This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
History of Europe
Genesis of the Modern Europe ...............................................................................................2 A. „Renaissance” ....................................................................................................................... 3 B. „Reformation” ..................................................................................................................... 13 Post-Medieval State ...............................................................................................................25 A. Hegemony and Equilibrium. The Case of the Habsburgs ................................................... 26 B. „Absolute Monarchy”. The French Case ............................................................................ 37 C. „Constitutional Monarchy”. The British Case .................................................................... 50 Modern Revolution .................................................................................................................70 A. Rationalistic Critique and Enlightenment ........................................................................... 71 B. The French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars .............................................................. 83 C. Industrial Revolution ......................................................................................................... 100 References: ..............................................................................................................................108
Genesis of the Modern Europe
Starting with the fifteenth century, it became a common practice to divide history into three periods (old, medium-old and new): ancient, medieval, and modern. The medieval or middle period was usually regarded as a transitional or even aberrational period, a sort of „Gothic night”1 between antiquity and present. The term Modern was recorded for the first time in 1585, designating „recent times”. Later it was used to designate things that inevitably must become old-fashioned. For a long time, the „Modern Era” was rather a statement than a name of a period. As a statement against tradition, the modern era was seen as a new beginning, a rebirth or revival: the Renaissance. The term Rinascita was coined by Giorgio Vasari (1511-1574) and it became a common place until today. Vasari also coined the term gothic, which was used as a pejorative, in order to create an image of a „barbaric” transformation of Romanic architecture of the twelfth century. The negative implicit meaning lasted until the nineteenth century. It may appear that dividing history in periods is an arbitrary act. But, in spite of the frequent continuities through the eras, historians noticed the slow but radical changes in the structure of power – in politics and ideology. Starting with the Renaissance, the decay of feudalism gives way to the apparition of the modern states. The mechanical discoveries like the movable type, gunpowder, and the mariner's compass followed by the geographical discoveries „changed the appearance and state of the whole world”2, as Francis Bacon remarked. But, more important was something that Benedict Anderson named the „battle for the men’s minds”3 which finally contributed to the laicization of the European society and, later, also to the vernacularization of culture. The printing press started the end of the church monopoly on distribution of the ideology. In this context, the word „Europe” and then „European” became part of the normal vocabulary of the West, starting to replace, gradually, the word „Christendom”. 4
Rabelais apud Albert Leon Guérard, France in the Classical Age. The Life and Death of an Ideal , Harper & Row, Publishers, 1965, p.3. 2 Francis Bacon, Novum Organum, Aphorism 129,1620, http://history.hanover.edu/texts/Bacon/novorg.html. 3 Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism , Verso, 1991, p. 40. 4 Denys Hay, „Europe and Christendom a Problem in Renaissance Terminology and Historical Semantics”, Diogenes, 5, 1957, pp. 49. Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini described for the first time Europe as a historical, economic, political and cultural entity – not only as geographical entity.
* After the „invention” of movable type, printing had become a regular industry in the chief countries of Europe. As a consequence of the new cheaper and faster method of multiplication, books were being issued in quantities that would have stupefied the imagination a century earlier. According to Benedict Anderson, at least 20 million books had already printed by 1500, and 200 million by 16005. In making possible the reproducibility and the dissemination of knowledge on a vast scale, printing became a factor of the success of Humanist point of view on history, on theological, political or cultural issues. But printing or even the movable type were not European inventions. About the fourteenth century block-printing was introduced into Europe from China, where it had been practiced for centuries. The earliest known Chinese block-book dates back to A.D. 868. Movable type printing was invented by Bi Sheng (990–1051). The first known type was also made in China, during the years 1051-1059. But, the vast amount of written Chinese morpheme characters made the movable type printing as expensive as block printing; therefore movable type's didn’t get general acceptance. Even the paper made of fibers and old rags had been invented in China at least as early as A.D. 105. The manufacture of paper was introduced by Arabs into Spain, probably in the tenth century.6 By the middle of the fifteenth century, Europeans like Lourens Janszoon Coster (Haarlem, 1430) or Johann Gutenberg (Strasbourg, 1440) reinvented the Chinese method of printing with metal movable types. Along with innovations in casting the type based on a matrix, it was a very efficient method because of the limited number of the Latin characters. The first such book printed from movable type was the Latin Bible, the Forty-two Line Bible commonly known as the Gutenberg Bible. About 180 were printed, most on paper and some on vellum. The art of printing spread rapidly into the German states. Almost every large German city had its printing establishment, producing chiefly books of a theological character. From this area, the art of printing spread in the rest of Europe.7 In Italy, the first printing press was set up at Subiaco (1464), and soon thereafter similar establishments were opened at Rome, Florence, Venice, Milan, and other places. The most famous printing house was the Aldine Press, founded in 1490 by Aldus Manutius (Aldo
Ibidem, p. 33. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shen_Kuo ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movable_type ; 7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Gutenberg.
Manuzio). Having early devoted himself to the study of Greek and Latin, Aldo Manuzio conceived the idea of printing the masterpieces of Greek literature.8 Aldo Manuzio gathered a group of Greek scholars who carefully compared manuscripts before a text was printed. Greek scholars were induced to come by promises of a salary and position, beside those who travelled on political or ecclesiastical missions. The fall of Constantinople in 1453 tended to help the Greek revival in the West by the dispersion of both scholars and manuscripts through Italy and other western regions. Between 1493 and 1515, the year of his death, he produced twenty-seven first editions of Greek and Latin classics. We may say that the most important revival of learning was that which took place in Greek, because the Middle Ages was a more an oblivion of the Greek antiquity in Western Europe.9 The art of printing made the Greek or Latin classics accessible to cultivated persons of moderate means. The wide but thin stratum of Latin-readers was the initial target of the literary production and distribution; but the saturation of this market made printers think of peddling cheap edition in the vernaculars. Therefore, simultaneous with the rediscovery of the beauty of the classics there was the phenomenon of vernacularization. The using of local languages instead of Latin is linked with the process of the extending the literary public sphere, which started with the Humanism, the Reformation and with the so-called „print-capitalism”. The printed books gave a new fixity to language, a „normalization” that limited both the spatial and the temporal variations of the dialects.10 * In the ancient classics, most of the man of the Renaissance found a secular view of life which supported and strengthened their own. The classics became for many a practical school of life, almost a new religion. From the Latin words litterae humaniores (literature dealing with humanity) such study of the classics is known as Humanism, and those who were dealing with this study are called Humanists.11 Antiquity as a cultural system, like other cultural differences, which were available to the Renaissance man, played an important role as the element which shaped new horizons of the
Robert Ergang, Europe from the Renaissance to Waterloo, Heath & Company, 1939, pp. 36-37. Henri-Iréné Marou, Sfîntul Augustin și sfîrșitul culturii antice, Editura Humanitas, București, 1997, p. 53. 10 Anderson, op. cit., pp. 37-40. 11 Ergang, op. cit., p. 52.
mind. The very notions and names of the „Renaissance” and the „Middle Age” originated in the comparison of new and ancient times.12 The alternative models of society, found in the past or projected in the future (see Thomas More), encouraged the secular movement and, in some cases, even free thinking in religious mater. In the early sixteenth century, Baldassare Castiglione (1478-1529) produced a pattern of a „complete man”, which was a secular individual trained to enjoy the life gracefully. In his Libro del cortegiano (Book of the Courtier), Castiglione's model was at once a gentleman, a man of action and a man of letters. „The perfect gentleman should know Latin and Greek; he should be a good sportsman and dancer, graceful and agile; he should have some knowledge of music and painting and he should be able of making light conversation.”13 This ideal gentleman served as a model for contemporaries and for succeeding generations. Il libro del cortegiano (1528) was translated into Spanish, French, English, and Latin, and before 1600 appeared in 100 editions. All over Europe it was read and adopted as the handbook of manners.14 The secular movement developed earlier in Italy than in the rest of Europe because of the economic and political conditions existing there. Italy's geographical position on the Mediterranean (the center of the fourteenth century world's commerce) had enabled merchants to make the most of the commercial opportunities offered by the revival of trade with the Levant. Consequently, urban life flourished earlier in Italy than in northern Europe. Most of the Italian cities, or rather city-states, enjoyed a large degree of political autonomy. By moving from a city to another, from a wealthy patron to another, the Humanists become virtually independent. * In a limited sense, the term „Renaissance” refers to cultural phenomena. It is used to denote some important cultural changes which took place, broadly speaking, during the centuries from 1300 to 1600, in (1) literature, philosophy, and so on; (2) painting, sculpture and
Waldemar Voisé and James H. Labadie, „The Renaissance and the Sources of the Modern Social Sciences”, Diogenes 6, 1958, p. 44. 13 Ergang, op. cit., p. 45. 14 Ibidem, p. 45.
architecture. The first one is known as „Humanism”; the second is known as „Renaissance Art” or simply „The Renaissance”. * (1) Humanism can be regarded as the subversive ideology of the Renaissance. But, in spite of its subversive nature, this trend wasn’t perceived as a danger to the establishement. Most of the Humanists were laymen, but there were many Humanists in the Church. Among them were such Popes as Nicholas V, Pius II (Enea Silvio Piccolomini) and Leo X; also the papal secretary Lorenzo Valla and many bishops. The papal court first made serious contact with the Humanists when Eugenius IV, as a fugitive from Rome, was in Florence from 1434 to 1443. The Medici Pope Leo X patronized famous Florentine writers, such as the historian Francesco Guicciardini and Niccolò Machiavelli. The model for Machiavelli’s Prince was Cesare Borgia – a son of the Pope Alexander VI. Dante Alighieri (1265-1321). The conception of his Divine Comedy is essentially medieval and scholastic and his primary concern is the salvation of the soul; but his love for Latin poetry was an influential example for followers. In De Vulgari Eloquentia he wrote: „The closer we imitate the regular [ancient] poets the better we shall write poetry”.15 Francesco Petrarca (1304-1374). The ruin of Italy and Rome, caused in great measure by the absence of the Popes during their residence at Avignon (1309-1378), made him to dream to the restoration of the ancient glory of Rome. However, the Avignon’s Popes patronage helped him to dream against them, by providing the means of pursuing his favorite studies and, also, for his searches for manuscripts of the classics. Although he was only a cleric in minor orders, Petrarca was appointed papal ambassador to Naples (1343) and archdeacon of Parma (1348). These positions secured to him a decent income, and brought him into touch with libraries.16 Even if signs of the coming revival of antiquity had long preceded him, Francesco Petrarca may be regarded as the first representative Humanist. In his Canzoniere, a collection of more than three hundred sonnets and forty-nine odes (canzoni), he abandoned the allegoric
Ibidem, pp. 46-49. James MacCaffrey, History of the Catholic Church from the Renaissance to the French Revolution, Project Gutenberg Etext, 2000, p. 10.
scholasticism of Dante and became more secular.17 Most distinguished among Petrarca's disciples was Boccaccio. They have meet in 1350. Giovanni Boccaccio (1313-1375). Like Petrarca, he was assisted largely by the Popes, and took service at the papal court. Through his admiration for Petrarca he took up the study of the Latin classics, and was the first Humanist to become familiar with some of the works of the Roman historian Tacitus. His Decameron is the first enduring work to break completely with the ascetic and mystical spirit of the Middle Age. In contrast with the Divine Comedy of Dante it is frequently called the „Human Comedy” of Boccaccio. Its spirit is one of tolerance for human error and weakness.18 Lorenzo Valla (c. 1407-1457) won a high reputation for two works: his dialogue De Voluptate, and his treatise De Elegantiis Latinae Linguae. In De Voluptate, Valla attacked virginity as a crime against the human race, and ridiculed the idea of continence and self-denial. Here for the first time in the Renaissance the ideas of Epicurus found deliberate and positive expression in a work of scholarly and philosophical value. De Elegantiis Latinae Linguae intended to improve style and elegance in Latin usage. But, the enthusiasm for classical culture that was present in the writings of early Humanists like Petrarca and Boccaccio as a liberalizing force gradually became formalism: style became almost the only consideration. Even in the matter of form the interest became circumscribed as attention was gradually concentrated on a few models of composition, particularly Cicero. He was the authority for many later Humanists in much the same way that Aristotle was for the schoolmen.19 In his work De falso credita et ementita Constantini Donatione declamatio, his denunciations of the Popes as the tyrants of Rome were likely to do serious injury to the head of the Church in his spiritual as well as in his temporal capacity.20 Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527). Il principe, written in 1513 but published posthumously in 1532, is one of the most widely read political pamphlets of all time. Machiavelli draws his examples from personal observations made while he was on diplomatic missions for Florence
Ergang, op. cit., p. 49. Ibidem, p. 50. 19 Ibidem, pp. 59-60. 20 MacCaffrey, op. cit., p. 11.
and from his readings in ancient history. In keeping with the Renaissance de-emphasis on the divine and emphasis on the human, Machiavelli’s goal was not to make his prince a better person or get him into heaven. The goal was, rather, to keep the prince in power on Earth. To stay in power, the prince would have to become adept at seeming to be and doing good, while actually doing whatever it takes to enhance his power. Machiavelli expounded the dogma of a morally neutral state, defending the use of force and fraud as proper instruments of statecraft. Others before him had defended those political instruments, but Machiavelli was the first to expound this method in detail. By assimilating „the merchants' search for market with the community's search for greatness”21 Machiavelli produced a modern pattern of political thinking, which stands on the presuppositions that the state is more a government (or a ruler) than a community and that the power can be controlled only by using the subjects' sense of insecurity.22 In consequence he has been styled by some the founder of modern political science and by others a diabolic apostle of duplicity, and the „machiavellism” was considered as a sort of mental malady. Today the word „machiavellism” signifies a policy of expediency which subordinates every human and moral consideration to the political needs of the hour. In observing the career of Cesare Borgia, Machiavelli had seen what one man can do if he permits nothing to restrict his actions. Both Roman Catholics and Protestants have denounced The Prince as subversive of morals and religion.23 „The Prince was read and reread until its statements became commonplaces. […] Louis XIV, for example, studied it assiduously, Frederick the Great wrote a treatise against it before proceeding to apply its principles, and Napoleon, one of the best exemplars of the Machiavellian idea, left a carefully annotated copy of it.”24 And much later, Otto von Bismarck used the term Realpolitik to describe this kind of politic freed from moral restrains. * The influences initiated by Petrarca, Boccaccio, and others spread rapidly and bibliophilism became one of the passions of the age. Among those collecting manuscripts may be mentioned Pope Nicholas V (1447-1455), who acquired about five thousand, paying little attention to price. By adding these to the original papal collection he became the founder of
Arvind Narayan Das, „Theories of State: Aristotle to Marx”, Social Scientist, Vol. 3, No. 8 (1975), p. 65. Ibidem, pp. 64-65. 23 Ergang, op. cit., p. 38. 24 Ibidem, p. 38.
the present Vatican Library. Another famous collector was Cosimo de Medici (1389-1464), the most celebrated patron of learning of the age.25 The Humanism that developed at north of the Italic Peninsula is known as the Northern Humanism. Northern Humanism was more focused on religion. Scholars, particularly those of Germany and England, were motivated by a desire to purify the social and religious life of the time. They prized knowledge of Greek as a means of reading the classical authors in the original, but even more as a means of discovering new truth and beauty in the Greek New Testament. By turning a stream of criticism on the abuses of the Church, the Humanists prepared the way for the Protestant Reformation. Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466/1469-1536) was the most influential scholar of his age; Ulrich von Hutten styled him „the German Socrates”. As his works were writt en exclusively in Latin, they could be read by all educated persons in Europe. The work which made him famous was Praise of Folly, illustrated by Holbein and published in 1511. The book passed through twenty-seven editions in the lifetime of the author. He satirized scholastic pedantry, the formalism, credulity, hypocrisy, superstitions, the worship of images and the sale of indulgences.26 Sir Thomas More (1478-1535) also known as Thomas Morus. He wrote Utopia, published in Latin in 1516, which describes the political arrangements of the imaginary island nation of Utopia (a play on the Greek ou-topos, meaning „no place”). Thomas More was probably indebted to the Republic of Plato and Amerigo Vespucci’s account of a land free of political and social ills which he claimed to have visited on his voyages. The name Utopia has come to stand for political and social ideals which are forward looking but impracticable.27 In the German Empire there were Humanists like Rudolph Agricola (1443-1485) or Johann Reuchlin (1455-1522). Reuchlin published a Latin dictionary which in less than three decades went through twenty-five editions. Animated by a desire to read the Hebrew writings, particularly the Old Testament, Reuchlin started the study of Hebrew into Germany and some scandals related on the Old Testament.28
Ibidem, pp. 55-56. Ibidem, p. 64. 27 Ibidem, p. 67. 28 Ibidem, p. 62.
In France, the poetry of Ronsard (1524–1585), the political satire of Rabelais (c. 1495–1553), and the essays of Montaigne (1533–1592) all reflected Humanist values. François I (14941547) was an active supporter of the Renaissance. At no other court of the time were artists and scholars more honored. Erasmus wrote in 1517: „How happy is France under such a prince!”29 When young François ascended the throne in 1515, he was already a king with unprecedented humanist credentials. His predecessors, Charles VIII (1470-1498) and Louis XII (1462-1515), were considered the last of the medieval French monarchs, but they did lay the basis for the Renaissance. By the time the young François was receiving his education, there were a lot of contact between the French and Italians in the long running series of wars in Italy under Charles and Louis. The court of the Valois found its bible in Libro del cortegiano by Baldassare Castiglione;30 setting the standard for the aristocracy generally. In the arts the highest development was reached in architecture, examples of which are the Louvre (1515). The Humanist that summed up many aspects of the Renaissance, both in his life and work, was the satirist, priest and physician – Francois Rabelais. He was a popular and successful writer; for example, he said that he sold more copies „in two months than there will be the Bible in nine years”.31 With Calvin he shares the honor of being the founder of modern French prose. Montaigne and Shakespeare (1564–1616) were the ultimate inheritors of this tradition. * (2) The Art of Renaissance, like the Humanism, was a result of a slow development covering centuries. Giotto di Bondone (1267-1337) was retroactively viewed by the Humanists (Giorgio Vasari, for example) as the one who „made a decisive break with the ...Byzantine style, and brought to life the great art of painting as we know it today, introducing the technique of drawing accurately from life, which had been neglected for more than two hundred years”32; even if his work is still medieval in its allegorical subjects and in its two-dimensional character. The development of perspective was part of a wider trend towards realism in the arts. To that end, painters also developed other techniques, studying light, shadow, and, famously in the case of Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci (1452-1519), human anatomy. Michelangelo di
Erasmus apud Ergang, op. cit., p. 68. Guérard, op. cit., p. 50. 31 Ergang, op. cit., p. 69. 32 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giotto_di_Bondone.
Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni (1475-1564) and Rafael Sanzio (1483-1520) were to be much imitated by other artists. Raphael was very famous, so the orders kept on pouring in. He had assistants, like all the successful artists of the time, and in many cases his own part was limited to sketching in the design and retouching the product when his assistants had finished. Concurrently, in the Netherlands, a particularly artistic culture developed, the work of Jan van Eyck (1385-1441) and Hugo van der Goes (1440-1482) having particular influence on the development of painting in Italy, both technically with the introduction of oil paint and canvas, and stylistically in terms of naturalism in representation. Later, the work of Pieter Brueghel the Elder (1525-1569) would inspire artists to depict themes of everyday life. In architecture, Filippo Brunelleschi (1377-1446) was foremost in studying the remains of ancient Rome. Brunelleschi was considered to be a genius after he engineered the dome of Florence, Santa Maria del Fiore. The outstanding architectural work of the High Renaissance was the rebuilding of St. Peter's Basilica, which combined the skills of Donato Bramante (1444-1514), Michelangelo and Raphael.
The Reformation emerged under the „Renaissance” popes. We may notice a tension between Renaissance, Humanism and Reformation. Reformers appreciated the secular critique of the Church, but they condemned the secular habits of the Churchmen. Many historians noticed that Calvin, Zwingli and Melanchton were all professional humanist before they became reformers and Luther’s work on the Old Testament was a humanist approach. The reformation was a sort of humanist return ad fontes, in order to re-establish the original Christianity.33 The „religious reformation […] went hand in hand with the strengthening of the educational system, from the foundation of preparatory schools to the rejuvenation or foundation of universities and colleges.”34 We may say that the Reformation’s success was based on learning and printing. Erasmus of Rotterdam was, in a sense, the intellectual father of the Protestant movement, because of his attacks on the prevailing abuses in the Church. Moreover, his friendly attitude contributed not a little to the success of Reformation. But when Martin Luther launched his attacks against the Church, his Humanist allies fell away. The aim of Erasmus was primarily educational, not religious.35 Like Erasmus, many Christian Humanists had doubts about some of the teachings of the Church and real objections to the secular habits of the clergy generally, but especially of the Renaissance popes. But, the life of the immoral popes, priests and monks was rather a highly visible exception than a general standard; there were a lot of good priests, monks and some good popes. Nevertheless some abuses were real and notorious. But, these abuses were not new. Many had existed for centuries. Some leaders of the Church, among them John Wycliffe (c.1320s1384) in England and Jan Huss (c.1369-1415) in Bohemia, had repeatedly denounced them. On the other hand, because of the problems generated by the Great Western Schism, councils had met at Pisa (1409), Constance (1414-1418), and Basel (1431-1449) for the purpose of reforming the Church, but these efforts had proved insufficient.
Ake Bergvall, „Reason in Luther, Calvin, and Sidney”, The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Spring, 1992), pp. 116-117. 34 Ibidem, p. 188. 35 MacCaffrey, op. cit., p. 42.
The decreased papal authority during the Great Schism combined with the increased papal financial income had accentuated those tendencies. Humanists satirized the economic skills and the low moral standards of the churchmen. Particularly intriguing were simony (the buying or selling of the spiritual offices), pluralism (the holding of more than one office by one person), the disrespect of the law of celibacy and the sales of indulgences These indulgences were considered as paying that can make shorter the period which usually had to be spent in the Purgatory. The institution of indulgences gradually transformed its medieval character of Christian justice to a financial institution on large scale involving bankers like Fugger and de Medici.36 * The increase of the criticism was somehow proportional with the decrease of papal political power and administrative-spiritual authority. So, the criticism of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries might be traced back to the decline of the papal power during the Avignon exile and the Schism. The Great Western Schism (1378-1417) was the period when the Catholics were ruled by two popes, one in Avignon and one Rome. Moreover, between 1409 and 1414, there were three popes: in Avignon, Rome and Pisa. The fundamental background of the Avignon papacy was the conflict between King Philip IV of France (r. 1285–1314) and Papacy. Trying to resolve this conflict, the cardinals settled on Bertrand de Got (Pope Clement V), the archbishop of Bordeaux, who was well connected to the French court. Clement V (r. 1305–1314) created numerous French cardinals and negotiated constantly with the French court. In his desire to achieve a settlement with France, Clement settled in 1309 in Avignon, a city in the south of what is now France. In the years 1309 to 1378, the popes were continuously resident in Avignon. Contemporaries, such as Petrarca, condemned this „Babylonian Captivity” of the papacy. Some popes returned to Rome for a while, and Urban VI (r. 1378–1389) remained at Rome. The Great Schism, perhaps the greatest crisis in papal history, began when the cardinals declared Urban VI deposed and elected Cardinal Robert of Geneva as Clement VII. Clement eventually returned to Avignon in 1381.
Reinhold Kiermayr, „How Much Money was Actually in the Indulgence Chest?”, The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Autumn, 1986), p. 309.
