Understanding Confessionalization: A Historical Paradigm in Dispute, Lecture notes of History

Download Understanding Confessionalization: A Historical Paradigm in Dispute and more Lecture notes History in PDF only on Docsity! The Concept of "Confessionalization": a Historiographical Paradigm in Dispute Ute Lotz-Heumann Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Abstract: Since the 1980s the concept of "confessionalization" has been one of the leading interpretive categories in the historiography on early modern Germany. This ar­ ticle will, firstly, explain the paradigm of confessionalization as it was developed by Wolfgang Reinhard and Heinz Schilling in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Secondly, it will recapulate the critique that has been voiced against the concept, which can be broadly differentiated into four categories: first, macro-historical criticism; second, the discussion about the periodization of the processes of confessionalization; third, the controversy about the role of theological "truth" in the process of confessionalization and about the specific characteristics of the different confessions; and fourth, the criti­ cism of what has been called the "etatistic narrowing" or "top-to-bottom approach" of the concept of confessionalization. In this context, the paradigm of confessionalization has in recent years become a hotly debated subject in the field of tension between mi­ cro- and macro-history. Key words: confessionalization, Reformation, Counter-Reformation, Catholicism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, historiography of confessionalization, micro- and macro-his­ tory, societal and cultural history. El concepto de "confesionalización ": un paradigma historiográfico a debate Resumen: Desde la década de los ochenta el concepto de "confesionalización" ha sido una de las interpretaciones destacadas de la historiografía sobre la Edad Moderna de Alemania. Este articulo explicará, en primer lugar el paradigma de la "confesionali­ zación" tal y como fue desarrollado por Wolfgang Reinhard y Heinz Schilling a finales de los setenta y comienzos de los ochenta. En segundo lugar recapitulará las críticas que se han hecho contra el concepto, y que en general, se pueden dividir en cuatro cate­ gorías: la primera, la crítica macrohistórica; la segunda, la discusión sobre la periodi- zación de los procesos de confesionalización; tercera la controversia sobre el papel de la "verdad" teológica en el proceso de confesionalización y sobre las características es­ pecíficas de las diferentes confesiones; y cuarta la crítica que ha sido denominada la "etatistic narrowing" o "aproximación de abajo-arriba" ("top-to-bottom approach") del concepto de "confesionalización". En este contexto el paradigma de "confesionali­ zación" ha llegado a ser en los últimos años objeto de un debate apasionado en el campo de la tensión entre micro- y macro-historia. Palabras clave: confesionalización, Reforma, Contrarreforma, Catolicismo, Luteranismo, Calvinismo, historiografía de la confesionalización, micro- y macro-histo­ ria, historial social y cultural. [Memoria y Civilización (MyQ, 4, 2001, 93-114] 94 Ute Lotz-Heumann Since the 1980s the concept of "confessionalization" has been one of the leading interpretive categories in the historiography on early modern Germany. It has shifted historiographical interest from its former emphasis on the early Reformation in the first half of the six­ teenth century to the second half of the sixteenth and the early seven­ teenth centuries. However, in recent years, this macro-historical para­ digm has also met with severe criticism, to which the advocates of confessionalization have answered by defending and also modifying the concept. The following article will, firstly, explain the paradigm of confessionalization as it was developed by Wolfgang Reinhard and Heinz Schilling in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Secondly, it will recapulate the critique that has been voiced against the concept, mainly from within German historiography. This includes very fun­ damental criticism, e.g. attacking the paradigm as a "top-to-bottom approach" which has to be overcome by different interpretive models as well as criticism which accepts the usefulness of confessionaliza­ tion as a paradigm but suggests certain modifications to the model. The reactions of Wolfgang Reinhard and Heinz Schilling to this cri­ tique will also be described. The