Disinformation in John Foxe’s edition of Ælfric’s Easter Homily, 1570–1684

Rachel Kuo and Alice Marwick identify a framework of four principles for critically analyzing disinformation in their article “Critical Disinformation Studies: History, Power, and Politics.” Kuo and Marwick argue that “analyses of disinformation are more effective when they include: (1) Grounding disinformation studies in history, society, culture, and politics; (2) Centering analyses of how social differentiation, such as race, gender, and class, shape dynamics of disinformation; (3) Foregrounding questions of how institutional power and economic, social, cultural, and technological structures shape disinformation; and (4) Stating and maintaining explicit commitments to justice and equality” (Kuo and Marwick, 2021, p. 2). This framework highlights the problematic nature of how information, knowledge and history are often “produced by social and political actors and used to legitimize and validate social inequality … Viewing disinformation through this lens of power and knowledge production illuminates how knowledge is used to justify racial divisions and structural inequality – both historically and in the present” (Kuo and Marwick, 2021, p. 4).

Kuo’s and Marwick’s framework, along with a history of the book approach, serve as my methodology for critically analyzing mis- and disinformation in John Foxe’s printing of Ælfric’s Sermo de Sacrificio in die Pascae (hereafter, Easter Homily) in his Acts and Monuments (hereafter Book of Martyrs). Examining how power, politics, religion and culture influenced the creation and dissemination of disinformation during the time Foxe’s Book of Martyrs was printed shows that human behavior and engagement with disinformation are not dissimilar to how we engage with disinformation today, even though technologies have changed significantly. The history of the book plays a critical role when studying how and why disinformation is created and disseminated because the information cannot and should not be separated from the material-cultural artifact. Making useful contributions to the field of information history, book history addresses “changes in the provision of information, whether they be brought on by changes in literacy, or rhetoric and composition, or manuscript, printing, and digital technologies, each of which is of interest to historians of the book” (Weller et al., 2026, p. 16). Black et al. define information history as an “interdisciplinary field which contributes to our understanding of how information practices have determined, and been determined by past societies” (Weller et al., 2026, p. 1). Robert Darnton defines history of the book as the “social and cultural history of communication by print … because its purpose is to understand how ideas were transmitted through print and how exposure to the printed word affected the thought and behavior of mankind …” (Darnton, 2009, p. 176). Furthermore, Darnton outlines the processes of book creation and thought and relates it to “other systems, economic, social, political, and cultural, in the surrounding environment” (Darnton, 2009, p. 180). Darnton’s diagram of this process aligns very closely to that of Kuo’s and Marwick’s framework for understanding critical disinformation, where they both consider who is creating and disseminating the information, how the information is created and disseminated, and what influences information creation and dissemination. Critical bibliography takes this a step further by not only studying the books as material objects but also by drawing upon critical theory to “liberate human beings from oppression” (Maruca and Ozment, 2022, p. 232).

This new intersection of critical disinformation studies and history of the book not only identifies how people created, disseminated and engaged with disinformation in the premodern world but also centers the communities who were targets of these disinformation attacks. Scholars such as Ann Blair and Andrew Pettegree have skillfully written about the transmission of information in early modern Europe, but I have yet to locate any scholarship that examines disinformation through a critical disinformation framework and book history lens. While scholars may mention the terms disinformation or misinformation, a framework, like Kuo’s and Marwick’s, to examine disinformation is missing. Moreover, I argue that the material-cultural artifact must always be considered when examining critical disinformation. As Michael F. Suarez asks, “How can we understand the textual artifact in history? How did this book come to be the way it is?” (Maruca and Ozment, 2022, p. 231).

Scholarship on the history of information and printing in early modern Europe is not wanting, thanks to the excellent works of Ann Blair, Andrew Pettegree, Elizabeth Eisenstein, John King and Elizabeth Evenden. Pettegree extensively and impressively examines the history of information and news in his The Invention of News: How the World Came to Know About Itself. Positing that the human desire to be informed is as old as human society, Pettegree also discusses the importance of a trusted information source for people in the premodern world (Pettegree, 2014, p. 2). This emphasis on a trusted news source, whether it is a messenger, written letter or printed pamphlet in the premodern world, points to behavior that many humans today still engage in when deciphering information and disinformation. With the invention of the printing press in early modern Europe, “the market for news spread beyond those for whom it was a professional necessity to be informed, to new more naïve and inexperienced consumers” (Pettegree, 2014, p. 257). This shift to a broader audience, some more experienced than others with information, provides ample opportunity for powerful players to create and widely disseminate disinformation for political, religious and financial gain.

