In the late fifties 16th century Charles V and the French king Henry II, the English queen Maria Tudor, Loyola and Calvin, the father Pavel IV and other characters embodying the century conflict in the first decades of its development one by one quit the stage. There came the short break in fight which was added with the world between Spain and France. The South of Europe — Spain And Italy — remained out of influence of the Reformation which won in the north — regarding Germany and Scandinavia, Took root in the west of Poland and in the Czech Republic. In England, France and the Netherlands still long fight between Protestantism and Counter-Reformation was coming. On a scene the leading figures of a new stage of fight — Philip II, Elizabeth I Tudor, Ekaterina Medici, William of Orange, fathers of Counter-Reformation who succeeded fathers of Renaissance enter. The violent Scottish preacher – the Calvinist John Knox published the treatise “The First Sound of a Pipe against an Ugly Assemblage of Women” of which convicted Catholic princesses and queens and predicted disasters from their coming to power. He meant first of all Ekaterina Medici and Maria Stewart who really should play important, though very various roles in the century conflict. By then, as failure of attempt to break Protestantism in Germany in the military way was shown, both camps already developed an ideological platform which served them throughout the next century of the armed confrontation. The foundation of Protestantism was laid in works of ideologists of the first generation of the Reformation — first of all Luther — and the second generation — Calvin. Subsequently nothing was added to them significantly new. There were also no new names able to some extent to compete on influence to these founders of various currents in Protestantism. The resisting camp of the solution of the Tridentsky cathedral solemnly confirmed slightly modernized Catholicism doctrines, having strengthened at the same time centralization and efficiency of the church organization. End of the Tridentsky cathedral in 1564 and (in a year before) can be dated Calvin’s death final ideological registration of the conflicting camps. Both of them already possessed by this time and the shock groups: Calvinists — in Protestant camp and a Jesuit award — in a Counter-Reformation camp. The conflict affected all sectors of society — from monarchs and social tops to the simple people which should bear its main weight. He mentioned also all layers of public ideology, theology and philosophy, science, literature, art. For contemporaries the social and economic causes of conflict were not clear and the anticipation of its consequences is absolutely inaccessible. Nearly all peace treaties of the period of the century conflict were, in essence, only truces: the parties agreed not about the confrontation termination, and about a temporary respite. In these agreements sought to stake out conditions which were created in the future by pretexts for renewal of armed struggle. The states nevertheless first of all Jesuits signed peace treaties, and the international groups of Counter-Reformation, continued to act. Development of the conflict went rather not in the line of ascent, and on a spiral. The first decades it restrained military confrontation of two most powerful Catholic powers — Charles V’s empire and France which terminated only in 1559. Attempts of the military solution of the conflict were limited to a framework of the German empire. In the second half of the century such attempts extended almost to all Europe. The middle of the century was, thus, critical point. Since 60th years the century conflict concentrates on fight for the Netherlands which rose against Philip II for France which is torn apart by civil war, for England and Scotland — on fight which had to define destiny of Europe. In this fight different forces and different ways — or directly, or through the chain reaction caused by the conflict in system of the international relations were involved. “… And the king Philipp stayed in invariable spiteful melancholy … And eternally felt feverish it, neither wine, nor a flame of the fragrant tree which was continuously burning in a fireplace — nothing warmed it. He always sat in the hall among such set of letters that it was possible to fill with them hundred barrels. Philipp wrote constantly, dreaming to become similar the lord of the world to the Roman emperors”. As it the Spanish king from pages of an immortal “Legend of Ulenshpigel” of Charles de Coster appears. The historical tradition attributes to Philip II who turned Madrid into the capital of Spain (and 1561) a voluntary privacy in the gloomy and magnificent lock monastery located nearby Eskuriil. Spain considered Escorial as the eighth wonder of the world, the best architects and artists of Spain, Italy and Flanders participated In its construction and ornament. Subsequently the quadrangular unfriendly boulder far visible against a dark background of mountains of Sierra-de-Gvadarrama, reminded whom huge barracks, a coma hospital. However, Philipp’s solitary life is the known exaggeration. Some historians even use |дссь the word “legend” — it happened to king to travel over the Spanish provinces and not all the time of year was spent by him in Escorial. But in a legend the essence of policy of Philip II who was more and more coming off reality and as though indeed the monastery which is fenced off from life by high walls is well grabbed. The political thinking of the king reckoned less and less with those facts which contradicted his prejudiced concepts. If Charles V gave plans of reactionary camp frankly imperial shape, then Philip II was put in the forefront as the leader and the standard-bearer of Catholic Counter-Reformation. (In historical literature argued even much on the term “Counter-Reformation” which was quite often tried to be replaced with the concepts “Catholic reform”, Catholic reformation”. The main point from it does not change.) In 1564 Philip II wrote the father Pius IV: “Than to allow the slightest damage to true religion and to service to the Lord, I would prefer to lose all the possession and if I could, hundred times to lose life because I not Inlyayus also will not be a governor of heretics”.
