Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
|
Dave Coull
|
Reformation Anniversary newsFrom The Times
August 10, 2009
PROTESTANT REFORMATION A BOOST TO THE ENLIGHTENMENT,
SAYS TOM DEVINE
by Angus Macleod Scottish Political Editor
Scotland’s leading historian has challenged the doom-laden image of the Protestant Reformation’s influence on the country and says that, far from being negative, it was a key factor in the flowering of the Enlightenment.
Professor Tom Devine makes the claim in an article in The Times marking the 450th anniversary of the Reformation in Scotland, so far largely unmarked. Opposition politicians say the Scottish Government appears to have ignored the anniversary. One Conservative MSP called on Alex Salmond, the First Minister, to act on Professor Devine’s article.
In response, Michael Russell, Constitution and External Affairs Minister, agreed with much of Professor Devine’s argument, saying that the Reformation was “a decisive moment” in Scotland’s story, but he did not go so far as to pledge an official commemoration. Jim Murphy, the Scottish Secretary and himself a Catholic, described Professor Devine’s viewpoint as “thought-provoking”.
Peter Kearney, spokesman for the Catholic Church in Scotland, also welcomed what he said was “a sound analysis” of the Reformation’s impact on Scotland.
Professor Devine, Sir William Fraser Professor of Scottish History and Palaeography and Director of the Scottish Centre of Diaspora Studies at the University of Edinburgh, says that in today’s secular Scotland, the Reformation usually has a bad press. “The Calvinist tradition which has moulded the nation is seen habitually through a negative lens. Its malignant influence is said to have spawned intolerance, oppressive social disciplines, an aggressive and rapacious capitalism, sexual guilt and dysfunction, and warped attitudes to music, painting and the creative arts.
“There may be some truth in all of these stereotypes, but they reveal only one side of the coin, and entirely ignore the profoundly positive influence which reformed Protestantism also had on Scottish history . . Calvinism was a key factor inspiring that great flowering of intellectual culture in the eighteenth century, the Scottish Enlightenment.”
Professor Devine says that to omit the Calvinist tradition from any explanation of the Enlightenment would be to produce “an incomplete and myopic analysis of this remarkable movement of ideas”.
The reformers, he argues, had a commitment to developing a basic level of literacy among the population in order that they might read the Bible and other sacred texts.
“In addition, to see Calvinism and Enlightenment in direct and inevitable conflict one with the other is too simple. Calvinism was a cerebral belief system which appealed more to the mind than the heart or the senses.
“Complex theological issues were constantly debated in lengthy sermons, learned tracts and public debate . . . Arguably, the Scottish Enlightenment's central focus on trying to understand the bases of human conduct, the ideas which evolved in time into the modern subjects of economics, sociology and anthropology, has its roots in Scottish Calvinism’s obsession with human morality and man’s relation to God.”
Professor Devine also points out that far from being “aggressive secularists” who challenged the outdated orthodoxies of Christian tradition, some of the greatest figures of the Enlightenment, such as William Robertson, Adam Ferguson and Thomas Reid, were themselves ministers of the gospel or sons of the manse.
“The Scottish Enlightenment, unlike its French counterpart, was therefore a decidedly Christian Enlightenment which is one key reason why it had such appeal to those Christian gentlemen across the Atlantic as they framed the constitutional foundations of the United States,” he says.
Mr Russell responded: “Without doubt the Reformation was a decisive moment in our national story and one that is worth recalling and reflecting on by every tradition and all ranges of belief. From the Reformation we can indeed trace the roots of much in our present country.
“And while it is perhaps interesting to postulate that the fantastic flowering of intellectual talent which Scotland witnessed during the mid to late 18th century would have happened in any case – after all there was intellectual ferment in the 18th century in other places in Europe which had different ecclesiastical history – there is no doubt that the Reformation left its own distinctive stamp and character on the Scottish Enlightenment.”
Murdo Fraser, the Scottish Conservatives’ deputy leader, said the article would add weight to the argument that the anniversary of the Reformation should be marked. He added: “The Scottish Government has been remiss in not marking it.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6789216.ece
|
chicmac
|
Scotland's cultural obsession with education preceded both the Reformation and the Enlightenment but was an accepted bandwagon for the first and progenator of the second.
As witness Europe's first Education Act with a degree of compulsion in 1496.
