Analysis of Eamon Duffy’s

Fires of Faith

Garrett Lewis

Braun Award for Excellence in Writing in the Arts and Behavioral Sciences, Category 1

Nominated by Paul Teed, Professor of History

Garrett Lewis is a fourth-year student from Marquette, Michigan, studying history with minors in public history and English. He is currently the president of Phi Alpha Theta, the history honor society at SVSU, while also serving as a tutor attheWriting Center. Garrett is alsothe campus eventsdirectorin SVSU’s Student Association. This piece represents one of the key interests that will guide him as he seeks to attain a Ph.D. in history.

For this paper, which was written for his Age of Restoration 1515–1575 (HIST 364) class, he and his peers were instructed to analyze the ways in which Dr. Eamon Duffy challenged the traditional narratives concerning the reign of England’s Queen Mary Tudor. Having been raised Roman Catholic, Garrett notes this piece allowed for some valuable introspection on the history of Catholicism throughout the world.

Eamon Duffy,in hisanalysis of the English Reformation, Fires of Faith: Catholic England under Mary Tudor, systematically breaks down the accepted characterization of the Marian regime as backward, detached, and ineffective in its attempted restoration of Catholicism in England. This text serves to offer the opposite characterization, claiming that the Marian regime under the leadership of individuals like Cardinal Reginald Pole was promoting an early counter-reformation version of Catholicism that was effective and literate in the social perception of the cause. In essence, Duffy argues that the accepted history of the reign of Mary Tudor is largely a devotional history from a purely Protestant perspective (2). Although he does touch on the immorality of the campaign of Protestant execution via burning, Duffy applies equal weight to reminding the reader to be wary of applying post-Enlightenment morality to a late medieval issue. He argues that the accepted history misleads individuals to believe that the Marian restoration of Catholicism was entirely rejected by the English populace when most evidence refutes this absolute belief (7–8). On the fronts of the effective use of print, propaganda, preaching, and persuasion, Duffy constructs his effective opposition to the historically held notion regarding Mary Tudor’s England.

The argument that Queen Mary attempted to reinstate a backward and antiquated form of Roman Catholicism is heavily contested by the author. Early in the text, Duffy concludes that Marian English Catholicism not only embodied the counter-reformation, but it was a ground for experimentation of the likes that the rest of Europe had not seen. He cites the fact that Cardinal Pole and his confidants made sure that every successful act, and on the other hand Protestant propagandists made sure that every unsuccessful act, was brought to the forefront of European attention. Furthermore, Duffy argues that the notion that the English regime ignored counterreformationidealsispreposterous,assertingthatCardinal PolehadbeenheavilyactiveintheItalian formation of a concise plan of counter-reformation (Duffy 8–10). He further states, “It was the vision of the Church matured in that Italian arena that he brought to bear on the reform and renewal of Catholicism in Marian England” (9). Another factor of counter-reformation Europe was a rejuvenation of the Catholic episcopate, namely the increase of a learned clergy of bishops. This tenet of the rest of Europe’s response to Protestantism was enacted within four years in Cardinal Pole’s England, whereas this process took close to two generations in Spain and was not largely tackled for at least a century in France. Furthermore, to expand upon the education of bishops, Cardinal Pole and his Legatine Synod established institutions of higher learning for parish priests as well, an action that was enacted far quicker than the rest of counter-reformation Europe (25) Needless to say, Duffy cites the presence of counter-reformation idealism in the Marian restoration of Catholicism, even if Cardinal Pole was the biggest champion of these causes.

