Showing posts with label A SHORT HISTORY OF THE WORLD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label A SHORT HISTORY OF THE WORLD. Show all posts

August 25, 2022

50.THE REFORMATION OF THE LATIN CHURCH | A SHORT HISTORY OF THE WORLD | H. G. WELLS

 A SHORT HISTORY OF THE WORLD 
BY 
H. G. WELLS

50.THE REFORMATION OF  THE LATIN CHURCH 

The Latin Church itself was enormously affected by this mental rebirth. It was dismembered; and even the portion that survived was extensively renewed.

We have told how nearly the church came to the autocratic leadership of all Christendom in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and how in the fourteenth and fifteenth its power over men’s minds and affairs declined. We have described how popular religious enthusiasm which had in earlier ages been its support and power was turned against it by its pride, persecutions and centralization, and how the insidious scepticism of Frederick II bore fruit in a growing insubordination of the princes. The Great Schism had reduced its religious and political prestige to negligible proportions. The forces of insurrection struck it now from both sides.

The teachings of the Englishman Wycliffe spread widely throughout

Europe. In 1398 a learned Czech, John Huss, delivered a series of

lectures upon Wycliffe’s teachings in the university of Prague. This

teaching spread rapidly beyond the educated class and aroused great

popular enthusiasm. In 1414-18 a Council of the whole church was held

at Constance to settle the Great Schism. Huss was invited to this

Council under promise of a safe conduct from the emperor, seized, put

on trial for heresy and burnt alive (1415). So far from tranquillizing

the Bohemian people, this led to an insurrection of the Hussites in

that country, the first of a series of religious wars that inaugurated

the break-up of Latin Christendom. Against this insurrection Pope

Martin V, the Pope specially elected at Constance as the head of a

reunited Christendom, preached a Crusade.

Five Crusades in all were launched upon this sturdy little people and

all of them failed. All the unemployed ruffianism of Europe was turned

upon Bohemia in the fifteenth century, just as in the thirteenth it had

been turned upon the Waldenses. But the Bohemian Czechs, unlike the

Waldenses, believed in armed resistance. The Bohemian Crusade

dissolved and streamed away from the battlefield at the sound of the

Hussites’ waggons and the distant chanting of their troops; it did not

even wait to fight (battle of Domazlice, 1431). In 1436 an agreement

was patched up with the Hussites by a new Council of the church at

Basle in which many of the special objections to Latin practice were

conceded.


In the fifteenth century a great pestilence had produced much social

disorganization throughout Europe. There had been extreme misery and

discontent among the common people, and peasant risings against the

landlords and the wealthy in England and France. After the Hussite

Wars these peasant insurrections increased in gravity in Germany and

took on a religious character. Printing came in as an influence upon

this development. By the middle of the fifteenth century there were

printers at work with movable type in Holland and the Rhineland. The

art spread to Italy and England, where Caxton was printing in

Westminster in 1477. The immediate consequence was a great increase

and distribution of Bibles, and greatly increased facilities for

widespread popular controversies. The European world became a world of

readers, to an extent that had never happened to any community in the

past. And this sudden irrigation of the general mind with clearer

ideas and more accessible information occurred just at a time when the

church was confused and divided and not in a position to defend itself

effectively, and when many princes were looking for means to weaken its

hold upon the vast wealth it claimed in their dominions.


In Germany the attack upon the church gathered round the personality of

an ex-monk, Martin Luther (1483-1546), who appeared in Wittenberg in

1517 offering disputations against various orthodox doctrines and

practices. At first he disputed in Latin in the fashion of the

Schoolmen. Then he took up the new weapon of the printed word and

scattered his views far and wide in German addressed to the ordinary

people. An attempt was made to suppress him as Huss had been

suppressed, but the printing press had changed conditions and he had

too many open and secret friends among the German princes for this fate

to overtake him.


For now in this age of multiplying ideas and weakened faith there were

many rulers who saw their advantage in breaking the religious ties

between their people and Rome. They sought to make themselves in

person the heads of a more nationalized religion. England, Scotland,

Sweden, Norway, Denmark, North Germany and Bohemia, one after another,

separated themselves from the Roman Communion. They have remained separated ever since.

The various princes concerned cared very little for the moral and

intellectual freedom of their subjects. They used the religious doubts

and insurgence of their peoples to strengthen them against Rome, but

they tried to keep a grip upon the popular movement as soon as that

rupture was achieved and a national church set up under the control of

the crown. But there has always been a curious vitality in the

teaching of Jesus, a direct appeal to righteousness and a man’s

self-respect over every loyalty and every subordination, lay or

ecclesiastical. None of these princely churches broke off without also

breaking off a number of fragmentary sects that would admit the

intervention of neither prince nor Pope between a man and his God. In

England and Scotland, for example, there was a number of sects who now

held firmly to the Bible as their one guide in life and belief. They

refused the disciplines of a state church. In England these

dissentients were the Non- conformists, who played a very large part in

the polities of that country in the seventeenth and eighteenth

centuries. In England they carried their objection to a princely head

to the church so far as to decapitate King Charles I (1649), and for

eleven prosperous years England was a republic under Non- conformist rule.

The breaking away of this large section of Northern Europe from Latin

Christendom is what is generally spoken of as the Reformation. But the

shock and stress of these losses produced changes perhaps as profound

in the Roman Church itself. The church was reorganized and a new

spirit came into its life. One of the dominant figures in this revival

was a young Spanish soldier, Inigo Lopez de Recalde, better known to

the world as St. Ignatius of Loyola. After some romantic beginnings he

became a priest (1538) and was permitted to found the Society of Jesus,

a direct attempt to bring the generous and chivalrous traditions of

military discipline into the service of religion. This Society of

Jesus, the Jesuits, became one of the greatest teaching and missionary

societies the world has ever seen. It carried Christianity to India,

China and America. It arrested the rapid disintegration of the Roman

Church. It raised the standard of education throughout the whole

Catholic world; it raised the level of Catholic intelligence and

quickened the Catholic conscience everywhere; it stimulated Protestant

Europe to competitive educational efforts. The vigorous and aggressive

Roman Catholic Church we know to-day is largely the product of this Jesuit revival.

49.THE INTELLECTUAL REVIVAL OF THE EUROPEANS | A SHORT HISTORY OF THE WORLD | H. G. WELLS

A SHORT HISTORY OF THE WORLD 
BY 
H. G. WELLS
49.THE INTELLECTUAL REVIVAL OF THE EUROPEANS 

Throughout the twelfth century there were many signs that the European intelligence was recovering courage and leisure, and preparing to take up again the intellectual enterprises of the first Greek scientific enquiries and such speculations as those of the Italian Lucretius. The causes of this revival were many and complex. The suppression of private war, the higher standards of comfort and security that followed the crusades, and the stimulation of men’s minds by the experiences of these expeditions were no doubt necessary preliminary conditions. Trade was reviving; cities were recovering ease and safety; the standard of education was arising in the church and spreading among laymen. The thirteenth and fourteenth centuries were a period of growing, independent or quasi-independent cities; Venice, Florence, Genoa, Lisbon, Paris, Bruges, London, Antwerp, Hamburg, Nuremberg, Novgorod,

Wisby and Bergen for example. They were all trading cities with many

travellers, and where men trade and travel they talk and think. The

polemics of the Popes and princes, the conspicuous savagery and

wickedness of the persecution of heretics, were exciting men to doubt

the authority of the church and question and discuss fundamental

things.

We have seen how the Arabs were the means of restoring Aristotle to

Europe, and how such a prince as Frederick II acted as a channel

through which Arabic philosophy and science played upon the renascent

European mind. Still more influential in the stirring up of men’s

ideas were the Jews. Their very existence was a note of interrogation

to the claims of the church. And finally the secret, fascinating

enquiries of the alchemists were spreading far and wide and setting men

to the petty, furtive and yet fruitful resumption of experimental

science.

And the stir in men’s minds was by no means confined now to the

independent and well educated. The mind of the common man was awake in

the world as it had never been before in all the experience of mankind.

In spite of priest and persecution, Christianity does seem to have

carried a mental ferment wherever its teaching reached. It established

a direct relation between the conscience of the individual man and the

God of Righteousness, so that now if need arose he had the courage to

form his own judgment upon prince or prelate or creed.

As early as the eleventh century philosophical discussion had begun

again in Europe, and there were great and growing universities at

Paris, Oxford, Bologna and other centres. There medieval “schoolmen”

took up again and thrashed out a series of questions upon the value and

meaning of words that were a necessary preliminary to clear thinking in

the scientific age that was to follow. And standing by himself because

of his distinctive genius was Roger Bacon (circa 1210 to circa 1293), a

Franciscan of Oxford, the father of modern experimental science. His

name deserves a prominence in our history second only to that of

Aristotle.

His writings are one long tirade against ignorance. He told his age it

was ignorant, an incredibly bold thing to do. Nowadays a man may tell

the world it is as silly as it is solemn, that all its methods are

still infantile and clumsy and its dogmas childish assumptions, without

much physical danger; but these peoples of the middle ages when they

were not actually being massacred or starving or dying of pestilence,

were passionately convinced of the wisdom, the completeness and

finality of their beliefs, and disposed to resent any reflections upon

them very bitterly. Roger Bacon’s writings were like a flash of light

in a profound darkness. He combined his attack upon the ignorance of

his times with a wealth of suggestion for the increase of knowledge.

In his passionate insistence upon the need of experiment and of

collecting knowledge, the spirit of Aristotle lives again in him.

“Experiment, experiment,” that is the burthen of Roger Bacon.

Yet of Aristotle himself Roger Bacon fell foul. He fell foul of him

because men, instead of facing facts boldly, sat in rooms and pored

over the bad Latin translations which were then all that was available

of the master. “If I had my way,” he wrote, in his intemperate fashion,

“I should burn all the books of Aristotle, for the study of them can

only lead to a loss of time, produce error, and increase ignorance,” a

sentiment that Aristotle would probably have echoed could he have

returned to a world in which his works were not so much read as

worshipped—and that, as Roger Bacon showed, in these most abominable translations.

