What do you think?
Rate this book
Fires of Faith: Catholic England Under Mary Tudor
The reign of Mary Tudor has been remembered as an era of sterile repression, when a reactionary monarch launched a doomed attempt to reimpose Catholicism on an unwilling nation. Above all, the burning alive of more than 280 men and women for their religious beliefs seared the rule of “Bloody Mary” into the protestant imagination as an alien aberration in the onward and upward march of the English-speaking peoples. In this controversial reassessment, the renowned reformation historian Eamon Duffy argues that Mary's regime was neither inept nor backward looking. Led by the queen's cousin, Cardinal Reginald Pole, Mary’s church dramatically reversed the religious revolution imposed under the child king Edward VI. Inspired by the values of the European Counter-Reformation, the cardinal and the queen reinstated the papacy and launched an effective propaganda campaign through pulpit and press. Even the most notorious aspect of the regime, the burnings, proved devastatingly effective. Only the death of the childless queen and her cardinal on the same day in November 1558 brought the protestant Elizabeth to the throne, thereby changing the course of English history.
280 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2009
23 people are currently reading
554 people want to read
About the author
Eamon Duffy
53 books87 followersEamon Duffy is Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge, and former President of Magdalene College.
He describes himself as a "cradle Catholic" and specializes in 15th to 17th century religious history of Britain. His work has done much to overturn the popular image of late-medieval Catholicism in England as moribund, and instead presents it as a vibrant cultural force. On weekdays from 22nd October to 2nd November 2007, he presented the BBC Radio 4 series "10 Popes Who Shook the World" - those popes featured were Peter, Leo I, Gregory I, Gregory VII, Innocent III, Paul III, Pius IX, Pius XII, John XXIII, and John Paul II.
He describes himself as a "cradle Catholic" and specializes in 15th to 17th century religious history of Britain. His work has done much to overturn the popular image of late-medieval Catholicism in England as moribund, and instead presents it as a vibrant cultural force. On weekdays from 22nd October to 2nd November 2007, he presented the BBC Radio 4 series "10 Popes Who Shook the World" - those popes featured were Peter, Leo I, Gregory I, Gregory VII, Innocent III, Paul III, Pius IX, Pius XII, John XXIII, and John Paul II.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
December 26, 2009
For the past few years or so, I have continually come across Duffy's 'Stripping of the Altars' in various classes I've taken, but never had the chance to actually read it. When my thesis (on censorship and the theatre under Mary Tudor) led me once again to Catholicism in England, I was pleased to finally have the opportunity to actually sit down and read some of Duffy's works. While I still need to read the chapter on Mary Tudor in 'Stripping of the Altars,' I read through Duffy's new 'Fires of Faith.'
As far as historical writings go, I would say that this is definitely one of the best I have ever read. Duffy's writing is clear, engaging, and chock full of interesting (and still relevant) details and trailblazing, thorough analysis. While he certainly does not condone the burning of nearly 300 Protestants by the Marian regime, he constantly and forcefully argues for their continuity and place within the context of mid-sixteenth century England and Europe. The burning of heretics was a policy which was alive and well before, during, and after Mary's reign across Europe, and he also, importantly, notes the large number of dissidents who were executed under Elizabeth; though they were almost always indicted for treason, which is a whole other story as relevant and interesting as it may be. A point which he doesn't bring up, though one which is supportive of his argument, is one which Judith Richard makes in her recent biography of Mary: Bishop Cranmer (who was himself burned under Mary), at the end of Edward VI's reign, was in the process of writing up heresy legislation that very closely resembled that of the Marian regime. And, if Edward had not died so young in 1553, it almost certainly would have been ratified and there is no telling how many Catholics would have been burned at the stake. How would the burnings under Mary be perceived if that legislation had been put into effect?
All in all, 'Fires of Faith' is a must read for anyone interested in Tudor England, the English Reformation(s), or the religiosity of the calamitous sixteenth century. It is an enjoyable and easy read that cuts down many of the antiquated and inaccurate historical constructions/narratives which have persisted for too long about Mary, her religion, and her reign. Anyone interested in Mary should also check out Judith Richard's biography, any of the other recent biographies (Linda Porter), or some of the other recent revisionist works on English Catholicism and Marian England (cf. Lucy Wooding, David Loades, William Wizeman).
