It is available at: http://www.amazon.com/
It is available online at: http://books.google.com/
Also, available online at: http://archive.org/details/
Chapter 1: “Cranmer’s Life Until the Divorce”
Right off, the title is misnamed. It should be retitled: “Cranmer’s Life Through Multiple Intrigues, Six Wives, Divorces, Axes and All”
Or, "Cranmer, Emcee of Henry's Circus"
Or, "Cranmer, Henry's Canterburian Lapdog"
There is much good historical material here, but there are some odd points by Mr. (Rev. Canon) Arthur James Mason. On the whole, it is good, but it has some dubious points.
Mr. Mason rightly observes that there has been “more indiscriminate praise” and “more indiscriminate censure” for Mr. Cranmer than all English ecclesiastics, with perhaps Becket and Laud excepted. Mr. Mason summarizes his view: Cranmer “steered the Church of England so well through the first perils of the Reformation” (1).
The usual bio-details are cited.
• Born in Aslockton on July 2, 1489, the sixth of seven children and the sixth in the birth order. He had two brothers and four sisters. Standard report.
• Cranmer’s father dies in 1501, is buried in Whatton Church, and whose tomb is covered with an “uncommon-looking stone” which has “an incised image of his effigy, in the costume of a gentleman of Henry VII’s reign” (4). Standard report.
• Goes to Jesus College in 1503 and graduates 1511, age 22.
• He begins the study of theology. The controversies of religion “are not only trifles but concern the chiefest articles of our salvation” (4). He “could not judge indifferently in so weighty matters without the knowledge of the Holy Scriptures” (4). Yet, Mr. Mason does a fly-over, Mach 2, and never mentions one theological locus or loci.
• Diligent and industrious note-taker. Every one cites this point.
• Doctorate of Divinity at age 34. Yet, we would add a conflict exists with other biographers, to wit, age 37 and 1526 for the receipt of the Doctorate. So which is it?
• According to Mr. Mason’s assertion, “There can be no doubt that the young Cranmer was personally influenced by the teaching of Erasmus” (5). This needs to be edited. It “may have been” influenced Mr. Cranmer rather than an undocumented and somewhat triumphalist “there can be no doubt.” We would add that Mr. Erasmus began his teaching in 1511, but he complained that few students attended and even fewer paid their fees. Another writer suggests that Cranmer was Erasmus’ disciple, but we await documentary evidence. Mr. Mason offers none.
• Later, however, we do learn that Cranmer did know Erasmus. But, this is 1533 and our earlier question applies to the question of 1511-1529 in terms of his relationship to Erasmus. Mr. (Canterbury) Warham died and Cranmer becomes Canterbury. Erasmus writes, “…inasmuch as the deceased archbishop’s place and dignity has been taken by Thomas Cranmer, a professed theologian, and a most upright man of spotless life, who, without my asking him, has promised that he will not be behind his predecessor in his care and kindness toward me; and what he freely promised, he has also freely begun to perform, so that I may feel that Warham has not been taken away from me, but is born again in Cranmer” (Erasmus, Epistolae, mcclxi.). A few things are inserted here by us. First, Mr. Cranmer had digested Mr. Fisher’s diatribe against Luther in Assertionis Lutheranae Disputatio; Cranmer fumes at Mr. Luther. But this is the 1520s. Second, during the same period, Mr. Cranmer has digested Erasmus’ De Libero Arbitrio and Mr. Luther’s Bondage of the Will. Mr. Cranmer is confused about Luther and the topic. Third, when Warham died in 1532, much more water had passed under the bridge: Cranmer’s famed meeting at Waltham in 1529, a trip to Rome for several months in 1530 and a trip to Germany in 1532 for several months. So, by the time of Warham’s death, Mr. Cranmer knows much about Mr. Erasmus.
• According to Mr. Mason, Cranmer was made a Fellow of Jesus in 1510-1511. He needs more documentation here. The Fellowship is vacated after Cranmer gets married. He’s readmitted after her death within the year. Standard storyline narrative.
• Many opposed Henry’s marriage to Catherine, including Mr. (Canterbury) Warham. Mr. Mason says, “Papal dispensations had already accustomed men’s minds to seeing the laws of marriage tampered with” (10). We have also heard about Cardinal Wolsey's "non-canonical," er, his wife and two children. Also, of Clement VII's two wives.
• But, Mr. Mason points out other marital incongruities that may have given Mr. Tudor good hopes for a resolution. (1) In 1418, Martin VI allowed (= dispensation against canon law) John, Count of Foix, to marry the sister of his deceased wife. (2) Another dispensation was granted by the infamous Mr. (Pope) Alexander VI to Emmanuel, King of Portugal, so as to marry the sister of his first wife. (3) Ferdinand II, King of Italy, was permitted to marry his own aunt (10).
• But, oddly and helpfully, Mr. Mason claims that Misters (Popes) Alexander VI and Pius III “disallowed” Henry’s marriage to Catherine. It is odd, because few treat the involvement of these two Popes. Arthur died in 1502 unexpectedly. But, Alexander VI died in 1503 long before Henry’s marriage issue was firmed up. Pius III took office in 1503 but he died the same year as Alexander VI. Julius II (1503-1513) granted the dispensation after international negotiations between Spain, England and Rome. However, Julius II admitted “there was some doubt” as to whether he had the power to “dispense” with the clear canonical prohibition; nonetheless, he granted the dispensation. The marriage went forward. Julius II died 1513. Clement VII held the Papacy from 1523 to 1534, the period covering Henry’s great problem.
• Mr. Mason laments the lack of firm principle in the Pope. “It was Julius who lost the English Church to Rome” (11). There are times when one wonders if Mr. Mason is quasi-Tractarian, but we digress. What principle? Canon law? Biblical governance? And, this is quite the over-simplification; we expect more from the "Canon of Canterbury" and graduate of Jesus College, Cambridge.
• Mr. Mason claims “He [Henry] tired of her [Catherine].” “As early as 1524, he had ceased to treat her as a wife” (11). There are no footnotes for the claims.
• “It was too late [for Rome] to retrieve the mistake of Julius” (12).
• “But the poor bastard [Mr. Mason’s lovely and probably accurate term for the illegitimately born Pope Clement VII] who held the see of Rome was incapable of taking a firm attitude of principle” (12). Quite a term for Mr. Clement VII, the “poor bastard.” Very Victorian of him! As an old crusty Marine, we rather like it. We think we'll adopt it. Charles V's view of Clement was none too high either, but he was willing to "wheel and deal" with the poor bastard.
• Mr. Mason gives the standard vacillations of Clement VII. Other biographers note the disordered and collusive vacillations of the “poor bastard.” First, the “poor bastard” Pope colluded with Mr. Wolsey in Henry’s favor. Second, “at another moment he promised to give Henry a dispensation” (12). Third, “at length,” a commission “was issued to Wolsey and Campeggio” for a favorable ruling for Henry. Third, but there were “months of obstruction.” Fourth, by July 1529, the commission “was revoked.” As an aside, we’ve commented elsewhere on the “double-crossing” deal reached between Emperor Charles V and the poor bastard Pope that voided anything that might turn to Henry’s favor. Henry tried; the Pope let him down; Henry re-arranged matters to his suiting.
• August 1529, the infamous meeting at Waltham between Cranmer, Edward Foxe the Provost of King’s and Stephen Gardiner the Master of Trinity. Henry will “conscript” (our word) Mr. Cranmer to his service. Standard narrative; the contrast of the quiet academic life at Cambridge (1503-1529) to the tumults of service to three royals, Henry, Edward and Mary (1529-1556).
• Old Harry directs Cranmer: “Therefore, Mr. Doctor, I pray you, and nevertheless because you are a subject, I charge and command you (all your other business and affairs set apart) to take some pains to see this cause furthered according to your device, as much as it may lie in you, so that I may shortly understand whereunto I have my trust” (15).
• Cranmer prepares “the form of a treatise” (15-16), it circulates at Cambridge, is discussed and several come over to Cranmer’s support for Henry. Both Cambridge and Oxford will debate and adjudge the issue in Henry's favor.
• Cranmer is sent off to Rome at the “end of 1529” (16). Other biographers, e.g. Pollard, put the date at the end of January 1530. The Earl of Wiltshire (father of Anne Boleyn), Mr. Stokesley (bp.-elect of London), Cranmer and a fourth man are off. Mr. Mason doesn’t mention a fourth man, but other biographers do. They arrive in Bologna. Mr. Mason asserts that they arrived in time to see the poor bastard, Clement VII, confer the “long-deferred coronation” of Emperor Charles V “at Clément’s hands.” Other biographers doubt that the English embassy arrived in time. We will leave that hanging for now.
• More duplicity in Bologna from the poor bastard. When “the Emperor’s back was turned Clement more than three times told the Bishop of Tarbes in secret he would be glad if the marriage between Henry and Anne were already made” (17). He doesn’t want the liability with Charles V. Standard narrative with this important detail about the back-channel chatter between the poor bastard and Tarbes' bishop.
• Mr. Cranmer’s response to a fellow-agent on the mission gives insight on the failure of the English mission in Henry’s behalf:
"As for our successes here, they be very little; nor dare we attempt to know any man’s mind, because of the Pope; nor is he content with what you have done; and he says, no friars shall discuss his power. And as for any favour in this Court, I look for none, but to have the Pope with all his cardinals against us. As concerning the brief, the Pope never granted us none after our device whatsoever Sir Gregory (Cassalis) hath written. Mary, this he did—he willed us to devise a brief; and if it liked him, he would ensign it. But, when it was devised, faults were found in it, and it was given to the Cardinal Sanctorum Quattor to amend; but he amended it after such fashion that is was clean marred for our purpose. Since that time we have had so many new devised and changed again; yah, and moreover, when the Pope hath granted some of our devise, the Emperor’s oratory hath much such exclamations against the Pope that all hath been changed. I never knew such inconstancy in my life. And to shew you plainly my thought, I suppose we shall never have none according to our mind, so long as the Cardinal Sanctorum Quattor, our utter adversary, beareth this authority. Notwithstanding, the Pope is contented, and I trust we shall have shortly one brief metely good after mine opinion, but not with such terms as we would have it” [emphasis add, 17-18].
• Cranmer is back in England by September 1530 “but things were past the diplomatic stage” (18). He had been out of England for near-wise eight months or so.
• By December 1530, the King and Cromwell “laid the entire clergy under Praemunine. The “Church should be forced to acknowledge explicitly subjection to the Crown” (19). Or, the “King was substituted for the Pope as the Supreme Head of the Church of England” (20). We need to further check Mr. Mason’s dates.
• By 1532, “the Supreme Head is beginning to interfere with the liberties of the English Church in a new way” (21) when the “King forced upon Convocation the memorable Submission of the Clergy” (21). In this year, Mr. Cranmer is sent to Germany to interface with German princes and divines on the “Great Matter.”
• The Convocation of both provinces forward to Parliament their concurrence with the “Abolition of Annates,” that is, the sending of monies or “first fruits” to Rome. The Church of England supports this anti-Papal enactment. No more cash for the poor bastard Pope.
• Mr. Mason notes that Mr. Cranmer was not involved in these actions. They had happened under Mr. (Canterbury) Warham. Under Warham, “separation from Rome” was warranted if Rome “protested the Annates” prohibition (23).
• On August 23, 1532, Mr. (Canterbury) William Warham died. Henry picks Mr. Cranmer. We would add “Why?” There were other contenders who were as experienced and as supportive of Henry’s reforms. One could cite Tunstall, Stokesley, Bonner or even Gardiner? Or Lee of York? Was it a perceived pliability? A lapdog? It has been said that old Harry was a shrewd judge of character. Or, the reports of Mr. Cranmer’s performance while in Rome for several months or Germany for several months? It has been asserted that Mr. Cranmer got good performance reviews of his diplomatic involvements. We must leave these questions open for now.
• Mr. Mason puts forward other theories. While on the mission, Mr. Cranmer was the “most surprised” and the “least pleased” in his appointment to Canterbury. He was “probably anxious to finish his diplomacy and return to Cambridge” (24). All theory with no documentation. Mr. Cranmer had married during this German mission.
• Mr. Mason falls off the cliff with one claim in defense of Cranmer, to wit, that he never “took any vow of celibacy” (25). Ah, er, he was ordained. What world was Mr. Mason living in when he penned that? Weak. What is more likely is that Mr. Cranmer had changed his views on ministerial marriage, as had Luther. That is, he returned to the Biblical model of ministerial marriages and the practice of the early church. But, if this was in view in 1532, what else had Mr. Cranmer changed? Again, our persistent question: what did Mr. Cranmer believe, affirm or deny and when? Mr. Mason offers nothing here. In fact, at this point, Mr. offers little theological sense or reviews of Mr. Cranmer's theological posture.
• As for Mr. Cranmer’s reluctance to be seated in Canterbury, he points to the Oxford trials before his burning. Mr. Cranmer reported:
“There was never man came more unwillingly to a bishopric than I did to that. Insomuch that when King Henry did send for me in post that I should come over, I prolonged my journey by seven weeks at the least, thinking that he should be forgetful of me in the meantime” (25).
But, must one believe Mr. Cranmer here? It was known that ambassadorial service on the Continent was the ticket to bishoprics. It, inferably, was known to Mr. Cranmer that he [Cranmer] was or could have been headed to an episcopal see? Perhaps not Canterbury, but one of the dioceses? Was he this naïve, unassuming and disinterested in his career? Did he not foresee or anticipate this? Are we to "airbrush possible motivations" out of the picture to defend Mr. Cranmer? Is this not a willy-nilly assumption? And Mr. Mason is a Canon of Canterbury? Mr. Mason appears to be just a little too quick in his defense of Mr. Cranmer. What else could have Mr. Cranmer pled at his trial? “Oh, yeah, I was desiring the Bishop’s crozier! I foresaw it and desired it!” May it be remembered how Cranmer congratulated himself as well as Henry's wisdom in choosing him--a learned man--when an ignorant wag chided Cranmer, but we digress. Mr. Cranmer chided the man, but he did offer self-congratulatory comments about his own ability. The counterclaim at Mr. Cranmer’s trial was that Henry chose him because he was pliable; we believe that has merit for what it's worth.
• Mr. Cranmer was installed as Mr. Canterbury on March 30, 1533 in St. Stephen’s Chapel at Westminster. Co-consecrators: Mr. Longland of Lincoln, Mr, Veysey of Exeter, and Mr. Standish of Asaph. By the way, a raft of bishops were supportive of Henry’s matrimonial designs—Gardiner, Stokesley, Longland, Standish and Vesey. Others, like Fisher, did not support the plan; Mr. Fisher will lose his head for that in 1535. Mr. Mason alleges that the episcopal bench was split.
• Mr. Mason makes a very powerful and potent point: in 1533, the Cranmer of 1533 “was not the Cranmer of the middle of Edward VI’s reign” (26). He was “still less was the Protestant he is often made out to be” (27). Yes? No? In between? That/this warrants continued investigation.
• Cranmer was “on the side of practical reform (like Erasmus)” and against the “Papal usurpations and practical consequences” (28), e.g. annates, investitures, etc. But, was there more? Mr. Mason does not address this and we are not confident in some of his assertions.
• Also, another good point by Mr. Mason. “No one, of course, in these days was expected to believe the Pope to be infallible” (29). Think of the Borgias, Roveres, Medicis—no one thought the “Roman Curia was always right” (29). The Concilarism of Pisa, Constance and Basel is offered, including the deposition of popes. But, this needs to be weighed too.
• Mr. Cranmer was convinced of “pernicious usurpations in government” yet Mr. Cranmer, according to Mr. Mason, still believed the “English Church had a duty towards Rome” (29). This begs for analysis, but we get none.
• Within 11 days of the consecration, Mr. (Canterbury) Cranmer writes Henry to give “leave to give a final sentence” for the predetermined and foregone conclusion. Mr. Cranmer writes this:
"And forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God, and your Grace, of your abundant goodness to me showed, to call me, albeit a poor wretch and much unworthy, unto this high and chargeable office of Primate and Archbishop in your Grace’s realm, wherein I beseech Almighty God to great me His grace so to use and demean myself, as may be standing with His pleasure and the discharge of my conscience, and the weal of this your Grace’s realm: and considering also the obloquy and buit, which daily doth spring and increase of the clergy of this realm, and specially the heads and presidents of the same, because they in this behalf do not foresee and provide such convenient remedies as might expel and put out of doubt all such inconveniences, perils and dangers, as the said rude and ignorant people do speak and talk to be imminent: I, your most humble orator and beadman, am, in consideration of the premises, urgently constrained at the present time most humbly to beseech your most noble Grace, that where the office and duty of the Archbishop of Canterbury, by your and your progenitors’ sufferance and grants, is to direct, order, judge and determine causes spiritual in this your Grace’s realm; and because I would be loth, and also it shall not become me, forasmuch as your Grace is my Prince and Sovereign, to enterprise any part of my office in the said weighty cause touching your Highness, without your Grace’s favour and license obtained in that behalf: it may please, therefore, your excellent Majesty (considerations had to the premises, and to my most bounden duty towards your Highness, your realm, succession, and posterity, and for the exoneration of my conscience towards Almighty God) to license me, according to my office and duty, to proceed to the examination, final determination, and judgment in the said great cause touching your Highness” [emphasis added] (32). In other words, nullity of the marriage and Mary is a bastard.
• Secrecy and haste characterized the hearing. Cranmer feared the public reaction which favored the Queen. Mr. Cranmer was called to rule “on the unlawful decision of Pope Julius II” who should have denied the dispensation in the first place and the marriage in the second place. According to Mr. Mason, Mr. Cranmer was “pronouncing judgment upon and innocent and defenseless woman” yet Mr. Cranmer was “perfectly upright upright and conscientious in delivering such a sentence” (34). Put that in the pipe and smoke it. Mr. Mason periodically makes these rather—um, well—stupid statements. This doesn't pass Logic 101.
• Mr. Mason then opines with merit: Mary was the “victim of the political schemes of Julius, Ferdinand, and Henry VII, to afterwards be flung away by the so-called husband to whom they had married her” (36). Yet, Mr. Mason, you just opined that Mr. Cranmer was just in his proceedings. How will you have it, my good man?
• Mr. Mason proceeds to—um, er—indict Mr. Cranmer in some further matrimonial nastinesses. But, for the present, Cranmer “crowned” Ann as the Queen, a rehearsal and, really, an unreformed rehash of the old Roman practice of Popes conferring sovereignty on the Secular Princes. He probably witnessed the poor bastard (Mr. Mason's term for Clement VII) doing the same to Charles V in Bologna.
• Yet, in three years, Mr. Cranmer would be “called to Lambeth from the country” (39). Ann Boleyn will face trial for “atrocious charges” for which she was put “in the Tower” (39). We insert here that Drs. Sanders and Harpsfield, two Papal Roman Anglicans (1.0 and 4.0 Anglicans), ardent anti-Reformed and anti-Evangelical operatives in the Elizabethan period, will allege that Ann was born of an illegitimate and adulterous union between Henry and Lady Elizabeth Boleyn, married to Sir Boleyn, one of Henry’s ambassadors; this story will have a long life amongst English recusants but also on the Continent; in fact, Bishop Burnet in the next century will refute the continuing allegation that old Harry unwittingly married his own daughter, Ann Boleyn. But Mr. Mason doesn’t touch that point; he does tell us that Mr. Cranmer was “told not to approach the King in person” (39). Just odd. Not enough information.
• On May 3, 1536, Mr. Cranmer writes old Harry:
“I am in such perplexity that my mind is clean amazed, for I never had better opinion in woman than I had in her; which maketh me think that she should not be culpable. And again I think that your Highness would not have gone so far, except she had been surely culpable. Now I think that your Grace best knoweth, that next unto your Grace, I was most bound unto her of all creatures living. Wherefore I most humbly beseech your Grace to suffer me in that which both God’s law, nature and also her kindness, bindeth me unto; that is, that I may with our Grace’s favour wish and pray for her that she may declare herself inculpable and innocent” [emphasis added] (39-40).
• Cranmer was summoned to the Star Chamber and “informed of such things” as “Henry’s pleasure was they should make him privy to” (40).
• On May 15, 1536, Ann was found guilty “by her peers.” She was condemned to be “burned or beheaded” (40). Of note, there were laws on the books forbidding Royal adultery for fears of dynastic corruption. Never mind that old Harry had a few bastards born from other illicit unions.
• On Mary 16, 1536, Cranmer visited Ms. Anne Boleyn in the Tower. Allegedly, to hear her last confession.
• On May 17, 1536, Henry and Anne were “cited to appear before him [Cranmer] at Lambeth to answer for certain inquiries for their souls’ health.” The court sat for two hours.
• The court, including Mr. Cranmer, claimed that Ms. Boleyn had made “most damaging admissions” yet those admissions “remained undivulged” (41). This is essentially what Lord Herbert and other biographers have noted. No one really knows what the "grounds" actually were. Cranmer would later be very enigmatic and cryptic. So would Parliament. There were unidentified and undivulged "impediments," whatever that meant.
• Old Thomas Cranmer claimed: “…the marriage between the King and Ann had never been valid” and that “Elizabeth was illegitimate” [emphasis added] (41). What a circus! Further, other biographers note that Mr. Cranmer was found weeping uncontrollably in his gardens following the beheading. More likely, Cranmer believed her innocent, but suffered from hyper-cowardice (our view).
• She lost her head on May 19, 1536.
• Mr. Mason impales Mr. Cranmer further. “Nor was this the last occasion on which Cranmer was required to take part in the miserable business of his master’s wives.”
• In April 1540, Cranmer “set his seal to a document which pronounced yet another of the marriages invalid” (41). This would be Anne of Cleves. The grounds were twofold: (1) Harry “never inwardly consented” and (2) Ann had pre-contracted with a prince from the House of Lorraine. This doesn’t pass the most elementary smell-test. Cranmer was “owned” and “used.” A coward. He was Henry's lapdog.
• Mr. Mason cites the infamous Bishop Burnet, to wit, “Archbishop Cranmer had now not courage enough to swim against the stream” (42).
• Old Harry will marry Catherine Howard. 1.5 years later, old Cranmer will get the ugly duty of informing Harry that he [Cranmer] “had received intelligence of the gravest kind regarding the Queen’s immoral conduct before her marriage” (42). This fifth wife’s head will fall at Tower Hill like the second wife's head. We may suppose the heads rolled literally.
Our scorecard:
1. Lengthy 6-year process in ditching Catherine of Aragon, the Non-Breeding Mare in Henry’s stable, at least 1527 until 1533. Mary 1 was the issue, declared a bastard, then regularized later and put into dynastic succession.
2. Ann Boleyn, loses head in 1536. Elizabeth 1 was the issue, declared a bastard, then regularized later and put into dynastic succession.
3. Jane Seymour, 1536-1537. Died. Gave birth to Edward VI.
4. Ann of Cleves. Put out to pasture.
5. Catherine Howard. Loses head like Ann at Tower Hill, 1542.
6. Catherine Parr. Outlives old Harry and widowed in 1547.
We end where started.
Chapter 1: “Cranmer’s Life Until the Divorce”
Right off, the title is misnamed. It should be retitled: “Cranmer’s Life Through Multiple Intrigues, Six Wives, Divorces, Axes and All”
Or, "Cranmer, Emcee of Henry's Circus"
Or, "Cranmer, Henry's Canterburian Lapdog"
