remain active and influential.
1. Kremer, Bernd Mathias, Der Westfälische Friede in der Deutung Aufklärung. Zur Entwicklung des Verfassungsverständnisses im Hl. Röm. Reich Deutscher Nation vom Konfessionellen Zeitalter bis ins späte 18. Jahrhundert (Tübingen, Germany, 1989), pp. 119–152.Google Scholar
2. Eisenhardt, Ulrich, Die kaiserliche Aufsicht über Buchdruck, Buchhandel und Presse im Heiligen Römischen Reich Deutscher Nation (1496–1806) (Karlsruhe, Germany, 1970), pp. 54–62Google Scholar
3. An excellent description of the banning of Christian Wolff and his flight to Marburg is that by Hinrichs, Carl, Preuβentum und Pietismus (Göttingen, Germany, 1971), pp. 388–441.Google Scholar
4. Literaturproduktion und Büchermarkt des radihalen Pietismus (Göttingen, Germany, 1989).Google Scholar
5. , Hans-Jürgen Schrader, “Pietistisches Publizieren unter Heterodoxieverdacht. Der Zensurfall ‘Berleburger Bibel,’,” in “Unmoralisch an sich…”: Zensur im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert, ed. Gopfert, Herbert G. and Weyrauch, Erdmann (Wiesbaden, Germany, 1988), pp. 61–88.Google Scholar
6. Geschichte der neuern evangelischen Theologie, im Zusammenhang mit den allgemeinen Bewegungen des europdischen Denkens (Gütersloh, Germany, 1960), 2:418. Notable exceptions to the general neglect of Schmidt's role in testing the imperial system of religious control have treated only limited portions of it.Google ScholarThe exceptions include a late-eighteenth-century examination of Schmidt's interrogation before a commission led by the Prince of , Löwenstein-Wertheim: Anon., “Geschichte der gerichtlichen Inquisition gegen den Wertheimer Bibelübersetzer. Zum Theil aus ungedrukten [sic] Urkunden,” Blätter aus dem Archiv der Toleranz und Intoleranz 1 (1797): 166–326.Google ScholarA century later, Frank, Gustav was the first to research the imperial archives in Vienna on the case: “Die Wertheimer Bibelübersetzung vor dem Reichshofrat in Wien,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 12 (1891): 279–302.Google ScholarIn recent years, Agatha Kobuch has noted how the Wertheim Bible provoked the censors of Saxony, Electoral, in Zensur und Aufklärung in Kursachsen. Ideologische Strömungen und politische Meinungen zur Zeit der sächsisch-polnischen Union (1697–1763) (Weimar, Germany, 1988), pp. 69–71.Google ScholarEhmer, Hermann has been the first to treat efforts by the Count of Hohenlohe-Langenburg to suppress the Wertheim Bible before and after publication, in “Die Wertheimer Bibel: Der Versuch einer rationalistischen Bibelübersetzung,” Jahrbuch der hessischen kirchengeschichtlichen Vereinigung 43 (1992): 289–312.Google Scholar
7. The Wertheim Bible's actual title is Die göttlichen Schriften den Zeiten des MessieJesus[.] Der erste Theil worinnen Die Gesetze der Jisraelen enthalten sind nach einer freyen [U]bersetzung welche durch und durch mit Anmerkungen erläutert und bestätiget wird (The Divine Scriptures Prior to the Times of the Messiah Jesus[.] The First Part, Which Includes the Laws of the Israelites, According to a Free Translation Explained and Corroborated Throughout with Notes) (Wertheim, 1735).Google Scholar
8. Letters of Mosheim, Reinbeck, and Wolff to Hoflein and Schmidt are printed in von Mosheim, Johann Lorenz and Schlegel, Johan RudolphKirchengeschkhte des Neuen Testaments…bis auf die neuesten Zeilen fortgesetzet 6 (Heilbronn, 1788), pp. 7–43. These private reviews did not translate into public support after publication.Google Scholar
