VIEWS: 7 PAGES: 11 POSTED ON: 4/20/2010
Nov. 26: 17th century Lerner Ch. 20 (all) and Ch. 21; Kishlansky # 83 Grimmelshausen's Simplicissimus, #65 Matteo Ricci on China Business: STUDY GUIDE for the final to be handed out Friday LECTURES ON WEB put up Friday (give Web address) David and Chela – email prepaper comments; time for makeup quiz (office hours Wednesday?) As you may have noticed, title is this course: "western ideas and institutions up to the 17th century". What happened in the 17th century, to make it the logical dividing line between "modern" western civilization and premodern? One the one hand, the 17th century witnessed the peak of "medieval" culture - worst wars of religion, witchcraft trials, belief in magic and astrology, intolerance to minorities. On "modern" side, 1. Beginning of modern warfare - both in techniques and motives 2. formation of middle class culture: I. END OF RELIGIOUS WARS AND BEGINNINGS OF MODERN WARFARE A. Religious Wars in France in the 16th century Now in France, as in Poland, Protestantism was popular to begin with. France was also a region where intellectual innovation was initially encouraged - esp. in Paris. But in France, strong kings will eventually impose religious unity. French Wars of Religion 1562-1598 Calvinists convert 1/3 nobility As in Poland, a large portion of France's nobility converted to Calvinism - 1/3 by mid 16th century. (These were the Huguenots) But Protestantism was viewed as treason against the king of France, who considered himself the special protector of the Catholic faith. French monarchy tries to suppress Huguenots In 1562, the French monarch begins to suppress the Huguenots. A woman ruled France at the time, in the name of her ten-year son. This was the Italian Catherine de Medicis, who as a foreigner and woman was not very popular among French nobility. For more than 30 years, French Catholics and Huguenots fought. Priests were murdered; peasants tortured; both sides committed atrocities. St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre : 1572 The worst atrocity was the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, in 1572. Catherine ordered killing of major Protestant leaders. Afterwards, Catholic mobs began to kill Protestants everywhere – 3000 in Paris; 10,000 in the countryside. These simple numbers don’t really give you an idea of what this sort of civil war in the late 16th and early 17th centuries was really like. You'll read next week in Kishlansky some accounts of this religious violence which bears a troubling resemblance to what is going on in Yugoslavia. Armed soldiers would invade villages and farms. They raped people's mothers, sisters. They cut off thumbs of the peasants and put them in their pistols. They tie ropes around men’s heads, and twist them until blood spurts out of their nose and ears. (these examples are from Germany, but similar violence occurs in France. After 30 years of fighting, the religious war in France is settled for a while by a strange accident of inheritance. Henry IV and limited religious tolerance The French kings, who were a sickly bunch, kept dying. One king is assassinated by a radical Catholic who thought he wasn’t persecuting the Protestants enough (cf. Israel) Finally, no direct heirs are left, so in late 16th century, Henry IV inherits the French throne – and he is a Protestant. Henry is forced to convert to Catholicism in order to become king, but he remains sympathetic to the Protestants. He issues the Edict of Nantes, 1598. This gave toleration to Huguenots in certain part of France – esp. northern towns But Catholicism remains official religion. Louis XIV imposes Catholicism in 17th century Now this religious toleration – such as it was – won’t last very long in France. In the 17th century, King Louis XIV will impose Catholicism in France successfully - as part of his policy of royal absolutism Reasons for difference between Poland and France: So Protestants were persecuted and eventually eliminated from France by force. In Poland they were tolerated - but eventually largely disappeared through education. Why the difference in treatment? In France, the kings were strong. In Poland, the kings were weak - elected - in fact by the aristocracy. B. THIRTY YEARS’ WAR (1618 - 1648) 30 Years' War was war between most of states of western Europe. Both the last war of religion, and first modern war Cause of War: Cause of war was religion: Around 1600 AD, roughly half of western Europe was Protestant, the other half Catholic.. The Habsburg king Ferdinand initially sparked the 30 Years' War, by trying to force Protestants to convert to Catholicism. The Peace of Augsburg (1555) had allowed each prince within the Holy Roman Empire to decide the religion of his subjects – whether they would be Catholic or Lutheran. Well, Ferdinand wasn't willing to respect this Peace - he was the supreme "ruler" and so his subjects should be Catholic like him. The Czechs (Bohemians) were first to rebel - "Defenestration of Prague" in 1618 was when Czech Protestants threw Ferdinand's officials out windows. The Protestant German princes soon afterwards rebelled (after F. had been elected emperor). So you have war between the Protestants of the Holy Roman Empire and Ferdinand. Then the Protestant states of Europe – Sweden and the Dutch Netherlands (United Provinces) joined the war on side of Protestants. So you had the Catholic emperor of the Holy Roman empire, the Catholic king of Spain fighting the Protestant Germans, Sweden, and Netherlands. So far, this would seem to be a war of religion – Catholics versus Protestants. Intervention of Catholic France on side of Protestants But then Catholic France intervened on the side of the Protestants. (REPEAT) With the help of France, the Protestant rulers eventually defeated the Holy Roman Emperor – leading to a peace in 1648 which allowed diversity of religion, and empowered the German princes above the emperor. The question for us: why did Catholic France help out the Protestants? Cardinal Richelieu and "reason of state" Controlled the French monarchy at the time (under Louis XIII and Louis XIV) Richelieu was no friend of Catholics: He was a Catholic Cardinal himself. Richelieu was the one who restarted persecution of Protestants in France (Huguenots) again. But as he argued (rather like Machiavelli) that “The public interest ought to be the sole objective of the prince.” France had a boundary quarrel with the Habsburg emperors: part of northern France was under Habsburg control, and Richelieu wanted to bring it back to France (Burgundy). Richelieu also wanted to prevent the Habsburgs from becoming too powerful – the Habsburgs, who controlled both Spain and the Holy Roman Empire were in fact the dominant European power until they lost the Thirty Years’ War. This French desire to weaken the Habsburgs was enough to justify an alliance with Protestant heretics during the Thirty Years’ War. C. END OF WAR FOR GOD’S SAKE The intervention of France made the Thirty Years’ War – the first modern war, as well as the last war of religion. The war may have started for religious reasons, but it ended because European states were fighting fore "reason of state" - competing for territory, balance of power, their own national interest – i.e. those rational goals we still fight for today. During 30 Years' War - Catholic France had allied with the Protestants. (Shortly afterwards, France will ally with the Ottoman Turks - Moslems - against its fellow Europeans) After 17th century, Europeans kings no longer fought for God. Instead they fight for the “public interest”, reasons of state - for their independence, for territory or trading rights, to keep some other state (like Russia or in our time, Iraq) from becoming too powerful, to gain or maintain spheres of influence. When you take your next history Core, you will study wars of this sort. Yet these wars are just as “culturally” determined going on Crusade during the Middle Ages: Wars justified by reason of state make sense to us – because that is how we fight, but they have no more absolute justification than killing Moslems to get to heaven. And these modern wars have the potential to do a lot more damage. So one big change in European warfare after mid 17th century - is that religion no longer determined who the enemy would be. (on more positive side - states are admitting that they can coexist with states with different religions, though not yet tolerating difference of religion within a state) D. Musketeers Second big change is warfare was new style of armies - gun-toting infantry or "musketeers" Remember, that gunpowder had been used since the Hundred Years' War (in 15th c) - but in cannons, not guns. Guns - muskets - only come into use in late 16th century, during the religious wars. Musketeers During 30 Years' War, the standard military formation became long narrow lines of foot soldiers firing muskets - musketeers. Muskets are guns – using gunpowder, and capable of penetrating right through armor. (though unlike modern guns, they took a long time to reload) IMAGE Still possible for cavalry to trample the musketeers before they had time to reload. So musketeers combined with pike-men: Pikes are long poles with sharp point – intended to skewer horses if a cavalry charged. Advantages of new style warfare: - Musketeers much better at killing the enemy than any previous type of soldier - anybody could learn to shoot a gun: you didn’t need long training as a knight or as an archer to become an effective soldier. - Larger armies possible Because anyone could fight now, armies could be made larger. European armies grew enormously in size during the Thirty Years War. The Swedish king had led 100,000 soldiers during the war (even in 16th century, armies had almost never numbered more than 50,000). And as the Romans had found out long ago, armies this large were very expensive. Taxes were raised again and again in the 17th century. Soldiers had to plunder villages to support themselves - as you'll in your readings in Kishlanksy this week. To sum up military change in 17th century: Goals change: War for "reason" of state instead of religion Technique changes: New use of guns - both deadlier and able to used by larger segment of population. II. MIDDLE-CLASS CULTURE In a second area, the 17th century was a positive era - in the formation of national middle- class culture. A. Growth in popular literature Growing literacy In part because of cheaper books thanks to the printing press, In part because of the Protestant focus on reading the Bible And in part because of the new emphasis on education by Counterreformation Catholics like the Jesuits, European literacy was growing. By the end of the 17th century, about a third of French men could sign their names; about the same as in Protestant England. This is an astonishingly high rate of literacy when compared to Middle Ages, or indeed to classical antiquity. To meet new demand, new types of popular literature were created: Novels: fictitious narratives about ordinary people, with realistic setting: you read some early examples of novels in Kishlansky (Lazarillo de Tormes; this week: Hans von Grimmelshausen) Newspapers invented in 17th century Origins of the newspaper lie in the "News-sheets" of sixteenth century Germany. News-sheets were being sold in cities and towns but were very local in nature. But the establishment of a postal communications system in the early 17th century made possible more wide-spread publication. By mid 17th century - newspapers had reached England. As I'll talk about next class, newspapers and pamphlets made communication of political ideas and events more easier to a wider portion of population. 