Author Topic: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant  (Read 371860 times)

JoanK

  • BooksDL
  • Posts: 8685
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2200 on: May 15, 2014, 03:53:23 PM »

"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
 


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


BLUEBIRD: that's a great link! I always wondered what a syllabub was.

"Take one Quart of Cream, one Pint and an half of Wine..." Sigh. this was before they heard of cholesterol. Or AA.

3kings(Trevor)

  • Posts: 347
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2201 on: May 22, 2014, 07:23:43 PM »
DURANTS'  S  o  C
Vol VI. THE REFORMATION
Pgs. 541 - 544



                                                      Henry VIII and Cardinal Wolsey

The King had many reasons for dissatisfaction with his Chancellor. The foreign policy had collapsed, and the turn from friendship with Charles to alliance with France had proved disastrous. Hardly a man in England now had a good word to say for the once omnicompetent Cardinal. The clergy hated him for his absolute rule; the monks feared more dissolution of monasteries; the commons hated him for taking sons and money to fight futile wars; the merchants hated him because the war with Charles obstructed their trade with Flanders; the nobles hated him for his exactions, his upstart pride, his proliferating wealth. Some nobles, reported the French ambassador (Oct. 17, 1529 ), “intend, when Wolsey is dead or destroyed, to get ride of the Church, and spoil the goods of the Church and Wolsey both.” Kentish clothiers suggested that the Cardial should be installed in a leaking boat and set adrift in the sea.

Henry was subtler. On October 9 1529, one of his attorneys issued a writ summoning Wolsey to answer, before the King’s judges, a charge that his acts as a legate had violated the Statute of Praemunire (1392), which imposed forfeiture of goods upon any Englishman  who brought papal bulls into England. It made no difference that Wolsey had secured the legatine authority at the King’s request, and had used it  chiefly in the King’s behalf. Wolsey knew that the King’s judges would convict him. He sent to Henry a humble  admission, confessing his failures, but begging him to remember also his services and his loyalty, then he left London by a barge on the Thames. At Putney he received a kindly message from the King. In abject gratitude he knelt in the mud and thanked God. Henry appropriated the rich contents of the Cardinal’s palace at Whitehall, but allowed him to retain the Archbishopric of York, and enough personal goods to require 160 horses and 72 carts to haul them to his Episcopal seat. The duke of Norfolk succeeded Wolsey as Prime Minister; Thomas More succeeded him as chancellor ( November 1529).

For almost a year the fallen Cardinal served as a pious and exemplary archbishop. But ambition reawoke in him as the fear of death subsided. He wrote letters to Eustace Chapuys, the imperial ambassador to  England, they are lost, but a report  f rom Chapuys to Charles reads: “I have a letter from the Cardinal’s physician, in which he tells me that his master...  thought the Pope should proceed to weightier censures and should call in the secular Arm”,  i.e. excommunication, invasion, and civil war. Norfolk got wind of these exchanges, arrested Wolsey’s physician, and drew from him, by means uncertain, a confession that the Cardinal had advised the Pope to excommunicate the King. Henry, or the Duke, ordered Wolsey’s arrest.

He submitted peaceably (Nov. 4, 1530) bade farewell to his household and set out for London. At Sheffield Park a severe dysentery confined him to his bed. There the King’s soldiers came with orders to conduct him to the Tower. He resumed the journey, but after two days of riding he was so weak that his escort allowed him to take to bed in Leicester Abbey. To the King’s officer, Sir William Kingston, he uttered the words reported by Cavendish and adapted by Shakespeare: “if I had served my God as diligently as I have done my King, He would not have given me over to my grey hairs.” In Leicester Abbey, November 29, 1530, Wolsey, aged fifty-five, died.

                                      Henry VIII and Thomas More

In the parliament that assembled at Westminster on November 3, 1529, the controlling groups -- the nobles in the Upper House, the merchants in the Commons -- agreed on three policies; the reduction ecclesiastical wealth and power, the maintenance of trade with Flanders, and support of the King in his campaign for a male heir. This did not carry with it approval of Anne Boleyn, who was generally condemned as an adventuress, nor did it prevent an almost universal sympathy with Catherine. The lower classes, politically impotent, were as yet unfavourable to the divorce, and the northern provinces, intensely Catholic, sided whole heartedly with the Pope. Henry kept this opposition temporarily quiet by remaining orthodox in everything but the right of the popes to govern the English Church. On that point the national spirit, even stronger in England than in Germany, upheld the hand of the King; and the clergy, though horrified at the thought of making Henry their master, were not averse to independence from a papacy so obviously subject to a foreign power.

About 1528 one Simon Fish published a six page pamphlet which Henry read with no known protest, and many read with frank delight. It was called “The supplication of the Beggars,” and asked the King to confiscate, in whole or in part, the wealth of the English Church:   

In the times of your noble predecessors past, [there] craftily crept into your realm . . . holy and idle beggars and vagabonds  . . bishops, abbots, deacons, archdeacons, suffragans, priests, monks, canons, friars, pardoners, and summoners. And who is able to number this idle, ruinous sort, which (setting all labour aside ) have begged so importunately that they have gotten into their hands more than a third part of your Realm? The goodliest lordships, manors, lands, and territories are theirs. Besides this, they had the tenth part of all corn, meadow, pasture, grass, wool, colts, calves, lambs, pigs, geese, and chickens.   Yea, and they look so narrowly upon their profits that the poor wives must be countable to them of every tenth egg, or else she gettith not her rights at Easter . . . who is she that will set her hand to work to get 3d. a day, and may have at least 20d. a day to sleep an hour with a friar, a monk, or a priest?

The nobles and merchants might have admitted some exaggeration in the indictment, but they thought it led to a charming conclusion -- the secularisation of Church property. Wolsey had held off this attack on Church property, but his fall left the clergy powerless except through the (declining) faith of the people; and the papal authority that might have protected them by its prestige was now the main object of royal wrath, and the football of Imperial politics. Custom required that legislation affecting the Church in England should be passed, by the Convocation of the clergy. Could this assembly assuage the anger of the King and check the anticlericalism of Parliament ?

JoanK

  • BooksDL
  • Posts: 8685
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2202 on: May 23, 2014, 04:22:10 PM »
"the papal authority ..... was now .... the football of Imperial politics."

Yep.
 

3kings(Trevor)

  • Posts: 347
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2203 on: May 28, 2014, 12:10:07 AM »
DURANTS'     S  o  C
Vol. VI  THE REFORMATION
Pgs. 545  -  546






                              Henry VIII and Thomas More.  (cont )

The battle was opened by the Commons. It drew up an address to the King, professing doctrinal orthodoxy, but strongly criticising the clergy. This famous “Act of Accusation” charged that Convocation made laws  without the consent of King or Parliament, seriously limiting the liberty of laymen, and subjecting them to heavy censures or fines; that the clergy  exacted payment for the administration of the sacraments; that the bishops gave benefices to “certain young folks, calling them their nephews,” and despite the youth or ignorance of such appointees; that the episcopal courts greedily exploited their right to levy fees and fines; that the courts arrested persons, and imprisoned them, without stating the charges against them; that they indicted and severely punished laymen upon the suspicion of the slightest heresy; and the document concluded by begging the King for the “reformation” of these ills. Henry, who may have been privy to the composition of this address, submitted its main points to the Convocation, and asked for an answer. The bishops admitted some abuses, which they attributed to occasional individuals; they affirmed the justice of their courts; and they looked to the pious King, who had nobly rebuked Luther, to aid them in suppressing heresy. Then, grieviously mistaking the royal temper, they added warlike words:

Forasmuch as we repute and take our authority of making the laws to be grounded upon the Scriptures of God  and the determination of the Holy Church . . .  we may not submit the execution of our charges and duty, certainly prescribed to us by God, to your Highness’ assent  .. .. with all humility we therefore beseech your Grace . . . to maintain and defend such laws and ordinances as we . . . by the authority of God, shall for His honour make to the edification of virtue and the mantaining of Christ’s faith.


The issue was joined. Henry did not meet it at once. His first interest was to get Parliament’s approval of a strange request. -- That he be excused from repaying the loans that had been made to him by his subjects.*  The Commons protested and consented. Three other bills were introduced , which aimed to check the authority of the clergy over the probate of wills, their exaction of death taxes, and their holding of plural benefices. These bills were passed by the Commons; they were passionately opposed by the bishops and abbots sitting in the Upper House; they were ammended, but in essence they were made law.

Thomas Cranmer, a doctor of divinity at Cambridge, now suggested to Henry that the major universities of Europe should be polled on the question whether a pope could permit a man to marry his brother’s widow. A royal game of rival bribery ensued: Henry’s agents scattered money to induce negative judgements; Charles’ agents used money or threats to secure affirmative replies. The Italian answers were divided; the Lutheran universities refused any comfort to the Defender of the Faith; but the University of Paris, under pressure by Francis, gave the answer so doubly dear to the King. Oxford and Cambridge, after receiving stern letters from the government, approved Henry’s right to have his marriage annuled.

So strengthened, he issued through his attorney general (Dec. 1530 ) a notice that the government intended to prosecute, as violators of the Praemunire Statute, all clergymen who had recognised Wolsey’s legatine power. When Parliament and Convocation reassembled (Jan.16, 1531) the King’s agents happily announced to the clergy that the prosecution would be withdrawn if they would confess their guilt and pay a fine of  118,000  (11,800,000) pounds. They protested that they never wanted Wolsey to have such power, and had recognised him only because the King had done so in the trial of his  suit before Wolsey and Campeggio. They were quite right, of course, but Henry sorely needed the money. They mournfully agreed to raise the sum from their congregations. Feeling his oats, the King now demanded that the clergy should acknowledge him as “the protector and only supreme head of the Church and clergy of England.” -- i.e. that they should end their allegiance to the Pope. They offered a dozen compromises, tried a dozen ambiguous phrases; Henry was merciless, and insisted on Yes or No. Finally (Feb. 10, 1531 ) Archbishop Warham, now eighty-one, reluctantly proposed the King’s formula, with a saving clause -- “ as far as the law of Christ permits.” The convocation remained silent; the silence was taken as consent; the formula became law. Mollified, the King now allowed the bishops to prosecute heretics.

