>The groups you mention weren't really effective politically as
>Bohemia was the (rather mainstream) Hussites while Muenster
>was caused by fringe Anabaptists.
Considering that they were usually extremely poorly equiped and badly led, the (admittedly short term) successes of groups like the Anabaptists and the Taborites are startling, both to me and the powers of their day. The speed and ferocity of these movements say a lot about the anxiety and dissatisfaction of Medieval Europe, even during the "high water" period of the crusades. Most of the groups I mentioned had enormous political impact, although usually only for a year or two; for a whole variety of reasons, they self-destructed. Some (the Flagellants come to mind) showed considerable longevity; stamped out over and over again, they would flair up during new crises. And their central concers refused to die out. There is a fair amount of "common currency" in all of these movements; the Fratricelli and the Munster Anabaptists, although separated by centuries and occuring in different social and political (and religious) climates, would have agreed on many key points (and then slaughtered each other).
In any case, the medieval
>social order also based its legitimacy upon the Kingdom of God
>(which is something that I've tried to reflect in the Malkioni
>description of their social order in the glorantha introduction).
>IMO the effectiveness of the revolution was not so much due to
>their desire for a New Jerusalem but because the legitimacy (and
>hence authority) of the existing order had been called into
>question.
The New Jerusalem (and the Millenium of Christ as earthly paradise, more generally) features strongly in nearly every fringe Christian movement in the 13th and 14th C. A second thread is the presence of a church that preached poverty, humility, etc. while practicing (at least to the eyes of the lower orders) luxury and arrogance. Naturally, the erosion of the "peasant-friendly" side of the feudal equation (and its conflict with the Kingdom of God and Great Chain of Being models) increased the anxiety levels even as it created both economic opportunity and economic and social dislocation, but for the 13th and 14th Cs the New Jerusalem was much on people's minds (especially after the Crusader Kingdoms collapsed and the old Jerusalem was "lost."
>The main religious movement in Ralios (well Safelster) isn't
>really marked by a desire for a New Jerusalem but more of a
>renaissance looking back to the Autarchy/Classical Age.
Yes, for the people who expect to benefit politically from a return of the Autarchy (Lords, the Churchs, Burghers). However, these urges could translate to the poor, especially the anxious poor (displaced peasants, urban paupers), as a longing for the original Kingdom of Logic (however that place is spelled) or, rather, their imaginary construction of it (nobody works, there's always enough to eat, everyone lives like Lords -- the usual peasant fantasy). The cults that formed around Frederick II ("he's not dead, he's sleeping under this mountain") are possibly a fruitful source of ideas: this is, more or less, what the Proven Appearance of Arkat is about, right?
>AFAIK
>vernacular translations acquired a bad stigma because they were
>associated with these other beliefs.
I'm not sure you can remove one from the other. Vernacular translations were part of the church reform movement from the 14th to the 16th C, along with church wealth, indulgences, concubinage (not so big a deal as it was a few hundred years earlier), simony, etc.. Various groups gave more or less weight to these factors. However, your comments on the Abiding Book stand; if the written forms of Western don't vary all that much, there isn't much point; the few literate people should be able to read it. An additional point: since the Abiding Book is a grimoire, presumably original language versions would be more effective, reducing the usefulness of a vernacular edition. Besides, without printing presses and spreading literacy, there is really no point to a vernacular version. I confess; it was a silly idea.
>Another point to consider is the potential impact. It's all
>very well to posit RW religious controversies onto the west
>but without any potential impact other than "you could die for
>merely saying X in place Y".
Absolutely. In this case, I think that the rigid structure of Malkioni castes (even in Loskalm), combined with a fairly backward looking society (all of Glorantha looks to the Golden (or at least Storm) Age as a better time, but in the West it must be especially acute because their Golden Age Kingdom is physically gone), and periods of anxiety (The Godlearners, their destruction, the Ban, the Hero Wars) makes them open to heretical thinking. I think Ralios is much more open to this sort of thing because the lack of a "one-party" church. Much the way that the presence of Puritains in 17th C England (along with the Scots Presbyterians) encouraged first the formation of the Quakers (somewhat orthodox) and eventually the various "sects" of the Ranters (very unorthodox). In the 17th C especially (where records are better than the 13th & 14th Cs), unorthodox preachers tended to move "outward" from the Church of England, drifting through increasingly "fringe" sects to find their spot. I can easily imagine this happening in the unsettled atmosphere of Ralios.
>So instead of saying "Sect Y is persecuted because it believes
>in arcane doctrine X", it is more worthwhile IMO to flesh out
>the material consequences of that action.
Absolutely again. On the other hand, I don't want to spend a lot of time thinking about, say, Flagellants in Ralios if it's already been decided that they don't exist.
Peter Larsen
Powered by hypermail