Pollard, Albert Frederick. Thomas Cranmer and the English Reformation. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1906.
Mr. (prof.) Pollard deals with the "Divorce of Catherine" over pages 28-60.
Pollard’s previous section—entirely, significantly, substantively and meaningfully--was lacking in discussing Cranmer’s academic interactions.
We were told that he engaged with the "literature" of his day. What does that mean? We were told he was a diligent student of "immense industry." So, 1000s upon 1000s can lay claim to that. We were told he engaged with “new and old authors.” Again, why does this mean? A bibliography? Research into marginal notes in his books? We believe McCullock has done work in this area, but we get nothing from Mr. (prof.) Pollard. 1503-1530 is one large blank other than vague generalities. This is very dissatisfying. At this point, Pollard’s title is not justified, "Thomas Cranmer and the English Reformation." It is almost as if Mr. (prof.) Pollard would like to bypass and/or avoid the foundational ferment, the stirring ideas and developments of the Reformation. One just cannot do a hasty fly-over at 30,000 feet in 25ish pages covering Cranmer's Cambridgensian life from 1503-1530 and expect...whala..."an attaboy."
Then, whala, Pollard leaps to the “Great Problem:” Henry VIII’s "divorce" to Catherine of Aragon. It must be dealt with since poor Cranmer’s life got mixed up in the mess and he was extricated from (much more important) academic research to be involved with royal, imperial and Romanist politics. What a loss! But, then, it put him in a place in time to influence England.
But back on point. Oh wait! What divorce? From either perspective—Rome's or Canterbury's—there was "no divorce."
First, the Church of England maintained that Henry VIII was never married in the first place. He had, in essence and in fact, been a serial fornicator. Ergo, Henry had been co-habiting, sinning and violating the seventh commandment with Catherine for years.
Thus, Mary was a “bastard,” pure and simple. That’s the common law term, “bastard.” The term “bastard” is still used in NC for paternity suits. They are called “bastardy" hearings in 2013.
As an aside, NC was a Royal, Caroline, Anglican, Thirty-nine-ish-Articles, and Prayer Book Colony before the American Rebellion. There are law books in libraries with "Royal Statutes." I've seen and perused them. It is almost a time-warp to see the volumes of English common law. English common law was "adopted" largely when the rebellious colonies confederated. As such, "bastardy" laws remain on/in NC statutory law. Ergo, Mr. (Henry) Tudor's quiver was full of bastards on anyone's view. It cannot be put more politely.
Second, for the Vaticanists or Romanists, there was "no annulment" and "no divorce." After Henry tossed Catherine for the younger and probably more attractive Anne Boleyn, Henry was a "serial adulterer." Again, but a different perspective, he was a serial violator of the seventh commandment. The offspring, by turns, Elizabeth and Edward, were bastards.
So, technically speaking, what “divorce?” Henry, depending on the perspective, was either an intractable fornicator and/or adulterer. Take your pick.
This scribe subscribes to the Romanist view of things: Henry VIII’s scruples were indexed to his immorality; there is a lot ink that the old boy wanted an heir. After all, the Tudors had to fight to secure the dynasty; old Henry had dynastic needs. Thus, the Queen was a "Royal Mare" in the stable and she wasn’t producing. Ergo, according to other explanations, Henry needed a new Horse and a royal heir.
We'll continue to evaluate the "divorce that never was."
Beyond the divorce, one interesting feature that Pollard does begin to develop is this. There were significant "anti-Papal and anti-sacerdotal forces" at work in England apart from the matrimonial-immorality problems of Henry. Here are Pollard’s reasons, albeit weakly developed. (1) An imperial officer wrote Emperor Charles V on 8 Jun 1527 wondering if England would become a “patriarchy” denying “obedience to Rome.” Thus, becoming like the Greeks who have never warmed to Roman claims of universal jurisdiction. Pollard cites "The Calendar of Spanish State Papers, 1527-1529," p. 309, a source we can neither confirm nor deny. This is a helpful note by Mr. (prof.) Pollard. It's the kind of research we appreciate. (2) Importantly, Charles V had previously
sacked Rome holding the Pope in custody in 1527. This will give one the sense of the Emperor's view of Rome. Remember, Bruder Martin is still on the loose and under Papal and Imperial condemnation, but Mr. Pollard gives not hint of it. Hence, one is not getting a sense of the "English Reformation," but back to the point. Charles V told Mr. (pope) Clement VII that this was the “just judgment of God” and that he “should forfeit his fiefs as the root of all evil.” One will need to evaluate Charles V, Clement VII, and European history for the sense of it. The Englishmen in their "outer outpost" beyond the channel got the word. Remember, Cardinal Wolsey was "one cardinal amongst forty Italian, French, Spanish, and German Cardinals." Again, 1 out of 40. English prelates were not in play. Who were the Englishmen after all? Just pay-up. As an aside, we don’t think there has ever been an English Pope (?). (3) Mr. Pollard further says that Londoners were so hostile to clerics that a “jury would condemn a cleric as innocent as Abel.” (3) In 1512, an insult to Scots was to call them the “Pope’s men.” On our view, that's still a meritorious insult. (4) In 1515, the Parliament had stormy debates about “clerical exactions.” Peter’s Pence was one such issue. Wycliffe had laid some groundwork here. This particular Parliament incurred prelatical alarms about the “subversion of the Church.” As a result, Cardinal Wolsey refused to prorogue Parliament for fourteen years after 1515 (footnote 5). (5) Even Thomas More warned Henry about defending too strongly the divine institution of the Papacy. These appear to be the slender evidences in support of his larger point. Mr. (prof.) Pollard needs to develop this. However, aside from the academic and theological issues (missing in Pollard’s development of Cranmer’s life), this issue of England’s growing antipathy towards Rome needs elaboration and development (footnote 6).
