In "Cultural Reproduction", Chris Jenks writes: "What is novel about the
latest stage of Western history is, then, containable and intelligible within
the existing, traditional epistemologies—such is the richness of
historicism."
In a message dated 3/18/2016 4:22:18 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Consider the argument that the English Church had fallen into a
disreputable state at the time when Henry VIII broke with Rome (as a premise
for
explaining the break, and subsequent dissolution of the monasteries, in terms
of 'public opinion'). We could consider all kinds of "supporting evidence"
like statements critical of the church as against statements praising the
church and each of these kinds of evidence would, under a 'scientific
approach', be subject to critical evaluation - e.g. whether the statements
critical of the church were expressed privately in diaries or publicly at
court
(where the private statements might more likely reflect genuine thoughts).
But in gathering evidence and assessing it, we should be looking at evidence
not for its inductive affect as supporting evidence but in terms of its
impact as a counter-example: so our focus should not be looking for what would
be consistent with our argument but what would be inconsistent with it. In
this light, we might find it significant that testamentary and other gifts
to the Church DID NOT DECLINE in the relevant period, as this might seem
to be a counter-example to the view that the Church was perceived as having
fallen into such a corrupt state that the dissolution of its assets by Henry
VIII reflected public opinion. This record of testamentary gifts might be
judged more significant and reliable a barometer than public statements of
support for the break and dissolution made at court."
But we may need to inquire on the intention (Griceian intention, if you
wish) of those making those testamentary (and other) gifts to the church.
I was reading in a different source:
The influence of the church was evident in laws relating to
(i) -- the importance of intention in punishment for wrongs,
(ii) -- the encouragement of testamentary gifts to the church and
(iii) -- the sanctity of the person of the king.
So one may argue that those making those gifts (testamentary or other) are
believing in the truth of premise (iii) above.
Church is church is church.
would be the ultimate axiom.
A testamentary gift is so subjective... Perhaps we should try for a higher
hypothesis and see if we can find counterexamples. My favourite
super-hypothesis is Weber's -- but it might not work with Henry VIII since his
inclination was not "Protestant" at all (vide High Anglicanism and Catholicism
in
present-day England).
But by the same token, even if testamentary gifts to the church never
declined, it may be argued, alla the 'history of the Annals', that there are
intellectual 'causes' too. Consider Wycliff.
Wycliffe (1320–1384) was already dissidenting against the Roman Catholic
Church during the 14th century.
Not in favin he founded the Lollard movement, which opposed a number of
practices of the Church.
He was especially against papal encroachments on secular power.
Wycliffe was associated with philosophico-theological statements to the
effect that
-- the Church in Rome is not the head of all churches.
-- St Peter did not have any more powers given to him by Christ than any
of the other disciples.
These philosophico-theological statements were related in Wycliff to his
call for a reformation of the church's wealth, corruption and abuses.
Yet testamentary gifts did not decline. Were those making these gifts not
reading Wycliff? Or were they reading him but not being convinced by his
philosophico-theological arguments?
Wycliffe, an Oxford scholar, granted, went so far as to state that "the
Gospel by itself is a rule sufficient to rule the life of every Christian
person on the earth, without any other rule."
By "on the earth" he means to include, say, Rome, and Oxford.
The Lollard movement continued with his pronouncements from pulpits even
under the persecution that followed with Henry IV up to and including the
early years of the reign of Henry VIII.
Under such a state of confusion, how can you blame someone giving a
posthumous testamentary gift for not caring much where his money went? (McEvoy
mentions "testamentary gifts and other" so we may need a qualification here).
And in any case, shouldn't this lead to a casuistic approach, where we
analyse each gift -- testamentary or other -- and examine the giver's
intention
and ground for the gift?
As piece for or against such a general hypothesis as involving 'the decline
of the English church before her separation from Rome', such an analytic
approach can only be welcomed!
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