Parliament and Convocation adjourned again (March 30, 1531 ), In July Henry left Catherine at Windsor, never to see her again. Soon thereafter she was removed to Ampthill, while princess Mary was lodged at Richmond. The jewels that Catherine had worn as Queen were required of her by Henry, who gave them to Anne Boleyn. Charles V protested to Clement, who addressed a brief to the King ( January 25, 1532) rebuking him for adultery, and exhorting him to dismiss Anne and keep Catherine as his lawful queen until decision should be given on his application for annulment. Henry ignored the rebuke, and pursued his romance.



JoanK

  • BooksDL
  • Posts: 8685
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2204 on: May 28, 2014, 04:47:28 PM »
And we think that divorces now are messy! This is definitely not British royal's shining hour... Again, I wonder what the average English person thought of all this.

3kings(Trevor)

  • Posts: 347
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2205 on: June 03, 2014, 11:47:27 PM »
DURANTS'  S  o  C
Vol. VI  THE REFORMATION
Pgs. 546 - 549


                                                               HENRY, PARLIAMENT, and CHURCH

When Parliament and Convocation reconvened ( Jan. 15,1532 ) Henry secured from all four houses further anticlerical legislation: that clerics under the degree of subdeacon, when charged with felony, should be tried by civil courts; that fees and fines in ecclesiastical courts should be reduced; that ecclesiastical death dues and probate fees should be lowered or abolished; that the annates ( the first year’s revenues of a newly appointed prelate )  should no longer be paid to the Pope; and that the  transfer of English funds to Rome for dispensations, indulgences, and other papal services should cease. A sly hint was sent to the Curia that the annates would be restored to the Pope if the marriage with Catherine should be annulled.

By this time a majority of the bishops had been won over to the view that they would not lose in authority or revenue if the English Church were independent of Rome. In March 1532, the Convocation announced its readiness to separate from the papacy: “May it please your Grace to cause the said unjust exactions to cease . . . And in case the Pope will make process against this realm for the attaining these annates . . may it please your Highness to ordain in the present Parliament that the obedience of your Highness and of the people be withdrawn from the see of Rome.” And on May 15 the Convocation presented to the King a pledge to submit all its subsequent legislation to a committee -- half laymen, half clergymen -- empowered to veto  any ordinances which it should judge injurious to the realm. So, in this epochal “Reformation Parliament” and Convocation the Church of England was born, and became an arm and subject of the state.

On May 16 Thomas More, having failed to stem the anticlerical tide, resigned as chancellor and retired to his home. In August Archbishop Warham died, after dictating a deathbed repudiation of the Convocation’s submission to the King. Henry replaced More with Thomas Audley, and Warham with Thomas Cranmer. The revolution proceeded. In February 1533, Parliament enacted a “Statute of Appeals,” by which all litigation that had formerly been sent for judgement to Rome, was henceforth to be decided  “in the  spiritual and  temporal courts  within the Realm, without regard to any . . . foreign . . .  inhibition, excommunication, or interdict.”

On January 15,1533  Henry married Anne, who was already four months pregnant.  The King had now urgent reasons for the annulment of his union with Catherine. Having made, without result, another appeal to the Pope, he secured from Convocation an approval of his “divorce” (April 1533); on May 23 Cranmer, as Archbishop of Canterbury, declared the marriage of Catherine unlawful and void; and on May 28 he pronounced Anne to be Henry’s lawful wife. Three days later Anne,  in brocade and jewels, rode to her coronation as Queen of England in a stately pageant designed by tradition and Hans Holbein the Younger. Amid the exaltation she noticed the disapproving silence of the crowd, and she may have wondered how long her uneasy head would wear  the crown. Pope Clement pronounced the new marriage null, and its future offspring illegitimate, and excommunicated the King (July 11, 1533). On September 7  Elizabeth was born. Charles’s ambassador reported to him that the King’s mistress had given birth to a bastard.
Parliament, which had adjourned on May 4, resumed its sittings on January 15, 1534. Annated and other papal revenues were now definitely appropriated to the crown, and the appointment of bishops became in law, as already in practice, a prerogative of the King. Indictments for heresy were removed from clerical to civil jurisdiction.

In 1533 Elizabeth Barton, a nun of Kent, announced that she had received orders from God to condemn the King’s remarriage. The royal court put her through a severe examination, and drew from her a confession that her divine revelations were impostures, and she had permitted others to use them in a conspiracy to overthrow the King. She  and six accomplices were tried by the House of Lords, were judged guilty, and were executed  ( May 5, 1534). Bishop Fisher was accused of having known of the conspiracy and of having failed to warn the government; it was also charged that he and Catherine had been privy to a plan, conceived by Chapuys and discouraged by Charles, for an invasion of England to coincide with an insurrection of Catherine's supporters. Fisher denied the charges, but remained under suspicion of treason.

Henry’s most aggressive agent in these affairs was Thomas Cromwell. Born in 1485, the son of a Putney blacksmith, he grew up in poverty and hardship. He entered the textile business, became a money lender, and made a fortune. He served Wolsey faithfully for five years, defended him in adversity, and earned Henry’s respect for his industry and loyalty. He was made successively chancellor of the exchequer, master of the rolls, and (May 1534 ), secretary to the King. From 1531 to 1540 he was the chief administrator of the government as an obedient executor of the royal will.  His aristocratic enemies, who despised him as a parvenu symbol of their rising rivals, the businessmen, accused him of  practicing the principles of Machiavelli’s ‘Prince’, of accepting bribes, of selling offices, of inordinately loving wealth and power. His aim, which he hardly sought to disguise, was to make the king supreme over every phase of English life, and to finance an absolute monarchy with the confiscated wealth of the  Church. In pursuing his purposes he showed consummate and unscrupulous ability, multiplied his fortune, and won every battle except the last.

It was probably at his suggestion and through his manipulation that Henry, disturbed by increasing hostility among the people, persuaded Parliament to pass an act of Succession (March 30, 1534) which declared the marriage with Catherine invalid, transformed Mary into a bastard, named Elizabeth heiress to the throne unless Anne should have a son, and made it a capital  crime for any person to question the validity of  Anne’s marriage to Henry, or the legitimacy of their offspring. All Englishmen and women were by the Act required to take an oath of loyalty to the King. Royal Commissioners, supported by soldiery, rode through the country, entered homes, castles, monasteries, and convents, and exacted the oath. Only a few refused it; among these were Bishop Fisher and Thomas More. They offered to swear to the succession, but not to the other contents of the Act. They were committed to the Tower. Finally the parliament voted the decisive Statute of Supremacy (November 11, 1534) This reaffirmed the King’s sovereignty over Church and state in England, christened the new national Church ‘Ecclesia Anglicana,” and gave the king all these powers over mortals, organization, heresy, creed, and ecclesiastical reform which had heretofore belonged to the Church. The Act made it treason to speak or write of the King as a usurper, tyrant, schismatic, heretic, or infidel. The new oath was required of all  bishops, that they accept the civil and ecclesiastical supremacy of the King without reservation “So far as the law of Christ allows,” and would never in the future consent to any resumption of papal authority in England.

mabel1015j

  • Posts: 3656
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2206 on: June 04, 2014, 01:17:38 AM »
The poor man had the worst luck with pregnancies - either the wives were pregnant before he married them, or they couldn't birth the right sex!  ???

Jean

JoanK

  • BooksDL
  • Posts: 8685
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2207 on: June 05, 2014, 03:52:20 PM »
And of course, the women were blamed for having daughters when we now know it is the sperm that determines the sex of the child.


mabel1015j

  • Posts: 3656
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2209 on: June 06, 2014, 04:46:58 PM »
I can't remember if i ever read how tall Henry was. Was he tall as well as heavy? That would be very imposing............remembrances of L.B.J. :)

And speaking for God, or hearing from God can be dangerous.In 1533 Elizabeth Barton, a nun of Kent, announced that she had received orders from God to condemn the King’s remarriage. The royal court put her through a severe examination, and drew from her a confession that her divine revelations were impostures, and she had permitted others to use them in a conspiracy to overthrow the King. She  and six accomplices were tried by the House of Lords, were judged guilty, and were executed


JoanK

  • BooksDL
  • Posts: 8685
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2210 on: June 07, 2014, 04:46:04 PM »
A lot of historical novels have been written about the period. I stay away from those, they often aren't very accurate, and try to tell us what historical figures were thinking, feeling, "really like", which no one can know.

But I do like a series of detective stories by CJ Sansom set in the time, and told from the standpoint of a lawyer/detective. It tells more about how ordinary people like us viewed life then, although the narrator is always on the edge of court politics . The descriptions are very vivid and detailed (especially the smells. How do you arrange toileting facilities when an entourage of hundreds of court followers descends on a small village in Henry's travels?)

A list of them is here:

http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/s/c-j-sansom/

They are set in chronological order, so repay reading in order. The first one (Dissolution") is set in 1537 and Thomas Cromwell has ordered the dissolution of the monasteries. He doesn't come off very well in the series. The last one published which I haven't read yet ("Lamentation") is in the last days of his reign, and narrator is a servant of his then wife Catherine Parr.

mabel1015j

  • Posts: 3656
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2211 on: June 08, 2014, 12:38:22 PM »
They sound interesting Joan and my library has many of them. Thanks for the tip.

Jean

Emily

  • Posts: 365
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2212 on: June 09, 2014, 10:36:24 PM »
Quote
His aim, which he hardly sought to disguise, was to make the king supreme over every phase of English life, and to finance an absolute monarchy with the confiscated wealth of the  Church. In pursuing his purposes he showed consummate and unscrupulous ability, multiplied his fortune, and won every battle except the last.

Cromwell was just following the example set down by the Pope and his cohorts in Rome. This is how they got absolute power, and it does not matter whether 'King' or 'Pope', it's the 'money and power' they are after and nothing else matters.

Emma


3kings(Trevor)

  • Posts: 347
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2213 on: June 12, 2014, 05:10:28 PM »
DURANT"S   S  o  C
The REFORMATION  Vol. VI
Pgs.549 - 551


                                                                 HENRY the VIII  and THOMAS MORE  (cont.)

