Reading #1: Change for the Church: Jews and Banking in Renaissance Italy by Mara BernsteinProfessor at the University of South Carolina

Accessibility to money is not something that we think twice about in the United States in this day and age. We go to the ATM to withdraw money from our account, we cash our paychecks, and take out loans for school, buying a home, or even starting a business. We trust that the cash will be accessible and available, whether it is in dollars from the bank across the street, or in euros as we traverse Italy buying soccer jerseys, leather purses, and posters of art masterpieces to take home. And this all happens without a nod to religion. However, the mingling of banking institutions and religion actually has a long history when it comes to charging interest, and this affected the inception of banking institutions as we know them today. As a result of the influence of the Catholic Church on the development of the banking industry, banking became an economic opportunity for the Jews until the Renaissance period when the Medici family took over, accommodating Church theology while satisfying growing demand for banking services. The link between the religious sphere and the field of banking stems from a theological doctrine on usury, the practice of lending money with an added cost called interest. Usury is found in a biblical verse, Deuteronomy 28:20, which reads: “Unto a foreigner thou may lend usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend usury.” The accepted interpretation of this verse by the Catholic Church is that “brother” refers to any human being, whereas the dominant Jewish interpretation identifies a “brother” as specifically a fellow Jew. Thus for the Christian, usury is prohibited, whereas the Jewish interpretation permits usury as long as the money is lent to a non-Jew. This divergence in interpretation created a fortuitous opportunity for the Jews of the thirteenth through fifteenth centuries to monopolize the banking profession. Beginning in the twelfth century, the Church not only upheld the prohibition against usury but also designated harsh consequences for those found guilty of usury. The Third Lateran Council of 1179 ruled that usurers would be denied full burial rites. This corresponded with the strict view of theologians like Thomas Aquinas who saw usury as a form of “theft and burglary” and likened its seriousness to “perjury, adultery, and homicide.” Later, in 1311, the Church cracked down even more when, at the Council of Vienne, it was decided that any form of usury would be considered heresy and that anyone who practiced usury would be punished as a heretic. The increased intensity of the language used in regard to usury and the harsher penalty of the Council Vienne indicate the strong influence of the papacy on medieval life, both in the religious sphere as well as the business world. The strong influence of papal opinion made it inevitable that any exchange of money or loan would require careful consideration of the ban on usury. The papal ban on usury formed out of theological need from the verse in Deuteronomy, and is not an indication that there was no demand for banking services such as money exchange or loans. On the contrary, following the Crusades the papacy had an ever-increasing need for banking services in order to transfer money throughout the Catholic lands of Europe as well as to assist the poor by making loans and aid accessible. From the void of banking services and the desire to stay faithful to Church doctrine arose the niche of economic opportunity for the Jews. The chance to use the Jews for money services fulfilled several of the goals of the papacy. Firstly, the Jews had familiarity with trading, thus could provide adequate resources for the transfer of papal money from Rome to other Christian communities across Europe. Secondly, Jews could provide the poor with loans by means other than draining the papal budget. The ease on the papal budget made the option of using the Jews attractive for the papacy because this solution did not place a burden on the individual Christian communities. Using the Jews for money services did not go against theology. No sin was committed by letting the Jews do usury, as Jews’ “souls were probably lost in any case” and Jewish presence could be tolerated for the benefit of extracting their taxes.[6] Furthermore, the papacy was cognizant of the fact that Judaism did not consider it sinful to take interest. As Frederick II of Sicily noted, usury was “not illicit for them.” Therefore the Jews were able to supply labor for an industry blocked to Christians as per the influence of the Catholic Church. The papal influence and control of the money services of Jews continued even after it was deemed permissible for Jews to undertake acts of usury. Jewish moneylending and exchange services began in Rome as least as early as the beginning of the twelfth century, with the Christian pilgrims who were in need of currency exchange. Other pilgrims sought loans so that they could offer indulgences. The papacy used the Jews for the transfer of money, in addition to some occasional loans from Jewish moneylenders—though the papacy would never openly admit to such a reliance on the Jews. The practice of employing Jewish moneylenders spread from Rome to other cities and a significant rise in the number of Jewish moneylenders occurred during the second half of the twelfth century. Despite the fact that the Jews ran services for which there was plenty of demand, the papacy and local governments who invited Jewish moneylenders still kept tight control on the privilege, so as not to let the Jews defraud

the Christians, and to keep the Jews’ earnings in check. The condotta carefully controlled the Jewish moneylenders by only licensing them for a set number of years and requiring a payment or money loan to the city’s government for the opportunity to practice moneylending and for physical protection. The most powerful tool used by the condotta over the Jews was a set interest, most often between fifteen and twenty-five percent. A lower interest rate was essential in order to control Jewish profits, but also to ensure that the poor would be able to utilize these services as intended. Small to mid-sized towns and those with strong governments were the first to invite Jews, as access to funds in smaller towns was limited and the governments often sought loans. The spread of the invitation for Jewish moneylenders started in central Italy and then extended to the north, though it should be kept in mind that a community’s decision to accept a Jewish moneylender was an often delicate and tenuous decision because the presence of Jews was not always wholly welcome. The need for funds, however, was undeniable and many cities were eager to have a resource, yet still obey Church doctrine. Eagerness for money services is reflected in the response of the town of Piacenze upon the submission of a license application from the Jewish moneylender Magier. The consensus read “for the benefit of public life of that city, let be admitted to it whoever wants to come for the more Jews there will be, the more help will the citizens and the people of the city get in their need.” By the sixteenth century, at least five hundred Jewish moneylenders are documented in Italy alone. Though rare in Jewish history, the Jews had found a way to safety and a secure livelihood, afforded by none other than the Catholic Church and its interpretation of Deuteronomy 28:20. Though the Jews filled the demand for moneylending services, the partnership between Jews and Christians was not a long-term solution. The acceptance and trust of Jews only went so far. The Christians envied the livelihood provided by money lending, provoking continued tension. An even greater problem, Jews’ specialization consisted of short term, smaller loans, as the majority of their business came from the lower social strata, and thus could not satisfy the demand for a larger banking system. This need heightened at the conclusion of the Black Plague when there was a papal need for money. The Lombards, non-Jewish banking families from the north who held bigger clientele banking services, folded as a result of defaulted loans from the massive death toll in Europe. Following the Black Plague, Europe was in need of an economic revival and the papal budget as well as individual families felt this strain. During the fifteenth century, the Medici family emerged as a banking powerhouse. As they spread their services across Europe, they utilized keen business practices while staying in line with the Church’s ban on usury. Giovanni di Bicci de Medici, the founding father of the business in 1397, moved to Florence, which offered more opportunities for investment, a rare phenomenon at the time. The presence of the florin, an internationally respected coin, made Florence conducive to becoming a center for international finance and the headquarters of the Medici bank. At the crux of the success of the Medici bank was the system of bills of exchange used to exchange different types of currency. The process of a bill of exchange involved the exchange of money between different branches of the Medici bank, over the course of several months. The change in rates of exchange in the different places over the length of time it took to travel with the money allowed the Medici bank to make a profit without charging interest. It was through this process of bills of exchange that the Medici bank flourished. Unlike today, where bills are discounted and the future value is predicted, the Medici bank relied on the shift of the exchange rate and so profit was incidental, not imposed, and the amount of profit could not be predicted. The sending of the initial bill and the return of the bill to its original branch were considered two separate transactions. The distinction of the bills’ redemption at a different geographic location and at a different time—which occurred naturally because of the length of travel—was also crucial for ensuring that no usury was conducted. Bills of exchange provided the answer for which Christians had been looking. Though it was not the most efficient way of transacting business, it was legal according to the majority of theologians. As opposed to the Jews, who were simply exempt from Church doctrine on usury, the Medici family found a new, successful way of doing banking and international, large-scale banking reached new heights. Besides the system of bills of exchange, the Medici banks thrived because of the employment of new strong business practices. Giovanni di Bicci kept careful records using the newly developed double entry accounting system, allowing him to keep track of debits and credits and to calculate discrepancies. Cosimo, di Bicci’s son who took over and oversaw the bank for more than forty years, was also known for keeping meticulous records and placing a priority on reports from the branch managers.During the bank’s height, strong leadership and sharp record keeping allowed the Medicis to expand to several more cities while still making safe, profitable investments. Under Giovanni di Bicci, locations in Florence, Rome, Venice, and Naples opened, while during Cosimo's reign the number of bank locations expanded beyond Italy to more than six other European cities.[26] When a branch opened, the Medicis appointed a manager who invested capital[27] alongside the Medicis and who became responsible for the investment choices at his particular branch. A specific code of guidelines