9. Neue Zeitungen von Gelehrten Sachen 1735, no. 70 (1 September): 622–625; 1736, no. 4 (12 January): 28–29;Google ScholarHamburgische Berichte von neuen Gelehrten Sachen 1735, no. 81 (11 October): 661–662; and 1736, no. 2 (6 January): 9–12.Google Scholar
10. Zedler, Johann Heinrich, ed., Grosses Vollständiges Universal-Lexikon 55 (1748; repr. Graz, 1961), pp. 613, 641–643;Google ScholarZedler's full article here, “Wertheimische Bibel” (pp. 595–662), describes the larger story of the Wertheim Bible controversy.Google Scholar
11. Der philosophische Religionsspötter, in dem ersten Theile des Wertheimischen Bibelwercks verkappet… (Leipzig and Halle, 1735; 2d. ed. 1736).Google Scholar
12. The most thorough early treatment of the Wertheim Bible and the theological storm it set off appeared anonymously under the title, “Historische Nachricht von der neuen Wertheimischen Bibelübersetzung, und denen deβwegen herausgekommenen Schriften,” Acta Historico-Ecclesiastica, 20 vols. (Weimar, 1736–1758), l:Anhang, 1–104; 2:145–172, 281–310, 480–496, 608–663, 835–849, 1000–1015, 1138–1152; 3:136–156, 620–631, 781–795; 4:Anhang, 1140–1144.Google ScholarThe best recent theological and historical evaluation of the Wertheim Bible is that by Hirsch, Emanuel, Geschichte der Neuern Evangelischen Theologie, 2:417–431, 435–437.Google Scholar
13. See Schmidt's notes in the Wertheim Bible on Genesis 1:2, 1:26, and 18:13. On reinterpreting prophecies, see his notes on Genesis 3:15 and 49:10, Numbers 24:17, and Deuteronomy 18:15.Google Scholar
14. The record of Ludwig of Hohenlohe's opposition begins with a letter draft to officials in charge of the regency on behalf of the underage counts of Wertheim, 5 May 1734, Abt. Langenburg, Regierung II Bü 4143, Hohenlohisches Zentralarchiv, Neuenstein (hereafter cited as Langenburg MSS). The princely Wertheim chancellery of Karl Thomas first raised objections to the translation project in a letter to the comital chancellery, 12 July 1734, Abt. Freudenberg, Rep. 22 Nr. 91, Staatsarchiv Wertheim, Wertheim (hereafter cited as Freudenberg MSS). This collection comes from the Löwenstein-Wertheim-Freudenberg (Lutheran) branch of Wertheim rulers. The pages in both the Langenburg and Freudenberg MSS are unnumbered but in general chronological order.Google Scholar
15. Directive, Royal Polish-Saxon government to Leipzig book traders, 25 January 1736, copy in Langenburg MSS.Google Scholar
16. Directive, King Friedrich Wilhelm to Prussian officials Von Brand and Von Graeve, 2 June 1736, copy in Reichshofrat Decisa Kart. 2045, Österreichisches Staatsarchiv, Vienna (hereafter cited as Reichshofrat MSS).Google Scholar
17. The text of the edict appears in the Acta Historico-Ecclesiastica, 2:166–169;Google ScholarSinnhold, Johann Nicolaus, Ausführliche Historie der verruffenen sogenannten Wertheimischen Bibel (Erfurt, 1739), pp. 34–35;Google Scholar and , Zedler, Universal-Lexicon, 55:613–615.Google Scholar
18. The texts of various rulers' directives against the Wertheim Bible appear in Acta Historico-Ecclesiastica, 2:169–170, 282–287,483–486, 1011–1015, and 3:620–621.Google ScholarFor a summary, see , Sinnhold, Ausfiihrliche Historie, pp. 36, 132–133.Google Scholar
