MARCI WELSERI, MATTHAEI F. ANT. N. REIP. AUGUSTANAE QUONDAM DUUMVIRI, OPERA HISTORICA ET PHILOLOGICA, SACRA ET PROFANA. In quibus Historia Boica, Res Augustanae, Conversio et Passio SS. Martyrum, Afrae, Hilariae, Dignae, Enomiae, Euptropiae, Vitae S. Udalrici, et S. Severini, Narratio eorum, quae contigerunt Apollonio Tyrio, Tabulae Peutingerianae integrae, Epistolae ad Viros Illustres Latinae Italicaeque, et Proteus satyra continentur. Accessit P. Optatiani Porphyrii Panegyricus, Constantino M. missus, ex optimo Codice a PAULLO VELSERO divulgatus, Praemissa his fuit Praefatio ad Lectorem, de singulis scriptis nunc recusis, juxta virorum eruditissimorum sententias: Nec non VITA, GENUS, ET MORS AUCTORIS NOBILISSIMI. Accurante CHRISTOPHORO ARNOLDO. NORIMBERGAE, Typis ac sumtibus WOLFGANGI MAURITII, et Filiorum JOHANNIS ANDREAE ENDTERORUM. ANNO CIC ICC LXXXII.
IOHANNIS SLEIDANI, DE STATV RELIGIONIS ET REIPVBLICAE, CAROLO QVINTO CAESARE, COMMENTARII VARIA AC MVLTIPLICI RERVM VTILISSIMARVM COGNITIONE REFERTI, NVNC RECENS ACCVRATA DILIGENTIA, SVMMAQVE FIDE RECOGNITI, ET NOVIS SVMMARIIS SINGVLORVM LIBRORVM, PRO FACILIORI RERVM COGNITIONE, ET INVENTIONE, AVCTI, ET ILLVSTRATI. Auctor Iohannes Sleidanus ad Lectorem. MVlti queruntur multa per hos libros, Occultarerum sparsa negotia, Ornata nusquam gratia, Omnia Vera, sed obticenda. Plures queruntur, plurima suscipi, Indigna, summo cum scelere et probro, Ad supprimendam Veritatem Religionis, et innocentes. Vtrisque causae sunt querimoniae: Sed iustiores, pars habet altera. Haec Lector, ut ne te laterent, Causam habet Autor, ut ista scribat. ADIECTA EST ETIAM APPENDIX, SEV CONTInuatio eorundem Commentariorum, Ab anno Christi M. D. LVI. quo Autor e Vita excessit, vsque ad praesentem M. D. LXVIII. Annum, ex fide dignissimis historijs ad publicam vtilitatem collecta. Auctore Viro Clarissimo D. Iustino Goblero, Goarino, V. I. Doctore. Cum Indice Rerum omnium locupletissimo. FRANCOFVRTI AD MOENVM, PER PETRVM Fabricium, impensis Hieronymi Feyrabend. ANNO M. D. LXVIII.
HENR. STEPHANI Orationes II. I. Adversus lib. Uberti Folietae De magnitudine et perpetua in bellis felicitate Imperii Turcici. II. Ad expeditionem in Turcas fortiter et constanter persequendam exhortatoria. Quae AUGUSTISS. CAESARI et universis Rom. imp. ordinibus, Ratisbonae conventum habentibus, ab eodem oblatae, et illis acceptissimae fuerunt. FRANCFORDII, TYPIS WECHELIANIS. M. D. LXXXXIIII.
De AFFLICTIONE, TAM CAPTIVORVM QVAM ETIAM SVB Turcae tributo uiuentium Christianorum, cum figuris res clare exprimentibus. Similiter de Ritu, deque Caeremoniis domi, militiaeque ab ea gente usurpatis. Additis nonnullis lectu dignis, linguarum Sclauonicae et Turcicae, cum interpretatione Latina, libellus. Autore Bartholomaeo Gyurgieuits, peregrino Hierosolymitano, qui per duos menses cathena collo uinctus, saepe uenundatus, XIII. annos apud eosdem seruitutem seruiens, omnia experientia uidit et didicit. Cum gratia et Priuilegio Caesareo, ad biennium, sub poena. C. Karol. et librorum confiscatione.
DISSERTATIO De RATIONE STATUS In Imperio nostro Romano-Germanico. In qua, Tum, qualisnam revera in eo Status sit; tum, quae Ratio Status observanda quidem, sed magno cum Patriae Libertatis detrimento, neglecta hucusque fuerit; tum denique quibusnam mediis antiquus Status restaurari ac firmari possit, dilucide explicatur: Auctore HIPPOLITHO à LAPIDE. Anno M DC XL
CAELII AVGVSTINI CVRIONIS SARRACENICAE historiae libri tres, ab autore innumeris locis emendati atque expoliti. IN QVIBUS Sarracenorum, Turcarum, aliarumque gentium origines et res per annos septingentos gestae, continentur. His accessere VOLFGANGI DRECHSLERI earundem rerum Chronicon, sive breviarium Item, CAEL. AVGVST. CVRIONIS Marochensis regni in Mauretania nobilissimi a Sarracenis conditi, descriptio, nunquam antea edita. CAELII SECVNDI CVRIONIS, de bello Melitensi a Turcis gesto, historia nova. Cum Rerum et verborum in hisce praecipue memorabilium copioso INDICE. Cum Caes. Maiest. gratia et privilegio ad annos sex. BASILEAE, EX OFFICIna Oporiniana, 1568.
DE EDVCANDIS ERVDIENDISQVE PRINCIPVM LIBERIS, REIPVBLICAE GVBERNANDAE DESTINATIS, DEQVE REPVBLICA Christiane administranda Epitome: LIBRI DVO. ACCESSIT DIARIVM, SEV QVOTIDIANAE preces hebdomadis accommodatae. Item Celeuma exhortatorium ad praeparationem Christiane moriendi. AVCTORE CONRADO HERESBACHIO Iureconsulto, Principis Iuliacensis, Cliuensis, etc. Consiliario. CVM INDICE NOVO ET LOCVPLETISS. SPARTAM NACTVS HANC ORNA. Erudimini qui iudicatis terram, Psal. 2. v. 10. [gap: illustration] Cum Gratia et Privilegio. FRANCOFVRTI AD MOENVM. M. D. XCII.
Showing posts with label 16th century europe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 16th century europe. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 7, 2016
Sunday, May 17, 2015
The Battle Of Lepanto And The Sinking Of The Spanish Armada
I wonder how many of you have heard of one of the events mentioned in this post's title and not the other. In 1571 the combined naval forces of Spain, the Pope and Venice scored a great and unexpected victory over the navy of the Ottoman Empire in the Gulf of Patras in the Ionian Sea. 17 years later, in 1588, the same Spanish navy, the dreaded Spanish Armada, suffered a great and unexpected defeat at the hands of the English navy when they attempted to invade England.
Both events have been written about at great length, but what strikes me is that, to the best of my recollection, I have never heard them mentioned in the same breath, as I am doing now. Garrett Mattingly's The Armada, an above-average book about the 1588 battle,
has 3 entries in its index under "Lepanto, battle of," but 2 of those references merely mention that Don Juan of Austria and the Marquis of Santa Cruz had been at Lepanto, and that Sultan Selim II had spoken disparagingly of the battle's significance. Mattingly actually says nothing at all himself about the battle.
The I Tatti Renaissance Library recently published an entire volume of poems in Latin written shortly after the battle of Lepanto and celebrating the Christian victory,
and nowhere in the poems, the index or introduction or well over 100 pages of notes about the battle and its background and significance is any English man or woman mentioned, let alone Elizabeth I, let alone the sinking of the Armada.
I thought that surely HG Wells, in his great 1-volume history of Earth, The Outline of History,
would prove an exception and discuss both battles. But no. And more surprisingly still, the battle he mentions is Lepanto. Maybe he was deliberately thumbing his nose at those of his countrymen who in his estimation went on and on at entirely too much length about the supposed significance for world history of the sinking of the Armada.
Which brings me meandering roundabout to my point: some historians have written at great length about either Lepanto or the sinking of the Armada, either because they felt that it was of great significance in world history, or that its significance had been greatly exaggerated by historians. Either one battle or the other -- and the other was barely worth a mention.
Surely many Spanish sailors and soldiers must have been in both battles, just 17 years apart. Surely they, if no-one else, often thought of both battles at the same time, and considered them to have some connection to each other. Such sailors and soldiers were themselves an obvious connection.
But individual historians have rarely -- if ever -- felt that both battles were worth writing about. Which is my point: the great subjectivity of decisions about what is "historically significant." Surely the treatment by historians of these 2 battles shines a very great light on the fact that objectivity is an illusion. Historians write about what is significant from the point of view of the entire world? No, they cultivate myths of significance. If they are especially sympathetic to Catholicism and/or Spain, they nurture the myth of the significance of Lepanto, they talk up the glorious nature of the Catholic, or Spanish (or Venetian, or Papal) victory, and don't mention the Spanish defeat in 1588. But if they happen to think that England is particularly glorious, they support that preconception by dwelling on the sinking of the Armada, and by making it seem as glorious as they can.
Objectivity, schmobjetivity. There is no such thing. Research these 2 battles and you will be shown objectivity's nonexistence in a particularly striking way.
