Severalscholars ofnationalism support the existence ofnationalism in theMiddle Ages, mainly inEurope. This school of thought differs frommodernism, the predominant school of thought on nationalism, which suggests that nationalism developed largely after the late18th century and theFrench Revolution.[1][2] Theories on the existence of nationalism in theMiddle Ages may belong to the generalparadigms ofethnosymbolism andprimordialism (perennialism).
Adrian Hastings advocates the origin of nations in the Middle Ages[3] and argues thatreligion was central to the creation of nations and nationalism.[4] In his view,England is considered the oldest example of a mature nation, and the development of nations is closely linked to theChristian Church and the spread of written popular languages to existingethnic groups.[5] Hastings argues for a strong renewal of English nationalism with thetranslation of the complete bible into English by the Wycliffe circle in the 1380s, positing that the frequency and consistency in usage of the word nation from the earlyfourteenth century onward strongly suggestEnglish nationalism and the English nation have been continuous since that time.[6]
However,John Breuilly criticizes the assumption that continued usage of a term such as "English" means continuity in its meaning.[7]Patrick J. Geary agrees, arguing names were adapted to different circumstances by different powers and could convince people of continuity, even if radical discontinuity was the lived reality.[8]
Susan Reynolds argues that many European medieval kingdoms were nations in the modern sense, except that political participation in nationalism was available only to a limited prosperous and literate class,[9] while Hastings claimsEngland'sAnglo-Saxon kings mobilized mass nationalism in their struggle to repelNorse invasions. He argues thatAlfred the Great, in particular, drew onbiblical language in his law code and that during his reign selected books of the Bible were translated intoOld English to inspireEnglishmen to fight to turn back the Norse invaders.
Echoing Reynolds,Paul Lawrence criticises Hastings's reading ofBede'sEcclesiastical History of the English People, observing that such documents do not demonstrate how ordinary people identified themselves. He points out that, while they serve as texts in which anelite defines itself, "their significance in relation to what the majority thought and felt was likely to have been minor".[10]
However, other authors trace the origins of nationalism and thenational consciousness of England and some European nations soon after the Middle Ages, in the 16th century.[2][11][12][further explanation needed]
For many non-modernists, nations have emerged from theJudeo-Christian tradition.John Alexander Armstrong was one of the first modern scholars to argue that nations have pre-modern roots and that their formation was helped byreligious institutions locally. However, Armstrong acknowledges "persistent group identity did not ordinarily constitute the overriding legitimisation of polity formation", unlike contemporary nationalism, which presupposes the "right of individuals to [...] establish territorial political structures corresponding to their consciousness of group identity".[13] In the same vein, otheranti-modernist studies by Hastings,Anthony D. Smith, andSteven Grosby attributed nationalism on theJudeo-Christian traditions. Hastings emphasises the role of language, and sees the opposition of Christianity to Islam as a critical factor in the formation of nationalism. He also considers the conviction of being a chosen people as an important factor inethnogenesis in Western Europe, which was further strengthened by the tension betweenCatholicism andProtestantism.[14]
Azar Gat claims the creation of nations was made possible not only bysecularization and the rise of printcapitalism in modern era, but could also be produced earlier by the spoken word and via religious rituals.[15] Gat does not agree with themodernist view that pre-modern multi-ethnic empires were ruled by an elite indifferent to the ethnic composition of its subjects. In fact, almost all of the empires were based on a dominant ethnic core, while most ethniccommunities were too small and weak to have their own independent state.[16] In response to Gat,Chris Wickham accepted manifestations of national identity are to be found in the Middle Ages, but argued that Gat "exaggerated the significance of ethnicity in that period" and that such national identity as existed was confined to those very elites.[17]
