|23-10-2010 (5498 lectures)||Categoria: Jerusalem|
Charles I, who was elected Holy Roman EmperorÂ Charles V in 1519 upon the death of his paternal grandfather, Maximilian, aspired to universal monarchy over the far-flung territories he had inherited, fromÂ Germany, theÂ Low Countries,Â Italy, andÂ Spain to the New World. The Piedmontese humanist Mercurino de Gattinara, Charlesâ€™s chancellor from 1518 to 1530, fueled his ambitions, but the providential design for Charles to be a newÂ Charlemagne collided with political realities. The revolt of theÂ comuneros (1520â€“21), an uprising of a group of Spanish cities, was successfully quelled, securing Castile as the bedrock of his empire, but the opposition ofÂ Francis I ofÂ France, ofÂ SĂĽleyman I (the Magnificent; ruled 1520â€“66) of theÂ Ottoman Empire, and of the Lutheran princes in Germany proved more intractable.
Early success in Italy, nevertheless, provided Charles with the most important base outside Spain for exercising his power. Imperial troops forced the French to retreat fromÂ Milan and restored the Sforza in 1522. When a refitted French army of 30,000 men retook Milan in 1524, the new MediciÂ pope,Â Clement VII (reigned 1523â€“34), changed sides to become a French ally. But, at the most important battle of the Italian wars, fought atÂ Pavia on February 24, 1525, the French were defeated andÂ Francis I was captured. Soon after his release, heÂ abrogated theÂ Treaty of Madrid (January 1526), in which he had been forced, among otherÂ concessions, to abandon his Italian claims. He headed a new anti-Spanish alliance, the HolyÂ League of Cognac (May 1526), which united France with the papacy, Milan,Â Florence, andÂ Venice. With no French forces in the field, some 12,000 of Charlesâ€™s imperial troops, largely unpaid Lutheran infantry, marched south toÂ Rome. On May 6, 1527, they attacked and sacked the city, forcing the pope to take refuge in theÂ Castel Santâ€™Angelo. TheÂ repercussions of this chastisement of the corrupt church were heard throughoutÂ Europe, and some scholars still date the end of theÂ Renaissance in Italy to this event.
New military technologies in siegecraft (cannon and bastion) and new techniques in open-field engagements (mixingÂ pike andÂ harquebus) not only transformed the nature of warfare but also threatened the order of a society still dominated by an aristocratic military caste. In the course of the Italian wars, the non-nobleÂ infantry adopted tacticalÂ innovations that unseated the cavalry of heavily armoured nobility, which had dominatedÂ medieval warfare.Â Charles VIIIâ€™s invading army employed theÂ Swiss pike phalanx, whose moving squares of 6,000 men had already developed the ability to engage in offensive as well as defensive maneuvers. In the fighting against France for theÂ Kingdom of Naples, FernĂˇndez de CĂłrdoba first developed the SpanishÂ tercios, more-flexible units of 3,000 infantrymen using both pikes and harquebuses. Spanish military superiority eventually owed its success to the introduction in 1521 of theÂ musket (an improved harquebus) and to the refinement of pike and musket tactics in the years preceding theÂ Battle of Pavia. Such tactics dominated land warfare until theÂ Battle of Rocroi in 1643.
The new socialÂ composition of the enlarged infantry, as well as the need for large quantities of metal and the financial requirements for equipping and launching an army, pushed military affairs further into royal hands, strengthening the growing power of the central monarchy at the expense of theÂ aristocracy. Commoners could forge a new relationship directly with royal authority. They could also, as in the case of the republics, create new images of citizenly power. In 1503 theÂ Florentine republic, for example, planned two monumental mural paintings for the Great Council Hall of theÂ Palazzo Vecchio (town hall) to be executed by two of the giants of HighÂ Renaissance art,Â Leonardo da Vinci andÂ Michelangelo. The formerâ€™sÂ Battle of Anghiari and the latterâ€™sÂ Battle of Cascina, if completed, would have emphasized the strength and righteous rage of republican virtue and the necessity for citizens to be vigilant, challenging them to retakeÂ Pisa and subdueÂ Tuscany during the republicâ€™s ongoing wars.Â Ludovico Ariosto, singing his epic poetry at the chivalric pro-French court ofÂ Ferrara, lamented the loss of glory, honour, valour, and courage to the â€śwretched and foul inventionâ€ť of firearms. Even 20 years after the fact, when the diplomat and writerÂ Baldassare Castiglione nostalgically portrayed the graceful court ofÂ Urbino of 1508 inÂ The Courtier (1528), he did so in order to instruct courtiers and court ladies on how to adapt their roles to the changing times.
