Podcast Summary

Podcast: New Books Network – New Books in Early Modern History
Episode: Stuart Carroll, "Enmity and Violence in Early Modern Europe" (Cambridge UP, 2023)
Host: Jana Byers
Guest: Stuart Carroll (University of York)
Date: January 3, 2026

Main Theme

In this episode, host Jana Byers interviews Stuart Carroll about his new book, Enmity and Violence in Early Modern Europe. The conversation explores how enmity—understood as hostility and antagonism—shaped personal and collective violence in early modern Europe (c. 1500–1700). Carroll discusses his shift from a focus on the state and elite violence to exploring how interpersonal and private enmities influenced broader social, legal, and political landscapes across France, Italy, England, and Germany.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Stuart Carroll’s Intellectual Trajectory

• Carroll has a longstanding research focus on violence, power, and social relations in early modern Europe, previously writing on topics such as the French Wars of Religion and elite intrigue.
• His approach uses violence as an entry point to understand deeper social relations and the workings of power:
  • “Violence… is a really good way into that. … It’s not just caused by anger or being uncivilized. … It’s very much related to notions of legitimacy, of class and gender norms. Who has the right to take violence?” (Stuart Carroll, 03:17)

Defining Enmity (07:12)

• Carroll distinguishes between public enemies (hostis) and private enmities (personal rivalries, vendettas, family feuds).
• Enmity is understood as a universal dynamic: “Enmity is also a dynamic category. We can learn to love our enemies… By establishing who our enemies are, we reveal something about ourselves.” (A, 07:12)
• In early modern societies, private and public enmities often intertwined—individual grudges could trigger public crises, especially during civil wars.

Language and the Transformation of Enmity

• The meaning of terms like ‘quarrel’ has shifted:
  • “The English word quarrel today… means a trivial dispute. In the 16th and 17th century… it has a much stronger feeling of enmity… [It] means a significant enmity, a feud.” (A, 10:18)
• This evolution reflects broader societal transformations: from life-and-death enmities toward modern notions of debate and opposition.

The Early Modern Explosion of Violence

• Carroll challenges the “progress narrative” that sees modernity bringing pacification:
  • “There’s actually much more interpersonal violence in the 16th and 17th century than… the Middle Ages.” (A, 13:04)
• The Reformation, Renaissance, and the decline of medieval forms of reconciliation (e.g., ritual penance) contributed to increased violence, as did social and economic change.

Sources and Methodology (14:59)

• Carroll draws on a mix of sources:
  • Judicial archives (especially for homicide statistics)
  • Ego documents (diaries, journals, ‘livres de raison’), often kept to record grievances and justifications for litigation or personal reconciliation
  • Antiquarian regional histories, especially in France and Germany, which provide insight into overlooked local feuds and customs
• He engages with prescriptive literature (sermons, law codes) and contemporary debates, noting regional variations in what is available and its reliability.

Comparative & Transnational Perspective (20:14)

• Carroll consciously resists the national ‘siloing’ of historiography:
  • “As early modernists, we’ve got so siloed into doing national histories… I was very much against this and wanted to… break down national categories.” (A, 20:14)
• He deliberately incorporates Italy, France, England, and Germany, using comparison to reveal overlapping and divergent patterns in violence and the management of enmity.

France as Case Study (30:06)

• Early 16th c. France: Strong state, low feuding.
• Reformation brings religious schism—largest Calvinist population in Europe by 1562, sparking decades of civil war.
• Civil war explodes existing mechanisms of social order, leading to confused and ambiguous violence (not just Protestants vs. Catholics).
• Masculine honor culture and dueling rise, expanding elite and popular violence.
• Expansion of the state has a paradoxical role: “The state profits from enmity and is able to exploit that… divide and rule is not new.” (A, 33:52)
• Louis XIV personally intervenes in village feuds, sometimes after significant loss of life.

Comparison with Other Regions (34:50)

• Italy: Fragmented polities, extraordinarily high homicide rates, elaborate systems of private reconciliation (pacification pacts).
• England: Most centralized state; institutions offer official channels for dispute resolution; rise of the “loyal opposition” as a mechanism for sublimating enmity.
• Germany: Significant regional variation, influenced by religious and legal fragmentation.

