O'Malley, Trent and All That - II

O’Malley, John W. Trent and all That: Renaming Catholicism in the Early Modern Era. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000.

1. O’Malley seeks, as he lays out in his long, apologetic introduction, to examine the current various names for Catholicism in the period, and to very politely put forth his own proposal for what to name it. He says, rather meekly, that his central hope for the book is that it “will help us view ‘the Catholic side’ with new eyes,” to recognize an intricate complexity formerly missed “by inadequate naming.”

2. Pinning O’Malley down to a strong thesis presents a challenge. His central conclusion is essentially “everyone has a point,” which is about as simpering as one can be, and this makes it difficult to extract anything bold or declarative out of the whole endeavour. It leaves one feeling as though one has missed something. He puts forth his own term, “Early Modern Catholicism,” as what ought to take over as the central name, but undercuts himself so badly that it becomes difficult to call it a thesis (140). He calls his own term “bland and faceless,” and says that it will not replace the other terms so much as occupy the top of the pile, but politely and only if everyone really feels like it. Rather than an assertion or argument, this is more like a meek teenager kind-of-not-really asking a pretty girl to prom.

3. Blissfully, the book’s organization keeps the matter short and to the point. Usually. O’Malley explains in the introduction that he sought to maintain the organization found in the lectures which inspired the book, and to avoid overwhelming the reader with too much detail (14). The introduction lays out the background to some extent, identifies key sources, and tells us what information will & will not be discussed. He also makes double-sure we know his book does not intend to say anyone is wrong or right, per se. The first numbered chapter delves deep into the origins of the naming issue; the second examines the beginnings modern historiographical debate, with the third and fourth continuing the tracing. The concluding chapter reviews the pros & cons of the various names, and weakly suggests that, if everyone feels like it, no pressure, they can use O’Malley’s term, reminding us that it’s nothing special really, just something he came up with, and admonishes us to please not make a big fuss about it.

4. Methodologically, the book keeps things simple. Much of the work revolves around laying out past debate, and the rest around politely comparing various approaches. The major underlying principle is that historians are obliged to examine the past using terms that best represent the people; that is, that the terms used carry enough weight that we ought to ensure that we take great care in their design. He expresses serious concern and interest for the nature of historiography, clearly shows that he believes historians must continually reflect upon their own linguistic choices and biases, lest they distort the past to modern audiences or do injustice to their subjects.

5. As a book concerned mostly with historiography, O’Malley naturally uses mostly secondary sources, although in this context they really serve as primary sources. He utilizes some Reformation-contemporary documents in the first chapter, and in discussing the Council of Trent throughout, but his focus rightly falls more on historians’ work.

6. Despite his penchant for bending over backwards in order to avoid appearing confident or assertive, O’Malley achieves his purpose. He deftly explains the nature of the various competing terms, and if one looks simply at the facts of his arguments, the term he proposes actually works quite well.

7. This work deals precisely with the period our exam explores, and provides invaluable historiographical background. The concern over terminology is a very real one, and ongoing, and without books like this, it can be difficult for non-experts to figure out the nature of a particular terminological debate and decide where they stand.