Hopefully we all know that the Reformation was about more than just papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation. (I know you all sang that in your heads.)
*Reformation Polka plays in the background*
But, if that's all you can remember from today's class (aside from Emilia making possibly offensive jokes and Cory being yelled at - the usual), then let's review.
Basically all you need to know about Martin Luther:
But seriously, Martin Luther got so tired of the corruption in the Catholic church and the immorality and ignorance of the clergy. They weren't as holy, celibate, and devout as they should have been, unlike...
Martin Luther disagreed with the Catholic church's practices and behavior, and expressed his (many) grievances with the 95 Theses.
Martin Luther after posting the 95 Theses *mic drop*
Although this spread Luther's ideas and the Reformation quickly and to many places, he faced excommunication and serious consequences when he refused to recant what he said at the Diet of Worms.
Get it? Wow, I'm funny.
He was declared an outlaw, but was spared his life and went into hiding. However, by this time, he was in trouble with both the spiritual and secular law.
I'm gonna guess this was his reaction to not being executed.
Luther didn't necessarily disagree with the beliefs of Catholicism, but he did have problems with the behavior of the clergy and the practices at the time.
Luther wasn't a big fan of what the clergy was doing.
He disapproved of religious figures'...
immorality -- gambling, drunkenness, sex, etc.
pluralism -- neglecting the responsibilities of the several offices they were not supposed to have in the first place
ignorance -- many were less educated than the general public and barely literate
According to the Reformation Polka, Luther also disagreed with papal bulls (charters/allowances from the pope), transubstantiation (the belief that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ), and the sale of indulgences (pardons for sins to get to heaven). Luther believed in consubstantiation, which is the belief that the bread and wine are spiritually/symbolically transformed into the body and blood of Christ.
So what else did Luther believe and advocate?
Salvation was based on faith alone, and the amount of good deeds done or indulgences purchased didn't make a difference. It was God's decision whether or not you got to heaven.
Religious authority rested in the Bible alone (sola scriptura).
The Protestant church is a "priesthood of all believers", not centered on a particular place or person (like the Vatican or the pope).
So long, pope.
Lutheran ideas and beliefs were appealing to many people, including the peasants who liked the idea of being "subject to none" and freedom from the oppression of the nobles. They could finally be part of a religion without the costly "in-app purchases" that came along with Catholicism. (I hope someone remembers my app metaphor, it's all I have going for me.)
the peasants' feelings toward Martin Luther (until he abandoned them during their rebellious years...awkward)
The commercial/middle class also liked Lutheranism because they weren't under the pope's jurisdiction anymore, so they ultimately had more social power and saved money as well (no tithing, buying indulgences, etc.).
Everybody wins! Unless you're Catholic...then you're probably pretty upset at this time, and this most likely isn't your reaction.
The Catholic church hoped this would be fleeting and unpopular, but they had another thing coming with the Reformation and spread of Protestantism.
the Catholic church's reaction the 95 Theses and the beginning of the Reformation
It's safe to say that the Reformation was a...
for Martin Luther and Protestants, until the lack of religious unity weakened European countries.
I'll see all you lovely ladies tomorrow, where we'll enjoy another fabulous AP Euro class and try not to cry from sleep deprivation and the overwhelming amount of work we have. :)
First, the Renaissance and Reformation were occurring at the same time. The two events were like "two peas in a pod" (Mr. Yarnall), the pod was individuality:
Reformation=re-form just as renaissance=re-birth
The early Christian church represented a golden age spiritually, while the Classical Greco/Roman era represented a golden age culturally...Renaissance people wanted to go back to the good old days before the mess of the Middle Ages.
The reformation and Renaissance were similar in the sense that they both embraced liberalism, rationalism, and independent thought. Both movements shifted away from corrupt authority and embraced the fact that man is fabulous (he can reach salvation on his own if he geeks out with the Bible-sola scriptura), his thoughts should be heard and greatness immortalized (wall of any Renaissance Pope/patron's house).
Reformers like Luther=socially awkward geeks who reject norms (authority/church)
...but then become very popular
Pope/Patron...this doesn't make sense, weren't the Popes supposed to be poor like Christ's disciples?
