12 March, 2024 lecture by Michael Questier: Rome and the Anglicans - and their histories of the Reformation (pasted from the RHS website)

 

Michael Questier: Rome and the Anglicans – and their Histories of the Reformation – LECTURE

Map Unavailable
Date / time: 12 March, 5:00 pm - 6:30 pm

Location
Lambeth Palace Library


Michael Questier: Rome and the Anglicans – and their Histories of the Reformation - LECTURE

 

In association with the Institute of Historical Research

Histories of the post-Reformation Church of (and in) England are, as is well known, often incompatible with each other. Much of the relevant scholarly output of recent times has been taken up with trying to resolve existing contradictory interpretations of what, exactly, happened at and after the Reformation. The same ur-texts (Cranmer, Jewel, Andrewes et al.) are frequently cited as authorities by those who see the English Church in completely different ways. Likewise, political narratives that are technically about the same topic often focus on quite different things. It has never been easy to say exactly what we mean by terms such as ‘puritanism’, ‘Calvinism’, ‘Laudianism’, and so on.

Consensus and agreement are, frankly, not expected or likely any time soon. But there have been similar divergences in the narratives compiled by those in the past who wanted to narrate overtly ‘Catholic’ accounts of the Long Reformation. Putting these alongside the better known ‘Anglican’ disagreements on such matters tells one something about both of them. Not least, it allows for a discussion of what we might take to be the ‘Catholic’ tradition in the Church of England.

All are welcome, but those wishing to attend should book a free ticket via Eventbrite (https://IHR-Seminar-Michael-Questier.eventbrite.co.uk) or email archives@churchofengland.org no later than Monday 11 March.

Please note that tickets must be booked individually for security purposes.

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Finding out about what is going on in early modern history beyond this country

One of the puzzles I face most days concerns what is going on in early modern history in English-speaking countries beyond these shores. I have a reasonable understanding of the seminar papers being offered here and of the conferences being or about to be held. Most of the websites of relevance are known to me and I am, broadly speaking, aware of the names of historians working in the areas I am interested in. Google alerts and social media help to fill in the gaps. Where I am much less well informed arises from the activities of early modern historians in north America, in Australia and New Zealand. Despite having some regular contacts on the other side of the Atlantic, I have to work hard to search the myriad history departments and learned societies of the U.S.A. and Canada. Oddly enough, this does not appear to be so large an issue with countries in Europe where I conduct regular searches for publications and theses, conferences and seminars of potential interest. It would be good ...
Read more

Simon Healy has died

Image
  I am extremely sorry to report that Simon Healy, who worked for the History of Parliament Trust's 1604-1629 section for many years,  has died. I remember him as a very cheerful and engaging conversationalist. My condolences go to his widow and their two children.
Read more

Centre and Locality: review reflections

  Quite by chance, I was browsing on Twitter last Friday (9 th April) when I spotted on Edward Vallance’s site a reference to a video conference organised by William Clayton of the University of East Anglia at the end of last month. Further searches led me to William Clayton’s review of the book edited by Chris Kyle and Jason Peacey, Connecting Centre and Locality: Communication in early modern England, which appeared under the auspices of the Manchester University Press in 2020 and which Clayton had reviewed for The Seventeenth Century in its most recent issue. [1] This is a subject which interests me and I did give some thought to responding to William Clayton’s largely laudatory comments. However, I was also conscious that I had not read this collection of essays and was thus less well equipped than I should be for assessing either the book or William Clayton’s review. There was, however, one historiographical issue upon which I did feel qualified to comment. Right at the st...
Read more