Do you consider the Tudors medieval?

[bryceQ]

I've never thought of them in this period, I always consider them the early modern period (well Henry VII perhaps the last medieval monarch) but I hear people describe them as medieval?

It doesn't really matter, I'm just curious to other opinions.

So, majority adherence to medieval social values and superstition, such as witch hunts are part and parcel of the Renaissance? Along with an absolute monarchy with the head of state being also the head of the church- as in no actual humanist secular government whatsoever? Unlike say, the Republic of Venice?

Yes the scandalous French hood was brought as a fashion item, and England got the printing press but what was printed hey? The Italian humanist and Reformation books were largely banned in England, anyone trying to promulgate their ideas was often burned as an heretic by the Tudors. Printers were heavily regulated, censored and imprisoned.

The Renaissance was a bit more than a few fashions at court and ideas/books being introduced and then almost immediately banned.

I was taught Henry VIi was the first early modern King and seem to recall that changes made to the way the country was governed were part of this (? Star Chamber) but it was a while ago that I did my A levels and my memory is hazy!

Early modern.

'Renaissance' also covers this period (although more specifically from Henry VIIi)

Having studied both c16th venetian society and c16-c17th English history at graduate level I can tell you that English c16th society was more progressive than its venetian counterpart. The renaissance did indeed reach England during the tudors, Henry viii was very cultured and was very much the Renaissance King.

Whoever called Mary a vicious hag..she's been badly misaligned in popular history (thank you Elizabeth and puritan propaganda).

Re absolute rule..the foundations for constitutional monarchy were established during Elizabeth's reign...And actually both her & Mary strongly believed in ruling with the consent of Parliament. Charles I was the one who didn't.

Henry was progressive with many things but he would have his way, which was essentially why he broke with Rome (he effectively remained Catholic all his life, it was left to Edward & Elizabeth to change this: they were both raised protestant, & Edward was deeply puritanical) - and yes, I'm distilling a large topic here.

The effect of the dissolution of the monasteries also cannot be underestimated in England, it was a massive, radical sea-change of society and social culture and governance from top to bottom. Medieval society in England was very clearly defined by the relationship between the Church & the State, and this obviously continued in Europe for longer than it did here.

The infamous witch hunts of the c16th actually came under Stuart rule (thank you, James).the rise of radical puritanism of the time actually saw a fair amount of social regression, if you wish to look at it that way. Only with the civil war did we see political power firmly taken by Parliament away from the monarch and the resulting decades eventually lead us up to the roots of the Enlightenment.

Science didn't really exist anywhere in Western Europe, but in many of the 'academic' studies and professions of the c16th, we see the beginning of scientific study and attitudes begin to form, which was markedly difference from the learning of the medieval period.

If you judge the tudors by lingering superstitions and "medieval" attitudes, as they been called here, then I assure you there was plenty of those in 16th century Europe as well.

Generally speaking, it's known as the Early Modern period in recognition of the fact that it was no longer medieval, but hadn't yet advanced to the extent it did 100-200 years later. In the arts, humanities, politics, global georgraphy, religion and yes, even in what would become the sciences, the 16thc saw the birth of today's modern society.

Thank you @StBrides , You have added context and explanation.

When I did a degree in Modern History the period under study was from 1492 to the present.

So the Tudors were most definitely not considered medieval.

😄😄 I think 'medieval' feast is an especially elastic definition.

Thanks for the background @StBrides. That was very interesting. I was once told that most historians preferred terms like Middle Ages, Early Modern etc because they are more specific in terms of dates and are more neutral than 'medieval' which a lot of people use to refer to 'backward' ideas and beliefs.

I like considering the Tudors medieval because it allows me to push my boundaries as a late medievalist. I think there's good reason to think about the period from about 1370-1603 as a block (which doesn't mean you can't also think about, say, 1066-1485 as a block). In terms of what's happening in literature and culture and religion, I think that period feels cohesive, and if you want to trace movements such as the growing interest in lay literacy and religious reading matter, it's helpful not to stop at 1485. In the same way, I feel as if Henry VIII's style of kingship, and perception of England's place in the world, has more in common with Edward III than it does with James VI/I - and certainly more in common with Edward than with Charles II. Once you get past the Civil War it's a really different world IMO. So using 'early modern,' which can run from 1485 into the seventeenth century, can obscure those continuities.

I also have vested interests in not breaking the period boundary at 1485 because IMO it tends to obscure the importance of medieval developments in science and medicine.

<waves at @SarahAndQuack >

Oh that’s interesting, I hadn’t thought of it like that. Of course we all think in periods, reigns etc but history isn’t really in buckets like that, any more than millennials and Gen Xers etc.

The Andrew Marr History of the World I am reading is good for seeing what is happening at the same time as what in different parts of the world.

This is all a bit upside-down - where did you get these ideas? Printers were regulated, but not especially harshly — England was not particularly repressive compared to the Continent. Italian humanist books weren’t burned - Tudor courtiers were translating them and circulating them for the monarchs to read. Elizabeth was a reasonably accomplished Classical scholar. And the Renaissance is traditionally thought of as a cultural rebirth, particularly in the revival of Classical texts, art, music, philosophy and literature, rather than an adherence to any specific political system (compare the many political systems of the early modern Continent - any thoughts on Italian politics of the time?)