This is where Luther comes in. He didn't think artists should be making money off of the church and was disgusted at the upper class's portrayal of themselves as holier than thou in paintings, when really the higher ups in the church, including the pope, were quite the opposite.
This is where the two peas in the pod (Renaissance/Reformation) weren't such best friends...
Onto the Church and its issues...
3 reasons why Francis is cooler than Renaissance Popes, religious officials, and priests:
He isn't:
ignorant/uneducated
likely the local priest was a local Joe who mispronounced the Latin mass
holding multiple offices at once and never fulfilling his duties
(Pluralism) Italian officials held benefices in other countries. They still collected revenues from their positions, which they filled with unqualified poor priests.
immoral and violating his vows of celibacy
also wearing Versace on the weekends and indulging in drink/gambling and maybe has a portrait by the petulant Michelangelo in the living room.
they had two faces...
Machiavelli said the rulers were the worst because they set a bad example by participating in all of the above.
These conflicts between religious faith and religious authority were present across the board, in parishes both wealthy and poor.
In most countries nobility occupied the highest church positions (power was based on blood)
Thus, Martin Luther comes along to save the day. After giving up on becoming a lawyer and moving to an Augustinian monastery because he was frightened during a thunderstorm, he began to question if monastic life was a sure way to salvation.
Like Jan Hus, he agreed with the faith, but not the way it was being delivered to people on earth (or if it needed an earthly middle man at all)
Luther's ideas spread quickly via the printing press and he quickly accumulated many followers.
Luther's Faith=Justin Bieber's Hair Flip. It became very popular and he had many copycats (Zwingli=all teenage boys)
Tetzel's indulgences (authorized by Pope Leo X) offered temporal salvation, guaranteeing a smooth ride to heaven...but undermined the sacrament of penance, competed with Gospel preaching, and downplayed the act of charity.
Luther when he heard of the indulgences...he also wrote the 95 theses and sent them to archbishop Albert who hired Tetzel to sell them
Popes you should know:
Julius II-tried to throw Michelangelo off scaffolding (but also greatest art patron of papal line and commissioner of Michelangelo's paintings on the Sistine chapel)
Leo X (he was a Medici)-excommunicated Martin Luther also made peace with French in Concordat of Bologna
so the reformation was Luther's attempt to bring about a rebirth in the church...he wanted everyone to become enthusiastic about their faith just as the Renaissance dudes wanted people to embrace their humanity and culture
Thursday, September 24, 2015
September 24, 2015: England and Spain in the Renaissance
Hello everyone! I hope you are having a fabulous night of
studying!! Enjoy!!
England:
Controlling the Aristocracy:
At this time, the aristocracy dominated the government of
the king, Henry IV, committing mischievous violence at local level. The court
of the Star Chamber- a council that dealt with real or potential aristocratic
threats controlled the problem with the misbehaved aristocracy. The court used
sometimes-terrifying Roman law, which ran counter to English common-law, but
these methods proved effective as they reduced aristocratic trouble making.
(The mischievous nobility)
White vs. Red:
The War of Roses, between the houses of York and Lancaster
not only hurt the trade, agriculture, and domestic industry of England, but the
authority of the monarch (Henry VI) plummeted. The House of York won and Edward
IV, accompanied by his brother Richard III and Henry VII (Tudor) restored the
power of the monarchy by crushing that of the nobility.
As wars were financed by the Parliament, dominated by
baronial factions, the aristocracy held their monetary influence over the heads
of the monarchy. Therefore, in an attempt to cut the influence of the nobility,
Edward IV made foreign policy decisions on the basis of avoiding expensive wars
that would force the royals to involved Parliament.
Although Henry VII summon multiple Parliamentary meetings to
confirm laws, the center of royal authority was the royal council, governing at
the national level.
Justices of the Peace:
England did not have a standing army, so they relied on the
support of unpaid local officials called the Justices of the peace. These
justices were influential landowners who handled work of local government and
served as a sort of police force.