Throughout his books, a little disguised by the necessity of seeming to

square it all with orthodoxy for fear of the prison and worse, Roger

Bacon shouted to mankind, “Cease to be ruled by dogmas and authorities;

_look at the world!_” Four chief sources of ignorance he denounced;

respect for authority, custom, the sense of the ignorant crowd, and the

vain, proud unteachableness of our dispositions. Overcome but these,

and a world of power would open to men: —

“Machines for navigating are possible without rowers, so that great

ships suited to river or ocean, guided by one man, may be borne with

greater speed than if they were full of men. Likewise cars may be made

so that without a draught animal they may be moved _cum impetu

inœstimable_, as we deem the scythed chariots to have been from which

antiquity fought. And flying machines are possible, so that a man may

sit in the middle turning some device by which artificial wings may

beat the air in the manner of a flying bird.”

So Roger Bacon wrote, but three more centuries were to elapse before

men began any systematic attempts to explore the hidden stores of power

and interest he realized so clearly existed beneath the dull surface of

human affairs.

But the Saracenic world not only gave Christendom the stimulus of its

philosophers and alchemists; it also gave it paper. It is scarcely too

much to say that paper made the intellectual revival of Europe

possible. Paper originated in China, where its use probably goes back

to the second century B.C. In 751 the Chinese made an attack upon the

Arab Moslems in Samarkand; they were repulsed, and among the prisoners

taken from them were some skilled papermakers, from whom the art was

learnt. Arabic paper manuscripts from the ninth century onward still

exist. The manufacture entered Christendom either through Greece or by

the capture of Moorish paper-mills during the Christian reconquest of

Spain. But under the Christian Spanish the product deteriorated sadly.

Good paper was not made in Christian Europe until the end of the

thirteenth century, and then it was Italy which led the world. Only by

the fourteenth century did the manufacture reach Germany, and not until

the end of that century was it abundant and cheap enough for the

printing of books to be a practicable business proposition. Thereupon

printing followed naturally and necessarily, for printing is the most

obvious of inventions, and the intellectual life of the world entered

upon a new and far more vigorous phase. It ceased to be a little

trickle from mind to mind; it became a broad flood, in which thousands

and presently scores and hundreds of thousands of minds participated.

One immediate result of this achievement of printing was the appearance

of an abundance of Bibles in the world. Another was a cheapening of

school-books. The knowledge of reading spread swiftly. There was not

only a great increase of books in the world, but the books that were

now made were plainer to read and so easier to understand. Instead of

toiling at a crabbed text arid then thinking over its significance,

readers now could think unimpeded as they read. With this increase in

the facility of reading, the reading public grew. The book ceased to be

a highly decorated toy or a scholar’s mystery. People began to write

books to be read as well as looked at by ordinary people. They wrote

in the ordinary language and not in Latin. With the fourteenth century

the real history of the European literature begins.

So far we have been dealing only with the Saracenic share in the

European revival. Let us turn now to the influence of the Mongol

conquests. They stimulated the geographical imagination of Europe

enormously. For a time under the Great Khan, all Asia and Western

Europe enjoyed an open intercourse; all the roads were temporarily

open, and representatives of every nation appeared at the court of

Karakorum. The barriers between Europe and Asia set up by the

religious feud of Christianity and Islam were lowered. Great hopes were

entertained by the papacy for the conversion of the Mongols to

Christianity. Their only religion so far had been Shumanism, a

primitive paganism. Envoys of the Pope, Buddhist priests from India,

Parisian and Italian and Chinese artificers, Byzantine and Armenian

merchants, mingled with Arab officials and Persian and Indian

astronomers and mathematicians at the Mongol court. We hear too much

in history of the campaigns and massacres of the Mongols, and not

enough of their curiosity and desire for learning. Not perhaps as an

originative people, but as transmitters of knowledge and method their

influence upon the world’s history has been very great. And everything

one can learn of the vague and romantic personalities of Jengis or

Kublai tends to confirm the impression that these men were at least as

understanding and creative monarchs as either that flamboyant but

egotistical figure Alexander the Great or that raiser of political

ghosts, that energetic but illiterate theologian Charlemagne.

One of the most interesting of these visitors to the Mongol Court was a

certain Venetian, Marco Polo, who afterwards set down his story in a

book. He went to China about 1272 with his father and uncle, who had

already once made the journey. The Great Khan had been deeply impressed

by the elder Polos; they were the first men of the “Latin” peoples he

had seen; and he sent them back with enquiries for teachers and learned

men who could explain Christianity to him, and for various other

European things that had aroused his curiosity. Their visit with Marco was their second visit.

The three Polos started by way of Palestine and not by the Crimea, as

in their previous expedition. They had with them a gold tablet and

other indications from the Great Khan that must have greatly

facilitated their journey. The Great Khan had asked for some oil from

the lamp that burns in the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem; and so thither

they first went, and then by way of Cilicia into Armenia. They went

thus far north because the Sultan of Egypt was raiding the Mongol

domains at this time. Thence they came by way of Mesopotamia to Ormuz

on the Persian Gulf, as if they contemplated a sea voyage. At Ormuz

they met merchants from India. For some reason they did not take ship,

but instead turned northward through the Persian deserts, and so by way

of Balkh over the Pamir to Kashgar, and by way of Kotan and the Lob Nor

into the Hwang-ho valley and on to Pekin. At Pekin was the Great Khan, and they were hospitably entertained.

