:Konfessionskonflikt und Herrschafts‐ordnung: Widerstandsrecht bei den osterreichischen Standen (1550–1650).(Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte Mainz, number 201; Beiträge zur Sozial‐ und Verfassungsgeschichte des alten Reiches, number 16.)

Abstract

This substantial and thorough volume is an important milestone in the history of the Habsburg monarchy in early modern times. Although scholarly interest in the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Habsburg commonwealth has increased dramatically over the past two decades, leading to some remarkable reassessments of the period, and although a considerable literature has appeared on the subject in numerous languages, there is little doubt that Arno Strohmeyer's book will establish itself as one of the new pillars of the field. The book is devoted to an analysis of the theory and practice of noble resistance to a royal absolutist agenda increasingly perceived as tyrannical in the Habsburg provinces of Upper and Lower Austria, and the author casts a wide and sophisticated analytical net. Strohmeyer begins with a careful analysis of the kinds of arguments used by the noble estates of the two provinces to legitimate their rights of resistance to the crown. Placing these arguments in their context and reconstructing how they were understood in their time, he uncovers seven broad notions on which these estates tended to base their case. The first and most important argument was the assertion of contractual obligations inherent in the feudal relationship between ruler and nobility. Loyalty and obedience were in this view contingent on the sovereign's respect of noble rights and privileges. This argument, in turn, tended to rely less on written contracts than on the assertion of precedent and an emphasis on custom and tradition. A third line of reasoning gave a constitutional twist to the notion of the “common good” by interpreting it as the right to have a voice in the decision-making process. Similarly, the view of society as a kind of patriarchal family conferred a right of resistance should reciprocal rights and privileges be disregarded by the father. The metaphor of the body added a further dimension to the notion that the head and body had to act in concert, but was used less frequently. The argument of self-defense tended to be employed only when the conflict acquired a military dimension. Ironically, least emphasis was placed on the notion of freedom of conscience, and theological arguments consequently played a decidedly secondary role. Finally, virtually no effort was made to have recourse to arguments drawn from Roman law. Thus, though the battle was in fact about religion, it was not fought with religious arguments. “The nobles,” Strohmeyer concludes, “preferred to go to the archives rather than reach for the Bible” (p. 449).