Extreme Value and Related Models with

Applications in Engineering and Science 1st

Edition Enrique Castillo pdf download

https://ebookname.com/product/extreme-value-and-related-models-
with-applications-in-engineering-and-science-1st-edition-enrique-
castillo/

Get Instant Ebook Downloads – Browse at https://ebookname.com

Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) available
Download now and explore formats that suit you...

Probability Models in Engineering and Science 1st

Edition Haym Benaroya

https://ebookname.com/product/probability-models-in-engineering-
and-science-1st-edition-haym-benaroya/

Decision Theory Models for Applications in Artificial

Intelligence Concepts and Solutions 1st Edition L.
Enrique Sucar

https://ebookname.com/product/decision-theory-models-for-
applications-in-artificial-intelligence-concepts-and-
solutions-1st-edition-l-enrique-sucar/

Nonparametric Statistics with Applications to Science

and Engineering 1st Edition Paul H. Kvam

https://ebookname.com/product/nonparametric-statistics-with-
applications-to-science-and-engineering-1st-edition-paul-h-kvam/

Investigative Techniques and Ocular Examination 1st

Edition Sandip Doshi Phd Mcoptom

https://ebookname.com/product/investigative-techniques-and-
ocular-examination-1st-edition-sandip-doshi-phd-mcoptom/
Tennessee Valley Authority Design and Persuasion 1st
Edition Richard Barnes

https://ebookname.com/product/tennessee-valley-authority-design-
and-persuasion-1st-edition-richard-barnes/

Inner Workings of the Novel Studying a Genre 1st

Edition Allan H. Pasco (Auth.)

https://ebookname.com/product/inner-workings-of-the-novel-
studying-a-genre-1st-edition-allan-h-pasco-auth/

Gurps WWII 1st Edition Gene Seabolt

https://ebookname.com/product/gurps-wwii-1st-edition-gene-
seabolt/

A Frequency Dictionary of Contemporary American English

Word Sketches Collocates and Thematic Lists Routledge
Frequency Dictionaries 1st Edition Mark Davies

https://ebookname.com/product/a-frequency-dictionary-of-
contemporary-american-english-word-sketches-collocates-and-
thematic-lists-routledge-frequency-dictionaries-1st-edition-mark-
davies/

Water and Wastewater Engineering Mackenzie Davis

https://ebookname.com/product/water-and-wastewater-engineering-
mackenzie-davis/
Pre Clinical Dental Skills at a Glance 1st Edition
James Field

https://ebookname.com/product/pre-clinical-dental-skills-at-a-
glance-1st-edition-james-field/
 Extreme Value and Related
Models with Applications in
Engineering and Science

Enrique Castillo
University of Cantahria
and University ofCastilla La Manchu

Ali S. Hadi
The American Universiw in Cairo
and Cornell University

N. Balakrishnan
McMaster University

Jose Maria Sarabia

Uni\<ersilyof Cantabria

WILEY-
INTERSCIENCE
A JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC., PUBLICATION
Contents
Preface xiii

I Data. Introduction. and Motivation 1

1 Introduction and Motivation 3
1.1 What Are Extreme Values? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Why Arc Extreme Value Models Important? . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 Examples of Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3.1 Ocean Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3.2 Structural Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3.3 Hydraulics Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3.4 Meteorology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3.5 Material Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3.6 Fatigue Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3.7 Electrical Strength of Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3.8 Highway Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3.9 Corrosion Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3.10 Pollutiori Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.4 Univariate Data Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.4.1 Wind Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.4.2 Flood Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.4.3 Wave Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.4.4 Oldest Age at Death in Sweden Data . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.4.5 Houmb's Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.4.6 Telephone Calls Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.4.7 Epicenter Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.4.8 Chain Strength Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.4.9 Electrical Insulation Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.4.10 Fatigue Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.4.11 Precipitation Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.4.12 Bilbao Wavc Heights Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.5 Llultivariate Data Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.5.1 Ocrrlulgee River Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.5.2 The Yearly Maximum Wind Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.5.3 The Maximum Car Speed Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

vii
 ...
vlll CONTENTS

I1 Probabilistic Models Useful for Extremes 19

2 Discrete Probabilistic Models 21
2.1 Univariate Discrete Random Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.1.1 Probability Mass Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.1.2 Cumulative Distribution Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.1.3 Moments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.2 Common Univariate Discrete Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.2.1 Discrete Uniform Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.2.2 Bernoulli Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.2.3 Binomial Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.2.4 Geometric or Pascal Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.2.5 Negative Binomial Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.2.6 Hypergeometric Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.2.7 Poisson Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.2.8 Nonzero Poisson Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

3 Continuous Probabilistic Models 43

3.1 Univariate Continuous Random Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.1.1 Probability Density Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.1.2 Cumulative Distribution Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.1.3 Moments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.2 Common Univariate Continuous Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.2.1 Continuous Uniform Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.2.2 Exponential Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.2.3 Gamma Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.2.4 Log-Gamma Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.2.5 Beta Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.2.6 Normal or Gaussian Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.2.7 Log-Normal Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.2.8 Logistic Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.2.9 Chi-square and Chi Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.2.10 Rayleigh Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.2.11 Student's t Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.2.12 F Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.2.13 Weibull Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.2.14 Gumbel Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.2.15 Frkchet Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.2.16 Generalized Extreme Value Distributions . . . . . . . . . 64
3.2.17 Generalized Pareto Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.3 Truncated Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
3.4 Some Other Important Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3.4.1 Survival and Hazard Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3.4.2 Moment Generating Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
3.4.3 Characteristic Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
CONTENTS ix

4 Multivariate Probabilistic Models 85

4.1 Multivariate Discrete Random Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.1.1 Joint Probability Mass Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.1.2 Marginal Probability Mass Function . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.1.3 Conditional Probability Mass Function . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.1.4 Covariance and Correlation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.2 Common Multivariate Discrete Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
4.2.1 MultinomialDistribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.2.2 Multivariate Hypergeometric Distribution . . . . . . . . . 92
4.3 Multivariate Continuous Random Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
4.3.1 Joint Probability Density Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4.3.2 Joint Cumulative Distribution Function . . . . . . . . . . 93
4.3.3 Marginal Probability Density Functions . . . . . . . . . . 94
4.3.4 Conditional Probability Density Functions . . . . . . . . . 94
4.3.5 Covariance and Correlation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4.3.6 The Autocorrelation Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
4.3.7 Bivariate Survival and Hazard Functions . . . . . . . . . . 96
4.3.8 Bivariate CDF and Survival Function . . . . . . . . . . . 98
4.3.9 Joint Characteristic Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
4.4 Common Multivariate Continuous Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
4.4.1 Bivariate Logistic Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
4.4.2 Multinorrnal Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4.4.3 Marshall-Olkin Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4.4.4 Freund's Bivariate Exponential Distribution . . . . . . . . 100
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

111 Model Estimation. Selection. and Validation 105

5 Model Estimation 107
5.1 The Maximum Likelihood Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.1.1 Point Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.1.2 Some Properties of the MLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
5.1.3 The Delta Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
5.1.4 Interval Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
5.1.5 The Deviance Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
5.2 The Method of Moments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
5.3 The Probability-Weighted Mornents Method . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
5.4 The Elemental Percentile Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
5.4.1 Initial Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
5.4.2 Corlfidence Intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
5.5 The Quantile Least Squares Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
5.6 The Truncation Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
5.7 Estimation for Multivariate Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
5.7.1 The Maximum Likelihood Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
5.7.2 The Weighted Least Squares CDF Method . . . . . . . . 125
x CONTENTS

5.7.3 The Elemental Percentile Method

5.7.4 A Method Based on Least Squares
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6 Model Selection and Validation 133

6.1 Probability Paper Plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
6.1.1 Normal Probability Paper Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
6.1.2 Log-Normal Probability Paper Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
6.1.3 Gumbel Probability Paper Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
6.1.4 Weibull Probability Paper Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
6.2 Selecting Models by Hypothesis Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
6.3 Model Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
6.3.1 The Q-Q Plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
6.3.2 The P-P Plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

IV Exact Models for Order Statistics and Extremes 151

7 Order Statistics 153

7.1 Order Statistics and Extremes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
7.2 Order Statistics of Independent Observations . . . . . . . . . . . 153
7.2.1 Distributions of Extremes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
7.2.2 Distribution of a Subset of Order Statistics . . . . . . . . 157
7.2.3 Distribution of a Single Order Statistic . . . . . . . . . . . 158
7.2.4 Distributions of Other Special Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
7.3 Order Statistics in a Sample of Random Size . . . . . . . . . . . 164
7.4 Design Values Based on Exceedances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
7.5 Return Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
7.6 Order Statistics of Dependent Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
7.6.1 The Inclusion-Exclusion Formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
7.6.2 Distribution of a Single Order Statistic . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

8 Point Processes and Exact Models 177

8.1 Point Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
177 . . . . . . .
8.2 The Poisson-Flaws Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
181 . . . . . . .
8.3 Mixture Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
183 . . . . . . .
8.4 Competing Risk Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
184 . . . . . . .
8.5 Competing Risk Flaws Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
8.6 Poissonian Storm Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
CONTENTS xi

V Asymptotic Models for Extremes 191

9 Limit Distributions of Order Statistics 193
9.1 Tlle Case of Independent Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
9.1.1 Lirnit Distributions of Maxima and Minima . . . . . . . . 194
9.1.2 Wcibull, Gurnbel. and Frkcl~etas GEVDs . . . . . . . . . 198
9.1.3 Stability of Lirriit Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
9.1.4 Deterlnirlirig the Domairi of Attraction of a CDF . . . . . 203
9.1.5 Asymptotic Distributions of Order Statistics . . . . . . . 208
9.2 Estimation for the Maximal GEVD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
9.2.1 The Maxirnurri Likelihood Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
9.2.2 The Probability Weighted Moments Method . . . . . . . . 218
9.2.3 The Elerrlental Percentile Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
9.2.4 Tlle Qtrantile Least Squares Method . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
9.2.5 The Truncation Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
9.3 Estirnatiorl for the Minimal GEVD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
9.4 Graphical Methods for Model Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
9.4.1 Probability Paper Plots for Extremes . . . . . . . . . . . 228
9.4.2 Selecting a Domain of Attraction from Data . . . . . . . . 234
9.5 Model Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
9.6 Hypothesis Tests for Domains of Attraction . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
9.6.1 Methods Based on Likelihood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
9.6.2 The Curvature Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
9.7 The Case of Dependent Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
9.7.1 Stationary Sequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
9.7.2 Excl.iarigeable Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
9.7.3 Markov Sequences of Order p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
9.7.4 The rn-Dependent Sequerlces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
9.7.5 hlovirlg Average hlodels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
9.7.6 Norrnal Sequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258

10 Limit Distributions of Exceedances and Shortfalls 261

10.1 Exceedarices as a Poisson Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
10.2 Shortfalls as a Poisson Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
10.3 The Maximal GPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
10.4 Approxirnatioris Based on the Maximal GPD . . . . . . . . . . . 265
10.5 Tlle Miriirnal GPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
10.6 Approxinlations Based on the Minimal GPD . . . . . . . . . . . 267
10.7 Obtaining the Minimal from the Maximal GPD . . . . . . . . . . 267
10.8 Estimation for the GPD Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
10.8.1 The Maximum Likeliliood Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
10.8.2 The Method of Moments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
10.8.3 The Probability Weighted hloments Method . . . . . . . . 271
10.8.4 The Elemental Percentile Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
10.8.5 The Quantile Least Squares Method . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
xii CONTENTS

10.9 Model Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

10.10 Hypothesis Tests for the Domain of Attraction . . . . . . . . . . 281
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285

