Hi.
i've been pretty busy
drowning in a church history essay
there's no answer.
so i turned to my old friends, monty python, for some themed comic relief.
this is a pretty nice little vid put together by 4x4wheeldrive productions, whoever he/she/it is.
the song was on a CD i had called 'monty python sings'. i don't know who borrowed it. it's sad. so long ago. and i probably used to know this song off by heart too!!!
for those interested, my (unanswerable) question is, How important was Geneva in shaping English Protestantism? possible answers so far: not very. heaps. a bit. depends who you ask. depends how you define 'geneva', 'english' 'protestantism' 'important' and 'shaping'. tho i'm sure there are some nuances to 'how', 'was' and 'in' that i haven't thought thru yet.
6 comments:
Interesting question, but so broad! I haven't studied that directly, but my general impression is that the Church of England was a kind of middle ground between those who wanted to go back to Roman Catholicism and those who wanted further reform. I'm guessing Genevan Protestantism was particularly influential when the exiles started to return after the reign of "bloody Mary" but I wonder how long it continued to be influential. I'd be interested to know what you come up with! Do you mention Richard Hooker at all? (He's my current soap box).
hi lara. long time no see.
i think hooker's a little out of my scope being too late and too philosophical. i think it was only in light of the elizabethan settlement, despite geneva, that anyone was able to get into philosophy - natural or otherwise.
he is quite early tho - with bacon and decartes the only significant guys in his general field, and a bit later. (bacon contemp, but stuck around longer).
i think i'm going to say they all either went soft with their newly gained bishoprics or went west and started telling american indians to put clothes on.
Sounds like my 2nd year essay, Doug >
Q: "Evaluate the contribution of Martin Bucer to the English Reformation".
A: (in the words of Vicky Pollard) yeah, but no, but yeah ...
Okay, so after being amused by Oliver Cromwell, who has no relevance to my CH2 essay, it's time to get to work. Thanks for the motivation!
That's interesting. I wouldn't have put Hooker in the same field as Bacon and Descartes. Well, Bacon perhaps, because I haven't read enough Bacon, but certainly not Descartes. If Descartes had been doing what Hooker was doing, he would have been in just as much trouble with the Catholic Church as Galileo!
Why do you class Hooker as (natural) philosophy, not theology? Also, why do you say that it was only in light of the Elizabethan Settlement that anyone could get into philosophy?
Hope your essay is going well! I'm trying to finish my (mini)chapter on Hooker at the moment.
mainly because i haven't read enough about him!
i thought he mostly wrote on church-state politics, a trend i thought that was continuing to the political theorists. i see now that he was a minister first and his political writing was primarily theological.
i guess i have to read about him now!
as far as philosophy goes, i may be too narrow minded, but people like Locke, Hobbes, Bacon, Descartes (and Hooker?) signal a new direction for thinking, from purely ecclesial affairs to bigger questions.
so how do you think Hooker was influenced by Geneva?
he seems much more anglo-catholic than any genevans (or english exiles there) would have accepted, at least from my internet searches on him.
Post a Comment