Blair acknowledges information overload and how the challenges that accompany it are certainly not unique to a postmodern world, pointing to the fact that “many of our current ways of thinking about and handling information descend from patterns of thought and practices that extend back for centuries” (Blair, 2010, p. 1). King’s and Evenden’s extensive works on John Foxe and the printing of Book of Martyrs through a book and print history lens takes into consideration the material objects and historical context in which the text and its editions are situated. While Foxe’s omissions of his edition of Ælfric’s Easter Homily are noted by scholars, no one has examined this through a critical disinformation lens. In The Printing Press as an Agent of Change, Eisenstein discusses the long-term effects of human interactions with information after the invention of the printing press in western Europe, including the impacts on the Protestant Reformation. Furthermore, Eisenstein emphasizes that not all information being disseminated was based on new ideas and that scribal work was being reproduced in print; Ælfric’s Easter Homily is no exception to this (Eisenstein, 1980).

In their introduction to The Routledge Handbook of Information History, Alistair Black, Bonnie Mak, Laura Skouvig and Toni Weller write that “… because information has had so much to do with authority and privilege – the recordkeeping and information systems deployed by states, businesses, and social elites being the most visible, there is a risk that explorations of information “pasts” might offer limited insight into histories that have been traditionally underrepresented (Weller et al., 2026, p. 20). A critical disinformation studies framework with a book history approach can help to alleviate this imbalance within the discipline of Information History. The Routledge Handbook of Information History aims to offer multiple “investigations of particular instances of information practices and their contexts” covering an array of time periods and geographies, providing” the reading with the opportunity to reflect on similarities that might emerge when following the trail across multiple terrains” (Weller et al., 2026, p. 5). Yet, scholars are not fully examining disinformation in the early modern period, and they are certainly not using frameworks such as those by Kuo and Marwick to critically dissect disinformation. Therefore, this article contributes a new approach to this larger body of information history scholarship.

This article is divided into five parts. The first part defines disinformation and misinformation and provides a history of the terms and scholarship. The second part addresses concerns with presentism and appropriation of the critical disinformation framework. The third part is an extensive background on the history of printing Ælfric’s Easter Homily. The fourth part discusses disinformation and misinformation in Ælfric’s Easter Homily within the editions of Book of Martyrs printed during Foxe’s lifetime, while the fifth part focuses on the posthumous editions of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. Kuo’s and Marwick’s critical disinformation framework and a book history approach are threaded heavily throughout the third, fourth and fifth parts, with a conclusion to follow.

“Disinformation” and “Misinformation” are often used interchangeably or applied incorrectly, even though the distinction between the two is important. Disinformation is inaccurate and misleading, and it is designed to deceive (Agosto and Oltmann, 2021, p. 1). Moreover, disinformation is “designed, presented and promoted to intentionally cause public harm for profit” (High Level Expert Group on Fake News and Disinformation, 2018). Misinformation, on the other hand, is inaccurate and misleading, yet it may be disseminated by an individual who is not aiming to deceive or cause harm.

The study of disinformation has not been “a major research priority in the social sciences prior to 2017. The Anglicization of the Russian term dezinformastsiya dates back to at least 1955, but since then only a small collection of isolated historical analyses and case studies spread across several disciplines has directly addressed the topic in scholarly contexts” (Freelon and Wells, 2020, p. 148). Unlike disinformation, there is a stronger history of pre-2017 scholarship on misinformation because it is easier to study; determining malicious intent is not a requirement for misinformation (Freelon and Wells, 2020, p. 149). The Oxford English Dictionary dates the first use of the term “misinformation” in the English language back to 1587 (Oxford University Press, n.d.a, b, c) while the first use of “disinformation” is, as Freelon and Wells also state, in 1955 (Oxford University Press, n.d.a, b, c). Freelon and Wells searched Google Scholar for titles that contain the term “disinformation” from 2000 to 2009, which garnered only 238 results, including some unrelated uses from medicine and finance (Freelon and Wells, 2020, p. 152). When they searched for “disinformation” between 2010 and 2016, they had 257 results; however, the search between 2017 and 2019 rose to 609 (Freelon and Wells, 2020, p. 149).

Two other terms that are closely related to misinformation and disinformation are propaganda and fake news. Analysis studies of propaganda are alive and well in many disciplines and have a long history, much longer than mis- and disinformation, in fields such as communication, history and rhetoric (Freelon and Wells, 2020, p. 148). According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term “propaganda” is used as early as 1668 (Oxford University Press, n.d.a, b, c); however, propaganda defined as “the systematic dissemination of information, especially in a biased or misleading way, in order to promote a particular cause or point of view, often in a political agenda” is not used until 1822. The term fake news is a more complicated term, both in its meaning, its history and its use. Difficult to define, I agree with Freelon and Wells that the term should not be used for the purposes of scholarly research (Freelon and Wells, 2020, p. 146). While the terms disinformation and misinformation are present in scholarship concerning the premodern world, the terms are often used loosely and lack frameworks grounded in critical disinformation studies and book history.

