Eberhard Windecke
0 Followers
Recent papers in Eberhard Windecke
Наумов Николай Николаевич Кандидат исторических наук, главный специалист научного отдела исторического факультета, Московский государственный университет им. М. В. Ломоносова nn-naumov@mail.ru Политический язык Эберхарда Виндеке Цель... more
Наумов Николай Николаевич
Кандидат исторических наук, главный специалист научного отдела исторического факультета, Московский государственный университет им. М. В. Ломоносова
nn-naumov@mail.ru
Политический язык Эберхарда Виндеке
Цель статьи — охарактеризовать картину мира Эберхарда Виндеке (ок. 1380 – ок. 1440) — выходца из городской среды и приближенного германского императора Сигизмунда Люксембургского. Основной исследовательской задачей является выявление ключевых понятий его политического языка и их истолкование с помощью исторических словарей немецкого языка. Понятие rich (царство), к которому он относил современную ему Империю, обозначает единовластное политическое образование, правитель в котором обладает властью, именуемой термином gewalt. Это слово характеризует абстрактную неограниченную власть, сходную со властью сверхъестественных сил, — «произвол» в нейтральном смысле (ср.-в.-нем. gottliche/tufelichegewalt — власть Бога/Дьявола). Однако в глазах Виндеке замыслы императорской власти не будут осуществлены, если этому не станет содействовать реальная власть (ср.-в.-нем. macht) имперских князей, основанная на их владениях, держаниях и привилегиях; с другой стороны, власть последних вторична, т.к. требует подтверждения «силой римской императорской власти», т.е. gewalt. Поэтому благополучие Империи, по глубокому убеждению Эберхарда, всецело зависит от согласия в отношениях между королем и князьями. Понятие konigrich (королевство, букв. «царство короля») формулирует в сознании Виндеке иной тип политической структуры, представленной в королевствах Венгерском и Чешском. Видимо, с его точки зрения, венгерский и чешский король обладал обоими видами власти. Будучи там «господином по рождению», «естественным господином» (ср.-в.-нем. einnaturlicherherr), он передавал свою власть по наследству, в то время как правителя Империи избирали курфюрсты.
Ключевые слова: политическая терминология; власть в позднесредневековом обществе; Священная Римская империя; Сигизмунд Люксембургский; Эберхард Виндеке.
Nikolay Naumov
Candidate of Sciences (History), Principal Research Fellow of the Faculty of History, Lomonosov Moscow State University
nn-naumov@mail.ru
The Political Language of Eberhard Windecke
The paper aims to characterise the political vision of Eberhard Windecke (1380–1440), a citizen of Mainz and a man in the service of the German Emperor Sigismund of Luxemburg. The article examines the main notions of his political language and interprets them with the help of historical dictionaries of German language. Windecke used the term rich (realm) to significate the contemporary Holy Roman Empire as a political formation with one ruler who possessed a special type of power — gewalt. This word was used to define the full authority of a king, as well as the unpredictable power of supernatural forces — God and Devil (Middle High German — gottliche /tufelichegewalt). However, the emperor could not realise his intentions if they were not supported by the real power (Middle High German — macht) of the Imperial princes. On the other hand, this real power in form of imperial fiefs was to be confirmed by the king’s authority, hence, the macht was in a secondary position to the gewalt. Eberhard Windecke was deeply convinced that the welfare of the Holy Roman Empire depended on the concordance between the German king and the Imperial princes. At the same time, the term konigrich (kingdom, verbatim the king’s realm) signified another political structure represented by the kingdoms of Hungary and Bohemia. He probably thought that Sigismund was there in disposition of the both types of power, because he was by his birth a «natural lord» (Middle High German — einnatürlicherherr) of these lands and was able to bequeath them to his heir, while the German king was to be made by the electoral princes.
Key words: Political Language; Power in the Late-Medieval Society; Holy Roman Empire; Sigismund of Luxemburg; Eberhard Windecke.
