Engineering the Sacred; Administrating the Soul: the Plurality and Pluralization of Early Modern Catholicism in Roman Censorship of Sacramental and Devotional Writings 1643-1713

这项提议希望研究早期现代欧洲非多元化社区中的多元化和多元化的动态。受到后涂尔干人类学和组织社会学范式转变的启发，它旨在追踪早期现代忏悔中的宗教多元性：不是作为一种边缘现象，而是作为宗教变革的调解人，与享有学术特权的统一化的敦促一样。宗教习俗和仪式是中心主题，应该是一个恰当的例子。早期现代天主教的正统转向，当局对正确的圣礼和虔诚实践的痴迷，很可能是一种策略，以掩盖在关于神圣恩典、无错性、无瑕疵概念等的颠覆性辩论中未能实现教义统一的一种策略。因为这种正统的转变及其引发的争论，主要是通过印刷机、圣礼论文、虔诚的大众文学、兄弟会书籍、印刷论文等进行的，这为研究人员提供了一个验证这一假说的精致有利位置。1643年至1713年之间的几十年构成了简森主义、奎斯奈利主义、安静主义争论的典型时刻。这些争论并不是中心焦点，尽管它们提供了丰富的信息。这条路线是由与快速发展的图书文化同步发展的做法构成的：审查制度，更具体地说，是罗马教众实行的高度制度化的审查制度。最近的历史学认为，审查制度不仅是一种社会惩戒手段，也是一种文化和认知实践。在预防性和压制性审查的背景下起草的资料提供了有关宗教习俗和仪式的文本和写作过程中难得的洞察力。首先，这种方法在侧重于所谓东正教的宗教习俗的研究项目中提供了具体的分析优势。其次，它提供了保存在罗马教廷各种档案中的极其丰富的资料。第三，它引入了一个特定的研究人群：活跃在宗教裁判所、索引和罗马教廷其他部委的教皇审查员和(其他)官僚：专家文化的参与者，他们认为自己是单一教会教义内僵化等级的管理者。因此，根据其前提，本项目旨在调查这些信仰的官僚是否以及如何可能矛盾地促进或推动早期现代天主教的多元化和多元化(S)。因此，该培训项目(主管：法兰克福早期现代史主席Birgit Emich教授)将位于文化史、宗教史、科学史和思想史的十字路口。

This Proposal wishes to investigate the dynamics of plurality and pluralisation in non-pluralist communities in Early Modern Europe. Inspired by paradigm shifts in post-Durkheimian Anthropology and in Organisation Sociology, it aims at tracking religious plurality within early modern confessions: not as a phenomenon on the fringes but as a mediator of religious change on par with urges towards uniformisation privileged in scholarship. Religious practices and rites, the central theme, should be a case in point. The orthopractic turn in early modern Catholicism, the obsession of authorities with correct sacramental and devotional practice, might well have been a strategy to cover up the failure to achieve doctrinal unity in disruptive debates on Divine Grace, Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception etcetera. Because this orthopractic turn, and the polemics it triggered, was largely conducted via the printing presses, sacramental treatises, devotional mass literature, confraternity books, printed theses etcetera offer the researcher an exquisite vantage point to verify this hypothesis.The decades between 1643 and 1713 constitute a quintessential moment in the polemics of Jansenism, Quesnellianism, Quietism. These polemics are not the central focus, although they provide a wealth of information. The line of approach is constituted by practices that developed in tandem with a quickly evolving book culture: censorship, more specifically the highly institutionalised censorship exercised by the Roman congregations. Recent historiography has viewed censorship not merely as a means of social disciplining, but also as a cultural and cognitive practice. Sources drafted in the context of preventive and repressive censorship offer a rare insight in texts and in writing processes pertaining to religious practices and rites.This line of approach offers, firstly, specific analytical advantages in a research project that focusses on religious practice in a so-called orthodoxic religion. Secondly, it furnishes an extraordinarily rich body of sources preserved in various archives of the Holy See. And, thirdly, it introduces a specific research population: papal censors and (other) bureaucrats that were active in the Congregations of the Inquisition, the Index, and other ministries of the Roman curia: participants to an expert culture who considered themselves administrators of a rigid hierarchy within a monolithic Church Militant.In line with its premises, this project therefore aims at investigating whether and how these bureaucrats of the Faith paradoxically might have facilitated or fuelled plurality and pluralisation in early modern Catholicism(s). This Habilitation project (Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Birgit Emich, Chair for Early Modern History, Frankfurt) is therefore to be situated at the crossroads of cultural history, religious history, and the history of science and ideas.