Broader Arguments and Historiographical Critique (35:59; 40:02)

• Carroll challenges progressivist assumptions about state centralization and the pacification of society.
  • “There’s not a steady decline [in violence] from the Middle Ages. In fact, violence goes up in the late 16th, peaks in the mid-17th, and goes down in the 18th [century].” (A, 41:10)
• Law and violence are not opposites: “The law and violence, [they’re] not opposites. They’re part of the same continuum.” (A, 41:58)
• Carroll connects the history of violence to modern questions about pluralism, disagreement, and civil society.
  • “Europe is different… Its history is turbulent and has lots of churn. That itself is what fascinates me… Because within that violence, it’s not all bad. Violence is not necessarily a bad thing. … A lot of the violence… is through people standing up to injustice.” (A, 35:59)

The Need for Big Histories (26:44)

• Carroll recognizes the trend toward specialized, siloed scholarship but argues for the necessity and responsibility of historians to craft broader, comparative syntheses. Otherwise, non-historians fill the gap with often misleading master narratives:
  • “We’ve left the field to non-historians. … So I did feel that there was a space for a professional historian… to say something which had a bigger narrative.” (A, 26:44)

Final Reflections & Future Directions (46:04)

• Carroll is pursuing a project on the emergence and meaning of “civil society” in the late 17th and 18th centuries, especially how ordinary people understood and enacted being citizens.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “Enmity is also a dynamic category. … By establishing who our enemies are, we reveal something about ourselves.” — Stuart Carroll (07:12)
• “We’ve learned since the 1600s to trivialize our disputes. We’ve learned to become citizens who need to respect other views. So this… process really begins in the 18th century.” — Stuart Carroll (11:46)
• “There’s actually much more interpersonal violence in the 16th and 17th century than there had been in the late Middle Ages.” — Stuart Carroll (13:04)
• “The law and violence, not opposites. They’re part of the same continuum. People are using both violence and the law to enforce their rights or get what they want or to pursue their everyday enemies.” — Stuart Carroll (41:58)
• “Europe is both Balkanized, but it’s incredibly… It has a very vigorous system of debate and concatenation… The difficulty of Europeans is learning how to have a civil disagreement. And I think that there are benefits… to that quarrel.” — Stuart Carroll (35:59)

Timestamps for Key Segments

| Timestamp | Segment Description | |-----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 03:17 | Carroll discusses his research interests and violence as a lens for social relations | | 07:12 | Defining enmity: public vs. private, personal vs. collective, psychological/social dimensions | | 10:18 | The historical meaning of “quarrel” and its transformation into a trivial concept | | 13:04 | Statistical evidence and causes of the early modern increase in violence | | 14:59 | Sources and methods: judicial archives, ego documents, and antiquarian sources | | 20:14 | Rationale for a comparative, multi-country study; problem of national “silos” in historiography | | 30:06 | France as a case study: Reformation, civil war, rise of dueling, and state’s paradoxical role | | 35:59 | The role of enmity in European identity, violence and pluralism, and positive/negative effects of conflict | | 41:10 | Refuting the steady decline of violence; presenting the “parabola” of violence rates in early modern Europe | | 41:58 | Violence and the law as part of the same continuum | | 46:04 | Carroll’s next project: a social, “from below” history of the idea of civil society |

Tone

The exchange is scholarly yet accessible, with a collegial and engaging rapport. Carroll presents detailed, nuanced arguments and is passionate about breaking free of narrow national and disciplinary confines to tackle universal historical questions. Byers is incisive and encouraging, probing for clarity and highlighting the historiographical stakes.

Conclusion

This episode offers a sweeping and thought-provoking discussion of how enmity and violence have shaped the political and social transformation of early modern Europe. Carroll’s book and the interview together illustrate the importance of comparative, cross-regional history for dispelling myths of linear progress and for understanding the complexity—and modern relevance—of conflict, reconciliation, and civic life.