Trent and All That: Renaming Catholicism in the Early Modern Era

Rating:
Summary: Naming Catholicism in the Era of Reform
Review: By what label should historians refer to the "Catholic side" during the era of the Protestant Reformation? In John O'Malley's, Trent and All That: Renaming Catholicism in The Early Modern Era, the reader is introduced to the complexities surrounding the nomenclature of distinct historical era's, and more specifically, to the problem of naming the Catholicism of the late medieval/early modern era. Throughout the work, the author argues that terms are not neutral; they invite investigation in certain directions but they also direct attention away from other avenues of inquiry. In other words, they filter and exclude just as much as they allegedly describe. O'Malley proposes a three-fold solution to this taxonomic dilemma: 1) a welcome acceptance of the multiplicity of names that have arisen as positive descriptors of the era; 2) a more careful reflection in the employment of these terms by historians; and 3) the addition of "Early Modern Catholicism" as a more comprehensive designation than the others. He attempts to persuade the reader to accept his proposal principally by tracing the history of the various terms for the Catholic side, and indeed this review of the naming process constitutes the vast majority of the book.

The book begins with a survey of the semantic landscape of the term "reform." O'Malley argues that the term "reform" has a rich Catholic tradition that antedates the Protestant Reformation by approximately 500 years. In spite of the Catholic heritage of this term (and it's close association with an emphasis on the centrality of canon law), O'Malley argues that with the passage of time, the word "reform/reformation" came to be appropriated by Protestants and given a new sense (particularly since they divorced the term from any connection with canon law). By the late 17th century (especially in Germany) the term "Reformation" was firmly established in Protestant historiographical vocabulary as a distinct historical epoch and, as a term, it was equated with Protestantism. Following closely was the emergence of a dependent concept - that of "Counter-Reformation," which was equated with the Anti-Reformation efforts of the Roman Catholic Church. When these terms were used by Protestants, they were freighted with many assumptions and biases that were overtly hostile to the Catholic communion (particularly the assumption that the late medieval church was utterly and thoroughly corrupt and that there could be no genuine reform except Protestant Reform).

It was in this context that Roman Catholic scholar Hubert Jedin published his seminal essay in 1946 entitled "Catholic Reformation or Counter Reformation?" Jedin's influential essay argued for the legitimacy of the term Catholic Reform together with the term "Counter Reformation," although when he used this term it reflected a primarily defensive Catholic posture against the "Protestant attack." The tension that Jedin struggled with, however, was how to properly apply the term "reform" to the Catholic Church of the 16th century while still emphasizing the strong continuity with the past that was the hallmark of 16th century Catholicism.

Although Jedin's stature as a scholar of international prominence gained the nomenclature of Catholicism during the Reformation a new hearing, his proposal concerning the utility of "Catholic Reform and Counter-Reform" ultimately failed to gain international currency for a number of reasons that O'Malley highlights. Since Jedin's proposal failed to gain ascendancy, new terms were proposed which began to compete for acceptance. An emphasis (particularly in the French academy) on the importance of the study of the history of practicing Christians, and away from the history of great men and institutions led to the prominent emergence of the "social history" of Christianity, and new terms which reflected this wider perception of reality. As a result of the favorable acceptance of the category of "social disciplining" as an effective tool of historical analysis, the term "Confessional Age" has been slowly supplanting (in France and Germany at least) what has traditionally been otherwise referred to as the "Age of Counter Reform."

This is a well-written book that concisely states the problem of historical nomenclature especially as it relates to naming Catholicism during the Reformation. O'Malley is correct in noting that the prevalent terms that have gained international currency have, in fact, been conditioned by the religious and secular worldviews of the historians' who proposed them - that is, they are not neutral. Because each of the terms examined incompletely describe the greater reality of Catholicism, O'Malley seems correct in commending them each as proper referents for Catholicism of the Reform era, provided that historians heed his call to be self-conscious in their employment of them.
A difficulty with his proposal, however, involves the new term (Early Modern Catholicism) that he has proposed as another term to consider in this discussion. To begin with, O'Malley argues that he is not suggesting that this term replace the other terms. Rather, he states, it is intended to serve a complementary role. Yet the fact that he suggests that this term should serve as a more comprehensive term for the Catholicism of the era (indeed it invites the other terms under its own "umbrella") may belie a more ambitious agenda. If "Early Modern Catholicism" becomes the comprehensive umbrella term which denotes the broader reality of the Catholicism of the Reform era, presumably this name will head the titles of all subsequent literature, and if this is the case, it is difficult to see how this term is not being offered as a replacement for the other competing terms. In what sense will these other terms have currency if O'Malley's proposal is adopted? Further, As O'Malley himself has argued - terms filter, exclude, and direct attention away from certain avenues of inquiry. What does "Catholicism of the Early Modern Era" direct attention away from? In the mind of this reviewer, it (improperly) directs attention away from the significant definitional impact the Protestant Reformation had on the Catholicism of this era. In the final analysis, O'Malley may have some more work ahead of him if he is to convince some readers of the ultimate utility of his alternate term.