All the forces of the government were deployed to paralyse the opposition to these unprecedented decrees. The secular clergy generally pretended to submit. Many  monks and friars, owing a direct allegiance to the Pope, shied away from the oaths, and their resistance shared in the King’s later decision to close the monasteries. Three Carthusians priors came to Cromwell to explain their reluctance to acknowledge any layman as head of the Church in England; Cromwell sent them to the Tower. On April 26, 1535, they, with another friar and a secular priest, were tried by the King’s judges, who were for pardoning them; but Cromwell, fearing that lenience would encourage  wider resistance, demanded a  verdict of guilty, and the judges yielded. On May the    3rd, all five men, still refusing to accept the Act of Supremacy, were dragged on hurdles to Tyburn, and one after another, were hanged, cut down alive, disembowelled, and dismembered. One severed arm was hung over  the entrance arch of the Charterhouse to instruct the remaining friars, but none withdrew his refusal. Three were put in the Tower; they were fastened to uprights by irons around their necks and feet, and were forced to stand in that position for seventeen days, but  never loosed for any natural need. The remaining Carthusians, still  obdurate, were dispersed among other monasteries, with the exception of ten who were imprisoned in Newgate; nine of these died of “prison fever and filth.”

Henry was now sole judge of what, in religion and politics, the English people were to believe. Since his theology was still Catholic in every respect except the papal power, he made it a principle to persecute impartially Protestant critics of Catholic dogma, and Catholic critics of his ecclesiastical supremacy. Indeed the prosecution of heresy had continued, and would continue all through his reign. In 1531, by order of chancellor More, Thomas Bilney was burned for speaking against religious images, pilgrimages, and prayers for the dead. James Bainham was arrested for holding that Christ was only spiritually present in the Eucharist; he was tortured to draw from him the names of other heretics; he held fast, and was burned at Smithfield in April 1532. two others were burned in that year, and the bishop of Lincoln offered an indulgence of forty days to good Christians who would carry a faggot to feed the fire.

This reign of terror reached its apex in the prosecution of Fisher and More. Erasmus had described the Bishop of Rochester as “ a person loaded with every virtue.” But Fisher had himself been guilty of persecution, and he had joined the Spanish ambassador in urging Charles to invade England and depose Henry. In law he had committed treason to the state, which could not excuse him on the plea that he had been loyal to the Church. The new pontiff, Paul III, made the mistake of naming the imprisoned Bishop a cardinal. Though Fisher declared that he had not sought the honour, Henry interpreted the appointment as a challenge. On June 17, 1535, the Bishop, now in his eightieth year, was given a final trial, and again refused to sign the oath acknowledging Henry as head of the English Church. On June 22 he was led to a block on Tower Hill, “a long lean body”, an eye witness described him, “ nothing in manner but skin and bones, so that the most part that there saw him marvelled to see any man, bearing life, to be so far consumed.” On the scaffold he received an offer of pardon if he would take the oath; he refused. His severed head was hung upon London Bridge; it might now, if it could, said Henry, go to Rome and get its cardinal’s hat.

But a more troublesome recusant remained.

The father of Thomas More was a successful lawyer and prominent judge. Thomas received his education at St. Antony’s School in London; was farmed out as a page to Archbishop Morton, and was by him confirmed in orthodoxy, integrity, and cheerful piety. Morton predicted, we are told that “ this child here waiting at table . . . will prove a marvellous man.” At fifteen the youth went to Oxford, and was soon so   fascinated with classical literature, that his father, to save the youth from becoming an impecunious scholar, pulled him out of the university and sent him to study law in London. Oxford and Cambridge still aimed at preparing students for an ecclesiastical career; New Inn and Lincoln’s Inn trained the men who were now taking over from the clergy the government of England. Only eight members of the House of Commons in the Reform Parliament of 1529-37 had received a university education, while a rising proportion were lawyers and businessmen.    

In 1499, aged twenty-one, More met Erasmus, and was charmed into humanism.  They were both given to measured merryment, and salted their studies with laughing satire. They shared a distaste for Scholastic philosophy, whose subtleties, said More, were as profitable as milking a he-goat into sieve. They both hoped to reform the Church from within, avoiding a violent disruption of religious unity and historical continuity. More was not the peer of Erasmus in learning or tolerance; indeed his customary gentleness and generosity were sometimes interrupted by strong passions, even by bigotry; in controversy he stooped now and then, like nearly all his contemporaries, to fierce invective and bitter vituperation. But he was the superior of Erasmus in courage, sense of honour, and devotion to a cause. The letters they exchanged are a precious testimony to the graces of an ungracious age.

More was one of the most religious men of the century, shaming with his laic piety and worldliness the ecclesiastics like Wolsey. At twenty-three, when was already advanced in the study of law, he thought of becoming a priest. He gave public lectures (1501) on Augustine’s ‘City of God”. Though he criticized the monks, for shirking their rule, he fervently admired the sincere monastic state, and sometimes regretted he had not chosen it. He believed in miracles and saintly legends, therapeutic relics, religious images, and pilgrimages, and wrote  devotional works to the medieval tune that life is a prison, and that the aim of religion and philosophy should be to prepare us for death. He married twice and brought up several children in a Christian discipline at once sober and cheerful, with frequent prayer, mutual love, and complete trust in Providence. The Manor House in Chelsea, to which he moved in 1523, was famous for its library and gallery, and its gardens extending for one hundred yards down to the Thames.


JoanK

  • BooksDL
  • Posts: 8685
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2214 on: June 12, 2014, 07:42:51 PM »
Sad  to read about promising people caught in this snarl.

Emily

  • Posts: 365
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2215 on: June 13, 2014, 05:31:42 PM »
Quote
and one after another, were hanged, cut down alive, disembowelled, and dismembered.

Psychopaths, one and all.

Emma

3kings(Trevor)

  • Posts: 347
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2216 on: June 16, 2014, 12:02:20 AM »
Durants'   S  o  C
Vol. VI  The REFORMATION
Pgs. 550  -  555

                                                                    More's Utopia.
In 1504, Thomas More, then twenty-six was chosen a burgess delegate to Parliament. There he argued so successfully against a measure proposed by Henry VII that the king briefly imprisoned and heavily fined the senior More, Thomas’s father, as a devious means of teaching the young orator the comforts of conformity. At the close of that parliament Thomas returned to private life, and prospered in practice of law. His judgements earned him wide renown for wisdom and impartiality, and his polite refusal of presents from litigants violated time-dishonoured precedents that were still vigorous in Francis Bacon’s day. Soon he was back in Parliament; and by 1515 he was speaker of the House of Commons.

In a famous letter to Hutten (July 23 1517) Erasmus described More as of medium height, pale complexion, careless of dress or formality, abstemious in food and drink, cheerful with quick humour and ready smile, inclined to jokes and pranks, and keeping in his house a jester, a monkey, and many minor animal pets; “all the birds in Chelsea come to him to be fed.” A faithful husband, a loving and idolised father, a persuasive orator, a judicious counsellor, a man alert with charity and friendly offices -- “in short,” concluded this fond sketch, “what did Nature ever create milder, sweeter, and happier than the genius of Thomas More ?”

He found time to write books. He began a ‘History of Richard III’, but as its tenor was sharply against autocracy, and autocracy was on the throne, he thought it discreet to avoid the fatality of print. It was published after his death; Shakespeare based a play on it; and the biography, broadcast by the drama, may bear some responsibility for the character that Richard bears. In 1516, as if in playful aside, More tossed off, in Latin, one of the most famous of all books, creating a word, setting a precedent and pace for modern utopias, anticipating half of socialism, and voicing such criticism of English economy, society, and government that again he put valour behind discretion, and had the volume published abroad in six Latin editions before allowing it to be printed, still in Latin, in England. He professed to have written it for amusement, with no intention to make it public; but he thanked Erasmus for seeing it through the press at Louvain. It was translated into German, Italian, and French before the first English version appeared (1551), sixteen years after the author’s death. By 1520 it was the talk of the Continent.

More had called it ‘Nusquama’, Nowhere; we do not know who had the happy thought of changing this, amid the printing, to the Greek equivalent ‘Utopia’.

“Among the Utopians ... all things being in common, every man hath abundance of everything . . . I compare with them so many nations . . . where every man calleth that which he hath gotten, his own proper and private goods . . . I hold well with Plato . . that all men should have and enjoy equal portions of wealth and commodities. For where every man, under certain titles and pretences, draweth and plucketh to himself as much as he can, so that the few divide among themselves all the whole riches . . . there to the residue is lack and poverty.”

In Utopia each man takes his product to the common store, and receives from it according to his needs. None asks more than enough, for security from want forestalls greed. Meals are eaten in common, but if a man wishes he may eat at home. There is no money in Utopia, no buying cheap and selling dear; the evils of cheating, stealing, and quarrelling over property are unknown. Gold is used not as currency but to make useful things, like chamber pots ( ! ) No famines or lean years come, for the communal store houses maintain a reserve against emergencies. Every family engages in both agriculture and industry, men and women alike. In order to ensure adequate production, six hours of work per day are required of each adult, and choice of  occupation is limited to collective needs. The Utopians are free in the sense of freedom from hunger and fear, but they are not free to live on the labour of others. There are laws in Utopia, but they are simple and few; therefore every man is expected to plead his own case, and no lawyers are allowed. Those who violate the laws are condemned for a time to serve the community as bondmen; they do the more disagreeable tasks; but after finishing their turn they are restored to full equality with their fellow men. Those who repeatedly and seriously offend are put to death. The supply of bondsmen is raised by ransoming prisoners condemned to death in other lands.

The unit of society in Utopia is the patriarchal family. “ the wives be ministers to their husbands, the children to their parents. Monogamy is the only form of sexual union permitted. Before marriage the betrothed are advised to view each other naked, so that the physical defects may be revealed in time; and if they are serious the contract may be annulled. The wife after marriage goes to live with her husband in his father’s household. Divorce is allowed for adultery and by free mutual consent, conditional on the consent of the communal council. Annually every thirty families choose a phylarch to govern them; every ten phylarchs choose a chief phylarch to administer a district of 300 households. The 200 phylarchs serve as a national council, which elects for life the prince or king.

A basic obligation of the phylarchs is to preserve the health of the community by providing clean water, public sanitation, medical and hospital care; for health is the chief of all earthly boons. The rulers organise education for  children and for adults; they stress vocational  training, support science, and discourage astrology, fortune telling, and superstition. They make war on other peoples if they judge that the good of the community so requires. “ They count this the most just cause of war, when any people holdeth a piece of ground void and vacant to no good nor profitable use, keeping other from the use or possession of it, who  . . . by the law of nature ought thereby to be nourished and relieved.” ( Was this a defence of the colonization of America?) But the Utpians do not glorify war; “they hate it as plainly brutal . . .and, contrary to the sentiment of nearly every other nation, they regard nothing more inglorious than glory derived from war.”