As far as historical writings go, I would say that this is definitely one of the best I have ever read. Duffy's writing is clear, engaging, and chock full of interesting (and still relevant) details and trailblazing, thorough analysis. While he certainly does not condone the burning of nearly 300 Protestants by the Marian regime, he constantly and forcefully argues for their continuity and place within the context of mid-sixteenth century England and Europe. The burning of heretics was a policy which was alive and well before, during, and after Mary's reign across Europe, and he also, importantly, notes the large number of dissidents who were executed under Elizabeth; though they were almost always indicted for treason, which is a whole other story as relevant and interesting as it may be. A point which he doesn't bring up, though one which is supportive of his argument, is one which Judith Richard makes in her recent biography of Mary: Bishop Cranmer (who was himself burned under Mary), at the end of Edward VI's reign, was in the process of writing up heresy legislation that very closely resembled that of the Marian regime. And, if Edward had not died so young in 1553, it almost certainly would have been ratified and there is no telling how many Catholics would have been burned at the stake. How would the burnings under Mary be perceived if that legislation had been put into effect?
All in all, 'Fires of Faith' is a must read for anyone interested in Tudor England, the English Reformation(s), or the religiosity of the calamitous sixteenth century. It is an enjoyable and easy read that cuts down many of the antiquated and inaccurate historical constructions/narratives which have persisted for too long about Mary, her religion, and her reign. Anyone interested in Mary should also check out Judith Richard's biography, any of the other recent biographies (Linda Porter), or some of the other recent revisionist works on English Catholicism and Marian England (cf. Lucy Wooding, David Loades, William Wizeman).
June 14, 2025
Enjoyed this one, a much more sympathetic view of Mary I's religious policies than the usual rendering of it as a weird backwards steps doomed by History to be overturned and forgotten and I appreciated that as a perspective I hadn't seen much of before.
August 29, 2012
I read Duffy's excellent book: The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, 1400-1580 and found it a feast of Reformation History that heretofore was untold and somewhat obscure. This book, Fires of Faith, is more of a Roman Catholic apologetic for intolerance and incompetence wreaked by Mary Tudor's regime, precisely that aspect of her reign that is quite indefensible. Duffy tries to highlight positive attributes of the regime, but is unconvincing at every turn. The grotesque burnings are defended as part of the times and we are asked to consider this as part of a zero sum game between 16th Century Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Maybe so, but this still leaves naked the sheer inanity of the regime; Duffy admits as much in acknowledging that the burnings and circus-like show trials were counter-productive. I should say so. Although alluded to, Mary's morose psychological need for settling scores by acting in a self-destructive manner is never discussed at length. This is important given the evidence of her severely depressed and delusional state. Likewise Duffy ignores the larger historical context, including Mary's extremely unpopular marriage to Philip II (who surreptitiously left the squalid scene posthaste for Spain, never intending to return), the loss of Calais, and Mary's (ironic) tearful and significant fights with Pope Paul IV over his anti-Habsburg policies.
At the end of the book, I felt an amazing sense of relief that Elizabeth I came on the scene and established the Via Media. Her dislike of Mary's religious policies was well known by the public and it was expected that a change would occur when she became Queen. They were correct. Upon her accession, heresy laws were instantaneously repealed and the the burnings ceased, immediately. During Mary's reign one could be reported to the authorities for not fingering Rosary beads. Her intolerance is not to be measured by our standards, I grant you that. However, it should be noted that the great English Church composer, Thomas Tallis, was a Catholic and a Gentleman of Elizabeth's Chapel Royal, until his death. In 1575 Queen Elizabeth granted Tallis and William Byrd (Tallis's pupil and also a Catholic) a monopoly in England on printing music. Yes, Elizabeth I established an ambiguous religious settlement but as long as one did not express the wish to overthrow her (alas, Pope Paul IV made it a sin for Catholics to obey her - Regnans in Excelsis, the papal bull deposing Elizabeth, 1570), you could practice your Catholicism after paying a fine. After reading Duffy's book, the prospect of finding a comparable example of such intelligent and open thinking during Mary's reign is grimly ludicrous.