19. Five letters of Schmidt to Gottsched are in the Universitätsbibliothek Leipzig, MS 0342, 3:431–432, 474; 4:52–55, 101, 148–150.Google ScholarThese and Gottsched's belated response are cited in part in Wehr, Marianne, “Johann Christoph Gottscheds Briefwechsel,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Leipzig, 1966), pp. 125–130.Google ScholarKobuch, Agatha discusses Gottsched's own trouble with censorship authorities in Zensur und Aufklärung in Kursachsen, pp. 157–160.Google ScholarAffected by cases like Schmidt's and his own, Gottsched was shortly to join Prussian church leader Johann Gustav Reinbeck in the Alethophiles, or “Lovers of Truth,” an Enlightenment group centered in Berlin and dedicated in part to the protection of persecuted intellectuals of Wolffian stripe;Google ScholarWolff, Eugen, Gottscheds Stellung im deutschen Bildungsleben (Kiel and Leipzig, 1895), 1:215–222.Google Scholar
20. An extensive excerpt of the letter was transcribed as part of the imperial commission's investigation of Schmidt in Wertheim, now in Abt. Rochefort, Rep. 9 Nr. 22, Staatsarchiv Wertheim, pp. 240–241 (hereafter cited as Rochefort MSS). This collection comes from the Löwenstein-Wertheim-Rochefort (Catholic) branch of Wertheim rulers.Google Scholar
21. The original recantation appeared at the end of Neue Zeitungen von Gelehrten Sachen 1736, no. 14(16 February), p. 128, and the consistory's “improvement” at the end of no. 36 (3 May), pp. 325–328.Google ScholarSchmidt included the latter in his anonymously published collection, Sam[m]lung derienigen Schriften welche bey Gelegenheit des wertheimischen Bibelwerks für oder gegen das[s]elbe turn Vorschein gekommen sind (Frankfurt and Leipzig, 1738), p. 161.Google Scholar
22. Notable examples from Schmidt's correspondence include letters to the University of Altdorf's theological faculty, the first academic body to evaluate his book, 23 July 1735, Langenburg MSS; to August Hermann Francke, the great pietist leader in Halle, 13 September 1735, file C 722:10, Archiv der Franckeschen Stiftungen, Halle; and to Bernhard Marperger, president of the Saxon Church Consistory (which had issued the Saxon ban), 11 February 1736, Lit. CC, Rochefort MSS.Google ScholarThree major early defense tracts appear in Schmidt's Sammlung: Die festgegründete Wahrheit… (Wertheim, 1735), pp. 82–151;Google ScholarÖffentliche Erklärung… (Wertheim, 1735), pp. 343–361;Google Scholarand Beantwortung verschiedener Einwürfe… (Wertheim, 1736), pp. 365–428.Google Scholar
23. A major tract by Schmidt from this period, intended for the Corpus Evangelicorum (the Protestant lobby at the Imperial Diet), is Gründliche Vorstellung der Streitigkeit… (n.p., n.d.) repr. in Acta Historico-Ecclesiastica, 2:608–663.Google Scholar
24. The translations in question were Tindal, Matthew, Beweis, daβdas Christenthum so alt, als die Welt sey (Frankfurt: n.p., 1741);Google ScholarB[aruch] v. S[pinoza] Sittenlehre widerleget von dem berühmten Weltweisen unserer Zeit Herrn Christian Wolf (1744; repr. New York, 1981);Google Scholarand Kantemir, Demetrie [Dimitry Cantemir], Geschichte des osmanischen Reichs…, 2 vols. (Hamburg, 1745). The title pages do not identify the translator.Google Scholar
25. An early and a final draft exist of most of the Hebrew Bible, as file Cod. Guelf. 339–342 November, Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel, Germany.Google Scholar
