![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakPicking seven events through 2500 years of Roman history, this is a very entertaining and fluently written non fiction book which doubles as an open-eyed love letter to Rome through the ages. One of the book's strengths is that the author really puts some effort into bring each era he chooses to life, describing the food, clothing, tastes, scandals, cultural highlights along with (some) vivid personalities. Since it's not a sevel volume magnum opus, this also means inevitably none of the seven eras are covered "completely" - even if one could -, but then that's not the book's ambition. The portrait of Rome's ups and downs through the many, many ages is a vivid one, and illustrating the many cultural shifts the book covers by the focus on one particular city - well, the city - is inspired. Also, extra kudos for always considering not just the upper class of any given period but the various sections of the population including the slaves (as long as slavery is still around).
Most of the eras described I had only general knowledge of, without any specialization, with one exception, since it just so happens I had read a biography of Charles V. just a few months ago and one of his illegitimate daughter Margaret of Parma more recently. Which unfortunately means I have some nitpicks about the chapter on the (in)famous "Sacco di Roma" from 1527 (subtitle "Spaniards and Lutherans"). Not about the actual sacking itself, which was one of the most brutal ones (not least because of the commanders were dead and the army hadn't been payed in ages), but about the lead up, where Kneale tells his readers when describing the worsening relationship between Emperor Charles V. and Pope Clement VII. that Charles bringing Luther to Rome to install him as the next Pope "seemed a genuine possibility", and that his pushing Clement to call for a Council could have had only one purpose, i.e. using the Council to get rid of Clement. This made me cough like I had tuberculosis. Maaaaaybe in Clement's most paranoid nightmare, but honestly, I doubt even the quondam Giulio de' Medici thought Pope Luther was in the cards in freaking 1527.
Background: the (brand new) Charles V. biography I had read was by one Heinz Schilling, who also has written one about Martin Luther. He's a Protestant theologian, and sometimes writes a bit dry, but really, in terms of religious history, he knows his business. Charles V. one one occasion of his life, the famous diet of Worms in 1521, when Charles was a young and recent Emperor and Luther made his "Here I stand, I can do no other" appearance. Young Charles actually was less than impressed, but kept his word and let Luther go, which he regretted for the rest of his life, since the split and the emerging Protestant faith was something terrible for him. (Schilling's Charles biography has the subtitle "Der Kaiser, dem die Welt zerbrach" - The Emperor in whose reign the world broke apart".) One reason why he kept pushing for a council - not just during Clement's papacy but all the papacies until the Council of Trent happened, which was, however, too late - was that Charles could see the need for inner reform. When he was raised in the Netherlands, at Mechelen, his teacher in religious matters had been none other than the Bishop of Utrecht who became the much disliked reform Pope Adrian (whom Kneale mentions as the antithesis of the two Medici popes between which he occurred, but does not tie to Charles), and that formed Charles' own brand of Christianity, which was, simplified, reform yes, heresy no, and he definitely put Luther into the "heresy" category. In Worms already, and six years later? Even more so.
And that's saying nothing about the likelihood of Martin Luther, who was by no means a saint and had ego and flaws, granted, but also had a very clear idea of what he did and did not want, allowing himself to be redrafted into the clergy he had already left for good in order to be made cardinal and pope. Enforcing the election of an alternate Pope was something some of the medieval Emperors (and at least one French King) had done in their endless battles with the Papacy, some of which Kneale describes in the earlier chapter on Henry IV. vs Pope Gregory vs Robert Guiscard, but in the Renaissance, this was no longer an option. Certainly not for Charles, grandson of Isabella the Catholic and father of Philip II. of Spain. Oh, and lastly - how would be get his hands on Luther? Luther post Diet of Worms had spent a time undercover as "Junker Jörg" at the Wartburg, translating the bible, then moved to Wittenberg where he had married in 1525, which even in the corrupted church of the Renaissance would have taken him out of the running as Pope, and in 1527 was busy duking it out with Erasmus of Rotterdom (too moderate for firebrand Luther) and restructuring Saxony, where the Prince Elector was his Patron, the reformist way. Any attempt on the part of the Emperor to "invite" him would have been seen as an attempt at capture and then a trial for heresy by just about everyone, including Luther.
Sidenote: I'm not saying Clement wasn't justifiably scared of Charles in 1527. Even leaving the actual sacking aside, what definitely still was an option in the Renaissance were assassinations, and Charles would greenlight at least two political assassinations later on in his life. So if Kneale had simply presented Clement as scared, not a problem on my part. But scared of being replaced by a Charles-backed Martin Luther as Pope? And that this was supposedly a real option in 1527? I. Don't. Think. So.