In the immediate wake of the sack of Rome and the consequent disgrace of the Medici papacy, the Florentines expelled their Medici overlords. A French army under General Odet de Foix Lautrec finally arrived in 1528, butÂ Andrea Doria, a Genoese admiral and aristocrat whose galleys had formerly been in the service of the French, unexpectedly switched sides and became a staunch supporter of Charles V. Plague took Lautrecâ€™s life and decimated the French army, and in 1529 the pope was forced to make peace with Charles in theÂ Treaty of Barcelonaâ€”as did Francis I in theÂ Treaty of Cambrai. After almost 40 years of war, Italy submitted to Spanish pacification. Francis I renounced his claims in Italy, as well as in Artois and Flanders. The last Sforza was restored in Milan with the provision that the duchy would pass to Spain upon his death. Venice lost its recent mainland conquests. TheÂ Papal States were restored, and in 1530 the pope crowned Charles V emperor and king of Italy and made vague promises to call a council to address the Protestant schism and reform the church. In exchange, Spanish forces reinstated the Medici in Florence.
Italy remained subject to sporadic French incursions into Savoy in 1536â€“38 and 1542â€“44 during a third and fourth Habsburg-Valois war, and Spainâ€™s Italian possessions were increasingly taxed to support Charlesâ€™s continual campaigns; however, for the remainder of his reign, Charlesâ€™s armies fought the French, the Ottomans, and the Protestant princes outside Italy. Notable for Italy was Charles Vâ€™s capture of Tunis in 1535 and his glorious march up the Italian peninsula in 1536 to confirm his personal rule. But theÂ Ottomans formally allied themselves with France against the Habsburgs thereafter, defeated an allied fleet at Prevesa, retook Tunis in 1538, and stepped up their assault on the Venetian empire in the Mediterranean. With the eventual failure of Charlesâ€™s attempts to secure Germany, his great continental empire was divided. Italy became a part of the Spanish Habsburg inheritance of his son,Â Philip II (ruled 1556â€“98), and, after the Spanish victory over the French at St. Quentin (1557), theÂ Peace of Cateau-CambrĂ©sis (1559) officially confirmed the era of Spanish domination that had existed in Italy since 1530.
Spain thus established completeÂ hegemony over all the Italian states exceptÂ Venice, which alone maintained its independence. Several Italian states were ruled directly, while others remained Spanish dependents. Naples,Â Sicily, andÂ Sardinia (which had all been dependencies of Aragon), as well asÂ Milan, came under direct Spanish rule and owed theirÂ allegiance to theÂ sovereign according to their own laws and traditions. TheirÂ foreign policy interests were subordinated to the imperial designs of Spain, which also appointed their chief officers (viceroys in Naples,Â Palermo, and Cagliari; a governor in Milan) and administered their internal affairs through local councils. From the beginning of Philip IIâ€™s reign, Italian affairs, which had originally been administered by the Council of Aragon, were coordinated by aÂ Council of Italy in Madrid. At this council, the three major statesâ€”Naples, Sicily, and Milanâ€”were each represented by two regents, one Castilian and one native. Sardinia remained aÂ dependency of Aragon. The king, however, continued to receive and be responsive to embassies sent by various groups outside official channels until the Spanish Habsburg line died out in 1700.
A vitriolic anti-Spanish polemic has long dominated the historiography of early modern Italy. It accuses Spanish rule of an authoritarianism closed to new ideas andÂ innovation, of presiding over an empty formalism in literary expression, and of promotingÂ spagnolismo, an exaggerated andÂ ostentatious pompâ€”all perceived as the fruits of aÂ decadent, backward-looking colonial domination. Faulting Spain for trying toÂ integrate Italy within its absolutist and imperial program or blaming Italyâ€™s 17th-century decline on Spanish social and economic policies has served nationalistic fervour since the 16th century, but it has missed both the benefits of Spanish rule to Italian peace and security and the main causes of crisis in 17th-century Italy. To understand the latter, one must examine the internal conflicts and economic impediments that existed within the Italian states themselves rather than look to an absentee Spanish scapegoat. And, above all, early modern Italy must be understood in a wider EuropeanÂ context and in relation to the economic shifts wrought by the new Asian and American trade. The touchstone for modern scholarship isÂ Fernand Braudelâ€™sÂ The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II (1949), which continues to inspire and challenge research into Philip IIâ€™s empire and beyond.
Pedro de Toledo (viceroy 1532â€“53) reorganized the Kingdom ofÂ Naples and placed it firmly within the Spanish monarchical orbit dominated by Castile. Within the kingdom, he oversaw the eradication of the pro-French barons and attempted to install centralized, absolutist policies. Within the city, he developed new residential quarters and strengthened Spanish defenses against outside attack. He enjoyed unparalleled personal prestige; his daughter Eleonora was married toÂ Cosimo I (the Great), the Medici duke ofÂ Tuscany, in 1539. But his power had limits, as was shown by the successful Neapolitan opposition to the introduction of theÂ Inquisition in 1547. Pedroâ€™s policy was governed by the principle of â€śdivide and conquer,â€ť which played upon rampant inequalities between the barons and the people and between the capital and the countryside.