Both events have been written about at great length, but what strikes me is that, to the best of my recollection, I have never heard them mentioned in the same breath, as I am doing now. Garrett Mattingly's The Armada, an above-average book about the 1588 battle,
has 3 entries in its index under "Lepanto, battle of," but 2 of those references merely mention that Don Juan of Austria and the Marquis of Santa Cruz had been at Lepanto, and that Sultan Selim II had spoken disparagingly of the battle's significance. Mattingly actually says nothing at all himself about the battle.
The I Tatti Renaissance Library recently published an entire volume of poems in Latin written shortly after the battle of Lepanto and celebrating the Christian victory,
and nowhere in the poems, the index or introduction or well over 100 pages of notes about the battle and its background and significance is any English man or woman mentioned, let alone Elizabeth I, let alone the sinking of the Armada.
I thought that surely HG Wells, in his great 1-volume history of Earth, The Outline of History,
would prove an exception and discuss both battles. But no. And more surprisingly still, the battle he mentions is Lepanto. Maybe he was deliberately thumbing his nose at those of his countrymen who in his estimation went on and on at entirely too much length about the supposed significance for world history of the sinking of the Armada.
Which brings me meandering roundabout to my point: some historians have written at great length about either Lepanto or the sinking of the Armada, either because they felt that it was of great significance in world history, or that its significance had been greatly exaggerated by historians. Either one battle or the other -- and the other was barely worth a mention.
Surely many Spanish sailors and soldiers must have been in both battles, just 17 years apart. Surely they, if no-one else, often thought of both battles at the same time, and considered them to have some connection to each other. Such sailors and soldiers were themselves an obvious connection.
But individual historians have rarely -- if ever -- felt that both battles were worth writing about. Which is my point: the great subjectivity of decisions about what is "historically significant." Surely the treatment by historians of these 2 battles shines a very great light on the fact that objectivity is an illusion. Historians write about what is significant from the point of view of the entire world? No, they cultivate myths of significance. If they are especially sympathetic to Catholicism and/or Spain, they nurture the myth of the significance of Lepanto, they talk up the glorious nature of the Catholic, or Spanish (or Venetian, or Papal) victory, and don't mention the Spanish defeat in 1588. But if they happen to think that England is particularly glorious, they support that preconception by dwelling on the sinking of the Armada, and by making it seem as glorious as they can.
Objectivity, schmobjetivity. There is no such thing. Research these 2 battles and you will be shown objectivity's nonexistence in a particularly striking way.
Sunday, February 8, 2015
Early 16th-Century Europe
It's often been described as a time and place crowded with great personalities, and the people meant by that include Henry VIII, Francis 1, Charles V, Suleiman the Magnificent, Luther, the "bad" Popes, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael, Machiavelli and Rabelais.
I don't think Henry VIII was so great. His appetite for food was great, appallingly so. Even more appalling were his treatment of his wives and his being more ready to accept religious war than a female heir. Elizabeth I turned out alright. I wonder how much that may have been due to her being neglected by Henry, since she was neither male not Henry's oldest daughter and therefore may have seemed unlikely to him to become Queen.
Many would not argue with me at all when I say that Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, who was also Charles I of Spain as well as the ruler of vast regions in the western hemisphere, was not a great statesman. He did nothing to conquer any of those regions, he merely inherited them, and one might well say that the steep decline of his huge empire began as soon as he took charge of it. He was not able to stop Luther from cracking the Western Church in half and kicking off a series of truly horrendous religious wars which lasted until 1648; he was not even in sure enough control of his own soldiers to keep them from looting Rome in 1527, in the early stages of those religious wars, when his troops were actually supposed to have been defending Rome from the Protestants. He did nothing to improve the lot of the vast numbers of natives in the Western Hemisphere who were enslaved in mines and other Spanish industries, and died from European diseases from which they had no immunity. He knew about the suffering of those natives; there were a few Spaniards brave enough to loudly complain about what was being done to them. Charles himself did not have a high opinion of his abilities as a leader. He abdicated in the 1550's, handing off the Holy Roman Empire to his brother, who became the Emperor Ferdinand I, and Spain and its huge American territories to his son, who was thus made Philip II of Spain. Ferdinand actually did a half-decent job of managing the bag of crap Charles handed him, temporarily bringing a degree of respite from the bloodshed of Catholic against Protestant within the Empire. Philip, on the other hand -- one thing you can say about Charles is that compared to Philip, he seems like a genius, a truly wonderful person, a beacon of humanity, reason and kindness. (But only compared to Philip.)
I have less bad things to say about Francis I and Suleiman the Magnificent, but that may only be because I know less about them. Suleiman expanded the Ottoman Empire as far to the north-west as it would ever grow when he besieged Vienna in 1529, an expansion they would match in 1683 when they besieged Vienna again. But I don't know how much of that expansion is due to Suleiman truly being magnificent as a general, and how much of it is due to the eastern frontier of the Holy Roman Empire having been in the hands of that klutz Charles V.
