The author's credibility was challenged as soon as the book first appeared. Detractors accused Foxe of dealing falsely with the evidence, of misusing documents, and of telling partial truths. In the early nineteenth century the charges were taken up again by a number of authors, most importantly Samuel Roffey Maitland. Subsequently, Foxe was considered a poor historian, in mainstream reference works. The
1911 Encyclopædia Britannica said this of Foxe "The gross blunders due to carelessness have often been exposed, and there is no doubt that Foxe was only too ready to believe evil of the Catholics, and he cannot always be exonerated from the charge of wilful falsification of evidence. It should, however, be remembered in his honour that his advocacy of religious toleration was far in advance of his day.[11th ed., volume 10, p.770]"; two years later in the
Catholic Encyclopedia,
Francis Fortescue Urquhart wrote of the value of the documentary content and eyewitness reports, but claimed that Foxe "sometimes dishonestly mutilates his documents and is quite untrustworthy in his treatment of evidence". The 14th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica (1960 printing) has an article on John Foxe written by J.F. Mozley who himself wrote a book "John Foxe and His Book" in 1940. Mozley was certainly sympathetic to John Foxe and Foxe's Book of Martyrs (see the Bibliography for Mozley's book). Mozley in summary concerning Foxe's Book of Martyrs states the following: "It is indeed prolix [i.e. long-winded], unsystematic, carelessly edited, one-sided, oversharp, sometimes credulous. But it is honest and it is strong in facts....It opens a window on the English Reformation by preserving much firsthand material unobtainable elsewhere.. . .The charges of deliberate falsification brought against him by Alan Cope (1566), Robert Parsons(1603) and some moderns [viz. S.R. Maitland etc.-ed] have no substance." (Encyclopedia Britannica,14th ed., 1960, Vol. 9, p. 573).
Foxe's source reliability In contrast,
J. F. Mozley maintained that Foxe preserved a high standard of honesty, arguing that Foxe's method of using his sources "proclaims the honest man, the sincere seeker after truth." The 2009
Encyclopædia Britannica notes that Foxe's work is "factually detailed and preserves much firsthand material on the English Reformation unobtainable elsewhere." It was typical, however, in the late nineteenth and early decades of the twentieth centuries to treat Foxe's text as "not to be trusted....If not the father of lies, Foxe was thought to be the master of inventions, and so readers of the
Britannica were advised and warned."
Documented grounds Foxe based his accounts of martyrs before the early modern period on previous writers, including
Eusebius,
Bede,
Matthew Paris, and many others. He compiled an English martyrology from the period of the
Lollards through to the persecution of Protestants by Mary I. Here Foxe had primary sources to draw on: episcopal registers, reports of trials, and the testimony of eyewitnesses. The account of the Marian years is based on
Robert Crowley's 1559 extension of a 1549 chronicle history by
Thomas Cooper, itself an extension of a work begun by
Thomas Lanuet. Cooper (who became a Church of England
Bishop) strongly objected to Crowley's version of his history and soon issued two new "correct" editions.
John Bale set Foxe onto martyrological writings and contributed to a substantial part of Foxe's ideas as well as printed material.
Objectivity and advocacy Foxe's book is in no sense an impartial account of the period. He did not hold to later centuries' notions of neutrality or objectivity, but made unambiguous side glosses on his text, such as "Mark the apish pageants of these popelings" and "This answer smelleth of forging and crafty packing."
David Loades has suggested that Foxe's history of the political situation, at least, is 'remarkably objective'. He makes no attempt to make martyrs out of
Wyatt and his followers, or anyone else who was executed for treason, except George Eagles, whom he describes as "falsely accused." In their 1952
British Authors before 1800: A Biographical Dictionary,
Kunitz and
Haycraft wrote, "For a century at least it was practically required reading in every English-speaking Puritan household, often the only book owned except the Bible. Probably no single book has caused so many neuroses as has this one. Foxe was a fanatical Protestant, wrote with feverish energy, was completely credulous, and reveled in horror. No detail is too small or too dreadful to be described minutely, and no invective too violent to be applied to the Roman Catholics—for to his mind there were no martyrs except Protestants. His only theme is suffering, and he mangles his readers' nerves with one long monotony of agony and terror."
Sidney Lee, in the
Dictionary of National Biography, called Foxe "a passionate advocate, ready to accept any
primā facie evidence". Lee also listed some specific errors and suggested that John Foxe plagiarized. Thomas S. Freeman observes that, like a hypothetical barrister, Foxe had to deal with the evidence of what actually happened, evidence that he was rarely in a position to forge. But he would not present facts damaging to his client, and he had the skills that enabled him to arrange the evidence so as to make it conform to what he wanted it to say. Like the barrister, Foxe presents crucial evidence and tells a side of the story which must be heard, but his text should never be read uncritically, and his partisan objectives should always be kept in mind." By the end of the 17th century, however, the work tended to be abbreviated to include only "the most sensational episodes of torture and death" thus giving to Foxe's work "a lurid quality which was certainly far from the author's intention." William Haller did not refer to "sensational episodes of torture and death", nor did he report on any texts reduced "only" to such matter. Neither has any specific edition been exhibited as proof, yet, it is conventionally believed and so frequently asserted that Sidney Lee, and Thomas Freeman after him, state it as a true overgeneralization. Thus, it should not be deleted as a simple error in fact, even if it is wrong. A scan of the titles for Foxe-derived editions make the claim unlikely, and ''Reflexive Foxe: The 'Book of Martyrs' Transformed'', prove it false; findings supported by Haller and Wooden's less comprehensive glimpses into the later abridgments.
Acts and Monuments was cannibalized for material to warn of the dangers of Catholicism and, in Foxe's name, also to undermine resurgent
High Church Anglicanism. The author's credibility and the text's reliability became suspect, then, for both Catholic and Anglican Church defenders.
Samuel Roffey Maitland, Maitland's and others' critiques helped to awaken increasing antagonism toward intolerance in the public conscience. Combined with professionalized academic dissociation, left no voices to speak in Foxe's defence, and reduced Foxe's historical credibility such that "no one with any literary pretensions...ventured to quote Foxe as an authority." John Milner, defender of the "old religion" (Catholicism), authored several tracts, pamphlets, essays, and Letters to the Editor: "Dear Sir…"; using all public means available to him for declaring that abuse of Englishmen was occurring "frequently", ipso edem, the defamation and harassment of Catholics in England – a treatment not similarly visited on Sectarian communities or the Quakers. Milner's life project to discredit "Foxe" was polemical—that was the point of arguing: to persuade people to see things as the speaker constructed or, at least, to seeing some merit to his case. Before the Houses of Parliament in the years of Milner's and others activism, were bills for relieving English Catholics of tax penalties (for being Catholic), having to tithe to the Anglican Church, and relief from imposition of the Oath that stood between any Catholic and a government position. The publication of J. F. Mozley's biography of Foxe in 1940 reflected a change in perspective that reevaluated Foxe's work and "initiated a rehabilitation of Foxe as a historian which has continued to this day." "Since Mozley's landmark study (1940)," Warren Wooden observed in 1983, "Foxe's reputation as a careful and accurate, albeit partisan, historian especially of the events of his own day, has been cleansed and restored with the result that modern historians no longer feel constrained to apologize automatically for evidence and examples drawn from the
Acts and Monuments." Patrick Collinson's formal acknowledgement and recognition of "John Foxe as Historian," invites redetermining historians' current relationship with the text. John Foxe was the "greatest [English] historian of his age," Collinson concluded, "and the greatest revisionist ever". == Religious perspectives ==