article will thus try to evaluate the usefulness of the concept of confessionalization as an interpretative category in the field of tension between macro- and micro-history. In this context, it will be instructive to look at the ways in which the paradigm has so far been applied in case studies on the Holy Roman Empire and other European countries. I In German historiography since Leopold von Ranke the sixteenth century was traditionally divided into the "Reformation" of the first half and the "Counter-Reformation" of the second half of the sixteenth century. As the term "Counter-Reformation" has a problematic conno­ tation, implying a mere reaction to Protestantism and neglecting that of reform within Catholicism, it was repeatedly criticized. In 1946, Hubert Jedin, a Swiss scholar of Catholic background, therefore suggested the compromise terminology "Catholic reform and Coun- [AfyC, 4,2001,93-114] The concept of "confessionalization " 97 religion and politics, church and state, were closely linked with each other. Thus there was always a connection between confession- building and early modern state formation. These processes could interact in different ways. According to Reinhard and Schilling, in most cases confessionalization "enabled states and societies to inte­ grate more t i g h t l y . . I n the Holy Roman Empire, this was the case if the principle of cuius regio, eius religio, established by the Peace of Augsburg in 1555, was successfully enforced by the German princes in their territories. As a consequence, Schilling and Reinhard describe confessionalization as the first phase of early modern absolutism or "social disciplining" (Sozialdisziplinierung)6. But, as Schilling has always stressed, although this aspect has increasingly been overlooked in subsequent discussions, "confessionalization could also provoke confrontation with religious and political groups fundamentally opposed to this.. . integration of state and society. The process of con­ fessionalization took place between the two poles of state-building and confessional conflict.. In contrast to the older historiography, Reinhard and Schilling are not primarily interested in the differences of doctrine and ritual between the confessions, but approach the subject from a comparative point of view: they look at parallel developments and "functional similarities"8 between the confessional churches, such as their contri­ bution to social control. This has also led to a new terminology. The terms which were used by German historians to describe the develop­ ment of the three confessional churches —Catholic reform/Counter- Reformation, Second Reformation (for the introduction of Calvinism in German territories) and Lutheran orthodoxy— have been replaced by the parallel terms Catholic, Calvinist (or Reformed) and Lutheran confessionalization and the term "age of confessionalization" or "con­ fessional age". In addition, Reinhard and Schilling emphasize the 5 Ibidem, p. 209. 6 REINHARD, "Zwang zur Konfessionalisierung?...", p. 268. The term Sozialdisziplinierung is originally Gerhard Oestreich's, see Winfried SCHULZE, "Gerhard Oestreichs Begriff 'Sozialdisziplinierung in der Frühen Neuzeit'", in Zeitschrift für historische Forschung, 14, 1987, pp. 265-302. 7 SCHILLING, "Confessionalization in the Empire...", p. 209. 8 Ibidem, p. 210. [MyC.A, 2001,93-114] 98 Ute Lotz-Heumann modernizing factors within these processes of confessionalization. Reinhard —in order to contradict the implications of the term "Coun­ ter-Reformation"— stresses the modernizing impetus of early modern Tridentine Reform, for example the rationality of the Jesuit order. Schilling goes even further than this and describes the entire period of confessionalization as a process of modernization, which in his opinion manifested itself above all in the cooperation of church and state aimed at disciplining the people. In this context, Schilling rejects the established notion that it was the Reformation which brought about deep-rooted changes on the way to modernity. Rather, Schilling sees the age of confessionalization as the decisive turning-point to­ wards the modern age (Vorsattelzeit der Moderne)9. In sum, both authors are of the opinion that the process of confessionalization con­ tributed to the emergence of the modern world. Although Reinhard and Schilling take their examples mainly from Germany, their defini­ tion of the concept of confessionalization is much more extensive: confessionalization has been defined as a process of early modern European history, which not only took effect in other European coun­ tries but also in international relations1 0. Proceeding from Catholic confessionalization, Wolfgang Reinhard has identified seven "methods" or "mechanisms" which in his opinion were essential to the process of confessionalization, i.e. to a successful implementation of the cuius regio, eius religio principle and a politico-religious integration of society. First, the establishment of "pure doctrine" and its formulation in a written confession of faith: in ' Heinz SCHILLING, Aufbruch und Krise. Deutschland 1517-1648, Berlin, Siedler, 1988, p. 313. 1 0 See Heinz SCHILLING, "Konfessionalisierung und Formierung eines internationalen Systems während der frühen Neuzeit", in Hans R. GUGGISBERG and Gottfried G. KRODEL (eds.), Die Reformation in Deutschland und Europa. Interpretationen und Debatten, Gütersloh, Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1993, pp. 591-613; Heinz SCHILLING, "Die konfessionellen Glaubenskriege und die Formierung des frühmodernen Europa", in Peter HERRMANN (ed.), Glaubenskriege in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996, pp. 123-137; in future see also: Heinz SCHILLING, Konfessionalisierung und Staatsinteressen. Internationale Beziehungen 1559-1659, Paderborn, Schöningh, formcoming. [MyCA, 2001,93-114] The concept of "confessionalization " 99 this way, the confessional churches could be clearly distinguished from one another and possible sources of confusion were eliminated. Second, the distribution and enforcement of these new norms through, for example, confessional oaths and subscription: this enabled church and state to remove dissidents and to ensure the religious orthodoxy of personnel in strategic positions — for instance, theologians, priests, teachers, and secular officials. Third, propaganda and censure: this meant making use of the printing press for propaganda purposes on the one hand and preventing rival churches and religious movements from using the printing press on the other hand. Fourth, internaliza­ tion of the new norms through, above all, education, but also through catechizing, sermons, pilgrimages etc. Fifth, disciplining the popula­ tion: visitations and the expulsion of confessional minorities were to ensure that the confessional group remained as homogeneous as possi­ ble. Sixth, rites and the control of participation in rites: participation in rites like baptism and marriage was ensured through the keeping of registers. Seventh and lastly, Reinhard refers to the confessional regu­ lation even of language: for example, while saints' names were par­ ticularly appealing to Catholics, they were forbidden in Geneva". While Reinhard's analysis thus puts more emphasis on what has been labelled the "confessionalization of the churches", Schilling has given more attention to the consequences of confessionalization in state and society1 2. He defines confessionalization as a "fundamental process of society, which had far-reaching effects upon the public and private life of individual European societies"1 3. In consequence, he stresses four factors of political, social, cultural and mental change. First, confessional homogenization, which, in his view, often meant "Christianization" (Delumeau), i.e. the suppression of popular religion in favour of forms of religious practice approved by the confessional 1 1 See REINHARD, "Zwang zur Konfessionalisierung?...", esp. p. 263; REINHARD, "Was ist katholische Konfessionalisierung?...", p. 426; REINHARD, "Reformation, Counter-Reformation, and the Early Modern State...",pp. 391-395. 1 2 B. RÜTH, "Reformation und Konfessionsbildung im städtischen Bereich. Perpektiven der Forschung", in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stifiung für Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische Abt., 77, 1991, pp. 197-282, here pp. 207- 208, note 27. 