The triumph of Catholicism
Most of you have heard about the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation (which, more accurately should probably be termed the Catholic Reformation). But after posting earlier on the parameters which affect the shape and constraints of religious change, I thought it was important to mention something: in the second half the 16th century Catholicism was very close to becoming purely a Mediterranean sect of Christianity. In other words, Catholicism seemed on the verge of disappearing from Germany to the same extent that it did from England by and large. In East Central Europe, the precursors to the modern states of the Czech and Slovak Republics, Poland and Hungary, it was also being marginalized by Lutheranism, the Reformed Churches as well as even more extreme groups such as Unitarians. France had a large Huguenot minority which was represented disproportionately among the gentry and nobility. If you want to read about the extent of the rollback in the face of Protestantism check out The Thirty Years’ War, The Reformation and Divided by Faith. All of them explore the massive penetration and domination of Protestantism among the Polish and Austrian nobility and the near collapse of Catholic parishes in regions which we today view as staunchly Roman Catholic.
But a Catholic world dominated by the peninsular Mediterranean never became. Today we have a German Pope, and the previous Pontif was Polish. Vast swaths of southern and western Germany remain Catholic, while the Protestant minority in France was expelled in the later 17th century (aside from mountainous redoubts such as Cevannes). What happened? The short answer is that the Hapsburgs happened. The Church operated in concert with the Holy Roman Emperor and other monarchs to reinvigorate the institutional framework of Roman Catholicism. The Jesuits were famously instrumental in this process of reform. But this was not a pure program of persuasion; Protestants who were not noble were often given the choice of emigration or conversion to the Catholic faith. Whole districts in Austria where Catholic parishes were no longer a feature of the landscape were re-Catholicized in a few years simply through imperial fiat. The mostly Protestant nobility could not be forced to convert, but they were blocked from patronage and access to the offices which brought glory upon their houses and maintained their fortunes. Additionally, though their private worship was given some latitude on their estates initially a step-by-step process of removal of these privileges also occurred over several generations. The result was that noble lineages who remained in the re-Catholicized regions of the Hapsburg Empire converted to the established religion, while those who would not give up their Protestant faith emigrated to regions where they could practice freely.
There are two domains of the former Hapsburg Empire which retain a large Protestant population; Hungary and Transylvania. And they illustrate the power of imperial fiat in driving religious change, because for much of the early modern period Transylvania was under the suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire. Hungary was divided by a western Hapsburg domain and an eastern Ottoman portion. Not surprisingly, it is in the east that Protestant populations are most numerous because it is in the east that the re-Catholicization program was operative for the shortest period since these regions were under Turkish rule for most of the 17th century. The moral of the story here is that the diplomatic history of Europe between 1600 and 1800 can very accurately predict the religious configuration that we see today. Mass social movements simply could not succeed without the support of the elite, and the potentate had wide powers with which he or she could reshape that elite.
That reminds me of perhaps the most out-of-left-field scenario in Dupuy’s “Future Wars”, the fight between Hungary and Romania over Transylvania. On the other hand, at least it was sort of close to the Balkans. The next most odd one was between Libya and Egypt, as Libya can’t even take on Chad. I’ve heard John Mearsheimer was predicting that Germany would get in a nuclear arms race with the other European powers after unification in “Back to the Future”, so I guess a lot of people made bad geopolitical predictions around the end of the Cold War.
tggp, Mearsheimer said that Germany would get in a nuclear arms race if the superpowers went home. That hasn’t happened. We’re still there. He was still saying in 2004 that there will be an arms race in Europe if America goes home: mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0039.pdf
Another question which also demands asking is why none of the Mediterrean countries partook of the Reformation.
My enduring suspicion is that there was an underlying ethnic motivation to the Reformation, which involved resentment on the part of the Teutonic kingdoms against the Mediterranean nations whose religion and culture they had adopted.
I recently read Norman Cantor’s biography of John of Gaunt, in which he quotes from a letter written by Gaunt’s grandson, Henry the Navigator, at the end of the 15th century, mere decades prior to the Reformation. In this letter, he basically brags of his fair skin and rhennish hair, as compared to the swarthy complexion of the Moors and Jews, as well as most of the Iberian population. He certainly considered those with dark hair and skin as belonging to a lower order of humanity.
I don’t subscribe for a second to the notion that our racial biases and prejudices are a post-Darwinian cultural construct (it is perhaps otiose for me to make this statement on this particular website), and it would not surprise me if Henry the Navigator’s views were not usually amongst his contemporaries in north-western Europe. Resentment of the fact that the seat of all religious power was in the hands of those who differed in phenotype, as well as customs and culture, may have served as a major impetus for the Reformation in Germanic and Slavic Europe. It would certainly explain why no Protestant nations emerged along the coast of the Mediterrean.
