Author Topic: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant  (Read 371908 times)

3kings(Trevor)

  • Posts: 347
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2040 on: September 16, 2013, 12:12:07 AM »

"I want to know what were the steps by which
man passed from barbarism to civilization (Voltaire)"

   



What are our origins?
Where are we now?
Where are we headed?
Share your thoughts with us!
   Volume Five (The Renaissance)
       
"Four elements constitute Civilization -- economic provision, political organization, moral traditions, and the pursuit of knowledge and the arts. "
 
"I shall proceed as rapidly as time and circumstances will permit, hoping that a few of my contemporaries will care to grow old with me while learning. "
       
"These volumes may help some of our children to understand and enjoy the infinite riches of their inheritance."
       
"Civilization begins where chaos and insecurity ends."






This volume, then, is about YOU. Join our group daily and listen to what Durant and the rest of us are saying. Better yet, share with us your opinions.
[/center]

SeniorLearn Contact: JoanK & Discussion Facilitator: Trevor
 


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


DURANTS"  S  o  C
THE REFORMATION  Vol. VI
Pgs. 395  398



                     THE ANABAPTISTS TRY COMMUNISM 1534 - 36

Only by observing with what devout enthusiasm some of our contemporaries adopt economic heresies can we understand the fervour with which pious rebellious minorities followed, even to the stake, one or another turn of the religious revolution in the sixteenth century.

The most radical of the new sects took the name of Anabaptists ( Wiedertäufer, Again-Baptizers) from its insistence that baptism, if given in infancy, should be repeated in maturity, and that still better it should be deferred, as by John the Baptist, till the mature recipient should knowingly and voluntarily make his profession of the Christian faith. There were sects within this sect. Some denied the divinity of Christ: He was only the most godly of men, Who had redeemed us not by His agony on the cross but by the example of His life. They exalted the individual conscience above the Church, the state, and the Bible itself. Most Anabaptists  adopted a Puritan severity of morals and simplicity of manners and dress. Developing with rash logic Luther’s idea of Christian liberty, they condemned all government by force, and all resistance to it by force. They rejected military service on the ground that it is invariably sinful to take human life. Their usual salutation was “ The peace of the Lord be with you.”-- an echo of the  Jewish and  Moslem greeting, and a forerunner of the Quaker mode. While   Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and Knox agreed with the popes on the absurdity of religious toleration, the Anabaptists preached and practiced it; one of them, Balthasar Hübmaier, wrote the first clear defence of it (1524). They shunned public office and all resort to litigation. They were Tolstoyan anarchists three centuries before Tolstoy.

In general, however, the sect rejected any compulsory sharing of goods, advocating voluntary mutual aid, and held that in the Kingdom of Heaven communism would be automatic and universal. All the Anabaptists groups were inspired by the  Apocalypse and the confident expectation of Christ’s early return to earth. Then all the ungodly -- in this case all but Anabaptists-- would be swept away by the sword of the lord, and the elect would live in glory in a terrestrial paradise without laws or marriage and abounding in all good things.

The Anabaptists appeared first in Switzerland. Communistic passages in More’s Utopia may have stirred the scholars who gathered around Erasmus. They preached adult baptism and the coming of Christ, rejected Church and state, and proposed an end to interest charges, taxes, military service, tithes, and oaths. The apparent success of the Peasants’ War in the spring of 1525 promoted many of their beliefs, but its failure encouraged the propertied classes in the Swiss cities to repressive measures. The council of Zurich arrested the leaders and ordered that all obstinate Anabaptists “should be laid in the tower,” kept on bread and water, and left to die and to rot. Protestant and Catholic cantons showed equal energy in subduing the sect, and by 1530 nothing remained of it in Switzerland except some secret and negligible bands.

Meanwhile the movement had spread like a rumour through South Germany. A zeal for evangelistic propaganda  caught the converts and turned them into ardent missionaries for the new creed. In Tirol many miners, contrasting their poverty with the wealth of the Fuggers and Hochstetters who owned the mines , took up Anabaptism when the Peasants’ Revolt collapsed. In that year (1529) Charles V issued a mandate making rebaptism a capital crime, and the Diet ratified the Emperor’s edict, and ordered that Anabaptists everywhere were to be killed like wild beasts as soon as taken, without judge or trial. By (1530) 2000 Anabaptists had been put to death. In Salzburg those who recanted were allowed to have their heads cut off before being placed upon the pyre; the unrepentant were roasted to death over a slow fire. Despite these killings the sect increased and  moved into Northern Germany. In Prussia and Württemberg some nobles welcomed the Anabaptists as peaceful and industrious workers. In Saxony the valley of Werra was filled with them, and in Erfurt they claimed to have sent forth 300 missionaries to convert the dying world.

Hut and his followers established a communistic centre at Austerlitz, where, as if foreseeing Napoleon, they renounced all military service, and denounced every kind of war. Confining themselves to tillage and petty industry, these Anabaptists maintained their communism for almost a century. The nobles who owned the land protected them as enriching the estates by their conscientious toil. Farming was communal among them; materials for agriculture and handicraft were bought and allotted by communal officers; part of the proceeds were paid to the landlord for rent, the rest was distributed according to need. The social unit was not the family but the Hausbabbe, or household, containing some 400 to 2000 persons, with a common kitchen, common laundry, a school, a hospital, and a brewery. Children, after weaning, were brought up in common, but monogamy remained. In the Thirty Years’ War this  communistic society was suppressed. Its members accepted Catholicism or were banished. Some of the exiles went to Russia, some to Hungary. We shall hear of them again.
  






JoanK

  • BooksDL
  • Posts: 8685
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2041 on: September 16, 2013, 05:46:19 PM »
Sounds like the kibbutzim in Israel.

Emily

  • Posts: 365
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2042 on: September 16, 2013, 10:26:50 PM »
An excerpt from the anabaptists who came to America, and also Canada, Mexico, Central and South America.

Quote
United States general Mennonites (often referred to as Swiss-German Mennonites).

These are descendants of the 16th century Swiss Brethern movement whose adherents dispersed throughout Europe, including Germany, Switzerland and eastern France, with subsequent migration to Eastern Pennsylvania and later throughout the United States. Numerous sub-sects have formed but are all grouped in this category since Mennonites are generally more mobile and hence overlap to a considerable extent.


OOA: Old Order Amish (some are today known as New Order Amish)

The Amish are descendents of a 17th century split from the Mennonite movement, led by Jakob Ammann who garnered his followers primarily from Swiss Mennonite migrants to the Alsace and Palatinate areas of Eastern France. They were early known as Amish Mennonites, but, following their immigration to America in two large waves (1727-1770 and 1815-1860) were simply called Amish. Most came from the 19th century Atlantic crossings and, finding the Eastern Pennsylvania Amish more traditional and conservative than what they were accustomed to, chose to move to Western Pennsylvania and later to Indiana and Ohio. Today they live in settlements in more than 25 states.


APA: Old Order Amish of Eastern Pennsylvania

These seem to be genetically distinct descendents of Ammann’s followers who, with the encouragement of William Penn, settled in a large tract in Eastern Pennsylvania (with today’s settlement centered in Lancaster County). These immigrants were among the earliest Swiss-German and Netherland Anabaptists to come to America to escape an increasingly hostile environment in Europe. The distribution of surnames and blood groups testify to their genetic uniqueness apart from other Amish settlements.


DGM: Dutch-German Mennonites

 Many Swiss Mennonites fled to the Netherlands where they enjoyed a period of relative freedom before being forced to flee again to Poland, then to the Ukraine, and finally to America. Perhaps 10,000 of the early immigrants settled in the Midwest where they gradually assimilated with other Anabaptists. More conservative immigrants from Russia in the 20th century settled in the provinces of Western Canada where today more than 27,000 live. These have remained relatively isolated with little interaction with other Mennonites so that slow genetic drift has created a generally unique genetic profile. As many as 7,000 of these early immigrants eventually settled in Mexico as well as in Central and South America where they presently number more than 75,000.

