Eamon
Duffy. The Stripping of the Altars. New Haven: Yale University Press,
2005.
In
contrast to the traditionally triumphal narrative of the Protestant
Reformation, Eamon Duffy’s The Stripping
of the Altars presents a picture of a turbulent process of change imposed
on the laity from above by radical members of the clergy. Beyond the obvious question of what this
interpretation means for our understanding of the Reformation and
post-Reformation England, his argument raises important issues for the practice
of history: emplotment, sources, and the need to periodically challenging
received interpretations of the past.
Duffy
argues that contrary to the traditional understanding of the Medieval Catholic
Church as a hollow, corrupt, and despised institution, it was strong and
culturally imaginative. Rather than
being alienated from the Church, the laity was involved and loyal to their
local parishes, and the institution as a whole.
While they did not have access to Scripture in the vernacular, the laity
was very involved in the services and social life of their parishes. Because of this, Duffy contends that rather
than a bottom-up movement to reclaim and reform the Faith; the Reformation in
England was imposed on the laity from above by a combination of Henry VIII’s
anti-papalism and the pro-Reformation ideology of Cromwell and Cranmer. Despite Henry’s belated efforts to defend
traditional liturgy and usages during his reign, the young Edward VI was not
old enough at his ascension to the throne to resist the radical doctrines
promoted by Cranmer, leading to a disruptive Reform agenda engulfing the Church
of England.
The
difference between Duffy’s interpretation of the Reformation in England and the
traditional narrative of the Reformation might be one of emplotment. The traditional narrative tells the tail of
the triumph of Protestantism over the corrupt and despotic Catholic Church, and
supports the social and religious power structures of England and the United
States. This interpretation is part of
the culture of both nations, so emplotting the history of the Reformation in
this fashion may serve to preserve a sense of national identity as
justification of various foreign and domestic policy decisions in the same way
that Frederick Jackson Turner’s frontier thesis supports the national myth of
American westward movement. By
confronting this emplotment, Duffy forces Historians to re-assess their
assumptions about how and why the Reformation was successful in Great Britain,
as well as the origins of political institutions that politicians arise from
Protestantism.
When
it comes to practicing history, The
Stripping of the Altars serves as a reminder that Historians need to
periodically revisit long-held assumptions about the past. For my research, this means re-examining both
the traditional and revisionist interpretations of the Vietnam War, as well as
explanations of why atrocities occurred during the conflict. The danger lays in internalizing a single
point of view rather than examining evidence for what it actually
contains. This seems an impossible to
reach Rankean ideal. For Duffy, striving
for this ideal requires close textual examination of English catechisms, prayer
books, verse, and learning aids.
In
addition to the issue of emplotment, sources are a critical component of this
endeavor. The choice of sources may
radically influence any historical analysis.
Duffy rejects the traditional sources of the English Reformation to
focus on those that deal more directly with the laity – personal journals and
prayer books, educational tracts aimed at the laity, and responses to imposed
changes to the social and religious calendars.
This provides an exemplar for the need to move beyond government
commissions and academic or theological works, to examine items of popular
culture, personal documents, and records of responses to the actions of
government. This lesson is part and
parcel of the historians’ craft in the modern age – it is no longer possible to
focus solely on the pronouncements of the mighty to inch toward great truths
about the past. Historians now need to
engage the thoughts and concerns of the “common” man.
No comments:
Post a Comment