11 Multivariate Extremes 287

11.1 Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
11.2 Dependence Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
11.3 Limit Distribution of a Given CDF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
11.3.1 Limit Distributions Based on Marginals . . . . . . . . . . 291
11.3.2 Limit Distributions Based on Dependence Functions . . . 295
11.4 Characterization of Extreme Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
11.4.1 Identifying Extreme Value Distributions . . . . . . . . . . 299
11.4.2 Functional Equations Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
11.4.3 A Point Process Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
11.5 Some Parametric Bivariate Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
11.6 Transformation to Frkchet Marginals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
11.7 Peaks Over Threshold Multivariate Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
11.8 Inference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
11.8.1 The Sequential Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
11.8.2 The Single Step Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
11.8.3 The Generalized Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
11.9 Some M~ltivariat~e Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
11.9.1 The Yearly Maximum Wind Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
11.9.2 The Ocmulgee River Flood Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312
11.9.3 The Maximum Car Speed Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318

Appendix A: Statistical Tables 325

Bibliography 333

Index 353
Preface
The field of extremes, maxima and minima of random variables, has attracted
the attentior1 of engineers, scientists, probabilists, and statisticians for many
years. The fact that engineering works need to be designed for extreme condi-
tioris forces one to pay special attention to singular values more than to regular
(or mean) values. The statistical theory for dealing with niean values is very
different from that required for extremes, so that one cannot solve the above
indicated problerns without a knowledge of statistical theory for extremes.
In 1988, the first author published the book Extreme Value Theory zn Engz-
neerzng (Academic Press), after spending a sabbatical year at Temple University
with Prof. Janos Galambos. This book had a n intentional practical orientation,
though some lemmas, theorems, and corollaries made life a little difficult for
practicing engineers, and a need arose to make the theoretical discoveries ac-
cessible to practitioners. Today, many years later, important new material have
become available. Consequently, we decided to write a book which is more prac-
tically oriented than the previous one and intended for engineers, mathemati-
cians, statisticians, and scientists in general who wish to learn about extreme
values and use that knowledge to solve practical problems in their own fields.
The book is structured in five parts. Part I is an introduction to the prob-
lem of extremes and includes the description of a wide variety of engineering
problems where extreme value theory is of direct importance. These applica-
tions include ocean, structural and hydraulics engineering, meteorology, and the
study of material strength, traffic, corrosion, pollution, and so on. It also in-
cludes descriptions of the sets of data that are used as examples and/or exercises
in the subsequent chapters of the book.
Part I1 is devoted to a description of the probabilistic models that are useful
in extreme value problems. They include discrete, continuous, univariate, and
multivariate models. Some examples relevant to extremes are given to illustrate
the concepts and the presented models.
Part 111 is dedicated to model estimation, selection, and validation. Though
this topic is valid to general statistics, some special methods are given for ex-
tremes. The main tools for model selection and validation are probability paper
plots (P-P and Q-Q plots), which are described in detail and are illustrated with
a wide selection of examples.
Part IV deals with models for order statistics and extremes. Important
concepts such as order statistics, return period, exceedances, and shortfalls are
...
Xlll
xiv PREFACE

explained. Detailed derivations of the exact distributions of these statistics

are presented and illustrated by many exaniples and graphs. One chapter is
dedicated to point processes arld exact models, whcre the reader can discover
some important ways of modeling engineering problerns. Applications of these
models are also illustrated by some examples.
Part V is devoted to the important problem of asymptotic models, which
are among the most common models in practice. The limit distributions of
maxima, minima, and other order statistics of different types, for the cases of
independent as well as dependent observatioris arc presented. The important
cases of exceedances and sllortfalls are treated in a separate chapter, whcre the
prominent generalized Pareto model is discussed. Finally, the ~nliltivariat~e case
is analyzed in the last chapter of the book.
In addition to the theory and methods described in this book, we strongly
feel that it is also important for readers to have access to a package of coniputer
programs that will enable them to apply all these methods in practice. Though
not part of this book, it is our intention to prepare such a package and makc it
available to the readers at: http://personales.unican.es/castie/extrcesThis
will assist the readers to (a) apply the metliods presented in this book to prob-
lems in their own fields, (b) solve sorne of the exercises that rcquire computa-
tions, and (c) reproduce and/or augment the exarnplcs included in tjhis book,
and possibly even correct some errors that may have occurred in our calcula-
tions for these examples. The corrlputer programs will incl~ldea wide collection
of univariate and multivariate methods such as:
1. Plots of all types (probability papers, P-P and Q-Q plots, plots of order
statistics).
2. Determination of domains of attraction based on probability papers, the
curvature method, the characterization theorem, etc.
3. Estimation of the parameters and quantiles of tllc generalized extreme
value and generalized Pareto distributions by various rrlethods such as
the maximum likelihood, tlie elemental percentile method, the probability
weighted moments, and the least squares.
4. Estimation and plot of niultivariate models.
5. Tests of hypotheses.
We are grateful to the University of Cantabria, the University of Castilla-La
Maneha, the Direcci6n General de Investigacibn Clientifica y Tdcirca (projects
PB98-0421 and DPI2002-04172-C04-02), and the Arrierican University in Cairo
for partial support.
Enrique Castillo
Ali S. Hadi
N. Balakrisbnan
Jose M. Sarabia
 Part I

Data, Introduction, and

Motivation
Chapter 1

Introduction and
Motivation

1.1 What Are Extreme Values?

Often, when natural calamities of great magnitude happen, we are left wonder-
ing about their occurrence and frequency, and whether anything could have been
done either to avert them or at least to have been better prepared for them.
These could include, for example, the extraordinary dry spell in the western
regions of the United States and Canada during the summer of 2003 (and nu-
merous forest fires that resulted from this dry spell), the devastating earthquake
that destroyed almost the entire historic Iranian city of Barn in 2003, and the
massive snowfall in the eastern regions of the United States and Canada during
February 2004 (which shut down many cities for several days a t a stretch). The
same is true for destructive hurricanes and devastating floods that affect many
parts of the world. For this reason, an architect in Japan may be quite interested
in constructing a high-rise building that could withstand an earthquake of great
magnitude, maybe a "100-year earthquake"; or, an engineer building a bridge
across the mighty Mississippi river may be interested in fixing its height so that
the water may be expected to go over the bridge once in 200 years, say. It is
evident that the characteristics of interest in all these cases are extremes in that
they correspond to either minimum (e.g., minimum amount of precipitation) or
maximum (e.g., maximum amount of water flow) values.
Even though the examples listed above are only few and are all connected
with natural phenomena, there are many other practical situations wherein
we will be primarily concerned with extremes. These include: maximum wind
velocity during a tropical storm (which is, in fact, used to categorize the storm),
minimum stress a t which a component breaks, maximum number of vehicles
passing through an intersection at a peak hour (which would facilitate better
planning of the traffic flow), minimum weight at which a structure develops a
crack, minimum strength of materials, maximum speed of vehicles on a certain
4 Chapter 1. Introduction and Motivation

section of a highway (which could be used for employing patrol cars), maximum
height of waves at a waterfront location, and so on.
Since the primary issues of interest in all the above examples concern the
occurrence of such events and their frequency, a careful statistical analysis would
require the availability of data on such extremes (preferably of a large size, for
making predictions accurately) and an appropriate statistical model for those
extremes (which would lead to correct predictions).

1.2 Why Are Extreme Value Models Important?

In many statistical applications, the interest is centered on estimating some

population central characteristics (e.g., the average rainfall, the average tem-
perature, the median income, etc.) based on random samples taken from a
population under study. However, in some other areas of applications, we are
not interested in estimating the average but rather in estimating the maximum
or the minimum (see Weibull (1951, 1952), Galambos (1987), Castillo (1994)).
For example, in designing a dam, engineers, in addition to being interested in
the average flood, which gives the total amount of water to be stored, are also
interested in the maximum flood, the maximum earthquake intensity or the
minimum strength of the concrete used in building the dam.
It is well known t o engineers that design values of engineering works (e.g.,
dams, buildings, bridges, etc.) are obtained based on a compromise between
safety and cost, that is, between guaranteeing that they survive when subject
to extreme operating conditions and reasonable costs. Estimating extreme ca-
pacities or operating conditions is very difficult because of the lack of available
data. The use of safety factors has been a classical solution to the problem,
but now it is known that it is not completely satisfactory in terms of safety
and cost, because high probabilities of failure can be obtained on one hand, and
large and unnecessary waste of money, on the other. Consequently, the safety
factor approach is not an optimal solution to the engineering design problem.
The knowledge of the distributions of the maxima and minima of the rele-
vant phenomena is important in obtaining good solutions to engineering design
problems.
Note that engineering design must be based on extremes, because largest
values, such as loads, earthquakes, winds, floods, waves, etc., arid sniallest val-
ues such as strength, stress, e t ~ .are the key parameters leading to failure of
engineering works.
There are many areas where extreme value theory plays an important role;
see, for example, Castillo (1988), Coles (2001), Galambos (1994, 1998, 2000),
Galambos and Macri (2000), Kotz and Nadarajah (2000), and Nadarajah (2003).
1.3. Examples of Applications

1.3 Examples of Applications

In this section examples of some of the fields where common engineeririg prob-
lerris involve extremes or other order statistics are given.'

1.3.1 Ocean Engineering

In the area of ocean engineering, it is known that wave height is the main factor
to be considered for design purposes. Thus, the designs of offshore platforms,
breakwaters, dikes, and other harbor works rely upon the knowledge of the prob-
ability distribution of the highest waves. Another problem of crucial interest in
this area is to find the joint distribution of the heights and periods of the sea
waves. More precisely, the engineer is interested in the periods associated with
the largest waves. This is clearly a problem, which in the extreme value field is
known as the concornatants of order statistics. Some of the publications dealing
with these problems are fo1111d in Arena (2002), Battjes (1977), Borgrnan (1963,
1970, 1973). Brctchneider (1959), Bryant (1983), Castillo arid Sarabia (1992,
1994)) Cavanie, Arhan, and Ezraty (1976), Chakrabarti and Cooley (1977),
Court (1953), Draper (1963), Earle, Effermeyer, and Evans (1974), Goodknight
and Russel (1963), Giinbak (1978), Hasofer (1979), Houmb and Overvik (1977),
Longuet-Higgins (1952, 1975), Tiago de Oliveira (1979), Onorato, Osborne, arid
Serio (2002), Putz (1952), Sellars (1975), Sjo (2000, 2001), Thom (1968a,b,
1969, 1971, 1973)) Thrasher and Aagard (1970), Tucker (1963), Wiegel (1964),
Wilson (1966), and Yang, Tayfun, and Hsiao (1974).

