USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
I have 4 Essays and 4 Questions all essays must be atlease 1pg, MLA, Times New Roman,12in Font, 350 words or more. I will provide resources for each question I.E the READINGS. Due by tomorrow 12pm eastern standerd time. Kalamazoo, MI USA
I’ve attached the readings for each question. They are Labeld 1,2,3,4 and coninside with the questions below.
The questions are
1.) Edward Bulwer-Lytton said, “A reform is a correction of abuses; a revolution is a transfer of power.” In what ways was the “Protestant Reformation” a “transfer of power?” How was it a “correction of abuses?” Read 95 Thesis Martin Luther etc.
2.)According to your evaluation of these authors and others, do the supposed benefits of a monarchy outweigh the dangers involved with having a king?
3.) According to these selections, how are religion and science compatible? How do they conflict?
4.)What were some of the fundamental ways Imperialism affected ordinary Europeans? Did these effects change society at is core, or is it still the ‘same old Europe’?
|
M1.1 Reform vs. Revolution |
|
|
I nstructions: |
Read the following sources from the Reformation period and answer the question.
You should also consider the information gained from the textbook reading and the video.
Question: Edward Bulwer-Lytton said, “A reform is a correction of abuses; a revolution is a transfer of power.” In what ways was the “Protestant Reformation” a “transfer of power?” How was it a “correction of abuses?” 95 Theses – Martin Luther
Out of love and concern for the truth, and with the object of eliciting it, the following heads will be the subject of a public discussion at Wittenberg under the presidency of the reverend father, Martin Luther, Augustinian, Master of Arts and Sacred Theology, and duly appointed Lecturer on these subjects in that place. He requests that whoever cannot be present personally to debate the matter orally will do so in absence in writing. 1. When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said “Repent”, He called for the entire life of believers to be one of repentance. 2. The word cannot be properly understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, i.e. confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy. 3. Yet its meaning is not restricted to repentance in one’s heart; for such repentance is null unless it produces outward signs in various mortifications of the flesh. 4. As long as hatred of self abides (i.e. true inward repentance) the penalty of sin abides, viz., until we enter the kingdom of heaven. 5. The pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any penalties beyond those imposed either at his own discretion or by canon law. 6. The pope himself cannot remit guilt, but only declare and confirm that it has been remitted by God; or, at most, he can remit it in cases reserved to his discretion. Except for these cases, the guilt remains untouched. 7. God never remits guilt to anyone without, at the same time, making him humbly submissive to the priest, His representative. 8. The penitential canons apply only to men who are still alive, and, according to the canons themselves, none applies to the dead. 9. Accordingly, the Holy Spirit, acting in the person of the pope, manifests grace to us, by the fact that the papal regulations always cease to apply at death, or in any hard case. 10. It is a wrongful act, due to ignorance, when priests retain the canonical penalties on the dead in purgatory. 11. When canonical penalties were changed and made to apply to purgatory, surely it would seem that tares were sown while the bishops were asleep. 12. In former days, the canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before absolution was pronounced; and were intended to be tests of true contrition. 13. Death puts an end to all the claims of the Church; even the dying are already dead to the canon laws, and are no longer bound by them. 14. Defective piety or love in a dying person is necessarily accompanied by great fear, which is greatest where the piety or love is least. 15. This fear or horror is sufficient in itself, whatever else might be said, to constitute the pain of purgatory, since it approaches very closely to the horror of despair. 16. There seems to be the same difference between hell, purgatory, and heaven as between despair, uncertainty, and assurance. 17. Of a truth, the pains of souls in purgatory ought to be abated, and charity ought to be proportionately increased. 18. Moreover, it does not seem proved, on any grounds of reason or Scripture, that these souls are outside the state of merit, or unable to grow in grace. 19. Nor does it seem proved to be always the case that they are certain and assured of salvation, even if we are very certain ourselves. 20. Therefore the pope, in speaking of the plenary remission of all penalties, does not mean “all” in the strict sense, but only those imposed by himself. 21. Hence those who preach indulgences are in error when they say that a man is absolved and saved from every penalty by the pope’s indulgences. 22. Indeed, he cannot remit to souls in purgatory any penalty which canon law declares should be suffered in the present life. 23. If plenary remission could be granted to anyone at all, it would be only in the cases of the most perfect, i.e. to very few. 24. It must therefore be the case that the major part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of relief from penalty. 25. The same power as the pope exercises in general over purgatory is exercised in particular by every single bishop in his bishopric and priest in his parish. 26. The pope does excellently when he grants remission to the souls in purgatory on account of intercessions made on their behalf, and not by the power of the keys (which he cannot exercise for them). 27. There is no divine authority for preaching that the soul flies out of the purgatory immediately the money clinks in the bottom of the chest. 28. It is certainly possible that when the money clinks in the bottom of the chest avarice and greed increase; but when the church offers intercession, all depends in the will of God. 29. Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed in view of what is said of St. Severinus and St. Pascal? (Note: Paschal I, pope 817-24. The legend is that he and Severinus were willing to endure the pains of purgatory for the benefit of the faithful). 30. No one is sure of the reality of his own contrition, much less of receiving plenary forgiveness. 31. One who bona fide buys indulgence is a rare as a bona fide penitent man, i.e. very rare indeed. 32. All those who believe themselves certain of their own salvation by means of letters of indulgence, will be eternally damned, together with their teachers. 33. We should be most carefully on our guard against those who say that the papal indulgences are an inestimable divine gift, and that a man is reconciled to God by them. 34. For the grace conveyed by these indulgences relates simply to the penalties of the sacramental “satisfactions” decreed merely by man. 35. It is not in accordance with Christian doctrines to preach and teach that those who buy off souls, or purchase confessional licenses, have no need to repent of their own sins. 36. Any Christian whatsoever, who is truly repentant, enjoys plenary remission from penalty and guilt, and this is given him without letters of indulgence. 37. Any true Christian whatsoever, living or dead, participates in all the benefits of Christ and the Church; and this participation is granted to him by God without letters of indulgence. 38. Yet the pope’s remission and dispensation are in no way to be despised, for, as already said, they proclaim the divine remission. 39. It is very difficult, even for the most learned theologians, to extol to the people the great bounty contained in the indulgences, while, at the same time, praising contrition as a virtue. 40. A truly contrite sinner seeks out, and loves to pay, the penalties of his sins; whereas the very multitude of indulgences dulls men’s consciences, and tends to make them hate the penalties. 41. Papal indulgences should only be preached with caution, lest people gain a wrong understanding, and think that they are preferable to other good works: those of love. 42. Christians should be taught that the pope does not at all intend that the purchase of indulgences should be understood as at all comparable with the works of mercy. 43. Christians should be taught that one who gives to the poor, or lends to the needy, does a better action than if he purchases indulgences. 