Content area
Full Text
THE REIGN OF EDWARD VI: AN HISTORIOGRAPHICAL SURVEY' he modern historiography of this critical and disturbed six year period begins with the work of W.K. Jordan.' Jordan was already a well established authority on the history of English philanthropy in the sixteenth and early seventeenth century, when he turned his attention specifically to Edward VI in the mid-1960s. In 1968 and 1970 he published a two volume history of the reign, Edward VI; the young king and Edward VI; the threshold of power. (London, Allen & Unwin). The first volume dealt with the Protectorate of Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset; and the second with the ascendancy of John Dudley, Earl of Warwick and Duke of Northumberland. Jordan's researches were thorough, and the narrative which he pieced together has never been superseded. In 1970 he followed up the second volume with an edition of the young king's Journal, which has also remained a standard source. (The Chronicle and Political Papers of King Edward VI, London, Allen & Unwin). Jordan's interpretation of the reign, however, has not lasted so well. In dealing with Somerset, he largely followed the lead of A.F. Pollard and R.H. Tawney, both of whom had regarded the Protector as a social idealist ahead of his time, who had succumbed to the conspiracies of less worthy men. (R.H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, London, 1926; for A.F. Pollard, see note 2). Although some of Jordan's own research did not actually support such conclusions, he persisted in regarding Somerset as the `Good Duke', which was a contemporary, but hardly an objective opinion. Similarly, Northumberland remained the `Bad Duke', which was also a view going back to his own lifetime.' Originally, Northumberland had been unpopular for several straightforward reasons; he was blamed for the fall, and eventually the death, of Somerset; he was blamed for selling Boulogne back to the French; and he was regarded as a greedy opportunist who enriched himself at the expense of the kingdom. However, the real cause of his evil reputation was that he failed. He failed to stop Mary becoming queen, and died a traitor's death in consequence; and he failed to remain loyal to the protestant views which he had professed in power, thus blocking his rehabilitation...