Tuesday 11 December 2012

Blogging for Historians


Although my main area of research focuses on sixteenth (and seventeenth) century book history, I do also have an interest in writing and reading habits in our present day.  When I started work at the Institute of Historical Research (IHR) back in 2010 I was quickly introduced to the world of blogs.  At the time I’m not even sure if I had looked at a blog on a History-related topic, not alone posted anything.  However, I was told that I needed one for the History SPOT project, and so my first blog was born (The History SPOT blog).  It’s proven quite successful in its own modest way, with between 20 to 150 views per day and with a total (as of 11 December 2012) of 213 posts written and uploaded.  I have since created a blog for the IHR relating to its temporary relocation while work is undertaken to modernise the north block of Senate House (IHR Relocation Blog), another that acted as a ‘virtual conference’ for the IHR’s winter conference Novel Approaches: from academic history to historical fiction, and of course this Sixteenth Century Scholars blog that you are now reading. 
The History SPOT blog
I also read blogs on a regular basis.  Among my favorites are Medieval Fragments which looks specifically at twelfth century manuscripts for a project based at the University of Leiden; The History of Emotions from Queen Mary, looking at the history of feelings (often in the early modern period); and Cardiff Book History  which focuses mainly (but not solely) on research and MSS at the Centre for Editorial and Intertextual Research at Cardiff University. 
For early modernists by far the greatest resource relating to blogs is the Early Modern Commons website.  This site contains an index (kept largely up-to-date) for academic quality blogs on any subject of the early modern period.  It’s well worth a look!
You are probably wondering why I’m talking about blogs rather than something related directly to the subject of early modern scholarship.  It’s a fair question and I’m afraid on this occasion the link is tenuous (at least it is right now).  Thanks to a grant from the SMKE Scholarship (Social Media Knowledge Exchange) I have now begun my own small project investigating blogging practices by and for historians.  The idea of the project is to investigate why individual historians or institutions (including academic, librarian, and archival) begin a blog, how it is managed, and what is hoped to be gained from it.  The project is also looking at why people read blogs and what they expect from an academically produced History blog in particular. 
How will this be done?  First, I will be conducting interviews with several owners of blogs which will be podcasted and uploaded online.  Second, I will create a small tool-kit designed especially for postgraduate and early career researchers from what I learn from the interviews and from a series of online surveys.   
The Blogging for Historians blog

Now we come to the part where I ask for your help.  The project has a blog of its own – Blogging for Historians - and the first survey is now live.  If you could spare a moment to fill in this survey I would be very appreciative.  It is designed for anyone who looks at History-related blogs as well as those that own one or post on a blog.  I’m hoping that at some stage I can relate this study more closely to my research in the early modern period, and as soon as I do, I will post something more about it here.  Here are the main links:
Blogging for Historians Blog:  http://bloggingforhistorians.wordpress.com/
History Best Practice Blogging Survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/MHVXQ2W
Thank you in advance for your help and time.

Monday 12 November 2012

Thomas Stapleton's Bede - fighting back against Foxe and Bale

Thomas Stapleton's edition of Bede's
Ecclesiastical History (1565)

Recently I’ve been looking into the Roman Catholic apologist Thomas Stapleton’s translation and publication of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History.  I’m mainly looking at it for what he, himself, has to say about the protestant reformers whose writings he was directly attacking.  The work of Matthew Parker and his circle in promoting the Elizabethan church settlement was made all the more difficult therefore, in 1565 when Stapleton’s publication came to light.  Here are a few of my ramblings.
In the sixteenth century Bede’s notoriety as a man of learning was already well established, but for Protestants his work represented something of a difficulty.  Bede was very much in support of the Christianisation of England by Augustine, and thus made for a difficult translation to protestant revisions to their past.  Although attempts were made by the likes of John Foxe and John Bale, they never really managed to place Bede at the centre of any Protestant history of the Anglo-Saxons.  Foxe, for example, banished Bede to the side lines in favour of other later and alternative accounts.  Bale, meanwhile, caused scandal and consternation even among other Protestant scholars by reading into Bede a sexual scandal befitting of a tabloid newspaper headline.      
Bale’s approach, in particular, was to prove fertile ground for Thomas Stapleton’s preface to Bede’s ecclesiastical history.  But, before I go into all of that, it is worthwhile, I think, recalling a little about the man himself.  Stapleton was named by his father after the famous Lord Chancellor and humanist scholar Sir Thomas More who had at that time recently been sent to the executors axe.  This gives you some idea of the Stapleton family position on the emerging reformation, and Thomas himself was not to waver from this stance.  He was trained as a theologian at Oxford in the 1550s and then ordained as priest in early 1558.  His resistance to protestant reforms led to his exile to Louvain in 1559 and he was never again to set foot in England.  Up until the mid-1560s he wrote various works in English setting out his disagreement with the Elizabethan regimes religious policy.  All of these publications were considered controversial in England, and whilst his translation of Bede was perhaps the least of these, it was inconvenient as far as Parker’s plans went for establishing a reformed chronicle tradition in England.  
At the front of the new edition Stapleton explains clearly his reasons for undertaking such work; so that the Queen might clearly see “the misse information of a fewe for displacing the auncient and right Christian faith”.  Indeed, the claim of misinformation by Bale, Foxe and others is exactly what Stapleton bases a good part of his arguments upon.  Stapleton accuses Bale of being like a “venomous spider” in his reading of Bede.  
Depiction of Pope Gregory meeting
 the English for the first time
http://www.art.co.uk/products/p12373907-sa-i1742893/posters.htm
    
