John,

Yes, I certainly agree, in fact many works were financed by the church. Today I looked at a book illustrating the Gutenberg Bible. Such a sophisticated page layout. Impossible to imagine that book was the incubations of typography.

The birth of printing welcomed fresh intellectual pursuits, brave duels of intellectual considerations in math, optics, navigation, leading to discoveries of even, entire new worlds.

Anything but gloomy if you think of it that way. Maybe you could just stay away from politics and print some wonderful projects.

The Helsinki University had a great exhibit of early religious works. Some early printing but mostly calligraphic products. Something to see for sure. Most were incredibly ornamental and well done I must say. Papers were something to pay attention to. Some were whiter than white, others were see through and shiney. The Islamic folk had some pretty vibrant inks that looked as fresh as the day they were put to paper. Helsinki is funny, these wonderful events seems to pass through with dignity, not much fanfare, but respect all the same.

"independent of the teaching authority of the Church."

Not really John, I just don't believe in killing people. Never read the book, it wouldn't matter if it was in Latin or not. But my son is a Priest, my cousin a Priest and two cousins are Nuns.

Not really John, I just don't believe in killing people.

Nor do I, but I do think it is important to be accurate about why people are killed. When I started studying mediaeval history at University, I quickly became aware of two things: a) the potted version people receive in school is incredibly misleading and, in Britain and Canada at least, prejudiced by Protestantism, and b) every effort should be made to understand how people thought at other times, and to avoid anachronistic judgements. This does not mean that one cannot make moral judgements about the actions of people in other times and cultures, but we should try to understand why what they did made sense to them.

Maybe you could just stay away from politics...

I'm happy to stay away from politics most of the time: but religion is a different matter.


Back to books and type:

Have you seen a copy of the Gutenberg 42-line Bible in the flesh (actually calf skin)? The page layout is taken directly from the model established by the scribes: what is really amazing -- it took my breath away when I first saw a copy at the British Library, and it is not clear from any reproduction -- is just how black the ink is and how good the impression. It is indeed hard to reckon that the first major product of this new technology was also one of its very best examples. [The slightly earlier certificates of indulgence are not so good, but still impressive considering how new the methods and materials were.]

There is talk of ATypI coming to Helsinki in 2005.

--is just how black the ink is and how good the impression."

Early inks used burned pig bones. Pig bones carbon is the finest pigment, therefore making the densest black. Very little ink is required which minimizes the previously discussed horrors of over inking. When I was young I would order these blacks from Germany. They seemed to last forever.

"but religion is a different matter."

As you can see I have been surrounded by religion. The pompous potentate in the dress was my cousin. Despised him.

From the few things that I have read on the issue, it seems to me that the most controversial kind of Protestant printing was not so much the bible itself but of pamphlets and polemics.
It is important to bear in mind that the Reformation and the Counter-reformation were not only spiritual movements, but also very political. In this light, if the printing of scripture had seemed dangerous to catholics, it might be because it threatened their institutional monopoly on 'truth.' Also through the centuries the Catholic and the Orthodox creeds had amassed a whole complex of text pertaining to faith, but not part of scripture, such as the decrees of the oecumenical councils of Nicea and Chalcedon, and the writing of the church fathers-John Chrisostom. I am not a religious man myself, but I think that the reductionist activities of the Protestants brought a type of christianity that is closer and more personal, a type which I would favour being instinctively wary of religious institutions like the Vatican and, to a much lesser extent, the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Religion and Politics, in my view, should be distinct.

It is important to bear in mind that the Reformation and the Counter-reformation were not only spiritual movements, but also very political. In this light, if the printing of scripture had seemed dangerous to catholics, it might be because it threatened their institutional monopoly on 'truth.'

Why not because they saw it as a threat to the salvation of souls that relied upon the truth of doctrine? There seems to be a common assumption today -- perhaps related to the widespread relativism in our society -- that the Church could not actually believe what it teaches and is only motivated to defend the faith in order to defend temporal, material power. Lots of people believe that nothing is true, so find it hard to grasp that the Church actually does believe what it teaches. But the Church does believe, and it defends the faith because it seeks to save souls. Consider, if you genuinely believed that Christ is present in the Eucharist, and that anyone who received the Eucharist while rejecting this belief was in sin and condemning himself, wouldn't you have a responsibility to defend that belief against people writing pamphlets and polemics attacking it, for the sake of the man who comes to the sacraments?

The reformation and counter reformation were political as well as religious because people lived in tight, hierarchical societies, and the belief of the local secular powers determined what religious expression was permitted. Protestantism spread in Germany through convincing the political powers that the new religion was in their interest. Max Weber famously theorised that Protestantism encouraged the development of Capitalism. Amintore Fanfani presents what I think it a more convincing argument, backed up by a lot of documentary evidence, that Protestantism was encouraged by nascent Capitalists who were seeking a religion that would not impose restrictions on their ability to make money (as the Church had done throughout the Middle Ages). So, yes, it was a political struggle, but this in turn was a struggle between opposing views of society, and not simply about power.

John,

Actually I have found some rather disturbing news. In fact it appears the beheadings were accurate as recorded in the book Nick Schwabe had gifted to me. Remember how I said I believed everything he said when I was young, and still do. I thought I would look into this.

My new material is in Finnish, I am told the documentation is deep, credentials impeccable, evidence volumous and recorded.
Country in question Germany, as I had mentioned, year appears to be 1529, the Catholic Church had printers beheaded, books were burned, shops ransacked. Christianity "an accusation" was the fault of literacy of which printers were clearly blamed. Half a million Christians were exterminated by the Church. The remaining, or the ones fortunate enough to escape fled spreading Christianity in Northern Europe.

The Church became . . . "Non Christian" and immediately afterwards declared "Proclaimed Freedom of Religion".

At least they have a sense of humour!

"Why not because they saw it as a threat to the salvation of souls that relied upon the truth of doctrine? There seems to be a common assumption today -- perhaps related to the widespread relativism in our society -- that the Church could not actually believe what it teaches and is only motivated to defend the faith in order to defend temporal, material power."

I do believe that, Catholics and Protestants sincerely believed in what it is that they were doing, and that their spiritual salvation depended on it. So you are right in stressing the importance of that fact, but, there is no way around the fact that when any system of beliefs, essentially a moral code of conduct, is institutionalised and embodied by one group of people the essence of these beliefs is very often lost. As a result these beliefs are exploited in order to protect temporal and material interests.
A typical example of the way this worked was the 'donation of Constantine', a lie invented to justify the primacy of the Holy See of St. Peter's over the other Patriarchates. There was no belief involved, only a political need to establish the Catholic church as a leading institution. This also shows how the monopoly of truth so long enjoyed by the Church was often employed to further temporal interests.

"Church actually does believe what it teaches,"

This may not be a good defense. Hitler actually believed what he did to the Jews was a "good thing". He expressed similar impatience with folk writing pamphlets protesting his beloved cause. Hopefully it is uneeded to discuss whether or not Hitler was a "bad, man". Interestingly though, the Pope, ??Pius V??? at the time of Hitler was called Hitler's Pope. He worked to further the cause of the Church at the expense of Jews, Orthdox Greeks, and moved to declare the Catholic Church "Non Christian". Reason, Christ was a Jew! The book is well documented, easily available, called "Hitler"s Pope".

This history is far more recent. And no, I am not in the habit of reading material that stands against any religion. I read it at my "Priests Son's house" while waiting to fly to Finland.

This is quite interesting material. There are no nice guys. Except the printers.

Dangerous occupation. Apparantly you were in big trouble if you printed anything protesting persecution or censorship. It did not matter if you were printing religious materials at all. Just don't say anything against the Church or anything the Church had not officially approved.

Even a theatre poster.

This may not be a good defense.

Defense of what? I wasn't intending it as a defense of anything. As I stated above, I'm not trying to convince anyone that the Church is right, I'm just trying to communicate what I understand to be the reality of the Church's position.

Regarding John Cornwell's book Hitler's Pope I recommend that you read what professional historians, including Jewish historians, have had to say about this book. It is not well-regarded. I attended a lecture on Pius XII and the Nazis, some months after it was published, by John Conway, one of the leading experts on the history of the Christian communities in Germany and occupied countries during the Nazi period (and not himself a Catholic). Professor Conway characterised Hitler's Pope and a spate of similar books as very poor history both in terms of methodology and their anti-Papal agenda. The most damning criticism of the book came from Professor Richard Breitman, a Jewish historian and consultant for the working group for the restitution of Jewish property stolen by the Nazis. Among Breitman's conclusions: 'Hitler distrusted the Holy See because it hid Jews'. Meanwhile, another Jewish historian, Rabbi David Dalin, has accused John Cornwell and similar authors of historical revisionism, and reaffirms the respect and gratitude granted to Pius XII by Jews after the war: 'Pope Pacelli was righteous among the nations, who must be recognized for having protected and saved hundreds of thousands of Jews. It is difficult to imagine that so many world Jewish leaders, in such different continents, could have been mistaken or confused when it came to praising the Pope's conduct during the War. Their gratitude to Pius XII lasted a long time, and it was genuine and pro-found.'

H, the donation of Constantine is an embarassment, but it is worth noting that it was produced when the Byzantine Church was challenging the primacy of Rome. Prior to that time, the primacy of Rome had been generally recognised, and had not needed justification other than what were universally regarded as such: the Petrine texts in the Gospels and the record of orthodox doctrine that persisted in Rome while the Greek church struggled with internal heresies such as monophysistism to which even its patriarchs were not immune.

Well, I am glad to hear that "Hitler's Pope" may not have been accurate. I would have to know more which is unlikely because it is not even of secondary interest to me. My interest is typography and boats. But historians gather dust and their job by and large is to protect 'Status Quo". They are basically talking heads giving yesterdays news. Almost all employed by "some entity".

I remember the present Pope apologizing to the Jews for the Church regarding the last war. I had assumed it was about that.

But their praise for the Pope surprises me. I have heard little praise from them about "Mussolini" for instance. An author writing for the, I think, (Jewish League) wrote a book searching for evidence to prove Mussolini was against the Jews. The author came up dry until at such point the Germans had over run Italy, about the time of the spectacular Alps rescue. (Quite the story) From what I could make out Mussolini was clearly the only world leader that actively worked on the behalf of European Jews. The others considered it either spectator material, or a participatory sport. But still the author gave Mussolini no praise. Even though he cited tiring evidence that Mussolini was indeed a true friend of the Jewish peoples. So in the end the author seemed to be satisfied by what he found in the later days of the war. Mussolini came up clean but was "not" praised. The author had failed his mission.

I believe that the author made much ado about the fact that, under extreme pressure from Hitler, Mussolini passed an act requiring Jewish peoples to declare loyalties to Italy. Such requirements are certainly not unusual especially at times of war. But duality is not acceptable citizenship in many countries in peace. Canada was far less kind to the Japanese in the last war confiscating the assets of its Japanese citizens and incarcerating them in dismal camps for the duration of the war. Only recently compensating them with a meagre 12,000. each. How many houses can you buy in Vancouver for 12,000.

It should be noted, since this is about typography, that Mussolini was a great believer in the powers of the press.

The press has had uneasy relations with religions throughout its history. Cetainly not just the Catholic Church. Protestants are not free of censorship guilt either.

But back to matter of the Catholic Church, early Printers and dubious schemes to appease the paper God "Money". "Capatilism" at its' lowest. It appears that if you were a very rich donating printer you could freely profit from publishing unapproved translations of the Bible, freely publish other religious materials including works on Luther. There were no obsticals spiritual or otherwise for rich "donar heretics".

This particular printer / publisher seemed to print whatever turned a "prune". He published 800 books. Anyone knowing the amount of work it takes to hand set a single book can appreciate how monumental that undertaking was. Those that have not hand set a book simply can not imagine. In any event he bequethed much monies to both city and Church. These buildings and lands are still enjoyed and the "monies" have not expired hundreds of years later. The Churches tolerance was well rewarded.

Unfortunately most material I am finding is in Finnish. My wife has a Finnish bookstore. Gutenberg was uneasy about a new and improved currency generator. The old Indulgentia was now more prolific than ever. The Church was having Gutenberg print business class flight tickets to heaven for the already "dead and gone to hell".

Gutenberg was uneasy with this application of his invention. There is some thoughts his displeasure may have contributed to his financial woes.

"I think this is a Protestant myth,"

This is the area of my personal focus. I have satisfied my curiosity. My conclusions are that the book I was given by my master was indeed based on fact. My book spoke of beheadings. Beheadings is consistent as method of executions of heretics in Germany in this period of history. It is coherant with the other material I have found including the time frames. Beheading is at variance to the original stories that initiated this discussion. However these other stories played in the back drop of other countries. As such, variance is not exactly, "a big surprise".

That John is accurate when he says that Protestants were not without their own guilt. Certainly I have confirmed that. I have vivid examples of explicit penalities imposed on Finnish printers and general guidlines for printing absolutely anything at all. The most trivial printings were absolutely scrutinized by the "Protestant Church" in Sweden when Finland was under their rule. Even the slightest departure came with minimum penalty of one half of one entire years income from every printer in the shop. Penalties for this printing was imposed on one specific minor scheduled printing. The singlular exemption from the rule.

I have not looked into the penalties of any other infringments of the strictly policed printings. But I am sure that horror kept printers honest. These other printings had first to be transported to Sweden, read, approved or otherwise, changes or correction made, returned to Sweden for verification before presses were run. Nothing, except the above mentioned single exemption, was printed without the approval of the Protestant Church in Sweden.

I believe in modern objectives of freedom of the press. Freedom of the press exceeds speculation of any merits of the alternative. And I believe that freedom of religion is a "sacred right". Maybe, not so wrongly, blood has spilled over these freedoms.

I remember the present Pope apologizing to the Jews for the Church regarding the last war.

You misremembered. The apology to the Jews was for various expressions of antisemitism within the Church's history, not for anything that the Holy See did during the war.

This has been an interesting discussion, but I can't think of much I want to add to what I've said already. The stuff about printing in Finland is fascinating, but I don't know enough to comment on it. I'll just add one comment in response to Gerald's final statement about freedom of the press and freedom of religion. In the 19th century, Pope Pius IX wrote that 'error has no rights', while at Second Vatican council confirmed liberty of belief. That these teachings are not contradictory is an interesting philosophical proposition and provides an insight into an institution that from age to age must change and yet remain constant.

You misremembered. The apology to the Jews was for various
expressions of antisemitism within the Church's history, not for
anything that the Holy See did during the war.

The Italian [Jewish] historian Carlo Ginzburg has written an
interesting essay

Some Jews were critical of the Pope for not going further. For myself - I am Jewish - I am profoundly grateful for it. It seems to me an important turning point in Jewish - Christian relations.

Rodolfo, do you know if Carlo Ginzburg's essay has been translated into English? Also, does Ginzburg make a distinction between antisemitism and anti-Judaism? The Church has been, and remains, critical of Judaism for much the same reason that it is critical of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. That criticism has often been unnecessarily hostile in respect to Judaism, because it has been historically influenced by antisemitism, but it is also something distinct from antisemitism. Antisemitism -- hatred and mistrust of Jewish persons -- is a cancer that needs to be cut out of the Church and out of all societies. Christians and Jews are always going to be critical of one another's beliefs: ignoring the Messiah when he comes and following a false Messiah are both damning charges, and they cannot be swept under the carpet without distorting both religions. What I and many other Catholics hope will follow from the Pope's apology, and from the ongoing efforts to improve Catholic-Jewish relations, is that the historical mistrust and hatred will be excised, leaving a legitimate critical discourse which proceeds with respect for those persons with whom one disagrees. It is a difficult task to both respect a person and to believe something different from them about who God is and what He has done: in the past most people found it easier to hate; nowadays many people find it easier to abandon their beliefs.

'Historically influenced' and 'unnecessarily hostile' are a bit mild as a description of the slaughter of Jews during the Crusades and the persecution during the Inquisition. And the continued discrimination, invective and incitement in subsequent centuries.

I think the Pope's apology acknowledges that the Church actively did wrong. Such magnanimity is so unusual in human history that it leaves me in stunned admiration. As for respectful disagreement - Amen. Even on typophile!

Rodolfo, do you know if Carlo Ginzburg's essay has
been translated into English?

I suppose so. The essay in question was a short coda
to his book

Found it here:

Wooden Eyes.

'Historically influenced' and 'unnecessarily hostile' are a bit mild as a description of the slaughter of Jews during the Crusades and the persecution during the Inquisition. And the continued discrimination, invective and incitement in subsequent centuries.

But those are examples of antisemitism -- and correctly acknowledged by the Pope as wrong --, and I was talking about anti-Judaism, i.e. of criticism of the Jewish religion. I agree that historically the two phenomenon are difficult to separate, especially as they influenced each other so much. But it is possible, and indeed important, to separate them philosophically in order to locate a legitimate critical, theological objection to Judaism and also to be able to condemn antisemitism thoroughly and without compromise. I certainly did not intend to be 'mild and gentle with these butchers', only to indicate how criticism of Judaism, which can be and should be respectful of Jewish persons, has been infected by antisemitism. 'Unnecessarily hostile' was intended to convey the distinction between saying 'Failure to recognise Christ as the promised Messiah is a grave error of Judaism, and this inevitably raises questions about the salvation of those who keep to this error' and saying 'Failure to recognise Christ as the Messiah is a grave error of Judaism, so all Jews are going to burn in Hell because their ancestors rejected Christ'. The latter is significantly hostile, infected by antisemitism, and the hostility is unnecessary to the critique; indeed, it is a distortion.

By the way, I'm not saying that the Catholic view of Judaism is completely critical. Catholics and Jews disagree about central truths -- most importantly the nature of Christ and soterology -- but they agree on much else. Ditching the antisemitism not only clarifies legitimate criticism but also will hopefully lead to better understanding of our shared roots and moral teachings. In this I hope you are right that the Pope's apology represents a turning point.

If I were not convinced of the divinity of Christ, I would be attracted to Judaism (although I'm mighty relieved only to be circumcised in the spirit). As it is, I'm necessarily a blasphemer to any religious Jew.

>a blasphemer to any religious Jew.

No, being a Christian doesn't make you a 'blasphemer' in Jewish eyes; it just makes you not a Jew.

Technically, in Rabbinic law to become a blasphemer you would have to curse God using the sacred Hebrew name (which nobody is certain how to pronounce), or, in some opinions, curse God using one of the substitute Hebrew names of God - which I don

No, being a Christian doesn't make you a 'blasphemer' in Jewish eyes; it just makes you not a Jew.

I suppose that's a relief, but the fact that I don't even qualify as an idolator borders on the disappointing.

Thanks for the lesson, William.