Кандидат исторических наук, главный специалист научного отдела исторического факультета, Московский государственный университет им. М. В. Ломоносова
nn-naumov@mail.ru
Политический язык Эберхарда Виндеке
Цель статьи — охарактеризовать картину мира Эберхарда Виндеке (ок. 1380 – ок. 1440) — выходца из городской среды и приближенного германского императора Сигизмунда Люксембургского. Основной исследовательской задачей является выявление ключевых понятий его политического языка и их истолкование с помощью исторических словарей немецкого языка. Понятие rich (царство), к которому он относил современную ему Империю, обозначает единовластное политическое образование, правитель в котором обладает властью, именуемой термином gewalt. Это слово характеризует абстрактную неограниченную власть, сходную со властью сверхъестественных сил, — «произвол» в нейтральном смысле (ср.-в.-нем. gottliche/tufelichegewalt — власть Бога/Дьявола). Однако в глазах Виндеке замыслы императорской власти не будут осуществлены, если этому не станет содействовать реальная власть (ср.-в.-нем. macht) имперских князей, основанная на их владениях, держаниях и привилегиях; с другой стороны, власть последних вторична, т.к. требует подтверждения «силой римской императорской власти», т.е. gewalt. Поэтому благополучие Империи, по глубокому убеждению Эберхарда, всецело зависит от согласия в отношениях между королем и князьями. Понятие konigrich (королевство, букв. «царство короля») формулирует в сознании Виндеке иной тип политической структуры, представленной в королевствах Венгерском и Чешском. Видимо, с его точки зрения, венгерский и чешский король обладал обоими видами власти. Будучи там «господином по рождению», «естественным господином» (ср.-в.-нем. einnaturlicherherr), он передавал свою власть по наследству, в то время как правителя Империи избирали курфюрсты.
Ключевые слова: политическая терминология; власть в позднесредневековом обществе; Священная Римская империя; Сигизмунд Люксембургский; Эберхард Виндеке.
Nikolay Naumov
Candidate of Sciences (History), Principal Research Fellow of the Faculty of History, Lomonosov Moscow State University
nn-naumov@mail.ru
The Political Language of Eberhard Windecke
The paper aims to characterise the political vision of Eberhard Windecke (1380–1440), a citizen of Mainz and a man in the service of the German Emperor Sigismund of Luxemburg. The article examines the main notions of his political language and interprets them with the help of historical dictionaries of German language. Windecke used the term rich (realm) to significate the contemporary Holy Roman Empire as a political formation with one ruler who possessed a special type of power — gewalt. This word was used to define the full authority of a king, as well as the unpredictable power of supernatural forces — God and Devil (Middle High German — gottliche /tufelichegewalt). However, the emperor could not realise his intentions if they were not supported by the real power (Middle High German — macht) of the Imperial princes. On the other hand, this real power in form of imperial fiefs was to be confirmed by the king’s authority, hence, the macht was in a secondary position to the gewalt. Eberhard Windecke was deeply convinced that the welfare of the Holy Roman Empire depended on the concordance between the German king and the Imperial princes. At the same time, the term konigrich (kingdom, verbatim the king’s realm) signified another political structure represented by the kingdoms of Hungary and Bohemia. He probably thought that Sigismund was there in disposition of the both types of power, because he was by his birth a «natural lord» (Middle High German — einnatürlicherherr) of these lands and was able to bequeath them to his heir, while the German king was to be made by the electoral princes.
Key words: Political Language; Power in the Late-Medieval Society; Holy Roman Empire; Sigismund of Luxemburg; Eberhard Windecke.
Online here: https://www.vr-elibrary.de/doi/10.7788/9783412510114.199 The article focuses on the appearance of the English delegation at the council of Constance 1414-1418, which was noticed in more detail by Ulrich Richental than any... more
Online here: https://www.vr-elibrary.de/doi/10.7788/9783412510114.199
The article focuses on the appearance of the English delegation at the council of Constance 1414-1418, which was noticed in more detail by Ulrich Richental than any other presentation, and on Sigismund's travel to England, describend by Eberhard Windecke.
The processes researched in this article illustrate the transformation of staging and perception at the beginning of the 15th century in England and Germany. Expensive architectural alterations accompagnied Sigismund's visit to Westminster palace, Windsor castle and Calais. Sigismund and Henry V exchanged valuable presents. The ceremonial of entrance of king Sigismund into Constance, of spectacle, music and pageants was accompagnied by important semiotic signs, which were described by contemporary chroniclers. However, even modern historians did not realize that the objects were fictitious. They became dispensable as tangible objects. Sigismund verbally and performatively compensated for the lack of visual evidence by receiving the English exuberantly, praising them and participating in their pageant. How convincing the English self-portrayal at the Council was with its real and imaginary elements is evidenced by the contemporary and modern texts as well as by Poggio Bracciolini's journey in the wake of Bishop Beaufort to Winchester. The scholar's disappointment, however, also testifies the gap between Constance staging and British reality. The expected humanistic splendor proved at least from the point of view of the Italian as fictitious as Sigismund’s collar when moving to Constance.
When the Roman and Hungarian King Sigismund of Luxembourg came into the city of Constance from the Petershausener Bridge on January 27, 1417, the display of the English “livery of the collar” at his neck is reported to have made the English liegemen glad. His entry is described by the contemporary English author Johannes Forester, who wrote a letter to King Henry V of England only a few days later. This collar of Esses, which was the necklace or “livery of the collar” given by the king with the motto of the House of Lancaster, was, according to Forester, the most conspicuous sign of English presence. It decorated, as he reported, Sigismund’s neck when he returned to the Council of Constance after a year and a half of absence.