The Council of Constance resolved the crisis with two critical decrees that were limiting the power of popes: Haec Sancta (1415) declared that the authority of councils was superior to that of popes, and Frequens (1417) called for a new council in 5 years, then another in 7 years, followed by councils every 10 years. * Martin Luther (1483-1546) studied law at the University of Erfurt, which was then one of the leading centers of Humanism on the northern side of the Alps. But, beside the humanist background and method, there is no obvious evidence of Humanist influence in his religious views.37 Luther turned his attention principally to the study of philosophy, and having received his degree in 1505, he began to lecture on the physics and ethics of Aristotle. Surprisingly, Martin Luther abandoned his career at the university and entered the novitiate of the Augustinian monastery at Erfurt (1505).38 In 1508, Martin Luther was called to the University of Wittenberg, newly founded (1502) by Frederick III (known as Frederick the Wise, Elector of Saxony and duke of Wittenberg), where he first taught philosophy and later lectured on the Bible. In Wittenberg, he became doctor in theology (1512). Because of his eloquence, his imagination and memory, Luther soon become popular and appreciated both by the Augustinians and by the Elector.39 But, the teachings of Martin Luther were not entirely in harmony with Catholic doctrine, especially the doctrine of salvation solely by faith in God's grace and mercy. Only an occasion was required to bring him into legitimate conflict with the authorities of the Church, without appearing as a heretic. This occasion was provided by the preaching in Germany of an Indulgence proclaimed by Leo X (1513−1521), the son of Lorenzo de' Medici, and the great patron of the Humanist movement. 40 Money was particularly urgently needed in 1514 because Raphael, at the height of his fame, had just been appointed architect of the new basilica St. Peter. Luther presented
Bergvall, op. cit., p. 116. MacCaffrey, op. cit.,p. 31. 39 Ibidem , p. 33. 40 Ibidem, pp. 33-34.
the issue of indulgences in popular economic terms, emphasizing the need for money of wealthy pope.41 Particularly in Germany, there were some reactions against the activity of the inquisitor Johann Tetzel (1465-1519), a successful indulgence salesman. Tetzel even went as far as creating a chart that listed a price for each type of sin. To Luther, this sale of the promise of forgiveness, grace, and heaven, without insistence upon penitence, was a sort of evil against which he felt compelled to fight. He voiced his protest in 95 theses which, according to academic custom, he posted, on October 31, 1517, on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg. The success of the Luther’s campaign against the indulgence traffic reveals the growing civic awareness of urban communities, a phenomenon increasingly acknowledged as an important factor in German Reformation causality.42 Luther kept on writing and teaching, and in 1520, Leo issued the Bull Exsurge Domini, which condemned Luther’s teaching on 41 specific points. At first Luther pretended that the Bull was a forgery, but when this line of defense proved useless, he attacked the papal pronouncement in his pamphlet, Against the Bull of Anti−Christ, in which he denounced Leo X as a heretic and apostate, an enemy of the Holy Scriptures and a tyrant. Finally, in the presence of an immense concourse of the citizens and students of Wittenberg, he burned publicly the papal Bull and the writings of his political opponents.43 Leo then excommunicated Luther, perhaps supposing that would end the matter. But, the battle continued. During the battle with Rome, the printing press was one of the favorite weapons of Luther, because it was easier to spread the well written accusations – and more difficult to burn all those copies. Among the writings which he published in the year 1520 three treatises stand out. The first of them, Address to the Nobility of the German Nation, was a call to the Germans to unite and demolish the power of the pope over the German states. It may be styled the political and social manifesto of the Lutheran Reformation. The second, On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, subjected the entire sacramental system to a searching criticism. In consequence he rejected all the sacraments but two, baptism and Eucharist. From his point of view, the
Kiermayr, op. cit. pp. 303-304. Ibidem, p. 317. 43 Ergang, op. cit., p. 186.
other „so-called sacraments” were only ceremonies of human institution. In the third treatise, The Freedom of a Christian Man, he briefly expounded the idea of the priesthood of all believers. Thousands of copies of these writings circulated throughout Germany and won large numbers of supporters for Luther's cause.44 The protection of Frederick the Wise was another secret weapon of Luther, which could clarify why Martin Luther did not shared the fate of Jan Huss. Charles V issued the Edict of Worms, which put Luther under the ban of the empire, as „an obstinate schismatic and manifest heretic”. It ordered that Luther be delivered to the imperial authorities and forbade everyone, under severe penalties, to give him „house or home, food, drink or shelter” or to read, print, or sell his books.45 But, Charles V was powerless to enforce it, especially as the majority of the princes were unwilling to carry out its terms in their territories. In spite of the Imperial Edict, an armed troop of horsemen, secretly sent by Frederick the Wise carried him off to the Wartburg Castle, to protect him. In the Wartburg, where he remained in for almost a year, Luther began his translation of the Bible in the German vernacular. The complete work did not appear until 1534, but the New Testament was published as early as 1522.46 * It seems that the popes of Rome didn’t realize what was at stake. When Leo X died, the cardinals elected Adrian VI (Hadrian of Utrecht, former grand inquisitor in Spain), mainly because he had no enemies. In 1522, the legate in Nuremburg acknowledged the new pope that, according to the general opinion in Germany, the Church was in serious need of reform. But Hadrian dismissed Luther as an insignificant heretic monk. Hadrian was followed by Clement VII (r. 1523-1534), also an (adoptive) son of Lorenzo de' Medici. He was, on the whole, a decent man who did not give rise to scandals. But he, too, had no understanding of what was happening in Germany, and, on his „watch”, other forms of Protestantism began to spread and England was lost to the Church. Clement was followed by Paul III (r. 1534-1549). In many respects, he was a „Renaissance” man, or pope, but he also had a real sense of the need for reform. Paul promoted a number of
Ibidem, p. 188. Ibidem, p. 188. 46 Ibidem, p. 189.
remarkable men, which were appointed to a commission in 1536 to study the areas needing reform. When they issued Consilium de emendenda ecclesia, it was so critical that Paul held it back. But a pirated copy got to Germany, where Luther translated it into German and published it. * Meanwhile, the Lutheran movement gradually gained strength in the whole German area. But some social events reduced the political force of the new theology. The most important of these events was the Peasants War (1524-1525) which affected his reputation because Luther didn’t succeeded to mediate between the peasants and nobles by advising mutual concessions. The leader of the peasants was the pastor Thomas Müntzer (c.1489-1525), which had some disagreements with Luther’s theology; particularly regarding the infant baptism. Finally, by supporting the nobles, Martin Luther disappointed the peasants – and also a part of the nobility, which saw the subversive potential of the Luther’s contestation of authority. But, for Martin Luther, it was as good as it gets. Because the peasants were defeated, Thomas Müntzer was beheaded. His head was exposed as a warning.47 Furthermore, many of the nobles of southern Germany turned against the Lutheran leader because they regarded the revolt as the natural result of his teachings. Despite Luther's efforts to preserve peace between the Catholic nobles and the Lutheran ones, the Schmalkaldic War (1546) broke out, four months after his death.48 The peace of Augsburg which terminated the war in 1555 was in effect a compromise, on the principle cuius regio, eius religio (whose territory, his religion). So, on the one hand, the German area remained religiously divided, but, on the other hand, Lutheranism received legal recognition.49 Luther created a new church system. As Luther viewed it, this new church was essentially the old one. Nevertheless, among the doctrines rejected by Luther and the church that took its name from him were a number of fundamental beliefs, including those regarding the headship of the pope, transubstantiation, purgatory, good works, indulgences, relics, and the adoration of saints. The basic doctrine of the new church was justification by faith. The sole source of all doctrines was the Bible. The clergymen of the new church were permitted to marry and to live more like laymen.
Ibidem, p. 191. The war received its name from the town of Schmalkalden, where the Protestants created a defensive league. They were named Protestants, because they protested against an Imperial Edict. 49 Ergang, op. cit., p. 194.
Important changes were also introduced in the forms of worship, which were organized more on popular lines. The Latin service of the Roman Church was replaced by one conducted entirely in German. It consisted, in the main, of preaching, Bible reading, and hymn-singing. Luther himself wrote a large number hymns, among them there is the hymn A Mighty Fortress Is Our God, which Heinrich Heine called the Marseillaise of the Reformation.50 * Huldrych (Ulrich) Zwingli (1484-1531), independently of Martin Luther, arrived at similar conclusions by studying the Scriptures from the point of view of a humanist scholar. He drew up 67 theses containing the essence of his reformatory ideas. A key doctrinal difference between Zwingli and Luther was their view on the Eucharist. Whereas Luther believed that the body and blood of Christ are really present in the bread and wine of this sacrament, Zwingli thought the sacrament to be purely symbolic character. Their differences were discussed at the Marburg Colloquy in 1529. Another difference was that Zwingli didn’t like the music in the religious ceremonial. Zwingli was killed at Kappel am Albis, in a battle against the Roman Catholic cantons. The reform which Zwingli started at Zurich was carried on later at Geneva by Jean Calvin (1509-1564), who can thus be said to belong to the second generation of reformers. 51 Like Martin Luther, Jean Calvin studied humanities and Roman law, in accordance with the wishes of his father. He got a sofisticated humanist education by studying Seneca, Cicero, Erasmus etc. By 1532, he received a licence ès lois at Orléans. 52 The early months of the year 1536 saw him in Basel, where he published Christianae Religionis Institutio (The Institutes of the Christian Religion).53 This book, which contains Calvin’s basic perspective on religion,54 it gave him rank among the reformers. For its material Calvin was, in the main, indebted to others, particularly to Luther. The book was translated into French by the author in 1541 and dedicated to Francis I in an effort to bring
Ibidem, p. 190. Ibidem, p. 197. 52 Michael L. Monheit, „The Ambition for an Illustrious Name" Humanism, Patronage, and Calvin's Doctrine of the Calling”, The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Summer, 1992), p. 268. 53 Ergang, op. cit., p.198. 54 Charles Partee, „Calvin's Central Dogma Again”, The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Summer, 1987), p. 193.
the French king into sympathy with the new doctrines. The effort failed. In 1542 the book was condemned as heretical by the Parlement of Paris and publicly burned.55 In Geneva, Jean Calvin and the reformer Guillaume Farel were trying to transform the city into a model Christian community. They influenced the government of Geneva to the point that it became a theocratic state, the „Protestant Rome”, where Protestants took refuge and non-Protestants were persecuted. Their discipline was so severe that in 1538 the people rose in rebellion and both Calvin and Farel were banished from the city.56 After being expelled from the city, he served as a pastor in Strasbourg from 1538 until 1541. In 1540 he married the widow of one of the Anabaptist leaders. But the three years of Calvin's exile in Strasbourg were not a period of peace and order in Geneva. So, in 1541 a decree was issued recalling Calvin to Geneva. In September, 1541, Calvin reentered Geneva to resume at once the task of completely reforming all departments of society. The form of government introduced was theocratic. Calvin was recognized as the spiritual and temporal ruler of the city. He was assisted in the work of government by the Consistory, which was composed of six clerics and twelve laymen. The Bible was the final authority not only in religion but also in politics.57 Everyone was compelled to attend church services and to listen to Calvin's sermons, but to laugh during these sermons was considered a crime. The records show an enormous list of imprisonments and banishments between the years 1541 and 1559. It has been calculated that more than fifty persons were condemned to death for witchcraft during a period of five years. The „heretics” (even if they didn’t practice witchcraft) were burned alive. People were imprisoned for wearing „wrong” wardrobe or for giving „wrong” names to their children. Dancing was prohibited. Stage plays were tolerated solely if they dealt with Scriptural subjects.58 During his theocratic activity in Geneva, Calvin continued to promote his doctrine. His writings were translated into various European languages and were widely read by both clergy and laity. His fame attracted large numbers of Protestants to Geneva from all parts of Europe and many later returned to their native countries to spread his teachings. A further means of spreading his influence was the Academy which he reorganized in 1559 and which
Ergang, op. cit., pp.198-199. Ibidem, p. 200. 57 Ibidem, p. 201. 58 Ibidem, pp. 200-201.
later became the University of Geneva. During Calvin's time the higher departments of this Academy were primarily a training school for Calvinistic ministers. Through such means Calvinism inspired John Knox, William the Silent, Admiral Coligny, and Oliver Cromwell. Calvin paid a special attention to the French Protestants (Huguenots) by translating his important works into French, and in his Academy gave special care to the training of ministers for the work of founding new Huguenot congregations.59 According to Max Weber60, Calvinism was regarded as the real enemy of the Catholicism, especially the Calvinism of the Calvin’s epigones; because the radical contestation of hierarchy encouraged a perpetual sectarian heterodoxy. The radical adaptation of Luther’s doctrine about salvation was one of the sources of modern individualism and one of the sources of „the spirit of capitalism”. Calvin's doctrine about salvation emphasizes on predestination. God decided once for all who is elected and who is damned. Nobody could save his soul, neither by faith nor by good deeds. As a mean in supporting this tension, asceticism was carried out of monastic cells into everyday life, and began to dominate worldly morality.61 In general, Calvinism trained men who, confident of their own election, set out aggressively to accomplish what they regarded as the will of God, emphasizing chastity and temperance. The „vocation” from God was no longer limited to the clergy or church, but applied to any occupation. An individual was religiously compelled to follow a secular vocation with as much zeal as possible. Poverty was perceived as laziness, burdening their fellow man, and an affront to God; by not working, one failed to glorify God.62 Calvinism was one of the sources of modern rationalism, because Calvin, like many Protestants, participated in developing the concept of the pure fact. For example, Calvin stated that the superstitious sectarian was a threat to cognitive clarity, as a contaminator of the powers of imagination.63 Also, according to Volker Heins, „Calvin is modern because he no longer views the just order of things as cosmologically given. Instead, he sees it as something that has to be actively constructed through power and exertion of will. The core of a civil order in the making is
Ibidem, pp. 203-204. Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Routledge, 1996, pp. 79-284. 61 Ibidem, loc. cit. 62 Ibidem, loc. cit. 63 Volker Heins, „Civil Society’s Barbarisms”, European Journal of Social Theory, 7(4), p. 502.
envisioned in institutions that respect and reward its citizens’ public-minded activities while punishing reprehensible activities. Only in this way can the elementary ‘discipline of human societies’ be maintained.”64 * The Council of Trent65 (1545-1563) was the Catholic response to the Protestant Reformation. Luther and the German Diet advocated one; Karl V also saw it as the best agency of both reform and reconciliation. The French kings however, saw in the doctrinal conflict an opportunity to weaken the emperor. The popes also were hesitant about convoking a reformatory council. They feared that it might again endeavor to declare itself supreme over the papacy. After hesitation, Catholics invited Protestants to discussions; and Protestants like Melanchthon accepted the dialog, but political reasons that produced the Schmalkaldic War ended the doctrinal dialog. 66 In spite of the tentative of doctrinal dialog, the Council of Trent was not conciliation and it didn’t win back any land for the Catholic Church; in that sense, then, it was not part of a Counter Reformation, but it did mark a crucial step in the Catholic Church’s undertaking to put its own house in order. And by doing that it consolidated the gap inside the Christianity, because it emphasized the distinctions both in doctrine and in organization. The Catholic Church affirmed and more precisely defined its theology, reformed some basic institutions, reduced the local autonomy of the clergy67 and carried the Renaissance into the Baroque. The council affirmed the equal validity of scripture and tradition, the Church’s sole right to interpret the Bible, the authority of the text of the Vulgate, traditional teaching on Original Sin and justification and merit, and traditional teaching on the sacraments, in particular, the doctrine of transubstantiation. Relics, images, saints, and indulgences were used in daily practice. But the sale of indulgences was effectively banned. The council closed with „anathema to all heretics, anathema, anathema”.68 By emphasizing on possible differences and by declaring the new pluralism to be a heresy, The Catholic Church endorsed the split of Christendom, but it reinforced the organizational unity.
Ibidem, p. 502. The Latin name of the city was Tridentum. It was a city that belonged to Austria; but after the WWI it became an Italian city. 66 MacCaffrey, op. cit., p. 52. 67 Thomas I. Crimando, „Two French Views of the Council of Trent”, The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Summer, 1988), p. 171. 68 Ergang, op. cit., p. 210.
An instrument for combating heresy had been set up by Pope Paul III in 1542 when he authorized the establishment of a „Supreme Tribunal of the Inquisition”. It was not a new organization, but simply an adaptation of the older Papal Inquisition to new conditions. The Papal Inquisition, a special tribunal for the detection and punishment of heresy, was founded in the thirteenth century because the ordinary Episcopal courts were unable to cope with the alarming spread of heretical beliefs. Entrusted to the Dominican and Franciscan monks, it at first moved from place to place. Because heresy was regarded as more terrible than murder or treason, there were used any means to gain the right confession. The purpose of this kind of trial was not to find the truth but to confirm it by confession. The Inquisition could proceed against anyone denounced to it. It could punish heresy with imprisonment, confiscation of property, and death. From its judgments there was no appeal except to the pope. But, the Inquisition was an institution that functioned with the support of secular power.69 Another instrument for combating heresy was Index librorum prohibitorum, a list of works which Roman Catholics were forbidden to read. Like Inquisition, the „Index” was an adaptation of an old practice. The Church since early times had used various means of preventing the reading and spread of heterodox literature. Popes, councils, and even emperors had issued prohibitions regarding books dangerous to the faith. The Council of Constance (1415), for example, ordered that all the books of John Huss be burned publicly, and directed the bishops to make a diligent search for hidden copies.70 The first papal list of prohibited books for the whole Church was the Index issued by Pope Paul IV in 1559. In 1571 Pope Pius V created at Rome the „Congregation of the Index” which it had to examine and list all suspected publications which were dangerous to faith or morals. The „Index” issued in 1596 remained, with some additions, the standard until the middle of the eighteenth century. Since its first issue the Index has passed through about a hundred editions.71 Besides combating heresy and reducing the visible abuses in the Church, it was also one of the purposes of the Catholic Reformation to improve the use of the education as an ideological tool. In order to achieve this goal, Popes supported societies like „Society of Jesus” (the Jesuits), which it weren’t founded with the conscious design of counteracting the teachings of Luther and Calvin. In 1540, Paul III approved the new order founded in Paris
Ibidem, p. 212. Ibidem, p. 211. 71 Ibidem, p. 212.
(1534) by Don Inigo Lopez de Recalde, known as Ignatius Loyola (1491−1556). Because of their careful intellectual formation, they were often teachers, and Protestants feared them as the crack troops of the Counter Reformation. 72 Gregory XIII elevated the Jesuit College to university status. 73
Ibidem, pp. 214-221. He also introduced the „Gregorian calendar” in 1582.
A. Hegemony and Equilibrium. The Case of the Habsburgs
One could say that between sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the Habsburgs set the terms of the European politics. The fight for hegemony resurrected the ancient practice of pursuing the balance of power in the post-medieval Europe. Later, the „balance of power” became the pretext for most of the wars which Europe experienced between the Peace of Westphalia (1648) and the Congress of Vienna (1814). The usual enemies of the Habsburgs were the kings of France, the sultans of Turkey, the „people” of Netherlands, and sometimes the queens of England, the Popes of Rome or the Protestants of Central Europe. As a result of the conflicts of interests between these powers, that sustained both „modern” claims and „medieval” ones, new political ideas and patterns emerged. * Karl V (1500-1558) was the product of the marriage of Juana of Castile (daughter of Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile) and of Philip „the Handsome”, duke of Burgundy (son of Holly German Emperor Maximilian I of Habsburg and Mary of Burgundy). The marriage was an alliances designed against growing French power, which had increased significantly thanks to the policies of Louis XI (1423-1483).74 In 1506, the death of Philip left Karl, a child of six, ruler of the possessions of the house of Burgundy, which comprised Flanders and Artois, Franche-Comte (county of Burgundy), Luxemburg, and the provinces of the Netherlands. In 1516, with the death of his grandfather Ferdinand II of Aragon, Karl inherited his grandfather's realm, which included Aragon, Naples, Sicily and Sardinia. Being 16 years old, he also became joint ruler of Castile with, and guardian of, his mother Juana (she was mentally unfit to rule). 75 There was no salic tradition which the Castilian Cortes could use to obstruct the succession passing to Juana. With the Castilian crown he also gained Navarre, Granada, and the Spanish possessions in the New World.
See Norbert Elias, Procesul civilizării. Cercetări sociogenetice și psihogenetice, vol. II, Polirom, 2002, pp. 148-149. (for an English translation see Norbert Elias, The Civilizing Process. The History of Manners and State Formation and Civilization, Blackwell, 1997, pp. 257-439). 75 Ergang, op. cit., p. 147.
For the first time the crowns of Castile and of Aragon were united in one person. Ferdinand and Isabella had each been sovereign in one kingdom, but only consort in the other. Karl arrived in his new kingdoms in autumn of 1517. By delaying the arrival in Spain, Karl produced some doubts regarding his loyalty to the country. He ruled the Spanish state under the name of Carlos I. In 1519, the death of Maximilian I raised another question of succession. The two principal aspirants were François I, king of France, and Karl of Spain, grandson of Maximilian. The candidates competed for the favor of the electors, until „it seemed that the election would finally go to the king with the larger purse”76. In 1520, Karl was crowned Holy Roman Emperor. He was apparently in a very strong position. Plus Ultra was its personal motto. Karl made famous the sentence, which it will be used later as a glorification of imperialism: „In my realm the sun never sets”. But, in reality, the very extent of his dominions made him much less powerful than he might have been as the sovereign of a smaller but more compact region.77 Karl V had some problems regarding the relation with his subjects, especially regarding the use of languages required by the changing reality of the world that he would rule. He spoke French and Dutch as mother languages, Spanish, which was required by the Castilian Cortes as a condition for becoming king of Castile, and later German. He ruled Germany for more than three decades without mastering German. Being the head of the Holy Roman Empire, his knowledge of the official language (Latin) remained rudimentary. Indeed, he claimed to speak „Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men, and German to his horse”78. In 1526, the Cortes of Castile had ventured to suggest Isabella, sister of the king of Portugal, as his bride. Trying to please the local stakeholders, Karl accepted the suggestion, and the marriage was celebrated in Seville. Their son, who succeeded his father as Philip II, later based his claim to the throne of Portugal on his Portuguese ancestry. *
Ibidem, p. 150. MacCaffrey, op. cit., p. 39. 78 Eugen Weber, „Of Stereotypes and of the French”, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 25, No. 2/3 (1990), p. 170.
François I (1494 -1547) was crowned King of France in 1515 and reigned until 1547. He claimed the kingdom of Navarre, a part of which Ferdinand had seized for Spain, and also the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily. Karl, on the other hand, demanded the restitution of the duchy of Burgundy which Louis XI had appropriated. There was also the question of Milan: At the beginning of his reign François had led an army into Italy against Massimiliano Sforza and his Swiss mercenaries, and by the victory at Marignano gained control of Milan. This acquisition raised the question of European balance of power. But, the rivalry didn’t end here. Encouraged by the Spanish rebellion of Santa Junta and by the German Lutheranism, the François invaded Spanish Navarre (1521). Karl formed a league with the pope and Henry VIII of England.79 A combined force of imperial and papal troops defeated the French troops in battle of Pavia (1525). François was made prisoner and taken to Spain. After many months of imprisonment he gained his release by signing the treaty of Madrid in 1526. As soon as he reached French soil he took occasion to repudiate it, claiming that a treaty made under the use of force is not binding.80 The other states now feared that Karl was growing too powerful. Pope Clement VII formed the „ League of Cognac”. England, without being an active participant, gave it moral support. As a response, a Spanish, German and Italian (from Milan and Mantua) army of the Emperor Karl V, under the command of Charles de Bourbon, terrorized Italy and plundered Rome (1527).81 Those viloences marked the end of the Roman Renaissance, and damaged the papacy's prestige. Martin Luther commented: „Christ reigns in such a way that the Emperor who persecutes Luther for the Pope is forced to destroy the Pope for Luther”.82 Karl V was greatly embarrassed and powerless to stop his troops, mainly because the lack of authority after the death of the chief commander Charles de Bourbon. Numerous local bandits, along with the League's deserters, joined with the army during the march. Churches, monasteries and palaces of wealthy churchmen were spoiled. Nuns and other women were raped. Clement was imprisoned.
Ergang, op. cit., p. 152. Ibidem, p. 153. 81 M. Destombes, „A Panorama of the Sack of Rome by Pieter Bruegel the Elder”, Imago Mundi, Vol. 14 (1959), p. 64. 82 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacco_di_Roma.