2. National cuisines introduction of products from new world help create the modern European cuisines Sugar, potatoes, peppers, tomatoes and so on are adopted in Europe by 17th century. Italy gets its pasta and tomato sauce; Spain its chorizo (from American paprika) England its meat, potatoes, and tea And in each European country, there is a common national diet – middle class and upper class eat same sort of food. In addition to the food, come the drugs - caffeine, tobacoo, and hard alcohol Caffeine: chocolate, coffee, and tea all introduced in 17th century Chocolate was a product of the Americas: By the mid-1600s, the chocolate drink had gained widespread popularity in France. One enterprising Frenchman opened the first hot chocolate shop in London But Coffee will soon take over as main caffeinated beverage. Coffee was first cultivated in Africa - Ethiopia. By 1000 AD, Arab traders had brought it to parts of the Middle East (qahwa). The Ottomans invent the first coffee shops. It's from the Ottomans that the Europeans get the habit: They capture the first coffee beans from a defeated Ottoman army in 1529. By 1600, merchants are bringing the stuff into Europe - now through the Indian Ocean trade. By the middle of the 17th century - the first coffee shops open in Italy and England. Why is coffee important? Coffeehouses become political meeting houses - "penny universities" where people who can't afford to go to a real university come to talk and learn. Tobacco: A product of the Americans (native Americans' revenge?). Introduced into Europe, Africa, and Asia by the Spanish and smoked initially with pipes (or snorted as snuff). Also begins to become popular only in 17th century. And last of all, Hard Alcohol: Europeans invented hard alcohol for themselves. Now people had been drinking wine and beer since the agricultural revolution - but the technology for making hard alcohol was more difficult. In late medieval period, some alchemists learned distillation - the method of evaporating and concentrating alcohol. But they kept the process a secret and used it for medicines. IMAGE In late 16th century, brewers found out the new technology: Then there is an explosion of hard alcohol throughout Europe - various countries specialize in their own type. Vodka in Poland/Lithuania by end of 16th century. University professor of Holland - invents gin 1650. Whisky from barley malt is being made in Scotland by 1640. Rum - produced from sugar of Bahamas So in the 17th century, many of the foods and drugs we still consume today became part of western civilization. 3. Popular sports – games like golf, hockey, football (soccer) begin to take their modern form in the 17th century. Don't have time to go into detail, but as with the national cuisines, these sports not just enjoyed by the upper classes (as medieval tournaments had been) but by a broad segment of the population. Common theme – beginnings of a middle class culture. In the Middle Ages, writing and high culture had been dominated by the church The knightly aristocracy had determined the sort of sport (tournaments), secular music, and romance which is known is medieval. By the 17th century, ordinary middle class people began to play a role in their societies. On the military front, they are the ones fighting for their kings as musketeers On a cultural front, they read (and write) the literature, create the recipes, and play the sports which we consider “modern" European, and by derivation, modern American. And on a political front, they begin to rebel from their kings, or demand some sort of representation in return for their taxes - more about this on Thursday. TO SUM UP: II. DEFEAT OF OTTOMANS AT VIENNA The second symbolic aspect of 17th century I want to end with is the beginning of the decline of the Ottoman empire, with the failed Ottoman siege of Vienne (1683) This Ottoman defeat was a real turning point in the history of Europe's relationship with the Middle East. For most of this course, the civilizations of the Middle East have been more powerful and more dynamic than the European. Even in 1600 AD – an unbiased observer would have admitted that the Moslem Ottoman empire was more impressive than anything in western Europe. As late as 1664, the Ottomans were still conquering new pieces of Europe – Hungary fell to them then. But by 1683 – it was clear the Europeans had the upper hand. SIEGE OF VIENNA 1683 The Ottomans had long desired to conquer Vienna – the capital of the Austrian Habsburg empire. In 1683, this city held out against an enormous Ottoman army for 2 months, until it was relieved by army of Habsburg, German, and Polish troops. The Europeans beat the Ottomans back with their artillery. So why did the Europeans beat the Ottomans in 1683? European WILLINGNESS TO USE GUNS Ottoman army - Janissaries - was unwilling to adopt the new military technology. They did not consider it honorable to fight with guns – after all, it didn’t take any special skill to fire a musket. The Ottomans knew about gunpowder – they had conquered Constantinople with it in 1453 . It was more that they were not willing to use gunpowder to its full