Indeed the 'enthusiasm' by Knox and other reformists for education was in a way an affirmation of its already extant popularity.
|
Dave Coull
|
| chicmac wrote: | | Europe's first Education Act with a degree of compulsion in 1496 |
Yes, that was a first, but it only applied to the male offspring of "barons and substantial freeholders", that is, to a tiny minority of the population. As | Tom Devine wrote: | | It was not that the old church ignored education. The key difference after the Reformation was that it was pursued systematically and relentlessly as a crucial part of a nationwide religious crusade. |
Right from the start, the Reformers were aiming at teaching everybody to be able to read. Of course some of the powerful protestant lords thought (as the rulers of every country in the world except Scotland thought) teaching the masses to read was a dangerous activity and would lead to trouble. But the Reformers were determined on this course so that everybody could read the Bible, which was considered essential to their salvation. It was almost accidental that somebody who could read the Bible could read anything else as well. It would be a very long time before the Reformers got anywhere near their aim, but, nevertheless, in 1560, Scotland was the only country in the world which even had the AIM of teaching EVERYBODY to read.
|
chicmac
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | chicmac wrote: | | Europe's first Education Act with a degree of compulsion in 1496 |
Yes, that was a first, but it only applied to the male offspring of "barons and substantial freeholders", that is, to a tiny minority of the population. As | Tom Devine wrote: | | It was not that the old church ignored education. The key difference after the Reformation was that it was pursued systematically and relentlessly as a crucial part of a nationwide religious crusade. |
Right from the start, the Reformers were aiming at teaching everybody to be able to read. Of course some of the powerful protestant lords thought (as the rulers of every country in the world except Scotland thought) teaching the masses to read was a dangerous activity and would lead to trouble. But the Reformers were determined on this course so that everybody could read the Bible, which was considered essential to their salvation. It was almost accidental that somebody who could read the Bible could read anything else as well. It would be a very long time before the Reformers got anywhere near their aim, but, nevertheless, in 1560, Scotland was the only country in the world which even had the AIM of teaching EVERYBODY to read. |
In Scotland Barons were simply those who held the fue duty rights over a property. It was not a class of Peerage as in England. Even today you can buy a Baronacy in Scotland on the internet for not a lot of money.
Freeholders were simply property owners.
The idea of the 1496 Act was that those who may come to a position of administration at a local level (very local) might be better equipped to do so justly.
So the number who were thus compelled is a lot more than many would expect.
This was only the compulsory aspect then, there was already an inordinately large educational network in place.
The point I was making regarding the reformation was this:
The Reformation was not a given, even if it did have backing from South of the Border. It did not spring forth fully formed and indeed was a cause to be won.
Ask yourself why did the reformists want mass ( ) education? O.K. I know the mantra was 'so that ordinary people could read the bible for themselves', but the reformists in England had seen no need to champion this, did they? England remained one of the poorest performers in Europe for mass education for centuries.
It seems far more likely to me that this goal was seen as a populist one which would therefore help their cause. i.e. that the cultural obsession with education was already there.
I'm not decrying the impetus given to that goal by the Reformation in Scotland but rather seeking to explain why only Scotland.
