Full download ebook at ebookname.

com

Renaissance and Reformation Primary Sources 1st

Edition Peggy Saari

https://ebookname.com/product/renaissance-and-reformation-
primary-sources-1st-edition-peggy-saari/

OR CLICK BUTTON

DOWLOAD NOW

Download more ebook from https://ebookname.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The Crusades Primary Sources 1st Edition J. Sydney

Jones

https://ebookname.com/product/the-crusades-primary-sources-1st-
edition-j-sydney-jones/

Industrial Revolution Primary Sources 1st Edition James

L. Outman

https://ebookname.com/product/industrial-revolution-primary-
sources-1st-edition-james-l-outman/

A Reformation Reader Primary Texts with Introductions

2nd Edition Denis Janz

https://ebookname.com/product/a-reformation-reader-primary-texts-
with-introductions-2nd-edition-denis-janz/

Amateur and Proletarian Theatre in Post Revolutionary

Russia Primary Sources 1st Edition Stefan Aquilina

https://ebookname.com/product/amateur-and-proletarian-theatre-in-
post-revolutionary-russia-primary-sources-1st-edition-stefan-
aquilina/
Reading Primary Sources The Interpretation of Texts
from Nineteenth and Twentieth Century History Routledge
Guides to Using Historical Sources 1st Edition Miriam
Dobson
https://ebookname.com/product/reading-primary-sources-the-
interpretation-of-texts-from-nineteenth-and-twentieth-century-
history-routledge-guides-to-using-historical-sources-1st-edition-
miriam-dobson/

Milestone Documents in American History Exploring the

Primary Sources That Shaped America 1st Edition Paul
Finkelman

https://ebookname.com/product/milestone-documents-in-american-
history-exploring-the-primary-sources-that-shaped-america-1st-
edition-paul-finkelman/

Race and Ethnicity in the Classical World An Anthology

of Primary Sources in Translation Rebecca F. Kennedy

https://ebookname.com/product/race-and-ethnicity-in-the-
classical-world-an-anthology-of-primary-sources-in-translation-
rebecca-f-kennedy/

Exploring Mars 1st Edition Peggy Parks

https://ebookname.com/product/exploring-mars-1st-edition-peggy-
parks/

Antiviral Methods and Protocols 2nd Edition Peggy

Geluykens

https://ebookname.com/product/antiviral-methods-and-
protocols-2nd-edition-peggy-geluykens/
Primary Sources
Primary Sources
PEGGY SAARI &
AARON SAARI, EDITORS
Julie Carnagie, Project Editor
 Renaissance and Reformation: Primary Sources
Peggy Saari and Aaron Saari

Project Editor Composition

Julie L. Carnagie Evi Seoud

Permissions Manufacturing
Shalice Shah-Caldwell Rita Wimberly

Imaging and Multimedia

Robert Duncan, Kelly A. Quin

Product Design
Pamela A. Galbreath

©2002 by U•X•L. U•X•L is an imprint of graphic, electronic, or mechanical, in- Cover photographs reproduced by per-
The Gale Group, Inc., a division of cluding photocopying, recording, tap- mission of Corbis (Margaret of Navarre),
Thomson Learning, Inc. ing, Web distribution, or information The Library of Congress (John Calvin),
storage retrieval systems—without the and AP/Wide World Photos (William
U•X•L® is a registered trademark used written permission of the publisher. Shakespeare).
herein under license. Thomson Learn- For permission to use material from this
ing™ is a trademark used herein under product, submit your request via Web While every effort has been made to
license. at http://www.gale-edit.com/permis- ensure the reliability of the information
sions, or you may download our Permis- presented in this publication, The Gale
For more information, contact Group, Inc. does not guarantee the ac-
The Gale Group, Inc. sions Request form and submit your re-
quest by fax or mail to: curacy of data contained herein. The
27500 Drake Rd. Gale Group, Inc. accepts no payment for
Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3535 Permissions Department listing; and inclusion in the publication
Or you can visit our Internet site at The Gale Group, Inc. of any organization, agency, institution,
http://www.gale.com 27500 Drake Rd. publication, service or individual does
Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3535 not imply endorsement of the editors
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED or publisher. Errors brought to the at-
No part of this work covered by the Permissions Hotline: tention of the publisher and verified to
copyright hereon may be reproduced or 248-699-8006 or 800-877-4253, ext. 8006 the satisfaction of the publisher will be
used in any form or by any means— Fax: 248-699-8074 or 800-762-4058 corrected in future editions.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA

Renaissance and Reformation : primary sources / [compiled by] Peggy Saari and
Aaron Saari; Julie L. Carnagie, editor.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-7876-5473-6 (Hardcover : alk. paper)
1. Renaissance–Sources–Juvenile literature. 2. Reformation–Sources–Juvenile liter-
ature. [1. Renaissance–Sources. 2. Reformation–Sources.] I. Saari, Peggy. II. Saari,
Aaron Maurice. III. Carnagie, Julie.
CB359 .R465 2002
940.2–dc21
2002003928

Printed in the United States of America

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
 Contents

Reader’s Guide. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Timeline of Events in the Renaissance and Reformation. . xi

Humanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Isotta Nogarola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
“On the Equal or Unequal Sin of Eve and Adam” . 3
Niccolò Machiavelli. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
The Prince . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Ibn Khaldûn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
The Muqaddimah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Muslims in Spain (box) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Renaissance Arts and Science. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Leonardo da Vinci . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Notebooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Galileo Galilei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
The Starry Messenger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
“A Grand Revolution” (box) . . . . . . . . . . 55

v
 Drama and Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
William Shakespeare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Merchant of Venice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
William Shakespeare (box) . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Margaret of Navarre. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Heptaméron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Margaret of Navarre (box). . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Miguel de Cervantes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Don Quixote . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Miguel de Cervantes (box) . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Michel de Montaigne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
“Of Cannibals” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Michel de Montaigne (box) . . . . . . . . . . 101
Margaret Cavendish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
The Description of the New World
Called the Blazing World . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Margaret Cavendish (box) . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Protestant Reformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Martin Luther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
“The Ninety-Five Theses or Disputation
on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences” . . . 118
Indulgences (box) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Huldrych Zwingli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
“The Sixty-Seven Articles of Ulrich Zwingli”. . . 130
John Calvin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Ecclesiastical Ordinances . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Institutes of the Christian Religion (box) . . . . . 142
Elizabeth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
“Elizabeth, A Dutch Anabaptist
martyr: A letter” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

Catholic Reformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Ignatius of Loyola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Spiritual Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Teresa de Ávila. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
The Life of Teresa of Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Ecstasy of St. Teresa (box). . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Roman Catholic Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
“Profession of the Tridentine Faith“ . . . . . . 180

vi Renaissance and Reformation: Primary Sources

Witch-hunts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger . . . . . . . 192
Malleus Maleficarum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

Contents vii
 Reader’s Guide

R enaissance and Reformation: Primary Sources presents eigh-

teen full or excerpted documents written by people who
lived during the Renaissance and Reformation period. The au-
tobiographical essays, diary entries, poems, trial testimonies,
and letters in this volume reflect the experiences of religious
reformers, world leaders, early scientists, authors, and artists.
Some entries such as William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of
Venice and Miguel de Cervantes’s Don Quixote display just
some of the extensive literature and drama that was being
written during the Renaissance period. Other excerpts, in-
cluding Martin Luther’s “The Ninety-Five Theses” and Teresa
de Ávila’s The Life of Teresa of Jesus, are meant to detail the
causes of the Protestant Reformation and the experiences of
people living through the Catholic Reformation.

Format
Renaissance and Reformation: Primary Sources is divided
into six chapters. Each chapter focuses on a specific theme: Hu-
manism, Renaissance Arts and Science, Drama and Literature,
Protestant Reformation, Catholic Reformation, and Witch-

ix
 hunts. All of the chapters open with a historical overview, fol-
lowed by the appropriate primary source documents.
Each excerpt is divided into six sections:
• Introductory material places the document and its au-
thor in a historical context
• Things to remember offers readers important back-
ground information about the featured text
• Excerpt presents the document in its original format
• What happened next discusses the impact of the docu-
ment on both the speaker and his or her audience
• Did you know provides interesting facts about each doc-
ument and its author
• For more information presents sources for more infor-
mation on documents and speakers

Additional Features
Many of the Renaissance and Reformation: Primary
Sources contain sidebar boxes examining related excerpts,
events, and issues, while more than forty black-and-white
photos help illustrate the text. Each excerpt is accompanied
by a glossary running alongside the primary document that
defines terms, people, and ideas discussed within each docu-
ment. Also included within the volume is a timeline of im-
portant events and a subject index of the topics discussed in
Renaissance and Reformation: Primary Sources.

Comments and suggestions

We welcome your comments on this work as well as
your suggestions for topics to be featured in future editions of
Renaissance and Reformation: Primary Sources. Please write: Edi-
tors, Renaissance and Reformation: Primary Sources, U•X•L,
27500 Drake Rd., Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3535; call toll-
free: 1-800-877-4253; fax: 248-699-8097; or send e-mail via
www.gale.com.

x Renaissance and Reformation: Primary Sources

 Timeline of Events

1377 Arab scholar Ibn Khaldûn completes The Muqad-

dimah, now regarded as one of the greatest master-
pieces of all time. The work represents a significant
leap forward in scholarship since it attempts to de-
scribe patterns in social and political organizations.

1451 Isotta Nogarola writes “On the Equal and Unequal

Sin of Eve and Adam,” which is considered the first
piece of feminist writing.

1458 Margaret of Navarre’s Heptaméron is published and

becomes an important work of the Renaissance period.

1421
1388 Mohammed I dies
Sidesaddle invented 1432
by Queen Anne The Azores are
discovered

1375 1400 1425 1450

xi
 1486 Austrian priest Heinrich Kramer and German priest
James Sprenger publish Malleus Maleficarum, which
becomes the official handbook for detecting, captur-
ing, trying, and executing witches.

1490s Italian painter, sculptor, engineer, and scientist

Leonardo da Vinci begins keeping notebooks in
which he records his ideas on a wide range of topics.
He also illustrates the notebooks with drawings that
demonstrate his concepts.

1513 Italian diplomat Niccolò Machiavelli writes The

Prince, in which he explains his controversial political
philosophy: a ruler must be motivated solely by self-
interest and must place the survival of his regime
above all other considerations.

1517 German priest Martin Luther posts “Ninety-Five The-

ses” in response to the Catholic Church’s misuse of
the sale of indulgences.

1523 Swiss priest Huldrych Zwingli issues “Sixty-Seven Ar-

ticles,” which offered solutions to major problems in
the church and becomes an outline for religious re-
form in Zurich.

1536 French-born Protestant reformer John Calvin writes

the first edition of Institutes of the Christian Religion. In
this work Calvin states that the all-knowing and ever-
present God had determined, from the beginning of
time, who was to be saved and who was to be damned.

1548 Spanish priest Ignatius of Loyola publishes Spiritual

Exercises. The work becomes highly influential with
the church, and its exercises continue to be followed
by Catholics today.

1500
Billiards is played for
the first time
1492
Long division first 1523
demonstrated Turkeys introduced
to Europe

1485 1510 1535 1560

xii Renaissance and Reformation: Primary Sources

1564 Pope Pius IV releases the “Profession of the Tridentine
Faith,” which is a summary of the major decisions
reached by the Council of Trent regarding reforms
within the Roman Catholic Church.
1573 Dutch Anabaptist Elizabeth writes “Elizabeth, A
Dutch Anabaptist martyr: A letter” shortly before she
is executed. The letter was written to Elizabeth’s
daughter Janneken as a guide for her moral and spiri-
tual development.
1580 French author Michel de Montaigne publishes Es-
says, containing the piece titled “Of Cannibals.” This
essay draws comparisons between supposedly “civi-
lized” French society and so-called “barbarians.”
1596 English playwright William Shakespeare’s best-
known comedy, Merchant of Venice, is first performed.
1605 Miguel de Cervantes publishes the first part of Don
Quixote, considered one of the great masterpieces of
world literature.
1610 Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei publishes Starry
Messenger. The booklet, which presents many of
Galileo’s sensational discoveries, takes the world of
science by storm.
1611 The Life of Teresa of Jesus is published. It is the autobi-
ography of Teresa de Ávila, a religious mystic and
founder of the Reformed Discalced Carmelite order.
1666 English author Margaret Cavendish publishes The De-
scription of a New World Called the Blazing World, which
is often called one of the first science fiction novels.

1630
Lemonade is
invented in Paris
1597 1650
First chemistry England’s first
textbook published coffeehouse opens

1585 1610 1635 1660

Timeline of Events xiii

 Humanism 1

T he Renaissance produced an explosion of written works— Isotta Nogarola

…3
translations of ancient texts, scholarly studies, biblical in-
terpretations, histories, philosophical treatises, scientific theo-
Niccolò Machiavelli
ries, religious pamphlets, biographies, social commentaries, …12
poetry, stories, novels, and plays, to name but a few. Many fac-
tors contributed to this development, but there were two Ibn Khaldûn
major influences: the humanist movement and the invention …23
of the printing press. The humanist movement began in Italy
in the mid-1300s as a revival of the literature and culture of an-
cient Greece and Rome, which focused on human experience
and creativity. Within a few decades scholars and thinkers
throughout Europe were promoting a human-centered view of
the world. Italian humanists are credited with founding the Re-
naissance, which was given momentum a century later, in the
mid-1400s, by the printing press. Written works could be mass-
produced and quickly distributed throughout Europe. Thus Re-
naissance ideals spread rapidly, leading to new ways of observ-
ing and writing about every aspect of human endeavor.