Bale made his accusations in his The Actes of Englysh Votaryes (published 1546), basing it upon a short paragraph in Bede’s ecclesiastical history.  Here is the passage from Bede:
"Nor must we pass by in silence the story of the blessed Gregory, handed down to us by the tradition of our ancestors, which explains his earnest care for the salvation of our nation. It is said that one day, when some merchants had lately arrived at Rome, many things were exposed for sale in the market place, and much people resorted thither to buy: Gregory himself went with the rest, and saw among other wares some boys put up for sale, of fair complexion, with pleasing countenances, and very beautiful hair. When he beheld them, he asked, it is said, from what region or country they were brought? and was told, from the island of Britain, and that the inhabitants were like that in appearance. He again inquired whether those islanders were Christians, or still involved in the errors of paganism, and was informed that they were pagans. Then fetching a deep sigh from the bottom of his heart, “Alas! what pity,” said he, “that the author of darkness should own men of such fair countenances; and that with such grace of outward form, their minds should be void of inward grace.” He therefore again asked, what was the name of that nation? and was answered, that they were called Angles. “Right,” said he, “for they have an angelic face, and it is meet that such should be co-heirs with the Angels in heaven. What is the name of the province from which they are brought?” It was replied, that the natives of that province were called Deiri. “Truly are they De ira,” said he, “saved from wrath, and called to the mercy of Christ. How is the king of that province called?” They told him his name was Aelli; and he, playing upon the name, said, “Allelujah, the praise of God the Creator must be sung in those parts.” (Bede, EH, 82-3)
Bale repeated this story making a play on Bede’s choice of words to suggest that Pope Gregory had sexual desires on the English boys.  Bale notes that Catholic Bishops have no wives and are thus seeking ‘other spirytuall remedyes’.  Whilst the accusation is not direct it is very obvious from the context and notes that Bale makes just before retelling the story from Bede.  The play on words enacted by Pope Gregory - Angles, Deiri and Aelli - are transformed in the Votaryes as signs that he and the other Bishops were lusting after these slave boys with angelic faces and beautiful hair:
“So how curyose these fathers were, in the wele eyenge of their wares.  Here was no cyrcumstaunce unloked to, perteynynge to the sale” (Votaryes, 20)
It is therefore no surprise that Stapleton sought to attack Bale as ‘filthy and uncleane’ and that he had ‘sucketh out a poisoned sence and meaning’ when reading Bede ‘charging that holy man [Gregory I] with a most outrageous vice and not to be named’.
If this was all that Stapleton argues then we could more or less dismiss it as a simple, but obvious, rebuttal to Bale.  In itself, it is not all that interesting or unexpected.  However, Stapleton is making a larger point here about the nature of Christian faith, belief, and charity.  He asks his readers to:
 “gather honny lyke bees oute of this comfortable history of oure countre, not venim like spiders.  Reade it with charitable simplicitie, not suspicious curiosite, with virtuous charite, not with wicked malice.” (Stapleton, Bede, preface)
What is Stapleton trying to say here?  Placing this sentence into its wider context it becomes obvious that Stapleton is making a distinction between Protestant and Roman Catholic opinion about Christian charity.  Stapleton appeals to his readers to read Bede’s history with a Christian heart and furthermore to note how John Bale has read it with malicious intent.  Surely, Stapleton argues, “none can think evill of other, which is not evill him selfe”.  By appealing to people’s better natures, Stapleton has found a weakness in the Protestant arguments that attempt to portray Catholic activity in the past as seedy, traitorous and un-Christian.  Whilst far from watertight (Protestants could and did argue that they were only untangling the lies and deceits of the enemy) it was perhaps enough to make some pause and think.  
A second line of attack that Stapleton makes follows a line that every undergraduate historian should be familiar with: the primary source vs. the secondary source debate.  He points out that Bede was not only an Englishman but was also alive at the time or near enough to that of which he wrote about.  He is therefore an eyewitness, but also one who has no knowledge of later arguments, such as those between Protestants and Catholics, and as such has no agenda.  Whilst Stapleton is wrong to suggest that Bede had no agenda, it nonetheless works as a powerful statement against those like Foxe, Bale, and Parker writing some 900 years later.  Through Bede, Stapleton is presenting a genuine voice from the past, unspoilt by later judgements and arguments.  Thus, in Stapleton’s words:
“There is no suspicion of partes taking, no prejudice of favouring either side, no feare of affection of missejudgement to be gathered upon him.  We have good cause to suspect the reports of Bale, of Fox, of Beacon and suche other, whiche are knowen to maintaine a faction and singular opinion lately spronge up, who reporte thinges passed many hundred yeares before their dayes.  No such suspicion can be made of S. Bede, who lyved above eight hundred yeares paste, and reporteth the planting of Christen religion among us Englishmen, partly by that whiche he sawe him selfe, partly by the reporte of such who either lived at the first coming in of Christendom to our countre them selves, or were scholers to such.” (Stapleton, Bede, preface)
In all then, Stapleton’s preface to his translation of Bede talked about the differences between Protestant and Catholic faith and charity, and attempted to present Protestant scholars as horrid men and slanderers.  There is much here for the historian to pick up upon, more than what I have talked about here even.  There are also plenty of quotation opportunities – Stapleton is not shy about his attacks.  What this work does help to show us, however, is the difficulty protestant scholars had in making the Anglo-Saxons something respectable in their new world order.  Bede’s writings favoured the Roman Catholics in terms of argument much better than they ever would for the early reformers.       

