Makes a nice change from some of our 1930s authors and their opinions.
Indeed. I was relieved not having to work through a whole of that again.
Italian history: Well, remember Fritz bitching about how current day Italians are so unworthy successors to both the Romans and Renaissance Italy? While the ancient world is technically regarded as its own thing in histioriography, I think there is an emotional connection felt between Roman and Italian history even today. Mind you, it could be just the after effects of centuries of very efficient Lutheran propaganda. By which I mean that Brother Martin hit on an emotional gold mine when rediscovering Arminius of Teutoburg Forest Battle fame, naming him "Hermann" (no one had used this name for him pre Luther) and presenting the whole Cherusci vs Romans set up as exactly like him (and all Upstanding True Christian Germans) vs the Pope (Roman Tyranny: The Rerun). The idea that the Catholic Church was on a mission to accomplish what Roman Legions could not (never mind we actually have Roman-founded cities in a lot of places of modern Germany, all along the Rhine, of course, but also in the south) became so ingrained that I came across it even in the memoirs of a 20th century publisher, Klaus Piper. (Having become popular in Luther's life time, it gained another massive push in the 30 Years War. And then in the Napoleonic Wars the Catholic Church got a few years respite from being cast as modern day Romans because naturally, Napoleon and the French were, but once Napoleon was defeated, back was the equivalent of Rome = Rome. Seriously, even the very ironic and sceptical poet Heinrich Heine uses it in the 19th century.
When did historians start to really push back on the "Dark Ages" vs. "Renaissance" model? He might be operating inside that framework.
Not yet in the 1930s (or the 1950s, when he republished this), so he almost certainly does.
I love Florence, too, both the Renaissance one, and the current day one. (Well: current day. I was there the last time 20 years ago, sob.) And it has one big point not yet mentioned in favor of its cultural dominance, which is that the Tuscan version of Italian became the dominant, high Italian. (Whether or not Dante gets the credit.) Not the Sicililan, Venetian or Neapolitan Italian, the Tuscan one.
HOWEVER. Venice certainly stood for more than trade, between providing its own share of painters, musicians (not just in the Renaissance - Vivaldi says hello from the Baroque) and writers. (The Italian Epic may be Florentine. Italian comedy is Venetian.) And both a great many of the Florentine and Venetian artists ended up in Rome, spending much of their life there, because the nicest thing you can see about the Renaissance Popes is "patrons of the art" (there's not that much else to admire about them, but they certainly came through on this level!), and the mingling of various Italian city states and various international representatives was only possible on this level there. (Especially given all the feuding of various Italian city states!)
Wooooow. That poor woman. And good for her for keeping up the fight, I guess? But bad that that involved making everyone else miserable. That really sucks all around. TAKE NOTE, FW.
What I thought. It also makes me wonder what Marguerite Louise could have done if she'd been in a position to channel that enormous will power and endurance into something productive. I guess Cosimo lucked out that the one idea she didn't hit on was a variation of Catherine's, i.e. kill your husband, rule as regent Duchess? As much as she frustrated her environment, Cosimo had made himself so gigantically unpopular with his bigotted laws that it's not like many would have mourned him.
The good idea: given FW's inquiry to his Protestant Pastors about whether or not a father can force his daughter to marry, it occured to me that it's surprising this argument wasn't used more often when trying to get an annulment/divorce in either religion. I know at least one French King (Louis XII) used it to get out of a marriage (i.e. claim his father forced him into it), but Marguerite Louise is the first woman to (sort of successfully) use it that I've read of. (Henry VIII in England couldn't have used it in any of his marriages, since he married even his first wife AFTER his father's death, and very much had wanted to at the time.) Otoh, G1 and G4 in their own unhappy marriages instead went for the "she cheated! (never mind how much I did)" argument instead of saying "Dad made me, I didn't want to".
Bologna with its oldest university of Italy (and again, some of the painters) can't be ignored.
Re: Harold Acton: Last of the Medici I: How to make really bad marriages
Italian history: Well, remember Fritz bitching about how current day Italians are so unworthy successors to both the Romans and Renaissance Italy? While the ancient world is technically regarded as its own thing in histioriography, I think there is an emotional connection felt between Roman and Italian history even today.