During the fifteenth century the humanist movement

inspired the study of ancient Greek and Roman texts as well as

1
 new interpretations of the Bible. A unique biblical interpreta-
tion was written by the Italian scholar Isotta Nogarola, the
first prominent woman humanist. In “On the Equal or Un-
equal Sin of Adam and Eve” she examined the Garden of Eden
story in the Old Testament from the perspective of Eve. This is
considered the first feminist reading of the story. As human-
ism gained momentum in the early1500s, scholars turned
their attention to European history and politics. A classic work
from this era is The Prince, in which the Italian diplomat Nic-
colò Machiavelli described the qualities of the ideal ruler and
defined politics as a separate field of philosophy.
A few decades after humanism began evolving in Italy
in the fourteenth century, the Arab scholar Ibn Khaldûn com-
pleted The Muqaddimah, the introduction to his history of the
world. Like the European humanists, Ibn Khaldûn used an-
cient Greek concepts to examine society from ancient times
to his own day in The Muqaddimah. This work is now regard-
ed as the basis of modern sociology.

2 Renaissance and Reformation: Primary Sources

 Isotta Nogarola
Excerpt from “On the Equal or Unequal Sin of
Eve and Adam” (1451)
Reprinted in Her Immaculate Hand: Selected Works
By and About The Women Humanists of Quattrocento Italy
Edited and translated by Margaret L. King and Albert Rabil Jr.
Published in 1983

T he Italian scholar Isotta Nogarola (1418–1466) is consid-

ered the first major female humanist. “Humanism” is the
modern term for the intellectual movement that initiated the
Renaissance. The humanist movement originated in Florence,
Italy, in the mid-1300s and was introduced into other Euro-
pean countries shortly before 1500. Humanist scholars
believed that a body of learning called studia humanitatis (hu-
manistic studies), which was based on the literary master-
pieces from the classical period of ancient Greece and Rome,
could bring about a cultural rebirth, or renaissance. The texts
included not only classical literature but also the Bible (the
Christian holy book) and the works of early Christian
thinkers. Humanists were committed to the revival of ancient
works as a way to end the “barbarism” (lack of refinement or
culture) of the Middle Ages (also called the medieval period),
the thousand-year era that followed the downfall of the
Roman Empire in the fourth and fifth centuries. Humanistic
studies were nearly always developed with the education of
boys and the careers of men in mind. Nonetheless, a few edu-
cators promoted classical education for women.

3
 During the fifteenth century humanism spread rapidly
from Florence to the elite social classes in other Italian cities,
such as Venice, Padua, Verona, Bologna, Milan, and Genoa,
then extended south to Rome and Naples. Many scholars, writ-
ers, intellectuals, and patrons contributed to the development
of humanism. Women were active in the earliest stages of the
movement, which created an environment for the free expres-
sion of their ideas. The first to emerge was Isotta Nogarola.
Born into a literary family in Verona, she received a humanist
education along with her sister Ginevra. During an intellectual
career that spanned more than thirty years, Isotta wrote Latin
prose and poetry and participated in learned conferences and
debates. She is most famous for her extensive correspondence
with humanist friends. These letters demonstrate Nogarola’s
knowledge of early Christian and classical authors, as well as
her awareness of current political events and the historical tra-
dition of heroic women. The letters also show that she had
close relationships with the intellectual and political leaders of
northern Italy. Many of the people who corresponded with
Nogarola showered her with praise, suggesting that she was
widely known for exceptional achievements.
Among Nogarola’s admirers were leading humanists
in Venice, Lauro Quirini and Ludovico Foscarini. Quirini out-
lined a program of study that urged Nogarola to reach be-
yond literature written in Latin to read philosophical works
in the original Greek. He argued that Greek philosophy (the
search for an understanding of reality through speculation) is
superior to Roman rhetoric (the art of effective speaking and
writing). He suggested that a learned woman had the capaci-
ty to master the difficulties of philosophy. Of special interest
is the letter exchange between Nogarola and the Italian hu-
manist Ludovico Foscarini, who was a Venetian statesman
and governor of Verona. In 1451 Nogarola composed a dia-
logue (written work in the form of a conversation) titled “On
the Equal or Unequal Sin of Eve and Adam.” It is a debate be-
tween herself and Foscarini on the question of whether Eve
had committed a greater sin than Adam in the Garden of
Eden. This is Nogarola’s best-known work.

4 Renaissance and Reformation: Primary Sources

Things to Remember While Reading an
Excerpt from “On the Equal or Unequal Sin of
Eve and Adam”:
• “On the Equal or Unequal Sin of Eve and Adam” was
written entirely by Nogarola. She composed the dialogue,
with Foscarini’s encouragement, from letters she and Fos-
carini had exchanged on the subject of Adam and Eve.
• According to the story in the book of Genesis in the Old
Testament (the first part of the Bible), Adam and Eve were
the first two people on Earth. They lived in the Garden of
Eden, a perfect world, and they had no awareness of evil
because they had been forbidden by God to eat apples
from the tree of knowledge in the garden. One day an
evil serpent, or snake, appeared in the tree and tempted
Adam and Eve to eat an apple. Eve took a bite from the
apple and then persuaded Adam to do the same. God
later expelled them from the garden for disobeying his
command and committing the first sin. Nogarola quotes
extensively from the book of Genesis in “On the Equal or
Unequal Sin of Eve and Adam.”
• The Adam and Eve story was used first by Jewish
prophets, or wise men, and later by Christian thinkers to
prove that Eve was responsible for the fact that all hu-
mans are born with original sin. That is, sin is a part of
human nature from birth because Eve (woman) had
tempted Adam (man) into an awareness of evil.
• In “On the Equal or Unequal Sin of Eve and Adam” Fos-
carini takes Adam’s side on the question of who had
committed the greater sin. Thus he presents the tradi-
tional argument for Eve’s guilt. He points out that Eve’s
moral weakness, not the serpent, or evil, was the tempta-
tion that made Adam surrender to a sinful act.
• Nogarola defends Eve, saying that Eve “had less intellect”
than Adam and therefore was incapable of choosing be-
tween good and evil. For this reason, Nogarola argues,
Eve should not be held responsible for original sin.
• The following excerpts from “On the Equal or Unequal
Sin of Eve and Adam” represent only a portion of the
lengthy and complex debate between Nogarola and Fos-
carini. The dialogue is typical of philosophical works

Humanism: Isotta Nogarola 5

 written in this form on a wide variety of topics by hu-
manists during the Renaissance.

Excerpts from
“On the Equal or Unequal Sin of Eve and Adam”
Ludovico begins: If it is in any way possible to measure the grav-
ity of human sinfulness, then we should see Eve’s sin as more to be
condemned than Adam’s [for three reasons]. [First], she was assigned
by a just judge to a harsher punishment than was Adam. [Second],
she believed that she was made more like God, and that is in the cat-
egory of unforgivable sins against the Holy Spirit. [Third], she sug-
gested and was the cause of Adam’s sin—not he of hers; and al-
though it is a poor excuse to sin because of a friend, nevertheless
Gravity: Seriousness. none was more tolerable than the one by which Adam was enticed.
Just judge: God. Isotta: But I see things—since you move me to reply—from quite
Holy Spirit: The third person another and contrary viewpoint. For where there is less intellect and
of the Christian Trinity (God less constancy, there is less sin; and Eve [lacked sense and constan-
the Father, Son, and Holy cy] and therefore sinned less. Knowing [her weakness] that crafty
Spirit). serpent began by tempting the woman, thinking the man perhaps
Constancy: Fidelity, loyalty. invulnerable because of his constancy....

Invulnerable: Incapable of [Adam must also be judged more guilty then Eve, secondly] be-
being wounded, injured, or cause of his greater contempt for the command. For in Genesis 2 it
harmed. appears that the Lord commanded Adam, not Eve, where it says:
“The Lord God took the man and placed him in the paradise of Eden
Till: Work soil by plowing,
to till it and keep it,” (and it does not say, “that they might care for
planting, and raising crops.
and protect it”) “... and the Lord God commanded the man” (and
Christ: Name for Jesus of not “them”): “From every tree of the garden you may eat” (and not
Nazareth, founder of “you” [in the plural sense]), and, [referring to the forbidden tree],
Christianity.
“for the day you eat of it, you must die,” [again, using the singular
Incarnate: In bodily form. form of “you”]. [God directed his command to Adam alone] because
he esteemed the man more highly than the woman.
Posterity: Future generations.

Perdition: Loss of the soul.

Moreover, the woman did not [eat from the forbidden tree]
because she believed that she was made more like God, but rather
Synagogue: Jewish house of because she was weak and [inclined to indulge in] pleasure. Thus:
worship.
“Now the woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing
Purged: To become rid of sin. to the eyes, and desirable for the knowledge it would give. She

6 Renaissance and Reformation: Primary Sources

took of its fruit and ate it, and also gave some to her husband and A painting of Adam and
he ate,” and it does not say [that she did so] in order to be like Eve, the biblical characters
God. And if Adam had not eaten, her sin would have had no con- described in the book of
sequences. For it does not say: “If Eve had not sinned Christ Genesis. Isotta Nogarola’s
“On the Equal or Unequal
would not have been made incarnate,” but “If Adam had not
Sin of Eve and Adam” set
sinned.” Hence the woman, but only because she had been first
the stage for a later feminist
deceived by the serpent’s evil persuasion, did indulge in the de- rethinking of the Adam and
lights of paradise; but she would have harmed only herself and in Eve story. Reproduced by
no way endangered human posterity if the consent of the first- permission of Hulton Archive.
born man had not been offered. Therefore Eve was no danger to
posterity but [only] to herself; but the man Adam spread the in-
fection of sin to himself and to all future generations. Thus Adam,
being the author of all humans yet to be born, was also the first
cause of their perdition. For this reason the healing of hu-
mankind was celebrated first in the man and then in the woman,
just as [according to Jewish tradition], after the unclean spirit has
been expelled from a man, as it springs forth from the syna-
gogue, the woman is purged [as well].

Humanism: Isotta Nogarola 7

 Moreover, that Eve was condemned by a just judge to a harsher
punishment is evidently false, for God said to the woman: “I will
make great your distress in childbearing; in pain shall you bring
forth children; for your husband shall be your longing, though he
have dominion over you.” But to Adam he said: “Because you have
listened to your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I have com-
manded you not to eat” (notice that God appears to have admon-
ished Adam alone [using the singular form of “you”] and not Eve)
“Cursed be the ground because of you; in toil shall you eat of it all
the days of your life; thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to you,
and you shall eat the plants of the field. In the sweat of your brow
you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, since out of it you
were taken; for dust you are and unto dust you shall return.” Notice
that Adam’s punishment appears harsher than Eve’s; for God said to
Adam: “to dust you shall return,” and not to Eve, and death is the
most terrible punishment that could be assigned. Therefore it is es-
tablished that Adam’s punishment was greater then Eve’s....

When God created man, from the beginning he created him per-
fect, and the powers of his soul perfect, and gave him a greater un-
derstanding and knowledge of truth as well as a greater depth of wis-
dom. Thus it was that the Lord led to Adam all the animals of the
earth and the birds of heaven, so that Adam could call them by their
names. For God said: “Let us make mankind in our image and like-
ness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and the
birds of the air, the cattle, over all the wild animals and every creature
that crawls on the earth,” making clear his own perfection. But of the
woman he said: “It is not good that the man is alone; I will make him
a helper like himself.” And since consolation and joy are required for
happiness, and since no one can have solace and joy when alone, it
appears that God created woman for man’s consolation. For the good
spreads itself, and the greater it is the more it shares itself. Therefore,
it appears that Adam’s sin was greater than Eve’s....

Adam either had free will or he did not. If he did not have it,
he did not sin; if he had it, then Eve forced the sin [upon him], which
is impossible. . . . God could himself, however, remove that condition
Admonished: Warned. of liberty from any person and bestow some other condition on him.
Consolation: Comfort.
In the same way fire cannot, while it remains fire, not burn, unless
its nature is changed and suspended for a time by divine force. No
Solace: Source of relief. other creature, such as a good angel or devil can do this, since they
Free will: The power to make are less than God; much less a woman, since she is less perfect and
one’s own choices. weaker then they.... Thus Adam appeared to accuse God rather than

8 Renaissance and Reformation: Primary Sources

excuse himself when he said: “The woman you placed at my side
gave me fruit from the tree and I ate it.”
Let these words be enough from me, an unarmed and poor little
woman.
Ludovico: So divinely have you encompassed the whole of this
problem that I could believe your words were drawn not from the
fonts of philosophy and theology but from heaven. Hence they are
worthy of praise rather than contradiction. Yet, lest you be cheated
of the utility [you say you have begun to receive from this debate],
attend to these brief arguments which can be posed for the opposite
view, that you may sow the honey-sweet seeds of paradise which
will delight readers and surround you with glory.
Eve’s ignorance was very base, because she chose to put faith in
a demon rather than in the creator. This ignorance actually is due to
her sin, as sacred writings attest, and certainly does not excuse her
of sin. Indeed, if the truth be plainly told, it was extreme stupidity to
remain within the boundaries which the excellent God had set for
her, [but] to fall prey to vain hope and lose what she had had and
what she aspired to.
The issues which you have cleverly joined I shall not divide. The
inconstancy of Eve which has been condemned was not inconstancy
of nature but of habit. For those qualities which are in us by nature
we are neither praised nor blamed, according to the judgement of
the wisest philosophers. Actually, the woman’s nature was excellent
and concordant with reason, genus and time. For just as teeth
were given to wild beasts, horns to oxen, feathers to birds for their
survival, to the woman mental capacity was given sufficient for the
preservation and pursuit of the health of her soul.
If [as you say] Eve was naturally created to aid, perfect, console
and gladden man, she conducted herself contrary to the laws [of her
nature], providing him with toil, imperfection, sadness and sorrow,
which the holy decrees had ordained would be serious crimes. And
human laws, too, ordered through long ages by the minds of great Fonts: Sources; fountains.
men, by sure reasoning have established that the seizure of some-
Prey: Victim.
one else’s goods merits the more serious punishment the more it in-
jures the owner.... Vain: Useless.

