A great book, gives you the reformation without the "heroism" of the protestant figures that many were taught in schools. Enlightens us very directly on the moral indifference (or worse) of much of the leading protestant of the time.

Not what I was expecting. Not enough detail and could have focused more on less people. Hard to follow, perhaps didn’t stand the test of time.

Belloc was a Liberal (and MP for the Liberal Party) and an apologist for the French Revolution. He makes some good (obvious) points, but obscures and twists other things (such as claiming that the heretics Descartes and Pascal, were good Catholics). Don't read him, he's a snake, like a more evil looking version of G.K Chesterton.

Ladies and gentlemen I do not know if it will give me time to write this review today, because the place where I work closes at 14:00, and I will also leave before, because I want to pay for some books, however, I will try to advance as much as I can in the criticism of which for me (I already knew that it could be a serious candidate to be the best non-fiction book of the year. What I didn't expect is to have read this book at the time I did.) This has been because this book, for me capital has been chosen to be read in the month of August at the Catholic Book Club https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/... . This book was proposed by my friend Professor Manuel Alfonseca (of course I recommend his blog Divulciencia in English and Spanish and his wonderful books of fiction, and non-fiction) https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... https://divulciencia.blogspot.com/ finally this book tied with"Christus vincit" by Athanasius Scneider https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5... (which I do not know how it will be, but an interesting discussion about this book is taking place. Especially in relation to Freemasonry). True that this book"Characters of the Reformation" title that I like more than"Characters of the Reformation" because in fact Characters in English means characters, but Belloc what he does in this book is to make some brilliant and very accomplished semblances of some of the participants in that unfortunate historical moment. That is why I believe that without any doubt this book"Characters of the Reformation" is undoubtedly the best book that Catholic Book Club has chosen this year.
It wasn't a surprise, since Belloc was passionate about the subject, and when he was able to get the diento, or when he had to write about it, he didn't let us down. I certainly do not. So that goodreads users can appreciate how much I liked this book. When I walked into Goodreads to see how the vote had turned out (since I didn't know who had won, and I didn't vote for this book. In fact, it would have been my fourth, or my fifth choice. Which proves the great quality of books we have to choose from. Returning to the topic "Characters of the Reformation" had me from 20:00 on June 20 to 3:00 in the morning of June 21, because I could not stop reading. In contrast to more modern historians John Julius of Norwich https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... , Dan Jones https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... (whose thesis in your book of the crusades is today there is jihadist terrorism because of the crusades and the extreme right, and know that yes as I like crusades you are far right), or Neil Price, whose books bored me, and infuriated me in equal parts. In fact in the case of Mr. Price https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... (from whose book "Son of elm and ash: A History of the Vikings" I was reading it at the same time as Belloc's book, and I had a few pages left to finish it, but they became eternal https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... and especially despite the methodology, the data, and the methods employed his ideological charge in favor of gender ideology, and attacking Christianity made him hate this book, just like his other two colleagues, but we will talk about that in another review. What I mean by this is that it is a tragedy the cornering of Hilaire Belloc (already Paul Johnson https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9... s https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... and complained this time with reason that G.-K. Chesterton https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... Belloc's brother-in-arms be deferred to english-speaking universities. The same could be said of Hilaire Belloc, which I have always thought, that as a historian he is brighter and more understandable than G.K. Chesterton (and my admired Juan Manuel de Prada in his indispensable new book "A Library in the Oasis" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5..., https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... thinks exactly the same as me on that subject) but the case of Hilaire Belloc is doubly tragic, because political correctness, and the sympathy of the Church with the world has made Belloc has also been cornered, and sacrificed by a certain ecumenism. Some Catholic writers do not hesitate to attack him as is the case of Mariano Fazio https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... in his book "Christians at the Crossroads" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... did not hesitate to hand out democratic cards. While the author praised Mounier https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... Maritain https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... did not hesitate to disqualify Hilaire Belloc, and to label him a fascist). True, the opinion of Fazio (who belongs to Opus Dei) is marginal, but this unfortunately can help us to understand, because such a valuable writer, as Hilaire Belloc is relegated by the Church at the moment, and his works are not republished. At least in the Hispanic landscape. The edition of the book I have read is a Chilean edition from the 50s-60s. Why isn't this writer encouraged to edit, and kept relegated, when he speaks self-evident truths? Only the introduction of the principle in which the author comments and summarizes his work should be a must-read in the faculties of philosophy and letters, or history universities around the world. Rarely has an author shown so much common sense, and so much insight, when it comes to understanding and understanding one of the most important historical phenomena of our age. In it Belloc speaks several truths, such as that the misnamed Reformation, rather the rise of Protestantism is the most important, crucial, and decisive historical question of our time. That the history of the world would not be the same, if Protestantism had been defeated as the Cathars, or Bogomylos, were. That is, the Manichaean heresy. That the fact that they triumphed in England was decisive, I also agree with him on that. Because if England had remained Catholic the history of the world would have been very different. Let us remember that, thanks to the War of the Spanish Succession (1700-1715), (which surely