The most important ruling body in the kingdom was theÂ Collateral Council,Â comprising five regents presided over by the viceroy, with a judicial council and a financial council exercising their respectiveÂ competencies at its side. A new elite of lawyers, a â€śnobility of the robe,â€ť began to emerge, sustaining the Spanish regime with its indispensableÂ bureaucratic services. The Neapolitan parliament, which consisted of representatives of the city districts (seggi), of the feudal nobility, and of royally owned towns, had only two functionsâ€”to authorize taxes and to request rights and privileges from the king in exchangeâ€”but this body was suspended in 1642.
In the capital the town council, which seated representatives of the cityâ€™s five nobleÂ seggi and of a citywide commonersâ€™Â seggio, emerged as the most important institution ofÂ municipal government. The most pressing problem facing the city administration was the provision of food. Naples had grown to 250,000 inhabitants by 1600, which ranked it first in population among the cities of westernÂ Europe.
In the countryside, where some 90 percent of the population still lived, theÂ aristocracy retained strong social and economic control. The Spanish governmentâ€™sÂ bureaucracy did attempt to break the baronsâ€™ political stronghold and to limit the worst abuses, but success depended upon a healthy economy and an emerging middle class, both of which began to falter after 1585. The 12 provinces of the kingdom remained atomized, and their unarticulated markets were often attached to the trading networks of foreign states such asÂ Venice orÂ Genoa rather thanÂ integrated to form a national market within the kingdom itself.
Sicilyâ€™s administration had existed apart from that of the mainland since 1282, when the island had revolted against Angevin rule and come under the Aragonese crown. In the 16th century Sicily remained the cornerstone of the Spanish Mediterranean policy against the Ottomans, and its agricultural products continued to be the staple of long-distance trade.
As in Naples, Spanish policy in Sicily attempted to modify traditional baronial abuses.Â Spain allowed the barons considerableÂ autonomy over their large agrarian estates, including the exploitation of their tenant farmers, but it prevented open feuds between barons and eroded their political power by excluding them from offices in the central government. Two local councils, one in judicial affairs and the other in public finance and administration, centralized Spanish government from the reign of Charles V. Parliament and the Inquisition competed for power with the viceroy. Parliament, whichÂ comprised three branchesâ€”clergy, nobility, and royal towns and districtsâ€”voted ordinary and special taxes, but its short and infrequent sessions prevented sustained opposition to Spanish policies. TheÂ Inquisition, on the other hand, was completely independent of the viceroy and often challenged his jurisdiction, but it received royal backing only in purely religious disputes. Above all, Spain played internal rivalries and sectional interests against one another for its own advantage. Constant struggles weakened all parties, and the numerousÂ autonomous authorities held civil government in such check that it became immobilized and unable to make important decisions.
Sardiniaâ€™s links to the kingdom of Aragon dated from the 14th century. Long-standing assimilation to SpanishÂ culture had reinforced the patriarchal structure of the local nobility, whose chief source of wealth was sheep raising. As in Naples and Sicily, the Spanish introduced little change into government, preferring instead to support an aristocratic-monarchist regime. The viceroy was often a Sardinian, the native parliament had three branches, and international politics separated Sardinia from Italian affairs.
When Francesco II Sforza died childless in 1535,Â Milan devolved to Charles V and was administered by a Spanish governor, who maintained traditional institutions. The duchy consisted of nine provinces, each dominated by a small group of families resident in their provincial capitals. Central administration from Milan rested primarily with the Senate, a judicial and legislative body that maintained its authority under Spanish rule despite inevitable confrontations with the governor. Official Spanish policy aimed at maintaining anÂ equilibrium between centralization and home rule.
Two institutional changes, nevertheless, had significant effects upon the society of MilaneseÂ Lombardy. First, by 1584 the membership of the Senate was reduced from 28 to 15 as well as altered in its composition; whereas half of its members had been aristocratic landowners and high-ranking clerics, they now were all professional lawyers. As in Naples, the nobility of the robe, who in Milan were lawyers drawn from the urban patriciate, grew at the expense of the old landed nobility and formed an essential alliance with the Spanish crown. Second, tax reforms aimed at marshaling Milanese resources for the Spanish wars affected the society of the duchy, not only in equalizing the tax burden but also in redistributing power between city and countryside. Merchants, who had previously been tax-exempt, found their wealth (based on annual gross sales) taxed after 1594, and landowners not residing in cities, who had previously been taxed far above city dwellers, benefited from a newÂ assessment system set by elected bodies of rural residents after 1561. These policies had unexpected long-term effects in the 17th century when economic interests were able to regroup and find a foothold in the countryside.
