Part 21 (1/2)

1509.

Hernando Cortes begins Spanish conquest of Aztecs.

1517.

Martin Luther posts his ”95 Theses” in Wittenberg.

1519.

Ottomans besiege Vienna.

1527.

Moghul Dynasty founded in India.

1532.

Francisco Pizarro begins Spanish conquest of Inca.

1558.

Elizabeth I becomes queen of England.

1584.

Second Ottoman siege of Vienna.

In Case You Haven't Heard of that ”Renaissance” Thing...

While it's hard to say that something like the Black Plague was a good thing, it may actually have provided the jolt that ended the medieval period and started the Renaissance. This movement-literally, a ”rebirth”-had an economic and an intellectual component. With a third of the labor force gone, surviving workers had much more leverage when bargaining for employment; it was in the wake of the Black Death that ”free cities” dominated by merchants prospered, and peasant farming collectives became more common. On the intellectual side, the decimation of the population-while devaluing life in the short term-actually made people more thoughtful about what it meant to be human.The Renaissance was a mostly European endeavor, but it wouldn't have been possible without contributions from Arab scholars and Greeks fleeing the collapsing Byzantine Empire. In the medieval period, Arab scholars in Spain ama.s.sed huge collections of ma.n.u.scripts from Greek and Roman poets and philosophers that were unavailable in Europe. Meanwhile, Greek scholars fleeing the Ottomans in the old Byzantine territories also carried copies of ancient ma.n.u.scripts to Italy, where they found work as teachers and translators (a step down, but at least they weren't disemboweled and burned alive).This ”Renaissance” was actually firmly rooted in the Catholic tradition. As a matter of fact, most Renaissance scholars were devout Catholics who felt that their movement was perfectly compatible with the teachings of the Church. But the basic method behind it-throwing out existing interpretations of ancient texts and thinking about what they meant from one's own perspective-opened a huge can of theological worms, because it implied that the teachings of the Catholic Church about the Bible were open to debate. (This provided the basis for Protestantism, which proved to be a bit of a problem.)Renaissance scholars shared two things above all: their respect for ancient Rome and Greece, and their desire to emulate ancient Greek and Roman ideals. These ideals-education, reason, and personal virtue-provided a complete program for life: a program that has come to be called ”humanism” because it prizes the independence and potential of individual human beings over other values such as authority and tradition.One of the first Renaissance thinkers was a poet and essayist named Petrarch (13041374), whose Italian family moved to Avignon, France, when he was young. Petrarch spent a good part of his life sitting around thinking and writing about why it was so important to sit around thinking and writing, as well as mooning over a long-term crush named Laura, who was married to someone else (long-term, as in four decades; and of course, it never went anywhere). This description makes Petrarch sound kind of self-absorbed and annoying, which he may have been, but with his beautiful poetry and essays he was a one-man literary revolution. He's also credited as the inventor of mountain climbing-yup, you heard right. Petrarch turned his ascent of Mount Ventoux into an engaging mini-adventure story that is still read today.Books have led some to learning and others to madness.-Petrarch Another early Renaissance great was Dante Alighieri (12651321) who wrote a hilarious-if somewhat petty-book called Inferno, Inferno, in which he imagined all the people from history he hated being punished in h.e.l.l in various twisted ways. Although perhaps slightly creepy, Dante was innovative because he wrote in his native Italian so that ordinary people could read his books. In fact, his books became so influential that many standard spellings and grammar for modern Italian are traced back to them. in which he imagined all the people from history he hated being punished in h.e.l.l in various twisted ways. Although perhaps slightly creepy, Dante was innovative because he wrote in his native Italian so that ordinary people could read his books. In fact, his books became so influential that many standard spellings and grammar for modern Italian are traced back to them.For the most part, Renaissance thinkers were literary types who stayed away from contemporary politics, but later Renaissance scholars were not afraid to take it on, sometimes at personal risk. The great political movement of the Italian Renaissance, civic humanism, was born in the northern Italian city of Florence, in the face of terrible oppression.In the medieval period, Florence and its big cousin to the north, Milan, had generally gotten along. But all this changed in 1386, when Milan came under the tyrannical rule of a military strongman named Gian (p.r.o.nounced ”John”) Galeazzo. In 1394 the powerful Galeazzo attacked Florence, and everyone was sure the tiny city-state was a goner. But under the leaders.h.i.+p of a great Renaissance humanist Coluccio Salutati, the Florentines pulled together and withstood the Milanese enemy.Salutati helped formulate an ideology called civic humanism, which still permeates modern democratic society. Civic humanism applies humanist ideals to the political world, encouraging leaders.h.i.+p, self-sacrifice, and integrity in the people who wield power. Like earlier strains of Renaissance thought, it was built on cla.s.sical sources, and placed the greater good above individual concerns. Armed with this ideology, against all odds the Florentine republic outlasted Gian Galeazzo, who died in 1402.