Rebuilding:
Henry VII rebuilt monarchy through the encouragement of the
cloth industry and building of the merchant marine. Henry crushed the invasion
from Scotland and sought peace through the marriage of his daughter to the
Scottish king. When he left the throne, Henry VII left England at peace
domestically and internationally, with a strong treasury and the dignity of the
royals majorly enhanced.
Spain:
Spain becoming Spain: Spain did not become Spain until
Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon got married which constituted a
dynastic union of two royal houses.
Reconquista: The wars of the northern Christian kingdom to
control the entire peninsula- had military and religious objectives: conversion
or expulsion of the Muslims and Jews and political control of the south.
Hermandades: or “brotherhoods”(a medieval institution), were popular groups
in towns given authority to act as local police forces and judicial tribunals.
Hermandades were used to repress violence with severe punishment, and were
therefore later disbanded.
Reconstruction: Ferdinand and Isabella cubed aristocratic
power by reconstructing the royal council- supervising local government and
only appointed the middle-class as to avoid future problems.
Jews: There was still a sizable number of Jews (threatening)
after the Reconquista. Their rights had been renewed as Jewish societal
contributions were huge and supported royal power. Governments had never
tolerated religious pluralism and Spain during the 14th Century was
no different. Anti-semitism rose more from popular sentiment than from royal
policy. It is estimated that 40% of the Jewish population in Spain was killed
or forced to convert. Converts were called conversos, Maranos or New Christians.
Ferdinand, who was not a religious man, feared rioting because of the strong
public hatred of the conversos. He knew if he protected them, his power would
be doomed. Ferdinand resolved the dilemma by seeking papal permission to set up
the Inquisition in Spain so that if it provoked criticism, then the papacy
could be blamed.
Even though the Inquisition was a religious institution to
ensure Catholic faith, it was controlled by the Crown and served as a tool for
public unification.
(The Jews were really "top bananas")
Thanks lovelies!! Have a fabulous night/morning and see you
tomorrow!
How was the Northern Renaissance different to the Italian Renaissance?
The Italians had three mindsets that convinced themselves they were amazing: individualism, secularism, and humanism. They took inspiration from the past and created things for the individual. Northern Europe, however, was slightly different during the Renaissance. They believed in taking inspiration from the classics to improve the social institutions that molded the individuals of society. Northern attitudes were more focused on social reform based on Christian ideals.
Speaking of social reform, how did one go about changing things without being burned at the stake?
If you remember poor Jan Hus from last chapter, you’ll remember that speaking out against the church or other powerful social institutions could lead to death.
There are three authors to know, and they all used the same loophole: satire.
Desiderius Erasmus- Wrote The Praise of Folly, a satirical book criticizing many people in society
“The fact that they can never explain why they constantly disagree with each other is sufficient proof that they do not know the truth about anything.”
Thomas Moore- wrote Utopia, a social commentary that described a perfect word that used and silver chamber pots to buy off their enemies to make a point about how greed causes all of society’s problems
Rebelais- wrote Gargantua and Pantagruel, a comedic satire
All of these writers were able to escape execution by indirectly criticizing institutions with satire, instead of directly pointing out what they wanted changed.
Martin Luther was one of the first to legitimately criticize the Church without being executed.
Short bit about slaves:
Slaves were considered a status symbol, but they were not really tied to any particular race (Although Francesca mentioned about the origin of the word-- there were a lot of enslaved Slavic people, and so the word slave evolved.)
Onto the Monarchy:
Monarchs were worried about two things:
Gaining power
and aristocrats
The Monarchy in France:
Charles VII:
Established French liberties over the Church with the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges in 1438
This allowed the French government to appoint bishops, thus giving the French more influence in the Church
The Church was not a huge fan, but that’ll be taken care of later
Louis XI: “The Spider King”
Cut into urban independence-- did not allow people to raise their own armies
This took care of the concern about powerful aristocrats who now had no military backup.
Gained a lot of territory
Rescinded the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges with the Concordat of Bologna in 1516
The Church was appeased and respected the right of the French to appoint bishops and abbots
The French lost a little power, but were able to keep their spoils system inside the Church, which still gave the government an advantage in religious politics.