26. Schmidt to the Deutsche Acta Eruditorum, 11 February 1736, MS 895, Landeskirchliches Archiv, Nürnberg, Germany.Google Scholar
27. “Extract[:] Die Einnahm und Ausgab Geld Bey dem Druck der Neuen Überse[t]zung der 5. Bücher Mosis,” Lit. C, Beylagen 1 and 4, 24 September and 10 October 1733, Freudenberg MSS.Google Scholar
28. “Einnahm und Ausgab Geld,” Lit. B, Specification 16 and Beylage 16, 20 April 1738, Freudenberg MSS.Google Scholar
29. Numerous letters among Counts Johann Ludwig Vollrath and Friedrich Ludwig of Löwenstein-Wertheim, Ludwig of Hohenlohe-Langenburg, and Ludwig Moritz of Ldwenstein-Wertheim appear from 5 May 1734 to 18January 1737, Langenburg MSS.Google Scholar
30. A margrave (Markgraf), similar to a marquis in France or marquess in England, originally administered a border area or march in Charlemagne's empire. By the eighteenth century, the term had long since come to designate a virtually sovereign hereditary ruler in the Holy Roman Empire, ranked above “count“ and below “duke.“Google Scholar
31. Government of Margrave Karl of Ansbach to the government of Prince Bishop Friedrich Karl (von Schönborn) of Bamberg (and Würzburg), 27 April 1737, 6 June 1737, 18 April 1738, and 13 June 1738; government of Margrave Karl to Emperor Karl VI, 14 April 1738, Reichshofrat MSS.Google Scholar
32. , Frank, “Die Wertheimer Bibelübersetzung vor dem Reichshofrat,” pp. 293–295, 298–299. An example of the margrave's work on Schmidt's behalf is a letter of 30 July 1737, which his privy council sent to the ducal court of Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel. In it, the margrave's council urged the formation of a common front of Protestant estates to block the prosecution of Schmidt. File Cod. Guelf. 345 Nov. A, Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel (hereafter cited as Wolfenbüttel MSS A), fols. 96r–97r.Google Scholar
33. “Einnahm und Ausgab Geld,” Lit. B, Specification 15 and Beylage 15, 1 April 1738, Freudenberg MSS.Google Scholar
34. Margrave Karl of Ansbach to Emperor Karl VI, 14 April 1738, Reichshofrat MSS.Google Scholar
35. “Einnahm und Ausgab Geld,” Lit. B, Specification 17 and Beylage 17, 19 April 1738, Freudenberg MSS.Google Scholar
36. “Einnahm und Ausgab Geld,” Specification 16 and Beylage 16, 20 April 1738, Freudenberg MSS.Google Scholar
37. “Einnahm und Ausgab Geld,” Lit. B, Specification 18 and Beylage 18, 26 April 1738, Freudenberg MSS.Google Scholar
38. Examples of the reports are , Sinnhold, Ausfiihrliche Historie, p. 287;Google Scholarand Acta Historico-Ecclesiastica, 4:Anhang, 1143–1144.Google ScholarDetails on Schmidt's flight will appear in Spalding, Paul, “Ira Untergrund der Aufklärung: Die Flucht von Johann Lorenz Schmidt,” Frühe Neuzeit in Mittel- und Osteuropa, ed. Donnert, Erich (Koln, Germany, forthcoming).Google Scholar
39. Kopitzsch, Franklin, “Altona—ein Zentrum der Aufklärung am Rande des dänischen Gesamtstaats,” Der dänischen Gesamtstaat: Kophenhagen, Kiel, Altona, ed. Bohnen, Klaus and Joergensen, Sven-Aage (Tübingen, Germany, 1992), pp. 91–118.Google Scholar
40. His unpaginated dedication to Maria Theresa appears at the beginning of his anonymous translation of Kantemir, Demetrie, Geschichte des osmanischen Reichs, 2 vols. (Hamburg, 1745).Google Scholar The Latin letter to her councillor, requesting employment on the basis of the book, is “Schroeter” [Schmidt] to Van Swietan, 1745 [no month or day given], Wolfenbüttel MSS A, fols. 88r–v.