Much like Henry VIII had Thomas Cromwell to whisper ideas into his ear leading to the English schism from Rome, Queen Mary Tudor had Cardinal Pole on her right side. Duffy applies much of his perceived success of the English restoration of Catholicism to the presence of Cardinal Pole. Without the Cardinal, emphasis on preaching, propaganda, print, and persuasion would not have existed, or at least would not have been as effective. As stated above, Cardinal Pole ushered in counter-reformation ideology that had not been present in England before his arrival. He focused heavily on using persuasion in multiple forms to attack Protestants and their beliefs. This focus on persuasion originated before Queen Mary had ascended the throne with his blistering response to the executions of Thomas More and John Fisher, Pro Ecclesiasticae Unitatis Defensione. Duffy reminds us this document, commonly known as De Unitate, was an open letter directed towards Henry VIII, analyzing his reasoning for schism and starkly defending the primacy of the papacy and the superiority of Roman Catholicism (34–35). From here, Cardinal Pole began to understand the importance of print in the field of persuasion Cardinal Pole was an early champion for the importance of preaching. In contrast to his Protestant predecessor, Thomas Cranmer, and even his successor, Matthew Parker, Cardinal Pole took his personal obligation as a preacher very seriously. There is even further evidence, says Duffy, in the forms of recorded sermons that Cardinal Pole advocated for preaching in the vernacular (51, 54). Leading by example, Cardinal Pole ensured that all clergy around the nation were actively preaching to their congregations. Duffy characterizes Cardinal Pole’s role in one sentence: “From the moment of his arrival in England, indeed even before his arrival, Pole, though by no means the only activator, was the single most influential figure in the Marian restoration: put briefly, he was in charge” (33).

Following Cardinal Pole’s leadership on persuasion, the Marian regime emphasized the importance of print in restoring the Catholic faith to England. Duffy refutes the commonly held notion that the Marian regime ignored the importance of print in their mission by pointing out the misleading characterizations of publications under Mary’s reign. First, Duffy points out that Mary was incredibly aware of the danger in allowing Protestant publications to permeate her realm. She combatted this danger by forcing Protestant publishers and printers out of business and then by handing their presses or businesses over to trustworthy Catholics to spread Catholic literature throughout the realm (58). Furthermore, Duffy points out how many of the accepted numerical counts of publications during the reign are largely misleading. He claims that the accepted bibliography of religious polemic in Marian England between the years 1553 and 1558 by Edward Bakersvilleis an inconsistent work, disregarding Catholicliturgical texts and devotional works, but counting their Protestant counterparts. It is noted that the most widely produced texts during the reign of Mary Tudor were the necessary Latin books for Catholic worship. Duffy also points out that a mere count of books is even further misleading as Bakersville regarded each title as a single book no matter how many editions were printed or how wide the readership was. The other factor to consider in terms of print, according to Duffy, is that Protestants had no other medium by which to argue their beliefs (59–60). Due to their persecution by the regime, sneaking texts into the country was their only way of reaching their devoted congregations; Catholics did not need to rely as heavily on this medium. Duffy also cites that the Catholic literature of the era was largely uniform compared to their reactionary Protestant counterparts. He points out that many of the Catholic texts followed central themes, one of the major themes being the destructive nature of Protestantism and its inconsistency in terms of English society (71). Ultimately, Duffy characterizes Marian Catholic literature as a systematic project, claiming, “it worked as a form of carpet bombing, driving its message home in many forms, but achieving a remarkable consistency across genre and occasion” (75). This goes to show that the Marian Catholic regime understood the importance of the effective use of print in combatting religious dissidence. Although it was amoral sticking point, Duffyarguesthat the Marianutilization of religious persecution was not the ineffective campaign that it has been claimed to be in widely accepted accounts of theera. Rather,Duffy argues that if one removes the moral barrier that exists inmodern times to religious persecution, it is hard to deny that the Marian Regime effectively used the burnings as a place to preach or propagandize (79, 81). Furthermore, Duffy spends a remarkable amount of time recounting the regime’s careful analysis of its own struggle with the morality of persecuting dissident subjects. He points out that, although Cardinal Pole was unafraid to carry the sword of God, he heavily emphasized that it was much more beneficial to persuade Protestants to denounce their faith than to burn them at the stake (94). Beyond this, Duffy rejects this purely devotional historic account that these occasions were a Catholic government burning individuals of a predominantly Protestant populace. Duffy cites that by the end of the campaign, the remaining victims of the regime’s burnings were only the most devoted Protestants, thus rendering the government’s goal essentially achieved (83). Both Cardinal Pole and the Queen understood the importance of using public executions as a means for propaganda, which resulted in the placement of a pulpit at every burning (95). This not only served the regime as a way to publicly justify their burning of heretics, but it was also a way for Catholic preachers to preach to a large portion of the public.