HUT: Hutterites
Hutterites are descendents of largely Austrian populations of Anabaptists who today live in several communal isolates in Western Canada.  Of all the groups, Hutterites have remained most isolated and today are the best defined population of plain people. Today they number more than 40,000 descended from about 100 immigrants in the mid-19th century.

mabel1015j

  • Posts: 3656
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2043 on: September 17, 2013, 11:54:58 AM »
Except for the return of Christ and the rejecting on modern inventions, i could go for much of the Anabaptists theology. Having grown up among Mennonites, i never realized how much i agreed with them.

As to the info that Emily posted about Mennonites - just an update - as families grew and there was a problem with inbreeding between families in Lancaster Co and the available farmlands of Lancaster Co diminished, the Amish and Mennonites began to disperse from there. As i was growing up in Cumberland and Franklin Co, south and west of Lancaster, more and more A and M were moving into those counties. That trend has continued. Many buggies are on the roads in Cumberland, Franklin and Adams Counties and probably even further west by this time. My sister and BIL owned a dairy farm across the road from a Mennonite family and they very much believed in helping their neighbors, but also expected there to be reciprocation - which was only fair.

Many of the young women worked as "practical nurses" or "home health aides"  in homes of people who needed . My Mother had them at least twice as she aged in her home. Ironically, many worked for Lutheran Social Services.

Jean

3kings(Trevor)

  • Posts: 347
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2044 on: September 21, 2013, 06:04:52 PM »
DURANT"S  S  o  C
Vol. VI  THE REFORMATION
Pgs. 398-402





In the Netherlands, Melchior Hofmann, a Swabian tanner, preached the Anabaptist gospel with exciting success He sent out through Holland twelve apostles to announce the glad tidings.The ablest of them was a young tailor, Jan Beuckelszoon, known to history as John of Leyden and to Meyerbeer’s opera as Le Prophet. Without formal education, he had a keen mind, a vivid imagination, a handsome presence, a ready tongue, a resolute will. He heard Jan Matthys and was won to Anabaptism ( 1533). He was then twenty-four. In that year he accepted a fatal invitation to come and preach in Münster, the rich and populous capital of Westphalia.

Named from a monastery around which it had grown, Münster was feudally subject to its bishop and cathedral chapter. Nevertheless  the growth of industry and commerce  had generated a degree of democracy. The assembled citizens, representing seventeen guilds, chose ten electors, who chose the city council. But the well-to-do  minority provided most of the  political ability, and naturally dominated the council. In 1525, enthusiastic over peasants uprisings, the lower classes presented thirty-six “demands” to the council. A Lutheran preacher, Bernard Rottman, made himself the mouthpiece of discontent, and asked Jan Marthys to send some  Dutch Anabaptists to his aid. Fearing insurrection the “party of Order” arranged to have Bishop Franz von Waldeck enter the town with some 2000 troops. The populace , led by Matthys, Rottman, and John of Leyden fought them in the streets, drove them out, and took martial control of Münster ( Feb. 10, 1534). New Elections were held; the Anabaptists won the council; the exciting experiment began.

Münster found itself at once in a state of war, besieged by the bishop and his reinforced army, and fearful that soon all the powers of order and custom in Germany would unite against it. To protect itself against internal opposition, the new council decreed that all non Anabaptists must accept rebaptism, or leave the city.. It was a cruel measure , for it meant that old men, women carrying infants, and bare footed children had to ride or trudge from the town at the height of the German winter. During the siege both sides executed without mercy any persons found  working for the enemy. Matthys died fighting in an abortive sortie, (April 1534) and thereafter John of Leyden ruled the city as its king.

The communism that was now set up was a war economy, as perhaps all strict communism must be; for men are by nature unequal, and can be induced to share their goods and fortunes only by a vital and common danger; internal liberty varies with external security, and communism breaks under the tensions of peace. In peril of their lives if they fall short of unity, inspired by religious faith and inescapable eloquence, the besieged accept a  “socialist theocracy” in the desperate hope they were realizing the New Jerusalem visioned in the Apocalypse. The members of the Committee of Public Safety were called “ the elders of the twelve tribes of Israel” and John Leyden became “King of Israel”.

Public morals were regulated by strict laws. Dances, games, and religious plays were encouraged, under supervision, but drunkenness and gambling were severely punished, prostitution was banned, fornication and adultery were made capital crimes. An excess of women caused by the flight of many men, moved the leaders to decree, on the basis of Biblical precedents, that unattached women, should become companions of wives -- in effect, concubines. The newly attached women  seem to have  accepted the situation as preferable to solitary barrenness. John, released and re-enthroned, took several wives, and (said his enemies) governed with violence and tyranny. He  must have had some genial qualities, for thousands gladly bore his rule, and offered their lives in his service. When he called for volunteers to follow him in a sortie against the bishop, many more women  enlisted than he thought wise to use.

Though many Anabaptists in Germany and Holland repudiated the resort of their
Münster  brethren to force, many more applauded the revolution. From Amsterdam, fifty vessels sailed (March  1535 ) to carry reinforcements to the beleaguered  city, but all were dispersed  by  Dutch authorities. Confronted with this spreading revolt, the conservative forces of the Empire, Protestant as well as Catholic, mobilised to suppress Anabaptism. Luther, who in 1528 had counselled lenience with the new heretics, now advised (in 1530) “the use of the sword “ against them as “they were not only blasphemous but highly seditious.” City after city sent money or men to the bishop; a Diet at Worms ordered a tax on all Germany to finance the siege of Münster by its bishop.

Facing famine and deteriorating morale, king John announced that all who wished might leave the city. Many women and children, and some men , seized the opportunity.. The men were imprisoned or killed by the bishop’s men, who spared the women for divers services. One of the émigrés saved his life by offering to show the bishop’s soldiers an undefended part of the city walls. A force of Landsknechts scaled them and opened a gate. Soon several thousand troops poured into the town.. Starving citizens barricaded themselves in the market place, then they surrendered on a promise of safe conduct to leave Münster. When they yielded up their arms they were slaughtered. John Leyden and two of his aids were bound to stakes; every part of their bodies was clawed with red-hot pincers, their tongues were pulled from their mouths; at last daggers were thrust into their hearts.

The Bishop regained his city and augmented his former power. Luther advised Philip of Hesse to put to death all adherents of the sect. The Anabaptists accepted the lesson, postponed communism to the millennium, and resigned themselves  to the practice of such of their principles-- as did not offend the state. Menno Simons, a catholic priest converted to Anabaptism (1531) gave to his Dutch and German followers such skilful guidance that the “Menonites” survived all tribulations, and formed successful agricultural communities in Holland, Russia, and America. There is no clear filiation between the Continental Anabaptists and the English Quakers and the American Baptists; but the Quaker rejection of war and oaths, and the Baptists insistence on adult baptism probably stem from the same traditions of creed and conduct that in Europe took Anabaptist forms.

The theology that supported them through hardship, poverty, and martyrdom hardly accords with our transient philosophy; but they too, in their sincerity, devotion, and friendliness, enriched our heritage, and redeemed our tarnished humanity. *

*A branch of the Anabaptists migrated (1719) from Germany to Pennsylvania and settled in or near Germantown, Philadelphia: these ’Dunkers’ now number some 200,000. In 1887 many Anabaptists of Moravian  descent left Russia and settled in South Dakota and Alberta. In eastern Pennsylvania the “Amish” Mennonites -- named from a seventeenth-century leader, Jokob Amen -- still officially reject razors, buttons, railroads, automobiles, motion pictures, newspapers, even tractors, but their farms are among the tidiest and most prosperous in America. The world total of Mennonites in 1949 was 400,000.



JoanK

  • BooksDL
  • Posts: 8685
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2045 on: September 22, 2013, 03:13:35 PM »
There is a small group of Mennonites near where I used to live in Maryland as well.

