1. For a general introduction to the history of the Jews of Worms, see Reuter, Fritz, Warmaisa: 1000 Jahre Juden in Worms, Der Wormsgau, Beiheft 29 (Worms, 1984)Google Scholar. In Germany itself only the Jewish community of Frankfurt was larger than that of Worms in the early seventeenth century. In the Holy Roman Empire as a whole, however, the largest Jewish community was in Prague.

2. For a survey of historical and literary works pertaining to the events in Frankfurt, see Friedrichs, Christopher R., “Politics or Pogrom? The Fettmilch Uprising in German and Jewish History,” Central European History 19 (1986): 186–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. The fullest of the brief treatments produced in the nineteenth century were provided by Wolf, G., Zur Geschichte der Juden in Worms und des deutschen Städtewesens (Breslau, 1862), 16–22;Google ScholarGraetz, Heinrich, Geschichte der Juden von den ältesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart, 11 vols. (Leipzig, 1853–1876, frequently republished), 10 (2d ed., 1882): 34–37Google Scholar; and Boos, Heinrich, Geschichte der rheinischen Städtekultur von ihren Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Stadt Worms, 4 vols., 2d ed. (Berlin, 1897–1901), 3: 169–73.Google Scholar Subsequent historians whose work touches on the events in Worms have added to these versions only in piecemeal fashion and often repeat earlier inaccuracies. The best recent account of these events is offered by Merkel, Ernst, “Die Wormser Juden und Frankenthal: Ein Beitrag zu den wirtschaftlichen Beziehungen beider Städte und zu der Judenvertreibung von 1614/15,” Der Wormsgau 13 (1979–1981): 94–102.Google Scholar A briefer summary is given by Yagod, Leon, “Worms Jewry in the Seventeenth Century” (Ph. D. thesis, Yeshiva University, 1967), 38–41. The otherwise excellent survey by Reuter deals with the events of 1613–17 only briefly: Warmaisa, 84–88.Google Scholar

4. Reuter, Fritz, “Mehrkonfessionalität in der Freien Stadt Worms im 16.–18. Jahrhundert,”, in Kirchgässner, Bernhard and Reuter, Fritz, eds., Städtische Randgruppen und Minderheiten, Stadt in der Geschichte, 13 (Sigmaringen, 1986), 10–48, here 30.Google Scholar

5. For the foregoing, see ibid., 10–13.

6. For a parallel case, concerning the Landgrave of Hessen-Darmstadt and the imperial city of Wetzlar, see Friedrichs, Christopher R., “Urban Conflicts and the Imperial Constitution in Seventeenth-Century Germany,” Journal of Modern History 58, Suppl. (12 1986): s98–s123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. Haus-, Hof-und Staatsarchiv, Vienna [hereafter: HHStA], Reichshofrat Antiqua [hereafter: RHR Ant.] 1145/10.

8. Reuter, “Mehrkonfessionalistät”, 12–13; see also [Weckerling, August], “Verzeichnis der Mitglieder des Dreizehner Rats der Stadt Worms,” Vom Rhein: Monatsblatt des Wormser Altertumsvereins 9 (1910): 66–68.Google Scholar

9. Reuter, “Mehrkonfessionalität”, 13.

10. Ibid., 14–29, esp. 26.

11. An inventory of Jewish buildings and census of Jewish inhabitants dated July 1610 in the Stadtarchiv Worms [hereafter: StAW], 1B/2024/11, records the existence of 103 buildings in the Judengasse, of which some were empty or served communal purposes. The 97 actual households held about 725 Jewish inhabitants; the apparently large average of 7 persons per household is explained by the existence of many multigenerational families and the presence of numerous servants, foreign students, and other non-relatives. I am planning to carry out full analysis of this documents as a separate project.

12. Böcher, Otto, Der Alte Judenfriedhof zu Worms, 5th ed., Kunststätten, Rheinische, 148 (Cologne, 1984), 6.Google Scholar

13. Cf. Reuter, Warmaisa, 17–67.

14. Ibid., 22–26.

15. Battenberg, Friedrich, “Zur Rechtsstellung der Juden am Mittelrhein in Spätmittelalter und früher Neuzeit,” Zeitschrift für historische Forschung 6 (1979): 129–83, here 145–49.Google Scholar

16. Reuter, Warmaisa, 57–59.

17. Reuter, Fritz, “Bischof, Stadt und Judengemeinde von Worms im Mittelalter (1349–1526),” in Neunhundert Jahre Geschichte der Juden in Hessen: Beiträge zum politischen, wirstchaftlichen und kulturellen Leben, Schriften der Kommission für die Geschichte der Juden in Hessen, 6 (Wiesbaden, 1983), 41–82, here 46.Google Scholar

