by
Damien F. Mackey
Dr Davies suggests that the idea of a distinct Tudor period of history was
first established in the 18th Century by the historian and philosopher, David
Hume.
Talk about parallel lives!
Herod Antipas and Henry VIII.
John the Baptist and Bishop John Fisher.
This is astutely picked up by
Thomas McGovern, in his article for Catholic Culture.org, “Bishop John
Fisher: Defender of the Faith and Pastor of Souls”
Adultery
is worth dying for
Henry
replied to the legates, in answer to the bishop, in a manner which clearly
showed how resentful he was at the bishop's protest, particularly that he was
ready to suffer like St. John the Baptist, as it naturally suggested a
comparison between Henry and Herod Antipas. However, the martyrdom of St. John
had long been a familiar subject of contemplation to Fisher, as is clear from
his treatise (1525) in defense of Henry's book against Luther — the
"Defensio." "One consideration," Fisher writes, "that
greatly affects me to believe in the sacrament of marriage is the martyrdom of
St. John the Baptist, who suffered death for his reproof of the violation of
marriage. There were many crimes in appearance more grevious for rebuking which
he might have suffered, but there was none more fitting than the crime of
adultery to be the cause of the blood-shedding of the Friend of the Bridegroom,
since the violation of marriage is no little insult to Him who is called the
Bridegroom."30 Bridgett draws the striking parallel between the
fate of the Baptist and John Fisher: "At that time (1525) no thought of
divorce had as yet, in all probability, entered the mind of Henry; Anne Boleyn,
Fisher's Herodias, was then unknown. But the circumstances of Fisher's death
bear so close a resemblance to those of the Baptist's, that it is strange even
Henry did not observe and seek to avoid it. Both were cast into prison and left
there to linger at the will of a tyrant; both were beheaded, and both by the
revenge of impure women. But what Herod did reluctantly, Henry did with cruel
deliberation."31
[End of
quote]
Perhaps the received Tudor
history needs to subjected to a more intense scrutiny. According to Oxford
University historian, Dr. Cliff Davies, the very term “Tudor” is highly
problematical. We read about this, for instance, at: http://www.bbc.com/news/education-18240901
'Tudor era' is misleading myth, says Oxford historian
By Sean Coughlan
BBC News education
correspondent
The idea of a
"Tudor era" in history is a misleading invention, claims an Oxford
University historian.
Cliff Davies says
his research shows the term "Tudor" was barely ever used during the
time of Tudor monarchs.
….
Dr Davies says
films and period dramas have reinforced the "myth" that people
thought of themselves as living under a "Tudor" monarchy.
"The term is
so convenient," says Dr Davies, of Wadham College and the university's
history faculty. But he says it is fundamentally "erroneous".
Missing name
During the reigns
of Tudor monarchs - from Henry VII to Elizabeth I - he said there was no
contemporary recognition of any common thread or even any recognition of the
term "Tudor".
Dr Davies, who
specialises in 16th-Century history, says "the rather obvious thought
occurred to me" of investigating whether there had been any references to
"Tudor" during the years of the Tudor monarchs.
His years of
trawling through contemporary documents yielded almost no references - with
only one poem on the accession of James I (James VI of Scotland) recognising
the transition from Tudor to Stuart.
Surprised by this
absence of any contemporary usage, he says he expected "clever American
professors to come up with examples to prove me wrong" - but so far there
has been no such evidence.
There might also be
suggestions that the use of "Tudor" was deliberately omitted - as
monarchs, always sensitive to rival claims, wanted to assert their legitimacy.
"I do think
that Henry VII was defensive about his past and wanted to downplay 'Tudor',
which might have been used by his opponents."
He says that in
Welsh documents the name of Tudor is "celebrated" but it was
"considered an embarrassment in England".
Henry VIII
preferred to represent himself as the embodiment of the "union of the
families of Lancaster and York", says Dr Davies.
False memory
Dr Davies suggests
that the idea of a distinct Tudor period of history was first established in
the 18th Century by the historian and philosopher, David Hume.
This has proved a
very "seductive" way of approaching history, he argues. It also helps
to create the idea of a separate historical period, different from what came
before and after.
But the text-book
writers and makers of period dramas should re-think their terminology, as he
says that talking about "Tudor men and women" introduces an
artificial concept which would have had no contemporary resonance.
If historians aim
to "recover the thought processes" of past generations - he says it
means understanding how they saw themselves and their own times.
Dr Davies says that
in the late 16th Century people in England would have understood the idea of
living in the reign of Elizabeth I - but would not have identified her as a
Tudor.
"The word
'Tudor' is used obsessively by historians," says Dr Davies. "But it was
almost unknown at the time."
