Confessionalization and Literature in the Empire, 1555–1700

Abstract

This article has a twofold aim: first, to explain the concept of confessionalization that has been developed in recent decades in German historiography as an interpretive tool for the period and to review the main lines of its critique, which raise important questions for the discussion of “confessionalization and literature”; and second, to explore the connections between confessionalization and literature as well as the applicability of the concept of confessionalization to the history of literature, a little-understood but increasingly important question for early modern cultural history. The understanding of the literature of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is greatly enhanced by the cooperation between literary scholars and historians. First, the literature of the age of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation was not yet an autonomous entity in society and therefore requires historical contextualization, particularly with regard to its social origins. Second, Germanists have extended the definition of early modern literature to include all kinds of Gebrauchsliteratur (functional literature), which are often important sources for historians. “Literature” and “confessionalization,” however, are difficult terms representing very complex phenomena. “Literature” is understood here as encompassing all printed works of the period, of which this article can of course only explore a sample; “confessionalization” denotes an interpretive concept, which has been criticized and modified in recent research. Given the exploratory purpose of this discussion, a good many questions will be raised for which we have no clear answers at the present time; we hope above all to further the exchange of ideas between literary scholars and historians working on the confessional age.

Nebulous Ottomans vs. Good Old Habsburgs: A Historiographical Comparison

“…Rather, they were enforced through "mechanisms of self-regulation and self-disciplining," because "society required regulation." 40 A thorough analysis shows that in the Thirty Years' War, a confessional conflict driven by religious fanaticism according to many scholars, the agency of militant groups who presented "a dispute about power and influence within the empire" as confessional strife was influential. 41 Thus, many case studies showed that what confessionalization literature originally portrayed as a linear, monolithic movement was in reality a multifaceted, complex phenomenon containing many contrasts and inconsistencies.…”