Talk:Foxe's Book of Martyrs

Merger proposal

This is a procedural proposal after this. Foxe's Book of Martyrs and The Acts and Monuments need to be merged; they are two titles of the same work.Cúchullain ^t/c 21:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Cautious Support/Question

Cúchullainis right to say "they are two titles of the same work", ONLY if we're referring to any of the nine _authorized_ editions of (AM 1563-1684).

But there were also hundreds of versions taken more-or-less faithfully (frequently less), based on 'Foxe'. These texts _really are_ 'Books of Martyrs', or 'Universal Histories of Martyrdom', etc. Taking up, and continuing Foxe's work (as they understood it, i.e as martyrology), these editors aimed toward the improvement of what they understood to be a legitimate historical field. Academicians: Strype, Fuller, Greene ... AG Dickens' historicized martyrologies were of no less or greater value to these editors than their own martyreological histories. Nineteenth-century editors of 'Foxe', believed and asserted that they had perfected the craft, and promoted ther editions as legitimate history. Professionalization of history as a discipline disputed their claims.

I'm not deliberately making it more complicated. It _is_ complicated. Even the authorized editions appear to change their subject (both before and after J F's death (1587). So even the AM isn't A (single) work or text.

What could be done quite effectively is to retain the 'Foxe's Book of Martyrs' page. Use it to explain the mythic aspect of 'Foxe', which is essential to understanding the significance of John F's text. The 'books of martyrs[, 'Universal histories of persecution', etc., that are linked to the Acts and Monuments, in the majority, take their material entirely from the last two books of Foxe's great work. Books 11 and 12 of AM (in every authorized edition) satisfies Edmund Grindal's projected 'Book of[English] Martyrs'. That later editors elaborated those two books, rather than, as Thomas Bright had done, worked to capture something of the whole of John Foxe's vision, is an essential part of understanding Foxe's influence.

---for those interested: Title changes for AM (1563-1684)

John Foxe, London, John Day (Printer), 1563 AM of these latter perilous dayes touching matters of the church, ... persecutions ... wrought and practised by the Romish Prelates, especially in this realm of England and Scotlande from the year of our Lord 1000 to ...present.

John Foxe, London, John Day (Printer), 1570 AM of thynges passed in every kynge's tyme in this realm, specially in the Church of England...discourse of such persecutions ... also in Scotland and all other forreine nations ... to the reign of Henry VIII vol II Ecc H containing AM ... perscutions..and tulmults stirred up by Romish Prelates ... from time of Henry VIII to Queene Elizabeth, second edition

John Foxe, London, John Day (Printer), 1576 The first volume of the ecclesiastical history, containing AM of things passed [as 1570, but adds] the severe punishment of persecutors, the great providence of God in preserving many, and other things incident, touching the sayde Church of England, as also of Scotland, and all other forreine naations from the primitive time till the raigne of Henry VIII. Newly recognized and enlarged by the author John Foxe, third edition Second vol, much the same but from time of Ed - Mary - Eliz, 'nowe Queene'

John Foxe, London, John Day (Printer), 1583 AM of Christian Martyrs and matters ecclesiastical passed in the Church of Christ from the primitive beginnings to these our dayes as well in other countries as namely in this realm of England and also of Scotland, fourth edition Vol II: The second volume of the ecclesiasticall historie

'Foxe', London, R. Daye, 1596 1596 AM of matters most special and memorable happening in the church [of Christ] with a universal history of the same. Now againe as it was recognized, perused, and recommended to the studious reader by the author, John Foxe [died 1587] the fifth time newly imprinted ... by Peter Short by the assigne of R. Daye [son of John Day] Vol II: The second volume of the ecclesiasticall historie ...from time of King Henry the VIII to Queene Elizabeth, fifth edition.