But this is my only complaint/serious nitpick. Like I said, by and large, I really enjoyed reading this book, and can reccommend it if you want an original perspective on the history of Rome as a city through two and a half millennia. Just one more warning: there's enough talk of delicious food in it so that you'll want to eat Italian dishes afterwards. Even along with the talk of bad hygiene in several of the eras covered. ;)
Most of the eras described I had only general knowledge of, without any specialization, with one exception, since it just so happens I had read a biography of Charles V. just a few months ago and one of his illegitimate daughter Margaret of Parma more recently. Which unfortunately means I have some nitpicks about the chapter on the (in)famous "Sacco di Roma" from 1527 (subtitle "Spaniards and Lutherans"). Not about the actual sacking itself, which was one of the most brutal ones (not least because of the commanders were dead and the army hadn't been payed in ages), but about the lead up, where Kneale tells his readers when describing the worsening relationship between Emperor Charles V. and Pope Clement VII. that Charles bringing Luther to Rome to install him as the next Pope "seemed a genuine possibility", and that his pushing Clement to call for a Council could have had only one purpose, i.e. using the Council to get rid of Clement. This made me cough like I had tuberculosis. Maaaaaybe in Clement's most paranoid nightmare, but honestly, I doubt even the quondam Giulio de' Medici thought Pope Luther was in the cards in freaking 1527.
Background: the (brand new) Charles V. biography I had read was by one Heinz Schilling, who also has written one about Martin Luther. He's a Protestant theologian, and sometimes writes a bit dry, but really, in terms of religious history, he knows his business. Charles V. one one occasion of his life, the famous diet of Worms in 1521, when Charles was a young and recent Emperor and Luther made his "Here I stand, I can do no other" appearance. Young Charles actually was less than impressed, but kept his word and let Luther go, which he regretted for the rest of his life, since the split and the emerging Protestant faith was something terrible for him. (Schilling's Charles biography has the subtitle "Der Kaiser, dem die Welt zerbrach" - The Emperor in whose reign the world broke apart".) One reason why he kept pushing for a council - not just during Clement's papacy but all the papacies until the Council of Trent happened, which was, however, too late - was that Charles could see the need for inner reform. When he was raised in the Netherlands, at Mechelen, his teacher in religious matters had been none other than the Bishop of Utrecht who became the much disliked reform Pope Adrian (whom Kneale mentions as the antithesis of the two Medici popes between which he occurred, but does not tie to Charles), and that formed Charles' own brand of Christianity, which was, simplified, reform yes, heresy no, and he definitely put Luther into the "heresy" category. In Worms already, and six years later? Even more so.
And that's saying nothing about the likelihood of Martin Luther, who was by no means a saint and had ego and flaws, granted, but also had a very clear idea of what he did and did not want, allowing himself to be redrafted into the clergy he had already left for good in order to be made cardinal and pope. Enforcing the election of an alternate Pope was something some of the medieval Emperors (and at least one French King) had done in their endless battles with the Papacy, some of which Kneale describes in the earlier chapter on Henry IV. vs Pope Gregory vs Robert Guiscard, but in the Renaissance, this was no longer an option. Certainly not for Charles, grandson of Isabella the Catholic and father of Philip II. of Spain. Oh, and lastly - how would be get his hands on Luther? Luther post Diet of Worms had spent a time undercover as "Junker Jörg" at the Wartburg, translating the bible, then moved to Wittenberg where he had married in 1525, which even in the corrupted church of the Renaissance would have taken him out of the running as Pope, and in 1527 was busy duking it out with Erasmus of Rotterdom (too moderate for firebrand Luther) and restructuring Saxony, where the Prince Elector was his Patron, the reformist way. Any attempt on the part of the Emperor to "invite" him would have been seen as an attempt at capture and then a trial for heresy by just about everyone, including Luther.
Sidenote: I'm not saying Clement wasn't justifiably scared of Charles in 1527. Even leaving the actual sacking aside, what definitely still was an option in the Renaissance were assassinations, and Charles would greenlight at least two political assassinations later on in his life. So if Kneale had simply presented Clement as scared, not a problem on my part. But scared of being replaced by a Charles-backed Martin Luther as Pope? And that this was supposedly a real option in 1527? I. Don't. Think. So.
But this is my only complaint/serious nitpick. Like I said, by and large, I really enjoyed reading this book, and can reccommend it if you want an original perspective on the history of Rome as a city through two and a half millennia. Just one more warning: there's enough talk of delicious food in it so that you'll want to eat Italian dishes afterwards. Even along with the talk of bad hygiene in several of the eras covered. ;)
no subject
Date: 2021-07-17 09:39 pm (UTC)And no. Luther was never going to be pope in anyone's nightmares. Not happening.
no subject
Date: 2021-07-18 07:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-07-18 05:23 am (UTC)(Though now I am craving the AU where Charles doesn't let Luther go, and then the Reformation still happens, and Charles regrets it all his life.)