3kings(Trevor)

  • Posts: 347
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2046 on: September 26, 2013, 09:38:04 PM »
Durants'  S  o  C
Vol. VI   THE REFORMATION
Pgs. 415 - 420

                              Luther 
Having summarized the economic, political, religious, moral and intellectual conditions that cradled the Reformation, we must still count it among the wonders of history that in Germany one man, Luther, should have unwittingly gathered those influences into a rebellion transforming a continent. What was he like, this lusty voice of his time, this peak of German history ? A portrait (1532), showed Luther cheerfully obese, with a broad, full face; this man enjoyed living. He had slipped into marriage by inadvertence. He agreed with St. Paul that it is better to marry than to burn, and proclaimed sex to be as  natural and necessary as eating. He condemned virginity as a violation of the divine precept to increase and multiply. If “a preacher of the Gospel cannot live chastely unmarried, let him take a wife; God has made a plaster for that sore.” He had the traditional and German conception of woman as divinely designed for childbearing, cooking, praying, and not much else. “If women get tired and die of bearing, there is no harm in that; let them live as long as they bear; they are made for that.”

Apparently it was for no physical need that Luther married. When on his recommendation, some nuns left their convent, he undertook to find them husbands. Finally, only one remained unmatched, Catherine von Bora, a woman of good birth and character, but hardly designed to arouse precipitate passion. She had set her sights on a young student of patrician stock; she failed to get him, and entered domestic service to keep alive. Luther suggested a Dr. Glatz as a husband; she replied Glatz was unacceptable, but that Dr. Luther would do. Luther was forty-two, Catherine twenty-six; he thought the discrepancy prohibitive, but his father urged him to transmit the family  name. On June 27, 1525, the ex-monk and the ex-nun became man and wife.

The Elector gave them  the Augustinian monastery as a home and raised Luther’s salary to 300 guilders, later increased to 400, then 500. Luther bought a farm, which Catherine managed and loved. She bore him six children, and cared faithfully for them, for all Martin’s domestic needs, for a home brewery, a fish pond, a vegetable garden, chickens, and pigs. His letters to or about Catherine reveal his growing affection for her. He repeated in his own way, what he had been told in his youth. “The greatest gift of God to man is a pious, kindly, God-fearing, home loving wife.”

He  was a good father, knowing as if by instinct the right mixture of discipline and love. “Punish if you must, but let the sugar-plum go with the rod.” His sturdy spirit, which could face an emperor in war, was almost broken by the death of his favourite daughter Magdalena at the age of fourteen. He said to her “ Lena dear, my little daughter, thou wouldst love to remain here with thy father; art thou willing to go to that other Father?” “Yes dear father,” Lena answered “just as God wills.” When she died he wept long and bitterly “ Du liebes Lenichen, you will rise and shine like the stars and the sun. How strange it is to know that she is at peace and all is well, and yet be so sorrowful!”

We perceive that he was a man, not an inkwell; he lived as well as he wrote. No  healthy person will resent Luther’s relish for good food and beer, or his fruitful enjoyment of all the comforts that Catherine Bora could give him. Luther ate too much, but he could punish himself with long fasts. He drank too much, and deplored drinking as a national vice, but beer was the water of life to the Germans, as wine to the Italians and French. “ If God can forgive me for having crucified Him with Masses twenty years running, He can also bear with me, for occasionally taking a good drink to honour Him.” All in all, Luther’s conception of life was remarkably cheerful for one who thought that “all natural inclinations are either without God or against Him,” and that nine out of every ten souls were divinely predestined to everlasting hell. The man was immeasurably better than his theology.

His intellect was powerful, but it was too clouded with the miasmas of his youth, too incarnadined with war, to work out a rational philosophy. Like his contemporaries, he believed in goblins, witches, demons, the curative value of live toads. He ridiculed astrology but sometimes talked in its terms. He praised mathematics , “as relying on demonstrations and sure proofs.“ He admired the bold reach of astronomy into the stars, but he rejected the Copernican system as contradicting Scripture. He insisted that reason should stay within the limits laid down by religious faith. He had the courage to defy his enemies because he did not have the intellect to doubt his truth. He was what he had to be, to do what he had to do.

JoanK

  • BooksDL
  • Posts: 8685
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2047 on: September 27, 2013, 02:56:13 PM »

mabel1015j

  • Posts: 3656
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2048 on: September 28, 2013, 11:11:50 AM »
What a nice look at ML.

On the other hand, because of the previous post, the story of Munster, i definitely have an answer for Dr Kaluger (my college philosophy professor) "human beings ARE more evil then good." how do people do such atrocious things to each other? Are we innately programmed to think that our ideas are RIGHT? You other guys are WRONG, even if it is simply a question of "at what age should people be baptised????"

 The older i get and the more history i study leads me to that conclusion. Now, is that because history tells us the more dramatic stories over time, therefore giving us more examples of evil then of good and not telling us about those marvelous little day-to-day good deeds that people do for each other? Ala 24 hr news channels? If we add up all the small, ordinary good deeds, do they overwhelm the atrocities? ....... More philosophical questions..........ahhhhhh, Dr Kaluger i have not forgotten.

Jean

mabel1015j

  • Posts: 3656
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2049 on: September 30, 2013, 01:05:14 PM »
This morning in my Keirsey Temperament Newsletter ( Keirsey wrote a book for "civilians" on the Myers/Briggs personality "type" theory) is a quote from David Keirsey about his habit of reading anything and everything. Durant was a favorite of his.

I began reading when I was seven. Read (most of) a twelve volume set of books my parents bought, Journeys through Bookland. Read countless novels thereafter, day in and day out. I educated myself by reading books. Starting at age nine my family went to the library once a week, I checking out two or three novels which I would read during the week. Then, when I was sixteen, I read my father’s copy of Will Durant’s The Story of Philosophy. I read it over and over again, now and then re-reading his account of some of the philosophers. (Long afterwards I read his magnificent eleven volumes—The Story of Civilization. I also have read his The Lessons of History many times, this being his brilliant summary of the eleven volumes.)

I mention Durant’s book The Story of Philosophy because it was a turning point in my life, I to become a scholar as did Durant, thereafter reading the philosophers and logicians—anthropologists, biologists, ethologists, ethnologists, psychologists, sociologists, and, most important, the etymologists, all of the latter—Ernest Klein, Eric Partridge, Perry Pepper, and Julius Pokorny—of interest to me now as then.


I think i'll try to find Durant's The Lessons of History, i've never read it.

JoanK

  • BooksDL
  • Posts: 8685
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2050 on: September 30, 2013, 06:52:28 PM »
The Lessons of history is available on Kindle. I've ordered a sample. Let you know what I think.

mabel1015j

  • Posts: 3656
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2051 on: September 30, 2013, 10:48:46 PM »
Fortunately, i see my library has a copy. But i can't get it now, i'm already got enough books for the next three months.  ;D sounds like a good book for the cold winter.   :P

mabel1015j

  • Posts: 3656
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2052 on: October 01, 2013, 03:19:46 PM »
I am reading Barbara Ehrenreich's "Dancing in the Streets". It is a history about public festivals, carnivals, religious holidays and dancing in the streets. Very interesting. I came upon it as a footnote in a book about the song "Dancing in the Street." They are very different subjects however.  ;) According to BE people from the beginning of time have come together in dance and celebration, at first in 'religious' gatherings, and this behavior continued quite prominently until the Reformation! Surprise, surprise! However, it was the Calvinists - my ancestors - who squelched it, not ML.

BE writes " In Florence in the 1490s the crusading monk Savonarola raged against worldly extravagance and folly in all forms, not the least of them carnival, preaching that " boys should collect alms for the respectable poor (sound familiar?), instead of mad pranks, throwing stones and making floats for carnival." In Germany, during the yrs when young Luther was quietly agonizing over his relationship to the pope and the deity, reforming priests were already inveighing against Church festivals, arguing that the attendant drinking, dancing, and gaming wr "the ruin of the common people." Of particular concern to early 16th century Catholic reformers was the mockery of religious ritual common to so many festivities. the late 15th century had seen a growing number of mandates against such parodies, as well as against people costuming themselves for carnival as priests and nuns.

Luther did aim to abolish the 'superstitious' worship of saints which meant the end of saints' days and the festivities that had grown up around them. But he found nothing intrinsically evil in the trad'l communal pleasures, stating in a sermon:Because it is the custom of the country, just like inviting guests, dressing up, eating, drinking, and making merry, I can't bring myself to condemn it, unless it gets out of hand, and so causes immoralities or excess. And even though sin has taken place in this way, it's not the fault of dancing alone. Provided they don't jump on the tables or dance in church.....But so long as it's done decently, I respect the rites and customs of weddings.....and I dance, anyway.
(Well who know ML was such a gay blade???)