According to the historianCaspar Hirschi, the concept nations and nationalism has changed over time, and the 18th century is only the beginning of the modernist model of this concept. In his view, nationalism was born in Catholic Medieval Europe as a consequence ofRoman imperialism.[18] Echoing Wickham, Hirschi accepts nationalism is not necessarily a massphenomenon but can be the discourse of nationalist elite minorities.[19][20]
Sverre Bagge investigates the origins of Norwegian nationalism from the gradual "unification of the kingdom" in the 9th century, which led to the formation of theNorwegian,Danish andSwedish kingdoms. He argues a kind ofNorwegian state existed by the 13th century, with public justice, taxation, a common military organization and royalty, and by the 12th and 13th century, a significant part of the population was loyal to theking and identified their interests with his.[21]
Sahan Karatasli examines various forms of collective identity in NorthernItaly from the 11th to 16th century and believes that, in the mid-12th century,city-states exhibitedcivic nationalism. In that period, the communes of the cities incorporated their countryside (contado) and acquired a territorial existence. This process created internal social divisions andrivalries, which was the reason for the invention of new forms of bonds between social groups and between state and subjects. Older practices like theecclesiastical boundaries (diocese) were utilised, which unified the city and the countryside. New symbols, myths and "invented traditions" were also created, such as the new cults of patron-saints, likeSaint Ansano ofSiena,St. Alexander patron ofBergamo,St. Petronio, patron of theBologna etc. Civic rituals and festivals associated with these saints emphasised the unity of the commune or the city-state were established.[22]
Dimitri Obolensky considers that theOrthodox Slavs inEastern Europe and the Balkans (Russians,Bulgarians andSerbs) had nationalism and a national consciousness during the Middle Ages. This nationalism was mobilized by their dissatisfaction with the imperialism of the Byzantines, especially in ecclesiastical matters, such as the appointment ofbishops by thePatriarch of Constantinople. From a positive point of view, thePatriarch helped the creation of national consciousness by establishing ecclesiastical districts in Slavic areas. This also happened with other non-Slavic Orthodox peoples, as theGeorgian Church was separated from theAntiochian Church in 1010,[25] and thedioceses ofWallachia andMoldavia were founded in 1359 and in 1401, respectively. ThePatriarchate from time to time made such concessions to other Slavic Christian populations, such as grantingautocephaly to the Churches of Bulgaria and Serbia, or appointing ethnic Russians asMetropolitans of Kiev.[26]
Some scholars believe that the roots of modernGreek nationalism dates back to the Middle Ages, especially between the 13th and mid-15th centuries. In this view, the event that led to the development of modern Greek national consciousness was the conflict with theFourth Crusade and subsequentFrankish rule. Modern Greek nationalism rises after theconquest of Constantinople in 1204 and the creation of thedespotates which succeeded theByzantine Empire, especially inEpirus,Nicaea, andMorea. At that time, the termHellene ("Greek") revived – having been previously discredited as a synonym for "pagan" – and was used in parallel with "Roman". Stephen G. Xydis uses the term proto-nationalism for the emergence of the modern Greek national identity in late Byzantium.[27][28]
Armstrong refers to a "premature nationalism" of this Byzantine period, based on a sense of God's choice and protection in an age of adversities. As "true Israel", theOrthodox Church and the community enjoyed God's favor, while priests and the people fought against the "heretical"Latins and the "unfaithful"Turks.[29]
According to Michel Bouchard,[30] theEcumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople facilitated the formation of nationalautonomous Orthodox Churches by producing national alphabets like theEarly Cyrillic alphabet. Through an analysis of a 14th-century religious text, he argues that there was a clear sense of Russian nationhood and proposes such texts demonstrate the need to revise some assumptions concerning the presumed modern nature of nationhood.[31] In an earlier work, Bouchard traces the emergence of Russiannational consciousness to the 11th century, reflected in religious texts such as Slavicpsalms and apocrypha.[32] According toRichard J. Crampton, the development of Old Church Slavonic literacy during the 10th century had the effect of preventing the assimilation of theEastern South Slavs into the Byzantine culture, which promoted the formation of a distinctBulgarian identity.[33]
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)