Nice work, Anton. I've made a couple of changes, including adding the "Rule of Victor", but I've got a couple of other suggestions -
- A lot of it is better suited to articles like Papacy, Roman Catholic Church, and Investiture dispute. Reformation should really be an outline of the Reformation.
- Wiki articles are designed to be edited by everyone- it's best to keep personal pronouns, names and the like out of Cunnan articles.
- Is it Lollardry or Lollardism? I've always thought Lollardry = the tenets of Lollards, Lollardism = practice of Lollardry.
I'm still new here and figuring out what goes where. There is some good history in this that seems like it would fit better on http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation and the Cunnan article could work to make the history relevant to SCA folks. How does this affect someone's persona? Which contries were predominantly on which side? What were the consequences of being on the "wrong" side? How would this affect your costume? (E.g., did it affect the wearing of the rosary? etc.) ~ JakeVortex 06:27, 5 Nov 2003 (EST)
Anton here :
I wrote the article as SCA Deep Background - this is the kind of stuff real people in period knew about. Maybe not the precise details, but if you grew up in a 14th C northern Italian city, you know about Henry IV and Innocent III, becuase the political factions in your town (Guelph and Ghibelline) come from that period.
I also havent got to the bit where I discuss the - in my view - critical distinction between the medieval and the modern world view ; in the Medieval world, you are a member of a universal Christian community. In the modern world, you are a citizen of one of a number of co-equal discrete secular states. You can see how this fits with the Universal and Catholic Church, and the Danish, Swedish, English and so on National Churches.
If you can get that, then I think you can better understand the actual medieval world and world-view, not the bumper-sticker medjeeval version.
Also, what I'm trying to get away from is a history that says 'Luther nailed up the 95 theses in Wittenburg. There were some wars and some burnings. Some countries became Protestant. Some didnt'. I want to be able to tell a story about 'Why did Protestantism take the form it did, where it did, and when it did' in a way I'm happy with, given the restraints of time, words and audience attention.
Finally, I'd prefer to stay identified as a specific author, so that I can retain accountability for what I say, as some of my statements may justly be regarded as anti-Catholic, anti-Lutheran or anti-Calvinist.
- Wiki articles do not have a specific author. If you wan to be listed as the sole author (or the main author) of an article then a wiki isn't an appropriate place to write. I agree with Del that if you wish to have a personal bias in what you write then start articles that are clearly your own opinion (eg. Why Anton Thinks The Reformation Was A Bad Idea, as Del suggested) - Tobin
I'm with Anton on this. Cunnan is somewhere where we can put SCA relevant articles, including SCA historically relevant articles. To know what your persona was thinking is as important (to me: more important) than to know what your persona was wearing. I'd hate to have to find that stuff buried in the wikipedia.
However, Anton, ditch the personal bias and present the facts, unless you're going to put in a callout like Why Anton Thinks The Reformation Was A Bad Idea.
Also we need a lot more callouts in this -- go mad with the square brackets guys.
Hey you wiki / cunnan guys,
Can we footnote these things?
You see, ever since Anton made the ridiculous assertion on his page about the Italian Renaissance that "the Humanists concentrated on winning the argument rather than having their facts and logic straight" (a complete falsehood that I specifically refuse to bite on, as everyone knows the Humanists were all about facts and logic and less of that papal infallibility nonsense), we've been caning each other over the the entire Reformation debate.
Now I've just had time to re-read this and I've seen the bit where he says "the Council of Constance ... got things back to an even footing" and I blew chunks out my nostrils. OK, this specifically deserves a footnote. Anton, if you think that burning Huss at the stake and digging up Wyclif's long dead body and casting it out of hallowed ground after he'd produced the first English translation of the bible is "an even footing" then you need to read this.
(OK, enough Anton-baiting for now, I think I need to go consult a cooking laurel to find out what temperature is best to burn more catholics).
Del 19:56, 11 Nov 2003 (EST)
Funnily enough, my current favorite theorist on Papal power - John of Paris - points out the bible text in question says you should shun, rather than actually burn heretics. Not that that stopped anyone in the 16th Century, of course. The fact that he was a player in a high-stakes game of 'Go ahead. Excommunicate France. See if we care' could have been a factor.
I'm also not sure about this newfangled idea of Papal Infallibility - it seems awfully Nineteenth Century. After all, only Church Councils can properly and finally resolve issues of theology, and it was the arrogance and vanity of certain Popes is that got us into this mess in the first place.
Digging Wyclif out of the ground is one of those 'who cares ?' things for me ; I'm much more concerned with what gets done to the living (eg suppresion of the Peasants Revolt by the Lutherans). BTW, Wyclif needs a page ... back at ANU library I've got some footnotes abnout him (eg he personally probably didnt translate the Bible, although he did head the project).
As to what got done to the Hussites ... yeah, well they were kind and gentle dealing with the Jacquerie in France, right ?
And as for the grammar, rhetoric and logic crack ... misused, rhetoric can be a tool to mislead, but grammar and logic are what Scholarly work is based on.
Anton, who is now caffeined up and revising his Reformation article
- Enter Cursitor]
- He speaks]
I can't resist adding a Euro-centric bias to this (in a mild way), so propose to edit parts of the main entry, and then see what people think. If too biased, moderators please feel free to revert the article.