Belloc’s dedication to G. K. Chesterton gave me hope for this volume as an investigation of the Reformation (aka the second great schism, imho). He sought to write a pro-Catholic work, which he did. He wrote against the anti-Catholic stream, which are (sadly) alive and loud even today. I appreciate these things.

Yet, the narrative quickly descended into an anti-Protestant barrage, full (FULL!) of Belloc’s personal indictments of figures, particularly side figures, without any historical backing regarding why he viewed people this way. Overall, this feels like one of the lengthy, disjointed, angry text essays I send my friends when I’m feeling perturbed about something historical. If they were ever published, I’d be ashamed of that emotionally charged, fallacious writing I did in the heat of a moment.

Belloc seems to be working out his personal anger toward Protestantism in this book, and thus I don’t trust what he says about anything, even the parts I agree with (see: Calvin as a dangerous personality). I’m still on the lookout for a good Catholic history of the Reformation.

Ladies and gentlemen finally closes the circle in which Belloc ends as he says in the preface of this great work of elucidating one of the two issues that have most concerned humanity, and the glorious guild to which I belong that of historians. The first pulsating question of the rise, and the fall of Rome, as Will Durant https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... already raised and the second question dealt with partially by secular historiography is to analyze the division of Christianity (we ignore the schism with the Orthodox Church, and I pray that wisdom will prevail, and that what councils such as Ferrara and Florence seem to dictate can be completed). That is to say how the triumph of Protestantism could be gestated (since I refuse to call that spawn Reformation), because it was never sought to reform the Church, but to destroy it, and to surrender the national churches to the appetites of kings, princes, and greedy lords.
He will briefly talk about the intrahistory of this book I was reading "Our Lady of Artilects" by Andrew Gillsmith https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6... and I will continue with it once I have concluded this review. This review by the way I have not yet written on Instagram, along with prayers that I also have behind. I recognize that my duty was the fulfillment of the word given, but in this case my jocular nature made me follow the maxim of the exquisite Oscar Wilde who said that "If you could not avoid temptation the best way to avoid it was to fall into it" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... and that I did, while I was preparing to continue with "Our Lady of Artilects" gave me to look for works by Hilaire Belloc, I still tasted with pleasure the magnificent "Characters of the Reformation" https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... in fact I think that together with "A library in the Oasis" by my admired Juan Manuel de Prada https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... was the best non-fiction book of the year 2021. I knew that this book existed, and I wanted to know if the previous book talked about those who starred in the misnamed Reformation. This book talks about how such a catastrophe could have happened, which made possible the mistakes of today's world.
This book unlike the previous one does not fully agree with everything that Hilaire Belloc says unlike the previous one. There are differences in criteria, and in some cases it commits some historical inaccuracies. Specifically what I disagree with Hilaire Belloc on is the role of Spain. Belloc tends to reduce its importance, and accelerate its decline. In some cases it seems that Belloc has fallen into the trap that he himself denounces, and that he has made the mistake of believing the propaganda of the enemy. The vision of Philip II is negative, as is that of G.K. Chesterton https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... (despite the great love that the latter shows to Spain. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5... It is quite possible that Belloc's case is due to his Anglo-French condition that tends to praise the role of France, and to denigrate the role of Spain. All in all, Belloc's criticisms are moderately reasonable, and logical.) We will discuss this when we talked about the Reformation in the Netherlands.
However, this book has great successes, the first of all being the fact that it is dedicated to the great Chesty (G.K. Chesterton, already mentioned above). In fact the beginning of this book is one of the best I've ever read. Belloc insists on saying that the wars of religion in spite of what maintains the post-Christian, and secular world today does not end with the defeat of the Catholics, but in a draw. It talks about the most discussed historical issues the fall of Rome, and the Reformation, and certainly the best, and what makes it a work of full force is the courageous attack that Hilaire Belloc (rightly called this champion Old Thunder) that Belloc launches against Protestant historians, and this is the most important thing against the anticlerical school to which historians of Catholic countries belong, which is the one that predominates today. Belloc rails against the idols of our time from against the Father of History Leopold von Ranke https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... (particularly against his anti-Catholic History of the Popes, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... where he praises Luther, and despises St. Ignatius of Loyola https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...) in previous works we already saw that Belloc had revolted against the Whig historiography based on race, on vigorous Germanism, and manifestly anti-Catholic, despite military in this party. Ranke's case, although I praised his religiosity, is because his work has a Protestant, anti-Catholic, bias from which one must free oneself. As for fatherhood as the creator of History as a Social Science, perhaps it can be debated whether Giambattista Vico https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... or Ludovico Antonio Muratori https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... praised by St. John Henry Newman in his " Idea of the University" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4..., but Belloc does not stop, and undertakes it against another of the gurus of historiography Jules Michelet https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... pantheist, Gnostic, and father of historicism and the influence of Gautier, Dumas, Merimee, Victor Hugo https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... there is also a criticism of Thierry (I guess he will be the author of History of the Merivingios) https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... Ernest Renan https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., Comte https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., perhaps of all these the loudest punch was taken by Edward Gibbon https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... whom he dispatches as a disciple of Voltaire (this is not said by Belloc, but I say it. As a historian Voltaire's speech is superficial, and quite poor. It also commits another sin, and that is to provoke the emotionality of the masses to create fictitious victims, and particular cases). Belloc has another true. In the review of "Characters of the Reformation" my friend Professor Manuel Alfonseca https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... reproached him that his work was unbalanced, because it gave more space to England, than to other countries. Here he corrects this defect, and finally tells us about Martin Luther. It was incomprehensible to write a History of the Reformation without talking about the pioneer Martin Luther, even if you have more tirria to John Calvin https://www.goodreads.com/author/show.... On one thing, if you can agree with Hilaire Belloc and that is that the apostasy of England was key to the triumph of Protestantism, since (and I add this) from the War of the Spanish Succession (1700-1715) to the Second World War (1939-1945) England has had world hegemony, and only ceded it to the United States of America from 1945, because I could no longer keep it. That is why desertion, and British apostasy are key to understanding, because Protestantism has prevailed, and the triumph of modern ideologies, that as Belloc maintains each new ideology arising from the Protestant advent to the present date has each been more destructive and nihilistic than the previous one. Without Protestantism it is impossible to comprehend the emergence of Freemasonry, liberalism, capitalism, social democracy, communism, anarchism, fascism, Nazism, and other more destructive isms.
Belloc has another branch of genius, and certainly considers that this crisis could not have occurred without the catastrophe of the Black Death, which decimated the best of the middle ages, and left without defenses to the thought, and the medieval worldview. While it is praised for the relaxation of customs, worldliness, and the appetite for medieval goods is what leads to this. He speaks well of the Renaissance, and considers that Europe takes off thanks to it, although he considers that this would have been achieved, despite the fall of Byzantium. He thinks that Wycliffe https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... and the Lollards, and Jan Hus https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... they would not have succeeded in destroying the Church by themselves. That it is not a powerful organization, and that it always had difficulties, and here it repeats what it wrote in "Great Heresies" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5... christianity's struggle against Arianism, Islam, the Cathars, the empire, and how it succumbs to France, and how it settles in Avignon. There is also talk of schism. Unfortunately Belloc apologizes for not dealing with the question of the Council of Basel, and the German Empire, which he would like to have dealt with. He considers that Protestantism could not have grown without the Turkish danger, and frees from responsibilities the popes ranging from Nicholas V to Leo X, the only exception being Alexander VI who is the only one with whom he is critical, perhaps with Innocent VIII, but praises the others. Of Alexander VI he speaks of his political talent, and his patronage to artists, and this I add I could add his Marian devotion, however, for Belloc the excessive ascendancy towards César Borgia was the cause of his ills. Perhaps the most moving portrait is that of Pius II, who wanted to lead a crusade to drive the Tuecos out of Europe dying on the way. There is talk of the attempt of the Popes to ask for a crusade, but that the national monarchies did not collaborate.