Luther even introduced a powerful new experience of community solidarity and uplift into the Christian service, in the form of hymn singing, many of the hymns being of his own composition, and to Christians accustomed to silence and passivity at the Catholic mass, this must hv seemed an exceedingly lively innovation!"


This is a totally different picture of ML then I have seen in my previous studies - both Durant and Ehrenreich are filling in the gaps in my information. I believe my Calvinist ancestors may have mislead me  :D and the writers of the textbooks I have read about ML gave a much more foreboding picture of him.[/size][/size]

JoanK

  • BooksDL
  • Posts: 8685
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2053 on: October 01, 2013, 09:11:03 PM »
Read Durant's "Lessons of History" last night (it's short!). I was disappointed in it. But I'll feed in some of the "lessons" gradually.

He divides it into the influence of various factors on history. As to the earth, all history is at the mercy of geology, as earthquakes etc. can change history in an instant. Water has been very important in history: the flourishing civilizations have always been the seafaring ones. But that should change with the growth of alternate forms of transportation.

I'll feed in more later.

Emily

  • Posts: 365
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2054 on: October 02, 2013, 09:00:29 PM »
Thank you Jean and Joan for your insightful posts. I agree with Joan on Durant's 'Lessons of History', it is short and I too was disappointed when I read it.

Emma

3kings(Trevor)

  • Posts: 347
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2055 on: October 02, 2013, 10:19:18 PM »
Durants' S  o  C
Vol.VI  THE REFORMATION
Pgs.420 - 425



                                              THE INTOLERANT HERETICS

It is instructive to observe how Luther moved from tolerance to dogma as his power and certainty grew. Among the “errors” that Leo X in the bull ‘Exsurge Domine’, denounced in Luther was that “to burn heretics is against the will of the Holy Spirit. In the “Open letter to the Christian Nobility (1520) Luther ordained “every men a priest,” with the right to interpret The Bible according to his private judgement and individual light, and added "We should vanquish heretics with books, not with burning.”

In a letter to Elkector Frederick ( April 21,1524) Luther asked toleration for his own enemies. ”You should not prevent them from speaking. There must be sects, and the word of God must face battle..... Let us leave in His hands the combat and free encounter of minds.” In 1528, when others were advocating the death penalty for Anabaptists, he advised that unless they were guilty of sedition, they should be merely banished. Likewise, in 1530 he recommended that the death penalty for blasphemy should be softened to exile. It is true that even in those liberal years he talked as if he wished his followers or God to drown or otherwise eliminate all “Papists”; but this was “campaign oratory,” not seriously meant. He wrote, “I would not have the Gospel defended by violence or murder.” In May 1529, he condemned plans for the forcible conversion of Catholic parishes to Protestantism. As late as 1531 he taught that “We neither can nor should force anyone into the faith.”

But it was difficult for a man of Luther’s  forceful and positive character to advocate tolerance after his position had been made relatively secure. A man who was sure he had God’s Word  could not tolerate its contradiction. The transition to intolerance was easiest concerning the Jews. Till 1537 Luther argued that they were to be forgiven for keeping their own creed, “since our fools, the popes, bishops, sophists, and monks, those course assheads, dealt with the Jews in such a manner that any Christian would have preferred to be a Jew. “Indeed, had I been a Jew, and had seen such idiots  and dunderheads expound Christianity, I would rather become a hog than a Christian. “ I would advise anybody to deal kindly with the Jews, and to instruct them in the Scripture; in such case we could expect them to come over to us.”

Luther may have realised in some aspects Protestantism was a return to Judaism, in its rejection of monasticism and clerical celibacy, its emphasis on the Old Testament, the Prophets, and the Psalms, and its adoption ( Luther himself excepted) of a sterner sexual ethic than that of Catholicism. He was disappointed when the Jews made no corresponding move toward Protestantism and his hostility to the charging of interest helped him to turn against the Jewish moneylenders, then against the Jews in general. In his declining years he fell into a fury of anti-Semitism, denounced the Jews as “a  stiffnecked, unbelieving, proud, wicked, abominable nation,” and demanded that “their schools and synagogues should be raised with fire.”

“And let whosoever can, throw brimstone and pitch upon them.... And this must be done for the honour of Our Lord and of Christianity, so that God may see that we are indeed Christians. Let their houses also be shattered and destroyed; let their rabbis be forbidden, on pain of death, to teach henceforth any more.. Let them be forbidden to practice usury, and let all their money, and all their treasures of silver and gold be taken from them and put away in safety. And if all this be not enough, let them be driven like mad dogs out of the land.

Luther should never have grown old. Already in 1522 he was out papaling the popes. “I do not admit,” he wrote, “that my doctrine can be judged by anyone, even the angels. He who does not receive my doctrine cannot be saved.” In the thirteenth chapter of Deuteronomy, he found an explicit command, allegedly from the mouth of God , to put heretics to death. “Neither shalt thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou conceal him, even though he be thy brother, or thy son, or the wife of your bosom.... but thou shalt surely kill him, thy hand shall be the first upon him to put him to death.” On that awful warrant the Church had acted in annihilating the Albigensians in the thirteenth century; that divine imprecation had been made a certificate of authority for the burnings of the Inquisition. Despite the violence of Luther’s speech he never rivalled the severity of the Church in dealing with dissent. In 1525 he invoked the aid of existing censorship regulations in Saxony and Brandenburg to stamp out the “pernicious doctrines “ of the Anabaptists. We should note however, that toward the end of his life Luther returned to his early feeling for toleration. In his last sermon he advised abandonment of all attempts to destroy heresy by force; Catholics and Anabaptists should be borne with patiently till the Last Judgment, when Christ will take care of them.”

Luther demanded the suppression of all books that opposed or hindered Lutheran teaching. Whereas he was content with the expulsion of Catholics from regions governed by Lutheran princes, others favoured corporal penalties. It was agreed that the civil power was in duty bound to promulgate and uphold, “ the Law of God” i.e. Lutheranism. Luther however counselled that where two sects existed in a state the minority should yield to the majority; in a predominantly Catholic principality the Protestants should yield and emigrate; in a prevailing Protestant province the Catholics should give way and depart; if they resisted, they should be effectively chastised.

Excommunication, like censorship, was adopted by the Protestants from the Catholics. The Augsburg Confession of 1530 proclaimed the right of the Lutheran Church to excommunicate any member who should reject a fundamental Lutheran doctrine. Luther explained that “ although excommunication in popedom has been and is shamefully abused, and made a mere torment, yet we must not suffer it to fall, but make right use of it, as Christ commanded.”

 

JoanK

  • BooksDL
  • Posts: 8685
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2056 on: October 03, 2013, 05:26:26 PM »
One of Durant's "lessons from history" is that revolutionaries when tey succeed always end up showing the same characteristics they revolted against. It looks like Luther was an example of that.

3kings(Trevor)

  • Posts: 347
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2057 on: October 11, 2013, 11:37:34 PM »
Durants'  S  o  C
Vol. VI  The REFORMATION
Pgs. 417 - 431





                             Erasmus Appendix: 1517-1536   

The reaction of Erasmus to the Reformation provides a living debate among historians and philosophers. Which method was the better for mankind  -- Luther’s direct attack upon the Church or Erasmus’ policy of peaceful compromise and piecemeal reform? The answers almost define two types of personality:” tough minded” warriors of action and will, “tender-minded” compromisers given to feeling and thought. Luther was basically a man of action; his thoughts were decisions, his books his deeds. His thinking was early medieval in content, early modern in result; his courage and decisiveness, rather than his theology, co-operated with nationalism to establish the modern age. Luther spoke in masculinely vigorous German to the German people, and aroused a nation to overthrow an international power; Erasmus wrote in femininely graceful Latin for an international audience, a cosmopolitan elite of university graduates. He was too sensitive to be a man of action; he praised and longed for peace while Luther waged and relished war. He knew too much to see truth or error all on one side; he saw both sides, tried to bring them together, and was crushed in between.