Tuesday 19 June 2012

Jonathan Swift and the Battle of the Books


Portrait of Jonathan Swift

Although this blog is primarily about scholars in the sixteenth century, Jonathan Swift’s Battle of the Books (mentioned in my previous post The Battle of the Books: A seventeenth century war of words and ideas) caught my interest.  The debate over the merits of ‘ancient’ traditions against the on-coming tide of science and modernity took form in many different ways during the early modern period.  The famous example of Galileo being sent to prison by an outraged Pope over his claims that the Earth was not, in actual fact, the centre of the universe nor that it was flat, is a case in point.  Admittedly this example is in essence much more complicated than is made out in popular accounts  but it nonetheless demonstrates the thought processes going on in the ‘early modern’ mind. 

Jonathan Swift (1667-1745) is best known now for his Gulliver’s Travels, however, in the seventeenth century Swift was known as both Dean of St Patrick’s Cathedral, Dublin and for his career as a satirist, essayist and political pamphleteer (switching sides between the Whigs and the Tories).  His ODNB biographer Clive Probyn describes Swift as a satirist with:

 “no equal in English literature for range, subtlety, and power.  His life and works continue to vex as well as instruct and amuse his readers”

-          ODNB Jonathan Swift

Swift’s The Battle of the Books certainly fell into the category of a vexing and thought provoking text.  Published in 1704 as a short satire within a larger work entitled A Tale of a Tub, Swift depicted a literal battle for supremacy between books in the King’s library as representative of their authors (and their ideas).  Think Toy Story as told 300 years ago! 

Each author – ancient on the one side and modern on the other - are described in military terms, as if they were each an army preparing for war:

“The Moderns were in very warm debates upon the choice of their leaders; and nothing less than the fear impending from their enemies could have kept them from mutinies upon this occasion.  The difference was greatest among the horse, where every private trooper pretended to the chief command, from Tasso and Milton to Dryden and Wither.  The light-horse were commanded by Cowley and Despreaux.  There came the bowmen under their valiant leaders, Descartes, Gassendi, and Hobbes; whose strength was such that they could shoot their arrows beyond the atmosphere, never to fall down again, but turn, like that of Evander, into meteors; or, like the cannon-ball, into stars [...] the army of the Ancients was much fewer in number; Homer led the horse, and Pindar the light-horse; Euclid was chief engineer; Plato and Aristotle commanded the bowmen; Herodotus and Livy the foot; Hippocrates, the dragoons; the allies, led by Vossius and Temple, brought up the rear”

As the satire moves on we witness individual battles between ancients and moderns who were generally seen as in argument with each other.  It’s a battle royale!  Aristotle vs. Bacon; Homer vs. Gondibert; and Lucan vs. Blackmore.  In most cases one or the other is victorious.  Although the conclusion is left somewhat open ended as to who won overall, the text suggests Swift’s allegiance with the ancients which is also borne out from his other works and debates with William Wotton. 