44. Because, by works of love, love grows and a man becomes a better man; whereas, by indulgences, he does not become a better man, but only escapes certain penalties. 45. Christians should be taught that he who sees a needy person, but passes him by although he gives money for indulgences, gains no benefit from the pope’s pardon, but only incurs the wrath of God. 46. Christians should be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they are bound to retain what is only necessary for the upkeep of their home, and should in no way squander it on indulgences. 47. Christians should be taught that they purchase indulgences voluntarily, and are not under obligation to do so. 48. Christians should be taught that, in granting indulgences, the pope has more need, and more desire, for devout prayer on his own behalf than for ready money. 49. Christians should be taught that the pope’s indulgences are useful only if one does not rely on them, but most harmful if one loses the fear of God through them. 50. Christians should be taught that, if the pope knew the exactions of the indulgence-preachers, he would rather the church of St. Peter were reduced to ashes than be built with the skin, flesh, and bones of the sheep. 51. Christians should be taught that the pope would be willing, as he ought if necessity should arise, to sell the church of St. Peter, and give, too, his own money to many of those from whom the pardon-merchants conjure money. 52. It is vain to rely on salvation by letters of indulgence, even if the commissary, or indeed the pope himself, were to pledge his own soul for their validity. 53. Those are enemies of Christ and the pope who forbid the word of God to be preached at all in some churches, in order that indulgences may be preached in others. 54. The word of God suffers injury if, in the same sermon, an equal or longer time is devoted to indulgences than to that word. 55. The pope cannot help taking the view that if indulgences (very small matters) are celebrated by one bell, one pageant, or one ceremony, the gospel (a very great matter) should be preached to the accompaniment of a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies. 56. The treasures of the church, out of which the pope dispenses indulgences, are not sufficiently spoken of or known among the people of Christ. 57. That these treasures are not temporal are clear from the fact that many of the merchants do not grant them freely, but only collect them. 58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the saints, because, even apart from the pope, these merits are always working grace in the inner man, and working the cross, death, and hell in the outer man. 59. St. Laurence said that the poor were the treasures of the church, but he used the term in accordance with the custom of his own time. 60. We do not speak rashly in saying that the treasures of the church are the keys of the church, and are bestowed by the merits of Christ. 61. For it is clear that the power of the pope suffices, by itself, for the remission of penalties and reserved cases. 62. The true treasure of the church is the Holy gospel of the glory and the grace of God. 63. It is right to regard this treasure as most odious, for it makes the first to be the last. 64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is most acceptable, for it makes the last to be the first. 65. Therefore the treasures of the gospel are nets which, in former times, they used to fish for men of wealth. 66. The treasures of the indulgences are the nets which to-day they use to fish for the wealth of men. 67. The indulgences, which the merchants extol as the greatest of favours, are seen to be, in fact, a favourite means for money-getting. 68. Nevertheless, they are not to be compared with the grace of God and the compassion shown in the Cross. 69. Bishops and curates, in duty bound, must receive the commissaries of the papal indulgences with all reverence. 70. But they are under a much greater obligation to watch closely and attend carefully lest these men preach their own fancies instead of what the pope commissioned. 71. Let him be anathema and accursed who denies the apostolic character of the indulgences. 72. On the other hand, let him be blessed who is on his guard against the wantonness and license of the pardon-merchant’s words. 73. In the same way, the pope rightly excommunicates those who make any plans to the detriment of the trade in indulgences. 74. It is much more in keeping with his views to excommunicate those who use the pretext of indulgences to plot anything to the detriment of holy love and truth. 75. It is foolish to think that papal indulgences have so much power that they can absolve a man even if he has done the impossible and violated the mother of God. 76. We assert the contrary, and say that the pope’s pardons are not able to remove the least venial of sins as far as their guilt is concerned. 77. When it is said that not even St. Peter, if he were now pope, could grant a greater grace, it is blasphemy against St. Peter and the pope. 78. We assert the contrary, and say that he, and any pope whatever, possesses greater graces, viz., the gospel, spiritual powers, gifts of healing, etc., as is declared in I Corinthians 12 [:28]. 79. It is blasphemy to say that the insignia of the cross with the papal arms are of equal value to the cross on which Christ died. 80. The bishops, curates, and theologians, who permit assertions of that kind to be made to the people without let or hindrance, will have to answer for it. 81. This unbridled preaching of indulgences makes it difficult for learned men to guard the respect due to the pope against false accusations, or at least from the keen criticisms of the laity. 82. They ask, e.g.: Why does not the pope liberate everyone from purgatory for the sake of love (a most holy thing) and because of the supreme necessity of their souls? This would be morally the best of all reasons. Meanwhile he redeems innumerable souls for money, a most perishable thing, with which to build St. Peter’s church, a very minor purpose. 83. Again: Why should funeral and anniversary masses for the dead continue to be said? And why does not the pope repay, or permit to be repaid, the benefactions instituted for these purposes, since it is wrong to pray for those souls who are now redeemed? 84. Again: Surely this is a new sort of compassion, on the part of God and the pope, when an impious man, an enemy of God, is allowed to pay money to redeem a devout soul, a friend of God; while yet that devout and beloved soul is not allowed to be redeemed without payment, for love’s sake, and just because of its need of redemption. 85. Again: Why are the penitential canon laws, which in fact, if not in practice, have long been obsolete and dead in themselves,—why are they, to-day, still used in imposing fines in money, through the granting of indulgences, as if all the penitential canons were fully operative? 86. Again: since the pope’s income to-day is larger than that of the wealthiest of wealthy men, why does he not build this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of indigent believers? 87. Again: What does the pope remit or dispense to people who, by their perfect repentance, have a right to plenary remission or dispensation? 88. Again: Surely a greater good could be done to the church if the pope were to bestow these remissions and dispensations, not once, as now, but a hundred times a day, for the benefit of any believer whatever. 89. What the pope seeks by indulgences is not money, but rather the salvation of souls; why then does he suspend the letters and indulgences formerly conceded, and still as efficacious as ever? 90. These questions are serious matters of conscience to the laity. To suppress them by force alone, and not to refute them by giving reasons, is to expose the church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christian people unhappy. 91. If therefore, indulgences were preached in accordance with the spirit and mind of the pope, all these difficulties would be easily overcome, and indeed, cease to exist. 92. Away, then, with those prophets who say to Christ’s people, “Peace, peace,” where in there is no peace. 93. Hail, hail to all those prophets who say to Christ’s people, “The cross, the cross,” where there is no cross. 94. Christians should be exhorted to be zealous to follow Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hells. 95. And let them thus be more confident of entering heaven through many tribulations rather than through a false assurance of peace.
