“Alone Amongst Ourselves”: How to Talk in Private According to the Cologne Diarist, Hermann von Weinsberg (1518–1597)

Abstract

This chapter examines the diarist Hermann von Weinsberg’s descriptions of everyday conversations, which are incredibly revealing of the notions of privacy within his social circles. Weinsberg recorded these conversations in his diary, a record meant to be kept secret from his contemporaries but at the same time intended to be read by his future family members. The chapter explores the creative textual approaches (writing about some conversations at a later time, trying to hide them entirely, subtle hints, referring to other texts, switching to Latin, etc.) that the diarist used while trying to balance between these two aims in his records. Péter’s contribution highlights different spaces in which private conversations could take place, and how people could negotiate what they understood to be the boundaries of privacy while communicating with people.

The manuscript diary of Hermann von Weinsberg (1518–1597), a wine merchant and city councillor living in Cologne, is a remarkable source for understanding everyday life in sixteenth-century Germany. Among the many instances of family matters connected to upbringing, celebrations, reputation, wedding strategies, and the writing of wills, he recorded a number of discussions and conversations with his family members, neighbours, acquaintances, and other dwellers of the city. Although there are surprisingly few occasions in his diary in which Weinsberg explicitly mentions that he talked privately with someone, the source nevertheless offers valuable indications and describes intriguing instances of how Weinsberg conducted his private conversations as well as how he instructed his imaginary heirs to monitor conversations that should be kept private. Furthermore, Weinsberg explicitly expressed several times that the entire journal was conceived as a private conversation with his future family members, such as on the introductory pages of his diary.¹ In 1582, he commented that he was actually speaking to his descendants—in this case, to the wife of the future family head addressed as “my beloved daughter”²—through the means of pen, ink, and paper in writing. In this sense, his diary operated as a posthumous letter since correspondence itself was perceived as a written conversation with absent persons in the sixteenth century,³ presumably under the influence of the popular treatise De conscribendis epistolis (On the Writing of Letters, 1522) by Erasmus. Thus, while describing the minute details of their everyday life, Weinsberg, in fact, publicised the private life—including the private conversations—of his own and of his environment, albeit to a restricted reading public only.⁴

This chapter investigates some of these private conversations recounted by the diarist from the perspective of privacy, more precisely through the lens of one individual as a node within broader social and intellectual networks.⁵ Beginning with a section on the virtues of silence and speaking—on whether to talk in private and how much—and exploring what it meant for Weinsberg to talk ‘freely’ or ‘alone’ in the bedchamber, this approach will focus on the term ‘private’ and other cognates for talking in private in Weinsberg’s diary, including his instructions to his future readers regarding what conversations should be held in private.

Hermann von Weinsberg was born in 1518 in the family of an emerging wine merchant.⁶ He attended the University of Cologne from where he graduated with a law degree in 1543. However, he never worked as a lawyer, earning his living as a wine merchant as well as from sundry other income sources and rents instead. Later, he became city councillor and churchwarden of St. Jakob, his parish church. Although he married wealthy widows twice, both marriages remained childless. In 1560, he started writing his extremely detailed diary (Gedenckboich). It comprises three parts: the Liber Iuventutis (Book of Youth) which covers the years between 1518 and 1577, the Liber Senectutis (Book of Old Age) which constitutes the second part and covers the years between 1578 and 1587, and the Liber Decrepitudinis (Book of Decrepitude), the final part which covers his last years from 1588 onwards and ends with an unfinished sentence on financial matters on 27 February 1597, three weeks before his death.