'Foxe', London, Company of Stationers (get the license) 1610 The Ecclesiastical history containing the Acts and Monuments of Martyrs ...persecutions ...stirred up by Romish Prelates of the Church, [esp Eng and Scot] as partly also to all other forraigne nations appertaining from the time of Queen Maries entering into the crowne to ... [Q Eliz]. Newly recognized and inlarged by the author John Foxe [who's been dead now for 23 years] whereunto are annexed certain additions unto the time of our soveraigne Lord King James now reigning. H. Lownes for the Company of Stationers, sixth edition (3 vols.)

'Foxe', London, Company of Stationers, 1631-2 AM of matters most special and memorable happening in the church [of Christ] with a universal history of the same.[like 1596, but continues]wherein is set forth at large the whole race and course of the Church, from primitive times to these later times of ours ... persecutions against the true martyrs of Christ, fought and wrought as well by heathen emperors. Seventh edition, Adam Islip, Felix Kingston, and Robert Young

'Foxe', London, Company of Stationers, 1641 AM of these latter perilous dayes touching matters of the Church, ... persecutions wrought and practised by the Romish Prelates, especially in this realm of England and Scotlande and other nations from AD 1000 to ...present. [like 1570, but continues...] Gathered and collected according to the true copies and Writings ...of those who suffered ...as also out of the Bishops Registers which were the doers therof, eighth edition. R. Hearne for the Company of Stationers, 3 vols.

'Foxe', London, Company of Stationers, 1684 AM of matters most special and memorable happening in the church [of Christ] with a universal history of the same. [like 1570 and 1641 titles, but omits 'gathered and collected..doers therof, reverting to 1631 title] wherein is set forth at large the whole race and course of the Church, from primitive times to these later times of ours ...persecutions against the true martyrs of Christ, sought and wrought as well by heathen emperors. Now again as it was recognized, perused and recommended to the studious reader by the author Mr. John Fox...wherunto are annexed certain additions of like persecutions which have happened in in these later times. To which also is added the life of the author both in Latine and English, nineth edition. Company of Stationers, 3 vols. Associated w/ name of Edward Buckley as editor. Docdev (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC) once more into the breach, Docdev (talk) 10:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Unless we're talking about separate articles for every edition of this work, all of it can be (and usually is, doing a cursory search) discussed together. There's no benefit to having separate articles like we have.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support - these are indeed two titles of the same work. Hence there should be one article. It is pointless to create separate articles for different editions, which then should be differentiated by naming Title and Edition, not by using alternative titles. Deposuit (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support - as I've said in discussions above and elsewhere. This merger proposal has been around for a month or so, and we seem to support it. How should we best put it into action? Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support weak support (with caveat) for keeping The Acts and Monuments and merging Foxe's Book of Martyrs into it ensuring that there are redirects from Foxe's Book of Martyrs and Book of Martyrs to The Acts and Monuments as the article itself says "Acts and Monuments for almost all its existence has popularly been called the Book of Martyrs" --Senra (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • On reflection, I changed to weak support on the basis that the article itself says "Acts and Monuments for almost all its existence has popularly been called the Book of Martyrs". I strongly support a merge but perhaps a merge of both articles (The Acts and Monuments and Foxe's Book of Martyrs) to Book of Martyrs based on my interpretation of WP:UCN which, in part, states "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources" --Senra (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• caveat The Acts and Monuments article has many unattributed claims, such as

1. celebrated within "Acts and Monuments ... is a celebrated work of English church history and martyrology" is unattributed which is fine as it is in the lead. However, the word celebrated does not appear attributed within the article so celebrated should be removed
2. My italics are unattributed in the text and may even be synthesis: "Dismayed by the popular misconception, Foxe tried to correct the error in the second edition. That his appeal was ineffective in his own time is not surprising; for contemporary researchers to continue this misleading practice is less defensible, ..."
3. Unattributed: "His text, remarkably, continued to grow". Remarkably here is WP:EDITORIAL
4. "Timothy Bright's tidy summary of ..." where tidy here is at best WP:EDITORIAL
5. In fact, much of the "Editions and derivative works" section needs re-writing as it is not encyclopaedic and has too many unsubstantiated claims
6. The entire first paragraph of the "Influence" section is unattributed and the second paragraph has only two references, neither of which directly attribute Miller's nor Milton's claims

• There is more but I wont go on. Perhaps submit the article to a peer-review?

