Razib: Your son's drawing: My wife, whose credentials as a psychologist I have explained to you, thought it was incredibly sophisticated for a child of any age. The child has real talent that should be nurtured and encouraged.
Gonna read "Otherlands" by Halliday, "Why We Fight," "a brief history of equality" by Picketty, "overreach" (Russian war) "American midnight." "Slouching towards utopia" "not one inch" (Russia/NATO), "Lincoln's God"
Read "of boys and men" "status and culture" "the rise of the new puritans" "the shortest history of democracy" "the chaos machine." I'd give all of em about a 3/5... readable but not amazing.
Razib: I know the prof who wrote the introduction to the current edition of Wedgwood. I have an interesting story about him to share with you privately. We need to talk next week anyway.
Diarmaid MacCulloch. I think it is a good general history, but I am not happy with the general state of scholarship about the Reformation. I think too much attention is paid to theological and doctrinal issues which should be seen as a continuous evolution and not enough attention to the politics both of the secular world, in particular the Holy Roman Empire, but also of the Church and its internal political convulsions that went back to the beginning of the 14th century.
I would be quite willing to accept the criticism of pedantry - it is true often enough in my case -- but I think it is incorrect here. Luther was the first successful protestor against the old order, successful in that he both survived and led a lasting movement. That is different from being the first protestor. Successful movements do not develop overnight, but require long periods of development during which time, both leadership and tactics develop. Luther was no more the first protestor (against the old older) than Lenin was the first revolutionary communist.
What follows is based on the Wikipedia articles on Waldensians, Arnoldians, Hussites and Lollardy. A propos relying on Wikipedia, yes, yes, I know. But it is 7:30 AM, the outside temperature is in the single digits here and I do not have other resources immediately available. I trust that these articles are about subjects that are sufficiently noteworthy to have attracted the necessary attention to be accurate and not so noteworthy as to be areas of much dispute at the moment. Further, I am not going to get into the weeds of Christian theology, something for which I have neither the interest nor qualifications.
The Waldensians and Arnoldians were 12th C movements, much removed temporally from the Reformation. And it appears both that they remained largely local, and were part of the same movement that the Franciscans came out of.
The movement that Wycliffe led, called Lollardy by critics, began in the late 14th C and existed until it was <b><i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lollardy#Subsequent_events_and_influence">effectively absorbed into Protestantism during the English Reformation, in which Lollardy played a role</a></i></b>. By then, the movement had existed underground for over a century. It may have been just an attempt to slur Luther and Protestantism, but English church leaders of the time equated Protestants with Lollards and Luther with Wycliffe. Hus and the movement named for him was a generation or two later than Wycliffe, but had many of the concerns, and Wikipedia suggests that the more radical wing of his movement drew inspiration from Wycliffe.
I agree with earlier responses of Walter Sobchak about the importance of elite support. England and Bohemia had more unified political structures than Germany a century or two later, which made it easier to decapitate & suppress protest movements in the former realms. Luther was able to take advantage of the political disunity in 16th C Germany & developments in IT during the intervening period.
Incidentally, economic historians who wrangle with the question "Why did the Industrial Revolution happen in Europe rather than China?" which also had very commercially developed regions and initially developed some of the early technologies on which Europe later relied make a similar argument; the political disunity in Europe led to both competition that developed military technology and provided havens for those who needed refuge from various local authorities.
the tendency for heresy and heterodoxy has always been there. before 1500 they always got reabsorbed or suppressed given enough time. i think the printing press changed that
The context was very different in the 16th Century.
Political, legal, and economic institutions of Europe had grown and ramified a great deal by the 16th Century.
The Church OTOH had suffered a great deal of political upset in the 14th Century. The Renaissance popes are remembered as political players. Julius II (1503-1531) was the Warrior Pope. His successor, Leo X (1513-1521) f/k/a Giovanni di Lorenzo de' Medici, sold the indulgences that Luther protested as a fund raiser for the building of St. Peter's, and fought a war to restore territory to Florence which was ruled by his family.
Your link for "The genomic footprint of social stratification in admixing American populations" is actually a duplicate of the one for the previous study listed.
McCullough is great, but I did not understand his argument if there was one of why criticisms of practices (indulgences/corruption) or Governance (Henry V) led to changes in doctrine, faith/works adults/infant baptism, sacraments. Entropy is an explanation but that's an emergent property. I wanted to see the grinding of the gears.
Arguably the printing press and increased literacy? It's not clean causality, more of a feedback loop, but the ability to scale knowledge dissemination had a big effect, no? It's the standard explanation for a reason, I'd argue.
A few relevant quotes from Reformation:
> Printing which produced multiple identical copies of a text encouraged a familiarity with uniformity, very different from the individuality of a manuscript. That in turn was liable to produce a sense of how significant it was when difference appeared: uniformity paradoxically put a premium on individuality.
