Some Thoughts on "Confessionalization"

by Geoff Eley, Department of History, University of Michigan

I was asked by the H-German Editors to contribute a modernist's
perspective on the "confessionalization" thesis, and I'd like to follow
through rather belatedly by offering some general thoughts on the
relationship between modern and early modern history.  As should be
clear, I'm both axiomatically in favor of "bridging the early
modern/modern divide" yet somewhat skeptical about what seem to be the
observable possibilities at present.

As a matter of principle, the goal of bridging the divide seems
self-evidently a good thing.  I can even claim to have practiced this in
my own scholarly work, albeit in relation to British history rather than
in the German field per se.[1]  Trying to find more effective ways of
integrating modernists and early modernists together has been a
recurring theme from the start of my time as a German historian, whether
I think of the early conversations that formed German historians in
Britain into an intellectual community during the 1970s or the more
recent initiatives I've been involved in at Michigan.  This was basic to
how the German History Society in Britain was conceived and launched in
1978-79, for example, and the same spirit continues to move that
Society's conferences and the editorial policy of its journal, _German
History_.  When I helped edit a programmatic "German issue" of _Social
History_ in May 1979 (Vol. 4, No. 2), it went without saying that the
earlier periods needed to be included.  The same has also been true more
recently.  When Kathleen Canning and I organized the first annual
Midwest German History Workshop in 1997, it was obvious that modernists
and early modernists both belonged.  The same applies to how most of us
think about graduate training.  From a modernist's point of view, depth
of grounding in the literatures and problems of the earlier periods
belongs fundamentally to one's knowledge of the field.

But a genuinely integral conversation across the divide isn't easy to
achieve.  Over the years my own interest has been pulled back into the
early modern era in a number of related ways.  During the 1960s, for
example, much of the defining energy for the great social history wave
came from a series of grand debates, concerning the general crisis of
the seventeenth century, the nature of revolutions, the connection
between popular revolts and early modern state formation, the rise of
absolutism, and so forth.  As that impetus carried over into the 1970s,
the intellectual excitement continued to center around the different
attempts to capture the dynamics of the structural transition to the
modern world, from the Brenner debate and the grand designs of Perry
Anderson and Immanuel Wallerstein to the oeuvres of the Annales school,
the historical sociology of Charles Tilly and others, and the
neo-Braudelian vision of individuals like Keith Thomas and Peter Burke.
As the spirit of innovation began edging the discipline towards the
"cultural turn" by the early 1980s, early modern historiography kept
this leading influence through historians like Carlo Ginzburg and
Natalie Zemon Davis.  At this general historiographical level--where the
innovation was sharpest and the big debates were occurring,
interpretively, theoretically, and methodologically--modern Europeanists
had excellent reasons for taking an interest in what was happening among
early modernists.  In European history overall, some of the most
important scholarly developments were to be found there.

One's choice of individuals in the German field to exemplify this
convergence of historiographical innovation in the early modern area
will certainly vary, but the following would probably make it onto many
people's lists.  Bob Scribner, for example, emerged during the 1970s as
the leading pioneer of the social history of the urban Reformation,
before moving during the 1980s toward a self-consciously Bakhtinian
approach to the study of the Reformation's popular culture.  To
Scribner's impact might then be added the work of Lyndal Roper, who has
helped transform the social and cultural history of the Reformation in
gendered terms.  Building from his foundational studies of the Peasants'
War, similarly, Peter Blickle proposed a challenging reinterpretation of
popular agency in the social and political history of early modern
Germany, in the process radically revising our views of the nature of
political association and local government in advance of the growth of
parliamentary constitutionalism in the nineteenth-century sense.  By
adapting a concept of protoindustrialization, just to take a different
area of research, Hans Medick and his collaborators helped rethink the
social histories of industrialization, while simultaneously opening a
space in the early modern field for the first initiatives of
_Alltagsgeschichte_.  David Sabean's studies of family and property
relations in Neckarhausen have bearing on each of the areas already
mentioned, including the gendered histories of everyday life, and his
_Power in the Blood:  Popular Culture and Village Discourse in Early
Modern Germany_ achieved especially wide resonance in this regard.[2]

