Catholic Counter Reformation

Bartolomo de Las Casas

I decided to read Bartolomo de Las Casas’ response to the treatment and destruction of the Indians instead of The Council of Trent and The Jesuits.  I chose to write my blog on this subject because I thought it was more interesting due to the fact we not only begin to see the Catholic conquest of the New World but we also see the ways in which the Catholics tried to convert the Indians.   Bartolomo de Las Casas’ thinking was unusual for this time as well as for his stature as a Dominican friar.   He believed the way in which the Spaniards went about forcing conversion on the Indians was cruel, appalling and definitely not necessary.  He actually believed that they were too brutal and needed to be stopped.  He tried to appeal to the King of Spain to stop the violence but the King did nothing to further prevent these attacks.

What is fascinating is that the Counter Reformation bought about many acts of violence, which lead to continuous bloodshed on those who were not Catholic.  Although many of the attacks were against the Protestants, we begin to see with the exploration of the New World came even more violent acts against pagans, especially towards the Indians. 

I believe that the treatment and conversion of the Indians was far worse than the Protestants for several reasons: one, they were considered uneducated savages, so the Spaniards treated them as such; two, the Spaniards believed that they had to save their souls by any means, even torture, and three, and most importantly, the rate at which the Spaniards slaughtered the Indians was unfathomable.

De Las Casas’ response was remarkable because instead of condemning the Indians for not converting, he condemned the souls of the Spaniards for using such tactics to convert the Indians.  He became a sympathizer to the plights of the Indians and then became a crusader for Indians’ rights.  One thing that really caught my attention while reading his account is that one Indian who the Spanish tried to convert said that he’d rather go to hell than be converted so that he wouldn’t be in heaven where the Spaniards were.  That is how terrible the Spaniards were to the Indians.  For someone to wish this really says something about the ways in which the Spaniards treated the Indians. 

 

Thomas Muntzer and the Peasant’s War

Müntzer and the Peasant's War 

Vs.

  Martin Luther

Thomas Müntzer, 1488-1525, who at one time was a Catholic priest and then a follower of Martin Luther, became in his own right a German Reformation leader. Müntzer, although a follower of Luther, would become one of his greatest adversaries due to his role as one of the leaders of the Peasants’ War, 1524.  The question is what then did Müntzer do to challenge Luther’s ideologies?  It was a culmination of things.  First, the printing press made scripture more readily available, therefore people read and began to question their existence.  Secondly, Luther’s ideologies, which promoted equality of men, led to a questioning of livelihood, and lastly, and most important, Thomas Müntzer combined these two elements to unite the peasants and encourage a revolt. 

During the reformation in Germany Thomas Müntzer began to lead the peasants to revolt against the lords and nobles of the land. Müntzer felt that the lords of the land had no right to enslave the peasants.  The peasants, with the aid of Müntzer, would use scripture to back up their claims that the overlords of the land could no longer enslave them.  At first, Luther sided with the peasants and believed that their demands should be treated seriously, saying that what the peasants demanded was justified.  It wasn’t until the revolt became violent when the overlords denied and ignored the serfs’ pleas.  Also, what really set Luther apart from Müntzer was the fact Müntzer felt that it was his, as well as the peasants’, duty to punish the faithless or ‘godless’ and continue the revolt until he achieved his goals, regardless of the bloodshed and violence.

Luther became weary of Müntzer, claiming that the peasants and Müntzer only used scripture towards their own worldly desires instead of God’s will.  Luther also became sickened by the violence that the peasants were inflicting and spreading throughout the lands.  What also further angered Luther was the Twelve Articles of the Peasants, which used spirituality and scripture to justify the peasant wars.  As a result of the continued violence Luther ordered that by any means, even violence, the revolt be put down. Müntzer always sided with the revolt and fueled the flames by telling the peasants it was their God given right to be treated fairly, and must attain that by using any means. 

Eventually, without powerful alliances and support the peasant revolt was put down.  Over one hundred thousand peasants were killed, their homes and lands were taken away, and the overlord further increased their taxes.  What is interesting about this whole thing is that Müntzer and Luther, although members of the same church, have completely different ideals of how scripture was to be used and interpreted.  Luther despised the violence of the peasants, and Müntzer promoted it.  In the end, lives were lost and the revolt left the church tarnished.

 

 

 

 

The Book of the Courtier

Proper Etiquette for the Male Courtier

During the height of the Renaissance the idea of perfection for both men and women were being implemented.  These ideas of perfection were personified in elite individuals called courtiers.  Courtiers, especially males, had to present themselves as exceptionally learned, steadfast, impervious and valiant and yet have vivacious personalities.  One such source that provided the proper rules of etiquette for courtiers was Baldassare Castiglione discourse, The Book of the Courtier.   In the Book of the Courtier standards for males and females were different from one another.  Both standards were stringent but for the male courtiers, we see that scholarly matters were of the utmost importance.    For a male courtier perfection was indeed his primary goal in life.  Although, being a courtier was a profession it was actually more of a lifestyle.  The male courtier, especially those born into the lifestyle, had to be the epitome of perfection.  Not only was their main goal to be soldier, their life goal was to be an intellectual learned in the classics.  The reason for the male courtier to be intellectually superior was the fact they would need to spark and understand topics that were conversed among elites.        

