Elizabeth's Chapel
in the Palace of SaintJames |
Well into Elizabeth’s reign, let’s say as late as
the Armada in 1588, the majority of her subjects remained discretely, if not
secretly, Catholics. This was not true
for the capital however—the mercantile cities and especially London, had been
quick to embrace the Reformation and were strongly committed to Protestantism. Max Weber, the 20th century German
sociologist, well noted the link between Protestant—and especially Reformed (or
Calvinist)—thought and capitalism. The
merchants wanted their money to invest in business, not to squander on
supporting monasteries or purchasing vestments or commissioning religious
art. This is not to say that the
Protestant merchants were stingy when it comes to God. Far from it.
But with God, as with business, they wanted to put their money where it
would reap a return on their investment.
They endowed schools and scholarships to the universities. They opened schools for poor children and
orphans. They built hospitals for the
indigent sick. They provided dowries for
respectable young ladies from families that had fallen on hard times. They just didn’t want to sink their money into
buildings and the accessories of ritual.
This led to a significant cultural change. Art and architecture had, to this point, been
primarily at the service of religion, but with the Protestant preference for
the stark in matters religious, the arts shift to the secular. We get far more portraits of solid prosperous
English men and women and much fewer saints.
We get still-lifes and some landscapes.
Secular building projects take off as well. No more abbeys, but we start getting the
great manor houses built from the ruins of those monasteries. Theatres and public buildings go up in London
and other large cities. Society itself
secularizes.
Secularization was not among the goals of the
Protestant leadership, of course. They
wanted a “godly realm of England.” But
this is the trouble when you have a break in religious tradition, even a good
break. Once the hold of religion over
the culture, or indeed individuals, is broken and the ancient “givens” are called
into question, the whole religious establishment collapses like a house of
cards. When you see everything you once
held sacred being discarded, nothing remains sacred in your eyes. But again, this is where Protestantism failed
its own ideals—it devolved into religion with an emphasis on doctrine and
discipline. Had Protestantism been able
to reach its Evangelical goals and emphasized the conversion of life to which
the Gospel shows us the way, secularism would never have gained the foothold in
the culture that it did. But the forest
of the Christian life was lost sight of as the Church got tangled in the
innumerable trees of cold and abstract doctrine. Without the ways that medieval Christianity
had been able to reach into the daily lives of the ordinary person with the
stories of the saints and the feast days and the processions, there was
nothing but secularism to fill the gap
in people’s lives.
One area of art which remained at the service of
the Church was music and the two great composers of the time, William Byrd and
Thomas Tallis, ironically were Roman Catholics. Tallis was Catholic from the old days before
the split with Rome and even though he was a musician in the Chapel Royal of
King Henry and later King Edward, he never gave up the old faith. Byrd was a convert to Catholicism during the
reign of Elizabeth. Being Catholic did
not stop them from writing music for the Anglican liturgy, though both wrote
for the Catholic liturgy as well. Byrd
was the music director of Elizabeth’s chapel, an indication of how Elizabeth
did not go looking for religious conflict as well as an indication of her
preference of a more formal approach to liturgy.
The fact that the Church of England developed a
fine musical tradition should not confuse us into thinking that the average
English subject attending Sunday worship in his or her parish church was being
exposed to good music. What happened in
the chapel royal or in the occasional cathedral was one thing, but in the
average parish the service was pretty drab, mostly read and not sung, and what
little singing there might be was only the psalms, the Puritans considering
hymns and anthems “too Catholic.” Indeed
church wasn’t a lot of fun due to the strong puritan influence that was suspect
of anything ritualistic. More about that
in the next posting.
Back to where I started. London was Protestant. So was Norwich and the other larger towns of
the south east, but there were Catholics aplenty in the countryside, and
especially in the North where many of the great landowning families were still
Catholic and with sufficient political clout, at least on the local level, to
get away with it. But priests are funny
people and the seminary priests returning from their education and ordination
abroad were supposed to pass through London and head into the Catholic regions
to support the remaining Catholic population.
They didn’t. They stayed in
London, or at least the majority of them did.
They loved the big city and
didn’t want to spend their years toiling away in the rural north. Historians think that had the clergy
dispersed into the Catholic areas, not only would far fewer of them had to pay
for their faith with their lives, but that the Catholic faith would have
continued to hold on in the North and West of England. But you know, priests have always been known
for liking a good restaurant and let’s face it, even in the sixteenth century you
can’t beat London for the nightlife. How can you keep them down on the farm…?
Hi, I think the body of this post is a duplicate from your last entry on Anglicanism a few days ago. Really enjoy this series, BTW.
ReplyDeleteYou used the same text on August 25th!
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to note that there's a resurgence in what can be called Anglican Puritanism today. Some like to call themselves High Church Protestants.
ReplyDelete