Marco particularly pleased Kublai; he was young and clever, and it is

clear he had mastered the Tartar language very thoroughly. He was

given an official position and sent on several missions, chiefly in

south-west China. The tale he had to tell of vast stretches of smiling

and prosperous country, “all the way excellent hostelries for

travellers,” and “fine vineyards, fields, and gardens,” of “many

abbeys” of Buddhist monks, of manufactures of “cloth of silk and gold

and many fine taffetas,” a “constant succession of cities and

boroughs,” and so on, first roused the incredulity and then fired the

imagination of all Europe. He told of Burmah, and of its great armies

with hundreds of elephants, and how these animals were defeated by the

Mongol bowmen, and also of the Mongol conquest of Pegu. He told of

Japan, and greatly exaggerated the amount of gold in that country. For

three years Marco ruled the city of Yang-chow as governor, and he

probably impressed the Chinese inhabitants as being little more of a

foreigner than any Tartar would have been. He may also have been sent

on a mission to India. Chinese records mention a certain Polo attached

to the imperial council in 1277, a very valuable confirmation of the

general truth of the Polo story.

The publication of Marco Polo’s travels produced a profound effect upon

the European imagination. The European literature, and especially the

European romance of the fifteenth century, echoes with the names in

Marco Polo’s story, with Cathay (North China) and Cambulac (Pekin) and the like.

Two centuries later, among the readers of the Travels of Marco Polo was

a certain Genoese mariner, Christopher Columbus, who conceived the

brilliant idea of sailing westward round the world to China. In

Seville there is a copy of the Travels with marginal notes by Columbus.

There were many reasons why the thought of a Genoese should be turned

in this direction. Until its capture by the Turks in 1453

Constantinople had been an impartial trading mart between the Western

world and the East, and the Genoese had traded there freely. But the

“Latin” Venetians, the bitter rivals of the Genoese, had been the

allies and helpers of the Turks against the Greeks, and with the coming

of the Turks Constantinople turned an unfriendly face upon Genoese

trade. The long forgotten discovery that the world was round had

gradually resumed its sway over men’s minds. The idea of going

westward to China was therefore a fairly obvious one. It was

encouraged by two things. The mariner’s compass had now been invented

and men were no longer left to the mercy of a fine night and the stars

to determine the direction in which they were sailing, and the Normans,

Catalonians and Genoese and Portuguese had already pushed out into the

Atlantic as far as the Canary Isles, Madeira and the Azores.


Yet Columbus found many difficulties before he could get ships to put

his idea to the test. He went from one European Court to another.

Finally at Granada, just won from the Moors, he secured the patronage

of Ferdinand and Isabella, and was able to set out across the unknown

ocean in three small ships. After a voyage of two months and nine days

he came to a land which he believed to be India, but which was really a

new continent, whose distinct existence the old world had never

hitherto suspected. He returned to Spain with gold, cotton, strange

beasts and birds, and two wild- eyed painted Indians to be baptized.

They were called Indians because, to the end of his days, he believed

that this land he had found was India. Only in the course of several

years did men begin to realize that the whole new continent of America

was added to the world’s resources.

The success of Columbus stimulated overseas enterprise enormously. In

1497 the Portuguese sailed round Africa to India, and in 1515 there

were Portuguese ships in Java. In 1519 Magellan, a Portuguese sailor

in Spanish employment, sailed out of Seville westward with five ships,

of which one, the _Vittoria_, came back up the river to Seville in

1522, the first ship that had ever circumnavigated the world.

Thirty-one men were aboard her, survivors of two-hundred-and- eighty

who had started. Magellan himself had been killed in the Philippine

Isles.

Printed paper books, a new realization of the round world as a thing

altogether attainable, a new vision of strange lands, strange animals

and plants, strange manners and customs, discoveries overseas and in

the skies and in the ways and materials of life burst upon the European

mind. The Greek classics, buried and forgotten for so long, were

speedily being printed and studied, and were colouring men’s thoughts

with the dreams of Plato and the traditions of an age of republican

freedom and dignity. The Roman dominion had first brought law and

order to Western Europe, and the Latin Church had restored it; but

under both Pagan and Catholic Rome curiosity and innovation were

subordinate to and restrained by organization. The reign of the Latin

mind was now drawing to an end. Between the thirteenth and the

sixteenth century the European Aryans, thanks to the stimulating

influence of Semite and Mongol and the rediscovery of the Greek

classics, broke away from the Latin tradition and rose again to the

intellectual and material leadership of mankind.