Weinsberg kept the existence of his diary secret from his family members; in fact, they were surprised when they discovered it after his death in his study room (Schreibkamer,⁷ Schrifstoblin⁸) on the second floor of the family house called zur Cronenberg. In addition to his room upstairs, the diarist also had a small chamber (min stoblin⁹) on the ground floor which he used during winters.¹⁰ In the same house, in a “neat, cheerful room”,¹¹ according to Weinsberg’s description, lived his younger sister Sibilla (1537–1598) who had separated from her husband. A third member of the household was another Hermann (1560–1604), the eldest son of their late brother Christian (1529–1564), with whom the diarist shared the upstairs bedchamber (sclafkamer¹²). The neighbouring three-storey house called Haus Weinsberg was the ancestral home of the family. In the 1580s and the 1590s, it was occupied by Weinsberg’s younger brother Gottschalk (1532–1597) and his wife Elisabeth Horn. The two houses were interconnected by a common courtyard and back doors facing the courtyard. However, Weinsberg referred to both houses as his own¹³ and friends, relatives, and business partners made visits to him in both houses. There was a parlour in the Haus Weinsberg called sprechkamer¹⁴ which was used for formal occasions by the entire family. For instance, the solemn marriage proposal for Sibilla¹⁵ as well as the announcement of the news of the death of one of their nephews living in Speyer were received in this room.¹⁶ Therefore, Weinsberg’s home offered several places for withdrawal as well as, at the same time, many possibilities to interact in a more or less private setting.¹⁷ The family members lived in proximity to each other; they shared spaces, and some of the extended family kept the house together as well. The everyday expenditures were diligently recorded and shared among the family members and the common meals were consumed in the upstairs room of Haus Weinsberg.¹⁸

Virtues of Silence and Speaking

Living together with his young nephew, the diarist took diligent notice of his behaviour in various everyday conversations. In the early 1580s, Weinsberg was rather worried about his nephew because the young man tended to be remarkably speechless and silent. In a long diary entry, the older Hermann recounted his nephew’s failures in which he deviated from contemporary social norms: Hermann was silent at meals, at family gatherings, among relatives, and also in the church. Together with these places were listed some of the most important occasions in which conversations took place within the urban environment. However, Hermann neither discussed news nor chatted with maids. When asked questions, he gave only laconic answers, and he himself barely asked questions spontaneously. When he was requested to do something, he obeyed but remained silent.¹⁹

The diarist comforted himself by recalling the many proverbs regarding conversation that his mother would keep telling and which she herself had heard from her own parents—such as “silence is an art”.²⁰ However, Weinsberg’s mother had also added that no mute people had ever become rich. Weinsberg continues with another piece of proverbial wisdom—that it is not a coincidence that men have two ears but only one mouth, and while the ears are always open, there are two bulwarks in the mouth—the teeth and the lips—to prevent unwanted words from leaving it.²¹ For it is well known, goes on Weinsberg, that a wicked tongue and too much ‘gaping’ (klaffenß) can cause a lot of damage. Consequently, concludes the diarist, his nephew’s extreme reticence (swigen) is probably much better than if he were too talkative (swetzhaft).²²

While vacillating between these contemporary evaluations of being talkative,²³ Weinsberg also realised that while people praised being silent as a principle, in practice, if one indeed remained speechless and did not participate in conversations, he or she soon became unpleasant to others. According to his own observations, being too tight-lipped was considered to be a sign of dumbness (blodicheit)²⁴—a mark, that is, of a disability by his contemporaries—and the diarist was worried that it would hamper the marriage prospects of his nephew.

The nephew’s habit of spending a lot of time in his room regardless of the season was even more alarming for the diarist.²⁵ In doing so, Weinsberg echoes contemporary norms according to which everyone who tried to avoid observation by the community was immediately suspected.²⁶ Therefore, we can assume that Weinsberg probably thought that his young nephew endangered himself by spending too much time alone. The diarist’s remarks probably also reflect another contemporary supposition—that obsessive withdrawal from company could be a warning sign of inner crisis, such as a case of melancholy.²⁷ Although there were positive attitudes towards solitude as well (such as the place of pious reflection or a retreat for scholarly or literary work),²⁸ Weinsberg’s own approach towards solitude was far from positive—ironic, since he himself must have had to spend a considerable amount of time alone writing his journal.²⁹

