Augsburg Settlement, 1555 – Cuius regio, eius religio

augsburg contract
augsburg contract

The conflict far accepted not at once the finished outlines. Luther sought not for split, and for reform of church. Even the Roman throne quite so treated its performance. But it was also the program of Charles V declaring himself Erasmus’s admirer and gave hope for the agreement. His brother Ferdinand carrying a royal title and since 1531 Gabsburgov operating the Austrian lands, and the chancellor Gattinara also adhered to such line. Wars with external enemies occupied the main forces of the emperor, the relation with Rome, the spiritual center of Counter-Reformation, quite often were strained excessively. Charles V very much was hostile to political claims of papacy. Also other Catholic monarchs were not alien to similar moods at all. From here numerous attempts of the emperor since 1524 by means of negotiations during meetings of the Reichstag to achieve the agreement with Protestant princes. However the line on the solution of the conflict by the statement of any degree of toleration connected with Erasmus Rotterdamsky’s ideas or did not bring success at all, or only partially and for rather short term in certain principalities thanks to the special circumstances developing there (to relative balance of forces between two parties, to desire of monarchs to temporarily muffle internal collisions in the face of external threat, etc.) . Historically realized there was an embodiment of this idea in the form of territorial delimitation of both parties and search of some ways of coexistence of Catholic and Protestant principalities. However along with Erasmus’s line and usually in connection with it also other attempts by reciprocal ideological concessions to achieve if not restoration of unity of church, then on an extreme .mera of reconciliation of Catholicism and Protestantism were made. The initiative from the Protestant party belonged to the ideologist of princely reformation, Luther’s colleague Philip Melankhton (1497—1560) — it, speaking to words of Engels, to “a prototype of the Philistine, sickly room scientist”. At a meeting of the Reichstag in Augsburg in 1530 he offered considerable concessions to Catholics. They were not accepted by Catholics as an agreement basis especially as the most part of Protestants also would not agree to them. His another — and the last — writing of so-called “Augsburgsky confession” (1530) was attempt of the peace solution of disagreements in which doctrines of Lutheranism were stated so that they could serve as the unifying program for Catholics and a moderate wing of the Reformation and contain conciliatory gestures towards Catholicism. In the “Augsburgsky confession” keeping in a soft form Protestant criticism of the doctrine about graces, the requirement of marriage for priests, communions under both types for laymen and other doctrines of Lutheranism at the same time it was emphasized that the Protestant doctrine does not contradict fundamentals of Catholicism at all and that it rejects all old heresies — Manichaeism, a pelagianstvo, arianism. The denial written by Catholic theologians — opponents of Luther in whom renunciation of Protestants of their heretical delusions was required was in reply immediately made. Thus, having achieved the first objectives — a formulation of doctrines of Lutheranism, Melankhton in “Augsburgsky confession” did not manage to achieve a compromise with Catholic church. The aspiration to find a platform for restoration of unity was found sometimes and from the Catholic party. George Vittsel (1501 — 1573), the priest who accepted Lutheranism in 1524 and came back in nine years to Catholicism bosom put forward various projects of reconciliation of churches. At the end of the career he became the authorized representative of the king — then of the emperor — Ferdinand I. “Unless it is possible to divide Christ?” — Vittsel pathetically questioned, proposing the compromise solutions. The similar position was taken by the Netherlander George Kassander (1513 — 1566) considering that there is a uniform platform for all Christians, except for radical currents in the Reformation. He published special work in which, sorting one by one points of “Augsburgsky confession”, he tried to reconcile them with doctrines of Catholicism. These efforts to find the general fundamentals of Catholicism and Lutheranism had, of course, both the social and political soil. A considerable role was played here and the general fear of a national current in the Reformation, and by the situation created in Germany by approach of feudal reaction (the second enslaving of peasants) and the character of Lutheranism of that time as princely reformation, both an international situation, and other reasons, however, also far from humanistic dream of Erasmus, from his hope to eradicate wars and hostility between the European people. The social soil and the political reasons inducing even to encourage from time to time Gabsburgov conciliatory gestures could only generate new attempts such, but not lead them to success in any way that would contradict the main tendencies of social and political and ideological development of Europe. This success was impossible already therefore at least that it was contrary to aspirations and an extreme wing of Catholicism which won in conservative camp and a burgher current in the Reformation — Calvinism which quickly amplified since 40th years. Melankhton was exposed to furious attacks for the spirit of conciliation, not without reason words of gratitude to god “for disposal of rage of theologians” were his last words on the deathbed. Reconciliation could not be — only the coexistence of the states with different religion, refusal of attempt “to export” the religion in the armed way and minimizing of intervention in affairs of other states could be reached, even when in them there was a bitter struggle of supporters and opponents of the Reformation. But also this purpose was within the 16th century achievable only partially, for historically limited terms, it is rather only as a relative truce in the century conflict. Charles V long time sought to find any religious, but purely political basis for fundamental strengthening of the imperial power and easing