It is available here:
http://www.amazon.com/Cranmer-English-Reformation-1489-1556-Classic/dp/B008XCRB9K/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1377731959&sr=8-2-fkmr1&keywords=alfred+pollard+thomas+cranmer
A few more musing from Mr. Pollard on Mr. Canterbury as his engagements develop with Mr. Tudor's "Big Deal." Overall, in this section, pp.40-50, we are not entirely pleased with Mr. Pollard. We note that Mr. Jaspar Ridley said that this was not Mr. Pollard's "finest work." Nonetheless, Mr. Pollard is a must-read for those attempting to understand the English Reformation and Mr. Cranmer.Following the famed Waltham meeting in summer 1529, Cranmer, by royal order, came to Henry’s presence probably in November 1529. The king “retained him [Cranmer] to write his mind and opinion…” (41). In November 1529, Dr. Richard Croke, a Greek scholar and old Cambridge friend of Cranmer’s, was dispatched to Italy to ransack libraries for manuscripts favoring the King’s “Big Deal.”
Meanwhile, Cranmer finished and circulated his manuscript amongst Cambridge dons. Cranmer appeared in Cambridge, presented his arguments in person, and the school was won over. Both methods, writing and speaking, “met with success” (41).
Cranmer was appointed to go with the Earl of Wiltshire, Mr. Stokesley (later bp. of London) and Mr. Lee (later abp. of York) to present the case to Rome and the Emperor. They left in late January 1530 for the Continent. While travelling, the “verdicts of Cambridge and Oxford in Henry’s favour” were forwarded to them for presentation to the Pope.
During the slow trip through France, they sought to get the French King to do likewise at the Sorbonne. Get the schools to support old Harry.
Eventually, Paris, Orleans, Angers, Bourges, and Toulouse supported Oxford, Cambridge and Henry “against the papal power to dispense” (43), that is, the original dispensation given in the first place (back to Henry’s marriage nearly 25 years earlier). Quite an academic entourage, perhaps facilitated with a few side deals?
After all, years back, Pope Julius II himself in the first instance “admitted, it really was a matter of doubt” (43). Clement VII inherited the earlier Papal mess.
Clement VII had hoped that Henry would just marry Ann Boleyn “without further ado” so he could be free of the consequences. But, he had two issues: risk alienating Charles V or Henry VIII.
The English foursome slow-stepped through France and missed the last instance of a Holy Roman Emperor being coronated by the Pope, February 24, 1530, in Bologna. Charlemagne had his big show centuries before.
The Earl Wiltshire and Mr. Lee retired from Bologna and returned to France by summer of 1530. Mr. Stokesley remained in Bologna working on the "Big Deal" often called "The Great Matter."
Mr. Cranmer proceeded to Venice. This was a new little deal. Charming town of canals with its own history. But what comes next was not known to the Englishmen or Henry.
Meanwhile, Clement VII and Charles V were involved in their close dealings: (1) re-crafting the Italian map in mutually satisfying ways, (2) arranging a marriage between Charles V’s bastard daughter and Clement VII’s nephew in exchange for the newlyweds to be in charge of Florence, and (3) a promise by Clement VII to thwart the King of England’s program. When this would become known, Henry was not amused.
Clement VII issued a “bull prohibiting all doctors, notaries, and others from maintaining the invalidity of Henry’s marriage” (44). With this gig in place, Cranmer’s future failure in Rome, shortly to come, was a foregone conclusion. Poor chap. Cranmer the dog had no chance of wagging the Papal tail. Quite the reverse, as usual.
By June, 1530, Mr. Cranmer is in Rome offering to debate any of the doctors; there are no takers. There are no takers and the Emperor’s envoys howl down further discussions. Clement VII offers a sop and makes Mr. Cranmer the Penitentiary of England, whatever that means. Cranmer writes home that he had “never seen such inconstancy” (45). Cranmer leaves Rome by September 1530 after several months on the Continent.
Parliament never was seated throughout 1530. All the above were Royal dealings. The rank-and-file Englishmen plied their fields, sowed their fields, and made way with the usual things of farming, agriculture, and other engagements. But still, this was the "Big Deal." The king's effort to harness the "dynastic principle" while clipping the wings of the double-crossing Pope.
One Florentine wag wrote home from London, “Nothing else is thought of everyday, except in arranging affairs in such a way that they do no longer be in want of the Pope, neither for filling the vacancies in the Church, nor for any other purpose” (46). This tidbit gives one the sense of English Churchmen’s attitudes toward Rome and the Pope.
In tandem to the Florentine wag, Mr. Pollard notes that Henry was busy “undermining the foundations of the papal power in England” (46). Henry had been dissed by the Pope, Rome and the Emperor.
A 1531 Convocation averred the “King’s being acknowledged as the Supreme Head of the Church in England” (46). Cranmer, not being a member, had no part in that Convocation.