Presentism is always a concern, especially among information historians, when applying a postmodern theory or framework to the premodern world. The history of information poses many challenges because the historian must be able to “identify meanings attached to information in past societies and to the practices that revolved around it” (Weller et al., 2026, p. 2). Alex Walsham defines presentism as “an interpretation of history that is biased towards and coloured by present-day concerns, preoccupations and values” (Walsham, 2017, p. 217). In his “In Defense of Presentism,” David Armitage posits that the various meanings of presentism detract from the potential it can have with history and “human flourishing” (Armitage, 2022, p. 47). Among the many types of presentisms Armitage discusses is critical presentism, which he states is one of the more promising forms of presentism. Armitage uses Laurent Loison’s definition of critical presentism: “… it deploys the historian’s apprehension of the complexity and contingency of the past to dethrone the pretensions of the present. On this account, the present is not the goal toward which the past had been striving, nor can it be the realization of the past or past actors’ aspirations (Armitage, 2022, pp. 60–61; Loison, 2016, pp. 34–36). Armitage goes on to say that critical presentism might be “in scholarly fields founded on assumptions about the progress and accumulation of knowledge (Armitage, 2022, p. 61), which I argue includes the field of Information Science and the history of information creation, documentation and dissemination. Through critical presentism, we can show how the past is at work in the present (Coombs and Coriale, 2017, p. 88), which is precisely what I aim to do when using Kuo’s and Marwick’s critical disinformation framework and a history of the book approach to dissect John Foxe’s disinformation in early modern England. This approach contributes to human flourishing by illuminating that, even though information technologies have significantly changed over the centuries, human behavior around information, particularly disinformation, has not shifted significantly. Moreover, this study is one example of how an interdisciplinary approach can lead to a better understanding of critical disinformation history and “see the larger and longer trends of human social development” (Weller et al., 2026, p. 19).

Ann Blair notes that human concerns around advancing technology and information overload are not unique to a postmodern world. Early modern Europeans complained about an overabundance of books and used it “to justify any number of postures: railing about the base commercial motives of printers who produced whatever sold without a care for quality or intellectual merit mocking the vanity of bookish learning, worrying about the end of civilization from too many people writing (bad) books and no one reading good ones anymore,” prompting a need to manage information in books and about them (Blair, 2021, p. 75).

I acknowledge that the terms misinformation and disinformation would not have been known or used by individuals in early modern England; however, this certainly does not mean that disinformation and misinformation were not present or that people were not engaging in mis-and disinformation in early modern England, similar to how we engage with it today. Taking a critical lens to early modern mis- and disinformation centers the victims of these information attacks, while holding accountable the powerful players involved in creating and disseminating disinformation to further oppress marginalized people and communities. By using a history of the book approach to critically examine the transmission of mis- and disinformation in multiple printed editions of Book of Martyrs, it provides insight into the creation and dissemination of Foxe’s disinformation. Through this examination, we can see that much of the same challenges with disinformation that plagued an Early Modern English society are not unlike the same challenges we face today.

I must emphasize my intention is not to appropriate Kuo’s & Marwick’s argument against its own ends to advance attention to problematic texts. “By taking a historical and contextual view of disinformation, we argue that both the content and framing of disinformation reproduce whiteness in the United States” (Marwick & Kuo 2). As the texts I examine in this article are created by upper-class, white men in early modern England, I must acknowledge that these texts and many like them in Medieval and Renaissance Studies have been placed at the center of scholarship and teaching. Dorothy Kim (2019) and Eduardo Ramos (2020) examine pervasive whiteness in medieval studies and how the field has been complicit in this construction. Jennifer Nevill addresses the problematic nature of the term Anglo-Saxon, as it is tied to colonialism and racism (Neville, 2020, p. 344), and Donna Beth Ellard examines the Oxford English Dictionary’s two definitions of “Anglo-Saxonists” and writes, “Anglo-Saxonist scholarship and Anglo-Saxonist ethno-nationalism are organized under the same headword”, which destines the word for “semantic entanglement” (Ellard, 2019, 21). As a result, many medievalists, including myself, are shifting from the use of “Anglo-Saxon Studies” to “Old English Studies.” The purpose of my study is not to center these texts but rather to use a framework to critically examine disinformation in early modern England to highlight that human behavior around disinformation has not significantly changed, thereby exposing the “historically rooted systems of power” that exist both past and present (Kuo and Markwick, 2021, p. 2).