1 3 SCHILLING, "Confessionalization in the Empire...", p. 209. [MyQ 4, 2001, 93-114] 102 Ute Lotz-Heumann confessionalization, the "apogee of confessionalization''2 3 from the 1580s to the 1620s. During this phase several German princes intro­ duced the "Second Reformation", i.e. Calvinism, in their territories. At the same time, the concord movement was vibrant in Lutheran Germany and in Catholic territories Tridentine Reformation had be­ come a major force. All this took place against a political background which was more and more characterized by confrontation on all levels of Imperial politics —notably in the Imperial diet and the Imperial chamber court (Reichskammergericht). One of the more striking examples of how confessionalization affected the whole of society and everyday life is the calendar dispute. After Pope Gregory had introduced a much-needed calendar reform in 1582, Protestants did not accept this new calendar because it came from the pope. In conse­ quence, even the time became confessionalized with the Protestants living ten days behind the Catholics until 1699/17002 4. The fourth and last phase marks "the end of confessionalization under the conditions of war and on the basis of the Peace of Westphalia" 2 5. It began in the 1620s, during the Thirty Years' War, when it became clear that the brutality of confessional conflict could lead to complete destruction, and lasted until the early eighteenth century. It was characterized by the rise of irenicism and new religious movements such as Pietism. II The paradigm of confessionalization itself as well as the dis­ cussions following from it have resulted in a shift of emphasis in his- toriographical research in Germany. While in the early 1980s, Win- fried Schulze could still write that "any interest in this period [between the Peace of Augsburg and the Thirty Years' War] can scarcely arise from the period itself'26, numerous Ph.D. theses and 23 Ibidem, p. 226. 2 4 See SCHILLING, Aufbruch und Krise..., pp. 264-266. 2 5 SCHILLING, "Confessionalization in the Empire...", p. 230. 2 6 The original quote is in Winfried SCHULZE, "Möglichkeiten der Reichspolitik zwischen Augsburger Religionsfrieden und Ausbruch des 30jährigen Krieges. Einleitung", in Zeitschrift für historische Forschung, 10, [MyC, 4,2001,93-114] The concept of "confessionalization " 103 other works have since been written on this period 2 7. As a conse­ quence, the concept of confessionalization has been proven to be a fruitful research instrument, but has also been criticized in various ways. The critique of the paradigm of confessionalization can be broadly differentiated into four categories: first, macro-historical criti­ cism; second, the discussion about the periodization of the processes of confessionalization; third, the controversy about the role of theo- 1983, pp. 253-256, here p. 253; for the translation see SCHILLING, "Confessionalization in the Empire...", p. 205. 2 7 See, for example, Thomas Paul BECKER, Konfessionalisierung in Kurköln. Untersuchungen zur Durschsetzung der katholischen Reform in den Dekanaten Ahrgau und Bonn anhand von Visitationsprotokollen 1583-1761, Bonn, Röhrscheid, 1989; Arno HERZIG, Reformatorische Bewegungen und Konfessionalisierung. Die habsburgische Rekatholisierungspolitik in der Grafschaft Glatz, Hamburg, Dölling und Galitz, 1996; R. Po-chia HSIA, Social Discipline in the Reformation. Central Europe 1550-1750, London, New York, Routledge, 1989 (with a somewhat misleading title); Ute LOTZ- HEUMANN, Die doppelte Konfessionalisierung in Irland. Konflikt und Koexistenz im 16. und in der ersten Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2000; Michael G. MÜLLER, Zweite Reformation und ständische Autonomie im königlichen Preußen. Danzig, Elbing und Thorn während der Konfessionalisierung 1557 bis 1660, Berlin, Akademie-Verlag, 1997; Siegrid WESTPHAL, Frau und lutherische Konfessionalisierung. Eine Untersuchung zum Fürstentum Pfalz-Neuburg 1542-1614, Frankfurt a.M., Lang, 1994. See also the following collections of essays: Joachim BAHLCKE and Arno STROHMEYER (eds.), Konfessionalisierung in Ostmitteleuropa. Wirkungen des religiösen Wandels im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert in Staat, Gesellschaft und Kultur, Stuttgart, Steiner, 1999; Burkhard DIETZ and Stefan EHRENPREIS (eds.), Drei Konfessionen in einer Region. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Konfessionalisierung im Herzogtum Berg vom 16. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert, Köln, Rheinland-Verlag, 1999; Peer FRIEß and Rolf KIEßLING (eds.), Konfessionalisierung und Region, Konstanz, Universitätsverlag Konstanz, 1999. For a review essay see Heinz SCHILLING, "Literaturbericht 'Konfessionsbildung' und 'Konfessionalisierung'", in Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht, 41, 1991, pp. 447-463, "Literaturbericht 'Konfessionelles Zeitalter'", in Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht, 48, 1997, pp. 350-369 (part I), pp. 618-627 (part U), pp. 682-694 (part III), pp. 748-766 (part IV), to be continued; for a review article that takes the story up to the nineteenth century see Joel F. HARRINGTON and Helmut Walser SMITH, "Confessionalization, Community, and State Building in Germany, 1555-1870", in Journal of Modern History, 69, 1997, pp. 77-101. [MyC,4, 2001,93-114] 104 Ute Lotz-Heumann logical "truth" in the process of confessionalization and about the specific characteristics of the different confessions; and fourth, the criticism of what has been called the "etatistic narrowing" or "top-to- bottom approach" of the concept of confessionalization. First, from a macro-historical point of view, Winfried Schulze doubts Schilling's and Reinhard's claim that because religion was an important category in early modern society, confessionalization was also a fundamental process. In contrast, Schulze argues that there existed historical subjects and processes independent of religious developments in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. These can, according to Schulze, be described independent of and without reference to confessionalization. In addition, Schulze is of the opinion that the "pressure for confessionalization" has been overestimated by Reinhard and Schilling. Instead, he stresses ideas and phenomena of tolerance and religious freedom, but also of scepticism and unbelief as well as secularized peace ideas of the sixteenth and seventeenth centu­ ries. From this Schulze draws the conclusion that "confessionaliza­ tion" was not one of the major characteristics of the period, but that the age paved the way for secularization and that this is its true his­ torical meaning 2 8. This criticism has been reinforced from the point of view of the history of law. Martin Heckel and Michael Stolleis have stressed aspects like the secularization of Imperial law and the "de- theologizing of politics" (Enttheologisierung der Politiky9 by political theorists and lawyers. 2 8 See Winfried SCHULZE, Einführung in die Neuere Geschichte, Stuttgart, Ulmer, 1987, p. 51; Winfried SCHULZE, "Konfessionalisierung als Paradigma zur Erforschung des konfessionellen Zeitalters", in DIETZ and EHRENPREIS (eds.), Drei Konfessionen in einer Region..., pp. 15-30; Winfried SCHULZE, review of: Heinz SCHILLING, Konfessionskonflikt und Staatsbildung. Eine Fallstudie über das Verhältnis von religiösem und sozialem Wandel in der Frühneuzeit am Beispiel der Grafschaft Lippe, Gütersloh, Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1981, in Zeitschrift für historische Forschung, 12, 1985, pp. 104-107. 2 5 Michael STOLLEIS, "'Konfessionalisierung' oder 'Säkularisierung' bei der Entstehung des frühmodernen Staates", in Ius Commune, 20, 1993, pp. 1- 23, here p. 7; see also Martin HECKEL, Deutschland im konfessionellen Zeitalter, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. [MyC, 4,2001,93-114] The concept of "confessionalization " 107 fessional churches as chronologically largely parallel developments 3 6. Thus, it remains open whether the first Lutheran confession, the Con- fessio Augustana, is already to be considered part of the process of confessionalization or whether only the Formula and Book of Con­ cord were truly part and parcel of this process. This has opened the way for different opinions on the periodization of confessionalization. One of the more prominent advocates of an early start of the confessionalization process is Harm Klueting. He argues in favour of 1525 as the end of the Reformation period and the beginning of confessionalization because, in his opinion, the end of the Peasants' War in Germany also meant the end of t i e Reformation as a popular movement and thus the beginning of a process of confessionalization initiated by the state3 7. Other historians have argued against the thesis of the parallel development of the con­ fessional churches. The Catholic historian Walter Ziegler rejects this thesis on the grounds that the Catholic church retained an unbroken continuity with the medieval period which the Protestant churches did not have. In contrast to Reinhard, Ziegler sees the Catholic church in the age of confessionalization in a special position because of its "continuity to the medieval and old, i.e. the true church" 3 8. With this definition, Ziegler moves from the realm of history to that of the­ ology, a point which will be discussed in the next section. The Protes­ tant church historian Thomas Kaufmann also criticizes the periodiza­ tion of the confessionalization process. In contrast to Ziegler, Kaufmann concentrates on the role of the Reformation and rejects Schilling's thesis that it was confessionalization, not the Reformation, which brought about modernity. Kaufmann insists that from the point of view of a (Protestant) church historian the Reformation was an upheaval which once and for all splitted up the medieval universal 3 6 See REINHARD, "Zwang zur Konfessionalisierung?...", p. 258. 3 7 See Harm KLUETING, Das Konfessionelle Zeitalter 1525-1648, Stuttgart, Ulmer, 1989. 3 8 "...Kontinuität zur mittelalterlichen und alten, also zur wahren Kirche...", Walter ZIEGLER, "Kritisches zur Konfessionalisierungsthese", in FRIEß and KIEßLING (eds.), Konfessionalisierung und Region..., pp. 41-53, here p. 42; see als Walter ZIEGLER, "Typen der Konfessionalisierung in katholischen Territorien Deutschlands", in REINHARD and SCHILLING (eds.), Die katholische Konfessionalisierung, pp. 405-418, here pp. 417-418. [AfyC, 4, 2001,93-114] 108 Ute Lotz-Heumann church and therefore has to be seen as a decisive turning point. He draws the conclusion that Reformation and confessionalization cannot be differentiated as clearly as in Schilling's periodization of the process of confessionalization. Rather, both processes were, according to Kaufmann, closely intertwined3 9. Third, both Ziegler, as we already have seen, and Kaufmann se­ verely criticize the concept of confessionalization for ignoring the question of theological truth. Kaufmann regards the treatment of re­ ligion in the context of the paradigm of confessionalization as "functional-reductionist"40 —functional because the concept only looks at the function of religion in society and reductionist because in this way the characteristics of the early modern confessional churches are levelled4 1. This aspect has in fact been criticized in the discussions on confessionalization from the very beginning. Already during the first symposium on Calvinist confessionalization in the Empire 4 2, par­ ticipants drew attention to the fact that the propria of the Calvinist (Reformed) church in Germany were not sufficiently considered in the framework of confessionalization. Recently, Anton Schindling has again demanded to give more consideration to the specific character of each of the early modern confessional churches, which in theology, piety and spirituality were radically different from one another4 3. The two advocates of the concept of confessionalization have reacted in opposite ways to this kind of critique. Heinz Schilling accepts that these objections bring to light "weak spots" of the paradigm and suggests to overcome the weaknesses by integrating into the concept 3 9 See Thomas KAUFMANN, "Die Konfessionalisierung von Kirche und Gesellschaft. Sammelbericht über eine Forschungsdebatte", in Theologische Literaturzeitung, 121, 1996, cols. 1008-1025 (part 1), cols. 1112-1121 (part 2), here cols. 1118, 1115. 4 0 "...funktionalistisch-reduktionistische Betrachtung der Religion...", ibid., col. 1121. 4 1 See ibidem., cols. 1115-1116, 1121; ZIEGLER, "Typen der Konfessionalisierung...", p. 417; ZIEGLER, "Kritisches zur Konfessionalisierungsthese...". 4 2 See SCHILLING (ed.), Die reformierte Konfessionalisierung in Deutschland... 4 3 See SCHINDLING, "Konfessionalisierung und Grenzen von Konfessionalisierbarkeit...", p. 12. [MyC, 4,2001,93-114] The concept of "confessionalization " 109 of confessionalization perspectives stressing the differences between the confessional churches4 4. In contrast, Wolfgang Reinhard has stressed that the paradigm confessionalization consciously ignores confessional propria as part of its methodological approach. There­ fore, he sees no need for an integration of this perspective, but argues for its continued exclusion from the paradigm of confessionalization in terms of a scholarly "division of labour"4 5. The fourth point of critique on the paradigm of confessionalization is probably the most important one because it impinges on the general discussion about the relationship between macro- and micro-history. The question of the relation between history "from above" and "from below", between societal history (Gesellschaftsgeschichte) and cul­ tural history (Kulturgeschichte) has in recent years found expression in a very lively debate in German historiography4 6. Especially younger historians who are influenced by the new cultural history and histo­ rians working on other regions of Europe than the Holy Roman Em­ pire have identified several "blind spots" of the concept. Above all, they have expressed severe doubts concerning the close association between confessionalization and state-building postulated by Reinhard and Schilling. As we have seen above, the advocates of the concept of confessionalization proceed from the assumption that confessionali­ zation was decisively influenced or even set in motion by the early modern state and that it was therefore a top-to-bottom process: the people thus appear as subjects which state and church disciplined. From a micro-historical point of view and also from the point of view of research into processes of social disciplining in the early modern period, Heinrich Richard Schmidt has thus criticised the eta- tistic focus and the overestimation of the role of the state in the para­ digm of confessionalization. Drawing on the results of his research on 4 4 See SCHILLING, "Die Konfessionalisierung von Kirche, Staat und Gesellschaft...", pp. 16-21. 4 5 See REINHARD, "Was ist katholische Konfessionalisierung?...", p. 435. 4 6 See e.g. Wolfgang HARDTWIG and Hans Ulrich WEHLER (eds.), Kulturgeschichte heute, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996; Thomas MERGEL and Thomas WELSKOPP (eds.), Geschichte zwischen Kultur und Gesellschaft. Beiträge zur Theoriedebatte, München, Beck, 1997. [MyC, 4,2001,93-114] 112 Ute Lotz-Heumann Dietz, have interpreted the formation processes on the local level, which resulted in many conflicts between the different confessional communities, as competing processes of confessionalization "from below" 5 2. Comparable suggestions have been put forward by historians working on European countries other than the Holy Roman Empire. Olaf Morke has made clear that the concept of confessionalization cannot be applied to the Dutch Republic as a whole because of its multi-confessionalism and —in early modern European terms— far- reaching toleration5 3. However, Morke drew attention to the fact that in the Netherlands it was the individual religious communities which experienced processes of confessionalization. Therefore, Morke iden­ tifies not one confessionalization, but many different confessionaliza- tions within one political and territorial unity. Thus, the Netherlands do not, according to Morke, fit the "etatistic mainstream" of the para­ digm of confessionalization, which does, however, not mean that pro­ cesses of confessionalization did not take place there 5 4. Similar results have been presented by scholars working on east central Europe, no­ tably by Winfried Eberhard. He has shown that in the countries of east central Europe, above all in Bohemia, the German model of "con­ fessionalization from above" can also not be applied. Similar to the Netherlands, confessionalization processes took place within a multi- confessional framework and were thus regionalized and localized. And, in contrast to Germany, they were not initiated by the state 5 2 See Stefan EHRENPREIS, "Konfessionalisierung von unten. Konzeption und Thematik eines bergischen Modells?", in DIETZ and EHRENPREIS (eds.), Drei Konfessionen in einer Region..., pp. 3-13, herepp. 8-9. 5 See Olaf MÖRKE, "'Konfessionalisierung' als politisch-soziales Strulcturprinzip? Das Verhältnis von Religion und Staatsbildung in der Republik der Vereinigten Niederlande im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert", in Tijdschrift voor Sociale Geschiedenis, 16, 1990, pp. 31-60. 5 4 See Olaf MÖRKE, "Die politische Bedeutung des Konfessionellen im Deutschen Reich und in der Republik der Vereinigten Niederlande. Oder: War die Konfessionalisierung ein 'Fundamentalvorgang'?", in Ronald G. ASCH and Heinz DUCHHARDT (eds.), Der Absolutismus - ein Mythos? Strukturwandel monarchischer Herrschaft in West- und Mitteleuropa (ca. 1550-1700), Köln, Weimar, Wien, Böhlau, 1996, pp. 125-164, esp. pp. 145- 146 and 155. [MyC, 4,2001,93-114] The concept of "confessionalization " 113 "from above" but by the estates5 5. The author of the present article has come to similar conclusions regarding the nature of the confessionali­ zation process in Ireland. In contrast to England and confessionally unified territories in Germany, Ireland became bi-confessional after the introduction of the Protestant Reformation because the majority of the native population remained Catholic. This led to two confessionalization processes taking place in Ireland in the late six­ teenth and