As Arlette Farge has argued, people of early modern Europe were expected to be talkative (gespreich), and talking as a skill was well prized.³⁰ Good speaking skills were indeed valued highly by Weinsberg. The diarist regularly noted the presence or absence of this skill when describing recently deceased persons, regardless of their gender.³¹ There were some who were especially accomplished in this skill.³² For instance, Weinsberg was proud of all three of his sisters: he described them as intelligent (verstendige) women capable of being eloquent and holding conversations with others.³³ He was also very pleased with Margret von Aussem (1565–?), the fiancée of one of his nephews. After having met Margret for the first time, the diarist wrote that she seemed to be a well-mannered and well-educated young lady who could not only read, write, and calculate but also talk eloquently.³⁴ Therefore, good speaking skills were linked not only to intelligence but also to good manners and good education.³⁵ On the other hand, on some rare occasions, certain people were frowned upon because they talked too much.³⁶

Precisely because talking was an important social skill and due to the ambiguities surrounding it, Weinsberg supplied his descendants—the intended readers of his diary—with some pieces of useful advice on conversing and inserted them into his journal. For instance, after encountering the speechlessness of Hermann, the diarist wrote an admonition addressed directly to him (since he was the most plausible family head to read it after Weinsberg’s death) in which he warned him that his muteness might be harmful to him.³⁷ Weinsberg returned to the issue a couple of years later when he penned another piece of advice on the subject of the art of conversation, influenced probably by the flourishing contemporary literature on this theme.³⁸ In this entry, his advice was that his descendants should be very cautious when talking in good company and at the dining table. One should be neither too dumb nor too smart. They should not interrupt others or monopolise the conversation. His descendants should not say anything unpleasant or against ‘peace, friendship and joy’ (friden fruntschaft und freude). Malicious rumour, gossip, and ridicule should be avoided and should under no circumstances be passed on, as otherwise his future readers would bring dishonour upon and harm to themselves, warned Weinsberg.³⁹

Talking “Alone”

When tracing private conversations in Weinsberg’s journal, the term ‘alone’ (allein) seems to particularly warrant discussion as the diarist used it to describe how certain exchanges were kept within the family. For instance, the diarist recorded that in 1578, he and his family celebrated Ash Wednesday ‘alone’ (allein) without ‘strangers’ (Fremden), in the sense that no guests were invited—simply that the entire extended family living together was present at the banquet.⁴⁰ Consequently, in this case, ‘alone’ means a smaller group of people being present. There are other examples as well in which Weinsberg uses the expression ‘alone’ in the sense of ‘among us’—that is, this term was used by him for the domestic context to refer to people within the house. For instance, the Weinsbergs celebrated Easter in 1578 in the same way, alone among themselves (unter uns allein), quietly but cheerfully with singing and with a bit of drinking.⁴¹ Similarly, the Weinsberg family observed New Year’s Eve in 1587 without any friends, “among us in the house alone”,⁴² quietly with a glass of wine, thanking God for his favours in the last year and asking him for prosperity and peace in the next one.⁴³ In these depictions of merry dinners, we seem to encounter the ideal image of domesticity⁴⁴ described by Weinsberg for his future family members. At the same time, this is probably also an indicator of the desire to establish a private setting, albeit not necessarily a literally ‘alone’ one.

However, Weinsberg also frequently used the word ‘alone’ literally regarding private converastions. For instance, in 1578, when one of his acquaintances, Gruitgin von Gusten visited the diarist in order to discuss some financial problems privately, Weinsberg tentatively began to talk about an idea that had occurred to him. More precisely, he admitted, it was Sibilla who had told him that her sister-in-law, Tringin suggested the idea of the marriage between Gottschalk’s illegitimate son Peter (1552–?) and Anna, the maid of Tringin who was the daughter of Gruitgin. Marriage was obviously not a private matter in the early modern period, and we can see that an entire network of persons was already involved in this case, as well. However, Weinsberg emphasised that he mentioned this marriage proposal to the girl’s mother at that time because had been talking alone.⁴⁵ He probably considered it important to discuss marriage issues privately first in order to avoid public rejection. Weinsberg tried to convince the would-be mother-in-law by detailing Peter’s annual income. He told Gruitgin to consider the proposal, discuss it further with her family, and, in case of an agreement, inform him so that he could then notify Gottschalk—rather than Peter directly—about the decision. Gruitgin agreed, they departed,⁴⁶ and the young couple were married three months later.⁴⁷ Since marriage was a family arrangement that could seriously affect financial and social status, negotiations regarding marriages usually started by talking alone with one of the members of the families involved. Financial questions as well as issues of inheritance were also frequently dealt with in private by the Weinsberg family.⁴⁸ Sometimes these issues had to be kept private in order to maintain an appearance of status—a requirement that was probably even more important when such status could not be backed financially.⁴⁹