After that, Clement was to spend the rest of his life trying to avoid conflict with Karl V. For example, he refused Henry VIII of England an annulment of marriage, because Henry’s wife, Catherine of Aragon, was a relative of Karl. With the conclusion of the Treaty of Cambrai (1529), which formally removed Francis from the war, the League of Cognac collapsed. The terms were the same as those of the former treaty except that Francis was permitted to retain the duchy of Burgundy.83 * Suleiman the Magnificent (1520-1566). Soon after his accession, Suleiman made two important additions. In 1521 he captured Belgrade. In the following year he took the island of Rhodes. Its capture assured Moslem control of the eastern Mediterranean. At Mohacs in 1526, the Christian forces were completely defeated. The king of Hungary died. Hungary, except the western part, became subject to Suleiman. Ferdinand of Habsburg, as the brotherin-law of the Hungarian king, laid claim to the throne of Hungary, invaded the country, took Budapest. In response, Suleiman invaded Austria and laid siege to Vienna (1529). But, the siege didn’t succeed and the Habsburgs launched a counterattack. pay an annual tribute (1547).84 * Kheireddin Barbarossa (c.1480-1566) was a powerful pirate, vassal of Suleiman. His bases of operation were Algiers and Tunis. With the aid of a fleet entrusted to him by Suleiman he was able to continue these raids unchecked. Karl, who regarded himself as the protector of Christendom, was determined to rid the Mediterranean of the Moorish pirates. With a fleet of more than 300 ships and an army of 30.000 he defeated a fleet of 82 Moorish galleys (1535).85 * During 1545 and the years immediately following, Karl reached the pinnacle of his power. After 1544 he was at peace with his chief antagonist, Francois I, who was too ill to engage in any further contests with him. The death of the French king in 1547 and also of Henry VIII in
After fights and
negotiations Karl V obtained for his brother, Ferdinand, a portion of Hungary, but he had to
Ergang, op. cit., p. 154. Ibidem, p. 157. 85 Ibidem, p. 158.
the same year, gave a reasonable expectation of peace among the Christian states of Europe. Furthermore, in the same year, the signing of a five-year armistice with the sultan freed him from the nightmare of Turkish invasion. But the position of superpower left a huge deficit in Spanish treasury. Even the vast quantities of wealth which flowed into the royal treasury from Mexico and Peru were insufficient for his needs.86 Moreover, the religious wars concluded with the Peace of Augsburg (1555) had blown the fundamental principles on which the Holy Roman Empire had been built.87 Because of his illness (gout), in1555 Karl turned over to his son Philip of Habsburg the rule of the Netherlands. In 1556 Karl completely transferred the Holy Roman Empire to his younger brother Ferdinand of Habsburg (1503-1564), who had been ruling in his name. In this same year he abdicated the crowns of Spain and of the Italian possessions in favor of his son Philip, and was ready to retire. He retired to the monastery of San Yuste and died in 1558. * Philip II of Spain (1527-1598) tried to eliminate the weaknesses of his part of the empire inherited from Karl, while Ferdinand had to live with them. But, both of them adopted a policy of centralization and continued to extend the Habsburgic territories. Philip II was somehow forced to focus his policy outside of the Europe, in spite of the grooving size of his dominions and in spite of his father’s wish to inherit the imperial title.88 The preferred weapons of the Habsburgs were the Catholicism, marriage and Invincibila Armada. Philip II continued the successful military activity of his father, demolishing the myth of „Turkish invincibility”. For example, „Invincibila Armada”, conducted by Don Juan de Austria (1547-1578, an illegitimate son of Karl V), almost annihilated the Turkish fleet in the battle of Lepanto (1570). Among the wounded was Miguel de Cervantes. Philip II also continued the lucky and successful politic of his father, based on marriage and inheritance. As the son of Isabela de Portugal, he added to his state Portugal and its colonial
Ergang, op. cit., p. 150. MacCaffrey, op. cit., p. 52. 88 Fernand Braudel, Mediterana și lumea mediteraneană în epoca lui Filip al II -lea, vol. III, Meridiane, 1986, pp. 129-203.
empire (1580). He was married (1543) Infanta Maria of Portugal (1527-1545), but it didn’t last. Through the marriage (1559) with Elisabeth de Valois (1545-1568) Philip ended the endless wars of his father with France. The case of England was a breakdown in his politics. He failed to become the king of England by marrying Queen Mary („Bloody Mary”) in 1554, which died soon after (1558). He also failed to invade Britain, demolishing the myth of the „Invincibila Armada”. The War of England (1585-1604) came to an end only under the reign of Philip III (1578-1621). Philip II was more successful than Ferdinand I in centralizing his state, maybe too successful. Continuing the „subreconquista” that began after the „Reconquista”, Philip strongly supported the process of catholicization of the Spaniards, and the Inquisition returned the favor. As a byproduct, the conversos (new Christians) were persecuted and, in 1570, Morisco population was dispersed, for their assimilation into Spanish society and true observance of Christianity. Philip’s plan in the long run failed and his son Philip III ordered the expulsion of all Moriscos from Spain (1609).89 To maintain the status of a superpower, Philip became increasingly dependent on loans from foreign bankers, particularly in Genoa and Augsburg. By the end of his reign, interest payments on these loans alone accounted for 40% of state revenue. Philip II was interested in the creation of a state’s bank, as a means of relieving financial stringency, in the last year of his reign, but it took too much for this plan to become a reality.90 * For Philip II, the wars with England and also with France of Henry IV (1589-1610) had both hegemonic and religious purposes. But, we can say that those wars had internal purposes too; because the English and French Protestants (for example Coligny) supported the Dutch rebels. The rebels supported by their Protestant neighbors were interfering with the Philip’s policy of centralization and modernization. William of Orange (1533-1584), known as William „the Silent”, became the head of the rebels which were using „modern” ideas and guerilla techniques to fight for their medieval
Braudel, op. cit., vol. IV, Meridiane, 1986, pp. 129-203. Earl J. Hamilton, „The Foundation of the Bank of Spain”, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 53, No. 2 (1945), p. 97.
privileges. In „The Oath of Abjuration” (1581), the General Estates assert that a king is a servant of his people and should respect their laws and traditions. When he no longer does this, the people have the right to choose another ruler. Philip II did not accept this statement and began a conquest with Walloon, Spanish and German troops that ended in the occupation of most of Flanders and half of Brabant. The other regions gained their independence from Philip and became the federal Republic of the United Provinces (now the Netherlands), whereas the occupied parts of Brabant and Flanders became, together with loyal Wallonia, the Spanish Netherlands (now Belgium). „The Oath of Abjuration” became a model for other statements regarding the sovereignty. Declared an outlaw by the Spanish king in 1580, William of Orange was assassinated (1584) by Balthasar Gérard. William of Orange had survived five attempts against his life before he fell in 15 84 to the pistol of Gérard.91 But this event didn’t change anything, excepting the wealth and status of Gérard’s family which was rewarded by Philip. Being caught by the Dutch authorities, Gérard was systematically tortured and finally executed. The war continued until 1609. The Netherlands became formally independent after the The 30 Years' War that ended with the Peace of Westphalia (1648). * The 30 Years' War (1618-1648) was the final blow on the Habsburgic authority in German area. It was in reality a series of four wars which only their close consecutiveness permits us to regard as one. Each of the four periods of the war - the Bohemian, the Danish, the Swedish, and the French - was almost a complete unit in itself, arising from peculiar causes and bringing new actors on the scene.92 Therefore, we may say that from a short term political view it wasn’t a single war. But, from a long term view, either political or social, it was a single war carried out in order to achieve the European balance of power; and the German
Oscar Jászi, „The Stream of Political Murder ”, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 3, No. 3, (1944), p. 345. 92 Ergang, op. cit., pp. 342-343.
population, which did not necessarily distinguish the enemies and allies93, had to support the long-term plundering and arbitrary violence. Mercenaries of both sides „behaved as if they were paid not primarily to fight, but to rob and plunder”94. The Thirty Years War was one of the most destructive military conflicts in German and indeed European history before the twentieth century.95 From a military point of view, Thirty Years War raised the debate on the position of the soldier, on the laws of war, and on the need to transform armies into all-male bodies (in order to increase the logistic mobility).96 Strictly speaking, it was not a religious war. The General Wallenstein, for example, pushed religious questions into the background, and Richelieu and Mazarin were motivated primarily by a desire to weaken the power of the Habsburgs and to increase the territory of France at Germany's expense.97 Its basic cause was the bitter rivalry between the Catholics and the Protestants, which was aggravated by a number of questions the peace of Augsburg had left unsettled. In the first place, when the treaty was made there were no princes of the Calvinistic confession; therefore it recognized only the Lutherans. Furthermore, the peace of Augsburg had decreed that all church lands seized before 1552 (Convention of Passau) were to remain secularized. Disputes had arisen, however, as to the interpretation of this provision for the future. While the Protestant princes claimed the right of further secularization of church lands within their states, the Catholics insisted that all lands secularized after 1552 be restored. Many of the clergy who became Protestant had secularized the lands which they had controlled as bishops and abbots.98 The Catholics also organized a league under the leadership of Maximilian of Bavaria. In contrast with the Protestant League, this union was characterized by unity and vigor from the start. After numerous threats of war the conflict broke out in 1618.
Ronald G. Asch, „‘Wo der soldat hinkümbt, da ist alles sein’: Military Violence and Atrocities in the Thirty Years War Re-examined”, German History 2000, p. 293. 94 Johann Jacob von Wallhausen, apud Asch, op. cit., p. 304. 95 Ibidem, p. 291. 96 Ibidem, pp. 297-306. 97 Ergang, op. cit., p. 343. 98 Ergang, op. cit., p. 343.
* 1. The Bohemian war was caused by the violent discussion regarding the elective nature of the king of Bohemians. In Prague, a city that lost its political role it had during the reign of Emperor Rudolf II of Habsburg (1552-1612)99, a group of noblemen entered the room where the king's regents were seated, seized them, dragged them to the window, and „according to the good old Bohemian custom”100 threw them out. The so-called „defenestration” was the signal for the beginning of the Thirty Years’ War. In August, 1619, the Bohemian Diet met and formally deposed Ferdinand II of Habsburg (1578-1637). Frederick, elector of the Palatinate, leader of the German Calvinists and son-in-law of James I of England, was chosen as the new king of Bohemia. Maximilian of Bavaria, the Catholic League, and Spain at once came to the aid of Ferdinand, while Frederick's cause evoked little response. The assistance he had hoped for from the Protestant states was not forthcoming; even his royal English father-in-law sent him no help. So, Frederick was defeated. The emperor had prevailed with the help of the Catholic League. But the emperor, not content with driving Frederick out of Bohemia, proceeded to conquer the Palatinate, conferring it, together with the electoral dignity, to Maximilian of Bavaria as a reward for his assistance.101 In Bohemia, Ferdinand followed his victory by a policy of confiscation and religious oppression, which it was designed to crush the Protestant resistance once and for all. Most of the leaders of the Protestant party were executed and their property was confiscated; the Protestant clergy were expelled from the country, Protestant worship was forbidden, and thousands of Protestants were forced into exile. Therefore, the end of the Battle of the White Mountain (1620) represented the end of any kind of political independence for the Bohemian nobility.102 * 2. Christian IV (1577-1568), king of Denmark, championed the cause of Protestantism and opposed the growing power of the emperor. Beside strategy and ideological reasons there
Rudolf II moved the Habsburg capital from Vienna to Prague in 1583. Ergang, op. cit., p. 344. 101 Ibidem, pp. 345-346. 102 Alan J. P. Taylor, O istorie a Imperiului Habsburgic (1809-1918), Editura ALL, Bucureşti, 2000, pp. 14 -15.
were also economical opportunities. The English king offered to pay him 30,000 a month, if he would invade Germany. The Danish king accepted the offer. At this point, on the other side, Albrecht von Wallenstein offered to collect an army of 20,000 men without any cost to the emperor. Wallenstein was a Bohemian nobleman who had become one of the largest landowners of Germany by taking the opportunity offered by the confiscation of land from the Bohemians.103 The army of Wallenstein defeated the Danish forces and drove them out of Germany. Christian IV signed a treaty of peace at Lübeck (1629). Thus the so-called Danish period of the war came to an end. But, instead of attempting to heal the breach between the two factions in the empire by conciliatory measures, Ferdinand peremptorily issued the Edict of Restitution (1629), which decreed the restoration to the Church of all ecclesiastical property secularized since the treaty of Passau (1552). This alienated the loyalty of many Germans. 104 * 3. Gustav II Adolf (1594-1632) intervened in the war. Gustav II Adolf motives for engaging in the war combined a desire to save Protestantism with a desire to advance the fortunes of his house. Gustav, known as the Lion of the North aspired to control the Baltic; he had already fought for eighteen years with Denmark, Poland, and Russia for that end. The Swedish king also had financial support. Early in 1631 Richelieu, being more a politician than a Cardinal, promised to pay the Swedish king a large grant of money on condition that the latter maintains an army of 26,000 men in Germany and that he refrains from interfering with the exercise of the Catholic religion.105 In 1630, he landed his army on German shores. His army was not large, but it was an efficient force. The two armies met at Lützen (1632). After a day of fierce fighting Wallenstein withdrew his troops from the field, recognizing the Swedes as victorious.But, Gustav was killed in the battle. With Gustav out of his way, the emperor no longer stood in such great need of Wallenstein. He was more than ever alarmed over the personal power of
Ergang, op. cit., p. 346. Ibidem, p. 346. 105 Ibidem, p. 347.
this general.106 Therefore Wallenstein was dismissed, in 1634. Shortly afterwards he was assassinated by one of his own officers, liberating the Monarch from a possible rebel.107 * 4. Richelieu (1575-1642) sent a French army into the field (1635). With the French and Swedes on one side, and the Austrians and Spaniards on the other, the war lasted another thirteen years. The two eminent French generals, Condé and Turenne, dealt the imperial army such severe blows that Emperor Ferdinand III of Habsburg (1608-1657) consented to the measures necessary to end the conflict. For the task of making a settlement the first modern peace congress was convened at Münster and Osnabrück. After a prolonged session the powers finally signed in 1648 what has become known as the Treaty of Westphalia.108 The Peace of Westphalia, which closed the period of the Reformation, it is generally considered as the beginning of the „international relations” in politics. It was the first important attempt to construct by diplomacy the European states-system because it established the notion of territorial sovereignty as a doctrine of noninterference in the affairs of other sovereign state. This treaty of peace settled the religious difficulties of Germany by extending to the Calvinists the religious freedom and civil equality previously given to the Lutherans. It further adjusted the question of the ecclesiastical lands by specifying that the Protestants were to retain all lands they had taken before the first day of 1624.109 The peace of Westphalia, in a sense, gave the deathblow to the Holy Roman Empire. The empire continued more as a name than as a state. France gained the right to annex the bishoprics of Metz, Toul, and Verdun and acquired Alsace, excepting Strasbourg and certain other parts. Switzerland and the United Netherlands were formally recognized as independent states.110
Ibidem, p. 348. Jászi, op. cit., p. 343. 108 Ergang, op. cit., p. 349-350. 109 Ibidem, p. 349. 110 Ibidem, p. 349.
B. „Absolute Monarchy”. The French Case
During feudalism, the political power was as dispersed as the economical power. In this system, the monarch was only primus inter pares among the nobility. For example, in the early Capetian period, the king of France was not much more than a baron, one territorial lord among others of equal power and sometimes even less powerful than others. 111 The significant difference between them was that the king was supported by the church – in order to be controlled.112 The post-medieval politic of centralization, that involved marriage, war and acquisition, was strongly influenced by the fortunes and misfortunes of individuals, by personal qualities, by sympathies and antipathies or „accidental factors” such as the death of one man or a ruling house’s lack of male heirs. But the changing economical trend which can be branded as „Commercial Revolution”113 favored a new form of state organization. The change in the form of political rule reflects the structural changes in the Western society as a whole. These structural changes had two major aspects: (1) military and (2) economic. (1) The development of war technology by generalizing the use of the longbow and expensive firearms, and the development of war practice by generalizing the use of centralized standing armies, based on „the despised foot-soldiers”, made the heavily armored knight less useful than before. Therefore, the power of the monarch gradually increased relative to his noble „pares”.114 (2) During the Hundred Years' War (1337-1453), les aides sur le fait de la guerre gradually became „as permanent as the war itself”115; so the „extraordinary aid” (a tax on the price of all merchandise) became a „regular duty”, adapting the market and the mentalities to taxation. Moreover, the regular collecting of those „extraordinary payments” created the centralized administrative machine with specialized official functions.116
Norbert Elias, Procesul civilizării. Cercetări sociogenetice și psihogenetice, vol. II, Polirom, 2002, p. 11. (For an English translation see Norbert Elias, The Civilizing Process. The History of Manners and State Formation and Civilization, Blackwell, 1997, pp. 257-439). 112 Ibidem, pp. 172-173. 113 Arvind Narayan Das, „Theories of State: Aristotle to Marx”, Social Scientist, Vol. 3, No. 8 (1975), p. 64. 114 Elias, op. cit., pp. 10-12. 115 Ibidem, p. 197. 116 Ibidem, pp. 195-196.
We can say that the early modern period of European history represents the transition between the „private” and the „public” monopoly, because the king didn’t used the money from taxes for war purposes only.117 This is one of the main conditions of possibility for an „absolute monarchy”; but it is also the main source of its weakness, because the growing power of the king is based on the growing economic power of the politically powerless individuals of society. After the war, the taille (a tax on landed property from which nobles and clergymen were exempt) remained the principal source of royal revenue until the French Revolution. By raising public taxes for his own vaguely defined interest, the king became wealthier – and more powerful, because he could afford more mercenaries, which were more and more available because of „social overpopulation”118. Moreover, the procedure of rewarding with money, instead of land, created a sort of stability, because the king no longer had to pay for services from his own possessions.119 The division of labor, the securing of routes and markets, the standardization of coinage and the whole monetary system, the protection of peaceful production from physical violence and other measures of co-ordination and regulation were highly dependent on the formation of large centralized monopoly institution. According to Norbert Elias, the centralized state is a necessary instrument of the „functionally divided society as a whole”. 120 But, the interdependence became the dependence of all on a central ruler, the king. Reflecting upon the issue of interdependence, Jean Bodin (c.1530-1596) completed the Machiavellian body of rules regarding the practice of power with a theory of state organization which legitimated the dependence on the (theoretical) absolute power of the king. Bodin was the first to use the words political science.121 His treaty, Les Six livres de la République (1576), started the European political debate regarding the „state of nature” and contributed decisively to producing an understanding of the sovereignty as a necessarily unlimited attribute of the state in general and of the monarch
Ibidem, pp. 107-108. Ibidem, p. 36. 119 Ibidem, pp. 207-208 120 Ibidem, pp. 154-155. 121 Eva J. Ross, „The Social Theory of Jean Bodin”, The American Catholic Sociological Review, Vol. 7, No. 4 (1946), p. 268.
in particular. „Majestie or Sovereignty,” he said, „is the most high, absolute, and perpetual power over the citizens and subjects in a Commonweale, unrestrained by law”.122 Living in the era of the religious civil war Bodin took a peculiar approach of the Machiavellian need for security by confusing the states’ sovereignty with the kings’ one. The king’s unlimited and absolute sovereignty has to be restrained only by his wise and pragmatic subjection to the right of nature and to the rights of God. This moral restrain provides the stability of power: „If punishments and rewards be well and wisely distributed, the Commonweale shall be always happy and flourish, and contrariwise, if the good be not rewarded and the bad punished according to their deserts, there is no hope that a Commonweale can long continue”123. The legitimacy of the absolute monarchy derives from divinity, not from population, who are rather subjects, than citizens. * Louis XI (1461-1483) is considered the „the founder of the national state in France”, because he extended the frontiers of the country and made the foundations of absolute monarchy secure. At his death France was a fairly compact kingdom, with its boundaries much as they are today. Louis XI was followed by Charles VIII (r.1483-1498) and Louis XII (r.14981515). In the 16th century, monarchs took advantage of the clergy's weakness during the Reformation to increase their authority in the detriment of church, which was the original source of their authority. They declared to have the ability to decide the religion of their subject. For example, François I (r.1515-1547) remained on friendly terms with the party of reform, hoping to receive aid against Karl V from the Lutheran princes of Germany and the Zwinglian overpopulated cantons of Switzerland. 124 But, finally he found another way to increase his authority over the Church: the concordat of 1516 with the Pope had given the king the right to nominate most of the higher ecclesiastical officials in France. This settlement was in accordance with its main interest to not allow the development of centrifugal sources of authority. The trend to create a monopoly of power is
Bodin apud Ross, op. cit., p. 269. Ibidem, p. 271. 124 Ergang, op. cit., p. 317.
expressed explicitly in the sentence: un roi, une foi, une loi, which can be seen as a motto of François I. His son and successor, Henry II (r. 1547-1559), using the Spanish example established the Inquisition, in order to burn all those who obstruction him to follow his father motto. The Edict of Chateaubriand (1551) called upon the civil and ecclesiastical courts to detect and punish all heretics and placed severe restrictions on Protestants, including confiscations of property. Henry II was married with Catherina de’Medici. * Catherina de’Medici (1519-1589) was fourteen years old when she became queen consort. After the death of Henry, Catherina entered into the political arena as mother of her very young and short-lived sons: François II (r. 1559-1560) Charles IX (r. 1560-1574) and Henry III (r. 1574-1589). Catherina's three sons reigned in an age of almost constant civil and religious war in France. The monarchy had no control over the causes of these conflicts. At first, Catherina compromised and made concessions to the Huguenots, which were growing in strength during the conflict. By the Edict of Saint-Germain (1570) the Huguenots were granted limited rights of public worship and admission to all employments, and were also permitted to retain possession of four cities as „places of safety”. Furthermore, the Huguenot leader, Admiral Gaspard de Coligny, a man of high character and political wisdom, was made a member of the royal council. Also, the marriage of Marguerite (1553-1615, known as la reine Margot), daughter of Henry II and Catherina de’Medici, to the outstanding Protestant leader Henry de Bourbon was one of the proposals for reconciling the two religious factions.125 Catherina failed, however, to neutralize the political component of the theological fall apart. As a result, she was blamed for the instability of the régime, in particular for the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre (1572), which transformed the wedding of Henry de Bourbon into the slaughter of his fellow Huguenots in Paris and throughout France. The massacre took place six days after the wedding, an occasion for which many of the most wealthy and prominent Huguenots were in Paris. The massacres marked a turning-point in the French Wars of Religion. Therefore, Catherina de’Medici was branded as a Machiavellian
Ibidem, p. 320.
Renaissance prince. As an historical irony, we may notice that Machiavelli's Prince was dedicated to her father.126 Philip II of Spain entered the war aiming both to defeat the Protestants and to destabilize France. He supported Henry of Guise, head of the radical Catholic party which had organized the Holy League. Soon, because of the Spanish support, Henry de Guise became stronger than Henry III of France. The so-called „War of the Three Henrys” broke out. Henry III became allied with Henry de Bourbon against Henry de Guise and Spain.127 But in 1589, Henry III was assassinated by a Dominican friar – it was only a year ago Henry II ordered the assassination of Henry de Guise. „The extinction of the House of Valois by Clement's . . . murder of Henry III (1589) was applauded by Sixtus V and was defended by a number of Catholic theologians”128. Before his death the king acknowledged Henry de Bourbon as his legitimate successor and urged the French people to accept him as such. With the support of Paris, Henry was recognized as king by most of France. Henry de Bourbon (1553 -1610) ruled as Henry III, King of Navarre (1572-1610) and as Henry IV, King of France (1589-1610). With Henry IV the Bourbon branch of the Capetian dynasty replaced the Valois branch. He became King of France because of his military and matrimonial (he married king’s sister Marguerite) alliance with the king Henry III, because he was the closest male descendant of the Capetian dynasty, as the direct descendant of King Louis IX (c.1215-1270), and because he converted to Catholicism. Since religious opinions had often been more a matter of family tradition than of deep conviction, Henry accepted the conversion to Catholicism in order to strengthen his position as king.129 By promising to accept the decrees of the Council of Trent, to abide by the terms of the Concordat of 1516, and to rear his heir and successor as a Catholic he was reconciled to the Holy See.130 Therefore, the Spanish garrison had no other course but to retreat from Paris. The final treaty of peace between France and Spain was not signed until 1598, at Vervins. The civil wars were ended by Henry de Bourbon with the issuing of the Edict of Nantes (1598), which granted a degree of religious toleration to Protestants. It granted them liberty of
Ibidem, p. 319. Ibidem, p. 321. 128 Hearnshaw apud Jászi, op. cit., p. 345. 129 Ergang, op. cit., p. 322. 130 MacCaffrey, op. cit., p. 77.
conscience and freedom of worship, with the exception of Paris. It further declared Huguenots eligible for all public offices, guaranteed their admission to all schools, colleges, and hospitals. To secure them against unfair treatment in the courts of law, all cases in which Protestants were involved were to be tried by special tribunals composed of judges of both faiths. In addition, the Huguenots were permitted to retain political control of La Rochelle and about a hundred other fortified towns.131 This privilege obstructed the centralization of state and diminished the royal power, but it offered the necessary security for economical development. As Henry's marriage with Marguerite of Valois had been childless, the Pope had annulled it (1599). Henry married Maria de’Medici (1573-1642) in 1600. During both marriages, Henry had some official and non-official mistresses. Henry IV was known as „Henry the Great”, the founder of the Bourbon Dynasty. His attitudes and charisma made him one of the country's most popular rulers ever. Focused on taxation like his predecessors, Henry IV introduced a strict method of accounting whereby frauds could be easily detected.132 By his death (1610) he had not only greatly reduced the national debt, but after spending large sums on roads, bridges, canals, and public buildings, he had accumulated a considerable reserve. Henry IV „survived nineteen actual attacks before he perished in 1610 beneath the dagger of Ravaillac”133. * Henry's widow, Maria de’Medici, served as Regent to their 9-year-old son, Louis XIII (16011643), until 1617. During this period there were some demands for change: some for the „modernization” and some against it. When the nobles revolted under her rule, „she bought them off with offices, appointments and money”134. The most problematic demand for modernization was one that focused the core of the „absolutist” system: the inequity regarding the taxation and the privileges. The French socio-political system consisted in 3 orders or Estates: (1) clergy, (2) nobility and (3) the rest of the population, or the nonprivileges ones. Nine-tenths of the real property belonged to the privileged orders, which also
Ergang, op. cit., pp. 326-327. Ibidem, p. 325. 133 Hearnshaw apud Jászi, op. cit., p. 345. 134 Ergang, op. cit., p. 328.
avoid taxation: „The clergy served the State with their prayers, the nobles with their swords, and to pay taxes in vile cash, like a commoner, would have seemed to them a degradation.”135 In 1614 almost five hundred deputies met, demanding reforms. The Third Estate demanded such reforms as a reduction of the taxes, the establishment of a uniform system of weights and measures, the abolition of feudal rights and servitudes. The clergy and nobility, however, were too intent upon securing their own privileges to cooperate with the Third Estate. So, the five hundred deputies accomplished nothing. The Estates-General was not to convene again for one hundred seventy-five years, until that fateful meeting of 1789.136 As one of the representative of the clergy in 1614, the bishop of Luçon, Armand Jean du Plessis de Richelieu (1585-1642) impressed the queen so favorably that he was asked to remain in Paris after the dismissal of the Estates-General, becoming one of her chief advisors. Richelieu soon rose in both the Church and the state, becoming a cardinal in 1622, and chief minister of Louis XIII (1624). As churchmen, he became the first bishop in France to implement the institutional reforms prescribed by the Council of Trent between 1545 and 1563. As politician, he became the real ruler of France and the European leader that made the Counterreformation to fail in the some regions of the Central Europe. Richelieu may be regarded as „the real successor of Henry IV”137 in the development of the French monarchy. In his policies he was no innovator; he simply followed the established traditions. His aims were: (1) to make the royal power supreme in France; (2) to make France supreme in Europe. (1) The task of making the king supreme in France involved the abolition of the political and military rights of the Huguenots and the repression of the rebellious nobility. Richelieu was not intolerant of the faith of the Huguenots, but he regarded their political privileges as an obstacle to centralization. When the Huguenots rose against the government in 1627, the cardinal minister personally directed a siege of the Huguenot stronghold, La Rochelle. The peace of Alais (1629) concluded this last religious war in France. It abolished
Albert Leon Guérard, op. cit., p. 70. Ergang, op. cit., pp. 328-329. 137 Ibidem, p. 330.