Religion in Utopia is almost, not quite, free. Tolerance is given to any creed except atheism and the denial of human immortality. The utopian may if he wishes worship the sun or the moon. But those who use violence of action or speech against any recognised religion are arrested and punished, for the laws seek to prevent religious strife. Deniers of immortality are not punished, but they are excluded from office, and are forbidden to voice their views to any but priests and “men of gravity.” Otherwise “it should be lawful for every man to favour and follow what religion he would.” So in Utopia there are various religions, but” the most and wisest part . . believe there is a certain godly power unknown , everlasting, incomprehensible, inexplicable, far above the reach and capacity of man’s wit, dispersed through the world.” Monasticism is permitted, provided the monks will busy themselves with works of charity and communal utility, such as reparing roads and bridges, cleaning ditches, cutting timber, acting as servants, and they may marry if they so desire. There are priests but they too marry. The state keeps as holidays the first and last days of each month and year. On each of these holidays wives and children prostate themselves before their husbands or parents, and ask foregiveness for any offense comitted, or any duty omitted; and no one is to come to church until he has made peace with his enemy.--- it is a Christian touch, but More’s youthful humanism appears in his partial acceptance of the Greek view of suicide: if a man suffers from a painful and incurable disease he is permitted and encouraged to end his life. In other cases, More believes, suicide is cowardice, and the corpse “is to be cast unburied in some stinking marsh.”

We do not know how much  of this represented More’s considered conclusions, how much was Erasus’. However, the young statesman carefully dissociated himself from the socialism of his utopians: “I am of the opinion that men shall never live wealthy where all things are in common. For how can the abundance of goods . . where the regard of his own gains driveth not to work, but the hope that he hath in other men’s travails make him slothful . . . it is not possible for all things to be well unless all men are good --- which I think will not be yet these good many years.”

Yet other pages of the Utopia critisize with angry severity the exploitation of the poor by the rich. Enclosures of once common lands by English lords are condemned with much detail and spirit as seem unlikely in one who is a foreigner; “The  unreasonable covetousness of a few hath turned to the utter undoing of your land . . Suffer not these rich men to buy up all, to engross and forestall, and with their monopoly to keep the market alone as pleases them... . they invent and devise all means and crafts... how to hire and abuse . . the labour of the poor for as little money as may be . . . These devices are then made laws.”

It is almost the voice of Karl Marx moving the world from a foot of space in the British Museum. Certainly the Utopia is one of the most powerful, as well as one of the first, indictments of the economic system that continued in Europe until the twentieth century; and it remains as contemporary as a planned economy and the welfare state.

Emily

  • Posts: 365
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2217 on: June 16, 2014, 10:57:31 PM »
Quote
Religion in Utopia is almost, not quite, free. Tolerance is given to any creed except atheism and the denial of human immortality.

Not only would I deny human immortality, I would deny immortality to every living thing on earth. Humans, animals, insects, trees, plants, fish, birds, and anything that lives on this planet.

There goes Utopia out the window.......

Emma

Emily

  • Posts: 365
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2218 on: June 16, 2014, 11:10:46 PM »
Quote
On each of these holidays wives and children prostate themselves before their husbands or parents, and ask foregiveness for any offense comitted, or any duty omitted; and no one is to come to church until he has made peace with his enemy.

This Utopia was created for men, and since I would not be allowed to speak, would not go to their church, would not prostate myself to my husband, this brand of Utopia went out the window with the contents of the 'chamber pot'.

My review of 'Utopia'.

Emma

JoanK

  • BooksDL
  • Posts: 8685
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2219 on: June 17, 2014, 04:06:45 PM »
One person's Utopia is another person's hell!

3kings(Trevor)

  • Posts: 347
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2220 on: June 19, 2014, 04:44:28 AM »
Durants'  S  o  C
Vol. VI  The REFORMATION
Pgs. 555 - 558



                                                  Thomas More:  Martyr  
How did it come about that a man with such ideas seething in his head should have been appointed to Henry VIII’s council in the year after the publication of Utopia? Probably the king, could not bear to read the book in Latin, and died before it was Englished. More kept his radical fancies for his friends. Henry knew him as a rare synthesis of ability and integrity, valued him as a tie with the House of Commons, knighted him, made him Under-Treasurer ( 1521) and entrusted him with delicate tasks of diplomacy. More opposed the foreign policy by which Wolsey led England into war with Charles V; the Emperor, in More’s view, was not only dangerously resourceful, he was also the heroic defender of Christendom against the Turks. When Wolsey fell, More so far forgot his manners as to review, in Parliament the faults and errors that had caused the fall. As leader of the opposition he was the logical successor of the Cardinal, and for thirty-one months he served as Chancellor of England.

But the real successor to Wolsey was the King. Henry had discovered his own power and capacity, and was resolved, he said, to free himself from an unfriendly and obstructive papacy, and to legitimate his union with the woman whom he loved, and who could give him an heir to the throne. More found himself no guide of policy, but a servant of aims that ran counter to his deepest loyalties. He consoled himself by writing books against Protestant theology, and prosecuting Protestant leaders. In  “A Dialogue Concerning Heresies (1528) and in later works , he agreed with Ferdinand II, Calvin, and the Lutheran princes on the necessity of religious unity for national strength and peace. He feared the division of Englishmen into a dozen or a hundred religious sects. He who defended Erasmus’ Latin translation of the New Testament protested against Tyndale’s English version as distorting the text to prove Lutheran points; translations of the Bible, he felt, should not be turned into weapons for tavern philosophers.

From this mood he passed to the burning of Protestants at the stake. The charge that in his own house he had a man flogged for heresy is disputed; More’s account of the offender seems far removed from theology. “If he spied a woman kneeling” in prayer, and “if her head hung anything low in her meditations, then would he steal behind her, and . . . would labour to lift up her clothes and cast them quite over her head.” It maybe in the three death sentences pronounced in his diocese during his Chancellorship he was obeying the law that required the state to serve as the secular arm of ecclesiastical courts; but there is no doubt that he approved of the killings. He admitted no inconsistency between his conduct and the large toleration of religious differences in his Utopia; for even there he had refused toleration to atheists, deniers of immortality, and those heretics who resorted to violence or vituperation. Yet he himself was guilty of vituperation in arguing against the English Protestants.

There came a time when More thought Henry the most dangerous heretic of all. He refused to approve the marriage with Anne Boleyn, and he saw in the anticlerical legislation of 1529-1532 a ruinous assault upon the Church that to his mind was an indispensable base of social order. When he retired from office to the privacy of his Chelsea home (1532), he was still in his prime at fifty-four, but he suspected he had not much longer to live. His expectations were fulfilled. Early in 1534 he was indicted on a charge of having been privy to the conspiracy connected with the Nun of Kent. He admitted having met her, but he denied knowledge of conspiracy. Cromwell recommended, Henry granted forgiveness. But on April 17 More was committed to the Tower for refusing to take oath to the Act of Succession, which, as presented to him, involved a repudiation of papal supremacy over the Church of England. Many efforts were made to him, begging him to take the oath; he smilingly resisted them all. On July 1, 1535 he was given a final trial. He defended himself well, but he was pronounced guilty of treason. On the day before his execution he sent his hairshirt to his daughter Margaret, with a message that “tomorrow were a day very meet” to “ go to God. . . Farewell, my dear child; pray for me, and I shall pray for you and all your friends, that we may merrily meet in heaven.” The executioner asked his forgiveness; More embraced him, and asked the spectators to pray for him, and “to bear witness that he suffered death in and for the faith of the Holy Catholic Church.” His head was afterward affixed to London Bridge.

A wave of terror passed through England that now realized the resolute mercilessness of the King, and a shudder of horror ran through Europe. Erasmus felt he himself had died, for “we had but one soul between us.” He said he had now no further wish to live, and a year later he too was dead.

Dean Swift thought More the man “of greatest virtue.”  Pope Paul III formulated a bull of excommunication outlawing Henry from the fellowship of Christendom, interdicting all religious services in England, forbidding all trade with it, absolving all British subjects from their oaths of allegiance to the King, and commanding them, and all Christian princes, to depose him forthwith. When the bull was promulgated Charles and Francis forbade its publication in their realms, unwilling to sanction papal claims to power over kings. The failure of the bull signalised again the decline of papal authority and the rise of the sovereign national state.

On the four hundredth anniversary of their execution the Church of Rome enrolled Thomas More and John Fisher among her saints.

Emily

  • Posts: 365
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2221 on: June 19, 2014, 05:40:53 PM »
An excerpt from American Catholic on Thomas More

Quote
Four hundred years later in 1935, Thomas More was canonized a saint of God. Few saints are more relevant to our time. In the year 2000 in fact, Pope John Paul II named him patron of political leaders. The supreme diplomat and counselor, he did not compromise his own moral values in order to please the king, knowing that true allegiance to authority is not blind acceptance of everything that authority wants. King Henry himself realized this and tried desperately to win his chancellor to his side because he knew More was a man whose approval counted, a man whose personal integrity no one questioned. But when Thomas resigned as chancellor, unable to approve the two matters that meant most to Henry, the king had to get rid of Thomas More.


Patron Saint of:

Attorneys
Civil servants
Court clerks
Lawyers
Politicians, public servants

I did not know the Catholic church made Thomas More a saint. The following sentence from Durant "but there is no doubt that he approved of the killings," left me with the impression that More was no different from Henry, he had blood on his hands.

A perfect saint for politions.

Emma 
 

3kings(Trevor)

  • Posts: 347
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2222 on: June 25, 2014, 05:30:00 PM »
Durants'   S  o  C
Vol. VI  The REFORMATION
Pgs. 558 - 559




                                       A TALE OF THREE QUEENS  
Within some thirty months of More’s death Henry lost three of his six queens. Catherine of Aragon wasted away in her northern retreat, still claiming to be  Henry’s only lawfully wedded wife and England's rightful Queen. Her faithful maids continued to give her that title. In 1535 she was removed to Kimbalton Castle , near Huntingdon, and there she confined herself to one room, leaving it only to hear Mass. Mary, now nineteen, was kept at Hatfield, only 20 miles away, but mother and daughter were not allowed to see each other, and were forbidden to communicate.. They did, nevertheless, and Catherine’s  letters are among the most touching in all literature. Henry offered them better quarters if they would acknowledge his new queen; they would not. Anne Boleyn had her aunt made governess to Mary, and bade her keep “the bastard” in place by “a box on the ears now and then.” In December 1535, Catherine sickened, made her will, wrote to the Emperor asking him to protect her daughter, and addressed a moving farewell to her “most dear lord and husband” the King.

