Tudors, the Reformation, and Humanism

Not that we're at all ambitious. . . .

A great resource for this period is Lara Eakin's website on the Tudors. She's not associated with a university, and this site is definitely produced by enthusiasts, but it's also accurate and interesting.

I'm going to spend a little bit of time talking about this map by Laurence Nowell in class today. I'll post my lecture notes after class on this blog.

Lecture notes:
Q: Who are the Tudors?

Henry VIII: broke from Church of Rome in 1530s. This was a political move, not a doctrinal one.

Edward VI in 1547, move toward a doctrinally reformed church

Mary in 1553, back to RC

Eliz in 1558, back to Prot (although she may have been herself fairly Catholic in her leanings).

Q:So what are the main differences between Cath and Prot (remember, for our purposes we will refer to all sides of the argument as Christian)? And what’s this about the puritans?

The book goes over Faith alone and scripture alone.
Faith alone is supposed to be reassuring (to Luther, anyway), but how does one get faith? Can we ever believe on our own? Calvin just makes this worse, as do the “Puritans” who follow his thinking. Do humans ever have any choice or control in their own salvation?

We can also see this as a debate over the role of the body in salvation, with the Puritans opposing spectacle as useful for achieving belief.

Q: What’s all this humanism business, then?
Generally a belief that in this world, we should focus on humans and their achievements. We’re not to the scientific revolution yet, but we’re moving towards a model of describing the world as we experience it, as a goal in itself rather than a mode of getting us to the afterlife. Maps, for instance, become “modern” at this time.

Humanists believed that education was crucial. This is doubly true of Protestants, who wanted people to be educated enough to read the Bible (later on, it occurs to them that this can lead to trouble. . . .)
Also a stress on the vernacular. English has an inferiority complex at this time; some folks want to make it more eloquent by adding imported words, others want to return to “true English” vocabulary.

Q: I thought this was the renaissance. What’s this about nostalgia for the middle ages?

Particularly in England, there was a need to research the oldest English history, both to vindicate the Church of England (see! Our ancestors got it all right until those blasted Norman Papists showed up!) and to claim that England had a special identity and status. Claiming national identity requires one to show that it has always been present.
Why have a national identity? This is the sort of question that people didn’t ask until recently, because we’re all indoctrinated to think in these terms. Especially in the Elizabethan period, though, people in the government wanted “English” to be the primary identity category for their subjects (rather than “East Anglian,” or “merchant,” or even, perhaps, “Protestant.”). They worked the presses to spread this sort of view, tying notions of what it was to be “English” to Protestantism, dynastic loyalty and love for Elizabeth, the history of England, England’s place-names and geography, and some of its cultural phenomena like the common law.