Erasmus applauded Luther’s Theses. In march 1518, he sent copies of them to Colet and More, and wrote to Colet: “ The Roman Curia has caste aside all shame. What is more impudent than these indulgences?” As Luther’s  revolt passed from criticism of indulgences to rejection of papacy and councils, Erasmus hesitated. He had hoped that Church reform could be advanced by appealing to the good will of the humanist Pope. He still revered the Church as ( it seemed to him) an irreplaceable foundation of social order and individual morality; and though he believed that the orthodox theology was shot through with nonsense, he had no trust in the wisdom of popular judgment to develop a more beneficent ritual or creed. He acknowledged his share in opening a path for Luther. His own “Praise of Folly’ was at that moment circulating by the thousands throughout Europe, pointing scorn at monks and theologians, and giving sharp point to Luther’s blunt tirades.

Erasmus had now to make one of the pivotal decisions of his life, and either horn of the dilemma seemed fatal. If he renounced Luther he would be called a coward. If he associated himself with Luther in rejecting the Roman Church he would not merely forfeit three pensions and the protection that Leo X had given him against obscurantist theologians; he would have to abandon his own plan and strategy of Church reform through the improvement of minds and morals of influential men, such as Bishop Fisher, Dean Colet, Thomas More, Francis I, Charles V. These men, of course, would never consent to renounce the Church, but they could be enlisted in a campaign to reduce the superstitions and horrors in the prevailing cult, to cleanse and educate the clergy, to control and subordinate the monks, and to protect individual freedom for the progress of the mind. To exchange that program for a violent division of Christendom into warring halves, and for a theology of predestination and unimportance of good works, would seem to these men, and seemed to Erasmus, the way to madness.

In April he wrote to Elector Frederick encouraging him to protect Luther as more sinned against than sinning. Finally (May 30), he wrote to Luther:

 “Dearest brother in Christ, your epistle, showing the keenness of your mind and  breathing a Christian spirit, was most pleasant to me. I cannot tell you what a commotion your books are raising here. [People] cannot by any means be disabused of the suspicion that your works are written by my aid, and that I am, as they call it, the standard-bearer of your party...... I have testified to them that you are entirely unknown to me, that I have not read your books, and neither approve nor disapprove of your writings, but that they should read them before they speak so loudly...... It was of no use; they are as mad as ever.... I am myself the chief object of animosity. It might be wiser of you to denounce those who misuse the Pope’s authority than to censure the Pope himself. Old institutions cannot be rooted up in an instant. Avoid all appearance of sedition. Keep cool. Do not get angry. Do not hate anybody. Do not get excited over the noise you have made.... Christ give you His spirit, for His own glory, and the world’s good.”

Despite this cautious ambivalence the theologians continued to attack Erasmus as the fountainhead of the Lutheran flood. On October 8 1520, Aleander arrived, posted the papal bull excommunicating Luther, and scored Erasmus as a secret fomenter of the revolt. The pundits accepted Aleander’s lead, and expelled Erasmus from the Louvain faculty. He moved to Cologne, and there defended Luther in conference with Fredrick of Saxony (November 5). With the Dominican Johann Faber he composed a memorial to Charles V, recommending that Charles, Henry VIII, and Louis II of Hungary  should appoint an impartial tribunal to try Luther’s case.

But Luther made it more and more difficult for Erasmus to intercede for him, since with each month the violence of Luther’s speech increased, until in July 1520, he invited his readers to wash their hands in the blood of bishops and cardinals. Erasmus confessed himself shocked; now he feared civil war.


JoanK

  • BooksDL
  • Posts: 8685
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2058 on: October 12, 2013, 04:43:22 PM »
Erasmus "knew too much to see truth or error all on one side; he saw both sides, tried to bring them together, and was crushed in between."

Isn't that always the fate of the mediator?

Emily

  • Posts: 365
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2059 on: October 16, 2013, 07:52:31 PM »
Quote
(Erasmus) He still revered the Church as ( it seemed to him) an irreplaceable foundation of social order and individual morality; and though he believed that the orthodox theology was shot through with nonsense, he had no trust in the wisdom of popular judgment to develop a more beneficent ritual or creed.

Why would anyone need rituals or creeds that were shot through with nonsense? All one needs is the rule of 'law' that applies equally to all humanity.

Neither Erasmus nor Luther give humanity any credit for thousands of years of survival and progress without this particular brand of ritual and nonsense. Of course they had their own brand of ritual and nonsense over those years, but as time moved on they had begun to shed the old gods only to have them replaced with even more unbelievable nonsense.

I do not buy the argument that humans need this sort of foolishness or they would all go wild and have no morals. Morals have nothing at all to do with ritual and occultism. IMO one is either born with empathy or without empathy. If one is born a psychopath all the rituals ever devised by the occult will not change that fact one iota. The rest of humanity does not need rituals, they need laws that will remove the psychopaths from society to a secure facility.

Both Erasmus and Luther were wrong imo and simply aided the continued use of occultism to prey on society. Religions are still a big business, but science is gaining ground.

Emma 

3kings(Trevor)

  • Posts: 347
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2060 on: October 23, 2013, 02:52:18 AM »
DURANT'S  S  o  C
Vol. VI  The REFORMATION
Pgs.  431 - 435


                                      LUTHER AND ERASMUS

Luther made it more and more difficult for Erasmus to intercede for him, since with each month the violence of his speech increased, until in July 1520  he invited  his readers to wash their hands in the blood of bishops and cardinals. As the Diet of Worms approached, a German prince asked Erasmus to come to Luther’s aid, but he replied that it was too late. He regretted  Luther’s refusal to submit to the pope’s wishes. Such submission, he thought, would have furthered the movement  for reform, now he feared civil war. In February 1521 Erasmus wrote to a friend:

“ Everyone confessed that the Church suffered under the tyranny of certain men, and many were taking council to remedy this state of affairs. Now this man has arisen to treat the matter in such a way.... that no one dares to defend even what he has said well. Six months ago I warned him to beware of hatred. The “Babylonian Captivity” has alienated many from him, and he daily puts forth even more atrocious things.”

Luther now abandoned hope of Erasmus support, and put him aside as a cowardly pacifist, who thinks “that all can be accomplished with civility and benevolence.” At the same time, theologians continued to attack Erasmus as a secret Lutheran. Disgusted, he moved to Basel, where he hoped to forget the young Reformation in the old Renaissance. Basel was the citadel of Swiss humanism. Here laboured Beatus Rhenanus, who edited  the printing of Erasmus’ New Testament.  Here were printers and publishers who were also scholars, like that saint among publishers, Johann Froben (ius) who wore himself out over his presses and texts, and, said Erasmus, “left his family more honour than fortune.” Here Durer lived for years; here Holbein made breath-taking portraits of Froben and others.

Living with Froben, Erasmus acted as literary adviser, wrote prefaces, edited the Fathers. Holbein made famous portraits of him at Basel ( 1523-24). One is still there, another now in the Louvre, is Holbein’s masterpiece. Standing at a table writing, wrapped in a heavy fur trimmed coat, hooded with a beret covering half of each ear, the greatest of the humanists betrays in his premature age ( he was now fifty-seven) the toll taken by ill health, a peripatetic life of controversy, and spiritual loneliness and grief brought on  by his attempt to be fair to both sides, in the dogmatic conflicts of his time. Grim, thin lips; features refined but strong; a sharp ferreting nose; heavy eyelids almost closed on tired eyes; here, in one of the greatest of all portraits, is the Renaissance slain by the Reformation.