the political and military privileges of the Huguenots, but confirmed their religious and civil rights.138 Richelieu was not the enemy of the nobility, but the nobility had been submissive only under strong rulers. So, Richelieu sent no less than twenty-six members of the aristocracy to the scaffold, including five dukes and a favorite courtier of the king. In 1626 Richelieu issued an edict for the destruction of all castles and fortifications not necessary for the defense of the kingdom. He also forbade private wars and the practice of dueling, which he regarded as a remnant of private warfare. How prevalent dueling was in France is seen from the fact that in 1607 four thousand gentlemen were killed in duels.139 By an edict of 1637 he appointed royal functionaries known as intendants to take charge of the financial, judicial and police administration of the provinces, thus transferring the powers which had formerly been exercised by the territorial nobility to a kind of middle-class civil service. Richelieu was not the originator of the system of intendants; he only established it firmly.140 The French people, both Catholics and Protestants, hated the cardinal and his politic, because the military expenses determined the raising of the gabelle (a tax on salt) and the taille. (2) Richelieu's foreign policy was but a continuation of that of François I. He wished to crush the power of the Habsburgs, who dominated the affairs of Europe. According to Henry Kissinger, Richelieu was afraid that the success of Counterreformation would enforce not only the position of Catholicism in Western Europe but also the position of the Habsburgs. Acting like François I, Richelieu didn’t followed his religious belief but the raison d’État, supporting the Protestants. The Protestants were considered useful as far as they were not Huguenots. What he achieved for France was done by Richelieu the statesman, not Richelieu the cardinal.141 Because he openly aligned France with Protestant powers, Richelieu was denounced by many as a traitor to the Roman Catholic Church. Some opponents accused him for using Machiavelli’s doctrine. After hearing of his death (1642), Pope Urban VIII (r. 1623 -1644)
Ibidem, p. 331. Ibidem, p. 331-332. 140 Ibidem, p. 332. 141 Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy, Simon & Schuster, 1994, pp. 56-78.
said: „If God exists, Cardinal Richelieu will have to answer for many things. If not..., then yes, he will have done well in life”.142 * Richelieu was followed by Jules Cardinal Mazarin (1602-1661); Louis XIII was followed by Louis XIV. Giulio Raimondo Mazzarino, Sicilian by origin, first came to France as a papal legate. In the French public opinion, „to be Italian was bad enough, to be Sicilian was worse”143. Entering the service of Richelieu in 1639, he became a naturalized Frenchman and two years later was made a cardinal through the influence of Richelieu. He was the only chief minister of the Bourbon kings with the dubious claim to have been exiled twice and officially dismissed from office once.144 In internal affairs the rule of Mazarin was marked by the revolt of the Parlement of Paris, the nobles and the people. The revolt was known as the Fronde. A fronde was a sling used by the boys in the streets of Paris, and the term, it seems, was first applied in mockery to the movement against the government. Nearly 5000 political pamphlets were written during the Fronde, because the censorship failed to suppress the growing number of printing press available to use as a political instrument.145 „Mazarin had been so busy suppressing revolts and completing the program of Richelieu that he had found no time to give thought to the problem of financial reform. […] If the financial administration had been bad under the rule of Richelieu, it was even worse under Mazarin”146. But, the Fronde was the last attempt until the Revolution to limit the absolutism of the crown. Louis XIV (1638-1715) was the son of Louis XIII and Anne of Austria (1601-1666, daughter of Philip III of Spain). Louis XIV acceded to the throne in 1643, but did not assume actual personal control of the government until the death of his premier ministre, Mazarin (1661), giving no indication of a desire to rule.
Ibidem, p. 58. Richard Bonney, „Cardinal Mazarin and his Critics: The Remonstrances of 1652”, Journal of European Studies, No. X (1980), p. 19. 144 Ibidem, p. 16. 145 Ibidem, p. 16. 146 Ergang, op. cit., p. 336.
Because of his education, he truly believed in the divine origin of kingship, but Louis had learned little of the subjects that would have best fitted him to be king. He acquired little geography, little history, and almost no knowledge of the social and economic conditions of the country over which he was to rule. „It is bitterly humiliating, he wrote, to be ignorant of things which everyone else knows”.147 But, after 1661 he declared that he would be his own prime minister and shortly became the „Grand Monarch”, the „Sun King” and the „First Gentleman of Europe”. He was the most famous prince of his time and his court set the standard which contemporary endeavored to imitate. For the nobles of most European countries the language, taste, spirit and art of Versailles became obligatory, remaining so until the nineteenth century. Today, Louis XIV represents the main symbol of absolutism, because the process of centralization was almost finished, and because the king’s will encounter (theoretically) almost no opposition. He became such a symbol because of his (1) internal and (2) external political successes. (1) The furthermost parts of the country were closely linked to the central government through the 34 intendants, one for each of the administrative districts into which France was divided. Louis also instituted various legal reforms, in order to centralize the kingdom, to provide France with a single system of law. Before, there were two systems: customary law in the north and Roman law in the south. The major legal code (the Code Louis), both civil and criminal, or the ordonnances sur la réformation de la justice civile et criminelle, also played a large part in France's legal history as it was the basis for the Code Napoleon, which is itself the basis for the modern French legal codes. In government, he had famous ministers like Jean-Baptiste Colbert (1619-1683). The ministers, appointed by Louis himself, were grouped in various councils. But, there was no systematic division of affairs among the various councils and consequently much confusion. The most important of these was the Conseil d’État, an advisory body composed of only four or five members who met with the king to consider such supreme matters as international treaties and war; the king made the final decisions. Conseil des Dépêches considered
Ibidem, p. 460.
questions of interior administration, and included the secretaries of state who headed the various departments of administration. Conseil Privé was the highest judicial court in France, with an authority that was somewhat vague.148 Conseil des Finances dealt with questions of taxation. The French treasury, after Mazarin, stood close to bankruptcy. The beginning of Louis' personal reign was marked by a series of administrative and fiscal reforms. Colbert reduced the national debt through more efficient taxation and improved methods of tax collection. His administration encouraged the new industries, manufacturers and inventors. Outside of France, Colbert supported and encouraged the development of colonies in the Americas, Africa and Asia not only to provide markets for French exports, but also to provide resources for French industries. He ranks as one of the fathers of the school of thought regarding trade and economics known as mercantilism (Colbertisme). Regarding the relation with religion, Louis sought to reinforce Gallicanism149, a doctrine limiting the authority of the Pope in France. On the other hand, encouraged by Bossuet and other Catholic intellectuals, Louis XIV issued the Edict of Fontainebleau (1685) revoking that of Nantes. The new edict banished from the kingdom any Protestant minister who refused to convert to Roman Catholicism. Protestant schools and institutions were banned and Protestant places of worship were demolished. Although the Edict formally denied Huguenots permission to leave France, about 200,000 of them left. Louis also achieved immense control over the Second Estate in France by attaching much of the higher nobility to his orbit at his new spectacular palace at Versailles (1682). In this way, many noblemen had to give up all influence, or to depend entirely on the king for grants and subsidies. The diminution of the power of the high aristocracy could be witnessed in the lack of such rebellions as the Fronde after Louis XIV. Not until the Revolution, about 100 years later, did civil war once again trouble France. (2) When Louis took over the reins of government in 1661 Europe, generally speaking, was at peace. But Louis was almost continuously at war for over half a century. Beyond personal glory his aim was to win for France what he regarded as its „natural boundaries”.
Ibidem, p. 462. Gallicanismis is a recent term which first appeared at the beginning of the XX century. It refers to a mix of political and ecclesiastical ptinciples which were prevalent in early modern France. See Thomas I. Crimando, „Two French Views of the Council of Trent”, The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Summer, 1988), p. 170.
A pretext for war was soon found. In 1660, Louis XIV married the daughter of Philip IV of Spain, Maria Theresa, with an immense dowry (500,000 gold écus )150. According to the terms of the marriage contract, Maria Theresa would renounce for herself and her descendants all claims the territories of the Spanish Monarchy. But, the dowry was not fully paid, Spain being at the time bankrupt. So, the renunciation was theoretically null and void. War broke out in 1667. France easily conquered both Flanders and Franche-Comté. After that, Louis XIV provoked a series of long, expensive and complicated wars (1668-1697), which gained only the satisfaction that France could fight against the rest of the Europe without being defeated. The last war of Louis XIV was the „ War of the Spanish Succession” (1702-1713). Carloss II of Spain (1661-1700) had no heir. The nearest heirs were the descendants of Louis XIV and of Emperor Leopold of Austria, both of whom had married a Spanish Infanta. By descent, the Dauphin of France and his three sons had the strongest claim, but their way to the throne was barred by the renunciation Marie Therese had made. Carlos made a will shortly before his death (1700), which designated as his successor Philip, duke of Anjou, second son of the Dauphin of France. After eleven years of bloody global warfare, the duke of Anjou, as Philip V, was confirmed as King of Spain on substantially the same terms which the powers of Europe had agreed to before the war, with the condition that it would not be made a union of the Spanish and French thrones. In these wars Louis had gained Franche-Comte, Strasbourg, and much of Flanders, and had established the „natural” boundaries of France. Also he placed a member of the House of France on the throne of Spain, effectively ending the centuries-old threat and menace that had arisen from that quarter of Europe since the days of Karl V. * Under the reign of Louis XIV, France achieved not only political and military pre-eminence, but also cultural dominance with various cultural figures such as Boileau, Bossuet, La
Écu (from Latin scutum) was so called because its design included a shield bearing a coat of arms. The word is related to scudo and escudo. The écu disappeared during the French Revolution, but the 5 francs silver coins were but the continuation of the old écus, and were often still called écu by French people. The name „Franc” is said to derive from the Latin inscription francorum rex on early French coins. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_écu.
Fontaine, Lully, Molière, Perrault, Racine etc. The cultural achievements accomplished by these figures contributed to the prestige of French language. The cultural prestige contributed as much as the military successes to the using of French as diplomatic language, after 1714. According to Paul Hazard, French language not only substituted Italian or Spanish, but even Latin became too „scholastic” for the new European taste.151 The writers of the XVII century, patronized and manipulated by Louis XIV, „turned literature into an instrument of absolutism”152, contributing to the creation of a „powerful cultural system”153, which integrated the society within a absolutist system.
Paul Hazard, Criza conștiinței europene. 1680-1714, Humanitas, 2007, pp. 65-70. Robert Darnton, The Forbidden Best-Sellers of Pre-Revolutionary France, W. W. Norton & Company, 1996, pp. 169. 153 Ibidem, p. 196.
C. „Constitutional Monarchy”. The British Case
„Divine rights”, „absolute power”, „constitutional monarchy” or „centralization” were used (and are used) as simplified models for understanding the complex structure of the sociopolitical life. The political actors politically used them in constructing descriptions of facts and theories of organization; the historians are usually using them for scientific purposes. By using such models historians describe vague and general tendencies, and it is a mistake to confound these constructed models with historical realities. If we analyze the political practice, we could notice that the similarities overcome the differences between the French and the English monarchies; sometimes we may find more differences between one king and his successor than between one tradition than another. „Absolutism” is now seen by many historians as being „consistent with the existence of autonomous enclaves of independent jurisdictions”154. On the other hand, „Constitutional monarchy” was sometimes consistent with personal rule of a king or of a powerful leader. If we analyze the origin of some constitutional institution, we could notice a lot of unexpected trajectories of traditions. Even the name „Parliament” was derived from the French word „parlement”, the action of „parler”. During the period of „French absolutism”, the royal decisions were made with consultation. The regional parlements, and especially the Parlement de Paris, gradually acquired the habit of refusing to enforce, by registering, the legislation with which they disagreed. But, in the King's presence (lit de justice), or confronted with direct orders signed by the King (lettre de cachet), the Parlement lost its political privileged role to take the role of counselor. In most of the western European countries, the parliaments usually developed from the „Curia Regis”, which was an institution that had the consultative role in the law making process. Not only „parliaments” but also „proto-constitutions” (contracts that were limiting the abuse of power) existed in late medieval Europe. For example, Spanish Cortes issued laws, such as the set of laws known as „Carta Magna Leonesa”, in order to protect commoners against the arbitrariness of nobles, prelates and king. But, after 1521, because of the conflict with Carlos I (Karl V), the Castilian Cortes lost its power and was reduced to a consultative entity.
Marlene LeGates, „Princes, Parliaments and Privilege: German Research in European Context”, European History Quarterly, 10 (1980), p. 168.
* In England the process of centralization was more advanced than in France or Spain; because England had never been part of some giant political organization, and because the feudal centrifugal tendencies „had been curbed after the Norman Conquest”.155 But, the early conflict with the sources of power and authority that were above or below the state produced an early dispersion of power in a centralized framework. The most important conflict regarded the subordination of the Church, which was an institution both above (the Pope) and below (the local clergy) the state. By the conflict with the Pope, Henry II of England (r. 11541189) weakened the royal authority and its long-term effects started to appear during the reign of his son, John I „Lackland” (r. 1199-1216). „Magna Carta” (1215, 1225, etc.) was issued because the Norman-Angevin kings were weakened by internal (rival claims to the throne) and external (French attacks upon Duchy of Normandy) conflicts, which demanded more taxes. But, unlike the French case were the taxes were raised by a strong king of the country which was in danger, in England the country, which had no problem, had to support a king that was in danger. But, „Magna Carta” meant less to contemporaries than it has to subsequent generations, because was only a set of formalized concessions made by the kings to the clergy and the barons. What made „Magna Carta” to look like a sort of fundamental document from a sort of „Golden Age”, it was a long series of events and conflicts that dispersed the power but maintained the centralized structure. * Tudor and early Stuart rulers of England were attempting to centralize the sources of sovereignty and to reduce the powers of the Parliament or Estates. After the „Hundred Years' War”, a civil war had broken out, of the series of conflicts, which are known as the „Wars of the Roses” (1455-1487)156. In this context, Henry VIII Tudor (1491-1547) had sought to strengthen the English monarchy against such kind of contestation of royal power.
Ergang, op. cit., p. 24. William I „the Conqueror” (1066 -1087) had increased the royal authority, and the work of political centralization was carried on by his successors. William of Normandy brought to England the French political system. 156 The term itself came into common use only in the nineteenth century, from the badges of the two houses, the white rose of York and the red rose of Lancaster. Henry VII Tudor (1457-1509) put an end to the civil war by the wining battle of Bosworth (1485) and by marrying Elizabeth of York (1486). Henry shored up his position by executing all other possible claimants whenever any excuse was offered, a policy his son, Henry VIII, continued.
The most important achievement of Henry was the subordination of Church. Following political, economical and personal reasons Henry passed through Parliament the Act of Supremacy (1534) which declared that the King is „the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, called the Anglicana Ecclesia”157. By controlling the Church, Henry consolidated the royal power. But, in the long run, this event had a reverse effect; because from now on, the Parliament would also claim the right to debate and to legislate on „religion”. After that, Henry proceeded to suppress the monasteries and to confiscate their property. All the monastic property passed into the possession of the king. But, because of his habits of spending the money, Henry sold off the monastic lands, thus impoverishing the Crown in the long run while enriching the landed gentry and other entrepreneurs of England. According to Christopher Hill, „most of the monastic estates went ultimately to those who had money to buy them, and so strengthened the new element in the countryside”158. Only the political instrumental value of the bishops protected the Church from further spoliation; 159 because Church usually defended the status quo, and it was important for the Government to maintain its control over this publicity and propaganda agency. Bishops and priests were far more like civil servants, part of the government’s administrative machine. That is why later political theories tended to get wrapped up in religious language. Gradually, because of the structural alliance of church and state, the contestation of the royal power became sort of „religious” opposition, based on „the techniques of pamphlet warfare”160. Being consistent with his political aims and also with his former denunciations of Luther’s doctrine, Henry avoided damaging the Catholicism, beyond the substitution of the Papal authority with the king’s one.161 Later, under the 3 children (Edward, Mary and Elisabeth) of Henry VIII, for different reasons, English Calvinism gained in strength. After the compromise of Elizabeth (1533-1603), the Church of England was Protestant in doctrine but Catholic in ritual and hierarchy.
Ergang, op. cit., p. 288. Christopher Hill, The English Revolution 1640, Lawrence and Wishart 1940, Transcribed by Andy Blunden, 2002, http://www.marxists.org/archive/hill-christopher/english-revolution/#3. 159 Ibidem, loc. cit. 160 Mary Fulbrook, „Religion, Revolution and Absolutist Rule in Germany and England”, European History Quarterly, 12 (1982), p. 311. 161 Ergang, op. cit., p. 229.
Even if the rule of Tudors is frequently referred to as despotic, in exercising their authority they never ignored popular sentiment. Their government is described by some historians as a „popular dictatorship”.
The basis of this approval was the fact that the collaboration
between the Tudors and Parliament was based on a community of interests: in the struggle against Spain; against the international Catholic Church; against political anarchy. During the rule of Tudors, the old limitations upon the royal authority still remained: (1) the king could make no laws, nor could he repeal any statutes; (2) the king could impose no new taxes without the consent of Parliament; (3) the king could not commit a man to prison or punish him except by due process of law. Beyond these limitations, however, Parliament did not have a large permanent role in the English system of government, instead functioning as a temporary advisory committee that was summoned by the monarch whenever the Crown required additional tax revenue and subject to dissolution by the monarch at any time. That means that the Parliament could control taxation and thus limit the income of the ruler.163 * The accord between the Parliament and the royal power, which had been a characteristic of Tudor rule, had already begun to break down in the last years of Elizabeth's reign. 164 The accession of James VI of Scotland (r. 1567-1625) to the English I throne, as James I of England (r. 1603-1625)165, marked the beginning of the rule of Stuarts and the beginning of a long struggle between king and Parliament. In the long run, the struggle gradually turned into a conflict to decide who was truly sovereign, the Stuarts or Parliament? Through the triumph of the latter, the possibility of a „monarchical absolutism” was replaced by the possibility of „the rule of the people”. But, „words are deceptive because their meanings change”166. It is nonsense to talk about „the rule of the people” in seventeenth century using the today’s meaning of the words, because „the plebeians submit to and obey”167 the rules, being happy for non-obeying the arbitrary will of someone. Even freedom was understood as a privilege: Libertas in Medieval Latin
Ibidem, p. 222. Ibidem, p. 223. 164 Ibidem, p. 380. 165 In 1604, the Commons refused on legal grounds his request to be titled „King of Great Britain”. England and Scotland continued to be independent states, despite sharing the Monarchs, until the Acts of Union in 1707 during the reign of the last monarch of the Stuart Dynasty, Queen Anne. 166 Christopher Hill, The Century of Revolution, 1603-1714, W. W. Norton, 1966, p. 45. 167 Thomas Aston, apud Hill, op. cit., p. 44.
conveys the idea of a right to exclude others from your property. Therefore, the issue of freedom was understood as a solution to the conflict between the privileges of the king and those of the other stakeholders of the time.168 In fact, „the rule of the people” was the rule of an oligarchy (gentry, merchants and bankers), because the Parliament of the seventeenth century was far from being a representative body in the full sense of the word. The House of Lords was composed of the biggest landowners, together with Bishops. The House of Commons also represented the wealth of the country. The county electoral franchise was restricted to men having freehold land worth forty shillings a year, excluding eighty to ninety per cent of the rural population. We may mention that in towns the franchise was more varied, including in small cases all the male inhabitants of the city.169 Nevertheless, the victory of Parliament ultimately proved to be a step in the direction of popular government. * James I Stuart was the son of Mary Stuart170 (1542-1587), Queen of Scots and her second husband, Henry Stuart (1545-1567), commonly known as Lord Darnley. James was a descendant of Henry VII through his great-grandmother Margaret Tudor (1489-1541), elder sister of Henry VIII. Margaret Tudor was the grandmother of both James’s mother and father. James’s political theory, expounded in True Law of Free Monarchies, (1598) is considered remarkable for setting out the doctrine of the divine right of kings in England and Scotland for the first time. According to James, „ Kings were the authors and makers of the laws and not the laws of the Kings”171, because the kings are „God's lieutenants upon earth”172; so they are above the law, accountable to God alone. Any kind of rebellion against a king cannot be justified, because even if the king is evil, he follows the will of God; maybe the evil king was sent by God to punish his people. The biggest challenge for James was the need of the religious reconciliation. The Roman Catholics felt that the religious changes had gone too far, while the Puritans protested that they had not gone far enough in the direction of Calvinism. But, the king preferred the status
Ibidem, p. 44. Ibidem, pp. 43-44. 170 Mary Stuart was the first member of the royal House of Stuart to use the Gallicized spelling Stuart, rather than the earlier Stewart. 171 James I, True Law of Free Monarchies, (1598), http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/james1-trew2.html. 172 Idem, A speech to parliament (1610), http://www.thenagain.info/Classes/Sources/JamesI.html.
quo. We may mention the fact that Puritans had some affinities with the king, because, by being a Presbyterian, James could share „the Presbyterian criticisms of the established Church”173. During his reign, the Catholic fanatics were the most alarmed ones, but they failed in killing the king in the „Gunpowder Plot” (1605). We may say that moderation was the main source of conflict between the King and the public opinion. Another event that raised the tension was the international prudence of the king. In 1613, James married his daughter Elisabeth to Frederick the Elector Palatine, a leading German Protestant; but, in 1618, he didn’t offer a strong support to his son-in-law, preferring the role of a mediator instead of entering the 30 years war.174 During the reign of his son, Charles I Stuart (r. 1625-1649), the Puritans were the most alarmed ones; because the penal laws against the Catholics had been relaxed, in order to please his Catholic wife, Henrietta Maria of France (1609-1669). The marriage was negotiated by George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham (1592-1628). The price of this political marriage was that Charles had to help Richelieu in suppressing the Protestant stronghold of La Rochelle.175 His prudence was interpreted as support for Catholicism; therefore Charles couldn’t rely on the parliament support in raising taxes. Charles also upset his Scottish subjects in 1637 when he tried to force an Anglican-style prayer book on Presbyterian Scotland. This led to the „Bishops’ Wars” (1637-1642). But, religious conflicts were also political, social or economical conflicts. For example, (1) being short on money, Charles preferred peace in international politics, like his father; and that displeased some of his subjects that wanted to fight against the oppressive Catholicism. As a consequence of the relative internal and external peace, Charles’s standing army was not fitted to his political style. The repressive apparatus of the state was thus inherently weak. (2) Ignoring the „Petition of Right” (1628)176, Charles ruled without Parliament, imposed taxes and sold monopolies on widely used commodities as salt, soap, iron, wine, leather, glass, and
Hill, The Century of Revolution, p. 9. Ibidem, pp. 10-11. 175 Ibidem, p. 11. 176 This statement reminded the king the rights of his subjects granted by „Magna Carta”. See The Petition of Right (1628), http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1601-1650/england/por.htm.
gunpowder. He also sold peerages and offices, following an old habit of his father. But all these improvisations didn’t avoid the bankruptcy of the government.177 From (1) and (2) we may conclude that, in spite of his „personal qualities” (he was considered superior to his father), Charles was weak tyrant, an easy target for contestation. Moreover, the public opinion focused on the bad advices given by the king’s counselors. After the assassination of Buckingham (1628), the queen Henrietta Maria became the new „evil genius”178 of the king. Some historians named this period as the „Eleven Years Tyranny” (1629-1640); others refer to the 11 years as a period of „Creative Reform”, due to the measures taken by Charles to restructure English politics at the time. Charles followed the European „modern” trend towards a more unitary state structure in terms of uniformity of religion, laws and taxation. But, the „modernization” came into direct conflict with parliaments, estates and towns, which defended their integrity and feudal rights.179 The „natives” preferred to justify their political attitude ultimately in religious terms, believed they were fighting God’s battles. For example, some gentlemen180 had their ears cut off (1637) for writing pamphlets attacking the king’s religious policy, which was regarded as „catholicization”. This painful event could be understood as religious oppression but also as tyranny. It was „religious” because the „religion” covered something much wider than it does toda y and because „religion was common discourse and table talk in every tavern and ale house”181. Before the era of mass-media and the development of the elementary education, the Church was the main channel of the ideology’s distribution, because „the parson’s sermon was the main source of information on current events and problems, of guidance on economic conduct”182.