We have seen that, according to Weinsberg, there was a clear distinction of what could be voiced and what could not, and such standards of decent behaviour were to be maintained even during family meals. Consequently, people were not allowed to talk about anything and in any way even when they were ‘alone’, at least not according to Weinsberg who expected the rules described in his journal to be obeyed by others. He was particularly adamant about the avoidance of sensitive topics which could provoke arguments or quarrels. For instance, he was rather resentful when a major dispute on the expansion of the Jesuit order in Cologne erupted at a birthday party between his younger sister, Sibilla and one of his nieces, Elisabeth Horn, thereby spoiling the good spirit.⁵⁰ On the other hand, he was delighted when the scandals around a shooting competition that ended up in an urban uprising were not mentioned at all during a family banquet he attended as a guest only two weeks after the events.⁵¹

A marriage that went wrong is another revealing case regarding rules of talking. Both Weinsberg and his young brother, Gottschalk were aware that the marriage of their nephew—also called Gottschalk Weinsberg (1561–c.1603)—with Margreth Swelhem (?–c.1625) was not a happy one and that the couple quarrelled a lot. As it was rumoured, they were on the verge of separating by 1594. They lived as tenants in a house called zur Trauben which was the property of the diarist Weinsberg and which was built right next to the Haus Cronenberg. The two buildings were separated by a wooden door, and when one talked a little loudly in the kitchen of zur Trauben, it could be heard and understood in the Haus Cronenberg as well. Both Sibilla and the young Hermann kept eavesdropping deliberately and then intervened in the marital conflicts, siding with Gottschalk since he was the younger brother of the young Hermann. While describing these details, Weinsberg adds in his diary that he does not record these facts to praise eavesdropping but to explain the events that followed.⁵² Thus, in this case, we can observe two types of violation of social norms. On the one hand, family conversations which could be heard by others were probably annoying to the neighbours and we can assume that these were not uncommon in a densely populated urban environment. On the other hand, deliberately listening to the private conversations of others was also a reproachable act,⁵³ although Weinsberg never mentions in his journal that he ever actually reproached his relatives for doing so. Therefore, we can perhaps state very cautiously that there was a desire or aspiration towards living and letting live within a family setting without the intrusions of outsiders. It should also be noted that neither Sibilla nor the young Hermann had any reservations regarding eavesdropping or were bothered by the noise, which means that different attitudes towards this type of privacy existed within one family.

Even though Weinsberg and his brother Gottschalk were aware of the marital conflicts between the young Gottschalk and Margreth, the first serious conversation between the two brothers about solving the problem began only when they realised that the couple had fallen into heavy debt. The two brothers spent days discussing the problem since the debt could put the entire family’s financial stability and reputation in danger. In the next couple of days, both brothers held conversations with both the spouses separately (allein), asking them to list their complaints against each other and confronting them with the objections raised by the other party. After this, another conversation was held with both spouses present during which Weinsberg and Gottschalk acted as mediators⁵⁴ trying to reconcile and pacify them. The Weinsberg brothers told them that they were willing to help them financially, provided that Gottschalk found a proper job and the couple promised to live peacefully, especially promising to talk quietly (“stillich reden”) so as not to disturb anyone in the Haus Cronenberg.⁵⁵ If not, the couple would not receive any money. The diarist and his brother took the oaths of both spouses to behave as agreed.⁵⁶ Therefore, the well-to-do Weinsberg family had the means to enforce desired levels of privacy and prevent the intrusion of neighbours into their family life.