Adrian VI’s Successor, Clement VII, urged Erasmus to enter the lists against Luther. When finally the scholar yielded, it was with no personal attack on Luther, no general indictment of the Reformation, but an objective and mannerly discussion of free will, (De libero arbitrio, 1524) He admitted that he could not fathom the mystery of moral freedom, not reconcile it with divine omniscience and omnipotence. But no humanist could accept the doctrines of predestination and determinism without  sacrificing the dignity and value of man or of human life: here was another basic cleavage between the Reformation and  the Renaissance. To Erasmus it seemed obvious that a God who punished sins that His creatures as made by Him could not help committing, was an immoral monster unworthy of worship or praise; and to ascribe such conduct to Christ’s “Father in heaven” would be the direst blasphemy. On Luther’s assumptions the worst criminal would be an innocent martyr, fated to sin by an act of God, and then condemned by divine vengeance to eternal suffering. How could a believer in predestination make any creative effort, or labour to improve the condition of mankind? Erasmus confessed that a man’s moral choice is fettered by a thousand circumstances over which he has no control; yet man’s consciousness persists in affirming some measure of freedom, without which he would be a meaningless automaton. In any case, Erasmus concluded, let us admit our ignorance, our incapacity to reconcile moral freedom with divine prescience or omnipresent causality; let us postpone the solution to the Last Judgement; but meanwhile let us shun any hypothesis that makes man a puppet, and God a tyrant crueller than any in history.

Most Catholics were disappointed by the conciliatory and philosophical tone of the book; they had hoped for an exhilarating declaration of war. Luther, in a delayed response entitled “De servo arbitrio ( 1525)” defended predestination uncompromisingly:

“The human will is like a beast of burden. If God mounts it, it wishes and goes as God wills; if Satan mounts it, it wishes and goes as Satan wills. Nor can it choose its rider.... God foresees, foreordains, and accomplishes all things by an unchanging, eternal, and efficacious will  .....  By this thunderbolt free will sinks shattered in the dust.”

It is significant of the sixteenth-century mood that Luther rejected free will not, as some eighteenth century thinkers would do, because it ran counter to a universal reign of law and causality, nor as many in the nineteenth century would do, because heredity, environment, and circumstance seemed to determine, like another trinity, the desires that seem to determine the will.  He rejected free will on the ground  that God’s omnipotence makes  Him the real cause of all events and all actions, and that consequently it is He, and not our virtue or our sins, Who decides our salvation or damnation. Luther faces the bitterness of his logic manfully:

“Common sense and natural reason are highly offended that God by His mere will deserts, hardens, and damns, as if He delighted in sin and such eternal torments, He Who is said to be of such mercy and goodness. Such a concept of God seems wicked, cruel, and intolerable, and by it many men have been revolted in all ages. I myself was once offended to the very depth of the abyss of desperation, so that I wished that I had never been created. There is no use trying to get away from this by ingenious distinctions. Natural reason, however much it is offended, must admit the consequences of the omniscience and omnipotence of God.... It is difficult to believe in God’s mercy and goodness when he damns those who do not deserve it. We must recall that if God’s justice could be recognised as just by human comprehension, it would not be divine.”


Brian

  • Posts: 221
    • Brian's Den
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2061 on: October 23, 2013, 12:12:19 PM »
These four pages about a time 500 years ago,  are just as relevant today,  as they were then,  and are the main reason that I choose to be a Humanist. 

 I still think that almost all wars are fuelled by religion and/or money.   

More Muslims are killed by Muslims than by anyone else.   

More poor people are attacked by richer people in search of even more riches,  either in the shape of land,  or what that land has produced or contains in the way of minerals or oil.   

Call me cynical if you like,  but today's posting by Trevor finally got me off my butt to add my comments.   Too long have I been a lurker.

Brian

Emily

  • Posts: 365
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2062 on: October 23, 2013, 04:17:49 PM »
Brian, we thought you had left us as many have over the years. It is good to see your thoughtful and insightful post. I agree with everything you said, and you said it well.

Hope to see you here more often.

Emily

Brian

  • Posts: 221
    • Brian's Den
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2063 on: October 24, 2013, 12:48:32 PM »
Thanks,  Emily.

This is the portrait of Erasmus,  by Hans Holbein,  that is
referred to in our excerpt.   It was painted in 1523.

Brian

http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/tag/erasmus-of-rotterdam#supersized-search-230849

Emily

  • Posts: 365
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2064 on: October 24, 2013, 09:06:53 PM »
Brian, that portrait of Erasmus writing with an ink pen reminds me of my first attempt at writing with ink. I was in second grade and only allowed to have a pencil, but I begged my father for ink and a pen. He bought me one with the metal tip at the end of a wooden shaft and a bottle of ink. I practiced until I could write without using a blotter constantly.

He also looks as though he is dressed for outdoors, but since this was in northern Europe, it was probably cold inside and out. The robe looks extremely heavy and that hat must have been worn inside also.

Erasmus does not look like a fellow who smiles very much.

Old sour puss.

Emma

JoanK

  • BooksDL
  • Posts: 8685
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2065 on: October 25, 2013, 04:44:35 PM »
BRIAN: nice to know you're with us!

Now that I see the portrait, I realize I've seen it many times. To me, he doesn't look like a sourpuss, so much as thoughtful.

mabel1015j

  • Posts: 3656
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2066 on: October 25, 2013, 05:44:57 PM »
Durant writes "Erasmus wrote in femininely graceful Latin ". Oh how i wish i could have a conversation with D about what that means.

These two passages are a fine rationale as to why i too have been a humanist and agnostic all my life. Yes, i mean that. I can't ever remember as a child thinking that the "Christmas story" was anything more then a story. I don't know where that came from, but i remember at least by jr high school believing that the Bible was a history/mythology of Judeo-Christianity. AND this coming from a child of generations of Calvinist Presbyterians on my mother's side. My father's agnostic genetics must have been powerful. I have probably said here before that my mother's Scotch-Irish ancestors came to Penna in the 1730's, four brothers named Chambers who started three Presbyterian churches in south central Pa, and founded the town of Chambersburg.  And one aunt and one uncle of mine had not lessened their religious fervor of Calvin in more then two centuries (1940's) - no drinking, no card playing, no board game playing or movie going or anything else FUN on Sundays. My mother was not so eighteenth century in her thinking, she allowed me to get a waitressing job where i sometimes had to work on Sundays and my aunt never stopped badgering her about it.

Yes, my ninth grade English teacher would have a coronary of my use of a conjunction to start sentences.......i used them for emphasis. ☺

Jean

JoanK

  • BooksDL
  • Posts: 8685
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2067 on: October 25, 2013, 05:57:11 PM »
"Yes, my ninth grade English teacher would have a coronary of my use of a conjunction to start sentences."

I guess there's more than one kind of strict orthodoxy in your past!

mabel1015j

  • Posts: 3656
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2068 on: October 25, 2013, 06:02:14 PM »
 ;D ;D Good catch, Joan!

Brian

  • Posts: 221
    • Brian's Den
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2069 on: October 25, 2013, 06:17:06 PM »
Wow !  I seem to have unleashed a flurry of Humanism.

Meanwhile the group who follow "Agnosticism, Atheism and Humanism"
have become bogged down in the politics of helping,  or not,  people
across the world.

Perhaps we should invite them to join us with the Durants in reading
how the world got us into the troubles in the first place.

Brian

3kings(Trevor)

  • Posts: 347
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2070 on: October 27, 2013, 10:51:16 PM »
DURANTS'  S  o  C
Vol. VI  The  REFORMATION
Pgs. 435 - 437




                                                    ERASMUS. (cont.)
Even at this stage Erasmus continued his efforts for peace. To his correspondents he recommended tolerance and courtesy. He thought that the Church should permit clerical marriage and communion in both kinds; that she should yield some of her vast properties to lay authorities and uses; and that such divisive questions as predestination, free will, and the Real Presence should be left undefined, open to diverse  interpretations. He advised Duke, George of Saxony, to treat the Anabaptists humanely; “it is not just to punish with fire any error whatever, unless there be joined to it sedition or some other crime such as the laws punish with death.” This was in 1524; in 1533, however, moved by friendship or senility, he defended the imprisonment of Heretics by Thomas More. In Spain, where some Humanists become Erasmians, the monks of the Inquisition began a systematic scrutiny of Erasmus’ works, with a view to having him condemned as a heretic( 1527). Nevertheless he continued his criticism of monastic immorality and theological dogmatism as main provocatives of the Reformation. In 1528  he repeated the charge that “many convents, both of men and women, are public brothels,” and “ in many monasteries the last virtue to be found is chastity.” In 1532 he condemned the monks as importunate beggars, seducers of women, hounders of heretics, hunters of legacies, forgers of testimonials. He was all for reforming the Chuch while deprecating the Reformation. He could not bring himself to leave the Church or see her torn in half. “I endure the Church till the day I shall see a better one.”