on investments steered the manager’s investments and contained rules. For example, they decided that the bank should only work with trusted merchants with a stable credit history and managers should not give loans to friends nor accept bribes over a given value.[28] The Medicis also kept their payroll small, often less than six clerks per branch and in many cases, only two clerks.[29] The careful recordkeeping, clear investment guidelines, and emphasis on manager partnership led to the success of the Medici expansion and, ultimately, the success of the bank, which thrived on its access to all of the major cities of Europe. The combination of business insight and acknowledgement of religious constraints gained recognition for the Medici bank as heralding the start of the modern banking system. The rise of the Medicis as Christian bankers provoked changes for Jewish banking as Jews could no longer monopolize the role of supplier of banking services. While the Medici bank focused on currency exchange and large loans to governments and the wealthy class, the fifteenth century also brought a new outlet of banking services to the poorer classes. As urged by the Franciscans who wanted to diminish Christian reliance on Jews for loans, local governments began setting up public funds for the poor, known as a monti di pieta during the late 1400’s. These funds were initially stocked by wealthy citizens and leaders, such as the Medicis and since the fund was earmarked specifically for helping the poor by providing short term loans, any interest charged fell in the category of charity and could be considered “honorable and benevolent.” The monti di pieta also forced the Jewish moneylenders to give interest-free loans—thus ruining their profits—and essentially forcing the transfer of the business of money lending to the Christian public. During the time of the Renaissance, not only did the Medicis figure out how to overcome the Church’s ban on usury to build up the banking industry, but with the establishment of the monti di pieta, the public leaders also balanced the need for loans with religious doctrine. Whereas formerly Christians had no choice because of religion but to take a hands-off approach to banking and rely on the Jews, the expansionism of the Renaissance propelled the combination of religion and secular business to produce modern banking. Undoubtedly Church doctrine on usury strongly influenced the development of banking, but, looking back, perhaps it can be considered a prime example of the fusion of religion and professional success. Religion is a powerful force in everyday life. The establishment of the banking industry during Renaissance times proved that a secular business demand need not be held back by the tug of religious influence.

Source: https://sites.google.com/site/hashtaumd/contents-1/banking

Reading #2 : Art and Money in Renaissance Florence by David GalensonProfessor of Economics, University of Chicago

In a time when the actions of bankers and hedge fund managers fuel instability not only in financial markets but also in the market for advanced art, many in the art world complain bitterly of the invasion of their sacred domain by these crass and unworthy money-lenders. These delicate souls should all be required immediately to travel to Florence, to see an exhibition at the Palazzo Strozzi titled “Money and Beauty.” There they would learn that not only is the connection between art and money not a recent development, but that the innovations in our artistic heritage in Renaissance Florence. In the catalogue for “Money and Beauty,” the chairman of the Fondazione Palazzo Strozzi, Lorenzo Bini Smaghi, observes that “the events of recent years, including the near collapse of the banking system in 2008 — due in part to innovative and perhaps overly risky financial assets — make an exhibition on the birth of banking and financial speculation particularly timely.”. More broadly, what “Money and Beauty” demonstrates is the variety and complexity of the interrelationships between art and money in the Renaissance. The prosperity of Florence rested in significant part of the city’s creation of the golden florin in 1252. This new coin replaced the much less valuable silver coins that dated from the time of Charlemagne, and the florin’s timeliness was witnessed by its rapid spread throughout Europe. And as it spread, it carried with it the message that Florence was an innovator in money and banking. Florentines were soon hired to oversee mints and mines in many financial centers, and Florentine banks established operations in many of these. At home in Florence, merchant bankers dominated the local economy, and culture. They decorated churches with beautiful paintings and sculptures, and when they had filled the churches, they decorated their own homes; when these were filled, they built magnificent palazzos that covered whole city blocks, and filled them with art. Artists made images that served their patrons in many ways. They painted the Madonna and Child for their patrons’ chapels, and portraits of their patrons in luxurious gowns. They also painted allegorical scenes in which bankers and money-lenders practiced their trades, and episodes in which merchants benefited from divine intervention.

Florentine merchant-bankers publicly demonstrated their vast wealth and great piety through the large and elaborate canvases they commissioned, and often through the ornate gilded frames they had made for them, and they demonstrated their refinement and exquisite taste by employing master artists who were known throughout Italy for their genius. In 1459, the son of the Duke of Milan was amazed by what he saw at the Palazzo Medici — “the decorative tapestries, the chests of inestimable craftsmanship and value, the masterful sculptures, the infinitely varied patterns and silverwork” — and he neglected to mention the greatest treasures of all, paintings by such masters as Fra Angelico and Filippo Lippi. The young Galeazzo Sforza was no more perceptive in his analysis of the source of these works, as he concluded that “money alone” could not compete with these achievements. Yet in fact Tim Parks, the co-curator of “Money and Beauty,” writes that everything Sforza saw “had all been bought with money, everything depended on the financial clout of a major bank.” In general, adds co-curator Ludovica Sebregondi, “Patronage is the link that brings art and the economy together.” The specific effects of patronage are spectacularly illustrated in this exhibition, which offers beauty as well as enlightenment. Among the visual highlights is an altarpiece by Fra Angelico that depicts St. Nicholas rescuing a sailing vessel. The painting’s abstract forms and subtle colors suggest a clear link between the mid-15th century and early Surrealism. The exhibition features a number of paintings by Botticelli, including a superb Venus that isolates the central figure from the famous Uffizi Birth of Venus, highlighted dramatically against a dark background.Clement Greenberg famously wrote that advanced art has always been attached to society’s ruling class by a golden umbilical cord, and “Money and Beauty” emphatically demonstrates that this was true during a key period in which both art and finance were being created in their modern forms. It thus decisively dispels romantic but mistaken myths that money somehow damages the purity of art. I leave the last words on this to Ludovica Sebregondi:

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-galenson/florence-renaissance-art_b_1110498.html

Source 1: Pico Della Mirandola: Oration On the Dignity Of Man (15th C. CE)

....For why should we not admire the angels themselves and the most blessed choirs of heaven more? At last I seem to have understood why man is the most fortunate creature and thus worthy of all admiration, and what precisely is the place allotted to him in the universal chain, a place to be envied not only by the beasts, but also by the stars, and the Intelligences beyond this world. It is an incredible and wonderful thing. And why not? For this is the very reason why man is rightly called and considered a great miracle and a truly marvelous creature. But hear what this place is, Fathers, and courteously grant me the favor of listening with friendly ears.