early seventeenth centuries —one Catholic, one Protestant. While the Protestant process of confessionalization was state-spon­ sored, i.e. it was initiated "from above", the Catholic process of con­ fessionalization came "from below" and used parliament as a political institution to voice its demands. From this I have drawn a conceptual conclusion and termed the development in Ireland a process of "dou­ ble confessionalization"56. Recently, Luise Schorn-Schutte has summarized this critique of the paradigm of confessionalization: the intensive research on different case studies in recent years has shown that confessionalization "from above" did not take effect "below", i.e. confessional disciplining in­ tended by the state was more often than not a failure. Thus, the para­ digm of confessionalization has, according to Schorn-Schutte, been shown to be a self-fulfilling prophesy: it interprets intentions of disci­ plining, centralizing and confessionalizing the population in early modern society as having been successful and as actually having formed behaviour, while in reality this did not happen. In addition, Schorn-Schutte has again drawn attention to the fact that resistance to confessionalization measures "from above" —resistance by the popu­ lace, burghers, clergymen, local officials and the nobility— needs to 5 5 See Winfried EBERHARD, "Zur reformatorischen Qualität und Konfessionalisierung des nachrevolutionären Hussitismus", in Frantisele §MAHEL (ed.), Häresie und vorzeitige Reformation im Spätmittelalter, München, Oldenbourg, 1998, pp. 213-238; Winfried EBERHARD, "Voraussetzungen und strukturelle Grundlagen der Konfessionalisierung in Ostmittelauropa, in BAHLCKE and STROHMEYER (eds.), Konfessionalisierung in Ostmitteleuropa..., pp. 89-103. 6 See LOTZ-HEUMANN, Die doppelte Konfessionalisierung in Irland, esp. pp. 15-16; see also Karls S. BOTTIGHEIMER and Ute LOTZ-HEUMANN, "The Irish Reformation in European Perspective", in Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, 89, 1998, pp. 268-309. [MyC, 4,2001,93-114] 114 Ute Lotz-Heumann be taken into account much more intensively". All in all, the paradigm of confessionalization has certainly had an immense impact in Ger­ man historiography and has undoubtedly inspired a lot of research —from local and regional history, to gender history and the history of other European countries5 8. However, the critique of the paradigm has shed a clear light on its more problematic aspects and "blind spots". First, the thesis of confessionalization being a fundamental process of society has basically been falsified by historiography: there were al­ ways areas of life which were not influenced by confessionalization. Second, it seems clear that confessionalization can no longer be re­ garded as a successful process "from above" per se, but that the con­ cept has to be modified to allow for various attempts at confessionali­ zation "from above" and "from below" within one political and geographical entity. Third, as a consequence, conflict and resistance as major factors in the process of confessionalization have been brought into the forefront: conflicts between competing confessional churches on the one hand and forms of resistance "from below" against confessionalization, social disciplining and early modern state- building "from above" on the other hand 5 9. It is to be expected that the shift of historiographical interest towards micro-history, the history of everyday life and the new cultural history will in the future lead to more research on the meaning of confessionalization for the lives and identities of the common people. Whatever the outcome of the dis­ cussion, it can already be said that the paradigm of confessionalization is a major contribution and has given enormous impulses to historiography. 5 7 Schorn-Schutte calls such resistance "criticism of authority" (Obrigkeitskritik): see Luise SCHORN-SCHUTTE, "Konfessionalisierung als wissenschaftliches Paradigma?", in BAHLCKE and STROHMEYER (eds.), Konfessionalisierung in Ostmitteleuropa..., pp. 63-77. 5 8 See above notes 3 and 27. 5 9 See e.g. LOTZ-HEUMANN, Die doppelte Konfessionalisierung in Irland...; Werner FREITAG, "Konfliktfelder und Konfliktparteien im Prozeß der lutherischen und reformierten Konfessionalisierung - das Fürstentum Anhalt und die Hochstifte Halberstadt und Magdeburg im 16. Jahrhundert, in Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, 92, 2001, pp. 165-194. [MyC, 4,2001,93-114]