48.THE MONGOL CONQUESTS | A SHORT HISTORY OF THE WORLD | H. G. WELLS

A SHORT HISTORY OF THE WORLD 
BY 
H. G. WELLS
48.THE MONGOL CONQUESTS 

But in the thirteenth century, while this strange and finally ineffectual struggle to unify Christendom under the rule of the Pope was going on in Europe, far more momentous events were afoot upon the larger stage of Asia. A Turkish people from the country to the north of China rose suddenly to prominence in the world’s affairs, and achieved such a series of conquests as has no parallel in history. These were the Mongols. At the opening of the thirteenth century they were a horde of nomadic horsemen, living very much as their predecessors, the Huns, had done, subsisting chiefly upon meat and mare’s milk and living in tents of skin. They had shaken themselves free from Chinese dominion, and brought a number of other Turkish tribes into a military confederacy. Their central camp was at Karakorum in Mongolia.

At this time China was in a state of division. The great dynasty of

Tang had passed into decay by the tenth century, and after a phase of

division into warring states, three main empires, that of Kin in the

north with Pekin as its capital and that of Sung in the south with a

capital at Nankin, and Hsia in the centre, remain. In 1214 Jengis

Khan, the leader of the Mongol confederates, made war on the Kin Empire

and captured Pekin (1214). He then turned westward and conquered

Western Turkestan, Persia, Armenia, India down to Lahore, and South

Russia as far as Kieff. He died master of a vast empire that reached

from the Pacific to the Dnieper.

His successor, Ogdai Khan, continued this astonishing career of

conquest. His armies were organized to a very high level of

efficiency; and they had with them a new Chinese invention, gunpowder,

which they used in small field guns. He completed the conquest of the

Kin Empire and then swept his hosts right across Asia to Russia (1235),

an altogether amazing march. Kieff was destroyed in 1240, and nearly

all Russia became tributary to the Mongols. Poland was ravaged, and a

mixed army of Poles and Germans was annihilated at the battle of

Liegnitz in Lower Silesia in 1241. The Emperor Frederick II does not

seem to have made any great efforts to stay the advancing tide.

“It is only recently,” says Bury in his notes to Gibbon’s _Decline and

Fall of the Roman Empire_, “that European history has begun to

understand that the successes of the Mongol army which overran Poland

and occupied Hungary in the spring of A.D. 1241 were won by consummate

strategy and were not due to a mere overwhelming superiority of

numbers. But this fact has not yet become a matter of common

knowledge; the vulgar opinion which represents the Tartars as a wild

horde carrying all before them solely by their multitude, and galloping

through Eastern Europe without a strategic plan, rushing at all

obstacles and overcoming them by mere weight, still prevails. . . .

“It was wonderful how punctually and effectually the arrangements were

carried out in operations extending from the Lower Vistula to

Transylvania. Such a campaign was quite beyond the power of any

European army of the time, and it was beyond the vision of any European

commander. There was no general in Europe, from Frederick II downward,

who was not a tyro in strategy compared to Subutai. It should also be

noticed that the Mongols embarked upon the enterprise with full

knowledge of the political situation of Hungary and the condition of

Poland—they had taken care to inform themselves by a well-organized

system of spies; on the other hand, the Hungarians and the Christian

powers, like childish barbarians, knew hardly anything about their

enemies.”

But though the Mongols were victorious at Liegnitz, they did not

continue their drive westward. They were getting into woodlands and

hilly country, which did not suit their tactics; and so they turned

southward and prepared to settle in Hungary, massacring or assimilating

the kindred Magyar, even as these had previously massacred and

assimilated the mixed Scythians and Avars and Huns before them. From

the Hungarian plain they would probably have made raids west and south

as the Hungarians had done in the ninth century, the Avars in the

seventh and eighth and the Huns in the fifth. But Ogdai died suddenly,

and in 1242 there was trouble about the succession, and recalled by

this, the undefeated hosts of Mongols began to pour back across Hungary

and Roumania towards the east.

Thereafter the Mongols concentrated their attention upon their Asiatic

conquests. By the middle of the thirteenth century they had conquered

the Sung Empire. Mangu Khan succeeded Ogdai Khan as Great Khan in

1251, and made his brother Kublai Khan governor of China. In 1280

Kublai Khan had been formally recognized Emperor of China, and so

founded the Yuan dynasty which lasted until 1368. While the last ruins

of the Sung rule were going down in China, another brother of Mangu,

Hulagu, was conquering Persia and Syria. The Mongols displayed a bitter

animosity to Islam at this time, and not only massacred the population

of Bagdad when they captured that city, but set to work to destroy the

immemorial irrigation system which had kept Mesopotamia incessantly

prosperous and populous from the early days of Sumeria. From that time

until our own Mesopotamia has been a desert of ruins, sustaining only a

scanty population. Into Egypt the Mongols never penetrated; the Sultan

of Egypt completely defeated an army of Hulagu’s in Palestine in 1260.

After that disaster the tide of Mongol victory ebbed. The dominions of

the Great Khan fell into a number of separate states. The eastern

Mongols became Buddhists, like the Chinese; the western became Moslim.

The Chinese threw off the rule of the Yuan dynasty in 1368, and set up

the native Ming dynasty which flourished from 1368 to 1644. The

Russians remained tributary to the Tartar hordes upon the south-east

steppes until 1480, when the Grand Duke of Moscow repudiated his

allegiance and laid the foundation of modern Russia.

