Tidsskrift.dk (Det Kongelige Bibliotek)
Not a member yet
114105 research outputs found
Sort by
Erik af Pommerns erhvervelse af København fra roskildebiskoppen: Et overgreb mod kirkens frihed, eller afklaringen af et gammelt mellemværende?
No full textErik af Pommern overtog i 1417 besiddelsen af København fra Roskilde bispestol. Der har i dansk forskning været næsten fuldstændig enighed om at se denne overtagelse som en krænkelse af biskoppens ejendomsret til byen og borgen, kun retshistorikeren Poul Johs. Jørgensen har tolket kongens overtagelse som værende i overensstemmelse med lovens bogstav, hvis ikke dens ånd. I senere forskning medførte det dog kun, at overtagelsen blev set som et raffineret juridisk spil, snarere end som et klodset magtmisbrug. En ny undersøgelse bekræfter og udbygger Jørgensens tolkning og viser tillige, at Københavns forhold til kongemagten og Roskilde bispestol indtil Erik af Pommerns tid ikke var så klart, som det siden er blevet opfattet. Set i det lys virker overtagelsen ikke som et entydigt overgreb, tværtimod synes kongen ikke blot at have stået juridisk stærkt, men også ud fra en rimelighedsbetragtning at have haft en god sag.
SummaryIn 1416, Erik VII “of Pomerania”, king of Denmark, Sweden and Norway, sued the episcopal see of Roskilde for possession of the city and castle of Copenhagen. In early February 1417, a court of arbitration, consisting of an equal number of ecclesiastical and lay members of the Council of the Realm, awarded the king possession until the right of ownership could be determined in the subsequent proceedings which were scheduled to follow. These proceedings never took place, however, as the bishop refused to participate and possession of Copenhagen was maintained by King Erik and subsequent Danish kings in the face of repeated attempts by the bishops to recover it. The Reformation in 1536 and the Crown’s subsequent confiscation of Church lands settledthe matter permanently.To a surprising degree, Danish historians have agreed in seeing King Erik’s action as frivolous and the outcome of the proceedings as a miscarriage of justice. The sole exception has been the legal historian Poul Johannes Jørgensen, who in 1939 gave a clear and full exposition of the legal framework of the action and argued that the king actually had a better case than otherwise assumed. While his exposition of the legal framework has met with general acceptance, historians continue to see the outcome of the proceedings as having been based on might rather than right and thus as having been predetermined.The present article seeks to place the case in its proper perspective by looking at the history of the contested possession of Copenhagen. It also returns to the question of the legal framework in light of recent research and looks more deeply into the countermeasures of the Church, viz. the documents prepared for submission at the proceedings.Sometime between 1157 and 1167, the bishop of Roskilde received Copenhagen as a gift from the Danish king. Whether the bishop then proceeded to build a castle or the gift included an existing castle is a moot point. Copenhagen Castle was never just a private castle, but an important element in the defence of the realm and the royal gift to the bishop of Roskilde must have carried the responsibility to aid and support the king in war and other emergencies. For the better part of a century, this seems to have caused no problems; but during the dynastic troubles in the latter half of the thirteenth and the early part of the fourteenth centuries, the bishops often failed to live up to that responsibility. They were, in fact, often among the kings’ enemies and the kings out of necessity seized the castle on several occasions.With the accession to the throne of Waldemar IV in 1340 the relationship between the Crown and the bishop improved and the bishop was a staunch supporter of the king during one of the direst moments of Danish history when most of the realm was mortgaged to the Counts of Holstein. The redemption of these mortgages turned out to be a long drawn-out affair, and possession of Copenhagen was crucial to the king’s success. The Crown’s interest in Copenhagen had so far been primarily military, but King Waldemar’s reign marked a shift with economic interests becoming increasingly important. The bishop gave King Waldemar possession of Copenhagen from 1341, being amply compensated for his loss, and the king retained it until his death in 1375 after which the bishop recovered it, again with amble compensation for losses incurred. He and his successors retained it until 1416, when, on the death of the incumbent bishop, King Erik launched his successful attempt to acquire Copenhagen.At the core of the lawsuit lay the manner in which the bishop had recovered Copenhagen in 1375. The written agreement between the king and the bishop had neither specified an expiration date for the king’s possession of Copenhagen, nor prescribed how (and indeed if) it should revert to the bishop. The matter was thus open to discussion. The legal framework was expertly analysed by Poul Johannes Jørgensen, and recent research in Danish legal history has if anything merely strengthened his views. Danish law favoured the possessor to an extent which seems foreign to modern eyes, and once the king was awarded possession of the castle and city, he was virtually impossible to evict from it. The crux of the matter was, therefore, the question of who should have possession. The bishop had