I particularly enjoyed the confrontation between Virgil and John Dryden where their individual personalities shine through very clearly:

“On the left wing of the horse Virgil appeared, in shining armour, completely fitted to his body [...] He cast his eye on the adverse wing, with a desire to find an object worthy of his valour, when behold upon a sorrel gelding of a monstrous size appeared a foe, issuing from among the thickest of the enemy’s squadrons [...]  The two cavaliers had now approached within the throw of a lance, when the stranger desired a parley, and, lifting up the visor of his helmet, a face hardly appeared from within which, after a pause, was known for that of the renowned Dryden.  The brave Ancient suddenly started, as one possessed with surprise and disappointment together; for the helmet was nine times too large for the head, which appeared situate far in the hinder part, even like the lady in a lobster, or like a mouse under a canopy of state [...] and the voice was suited to the visage, sounding weak and remote.  Dryden, in a long harangue, soothed up the good Ancient; called him father, and, by a large deduction of genealogies, made it plainly appear that they were nearly related.  Then he humbly proposed an exchange of armour, as a lasting mark of hospitality between them.  Virgil consented (for the goddess Diffidence came unseen, and cast a mist before his eyes), through his was of gold and cost a hundred beeves, the other’s but of rusty iron.  However, this glittering armour became the Modern yet worsen than his own.  Then they agreed to exchange horses; but, when it came to the trial, Dryden was afraid and utterly unable to mount.” 
The rendition of Dryden reflects his personality perfectly.  In 1717 Congreve wrote of Dryden that he ‘was of a Nature exceedingly Humane and Compassionate; easily forgiving Injuries, and capable of a prompt and sincere reconciliation with them who offended him’ (see ODNB for John Dryden.  Although, it would appear that Virgil won this particular encounter no concrete conclusion is noted by Swift.  Although damage is done between books, for the most part, the conclusion remains uncertain.
My interest in this subject derives from researching a paper for the Anglo-American conference which will be held by the IHR on 5-6 July 2012.  Although my paper has very little to do with Jonathan Swift’s satire or the debate between ancients and moderns in the seventeenth century, it is interesting to look ahead of my own research time-period to see where some of the debates in the late sixteenth century ended up. 
If you are interested in looking more at the confrontations and continual intersection between ancient and modern cultures, then there is still room to book a place at this year’s Anglo-American.  It takes place at Senate House, University of London between 5-6 July.  For more information, a schedule, abstracts, and details for registration see the following link: Anglo-American conference 2012: Ancients and Moderns

Tuesday 12 June 2012

Courtly love and Elizabethan politics

Although slightly off-topic, I thought I would share with you a post I uploaded last week to my History SPOT blog for the Institute of Historical Research.  The topic is courtly love as a political tool in Elizabethan England, and, in particular, the poems by Sir Walter Raleigh and Elizabeth.     


Sir Walter Raleigh
Sir Walter Raleigh (c. 1554-1618) well known as an Elizabethan explorer and soldier, is also known to have written a sonnet entitled Fortune Hath Taken Thee Away, My Love.  It is believed that Raleigh wrote this sonnet as a response to the rise of Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, and thus making a complaint over his own fall from influence.  In her publication of the sonnet Gordon Braden has reiterated the belief amongst scholars that ‘Fortune’ was a code name for the Earl of Essex and that Raleigh was informing Elizabeth that this brought him ‘to woe’ and that the Earl was now ‘my mortal foe’.

Fortune Hath Taken Thee Away, My Love
BY SIR WALTER RALEGH

Fortune hath taken thee away, my love,
My life’s soul and my soul’s heaven above;
Fortune hath taken thee away, my princess;
My only light and my true fancy’s mistress.

Fortune hath taken all away from me,
Fortune hath taken all by taking thee.
Dead to all joy, I only live to woe,
So fortune now becomes my mortal foe.

In vain you eyes, you eyes do waste your tears,
In vain you sighs do smoke forth my despairs,
In vain you search the earth and heaven above,
In vain you search, for fortune rules in love.