He was dismayed when he heard of the sack of Rome by Protestant  and Catholic troops in the service of the Emperor ( 1527); he had hoped that Charles would encourage Clement to compromise with Luther; now Pope and Emperor were at each other’s throats. A closer shock came when, in a pious riot, the reformers in Basel destroyed the images in the churches. The incensed and senseless  denudation of churches seemed to him an illiberal and barbarous reaction. He left Basel and moved to Freiburg-im-breisgau, in Catholic Austrian territory. When the Imperial pension came too irregularly the Fuggers sent him what ever funds he needed. But the monks and theologians of Freiburg attacked him as a secret sceptic, and as the real cause of the turmoil in Germany. He returned to Basel, where university professors went out to welcome him.

He was now sixty-nine, thin, with features drawn with age. He suffered from ulcers, diarrhea, pancreatitis, gout, stone, and frequent colds. Harassed with pain, and hearing daily of attacks made upon him by both Protestants  and Catholics, he lost the good humour that had endeared him to his friends, and became morose. On June 6th 1536, he was stricken with acute dysentery. He knew he was dying, but did not ask for a priest or confessor, and passed away( June 12) without the sacraments of the Church. The humanists, the painters, and the bishop of the city joined in erecting over his remains a stone slab, still in place, commemorating his “incomparable erudition in every branch of learning.”

His standing with posterity fluctuated with the prestige of the Renaissance. Almost all parties, in the fever of religious revolution, called him a trimmer and a coward. The Reformers charged him with  having led them to the brink, inspired them to jump, and then taken to his heals. At the council of Trent he was branded  an impious heretic, and his works were forbidden to Catholic readers. As late as 1758 Horace Walpole termed him “a begging parasite, who had parts enough to discover the truth, and not courage enough to profess it.” Late in the nineteenth century, a learned and judicious Protestant historian mourned that the Erasmian conception of reform was soon interrupted and set aside by ruder and more drastic methods. “The Reformation of the  sixteenth century was Luther’s work; but if any fresh Reformation is coming it can only be based upon the principles of Erasmus.”

Luther had to be; but when his work was done, and passion cooled, men would try again to catch the spirit of Erasmus and the Renaissance, and renew in patience and mutual tolerance the long, slow labour of enlightenment.


JoanK

  • BooksDL
  • Posts: 8685
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2071 on: October 28, 2013, 05:40:44 PM »
"Almost all parties, in the fever of religious revolution, called him -- a coward."

The fate of moderates and mediators everywhere.

Brian

  • Posts: 221
    • Brian's Den
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2072 on: October 28, 2013, 06:20:39 PM »
I was intrigued by the reference that Erasmus was financed by "the Fuggers".

They were a family of Jewish extraction in Bavaria,  and made their money
by the sale of copper and by lending money to those in need.   Before their
time it was illegal to charge interest for a loan - - -  they changed that !!

       http://wolfgangcapito.wordpress.com/tag/jacob-fugger/

Brian

JoanK

  • BooksDL
  • Posts: 8685
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2073 on: October 28, 2013, 06:37:10 PM »
That's very interesting.

Emily

  • Posts: 365
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2074 on: October 30, 2013, 03:54:04 PM »
It did not surprise me that the Fuggers were giving money to Erasmus. After all Erasmus wanted the Roman Catholic Church along with the Pope to survive and stay relevant in Germany. The Fuggers had no interest in the Catholics except as a money source.

An excerpt from the Fuggers history in Germany.......

Quote
With the help of their brother Markus in Rome Ulrich and his brother George handled remittances to the papal court of monies for the sale of indulgences and the procuring of church benefices. From 1508 to 1515 they leased the Roman mint. Ulrich died in 1510.

The Fuggers made money from the church selling of indulgences and the buying of church offices. Both Erasmus and Luther were opposed to this practice. Luther stood his ground and Erasmus sold out for money from the Fuggers to keep this practice going.

Those who knew Erasmus and called him a coward perhaps did not know at the time that he was also someone who played both sides to benefit himself. A man who says he believes one thing and does the opposite has no morals or ethics.

Emily


Emily

  • Posts: 365
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2075 on: October 30, 2013, 10:26:38 PM »
More on the Fuggers from the International and Brittannica encyclopedia, the history of Banking, and the Fugger and Wesler Museum from Wikipedia.

Quote
When the Fuggers made their first loan to the Archduke Sigismund in 1487, they took as security an interest in silver and copper mines in the Tirol. This was the beginning of an extensive family involvement in mining and precious metals.[4] The Fuggers also participated in mining operations in Silesia. The Fuggers also owned copper mines in Hungary and their trade in spices, wool and silk extended to almost all parts of Europe.

Ulrich's youngest brother Jakob Fugger (illustration, below) was born in 1459, and was to become the most famous member of the dynasty. He married Sibylla Artzt Grand Burgheress to Augsburg in 1498, but they had no children, his wife was the daughter of an eminent Grand Burgher of Augsburg (German Großbürger zu Augsburg). This marriage opened the opportunity for Jakob himself to elevate to Grand Burgher of Augsburg and later entitled him the privilege to also access his aspiration of pursuing a seat on the city council (German Stadtrat) of Augsburg. He was elevated to the nobility of the Holy Roman Empire in May 1511, and in 1519, led a consortium of German and Italian businessmen that loaned Charles V 850,000 florins (about 95,625 oz(t) of gold) to procure his election as Holy Roman Emperor over Francis I of France. The Fuggers' contribution was 543,000 florins.

In 1494 the Fuggers established their first public company. Jakob's aim was to establish a copper monopoly by opening foundries in Hohenkirchen and Fuggerau (named for the family, in Carinthia) and by expanding the sales organization in Europe, especially the Antwerp agency. Jakob leased the copper mines in Neusohl (modern Banská Bystrica, Slovakia) in 1495, eventually making them up into the greatest mining centre of the time.

At the height of his power Jakob Fugger was sharply criticized by his contemporaries, especially by Ulrich von Hutten and Martin Luther, for urging the Pope to rescind or amend the prohibition on the levying of interest and for the sale of indulgences and benefices. The imperial fiscal and governmental authorities in Nuremberg brought action against him and other merchants trying to halt their monopolistic tendencies.

Jakob died in 1525. He is considered to be one of the richest persons of all time,[6] and today he is well known as Jakob Fugger 'the rich'.

Jakob's successor was his nephew Anton Fugger, son of his elder brother Georg. Anton was born in 1493, married Anna Rehlinger, and died in 1560.

In 1525 the Fuggers were granted the revenues from the Spanish orders of knighthood together with the profits from mercury and silver mines.[7] The formerly rich yield of the Tirolean and Hungarian mines decreased but Anton established new trade ties with Peru and Chile and started mining ventures in Sweden and Norway. He was involved in the slave trade from Africa to America Eventually he was forced to renounce the Maestrazgo lease after 1542 and to give up the silver mines of Guadalcanal.

Anton's oldest son, Markus, carried on the business successfully and during the period 1563–1641 the Fugger company which was completely dissolved only after the Thirty Years' War, earned some 50,000,000 ducats from the production of mercury at Almadén alone.

Emily


Emily

  • Posts: 365
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2076 on: October 30, 2013, 11:50:20 PM »
The Weslers were partners to the Fuggers. An excerpt from the article.....

Quote
Welser was a German banking and merchant family, originally a patrician family from Augsburg, that rose to great prominence in international high finance in the 16th century as financiers of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. Along with the Fugger family, the Welser family controlled large sectors of the European economy, and accumulated enormous wealth through trade and the German colonization of the Americas. (South America)

The family received colonial rights of the Province of Venezuela from the King of Spain in 1528, becoming owners and rulers of the South American colony of Klein-Venedig (roughly corresponding to modern Venezuela), but were deprived of their rule in 1556.