At the end of the book, I felt an amazing sense of relief that Elizabeth I came on the scene and established the Via Media. Her dislike of Mary's religious policies was well known by the public and it was expected that a change would occur when she became Queen. They were correct. Upon her accession, heresy laws were instantaneously repealed and the the burnings ceased, immediately. During Mary's reign one could be reported to the authorities for not fingering Rosary beads. Her intolerance is not to be measured by our standards, I grant you that. However, it should be noted that the great English Church composer, Thomas Tallis, was a Catholic and a Gentleman of Elizabeth's Chapel Royal, until his death. In 1575 Queen Elizabeth granted Tallis and William Byrd (Tallis's pupil and also a Catholic) a monopoly in England on printing music. Yes, Elizabeth I established an ambiguous religious settlement but as long as one did not express the wish to overthrow her (alas, Pope Paul IV made it a sin for Catholics to obey her - Regnans in Excelsis, the papal bull deposing Elizabeth, 1570), you could practice your Catholicism after paying a fine. After reading Duffy's book, the prospect of finding a comparable example of such intelligent and open thinking during Mary's reign is grimly ludicrous.
September 9, 2020
Eamon Duffy's Fires of Faith takes a look at a very narrow range of topics in the reign of Queen Mary. These include the effectiveness of the regime's propaganda campaign against Protestantism; the role of Cardinal Pole in overseeing the restoration of Catholicism in England, and in particular his and the government's attitudes toward preaching; and finally, and most controversially for some, the question of the effectiveness of the burnings carried out by the regime of Protestants. To all these questions, Duffy wishes to continue the work he started in Stripping of the Altars, and revise the conventional opinions among historians. In this case, he claims that the propaganda efforts of the Marian regime were much more vigorous and effective than has been generally realized. He cites the work of Nicholas Harpsfield, the archdeacon of Canterbury, as an outstanding polemic produced by the Marian writers. Likewise, he claims that Cardinal Pole and the Marian regime did not neglect preaching in regards to the restoration of Catholicism, and that the regime did take pains to try and convert the most intransigent Protestants before resorting to force. Finally, he argues that the burning of Protestants, while morally repellent, was not the desperate act of an exhausted, unimaginative and failing regime, but was brutally effective at taking the spirit out of the nascent Protestant movement in England, and might have succeeded, had Mary Tudor lived long enough.
Duffy is a fine historian, a very careful and apt reader of historical evidence, which he displays above all in his readings of John Foxe's accounts of Protestant martyrs. He makes as good a case as one can reasonably expect for the Marian regime, and the moral horror of the burnings notwithstanding, his book should convince fair minded readers that the Marian regime was not doomed to failure because of its alleged incompetence, or exhaustion. Now, it is well known that Professor Duffy is a Catholic, and his motivation for writing a book like this obviously is related to his faith. But if one wants to get a sense of why Mary and his councillors decided to do what they did, or at least their justification for doing so, this is the book to start with. It is not, however, going to give you a detailed explanation as to why people's in early modern England were willing to do something as horrific as burn another human being to death. This is perhaps the one criticism I can make of the book. Duffy merely says that it is anachronistic to project modern morality onto peoples of the 16th century. Most people were fine with such punishments, save for a few exceptions. Only the targets and the definition of heresy were at issue between Protestants and Catholics. Both sides agree heresy was deserving of such treatment. And it is certainly debatable whether burning someone to death for heresy is much worse than hanging drawing and quartering some one for treason (which Queen Elizabeth did a great deal in her reign). All of this may be true, but I wish Professor Duffy had gone a bit further toward explaining the mentality behind this, which he does in some ways, but not as extensively as I think he should. In any case, one should try and read the book with an open mind, if you wish to learn more about the ultimately doomed efforts of the Marian regime to restore Catholicism in England.