of the actual independence of princes. He wanted to shift a conflict axis, at least. During the century conflict of one of the parties attempts of his external deideologization are usually made. It can be carried out for various motives: and for entering of split into the enemy coalition, depriving of it the uniting ideological program, and for involvement in the camp of the countries, not persons interested to participate in the conflict, and for attraction of sympathies of the neutral states, and for neutralization fluctuating, etc. Charles V tried to present the campaigns against Protestant princes as war against troublemakers and laws of the empire. But similar tactics could unite rather Protestant princes with Catholic in repulse to claims of the emperor. Without being Spanish or especially national German, the politician Charles V it was not directed in general and to achievement of a victory in the century conflicts with Protestantism and Islam. The conflict with France which dragged on for all reign of Charles V obviously did not keep within a framework of any of these conflicts (as it became later when in France there were religious wars). For justification of claims of the emperor legal motives, in itself revealing reactionary essence of these claims were looked for. The father Bonifatsy VIII (1294 — 1303) during fierce fight against the French king Philip IV Krasivy declared his deposition and offered the throne which became “vacant” to the Austrian duke Albrecht Habsburg. That bewared to accept doubtful papal gift. And in two centuries his descendant Charles V, referring to this donation, began to claim that France is its hereditary possession and an integral part of the empire. Ideas of the chancellor Gattinara about destruction of France as large European power encountered resistance even in Habsburg camp among the Burgundian and Castilian nobility who did not leave medieval idea of “family” solidarity of European monarchs. Charles V tried to find average option between ideas of the universal monarchy and the union of Christian sovereigns where the leading role, naturally, would belong to him. On the contrary, Francis I after got beaten on elections of the emperor in 1519, declared himself “the emperor in the possession”. On February 24 in fight at Pavia the Spanish infantry crushed Francis I’s troops, the king fell into hands of the enemy and was brought by the captive to Madrid. There he in January, 1526 signed the contract in which he refused claims to Milan and Naples, to Burgundy. However, to realize this contract, it was necessary to release Francis I on parole to France. As soon as the king broke loose, he not only refused the made concessions, but in several months created against the emperor the coalition into which besides France entered the Pope, Venice and which relied on support of all other foes of the emperor in Italy, tried to get support of England. Almost in two decades, summer of 1544, the military situation developed adversely for Francis I again. Charles V relied on the help of the largest of Protestant monarchs — the English king Henry VIII whose troops from Normandy threatened Paris, and the army of the emperor crossed Marne. But Charles V did not have enough money for payment for the mercenaries, and he agreed to rather easy conditions for Francis of the peace made in Krespi in September. Confirming conditions of one of former peace treaties — in Kambre, the new agreement provided Francis’s refusal of claims to Flanders, Artua and Naples in exchange for the same refusal of the emperor of his rights for Burgundy. The contract provided marriage of the duke Orleansky, the younger son Francis, and the daughter of Charles V or the daughter his brother Ferdinand with receiving in qualities of a dowry of Milan or Flanders which, however, had to be never attached to France (this article of the agreement was not carried out as the duke Orleansky died next year). In confidential articles of the contract Francis promised to refuse the unions hostile to Charles V and to support – its against all heretics. For the first decades of the Reformation Charles V’s opponents could not count on direct support of the most powerful anti-Habsburg force — France. The French monarchy which entered into alliance with “incorrect” Turks abstained from support of German “heretics” until Protestant princes got completely the best of supporters of democratic currents in the Reformation. The entry of France in fight during Henry II’s government made Charles V’s purposes even more impracticable. The contract in Krespi was fragile, and in several years war broke out with a new force. By the way, during this war probably in France the theory of “natural borders” was put forward for the first time. Its emergence was connected with occupation in 1552 by the king Henry II of the cities of Verdun, Metz and Tulya. Attempts of the emperor Charles V to win Metz failed owing to persistent defense of the city by the Francis, Duke of Guise. Talk on Rhine as to border of Gallia became fashionable. In 1568 lotaringets, the cardinal’s enemy Giza, Jean le Bohn published the treatise “Rhine — to the King” in which for the first time put forward idea that France can apply for border across Rhine not owing to the historical rights, but for “the natural reasons”. In spite of the fact that the world in Krespi was only a short-lived truce, it provided to Charles V a neutrality of France and by that freedom of hands for several years during which the emperor expected to strike resolute blow to the German Protestant princes. The center of gravity of the conflict in the huge power of Charles V was combined. If earlier he looked at Germany as on a source of means for financing of the imperial policy, then now resources of other its possession — Spain and its overseas colonies, the Italian possession, the Netherlands — were mobilized for fight for Germany. The center of the Protestant forces resisting to Charles V was the Shmalkaldensky union. It was created on December 25, 1530 in the Giessen town of Shmalkaldena where the princes who accepted Lutheranism — the Elector Saxon gathered, the landgrave Giessen and others, as well as representatives of a number of the cities. In the second half of the 40th years Charles V at