Oh, sure, there's continuity! I was only saying that if you asked me for the most interesting century of Italian history, it wouldn't occur to me to include the Romans in the pool of candidates, and while I can't be 100% sure the guy from across the pond and a hundred years ago had the same categories I do, it would make a lot of sense of how he can flat out assert that the Renaissance is the most interesting without even considering antiquity. Especially if he's operating in a Dark Ages - Renaissance - Early Modern - Modern framework.
(Well: current day. I was there the last time 20 years ago, sob.)
Eleven for me, also sob. I've been dying to go back.
HOWEVER. Venice certainly stood for more than trade
Which is why I said "not historically but historiographically"! And having at least studied the Florentines, I know exactly how much time they spent in Rome arguing with popes.
The good idea: given FW's inquiry to his Protestant Pastors about whether or not a father can force his daughter to marry, it occured to me that it's surprising this argument wasn't used more often when trying to get an annulment/divorce in either religion.
Well, in the first place, I think it makes more sense in the Catholic religion. Protestants can get divorces, Catholics have to get annulments, which means they have to (at least most of the time--exceptions are always made) argue the marriage was invalid in the first place. (Which was Henry VIII's argument too.) In the second place, arguing that the marriage was invalid would cast doubts on the legitimacy of the children. So I can see why it's an argument of last resort, especially if there are already kids.
Most of the annulment cases I can think of are ones where the royal is trying to get an heir and wants a reason to get a new wife, and the arguments tend to go for consanguinity. Consanguinity is also easier to prove to the Pope than "She cheated" or "I didn't want to" or "We never slept together." Marguerite Louise's is an odd case where the woman really, really didn't want to get married and has proved it for years, and having a legitimate heir isn't her concern.
I wasn't familiar with Louis XII's case, so I just checked Wiki, and sure enough, they had no children whose legitimacy could be called into question, and he had to go for an annulment so he could remarry. To quote:
The annulment, described as "one of the seamiest lawsuits of the age", was not simple. Louis did not, as one might have expected, argue the marriage to be void due to consanguinity (the general allowance for the dissolution of a marriage at that time). Though he could produce witnesses to claim that the two were closely related due to various linking marriages, there was no documentary proof, merely the opinions of courtiers. Likewise, Louis could not argue that he had been below the legal age of consent (fourteen) to marry: no one was certain when he had been born, with Louis claiming to have been twelve at the time, and others ranging in their estimates between eleven and thirteen. As there was no real proof, he had perforce to bring forward other arguments.
Accordingly, Louis (much to the dismay of his wife) claimed that Joan was physically malformed (providing a rich variety of detail precisely how) and that he had therefore been unable to consummate the marriage. Joan, unsurprisingly, fought this uncertain charge fiercely, producing witnesses to Louis's boast of having "mounted my wife three or four times during the night". Louis also claimed that his sexual performance had been inhibited by witchcraft. Joan responded by asking how he was able to know what it was like to try to make love to her. Had the Papacy been a neutral party, Joan would likely have won, for Louis's case was exceedingly weak. Pope Alexander VI, however, had political reasons to grant the annulment, and ruled against Joan accordingly. He granted the annulment on the grounds that Louis did not freely marry, but was forced to marry by Joan's father Louis XI. Outraged, Joan reluctantly submitted, saying that she would pray for her former husband. She became a nun; she was canonized in 1950.
So yeah, I'm surprised ML didn't produce it sooner in her relentless campaign, but I'm not surprised it didn't get used more often by men, either men with heirs or men with easier options. (I also wouldn't be surprised if the king doesn't want to go proclaiming, "Remember when I was totally helpless?" publicly, whether or not they were actually forced.
(Fritz: we don't talk about 1730. I have a great memory right up until that year.)
Re: Harold Acton: Last of the Medici I: How to make really bad marriages
Well, it is incredibly seamy. BTW, if you're wondering where the advantage lay for Pope Alexander VI., otherwise known as Rodrigo Borgia, in granting Louis XII his suit: an alliance, a dukedom and a bride of royal blood for son Cesare. Charlotte d'Albret, who marred Cesare Borgia, was Louis XII' niece. If you remember how even centuries later aristos like Liselotte are upset when their son marries a bastard daughter of Louis XIV (even a royal bastard is still a bastard), you can imagine that the illegitimate son of a Spanish Pope (his being Spanish upset a whole lot of Italian aristocrats way more than his being standard Renaissance corrupt) getting to marry into the French Royal family was really a major coup.
