Talk:English Reformation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

The article being discussed here is a nominee for the Anglicanism collaboration of the month. If you wish to add your vote on it, please go to WP:AngCOTM.


WikiProject Anglicanism
 English Reformation is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

I have tried to respond to the imbalance which I perceived: too much about Henry without sufficient shape to the section, typos etc., and the shortage of material on the long term impact ie the Elizabethan Settlement. Incidentally, there is a host of detail there. I could put a footnote for every point and can do if required. It would clutter the whole up and make it look like a legal textbook. The main sources are the magisterial book Reformation by Diamaid MacCulloch and Christopher Haigh's works , though there is stuff from Eamon Duffy too. I have tried to avoid being verbose. My attempts to make it read well may give the impression of POV. I have tried to avoid this and my sympathies, which people try to guess at, are I hope better concealed than may appear. To call the Civil War savage is only to repeat what the standard texts say. The judgement about recusancy wil differ but that is only a small part of the overall essay. I may have been hard on Puritanism and can add a little. My view (whoops!) is that the influence of Foxe has been to blame the Catholics unduly. Overall, lots of people were killed on both sides. Thus again, my view is that all of this has been the origin of the saying that religion causes all wars, but I have not said so. I hope this may raise us from a B to an A. Roger Arguile 11:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
This article is a candidate to be the Anglicanism WikiProject Collaboration of the Month. Please comment on the nomination.
WikiProject Anglicanism To-do:

Contents

[edit] Marriage

I think the probs of lack of heir/invalid marriage were said by Henry to be linked: God was punishing him for marriage to Arthur's widow (despite papal dispensation for this). Do your sources say anything on this?

Also, perhaps it would be good if article stuck to phrasing like "Henry claimed he was doing X for reason Y" - the guy was a great politician and superb at finding reasons for changing tack. It's not completely plausible to say that, for example, the dissolution of the monasteries was because Henry suddenly found out there were bawdy monks. Shall I re-phrase, or do you have sources to hand and can do it better? Cheers, JackyR 21:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: divorce; Roderick Phillips's Untying the Knot: A Short History of Divorce (p. 20) claims that Henry thought his marriage to Catherine was 'blighted in the eyes of God' because Leviticus 20:21 said: If a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an impurity; he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless. Phillip's also claims that Henry was 'obessed' with having an heir and securing the Tudor dynasty and that Anne Boleyn was the best way of doing this (Ibid.)
Re: reasons for the dissolution; for expected invasion from France and the need for money see [1]. Geoffrey Elton in his England under the Tudors claimed monasticism was 'on its last legs' in England due to them being 'riddled by worldliness and deadened by routine (p. 141).
Elton claims: Their spiritual value cannot be assessed by the historian, outside whose competence this matter is; what he can say is that contemporaries had largely ceased to care about it [the monasteries], and that the monks were often too few to carry out these duties...From an early date the government realised that it could bind the gentry and nobility to the new order by bribing them with lands which any reversal of policy would force them to restore. (Ibid.) - Johnbull 22:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

--Johnbull 22:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool. So what does this mean in terms of the article? My suggestion for the 1st para (with your approval) would be:
By the late 1520s however Henry wanted to divorce his wife Catherine of Aragon. She had not produced a male heir who had survived into adulthood and Henry wanted a son so the Tudor dynasty would be secure. Before Henry's father Henry VII attained the throne, England had been marred by civil warfare over rival claims to the crown, and Henry wanted to avoid uncertainty over the succession. Catherine's only surviving child was the Princess Mary.
In 1527 Henry asked the Pope to declare the marriage null on the grounds that, because she had been his late elder brother's wife, it was against Biblical teachings that he should be married to her. The pope refused to do this. Earlier in that year the Holy Roman Emperor, Catherine's uncle, had sacked Rome and kept the Pope prisoner so there was little hope of him granting a divorce.
This avoids commenting on what Henry's actual beliefs are. Alternatively, one could start that last para with (something like): According to Phillips [ref], Henry believed that he had no heir because his marriage was blighted because she was his late elder brother's wife etc etc. Which do you prefer?
For the Dissolution stuff, I'll try to make a suggestion tomorrow (getting late...)
Btw, you may feel I'm dissing your hard work. I'm absolutely not - the article is both impressive and much needed. I'm just trying to polish, because it's good enough to be worth polishing! Cheers, JackyR 01:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I like your alternative suggestion. I think Henry's religious beliefs are worthy of note because he preferred a middle-way between the radical Protestant faction of Cromwell and Cranmer and the religious conservative faction of Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk, and Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester. The Henrician Reformation was more political in nature than on the Continent and in Scotland. Henry's Six Articles were essentially a statement of Catholic beliefs and he restricted the use of the English Bible, but he did not believe in papal jurisdiction either. Both radical Protestants like John Lambert and Roman Catholics like Thomas More and John Fisher were executed for heresy under Henry.
I think for the dissolution it could be fair to say Henry wanted to consolidate his reforms by giving the nobility a large stake in it (i.e. land formally owned by the Church) so they would support Henry's policies (as Elton notes). Also that Cromwell was the king's right-hand-man at the time and he was more Protestant-minded so would have held anti-monastic views. The wikipedia article on him claims Cromwell and his supporters had genuine theological issues with the idea of monastic life, specifically on the nature of intercessory prayers for the dead so this would have been a factor in the dissolutions too.--Johnbull 18:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Done first bit - please check/ref. Suddenly busy, will come back to this next week (sorry to run out on you) cheers JackyR 20:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External and Roman

