Absolutism

It is true for today that when one thinks of absolutism, one usually thinks of only its negative aspects. But absolutism has its benefits. In our text, it states that "absolute rulers maintained their authority by controlling a centralized bureaucracy and a standing army, and by pursuing economic policies designed to maximize the wealth of the state." With an absolutist ruler, a state is able to flourish economically, politically, and culturally. A positive side of this comes from the cultural aspect. Absolute rulers can be a bit egotistical and want to show just how wealthy and majestic they are, and one way to do that is with the arts. Many of the most beautiful pieces of art ever created were ordered to be made by absolute rulers such as the Taj Mahal, the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, the statue of David, the list could go on and on. If it were not for the self-centeredness and competitiveness of absolutists, we would probably not have many of the art pieces that we have today.

Although culture usually thrives with an absolute government, it is not the type of government I would have run any sort of society. I think that the negatives outweigh the positives in that case. In an absolute government a ruler does not always have the people's best interest in mind which can be detrimental for society. I also think that placing that amount of power into any one person's hands is very risky and does not usually have a positive outcome which is why we do not see that type of government today.

Absolutism: good or bad?

Status Quo- Hobbes

I can't help but feel that the "Rise of Absolutism" during the period of time was nothing more than a continuation of trends throughout history. Having a single ruler with absolute power was far from new.

In Europe there were two major powers that had non-absolutist governments. The Greeks had a democracy and the Romans had a republic. Eventually around year 27BC the Romans became an Empire and proceeded to set the bar for corrupt egoistic wasteful tyrants. This lasted until the Attila the Hun (another absolute autocrat) came and crashed the party. The Roman Empire was thus divided into small kingdoms. Europe would then continue being ruled by autocrats until democracy got popular.
In China Emperors ruled the land with with the Mandate of Heaven from the Han Dynasty forward (~200BC). When the Manchu clans ousted the Ming dynasty and created the Qing dynasty they were replacing one Absolutist system with another. Having a single all-powerful ruler was the status Quo for China.
Persia was an ancient empire of even biblical fame, sporting a series of Xerxes themed Absolute Emperors. The ancient Persians were conquered by Alexander the Great, who was a King. His Kingdom dissolved on his death to form the Parthian Empire, who was conquered by the Sassanid Empire, who were absorbed by the Arab Caliphate (who were mostly Absolutiste rulers, but elected by their people). Once Persia liberated itself the Safavid Dynasty was set up and thus arrived Shah Abbas the Great.
Other examples throughout history of Absolute rulers
-The Egyptian Pharaohs
-The Golden Horde
-The Japanese Emperors and Shogun (during the Classical and Feudal periods respectively)
-Russian Czars
-Later Aztec rulers

In conclusion, the appearance of absolute rulers during this period of time was no more strange than their appearance at any time in history. Democracy was impossible to manage with large states and slow communication. Republics were weak and slow to act, allowing them to get conquered by strong autocrats. Theocracy was popular but the will of God tended to be interpreted by one all-powered ruler rather than by comittee. Thus absolutism became the status quo for human history, and the rulers we read about were both very powerful and a dying breed.

Absolutism: an outdated political theory

In the 17th century absolute rule and divine ruler seemed to characterize many of the major empires. While today we may see this type of rule (at least i see it) as outdated and troublesome, in the 17th century it seems most citizens in the different empires were accepting of this rule. There are some advantages to absolute rule, first that one or a few rulers rule over an entire empire thus leaving no room for dissent. These rulers alone decide what is good for the empire. I believe this can be both good and bad. It's good because if a decision is made the rulers don't have to wait for it to be approved or passed, they can take action immediately as in cases of war or decisions that need to be made quickly. This can also be bad though because if one person or a few people are making decisions for an entire empire, the people beneath them are bound to disagree and if they do there is nothing they can do to change the decision of the ruler. In fact these people may be punished for disagreeing with the absolute ruler. Another positive aspect of absolute rule is that these rulers may actually have the best interests of their empires at heart (although some did not) and may actually do things that profit their empires. For example, Louis XIV made the arts prosperous in France and established many different academies for the French people. Suleiman of the Ottoman Empire created a golden age of literature and art during his reign, the Safavids of Persia made their empire the political, economic and cultural leader of Asia, and the Moguls of India gave the people in their empire religious toleration. But while these leaders may have done things to benefit their empire, many absolute rulers were selfish and controlling and approved things they cared about. Louis XIV for example, caused France to become impoverished because of his lavish spending in the arts. He also taxed the poor and peasants heavily to generate money for his indulgences. The same is true of the Moguls- their peasants were taxed heavily and although their empire thrived the lower class was unhappy and living in poverty. The Ming and Qing dynasties in China are another great example of controlling absolute rulers who didn't do what was in the best interest of their people. In Faith, Reason and Power it says the Chinese people were afraid to threaten their authority, forced to adopt the Manchu hairstyle and forbidden to enter the Forbidden City.