Thus now I leave my love in fortune’s hands,
Thus now I leave my love in fortune’s bands,
And only love the sorrows due to me;
Sorrow henceforth it shall my princess be.

I joy in this, that fortune conquers kings;
Fortune that rules on earth and earthly things
Hath taken my love in spite of Cupid’s might;
So blind a dame did never Cupid right.

With wisdom’s eyes had but blind Cupid seen,
Then had my love my love for ever been;
But love farewell; though fortune conquer thee,
No fortune base shall ever alter me.
-          Gordon Braden, Sixteenth-century poetry: an annotated anthology [2005], p. 337.


A second sonnet, often argued as having been written by Elizabeth herself, mocks Raleigh in reply.  For more on this have a look at a blog post on Hobbinol’s Blog – Writing the English Renaissance: Elizabethan Courtly Love.

This is just one example of the role that music played at the Tudor court.  Its enactment was political and personal reflecting ideals of courtly love and influencing the process of internal and foreign relations. 
Dr Katherine Butler (University of Oxford) has discussed this topic in more detail on one of the History SPOT podcasts entitled: Recreational Music-Making and the Fashioning of Political or Diplomatic Relationships at the Court of Elizabeth I.  In this paper Butler argues that musical performances in the form of lute or virginal productions carried out in private chambers or in the form of more public displays shaped courtly identity and influence and acted as a carefully staged enactment to express grievances, intent, and personality at court.  Butler gives various examples ranging from Lord Darley, Walter Raleigh, and Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex.

Monday 14 May 2012

The Battle of the Books: A seventeenth century war of words and ideas


In preparing for my paper for the Anglo-American conference in July, I thought it would be worthwhile looking at the seventeenth century debate of the same name as the conference: the Battle between the Ancients and the Moderns.  Although such a title sounds more like a plot from a Hollywood film, the reality is somewhat dryer, though, perhaps, more intellectually satisfying.  I think what grabbed me most about that debate was something that Joseph M. Levine wrote in his 1981 article ‘Ancients and Moderns Reconsidered’: 

“the ancients were not simply defenders of tradition against the new, they had in fact come onto the European scene in England as elsewhere as innovators, humanists, in revolt against the culture of their own (late medieval) times.  Thus, paradoxically, an ancient could in certain circumstances appear to be a modern, as we shall see the moderns, more closely examined, could sometimes turn out to be ancients.  In the battle of the books the ancients were the self-conscious continuators of the Renaissance and were determined like their predecessors to exalt and to imitate the past – but not any past and certainly not that medieval past which was to them all Gothic and barbarous – rather that special corner of the past which they demarked as classical antiquity and to which they attached a peculiarly practical value.” 

-          Joseph M. Levine (p. 78)



Woodcut from Jonathan Swift's
Battle of the Books (1704) which
vividly discussed the contention
between 'Moderns' and 'Ancients'
It is certainly true that many learned men who wrote in the final decades of the sixteenth century saw themselves as humanist scholars.  It is also true that all of them, pretty much without exception, looked back to classical authors to support their arguments.  For those who wrote histories it was to the likes of Livy that they turned to in their prefaces to exclaim truth, honesty and approval.  Religion, which of course was at the height of contention in this century, had already become a scholarly battleground where the veracity of which doctrine was correct largely rested upon dim recollections and fragmentary evidence of a mythical pristine early church.  Did the true church lie with the Pope and the Roman Catholics, or, as the Elizabethan regime in England argued, did it lie elsewhere, in a church that has ever since its inception, been a persecuted church?  The answer did not lie in what we would now call the medieval period, although some, like John Foxe, did make strenuous use of that period of time.  The truth, they believed lay in the times of the ancients. 

Nevertheless Foxe’s focus on the medieval centuries as well as the ancient Roman times may well have incidentally helped to pave the way for seventeenth century scholars to make their debate upon those seeking knowledge from the ancients and those seeing knowledge as yet to be discovered.  Rosemond Tuve, for example noted in 1939 how the vernacular, and in particular the re-discovery of Old English, helped to shape the quarrel between ancients and moderns:

“The commonplaces of the position taken by the Moderns against the pretended decay of Nature are belief in the superiority of a Christian culture, in the progressive unveiling of Truth, defence of the indigenous and English as against the classical Ancient, confidence in the improvements of Modern knowledge and the methods of critical scholarship, and a constantly growing faith in the almost infinite possibilities opened up by these new approaches and concepts.  ‘Saxonist’ endeavours established connection with these modern axioms at almost all points”