English-speaking users will know as the war of Kings William, and Anne) England became the greatest foreign power, and became the greatest power in the world conditioning development, and the history of humanity and the fact of being an anti-Catholic country favored that Catholicism passed into the background, and could not recover the previous status it had before the beginning of Protestantism. True, and I agree with Belloc that even though the guns favored Protestantism. These would not have achieved their goal, but it would have been by the division of the Catholic powers, and by the betrayal of France (the kingdom of the Most Christian King), which practiced a Gallican policy favoring Catholicism in the interior of the country, but in foreign policy blatantly favored Protestantism by sponsoring what Ernest Lavisse https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...? he called it the politics of state, or "national selfishness." Perhaps one of the very few flaws that can be commented on in this book is that affections, and passions can blind Belloc, and not fully see (remember that Belloc was of French-English-Irish descent son of feminist Bess Parkess and brother of detective novel writer Mary Belloc Lowndes https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... ) https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... he is reluctant or does not fully see the flaws of the countries he loves. Hence, he is more benevolent to France, although of course he considers that Henry IV, Richelieu, and Louis XIV were decisive in cementing the triumph and survival of Protestantism. It could also be argued that he does not want to see this issue either. Because of how critical he is of Germany (although prussia is right) he does not realize that perhaps the seeds of the Reformation were already paid, and that it is not entirely the fault of the Germans. As a Professor of the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters Dr. Francisco Javier Muñoz Acebes says that Martin Luther had not invented anything. One of the few things that is talked about that he invented the German language with the Brothers Grimm and that this German would come from the chancelleries. This is what Dr. Francisco Javier Muñoz Acebes said, and these assessments of the character are entirely mine. Luther manipulated passages from the Bible, and removed and mutilated texts that did not suit him. He also manipulated for his benefit passages from the founder of his Order St. Augustine of Hippo when these did not fit their purposes. The most intellectual, and brightest part of Protestantism is not even his, but his disciple Philip Melanchthon https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... One of the few Protestant humanists that Protestantism had, because mostly, and contrary to what most historians believe Protestantism is not the consequence of Renaissance humanism, but the reaction against the anthropocentric, neopaganizing spirit of the Renaissance (which did so much damage to Catholicism and was responsible for the corruption, and mundanization of the late Middle Ages). In fact only Philp Melangthon, Walter Sickering, and Ulrich Von Hutten are Renaissance the rest of the Renaissance writers Sebastian Branthttps://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... , Erasmus of Rotterdam https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., Martin Behaim, Windfeling https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... ,Georgius Agricultural https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... , Thomas Murner, https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... even Luther's teacher Reuchlin https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... also paracelsus https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...
despite being luther's physicians he was a fan of Luther as he was a devout Catholic, despite his hatred for Galenism and Hippocratic medicine they are not favorable to Protestantism. A lot of what Luther is going to base, and that Hilaire Belloc hasn't put, and that's why I insist so much on this issue is that xenophobia, pan-Germanism, hatred of Rome. It had already been carried out by the Hussites Jan Hus https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... Matthias Janov, and John Milic, but the original does not come from Bohemia, but it is in England where the reformer who will give wings to Luther John Wycliffe, who translated the Bible into English, and is the one who introduces many of the concepts into Lutheranism, and this is what perhaps (at least in this book Belloc does not see). Although I must confess to goodreads users, that I too was wrong, as I thought Wycliffe, https://www.goodreads.com/author/show..., it would have penetrated into Bohemia and would have given wings to Husism, which was contemporary to the Lollards, but it was Richard who married Anna of Bohemia, but it is possible that this was the transmission belt. Nor can Protestantism be understood without understanding at the same time the quagning of the investitues, and its consequences, and as Luther used that factor to his advantage, reversing the alliance of Princes with the papacy against the Emperor by Emperor and papacy against the Princes (Luther knew that in the Princes was the key for his rebellion and his attack on Catholicism to triumph). Of course it first involved the people, but Thomas Muntzer (Anabaptist) promised them more 8th he owes himself the phrase that will best define Luther "Luther liar, you say to everything amen"), then to the knights, and when the threat of Ulrich Von Hutten was over he went to the Princes delaying German unification for three hundred years , and also causes it to be the least German part a los judíos, pero luego los persiguió https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... . which is the eastern one that originates in Germany, when it should have been Austria, Rhineland-Westphalia, or Saxony. This division between western Germany and eastern Germany paradoxically prevented the great Germany that Bismarck dreamed of and in which the Habsburgs were working. Without Luther Germany would most likely have become a centralized state like France, Castile and Aragon, and England. In fact, the Luxembourgs, and Maximilian of Habsburg had tried to do it, but it was stopped by Berthold of Eremeberg Archbishop of Mainz, and this German heresiaarch divided and delayed this laudable attempt not to mention that if things had gone well to part of Austria. Quite possibly Bohemians and Hungarians would have been part of this centralised Germany without the racial tensions that would take place in our history. Not to mention that Luther betrayed himself by inciting the persecution of the Anabaptists so he put an end to his tolerant character with what much of the people saw him, and betrayed the Germans. Nor does it speak well of him abandoning his friends Calrlstatdt. He promised tolerance to the Jews, but then persecuted them https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... continues...

