a English Reformations David Aers Duke University Durham, North Carolina Nigel Smith Princeton University Princeton, New Jersey Discussing current historiography of the English Reformation in the six- teenth and seventeenth centuries and those movements regarded as its medi- eval precursors, we decided that a special issue of JMEMS could contribute fruitfully to this subject. As its statement of purpose proclaims, JMEMS aims to foster “the rigorous investigation of past cultural forms and their historiographical representations, representations whose political dimen- sions will be of special interest.” It has also sought to overcome distortions of our understanding of the past produced by the patterns of periodization on which our disciplines are made.1 A special issue on “English Reformations,” we thought, is well suited to these paradigms of inquiry. We are grateful to our contributors for bringing this thought to fulfillment. We have used the plural noun in our title for a number of reasons. It gestures toward the continuity of the ideologies of reform across the Middle Ages and the early modern period. The commitment to reform the Church and its people was a constituent component of the late medieval church and, increasingly so, of its lay elites.2 This commitment could take many different and contradictory forms. Reform could be initiated by leading ecclesiastic authorities (for example, the Gregorian reforms of the late eleventh century, those of the Fourth Lateran Council or, more locally, those of Archbishop Peckham in 1281); sometimes it could be initiated outside this hierarchy but appreciated and ordered by the hierarchy (for example, St. Francis’s move- ment); sometimes it emerged among clergy and people in ways that led to mortal combat with the authorities of the Roman Church, a combat in which reformers might be classified and persecuted as heretics by the Church and secular authorities (for example, Waldensians or Wycliffites). But however different and conflicting such forms might have been, it is important to rec- ognize that they were sponsored by dynamics of reform intrinsic to medieval Christianity. Who declared, “The Christian faith . was once a schism”?3 Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 40:3, Fall 2010 DOI 10.1215/10829636-2010-001 © 2010 by Duke University Press Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/jmems/article-pdf/40/3/425/435984/JMEMS403_01Aers_Fpp.pdf by guest on 29 September 2021 Our use of the plural noun Reformations thus points to a chrono- logical scope that includes both medieval reformations and early modern reformations of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.4 We also hope it will work against a tendency of grand narratives to homogenize the religious and political processes transforming English culture in both “the English Reformation” and the Middle Ages: “the synthesis” which broke down, or the plenitudinous altar before it was stripped, or “that sacred world” of “sac- ramentalism” succeeded by the “secularism” of “modernity.”5 The current historiographical situation for writing about the early- sixteenth- century English Reformation has been shaped by the triumph of what is often called “revisionism.” This triumph can be observed in a shift from a field whose chief authority was A. G. Dickens’s The English Refor- mation to one remade by historians such as John Scarisbrick, Christopher Haigh, and Eamon Duffy.6 Norman Jones opens his own recent study, The English Reformation, with a parodic reflection of a “revisionist” model fol- lowed by a Dickensian one: Once upon a time the people of England were happy Medieval Catholics, visiting their holy wells, attending frequent masses and deeply respectful of purgatory and afraid of Hell. Then lustful King Henry forced them to abandon their religion. England was never merry again. Alternatively, once upon a time the people of England were oppressed by corrupt churchmen. They yearned for the liberty of the Gospel. Then, Good King Harry gave them the Protestant nation for which they longed.7 Jones himself builds on the work of revisionists, and in this he is representa- tive of current historiography: There is broad agreement that, although there were some English people excited about Protestantism in Henry VIII’s reign, there was not much popular support for change. The society portrayed by Eamon Duffy and John Scarisbrick was contentedly, habitually Catholic. The attempts of the reformers to change this seemed, in Christopher Haigh’s analysis, to make very slow inroads into that world of habitual Catholicism.8 Yet by 1580 “very few people had clear memories of a time without religious confusion,” and by the late sixteenth century “England was living in a post- 9 Reformation culture that was distinctly different from that of 1530.” The 426 Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies / 40.3 / 2010 Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/jmems/article-pdf/40/3/425/435984/JMEMS403_01Aers_Fpp.pdf by guest on 29 September 2021 revisionist perspective is foundational here: “a nation of habitual Catholics” lived through “the Reformation” and were “turned into Protestants” by peo- ple “who imposed Reformation upon them” without consulting them about “their theological opinions.”10 The consensus here necessarily involves a story about the late medi- eval church, as Jones’s parodic fables imply. So we will recall its representa- tion in the first part of Eamon Duffy’s book, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, 1400 – 1580.11 This great work, central to revisionist historiography of the English Reformation, is the most learned, detailed, and eloquent account we have of the religion of orthodox lay parish- ioners up to the attack on traditional religion initiated by Henry VIII. Duffy provides a beautifully particularized description of the liturgy, of devotion, of the seven sacraments, of parish guilds, of purgatory, and of the people’s substantial material investment in their churches. So, against the Dickensian model, the medieval church is the people’s Church, not an alien and terrify- ing incrustation on their lives. It is this flourishing Church that was attacked by a tiny coterie of Protestants around Henry VIII and Edward VI using terror and the state apparatus to impose their iconoclastic reformation and its expropriations of immense ecclesial wealth. Before turning to the revisionary model of the English Reformation, we would like to offer a few words of caution about its version of the ecclesi- astic polity and secular power in the Middle Ages. The revisionist model too easily assumes that the medieval church and its polity was free from central- izing powers until the unprecedented attack by Henry VIII. Such beliefs are not confined to historians, and they are present in the recent volume of the Oxford English Literary History for the years 1350 to 1547, James Simpson’s magisterial Reform and Cultural Revolution.12 As the author declares: Despite its size [661 pages], this book has a very simple, central, and consistent theme: that the institutional simplifications and centralizations of the sixteenth century provoked correlative sim- plifications and narrowings in literature. If literary history and criticism is, as I believe it should be, ancillary to the complex his- tory of freedoms, then this is a narrative of diminishing liberties. The fundamental observation that drives the argument of each chapter is as follows: in the first half of the sixteenth century, a culture that simplified and centralized jurisdiction aggressively displaced a culture of jurisdictional heterogeneity. (1) Aers and Smith / English Reformations 427 Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/jmems/article-pdf/40/3/425/435984/JMEMS403_01Aers_Fpp.pdf by guest on 29 September 2021 And again: The political imagination of the fourteenth and fifteenth cen- turies negotiates the needs of both the body and the head of the whole body politic, whereas the sixteenth- century models gener- ate their politics wholly from the top down, in repression of the larger body. (191) We do not dissent from the view that there are indeed aspirations in Tudor and Stuart regimes to strengthen royal power at the expense of compet- ing powers (whether ecclesial or lay). But we are less persuaded by claims that such aspirations are unquestionably and distinctively postmedieval, a kind of secular version of creation ex nihilo. We are unconvinced because any adequate grand narrative must acknowledge that the centralization of power is an integral process in the medieval church and in the formation of the state in late medieval England. It is a marker of continuity between the English Middle Ages and those English reformations initiated by the crown in the sixteenth century, reformations in which that medieval institution known as Parliament was a crucial agent. We do well to remember the clas- sic study of English state formation by Philip Corrigan and Derek Sayer, The Great Arch. Its first chapter shows how “England’s precocious central- ization around a comparatively strong crown limited the ‘parcelization of sovereignty’ typical of feudal polities” as did the “nationally unified system of law.”13 The “centralized system” that was emerging in the Middle Ages depended on “local opinion and involvement” (35), a fact that was certainly to remain true in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (35, 38 – 42). When the authors treat Henry’s “revolution of the 1530s,” they note how the “revo- lution” was “enacted by statute”: Parliament was “the central instrument of Thomas Cromwell’s revolution” (51; original emphasis). So the monarchy that emerged from Henry’s revolution, even in its ecclesial supremacy, “was constitutional rather than in any sense absolutist.” It was a revolution that actually strengthened “the prestige, authority and centrality of Parliament” and of the common law (49 – 53) while massively diminishing the power of the church in relation to crown and lay elites. Assertions that Henry VIII’s policies were “absolutist” tend to ignore these facts.