|
Dave Coull
|
I posted two articles from the Times here. One of them was Tom Devine's article, which I posted under the "HISTORY" heading. The other one was about Tom Devine's article, and, because that contained news relating to the current controversy over commemorating the anniversary of the Reformation, I put it under "Scottish News, Life, and Society". But, so far, the discussion under this heading has been mainly historical, and, if it continues as such, rather than about the anniversary debate, I would suggest moving it to the "History" section. | Chicmac wrote: | | In Scotland Barons were simply those who held the fue duty rights over a property. It was not a class of Peerage as in England. |
That makes no difference to the point I made. It was a class. A socio-economic formation. A class of those who held the feu duty rights over property. A small minority of the population as a whole. | Chicmac wrote: | | Freeholders were simply property owners. |
And the "substantial" freeholders aimed at by the 1496 act were substantial property owners. Again, a socio-economic grouping who were a small minority of the population as a whole. | Chicmac wrote: | | The Reformation was not a given |
Agreed. Although the Reformers called themselves reformers, people who saw themselves as re-forming Christ's church along its originally pure lines which had become distorted over the centuries, in political terms what happened was in fact fairly revolutionary. Even though the Reformers were elitists, they had to win the support of the masses to carry their revolution through. | Chicmac wrote: | | this goal was seen as a populist one which would therefore help their cause. |
I think that's the reason at least SOME of the "Lords of the Congregation" were prepared to go along with it, despite their misgivings. Some of them must have thought, like members of the ruling class in every other country, that educating the masses would make them less subservient, and was bound to lead to trouble. But as for the actual Reformers, not just John Knox (whose role is always exaggerated) but all of them, they were NOT "Lords" (or even barons). While of course there was an element of pursuing a popular policy, I think, for some of them, mass education really was something they genuinely believed in. From their point of view, you had to be able to READ the Bible to have any hope of salvation. Reading the Bible wouldn't gaurantee salvation, but NOT reading it was the highway to Hell. The Gospel clearly instructed them to go out and preach the Word to all the world. All of the world wouldn't listen to them, but they had a duty to preach the gospel nevertheless. Therefore, for the sake of their OWN salvation, they had to seek to ensure people could read the Bible. | Chicmac wrote: | | the reformists in England had seen no need to champion this |
The Reformation in Scotland was a totally different thing from the reformation in England. For one thing, the change in England was very gradual. The first step was just Henry the 8th substituting his own authority for that of the pope, but without any other changes at all. The latin mass remained, the archbishops and bishops remained, everything remained much the same. It was only much later, and very hesitantly, the English church changed. In complete contrast, the Scottish Reformation was a sweeping revolution which happened quite suddenly and to which we can give a specific date - 1560. The main international links of that revolution were with the Netherlands and Geneva, and the main ideological influences of that revolution came from Geneva and from the Netherlands, not from England. But the Scottish protestant Reformers went further, faster, than the Swiss, or the Dutch, or anybody else. | Chicmac wrote: | | England remained one of the poorest performers in Europe for mass education for centuries |
Although change in England was much slower and more hesitant for a long time, they did eventually have a revolution. And although Cromwell and other landed gentlemen had their misgivings about too much literacy of the masses, they had to go along with it because it was a popular policy, and they desperately needed support. During the years before, during, and immediately after, the English Civil War, huge numbers of religious/political pamphlets were published, distributed, and very widely read, some of them arguing for changes so far-reaching they still sound extreme ultra-leftists to this day. Of course the monarchy was eventually restored, and with it a lot of the old attitudes which held English education back. | Chicmac wrote: | | I'm not decrying the impetus given to that goal by the Reformation in Scotland but rather seeking to explain why only Scotland. |
Because the "reformation" in England began with a King falling out with the pope, the hopes of protestants were always involved with influencing the monarch and those around him. By contrast, the Reformation in Scotland didn't benefit from (or rather, wasn't cursed with) royal endorsement, so it had no choice but to seek mass support. That meant it developed as a genuine movement involving ordinary folk to a far greater extent. Also, in European terms, the Scottish Reformation came relatively late in the day, and, despite the clear warning signs from other countries, the old order in Scotland had made little attempt to reform itself. So, a movement which benefited from the experience of other countries faced an established order which had made little attempt to deal with corruption, and the result was a change which went further and faster than anywhere else. At least in educational terms, and at least in theory!
|
chicmac
|
| Dave Coull wrote: |
| Chicmac wrote: | | I'm not decrying the impetus given to that goal by the Reformation in Scotland but rather seeking to explain why only Scotland. |
Because the "reformation" in England began with a King falling out with the pope, the hopes of protestants were always involved with influencing the monarch and those around him. By contrast, the Reformation in Scotland didn't benefit from (or rather, wasn't cursed with) royal endorsement, so it had no choice but to seek mass support. That meant it developed as a genuine movement involving ordinary folk to a far greater extent. Also, in European terms, the Scottish Reformation came relatively late in the day, and, despite the clear warning signs from other countries, the old order in Scotland had made little attempt to reform itself. So, a movement which benefited from the experience of other countries faced an established order which had made little attempt to deal with corruption, and the result was a change which went further and faster than anywhere else. At least in educational terms, and at least in theory! |
See the emboldened part. We are in agreement I think. Support for education was a politically astute move because it already had mass support.
In addition to the first sons of freeholders who could afford it and those with property with fue entitlement there was still an inordinate educational network in Scotland pre-Reformation. Every Abbey, Cathedral and collegiate church had educational duties. Even rural churches often had a school for the education of parishioner''s children although in most cases this may have been little more than teaching music and singing. And of course there were just plain schools set up by local 'councils' with the rectors salary of around 20 - 30 Merks per year paid for in a variety of ways.
It is not, of course, possible to be accurate with numbers from that period, even for estimates of population, but there are many more mentions in writings of various schools and their masters feature prominently in the Scottish history of the period than for other countries. Of particular interest is the number of occasions where teachers are used in certain high profile negotiating situations which in other countries would have been the preserve of nobles, burgesses and clergy. e.g. the rector of Cupar school in the negotiations for the release of David II from capture in England. Also in various major Land disputes teachers were often part of the 'arbitration teams' set up to settle such disputes. This showed the high level of respect for education that existed in medieval Scotland compared to other places.
|
Holebender
|
Rector can be both a clerical title and a scholastic one. Are you sure the rector in question was a schoolmaster and not a clergyman?
|
chicmac
|
| Holebender wrote: | | Rector can be both a clerical title and a scholastic one. Are you sure the rector in question was a schoolmaster and not a clergyman? |
When Gibson (in "Education in Scotland" p.2 cites the "rector of the school of Cupar" it is just one of several examples he gives to illustrate the point I made, which is the reverence with which education was held in medieval Scotland.
That particular example was itself a noted citation from "Acts of Parliament of Scotland" by Grant p.11.
|
chicmac
|
| chicmac wrote: | | Holebender wrote: | | Rector can be both a clerical title and a scholastic one. Are you sure the rector in question was a schoolmaster and not a clergyman? |
When Gibson (in "Education in Scotland" p.2 cites the "rector of the school of Cupar" it is just one of several examples he gives to illustrate the point I made, which is the reverence with which education was held in medieval Scotland.
That particular example was itself a noted citation from "Acts of Parliament of Scotland" by Grant p.11. |
That should be p 28. It assumed 8+) meant a sunglassed smiley.
|
Dave Coull
|
| chicmac wrote: | | In addition to the first sons of freeholders who could afford it and those with property with fue entitlement there was still an inordinate educational network in Scotland pre-Reformation. Every Abbey, Cathedral and collegiate church had educational duties. Even rural churches often had a school for the education of parishioner''s children although in most cases this may have been little more than teaching music and singing |
"First sons"......"Who could afford it"....."Even".......What is missing here is any sense of a national plan, of a declared NATIONAL AIM. As | Tom Devine wrote: | | It was not that the old church ignored education. The key difference after the Reformation was that it was pursued systematically and relentlessly as a crucial part of a nationwide religious crusade. |
Yes, the pre-Reformation level of interest in education in Scotland was distinctly higher than the European average. But what the Reformation in Scotland provided, for the very first time anywhere in the world, was the declared aim of teaching EVERYONE to read. Yes, the Reformers built upon the past, but, nevertheless, in Scotland becoming the very first country in the entire world to have the scary aim of everybody learning to read, the Reformation in Scotland was a revolutionary break with all past societies. Of course some protestant aristocrats later back-tracked on the aim. Of course they found reasons for not pushing ahead faster. But they could never quite undo that unique declared aim. | chicmac wrote: | | We are in agreement I think. |
We are in agreement that support for mass education was a politically astute move. Probably for SOME of its supporters, particularly the more reluctant protestant Lords, that may have been all it was. But you do at least appear to be underestimating the extent to which, for the more dedicated Reformers (and that doesn't just mean Knox) mass education wasn't just a tactic, but something they whole-heartedly believed in. Yes, there was an element of self-interest, but not quite in the way that you might think. Look at it from their point of view. THEY had read the Bible. They had seen, in black and white, the clear instruction that they had to go out and preach the Gospel to all the world. They knew the Book of Revelations said only a small minority would be saved, but they couldn't afford to make any assumptions about who these would, or would not, be. That was up to the grace of God. John Knox said that when he got to Heaven, he expected to be VERY surprised by some of the faces he would see there. He also expected to be VERY surprised by some of the faces he did NOT see there. But the biggest surprise of all would be to find himself, John Knox, there. The Reformers knew that if they didn't obey the instruction to preach to all the world, then THEY were damned. But in order for people to believe, they had to know what they believed. And that meant they had to study the Bible. And that meant they had to be able to read. Therefore, for the sake of their OWN salvation, the Reformers had to seek to ensure everybody could read the Bible.
