sudden or opportunistic reversal, but instead the culmination of a long-standing antipathy between the two, and an act of revenge for Cromwell’s fallen former master. MacCulloch places Cromwell’s complex religious outlook at the heart of his biography, arguing that he was a committed Protestant or evangelical from the late 1520s onward. Like so many of the Italian evangelicals with whom he was acquainted, however, Cromwell was a Nicodemite who worked stealthily to advance the cause of “the gospel” under the nose of his royal master, but he also maintained close friendships and alliances with religious traditionalists into the late 1530s. Cromwell’s support for evangelical reform, perhaps most strikingly his quiet and extremely dangerous facilitation of theological exchanges with beyond-the-pale Reformed Protestants in Zürich, contributes to MacCulloch’s argument that Cromwell was “more than a politician shaped by cynical ambition” (260). MacCulloch offers a particularly nuanced account of the courtier’s role in one of the most significant events of the Henrician Reformation: the dissolution of the monasteries. Cromwell had been dissolving monasteries since his days as Wolsey’s agent, but he also protected certain monasteries. For Cromwell, English monasticism warranted severe pruning and reform, but not total eradication. The complete dissolution of the monasteries was “not a certainty until it was complete,” and it was also decidedly not “a long-term scheme authored by Thomas Cromwell” (492). There is, of course, a great deal more to MacCulloch’s story, ranging from Cromwell’s family life and own dynastic ambitions, to his lesser-known yet important projects (including sewer reform, which MacCulloch dubs “The Dissolution of the Weirs”), to the shifting world of high-stakes court politics that ultimately led to his downfall. While MacCulloch stresses that this is not a history of early Tudor England, the reader will learn a great deal about the period and the pivotal decade of the 1530s. The biography’s reader is also treated to a masterclass in assessing sources, watching over MacCulloch’s shoulder as he sifts through the available evidence, gleans telling details, and weighs the interpretive options. Unsurprisingly for the author of a book on Silence, MacCulloch is especially adept at noting what is not present in his sources, picking up on unexpected absences – or “sideways glances and glimpses of relationships” – and putting them all together to build a compelling interpretation of his subject (371). The book is a delight to read, engagingly written, and full of illuminating asides and charming pen-portraits of Cromwell’s friends, associates, and enemies. It is the definitive study of its subject and deserves the widest possible readership.

中文翻译：

---

最后的和平：1918年11月11日停战纪念日肖像

突然的或机会主义的逆转，而是两者之间长期以来的反感的高潮，以及对克伦威尔倒下的前任大师的报复行为。MacCulloch将克伦威尔复杂的宗教观点置于他传记的核心位置，认为他从1520年代后期开始就是一名坚定的新教徒或福音派。像他认识的许多意大利福音派信徒一样，克伦威尔是尼哥德人，他偷偷地工作以在他的皇家主人的眼皮底下推进“福音”的事业，但他也与宗教传统主义者保持着密切的友谊和同盟到1530年代后期。克伦威尔（Cromwell）对福音派改革的支持，也许最令人惊讶的是，他对苏黎世超大型的改革宗新教徒进行的神学交流的安静而极其危险的促进，MacCulloch认为克伦威尔“不仅仅是受愤世嫉俗的野心塑造的政治家”（260）。麦克卡洛克（MacCulloch）特别说明了朝臣在亨利安改革最重要的事件之一中的作用：修道院的解散。克伦威尔（Cromwell）自从担任沃尔西（Wolsey）的经纪人以来就一直在解散修道院，但他也保护某些修道院。对于克伦威尔（Cromwell）而言，英国修道制度值得认真修剪和改革，但不能彻底根除。修道院的完全解散“在完成之前是不确定的”，而且绝对不是“托马斯·克伦威尔（Thomas Cromwell）创作的长期计划”（492）。当然，MacCulloch的故事还有很多，涉及克伦威尔的家庭生活和朝代志向，到他鲜为人知但不重要的项目（包括下水道改革，麦克卡洛奇（MacCulloch）称其为“解散维尔斯”），到不断变化的高风险法院政治世界，最终导致了他的垮台。麦卡洛赫（MacCulloch）强调说，这不是英国都铎王朝的早期历史，但读者将学到很多有关1530年代和关键十年的知识。这本传记的读者在评估资料来源时也要接受大师班的讲授，在MacCulloch筛选可用证据，收集详细信息并权衡解释性选择时，会注视着MacCulloch的肩膀。对于《沉默》一书的作者来说，毫不奇怪，麦克卡洛克（MacCulloch）特别擅长指出其资料中不存在的内容，应对意外的缺席（或“侧身一眼和关系的一瞥”），然后将它们放在一起，以对他的主题做出令人信服的解释（371）。这本书读起来很吸引人，引人入胜，并且充满了克伦威尔朋友，同事和敌人的生动插图和迷人的笔画。它是该主题的权威性研究，应得到尽可能广泛的读者关注。