On The Second Day of Christmas I Dispelled a Persistent Rumor...
Happy Second Day of Christmas!
I attended a Lessons and Carols service at mom's Episcopal church this morning. They sang a couple of favorites, including "What Child is This," which is set to the tune of "Greensleeves," a Medieval romantic ballad that many attribute to Henry VIII. (Though it would have been more fitting if he had written "Redcollar" or something, given his predilection for beheadings.)
Someone told me that the words to that annoyingly repetitive carol "The Twelve Days of Christmas" were actually a code for Catholics to preserve the tenets of their faith once England became a Protestant land. (And by the way, nothing annoys my people more than the claim that the Anglican Church was founded so that Henry VIII could get a divorce. Yes, Henry split from Rome, but he considered himself Catholic unto death and two of his heirs, Elizabeth I and Edward, had to hide their Protestant leanings. It was Elizabeth who truly established the Church of England much as we know it today, and who abolished the "old ways" of Catholicism.)
At any rate, the rumor-debunking site Snopes disputes the popular notion that "The Twelve Days of Christmas" is a catechism song in which, for example, "four calling birds" represent the four Gospels. Snopes points out that Catholics and Anglicans agreed on virtually every tenet supposedly represented by the gifts in the song, so there would be no need to encode these things orally, nor were all Catholics completely banned from writing about their faith.
It's too bad, really, as this is a claim worthy of a Dan Brown-type conspiracy. Can't you just see the dashing Professor Langdon hunting down turtle doves and pipers piping to unravel their secrets?
I attended a Lessons and Carols service at mom's Episcopal church this morning. They sang a couple of favorites, including "What Child is This," which is set to the tune of "Greensleeves," a Medieval romantic ballad that many attribute to Henry VIII. (Though it would have been more fitting if he had written "Redcollar" or something, given his predilection for beheadings.)
Someone told me that the words to that annoyingly repetitive carol "The Twelve Days of Christmas" were actually a code for Catholics to preserve the tenets of their faith once England became a Protestant land. (And by the way, nothing annoys my people more than the claim that the Anglican Church was founded so that Henry VIII could get a divorce. Yes, Henry split from Rome, but he considered himself Catholic unto death and two of his heirs, Elizabeth I and Edward, had to hide their Protestant leanings. It was Elizabeth who truly established the Church of England much as we know it today, and who abolished the "old ways" of Catholicism.)
At any rate, the rumor-debunking site Snopes disputes the popular notion that "The Twelve Days of Christmas" is a catechism song in which, for example, "four calling birds" represent the four Gospels. Snopes points out that Catholics and Anglicans agreed on virtually every tenet supposedly represented by the gifts in the song, so there would be no need to encode these things orally, nor were all Catholics completely banned from writing about their faith.
It's too bad, really, as this is a claim worthy of a Dan Brown-type conspiracy. Can't you just see the dashing Professor Langdon hunting down turtle doves and pipers piping to unravel their secrets?
posted by The Tailored Woman at Sunday, December 27, 2009
5 Comments:
Well, Henry didn't want a divorce, he wanted an anullment.
And it really depends on what you mean by the Church of England, its authority or its theology, and how big a picture you want to contemplate.
In the small picture, it was certainly Henry who founded the church, and it was certainly to secure the legitimacy of his line and prevent the nation from dissolving back into civil war.
But in the slightly larger picture it was also cerainly Elizabeth who turned this schizmatic catholic entity into a reformed church.
However in the much larger picture the reformation has to be considered seen not just as a new religious movement but as the final divorce, or anullment, of a 700-year political relationship that never really worked: the attempt of Rome to marry (the metaphor is kind to the Church's intentions) its ancient mediterranean authority to the vigorous military societies of Northern Europe.
So the unanswerable question of the reformation is: Did Northern Europe break from Rome to reject its teaching, or did it reject the teaching in order to be free from Rome? At least in England's case we know which came first, but that probably isn't so important.
The Anglicans I talked to about this don't really like to speak about Henry at all, preferring to stress the continuity of the church from a founding dated in the fourth century or so.(trying not to mention the Irish taught them everything they know...) They see the reformation as just a little twist in their most treasured tradition, an unbroken apostolic succession.
To me that represents the conflicted nature of the English Church, with its highs and lows and so forth. They seem to want to eat their wafer and have it too.
I know this isn't really a literary blog anymore but I recommend "The Conversion Of the Barbarians" by Richard Fletcher, a witty and eye-opening history of the Christianization of Northern Europe.
About the 12 days: you're right, the song was not a Catholic code, although such things existed. So while the C of E still needs to answer for its role in some three centuries of oppression of Catholics in England and the attempted genocide of the Irish, you're clean on the carol.
Finally Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, and, I think, a belated happy birthday or two from your devoted reader,
Hugh Monqui
Oh, um, "anullment" is the catholic spelling...
HM
Welcome back, Monsieur Monqui! Thanks as always for setting me straight. (I won't make any retaliatory comments about what the One True Church owes to, for example, generations of oppressed women...)
You would be preaching to the choir. In my latest incarnation as a political/religous radical teacher I wail about the sexism/homophobia/elitism of "institutional christianity" (the vague phrase intended to at least extend if not preserve my employment by the OTC) and advocate female ordination. What is that Fitzgerald quote you find so over-used?
H.M.
P.S. Another recommended book, perhaps for the sire of the Tailored Woman: "Reason, Faith and Revolution" by Terry Eagleton. A brilliant and funny refutation of the pop atheism of Hitchens and Dawkins, and an argument for the role of Christianity in a progressive society.
Eagelton, a radical marxist, is my new Guru. I've been shopping for one since Kesey and Thompson died.
PPS When are you gonna get spell check on this thing?
1 - I don't know what happened to Blogger's spell check but it's most annoying.
2 - Familiar with Eagleton's book Marxism and Literary Criticism, which was (obviously) quite popular at Sarah Lawrence; interesting that he defends Christianity. Who knew?
3 - "There are no second acts in American lives" is attributed to Fitzgerald and trotted out in every hackneyed magazine profile, but the quote does not appear in any published work and was apparently just a note for his final (unfinished) novel, The Last Tycoon. Hmm, you may have given me an idea for a blog post...
Post a Comment
<< Home