When the pope exercises his authority on an ecclesiastical matter in the United States, he does not do so as an "external" power. He does so as the competent authority. Prior to the split between Henry VIII, and Rome, it is not proper to call Rome an external authority. The idea that the pope is an external authority on matters related to the Church is post reformation. Also, the matter of annulment is clearly internal to the Church. It was Henry's use of political power to subvert the pope's ecclesiastical authority that was "external" to the matter.

Similarly, to say Henry was a "Roman Catholic" is to use post reformation language to describe a pre-reformation reality. The term "Roman Catholic" only appears in the 1660's as an anti-Catholic slur.

Please do not just revert without doing your homework first. Vaquero100 18:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I will keep reverting your edits which are inaccurate. The Roman Church's authority derives from the Pope, who's in the Holy See in the Vatican—not in England. The Pope is outside the realm. Also, the Roman Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on who can and cannot be called a Catholic.--Johnbull 19:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I think there are two issues involved with the naming convention here. First of all, if we are talking about a pre-reformation chuch, maybe we should wikilink to an article about that chuch? The article's current name is Roman Catholic Church, so to avoid confusion in a reader, it makes sense to use the name currently established by wikipedia (imagine a reader clicking the link wanting to know more about this pre-reformation "Catholic Church", but instead starts reading about the contemporary "Roman" Catholic Church). And secondly, think of a counter example. Would it be ok to refer to the "Eastern Orthodox Church" before that phrase was coined?--Andrew c 22:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Johnbull - despite Vaquero100's one man campaign to reclaim the name Catholic Church for his employer, it is not polite to revert his edits without discussing first. In this case I think he is justified to use Catholic Church, and 'Henry was a devout Catholic' as when referring to 1510 that was unambiguous. However, I think the "external authority of the Catholic Church" is a very clumsy phrase when all that is meant was the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. Many other things changed in the English Reformation, but the only thing that changed as regards external authority over the English Church was that the Pope was replaced with the Supreme Governor (English monarch.)

[edit] Dioceses

Should we be mentioning the creation of several new dioceses (Bristol, Chester, Gloucester, Oxford, Peterborough) in the 1540s in this article : also the short-lived Westminster? I think so, but not sure where to put. Morwen - Talk 08:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. The hsitory of the period has generated hosts of books and each gives a different slant and more information. We need to keep to the main lines of the story. the creation of dioceses is not the matter of theological dispute. Roger Arguile 16:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of Balance

This article contains much about Henry but little about the theology of the Reformation and has reduced the reigns of Edward and Mary to very little. It is not about the Reformation but about Henry's politicking. There is nothing wrong with what it says, but much wrong about both its balance and coverage of the subject. Most of what is here could be in the article 'Henry VIII'. Also its scholarship is out of date. I have inserted Christopher Haigh; to be added, both in reference and in the article itself are books by Eamon Duffy, Susan Brigden, Christopher Marsh and Diamaid McCulloch, to name but a few. Elton was a giant but much has happened since his time. I shall have a go it it but there is much to say. (I would also like to cut some of the stuff on Henry, but should probably be cautious. Any comments? Roger Arguile 13:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

