Lucy Moffat Kaufman’s A People’s Reformation: Building the English Church in the Elizabethan Parish presents a new perspective on the roles of local parishes and their members as contributing agents to the English Reformation.
To make her case, she challenges the traditional historiography that portrays the English Reformation as a top-down process, in which the church and the Crown impose the theology of the Thirty-Nine Articles with “an iron fist,” demanding “strict conformity.” She maintains that these histories ignore social history and the essential role of people at the grassroots level in establishing the Reformation in England.
Instead of the top-down history, Kaufman seeks to present a unique perspective on the symbiotic relationships between the Crown and the People. She states that her book argues that the Reformation was mandated by the state but built by its people (p. 22). She further maintains that “Only by joining together these two disparate historiographies can we begin to approach an understanding of this fundamental shift in English society” (p. 16). In other words, Kaufman maintains that this new reformed church was built both from the top down and the bottom up (p. 18).
However, her efforts to balance the state’s and the people’s roles are in stark tension throughout the book. Her dilemma is twofold. First, how to counter the top-down authority in traditional history, and second, how far she can push the boundaries to support the people’s agency and impact on the English Reformation.
Before addressing how she supported her thesis, let’s first examine some of the book’s methods and sources. Kaufman organized her book in a traditional topical or thematic structure, focusing on specific subjects rather than presenting a chronological narrative. Her thematic approach is well-suited to in-depth analysis of the social and political trends she examines.
Her topics are presented as individual chapters. In the chapter “Bounding,” she examines identification and visitation in the parish. In the chapter “Policing,” she explores the growth of the churchwardens’ power. In the chapter on “Funding,” she examines the parish’s finances. In “Taxing,” she explores the administration of tithes in the parish. Finally, in “Receiving,” she looks at the practices surrounding the sacraments, particularly communion.
In researching each of these themes, Kaufman relies heavily on primary sources. Accordingly, given her focus, she maintains that “As much as possible, I have tried to draw from primary source materials across the country” (p. 295). The vast majority of the archival and printed material is contemporary with the period covered.
Kaufman limits her use of secondary sources. She notes that most histories have examined the parliamentary and ecclesiastical elite while ignoring the experiences of the broader population. She also questions the usefulness of social histories, arguing that they often sideline religion (p. 15).
With this background, let’s first examine how Kaufman responded to traditional historiographical views of the English Reformation.
When she comments on the modern historical record, she often treats it as a straw man and challenges its interpretation. In these instances, she does not name the historian; instead, she simply states that she disagrees with the historiography. This silencing of opposing views might be the weakest element of her book.
Several examples appear throughout the book. For example, regarding the historiographical record of churchwardens, she notes that they are unsatisfactory, writing, “While the figures of churchwardens are found scattered throughout the historiography of the Reformation . . . where it exists, tends to focus on its long history, emphasizing either its late-medieval origins or its seventeenth-century articulations” (p. 75 online).
Regarding parish buildings, she writes, the historiography makes dire claims, while “the archival evidence is quite startling. Where we might expect vast swathes of crumbling churches… contemporary accounts paint a far more vibrant and robust picture” (p. 113 online).
When discussing the economic health of an Elizabethan parish, she notes that “Despite the… gloomy perspective of modern historiography, the economic realities of the Elizabethan church were far from a disaster… On the whole, though, the church coped rather well” (p. 179).
Finally, in discussing excommunication, she argues that the “traditional historiographical position” says the discipline lacks enforcement. But Kaufman counters this view by simply stating that “more recent research has emphasized the efficacy of such sentences” (p. 233).
By fully disclosing and countering these alternative traditional histories, she might have strengthened her overall arguments in the book.
The second challenge Kaufman faced was advocating for the people’s role in the English Reformation without minimizing the state’s and the church’s obvious roles. Throughout her book, Kaufman worked hard to support her complementary thesis that both had a role in the Reformation. She attempts to maintain a careful balance, arguing that the people’s response to the Reformation was not primarily a top-down process driven by obedience to the Crown and the religious hierarchy, but also a bottom-up process reflecting the people’s willingness and active participation in the Reformation.
To achieve this, she carefully and consistently describes the joint role of the church and the people, for example, by writing, “despite the strict conformity demanded by the church and crown, the lived experiences and choices of the English people fundamentally shaped the English Reformation” (p. 5).
Clearly, the Crown launched the English Reformation, but to underscore the people’s role, she notes the duration of the change. She says, “The transformation of the parish took years, even decades, to put into place. Change trickled in over time” (p. 245). This longer view of history provides more strength to the later involvement of the parish.
Another example of this historical balancing act appears in her discussion of churchwardens. She acknowledges that the role and many of its responsibilities had existed for a long time, noting “To be sure, the pre-Reformation model of churchwardens had included some degree of moral regulation” (p. 59) and “By the time of the Henrician Reformation, churchwardens had been overseeing the parish for 275 years” (p. 54). However, she argues that by the 1550s the office was fully vested with the power and the requirement to report moral disorder, stating, “Wardens were no longer to be mere administrative, but also arbiters of discipline.” Furthermore, by 1571, the Church’s Canons even required churchwardens to regulate the clergy (pp. 58-59).
When it comes to parish finances, we again see the need for balance and the interplay between the authority of the state and the participation of the parish. Kaufman notes that “The central authority issues requirements and polices compliance, but the operations of parish finance were dominated by the decisions and needs of the individual parishes” (p. 133).
Finally, Kaufman points to the Ecclesiastica Census of 1603, which highlighted the extent of most citizens’ compliance with the Reformation’s communion requirements. Communion was perhaps the most sensitive and significant theological issue. The Census found that of the 2.25 million parishioners included, only 8,500 were listed as recusants (p. 219). These findings would certainly affirm the people’s full compliance with the English Reformation, but they also represent data nearly half a century after the beginning of this transformation.
Stepping back from these two challenges, it is likely that the book would have been strengthened by directly giving voice to the traditional historiographical views and challenging their conclusions. When it came to supporting the dual roles of the state and the people, she avoided overstating the people’s role and struck the balance necessary to make her case credible and acceptable.