Duffy is a fine historian, a very careful and apt reader of historical evidence, which he displays above all in his readings of John Foxe's accounts of Protestant martyrs. He makes as good a case as one can reasonably expect for the Marian regime, and the moral horror of the burnings notwithstanding, his book should convince fair minded readers that the Marian regime was not doomed to failure because of its alleged incompetence, or exhaustion. Now, it is well known that Professor Duffy is a Catholic, and his motivation for writing a book like this obviously is related to his faith. But if one wants to get a sense of why Mary and his councillors decided to do what they did, or at least their justification for doing so, this is the book to start with. It is not, however, going to give you a detailed explanation as to why people's in early modern England were willing to do something as horrific as burn another human being to death. This is perhaps the one criticism I can make of the book. Duffy merely says that it is anachronistic to project modern morality onto peoples of the 16th century. Most people were fine with such punishments, save for a few exceptions. Only the targets and the definition of heresy were at issue between Protestants and Catholics. Both sides agree heresy was deserving of such treatment. And it is certainly debatable whether burning someone to death for heresy is much worse than hanging drawing and quartering some one for treason (which Queen Elizabeth did a great deal in her reign). All of this may be true, but I wish Professor Duffy had gone a bit further toward explaining the mentality behind this, which he does in some ways, but not as extensively as I think he should. In any case, one should try and read the book with an open mind, if you wish to learn more about the ultimately doomed efforts of the Marian regime to restore Catholicism in England.
July 21, 2022
Eamon Duffy is splendid historian - I remember reading his 'Stripping the Alters' and being blown away by the richness of the material and the wonderful light in brought to the Reformation and the changes to the life, culture, habits and daily life of England's ordinary people. He was also a excellent writer who presented a most complex story in captivating prose.
This book can't have the same impact - it is dealing with a much narrower canvas - but it is fascinating and thought provoking. Any attempt at assessing or trying to understand Mary's brief reign will always have the problem of the elephant in the room - the persecution and burnings of heretics, an utterly ugly campaign that gets harder to understand or forgive the further it recedes into the past. Still that doesn't mean that Mary's reign and the brief attempt at Catholic revival have not be drowned under a sea of cliché and closed thinking. As period it needs to be looked at and attempting to understand and place in contact does not mean changing, diminishing or avoiding what was done. The Tudor period is a perennial favorite for everyone from ordinary readers to historical novelists and TV programme makers. Mary Tudor deserves her place in the story. It is often forgotten that it was her popularity as her mother's daughter, as well of her father, rallied the ordinary people to her cause against the usurpations of her brother's attempt to supplant her with their cousin Lady Jane Grey.
Well worth a read and I doubt if Mary or this period will get a finer historian/chronicler then this for many, many years.
This book can't have the same impact - it is dealing with a much narrower canvas - but it is fascinating and thought provoking. Any attempt at assessing or trying to understand Mary's brief reign will always have the problem of the elephant in the room - the persecution and burnings of heretics, an utterly ugly campaign that gets harder to understand or forgive the further it recedes into the past. Still that doesn't mean that Mary's reign and the brief attempt at Catholic revival have not be drowned under a sea of cliché and closed thinking. As period it needs to be looked at and attempting to understand and place in contact does not mean changing, diminishing or avoiding what was done. The Tudor period is a perennial favorite for everyone from ordinary readers to historical novelists and TV programme makers. Mary Tudor deserves her place in the story. It is often forgotten that it was her popularity as her mother's daughter, as well of her father, rallied the ordinary people to her cause against the usurpations of her brother's attempt to supplant her with their cousin Lady Jane Grey.
Well worth a read and I doubt if Mary or this period will get a finer historian/chronicler then this for many, many years.
September 4, 2019
It is a very interesting book. I feel I learned a lot about Mary's reign and the Counter-Reformation. The author mentions again and again that we shouldn't view 16th century history with modern day sensibilities and I can't agree more with him. What we today can be interpreted harshly by people living in 500 years time (animal rights, human rights, climate change, religious extremism).
I mention in the full review, on my blog, something that I'm puzzled after reading this book: Coffee & Books
I mention in the full review, on my blog, something that I'm puzzled after reading this book: Coffee & Books
September 1, 2025
England was religiously volatile in the middle decades of the sixteenth century. When king Henry VIII severed ties with the Pope and made the church of England independent of Rome, his reasons were more pragmatic and less theological. Still, it created widespread cultural upheaval, and a golden opportunity to convictional Protestants to set the English church on a Reformed trajectory. When Henry died and his young son Edward came to power, Protestants hailed him as a new Josiah, one who would purify the realm from its lingering Roman Catholic remnants. But Edward didn't last. With his early death and the coronation of his sister, the very Catholic Mary, things swung violently back toward Romanism, and those years are what this book is about. As Mary's death meant a swing back (again) to basically permanent Protestantism under Elizabeth I, Mary has traditionally been seen as something of a final villain, the last gasp of an oppressive religious order that Britain would forever leave behind (though it looks more and more like the 21st century may see Britain fall to Islam, of all things).
Duffy writes to rehabilitate Mary's image; or at least the image of her regime. As a Roman Catholic himself, this desire is perhaps understandable. Duffy makes no excuse for the mass burnings and persecutions that Mary oversaw (winning her the nickname Bloody Mary), and confesses that he finds them abhorrent, but tries to contextualize them and show that the broad effort to restore Romanism was at least sincere, methodical, and quite effective despite being cut short by Mary's death.
As a Protestant, this book was in some ways unsettling. It's unsettling that those who profess Christ could—with evident sincerity and apparently no qualms of conscience—condemn others who sincerely profess Christ according to their best understanding of the Bible to be burned at the stake; and it's unsettling that the questions and issues over which they did this are issues that today don't even register with most Christians as very significant. Not sure what it says about those back then, or about us today.
Duffy writes to rehabilitate Mary's image; or at least the image of her regime. As a Roman Catholic himself, this desire is perhaps understandable. Duffy makes no excuse for the mass burnings and persecutions that Mary oversaw (winning her the nickname Bloody Mary), and confesses that he finds them abhorrent, but tries to contextualize them and show that the broad effort to restore Romanism was at least sincere, methodical, and quite effective despite being cut short by Mary's death.
As a Protestant, this book was in some ways unsettling. It's unsettling that those who profess Christ could—with evident sincerity and apparently no qualms of conscience—condemn others who sincerely profess Christ according to their best understanding of the Bible to be burned at the stake; and it's unsettling that the questions and issues over which they did this are issues that today don't even register with most Christians as very significant. Not sure what it says about those back then, or about us today.
February 23, 2024
I hadn’t realised that Cardinal Pole was one of the Fathers of the Council of Trent, and a leading light in the general movement for the Catholic counter-reformation in Europe (that is, the *actual* Reformation of the Western Church, rather that the protestant revolutions). In this excellent small book, Duffy demonstrates the movement for counter-reformation that was pursued in England by Queen Mary in the 1550s, for a brief few years before her untimely and unfortunate death. All the efforts of the queen and her government were later promptly undone and most of their traces removed by the protestant queen Elisabeth and *her* government. Duffy reaches behind the propaganda machine of Elisabeth’s later government to demonstrate the work of Mary Tudor and her formidable Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal Reginald Pole, in restoring English Catholicism (if ever so briefly), with catechesis, and legal proceedings against the most incalcitrant of the protestants. This inevitably leads to a long discussion of the burning while alive of several men and women as unrepentant heretics, and Duffy does here what most other historians of the period do not: he labours to present the philosophical and theological basis the priests and bishops used to justify the capital punishment thus used on those who were executed by burning, and the lengths the bishops took to prevent the condemned from going to the fires. And he demonstrates, contrary to received history, that these proceedings (except in areas where the minority of protestants were concentrated) were actually popular among ordinary people on the street, who seem to have received well the defence of the burnings presented by the government. Seeing this new perspective on the struggle for Catholic England proves that history truly is written by the winners.
August 5, 2025
Duffy is reputed to be the leading expert on religion in the Tudor period. This book, an expanded version of 5 lectures given at Trinity College, Cambridge in 2007/8, is therefore written by an academic for an audience above the level of general reader.
There is scarcely any background to the opening chapter, that might have usefully set the scene. Instead Duffy, who calls himself a "cradle Catholic", swoops effortlessly into an unashamedly and unapologetic assessment of the reversal and revival of religious policy under Mary Tudor. Whereas once upon a time historians were critical of Bloody and fanatical Mary, more recently her short reign is more frequently perceived in a more positive light.
As with Duffy's "The Voices of Morebath" I found this a challenging read especially when confronted with phrases such as "The fissiparousness of the new religion", or the words of Cardinal Pole's "grief stricken companion" followed by three lines in untranslated Italian( for which see the extensive notes that academics must bombard their work).
On balance, there was enough to keep my interest throughout if read slowly and in chunks one chapter at a time. I particularly warmed to the subject when it deviated from commentary on religious concepts and phrases (which could usefully have been explained in a glossary) and when it moved to the detail of the entrapment of those persecuted, in many cases prosecuted by persons who themselves had changed sides very smartly in the transition from Edward to Mary. The detail of the burnings is morbidly fascinating. Here, Duffy is unconvincing in his "defence" of those appalling and self-defeating spectacles.
Overall, I am pleased to have persisted with this book. However, I will leave Duffy's "The Stripping of the Altars" to gather more dust on the bookcase for some time to come.
There is scarcely any background to the opening chapter, that might have usefully set the scene. Instead Duffy, who calls himself a "cradle Catholic", swoops effortlessly into an unashamedly and unapologetic assessment of the reversal and revival of religious policy under Mary Tudor. Whereas once upon a time historians were critical of Bloody and fanatical Mary, more recently her short reign is more frequently perceived in a more positive light.
As with Duffy's "The Voices of Morebath" I found this a challenging read especially when confronted with phrases such as "The fissiparousness of the new religion", or the words of Cardinal Pole's "grief stricken companion" followed by three lines in untranslated Italian( for which see the extensive notes that academics must bombard their work).
On balance, there was enough to keep my interest throughout if read slowly and in chunks one chapter at a time. I particularly warmed to the subject when it deviated from commentary on religious concepts and phrases (which could usefully have been explained in a glossary) and when it moved to the detail of the entrapment of those persecuted, in many cases prosecuted by persons who themselves had changed sides very smartly in the transition from Edward to Mary. The detail of the burnings is morbidly fascinating. Here, Duffy is unconvincing in his "defence" of those appalling and self-defeating spectacles.
Overall, I am pleased to have persisted with this book. However, I will leave Duffy's "The Stripping of the Altars" to gather more dust on the bookcase for some time to come.
January 25, 2025
From the foreword: "I have ceased to be surprised at the visceral and sometimes violent hostility of even sophisticated and intelligent English people to any attempt at an objective reassessment of the campaign of repression under 'Bloody Mary.' Even in our self-consciously secular times, sixteenth-century stereotypes, consolidated in the triumph of protestantism under Queen Elizabeth, persist in popular culture."
and you can see Duffy's point being proved right in these very reviews! incredible!
and you can see Duffy's point being proved right in these very reviews! incredible!
April 20, 2018
revisionist history. One rarely hears the Catholic version of the reign, but in the end Mr Duffy is defending the undefendable.
October 30, 2019
Clear, engaging and enjoyable historical writing.
April 2, 2021
Interesting, but on the dry side.
Read
February 15, 2022read in: sophomore year
May 16, 2023
The content was great, a little repetitive at times. Wouldn’t suggest for the casual history reader. I found it very dry.
June 20, 2023
A little too academic a read, rather dry…
May 15, 2024
hated this.
Currently reading
February 13, 2021nothing gets me feeling like a papist quite like a thesis of "yeah we were technically in the wrong but also it kinda worked."
February 13, 2011
‘The imposition of religious conformity by lethal force is deeply repellent to modern sensibilities.’
Mary I can be considered England’s first undisputed female sovereign. In her five years as Queen (1553-1558), Mary repealed Edward VI’s religious laws, re-established Catholicism, and burned 283 (or 284) Protestant martyrs, earning herself the name ‘Bloody Mary’. Her reign is often seem simply as a cruel and ultimately futile attempt to return England to Catholicism (for which an heir was required) or, at least, to arrest England’s progress towards becoming a Protestant nation (which was inevitable once her half-sister Elizabeth was definitely her only heir). But is this a fair assessment of Mary I’s reign?
In this book, Eamon Duffy, Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge, argues that the management of the return to Catholicism was not ineptly handled. Instead, Professor Duffy puts forward a case that the process (largely driven by Reginald Pole, Cardinal and the last Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury) was well planned, and the arrangements put in place were both sensible and practical. Unfortunately, for Mary I’s place in history, five years was not sufficient time to bed down these reforms and the pall cast by the burnings overshadows the fact that the Protestantism installed during Edward VI’s reign was opportunistic, confused and destructive. The widely held view of Mary is also a consequence of the ultimate victory of Protestantism in England: history is written by the victors.
But looking beyond the fact of the Reformation to the possible causes of it (did the Roman Catholic Church need reforming, or did Henry VIII break with Rome simply to marry Anne Boleyn?) introduces some different possibilities for looking at Mary I’s reign. Cardinal Pole was very much involved in the Roman Catholic Church’s response to the theological and ethical issues posed by the Reformation, and was arguably well placed to lead a program of Roman Catholic restoration in England. And perhaps, given more time, such a campaign would have been successful.
I found this an interesting book, but it has left me with more questions than answers. I can accept that Mary I was motivated by her own beliefs and values and that, had she lived longer or had a Roman Catholic heir, her reign would undoubtedly be viewed differently. Reading this book is a reminder that historical fact and modern sensibilities are not always compatible. Professor Duffy’s book has made me curious: I don’t have a more favourable view of Mary I as a consequence, but I’m keen to read some other accounts of her reign.
'No 16th-century European state could easily imagine the peaceful existence of differing religious confessions.’
Jennifer Cameron-Smith
Mary I can be considered England’s first undisputed female sovereign. In her five years as Queen (1553-1558), Mary repealed Edward VI’s religious laws, re-established Catholicism, and burned 283 (or 284) Protestant martyrs, earning herself the name ‘Bloody Mary’. Her reign is often seem simply as a cruel and ultimately futile attempt to return England to Catholicism (for which an heir was required) or, at least, to arrest England’s progress towards becoming a Protestant nation (which was inevitable once her half-sister Elizabeth was definitely her only heir). But is this a fair assessment of Mary I’s reign?
In this book, Eamon Duffy, Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge, argues that the management of the return to Catholicism was not ineptly handled. Instead, Professor Duffy puts forward a case that the process (largely driven by Reginald Pole, Cardinal and the last Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury) was well planned, and the arrangements put in place were both sensible and practical. Unfortunately, for Mary I’s place in history, five years was not sufficient time to bed down these reforms and the pall cast by the burnings overshadows the fact that the Protestantism installed during Edward VI’s reign was opportunistic, confused and destructive. The widely held view of Mary is also a consequence of the ultimate victory of Protestantism in England: history is written by the victors.
But looking beyond the fact of the Reformation to the possible causes of it (did the Roman Catholic Church need reforming, or did Henry VIII break with Rome simply to marry Anne Boleyn?) introduces some different possibilities for looking at Mary I’s reign. Cardinal Pole was very much involved in the Roman Catholic Church’s response to the theological and ethical issues posed by the Reformation, and was arguably well placed to lead a program of Roman Catholic restoration in England. And perhaps, given more time, such a campaign would have been successful.
I found this an interesting book, but it has left me with more questions than answers. I can accept that Mary I was motivated by her own beliefs and values and that, had she lived longer or had a Roman Catholic heir, her reign would undoubtedly be viewed differently. Reading this book is a reminder that historical fact and modern sensibilities are not always compatible. Professor Duffy’s book has made me curious: I don’t have a more favourable view of Mary I as a consequence, but I’m keen to read some other accounts of her reign.
'No 16th-century European state could easily imagine the peaceful existence of differing religious confessions.’
Jennifer Cameron-Smith
May 23, 2014
A scholarly, but very readable work which presents the Marian counter-reformation as a great deal more significant and influential than its detractors claim. There is a great deal of detail here in refuting the principle claims against the regime and in particular in countering the portrayal of Cardinal Pole as an incompetent who did not do all he could to further his cause. The book shows that reversing the excesses of Edward's reign and restoring the position to that of the Henrician period was the starting point, although a full counter-reformation was the eventual aim. There is a thorough analysis and detailed examination of the regime and its aftermath in a relatively short work. I learned quite a bit and it added an extra facet to my knowledge of a period that I could probably read around almost indefinitely, so many sources and opinions being available.
That said, I can't get past how horrific it must have been to live in a climate a fear, where freedom of conscience was not permitted and religion was a matter of state, not a private concern. The incredible religious turmoil of the entire period seems almost unimaginable now. It shows how important it is that we understand this period and ensure that we never allow any faith to impose itself on society - however well intentioned its proponents may be. Freedom of conscience and the right to believe as we choose (or to believe nothing if that is what we decide) is incredibly precious. I am also reminded of various works that deal with the same climate of fear in any totalitarian regime; Stalin's gulags, Nazi Germany, Pol Pot's reign of terror, Franco, Kim Jong Un.....
The current position of the church is precarious, which would be inconceivable to a Marian cleric. The aim of the counter reformation was to bring back England into the papal fold and ensure that people stopped thinking for themselves and returned to blind obedience and observance of the dictates of the established church. The survival of the church now probably depends on encouraging people to think for themselves, the very opposite of the approach in the 1550s.
That said, I can't get past how horrific it must have been to live in a climate a fear, where freedom of conscience was not permitted and religion was a matter of state, not a private concern. The incredible religious turmoil of the entire period seems almost unimaginable now. It shows how important it is that we understand this period and ensure that we never allow any faith to impose itself on society - however well intentioned its proponents may be. Freedom of conscience and the right to believe as we choose (or to believe nothing if that is what we decide) is incredibly precious. I am also reminded of various works that deal with the same climate of fear in any totalitarian regime; Stalin's gulags, Nazi Germany, Pol Pot's reign of terror, Franco, Kim Jong Un.....
The current position of the church is precarious, which would be inconceivable to a Marian cleric. The aim of the counter reformation was to bring back England into the papal fold and ensure that people stopped thinking for themselves and returned to blind obedience and observance of the dictates of the established church. The survival of the church now probably depends on encouraging people to think for themselves, the very opposite of the approach in the 1550s.
March 24, 2013
This was quite a brave book to write. Duffy is a well- known historian of the sixteenth century, and his books, most notably his ground-breaking 'Stripping of the Altars'', are infused with his clearly expressed Roman Catholic beliefs. He ran the risk of being thought an apologist for the Marian persecutions, and some reviewers have not been entirely convinced by his repeated expressions of abhorrence for the dreadful cruelties he describes. He clearly doesn't find the Protestant martyrs at all sympathetic. But when these qualifications are made, he still makes a very convincing case that the burnings were a largely successful policy and that it was only the deaths of Mary and Cardinal Pole on the same day that prevented England's full reconversion to Catholicism. Some of us may be glad it didn't happen, but this doesn't detract from the force of Duffy's argument.
August 31, 2016
This was a tough book to get through. Technically I wouldn't consider this a full read because I could not get through it. Although there were good things about this book such as the detailed explanations at the images included in the text and why there were included instead of only a brief description of it. Slogging through the quotations and getting lost in a round and round journey make it extremely hard to get the motivation to read this, and it was an assignment for my Tudor/Stuart History class.
February 16, 2016
Pretty heavy going at times. The point-of-view is Catholic. It exposes many excesses of evangelicals during Mary Tudor's attempt to turn England back to Catholicism. Some of her victims seem to have been persecuted for obnoxiousness sake as much as for righteousness. Detailed documentation, but he definitely has an ax to grind when it comes to Mary's reputation. Good balance for other reading on the period.
possible-purchase
July 8, 2009Recommended by Elena Maria Vidal from Trianon Tea Room where she offers a teaser about it, Fires of Faith. Hope I find time to read it someday! (Groan!)
August 25, 2012
Definitely a good read but may have a bit too much of an axe to grind and a case to make. Revisionist history swings wildly in one direction or another. Still, a useful corrective to those who consider the Marian church a predestined failure.
January 15, 2013
Not bad - though really a compilation of various articles published elsewhere before. Not all that much about fire and burning (which I'm actually quite pleased about, as that's the subject of my next book!).
August 17, 2011
Got to page 40, and I couldn't go any further. The writing style was far too jumbled and dull. A shame, as this period of history truly fascinates me.
June 3, 2013
At the end of the day, she was no more than a desperate and childless woman.
December 23, 2013
Highly interesting and inspiring; the spirit of accounting for history and historiography.
February 8, 2014
I had to read this book for my Tudor History class. It is a dry, but informative, read. It really puts up a good argument about the effectiveness of Mary's reign.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews