Suchergebnisse

bearb. von Moriz Ritter ; Volltext // Exemplar mit der Signatur: München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek -- Eur. 119 ha-1

bearb. von Moriz Ritter ; Volltext // Exemplar mit der Signatur: München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek -- Eur. 119 h-1

Ferdinand III. erbte von seinem Vater, Ferdinand II., den Dreißigjährigen Krieg. In der Mitte seiner Regierungszeit endete dieser Krieg 1648 mit dem Westfälischen Frieden und damit die lange Zeit der kriegerischen Auseinandersetzungen um konfessionelle Fragen. Der Westfälische Friede war zugleich eine wichtige Etappe im Zerfall der unter Karl V. entstandenen Allianz der spanischen und österreichischen Habsburger, welche Europa etwa ein Jahrhundert lang polarisiert hatte. Der Frieden läutete nun ein Europa souveräner Einzelstaaten ein. Für Ferdinand III. stellte sich dieser vielschichtige Epochenwechsel als eine Reihe von Dilemmata dar. Aus diesen resultierte seine lange Suche nach Frieden und zugleich sein langes Weiterkämpfen um günstigere Friedensbedingungen; seine widerwillige Trennung von Spanien und doch sein entschlossenes Festhalten der gleichwohl entgleitenden iberischen Verwandten; seine furchtsame Friedenswahrung nach 1648 und trotzdem: seine tastende, widerwillige Rückkehr in die europäischen Kriege der 1650er-Jahre. Für ein neues Verständnis der Zeit Ferdinand III schien es mir wichtig, einige strukturelle Aspekte besonders zu beleuchten, vor allem die enge Verflechtung des Streits um Konfessionen und Herrschaftsrechte. In seinen Wahlmonarchien, im Reich und in Ungarn, verfolgte Ferdinand III. eine pragmatisch moderierte Konfessionspolitik, in seinen Erbländern, Österreich und Böhmen, war er ein rigider Gegenreformator. Seine Gegenreformation aber war nicht allein religiös motiviert, sondern sie richtete sich zugleich gegen die annähernd autonome Herrschaft des Adels über die bäuerlichen Untertanen. Sowohl die konfessionelle Pragmatik als auch die landeskirchlich orientierte Gegenformation belasteten das Verhältnis Ferdinands III. zum Papsttum, welches sich ohnedies gegen die Dominanz des Hauses Habsburg in Italien wehrte. Neue Aspekte liefert das Manuskript auch hinsichtlich der kulturellen Dimension frühneuzeitlicher Herrschaft. Es galt, die Bilder und Begriffe, die Symbole und Rituale zu betonen, auf denen das Selbst- und Weltverhältnis dieses Kaisers beruhte und gelebt wurde. Erziehung, Lebenswelt und Zeremonialität nehmen daher viel Raum ein. Herrscher der Frühneuzeit wussten sich beobachtet und handelten danach. Wenn es so schwer ist, den Anteil Ferdinands III. an 'seiner' Regierung präzise zu bestimmen, liegt dies nicht nur an institutionalisierter Beratung und an der Arbeitsteilung eines komplexen Regierungsapparates. Es liegt nicht nur daran, dass der Hof für Kaiser und Höflinge ein souverän gehandhabtes Instrument der Selbstdarstellung mit repräsentativen Bühnenauftritten einerseits und nützlichen Verschleierungen andererseits war. Es liegt vor allem daran, dass dieser Kaiser Herrschaft nicht in einem modernen, umfassenden Sinne als Politik begriff. Herrschaft diente nicht der Realisierung einer von Standpunkt des Individuums oder der Gesellschaft aus formulierten Utopie. Der Kosmos hatte für Ferdinand III. noch eine gottgegebene, eine vermeintlich natürliche Ordnung. Die Aufgabe von Fürsten darin war beschränkt und in der Praxis der Sicherung und des Ausbaus fürstlicher Herrschaft zumal in Anbetracht der Komplexität konfessionspolitischer Ziele und Probleme schwierig genug. Dass dieser Kaiser die Idee staatlicher Souveränität aufgriff, war für ihn bereits ein Schritt der Loslösung von dem, was er einmal als richtig gelernt hatte. In Alchemie, in Magnetismus und in der Musik dagegen suchte Ferdinand III. weiter nach dem Ausdruck der natürlichen Ordnung der Dinge. Andererseits (auch hier steht dieser Kaiser an einer Epochenschwelle) interessierte er sich für ein Phänomen, dessen physikalische und künstlerische Durchdringung im 17. Jahrhundert die Grundlagen seiner geistigen Welt zerlegte: für das Sehen. Der Kaiser lernte, dass nicht allein das betrachtete Objekt, sondern auch der Sehende an der Konstruktion (s)eines Bildes beteiligt ist. ; Ferdinand III. inherited the Thirty Years' war from its father, Ferdinand II. In the centre of his reign, the war ended in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia and thereby the long time of the confessional arguments going along with denomination questions. The Peace of Westphalia was at the same time an important stage in the decay of the alliance of the Spanish and Austrian Habsburger which had emerged under Karl of the V. and which had polarised Europe about for one century. Now the Peace helped to create sovereign member states in Europe. For Ferdinand III. this multilayered epoch change presented itself as a number of dilemmas. These resulted from his search for peace and at the same time his attempts to fight for more favourable peace conditions; his separation from Spain against his consent and nevertheless his attempts to hold on to his Iberian relatives which were nevertheless slipping away; his timid protection of peace after 1648 and nevertheless his return against his consent to the European wars of the 1650er-Jahre. For a new comprehension of the time of Ferdinand III, it seemed important it to me to particularly stress some structural aspects, above all the close entwinement of the controversy over denominations and rule rights. In his elective monarchies, in the Empire, and in Hungary, Ferdinand III. pursued a pragmatically moderated confessional policy, in his hereditary countries, Austria and Bohemia, he was a rigid counter reformer. His counter reformation however was not only motivated religiously, but it was directed at the same time against the almost autonomous rule of the aristocracy over the rural subjects. Both confessional pragmatism and the counter reformation based on the regionally established church were a burden on the relationship Ferdinand III. to the papacy, who anyhow resisted to the dominance of the house of Habsbourg in Italy. The manuscript also provides new aspects regarding the cultural dimension of early-modern rule. The text essential stresses the pictures and terms, the symbols and rituals on which the Emperor's self understanding and his relation to the world was based and lived accordingly. Education, environment and ceremoniality take therefore much space. Rulers of the early modern times knew themselves observed and acted thereafter. If it is so difficult to determine precisely the share of Ferdinands III. of 'his' government, this is not only due to institutionalised discussions and the separation of functions within a complex government machinery. It is furthermore not only due to the fact that the Court was for the Emperor and courtiers a convincingly handled instrument of the self-manifestation with representative stage appearances on the one hand and useful concealments on the other hand. It is due above all to the fact that this Emperor did not understand governance in a modern, comprehensive sense as politics. Governance did not serve the realisation of an utopia formulated from an individual point of view or from the society. The cosmos for Ferdinand III.was still God-given, an allegedly natural order. The task of princes therein was limited, and the protection and the development of princes' rule considering the complexity of confessional and political goals and problems were in practice difficult enough. That this Emperor took up the idea of state sovereignty was a step of detachment from what he once learned to be correct. In alchemy, in magnetism and in music, Ferdinand III. continued to look for an expression of the natural order of the things. On the other hand (also here the Emperor stands at an epoch change) he was interested in a phenomenon, whose physical and artistic developments in the 17. Century destroyed the bases of his mental world: in seeing. The Emperor learned that not only the regarded object, but also the person seeing takes part in the construction of one's picture.