Now the Highest Father, God the Architect, according to the laws of His secret wisdom, built this house of the world, this world which we see, the most sacred temple of His divinity. He adorned the region beyond the heavens with Intelligences, He animated the celestial spheres with eternal souls, and He filled the excrementary and filthy parts of the lower world with a multitude of animals of all kinds. But when his work was finished, the Artisan longed for someone to reflect upon the plan of so great a creation, to love its beauty, and to admire its magnitude. When, therefore, everything was completed, as Moses and the Timaeus testify,

He began at last to consider the creation of man. But among His archetypes there was none from which He could form a new offspring, nor in His treasure houses was there any inheritance which He might bestow upon His new son, nor in the tribunal seats of the whole world was there a place where this contemplator of the universe might sit. All was now filled out; everything had been apportioned to the highest, the middle, and the lowest orders. But it was not in keeping with the Paternal power to fail . . . Finally the Great Artisan ordained that man, to whom he could give nothing belonging only to himself, should share in common whatever properties had been peculiar to each of the other creatures. He received man, therefore, as a creature of undetermined nature, and placing him in the center of the universe, said this to him: Neither an established place, nor a form belonging to you alone, nor any special function have We given to you O Adam, and for this reason, that you may have and possess, according to your desire and judgment, whatever place, whatever form, and whatever functions you shall desire. The nature of other creatures, which has been determined, is confined within the bounds prescribed by Us. You, who are confined by no limits, shall determine for yourself your own nature, in accordance with your own free will, in whose hand I have placed you. I have set you at the center of the world, so that from there you may more easily survey whatever is in the world. We have made you neither heavenly nor earthly, neither mortal nor immortal, so that, more freely and more honorably the molder and maker of yourself, you may fashion yourself in whatever form you shall prefer. You shall be able to descend among the lower forms of being, which are brute beasts; you shall be able to be reborn out of the judgment of your own soul into the higher beings, which are divine.

O sublime generosity of God the Father! O highest and most wonderful felicity of man! To him it was granted to have what he chooses, to be what he will. At the moment when they are born, beasts bring with them from their mother’s womb, as Lucilius says, whatever they shall possess. From the beginning, or soon afterwards, the highest spiritual beings have what they are to be for all eternity. When man came into life, the Father endowed him with all kinds of seeds and with the germs of every way of life. Whatever seeds each man cultivates will grow and bear fruit in him. If these seeds are vegetative, he will be like a plant; if they are are sensual, he will become like the beasts; if they are rational he will become like a heavenly creature; if intellectual, he will be an angel and a son of God. . . .

Source: www.Historyteacher.net

Source 2: Baldassare Castiglione, The Courtier

I am of the opinion that the principal and true profession of the Courtier ought to be that of arms; which I would have him follow actively above all else, and be known among others as bold and strong, and loyal to whomsoever he serves. …. And….I would have him well built and shapely of limb, and would have him show strength and lightness and suppleness, and know all bodily exercises that befit a man of war…. Our Courtier then will be esteemed excellent and will attain grace in everything, particularly in speaking, if he avoids affectation; into which fault many fall, and often more than others, who, if they have been a year away from home, on their return at once begin to speak Roman, sometimes Spanish or French, and God know how… I think that what is chiefly important and necessary for the Courtier in order to speak and write well is knowledge…. Nor would I have him speak always of grave matters, but of amusing things, of games, jests, and waggery, according to the occasion; but sensibility of everything, and with readiness and lucid fullness; and in no place let him show vanity or childish folly…. I would have him more than passably accomplished in letters, at least in those studies that are called the humanities, and conversant not only with the Latin language but with the Greek, for the sake of the many different things that have been admirably written therein. Let him be well versed in the poets, and not less in the orators and historians, and also proficient in writing verse and prose, especially in this vulgar [vernacular] tongue of ours…. You must know that I am not content with the Courtier unless he be also a musician and unless, besides understanding and being able to read notes, he can play upon diverse instruments. For if we consider rightly, there is to be found no rest from toil or medicine for the troubled spirit more becoming and praiseworthy in time of leisure than this…. And do not marvel that I desire this art, … I remember having read that the ancients, especially throughout Greece, had their boys of gentle birth study painting in school as an honorable and necessary thing…. The game of tennis….is nearly always played in public, and is one of those sports to which a crown lends much distinctiony…. There are certain other exercises that can be practiced in public and in private, like dancing; and in this I think the Courtier ought to have a care, for when dancing in the presence of many and in a place full of people, it seems to me that he should preserve a certain dignity…. Besides daily showing everyone that he possesses the worth we have already described, I would have the Courtier strive, with all the thoughts and forces of his mind, to love and almost to adore the prince whom he serves, above every other thing, and mold his wishes, habits, and all his ways to his prince’s liking…. Our Courtier….will not be a bearer of evil tidings; he will not be thoughtless in sometimes saying things that offend instead of pleasing as he intends… I would that our Courtier….might love, honor, and respect others according to their worth and merits, and always contrive to consort [mingle] more with such as are in high esteem and noble and of known virtue, than with the ignoble and those of little worth; in such ways that he may be loved and honored by them also. And he will accomplish this if he be courteous, kind, generous, affable, and mild with others, zealous and active to serve and guard his friends’ welfare and honor both absent and present, enduring such of their natural defects as are endurable without breaking with them for slight cause, and correcting in himself those that are kindly pointed out…. If our Courtier excels in anything besides arms, I would have him get profit and esteem from it in fine fashion… I wish our Courtier to guard against getting the name of a liar or a boaster, which sometimes befalls even those who do not deserve it….

Many faculties of the mind are as necessary to woman as to man; likewise gentle birth, to avoid

affectation, to be naturally graceful in all her doings, to be mannerly, clever, prudent, not arrogant, not envious, not slanderous, not vain, not quarrelsome, not silly, to know how to win and keep the favor of her mistress and of all others, to practice well and gracefully the exercises that befit women….Beauty is more necessary to her than to the courtier, for in truth that woman lacks much who lacks beauty. Then, too, she ought to be more circumspect and take greater care not to give occasion for evil being said of her…. Let him obey, please and honor his lady with all reverence, and hold her dearer than himself, and prefer her convenience and pleasures to his own, and love in her not less the beauty of mind than of body… In such fasion will our courtier be most acceptable to his lady, and she will always show herself obedient, sweet and affable to him, and as desirous of pleasing him as of being loved by him.———-Source: http://italianrenaissanceresources.com/units/unit-3/sub-page-03/the-courtier-and-the-arts-an-excerpt-from-baldassare-castiglione-the-courtier/

Source #3: Leonardo Bruni, History of His Own Times in Italy and On Learning and Literature (c. 1415)

[LOVE FOR GREEK LITERATURE]Then first came the knowledge of Greek, which had not been in use among us for seven hundred years. Chrysoloras the Byzantine, a man of noble birth and well versed in Greek letters, brought Greek learning to us. When his country was invaded by the Turks, he came by sea, first to Venice….I burned with love of academic studies, and had spent no little pains on dialectic studies, and had spent no little pains on dialectic and rhetoric…. [ON LEARNING AND LITERATURE]

….The foundations of all true learning must be laid in the sound and thorough knowledge of Latin: …But we must not forget that true distinction is to be gained by a wide and varied range of such studies as conduce to the profitable enjoyment of life, in which, however, we must observe due proportion in the attention and time we devote to them. First amongst such studies I place History: a subject which must not on any account be neglected by one who aspires to true cultivation. For it is our duty to understand the origins of our own history and its development; and the achievements of Peoples and of Kings…From History, also, we draw our store of examples of moral precepts…. The great Orators of antiquity must by all means be included. Nowhere do we find the virtues more warmly extolled, the vices so fiercely decried….in oratory we find that wealth of vocabulary, that clear easy-flowing style, that verve and force, which are invaluable to us both in writing and in conversation. I come now to Poetry and the Poets….For we cannot point to any great mind of the past for whom the Poets had not a powerful attraction. Aristotle, in constantly quoting Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, Euripides and other [Greek] poets, proves that he knew their works hardly less intimately than those of the philosophers….Hence my view that familiarity with the great poets of antiquity is essential to any claim to true education….Poet, Orator, Historian, and the rest, all must be studied, each must contribute a share. Our learning thus becomes full, ready, varied and elegant, available for action or for discourse in all subjects.