1.3.2 Structural Engineering

Modern building codes and standards provide information on: (a) extreme winds
in the form of wind speeds corresponding t o various specified mean recurrence
intervals, (b) design loads, and (c) seismic incidence in the form of areas of
equal risk. Wind speeds are estinlates of extreme winds that can occur at
the place where the building or engineering work is to be located and have
a large irlfluence on their design characteristics and final costs. Design loads
are also closely related to the largest loads acting on the structure during its
lifetime. Sniall design loads can lead to collapse of the structure and associated
damages. On the other hand, large design loads lead t o a waste of money. A
correct design is possible only if the statistical properties of largest loads are
well known. For a complete analysis of this problem, the reader is referred to
Ang (1973), Court (1953), Davenport (1968a,b, 1972, 1978), Grigoriu (1984),
Hasofer (1972)) Hasofer and Sharpe (1969)) Lkvi (1949), Mistkth (1973), Moses
(1974), Murzewski (1972), Prot (1949a,b, 1950), Sachs (1972), Simiu, Biktry,
arid Filliben (1978), Simiu, Changery, and Filliben (1979), Simiu and Filliben
(1975, 1976), Simiu, Fillibe~i,and Shaver (1982), Simiu and Scarilan (1977))
Thom (1967, 1968a,b), Wilson (1966), and Zidek, Navin, and Lockhart (1979).
'some of these examples are reprinted from the book Extreme Value T h e o q in Engineer-
ing, by E. Castillo, Copyright @ Academic Press (1988), with permission from Elsevier.
6 Chapter 1. Introduction and Motivation

A building or engineering work will survive if it is designed to withstand the

most severe earthquake occurring during its design period. Thus, the maximum
earthquake intensity plays a central role in design. The probabilistic risk assess-
ment of seismic events is especially important in nuclear power plants where the
losses are due not only to material damage of the structures involved but also
to the very dangerous collateral damages that follow due to nuclear contami-
nation. Precise estimation of the probabilities of occurrence of extreme winds,
loads, earthquakes is required in order to allow for realistic safety margins in
structural design, on one hand, and for economical solutions, on the other. De-
sign engineers also need to extrapolate from small laboratory specimens to the
actual lengths of structures such as cable-stayed or suspended bridges. In order
for this extrapolation to be made with reasonable reliability, extra knowledge is
required. Some material related to this problem can be found in Bogdanoff and
Schiff (1972).

1.3.3 Hydraulics Engineering

Knowledge of the recurrence intervals of long hydrologic events is important in

reservoir storage-yield investigations, drought studies, and operation analysis.
It has been usual to base tjhe estimate of the required capacity of a headwa-
ter storage on a critical historical drought sequence. It is desirable that the
recurrence interval of such an event be known.
There is a continuing need t o determine the probability of rare floods for !
their inclusion in risk assessment studies. Stream discharge and flood flow have
long been measured and used by engineers in the design of hydraulic structures
(dams, canals, etc.), flood protection works, and in planning for floodplain use.
I
i

I
Riverine flooding and dams overtopping are very common problems of con-
cern. A flood frequency analysis is the basis for the engineering design of many
projects and the economic analysis of flood-control projects. High losses in
human lives and property due t o damages caused by floods have recently em- 1
phasized the need for precise estimates of probabilities and return periods of
these extreme events. However, hydraulic structures and flood protection works
are affected not only by the intensity of floods but also by their frequency, as
occurs with a levee, for example. Thus, we can conclude that quantifying un-
certainty in flood magnitude estimators is an important problem in floodplain
development, including risk assessment for floodplain management, risk-based
design of hydraulic structures and estimation of expected annual flood damages.
Some works related t o these problems are found in Beard (1962), Benson (1968),
Chow (1951, 1964), Embrechts, Kliippelberg, and Mikosch (1997), Gumbcl and
Goldstein (1964))Gupta, Duckstein, and Peebles (1976)) Hershfield (1962)) Karr
(1976), Kirby (1969), Matalas and Wallis (1973), Mistkth (1974), hlorrison and
Smith (2001), Mustafi (1963), North (1980), Shane and Lynn (1964), Todorovic
(1978, 1979), and Zelenhasic (1970).
 1.3. Exan~plesof Applications 7

1.3.4 Meteorology
Extreme meteorological conditions are known to influence many aspects of hu-
man life such as in the flourishing of agriculture and animals, the behavior of
some machines, and the lifetime of certain materials. In all these cases the en-
gineers, instead of centering interest on the mean values (temperature, rainfall,
etc.), are concerned o11ly with the occurrence of extreme events (very high or
very low temperature, rainfall, etc.). Accurate prediction of the probabilities of
those rare events thus becomes the aim of the analysis. For related discussions,
the reader can refer t o Ferro and Segers (2003), Galambos and Macri (2002),
Leadbetter, Lindgren, and Rootzkn (1983), and Sneyers (1984).

1.3.5 Material Strength

One interesting application of extreme value theory to material strength is the
analysis of size effect. In many engineering problems, the strength of actual
structures has to be inferred from the strength of small elements of reduced size
samples, prototype or models, which are tested under laboratory conditions.
In such cases, extrapolation from small to much larger sizes is needed. In this
context, extreme value theory becomes very useful in order t o analyze the size
effect and to make extrapolations not only possible but also reliable. If the
strength of a piece is determined or largely affected by the strength of its weakest
(real or imaginary) subpiece into which the piece can be subdivided, as it usually
occurs, the minimum strength of the weakest subpiece determines the strength
of the entire piece. Thus. large pieces are statistically weaker than small pieces.
For a complete list of references before 1978, the reader is referred to Harter
(1977, 1978a,b).

; 1.3.6 Fatigue Strength

Modern fracture ~nechanicstheory reveals that fatigue failure is due t o prop-
agation of cracks when elements are under the action of repetitive loads. The
fatigue strength of a piece is governed by the largest crack in the piece. If
the size and shape of the crack were known, the lifetime, measured in number
of cycles to failure, could be deterministically obtained. However, the pres-
ence of cracks in pieces is random in number, size, and shape, and, thus,
resulting in a random character of fatigue strength. Assume a longitudinal
piece hypothetically subdivided into subpieces of the same length and being
subjected to a fatigue test. Then all the pieces are subjected to the same
loads and the lifetime of the piece is that of the weakest subpiece. Thus,
the minimum lifetime of the subpieces determines the lifetime of the piece.
Some key references related to fatigue are Anderson and Coles (2002), Andra
and Saul (1974, 1979), Arnold, Castillo, and Sarabia (1996), Batdorf (1982),
Batdorf and Ghaffanian (1982), Birnbauni and Saunders (1958), Biihler and
Schreiber (1957), Castillo, Ascorbe, and FernBndez-Canteli (1983a), Castillo
et al. (198313, 1984a), Ca,stillo et al. (1985), Castillo et al. (1990), Castillo and
8 Chapter 1. Introduction and Motivation

Hadi (1995b), Castillo et al. (1987), Castillo et al. (1984b), Colernan (1956,
1957a,b, 1958a,b,c), Dengel (1971), Duebelbeiss (1979), Epstein (1954), Ep-
stein and Sobel (1954), FernBndez-Canteli (1982), FernBndez-Canteli, Esslinger,
and Thurlimann (1984), Freudenthal (1975), Gabriel (1979), Grover (1966),
Hajdin (1976), Helgason and Hanson (1976), Lindgren and Rootzkn (1987),
Maennig (1967, 1970), Mann, Schafer, and Singpurwalla (1974), Mendenhall
(1958), Phoenix (1978), Phoenix and Smith (1983), Phoenix and Tierney (1983),
Phoenix and Wu (1983), Rychlik (1996), Smith (1980, 1981), Spindel, Board,
and Haibach (1979), Takahashi and Sibuya (2002), Tide and van Horn (1966),
Tierney (1982), Tilly and Moss (1982), Warner and Hulsbos (1966), Weibull
(1959), and Yang, Tayfun, and Hsiao (1974).

1.3.7 Electrical Strength of Materials

The lifetime of some electrical devices depends not only on their random quality
but also on the random voltage levels acting on them. The device survives a
given period if the maximum voltage level does not surpass a critical value.
Thus, the maximum voltage in the period is one of the governing variables in
this problem. For sonie related discussions, the reader may refer to Entlicott and
Weber (1956, 1957), Hill and Schmidt (1948), Lawless (2003), Nelson (2004),
and Weber and Endicott (1956, 1957).

1.3.8 Highway Traffic

Due to economic considerations, many highways are designed in such a rnan-
ner that traffic collapse is assumed to take place a limited nliniber (say k ) of
times during a given period of time. Thus, the design traffic is that associated
not with the maximum but with the kth largest traffic intensity during that
period. Obtaining accurate estimates of tlie probability distribution of the kt11
order statistic pertains to the theory of extreme order statistics and allows a
reliable design to be made. Sonie pertinent references are Glyrln and Whitt
(1995), G6mez-Corral (2001), Kang and Serfozo (1997), and McCorrnick and
Park (1992).

1.3.9 Corrosion Resistance

Corrosion failure takes place by the progressive size increase and penetration
of initially small pits through the thickness of an element, due to the action
of chemical agents. It is clear that the corrosion resistance of an element is
determined by the largest pits and largest concentrations of chemical agents
and that small and intermediate pits and concentrations do not have any effect
on the corrosion strength of the element. Soine references related to this area
are Aziz (1956), Eldredge (1957), Logan (1936), Logan and Grodsky (1931),
Reiss and Thomas (2001), and Thiruvengadam (1972).
A similar model explains tlie leakage failure of batteries, which gives another
example where extremes are the design values.
1.4. Univariate Data Sets 9

1.3.10 Pollution Studies

With the existence of large concentrations of people (producing smoke, human
wastes, etc.) or the appearance of new industries (chemical, nuclear, etc.), the
polliltion of air, rivers, and coasts has become a common problem for many
countries. The pollutant concentration, expressed as the amount of pollutant
per unit volume (of air or water), is forced, by government regulations, to remain
below a given critical level. Thus, the regulations are satisfied if, and only if,
the largest pollutiori concentration during the period of interest is less than the
critical level. Here then, the largest value plays the fundamental role in design.
For some relevant discussions, the interested reader may refer to Barlow (1972),
Barlow and Singpurwalla (1974), Larsen (1969), Leadbetter (1995), Leadbet-
ter, Lindgren, and Rootzkn (1983), Midlarsky (1989), Roberts (1979a,b), and
Singpurwalla (1972).

1.4 Univariate Data Sets

To illustrate the different methods to be described in this book, several sets
of data with relevance to extreme values have been selected. In this section a
detailed description of the data are given with the aim of facilitating model se-
lection. Data should not be statistically treated unless a previous understanding
of the physical meaning behind them is known and the aim of the analysis is
clearly established. In fact, the decision of the importance of upper or lower or-
der statistics, maxima or minima cannot be done without this knowledge. This
knowledge is especially important when extrapolation is needed and predictions
are to be made for important decision-making.

1.4.1 Wind Data

The yearly maximum wind speed, in miles per hour, registered a t a given lo-
cation during a period of 50 years is presented in Table 1.1. We assume that
this data will be used t o determine a design wind speed for structural building
purposes. Important facts to be taken into consideration for these data are its
nonnegative character and, perhaps, the existence of a not clearly defined finite
upper end (the maximum conceivable wind speed is bounded). Some important
references for wind problems are de Haan and de Ronde (1998), Lighthill (1999),
and Walshaw (2000).

1.4.2 Flood Data

The yearly maximurn flow discharge, in cubic meters, measured at a given lo-
cation of a river during 60 years is shown in Table 1.2. The aim of the data
analysis is supposed to help in the design of a flood protection device at that
location. Similar ~haract~eristics
such as those for the wind data appear here: a
lower end clearly defined (zero) and an obscure upper end.
 Chapter 1. Introduction and Motivation

Table 1.1: Yearly Maxima Wind Data.

Table 1.2: Flood Data: Maxima Yearly Floods in a Given Section of a River.

1.4.3 Wave Data

The yearly maximum wave heights, in feet, observed at a given location over 50
years are shown in Table 1.3. Data have been obtained in shallow water, and
will be used for designing a breakwater. The wave height is, by definition, a
nonnegative random variable, which is bounded from above. In addition, this
end is clear for shallow water, but unclear for open sea.

1.4.4 Oldest Age at Death in Sweden Data

The yearly oldest ages at death in Sweden during the period from 1905 to 1958
for women and men, respectively, are given in Tables 1.4 and 1.5. The analysis
is needed to forecast oldest ages at death in the future.

1.4.5 Houmb's Data

The yearly maximum significant wave height measured in Miken-Skomvaer (Nor-
way) and published by Houmb and Overvik (1977) is shown in Table 1.6. The
data can be used for the design of sea structures.
1.4. Univa,riate Data Sets 11

Table 1.3: Wave Data: Annual Maximum Wave Heights in a Given Location.

Table 1.4: Oldest Ages at Death in Sweden Data (Women).

Table 1.5: Oldest Ages at Death in Sweden Data (Men).

1.4.6 Telephone Calls Data

The tirnes between 41 (in seconds) and 48 (in minutes) consecutive telephone
calls to a company's switchboard are shown in Tables 1.7 and 1.8. The aim of
the analysis is to determine the ability of the company's computer to handle
very close, consecutive calls because of a limited response time. A clear lower
bound (zero) can be estimated from physical ~onsiderat~ions.
12 Chapter 1. Introduction and Motivation

Table 1.6: Houmb's Data: The Yearly Maximum Significant Wave Height.

Table 1.7: Telephone Data 1: Times Between 35 Consecutive Telephone Calls

(in Seconds).

Table 1.8: Telephone Data 2: Times (in Minutes) Between 48 Consecutive Calls.

1.4.7 Epicenter Data

The distances, in miles, from a nuclear power plant to the epicenters of the most
recent 60 earthquakes and intensity above a given threshold value are shown in
Table 1.9. Data are needed to evaluate the risks associated with earthquakes
occurring close to the central site. In addition, geological reports indicate that
a fault, which is 50 km away from the plant, is the main cause of earthquakes
in the area.

1.4.8 Chain Strength Data

A set of 20 chain links have been tested for strength and the results arc given
in Table 1.10. The data are used for quality control, arid minirnlrnl strength
characteristics are needed.

1.4.9 Electrical Insulation Data

The lifetimes of 30 electrical insulation elements are shown in Table 1.11. The
data are used for quality control, and minirnunl lifetime characteristics are
needed.
1.4. Univariate Data Sets 13

Tablc 1.9: Epicenter Data: Distances from Epicenters to a Nuclear Power Plant.

Tablc 1.10: Strengths (in kg) for 20 Chains.

Table 1.11: Lifetime (in Days) of 30 Electric Insulators.

1.4.10 Fatigue Data

Thirty five specimens of wire were tested for fatigue strength to failure and the
results are shown in Table 1.12. The aim of the study is to determine a design
fatigue stress.

1.4.11 Precipitation Data

The yearly total precipitation in Philadelphia for the last 40 years, measured in
inches, is shown in Tablc 1.13. The aim of the study is related to drought risk
determination.

1.4.12 Bilbao Wave Heights Data

The Zero-crossing hourly mean periods (in seconds) of the sea waves measured
in a Bilbao buoy in January 1997 are given in Table 1.14. Only periods above
14 Chapter 1. Introduction and Motivation

Table 1.12: Fatigue Data: Number of Million Cycles Until the Occurrence of
Fatigue.

Table 1.13: Precipitation Data.

7 seconds are listed.

Table 1.14: The Bilbao Waves Heights Data: The Zero-Crossing Hourly Mean
Periods, Above Seven Seconds, of the Sea Waves Measured in a Bilbao Buoy in
January 1997.
1.5. Multivariate Data Sets 15

Table 1.15: Yearly Maximum Floods of the Ocmulgee River Data Downstream
at Macon ((11) and Upstream a t Hawkinsville (q2) from 1910 to 1949.

1.5 Multivariate Data Sets

Multivariate data are encountered when several magnitudes are measured in-
stead of a single one. Some multivariate data sets are given below.

1.5.1 Ocmulgee River Data

The yearly maximum water discharge of the Ocmulgee River, measured a t two
different locations, Macon and Hawkinsville, between 1910 and 1949, and pub-
lished by Gumbel (1964) are given in Table 1.15. The aim of the analysis is to
help in the designs of the flood protection structures.

1.5.2 The Yearly Maximum Wind Data

The bivariate data (Vl, V2) in Table 1.16 correspond to the yearly maximum
wind speeds (in krn/hour) a t two close locations. An analysis is needed to
forecast yearly maximum wind speeds in the future at these locations, and also
to study their association characteristics. If there is little or no association
between the two, then the data from each location could be analyzed separately
as a univariate data (that is, not as a bivariate data).

1.5.3 The Maximum Car Speed Data

The bivariate data (Vl, V2) in Table 1.17 correspond to the maximum weekend
car speeds registered a t two given roads 1 and 2, a highway and a mountain
road, respectively, corresponding t o 200 dry weeks and the first 1000 cars passing
through two given locations. The data will be used to predict future maximum
weekend car speeds.
16 Chapter 1. Introduction and hfotivation

Table 1.16: Yearly Maximum Wind Data at Two Close Locations.