18. Battenberg, “Zur Rechtsstellung”, 137–39, 147.

19. Reuter, “Bischof, Stadt und Judengemeinde”, 46–47.

20. Ibid., 45.

21. For a recent discussion of this issue, see Battenberg, “Zur Rechtsstellung”, 149–56.

22. Wenninger, Markus J., Man bedarf keiner Juden mehr: Ursachen und Hintergründe ihrer Vertreibung aus den deutschen Reichsstädten im 15. Jahrhundert, Beihefte zum Archiv für Kulturgeschichte, 14 (Vienna and Cologne, 1981): 245–53.Google Scholar

23. Ibid., 159–60 and passim.

24. Reuter, “Bischof, Stadt und Judengemeinde”, 49.

25. Ibid., 20–21.

26. Battenberg, “Zur Rechtsstellung”, 140–42, 163–70.

27. Reuter, Warmaisa, 68–75, 78–80. The author includes a detailed summary of the Judenordnung of 1524.

28. Frey, Sabine, Rechtsschutz der Juden gegen Ausweisungen im 16. Jahrhundert, Rechtshistorische Reihe, 30 (Frankfurt and New York, 1983), 108–14.Google Scholar

29. Ibid., 112–13.

30. On the composition of the court, see Smend, Rudolf, Das Reichskammergericht: Geschichte und Verfassung, Quellen und Studien zur Verfassungsgeschichte des Deutschen Reiches in Mittelalter und Neuzeit, 4/3 (Weimar, 1911; reprint, 1965), esp. 264–70.Google Scholar

31. See, for example, the Judenordung of 1609: StAW 1B/2017/16, fols. 2r–6r, where the Jews' right to live in Worms is described as temporary, “unnsers am Cammergerichtt eingeführten schwebenden Rechtenns…unverlezlich” (fol. 6r).

32. Reuter, Warmaisa, 74.

33. Hsia, R. Po-chia, The Myth of Ritual Murder: Jews and Magic in Reformation Germany (New Haven, 1988), 163–96.Google Scholar

34. See, for example, Boulton, Jeremy, Neighbourhood and Society: A London Suburb in the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge, 1987), 87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35. For brief general discussions of this legislation, see Battenberg, “Zur Rechtsstellung,” 163–65; Frey, Rechtsschutz der Juden, 37–38.

36. Reichspolizeiordung 1530, in [Schmauss, Johann Jacob and Senckenberg, Heinrich Christian, eds. ], Neue und vollständigere Sammlung der Reichs-Abschiede…sammt den wichstigsten Reichs-Schlüssen…, 4 vols. (Frankfurt a. M., 1747; reprint, Osnabrück, 1967) [hereafter: NSRA], 2: 332–45, here 341–42 (tit. 26, 27)Google Scholar. Tit. 22 of the same ordinance required Jews to wear a yellow ring on their clothing.

37. Baron, Salo W., A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 2d ed., 18 vols. (New York and Philadelphia, 1952–1983), 13: 227.Google Scholar

38. Reichspolizeiordnung 1548, in NSRA, 2: 587–606, here 596–97, 599 (tit. 17, 20).

39. Reichsabschied 1551, in NSRA, 2: 609–32, here 622 (nos. 78–80).

40. Reichspolizeiordung 1577, in NSRA, 3: 379–98, here 389–90 (tit. 20).

41. Ibid., 390 (tit. 20, clause 7).

42. Battenberg, “Zur Rechtsstellung”, 136–37.

43. StAW 1B/2017/16: Judenordnung 1609. The text differs only in details from ordinances of the preceding decades, e.g., the Judenordnung of 1584 (StAW 1B/2017/5). The 1584 ordinance is summarized in detail by Boos, Städtekultur, 3: 164–69, and more briefly by Reuter, Warmaisas, 78–80.

44. Judenordnung 1609, art. 1–4, 7 (fols. 7r–12r, 15r–19r).

45. Ibid., art. 7 (fols. 15r–19r).

46. Ibid., art. 8, 18, 20 (fols. 19r, 32r–v, 33v–34r).

47. Ibid., art. 14 (fols. 25r–26v).

48. Ibid., art. 21–22 (fols. 34r–39v).

49. Ibid., art. 24 (fols. 40v–41r).

50. Ibid., fols. 43v–44r.

51. Hauptstaatsarchiv, Bayerisches, Munich: Geheimes Staatsarchiv, Kasten blau 117/1, Nr. 15, fols. 1–24, esp. fol. 17.Google Scholar

52. StAW 1A/I–883, 1B/447 (Capitulation zwischen Kurfürst Ludwig und der Stadt Worms, 19 Sept. 1611).

53. StAW 1B/8a (Zorn-Meixnersche Chronik), fol. 254v. The dates of events which occurred in Worms, are given in Old Style, i.e., according to the Julian calendar which was followed in Worms, as in all Protestant-dominated communities in Germany, until 1700.

