A Political and Social History of Modern Europe Part 3

4. NORTHERN AND EASTERN EUROPE IN THE YEAR 1500

[Sidenote: Northern and Eastern Europe of Small Importance in the Sixteenth Century, but of Great Importance Subsequently]

We have now reviewed the states that were to be the main factors in the historical events of the sixteenth century--the national monarchies of England, France, Portugal, and Spain; the Holy Roman Empire of the Germanies; and the city-states of Italy and the Netherlands. It may be well, however, to point out that in northern and eastern Europe other states had already come into existence, which subsequently were to affect in no small degree the history of modern times, such as the Scandinavian kingdoms, the tsardom of Muscovy, the feudal kingdoms of Poland and Hungary, and the empire of the Ottoman Turks.

[Sidenote: Northwestern Europe: the Scandinavian Countries]

In the early homes of those Northmen who had long before ravaged the coasts of England and France and southern Italy and had colonized Iceland and Greenland, were situated in 1500 three kingdoms, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, corresponding generally to the present-day states of those names. The three countries had many racial and social characteristics in common, and they had been politically joined under the king of Denmark by the Union of Calmar in 1397. This union never evoked any popularity among the Swedes, and after a series of revolts and disorders extending over fifty years, Gustavus Vasa (1523-1560) established the independence of Sweden. Norway remained under Danish kings until 1814.

[Sidenote: The Slavs in Central and Eastern Europe]

East of the Scandinavian peninsula and of the German-speaking population of central Europe, spread out like a great fan, are a variety of peoples who possess many common characteristics, including a group of closely related languages, which are called Slavic. These Slavs in the year 1500 included (1) the Russians, (2) the Poles and Lithuanians, (3) the Czechs, or natives of Bohemia, within the confines of the Holy Roman Empire, and (4) various nations in southeastern Europe, such as the Serbs and Bulgars.

[Sidenote: Russia in 1500]

The Russians in 1500 did not possess such a huge autocratic state as they do to-day. They were distributed among several princ.i.p.alities, the chief and center of which was the grand-duchy of Muscovy, with Moscow as its capital. Muscovy's reigning family was of Scandinavian extraction but what civilization and Christianity the princ.i.p.alities possessed had been brought by Greek missionaries from Constantinople.

For two centuries, from the middle of the thirteenth to the middle of the fifteenth, the Russians paid tribute to Mongol [Footnote: The Mongols were a people of central Asia, whose famous leader, Jenghiz Khan (1162-1227), established an empire which stretched from the China Sea to the banks of the Dnieper. It was these Mongols who drove the Ottoman Turks from their original Asiatic home and thus precipitated the Turkish invasion of Europe. After the death of Jenghiz Khan the Mongol Empire was broken into a variety of "khanates," all of which in course of time dwindled away. In the sixteenth century the Mongols north of the Black Sea succ.u.mbed to the Turks as well as to the Russians.] khans who had set up an Asiatic despotism north of the Black Sea. The beginnings of Russian greatness are traceable to Ivan III, the Great (1462-1505), [Footnote: Ivan IV (1533-1584), called "The Terrible," a successor of Ivan III, a.s.sumed the t.i.tle of "Tsar" in 1547.] who freed his people from Mongol domination, united the numerous princ.i.p.alities, conquered the important cities of Novgorod and Pskov, and extended his sway as far as the Arctic Ocean and the Ural Mountains. Russia, however, could hardly then be called a modern state, for the political and social life still smacked of Asia rather than of Europe, and the Russian Christianity, having been derived from Constantinople, differed from the Christianity of western Europe.

Russia was not to appear as a conspicuous European state until the eighteenth century.

[Sidenote: Poland in 1500]

Southwest of the tsardom of Muscovy and east of the Holy Roman Empire was the kingdom of Poland, to which Lithuanians as well as Poles owed allegiance. Despite wide territories and a succession of able rulers, Poland was a weak monarchy. Lack of natural boundaries made national defense difficult. Civil war between the two peoples who composed the state and foreign war with the neighboring Germans worked havoc and distress. An obstructive parliament of great lords rendered effective administration impossible. The n.o.bles possessed the property and controlled politics; in their hands the king gradually became a puppet.

Poland seemed committed to feudal society and feudal government at the very time when the countries of western Europe were ridding themselves of such checks upon the free growth of centralized national states.