I have explained my views with these few words, both because I Concordant: In agreement
was ordered not to exceed the paper [you] sent me, and because I with.
speak to you who are most learned. For I do not wish to be a guide Genus: Biological
on such a road to you for whom, because of your great goodness, all classification.

Humanism: Isotta Nogarola 9

 things stand open in the brightest light. I, indeed—a single man and
a mere mortal, as it were, a reflection of the celestial life—have
only pointed a finger, so to speak, in the direction of the sources.
And although others may find that my writings suffer from the de-
fect of obscurity, if you, most brilliant, accept them and join them to
what you and I have already written, our views will become very evi-
dent and clear, and will shine amid the shadows. And if what I have
written is clumsy, by your skill you will make it worthy of your mind,
virtue, and glory. For you march forward to new battles to the sound
of sacred eloquence (as do soldiers to the clamor of trumpets), al-
ways more learned and more ready. And you march forward against
me, who has applied the whole sum of my thinking to my reading,
all at the same time, and to my writing, that I might present my
case and defend myself against yours, although the many storms
and floods of my obligation toss me about at whim. Farewell.

What happened next...

At the time Foscarini was considered to be the winner
of the debate because Nogarola had admitted that Eve was in-
ferior to Adam in being unable to choose between right and
wrong. Nevertheless, “On the Equal or Unequal Sin of Eve
and Adam” set the stage for a later feminist rethinking of the
Adam and Eve story. Nogarola produced a number of other
works. Among them was a study of the early Christian father
Saint Jerome (c. 347–419), which she wrote in 1453. Six years
later she sent a letter to Pope Pius II (1405–1464; reigned
1458–64), urging him to start a crusade, or holy war. Nogaro-
la’s last five years were marked by illness. In 1468, two years
after her death, the humanist Giovanni Mario Filelfo dedicat-
ed a lengthy poem to her brother, in which he celebrated her
achievement as a holy woman. However, he omitted any
Celestial: Heavenly or divine. mention of Isotta Nogarola’s intellectual work.
Eloquence: Forceful or
persuasive expressiveness.

Clamor: Insistent noise. Did you know...

Whim: Sudden idea or turn of • When Isotta Nogarola and her sister Ginevra were
mind. teenagers they attracted the attention of northern Italian

10 Renaissance and Reformation: Primary Sources

 humanists and courtiers (members of noble courts). With
these learned men Isotta and Ginevra exchanged books
and letters that showed their classical training and lively
intelligence. In 1438 Ginevra married and ceased her in-
volvement in the discussions of humanist ideas.
• Isotta Nogarola continued to participate in humanist dis-
cussions until 1441, when she became discouraged by at-
tacks on her character. Historians believe these attacks
came from men who did not approve of learned women.
Isotta Nogarola withdrew from humanist circles to join
her mother in her brother’s house. She lived, as she put
it, in a “book-lined cell” where, like medieval holy
women, she continued her studies in solitude.
• During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries women
became increasingly active in the humanist movement,
which was given impetus by salons headed by women. A
salon was an intellectual and literary discussion that be-
came popular in the 1600s. Salons were instrumental in
spreading new scientific and philosophical ideas and set-
ting standards of literary taste. A salon was held at a royal
or noble court and led by an aristocratic or high-born
woman called a salonnière. The terms “salon” and salon-
nière were introduced in the nineteenth century. During
the Renaissance salons were known as ruelles (compa-
nies). Many women who presided over and attended
these gatherings exchanged ideas, then published their
views in books and pamphlets.

For More Information

Book
King, Margaret L., and Albert Rabil Jr., eds. and trans. Her Immaculate
Hand: Selected Works By and About the Women Humanists of Quattro-
cento Italy. Binghamton, N.Y.: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and
Studies, 1983.

Web Sites
A Celebration of Women Writers: 1401–1500. [Online] Available http://
digital.library.upenn.edu/women/_generate/1401-1500.html, April
10, 2002.
“Nogarola, Isotta.” Sunshine for Women. [Online] Available http://www.
pinn.net/~sunshine/march99/nogarla2.html, April 10, 2002.

Humanism: Isotta Nogarola 11

 Niccolò Machiavelli
Excerpts from The Prince (1513)
Reprinted in The Renaissance Man
Translated by Ninian Hill Thomson
Published in 1969

O ne of the most important works of the Renaissance was

The Prince by the Italian author and statesman Niccolò
Machiavelli (pronounced mahk-yah-VEL-lee;1469–1527). In
this book Machiavelli explained his political philosophy,
which remains controversial even today. According to Machi-
avelli, a ruler must be motivated solely by self-interest and
must place the survival of his regime above all other consid-
erations. Machiavelli developed his theories on the basis of
humanist ideals. Humanism was a scholarly movement that
began in Machiavelli’s native city, Florence, Italy, in the mid-
1300s. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries humanists set
out to revive the culture of ancient Greece and Rome (called
the classical period), which they considered the pinnacle of
human achievement before the fall of the Roman Republic in
the fourth and fifth centuries.

In the early 1500s humanists in Florence wanted to

establish the city as the center of a resurrected Roman Repub-
lic. At that time France and Spain were involved in the early
stages of a conflict over control of Italy, called the Italian
Wars (1494–1559). Machiavelli saw the need for a strong po-

12
litical and military leader who could
eliminate the French and Spanish
presence in northern Italy by forming
a unified state. He shared with Renais-
sance humanists a passion for classical
antiquity. Though a republican (one
who supports a government that rep-
resents the people) at heart, he had a
fierce desire for political and moral re-
newal according to the ideals of the
Roman Republic. When he wrote The
Prince he envisioned such a possibility
while the powerful Medicis family
controlled Florence as well as the pa-
pacy in Rome. (The papacy is the of-
fice of the pope, who is the supreme
head of the Roman Catholic Church, a
Christian religion based in Rome.)

Machiavelli began his political

career in 1498, when he was named
chancellor (head administrator) and
secretary of the Republic of Florence.
He went on some twenty-three mis-
sions to foreign states. In 1503 he de-
scribed his most memorable mission in a report titled “Descrip- Niccolò Machiavelli wrote
tion of the Manner Employed by Duke Valentino [Cesare The Prince, one of the most
important works of the
Borgia] in Slaying Vitellozzo Vitelli, Oliverotto da Fermo, Signor
Renaissance period.
Pagolo and the Duke of Gravina, Orsini.” In great detail he de-
©Bettmann/ Corbis.
scribed a series of political murders the notorious Spanish-born Reproduced by permission
Italian nobleman Cesare Borgia (c. 1475–1507) ordered to elim- of Corbis Corporation.
inate his rivals. Machiavelli intended this work as a lesson in
the art of politics for Florence’s weak and indecisive leader, Pier
Soderini. In 1510 Machiavelli was instrumental in organizing a
militia (citizens’ army) in Florence. In August 1512 the Floren-
tines removed Soderini from office. Then the Medicis, who had
previously ruled Florence, were able to return to power. Three
months later Machiavelli was dismissed. Soon afterward he was
arrested, imprisoned, and subjected to torture as an alleged con-
spirator against the Medicis. Though innocent, he remained a
suspect for years. When he was unable to secure an appoint-
ment from the reinstated Medicis, he turned to writing political
treatises, plays, and verse. In 1513 he wrote The Prince.

Humanism: Niccolò Machiavelli 13

 Following are excerpts from chapters 14, 15, 17, and
18 of the The Prince, which are best known today as the heart
of Machiavelli’s political philosophy.

Things to Remember While Reading Excerpts

from The Prince:
• “Prince” was the term used in the Renaissance to refer to
a ruler.
• Machiavelli’s chief innovation in The Prince was to view
politics as a separate field. Since ancient times scholars
and historians, including the humanists, had treated pol-
itics as a branch of moral philosophy.
• Fundamental to Machiavelli’s theory were the concepts
of fortuna (fortune) and virtù (virtue). Fortune, or chance,
often determines a political leader’s opportunity for deci-
sive action. Yet Machiavelli, like others in the Renais-
sance, believed in virtù, the human capacity to shape des-
tiny. This view contrasted sharply with the medieval
concept of an all-powerful God and the ancient Greek be-
lief that humans are powerless against fate. Machiavelli
stressed the importance of virtù, which is unlike Christian
virtue, or goodness, in that it is a combination of force
and shrewdness—somewhat like a combination of the
lion and the fox, with a touch of greatness.
• According to Machiavelli, the inborn badness of human
beings requires that the prince instill fear rather than
love in his subjects. When necessary the prince must also
break his pledge with other princes, who will be no more
honest than he. Machiavelli was attempting to describe
rather than to invent the rules of political success. For
him the needs of the state are greater than the individual
interests of its citizens.

14 Renaissance and Reformation: Primary Sources

Humanism: Niccolò Machiavelli 15
16 Renaissance and Reformation: Primary Sources
Humanism: Niccolò Machiavelli 17
18 Renaissance and Reformation: Primary Sources
Humanism: Niccolò Machiavelli 19
 What happened next...
Machiavelli also wrote Discourses on the First Ten Books
of Titus Livius, which he had started before writing The Prince.
His other works include The Art of War and The Life of Castruc-
cio Castracani (1520); three plays, The Mandrake, Clizia, and
Andria; History of Florence (1526); a short story, “Belfagor”; and
several minor works in verse and prose. Discourses somewhat
resembles The Prince, although Machiavelli sets forth his quar-
rel with the church in this work. He claimed the Italian states
were weak and divided because the church was too feeble po-
litically to dominate them but prevented any one state from
uniting them.The Mandrake is considered the finest comedy
of the Italian Renaissance. Scholars note that History of Flo-
rence was an advance over earlier histories because Machiavel-

20 Renaissance and Reformation: Primary Sources

li traced underlying causes rather than the mere succession of
events as he told the history of Florence after the death of
Duke Lorenzo de’ Medici in 1492.
Many of the positive values Machiavelli expressed in
The Prince were adopted in the nineteenth century. Among
them were the supremacy of the state over religion, the draft-
ing of soldiers for citizen armies, and the preference for a re-
publican government rather than a monarchy. Machiavelli
was also instrumental in reviving the Roman ideals of hon-
esty, hard work, and civic responsibility.

Did you know...

• Machiavelli is considered a sinister and ruthless politician,
but many historians suggest this reputation is largely un-
deserved. They point out that Machiavelli lived by his
own philosophy that a servant of government must be
loyal and self-sacrificing. Furthermore, he never suggested
that the political dealings of princes should be a model for
day-to-day interactions among ordinary citizens.
• The main source of the misrepresentation of Machiavel-
li’s ideas was the English translation, in 1577, of a work
called Contre-Machiavel by the French Huguenot (Protes-
tant) writer Gentillet. Gentillet distorted Machiavelli’s
teachings, which he blamed for the Saint Bartholomew’s
Day Massacre, the killing of Huguenots in Paris on a
church holiday, in 1572. A poem by Gabriel Harvey the
following year falsely attributed four principal crimes to
Machiavelli: poison, murder, fraud, and violence. The
negative image of Machiavelli was popularized by the
crafty and greedy villain (evil person) Machiavel in The
Jew of Malta (1588), a play by the English playwright
Christopher Marlowe. Machiavellian villains followed in
works by other playwrights.

For More Information

Books
Skinner, Quentin. Machiavelli: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Ox-
ford University Press, 2000.

Humanism: Niccolò Machiavelli 21

 Thomson, Ninian Hill, and Daniel Fader, trans. The Renaissance Man: Nic-
colò Machiavelli, “The Prince”; Baldassare Castiglione, “The Courtier.”
New York: Grolier, 1969.
Vergani, Luisa. “The Prince,” Notes; Including Machiavelli’s Life and Works.
Lincoln, Nebr., Cliff’s Notes, 1967.
Viroli, Maurizio. Niccolò’s Smile: A Biography of Machiavelli. Translated by
Antony Shugaar. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2000.

Web Sites
“Machiavelli, Nicolo.” Internet Philosophy Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [On-
line] Available http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/m/machiave.htm,
April 10, 2002.
“Machiavelli, Nicolò.” MSN Encarta. [Online] Available http://encarta.
msn.com/find/Concise.asp?ti=05DD9000, April 10, 2002.

22 Renaissance and Reformation: Primary Sources

 Ibn Khaldûn
Excerpts from The Muqaddimah (1377)
Translated by Franz Rosenthal
Edited by N. J. Dawood
Published in 1989

T he Renaissance is generally considered to be an era in Eu-

ropean history only, yet a similar cultural and intellectual
revolution took place in the Arab world. The greatest Arab fig-
ure of this period was the Muslim philosopher and historian
‘Adb al-Rahman Ibn Khaldûn (known as Ibn Khaldûn; pro-
nounced kal-DOON; 1332–1395). (A Muslim is a follower of
Islam, a religion founded by the prophet Muhammad.) Ibn
Khaldûn is best known today for The Muqaddimah (pro-
nounced moo-kah-DEE-mah), which was the introduction to
the first volume of Kitāb al-‘bar, a history of the world.