|
azzuri
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | We are in agreement that support for mass education was a politically astute move. Probably for SOME of its supporters, particularly the more reluctant protestant Lords, that may have been all it was. But you do at least appear to be underestimating the extent to which, for the more dedicated Reformers (and that doesn't just mean Knox) mass education wasn't just a tactic, but something they whole-heartedly believed in. Yes, there was an element of self-interest, but not quite in the way that you might think. Look at it from their point of view. THEY had read the Bible. They had seen, in black and white, the clear instruction that they had to go out and preach the Gospel to all the world. They knew the Book of Revelations said only a small minority would be saved, but they couldn't afford to make any assumptions about who these would, or would not, be. That was up to the grace of God. John Knox said that when he got to Heaven, he expected to be VERY surprised by some of the faces he would see there. He also expected to be VERY surprised by some of the faces he did NOT see there. But the biggest surprise of all would be to find himself, John Knox, there. The Reformers knew that if they didn't obey the instruction to preach to all the world, then THEY were damned. But in order for people to believe, they had to know what they believed. And that meant they had to study the Bible. And that meant they had to be able to read. Therefore, for the sake of their OWN salvation, the Reformers had to seek to ensure everybody could read the Bible. |
One of the best explanations I think I've ever seen as to why universally free education was developed in Scotland, great way to sum it up Dave.
|
chicmac
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | chicmac wrote: | | In addition to the first sons of freeholders who could afford it and those with property with fue entitlement there was still an inordinate educational network in Scotland pre-Reformation. Every Abbey, Cathedral and collegiate church had educational duties. Even rural churches often had a school for the education of parishioner''s children although in most cases this may have been little more than teaching music and singing |
"First sons"......"Who could afford it"....."Even".......What is missing here is any sense of a national plan, of a declared NATIONAL AIM. As | Tom Devine wrote: | | It was not that the old church ignored education. The key difference after the Reformation was that it was pursued systematically and relentlessly as a crucial part of a nationwide religious crusade. |
Yes, the pre-Reformation level of interest in education in Scotland was distinctly higher than the European average. But what the Reformation in Scotland provided, for the very first time anywhere in the world, was the declared aim of teaching EVERYONE to read. Yes, the Reformers built upon the past, but, nevertheless, in Scotland becoming the very first country in the entire world to have the scary aim of everybody learning to read, the Reformation in Scotland was a revolutionary break with all past societies. Of course some protestant aristocrats later back-tracked on the aim. Of course they found reasons for not pushing ahead faster. But they could never quite undo that unique declared aim. | chicmac wrote: | | We are in agreement I think. |
We are in agreement that support for mass education was a politically astute move. Probably for SOME of its supporters, particularly the more reluctant protestant Lords, that may have been all it was. But you do at least appear to be underestimating the extent to which, for the more dedicated Reformers (and that doesn't just mean Knox) mass education wasn't just a tactic, but something they whole-heartedly believed in. Yes, there was an element of self-interest, but not quite in the way that you might think. Look at it from their point of view. THEY had read the Bible. They had seen, in black and white, the clear instruction that they had to go out and preach the Gospel to all the world. They knew the Book of Revelations said only a small minority would be saved, but they couldn't afford to make any assumptions about who these would, or would not, be. That was up to the grace of God. John Knox said that when he got to Heaven, he expected to be VERY surprised by some of the faces he would see there. He also expected to be VERY surprised by some of the faces he did NOT see there. But the biggest surprise of all would be to find himself, John Knox, there. The Reformers knew that if they didn't obey the instruction to preach to all the world, then THEY were damned. But in order for people to believe, they had to know what they believed. And that meant they had to study the Bible. And that meant they had to be able to read. Therefore, for the sake of their OWN salvation, the Reformers had to seek to ensure everybody could read the Bible. |
Well here we part company. I well understand the argument of wanting the people to be able to read scripture for themselves. However, in order for this to be the agency which brought about particularly highl levels of literacy in Scotland you will need to establish what was different about the Scottish reformation than say that of the Swiss or Dutch. Did Swiss and Dutch reformers etc. value literacy any less? If so, why?
Scotland had the highest literacy figures in Europe for centuries before the rest caught up.