In the fourteenth century there was a brief revival of Mongol vigour

under Timurlane, a descendant of Jengis Khan. He established himself

in Western Turkestan, assumed the title of Grand Khan in 1369, and

conquered from Syria to Delhi. He was the most savage and destructive

of all the Mongol conquerors. He established an empire of desolation

that did not survive his death. In 1505, however, a descendant of this

Timur, an adventurer named Baber, got together an army with guns and

swept down upon the plains of India. His grandson Akbar (1556-1605)

completed his conquests, and this Mongol (or “Mogul” as the Arabs

called it) dynasty ruled in Delhi over the greater part of India until

the eighteenth century.

Map: The Ottoman Empire at the death of Suleiman the Magnificent, 1566 A.D.

One of the consequences of the first great sweep of Mongol conquest in

the thirteenth century was to drive a certain tribe of Turks, the

Ottoman Turks, out of Turkestan into Asia Minor. They extended and

consolidated their power in Asia Minor, crossed the Dardanelles and

conquered Macedonia, Serbia and Bulgaria, until at last Constantinople

remained like an island amongst the Ottoman dominions. In 1453 the

Ottoman Sultan, Muhammad II, took Constantinople, attacking it from the

European side with a great number of guns. This event caused intense

excitement in Europe and there was talk of a crusade, but the day of

the crusades was past.

In the course of the sixteenth century the Ottoman Sultans conquered

Bagdad, Hungary, Egypt and most of North Africa, and their fleet made

them masters of the Mediterranean. They very nearly took Vienna, and

they exacted it tribute from the Emperor. There were but two items to

offset the general ebb of Christian dominion in the fifteenth century.

One was the restoration of the independence of Moscow (1480); the other

was the gradual reconquest of Spain by the Christians. In 1492,

Granada, the last Moslem state in the peninsula, fell to King Ferdinand

of Aragon and his Queen Isabella of Castile.

But it was not until as late as 1571 that the naval battle of Lepanto

broke the prick of the Ottomans, and restored the Mediterranean waters

to Christian ascendancy.

47.RECALCITRANT PRINCES AND THE GREAT SCHISM | A SHORT HISTORY OF THE WORLD | H. G. WELLS

A SHORT HISTORY OF THE WORLD 
BY 
H. G. WELLS

47.RECALCITRANT PRINCES AND THE GREAT SCHISM 


One very great weakness of the Roman Church in its struggle to secure the headship of all Christendom was the manner in which the Pope was chosen.

If indeed the papacy was to achieve its manifest ambition and establish one rule and one peace throughout Christendom, then it was vitally necessary that it should have a strong, steady and continuous direction. In those great days of its opportunity it needed before all things that the Popes when they took office should be able men in the prime of life, that each should have his successor-designate with whom he could discuss the policy of the church, and that the forms and processes of election should be clear, definite, unalterable and unassailable. Unhappily none of these things obtained. It was not even clear who could vote in the election of a Pope, nor whether the Byzantine or Holy Roman Emperor had a voice in the matter. That very great papal statesman Hildebrand (Pope Gregory VII, 1073-1085) did much to regularize the election. He confined the votes to the Roman cardinals and he reduced the Emperor’s share to a formula of assent conceded to him by the church, but he made no provision for a successor-designate and he left it possible for the disputes of the cardinals to keep the See vacant, as in some cases it was kept vacant, for a year or more.

The consequences of this want of firm definition are to be seen in the

whole history of the papacy up to the sixteenth century. From quite

early times onward there were disputed elections and two or more men

each claiming to be Pope. The church would then be subjected to the

indignity of going to the Emperor or some other outside arbiter to

settle the dispute. And the career of everyone of the great Popes

ended in a note of interrogation. At his death the church might be

left headless and as ineffective as a decapitated body. Or he might be

replaced by some old rival eager only to discredit and undo his work.

Or some enfeebled old man tottering on the brink of the grave might

succeed him.


It was inevitable that this peculiar weakness of the papal organization

should attract the interference of the various German princes, the

French King, and the Norman and French Kings who ruled in England; that

they should all try to influence the elections, and have a Pope in

their own interest established in the Lateran Palace at Rome. And the

more powerful and important the Pope became in European affairs, the

more urgent did these interventions become. Under the circumstances it

is no great wonder that many of the Popes were weak and futile. The

astonishing thing is that many of them were able and courageous men.


One of the most vigorous and interesting of the Popes of this great

period was Innocent III (1198-1216) who was so fortunate as to become

Pope before he was thirty-eight. He and his successors were pitted

against an even more interesting personality, the Emperor Frederick II;

_Stupor mundi_ he was called, the Wonder of the world. The struggle of

this monarch against Rome is a turning place in history. In the end

Rome defeated him and destroyed his dynasty, but he left the prestige

of the church and Pope so badly wounded that its wounds festered and

led to its decay.