41. Schmidt to Friedrich II, n.d. [October 1743] Wolfenbüttel MSS A, fols. 75r–76r; Schmidt to Friedrich II, 9 October 1743, Wolfenbüttel MSS A, fols. 76r–v; and Schmidt to anon. [Friedrich II], 30 November 1746, Wolfenbüttel MSS A, fols. 86r–87r. In September 1743, Von Pückler had passed on some casual remarks made by Friedrich II at dinner that he was willing to offer Schmidt protection. The following letters detail Von Pückler's role: C. F. Siber (councillor at the Wertheim court) to “Schröter” [Schmidt], 28 September 1743, Wolfenbüttel MSS A, fols. 67r–68r; Von Pückler to Schmidt, 12 November 1743, Wolfenbüttel MSS A, fols. 72r–74v; and Siber to “Schroter,” 25 January 1744, Wolfenbüttel MSS A, fol. 77r.Google Scholar
42. The duke's notification to his treasury officials, dated 18 March 1747, that “Schröter” had been hired as court mathematician and should be paid beginning the previous Christmas, is in file 3 Alt 630, Niedersächsisches Staatsarchiv, Wolfenbüttel, Germany.Google Scholar
43. Friedrich's surviving intercessions with Duke Karl appear in file 2 Alt 18341–18342, Niedersächsisches Staatsarchiv, Wolfenbüttel, Germany.Google Scholar
44. Count Friedrich Ludwig to anon. [Schmidt], 1 May 1741, Wolfenbüttel MSS A, fols. 64r–66v.Google Scholar
45. This appears in an undated, late-eighteenth-century manuscript based on records of the ducal court marshal's office: “Einige Collectanien zur Biographie des den 2O.sten Dec. 1749 zu Wolfenbuttel verstorbenen Wertheimer Bibel Übersetzers, Johann Lorenz Schmidt,” Wolfenbüttel MSS A, fol. 8r. A short description of Bütemeister's offices appears behind his name in a typescript entitled “2 Alt Gesamt-Übersicht Namen: A-G,” 66, Niedersächsisches Staatsarchiv, Wolfenbüttel, Germany.Google Scholar
46. , Schmidt, “Eigene Erklärung zu seiner Pentateuch-Ubersetzung,” Wolfenbüttel, 23 December 1748, file Ba deutsch 1735 02, Wiirttemburgische Landesbibliothek, Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
47. “Einige Collectanien,” Wolfenbüttel MSS A, fols. 6r–19v, esp. 8r–10v.Google Scholar
48. Grossmann, Walter, Johann Christian Edelmann: From Orthodoxy to Enlightenment (The Hague, The Netherlands, 1976), pp. 141–169.Google Scholar
49. Bahrdt's own account appears in Geschichte seines Lebens, seiner Meinungen und Schicksale, 4 parts in 3 vols. (Berlin, 1790–1791), especially the last four chapters.Google Scholar
50. Lessing, G. E., Werke, vols. 7–8: Theologische Schriften (Munich, Germany, 1976–1979). To be sure, the ducal government finally ordered an end to Lessing's work on the “Fragments,”Google Scholarin July of 1778; Werke, 7:869.Google Scholar
51. , Werke, 7:313–314. Here Lessing also suggested Schmidt to be the “Anonymous Author,” in order to throw his adversaries off the scent of the actual author, Hermann Samuel Reimarus. It seemed a logical choice. Schmidt was known to have been a free-thinking biblical scholar and to have lived the last years of his life in Wolfenbüttel. Also, he was long dead and had no offspring who could be hurt by the accusation. In a sense, though, Lessing was not being so deceptive. According to Peter Stemmer, the Wertheim Bible had inspired Reimarus to write his own deist critique of the Bible;Google Scholarsee Weissagung und Kritik. Eine Studie zur Hermeneutik bei Hermann Samuel Reimarus (Gottingen, Germany, 1983), pp. 124–146.Google Scholar
52. Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim to Reimarus, Elise, 28 November 1780, letter 699 of Lessing, Sämtliche Schriften, ed. Lachmann, Karl (Leipzig, Germany, 1907), 18:355–356;Google Scholar and Reimarus, Elise to Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, early December 1780, letter 873 of Lessing, Sämtliche Schriften (Leipzig, Germany, 1907), pp. 314–315.Google Scholar
