The Parish Church was the primary site of religious practice throughout the early modern period. This was particularly so for the silent majority of the English population; who conformed outwardly to the successive religious upheavals of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. What such public conformity might have meant has attracted less attention - and; ironically; is sometimes less well documented - than the non-conformity or semi-conformity of recusants; church-papists; Puritan conventiclers or separatists. In this volume; ten leading scholars of early modern religion explore the experience of parish worship in England during the Reformation and the century that followed it. As the contributors argue; parish worship in this period was of critical theological; cultural and even political importance. The volume's key themes are the interlocking importance of liturgy; music; the sermon and the parishioners' own bodies; the ways in which religious change was received; initiated; negotiated; embraced or subverted in local contexts; and the dialectic between practice and belief which helped to make both so contentious. The contributors - historians; historical theologians and literary scholars - through their commitment to an interdisciplinary approach to the subject; provide fruitful and revealing insights into this intersection of private and public worship. This collection is a sister volume to Martin and Ryrie (eds); Private and Domestic Devotion in Early Modern Britain. Together these two volumes focus and drive forward scholarship on the lived experience of early modern religion; as it was practised in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
#1911529 in Books Palgrave Macmillan 2007-06-26 2007-06-26Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 228.60 x 14.71 x 6.00l; .62 #File Name: 1403980721256 pages
Review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. "An apostle of freedom and a tireless agitator" p. 203By Eddie HutchinsonIf you are expecting this book to be about one speech given on or about one particular day - the Fourth of July - you are in for a surprise. Colaiaco has crafted an impressively comprehensive study on Frederick Douglass. The dissemination of the "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July" speech is the major arc but it is not the book's only appeal. To provide context; the author presents copious material on the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 and Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney's majority opinion on Dred Scott v. Sanford; both of which were major setbacks to the abolitionist movement but were not enough to deter Frederick Douglass. Colaiaco also provides a brief observation into the relationship between Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison and when and why their abolitionist strategies diverged. The intentions of the framers of the Constitution; other relevant Frederick Douglass speeches and Abraham Lincoln's role during this time are also analyzed and discussed here.I will mention that this book does not include the full "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July" speech. Although this can be easily overcome with a simple internet search; I believe it would be nice to have it included in the book as an appendix.1 of 2 people found the following review helpful. Very much worth a read; with one possible exception.By Mark D CSorry; though I admire Colaiaco for some things in this book; he repeats the myth that Lincoln cared about Union more than slavery.You hear that all the time; and you can point to several quotes from Lincoln to support it. I can understand why people get it wrong; but Colaiaco should know better.The entire idea of keeping the Union together (and Lincoln explained this repeatedly) was to end slavery. House Divided was expressly about this. Furthermore Lincoln's enemies; including Stephen A Douglas pointed this out repeatedly. Jefferson Davis and others piped in on this point too -- to say slavery had to end; or the Union had to end; was essentially a declaration of war. Just SAYING either the Union had to go; or slavery had to go; was cause slave rebellions said Texas newspapers. Richmond editor Edward Pollard essentially called Lincoln's position that slavery had to end; or the Union had to end; was a declaration of war.And you have to be unaware of Lincoln's full history; from 1846 on; how really radical Lincoln was regarding slavery. He stood up to Polk and accused him of causing the Mexican War to steal land to spread slavery -- then tried 40 times to stop slave owners from using the stolen land to spread slavery. Then Lincoln tried to get slavery outlawed in District of Columbia.Amazingly; even Frederick Douglass oration - this book is about the oration -- said Lincoln was "radical swift zealous and determined" for equality. Colaiaco knows that; I'm sure. And more; Douglass explained fully how Lincoln had to; in effect; pander to those who were not at all willing to end slavery. Douglass himself explained he was not bothered by statements "torn asunder" from their context about Lincoln. Douglas knew just what Lincoln was up against; and was after all; not a king. Lincoln had to bring the nation along -- most of whom would not walk across the street to end slavery at the outset.On the other hand; Colaiaco seems to be one of the few writers today who says bluntly -- and correctly -- that the Dred Scott decision delcared blacks are not human beings. Indeed; that is exactly what they not only declared; but the court ordered that blacks could not be seen as human beings; as persons. So Colaiaco deserves accolades for what should be common knowledge --Dred Scott was about whether blacks were human nor non -human; and decided they were not human. Elsewhere such "historians" as Eric Foner declared Dred Scott was "a rather narrow ruling " about citizenship!Few letters in US history are quoted as much as Lincoln's letter to Greeley; but read all of Lincoln's complete speeches; letters; and comments.Yes; you can find that letter where Lincoln tells Greeley that he was for the Union -- Colaiaco should know; as an "intellectual history" professor;what the situation was at that moment; and how Lincoln's letter kept Kentucky out of the Confederacy. Lincoln said if we lose Kentucky; we lose it all. And Lincoln knew what he was talking about. So yes; Lincoln wrote a letter; at a specific time; for a specific purpose; to mollify the folks in Kentucky; who he knew so well. Had Lincoln done anything else; the Civil War is over; slavery spreads as Southern leaders promised; and the "God of Slavery" boasted of by some in the South; would be vindicated.Lincoln's words were powerful -- and they worked. Should Lincoln have let men kill; and be killed; and let slavery continue; or should he write a letter emphasizing Union? The answer is easy - write the letter.Even then; read the letter very closely. Lincoln was a master at careful parsing of words -- you can take him any number of ways. He used that skill again and again -- the point is; he used those skills; and the power of the United States -- to end slavery. So maybe action are important?And Lincoln's FULL speeches -- thousands of them -- are about slavery and how when and why to end it. You can focus on one letter if you like; But that's not intellectually valid.6 of 6 people found the following review helpful. A reminder of both America's hopes and failuresBy viktor_57Americans; specifically the privileged citizens of the U.S.; have a wonderful capacity for naive self-congratulation--a collective fantasy that selectively recalls or imagines a burnished history filled with the noblest ideals of democracy; freedom; and equality in response to injustices received; while glossing over the many injustices given. Frederick Douglass understood this all too well in his excoriating Fourth of July speech "The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro" given in 1852. To Douglass; who opened his speech with due praise for the founders of the nation; the promise of the "fathers of the republic" made the then current enslavement of fellow humans all the more appalling; sad; and shameful:"What; to the American slave; is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals to him; more than all other days in the year; the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him; your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty; an unholy license; your national greatness; swelling vanity; your sound of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants brass fronted impudence; your shout of liberty and equality; hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns; your sermons and thanks-givings; with all your religious parade and solemnity; are to him; mere bombast; fraud; deception; impiety; and hypocrisy -- a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States; at this very hour."Professor Colaiaco uses the text of this speech and others by Douglass to explain the oratory; ideas; and history behind the rhetoric. Rather than follow a strict historical narrative; Colaiaco juxtaposes the ideals enshrined by the nation's founders with the rhetoric of Douglass's speeches; fleshing out Douglass's thoughts with biographical; historical; and intellectual context. The book actively relives the struggle to reconcile the lofty ideals of America's founding with the practical realities that both undermined and served those same ideals. That we continue these arguments to this day testifies to both the continuation of injustices and the adaptability of our system of government in addressing them.