--Senra (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Everyone, it seems we all more or less agree there should be a merge, and that further cleanup will then be necessary. There seems to have been no more discussion for several weeks now. Why don't we just go for it? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the consensus is abundantly clear. Please move forward merging the content.Cúchullain ^t/c 17:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Merged, or rather, Merging...

OK, have executed a very VERY rough merge, i.e. I've simply placed the contents of FBoM in a section here, merged the Bibliography, placed the two Influences sections in one, merged the Categories, created #Redirects at FBoM and BoM, and here we are.....

..... ready to start the real work of merging, which will require the skill, patience and intelligence that I know you guys have. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This lead-in from FBoM not (yet) used

Haven't placed the following text which was the lead-in to "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" in the article - feel free to use all or any of it however you see fit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"The Book of Martyrs, by John Foxe, more accurately Actes and Monuments of these Latter and Perillous Days, Touching Matters of the Church, is an account from a Protestant point of view of Christian church history and martyrology. It covers selectively the period from the 1st through the early 16th century, emphasising the sufferings of English Protestants and proto-Protestants from the 14th century through the reign of Mary I.

First published in 1563 by the Protestant John Day, the book was lavishly produced and illustrated with many woodcuts and was the largest publishing project undertaken in Britain up to that time. Widely owned and read by English Puritans, the book helped mould British popular opinion about the nature of Catholicism for several centuries. William Haller has argued that the Acts and Monuments is a complex book, both a reconceptualisation of the history of England and a portrait of the English church as an elect people whose history of suffering and dedication to the pure faith echo the history of Israel in the Old Testament."

F[oxe's] BoM cannot be demonstrated

HISTORICALLY, it cannot be said that J Foxe 'wrote' or J Day 'printed' a Bk of M. See notes for Book(s) of Martyrs. No such a book exists as such prior to [probably] 1631 -- Title 'Book of Martyrs' REFERS to an historicized LITERARY DEVICE.

MERGER seems to be working. Docdev (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Docdev (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

References

Capital Letter Cee

Downloaded from Guttengerg. The image is in free domain. I have also a coloured copy, that I, Devorah G. Greenberg, hand-coloured so it is mine to use and it will make an attractive Intro-piece. For your info Inlcuded British Library info. Also: I have no access to change the intro comment, before the main text. I changed it once, someone changed it back; I wrote"commonly called the 'Book of Martyrs' It got changed to "popularly called the Bk M'

The claimed popularity of the title 'Bk M' has strong evidence quesitonin the so-calle 'popularity of that title--especially when abridgers of 'Foxe, called their texts by other names.

PLEASE change 'popularly'to 'commonly called Bk M'in the intro.

And there's a system for displaying images at the start of an article that I don't know how. Might someone insert the image?

I am in care; not likely to be doing much as extreme effect of Parkinson's complications threaten my life. I will clean up this article (way too much repetition, errors, mispokensens). I will upload the imqage of Elizabeth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docdev (talk • contribs) 03:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Docdev (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Docdev (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move (May 2012)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Actes and Monuments Mike Cline (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

