What were some of the core ideas of Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation? How did people react to this new religious movement, and how did the Protestant Reformation interact with other social movements in the 1500s

3 Part Multi questions. Please see attachments and unit lesson readings.

Part 1: Choose 2 of the 3 questions to answer. Each response should consist of at least 200 words.

Part 2: Choose 4 of the following 6 questions to answer. Each response should consist of at least 200 words.

Part 3: Please answer BOTH of the following questions. Your response to the first question should consist of at least 200 words, and your response to the second question should consist of at least 100 words.

Requirements: 200 words

HIS 1200, Medieval World 1 Course Learning Outcomes for Unit VIII Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to: 2. Assess the relevancy of the past by comparing it to modern society. 3. Relate specific aspects and historical contexts of past events to broader historical patterns. Course/Unit Learning Outcomes Learning Activity 2 Unit Lesson 8.2 Unit VIII Final Project 3 Unit Lesson 8.1 Unit Lesson 8.3 Unit VIII Final Project Required Unit Resources In order to access the following resources, click the links below. Unit Lesson 8.1 Unit Lesson 8.2 Unit Lesson 8.3 Unit Lesson You can access Unit Lessons 8.1–8.3 by clicking the links below. This unit explores the tail end of the medieval period and the beginning of the transition from the medieval world to modern times, which lasts from about 1500-1850 AD (often called the Early Modern Period). In this lesson, we will begin with a former monk who posted some ideas on a door that began a religious and cultural revolution. The ideas, people, and groups of the Protestant Reformation will be explored along with the reactions to these new ideas and their lasting influence on Western society. From religion, we turn to the other thing that you are never supposed to discuss with family or strangers: politics. We will look at the political work of one of the most infamous Renaissance humanists, Machiavelli. We will go through the arguments that he makes in his guide book, The Prince, to see how he gave birth to modern politics, what Machiavellian means, and what politics, then and now, are all about. From the always-controversial Machiavelli, we will explore a brief overview of some of the more significant changes in the 1500s that caused the transition from medieval to modern. This will briefly explore some technological, commercial, and cultural innovations and changes that would end medievalism and shape our modern world. Unit Lesson 8.1 is an exploration of the Protestant Reformation. We will look at the ideas and actions of Martin Luther as he led a religious revolution that quickly turned into a cultural and political revolution throughout Europe. We will see how the Church and society reacted to his ideas, the splinter groups that grew out of his movement, and the conflict throughout Europe that it led to as a result. In exploring the ideas of the Reformation, we will discover some cultural trends and the development of new concepts that formed the core of modern Western civilization and inspired some of our most important and influential documents. UNIT VIII STUDY GUIDE Toward Modernity: The End of the Medieval World

HIS 1200, Medieval World 2 UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title Unit Lesson 8.2 will focus on Machiavelli’s book, The Prince. The book was, at its time and remains, one of the most controversial books ever written. Almost immediately after it was published, it was added to the Church’s list of banned books, which had the effect of making it a best seller. The book is, basically, advice to the new prince of the Florentine Republic that Machiavelli served in at the time. It gives a plethora of advice on governing the people, engaging in war and conflict, and it answers the age-old question of whether it is better to be feared or loved. Should you raise taxes or lower taxes? Should you punish or be compassionate? Should you live among the people or away from them? Should a government be proactive or reactive? All of these questions are answered with numerous historical examples (some actually true) by Machiavelli in his enigmatic book that we get to explore together. I am sure there will be things you agree with and things you disagree with, so it should be a fun exploration of a unique and influential argument. And, of course, it represents the creation of modern political philosophy, so if you hate modern politics, you can probably blame Machiavelli (though it is not all his fault). Unit Lesson 8.3 of the course will explore the end of the medieval period and the beginning of the transition from medieval to modern. The lesson will look at the technical innovations that led to the development of a print culture and expansion of literature and texts on a never-before-seen scale. In the 1500s, ideas and arguments spread through society at speeds never-before imagined, and we will see what effects it had on the institutions, religions, politics, and cultures of late medieval Europe. We will learn how printing led to new innovations in teaching, the growth of literacy, and the breaking of social and intellectual barriers. Finally, we will see how some innovations in commerce turned Europe from a continental economy into a global economy and set the stage for the later colonial and imperial periods of Early Modern Europe. We will learn why knights disappeared (sad) and what replaced the feudal system. Finally, we get to think about just how medieval we still are today. This unit will culminate with your final project for the course. The format of the project is based on the short answer questions and essays you have completed throughout the course, so there should not be many surprises. This project is designed to be cumulative, covering material from the entire class. It is focused on giving broad, open-ended questions from which you have to develop your own argument or opinion from a prompt and then defend your answer with examples from any part of the course. You can think of all the information we have covered as data, and your job is to apply the best data to a particular question in defense of your own arguments and opinions. The purpose is to see how well you can apply your historical knowledge to important questions, not how well you can recall a few details of history. This will help you to draw out connections between different times and places of the medieval period and connect them to the modern world by exploring their continuation and relevance. Good luck. Learning Activities (Nongraded) Nongraded Learning Activities are provided to aid students in their course of study. You do not have to submit them. If you have questions, contact your instructor for further guidance and information. A part of Waldorf University’s mission is to teach the whole student. As such, each unit has a challenge question. These present one or a few related quotes with a question designed to inspire self-reflection and individual growth. You are free to use the quotes and questions as you like while applying them to your life or ignoring them. Unit VIII Challenge Question Reading: Ray Bradbury Fahrenheit 451 “Everyone must leave something behind when he dies, my grandfather said. A child or a book or a painting or a house or a wall built or a pair of shoes made. Or a garden planted. Something your hand touched some way so your soul has somewhere to go when you die, and when people look at that tree or that flower you planted, you’re there. It doesn’t matter what you do, he said, so long as you change something from the way it was before you touched it into something that’s like you after you take your hands away. The difference between the man who just cuts lawns and a real gardener is in the touching, he said. The lawn-cutter might just as well not have been there at all; the gardener will be there a lifetime.” – 149-150 What will you change today? Who will you change today? What history are you making?

Unit VIII Final Project

In your final project, you are asked to answer a series of questions that incorporate knowledge and information you have gained throughout the entire course. In answering these questions, please ensure that you fully answer each aspect of every question, fully explain your answers (providing historical context when necessary), and include specific examples from history to support your answers. Please answer the following questions within a Word document, and upload that document into Blackboard for grading. Be sure to read and follow all instructions given in the questions. APA Style will not be required for this assignment.

Part 1: Please choose 2 of the following 3 questions to answer. Each response should consist of at least 200 words.

What were some of the core ideas of Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation? How did people react to this new religious movement, and how did the Protestant Reformation interact with other social movements in the 1500s? How does the Protestant Reformation compare to modern social or religious movements? How do the ideas of the Reformation continue to influence the modern world?

What were some key arguments of Machiavelli in his book The Prince? Which do you agree and/or disagree with, and why? Machiavelli argued that politics is about control and power (rather than alternatives such as solving problems or protecting citizens for example). How does this argument and his other views compare to modern government and politics?

What were some of the significant (religious, political, cultural, social, and/or technological) changes that marked the transition from medieval to early modern society? How does this transition compare to the transition from classical to medieval society in the period of Late Antiquity? What can this teach us about the causes of significant historical change?

Part 2: Please choose 4 of the following 6 questions to answer. Each response should consist of at least 200 words.

How did medieval societies deal with violence? What role(s) did violence play in medieval societies? How do European and non-European societies compare? How does this compare to modern society?

The purpose of government is to protect people from internal and external threats. How did medieval governments attempt to accomplish this? How did this affect cultural interaction and conflict? What effects did their approaches have on medieval and modern societies?

Are medieval problems and approaches to solving problems similar or different to modern problems and approaches? Why? What are some specific examples? What can these tell us about human nature?

How did the spread of knowledge, ideas, and religions affect western and non-western medieval societies? How did they affect internal and external interaction? Which medieval concepts had the most significant influence on medieval society and on modern society?

How does modern society’s collective memory of the medieval period and historical reality compare? What influences shape our memory of this period, and how does it affect our knowledge of historical reality?

If you had to teach one thing from this course to people who knew nothing about medieval world history, what would you teach them, and why would you teach it?

Part 3: Please answer BOTH of the following questions. Your response to the first question should consist of at least 200 words, and your response to the second question should consist of at least 100 words.

Select two hypothetical individuals from the medieval period—one European and one non-European—from any part of society, and describe how they might have interacted with and viewed the world around them. What would they have experienced, and how would they have viewed or described what they experienced? What would their daily lives have been like? What were their religious beliefs and cultural traditions? How did they interact with others? What were the most significant influences in their lives? How did they make decisions, and what types of decisions might they have made? What would they have been free from and/or dependent on?

Briefly discuss the similarities and differences between the worldviews of the individuals you described in the previous question and modern worldviews. Are people much different today from people of the past? Why, or why not? What can this tell us about history and human nature?

Unit Lesson 8.2: Machiavelli 1 Unit Lesson 8.2: Machiavelli and Modern Politics Periodization Medieval Period: 500 – 1500 AD Early Modern Period: 1500 – 1850 AD How to Govern for Dummies Machiavelli’s The Prince is considered by some to be the birth of modern politics. It went beyond the Renaissance Humanist tradition of balancing the human and divine to focus almost entirely on pragmatic advice for rule. Written around 1513 AD and published in 1532 AD, it was controversial the day it was first printed, almost immediately being banned by the Catholic Church. It is still controversial today. The dedicatory letter at the beginning of Machiavelli’s text explains that Machiavelli wrote his book for the new prince of Florence, Lorenzo de Medici. While most nobles presented new princes with valuables such as gold and jewels, Machiavelli gave the prince that which he thought most valuable, which was advice based on his many years of study and experience in Italian politics. His advice to the prince and the subject of the book was how a prince can acquire and maintain power. Everything in the book is focused on those two single objectives. It is also a fairly short text. It avoids theoretical approaches of any kind, instead focusing on simple practical advice drawn from numerous historical examples—some accurate and others perhaps not so much. Much of his argument is built by comparing dichotomies, or opposites, and we will work through several of these to better understand Machiavelli’s arguments. Predestination/Freewill Machiavelli explained the viewpoint that most people of his time held and compared that to his own. “It is not unknown to me that many persons have held, and hold, the opinion that the things of the world are governed by fortune and by God, that men, with their prudence, cannot correct them, and that instead they have no remedy for them whatsoever. For this reason they might judge that there would be no point in sweating much in the things of this world, but let themselves be governed by chance. This opinion is more believed in our own times on account of the great variety of things that have been seen, and are seen every day, beyond all human conjecture. Sometimes, when I think of this, I am inclined in some part toward their opinion. Nonetheless, so that our free will may not be eliminated, I judge that it may be true that fortune is the arbiter of half our actions, but that she indeed allows us to govern the other half of them, or almost as much.” (Ch. 25) Machiavelli argued that most people believed that all things happened due to the will of God or chance (fortune); therefore, there was little reason to put much stock in one’s actions since they had little effect. Machiavelli took a different view. He instead argued that only half of the outcomes of men’s actions are attributed to God’s will or chance, while the other half are a product of people’s free will. This allows people to control their fate and success or failure in life. This is a display of the balance of human and divine in Renaissance Humanism, but it is also extremely important to Machiavelli’s argument. Without the ability to influence your own success or failure in life, there would be no point in writing a guide book for acquiring and maintaining power—nothing you would do would matter if you were fully under God’s will or chance. Fortune/Virtue Machiavelli approached the first issue of acquiring power from a few angles, depending on the situation. He argued that there were only two fundamental ways to acquire power, either through fortune or virtue.