Already arriving at the case of Luther according to Belloc at first he did not consider breaking with Rome, and the trip to Rome of Julius II would not have been a cause of his disaffection. That at first the matter would have been a discussion because the indulgences had been entrusted to the Dominicans, and not to the Augustinians, and that was where it all came from. That he was allowed to expose his ideas, and he was allowed to debate with one of the great theologians St. Cajetan of Thiene https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... Belloc points out something else, which should have been mentioned, and that is that there is a Catholic reform prior to that of Luther, who tried to truly reform the Church, and not destroy it. There is talk of excommunication, and how the Princes are the villains of history. Belloc brings another spark of genius, which I should have taken into account, and that is that Protestantism would not have imposed itself, but would have been for Islam. Mohacs was a tragedy, and prevented the coordinated effort of the defenders of Catholicism to destroy it. Here Belloc exculpates Luther, and says that collusion with the Turks is the work of Philip of Hesse. This will lead to the negotiation being sought. As for the Council Belloc exculpates the Popes, and says that if it was not held before it was the fault of the kings, especially the monarch of France (Francis I), and Henry VIII, who refused to collaborate. Here Belloc should have added that Charles V was for the work of celebrating it, and that he was pushing for it to be celebrated. On this question I would have liked Belloc to have been tougher on Luther on the subject of racism, nationalism, contempt for works, and that he was a man with no religious vocation, who was bile and hatred, and who was a disciple of the nominalists. There he escapes alive, and I also wish that Belloc had focused on the German Empire, and told us how Protestantism spread throughout northern Europe. This work should have been not of a single man, but of several would have gained more, especially in the case of Spain, Germany, northern Europe, and Central Europe (here it included Poland, for example). Belloc only mentions it to tell us that he was saved from Protestantism thanks to the Jesuits. The chapter dedicated to them in the counterattack is very beautiful, particularly to St. Ignatius of Loyola, and the Dutchman St. Peter Canisius.
It must be recognized that the English and French part that Belloc dominates are very well told. In England he tells us the usual, which is the pressure of the rich, the desire of Anne Boleyn (a Howard to be queen), and the ambitions of Cromwell that carry out the Reformation. It speaks of the heroic end of St. Thomas More, and the preceptor of King John Fisher. That the King was sick, that syphilis had determined him, and that he was not prepared for the government, that despite his cruelties, and massacres he only yielded at the Mass of the dead, and that despite the break with Rome he remained culturally Catholic. Something that breaks with the Seymours, calling the Seymours and Warwick thieves. Regarding Mary Tudor, who despite her piety could not return the goods to the monasteries, that the marriage with Philip II was unpopular, but makes a criticism of France saying that it encouraged revolts against her. It is surprising that Belloc called Wyatt a bad poet. He speaks of Cecil's duplicity, agreeing with María Jesús Pérez's book of "María Tudor la gran reina desconocido" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1.... I liked more the way Cranmer treats in "Characters of the Reformation" here Belloc is too benign to him. He defends the need to have beheaded rather than burned. He says that even critics despite the unpopularity of the Protestants were surprised by the harshness of the persecution. That Elizabeth saves her life thanks to Philip II who asked Mary Tudor for her life (something that historiography hostile to this monarch does not say). As for the reign of Elizabeth, that in reality who ruled was Cecil, and that when he died he ceded power to William who despite being ugly, and hunchback was even more cunning than his father. Cecil is a man who acts out of interest. Man of persistence, fixed idea, and love of money. He prepared Babington's conspiracy to put an end to Mary Stuart fearing Elizabeth's ill health, and then quite possibly William prepared the gunpowder conspiracy. The move is repeated to surround Isabel with her supporters, and feed her fears with conspiracies that are exaggerated. Belloc considers that Spain's defeat in Holland is due to piracy, and that he withheld payments to the thirds. There is an interest in leaving the best possible to their kings.