I’m sure there are other examples to substantiate this thesis. Off the top of my head, Henry III of England, arousing discontent with the appointment of foreign bishops.
A big part of it all must have been an acute sense of inferiority on the part of the Teutonic ruling elite. We forget this because they now comprise most of the economically and technologically dominant nations on the face of the planet, but only five centuries ago, they were a parvenu race of erstwhile barbarians, who had made scant conntribution to human civilization (Flemish painting of the Renaissance perhaps the salient exception).
Another question which also demands asking is why none of the Mediterrean countries partook of the Reformation.
this is easy, spain had its reformation during the final years of the reconquista. see the reformation which i referenced above. northern european nations which revolted against the church had a particularly unreconstructed and corrupt ecclesiastical culture.
My enduring suspicion is that there was an underlying ethnic motivation to the Reformation, which involved resentment on the part of the Teutonic kingdoms against the Mediterranean nations whose religion and culture they had adopted.
this isn’t totally false, but it’s more complicated than that. you should read more on the reformation and the catholic reformation to explore your suspicions instead of just hypothesizing. luther did appeal to german nationalism. OTOH, there seem other pretty obvious proximate causal factors which are more plausible than what you’re talking about above (especially seeing as how none of the catholic slavic nations became protestant at the end).
also, for those who are curious, it is important to note that some of the most radical reformation ideas were actually from italy. italy never reformed, but venice was a big printing center and some marginal groups such as unitarians were inspired by italian thinkers (several prominent italian radicals ended up in transylvania and influenced the strenth of unitarianism there).
p.s. the racial resentment theory presented above is kind of dumb IMO if anyone cares. e.g., northern france was the redoubt of catholicism, southern france protestantism. the pope during the initial stages of the reformation was dutch.
Milton’s “Oh Lord avenge thy slaughtered saints” was about Protestants in (if memory serves) Italy. They existed, but not for long. Recall too the extreme brutality of the 13th Century Crusade against the Cathars (Albigensians), which was by Northern Frenchmen, on behalf of the Roman Church, against Southern French heretics.
In parts of Northern Europe the Reformation was very easy because the Roman Catholic church was so decayed – that’s why the Reformation in, for example, Scotland had little bloodshed – they were pushing on a door that just collapsed. The Church of Scotland then took centuries to restore Christianity into the virtually re-heathenised parts of the Highlands. In some spots they lost the race to Counter-Reformation Roman Catholic priests. I suspect that much of Ireland was similarly reclaimed from heathenism by Counter-Reformation Roman Catholic priests. In Scotland, and I suspect Ireland, talk of the “Old Religion” is, I suggest, an attempt to imply a continuity that didn’t exist (in addition, of course, to trying to distract attention from Rome’s break from the the rest of old Catholicism).
I don’t think “phenotype” was anything very major in the minds of Europeans as regards other Europeans. The “Rhennish hair” was the usual ethnic boasting common to all, like wearing a soccer uniform. English Anne Boleyn was black haired, dark eyed and olive skinned. The Spanish Queen Catherine whom she replaced was a redhead.
Shakespeare set many of his plays in Italy. The English loved all things Italian. The Italian tour was de rigeur for polished gentlemen of the 18th century. The Venetian painter Titian was famous for painting red heads, Boticcelli blondes. English poets and folksongs are famous for beauties weaving lovelocks into long black hair and Queen Victoria thought that her family should marry more brunettes as they were thought to be hardier.
The phenotype explanation also doesnt’ explain the tenacity with which the Irish and quite a few Scots held on to Rome. And as Razib points out, Popes were not all Italian.
However, that being said, there is no doubt that Christianity, at least of the mainstream and organized kind, came very late to much of northern Europe. 1000-1200s in Scandinavia. As late as 1400s in Baltic areas. 800 AD for part of Germany. England, OTOH, had ancient ties to Rome and Christianity and was one of the oldest Christian outposts. Henry VIII never wanted to separate from Rome; he just didn’t want the Pope telling him what. To this day I am amazed at the similarity of High Anglican and Roman Catholic rituals and doctrines.
English Anne Boleyn was black haired, dark eyed and olive skinned
That’s not correct, Anne Boleyn had reddish hair, and so did Henry VIII and their daughter Elizabeth I. Anne was partly descended from the Butler family of Ormonde (Kilkenny).