Collar of Esses and coat suited the contemporary writer of the letter, Forester, as a widely perceived semiotic reference system, which characterised the body of the king in the adventus as a medium of English affiliation and political suport. Thus, the universally visible wearing of the chain as a motto of the House of Lancaster was also considered a sign of support of the English nation against the Aragonese and French. Sigismund is said to have reaffirmed his support of the English against the French to all participants of the Council.
However, this plausible reference system that Forester suggested in his letter must be a fiction. Sigismund did not wear the collar when he arrived in Constance. Forester’s fiction has not been revealed yet. To this day, historians tell more or less flowery of the entry of Sigismund to Conctance and imagine him wearing the collar of Esses of the house of Lancaster, which so wonderfully seem to visualise the actual alliance of the two kings. Undisputed, on the other hand, is Sigismund’s clear support for the English side. Has Forester knowingly intended to mislead the English King with the visual reference to the collar in order to cover up Sigismund’s insolvency and the affront of pledging such a valuable gift? Or was the English king himself the author of this fiction, since Forester’s letter was the basis for further reports by other chroniclers, such as Jean de Montreuil or the modern historians quoted above? For example, at the court of Charles V of France in 1378 gift lists were modified to exaggerate the ruler’s generosity. Or could it be that the idea of objects as bearers of thought may have existed? That John Forester imagined the chain comparable to the material presence of hidden objects – such as relics in altars –, so that the collar was invisibly present for Forester and described to the English king as visible to all?
The article focuses on the appearance of the English delegation at the council of Constance 1414-1418, which was noticed in more detail by Ulrich Richental than any other presentation, and on Sigismund's travel to England, describend by Eberhard Windecke.
The processes researched in this article illustrate the transformation of staging and perception at the beginning of the 15th century in England and Germany. Expensive architectural alterations accompagnied Sigismund's visit to Westminster palace, Windsor castle and Calais. Sigismund and Henry V exchanged valuable presents. The ceremonial of entrance of king Sigismund into Constance, of spectacle, music and pageants was accompagnied by important semiotic signs, which were described by contemporary chroniclers. However, even modern historians did not realize that the objects were fictitious. They became dispensable as tangible objects. Sigismund verbally and performatively compensated for the lack of visual evidence by receiving the English exuberantly, praising them and participating in their pageant. How convincing the English self-portrayal at the Council was with its real and imaginary elements is evidenced by the contemporary and modern texts as well as by Poggio Bracciolini's journey in the wake of Bishop Beaufort to Winchester. The scholar's disappointment, however, also testifies the gap between Constance staging and British reality. The expected humanistic splendor proved at least from the point of view of the Italian as fictitious as Sigismund’s collar when moving to Constance.
When the Roman and Hungarian King Sigismund of Luxembourg came into the city of Constance from the Petershausener Bridge on January 27, 1417, the display of the English “livery of the collar” at his neck is reported to have made the English liegemen glad. His entry is described by the contemporary English author Johannes Forester, who wrote a letter to King Henry V of England only a few days later. This collar of Esses, which was the necklace or “livery of the collar” given by the king with the motto of the House of Lancaster, was, according to Forester, the most conspicuous sign of English presence. It decorated, as he reported, Sigismund’s neck when he returned to the Council of Constance after a year and a half of absence.
Collar of Esses and coat suited the contemporary writer of the letter, Forester, as a widely perceived semiotic reference system, which characterised the body of the king in the adventus as a medium of English affiliation and political suport. Thus, the universally visible wearing of the chain as a motto of the House of Lancaster was also considered a sign of support of the English nation against the Aragonese and French. Sigismund is said to have reaffirmed his support of the English against the French to all participants of the Council.
However, this plausible reference system that Forester suggested in his letter must be a fiction. Sigismund did not wear the collar when he arrived in Constance. Forester’s fiction has not been revealed yet. To this day, historians tell more or less flowery of the entry of Sigismund to Conctance and imagine him wearing the collar of Esses of the house of Lancaster, which so wonderfully seem to visualise the actual alliance of the two kings. Undisputed, on the other hand, is Sigismund’s clear support for the English side. Has Forester knowingly intended to mislead the English King with the visual reference to the collar in order to cover up Sigismund’s insolvency and the affront of pledging such a valuable gift? Or was the English king himself the author of this fiction, since Forester’s letter was the basis for further reports by other chroniclers, such as Jean de Montreuil or the modern historians quoted above? For example, at the court of Charles V of France in 1378 gift lists were modified to exaggerate the ruler’s generosity. Or could it be that the idea of objects as bearers of thought may have existed? That John Forester imagined the chain comparable to the material presence of hidden objects – such as relics in altars –, so that the collar was invisibly present for Forester and described to the English king as visible to all?