 |
| Fraternité (1893) by Adolphe Willette (1857-1926) portrays a revolutionary scrawling fraternity in blood on a wall while holding a severed head on a pike |
De Antonellis begins by asking a series of uncomfortable questions. Is it possible to defend historical decisions often condemned by modern opinion—such as the revocation of the Edict of Nantes or even the role of the Inquisition? And more broadly, is it possible to criticize the modern ideal of tolerance itself? In a cultural climate where tolerance is treated almost as an unquestionable virtue, raising such questions already signals the author’s intention: to examine the idea critically rather than accept it as a slogan.
One of the central points of the article is that “tolerance” is often used as a political weapon rather than a genuine principle. Throughout history, groups that demanded tolerance when they were weak frequently abandoned it once they gained power. De Antonellis points to examples ranging from the Jacobins of the French Revolution to Bolsheviks in Russia and Protestant reformers in early modern Europe. In each case, appeals to tolerance served a strategic purpose, but did not necessarily lead to lasting pluralism.
The author also highlights the contradictions of some famous advocates of tolerance, such as John Locke and Voltaire. Though often cited as champions of freedom of thought, both men imposed clear limits on what they considered acceptable. Locke excluded atheists and Catholics from his vision of religious tolerance, while Voltaire’s famous hostility toward the Catholic Church reveals a less universal spirit than his reputation suggests. For de Antonellis, this demonstrates that tolerance has rarely been as neutral or universal as modern rhetoric implies.
A particularly striking section of the article describes what the author sees as a recurring historical pattern. According to de Antonellis, social change often moves through a series of stages: prohibition, tolerance, acceptance, equality, privilege, and finally persecution of those who disagree. What begins as a request simply to be tolerated can eventually develop into an expectation of cultural dominance, accompanied by pressure to silence critics.
From this analysis, the author draws a broader conclusion about political and philosophical compromise. If truth exists, he suggests, it does not always lie comfortably between two opposing positions. For de Antonellis, the assumption that moderation or compromise automatically leads to truth can itself be misleading, because the truth may sometimes stand clearly on one side rather than in the middle.
~By Giovanni di Napoli, April 1st, Feast of San Lodovico Pavoni
