In the first issue of Studi Storici for 2023, Elena Bonora published the article Quale Controriforma? Roma e l'Europa multiconfessionale (What Counter-Reformation? Rome and Multiconfessional Europe), a historiographical essay examining recent international scholarship on early modern multiconfessionalism and its implications for the study of the Counter-Reformation. Drawing upon a substantial body of primarily Anglo-American and German scholarship, Bonora argues that the traditional paradigm of confessionalization has largely been superseded by a new understanding of early modern Europe as a fluid, multiconfessional space characterized by overlapping jurisdictions, negotiated coexistence, and shifting confessional boundaries.
The article offers a broad overview of recent historiographical trends. At the same time, however, it raises a number of methodological questions concerning the relationship between interpretative paradigms, the nature of archival evidence, and the extent to which local case studies may legitimately support broader historical generalizations.
Most of the studies discussed by Bonora derive from research focused on frontier regions, multiconfessional cities, enclaves, condominium jurisdictions, or areas characterized by particularly intricate institutional arrangements. These are exceptionally fertile contexts from a documentary perspective, since the coexistence of multiple civil and ecclesiastical authorities inevitably generated a much richer archival record than more confessionally homogeneous territories. Yet it is precisely this documentary abundance that should encourage particular methodological caution.
The issue is not the validity of the individual studies, which are generally rigorous and persuasive, but rather the transition from the description of exceptionally complex local situations to the redefinition of the confessional geography of early modern Europe as a whole. The fact that archival research over recent decades has increasingly concentrated on cases of religious pluralism does not necessarily imply that such cases were representative of early modern Europe in its entirety. There is a crucial methodological distinction between expanding our knowledge of previously neglected phenomena and demonstrating their actual historical centrality.
In this respect, the article occasionally appears to conflate two distinct levels of analysis: the evolution of historiography and the reconstruction of historical reality. The fact that historians now possess far more sophisticated studies of multiconfessional societies does not automatically demonstrate that multiconfessionalism constituted the predominant configuration of early modern Europe. More precisely, the renewal of historical inquiry risks becoming, almost imperceptibly, a redefinition of the historical object itself.
A related methodological issue concerns the article's recurrent use of highly assertive formulations implying that certain paradigms are no longer tenable—for example, that it is "no longer possible" to interpret historical change in the traditional way («non sia più possibile continuare a ricondurre il cambiamento generale...»), that "the confessionalization paradigm has indeed been superseded" («il superamento è invece realmente avvenuto»), or that recent scholarship is presented as having shown that "the theory of confessionalization is substantially inadequate in the face of the complexity disclosed by the historical sources" («ha mostrato come la teoria della confessionalizzazione sia sostanzialmente inadeguata di fronte alla complessità dischiusa dalle fonti storiche»). Such formulations are rhetorically effective, but they also carry considerable epistemological weight. They tend to blur an important distinction between two different processes: on the one hand, changes within historiographical debate, and on the other, historical demonstration itself. The emergence of new research agendas, the growing popularity of particular approaches, or even the widespread acceptance of a revised interpretation within the scholarly community do not necessarily constitute definitive historical proof. Rather, they reflect the evolving state of historiographical discussion. From a methodological standpoint, greater caution in distinguishing between shifts in scholarly consensus and conclusions demonstrably warranted by the available evidence would strengthen the argument. Historiography progresses through continuous revision rather than through the definitive replacement of one paradigm by another, and interpretative confidence should remain proportionate to the evidential basis on which it rests. This observation raises a further issue concerning the nature of the sources. Much of the documentation employed in the studies under discussion consists of judicial proceedings, jurisdictional disputes, ecclesiastical litigation, conflicts of competence, and institutional negotiations. By their very nature, such sources are produced in situations of tension, exceptionality, or conflict. They undoubtedly allow historians to reconstruct mechanisms of confessional coexistence with remarkable precision; yet precisely for this reason they may also offer a selective representation of historical reality, privileging those moments in which coexistence became contentious or required formal regulation. Archival documentation rarely records ordinary social life; it records its disruptions.
From this perspective, the study of new confessional topographies would benefit from a more explicit reflection on the representativeness of the documentary evidence itself. Source criticism should not be confined to questions of authenticity or reliability but should also address the reasons why certain records were produced and preserved, their geographical and social distribution, and the distortions that may arise from the uneven survival of documentation.
A further point concerns the article's treatment of the confessionalization paradigm. Bonora presents a rather sharp contrast between an older historiography based upon rigid confessional boundaries and a newer perspective centred on fluid religious identities. Yet the current international debate appears considerably more nuanced. Many historians have not simply abandoned the confessionalization paradigm but have progressively restricted its scope, differentiating it chronologically and regionally while preserving some of its explanatory value. There is therefore a risk of replacing one overarching interpretative model with another, in which the concept of a "multiconfessional Europe" acquires a paradigmatic function no less comprehensive than that formerly attributed to confessionalization.
Finally, the emphasis placed upon practices of negotiation, coexistence, and accommodation inevitably tends to relegate to the background the normative force of confessional identities, the doctrinal dimension of religious conflict, and the role of ecclesiological constructions. If recent scholarship has rightly demonstrated that confessional identities were often more permeable than previously assumed, this does not necessarily imply that historical actors themselves regarded those identities as secondary or readily negotiable. The distinction between social practice and confessional self-understanding deserves further consideration.
Overall, the article illustrates a broader tendency within current historiography on early modern Europe. For this very reason, it also highlights the need for continued methodological caution. Historians should remain alert to the possibility that the richness of exceptional cases, the availability of particularly eloquent documentary evidence, and the growing influence of new interpretative paradigms may, however unintentionally, encourage generalizations that extend beyond what the surviving sources actually warrant. The study of multiconfessional Europe is likely to prove most convincing not when it simply replaces one interpretative framework with another, but when it maintains a continuous dialogue between historical interpretation and rigorous source criticism.
(Daniele Santarelli)
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento