In 1989, on the two-hundredth anniversary of the French Revolution, the so-called Historical Axis of Paris was extended to the west with the inauguration of the modern Grande Arche, which was built on the same axis as the Arc de Triomphe and the smaller Arc de Triomphe du Carrousel.
The Historical Axis of Paris thus extends from the statue of Louis XVI in the Louvre, through the Arc de Triomphe du Carrousel, along the main esplanade of the Tuileries Gardens, through the Egyptian obelisk in Place Concorde, along the famous street the Champs Elysees, through the Arc de Triomphe and now to the Grande Arche.
Here is one view of the Historical Axis of Paris. The Grande Arche, further along this line, is not visible:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axe_historique#/media/File:Arc_de_Triomphe_du_Carrousel,_16_August_2008.jpg
Here is a view, westward along the Historical Axis of Paris, from the esplanade in the Tuileries Gardens:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axe_historique#/media/File:Axe-magistral.jpg
This is a view, from the top of the Grande Arche, in the modern business district of La Defense, looking eastward along the Historical Axis of Paris. The Arc de Triomphe can just be seen at the apparent end of the road, in the distance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axe_historique#/media/File:Axe-historique.jpg
What I would like to do, on our visit this week, is to suppose that the Historical Axis of Paris was extended in the other direction, to the east. Moving eastward, along the axis, from the Louvre, the next thing we would come to is a very old church, known as St. Germain Auxerrois:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Germain_l%27Auxerrois#/media/File:Saint-Germain_l%27Auxerrois_edit.jpg
THE ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S DAY MASSACRE
This church is as historic as anything on the Historical Axis of Paris, not because of it's great age, but because this is where wedding took place, which led to the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, in August 1572. The Reformation had begun in 1517, resulting in endless conflict over whether any given area would go with the Protestants or remain Catholic. The conflict in France was intense. A second-generation leader of the Reformation, John Calvin, was French. Protestants in France were known as Huguenots.
A wedding was planned in the church, St. Germain Auxerrois., between the king's Catholic sister, and a Protestant prince. Many of the top Huguenot leaders attended the wedding. Although the Huguenots controlled much of the rest of the country, Paris remained staunchly Catholic. A mob decided to take the opportunity to massacre so many with important positions in the Protestant movement.
The massacre seems to have achieved it's objective. The Huguenot movement was badly set back by the loss of many of it's leaders. The Catholic side would ultimately triumph in France.
But across northern Europe, Protestants were disgusted by this event. The Huguenot leaders had come in peace, to attend a wedding, and in no way had provoked the Catholics. The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre became a rallying point for Protestants, and led many western Europeans that were still undecided to choose the Protestant side.
THE REFORMATION
THE REFORMATION
The Reformation, whichever side one was on, changed the world. The Catholic position is that the king and the church should always be obeyed. The Protestant position is that people should read the Bible for themselves, and do more thinking for themselves, without relying solely on the interpretation of the church, and that rulers could forfeit their right to rule if they were corrupt, incompetent, or grossly unfair. As you may notice, modern democracy would not be possible without the Protestant way of thinking.
Catholicism itself was portrayed as a vestige of the Roman Empire, insisting that worship of God had to be controlled from what was, before the days of the European Union and modern transportation and communications, a distant and foreign city. And that church rites had to be done in the dead language of an decadent and idolatrous empire, which had actually been the ones to crucify Jesus, and that had not existed in more than a thousand years.
Protestants apparently had an advantage of being new and dynamic, more about the future, placing emphasis on learning, working hard, more individualism and, continuous improvement. While the Catholic Church seemed to be more about maintaining the way that things had always been done. The Renaissance had brought an attitude of learning and progress, to which the Protestant side was more in harmony.
Catholicism itself was portrayed as a vestige of the Roman Empire, insisting that worship of God had to be controlled from what was, before the days of the European Union and modern transportation and communications, a distant and foreign city. And that church rites had to be done in the dead language of an decadent and idolatrous empire, which had actually been the ones to crucify Jesus, and that had not existed in more than a thousand years.
Protestants apparently had an advantage of being new and dynamic, more about the future, placing emphasis on learning, working hard, more individualism and, continuous improvement. While the Catholic Church seemed to be more about maintaining the way that things had always been done. The Renaissance had brought an attitude of learning and progress, to which the Protestant side was more in harmony.