PRINCE OF PRAGMATISM.

As far as political theory goes, Coluccio Salutati was the ”nice” side of the Italian Renaissance. The much more interesting, ”bad” side was depicted by another Florentine, named Niccol Machiavelli, who grew up in a very different city a century after Salutati.Florence fended off the Milanese bully Gian Galeazzo only to become prey to much larger bullies: France and Spain, which fought for control of Italy throughout the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Born in 1469, Machiavelli grew up in an Italy devastated by foreigners-often with the help of local princes, also vying for power.This situation disgusted Machiavelli, and he began studying the cla.s.sical world, including ancient Greece and Rome, to understand what made rulers successful. He summed up his controversial conclusions in The Prince The Prince, a book of advice he sent to the Medici family, who ruled Florence.”Politics have no relation to morals,” wrote Machiavelli, who also observed, ”Of mankind we may say in general they are fickle, hypocritical, and greedy.” Power came from the ability to inflict violence and terrorize people, and Machiavelli advised: ”Before all else, be armed.” In an ideal situation, the ruler will enjoy the affection of his people, but when the chips are down, ”It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.”Contrary to accepted Christian morality, Machiavelli openly advocated lying (”A prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promise”) and murder (”If an injury has to be done to a man, it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared”). He made no exception for ”innocent” people who opposed the ruler, reasoning that there was a greater good: the well-being of the general population.Ironically, the amoral (many said immoral) philosophy depicted in The Prince The Prince had one goal: protecting the common people from foreign invaders such as the French and Spanish, who were terrorizing Italy. By defeating his foreign and domestic enemies, Machiavelli wrote, the ruler guaranteed the peace and tranquility of his realm, and the safety of his people. So, ultimately, he had humanitarian aims. had one goal: protecting the common people from foreign invaders such as the French and Spanish, who were terrorizing Italy. By defeating his foreign and domestic enemies, Machiavelli wrote, the ruler guaranteed the peace and tranquility of his realm, and the safety of his people. So, ultimately, he had humanitarian aims.

And Then There's That Other R the Reformation The Protestant Reformation that swept northern Europe is a lovely example of people at their best and their worst. During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, religious reformers dissatisfied with the Catholic Church displayed remarkable idealism and self-sacrifice. But their movement also became a tool for opportunistic princes who resented Rome's meddling in their affairs and would stop at nothing to throw off the ”yoke of Rome.” In the long run, this led to the deaths of millions (and we mean millions millions).Like a bad quiche, the first rumblings of dissent came in the fourteenth century, when the growing power of the French kings allowed them to sponsor their own popes in Avignon, beginning in 1305. The result was the so-called Great Schism in the Catholic Church-a period when the involvement of the various competing popes in politics led to widespread disillusionment among common people. It's not hard to see why, with first two, then three, then four (!) popes vying for power.What happened? In 1409, the French and pro-”Italian” faction agreed to withdraw their claimants to the papal throne and elect just one pope, who would return to Rome and end the Great Schism-but the whole plan fell apart. The two sides did indeed elect a new pope, Alexander V, who was supposed to replace the two current popes, Gregory XII and Benedict III. But Gregory and Benedict backed out at the last minute, so now there were three popes. This situation continued until 1417, when a new council of the Catholic Church elected yet another pope, Martin V, to replace the three popes currently holding office. Before the three deposed popes voluntarily abdicated, there were technically four popes ruling the Catholic Church. If TV had existed, this could have been a great reality show: ”This is the story of four popes, all of whom claim to be infallible...”With management a mess, it's not surprising many early ”Protestant” critiques actually came from inside the Church. Several Protestant revolutionaries began as Catholic scholars. These early dissenters included an English professor at Oxford University named John Wycliffe and a Bohemian activist named Jan Huss, who was inspired by Wycliffe.From 1376 to 1379, Wycliffe wrote a series of essays arguing that corrupt Catholic priests forfeited all their spiritual authority. This was controversial, as it denied the effectiveness of the Catholic Ma.s.s, absolution, and penance, which allowed ordinary people to atone for their sins. Wycliffe also said that Christians should be able to read the Bible in their native language, rather than listen to a priest read it in Latin, a language meaningless to commoners. Wycliffe was almost imprisoned for uttering these revolutionary ideas and might have been burned alive, but thanks to powerful protectors in England, he escaped. His successful defiance was a sign of things to come.Jan Huss wasn't so lucky. Like Wycliffe, Huss believed that preachers should speak to ordinary people in their native language-in his case, Czech. Beginning in 1402, Huss ruled the roost in Prague, preaching dissent against corrupt priests, bishops, and the pope. But the Church brought the hammer down in 1414, calling Huss to a Church council to have him ”explain” his views. The Holy Roman emperor, Sigismund, promised Huss his safety, but reneged on the deal, and Huss was burned at the stake in 1415.Much to the dismay of the Church hierarchy, the trouble was just beginning. The next century brought a firestorm of dissent stoked by two more maverick theologians: Martin Luther and John Calvin.Like Wycliffe and Huss, Martin Luther began a devout Catholic but ended in radical opposition-and also like them, his opposition sprang from fundamental contradictions in the Church's teachings. A Catholic monk in Wittenberg, Germany, Luther objected to the Church's entanglement with political authority, its owners.h.i.+p of property, and especially the sale of ”indulgences,” which promised the absolution of sin for a fee-basically ”Get out of h.e.l.l Free” cards, which he considered totally worthless. Luther staked out his basic position in his famous ”95 Theses,” which he nailed to the door of the cathedral in Wittenberg in 1517. Luther also advocated ”justification by faith”-meaning Christians were redeemed by faith alone, with no need for sacraments or absolution by a priest.When I am angry I can pray well and preach well.-Martin Luther Though Pope Leo X would probably have liked to burn Luther at the stake for this impudence, Luther got away with it because powerful German princes found his ideas a useful justification for their own defiance.John Calvin took a different route. Born in France in 1509, Calvin studied theology all over Europe. Unlike Luther, he had a vision for Protestant society sketched out in his head. Calvin made his major contributions to Protestant thought in Geneva, Switzerland, after its inhabitants rebelled against their northern Italian rulers and established an independent city-state in 1536. The city invited him to establish a Protestant church, which he did in 1540. In keeping with his strict ideas, ”immoral” activities such as dancing and drinking were soon made illegal. Fun town.A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that G.o.d's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent.-John Calvin

