Ethan A. Shagan argues in this book that the English Reformation was not done to the people by the government but with them through negotiation and collaboration. His book, “is an analysis of how ordinary English subjects received, interpreted, debated and influenced the process of religious change in the first quarter century of the Reformation" (page 22). Shagan also believes that the Reformation was more political than theological.

Shagan even goes so far as to say it was not a religious reformation and he heavily relies on the Royal Supremacy Act to prove that. He also deviates from other historians by believing that the Reformation was a collaboration between the people and the government. In this respect, he is revising the revisionists idea that the Reformation was done to the people.

Shagan did extensive research for this book but did not use overly biased sources. Instead, he draws on a great deal of court records, which also strengthened his argument above other historians but there was one weakness. The historian tended to use only court records from Canterbury, Westminster and other central courts, which only showed one section of society. His argument would have been made a great deal stronger had the author used court records.

I think Shagan has one of the most plausible arguments about the Reformation and because of that, I highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in learning about the Reformation and the scholarly argument that is going on about how the Reformation began (ie. from the top, from the bottom, or a little of both). ( )