Catholics accused Protestants of being self-seeking renegades, breaking with the real church just for their own gain. Protestants accused Catholics of diluting the Word of God by adding centuries of un-biblical man-made traditions, and of using donation money for the cardinals and pope to live in luxury.
A primary spark that set off the Reformation was the Catholic selling of indulgences. These were certificates that one's sins were forgiven and were sold to raise money for building, particularly St. Peter's Basilica. Protestants told stories of streets with drinking and women of irregular profession, and with a cleric at the end of the street selling indulgences, implying that one could do whatever they wanted as long as they paid money for one of these certificates afterward.
There were certainly some self-seeking motives in the Reformation. In Luther's home region, German wealth was seen as flowing incessantly southward so that foreign cardinals could live like royalty. The Reformation meant a new social order and, as with all revolutions, those in a low position in the old social order may have a lot to gain from a new order. A society that is too hierarchical, or with too much of a wealth gap, makes itself vulnerable to such a new movement. When Moslems invaded India, for example, they found ready converts in the lower castes of Hinduism. Without the Caste System, Pakistan and Bangladesh would likely not exist today.
Whenever there is such a conflict, many simply choose the side that looks as if it is going to win. If history teaches us one thing it is that, regardless of what one really believes, it is better to be on a winning side than it is to be on a losing side. Plenty of people in occupied Europe collaborated with the Nazis, thinking that this was the new social order, but only for as long as they could keep people convinced that they were going to win.
I have pointed out the relationship between language and the Reformation, in one of the "Thoughts And Observations", on the world and economics blog. In western Europe, those areas where a Romance Language was spoken, languages descended from the Latin of the Roman Empire, virtually all remained Catholic. Those areas where a Germanic northern European language was spoken, virtually all went Protestant. The maritime trade routes through northern Europe of the former Hanseatic League appear to have been a conduit for spreading the ideas of the Reformation.
Martin Luther, generally considered as the initiator of the Reformation, was a devout German Catholic monk and was delighted to get the chance to visit Rome, but then didn't like what he found in the church there. A basis of the Reformation movement was Luther's reading of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, chapter 3, verse 28, about justification by faith and grace alone, which contradicted Catholic teachings. Wherever a significant number of German immigrants settle, there will almost surely be a street named for Luther. Martin Luther King was, of course, named for Martin Luther.
THE RESULTS OF THE REFORMATION AND THE ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S DAY MASSACRE
A primary spark that set off the Reformation was the Catholic selling of indulgences. These were certificates that one's sins were forgiven and were sold to raise money for building, particularly St. Peter's Basilica. Protestants told stories of streets with drinking and women of irregular profession, and with a cleric at the end of the street selling indulgences, implying that one could do whatever they wanted as long as they paid money for one of these certificates afterward.
There were certainly some self-seeking motives in the Reformation. In Luther's home region, German wealth was seen as flowing incessantly southward so that foreign cardinals could live like royalty. The Reformation meant a new social order and, as with all revolutions, those in a low position in the old social order may have a lot to gain from a new order. A society that is too hierarchical, or with too much of a wealth gap, makes itself vulnerable to such a new movement. When Moslems invaded India, for example, they found ready converts in the lower castes of Hinduism. Without the Caste System, Pakistan and Bangladesh would likely not exist today.
Whenever there is such a conflict, many simply choose the side that looks as if it is going to win. If history teaches us one thing it is that, regardless of what one really believes, it is better to be on a winning side than it is to be on a losing side. Plenty of people in occupied Europe collaborated with the Nazis, thinking that this was the new social order, but only for as long as they could keep people convinced that they were going to win.
I have pointed out the relationship between language and the Reformation, in one of the "Thoughts And Observations", on the world and economics blog. In western Europe, those areas where a Romance Language was spoken, languages descended from the Latin of the Roman Empire, virtually all remained Catholic. Those areas where a Germanic northern European language was spoken, virtually all went Protestant. The maritime trade routes through northern Europe of the former Hanseatic League appear to have been a conduit for spreading the ideas of the Reformation.
Martin Luther, generally considered as the initiator of the Reformation, was a devout German Catholic monk and was delighted to get the chance to visit Rome, but then didn't like what he found in the church there. A basis of the Reformation movement was Luther's reading of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, chapter 3, verse 28, about justification by faith and grace alone, which contradicted Catholic teachings. Wherever a significant number of German immigrants settle, there will almost surely be a street named for Luther. Martin Luther King was, of course, named for Martin Luther.