But, in the meantime, Cardinal Pole had written a manuscript against Henry’s program. Cranmer, however, reviewed Pole’s well-argued and scholarly work and said that if “the book was published, the minds of the people would be incontrovertibly fixed in hostility to the King’s cause” (47). We can infer that Mr. Tudor was beginning to like this chap.
Thus far, Henry likes Cranmer’s approach. He had heard good things about his sojourn of 1530 on the Continent. In 1532, he appointed Cranmer “to the post of ambassador to the Emperor Charles V” (47). Quite a calling for a Doctor of Divinity! What did Cranmer think of all this? What did he know about the "Evangelicals" at Cambridge in the 1520s?
He had secret marching orders: a possible alliance with the “Protestant” Germanic alliance. This too is a big deal. We'll have to review the wider-Reform movement for the sense of it. Mr. Pollard shrinks from enlargement here. By the way, Henry doesn't like the Protestants' view of the mass and they didn't like Henry's matrimonial conduct (and Fisher was working away against all-things-Lutheran in England).
By July 1532, Mr. Cranmer joined the Diet of Ratisbon. He met the Count of Saxony, Elector John Frederick, the Head of the Schmalkaldic League (48).
However, Mr. Pollard does not do this justice to this meeting insofar as we can see. This is, well, annoying.
Mr.Frederick was a well-schooled Lutheran Churchman who knew Luther, avidly read his writings, and had followed all-things-Lutheran since the Imperial ban on Luther and the Papal excommunication.
What happened here between John Frederick, a scholarly President of the “Protestant” League, and this Cambridge don, Mr. Cranmer? This is all we get from Mr. Pollard? Europe is awash in theological reform while Mr. Pollard appears to look elsewhere?
If he has nothing more, let him say it. If there “is” nothing more to say, e.g. from documentary sources, let him say “we have nothing more.”
The just jeremiad here is that Mr. Pollard “skates” off the issue.
This “Protestant Prince” was a signatory to the Augsburg Confession, 1530, and Luther was his constant advisor.
Further, this “Protestant President” of the League had incurred the ill-will of the Spaniard on the Imperial throne. Henry was authorizing potential support to the "Protestants." Hello??? There's theological roots to the issue, Mr. Pollard.
Charles V had been “threatening to reduce them [those pesky Protestants] by the force of arms to obedience to himself and the Catholic Church” (48). So, all politics, geography, but no theology, Mr. Pollard? Very poor. Your commitment to law and Constitutional history shows and we respect those things, but nothing on the theological dimension of Cranmer at this point? Never mind that he was reared at Cambridge, had a BA, MA, was a theologian, was a Doctor of Divinity, and had been studying theological matters for quite some time.
If he were alive, I'd say, "Rewrite this section." If there is nothing to say by way of documents, tell us. We're left in the wind.
What did Cranmer hear, learn or know from this meeting? Who did he talk to? What about theology? Discussions about Mr. Luther and the German Reformation? The Augsburg Confession of 1530?
Further, one may not and cannot dissociate Cranmer from German theology. The connections must be drawn. Also, in this period, Mr. William Tyndale has been around in Germany on his translation project, including Wittenberg. Early Protestants were being "docketed" for trial at Cambridge and in London. London's bishop was ranting about those "evangelical heretics" while Mr. Cranmer is meeting with "The Protestant Prince" and "Head of the Schmalkaldic League." Just poor stuff here.
Mr. Pollard does, however, advise us that Mr. Cranmer met with Mr. (Rev.) Osiander in Nurnberg and married Osiander’s niece (Margaret). Osiander had some odd blend of Luther on justification by faith alone along with some Romish sacerdotalism, but Mr. Pollard does not develop this. This section is also unsatisfactory.
Mr. Pollard again--not discussing theological issues--prefers to go to "Sex in the City" themes. He notes the “non-canonical marriage,” that not-so-unusual liaison, that Cardinal Wolsey had with a woman (along with two children). He raises the issue of the “two wives” of Clement VII. These two arrangements are offered as possible extenuations that might have justified the bold move by Mr. Cranmer. After all, Mr. Pollard notes that “Popes and Kings had not been in the habit of inquiring too closely” about these marriages, marriages that were “strictly forbidden in canon law” (49).
After all, if pressed, Mr. Cranmer could point to the examples of the Pope and Cardinal for "his bold move," a bold move for a man in holy orders. Henry probably didn't care so why should Mr. Cranmer? But, it does say something about Cranmer's view of Romanist prohibitions. After all, Luther had married.
And, after all, if pressed, Mr. Pollard will offer nothing else of theological insight on Mr. Cranmer in this period.
Having complained in this section, the book is still a must-have/must-read for those trying to assess the mysteries of divine providence in Papal Roman Anglicanism (1.0), soon to be Non-Papal Roman Anglicanism (2.0).
If you have read this far, thank you for your indulgence of our temporary grumpiness with Mr. Pollard.
As the story develops, Mr. Cranmer will die at the stake on March 23, 1556 because of a different Anglicanism.
He will die because of Non-Papal, Non-Roman, Protestant and Reformed Anglicanism...the Edwardian version (3.0).
No comments:
Post a Comment