Milanâ€™s strategic importance as the gateway toÂ Italy remained a keystone ofÂ Spainâ€™s imperial design, and, with war and revolt north of theÂ Alps, Milan served as a critical staging area for men and supplies on the â€śSpanish roadâ€ť from Genoa to Lombardy and from there through the Alpine passes to the Rhineland. During the Revolt of the Netherlands (1567), the Netherlandsâ€™Â Eighty Yearsâ€™ War (1568â€“1648) for independence, and theÂ Thirty Yearsâ€™ War (1618â€“48), Milan was a focal point of Spanish military preparation.
TheÂ Roman Catholic Church had unusual influence andÂ autonomy in Milan.Â Charles Cardinal Borromeo, member of a rich noble family of Milan and nephew of PopeÂ Pius IV (reigned 1559â€“65), resided in his diocese after 1565 as the model bishop of theÂ Catholic Reformation. He instituted seminaries, diocesan synods, and provincial councils, personally visited some 800 parishes, watched over the spiritual needs of monasteries, convents, and lay confraternities, fought heresy, and supported relief of the poor. Moreover, under his rule the Milanese church enjoyed unusual freedom of action and special privileges in furthering Catholic reform.
SpanishÂ hegemony in Italy extended beyond the states under its direct control. The rulers of Savoy and Tuscany owed their titles to Spain, Genoa acted as Spainâ€™s chief banker, the papacy depended heavily on the Spanish monarchy in the age of theÂ Counter-Reformation, and even independentÂ Venice needed Spanish aid in protecting its Mediterranean empire from further erosion by the Turks. Several minor states were so small that they had little political influence; these included the republic ofÂ Lucca as well as several duchies that remained under the control of local noble familiesâ€”the duchies ofÂ Modena,Â Reggio, andÂ Ferrara under theÂ Este family; the duchy ofÂ Mantua andÂ Montferrat under the Gonzagas, and theÂ duchy of Parma and Piacenza under theÂ Farnese. These states, too, enjoyed the enforced Spanish peace within Italy and benefited from the security against foreign invasion. Their nobility intermarried with the SpanishÂ aristocracy and absorbed SpanishÂ culture.
During the Italian wars,Â France and Spain had occupiedÂ Savoy, a duchy that incorporated most of the present-dayÂ Piedmont, between France and the duchy of Milan. Allied with the victorious Spanish at the battle of St. Quentin (1557), itsÂ legitimate heir, DukeÂ Emmanuel Philibert (ruled 1559â€“80), recovered his state with theÂ Peace of Cateau-CambrĂ©sis (1559) and began to rebuild and strengthen it. He transferred the capital across the Alps from ChambĂ©ry toÂ Turin, which grew as a fortified and planned city. He limited the power of numerous localities and centralized state finances. Increased taxes and economic recovery allowed him to maintain a small butÂ disciplined standing army, which became the basis of Piedmontese military power. His sonÂ Charles Emmanuel I (ruled 1580â€“1630) followed an expansionist policy with varying success. In 1589 he failed to take Geneva, and in 1601 he ceded some territory to France in exchange for the marquessate ofÂ Saluzzo. He also engaged in debilitating wars in an unsuccessful quest to take Montferrat.
When Spanish arms restored the Medici toÂ Florence in 1530, they bestowed on them the title â€śdukes of Tuscany.â€ť After the assassination of the first duke,Â Alessandro, in 1537,Â Cosimo I (ruled 1537â€“74) succeeded him and developed a strong absolutist state. As a Spanish ally, Cosimo foughtÂ Siena (1552â€“55) and annexed it in 1557. The Spanish, however, retained five strategically important seaports, the Stato dei Presidi (â€śState of the Garrisonsâ€ť), which were administered by Spanish Naples.
In 1569 Cosimo received the titleÂ grand duke of Tuscany. His sonsÂ Francis I (ruled 1574â€“87) andÂ Ferdinand I (ruled 1587â€“1609) succeeded him, and the latter enlarged theÂ free port ofÂ Livorno. In the early modern period the city of Florence had only about one-half of itsÂ medieval population, and it receded from the international scene, becoming the capital of a provincial court.
In 1528Â Andrea Doria initiated aÂ constitutional reform by which nobles loyal to him gained power. Factionalism continued, however, especially between the â€śoldâ€ť and â€śnewâ€ť nobility. When serious disorders erupted in 1575, the old nobility abandoned the city, and a popular faction took their place beside the new nobility. A compromise mediated by Spain and the papacy averted civil war by reconstituting the ruling class. Wealth replaced status as the basis of social stratification and political alliance.
Andrea Doriaâ€™s support of Charles VÂ bolstered Spainâ€™s naval profile in the western Mediterranean. Genoa continued its control over Corsica through itsÂ central bank, the Bank of San Giorgio. Genoese bankers, who had extended their family businesses from Naples to Sevilla, replaced the German Fuggers as the primary financiers of the Spanish empire. At home, nobles invested in landed property and city residences, while silkÂ manufacturing employed a large percentage of the Genoese working class.