Ibn Khaldûn completed The Muqaddimah in 1377,

around the same time humanism (a movement devoted to
the revival of ancient Greek and Roman culture) was gaining
momentum in northern Italy. Like the European humanists,
he used ancient Greek concepts to examine his own society
and he placed humans at the center of the world. The Muqad-
dimah represented a significant leap forward in scholarship at
the time. Unlike most philosophers who came before him,
Ibn Khaldûn attempted to discover patterns in social and po-
litical organizations. (A philosopher was one who studied all

23
 learning except the technical and practical arts.) He used new
scientific methods (systematic analysis based on direct obser-
vation) and terminology, which involved explaining and an-
alyzing historical events instead of simply giving a chrono-
logical account. The Italian diplomat Niccolò Machiavelli
(1469–1527; see entry) has been credited with introducing
this technique in The Prince (1513), a description of the per-
fect ruler, and in his history of Florence, Italy (1526). Modern
scholars note, however, that Ibn Khaldûn used the same ap-
proach more than one hundred fifty years earlier. In The
Muqaddimah he identified psychological, economic, environ-
mental, and social factors that contribute to the making of
human civilization and history. Ibn Khaldûn is considered
the pioneer of sociology (the science of society, social institu-
tions, and social relationships), which was developed in the
mid-nineteenth century. The Muqaddimah is now regarded as
one of the great masterpieces of all time.

Ibn Khaldûn has long political career

Ibn Khaldûn came from an Arab family of scholars
and politicians who originally lived in Yemen (a country on
the southern edge of the Arabian Peninsula) before settling in
Seville, a city in the Muslim-controlled region of Andalusia in
southern Spain (see accompanying box). When Muslims were
driven out of Andalusia in the early thirteenth century, Ibn
Khaldûn’s family moved to Tunis, the capital city of Tunisia
in North Africa. Ibn Khaldûn was born in Tunis in 1332.
While he was growing up his parents were active in the intel-
lectual life of the city, associating with leading politicians and
scholars from North Africa and Spain. Ibn Khaldûn was edu-
cated first by his father and then by prominent Muslim schol-
ars. He memorized the Koran (holy book of Islam) and stud-
ied grammar (rules for use of a language), law, rhetoric (art of
effective speaking and writing), philology (study of language
in literary works), and poetry. In 1352, at the age of nineteen,
Ibn Khaldûn entered the service of Sultan (king) Barquq, the
Egyptian ruler of Tunis. This marked the beginning of Ibn
Khaldûn’s long political career. While serving with various
rulers in Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, and Spain, he acquired
knowledge of politics and history that later formed the basis
of his scholarly work.

24 Renaissance and Reformation: Primary Sources

 Muslims in Spain
Ibn Khaldûn came from an Arab city of Córdoba in 786 and the Alhambra (a
family of scholars and politicians who origi- grand palace) in the city of Granada in the
nally lived in Yemen before settling in Mus- 1300s. The Moors introduced the secrets of
lim-controlled Andalusia, the southern part making medicine and of producing steel,
of Spain. In C.E. 711 Muslims from Arabia skills they had learned from the Far East
and Berbers (non-Arab wandering tribes) (countries in Asia). Their philosophy made
from North Africa invaded Spain, where the cities of Córdoba, Granada, and Toledo
they were known as Moors. At the time of important centers of learning.
the Moorish invasion, Spain was occupied
by Germanic tribes called Visigoths and Eventually feuds and disputes arose
Christianity was the dominant religion. After among the Muslim ruling families. In the
winning several major battles, the Moors eleventh century Christian states in the
conquered the Visigoth capital of Toledo in north of Spain took advantage of Muslim
712 and soon pushed the Germanic tribes unrest and set out to recapture territories
into the northern frontiers of Spain. The conquered by the Moors. The Moors sur-
Moors established a flourishing new culture rendered Toledo to the Christians in 1085.
based on their study of advanced civiliza- In 1150 a new group of Berber conquerors,
tions of past times and their own era. Moor- the Almohades, came to Spain. They con-
ish farming techniques brought the dry land trolled the Moorish regions until 1212,
to life. Moorish architects renewed cities when they were defeated by Alfonso VIII of
with intricately decorated mosques (Muslim Castile at the battle of Navas de Tolosa.
houses of worship), lush gardens, and paved After that time, only Granada remained
streets. They built the Great Mosque of the under Muslim control.

In 1354 Ibn Khaldûn left Tunis to join the ulama (re-

ligious council) in Fez, the capital of Morocco. While living in
Fez he continued his studies and met the eminent scholars of
the day. He also became involved in court politics, often tak-
ing sides as sultans fought for power in North Africa. He was
imprisoned from February1357 until November 1358 for par-
ticipating in a plot to return an dethroned sultan to power in
Algeria. Eventually Ibn Khaldûn rose to the position of chief
justice of the ulama. After being denied the post of chamber-
lain (chief officer in the household of a king) in 1362, he de-
cided to escape the political turmoil in North Africa. He
moved to Granada, the only important Arab-controlled state

Humanism: Ibn Khaldûn 25

Moorish architects renewed left in Spain. In 1364 the sultan of Granada, Ibn al-Ahmar,
cities with intricately appointed Ibn Khaldûn head of a mission to meet with Peter
decorated mosques, lush the Cruel, the king of Castile, to seal a peace treaty between
gardens, and paved streets. Castile and the Arabs. During his stay in Castile, Ibn Khaldûn
They built the Great Mosque
visited Seville, the city of his ancestors. Peter invited Ibn
of the city of Córdoba in
Khaldûn to join the Castile court, offering to restore his fami-
786. ©Vanni Archive/Corbis.
Reproduced by permission of
ly property, but Ibn Khaldûn declined the post. Ibn Khaldûn
Corbis Corporation. had become aware that his presence in Granada was arousing
the jealousy of the Muslim scholar Ibn al-Khatib, who was
Ibn al-Ahmar’s prime minister (chief executive of a govern-
ment). As a result, Ibn Khaldûn left Spain and returned to
North Africa.
For the next decade Ibn Khaldûn had a precarious po-
litical career as warring rulers sought control of North Africa.
Finally, in 1374 he and his family took refuge at Qalat Ibn
Salama, a small village in the province of Oran in Algeria. Ibn
Khaldûn devoted his time to writing The Muqaddimah, which
he completed in 1377.

26 Renaissance and Reformation: Primary Sources

Things to Remember While Reading Excerpts
from The Muqaddimah:
• Ibn Khaldûn followed in the tradition of the ancient
Greek philosopher Plato (c. 428–348 or 347 B.C.E.). Like
Plato, Khaldûn felt that the way an individual leads his or
her life is directly related to the society as a whole. Both
philosophers thought a virtuous person can exist only
when the society is virtuous, but they also said that cer-
tain types of people were more fit to rule over society
than others. Nevertheless, there was a significant differ-
ence between Plato and Ibn Khaldûn—Plato came up
with his theory largely on his own, whereas Ibn
Khaldûn’s ideas were based on an established tradition.
Plato described a perfect society in his famous work The
Republic. He outlined laws and discussed how people
should live, placing a “philosopher king” at the head of
the society. Plato then wrote The Laws, which contained
thousands of other laws to be used in his ideal society.
Ibn Khaldûn did not have to do this. He based his con-
cepts on the Koran, which provided an existing set of
rules and laws. Moreover, the Koran was already the cen-
tral text for the lives of millions of Muslims and could
therefore be readily adopted. Ibn Khaldûn’s method was
a major innovation in the field of philosophy.

• Muslims regard the Koran as the perfect miracle because

it was directly given to the prophet Muhammad (c.
570–632) by God. Unlike the Torah, the holy text of Ju-
daism, and the New Testament, the holy text of Chris-
tianity, the Koran was not compiled over many years and
subjected to changes by theologians. Instead, the Koran
was immediately memorized by Muhammad’s followers,
who later wrote it down word for word as spoken by the
prophet. Even today one can look at a Koran published
in Russia and one printed in Africa, and the Arabic text
will be exactly the same. Furthermore, a Koran written
more than a thousand years ago contains the same text
as one printed today.

• The following excerpts are from chapter 2 of The Muqad-

dimah. In sections 3 through 7 of that chapter Ibn
Khaldûn explained why the Bedouins, Arab tribes that
wander in the desert, were superior to people who have

Humanism: Ibn Khaldûn 27

 dwelled only in cities. He argued that the Bedouins lived
closer to their own human nature and were therefore ide-
ally suited to follow the teachings of Muhammad.

28 Renaissance and Reformation: Primary Sources

Humanism: Ibn Khaldûn 29
30 Renaissance and Reformation: Primary Sources
Humanism: Ibn Khaldûn 31
32 Renaissance and Reformation: Primary Sources
What happened next...
Continued unrest in North Africa made Ibn Khaldûn’s
political career uncertain. Finally, in 1382, he settled in Cairo,
Egypt, where he spent the last twenty-four years of his life.
Respected as a public figure and scholar, he was appointed
chief judge of the Mâlikite community. Political opposition
forced him out of office three times within five years. Never-
theless, he tried to fight corruption and favoritism, and he
was serving as a judge at the end of his life. In 1383 Ibn
Khaldûn completed Kitāb al-‘bar. He also wrote poems, an au-
tobiography (account of his own life), and a book on mathe-
matics, and he lectured at Al-Azhar University as well as other
universities. In 1400 Sultan Faraj of Egypt asked Ibn Khaldûn
to accompany him on a military expedition to Damascus, a
city in Syria and the center of the Arab world. It was about to
be attacked by the Mongol conqueror Tamerlane (also called
Timur; 1336–1405). After staying in Damascus for two weeks
Faraj had to return to Cairo to put down a revolt. He left Ibn
Khaldûn and Damascan leaders to deal with Tamerlane. Ibn
Khaldûn was selected to conduct negotiations and he spent
thirty-five days in the invader’s camp. Tamerlane was so im-
pressed with Ibn Khaldûn’s arguments on behalf of Damascus
that he freed the citizens before he raided the city. Ibn
Khaldûn died in 1406 and was buried the Muslim cemetery
outside Cairo.

Did you know...

• In 1382 Ibn Khaldûn went to Alexandria, Egypt, to make
preparations for the hajj. The hajj is a pilgrimage (reli-
gious journey) to Mecca (the city in Saudi Arabia where
Muhammad was born) that all Muslims are required to
make at least once. When Ibn Khaldûn was unable to
join the caravan bound for Mecca, he turned toward
Cairo instead. He received a warm welcome from the
academic community and spent the rest of his life in the
city. Ibn Khaldûn finally made his pilgrimage to Mecca
in 1387.

• In 1384 Ibn Khaldûn’s family died when the ship carry-

ing them from Tunis sank near the harbor of Alexandria.

Humanism: Ibn Khaldûn 33

 For More Information
Books
Ibn Khaldûn, ‘Adb al-Rahman. The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to Histo-
ry. Translated by Franz Rosenthal. Edited by N. J. Dawood. Prince-
ton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1989.

Web Sites
“Ibn Khaldûn.” Columbia Encyclopedia. [Online] Available http://www.
bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/sitesearch/?query=khaldun
&db=db&cmd=context&id=38d47ecd1af#hit1, April 10, 2002.
Marvin, Christ. “Ibn Khaldûn: Iranian Muslim Philosopher.” [Online]
Available http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/muslim/
khaldun.html, April 10, 2002.

34 Renaissance and Reformation: Primary Sources

 Renaissance Arts and Science 2

T he Renaissance was an era of unparalleled innovation and Leonardo da Vinci

…37
creativity in painting, sculpture, and architecture, especial-
ly in Italy, which was the home of Renaissance art. Inspired by
Galileo
humanist concepts, many artists perfected their talents in sev- …49
eral areas, personifying the ideal of the “Renaissance man.”
One of the most famous multitalented figures was the Italian
artist Leonardo da Vinci. He not only produced masterpieces
in painting and sculpture but also worked as an engineer and
inventor. In fact, for Leonardo art and science were closely re-
lated. Throughout his career he kept notebooks in which he
wrote down his ideas on a wide range of subjects, including
theories of painting, ideas for remarkably modern inventions,
and plans for houses and towns.

At the height of the Renaissance a scientific revolu-

tion was initiated by astronomers who introduced new ways
of understanding their world in relation to the heavens. Re-
jecting the traditional theory of an Earth-centered universe,
these scientists set out to test the theory that the Earth re-
volves around the Sun. One of the most important develop-
ments was the invention of the telescope, which enabled as-

35
 tronomers to gain a closer view of the orbits of planets and
the positions of stars. The seventeenth-century Italian scien-
tist Galileo Galilei was the first to use the telescope to observe
the Moon, planets, and groups of stars. He reported his find-
ings in The Starry Messenger, in which he described how he
made his telescope and gave details of his radically new ob-
servations of the surface of the Moon.

36 Renaissance and Reformation: Primary Sources

 Leonardo da Vinci
Excerpts from Notebooks (c.1490–1515)
Reprinted in Selections from the Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci
Edited by Irma A. Richter
Published in 1977

T he Italian Renaissance was a time of experimentation in

painting, sculpture, and architecture. During the Middle
Ages (c. 400–1400; also known as the medieval period) the
artist was an anonymous vehicle for glorifying God. In the
Renaissance, however, human beings became the central
focus of artistic expression. This development was the result
of the humanist movement, a revival of the culture of ancient
Greece and Rome (called the classical period) initiated by
scholars in Florence, Italy, in the mid-1300s. Humanists be-
lieved that a body of learning called studia humanitatis (hu-
manistic studies), which was based on the literary master-
pieces from the classical period, could bring about a cultural
rebirth, or renaissance. Humanists were committed to the re-
vival of ancient works, which emphasized human achieve-
ment, as a way to end the “barbarism” (lack of refinement or
culture) of the Middle Ages.