And as Razib points out, Popes were not all Italian.
though to be fair between adrian and john paul ii they were all italian…. but as you say, there are many simpler explanations than the kind of dumb one offered above (especially since the other explanations are explicitly alluded to by many of the early reformers like luther).
However, that being said, there is no doubt that Christianity, at least of the mainstream and organized kind, came very late to much of northern Europe. 1000-1200s in Scandinavia. As late as 1400s in Baltic areas. 800 AD for part of Germany.
rodney stark claims that the roman regions stayed catholic because christianity was more deeply rooted in these areas. OTOH, the non-roman religions had christianity imposed on top. of course, lithuania and central europe remained catholic, and his N isn’t large….
It’s interesting that Southern France should be more Protestant, when their previous background was Catharism – itself a rebellion against the orthodoxy of Catholicism.
Also that Henry VIII was Welsh, which was once home to the Celtic Christianity, another non-conforming religion.
In fact most of the later Protestant areas of Northern Europe – with the exception of Fenno-Scandanavia, were once Celtic Christian – so the seeds of individualism had already been planted.
It’s interesting that Southern France should be more Protestant, when their previous background was Catharism – itself a rebellion against the orthodoxy of Catholicism.
some of these groups probably lasted in crypto-form tenuously rather late; or, at least their memory did. the waldensians did make it to the reformation in the regions around the alps and were absorbed into the reform. i think the fact that southern france was more protestant is probably in large part due to geography; it was harder to extirpate groups or impose conformity in the fragmented political and topographical landscape (the main locus of modern protestantism is in the massif central cuz that’s the only place it could survive). and there was always the divide between the oil and oc languages. in any case, the north-south divide in religion *grew* as northern france was much more easily totally re-catholicized than the south, which retained its protestant strongholds like la rochelle relatively late.
Protestantism declined not only the Habsburg lands but in Poland-Lithuania was to stay dominant for all the 16th-18th centuries – indeed Protestantism disappeared completely outside the German minority.
RE: Italy, in the 16th century it came under the domination of Spain, there is no way they would have tolerated it (and the Pope in Rome wouldn’t have liked it either).
RE: France, I think the South was the Protestant stronghold before the recatholicization of the 17th century, the protestant strongholds permitted in the edict of Nantes (i.e. where the Protestants were already strong) were all in the South:
http://www.museeprotestant.org/Pages/Notices.php?scatid=3¬iceid=661&lev=1&Lget=EN
Didn’t mention – Complete Catholicization in Poland-Lithuanian took place even without a strong central state which could reward/punish the religious preferences of the nobility (as happened in Habsburg lands).
Protestantism declined not only the Habsburg lands but in Poland-Lithuania was to stay dominant for all the 16th-18th centuries – indeed Protestantism disappeared completely outside the German minority.
i’ve read that the 18th century was one of sharp decline for protestantism for poland-lithuania. i’ll try and look it up….
France, I think the South was the Protestant stronghold before the recatholicization of the 17th century, the protestant strongholds permitted in the edict of Nantes (i.e. where the Protestants were already strong) were all in the South:
i don’t doubt this. but, the imbalance was exacerbated by
1) initial positions
2) the ease of re-catholicization in the north
Habsburg is the preferred spelling, though Hapsburg is common in English. I used to know a Habsburg descendant, and he had the famous hogjaw.
Someone should tell the “Gates of Vienna” paranoid the the Ottomans saved the Hungarian Protestants.
Also, it was the Swedes who stopped the Habsburgs. Otherwise the whole continent probably would have become Catholic. And they were able to do it because of rationalizing military reforms first begun in Holland, and developed further in England by Cromwell.
Descartes served in Dutch military, and some think that the analytic rational principles of military organization he found there influenced his philosophy.
Link
Also, it was the Swedes who stopped the Habsburgs. Otherwise the whole continent probably would have become Catholic. And they were able to do it because of rationalizing military reforms first begun in Holland, and developed further in England by Cromwell.
clarifying points
1) the french bankrolled the “swedish” armies, especially after adolphus died at lutzen.
2) put swedish in quotes because most of the soldiers in the armies were not ethnic swedes, they were often mercenaries (explaining the causal importance of french subsidy) or local north german levies after the protestant princes got on board. and of course a large proportion of the soldiers from the domains of the swedish monarchy were of the helot races :-) not swedes themselves.
Razib, what about the persistence of Catholicism in Ireland? All the “state power” factors you identify ought to have made Ireland completely Protestant.
For a Pole, Catholicism is something you don’t have in common with the Germans and the Russians; for the Irish, something you don’t have in common with the English. That’s a large part of the appeal, too.