Ælfric of Eynsham (ca 955–1020), an important Old English homilist, was a monk who was educated in the Old Minster at Winchester during the episcopacy of Æthelwold (Bishop of Winchester 963–984) (Magennis and Swan, 2009, p. 35). The Easter Homily is among his many Old English homilies, where his teachings on the Eucharist suggest that he did not believe in the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. As a result, his Easter Homily played an important role in post-Marian England, where it was used by writers and printers in the Protestant Reformation to promote propaganda that the English Church had always been more aligned with Protestantism rather than Catholicism.

The first printed edition of Ælfric’s Easter Homily was printed by John Day (1522–1584) in 1566/67 in a book titled A Testimonie of Antiquitie, a project of Archbishop Matthew Parker (1522–1584) and translator, John Joscelyn (1529–1603). Parker’s inclusion of the homily in A Testimonie of Antiquitie (1566/67) reflected his motivation to “establish older precedents for the liturgy and doctrine being adopted in association with the new Book of Common Prayer” (Lucas, 2024, p. 15). John Day also worked with John Foxe (1516–1587) to print his Book of Martyrs, a seminal text that covered the “history of English religion from the Lollards until the accession of Elizabeth” (Evenden and Freeman, 2011, p. 1). Foxe’s Book of Martyrs marks the first time in the history of England that a book this large had been produced, and it demonstrates Day’s advanced, technical printmaking skills. “Day’s publishing career exemplifies a lifelong commitment to the dissemination of Protestant books and pamphlets … but he won renown as publisher of the Book of Martyrs, which constituted the most physically imposing, complicated, and technically demanding sixteenth century English book” (King, 2006, p. 81). Previously, no such book had ever been created by English writers and printers. Moreover, Foxe’s Book of Martyrs “wielded a considerable influence on English religious, social and cultural life” (King, 2006, p. 1). Foxe was educated at Brasenose College and possibly studied at Magdalen College, where he became a probationer fellow in July 1538 and a full fellow in 1539 (King, 2006, p. 34). He was well-educated and enjoyed what would be considered an upper-middle-class upbringing. During his time at Magdalen College, the English Reformation brought together a minority of evangelicals, which included Foxe. The president of Magdalen College, along with several conservatives, took notice and charged Foxe with not attending Mass and continued to put pressure on him, which led him to eventually resign from the college (King, 2006, pp. 34–35). Foxe was well-connected to Reformers, such as John Bale and John Day, and used these connections to his advantage, leading him to create his Book of Martyrs (King, 2006, p. 38).

In the second edition of Book of Martyrs (1570), Foxe incorporates Ælfric’s Easter Homily. “Foxe took the same Easter Homily from A Testimonie and added it to a section of the work that attempts to refute the Six Articles of 1539 and to bolster the Anglican position on transubstantiation” (Clement, 1997, p. 214). What should be emphasized, however, is that Foxe purposefully omits sections of Ælfric’s Easter Homily in his Book of Martyrs. This decision would impact all printed editions of Book of Martyrs that include Ælfric’s Easter Homily in the 17th century. While subsequent editions possess significant formatting differences during the 17th century, the text of Ælfric’s Easter Homily remains unaltered.

The late 16th and early 17th centuries in England were a time of astonishing innovation and expansion of the handpress era. Information could be created and disseminated faster than ever before, and the political environment was one of anxiety and urgency. The printing of Ælfric’s Easter Homily in Foxe’s many editions of Book of Martyrs from 1570 to 1684 demonstrates this anxiety and urgency, while also illuminating how pervasive mis- and disinformation could be during this time. Foxe’s deliberate exclusion of what are considered the Catholic sections in Ælfric’s Easter Homily supports Protestant propaganda and shows that he was engaging in the creation and dissemination of disinformation for political and religious gain. After the bloody reign of Queen Mary I (1516–1558) endured by Protestants, there was new hope with the succession of the Protestant Queen Elizabeth I (1533–1603) in 1559. Ælfric’s Easter Homily was printed in a Testimonie of Antiquitie (1566/67) for a very specific purpose – to use Ælfric’s teachings on transubstantiation to support Protestant propaganda. Archbishop Matthew Parker saw Ælfric’s Easter Homily as an opportunity to print a full transcription and translation of the text and to use a historical manuscript to argue that England had always been tied more closely to Protestantism rather than to the Catholic doctrine.