[Sidenote: Hungary in 1500]

Somewhat similar to Poland in its feudal propensities was the kingdom of Hungary, which an invasion of Asiatic tribesmen [Footnote: Hungarians, or Magyars--different names for the same people.] in the tenth century had driven like a wedge between the Slavs of the Balkan peninsula and those of the north Poles and Russians. At first, the efforts of such kings as St. Stephen (997-1038) promised the development of a great state, but the weakness of the sovereigns in the thirteenth century, the infiltration of western feudalism, and the endless civil discords brought to the front a powerful and predatory cla.s.s of barons who ultimately overshadowed the throne. The brilliant reign of Matthias Hunyadi (1458-1490) was but an exception to the general rule. Not only were the kings obliged to struggle against the n.o.bles for their very existence--the crown was elective in Hungary--but no rulers had to contend with more or greater enemies on their frontiers. To the north there was perpetual conflict with the Habsburgs of German Austria and with the forces of the Holy Roman Empire; to the east there were spasmodic quarrels with the Vlachs, the natives of modern Rumania; to the south there was continual fighting, at first with the Greeks and the Slavs--Serbs and Bulgars, and later, most terrible of all, with the Ottoman Turks.

[Sidenote: The Ottoman Turks in 1500]

To the Eastern Roman Empire, with Constantinople as its capital, and with the Greeks as its dominant population, and to the medieval kingdoms of the Bulgars and Serbs, had succeeded by the year 1500 the empire of the Ottoman Turks. The Ottoman Turks were a tribe of Asiatic Mohammedans who took their name from a certain Othman (died 1326), under whom they had established themselves in Asia Minor, across the Bosphorus from Constantinople. Thence they rapidly extended their dominion over Syria, and over Greece and the Balkan peninsula, except the little mountain state of Montenegro, and in 1453 they captured Constantinople. The lands conquered by the arms of the Turks were divided into large estates for the military leaders, or else a.s.signed to the maintenance of mosques and schools, or converted into common and pasturage lands; the conquered Christians were reduced to the payment of tribute and a life of serfdom. For two centuries the Turks were to remain a source of grave apprehension to Europe.

ADDITIONAL READINGS

THE NATIONAL MONARCHIES ABOUT 1600. A. F. Pollard, _Factors in European History_ (1907), ch. i on "Nationality" and ch. iii on "The New Monarchy"; _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. I, ch. xiv, xii, xi; _Histoire generale_, Vol. IV, ch. xiii, iv, v; _History of All Nations_, Vol. X, ch. xii-xvi; A. H. Johnson, _Europe in the Sixteenth Century_ (1897), ch. i, ii; Mary A. Hollings, _Renaissance and Reformation_ (1910), ch. i-v. On England: A. L. Cross, _History of England and Greater Britain_ (1914), ch. xviii; J. F. Bright, _History of England_, Vol. II, a standard work; James Gairdner, _Henry VII_ (1889), a reliable short biography; Gladys Temperley, _Henry VII_ (1914), fairly reliable and quite readable; H. A. L. Fisher, _Political History of England 1485-1547_ (1906), ch. i-iv, brilliant and scholarly; A. D. Innes, _History of England and the British Empire_ (1914), Vol. II, ch. i, ii; William Cunningham, _The Growth of English Industry and Commerce in Modern Times_, 5th ed., 3 vols. (1910-1912), Vol. I, Book V valuable for social conditions under Henry VII; William (Bishop) Stubbs, _Lectures on Mediaeval and Modern History_, ch. xv, xvi; F. W. Maitland, _The Const.i.tutional History of England_ (1908), Period II. On Scotland: P. H. Brown, _History of Scotland_, 3 vols.

(1899-1909), Vol. I from earliest times to the middle of the sixteenth century; Andrew Lang, _A History of Scotland_, 2d ed., 4 vols. (1901- 1907), Vol. I. On France: A. J. Grant, _The French Monarchy, 1483- 1789_, 2 vols. (1900), Vol. I, ch. i, ii, brief and general; G. B.

Adams, _The Growth of the French Nation_ (1896), ch. viii-x, a suggestive sketch; G. W. Kitchin, _A History of France_, 4th ed., 3 vols. (1894-1899), Vol. I and Vol. II (in part), dry and narrowly political; Lavisse (editor), _Histoire de France_, Vol. V, Part I (1903), an exhaustive and scholarly study. On Spain and Portugal: E. P.

Cheyney, _European Background of American History_ (1904), pp. 60-103; U. R. Burke, _A History of Spain from the Earliest Times to the Death of Ferdinand the Catholic_, 2d ed., 2 vols. (1900), edited by M. A. S.

Hume, Vol. II best account of the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella; W.

H. Prescott, _History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella_, 3 vols.

(1836), antiquated but extremely readable; Mrs. Julia Cartwright, _Isabella the Catholic_ (1914), in "Heroes of the Nations" Series; H.

M. Stephens, _Portugal_ (1891) in "Story of the Nations" Series; F. W.

Schirrmacher, _Geschichte von Spanien_, 7 vols. (1902), an elaborate German work, of which Vol. VII covers the years 1492-1516.

THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE. _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. I (1902), ch.

ix, a political sketch; James (Viscount) Bryce, _The Holy Roman Empire_, new ed. revised (1911); William c.o.xe, _History of the House of Austria_, Bohn edition, 4 vols. (1893-1894), a century-old work but still useful for Habsburg history; Sidney Whitman, _Austria_ (1899), and, by the same author, _The Realm of the Habsburgs_ (1893) 5 Kurt Kaser, _Deutsche Geschichte zur Zeit Maximilians I, 1486-1519_ (1912), an excellent study appearing in "Bibliothek deutscher Geschichte,"

edited by Von Zwiedineck-Sudenhorst; Franz Krones, _Handbuch der Geschichte Oesterreichs von der altesten Zeit_, 5 vols. (1876-1879), of which Vol. II, Book XI treats of political events in Austria from 1493 to 1526 and Vol. III, Book XII of const.i.tutional development 1100-1526; Leopold von Ranke, _History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations_, 1494- 1514, a rev. trans. in the Bohn Library (1915) of the earliest important work of this distinguished historian, published originally in 1824.

ITALY AND THE CITY STATES. _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. I (1902), ch. iv-viii; _Histoire generale, Vol. IV, ch. i, ii; Mrs. H. M. Vernon, _Italy from 1494 to 1790_ (1909), a clear account in the "Cambridge Historical Series"; J. A. Symonds, _Age of the Despots_ (1883), pleasant but inclined to the picturesque; Pompeo Molmenti, _Venice, its Individual Growth from the Earliest Beginnings to the Fall of the Republic_, trans. by H. F. Brown, 6 vols. (1906-1908), an exhaustive narrative of the details of Venetian history; Edward Armstrong, _Lorenzo de' Medici_ (1897), in the "Heroes of the Nations" Series, valuable for Florentine history about 1500; Col. G. F. Young, _The Medici_, 2 vols. (1909), an extended history of this famous Florentine family from 1400 to 1743; Ferdinand Gregorovius, _History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages_, trans. from 4th German ed. by Annie Hamilton, 8 vols. in 13, a non-Catholic account of the papal monarchy in Italy, of which Vol. VII, Part II and Vol. VIII, Part I treat of Rome about 1500. For the city-states of the Netherlands see _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. I (1902), ch. xiii; the monumental _History of the People of the Netherlands_, by the distinguished Dutch historian P.

J. Blok, trans. by O. A. Bierstadt, 5 vols. (1898-1912), especially Vols. I and II; and _Belgian Democracy: its Early History_, trans. by J. V. Saunders (1915) from the authoritative work of the famous Belgian historian Henri Pirenne (1910). For the German city-states see references under HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE above.

NORTHERN AND EASTERN EUROPE ABOUT 1500. General: _Cambridge Modern History_, Vol. I (1902), ch. x, iii; _Histoire generale, Vol. IV, ch.

xviii-xxi; R. N. Bain, _Slavonic Europe: a Political History of Poland and Russia from 1447 to 1796_ (1908), ch. i-iv; T. Schiemann, _Russland, Polen, und Livland bis ins 17ten Jahrhundert_, 2 vols.

(1886-1887). Norway: H. H. Boyesen, _The History of Norway_ (1886), a brief popular account in "Story of the Nations" Series. Muscovy: V. O.

Kliuchevsky, _A History of Russia_, trans. with some abridgments by C.

J. Hogarth, 3 vols. to close of seventeenth century (1911-1913), latest and, despite faulty translation, most authoritative work on early Russian history now available in English; Alfred Rambaud, _Histoire de la Russie depuis les origines jusqu'a nos jours_, 6th ed. completed to 1913 by emile Haumant (1914), a brilliant work, of which the portion down to 1877 has been trans. by Leonora B. Lang, 2 vols. (1879); W. R.

A. Morfill, _Russia_, in "Story of the Nations" Series, and _Poland_, a companion volume in the same series. See also Jeremiah Curtin, _The Mongols: a History_ (1908). For the Magyars: C. M. Knatchbull-Hugessen, _The Political Evolution of the Hungarian Nation_, 2 vols. (1908), especially Vol. I, ch. i-iii; A. Vambery, _The Story of Hungary_ (1886) in "Story of the Nations" Series; Count Julius Andra.s.sy, _The Development of Hungarian Const.i.tutional Liberty_, trans. by C. Arthur and Ilona Ginever (1908), the views of a contemporary Magyar statesman on the const.i.tutional development of his country throughout the middle ages and down to 1619, difficult to read. For the Ottoman Turks and the Balkan peoples: Stanley Lane-Poole, _Turkey_ (1889), in "Story of the Nations" Series, best brief introduction; A. H. Lybyer, _The Government of the Ottoman Empire in the Time of Suleiman the Magnificent_ (1913); Prince and Princess Lazarovich-Hrebelianovich, _The Servian People, their Past Glory and their Destiny_, 2 vols. (1910), particularly Vol.