“Here I Stand” – Martin Luther’s Speech at the Diet of Worms [Dr. Ecken:] . . . Do you wish to defend the books which are recognized as your work? Or to retract anything contained in them? . . . [Luther:] Most Serene Lord Emperor, Most Illustrious Princes, Most Gracious Lords . . . I beseech you to grant a gracious hearing to my plea, which, I trust, will be a plea of justice and truth; and if through my inexperience I neglect to give to any their proper titles or in any way offend against the etiquette of the court in my manners or behavior, be kind enough to forgive me, I beg, since I am a man who has spent his life not in courts but in the cells of a monastery; a man who can say of himself only this, that to this day I have thought and written in simplicity of heart, solely with a view to the glory of God and the pure instruction of Christ’s faithful people. . . . . . . Your Imperial Majesty and Your Lordships: I ask you to observe that my books are not all of the same kind. There are some in which I have dealt with piety in faith and morals with such simplicity and so agreeably with the Gospels that my adversaries themselves are compelled to admit them useful, harmless, and clearly worth reading by a Christian. Even the Bull, harsh and cruel though it is, makes some of my books harmless, although it condemns them also, by a judgment downright monstrous. If I should begin to recant here, what, I beseech you, would I be doing but condemning alone among mortals, that truth which is admitted by friends and foes alike, in an unaided struggle against universal consent? The second kind consists in those writings leveled against the papacy and the doctrine of the papists, as against those who by their wicked doctrines and precedents have laid waste Christendom by doing harm to the souls and the bodies of men. No one can either deny or conceal this, for universal experience and world-wide grievances are witnesses to the fact that through the Pope’s laws and through man-made teachings the consciences of the faithful have been most pitifully ensnared, troubled, and racked in torment, and also that their goods and possessions have been devoured (especially amongst this famous German nation) by unbelievable tyranny, and are to this day being devoured without end in shameful fashion; and that thought they themselves by their own laws take care to provide that the Pope’s laws and doctrines which are contrary to the Gospel or the teachings of the Fathers are to be considered as erroneous and reprobate. If then I recant these, the only effect will be to add strength to such tyranny, to open not the windows but the main doors to such blasphemy, which will thereupon stalk farther and more widely than it has hitherto dared. . . . The third kind consists of those books which I have written against private individuals, so-called; against those, that is, who have exerted themselves in defense of the Roman tyranny and to the overthrow of that piety which I have taught. I confess that I have been more harsh against them than befits my religious vows and my profession. For I do not make myself out to be any kind of saint, nor am I now contending about my conduct but about Christian doctrine. But it is not in my power to recant them, because that recantation would give that tyranny and blasphemy and occasion to lord it over those whom I defend and to rage against God’s people more violently than ever. However, since I am a man and not God, I cannot provide my writings with any other defense than that which my Lord Jesus Christ provided for His teaching. When He had been interrogated concerning His teaching before Annas and had received a buffet from a servant, He said: “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil.” If the Lord Himself, who knew that He could not err, did not refuse to listen to witness against His teaching, even from a worthless slave, how much more ought I, scum that I am, capable of naught but error, to seek and to wait for any who may wish to bear witness against my teaching. And so, through the mercy of God, I ask Your Imperial Majesty, and Your Illustrious Lordships, or anyone of any degree, to defeat them by the writings of the Prophets or by the Gospels; for I shall be most ready, if I be better instructed, to recant any error, and I shall be the first in casting my writings into the fire. . . . Thereupon the Orator of the Empire, in a tone of upbraiding, said that his [Luther’s] answer was not to the point, and that there should be no calling into question of matters on which condemnations and decisions had before been passed by Councils. He was being asked for a plain reply, without subtlety or sophistry, to this question: Was he prepared to recant, or no? Luther then replied: Your Imperial Majesty and Your Lordships demand a simple answer. Here it is, plain and unvarnished. Unless I am convicted [convinced] of error by the testimony of Scripture or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning, I stand convicted [convinced] by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God’s word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us. On this I take my stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen. The following text and translation is from H.C. Bettenson’s 1903 Documents of the Christian Church and based on Martin Luther’s Opera Latina (Frankfurt, 1865-73). Available at http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~rhetoric/luther.htm The Council of Trent: Profession of Faith of the Catholic Church
I, , with a firm faith believe and profess each and everything which is contained in the Creed which the Holy Roman Church makes use of. That is: I believe in one God, The Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God. Born of the Father before all ages. God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God. Begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father. By Whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And became incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the V irgin Mary: and was made man. He was also crucified for us, suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was buried. And on the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and His kingdom will have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son. Who together with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, and Who spoke through the prophets. And one holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I expect the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen. I most steadfastly admit and embrace Apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions, and all other observances and constitutions of the Church. I also admit the Holy Scripture according to that sense which our holy mother the Church has held, and does hold, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretations of the Scriptures. Neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. I also profess that there are truly and properly Seven Sacraments of the New Law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary for the salvation of mankind, though not all for every one; that is: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, and Matrimony; and that they confer grace; and that of these, Baptism, Confirmation, and Orders cannot be reiterated without sacrilege. I also receive and admit the received and approved ceremonies of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of the aforesaid sacraments. I embrace and receive all and every one of the things which have been defined and declared in the holy Council of Trent concerning original sin and justification. I profess, likewise, that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially, the Body and Blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, which conversion the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation. I also confess that under either kind alone Christ is received whole and entire, and a true sacrament. I constantly hold that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls therein detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful. Likewise, that the saints, reigning together with Christ, are to be honored and invoked, and that they offer prayers to God for us, and that their relics are to be venerated. I most firmly assert that the images of Christ, of the Mother of God, ever virgin, and also of other Saints, ought to be had and retained, and that due honor and veneration is to be given them. I also affirm that the power of indulgences was left by Christ in the Church, and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people. I acknowledge the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church as the mother and mistress of all churches; and I promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ. I likewise undoubtedly receive and profess all other things delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred Canons, and general Councils, and particularly by the holy Council of Trent. I condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto, and all heresies which the Church has condemned, rejected, and anathematized. This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved, which I now freely profess and to which I truly adhere, inviolate and with firm constancy until the last breath of life, I do so profess and swear to maintain with the help of God. And I shall strive, as far as possible, that this same faith shall be held, taught, and professed by all those over whom I have charge. I, , do so pledge, promise, and swear, so help me God and these Holy Gospels.
Council of Trent – List of Prohibited Books TEN RULES CONCERNING PROHIBITED BOOKS DRAWN UP BY THE FATHERS CHOSEN BY THE COUNCIL OF TRENT AND APPROVED BY POPE PIUS[1] I All books which have been condemned either by the supreme pontiffs or by ecumenical councils before the year 1515 and are not contained in this list, shall be considered condemned in the same manner as they were formerly condemned. II The books of those heresiarchs, who after the aforesaid year originated or revived heresies, as well as of those who are or have been the heads or leaders of heretics, as Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Balthasar Friedberg, Schwenkfeld, and others like these, whatever may be their name, title or nature of their heresy, are absolutely forbidden. The books of other heretics, however, which deal professedly with religion are absolutely condemned. Those on the other hand, which do not deal with religion and have by order of the bishops and inquisitors been examined by Catholic theologians and approved by them, are permitted. Likewise, Catholic books written by those who afterward fell into heresy, as well as by those who after their fall returned to the bosom of the Church, may be permitted if they have been approved by the theological faculty of a Catholic university or by the general inquisition. III The translations of writers, also ecclesiastical, which have till now been edited by condemned authors, are permitted provided they contain nothing contrary to sound doctrine. Translations of the books of the Old Testament may in the judgment of the bishop be permitted to learned and pious men only, provided such translations are used only as elucidations of the Vulgate Edition for the understanding of the Holy Scriptures and not as the sound text. Translations of the New Testament made by authors of the first class of this list shall be permitted to no one, since great danger and little usefulness usually results to readers from their perusal. But if with such translations as are permitted or with the Vulgate Edition some annotations are circulated, these may also, after the suspected passages have been expunged by the theological faculty of some Catholic university or by the general inquisition, be permitted to those to whom the translations are permitted. Under these circumstances the entire volume of the Sacred Books, which is commonly called the IV Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them. V Those books which sometimes produce the works of heretical authors, in which these add little or nothing of their own but rather collect therein the sayings of others, as lexicons, concordances, apothegms, parables, tables of contents and such like, are permitted if whatever needs to be eliminated in the additions is removed and corrected in accordance with the suggestions of the bishop, the inquisitor and Catholic theologians. VI Books which deal in the vernacular with the controversies between Catholics and heretics of our time may not be permitted