So while there are both positive and negative aspects of absolute rule, I personally would never choose this form of government. I believe that there needs to be someone to balance the absolute rulers power because if there isn't they will make decisions in their own interests and for their benefit. Also, an absolute ruler mutes the voice of the people which is extremely important, especially in today's society. If we had an absolute ruler, people's disagreement would be put down and not listened too and sometimes the citizens ideas are the best. Finally, if one leader doesn't listen to the complaints of their people, this will cause the citizens to be unhappy and possibly revolt, causing more problems within the empire. So while this rule may have worked for a period in the 17th and 18th centuries it is far too outdated and has too many drawbacks to be brought back.

Absolutism was reactionary

As absolutism spread across Europe and the East and democracy in many nations appeared to be as distant as ever, it is not unreasonable to place some of the responsibility of this trend on the citizens of these nations. Absolutism would not have arisen had the circumstances dictated it's apparent necessity and the citizens accepted this policy. As rulers, noblemen, and ordinary citizens heard of rival nations gaining more and more power, mostly due to these nations becoming absolutist, it seems to be a natural reactionary policy for these other nations to adopt absolutism. Though the end result of French absolutism was the bankruptcy of the nation and a violent revolution, initially some important benefits were seen.

The monarchy of France before Louis XIV was somewhat powerful, as most monarchies of the period were. Britain still had a powerful monarchy, as well as Germany and several other major nations. An advantage of a powerful monarchy was the ability to raise a unified army, regulate a unified economy, and establish a more unified language. However, Henri IV and Louis XIII were not nearly as powerful as many other monarchs. The nobles of the different regions still had great control over their territories and the king had relatively limited power in governing these regions. France had suffered from years of religious civil war before Henri IV assumed the throne and settled the religious conflict. France had relative peace for quite a while, until the nobles attempted to regain their former power with La Fronde. When Louis came of age in 1659, he assumed absolute power to finally settle the nobles' power grab and put them firmly under his thumb.He became the greatest singular power in France and amassed his own standing army to enforce his will, deter attacks by rival nations, and keep the nobles in their place. After years and years of internal struggle tearing the nation apart and making France vulnerable to outside attack, it is not surprising that Louis XIV consolidated national power in the most direct way without the objection of the people.

In retrospect, absolutism is seen generally as an abuse of power and an abuse of the lower classes. However, the people initially welcomed the extended power of Louis XIV. They saw new hope in a strong protector of France, both militarily and culturally. Louis XIV took French art in a different direction with neo-classicism. While the policies of the various cultural acadamies were restrictive, a notably nationalistic form of art arose. Great architectural works of art were also created according to Louis' rigid standards, such as the construction of the Chateau at Versailles and the renovation of the Louvre. During this time, the Academy of French Language had great influence and worked at refining the language to compete with the poetic eloquence of ancient Greek and Latin. As time passed, however, it became clear that Louis' extreme power was bankrupting the country. His personal extravagances, many small wars, and political dealings put the nation further and further in debt while also taxing the middle and lower taxes highly. While the beginnings of absolutism appear to have been beneficial, in hindsight, absolutism was ultimately detrimental to the state of France.

Absolutism is evil

The definition of absolutism or an absolute monarchy is not definite. This definition was from the dictionary: A political theory holding that all power should be vested in one ruler or other authority. I am using this definition as an example of what the entire concept stands for. First off it says “theory” because in reality nothing is absolute especially government. “One” is a very important world that demonstrates the improbable extremities of this “Theory.” I didn’t initially understand how such an extreme idea could be practiced (or attempted.) The idea of having absolutism has appeared to be ideal to many empires in the 16th through 18th century. Starting with many monarch in Muslim empires like the rule of Suliman in the Ottoman empire, through many different reigns in Persia, India and into Europe. They all have a common theme: they didn’t last. Some might make the argument that Louis XIV reign lasted very long, but how can any one say his rule was successful. He left the country in shambles and was eventually over throw by the revolution.