II, ch. xi, xii; far more pretentious works are, Joseph von Hammer, _Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches_, 2d ed., 4 vols. (1834-1835), and Nicolae Jorga, _Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches nach den Quellen dargestellt_, 5 vols. (1908-1913), especially Vol. II, _1451-1538_, and H. A. Gibbons, _The Foundation of the Ottoman Empire _(1916), covering the earlier years, from 1300 to 1403.

CHAPTER II

THE COMMERCIAL REVOLUTION

[Sidenote: Introductory]

Five hundred years ago a European could search in vain the map of "the world" for America, or Australia, or the Pacific Ocean. Experienced mariners, and even learned geographers, were quite unaware that beyond the Western Sea lay two great continents peopled by red men; of Africa they knew only the northern coast; and in respect of Asia a thousand absurd tales pa.s.sed current. The unexplored waste of waters that const.i.tuted the Atlantic Ocean was, to many ignorant Europeans of the fifteenth century, a terrible region frequented by fierce and fantastic monsters. To the average European the countries surveyed in the preceding chapter, together with their Mohammedan neighbors across the Mediterranean, still comprised the entire known world.

Shortly before the close of the fifteenth century, daring captains began to direct long voyages on the high seas and to discover the existence of new lands; and from that time to the present, Europeans have been busily exploring and conquering--veritably "Europeanizing"-- the whole globe. Although religion as well as commerce played an important role in promoting the process, the movement was attended from the very outset by so startling a transformation in the routes, methods, and commodities of trade that usually it has been styled the Commercial Revolution. By the close of the sixteenth century it had proceeded far enough to indicate that its results would rank among the most fateful events of all history.

It was in the commonplace affairs of everyday life that the Commercial Revolution was destined to produce its most far-reaching results. To appreciate, therefore, its true nature and significance, we must first turn aside to ascertain how our European ancestors actually lived about the year 1500, and what work they did to earn their living. Then, after recounting the story of foreign exploration and colonization, we shall be in a position to reappraise the domestic situation in town and on the farm.

AGRICULTURE IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY

[Sidenote: Differences between Sixteenth-century Farming and That of To-day]

Agriculture has always been the ultimate basis of society, but in the sixteenth century it was of greater relative importance than it is now.

People then reckoned their wealth, not by the quant.i.ty of stocks and bonds they held, but by the extent of land they owned. Farming was still the occupation of the vast majority of the population of every European state, for the towns were as yet small in size and few in number. The "ma.s.ses" lived in the country, not, as to-day, in the city.

A twentieth-century observer would be struck by other peculiarities of sixteenth-century agriculture. He would find a curious organization of rural society, strange theories of land-ownership, and most unfamiliar methods of tillage. He would discover, moreover, that practically each farm was self-sufficing, producing only what its own occupants could consume, and that consequently there was comparatively little external trade in farm produce. From these facts he would readily understand that the rural communities in the year 1500, numerous yet isolated, were invulnerable strongholds of conservatism and ignorance.

[Sidenote: Two Rural Cla.s.ses: n.o.bility and Peasantry]

In certain respects a remarkable uniformity prevailed in rural districts throughout all Europe. Whether one visited Germany, Hungary, France, or England, one was sure to find the agricultural population sharply divided into two social cla.s.ses--n.o.bility and peasantry. There might be varying gradations of these cla.s.ses in different regions, but certain general distinctions everywhere prevailed.

[Sidenote: The n.o.bility]

The n.o.bility [Footnote: As a part of the n.o.bility must be included at the opening of the sixteenth century many of the higher clergy of the Catholic Church--archbishops, bishops, and abbots--who owned large landed estates quite like their lay brethren.] comprised men who gained a living from the soil without manual labor. They held the land on feudal tenure, that is to say, they had a right to be supported by the peasants living on their estates, and, in return, they owed to some higher or wealthier n.o.bleman or to the king certain duties, such as fighting for him, [Footnote: This obligation rested only upon lay n.o.blemen, not upon ecclesiastics.] attending his court at specified times, and paying him various irregular taxes (the feudal dues). The estate of each n.o.bleman might embrace a single farm, or "manor" as it was called, inclosing a petty hamlet, or village; or it might include dozens of such manors; or, if the landlord were a particularly mighty magnate or powerful prelate, it might stretch over whole counties.

Each n.o.bleman had his manor-house or, if he were rich enough, his castle, lording it over the humble thatch-roofed cottages of the villagers. In his stables were spirited horses and a carriage adorned with his family crest; he had servants and lackeys, a footman to open his carriage door, a game-warden to keep poachers from shooting his deer, and men-at-arms to quell disturbances, to aid him against quarrelsome neighbors, or to follow him to the wars. While he lived, he might occupy the best pew in the village church; when he died, he would be laid to rest within the church where only n.o.blemen were buried.

[Sidenote: Reason for the Preeminence of the n.o.bility]