Defeat at Agnadello in 1509, followed by pressure from the Spanish Habsburgs inÂ Lombardy and the Austrian Habsburgs to the north of the republic, limited Veniceâ€™s Italian mainland empire. In addition,Â Ottoman expansion in the eastern Mediterranean disrupted Veniceâ€™s trade in the Levant and chipped away at its overseas empire: lost were important ports of call inÂ Albania andÂ Greece in 1503, the Aegean islands north of Crete in 1540,Â Cyprus in 1571, and Crete itself in 1669. At the same time, Portuguese trade withÂ Asia after 1498 and the rise of the Dutch city of Antwerp as an entrepĂ´t for the distribution of goods to northernÂ Europe seriously challenged Veniceâ€™s trading monopoly. No longer the most powerful state inÂ Italy, Venice still enjoyed internal cohesion, an extremely effective diplomatic corps, and a strong fleet to navigate an independent policy betweenÂ Spain and the papacy.
Before the plague of 1576, Veniceâ€™s population had risen to 180,000, with a patriciate of under 5 percent. A strong oligarchic tendency during the 16th century reinforced the power of the Council of Ten over the Senate, and the cleavage between rich and poor nobles widened. After 1583, however, the old nobility lost its bid to monopolize politics, and the Senate recovered power, which it applied to a more independentÂ foreign policy. TextileÂ manufacturing remained the most important trade until the precipitous decline of the woolen industry in the early 17th century. Veniceâ€™s population stabilized at about 150,000.
In 1606 aÂ papal interdict condemned Venice for refusing to repeal several laws limiting the churchâ€™s traditional rights and for trying two priests in civil rather thanÂ ecclesiastical courts.Â Paolo Sarpi, the republicâ€™s state theologian, mounted an effective defense by arguing for stateÂ sovereignty in temporal affairs. The dispute ended in a compromise, mediated byÂ France and Spain. Sarpiâ€™sÂ The History of the Council of Trent (1619) later indicted theÂ pope for usurping ecclesiastical authority and for manipulating the reform council to reinforce his power.
TheÂ papacy engaged in oftenÂ flamboyant political maneuvers, especially during the reign ofÂ Julius II (1503â€“13), and in the architectural andÂ intellectual renewal ofÂ Rome. Save for the brief reign of the last non-ItalianÂ pope before the 20th century,Â Adrian VI (reigned 1522â€“23), the papacy failed to respond to the spiritual crisis of the day. However, a predisposition for a religious revival, or Catholic Reformation, was fostered by the Christian humanist Erasmus of Rotterdamâ€™s biblical philosophy of Christ, by prophetic and apocalyptic interpretations of the Italian wars, and by an awareness of long-standing clerical abuses. Yet serious attempts at reform from above did not begin until the reign of PopeÂ Paul III (1534â€“49). In 1536 he appointed a reform commission, which produced the important blueprintÂ Consilium de emendanda ecclesia (â€śProject for the Reform of the Churchâ€ť), and in 1537 he made the first attempt at convoking a reform council. By the 1540s, however, hopes for reunification of Catholics and Protestants had foundered. A trueÂ Counter-Reformationâ€”that is, theÂ Roman Catholic Churchâ€™s conscious fight against Protestantismâ€”began to take shape with papal approval of theÂ Jesuit order in 1540 and with the creation of the Holy Office of the Inquisition in 1542. New religious orders such as the Theatines (1524), theÂ Capuchins (1528), and the Jesuits (1534) provided the backbone of the new class of religious leaders, although theÂ apostasy to Calvinism in 1542 ofÂ Bernardino Ochino, vicar-general of the Capuchins, was a serious setback. The Jesuitsâ€™ educational program, above all, began to prepare laymen of highÂ social status for leadership roles. TheÂ Council of Trent (1545â€“63) uncompromisingly defined CatholicÂ dogma and outlined a program for disciplinary reform and administrative centralization. TheÂ Index librorum prohibitorum (1559; â€śIndex of Forbidden Booksâ€ť), a list of books condemned by the Roman Catholic Church asÂ pernicious to faith andÂ morals, was compiled by a censorship board that limited orthodox expression to a narrowly controlled range.
