No probs Emma, I love this stuff!

Iain, of course, Erasmus and the like were stirring up humanistic thought, and in a way, by Luther I mean the Renaissance too, coz without it he may have never have had the conviction or spiritual courage to go ahead. It's like going from Alan Ginsberg to Johnny Rotten in one big step. Well, kind of...

But anyway, I don't think humanism necessarily superceded catholic philosophy, it was a catholic philosphy. When Thomas More wrote Utopia he was still a devoted Catholic. Only after Lutheranism, I think (must emphsize that, this is me thinking not fact), did Catholic philosophy begin to splinter and wain and Protestant states began to spring up all over the Holy Roman Empire, and only then did it become possible to chop off More's head and get away with it by claiming the Popish conspirators are out to bring the country down. Then again, could be wrong!

I think it's a fascinating time, the height of Christian oppression, in a way, but then there are so many different ways you could see it, I'd have to work hard to back that argument up.

Ah, maybe one day!

Seriously tho you two, I could sit up all night and much of the next day talking about this stuff!

Yes, fascinating stuff. My current bible, as you might say, is Eamonn Duffy's The Stripping of the Altars, about the Reformation in England, including a very full exploration of the religious life it destroyed.

Luther's door-nailing is 1517, so it all took a while to develop, let alone break free of Rome altogether. Our coins still say 'Fides Defensor' (sp?) after the title the Pope bestowed on Henry for writing a treatise against Luther. More got his head chopped off for refusing to go along with the divorce, not for heresy. In fact he was a pretty energetic heretic-burner himself. But heresy and treason can be one and the same thing once your monarch is head of the church too.

Certainly the English Reformation only really started under Edward VI. Henry cut off from Rome, but made almost no doctrinal changes.

Emma

And then we have the Counter-Reformation to deal with, when the Catholic thinkers started to seriously analyse their own texts in the face of such criticism. Not to mention the sectarian wars they created, though I'm veering into 'blind recall' territory here.

Renaissance and Enlightenment thought are pretty interesting too, though the Enlightenment is more obviously anti-religion (hello Voltaire! hello Hume!) than anything else. Reaction and counter-reaction....

Thanks Emma, that Eamonn Duffy book sounds right up my street!

That's true about More, but the divorce was only possible because of the reformation in Europe and the philosophies flying around, that Luther started in 1517. So in a way it was for heresy, because Henry VIII's court was taken over and filled with protestant reformers, and people like More never stood a chance. Henry was obviously a practical man who saw the real power lay with the Pope and breaking that power could only be a good thing for him and his dynasty. The doctrinal changes were left to others for sure, but people like Thomas Cromwell were protestant reformers sneaking into power. What's fascinating is how Henry obviously wasn't bothered about breaking from Rome, so can't have been very religious anyway. So it begs the question, how religious were these powerful people, or were they educated enough to know that the key to their "divine" power was the mass ignorance of their subjects. Maybe that's why he got cold feet towards the end of his reign and tried to undo some of the things Anne Bolyn's mob had started to put into motion. Not the fact he was God fearing, but that people were starting to find out too much for themselves because of the protestant philosophy of equality (of the clergy and the lay people in the eyes of God) and education!

Sorry, like I say I really will go off on one. I'm just saying what I think, but it's probably all mashed up. I trust you far more Emma

Seeya

Luv

Dav

<Added>

Iain - Enlightenment is the ultimate one for me! Science, Atheism, Thomas Paine and revolution! Fascinating but I should be quiet for now else I'll get in trouble at work (booooo)

Ahhh, the religious convictions of rulers... there's a question!

The Emperor Constantine - thoroughly unpleasant bastard (torturing, murdering, that kind of thing), but introduced Christianity to the Roman Empire so is admired a wee bit. I could live with this a little more if (since that period was pretty violent, and people died in unpleasant ways almost every day) he had been a genuine Christian, rather than using religion to make the empire in his image.

Compare with the Emperor Julian, his successor. A neo-platonist and philosopher, who tried to reverse the rise of Christianity, and had a major problem with the 'Galileans'. Altogether more tolerant, and genuinely religious (he even acted as priest at several sacrifices), but the empire almost fell apart under him.

Makes you wonder who the better ruler was. Even in the 17th Century the House of Stuart still thought they were appointed by God, and people thought they had the 'healing touch', and could cure scrofula just by being in contact with them. And look at Louis XIV!

And Davy, aye the Enlightenment is a lot of fun - and we Scots will claim it as our own if we can :-)

No, I think you're right, there were plenty of reformers around heading in a Protestant direction, Anne Boleyn included. But like all new religions, it starts as a reform movement, and secedes properly later. And of course, any religion that's bedded in the centrality of the individual religious experience is going to splinter. (Did you know that Methodism didn't formally secede from the CofE till something like a century after it started?)

I'm sure the Great Ones varied. Some were very genuine - my pinup Antony Woodville being one. Henry was clearly not very religious in the sense we'd understand it, tho' there's some evidence that his original conviction that K of A's pregancies all going wrong was because she'd been married to his brother was genuine. But then, arguably, he was mad.

But I'm not sure our categories of 'very religious' and so on can altogether be applied. It's very hard for us to know what it was like for religious observance and faith to be as central to everyone's existence as breathing. Most people don't even think about whether it happens or not, let alone whether it's true, or a good idea, or could be done differently. It just Is. It's one of my big challenges in wrestling with this new novel.

Emma


<Added>

Personally, another pinup of mine is Charles II/VII, who didn't convert until his deathbed, because he had more sense than to cause so much trouble. There was an old lady at his coronation who'd danced at the court of Elizabeth I. And look what happened to his bone-headed brother James...

You can have the Enlightenment, if my Midlands ancestors can have the Industrial Revolution. Though of course James Keir was a Scot, and so I think maybe was James Watt? I'd check, but if I pick up the Lunar Men I shan't reappear for a week. Such a good book; now there's good narrative history, Iain.

Emma

Emma, can I recommend Lucien Febvre's book, The Problem of Unbelief in the Sixteenth Century: The Religion of Rabelais, since he deals with the problem of religious belief during the period. It might be handy!

<Added>

And didn't you know, the Scots ruled the world in the 19th Century? We're everywhere! ;-)

I've always been fond of the reign of James IV (1st of England) and his role in implementing the Inquisition. Likewise Charles I and all that Parlimentary fall-out and civil war is a fascinating backdrop on which to write about Matthew Hopkins, the Witchfinder General. It never ceases to amaze me that magic was a real thing (in the eyes of the law) in those days.

JB

JB, I recently much enjoyed The Power and The Glory, Adam Nicolson's book about the making of the King James Bible. Fascinating stuff which I hadn't known much about, though I'm still liaible to go to church if I know they're using it, and the 1662 Prayer Book.

Iain, you must know the story of the Scottish lad-made-good still hadn't lost any of his accent after ten years in London. 'Och,' he said, 'I only ever spoke to the Directors.'

And Levbre's a Huguenot name I think, which would have pleased my Irish grandmother, maiden name LeFanu and several times President of the Huguenot Society. That's the other thing 1685's memorable for, of course...

Emma

I seem to remember that after the fall of the western empire a lot of the classical stuff was lost, and only came back in through contacts with the middle east. Dante puts a couple of Arab scholars in limbo along with the other enlightened heathens, have a quick look at Inferno.