THE RESULTS OF THE REFORMATION AND THE ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S DAY MASSACRE
At first, the Protestant movement was merely a reform effort. Luther was a Catholic and never intended to start any kind of new church. Most reform movements never become anything like full-fledged revolutions.
One thing that sometimes makes a mere reform movement into a revolution is that one side, usually the establishment side, will commit some kind of atrocity. After that, any kind of concordance will no longer be possible.
With the American Revolutionary War, it was British soldiers opening fire on demonstrators at Lexington and Concord. With the Iranian Revolution it was "Black Friday", September 8, 1978, when the Shah's soldiers opened fire on demonstrators. After that, there was no more possibility of compromise. Either the revolution would succeed, or it would fail (it succeeded). In the French Revolution of 1789, the pivotal event might have been the troops of Lafayette's National Guard (the same Lafayette who helped America win independence) opening fire on demonstrators in the Champ de Mars, where the Eiffel Tower now stands, killing dozens of people.
With the American Revolutionary War, it was British soldiers opening fire on demonstrators at Lexington and Concord. With the Iranian Revolution it was "Black Friday", September 8, 1978, when the Shah's soldiers opened fire on demonstrators. After that, there was no more possibility of compromise. Either the revolution would succeed, or it would fail (it succeeded). In the French Revolution of 1789, the pivotal event might have been the troops of Lafayette's National Guard (the same Lafayette who helped America win independence) opening fire on demonstrators in the Champ de Mars, where the Eiffel Tower now stands, killing dozens of people.
The Reformation, and it's new and progressive ways of thinking, changed the world. It led people to seek better ways of doing things, rather than adhering to the ways things had always been done. One result was the Industrial Revolution. There certainly could not have been a United States, as we know it, without the Reformation. The founders of America wisely learned from the religious conflicts, that had caused so much bloodshed in Europe, and enshrined the principle of religious freedom, with religion and government being separate.
One way that I like to approach history is to point out the ironies in it. The suppression of the Protestant Huguenot movement in France seems to have been accomplished with the massacre of it's leaders after they had attended a wedding at this church. But it also galvanized the Protestant movement in general.
The French Revolution, more than two hundred years later, would be a rearrangement of the patterns of the Reformation, with both the monarchy and the church being the targets this time. Just down Rue de Rivoli from the church where the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre took place is Place Bastille, where the Bastille formerly stood. Just as the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacres was the pivotal event of the suppression of the Protestant movement in France, so the Storming of the Bastille would be the pivotal event of the French Revolution that would eliminate the monarchy, guillotine the Catholic king and queen, and drastically curtail the power of the Catholic Church.
Isn't it ironic that, without the galvanizing effect of the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre on the Reformation, the French Revolution which toppled the monarchy and curtailed the church, both of which supposedly ordered or encouraged the massacre, probably wouldn't have happened?
The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre took place after the Huguenot leaders had attended a wedding at this church and, more than two hundred years later, the king and queen and other Catholic royals and clerics would be guillotined at Place Concorde, about a fifteen minute walk away on the other side of the Louvre and the Tuileries Gardens. It is a lot easier to kill people than it is to kill ideas. In fact, trying to kill an idea often only makes it stronger in the long term.
By the way Rue de Rivoli, parallel to the Historical Axis of Paris, is historic too. In the great renovation of Paris, beginning in the mid-Nineteenth Century, this street was the first to be modernized and rebuilt. It featured a state-of-the-art modern sewer system running beneath it. The street was originally built to run along the north side of the Louvre, which had long been there. There is a plaque on this street, commemorating the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rue_de_Rivoli#/media/File:Rivoli_Afternoon.JPG
THE IRONY OF HISTORY
Irony is just all over. The Crusades, of the Middle Ages, were the military expeditions, launched by the pope, to recover the Holy Land from Moslem control. But, along the way, crusaders also sacked the Orthodox Christian city of Constantinople. The orthodox branch of Christianity had earlier broken away from the Catholic Church, in the schism of 1054. This, of course, weakened the Byzantine Empire and made it more vulnerable to conquest by the Moslems, which were strengthened and encouraged by the ultimate failure of the Crusades.
The Ottoman Empire conquered Constantinople in 1453, renaming it as Istanbul. But that drove many scholars to move westward, bringing copies of ancient classic stories with them. Nothing else that the Ottoman Turks could have done would have helped their European rivals more.
