RSS
During the tumult between the Peace of Augsburg and the Peace of Westphalia cuius regio, eius religio was established as the law of the land, the religion of the ruler was the religion of the ruled. Of course, this was quickly breached, John Sigismund of the Hohenzollerns for example converted to Calvinism though his Prussian subjects remained Lutheran (his descendent Frederick the Great was personally an unbeliever in Christianity). In any case, a few years ago I read The Reformation by Diarmaid MacCulloch, a panoramic political and cultural history of the period, and one thing that the author explicitly stated was that elite political backing seemed to be close to a necessary condition for a long-lasting persistence of Protestantism. That is, the states in Germany where Protestantism survived the powerful rollback induced by the Catholic Reformation were invariably those where the prince was himself a Protestant. In England and Scandinavia Protestant monarchs drove their nations by fiat toward a break with the Roman Church. In places like France and Poland Protestantism declined as a force and never attained dominance in part because the ruling dynasties did not favor it.1
The past is not the present, but it is important to keep such details in mind when making analogies that draw upon history.
Addendum: Even though monarchial dissent from Roman domination might have been a necessary condition for the success of Protestantism in various nation-states, that does not imply it was a sufficient condition. Not only did certain groups remain Catholic (eg., the Irish, but Old English and Gaelic) under Protestant monarchs, but the disputes between kings and the Church are rather an old phenomenon (Alfred the Great and Henry II are famous examples). Changes after 1500, famously the printing press, were likely catalytic in converting the common tendency of monarchs to shelter dissidents and heretics (John Wyclif, Jan Hus) into a shattering of Western Christendom.
1 – Just as in England, in France and Poland Protestantism did have somewhat of an upwardly mobile or elite appeal. A disproportionate number of the wealthy and nobility converted, but nevertheless their lack of success in securing the full backing of the pinnacle of political power seems to have been fatal in the long run.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Cuius regio, eius religio
So, you are saying we should work on converting King Saud?
I just had a cappacola sandwich that would convert Abe Foxman. Yum.
Dying to know: What set off this reflection?
Dying to know: What set off this reflection?
the perception by some that the protestant reformation was fundamentally or necessarily a populist driven revolt and the extensive analogy made between tumult in the modern islamic world and what occurred in europe during the wars of religion.
Luther’s Address to the German Princes, can’t remember the exact title, probably illuminates this. The Reformation and related pre-Reformation changes benefitted the secular aristocracy vs. the celibate clergy.
Toulmin’s “Wittgenstein’s Vienna” says that when Austria finally imposed Catholocism, the elite Protestants left, but the poor ones couldn’t afford to. They became involuntary nominal Catholics and ultimately cynics, since generations of children learned to pretend to believe what they knew their parents were only pretending to believe.
In Holland the swing demographic was the “Anythingists”, who were willing to be either Catholic or Protestant as long as it didn’t cramp their style much. They were a significant part of the population, and apparently had a fair degree of self-awareness and public presence (i.e., weren’t simply a mute trend discernable by careful observation).
I had documentation on my computer that died. That’s the big problem with the new information technology.
Outside the Roman Empire in Europe, most, if not all, of the various tribes were Christianized en masse when the tribal leader decided to become Christian.
Looking at the Roman Empire, Christianity was primarily an upper class urban phenomenon. In the later Empire, paganus meant both non Christian and also hick, rustic, country bumpkin, etc.
Outside the Roman Empire in Europe, most, if not all, of the various tribes were Christianized en masse when the tribal leader decided to become Christian.
Looking at the Roman Empire, Christianity was primarily an upper class urban phenomenon. In the later Empire, paganus meant both non Christian and also hick, rustic, country bumpkin, etc.
1) yes, mass christianization was the phenonemon in the overwhelming majority of cases. the only exception might be ireland, though i suspect here tribal-clan leaders were seminal.
2) to say “christianity was upper class” is problematic. on the absolute scale it is true, because christianity was an urban phenomenon, and the vast rural majority (90%ish) was pagan (ie, pagani), but it is not established before 400 that christianity was an upper class religion in urban areas, rather, one might say it was middle-to-upper-middle-class. to give examples, not only did the intellectual elite based around athens resist christianity for several centuries, but the pagan aristocracy in rome did not convert in large numbers until after 400 (see The making of a Christian aristocracy : social and religious change in the western Roman Empire).
Use of upper class was a stretch. I meant more the higher classes, both economic and social. Also, it’s probably more correct to say Christians were in the higher classes, rather than the higher classes were Christian, as you allude to, at least until Constantine’s conversion.