Frederick was the son of the Emperor Henry VI and his mother was the

daughter of Roger I, the Norman King of Sicily. He inherited this

kingdom in 1198 when he was a child of four years. Innocent III had

been made his guardian. Sicily in those days had been but recently

conquered by the Normans; the Court was half oriental and full of

highly educated Arabs; and some of these were associated in the

education of the young king. No doubt they were at some pains to make

their point of view clear to him. He got a Moslem view of Christianity

as well as a Christian view of Islam, and the unhappy result of this

double system of instruction was a view, exceptional in that age of

faith, that all religions were impostures. He talked freely on the

subject; his heresies and blasphemies are on record.

As the young man grew up he found himself in conflict with his

guardian. Innocent III wanted altogether too much from his ward. When

the opportunity came for Frederick to succeed as Emperor, the Pope

intervened with conditions. Frederick must promise to put down heresy

in Germany with a strong hand. Moreover he must relinquish his crown in

Sicily and South Italy, because otherwise he would be too strong for

the Pope. And the German clergy were to be freed from all taxation.

Frederick agreed but with no intention of keeping his word. The Pope

had already induced the French King to make war upon his own subjects

in France, the cruel and bloody crusade against the Waldenses; he

wanted Frederick to do the same thing in Germany. But Frederick being

far more of a heretic than any of the simple pietists who had incurred

the Pope’s animosity, lacked the crusading impulse. And when Innocent

urged him to crusade against the Moslim and recover Jerusalem he was

equally ready to promise and equally slack in his performance.
Having secured the imperial crown Frederick II stayed in Sicily, which

he greatly preferred to Germany as a residence, and did nothing to

redeem any of his promises to Innocent III, who died baffled in 1216.

Honorius III, who succeeded Innocent, could do no better with

Frederick, and Gregory IX (1227) came to the papal throne evidently

resolved to settle accounts with this young man at any cost. He

excommunicated him. Frederick II was denied all the comforts of

religion. In the half-Arab Court of Sicily this produced singularly

little discomfort. And also the Pope addressed a public letter to the

Emperor reciting his vices (which were indisputable), his heresies, and

his general misconduct. To this Frederick replied in a document of

diabolical ability. It was addressed to all the princes of Europe, and

it made the first clear statement of the issue between the Pope and the

princes. He made a shattering attack upon the manifest ambition of the

Pope to become the absolute ruler of all Europe. He suggested a union

of princes against this usurpation. He directed the attention of the

princes specifically to the wealth of the church.

Having fired off this deadly missile Frederick resolved to perform his

twelve-year-old promise and go upon a crusade. This was the Sixth

Crusade (1228). It was as a crusade, farcical. Frederick II went to

Egypt and met and discussed affairs with the Sultan. These two

gentlemen, both of sceptical opinions, exchanged congenial views, made

a commercial convention to their mutual advantage, and agreed to

transfer Jerusalem to Frederick. This indeed was a new sort of

crusade, a crusade by private treaty. Here was no blood splashing the

conqueror, no “weeping with excess of joy.” As this astonishing

crusader was an excommunicated man, he had to be content with a purely

secular coronation as King of Jerusalem, taking the crown from the

altar with his own hand—for all the clergy were bound to shun him. He

then returned to Italy, chased the papal armies which had invaded his

dominions back to their own territories, and obliged the Pope to grant

him absolution from his excommunication. So a prince might treat the

Pope in the thirteenth century, and there was now no storm of popular

indignation to avenge him. Those days were past.

In 1239 Gregory IX resumed his struggle with Frederick, excommunicated

him for a second time, and renewed that warfare of public abuse in

which the papacy had already suffered severely. The controversy was

revived after Gregory IX was dead, when Innocent IV was Pope; and again

a devastating letter, which men were bound to remember, was written by

Frederick against the church. He denounced the pride and irreligion of

the clergy, and ascribed all the corruptions of the time to their pride

and wealth. He proposed to his fellow princes a general confiscation

of church property—for the good of the church. It was a suggestion

that never afterwards left the imagination of the European princes.

We will not go on to tell of his last years. The particular events of

his life are far less significant than its general atmosphere. It is

possible to piece together something of his court life in Sicily. He

was luxurious in his way of living, and fond of beautiful things. He

is described as licentious. But it is clear that he was a man of very

effectual curiosity and inquiry. He gathered Jewish and Moslem as well

as Christian philosophers at his court, and he did much to irrigate the

Italian mind with Saracenic influences. Through him the Arabic

numerals and algebra were introduced to Christian students, and among

other philosophers at his court was Michael Scott, who translated

portions of Aristotle and the commentaries thereon of the great Arab

philosopher Averroes (of Cordoba). In 1224 Frederick founded the

University of Naples, and he enlarged and enriched the great medical

school at Salerno University. He also founded a zoological garden. He

left a book on hawking, which shows him to have been an acute observer

of the habits of birds, and he was one of the first Italians to write

Italian verse. Italian poetry was indeed born at his court. He has

been called by an able writer, “the first of the moderns,” and the

phrase expresses aptly the unprejudiced detachment of his intellectual

side.

