<論説>宗派間関係と寛容の機能 : 一六七〇年代ユトレヒトにおける信仰実践を巡る闘争

Abstract

従来の研究は、内実を明確化せずに「寛容」の語を濫用しつつ、「どれほど寛容／不寛容か」という「程度」の尺度から宗教的寛容を捉えてきた。本稿は、「寛容」の語に厳密な定義を与えつつ、一六七〇年代のオランダ共和国、中でもユトレヒトにおける、改革派とカトリックの宗派間関係と、その関係性を規定した寛容の「機能」を明らかにすることを目的とする。分析の結果、フランス軍による約一年半の占領を経験した一六七〇年代ユトレヒトにおいて、多様な種類の寛容が改革派とカトリックの宗派間関係をその都度規定し直し、当地の社会における公的領域の編成が大きく変化したことが示される。一六七〇年代ユトレヒトには、改革派とカトリックが宗派主義的ユートピア願望やそれに基づく宗派間関係の敵対性を消去することなく、信仰実践を巡って闘争と交渉を続けながら何とか共存を実現していた、宗教的かつ多元的な社会が存在したのである。

Toleration is a topic that has attracted significant attention in the humanities. Previous historical studies concerning toleration have justified the modern West and the nation state while overusing the term 'toleration' without clarifying its actual meaning in describing the teleology of modernization and the essentialism of nationality based on an analysis of the 'degree' of toleration (how tolerant or intolerant). As a response to this state of the scholarship, this paper attempts to reform the existing understanding by strictly defining the term 'toleration' and by focusing not on the 'degree' but instead on the the 'function' of toleration (the influences of toleration on the relationships of those who tolerated and those who were tolerated). As a case study, this paper deals with the Dutch Republic, which has been referred to as a 'paradise of toleration' since the early modern era, more specifically focusing on the interconfessional relationship between the Reformed and the Catholic congregations in Utrecht during the 1670s. In recent studies concerning toleration in the Dutch Republic, the division of the 'public' and the 'private' has attracted considerable attention. This paper also tentatively hypothesizes that the borderline between the 'public' and the 'private' was drawn between the inside and outside of houses. However, a recent study regarding the French occupation in Utrecht (1672-73), provided only limited information concerning the function of toleration, the behavior of the Catholics, and the process of the reorganization of the public sphere. In order to solve these problems, this paper focuses on the behavior of the Catholics in the public sphere and examines the function of toleration in practice in the political dimension. Through these analyses, this paper attempts to investigate the cause of struggle for the practice of faith, and to clarify the interconfessional relationship of both congregations and the transition of the public sphere. Under the Dutch Republic, the Reformed congregation had the freedom of public practice of faith and the Catholics had the freedom of conscience as their vested right. Catholics, being deprived of the right to practice their faith in public, were relegated to keeping their faith in the schuilkerk (clandestine church), which referred to chapels within houses. In addition, both congregations wished to construct a homogeneous confessional community as a confessionalistic utopia. In other words, in the Dutch Republic, 'toleration as connivance' divided the 'private' from the 'public', constructed a fictional confessionalsitic utopia of the Reformed church in the public sphere, and concealed the hostility of the interconfessional relationship from the public sphere. During the French occupation, Catholics demanded the implementation of their confessionalistic utopia. However, the French army, which was vital for realization of this utopia, transformed the actual situation into one that differed from the utopia sought by the Catholics. Contrary to the Catholics' demand for the exclusive right of the public practice of their faith, the French army granted a 'toleration as limited recognition (type α)' to both congregations. This toleration revealed the hostility of the interconfessional relationship in the public sphere by breaking the single congregation's monopoly on the public practice of faith, so the fiction collapsed. Although the secular authorities of Utrecht requested that both congregations accept 'toleration as civic concord' in order to control the hosility of the interconfessional relationship, their effort had limited effect. After the French evacuation, Utrecht was restored to the Dutch Republic. 'Toleration as limited recognition (type α)' was abandoned and 'toleration as connivance' seemed to reconstruct the fiction of a homogeneous Reformed community in the public sphere as before. However, an influential Catholic priest J. van Neercassel perservered throughout the negotiations and acquired safe conduct, which is referred to as 'toleration as limited recognition (type β)' in this paper. Neercassel who could serve more freely because of this type of toleration, attempted to revive the practice of the Catholic faith on the basis of his amical relationships with the secular authorities. In addition, lay Catholics protested the injustice of the oppression of the secular authorities who raided the schuilkerk by speaking up for the public practice of faith in order to defend their vested right. After the French evacuation, Catholics defined the 'public' for themselves and created opportunities to practice their faith actively. Although 'toleration as connivance' and 'toleration as limited recognition (type β)' reconfirmed the advantageous position of the Reformed congregation and once again concealed the the hostility of the interconfessional relationship from the public sphere, they constructed a fiction of a homogeneous Reformed community that differed from that before the French occupation. Based on the aforementioned analyses, the following can be concluded. In Utrecht during the 1670s, the fiction of a homogeneous confessional community collapsed during the French occupation and was reorganized after the French evacuation. Under these conditions, the interconfessional relationship between the Reformed and the Catholic congregation was regulated by toleration in practice in the political dimension in forms that were either connivance, limited recognition (type α and β), or civic concord. In Utrecht during the 1670s, a religious and pluralistic society existed in which the Reformed and the Catholic congregations refused to abandon the desire for their own confessionalistic utopia, maintained a hostility that was based on their antonomic wishes, and originally defined the 'public' but managed to coexist in struggling and negotiating for the practice of faith.