To John Bull. I see that you did a huge amount of work in the early states of this article. I hope that you do not feel too miffed at my attempts to rebalance it. As always, views differ and inspite of thoe attempts of those who attempt to outlaw POV; facts are not always either agreed nor their interpretation. I can't find anything to fault in your facts, but felt that some of the material was too detailed unless the material on Edward, Mary and Elizabeth were hugely expanded. I have done some of the latter. I can defend the sources of my statements if you wish. Roger Arguile 18:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think your edits were reasonable and correct. I think it is good to include the viewpoints of those historians such as Duffy to provide varying interpretations. However where perhaps I disagree is that the English Reformation was state-driven and therefore an article on it is likely to reflect "Henry's politicking". Although I do agree that the sections on Edward VI, Mary and Elizabeth do need to be expanded.--Johnbull 18:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Roger Arguile 18:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to request for improvement

I have done some tidying up work and attempted to improve the flow. I have also done some work on the Elizabethan settlement though more could be done. Roger Arguile 18:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Have now done more. Roger Arguile 11:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added an introductory section, placing the topic within a wider historical context, and noting contrasting views by historians.

--Train guard 12:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automated peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, PMJ 23:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COTM nomination

The nomination of this article for Anglicanism Collaboration of the Month for March was unsuccessful. The COTM is William Wilberforce. It has been automatically placed in nomination for April. Thanks! Fishhead64 16:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trainguard

The backgoround that Trainguard produced is a background of scholarly argument not a background of the events. Dickens is interesting but there is nothing to be gained from discussing his views without those of subsequent scholarss as are mentioned. I am sorry to be brusque but the level is wrong, the background unbalanced and the assumptions unhelpful to the general reader. I appreciate that TG may feel unappreciated, but I really think some discussion is needed before this kind of insertion is accepted. Roger Arguile 19:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I cannot follow your reasoning, and think it rather odd.

Firstly, I rather think that in an encyclopaedia entry on the English Reformation it is important to set out contrasting views by scholars. You cannot just recount historical events, for history is an interpretation of said events. My objection to the current article is that it overly concerns itself with the doings of various monarchs, clergy, and ministers, important as they are. It seems that I'm not the only one to think this. There are other interpretations and points of view. This entry already incorporates source material from people like Duffy, so I don't see why Dickens should not feature. It was a short section, and Henry et al still get the lion's share.

Secondly, although I mentioned that it was a 1960s interpretation, it was largely contextual information, with click on references for people to pursue. As it now stands, you now have an entry that goes straight into the divorce, with little context or introduction.

Thirdly, what was unbalenced about it? I mentioned the two approaches by historians. What unhelpful assumptions did I make? I merely set out contrasting interpretations and some context. Fine, I'm more likely to side with Dickens than Duffy, but I defy anyone to see any bias in what I wrote.

Lastly, your actions were indeed brusque. We are invited to improve the article. I submitted the short new section in good faith, and indicated in the discussion page who I was, and what I was doing. Now could you not have debated it with me before reverting? Indeed, are you not supposed to do that?

That said, I am open to any suggestion that you or anyone else cares to make.

I look forward to your reply with interest.

--Train guard 20:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I am sorry if I reacted too rudely. I shall attempt to comment on the material properly today. You might note, in the meantime that it was an annulment not a divorce - as the text makes clear!. Moreover, there is a raft of revisionist material - Scarisbrick, Haig, Bridgen- which makes it inappropriate in my view to quote Dickens alone. Anyway,if I may I shall attempt a reasoned response when I have more time. As for your penulimate comment, Yes, I should have debated before reverting and I apologise for that. That's the touble with a delete button. Roger Arguile 10:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


(I have taken the liberty of interpolating your posting with my comments in brackets, so that I can deal with each point as it arises. I will then say what I think a short introductory section ought to consist of.)

The trouble is that those influences such as Marsiglo of Padua, devotio moderna etc. were some of them European in their influence.

(I see no problem with that in an introductory section After all, the English Reformation did not happen in a vacuum, and McCulloch's book clearly loks at the reformation as a European phenomenon. There is some evidence that Henry, or at least his advisers, were aware of Marsiglio, particularly Thomas Cromwell. As to the spiritual context, I did stress English mystics, and, judging from the printing records that we have, they were quite influential.)


Other influences whose effect is disputed might be the advent of printing, the growing capacity of centralised bureaucracies and so on.

(Why disputed? It is clear that England did possess an educated laity, much interested in spiritual matters. The evidence for the production and possession of religious books exists, and foreign observers commented upon the use of mass books and other devotional reading,in London, at least.)


Why however, some countries remained catholic and others did not is not explained by these influences.

(I am not aware that I made any such inference. It is an encycopaedia entry, after all. It is part of the background, and it has been commented on by historians. It should therefore be stated, and the reader can make up their own mind.)


There is no doubt, from the writings of John Colet - another humanist - that change was in the air, but how that change should manifest itself was not certain not uniform.

In any case the material which Train guard inserts arguably belongs in the introduction which, in very short order, says some similar things. But in an introduction to cite scholarly argument in an unbalanced way - in my view - is not the right place.

(I am still at a loss to see what is unbalanced. I stated that there were contrasting views by historians and stated what they were. I think that the average reader ought to know that.That is all that I did.)


I think, moveover that the characterisation of the revisionist view is unsatisfactory. It is, as I have indicated, much wider

(Wider in what way?)

than Duffy's undeniable point that the pre-Reformation English church was alive, vigorous, flourishing and not even overly clerical. (Actually, the work on gilds, since his book, shows him to be a very conservative observer of lay movements - he does not give them the importance they deserve. I think that what Train guard wrote IS biased; it fails to notice, for instance, Haig, who is not a supporter of Duffy in particular, but who contends that the Reformaion in England was a series of accidents. He cites the case of Richard Hunne, but is not inclined to give the weight that Dickens does.

(Fine. There are several views about the significance of the Hunne case. One is that it results in what is tantamount to a rehearsal for the Reformation Parliament. If you want to mention that Haig has an opposing view, it can be worked into the text. I would be concerned, however, if an entry about the English Reformation ommited at least a reference to this episode.)

It would indeed be helpful to know who Train guard is. It may be that none of us should claim authority, but it helpful to know how editors know what they claim.

(My academic career has been, shall we say, varied. My Doctorate does not relate to history, but my first degree does. I have studied this period at university, and I have taught it at A-Level. I have also taught history at degree level. Religious Studies was also part of my first degree. Having said that, I'm not sure that my credentials are all that important...what I write is more germane to the question.)

Duffy is not on his own and while Dickens in his revision of his book was unrepentant, it is difficult to dispute the conclusion that his arguments now lack coercive power.

(And that is your opinion. I venture to add that Duffy received mixed reviews. But this is immaterial. I am not in the business of pushing a particular line. But I do think that, as encyclopaedia entries ought to be as objective as possible, contrasting views should be stated.)

Finally, I would argue that the sweep of thought that constituted the Reformation is best dealt with elsewhere.

(Why? I can see that readers ought to be referred to such an article, but what is the objection to a brief introductory section....and one angled to the English context?)


The section on 'Little Germany' gives some clue as to the movements of thought, as distinct from the political machinations, that were at work ,

(Er, no....because it does not refer to popular religion/opinion.)

but given that, according to MccCulloch (yet another commentator) the Reformation needs to be seen in a much wider context, the events are best described rather than highly disputable claims as to causes which seemed OK until Duffy's researches but which are now difficult to sustain.

(For you, perhaps.)

To me,. the Reformation remains a profound puzzle though I have foreborneto say so in the text.Roger Arguile 20:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(And I have also not included my personal views.)

PS As for the Lollards, McCulloch's epitaph (Reformation p. 36) could hardly be more damning.Roger Arguile 20:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

PPs On alleged activity in Church courts and Simon Fish see Haig (English Reformations Introduction). The last para completely undervalues Duffy's contribution.

(How so?)


To be fair to Dickens he lacked access to original records which their centralisation, rendering onto microfiche and eventual placing on computer, made possible. The first of these gave Duffy access to informatin faster and more accurately than previous historians had.

(To be fair to Dickens, he was one of the first historians, if not the first, to examine the reformation in terms of ordinary people, utilising original and provincial church records. To say otherwise would be a travesty of what he wrote.)


I hope I do not protest too much. Roger Arguile 20:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, I don't want to get into a long argument with you, since you have undertaken a great deal of valuable work in connection with this article. So, perhaps you could look at the following propsitions, and let me know what you think.

(a) The article does need an introductory section, to establish the conyext of the English Reformation. Without going into detail, it should establish the European and political context, referring readers to other, more detailed entries.

(b) To me, the English Reformation is not just a political act or acts, for it operated on two levels. We do need to relate it to what was going on in the minds of ordinary people. Maybe we need a separate article for this, but we surely ought to have a mention of the nature popular religion in England on the eve of the reformation, since historians have written about it.

(c) Lastly, since the reformation, like the English Civil War, can be a controversial historical topic, I suggest that we ought to state contrasting views - about the state of the church, the significance of popular views and anticlericalism, and perhaps the theological views and intentions of Henry. I rather think that, in an encyclopaedia entry, we owe that to the readers.