The Kato-Kambreziysky contract of 1559 actually meant establishment of the Spanish hegemony in Italy in a pas exchange recognition of the French acquisitions on eastern frontier (Metz, Verdun, Tul, Boulogne), and also recently (one year prior to signing of the document) the won Calais which was owned the whole two centuries by British. “After 1559 Spain played a role of the arbitrator of Europe — the unknown American historian wrote — and so far the stubborn determination to support status quo (that meant preservation of the Spanish hegemony) was motive of the Spanish policy, to Philip’s interests most of all there corresponded conservatism and a universal peace”. However all business was just that preservation and strengthening of the Spanish prevalence were inconceivable without attempts of suppression of the multiplied number of the internal and external, open and hidden, potential and valid enemies. Some western historians consider that to attribute to Philip II intention “to catholicize the whole world” — means to simplify the real situation as each of aggressive actions of Spain was a consequence of a number of concrete motives and circumstances. However Protestants as if considered that Spain seeks for their destruction, and acted according to this representation.
In uncountable papers of Philip II researchers did not find something similar to the plan of creation of the world monarchy with which Charles V rushed. The famous American historian G. D. Kenigsberger considered this circumstance as the proof that the king and had no such purpose that he subjectively first of all sought for protection of the possession against attempts of external enemies and for destruction of heresy within the country. “However there is significantly an important question — that it meant by these purposes and what actions he sought to reach them”. In practice it turned out that achievement of these was more whole it is connected not only with suppression of revolt in the Netherlands and with power destruction Ports, but also with submission in this or that form of France and England, with overcoming of resistance of Protestant princes to prevalence Gabsburgov in Europe. The century conflict created additional opportunities — ideological, political, diplomatic and military — for conducting aggressive wars by the main power of reactionary camp. But along with it it multiplied the reasons and motives of warfare for a victory over the certain states entering into enemy camp, for the prevention of its possible strengthening, for capture of advantageous strategic positions for the purpose of continuation in the future of armed conflict against the main forces of the opponent. Numerous “private” wars were waged as preparation for renewal of war in pan-European scale. Existence of the century conflict not only promoted creation of military-political blocks, cemented their unity. It helped the leading power of conservative camp to force other participants to reconcile to a role of younger partners, to unequal situation; to subordinate the foreign policy to interests of the leader; to go to larger expense, than it seemed to them expedient, on transfer of their armed forces under foreign command and on participation in the military operations which are directly not connected with protection of their state interests; to carry out even in the country the measures pleasing to the power predominant force; at last, sometimes just to remain within this union contrary to own benefits. The latest Catholic authors who were up in arms against Philip II’s “denigration” what, in their opinion, liberal historians of the last century were inclined to, emphasize that they were peculiar to the king the high call of duty improved by religion, aspiration to strict even if also impartial, to departure of laws and justice. These authors only seldom notice that monarchical “call of duty” included belief in the right of the king secretly to carry out any illegal and perfidious actions, giving to them the report only to god (or, more precisely, to court confessors, always ready to justify any acts of Philipp). Philip II was the embodiment of what the subsequent generations christened bureaucratic board. From morning to the night he sat in the office, trying “to operate the world behind a desk”, looking through a set of papers including unimportant, filling them with long remarks and morals on fields and even pedantically correcting spelling errors. Here, behind a desk, he weaved an infinite web of administrative instructions, military orders and foreign policy intrigues which had to braid all the known then countries of the Old and New World. Personal attachments and affairs seldom tore off the king from the paper sea absorbing him. He, however, four times was married, but always went to the altar only based on especially dynastic and diplomatic. In 27 years he married the English queen Maria Tudor who was 11 years more senior than it. When she died, he was 32 years old, and the 14-year-old bride was elected this time. All life of Philip II was subordinated to bureaucratic virtues which in his representation merged with a religious debt. Gradually it got a habit daily for three-four hours, being kneeling, to uplift prayers to the Lord. Direct result became only the gout tormenting it is a lot of years to the death. In January, 1568 the king accompanied by the armed guards appeared in rooms of the son and successor Don Carlos. The woken-up prince in fear asked the father whether that is going to kill him. Philipp with the usual cold coolness ordered to withdraw papers of the prince and to keep him under arrest. It was the last appointment of the father to the son who was placed in prison of the lock Alkasar. While Philip II discussed with the closest advisers destiny Don of Carlos, on July 25 it became known of death of the prince. Circumstances under which he died were and remain unknown. Most likely, the prince who found strong symptoms of a mental disorder, was considered as Philipp incapable to occupy a throne. However rumors spread at once that the prince is executed and besides for love to the stepmother Elizabeth Valois or even for participation in “Protestant plot”. The rumor attributed Don to Carlos plans of escape to the Netherlands still earlier (and however, and to Italy). Obviously, Don Carlos not really hid the intentions, and one it turned them into whims of not quite normal person rather, than into the considered actions of the conspirator. Subsequently rumors about plot of the crown prince generated a legend of Don Carlos which was immortalized by F. Schiller in the well-known tragedy. And in the drama Ver-harna “Philip II” (1901) in which is narrated about these plans of flight of Don Carlos the prince exclaims to the ruthless father:
Night king, artful observer,
Gloomy and violent king,
king Molchanya, rage and anger.
To all Philip II made mistrust a principle of the board. Became objects of his suspiciousness even the duke Alba and Alexander Farneze, the duke Parmsky whose fidelity was checked many times in the most difficult circumstances. This mistrust was perniciously reflected in business management more than once: without deciding to displace this or that of the deputies or commanders, Philipp at the same time consciously deprived of them necessary resources and powers for successful performance of the task set for them. Thus he really tried to obtain strengthening of the power, that the crown did not become the tool in hands of various aristocratic groups or court cliques. But it did not help achievement of the objectives with numerous wars and other foreign policy enterprises of the Spanish king in any way. “The main line of the empire of Philip II — the famous French historian F wrote. Brodel — it is unconditional, its Spanish is, it is possible even to tell, Castilian character”. In it it differed from the power of his father Charles V markedly. In 1546 Protestant lampoons in Germany declared the emperor who was born in the Netherlands and his possible successor — Philipp: “Vallonets, and in addition and the Spaniard should not operate us”. In these conditions the conservative camp had to appeal to national prejudices and hostility. During the periods of the maximum tension of the century conflict became impossible to do without more or less broad involvement of masses in it. Heads of conservative camp, however, could promise on the substance of nothing to masses, except hope for military trophies for those who got to ranks of the battling armies. The device of ideological coercion especially tensely had to operate, promising an award in the sky, playing on backwardness and superstitions, kindling hatred to strangers or taking a way of social demagogy when participation in the conflict led to a civil war. The ideology of Counter-Reformation emphasized a primacy of interests of belief over interests of the state which had to be brought not out of the analysis of reality, and out of doctrines of religion and universal precepts of law based on it. In Europe the system of the national states, the majority of which conscious or unconsciously gravitated to observance of the principle of the balance of forces known already antichnosti9 and again acquired in Renaissance, was approved. Meanwhile the course of the century conflict more and more clearly reflected plans of the leading power of Catholic camp for creation of the universal monarchy. The tendency to a bipolarity amplified though in Protestant camp and there was no leading state around which Reformation forces would be consolidated. At the same time the possibility of an exit from the century conflict was created just by relative balance of forces, this military bipolarity otkoyvat a way to political multipolarity. The orientation of the century conflict could be contrary not only to the state interests of those countries which were involved in it (sometimes contrary to their political priorities). Participation in the conflict against Protestantism on side of Spain and the German emperor obviously contradicted national interests of France. Therefore, remaining Catholic, France actually opposed the main forces of Catholic Counter-Reformation as in the first half of the 16th century (at Francis I and Henry II), and in the first half of the 17th century (about it further). The situation changed only in the last third of the 16th century — during long civil wars when the Catholic party in France considered participation in the century conflict as means to win a victory within the country. Full coincidence of interests of conservative camp in general and any of the countries entering it never was even if to understand the state interests as they were imagined by the governments of these countries. Besides on this matter there was no unanimity and in ruling circles. So, if Philip II quite identified interests of Spain with dynastic aspirations of the Spanish branch Gabsburgov, then even among his confidants there were people doubting the benefits connected with participation in the century conflict, and giving themselves — at least partly — the report in those disasters which this participation brought to the country. And exactly thanks to existence of such moods even Philip II had to mask sometimes interests of a dynasty care of the state priorities in the true sense of the word. However to represent the main benefit achievement of the chimerical purpose of extermination of the opponent in the century conflict meant to the country simply to make empty the concept of the state interests. The king got used to identify problems of the Habsburg powers seeking for the European hegemony, and first of all Spain, with interests of Catholicism. But also he was ready to take extreme measures, to use large military forces only where great-power interests of Spain were really staked. Such division was inherent also in Vatican. The papacy acted as the inspirer of camp of Counter-Reformation. Pius V, sending auxiliary group to the aid of the French Catholics, gave an order to his commander count Santafiore: “Not to take none of Huguenots prisoner, and everyone, fallen into hands, immediately to destroy”. Pius V recommended