I am taking the popular belief to very one-sided argument. There are some positives to there “Absolute Evil” that was practiced during this era. The positives doing even get close to out weighting the negatives, but they were still relevant to the time. The great architecture and art of the era was magnificent. The masterpieces that were constructed during this era are unmatched by any other artistry of mankind. The extreme wealth of these rules was demonstrated by the constructing of great buildings such as the Taj Mahal. The wealth of the absolutisms was very apparent, but the monarchs who ran the empires didn’t use it for the people they used it for personal entertainment and extraordinary works of art. There were great strides in the art world that were made, but the suffering of the people was a good enough reason to strongly disagree with Absolutism.

Absolutism; we needed it, but couldn't keep it

Absolutism must have something working for it seeing as every civilization that the book discusses in the 17^th and 18^th century was at one time under its rule.  From Louis XIV in France to the Qing dynasty in China it seems that the whole world thought of absolutism as some great way to rule a country or state.  Obviously they were wrong since these countries now have different systems of government or simply don’t exist anymore.  With that said however Absolutism did work for a time.  The book states that “when the Qing dynasty reached its zenith—during the very last years that Louis XIV ruled France—it governed the largest, most populous, and one of the most unified states in the world”.  With such a prosperous time its hard to imagine how this system for ruling failed.  However when looked at closer these times were not so prosperous for everyone.  The king/Emperor/Shah or whatever they were called lived lavishly while the peasants crawled through their lives living very poor.  Without this period of absolutism it can be argued that we would not have such grand palaces and temples such as Versailles or the Taj Mahal, also we might not have the great art pieces or plays and ballads as we do know if it weren’t for these extremely powerful rulers who needed to be entertained.  In short the world needed absolutism, it just couldn’t sustain it for very long.  There were just to many poor and the rich lived to lavishly.  It was to evil and gave way under the extreme pressure for equality in the world.  This is why today absolutism is a rare find. 

first post

I found it interesting that the surge of Catholic reformers had such a profound effect on artists.  Artists started moving away from the Renaissance style of painting to a style known as mannerism.  Michelangelo is a prime example of an artist radically altering his style of painting.  When Michelangelo began the Sistine Chapel there is hopefulness about it, but once he went back to finishing it, there was a more pessimistic tone to it.  I think it is interesting that the style not only became more pessimistic, but also more conservative and unrealistic.  Where humans were painted naked, cloth is painted over their private parts as well as exaggerated physical features of different religious figures, making them look less human. 

First Post

I thought it was interesting how the changes in the Catholic religion, such as an increase in militancy and a more personal religious experience, were reflected in the arts through the baroque and mannerist styles. For example, in Michelangelo’s The Last Judgment, the religious turmoil is clearly displayed through the figures in the painting. The use of the contrast between light and dark in Tintoretto’s The Last Supper also shows the religious change by displaying a darker side of religion and a rejection of traditional ideals. I also thought Bernini’s David was interesting because he conveyed a more active and passionate David which conveyed the increased personal experience of religion at the time as well as the increased militancy. Overall the changes in artistic style reflected the changes in religion at the time.

It is clear in viewing the art from the boroque period, that the church influenced the artists. Jesus and angels are seen in many of the pieces in the text book. The artists drew attention to these more important characters by using brighter colors to liven them up and establish thier importance. Red is a popular color for Jesus for instance. Red equals money.

First Reading

The Baroque period brought with it much reform and change in the church. The works of the artists in the Baroque were influenced by the religious movements occurring, along with the scientific revolution. Many artists portrayed great works involving religious characters, for instance Michelangelo’s The Last Judgment involves Christ surrounded by Christian martyrs and numerous resurrected people. This work reflected Michelangelo’s negative attitude brought out by an era full of religious conflicts. The style Michelangelo used is categorized as mannerist and involves great complexity and exaggerations. He portrayed salvation different than previous artists and gave it a more distressed feeling. This correlates directly to the religious wars that had been fought. If people were fighting each other about religion and god, then it seems like god wants this to happen and he is a more negative figure. It seems as though, rather than being a loving, he would rather see people fight and suffer during their life.