“ The hour of my death now approaching, I cannot choose but, out of the love I bear you, advise you of your soul’s health, which you aught to prefer above all considerations of the world of flesh whatsoever; for which yet you have cast me into many calamities, and yourself into troubles. But I forgive you all, and pray God to do likewise. For the rest I commend unto you, Mary our daughter, beseeching you to be a good father to her -- lastly I make this vow, that my eyes desire you above all things. Farewell.”

Henry wept on receiving the letter; and when Catherine died (Jan 7 1536 ), aged fifty, he ordered the court into mourning. Anne refused.

Anne could not know, that within five months she too would be dead; but she knew she had already lost the King. Her hot temper, her imperious tantrums, her importunate demands, wearied Henry, who contrasted her railing tongue with Catherine’s gentleness.  On the day of Catherine's burial Anne was delivered of a dead child; and Henry, who still yearned for a son, began to think of another divorce - - or as he would put it, an annulment; his second  marriage, he was quoted as saying, had been induced by witchcraft, and was therefore void. From October 1535, he began to pay special attention to one of Anne’s maids, Jane Seymour. When Anne reproached him he bade her bare with him patiently, as her bettors had done. Perhaps following ancient tactics, he accused her of infidelity. It seems increditable that even a flighty woman should have risked her throne for a moments dalliance, but the King seems to have  sincerely believed her guilt. He referred the rumours of her amours to his council; it investigated, and reported to the King that she had committed adultery with five members of the court. The five men were sent to the Tower, and on May 2, 1536, Anne followed them.

Henry wrote to her holding out hopes of forgiveness or lenience if she would be honest with him.  She replied she had nothing to confess. On May 11 the grand jury of Middlesex, having been asked to make local enquiries into offences allegedly committed by the Queen in that county, reported that it found her guilty with all five of the accused men. Four of the men were tried at Westminster by a jury including Anne’s father. One confessed himself guilty as charged, the others  pleaded not guilty; all four were convicted. On May 15, Anne and her brother were tried by a panel of twenty-six peers under the presidency of the Duke of Norfolk, her uncle, but political enemy. Sister and brother affirmed their innocence, but each member of the panel announced  himself convinced of their guilt, and they were sentenced to be “ burned or beheaded, as shall please the King.” On that day one of the five men was hanged, the remaining four beheaded. Archbishop Cranmer was required by royal commissioners to declare the marriage of Anne invalid, and Elizabeth a bastard; he complied.  The grounds for this judgment are not known, but presumably Anne’s alleged prior marriage with Lord Northumberland was now pronounced real.

On the eve of her death Anne knelt before Lady Kingston, wife of the warden, and asked a last favour; that she should go and kneel before Mary and beseech her, in Anne’s name, to forgive the wrongs that had come to her through the pride and thoughtlessness of a miserable woman. On May 19 she begged that her execution should take place soon. That noon she was led to the scaffold. She asked the spectators to pray for the King, “for a gentler and more merciful prince was there never; and to me he was ever a good, a gentle, and sovereign lord.”  No one could be sure of her guilt, but few regretted her fall.

On the day of her death Cranmer gave the King a dispensation to marry again in renewed quest for a son; on the morrow Henry and Jane Seymore were secretly betrothed; on May 30 1536 they were married, and on June 4 she was proclaimed queen. She was of royal lineage, being descended from Edward III. She was related to Henry in the third or fourth degree of consanguinity, which called for another dispensation from the obedient  Cranmer. She discouraged the Kings advances while Anne lived, refused his gifts, returned his letters unopened, and asked him never to speak to her except in the presence of others.

One of her first acts after  marriage was to effect a reconciliation between Henry and Mary. He did it in his own way. He had Cromwell send her a paper entitled “The confession of the Lady Mary”: it acknowledged the King as supreme head of the Church in England, repudiated the “Bishop of Rome’s pretended authority,” and recognized the marriage of Henry with Catherine as “incestuous and unlawful.” Mary was required to sign her name to each clause. She did, and never forgave herself. Three weeks later the King and Queen came to see her, and gave her presents and 1000 crowns. She was again called Princess; and at Christmas, 1536, she was received at court. There must have been something good in Henry -- and in “Bloody Mary”-- for in his later years she almost learned to love him.

When Parliament met again (in  June 8, 1536 ) it drew up at the King’s request a new Act of Succession, by which both Elizabeth and Mary were declared illegitimate, and the crown was settled on the prospective issue of Jane Seymour. In July Henry’s bastard son, the Duke of Richmond, died; Now all the hopes of the King lay in Jane’s pregnancy. England rejoiced with him when (Oct 12, 1537) she was delivered of a boy, the future  Edward VI. But poor Jane, to whom the King was now as deeply attached as his self centred spirit allowed, died twelve days after her son’s birth. Though Henry married thrice again, he asked, at his death, to be buried beside the woman who had given her life in bearing his son.

What was the reaction of the English people to the events of this world shaking reign? It is difficult to say; the testimony is prejudiced, ambiguous, and sparse. Chapuys reported in 1533 that, in the opinion of many Englishmen, “the last King Richard was never so much hated by his people as this  King.” Generally the people sympathised with Henry’s desire for a son, condemned his severity to Catherine and Mary, shed no tears over Anne, but were deeply shocked by the execution of Fisher and More. The nation was still overwhelmingly Catholic, and the clergy -- now that the Government had appropriated the annates -- were hoping for reconciliation with Rome. But hardly any man dared raise his voice in criticism of the King.





3kings(Trevor)

  • Posts: 347
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2223 on: July 05, 2014, 11:21:39 PM »
Durants'  S  o  C
Vol 6 The REFORMATION
Pgs. 563 - 566





                               Henry VIII and the Monasteries
In 1535 Henry, too busy with love and war to play pope in retail as well as gross, appointed the agnostic Cromwell “vice-regent of the King in all his ecclesiastical jurisdiction.” Cromwell now guided foreign policy, domestic legislation, the higher judiciary, the Privy Council, the intelligence service, the Star Chamber, and the Church of England. Wolsey at apogee had never had so many long and grasping figures in so many juicy pies. Cromwell’s innumerable spies kept him informed on all movements or expressions of opposition to Henry or himself. In special cases, to make conclusions certain, Cromwell acted as prosecutor, jury, and judge. Nearly everyone in England feared and hated him.

His chief difficulty was that Henry, though omnipotent, was bankrupt.  How to raise money? Taxes were already high to the point where resistance made further collection more costly than lucrative; the bishops had drained their parishes to appease the King; and no gold poured in from America such as daily succoured England’s enemy, the Emperor. Yet one institution was wealthy, suspect, decrepit, and defenceless: the monasteries. They were, in the eyes of the government, a foreign body in the nation, bound to support any Catholic movement against the King. They were decrepit because they had in many cases ceased to perform their traditional functions of education, hospitality, and charity. They were defenceless because the bishops resented their exemption from Episcopal control; because the nobility, impoverished by civil war, coveted their wealth; because the business classes looked upon monks and friars as idling wasters of natural resources; and because a large section of commonality, including many good Catholics, no longer believed in the efficacy of the relics that the monks displayed, or in the Masses that the monks, if paid, offered for the dead. The English Parliament had already ( 1533 )  voted authority to the government to visit the monasteries and compel their reform.

In the summer of 1535 Cromwell sent out a trio of “visitors,” each with a numerous staff to examine and report on the physical, moral, and financial condition of the monasteries and nunneries of England, and for good measure, the universities and Episcopal sees as well. These “visitors” were “ young impetuous men, likely to execute their work rather thoroughly than delicately”; they were not immune to “presents”; the object of their mission was to get up a case for the Crown, and they probably used every means in their power to induce the monks and the nuns to incriminate themselves. It was not difficult to find, among the 600 monasteries of England, an impressive number that showed  sexual -- sometimes homosexual -- deviations, loose discipline, acquisitive exploitation of false relics, sales of sacred vessels or jewellery to add to monastic wealth and comforts, neglect of ritual, hospitality, or charity.

To the Parliament that met on February 4  1536, Cromwell submitted a “Black Book”, now lost, revealing the faults of the monasteries, and recommending, with strategic moderation, that monasteries and convents having an income of 200 pounds ( $ 20,000 ?) or less per year, should be closed. The Parliament, whose members had  been largely chosen by Cromwell’s aids, consented. A Court of Augmentations was appointed by the King to receive for the royal treasury the property and revenues of these 376 “lesser monasteries.” Two thousand monks were released to other houses or to the world to find work.
[ A backlash against Cromwell’s closing of monasteries now took place. In rural areas far from cities and towns, the local populace, not understanding that Cromwell was working on the King’s behalf as well as his own, took matters into their own hands and attacked the “visitors”, and their supporters, killing several, all the while claiming to be loyal to the King, as well as to the Roman Catholic Church. ]

But now, understanding that King and Cromwell were working in union, an army of 60,000 men assembled at Lincoln and drew up demands which were dispatched to the King; the monasteries should be restored, taxes should be remitted or eased, the clergy should no more pay tithes or annates to the Crown. Cromwell should be removed from the Privy Council, and heretic bishops -- chiefly Cranmer and Latimer --  should be deposed and punished.

The King’s answer was furious and uncompromising. He charged the rebels with ingratitude to a gracious ruler; insisted that the closing of the lesser monasteries was the will of the nation expressed through Parliament; and bade the insurgents surrender their leaders and disperse to their homes on pain of death and confiscation of goods. At the same time Henry ordered his military aides to collect their forces and march under the Earl of Suffolk to the assistance of Lord Shrewsbury, who already organized his retainers to withstand attack; and he wrote privately to the few nobles who had joined the revolt. These now perceiving that the King could not be awed, and that the poorly armed insurgents would soon be overwhelmed, persuaded so many of them to return to their villages that the rebel army, over the protests of the priests, rapidly melted away. The captured leaders were taken to London and the Tower; thirty-three, including seven priests and fourteen monks, were hanged; the rest were leisurely freed.