 Another Random Document on
Scribd Without Any Related Topics
astonished to find that this conduct excited no surprise in Europe.
Wolsey actually urged Francis to take this course, and Clement
absolved him from his oath.
The release of the French King, therefore, served but to
encourage the enemies of Charles, and, on May 22, the Pope,
Francis, Sforza, Venice, and Florence concluded
The League of
the Holy League of Cognac, under the ‘protection Cognac. May 22,
of Henry of England.’ Sforza was to be confirmed 1526.
in his possession of Milan; all Italian states were
to be restored to the position they held before the war; Charles was
to release the young French princes for a sum of money, and pay his
debt to England within three months. The Leaguers proclaimed their
desire to secure a lasting peace. Charles and all other princes were
therefore offered the opportunity of joining the League. But if the
Emperor refused, he was to be driven not only from the Milanese,
but from Naples, which was then to be held by the Pope on payment
of a yearly revenue to France.
Charles was now threatened by a coalition more formidable than
any previous one. Nor was this all. His army was in a mutinous
condition from want of pay and food, and in danger from the
determined hostility of the Italians. Colonna, and Pescara, two of his
best generals, were dead, while Bourbon had quarrelled with
Lannoy, the viceroy of Naples. In Hungary, Solyman was on the point
of winning the battle of Mohacs (August 28, 1526)—a victory which
was to give him the larger part of that country; Francis was
negotiating with this enemy of Christendom, and even Venice
declared she preferred to be the vassal of the Turk rather than of the
Emperor.
Fortunately for Charles, the members of the League were not
hearty in the common cause. Francis seemed determined to make
up for the dreary days of imprisonment, and spent his time in
hunting and other pleasures. He expressed the most admirable
sentiments as to the necessity of immediate action, and made use of
the League to try and extort easier terms from Charles, yet did
nothing. Wolsey had no intention of openly breaking with Charles,
and prevailed on Henry viii. to decline the office of Protector of the
League. The Divorce Question had already arisen, and if this
influenced Wolsey to prevent a reconciliation between Pope and
Emperor, it also gave him strong reasons for not needlessly irritating
Charles. Finally, the Duke of Urbino, the commander of the Venetian
army, either from incompetence, or from a disinclination unduly to
extend the power of the Pope, failed to prosecute the war with
vigour. The Imperialists, therefore, were able to concentrate their
efforts on the citadel of Milan, and on July 24, Sforza was forced to
capitulate. The Colonnesi, headed by the
Milan capitulates
Cardinal Pompeio, now rose, and were supported to the Imperialists.
by Don Hugo de Monçada, the successor of July 24, 1526
Pescara. On August 22, they pretended to come
to terms; but no sooner had Clement dismissed his troops, than
Monçada and the Cardinal, rivalling the perfidy of Francis, appeared
before the walls of Rome with the army of the Colonnesi. The
citizens, assured that the Colonnesi only came to deliver them from
the tyranny of the Pope, and threatened with destruction if they
stirred, offered no resistance; the papal palace, the houses of the
cardinals and ambassadors, were sacked; the Church of St. Peter
was rifled, and the Host profaned; and Clement, utterly defenceless,
was obliged to submit to the terms dictated by the victors
(September 21). He promised to recall his troops from Lombardy, to
make a four months’ truce with the Emperor, and to pardon the
Colonnesi. The news, however, of the taking of Cremona by the
army of the League inspired him in an evil moment to break his
promises. He sent his troops to ravage the territories of the
Colonnesi, and deprived Cardinal Pompeio of his dignities.
Monçada had told the Emperor to disavow his attack on Rome.
This Charles did, but at the same time warned the College of
Cardinals that if anything befell Christendom, it would be the fault of
the Pope who, in thus joining the League, ‘had sought the
satisfaction of his own desires rather than the honour of Christ and
his people’s good.’ The Emperor also despatched six thousand
Spanish troops to Italy, and bade Ferdinand send eight thousand
Germans under Frundsberg. In November, this
The sack of Rome.
enemy of the Papacy crossed the Alps with an May 6, 1527.
army, levied mostly from the robber fastnesses of
Germany, in which there were many Lutherans. By the end of
December, he had reached Piacenza, in spite of the feeble attempts
of the forces of the League to check him. At the same time Lannoy
landed at St. Stefano, in Tuscany, with the levies from Spain.
Clement was now ‘in such a condition that he did not know where he
was,’ says an eye-witness. At one moment he haggled over terms of
peace with Lannoy, at another he threatened him and his troops
with excommunication. Finally, however, on the 15th of March, he
made an eight months’ truce. This did not, however, save him.
Frundsberg had in February been joined by Bourbon with the troops
from Milan. Their first idea had been to attack Florence. Hearing,
however, that the city was prepared to resist, and was protected by
the army of the League under the Duke of Urbino, Bourbon turned
on Rome, declaring that his troops were mutinous and were
dragging him there. As he advanced, his army was swelled by
Italians bent on plunder. On the 6th of May, after being twice
repulsed, the fortifications of the Eternal City were carried, though
Bourbon fell, and Rome was for eight days in the hands of the
spoiler. She had suffered much from the barbarians of old, but
probably never did she suffer such brutality as now at the hands of
Christians. The death of Bourbon, and the absence of Frundsberg,
who had been left mortally sick at Bologna, removed the only men
who might have restrained the fury of the soldiery. The Spaniards
excelled in cruelty, the Lutherans in blasphemy and sacrilege. They
sacked and plundered without discrimination of friend or foe. ‘There
is not,’ says a contemporary, ‘a house in Rome, not a church or
monastery, either of Romans or of foreigners, great or small, which
has not been sacked.’ ‘Cardinals,’ says another, ‘bishops, friars,
priests, old nuns, infants, dames, pages, servants, the very poorest,
were tormented with unheard-of cruelties, often three times over:
first by the Italians, then by the Spaniards, afterwards by the lance-
knights. Lastly, the villainous Colonnesi came, dying of hunger, and
ravaged what the other soldiers had not deigned to take.’ The sack
of Rome may well be said to close the period of the greatness of
Italy. No longer was she to be the leader of the new learning and of
art.
Meanwhile, the unfortunate Pope lay besieged in the Castle of St.
Angelo. He might have escaped while the city was being sacked; yet
he delayed, trusting that the army of the League would hurry to his
support. It came, indeed, at last; but the Duke of Urbino, declaring
that he was not strong enough to attack, retreated, and, on June 7,
Clement was forced to capitulate. He promised to pay the sums of
money demanded, surrendered six towns as securities, and
consented to remain a prisoner, with his thirteen Cardinals, until the
first instalment should be paid. Some now advised the Emperor to
take the lands of the Papacy and reduce the Pope to his spiritual
functions; or, at least, ‘to keep the see apostolic so low that he might
always dispose of it and command it.’ But though Charles declared
the sack of Rome to be the judgment of God, he was probably
sincere in regretting it,47 and even had he wished to proceed to
extremities, he was in no position to do so. Indeed, the capture of
the Pope promised to bring him as little advantage as that of the
King of France had done. The news of the sack of Rome had at last
aroused the pleasure-seeking Francis, and caused England to change
her policy of masterly inactivity. To this, Wolsey was driven by his
imperious master. Henry viii. was now bent on
Henry VIII. allies
divorcing Queen Catherine, the aunt of Charles; himself with
it was therefore of importance, not only to gain Francis. April–May,
the support of Francis, but, if possible, to earn 1527.
the gratitude of the Pope. Accordingly, by the
treaties of April 30, and May 29, Henry abandoned his claim to the
French throne in return for a perpetual pension; the infant Princess
Mary was betrothed to the second son of the French King; and
England promised to furnish Francis with money for his Italian
campaign. In the following August, Wolsey held a conference at
Amiens with the French King. It was agreed that,
Conference at
during the captivity of the Pope, no Bull Amiens. August,
derogatory to the interests of either King should 1527.
be admitted into their territories, that the
Churches of France and England should be administered by their
bishops, and that the judgments pronounced by Wolsey in his
legatine and archiepiscopal courts should be enforced,
notwithstanding any papal prohibition. The contracting parties also
decided that the Pope, being in captivity, should be asked to intrust
his power to another, who should take steps to meet present
necessities. Wolsey even suggested that he himself should be
appointed papal Vicar. The pretext for these strange proposals was
the fear that Charles might use the spiritual powers of his prisoner to
their disadvantage, but there is little doubt that Wolsey also hoped in
this way to obtain authority for an immediate settlement of the
divorce question.
Meanwhile, a new French army under Lautrec had invaded Italy,
and shortly secured the whole of Lombardy except Milan itself, which
was stoutly defended by Antonio de Leyva. Had
The French again
Lautrec concentrated all his efforts on the city, as enter Italy. July
he was urged to do by Sforza and the Duke of 30.
Urbino, it must have fallen; for Leyva had but a
handful of men, and was short of money and supplies. Leyva,
however, it was known, would fight to the last; and Lautrec,
unwilling to weaken his force by so desperate an encounter, turned
southward to the relief of Clement (October 1527). The position of
the Pope was indeed a pitiable one. Money he had none, and,
without the payment of his ransom, he could not regain his freedom.
Rome, meanwhile, continued to be the victim of the merciless
soldiers. The Duke of Ferrara had seized Reggio and Modena; and
even the Venetians, although the allies of the Pope, had occupied
Ravenna and Cervia, under the pretext that they did it to save those
cities from falling into Ferrarese hands.
Worse than this, the Florentines had in May risen once more
against the Medici, driven the Pope’s two cousins, Alessandro and
Ippolito, from the city, and re-established a Republic under the
veteran Nicolo Capponi. Clement had sacrificed
Medici again driven
the interests of the Church in his attempt to from Florence. May
strengthen the temporal power and to 17, 1527.
aggrandise his family, and this was the result.
Before Lautrec reached Rome, however, the Pope had at least
regained his freedom. Charles realised that he was gaining nothing
by keeping Clement in captivity; he earnestly wished to make peace
with him, and to proceed to the extirpation of heresy. He had
therefore ordered Monçada to try to come to terms, warning him at
the same time to beware that he was not tricked, as he himself had
been, by Francis.
Accordingly, on November 26, the following agreement was made.
The Pope was to pay a certain sum of money at once, and to
promise more. He undertook not to oppose the
Clement comes to
Emperor’s designs on Italy; he granted him a terms with
‘cruzada’ from the ecclesiastical revenues of Charles, Nov. 26.
Spain, and half of the ecclesiastical tithes of But flies to
Naples; Ostia, Civita-Vecchia, and Civita Orvieto, Dec. 6.
Castellana were to be left in Charles’ hands as
guarantees, as well as five of the cardinals; the Pope was to be freed
on the 7th of the following month. On the preceding night, afraid
lest he might even yet be kept a prisoner, he fled in disguise to the
papal stronghold of Orvieto.
Even so, the affairs of Charles were going ill. Florence, although
she had expelled the Medici, did not abandon the League. Leyva still
held Milan, but warned Charles that ‘God did not work miracles every
day,’ and that, if not speedily relieved, his troops, though they would
not surrender, would be starved. Genoa had been once more won
for the French by Andrea Doria. Lannoy, the viceroy of Naples, had
just died of the plague, and the imperial army,
Critical condition of
which had marched, under the Prince of Orange, the Imperialists in
to the relief of Naples, was surrounded by the Italy.
French army under Lautrec. Naples seemed
doomed, and Francis was jubilant.
Yet, as had been the case at every important crisis of this long