The Renaissance art movement began in the early fif-

teenth century when humanist ideas were put into practice
by painters, sculptors, and architects in Florence. Using a
human-centered approach, they started a revolution that

37
 quickly spread to other Italian city-states such as Urbino, Fer-
rara, Padua, Mantua, Venice, and Milan. Renaissance art is di-
vided into three periods: early Renaissance (1420–95), High
Renaissance (1495–1520), and mannerism (also called the late
Renaissance; 1520s–1600). These periods overlapped, depend-
ing on the artists and the places where they worked. Renais-
sance art theories began reaching other European countries in
the 1500s, at the peak of the High Renaissance. Around this
time Rome became the artistic capital of Europe.
As the Renaissance gained momentum the artist
achieved a new status as a creative genius. Prior to this time
artists occupied the position of artisans, or craftsmen, and were
considered socially inferior to the upper classes. Now wealthy
patrons, or financial supporters, clamored to commission the
greatest artists, who gained coveted posts in the courts of mon-
archs and the nobility. As part of the revival of classical culture,
Renaissance artists studied ancient ruins in Rome and adapted
ancient painting techniques. They also introduced their own
innovations, such as the use of linear perspective. Invented by
the Florentine architect Filippo Brunelleschi (1377–1446), lin-
ear perspective is a system derived from mathematics in which
all elements of a composition are measured and arranged from
a single point of view, or perspective. The Florentine artist
Masaccio (Tommaso di Giovanni di Simone Guidi; 1401–
1428), known as the father of Renaissance painting, was the
first to use linear perspective extensively. Portraits of promi-
nent people and their families also became increasingly popu-
lar, reflecting a dramatic shift from the idea that heavenly fig-
ures or saints were the only worthy subjects of art. In addition,
landscape painting was emerging as a new genre, or form of
art. This was another important change, because in medieval
art nature was simply the environment of human beings and
therefore had little significance.

Leonardo introduces new techniques

One of the greatest figures of the High Renaissance was
Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519), a painter, sculptor, engineer,
and scientist. He began his career as a painter in Florence, then
worked in Milan and Rome before moving permanently to
France during his final years. He also served as a military engi-
neer while working as an artist. Leonardo produced many

38 Renaissance and Reformation: Primary Sources

paintings, but only a few have survived.
Nevertheless, he introduced techniques
that influenced other painters. An ex-
ample is Adoration of the Magi (1481),
which is based on the story of the three
Magi (kings; wise men) who traveled to
Bethlehem from the East (ancient Per-
sia; present-day Iran) to pay homage to
the newborn Jesus Christ (later the
founder of Christianity). Leonardo used
a new approach by depicting human
drama through an effect of continuing
movement. A crowd of spectators, with
odd and varied faces, flutters around
and peers at Mary (mother of Jesus),
who is holding the baby Jesus. In the
background the three Magi are mount-
ed on horses that prance among intri-
cate architectural ruins. Traditionally, in
paintings of this story Mary and Jesus
had appeared at one side of the picture
and the Magi approached from the
other side. Leonardo departed from tra-
dition by placing Mary and Jesus in the
center of the composition. He also used linear perspective to de- Painter, sculptor, engineer,
pict the ruins in the background. and scientist Leonardo da
Vinci was one of the
While working in Milan, Leonardo painted Virgin of
greatest figures of the High
the Rocks (1480s), another highly original work. He used the
Renaissance period.
tradition of showing Mary and Jesus in a cave. This gave him Photograph courtesy of The
the opportunity to experiment with dimmed light, which is Library of Congress.
coming from two sources, one behind the cave and the other
in front of it. (Leonardo once wrote that an artist should prac-
tice drawing at dusk and in courtyards with walls painted
black.) The technique highlights the four figures—Mary and
Jesus and another woman and infant—in a soft, shadowy at-
mosphere. Last Supper (1495–97), a later painting that Leonar-
do did in Milan, depicts Jesus’ final meal with his twelve dis-
ciples, or followers. For this fresco (wall painting) Leonardo
decided not to use the traditional water-based paint, which
makes areas of color appear distinct and does not allow for
shading. Instead, he experimented with oil-based paint,
which is more easily blended, but his efforts were unsuccess-

Renaissance Arts and Science: Leonardo da Vinci 39

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
witnessed the return to Rome of so many thousands of Eastern
schismatics—often whole dioceses at a time—to the venerable
Mother Church from which they had been lured by heresy and
schism in the long ago. So far, then, as the Eastern Churches
mentioned are concerned, it would appear from the foregoing pages
that the day is not very distant when, in great measure, heresy shall
be adjured and schism healed.

The Orthodox Churches

Just as it is not true to speak of an Eastern Church, so it is still

less true to speak of an Orthodox Church. For, whereas the Eastern
Churches we have considered are only seven in number, the
Orthodox Churches are no fewer than sixteen. But in their origin a
very marked difference is to be noted between the Orthodox and
other Churches of the East.
The Nestorian and Monophysite Churches, as we have noted,
originated in certain specific heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches. But
the false doctrines of these heresiarchs, as has been observed,
contributed less towards the separation of the Copts, Syrians, and
others than did the intense nationalism of these peoples who wanted
only a pretext under the guise of heresy for concealing their
disloyalty to the Byzantine Empire. Few of the rank and file knew
anything about the theological issues involved in the false doctrines
of their leaders. The majority of them were almost as ignorant of
their real bearing on Catholic dogma when the Councils of Ephesus
and Chalcedon issued their famous decrees as they are to-day. With
possibly a few exceptions not even the clergy or the bishops of the
Eastern Churches are now aware of what was the cardinal issue of
their schism or are able to give anything more than the vaguest and
most shadowy reason for their continued separation from the Church
of Rome.
The Orthodox Churches—which embrace those Christians who use
the Byzantine rite but are not in communion with the Catholic
Church—unlike the Eastern Churches of which we have spoken, had
their origin not in heresy but in schism, pure and simple. Many and
various were the causes of this schism but the chief of them were
the jealousies and ambitions of the Emperors and Patriarchs of
Constantinople. And these jealousies and ambitions began at an
early date and gradually developed until they eventually culminated
in the fatal schism precipitated by Photius and Cerularius. For
After that Constantine the Eagle turned
Against the course of heaven which it had followed,[333]