---

The Acts and Monuments → Acts and Monuments – The title of the book in its original spelling was simply "Actes and Monuments", without the words "the" or "ye". The addition of the word "the" into the title is novel, ungrammatical and linguistically incorrect. — KC9TV 09:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment what about Actes and Monuments ? 70.49.124.225 (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • That, I don't know. Does Wikipedia require modern spellings to be used? — KC9TV 07:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Not really. If a book has a name, that's its name. In any case we can provide both Acts and Actes with a redirect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per nom. "The" doesn't occur in the title of the book, and shouldn't be in the title of the article. Of course, a case could be made for Foxe's Book of Martyrs (per WP:COMMONNAME), but I agree that the official title of the book is better. Tevildo (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Was the original title renamed due to some hidden religious agenda? Well, I do certainly hope not. Well, there is no reason to suspect that the original name cannot be proposed to be restored again. — KC9TV 11:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, but support Actes and Monuments, since that's its name. Dicklyon (talk) 04:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose "Acts" (with no 'e'), but supportYes, I'd favour Actes and Monuments also, as the original name. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Do feel free to propose this, if this proposal is rejected. My support would be likely. — KC9TV 11:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, wasn't I clear enough... there, I've clarified my vote above now. Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Support "Actes and Monuments", more accurate spelling of the title. Tevildo (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Intoductory paragraph is not open to my edit. Please correct: The description 'popularilaly known as the Book of Martyrs' ... is historically disisputed'. I used the term 'coomonly called'... Please revert to my usage or show caue. *Publication history shows that the first use of the title, 'book of martyrs" is in 1649. We cannot domonstrate that the title was popular', or with whom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docdev (talk • contribs) 09:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

1631/1632

It is not very clear whether the 1631 edition is the same as the 1632 or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.122.155 (talk) 10:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Note that "John Taylor" is a common name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.122.155 (talk) 10:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Grievous Errors

Under the heading Works of the Reformation, a couple of links have been misconfigured. Please note use of "Chinese" and "Jewish". Marottawriter (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Some vandalism from Canada has been reverted by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.252.226 (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Xoloz (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Actes and Monuments → Foxe's Book of Martyrs – WP:COMMON —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support - usual common name. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Easily the common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Foxe's Book of Martyrs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614124349/http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/johnfoxe/apparatus/loadeshistoricalessay.html to http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/johnfoxe/apparatus/loadeshistoricalessay.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110709092855/http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/johnfoxe/index.html to http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/johnfoxe/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120202234309/http://rekindlingreformation.com/AD-RekindlingTheReformation-Articles-MartyrsOfChristianity.html to http://rekindlingreformation.com/AD-RekindlingTheReformation-Articles-MartyrsOfChristianity.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

1559 version of Foxe

Until now, section 4.1 stated as follows, 'Foxe published the version in Latin at Basel in August 1559, lacking sources, with the segment dealing with the Marian martyrs as "no more than a fragment."(ref Mozley 1940) Of course, it was difficult to write contemporary English history while living (as he later said) "in the far parts of Germany, where few friends, no conference, [and] small information could be had."(ref Mozley 1940)'

Fortunately, the 1559 version can be downloaded. The claim about the Mary Tudor segment being "no more than a fragment" is clearly false. I've added evidence at the table of editions at section 4 and in section 4.1 and in footnotes there.

The sentence 'Foxe published the version in Latin at Basel in August 1559, lacking sources, with the segment dealing with the Marian martyrs as "no more than a fragment."(ref Mozley 1940)' should surely be deleted.

Again, the sentence, '"no more than a fragment" on Marian martyrs' in the table of editions should surely be deleted.

Patrick Hamilton (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Patrick Hamilton (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Citation needed

The CN tag was added March 2020, so I cut the text, and paste it as follows:

Parsons, Maitland, Milner possibly did more to propagandize and disseminate the Foxe-derived texts of seventeenth-century radicals and eighteenth-century sectarians than did the books themselves. English Catholics legitimately aspired to alert their countrymen to the on-going injustice, the inequity of treatment suffered by Catholics in England. Being caught in a muddy roil of exaggerated virulence and sexually-charged reaction, however, dissipated the plaintiff's legal and political justification, while the legend of their moral culpability escalated. Repeated (localized) explosions of interest in The Book of Martyrs had at root something mysterious and dark – perhaps occasioned by state-sanctioned violence – tasting of a tang of blood and the flavour of shattered taboo.

No objections to reinsertion with the proper citation. Shtove (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)