A still more striking intimation of the decay of the living and

sustaining forces of the papacy appeared when presently the Popes came

into conflict with the growing power of the French King. During the

lifetime of the Emperor Frederick II, Germany fell into disunion, and

the French King began to play the rôle of guard, supporter and rival to

the Pope that had hitherto fallen to the Hohenstaufen Emperors. A

series of Popes pursued the policy of supporting the French monarchs.

French princes were established in the kingdom of Sicily and Naples,

with the support and approval of Rome, and the French Kings saw before

them the possibility of restoring and ruling the Empire of Charlemagne.

When, however, the German interregnum after the death of Frederick II,

the last of the Hohenstaufens, came to all end and Rudolf of Habsburg

was elected first Habsburg Emperor (1273), the policy of Rome began to

fluctuate between France and Germany, veering about with the sympathies

of each successive Pope. In the East in 1261 the Greeks recaptured

Constantinople from the Latin emperors, and the founder of the new

Greek dynasty, Michael Palæologus, Michael VIII, after some unreal

tentatives of reconciliation with the Pope, broke away from the Roman

communion altogether, and with that, and the fall of the Latin kingdoms

in Asia, the eastward ascendancy of the Popes came to an end.

In 1294 Boniface VIII became Pope. He was an Italian, hostile to the

French, and full of a sense of the great traditions and mission of

Rome. For a time he carried things with a high hand. In 1300 he held

a jubilee, and a vast multitude of pilgrims assembled in Rome. “So

great was the influx of money into the papal treasury, that two

assistants were kept busy with the rakes collecting the offerings that

were deposited at the tomb of St. Peter.” [1] But this festival was a

delusive triumph. Boniface came into conflict with the French King in

1302, and in 1303, as he was about to pronounce sentence of

excommunication against that monarch, he was surprised and arrested in

his own ancestral palace at Anagni, by Guillaume de Nogaret. This

agent from the French King forced an entrance into the palace, made his

way into the bedroom of the frightened Pope—he was lying in bed with a

cross in his hands—and heaped threats and insults upon him. The Pope

was liberated a day or so later by the townspeople, and returned to

Rome; but there he was seized upon and again made prisoner by the

Orsini family, and in a few weeks’ time the shocked and disillusioned

old man died a prisoner in their hands.
This series is from casts in the Victoria and Albert Museum of the

original brass statuettes in the Rijks Museum, Amsterdam

The people of Anagni did resent the first outrage, and rose against

Nogaret to liberate Boniface, but then Anagni was the Pope’s native

town. The important point to note is that the French King in this

rough treatment of the head of Christendom was acting with the full

approval of his people; he had summoned a council of the Three Estates

of France (lords, church and commons) and gained their consent before

proceeding to extremities. Neither in Italy, Germany nor England was

there the slightest general manifestation of disapproval at this free

handling of the sovereign pontiff. The idea of Christendom had decayed

until its power over the minds of men had gone.

Throughout the fourteenth century the papacy did nothing to recover its

moral sway. The next Pope elected, Clement V, was a Frenchman, the

choice of King Philip of France. He never came to Rome. He set up his

court in the town of Avignon, which then belonged not to France but to

the papal See, though embedded in French territory, and there his

successors remained until 1377, when Pope Gregory XI returned to the

Vatican palace in Rome. But Gregory XI did not take the sympathies of

the whole church with him. Many of the cardinals were of French origin

and their habits and associations were rooted deep at Avignon. When in

1378 Gregory XI died, and an Italian, Urban VI, was elected, these

dissentient cardinals declared the election invalid, and elected

another Pope, the anti-Pope, Clement VII. This split is called the

Great Schism. The Popes remained in Rome, and all the anti-French

powers, the Emperor, the King of England, Hungary, Poland and the North

of Europe were loyal to them. The anti-Popes, on the other hand,

continued in Avignon, and were supported by the King of France, his

ally the King of Scotland, Spain, Portugal and various German princes.

Each Pope excommunicated and cursed the adherents of his rival

(1378-1417).

Is it any wonder that presently all over Europe people began to think

for themselves in matters of religion?

The beginnings of the Franciscans and the Dominicans, which we have

noted in the preceding chapters, were but two among many of the new

forces that were arising in Christendom, either to hold or shatter the

church as its own wisdom might decide. Those two orders the church did

assimilate and use, though with a little violence in the case of the

former. But other forces were more frankly disobedient and critical.

A century and a half later came Wycliffe (1320-1384). He was a learned

Doctor at Oxford. Quite late in his life he began a series of

outspoken criticisms of the corruption of the clergy and the unwisdom

of the church. He organized a number of poor priests, the Wycliffites,

to spread his ideas throughout England; and in order that people should

judge between the church and himself, he translated the Bible into

English. He was a more learned and far abler man than either St.

Francis or St. Dominic. He had supporters in high places and a great

following among the people; and though Rome raged against him, and

ordered his imprisonment, he died a free man. But the black and

ancient spirit that was leading the Catholic Church to its destruction

would not let his bones rest in the grave. By a decree of the Council

of Constance in 1415, his remains were ordered to be dug up and burnt,

an order which was carried out at the command of Pope Martin V by

Bishop Fleming in 1428. This desecration was not the act of some

isolated fanatic; it was the official act of the church.