A Testimonie of Antiquitie is the first book printed in Old English in England in 1566/67, and it includes Ælfric’s Easter Homily. Archbishop Matthew Parker, along with Old English scholar and translator, John Joscelyn worked alongside printer, John Day, to produce A Testimonie. As a former chaplain to the Protestant Anne Boleyn (1501–1536), Matthew Parker endured through the Marian years in quiet retirement. Queen Elizabeth I then called Parker to duty as the first Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury in 1599. Previously, he had served as Master of Bene’t Hall (now Corpus Christi College) at Cambridge. Among Parker’s duties was to diligently support the Reformation, and that he did. Parker’s motivation in transcribing, translating and printing A Testimonie of Antiquity is quite clear; he needed to justify positions taken by the reformed English Church by demonstrating that there were English precedents for Anglican positions on transubstantiation, clerical marriage and submission to the authority of Rome. Parker, Day and Joscelyn took great pains to print an authoritative, historical text to argue that England always had Protestant roots, and while Parker’s own translation of the text was heavily edited, he never omitted anything part of the homily.

The first edition of John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs is printed in 1563 by John Day; however, Ælfric’s Easter Homily first appears in the second edition, printed in 1570 also by John Day. This would be one of the most demanding jobs of Day’s career and required substantial financing (Evenden and Freeman, 2022, p. 162). This directly connects to Kuo’s and Marwick’s third principle of “how institutional power and economic, social, cultural and technological structure shape disinformation” (Kuo and Marwick, 2021, p. 2). Foxe had the privilege, education and connections to both money and technology that afforded him the opportunity to create and disseminate Book of Martyrs. Moreover, it granted him the opportunity to heavily edit Ælfric’s Easter Homily without question from others, thereby seamlessly creating and disseminating disinformation. Foxe’s decision to print this book in English must be emphasized, as it made the work more accessible to readers who had not been formally educated to read Latin, particularly those of a lower socio-economic status. His desire to reach a wider audience and drive better book sales overcame Foxe’s concern that his reputation would be tarnished by printing in English rather than in Latin. When bestowing a copy to Magdalen College, “he repeatedly apologises for presenting a work written in English rather than Latin and justifies this by saying that he was driven to do so in response to the needs of the ordinary people” (Evenden and Freeman, 2011, p. 102). When examining this decision through a critical disinformation lens, the dissemination of this disinformation to the largest audience possible was most important to Foxe. He was writing to convince English readers that Protestant doctrine was the true doctrine of England. Evenden writes, “that he was compelled to write the work in English in order to make it more accessible, if it is taken at face value, would indicate that it was the needs of propaganda, rather than of profit, that dictated this decision” (Evenden and Freeman, 2011, p. 103). Taking Kuo’s and Marwick’s second principle into consideration, “Centering analyses of how social differentiation, such as race, gender, and class, shape the dynamics of disinformation” (Kuo and Marwick, 2021, p. 2), Foxe was keenly aware of class differentiation when it came to literacy. Publishing in Latin would deny an entire class of literate people access to the Book of Martyrs. In order to defend the Protestant agenda and reach many English readers, Foxe took advantage of this knowledge and published his book in English. These actions demonstrate a manipulation of sorts. As Freelon and Wells state, “Disinformation messages under this definition are munitions in campaigns of information warfare, non-lethal weapons intended to subdue adversaries rather than reason with them” (Freelon and Wells, 2020, pp. 145–146). Foxe’s decision to print in English in order to reach a broader audience was his intent to subdue adversaries rather than reason with them, especially when taking into account his omissions in the printing of Ælfric’s Easter Homily. Furthermore, Penal Laws in England during the late 16th and early 17th centuries forbade the practice of Catholicism and issued harsh punishment for those who were caught practicing or harboring priests (Blackerby, 1689). Punishment ranged from fines, imprisonment and death. This reaction by Protestants was fueled by the Marian years, and they were working vigorously to avoid a Catholic resurgence. With the Penal Laws, Protestants aimed to subdue their adversaries, and Foxe utilized disinformation to further oppress Catholics in England.

Foxe’s 1570 Book of Martyrs was very successful, and it was strongly supported by powerful actors. William Cecil’s directive stated that the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and Bishop of London were instructed “to ensure that parish churches acquire copies of Foxe’s book,” which means “it would take place alongside publicly accessible copies of the Bible” (King, 2006, pp. 112–113). Foxe’s second edition of Book of Martyrs was to “to be placed in the orphanage and in the halls of each company” (Arber, 1875–1894, 1:496). Foxe’s connection to powerful people is another important piece when examining his ability to create and disseminate disinformation. Following Kuo and Marwick’s framework, we can identify that: (1) The political climate of England in 1570 spurred immediacy in disseminating Protestant propaganda. (2) Foxe had the education, status and connections to not only create disinformation but also disseminate it widely to the broadest audience without question. (3) John Foxe had connections to the most important and gifted printer during his time, John Day. Moreover, he and Day had the financial support to print the 1570 edition and the backing of William Cecil, who stated that parish churches in England must acquire copies of the book. This directive resulted in revenue for Day and Foxe and public accessibility to the Book of Martyrs. Foxe had every privilege he needed to successfully create and disseminate disinformation on a large scale during the 16th and 17th centuries.

Foxe’s 1570 Book of Martyrs is a hefty, two volume folio set. Ælfric’s Easter Homily appears in volume 2, pages 1304–1310, with a running title “A Sermon translated out of Saxon into Englishe, agynst Transubstantiation.” The Old English type is the same type Day utilized for the 1566/1567 A Testimonie; however, the English translation is in black letter font instead of the italic font Day used for the 1566/1567 A Testimonie. The Old English transcription appears first, with the English translation appearing directly after the transcription. The format of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs makes it very difficult to create a parallel transcription and translation without wasting empty space on the page or departing from the format of the book. This format suggests that Foxe was less concerned with his readers’ ability to compare the transcription to the translation. Parker, Joscelyn and Day demonstrably went to great pains to align transcription to translation in parallel text in A Testimonie (1566/67), even matching several catchwords, to prove to their readers that the translation did, indeed, come directly from the Old English manuscript. Foxe, however, is more focused on his readers having access to an English translation that is easy to read; as King states, this is why the black letter font is used (King, 2006, p. 121).

Foxe omits two sections from the Old English homily in the 1570 Book of Martyrs.

1. In the 1,566/1567 A Testimonie, E.v.v., line 16 beginning with “Ne sceole ge smeagan …” to E.vij.v, line 17 to “gerihtlæced; ” have been omitted from the 1570 Book of Martyrs.

2. In the 1566/1567 A Testimonie, Hiiij v, lines 1–5, “For ði … geswutelod is; ” have been omitted from the 1570 Book of Martyrs.

The first listed omission involves the miracle stories of Moses and Aaron from the so-called Vitae Patrum (a.k.a Verba Seniorum), along with St. Paul’s comments in 1 Corinthians 10 1–4 ^[1]. The second listed omission is the discussion of the Holy Mass as being profitable for everyone. Evenden and Freeman write of these changes stating, “He omitted two sacramental miracles, demonstrating the corporeal presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which Parker had dismissed as ‘monkish’ interpolations but had nevertheless retained his text. Foxe also arbitrarily changed the word ‘Mass’ to the more anodyne word ‘supper’. These changes were almost certainly editorial decisions made by Foxe himself” (Evenden and Freeman, 2011, p. 150). Given the religious and political climate during 1570, we can readily surmise that Foxe would want to remove miracle stories and any discussions of the Mass being profitable for anyone; it certainly does not align with the Protestant propaganda he was supporting. The translation follows the 1566/1567 A Testimonie of Antiquitie very closely, with the exception of the omitted sections and a sentence where he replaces the word “mass” with “supper” ^[2]. “Foxe was fiercely determined that nothing remain in his work which would allow his Catholic adversaries the slightest opportunity to discredit any part of it” (Evenden and Freeman, 2022, p. 40). This motivates Foxe to engage in disinformation by removing Catholic sections in Ælfric’s Easter Homily and disseminate it to the widest audience possible for political gain. Foxe’s translation also departs from the 1566/1567 A Testimonie in the printed marginal notes. Foxe edits marginal notes from the 1566/1567 A Testimonie and adds new notes, including biblical references. See below Tables 1–6.

Foxe is clearly making further interpretations based on Joscelyn’s translation of the Easter Homily in the 1566/1567 A Testimonie of Antiquitie, and the lasting impact of those editorial decisions is demonstrated in the later editions of Book of Martyrs. The omissions created by Foxe in the Easter Homily remain in every edition of the Book of Martyrs through 1684.