So to sum up:
The North wanted to reform institutions, but had to be careful about how they said it
There was slavery
The monarchs struggled for power over major institutions-- mostly the Church
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a society in possession of quantification capabilities must be in want of clocks." - paraphrased from The Yarnall Monologues
The year 1340ish rolled around Europe like a trained dog who had just learned how to measure time by using a clock.
Renaissance merchants must have found this ironic, as it happened to be that very same hyperactive year that they themselves learned how to quantify (the human word for measure) time by using the mechanical clock.
Sadly, Renaissance farmers missed the irony because they were busy being too cool for school with their illiteracy, poverty, and general disrespect of women to care about what was probably the single most important social development in the history of capitalism until the eventual rise of shameless product placement in movies.
Consistent perceptions of time made division of labor easier for companies so that worker productivity increased and trade became predictable enough for corporate strategies to be mapped out to a significantly greater degree of efficiency. The worker in turn had to keep up with this faster pace of communication and predetermined allotment of their time which would only get stricter as time marched forward. The consumer rat race had begun.
Just going to leave this here.
Seriously though, clocks were a pretty big deal.
Though there was at least one other invention of note to come from this time period.
The Printing Press
Still somewhat clock-like, but decidedly less time-y
Led to literacy becoming a thing.
Cheap, mass produced books allowed for some peasents to educate themselves (even if most of them didn't want to) and rise into the middle class.
Intelligence would not have been such a big deal to the Medieval peasant due to most serf work being of the unskilled labor variety, but with the Renaissance came an expansion of trade and technology that created a prosperous new job sector for educated poor folk.
Trickle down philosophy courtesy of Castiglione's The Courtier and other works on education of the youth began the trend of peasent schools which in turn caused the growth of the middle class.
Asian innovations were frequently adopted by the West following the Dark Ages. The printing press in particular was influenced by:
Chinese block-printing technique
Arab introduction of paper as a cheap printing surface
Invented by Gutenberg (and two other poor guys whom history and thus the AP test ignore).
Pictured: Beyonce and the other two members of Destiny's Child
The first great work produced by the press was Gutenberg's Bible of 1450, which was also the world's first mass produced book.
Important Authors and Philosophers
Baldassare Castiglione
...wrote the Courtier (1528), a work which had great impact on Renaissance education. Castiglione forwarded the concept that gentlemen should be trained as polymaths of spiritual, physical, and intellectual variety. It is likely that he based his theory of education on such great masters of the Renaissance as Michalangelo and daVinci whose proficiency in the arts was due to their multi-disciplinary training.
Niccolò Machiavelli
...wrote The Prince (1513) on the proper maintenance of political power and morality in sovereign politics. He holds that a monarch should be able to manipulate his people and take apparently cruel courses of actions as long as these actions are made for the greater social whole of the kingdom.
Machiavelli held that "the sole test of a 'good' government is whether it is effective and whether its ruler increases his power." This was a rather realistic perception of authority as it aligned with the terms of the greatest rulers of history, and distinctively lacked the moral idealism that characterized medieval political theory.
Ultimate significance rests on two ideas:
1. One permanent social order reflecting God's will cannot exist
2. Politics has its own laws and should be a science
Laura Cereta
15th century humanist and notable author who expressed such early feminist messages in her writings as that of women being the inferior sex not because of some mandate from God, rather because the women of the time period chose lives of frivolity that they depended on male generosity rather than putting in the work and suffering the social discomfort that comes with making
What is individualism? Individualism stressed personality, uniqueness, genius, & the full development of one's capabilities & talents. A person's abilities were to be stretched until fully realized. The quest for glory was a central component of Renaissance individualism.
2. Humanism.
What is humanism? Humanism emphasized human beings & their achievements, interests, & capabilities - believe in yourself, you can achieve great things! Does this have anything to do with ancient times? Yes. Humanists studied Latin classics to learn what they reveal about human nature. The revival of antiquity, or times before the Middle Ages, took the form of great interest during the Renaissance, becoming known as "new learning".
3. Secularism.
What is secularism? Secularism involved a basic concern with the material world instead of with the spiritual realm, or religion. Interest in the secular world did not negate interest in the religious world, however.
