Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T21:47:03.447Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

William Turner's Polemical Use of Ecclesiastical History and His Controversy with Stephen Gardiner

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Rainer Pineas
Rainer Pineas*
Affiliation:
York College, Cuny
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The polemical use of secular and ecclesiastical history was introduced into Protestant English Reformation controversy by William Tyndale, popularized by Simon Fish, polished by Robert Barnes and George Joye, and perfected by John Bale. These Reformers developed a Protestant theory of English and European history which maintained that for centuries the affairs of the European states had been conducted for the benefit of the Pope and that secular rulers were merely the puppets of papal policy, retained in power only so long as they obeyed the dictates of Rome, to be removed, as was Kingjohn of England, the moment they proved recalcitrant.

Type
Research Article
Information
Renaissance Quarterly , Volume 33 , Issue 4 , Winter 1980 , pp. 599 - 608
Copyright
Copyright © Renaissance Society of America 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For Tyndale, Fish, and Barnes, see my Thomas More and Tudor Polemics (Bloomington and London, 1968); for Joye, my article “George Joye's Polemical Use of History in his Controversy with Stephen Gardiner,” Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis, 55 (1974), 21-31Google Scholar; for Bale, my articles “John Bale's Nondramatic Works of Religious Controversy,” Studies in the Renaissance, 9 (1962), 218-233, a n d “William Tyndale's Influence on John Bale's Polemical Use of History,” Archiv jur Reformationsgeschichte, 53 (1962), No. 1/2, 79-96.

2 See Pollard, A. F., Wolsey (London, 1953), p. 177 Google Scholar and note.

3 Turner was educated at Cambridge, where he took the Bachelor's degree in 1529. Forced to flee to the Continent during the Henrician reaction (1540-1546), he became a doctor of medicine in Italy and returned to England in 1547 upon the accession of Edward VI, when he became physician to the Protector Somerset. He received the deanship of Wells in 1551, but was forced into his second exile upon Edward's death, returning once more to his native country on the death of Mary. Under Elizabeth, he again became Dean of Wells, but was suspended for nonconformity in 1564. Turner is best known as a pioneer in the study of botany. No full-length study of Turner exists. See Raven, Charles E., English Naturalists from Neckam to Ray (Cambridge, 1947), pp. 48–137 Google Scholar; Stein, Harold, “Spenser and William Turner,” Modern Language Notes, 51 (June, 1936), 345–351 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Harrison, Thomas P., “Turner and Spenser's ‘Mother Hubberd's Tale,’ “Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 49 (October, 1950), 464–469 Google Scholar, and “William Turner, Naturalist and Priest,” Texas University Studies in English, 33 (1954), 1-12; also Garrett, Christina, The Marian Exiles (Cambridge, 1938)Google Scholar, and Bush, M. L., The Government Policy of Protector Somerset (London, 1975), pp. 108–109 Google Scholar.

4 The huntyng & fyndyng out of the Romishe fox(Bonn, 1543), STC 24353, cited as HF; The rescvynge of the romishefox (Bonn, 1545), STC 24355, cited as RF; A newe dialogue Vvherin is conteyned the examination of the Messe (London, 1548?), STC 24362, cited as E; The Huntyng of the Romyshe Vuolfe (Emden, 1555?), STC 24356, cited as HR; and A new booke ofspirituall Physik (Emden, 1555), STC 24361, cited as SP.

5 See my article, “William Turner and Reformation Politics,” Bibliotheque D'Humanisme et Renaissance, 37(1975), 193-200.

6 See Thomas More and Tudor Polemics.

7 HF, sig. B8V. For the first two examples cited above, see Barnes, Vitae Romanorum Pontificum, sigs. H4V and B4V.

8 See my Thomas More and Tudor Polemics, p. 134.

9 In a tactic typical of his technique, Turner anticipates the objection as follows: if you object that it is foolish to regard something as evil merely because the Pope does it, “Then answer me to a question/Ar theyr not many thinges in Iohan frithes bokes/that ar both good and godly … ? And then tell me why haue ye condemned all hys bokes … “ (HF, sig. Cl). Of course, the tu quoque does not make Turner's argument any less sophistical.

10 See OED, “Goose,” Section 3.

11 See fn. 1.

12 See fn. 5.

13 See Muller, James A., Stephen Gardiner and the Tudor Reaction (New York, 1970), pp. 80–82 Google Scholar.

14 HF, sigs. E3V-E4V. For Gardiner's version of this incident, see Muller, pp. 98-99.

15 Thomas More and Tudor Polemics, p. 132.

16 See Muller, pp. 80-82.

17 RF, sigs. G5-G5V, H-H2V, N5. See Muller, pp. 69, 106-107.

18 See my Tudor and Early Stuart Anti-Catholic Drama (Nieuwkoop, 1972), p. 24

19 Cf. my article on Turner in BHR, pp. 199-200.

20 Stephen Gardiner, A Machiavellian Treatise, ed. and trans. Peter S. Donaldson (Cambridge, 1975).