there was ever-increasing friction between the East and the West.
Constantine, fully occupied with the affairs of his vast empire, had
wisely allowed the Church to govern herself[334] but such,
unfortunately, was not the policy of his successors. Continually
interfering in ecclesiastical affairs and determining questions of
doctrine by imperial decrees, they soon proved themselves the worst
enemies of the Church’s freedom of action. This was particularly true
during the Byzantine period which extended from the accession of
Justinian to the throne to the fall of Constantinople under
Mohammed II. During all this time the Emperors were unremitting in
their efforts to make the Church a subject of the State. In this they
had the ever-ready cooperation of the court bishops, whose
subservience is easily explained. Their ambitions were great and
they counted on their imperial masters to help them to realize their
unholy aspirations. Nor were they disappointed.
When in 330 Constantine established his new capital on the banks
of the Bosphorus and beautified it with all the artistic treasures he
was able to remove from the old capital on the Tiber, the
ecclesiastical head of Constantinople was but a simple bishop under
the metropolitan of Heraclea in Thrace. But this position was far
from satisfying the vaulting ambition of one who suddenly found
himself the honored chaplain of the Emperor and his court, the
bishop of the magnificent metropolis that was thenceforth to be the
center of the Roman world. What was now to prevent his becoming
a Patriarch—the rival even of the greatest of Patriarchs—of the
successor of the Galilean Fisherman who ruled the Universal Church
from his palace in the old capital of the Cæsars?
What indeed was to prevent him from making his dream a
glorious reality? The Emperor, he felt sure, would not thwart his
ambitious schemes. Nor did he. For it was in harmony with his policy
of centralization to have his court bishop raised to the highest
hierarchical position possible. It would add to his own prestige, it
would stimulate the loyalty of his subjects, and would augment his
power and influence in his dealings with the Church. Nor was he
mistaken. For history does not furnish more glaring examples of the
tyranny of Cæsar in the things of God nor of more ignoble subjection
of bishops to civil power than were exhibited in the Emperor’s
arbitrary and contemptuous treatment of those ecclesiastics—even
the highest—who, in return for the encouragement he had given to
their unholy ambitions, had become the willing vassals of the
imperial government.
In the evolution of the See of Constantinople, barely fifty years
were required for achieving the joint plan of Bishop and Emperor.
For as early as the year 381 it was decreed by a council summoned
by the Emperor Theodosius I, which was composed of only a
comparatively small number of Eastern bishops, and at which the
Holy See had no representative, that thenceforth the Bishop of
Constantinople should have the primacy of honor after the Bishop of
Rome, because that city—Constantinople—was New Rome. Thus, by
a stroke of the pen, the Patriarch of Alexandria, who had previously
held precedence after the Pope of Rome, was supplanted by the
Bishop of Byzantium. The Pope and the Alexandrian Patriarch
protested against this outrageous proceeding, but it was of no avail.
The Emperor and his subservient bishops had achieved their
ambitious purpose and had virtually divided Christendom into two
dominant Patriarchates—that of the West, under Rome, and that of
the East, under Constantinople.
It was this realization by the bishops of New Rome of their most
cherished aspiration—the separation of the Church into two great
Patriarchates—that engendered and fostered that jealousy and
friction that ever afterwards existed between Rome and
Constantinople and which, more than anything else, led to that ever-
regrettable schism that still separates the East from the West. For
the position of the Church of New Rome, as that of the “first Church
of all Eastern Christendom, was so exalted that her bishops even
ventured to think themselves the rivals of the Roman Pope, so
influential that when at last they”—her bishops—“fell into formal
schism, they dragged all the other eastern bishops with them.”[335]
Besides the jealousy and overweening ambition of sycophantic
bishops and tyrannical Emperors, there were other determining
causes of the estrangement between the Eastern and Western
halves of Christendom and of the ultimate establishment of an
autonomous Byzantine episcopate.
Not the least of these was the difference of language. For after
Constantinople had become the capital of the Empire, the Roman
Court became so completely Hellenized that the language of Virgil
and Cicero was no longer heard and was understood by but few.
Even Photius, the most eminent scholar of his time, was ignorant of
Latin. For this reason, it is quite possible that, aside from Byzantine
ambitions and aspirations, “the divergence of tongues, combined
with the Hellenic contempt of the Latin race might have contributed
to ... a grouping of the Eastern Churches around the See of
Constantinople, and thus have brought about, more or less rapidly,
the formation of a Greek autonomy. The Roman Empire had
succeeded in overpowering and even in suppressing the tongues of
all the other conquered nations—such as the Syriac, Coptic, Celtic,
Iberian, Phœnician, Etruscan, and many others—but it had never
attempted anything in the direction of the Greek language. The
result was that Greek ranked side by side with Latin as a second
official tongue and this cause brought about the division of the
Empire. Nor was it merely a question of tongues. Latins as well as
Greeks knew and recognized that all intellectual culture in the West
had its origin in Greek antiquity; hence arose a superiority that,
when once the Empire was divided, promptly gave to the Greek
portion a preponderance over the Latin.”[336]
Nothing, however, was so calculated to stir up the rancor of the
Greeks against the Latins as the Pope’s coronation of Charlemagne
as Emperor of territory that was regarded as an integral part of the
Byzantine Empire. For the Greeks then held the theory, which was
subsequently so elaborated by Dante in his De Monarchia, that the
cause of Cæsar was the cause of Christ and that the perfection of
the Church presupposed the integrity of the Empire and harmonious
relations between Pope and Emperor. When, therefore, the Roman
Patriarch set up a rival Augustus in the person of Charlemagne and
divided the Roman Empire, which, under Justinian, extended from
the Euphrates to the Pillars of Hercules, he was in the estimation of
the Byzantines guilty of high treason. Claiming that they alone had
the direct line of imperial continuity they would never recognize
Charlemagne as anything more than “a barbarian King of a
barbarian people.”[337] To what extent the establishment of the
Empire in the West contributed to existing friction and to the fatal
rupture between New Rome and Old Rome, which occurred seventy
years later, is a matter of speculation, but it can scarcely be doubted
that its effect on the exacerbated temper of the Greeks was far
greater than is usually imagined.
Although, during the first five centuries of its existence, the See of
Constantinople had several times been out of communion with
Rome, the “Great Schism,” as it is called, was not inaugurated until
Photius, with the connivance of the Byzantine Emperor, iniquitously
usurped the Patriarchate of New Rome. After the death of this
intruder in 891 peace was again restored between the Eastern and
Western Churches. But the schism that had been engendered by the
misunderstandings and animosities, jealousies and ambitions, of
centuries was healed only temporarily. For but a little more than a
century and a half had elapsed after the mortal remains of Photius—
who has been called “the Luther of the Orthodox Church”—had been
moldering in an unknown grave when the Byzantine Church was
again, in 1050, thrown into schism by the overweening ambition of
Michael Cerularius, whom the Emperor Constantine IX had, in
violation of the most sacred laws of the Church, foisted into the See
of Constantinople as its Patriarch.
Neither Photius nor Cerularius, it must here be observed,
instigated schism because of controverted questions of dogma.
Photius caused it by his shameless usurpation of the See of the
lawful Patriarch of Constantinople. Cerularius, in his opposition to
Rome, was actuated by similar motives. But he was not, like his
schismatic predecessor, satisfied to be Primate of the Byzantine
Church. His pride and ambition led him to aim at something far
higher. This was nothing less than the founding of a theocracy of
which he was to be supreme head and in which the State was to be
subservient to the Church. This theocracy was to be the antithesis of
the Cæsaropapism which had flourished almost uninterruptedly since
the death of Constantine. At one time, indeed, Cerularius thought
seriously of uniting the imperial and the patriarchal functions and
proclaiming himself the Emperor-Patriarch of the Roman Empire....
[338] He began to wear purple shoes, one of the Emperor’s
prerogatives, and to join royalty and the priesthood in his own
person. Michael Prellos, who knew him well and who wrote a
valuable history of this period, informs us in referring to Cerularius:
“In his hands he held the cross while from his mouth issued imperial
laws.”
But Cerularius’ ambition was the cause of his undoing. Like
Photius he was made Patriarch by the Emperor. Like Photius he was
deposed from his exalted position by imperial authority and sent into
exile on the charge of high treason. But, although he failed in his
stupendous scheme to make himself the Emperor-Patriarch of the
East, he was successful where Photius fell short—in definitively
separating the Greek from the Latin Church and by perpetuating the
most disastrous schism which has ever befallen the Church of Christ.
It was for this “unheard of offence and injury done to the Holy
Apostolic and First See” that the Papal Legates in Constantinople,
who tried to the last to prevent schism, pronounced Cerularius and
his adherents Anathema Maran-atha.[339] Their last words after
laying the bull of excommunication on the altar of Santa Sophia were
Videat Deus et judicet.
These words in which they called upon God to witness and judge
were uttered at nine o’clock in the morning, July 16, 1054. The
Great Schism which—aside from a brief interval—has ever since
continued unbroken was then a fait accompli.
No sooner had the schism of Cerularius become an accomplished
fact, than God-fearing men of both the Eastern and the Western
Church set to work to devise ways and means of closing the
deplorable breach. The Popes especially never lost sight of their
erring children to the east of the Adriatic. From the fateful sixteenth
of July, 1054, until the present, they have made efforts innumerable
to bring about a reunion between the tragically separated churches.
With this object in view, two General Councils were convened, the
Second Council of Lyons in 1274 and the Council of Florence in 1439.
But since the outbreak of the schism, a new barrier had been
erected between the East and the West, which seemed almost
insurmountable. This was the result of the horrible sack of
Constantinople by the soldiers of the Fourth Crusade. The cruelties,
massacres, and wholesale destruction of the choicest works of art
which attended this unpardonable outrage made it one of the most
shocking events in the history of the capital.[340] Then, too, there
was the establishment of the Latin Empire in Constantinople and the
erection of Frankish States in Syria and Palestine. This ruthless
ignoring by the Latins of the sovereign rights of a Christian power
and all the wanton cruelty that accompanied it was still fresh in the
minds of the Greek delegates when they convened at Lyons and
Florence and this, added to all the causes of friction that had so long
rankled in the hearts of the Byzantines, made a successful issue of
the deliberations of the assembled fathers almost hopeless.
 Notwithstanding, however, all the causes of rancor that existed, a
reunion was effected by each of the Councils but in each case it
lasted only a very short time. For no sooner did the people of
Constantinople hear of the action of the Council of Lyons than,
exercising what should now be called the right of referendum, they
rose in insurrection against it. As a result, however, of the reunion
brought about by the Council of Florence, the Byzantine Church
remained, at least nominally, in communion with the Holy See for a
period of thirty-three years—from 1439 to 1472. It was during this
fateful time that Constantinople was taken by the Turks under
Mohammed II.
The Conquest of Constantinople was almost as great a turning
point in the history of the Byzantine Church as was the Great Schism
of Photius and Cerularius. For the Sultan had scarcely taken
possession of the city when he sent for the leader of the anti-Papal
party, one George Scholarios, and, with a view of winning him
together with the schismatic Byzantines over to his rule as against
that of the Catholic Powers of the West, he had him made Patriarch,
although at the time of his appointment Scholarios seems to have
been a layman.
No sooner had the Sultan championed the cause of the Greeks
against Rome than they at once exultingly rallied around their
Patriarch and, in words of deepest hatred and wildest fanaticism,
shouted: “Rather the Sultan’s turban than the Pope’s tiara.” They
have had their choice but with what long centuries of degradation
and ignominy!
Neither the Patriarch nor his followers had to wait long before the
scales fell from their eyes. For no sooner had Scholarios, under the
direction of the Sultan, been appointed to the See of Constantinople
than Mohammed sent for him and handed him the berat-
diploma[341]—which defined what were his duties and prerogatives
as Patriarch under the Moslem Government. But this was not all. For
scarcely had he been invested with the signs of his spiritual
jurisdiction than the unfortunate Patriarch was given to understand
that he was nothing more than a puppet in the hands of his Moslem
master who could depose him at will. Each of his successors since
that time in the See of Constantinople has been obliged to submit to
the same humiliating ceremony of investiture.
To their intense chagrin the Patriarchs soon learned furthermore
that their appointment had to be followed by a gift to the Sultan of a
large sum of money; that their tenure of office would rarely exceed
two years;[342] that they could be deposed to make room for others
who were forced to pay similar exorbitant sums for their
appointment; that they might be deposed and reappointed no fewer
than five times and at each appointment to the office from which
they had been deposed, they would be obliged to renew the
enormous bribe to their arbitrary and rapacious overlord.
The result was simony of the worst kind, for, in order to obtain
the money required by the Moslem tyrant for their appointment, the
subservient Patriarchs resorted to the selling of benefices to priests
and bishops and metropolitans. To such an extent had this
sacrilegious traffic in the things of God been carried on that simony
has long made the Orthodox Church “a reproach and a scoff, an
example and an astonishment among the nations that are round
about her.”
But the troubles and humiliations of the Œcumenical Patriarch—as
the Primate of the Byzantine Church is called—did not end with his
degrading investiture by the Sultan, or, as was more frequently the
case, by his Grand Vizier and by the payment of an enormous bribe
for his appointment. Owing to his subjugation to the Sublime Porte,
he soon found himself confronted with untold difficulties based on
racial jealousies and antagonisms. These were augmented by the
subserviency of the Phanar—the Vatican of the Orthodox Church—
and the readiness which Phanariote Greeks always exhibited to
become the agents of Turkish oppression of their fellow Christians—
especially those in the Balkans. It was because the policy of the
Phanar was identical with that of the Porte that the enemies of the
Sultan were unwilling to acknowledge any kind of dependence on
the Byzantine Patriarch. This was strikingly evinced in the war of
Greek Independence, as one of the first acts of the Greek Parliament
was to declare the Church in Greece to be autocephalous.
The example of Greece was subsequently followed by the
different states in the Balkans. For no sooner had they freed
themselves from Turkish rule than they proclaimed their
independence of the Œcumenical Patriarch.
This Philetism—love of one’s race—in things ecclesiastical, which
the various nations of southeastern Europe so conspicuously
exhibited during the last century was a great blow to the Phanar, but
it was this same kind of nationalism that was the chief cause of the
Great Schism. Greece and Roumania, Serbia and Bulgaria, and
Russia, long before any of them, had done nothing more than had
the Orthodox Church when it separated itself from communion with
Rome. It was in vain that the Phanar announced Philetism as a
heresy. It was but the reassertion of the national idea which had led
the Œcumenical Patriarch to rebel against the Pope—the construing
of it into the principle cujus regio ejus religio which met with such
favor in the seventeenth century in Germany, according to which
“each politically independent state should have an ecclesiastically
independent church.” As a result of the frequent application of this
principle the Orthodox Church has shared the fate that never fails to
overtake schism and heresy. In consequence of political and
ecclesiastical jealousies and antagonism; of excommunications and
counter-excommunications by rival bishops; of divisions and
subdivisions, the once great and powerful Orthodox Communion
now finds itself divided into sixteen independent Churches whose
jurisdiction ranges in extent from that of the Independent Church of
the monastery of Mount Sinai to that of the once great Empire of
Russia. There is now little left to the Patriarch of Constantinople but
the primacy of honor, for he has no jurisdiction outside of his rapidly
diminishing Patriarchate. Is there in all history a more striking case
of poetic justice than that afforded by the gradual disintegration of
the proud and ambitious Patriarchate of Constantinople?
 Although the retribution which has visited Cerularius and his
successors is fearful to contemplate, stern Nemesis still pursues the
Œcumenical Patriarchs with unrelenting severity. For now these
unfortunate hierarchs are trembling under the Damoclean sword,
which the vengeful goddess has put into the hands of Russia.
In 1721 Peter the Great placed the Church of Russia under the
Holy Directing Synod, where it has since remained. As this Synod
was never more than the shadow of the Czar, the Church of Holy
Russia was for two centuries the most Erastian Christian organization
that has ever existed. For during all this time the Holy Synod was as
much under the domination of the Czar as any department of the
imperial government. Added to this is the portentous fact that the
Russian Church counts eight times as many communicants as all the
other Orthodox Churches together. Even in the famous monastic
republic of Mount Athos—a supposedly Greek community—where in
1902 there were seven thousand and five hundred monks, the
majority were Slavs and nearly one-half were Russians.
All this being the case, the Russians, who are fully as ambitious as
were the Greeks in the time of Photius and Cerularius, are beginning
to ask themselves whether the time has not arrived for the Holy
Synod to assume the supreme headship of the entire Orthodox
Church. Nor is the Phanar ignorant of the aspirations and purposes
of the Holy Synod. It has read the writing on the wall and knows
that as soon as the Russian Church shall find a leader with the
towering ambition and intense national spirit of Photius, the fondly-
entertained project of the Holy Synod will be quickly realized, that
the primacy of the Orthodox Church will be transferred to Moscow or
Petrograd, and that the power and the prestige of the Œcumenical
Patriarch will then be little more than were those of his first
predecessor when he was the humble suffragan of the Metropolitan
of Heraclea. The Great Church—the official designation of the
Patriarchate of Constantinople—will then have shared the fate of the
Churches of Antioch and Alexandria which, in the days of their glory,
were the rivals of the Mother Church of Imperial Rome. And then,
too, will the aspiring Greeks be rudely wakened from the fantastic
dream of their “Great Idea”—the idea of a great and reconstructed
Hellas that shall embrace the Balkans and have as its capital the
Queen City of the Bosphorus.
There are few things in the history of the Church, which the lover
of Christian Unity and peace finds more saddening than the
clandestine intrigues and open antagonism that led to the Great
Schism; few things that are more discreditable than the incessant
machinations of those politicians and ecclesiastics who were the
cause of all those fatal dissensions which were so characteristic of
the Orthodox Church during the nineteenth century and have led to
that widespread disintegration which, there is reason to fear, is just
beginning. While one can have no sympathy with the authors of
these disastrous schisms in the just retribution which has been
meted out to them, one cannot help pitying the countless thousands
among the clergy and laity who, in spite of the unpardonable
scandals caused by Church and State are, nevertheless, earnestly
striving to further the cause of Christ and to reflect in their lives the
teaching of the gospel of their Redeemer. In Russia, in Greece, in
Asia Minor—wherever the Orthodox Church still retains a hold on her
children—one cannot help being edified by the piety, the zeal, the
deep religious spirit of innumerable thousands who are not only
ignorant of the cause of the schism that separates them from the
Church of Rome but are also ignorant that they have even been in
schism. Of those, however, who are acquainted with the origin of the
Great Schism there are many who ardently hope and pray that it
may soon be healed. For they have learned by long and sad
experience the truth of the words of St. John Chrysostom who—with
the possible exception of St. Gregory Nazienzen—was the most
illustrious prelate who ever ruled the See of Constantinople:
“Nothing can hurt the Church so much as love of power.”[343]