Meanwhile a still more serious uprising had developed in Yorkshire. On October 15, 1536, an army of some 9,000 men, under Richard Aske, laid siege to York. The citizens of the city compelled the mayor to open the gates. Aske kept his men from pillage, and in general maintained remarkable order. He proclaimed the reopening of the monasteries; the monks joyfully returned to them, and gladdened the hearts of the pious with the new ardour of their chants. The demands then sent to the king included: suppress all heretics and their literature, resume ecclesiastical ties with Rome, legitimise Mary, dismiss and punish Cromwell’s “visitors”, and annul all enclosures of common lands since 1489.

This was the most critical point in Henry’s reign. Half the country was in arms against his policies; Ireland was in revolt; and Paul III and cardinal Pole were urging Francis I and Charles V to invade England and depose the King. With a burst of declining energy, he sent out orders in all directions for the mustering of loyal troops, and meanwhile instructed the Duke of Norfolk to bemuse the rebellious leaders with negotiations. The Duke arranged a conference with Aske and several nobles, and won them over by a promise to pardon all. Henry invited Aske to a personal conference, and gave him a safe-conduct. He came to the King, was charmed by the aura of royalty, and returned meek and mild to Yorkshire. (January 1537); there however he was arrested and sent to London as a prisoner. Shorn of its captains, the insurgent host fell into angry divisions and wild disorder; defections multiplied; and as the united levies of the King approached, the rebel army disappeared (Feb 1537).  


mabel1015j

  • Posts: 3656
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2224 on: July 06, 2014, 12:45:38 PM »
I'm sorry to have been absent from this discussion, but the last 6 wks have been the worst of my life - my DH and i each had a sibling die within 3 weeks of each other and in the middle of that my oldest sister had a serious health crisis, and sev'l other minor mishaps occurred.  I haven't been doing much that takes good concentration, which includes this discussion. I'll catch up when the planets realign in their proper place and my world settles down.

3kings(Trevor)

  • Posts: 347
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2225 on: July 08, 2014, 09:44:04 PM »
DURANTS'   S  o  C
Vol. VI  The REFORMATION
Pgs.  566 - 569



                                              Henry VIII and the MONASTERIES. (cont.)

When Henry was assured that the revolt and invasion had both collapsed, he repudiated Norfolk’s promise of a general pardon, ordered the arrest of such disaffected leaders as could be found, and had several of them, including Aske, put to death. With the opposition so sternly terrified, Cromwell proceeded to close the remaining religious houses in England. All the monasteries and nunneries that had joined the revolt were dissolved forthwith, and their property was confiscated to the state. Many monks, anticipating closure, sold relics and valuables from their houses to the highest bidder. The historic tomb of St. Thomas a Becket at Canterbury was demolished; Henry VIII proclaimed the victor over Henry VII to have been no real saint; the relics that had offended Colet and amused Erasmus were burned; the precious objects donated by the piety of pilgrims during 250 years were carried away to the royal treasury; and thereafter Henry wore on his thumb a great ruby taken from the shrine. By 1540 all monasteries, and all monastic property except cathedral abbey churches, had passed to the King.

All in all 578 monasteries were closed, some 130 convents; 6521 monks or friars were dispersed, 1,560 nuns. The confiscated land and buildings had enjoyed an annual income of some 200,000 pounds ( $20,000,000 ?) The total spoils in goods and income accruing to Henry during his life may have been some 1,423,500 pounds. The King was generous with these spoils. Cromwell received or bought six abbeys, with an annual revenue of 2,293 pounds; his nephew Sir Richard Cromwell received seven abbeys; this was the origin of the fortune that made Richard’s great-grandson Oliver a man of substance and influence in the next century.

Some of the spoils went to build ships, forts, and ports; some helped to finance war, some went into the royal palaces at Westminster, Chelsea, and Hampton court; some the King lost at dice. The new aristocracy  created by Henry’s gifts and sales became a powerful support to the Tudor throne, and a bulwark of economic interest against any Catholic restoration. The old feudal aristocracy had decimated itself; the new one, rooted in commerce and industry, changed the nature of the English nobility from static conservatism to dynamic enterprise, and poured fresh blood and energy into the upper classes of England. This -- and the spoils -- may have been one source of Elizabethan exuberance.

The effects of the dissolution were complex and interminable. The liberated monks may have shared modestly or not in the increase of England’s population, from about 2,500,000 in 1485 to some 4,000,000 in 1547. A temporary increase in the unemployed helped to depress the earnings of the lower classes for a generation, and the new landlords proved more grasping than the old. Politically the effect was to augment still further the power of the monarchy; the church lost the last stronghold of resistance. Morally the results were a growth of crime, pauperism, and beggary, and a diminished provision of charity. Over a hundred monastic hospitals were closed; a few were rehabilitated by municipal authorities. The sums that fearful or reverent souls had bequeathed to priests as insurance against infernal or purgatorial fire were confiscated in expectation that no harm would come to the dead; 2,374 charities, with their endowments for Masses, were appropriated by the King. The severest  effects were in education. The convents had provided schools for girls, the monasteries and the Charity priests had maintained schools and ninety colleges for boys; All these institutions were dissolved.

Having stated the facts as impartially as unconscious prejudice allowed, the historian may be permitted to add a confessedly hypothetical comment. Henry’s greed and Cromwell’s ruthlessness merely advanced by a generation an inevitable lessening in the number and influence of English monasteries. These had once done admirable work in education, charity, and hospital care, but the secularisation of such functions was proceeding throughout Western Europe, even where Catholicism prevailed. The decline in religious fervour and other worldliness was rapidly narrowing the flow of novices into conventional establishments; and many of these were reduced to so small a number as seems out of proportion to the splendour of their buildings and the income of their lands. It is a pity the situation was met by the brusque haste of Cromwell rather than by Wolsey’s humane and sounder path of transforming more and more monasteries into colleges. Henry’s procedure here, as in his quest for a son, was worse than his aim. It was good that an end should be put, in some measure, to the exploitation of simple piety by pious fraud. Our chief regrets go to the nuns who for the most part laboured dutifully in prayer, schooling, and benevolence; and even one who can not share their trustful faith must be grateful that their like again minister, with lifelong devotion, to the needs of the sick and the poor.   



JoanK

  • BooksDL
  • Posts: 8685

3kings(Trevor)

  • Posts: 347
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2228 on: July 13, 2014, 10:05:02 PM »
DURANTS'  S  o  C
Vol. VI  The REFORMATION
Pgs. 569 - 570 



                                  THE  OBSTINATE IRISH

English kings justified their dominion of Ireland on the ground that a hostile Continental power might at any moment use that verdant isle for a flank attack upon England; and this consideration, seconding the love of power, became more active when protestant England failed to win Ireland from the Roman Church .The  Irish people, heroic and anarchic, virile and violent, poetically gifted and politically immature, resisted, every day, their subjection to an alien blood and speech.

The evils of the English occupation mounted. Under Edward III many Anglo-Irish landowners returned to England to live there in ease on Irish rents; and though the English Parliament repeatedly denounced the practice, “absentee landlordism” rose through three centuries to be a leading spur to Irish revolts. Englishmen who remained in Ireland tended to marry Irish girls, and were gradually absorbed into Irish blood and ways. Anxious to dam this racial drain, the Irish Parliament, dominated by English residents and influence, passed the famous Statute of Kilkenny (1366), which, along with some wise and generous provisions, forbade intermarriage, fosterage, or other intimate relations between the English and the Irish in Ireland, and any use, by the English, of Irish speech, customs, or dress, on pain of imprisonment and forfeiture of property.  No Irishman was henceforth to be received into any English religious organization; and no bards or storytellers were to enter English homes. These prohibitions failed; the roses in Irish cheeks outshone the majesty of the law, and racial fusion went on in that narrow March, Border, or Pale where alone the English in Ireland dared to dwell.

In the Wars of the Roses, Ireland might have expelled the English had the Irish chiefs united but they preferred fraternal strife, sometimes encouraged thereto by English gold. Henry VII re-established English authority in the Pale, and his lord deputy, Sir Edward Poynings, pushed through the Irish Parliament the humiliating “Poynings’ Law” (1494); that in future no Irish Parliament should be convened until all bills to be presented to it had been approved by the king and Privy council of England. So emasculated, the English government in Ireland became the most incompetent, ruthless, and corrupt in Christendom.  By this time Henry VIII had completed his divorce from the Roman Church. With characteristic audacity he bade the Irish Parliament acknowledge him head of the Church of Ireland as well as in England. It did. Reformers entered the churches in the Pale, and demolished religious relics and images. All monasteries but a remote few were closed, their property was taken by the Government, their monks were dismissed with pensions if they made no fuss. Some of the spoils were distributed among the Irish chiefs; so oiled, most of them accepted titles of nobility from the English King, acknowledged his religious supremacy, and abjured the pope ( 1539). The clan system was abolished, and Ireland was declared a kingdom, with Henry as king.

Henry was victorious, but mortal; he died within five years of his triumph. Catholicism in Ireland survived. The chieftains took their apostasy as a passing incident in politics; they continued to be Catholics ( as Henry did) except for ignoring the pope; and the priests whose ministrations they supported and received remained quietly orthodox. The faith of the people underwent no change; or rather it took on new vigour because it maintained the pride of nationality against a schismatic king and, later, a protestant Queen. The struggle for freedom became more intense than before, since now it spoke for body and soul. 


JoanK

  • BooksDL
  • Posts: 8685
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2229 on: July 14, 2014, 04:06:56 PM »
"The  Irish people, heroic and anarchic, virile and violent, poetically gifted and politically immature"

Quite a description. Any Irish out there to comment?

mabel1015j

  • Posts: 3656
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2230 on: July 15, 2014, 06:20:37 PM »
I'm almost caught up with the reading of the posts. I can read other of the sites while watching tv, but i have to turn off the tv and concentrate to really take in this info.  :)

I'm Scots-Irish, does that count? Probably not, i think that's a comment on the Green Irish, not the Orange! But it sounds about right based on the prejudices of the English and maybe the Scots-Irish also. Lol

forbade intermarriage, fosterage, or other intimate relations between the English and the Irish in Ireland, and any use, by the English, of Irish speech, customs, or dress, on pain of imprisonment and forfeiture of property.  No Irishman was henceforth to be received into any English religious organization; and no bards or storytellers were to enter English homes. These prohibitions failed; the roses in Irish cheeks outshone the majesty of the law, and racial fusion went on in that narrow March, Border, or Pale where alone the English in Ireland dared to dwell.