struggle, the French, when most confident, were nearest defeat.
Although the troops of the Emperor were ill paid and ill fed, and, on
that account, insubordinate and ready for plunder, they were
decidedly superior to those of Francis, both in powers of endurance
and on the battlefield. They had hitherto been outnumbered, but
their endurance had been wearing out their enemies, and they were
soon to be in a position to meet them in the field. The fate of Naples
depended on the command of the sea, and this was now in the
hands of Andrea Doria and his nephew Filippino.
Francis quarrels
Andrea Doria had taken the lead in the revolution with Doria.
which had recently restored Genoa to the
French. He soon repented of his deed. Not only did Francis
personally affront him by refusing to pay him properly for the use of
his galleys, and by denying him the ransom of the prisoners he had
taken, but he also touched his patriotism by neglecting Genoa, and
attempting to set up Savona, which the French had lately gained, as
her commercial rival. On Doria’s remonstrance, Francis sent a Breton
to take command of the French fleet in the Mediterranean, and even
thought of having the Doge arrested. Doria accordingly listened to
the tempting offers of the Prince of Orange, and, on the 4th of July,
ordered his nephew to sail from Naples. His departure at once
enabled the city to provision itself from Sicily, and the danger of
famine was removed. At this critical moment, the French army,
which had also suffered from want of supplies, was attacked by a
severe outbreak of the plague. To this Lautrec, with several of his
officers, fell a victim, and the army was so decimated that the
Marquis of Saluzzo, who succeeded him in command, determined to
retreat to Aversa (August 28).
 As the French attempted to execute this movement, the rear-
guard, under Pedro Navarra, was overtaken by the enemy, and
forced to surrender. The Prince of Orange,
Battle of Aversa,
following up his success, pursued the retreating Aug. 28. The
foe, and forced them to capitulate at discretion. French evacuate
The Marquis of Saluzzo remained a prisoner in Naples.
his hands with Pedro Navarra, both to die shortly
afterwards. The rest of the army were allowed to return to their
homes under promise not to serve for the present against the
Emperor. Doria now sailed to Genoa, and raised the city against the
French. On the 28th of October, the governor Trivulzio was forced to
capitulate, and Doria was successful in
The French finally
establishing a government which, if somewhat driven from
oligarchical, at least protected the city from Genoa. Oct. 28.
those violent party factions which had torn it for
years, and secured its independence until the year 1796. Doria then
reduced Savona, and the French were driven from the Ligurian
coast. In Lombardy the struggle continued for a while. Here Leyva,
who still held Milan, was opposed by the troops of the League,
commanded by Sforza, the Duke of Urbino with the Venetian troops,
and the Count de St. Pol with the new levies from France. The
armies of the League, after retaking Pavia, had surrounded Milan,
but hesitated to attack the formidable Leyva. In
Battle of
the following June, the Count de St. Pol, as he Landriano. June
rashly attempted to make a diversion on Genoa, 20.
was surprised by Leyva, who had received
information of his movements, and was completely routed at
Landriano (June 20). The besieging armies retreated, and Milan was
saved.
Charles was not yet complete master in Italy. Asti and Alessandria
were still in the hands of the French. Lodi, Cremona, and Pavia were
held by Sforza; the Republic at Florence still kept out the Medici, and
Venice yet clung to the eastern coast of Apulia. Further resistance on
the part of the League was, however, hopeless, unless supported by
its more important members, and these were soon to abandon it.
England had never intended to act as a principal in the war, and was
certainly unable to do so at present: she was weakened by a serious
outbreak of the sweating sickness, and the attention of her King was
absorbed in the matter of the divorce.
Still more fatal to the cause of the League was the final
reconciliation of Clement with the Emperor. The real desire of
Clement, since his escape from Rome, had been to maintain his
neutrality until peace was declared. This, however, was difficult,
besieged as he was by the importunate agents of the League, and of
Charles. Moreover, Clement cared chiefly for the temporal interests
of the Papacy and the aggrandisement of his family. To regain the
possessions of which he had been robbed, to re-establish the Medici
in Florence—these, rather than the freedom of Italy, or the
overthrow of heresy, were his aims. As these
Clement and the
were not to be gained from the League, the Pope Emperor reconciled
decided after much hesitation to come to terms at the Treaty of
with the Emperor, the more so, because the Barcelona.
ultimate success of Charles seemed certain. Nor
can it be denied that, for once, Clement’s private interests coincided
with those of the Church, for reconciliation with Charles offered the
only hope of making head against the formidable Luther. His only
apprehension was that Charles would put into effect his threat of
summoning a General Council, a threat which he had enforced by his
promises to the Diet of Spires in June 1526. On this point, the
Emperor’s agents succeeded in allaying the fears of the Pope, and
no mention of a Council was made in the treaty which was
concluded at Barcelona on the 29th June, 1529. By that treaty the
Pope promised to invest Charles with the kingdom of Naples, and to
crown him Emperor. Charles undertook that the places seized from
the Papal States by the Duke of Ferrara, and by Venice, should be
restored; he also promised to re-establish the Medici in Florence.
Finally, they both agreed to turn their united forces against the
infidel and the heretic. Yet the treaty was to lead to another schism.
On the 16th of July, Clement, yielding to the wishes of Charles,
revoked the powers he had given to Wolsey and Campeggio to try
the question of Henry’s divorce in England, and cited the cause to
Rome. Wolsey’s dream of gaining papal sanction was broken, and
soon Henry was to take the matter into his own hands and cast off
the papal supremacy.
Meanwhile, negotiations for peace between the Emperor and
Francis had been going on. The rivals had, however, challenged each
other to single combat the year before, and their
Peace of Cambray.
honour did not suffer them personally to August 3, 1529.
correspond. The negotiations, therefore, had
been conducted by two women—Margaret, Governess of the
Netherlands, the aunt of Charles, and Louise of Savoy, the mother of
the French King, both of whom were anxious for peace. Francis had
been most unwilling to grant the terms demanded, yet he was in no
condition to continue the war, and the reconciliation of Pope and
Emperor forced him to abandon his scruples, and sign the Peace of
Cambray, or Women’s Peace, August 3, 1529.
The French King was indeed freed from the necessity of ceding
Burgundy, and regained his sons, who had been left hostages in the
hands of Charles, in return for a sum of money. The other terms
were, however, sufficiently humiliating. Not only did Francis
surrender all claims to Italy, and to the overlordship of Artois and
Flanders; but he had also to abandon his allies; he even undertook,
if necessary, to force the Venetians to disgorge the conquests they
had lately made on the Neapolitan coast, and this in the face of his
solemn engagement on the honour of a King to include them in any
treaty which he might make. Francis, it must be confessed, rated a
King’s word rather low. The marriage, first arranged at the Treaty of
Madrid, was ratified; it was hoped that if Eleonora, the widowed
sister of Charles, were wedded to Francis, the family tie might serve
to heal the personal enmity of these two sovereigns, whose rivalry
had plunged Europe into an eight years’ war.
 Before the negotiations had been brought to a successful issue,
Charles had left Spain. It was his earnest desire to finish the war
himself, and to receive the imperial crown from the hands of the
Pope. It was at Piacenza therefore that he finally
Charles leaves
ratified the treaty. Italy was now at the mercy of Spain for Italy.
Charles. He was, however, wise enough to adopt August, 1529.
a conciliatory policy towards all her States,
except the Republic of Florence. Venice was indeed forced to
surrender to Charles her conquests on the east coast of Naples, and
to restore Ravenna and Cervia to the Pope, but was not further
punished. To Francesco Maria Sforza was left the
Settlement of
duchy of Milan, with the exception of Monza, Italian affairs.
which was granted to Antonio de Leyva, Charles’
brave general, and of the citadels of Milan and Como, which Charles
kept in his own hands.48
This policy had its reward. By a treaty of December 23, 1529,
Venice and Sforza joined the Pope in contracting a defensive alliance
with Charles; while Savoy was strengthened as an outpost against
France by the acquisition of the county of Asti. The affairs of
Florence had yet to be settled. Charles would gladly have found
some middle course. But the Florentines refused to readmit the
Medici even as private citizens, and Clement insisted that they
should be restored to power. The city, strengthened by the
fortifications designed by Michael Angelo, and defended by the
militia formed after the advice of Machiavelli, stood an eight months’
siege, during which the Prince of Orange, Charles’ general, was
killed. No one, however, came to the aid of the unfortunate Republic,
which was forced to accept as Duke, Alessandro, the cousin of the
Pope, who had married Margaret, the illegitimate daughter of the
Emperor.49
Meanwhile, on February 23, Charles had been crowned Emperor at
Bologna by the Pope, and on the following day, the anniversary of
his birth, and of the victory of Pavia, had received the iron crown of
Italy.
 During this long war, which had lasted eight
Charles crowned
years, we find the same story repeated again Emperor at
and again. Thrice the French seemed on the Bologna. Feb. 23,
point of success, only to experience a crushing 1530.
reverse which snatched from them all they had
gained. The imperialist armies, whether composed of Germans or of
Spaniards, ill paid and ill fed, often broke out in mutiny, and
disgraced their feats of arms by plunder and atrocities of all kinds;
yet no sooner were they called upon to meet the enemy than they
proved themselves superior whether in defensive or offensive
operations; while they were also, as a rule, better led.
Francis, after his capture at Pavia, never appeared in the field
again, and although infinitely better supplied with money from his
subservient people than was Charles, he was too careless and too
fond of pleasure to make full use of his advantage. As for Charles,
he had taken no active part in the campaigns at all. Absent in Spain,
surrounded by difficulties which the vastness of his Empire entailed
upon him, and ever in grievous need of money, it seemed sometimes
as if he were forgetful of the war, and neglectful of his soldiers. Yet
under this callous exterior there was a determination and fixedness
of purpose which nothing could shake, and which, if it sometimes
appeared to be sheer stupidity, yet succeeded in the end.
While the armies of Charles had thus been engaged in winning
Italy from his Christian rival, Vienna seemed likely to fall into the
hands of the infidel. In May, 1529, Solyman the
Solyman invades
Magnificent had allied himself with the Hospodar Hungary. May,
of Moldavia, and with John Zapolya, Waivode of 1529.
Transylvania, the inveterate enemy of the
Hapsburgs, and had invaded Hungary. His pretensions knew no
bounds. ‘As there is but one God in Heaven, so must there be but
one lord on earth, and Solyman is that lord,’ he proudly asserted, a
boast which he hoped to carry into effect by reducing the dominions
of the Emperor in Germany. The Austrians, afraid to trust the fidelity
of the Hungarian forces, had been unable to meet the Turk, and
retreated from the country. Solyman, in possession of the sacred
crown of Hungary, which was handed to him by an Hungarian
bishop, passed on into Austria, and on the 20th of September laid
siege to Vienna. But divided though Germany was, it was not so lost
to shame as to allow the Crescent to be established on the walls of
the Austrian city. The Reformers, although irritated by their
treatment at the hands of the second Diet of Spires (cf. p. 198),
answered to the appeal of Ferdinand and to the injunctions of
Luther. Vienna was bravely held; and Solyman,
Siege of Vienna
threatened by the levies which were coming to raised. Oct. 14,
its aid, was forced to retreat after a fruitless 1523.
siege of twenty-four days (October 14). Vienna
indeed was saved, but Hungary was held by Zapolya, and Croatia
and Bohemia threatened.