Unit Lesson 8.2: Machiavelli 2 “Thus I say that in wholly new principalities, in which there is a new prince, one finds greater or lesser difficulty in maintaining them depending on whether he who acquires them is more or less virtuous. And because this event – becoming a prince from being a private man – presupposes either virtue or fortune, it appears that the one or the other of these two things in part mitigates many difficulties; nonetheless, he who had relied less on fortune has kept more of what he has acquired.” (Ch. 6) One either acquires power through the fortune of being the son of a ruler and inheriting the throne or by seizing power through one’s own virtue. In this case, virtue (Latin: virtus) means manliness, excellence, strength, skillfulness, and so on. Thus, through hard work, skill, strength, and excellence, a person can gain power without inheriting it. Machiavelli argued that this was the preferred method of gaining power since it meant that the person who acquired power had prerequisite skills for then maintaining power and ruling successfully. Conversely, those who gained power by chance of birth required no skills or strength to gain power and thus would not necessarily possess the skills and strength required to successfully rule. In this case, Machiavelli is defining fortune as chance, but this is not the only way he defines fortune. Chance/Opportunity Machiavelli further suggested that fortune can also be defined as opportunity. “And if their actions and life are examined, it is not seen that they got anything from fortune other than opportunity.” (Ch. 6) “That man, from being a private citizen, became the prince of Syracuse, nor did he get anything from fortune other than the opportunity.” (Ch. 6) In this case he defines fortune as a chance that provides an opportunity. This may be viewed as the type of fortune provided by God’s will. Fortune presents every individual with opportunity, but it is up to him or her to seize that opportunity. “Yet I judge the following: that it is better to be impetuous than cautious, for fortune is a lady, and it is necessary, if one wants to hold her down, to beat her and to dash her. And one sees that she lets herself be won more by these men, than by those who proceed coldly. For this reason, as a lady, she is always the friend of the young, because they are less cautious, more ferocious, and they command her with more audacity.” (Ch. 25) This passage is a wealth of information. First, it shows how Machiavelli and most people in the 15th century viewed women, which is that they must be forced to submit. This is a generalization to some extent, though not exactly uncommon. Secondly, and more importantly, Machiavelli advocated seizing opportunity whenever it presents itself, recklessly if need be. He argued that this is why younger people tend to achieve more; they are less cautious and more reckless and therefore more able to take advantage of the opportunities that fortune presents. Further, those who gain the most success are those who control fortune rather than being controlled by it. Innovate/Imitate When deciding whether an effective prince should innovate better solutions or imitate past actions, Machiavelli argued that: “But as for the exercise of the mind, the prince ought to read histories, and in them consider the actions of the excellent men. He should see how they governed themselves in war, and examine the causes of their victories and losses, so as to be able to avoid the latter and imitate the former. And, above all, he must do as some excellent men did in the past, who chose some man from before their time who had been praised and glorified to imitate, and they always kept a book with

Unit Lesson 8.2: Machiavelli 3 his deeds close by themselves, as it is said that Alexander the Great imitated Achilles; Caesar, Alexander; and Scipio, Cyrus.” (Ch. 14) First, note that the first thing he argues is that effective princes should read histories (see, this course finally has a purpose!) More importantly, he argued that effective princes studied the actions of past effective rulers to learn what actions result in success and what actions fail to achieve success. Further, selecting a proper role model to base your own actions on can increase your chances of not only gaining success but even surpassing your role model in achievement. “For since such men always walk in paths beaten by others, and they proceed by means of imitation in their actions, and since one cannot completely hold to the paths of others, nor arrive at the virtue of those whom you imitate, a prudent man should always enter by paths beaten by great men and imitate those who have been the most excellent.” (Ch. 6) Machiavelli argued that it is more prudent to imitate past successful actions rather than try to innovate better solutions. This boils down to risk versus reward. A solution that has already proven to result in success has a higher likelihood of succeeding again. Conversely, a solution that has never been tried may not work. Imitation is thus lower risk than innovation, though innovation can at times provide a greater reward to balance the higher risk. Since Machiavelli is focused on maintaining a state, stability is what is sought after most, which leads a prince to lower risk imitation, which is the method almost guaranteed for success. Proactive/Reactive Following Machiavelli’s emphasis on lower risk imitation rather than higher risk innovation, he turned his attention to whether it is better to be proactive or reactive. At the time, most rulers were reactive, focusing only on that which was in front of them and rarely looking at the long-term effects of their actions and decisions. “For the Romans did in these circumstances what all wise princes should do. Such princes have not only to beware of present disorders, but also of future ones, and to make every effort to obviate these, for if one sees them earlier from a distance, one can easily remedy them, but if you wait for them to come near to you, the medicine will not be in time, because the sickness has become incurable. … For this reason the Romans, who saw problems at a distance, always remedied them. And they never allowed them to continue in order to avoid a war, because they knew that war is not averted, but it is postponed to the advantage of others.” (Ch. 3) Machiavelli argued that, like the Romans, princes should be proactive. He argued that it is better to deal with problems when they first arise rather than allowing them to fester and grow over time, hoping to avoid conflict through appeasement. Machiavelli argued that the Romans maintained power by always dealing with issues when they arose. When things first arise, they are generally small and easy to deal with (thus low risk), but when they are left alone, they grow and become more difficult to deal with (higher risk). In this way, it is better to be proactive and deal with things when they are small rather than allowing them to grow and become much larger problems. Leaders have still not learned this lesson, as the rise of Hitler prior to WWII and perhaps modern issues in the Middle East are still teaching us today. This is often true of things outside of politics as well. Locality/Non-Locality Building off his argument for being proactive, Machiavelli turned to the subject of whether it is better to move to the area under the prince’s control or remain foreign to the region, as many contemporary rulers tended to do. “And one of the best and quickest remedies would be that whoever acquires the state should go there in person to live. This would make the possession more secure and lasting, as the Turk has

Unit Lesson 8.2: Machiavelli 4 done in Greece; despite all of the other orders observed by the Turk to hold that state, if he had not gone there to live, it would not be possible for him to keep it. For when you stay there, disorders are seen as they arise and you may quickly remedy them. When you are not there, they become known when they are great and when there is no longer remedy. Beyond this, the province is not despoiled by your officers: the subjects are satisfied by their close recourse to the prince, for which they have more reason to love him if they wish to be good, and if they wish to be otherwise they have more reason to fear him. If any outsider should wish to attack that state, he is more cautious about it. So that if the lord lives there he can lose it only with very great difficulty.” (Ch. 3) Machiavelli provides several reasons that princes benefitted from living in their own kingdoms. First, the prince can deal with any issues that arise quickly, before they are able to grow and become more difficult to deal with. This essentially reinforces being proactive by giving the prince the ability to respond immediately to any threat to his power. Second, with the prince there to directly lead the troops when conquering new territory, he can act to keep the soldiers in order and prevent them from looting, pillaging, and raping the citizens of the newly acquired territory. Failure to do so would result in resentment and revolt from the conquered people, but by protecting them, the prince gains their favor (or at least indifference). Third, being local makes the prince available to the people to resolve their disputes. The people are more likely to respect a leader who actively leads them rather than one who rules from a distance with little knowledge of the context of disputes. This will preserve the respect and good perceptions of the conquered people who feel no resistance. It will also keep those with ill feeling in fear of retribution from a prince who is there to watch them and respond to their actions. Finally, living in the acquired territory makes others less motivated to attack it. A territory without a leader to organize a defense would be a more attractive target than a territory with an effective leader to organize the defense. Locality also acts as a means of protection from external threats. Cruelty/Compassion Machiavelli is perhaps most famous for his views on cruelty and compassion. He argued that a prince who utilizes acts of cruelty is more effective at maintaining power than one who focuses on acts of compassion. As you might imagine, this view earned him many enemies and eventually got his book banned. For one, the argument that Machiavelli puts forth requires a relativistic view of good and evil in an age in which these only existed as absolutes. Something was either a sin or not, good or evil, and there was little debate concerning which was which. Machiavelli turned this around in his argument that also relates to the individual and the state. “A prince, therefore, must not care about the infamy of cruelty in keeping his subjects united and faithful, because if he makes a very few examples, he will be more compassionate than those who, through too much compassion, allow disorders to occur from which arise killings or robberies. For the latter usually harm the entire population, but those executions that come from the prince harm a particular person.” (Ch. 17) He argued that the state was more important than the individual, particularly if your focus is simply maintaining political power. Individuals can be sacrificed in order to maintain the state since actions against individuals are less destructive than actions against the entire state. (Even Spock said “The needs of the many must outweigh the needs of the few or the one.”) Further, Machiavelli makes the argument that cruelty is thus actually more compassionate than compassion, and compassion is actually crueler than cruelty. For example, being compassionate to criminals who broke the law by allowing them a second chance without punishment is actually cruel because they can then commit more illegal acts Further, others will see that he was not punished and commit similar acts, harming a much larger number of people than punishing the one initial person. Modern issues such as welfare can also fit into this view. Some argue that unlimited welfare is actually cruel because it makes people dependent on a handout and unable to survive on their own, and that those who create the program do so to control the population rather than to compassionately take care of them. In this case, a program often portrayed as compassionate is actually cruel in the long run. (There is certainly a lot of gray area in this issue. This is only a single perspective on it, and an argument about the merits or lack thereof of welfare here is not

Unit Lesson 8.2: Machiavelli 5 being made here.) Machiavelli was the first person to reverse established definitions like this, leading to more controversy surrounding his book. Bad Cruelty/Good Cruelty Once Machiavelli establishes that it is necessary and effective for a prince to be cruel in order to maintain power, Machiavelli explored what types of acts of cruelty are actually compassionate and which are simply cruel or, as he defines them, which acts are more or less effective at maintaining the power of the prince. “Hence it is necessary for a prince, if he wishes to maintain himself, to learn to be able to be not good, and to use this faculty and not use it according to necessity.” (Ch. 15) So first, acts of good cruelty are those that are necessary to maintain power, and acts of bad cruelty are those that are not necessary for maintaining power. “In this regard one should note that men ought either to be coddled or eliminated. For they avenge light offenses, but they are unable to avenge grave ones, so the offense that is given a man should be such that one does not fear his revenge.” (Ch. 3) Second, acts must be of a nature that they do not inspire revenge. If they are light, there will remain those who will seek vengeance for the act. However, if the act is devastating enough, revenge will not be sought by either fear of retribution or literally killing all who would seek revenge. Finally, Machiavelli summarizes his views. “Cruelties may be called ‘well used,’ if it is permitted to speak well of evil, when they are done all at once, out of necessity of securing oneself, and when afterward they do not persist, but are converted into as much utility for the subjects as possible. Cruelties ‘badly used’ are those, even if at the beginning they are few, which instead grow over time rather than eliminating themselves. Those persons who observe the first mode can have some remedy for their state with God and with men, as Agathocles did. For the others it is impossible to maintain themselves.” (Ch. 8) Machiavelli repeats the fact that good cruelties must be necessary and must not persist, so that they do not inspire revenge. They must be quick and complete, and they must be chosen for maximum effectiveness. Conversely, bad cruelties are those that are not necessary and persist over time, breeding contempt for the prince and motivating revenge. However, as good as some acts of cruelty may be, they certainly affect how the people view the prince. Fear/Love Machiavelli must therefore deal with the inevitable question for a prince; should he be feared or loved? “From the above debate arises whether it is better to be loved than feared or the contrary. The answer is that one would want to be both the one and the other, but because it is difficult to join them together, it is much safer to be feared than loved. … Men have less fear of offending one who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared, since love is held in place by a bond of obligation which, because men are wretched, is broken at every opportunity for utility to oneself, but fear is held in place by fear of punishment that never abandons you.” (Ch. 17) Machiavelli argued that the preference is to be both feared and loved (and you can probably think of several examples where this does indeed occur), but he argued that it is difficult for a prince to be both. Thus it is better to be feared than loved. Machiavelli argued that love is often a temporary feeling, and as soon as it is advantageous for an individual to go against one they love, they do so. Conversely, fear is a permanent influence and therefore more stable (less risky). Further, it requires more to maintain love than to maintain fear. For example, people follow traffic laws for fear of getting a ticket—because that fear of

Unit Lesson 8.2: Machiavelli 6 running into a cop always exists—instead of through love of following the law. While an effective prince maintains fear, he must be careful not to incite hatred towards himself. This is achieved through the proper use of good cruelty and avoidance of bad cruelty. Physical Harm/Property “Nonetheless, the prince must make himself feared in such a way that, although he does not acquire love, he avoids hatred. For being feared and being not hated may exist together very well. And this will always do if he abstains from the property and his subjects, and from their women. And if he must proceed against someone’s life, he should do it when there is appropriate and manifest cause. But above all he should abstain from the property of others, for men sooner forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony. Furthermore, reasons for taking property are never lacking, and he who begins to live through robbery always finds a reason for occupying what belongs to others, and, on the contrary, the reasons for bloodshed are more rare and sooner disappear.” (Ch. 17) The way to maintain fear without inciting hatred is for a ruler to only commit acts of physical cruelty against individuals and to abstain from seizing the property of people. Machiavelli argued that people tend to more easily forget the loss of a person than the stealing of their property. The property continues to cause them a loss while a person tends to not have a lasting effect. Further, when a person is killed, that is the end of the matter. When princes begin to seize property, Machiavelli argues that there is no end to this practice. When it persists over time, it increasingly creates resentment and hatred as well as stimulates vengeance and revolt. His argument concerning the continuation of seizing property is perhaps vitally relevant. It is worth repeating that Machiavelli wrote, “furthermore, reasons for taking property are never lacking, and he who begins to live through robbery always finds a reason for occupying what belongs to others.” To put this in perspective, how many times have you heard a politician say that we need to raise taxes in order to solve a specific problem (roads, healthcare, military, education, etc.)? Now, how often have you heard a politician say that the problem has been solved, and we can get rid of the tax used to pay for it? The answer to the first one is a lot, while the second one is rather rare, if ever. Further, how many people actually like paying taxes? Do they more often inspire love or hatred? Liberality/Parsimony From the arguments concerning love and fear, and property and physical harm, Machiavelli discussed the issue of state spending. Should the prince spend his money liberally (freely) or parsimoniously (stringently)? “And he will be required, in the end, if he wishes to maintain the name of a liberal man, to burden his people extraordinarily, to tax heavily, and to do all those things that can be done to get money. This will begin to make him hateful to his subjects, or little esteemed by anyone because he becomes poor. So that, my means of that liberality of his, since he has offended the many and rewarded the few, he feels every new hardship, and with any new danger he is imperiled.” (Ch. 16) While spending money on the people can make them love you, people are never fully satisfied and constantly demand more from the prince. This requires the prince to either become poor himself or resupply his wealth, usually by seizing it from others. Thus, to satisfy the few with liberal spending, the prince must tax everyone inspiring discontent and hatred towards the prince. In this way, liberal spending inspires the love of a few and the hatred of the many. This led Machiavelli to conclude that an effective prince must spend as little money on the public as possible to maintain fear rather than love and hatred, and he must avoid seizing the property of the people, which was established to be an act of bad cruelty. Additionally, there are the societal effects of liberal spending versus avoiding seizing property or taxing. “Next, he must encourage his citizens to be able quietly to practice their trades, in commerce, in agriculture and in every other human occupation, so that one man is not afraid to improve his