Claiming descent from the Byzantine general Belisarius, the family is known since the 13th century. By the early Age of Discovery, the Welser family had estasblished trading posts in Antwerp, Lyon, Madrid, Nuremberg, Sevilla, Lisbon, Venice, Rome and Santo Domingo. The Welsers financed not only the Emperor, but also other European monarchs.

Philippine Welser, wife of Ferdinand II, Archduke of Austria, In the 15th and 16th centuries, branches of the family settled at Nuremberg and in Austria, respectively.

The Venezuela purchase
Bartholomeus V. Welser lent the Emperor Charles V a great sum of money for which in 1528 he received as security the Province of Venezuela, developing it as Klein-Venedig (little Venice) but in consequence of their rapacious acts the Welsers were deprived of their rule before the Emperor's reign was over. His son, Bartholomeus VI. Welser, explored Venezuela and was executed by local Spanish Governor Juan de Carvajal in 1546.

The Fuggers and Weslers did not arrive in Augsburg (Germany) until the end of the Fourteenth century. Like those who came after them they were deceivers. When reading how the Rothschild cult got their name, they said they picked one of the common names in Germany when they arrived. These cultists possess a greed that would consume the entire world if they could, and they have tried.

I am still reading the Torah, and the exact receipe for this kind of deception and greed is told in detail in Exodus. It is a 'how to' tale of Joseph who says he's Governor and head honcho.

During the famine in Egypt the people had spent all their money on bread, and Joseph now had all the money and the bread. So he tells them, 'bring your cattle and give it to me, and I will give you bread. Now Joseph had all their money and cattle. In the second year of the drought the people show up and all they have is their land left. Joseph took all the land of Egypt for bread. Joseph moved them to cities from one end of Egypt to the other. Only the priests kept a portion.

They got seed to sow land they no longer owned. 1/5 of any crop produced went to Pharoh. So Israel moved to the land of Egypt and they took possession of the land. They grow and multiply.

A 'How to lesson on how to steal a country' in one easy session.

Emily

 




3kings(Trevor)

  • Posts: 347
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2077 on: November 07, 2013, 07:19:28 PM »
DURANTS'  S  o  C
Vol. VI  The REFORMATION
Pgs. 438 - 441


                                                The Faiths at War

                                                           1525  -  1560 

What combination of forces and circumstances enabled nascent Protestantism to survive  the hostility of both Papacy and Empire? Mystical piety, Biblical studies, religious reform, intellectual development, Luther’s audacity, were not enough; they might have been diverted or controlled. Probably the economic factors were decisive; the desire to keep German wealth in Germany, to free Germany from papal or Italian domination, to transfer ecclesiastical property to secular uses, to repel Imperial encroachments upon the territorial, judicial, and financial authority of the German princes, cities, and states. Add certain political conditions that permitted the Protestant  success. The Ottoman Empire, after conquering Constantinople and Egypt, was expanding dangerously in the Balkans and Africa, absorbing half of Hungary, besieging Vienna, and threatening to close the Mediterranean to Christian trade. Charles V and Archduke Ferdinand required a united Germany and Austria -- Protestant as well as Catholic money and men -- to resist this Moslem avalanche. The Emperor agreed with his pensioner Erasmus, that the Church badly needed reform; he was intermittently at odds with Clement VII and Paul III even to allowing his army to sack Rome; only when Emperor and Pope were friends could they effectually combat the religious revolution.

But by 1527 the “Lutheran heresy” had become orthodoxy in half of Germany. The cities found Protestantism profitable;" they do not care in the least about religion,” mourned Melanchthon; “they are only anxious to get dominion into their hands, to be free from the control of the bishops”; for a slight alteration in their theological garb they escaped from Episcopal taxes and courts, and could appropriate pleasant parcels of ecclesiastical property. Yet an honest desire for a simpler and sincerer religion seems to have moved many citizens. In Brunswick the writings of Luther were widely circulated; his hymns were publicly sung; his version of the New Testament was so  earnestly studied that when a priest misquoted it, he was corrected by the congregation; finally the city council ordered all clergymen to preach only what could be found in the Scriptures, to baptise in German, and to serve the sacrament in both forms ( 1528 ). Iconoclastic riots broke out in Augsburg, Hamburg, Brunswick, Stralsund; probably some of this violence was a reaction against the ecclesiastical use of statues and paintings to inculcate ridiculous and lucrative legends.

The princes, gladly adopting Roman Law-- which made the secular ruler omnipotent as delegate of the sovereign people-- saw in Protestantism a religion that not only exalted the state but obeyed it; now they could be spiritual as well as temporal lords, and all the wealth of the Church could be theirs to enjoy. Phillip the Magnanimous, Landgrave of  Hesse, formed with John the League of Gotha and Torgau ( 1526 ), to protect and extend Lutheranism. Other princes fell in line. Albert of Prussia, the Grand Master of the Teutonic knights, following Luther’s advice, abandoned his monastic vows, married, secularized the lands of  his order, and made himself Duke of Prussia. Luther saw himself apparently by the mere force of his personality and eloquence, winning half of Germany.

For good or evil, for spiritual or material ends, the great transformation progressed. Whole provinces went over almost unanimously to Protestantism; nothing could better show how moribund Catholicism had become. “The people everywhere,” wrote Erasmus ( January 1530) “are for the new doctrines.” This was true, however, only in northern Germany. Southern and western Germany -- which had been part of the ancient Roman Empire, and had received some Latin culture -- remained for the most part loyal to the Church.

Hungary entered vitally into the drama. The premature accession of Louis II at age of ten (1516) and his premature death, were formative elements in the Hungarian tragedy. Louis grew into a handsome youth, kindly and generous, but given to extravagance and festivities on meagre resources amid a corrupt and incompetent court. When Sultan Suleiman sent an ambassador to Buda the noble refused to receive him, dragged him around the country, cut off his nose and ears, and returned him to his master. The infuriated Sultan invaded Hungary and seized two of its most vital strongholds-- Szabacs and Belgrade (1521). After long delays, and amid the treason and cowardice of his nobles, Louis raised an army of 25,000 men and marched out with mad heroism to face 100,000 Turks. The Hungarians were slaughtered almost to a man, and Louis himself was drowned in stumbling flight. Suleiman entered Buda in triumph; his army sacked and burned the handsome capital, destroyed all its major buildings, and gave to the flames most of Matthias Corinus’s library. The victorious host spread over eastern Hungary, burning and pillaging, and drove 100,000 Christian captives before him to Constantinople.

When Suleiman returned to the attack, marching 135 miles from Buda along the Danube to the gates of Vienna, Ferdinand successfully defended his capital. But the westward advance of the Turks so obviously advantaged Protestantism that Philip of Hesse rejoiced at Turkish victories.  When Suleiman retired to Constantinople, Catholics and Protestants felt free to renew their struggle for the soul of Germany.

Brian

  • Posts: 221
    • Brian's Den
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2078 on: November 07, 2013, 07:40:58 PM »
Caliph Suleiman was quite a fellow.   He was the original Suleiman the Great,
and a very short and effective summary of his life is here  - - -

      http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/s/Suleiman_the_Magnificent.htm 

Brian

Emily

  • Posts: 365
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2079 on: November 08, 2013, 09:56:28 PM »
Thanks Brian for that link on Suleiman. We studied him in 'The Age of Faith' but that has been some time ago and at this age the mind wanders.

The description given of Suleiman by his biographers of his 'light skin' and tall skinny neck leads me to believe he was part Slav. Perhaps his own mother was a Slav, after all he married one and his own children and successors were half Slav.

One memory I have is that when the Slavs were captured the women all went to the slave market, at least those who survived. The fact that his wife survived capture, sold as a slave and was bought for the Sultan's harem and became his favorite is a story of survival against all odds.

The biographers have lauded Suleiman and called him 'magnificent' but he wasn't smart enough to make a law that would determine his successor. To watch your own child being beaten and strangled to death (which was their method for eliminating those in line to the throne) is so inhuman it defies description. I would label him Suleiman the Psychopath.

In the paintings of Suleiman that enormous pile of bed sheets on his head makes him look abnormal. Perhaps he had a small head and the extremely large turban made up for his head size. Just speculation on my part, I don't get the picture.

Any one have any idea on Suleiman's 'Big Head'?

Emma