More on “the divorce that never was”…on either Rome’s or Canterbury’s view. Again, proceeding without the needed information on Cranmer from 1515-1530. Other sources help with that, but not Mr. Pollard.
--------------------
5 It should be noted the Parliament existed or was called to approve or deny Royal requests for money. Kings called or dismissed Parliaments as needed. Pollard does not bring this out although his expertise is the constitutional history of England. It’s a narrative that needs exposition over Cranmer’s lifetime until the Revolution of 1690, that is, the relationship between the Royals and Parliament.
6 Hardwick on the Thirty-nine Articles may be fruitful here on these developments. Englishmen were not happy about vacant benefices with money going to Italy. Or, the Italian bishops drawing out English monies...inter alia. St. Peter's was built with foreign monies. Luther would later object. Calvin would call it the "fleecing of the sheep." Indulgences, then, like now. And people were not entirely stupid, e.g. indulgences and phony relics.
Mr. (prof.) Pollard deals with the "Divorce of Catherine" over pages 28-60.
Pollard’s previous section—entirely, significantly, substantively and meaningfully--was lacking in discussing Cranmer’s academic interactions.
We were told that he engaged with the "literature" of his day. What does that mean? We were told he was a diligent student of "immense industry." So, 1000s upon 1000s can lay claim to that. We were told he engaged with “new and old authors.” Again, why does this mean? A bibliography? Research into marginal notes in his books? We believe McCullock has done work in this area, but we get nothing from Mr. (prof.) Pollard. 1503-1530 is one large blank other than vague generalities. This is very dissatisfying. At this point, Pollard’s title is not justified, "Thomas Cranmer and the English Reformation." It is almost as if Mr. (prof.) Pollard would like to bypass and/or avoid the foundational ferment, the stirring ideas and developments of the Reformation. One just cannot do a hasty fly-over at 30,000 feet in 25ish pages covering Cranmer's Cambridgensian life from 1503-1530 and expect...whala..."an attaboy."
 |
| Henry VIII by Hans Holbein Walker Art Gallery, Liverpool, UK |
But back on point. Oh wait! What divorce? From either perspective—Rome's or Canterbury's—there was "no divorce."
First, the Church of England maintained that Henry VIII was never married in the first place. He had, in essence and in fact, been a serial fornicator. Ergo, Henry had been co-habiting, sinning and violating the seventh commandment with Catherine for years.
Thus, Mary was a “bastard,” pure and simple. That’s the common law term, “bastard.” The term “bastard” is still used in NC for paternity suits. They are called “bastardy" hearings in 2013.
As an aside, NC was a Royal, Caroline, Anglican, Thirty-nine-ish-Articles, and Prayer Book Colony before the American Rebellion. There are law books in libraries with "Royal Statutes." I've seen and perused them. It is almost a time-warp to see the volumes of English common law. English common law was "adopted" largely when the rebellious colonies confederated. As such, "bastardy" laws remain on/in NC statutory law. Ergo, Mr. (Henry) Tudor's quiver was full of bastards on anyone's view. It cannot be put more politely.
Second, for the Vaticanists or Romanists, there was "no annulment" and "no divorce." After Henry tossed Catherine for the younger and probably more attractive Anne Boleyn, Henry was a "serial adulterer." Again, but a different perspective, he was a serial violator of the seventh commandment. The offspring, by turns, Elizabeth and Edward, were bastards.
So, technically speaking, what “divorce?” Henry, depending on the perspective, was either an intractable fornicator and/or adulterer. Take your pick.
This scribe subscribes to the Romanist view of things: Henry VIII’s scruples were indexed to his immorality; there is a lot ink that the old boy wanted an heir. After all, the Tudors had to fight to secure the dynasty; old Henry had dynastic needs. Thus, the Queen was a "Royal Mare" in the stable and she wasn’t producing. Ergo, according to other explanations, Henry needed a new Horse and a royal heir.
We'll continue to evaluate the "divorce that never was."
Beyond the divorce, one interesting feature that Pollard does begin to develop is this. There were significant "anti-Papal and anti-sacerdotal forces" at work in England apart from the matrimonial-immorality problems of Henry. Here are Pollard’s reasons, albeit weakly developed. (1) An imperial officer wrote Emperor Charles V on 8 Jun 1527 wondering if England would become a “patriarchy” denying “obedience to Rome.” Thus, becoming like the Greeks who have never warmed to Roman claims of universal jurisdiction. Pollard cites "The Calendar of Spanish State Papers, 1527-1529," p. 309, a source we can neither confirm nor deny. This is a helpful note by Mr. (prof.) Pollard. It's the kind of research we appreciate. (2) Importantly, Charles V had previously
 |
| Sack of Rome, 1527. 17th century painting by Johannes Lingelbach. |
More on “the divorce that never was”…on either Rome’s or Canterbury’s view. Again, proceeding without the needed information on Cranmer from 1515-1530. Other sources help with that, but not Mr. Pollard.
--------------------
5 It should be noted the Parliament existed or was called to approve or deny Royal requests for money. Kings called or dismissed Parliaments as needed. Pollard does not bring this out although his expertise is the constitutional history of England. It’s a narrative that needs exposition over Cranmer’s lifetime until the Revolution of 1690, that is, the relationship between the Royals and Parliament.
6 Hardwick on the Thirty-nine Articles may be fruitful here on these developments. Englishmen were not happy about vacant benefices with money going to Italy. Or, the Italian bishops drawing out English monies...inter alia. St. Peter's was built with foreign monies. Luther would later object. Calvin would call it the "fleecing of the sheep." Indulgences, then, like now. And people were not entirely stupid, e.g. indulgences and phony relics.
No comments:
Post a Comment