Some of these scholars made their way to northern Italy. This brought an interest in reviving the literature and learning of ancient times, most of which had previously been lost and forgotten. This great revival is referred to as the Renaissance, a French word meaning "rebirth". The invention of the printing press would greatly help in disseminating these old classics.
But among these revived old classics would be the texts of the Bible itself, in original Greek and Hebrew. This is what would lead to the Reformation, the comparing of the teaching and traditions of the church to the original Bible itself, not the church's Latin translation of it, the Vulgate. And the chance to read the Bible for oneself, rather than relying on the interpretation of the church. So, as it turns out, it was the Renaissance, generally considered to have begun in Florence, which ultimately resulted in the rending of the Catholic Church, based 200 km to the south in Rome. The series of events which divided the church began, of course, with the pope's launching of the Crusades.
The Reformation, and the printing press that made it possible, began in what is now Germany. But, ironically again, it is what would greatly delay the unification of the many small German-speaking duchies and principalities across central Europe into one nation, because it would split them between those that went with the Reformation and those which remained Catholic.
France would arrange the patterns of the Reformation to bring about it's great revolution, which would be hostile to the church and would spread secularism across Europe. Britain, which with the new Protestant thinking brought about the Industrial Revolution, would introduce evolutionary theory to the world.
France, with it's secularism spread by Napoleon's conquests, and Britain, with it's Theory of Evolution as an industrial-like process explaining the nature of living things, would make religion less important. This lessening of the importance of religion, along with the cause of unity to oppose Napoleon's conquests, would bring about the unification of Germany, with which Britain and France would engage in two world wars.
The way I see it, learning was done in ancient times, but then largely forgotten during the Middle Ages. The Renaissance was a multi-faceted rediscovery of these ancient classics and learning, that brought an atmosphere of progress and change. The Reformation brought that atmosphere of progress and change to religion. The Industrial Revolution was the bringing of that atmosphere of progress and change to technology. The Enlightenment was the bringing of that atmosphere of progress and change to science and reasoning. The French Revolution, and the American Revolution which shortly preceded it, was a bringing of that atmosphere of progress and change to politics.
The Reformation was, in the long term, not an entirely bad thing for the Catholic Church. Catholics were quick to initiate their own Counter-Reformation, which greatly improved the training and spirituality of priests. Much that is in the Catholic Church today actually originated in the Counter-Reformation.
The Catholics produced their own new translation of the Bible, the Douay Version which is still in use today. The Jesuits, the Catholic order to which Pope Francis belongs, began in the Counter-Reformation. Missionary efforts were greatly expanded, not only to compete with the Protestants but also to regain those lost to them. Future capitalists would take note of how competition between the two churches had greatly improved both Catholic and Protestant, and would apply the same concept to business. Martin Luther would, ironically, get the reforms that he wanted in the Catholic Church, by having it have to compete with a church with his name.
LESSONS OF THE ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S DAY MASSACRE
The French Revolution, more than two hundred years later, would be a rearrangement of the patterns of the Reformation, with both the monarchy and the church being the targets this time. Just down Rue de Rivoli from the church where the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre took place is Place Bastille, where the Bastille formerly stood. Just as the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacres was the pivotal event of the suppression of the Protestant movement in France, so the Storming of the Bastille would be the pivotal event of the French Revolution that would eliminate the monarchy, guillotine the Catholic king and queen, and drastically curtail the power of the Catholic Church.
Isn't it ironic that, without the galvanizing effect of the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre on the Reformation, the French Revolution which toppled the monarchy and curtailed the church, both of which supposedly ordered or encouraged the massacre, probably wouldn't have happened?
The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre took place after the Huguenot leaders had attended a wedding at this church and, more than two hundred years later, the king and queen and other Catholic royals and clerics would be guillotined at Place Concorde, about a fifteen minute walk away on the other side of the Louvre and the Tuileries Gardens. It is a lot easier to kill people than it is to kill ideas. In fact, trying to kill an idea often only makes it stronger in the long term.
By the way Rue de Rivoli, parallel to the Historical Axis of Paris, is historic too. In the great renovation of Paris, beginning in the mid-Nineteenth Century, this street was the first to be modernized and rebuilt. It featured a state-of-the-art modern sewer system running beneath it. The street was originally built to run along the north side of the Louvre, which had long been there. There is a plaque on this street, commemorating the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rue_de_Rivoli#/media/File:Rivoli_Afternoon.JPG
THE IRONY OF HISTORY
Irony is just all over. The Crusades, of the Middle Ages, were the military expeditions, launched by the pope, to recover the Holy Land from Moslem control. But, along the way, crusaders also sacked the Orthodox Christian city of Constantinople. The orthodox branch of Christianity had earlier broken away from the Catholic Church, in the schism of 1054. This, of course, weakened the Byzantine Empire and made it more vulnerable to conquest by the Moslems, which were strengthened and encouraged by the ultimate failure of the Crusades.
The Ottoman Empire conquered Constantinople in 1453, renaming it as Istanbul. But that drove many scholars to move westward, bringing copies of ancient classic stories with them. Nothing else that the Ottoman Turks could have done would have helped their European rivals more.
Some of these scholars made their way to northern Italy. This brought an interest in reviving the literature and learning of ancient times, most of which had previously been lost and forgotten. This great revival is referred to as the Renaissance, a French word meaning "rebirth". The invention of the printing press would greatly help in disseminating these old classics.
But among these revived old classics would be the texts of the Bible itself, in original Greek and Hebrew. This is what would lead to the Reformation, the comparing of the teaching and traditions of the church to the original Bible itself, not the church's Latin translation of it, the Vulgate. And the chance to read the Bible for oneself, rather than relying on the interpretation of the church. So, as it turns out, it was the Renaissance, generally considered to have begun in Florence, which ultimately resulted in the rending of the Catholic Church, based 200 km to the south in Rome. The series of events which divided the church began, of course, with the pope's launching of the Crusades.
The Reformation, and the printing press that made it possible, began in what is now Germany. But, ironically again, it is what would greatly delay the unification of the many small German-speaking duchies and principalities across central Europe into one nation, because it would split them between those that went with the Reformation and those which remained Catholic.
France would arrange the patterns of the Reformation to bring about it's great revolution, which would be hostile to the church and would spread secularism across Europe. Britain, which with the new Protestant thinking brought about the Industrial Revolution, would introduce evolutionary theory to the world.
France, with it's secularism spread by Napoleon's conquests, and Britain, with it's Theory of Evolution as an industrial-like process explaining the nature of living things, would make religion less important. This lessening of the importance of religion, along with the cause of unity to oppose Napoleon's conquests, would bring about the unification of Germany, with which Britain and France would engage in two world wars.
The way I see it, learning was done in ancient times, but then largely forgotten during the Middle Ages. The Renaissance was a multi-faceted rediscovery of these ancient classics and learning, that brought an atmosphere of progress and change. The Reformation brought that atmosphere of progress and change to religion. The Industrial Revolution was the bringing of that atmosphere of progress and change to technology. The Enlightenment was the bringing of that atmosphere of progress and change to science and reasoning. The French Revolution, and the American Revolution which shortly preceded it, was a bringing of that atmosphere of progress and change to politics.
The Reformation was, in the long term, not an entirely bad thing for the Catholic Church. Catholics were quick to initiate their own Counter-Reformation, which greatly improved the training and spirituality of priests. Much that is in the Catholic Church today actually originated in the Counter-Reformation.
The Catholics produced their own new translation of the Bible, the Douay Version which is still in use today. The Jesuits, the Catholic order to which Pope Francis belongs, began in the Counter-Reformation. Missionary efforts were greatly expanded, not only to compete with the Protestants but also to regain those lost to them. Future capitalists would take note of how competition between the two churches had greatly improved both Catholic and Protestant, and would apply the same concept to business. Martin Luther would, ironically, get the reforms that he wanted in the Catholic Church, by having it have to compete with a church with his name.
LESSONS OF THE ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S DAY MASSACRE
There is a lesson in the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, both for westerners and for Moslems.
The Islamic religion is now about 1,500 years old, with Christianity being about 600 years older. As you can see in the news every day, a lot of people are dying due to Islamic religious violence. But when the Christian religion was about the same age, exactly the same thing was happening in Europe. The only real difference is that the Protestants and Catholics of Reformation times did not have the internet to recruit people to their side, like IS does.
For Moslems, you can see how secular Europe is today. Christianity is growing rapidly, but in other parts of the world. It's traditional European heartland, with it's countless magnificent churches and cathedrals, is mostly secular now. The reason is that massacres that took place, like the St, Bartholomew's Day Massacre here, does not bring about the triumph of God. In the long term, it puts people off to religion. IS is doing exactly the same thing now, it just doesn't understand that.
Another irony is that the terrorist attack on Paris, in November 2015, was an Islamic reflection of the Christian massacre that had taken place not too far away, after the wedding at the church St. Germain L' Auxerrois, when the Christian religion was about the same age as the Islamic religion is now. The reason for the 2015 Paris attack seems to be to ensure that the refugees flowing into Europe, which IS would prefer to join them instead, would not be welcomed in Europe. But why was Paris selected as the site for the attack, when France was not the country taking the greatest number of refugees?
There are close parallels in the histories of Christianity and of Islam. Islam split into the two main branches of Sunni and Shiite, just as Christianity would split first Eastern Orthodox and then Protestant, from Catholic. Although the split in Islam would occur much earlier in it's history than would the divisions in Christianity. If we look at a map, it is easy to see that the location of Mecca, on the Arabian Peninsula, is exactly congruous to the location of the Vatican, in Rome, on the Italian Peninsula. The Islamic idea of Jihad is a close parallel to the Christian Crusades of the Middle Ages.
With these similarities between the two religions, couldn't there be underlying historical forces at work that would dictate that, since Christianity had a massacre in Paris, at the time the religion was about 1500 years old, and at a time of religious conflict, Islam should also have a massacre in Paris, when the religion was about 1500 years old and also at a time of religious conflict?
EASTWARD EXTENSION OF THE HISTORICAL AXIS OF PARIS
Another irony is that the terrorist attack on Paris, in November 2015, was an Islamic reflection of the Christian massacre that had taken place not too far away, after the wedding at the church St. Germain L' Auxerrois, when the Christian religion was about the same age as the Islamic religion is now. The reason for the 2015 Paris attack seems to be to ensure that the refugees flowing into Europe, which IS would prefer to join them instead, would not be welcomed in Europe. But why was Paris selected as the site for the attack, when France was not the country taking the greatest number of refugees?
There are close parallels in the histories of Christianity and of Islam. Islam split into the two main branches of Sunni and Shiite, just as Christianity would split first Eastern Orthodox and then Protestant, from Catholic. Although the split in Islam would occur much earlier in it's history than would the divisions in Christianity. If we look at a map, it is easy to see that the location of Mecca, on the Arabian Peninsula, is exactly congruous to the location of the Vatican, in Rome, on the Italian Peninsula. The Islamic idea of Jihad is a close parallel to the Christian Crusades of the Middle Ages.
With these similarities between the two religions, couldn't there be underlying historical forces at work that would dictate that, since Christianity had a massacre in Paris, at the time the religion was about 1500 years old, and at a time of religious conflict, Islam should also have a massacre in Paris, when the religion was about 1500 years old and also at a time of religious conflict?
EASTWARD EXTENSION OF THE HISTORICAL AXIS OF PARIS
The image that most people have of the outside of the Louvre is the courtyard with the glass pyramids. But the following image is actually the front of the Louvre. It was built as a palace, and the royal family moved from the "Palace of the City" where Sainte Chapelle is located, on the island in the river with Notre Dame. They later moved out of the Louvre, to the Palace of Versailles.
This left the Louvre being used to store royal archives, leading to it becoming the museum that it is today. The original "Palace of the City" would be partly used as a prison, known as the Conciergerie, where Marie Antoinette would be confined just before her execution.
The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre was, unfortunately, far from an isolated event. But it seems as if this served as at least one of the pivotal events of the Reformation. France is a peaceful country today, and Catholics and Protestant Christians have become mostly allies against secularism, but it seems as if this old church would be a logical part of the Historical Axis of Paris.
This left the Louvre being used to store royal archives, leading to it becoming the museum that it is today. The original "Palace of the City" would be partly used as a prison, known as the Conciergerie, where Marie Antoinette would be confined just before her execution.
The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre was, unfortunately, far from an isolated event. But it seems as if this served as at least one of the pivotal events of the Reformation. France is a peaceful country today, and Catholics and Protestant Christians have become mostly allies against secularism, but it seems as if this old church would be a logical part of the Historical Axis of Paris.
The following image is of the front of the Louvre, and the point of perspective would be on the Historical Axis of Paris, if it were to be extended eastward. Turn the image in the opposite direction, 180 degrees, using the compass feature on the right of the screen, and you will find yourself right next to the Church of St. Germaiin Auxerrois, where the French Protestant leaders attended a wedding before the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre took place:
No comments:
Post a Comment