Hill, The Century of Revolution, pp. 54-56. Idem, The Century of Revolution, p. 12. 179 Porfirio Sanz, „England and Spanish Foreign Policy during the 1640s”, European History Quarterly, 28 (1998), p. 291. 180 Those gentlemen were John Bastwick, Henry Burton and William Prynne – the last one had already an ear cut off because he criticized the acting qualities of the queen. 181 Hill, apud Judy Sproxton, „From Calvin to Cromwell through Beard”, Journal of European Studies, 25 (1995), pp. 17-18. 182 Hill, The English Revolution, loc. cit.
Christopher Hill remarked the fact that, in the seventeenth century, religious language was the main source of political contestation, but after the development of something that can be styled as tradition of contestation „the politics had become a rational inquiry, discussed in terms of utility, experience, common sense, no longer in terms of Divine Right, texts, and antiquarian research”183. We may say that religion could produce controversies, power could produce abuses, and abuses could produce rebellion. But, in the early opposition to the English „absolutism”, religion was a key element in (1) organization, in (2) ideology distribution and even in (3) ideology production – a doctrine of legitimate Christian resistance to the magistrate was first openly enunciated by a Puritan, in 1640. * The end of Charles's independent governance came at the end of the „Bishop’s wars”, because Charles was forced to look for new sources of money in order to pay an indemnity for the Scots that defeated his army. So, in 1640, the Parliament could no longer be avoided. Even if Charles dissolved one Parliament after three weeks (the „Short Parliament”), the „Long Parliament” (1640-1660) met, to which the Government had to surrender. This Parliament survived even the death of the king because the members of the Parliament avoided a new dissolution by issuing a Law, which sustained that the Parliament could only be dissolved with the agreement of the members. According to Christopher Hill, the final issues were: (1) destruction of the bureaucratic machinery whereby the Government had been able to rule in contravention of the desires of the great majority of its politically influential subjects; (2) prevention of a standing army controlled by the King; (3) abolition of the recent financial expedients; (4) Parliamentary control of the Church, so that it could no longer be used as a reactionary propaganda agency.184 The final event that led to civil war was the intention of Charles to arrest 5 members of the House of Commons. In 1642, after his failure to capture the 5 members of the Parliament, fearing for his own personal safety and for that of his family and retinue, Charles left the London area.
Idem, The Century of Revolution, p. 3. Idem, The English Revolution, loc. cit.
* At the outset of the conflict, the Royal Navy and most of the rich and populated English cities favored Parliament, while the King found considerable support in most of the rural communities that provided troops for nobility. From the custom of the upper classes to wear their hair long, and from their fine dress, the followers of the king were known as „Cavaliers”. Supporters of Parliament, on the other hand, were called „Roundheads” because of their close-cropped hair.185 At the beginning, the total number of men under arms was about 15,000; the rest contented themselves with the role of spectators. Many areas attempted to remain neutral, some formed ill-armed crowds of „Clubmen” to prevent their wives and daughters being raped by soldiers or deserters of both sides. As the war went on, the bands of Clubmen were local forces which both sides in the war had to take into account when planning a campaign and garrisoning some areas.186 The fighting was at first in favor of the king, because his cavalry was superior to that of the parliamentary army. But the king didn’t use the advantage, and after 1643 it was too late, because the Scottish army entered the war for the parliamentary cause on condition that the Presbyterian forms of religion to be established in England. * Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658) first showed that a revolutionary war must be organized in a revolutionary way, a sort of democratic method of recruitment and organization. The abandonment of the traditional right of the peers to command the armed forces of the country was in itself a minor social revolution. The philosophy of the New Model Army applied later (1648) to education, wishing none „to be excluded by reason of the poverty and inability of their parents”187. The New Model Army was nationally organized and financed by a new tax. But, this army was cheaper and larger than the previous one, due to the new method of recruitment and motivation (by promoting equality and by singing religious hymns).
Ergang, op. cit., p. 393. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_English_Civil_War ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clubmen. 187 Hill, The Century of Revolution, p. 181.
In the military sense the war was won by artillery and by Cromwell’s cavalry. After the battles of Marston Moor (1644), Naseby and Langport (1645) the Parliamentarians effectively destroyed Charles' armies. Charles surrendered to the Scots (1646), who the following year delivered him over to Parliament. „While the king was kept in prison, there was a general desire to return the crown to him, but there was no agreement regarding the terms.”188 The Presbyterian majority of Parliament wanted to restore Charles on condition that he would establish the Presbyterian worship in England. The „Independents”, who controlled the army, desired a religious settlement which would include toleration for the various types of Puritanism.189 While the army and Parliament continued their controversy, the king entered into an agreement with the Scots. He promised in return for their help to establish the Presbyterian worship in England. The war which resulted, often called the Second Civil War (1648), was soon over. Victorious, „Cromwell proceeded to restore the harmony between Parliament and army by expelling its Presbyterian members. His method was anything but constitutional”190. After the exclusion of about 150 members, the Parliament created a court for Charles's trial. The reason was that Charles's defied the Parliament and also encouraged the second Civil War. The idea of trying a king was a novel one; previous monarchs had been deposed, but had never been brought to trial as monarchs. Charles claimed that no court had jurisdiction over a monarch, because the authority to rule had been given to king by God. The court, by contrast, proposed that no man is above the law.191 After a speedy trial, Charles II of England was executed (1649), as a „public enemy to the good people of this nation”. Moreover, beside the head of the king, the new government cut off most of the institutions that were obstacles of the changing trend: (1) Because the House of Lords refused to participate to the king’s trial, this institution was abolished, as being „useless and dangerous.” (2) Monarchy was declared to be „unnecessary, burdensome, and dangerous to the liberty, safety and public interest of the people,” and was abolished. It was proclaimed the republic; England became „a free Commonwealth”.192
Ergang, op. cit., p. 397. Ibidem, p. 397. 190 Ibidem, p. 398. 191 Ibidem, p. 398. 192 Hill, The English Revolution, loc. cit.
* In Europe, the execution of the English king was regarded as the height of atrocity. The English ambassadors in the United Netherlands and in Spain were murdered by royalist sympathizer and those in Russia were driven from the court. But, because of the general exhaustion that followed the 30 years war, no nation dared to do more than symbolic acts to support the Stuart cause.193 But, there was a more serious cause for the war: the Navigation Act (1651) which stipulated that English trade should be carried in English vessels; also that no goods should be imported into English dominions thereof except in English ships or in the ships of the country that produced the goods. In the war which followed, the Dutch and the English fleets fought battle after battle without any decisive result. But, both the Dutch carrying trade and the Dutch fisheries suffered severely. Finally, because of the exhaustion, the Dutch concluded peace in 1654 on terms favorable to the English. This war marked the exit from the peaceful isolation of England during the rule of Stuarts. * In England, most of the people wanted a king, but the real power in the state was the army; and some members of the army, the so called „Levellers”, wanted more equality. But, Cromwell, as master of the army, was the ruler of England and supported the new status quo. Therefore, the great internal menace to the stability of the Commonwealth government was the condition of (1) Ireland, (2) Scotland and (3) something that we may call „the structure of power”. (1) As the situation in Ireland was most urgent, Cromwell first turned his attention to the „pacification” of that country. A part of the problem consisted in the fact that some Royalists had regrouped in Ireland, having signed a treaty with the Irish Catholics. Cromwell with an army of 15,000 swept the country. This expedition to Ireland was the darkest episode in Cromwell's career. He himself regarded the slaughter of the natives as a „just punishment”
Ergang, op. cit., p. 400.
for the uprising of eight years before, when a force of Irish Catholics had attacked the Protestants in Ulster and massacred a large number (10,000-15,000). 194 About 1,000 Catholic priests were expelled from Ireland. Much of the Irish land was confiscated and given to the supporters of Cromwell, because the Parliament had no money to pay their services. The land was given to financiers who had loaned the Parliament money, and to 12,000 veterans of the New Model Army who had served in Ireland. The Act for the Settlement of Ireland (1652) provided the legal form of expropriation: all those that had not „manifested their constant good affection to the interest of the Commonwealth of England” lost one-third of their land. Many of Ireland’s pre-war Protestant inhabitants also took advantage of the confiscation of Catholic-owned land to increase their own holdings. Gradually, there was a changing in the general regime of ownership and, consequently, in the political power. According to Christopher Hill, the solution to the „Irish problem” represented „the first big triumph of English imperialism and the first big defeat of English democracy”195. Cromwell believed that severity would prevent a long war and further bloodshed. But, this was the beginning of the „Irish problem” that last until today. Even if the worst atrocities committed in Ireland were carried out under the command of other generals, Cromwell remained a figure of hatred in Ireland, his name being associated with massacre, religious persecution, and mass dispossession of the Catholics. „The curse of Cromwell upon you” became a traditional Irish curse.196 (2) Cromwell's conquest of Scotland, unwelcome as it was, left no significant lasting legacy of bitterness in Scotland; mainly because killing (c. 6,000), deportation and plunder were not been followed by confiscations of land or property. The Scottish problem consisted in the fact that Scots had proclaimed Charles II as king. Prince Charles, who barely escaped capture, fled to France. (3) On the one hand, a violent restoration of the old order was made impossible by demolishing fortresses, disarming the Cavaliers and by the abolition of the feudal rights. But,
Ibidem, p. 400. Hill, The English Revolution, loc. cit. 196 Ergang, op. cit., p. 401.
according to Christopher Hill, the abolition of the feudal rights meant that landlords established an absolute right to their property vis-à-vis the King; the failure of copyholders to win equal security for their holdings left them at the mercy of their landlords, and prepared the way for the enclosures and expropriations of the next 150 years. For by 1654 the land transfers had been completed: a new class of landowners had appeared who now wanted peace and order to develop their property.197 On the other hand, a continuation of the Revolution in the direction of a „heretical democracy”198 was made impossible by the victory against the Levellers at Burford (1649). The Levellers were considered heretics because they demanded manhood suffrage and other dangerous equalitarian demands, based on some „radical” interpretation of the Bible. Their enthusiasm was useful for the New Model Army till the victory against the king, but dangerous after. The same Bible provided arguments against the „heretical democracy”. * The image of Oliver Cromwell was (and remained) contradictory. He is remembered as a successful military leader and as a despot who crushed the beginnings of the democratic rule. His enemies compared him with Machiavelli; his friends compared him with Moses. But, according to Judy Sproxton, Cromwell interpreted his actions in religious terms; „his greatest fear, throughout his life, was of misreading the God’s will” 199. In religious matters, Cromwell was, on the whole, far more tolerant than his age, an age in which most religious people regarded any form of tolerance as anathema. The Catholics alone were excepted from the general toleration; yet even the penalties against them were not rigidly enforced. Following the God’s will and using the army, from time to time, Cromwell dissolved the Parliament. So, the „Rump Parliament”200 was followed by the „Parliament of Saints” (1653). The critics labeled it as the „Barebone's Parliament”, because Praise-God Barebone was a good target due to his name and his humble origins. But after few months, this Parliament shared the same fate like the predecessors.
Hill, The English Revolution, loc. cit. Baxter, apud, Hill, The Century of Revolution, p. 130. 199 Sproxton, op. cit., p. 32. 200 The „Rump Parliament” was the name of what was left from the „Long Parliament” after the expulsion of 150 Presbyterian members.
* The Instrument of Government (1653)201 was the basis of the first sovereign codified and written constitution in the world (1654). The political entity over which this instrument had jurisdiction was styled the „Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland” (art. I). It rejected the political rights of those of those who „profess the Roman Catholic religion” (art. XV) and of those „who have aided, advised, assisted, or abetted in any war against the Parliament, since the first day of January 1641” (art. XIV). The political rights (to elect or to be elected) were restricted to those „persons of known integrity, fearing God, and of good conversation, and being of the age of 21” (art. XVII) and possessed „200 pounds” (art. XVIII). It established „constant yearly revenue […] for maintaining of 10,000 horse and dragoons, and 20,000 foot” (art. XXVII). Oliver Cromwell, „Captain-General” of the army, was declared „Lord Protector” (art. XXXIII). It granted executive power to the Lord Protector, „assisted with a council” (art. II). Also, the Lord Protector shared the supreme legislative authority with „the people assembled in Parliament” (art. I). In spite of the fact that this post was elective, not hereditary, it was to be held for life. The document also granted a form of control of power by calling of Parliaments every three years (art. VII). In 1655, Cromwell dissolved again the Parliament, opening a period of military rule by the Major Generals (1655-1657), which soon became very unpopular, because of the new tax and the „moral reform”. * The Humble Petition and Advice (1657). „The Humble Petition and Advice of the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses”
was the second, and last, codified constitution of England. In
many aspects it was similar to the former Constitution. A notable change was the mention of „other House” (art. 5), which could be regarded as the reestablishing of the House of privileged ones in Parliament.
„Commonwealth Instrument of Government”, 1653, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1653 intrumentgovt.html. 202 „The Humble Petition and Advice”, May 25, 1657, http://www.constitution.org/eng/conpur102.htm.
It offered to Cromwell the right „to appoint and declare the person who shall […] succeed you in the Government” (art. I), as Lord Protector. He nominated his son, and died (1658). Richard Cromwell had no power base in either Parliament or Army, and he had too much respect for his public image. He is reported to have said: „I will not have a drop of blood spilt for the preservation of my greatness, which is a burden to me”203. Therefore, he was forced to resign after 9 months (1659), bringing the „Protectorate” to an end. In the period immediately following his abdication, the head of the army, George Monck, took power for less than a year, at which point Parliament restored Charles II as king. But, the Restoration was by no means a restoration of the old régime. It was an evidence, not of the weakness of the new „structure of power”, but of their strength.204 The most significant change consisted in reducing the role of the army. Because the end of the Cromwell's rule had convinced the Englishmen that a standing army is not compatible with liberty, the Parliament discharged all the troops except three regiments. This was the end of Cromwell's New Model Army. * Charles II Stuart (1630-1685) came back, and pretended he had been King by divine hereditary right. He executed symbolically Oliver Cromwell's body at the same date that Charles I had been executed, but he pardoned all who had opposed the king during the Civil Wars. He also executed, physically this time, 9 other regicides, and excluded other ex-rebels from administrative functions. But he was not restored to the old position of his father. The years of exile had been so unpleasant that he was ready to concede almost anything rather than undergo the experience again. The prerogative courts were not restored, and so Charles had no independent executive authority. The executive was controlled first by the impeachment of Minister when Parliament disapproved of their conduct, then by the development of the cabinet system.205 Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), the tutor of the king, returned from his Parisian exile with his Leviathan, or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Common Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil (1651), which could be seen as contractual absolutism.
Richard Cromwell, apud Ergang, op. cit., p. 407. Hill, The English Revolution, loc. cit. 205 Ibidem, loc. cit.
The bishops also came home with the King, but the Church did not regain its old independent power, or its monopoly in the manufacture of public opinion. Church and Crown lands were restored. Some of the rich Royalists had bought their lands back too, adapting to the new free market conditions. But the majority of smaller Royalists, who had sold their estates privately after ruining themselves in the cause, got no redress.206 In spite of being a rich landowner, the King became dependent on a Parliamentary civil list, the first Civil Servant. He was granted fixed annual revenue, as a compensation for the feudal dues, which were abolished. So, Charles became dependent by taxes voted by Parliament. During this period, most of the taxes were collected by local, amateur officials or by private financiers and middlemen, which were also the creditors of the government. Only in the last 4 years of his life, Charles ruled without Parliament, due to a large subsidy granted by Louis XIV. France financed the English King to prevent William of Orange to buy an English alliance through the Parliament. In spite of his desire to reestablish the Roman Catholic Church in England (in order to satisfy his desire and, also, to please Louis XIV), Charles waited until he was on his deathbed before professing himself a Roman Catholic. James II Stuart (1633-1701) was the younger brother of Charles II. He ruled only 3 years (1685-1688), because he was more Catholic than his brother. Even during the rule of his brother, the Whigs (the rebellious Scottish Presbyterians) tried to exclude James from the line of succession (for being a Catholic). But Tories (the dispossessed Irish Catholic bandits) supported James, as the „legitimate” successor, in spite of his Catholicism. After, the birth of his first son (James Francis Edward), James II lost the crown, because the Parliament wanted to prevent a Catholic dynasty, and because William III of Orange wanted to prevent an Anglo-French alliance. The Dutch army of William and the great number of English deserters made James to flee to France. In 1690, he tried for the last time to win back the power, using French troops, English loyalists and Irish Catholics. But, after the short battle of Boyne (1690), he gained only the nick-name „Shitty James”, because he disappointed his Irish supporters by abandoning the battle, which was lost anyway.
Ibidem, loc. cit.
* The „Glorious Revolution” of 1688 was „glorious” because it was considered as bloodless, because there was no social disorder, no „anarchy” and, according to Christopher Hill, because there was no possibility of a revival of revolutionary-democratic demands.207 The „Glorious Revolution” brought from Netherlands a Protestant king, William III, but also a philosopher. John Locke (1632-1704) was in exile from 1683. He accompanied William's wife back to England in 1688. After returning in England, Locke published most of his writings to defend or to shape the Revolution. As a theorist of legislative supremacy, he became an intellectual hero of the Whigs208. William III of Orange (1650-1702) ruled England and Ireland, as William III, and Scotland as William II. William was accepted as king because he was a Protestant, because he was the son of Mary Henrietta Stuart (1647-1650, daughter of Charles I Stuart) and because he married Mary Stuart (1662-1694, daughter of James II Stuart). The negotiations with William, regarding the replacement of King James II, started as early as 1687. In 1689, Parliament passed the „Bill of Rights”209 which is considered one of the most important constitutional documents in English history. The basic principles were: freedom from royal interference with the law; freedom from taxation by royal prerogative, without agreement by Parliament; freedom to petition the Monarch ; freedom from a peace-time standing army, without agreement by Parliament ; freedom to elect members of Parliament without interference from the Sovereign ; freedom from cruel and unusual punishments ; freedom from penalties without trial ; the freedom of speech in Parliament, which was understood as a sort of parliamentary immunity. Regarding the external policy, William brought England in war. William was fighting against Louis XIV from the beginning of his political carrier. The Dutch fleet was larger than Invincibila Armada. The change in his carrier didn’t affect the international strategic policy.210 According to Henry Kissinger, William made England to become the „balancer of
Ibidem, loc. cit. The Whig movement was founded by Anthony Ashley-Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury. He exerted great influence on Locke's carrier, political ideas and exile. They went together in Netherlands after the scandal regarding the exclusion of James from the line of succession. 209 „An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown”, 1689, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp. 210 Kissinger, op. cit., p. 61.
the European equilibrium”, first almost by default, later by conscious strategy. 211 On the one hand, this strategy inaugurated the „second Hundred Years War” (1689-1815) with France and, on the other hand, launched „a new era in the history of British taxation” 212. England developed a fiscal system that matched those of the most powerful states in Europe. William died of pneumonia (1702) and was followed by Queen Anne (1665-1714) – another Protestant daughter of James II. Anne's reign was marked by the development of a two-party system (Tory and Whigs). Also, during her reign, England and Scotland became one realm called „Great Britain” (1707). George I (1660-1727). He became King of Great Britain and Ireland (1714) because he was Protestant and because his mother, Sophia of Hanover (1630-1713) was the daughter of Elizabeth Stuart (1596-1662) – daughter of James I Stuart. This succession was settled from 1701, as an anticipation of the lack of Protestant descendants of the House of Stuart. Christopher Hill remarked a radical change in the logic of succession to the English throne, a change that reflects the general transformation of the state during the seventeenth century: „James succeeded by hereditary right, confirmed by Elizabeth's nomination; in 1714 George I owed his throne to an Act of Parliament which passed over many persons with a better hereditary claim.”213 This „constitutional” trend continued to manifest due to particular events and some idiosyncratic options of the rulers. Because George did not even try to learn English (he could communicate with his ministers only in French or Latin) and because he spent 20 percent of his time in Hanover (where he was an absolute monarch), the power of the British monarchy continued to diminish. These particularities of his rule encouraged the development of the modern system of Cabinet government led by a Prime Minister. Sir Robert Walpole (1676-1745) was first (de facto) Prime Minister of Great Britain. The Walpole administration (c.1721-1742) was sustained by the Whig majority and it was the longest administration in British history. In Europe, George I was seen as a progressive ruler supportive of the Enlightenment, because of the limited interference with the government and because of the limited censorship; and
Ibidem, p. 63. John Brewer, „The English State and Fiscal Appropriation, 1688-1789”, Politics Society, 16 (1988), p. 336. 213 Hill, The Century of Revolution, p. 1.
also because Voltaire, being exiled from Paris in 1726, was an admirer of the regime that assured him a place to refuge. The greatest achievement of George I was Haendel. The German composer followed George from Hanover to London. During his sixth trip to his native Hanover, George I died and was succeeded by his son, George Augustus (1683-1760), who took the throne as George II (r. 1727-1760). In internal affairs, George II was confronted with the last attempt of the Jacobite movement, which tried to restore the „legitimate” Stuarts to the throne. The king army defeated in 1746 the army of the supporters of „the Young Pretender”, Charles Edward Stuart (1720-1788), the son of the „Old Pretender”, James Francis Edward Stuart (1688-1766). In external affairs, George was confronted with a series of conflicts which gradually transformed Great Britain into a great power. After 1757 William Pitt, who had been an important factor in the overthrow of Walpole, became the leading spirit in the English government; and George II accepted him. In his political carrier, William Pitt involved Great Britain in different coalitions that produced wars, usually against France. * Even if French illuminists as Voltaire admired the freedom that the English régime could provide, the system was not yet a real „constitutional monarchy”. The separation of powers was more a general expression than a reality, because the king could interfere in the creation of a parliamentary majority. For example, George II helped Sir Robert Walpole to gain a strong parliamentary majority by creating Lords sympathetic to the Whigs.214 The fact that the king had the right to „produce” Lords for the House of Lords, and the fact that the king could dissolve the House of Commons reveal the reality that the king’s power was limited only by the fear of a possible revolution, in case he might go too far. At the head of the State, the absence of a „rigid constitution” gave way to family clans for an alternative control over decisions. Everywhere money corrupted, particularly the elections in the Commons, in which five seats out of six were in fact bought to a few Electors.215
Marc Nikitin, „The birth of a modern public sector accounting system in France and Britain and the influence of Count Mollien”, Accounting History, 6 (2001), pp. 88-89 . 215 Ibidem, p. 89.
Nevertheless, if it is compared with France, Great Britain was more constitutional, because it had a king tried and beheaded, it had a constitution (even if it was not a „rigid” one), it already had a strong tradition and a language of political contestation, and the power was somehow dispersed. Gradually during the next century, Great Britain became more constitutional by creating a new and more democratic distribution of the parliamentary constituencies, because of the ideas coming from America after 1776, or from France in the last decade of the century.216
Ibidem, p. 89.
A. Rationalistic Critique and Enlightenment
Starting with the XVIIth century, the European high culture begins to internalize the postmedieval cultural changes. The attention on the diffusion of these achievements, which was usually called Enlightenment, it could be seen as a political aspect of the process. The discourse of Enlightenment gradually produced an alternative to religious belief as a foundation for normative judgments: on the one hand, the belief in the power of reason, on the other hand, the belief in progress or in natural or historical order. Today, historians and philosophers are using the term „Enlightenment” to designate a period in European history between 1680 and 1780,217 the period which produced a sort of magic sense for the word „modern”.218 More generally, the term is used to designate the transformation of the European discourse from Descartes (1596-1650) to Hegel (1770-1831). The tradition of application of the term to a particular historical period and to a particular goes back to Kant and Hegel. The Enlightenment can be seen as a network of individuals from the cultural elite and some institutions (scientific academies, secret societies, coffeehouses, and salons) following different agendas according to local contexts or their particular concerns and commitments.219 But, beyond all positions we can find a common disposition: the criticism. Irony and critical examination of the position of the „enemy” were used either against traditional „superstition” or against „skepticism”. As Bossuet remarked in 1692, criticism became „the disease and the temptation of our day”220. Descartes became a sort of reference point, either as a model or as an enemy; and rationality gradually became the common ground of these disputes. Immanuel Kant described this period as an „age of enlightenment”, not as an „enlightened age” 221. In other words, it wasn’t the result of the cultural diffusion, but it was the result of the attention given to the cultural diffusion: l’époque de la critique universelle. We may see
Pierre Chaunu, Civilizația Europei în Secolul Luminilor, Meridiane, București, 1986, p. 23. Paul Hazard, Criza conștiinței europene. 1680-1714, Humanitas, 2007, p. 37. 219 James Schmidt, „Enlightenment”, in Donald Borchert (ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition, Macmillan, 2006, passim; Idem, „What Enlightenment Was, What It Still Might Be, and Why Kant May Have Been Right After All”, American Behavioral Scientist, Volume 49 Number 5 (2006), pp.656- 657. 220 Ibidem, p. 223. 221 Immanuel Kant, „An Answer to the Question: ‘What is Enlightenment?’”, Konigsberg, September 30, 1784, www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/Theory/kant-enlightenment.pdf.
the controversies of the „Age of Enlightenment” as a beginning of a solid European ideological pluralism, based on the diversification of the means of the ideological distribution. By the diversification of the means of the ideological distribution I understand the process which includes: the fact that in eighteenth century the percent of literate man was ten time higher than in sixteenth century; the fact that the Royal Societies or Academies began to spread all over the Europe; the fact that the independent and almost international journals like Nouvelles de la République des Lettres (1683), Bibliothèque universelle (1686), L’Histoire des ouvrages des savants (1687) began to develop in Netherlands. This process produced something that Paul Hazard presented as the voices of heterodoxy222. By the ideological pluralism I understand the process that produced different and, sometimes, conflictive views and interpretation of the religious, social and political issues. This process was influenced by (1) the „discovery” of other civilizations, especially that of the „New World” (2) the „Renaissance” and (3) the „Reformation”. We already discussed what were the „Renaissance” and the „Reformation”, so I will point out only the ideological consequences. But, the relation of the Europeans with other continents and cultures must be preceded by a short presentation. * (1) The desire to find a more secure and a cheaper way of making commerce with the Orient gradually updated the ancient map of the world designed by Claudius Ptolomaeus. From the early fifteenth century, the nautical school of Henry the Navigator (1394-1460) had been extending Portuguese knowledge of the African coastline. Later, Bartolomeu Dias had returned from rounding the Cape of Good Hope (1487) and Vasco da Gama commanded the first ships to sail directly from Europe to India (1497). Meanwhile, Christophorus Columbus (Cristóbal Colón, 1451-1506) trying to find a new trade route, accidentally discovered a „New World” (1492) for Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile. Amerigo Vespucci's travel journals, published 1502-1504, convinced Martin Waldseemüller that the discovered place was not India, as Columbus always believed, but a new continent, and in 1507, a year after Columbus' death, Waldseemüller published a world map calling the new continent America from Vespucci's Latinized name „Americus”.