In politics, the papacy was dependent onÂ Spain yet eager to find anÂ alternative to Spanish domination inÂ Italy. AlthoughÂ ecclesiastical reform occupied most of the churchâ€™s energies, PopeÂ Pius V (reigned 1566â€“72) promoted theÂ Holy League, which checked Ottoman expansion into the western Mediterranean by defeating the Ottoman fleet atÂ Lepanto (1571). Under PopeÂ Gregory XIII (reigned 1572â€“85) theÂ Julian calendar was reformed into the modernÂ Gregorian calendar. PopeÂ Sixtus V (reigned 1585â€“90) launched a Catholic missionary counteroffensive in centralÂ Europe and reorganized theÂ Roman Curia. He, along withÂ Clement VIII (reigned 1592â€“1605), alsoÂ patronized the urban development and new artistic flowering in Rome that culminated in theÂ Baroque creations ofÂ Gian Lorenzo Bernini and the architectÂ Francesco Borromini. These two popes also fought rural banditry and broughtÂ Ferrara,Â Urbino, and Castro back under direct papal rule.
Cities and courts spawned the highÂ culture of lateÂ Renaissance Italy. Ranging fromÂ Pietro Aretinoâ€™s merciless lampoons of the scandalous lives of the princes of the church in RenaissanceÂ Rome to the mysticism and Christocentric piety embraced by theÂ intellectual circle surrounding the Spanish humanistÂ Juan de ValdĂ©s in Naples, Italian culture in the 16th century defined itself for or against the church.Â Machiavelli, in a famous chapter ofÂ Discorsi sopra la prima deca di tito Livio (1513â€“19; â€śDiscourses on the First Ten Books of Livyâ€ť), argued that the church was the cause of Italian ills because it had lost its religious moorings and had kept the Italians politically divided. A rigid Counter-Reformation orthodoxy, however, condemned some of Italyâ€™s most brilliant intellectualsâ€”philosophers and scientists such asÂ Giordano Bruno, who was burned as a heretic in 1600,Â Tommaso Campanella, who was imprisoned in 1599 for 27 years, andÂ Galileo Galilei, who was forced to recant his Copernican beliefs and was placed under permanentÂ house arrest in 1633.
At the same time, however, Italy was at the forefront of a movement that fostered scientific exchange by establishingÂ scientific academiesâ€”the Roman Accademia dei Lincei (founded in 1603), the Florentine Accademia del Cimento (1657), and the Neapolitan Accademia degli Investiganti (1665). In fields such as drama (both tragedy and comedy), music (both religious and secular),Â art history,Â rhetoric, and political theory, Italians of the late Renaissance played formative rolesâ€”the poetsÂ Torquato Tasso andÂ Giambattista Marino, the composersÂ Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina andÂ Claudio Monteverdi, the artist and art historianÂ Giorgio Vasari, and the political theorist and statesman Giovanni Botero, to name just a few. These examples demonstrate theÂ continuity of Italyâ€™s cultural achievement in the period that followed the High Renaissance.
The expandingÂ demographic and economic base ofÂ Italy provided the wherewithal for the political and cultural programs of the 16th century. From the mid-15th-century demographic low point after the 1347â€“48 plague, Italy, along with the rest of westernÂ Europe, recovered dramatically. Between 1400 and 1600 the Italian population nearly doubled, increasing from about 7 million to about 13 million, and prices rose sharply, with cereal prices tripling and quadrupling. Increased demand, the increased supply of money from the silver of the New World, andÂ profligate military expenditures fueled high inflation. Italyâ€™s most distinctive feature was its highly urbanized life. In 1550, 30 citiesâ€”more than in any other region in the Westâ€”had populations of more than 10,000.
Rural areas nevertheless still accounted for almost 88 percent of the total population, and, given the relative parity in birth and death rates, cities grew primarily as a result of ruralÂ emigration. Wheat and wool were the chief agricultural products, and the spread of capitalist agriculture in the 16th century was an important ingredient in the transition fromÂ feudalism toÂ capitalism. Textile production of both woolens and silks continued to be the major industry in the cities, but theÂ precocious economic development of Italy inÂ manufacturing, trade, and finance came to a crashing halt during the dislocations of the 17th century.
The economic recovery of the second half of the 16th century challenged the traditional hierarchical ordering of society. Nobility and clergy, the two most identifiable groups, did not lose their status but slowly changed character. With theÂ demise of old families and the rise of a new nobility based on wealth and public service,Â social mobility in the cities put the oldÂ aristocracy on the defensive until it was able to forge new alliances with the ruling princes and the bourgeois bankers and merchants. At the same time, demographic growth and a yawning gap between wages and prices threatened to create an even larger disparity between rich and poor. In good times, the lower classes could provide a new labour market, fueling industrial production; in economically bad times, however, sickness, unemployment, and the rising price of bread could drive them down into the vortex of poverty and even push them to the point of rebellion.
The economic boom of the late 16th century began to stall throughoutÂ Europe. The first signs of hardship appeared inÂ Italy after 1585, and famine persisted through the 1590s. New waves of plague struck northern Italy andÂ Tuscany in 1630â€“31 and southern Italy,Â Lazio, andÂ Genoa in 1656â€“57, with population losses between one-fourth and one-fifth, respectively. The large cities ofÂ Milan, Naples, and Genoa lost as much as half of their population. In addition, war in northern Europe after 1618 and in theÂ Middle East between the Ottomans and the Iranians from 1623â€“39 disrupted Italyâ€™s important export markets; war between Spanish, German, French, and Piedmontese forces moved to Italy between 1628 and 1659; and social conflicts within the Spanish states contributed to the decline of Italy relative to northwestern Europe.
