A great article! Many thanks. Quite apart from the differing views on the analysis of Three Waters, there are some very interesting issues about new media such as Substack vs old media, and the role of the media generally in covering contentious issues. All issues that were highly topical in Cranmer's day.
You are very welcome. Unfortunate that alternative media have to put Mainstream Media right. My PhD was on the printing press as a agent of change in law and legal culture in England 1475 - 1642. The disruption caused by print and the efforts of the establishment to counter that disruption and focus attention upon the "authorised version" occupies a whole chapter. Might be worth a synopsis on Substack. I have already (in another post) suggested that misinformation today is the new "seditious libel".
My academic writings deal with the transition from manuscript to print - "The Law Emprynted and Englysshed - The Printing Press as an Agent of Change in Law and Legal Culture 1475 - 1642" and the transition into the Digital Paradigm "Collisions in the Digital Paradigm - Law and Rulemaking in the Internet Age". Both studies dealt with the disruptive effects of a new technology and I developed an analytical framework that explains the problem. It seems that Mainstream Media (and the Government) is still struggling to come to terms with paradigmatic change
When I first met with “Cranmer’s Substack” and became acquainted with the highly intelligent, relentlessly logical and humane opinions of “Thomas Cranmer”, the pseudonym seemed really significant to me – more so, I’m sure, than if he had published his articles under his own name.
It is perfectly in order to write under a pseudonym – even if everybody knows who is behind the writings. Very particularly, I think, if the chosen pseudonym has a certain meaning - as in this case.
With this particular pseudonym Philip Crump shows us the principles he admires in human existence : Courage, even in the face of death; Free speech defending faith and convictions. His writings became more powerful because of that pseudonym. That is how it should be - because the message conveyed is far more important than the spreading of the name Philip Crump.
Thomas Cranmer, please continue “Cranmer’s Substack”!!
We so need Cranmer and you with articulate, accurate reports combating opinions and bought and paid for articles by so called mainstream media journalists...keep them coming!
Great piece. Nothing much has changed in 400 years - if you don't toe the prevailing "party line" you get chopped off; only the method has changed. But since, as you point out, Cranmer's writings are evidence-based, the only place his detractors have to go is to attempt to use innuendo and slurs. Which will cause unintended consequences - for them.
A most instructive and enjoyable piece. Thank you Halfling. Christchurch of course remembers the historic Cranmer with its Cranmer Square. ‘Though in my schooldays there the focus was on the fact that it was then the site of private school for girls.
I enjoyed this piece and found it very encouraging and strangely liberating. The bit about Cranmer in 1556 recanting his beliefs to align with the power of the day in order to save his life and then losing it in spite of agreeing to compromise his beliefs is quite relevant for today, when you think about our 'mainstream media'. Well I hope so.
The whole history of dealing with religious dissent in those days is horrifying to our 21st Century sensibilities. There were a whole lot of elements that sat behind dealing with contrary speech. I have outlined them in earlier posts.
I read many of the contemporary accounts when I was researching my thesis. Foxe's "Book of Martyrs" is the real go to piece although it is strongly skewed against the Catholics.
What is truly remarkable is the poise with whioch the martyrs met their fate. Thomas More was one who comes to mind (and he was not the glorious Renaissance man of "A Man for All Seasons" but was a Catholic fanatic. There was no way that he was going to acknowledge Henry VIII as the true and only Head of the Church. But he, like Charles 1 and Mary Queen of Scots knew and undertsood the importance of the exit.
Latimer and Ridley were two of Mary I's three targets (Cranmer was the third) and were dealt with speedily after trial. Latimer said to Ridley (as the fire was lit)
"Play the man, Master Ridley; we shall this day light such a candle, by God's grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out."
Cranmer vacillated but showed courage at the end, thrusting the hand that had signed his recantation into the flames
A great article! Many thanks. Quite apart from the differing views on the analysis of Three Waters, there are some very interesting issues about new media such as Substack vs old media, and the role of the media generally in covering contentious issues. All issues that were highly topical in Cranmer's day.