I mention each of these early modern works because they were certainly
read by *modern* Germanists as well and indeed to a great extent by
modern Europeanists more generally.  This was only partly, or unevenly,
because their arguments connected substantively to longer-run
interpretations extending down to the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries.  Blickle's work had most direct pertinence in that regard,
perhaps, particularly in his important _Obedient Germans?  A Rebuttal_,
which was formulated explicitly as a riposte to an important aspect of
the _Sonderweg_ thesis.  Along a quite different axis, the work of
Medick, Schlumbohm, and Kriedte also entered directly into modernists'
discussions.  But the main impact of the works mentioned above took a
more abstract and less tangible form.  They provided instances of
exciting and experimental analysis, first as social and then as new
cultural history, which encouraged us to see the comparabilities and
similarities across the early modern/modern divide, notably in relation
to available techniques and forms of analysis, and particularly with
respect to popular culture, popular practices, and popular political
agency.  They provided texts to think with.  They were a trigger, an
encouragement to question, an incitement to thought.

My question is:  can we make a similar kind of claim about the
"confessionalization paradigm"?  Are there any features of this approach
that seem suggestive or inspiring for modern Germanists working on the
nineteenth or twentieth centuries, whether in methodological or
theoretical terms, or as a body of grand-scale interpretation?  Is it
interesting or helpful as a strategy for thinking about the
interrelations among religious practice and belief, institutional
development, and the stabilizing of collective identities on the one
hand and larger social and cultural histories and the bases of politics
on the other hand?  Does it suggest or entail important logics of
development for the subsequent course of German history, whether in
relation to the developmental dynamics of state formation, to the growth
of civil society and the shaping of political culture, or to the
broadscale patterns of social identification and the future bases of
societal cohesion?  Does it deliver plausible analytical frameworks for
understanding the course of German history during the nineteenth
century? Does it allow us to construct the category of "the modern" any
differently as it emerges from the epoch of the Enlightenment and the
French Revolution?

My answer to each of these questions, regretfully, has to be "no."
Apart from Anselm Schubert, who toward the end of his comments very
appositely poses the question of "modernity" as such, the commentators
have little to say about the meanings of "the modern" this side of the
French Revolution.  There seems little interest in making connections
either with the flourishing historiography of religion accumulating
around the mid-nineteenth-century religious revivals, popular piety, the
_Kulturkampf_, and other aspects of religiosity in the nineteenth
century, or with the problematic of modernity as "modern" historians
themselves tend to know it.  Thus David Mayes and Marc Forster quite
properly concentrate their commentaries on the sixteenth, seventeenth,
and eighteenth centuries per se.  In their book Ehrenpreis and
Lotz-Heumann likewise confine their treatment of periodization to a
highly classical notation of the Reformation as the crucible of modern
times ("Die Reformation als Epochengrenze zwischen Mittelalter und
Neuzeit," pp. 17-25), abstaining from any more expansive discussion of
how modernity might be thought or periodized.  This is all the more
striking because for Schilling and Reinhard the confessionalization
thesis had been *precisely* motivated by a particular understanding of
"modernization" that stretched forward into the nineteenth century, one
that identified modernity entirely straightforwardly with the projected
ideal of a secularized and democratic industrial society.  As Schilling
expressed this in one typical statement:  it was confessionalization
"that brought Europe to the point of being able to overcome the
'traditional' and 'feudal' system of society and break through to the
modern society of citizens and economy."[3]

Two decades later, modernization theory no longer looks quite as
appealing as a way of organizing our understanding of the major
developmental transitions occurring between the sixteenth and nineteenth
centuries, whether we focus on state formation, on the conditions for
industrialization, on the growth of civil society, associational life,
and the public sphere, on gender relations, household organization,
sexualities, and life within families, on forms of individuality and
subjectivity, or on any of the other big questions, including
secularization per se.  The functionalist and excessively institutional
aspects of the confessionalization thesis have been more than adequately
criticized from this point of view, as has its relative indifference to
the intellectual and cultural history of religious practices and
beliefs.  So one way of re-engaging the larger questions of "transition"
and "modernity" of interest to modernists and early modernists alike
would be to pursue more concretely focused social and cultural histories
of religion in particular communities and regions, which also seek to
reach *across* the epochal caesura of Enlightenment and French
Revolution.  As Marc Forster suspects (in the conclusion to his
thoughts), that might well pull discussion toward localized and
micro-historical sites of study, which don't always lend themselves to
addressing the more institutional and grander ideological questions of
state formation and social development.  But there are some obvious ways
of enabling the latter too, which simultaneously look forward into the
modern era proper.  Ehrenpreis and Lotz-Heumann gesture in those
directions at the very end of their book (pp. 114-18), citing the
importance of the new cultural history, Habermasian conceptions of the
public sphere, and new scholarship on emergent ideas of individuality.
But it is surprising in this respect, perhaps, that Gerhard Oestreich's
theory of _Sozialdisziplinerung_ hasn't figured more prominently in
their discussion, not least because of its latter-day post-Foucauldian
resonances, the importance of the concept of _Polizei_ for
eighteenth-century governmentality, and the later deployment of the
concept of "social discipline" by Detlev Peukert and others working on
the later nineteenth and twentieth centuries.[4]  From a more
"society-centered" starting point, Ian McNeely's work on the growth of
civil society suggests another way in which the divide might be
crossed.[5]  Again, there seems a striking disconnect between the
powerful explanatory implications lodged in the confessionalization
paradigm in relation to the production of modernity and the actual
silence of the current discussion about the precise dynamics through
which "the modern" in its usual nineteenth-century senses came to emerge.