Now, I think that all tis can be done in a few paragraphs ina short introductory section. That was my intention, though I think it could be refined. I wil redraft the original section, but only after you have replied to this posting.

--Train guard 11:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see your user page.Roger Arguile 12:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Proposed New Introduction

I am suggesting that this draft can form the basis for a debate on what I see as a much needed introductory section. Comments appreciated.

"The English Reformation has traditionally been seen as resulting from a political act, the consequence of the desire of Henry VIII to obtain an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. The subsequent doctrinal changes, largely accomplished within the reign of Edward VI, might be placed within this context. However, some historians have tried to place Henry's actions, and the subsequent developments, within a wider context, attempting to explain why he may have felt that he could proceed in this way, and accounting for the limited opposition that he encountered. This means that, for some people, the term 'English Reformation' has a wider meaning.

In the first place, the reformation might be regarded as taking place at two levels. There are the great acts of state, the liturgical changes, and the evolution of the Anglican Church. But there is also the characterisation of the reformation as a social movement, taking place in the minds of the people. Some historians have noted the existence of a growing urban and literate laity, greatly exercised with the issue of personal spirituality. Influences ranging from English mystics (Julian of Norwich, the anonymous author of 'The Cloud of Unknowing')to the surviving lollard tradition have been suggested.

Secondly, like the English Civil War, the Engish Reformation is a highly controversial subject. Following on from the debate about popular belief and religion, two connected issues are often argued. What was the nature of popular religious attitudes? How widespread was scepticism and anticlericalism, evidenced in the Richard Hunne affair and the pamphleteering of Simon Fish? Or, was this exceptional, the majority religious view (particularly outside London) being highly conservative, as other historians have argued? And if it can be proved that anticlericalism was a significant force, what role (if any) did it play in the political and religious acts of state?

There are other debates. What were Henry's intentions, and the nature of his theological beliefs, particularly in the later part of his reign? The political context, and the motives of Thomas Cromwell and others, have resulted in speculation about a 'tudor revolution in government', and the influence of Marsiglio of Padua.

Any reader who follows up the references to this article will soon immerse themselves in a world of conflicting books and opinions. The English Reformation is a very lively subject."

--Train guard 15:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I have already commented enough, but I can't resist the temptation: I don't think such an introduction is the place for questions, which are not answered, nor for references (as to Richard Hunne) which are not followed up within the articles. I don't think this sort of article should include so many or any!'Some historians' - this kind of expression is sometimes called weasel words in WPspeak. Two levels? say five. What is the relationship between literacy and reformation? I don't think there is one. Aldus Manutius, the great mediaevel printer worked in Italy. What the the Lollards contribute to the process? I trhink the answer is:nothing. There is no evidence that it was otherwise. But it might be fair since I like this so little - couched though it is in elegant prose - I might offer something else for people to shoot at. I agree that there was a movement of ideas, and printing facilitated this, but what this has to say about Reformation? One needs more than scholars' names, one needs their reasons and these are less easy to find. The English Reformation has been called 'a cultural revolution' (as in China); an act of state terrorism; the inevitable process of rational belief emerging from superstition under the influence of humanism; a compromise in which popular religion found a continuity between the old and the new, merely expressing itself in somewhat different ways; the replacement of locally based religion with that imposed by a literate, entrepreneurial class, and so on. Which is it? Roger Arguile 23:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't want this to become the 'Roger and Train Guard Show', so let's see what others might have to say. Then I will respond to your (and anybody else's) points. In the meantime, please remember that this isn't about what we think....I haven't stated a personal opinion. And I have obeyed WP practice by providing a click on link for my references.

--Train guard 09:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As I didn't like what you wrote, I have made my own insertions. As you will see I have inserted small changes in different places. Apart form Richard Hunne - whom I think highly overrated - I have included all of your points. Perhaps a description of who Marsiglio of Padua was might help. I am sorry we disagree, but we certainly do! Roger Arguile 17:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Without duplicating what is in other articles I have tried to indicate some of the arguments about the origins of the Reformation. It is interesting that the various points of view can be identified with a) a Protestant, b) an agnostic Anglican c) a lapsed Anglican unbeliever d) a practising Roman Catholic e)and an atheist. (I think I have got them in the right order!). Roger Arguile 16:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henry VIII

I have attempted with background information to make Henry's conduct more explicable by referring to two scholars: Susan Brigden and Christopher Haig who, alone are responsible for the opinions. Roger Arguile 18:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/n/g/Talk%7EEnglish_Reformation_15df.html"