Libertas religionis, Religious Passions and Political Prudence

in the Indirect Controversy between Lipsius and Gentili

Abstract

This paper examines the controversy that arose between Justus Lipsius and Alberico Gentili on the theme of libertas religionis and religious tolerance. The first part of the article focuses on the common adherence to Neostoic philosophy, on the very strong affinities that unite the jus-philosophical theory of religious tolerance proposed by the Sanginesino with the hypotheses for the resolution of confessional conflict advanced by the Brabant, and on the substantial coincidence of their respective definitions of the essence of vera religio.  By examining in detail the stages that marked the indirect confrontation between the two, the study thus proposes to reveal the ultimate foundation of the Lipsian rejection of the perspective of confessional plurality, and then to emphasize the reasons that led Gentili to misunderstand the ultimate meaning of the Lipsian resolution of religious conflict: beyond appearances, the divergences between the two authors appear to be limited to the evaluation of the social and political practicability of religious pluralism. The study therefore advances the hypothesis that it was Lipsius’s acute consciousness of the passionate dynamics (and their anti-social repercussions) underlying the common individual and collective religious experience that determined this divarication: the ultimate foundation of Lipsius’s rejection of religious pluralism lies in his tracing of inter-confessional conflict back to religious ardour, that is, to the passionate factor that generally affects the relationship that individuals and communities establish with the religious dimension.