extent – they were not willing to turn their armies into lines of musketeers. (our own assumption is that if people know about new technology they will adopt it – but this is wrong) European ETHNIC UNITY 2nd advantage Europeans had over Ottomans was that their states were more culturally unified. The Ottomans had tolerated their religious minorities. This is reason people of the Balkans - Serbs, Albanians, Croats managed to keep their separate identities, even after 500 years of Ottoman rule. And why when Spain expelled Jews in 1492, many found refuge in Ottoman empire. In contrast, the Europeans had been busy persecuting the marginal elements of their societies – the Jews, the heretics, any people who seemed a little odd or rebellious (burning of witches reached its peak in early 17th century). Persecutions helped create religious and ethnic unity in the European states. The Ottomans never won the loyalty of the people they had conquered. Results: Last check removed from European expansion After siege of Vienna in 1683, the last civilization which could really stand up to Europeans - the Moslem Ottoman empire – was on the defensive. In the decades afterwards, Europeans kings like the Habsubrgs began to conquer Ottoman possession in eastern Europe (Hungary and Transylvania by 1699). The Ottoman Empire went into a long slow decline – although it lasted until World War I (1918). And Europeans begin to infiltrate the Middle East -first as traders - eventually as conquerors (which is the reason the Arab world still considers "western" the equivalent of "imperialist") And European civilization or “western civilization” would go on from there to do something which had never been done by one civilization before – take over the entire world. LESSONS OF THIS COURSE What we have done: We’ve talked about hundreds of thousand years of human history - from the beginnings of homo sapiens in Africa to the 17th century AD. We’ve traced the beginnings of western civilization to the Fertile Crescent where Sumerians and Egyptians began to live in literate complex societies while Europeans were still cave-men. We’ve talked about the classical Greeks and Romans which would long serve as a model for both Europe and the Middle East - in politics, science, literature, art, etc. And, in the second half of the course, we studied the long slow process by which western Europeans, from humble beginnings, became capable of first exploring, and eventually dominating the rest of the world. Lessons of this course? I'm afraid that the historical lessons aren't of the pleasant sort: That humans are a species with a lot of blood on our hands That the powerful tend to take advantage of the weak That if we want to enjoy rights, we need to be willing to fight for them That humans are capable of inventing things of extraordinary beauty and power - but too often use them for destructive purposes. Such are the lessons of this course But these lessons are not the main reason people study history. A year from now I don't really care if you remember the events we've talked about. But rather when you read a text, or listen to someone talking - I hope you can treat their words as a historian: To ask what assumptions are they making that influence the meaning of their words To put their words in a cultural context Not so that you can discount them, but so that you can understand them. II. Scientific Revolution So far we have talked about the dark side to the 17th century. The 17th century as “an orgy of hatred, bigotry, massacre, torture and brutality which has no parallel until the twentieth” century." (Roberts) But this was also a period of great cultural and scientific dynamism in Europe.: Scientific method formalized This was when the scientific method first formalized -Inductive reasoning through empirical observation and experiment (Bacon 1561- 1626) -Deductive reasoning from self-evident principles (esp. mathematical principles): Descartes 1596-1650) Using these methods, early modern scientists made great strides in understanding and manipulating the world around them. Astronomy: The first discoveries were in astronomy - the understanding of the solar system. As I talked about last week, the Polish cleric Copernicus in 16th century - proposed that the earth revolved around the sun rather than the other way around. His ideas were picked up by subsequent scientists - in particular the Italian Galileo (1564 - 1642) Galileo provided the empirical evidence for the solar system. He invented a new type of telescope - and with it observed Jupiter's satelllites, sunspots, phases of Venus. He argued that all the planets - earth included - were in state of motion. The Catholic church financed Galileo's research for most of his life - but then in 1633, imprisoned him for refusing to state that his notion of the solar system was just "a theory." Nevetheless, within the next 50 years, most educated Europeans will accept the solar system as a fact. Discovery of the microscopic world IMAGE So you have these 17th century advances in astronomy - looking at things far away. Late in 17th century, scientists also begin to look close up - the microscope is invented. In 1673 - in England - the first book is published describing protozoa, bacteria, and blood cells. It will take some time before people understand what these microscopic organisms really are - but the stage is set for revolution in biology and medicine over the next centuries. So in the sciences, the 17th century was a period when people are learning that ancient wisdom wasn't always correct: that people had to explore the world for themselves.