@SarahAndQuack , Your points are like mine but you are a historian I am only starting to study the subject.
In my canter through the main topics I think of the Stuarts as an aberration, they went against the grain of English civil/political development. They had / were obsessed with the Divine Right of Monarchs and similar of the Pope. From Henry II, Magna Carta and various other changes Parliament The Courts and particularly the Exchequer were clipping little bits of power from the Monarch. Look at the trouble Elisabeth had getting money. She had to pay for the imprisonment of Mary from her own funds.
The Stupid Stuarts thought that these precedents did not apply to them. Eventually they got dumped.

Hi @SheilaFentiman! YY, I like the way we get to focus more on global history these days. It certainly puts things into perspective.

I agree with @asterel that England wasn't terribly repressive - medieval or early modern. It always delights me that one of the most notoriously 'restricted' medieval books - Wycliffe's English translation of the Bible - is also one of those that survives in the greatest numbers. Technically, you needed special permission to have a copy, but quite obviously a shit ton of people were happily reading it with absolutely no thought that it might smack of heresy or disobedience to the Church. But one thing the Tudor Reformers were excellent at was caricaturing the medieval period as backwards, superstitious and horribly Catholic. That stereotype never seems to die.

There were also a lot of English thinkers in the period who were happily setting out the grounds for the political and scientific developments of the seventeenth century, such as Thomas More and Francis Bacon; and a flowering of Italian-influenced music, eg by Tallis, that would go on to shape the early Baroque, including Handel and Purcell. Shakespeare was himself a lot more learned in the classics than Ben Jonson portrayed him as. By no means could you consider a play like The Tempest medieval!

Shakespeare was himself a lot more learned in the classics than Ben Jonson portrayed him as. By no means could you consider a play like The Tempest medieval!

Do you think? I'm curious why 'learned in the classics' is set in opposition to 'medieval'? I can see the case for saying The Tempest isn't Shakespeare's most medieval play (maybe Pericles?). But it's not totally divorced from the medieval tradition, is it? You can draw a line from Noah in the Cycle plays to the shipwrecks in the Tempest; you can also see the influence of medieval romances on the plot (and perhaps especially Miranda).

I don't know a lot about history (which may well becoem apparent from this post) but for me the medieval period is the middle ages. I would class this as like the 1200s to late 1400s. Off to Google now to see if I'm anywhere close 😂

If anything, I’d say Pericles highlights the intended difference between the Gower chorus (almost certainly not written by S.), and the rest of the play’s odd collusion between classicism and the fashions of early modern stage. Of course S drew upon medieval forms and traditions; but the sensibility and style of the early modern stage is still v different to that of the mystery cycles. And whilst it’s not remotely the case that medieval writers weren’t drawing upon classical Latin, Greek philosophy through that, and Italian philosophy etc., and the divisions between periods much less acute that used to be understood, the canonical conception of the European Renaissance has been an increased interest in reviving classical forms, particularly pastoral, tragic drama, a vernacular Latin scholarship and so on. (Jonson deliberately understates Shakespeare’s knowledge of Latin, for example, partly for his own purposes, but one might conclude that S is generally more interested in Seneca than the mystery cycles, though I agree that he is also intensely interested in the romance tradition in the late works especially).

If we’re talking about a pp who said the English were effectively “medieval” until Charles I; then I think it’s reasonably uncontroversial to say that in England the sensibility of, say, 1550 or 1600 — elite or popular — is broadly closer to that of 1625 (or even 1700) than it is to 1400 or 1200. I think many people tend to assume that “medieval” is simply an undifferentiated mass of wimples and castles, with no internal history of its own!

Ironically, I might chance my arm on saying that Shakespeare’s Henry VIII - or what he might have written of what we have of it — is probably the play that’s stylistically closest to the mystery plays!

I cant believe all the crazy opinions on here! There’s no opinion to be had. The Tudors are not medieval. The Tudor period is a period of history in itself, part of the wider Early Modern Period.
This is the way English history is categorised by historians.

This is the way English history is categorised by historians.

Does this mean it should not be challenged? Will it change?

I wasn't so much thinking of Gower with Pericles, but rather the way the play is so closely related to the Digby Mary Magdalene and its cognate medieval versions.

I'm aware of the old-fashioned (I think, rather than canonical?) theory of the Renaissance, but I definitely belong on the side of those who take it with a big pinch of salt. What would you say is the sensibility and style of the early modern stage? I mean, what makes it so coherently different, do you reckon?

I think I'm struggling with 'sensibility' as a concept anyway. Maybe I'm just boringly reluctant to generalise (otherwise known as being a professional hair-splitter), but I don't think I believe periods have 'a' sensibility.

Absolutely take your point about the wimples and castles view, though!

There is a formula for calculating the number of opinions on the dating of historical periods, from the number of historians in the room, and I do believe it shows that the number of opinions grows in exponential relation to the number of historians.

@Janinejones there’s definitely no credible challenge on here but by all means debate. However, better stick to thought out arguments rather than the ‘I consider’, ‘I assume’, ‘I feel’ fancies that some posters are responding with

Is there a need to be this aggressive? It's so lovely when there are new threads in this section, and I think most of us are just enjoying having a chat about it all.

I didn’t think I was aggressive, so apologies if it came across as that, I will leave you to your conversation

Early Modern period.