indiscriminately, but the same is to be observed with regard to them what has been decreed concerning Bibles written in the vernacular. There is no reason, however, why those should be prohibited which have been written in the vernacular for the purpose of pointing out the right way to live, to contemplate, to confess, and similar purposes, if they contain sound doctrine, just as popular sermons in the vernacular are not prohibited. But if hitherto in some kingdom or province certain books have been prohibited because they contained matter the reading of which would be of no benefit to all indiscriminately, these may, if their authors are Catholic, be permitted by the bishop and inquisitor after they have been corrected. VII Books which professedly deal with, narrate or teach things lascivious or obscene are absolutely prohibited, since not only the matter of faith but also that of morals, which are usually easily corrupted through the reading of such books, must be taken into consideration, and those who possess them are to be severely punished by the bishops. Ancient books written by heathens may by reason of their elegance and quality of style be permitted, but may by no means be read to children. VIII Books whose chief contents are good but in which some things have incidentally been inserted which have reference to heresy, ungodliness, divination or superstition, may be permitted if by the authority of the general inquisition they have been purged by Catholic theologians. The same decision holds good with regard to prefaces, summaries or annotations which are added by condemned authors to books not condemned. Hereafter, however, these shall not be printed till they have been corrected. I X All books and writings dealing with geomancy, hydromancy, aeromancy, pyromancy, oneiromancy, chiromancy, necromancy, or with sortilege, mixing of poisons, augury, auspices, sorcery, magic arts, are absolutely repudiated. The bishops shall diligently see to it that books, treatises, catalogues determining destiny by astrology, which in the matter of future events, consequences, or fortuitous occurrences, or of actions that depend on the human will, attempt to affirm something as certain to take place, are not read or possessed.[2] Permitted, on the other hand, are the opinions and natural observations which have been written in the interest of navigation, agriculture or the medical art. X In the printing of books or other writings is to be observed what was decreed in the tenth session of the Lateran Council under Leo X.[3] Wherefore, if in the fair city of Rome any book is to be printed, it shall first be examined by the vicar of the supreme pontiff and by the Master of the Sacred Palace or by the persons appointed by our most holy Lord. In other localities this approbation and examination shall pertain to the bishop or to one having a knowledge of the book or writing to be printed appointed by the bishop and to the inquisitor of the city or diocese in which the printing is done, and it shall be approved by the signature of their own hand, free of charge and without delay under the penalties and censures contained in the same decree, with the observance of this rule and condition that an authentic copy of the book to be printed, undersigned by the author’s hand, remain with the examiner. Those who circulate books in manuscript form before they have been examined and approved, shall in the judgment of the Fathers delegated by the council be subject to the same penalties as the printers, and those who possess and read them shall, unless they make known the authors, be themselves regarded as the authors. The approbation of such books shall be given in writing and must appear authentically in the front of the written or printed book and the examination, approbation and other things must be done free of charge. Moreover, in all cities and dioceses the houses or places where the art of printing is carried on and the libraries offering books for sale, shall be visited often by persons appointed for this purpose by the bishop or his vicar and also by the inquisitor, so that nothing that is prohibited be printed, sold or possessed. All book-dealers and venders of books shall have in their libraries a list of the books which they have for sale subscribed by the said persons, and without the permission of the same appointed persons they may not under penalties of confiscation of the books and other penalties to be imposed in the judgment of the bishops and inquisitors, possess or sell or in any other manner whatsoever supply other books. Venders, readers and printers shall be punished according to the judgment of the same. If anyone brings into any city any books whatsoever he shall be bound to give notice thereof to the same delegated persons, or in case a public place is provided for wares of that kind, then the public officials of that place shall notify the aforesaid persons that books have been brought in. But let no one dare give to anyone a book to read which he himself or another has brought into the city or in any way dispose of or loan it, unless he has first exhibited the book and obtained the permission of the persons appointed, or unless it is well known that the reading of the book is permitted to all. The same shall be observed by heirs and executors of last wills, so, namely, that they exhibit the books left by those deceased, or a list of them, to the persons delegated and obtain from them permission before they use them or in any way transfer them to other persons. In each and all of such cases let a penalty be prescribed, covering either the confiscation of books or in the judgment of the bishops or inquisitors another that is in keeping with the degree of the contumacy or the character of the offense. With reference to those books which the delegated Fathers have examined and expurgated or have caused to be expurgated, or under certain conditions have permitted to be printed again, the book-dealers as well as others shall observe whatever is known to have been prescribed by them. The bishops and general inquisitors, however, in view of the authority which they have, are free to prohibit even those books which appear to be permitted by these rules, if they should deem this advisable in their kingdoms, provinces or dioceses. Moreover, the secretary of those delegated has by order of our most holy Lord [the pope] to hand over in writing to the notary of the holy universal Roman inquisition the names of the books which have been expurgated by the delegated Fathers as well as the names of those to whom they committed this task. Finally, all the faithful are commanded not to presume to read or possess any books contrary to the prescriptions of these rules or the prohibition of this list. And if anyone should read or possess books by heretics or writings by any author condemned and prohibited by reason of heresy or suspicion of false teaching, he incurs immediately the sentence of excommunication. He, on the other hand, who reads or possesses books prohibited under another name shall, besides incurring the guilt of mortal sin, be severely punished according to the judgment of the bishops. From Modern History Sourcebook, Fordham University |
|
M1.2 Monarchy or no Monarchy? |
|
|
Instructions: |
Read the following sources and answer the question in a complete manner.
You should reference information gained in the textbook readings and in the video. Question: According to your evaluation of these authors and others, do the supposed benefits of a monarchy outweigh the dangers involved with having a king? Hobbes – Leviathan Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan (1651) [extract] NOTE: In the section just before this extract, English philosopher Hobbes has tried to prove that human life in the state of nature is “nasty, brutish, and short”: without some sort of restraining authority, all men are constantly at war with each other. Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of War, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently no Culture of the Earth, no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea, no commodious Building, no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force, no Knowledge of the face of the Earth, no account of Time, no Arts, no Letters, no Society, and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short . . . The Passions that incline men to Peace, are Fear of Death, Desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living, and a Hope by their Industry to obtain them. And Reason suggesteth convenient Articles of Peace, upon which men may be drawn to agreement . . . And because the condition of Man, (as hath been declared in the precedent Chapter) is a condition of Warre of everyone against everyone; in which case everyone is governed by his own Reason, and there is nothing he can make use of, that may not be a help unto him, in preserving his life against his enemies; It followeth that, in such a condition, every man has a Right to every thing–even to one another’s body. And therefore, as long as this natural Right of every man to everything endureth, there can be no security to any man, (how strong or wise soever he be) of living out the time, which Nature ordinarily alloweth men to live . . . . . . If there be no Power erected, or not great enough for our security, every man will and may lawfully rely on his own strength and art, for caution against all other men . . . The only way to erect . . . a Common Power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of [foreigners] and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort, as that by their own industry, and by the fruits of the Earth, they may nourish themselves and live contentedly is, to confer all their power and strength upon one Man, or upon one Assembly of men, that may reduce all their Wills, by plurality of voices, unto one Will . . . and therein to submit their Wills, every one to his Will, and their judgments, to his judgment. This is more than Consent, or Concord; it is a real Unity of them all, in one and the same Person, made by Covenant of every man with every man, in such manner, as if every man should say to every man, I Authorize and give up my Right of Governing myself to this Man, or to this Assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy Right to him, and Authorize all his Actions in like manner. This done, the Multitude so united in one Person, is called a COMMONWEALTH . . . For by this Authority, given him by every particular man in the Commonwealth, he hath the use of so much Power and Strength … conferred on him, that by terror thereof, he is enabled to form the wills of them all, to Peace at home, and mutual [aid] against their enemies abroad. And in him consisteth the Essence of the Commonwealth; which (to define it) is One Person, of whose Acts a great Multitude, by mutual Covenants one with another, have made themselves everyone the Author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their Peace and Common Defense. And he that carryeth this Person, is called SOVEREIGN, and said to have Sovereign Power; and everyone besides, his SUBJECT . . . . . . They that have already Instituted a Commonwealth, being thereby bound by Covenant . . . cannot lawfully make a new Covenant, amongst themselves, to be obedient to any other, in anything whatsoever, without his permission. And therefore, they that are subjects to a Monarch cannot, without his leave, cast off Monarchy and return to the confusion of a disunited Multitude; nor transfer their Person from him that beareth it to another Man, or other Assembly of men for they . . . are bound, every man to every man, to [acknowledge] . . . that he that already is their Sovereign, shall do, and judge fit to be done, so that [those who do not obey] break their Covenant made to that man, which is injustice; and they have also every man given the Sovereignty to him that beareth their Person, and therefore if they depose him, they take from him that which is his own, and so again it is injustice . . . And whereas some men have pretended for their disobedience to their Soveraign, a new Covenant, made, not with men, but with God, this also is unjust. For there is no Covenant with God, but by mediation of some body that representeth God’s Person, which none doth but God’s Lieutenant, who hath the Soveraignty under God. But this pretence of Covenant with God is so evident a [lie], even in the pretenders own consciences, that it is not only an act of an unjust, but also of a vile and unmanly disposition . . . . . . Consequently none of [the sovereign’s] Subjects, by any pretence