Talk:Actes and Monuments

Confusion

This is confusing. The version of the book on wikisource is totally different from that discused in this article. It even includes sections about nineteenth century Christian Martyrs —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Liarliarliar (talk • contribs) 29 March 2006.

Indeed. There were many editions. Also, the illustrations on Wikisource are not Foxe's original woodcuts. - Jmabel | Talk 03:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to parse the many editions of this book. At least as early as 1800, probably much earlier, editors would abridge the original book (or a previous abridgment) and then add their own stories of martyrs that they felt should be included. Google Books has a nice collection of this sort. It is almost as though "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" should be a FAMILY of books, all with a common source. Of course, what I'm hoping for are references along this line, or some kind of publication that has tried to account for all the variations on the original text. If this article could point the reader towards this kind of information I think it would be much better off. - Begeun (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Images

Title page of the first English-language edition, 1563.

I've uploaded a few more copies of Foxe's original woodcuts on the Commons. One of them is the title page of the first English-language edition, which I think should perhaps be used here as an illustration. - Jmabel | Talk 03:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Subtle bias in tone

This article is somewhat slanted in tone, which is probably difficult to avoid given the polemic nature of the original source material. As one example, the description of the publication as occuring "after a brutal period of religious oppression" implies that repression ended, instead of switching to Catholics after Elizabeth inherited the throne.

I've made a number of small changes to try and provide a more neutral attitude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenMacmanus (talk • contribs) 05:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional NPOV changes

The article is slanting towards a defense of the author, which is not consistent with NPOV. For example, it includes these statements in the same paragraph:

• "Foxe maintains a high standard of honesty."
• Encyclopedia Britannica "accused" Foxe....

In addition, the article treats accuracy and objectivity as identical, which is not the case. It correctly cites Mozley indicating the work wasn't a forgery and contains details of actual events. However, these facts don't obscure the intention to present a specific point of view in favor of the dissenters. This viewpoint is an inseparable part of the work. As the 2009 Encyclopedia Britannica states in the author's article, a "polemic account of those who suffered for the cause of Protestantism".

John Foxe's personal honesty is not in question. But, he did work within a specific point of view which he successfully presented, and the result "helped shape popular opinion about Roman Catholicism for at least a century." (The 2009 Britannica again).

Obscuring or downplaying this aspect of the book is uninformative.

I've reworded the "Evaluation and Perspectives" section accordingly. StephenMacmanus (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

To further expand on my recent edits, the fact that the authors of the 1911 Britannica found that the book contained "wilful falsification of evidence" is a valid perspective on this book. Everyone has their own points of view, and reporting this conclusion does not automatically indicate malice by the author. In any event, this article is not meant to defend or attack John Foxe, but only to provide all perspectives. StephenMacmanus (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe the charge of the 1911 Britannica is outdated, having been made at a low point of Foxe's reputation. I have no problem with it being cited, but I think the source of the comments ought to be included in the text as well. I think most POV problems here can also be worked out in this way.--John Foxe (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the 1911 Britannica was pretty darn anti-Catholic. If even it is calling the book of martyrs crap, it ought to be obvious enough that it IS crap. IMO, this article needs quite a bit more refutation of the book to truly be npov.Farsight001 (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Obscure meaning

These sentences are difficult; "Nevertheless, Foxe who had left England poor and unknown, returned only poor. He had gained "a substantial reputation" through his Latin work." Maybe one or the other sentence could be altered, or they could be joined as, "Nevertheless, Foxe, who had left England poor and unknown, had gained "a substantial reputation" through his Latin work by the time he returned." JehoshaphatJIJ (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I've tweaked the sentence. What do you think?--John Foxe (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Title

The WIKI link makes it appear that 'The Book of Martyrs"' is an alternative title for Acts and Monuments. It's not, and John Foxe specfically denied it in his second edition: 'I wrote no such book as is called a 'Booke of Martyrs' (1570 AM. 691). It's not correct to say "'The Book of Martyrs" by John Foxe,"...he would have been dismayed. I recommend that the linking page titled 'Acts and Monuments' be deleted, since it has no info, and a new link made to 'The Acts and Monuments', which does contain info. I was letting this go, but I've another related article pending that will need more reliable info on AM. Signed, dgg (I'm not sure how this signature thing goes.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docdev (talk • contribs) 09:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Misleading

The WIKI article on 'Foxe's Book of Martyrs' demonstrates one of the problems deriving from conjoining the author and the book. It misunderstands and misassigns attributes and effects of the text to the author, and the reverse. Even scholars as experienced as Prof. Patrick Collinson and Dr. Thomas Freeman fall into the trap of attributing to the intention of the author, effects of his text, a danger that I am not alone in highlighting.

It is not helpful to have such mythic, generalized conclusions asserted as historical fact, and on so little evidence, really. If the author of this article wants to salvage and improve what they've got, I have a couple of suggestions that might work. Otherwise, once I figure out how to do it, I would recommend deletion of the article. Most of what it says of historical value is contained also in the 'John Foxe' article, which is a more coherent and useful account. Docdev (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreeing with some of the points you make, I'm suggesting a merge into The Acts and Monuments. That might not be quite the right title yet. But in any case a merge would leave Foxe's Book of Martyrs as a redirect, which seems fine to me. There is further material, not just at John Foxe, but at John Day (printer). There really should be just one page that goes into it all, the various editions and influence included. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, since "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" is the much more common title of the work - and indeed the two are one work - the AaM article should be merged into this one. Deposuit (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Quotation

It is unclear where the quotation in the section "Objectivity" actually begins and therefore whether one may change "who" to "whom," as proper usage would indicate.Rozsaphile1 (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)