undeniably been in possession of Copenhagen, but his death had left the castle in the care of a trustee until a new bishop had been elected and consecrated. It was a legal masterstroke for the king to have the castle sequestered until the question of right of possession had been determined, and although this procedure has generally been regarded as devious, as a ploy, it was in accordance with Danish law. In fact the procedure had been used once before with regard to Copenhagen, in 1343, in connection with the settlement of territorial disputes between the Danish and Swedish kings and thus did not constitute a break with legal precedents. Once the king had Copenhagen in his possession, the bishop would have to prove that he had a better title. He could not do this, as it turned out, having no title deed per se but only a series of papal confirmations of his predecessors’ rightful ownership, as well as a few settlements and agreements, none of which proved of any value in documenting a superior title to Copenhagen. King Erik, on the other hand, had few documents, but they were central to his claim that King Waldemar had had Copenhagen in rightful possession and that it had not reverted to the bishop in the lawful manner.The failure of modern historiography to draw the full consequences of Poul Johannes Jørgensen’s article as well as the failure to see the acquisition of Copenhagen in its true historical perspective have led to the somewhat anachronistic view that this acquisition constituted a violation of the Church’s supposedly absolute right of ownership. On the contrary, the acquisition seems neither unwarranted nor unlawful, but rather like the settlement of a recurring difference between the Crown and the Church
Adjunkt Guldbergs kantate: Reformationsfejringen på Nyborg lærde Skole i 1817
No full textDen fra statslig side stort anlagte markering af 300-året for den protestantiske reformation i 1817 satte sig blandt meget andet spor i kompositionen af en række kantater. Med et eksempel fra den lærde skole i Nyborg, overleveret i Fyens Stiftsbibliotek (nu en særsamling i Syddansk Universitetsbibliotek), satte forfatteren, adjunkt Eggert Christian Guldberg, begivenheden et minde i den fynske provins. Denne artikel søger at sætte såvel kantaten (hidtil utrykt) samt dens forfatter i en historisk og indholdsmæssig kontekst.
SummarySchool-master Guldbergs’s Cantata. The celebration af the Reformation at the Grammar School of Nyborg.The large-scale tricentennial celebrations in 1817 of the Lutheran Reformation produced among other things a vast number of cantatas. With an example from the high school in Nyborg, passed down in the Diocese Library of Funen (at present a special collection in the University Library of Southern Denmark), the author, Eggert Christian Guldberg, proves to have contributed to the commemoration in his part of Denmark. This article seeks to put both the cantata (unprinted to this point) and its author in a historical and substantive context
Da Slesvig fik dansk bibel: A.H. Franckes forord til Huus- og Reyse-Bibelen 1738
No full textI 1738 trykte Vajsenhuset i København efter andragende fra danske præster i Slesvig en udgave af Lutherbibelen, den såkaldte Hus- og Rejsebibel til brug for de dansktalende menigheder i Slesvig. Det skyldtes, at bibeltekstens ordlyd i de nye tyske og de nye danske bibler var ved at bevæge sig fra hinanden. I Halle satsede man hårdt på at restaurere den oprindelige Lutherbibels ordlyd. Dette skyldtes ikke mindst August Hermann Franckes indsats siden 1708, hvilket resulterede i oprettelsen af Den von Cansteinske Bibelanstalt i Halle. Missionskollegiet i København havde imidlertid lagt sig fast på stadig revision af oversættelsen fra grundsprogene. For at fremme en vis overensstemmelse mellem de bibler, der benyttedes i menighederne i de tysk- og i de dansksprogede dele af Slesvig, fraveg Missionskollegiet og Vajsenhuset i København deres eget princip. At de danske, pietistiske præster i Slesvig har kendt Frankes bibelarbejder tydeliggøres ved, at de i 1738 forsynede den af det københavnske vajsenhus udgivne danske Lutherbibel med et forord af Francke om, hvorledes man bør læse sin Bibel til nytte og salighed.
SummaryDue to A.H. Francke’s restauration of the Luther Bible in the beginning of the 18th century, and to the deviation from the Luther Bibletradition in favour of translation from the original languages in the Danish Bible, the difference between the German and the Danish Bible increased. Consequently, the pastors of the Royal parts of Schleswig in 1735 sent a supplication to the Copenhagen Waisenhaus. They wanted a reprint of the older Danish Lutheran Bible from 1690 for the Danish speaking parts of Schleswig. This was admitted and in 1738, the copies were shipped from Copenhagen to Haderslev in Northern Schleswig from where they would be distributed. The new edition, however, was supplied with a translation of Francke’s foreword of his 1708 edition translated into Danish by the pastors of Schleswig. The Danish publishers meticulously refrained from revealing the name of the German author. The Copenhagen Waisenhaus should not be conceived as an agent of the Halle institution albeit the foreword clearly reflected the views of the pietist editors of Schleswig and Copenhagen. By using the foreword by Francke the Copenhagen publishers accepted a German instruction for a pietist reading of the orthodox, Danish Lutheran Bible edition exclusively for the multi lingual duchy of Schleswig