Though the author (a Catholic) makes no pretense at impartiality, he also makes no attempt to deny the incredible institutional corruption in the Church at the time of the Reformation -- indeed he repeatedly emphasizes it. This is a sharp-edged polemic from a different era. Though I read the book fully aware of its brevity and limited scope, I had nonetheless hoped for a little more meat on the bone. Contains both unsubstantiated assertions and deeply thoughtful insights. The author's knowledge of every little corner of Europe is at times staggering.

Good historical account of how the Reformation began and spread through the major areas of Europe.

This book should be etched in stone and turned into a monument. For any subject, my dream is to have someone just tell it to me straight, what really happened and why, the entire truth without any waste. Belloc is that person for the subject of the Protestant Reformation and the splitting of Christendom. This is an outstanding history book. I wish I'd read him years ago.

To say that the Protestant Reformation was a hugely divisive event is an understatement. This book, written 100 years ago, provides a Catholic perspective on the nearly 100 year transformation (not long when you think about the impact this made)of European culture from total Catholicism in everyone's way of living and thinking to division unlike anything comparable. I found it very interesting that the author pointed out that as generations came and went, the subtle changes in beliefs and practices became more accepted, even though the process looked different in various parts or Europe. It made me think of the division in the US and in the world today and how so much in western culture has changed over the past 100+ years, with each generation becoming less aware of our total reliance and need for God and becoming more materialistic and atheistic. Nothing new under the sun, greed, power, and political corruption continue to haunt humanity, history just keeps repeating itself.

As a truthful look into the tumultuous history of the Reformation, Belloc distinctively shares the cataclysmic and tragic split of Christian Europe between Catholics and Protestants into separate Theological camps. Christians are often unaware of the political forces which manipulate the development of Liturgical expression. Belloc's history is a must read for Catholics and Protestants alike.

Belloc writes a clear, concise, and fairly balanced view of the hows and whys of the Reformation. Just like today, the theme of societal change at the time was to “follow the money.” Alas, we never learn.

I must also say that it’s a terrible crime that Belloc is not more widely read these days - an incredible writer with a brilliant mind.

In the beginning Belloc asks "How did Christendom suffer shipwreck?" The answer is not as simplistic as we are often led to believe. Belloc goes into the enormous complexities of historical realities of the major regions impacted by the Reformation, Germany, England, France, and the Netherlands. He doesn't excuse the excesses the Church had fallen into and badly needed reform, but he deftly draws out how the "reformers" (they didn't reform anything but set up counter-churches) and especially the nobility that supported them took advantage of the situation for personal gain. Ultimately these fateful events plunged an entire continent into disarray and areas of anarchy where the general populace not only suffered horrendous atrocities but lost the culture, religion, and traditions formed by the centuries.

I found this book very educational, I would recommended it to anyone interested in this topic , it was very eye opening to see how the events happened in a more detail analysis and also pretty sad I may say to read how political and economic motives prevail over religion and values , no surprise though....

This book has answered nearly everything I wanted to know about the Reformation. There are only but a few smaller questions that I have left unanswered, but the larger "why's" of the split of Christendom have been answered brilliantly by Hilaire Belloc.
This was the first book I had read by Belloc, and I do intend to read many more of his works as he is a prominent English Catholic writer whom I seem to become more drawn to as I continue to dive into his literature.
I think one of the things I particularly enjoyed about this book was Belloc's ability to remain objective while explaining the truths of the Reformation. I learned much about the corruption within the men of my own faith: Catholicism, that Belloc was able to explain objectively without much attachment to emotion to exaggerate or downplay whatever thing. Because he was able to do this so effectively, I was able to understand and learn truths for what they are without becoming animated over them.
Belloc answered all of my "why's" that I have been desiring to learn, and I love that it was from a Catholic author able to maintain objectivity for explanation throughout the read. Too often we see the anti-Catholic hatred attempt to explain the Reformation and it's "positive effect" and "glory" that it has laid down upon history, when in reality, it was a travesty to split Christendom.
This will be the first book that I recommend to anyone who wants to learn the authentic truths of the Reformation. A must-read.

This book is passionate, opinionated, profoundly learned, acute and definitely politically incorrect. Refreshing! O Belloc! How you quench my thirsting soul in this arid world of materialism ... And how you penetratingly understood the historical processes that generated our arid culture.

I hope to review this at more length at the growing Hilaire Belloc section of my blog: http://corjesusacratissimum.org/tag/h... (which I shamelessly plug for any fellow friends of beloved HB who love him like I do ...)