Source: https://books.google.com/books

Source #4: Giorgio Vasari Lives of the Most Eminent Italian Architects, Painters, and Sculptors, 1550

LIFE OF LEONARDO DA VINCI: Painter and Sculptor of Florence The greatest gifts are often seen, in the course of nature, rained by celestial influences on human creatures; and sometimes, in supernatural fashion, beauty, grace, and talent are united beyond measure in one single person, in a manner that to whatever such an one turns his attention, his every action is so divine, that, surpassing all other men, it makes itself clearly known as a thing bestowed by God (as it is), and not acquired by human art. This was seen by all mankind in Leonardo da Vinci, in whom, besides a beauty of body never sufficiently extolled, there was an infinite grace in all his actions; and so great was his genius, and such its growth, that to whatever difficulties he turned his mind, he solved them with ease. In him was great bodily strength, joined to dexterity, with a spirit and courage ever royal and magnanimous; and the fame of his name so increased, that not only in his lifetime was he held in esteem, but his reputation became even greater among posterity after his death.

Truly marvellous and celestial was Leonardo, the son of Ser Piero da Vinci; and in learning and in the rudiments of letters he would have made great proficience, if he had not been so variable and unstable, for he set himself to learn many things, and then, after having begun them, abandoned them. Thus, in arithmetic, during the few months that he studied it, he made so much progress, that, by continually suggesting doubts and difficulties to the master who was teaching him, he would very often bewilder him. He gave some little attention to music, and quickly resolved to learn to play the lyre, as one who had by nature a spirit most lofty and full of refinement: wherefore he sang divinely to that instrument, improvising upon it. Nevertheless, although he occupied himself with such a variety of things, he never ceased drawing and working in relief, pursuits which suited his fancy more than any other. Ser Piero, having observed this, and having considered the loftiness of his intellect, one day took some of his drawings and carried them to Andrea del Verrocchio, who was much his friend, and besought him straitly [sic] to tell him whether Leonardo, by devoting himself to drawing, would make any proficience. Andrea was astonished to see the extraordinary beginnings of Leonardo, and urged Ser Piero that he should make him study it; wherefore he arranged with Leonardo that he should enter the workshop of Andrea, which Leonardo did with the greatest willingness in the world. And he practised not one branch of art only, but all those in which drawing played a part; and having an intellect so divine and marvellous that he was also an excellent geometrician, he not only worked in sculpture, making in his youth, in clay, some heads of women that are smiling, of which plaster casts are still taken, and likewise some heads of boys which appeared to have issued from the hand of a master; but in architecture, also, he made many drawings both of ground-plans and of other designs of buildings; and he was the first, although but a youth, who suggested the plan of reducing the river Arno to a navigable canal from Pisa to Florence. He made designs of flour-mills, fullingmills, and engines, which might be driven by the force of water; and since he wished that his profession should be painting, he studied much in drawing after nature, and sometimes in making models of figures in clay, over which he would lay soft pieces of cloth dipped in clay, and then set himself patiently to draw them on a certain kind of very fine Rheims cloth, or prepared linen; and he executed them in black and white with the point of his brush, so that it was a marvel, as some of them by his hand, which I have in our book of drawings, still bear witness; besides which, he drew on paper with such diligence and so well, that there is no one who has ever equalled him in perfection of finish; and I have one, a head drawn with the style in chiaroscuro, which is divine.

And there was infused in that brain such grace from God, and a power of expression in such sublime accord with the intellect and memory that served it, and he knew so well how to express his conceptions by draughtmanship, that he vanquished with his discourse, and confuted with his reasoning, every valiant wit. And he was continually making models and designs to show men how to remove mountains with ease, and how to bore them in order to pass from one level to another; and by means of levers, windlasses, and screws, he showed the way to raise and draw great weights, together with methods for emptying harbours, and pumps for removing water from low places, things which his brain never ceased from devising.It is clear that Leonardo, through his comprehension of art, began many things and never finished one of them, since it seemed to him that the hand was not able to attain to the perfection of art in carrying out the things which he imagined; for the reason that he conceived in idea difficulties so subtle and so marvellous, that they could never be expressed by the hands, be they ever so excellent. And so many were his caprices, that, philosophizing of natural things, he set himself to seek out the properties of herbs, going on even to observe the motions of the heavens, the path of the moon, and the courses of the sun.

***He also painted in Milan, for the Friars of S. Dominic, at S. Maria dell Grazie, a Last Supper, a most beautiful and marvellous thing; and to the heads of the Apostles he gave such majesty and beauty, that he left the head of Christ unfinished, not believing that he was able to give it that divine air which is essential to the image of Christ. This work, remaining thus all but finished, has ever been held by the Milanese in the greatest veneration, and also by strangers as well; for Leonardo imagined and succeeded in expressing that anxiety which had seized the Apostles in wishing to know who should betray their Master. For which reason in all their faces are seen love, fear, and wrath, or rather, sorrow, at not being able to understand the meaning of Christ; which thing excites no less marvel than the sight, in contrast to it, of obstinacy, hatred, and treachery in Judas; not to mention that every least part of the work displays an incredible diligence, seeing that even in the tablecloth the texture of the stuff is counterfeited in such a manner that linen itself could not seem more real.

It is said that the Prior of that place kept pressing Leonardo, in a most importunate manner, to finish the work; for it seemed strange to him to see Leonardo sometimes stand half a day at a time, lost in contemplation, and he would have like him to go on like the labourers hoeing in his garden, without ever stopping his brush. And not content with this, he complained of it to the Duke, and that so warmly, that he was constrained to send for Leonardo and delicately urged him to work, contriving nevertheless to show him that he was doing all this because of the importunity of the Prior. Leonardo, knowing that the intellect of that Prince was acute and discerning, was pleased to discourse at large with the Duke on the subject, a thing which he had never done with the Prior: and he reasoned much with him about art, and made him understand that men of lofty genius sometimes accomplish the most wh en they work the least, seeking out inventions with the mind, and forming those perfect ideas which the hands afterwards express and reproduce from the images already conceived in the brain. And he added that two heads were still wanting for him to paint; that of Christ, which he did not wish to seek on earth; and he could not think that it was possible to conceive in the imagination that beauty and heavenly grace which should be the mark of God incarnate. Next, there was wanting that of Judas, which was also troubling him, not thinking himself capable of imagining features that should represent the countenance of him who, after so many benefits received, had a mind so cruel as to resolve to betray his Lord, the Creator of the world. However, he would seek out a model for the latter; but if in the end he could not find a better, he should not want that of the importunate and tactless Prior. This thing moved the Duke wondrously to laughter, and he said that Leonardo had a thousand reasons on his side. And so the poor Prior, in confusion, confined himself to urging on the work in the garden, and left Leonardo in peace, who finished only the head of Judas, which seems the very embodiment of treachery and inhumanity; but that of Christ, as has been said, remained unfinished.

Leonardo undertook to execute, for Francesco del Giocondo, the portrait of Mona Lisa, his wife; and after toiling over it for four years, he left it unfinished; and the work is now in the collection of King Frances of France, at Fontainebleau. In this head, whoever wished to see how closely art could imitate nature, was able to comprehend it with ease; for in it were counterfeited all the minutenesses that with subtlety are able to be painted, seeing that the eyes had that lustre and watery sheen which are always seen in life, and around them were all those rosy and pearly tints, as well as the lashes, which cannot be represented without the greatest subtlety. The eyebrows, through his having shown the manner in which the hairs spring from the flesh, here more close and here more scanty, and curve according to the pores of the skin, could not be more natural. The nose, with its beautiful nostrils, rosy and tender, appeared to be alive. The mouth, with its opening, and with its ends united by the red of the lips to the flesh-tints of the face, seemed, in truth, to be not colours but flesh. In the pit of the throat, if one gazed upon it intently, could be seen the beating of the pulse. And, indeed, it may be said that it was painted in such a manner as to make every valiant craftsman, be he who he may, tremble and lose heart. He made use, also, of this device: Mona Lisa being very beautiful, he always employed, while he was painting her portrait, persons to play or sing, and jesters, who might make her remain merry, in order to take away that melancholy which painters are often wont to give to the portraits that they paint. And in this work of Leonardo's there was a smile so pleasing, that it was a thing more divine than human to behold; and it was held to be something marvellous, since the reality was not more alive.