Ferdinand III. inherited the Thirty Years' war from its father, Ferdinand II. In the centre of his reign, the war ended in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia and thereby the long time of the confessional arguments going along with denomination questions. The Peace of Westphalia was at the same time an important stage in the decay of the alliance of the Spanish and Austrian Habsburger which had emerged under Karl of the V. and which had polarised Europe about for one century. Now the Peace helped to create sovereign member states in Europe. For Ferdinand III. this multilayered epoch change presented itself as a number of dilemmas. These resulted from his search for peace and at the same time his attempts to fight for more favourable peace conditions; his separation from Spain against his consent and nevertheless his attempts to hold on to his Iberian relatives which were nevertheless slipping away; his timid protection of peace after 1648 and nevertheless his return against his consent to the European wars of the 1650er-Jahre. For a new comprehension of the time of Ferdinand III, it seemed important it to me to particularly stress some structural aspects, above all the close entwinement of the controversy over denominations and rule rights. In his elective monarchies, in the Empire, and in Hungary, Ferdinand III. pursued a pragmatically moderated confessional policy, in his hereditary countries, Austria and Bohemia, he was a rigid counter reformer. His counter reformation however was not only motivated religiously, but it was directed at the same time against the almost autonomous rule of the aristocracy over the rural subjects. Both confessional pragmatism and the counter reformation based on the regionally established church were a burden on the relationship Ferdinand III. to the papacy, who anyhow resisted to the dominance of the house of Habsbourg in Italy. The manuscript also provides new aspects regarding the cultural dimension of early-modern rule. The text essential stresses the pictures and terms, the symbols and rituals on which the Emperor's self understanding and his relation to the world was based and lived accordingly. Education, environment and ceremoniality take therefore much space. Rulers of the early modern times knew themselves observed and acted thereafter. If it is so difficult to determine precisely the share of Ferdinands III. of 'his' government, this is not only due to institutionalised discussions and the separation of functions within a complex government machinery. It is furthermore not only due to the fact that the Court was for the Emperor and courtiers a convincingly handled instrument of the self-manifestation with representative stage appearances on the one hand and useful concealments on the other hand. It is due above all to the fact that this Emperor did not understand governance in a modern, comprehensive sense as politics. Governance did not serve the realisation of an utopia formulated from an individual point of view or from the society. The cosmos for Ferdinand III.was still God-given, an allegedly natural order. The task of princes therein was limited, and the protection and the development of princes' rule considering the complexity of confessional and political goals and problems were in practice difficult enough. That this Emperor took up the idea of state sovereignty was a step of detachment from what he once learned to be correct. In alchemy, in magnetism and in music, Ferdinand III. continued to look for an expression of the natural order of the things. On the other hand (also here the Emperor stands at an epoch change) he was interested in a phenomenon, whose physical and artistic developments in the 17. Century destroyed the bases of his mental world: in seeing. The Emperor learned that not only the regarded object, but also the person seeing takes part in the construction of one's picture.

This article is devoted to the life of one of the little-known figures of the time of the Trouble who was in the center of events in the middle and low regions of the Volga. The author regards the following destiny of this person, his turn to the side of Michael Romanov's government, his occupation as a voevoda of Ufa and taking part in the defense of Moskow during the Polish attack in 1618. The article deals with the unknown facts of Saratov history during boyarin Fyodor Sheremetiev's campaign on the Volga, regards the names of the ordinary defenders of Saratov from the impostors' army.