Related:
A companion to "Load-Bearing Walls"
The previous essay catalogued the myths. The natural next question is why they were adopted, and adopted with such fervor that they survive intact in the curriculum a century after working historians have dismantled them. The shortest answer is that the nation-state needed to legitimate itself. The shortest answer is also incomplete. The fervor and the longevity require a fuller account, because no single actor was responsible and the myths arrived in waves, each wave deposited by a different agent with a different need, each layer reinforcing the ones beneath.
What follows is the genealogy of the walls. Five vectors, stacked.
I. The Absolutist State
The deepest layer is Cavanaugh's. The absolutist sovereign that consolidated jurisdiction during the wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries had to retell its consolidation as peacemaking. The alternative — sovereign as one combatant among others, who happened to win — leaves the question of legitimacy embarrassingly open. So the war that produced the modern state was renarrated as the war the modern state arrived to stop.
The renarration required a category that did not previously exist. Religion, in the modern sense — discrete, privatizable, essentially-belief-rather-than-practice — was invented by the settlement that claimed to be tolerating it. Before roughly 1600, the word named something closer to virtue or piety, a habit of life inseparable from political and economic existence. Carving it off as an interior matter was not a description. It was a political achievement.
The achievement was specifically jurisdictional. The medieval Church was not a mood. It was a legal and territorial authority with courts, properties, exemptions, and a transnational reach that rivaled and frequently overrode the claims of any local prince. Privatize it as interior belief and the rival vanishes by definition. The state does not have to defeat the Church. It has only to define the Church into something that cannot, by its new nature, occupy the public square.
This is the structural move. Without it nothing else stacks.
II. The Protestant Rupture
The structural move alone does not explain the fervor. The fervor came from a polemical tradition that arrived earlier and ran longer than the state's own legitimation needs.
The Reformation had to delegitimate the medieval inheritance to justify itself as a rupture rather than a schism. If the medieval Church was the continuous Body of Christ, the Reformers were heretics. If the medieval Church was a corrupted Babylon that had departed from apostolic Christianity sometime in the late patristic period, the Reformers were liberators. Everything depended on which story held.
So a literature was produced. Foxe's Acts and Monuments (1563) is the template — a martyrology recasting the medieval Church as a torture machine and Protestants as a continuous underground succession of true Christians persecuted by Rome. Foxe was the second-most-read book in English Protestant homes for two centuries, behind only the Bible. The cartoon Inquisition and the cartoon Dark Ages are downstream of this tradition, not of the secular state directly. By the time Hume and Gibbon and Macaulay were writing the Whig historiography that became the Anglo-American curriculum, the Protestant frame had been so thoroughly internalized that it presented itself as ordinary historical judgment.
The cartoon survived its own confessional origin. It was secularized in the nineteenth century without ever being fact-checked.
III. Nineteenth-Century Anti-Clerical State-Building
This is the moment when "nation-state legitimation" becomes concrete. It is not an abstract structural pressure. It is a series of specific legal and territorial fights against a Church that, in 1850, still owned land, ran schools, performed marriages, controlled hospitals, and claimed jurisdiction over portions of Italy as a sovereign power.
Bismarck's Kulturkampf in the 1870s expelled Jesuits, took control of clerical education, and jailed bishops. The French Third Republic's laicité campaigns, culminating in the 1905 separation, expropriated church property and removed religious orders from teaching. The Italian Risorgimento literally fought the Papal States, seizing Rome in 1870 and ending the Pope's temporal sovereignty. Spanish Bourbon liberalism dissolved monasteries and confiscated their lands in waves through the nineteenth century. The Mexican Reforma under Juárez did the same, more violently. Portugal's First Republic in 1910 expelled religious orders within weeks of taking power.
These regimes needed villains. Specifically, they needed the Catholic Church to be the kind of villain whose suppression was self-evidently righteous, because they were stripping it of property and authority on a scale that required moral cover. Henry Charles Lea, the great American author of the inflated Inquisition numbers, is writing inside this current. His scholarship was not historiography that happened to have political implications. It was political argument given retroactive scholarly form. The numbers were ammunition, and the ammunition was being supplied to specific liberal regimes engaged in specific seizures.