Duffy further argues that the accepted notion that the burnings were a deterrent for the mass populace to return to Catholicism is false. He cites that simple large crowds or the presence of Protestants in the crowds do not correlate with discontent or outward aversion to the burnings. He states that public executions were, quite honestly, a spectator sport for the English population during this era. Furthermore, on the topic of the crowds being so-called “Protestant crowds,” he claims,“crowdswithprotestantsinthemarenotnecessarilyprotestant crowds”(83).Thisisadirect blow to the widely accepted account from the Protestant polemic John Foxe, whom he claims overemphasizes the so-called “Protestant” public aversions to the burnings. Duffy points out that the presence of somewhat angered Protestant crowds may have easily been due to the fact that the regime understood that to reach the most hearts, the burnings had to take place in regions where Protestants had gained a foothold, like County Colchester. In the same vein of using the burnings as a tool for propaganda, the Marian regime understood the burnings were theatre to these common English folks, therefore providing them with the opportunity to not only entertain but justify and show their commitment to providing mercy to everyone who sought it. Thus, while every Englishman of the Marian era may not have been totally in favor of burning neighbors for heresy, it was not as if they were blind to the fact that these executions were the last resort. Even then, thosewhowereopposedtotheburningsandchosetovoicetheirconcernspubliclyat theexecutions learnedrather quicklythat thisput themselves indirect danger astheregimesystematicallyarrested those who publicly spoke against the burnings as they were sympathizing with heretics (84) Ultimately, what Foxe and later scholars cite as Protestant aversion to burnings on a wide scale in the public can just as easily be described as simple humanity from people watching their neighbors be executed. At the end of the day, Protestantism was still the minority, even in the most fervent communities.

Many can point out that the Marian restoration may not have been effective because there was not much opposition to the Elizabethan restoration of the Anglican faith; however, this is the same rabbit hole into which Duffy dives. The Catholic resistance to Elizabethan restoration exists in the same vein that Protestant resistance to the Marian regime did. The common scholarship that has been provided for the era is heavily skewed Protestant; therefore, it will not give light to the fact that under Queen Elizabeth, over two hundred Catholics were executed (Duffy 82) As Duffy states, “Marian Catholicism inspired the generation of ardent activists who would provide Elizabethan Catholicism with its core convictions, its best writers, its most characteristic institutions and its martyrs” (207). Furthermore, effectiveness can be further measured by the faith of the surviving Marian bishops. All fourteen of these men refused to take the Oath of Supremacy following Elizabeth’s reinstation of the Church of England (195). If there was no effect on the Marian restoration, Catholicism would have died with the Queen, but it did not. If the public entirely rejected the restoration, there would have been no reason to execute Catholics, because they ultimately would not exist on a scale that would require execution.

That Duffy opposes the devotional history that exists against the effectiveness of the Marian restoration can be proven by the fact that English Catholicism did not die with the Queen of the Cardinal. Although equally suppressed by the subsequent Elizabethan regime, English Catholicism survived into the modern day, and as Duffy posits, it offered Europe a blueprint to revamp their existing religion. Duffy argues that the accepted history of Queen Mary’s reign is truly an anti-Marian account that refuses any semblance of success that the regime achieved. He refutes this account systematically by proving that persuasion, propaganda, print, and preaching played a central role in the success of the restoration of Catholicism in England.

Works Cited