of forfeiture, can be freed from his Subjection. Source: http://campus.northpark.edu/history//Classes/Sources/Hobbes.html Thomas Macauley: from History of England, Volume I (London: D. Appleton and Co., 1880), pp. 90-95. And now a new and alarming class of symptoms began to appear in the distempered body politic. There had been, from the first, in the parliamentary party, some men whose minds were set on objects from which the majority of that party would have shrunk with horror. These men were, in religion, Independents. They conceived that every Christian congregation had, under Christ, supreme jurisdiction in things spiritual; that appeals to provincial and national synods were scarcely less unscriptural than appeals to the Court of Arches, or to the Vatican: and that Popery, Prelacy, and Presbyterianism were merely three forins of one great apostasy. In politics they were, to use the phrase of their time, root and branch men, or, to use the kindred phrase of our own time, radicals. Not content with limiting the power of the monarch, they were desirous to erect a commonwealth on the ruins of the old English polity. At first they had been inconsiderable, both in numbers and in weight; but, before the war had lasted two years, they became, not indeed the largest, but the most powerful faction in the country. Some of the old parliamentary leaders had been removed by death; and others had forfeited the public confidence. Pym had been borne, with princely honors, to a grave among the Plantagenets. Hampden had fallen, as became him, while vainly endeavoring, by his heroic example, to inspire his followers with courage to face the fiery cavalry of Rupert. Bedford had been untrue to the cause. Northumberland was known to be lukewarm. Essex and his lieutenants had shown little vigor and ability in the conduct of military operations. At such a conjuncture it was that the Independent party, ardent, resolute, and uncompromising, began to raise its head, both in the camp and in the parliament. The soul of that party was Oliver Cromwell. Bred to peaceful occupations, he had, at more than forty years of age, accepted a commission in the parliamentary army. No sooner had he become a soldier, than he discerned, with the keen glance of genius, what Essex and men like Essex, with all their experience, were unable to perceive. He saw precisely where the strength of the royalists lay, and by what means alone that strength could be overpowered. He saw that it was necessary to reconstruct the army of the parliament. He saw, also, that there were abundant and excellent materials for the purpose; materials less showy, indeed, but more solid, than those of which the gallant squadrons of the king were composed. It was necessary to look for recruits who were not mere mercenaries, – for recruits of decent station and grave character, fearing God and zealous for public liberty. With such men he filled his own regiment, and, while he subjected them to a discipline more rigid than had ever before been known in England, he administered to their intellectual and moral nature stimulants of fearful potency. The events of the year 1644 fully proved the superiority of his abilities. In the south, where Essex held the command, the parliamentary forces underwent a succession of shameful disasters; but in the north the victory of Marston Moor fully compensated for all that had been lost elsewhere. That victory was not a more serious blow to the royalists than to the party which had hitherto been dominant at Westminster; for it was notorious that the day, disgracefully lost by the Presbyterians, had been retrieved by the energy of Cromwell, and by the steady valor of the warriors whom he had trained. These events produced the self-denying ordinance and the new model of the army. Under decorous pretexts, and with every mark of respect, Essex and most of those who had held high posts under him were removed; and the conduct of the war was intrusted to very different hands. Fairfax, a brave soldier, but of mean understanding and irresolute temper, was the nominal lord-general of the forces; but Cromwell was their real head. Cromwell made haste to organize the whole army on the same principles on which he had organized his own regiment. As soon as this process was complete, the event of the war was decided. The Cavaliers had now to encounter natural courage equal to their own, enthusiasm stronger than their own, and discipline such as was utterly wanting to them. It soon became a proverb that the soldiers of Fairfax and Cromwell were men of a different breed from the soldiers of Essex. At Naseby took place the first great encounter between the royalists and the remodelled army of the Houses. The victory of the Roundheads was complete and decisive. It was followed by other triumphs in rapid succession. In a few months, the authority of the parliament was fully established over the whole kingdom. Charles fled to the Scots, and was by them, in a manner which did not much exalt their national character, delivered up to his English subjects. While the event of the war was still doubtful, the Houses had put the primate to death, had interdicted, within the sphere of their authority, the use of the liturgy, and had required all men to subscribe that renowned instrument, known by the name of the Solemn League and Covenant. When the struggle was over, the work of innovation and revenge was pushed on with still greater ardor. The ecclesiastical polity of the kingdom was remodelled. Most of the old clergy were ejected from their benefices. Fines, often of ruinous amount, were laid on the royalists, already impoverished by large aids furnished to the king. Many estates were confiscated. Many proscribed Cavaliers found it expedient to purchase, at an enormous cost, the protection of eminent members of the victorious party. Large domains belonging to the crown, to the bishops, and to the chapters, were seized, and either granted away or put up to auction. In consequence of these spoliations, a great part of the soil of England was at once offered for sale. As money was scarce, as the market was glutted, as the title was insecure, and as the awe inspired by powerful bidders prevented free competition, the prices were often merely nominal. Thus many old and honorable families disappeared and were heard of no more; and many new men rose rapidly to affluence. But, while the Houses were employing their authority thus, it suddenly passed out of their hands. It had been obtained by calling into existence a power which could not be controlled. In the summer of 1647, about twelve months after the last fortress of the Cavaliers had submitted to the parliament, the parliament was compelled to submit to its own soldiers. Thirteen years followed, during which England was, under various names and forms, really governed by the sword. Never, before that time, or since that time, was the civil power in our country subjected to military dictation. The army which now became supreme in the state was an army very different from any that has since been seen among us. At present, the pay of the common soldier is not such as can seduce any but the humblest class of English laborers from their calling. A barrier almost impassable separates him from the commissioned officer. The great majority of those who rise high in the service rise by purchase. So numerous and extensive are the remote dependencies of England, that every man who enlists in the line must expect to pass many years in exile, and some years in climates unfavorable to the health and vigor of the European race. The army of the Long Parliament was raised for home service. The pay of the private soldier was much above the wages earned by the great body of the people; and, if he distinguished himself by intelligence and courage, he might hope to attain high commands. The ranks were accordingly composed of persons superior in station and education to the multitude. These persons, sober, moral, diligent, and accustomed to reflect, had been induced to take up arms, not by the pressure of want, not by the love of novelty and license, not by the arts of recruiting officers, but by religious and political zeal, mingled with the desire of distinction and promotion. The boast of the soldiers, as we find it recorded in their solemn resolutions, was, that they had not been forced into the service, nor had enlisted chiefly for the sake of lucre; that they were no janizaries, but free-born Englishmen, who had, of their own accord, put their lives in jeopardy for the liberties and religion of England, and whose right and duty it was to watch over the welfare of the nation which they had saved. A force thus composed that, without injury to its efficiency, be indulged in some liberties which, if allowed to any other troops, would have proved subversive of all discipline. In general, soldiers who should form themselves into political clubs, elect delegates. and pass resolutions on high questions of state, would soon break loose from all control, would come to form an army, and would become the worst and most dangerous of mobs. Nor would it be safe, in our time, to tolerate in any regiment religious meetings, at which a corporal versed in Scripture should lead the devotions of his less gifted colonel, and admonish a backsliding major. But such was the intelligence, the gravity, and the self-command of the warriors whom Cromwell had trained, that in their camp a political organization and a religious organization could exist without destroying military organization. The same men, who, off-duty, were noted as demagogues and field-preachers, were distinguished by steadiness, by the spirit of order, and by prompt obedience on watch, on drill, and on the field of battle. In war this strange force was irresistible. The stubborn courage characteristic of the English people was, by the system of Cromwell, at once regulated and stimulated. Other leaders have maintained order as strict. Other leaders have inspired their followers with a zeal as ardent. But in his camp alone the most rigid discipline was found in company with the fiercest enthusiasm. His troops moved to victory with the precision of machines, while burning with the wildest fanaticism of crusaders. From the time when the army was remodelled to the time when it was disbanded, it never found, either in the British Islands, or on the Continent, an enemy who could stand its onset. In England, Scotland, Ireland, Flanders, the Puritan warriors, often surrounded by difficulties, sometimes contending against threefold odds, not only never failed to conquer, but never failed to destroy and break in pieces whatever force was opposed to them. They at length came to regard the day of battle as a day of certain triumph and march against the most renowned battalions of Europe with disdainful confidence. Turenne was startled by the shout of stern exultation with which his English allies advanced to the combat, and expressed the delight of a true soldier when he learned that it was ever the fashion of Cromwell’s pikemen to rejoice greatly when they beheld the enemy; and the banished Cavaliers felt an emotion of national pride, when they saw a brigade of their countrymen, outnumbered by foes and abandoned by allies, dive before it in headlong rout the finest infantry of Spain, and force a passage into a countersearp which had just been pronounced impregnable by the ablest of the marshals of France. But that which chiefly distinguished the army of Cromwell from other armies was the austere morality and the fear of God which pervaded all ranks. It is acknowledged by the most zealous royalists that, in that singular camp, no oath was heard, no drunkenness or gambling was seen, and that, during the long dominion of the soldiery, the property of the peaceable citizen and the honor of woman were held sacred. If outrages were committed, they were outrages of a very different kind from those of which a victorious army is generally guilty. No servant girl complained of the rough gallantry of the redcoats. Not an ounce of plate was taken from the shops of the goldsmiths. But a Pelagian sermon, or a window on which the Virgin and Child were painted, produced in the Puritan ranks an excitement which it required the utmost exertions of the officers to quell. One of Cromwell’s chief difficulties was to restrain he pikemen and dragoons from invading by main force the pulpits of ministers whose discourses, to use the language of that time, were not savory; and too many of our cathedrals still bear the marks of the hatred with which those stern spirits regarded every vestige of Popery.
Source: Thomas Macauley: from History of England, Volume I (London: D. Appleton and Co., 1880), pp. 90-95.
A rebellion by French nobles and officials of the Paris Parliament or law court, called the Fronde, threatened the early reign of Louis XIV (r. 1643-1715) from 1648 to1653. In 1661, when Louis XIV reached adulthood and assumed full powers as king, he embarked on a program designed to strengthen and centralize royal power in France, using the political theory of divine right as the basis for his authority. In this work published in 1709, Jacques-Benigne Bossuet (1627-1704), a biblical scholar and a Catholic Bishop, outlined this theory of divine right kingship. Bossuet argued that monarchy was the best form of government, that the ruler’s political authority was “absolute,” and that his authority came directly from God. He used passages from the Bible to support and illustrate his points. He wrote this treatise from 1677-1679 and published it in 1709. Source: Jacques-Benigne Bossuet. Politics drawn from the Very Words of Holy Scripture, ed. and trans. by Patrick Riley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 57-62. First Article A Foreign Traveler in Russia (early 17th c.) Adan Olearius
Adan Olearius. 1972. A Source Book for Russian History. Edited by G. Vernadsky and R. T. Fisher, Jr. Yale University Press. To Europeans, seventeenth-century Russia seemed both strange and exciting. Russia’s distance from Europe and her distinct culture made it difficult for Europeans of that era to understand the Russian view of things. Few Europeans traveled to Russia, and those who did observed things that could not be interpreted accurately without an understanding of the Russian people and their culture. The result was that Europeans held very stereotypical and sometimes incorrect ideas about Russians. Because of Russia’s isolation from European culture and ideas and its Mongol background, the Russians were seen as barbarians. The government of the Russians is what political theorists call a “dominating and despotic monarchy,” where the sovereign, that is, the tsar or the grand prince who has obtained the crown by right of succession, rules the entire land alone, and all the people are his subjects, and where the nobles and princes no less than the common folk — towns-people and peasants — are his serfs and slaves, whom he rules and treats as a master treats his servants. . . . |
|
M1.3 Religion and Science |
|
|
Instructions: |
Read these sources from the Scientific Revolution, then answer the question below.
You should also reference information in the textbook readings and videos for your answer. Question: According to these selections, how are religion and science compatible? How do they conflict? Copernicus – On the Movement of the Earth ‘I think, Holy Father, that when people hear that in my book I say that the earth moves, they will think I’m a fool. Therefore, I would like you to know, Holy Father, that I used mathematics to calculate the movements of the stars, planets etc. for a reason. I knew that the mathematicians who had previously thought about these problems had not investigated them properly.’ ‘Firstly, the scientists are so unsure of the movements of the sun and the moon that they can’t even say for sure what the length of the average year is. Secondly, when they are trying to calculate the movements of the sun, the moon and the other five planets, they don’t use the same methods of calculating or the same hypotheses. They haven’t even been able to figure out what the shape of the Universe is and how its different parts are organised… I thought about this for a long time and I finally began to get very angry that the philosophers couldn’t agree on any one theory of how the Universe works – the Universe which God has made for us…I therefore started to read the books of all the philosophers I could find. I wanted to see if any of them had ever questioned Ptolemy’s theory. First, I found in Cicero’s book that a man called Hiceras [of Syracuse, fifth century B.C.E.] had realised that the Earth moved. Afterwards, I found in Plutarch’s books that other philosophers also had the same opinion… Therefore, I have looked at the Earth and its movements and made lots of observations about it. I have discovered that the movements of the rest of the planets are related to the Earth’s movements. The order and the size of all the stars and planets are connected to each other. They are all so interrelated that if anything moved from its place there would be total confusion in all the other parts of the Universe.’ Newton – Optics (Induction and God) Isaac Newton, from Opticks
Isaac Newton (1642-1727) had formulated his theory of universal gravitation by the time he was twenty-four, but it was not until several years later, in 1687, that he published it, at the insistence of friends, under the title The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy – the culmination of a scientific development that had been in progress for well over a hundred years and had included such names as Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo. But Newton was the heir of other thinkers in an even broader sense. The selection from his Opticks (1704) begins with a reaffirmation of the atomistic theory of matter, which was first developed by Democritus, an ancient Greek. Source: Issac Newton, Opticks, or A Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, Inflections and Colours of Light, 4th ed. (London, 1730). [Capitalization and spelling have been modernized – Ed.] All these things being considered, it seems probable to me, that God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, moveable particles, of such sizes and figures, and with such other properties, and in such proportion to space, as most conduced to the end for which he formed them; and that these primitive particles, being solids, are incomparably harder than any porous bodies compounded of them; even so very hard, as never to wear or break in pieces; no ordinary power being able to divide what God himself made one in the first creation. While the particles continue entire, they may compose bodies of one and the same nature and texture in all ages: But should they wear away, or break in pieces, the nature of things depending on them would be changed. Water and earth, composed of old worn particles and fragments of particles, would not be of the same nature and texture now, with water and earth composed of entire particles in the beginning. And therefore, that nature may be lasting, the changes of corporeal things are to be placed only in the various separations and new associations and motions of these permanent particles; compound bodies being apt to break, not in the midst of solid particles, but where those particles are laid together, and only touch in a few points. The Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy
In this letter Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) wrote an open letter to the Grand Duchess Christina, a member of the ruling Medici family of Tuscany, defending his heliocentric (sun-centered) view of the universe as being compatible with Biblical scholarship and Christian teachings. He wrote this letter after his heresy trial, while still under house arrest. Although the letter was addressed to the Grand Duchess, it was written for a wider audience. By writing it, Galileo hoped to persuade his critics of the compatibility of his theories with Christianity, popularize the scientific method, and gain the support of a politically powerful family who might support and defend him. Source: Galileo Galilei, “Letter to Madame Christina of Lorraine, Grand Duchess of Tuscany, Concerning the Use of Biblical Quotations in Matters of Science,” in Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, trans. by Stillman Drake (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1957), 172-216. GALILEO GALILEI TO THE MOST SERENE GRAND DUCHESS MOTHER:
René Descartes, The Discourse on Method and “I Think, Therefore I Am” (From the Internet Modern History Sourcebook)