to Philip II to suppress the Netherlands revolt by force of arms, approved bloody measures of Alba and sent it the consecrated hat and a sword. During wave of terror in the Netherlands the papal Nuncio declared that it “is absolutely happy with” actions of the Spanish authorities”. In 70th and 80th the father Grigory XIII did not hide that the general attack on heretical England sets as the purpose, and conducted on it negotiations with Philip II and Gizami. In 1590 the father Grigory of XIV excommunicated “prelates, noblemen and people of the third estate who persist in remaining faithful to the heretic”. It happened even that for the Spanish diplomacy operating “spirit of Counter-Reformation”, but pursuing own aims was created by considerable difficulties straightforwardness and blind hatred to heretics who were approved in Vatican when the politician was replaced by the narrow-minded fanatic like Pius V. This high priest, the 73-year-old severe ascetic, the Dominican monk, the inquisitor and professor of theology, was known for the hatred to heretics and heretical compositions. The Spanish ambassador reported to Madrid that “the church had no best head for the last 300 years”. Having occupied the Roman throne, he sent for life the oarsman to galleys of the treasurer of the Holy See dipping a hand into a papal treasury. Having dealt shortly with a number of the highest dignitaries, Pius V set in Rome the terror mode against all suspects of tendency to derogation from true belief. Having declared the central task fight against Muslims and Protestants, Pius V found heresy signs among the Roman priestesses of free love under the guise of whom secret Calvinists allegedly disappeared. The choice between exile and taking the veil was offered the numerous representatives of “the most ancient profession” who were quite often settling down literally at doors of the papal palace. However “the ancient profession” had influential defenders. Deputation from 40 prominent residents explained to the high priest what his order can seriously damage to the Roman trade and, therefore, apostolic finance. As intercessors also ambassadors of Spain, Portugal and Florence acted. The father had to recede before it, a little unexpected, manifestation of unity of forces of Counter-Reformation. Drastic measures had to correct, according to Pius V, customs of the Roman clergy and all inhabitants of “the eternal city”. The father constantly protected the flock and from other temptations, for example from secular music and poetry, and was even up in arms against the tempting antique statues, he ordered to send some of them as a gift to friendly monarchs. In 1570 Pius V excommunicated Elizabeth I that was very inappropriate action, from the point of view of Philip II. It within almost all first decade of government of the queen, as a matter of fact, blocked plans which were directed to her violent overthrow and a celebration of Counter-Reformation in England. In 1561 Philipp achieved refusal of Rome of intention to excommunicate Elizaveta in connection with her refusal to accept the Nuncio — the ambassador of the Roman throne. In two years (in 1563) Philipp took measures that discussion of a question of Elizabeth’s excommunication on the Tridentsky cathedral also terminated without results. Even in 1570 when Pius V at last nevertheless separated Elizabeth, the king expressed a protest to the Roman high priest and wrote Elizabeth that else any of actions of the father did not cause in it, Philipp, such displeasure. The reason was obvious: the celebration of Catholic Counter-Reformation would bring in England on a throne the Scottish queen Maria Stewart whom Elizabeth kept in the conclusion, and Maria Stewart was a relative Gizov — at that time not connected with Madrid yet — and the French royal house of Valois. In England could benefit from a Counter-Reformation victory as then it seemed to Philipp, not Spain, and France. During the seventies Philip II resolutely rejected numerous proposals of the father Grigory XIII to try to return by force England to Catholicism bosom in spite of the fact that the English pirates broke communications of Spain with its overseas colonies and Elizaveta gave help to the Netherlands. At the same time the Spanish plans of transformation of Counter-Reformation into the tool of creation of the universal monarchy the farther, the more encountered the hidden or open counteraction of the Roman throne. Philip II’s government began with the announcement to it wars by the father Pavel IV and ended when Kliment of IX began to give support to the king’s enemies in France. Grigory of XIII tried to prevent capture by Philip II of Portugal, and Sikst of V refused to render assistance to plans of Spain in the Netherlands. Philipp wrote the entrusted adviser and the minister cardinal Granvelle: “To me it is clear that if someone ruled the Netherlands another, the father would make miracles to prevent their loss for church. But as it is my possession, I believe that he is going to see them lost as they will be thereby lost also for me”. Madrid, in turn, did not allow expansion of the power of Rome over the Spanish church. “In Spain there is no father” — the chairman of Royal council Cristobal Suárez de Figueroa declared
Chernyak E. B. Century conflicts
Leave a Reply