 |
 |
> Date sent: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 11:42:25 +0000 (GMT) > From: Bo Gregersen <[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Lund > Send reply to: [log in to unmask] > On Mon, 16 Dec 1996, Tiina Kala wrote: > > > I am currently studying the relationship between the bishops of > > Tallinn/Reval and the archnishops of Lund. Perhaps Bo Gregersen is > > able to answer my question: it is generally held that the bishop of > > Tallinn remained the suffragan of Lund even after the Danish king had > > sold Northern Estonia to the Theutonic Order but there are no local > > sources in Estonia to prove it. Is there a good reference to some > > literature or Danish sources to prove this suffragan relationship > > (even formal) between > > the bishops of Tallinn and Lund from late 14-th century up till the > > Reformation? (There is not enough evidence to state that the bishop > > of Tallinn was the suffragan of Riga either) > > > > Many thanks in advance, > > Tiina Kala > > Tallinn Town Archives > > > Dear Tiina > > I am sorry that I could not answer you before, but I could, on the other > hand, not have given a better answer that Thomas Izbicki. The period in > question is not the periode with which I am working. I am working with > the 13. century, and in this periode Eubel is a constant course for > concern. He relies heavily on sources from the Papal archives, and not > Danish archives, which means that he often give incorrect information. > > One of the Danish historians that has written most about the connections > between Lund and Reval is Niels Skyum-Nielsen. I know that he has written > at least two articles on the subject in German, but unfortunatly I don't > have the references. > > Bo Gregersen, Stirling Hello, my name is Per Ingesman and I am working on Danish church history in the later Middle Ages, especially the archbishops of Lund. The question of Reval is very interesting to me, as I have been puzzled by that question myself. Eubel does not give any sources, and you can also find the opposite point of view in survey articles and handbooks, e.g. Leksikon fuer Theologie und Kirche. But also there without sources. I have hithertoo found one source on the problem, the document from the Danish provincial council of 1425 in Copenhagen. There the archbishop of Lund tells which of his suffragans have met, and that is all the Danish one, while the one from Schleswig has sent two representatives, and the one from Reval has not met and has not sent representatives. Obviously, this means that in the year 1425 the archbishop of Lund still regarded Reval as a suffragan, but that Reval, on the other hand, did not recognize this. It is difficult to imagine that the archbishop should have put forward this point of view, had there been an official papal transfer of Reval to Riga some time after the Danish king sold off Estonia in 1346. But for how long did he maintain this pretention? And are there any sources that tell anything about how things really were? I am looking forward to more contributions. Per Ingesman Department of Church History Aarhus University Denmark [log in to unmask] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%