René Descartes was born in 1596 in western France but lived primarily in Holland for the last twenty years of his life. He attended Jesuit schools and graduated in law from the university in Poitiers. He was not attracted to a legal career, however, and became a soldier in the German wars of the time. It was while he was billeted in a German town that he had an intellectual revelation akin, as he later maintained, to a religious conversion. He had a vision of the great potential for progress, if mathematical method were to be applied to all fields of knowledge. He thus pursued a career devoted to the propagation of a strict method, best exemplified by his invention of analytical geometry. Descartes believed that human beings were endowed by God with the ability to reason and that God served as the guarantor of the correctness of clear ideas. The material world could thus be understood through adherence to mathematical laws and methods of inquiry. Descartes championed the process of deductive reasoning, whereby specific information could be logically deduced from general information. His method was influential well into the eighteenth century, when it was supplanted by the method of scientific induction, whereby generalizations could be drawn from the observation of specific data. The following selection is drawn from Descartes’s most famous work, Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason (1636). Source: G. B. Rawlings, trans., René Descartes, “I Think, Therefore I Am,” in The Discourse on Method and Metaphysical Meditations (London: Walter Scott, 1901), pp. 32-35, 60-61, 75-76. As a multitude of laws often furnishes excuses for vice, so that a state is much better governed when it has but few, and those few strictly observed, so in place of the great number of precepts of which logic is composed, I believed that I should find the following four sufficient, provided that I made a firm and constant resolve not once to omit to observe them. Francis Bacon, from Novum Organum
Francis Bacon (1561-1626) was a prophet of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century – a revolution that transformed the foundations of thought and ushered in the Age of Science. Like the prophets of the Old Testament, Bacon concentrated first on the evils around him. Although for him these evils were intellectual rather than moral or religious, he couched his criticism of the science of his day in biblical terms. Like the medieval schoolmen, the leading thinkers of his age, he argued, had wandered from the path of truth into the worship of idols. In the selection that follows, he lists four such idols, to which he gives the picturesque titles of idols of the Tribe, the Cave, the Marketplace, and the Theatre. To avoid falling prey to these idols, people must turn their backs on scholastic philosophy and develop a new science based on a true knowledge of the workings of nature. Such knowledge, Bacon held, was to be derived from careful and continued observation of specific natural occurrences. This observational method, which he called induction, is explained and illustrated in his major work, the Instauratio Magna (Great Renewal). In his opinion, this treatise represented a “total reconstruction of the sciences, arts, and all human knowledge.” Although he was a prophet of the new science, Bacon himself did not fully grasp the nature of the method that men like Galileo and Newton were to employ in their work. His concept of induction fails to take adequate account of two other basic elements of the modern scientific method – the formulation of hypotheses and the deduction and verification of their consequences. Living at the height of the English Renaissance (which followed by a hundred years the Italian Renaissance), Bacon exemplified many of the attitudes found in previous Renaissance writers: the rejection of the medieval worldview as pernicious error, the somewhat na•ve optimism about his ability to take the whole of human knowledge as his sphere of activity, and the faith that he stood on the thresh-old of a new intellectual era. Finally, in his assertion that “knowledge is power,” Bacon repeated a central concept of Machiavelli, but with a significant difference – Machiavelli was concerned with the power that a prince could wield over his subjects, but Bacon was concerned with the power derived from scientific understanding that all humans could wield over nature. The following selection is from Novum Organum (the New Organon written in 1620), which forms a part of Instauratio Magna. Source: J. Spedding, trans., Francis Bacon, Novum Organum (1620). NOVUM ORGANUM |
|
M2.1 European Imperialism |
|
|
Instructions: |
Read the following texts and answer the question below.
You should reference information from the textbook reading and the video for your answer. Question: What were some of the fundamental ways Imperialism affected ordinary Europeans? Did these effects change society at is core, or is it still the ‘same old Europe’?
Colby – The First English Coffee-Houses, c. 1670-1675 (Collection of sources from the Internet Modern History Sourcebook) [Colby Introduction]: Between 1670 and 1685 coffee-houses multiplied in London, and attained some degree of political importance from the volume of talk which they caused. Each sect, party, or shade of fashion, had its meeting place of this sort, and London life grew more animated from the presence in its midst of public centers where witty conversation could be heard. When coffee-houses were still a novelty, they had their partisans and their opponents, who exchanged highly-spiced pamphlets in praise or condemnation of the bean and its patron. The Character of a Coffee-House, 1673 A.D.: A coffee-house is a lay conventicle, good-fellowship turned puritan, ill-husbandry in masquerade, whither people come, after toping all day, to purchase, at the expense of their last penny, the repute of sober companions: A Rota [i.e., club room], that, like Noah’s ark, receives animals of every sort, from the precise diminutive band, to the hectoring cravat and cuffs in folio; a nursery for training up the smaller fry of virtuosi in confident tattling, or a cabal of kittling [i.e., carping] critics that have only learned to spit and mew; a mint of intelligence, that, to make each man his pennyworth, draws out into petty parcels, what the merchant receives in bullion: he, that comes often, saves twopence a week in Gazettes, and has his news and his coffee for the same charge, as at a threepenny ordinary they give in broth to your chop of mutton; it is an exchange, where haberdashers of political small-wares meet, and mutually abuse each other, and the public, with bottomless stories, and heedless notions; the rendezvous of idle pamphlets, and persons more idly employed to read them; a high court of justice, where every little fellow in a camlet cloak takes upon him to transpose affairs both in church and state, to show reasons against acts of parliament, and condemn the decrees of general councils. As you have a hodge-podge of drinks, such too is your company, for each man seems a leveler, and ranks and files himself as he lists, without regard to degrees or order; so that often you may see a silly fop and a worshipful justice, a griping rook and a grave citizen, a worthy lawyer and an errant pickpocket, a reverend non-conformist and a canting mountebank, all blended together to compose a medley of impertinence. If any pragmatic, to show himself witty or eloquent, begin to talk high, presently the further tables are abandoned, and all the rest flock round (like smaller birds, to admire the gravity of the madge-howlet [i.e., the barn-owl]). They listen to him awhile with their mouths, and let their pipes go out, and coffee grow cold, for pure zeal of attention, but on the sudden fall all a yelping at once with more noise, but not half so much harmony, as a pack of beagles on the full cry. To still this bawling, up starts Capt. All-man-sir, the man of mouth, with a face as blustering as that of Æolus and his four sons, in painting, and a voice louder than the speaking trumpet, he begins you the story of a sea-fight; and though he never were further, by water, than the Bear-garden. . . . yet, having pirated the names of ships and captains, he persuades you himself was present, and performed miracles; that he waded knee-deep in blood on the upper-deck, and never thought to serenade his mistress so pleasant as the bullets whistling; how he stopped a vice-admiral of the enemy’s under full sail; till she was boarded, with his single arm, instead of grappling-irons, and puffed out with his breath a fire-ship that fell foul on them. All this he relates, sitting in a cloud of smoke, and belching so many common oaths to vouch it, you can scarce guess whether the real engagement, or his romancing account of it, be the more dreadful: however, he concludes with railing at the conduct of some eminent officers (that, perhaps, he never saw), and protests, had they taken his advice at the council of war, not a sail had escaped us. He is no sooner out of breath, but another begins a lecture on the Gazette, where, finding several prizes taken, he gravely observes, if this trade hold, we shall quickly rout the Dutch, horse and foot, by sea: he nicknames the Polish gentlemen wherever he meets them, and enquires whether