People just NEVER learn from history, even those few who know history. Money! Power! Controlling "the other!" And then killing the Other. Just goes on and on in different iterations.


Jean

mabel1015j

  • Posts: 3656
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2231 on: July 15, 2014, 06:36:58 PM »
I'm almost caught up with the reading of the posts. I can read other of the sites while watching tv, but i have to turn off the tv and concentrate to really take in this info.  :)

I'm Scots-Irish, does that count? Probably not, i think that's a comment on the Green Irish, not the Orange! But it sounds about right based on the prejudices of the English and maybe the Scots-Irish also. Lol

forbade intermarriage, fosterage, or other intimate relations between the English and the Irish in Ireland, and any use, by the English, of Irish speech, customs, or dress, on pain of imprisonment and forfeiture of property.  No Irishman was henceforth to be received into any English religious organization; and no bards or storytellers were to enter English homes. These prohibitions failed; the roses in Irish cheeks outshone the majesty of the law, and racial fusion went on in that narrow March, Border, or Pale where alone the English in Ireland dared to dwell.

People just NEVER learn from history, even those few who know history. Money! Power! Controlling "the other!" And then killing the Other. Just goes on and on in different iterations.

Jean

Sorry didn't mean to duplicate

Emily

  • Posts: 365
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2232 on: July 19, 2014, 11:55:11 PM »
Jean, so sorry to read of your loss of a family member, also your husbands loss.

I too have been away from this forum. My mother was 100 last year and she is having some problems that has taken most of my attention lately.

As for the Irish, here is a quote said about them........'All their wars are merry, and all their songs are sad.'

Emma

3kings(Trevor)

  • Posts: 347
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2233 on: July 20, 2014, 11:56:23 PM »
Durants'  S  o  C
Vol. VI  The REFORMATION
Pgs.  570 - 573





                                EVERY OUNCE A KING 

Henry in 1540 was the most absolute monarch that England had ever known. The old Norman nobility, whose ancestors had checked even William the Conqueror, were now timidly obedient, and almost forgot the Magna Charta of their prerogatives. The new nobility, enriched by commerce and endowed by the King served as a barrier to aristocratic or religious revolts. The House of Commons, once the jealous protector of English liberties but now handpicked by agents of the King, yielded to him almost unprecedented powers: the right to confiscate property, to name his successor, to determine orthodoxy and heresy, to send men to death after only a mock trial, and to issue proclamations that were to have the authority of acts of Parliament. The English people accepted this absolutism partly through fear, partly because it seemed the alternative to another War of the Roses. Order was more important than Liberty.
The same alternatives persuaded Englishmen to suffer Henry’s  ecclesiastical supremacy. With Catholics and Protestants ready to fly at each other’s throats, with Catholic citizens, ambassadors, and potentates  conspiring against him, almost to invasion, Henry believed that order could be secured in the religious life of England only by royal determination of faith and ritual; implicitly he accepted the case that the Church had made for authority in religion. He tried to dictate who should read the Bible. When the bishops suppressed Tyndales translation he bade them prepare a better one; When they dallied too long he allowed Cromwell to commission a new translation by Miles Coverdale. In 1539 a revised edition was printed, and Cromwell ordered the “Great Bible”  placed in every English Church.

Henry, “of the royal liberality and goodness,” granted the citizens the privilege of reading the Bible in their homes; and soon  it became a daily influence in nearly every English family. But it was a fountain of discord as well of inspiration; every village sprouted amateur exegetes who proved anything or its opposite by Scripture; fanatics wrangled over it in churches, and came to blows in taverns. Some ambitious men gave their wives writs of divorce, or kept two wives at once, on the plea that this was sound Biblical practice. The King regretted the liberty of reading that he had allowed, and reverted to the Catholic stand. In 1543 he induced Parliament to rule that only nobles and property owners might legally possess the Bible, and only priests might preach on it, or discuss it publicly. It was difficult for the people -- even for the King -- to know the King’s mind. Catholics continued to go to the stake or the block for denying his ecclesiastical supremacy, Protestants for questioning Catholic theology.

In 1539, King, Parliament, and Convocation, by the “Act of the Six Articles,” proclaimed the Roman Catholic position on the Real Presence, clerical celibacy, monastic vowels, Masses for the dead, the necessity of auricular confession to a priest, and the sufficiency of communion in one kind. Whoever, by spoken or written word, denied the Real Presence  should suffer death by burning, without opportunity to abjure, confess, and be absolved; whoever denied any of the other articles should for the first offence forfeit his property, for the second his life. All marriages hitherto contracted by priests were declared void, and for a priest thereafter to retain his wife was to be a felony. The people, still orthodox, generally approved these articles, but Cromwell did his best to moderate them in practice; and in 1540, the King, tacking again, ordered prosecution under the act to cease. On July 30 1540, three Protestants and three Catholic priests suffered death at Smithfield in unwilling unison, the Protestants for questioning some Catholic doctrines, the Catholics for rejecting the ecclesiastical sovereignty of the King.

Henry was as forceful in administration as in theology. He chose competent aids as ruthless as himself. He reorganized the army, equipped it with new weapons, and studied the latest tactics. He built the first permanent royal navy, which cleared the coasts and Channel of pirates and prepared for the naval victories of Elizabeth. But he taxed the people to the limits of tolerance, repeatedly debased the currency, repudiated his debts, borrowed from the Fuggers, and promoted the English economy in the hope that it would yield added revenue.

Agriculture was in depression. Serfdom was still widespread; Enclosures for sheep pasturage continued, and the new landlords, unhindered by feudal traditions, doubled or quadrupled the rents of their tenants, and refused to renew expiring leases. Thousands of dispossessed tenants made their way to London. Catholic More drew a pitiful picture of the beggared peasantry, and Protestant Latimer denounced the “rent-raiser steplords.” Parliament laid ferocious penalties upon vagabondage and beggary. Gradually the displaced peasants found work in cities. In the end productivity of the land was raised by large-scale farming, but the inability of the government to ease the transition was a criminal and heartless failure of statesmanship.

The same government protected industry with tariffs, and manufacturers profited from cheap labour made available by the migration of peasants to the towns. Capitalistic methods reorganised the textile industry, and raised a new class of wealthy men to stand beside the merchants in support of the King; cloth now replaced wool as England’s chief export. most exports were of necessaries produced by lower classes; most imports were of luxuries available only to the rich. Commerce  and industry were benefited by a law of 1536  legalising interest rates of 10%. Rents rose 1,000% between 1500 and 1576; food prices rose 250% to 300 %; wages rose 150%. “Such poverty reigneth now,” wrote Thomas Starkey about 1537, “that in no case may stand with a very true and flourishing common weal.” Guild members found some relief in the insurance and mutual aid provided against poverty and fire; but in 1545 Henry confiscated the property of the guilds.




Emily

  • Posts: 365
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2234 on: July 21, 2014, 02:31:42 PM »
An excerpt from the New York Times July 14, 2014

Quote
LONDON — After years of deadlock and division, the Church of England voted on Monday to allow women to become bishops, overturning centuries of tradition and overcoming a long-running dispute that had undermined the unity of Anglicans.

The vote taken in the General Synod, the decision-making body of the Church of England, was supported by the archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Justin Welby, the spiritual leader of the church and the global Anglican Communion, who told the BBC before the vote that the public would find the exclusion of women “almost incomprehensible.”

After the result, he said in a statement that he was delighted and described the move as “the completion of what was begun over 20 years ago with the ordination of women as priests.”

The changes will be considered by Parliament. Provided they are approved there, a formal announcement will be made at the next meeting of the General Synod, in November.

The General Synod voted to ordain women as priests in 1992, and ordinations began two years later. Now, around one-third of Anglican clerics are women, and women can hold senior positions such as canon or archdeacon.

The church of England probably had little choice in this matter since most of the attendants were older women. If only they could get the Archbishop post and declare the entire scam null and void.

Oh for a woman of courage and intellect.

I would not call Henry 'Every Ounce a King', he was 'Every Ounce a Despot'.


Emma

JoanK

  • BooksDL
  • Posts: 8685
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2235 on: July 21, 2014, 03:13:31 PM »
It's about time.

Meanwhile, while the attention of historians is on Henry and his Marital and religious hijinks, even more important things are happening:

"Agriculture was in depression. Serfdom was still widespread; Enclosures for sheep pasturage continued, and the new landlords, unhindered by feudal traditions, doubled or quadrupled the rents of their tenants, and refused to renew expiring leases. Thousands of dispossessed tenants made their way to London....

The same government protected industry with tariffs, and manufacturers profited from cheap labour made available by the migration of peasants to the towns. Capitalistic methods reorganised the textile industry, and raised a new class of wealthy men to stand beside the merchants in support of the King; cloth now replaced wool as England’s chief export"

We are seeing the start of the transformation of England from a primarily rural agricultural nation to an urban manufacturing economy, centuries earlier than happened in other countries. This helped secure England's early dominance in trade.

mabel1015j

  • Posts: 3656
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2236 on: July 22, 2014, 01:53:13 PM »
Oh my goodness!!! The Church of England comes into the 20th century! Yes! I meant 20th! Well, actually some protestant denominations had women ministers in the 19th century. So we could say they are two centuries behind! (Shaking my head.)

"Henry, “of the royal liberality and goodness,” granted the citizens the privilege of reading the Bible in their homes; and soon  it became a daily influence in nearly every English family. But it was a fountain of discord as well of inspiration; every village sprouted amateur exegetes who proved anything or its opposite by Scripture; fanatics wrangled over it in churches, and came to blows in taverns. Some ambitious men gave their wives writs of divorce, or kept two wives at once, on the plea that this was sound Biblical practice. The King regretted the liberty of reading that he had allowed, and reverted to the Catholic stand. In 1543 he induced Parliament to rule that only nobles and property owners might legally possess the Bible, and only priests might preach on it, or discuss it publicly. "

This doesn't sound too different then in some other churches today! History does repeat itself. I keep saying that, don't i?