But anyway, that aside, this sounds like an interesting book! (Also, thank you again for reading about Margaret of Parma for me :D )
no subject
Date: 2021-07-18 08:01 am (UTC)Though now I am craving the AU where Charles doesn't let Luther go, and then the Reformation still happens, and Charles regrets it all his life.
Oh, undoubtedly he'd have concluded that he should have done the morally right thing and let Luther go, then Luther would have become yesterday's news quickly and Lutheranism would have been a defeated heresy like the Hussites, with the Reformation being God's punishment for not doing the right thing. Let's face it, the forces of history were against him, so he was screwed either way.
Btw, a third option as indicated by Kneale as possible, throwing his weight behind Luther, would have resulted in Charles losing Spain (can you imagine Castile and Aragon rallying behind a sovereign who backs the most infamous heretic around for Pope?) the way Philip would lose the Netherlands, resulting in an unending uprising and rebelling. With Spain goes the gold from the New World as well. Oh, and the parts of the HRE where the princes weren't Luther sympathizers but conservative Catholics would also have been gone, including the Austrian heartlands.
I'm trying to think of a way where Pope Luther would be a historically plausible outcome, and short of young monk Martin having a completely different Rome experience and starting a career in the clergy, in which case he wouldn't have become Luther, I can't think of anything....
no subject
Date: 2021-07-20 05:08 am (UTC)*nods* Like I think I mentioned before, I am really into characters who keep their word even at great expense to themselves, so it would be nice for him to see that future and realize that he would have been screwed that way too...
and short of young monk Martin having a completely different Rome experience and starting a career in the clergy, in which case he wouldn't have become Luther
...I would totally take the Pope Martin AU too! :D (Huh, in this case does he radically reform Rome from the inside? What... what would that do to the Reformation?)
no subject
Date: 2021-07-20 07:17 am (UTC)And then Pope Leo X, born Giovanni de' Medici, died. Leo had been personally amiable, gregarious, charming, a great patron of the arts - and an incredible money spender. The selling of indulgences had risen to incredible heights in his papacy in order to cover all the expenses, and the church still was left in huuuuge debt. Now, the conclave voting for his successor also was one where Charles and his arch nemesis Francis I. of France went mano a mano by avatar, plus Henry VIII. did his usual "but what about me?" thing, resulting in this:
Main contenders going in:
Guilio de' Medici: first cousin and bff to the previous Pope. Supposed to be smarter than he will show himself to be later on by people who thought he was the brains behind Leo. (Turns out the wasn't.) Taunts about his illegitimate birth still make him touchy, but in general, people think he'll probably rule just like Giovanni, i.a. big spending and lots of art.
Alessandro Farnese: started out as little brother of Giulia "la Bella" Farnese, last mistress to Rodrigo Borgia, aka Pope Alexander VI. By now has had a good career and wears old taunts of "petticoats cardinal" (since he orignally got the office via his sister) with a shrug. He's also a good patron for artists, so he and Giulio are on the same level there.
Francis I.: How about a French cardinal instead? Preferably one who will confirm my rights to Milan and Naples, which Charles and I are currently duking it out for.
Henry VIII: Yeah, no. How about my PM Cardinal Thomas Wolsey as Pope? Look, the late Leo just appointed me as Defender of the Faith for my anti-Luther book! I'm, like the most Catholic Catholic ever! We Brits deserve to have a Pope of our own, too! Hey, Charles, I'm married to your aunt Catherine of Aragon, you should totally back Wolsey!
Charles: Yeah, no. Also no to French people on St. Peter's throne. Giulio de' Medici, if I back you, will you back me against Francis?
Giulio: Sure thing!
Henry: I'm so insulted.
Francis: Alessandro Farnese, we should talk.
No one else: *pays any attention to Henry*
Conclave: *drags on so long they have to pawn th papal tiara to finance it while there's a Medic/Farnese deadlock and everyone is cashing in bribes from monarchs*
Charles: Okay, compromise offer: how about my old tutor, who actually might get things done theology wise, is old, so won't be around for long, and is neither a Medici nor a Farnese? If I promise to back Team Medici the next time, too?
Giulio de' Medici: Cool by me. I'll tell my voters to vote Adrian.
Francis: OMG what the hell? Your old tutor? Who isn't even in Rome but in your freaking country? I'm seriously considering schism.
French Cardinal: Francis, I've met Adrian. Chill. He won't be Charles' tool.
Henry: But what about MY candidate? I don't understand why Charles gets his old tutor and I don't get my PM on the throne of St. Peter, that's just not fair!