-          Rosemond Tuve, (p. 178)


Saxon study therefore provided the Moderns with a non-Latin heritage and enabled them to distance themselves from the pagan learning’s of the ancients through the means of language and religious culture.  A more recent study by Wyman H. Heredeen on the early seventeenth-century scholar William Camden makes use of a similar argument:

“With new theories about language and education, as well as with the intensification of nationalistic sentiment across Europe, a new Hellenism emerged that recognized that the ancients were once the moderns, that the true spirit of classical writers was to be found in the cultivation of the vernacular.  The price of the success, or partial success, of the humanist’s educational agenda, then, was being superseded by a Hellenism less dependent on narrowly defined ideas of imitation.”

-          Wyman H. Herendeen (p. 110)


Two divergent viewpoints had therefore emerged.  The first was the very same that Foxe had believed in his own century; that all truth and knowledge could be found through study of the classical past.  His use of the medieval was largely to show how the papacy and Christian culture in general had fallen from that initial purity over many centuries.  The rise of humanist learning and a reformed religion was therefore necessary to put the human race back on track.  Half a century later however, the seeds sown by Foxe and his colleagues in the study of the Anglo-Saxons as well as in later medieval history to show that decline, were re-identified as a method for breaking away from the classical inheritance.     
 

Further Reading

Wyman H. Herendeen, William Camden: A life in context (2007).

Joseph M. Levine, ‘Ancients and Moderns Reconsidered’, Eighteenth-Century Studies, 15:1 (Autumn 1981), pp. 72-89.     

Rosemond Tuve, ‘Ancients, Moderns and Saxons’, English Literary History 6:3 (Sept. 1939), pp. 165-190.


Monday 30 April 2012

Ancient and Early Modern Martyrs: A Reformation reappraisal of Britain’s Roman heritage as told by John Foxe (Abstract)


The Anglo-American conference on Ancients and Moderns is now just over 2 months away and the research for my paper is, annoyingly, still only slowly ebbing along.  Nevertheless I hope to be able to start talking a little more about my thoughts and findings on this blog over the next few weeks.  In the meantime I thought I would share with you the abstract for my paper:      


Ancient and Early Modern Martyrs: A Reformation reappraisal of Britain’s Roman heritage as told by John Foxe

The Acts and Monuments, written by John Foxe in the late sixteenth century, is commonly recognised as primarily a martyrology that vividly details the persecution of English Protestants by the government of Queen Mary.  However, the work is so much more than this; it is an ecclesiastical history that told a revised history of Christianity from Christ through to their own times.  In this history the Pope was labelled as Antichrist and traditionally perceived heretics counted as members of the true faithful. 

Foxe chose many ways to establish his argument and to validate his claims one of which was to show the authenticity of the protestant church to have stretched back to Christ himself.  In his second edition (published in 1570) Foxe devoted an entire chapter to the classical world seeking to show Roman culture, politics and religion through revised eyes.  Foxe wished to receive the classical world as a purer time not yet disfigured by human and supernatural corruptions but one also plagued by persecution.  For Foxe the true Christian church was a persecuted one as history had shown time and time again.   

Foxe achieved this aim largely through the eyes of Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 263-339 AD) who had initiated the very form that Foxe wrote - the ecclesiastical history - but he also did so through the parallel researches carried out by other evangelical reformers such as the bibliophile John Bale and the German team of historians who compiled the Magdeburg Centuries.  Those texts were written in Latin so Foxe’s vernacular work provided for the ordinary English people the only accessible means to reformist re-evaluation of the classical world.  I will look at exactly what that interpretation was; how it related to the views of Foxe’s sixteenth century contemporaries; and how the classical world formed an essential role in Foxe’s understanding of the past and his conception for the present and future.  

Friday 2 March 2012

Ancient or Modern religion? - Foxe's opening gambit


How did Foxe receive the classical traditions and texts?  How did he incorporate them into a revised conception of the past?  Was he unique in his vision of ancient civilization or did he agree with other scholars of his generation?  These are questions that need answering, and will have to become a focus for my study over the coming months.  Last weekend I made a start to these proceedings by reading through the first part of the first book of the Acts and Monuments.  In this section Foxe compared (in list format) the Roman Catholic Church of the sixteenth century with that described by Eusebius and others for early Christianity.  Foxe’s central purpose was to demonstrate that although the ancient church fathers had declared the Roman Church a true church, it was not right to claim that this was still true in the sixteenth century.  As Foxe himself notes:       