Humanism

Something that I find quite interesting is the development of humanism during the Renaissance. During the start of the Renaissance humanism was the scholarly study of the Latin and Greek classics and the improvement of the individual as a whole. By asserting an interest and value in the potential of human beings, the idea of the Renaissance Man was born. With new fascinations of literature, poetry, philosophy, sciences, history, and art, one was able to completely reinvent himself without fear of contradicting what the Catholic Church had to say. This focus on the individual is evident in the art and sculpture of the time. Take for instance Michelangelo's sculptures Pieta and David. Both of these sculptures focus on the idealized human body. Mary as seen in Pieta is not weak, she is strong! Her facial expression invokes so many sentiments within the viewer. Fear, anguish, love, suffering, and hope of what is to come, to name a few. Mary and David are saying that they are not afraid to be human, they are glorified, dignified. The drastic changes between art of the Middle Ages and that of the Renaissance shows the vast differences between the two and the explansion of the expression of humanism.

Reading from The Humanistic Traditions (Faith, Reason , and Power In

Reading from The Humanistic Traditions (Faith, Reason , and Power In
the Early Modern world. Ch 20

The Baroque era was full of ambiguity and change the started the
beginning of self-expression through art, music and religion. The start
of the change came primarily through religion and the reformation of
Christianity, which created different philosophies among the Roman
Catholics. The spread of Christianity all over the world started the
emergence of the Baroque style in the early 17th Century. The change
from High Renaissance art to this new style has very subtle changes
that where not very apparent initially. The change came in the form of
self-expression through religious works. From Leonardo Da Vinci’s work
during the High Renaissance era to Gianlorenzo architecture of the
early baroque era religions is the central focus of most of the art.
One of the changes that is apparent during this new era was the
necessity to hold large amounts of people, which is seen in the
architecture of colonnade and piazza of Saint Peter’s. The reading was
very descriptive for each piece of art, but still leaves the era open
for a lot of interpretation.

History in Humanities

Last semester I took a history course called Renaissance, Reformation, Revolution. In this course we studied much of the same period that we are looking at in this class. I enjoyed the 'tidbits' we had on art and music such as the rebirth of of art and music during the Renaissance. During the middle ages the patrons of the art were members of the church and so most of the art was very religious. Cathedrals were one of the greatest works of art of that time. In the early modern era, subjects of art were more individualistic and so were the artists. I feel like I learned more about why art changed and the overall qualities of the time, rather than delving into the actual artwork and getting to look at specific paintings. So far in this class, we have spent a lot of time evaluating painting and looking at what made the painting unique whether it is how perspective or form are used, or the variation of color and light. Even in our reading for today on King Louis XIV of France, the article focused more on his contributions to the art world instead of his role in government. This was a nice change from my history class and I feel like humanities well help me become more well-rounded in this time period and expand my knowledge.

Carvaggio, Gabrielli and Bernini

After reading Hope's post about Gabrielli, I found myself comparing him to Carvaggio and Bernini. All three of these artists (talented in different arts) contributed greatly to either painting, music or sculpture and without their leads and innovations the world would be lacking in the arts. While all three are talented, I feel they are all comparable and equal in the advances they invented. As was said, Gabrielli completely changed the way music was played, sung and heard. He was the first to use dynamics, a divided choir, and he created qudraphonic sound. But Carvaggio's paintings and inventions were equally as important. He utilizied strong contrasts of light and dark and uses foreshortening in many of his paintings, like the Supper at Emmaus. His paintings appeal to the senses rather than intellecut, a tactic still utilized today. Finally, Bernini led the way in scultping, crafting the city of Rome. Bernini put in his statues a degree of dramatic theatricality which makes his sculptures seem as if they are really performing the action. A few of his most famous include David and The Ectasy of St. Teresa. So while some people may argue that one of these artists advances is superior to the later, I would argue that all of their advances were equally important and shaped the arts today.

Early Baroque Music

After having taken multiple history courses throughout high school and now in college, I was pleasantly surprised at how Humanities 103 has been able to teach history while immersing us in that time period. The early baroque period in music introduced ideas that are now commonplace. Gabrieli’s use of dynamics and contrasting these dynamics has led to music today that can have forte brass fanfares to piano woodwind responses. Similarly, Gabriel’s use of tonality and chromaticism has helped to define later musical periods. Basing a piece around a base or tone note and then building chords from the scale around it adds resonance to any held notes. Gabrieli was also fond of brass instruments and brass instruments were first introduced during the early baroque period and to this I am grateful because I could not play my instrument today if it had not been introduced during this time. Our ability to learn beyond the history and actually study the art, architecture, and music of a time period allows us to immerse ourselves in history and see how history has influenced the present.