Both agricultural production and urban industries entered into crisis in the decade 1611â€“20, reaching their low point about 1650. In the south, extensive wheat monoculture exhausted the soil and led to deforestation and soil erosion. Further, noble owners drained off profits for expenditures on urban luxuries, and indebtedness placed commercial grain farmers at greater risk as grain prices fell in the 17th century. In the north,Â intensive agriculture supported the numerous large cities, but overexpansion onto unproductive land, soil depletion, and the loss of credit pushed the region to the limits of what the population could support. In the cities, woolÂ manufacturing fell by 50 percent in the 1620s and all but disappeared thereafter, although silk production held its own. Commercial and banking activities, once the fastest-growing industries, now constricted, and foreign imports braked further development at home. Italyâ€™s early industrial lead lost to increased competition from northwestern Europe as new products at lower prices replaced the traditional ones in the Italian markets. The Italian guildsâ€™ opposition to technological and organizational change, higher taxes, and higher labour costs prevented the adaptability required to surmount the short-term crisis, which instead turned into a long-term structural realignment. Only inÂ Lombardy was there a successful shift to theÂ putting-out system, which transferred urban industries to the countryside.
The economic involution reinforced the socialÂ hierarchy, favoured investment in landed property and rents over commerce and industry, and reinvigorated noble pretensions. With capital shifted from the manufacturing and service sectors to agricultural production of cash crops such asÂ olive oil, wine, and raw silk, the number of skilled urban craftsmen and merchants decreased while that of illiterate peasants increased, and landed-noble power intensified. The church reasserted itself in every aspect of social life, from land ownership toÂ ecclesiastical organization, from the defense of orthodoxy and theÂ culture of theÂ Council of Trent to the education of the ruling class. As the economic crisis deepened, middling ranks lost out, and social stratification between rich and poor rigidified.
In the political sphere,Â Spainâ€™s involvement in theÂ Thirty Yearsâ€™ War (1618â€“48) and subsequent wars with other European powersâ€”financed in part by taxes on its Italian possessionsâ€”drained Italy. As Spain declined, it dragged its Italian realms down with it. Revolts broke out inÂ Palermo andÂ Naples in 1647. In Naples a revolt of July 7 was mistakenly identified as a plebeian rebellion bearing the name of a young fishmonger,Â Masaniello, although he was murdered within 10 days and had actually been a tool of bourgeois elements seeking greater political power in the city. The uprising spread to the countryside, established a republic that sought French protection, and assumed the character of an open rebellion against Spain and native feudal lords. Internal dissension and the arrival of the Spanish fleet brought an end to the revolt by April 1648. The social and economic crisis deepened in Naples after the failure of the revolt and a recurrence of the plague in 1656. Lost was any hope of an alliance between the middle classes and the urban proletariat or rural masses against the landedÂ aristocracy. Paradoxically, renewed Spanish reliance on the nobility of the robe fostered the very class that was to lead the cultural renewal that made Naples one of theÂ intellectual centres of 18th-century Italy.
After the death of the lastÂ Spanish Habsburg,Â Charles II (ruled 1665â€“1700), fighting over the remnants ofÂ Spainâ€™s European empire consumed the continentâ€™s powers in theÂ War of the Spanish Succession (1701â€“14). TheÂ Treaties of Utrecht (1713) andÂ Rastatt (1714) inaugurated a new pattern of state relations inÂ Italy betweenÂ Austrian Habsburgs, Spanish Bourbons (with BourbonÂ France always in the background), and the independent states. After complicated military and diplomatic maneuvers, this pattern eventually stabilized into a long-termÂ equilibrium. In the initial treaties,Â Naples,Â Sardinia, andÂ Milan (which had incorporatedÂ Mantua after the last Gonzaga had sold it toÂ Louis XIV in 1701) passed to the Austrian Habsburgs; andÂ Sicily went toÂ Victor Amadeus II, duke of Savoy, who assumed the title of king of Sicily. Renewed Spanish hostilities, however, forced Victor Amadeus to cede Sicily toÂ Austria in exchange for Sardinia in theÂ Treaty of The Hague (1720). Spain acquired the duchy ofÂ Parma andÂ Piacenza in 1731. In 1734, during theÂ War of the Polish Succession,Â Charles, son of the BourbonÂ Philip V of Spain, conquered the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily from Austria. Spain had thus regained its two largest Italian possessions. After the MediciÂ dynasty inÂ Tuscany died out in 1737, Francis Stephen (Francis I)â€”duke of Lorraine, husband ofÂ Maria Theresa of Austria, and Holy Roman emperor after 1745â€”ruled asÂ grand duke of Tuscany from Vienna. And in 1748, after theÂ War of the Austrian Succession (1740â€“48), Austria regained Milan, which it had lost more than once in the preceding years.
A slow economic recovery began in Italy in the mid-1680s, but it remained weak into the early 18th century. A slump in the 1730s gave way to strong mid-centuryÂ economic growth, until the famines of 1763â€“67 highlighted the weakness and inefficiency of government policies. Regional differences in Italyâ€™s agricultural structure led to even greater divergences between north and south. Whereas some northern urban industries found refuge in smaller centres and rural settings, the south came to rely economically almost exclusively on agriculture. Overall, Italyâ€™sÂ foreign trade decreased and its exports shifted from high-value manufactured goods to relatively inexpensive raw materials (including agricultural products) and semifinished goods, while it became a net importer of finished industrial products. At the same time, the Italian domestic market also contracted, and increasing social and institutional constraints further limited productive and mercantile opportunities. While Italyâ€™s population between 1700 and 1800 rose by about one-third, to 18 million, that of the rest ofÂ Europe grew at twice that rate. Italyâ€™s relativeÂ demographic and economic stagnation were to prevent an agrarian or industrial revolution during the 18th century.
TheÂ aristocracy retained hegemonic control of politics and economics, dominating land ownership and manipulating legal and political institutions in the towns to maintain their position. Tensions and conflicts arose from time to time between the central authority of the absolutist states and the nobility, between the richÂ bourgeoisie or professional classes and the nobility, and among the nobles themselves, but the nobility blocked, worked out compromises with, and co-opted these rival groups to preserve aristocratic predominance. In the north, especially in the republican states, cityÂ oligarchies resisted erosion of their power and privileges. In sharp contrast, the social and economic position of the urban masses and the growing rural population deteriorated, while the difficulties of daily life increased.
By the beginning of the 18th century, a new cultural climate opened Italy to a wide range of European ideasâ€”especially theÂ philosophical thought ofÂ RenĂ© Descartes,Â Pierre Gassendi,Â Benedict de Spinoza,Â Pierre Bayle,Â Thomas Hobbes,Â John Locke,Â Sir Isaac Newton, andÂ Hugo Grotius. With it new cultural institutions came to the fore. TheÂ Academy of Arcadia, founded inÂ Rome in 1690, exemplified the channeling of energies for rationalism andÂ innovation. Among its more famous members,Â Gian Vincenzo Gravina,Â Ludovico Antonio Muratori, andÂ Giambattista Vico gained renown by launching juridical, historical,Â aesthetic, and â€śscientificâ€ťÂ critiques of society. Vicoâ€™sÂ Scienza nuova (1725;Â The New Science), the most enduring work produced by this group, found tepid reception in its own day, and the authorâ€™s ideas on a universalÂ philosophy of history won wide acceptance amongÂ Enlightenment thinkers only in the 1770s.Â Paolo Mattia Doria (1662?â€“1746) and the Medinaceli Academy in Naples also employed historical inquiry to seek remedies for societyâ€™s ills. Doria revived the idea of aÂ Platonic republicanism of philosophic magistrates, in which an anti-Enlightenment Catholicism would become a kind ofÂ civil religion. In Naples he led his group of self-styled â€śancientsâ€ť against the scientific â€śmodernsâ€ť led by the Neapolitan diplomat Celestino Galiani and Bartolomeo Intieri, a Florentine factor in Naples who provided a link to TuscanÂ intellectual circles. The ministerial class that developed in Spanish Italy from the early 16th century helped foster such networks of intellectual exchange between the cities of Italy and between Italy and the broaderÂ cosmopolitan centres of 18th-century Europe.
The political and cultural roles of theÂ churchâ€”in particular, the supranational character of the papacy, the immunity of clerics from the stateâ€™s legal and fiscal apparatus, the churchâ€™s intolerance and intransigence in theological and institutional matters, as well as its wealth and propertyâ€”constituted the central problems in the reform schemes of Italyâ€™sÂ nascent intellectual movement. The most incisive breakthrough came fromÂ Pietro Giannone (1676â€“1748), a Neapolitan jurist, who employed a jurisdictional, historical method to oppose church abuse of power and to break the churchâ€™s stranglehold on the state. Probably the strongest arguments for church reform came from Enlightenment thinkersÂ Francesco Scipione, marchese di Maffei (1675â€“1755), and Muratori (1672â€“1750), who sought toÂ reconcile politics withÂ morality and religion. Muratoriâ€™sÂ Della pubblica felicitĂ (1749; â€śOn Public Happinessâ€ť) reached Bourbon audiences in French and Spanish translations and was probably read in the Austrian Habsburg realms by Maria Theresa herself.