“What say they [that is the Roman Catholics], where was this Church of yours, before these fifty years?  To whom briefly to answer, first we demand what they mean by this, which they call our Church?  If they mean the ordinance and institution of doctrine and Sacraments, now received of us, and differing from the Church of Rome, we affirm and say, that our church was, when this church of theirs was not yet hatched out of the shell, nor did yet ever see any light: that is, in the time of the Apostles, in the primitive age, in the time of Gregory I and the old Roman Church” 

- A&M, 1583, bk. 1, pp. 25-26

As beginnings go this is a strong start for Foxe as it attacks head-on a central and popular Catholic argument: where was your church before Luther?  Foxe’s answer is a simple one: where was your church?

Thursday 16 February 2012

Ancients and Moderns: How to fit John Foxe into the picture?


Last week the Institute of Historical Research announced the programme for their 81st Anglo-American Conference of Historians.  This year the topic is on Ancients and Moderns.  What do they mean by this?  Well the primary question for the conference is how does the classical world resonate in our own times?  In line with that question is how successive ‘epochs’ since the Renaissance have pictured themselves in relation to ancient civilizations? 

Logo for the 81s Anglo-American Conference of Historians
hosted by the Institute of Historical Research

There are many ways to answer and look at those questions one of which is to turn to the revision of history produced in the sixteenth century.  This is exactly what I plan to do in my paper for the Anglo-American conference.  The paper entitled Ancient and Early Modern Martyrs: A Reformation reappraisal of Britain’s Roman heritage as told by John Foxe will look primarily at the history of the Roman period in the Acts and Monuments and what this tells us about Foxe’s view of his own times.

The entire first book of the Acts and Monuments was dedicated to early Christian and Roman history with Eusebius’ account of early martyrs utilized by Foxe as a parallel to Protestants martyred under Queen Mary.  Eusebius of Caesarea (c. AD 263 – 339) wrote the first ever ecclesiastical history in the fourth century and Foxe located his work in the same tradition.  In this, Foxe was the first in England to follow Eusebius’ lead since the Venerable Bede but he was not the only one to do so in Christendom in the late sixteenth-century.  A German reformer named Matthias Flacius was also heavily involved in a collaborative project based in the city state of Magdeburg.  This project, basing itself upon Eusebius’ church history, resulted in fourteen volumes charting Christian history from the birth of Christ right through to the thirteenth century.  It was to prove a valuable inspiration and source for Foxe’s English-centric project. 

Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 263-339)


The return to Eusebius by protestant reformers both in terms of content and in form had specific resonances for a revised history of Christianity, especially one based upon the idea of the true faithful as a persecuted people as Foxe’s was.  Thus far there have only been a handful of studies on the Eusebius question and the Roman period in Foxe’s Acts and Monuments and only two published:
  • Minton, Gretchen E., '"The Same Cause and Like Quarell" : Eusebius, John Foxe, and the Evolution of Ecclesiastical History', Church History, 71:4 (2002), 715-42 .
  • Freeman, Thomas S., Great Searching out of Bookes and Autors: John Foxe as an Ecclesiastical Historian, unpublished Ph.D (New Brunswick, The State University of New Jersey, 1995).
  • Pucci, Michael S., ‘Reforming Roman Emperors: John Foxe’s characterisation of Constantine in the Acts and Monuments’, in David Loades (ed.), John Foxe: An Historical Perspective (Aldershot, 1999), pp. 29-51.  

The John Foxe project offers some additional research in its commentaries although these are preliminary in nature and, I should confess, were partly written by myself, and therefore represent my own limited investigations into this area thus far.  Included amongst these commentaries is the fact that Foxe, like all humanist scholars of his age, followed Cicero’s leges historiae – i.e. that the first priority was truth.  Foxe uses Cicero’s ‘laws’ not only to justify his own text but to derogatorily claim medieval chroniclers as having failed to attain the aspiration of Cicero (see commentary for 1583, bk. 1, p. 24).  Another commentary remarks upon Foxe’s overriding prophetic framework based loosely upon that of John Bale’s Image of Bothe Churches (1545).  Foxe structured his account of early martyrs via Eusebius but also through the lens of ‘two kingdom’ theory (the idea that there were a distinction between the affairs of this world and the kingdom of Christ) and the second of the visible and invisible church (see commentary for 1583, bk. 1, p. 53).  For the account of the ten persecutions we know that Foxe relied heavily upon the German ecclesiastical history, the commonly named Magdeburg Centuries that I mentioned earlier, and a handful of other sources including, presumably, a copy of Eusebius’ ecclesiastical history.  However, as discussed in the commentary for 1583, bk. 1, p. 57 investigations into this portion of Foxe’s book remains at a preliminary stage.  It is therefore these ten persecutions that I will be most interested in looking at for my paper. 