IT'S A GOOD THING PAPAL INFALLIBILITY COVERS PROSt.i.tUTION AND SODOMY If you're still wondering why the authority of the Catholic Church collapsed in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, just consider the ”Ballet of the Chestnuts,” an uber-depraved party thrown by the son of Pope Alexander VI in 1501. This bizarre and deeply naughty celebration was attended by fifty prost.i.tutes, and got its name from the after-dinner, ahem, ”activities.” The prost.i.tutes had their clothes auctioned, and were then made to crawl around on the floor to pick up chestnuts-a rather thin excuse to get them on all fours. An orgy-game ensued in which the ”players” (the super-rich male attendees) had their o.r.g.a.s.ms tallied by a servant, with each in pursuit of the highest score; this particular ”rule” was ordered by the pope himself, who was also in attendance.Aside from these occasional blowouts, the popes probably got away with most of their debauchery...but there were times it just couldn't be covered up: specifically, when they died ”in the act.” In 939, Pope Leo VII died of a heart attack in bed with his mistress; in 964, an enraged husband found his wife in bed with Pope John XII, then bludgeoned him to death, naked in bed (a great way to go); incredibly, the exact same thing happened to John XIII in 972; and then in 1471, Pope Paul II died of a heart attack...while being sodomized by a page boy.

SPINNING THE GLOBE.

[image]

France: Growing Pains French kings began centralizing administration in the late 1200s, but it wasn't until the fifteenth century that they finally consolidated the new French state. In the end, most of the feudal fiefdoms were welded into a single royal domain by Louis XI. Coming to power in 1461, Louis XI had his work cut out for him, and cut he did: long-standing family ties, limbs, heads-whatever needed cutting.The back story: in 1415, the English king Henry V took advantage of a civil war between two French n.o.ble families, the Burgundians and the Armagnacs, to invade a weakened France and reclaim the French throne, which he believed he had inherited. Eventually the English were sent packing, but the destructive war made it clear to the future King Louis XI that he could never again allow his n.o.ble relatives to gain so much power. Feuding and rebellion could weaken the country and open it to foreign rule. Thus he set out to break the power of the n.o.bles once and for all-with some rather dirty tricks.