§ 2. Progress of the Reformation in Germany.

In the midst of the troubles of the Italian campaign, and in the
face of the hostility of the Pope, any decisive action against the
Reformers had been out of the question. It was at least necessary to
procrastinate. Accordingly, at the Diet of Spires
The Diet of Spires,
(Aug. 1526), the Emperor had promised, through Aug. 1526, and the
his representatives, that a General Council should Recess.
be summoned, but that, meanwhile, the penal
clauses of the Edict of Worms should be enforced. At the same time,
he had warned Clement vii. that if the Christian republic should
suffer in consequence of a Council not being summoned, the blame
must fall on him. At the Diet itself, the Catholics found themselves in
a majority in all the chambers, except that of the imperial cities, yet
they were not prepared to advocate extreme measures. The
Recess50 declared that, until a Council should meet, each state
should, in matters appertaining to the Edict of Worms, ‘so live, rule,
and conduct itself as it shall be ready to answer to God and his
Imperial Majesty.’ It is a mistake to hold that the Reformers were
thereby authorised to set on foot their new ecclesiastical
organisations. The concession was purely provisional, and they were
to answer to the Emperor for what they did. None the less, the
Elector of Saxony and Philip of Hesse proceeded to establish their
Lutheran churches, and to appropriate monastic property for the
purpose—a policy which was soon followed by others, especially by
Albert of Prussia, who, in 1525, had already secularised the estates
of the Teutonic knights, and converted his mastership into a
dukedom.
Thus the Diet of Spires makes an important advance in the history
of the Reformation. If, on the one hand, it was now clear that
Germany was not to belong exclusively to the Lutherans, on the
other, a great impulse was given to the principle of territorialism
(cujus regio, ejus religio), upon which eventually the ecclesiastical
settlement of Germany was to be based. Three years later, the
position of affairs had materially altered. The marked advance of the
Reformed opinions had excited the apprehensions of the Catholics,
while the successes of the Emperor in Italy, and his reconciliation
with the Pope, had strengthened their cause. The rapid growth of
the Zwinglian opinions in the south of Germany, opinions which were
wholly distasteful to Luther, had weakened the Evangelical party, and
the rash appeal to arms on the part of Philip of Hesse, to resist a
supposed conspiracy against those who thought with him, had
irritated the Princes.
This reaction of opinion expressed itself in the second Diet of
Spires. The Recess of 1526 was revoked, all further innovations were
forbidden, and the ‘sect’ of the Zwinglians was refused all toleration.
The minority, indeed, here earned their name of
Second Diet of
‘Protestants’ by the protest they issued against Spires. Feb. 1529.
these decrees—a protest which was signed by
John, Elector of Saxony, Philip of Hesse, George, Margrave of
Brandenburg, Ernest of Luneburg, Wolfgang of Anhalt, and fourteen
imperial cities. But the protest was rejected by both Diet and
Emperor; and so evident was it that Charles only waited for an
opportunity to take decisive action, that a
Meeting at
meeting was held at Schmalkalde, at which the Schmalkalde. Dec.
lawfulness of resistance was discussed, to be 1529.
abandoned, however, for the present in
deference to the scruples of Luther.
When on June 30, 1530, Charles, after eight years’ absence, met
the Diet of Augsburg in person, the moment seemed to have arrived
for a final settlement of his difficulties. Italy was at his feet; Francis
had at last accepted his terms; the Pope had
Charles at the Diet
promised to join with him in suppressing heresy, of Augsburg. June,
and had crowned him Emperor; and, if Hungary 1530.
was in the hands of Solyman, Germany at least
was free from his attack. The Protestants, conscious of their
weakness, desired reconciliation. This was strongly advocated by
Melanchthon, and breathed in every line of the ‘Confession of
Augsburg’ which was presented to the Diet, at the request of Charles
that the Protestants would express their thoughts in writing. In this
famous Confession, the doctrine of Justification was stated in
qualified terms; the paying of honour to the Saints was not entirely
forbidden; although reasons were given why the Lutherans had
permitted the Cup to the laity, the marriage of the clergy, and the
secularisation of Church lands, and had rejected vows and private
masses, no definite assertion was made as to the number of the
Sacraments, or on the question of the papal power; while the
decision of other contested questions was to be left to the verdict of
a General Council. The tone of the document was avowedly
defensive, and its aim was rather to show that the Lutheran
doctrines were not heretical than to attack those of the Church.
The original intention of Charles had been to act as a mediator,
and to settle the religious dissensions by fair and gentle means. He
had asked the Evangelical party for an expression of their views. He
now wished that their opponents should bring forward a distinct
charge against the Reformers which would allow him to assume the
part of an umpire. But the Catholics in the Diet refused; they
declared that they had nothing new to propose, and accordingly
prepared a confutation in which, indeed, they made some approach
towards the Lutheran view of the doctrine of Justification, but in
other respects insisted on the old doctrines, and demanded that the
Protestants should return to the unity of the faith. The Emperor now
abandoned the rôle of a mediator, and attempted to overawe the
recalcitrants with threats. Alarmed, however, by the determined
though respectful attitude of the Protestant princes, the Diet made
one more attempt at reconciliation, and a small committee was
appointed. On the question of dogma there seemed some chance of
agreement, and a General Council might possibly have broken down
the opposition of the Protestants. But, though this was earnestly
desired by the Emperor, the Pope had no idea of complying with his
wish; while on questions relating to the constitution and the practice
of the Church, reconciliation was probably hopeless. These the
Catholics regarded as of Divine institution; the Protestants, on the
other hand, looked upon them as the work of men, and therefore
capable of modification. Erasmus in his letters bitterly complains of
the want of moderation on both sides; yet this is not the only
occasion where attempts at compromise on serious religious issues
have failed. Eventually, Charles adopted the
The Recess of
views of the majority, and the Recess of Augsburg.
Augsburg proclaimed his intention of enforcing
the Edict of Worms. The Protestants were given till the ensuing April
to consider whether they would voluntarily return to the Catholic
Church. After that date, measures were to be taken for the
extirpation of their sect. But although the majority of the Diet had
thus shown themselves hostile to the Reformers,
Reorganisation of
they hesitated to put arms into the hands of the the Imperial
Emperor with which he might enforce the Edict; Chamber. Nov. 19,
rather they proposed to make use of the Imperial 1530.
Chamber for the purpose. This court was
accordingly reorganised and increased in number; assessors
suspected of Lutheran tendencies were admonished, and the
Chamber was ordered to enforce the Recess.
In answer to this, the Protestant princes and city deputies met at
Schmalkalde on December 22, 1530. They appointed procurators to
watch their interests before the Imperial Chamber; they agreed to
protect each other from any attempt on its part
Formation of the
to enforce the Recess of Augsburg, and after League of
much debate decided that resistance was lawful Schmalkalde. Dec.
even to the Emperor himself, should he appeal to 22, 1530.
arms. Hitherto Luther and the theologians had
preached the doctrine of passive obedience. But the civilians brought
forward arguments to prove that the power of the Emperor was
limited by law. His title was not hereditary, but elective; he had
granted capitulations at his election; if, therefore, he acted illegally,
he might be resisted. Convinced by these arguments, Luther gave
way, and was followed by most of those present, with the exception
of the Margrave of Brandenburg and the city of Nuremberg. Thus
originated the League of Schmalkalde, which was definitely formed
in March 1531 and finally organised in the ensuing December. Its
members were to be represented in a Diet. They promised to furnish
contributions to a common fund, and intrusted the supreme
command of their forces to John, Elector of Saxony, and the
Landgrave Philip of Hesse. The formation of the League of
Schmalkalde marks a new period in the struggle. In spite of the
scruples of Luther, the movement had become a political one.
Henceforth Germany was to be divided into two hostile camps, each
with its centre of unity, and the Protestants had taken measures for
their common defence, by arms if necessary.
The next crucial question was, whether this League should include
all those both in Switzerland and in Upper Germany, who had
embraced the views of Zwingle. Although it may be doubted whether
this Reformer would ever have been heard of had it not been for the
impulse given to the cry for Reform by the appearance of Luther, yet
the two movements were to a great extent independent of each
other, and, from the first, presented essential
Zwingle.
points of difference. The son of the ‘Amtmann’ of
the village of Weldenhaus, near St. Gall, Zwingle was born in 1484, a
few weeks after Luther. He had in early life been influenced by the
literary movement of the Humanists, and was well versed in the
classics. Chosen as curate of the congregation of Glarus in 1506, he
had accompanied his countrymen on some of the Italian expeditions,
notably on that which ended so disastrously at Marignano, and
henceforth never ceased to warn his fellow-citizens against the
demoralising influences of this mercenary system of warfare.
It is, however, with his call to be curate at Zurich (1519–1525)
that his career as a Reformer began. Starting, like Luther, with a
crusade against the abuse of indulgences, he
Zwingle curate at
soon began to take up different ground. While Zurich. 1519–
Luther did not deny the Real Presence, Zwingle 1525.
looked upon the Sacrament merely as a festival
of commemoration, and pressed the Lutheran view of Justification to
its logical conclusion—the doctrine of election and the denial of
man’s free will. Luther was willing to accept anything which could
not be proved contrary to his interpretation of Scripture; Zwingle
would accept nothing but what he found there. Luther had a deep
reverence for the Universal Church, and only left it after a struggle;
Zwingle based the right of each congregation to independent action
in matters religious on the republican organisation of the village.
Luther had attempted to keep religious questions apart from politics,
and, when finally driven from this position, threw himself on the side
of authority as represented by the Princes. The religious ideas of
Zwingle were intimately connected with a scheme of establishing a
more thorough and representative democracy in Switzerland, in
which the Forest Cantons should lose their privilege of holding as
many votes in the Federal Diet as the other and larger Cantons. By
the close of the year 1530, the opinions of Zwingle had not only
been accepted by the Cantons of Zurich, Basel, Bern, and
Schaffhausen, and by many of the country-folk of Appenzell, Glarus,
and the Grisons, but had spread among many of the towns of
southern Germany, notably those of Constance, Ulm, Augsburg, and
Strasburg.
Common danger had for a moment drawn the adherents of these
two Reformers together, to protect themselves against the Recess of
the second Diet of Spires. But permanent union
Temporary union
between such widely divergent views was between the
scarcely possible. Philip of Hesse, who was followers of Luther
himself inclined towards the opinions of Zwingle, and Zwingle soon
had attempted to effect a reconciliation at his comes to an end.
castle of Marburg in 1529. The attempt failed—
Luther showing the most uncompromising hostility to the Zwinglian
doctrine concerning the Sacraments—and shortly after, Zwingle had
to face a reaction in his own country. Like so many reformers, he
was wrecked on the shoal of politics. The Forest Cantons had from
the first been the resolute opponents of the new teaching, not only
because they were strongly Catholic, but
Reaction against
because Zwingle’s political reforms, if carried out, Zwingle in
would destroy the position they had hitherto Switzerland.
enjoyed in the Federal Diet. His political views
also lost him adherents in those Cantons that were in favour of his
doctrinal position. The Hapsburgs cleverly fostered these divisions;
war ensued, and finally at the battle of Cappel, the army of Zurich,
which alone stood by him to the last, was defeated, and Zwingle
himself was slain (October, 1531). By the second
The battle and the
Treaty of Cappel it was agreed that each Canton second Treaty of
was free to retain its own creed. In the ‘Common Cappel. Oct. 1531.
Bailiwicks,’ the religion was to be decided by the
majority. But no force was to be used, and the city Cantons were to
abandon their foreign alliances.
Switzerland was now definitely divided into Catholic and Protestant
Cantons. The Catholics regained lost ground, and secured seventeen
out of twenty-nine votes in the Diet. The Evangelical party held
Zurich, Bern, Basel, and Schaffhausen; while Thurgau, Glarus, and
Appenzell were divided. All hope that Switzerland would support the
Protestants of Germany was now over; nevertheless the cities of
southern Germany, deprived of their Swiss allies, were forced to join
the Lutherans and to swell the numbers of the League of
Schmalkalde. Thus, by the commencement of the year 1532, the
position of the Protestants in Germany had improved.
Had Charles’ hands been now free, doubtless he would have
appealed to the arbitrament of the sword. But here again his political
necessities stood in his way. The peace with
Charles prevented
France was by no means secure; nay, Francis by European
was even intriguing with the League of difficulties from
Schmalkalde. Solyman was again threatening to taking action
invade his dominions. Spain, as usual, against the
Protestants.
complained of his absence. In Africa the piracies
of Barbarossa demanded his attention. Nor could Charles depend on
the unqualified support of the Catholic princes. In June, 1531, he
had with difficulty secured the election of his brother Ferdinand as
King of the Romans by five of the Electors. But the election had
been protested against by John of Saxony, and he was joined by the
two Dukes of Bavaria and others, who, despite their Catholic
sympathies, dreaded to see the power of the Hapsburgs increased.
Disappointed in his hopes of settling the religious difficulty the
Emperor was forced to procrastinate. At the
The Peace of
Peace of Nuremberg (July 1, 1532), he promised Nuremberg. July,
to suspend the proceedings of the Imperial 1532.
Chamber until the convocation of a General
Council; while at the Diet of Ratisbon, which followed, he undertook,
in the event of such a Council not being convoked by the Pope
within six months, to summon a general assembly of the Empire for
the settlement of the religious difficulties.
Charles was at least rewarded by the loyal support of the
Protestants against the Turk. His army, recruited by Spaniards,
Italians, and Netherlanders, was the largest force he had ever led,
and Solyman, repulsed by the brave defenders of Güns, retreated
without having dared to fight a pitched battle. Yet the Emperor was
in no position to make use of his victory. The affairs of Italy and of
Spain imperatively demanded his presence. Accordingly, in the
autumn of 1532, he crossed the Alps, to be involved again in
European complications, and for seven other years Protestantism
was left unmolested.
Shortly after the Peace of Nuremberg, John the Steadfast of
Saxony died. He had gone much further in the direction of
Protestantism than his brother, Frederick the Wise, whom he had
succeeded in 1525. Frederick had never wholly
Death of John,
broken from Rome; John had been one of the Elector of Saxony,
leaders in the League of Schmalkalde, and had 1532.
organised an Evangelical Church within his
territories. Yet, to the last, he tried to maintain a moderate line of
policy, and hoped to find a place for the protestant churches without
breaking up the Empire, or departing from the obedience of the
Emperor. With no remarkable intellectual gifts—corpulent and
somewhat slow-witted,—the simplicity and honesty of his character,
and the courage with which he clung to his convictions, make him
something of a hero; and there is, perhaps, no one to whom Luther
and the Protestants of Germany owe more than to this plain and
single-hearted man.