Unit Lesson 8.2: Machiavelli 7 properties for fear they will be taken from him, and another is not afraid to open a business for fear of taxes. But he must prepare rewards for whoever wants to do these things, and for whoever thinks to increase his city or his state in whatever way.” (Ch. 21) Machiavelli argued that avoiding establishing or raising taxes makes society more stable and easier to maintain power. Without the fear of taxes or seizure of property, the people will feel safe to risk more to increase their own personal wealth. When there are consequences for success, people avoid it, and when there are no consequences for success but only rewards, people strive for it. This motivates individuals to improve their own personal economic conditions, which will in turn improves the economic conditions of the entire society, making it easier for the prince to maintain his power and more beneficial for the society as a whole. Reputation/Reality The final dichotomy we will look at is if a prince should focus on their reputation or real selves more. “Thus it is not necessary for a prince actually to have all the above written qualities, but it is very necessary to seem to have them. Indeed, I shall dare to say the following: that when these qualities are possessed and always observed they are harmful. And when they seem to be possessed, they are useful. So that it is useful to seem compassionate, faithful, humane, honest, religious – and to be so, but to stay so constructed in your spirit that if it is necessary not to be these things, you are able and know how to become the contrary. And one must understand the following: that a prince, and especially a new prince, cannot observe all those things for which men are believed good, since to maintain his state he is often required to act against faith, against charity, against humaneness, and against religion. And for this reason he needs to have a spirit disposed to change as the winds of fortune and the variation of things command him, and as I said above, not to depart from the good if he is able, but to know how to enter into evil when he needs to.” (Ch. 18) First, Machiavelli is one of the few to argue that there is a difference between an individual’s reputation and his or her real self. Most people in history, up to this point, did not distinguish between how a person was perceived and how they actually were. Machiavelli not only recognized this fact, but he also took it a step further than everyone else. Machiavelli argued that not only did people have a distinct reputation but that they should actively manipulate it to benefit themselves. He argued that an effective prince must be able to manipulate his reputation because it was vital to appear good, even though the act of rulership required princes to commit acts of cruelty. In reality, the price must be able to commit bad deeds (acts of good cruelty) but must maintain the reputation of a good prince to avoid perceptions of tyranny. Being perceived as a tyrant decreased a prince’s ability to maintain power, and as such, a prince’s reputation must be carefully manipulated and controlled. You can see this almost every day by watching modern politics. Modern political figures carefully craft their public persona, but every time a scandal occurs, it is evident that the reality of the person is often quite different from their public image. Conclusions It should be fairly obvious by this point how much of what Machiavelli discussed occurs in modern politics. If you look through the things that Machiavelli emphasizes and recommends to the prince, one can see some commonalities. He recommended that the prince acquire and maintain power through his own virtues and by seizing the opportunities presented by fortune. The prince should maintain that power by being proactive, living locally, imitating past successes, committing acts of good cruelty and avoiding acts of bad cruelty, being feared rather than loved or hated, avoiding property seizure and spending liberally, and crafting a good reputation to cover a necessarily bad cruel reality. If one had to summarize this advice, one could say that according to Machiavelli, politics is equivalent to control. Everything Machiavelli recommends is fundamentally based on maintaining control. Machiavelli’s The Prince represents the birth of modern politics. For the first time, Machiavelli argued that individuals could directly control the failure or success of their societies based on leadership, and he provides the

Unit Lesson 8.2: Machiavelli 8 tactics that princes can use to acquire and maintain power. If you look at modern politics, you can reduce every policy and argument to an issue of control. Government controls the actions of people, property, and even credit for success or failure. Politicians tend to argue less over actual policies and more over who controls policies, both which are established and how they are run. Machiavelli is as relevant today as he was five hundred years ago, and he represents the beginning of the transition from medieval to modern government. As much as some may dislike the advice of Machiavelli for being immoral, wrong, or impractical (it was banned in the 1500s), his ideas persist in virtually everything government does today.

Unit Lesson 8.2: Machiavelli 9 Reference and Further Reading Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Translated by Harvey C. Mansfield. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1998.

Unit Lesson 8.3: Modernity 1 Unit Lesson 8.3: Leaving the Medieval World Periodization Early Modern Period: 1500 – 1850 AD Tudor Dynasty: 1485 – 1603 AD English Civil War: 1642-1645 AD Thirty Years War: 1618 – 1648 AD Key Terms Johannes Gutenberg Inkhorn terms Patronage Robert Recorde Expertise Expert mediator Independent mediator Casa de Contratación Joint-stock company Broadside Historical Periods Western history has generally been divided into three periods: the ancient, medieval, and modern periods. It was Enlightenment philosophers who first derived this three-age system. Each age is distinguished by a number of common characteristics such as the social structure, method of warfare, technology, religion/culture, modes of government, trade, and resources. There is some use for this, as when a person mentions the words ancient or medieval, certain things tend to pop into your head that you associate with those periods. While useful, this is also overly simplistic, and by now, we should all know that history is rarely simple in both its occurrence and explanation. Of great interest is that these ages do not shift overnight, but they go through transition periods that can last several centuries. In Unit Lesson 1.3, we looked at the period of Late Antiquity as the transition from the ancient to the medieval world. The Early Modern Period is a similar transition period in which societies and civilization transitioned from the medieval world to the modern world. We have already begun to look at aspects of this transition and some of its influences, including the Renaissance and the Reformation. This lesson will give an overview of some of the main aspects of the transition period that ends the medieval world. The Printing Press In the 1450s, a German craftsman named Johannes Gutenberg (c.1400-1468 AD) developed movable type that could be used in his printing press. Printing press technology predated Gutenberg and had been used in other societies for several centuries. Prior to Gutenberg, Europeans carved each entire page out of a single block of wood, which was then used in the press to print the page. This was a laborious process and prone to mistakes as a single misspelling forced the printer to re-carve the entire page. Gutenberg discovered how to made metal blocks with individual letters on them that could be combined to make words and then reused once a page was printed. This dramatically increased the speed and decreased the labor involved in printing.

Unit Lesson 8.3: Modernity 2 The Gutenberg Press thus revolutionized printing, and soon printing presses were cropping up everywhere throughout Europe. At the same time, individuals began to build paper mills (paper had been invented in China and made its way to Europe), which produced quality paper much quicker and cheaper than the medieval parchment trade. While governments and the Church made efforts to control the printing presses (to control the spread of ideas), these efforts generally failed, and for every officially licensed press, there was an illegal press producing texts. While licensed presses only printed government or Church approved texts, the illegal presses printed anything that would sell. In the 1500s, the majority of the texts printed were religious texts that argued various views concerning the Reformation and new Protestant thought. For the first few decades of printing most presses were seasonal and rarely generated much profit (most went bankrupt). Most were attached to a university or the Church and only operated to print their materials. Martin Luther finally figured out how to make the print industry financially successful by reformatting his texts and distributing them to local and regional printers to maintain workflow and build markets for texts. His work helped the print industry to grow and establish itself within late medieval society, opening many opportunities for future authors and publishers. Reading and Religion The Protestant Reformation focused on the translation of the Bible into the vernacular spoken languages and individual reading and studying of the Bible to better understand God and achieve salvation. Martin Luther constantly emphasized the importance of community in Christian faith, which acts as a support structure to support the faith and correct the errors of other Christians. This required the printing of Bibles for society as well as the ability of the public to read them. Literacy in the medieval period was largely restricted to the clergy and nobility who could afford private tutors or attend a university, so much of society was illiterate. This began to change in the 1500s with the Reformation. As more and more religious texts were printed, people learned to read, fearing that their souls were at risk if they followed an incorrect path to salvation. Governments in Protestant countries also influenced a change in literacy rates. In England for example, King Edward VI (1537-1553 AD, son of King Henry VIII) was an ardent Protestant and originated a number of educational reforms with the help of Oxford professor John Cheke. These reforms introduced the first public schools that taught reading and writing to the general population. It is important to note that the availability of education does not mean that the people received this education. Many children were required to apprentice in a trade or labor as a farmer to help support their family and could not attend a school even if available. William Shakespeare most likely attended the King Edward VI Grammar School in Stratford-upon-Avon from 1571-1578 AD where he learned to read and write. He would later add more than 1700 words to the English language. Protestant churches and merchants also began to develop their own schools. Churches began to teach people how to read so that they could actively read the Bible, making scripture the center of religion rather than ritual. As merchants gained wealth, they began to send their children to universities, and their children returned to apply their education to improving the businesses. In this period, double bookkeeping was introduced, letter writing allowed for better communication over distances to improve trade and maintain records, and legal contracts reduced risk in trade and created the first insurance businesses. All of these improvements required gaining and applying education. As a result, the guilds of individual craft trades began to establish schools to educate the children of the craftsmen who belonged to that guild. For example, the Merchant Taylors School in London was Print Shop, 1568 AD (Meggs, 1998)

Unit Lesson 8.3: Modernity 3 established in 1561 AD to educate the sons of tailors. Upon graduation from one of these merchant schools, students could then move to a university to continue their education. Historians have suggested that by the end of the 1500s, as much as 30-40% of the male population and 10-20% of the female population in England was literate. This is a significant increase from just one hundred years prior when both would have been in the single digits. Literacy and Society The growth of literacy created many new markets for printers and authors. While religion maintained its dominance in the market of ideas, as is evident in the books printed, markets for different types of texts also grew with the changing audience. In the medieval period, most books focused on religion within the church, scholastic issues within the universities, or entertainment among the nobility. This was somewhat restricted due to the need to hand copy all books on expensive parchment. A book was often more valuable than the contents it held simply due to the cost of production. A medieval consumer could only acquire a book if someone was willing to pursue the laborious and expensive process of hand-copying a text for the individual who requested it. The printing press changed this. The far cheaper books produced by printing presses required multiple sales to gain profit and, therefore, had to appeal to a much broader audience. The decreased cost of production also allowed for publishing materials related to niche markets that had never existed before. The speed at which books could be printed also allowed the book industry to quickly adapt to the changing demands of the consumer market. If a book sold well, new books similar in topic or theme were quickly printed to take advantage of the interest. This changed the driver of the book trade from the producer to the consumer. As the consumer base grew through increased literacy, the genres of books being printed grew to meet their changing demands. The process of production changed what books were being created. Religious texts including the Bible, sermons, treatises, and propaganda dominated the market. However, scholars began to translate classic Greek and Latin texts into the vernacular languages to be printed for general audiences. Often, the quality of the translation mattered little as the market was eager to consume these stories that they knew orally but had never read. This fueled a wave of translations that had a number of side effects. Some of these texts had technical language for which the spoken vernacular languages lacked equivalent vocabulary. Translators then had to decide whether to simply borrow the original foreign work, translate the sound of the word (transliteration or vernacularization), or create a new word to represent the foreign word. In England, for example, a significant debate among scholars and authors arose concerning whether to use the foreign words or make new English words. Individuals feared that the introduction of too many foreign words (inkhorn terms) would alter the sound and flow of the language itself. Since much of culture is linked to language, they feared that this practice could impact the still growing national and cultural identity of the English people. For example, how could they be English if their language sounded French or Latin? This debate raged among the intellectuals for several decades and is known as the inkhorn term debate (inkhorns were small bottles that held ink in which one dipped a quill to write). For example, John Cheke wrote: I am of this opinion that our own tung shold be written cleane and pure, unmixt and unmangeled with borrowing of other tunges, wherin if we take not heed bi tiim, ever borewing and never payeng, she shall be fain to keep her house as bankrupt. For then doth our tung naturallie and praisablie utter her meaning, whan she bouroweth no conterfeitness of other tunges to attire her self withall, but useth plainlie her own, with such shift, as nature, craft, experiens and folowing of other excellent doth lead her unto, and if she want at ani tiim (as being unpersight she must) yet let her borow with suche bashfulnes, that it mai appeer, that if ether the mould of our own tung