Source: http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/vasari1.html

Christian THOMAS MORE Humani

st

Born in London in 1478, More admired the piety of monks but chose to marry and enter politics.With a liberal education from the University of Oxford, More became a member of parliament in 1504. In 1510, More served as one of the two undersheriffs of the city of London, a position of considerable responsibility in which he earned a reputation as an honest and effective public servant. In 1514, he was appointed as a Privy Councillor, a member of King Henry VIII’s Most Honourable Privy Council. As secretary and personal adviser to King Henry VIII, More became increasingly influential in the government, welcoming foreign diplomats, drafting official documents, and serving as a liaison between the king and his Lord Chancellor: Thomas Wolsey, the Cardinal Archbishop of York.In 1516, More completed Utopia, a novel in Latin. In it a traveler, Raphael Hythlodeaus (in Greek, his name and surname allude to archangel Raphael, purveyor of truth), describes the political arrangements of the imaginary island country of Utopia. Utopia contrasts the contentious social life of European states with the perfectly orderly, reasonable social arrangements of Utopia . In Utopia, with communal ownership of land, private property does not exist, men and women are educated alike, and there is almost complete religious toleration. This Utopian community appeared modeled after the monastic communities found in Europe. More stressed the importance of public service for the betterment of others.In 1520, Luther set out his doctrine of salvation through grace alone, rejected certain Catholic practices, and attacked the abuses and excesses of the Catholic Church. In 1521, Henry VIII responded to Luther’s criticisms with a work known as the Assertio, written with the editorial assistance of More. Martin Luther attacked Henry VIII calling him a “pig, dolt, and liar”. At the request of Henry VIII, More set about composing a rebuttal: the resulting Responsio ad Lutherum was published at the end of 1523. In the Responsio, More defended the supremacy of the papacy, the sacraments, and other church traditions. More’s branded Luther an “ape”, a “drunkard”, and a “lousy little friar” amongst other insults.Recommended by Wolsey, More was elected the Speaker of the House of Commons in 1523. In 1525 he became chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, a position that entailed administrative and judicial control of much of northern England.

In 1528, More produced A Dialogue Concerning Heresies that asserted that the Catholic Church was the one true Church, whose authority had been established by Christ and the Apostles, and that its traditions and practices were valid. In total there were six heretics burned at the stake during More's Chancellorship.In 1530, More refused to sign a letter by the leading English churchmen and aristocrats asking the Pope to annul Henry's marriage to Catherine, and furthermore, quarrelled with Henry VIII over the heresy laws. In 1531, Henry had solidified his denial of the Papacy's control of England by passing the Statute of Praemunire which forbade appeals to the pope from England. Realizing his isolated position, More attempted to resign after being forced to take an oath declaring the king the Supreme Head of the English Church "as far as the law of Christ allows".In 1531, More lost his prominence in the government because he disagreed with Henry VIII’s divorce of Catherine of Aragon and the growing power of the king over the church. In 1533, More refused to attend the coronation of Anne Boleyn as the Queen of England. Technically, this was not an act of treason, as More had written to Henry acknowledging Anne's queenship and expressing his desire for the king's happiness and the new queen's health. On 13 April 1534, More was asked to appear before a commission and swear his allegiance to the parliamentary Act of Succession. More accepted Parliament's right to declare Anne Boleyn the legitimate queen of England, but he steadfastly refused to take the oath of supremacy of the Crown in the relationship between the Kingdom and the Church in England.Holding fast to the ancient teaching of Papal supremacy, More refused to take the oath and publicly refused to uphold Henry's annulment from Catherine. More was

tried, and found guilty, under the Treason Act 1534.

Christian Erasmus

Humanist

Desiderius Erasmus was a Dutch Renaissance man born in 1466. In 1492, poverty forced Erasmus into the monastery. In 1495, with the bishop's consent and stipend, he went on to study at the University of Paris. The University was then the chief seat of Scholastic learning (a traditional style of learning that stressed the importance of established doctrine), but the university already had come under the influence of Renaissance humanism.

In 1499, Erasmus mastered the Greek language (over three years), which enabled him to study theology on a more profound level and translate a new edition of the Bible.

In 1506, Lorenzo Valla's New Testament encouraged Erasmus to continue the study of the New Testament. In 1517, he supported the foundation of Catholic University (Belgium), which emphasized the study of Hebrew, Latin, and Greek.

Erasmus wrote both on ecclesiastic subjects and those of general human interest. By the 1530s, the writings of Erasmus accounted for 10 to 20 percent of all book sales.

In 1514, he printed first New Testament in Greek, which was sanctioned by Pope Leo X. Erasmus dedicated his work to Pope Leo X as a patron of learning and regarded this work as his chief service to the cause of Christianity.

Erasmus's best-known work was The Praise of Folly (1509), a satirical attack on the traditions of the European society, of the Catholic Church and popular superstitions, dedicated to his friend, Thomas More. It mocks the rituals of the Catholic Church and insists the people need to return to the basics.

In An Education of a Christian Prince (1516), Erasmus advised the young king Charles V of the Habsburgs on the general principles of honor & sincerity. For him, the king is to be benevolent & kind.

Erasmus’s Sileni Alcibiadis (1515) is one of his most direct assessments of the need for Church reform. He criticizes those that spend the Church’s riches at the people’s expense. Priests are supposed to be pure, though when they stray away, no one condemns them. He criticizes the riches of the popes, believing that it would be better for the Gospel to be most important.

Initially Erasmus was sympathetic with the main points in Martin Luther's criticism of the Catholic Church, describing him as "a mighty trumpet of gospel truth" and admitting that, "It is clear that many of the reforms for which Luther calls are urgently needed.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiderius_Erasmus - cite_note-26 He had great respect for Martin Luther, and Luther always spoke with admiration of Erasmus's superior learning.

Nevertheless, when Erasmus hesitated to support him, the straightforward Luther felt angered that Erasmus was avoiding the responsibility due either to cowardice or a lack of purpose. Erasmus stressed the moral foundation of the Catholic Church and stressed the need for reform. He criticized Luther and said “no pure interpretation of

Scripture anywhere but in Wittenberg…You stipulate that we should not ask for or accept anything but Holy Scripture, but you do it in such a way as to require that we permit you to be its sole interpreter, renouncing all others. Thus the victory will be yours if we allow you to be not the steward but the lord of Holy Scripture. “ He believed Luther was assuming too much power.

All Roads Lead from Florence: The Rebirth in Renaissance Art(Source: Strickland, The Annotated Mona Lisa, 1992)

The Middle Ages are so called because they fall between twin peaks of artistic glory: the Classical Period and the Renaissance. While art hardly died in the middle ages, what was reborn in the Renaissance was LIFELIKE art. In the early 1400s, the world woke up. From the its beginnings in Florence, Italy, this Renaissance, or rebirth, of culture spread to Rome and Venice, then, in 1500, to the rest of Europe (known as the North Renaissance): the Netherlands, Germany, France, Spain, and England. In Italy, the common elements were the rediscovery of the art of Greece and Rome, the scientific study of the Body and the natural world, and the intent to reproduce the forms of nature realistically. Aided by new technical knowledge like the study of anatomy, artists achieved new heights in portraitures, landscapes, and mythological and religious paintings. As skills increased, the prestige of the art soared, reaching its peak during the High Renaissance with artists like da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Raphael. The Protestant Reformation decreased the sway of the church. As a result, the study God the Supreme Being was replaced by the study of human beings. From minutely detailed, realistic portraits by Jan van Eyck, to the emotional intensity of Durer’s woodcuts, art was the means to explore all parts of life.

