Talk:Thomas Cranmer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Featured article star Thomas Cranmer is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.

This article uses British english dialect and spelling.
According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Archive
Archives
  1. Mar 2004-GA pass

Contents

[edit] Improvements to the article

I have taken a look at the criticisms presented in the first FAC attempt and I would like to make a second attempt. Right now, I am gathering some sources and I just want to let other editors know that I will be restructuring and expanding this article for the next few months. --RelHistBuff (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I will be working with you. This was one of, if not the, first GA article I edited and it show at points. Anybody else care to join us? -- SECisek (talk) 06:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Count me in - I'm a Reformation History Doctoral student, so might be of some help! Hackloon (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realise this, but the footnotes used named refs. That means that all content within the refs, i.e. page numbers, are never displayed. In order to reveal the page numbers, regular non-named refs should be used. In order to keep the footnotes short, I will use Harvard referencing. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Harvard referencing is the way to go. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I just came around to this position while working on Anne Bolyne. Agreed. -- Secisek (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apocryphal story

Is there no room for an apocryphal story: a bit of silliness albeit historically sourced silliness.

Mrs. Cranmer's box is a ribald reference to the hidden existence of Cranmer's second wife, Margaret, and her means of concealment. The story is more apocryphal than historical and describes her travelling method between Cranmer's houses.[1] Diarmaid MacCulloch traces one branch of this particular legend to a Roman Catholic source some 58 years later, which made up the story as an odd attack against Cranmer. Another branch appears to have originated at a fire at Canterbury where Cranmer showed excess concern for crates of books, so much so that on-lookers thought his wife must be in one. The tale arose that:

“ He kept his woman very close, and sometimes carried her about with him in a great chest full of holes, that his pretty nobsey might take breath at.[2] ”

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is already pretty long and I think it may become longer. MacCulloch has a lot of interesting anecdotes on Cranmer, but how do we select which ones to include? In any case, anecdotes will not help and most likely hinder in the FA drive. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not often contradict the editor who was once accused of being my sock puppet, but I am going to go with RelHistBuff here. It is not sort of thing I would expect to see in an encyclopedia. -- Secisek (talk) 07:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How do we select which anecdotes to include? Well, the silliest :-) But now that it is no longer 1 April, I'm disappointed but I understand. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Somewhere within all those IP packets, I hear the echo of a "Gotcha..." :-D --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well done, well done! -- Secisek (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enthroned

The info box now says Cranmer was made Archbishop on 3 December 1533, which contradicts the article. It is custom to date the reign of a prelate from the day of their consecration, not their election. This is important because some elected bishops are never consecrated and hence never serve. I know it is cited by McCullough, I don't if this is a misunderstanding on the part of our editor, or one of the rare but not unheard of, errors on the part of McCullough. I'll let RHB rule on this. -- Secisek (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I will raise it here as question. Ridley and MacCulloch both say he was enthroned on 3 December in Canterbury Cathedral. But they both say he was consecrated on 30 March in St Stephen's Chapel. He took his consecration oath at that time. Clearly two different events, two different dates. Cranmer definitely acted as archbishop starting from 30 March. But the infobox says "Enthroned" for the began parameter, so which date should apply? --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We have an expert on the subject here and I will point her here to this question. -- Secisek (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Enthronement and consecration are two different things. Enthronement is the ceremonial first sitting of the bishop in his cathedra, or bishop's chair in the cathedral. Consecration is ritual performed by other bishops or an archbishop that makes a bishop a bishop. Enthronement is not so important to a bishop as the consecration. As far as Cranmer goes, he was elected in 1532, provided to the see (i. e. the pope said "hey, you can't elect him, it's my right to name him to the office, so here, I name him to the office") on 21 February 1533, consecrated on 30 March 1522, and given the temporalities of the see on 19 April 1533. That's from this book: Fryde, E. B.; Greenway, D. E.; Porter, S.; Roy, I. (1996). Handbook of British Chronology, Third Edition, revised, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-56350-X.  page 234. You can double check it online with Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1300-1541: volume 4: Monastic cathedrals (southern province) which is from 1963 so it's a bit out of date compared to the Handbook. Personally, the infobox should give the consecration date, not the enthronement date. (This just came up with William of York, in fact.) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There you have it, thank you! -- Secisek (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thanks Ealdgyth. I thought it should be 30 March as well. Could I ask you to change the text for the {{began}} parameter from "Enthroned" to "Consecrated" in Template:Infobox Archbishop of Canterbury? I would do it myself, but someone who is watching the template page kind of brushed me off when I asked a question on the template talk page. He/she might think I am a newbie messing around with the template. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Better yet, keep the {{began}} parameter (as past editors on other articles probably used the enthronement date) and add another one, {{consecrated}} for example. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that Template:Infobox Archbishop has been recently created by the template guardian who brushed me off. He/she uses {{consecrated}} and instead of {{began}}, uses {{enthroned}} instead. Perhaps Template:Infobox Archbishop of Canterbury should be the same? --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This is where I yelp for Secisek, who usually is very good about messing with templates for me! Help! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the {{consecration}} parameter, but I didn't touch {{began}}. So you can add that now to your infoboxes. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Several people have been messing with the bishop-related templates as of late. I was going to wait until they restabilized and then do some long-desired tinkering myself. I have no idea who that editor was who blew you off. Do we need anything else done to it? -- Secisek (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It's ok now for the case of Cranmer. You may want to fix the parameter naming. The {{began}} parameter is currently associated to "Enthroned", but perhaps a parameter name of {{enthronement}} is better and {{began}} could be deprecated. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Somebody recently changed the field name from "Began" to "Enthroned" as they no doubt thought it sounded more impressive, however it is incorrect as the dates that we have been using are almost always that of the consecration. This will need to be fixed. -- Secisek (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cranmer in Nuremburg