Unit Lesson 8.3: Modernity 4 could serve us to fascion a woord of our own, or if the old denisoned wordes count content and ease this neede, we wold not boldly venture of unknowen wordes.1 Beyond cultural identity, the new printed works and translations brought up additional issues. Few of these spoken vernacular languages had any standardization of spelling (as you may have noticed above), and the broad publication of books slowly standardized the language over one hundred years or so. The first dictionaries, such as Thomas Eliot’s Latin-English dictionary (1538 AD) and Claudius Hollyband’s French-English dictionary (1593 AD), were published as an aid to translation. Many people resorted to including alphabets or lists of terms and their definitions in their texts so that readers would understand some of the more technical terms that may be unfamiliar. For example, William Thomas wrote in his 1551 translation of Sacrobosco’s Tractatus de Sphaera Mundi (see unit lesson 4.3): Forasmuch as this little bokke conteigneth a science that heretofore hath not been fullie written in our Englishe tongue, the utterance wher[e]of requireth many formes that in the doinges of our englishe authors are not to be founde. Following the example of the latynes, who in first case have borrowed of the Greeks in like maner as the Italians do now borowe of the latynes. I have been constrained to phraame a new voice of many thinges, as the case hath needed. But to the [e]xtent that no man shoulde have cause to lament the lack of understanding, I therefore have made a little Alphabete wher[e]of the man that already hath not the knowledge of such thinges may be satisfied of his doubt. Trusting that licke as the learned man who hath no need of any such direction must not therefore be offended w[ith] me. So wether the unlearned, who for any difficultie shoulde happen to finde some thing more doubtfull then they desire, must not therefore condem me in ynkhorne termes (as they call it) seing that I have taken this paine for their onlue commodite. I have amplified myne alphabete w[ith] the [e]xposition of diverse our wanted englishe termes for the satisfaction of some such as have not the perfect practice thereof.2 Expertise and Social Communities While scholars debated the proper means of dealing with gaps in the English language and the social effects of different methods of word generation, people increasingly published books through the patronage system. Wealthy merchants, lords, or aristocrats would often provide patronage for an author, which paid for the cost to publish a book. Most books written in the 1500s and 1600s (particularly in England) include a note to the person who funded the book (right after the preface) to publicly thank him or her. Additionally, since many authors were a mixture of lower aristocrats, merchants, or craftsmen, and some of their works were controversial, patronage provided a degree of protection. It was common for one person to attack the writing of another person in a subsequent book or publication, and the reputation and influence of a patron could therefore provide some protection from criticism. This patronage system also helped individuals publish books who otherwise could not afford the cost. This broadened the social classes that were able to contribute to the spread of knowledge. English scholars, such as Robert Recorde who was an Oxford mathematician, quickly realized the value of educating the general population. In the 1540s and 1550s, when English maritime trade was just beginning to take off, Recorde published a number of introductory mathematics books in English aimed at the general population. His 1543 Grounde of Artes taught arithmetic and fractions, his 1551 Pathway to Knowledge taught basic geometry, his 1556 Castle of Knowledge taught astronomy (and some navigation), and his 1557 Whetstone of Witte taught basic algebra. Recorde’s books progressed through lessons that taught a single concept then gave examples that were easily applicable to society, such as calculating rents, exchanging currency, and measuring land. He wrote his books for the “vulgare sorte … for whose sake I have playnely set forthe the examples, as no 1 John Cheke, “A Letter of syr I. Chekes To his loving frind Mayster Thomas Hoby,” 16 July 1557, in, Thomas Hoby, The Courtyer of Count Baldessar Castilio divided into foure bookes (London: Wyllyam Seres, 1561), STC: 4778. 2 London: British Library MS Egerton 837, ff. 4v-5r, William Thomas, The Booke of John de Sacro Bosco, that treateth of the Sphere, 1551.

Unit Lesson 8.3: Modernity 5 boke (that I have sene) hath done hetherto which thyng shall be great ease to [the] rude reader.”3 The end goal was to advance the knowledge of mathematics within English society so that it could be applied to trade and military endeavors and, therefore, advance the English people. Following in Recorde’s footsteps was the mathematician Thomas Hood. He was a craftsman by birth, educated at Cambridge, worked as an instrument maker, and then taught the first free public lecture on mathematics (1588-1592 AD) sponsored by the government to train Londoners on navigation following the failed Spanish Armada attack. He wrote in one of his textbooks on mathematics, “if anie thinge seem faultie, beare with it. If anie thinge seem strange, or hard, trust unto me, under god, that accordinge to myne usuall maner I will make it familiar, and plaine enough for your understanding.”4 In this way, those trained in the universities began to publish their knowledge in the spoken language for people who could not afford a university education. This helped knowledge escape the confines of the universities and extend into the general population for the first time. Knowledge also moved the opposite way from the craftsmen to the intellectuals of society. Many craftsmen and workers used mathematics in their trades, but it was often based on the use of tools and knowledge of procedures related to the use of those tools (see unit lesson 4.3). Craftsmen knew the use of tools and procedures but not necessarily the technical math behind these. Thus, they published books based on their practical hands-on knowledge of a craft trade. For example, the lifelong sailor William Bourne wrote his 1574 A Regiment for the Sea on how to use navigational instruments and his 1587 The Arte of Shooting in Great Ordinaunce on aiming artillery based on practical experience. Meanwhile, the career soldier Thomas Smith wrote his 1600 The Arte of Gunnery on how to properly load and aim canon for hitting targets at distance. The works of these two separate groups of society—academics and craftsmen—had the effect of introducing procedure as a pedagogical (teaching) method among academics and allowed academics to explain the mathematics behind the tools and procedures of craftsmen. Doing so increased the precision of their instruments and accuracy of their work. In short, the publication of these books brought these two groups, that had been isolated throughout the medieval period, together in the 1500s in an effort to improve their country through education. The merging of these two groups gave birth to two new concepts: expertise and the expert mediator. Expertise came to be defined as the combination of knowledge and experience. The scholar Leonard Digges, who wrote in his Tectonicon on the mathematics and instruments for land surveying, argued that “oft diligent reading, ioyned with ingenious practise, causeth profitable laboure.”5 Expertise was thus the combination of knowledge of a disciple gained through formal education (in a university) combined with the practical application of that knowledge in some area of industry. Those who gained this expertise crafted a new role in society, which was that of the expert mediator. An expert mediator was a university-trained person with some experience applying their knowledge who was hired to oversee large projects for the country (often by the government, in this case the Privy Council led by William Cecil in England). For example, Leonard’s son Thomas Digges was hired by the state to oversee the rebuilding of Dover Harbor, applying his expertise of mathematics to the design of the harbor and making sure the craftsmen completed the work according to these designs. Essentially, they were the middlemen between the state funding the projects and the craftsmen actually doing the work. Today, we might call them consultants. In this way, the state gained greater confidence in succeeding in large projects (encouraging them to begin more projects), and the final outcome was completed with greater mathematical precision. The 3 Robert Recorde, The ground of artes teafyng the worke and practise of arithmetike, moch necessary for all states of men. (London: R. Wolfe, 1543), STC: 20797.5 Preface. 4 Thomas Hood, trans., Elementes of Geometrie written in Latin by that excellent Scholler P. Ramus (London: John Windet, 1590), STC: 15250, 3v. 5 Leonard Digges, A boke named Tectonicon (London: John Daye, 1556), STC: 68495, L. D. unto the Reader.

Unit Lesson 8.3: Modernity 6 development of expertise and expert mediators merged the previously isolated academic and craftsmen communities and led to the completion of large scale projects that advanced the state. Within academic circles, expertise advanced through the organization of communities of scholars. Because European education was standardized to an extent (most students took the same introductory classes and used the same textbooks regardless of university), they had the same foundational knowledge as any other university graduate. After graduating, individuals would often go on their own paths through life, but many kept in contact through letter writing. Through the writing of letters they began to share the scientific research that they were performing at their job, hobby, or with others. Most of these letter-writing communities were centered on a single influential scholar who pulled everyone together, such as John Dee (c.1527-1609 AD), Tycho Brahe (1546-1601 AD), and Galileo Galilei (1564-1642 AD). There were also local groups such as the Lime Street Naturalists in London who would regularly meet to share their discoveries and ideas. As craftsmen were learning better mathematics, the precision of their instruments was also advancing, allowing for more accurate data. Scholars began to share not only their data but also how they designed and built their instruments with other members of their letter-writing communities. The new ability to create consistently precise instruments and the speed of communication allowed other members to construct the same instruments. They could repeat the same processes and check if they could obtain the same results in order to verify their colleagues’ conclusions. Quickly, this became a standard practice, and it essentially created the verification process for all modern science—independent repeatability. Independent repeatability means that someone can repeat the exact same experiment independently of the first person and obtain the exact same result, which verifies a conclusion and proves it as fact rather than theory. All modern science requires independent repeatability to be verified as fact (unfortunately this is not always followed). It was the nature of individuals defending their work in these communities of scholars that developed this system of verification upon which modern science is built. In a way, this was a natural expansion of the disputation system established in medieval universities. It also led to the first organized academic associations, such as the Royal Society (1660 AD), that began publishing papers presented in their meetings. This allowed an entire community to keep current on all new developments, verify results, and advance the knowledge of many scientific disciplines. Ultimately, it was the organization of scientific communities, increased precision of instruments, and development of scientific technical vocabulary through translation throughout the 1500s that allowed for the great speed of scientific advancement in the 17th and 18th centuries, which is often referred to as the ‘scientific revolution’. Navigation and Empire The printing press and access to books and authors also affected the development of navigation and the growth of empires. Following the discovery of America, the Spanish built the Casa de Contratación in Seville in 1503 AD. This was the first navigational school in Europe, and it was built to train Spanish navigators to exploit their discoveries in the New World and bring more gold back to Spain. Only Spanish sailors were allowed to attend the school, and its lessons were protected like state secrets because their navigational knowledge was the key to keeping the New World to themselves. Despite many attempts to Digges, Pantometria (Digges, 1591)

Unit Lesson 8.3: Modernity 7 steal copies of their textbooks or gain entrance into the school, the Spanish protected their secrets and remained the best navigators in Europe for several decades. The English were well aware of the success of the Spanish and worked to advance their own maritime capabilities. King Henry VIII began rebuilding the English navy, and his work was continued throughout the Tudor and Stuart dynasties. John Cabot (c. 1455-1501 AD) led two voyages in the 1490s to North America, exploring the eastern coasts of Canada and New England before returning with timber, potatoes, and little else. The lack of gold eliminated support for further voyages at the time. The work of three men revived English maritime efforts and set the foundation for the British Empire. Richard Hakluyt (1553-1616 AD) wrote a number of books that glorified the maritime explorations of the English and foreign sea voyages, arguing passionately for the potential to be gained from maritime trade and colonization. His work helped to motivate public and state support for more voyages and trading missions. The English convinced John Cabot’s son Sebastian Cabot, who was sailing for the Spanish, to defect to England and bring his knowledge of navigation with him. Further, for the brief reign of Queen Mary, her marriage to the Spanish Prince Phillip allowed a few English to train at the Casa de Contratación. One of these men was Stephen Borough. Sebastian Cabot worked to build the commercial organization to fund maritime trade voyages, while Steven Borough worked to train English navigators. Borough gave a copy of Martin Cortes’ Arte de Navegar (1531) that he had acquired at the Casa de Contratación to his friend Richard Eden, who translated and published his Art of Navigation in 1561. This was the first English textbook on navigation. Borough used this to train navigators and then had them sail around the North Sea and Northern Atlantic to plot the magnetic variation of the North Pole in order to create the first variable compass, which was needed to navigate the northern waters. (The magnetic north pole varies from the celestial North Pole because the earth’s magnetic field is created by the liquid iron core that is always changing.) In 1581 AD, both Borough and his friend Robert Norman, a sailor and cartographer, published books on the variable compass to teach Englishmen how to use them. Stephen Borough’s work trained the first English navigators, established the first English schools of navigation, and began a navigational tradition in England. By the late 1500s, the combined work of Borough and others, such as William Bourne and Thomas Hood, was such that English navigators could navigate by instruments and charts virtually anywhere in the Atlantic Ocean and North Sea. Sebastian Cabot organized the first maritime trade expeditions, beginning with the Muscovy Company. This company successfully sent voyages to Moscow to establish a trade network with Russia in 1553 AD. Cabot used this success to begin setting up new companies to fund other maritime trade in the Mediterranean and North America. This included the Company of Merchant Adventurers in 1553 AD that sailed west to the New World. Partially due to the work of Cabot and partially through natural growth of the market, a new form of funding large maritime expeditions arose. Long-distance maritime voyages were extremely expensive and very risky, as a single storm or other event could destroy the ship for a total loss. The only institution wealthy enough to fund these early voyages and assume the risk was the English crown. But, the later Tudors were constantly having issues with finances and could not support many of these types of voyages. Instead, merchants seeking profits developed their own system and invented the joint-stock company. A joint-stock company is a company established by several individuals in which a number of people Edward Wright, Portolan Chart, 1595 (Wright, 1599)

Unit Lesson 8.3: Modernity 8 contribute money to a venture (buy stock in it) until the total cost is raised. Then the voyage is sent, and when it returns, the profits are distributed to those who invested in it based on the percentage that they contributed to the costs. For example, if you contributed five percent of the costs then you received five percent of the profits when it returned. This mitigated the costs and the risks of any single individual contributing. Most English maritime companies and voyages were supported using this system, and England was the first country to develop it. Several American colonies began as joint-stock companies including Jamestown (1607 AD), the first successful English colony in America. The Pilgrim’s voyage to Plymouth Rock in 1620 AD was also a joint-stock venture. In both cases, the colonists had to send goods back to England to pay back their investors. Another joint-stock company was the East India Company, which was established in 1600 AD and would become so successful that it launched the British Empire. The wealth of the many long-distance maritime companies contributed to the English economy. The individual companies and then the government built large navies to protect English ships trading throughout the world. Soon, the world became its resource, and England became a hub of manufacturing, selling its manufactured goods to Europe and the world. The dependence on long-distance resources and cost to protect trade turned England into a colonial Empire and then into an imperial Empire. This influenced the transition from feudalism into the modern fiscal-military state.6 The government shifted its tax base from land taxes (feudalism) to taxing trade. This allowed for the creation of the fiscal-military state in which the government paid for a large military to protect long-distance trade, and the long-distance trade provided the taxes to support the military. If trade was disrupted, the whole system would collapse. Thus, it became ever more important to protect trade routes and also sources of resources. The most effective way to maintain access to resources was to conquer them by taking over governments, turning other countries into colonies, or turning foreign governments into puppet rulers. The beginning of these types of programs in their colonies marked the transition from colonialism (working with other countries through colonies) to imperialism (taking control of other countries to secure resources). England was the first country to transition to the fiscal-military state in the late 1600s, and most European countries followed over the next century or two. Many modern countries are still variant forms of the fiscal-military state. Pubs and Politics With the constant turmoil that was the Tudor dynasty, many Englishmen began to take an increased interest in politics and the government’s actions. Printing presses began to print broadsides on political events, decisions, and ideas. A broadside was a single sheet that contained an essay, article, advertisement, or sermon, and it would be hung on walls, doors, or inside pubs, taverns, and coffee houses. In the 1600s, the Stuart dynasty took power in England (cousins of the Tudors as Elizabeth died without a child or heir), and both James I (r.1603-1625 AD) and Charles I (r.1625-1645 AD) became more absolutist in their rule. The combination of Charles I’s somewhat tyrannical rule, his defeat to Scotland in the Bishops’ War (1639-1640 AD), religious conflicts, and the Ulster Rebellion (1641-1642 AD) led to the English Civil War (1642-1645 AD) between the King and Parliament led by Oliver Cromwell. Parliament won the war with Cromwell’s New Model Army (a professional army based on those that fought the Thirty-Years War), and Charles I was beheaded in 1649 AD, ending the English monarchy. As a result, England became a commonwealth led by Parliament. 6 Also in the 1500s and 1600s, feudal knights transitioned from heavily armored warriors leading from the front to officers and generals leading peasant armies with guns and canon from behind. Warfare began to be a competition determined by the discipline and training created by officers and generals from the wealthy and noble classes rather than brute force and weapon/armor technology. The Fiscal-Military State

Unit Lesson 8.3: Modernity 9 As a commonwealth, the leaders of the country were mostly elected and were held accountable by the will of the people. Public opinion had a significant influence in politics for the first time since ancient Athens. The Commonwealth lasted until 1660 AD, when the unpopular rule of Oliver Cromwell led parliament to ask Charles II (son of Charles I) to return and become king of England. When his brother James II took the throne upon Charles’ death, people feared a return to absolute monarchy, and Parliament held a vote to remove him from power and replace him with William of Orange, who was married to James’ daughter Mary. This overthrow of James II and replacement with William of Orange is known as the Glorious Revolution of 1688. As part of this process, Parliament wrote a constitution clearly stating the powers of Parliament and the powers of the king to maintain a balance of power between the two, as well as the first declaration of rights. This created the first modern constitutional monarchy, and it would influence the creation of the United States’ constitutional republic a hundred years later. These various transitions all increased the influence of popular opinion within politics. When members of Parliament finished arguing in the halls of government, they retired to the local pubs where citizens could interact with them. The current political arguments and decisions were described and debated in the daily broadsides and by citizens in the pubs. Those who could not read went to the pub, and others would read the broadsides to the crowd to begin discussions. It was in the 1600s in England that the local pub became the center of politics, and the discussions branched out from the pubs to the entire communities, engaging the general public in politics on a significant scale for the first time. The End of the Medieval World The printing press affected almost every aspect of society in the 1500s and 1600s. It brought the isolated academic and craftsmen communities together, motivated an increase in literacy, sparked religious revolutions, advanced the mathematic and scientific knowledge of society that led to global exploration and colonization, and brought politics into the public sphere. Technology is often a catalyst for social and civilizational change. The medieval period really began with the invention of the stirrup that led to the creation of the feudal system that was one of the defining characteristics of the medieval period. The many actions within and changes to the Catholic Church that dominated medieval power structures were directly influenced by unintended effects of the creation of the feudal system, and in many ways, the actions of the Church throughout the medieval period was a series of failed attempts at dealing with these problems that it never created. As the most powerful religious and political authority, the Church was involved in most aspects of medieval life in Europe, replacing the Roman Empire as a source of unification and stability for society. Outside of Europe, other societies were dealing with new social structures and modes of thought. The Middle East saw a golden age during the Abbasid Caliphate as Islamic cultures struggled to create a unified Muslim identity throughout the medieval period (and to an extent still struggle with this). Scholars translated, preserved, and expanded on the scientific and philosophical knowledge of the ancient world, creating the foundations for the modern scientific thought that developed in Europe in the Early Modern Period. In the east, Japan experienced a feudal society similar to Europe’s that grew in isolation from external influences, creating its own unique culture. China continued to struggle with central control of a unified state and faced the full wrath of the Mongol invasions that devastated much of Asia, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe. All three continents dealt with plague as the Black Death swept through society after society, creating significant social upheaval and change in its wake. The combined waves of A Broadside, 1676 (Afro Bighair, 2009)

Unit Lesson 8.3: Modernity 10 the Mongols and disease caused the Middle East to decline in the late medieval period as Europe began its renaissance, leading to contact with a new continent. In the Americas, various civilizations rose and fell throughout the medieval period. While their religions and cultures were unique, their social structures were not too dissimilar to those of medieval Europe or Asia. Europeans brought old problems to a new world, and through a combination of internal issues, disease, and external conquest, American civilizations declined as Europeans began to extend their influence to a global scale in search of new resources. The 16th century marks the beginning of the age of transition from the medieval world to the modern world. The dual inventions of the printing press and gunpowder weapons caused significant changes to the structure of society and its institutions. Systems of knowledge and education changed in this period, which brought isolated communities and continents together in new ways. While ancient and medieval societies always had lots of movement, travel, and trade, the speed and breadth of these increased significantly. Most importantly, the people of Europe, Asia, and the Americas began to view the world in new ways and react to things accordingly. Throughout the medieval period, there are similar shared worldviews among most of the people, and the worldviews of the Early Modern Period are significantly different, marking a change of era. While the worldviews of every era continue to change, perhaps human nature remains the same, and we have more in common with the medieval world than we often imagine. History is not the study of the past; it is the study of us, and every ending is also a new beginning. As Shakespeare wrote: You do look, my son, in a moved sort, As if you were dismay’d: be cheerful, sir. Our revels now are ended. These our actors, As I foretold you, were all spirits and Are melted into air, into thin air: And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, The cloud-capp’d towers, the gorgeous palaces, The solemn temples, the great globe itself, Ye all which it inherit, shall dissolve And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff As dreams are made on, and our little life Is rounded with a sleep.7 7 William Shakespeare, The Tempest, Act IV, sc. I, ll 146-158.

Unit Lesson 8.3: Modernity 11 References and Further Reading Afro bighair. Example of a Broadside [Photograph]. 2009. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rulesandorders.jpg Ash, Eric H. Power, Knowledge and Expertise in Elizabethan England. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004. Brewer, John. The Sinews of Power: War, Money and the English State, 1688-1783. London: Century Hutchinson, 1988. Bennett, H. S. English Books & Readers 1475 to 1557: Being a Study in the History of the Book Trade from Caxton to the Incorporation of the Stationers’ Company. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952. Bennett, H. S. English Books & Readers 1558 to 1603: Being a Study in the History of the Book Trade in the Reign of Elizabeth I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. Cressy, David. Literacy and Social Order: Reading and Writing in Tudor and Stuart England. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 1980. Digges, Leonard. Pantometria. 1591. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pantometria_by_Leonard_Digges_1591.jpg Eisenstein, Elizabeth. The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and cultural Transformations in Early-Modern Europe. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Greenblatt, Stephen. Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004. Harkness, Deborah E. The Jewel House: Elizabethan London and the Scientific Revolution. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007. Hoby, Thomas. The Courtyer of Count Baldessar Castilio divided into foure bookes. London: Wyllyam Seres, 1561. STC: 4778. Johnson, Francis R. Astronomical Thought in Renaissance England: A Study of the English Scientific Writings from 1500 to 1645. New York: Octagon Press, 2000. Klauke, Jonathan. “The New Mathematics and Astronomy of Elizabethan England: Thomas Hood and the Mathematical Lecture of the City of London.” MSc Diss., University of Strathclyde, 2010. Klauke, Jonathan. “Grasping at Stars: A Study of the Translation and Transmission of Medieval Astronomical Knowledge, 750-1600.” PhD diss., Central Michigan University, 2014. Meggs. Philip. 1998. Printer in 1568. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Printer_in_1568-ce.png Mosley, Adam. Bearing the Heavens: Tycho Brahe and the Astronomical Community of the Late Sixteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Pettegree, Andrew. Brand Luther: How an Unheralded Monk Turned His Small Town into a Center of Publishing, Made Himself the Most Famous Man in Europe and Started the Protestant Reformation. New York: Penguin Books, 2016. Shakespeare, William. The Riverside Shakespeare. 2nd Edition. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1997. Taylor, E. G. R. The Mathematical Practitioners of Tudor & Stuart England. Cambridge: The University Press, 1954.

Unit Lesson 8.3: Modernity 12 Turner, Gerard L’E. Elizabethan Instrument Makers: The Origins of the London Trade and Precision Instrument Making. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Waters, David W. The Art of Navigation in England in Elizabethan and Early Stuart Times. 2nd ed. Greenwich: Trustees of the National Maritime Museum, 1978. Wright, Edward. Edward Wright’s Map. 1599. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EdwardWright-MapforSailingtoAzores-1599.jpg

Unit Lesson 8.1: The Reformation 1 Unit Lesson 8.1: The Reformation Periodization Medieval Period: 500 – 1500 AD Early Modern Period: 1500 – 1850 AD Council of Trent: 1545 – 1563 AD Thirty Years War: 1618 – 1648 AD Key Terms Martin Luther Indulgences Ninety-Five Theses Freedom of a Christian Protestants Guild The Knight’s Rebellion The Peasant’s Revolt Münster Rebellion Counter-Reformation Thirty Years War Historical Convergence When explaining the causes of the Crusades, we used a convergence model in which many paths converged that led to a single outcome (see unit lesson 3.3). The Protestant Reformation came about in a similar manner with many paths converging to a single outcome. The High Middle Ages were a time of great change. The Italian Renaissance redefined art and the balance of the physical and spiritual worlds. Literature was addressing important theological questions as well as the practical and social issues that society faced. The feudal structure was breaking down as peasants who paid rent and proportions of their production replaced serfs tied to the land by bonds of obligation. A new merchant class was growing in size and wealth, at times challenging the established system of nobility and political power. Columbus discovered a new continent full of resources, peoples, and mysteries to be explored. Gutenberg used his printing press to print his first Bible in 1455 AD, creating a technology that would significantly increase the breadth and speed in which ideas could be spread. We saw that in the High Middle Ages, a number of forces were influencing religious society (see unit lesson 6.2). The institution of the Church faced many challenges from internal division to lack of education and reactions to external challenges. These caused some of the general population to lose faith in the institution of the Church to lead people to salvation, but they did not lose faith in Christianity. The growth of education and individualism led people to seek salvation outside of the institutional Church, leading to the growth of popular heresy and groups such as the Waldensians, Lollards, and Hussites. These groups challenged the corruption of the Church as well as the Biblical justification for some of the sacraments, and they often advocated for the translation of the Bible into the spoken vernacular languages. The Church reacted to these challenges by placing these individuals and groups on trial and finding them guilty of heresy. Accused heretics were often tortured to force them to give public confessions of their errors. Heretics were then burned to death in public as an act of purification as well as an example to others of the consequences of challenging the doctrines of the Church. The Church faced external challenges as well. Constantinople, the wall protecting Europe from the East, finally fell to the Muslim Ottoman Empire in 1453 AD, after which the Ottoman Empire swarmed into southeastern Europe, conquering Hungry by 1526 AD and soon after laying siege to Vienna.