Top Four Breakthroughs1. Oil on Stretched Canvas: Oil on canvas became the medium of choice during the

Renaissance. A greater range or rich colors with smooth gradations of tone permitted painters to represent textures and simulate 3-d forms.

2. Perspective: One of the most significant discoveries was the method of creating the illusion of depth on a flat surface called “perspective”, which became a foundation of European paintings for the next 500 years. Linear perspective created the optical effect of objects receding in the distance through lines that appear to converge at a single point in the picture known as the vanishing point. Painters also reduced the size of objects and muted colors or blurred details as the objects got farther away.

3. The Use of Light and Shadow: Chiaroscuro (pronounced key-arrow), which means light/dark in Italian, referred to the new technique for modeling forms in paintings by which lighter parts seemed to emerge from darker areas, producing the illusion of rounded, sculpted relief on a flat surface.

4. Pyramid Configuration: Rigid profile portraits and grouping of figures on a horizontal grid in the picture’s foreground gave way to a more 3-d pyramid configuration. This symmetrical

composition builds to a climax at the center where the focal point is the figurehead.

Renaissance: Hall-of-Famers1. Donatello: His work recaptures the central discovery of Classical

sculptures. His “David” was the first life-size, freestanding nude sculptor since the classical period. His statues were so lifelike that he said, “Speak, speak, or the plague take you!”

2. Botticelli: His nude characterized the Renaissance. “Birth of Venus” makes the rebirth of classical mythology (as seen above).

3. High Renaissance: In the 16th century, artistic leadership spread from Florence to Rome and Venice, where giants like da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Raphael created sculptures and paintings with total technical mastery. There work fused Renaissance discoveries like composition, ideal proportions, and perspective – a culmination referred to as the High Renaissance.

The Northern RenaissanceIn the Netherlands as well as in Florence, new developments in art began about 1420. But what was called the Northern Renaissance was not a rebirth in the Italian sense. Artists in the Netherlands – modern Belgium and Holland – lacked the ruins to rediscover. Still, their break with the Gothic style produced a brilliant flowering in the arts. While the Italians looked to the Classical antiquity for inspiration, northern Europeans looked to nature. Without Classical sculptures to teach them ideal proportions, they painted reality exactly as it appeared, in a detail, realistic style. Portraits were such faithful likeness that Charles VI of France sent a painter to three different royal courts to paint prospective brides, basing his decision on the paintings. This precision was made possible by the new medium of oil, which Northern Renaissance painters first perfected. Since oil took longer to dry that tempera, they could blend colors. Subtle variations in light and shade heightened the illusion of 3-d form. They also used “atmospheric perspective” – the increasingly hazy appearance of objects farthest from the viewer – to suggest depth. The trademark of these northern painters was their incredible ability to portray nature realistically, down to the minutest detail.

Northern Renaissance: Hall-of-Famers1. Jan Van Eyck – He used the new medium to achieve a peak of realism.

Trained as a miniaturist and illuminator of manuscripts, he painted convincingly the most microscopic details in brilliant, glowing color. One the first masters of the new art of portraits painting, van Ecyk included extreme details like the stubble on his subject’s chin. “The Arnolfini Wedding” captured surface appearance and textures precisely.

2. Bruegel – Bruegel took peasant life as his subject. In his scenes of humble folk working, feasting, or dancing, the satiric edge always appeared. “The Peasant Wedding” features guests eating and drinking with gluttonous absorption. Bruegel’s most famous painting, “Hunters

in the Snow”, came from a series depicting man’s activities during the months of the year. His preoccupation with peasant life is shown in the exhausted hunters plodding homeward, silhouetted against the snow. Bruegel used atmospheric perspective – from the sharp foreground to the hazy background – to give the painting depth.

As the Renaissance Spread from North to South, it Took Different FormsItalian Renaissance Northern Renaissance

Specialty Ideal Beauty Intense RealismStyle Measured Proportions Lifelike Features, Unflattering HonestySubject Religious and Classicism Religious and DomesticFigures Heroic, Nudes Prosperous Citizens, PeasantsTechnique Fresco, Tempura, Oil Oil on Wood Panels

Architecture in the Italian RenaissanceRome Renaissance architects systematically measured Roman ruins to copy their style and

proportion. They revived elements like the rounded arch, concrete construction, domed rotundas, vaults, and columns.

Rules Since architects considered themselves scholars rather than mere builders, they based their work on theories.

Reason Theories emphasized architecture’s rational basis, grounded in science, math, and engineering. Cool reason replaced the mystical approach of the Middle Ages.

Rithmetic

Architects depended on arithmetic to produce beauty and harmony. A system of ideal proportions related parts of a building to each other in numerical ratios such as

2:1. Layouts relied on geometric shapes like squares and circles.

Niccolo Machiavelli: The Prince [excerpts], 1513Niccolo Machiavelli, a diplomat in the pay of the Republic of Florence, wrote The Prince in 1513 after the overthrow of the Republic forced him into exile. It is widely regarded as one of the basic texts of Western political science, and represents a basic change in the attitude and image of government.

That Which Concerns a Prince on the Subject of the Art of WarThe Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank. And, on the contrary, it is seen that when princes have thought more of ease than of arms they have lost their states. And the first cause of your losing it is to neglect this art; and what enables you to acquire a state is to be master of the art. Francesco Sforza, though being martial, from a private person became Duke of Milan; and the sons, through avoiding the hardships and troubles of arms, from dukes became private persons. For among other evils which being unarmed brings you, it causes you to be despised, and this is one of those ignominies against which a prince ought to guard himself, as is shown later on.

Concerning Things for Which Men, and Especially Princes, are Blamed. It remains now to see what ought to be the rules of conduct for a prince toward subject and friends. And as I know that many have written on this point, I expect I shall be considered presumptuous in mentioning it again, especially as in discussing it I shall depart from the methods of other people. But it being my intention to write a thing which shall be useful to him to apprehends it, it appears to me more appropriate to follow up the real truth of a matter than the imagination of it; for many have pictured republics and principalities which in fact have never been known or seen, because how one lives is so far distant from how one ought to live, that he who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation; for a man who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him among so much that is evil. Hence, it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity. Therefore, putting on one side imaginary things concerning a prince, and discussing those which are real, I say that all men when they are spoken of, and chiefly princes for being more highly placed, are remarkable for some of those qualities which bring them either blame or praise; and thus it is that one is reputed liberal, another miserly...; one is reputed generous, one rapacious; one cruel, one compassionate; one faithless, another faithful.... And I know that every one will confess that it would be most praiseworthy in a prince to exhibit all the above qualities that are considered good; but because they can neither be entirely possessed nor observed, for human conditions do not permit it, it is necessary for him to be sufficiently prident that he may know how to avoid the reproach of those vices which would lose him his state...