The book is (obviously) aggressively from the Catholic historical perspective, and Belloc is not out to make friends. While all of the chapters - 23, each one on an historical figure - are important, the latter half of the book loses some steam. His chapter on Queen Elizabeth I makes it worth it!

Some of his sentences were genuinely confusing, and there were several (what I suspect were) typesetting quirks that did not help comprehension. It's not my favorite book by Belloc, but it's a relief to read anything about the Protestant Reformation that's not blatantly anti-Catholic.

This is a history book about the Reformation in Europe, and particularly in Britain, in which each chapter tells the life of a key character in less than 10 pages. This unusual format gives a very clear picture of all the sides of the issue.

The first 8 characters are directly related to Henry VIII and his break from the Catholic Church: the king himself, his wife Catherine, Ann Boleyn, Thomas Cromwell, St Thomas More, the Pope, bishop Cranmer and Gardiner. Next comes what happened after Henry VIII’s death: Mary Tudor, Queen Elizabeth, Mary Stuart, William Cecil, the king of France Henry IV and James I of England. Finally, the next 9 characters focus more on the rest of Europe: Ferdinand II, Gustavus Adolphus, Richelieu, Laud, Oliver Cromwell, Descartes, Pascal, William of Orange and Louis XIV.

I enjoyed this, my first of Belloc. I may be in the minority, but I like his style of writing much better than Chesterton. I thought I knew a fair bit of the history of the reformation, but I apparently didn't.

As once a student of English Literature, I should have studied English history concurrently with the progress of English literary development. As it happened though, the professors the professors obscured English history in my formal studies in legendary hearsay. What infiltrated into literature was the Protestant version of history. This is especially applicable to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Yes, as Belloc indicates these politically guided writers created the “Elizabethan Age” and acclaimed it denying its reign of terror, land and money grabbing. Their descendants even now live off the spoils of the previous England that was before their ancestors tore it up in the sixteenth century.

3,5 stars.