last tried to solve dispute in the military way. In 1547 the imperial army broke troops of the German Protestant princes among which there was no consent (“Schmalkaldic War”). In the so-called “Temporary augsburg resolution” of 1548 Karl nevertheless tried to meet part of religious requirements of Protestants, but those already managed to recover from defeat and resumed war. Only by accident the emperor did not fall into hands of enemies in Innsbruck. They took Augsburg, military operations and other enemies of the emperor renewed. Karl had to charge to the brother negotiations with Protestant princes. The idea of association of all Christian world under its power once again was unattainable dream, the illusion leading to heavy failures. In a preamble of the Augsburg settlement signed in 1555 it was said that “for the sake of rescue of the German nation and our kind fatherland from final destruction and death we recognized for the benefit to enter this agreement”. The principle “whose power, that and belief” was the basis for the contract. (However, in such look this formula was recorded by one imperial lawyer only in 1591) The politician Charles V got beaten, of course, not owing to aspiration of the German princes to keep the church and monastery lands occupied by them, and thanks to the fact that the Reformation reflecting in general interests of progressive development of society took deep root in consciousness of a wide people at large. The liberal historiography emphasized that the Peace of Augsburg was success of Lutherans who defended also its main principle — the secular sovereign has the right to define religion of the citizens. At the same time researchers of this orientation did not hide the regret that the Peace of Augsburg was not original reconciliation. For example, the English historian Mr. Kamen wrote in the book “Toleration Development” that by means of this world tried to find the solution by “perpetuating of practice of religious intolerance”. Kamen gave such assessment to the contract of 1555: “The main line of the Peace of Augsburg — it was the agreement between the German autocratic monarchs. Toleration did not extend to anybody, except princes to whom freedom to eradicate considerable part of the citizens refusing to recognize the religion ordered them by the state was provided. Only Catholicism and Lutheranism admitted the agreement — all other religions were excluded from the sphere of its action”. The sentence is severe, but quite fair. Other question, what alternatives existed at the time of adoption of this decision. Kamen, probably, is inclined to consider as such alternative Erasmus’s dream of toleration, but experience of history showed its impracticability. The French historian F. Erlanzhe called the rule “whose power, that and belief” “the mean principle”, “a caricature on freedom of thought”. However not toleration, but continuation of religious wars for the sake of impossible as showed experience of history, victories of Catholic camp was real alternative to it. It is necessary to consider also that the religious tolerance and intolerance in different conditions made absolutely various historical sense, but about it below. The religious world of 1555 was result not of reconciliation or mitigation of disagreements between religions or especially perceptions of idea of religious tolerance (rather on the contrary). It was a consequence of the created political situation, is concluded by the secular sovereigns who were not requesting about it opinion or the sanction of church authorities and the authorities. The Augsburg settlement of 1555 laid the foundation to half a century of the relative world in Germany — and it in conditions when the flame of war captured the most part of Western Europe. Of course, “abstention” of the Austrian branch Gabsburgs (their representatives occupied a throne of the German emperor) from participation in the second stage of the military conflict that made possible this rather long peace period, was caused by a number of factors (about them sing the speechthe t is lower). However their such influence became possible only in the specific conditions created after the conclusion of the Augsburgsky world. Attempt of revision of the Peace of Augsburg led to a Thirty years’ war which results confirmed provisions of this contract. The southern Germany remained in the prevailing part Catholic, Northern — Protestant, and in the northeast the Lutheranism dominated, and in the northwest the Calvinism began to prevail later. The Peace of Augsburg of 1555 was objectively the first important step on the way to religious tolerance. Crash of attempts of the military solution of the conflict inevitably involved the compelled recognition of the principle of toleration in the sphere of the interstate relations. At the same time the principle “whose power, that and belief” considerably strengthened positions of princes in relation to all forms of class representation. Charles V’s aspiration in the armed way to suppress resistance of Protestant princes in practice sharply strengthened a tendency to. political dissociation, turned the Reformation into the territorialization tool of Germany. The century conflict by means of which Gabsburgs sought “to unite” Europe within the uniform empire erected for the whole historical era additional obstacles for merge of the states making “The sacred Roman Empire the German nation” to uniform Germany. Article 18 of the Augsburg settlement said: “If the archbishop, the bishop, the prelate or other ecclesiastic disappears from our old belief (Catholicism — the Author), then the benefice with their receipts and the income which was turning out hitherto loses thereby the archbishopric, episcopacy, a prelacy and any others and has no right on any for that remuneration though he does not suffer thus any damage to the honor … For kapituly there is also a right to elect other person of old confession to its place and to devote it in this dignity …”. In other words, for spiritual principalities change of belief was forbidden. Provisions of this article obviously could serve — and really served — a legal pretext for one stage of the century conflict what became Thirty years’ war

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.