Episcopal Power in Comparative Perspective. Administrative Practices and Cultures in Episcopal and Archiepiscopal Principalities in the Late Medieval Holy Roman Empire, ca. 1440-1520

中世纪晚期神圣罗马帝国的主教们掌管着两个政府，一个负责世俗领域(Hochstift)，另一个负责精神领域(教区)。然而，这一众所周知的事实还没有被研究其对精神统治和管理的影响，也不能通过简单地将为世俗公国确定的结果转移到圣公会和档案公国来解释。由于主教及其统治在中世纪晚期帝国的宪政结构和政治社会背景下的重要性，这一研究赤字尤为严重。这就是拟议的项目的用武之地。第一次，罗马-德意志帝国的各种教会公国的世俗管理大约在。1440年和1520年是从比较的角度进行考察的，两个假设--主教管理是交叉点和起搏器--被置于分析的中心。该项目努力进行尽可能广泛的比较，并充分利用数字人文的可能性，与最多涉及主教管理的旧研究相比，该项目将开发新的视角，并导致对教会公国统治的重新评估。通过包括广泛的原始材料，为行政人员的传记记录进行基础研究，并使人们能够对前现代领导层和职能精英有一个新的看法，他们的历史迄今几乎完全是为世俗领域而写的。一个多世纪以来，对几个Hochstifte的比较将反过来揭示超区域的相似性，但也会揭示条件和历史变化的异质性。通过这种方式，可以实现关于发展中心线的深刻声明，并将进程设定在欧洲一个重要的转型阶段。同时，为欧洲范围内的“行政实践”和“行政文化”的比较创造了条件，为进一步的研究创造了条件。

Bishops in the late medieval Holy Roman Empire were at the head of two administrations, the one for the secular domain (Hochstift) and the other for the spiritual domain (diocese). However, this well-known fact has not been researched in its effects on spiritual rule and administration and cannot be explained by simply transferring the findings determined for secular principalities to the episcopal and archiepiscopal principalities. Due to the great importance of the bishops and their rule in the constitutional structure and in the political and social context of the late medieval Empire, this research deficit is particularly serious.This is where the proposed project comes in. For the first time, the secular administration of various ecclesiastical principalities of the Roman-German Empire between approx. 1440 and 1520 is examined from a comparative perspective, and two hypotheses - the bishopric administrations as intersections and pacemakers - are placed at the center of the analysis.The project, which strives for the widest possible comparison and makes intensive use of the possibilities of digital humanities, will develop new perspectives compared to the older research, which at best dealt with the bishops' administrations, and lead to a reassessment of the rule in ecclesiastical principalities. By including extensive source material, basic research is carried out for the prosopographical recording of the administrative staff and enables a new view of the premodern leadership groups and functional elites, whose history has so far been written almost exclusively for the secular area. The comparison of several Hochstifte over more than a century will in turn reveal supra-regional similarities, but also the heterogeneity of conditions and historical change. In this way, profound statements about central lines of development and setting the course in an important European transformation phase can be realized. At the same time, the prerequisites for a comparison of "administrative practices" and "administrative cultures" in a European context are created for further research.