Cardinals: *continue to ignore Henry*
Adrian: Huh. That was unexpected. Okay, while that guy Luther is beyond the pale, and I consider him an evil heretic, he made some good points. Starting a reform program now. Firstly: unlike my predecessor, I will celebrate mass every day. Leo never bothered, but look, I consider myself a priest.
Cardinals: Weird, but okay.
Adrian: Also, no more luxury in the papal household. I'm bringing my Dutch housekeeper with me. No more gigantic meals and parties, just simple suppers. Cardinals, that goes for you, too!
Cardinals: WTF? No way, German barbarian!
Adrian: I'm Dutch. Next: Indulgences, the selling thereof. Guys, that has to stop.
College of Cardinals: NO WAY. Allow us to show you the books. We need to continue selling, given the gigantic debts your predecessor left.
Adrian: Also, my guy representing me at the Diet in Nuremberg is to declare in public that the current woes of heresy plagueing the German lands came because of, original quote, "the sins of men, mainly those of priests and prelates".
College of Cardinals: OMG! You are so beyond the pale, it's unbelievable. Most hated Pope since the dawn of the Middle Ages. We won't vote for another non-Italian Pope until John Paul II. in the 20th century, just so you know. Also, your life span is running out.
Adrian: Also, Francis, Charles, quit it with the warring in Italy, as Christian monarchs, you should team up against the Turks.
Charles: You were supposed to be on my side. *sulks*
Francis: I'm allied with Soliman the Magnificent, thank you very much.
Henry: How come no one asks me to team up against the Turks? I'm the Defender of the Faith here!
Adrian: *dies after having been Pope for a year*
Historians: Roman malaria or Roman poison? You decide.
...yeah. Mind you, Martin Luther was younger and healthier and had a far more explosive temper, and the ability to sell his theological ideas in a non-academic way (unlike Adrian, who was an admired university lecturer before becoming Charles' tutor, but could never have used the down to earth vocabulary Luther would. So who knows, maybe AU!Martin might have lasted longer and/or put the fear of God into the College of Cardinals, or even made a few allies?
no subject
Date: 2021-07-21 05:27 am (UTC)plus Henry VIII. did his usual "but what about me?" thing
You know, I did not actually realize until you started telling me stuff that Henry VIII had a usual "but what about me" schtick, that is hilarious!
Look, the late Leo just appointed me as Defender of the Faith for my anti-Luther book! I'm, like the most Catholic Catholic ever! We Brits deserve to have a Pope of our own, too! Hey, Charles, I'm married to your aunt Catherine of Aragon, you should totally back Wolsey!
OMG HENRY
Francis: Alessandro Farnese, we should talk.
Where does this end up going?
No one else: *pays any attention to Henry*
HAHAHAHA
Conclave: *drags on so long they have to pawn th papal tiara to finance it while there's a Medic/Farnese deadlock and everyone is cashing in bribes from monarchs*
Seriously?? This is the kind of awesome gossipy sensationalism you are always delivering to me :D <3 Wow!
Adrian: Also, no more luxury in the papal household. I'm bringing my Dutch housekeeper with me. No more gigantic meals and parties, just simple suppers. Cardinals, that goes for you, too!
Cardinals: WTF? No way, German barbarian!
Adrian: I'm Dutch.
LOL FOREVER, also Adrian, you are pretty awesome! Pity that you died, or someone killed you...
...yeah, I can see why you are skeptical about Pope Martin having a chance :P Yeah, maybe he could have lasted a bit longer and maybe made a few allies. IDK about the fear of God, though :P
no subject
Date: 2021-07-18 05:06 pm (UTC)To get an idea of the extent of their territories one has only to look to regions named Galicia, meaning land of the Gauls. One Galicia can be found in north-western Spain, a second in the Ukraine and a third in Turkey. And, of course, there is Wales, whose French name is the same again: Pays des Galles.
A common misconception by non-specialists, but this is all folk etymology. I would trust neither my memory from grad school nor Wikipedia completely, but where they agree, I'm inclined to give the intersection confidence.
With that caveat: "(Pays de) Galles", "Galatia (Turkey)" and "Galicia (Spain)" have three different etymologies.
Related: "(Pays de) Galles", "Wales", "Gaul", "Walachia", "Cornwall", "Walloon," "Welsch (the German word)".
Related: "Galatia (Turkey)", "Gallic", "Gallia".
Related: "Gael", "Gaelic", "Goidelic".
"Galicia (Spain)" has a debated etymology, but is unrelated to any of the others.
Most of the eras described I had only general knowledge of, without any specialization,
If only Rome had been sacked in the mid-eighteenth century! :P Though we'll give thanks on behalf of several of our favorite tourists, like Wilhelmine, that it wasn't.