Are these hallmarks intertwined? Is there a hierarchy? Individualism could probably claim the top spot as one would have to be interested in the individual & one's capabilities in order to practice the beliefs of humanism & secularism. Secularism is at the bottom as it is a byproduct of individualism & humanism. So, the order would fall as follows: individualism, humanism, & secularism.
What fits more into the intellectual hallmarks of the Renaissance: painting people more realistically or in a glorified manner?- glorified manner, certainly.
Medieval v Renaissance Artistry
Tapestry from the Middle Ages
Renaissance Painting (Botticelli's Birth of Venus)
In the Renaissance, there was a large focus on anatomy & the human individual. What was portrayed in Renaissance works of art?- biblical & mythological themes. What was a big difference in technique?- perspective, light & dark of Renaissance times, etc.
"In terms of the way most people lived & thought, no sharp division exists between the Middle Ages & the Renaissance." Most is the key word here, not everyone attained a status of wealth & power.
Not everyone was a Medici!
Were artists important at this time? There is a change. Artists were seen as average laborers, not of a very high status. In the Renaissance, however, artists were hailed as geniuses & elitists.
Don't forget:
**Michelangelo- Sistine Chapel, sculpture of David, & PietÃ
Leonardo- Mona Lisa & The Last Supper
Rafael- The Sistine Madonna & The School of Athens
Misfortunes & Fortunes: The Tale of the Middle Ages & the Renaissance
Hello Mr. Y's favorite Euro class! Before I begin sharing my wealth (hint hint) of knowledge about the Renaissance, I am going to briefly include some significant points about the late Middle Ages as they will "set the stage" for events that occurred in the Renaissance. Happy reading!
Oh stop....I know...
There are three main events that occurred throughout the late Middle Ages:
Black Death
Hundred Years' War
Great Schism
BLACK DEATH
The significance of the bubonic plague is not so much the infection itself but its impact on European society at the time. The black death was a consequence of inventions to ships, allowing vessels the ability to sail year-round. This was a huge economic feat for the merchants, since now they would never have a lull period in trade. Unfortunately, the modification to ships allowed black rats, rodents that commonly lived in a ship's cargo, to move from city to city with ease. The rats possessed fleas that contained a bacterium capable of infecting human's with a deadly disease. Over a course of a number of years, the bubonic plague killed millions of Europeans.
However, it should be noted that the black death was not an entirely "bad thing." While the plague was a calamity in Europe, it did balance the overpopulation of people in Europe. With the population at a healthy low, Europe experienced a time of incredible economic stability. Who knew the bubonic plague would have such positive results?!
Europe after the plague
HUNDRED YEARS' WAR
During the Middle Ages, European monarchies were suffering. Many kings felt threatened by new governmental ideas and the Hundred Years' War is an example of the power crisis kings experienced. It is important to recall that the war was fought between England and France. Joan of Arc is a significant person to recall in regard to the war. Her visions from God helped to empower the French army and her story has been echoed throughout the centuries. Nonetheless, Joan is the unconventional heroine of France's cause in the war. France was the victor, however, both countries experienced tremendous losses.
Outcome of the war? England and France had eyes on each other at all times.
GREAT SCHISM
The Middle Ages experienced a lot of instability throughout its era, but the Great Schism is definitely the most frustrating event within the period. UGH!
Me trying to understand Middle Age thinking.
The Babylonian Captivity (think back to Mrs. Murphy's class) signaled the end of papal authority [for the time being]. When Philip the "Fair" of France urged the dying Pope Clement V to abandon Rome and move to his country of France, trouble with the pope was just beginning. Why did Philip want to move the pope? Obviously because he wanted the power the church had at the time!
Philip the Fair to Pope Clement V: JK I want to steal your power! :)
Rome suffered deeply without the papacy, which attracted visitors from all over the world and supported the Roman economy. When Clement's successor Gregory XI brought the papal court back to Rome everything seemed fine. JUST KIDDING! Romans just had to have an Italian pope and so they finally got their wish...or did they...
