Content deleted Content added
Line 614:
:What is the point here is that the 1549 and the 1552 are just two editions of a book that exists in MANY edition in many different languages. The books are living texts and they have not "subverted" Cranmer's work, quite the contrary, they have built off of it and evovled the books for different audiences in different places at different times. If you believe this is a bad thing, you could say they subverted the original intent, but again, that isn't NPOV. -- [[User:Secisek|SECisek]] 15:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me for asking: have you read Diamaid McCulloch;s biography of Cranmer? 1549 and 1552 were part of a project which Cranmer, together with others, conceived. Those who followed in 1559 and 1662 disagreed with some of Cranmer's views. I have no idea what you mean by 'living texts', but the changes made were deliberate underminings of Cranmer's intention. As for Cranmer's recantation, I fall back on McCulloch. I don't think what you say is sustainable. I think you are using the word subvert in a particular sense which I don#t recognise. [[User:Roger Arguile|Roger Arguile]] 16:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
| |||