Based on the information gathered partly by overhearing, Sibilla kept talking rather maliciously about the young couple and did not restrain herself even at family meals, mostly scolding Margreth and her mother. Gossiping played an important role in regulating community behaviour and reinforcing moral values. It also gave women a tool of social control and a sense of power.⁵⁷ It was not necessarily gendered,⁵⁸ but it was traditionally seen as such and was typically associated with women.⁵⁹ Gossiping, evil speaking, and scolding were considered particularly feminine offences.⁶⁰ At a certain point, the diarist became “listless”⁶¹ with all these talks and rebuked her sister at the dining table, saying that he was not willing to listen to quarrelling and strife “among friends”⁶² anymore. Sibilla did not at all agree with her brother that such topics could not be discussed at the table. Being offended by the rebuke in front of the entire family, she left the table, expressing her wish to stay away from the common table from that time onwards. However, later that day, Sibilla entered Weinsberg’s room in order to ask something. Weinsberg took the opportunity to return to the events at lunch and explained the causes of his anger to his sister. The diarist said that Sibilla should have thought about what would happen if their adversaries and enemies⁶³ heard that they lived such an unfriendly life. Not only would they be very happy to realise that the Weinsbergs had such domestic tensions and would laugh at them, but perhaps they would even try to take advantage of these conflicts. Thus, Weinsberg suggested that making family quarrels public would undermine the reputation (or even the economic prosperity) of the family, and he managed to persuade Sibilla to return to the common table with this argument.⁶⁴ The fact that honour had economic value was accepted by one and all in the early modern period.⁶⁵ However, in this case, we can see that even the dining table of the family was seen as not entirely private by the diarist since the behaviour shown by family members during these meals could affect the reputation of the whole family as if it had taken place publicly. Thus, these occasions were seen by Weinsberg as both private (‘alone’, ‘among us’) and public (having an impact on the family’s reputation) at the same time. This case perfectly complements David Cressy’s observation that in the sixteenth century, “even within the recesses of domestic routine, every action, every opinion was susceptible to external interest, monitoring, or control. Walls had ears, and everybody's business was a matter of credit, reputation or common fame”.⁶⁶

Another revealing case occurred in 1578. After a family contract regarding financial issues was drawn between the four members of the family, Sibilla (who had no income at all after having separated from her husband) followed Weinsberg to his upstairs room in a rather panicky state. In the room of her brother, Sibilla asked him about the details of the contract, especially about her annuity. Weinsberg reassured her that her annuity of 33 dallers was included in the contract. Since 200 dallers were to be divided between Sibilla and three other members of the family, she demanded at least 5 dallers more, but her request was declined. Even though Weinsberg tried to calm her by saying that they had no intention to deceive her, Sibilla felt that she was being dispossessed. She started crying and shouting, and—according to Weinsberg—“became very fierce and impetuous”⁶⁷ and ran away from the house to the street, “making such a noise and great howl”⁶⁸ that Weinsberg was convinced it was heard by all the neighbours who probably thought that Weinsberg had beaten her or tried to murder her. Weinsberg also added that he had never imagined that his sister would behave in such an “unmannerly way” (so unmaneirlich sich stelte) when her demands were not fulfilled immediately.⁶⁹ After this quarrel, Weinsberg was not willing to talk to his sister for a couple of days. Thus, while partly repeating the contemporary stereotypes according to which women were overruled by passions,⁷⁰ what really worried Weinsberg was making a private family quarrel public to the neighbours—this is precisely what Sibilla did, obviously purposefully in order to draw public attention to it since the offence was so severe for her. Thus, Sibilla used both the dining hall and the public streets of Cologne for her own private goals without reservations,⁷¹ whereas Weinsberg vehemently opposed both. This is probably where we can find a shifting boundary between public and private in the sixteenth century.⁷² Not only were the boundaries of the private sphere elsewhere for Sibilla, but she also had different perceptions of what appropriate topics and proper manners were in these settings.⁷³

