Kaplan Flashcards
In what sense did schuilkerken (clandestine churches) both signify tolerance and intolerance in early modern society?
Clandestine churches, were a significant phenomenon in early modern European society, serving as a mechanism for the practice of religious tolerance. They allowed religious dissenters to worship in a private setting, away from the public eye, thus signifying a form of tolerance by providing a space for diverse religious practices. The secrecy in which these churches operated was never very strict. On the contrary, neighbors and even strangers knew about their existence; indeed, magistrates often had a significant if informal say in the appointment of their pastors. In Article 13 of the Union of Utrecht (1579) the Dutch had freedom of conscience. This meant people could believe as they wished; magistrates had no authority to examine or judge religious convictions and no one could be required to attend Calvinist services; the Dutch Reformed Church would not assume the role of “established” church, with membership in it required by law. The production and ownership of religious objects was not illegal and they were permitted to do what they liked in their own home.
However, the existence of schuilkerken also reflected the intolerance of the dominant religious authorities, as they maintained a semblance of religious unity and preserved the monopoly of the official church in the public sphere. Catholics were not permitted to meet in larger groups than their family. This duality of tolerance and intolerance is evident in the way schuilkerken accommodated religious diversity and upheld the authority of the dominant church, ultimately serving as a crucial but complex arrangement for accommodating religious dissent at the local level. Ultimately, because the Catholics were too big of a group to purge.
Why was tolerance hard to accept for many people in the early modern age?
Tolerance was hard to accept for many people in the early modern age due to the central role of religion in defining communal identity. The close intertwining of civic and sacral community that had characterized the late Middle Ages continued to shape collective identity and social life. The parish church, with its surrounding cemetery, stood at the centre of villages, and dances, markets, feasts, and assemblies typically took place in or in front of them. Time itself marched to the beat of the church, with saints’ days or sabbaths setting the rhythm of work and leisure. In cities, the rhythm could vary among neighbourhoods and parishes within the larger whole, but most cities retained a strong sense of collective responsibility to God. This close association of religion with communal identity and social life made it difficult for many people to accept tolerance, as any religious dissent was seen as a threat to the integrity of the entire community and its standing before God. Additionally, public acts of worship were considered provocative and likely to become flashpoints for confessional conflict, further contributing to the reluctance to accept tolerance. For example, St marks day march Catholics beaten by protestant guildsmen for hanging banners but Dutch Catholics made regular group pilgrimages to Kevelaer, Uden, Handel, and other sites outside the United Provinces without provoking a violent response from the country’s dominant Calvinists. They simply did what Donauworth’s Catholics refused to do: hide their banners and crosses and refrain from song until outside Dutch territory. Their sins were seen as almost contagious.
How did the schuilkerken impact the historical development of privacy?
Clandestine churches had a significant impact on the historical development of privacy.
They were places of worship for religious dissenters in the Dutch Republic, operating in secrecy behind closed doors.
The schuilkerken allowed for the practice of religious diversity and tolerance in a society that officially recognized the Calvinist, or Reformed Church, as the official church of the republic.
The schuilkerken played a crucial role in the accommodation of religious dissent at the local level, providing a mechanism for religious diversity to coexist with the official orthodoxy.
They allowed for the existence of permanent clergy and regular services for dissenting religious groups, despite being officially in violation of laws and placards.
The secrecy in which the schuilkerken operated was never very strict, as neighbors and even strangers knew about their existence.
This created a unique distinction between public and private worship, as the boundaries were constantly being negotiated.
The schuilkerken embodied the equation of the private sphere with the family home, while also raising questions about the rise of an “authentic, bourgeois” public sphere in the eighteenth century.
When a religious group enacted its beliefs in a public space, it was claiming possession not just of that space but of the entire community, appropriating the authority to speak and act for everyone and making those of other faiths accomplices in rituals they rejected or even abhorred.
Consequently, public devotions were far more provocative than private ones, and far more likely to become flashpoints for confessional conflict.
Ultimately, the schuilkerken and their equivalents were bona fide churches, operating in a pretense of secrecy. This pretense provided a crucial detour around the Calvinist orthodoxy, allowing for the practice of religious tolerance and diversity.
The schuilkerken thus played a significant role in shaping the historical development of privacy by redefining the boundaries between public and private worship, and by providing a mechanism for the accommodation of religious dissent in early modern Europe.
Kaplan wants to approach the historiographical debate about toleration from a different angle. Explain.
Kaplan wants to approach the historiographical debate about toleration from a different angle by focusing on the concrete arrangements and accommodations that made it possible for people of conflicting beliefs to live peacefully alongside one another. Instead of ideas and intentions he aexplains how they really functioned.
He emphasizes the importance of understanding the distinctions between public and private worship, as well as the negotiation of boundaries between the two. Whilst also emphasising the distinction between public and private was as much cultural fiction as it was social reality.
Kaplan also highlights the cultural and social implications of these distinctions and their impact on religious tolerance in early modern Europe.
He aims to shed new light on the broader distinction between public and private life in the early modern era and challenges the traditional understanding of the rise of an “authentic, bourgeois” public sphere in the eighteenth century.
Scholars focus on the Netherlands as a Dutch phenomenon, but it happened all over like Germany and Britain.