I have three final observations.  The first concerns a potential and
largely unexplicated subtext lurking inside the "confessionalization"
thesis in relation to the _Sonderweg_.  Arguments about German religious
history were never particularly salient for the heyday of the
_Sonderweg_ thesis, but such intimations of exceptionalism clearly
enjoyed much deeper provenance in thinking about the German Reformation
and the longer-term historical legacies of religious conflict,
particularly with respect to the lasting effects of the culminating
violence of the Thirty Years War.  Here the lines of interpretive
affiliation are quite complex.  _Sonderweg_ historians certainly
emphasized the complicating effects of confessional divisiveness for
Germany's future ability to develop a well-integrated society of
citizens during the national unification of the nineteenth century,
whether in relation to the _Kulturkampf_, the longer-run revival of
religious adversarialism during the mid-nineteenth century, or the
consequences of deeply entrenched patterns of social segmentation along
confessional lines.  Rather than projecting and tracing these
*dysfunctional* consequences, on the other hand, historians of
confessionalization saw precisely their *functionality* for the
superordinate processes of early modern state formation.  The logic of
"confessionalization" concentrated attention in that respect on the
forms of equivalence extending *across* the respective religious
distinctions.

So in the "confessionalization" literature itself, including the book by
Ehrenpreis and Lotz-Heumann, the longer-term implications for German
social and political development are simply not drawn out.  Yet at the
same time, one important strand of _Sonderweg_ historiography has
certainly fastened on the intractable continuity of confessional
divisiveness as one of the central factors in the production of German
exceptionalism.  Here the main influence runs less from Hans-Ulrich
Wehler and other social science historians, who remained notoriously
uninterested in the history of religion, than from M. Rainer Lepsius and
his "milieu" thesis, which develops its nineteenth-century argument
partly around the deep-structural materials of religious division.[6]
The early modern genealogies of this argumentation would repay some
discussion.  For example, in his less guarded moments Thomas Nipperdey
sometimes implied that the German Reformation entailed powerful logics
and potentials of development amounting to a socio-cultural
(civilizational?) special path, certainly when Germany was compared with
Russia and other parts of the Orthodox (or Slavic?) East, which had
failed to experience the modernity-bequeathing possibilities of
religious reform and intellectual emancipation.  Yet in Nipperdey's
writings there's little developed sign of such an explicit standpoint,
as opposed to the more contingent analyses he developed of the different
periods of the later nineteenth century.[7]  In this respect as in
others, the _Sonderweg_ becomes revealed as far less of a historical
than a *historiographical* syndrome, in which claims and assumptions
about German history could be made without ever submitting them to the
necessary comparative analysis.

The parochialism of the "confessionalization" thesis, its effective
removal from the cognate historiographies of early modern European
religion, is a serious problem in that regard.  This is my second
concluding observation.  Ehrenpreis and Lotz-Heumann do include a brief
discussion of the English Reformation (pp. 99-111), it's true, but this
is remarkably narrowly focused on a particular set of controversies
concerning the Henrician and Elizabethan changes rather than being alive
to the extraordinarily ramified social, cultural and intellectual
histories of religion that have always been so fundamental to discussion
of the English Revolution and the larger political histories of the
seventeenth century.  Ironically (and slightly bizarrely) enough,
moreover, Ehrenpreis and Lotz-Heumann actually begin their treatment of
the English case by emphasizing its historiographical standing "als ein
insularer Sonderfall,"  to which concepts developed to illuminate
religious change on the continent, like the "urban Reformation" and
"confessionalization,"  are taken not to apply, whereas precisely the
*German* discussion's isolation from, and apparent indifference towards,
the recent histories of religion in, say, the French, Dutch, Italian,
and other regional contexts is what seems most striking to an outsider.
The valuable work done by the "confessionalization" paradigm in enabling
early modern historians of Christianity *in Germany* "to break out of
the traditional confessional historiographies, while also allowing them
to claim a place, along with political and social historians, in the
study of modernization,"  is rightly affirmed by Marc Forster.  But the
neglect of the very different approaches that have proved so inspiring
for the study of early modern religion elsewhere, as exemplified for
instance in the influence of Natalie Zemon Davis, now seems fairly
glaring.[8]

