 |
 |
Yes, but I responded to your original, before I got to the correction. One thing at a time. However I'm glad you saved yourself from the threat. P. -----Original Message----- From: Nancy Gish To: [log in to unmask] Sent: 2004-Nov-08 6:20 AM Subject: Re: Reformation I immediately sent an acknowledgement--"typo: Reformation." Did it not turn up? Nancy >>> [log in to unmask] 11/08/04 3:52 AM >>> I suspect you mean Henry VIII. What would Jennifer say? I shudder to think. P. -----Original Message----- From: Nancy Gish To: [log in to unmask] Sent: 2004-Nov-07 7:43 PM Subject: Re: Reformation Dear Jennifer, I just watched the first half of the BBC "Henry VII" before checking this, and with all acknowledgement of film and dramatic choices, was it really "honor" Henry was engaged in or even the church as a motive? Nancy >>> [log in to unmask] 11/07/04 9:24 PM >>> Dear Peter, With all due respect, > As I remember it, he placed all his chips on Launcelot as the > founder/extablisher or > the Anglican Church. > P. > The correct spelling is Lancelot Andrewes, not Launcelot. Nor do I think Eliot would grudge Henry his crown, or Andrewes his bishops hat by even, by ever, implying that Andrewes (1555-1626) _founded or established_ the Anglican Church. I believe that honour correctly belongs to King Henry VIII, the instigator of the Reformation. What Eliot comments on in his essay 'Lancelot Andrewes' (1927) , which is different from the 1928 book, _For Lancelot Andrewes: Essays on Style and Order_, is Andrewes role in creating the language of Anglicanism. Andrewes was, Eliot notes, one of the great sermon writers; and more essentially, one of the translators of the King James Bible (1611). Incidentally, Eliot's epigraph to _For Lancelot Andrewes_ , is to my mind one of his most beautiful. Yours, Jennife