Giovanni Gabrieli

After reading about Giovanni and listening to Dr. F's lecture about him, I have come to realize how important and influential he was to European religious musical activity and the dynamics of music today in general. He was the first to create contrast in sound in his musical pieces. By using multiple choruses, introducing piano and forte, and utilizing the divided choir Gabrieli created musical pieces that had contrast and made dramatic effects. He also made use of multiple instruments in solo and ensemble groups, creating even more texture in his pieces. Using these tactics led to music that no one had heard before. Gabrieli may not have been a painter who used contrasts of light and dark to produce an effect, but he "created coloristic contrasts in sound" to create his own dramatic effects (FRP 22). After learning that Gabrieli was the first to create music with multiple tones and contrasts in sound instead of monotone notes, I started to wonder if music today would be the same if he had not discovered these key strategies so long ago?

Baroque used as a counteraction

Senior year I took a history class that I remember specifically spending a lot of time on the Renaissance and Baroque era and how it actually got started. It's really interesting how religion and politics plays such a major role throughout the entire era.

At one point there was a great division between Catholicism and Protestantism, which is what essentually led to the Baroque era. When the Protestant Reformation took place, the Catholic church led a huge counter reformation. As a part of this phenominon they used art and it's great influential display as a type of campaign. I guess you could say it played a part of propoganda. Their number one goal was to appeal and influence the largest possible audience. This is were the Baroque theme started to play out and how it came to be. Baroque was very dramatic and emotionally appealing. It also exaggerates everything, of course making it much more likeable to the common person.

Pieta as Nativity Scene

Michelangelo's Pieta has always captured my attention. The marble giant was first introduced to me as a high school sophomore in my European History course. My classmates were overwhelmed: yards of stone fabric draped over Mary’s large frame, one hand cradling her lifeless son, the other held palm up as if asking a question. They saw the Son of Man lying limply, his every tendon, rib, and hair carved by Michelangelo’s precise hand. I did not notice any of this. My focus, instead, was fixed upon the face of the Holy Mother. Her expression is not that of a grieving woman; she is serene, youthful, submissive. Her face changed the scene: no longer was she huddled at the base of the cross holding a corpse. No, she was now seated in a manger in Bethlehem thirty years before. Mary is cradling a newborn babe, the King of kings. Mere moments after the birth of her son, she already realizes the sacrifice that is to come, but she does not fear—her love transcends the grief. I am still amazed by how a slab of marble can simultaneously evoke so many contrasting emotions in its audience. Its ability to draw people in truly makes it Baroque art.

my thoughts on that first day

When I signed up for Humanities 103 I assumed that I was going to be attending a history class that dealt with the 17^th and 18^th centuries.  I believed that on the first day I would sit down in my desk and have a bunch of facts about this period of time thrown at me and that was it.

 So you can imagine how surprised I was when Dr. F had us singing a Grogorian chant within ten minuets of the lecture, and when she had us singing in different pitches and tones I found myself asking if I was in the right class.  As it turns out I was, my assumptions on what the class would be were way off however. 

After being in class for several days it is clear to me know that Humanities 103 will be much more then just having a large sum of facts thrown at me while I sit passively in my desk.  I can safely assume that the class will have me participating on multiple levels to not help learn about the history of the 17^th and 18^th centuries, but how art, music, and architecture helped to create that history.

Carvaggio and Bernini

The paintings of Carvaggio and the sculptures of Bernini are alike in that they depict theatrical elements of religion. While Bernini really introduced dramatic theatricality, it was Carvaggio who incorporated theatrical elements into his paintings. In The Last Supper at Emmaus, Carvaggio depicts Jesus blessing the bread and the others around him in shock as they are finding out it is Jesus himself blessing their meal. There is a sense of theatricality in this in that of their faces and would be movements. Bernini adds in dramtic theatricality in his sculpture of David taking out his sling shot. He captures the dramatic moment in which David encounters Goliath and illustrates the incredible task that is at hand for David. These two artisits capture the theatricality of Biblical scenes in ways other artisits had not done before them.

First Post

     Our first class, though emphasizing the basic structure of the course in reality helped introduce the greater idea of the origination of intellectual thought. Italy lead the way in numerous artistic and philosophical movements that simply justify the reasoning behind beginning with the relationship of the cities within the influential nation. However, the origin of artistic ideals can not be simplified for the convenience of classification. Italy serves as a mere basis for intellectual thought, as well as a basis for Humanities 103.

Mannerist Painting and the Last Judgement

When analyzing works of art, it is necessary to understand the context in which such works were created. One such example that exemplifies this is Mannerist painting: an art style dominant during the sixteenth century characterized by irregular perspective, artificiality, and emotional intensity.

During the time in which the Mannerist style emerged, religious and political conflict wrought much havoc in sixteenth century Europe. In 1517, Martin Luther issued his 95 Theses that challenged the practices of the Catholic Church and its authority over Christian followers. In response to the growth of Protestant sects that arose from this contention, the Catholic Church instituted the Counter Reformation, which resulted in widespread internal reform, a reaffirmation of Catholic dogma, and several attempts to limit the expansion of Protestantism throughout Europe. Moreover, political strife ensued as well; in 1527, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V sacked the city of Rome, the primary site of the High Renaissance.

With these problems literally tearing Europe apart, Italian artists responded to their disillusionment by conveying their intense emotions through a new art form. Mannerist painting reflected artists' angst and spirituality through the depiction of religious scenes with asymmetric design and great distortion. This is most evident in Michaelangelo's mural The Last Judgement, which portrays the coming of Jesus in the last days to judge the living and the dead. A wrathful Jesus serves as the focal point of the mural as martyrs and countless writhing bodies surround him; furthermore, Mary looks upon the scene in terror as frightful corpses are bizarrely raised from the ground. Moreover, Hell appears in the lower part of the mural in order to accept those souls that will by rejected by Jesus. As this mural was painted shortly after the sack of Rome in 1527, it is reasonable to infer that Michaelangelo not only wished to depict the horror of the Last Judgement but also the insecurities at the time in which this amazing work of art was created.

Ecstasy of Saint Teresa

I had already written this blog prior to the discussion today about the Catholic church's disapproval of this piece, but for test purposes I will post it nonetheless. If you have any additional thoughts or insight feel free to comment.

As I was reading there were a few ideas that I was surprised to come across. Primarily, the ideas are concerned with the description of Saint Teresa’s vision and how she describes the love of God. Prior to reading this excerpt, I had always thought of God’s love as being a pleasant experience and never associated it with “an intense pain that one can never wish to lose” (FRP 7). Although the pain is explained as being simply spiritual followed by the bodily experience, I do not understand how either sensation could be desirable. It seems to me that such an image would discourage people from seeking the love of God, particularly due to the violent nature that it entered Saint Teresa (via arrow stabs). A discouragement from the Catholicism would be contrary to the objectives of the Catholic Church at that time, particularly because of the rivalry created by the rise in popularity of Protestantism. Additionally, I was shocked to read that Saint Teresa’s vision was a “divine and erotic fulfillment” (FRP 7). Thinking of God’s love as being erotic or sexually fulfilling is somewhat disturbing because it contradicts all of my previous perceptions. Given the generally conservative views of the Catholic church, I am surprised that the story of Saint Teresa had such an impact and was chosen to be manifested by Bernini in a church. Perhaps there is something from this text that I am not understanding correctly or an element that I have failed to take note of?

First Reading Post

The beginning of the Baroque era in the late 16th century art coincided with many artistic advances that occurred throughout Western Europe.

These threats eventually prompted the Catholic Reformation, which became a successful restoration of the Church's role as "the absolute source of truth" in the world. It was successful because for the first time in history, Catholicism was based on a more realist, mystical experience of God. This intense process was mirrored perfectly with all forms of art during the time period. The paintings during the era were mainly in a form called "mannerism," which contained stark contrasts and realistic perspectives, which futhered God's mystical image.

The successes of the Catholic Reformation can be seen directly in all forms of art in the period, and it is arguable that without the realistic and mystical art, the earliest Reformation would have not been as successful.

I am not sure how you feel about terminology, but my professional training makes me leery of such terms as "baroque." In the 19th and early 20th centuries, French intellectuals believed that the greatest use of the human brain was to create order by indentifying and classifying all human knowledge. Thus virtual boxes for similar ideas and works were created and labels such as "neo-classical" and "baroque" applied to them. There are commonalities between works of art in the period we are studying, and they do spread their influence from one genre to another, but rarely at the same time, and to overly rely on the label to capture the work is to diminish both. I am listening to Gregorio Allegri's Misere a 9 while thinking of Calderón and Caravaggio, and I can see similarities between all three. To that extent a label such as "baroque" is useful; however, when it denies the individual qualities of each work, then it is a nuisance. French theorists of dramatic literature treat "baroque" dimissively, as if it signifies an inferior work when compared to the "neo-classical" oeuvre of Racine, Corneille, or Molière. I think, however, that the "baroque" elements (what do you think they are?) of Calderón make this play extraordinary. What do you think?