Concerning Liberality and Meanness Commencing then with the first of the above-named characteristics, I say that it would be well to be reputed liberal. Nevertheless, liberality exercised in a way that does not bring you the reputation for it, injures you; for if one exercises it honestly and as it should be exercised, it may not become known, and you will not avoid the reproach of its opposite. Therefore, any one wishing to maintain among men the name of liberal is obliged to avoid no attribute of magnificence; so that a prince thus inclined will consume in such acts all his property, and will be compelled in the end, if he wish to maintain the name of liberal, to unduly weigh down his people, and tax them, and do everything he can to get money. This will soon make him odious to his subjects, and becoming poor he will be little valued by any one; thus, with his liberality, having offended many and rewarded few, he is affected by the very first trouble and imperilled by whatever may be the first danger; recognizing this himself, and wishing to draw back from it, he runs at once into the reproach of being miserly. Therefore, a prince, not being able to exercise this virtue of liberality in such a way that it is recognized, except to his cost, if he is wise he ought not to fear the reputation of being mean, for in time he will

come to be more considered than if liberal, seeing that with his economy his revenues are enough, that he can defend himself against all attacks, and is able to engage in enterprises without burdening his people; thus it comes to pass that he exercises liberality towards all from whom he does not take, who are numberless, and meanness towards those to whom he does not give, who are few. We have not seen great things done in our time except by those who have been considered mean; the rest have failed. … And if any one should reply: Many have been princes, and have done great things with armies, who have been considered very liberal, I reply: Either a prince spends that which is his own or his subjects’ or else that of others. In the first case he ought to be sparing, in the second he ought not to neglect any opportunity for liberality. And to the prince who goes forth with his army, supporting it by pillage, sack, and extortion, handling that which belongs to others, this liberality is necessary, otherwise he would not be followed by soldiers. And of that which is neither yours nor your subjects’ you can be a ready giver, as were Cyrus, Caesar, and Alexander; because it does not take away your reputation if you squander that of others, but adds to it; it is only squandering your own that injures you. And there is nothing wastes so rapidly as liberality, for even whilst you exercise it you lose the power to do so, and so become either poor or despised, or else, in avoiding poverty, rapacious and hated. And a prince should guard himself, above all things, against being despised and hated; and liberality leads you to both. Therefore it is wiser to have a reputation for meanness which brings reproach without hatred, than to be compelled through seeking a reputation for liberality to incur a name for rapacity which begets reproach with hatred.

Concerning Cruelty and Clemency, and Whether it is Better to be Loved than FearedUpon this a question arises: whether it is better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you successed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life, and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by nobility or greatness of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserved you by a dread of punishment which never fails. Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women.

Source: https://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/prince-excerp.asp

New Monarch #1: Henry VII

As a child and young man, Henry VII lived a perilous existence, fleeing would-be captors who wanted to make sure he never became king. However, Henry did become king, ending a destructive civil war and laying the foundation for a new England.

Henry was born January 28, 1457 at Pembroke Castle in Wales, three months after his father, Edmund Tudor, died fighting for the Lancastrians in the conflict known as the Wars of the Roses. Henry's mother, Margaret Beaufort, was a 13-year-old heiress. By inheritance, Henry was Earl of Richmond.

Henry unwittingly became embroiled in the Wars of the Roses, a conflict between two lordly houses, the House of Lancaster and the House of York, over who would rule England. The conflict had erupted in 1455 and reflected the increasing tendency of noblemen to use liveried, or paid, retainers gathered in armies to settle disputes by attacking castles and fighting on battlefields. This occurred in a setting where the king had become weak and unable to prevent disorder.

When Henry was still a child, his mother left him in the care of her brother, Jasper Tudor, the Earl of Pembroke, who supported the Lancastrians. A few years later, the Yorkists captured Pembroke Castle; Tudor fled, but Henry was captured. From his exile in France, Tudor looked for the appropriate moment to rescue Henry. When in 1469, a Lancastrian king, Henry VI, ousted the Yorkist king, Tudor returned to Wales and took Henry to London.

More trouble ensued, however, when the Yorkists scored a major battlefield victory, and Edward IV became king. Tudor and Henry fled across the English Channel to Brittany. There, Henry received an education from tutors, but he lived precariously, always fearful that the Brittany ruler, Duke Francis, would turn him over to Edward IV who, in turn, would kill him to prevent him from claiming the throne.

Indeed, at one point, the Duke's adviser, Pierre Landois, acceded to the demands of Edward's successor, Richard III, to deliver Henry to him. When Tudor heard of this, he acted to save Henry, arranging for Henry's retinue to head for the French border while leaving Henry behind in Brittany. As Tudor expected, Landois thought Henry to be with the retinue, and he and his men followed them. Meanwhile, Henry, dressed as a servant, rode furiously toward the French border, following a circuitous path to fool any pursuers. Landois discovered the deception and dispatched a troop of horsemen after Henry, but they did not catch up with him until just after he had crossed into France.

In 1485, Lancastrians anxious to unseat Richard III convinced Henry to invade England. Supported by these men, Henry sailed on August 1, and as he marched eastward across the country, he gained more supporters. Henry met Richard III in combat at Bosworth Field in what became the last great battle in the Wars of the Roses. Henry's army killed Richard and defeated his forces. This lead to Henry's coronation at Westminster Abbey on October 30, 1485, beginning the Tudor line of monarchs.

Henry inherited a chaotic, impoverished country, devastated by the long wars. A shrewd and sagacious man, he determined to unite his subjects, first by healing the wounds from the conflict. He pledged himself to marry Elizabeth, the eldest daughter of King Edward IV, the Yorkist. The marriage took place at Westminster on January 18, 1486. He also gathered around him men who had served the Yorkist kings and called the British Parliament into session to formally confirm the line of succession to reside in him and his heirs. Later in 1486, he undertook a "progress," or royal journey, to the north where the Yorkists had been especially strong. There, he used force, enticement, and the splendor of his office to secure loyalty. At one point in the progress, he put down a minor rebellion.

So effective was Henry that by 1487, he had command of his kingdom. Of course, conditions helped him. Many middle-class merchants longed for order so they could develop England economically and garner wealth. Hence, they eagerly supported Henry as a savior from war, and the king, in turn, linked himself to their fortunes.

Nevertheless, Henry's rule did not go without challenge. Some Yorkists, led by Margaret of Burgundy, plotted to overthrow him. They promoted pretenders to the throne, such as Lambert Simnel, whom they proclaimed to be Edward VI. Margaret sent an army from Germany to march on London in support of Simnel, but most Englishmen refused to back it. On June 16, 1487, Henry decisively defeated the invaders at East Stoke. The king captured Simnel and made him a lowly spit turner in his kitchen.

The Yorkists supported yet another pretender in the 1490s, Perkin Warbeck. He tried three times to defeat Henry and on one occasion, in 1497, received support from the king of Scotland. Henry dealt Warbeck his final defeat that year at Cornwall, and the pretender was captured and hanged. That was the last major revolt against Henry.

Henry made sure that his nobles remained secondary to him. Like his predecessors, he had a council consisting of peers, bishops, knights, and lawyers. The royal council advised him on policy and helped him administer the realm, but he determined who among this group would meet with him daily as the inner council. In short, he took the initiative and made sure the council reacted to his wishes.

In addition to that, Henry kept Parliament in line. He realized that the more he relied on the legislature for monies, the less his authority, so he developed creative ways to raise funds. Through various forfeitures, Henry greatly expanded his landholdings, an important source of revenue. Increased foreign trade, which he encouraged, resulted in a sizable income from customs duties. Furthermore, he imposed heavy fines on law violators, sold pardons, and vigorously collected debts. In all, he nearly tripled the Crown revenues, a feat that not only meant infrequent sessions of Parliament but also enabled him to relieve his subjects from high taxes and further win their loyalty, or at least prevent antitax uprisings.

To more swiftly enforce the law, Henry used the Star Chamber, a council created under an earlier king and named after the room in Westminster where it met—a room ornamented with stars. The Star Chamber could supersede the courts, holding hearings without juries or counsel for the defendants, deciding guilt or innocence without further review, and using torture to gain confessions. However, Henry rarely used the Star Chamber to initiate a prosecution and relied mainly on the courts and the justices of the peace to maintain order. In 1495, Parliament granted the justices the power to try without jury those accused of rioting.