Razib, what about the persistence of Catholicism in Ireland? All the “state power” factors you identify ought to have made Ireland completely Protestant.
yeah. the irish case is weird. the ethnic cleavage is important…though, i have read that in the earlier periods the strongest catholics were scions of the anglo-norman nobility, not the gaelic speaking peasantry.
For a Pole, Catholicism is something you don’t have in common with the Germans and the Russians; for the Irish, something you don’t have in common with the English. That’s a large part of the appeal, too.
re: poles and germans, the main german regions were protestant, but remember that sobieski came to aid austrian catholic vienna. catholicism was prevalent among the germans of silesia.
For the Poles, the Habsburgs were different. Of the three powers which partitioned Poland, Austria was the one that wasn’t hated. By some accounts, the Poles were the most loyal subjects of the Emperor.
I’m writing this in a sushi bar in Krakow. All over town you can see the image of Franz Joseph selling all manner of things. The ex-Prussian parts of Poland show no similar affection for Bismarck, nor does Warsaw for Catherine The Great.
One Polish historian has suggested Sobieski’s victory was good for Europe but bad for Poland. Poland wasn’t directly threatened by Turkey, but Russia and Austria were. Better to have the Turks keeping the Russians and Austrians busy! In the 19th century, many Polish rebels found sanctuary in Istanbul, creating a Polish-speaking quarter of town which still endures…
George, Razib,
Yes the Irish case is weird, and yes many of the staunchest Catholic were in fact Cambro-Normans and even the pre-Cromwellian Anglo-Irish.
If Queen Elizabeth had only used a policy towards Ireland that was so effective in Wales, the outcome might be different – as there she had the Protestant bible translated into Welsh, along with prayer books, and encouraged the people to read them and be educated in Welsh.
While in Ireland education was severely suppressed for non-Protestants, but this led the Catholic elite to have their children educated in France (Paris), Belgium (Louvain), Italy (Rome) and Spain (Salamanca), in special Irish colleges. It also solidified their attachment to continental Catholics and not the English.
People like the famous Catholic barrister Daniel O’Connell – who witnessed the French Revolution first hand in Paris – brought back many of these same ideas to Ireland.
From the bbcs history pages
” Elizabeth personally expressed a desire to learn Gaelic, and demanded a Gaelic translation of the New Testament from her bishops – in line with the Protestant insistence on the use of the vernacular in church services – but others feared that Gaelic services would undermine the government’s programme to make Ireland English. Thus, political considerations generally took priority over religious conformity: Gaelic translations of the Bible and Book of Common Prayer only appeared after Elizabeth’s death. Nonetheless, the new Protestant ingredient in English identity (God’s ‘elect nation’) also undermined acceptance as Englishmen of Ireland’s Catholic Old English.”
Later the protestant New English had no interest in extending protestantism, because it reduced their relative privilege.
Protestantism is a nation building project in many respects, since it emphasises the vernacular and puts the local language at the same level as Latin. Besides that it structures the language of itself, by the very writing of a book bound to be prominent in every house in Realm it creates the definitive version of the language ( although there were and remain huge differences in English dialects*). It is an imperialist project, however, when imposed as the vernacular on areas where the language was different. Cornwall for instance, was also home to large anti-Protestant rebellions.
*American speech patterns, particularly it’s speechifying, have however been hugely influenced by the King James Bible.
many Polish rebels found sanctuary in Istanbul, creating a Polish-speaking quarter of town which still endures…
That’s pretty awesome, I’ve got to say: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonezk%C3%B6y. However, the poles have largely assimilated by now.
Istanbul is one of those places which used to be very cosmopolitan & multicultural but are a lot less so nowadays.
Eoin
Good point about Protestantism and linguistic nationalism – although remember that mass literacy came much, much later, in the industrial era.
Re Elizabeth’s policies in Ireland – aren’t we all basically saying that seduction is more effective than coercion?
Again – what about the Western hemisphere of planet Earth?
The Protestant sects which have flourished the most in North America were fringe, minority sects back in England. Latin America has shown strong recent moves towards evangelical Protestantism, and away from traditional Catholicism.
One final question – the spread of – and resultant clampdown on – Falun Gong. What does it tell us?
The Protestant sects which have flourished the most in North America were fringe, minority sects back in England. Latin America has shown strong recent moves towards evangelical Protestantism, and away from traditional Catholicism.
*parts* of latin america. e.g., in central america is it among barely catholicized indigenous. in chile it is strongly skewed toward lower classes. in brazil to afro-brazilians. in venezuela, mexico, columbia, argentina, etc. barely a ripple.