Scan barcode
lolabee's review
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
3.75
A detailed and realistic examination of what the English Catholic Church actually did under Mary Tudor, with a convincing practical and religious defence of their actions. Definitely worth a read, even if you believe the Church was completely in the wrong.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Death
Minor: Animal cruelty
bennought's review against another edition
5.0
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).
sophronisba's review
challenging
informative
reflective
sad
medium-paced
3.75
More approachable than Duffy's The Voices of Morebath, informative & well-researched. Duffy's points about seeing Mary's reign in context of sixteenth-century religious beliefs in Europe are well-taken. But I struggle with the generally approving tone toward the religious policy of a reign that burned 300 "heretics" alive.
tasmanian_bibliophile's review against another edition
4.0
‘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
mickymac's review
2.0
badly-written apologetic praising Marian persecution of Protestants and defending burning of dissenters. Somewhat unconvincing claim that restored Catholicism was vibrant, after all there had been only six years of Protestant practice at Mary;s accession, and the flames spluttered and died quickly in the age of the Elizabethan via media.
broomesbooks's review
2.0
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.
anna_elliot's review
5.0
At the end of the day, she was no more than a desperate and childless woman.
fenwench's review
1.0
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.
More...