 |
Image of the Annunciation as a Thalbach monastic seal (from the hand of Euphrosina Vöglin) |
The women’s tertiary monastery of Thalbach in Bregenz
benefited from a series of long-serving and devoted leaders. A peek into the
short narrative descriptions of their convent efforts provides a glimpse into
the varied emphases these convent administrators placed on spiritual life,
governance, and the material well-being of the community. Some prioritized the
stability of the convent’s finances, others focused on the education of the
sisters, while still others devoted their attention to the aesthetics and
soundscape of worship. In her thirty years of convent service, Maria Euphrosina
Vöglin (r. 1683–1713; d. 1716) had a chance to embody all three. She shaped the
convent through her personal devotional practices, her canny skills on the
administrative front, and a marked sensitivity to the role of music and ritual
in the convent’s spiritual life.
Diligently Devoted
At the end of the seventeenth century, Sister Maria
Euphrosina Vöglin was elected Maisterin at Thalbach by the sisters and
duly endorsed by the appropriate male clerics, including the Order’s
Provincial. Euphrosina was a particular devotee of the Virgin Mary, for the
Chroniclist tells us that she prayed her office fervently on a daily basis.
Since, in a post-Tridentine environment, the Little Office of the Virgin – her
presumed prayer focus – was normally assigned only to Saturdays and special
feast days, we learn from this introduction that she was enacting a
more-is-better faith practice, for she performed privately what was done more
publicly in the convent’s regular cycle of prayer. In other words, the first
thing we learn about Euphrosina is her exemplary faith; as convent leader she
serves as a model to the other sisters, who should prioritize prayer even if it
should fall outside of the bounds of performed liturgy.
Not only was she a faithful Catholic; according to the
convent’s Chronicle, she served “laudably and well” as Maisterin for 30
years. Given her length of service, she developed skills as an able
administrator. Some of her attention was architectural. It was during her reign
that the monastery building refurbishment was completed, for instance, and she
also expanded the choir; this may be the time when the interior window was
added. Ludwig Rapp reports that she drafted a letter to the Mayor and Council
of inner Bregenzerwald, in which she begs them for a “generous” contribution
for her monastery. She points out that their need was great both
architecturally and spiritually: “so that it does not fall into disrepair and
the divine service and holy order's discipline do not disappear” (Euphrosina
Vöglin petition, as quoted in Rapp 634).
She also focused on the nuances of the divine service “because
of the music and the chorale,” as the Chronicle tells us. This I take to mean
that she oversaw both the instrumentalists and the sisters’ own performances in
services. The chroniclist confirms that “She also paid diligent attention to
the fact that the divine service was held properly.” She was, in other words, a
stickler for the forms and orders of the church, and also for the richness of
their living and resonant sounds. She must have appreciated the multimedia
appeal of the services. She also evidently recognized beauty itself as an
element of spiritual life, for she also “had many beautiful vestments,
antipendia and other things made for the church,” as we learn near the end of
the Chronicle chapter.
I stress the distributed nature of the Chroniclist’s
account, focused early on prayer placement and sound, and only later on visual
splendor, since that suggests to me an element of hierarchy in the description
of Euphrosina’s devotions. The assessment offered emphasizes what I suspect was
the more unusual capacities that she brought – the aural and devotional – and
left more stereotypical contributions of feminine handwork for the close of the
entry. This also could reflect a gradual shift of Euphrosina’s physical efforts
over time. Her active engagement with liturgy and prayer coincides in the
account with her emphasis on bricks-and-mortar projects, a spiritual match to
the physical enhancements of the cloister. The feminine handwork, in contrast,
coincides with text focused on her
charitable work and her resignation of office at age 74.
In addition to her advocacy for prayer and worship,
Euphrosina also led the sisters in more educational endeavors, for we know from
Leroy Shaw’s theatrical research that she produced at least one Latin play (“De
Theophila a mundi voluptatibus abstracta”) during her years in service. She
also acquired Gallia vindicata
(1594/r.1702) by Paolo Sfondrati, a defense of the Catholic Church’s position
against the political and religious turmoil in late 16th-century France,
demonstrating her interest in the broader landscape of Catholic
counter-reformation polemics (Fechter). (She is not, however, the same
Euphrosina Vöglin responsible for the book of prayers published in Augsburg in
1682; that Euphrosina was a widow, a Lutheran, and of the previous generation,
dying the year before our Euphrosina ascends to the role as head of
convent.)
Managing in Times of Hardship
Given the historical circumstances, Maria Euphrosina was
required to guide the convent through hard economic times. The cost of grain
skyrocketed, and a series of war taxes were imposed, so that the coffers ran
thin. In response, she did two things. She appealed the taxes, which were
bitterly high, and would have confiscated 1/3 of the convent’s lands (Thalbach
Chronicle Gathering 2 fol. 6; Rapp, p. 633-4). As she wrote to a convent
advocate in Constance, “we (the nuns) have no foundation, nothing superfluous,
but we, 24 professed nuns, are barely able to provide the necessary maintenance
of our order and poorly managed cloister, and we have no daily mass and no
dedicated confessor." (As quoted in Rapp 631). We learn from other
documents that some relief was awarded, perhaps because the sisters were able
to demonstrate that they had to help with the farming by bringing in their own
crops (!) (Rapp, p. 633), but ultimately they had to pay 40 fl. in war
contributions in 1686, and pay the Turkish tax again in 1708 (Fussenegger, 123).
Euphrosina also indulged in some creative fundraising, and
her own mother donated to the convent to help stabilize their finances. Well,
sort of. Technically, her mom repurposed her brother’s funds for Euphrosina’s
own use, and Euphrosina gave them outright to the convent (Thalbach Chronicle,
gathering 2, fol. 6r). We have no evidence that her brother was happy with this
outcome, but he didn’t try to retrieve the funds, either.
During these years of hardship, Euphrosina proved flexible:
she might be a taskmaster in the context of the order of services, but
demonstrated more compassion in the lives of the sisters. She arranged that
during the 40-day fast of Lent when the convent was subsisting largely on fungi
and herbs, they would have roasted meat on Sunday night (in contravention of
the regular rules) in order to keep them hale (Thalbach Chronicle Gathering 2,
fol. 6r). This practice seems to have been surprisingly common. The sisters of
Kirchheim unter Teck similarly broke their fast when roasted meat was “all that
was available” (Kirchheim Chronicle). Practical constraints meant that the
choice of health with a few bent rules triumphed over near starvation in both
contexts. Since many individuals paid their debts in the form of foods – a half
a lamb, a basket of eggs, and so on –
pragmatism in a context of hardship might mean that the food available
was the food consumed.
This pragmatism and empathetic management was rewarded by an
increase in convent recruitment, particularly among the monied class. Large
dowries were paid to the convent and material goods such as religious garments,
bedclothes, breviaries, silver spoons and silver jugs were provided to the
entering daughters, as mentioned in the dowry documents that Euphrosina so
frequently signed in her role as Meisterin. (Bregenz KA 15 Schachtel 225A, Mitgleider).
Generous to traveling clerics and to the city’s poor, she
was seen by the Chroniclist and convent alike as “a true child of the order”
(ein getreyen ordnuß kind). After her death, the convent pledged to say a Pater
noster and an Ave Maria for her every Sunday without exception, both a signal
of their dedication to keeping her name in Convent memory and a curious
observation about the ways in which conflicting demands could otherwise
interfere with memorial practice (Chronicle Gathering 2, fol. 6r).
Life Context
Bregenz-born, Euphrosina had arrived at the convent in 1652
at age 13 under the birth name of Maria Franziska Vöglin. She lived there until
her death in 1716. Curiously, these details (found in the Chronicle’s gathering
5) are separate from the discussion of her administrative service. Her family was evidently poised for religious
service, for her brother Anton Vogel was Abbot of Mehrerau (1681–1711) (see
MehrerauKl, 2639)
What’s at Stake
Maria Euphrosina Vöglin’s long tenure at Thalbach
demonstrates how convent leadership in the early modern period was far more
than a matter of spiritual devotion—it required financial acumen, political
navigational skills, and an understanding of the sensory and aesthetic
dimensions of worship. Her case challenges simplistic views of female monastic
life as passive or cloistered away from the world; instead, she emerges as an
active agent shaping not only her convent’s inner life but also their
relationships to the civic and religious landscape of Bregenz.
By paying close attention to figures like Euphrosina, we
gain insight into the lived realities of post-Tridentine monasticism, where
prayer, administration, and survival strategies were deeply entwined. Her
legacy, preserved in archival traces, folded in as an illustrative story in the
house chronicle, and reiterated through convent memoria “without exception,”
raises broader questions about the role of women in shaping institutional
histories—who gets remembered, and how?
Primary Sources
Appointment of Antonius Vogel as abbot: Bregenz,
Vorarlberger Landesarchiv, Mehrerau Kloster, Charter 2639 (6. März 1681).
Kirchheim unter Teck Chronicle: edited in Christian
Friderich Sattler, “Wie diβ loblich closter zu Sant Johannes bapten zu Kirchen
under deck prediger-ordens reformiert worden und durch wölich personen,” in
Idem, Geschichte des herzogthums Wurtenberg unter der regierung der herzogen,
5 vols (Tübingen, 1779–1783), vol. 4, Beilagen, Num. 42, S. 173–280. Note:
Sattler 280 is also numbered 296.
Maria Euphrosina Vöglin’s seal (e.g. from a document of
1686)
Thalbach Chronicle (consulted from manuscript): Bregenz,
Vorarlberger Landesarchiv, Kloster Thalbach Hs 9, Chronik des Klosters
1336–1629.
Thalbach membership documents: Bregenz, Vorarlberger
Landesarchiv, Klosterakten Schachtel 15, 225A–225C, Kloster Thalbach,
Konventmitglieder, Aufnahmen und Abrechnungen, Erbschaften.
Secondary Literature
Fechter, Werner. “Inkunabeln aus Thalbacher
Besitz.” Biblos 25 (1976): 233–42.
Fussenegger, Gerold. “Bregenz: Terziarinnenkloster
Thalbach.” In: Alemania Franciscana Antiqua 9 (1963): 93-140.
Jenisch, Georg Paulus. Davidischer Seelen [Funerary
memoria for Fr. Euphrosina Vöglin]. Augspurg: Johann Jacob Schonigk, 1682. This
book of prayers is dedicated to a different individual, one who had been
married, lived in Augsburg, and died shortly before our Euphrosina took
over as Thalbach’s Maisterin.
Rapp, Ludwig. Topographisch-historische Beschreibung des
Generalvikariates Vorarlberg, Bd. 2. Brixen 1896.
Shaw, Leroy R. “Georg Kaiser auf der deutschsprachigen Bühne
1945–1960,” Maske und Kothurn, 9(1963-12): 68–96.