§ 3. European complications and the fortunes of the Protestants,

from 1532 to the Treaty of Crespi.
At no time during the career of Charles v. are the contradictions
and difficulties which surrounded him better illustrated than during
the period from 1532 to the Treaty of Crespi.
The European
Had his claims been less extensive he might have complications of
been more successful; but the very magnificence Charles.
of his pretensions prevented the complete
realisation of any one of them. As head of the Holy Roman Empire, it
was his duty to defend the unity of the Church, to put down heresy,
and to support the papal authority. Yet his position as King of
Germany forced him to postpone the suppression of heresy to the
imperative necessity of gaining the support of the Protestants
against the Turk; while his claims on Italy brought him into constant
conflict with the Pope. As King of Germany, it was his aim to
increase the royal authority and suppress the tendencies towards
disruption, and, as ruler of the Austrian territories, to further the
family interests of the Hapsburgs; but both these aims incurred the
hostility of many even of the Catholic princes. As King of Spain and
master of Italy, it was incumbent on him to secure his dominions
and the Mediterranean from the piratical incursions of the Moors. Yet
here and everywhere, he was constantly being thwarted by his
persistent rival, Francis i., who not only intrigued with the Pope
against him, but, while persecuting the Reformers at home, entered
into alliances with the Protestants of Germany, the schismatic King of
England, and even the Infidel himself.
With the actual events of this period we must deal very briefly.
They are not in themselves of great importance. Scarcely any new
question is involved, with the exception of that of Africa, and the
position of European affairs is not very materially altered. Charles
had for the moment checked the attack of the Moslems from the
East. He was now forced to turn his attention to their movement in
the south-west. By the conquests of Ferdinand the Catholic, the
Spaniards had acquired possessions on the north African coast from
Melilla to Tripoli, and reduced the rulers of
The struggle with
Algiers and Tunis to the position of vassals. Since Barbarossa. June–
1510, however, the Spaniards had met with August, 1535.
many reverses, especially since the rise of the
two Barbarossas. These two men, sons of a Greek or Albanian
renegade, had made themselves masters of Algiers. Huroc, the elder,
was slain in 1518, but Hayraddin, his younger brother, interfered in
the dynastic disputes of Tunis, and, in 1534, added that country to
his kingdom. To gain the support of Solyman, he had consented to
hold his conquests of him, and, in 1533, received the command of
the Turkish fleet. Meanwhile his own ships had been threatening the
Mediterranean, harrying the coasts of Spain and Italy, and carrying
off Christians to the slave-markets of Africa and the East. This rise of
a new Mahometan power in Africa, a power with which Francis was
not ashamed to coquet, demanded instant attention. Charles,
therefore, having renewed his alliance with the new Pope, Paul iii.
(Farnese), and settled as far as was possible the affairs of Italy,
passed on to Spain. Thence, with a fleet under the command of
Andrea Doria, and an army which was not only recruited from
various parts of his dominions, but was joined by the Knights of
Malta, he sailed for Africa (June, 1535), nominally in support of
Muley-Hassan, one of the claimants to the kingdom of Tunis. The
expedition proved a brilliant success. Solyman could send no help,
and Francis was either afraid or ashamed to aid. The harbour of
Goletta was taken by storm, and the army of Barbarossa defeated
on the field. The Christian prisoners in Tunis rose against their
captors, and Barbarossa was forced to evacuate the country, which
was granted to Muley-Hassan under the suzerainty of Spain (August,
1535). But though the expedition caused a great stir and increased
the reputation of the Emperor, it did not materially improve his
prospects in Europe.
Francis had never intended to keep the Treaty of Cambray, and
was determined to attempt the recovery of the duchy of Milan at
least. He had accordingly been long intriguing,
The intrigues of
both in Germany and Italy. To gain the support Francis.
of Clement vii. he had consented to marry his
second son, Henry of Orleans, to Catherine de’ Medici, on condition
of a principality being granted to the Duke in Italy, a principality
which might possibly include Milan; but the death of the Pope (25th
September 1534) had disappointed him of his hopes in this direction.
Francis had also opened negotiations with the members of the
League of Schmalkalde—who, however, refused to support one who
persecuted the Protestants in his own kingdom—and had made a
commercial treaty with Solyman, in which the plan of a joint attack
on the Milanese was mooted. Francis had then begun an
unsuccessful intrigue with Francesco Sforza, and, on the execution
of his secret agent Maraviglia, had declared war against that Prince.
To reach the Milanese it was necessary to pass through the
dominions of the Duke of Savoy. Since the days of Charles viii. of
France, Savoy had been friendly to France, and had given free
passage to her troops. But the present Duke, Charles iii., had
married Beatrix of Portugal, sister of the Emperor’s wife, and now
refused such passage. Francis therefore determined to occupy Savoy
and Piedmont. At the same time he supported the Calvinists of
Geneva, who were in rebellion against the Duke of Savoy and their
bishop, and stirred up the Swiss of Bern to invade the district of
Vaud.
At this moment, the death of Sforza of Milan (24th October 1535),
altered the position of affairs. He was the last direct descendant of
the House, and Milan accordingly fell to Charles as suzerain. The
Emperor, who had only just concluded the
Death of Sforza.
expedition against Barbarossa, was anxious to Oct. 24, 1535.
gain time, and amused the King with
negotiations. Francis demanded Milan for Henry, Duke of Orleans,
his second son. Charles offered to grant it to the Duke of
Angoulême, the third son of the French King, on condition of his
marrying an Austrian princess.
Meanwhile the French had crossed the Alps by the Pass of Susa,
and occupied Turin (April, 1536). Charles now threw off the mask.
He denounced the King as a faithless man, the
The French cross
ally of heretic and infidel, and challenged him to the Alps and
personal combat, suggesting that Burgundy and occupy Turin. April,
Milan should be the prize of victory. On this being 1536.
refused, Antonio de Leyva crossed the Sesia at
the head of the imperial troops (May, 1536). The Marquis of Saluzzo,
who commanded the French army in Piedmont, deserted to the
Emperor, and Charles, neglecting to secure Turin, pressed on into
Provence in the hopes of bringing Francis to a decisive engagement.
The French, contrary to their usual practice,
Charles makes an
adopted a Fabian policy. They devastated the unsuccessful
country as they retired, and threw themselves attack on
into strong positions at Avignon and Valence. Provence. July–
Unable to storm these places, the imperial army Sept. 1536.
began to suffer from want and disease, to which
de Leyva himself succumbed (September 10, 1536). Charles,
despairing of success, was forced to evacuate the country
(September 23), and retired to Spain ‘to bury there his honour which
he had lost in Provence.’
The attack of the Imperialists on Picardy and Languedoc had been
equally unsuccessful, although, during the campaign in Picardy,
Francis lost Robert de la Marck, ‘Le Jeune
Campaigns in
Aventureux,’ the military companion of his youth, Picardy,
and the author of the Memoirs which bear his Languedoc, Artois,
name. In 1537, the French invaded Artois. The and Piedmont.
war in Piedmont still continued, and Solyman, in
pursuance of his recent treaty, sent Barbarossa to attack the coasts
of Naples, while, shortly after, he invaded Hungary in person, and
defeated Ferdinand51 at Essek (October 8). This
Solyman defeats
alliance of the French with Solyman excited the Ferdinand at
indignation of Europe. Paul iii., who had hitherto Essek. Oct. 1537.
adopted a neutral attitude, now intervened as
mediator. Francis was not unwilling to treat, and Charles had nothing
to hope from a continuance of the war. The
Revolt of Ghent,
Lutherans were daily gaining strength; the attack 1537.
of the Moslem was threatening the imperial hold
on Naples; while in the north, the people of Ghent had risen against
the taxes imposed by the Regent of the Netherlands (1537).
Accordingly, a truce for ten years was made at Nice (June 18,
1538). By that truce the Peace of Cambray was confirmed. The rivals
abandoned their allies, and each was to retain the conquests they
had made. Thus the Duke of Savoy was made the scapegoat. Savoy
and two-thirds of Piedmont were retained by Francis, the Swiss
henceforth occupied the district of Vaud, and the
The Truce of Nice.
Emperor held the rest, with the exception of June 18, 1538.
Nice, which alone was left to the unfortunate
Duke. A conference at Aigues Mortes followed (July 1538), at which
Francis, hoping to gain by conciliation what he had failed to attain by
arms, adopted a most friendly attitude towards Charles. The Marshal
de Montmorency, who had gained a great reputation in the
campaign of Provence, urged the King to ally himself with Charles,
and even suggested a joint invasion of England, where the anti-
papal measures of Henry viii. and the execution of Bishop Fisher and
Sir Thomas More had excited much discontent. Although Francis
stopped short of this, he turned a deaf ear to the petition for aid
which the citizens of Ghent sent him, and shortly after gave the
Emperor a free passage thither through France.
On the approach of Charles, the city, disappointed in its
expectation of French assistance, submitted (February 6, 1540), to
pay dearly for its rashness. Fourteen of the
Charles suppresses
leading citizens were executed, the civic the revolt at
privileges were forfeited, a heavy fine was levied, Ghent. Feb. 6,
and a garrison admitted within the walls. This 1540.
completed the ruin of the ancient city, whose
commercial supremacy, with that of Bruges, had already passed to
Antwerp in consequence of the revolution in the routes of commerce
caused by the discovery of the way round the Cape.
Now for a moment it appeared as if King and Emperor would lay
aside their long rivalry and unite to resist both heretic and Turk. That
Charles entertained such an idea is not to be wondered at. Solyman,
encouraged by the French alliance, was menacing Hungary once
more, and Barbarossa was still threatening the Mediterranean from
Algiers. Nor was the danger less at home.
Advance of
Protestantism had made notable advances since Protestantism in
the Peace of Nuremberg, 1532. In 1534, Duke Germany.
Ulrich of Wurtemberg was restored to his duchy,
from which he had been driven by the Suabian League in 1519, and
which had been granted to Ferdinand, Charles’ brother. The
restoration was effected by Philip of Hesse, who defeated the troops
of Ferdinand at the battle of Laufen (May 1534), but it was also
approved of by John Elector of Trèves, who, although Catholic, was
glad to see the House of Hapsburg humbled. Duke Ulrich forthwith
established Protestantism in his duchy; the University of Tübingen
became the stronghold of the Reformers, and a wedge was driven
into the phalanx of Catholic states in South Germany.
In the north, indeed, the outbreak of the Anabaptist revolution at
Münster, under John of Leyden, in the spring of 1534, had
threatened to compromise the Lutheran party.
The Anabaptists at
This fanatic, who united unbridled licentiousness Münster, 1534.
with strange religious views, attempted to
establish a kind of socialistic state of which he proclaimed himself
prophet and king. But only the most heated partisanship could find
any connection between the views of Luther and of this wild fanatic.
As had been the case with the Peasants’ Revolt, Philip of Hesse, one
of the most prominent of the leaguers of Schmalkalde, rallied to the
cause of order. John of Leyden was executed, his followers
dispersed, and Münster restored to its bishop, 1535. Purged from
any complicity with the Anabaptists by the suppression of the revolt,
the Lutherans continued to make fresh converts in the north of
Germany. In the year 1535 Joachim i., Elector of Brandenburg, and
in 1539 George, Duke of Saxony, of the Albertine branch of the
house, both staunch Catholics, died. Of their
George, Duke of
successors, Henry of Saxony actually embraced Saxony, and
the Lutheran creed, and Joachim ii. adopted a Joachim I., Elector
conciliatory policy; while his younger brother of Brandenburg,
John, Margrave of the Neumark, became a die and are
succeeded by
devoted adherent of the new opinions. Many Henry and
other smaller princes followed, and, by the close Joachim II. 1535–
of the year 1539, the only important Catholic 1539.
states were those of Austria, Bavaria, the
Palatinate, the Duchy of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, and the three
ecclesiastical Electorates; moreover, the Elector of Cologne, Herman
von der Wied, was known to be wavering. Shortly after, both he and
the Elector-Palatine embraced the Protestant cause.
The crisis demanded instant action. But this was impossible unless
the neutrality of France could be secured. Charles accordingly
offered the hand of his eldest daughter to the third son of Francis,
who, by the death of the dauphin during the
Charles anxious for
campaign in Provence, had now become the a free hand,
Duke of Orleans. He promised to cede to the makes
Duke Franche-Comté and the Netherlands, if unsuccessful
Francis, on his part, would grant to him the advances to
Francis.
duchy of Burgundy, abandon all claim to Milan
and to the suzerainty of Flanders, and restore the conquests in
Savoy and Piedmont to the Duke of Savoy. This would have meant
the revival of the old dukedom of Burgundy, but as a fief of the
Empire, and it is doubtful whether in any case Francis would have
acquiesced in the final loss, not only of his conquests in Piedmont,
but also of Milan. In short, the claims on Italy prevented any
agreement. After tedious haggling as to whether the Duke of
Orleans should have instant possession, and whether the territories
should revert to Charles in the event of the Duke’s death without
issue, Charles invested Philip, his son, with the duchy of Milan
(October 1540), and Francis determined to appeal to arms once
more.
With the prospect of war before him, the Emperor recognised the
impossibility of using force against the Protestants. Reconciliation, if
possible on the basis of comprehension, was the
Attempted
only alternative; and for that purpose he reconciliation with
summoned the Diet of Ratisbon, in the spring of Protestants at Diet
1541. For a moment the chances of reconciliation of Ratisbon, 1541.
seemed bright. There had risen of late in Italy a
party of reform, led by Reginald Pole, then a fugitive from England,
the Venetian Contarini, at this moment the papal legate in Germany,
and Morone, Bishop of Modena. This group of literary men, who
represented the reaction against the sceptical spirit which had
dominated Italy during the days of Leo x., approached very closely
to Luther’s views on the doctrine of Justification, and were as eager
as he to reform the abuses which disfigured the Church of Rome.
Even Paul iii. declared himself desirous of doing something. At
Ratisbon, a conference of theologians was held, under the
presidency of Granvelle, at which Melanchthon, Bucer, and Dr. Eck,52
Luther’s old opponent, appeared, and an agreement was come to on
three of the articles of controversy—Original Sin, Redemption, and
Justification. In the Diet itself, the majority of the Electors and of the
deputies of the cities declared themselves in favour of this
agreement, and Pole rejoiced at the approach of peace and concord.
But these hopes were not to be realised. In the Chamber of Princes
the opposition was very formidable. The Pope insisted that his
supremacy and the Romish view of the Sacraments should be
accepted, and Luther could not bring himself to believe in the
sincerity of the Catholics. Even if the question had been
untrammelled by political considerations, it is very doubtful whether
any satisfactory conclusion could have been arrived at, and politics
could not be excluded. Reconciliation with the Protestants would
make Charles too powerful, as master of a reunited Germany, not to
meet with strenuous opposition, both within and without the Empire.
Francis and the Pope brought their intrigues to bear on the Princes,
many of whom were jealous of Hapsburg influence and dreaded the
loss of their political privileges. In vain did the Emperor suggest that
the articles on which the theologians had agreed should be accepted
for the present, and that, with regard to others, differences of
opinion should be tolerated on either side. The agreement was
rejected by the Chamber of Princes, much to Charles’ indignation.
Thus failed the last chance of a reconciliation between the two
religious parties—wrecked on political rivalries—a reconciliation
which might have altered the history of Germany and even of
Europe. Yet, even so, the Protestants gained much. Charles, anxious
for their support during the coming struggle, issued a declaration by
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookname.com