54. Ibid., fol. 253v. See also Boos, Städtekultur, 2d ed., 4: 399–400.

55. For recent overviews of the events in Frankfurt, see Friedrichs, “Politics or Pogrom?,” 190–94, and Meyn, Matthias, Die Reichsstadt Frankfurt vor dem Bürgeraufstand von 1614: Struktur und Krise, Studien zur Frankfurter Geschichte, 15 (Frankfurt, 1980), 37–58Google Scholar. The proposals put forward in 1613 to drastically reduce the number of Jews in Frankfurt are discussed in Kracauer, Isidor, Geschichte der Juden zu Frankfurt a. M. (1150–1824), 2 vols. (Frankfurt, 1925–1927), 1: 375–78.Google Scholar

56. “Kürtzer/aber so wohl im Rechten alsz Geschicht unhinder treiblich gegründter Bericht/dess ubrigen Wormbsischen Juden wesens: halben …” [hereafter cited as: KB], in: Kurtzer bewehrter Ausszuch u. Der letzten Wormbser Judenordung/wie sie Anno 1594. an etlichen orten Corrigiert und gebessert/im Newlich eröffneten Buchstaben geschrieben befunden (Frankenthal, 1614), 39–70, here 44–46.Google Scholar

57. For one surviving petition (from the carpenters' guild), 5 Nov. 1613, see StAW 1B/2020/1.

58. KB, 57–58.

59. StAW 1B/2018/ (1612); 1B/2022/1 (2 Aug. to 6 Nov. 1613); 1B/2022/2 (27 Nov. to 13 Dec. 1613).

60. StAW 1B/ 2022/1, fols. 3v–4r (2 Nov. 1613).

61. Ibid., fol. 4r.

62. Ibid.

63. Merkel, “Die Wormser Juden”, 98. Chemnitz's name also appeared frequently in the Latinized from Chemnitius.

64. HHStA, RHR Ant. 1144/5 (Chemnitius Christophorus Dr. contra Die Statt Wormbs …), An die Röm. Kayssl. … Aller underthänigst, gehorsambst, unnd wahrhafftigster Gegen-Extract … [hereafter: Gegen-Extract], Beilage D (Copia Ertzhertzogs Leopoldi … schreyben …); Beilage A/No. XVI (Copia meiner armen … Haussfrawen zu Wormbss letzten anschreybens …).

65. HHStA, RHR Ant. 1144/5, Reichshof-Raths Relation und Guetachten … 1617 [hereafter: RHR Relation], Votum, 15 July 1617.

66. For a general discussion of this topic, see Friedrichs, Christopher R., “Politik und Sozialstruktur in der deutschen Stadt des 17, Jahrhunderts,” in Schmidt, Georg, ed., Stände und Gesellschaft im Alten Reich, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte Mainz, Abteilung Universalgeschichte, Beiheft 29 (Stuttgart, 1989), 151–70.Google Scholar

67. StAW 1B/2022/14 (incorrectly dated 1614; the correct date is 17 Dec. 1613). A printed version appears in the Kurtzer bewehrter Ausszuch, 96–98.

68. StAW 1B/2021/2 (21 Jan. 1614).

69. HHStA, RHR Ant. 1144/5, Gegen-Extract, Beilage F (Extractus auss dem Burger Protocoll den 23 Febr. Ao. 1614 … gehaltten).

70. Ibid., 1 (my pagination).

71. Ibid., 1–2.

72. Ibid., 2–3.

73. [Kern, Hans Georg], Kurtzer und bewehrter Ausszug An alle Geistliche und Weltliche/hohe und niderstandes Personen/von der Welt unerhörte/beydes frewdige und erschröckliche Zeitung/alles dessen/so in dess Heyligen Reichs Freystat Worms … fürgangen … (n. p., 1617 hereafter cited as: Kern, Ausszug,), Aiii(r-v).Google Scholar

74. HHStA, RHR Ant. 1144/5, Gegen-Extract, Beilage F, 3.

75. Kurtzer bewehrter Ausszuch, 95.

76. The original petition does not appear to have survived. But its contents can be reconstructed from numberous documents prepared by the citizens: (1)KB, 47–51, which summarizes the petition in detail; (2) StAW 1B/2022/23 (Underthäniger wahrhafftiger undt bestendiger Gegenbericht der siebentzehen christlichen Zünffte zu Wormbss uff der gantzen leybeygenen Judischheith daselbsten vermeinte Supplication …), fols. 18v–23v, in which statement in the Jews' petition are quoted before being rebutted; (3) HHStA, RHRAnt. 1144/11, Nr. 3 (Gravamina Der Burgerschafft zue Wormbs wieder die Judenschafft alda), art. 35. The imperial mandate of March 1614, discussed below, also quotes a few phrases from the Jews' petition.