ENGLISH: Although in theory this book deals with the Reformation (the Protestant movement in Europe), it is clearly unbalanced, for of its 23 characters, 15 have a direct relation with English history, 5 with France, and just 3 with the rest of Europe: Ferdinand II, Emperor of the Sacred Roman-German Empire; Pope Clement VII, who had to deal with Henry VIII's request for a divorce; and king Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden.

I missed some Spanish characters. Although Emperor Charles V and Philip II are mentioned in several of the mini-biographies, I think they deserve a chapter, in the context of the book. In fact, the book being rather short and containing 23 mini-biographies, it would have been appropriate that, even though making it somewhat longer, there would have been 25.

Perhaps the best of the book is its first chapter (Nature of the Reformation), which offers a very good introduction to the Philosophy of History, as regards what happened in Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In fact, this is a good summary of the corresponding part of the book Europe and the Faith, by the same author.

ESPAÑOL: Aunque en teoría este libro trata sobre la Reforma (el movimiento protestante en Europa), está claramente desequilibrado, ya que de sus 23 personajes, 15 tienen una relación directa con la historia de Inglaterra, 5 con Francia y solo 3 con el resto de Europa: Fernando II, Emperador del Sagrado Imperio Romano-Germánico; el Papa Clemente VII, quien tuvo que lidiar con la solicitud de divorcio de Enrique VIII; y el rey Gustavo Adolfo de Suecia.

Eché de menos algún personaje español. Aunque el Emperador Carlos V y Felipe II son mencionados en varias de las mini-biografías, creo que se merecen un capítulo, en el contexto del libro. De hecho, siendo este bastante corto, y conteniendo 23 mini-biografías, habría sido adecuado que, aunque el libro fuese algo más largo, estas hubiesen sido 25.

Quizá lo mejor del libro sea su primer capítulo (Naturaleza de la Reforma), que ofrece una buena introducción a la Filosofía de la Historia, enfocada a la de Europa en los siglos XVI y XVII. De hecho, este es un buen resumen de la parte correspondiente del libro Europe and the Faith, del mismo autor.

This book should be on the bookshelf of anyone who is serious about understanding the protestant reformation and its impact, especially within the United Kingdom. Until a few years ago, I believed that the reason the church of England left the Catholic Church was because they examined scripture and came to a reasoned conclusion that the Catholic Church was doing things the wrong way. I was incorrect on all levels! I begin to understand the truth while reading a couple of biographies about Henry the eighth and the first Queen Elizabeth of England. Still, I really hadn’t thought through all of the ramifications of the choices that Henry and his children made regarding the church. Then, during the 500th anniversary of the reformation, I began to listen to several podcasts that described the teaching of the reformers, and I began to see that the church of England under Henry and Elizabeth really wasn’t a fully reformed church but was almost a second Catholic Church with the monarch as pope.

Just before Christmas last year, a friend asked me to read this book and let him know what I think of it. It took me a long time to finish because I had some deaths in my family that distracted me. However, after finishing the book, I see that history didn’t work the way I thought it did at all in regard to England. My first reaction is to feel emotionally appalled and disgusted by the fact that hundreds of thousands of people were put to death so that king Henry could throw away his wife and shack up with a new woman. That really is what it boils down to. Then his daughter Mary lashed out at those people who excepted the church of England, killing even more people. None of this had anything to do with the Scriptures and what they actually say. Having said that, I can kind of sympathize with Mary since she was rejected by her father and then was not wanted by her own husband. I believe she worked so hard to purify the church in the hope that she could win her husband‘s approval and somehow receive forgiveness or vindication from the Lord. On the logical side, now I think I understand why England was so irritated with the Puritans and the Baptists. They were protestants, but they didn’t go along with the church of England either. What a sad mess!

If you want to read a book that won't give you the standard "Whig Interpretation of History" concerning the Reformation, this is a good place to start. Belloc covers the major players, Catholic and Protestant, explaining the part that each played in the division of Europe into Protestant and Catholic camps.

I thought I passably knew about this area concerning British history. I was wrong. Belloc has some really great insights here and his list of people involved has some surprises.