Power brokers keep learning that it's dangerous to allow non-power people knowledge and liberty, they get their own opinions and then they're OUT of CONTROL! Ala the internet and people in China, Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, Ukraine, etc, etc, etc.

Jean

3kings(Trevor)

  • Posts: 347
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2237 on: July 28, 2014, 11:25:37 PM »
Durants'  S  o  C
Vol. VI  THE REFORMATION
Pgs. 573 - 578



                                      THE DRAGON RETIRES

What sort of man was this ogre of a king. Holbein the younger, coming to England about 1536 painted portraits of Henry and Jane Seymour. The gorgeous costume almost conceals the royal corpulence; the gems and ermine, the hand on the jewelled sword, reveal the pride of authority, the vanity of the uncontradicted male; the broad fat face bespeaks a hearty sensualism; the nose a pillar of strength; the tight lips and stern eyes warn of a despot quick to anger and cold to cruelty. Henry was now forty-six, at the top of his political curve, but entering physical decline. He was destined to marry thrice again, yet have no further progeny. From all his six wives he had but three children who outlived infancy. One of these three -- Edward VI -- was sickly and died at fifteen; Mary remained desolately barren in marriage; Elizabeth never dared marry, probably through consciousness of some physical impediment. The curse of semi-sterility or bodily defect lay upon the proudest dynasty in English history.

Henry’s mind was keen, his judgement of men was penetrating, his courage and will power were immense. His manners were coarse, and his scruples disappeared with his youth. Born to royalty, he was surrounded from birth with obeisance and flattery; only a few men dared withstand him, and they were buried without their heads. “Surely,” wrote More from the Tower, it is  a great pity that any Christian prince should by a flexible [ knee bending] council ready to allow his affections [desires] and by a weak clergy. . . be with flattery so shamefully abused” This was the external source  of  Henry’s retrogression in character -- that the absence of resistance to his will, after the death of More, made him as flabby in moral sense as in  physique. He was greedy for money as well as for power, and seldom allowed considerations of humanity to halt his appropriations. His ungrateful readiness to kill women whom he had loved, or men, who like More and Cromwell, had served him loyally for many years, is despicable; yet in result he was not one tenth as murderous as the well meaning Charles IX sanctioning the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, or Charles V condoning the  sack of Rome, or German princes fighting through thirty years for their right to determine the religious belief of their subjects.

The inner source of his deterioration was the repeated frustration of his will in love and parentage, while suffering intermittent agony from an ulcer in his leg, buffeted with revolts and crises throughout his reign, forced at almost every moment to arm against invasion, betrayal, and assassination -- how could such a man develop normally, or avoid degeneration into suspicion, craft, and cruelty? And how shall we, who fret at pinpricks of private tribulation, understand a man who bore in his mind and person the storm and stress of the English Reformation. He weaned his people by perilous steps from a deeply rooted loyalty, and yet must have felt in his divided soul an erosive wonder-- had he freed a nation or shattered Christendom?

Danger, as well as power, was the medium in which he lived. In 1538 he ordered the arrest of Sir Geoffrey Pole, brother to Reginald. Fearing torture, Geoffrey confessed that he, another brother, Lord Montague, Sir Edward Neville, and the Marchioness of Exeter had had treasonable correspondence with the Cardinal. Geoffrey was pardoned; Exeter, Montague, and several others were hanged and quartered (1538-39). Lady Exeter was imprisoned; and the Countess of Salisbury, mother of the Poles, was placed under guard. When the Cardinal visited Charles V in Toledo ( 1539) bearing a futile request from Paul III that the Emperor would join with Francis in outlawing all commerce with England. Henry retaliated by arresting the Countess, who was now seventy years old; perhaps he hoped by keeping her in the Tower he could check the Cardinal’s enthusiasm for invasion. All was fair in the game of life and death.

Having remained for two years unmarried, Henry bade Cromwell seek for him a marital alliance that would strengthen his hand against Charles. Cromwell recommended Anne, sister of the Duke of Cleaves, who was then at odds with the Emperor. Cromwell set his heart on the marriage, by which he hoped ultimately to form a league of Protestant states, and thereby compel Henry to repeal the anti-Lutheran Six Articles. When Anne came, and Henry laid eyes on her (Jan 1, 1540), love died at first sight. He shut his eyes, married her, and prayed again for a son to strengthen the Tudor succession now that Prince Edward was revealing his physical frailty. But Henry never forgave Cromwell.

Four months later, alleging malfeasance and corruption, he ordered the arrest of his most profitable minister. Hardly anyone objected; Cromwell was the most unpopular subject in England -- for his origin, his methods, his venality, his wealth. In the Tower he was required to sign documents impugning the validity of the new marriage. Anne, confessing she was still a maid, agreed to an annulment in return for a comfortable pension. She chose a lonely life in England; and it was small comfort to her that when she died (1557) she was buried in Westminster Abbey. Cromwell was beheaded on July 28,1540.
On the same day Henry married Catherine Howard, twenty years old, of a strictly Catholic house; the Catholic party was gaining. Henry made his peace with the Emperor. He now turned his fancy northward in the hope of annexing Scotland. He was distracted by another rebellion in the north of England. Before leaving to suppress it, and to discourage conspiracy at his back, he ordered all the political prisoners in the Tower, including the Countess of Salisbury, to be put to death (1541). The rebellion collapsed, and Henry returned to Hampton Court to seek solace from his new Queen.

The second Catherine was the fairest of his mates. and the king learned almost to love her, and he gave thanks to God for “the good life he was leading and hoped to lead.” But on November 2, 1541, Archbishop Cranmer handed him documents indicating that Catherine had premarital relations with three successive suitors. Henry was inclined to pardon Catherine, but evidence was given him that she had, since her royal marriage committed adultery with her cousin. The royal court pronounced her guilty; and on Feb 13, 1542, she was beheaded on the same spot  where Ann Boleyn’s head had fallen six years before.

The King was now a broken man. His ulcer baffled the medical science of the day, and syphilis, never cured, was spreading its ravages through his frame. Losing the zest for life, he allowed himself to become an unwieldily mass of flesh, his cheeks overlapping his jaws, his narrowed eyes half lost in the convolutions of his face. He could not walk from one room to another without support. He issued a new decree fixing the succession to his throne: first on Edward, then Mary, then on Elizabeth. In a final effort to beget a healthy son, he married a sixth wife July 12, 1543). Catherine Parr had survived two previous husbands, but the King no longer insisted upon virgins. She was a woman of culture and tact; she nursed her royal invalid patiently, reconciled him with his long neglected daughter Elizabeth, and tried to soften his theology and persecuting zeal. Theological bonfires continued to the end of his reign; twenty-six persons were burned for heresy in its final eight years. In 1543 he fell into war with Scotland and his “beloved Brother”  Francis I, and soon found himself allied with his old enemy Charles V. To financed his campaigns he demanded new “loans” from his subjects, repudiated payment on loans of 1542, and confiscated the endowments of the universities. His armies invaded Scotland and wrecked the abbeys of Melrose and Dryburgh, and five other monasteries, but were routed at Ancrum Moor (1545). 

He was now so weak that noble families openly contended as to which should have the regency for young Edward. A poet, the earl of Surrey, was so confident that his father, the Duke of York, would be regent that he adopted a coat of arms suitable only for an heir-apparent to the throne. Henry arrested both; they confessed their guilt; the poet was beheaded on Jan 9, 1547, and the Duke was scheduled for execution soon after the twenty-seventh. But on twenty-eighth the King died. He was fifty-five years old. He left a large sum to pay for the Masses for the repose of his soul.

The thirty-seven years of his reign transformed England more deeply than perhaps he imagined or desired. He thought to replace the pope while leaving unchanged the old faith that had habituated the people to moral restraints and obedience to law; but his defence of the papacy, his swift dispersal of monks and relics, his repeated humiliation of the clergy, his appropriation of Church property, and his secularisation of the government so weakened ecclessaiastical prestige and authority as to invite the theological changes that followed the reigns of Edward and Elizabeth. The English Reformation was less doctrinal than the German, but one outstanding result was the same-- the victory of the state over the Church. The people had escaped from an infallible pope into the arms of an absolute king.

In a material sense they had not benefited. they paid church tithes as before, but the net surplus went to the government. Many peasants now tilled their tenancies for “steplords” more ruthless than the abbots whom Carlyle was to idealize in ‘Past and Present’ William Cobbett thought that “viewed merely in its social aspect, the English Reformation was in reality the rising of the rich against the poor.” Records of prices and wages indicate that the agricultural and town workers were better off at Henry’s accession than at his death.

The moral aspects of the reign were bad. The King gave the nation a demoralizing example in his sexual indulgence, his callous passing in a few days from execution of one wife to the bed of the next, his calm cruelty, fiscal dishonesty, and material greed. The upper classes disordered the court and government with corrupt intrigues; the gentry emulated Henry in grasping at the wealth of the Church; the industrialists mulcted their workers and were mulcted by the King. The decay of Charity did not complete the picture, for there remained the debasing subserviency of a terrified people to a selfish autocrat. Only the courage of the Protestant and Catholic martyrs redeemed the scene, and Fisher and More, the noblest of them, had persecuted in their turn.

In a large perspective even those bitter years bore some good fruit. The reformation had to be; the break with the past was violent and painful, but only a brutal blow could shake its grip on the minds of men. When the incubus was removed, the spirit of nationalism became a popular enthusiasm and a creative force. The elimination of the papacy from English affairs left the people for a time at the mercy of the state; but in the long run it compelled them to rely on themselves in checking their rulers. Under a vacillating but triumphant queen, Elizabeth, the nation would rise in a burst of liberating energy, and lift itself to the leadership of the European mind. Perhaps Elizabeth and Shakespeare could not have been had not England been set free by her worst and strongest king.



mabel1015j

  • Posts: 3656
Re: Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant
« Reply #2238 on: July 29, 2014, 01:01:02 PM »
Henry is such a flamboyant personality and physicality that historians and pseudo-historians (us) just can't get enough of him.

What does this mean? "Elizabeth never dared marry, probably through consciousness of some physical impediment. " i never heard that theory. I always assumed that she didn't want to share, or weaken, her power, even emotionally, that she wanted to stand tall and majestiic, all on her own.

Jean

mabel1015j

  • Posts: 3656