Finally (lest I seem to be voicing only a modernist's complaint), this
actually reigning indifference to crossing the early modern/modern
divide definitely cuts both ways.  If German early modernist advocates
of the "confessionalization" thesis seem strikingly uninterested in the
longer-term questions of the course of German history, their modernist
colleagues seem comparably indifferent to the earlier periods and the
deeper-historical contexts of longer-run change.  For example, none of
the major works responsible for enlivening the study of
nineteenth-century religion display any interest for the pre-Napoleonic
and pre-French Revolutionary contexts of their subjects.  None of the
major general histories of the nineteenth century published during the
past two decades (Wehler, Nipperdey, Sheehan, Blackbourn) even so much
as mention that earlier context of history and historiography.  Neither
Jonathan Sperber's pioneering account of popular Catholicism nor David
Blackbourn's magnificent _Marpingen_ explores or outlines those earlier
contexts.  The general interpretative surveys of the emergence of German
nationalism--Hagen Schulze's _The Course of German Nationalism:  From
Frederick the Great to Bismarck 1763-1867_ (Cambridge, 1991) or John
Breuilly's _Austria, Prussia and Germany 1806-1871 (London, 2002), or
Stefan Berger's _Inventing the Nation:  Germany_ (London, 2004)--remain
entirely silent on the subject of confessional divisions.  One of the
widest-ranging and most substantial of recent historiographical
reflections on the modern German past, _Shattered Past:  Reconstructing
German Histories_ (Princeton, 2003) by Konrad Jarausch and Michael
Geyer, has absolutely nothing to say about these deeper facts of
confessional social and cultural identification.  In fact, we may scour
the indexes of any of these works in vain looking for some imprint of
either the "confessionalization" thesis or a different argument about
the centrality of religious divisions.[9]

There is something really fascinating going on here.  Despite our formal
acceptance of the importance of trying to integrate early modern and
modern German histories together--whether that commitment is pious or
formulaic, rhetorical or actualized--it seems uncommonly hard to find
much evidence of this practically occurring.  Even the most ambitious
and imposing of the major works of the past decade that set out
deliberately to span the early modern and modern eras, with the aim of
building a longer-run argument, either about the longer course of German
history or about transition to modernity--Isabel Hull's _Sexuality,
State, and Civil Society_, William Hagen's _Ordinary Prussians_, or Ian
McNeely's _Emancipation of Writing_, for example--treat religion
completely incidentally.[10]  "Confessionalization" and its consequences
seem to be nowhere on their radar screen.  Thus Hull might begin her
book with a substantial chapter on "The Church, Traditional Society, and
the Regulation of Sex" (pp. 9-52), but during the subsequent 400 pages
religion, religiosity, and the churches drop entirely out of the picture
(with "confessionalization" per se receiving no mention).  Neither
Hagen's remarkable micro-history of the _longue durée_ of negotiation
between Junkers and villagers in Brandenburg nor McNeely's history of
the crystallizing of civil society in Wuerttemberg have any apparent
place for either religion or the processes of confessionalization and
their effects.  Given this blaring silence, is it really the case that
"early modern" Germany functions as "the modernist's other" in the sense
intended by the H-German Editors in their call to this Forum, certainly
with respect to any centrality of "confessionalization"?