King writes that the 1576 edition is the product of Foxe and Day trying to make a more affordable book, though it was still a hefty 2 volume in 1, folio publication (Pollard and Redgrave, 1976–1991, I:496). Volume 2, pages 1116–1119, contains the Old English transcription of Ælfric’s Easter Homily, with a running title “A Sermon translated out of Latin into the Saxon tongue by Ælfricus. Agaynst transubstantiation. An. 996.” And the Modern English translation on pages 1119–1121, with a running title “The fame in English. A Sermon on Easter day.” Affordability was key with this edition, which benefits both the printer and Foxe. The printer wants to keep costs low, so that a profit can be made (King, 2006, p. 14). As previously mentioned, Foxe also wanted an affordable book that would allow more people to have access. He wanted to ensure the dissemination of his text to as many English readers as possible. Both John Day and his son Richard worked on this edition, and King describes how it was John Day who pressured Richard to keep costs low by using cheap paper. Smaller, cheaper paper is utilized in this book, and it is only one volume (King, 2006, p. 125). It was Day’s intention that his son, Richard, would be the main proof-reader for this edition. The last-minute decision to bring Richard on to the project was likely the reason for signs of rushed work within the text (Evenden and Freeman, 2022, p. 42). Day and Foxe were making calculated decisions to keep costs down; however, Foxe did not remove Ælfric’s Easter Homily from A Testimonie of Antiquitie in his Book of Martyrs. This is a testament to the perceived importance of the transcription and translation of the homily to the English Protestant agenda and antipapal sentiment of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs.

During 1571, Thirty-nine Articles had been finalized by the Church of England, which created an even stronger platform for Foxe’s 1576 Book of Martyrs. The articles include doctrinal statements on transubstantiation, Trinitarian doctrine, predestination, the authority of the Church and general councils, justification of the Church and of general councils, “as well as the ordering of ministry, the disciplines expected of the faithful, and the position of the sovereign and of civil magistrates vis-à-vis the Church … Printed as an appendix to the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (where they are dated 1562, the year of their original formulation), their declared purpose is ‘for the avoiding of diversities of opinions and for the establishing of consent touching true religion’” (Guy, 2015, p. 918). English Protestants also failed to secure the revision to the prayer book during the Parliament of 1571 (3rd Parliament of Elizabeth I, Feb. 17–May 29, 1571, Institute of Historical Research, 1995). While English Protestants did not accomplish their desired revisions to the prayer book, important steps were being taken during 1571 to secure a more Protestant England. The political and religious climate of the time certainly provided Foxe and Day the freedom they desired to print a second edition and plan for a third. On May 13, 1572, after the printing of the 1570 Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, a joint committee of both Houses of the Privy Council presented their case against the Catholic Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots (1542–1587), who claimed the title to the English crown for herself and James. This is one of several plots that involve Mary Stuart before her execution in 1587. While the Privy Council wanted to try Mary as an English subject and condemn her to death for aiding a rebellion known as the Ridolfi Plot in the north of England and incite an invasion of England and Ireland to overthrow Queen Elizabeth, Elizabeth refuse and instead excluded Mary from the English succession on May 28, 1572, a decision that Queen Elizabeth I was given cause to regret (4th Parliament of Elizabeth I, March 28–May 8, 1572, Institute of Historical Research, 1995).

The transcription of the homily in the 1576 Book of Martyrs is identical to the 1570 edition; however, this is the first time Day’s smaller Pica Old English font appears in print (Lucas, 1999, p. 52). The same compositor errors in the 1570 edition are present in this edition, so these mistakes were not caught by a corrector if one had been utilized for this edition (Evenden and Freeman, 2022, p. 43). One can deduce that the 1570 transcription and translation were simply replicated for this edition. The translation is also identical to the 1570 edition; all of the marginal notes and biblical references are the same.

The 1583 edition is the last one printed during John Foxe’s lifetime. Another two-volume, folio set, this edition of Book of Martyrs is visibly higher quality in paper, print and format than that of the previous editions (Evenden and Freeman, 2022, p. 45; King, 2006, p. 129). As King states, “his father [John Day] abandoned virtually all of his son’s innovations in the fourth edition. In collaboration with Foxe, John Day returned to the definitive model of 1570” (King, 2006, p. 129). Politically speaking, on October 23, 1583, staunch Calvinist John Whitgift (1530–1604) was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury; his predecessor being Edmund Grindal (c. 1519–1583) (Marshall, 2015, p. 439). “Whitgift’s “Six Articles” (1583) insisted on the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Book of Common Prayer, and the royal supremacy, to be enforced by the Court of High Commission. Despite his fierce offensive against puritans, he upheld Calvinist doctrines of predestination and election in the Lambeth articles (1595)” (Marshall, 2015, p. 983).

The transcription and translation are identical to the 1570 edition; all omissions and biblical references are the same. Interestingly, one of the compositor errors has been corrected in this edition. This correction remains throughout the later editions. The corrector caught one of the typographical errors, but the omissions Foxe originally made in the transcription and translation of the homily remain unaltered.