77. KB, 48; StAW 1B/2022/23, fols. 18v–19v.

78. KB, 49–50; StAW 1B/2022/23, fols. 19v–20v, 21r, 22v–23r.

79. This persistent error, most recently repeated by Merkel, “Die Wormser Juden,” 98–99, and Reuter, Warmaisa, 86, has its origins in a mistake made by Boos, Städtekultur, 3: 170. Boos misinterpreted a passage in Mannheimer, Moses, Die Juden in Worms, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Juden in den Rheingegenden (Frankfurt, 1842), 34–35Google Scholar, which actually pertained to the events of April 1615, as referring to 1614 and thus assumed that there must have been a first expulsion of Jews in that year. Merkel and Reuter evidently saw further support for this theory in the fact that a crucial pamphlet describing the events of 1615 (cited in n. 176 below) refers to those events as the “zweite Aussmüsterung der Jüden,” thus implying that a “first” expulsion must have occurred earlier. But the “erste Ausmusterung” implied by this phrase probably referred to the explusion of the Jews from Frankfurt in 1614.

80. KB, 49–50; StAW 1B/2022/23, fol. 22r–v.

81. Ibid., fols. 20v, 21v, 22r–23v.

82. Wolf, Zur Geschichte der Juden, 58–59. See also StAW 1B/2020/2. The mandate was dated 11 Mar. 1614, presumably New Style as it was issued by the imperial court which followed Catholic norms.

83. StAW 1B/2020/3b (8 Apr. 1614). This petition was “signed” by a number of persons but the names cannot be read. It is clear on inspection of the document that these illegible names are not the painfully scrawled signatures of semi-literates but instead deliberate scribbles, presumably to conceal the names of the signatories.

84. Ibid. Whether or not such a chronicle existed, this statement about the Jews' earlier way of life in Worms had no foundation in fact.

85. StAW 1B/2022/23 (cf. n. 76).

86. Ibid., fols. 2r–9v and passim; for the phrase “precario undt bitsweise,” fols. 9r, 13v.

87. Ibid., fols. 9v–12v, 14r–v.

88. Ibid., fols. 18v–23v, here 23v.

89. StAW 1B/2022/5 (13 May 1614).

90. The exact origins of this case cannot be determined from the mandate issued by the Reichskammergericht on 20 Sept. 1614 (StAW 1B/2021/7).

91. This case must have been initiated sometime before 7 April, as there is a reference to the Reichskammergericht having requested a report on that date: StAW 1B/2020/4, fol. 1.

92. Cf. Frey, Rechtsschutz der Juden, 132–34.

93. Radbruch, Gustav, ed., Die Peinliche Gerichtsordnung Kaiser Karls V. von 1532 (Carolina) (Stuttgart, 1967), 76.Google Scholar

94. KB, 56. Unfortunately the university concerned is only referred to as “eine in tota Europa weitberümete Universitet”.

95. Ibid., 57–58.

96. Ibid., 58–59; Kern, Ausszug, Bii.

97. KB, 59–60.

98. Ibid., 60–61.

99. Ibid.

100. StAW 1B/2021/1 (21 June 1614).

101. The existence of this complaint is known from the Emperor's mandate of 26 July 1614: Wolf, Zur Geschichte der Juden, 58–59.

102. StAW 1B/2020/4 (22 June 1614).

103. Ibid., fols. 7r–9r.

104. Ibid., fols. 4v–6v.

105. Ibid., fols. 8r–v.

106. Ibid., fols. 11v–12v. The magistrates also noted that the compact of December 1612, which was supposed to settle the disturbances in Frankfurt, had established interim interest rates of 8 to 10 percent.

107. Ibid., fols. 9v–11r.

108. Ibid., fol. 13r.

109. StAW 1B/2022/6 (24 June 1614).

110. Kern, Ausszug, Bii(r)–Bii(v); cf. Franckfurtische unnd Wormbsische Relation: Oder Zwo Wahrhafftige Newe Zeitungen … (Lich, 1614), Aiiii(v).Google Scholar

111. As reported in the minhag book of Löb Kirchheim, an eyewitness. The text of the relevent passage is reprinted by Epstein, A., Die Wormser Minhagbücher (Breslau, 1900), xii–xiii, here xiiGoogle Scholar. I am indebted to Prof. Richard Menkis for his assistance in translating this material from the Hebrew.

112. StAW 1B/8a (Zorn-Meixnersche Chronik), fol. 255r; Kern, Ausszug, Biii(v).

113. As recorded by Kirchheim, Löb: Epstein, Minhagbücher, xiiiGoogle Scholar. The non-Jewish sources cited in the previous note give no report of Chemnit's words but concur that he persuaded his fellow citizens to reopen the gates.

114. Ibid., xiii.

115. Kern, Ausszug, Biii(r-v).

116. Meyn, Die Reichsstadt Frankfurt, 37; for a parallel case from Wetzlar, see Friedrichs, “Urben Conflicts”, 105. For a brief general comparison between the events in Frankfurt and Worms, see also idem, “The Anti-Jewish Movements in Frankfurt and Worms, 1612–1617: Local Crisis and Imperial Response,” Proceedings of the Tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division B, vol. 2 (1990), 199–208.Google Scholar

117. Kern, Ausszug, Biii(r-v).

118. Ibid., Biii(v); StAW 1B/8a, fol. 255.

119. Ibid., Biiii(r).

120. Ibid., Biiii(r-v).

121. The existence of this complaint is known from the Emperor's mandate of Oct. 1614: Wolf, Zur Geschichte der Juden, 59–61.