Unit Lesson 8.1: The Reformation 2 It was in this turbulent atmosphere that a single monk, Martin Luther, would change the world with nothing more than a list of grievances he had with his employer. How did one insignificant individual have such a dramatic impact? “Luther’s strength, it has been argued, and the very heart of his appeal, lay in the fact that he succeeded in giving new, “non-medieval” answers to the essentially medieval religious questions that still troubled him and so many others in his day. More than any of the traditional solutions proposed by the late-medieval church his novel answers possessed, at least for some, a compelling measure of authenticity, the power to convince, and the force to assuage the persistent yearnings of the religious spirit. At one level, but arguably at the deepest level of all, the matter may have been no more complex than that.”1 Martin Luther gave new solutions to the religious and social issues that had grown in and plagued the High Middle Ages, and it may be as simple as that. Martin Luther Martin Luther (1483-1546 AD) was born in the small village of Eisleben in Saxony. At age 17 (1501 AD), he entered the University of Erfurt to study law because his father hoped he would become a lawyer. Following the completion of his master’s degree, he began to study law, but he suddenly dropped out of school and joined an Augustinian monastery in Erfurt. Martin Luther excelled in the monastery and was soon put on track to become a teacher. Martin Luther wrote that during a thunderstorm he was nearly stuck by lightning, and this near-death experience inspired him to devote himself to God and become a friar. However hard he worked to devote himself to God, he felt as though nothing he did was enough. At this time, death was a common occurrence and could befall you anytime and anywhere because violence, disease, and famine were common throughout society. The state of one’s immortal soul was an important issue on everyone’s mind, and sin and the Devil were everywhere tempting people away from salvation. The primary source of salvation at this time was the sacrament of penance in which one confessed his or her sins to a priest. The priest provided absolution for the sins, and then the individual performed an act of penance equal to his or her sins (charity work, pilgrimage, donating to the poor, etc.). With this act completed, the individual could then receive the Eucharist (wine and bread representing the blood and body of Christ) with a clear conscious. Martin Luther wrote of his distress, When I was a monk, I made a great effort to live according to the requirements of the monastic rule. I made a practice of confessing and reciting all my sins, but always with prior contrition; I went to confession frequently, and I performed the assigned penances faithfully. Nevertheless, my conscious could never achieve certainty but was always in doubt and said, ‘You have not done this correctly. You were not contrite enough. You omitted this in your confession.’2 Martin Luther was conflicted and distressed concerning his ability to obtain salvation through the actions required by the Church. To address this conflict, Luther turned to the Bible, studying the scriptures and earning a doctorate degree in theology in the process. By 1512 AD, he had become a theology professor at the University of Wittenberg. 1 Francis Oakley, The Western Church in the Later Middle Ages (London: Cornell University Press, 1979), 318. 2 Martin Luther, “Lectures on Galatians, 1535” in, Martin Luther, Freedom of a Christian, trans. by Mark D. Tranvik (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2008), 11. Martin Luther (Lucas Cranach the Elder, 1528)

Unit Lesson 8.1: The Reformation 3 His studies and teaching on the Bible began to change how Martin Luther viewed salvation. Between 1512 and 1518 AD, he shifted from viewing salvation as something attained from God through works to something given by God through grace. He slowly began to consider that the reason Christ called out on the cross “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” was that Jesus suddenly had the weight of all the world’s sins on his own shoulders. If the sins of the world were transferred to Jesus, then they no longer bore down on Luther, who was now free from sin and was righteous. This eased all of his internal conflict and distress over salvation. Luther developed a three-aspect view of salvation. First, all are saved through the grace of God alone and not any human action. Grace is obtained through faith alone, defining faith as a trust born out of a loving and nurturing relationship. Finally, grace and faith are only possible due to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross and His voluntary acceptance of the sins of all people. This was an individual path to salvation through scripture that did not require any Church ritual or action of a priest. When papal representatives arrived near Wittenberg selling indulgences, Luther viewed this as a practice in direct conflict with his new interpretation of salvation. Indulgences were a form of penance. Traditionally, one would confess his or her sins, receive absolution, and then perform an act of penance. An indulgence was officially an act of penance whereby individuals would give money (to aid the Church) and then receive a paper that absolved them of some sin. From one perspective, this was providing a donation to help others as an act of penance. But, from another perspective, this was buying one’s way into heaven. (Indulgences were also sold to relieve time in Purgatory.) The Pope was using the sale of indulgences to raise money to build the St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome as a new Church to rival those of other Italian Renaissance cities. Luther interpreted this as selling salvation to build a new fancy church for the Pope. Thus, he viewed it as an act of corruption. In response to this perceived act of corruption and his own changing views on salvation, he wrote a list of issues he had with the Church that he hoped to discuss with other members of the clergy. Luther posted this list on the door of the Wittenberg Castle Church on October 31, 1517 AD. This list is known as his Ninety-Five Theses. The Ninety-Five Theses were written in Latin, so only members of the Church or university-educated individuals could read them. The intention was to post a list of issues (or debate topics) that other members of the clergy could read and then discuss at their next meeting. Recall (from unit lesson 4.1) that debate was a common teaching method and that public debate (disputation) was a common method of exploring academic ideas, so Luther’s approach was not uncommon. However, before any debate could happen, the writings were quickly copied and translated into German and then printed on printing presses and distributed throughout Northern Germany in a matter of weeks. Popular sentiment against Church corruption was already high, and his ideas concerning the Sacraments and salvation inspired some interest as well. Many of these opinions were not new and had already been proposed by the earlier heretical groups (Waldensians, Lollards, and Hussites as discussed in unit lesson 6.2), but Martin Luther approached them from a different perspective and was the first to spread these ideas widely using the printing press. What began as a call for debate within his own small community turned into a debate on a national scale throughout Germany. It spread quickly throughout all of Europe. Martin Luther quickly obtained the protection of Frederick the Wise, the prince ruling over Wittenberg (Saxony), who supported Luther for a complex mix of political and religious reasons. Martin Luther was questioned by the Church in Augsburg but escaped when he realized it was a heresy inquisition rather than a discussion of theology. In 1519 AD, he publicly debated another theology professor, John Eck, in Leipzig during which Luther realized his views on salvation could not be defended without attacking the Papal Indulgence (Fae, 2014)

Unit Lesson 8.1: The Reformation 4 authority of the Pope. This required separating from the Church rather than reforming it. In 1520 AD, awaiting further action from the Church, Martin Luther wrote three treatises organizing and defending his views, the most influential of which was his Freedom of a Christian. Luther’s Beliefs Martin Luther’s Freedom of a Christian is the first attempt to fully explain his views on salvation. He states the focus of the argument in his introduction. In order to make the way for the average or common readers (for only them do I serve), I will put forth two themes concerning the freedom and bondage of the spirit. A Christian is lord of all, completely free of everything. A Christian is a servant, completely attentive to the needs of all. These two assertions appear to conflict with one another; however, if they can be found to be in agreement, it would serve our purposes beautifully.3 Martin Luther introduced several things. Although he originally wrote this treatise as an attachment to a letter he sent to the Pope, it showed that he tended to write for the common people rather than just the intellectual elite of society and the Church. He wanted to share his views with everyone, not just the theologically trained Church, because his focus was not the reforming or challenging of the Church but saving people’s souls. Martin Luther’s argument was that Christians are both completely free but also servants. He argued that it is faith alone in the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross that provides grace and salvation, which freed one from the actions required by the Catholic Church (Sacraments) and ensured that one will achieve salvation. One no longer had to worry whether they have completed enough or the right actions to gain salvation as it is provided by faith alone. When Luther spoke of freedom, he did not mean freedom in the post-enlightenment way that we define it today (freedom of choice, opportunity, etc.). To Luther, freedom meant a bond of trust so strong that there was no fear or hesitation in a relationship—such as a relationship with a parent or spouse built up over many years. Through faith, one builds a relationship with Jesus such that one can trust anything to Jesus and fear no judgement, freeing them to be completely open and honest. Good deeds for others were thus no longer a requirement for salvation (such as the Sacrament or penance) but rather the outcome of seeking to create relationships with other believers that mirrored one’s individual relationship with Jesus. As Luther wrote, “Good works do not make a good person, but a good person does good works. Evil works do not make a person wicked, but a wicked person does evil works.”4 One’s faith makes him or her seek to serve others in order to extend his or her divine relationship into the human community. Thus, through faith, one became completely free yet also a servant to others in the community. Martin Luther summarized these views writing: From faith there flows a love and joy in the Lord. From love there proceeds a joyful, willing, and free mind that serves the neighbor and takes no account of gratitude or ingratitude, praise or blame, gain or loss. We do not serve others with an eye toward friends and enemies or anticipate their thankfulness or ingratitude. Rather, we freely and willingly spend ourselves and all that we have, whether we squander it on the ungrateful or give it to the deserving. This is just as our Father does, who gives all things to all people richly and freely, making “his sun rise on the evil and on the good” (Matt. 5:45). As sons and daughters of such a Father, we will act in a similar way. Know nothing except this sense of spontaneous joy, by which we do and suffer all things, we are led through Christ to delight in God, who lavishly dispenses all these gifts to us. Therefore, if we recognize these great and precious things that are given to us (as Paul says in Romans 5:5), our hearts will be filled by the Holy Spirit with a love that makes us free, joyful, and all-powerful. We are able to prevail in time of tribulation, serve our neighbors, and yet be lords of all. There are those who do not recognize the gifts given to them through Christ. For them Christ’s 3 Martin Luther, Freedom of a Christian, 50. 4 Martin Luther, Freedom of a Christian, 74.

Unit Lesson 8.1: The Reformation 5 birth has no real purpose or meaning. The result is that such people know nothing other than their works and are prevented from tasting and sensing [the gifts of faith]. As our neighbor is in need and lacks the things that make us rich in faith, it is important to keep in mind that we, too, were in need and lacked God’s mercy. But, freely in Christ, our heavenly Father has come to our aid. So our works ought to be directed freely toward our neighbor. Each of us should become a Christ to the other. And as we are Christs to one another, the result is that Christ fills us all and we become a truly Christian community.5 He compared this desire to create a Christian community through faith and service to others with the current practices of the Catholic Church. However, that stewardship has become something entirely different in the church of today. It is preoccupied with displays of power and governs in a tyrannical manner. No foreign or worldly power can even be compared to it. It is as if the laity were something other than Christian people. As a result of this perversion, the knowledge of Christian grace, faith, freedom, and even Christ himself has been wholly lost, only to be replaced by human works and laws. . . As a result, I have a great fear that few, if any, clerical associations, monasteries, altars, and offices of the church are truly Christian in our day. This includes the special fasts and prayers on certain saints’ days. To repeat, it is my fear that in all these things we seek only our own profit, believing that through these acts our sins are purged and salvation is attained. This way of things obliterates Christian freedom. It occurs because we are ignorant of the Christian faith and the abundant liberty that accompanies it. Unfortunately, this ignorance and suppression of Christian freedom is encouraged by a large number of blind pastors. They agitate the people and persuade them to engage in these practices by praising these works and magnifying their importance by use of indulgences; however, they never teach faith.6 Martin Luther not only argued against the corruption of the Church but also the fact that its corruption and emphasis on human works (Sacraments) failed to lead people to salvation and failed to create Christian communities. The basis for all of Martin Luther’s arguments was the Bible, and he constantly referred to Scripture to defend his arguments. The combination of his diatribes against Church corruption, emphasis on faith, focus on building Christian communities, and rhetorical ability to organize and communicate arguments in emotional and understandable language drew many to support Luther and his ideas. Many followers, and even Luther at times, propagandized their arguments against Church corruption in order to draw people to the more complex theological arguments—as even many Catholics were aware of the corruption in the Church and the problems it created. The following year (1521 AD), Martin Luther was called to attend the Council of Worms, Germany to publicly explain and defend his views directly to the Church. Despite the very real possibility of torture and death by burning at the stake, Luther refused to recant or rescind his positions. This gave Luther the chance to fully articulate his full beliefs and arguments in public and directly challenge the Church in open discussion. As a result of his arguments, Luther was officially excommunicated from the Church and declared legally to be an outlaw. On his return home, his protector Prince Frederick the Wise kidnapped Luther and held him in Wartburg Castle in order to protect him. While there, Luther translated the New Testament into German to be published in 1522 AD. Despite the threats of torture and execution, Martin Luther returned to Wittenberg to teach and write, translating the Old Testament by 1534 AD and writing hundreds of letters, sermons, and treatises in defense of his views. When he translated the Bible, he removed the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament and made them a separate section added to the Bible, noting they were inspired texts but not Scripture. These books include First and Second Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Sirach, and Wisdom. 5 Martin Luther, Freedom of a Christian, 83-84. 6 Martin Luther, Freedom of a Christian, 69, 87.