MacCulloch and Ridley had even stronger statements about the Nuremburg Lutheran influence on Cranmer. Ridley was the most explicit when he said, "It was almost certainly at Nuremberg that he took at least the first steps towards becoming a Lutheran...He was certainly converted to the Lutheran view as regards the celibacy of the clergy". The sentence currently in the article is in fact the mildest form (taken from Hall) because he added the clause "however moderately". There are probably other ways to state this, but I don't think it is a debatable point. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am familiar with both works and several others that make this case as well. It is synthesis, albiet published synthesis, but it remains synthesis none the less. Cranmer was clear in his opposition to celebicy long before he went to the Continent and came into direct contact with Lutheran ideas. He was maried as a seminarian and to call his second marriage a "step toward Lutheran principals" is a reach on the part of scholars when they have no surviving works of Cranmer saying as much.
I have heard it argued that Cranmer had always opposed clerical celibacy because it was not based in scripture and it was not practiced in the same form in the Eastern Churches. To state that the second marriage he conducted after he was certain of a life in the Church was somehow a definitive theological step is to look for something that isn't there and discount his first marriage in seminary. Even if many modern scholars think it was, that doesn't mean wiki should endorse their unqualified opinions as fact. We need to work on this passage still.
I think it is great that this is (thus far) the only contested change from the GA version of the article. -- Secisek (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
According to the sources, the main difference between his first and second marriage was that he had taken holy orders. So the risks involved in the second marriage was far greater and is a real demonstration against priestly celibacy. He could have taken her as his mistress as many priests did at the time (and preserve his "celibacy" state), but he didn't. I don't think the scholars are pushing this too much and I don't think we can second-guess the scholars otherwise we are putting in our opinion. If there is modern scholarship that states something to the contrary, then it can be included and cited. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion is exactly what I am trying to avoid seeing in the article. Cranmer kept his second marriage among the greatest of secrets for decades - what kind of "real demonstration against priestly celibacy" was he making? Scholars really want to find something they can point to because in his early life, there is not much there. The article even acknowledges that not much can be determined about his early opinions. The article right now is reaching and I would like to see it remain qualified as opinion rather than stated as fact, because it isn't. Opinion is indeed what I would like to see us avoid. -- Secisek (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me now. Thank you. -- Secisek (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merle d'Aubigné

I removed the Merle d'Aubigné reference because it is mid-19th century. This source will come under severe criticism in FAC. There is no indication of the Greek church anecdote in modern sources. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The motivations of Cranmer's opponents are crucial to any understanding of the collapse of the Lutheran position in 1538 and the publication of the Six Articles that followed. These bishops had been quite content to break with Rome, Fischer was the only bishop who refused, yet a hard core of them refused to give way to the Lutherans. This citation is not from some Victorian "Little lives of the Archbishops" with cute-sy Cruikshank illustrations. The work of Jean-Henri Merle d'Aubigne is worthy of an article in its right. According to Brittanica he "he revitalized Protestant church historical scholarship and assembled more source documents than any other historian up to his time." This is one of the most important works ever written on the subject and the fact that it is still in print should speak of its importance. If we have to quote him directly to get the facts into the article, we will. I'll see if I can rework it a manner that will be passable. The scheme for union with the Orthodox gets very little attention from modern scholars, who seem to favor one of two narratives:
  1. The reformation in England was inevidible and the conservatives were a rear gaurd fighting a retreat for Rome. or
  2. The reformation in England did not have to happen and it was only the veniality and weakness of the English bishops that was to blame for the break, only St John Fischer...
The scheme of union does not fit neatly into these packages, but it is discussed at length in one of the most important books ever written on the subject and it merits a mention here. I'll see what I can come up with. -- Secisek (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I have several Merle d'Aubigné books myself, but historians do not accept them as reliable. There is no doubt that he was a great scholar in the 19th century, but modern methods and new primary sources now make his books outdated. Several reviewers have pointed this out in many FAC nominations including Ealdgyth‎, Awadewit, and Qp10qp and in fact the use of unreliable sources is what killed the previous FAC drive. I will ask them to comment here. I would recommend that you find a modern source to support the statement and avoid using Merle d'Aubigné. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I have to go to the accountant this morning to deal with taxes (boo, hiss IRS) so all i had time to do was print out the ODNB biography on him. That'll be a good overview of what is currently considered important on him. If anyone wants a copy, I can send you a link to it that will work for 5 days. Just drop me an email, my email is enabled. I'll read the article while I wait on the accountant. Whee. I do have to say that if the Merle book is a reprint, it needs to be said in the bibliographical entry that it is a reprint of an earlier work, and a date given there. In general, I am a bit leary of older works, mainly because they are often out of date with current scholarship. With a subject like this, not only do we need to be looking at books, you need to be looking at historical journals and theological journals for the latest word on things. I'll try to look at JSTOR when I get home this afternoon. I'm sure i'll be in a pissy mood, I hate having to move to a state with a state income tax. It always makes me cranky after almost twenty years in Texas! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Using sources from the 19th century is fraught with peril. As RelHistBuff rightly points out, 19th-century historians used different methods than are now accepted as legitimate. Articles should be sourced to the highest-quality research - the most up-to-date and reliable sources. In the 19th century, the work of historians did not undergo the rigorous peer review and fact-checking that is the basis of Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. I would also like to point out that Britannica's own definition restricts d'Aubigne's importance to his own time: "he revitalized Protestant church historical scholarship and assembled more source documents than any other historian up to his time" (emphasis added).
RelHistBuff, you write that "historians do not accept [d'Aubigne's books] as reliable". Your case would be strengthened if you had quotations stating this. These are the most difficult kinds of quotations to find, but if you had them, they might help explain the specific problems with d'Aubigne's work. Awadewit (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any quotes, but I agree that would strengthen the case. I just meant to say exactly what you had stated. Just the fact that Merle d'Aubigné's books are examples of mid-19th century scholarship, they are now unreliable. In fact, one can easily see problems just by reading them and comparing them with recent scholarship. One Merle d'Aubigné book that I have is on Zwingli and when I compare them with the modern books, it was almost like reading about two different persons! --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
RelHistBuff has asked me to comment, and I have to say that d'Aubigné is not listed in any of the bibliographies I have just consulted in works on Cranmer and the English Reformation. On the other hand, that isn't to say there isn't a grain of truth in the information itself. Both Duffy (401) and MacCulloch (219–20) mention this, though somewhat in passing. Certainly it seems that Tunstall and Stokesley discussed the Greek Orthodox liturgy with their colleagues, looking for possible evidence of early Christian practice. I don't think we have clear evidence, however, that this was a key plank in the English discussions with the Lutheran negotiators. The closest mention seems to be in Henry VIII's dismissal of Lutheran eucharistic theory, where he said that he had learned about this "from those worthy of credit, who themselves have been present at Greek services". But the hint of Tunstall's responsibility for that line seems to derive from a later and slightly vague reminiscence from Richard Sampson—the sort of evidence which, though it shouldn't be dismissed, must be reported with caution. qp10qp (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I did see that discussion on orthodox liturgy in MacCulloch, but he didn't mention that the conservatives bishops were seeking an union with the Greek church which is quite a provocative statement! Anyway, if there is a good source that could support that statement, then I have no problems with it. But Merle d'Aubigné is, I believe, insufficient. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been told about a possible recent source on this subject that I am in the process of trying to locate. My hope is it will support the Merle d'Aubigné material so an historical quote will become uneeded. I am uncertain of its content, but will report my findings if and when I obtain it.

Overall, really great work thus far, though. Apart from the Greeks, there have been no major changes, additions, or subtrations from the GA text, just some really great prose tweaks, colourful fleshing-out of the subjects, and improved citations that I was too lazy to go back to the library for. A barnstart effort in the making. -- Secisek (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some possible sources

While poking around Google scholar, I hit these. don't know how useful they might be:

Hope this helps a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)