You are very welcome. Unfortunate that alternative media have to put Mainstream Media right. My PhD was on the printing press as a agent of change in law and legal culture in England 1475 - 1642. The disruption caused by print and the efforts of the establishment to counter that disruption and focus attention upon the "authorised version" occupies a whole chapter. Might be worth a synopsis on Substack. I have already (in another post) suggested that misinformation today is the new "seditious libel".
Was talking to Melanie Reid from Newsroom about new media platforms such as Substack this morning… you two should connect…
I would welcome an approach from Melanie.
My academic writings deal with the transition from manuscript to print - "The Law Emprynted and Englysshed - The Printing Press as an Agent of Change in Law and Legal Culture 1475 - 1642" and the transition into the Digital Paradigm "Collisions in the Digital Paradigm - Law and Rulemaking in the Internet Age". Both studies dealt with the disruptive effects of a new technology and I developed an analytical framework that explains the problem. It seems that Mainstream Media (and the Government) is still struggling to come to terms with paradigmatic change
Who is Cranmer?
When I first met with “Cranmer’s Substack” and became acquainted with the highly intelligent, relentlessly logical and humane opinions of “Thomas Cranmer”, the pseudonym seemed really significant to me – more so, I’m sure, than if he had published his articles under his own name.
It is perfectly in order to write under a pseudonym – even if everybody knows who is behind the writings. Very particularly, I think, if the chosen pseudonym has a certain meaning - as in this case.
With this particular pseudonym Philip Crump shows us the principles he admires in human existence : Courage, even in the face of death; Free speech defending faith and convictions. His writings became more powerful because of that pseudonym. That is how it should be - because the message conveyed is far more important than the spreading of the name Philip Crump.
Thomas Cranmer, please continue “Cranmer’s Substack”!!
Well said - which is why I maintained his nom de plume
We so need Cranmer and you with articulate, accurate reports combating opinions and bought and paid for articles by so called mainstream media journalists...keep them coming!
Thank you. For myself, I shall do my best. There are a few stories in the pipeline
Great piece. Nothing much has changed in 400 years - if you don't toe the prevailing "party line" you get chopped off; only the method has changed. But since, as you point out, Cranmer's writings are evidence-based, the only place his detractors have to go is to attempt to use innuendo and slurs. Which will cause unintended consequences - for them.
A most instructive and enjoyable piece. Thank you Halfling. Christchurch of course remembers the historic Cranmer with its Cranmer Square. ‘Though in my schooldays there the focus was on the fact that it was then the site of private school for girls.
I enjoyed this piece and found it very encouraging and strangely liberating. The bit about Cranmer in 1556 recanting his beliefs to align with the power of the day in order to save his life and then losing it in spite of agreeing to compromise his beliefs is quite relevant for today, when you think about our 'mainstream media'. Well I hope so.
Pamela
The whole history of dealing with religious dissent in those days is horrifying to our 21st Century sensibilities. There were a whole lot of elements that sat behind dealing with contrary speech. I have outlined them in earlier posts.
I read many of the contemporary accounts when I was researching my thesis. Foxe's "Book of Martyrs" is the real go to piece although it is strongly skewed against the Catholics.
What is truly remarkable is the poise with whioch the martyrs met their fate. Thomas More was one who comes to mind (and he was not the glorious Renaissance man of "A Man for All Seasons" but was a Catholic fanatic. There was no way that he was going to acknowledge Henry VIII as the true and only Head of the Church. But he, like Charles 1 and Mary Queen of Scots knew and undertsood the importance of the exit.
Latimer and Ridley were two of Mary I's three targets (Cranmer was the third) and were dealt with speedily after trial. Latimer said to Ridley (as the fire was lit)
"Play the man, Master Ridley; we shall this day light such a candle, by God's grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out."
Cranmer vacillated but showed courage at the end, thrusting the hand that had signed his recantation into the flames
Yes, thank you.
Oh for the courage of Cranmer the martyr to stand up to the new religion taking off in NZ and not cave in.
Excellent. Look forward to them.
Well said.