Edited 2021-06-20 07:16 (UTC)
Re: Harold Acton: Last of the Medici I: How to make really bad marriages
I realize that this was pretty common at the time with the Popes and such, but I still find it hilarious that the Pope is doing this to get an advantage for his son. :D
Re: Harold Acton: Last of the Medici I: How to make really bad marriages
WELP yes of course you are required to post on these things for me :D That is... well, it seems to me that it would require very little changing to become a Modern AU, let's say :P
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Harold Acton: Last of the Medici I: How to make really bad marriages
Indeed. I was relieved not having to work through a whole of that again.
Italian history: Well, remember Fritz bitching about how current day Italians are so unworthy successors to both the Romans and Renaissance Italy? While the ancient world is technically regarded as its own thing in histioriography, I think there is an emotional connection felt between Roman and Italian history even today. Mind you, it could be just the after effects of centuries of very efficient Lutheran propaganda. By which I mean that Brother Martin hit on an emotional gold mine when rediscovering Arminius of Teutoburg Forest Battle fame, naming him "Hermann" (no one had used this name for him pre Luther) and presenting the whole Cherusci vs Romans set up as exactly like him (and all Upstanding True Christian Germans) vs the Pope (Roman Tyranny: The Rerun). The idea that the Catholic Church was on a mission to accomplish what Roman Legions could not (never mind we actually have Roman-founded cities in a lot of places of modern Germany, all along the Rhine, of course, but also in the south) became so ingrained that I came across it even in the memoirs of a 20th century publisher, Klaus Piper. (Having become popular in Luther's life time, it gained another massive push in the 30 Years War. And then in the Napoleonic Wars the Catholic Church got a few years respite from being cast as modern day Romans because naturally, Napoleon and the French were, but once Napoleon was defeated, back was the equivalent of Rome = Rome. Seriously, even the very ironic and sceptical poet Heinrich Heine uses it in the 19th century.
When did historians start to really push back on the "Dark Ages" vs. "Renaissance" model? He might be operating inside that framework.
Not yet in the 1930s (or the 1950s, when he republished this), so he almost certainly does.
I love Florence, too, both the Renaissance one, and the current day one. (Well: current day. I was there the last time 20 years ago, sob.) And it has one big point not yet mentioned in favor of its cultural dominance, which is that the Tuscan version of Italian became the dominant, high Italian. (Whether or not Dante gets the credit.) Not the Sicililan, Venetian or Neapolitan Italian, the Tuscan one.
HOWEVER. Venice certainly stood for more than trade, between providing its own share of painters, musicians (not just in the Renaissance - Vivaldi says hello from the Baroque) and writers. (The Italian Epic may be Florentine. Italian comedy is Venetian.) And both a great many of the Florentine and Venetian artists ended up in Rome, spending much of their life there, because the nicest thing you can see about the Renaissance Popes is "patrons of the art" (there's not that much else to admire about them, but they certainly came through on this level!), and the mingling of various Italian city states and various international representatives was only possible on this level there. (Especially given all the feuding of various Italian city states!)
Wooooow. That poor woman. And good for her for keeping up the fight, I guess? But bad that that involved making everyone else miserable. That really sucks all around. TAKE NOTE, FW.
What I thought. It also makes me wonder what Marguerite Louise could have done if she'd been in a position to channel that enormous will power and endurance into something productive. I guess Cosimo lucked out that the one idea she didn't hit on was a variation of Catherine's, i.e. kill your husband, rule as regent Duchess? As much as she frustrated her environment, Cosimo had made himself so gigantically unpopular with his bigotted laws that it's not like many would have mourned him.
The good idea: given FW's inquiry to his Protestant Pastors about whether or not a father can force his daughter to marry, it occured to me that it's surprising this argument wasn't used more often when trying to get an annulment/divorce in either religion. I know at least one French King (Louis XII) used it to get out of a marriage (i.e. claim his father forced him into it), but Marguerite Louise is the first woman to (sort of successfully) use it that I've read of. (Henry VIII in England couldn't have used it in any of his marriages, since he married even his first wife AFTER his father's death, and very much had wanted to at the time.) Otoh, G1 and G4 in their own unhappy marriages instead went for the "she cheated! (never mind how much I did)" argument instead of saying "Dad made me, I didn't want to".
Bologna with its oldest university of Italy (and again, some of the painters) can't be ignored.