Reunion of the Eastern Churches with the Holy See

During my wanderings in the Near East, as during previous travels

in Greece and Russia, a question of ever-absorbing interest to me
was that of the long-desired and often-attempted reunion of the
Eastern Churches with the Church of Rome. When I contemplated
the majestic temples of Petrograd with their surging multitudes of
pious worshipers and examined the stately convents and
monasteries of Moscow with their vast number of devoted, God-
fearing inmates; when I marveled at the shiploads of Russian
pilgrims who at great expense and with great discomfort annually
visited the Holy Land and noted the sumptuous hospices and shrines
that their government has there erected for them; when I beheld the
desecrated temples of Hellas and Anatolia and recalled how the
Greeks, during long centuries of oppression and degradation—when
they had everything to gain by apostasy—preserved intact the faith
of the Orthodox Church and augmented that vast army of martyrs
who sealed their belief in Christ with their blood—when I saw and
recollected all this, there was the ever-recurrent question, “Will the
fateful schism of a thousand years ever be healed?”
As we have already seen, the last reconciliation of the Orthodox
Church with the Holy See took place at the Council of Florence in
1439. On this occasion, also, the Coptic, Abyssinian, Jacobite,
Maronite, and Armenian Churches were wholly or partially united
with the great Mother Church, from which they had so long been
separated. It was then that the Uniate Churches already referred to
had their origin. But as the reunion of the Orthodox Church had
been based on political rather than ecclesiastical grounds it was of
short duration, for it was formally repudiated by the Byzantines in
1472, nineteen years after the occupation of Constantinople by the
Ottoman army under Mohammed the Conqueror.
But, although the reunions effected at the Councils of Lyons and
Florence were so short-lived, the hope of an eventual and enduring
reunion has always been cherished not only by the Latins but by an
influential body of the Orthodox Church as well. It will suffice here to
refer to two recent efforts to secure reunion—one of which was
made by the Œcumenical Patriarch, Joachim III, a little less than two
decades ago, and one made by Pope Leo XIII a few years earlier.
 In a noted encyclical addressed to the divers Orthodox Churches,
the Œcumenical Patriarch requested them to consider the question
of reunion of Christendom. His courteous and charitable references
in this letter to the Latin Church and his expressed hope that it and
the Orthodox may again be reunited evince a man of a deeply
religious spirit, whose sole object was the cause of Christ, which, as
he conceived it, would be immensely advanced by the restoration of
Church unity. But the replies which he received from the sister
Church—those in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople—
soon convinced him that his efforts in the direction of the proposed
reunion were doomed to failure.
In his famous encyclical Præclara—aptly called the “Testament of
Leo XIII.”—which was addressed on June 20, 1894, to “Princes and
Peoples,” His Holiness speaks to his wayward and error-bound
children in words of surpassing tenderness and deepest paternal
solicitude. There is not a word of reproach, not a single expression
to wound even the most sensitive.[344] He refers lovingly to the
East, “whence salvation spread over the whole world”; to the
resplendent history of their venerable sees; to the Greeks who had
occupied the Chair of Peter and had edified the Church by their
learning and virtue. In his plea for reunion he declares: “No great
gulf separates us; except for a few smaller points we agree so
entirely with you that it is from your teaching, your customs and
rites that we often take proofs for Catholic dogma.”[345] And
referring to certain unfounded charges that had often been made
against the Holy See, he declares in the most positive terms that no
Pope has the slightest desire to diminish the dignity and rights of
any of the great Patriarchates of the East. And as for their venerable
customs “we shall,” he assures them, “provide in a broad and
generous spirit.”
Had the occupant of the Patriarchal See of Constantinople been
imbued with the spirit of his illustrious countryman, Cardinal
Bessarion, who labored so strenuously for Church reunion at the
Council of Florence, and had he been actuated by a tithe of the zeal
and charity and love of peace that so distinguished the great St.
Athanasius of Alexandria, there is reason to believe that the
Sovereign Pontiff’s gentle and noble letter would have met a very
different reception and that measures would have been taken ere
this to terminate a schism which during ten long centuries has been
so prolific of evil to untold millions of souls redeemed at an infinite
price.
But, unfortunately for the Eastern Churches, as well as for the
Church of Rome, Anthimos VII was then Œcumenical Patriarch. His
offensive and abusive reply to the gracious and generous appeal of
the renowned successor of the Fisherman shows that in character
and zeal for souls and ardent love of the Church of Christ he was the
very opposite of the great Pontiff whose overtures he so disdainfully
and so ignominiously rejected.
Although the efforts to restore union which were made by
Joachim III and Leo XIII were, apparently, completely ineffectual,
there can be no doubt that they set people—both clergy and laity—
to thinking, and that Church unity is now nearer realization than it
has been for centuries. Thanks to more frequent communication
between the East and the West, as well as to the all-powerful
agency of the press, the people of the Eastern Churches are
beginning to realize as never before the extent and magnitude of the
frightful evils that have been engendered by the Erastianism and the
Philetism which so dominate the Churches of Russia and the
Balkans. They have learned that most of the hatred, dissensions,
and race antagonisms which have so grieved and afflicted them may
be traced to their lack of a central ecclesiastical authority and to the
fact that their clergy have been forced to become mere tools of the
government. Comparing their condition before the Great Schism with
what it is now, they find to their sorrow that they are suffering from
arrested development; that their boasted conservatism is but an
euphemism for fossilization; that they have long ceased to be a
living, active force, and that their only hope of regaining their
erstwhile power and prestige is to become reunited with the
Apostolic See.
 Those who were familiar with the history of the past will recall the
days when the eminent saints and scholars Athanasius, Clement,
and Cyril of Alexandria reflected such honor on the Church in Egypt;
when St. John Damascene and St. Ephrem were the glory of Syria
and Mesopotamia; when St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory
of Nyssa, and St. Gregory Nazianzen were the great intellectual
luminaries of Asia Minor and the revered doctors of the entire
Church of Christ. And pondering these facts it may occur to them
that had Photius been less ambitious and more religious he might
now be numbered not among sowers of scandal and schism—

Seminator di scandalo e di scisma[346]

but among the great Fathers who were ever-zealous promoters of

the good name and the sacred union of the Church Universal.
They will also recall the disillusioning and disconcerting fact that
since the very beginning of schism, the Eastern Church, to quote the
words of Dean Stanley, “has produced hardly any permanent works
of practical Christian benevolence. With very few exceptions, its
celebrated names are invested with no stirring associations. It seems
to open a field of interest to travelers and antiquarians, not to
philosophers or historians.... As a rule there has arisen in the East no
society like the Benedictines, held in honor wherever literature or
civilization has spread; no charitable orders like the Sisters of Mercy,
which carry light and peace into the darkest haunts of suffering
humanity.”[347]
So far as intellectual life is concerned they will find that the above
words apply with equal truth even to the great monastic republic of
Mount Athos, which, during the Middle Ages, was so noted a center
of Greek learning. For, sad to relate, one finds even there the same
intellectual apathy and decay as elsewhere, and its seven and more
thousand monks are to-day as dead set against scholarship as when
they indignantly razed the school which Eugenius Bulgaris, the
greatest Greek scholar of the eighteenth century, had there
established in their own behoof.
 It is the recollection of all these things—“the remembering in
misery the happy time”—combined with the kind and generous
invitation of Leo XIII to return to the Church of their fathers, that
has swelled the ranks of that long-existent party in the Orthodox
Church known as the λατεινόφοροντες—Latin-favorers—who have
always deplored schism and who would use all their influence to
bring it to an early termination. This party, which has long groaned
under the Erastianism of the Czar and the absolutism of the Sublime
Porte, is only biding its time to seize an opportunity to return to its
allegiance to the Pope. Professor Harnack, whose competency to
express an opinion in this matter no one will question, declared in a
notable pronouncement on the encyclical Præcala of Leo XIII that:
People who understand Russia know that there is a patriotic
Russian party—or rather tendency—in the heart of the country, in
Moscow and among the most educated people, that hopes for a
movement of their Church in the direction of the Western Church—
that is of the Roman, not the Evangelical Communion—who work for
this and who see in it the only hope of Russia. This party manifests its
ideas in writing, so far as circumstances in Russia allow, and has
already shown that it possesses men of unusual talent, warm love of
their country and undoubted devotion to the Greek Church. They have
also considered how they shall reconcile Russia’s traditions and world-
power with a change in her Church affairs that shall harmonize with
the views of Rome and they believe in its possibility.[348]

If the Latin-favorers could now find a leader of commanding

personality there is good reason to believe that the reunion of the
Eastern and Western Churches would not be far distant. Had Russia
a pious and forceful monarch like her saintly Apostle, King Vladimir,
or had Constantinople a Patriarch of the zeal and influence of St.
Theodore of Studium, the great majority of the Orthodox Church,
who know nothing about the origin of the existing schism, would
follow such a leader without hesitation. And so slight would be the
change in faith, in consequence of reunion, that the great mass of
the faithful would scarcely be conscious of it. Their faith would
remain exactly the same as it was before the schism.
 And this holds true not only of the Orthodox Church but of all the
other schismatic churches as well. They would, all of them, retain
their peculiar rites and customs; they would hear the same language
in the liturgy that has been consecrated by long centuries of use.
The Copts would retain the presanctified liturgy of St. Mark and
continue to use the venerable Alexandrine rite in the Coptic
language. The Jacobites would celebrate the sacred mysteries in
Syriac according to the age-old ritual of St. James. The adherents of
the Orthodox Church would still hear their strange chant echoing
“backwards and forwards through the gleaming inconostasis, while
the deacon waves his ripidion over the holy gifts and the clouds of
incense are borne through the royal doors. Still the people would
crowd up for the antidoron and the kolybas, dive for the cross at the
holy lights, kiss each other on Easter Day and dance for the
Forerunner’s birth, while the psalms from the Holy Mountain would
still sound across the Ægean Sea.”[349]
It is because the venerable eastern rituals and liturgies, in their
several ancient languages, represent some of the most sacred
traditions of the Church that Pope Leo XIII in his noted encyclical
Orientalium Dignitas Ecclesiarum praises them so highly and applies
to the bride of Christ the words of the Psalmist: “The queen”—the
Church—“stood on Thy right hand in gilded clothing; surrounded
with variety.”[350]
As I observed, during my travels in the Near East, the frightful
ravages that schism has everywhere caused, and noted the growing
tendency of many to return to “the unity of faith and the knowledge
of the Son of God,”[351] I repeated with ever renewed fervor the
supplication in St. Basil’s liturgy: Πãνσον τα σχίσματα των ἐκκλησιῶν
—“Grant that Church schisms may cease.” And never did I in fancy
more frequently hear reëchoed the touching words of Our Saviour
before his passion: “I pray ... that they all may be one, as Thou,
Father, in Me, and I in Thee; that they also may be one in Us.”[352]
 CHAPTER XIV
NINEVEH AND ITS WONDERS
Here thou behold’st
Assyria, and her empire’s ancient bounds,
Araxes and the Caspian Lake; thence on
As far as Indus east, Euphrates west,
And oft beyond; to south the Persian bay
And, inaccessible, the Arabian drouth;
Here, Nineveh, of length within her wall
Several days’ journey, built by Ninus old,
Of that first golden monarchy the seat,
And seat of Salmanassar, whose success
Israel in long captivity still mourns.
Milton, “Paradise Regained.”

Wrapt in the crispy air of a bright October morning, we found

ourselves on the shaky and crowded pontoon bridge that connects
Mosul with the long-buried city of Nineveh. Horses and camels
jostled heaving, shouting, unwashed Turks and Kurds and Arabs,
who seemed to be constantly in imminent danger of being shoved
into the swift-flowing Tigris. The variety of garb and multiplicity of
tongues of the motley and vociferous throng on the swaying and
creaking bridge strikingly recalled the clamorous and varicolored
multitude that always crams the outer bridge between Galata and
Stamboul.
How often, during our delightful sojourn in Mosul, had we gazed
on the mysterious mounds on the eastern bank of the Tigris which
were insistently beckoning us to visit them! And how eager were we
to respond to the silent invitation and to explore the site of the once
proud capital of Assyria! But we resisted the persistent temptation to
interrupt our work in Mosul. We had there, with the assistance of the
scholarly sons of St. Dominic, a rare opportunity of getting first-hand
information regarding the social and economical condition of the
people of this part of Asia and of completing our investigations,
begun almost at the inception of our journey, respecting the various
schismatic churches of the East. Not, then, until we had completed
our observations in Mosul and coördinated our impressions, could we
be induced to suspend our self-imposed task. We wished to have it
completely off our hands in order that, once on the historic soil of
Nineveh, we might indulge in reverie without let or hindrance.
When, finally, we were ready to visit the ruins of Nineveh, ours
was the good fortune to have with us a learned Dominican of Mosul,
who was as familiar with the early history of the famous old Assyrian
metropolis as he was with the excavations which during the last two
generations have revealed artistic and literary treasures that have
been the marvel and the delight of the world. We could not have
had a more intelligent or a more enthusiastic guide among the
devious ways which led to the sites of ancient temples and palaces,
whose existence was absolutely unknown until uncovered by the
pick and spade of the archæologist but a few decades ago.
How strange it seemed to me, as we threaded our way through
the maze of passages that led to the locations of once famous
palaces and temples, that it was also a Dominican—a brother in
religion of our guide—who first awakened my interest in Nineveh!
That was more than three score years ago. And yet, so vivid was the
impression then made on my youthful mind that it seems but
yesterday when I first came under the spell of the famed lands of
Assyria and Babylonia.
It came about in a very simple way. The Dominican in question—a
dear, venerable man—had visited the Holy Land shortly before I met
him, and took great pleasure in telling me his experiences in the
East. Seeing that I was greatly interested in his narrative he gave
me a large history of the Bible. It was not such a book, I have often
since thought, as the average boy would have cared to read. But the
good priest could not have selected a work that would have given
me more pleasure—certainly not one that would have benefited me
more deeply or influenced more profoundly all my subsequent
reading and study. It was, too, I must add, the first book I ever had
in my hands outside of my elementary school readers. But how I
prized that book! And how I read it again and again, and always
with ever-increasing interest and delight! I do not know how often I
read it carefully from cover to cover, but I do know that there is only
one other volume that I have read more frequently, and that, after
the Bible, is my favorite of all books—The Divina Commedia.
How often I have had reason to be grateful to the good old
Dominican who unconsciously directed my studies in such wise as to
afford me life-long pleasure and profit! As a consequence of the
repeated reading of the book which he placed in my hands I became
familiar with the history of the cradle of our race long before I had
entered my teens, and I felt quite well acquainted with Nineveh and
Babylon when Athens and Rome were yet to me but little more than
mere names without significance. And, although as I grew older, I
became interested in many other subjects, I never lost my early love
of sacred history or of the history and geography of the Near East.
For no matter how occupied I might be, I always contrived to find
time to continue the studies which had such a fascination for me in
my early boyhood.
To the student of Assyrian or Babylonian history, nothing is more
impressive than the first view of one of those stupendous mounds
which are so frequent along the valleys of the Tigris and the
Euphrates and in the vast plain between Bagdad and Abu Sharein.
But the impression is greatly intensified when the place visited is
associated with the happiest days of one’s youth and when one may
again dream the dreams that once afforded such exquisite pleasure
and such delightful visions of long-departed glory and magnificence.
This was my experience when I first set foot on the soil that covers
the superb structures which, in my early boyhood, I had so
frequently pictured in fancy that it almost seemed that I had really
wandered through their sculpture-adorned halls and had been an
actual spectator of the gorgeous processions which they had so
frequently witnessed when Nineveh was at the zenith of her power
and greatness.
 I had been deeply impressed when I first ascended the hill on
which stood Homer’s Troy, but my emotion was not so great as when
I found myself on the crumbling ruins of “Nineveh, that great city in
which there were more than a hundred and twenty thousand
persons that knew not how to distinguish between their right hand
and their left.”[353]
But this is easily explained. I was much younger when I became
acquainted with the enchanting story of Nineveh than when I first
conned the spell-weaving pages of the Iliad. My earlier impressions
were more vivid and, because of the intimate relation of Assyria to
the Holy Land, as exhibited in the Sacred Text, my interest was
correspondingly greater.
As I contemplated the remains of the great city which had in
tender years been so frequently the subject of my dreams and in
mature age had been the subject of so much study and reflection, I
found a thousand thoughts presenting themselves to my mind
regarding the great capital which for so long a period played so
important a rôle during the dawn of civilization.
The days of old return;—I breathe the air
Of the young world;—I see her giant sons
Like a gorgeous pageant in the sky
Of summer’s evening, cloud on fiery cloud
Thronging upheaved,—before me rise the walls
Of the Titanic city—brazen gates,—
Imperial Nineveh, the earthly queen!
In all her golden pomp I see her now.