Unit Lesson 8.1: The Reformation 6 These are often included in the Old Testament of Catholic Bibles but often omitted from Protestant Bibles and the Jewish Torah. Luther also considered removing James, Hebrews, and Revelation from the New Testament but left them in. Thus, the Lutheran and other Protestant Bibles were not only translated but also slightly different from the Catholic Vulgate Bible. Martin Luther was not alone in advocating these new ideas and opinions concerning the Church and theology. Several others were inspired by Luther and began spreading his ideas throughout Germany. These men included Martin Bucer, Johannes Brenz, Philip Melanchthon, Johann Bugenhagen, and Nikolaus von Amsdorf. Along with these leaders spreading Luther’s ideas, the printing presses continued to publish and spread his ideas throughout Europe. Those who supported Luther became known as Lutherans. Soon, several offshoots of Luther arose with slightly different beliefs that were still closer to Luther than Catholicism. These various groups were collectively called the Protestants, or those who protested against the Catholic Church. Unable to suppress Luther and his ideas, Europe soon became divided between Protestantism and Catholicism. Protestantism and Catholicism There was a wide spectrum of reactions to Martin Luther’s ideas. Some supported him fully, some supported him but tweaked his ideas a bit, and some opposed him for various reasons. The Italian humanist Guicciardini offered a response that resonated among the well-educated humanists of Europe. Now followed the year 1520; during which time and for the same reasons, the peace in Italy continued which had been maintained during the previous year. But in 1520, new doctrines began to spread widely, first against the authority of the Roman Church and then against the authority of the Christian religion. This pestiferous poison originated in Germany in the province of Saxony as a result of the preaching of Martin Luther, a friar professor of the Augustinian Order, whose doctrines, for the post part, revived the ancient errors of the Bohemians. For these latter had been reproved by the universal Council of the Church held at Constance by whose authority John Huss and Jerome of Prague had been burned, two of the principle heads of that heresy which had been for a long time restricted within the confines of Bohemia.7 Guicciardini went on to discuss the issue of indulgences and how they were often viewed as nothing more than a way for the Church to raise money with little Biblical justification for them. Luther seized upon this opportunity, and by condemning these indulgences and laying charges against the Pope’s authority because of them, his cause gained ever more favor in the ears of the populace, the great number of his auditors multiplied, and he began more openly every day to deny the Pope’s authority. From these beginnings, perhaps honest, or at least in some part excusable, considering the just cause which had given rise to them, carried away by ambition and popular acclaim, and the favor of the Duke of Saxony, not only did Luther become too immoderate in his opposition to the power of the popes and the authority of the Roman Church, but falling once again into the errors of the Bohemians, he began to remove the images out of the churches, to despoil ecclesiastical places of their goods, to permit monks and nuns to enter into matrimony, confirming these opinions not only by precedent and arguments but even by personal example; he denied that the Pope’s power extended beyond the bishopric of Rome, and affirmed that every other bishop had the same authority in his diocese that the Pope had in Rome. He scorned and rejected all those things which had been determined by the councils, all those things written by those who are called the Doctors of the Church, all the canonical laws and decrees of the popes, returning solely to the Old Testament, the books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and all that included under the name of the New Testament and the Epistles of Saint Paul; but giving all these writings new and unsuspected meanings and unheard of interpretations. 7 Francesco Guiccardini, A History of Italy, trans. Sidney Alexander (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969), 319.

Unit Lesson 8.1: The Reformation 7 Nor did the madness of Luther and his followers remain within these bounds, but being supported one might say by almost all of Germany, they were led into more pernicious and detestable errors every day; went so far as to wound the sacraments of the church; to despise fasts, penances, and confessions; and at last, several people of this sect went on to invent poisonous and diabolic lies about the Eucharist. All these things, based upon rejection of the authority of the Councils and the holy Doctors, have opened the way to every sort of new and perverse interpretation or invention … with the result that people are reduced to an almost free and willful mode of life. … Thus this situation began to seem more grave every day at the court of Rome, and nurtured suspicions that there might be born therefrom the most serious threat against the grandeur of the popes, the usefulness of the Roman court, and the unity of the Christian religion.8 Most humanists (and generally Catholics) agreed with Luther that the Church had significant issues with corruption that needed to be addressed. Guicciardini himself described the current pope (Alexander IV) as having “the most obscene behavior, insincerity, shamelessness, lying, faithlessness, impiety, insatiable avarice, immoderate ambition, a cruelty more than barbaric and an ardent cupidity to exalt his numerous children.”9 However, humanists often did not support Luther’s theological arguments for one of two reasons. First, they disagreed on a theological level, arguing that Luther’s interpretation of scripture was in error and the Catholic Church was correct in its views on salvation and the Sacraments. Second, some argued that regardless of the validity of Luther’s arguments, the only outcome of continuing to spread these ideas would be the full division of Christendom into two sides at war with each other. They continued to argue that this was a particularly poor time to be divided as the Muslim Ottomans were literally on the doorstep of the Holy Roman Empire, laying siege to Vienna itself. Christians needed to present a united front to combat this external threat that had already conquered much of southeast Europe. Guiciardini, for example, included both of these in his arguments against Luther. Thus, support for one side or the other was often religious but at other times was political, social, or cultural. It may seem odd that people were invested to the point of beginning wars over ideas on how one achieves salvation. However, salvation was the single most important aspect of most people’s lives in the 1500s. Death was all around, and the salvation of their souls was of extreme importance. People believed that the apocalypse and end times would occur sooner rather than later. As a result, they believed that the devil was at work in the world, actively drawing people away from salvation. So, any views that threatened an individual’s salvation were viewed as the work of the devil, and thus needed to be actively combated. Further, the widespread fear of the end times being near gave a sense of urgency to people to try to convince others that their path to salvation was the correct path. This is quite similar to modern divisions between political groups who argue that the survival of the country is at stake. Today, political issues consume public debate and lead to acts of protest and violence often influenced by phenomena such as tribalism, confirmation bias, and groupthink. The Offshoots The Reformation spread like most social movements. There was the original movement led by Martin Luther and his followers and soon, this led to similar movements inspired by the original message. John Calvin (1509-1564 AD) organized his followers (Calvinists) around 1530 AD, who created the structure for a self-governing church. Gabriel Zwilling (c.1487-1558 AD) was an early follower of Luther and would lead the most extreme Protestants in Switzerland, who were known as the Anabaptists. King Henry VIII of England (1491-1547 AD) rejected the authority of the Pope in 1533 AD. This resulted in the creation of the Anglican Church with him at its head in order to gain the annulment of his first marriage to Catherine 8 Francesco Guiccardini, A History of Italy, 321-322. 9 Francesco Guiccardini, A History of Italy, 10.

Unit Lesson 8.1: The Reformation 8 of Aragon. The theology of his Anglican Church was likely inspired by Lollards in his court, including his second wife Anne Boleyn (c.1501-1536 AD). King Henry VIII allowed the use of William Tyndale’s Bible. William Tyndale had been burned at the stake in 1536 AD for translating the Bible into English while Martin Luther was working on his own translation. The later King James I of England (James VI of Scotland) worked with a group of scholars and theologians to create the King James Bible (1611 AD) still used today. The Anglican Church was not always strongly supported in England. To the north, John Knox (1513-1572 AD), who studied under John Calvin, led a movement that made the Presbyterian Church the official church of Scotland. In England, a group known as Puritans began to emerge in the late 1500s and gained influence in the early Stuart Period (1603-1642 AD), eventually becoming a factor in the English Civil War (1642-1645). All of these groups were known as Protestants and shared an opposition to the Catholic Church and the authority of the pope. These groups supported the translation of the Bible into the vernacular spoken languages and argued against the Biblical justification for most or all of the Sacraments. Some of these groups began to utilize adult baptism as a public confession of one’s faith and attainment of salvation. Visually, the Protestants were also distinct as their churches were simplistic, lacking any or all decoration in order to focus the church service on the sermon and reading of the Bible. In contrast, Catholic cathedrals were elaborately decorated and focused on the altar where the Eucharist was performed, showing the majesty of God and the focus of ritual. However, there was a broad spectrum of Protestantism. Puritanism tended to be much more individual (focused on individual purity of sin) while Presbyterianism tended to focus more on the community of believers who prayed and worshiped together. Lutheranism tended to be the most similar to Catholicism with regards to the clothing of ministers and style of church service. The Anglican Church began as quite distinct from Catholicism but reverted back to its Catholic roots towards the end of Henry VIII’s reign, oscillating between Protestant and Catholic influences throughout the politically and socially turbulent Tudor and Stuart dynasties in the 16th and 17th centuries. Some of these groups believed in universal salvation, some in predestination, some in salvation through faith, and some in salvation of only the elect based on different interpretations of the Bible. Ultimately, while all of these groups were opposed to the Catholic Church, they were certainly not a united group of Protestants but rather a number of groups with individual similarities and dissimilarities, sometimes in agreement with each other and sometimes in conflict with each other. Social Unrest The 15th and 16th centuries were a time when the feudal system was breaking down. Most of the farmers had transitioned from serfs to peasants, and the Italian Renaissance sparked the growth of a wealthy merchant class throughout Europe. In every city, the merchants and craftsmen were forming guilds. A guild was an organization for a single craft whose leaders established the requirements to become a master of that craft (usually seven years as an apprentice) and an average price for common goods of that craft. This ensured that no individual craftsman in the trade was selling his wares for far more or far less than the others, ensuring that prices were consistent and that they all had access to the market of consumers. As the craftsmen and merchants became wealthier, their guilds became more influential in Areas of Protestant Growth, 1545-1620 (Ernio48, 2017)

Unit Lesson 8.1: The Reformation 9 the cities until they were paying for most of the public works projects (better city equals better trade). At times, they even paid mercenaries to protect their cities. Advances in military technology had a significant influence on warfare. Peasants armed with longbows or crossbows could defeat mounted knights by the 1300s, and by the 1500s, even the layers of well-crafted plate armor that could stop an arrow became vulnerable to the first guns. The armor of knights became ever more expensive, and the weapons they used and supplied to their soldiers also became more expensive. Ultimately, the cost to serve as a knight increased significantly while their effectiveness in battle decreased. A small mercenary force armed with guns became the same cost as a mounted knight. The wealth of the merchants cycled through the lords who governed the cities and back to the merchants, The knights. However, remained dependent on wealth generated from agricultural land farmed by tenant peasants who only paid small rents. Seeing their future collapsing, many knights sought a reform to the feudal system, particularly in Germany. While other countries such as England and France had central monarchies that included some type of parliamentary system of nobles and knights, Germany was a collection of independent principalities that lacked a centralized government and taxation system that could be used to support knights. In 1523 AD, the knight Franz von Sickingen, inspired by the humanist movement and Martin Luther’s teachings, organized a number of knights and petitioned the Holy Roman Empire for reforms to centralize the government and create more financial support for knights. When the Empire refused to support reforms, von Sickingen and his men went on the offensive, expecting peasants and merchants to support them from within the cities as he and his men laid siege outside. The first target of the Knight’s Rebellion was the city of Trier. But, after failing to gain peasant and merchant support, the siege ran out of gunpowder after seven days. Von Sickingen’s forces were forced to retreat to his castle at Landstuhl. The Empire then laid siege to Landstuhl, which fell within a week. Franz von Sickingen surrendered, ending the Knight’s Rebellion. There were also a number of peasant uprisings throughout the High Middle Ages as the feudal bonds between serfs and lords began to break down following the widespread devastation of the Black Death. Socially, the 15th and early 16th centuries were turbulent as serfs transitioned to peasants, and feudal bonds shifted towards landowners and tenants. Peasants saw merchants achieving great wealth and growing in status and often decided to seek better fortunes for themselves. Most peasant rebellions ended quickly in failure, lacking the resources, wealth, and weapons to defend themselves from knights and mercenaries. Martin Luther taught that all had equal access to salvation through faith alone rather than through the Church with its ability to sell indulgences. Radical groups, such as the Anabaptists, cited the charity of Jesus to argue against social classes based on wealth. These messages resonated among the peasants who feared for their salvation but had little love for the nobility who recruited them for wars or the wealthy Church and corrupt pope who preached charity while building ever more elaborate cathedrals. In April 1525 AD, partly inspired by the ideas of Protestants, the peasants of Germany rose up against their lords. They sought escape from their poverty and hereditary social class in the Peasant’s Revolt. Several of the local lords in Stühlingen attempted to restore serfdom among the peasants while abusing their lands and increasing taxes. About 1200 peasants gathered, elected leaders, and wrote a list of grievances to present to their lords, which were printed and spread throughout Germany. The grievances focused on removing the feudal structures of society, allowing for elected governance, protecting private Soldier with an Arquebus, 1587 (de Gheyn, 1587)