Leonardo and Michelangelo and Raphael and Machiavelli and Rabelais were impressive personalities, I admire them all, but they were only artists and engineers and writers, dependent upon the politicians, the rulers like Charles and Henry and Suleiman and Francis for their careers and for their very existences. The time and place itself, early 16th-century Europe, does have much which is exciting to the scholar, but because of things like Columbus having discovered America by accident while trying to sail west to India; and the spread of printing, which had been invented quite a while earlier. Things for which no ruler can take credit.
Luther hated the "bad" Popes for the thing for which they should be loved: for patronizing Leonardo and Michelangelo and Raphael and Machiavelli and many other creative geniuses, for participating fully in that joint which we today refer to as the Italian Renaissance, and above all, Luther hated the "bad" Popes and kicked off all that Catholic vs Protestant gore because those Popes simply weren't able to take all the religious stuff very seriously. No, I don't admire Luther, not at all. The best I can say of him is that compared to Calvin, he seems like a genius, a truly wonderful person, a beacon of humanity, reason and kindness. (But only compared to Calvin.)
And screw Erasmus too, that pious Bible-thumping twit! Take my advice: if anyone tells you they like Augustine, or Aquinas, or Erasmus: RUN!!! Drop what you're doing, turn your back and run until your legs feel like lead and your lungs are on fire, or risk being bored to death.
I don't think Henry VIII was so great. His appetite for food was great, appallingly so. Even more appalling were his treatment of his wives and his being more ready to accept religious war than a female heir. Elizabeth I turned out alright. I wonder how much that may have been due to her being neglected by Henry, since she was neither male not Henry's oldest daughter and therefore may have seemed unlikely to him to become Queen.
Many would not argue with me at all when I say that Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, who was also Charles I of Spain as well as the ruler of vast regions in the western hemisphere, was not a great statesman. He did nothing to conquer any of those regions, he merely inherited them, and one might well say that the steep decline of his huge empire began as soon as he took charge of it. He was not able to stop Luther from cracking the Western Church in half and kicking off a series of truly horrendous religious wars which lasted until 1648; he was not even in sure enough control of his own soldiers to keep them from looting Rome in 1527, in the early stages of those religious wars, when his troops were actually supposed to have been defending Rome from the Protestants. He did nothing to improve the lot of the vast numbers of natives in the Western Hemisphere who were enslaved in mines and other Spanish industries, and died from European diseases from which they had no immunity. He knew about the suffering of those natives; there were a few Spaniards brave enough to loudly complain about what was being done to them. Charles himself did not have a high opinion of his abilities as a leader. He abdicated in the 1550's, handing off the Holy Roman Empire to his brother, who became the Emperor Ferdinand I, and Spain and its huge American territories to his son, who was thus made Philip II of Spain. Ferdinand actually did a half-decent job of managing the bag of crap Charles handed him, temporarily bringing a degree of respite from the bloodshed of Catholic against Protestant within the Empire. Philip, on the other hand -- one thing you can say about Charles is that compared to Philip, he seems like a genius, a truly wonderful person, a beacon of humanity, reason and kindness. (But only compared to Philip.)
I have less bad things to say about Francis I and Suleiman the Magnificent, but that may only be because I know less about them. Suleiman expanded the Ottoman Empire as far to the north-west as it would ever grow when he besieged Vienna in 1529, an expansion they would match in 1683 when they besieged Vienna again. But I don't know how much of that expansion is due to Suleiman truly being magnificent as a general, and how much of it is due to the eastern frontier of the Holy Roman Empire having been in the hands of that klutz Charles V.
Leonardo and Michelangelo and Raphael and Machiavelli and Rabelais were impressive personalities, I admire them all, but they were only artists and engineers and writers, dependent upon the politicians, the rulers like Charles and Henry and Suleiman and Francis for their careers and for their very existences. The time and place itself, early 16th-century Europe, does have much which is exciting to the scholar, but because of things like Columbus having discovered America by accident while trying to sail west to India; and the spread of printing, which had been invented quite a while earlier. Things for which no ruler can take credit.
Luther hated the "bad" Popes for the thing for which they should be loved: for patronizing Leonardo and Michelangelo and Raphael and Machiavelli and many other creative geniuses, for participating fully in that joint which we today refer to as the Italian Renaissance, and above all, Luther hated the "bad" Popes and kicked off all that Catholic vs Protestant gore because those Popes simply weren't able to take all the religious stuff very seriously. No, I don't admire Luther, not at all. The best I can say of him is that compared to Calvin, he seems like a genius, a truly wonderful person, a beacon of humanity, reason and kindness. (But only compared to Calvin.)
And screw Erasmus too, that pious Bible-thumping twit! Take my advice: if anyone tells you they like Augustine, or Aquinas, or Erasmus: RUN!!! Drop what you're doing, turn your back and run until your legs feel like lead and your lungs are on fire, or risk being bored to death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)