What this situation highlights, I would rather argue, is the current
functioning of the French Revolutionary era as the dangerous and
forbidding historiographical borderland which no one particularly wishes
to explore or cross.  "In the beginning was Napoleon,"  Nipperdey
famously declared at the outset of his first volume on the nineteenth
century, and since the latter was originally published in 1983 it has
become harder and harder for either modernists or early modernists to
build a confident understanding of the importance of the French
Revolution into their larger interpretive schemes.[11]  *This*, rather
than some broader contrast between "early modern" *versus* "modern"
locations has become the operative big divide which nobody wants to
address.  As argued above, the consequences of this disjunction run in
both directions--the early modernists seem uninterested in calling the
modernists to account, and the modernists seem indifferent to situating
their arguments about religion in the nineteenth century in any earlier
context of developmental history between the Reformation and the French
Revolution.  These days Enlightenment and French Revolution function
incredibly powerfully as that kind of obstacle or uncrossable breach.
Even the influence of Reinhart Koselleck's works (themselves not
especially interested in religion in the terms discussed above) has
somewhat receded from this particular point of view.[12]  Of course,
major work continues to be produced on the French Revolutionary and
Napoleonic periods of German history as such, but on the whole such
scholarship situates itself firmly inside that conjuncture itself rather
than venturing the longer-run arguments I'm calling for here.[13]  This
silence remains a massive impediment to any sensible discussion, for
without an attempt either to conceptualize the importance of the
ruptures involved in the "age of revolution" or to think
historiographically across them, in my view we'll get no further in
bridging that persistent early modern/modern divide.




Notes:

[1] See Geoff Eley and William A. Hunt, eds., _Reviving the English
Revolution.  Reflections and Elaborations on the Work of Christopher
Hill_  (London:  Verso, 1988);  Geoff Eley, "John Edward Christopher
Hill (1912-2003),"  _History Workshop Journal_ 56 (2003), pp. 287-94.

[2] See R. W. Scribner, "Civic Unity and the Reformation in Erfurt,"
_Past & Present_ 66 (1975), pp. 29-60; "Reformation, Carnival, and the
World Turned Upside-Down,"  _Social History_  3 (1978), pp. 281-329;
_For the Sake of Simple Folk:  Popular Propaganda for the German
Reformation_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981); _Popular
Culture and Popular Movements in Reformation Germany_ (London: Hambledon
Press, 1987).  For Lyndal Roper:  _The Holy Household:  Women and Morals
in Reformation Augsburg_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989); "'The
Common Man,'  'The Common Good,'  'Common Women.'  Reflections on Gender
and Meaning in the Reformation German Commune,"  _Social History_ 12
(1987), pp.1-21;  _Oedipus and the Devil: Witchcraft, Sexuality and
Religion in Early Modern Europe_ (London: Routledge, 1994);  _Witch
Craze : Terror and Fantasy in Baroque Germany (London and New Haven:
Yale University Press, 2004).  For Peter Blickle:  _The Revolution of
1525:  The German Peasants' War from a New Perspective_ (Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981);  _Communal Reformation:  The
People's Quest for Salvation in Sixteenth-Century Germany_ (Atlantic
Highlands: Humanities Press International, 1992);  "Peasant Revolts in
the German Empire in the Late Middle Ages,"  _Social History_ 4 (1979),
pp. 223-40;  _Obedient Germans? A Rebuttal. A New View of German
History_ (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1997).  Also:
Peter Kriedte, Hans Medick, and Juergen Schlumbohm, _Industrialization
Before Industrialization.  Rural Industry in the Genesis of Capitalism_
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981); David Sabean, _Power in
the Blood:  Popular Culture and Village Discourse in Early Modern
Germany_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984).

[3] Heinz Schilling, ed., _Die reformierte Konfessionalisierung in
Deutschland - Das Problem der "Zweiten Reformation"_(Guetersloh:
Guetersloher Verlagshaus, 1986), p. 4, cited by Schubert.

[4] See Gerhard Oestreich, "Strukturprobleme des europaeischen
Absolutismus,"  _Vierteljahrschrift fuer Sozial- und
Wirtschaftsgeschichte_ 55 (1968), pp. 319-47, and _Neostoicism and the
Modern State_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982).

[5] Ian F. McNeely, _The Emancipation of Writing:  German Civil Society
in the Making, 1790s-1820s_ (Berkeley: University of California Press,
2003).

[6] See especially M. Rainer Lepsius, "Parteiensystem und
Sozialstruktur:  Zum Problem der Demokratisierung der deutschen
Gesellschaft," in Gerhard A. Ritter, ed., _Deutsche Parteien vor 1918_
(Cologne: Kiepenheuer und Witsch, 1990), pp. 56-80.  For deployment of
the "milieu" thesis in the later nineteenth century, see Olaf Blaschke
and Frank-Michael Kuhlemann, eds., _Religion im Kaiserreich_
(Guetersloh: Guetersloher Verlagshaus, 1996);  Olaf Blaschke, "Das 19.
Jahrhundert:  Ein Zweites Konfessionelles Zeitalter?"  _Geschichte und
Gesellschaft_ 26 (2000), pp. 38-75.  In the 676-page initial volume of
his _Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte_, Wehler buries a mere 12 pages on
"The Christian Churches" in a 63-page chapter on "Soziopolitische
Strukturbedingungen und Entwicklungsprozesse der Kultur."  See
Hans-Ulrich Wehler, _Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte.  Erster Band:
Vom Feudalismus des Alten Reiches bis zur Defensiven Modernisierung der
Reformaera 1700-1815_ (Munich: Beck, 1987), pp. 269-81.  In the later
volumes, things don't improve.