Hazard, op. cit., p. 86-105
These discoveries were followed, on the one hand, by involuntary spread of „European diseases”, like smallpox and malaria, which provoked seventeenth major epidemics in America and, on the other hand, by trade and voluntary exploitation of the indigenes. 223 The colonization process was started by Portuguese in Africa, Asia and later in the eastern coast of South America. The Spaniards conquered the most part of the American continent. According to Eric Wolf, the Spanish conquest of the „New World” was just an extension of the „Reconquista”, because, like Portugal, Castile was a military-religious state based on conquest and plunder of the Muslim territories from Iberia.224 The Iberian colonialism was soon (1600) followed by the Dutch one, mostly in South Asia. The efficient and ruthless concurrence of the Dutch fleet made the Portuguese to limit their colonial ambitions in that area; at the end of the seventeenth century only Goa and Macau remained Portuguese colonies.225 But, the most developed colonial system was developed by Great Britain. The formula invented by Karl V („The sun never sets in my realm”) was used by British rulers to describe the new colonial reality. According to Michael Stevenson, „the meeting between the peoples of the Old and New Worlds, symbolized by Columbus’s journey, was just the beginning of a dynamic movement out of Europe that eventually became global”226. This process raised legal questions mixed with ethical and political issues. Therefore, leading international jurists produced „religious” arguments for the exploitation of the indigenes. Francisco de Vitoria (1486-1546), professor of sacred theology at the University of Salamanca, argued that the European conquest was justified „on the grounds of violations of natural law: human sacrifice and cannibalism in the case of the Mexicans, tyranny and the deification of the Inca in the case of the Peruvians” 227. Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), jurist and diplomat, moralized that the „most just war is against savage beasts, the next against men who are like beasts”228. Similar arguments were produced to justify slavery, and those arguments became the background of the racism; because the hierarchically structured system, based on slave work, could function only if the categories remain fixed. So, the seventeenth century produced
Eric Wolf, Europa şi populaţiile fără istorie, Editura ARC, Chişinău, 2001, pp. 129-131. Ibidem, p. 112. 225 Ibidem, p. 233. 226 Michael Stevenson, „Columbus and the war on indigenous peoples”, Race & Class, 33 (1992), p. 29. 227 Ibidem, p. 29-30. 228 Ibidem, p. 30.
arguments like „God made the coffee, He also made the milk, but He never made the coffee milk”229. According to Eric Wolf, almost half of a million Native Americans became slaves working in the mines. But, they proved to be inefficient. Therefore, new slaves were brought from Africa. According to Eric Wolf, the African slaves were preferred because of the color of the skin which functioned as a mark. The identification of the fugitives was very easy, so the costs of exploitation were cut down.230 But, the Europeans financed and organized only the „commerce”; other Africans took care of hunt, storage and delivery. The slavery mechanism consisted mostly in making war for prisoners. The European musket revolutionized the African wars, which provided more slaves for Europeans and assured the domination of some local kings.231 Between 1701 and 1810, the African „export” reached the level of about 6 million slaves. Eric Wolf styled the eighteenth century as „the golden age of slavery”. The slaves were used as labor force mostly on the plantations of cane sugar, tobacco, cotton etc.232 * The discoveries and the colonialism produced cultural changes even in Europe. According to Paul Hazard, the English adventurers didn’t confine to make their flag waving in the breeze of every sea, but they published the most abundant traveling literature.233 The traveling novel, presenting exotic people and places, became very popular in most of the European countries. And that had two different effects on Enlightenment. (a) On the one hand, the vague theological arguments that justified the conquest and the slavery became „clear scientific” arguments after it was translated into „Enlightened” language. The word „race”, which appeared in XVIth century234, began to be used as a scientific concept. The history of racism had to take in account the fact that, during the Enligtenment, prejudges regarding the human socio-political hierarchies got a scientific or an intellectual „aura”. The special attention given to „population” regarding the political issue of
Léon Poliakov, Istoria Antisemitismului. De la Mahomed la marani., vol. II, Editura Hasefer, Bucureşti, 1999, p. 259. 230 Wolf, op. cit., p. 200. 231 Ibidem, p. 201. 232 Ibidem, p. 193. 233 Hazard, op. cit., p. 17. 234 Ruth Wodak and Martin Reisigl, „Discourse and Racism: European Perspectives”, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 28. (1999), p. 176.
souvereignty favoured the development of a discours that justified why some groups had to have special rights. The novelty of this discourse consisted only in the methodological approach: theology is replaced by history and biology; but the structure of priviledges remained a mirror of the structure of power. Georges-Louis Leclerc de Buffon (1707-1788) collected a series of traveling stories and produced something that was considered as „scientific” arguments regarding the animalistic character of the non-Europeans. In Histoire naturelle, générale et particulière (1749-1778), he described the native Americans as first class animals, and the Africans like a sort of monkeys.235 François-Marie Arouet (1694-1778), better known by the pen name Voltaire, ironically described their status: „une espèce d'hommes inférieure” (Essai sur les mœurs, 1753-56).236 The confusing style of Voltaire makes it difficult to identify if (or how much) he approuved the new „science” regarding the hierarchy; because he showed both sympathy and scorn for Africans, Jews and other categories that were been considered inferior both in Christian tradition and in the new „science”. (b) On the other hand, according to Paul Hazard, the relativism was the most important lesson of the traveling literature. Therefore, „the good savage”, „the wise Egyptian” or „the Chinese philosopher” became important figure of the European imaginary. 237 But, this „relativism” must be relativized, because the descriptions of the other culture were almost just projections of the European desires. The pattern consisted in using an exotic character, which examine the European religious, political and social system, to demonstrate that the Catholicism is barbarous and absurd, the monarchy is odious and unfair, and the society must be reformed. For example, Montesquieu achieved literary success with the publication of his Lettres persanes (1721), a satire based on the imaginary correspondence of an Oriental visitor to Paris, pointing out the absurdities of contemporary society.238 Nevertheless, as Tommaso Campanella (1568-1639) remarked, the discoveries of the other civilization produced „a new conception of the world”, by demonstrating, for example, the fact that many other people do not believe in God and they were doing well.239
Tzvetan Todorov, Noi şi ceilalţi, Institutul European 1999, pp. 145-150. Voltaire, Essai sur les mœurs et l'esprit des nations, Tome Premier, Treuttel et Wurtz, Paris, 1835, p. 107. 237 Hazard, op. cit., pp. 19 sq. 238 Ibidem, p. 33. 239 Ibidem, p. 16.
* (2) Deism was one of the the most important influence of the „Renaissance” over the „Enlightenment”.240 Perhaps the first use of the term Deist is in Pierre Viret's Instruction chrétienne en la doctrine de la Loi et de l'Évangile (1564), which regarded Deism as a new form of Italian heresy. From Italy of the beginning of the fifteenth century, the Deism was brought to France in the seventeenth century, later in England and the rest of the Europe. Elements of Deist thought included: rejection of reports of miracles, prophecies and religious „mysteries”; rejection of all religions based on books that claim to contain the revealed word of God; rejection of the Genesis account of creation and the doctrine of original sin, etc. But, Deists didn’t reject God.241 According to Paul Hazard, the Deists were a kind of „rationalists with nostalgia for religion”242: God exists and created the universe. God wants humans to be moral and affect what they can in their mortal lives, and they will be rewarded in the same life. God was named as Supreme Being, Divine Watchmaker, or Divine Author of the Universe. This doctrine, which regarded the truth of the reason instead of the truth of the faith, prospered in England, due the works of John Toland (1670-1722). The term „pantheism” was coined by Toland to describe the philosophy of Spinoza. Pantheism is the view that the Universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. Toland also produced some highly controversial polemics, in which Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all condemned as the three great political frauds. 243 Later Deism spread to France, notably via the work of Voltaire, to Germany, and to America. French Deists also included Maximilien Robespierre and Rousseau. For a short period of time during the French Revolution the Cult of the Supreme Being was the state religion of France. * (3) The „Reformation” influenced the „Enlightenment” in a more subtle way. As Max Weber remarked, Calvinism was the real enemy of the institutionalized Christian religion; because Calvinism continually produced new controversies and new sects. Many Calvinists
Ibidem, p. 262. Ibidem, pp. 159-188. 242 Ibidem, p. 266. 243 Ibidem, pp. 159 sq.
considered they had to preach Christ, instead of Calvin. As Richard Simon (1638-1712), remarked, „The Reformation continued to reform itself”244. But, this process was not always smooth, because those that were used to fight for their religious rights were not used to tolerate the similar demands of others.245 Even in Netherlands, which provided shelter during the 1680s for many religious refugees, the Calvinists (according to Pierre Bayle) „misused their spare time and the new printing opportunities” 246 to celebrate the protestant abuses of the Glorious Revolution. Pierre Bayle (1647-1706) described the ambiguity of the process which gradually increased the toleration: „God preserve us from the Protestant Inquisition! Another five or six years and it will have become so terrible that people will be longing to have the Catholic one back again!”247 According to John Marshall, „in the seventeenth century religious toleration was practiced by failure to enforce intolerant legislation rather than by legislative enactment of toleration”248. Even if there were attempts to stop this process or to persecute the „heretics”, the heterodoxy became a fact; on the one hand, because of the dispersion of power among small groups; on the other hand, because of the persecution of the Protestants in France (after 1685), which devalued the intolerance in general. Most of the arguments for religious toleration were generated by those accused by most of their contemporaries of b eing „heretics” and „schismatic”; the advocates of religious toleration replied explicitly to these accusations. Pierre Bayle, the most widely read philosopher of the age, was one of the defenders of the „heretics”, mostly because, being a subversive thinker, Bayle was himself a victim of his fellow Protestants. No philosophical topic occupied Bayle more than toleration (of all kinds of heresy, even atheism). Pierre Bayle admired some honest and virtuous atheists that were persecuted and suffered for their beliefs. Whatever his intentions were, the logic of Bayle's thought leaded to atheism.249
Ibidem, p. 103. Pierre Bayle, Avis important aux réfugiés sur leur prochain retour en France (1690), in Pierre Bayle, Pierre Jurieu, Răzbunare împotriva tiranilor : teoria politică a protestantismului francez, antologie realizată de Ovidiu-Victor Olar, Editura Nemira, București, 2007, p. 230. 246 Ibidem, p. 224. 247 Bayle apud Geoffrey Treasure, The Making of Modern Europe, 1648-1780, Routledge, 1985, p. 112. 248 John Marshall, John Locke, Toleration and Early Enlightenment Culture, Cambridge University Press, 2006, p. 3. 249 Hazard, op. cit., pp. 105-123.
The subversive critique of Pierre Bayle influenced the English philosopher John Locke, who shared Bayle’s refugee status. After the returning from Netherlands (1690), John Locke transposed in political terms these Calvinists arguments for „liberty of conscience”; partly because of the abuse of power (1685) which was justified by Louis XIV in the name of divine right of the king.250 But, according to Micah Schwartzman, the tolerance of Locke had a limit; Catholics and atheists could not be tolerated because they were considered threats to the stability of civil society.251 A side effect of the „Reformation” was the critique examination of the Bible. Richard Simon (1638-1712) in Histoire critique du Vieux Testament (1680) revealed that the Bible was compiled by different individuals, from different sources, in order to demonstrate that the tradition was not less important or less inspired by God than the text of the Bible. As a good Catholic, Richard Simon tried to prove that the Protestants were wrong, when they considered the tradition as being less reliable than the Bible. This book produced more than 40 Protestant retorts, and it also made available for the atheists a lot of arguments.252 * The „heterodoxy”, which diminished the ideological influence of the Church, also questioned the divine rights of the kings. Baruch de Spinoza (Benedictus de Spinoza, 1632-1677) became known in the Jewish community in Netherlands for positions contrary to Jewish belief, with critical positions towards the Talmud and other religious texts. In 1656, he was excommunicated. Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (1670) was his most systematic critique of Judaism, and all organized religion in general. Spinoza also argued that the kings were impostors that used religion in order to legitimate their unjust position.253 John Locke (1632-1704) produced a coherent critique of the fundaments of state and society. In his Two Treatises of Government (1689) Locke argued that „the divine right of kings” was only a recent invention of the theology, and the „feudal rights”, based on conquest, could be considered the fundament of the State as much as „the demolition of a house could be the cause of the construction of the new one”254.
Ibidem, pp. 249-261, pp. 289-292. Micah Schwartzman, „The Relevance of Locke’s Religious Arguments for Toleration”, Political Theory, 33 (2005), p. 695. 252 Hazard, op. cit., pp. 189-206. 253 Ibidem, p. 283. 254 Ibidem, p. 291.
Locke believed that the relationship between the state and its citizens must took the form of a „contract”, whereby the governed agreed to surrender certain freedoms they enjoyed under the state of nature in exchange for the order and protection provided by a state, exercised according to the rule of law. The most important difference between the contractual theory of Locke and the contractual theory of Hobbes was the emphasis on the control of power. The power must be divided (legislative and executive) in order to be controlled. However, if the state oversteps its limits and begins to exercise arbitrary power, the contract becomes void and the citizens have the right to overthrow the state. Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755) was, according to Pierre Chaunu, a sort of John „Locke that extended his field of vision to the whole history and universe”255. He spent 20 years researching and writing De l'esprit des lois (1748), covering a wide range of topics in politics, the law and sociology. The book reflects the rationalistic and relativistic spirit of the age: laws are not arbitrary, but logic; and each legislative tradition depends on the different characteristic of the people, region, local history and so on.256 Building on and revising a discussion in John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, Montesquieu argues that the executive, legislative, and judicial functions of government should be assigned to different bodies, so that attempts by one branch of government to violate the political liberty might be restrained by the other branches. In a lengthy discussion of the English political system, he tries to show how this might be achieved and liberty secured, even in a monarchy. He also notes that liberty cannot be secure where there is no separation of powers, even in a republic. According to Paul Hazard, Montesquieu immortalized the favorable image of the British system, which could „assure both the maximum of the independence and the maximum of the security”257. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) believed that the origins of a social order are based on the „bad contract” of inequality. This „contract” was invented by the rich and powerful. It claimed to „guarantee the weak from oppression, restrain the ambitious and give e ach man security in his possessions”, but in fact it „further enslaved the weak, increased the power of
Chaunu, op. cit., p. 262. Hazard, La pensée européenne au XVIIIe siècle. De Montesquieu à Lessing, Librairie Arthème Fayard, Paris, 1979 (1e édition : Boivin et Cie, Paris, 1946), p. 158. 257 Ibidem, p. 184.
the rich, irreversibly destroyed natural liberty, and fixed forever the law of property and inequality”.258 The Social Contract (1762) propounds the theory of the „good contract” between the individual and the community, which consisted in the submission to the authority of the „general will of the people as a whole”, that could produce more freedom than it could be achieved in the „state of nature”. Why? Because, instead of submission to any other man, one must accept absolute submission to the general will; which allows the subject to exercise his powers more fully, to attain his greater freedom. This attempt to avoid the disproportion between the „contractors”, which could produce less freedom than it could provide the state of nature, had at least 2 limits. (1) The partners to the contract are the individual and the community, yet the community comes into existence only with the signing of the contract. (2) Another problem is the vague concepts of „general will” or „the people”.259 The revolutionary feature that marks out Rousseau’s theory from all previous theories of political obligation is the statement that „the people is the author (and the only author) of legitimacy”. The sovereignty of the people is the only base of the freedom and the freedom of the people is the only legitimate base of a state. The sovereignty had to be exercised directly, not via representatives. It was argued that this would prevent Rousseau's ideal state from being realized in a large society, such as France was at the time. The Social Contract developed some of the ideas from his article Economie Politique, featured in Diderot's Encyclopédie. It became one of the most influential works of political philosophy in the Western tradition. The Encyclopédie (1751-1766). The full name was Encyclopédie, ou dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers. The Encyclopédie was originally meant to be simply a French translation of Ephraim Chambers's Cyclopaedia (1728). But, the new editors, Denis Diderot and Jean d'Alembert, made the primary aim „to change the way people think”. It was a vast compendium of the political, moral, scientific and technological knowledge of the age, describing controversial theories about everything and also about traditional craft tools and
Timothy O’Hagan, „ Rousseau: Conservative or Revolutionary”, Critique of Anthropology, 11 (1978), p. 21. Ibidem, pp. 22 sq.
processes. But it was something coherent, almost ideological; and it was subversive even in the technical articles.260 The aim of changing „the way people think” was fulfilled in the moment they offered a structured content under rationalistic criteria. The Encyclopédie presented a new taxonomy of human knowledge. It was considered as a revolutionary organization of the knowledge, because, for example, „Knowledge of God” was only a few nodes away from Divination and Black Magic. Philosophy was ordered over Theology. According to Robert Darnton, this categorization of religion as subject to human reason was a significant factor in the controversy surrounding the work, because, by then, religion was considered a source of knowledge in (and of) itself.261 The entire work was banned by royal decree and officially closed down after the first seven volumes in 1759; but because it was a very profitable business and it had many highly placed supporters, notably Madame de Pompadour, the work continued. Many of the most noted figures of the French enlightenment contributed to the work including Voltaire, Rousseau, Montesquieu or François Quesnay. The single greatest contributor was Louis de Jaucourt who wrote 17,266 articles, or about 8 per day between 1759 and 1765. The Encyclopédie contributed to the elaboration of a common culture in the XVIII century, bringing together the richest common people with the most open-minded aristocrats; thus it contributed to the creation of a new category of people: the notables. How did ideas penetrate into society? Searching the patterns in symptoms, Robert Darnton, concluded that the „contestatory ethos” spread through the illegal literature that consisted in socio-political or religious mockery, raw pornography and other best-selling books that cohabited under the label of livres philosophiques.262 The most subversive effect of the Enlightenment literature was „the general disenchantment with the regime”263, the alienation of the elite, that produced a cynical reference to its position and, therefore, to its legitimacy.264 „The privileged orders in general provided a large
Robert Darnton, The Business of Enlightement. A Publishing History of the Enciclopedie 1775-1800, Harvard University Press, 1979, pp. 539-540. 261 Idem, Marele masacru al pisicii și alte episoade din istoria cultural a Franței, Polirom, 2000, pp. 167-185. 262 Idem, The Forbidden Best-Sellers of Pre-Revolutionary France, W. W. Norton & Company, 1996, pp. 169196. 263 Ibidem, p. 195. 264 Ibidem, p. 193.
share of the market of for the works of Enlightenment”265 and many aristocrats read Voltaire and Rousseau „as true believers”266. The effect of this alienation could be measured by confronting the cahiers de doléances of the nobility with those of the Third Estate.
Ibidem, p. 192. Ibidem, p. 193.
B. The French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars
The Encyclopédie (1751-1766) defined revolution as „a considerable change coming about in the government of a State. This word comes from the Latin revolvere, to turn. There are no States which have not been subject to revolutions, many or few”.267 In spite of many structural changes, violent or not, which took place in different moments and countries, the French Revolution became „the Revolution”, the general reference point to the structural change in European politics, because, in the French case, the revolution undermined the European symbol of the absolute royal power; and because of the endless published controversies related on the issue. The defeat of Napoleon was followed by the publishing of an immense literature about the events, which consisted in pamphlets and memoires. The image of a „broken” revolution made the French revolution to remain as a project-to-go, and the memoires as a conspiracy patterns. Nevertheless, there was no consensus about the moment when the Revolution was broke and no consensus about the grave digger: Robespierre or Napoleon.268 There were also military and ideological aspects that made the French Revolution to become „the Revolution”. According to Philip Lawrence – „from the end of the Thirty Years War (1648) until the French Revolution (1789), war in Europe had the quality of an aristocratic hobby. Armies were the expensive toys of monarchs playing a game of inter-state diplomacy according to commonly agreed rules. However, all of this changed decisively with the Revolution. The key changes in French military thinking in the late 18th century resulted from general intellectual developments, as well as the reaction in France to their poor performance in the Seven Years War (1756–1763)”269.
„Révolution”, in L'Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, http://diderot.alembert.free.fr/R.html. 268 Bronislaw Baczko, „Revoluționarul”, in François Furet (ed.), Omul romantic, Editura Polirom, 2000, pp. 262-266. 269 Philip K. Lawrence, „Enlightenment, modernity and War”, History of the Human Sciences 12 (1999), pp. 78. „Seven Years War” (1756–1763) was the most important of the wars between France and Great Britain that were generaly named „The Second Hundred Years War”. The war arose out of the attempt of the Austrian Habsburgs to win back Silesia, which had been wrested from them by Frederick II the Great of Prussia during the War of the Austrian Succession (1740-1748). The war ended France's position as a major colonial power in the Americas and questioned its position as the leading power in Europe.
The French generals, especially Napoleon, implemented the lessons. Beginning with the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars a new form of large-scale, organized violence was practiced by western states. With Napoleon the novelty comprised tactics and the „new culture of nationalism”270. A key element in the new thinking was the pursuit to „decisive victory” and the „complete destruction of the enemy’s forces”271: „Use the bayonet at every opportunity” (Lazare Carnot)272. „At Valmy in 1792, the Levée en masse was introduced which ultimately raised 1.2 million men. Possibly this was the most profound change of all. It was, in effect, a change in the basic culture of war. Previously European armies had recruited mercenaries, adventurers and vagabonds, whose loyalty was always in doubt. However, the new Revolutionary army was one of citizens who swore an oath to the nation.”273 „For the first time Europe witnessed the ideological effects of nationalism as a military instrument. Wars of maneuver, fought according to civilized rules, were replaced by wars of ideological zeal”274. At Valmy in 1792, Goethe believed that it began a new era in the history of the world, and you can all say that you were present at its birth; in 1806 at Jena, Hegel knew that Napoleon’s armies were the historical instrument of a new world spirit.275 The new world spirit went on horseback across Europe to spread the ideas of the revolution and to reshape the map for „revolutionary” purposes. * In spite of the general retrospective image, the French Revolution meant something else for some of the participants. Historians are aware that the „origins are always constructed retrospectively, and many of them escape to the consciousness of contemporaries”276. According to John McManners, for many folks, the Revolution was a series of external circumstances in which their participation was almost involuntarily.277
Ibidem, p. 4. Ibidem, p. 9. 272 Ibidem, p. 10. 273 Ibidem, p. 10. 274 Ibidem, p. 10. 275 Ibidem, p. 10. 276 Darnton, Forbidden Best-Sellers, p. 173. 277 John McManners, Men, Machines and Freedom. Lecturers on European History, 1789-1914, Blackwell, 1974, p. 17.
A famous anecdote relates that Louis XVI asked if the attack on the Bastille (July 14, 1789) constituted a riot, and the Duc de Liancourt said, „No Sire, it is a revolution”.278 We may say that the king was right, it was a riot. Nevertheless, the riots, especially the general peasant riots known as „la Grande Peur”, enforced the revolutionary process. The „Great Fear” was most intense between 20 July and 6 August, and partly explains why the nobility and the clergy surrendered their privileges on the Night of 4 August. The proximity of the events could produce the impression of a causal relation between one riot and another, and between riots and political changes. But, this is a retrospective speculation than neglect the fact that the relation between time and space was different than today; for example, the news regarding the fall of the Bastille arrived sooner in Madrid (after 13 days) than at 130 km from Paris (after 28 days)279. The common background of the riots was the economic crisis. The general crisis was caused mainly by the bad harvest of 1787 and 1788. Therefore, more than in previous years, the peasants, which were 80% of the taxpayers, were vulnerable because of the increased taxes and, by consequence, angry. Moreover, the bad harvest increased the food prices and, by consequence, the urban „sans-culottes”280 were also angry. Following the logic of crisis as main cause, Hobsbawm ironically considers the American Revolution as the cause of the French one, because the economical impact overcame the political success. The American Revolution was the greatest French victory against Britain in the „Second Hundred Years War”, but it also was the main cause of the French bankruptcy.281 The economic crisis or the general discontentment created by the crisis could lead to a political one, but not necessarily. The political step was made by aristocracy, because of something that could be seen today as a strategical error. There is a paradoxical truth in a second irony of Eric Hobsbawm: the Revolution started as a „feudal reaction” against the centralization policy.282 The aristocracy, trying to exploit the weakness of the central power
Ibidem, p. 17. Eric Hobsbawm, Era revoluției (11789-1848), Editura Cartier, Chișinău, 2002, p. 18. 280 „Sans-culottes” was a term created 1790 - 1792 to describe the poorer members of the Third Estate, because they usually wore pantaloons (full-length trousers) instead of the chic knee-length culotte. 281 Hobsbawm, op. cit., p. 73. 282 Ibidem, p. 72.
neglected other aspects of the general crisis, forced the king to convoke the EstatesGeneral283 after 100 years of parliamentary silence. But, the weakness of the State was too deep to be exploited in a controlled manner; and other stakeholders took the advantage: The Third Estate had declared itself National Assembly (June 17, 1789), later National Constituent Assembly (July 9, 1789), an assembly not of the Estates but of „the People”. The real revolution was neither the product of the political game nor the result of the mob violence, but it was the ideological language that shaped the understanding of those events. The fact that all the divergent dissatisfactions related to the system became one revolution was due to the „philosophes” which offered the ideology that shaped the revolution 284. By using the language of philosophes as a legitimative tool that provided a „respectable intellectual pedigree”285 to Revolution, the „bourgeois” leaders of the Revolution produced a structural change of the socio-political system. This made the differences between a destruction of the Old regime and the fast and effective construction of a new one. The first visible products of that Revolution, which offered general ideological solution instead of particular compensations, were the abolition of the feudal system due to „The August Decrees” (August 4, 1789) and the „Declaration of Rights of man and Citizen” (August 26, 1789). Inspired by the previous English and American revolutions and by the radical thinking of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the National Constituent Assembly produced the framework for a „good contract” between abstract individuals willing to produce a general political organization. The framework of the new „social contract” was the „Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen”, a document-statement which appeared in the front of each French revolutionary constitution. * Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen286 was approved by the National Constituent Assembly of France „in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being”.
The Estates-General was a tri-cameral body representing the traditional Estates of France. The First Estate was the clergy (owning 6% of the land). The Second Estate was the aristocracy (owning 20% of the land). The Third Estate consisted in everybody else (95% of the population). 284 Hobsbawm, op. cit. p. 74. 285 Roger Chartier, apud Darnton, Forbidden Best-Sellers, p. 173. 286 „Declaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen”, 26 August 1789, http://www.conseilconstitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/root/bank_mm/anglais/cst2.pdf.
Articles: (art. 1): Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good. (art. 3): The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. Nobody nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation. (art. 4): Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law. (art. 6): Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents. (art. 9): As every man is presumed innocent until he has been declared guilty, if it should be considered necessary to arrest him, any undue harshness that is not required to secure his person must be severely curbed by Law. (art. 11): The free communication of ideas and opinions is one indemnified of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law. (art. 13): A common contribution is essential for the maintenance of the public forces and for the cost of administration. This should be equitably distributed among all the citizens in proportion to their means. (art. 15): Society has the right to require of every public agent an account of his administration. (art. 17): Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, no one shall be deprived thereof except where public necessity, legally determined, shall clearly demand it, and
then only on condition that the owner shall have been previously and equitably indemnified. * The National Constituent Assembly continued the ideological (and also pragmatic) work, by targeting the Church. On the one hand, there was a need to put an end to the relation between the Catholic Church and the State, which was the target of the intellectual critique since the Edict of Fontainebleau (1685)287. On the other hand, there was a need for financial support for the revolutionary government. The Assembly addressed the financial crisis by having the nation take over the property of the Church (December, 1789). In order to rapidly monetize such an enormous amount of property, the government introduced a new paper currency, assignats, backed by the confiscated church lands. Further legislation abolished monastic vows (February 1790). The Civil Constitution of the Clergy (July, 1790) turned the remaining clergy into employees of the State, transforming the Catholic Church into an arm of the secular state. Beside the redefinition of the political role of the Church, other centralizing measures were taken in order to reinforce the government. The Assembly abolished all internal trade barriers and suppressed guilds, masterships, and workers' organizations: any individual gained the right to practice a trade through the purchase of a license; strikes became illegal. Even if it wasn’t clear who had to play the main role in governing the country, the „National Guard” enforced obedience upon the new regime, fighting both the counter-revolutionaries and the radical-revolutionaries. Georges Danton fled to London, Louis XVI and his wife Marie Antoinette tried to flee from Paris, but they were captured and brought back in the same clothes they disguised to escape (21 June 1791). Dressed like a servant, the king actually became the servant of the people. Even if he preferred to be anywhere else than in Paris Louis had to stay and to act like a constitutional monarch. * Under the first Constitution288, which was promised by 1789 but completed in September 1791, France had to function as a constitutional monarchy. The King had to share power with
François Furet, Revoluția în dezbatere, Editura Polirom, Iași, 2000, p. 108. „Constitution de 1791”, 3 September, 1791, http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseilconstitutionnel/francais/la-constitution/les-constitutions-de-la-france/constitution-de-1791.5082.html.
the elected Legislative Assembly, but he still retained his royal veto and the ability to select ministers. Legislative Assembly had to be elected by voters with property qualifications. Despite the „Declaration of the Rights of Man” the right of suffrage was granted only to „active citizens”. Regarding this limitation of the citizen rights, the Constitution prescribed: „In order to be an active citizen it is necessary: To have been born, or to become, a Frenchman; To be fully twenty-five years of age; To be domiciled in the city or canton for the period determined by law; To pay, in any part of the kingdom whatsoever, a direct tax equal at least to the value of three days’ labor, and to present the receipt therefore; Not to be in a position of domesticity, that is to say, a servant for wages; To be, inscribed upon the roll of the National Guard in the municipality of his domicile; To have taken the civic oath” (Title III, Chapter I, Section II, art. 2). Those who didn’t fit these dispositions were designated „passive citizens” and were given no voice in the government. Camille Desmoulins pointed out that Jean-Jacques Rousseau would have been listed as „passive citizen”.289 Moreover, the „active citizens” elect only the „electors”, which had to be more „actives”. „No one may be chosen as an elector if, in addition to the qualifications necessary for active citizenship, he does not fulfill the following requirements: „In cities of more than 6,000 inhabitants, that of being proprietor or usufructuary of a property assessed on the tax rolls at a revenue equal to the local value of 200 days’ labor, or of being tenant of a dwelling assessed on said same rolls at a revenue equal to the value of 150 days’ labor; In cities of fewer than 6,000 inhabitants, that of being proprietor or usufructuary of a property assessed on the tax rolls at a revenue equal to the local value of 150 days’ labor, or of being tenant of a dwelling assessed on said same rolls at a revenue equal to the value of 100 days’ labor” etc. (Title III, Chapter I, Section II, art. 7). Finally, the electors elect the representatives. „All active citizens, whatever their position, profession, or tax, may be elected representatives of the nation” (Title III, Chapter I, Section III, art. 3).
Desmoulins, apud Ergang, op. cit., p. 662.
* The Legislative Assembly first met on 1 October 1791, and degenerated into chaos less than a year later. The Legislative Assembly consisted of about 165 Feuillants290 (constitutional monarchists) on the right, about 330 Girondists291 (liberal republicans) and Jacobins292 (radical revolutionaries) on the left, and about 250 deputies unaffiliated with either faction. This period saw the rise of the political „clubs” in French politics, foremost among these the Jacobin Club. The politics of the period drove France towards war with Austria and its allies. The Habsburg Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, Leopold II293 (1747-1792), and the Prussian King, Frederick Wilhelm II (1744-1797), in consultation with emigrant French nobles, issued the Declaration of Pilnitz, which declared the interest of the monarchs of Europe in the wellbeing of Louis and his family, and threatened vague but severe consequences. The war was not imminent, but King Louis XVI (and many Feuillants with him) foresaw an opportunity to exploit any defeat: either result would make him stronger. The Girondists also wanted war. The reason was to export the Revolution throughout Europe and, by extension, to defend the Revolution within France.294 Only some of the radical Jacobins opposed war, preferring to consolidate and expand the Revolution „at home”, because already there were enough enemies to fight with. For example, the very Catholic peasants in the Vendée district had risen against the government and the enemy was steadily advancing toward Paris. * Therefore, confronted with the internal crisis and Prussian-Austrian invasion, the Jacobins organized a popular uprising, overthrew the „double-faced” government (August, 1792). During the insurrection of August, when the Parisians stormed the Tuileries and demanded
The group held meetings in a former monastery of the Feuillants on the Rue Saint-Honoré and came to be popularly called the Club des Feuillants. They called themselves the Amis de la Constitution. 291 The Girondists were a group of individuals holding certain opinions and principles in common rather than an organized political party, and the name was at first informally applied because the most brilliant exponents of their point of view were deputies from the Gironde. 292 The name „Jacobins”, given in France to the Dominicans (because their first house in Paris was in the Rue St Jacques), was first applied to the club in ridicule by its enemies. The title assumed by the club itself, after the promulgation of the constitution of 1791, was Société des amis de la constitution séants aux Jacobins a Paris, which was changed on September 21, 1792, after the fall of the monarchy, to Société des Jacobins, amis de la liberté et de l'égalité. It occupied successively the refectory, the library, and the chapel of the monastery. 293 Leopold was the brother of the former Emperor Joseph II, and brother of French Queen, Marie Antoinette. 294 Hobsbawm, op. cit., p. 81.
the abolition of the monarchy, the Legislative Assembly decreed the provisional suspension of King Louis XVI and the convocation of a „national convention” which should draw up a new constitution. The municipality of Marseilles had sent a band of 500 men who marched into Paris singing the verses of the new song, known as the Marseillaise, which was to become the battle hymn of the French republic. The Battle of Valmy (September 20, 1792) resolved the external problem. It was known as „la canonnade de Valmy”, because the French fired 20,000 artillery rounds in the largest bombardment Europe had yet seen.295 Despite the minimal casualties (less than 500 total) and the inconclusive tactical results, Valmy has been considered one of the most significant battles of the French Revolutionary Wars, as it allowed the survival of France's new armies (facing a highly professional Prussian army), and launching a period of renewed military strength that would last nearly a quarter-century. National Convention (1792–1795). What remained of a national government depended on the support of the insurrectionary Commune. The „Convention”, charged with writing a new constitution, met on 20 September 1792 and became the new (de facto) government of France. The next day it abolished the monarchy and declared a republic. This date was later retroactively adopted as the beginning of „Year One” of the French Revolutionary Calendar. The king was tried for treason and beheaded (1793); after a few months, the queen was beheaded too. The execution of Louis had a striking effect upon the attitude of most European countries toward France. In England the news excited such indignation that the French minister was summarily expelled and William Pitt Jr. hastened preparations for war. The Convention started a preemptive war against England and Holland. Hostilities with other nations followed, so that by the spring of 1793 the coalition against France consisted of Austria, Prussia, Spain, Portugal, and Naples, in addition to England and Holland. In the new Assembly, „the Right” was formed now by the Girondists; „the Center” was again without a definite policy; while „the Left” (called „the Mountain” and its members Montagnards because this group occupied the highest seats in the amphitheater) was dominated by the Jacobins. The Girondists deputies tended more and more to represent the
Lawrence, op. cit., p. 9.
interests of the upper bourgeoisie, while the Jacobins increasingly became the champions of the working classes.296 * Supported by the Parisian sans-culottes, which were dissatisfied by the increased prices, and by a large body of the National Guards, the Jacobins expelled 24 Girondists members of the Convention. In order to solve the general crisis, the Jacobins produced a new kind of military strategy, which involved the civil population in the war process, and a new kind of policy making. According to Eric Hobsbawm, the Jacobins produced an army that was two time cheaper and tree times bigger than the precedent one.297 They also produced the new Constitution298 (June, 1793). This Constitution is important because, more than any other constitution of the revolutionary period, it embodied the theory of direct popular control of the government. The Constitution was ratified by public referendum, but never applied, because normal legal processes were suspended before it could take effect. According to this Constitution, there were to be no property qualifications either for voters or for candidates (art. 29), but the electoral system continued to be indirect (art. 37-38). Every male citizen who had reached twenty-one was given the right to vote openly (art. 16) in the election of deputies for the single assembly in which the sole power of making laws was vested (art. 53). The executive power was to be entrusted to the Conseil exécutif, a committee of twenty-four (art. 62) selected by the Assembly from a list drawn up by electors chosen by the voters (art. 63). Meanwhile it began the Reign of Terror („La Terreur” September, 1793 - July, 1794), motivated by the internal and international crisis, especially by the ongoing war. Maybe the logic of terror was inherently for the Revolution, because exclusion was the „sole regulatory mechanism of the politic life”299 in the ideological frame generated by the two antagonistic reference points: unity and purity. Pluralism was seen as a disguised counter-revolution.
Ergang, op. cit., p. 677. Hobsbawm, op. cit., pp. 84-85. 298 „Acte constitutionnel du 24 juin 1793”, http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseilconstitutionnel/francais/la-constitution/les-constitutions-de-la-france/constitution-du-24-juin-1793.5084.html. 299 Baczko, Comment sortir de la terreur. Thermidor et la Révolution, (Crimele revoluției franceze) Editura Humanitas, București, 2007, p. 154.
The government inaugurated earlier by the Convention remained in force. At its head stood an executive committee, or „Committee of Public Safety”. This committee (first chosen in April, 1793) was composed of nine members, later of twelve. It appointed and dismissed ministers, administered the finances, organized the armies, selected the generals, planned the military operations, and sought to sustain law and order within France. Two of its outstanding members were Maximilien François Marie Isidore de Robespierre (1758-1794) and Louis Antoine Léon de Saint-Just (1767-1794). Subordinate to the „Committee of Public Safety” were the „Committee of General Security” and the „Revolutionary Tribunal”. The first served the purpose of exercising a general police control over France; the second was an extraordinary court instituted to try those who were guilty of „counter-revolutionary activities”. From the sentence of this court there was no appeal. „The Law of Suspects”300 (September, 1793) was one of the most questionable Revolutionary act, „the milestone of the terror as a system” 301, which allowed the Revolutionary Tribunal to confuse politics with justice. Any real or imaginary enemy of the government could be imprisoned as a suspect: „The following are deemed suspected persons: 1st, those who, by their conduct, associations, talk, or writings have shown themselves partisans of tyranny or federalism and enemies of liberty; 2nd, those who are unable to justify […] their means of existence and the performance of their civic duties; 3rd, those to whom certificates of patriotism have been refused; 4th, public functionaries suspended or dismissed from their positions by the National Convention or by its commissioners, […]; 5th, those former nobles, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, sons or daughters, brothers or sisters, and agents of the émigrés, who have not steadily manifested their devotion to the Revolution […]” (art. 2). The arrested suspects, which were tried by the Revolutionary Tribunal, usually ended dead. Therefore, the guillotine became the symbol of this period; between 18,000 and 40,000 executions took place. Of those condemned by the revolutionary tribunals, approximately 8 percent were nobles, 6 percent were members of the clergy, 14 percent belonged to the
„Law of Suspects” (September, 1793), http://sourcebook.fsc.edu/history/lawofsuspects.html. Baczko, Comment sortir de la terreur, p. 77.
middle class, and 70 percent were workers or peasants. The lasts but not least of those that ended their life in such way were the organizers of the „Terror” such Robespierre and SaintJust. The Terror last as much as the enemy treat. The claim that the war demanded extreme measures lost its justification after the Battle of Fleurus (June 26, 1794). * The Left was opposed to Robespierre on the grounds that he rejected atheism and was not radical (egalitarian) enough – the Right because it was too radical. But, the conspiratorial groupings were not ideological in motivation; most of those who conspired against Robespierre did so for strong practical and personal reasons, most notably self-preservation. The fear of the political leaders generated by some arbitrary acts of Robespierre was translated into mob language302 by the rumor regarding the wish of the Republican tyrant to become king. The rumor spread rapidly because of the habit of reading loudly in public the newspapers, brochures and other ideological materials303. The Thermidorean304 regime (July, 1794 - October, 1795) excluded the remaining Jacobins from power, even some of those who had joined in conspiring against Robespierre and SaintJust. The „White Terror” resulted in numerous imprisonments and several hundred executions, almost exclusively of people on the political left. According to Martyn Lyons, the Thermidorean régime continued both Robespierrist attitudes to the lower classes, and the middle-class constitutionalism of the Constituent Assembly. The most striking aspect of 9 Thermidor is precisely the lack of popular intervention, the inertia of the Paris sections, and ultimately, the loyalty of their leaders to the existing government.305 This regime had to rely more and more on army. For example, Napoleon Bonaparte put an end to the Parisian taste on Revolution by using the artillery against them. After producing a new Constitution (1795)306, the regime remained in history as the „Directory”. The Executive Directory (in French Directoire exécutif), consisting in five directors elected for five years, held executive power in France from November, 1795 until November, 1799.
Ibidem, p. 31. Ibidem, p. 12, p. 38. 304 „Thermidor” was the name of the month July in the revolutionary calendar produced by the Jacobins. 305 Martyn Lyons, „The 9 Thermidor: Motives and Effects”, European History Quarterly 5 (1975), p. 125. 306 „Constitution du 5 Fructidor An III”, 22 August 1795, http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseilconstitutionnel/francais/la-constitution/les-constitutions-de-la-france/constitution-du-5-fructidor-aniii.5086.html.
The constitution of the Directory period centered on a parliamentary system of two houses: a Council of Five Hundred (art. 44) and a Council of Ancients, 250 in number (art. 82). Members of the Five Hundred needed to have reached at least thirty years of age (art. 74), members of the Ancients at least forty (art. 83). The system of indirect election of the Convention period continued (art. 33), but the constitution adopted the secret vote (art. 31) and abandoned universal suffrage (art. 35). The abandonment of the universal suffrage was, in theory, a „deviation” from the democratic route of the republic, but in practice it produced no significant reaction because most of the people (90%) didn’t get the habit to vote, no matter the electoral regime of the Revolution was.307 * Eric Hobsbawm considers that the French army was „the formidable child of the Republic”308; because during the long periods of wars against the First Coalition (1792-1797) it selected the most fitted person for this job, becoming a professional army based on courage. After the fall of the Jacobins, the army became more and more important in solving the problems and maintaining the political power. So taking the power was just a matter of time. Napoleon309 solved the ambivalence. The turning point of his career was under the rule of the Directory. A plan of campaign against Austria, which he drew up, convinced the Directors of his fitness for the command and, on March 1796, he was appointed commander-in-chief of the Army of Italy by a unanimous vote. At Lodi, he gained the nickname of „le petit caporal”, a term reflecting his camaraderie with his soldiers, many of whom he knew by name. He drove the Austrians out of Lombardy and defeated the army of the Papal States. The resulting Treaty of Campo Formio (1797), which
Baczko, Comment sortir de la terreur, p. 350. Hobsbawm, op. cit., p. 89. 309 Napoleon Bonaparte or Buonaparte (as he spelled it until 1796) was born August 15, 1769, in Ajaccio on the island of Corsica, which had shortly before come under French rule. After leaving the school at Brienne, Napoleon spent a year at the Military College in Paris and was then given a commission as second lieutenant of artillery (1785). After the French Revolution broke out, Napoleon went to Corsica three times to start a revolution against French rule. His final visit in 1793 and his failure to launch a successful movement or independence completely shattered his dream of Corsican freedom. Thereafter he turned his entire attention toward a career in France. His rise was rapid. As a commander of artillery during the siege of Toulon (1793) he so distinguished himself that he was raised to the rank of brigadier-general of artillery by the Committee of Public Safety.
ended the First Coalition, gave France control of most of northern Italy, along with the Low Countries and Rhineland. In Egypt (1798), Napoleon fought with Britain and its allies for strategic and propagandistic purposes. Meanwhile, the France position in the war against Prussia and Austria was getting weaker. Napoleon returned and used the situation for a coup d’État. * On 9 November (18 Brumaire) and the following day, troops led by Bonaparte seized control and dispersed the legislative councils, leaving a rump to name Bonaparte, Sieyès, and Ducos as provisional Consuls to administer the government. The new regime is known as The French Consulate (1799-1804). Sieyès expected to dominate the new regime, but he was outmaneuvered by Bonaparte, who drafted the Constitution of the Year VIII (1799)310 and secured his own election as First Consul. This made him the most powerful person in France, a power that was increased by the Constitution of the Year X (1802)311, which declared him First Consul for life. The best position of its carrier was that of French Emperor (1804). Although Napoleon made some reforms such as Concordat of 1801, which ended the internal religious conflict, or such as the Napoleonic Code (Code Napoléon)312, which laid the bureaucratic foundations for the modern French state, he became the most notorious figure of the nineteenth century because of his wars against the Second Coalition (1799-1802) and the ones against the following (5) coalitions, till the final defeat of the French expansionism (1815). Napoleon revolutionized the art of war and the logistic, according to the new military inventions; he invented new states, redesigned the map of Europe to fit the new standards of state rationality and, also, the French interests. He introduced the French system in the satellite countries, which generally survived after his defeat.
„Constitution du 22 Frimaire An VIII”, 13 Decembre 1799, http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseilconstitutionnel/francais/la-constitution/les-constitutions-de-la-france/constitution-du-22-frimaire-anviii.5087.html. 311 „Constitution du 16 termidor An X”, 4 August 1802, http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseilconstitutionnel/francais/la-constitution/les-constitutions-de-la-france/constitution-du-16-termidor-anx.5088.html. 312 The Civil Code (1800, 1804) was only the first of a number of codes. It was followed by the Code of Civil Procedure (1806), the Code of Commerce (1807), the Code of Criminal Procedure (1808), and the Penal Code (1810). According to Robert Ergang, the later codes tended more and more to support the growing despotism of Napoleon.
The wars continued after the end of the Second Coalition, mainly because of Great Britain. Unlike its many coalition partners, Britain remained at war throughout the entire period of the hostilities of the Napoleonic Wars. Protected by naval supremacy, the United Kingdom could maintain low-intensity land warfare on a global scale for over a decade. The Treaty of Amiens (1802) provided only a year of unsatisfying peace to the both sides involved in conflict. The conflict between the two nations reached a climax through the series of Berlin Decrees, which brought into effect the Continental System. The Continental System (1806) aimed to eliminate the threat of the United Kingdom by closing French-controlled territory to its trade. On the „Continent”, Napoleon won battle after battle, redesigning the anti-French coalitions. Britain persuaded Russia, Sweden and Austria to join it in 1805 in a Third Coalition against France. During the next four years, Austria drops out at the end of 1805; Napoleon defeated the Austrians at Ulm (1805) and finally at Austerlitz in (December 2, 1805), known as „the battle of the three Emperors” (Napoleon I, Franz II313 and Alexander I314). Prussia joins in on Britain's side in 1806; Napoleon himself defeated a Prussian army at Jena (October 14, 1806), and marshal Davout defeated another Prussian army at Auerstädt on the same day. Napoleon entered Berlin on 27 October 1806. Prussia and Russia change sides in 1807. Austria re-enters the war in 1808 against Britain, and in 1809 against France. Napoleon defeated the Austrians at Wagram (July 1809). The Treaty of Schönbrunn (October, 1809) began a new Franco-Austrian alliance. The newly appointed foreign minister Metternich focused its efforts to enforce the new alliance (his aim was to use France against Russia). Therefore, Napoleon married Marie-Louise, an Austrian Archduchess. In 1812 Napoleon invaded Russia. His army consisted of 650,000 men; 270,000 Frenchmen and many soldiers of allies (especially Austrians). He aimed to compel Emperor Alexander I to remain in the Continental System. The problem was that his logistic, based on local supplies (plundering the rich areas), was inappropriate in Russia; because Russia was big,
Franz II was the last Holly Roman Emperor (1792-1806) and the first Austrian Emperor, as Franz I (r. 18041835). The Napoleonic wars drastically weakened Austria and threatened its preeminence among the states of Germany, a position that it would eventually cede to Prussia. 314 Alexander I of Russia (r. 1801-1825) didn’t follow the policy of Pavel I (r. 1796 - 1801), which tried to establish better relations with Napoleon.
poor and covered with snow. Napoleon captured Moscow, a burnt and abandoned city, but he got no peace treaty. In the way back to France, his Grande Armée consisted in only 27,000 soldiers, mainly because of starvation, freezing weather conditions and the great number of deserters. By 1813 Napoleon had again an army of more than 300,000 soldiers, but it was composed largely of unseasoned recruits, many of them being mere lads of seventeen. Seeing an opportunity in Napoleon's historic defeat, Prussia, Sweden, Austria315, and a number of German states re-entered the war. Napoleon inflicted 40,000 casualties on the allies at Lützen (May 1813) and Bautzen (May 1813). Both battles involved total forces of over 250,000, making them some of the largest conflicts of the wars so far. Before the allied forces came closer, Napoleon managed to win another victory at Dresden (August 1813), but at Leipzig (October 1813) it was another story. In this battle, sometimes called the „Battle of the Nations”, which lasted three days, he lost the best part of his army. But, neither Austria nor England desired to exalt Russia by weakening too much France. Hence Metternich, with the support of the representatives of England and Prussia, notified the French ambassador that the powers would regard Napoleon's acceptance of the natural boundaries of France (the Rhine, the Alps, and the Pyrenees) as a basis for peace. Despite the fact that he was threatened with complete downfall, Bonaparte did not send a forthright answer to the proposal. During this time Napoleon fought his „Six Days Campaign”, in which he won multiple battles against the enemy forces advancing towards Paris. However, during this entire campaign, he never managed to field more than 70,000 troops against more than half a million Coalition troops. On March 30, the combined forces of the Austrian commander Schwarzenberg and of the Prussian commander Blücher conquered Paris. Next day, the Tsar and the King of Prussia entered the city leading their troops. Napoleon ignored the symbolic aspect of this event; but some of the Parisians became royalists and the French marshals persuaded him to sign an
In August, 1813, Napoleon's father-in-law, the Emperor Franz I, cast his lot with the allies after Napoleon had rejected the peace terms presented to him by the Austrian minister Metternich.
abdication. A week later „emperor” Napoleon set his signature to the settlement which gave him sovereign rights over the island of Elba.316 But, his adventure was not finished. Accompanied by few loyal troops, Napoleon regained easily the throne from Louis XVIII. But the rest of the European monarchs were not as impressionable as Louis. Napoleon took about 124,000 men of the Army of the North on a pre-emptive strike against the Allies in Belgium. He intended to attack the Coalition armies before they combined. His march to the frontier achieved the surprise he had planned. Napoleon forced Blücher to fight at Ligny (June 16, 1815), and the defeated Prussians retreated in some disorder. After 2 days he tried the same strategy against Wellington at Waterloo (June 18, 1815). But at Waterloo, Napoleon's strategy of keeping the Coalition armies divided failed, and a combined Coalition general advance drove his army from the field in confusion. Meanwhile 400,000 Russian and Austrian troops continued to advance from the East. In July 1815, Napoleon surrendered himself at Rochefort. The Allies exiled him to the remote South Atlantic island of Saint Helena, where he died (1821).317
Ergang, op. cit., p.745. Ibidem, pp.747-749.