Gayland and Taffaletta be Lutherans or Calvinists? stilo novo he interprets a vast new stile, or turnpike, erected by his electoral highness on the borders of Westphalia, to keep Monsieur Turenne’s cavalry from falling on his retreating troops; he takes words by the sound, without examining their sense: Morea he believes to be the country of the Moors, and Hungary a place where famine always keeps her court, nor is there anything more certain, than that he made a whole room full of fops, as wise as himself, spend above two hours in searching the map for Aristocracy and Democracy, not doubting but to have found them there, as well as Dalmatia and Croatia. Coffee-Houses Vindicated, 1675 A.D.: Though the happy Arabia, nature’s spicery, prodigally furnishes the voluptuous world with all kinds of aromatics, and divers other rarities; yet I scarce know whether mankind be not still as much obliged to it for the excellent fruit of the humble coffee-shrub, as for any other of its more specious productions: for, since there is nothing we here enjoy, next to life, valuable beyond health, certainly those things that contribute to preserve us in good plight and eucrasy (such a due mixture of qualities as constitutes health), and fortify our weak bodies against the continual assaults and batteries of disease, deserve our regards much more than those which only gratify a liquorish palate, or otherwise prove subservient to our delights. As for this salutiferous berry, of so general a use through all the regions of the east, it is sufficiently known, when prepared, to be moderately hot, and of a very drying attenuating and cleansing quality; whence reason infers, that its decoction must contain many good physical properties, and cannot but be an incomparable remedy to dissolve crudities, comfort the brain, and dry up ill humors in the stomach. In brief, to prevent or redress, in those that frequently drink it, all cold drowsy rheumatic distempers whatsoever, that proceed from excess of moisture, which are so numerous, that but to name them would tire the tongue of a mountebank. Lastly, for diversion. It is older than Aristotle, and will be true, when Hobbes is forgot, that man is a sociable creature, and delights in company. Now, whither shall a person, wearied with hard study, or the laborious turmoils of a tedious day, repair to refresh himself? Or where can young gentlemen, or shop-keepers, more innocently and advantageously spend an hour or two in the evening, than at a coffee-house? Where they shall be sure to meet company, and, by the custom of the house, not such as at other places, stingy and reserved to themselves, but free and communicative; where every man may modestly begin his story, and propose to, or answer another, as he thinks fit. Discourse is pabulum animi, cos ingenii; the mind’s best diet, and the great whetstone and incentive of ingenuity; by that we come to know men better than by their physiognomy. Loquere, ut te videam, speak, that I may see you, was the philosopher’s adage. To read men is acknowledged more useful than books; but where is there a better library for that study, generally, than here, amongst such a variety of humors, all expressing themselves on divers subjects, according to their respective abilities? In brief, it is undeniable, that, as you have here the most civil, so it is, generally, the most intelligent society; the frequenting whose converse, and observing their discourses and deportment, cannot but civilize our manners, enlarge our understandings, refine our language, teach us a generous confidence and handsome mode of address, and brush off that pudor rubrusticus (as, I remember, Tully somewhere calls it), that clownish kind of modesty frequently incident to the best natures, which renders them sheepish and ridiculous in company. So that, upon the whole matter, spite of the idle sarcasms and paltry reproaches thrown upon it, we may, with no less truth than plainness, give this brief character of a well-regulated coffee-house (for our pen disdains to be an advocate for any sordid holes, that assume that name to cloak the practice of debauchery), that it is the sanctuary of health, the nursery of temperance, the delight of frugality, an academy of civility, and free-school of ingenuity. Source. From: Charles W. Colby, ed., Selections from the Sources of English History, B.C. 55 – A.D. 1832 (London: Longmans, Green, 1920), pp. 208-212. Scanned by Jerome S. Arkenberg, Cal. State Fullerton. The text has been modernized by Prof. Arkenberg. James Burney, on contact with the Maori of New Zealand (From the Internet Modern History Sourcebook)
Captain James Cook (1728-1779) of Yorkshire was without a doubt the greatest seafarer of the 18th century, circumnavigating the globe and opening the Pacific regions to the knowledge of the outside world. All too often, this eventually worked to the detriment of the native cultures of the islands. One of the most resilient nations of Oceania, however, was the Maori of New Zealand, first encountered during Cook’s 1772-73 voyage. James Burney (1750-1821), a seaman with Cook who later became an admiral, left these impressions in his journals. Source: Beverly Hooper, ed., James Burney: With Captain James Cook in the Pacific (Canberra, Australia: National Library of Australia), pp. 67-68, 72-74. These Islands have been described in so satisfactory a manner, that there is no room left for me to hold forth without making frequent repetitions of what has before been said never the less I will venture a word or two & attempt to draw their characters according to my own opinions – Thomas Gage, Writings on Chocolate
Thomas Gage (1603-1656 CE) was an English traveler and Dominican friar. Gage traveled to Spain, where he joined the Dominican order and subsequently undertook missionary work in Mexico and Guatemala from 1625 to 1637. Disillusioned by his experiences, he renounced Roman Catholicism and returned to England, becoming an Anglican clergyman. Gage published works on the European presence in America that criticized the atrocities committed against native peoples in those lands. His writings popularized Native American culture, such as the use of chocolate, and stimulated English interest in America. Source: E.S. Thompson, ed., Thomas Gage’s Travels in the New World (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1958) pp. 151-159. 12. CONCERNING TWO DAILY AND COMMON DRINKS OR POTIONS MUCH USED IN THE INDIAS, CALLED CHOCOLATE AND ATOLE Richard Frethorne, “Letter to Father and Mother” (From the Internet Modern History Sourcebook
The European settlements were often multicultural communities with societies that evolved differently from those in Europe, allowing more class mobility for Europeans who came and became permanent settlers. Nevertheless, class and economic differences persisted, even in the colonies. One way to fund the costly voyage from Europe to the New World colonies was to sign on as an indentured servant. Under the terms of such contracts, workers agreed to several years of service, usually about seven, in return for the payment of their passage to North America. The work done by indentured servants varied according to their skills and gender. Some, especially women, served as domestic servants while men usually worked in the fields, or if they had skills, as artisans. This letter, written by Richard Frethorne to his parents, provides a first hand account of what conditions were like for indentured servants in the early English colony of Jamestown, in Virginia. Source: Richard Frethorne, “Letter to his father and mother, March 20, April 2 and 3, 1623” in The Records of the Virginia Company of London, ed. by Susan Kingsbury (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1935), 4: 58-62. LOVING AND KIND FATHER AND MOTHER: La Respuesta (1695) Sor Juana Inéz de la Cruz (From the Internet Modern History Sourcebook
Source: The Spanish text for this seventeenth-century declaration of women’s intellectual freedom was discovered by Gabriel North Seymour during her Fulbright Scholarship in Mexico in 1980, following graduation from Princeton University. The English language translation by Margaret Sayers Peden was commissioned by Lime Rock Press, Inc., a small independent press in Connecticut, and was originally published in 1982 in a limited edition that included Ms. Seymour’s black-and-white photographs of Sor Juana sites, under the title, “A Woman of Genius: The Intellectual Autobiography of Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz.” The publication was honored at a special convocation of Mexican and American scholars at the Library of Congress. Copyright 1982 by Lime Rock Press, Inc. Reprinted by permission. |