The cartoon Inquisition's six million victims is, on inspection, a balance sheet justifying nineteenth-century expropriations. Whether the historians knew this or not, this is what the figures were doing.
IV. The Secular Research University
The fourth wave is institutional rather than directly political. It came from inside the new research universities, which were themselves a contested form.
Humboldt founded Berlin in 1810. The American land-grant institutions followed mid-century. Then Johns Hopkins (1876) and Chicago (1890) imported the German research model and made it the template. Each of these institutions had to differentiate itself from the older confessional universities — the divinity schools, the church-affiliated colleges, the medieval foundations that still dominated the European landscape and a substantial part of the American.
The differentiation needed a story. The story was that the new universities pursued knowledge while the old ones pursued doctrine, and that knowledge and doctrine had been at war for centuries, and that the new universities were the side of knowledge.
This is the warfare thesis. John William Draper's History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874) and Andrew Dickson White's A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896) are the founding texts. White was first president of Cornell. Cornell was founded explicitly as a non-sectarian alternative to the existing American colleges, most of which had Protestant denominational origins. White had institutional reasons. He produced an institutional argument.
It is from these two books that the Galileo cartoon, the Bruno-as-scientific-martyr conflation, the Hypatia myth, the flat-earth-medievals myth, and the framing of the medieval Church as systematically anti-scientific all enter the modern curriculum. Almost everything in Draper and White has been demolished by professional historians of science — Lindberg, Numbers, Grant, Lindberg again — and almost none of the demolitions have penetrated the textbooks.
The university teaches the warfare thesis because the university was founded by it.
V. The Scapegoat Work
The four vectors above explain the construction. They do not yet explain the fervor, or the imperviousness to correction, or the way that even thoroughly secular educated people in 2026 still reach for the cartoon Inquisition when pressed about religious violence in general.
This is where Girard becomes necessary.
Once secular modernity produces its own history — the Terror, Verdun, the Somme, the gulags, the Holodomor, the Holocaust, Hiroshima, the Cultural Revolution, the killing fields — its numbers radically exceed what it claims to have surpassed. The single year of Jacobin Terror killed more than three centuries of the Spanish Inquisition. A single battle of the Great War killed more than every witch trial in European history combined. The twentieth century, the most thoroughly secular century in human history, is also the most murderous by orders of magnitude.
Something has to be done with this. The thing that is done with it is projection. The horror that is felt at the cartoon past is doing the labor of not feeling the horror of the actual present. The pious recoil at imaginary inquisitorial torture chambers is performing, ritually, the disavowal of real twentieth-century camps. The intensity of adoption tracks the intensity of what is being expelled, because the projection has to do more work as the contradiction grows. The myth is not preserved despite the secular order's body count. The myth is preserved because of the secular order's body count.
This is why the corrections do not land. The order is not engaging the argument. The argument is trying to disturb a mechanism the order needs in order to remain unaware of itself. To accept the corrected numbers is to lose the projective surface that holds the twentieth century at a distance. To accept that the witch-hunts were modern is to lose the temporal escape route by which modernity is a recovery from horrors rather than a producer of them. To accept that the autonomous individual is a recent and contestable anthropology is to lose the stable observer from whose vantage all of this is being narrated.
The fervor is the mechanism. The fervor is the giveaway.
What This Means
Five vectors: absolutist consolidation, Protestant rupture, anti-clerical state-building, secular university self-formation, and ongoing scapegoat projection. Each laid down a stratum. Each stratum did work the others could not do alone. The cartoon survives because it is reinforced from below by structural sovereign legitimation, from the side by confessional and institutional polemics, and from above by a continuous psychic operation that the order requires in order to be the order.
This is why the curriculum cannot be reformed merely by getting the historians' corrections into the textbooks. The historians have been trying for a century. The corrections are correct. They do not penetrate, because penetration would do something the system cannot allow.
What they describe instead is the shape of the system. The walls are not only load-bearing in the architecture they support. They are load-bearing in the psyche of the civilization that built them. To name them as walls is already to begin the slow work of standing somewhere that does not require them.
That is the only kind of liberation on offer.
conversation
Comments
Sign in to join the conversation.
No comments yet. Start the thread.