C. Industrial Revolution
This course tries to reveal the genesis of the „capitalist mode of production”. According to David Landes, the Industrial Revolution opened a new age of promise. It also transformed the balance of political power, within the nations and between nations, and gradually changed the man’s way of thinking as much as his way of doing.318 * By „capitalist mode of production” I understand the social system based on the capitalist economy. According to Eric Wolf, generally, every system of production is socially and politically fitted to a specific structure of power.319 But, different modes of production can coexist and, also, there are strategic alliances. By „capitalism” I understand the logic of capital, which was produced by the logic of investment. The investment in „means of production” extended and generalized the logic of trade to inter-personal relations, gradually producing a sort of commoditization of the reality, a reality constructed preponderantly by reserves and means of production. As Martin Heidegger remarked, the logic of modern technique produced a reality of „standingreserves”, which structures the senses by the predisposition of understanding things as standing by – „to be immediately at hand, indeed to stand there just so that it may be on call for a further ordering”.320 How this logic was generalized? On the one hand, the continuous reinvestment tended to subordinate the other systems of production, making some regions to decay and forcing other to adapt to the new logic. Unlike the logic of trade or the logic of banking, which affected mainly the status of the successful entrepreneur, the logic of investment in industrial means of production affected the base of production of the European social system, gradually eliminating the concurrence of those that didn’t follow that logic.
David S. Landes, The Unbound Prometheus. Technological change and industrial development in Western Europe from 1750 to present, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 41. 319 Wolf, op. cit., pp. 72-99. 320 Martin Heidegger, „Întrebare privitoare la tehnică”, în Originea operei de artă, Univers, 1982, pp. 106-146.
On the other hand, the logic of investment diminished the flexibility of the strategies of production so, as David Landes remarked, the entrepreneur became „a prisoner of his investment”321. The need of amortizing the investment forces the entrepreneur to interpret the production process and the worker, or the „hand of work”, in terms of predicted costs and productivity, and to ignore other aspects of the relation. The entrepreneur must follow this logic only, in order to avoid bankruptcy. So, the factory became „a new kind of prison; the clock a new kind of jailer”322. How? It was a gradual and painful process that adapted the society to the new rhythm. According to Sidney Pollard, the industrial rhythm was totally different than the traditional one. The patrons usually complained about the laziness of the workers, which were used to work hard and enthusiastically on limited periods, following the rhythm of seasons and traditional holydays, or giving an „exaggerated” attention to personal events.323 Even the increasing of the salaries was not considered as a sufficient motivation; frequently, after gaining sufficient money to live, English or German workers used to take a break, in spite of their „protestant dedication” to work. This problem was generally solved by (1) economical and (2) legal means.324 (1) The best idea that came for solving the problem of motivation was the „starvation wage”. The lowest possible wage made the worker to be at work every day. The „starvation wage” was translated in elegant theoretical terms as „natural price of the labor”. David Ricardo (1772-1823) considered that natural price of labor was the cost of its production, the cost of maintaining the laborer. If wages correspond to the natural price of labor, then wages would be at subsistence level. (2) „The Master and Servant Acts” were laws designed to regulate relations between employers and employees starting with the 18th century. These Acts required the obedience and loyalty from servants to their contracted employer, with infringements of the contract punishable before a court of law, often with a jail sentence of hard labor. It was also used against workers organizing in trade unions, which were regarded as criminal activities. For example, between 1858 and 1875 on average 10,000 prosecutions a year took place under the Act in Britain.
Landes, op. cit., p. 41. Ibidem, p. 43. 323 Sidney Pollard, „Muncitorul”, in François Furet (ed.), Omul romantic, Editura Polirom, 2000, p. 85. 324 Hobsbawm, op. cit., pp. 61-62.
* Other methods for solving similar issue consisted in using women and children, which were more „obedient”. These categories of worker also accepted (or, at least, were forced to accept) lower wages, because it was considered that they only supplement the family income. Child labor had existed before the Industrial Revolution, but now it became more visible, mainly because of centralization and concentration of the production process. Reports were written detailing some of the abuses, particularly in the coal mines and textile factories and these helped to popularize the issue, which contradicted other prejudgments.
politicians tried to limit child labor by law, but factory owners resisted. The first English laws against child labor were passed in 1833 and 1844. These „Factory Acts” stipulated that children were not permitted to work at night, and the work day of youth under the age of 18 was limited to twelve hours, the working week of a child under 11 was limited to 48 hours, but no more than 9 hours for a working day.326 The patron’s preference for children and women, in particular, and for hungry and desperate workers, in general, devalued the factory as a working place. It also devalued the image of the Industrial Revolution, giving strong arguments for criticizing the new system. The ugliness of the new industrial towns was another reason for criticizing the new era, which was born at the end of the eighteenth century. Nowhere was this better illustrated than the mills and associated industries of Manchester, nicknamed „Cottonopolis”, and arguably the world's first industrial city. The factory system was largely responsible for the rise of the modern city, as large numbers of workers migrated into the cities in search of employment in the factories. The old conservatories and the new socialists launched very severe critics to the shocking new system. Artist and writers began to see the new era as a mediocre and ugly one. Romanticism and early ecology-ism slowly transformed the ideology of Enlightenment. The locomotive, steaming the green fields like a fancy dragon, was the only positive valued image of the Industrial Revolution. This image was the first one that entered in literature and in the European imaginary.327
Pollard, op. cit., p. 84. „Extracts from The Factory Act of 1833”, http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/factmine/factact.htm. 327 Hobsbawm, op. cit., p. 55.
* The Industrial Revolution started probably in the second half of the eighteenth century, in Great Britain, and it was the product of different occurrences (all together). (1) The connection between the „protestant ethic” and the „spirit of capitalism” had to be found not in the dedication on work as a sociological phenomenon, but in the strategies of consumption of the rich Englishmen, in the tension between increasing profits and limiting expenses. This predisposition generated the transformation of the wealth in capital, by continuous investment and reinvestment. For example, beside this predisposition and a general euphoria, there are no other rational explanations for the compulsive high risk investments in the very expensive railways from the nineteenth century.328 (2) Great Britain had a dense population for its small geographical size. Enclosure of common land and the related Agricultural Revolution, which preceded the Industrial Revolution, made a supply of this labor readily available. Even agriculture became market oriented, supplying the growing cities. (3) The fact that England and later Great Britain was a colonial power influenced this process in various ways. Having the cheapest and the widest distribution way, the British maritime commerce with the colonies favored the mass production. The international commerce was more convenient than local commerce. For example, „it cost as much to bring goods to London by land from Norwich as by sea from Lisbon”329. It also favored the development of a new perspective in political economy. According to Christopher Hill, the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 gave English overseas commerce the chance to discover a wide and unregulated area of commerce. Because of the new discovered freedom, Parliament became more acutely aware of the local restrictions, and began to attack the monarchy and its attempt to regulate the economic life of the country from the moment when the defeat of the Armada created a feeling of political security. 330 Later, the Scottish thinker of Enlightenment, Adam Smith (1723-1790) produced the most famous theory that sustained the idea of a system regulated by an „invisible hand”. Five
Ibidem, pp. 56-59. Hill, The Century of Revolution, p. 15. 330 Idem, The English Revolution, loc. cit.
editions of An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776) were published during Smith's lifetime, founding the „modern economy”. But, similar ideas were formalized before in French journals like Journal OEconomique (1721-1772), Journal du commerce (1759-1762), or Journal de l'agriculture, du commerce et des finances (1765-1774). The most famous French thinkers that produced the doctrine of laissez-faire were the physiocrats Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot (1727–1781) and François Quesnay (1694–1774). (4) The „Continental System” imposed by Napoleon as an embargo against Great Britain encouraged the intercontinental British trade. Great Britain emerged from the Napoleonic Wars as the only European nation not ravaged by financial plunder and economic collapse, and possessing the only merchant fleet of any useful size. The Napoleonic Wars also produced something that Eric Hobsbawm styled as „profit of inflation”. The general inflationist tendency of the period favored the investment, by cutting down the real value of the invested capital amortization.331 (5) Unlike the flaxen shirts; the cotton ones needed a coordinated system to reduce the cost of production. First, the merchants coordinated a sort of horizontal division of labor by mediating the different producers of raw material and the customers. Later, the need for controlling the production process, in order to respect the dead-lines and to reduce the costs, gradually produced a sort of vertical division of labor by concentrating the workers in one controlled location.332 Nevertheless, the investment in cotton industries was relatively affordable. The inventions were cheap and simple; easy to implement and highly productive. For example, Robert Owen borrowed 1000 pounds to build such a factory in Manchester (1789); after 20 years he paid (in cash) 84,000 pounds to his share-holders from New Lanark Mills.333 From the 1780s the steam engine was applied to power machines. This enabled rapid development of efficient semi-automated factories on a previously unimaginable scale. The raw materials, produced by the American slaves (1790-1860), were also affordable.
Hobsbawm, op. cit., p. 51. Ibidem, p. 49. 333 Ibidem, p. 47.
The new factories, based on division of work, required no special worker skills. Charles Babbage (1791-1871) described the economical advantages of the division of labor, beside the disciplination of the labor force. Highly skilled and highly paid workers spend parts of their job performing tasks that are „below” their skill level. If the labor process can be divided among several workers, it is possible to assign only high-skill tasks to expensive high-skill workers and leave other working tasks to less-skilled and paid workers, thereby cutting labor costs. The cotton industry produced derivative demand – for large industrial buildings, industrial lightening, machineries, chemical products, transportation etc. – that sustained the general economical development of the adjacent area.334 The export of the cheep English shirts marked the beginning of the end of the traditional European deficit regarding the trade with Orient, deficit that was traditionally compensated by conquest and plunder. From now, the European imperialism tended to be preponderantly economical, and more efficient.335 (6) There was also a local coincidence of natural resources in the North of England, the English Midlands, South Wales and the Scottish Lowlands. Local supplies of coal, iron, lead, copper, tin, limestone and water power, resulted in excellent conditions for the development and expansion of industry. The growing cities, the lack of wood and the cold winter made the coal to become a common product, supporting the development of the mining industry.336 The particularities of this industry, which was dealing with heavy materials, forced the development of the steam engine and the railways. The first real attempt at industrial use of steam power was due to Thomas Savery in 1698 that generated about one horsepower (hp). A fundamental change was brought about by James Watt, in 1778, increasing engine efficiency, saving 75% on coal costs. (7) The railways were one of the greatest factors that consolidated the Industrial Revolution; because of the expensive derivative demand for mining industry and metallurgy, and because of the huge manpower involved in the construction. After many of the workers had
Ibidem, p. 49. Wolf, op. cit., p. 123. 336 Hobsbawm, op. cit., p. 54.
completed the railways, they did not return to their rural lifestyles but instead remained in the cities, providing additional workers for the factories.337 In the second half of the nineteenth century, the effects of the railways construction became visible, adapting the continental distribution to the new production capacities. * The Industrial Revolution, which became a clear phenomenon after 1780, produced its effects after 1848. The relative wellbeing produced something that Eric Hobsbawm styled „the hibernation of the politics”338. Everywhere in Europe the governments became stronger because of the increase revenues and because of the lack of revolutionary predispositions. The development of the mass education in the second half of the nineteenth century produced, on the one hand, the efficient disciplination of the future labor force and, on the other hand, something that usually was called „the Second Industrial Revolution”.339 This phase depended on the technical application of the new developments in chemistry and physics. Standardization was the main characteristic. (1) Standardization of the production and the scientific management of the second half of the nineteenth century represented the perfect application of the „Babbage principle” as far as the man adopted the rhythm of the machine. The first assembly line was used in the slaughterhouses from Chicago (1860).340 The idea of standardized transportation of the items from an operation to the next one spread in other activities. Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856-1915) became the most famous character that promoted the standardization. As „the father of scientific management” Taylor contributed to the transformation of the capitalism: „the visible hand of organization […] replaced the invisible hand of the anonymous marked of Adam Smith”341 . Taylor thought that by time and motion study, which consisted in breaking a job into its component parts and measuring each to the hundredth of a minute, the „One Best Way” to do it would be found. The aim was to increase the productivity of the worker by diminishing the period or the difficulty of a task and by
Ibidem, p. 56. Idem, Era capitalului (1848-1875), Editura Arc, Chișinău, 2002, p. 45. 339 Ibidem, pp. 55-63. 340 Ibidem, p. 60. 341 Idem, Era imperiului (1875-1914), Editura Arc, Chișinău, 2002, pp. 63.
rewarding the best performance. The introduction of his system was often resented by workers and provoked numerous strikes.342 (2) Standardization of the distribution made possible the mass consumption. For example, Sir Thomas Lipton made a fortune by packing the tea in standard units.343 The most popular standardized products were the rifle, the watch, the sewing machine or the typewriter.
Ibidem, pp. 62-63. Ibidem, p. 73.
1. „Acte constitutionnel du 24 juin 1793”, http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseilconstitutionnel/francais/la-constitution/les-constitutions-de-la-france/constitution-du24-juin-1793.5084.html. 2. „An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown”, 1689, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp. 3. „Commonwealth Instrument of Government”, 1653, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1653 intrumentgovt.html. 4. „Constitution de 1791”, 3 September, 1791, http://www.conseilconstitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/la-constitution/les-constitutions-dela-france/constitution-de-1791.5082.html. 5. „Constitution du 16 termidor An X”, 4 August 1802, http://www.conseilconstitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/la-constitution/les-constitutions-dela-france/constitution-du-16-termidor-an-x.5088.html. 6. „Constitution du 22 Frimaire An VIII”, 13 Decembre 1799, http://www.conseilconstitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/la-constitution/les-constitutions-dela-france/constitution-du-22-frimaire-an-viii.5087.html. 7. „Constitution du 5 Fructidor An III”, 22 August 1795, http://www.conseilconstitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/la-constitution/les-constitutions-dela-france/constitution-du-5-fructidor-an-iii.5086.html. 8. „Declaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen”, 26 August 1789, http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseilconstitutionnel/root/bank_mm/anglais/cst2.pdf. 9. „Extracts from The Factory Act of 1833”, http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/factmine/factact.htm 10. „Law of Suspects” (September, 1793), http://sourcebook.fsc.edu/history/lawofsuspects.html.
11. „Révolution”, in L'Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, http://diderot.alembert.free.fr/R.html. 12. „The Humble Petition and Advice”, May 25, 1657, http://www.constitution.org/eng/conpur102.htm. 13. „The Petition of Right”, 1628, http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/16011650/england/por.htm. 14. Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, Verso, 1991. Lyons, Martyn, „The 9 Thermidor: Motives and Effects”, European History Quarterly 5 (1975). Heidegger, Martin, „Întrebare privitoare la tehnică”, în Originea operei de artă, Univers, 1982. 15. Asch, Ronald G., „‘Wo der soldat hinkümbt, da ist alles sein’: Military Violence and Atrocities in the Thirty Years War Re-examined”, German History, 2000. 16. Bacon, Francis, „Aphorism 129”, Novum Organum, 1620, http://history.hanover.edu/texts/Bacon/novorg.html. 17. Baczko, Bronislaw, „Revoluționarul”, in François Furet (ed.), Omul romantic, Editura Polirom, 2000. 18. Baczko, Bronislaw, Comment sortir de la terreur. Thermidor et la Révolution, (Crimele revoluției franceze) Editura Humanitas, București, 2007. 19. Bayle, Pierre, Avis important aux réfugiés sur leur prochain retour en France (1690), in Pierre Bayle, Pierre Jurieu, Răzbunare împotriva tiranilor : teoria politică a protestantismului francez, antologie realizată de Ovidiu-Victor Olar, Editura Nemira, București, 2007. 20. Bergvall, Ake, „Reason in Luther, Calvin, and Sidney”, The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Spring, 1992). 21. Bonney, Richard, „Cardinal Mazarin and his Critics: The Remonstrances of 1652”, Journal of European Studies, No. X (1980).
22. Braudel, Fernand, Mediterana și lumea mediteraneană în epoca lui Filip al II-lea, Editura Meridiane, 1986. 23. Brewer, John, „The English State and Fiscal Appropriation, 1688-1789”, Politics Society, 16 (1988). 24. Chaunu, Pierre, Civilizația Europei în Secolul Luminilor, Meridiane, București, 1986. 25. Crimando, Thomas I., „Two French Views of the Council of Trent”, The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Summer, 1988). 26. Darnton, Robert, Marele masacru al pisicii și alte episoade din istoria cultural a Franței, Polirom, 2000. 27. Darnton, Robert, The Business of Enlightement. A Publishing History of the Enciclopedie 1775-1800, Harvard University Press, 1979. 28. Darnton, Robert, The Forbidden Best-Sellers of Pre-Revolutionary France, W. W. Norton & Company, 1996. 29. Das, Arvind Narayan, „Theories of State: Aristotle to Marx”, Social Scientist, Vol. 3, No. 8 (1975). 30. Destombes, M., „A Panorama of the Sack of Rome by Pieter Bruegel the Elder”, Imago Mundi, Vol. 14 (1959). 31. Elias, Norbert, Procesul civilizării. Cercetări sociogenetice și psihogenetice, Polirom, 2002. 32. Ergang, Robert, Europe from the Renaissance to Waterloo, Heath & Company, 1939. 33. Fulbrook, Mary, „Religion, Revolution and Absolutist Rule in Germany and England”, European History Quarterly, 12 (1982). 34. Furet, François, Revoluția în dezbatere, Editura Polirom, Iași, 2000. 35. Guérard, Albert Leon, France in the Classical Age. The Life and Death of an Ideal, Harper & Row, Publishers, 1965.
36. Hamilton, Earl J., „The Foundation of the Bank of Spain”, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 53, No. 2 (1945). 37. Hay, Denys, „Europe and Christendom a Problem in Renaissance Terminology and Historical Semantics”, Diogenes, 5 (1957). 38. Hazard, Paul, Criza conștiinței europene. 1680-1714, Humanitas, 2007. 39. Hazard, Paul, La pensée européenne au XVIIIe siècle. De Montesquieu à Lessing, Librairie Arthème Fayard, Paris, 1979 (1e édition : Boivin et Cie, Paris, 1946). 40. Heins, Volker, „Civil Society’s Barbarisms”, European Journal of Social Theory, 7(4). 41. Hill, Christopher, The Century of Revolution, 1603-1714, W. W. Norton, 1966. 42. Hill, Christopher, The English Revolution 1640, Lawrence and Wishart 1940, Transcribed by Andy Blunden, 2002, http://www.marxists.org/archive/hillchristopher/english-revolution/#3. 43. Hobsbawm, Eric, Era capitalului (1848-1875), Editura Arc, Chișinău, 2002. 44. Hobsbawm, Eric, Era imperiului (1875-1914), Editura Arc, Chișinău, 2002. 45. Hobsbawm, Eric, Era revoluției (11789-1848), Editura Cartier, Chișinău, 2002. 46. James I, A speech to parliament (1610), http://www.thenagain.info/Classes/Sources/JamesI.html. 47. James I, True Law of Free Monarchies, (1598), http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/james1-trew2.html. 48. Jászi, Oscar, „The Stream of Political Murder”, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 3, No. 3, (1944). 49. Kant, Immanuel, „An Answer to the Question: ‘What is Enlightenment?’”, Konigsberg, September 30, 1784, www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/Theory/kantenlightenment.pdf.
50. Kiermayr, Reinhold, „How Much Money was Actually in the Indulgence Chest?”, The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Autumn, 1986). 51. Kissinger, Henry, Diplomacy, Simon & Schuster, 1994, pp. 56-78. 52. Landes, David S., The Unbound Prometheus. Technological change and industrial development in Western Europe from 1750 to present, Cambridge University Press, 2003. 53. Lawrence, Philip K. „Enlightenment, modernity and War”, History of the Human Sciences 12 (1999). 54. LeGates, Marlene, „Princes, Parliaments and Privilege: German Research in European Context”, European History Quarterly, 10 (1980). 55. MacCaffrey, James, History of the Catholic Church from the Renaissance to the French Revolution, Project Gutenberg Etext, 2000. 56. Marou, Henri-Iréné, Sfîntul Augustin și sfîrșitul culturii antice, Editura Humanitas, București, 1997. 57. Marshall, John, John Locke, Toleration and Early Enlightenment Culture, Cambridge University Press, 2006. 58. McManners, John, Men, Machines and Freedom. Lecturers on European History, 1789-1914, Blackwell, 1974. 59. Monheit, Michael L., „The Ambition for an Illustrious Name" Humanism, Patronage, and Calvin's Doctrine of the Calling”, The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Summer, 1992). 60. Nikitin, Marc, „The birth of a modern public sector accounting system in France and Britain and the influence of Count Mollien”, Accounting History, 6 (2001). 61. O’Hagan, Timothy, „Rousseau: Conservative or Revolutionary”, Critique of Anthropology, 11 (1978). 62. Partee, Charles, „Calvin's Central Dogma Again”, The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Summer, 1987).
63. Poliakov, Léon, Istoria Antisemitismului. De la Mahomed la marani.,vol. II, Editura Hasefer, Bucureşti, 1999. 64. Pollard, Sidney, „Muncitorul”, in François Furet (ed.), Omul romantic, Editura Polirom, 2000. 65. Ross, Eva J., „The Social Theory of Jean Bodin”, The American Catholic Sociological Review, Vol. 7, No. 4 (1946). 66. Sanz, Porfirio, „England and Spanish Foreign Policy during the 1640s”, European History Quarterly, 28 (1998). 67. Schmidt, James, „Enlightenment”, in Donald Borchert (ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition, Macmillan, 2006. 68. Schmidt, James, „What Enlightenment Was, What It Still Might Be, and Why Kant May Have Been Right After All”, American Behavioral Scientist, Volume 49 Number 5 (2006). 69. Schwartzman, Micah, „The Relevance of Locke’s Religious Arguments for Toleration”, Political Theory, 33 (2005). 70. Sproxton, Judy, „From Calvin to Cromwell through Beard”, Journal of European Studies, 25 (1995). 71. Stevenson, Michael, „Columbus and the war on indigenous peoples”, Race & Class, 33 (1992). 72. Taylor, Alan J. P., O istorie a Imperiului Habsburgic (1809-1918), Editura ALL, Bucureşti, 2000. 73. Todorov, Tzvetan, Noi şi ceilalţi, Institutul European 1999. 74. Treasure, Geoffrey, The Making of Modern Europe, 1648-1780, Routledge, 1985. 75. Voisé, Waldemar; Labadie, James, „The Renaissance and the Sources of the Modern Social Sciences”, Diogenes, 6 (1958).
76. Voltaire, Essai sur les mœurs et l'esprit des nations, Tome Premier, Treuttel et Wurtz, Paris, 1835. 77. Weber, Eugen, „Of Stereotypes and of the French”, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 25, No. 2/3 (1990). 78. Weber, Max, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Routledge, 1996. 79. Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Gutenberg ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giotto_di_Bondone ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movable_type ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shen_Kuo ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacco_di_Roma ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_écu ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_English_Civil_War ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clubmen 80. Wodak, Ruth and Martin Reisigl, „Discourse and Racism: European Perspectives”, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 28. (1999). 81. Wolf, Eric, Europa şi populaţiile fără istorie, Editura ARC, Chişinău, 2001.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.