Girl With A Pearl Earring Film Review

Girl with a Pearl Earring

Film Review

 The film Girl with a Pearl Earring is a wonderful example of life during the Northern Renaissance in Delft Holland in the 17th century.  What is poignant about this film is the fact that it captured the essence of how harsh life could be for people, especially women, during the 17th century.  Although the film is based on the painting, Girl with a Pearl Earring, by the Dutch painter Johannes Vermeer, it follows a young woman named Griet, Vermeer’s subject for the painting, struggling to keep her family above water.

In the beginning of the film we see Griet getting ready to leave her family to find work due to money troubles, but, apparently, there is much more involved with her departure.  We see her father is ill, blind, as well as decrepit.  It was not unusual at this time for a family member to be ill from some sort of virus or disease.  The fact that the family is struggling due to the illness of a parent is a prime example of the atmosphere of the time.  As a result of her father’s illness, Griet is hired to work out in the city as a housekeeper, which was very typical for this era.  Many families struggled, therefore, sending out their children to work for wealthy families as a source of income was common.

Also, in the beginning of the film we see Griet's mother telling her to be weary of Catholic prayer.  I thought that this was an important aspect because we see the segregation of religious beliefs between the Catholics and the Protestants.  This scene showed the viewer what type of religious struggles were taking place in Northern Europe. 

The image that this film creates is a dreary yet striking one because, instead of following the life of a lavish character living in the 17th century, it followed the life of a typical girl who is trying to make money in the city to help her family.  Although we do see how people with money live, it is through her experiences that we get a real feel of every day life during the Renaissance.  We see that from the moment Griet woke up she was constantly working.  Also, as a housekeeper, Griet must deal with living under the rule of a master and a mistress, and, with that, she must know her place and act accordingly. Her sleeping quarters are awful and small.  She works even during the coldest days.  She takes care of household duties, such as washing the clothing, sweeping, making dinner and caring of the many children.  She doesn't have any privacy. Basically, her life isn't her own. The film did a great job showing the hardships hired help went through.  

The film reveals the relationship between artist and patron. Vermeer really didn’t have any say in the subject matter.  Artistic freedom was minimal. Convention, technique, and subject were governed by certain rules.  One expected a painting to maintain class schisms. Portraits usually were reserved for the higher class, and Girl with a Pearl Earring went against convention, and, since paintings carried great weight to the viewers in terms of how they represented certain aspects of society, Vermeer’s painting must have made most viewers feel uncomfortable with it. There was a brief mention in the film about the power an artist has to tap into the soul of a person.  This was sometimes viewed as an intimate experience between artist and subject, which was the case when Vermeer’s wife observed the painting.

What was also interesting was the fact that the film showed that sanitation wasn't that important, or thought about.  One of the maids tells Griet to use the water found in the canals.  This was a funny example that shows us that sanitation was not on the top of their list.

Overall, the film really encapsulates living standards, conventions, and conditions of the 17^th century. The way in which the filmmakers presented the 17^th century didn't feel over done or commercial.  I feel as though I have a better understanding of what life’s conditions must have been like for people struggling at that time. 

Giovanni Baccaccio

Witch Trials in Europe

 

The Black Plague of the 14^th century brought about a questioning of traditional Roman Catholic ideologies.  Many wanted to understand and know the reasons why God would unleash such horrors upon the earth.  In looking for the answers, people began to accuse their neighbors and relatives of using witchcraft and poisons to cause the death and famine around them.  Anyone could be accused. If your neighbor thought you caused their crops to die, you could be tried and executed.     

Accusations of witches began to increase in Europe during the mid 15^th century up until the 17^th century.  Wide spread panic of witches led to many of those accused of witchcraft being burned at the steak, hunted down like animals, and mass trials.  In the panic, even the Roman Catholic Church published Malleus Maleficarum (The Hammer of Witches) in 1485-86.  Of the many being accused of witchcraft, about 75 to 80 percent of those convicted were female.  Between the years of 1450 and 1750, 100,000 trials were held, and of those trials, about 60,000 executions took place. 48% of those executions occurred in Germany. 

During the trails other women would testify against other women.  Most of the time the women or man on trail would have little or no say in defending himself or herself.  Other times a village would murder the accused even without a trial.  In Italy witches were tried by various courts, including an ecclesiastical court for diabolism, municipal court for sorcery, and a secular court for magic.  These trials were unfair and ridiculous because the accused had no chance to prove that they were innocent, and the methods the courts used to prove innocence either killed them or convicted them as witches.

What is frightening is that these trials transpired due to fear of the unknown. Can we really say that things are different today?  Don’t we still single out things that are different and unknown to us and conduct our own type of witch hunts?

       

www.gendercide.org/case_witch/hunts.html