Moreover, the diarist clearly linked his sister’s behaviour with vehemence and bad manners. Weinsberg was particularly concerned with good manners throughout his life. He praised some of his acquaintances for their civility (manier)⁷⁴ whereas his younger brother’s table manners were appalling to him.⁷⁵ As illustrated above, he was very concerned about good manners during discussions. These concerns show that the appropriateness of conversations—not only his own but of his entire household—was a subject of particular significance to Weinsberg, especially when it came to what he deemed as appropriate to talk about and what to keep private. In 1596, the diarist recalled that he had been taught from the book De civilitate morum puerilium (On Civility in Children, 1530) by Erasmus while studying at high school in Emmerich in the early 1530s⁷⁶ and admitted that he had remained a great admirer of the philosopher during his lifetime.⁷⁷ This was probably the way in which he learnt and internalised the forms and manners of the new type of civility popularised by Erasmus.⁷⁸ Weinsberg, just like other members of the emerging social group of learned functionaries,⁷⁹ echoed values such as self-control and self-discipline⁸⁰ which were typically associated with the ‘middling sort’. At the same time, his beliefs also embodied the aspiration for privacy which can also be linked to the emergence of this group.⁸¹ In fact, he was the one who tried to propagate these new attitudes and ideas not only among his family members—directing them especially at his sister who seems to have represented a more traditional perception—orally, but also to his future descendants through the medium of writing.

Talking in the Bedchamber

One of the most important places where intimate and lengthy private conversations took place within the Haus Cronenberg was the bedchamber (sclafkamer) of the diarist.⁸² These conversations happened almost exclusively with his early orphaned nephew with whom the diarist shared the same bedroom and whom he took into his house after his mother’s death. Having no legitimate children of his own, Weinsberg regarded himself as Hermann’s foster father and Hermann as his future heir and tried to bring him up accordingly.⁸³ These conversations began either in the morning or in the evening while they were both lying awake in bed.⁸⁴ People in the early modern period woke up and went to bed earlier than people today, and the main reason for this was the bad quality, high price, and relative lack of lighting. Weinsberg went to bed usually at 9 pm and woke up at 5 or 6 am.⁸⁵ Teaching in schools and some council meetings would also begin already by 6 am in sixteenth-century Cologne.⁸⁶

Lying in bed one early November morning in 1580, Weinsberg and his nephew discussed Hermann’s future. Weinsberg reminded Hermann that six months earlier, he had promised him to start his university studies. However, by November, the diarist realised that his nephew had not enrolled at the university and probably only pretended to attend the lectures. Weinsberg now confronted his nephew with these accusations and reproached him seriously. His nephew admitted that he could not understand the lectures and thought that studying at home (privatim studern) would be more useful.⁸⁷ Weinsberg allowed this wish because he considered his nephew to be equipped with the necessary knowledge in order to be able to continue his studies at home. As in other cases, here too Weinsberg adds the reason behind his decision to put this particular conversation to paper—his wish that it might serve as a reminder for Hermann so that when he would read it in the future, he would not blame the diarist but only himself for what he had missed.⁸⁸ Thus, although the diarist did not use the term ‘private’ regarding conversations, he knew the word very well. Being a university-educated lawyer, Weinsberg must have been acquainted with the legal notion of ius privatum enshrined within Roman law. He was also well-versed in the works of Cicero and was probably aware of the Ciceronian differentiation between civic duty and private existence.⁸⁹ The term “privat” indeed occurs several times in the diary, mostly regarding legal issues—for instance, in relation to properties and ownership⁹⁰ in the case of Weinsberg’s last will.⁹¹