Pope Urban VI was not the correct person to enforce church reform because he did not know how to create change peacefully. He was actually a pretty insulting guy and once he began attacking the clergy, cardinals no longer could deal with his abuses. So, the cardinals claimed Urban was unfit for the position as pope and he was excommunicated. A new pope was then elected, the antipope Clement VII of France. Now Europe has TWO POPES. Let that sink in for a moment...
To respond to the instability the church was perpetuating and the schismthat the church had created, the colleges of cardinals claimed that the last two popes were irrelevant and decided to pick a new one that would run the Papal States. So, instead of just dealing with the two distinctly different popes (maybe taking them out for a nice soy latte or going to a group therapy session...I mean the opportunities are endless), the church decided to fix their mistake by adding ANOTHER POPE. Shall we do some math? Ok. How many popes are now claiming to be the pope? THREE. THREE POPES. Someone please explain this logic to me.
Ok so now that I have uncovered the dirty little secrets of the Middle Ages, I shall discuss... THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE
What caused the Italian Renaissance? Well, first, let me ask these questions:
What do you need to buy art?
What do you need to have in order to do art?
In order to have time for such extravagances as art there is a singular entity you need to have: MONEY! The economy of Italy was bursting at this time. As previously stated, the Black Death lowered the number of people in Europe. While this sounds like a negative, it allowed for a surplus in the number of jobs and the money countries had. Also, while ships contained the causes of the bubonic plague, they also carried the solution to a growing economy. Year-round trade insured a booming merchant economy.
This is just as unsanitary as the streets of cities during the Middle Ages - but I digress.
With this newfound wealth in the city-states, rich merchants were beginning to form organizations, called communes, in which men collectively worked to achieve political and economic independence from nobility. This signals the death of the feudal system in Italy for sure - communes were now the heads of the [city-] states rather than feudal lords.
As the wealth of these groups grew and size of the men in these associations grew, communes became elitist. The popolo were men upset with the communes right to oppress taxes on them PLUS they had no way of joining the communes because of their prestige. So, in retaliation, popolos formed their own communes that became just as exclusive as the original communes.
The popolos: hypocrisy at its finest.
Why didn't Italy move towards a more Republican way of life?
Democracy did not matter to Italians. City-states were prospering without a single leader and did not find the need to form such a tight government agency. Now, Italians did try to act republican using fronts such as the signori and oligarchies to appear democratic but it was all a facade.
CITY STATES & THEIR INABILITY TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER IN ITALY
Most of European countries did not act as a unified nation but a series of nations under one header. Italy was definitely an extreme example of this. The most popular cities in Italy: Venice, Milan, Florence, the Papal States, and Naples, were the popular table in a high school cafeteria. They were it - best economy, best trading industry, best material goods, drove BMWs, etc.
The dominant cities controlled lesser cities, which sometimes resulted in territorial battles. However, even with disunity, cities were able to fall back on their bursting economies.
The Italian city-states all the time. Someone please call Mama Italy.
Italy could only fall back on its money for so long...
Other nations began to recognize Italy's governmental instability and its inability to become a unified state. Countries began to focus their attention on gaining Italian lands. France was the first on the pounce, leaving Italy exposed to more attackers.
Like the Black Death, there is a positive that comes from European conquest of Italy. Italians were rich and allowed themselves the pleasure of artistic experiences and a brilliant culture of art and scholarship. Paint, sculptures, novels, poems, plays - Italians were appreciating art because they had time on their hands (#RichPeopleProbs).
As Giulia so greatly said in class (I apologize I am kind of paraphrasing):
Competition was healthy in spreading the Renaissance.
Giulia when Mr. Yarnall complemented her on her theory. Work it girl!
What a genius thing to say G-Naps! This is true. When other countries saw the brilliance of Italian art and literature, they too wanted a piece of the pie. And thus, the Italian Renaissance sparked the flame that spread throughout Europe bringing about new artistic, literary, and cultural ideas.
Well, it has been a pleasure bloggers. I shall see you in class. Till next time. XOXO, Emilia
Literally me when I finished this post.
Spotted: The Green brothers once again saving our history grades...definitely take a peek at this video before it's too late.