[7] See the chapter on "Religion, Church, De-Christianization," in
Thomas Nipperdey, _Germany from Napoleon to Bismarck 1800-1866_
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), 356-98, which betrays no
sign of these larger arguments.  Also Thomas Nipperdey, Religion im
Umbruch.  Deutschland 1870-1918 (Munich, Beck, 1988).

[8] See _Society and Culture in Early Modern France:  Eight Essays_
(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1975), and her two essays:  "Some
Tasks and Themes in the Study of Popular Religion,"  in Charles Trinkaus
and Heiko A. Oberman, eds., _The Pursuit of Holiness in Late Medieval
and Renaissance Religion_ (Leiden: Brill, 1974), pp. 307-36;  "From
'Popular Religion' to Religious Cultures,"  in Steven Ozment, ed.,
_Reformation Europe:  A Guide to Research_ (St. Louis: Center for
Reformation Research, 1982), pp. 321-41.  For a very early "state of the
art" critical survey of work in the German field, which ambitiously
embraces historiographical influences across national fields as well as
bridging the periods, see Richard J. Evans, "Religion and Society in
Modern Germany,"  in Evans, _Rethinking German History:
Nineteenth-Century Germany and the Origins of the Third Reich_ (London:
Allen and Unwin, 1987), pp.125-55.  While written from inside the
"social history moment" of the 1970s and early 1980s, i.e. before the
impact of the "new cultural history," this essay is still the best
introduction to the broad subject.

[9] See also Helmut Walser Smith, ed., _Protestants, Catholics, and Jews
in Germany, 1800-1914_ (Oxford: Berg, 2001).  Although Smith and Chris
Clark discuss the "confessionalization" thesis briefly in their
Introduction, "The Fate of Nathan,"  pp. 8-9, this excellent volume
doesn't engage with the deeper histories of religion in the ways I'm
discussing.  On the other hand, see the vital treatment in Joel F.
Harrington and Helmut Walser Smith, "Confessionalization, Community, and
State Building in Germany, 1555-1870,"  _Journal of Modern History_ 69
(1997), pp. 77-101, which is quite exceptional in the ambition of its
willingness to bridge the divide.  One monograph which likewise
undertakes the latter is Etienne Francois, _Die unsichtbare Grenze:
Protestanten und Katholiken in Augsburg, 1648-1806_ (Sigmaringen:
Thorbecke, 1991).

[10] Isabel V. Hull, _Sexuality, State, and Civil Society in Germany,
1700-1815_ (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996); William W. Hagen,
_Ordinary Prussians:  Brandenburg Junkers and Villagers, 1500-1840_
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002); McNeely, Emancipation of
Writing.

[11] Nipperdey, _Germany from Napoleon to Bismarck_, p. 1.

[12] See especially Reinhart Koselleck, _Critique and Crisis:
Enlightenment and the Parthogenesis of Modern Society_ (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1988;  orig. German pub. 1959); _Preussen
zwischen Reform und Revolution:  Allgemeines Landrecht, Verwaltung und
soziale Bewegung von 1791 bis 1848_ (Stuttgart: Klett, 1967);  _Futures
Past:  On the Semantics of Historical Time_ (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1985);  _The Practice of Conceptual History_
(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002).

[13] E.g. Michael Rowe, _From Reich to State:  The Rhineland in the
Revolutionary Age, 1780-1830_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2003), and the two collections:  Michael Rowe, ed., _Collaboration and
Resistance in Napoleonic Europe:  State Formation in an Age of Upheaval_
(New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003); David Laven and Lucy Riall, eds.,
_Napoleon's Legacy:  Problems of Government in Restoration Europe_
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).  Neither of these fine volumes
contain any discussion of religion per se.

Humanities & Social
Sciences Online

Copyright © 1995-2006 - Contact Us
RSS | Validate: XHTML | CSS