Mixed Matches: Transgressive Unions in Germany from the Reformation to the Enlightenment, edited by David M. Luebke and Mary Lindemann

Abstract

Mixed Matches: Transgressive Unions in Germany from the Reformation to the Enlightenment, edited by David M. Luebke and Mary Lindemann. New York, Berghahn Books, 2014. vi, 246 pp. $95.00 US (cloth). Mixed Matches: Transgressive Unions in Germany is part of the Spectrum series and published under the auspices of the German Studies Association; these are affiliations from which the book benefits, as the transatlantic character of the association and the dissemination of its ideas, are fostered throughout. Publishing the results of this German-American collaboration in the English language also makes it accessible to a broader range of students and scholars. By focusing on the shifting boundaries of acceptable marriage partners in exceptional and contested unions, the various contributions also illuminate broader changes in systems of regulation, including the law, the political system, and not least religious codes and practices during the early modern period. As David Luebke tells readers in the introduction, this volume should resonate not only with those interested in early modern history but also those engaged with contemporary issues about transgression. Same-sex marriage, mixed-race relationships, and binational unions are examples of contemporary debates that demonstrate the need to be mindful of the shifting boundaries of marital propriety, validity, legality, and definition. Given contemporary concerns about the definition of appropriate unions, this volume provides an important reminder that current debates on race, religion, sexuality, and gender in the context of marital and non-marital unions are not unprecedented but derive from early modern origins. The essays in the collection generally follow a chronological order and are organized in clusters related to a number of topics. They include the impact of the Protestant Reformation on the definition of marriage (chapters one to three); the issue of social status (chapters four and five); confessional barriers to marriage (chapters six to eight); race (chapter nine); and shifting understandings of the incest taboo (chapters ten and eleven). Marriage is placed at the intersection of private and public, and all of the contributions speak to the centrality of the institution to social organization. By examining relationships on the margins, the contributions to this volume make an in-depth exploration of the changes in power relations between the religious and secular context possible, while also pointing out the intersections that existed between the two frameworks. In particular, changing attitudes about sexual morality were at the heart of many deliberations related to suitable unions. Acknowledging sexuality as a fundamental aspect of the human condition also prompted the church and state to try channelling and thereby limiting sexual expression in officially sanctioned and narrowly defined marital unions only. Because the cases discussed in these chapters--clerical marriage, marriage across rank, inter-confessional marriage, cross-racial marriage, and incest--are those on the margins of propriety and acceptability at the time, they also generated attention. Thus, contributors to this volume have been able to draw on a rich cache of sources, among them theological tracts, court records, travelogues, and personal correspondence. One of the most prominent examples of a prospective transgressive union in this volume is discussed by Daniel Riches. His work traces the fifteen-year-long debate that ultimately failed to produce a marital partnership between Queen Christina of Sweden and Elector Wilhelm of Brandenburg. Opponents to the union deemed the prospective spouses an ill fit due to their differences in rank and religion. They also accused the queen of transgressing the norms of dominant sex and gender roles. As Riches points out, however, it was not just naysayers of the alliance who appropriated rhetoric of difference as justification, but those who were supportive of the union did as well. …