Re: Harold Acton: Last of the Medici I: How to make really bad marriages
Oh, sure, there's continuity! I was only saying that if you asked me for the most interesting century of Italian history, it wouldn't occur to me to include the Romans in the pool of candidates, and while I can't be 100% sure the guy from across the pond and a hundred years ago had the same categories I do, it would make a lot of sense of how he can flat out assert that the Renaissance is the most interesting without even considering antiquity. Especially if he's operating in a Dark Ages - Renaissance - Early Modern - Modern framework.
(Well: current day. I was there the last time 20 years ago, sob.)
Eleven for me, also sob. I've been dying to go back.
HOWEVER. Venice certainly stood for more than trade
Which is why I said "not historically but historiographically"! And having at least studied the Florentines, I know exactly how much time they spent in Rome
arguing with popes.The good idea: given FW's inquiry to his Protestant Pastors about whether or not a father can force his daughter to marry, it occured to me that it's surprising this argument wasn't used more often when trying to get an annulment/divorce in either religion.
Well, in the first place, I think it makes more sense in the Catholic religion. Protestants can get divorces, Catholics have to get annulments, which means they have to (at least most of the time--exceptions are always made) argue the marriage was invalid in the first place. (Which was Henry VIII's argument too.) In the second place, arguing that the marriage was invalid would cast doubts on the legitimacy of the children. So I can see why it's an argument of last resort, especially if there are already kids.
Most of the annulment cases I can think of are ones where the royal is trying to get an heir and wants a reason to get a new wife, and the arguments tend to go for consanguinity. Consanguinity is also easier to prove to the Pope than "She cheated" or "I didn't want to" or "We never slept together." Marguerite Louise's is an odd case where the woman really, really didn't want to get married and has proved it for years, and having a legitimate heir isn't her concern.
I wasn't familiar with Louis XII's case, so I just checked Wiki, and sure enough, they had no children whose legitimacy could be called into question, and he had to go for an annulment so he could remarry. To quote:
The annulment, described as "one of the seamiest lawsuits of the age", was not simple. Louis did not, as one might have expected, argue the marriage to be void due to consanguinity (the general allowance for the dissolution of a marriage at that time). Though he could produce witnesses to claim that the two were closely related due to various linking marriages, there was no documentary proof, merely the opinions of courtiers. Likewise, Louis could not argue that he had been below the legal age of consent (fourteen) to marry: no one was certain when he had been born, with Louis claiming to have been twelve at the time, and others ranging in their estimates between eleven and thirteen. As there was no real proof, he had perforce to bring forward other arguments.
Accordingly, Louis (much to the dismay of his wife) claimed that Joan was physically malformed (providing a rich variety of detail precisely how) and that he had therefore been unable to consummate the marriage. Joan, unsurprisingly, fought this uncertain charge fiercely, producing witnesses to Louis's boast of having "mounted my wife three or four times during the night". Louis also claimed that his sexual performance had been inhibited by witchcraft. Joan responded by asking how he was able to know what it was like to try to make love to her. Had the Papacy been a neutral party, Joan would likely have won, for Louis's case was exceedingly weak. Pope Alexander VI, however, had political reasons to grant the annulment, and ruled against Joan accordingly. He granted the annulment on the grounds that Louis did not freely marry, but was forced to marry by Joan's father Louis XI. Outraged, Joan reluctantly submitted, saying that she would pray for her former husband. She became a nun; she was canonized in 1950.
So yeah, I'm surprised ML didn't produce it sooner in her relentless campaign, but I'm not surprised it didn't get used more often by men, either men with heirs or men with easier options. (I also wouldn't be surprised if the king doesn't want to go proclaiming, "Remember when I was totally helpless?" publicly, whether or not they were actually forced.
(Fritz: we don't talk about 1730. I have a great memory right up until that year.)
Re: Harold Acton: Last of the Medici I: How to make really bad marriages
Btw, I saw this, and I thought, "I'm pretty sure I'm contractually obligated to copy-paste the entire thing for
Re: Harold Acton: Last of the Medici I: How to make really bad marriages
Re: Harold Acton: Last of the Medici I: How to make really bad marriages
I realize that this was pretty common at the time with the Popes and such, but I still find it hilarious that the Pope is doing this to get an advantage for his son. :D
Re: Harold Acton: Last of the Medici I: How to make really bad marriages