Talk:Cuius regio, eius religio
From Academic Kids
Removed:
- In Visigothic Spain, for instance, the Arianism of the rulers was expected to be enforced upon their subjects, as a matter of course.
The Visigoths were Arian but their Hispano-Roman subjects were Catholic. -- Error 04:28, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Indeed. And the Visigothic bishops and the public version of Christianity in Visigothic Spain was consequently Arian, was it not? That's what cuius regio eius religio entails.Wetman 04:35, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- The ruling Visigoths had their custom law and the Arian church for themselves, while the Hispano-Romans kept the Roman law and the Catholic church. But all of them were subjects of the Arian Visigoth king (until the mass conversion with Recaredus (?). That is not what I understand under c.r.e.r. Or am I wrong? -- Error 04:51, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- The point is that cuius regio is the principle under which the popular religion (even paganism, under Christian emperors) is suppressed. Even when the Arian Visigoths stopped exiling Catholic bishops, the repression continued, even at the highest social levels.This gives better Visigothic background than I could (http://libro.uca.edu/mckenna/pagan5.htm): " while there is no record of an actual persecution of the Spanish Catholics by the Arian rulers except for the brief period from 583 to 585 during the reign of Leovigild, there was constant friction between the Catholics and the Arians. Thus Amalaric (507-531) treated his queen, Clotilda, so cruelly because of her Catholic religion that he provoked a war with her brother, the Frankish ruler, Childibert I. Agila (549-5 54)" Isn't that the principle at work? ;) Wetman 05:41, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- I understand that Clotilda was treated as a Visigoth since she married one. But since the Lex Romana Visigothorum (I skimmed your URL) respects the Catholic church and there were differences among kings, I think that the pre-conversion Visigoths are a bad example. But the mass conversion to Catholicism induced (forced?) by the king could be one. Are we actually discussing the meaning of the principle or the facts about the Visigoth rule (which I don't really master)? -- Error 01:29, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- We're probably unwise to extend the principle back in time, or away from the H.R.E. anyway. But the principle is not one of toleration but of sovreignty. The Prince decides. His suzerain cannot impose. That's what should come across in the entry. We agree on that, don't we? Wetman 16:00, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
[edit]
Still today
I read somewhere that today (or before WWII) you could find that the church tax maps still follow the old imperial fiefs. -- Error 02:02, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