However, in the case mentioned above, he used the term to express withdrawal, which is also a frequently used meaning of the word in Weinsberg’s writings. For instance, on another morning, the young Hermann asked his uncle why he would not collect the data registered dispersedly in the shrine books of Cologne and write a book about them, saying that that would be a useful activity. Weinsberg did not record the entire conversation, jotting down only the remarks of the young Hermann, so we do not know what his prompt response was. However, he answered the question in his diary.⁹² He explained that, first of all, he did not agree with many of these written customs since many of them were biased or ‘against nature’ (for instance, some taxes were required to be paid in grain, even though there was no grain production within Cologne). Intriguingly, he stated that it was not his task as a private person to point out these mistakes or to strengthen them further by collecting them into a book.⁹³ He also explained that he had no inclination to become a public historian since historians were harassed if they wrote the truth. Furthermore, he added in this entry that the purpose of his diary-writing was not to serve the community (gemeinde) but to secretly serve only his private paternal home, family, and lineage.⁹⁴ Thus, in this case, Weinsberg associates the term privatim with withdrawal⁹⁵ in the sense of not holding public office, not being an official historian of Cologne.⁹⁶ However, this withdrawal from public offices and roles is not perceived negatively⁹⁷ by Weinsberg since it allows him to fulfil his ambitions as a historiographer of contemporary events.⁹⁸ These ambitions are clearly explained in a couple of diary entries—they include the desire to write the truth, the reality “as it truly was”⁹⁹ with all its precise circumstances.¹⁰⁰ Thus, it was precisely this refuge from the public realm¹⁰¹ that gave Weinsberg the desired authorial freedom as a historian.¹⁰²

In addition to withdrawal, Weinsberg also associates the term ‘privacy’ with secrecy, a frequent signification of the word ‘private’ in the early modern period.¹⁰³ This secrecy protected Weinsberg’s writings as his aim was to record his accumulated knowledge and many pieces of advice in order to secure the survival and prosperity of his family and lineage¹⁰⁴ in a work that belonged to the popular genre of family books or house books.¹⁰⁵ He wrote his diary for posterity but—as he clearly stated—for family members only, not for everyone.¹⁰⁶ Thus, for Weinsberg, keeping things private—exclusive, secret, or confidential¹⁰⁷—served as a way of securing the future of his family.

Talking “Freely”

Weinsberg’s ambition to write his history for posterity in a way that did not have to abide by officially acceptable structures was also linked to another recurring label for his conversations: ‘free’ (frei). In an entry from 1578, Weinsberg explained to his future readers that he wanted not only to talk about the major issues occurring within the city and in the country during his lifetime, but also about himself and his family and their domestic issues, as well as their friends, neighbours, and other burghers “in a safe and free way”.¹⁰⁸ Again, we can see that penning a secret and confidential piece of writing gave Weinsberg a certain amount of freedom and perhaps a sense of power to express his honest opinions and views explicitly and without restrictions.¹⁰⁹

There are a few other occasions in which Weinsberg employs the term “freely” in relation to talking, and they are well worth exploring here.¹¹⁰ One of them is an entry from 1578 in which he describes himself in terms of his social self.¹¹¹ He admits that, like everyone else, he too has both good and bad qualities. Therefore, he promises to his readers to describe first his good personality traits and subsequently confess and show his bad traits as well “equally freely”.¹¹² Among his many negative personality traits, Weinsberg lists his quality of occasionally being “not careful enough” and “speaking too freely on matters of faith and religion”.¹¹³ As Cecile Jagodzinksi has suggested, “the tensions between public and private in the early modern period arose first in the religious sphere, where they were embedded in the oppositions between official church teachings and the call for individual interpretations of the word of God”.¹¹⁴ Weinsberg’s remark shows his desire to talk about religious matters without restrictions as well as his awareness that doing so can be dangerous. His frustration thus indicates what we may understand as an unfulfilled wish for privacy. However, it is worth noting that Weinsberg lists this personality trait among his bad habits. Speaking freely about religion was not only potentially dangerous but was also probably considered as a sign of an outburst of spontaneity which was also not deemed to be an entirely positive quality in this period.¹¹⁵ In this case again, freedom is associated with negative connotations by Weinsberg.

Another occasion in which Weinsberg’s desire to talk freely with someone was thwarted occurred in May 1584. His foster daughter, Marie Luchelgin (1558–1584) fell very sick and asked the diarist to visit her urgently and help her make her last will. When Weinsberg arrived, the young lady showed him into a chamber and asked him to draft a written list of her properties and their approximate values. In this case, Weinsberg explicitly expresses his frustration that they were barely left alone, because Marie’s step-parents arrived during their conversation and the other women and servants living in the household kept walking up and down around them.¹¹⁶ Therefore, not only did it take a long time to discuss everything, but they also could not talk completely “freely”, once again probably meaning “without any restrictions or limitations”.¹¹⁷ The case clearly illustrates not only how difficult it occasionally was to arrange a completely private discussion in the urban environment, but also how hostile the environment was for private conversations. For as soon as Weinsberg left, Marie was interrogated by her family members and they soon found out that a testament was being made.

Consequently, when Weinsberg returned in the afternoon to Marie with a preliminary draft of the will in order to finish their discussion, he met with an unfriendly reception. Marie’s stepmother informed him that, in the meantime, Marie had had a conversation with her stepfather’s son and had changed her mind. When Weinsberg insisted on meeting the girl again in order to make sure that she really wanted to waive her previous will, Marie’s stepmother became furious and told Weinsberg to be ashamed of himself—a remark which made the diarist indignant. However, she said she would allow Weinsberg to talk to Marie alone (allein) once again and showed him into the upstairs hall. When Weinsberg met Marie again, he tried to talk to her in private. However, Marie’s stepmother was still there and was not willing to leave. Weinsberg told Marie that if she really wanted to change her will, she should tell him freely (frei). She answered that she would do so and remained silent. Weinsberg repeated his request, to which Marie finally responded by saying that she had no intention of stealing anything from anyone or harming anyone, but was unwilling to say anything more. Consequently, Weinsberg told the stepmother—who was still standing beside them—that Marie must have lost her senses and a good night’s rest would probably help her. However, as he prepared to leave, the girl took his hand and asked him three times to come back in any case on the next day, a request which Weinsberg vowed to uphold. However, Marie’s condition did not improve the next day, so Weinsberg decided not to visit her again.¹¹⁸ Many conclusions can be drawn from this occasion. Similar to Weinsberg’s nephew’s longing for spatial privacy, private conversations in the early modern period were also suspicious for the social circles of the interlocutors. Furthermore, Marie was an unmarried girl and, as Erica Longfellow has observed, “men and women who were not married to one another sought to lock doors or to meet in secret” as they were immediately regarded with suspicion by their social circles.¹¹⁹ Therefore, we can assume that this was probably another reason behind the stepmother’s unwillingness to leave them alone and her harsh scolding of the diarist. Marie also probably needed some private moments to organise her last will, but for those who might have lost financially from the change of the will, such a conversation happening in private must have indeed been very threatening.¹²⁰ Likewise, we can also assume that the stepmother understood the word ‘alone’ in its sense of ‘among us’—the sense in which Weinsberg frequently used it—and not literally as ‘alone’, as the diarist had wanted at that moment.

Conclusion

To sum up, we can probably agree with Arlette Farge’s statement that in the early modern period, “conversation created society but it could also endanger members of that society”.¹²¹ This dual nature of conversations and the importance of oral communication were precisely what persuaded Weinsberg to give detailed instructions to his descendants on how to talk properly in his diary, which is in itself a private conversation with his future family members. Although the diarist knew the term ‘private’ very well, he mostly used the expression ‘alone’ regarding private discussions. However, the meaning of this word was also ambiguous, sometimes referring literally to tête-a-tête talks, sometimes to conversations within larger, mostly familiar or domestic groups ‘among us’, and this ambiguity occasionally led to misunderstandings.

In the Weinsberg household, situated in sixteenth-century Cologne, private talking took place mostly in order not to endanger the reputation or status of the interlocutors involved (for instance, not making family secrets, domestic affairs, or financial problems public). However, private conversations (real or fictive) sometimes also allowed a certain degree of freedom of talk (regarding personal devotion or scholarly activity) to be possible. In Weinsberg’s diary, we can see the different types of violations of contemporary norms regarding private talking—from overhearing conversations because the conversants were being too noisy or talking about inappropriate topics to disclosing domestic affairs publicly and the attitudes towards them. Moreover, we can also see that there were disagreements even within the diarist’s family itself—both about what decent behaviour and appropriate conversation exactly meant as well as where the boundaries of the private sphere were. Thus, appropriateness depended on where the family members saw the boundary between private and public falling—one that they had a hard time negotiating.