If you can't lie, you can't govern.-Louis XI

For example, in the case of the aged Duke of Burgundy, Louis waited until the man was senile, then seized his lands in Picardy (northern France) by pressuring him to rewrite his will. Of course this subterfuge infuriated the duke's rightful heir, his son Charles the Rash, who soon earned his nickname by organizing a revolt of the French n.o.bility against the king.As Burgundy's rebellion drifted along, Louis XI was working to form his own powerful standing army. To secure funding for a new army of professional soldiers, Louis called a meeting of the rarely used French general parliament (called the Estates-General) in 1468. He didn't really have a choice: as fighting rebellious n.o.bles cost more and more money, the loyal n.o.bles, clergy, and wealthy merchants who were lending him money and paying taxes demanded a say in how the money was spent.It all came to a head when the Swiss towns that belonged to the Duke of Burgundy rebelled in 1475. All the duke's old enemies (with a name like ”the Rash,” he had a lot) sprang out of the woodwork to ally themselves with Louis XI. The most powerful, the Duke of Lorraine, killed the Duke of Burgundy at the Battle of Nancy in 1477. Louis conquered Burgundy for himself-a giant increase in his power-and from there it was all gravy. When the Duke of Anjou died without a male heir, Louis picked up his territory in southern France, too, increasing his power even more. In fact, over his reign, French royal territory almost doubled.England: Bow Down or Get Out The English kings began welding England into a single nation shortly after French kings centralized rule in their own kingdom, with similar results. But England, unlike France, had a wild card: a popular Protestant movement that undermined the Catholic Church. The two trends-royal centralization and Protestant Reformation-converged in a uniquely English ”compromise.”In England the final push to centralization was provided by the long, b.l.o.o.d.y War of the Roses-which was not nearly as pleasant as it sounds. After a good number of peasant dwellings were burned (no surprise; the little guys always got the worst of it) the last man standing after the War of the Roses was Henry Tudor, who took the name Henry VII after defeating his rival, Richard III, in 1485. When Henry died in 1509, rule pa.s.sed to his son Henry VIII-who had some, ah, issues with his wives and the Catholic Church.Building on his father's achievements, Henry VIII wielded unprecedented control over England. Because the pope wouldn't allow him to divorce his wife-or his second wife, or his third-in his endless quest to produce a male heir, Henry simply established a new church, independent of Rome, called the Anglican Church. He also enriched the royal treasury by looting Catholic monasteries and established a special court with its own secret police, the Star Chamber, to dispose of uncooperative n.o.bles. Thus Henry VIII paved the way for the greatest monarch in English history: his daughter Elizabeth.Before coming to power in 1558, Elizabeth's att.i.tudes were shaped by the reign of her half-sister, Mary, a devout Catholic who rejected their father's attempt to establish a separate English church and earned the nickname b.l.o.o.d.y Mary for her execution of hundreds of English Protestants. Elizabeth herself was nominally a Protestant, but concluded that religion should take a backseat to politics-period. As a result, her policies angered Protestants and Catholics alike.

There is only one Christ, Jesus, one faith. All else is a dispute over trifles.-Queen Elizabeth I

Elizabeth dealt with the religious problem first, issuing a revised ”Book of Common Prayer” in 1559, a text that basically papered over religious conflicts between Catholics and Protestants by being very, very vague. No one was happy with the Book of Common Prayer-especially a fanatical Protestant group called the Puritans-but that was sort of the point: religion was great and all, but obedience to the English monarch came first. Indeed, dissenters from both the Catholic and Protestant camps soon found out what it meant to cross Elizabeth.Catholic opposition to Elizabeth was led by Thomas, Duke of Norfolk, whose conspiracy provided the queen with a perfect opportunity to crush Catholics and n.o.bles in one big bloodbath. She allowed Thomas to enter into a conspiracy with the pope, then produced evidence of his treason (possibly manufactured), and had him executed in 1571.But Elizabeth also subdued Protestants who opposed her religious reforms. She paid special attention to crus.h.i.+ng the Puritans and Presbyterians, Protestant sects who believed (correctly) that Elizabeth was trying to s.h.i.+ft political control of the church from the pope to herself.Spain: Spreading the Love In Spain, although Ferdinand and Isabella were extremely powerful, they operated almost entirely through the old feudal system. And their grandson, Charles V, ruled in the same way. These monarchs wanted above all to gather land and subjects-even if they didn't fit neatly into their existing empire. By distributing ma.s.sive bribes (gold looted from the New World), Charles V got himself elected Holy Roman Emperor, a big boost in prestige. But his European empire was a crazy quilt, including Spain, Austria, the Netherlands, parts of Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, and chunks of Germany.Of course, Ferdinand, Isabella, and Charles V did have one thing going for them: religion. To kick off the empire, Ferdy and Izzy summoned their Spanish subjects to a common cause by proclaiming a new Crusade against the Muslims of southern Spain. By the mid-1400s, Muslim Spain had been whittled down to a ”rump kingdom” (seriously, that's what they called it) in the southern peninsula called Al-Andalus. Ferdinand and Isabella finished it off with the capture of Granada in 1492, followed by the expulsion of all Jews in Spain, for good measure.

A BAD HAIR CENTURY.