The wool and cloth trade expanded considerably during Henry's reign, and he negotiated treaties with Spain and France that opened new markets—accomplishments that endeared him with the merchants. He also encouraged shipbuilding and constructed warships of his own. In a daring overseas venture, he supported John Cabot's efforts to open trade westward across the Atlantic with the Far East. Like Columbus, Cabot did not find his sought-after route, but in 1497, he did land at Newfoundland.

At the same time, Henry adroitly allied himself with Spain when he arranged for his son Arthur, born in 1486, to marry Princess Catherine of Aragon, daughter of King Ferdinand V and Queen Isabella I. In 1503, he improved relations with both France and Scotland when he married his daughter to the Scottish king James IV. The French, with whom Henry had warred briefly in 1492, were angered since Scotland had long been their ally.

Henry had extravagant and peculiar habits, some still tied to medieval customs. Through his Welsh grandfather, he traced his lineage to ancient kings and considered himself to be the successor to the semi-mythical Arthur (hence the name for his eldest son). He adopted the red dragon of Wales as part of the royal coat of arms, even though he was only one-quarter Welsh. He spent enormous sums on his own upkeep, seeing that he and his court had the finest clothes, and built a huge palace, added on to other palaces, gambled heavily, and entertained lavishly.

Yet in may respects, Henry was much the modern ruler. Despite some scattered outbreaks of disorder, he brought stability and unity to England. In all, he did not so much innovate as take existing institutions and practices and apply to them a vigorous, strong leadership, thus building the structure by which successor Tudor kings and queens developed a more modern nation. Henry died at Richmond on April 21, 1509. In the 17th century, England experienced a revolution that strengthened Parliament and led to the famous Bill of Rights under King William III.

Source: "Henry VII." World History: The Modern Era. ABC-CLIO, 2016. Web. 2 Aug. 2016.

New Monarch #2: Isabella and Ferdinand

Along with Queen Isabella, Ferdinand V brought several kingdoms on the Iberian Peninsula together to form Spain.

Ferdinand of Aragon was born on March 10, 1452 at Sos in Aragon, one of three Christian kingdoms that dominated the Iberian Peninsula. Over the years, the Aragon kings had acquired Sicily (which Ferdinand ruled as Ferdinand II) and lands along the Mediterranean Sea. Another kingdom, Castile, larger and more populous than Aragon, had led in expelling Muslim invaders from areas of the peninsula. Along the Atlantic coast lay the third Christian kingdom, Portugal, also important in the wars against the Muslims.

Born in 1451, Isabella was the only daughter of Juan II, ruler of Castile from 1406 to 1454, and his second wife, Isabella of Portugal. Her half brother was Enrique IV, who ruled Castile after his father died, from 1454 to 1474. Because Isabella was Enrique's heir, he had plans for her marriage to which she violently objected, for Isabella had larger ideas for a political match with the possibility of uniting Spain. In a furtive ceremony in 1469, Isabella married her second cousin Ferdinand, heir of the king of Aragon.

Ferdinand was heir to the crown of Aragon and cousin to Isabella, heiress to the throne of Castile. Isabella had strong ambitions to unify Spain and looked toward a marriage with Ferdinand as the best way to advance that agenda. After she proposed that strategy to him, he agreed, and they married on October 19, 1469, creating a formidable partnership that would alter world history.

When Isabella's brother, Henry IV, died in 1474, Ferdinand and Isabella became joint monarchs of Castile. Then in 1479, Ferdinand's father, John II of Aragon, died, and Ferdinand also ruled that kingdom. Although Ferdinand held important titles, he did not have absolute power in either Aragon or Castile, and the two rulers and their kingdoms had many differences. Linguistically, the people in those areas spoke different Spanish dialects. Strategically, Aragon had long been focused on the Mediterranean and Castile on the Atlantic. Furthermore, Ferdinand differed from Isabella in his skepticism toward religion and his tendency toward tolerance in that area. Those differences were underscored when Ferdinand agreed to make no wars or alliances unless Isabella approved of them and to appoint only Castilians to high office in Castile. The arrangement signified that Castile had the greatest wealth and the most prominent position in the political linkage.

Following a flagrant breach of the truce between the Moors in Granada and Castile, Isabella became determined to drive the Moors from her land in a battle that lasted a decade (1482-1492). When she was well into her fourth pregnancy and prepared to join her husband in Cordoba, she was warned that it was foolish to travel so close to the Moorish capital, but she told her advisers, "Glory is not to be won without danger." Throughout the campaign, the king rode at the head of her army, and Isabella became quartermaster and financier. She also visited camps to encourage the soldiers and established field hospitals and front-line emergency tent hospitals. The latter became known as Queen's Hospitals. The truce in 1492 made Spain an all-Christian nation again after 781 years.

Ferdinand had great abilities as a statesman and applied his penchants for deceit, crassness, and opportunism. He and Isabella realized that to strengthen the Crown, they needed new sources of revenue. They turned to the Catholic Church, and in 1486, the pope granted them patronage rights over bishoprics to be established in the areas from which the Moors, or Muslims, had been driven. The pope also issued bulls, or decrees, in 1493, 1501, and 1508 granting them control over ecclesiastical appointments and revenues in the Americas. The New World would prove to be a lucrative source for the Crown. The Church thus became an important tool in developing royal absolutism. In return, Ferdinand and Isabella strongly supported the pope's prerogative in spiritual matters, a loyalty that earned them the title "the Catholic Sovereigns," granted by Pope Alexander VI.

While Isabella consolidated royal power in Castile, Ferdinand continued the Aragonese involvement in the Mediterranean. In 1494, he helped put together a coalition of Italian states to defeat the invading army of France's Charles VIII. Ferdinand also arranged the defeat of Louis XII when that French king tried to capture Naples (which Ferdinand ruled as Ferdinand III) in 1500. In 1504, Louis was forced to recognize Ferdinand's control there after devious maneuvering by the Spanish monarch. Louis later complained that he had been deceived twice, and Ferdinand replied that the Frenchman had lied—that in truth he had been deceived 10 times.

In 1486, Christopher Columbus, seeking financial backing for his search for a shorter route to Asia, knew that he stood a better chance of impressing the intuitive and enthusiastic Isabella than her cautious husband. However, although Columbus' proposition excited her imagination, all her funds were being funneled into the war with Granada. It was not until 1492, when Santangel, Ferdinand's keeper of the privy purse, reminded Isabella that her goal had been to make her country preeminent in Europe, that she summoned Columbus to return to make a contract. During the next 10 years, she funded four voyages to the new world.

In 1504, Isabella died, a development that threatened Ferdinand's authority in Castile. Isabella had willed Castile to their daughter Joanna, who had married Philip of Burgundy. Ferdinand thus temporarily lost control of Castile, and in 1505, he married a niece of Louis XII. Joanna went insane, however, and after Philip died in 1506, Ferdinand again ruled Castile, this time as regent for his daughter. In 1512, he conquered the kingdom of Navarre and, three years later, annexed it to Castile.

Although the marriage of Ferdinand and Isabella and the subsequent unification of Aragon and Castile left each kingdom with its own laws and institutions and recognized Isabella's primacy in Castile, a new European power had been created. Like other early nations emerging from the Middle Ages, Spain was substantially a dynastic state—that is, a state created more from royal maneuvering and connections among dynasties than from nationalist sentiment. Furthermore, it still contained many medieval attributes and would undergo numerous changes before reaching the stage of a democratic constitutional monarchy under Juan Carlos in 1975. Nevertheless, Ferdinand and Isabella effectively put together a new nation; their rule marked the birth of Spain. At his death on January 23, 1516 at Madrigalejo in Estremadura, Ferdinand was the most powerful monarch in Western Europe.

Source: "Isabella and Ferninand." World History: The Modern Era. ABC-CLIO, 2016. Web. 2 Aug. 2016.