No region in the world has a more venerable historic past than

that vast territory enclosed by the Euphrates and the Tigris, and no
city in this region, with the possible exception of Babylon, was for
centuries the center of greater power and influence than Nineveh.
According to the book of Genesis,[354] it was built by Asur, who
came from the land of Sennaar. How long ago this was is a matter of
mere conjecture. Its first certain mention occurs in the code of
Hammurabi, who ruled over Babylonia in the twenty-third century
before our era, but it was doubtless in existence many centuries
before the time of this great Babylonian lawgiver. It is, however,
certain that from the time of its foundation, it gradually increased in
size and importance until it became the celebrated capital of the
Assyrian Empire—an empire which at one time embraced the whole
of the civilized world. But when it was at the zenith of its greatness,
when it was feared and hated from the Nile to the Persian Gulf and
from the scorching deserts of Arabia to the Hittite lands to the north
of the Taurus, it suddenly, in 707 B. C., collapsed under the
combined attacks of the Medes and the Babylonians led by Cyaxares
and Nabopolassar, who left it a smoking ruin, where, according to
the victors, “the words of men, the tread of cattle and sheep and the
sound of happy music” were heard no more.
How execrated was the name of Assyria throughout the length
and the breadth of western Asia, and how the peoples whom she
had so long plundered and enslaved rejoiced when they heard of the
downfall of her capital is made clear by the prophet Nahum when he
declares:
All who have heard of the fame of thee [thy destruction] have
clapped their hands over thee: for upon whom hath not thy
wickedness passed continually.[355]

But the Prophet Zephaniah, who was a contemporary of the

stupendous event, gives an even more graphic account of the utter
desolation which followed the overthrow of the far-famed
metropolis:
And the Lord of hosts ... will stretch out His hands upon the north
and will destroy Assyria and He will make the beautiful city [Nineveh]
a wilderness and as a place not passable and as a desert.
And flocks shall lie down in the midst thereof, all the beasts of the
nations; and the bittern and the urchin shall lodge in the threshold
thereof; the voice of the singing bird in the window, the raven on the
upper post, for I will consume her strength.
This is the glorious city that dwelt in security; that said in her
heart: I am, and there is none beside me; how is she become a
 desert, a place for beasts to lie down in? Everyone that passeth by
her shall hiss and wag his hand.[356]

How completely these dire words of the Hebrew prophet were

verified is evidenced by the fact that when Xenophon and his Ten
Thousand Greeks two centuries later passed by the mounds which
covered the remains of Nineveh’s one-time magnificence, they were
quite unaware of being in the immediate vicinity of the sumptuous
palaces and temples of the erstwhile Queen City of the Tigris.[357]
Lucian, the Greek Voltaire, who was born at Samosata on the
Euphrates in the second century after Christ, tells us in one of his
satirical dialogues that all trace of Nineveh had disappeared.
Representing Charon as on a leave of absence from the infernal
regions, where he officiated as ferryman of the dead, and as starting
with Hermes, the swift-footed messenger of the gods, who acts as
his guide, on a short tour of this upper world, he gives us these two
characteristic paragraphs:
Charon.—Show me the famous cities of which we hear so much
down below: The Nineveh of Sardanapalus and Babylon and Mycenæ
and Cleonæ and especially Troy. I remember to have ferried over the
Styx so many times from this last place that I could not haul my boat
upon the bank, or have it thoroughly dried for ten whole years.
Hermes.—Nineveh, O Ferryman, perished long ago and there is no
trace of her remaining; nor would you be able to tell where she stood.
Babylon is yonder city with the fair towers and the immense circuit of
wall, but will soon have to be sought for like Nineveh.[358]

But, although Assyria’s capital was so thoroughly demolished, its

name and fame still persisted. In the course of time a new Nineveh
arose on the site of the ancient metropolis and, although quite
unimportant as compared with its famous predecessor, it served at a
later date to aid in the identification of the ancient site and to pave
the way to some of the most extraordinary archæological discoveries
of the last century.
The great Assyrian Empire came to an end after enduring more
than a thousand years, and being, a great part of this period, one of
the greatest powers of western Asia. Its downfall, after its long
centuries of glory and preëminence, occurred while Rome was yet in
its infancy and little more than a rendezvous of robbers and refugees
from justice. From that date, 707 B. C., nearly twenty-five centuries
passed over the grass and shrub-covered mounds on the site of
ancient Nineveh before any serious effort was made to determine
whether they concealed any remains of the long-buried metropolis of
Mesopotamia.
Until the middle of the last century our knowledge of the history
of Assyria and Babylonia was based entirely on the historical books
of the Old Testament and on the accounts given by certain Greek
and Latin writers. The books of Scripture which are of special
importance in their relation to Assyrian and Babylonian history are
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Nahum, and the Fourth Book of Kings.
Chief among the classical writers is Herodotus. He was not only,
as Cicero calls him, the “Father of History,” but he was also the
greatest traveler of his time. Not only did he traverse a great part of
Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt, but there is a strong probability that he
extended his peregrinations to the Euphrates and proceeded on its
waters to Babylon. Making all due allowance for numerous
inaccuracies which exist in his picturesque work and for not a few
travelers’ tales,[359] the history of the brilliant Greek writer will
always possess value not only for its matchless style but also for the
facts which it contains and its descriptions, which are evidently from
the pen of an eye witness. I refer especially to that part of his
charming work which treats of Babylon and the culture of its
inhabitants.
Of more importance was the great history of Babylonia written by
Berosus, a contemporary of Alexander the Great and a priest of Bel
in Babylon. Unfortunately we have only the fragments of this work
which have been preserved by Eusebius, Josephus, and other
ancient writers.
But the works mentioned, as well as those of Ctesias, Dinon of
Colophon, and others, threw but little light on the civilization and
achievements of Assyria and Babylonia during their long and
eventful history. Detailed information respecting the development
and decline of these two mighty empires was to come only from
native annals of which not even the existence was suspected until
the latter half of the nineteenth century.
Nor was there before the beginning of the last century any
certitude regarding the sites of the great Assyrian and Babylonian
cities which had made such a profound impression upon the peoples
of the ancient world. Although history and tradition still spoke of the
grandiose palaces and temples of Nineveh and of the towers and
hanging gardens of Babylon, the general ignorance which almost
from the time of the Arab conquest had prevailed regarding the
actual sites of Babylon and Nineveh was not removed until the
illustrious Danish scholar, Carsten Niebuhr, proved that the site of
Babylon was in the vicinity of the modern village of Hillah, and the
noted English investigator, Claudius James Rich, demonstrated in
1821 that the mounds on the left bank of the Tigris, just opposite
Mosul, covered all that remained of the famed city of Nineveh.[360]
But even after the sites of Nineveh and Babylon had been
identified, it was yet to be proved that amid the ruins of these
famous cities there were records and monuments which would shed
light on the civilization of which they were once such noted centers.
The potsherds and fragments of cylinders which travelers had found
in and about the mounds of Babylon and Nineveh led scholars to
believe that discoveries of greater value awaited the explorer. This
conclusion was confirmed by the finding in various places of bricks,
tablets, and monuments covered with strange inscriptions which
were written in characters which are now designated as cuneiform.
It was not, however, until 1842 when the French Government—to
which the world of science has long been indebted for intelligent
encouragement and generous assistance in every branch of research
—sent Paul Emil Botta to Mosul that decisive results were obtained.
He was ostensibly appointed to fill there the newly-created position
of vice-consul, but, as French commerce did not require the service
of such an official at that point, he was really designated to act as
the head of an archæological mission to Nineveh and its environs.
His appointment, as subsequent events proved, was a red-letter day
in the annals of Assyrian research. For, not long after his arrival in
Mosul, the world was thrilled by the news of his marvelous
discoveries in the long-buried city of Nineveh and the report that he
was “sending home the spoils of superb ancient edifices to increase
the treasures of the Louvre.... A city buried for more than twenty
centuries offered its remains for comparison with the aspects of
modern London and Paris; and the sculptured monuments of a
bygone race rose up to offer a contrast with the works of modern
art.”[361]
Three years after Botta’s arrival in Mosul, Austen Henry Layard
began his memorable excavations at Nimroud, a short distance to
the south of Nineveh. So successful was he in his work here and
subsequently at Kuyunjik—Citadel of Nineveh—that he was soon
able to send a larger and a more valuable collection of antiquities to
the British Museum than that with which Botta had enriched the
Louvre. Great, indeed, was the excitement in France and England
when the treasures of the long-buried palaces of Nineveh were
placed on exhibition and when people had before their eyes tangible
evidence of that famed Assyrian capital which for more than twenty
centuries had left no other trace of its existence than a name which
was a synonym of fabulous wealth and magnificence.
In a work published shortly after Botta and Layard had electrified
the world by their startling discoveries, a well-known English scholar,
speaking of the unearthing of Nineveh, wrote:
More than two thousand years had it thus lain in its unknown
grave, when a French savant and a wandering English scholar, urged
by a noble inspiration, sought the seat of the once powerful empire,
and, searching till they found the dead city, threw off its shroud of
sand and ruin and revealed once more to an astonished and curious
world the temples, the palaces, the idols; the representations of war
and the triumphs of peaceful art of the ancient Assyrians. The
Nineveh of Scripture, the Nineveh of the oldest historians; the
Nineveh—twin-sister of Babylon—glorying in a civilization of pomp and
 power, all traces of which were believed to be gone; the Nineveh, in
which the captive tribes of Israel had labored and wept, was, after a
sleep of twenty centuries, again brought to light. The proofs of
ancient splendor were again beheld by living eyes, and, by the skill of
the draftsman and the pen of antiquarian travelers, made known to
the world.[362]

Notices like this which frequently appeared in books and

periodical literature had the effect of exciting widespread enthusiasm
for the advancement of Assyrian research. Societies were organized
for promoting excavations on a larger scale than was feasible for the
first explorers, who were greatly hampered by the lack of adequate
funds, and for giving due publicity to the work of the archæologists
in the field. The results were most gratifying, for it was not long
before explorers were investigating the mounds of Babylonia as well
as those of Assyria.
Meantime, under the direction of George Smith and Ormuzd
Rassam, the mounds which covered the site of Nineveh were made
to yield further treasures which were quite as extraordinary as any
which had been brought to light by Botta and Layard. A discovery by
Smith of a tablet relating, it was supposed, to the Noachian deluge,
convinced many that Assyrian archæology was destined to render
incalculable aid in the study of Sacred Scripture. Although its
apologetic value subsequently proved to be greatly overestimated by
some of the more enthusiastic students of Assyrian antiquities, it
soon became manifest that the new science was destined to throw a
flood of light not only on the Old Testament but also on the history
of the greatest nations of the ancient world.
We experienced special pleasure in exploring the mounds which
covered the remains of imperial Nineveh. There was not, truth to
tell, much to see which was either of interest or value, for everything
of importance, that could be transported, had been forwarded to the
museums of Europe as soon as they had been disinterred.
On the mound of Nebi Yunus—Prophet Jonas—we visited the
mosque which the Moslems declare contains the remains of the
prophet who preached repentance to the sinful Ninevites.
 This mosque [said our Dominican companion] was originally a
Christian monastery that was built in the fourth century by a disciple
of St. Anthony of Egypt. He named it in honor of the Prophet Jonas,
but when the building, long afterwards, came into the possession of
the Mussulmans, it was converted into a mosque. It, however,
retained its original name—Prophet Jonas—which it bears to this day.
The inhabitants here exhibit a flat stone which they guard as a
treasure beyond price. “It was upon this stone,” they aver, “that the
great fish deposited Jonas when it returned him to terra firma.”
Since that time the stone is reputed to have the power of curing
rheumatism by simply being brought into contact with the afflicted
part. So highly do the natives prize this remedial agent that nothing
could induce them to part with it. When we told them of the curative
powers attributed to the Hittite stone at Aleppo they gravely assured
us that the stone of Nebi Yunus possessed incomparably greater
efficacy and that it afforded certain relief to all cases of rheumatism
however malignant.
Although we were always interested in listening to the folklore of
the Mussulmans of the Near East, we preferred on this occasion to
stroll over the mounds beneath which were buried the remains of
one of antiquity’s most celebrated cities and to inspect the localities
where Botta and Layard and Ormuzd Rassam had made those
famous finds which contributed so greatly to our knowledge of
Assyria and Babylonia. Most of the excavations whence they drew
such priceless treasures had been refilled with earth, but this did not
matter. We had in various museums seen the valuable monuments
that had been taken from them and were, therefore, freer to indulge
in day-dreams than we had been when we visited Homer’s Troy.
Aided by the drawings of Place and Fergusson we found it easy to
reconstruct in fancy the superb palaces of Sargon and Eserhaddon
and Tiglath-pileser, whose names and achievements had so
impressed us in our youth. In imagination we contemplated the
colossal statues of winged lions with human heads, which stood at
the portals of the palace of Sennacherib, and fixed our gaze on the
marvelous bas-relief and sculptures—reminders of the frieze of the