I don't want to get into a theological debate, because I neither believe that is what makes the difference between Scotland and elsewhere nor do I believe there was anything like a uniform view in any rate, here or elsewhere.
Despite conventional wisdom decreeing Scotland to be Calvinist, very few people other than Calvin himself, even in Switzerland never mind Scotland, believed in bringing back the double predestination of Augustine.
Calvinism in its various forms did push forward the cause of literacy everywhere it took hold, no doubt about that, but I repeat, what we are talking about here is the exceptional case of Scotland.
Calvinism, or something like it, was at least temporarily necessary to allow Christian ethics and the new merchant class and its embryonic capitalism to co-exist (until alternative secular conciliators came forth in the Enlightenment).
My view remains, that like the popularity of democratising the church by the creation of presbyteries the popularity of education was simply something a movement without top down establishment support would naturally latch on to.
The new ethnicity required by capitalism, e.g. profit fixation, removal of usury, ensured the middle-class support,
|
Dave Coull
|
I wrote | Quote: | | I posted two articles from the Times here. One of them was Tom Devine's article, which I posted under the "HISTORY" heading. The other one was about Tom Devine's article, and, because that contained news relating to the current controversy over commemorating the anniversary of the Reformation, I put it under "Scottish News, Life, and Society". But, so far, the discussion under this heading has been mainly historical, and, if it continues as such, rather than about the anniversary debate, I would suggest moving it to the "History" section. |
Since writing that, the discussion has continued to be purely historical, rather than about the current controversy over commemorating the anniversary, so I'm taking unilateral action in shifting to the "History" section. My reply to Chicmac's latest contribution can be found in the History section under the heading "The Reformation according to Tom Devine".
|
chicmac
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | I wrote | Quote: | | I posted two articles from the Times here. One of them was Tom Devine's article, which I posted under the "HISTORY" heading. The other one was about Tom Devine's article, and, because that contained news relating to the current controversy over commemorating the anniversary of the Reformation, I put it under "Scottish News, Life, and Society". But, so far, the discussion under this heading has been mainly historical, and, if it continues as such, rather than about the anniversary debate, I would suggest moving it to the "History" section. |
Since writing that, the discussion has continued to be purely historical, rather than about the current controversy over commemorating the anniversary, so I'm taking unilateral action in shifting to the "History" section. My reply to Chicmac's latest contribution can be found in the History section under the heading "The Reformation according to Tom Devine". |
Ma heid's hurtin'. OK I'll have a look.
|
Dave Coull
|
Angus Macleod, Scottish Political Editor of The Times, wrote | Quote: | | Scotland’s leading historian has challenged the doom-laden image of the Protestant Reformation’s influence on the country and says that, far from being negative, it was a key factor in the flowering of the Enlightenment. Professor Tom Devine makes the claim in an article in The Times marking the 450th anniversary of the Reformation in Scotland, so far largely unmarked. Opposition politicians say the Scottish Government appears to have ignored the anniversary. One Conservative MSP called on Alex Salmond, the First Minister, to act on Professor Devine’s article. |
Specifically on the current political controversy regarding marking the anniversary, I have mixed feelings. Yes OF COURSE if it was the 500th anniversary, there would be absolutely no question this had to be treated as a major landmark. But the 450th? Aye, maybe.
Marking significant anniversaries can be a good thing, if it gets more folk genuinely interested in, and discussing about, our history, and what things we can learn from our history that might have some relevance to making us who we are today. But the emphasis should be on HISTORY , and not "Heritage", because heritage is so often a distortion of history. The yearly parades held in the more backward parts of Scotland to mark the anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne are one example (there are plenty of others) of the distorting effect of "Heritage". Both the Orangemen and the Celtic-scarf-wavers who protest against them are remarkably ignorant of the real history of that period. If there is to be public marking of the 450th anniversary of the Reformation in Scotland, then this should take the form of examining and debating what actually happened and why it is significant. Tom Devine has acted as a true historian in making a useful initial contribution to that public examining of what happened and its significance.
I hasten to add, what I have just written here is a comment on the PRESENT DAY political controversy regarding marking the anniversary, and on Tom Devine's intervention in this which is "news", and on certain things which are part of Scottish "life and society" even if we wish they weren't. Any comments relating specifically to the history should really be made in the History forum of Our Scotland, where you will find a heading "The Reformation according to Tom Devine".
|
|
|
|