> Because printing generated so much more to read, reading became a skill much more worth acquiring.
> Luther went to the extent of enclosing his acid little theses about the indulgence system in a protest letter, written in the most courtly terms on 31 October to the local Archbishop – none other than Albrecht of Brandenburg. By doing so, Luther made his challenge a public matter. Albrecht did his duty and forwarded the theses to the Holy Father in Rome. Meanwhile, printed copies of them circulated in Germany in both Latin and German and sparked a pamphlet war among German theologians; Dominicans naturally rushed to defend their colleague Tetzel against attack. It was not the first time that the new medium of print had provoked a general debate, way beyond those who could actually read the pamphlets and books involved: that had happened over the previous decade, when European authorities launched an ambitious publicity campaign to raise a new continent-wide crusade against the Turks. However, what the Luther furore now demonstrated was that there was an independent public opinion, and the printing presses which fuelled it could not be controlled by the existing hierarchies in Church and Commonwealth.
> In 1546 Charles V had suddenly intensified his persecution of Protestantism in the Low Countries, and the flourishing Antwerp printing industry was a prime victim, to England’s benefit. The influx of foreign experts in a previously underdeveloped English publishing market brought higher standards and triggered a sudden outpouring of cheap evangelical literature in English. For many in England this was an exciting time when any change seemed possible – even union with the old national enemy, Scotland. When Protector Somerset pursued a dynastic war against the Scots in 1547 to try to enforce the marriage of the young Mary Queen of Scots to King Edward, his military march north was incongruously accompanied by propaganda addressed to the Scots, talking warmly of religious change and offering the prospect of a new united kingdom, ‘Great Britain’ – an unprecedented use of this phrase. Remarkably, some Scots evangelicals listened and were enthusiastic for the idea: once more, a significant indication of the way in which Protestantism might foster the breakdown of ancient political and cultural boundaries.
Razib: Your son's drawing: My wife, whose credentials as a psychologist I have explained to you, thought it was incredibly sophisticated for a child of any age. The child has real talent that should be nurtured and encouraged.
yeah, he seems pretty good
Gonna read "Otherlands" by Halliday, "Why We Fight," "a brief history of equality" by Picketty, "overreach" (Russian war) "American midnight." "Slouching towards utopia" "not one inch" (Russia/NATO), "Lincoln's God"
Read "of boys and men" "status and culture" "the rise of the new puritans" "the shortest history of democracy" "the chaos machine." I'd give all of em about a 3/5... readable but not amazing.
History of the Thirty Years War In addition to Wedgwood, "The Thirty Years War: Europe’s Tragedy" by Peter H. Wilson https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674062310/geneexpressio-20
Razib: I know the prof who wrote the introduction to the current edition of Wedgwood. I have an interesting story about him to share with you privately. We need to talk next week anyway.
Diarmaid MacCulloch. I think it is a good general history, but I am not happy with the general state of scholarship about the Reformation. I think too much attention is paid to theological and doctrinal issues which should be seen as a continuous evolution and not enough attention to the politics both of the secular world, in particular the Holy Roman Empire, but also of the Church and its internal political convulsions that went back to the beginning of the 14th century.
<i>Though Luther owns pride of place as the first protester against the old order</i>
Wycliffe? Hus?
pedantically correct, but they were not first in line to the reformation that really took hold (wycliff arguably way more radical than hus too)
I would be quite willing to accept the criticism of pedantry - it is true often enough in my case -- but I think it is incorrect here. Luther was the first successful protestor against the old order, successful in that he both survived and led a lasting movement. That is different from being the first protestor. Successful movements do not develop overnight, but require long periods of development during which time, both leadership and tactics develop. Luther was no more the first protestor (against the old older) than Lenin was the first revolutionary communist.
What follows is based on the Wikipedia articles on Waldensians, Arnoldians, Hussites and Lollardy. A propos relying on Wikipedia, yes, yes, I know. But it is 7:30 AM, the outside temperature is in the single digits here and I do not have other resources immediately available. I trust that these articles are about subjects that are sufficiently noteworthy to have attracted the necessary attention to be accurate and not so noteworthy as to be areas of much dispute at the moment. Further, I am not going to get into the weeds of Christian theology, something for which I have neither the interest nor qualifications.
The Waldensians and Arnoldians were 12th C movements, much removed temporally from the Reformation. And it appears both that they remained largely local, and were part of the same movement that the Franciscans came out of.
The movement that Wycliffe led, called Lollardy by critics, began in the late 14th C and existed until it was <b><i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lollardy#Subsequent_events_and_influence">effectively absorbed into Protestantism during the English Reformation, in which Lollardy played a role</a></i></b>. By then, the movement had existed underground for over a century. It may have been just an attempt to slur Luther and Protestantism, but English church leaders of the time equated Protestants with Lollards and Luther with Wycliffe. Hus and the movement named for him was a generation or two later than Wycliffe, but had many of the concerns, and Wikipedia suggests that the more radical wing of his movement drew inspiration from Wycliffe.
I agree with earlier responses of Walter Sobchak about the importance of elite support. England and Bohemia had more unified political structures than Germany a century or two later, which made it easier to decapitate & suppress protest movements in the former realms. Luther was able to take advantage of the political disunity in 16th C Germany & developments in IT during the intervening period.
Incidentally, economic historians who wrangle with the question "Why did the Industrial Revolution happen in Europe rather than China?" which also had very commercially developed regions and initially developed some of the early technologies on which Europe later relied make a similar argument; the political disunity in Europe led to both competition that developed military technology and provided havens for those who needed refuge from various local authorities.
It goes further back than Wycliffe and Hus, for instance Peter Waldo.
Luther was the first to survive and advance by gaining secular political support from some powerful German Princes.
Protestors who get burned at the stake are still protestors.
the tendency for heresy and heterodoxy has always been there. before 1500 they always got reabsorbed or suppressed given enough time. i think the printing press changed that
Printing can explain popular support, but what saved Luther from the stake was elite (highest level) support.
yeah but there were always elites who had problems with the church
the cathars and hussites had elite support
alfred the great and other european potentates had major beefs with the church over the centuries
but something was different in 16th cent
The context was very different in the 16th Century.
Political, legal, and economic institutions of Europe had grown and ramified a great deal by the 16th Century.
The Church OTOH had suffered a great deal of political upset in the 14th Century. The Renaissance popes are remembered as political players. Julius II (1503-1531) was the Warrior Pope. His successor, Leo X (1513-1521) f/k/a Giovanni di Lorenzo de' Medici, sold the indulgences that Luther protested as a fund raiser for the building of St. Peter's, and fought a war to restore territory to Florence which was ruled by his family.
It is history and history is context.
Nice artwork. The kid may go into STEAM and not STEM?
i was a good drawer as a a kid too. but who knows? he's really good
What’s the subscribe button on your Twitter account about?
secret tweets
Ooooh, secret tweets. That tickles my curiosity.
Your link for "The genomic footprint of social stratification in admixing American populations" is actually a duplicate of the one for the previous study listed.
McCullough is great, but I did not understand his argument if there was one of why criticisms of practices (indulgences/corruption) or Governance (Henry V) led to changes in doctrine, faith/works adults/infant baptism, sacraments. Entropy is an explanation but that's an emergent property. I wanted to see the grinding of the gears.
Arguably the printing press and increased literacy? It's not clean causality, more of a feedback loop, but the ability to scale knowledge dissemination had a big effect, no? It's the standard explanation for a reason, I'd argue.
A few relevant quotes from Reformation:
> Printing which produced multiple identical copies of a text encouraged a familiarity with uniformity, very different from the individuality of a manuscript. That in turn was liable to produce a sense of how significant it was when difference appeared: uniformity paradoxically put a premium on individuality.
> Because printing generated so much more to read, reading became a skill much more worth acquiring.
> Luther went to the extent of enclosing his acid little theses about the indulgence system in a protest letter, written in the most courtly terms on 31 October to the local Archbishop – none other than Albrecht of Brandenburg. By doing so, Luther made his challenge a public matter. Albrecht did his duty and forwarded the theses to the Holy Father in Rome. Meanwhile, printed copies of them circulated in Germany in both Latin and German and sparked a pamphlet war among German theologians; Dominicans naturally rushed to defend their colleague Tetzel against attack. It was not the first time that the new medium of print had provoked a general debate, way beyond those who could actually read the pamphlets and books involved: that had happened over the previous decade, when European authorities launched an ambitious publicity campaign to raise a new continent-wide crusade against the Turks. However, what the Luther furore now demonstrated was that there was an independent public opinion, and the printing presses which fuelled it could not be controlled by the existing hierarchies in Church and Commonwealth.
> In 1546 Charles V had suddenly intensified his persecution of Protestantism in the Low Countries, and the flourishing Antwerp printing industry was a prime victim, to England’s benefit. The influx of foreign experts in a previously underdeveloped English publishing market brought higher standards and triggered a sudden outpouring of cheap evangelical literature in English. For many in England this was an exciting time when any change seemed possible – even union with the old national enemy, Scotland. When Protector Somerset pursued a dynastic war against the Scots in 1547 to try to enforce the marriage of the young Mary Queen of Scots to King Edward, his military march north was incongruously accompanied by propaganda addressed to the Scots, talking warmly of religious change and offering the prospect of a new united kingdom, ‘Great Britain’ – an unprecedented use of this phrase. Remarkably, some Scots evangelicals listened and were enthusiastic for the idea: once more, a significant indication of the way in which Protestantism might foster the breakdown of ancient political and cultural boundaries.
printing press => protestantism => more bible reading => more literacy
feedback loop