122. Kern, Ausszug, Biiii(r).

123. StAW 1B/2020/5b (22 July 1614).

124. StAW 1B/2021/6 (30 July 1614).

125. Wolf, Zur Geschichte der Juden, 57–58.

126. Ibid., 58–59.

127. StAW 1B/2022/8 (14 Sept. 1614).

128. StAW 1B/2021/7 (20 Sept. 1614).

129. StAW 1B/2021/9 (1 Oct. 1614); printed as Kayserlicher Herold/Das ist: Mandatum poenale sine et respective cum Clausula, Wormbsische Zünffut/u. contra Wormbs/Die Abrechnung und Rückraitung auff fünff vom Hundert mit den Juden zu halten (Frankfurt, [1614])Google Scholar. According to this, the mandate arrived in Worms on 7 October.

130. StAW 1B/2022/15 (27 Sept. 1614, presumably New Stlye, thus 17 Sept. Old Style); this mandate arrived in Worms on 2 October (according to StAW 1B/2022/10).

131. KB, 65.

132. HHStA, RHR Ant. 1145/11, No. 3, art. 28.

133. Ibid., art. 29. This may have been reference to the famous tombs of the Salian Emperors in Speyer.

134. StAW 1B/2020/13b (28 Oct. 1614).

135. HHStA, RHR Ant. 1144/5, An Die Röm. Kayss. … Maytt. … Allerunderhänigst, und notträngligst Suppliciren…[hereafter; Suppliciren], Beilage D (Copia…Schadloshaltung, de Ao. 1614).

136. StAW 1B/2020/12 (27 Oct. 1614).

137. HHStA, RHR Ant. 1144/5, RHR Relation, Beilage J (Copia requisition zettulss).

138. These additional demands are known from the council's response: StAW 1B/2020/14 (4 Nov. 1614).

139. Wolf, Zur Geschichte der Juden, 59–61. The mandate was dated 2 October, presumably New Style, Its arrival in Worms on 30 October is known from StAW 1B/2022/10.

140. Cf. Bothe, Friedrich, Geschichte der Stadt Frankfurt am Main (Frankfurt, 1913; reprint, 1966), 432.Google Scholar

141. StAW 1B/2020/14 (4 Nov. 1614).

142. StAW 1B/2022/10 (6 Nov. 1614), fols. IV–3V.

143. Ibid., fol. 4r–6r.

144. StAW 1B/2021/9 (18 Nov. 1614).

145. StAW 1B/2021/8 (undated, but presumably contemporaneous with the council's brief of 18 Nov.); See esp. fol. 12r.

146. StAW 1B/2022/12 (5 Dec. 1614).

147. The council did submit one more request in March 1615 for an annulment of the case launched by the citizens: StAW 1B/2022/20 (8 Mar. 1615).

148. In the late sixteenth century, final judgements were issued in about one of every five cases that came before the Reichskammergericht: Dick, Bettina, Die Entwicklung des Kameralprozesses nach den Ordnungen von 1495 bis 1555, Quellen und Forschungen zur höchsten Gerichtsbarkeit im Alten Reich, 10 (Cologne, 1981), 177.Google Scholar

149. Kayserlicher Herold (cf. n. 129).

150. Kurtzer bewehrter Ausszuch (cf. n. 56).

151. StAW 1B/2021/10 (2 Dec. 1614).

152. Chemnitz's offensive letter of 4 Dec. is cited in a communication by the Elector of 5 Jan. 1615 (StAW 1B/2021/13a).

153. Kern, Ausszug, Cii(v). On this whole episode, see also Merkel, “Die Wormser Juden”, 100.

154. Aller unterthänigste Supplication An R/m. Kays. Mayst. Mathiassen/und gesampte … Churfürsten/zu Regenspurg/Pro Johan Georg Kern/vertriebenen Zunfft Meister: Und andere…Bürger Contra Dem Raht und wieder eingeführte Jüdischheit daselbst (n.p., 1618) [hereafter: Kern, Supplication], 11.

155. Jews were not permitted to reside permanently in the Palatinate and were not supposed to engage in any business while in transit through the territory. This policy was reaffirmed by the Elector in a mandate of 28 Jan. 1615 (HHStA, RHR Ant. 1144/5, Gegen-Extract, Beilage 10).

156. Kern Ausszug, Cii(V).

157. As reported StAW 1B/2020/18, fol. 8r.

158. StAW 1B/2021/13a (5 Jan. 1615).

159. StAW 1B/2022/17 (6 Jan. 1615).

160. StAW 1B/2022/18 (5 Feb. 1615).

161. StAW 1B/2020/18 (8–10 Feb. 1615), fol 11–3r.

162. Ibid., fols. IV–3r.

163. Ibid., fols. 6r–9v, esp. 6v.

164. Ibid., fols. 9v–16v, esp. fol. 14r–v.

165. StAW 1B/2021/17(14 Feb. 1615). Kern, Ausszug, Ciii(I-V) provides a slightly different summary of the proposals.

166. StAW 1B/2021;/17.

167. StAW 1B/2021/18 (18 Feb. 1615).

168. Kern Ausszug, Ciii(V)-Ciiii(r) lists the reasons for the citizens' rejection of the proposals.

169. StAW 1B/2021/22 (23 Feb. 1615); see also 1B/2020/19.

170. StAW 1B/2020/20 (13 Mar. 1615), fol. 2r.

171. Ibid., esp. fols. 1r–2v.

172. StAW 1B/2021/19 (27 Mar. 1615).

173. Kern, Ausszug, Ciiii(r–v).

174. Einer ganntzen Ehrliebennden Freyen Reichs Burgerschafft/in der Uralten Kays. Freyen Reichsstatt Wormbss/Reiterirtes Aydpflichting und Wahrhafftes Gezeugnus… (Vienna, 1629), Aii(v)–Aiii(r);Google Scholar copy in HHStA, RHR Ant. 1144/5, Suppliciren, Beilage E [hereafter cited as Gezeugnus]. The same statement is reported in other sources, e.g., HHStA, RHR Ant. 1145/11, No. 3, art. 31, and more briefly in Kern, Ausszug, Ciii(v). Rennenkampff later claimed his statement had been disorted or misquoted: HHStA, RHR Ant. 1145/11 No. 4 (Dess Raths zue Wormbs Antwort uf der Burgerschafft daselbsten eingewendte beschwerungen samptt Der Subdelegirten Kay. Commissarien declaration), art. 55.

175. Gezeugnus, Ali(v).

176. Auszmusterung der Jüden zu Wormbs; Das ist/Historische Relation/wie die Bürger zu Wormbs/Ihre Jüden aussgewiesen/und fortgetrieben… (n.p., 1615), 3.

177. Ibid.

178. Ibid., 4.

179. Ibid.

180. Description by Kirchheim, Löb, reprinted in Epstein, Minhagbücher, xiii.Google Scholar

181. Auszmusterung, 4–5.

182. Ibid., 5. Cf. Kern, Ausszug, Di(v).

183. Auszmusterung, 6.

184. Kirchheim in Epstein, Minhagbücher, xiii–xiv.

185. Auszmusterung, 6.

186. Kirchheim in Epstein, Minhagbücher, xiv.

187. Auszmusterung, 7.

188. As can be seen from the Emperor's responses of 14 and 20 Aug. 1615: Wolf, Zur Geschichte der Juden, 66–67.

189. As seen from Ibid., 63–64.

190. StAW 1B/2021/20 (14 Apr. 1615).

191. StAW 1B/2021/21 (Apr. 1615).

192. Kern, Ausszug, Dii. In a later document the magistrates conceded that some of them, as individuals, had lent money to the Jews: HHStA, RHR Ant. 1145/11, No. 4 (Dess Raths…Antwort), art 51.

193. Kurtzer unwergreifflicher Bericht/wie/der Durchleuchtigst/Hochgeborne Fürst und Herr/Herr Friderich Der Fünfft/Pfaltzgraff bey Rhein/etc. Churfürst/Montags den 24. Aprilis/alten Calenders/diss 1615. Jahrs…mit etlichen volck vor Stadt Wormbs kommen… (n.p., 1615) [hereafter cited as: Bericht], 2. (Another edition of this pamphlet, published in Augsburg, has the same contents but dates are given according to New Style.) According to a different account of these events, there were 20 companies (Fahnen) of infantry and one company of cavalry: Kern, Ausszug, Dii(v). This could be consistent with a total of at least 4,000 men.

194. On Schönberg, who was Obermarschall of the Palatinate, see Press, Volker, Calvinismus und Territorialstaat: Regierung und Zentralbehörden der Kurpfalz, 1559–1619, Kieler Historische Studien, 7(Stuttgart, 1970), 483–84.Google Scholar

195. Bericht, 2–3: Kern, Ausszug, Dii(r)–Diii(r).

196. Bericht, 3–6; Kern, Ausszug, Diii(r–v). A report to the Emperor attributed to the Elector (dated 29 April 1615) defended the military action as necessary to restore peace to the city and suggested that in light of the great bitterness of the citizens towards the Jews, it might be best if the Jews did not return. This report must have been printed as a pamphlet which is no longer extant; the text appears in a later work based largely on contemporary pamphlets: [ van Meteren, Emanuel, Meterani Novi, Das ist: Niederländischer Historien Ander Teil (Amsterdam, 1640), 448–50.Google Scholar

197. Bericht, 6.

198. Kern, Ausszug, Diii(v)-Diiii(r); Kern, Supplication, 15.

199. Text in Wolf, Zur Geschichte der Juden, 61–62 (23 Apr. 1615).

200. See Friedrichs, “Urban Conflicts,” esp. 101–3, 119–23.

201. Text in Wolf, , Zur Geschichte der Juden, 63–64 (6 05 1615).Google Scholar A letter of the same date went to the city council to urge cooperation with the commissioners: ibid., 64–65.

202. The contents of this letter are known from the summary provided in the Emperor's letter of August 14: ibid., 65–66.

203. Kern, Ausszug, Diiii(v)-Ei(v).

204. Ibid., Ei(v)-Eii(v). The intercessions for Chemnitz are mentioned in the Bericht, 6.

205. Kern, Supplication, 14–15.

206. Kern, Ausszug, Eii(r).

207. Wolf, , Zur Geschichte der Juden, 65–67 (14 08 1615).Google Scholar

208. Ibid., 67 (28 Aug. 1615).

209. The contents of this communication (2 Dec. 1615) are known from the summary in the Emperor's letter of February 1616: ibid., 68–69.

210. ibid., 67–69 (16 or 19 Feb. 1616). According to the chronicler Juspa Shammes, who lived in Worms a generation later, the Jews's delegation consisted of Löb Oppenheim and one other leader of Worms Jewry: Rothschild, Samson, Aus Vergangenheit und Gegenwart der Israelitischen Germeinde Worms 6th ed. (Frankfurt, 1962), 42.Google Scholar

211. Gezeugnus, Ai(v)-Aiii(r).

212. HHStA, RHR Ant. 1144/5 (Letter of Maria Chemnitz to the Emperor, 23 Jan. 1616, received 23 Feb. 1616).

213. Kern, Ausszug, Eii(v).

214. For some general discussions of the issues at stake in German urban conflicts of the seventeenth century, see Hildebrandt, Reinhard, “Rat contra Bürgerschaft: Verfassungskonflikte in den Reichsstädten des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts,” Zeitschrift für Stadtgeschichte, Stadtsoziologie und Denkmalpflege 1 (1974): 221–41;Google ScholarGerteis, Klaus, “Frühneuzeitliche Stadtrevolten im sozialen und institutionellen Bedingungsrahmen,” in Rausch, Wilhelm, ed., Die Städte Mitteleuropas im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert, Beitrage zur Geschichte der Stadte Mitteleuropas, 5 (Linz, 1981), 43–58;Google ScholarFriedrichs, Christopher R., “German Town Revolts and the Seventeenth-Century Crsis,” Renaissance and Modern Studies 26 (1982): 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

215. Kern, Ausszug, Eii(v)-Eiii(r).

216. The date corresponded to 19 January (New Style) and to the eve of the 1st of Shevat 5376; cf. Yagod, “Worms Jewry,” 41.

217. StAW Urkunden, no. 908 (8/18 Jan. 1616).

218. Kern, Ausszug, Eiii(r).

219. HHStA, RHR Ant. 1145/Il, No. 3, art. 1–19.

220. Ibid., art. 20.

221. Ibid., art. 20.

222. Ibid., art. 27, 32, 33, 34. The petition also rehashed the details of the Jews' initial petition to the Emperor which had led to the citizens' libel suit; Ibid., 35.

223. Ibid., art. 21.

224. Kern, Ausszug, Eiii(r-v). The full text is in HHStA, RHR Ant. 1145/11, N. (Gravamina Der Burgerschafft zu Wormbs wieder Em Ersamen Rath daselbsten, 18 Jan. 1616).

225. Ibid., art. 1–3, 51.

226. Ibid., art 4, 6, 20.

227. Ibid., e.g., art 8, 10–13, 15–16, 20–21, 26–27, 32–33, 42–46.

228. Ibid., art. 4 (expansion of council membership), 52 (establishment of a municipal bureau to make loans to citizens at 5 percent interest).

229. HHStA, RHR Ant. 1145/11, No. 4 (Dess Raths…Antwort), arts. 1, 10, 11, 16, 20–22, 49, 51, and passim.

230. Ibid., esp. arts. 3, 10, 16, 35, 51, 52. The subdelegates' evaluation of each point is listed immediately following the council's response.

231. HHStA, RHR Ant. 1145/11, No. 2 [F] (4 Mar. 1616).

232. Records which might have permitted an analysis of the Worms tax system of the seventeenth century were destroyed when Worms was burned by the French in 1689.

233. Wolf, , Zur Geschichte der Juden, 70–79 (22 02 1617)Google Scholar. It is not clear why the Judenordnung of 1604, rather than the more recent version of 1609, was used as a basis. In any case the difference would have been slight.

234. Ibid., 73–75. Art. 9 specifically reaffirmed the old interest rate of 10 percent, while art. 12 reaffirmed art. 22 of the 1604 ordinance, which among other things had permitted a rate of 12½ percent in certain cases.

235. Ibid., 74–75 (art. 10, 17).

236. HHStA, RHR Ant. 1144/5, Letter of Maria Chemnitzin, 23 Jan. 1616; Gegen-Extract, Lit. D, Testimonium publicum Innocentiae (29 Feb. 1616).

237. Ibid., Gegen-Extract, Lit. D, Copia Ertzhertzogs Leopoldi…schreyben, 25 Feb. 1616.

238. Ibid., Wiederantwortt so die Herm Subdelegirten zu Wormbss und der Rath…zusammen geschnitt.

239. The texts of the main sentences are given in Lünig, Johann Christian, Das Teutsche Reichs-Archiv (Leipzig, 1713–1722)Google Scholar, Pars specialis, Continuatio IV, 2. Theil (I): 703–4. The fullest description of the actual event is provided by Kern, Ausszug, Eiiii(r)-Fi(r), on which the following is based. Merkel, “Die Wormser Juden,” 102, also draws on this description but incorrectly dates this as having occurred in 1616.

240. Kern, Ausszug, esp. Ai(r), Fii(v). This pamphlet is a major source of information on many details of the Worms uprising. Though the writing is obviously highly polemical, when it is possible to compare Kern's version of events with that provided by other sources, the details are generally accurate.

241. Kern, Supplication, esp. 32.

242. HHStA, RHR Ant. 1144/5, Gegen-Extract, Beilage A/No. XIV (13 Apr. 1617); see also Beilage A/No. 2 (Mar. 1618).

243. HHStA, RHR Ant. 1144/5, RHR Relation (15 July 1617), Votum.

244. HHStA, RHR Ant. 1144/5, Gegen-Extract, Beilage C (24 Oct. 1617).

245. Ibid., Beilage A/No. 1 (Oct. 1617). The officials were Drs. Georg Friedrich Pastor and Ludwig Camerarius, whom Chemnitz described as former friends who had turned against him. As a member of the Palatine Oberrat, Camerarius was among the Elector's most influential counsellors: Press, Calvinismus und Territorialstaat, 484.

246. HHStA, RHR Ant. 1144/5, Letter dated 26 May 1618.

247. HHStA, RHR Ant. 1144/5, Gegen-Extract (7 Mar. 1619); appended to this brief were 48 supporting documents.

248. Ibid., Beilage A/No. 1.

249. HHStA, RHR Ant. 1144/5, Gegen-Extract; Suppliciren (2 Jan. 1624). Stromberg, which is near Simmern, was possibly Chemnitz's place of birth. It is not clear whether the style Chemnitz assumed implied a real patent of nobility.

250. HHStA, RHR Ant. 1144/5, Copia supplicationis, So D. Chemnitius Ao. 1622 am Keyss. Hoff zu Wien in Osterreich, wieder gantze gemeine abtrunnige Wormbsser Burgerschafft…ubergeben.

251. HHStA, RHR Ant. 1144/5, Suppliciren, Beilage A (23 June 1623), Beilage C (27 Feb.1623).

252. HHStA, RHR Ant. 1144/5, Ans Cammergericht zu Speyer für Dr. Chemnitio pro avocanda et hue remitterta causa … (19 Aug. 1624). The Emperor ordered the case transferred from the Reichskammergericht to his own court in Vienna.

253. Jewish life in Worms in the seventeenth century is described in detail by Yagod, “Worms Jewry,” 55–165, and Reuter, Warmaisa, 101–19. Both authors draw heavily on the writings of Juspa Shammes (d. 1678), who left a valuable description of the customs of Worms Jewry.

254. For a classic discussion of this theme, see Davis, Natalie Z., “The Rites of Violence: Religious Riot in Sixteenth-Century France,” Past and Present, no. 59 (05 1973): 51–91.Google Scholar

255. Israel, Jonathan, “Central European Jewry during the Thirty Years' War,” Central European History 16 (1983): 3–30, esp. 5–7;CrossRefGoogle Scholaridem, European Jewry in the Age of Mercantilism, 1550–1750, 2d ed. (Oxford, 1989), 41–44;Google ScholarPress, Volker, “Kaiser Rudolf II. und der Zusammenschluss der deutschen Judenheit: Die sogenannte Frankfurter Rabbinerverschwörung von 1603 und ihre Folgen,” in Haverkamp, Alfred, ed., Zur Geschichte der Juden im Deutschland des spaten Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit, Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters, 24 (Stuttgart, 1981), 243–93.Google Scholar

256. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, 2d ed., 10: 34.

257. Kracauer, Isidor, “Die Juden Frankfurts im Fettmilch'schen Aufstand, 1612–1618,” Zeitschrift für die Geschichte der Juden in Deutschland 4 (1890): 127–69, 319–65; 5 (1892): 1–26; see esp. 4: 358n.Google Scholar