Tuesday 24 January 2012

Inflation in William Harrison's Description of England


Ever since money became a primary mode of exchange the economy has had an enormous effect on the ordinary day to day lives of people.  Of course we are currently in one of those periods of decline with recovery seemingly still somewhere far off in the distance.  During this recession many news outlets noted how different this economic downturn was to those in the past.  No doubt that is true, but it is surely equally true of all economic downturns.  No recession is precisely the same as another. 

On the whole it can be said that the standard of living in England rose during the sixteenth century but there were nonetheless two periods of high inflation that caused serious problems for the population.  In the last years of Henry VIII and first years of Edward VI debasement of the currency caused high inflation and then again towards the end of Elizabeth I’s reign prices rocketed due to bad harvests with somewhere around a 50% increase in costs. 

What did the chroniclers say about these periods of inflation and about the general rise in living standards?  Annabel Patterson argues that William Harrison (writing for the Holinshed Chronicles) commented on the economic situations – albeit in a fragmentary way – in his Description of England (see Patterson, Reading Holinshed’s Chronicles, ch. 5).  In the 1577 edition Harrison was optimistic and pointed out various ways that the people were better off: primarily the prevalence of chimneys which aired out houses, softer bedding material, and an increase of imported luxuries such as tapestries, pewter and plate.  This account was written during an upturn in real wages.  In his later revisions of 1587 Harrison amended his account to reflect on the downturn that had since occurred.  For instance the ‘amendment of lodging’ was recounted in 1577 as ‘great’ but in 1587 noted also as ‘not generall’ (Patterson, p. 82).

Simple adjustment of the words in a text between editions can be a useful indicator of fluctuations on the market during the early modern period.  It is equally true today.  If we look at the language used during the years of ‘boom’ compared to these years of ‘bust’ slight variations in word-use have been used to portray varying economic security.  Terminology used to describe the work of bankers and the stock exchange has been particularly revised.  Such thoughts leads me to a question (one which I don’t really have an answer to): how much of what happens in the economy is actually due to the words used to convey the situation compared to what the situation is actually about?  There is no doubt that words have power to control situations and direct them along certain lines.  So how far is our economy effected by words rather than facts and figures?  I’m no economist so I cannot answer such a series of questions but it is perhaps useful to consider these things when reading the newspapers and, equally as important, when reading medieval and early modern chronicles.  

Tuesday 10 January 2012

History Today: Student Page on the Protestant Reformation

History Today online has added a new student page on the topic of the Protestant Reformation.  With articles by Michael Mullett, Russel Tarr, and Andrew Pettegree and several other links to History Today articles this is nice introduction to the subject and, while not strictly speaking on the topic of intellectual history, does discuss nicely the theological debates and events surrounding Martin Luther, John Calvin and other well known leaders of sixteenth century reformers.

Have a look on the History Today Student Page.

Friday 6 January 2012

Patrick Collinson's final publication

The highly influential historian of post-reformation English religion, Patrick Collinson sadly passed away late last year but his passing came with one final publication.  This England: Essays on the English Nation and Commonwealth in the Sixteenth Century (Manchester, 2011) is a collection of essays previously published independently between 1994 and 2009.
The book represents the final word by Patrick Collinson on the sixteenth century.  Unlike his earlier work, post-reformation religious culture – whilst playing its role – is not its general focus.  That said, there is a considerable religious thread throughout largely manifested through examination of John Foxe’s Acts and Monuments.  For the most part though, this binding together of recent articles by Collinson, reflects his latter interested in ‘early modern English politics and self-fashioning Collectively’, as Collinson’s reviewer Sarah Waurechen argues.
It is to this review – to be found in Reviews in History - that I thought worthwhile linking to here.  Sarah Waurechen sums up the collection as demonstrating Collinson’s view that:  
“ the political community was active and engaged, and that certain ideas, texts, and moments in history served as rallying points around which an English national identity could form. The problem, though, was that this identity was an unstable one, and Collinson illuminates the fissures in Protestant discourses about the nation, and in the ways in which histories might reflect religious and political fault lines. For him, this explains why the nation eventually collapsed into civil war.”


Other resources: