Popular Politics and the English Reformation (Cambridge Studies in Early Modern British History)

Cambridge Studies in Early Modern British History

by Ethan H. Shagan

This study of popular responses to the English Reformation analyzes how ordinary people received, interpreted, debated, and responded to religious change. It differs from other studies by arguing that the subject cannot be understood simply by asking theological questions about people's beliefs, but must be understood by asking political questions about how they negotiated with state power. Therefore, it concerns political as well as religious history, since it asserts that, even at the popular level, political and theological processes were inseparable in the sixteenth century.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Grad School, European History

364 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2002

Reviews

[Cali · Rating 5 out of 5]

slayed the house down boots for REAL

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was really interesting, in part because I knew basically nothing about the English Reformation and now I know stuff. Honestly, my lack of knowledge about the English Reformation was kind of absurd. I work on early America...all these people in New England in colonial times were there, at least in part, because the English Reformation happened. I should know more about it.
And this was a good introduction to the topic. It does assume some basic knowledge, like who Henry VIII was and the really broad outline of what he did. Shagan basically accuses other historians of the English Reformation of ignoring the complexity with which people in the sixteenth century dealt with changes in their lives. These historians have tended to present the common people as either completely pro or anti Reformation – either they all quickly and completely embraced the Henrician brand of Protestantism, or they were all conservative Catholics, stuck in their traditionalist ways. Both of these interpretations present the Reformation as something that happened to the common people, and not as a process in which commoners were active participants. Shagan admits that there were people who fit both of the theological extremes, but he argues that for the silent majority engagement with the Reformation was more complex. Most English people were “more than hapless recipients of religious change.” The Reformation was accomplished with them, rather than being done to them. To varying degrees they were collaborators with the Tudor regime, even if they would not have necessarily described themselves as such.
This made a lot of sense to me. A regular Joe villager might have been not that into Protestantism. He might have not thought of himself as a reformer at all. He might have just thought, hey, everyone else is sacking the monastery, so I'll just get some stuff too. It's not like it's my fault it is getting sacked. But each small action like this was one more crack in the old system, opening space for the new one.

[Mel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Shagan’s Popular Politics and the English Reformation (2000) is a political and social history that argues that the Reformation in England was a process of collaboration between ordinary people, gentry, and the state, in which shared religious idioms were used in order to advance multiple and sometimes conflicting political, economic, and theological agendas held by different groups who cannot be easily broken down into simply “Protestant” and simply “Catholic.” Shagan is responding to two main historiographical camps within the study of the English Reformation. The first camp is made up of Protestant historians who offer a paradigm of the English Reformation as “liberation” for the English people, a model that contains anti-Catholic prejudices and argues that the English nation was entirely converted to Protestantism by 1559. The second camp are the revisionist historians (beginning in 1975 with Haigh, Scarisbrick, and Duffy) who argue that a better paradigm for understanding the English Reformation is that of “enforcement” by the state, and they emphasize its negative effects on the common people as well as popular piety and resistance. Shagan criticizes both these camps for being controlled by a “confessional lens” that necessarily assesses the English Reformation in terms of its “success” or “failure,” and in so doing are prevented from asking questions about the process of the English Reformation. In other words, if the English didn’t convert en masse to Protestantism, what did they do? Shagan’s argument is based on the following premises: 1) most English people did not embrace evangelical Protestantism yet 2) the Tudor regime doesn’t have the power to enforce religious change, so all changes require eliciting some degree of popular consent. Thus Shagan argues for a collaborative lens that allows us to ask questions about the negotiations that had to occur between the English people and the state in order for the English Reformation to happen as it did. Shagan’s collaborative model is neither a top-down process of the state imposing Protestantism on the people, as per the confessionalization thesis, nor a revolution of the people, as Peter Blickle argues, but something in between.

[Heather · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ethan A. Shagan argues in this book that the English Reformation was not done to the people by the government but with them through negotiation and collaboration. His book, “is an analysis of how ordinary English subjects received, interpreted, debated and influenced the process of religious change in the first quarter century of the Reformation" (page 22). Shagan also believes that the Reformation was more political than theological.

Shagan even goes so far as to say it was not a religious reformation and he heavily relies on the Royal Supremacy Act to prove that. He also deviates from other historians by believing that the Reformation was a collaboration between the people and the government. In this respect, he is revising the revisionists idea that the Reformation was done to the people.

Shagan did extensive research for this book but did not use overly biased sources. Instead, he draws on a great deal of court records, which also strengthened his argument above other historians but there was one weakness. The historian tended to use only court records from Canterbury, Westminster and other central courts, which only showed one section of society. His argument would have been made a great deal stronger had the author used court records.

I think Shagan has one of the most plausible arguments about the Reformation and because of that, I highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in learning about the Reformation and the scholarly argument that is going on about how the Reformation began (ie. from the top, from the bottom, or a little of both).

[Ben · Rating 4 out of 5]

Unfortunately, I've only had the time to read Shagan's introduction and conclusion (since the body of the book focuses on Henry VIII and Edward VI), but I plan on coming back to the rest of the book when I (hopefully) pursue the topic of Marian theatre and 'acts of control' further after I've graduated. I really like Shagan's discussion of the agency which the populace had in the process of the 'English Reformation,' a phrase which he likewise discusses. The ecclesio-political changes that occurred in sixteenth century England were by no means entirely a revolution from above, and Shagan argues clearly that not only did the Tudor monarchs need to legitimate and justify their decisions to the people, but that the people played an active role in both the formulation, implementation, and result of those changes. I'm planning to use his ideas in conjunction with Duffy's (especially from his 'Stripping of the Altars') concerning the nature of 'traditional religion' at the time. Together, they will show the flexible vitality of Catholicism at the time and, along with Woodging's ideas from 'Rethinking Catholicism,' how Mary and her policy-makers were aware of, believed in, and utilized that vitality.

[AskHistorians]

Nope, you don't get off that easy--Shagan goes back to the sources to look at what kind of role the English people played in the Reformation. While he agrees with previous assessments that the Ref. in England was primarily political rather than theological, and by no means an overnight success, he shows how the common people were present at every step of the way: sometimes as deliberate audience, sometimes as very active participants.

[D.L. Denham · Rating 4 out of 5]

Shagan does a great job taking not over emphasizing the religious motivation behind the English Reformation. Instead, showing that at the end of the day, politics decided far more and was the major cause of the rebellions that followed the english Reformation and Henrician religious movement.

Excellent, invaluable source for my graduate class on English Reformation.

[Victoria · Rating 3 out of 5]

Argues that the English Reformation took place as a result of co-optation of royal policy by the English populace, or possibly vice versa. Incredibly dense, catty, and boring.