Rating:
Summary: Naming Catholicism in the Era of Reform
Review: By what label should historians refer to the "Catholic side" during the era of the Protestant Reformation? In John O'Malley's, Trent and All That: Renaming Catholicism in The Early Modern Era, the reader is introduced to the complexities surrounding the nomenclature of distinct historical era's, and more specifically, to the problem of naming the Catholicism of the late medieval/early modern era. Throughout the work, the author argues that terms are not neutral; they invite investigation in certain directions but they also direct attention away from other avenues of inquiry. In other words, they filter and exclude just as much as they allegedly describe. O'Malley proposes a three-fold solution to this taxonomic dilemma: 1) a welcome acceptance of the multiplicity of names that have arisen as positive descriptors of the era; 2) a more careful reflection in the employment of these terms by historians; and 3) the addition of "Early Modern Catholicism" as a more comprehensive designation than the others. He attempts to persuade the reader to accept his proposal principally by tracing the history of the various terms for the Catholic side, and indeed this review of the naming process constitutes the vast majority of the book.

The book begins with a survey of the semantic landscape of the term "reform." O'Malley argues that the term "reform" has a rich Catholic tradition that antedates the Protestant Reformation by approximately 500 years. In spite of the Catholic heritage of this term (and it's close association with an emphasis on the centrality of canon law), O'Malley argues that with the passage of time, the word "reform/reformation" came to be appropriated by Protestants and given a new sense (particularly since they divorced the term from any connection with canon law). By the late 17th century (especially in Germany) the term "Reformation" was firmly established in Protestant historiographical vocabulary as a distinct historical epoch and, as a term, it was equated with Protestantism. Following closely was the emergence of a dependent concept - that of "Counter-Reformation," which was equated with the Anti-Reformation efforts of the Roman Catholic Church. When these terms were used by Protestants, they were freighted with many assumptions and biases that were overtly hostile to the Catholic communion (particularly the assumption that the late medieval church was utterly and thoroughly corrupt and that there could be no genuine reform except Protestant Reform).

It was in this context that Roman Catholic scholar Hubert Jedin published his seminal essay in 1946 entitled "Catholic Reformation or Counter Reformation?" Jedin's influential essay argued for the legitimacy of the term Catholic Reform together with the term "Counter Reformation," although when he used this term it reflected a primarily defensive Catholic posture against the "Protestant attack." The tension that Jedin struggled with, however, was how to properly apply the term "reform" to the Catholic Church of the 16th century while still emphasizing the strong continuity with the past that was the hallmark of 16th century Catholicism.

Although Jedin's stature as a scholar of international prominence gained the nomenclature of Catholicism during the Reformation a new hearing, his proposal concerning the utility of "Catholic Reform and Counter-Reform" ultimately failed to gain international currency for a number of reasons that O'Malley highlights. Since Jedin's proposal failed to gain ascendancy, new terms were proposed which began to compete for acceptance. An emphasis (particularly in the French academy) on the importance of the study of the history of practicing Christians, and away from the history of great men and institutions led to the prominent emergence of the "social history" of Christianity, and new terms which reflected this wider perception of reality. As a result of the favorable acceptance of the category of "social disciplining" as an effective tool of historical analysis, the term "Confessional Age" has been slowly supplanting (in France and Germany at least) what has traditionally been otherwise referred to as the "Age of Counter Reform."

This is a well-written book that concisely states the problem of historical nomenclature especially as it relates to naming Catholicism during the Reformation. O'Malley is correct in noting that the prevalent terms that have gained international currency have, in fact, been conditioned by the religious and secular worldviews of the historians' who proposed them - that is, they are not neutral. Because each of the terms examined incompletely describe the greater reality of Catholicism, O'Malley seems correct in commending them each as proper referents for Catholicism of the Reform era, provided that historians heed his call to be self-conscious in their employment of them.
A difficulty with his proposal, however, involves the new term (Early Modern Catholicism) that he has proposed as another term to consider in this discussion. To begin with, O'Malley argues that he is not suggesting that this term replace the other terms. Rather, he states, it is intended to serve a complementary role. Yet the fact that he suggests that this term should serve as a more comprehensive term for the Catholicism of the era (indeed it invites the other terms under its own "umbrella") may belie a more ambitious agenda. If "Early Modern Catholicism" becomes the comprehensive umbrella term which denotes the broader reality of the Catholicism of the Reform era, presumably this name will head the titles of all subsequent literature, and if this is the case, it is difficult to see how this term is not being offered as a replacement for the other competing terms. In what sense will these other terms have currency if O'Malley's proposal is adopted? Further, As O'Malley himself has argued - terms filter, exclude, and direct attention away from certain avenues of inquiry. What does "Catholicism of the Early Modern Era" direct attention away from? In the mind of this reviewer, it (improperly) directs attention away from the significant definitional impact the Protestant Reformation had on the Catholicism of this era. In the final analysis, O'Malley may have some more work ahead of him if he is to convince some readers of the ultimate utility of his alternate term.

Rating:
Summary: A good basic introduction to the problems involved
Review: This book provides an excellent introduction to the basic historiographical problem involved in studying the early modern Catholic Church: what should we call the period? The author reviews the various solutions, (Counter-Reformation, Catholic Reformation, Catholic Reform, Catholic Confessionalization, Catholic Revival) and the history of the use of those terms. Then he proposes an additional term: "early modern Catholicism," which should be used besides all of the others. This begs the question, of course, of what exactly "early modern" means--a not entirely uncontroversial term in itself. The best part of the book is the reviews of where the current terms came from historically and why they were used. The solution is less compelling, simply because words like Counter-Reformation and Catholic Reformation are not only well-dispersed and easily understood, but they are still meaningful to the people who are using them. Also, the writer intentionally stays out of evidential debates by saying "that's material for a longer book". This is really a book about historiography--if you want info about the Catholic Ref., check out Bireley or Hsia or Mullett. On the other hand, this would be a really great book for graduate students who need a quick update on this info for their exams.