Unit Lesson 8.1: The Reformation 10 property, and requiring church tithes to be spent on the local people. The peasants organized an army near the city of Leipheim and began negotiations while seeking support from Luther and the Protestants. Martin Luther empathized with the harsh conditions the peasants faced, but he ultimately refused to support them in their revolt. He wrote in his On the Thieving, Murderous Hordes of Peasants, “For Baptism frees men’s souls alone; it does not liberate their bodies and properties, nor does the Gospel call for people to hold all their goods in common.”10 Distraught at Luther’s lack of support, many peasants disbanded and returned home, while others continued to gather for rebellion. The nobles negotiated while maneuvering their forces and, upon the outbreak of hostilities, quickly defeated the peasant rebels, forcing them to retreat into the town. In May, the rebels reorganized and managed to seize the castle in Weinsberg, executing as many as 70 captured noblemen. The success drew more peasant support while the executions caused many, including Luther, to support the princes. The peasants amassed an army of about 6000 near Frankenhausen, where they met the combined armies of several princes. The outnumbered and outgunned peasants were defeated, losing as much as half their forces. The retreating peasants continued to battle throughout the summer but were heavily defeated in each conflict, losing most of their number until the rebellion fell apart before the end of summer. The Munster Rebellion One of the primary fears of Catholics at the onset of the Reformation was that once the Bible was translated into the spoken vernacular languages, it would be available for any and all to read and, more importantly, open to interpretation. If kept in Latin, the Bible would have remained as a single standardized text, only read by those with the training and education to properly interpret it. Once translated, the monopoly on interpretation was lost, and not only could translators affect the meaning, but every individual who read the scriptures could also reinterpret the meaning. Once this door opened, it could not be closed, and Martin Luther had opened it, for better or worse. Much of his later life was spent debating with other Protestant groups rather than the Catholic Church. In 1534 AD, the growing social unrest among peasants and knights began to merge with the spreading Protestant Reformation to create new groups seeking social change. This merging of social and religious movements culminated in the German city of Münster. A more radical group of Anabaptists believed that the end of the world was near and their job was to establish a New Jerusalem on earth to prepare for the return of Jesus. In 1534 AD, this group came to believe that Münster was this city. Within the city of Münster, Melchior Hoffman was developing the theological doctrine for Anabaptism while his friend Bernard Rothmann was publishing his sermons and treatises to spread Anabaptism throughout Germany. The city was becoming split between Catholics and supporters of Luther. The Lutheran Bernard Knipperdolling managed to become mayor and soon converted to Anabaptism. With control of the local government, these men began to lay the groundwork for Münster to become the New Jerusalem. One of the leaders of Anabaptism at the time was Jan Matthys, a preacher who travelled from city to city and, in particular, visited monasteries and nunneries to convert people to Anabaptism. He was charismatic and deeply spiritual, and he believed that God spoke to him and led him in his mission to establish the New Jerusalem. A number of his followers, including Jan von Leiden (John of Leiden), arrived in Münster in January of 1534 AD to prepare for Jan Matthys’ arrival. They begin to convert people to Anabaptism, beginning the Münster Rebellion. Many Lutherans converted through the practice of adult baptism, which could be officiated by any convert. When Jan Matthys arrived with his many converts in tow, he quickly took control of the city and expelled all of the Catholics (Lutherans were allowed to stay). The expelled Catholic bishop of the city, Franz von Waldeck, immediately organized an army and surrounded the city, beginning a siege. 10 Clifford R. Backman, Cultures of the West, A History: Volume 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 422-423.

Unit Lesson 8.1: The Reformation 11 While under siege, Jan Mattys preached that God was personally speaking to him and placed him in position to turn the city into the New Jerusalem. He ordered that all books other than the Bible be confiscated and burned and that all property be turned over to the religious leaders to be redistributed in a somewhat egalitarian manner based on his interpretation of scripture (confirmed by God speaking to him). When some citizens raised objections, they were publically executed. Many of the citizens who were not already Anabaptists quickly converted , so the entire city was filled with a religious ecstasy inspired by the charismatic yet deeply theological Jan Matthys. As the siege continued, Jan Matthys came to believe that God would lead him to break the siege. He and 12 companions left the city on Easter Day 1534 AD to charge into the besieging army in the belief that God would grant him a victory. Instead, he and his followers were quickly killed. Rather than ending the conflict, the death of its leader inspired more fervent resistance. Jan von Leiden, a former actor, rose to take Matthys’ place. He told the people that he could now speak with God and interpret Scripture. He argued that Jan Matthys was martyred for his pride, associating Jan Matthys leading 12 companions with the 12 disciples and arguing that Jan Matthys himself was pierced by a spear in his side just as Jesus had been on the cross. To secure his new role in the city, Jan von Leiden married Matthys’ widow; however, Jan von Leiden was already married (his wife was not in the city). He announced that God had led him to a new interpretation of Scripture and advocated for polygamy among the Anabaptists. This may have been caused by the fact that Jan Matthys had inspired many nuns to leave the nunneries and join the Anabaptists, creating an imbalance among men and women in the city. Most of the men followed suit and engaged in polygamous relationships throughout the city. Jan von Leiden then created a council of 12 men who wore special uniforms and were the only ones allowed to walk the city armed. The bishop Franz von Waldeck organized several attacks on the city, but for various reasons, none were successful, boosting the morale of the already fanatical Anabaptists in Münster. They constantly worked to send out messages to other Anabaptists to draw support from outside the siege, but the Catholics and many Protestants worked to prevent any support from reaching the city. Von Waldeck’s men even fired letters (on arrows) written by Martin Luther. The letters stated that the people were being led into blasphemy by a heretic, but Jan von Leiden convinced his people that they were just propaganda and lies. By the summer of 1525 AD, after over a year under siege and running out of food, some people inside escaped and showed the besieging forces a tunnel into the city. On June 24, 1535 AD, forces were organized to enter the city and open the gates, allowing the army to capture the city. Jan von Leiden and his people fought until they were killed or captured, refusing to flee. The Bishop Franz von Waldeck now had to determine what to do with the captured leaders of the Münster Rebellion. These men had claimed the divine ability to reinterpret scripture and even speak with God, leading people into blasphemy. They also attempted to change the social order and eliminate all classes by seizing and redistributing wealth equally(ish) to all. Thus, these men had succeeded in violating both the highest religious and civil laws of German society. A clear message had to be sent that these efforts would not be tolerated by either the government or the Church. As a result, Jon von Leiden, Bernard Knippergolling, and Bernard Krechting—the three remaining leaders—were led onto a stage before the entire population. One by one, beginning with Jan von Leiden, they were bound to a stake and torturers used red hot pliers to rip pieces of flesh off of his body for a full 60 minutes as the others watched—knowing they were next. After 60 minutes of torture, Jan Execution of Rebels (Berger, 1607)

Unit Lesson 8.1: The Reformation 12 von Leiden was stabbed in the heart with a dagger. The three bodies were placed in cages that still hang from the steeple of St. Lambert’s Church in Münster as a warning to any who wish to challenge the social order and religion of society. The above image is a depiction of this event. The Counter-Reformation and Religious Wars The blasphemy of the Münster Rebellion that even the Protestants declared to be heresy helped to fuel the Catholic counter-reformation. The Council of Trent convened from 1545-1563 AD to address issues in the Church that the Protestants had debated. The council stopped the practice of selling indulgences, increased enforcing morality within the church, ended the practice of plurality (a bishop in charge of multiple dioceses in order to gain wealth), and increased the standards of education for all clergy. The council also developed stronger Biblical justification for the Sacraments and salvation through works. In addition, they created the first list of banned books aimed at removing Protestant literature (viewed as heretical) from circulation in society. St. Ignatius of Loyola (1491-1556 AD) experienced a spiritual awakening around this time that inspired him to create the Jesuit order whose mission was to reconvert people to Catholicism or become an evangelical wing of the Catholic Church. His followers succeeded in bringing many Europeans back to Catholicism and spreading the religion as far as Japan in the east and the Americas in the west. As tension between the Protestants and Catholics continued to grow, small armed conflicts turned into outright war. German princes used religion as an excuse to go to war and capture more territory and power. These princes sought support from the rest of Europe, drawing many countries into extended periods of warfare and forcing the leaders of each country to choose a side. In France, a civil war broke out between Catholics and Protestants. It culminated in the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre that raged in Paris for three days in 1583 AD. The Spanish launched the Spanish Armada in 1588 AD, whose aim was to distract the English navy while a Spanish army in the Netherlands sailed across the channel to attack and seize the Protestant Queen Elizabeth, replacing her with a Catholic ruler. Despite only losing four ships in the conflict (two of which just ran aground), the attack failed as the army had not yet built its boats to cross the channel by the time the Armada showed up. The entire operation failed before it ever began. Nonetheless, the English viewed it as a great victory and claimed divine support for Protestantism. Fighting in Germany continued, leading to the outbreak of the Thirty Years War (1618-1648 AD). Initially begun as Protestant against Catholics, the social, familial, and national disputes added to the conflict as various princes focused more on expanding their own kingdoms than religion. The Holy Roman Emperor was fighting to maintain power among the other European monarchs. Cardinal Richelieu (of Three Musketeers fame) brought the French into the conflict for personal gains, and the English stayed out only sending a few Scottish regiments. The Swedish leader Gustavus Adolphus (1594-1632 AD) led the Protestants to several victories for five years before returning home to deal with domestic issues. The war was ended with the Peace Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 AD in which a congress of several leaders came together to determine the outcome, setting the precedent for modern international peace treaties and negotiations. The war settled little with regard to religion, but the length of the war turned the standard medieval militia armies into standing professional armies that were now returning home to be used by rulers to subdue their own people. This was one of the most influential political issues in the 17th and 18th centuries. This issue of standing armies combined with religious conflicts and power struggles caused the English Civil War between the King and Parliament (1642-1645 AD). Some of these issues also led to the Glorious Revolution in 1688 AD and even the American Revolution (1775-1783 AD). While the Reformation led to over a century of conflicts and wars, the people did not fight these conflicts because their religion instructed them to. Many of the conflicts had little to do with religion and only used religion to justify political, social, and material motivations for conflict. Further, religion, society, and government were not viewed as separate aspects of society; they were inherently linked together and impossible to separate. Those who fought for religion did not fight because the religion taught them to do so but because religion was the most important thing in their lives, and all societies fight for that which they value most. The Reformation and Modernity

Unit Lesson 8.1: The Reformation 13 The reformation was important for several reasons. Theologically, it was a break from medieval thought and brought new solutions to the many religious problems that had plagued medieval society for centuries. The Protestant emphasis on translating the Bible for all believers to read led to a significant increase in public education. By the end of the 16th century, most people outside of the peasantry were literate. This literacy allowed people to become involved not only in religious arguments but also social and political arguments, which was an important step towards modern democratic governments. Salvation through faith alone allowed one to gain salvation as an individual without the need for an institutional church. This began to change how people viewed individualism as well as the importance of community as a support for individuals. Martin Luther argued that salvation was available to all equally, since all were equally created in God’s image. While never directly stated by Luther or early Protestants, this sowed the seed for later concepts of equality and universal rights developed in the 1700s. This is seen in President Calvin Coolidge’s address celebrating the 150th anniversary of the creation of the Declaration of Independence. In its main features the Declaration of Independence is a great spiritual document. It is a declaration not of material but of spiritual conceptions. Equality, liberty, popular sovereignty, the rights of man — these are not elements which we can see and touch. They are ideals. They have their source and their roots in the religious convictions. They belong to the unseen world. Unless the faith of the American people in these religious convictions is to endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish. We cannot continue to enjoy the result if we neglect and abandon the cause.11 11 Calvin Coolidge, Address at the Celebration of the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.

Unit Lesson 8.1: The Reformation 14 References and Further Reading Berger, Georg. 1607. Execution. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MuensterHinrichtungTaeufer.jpg de Gheyn II, Jacques. 1587. Soldier with Arquebus. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jacques_de_Gheyn_II_after_Hendrik_Goltzius,_Soldier_with_Arquebus,_1587,_NGA_129850.jpg Ernio48. The Protestant Reformation. 2017. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Protestant_Reformation.svg Fae. A Private Papal Indulgence. 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_private_papal_indulgence._Colour_lithographs._Wellcome_V0035365.jpg Guicciardini, Francesco. The History of Italy. Translated by Sidney Alexander. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. Kittleson, James M. Luther the Reformer: The Story of the Man and is Career. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1986. Lindberg, Carter. The European Reformations. 2nd Edition. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 1996. Lucas Cranach the Elder. Portrait of Martin Luther [Painting]. 1528. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lucas_Cranach_d.%C3%84._-_Martin_Luther,_1528_(Veste_Coburg).jpg Luther, Martin. The Freedom of a Christian. Translated by Mark D. Tranvik. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008. MacCulloch, Diarmaid. The Later Reformation in England, 1547-1603. 2nd Edition. London: Palgrave, 1990. Oakley, Francis. The Western Church in the Later Middle Ages. London: Cornell University Press, 1979. Oberman, Heiko A. Luther: Man Between God and the Devil. Translated by Eileen Walliser-Schwarzbart. New York: Image Books, 1990. Pettegree, Andrew. Brand Luther. New York: Penguin Books, 2015. Shelley, Bruce L. Church History in Plain Language. 4th Edition. Dallas: Thomas Nelson, 2008.

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.