The following editions were printed after Foxe’s death, but his disinformation in his edition of Ælfric’s Easter Homily continues to be disseminated as misinformation because those disseminating it were not aware of the disinformation. As Pettegree notes, medieval and early modern audiences would question if a news source or messenger delivering news was a trusted source (Pettegree, 2014, p. 2), and he even provides evidence that “a considerable amount of time was expended by senior officials in flushing out the truth” when it came to a story of a woman giving birth to a cat (Pettegree, 2014, p. 254). There was certainly no precedent for, what we would call today, fact-checking in an early modern print house, but we do know, thanks to Pettegree’s work, that early modern audiences were still challenged with sifting through “good” and “bad” information. Moreover, once disinformation was printed and disseminated, it was nearly impossible to retract and correct, much like today.

Lori Jones and Richard Nevell discuss the detrimental impact of unharnessed misinformation in their “Plagued by Doubt and Viral Misinformation: The Need for Evidence-Based Use of Historical Disease Images.” One of their three case studies focuses on an illumination from the 14th-century manuscript Omne Bonum in the British Library. The image is a depiction of clerics with leprosy; however, the image was mislabeled in the early 21st century as the plague. “Within a few years the image was widespread on the Internet and in printed materials, cropped and stripped of its original text and with its artistic conventions ignored. It appeared with a plague caption in science journals, history publications, popular and scholarly websites and documentaries, museum exhibits, magazines, tourist pamphlets, and for-profit websites” (Jones and Nevell, 2016, p. 236). The undoing of this misinformation was impossible, as the authors state they requested the British Library update their metadata in the catalogue record, corrected multiple Wikipedia pages, and asked hosts of 51 websites to remove or recaption the image. Even with this effort, the image is still misused (Jones and Nevell, 2016, p. 236). Harnessing and correcting misinformation in the digital age is impossible, but we can see this exact same challenge with misinformation in 16th- and 17th-century England; the continued dissemination of Foxe’s disinformation in the following editions demonstrates this.

Peter Short reprinted the 1596 two-volume, folio edition of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs and also printed another issue of Volume 2 in 1597 (Pollard and Redgrave, 1976–1991, I:496). Volume 2, pages 1042–1046, contain the Old English transcription, with the running title “A Sermon Translated out of Latine into the Saxon tongue, by Ælfricus, against Transubstantiation. Ann. 996.” The Modern English translation appears in pages 1045–1046, with the running title “The same in English. A Sermon on Easter day.” Short actively printed in London between 1589 and 1603 and took over Henry Denham’s print house in partnership with Richard Yardley in 1591 (Yamada, 1996, p. 242). King, Evenden and Freeman all discuss how the planning and the cost of this edition are particularly interesting, especially within the context of the book trade in London during this time. While Day’s house took on the printing of Book of Martyrs alone, the climate of printing in London in the late 17th century shifted so that Short had to rely on multiple booksellers to ensure the financial risk was not too high (Yamada, 1996, p. 241).

The Star Chamber Decree of 1586 marks a significant shift in which printers could print and disseminate texts by prohibiting the publication of any book without license to do so. Printers who owned presses had to be registered with the Master and Wardens of the Company, and presses had to be set up inside London, with the exception of Oxford and Cambridge. It is under this decree that Short printed his edition of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. The decree was a result of two historical events:

1. The publication of books that directly attacked Queen Elizabeths’ political and religious views.

2. The monopoly control over certain printed books, which favored senior printers.

Analyzing the Start Chamber Decree of 1586 through a Critical Disinformation Studies lens demonstrates how even during 16th-century England, powerful players were successfully controlling which printers were permitted access to print and disseminate copies of books. This also controlled what was being printed and disseminated. The monarchy’s desire to control the printing presses (technological structures), the creation of information and the dissemination of information was all for political and religious gain and power. Senior printers also wanted protections in place for the works they were printing, so the monopoly control of certain books favored them over printers with less power. Money, power and politics drove the decree that ultimately favored a certain type of printer and a certain type of information.

The transcription and translation of the homily are identical to the 1583 edition. Omissions and biblical references are all the same, with the exception of one new feature. Line numbers appear in this edition for the first time. “It is significant that one of the few changes involves the addition of line numbering in the margin that runs down the middle of each page between the two columns of type. This aid to readers corresponded to the addition of column and line references to page numbers in the index. The heightened specificity of these finding aids accords with the way in which English readers had grown accustomed to reading vernacular Bibles with the assistance of concordances that enabled them to locate specific texts by chapter and verse” (King, 2006, p. 136).

The Company of the Stationers of London printed the two-volume, folio 1610 edition of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs (Pollard and Redgrave, 1976–1991, I:496). The Old English transcription of Ælfric’s Easter Homily is in volume 2, pages 1042–1044, with a running title “King. Henry. 8. Allegations against the sixe Articles. Transubstantiation. King Henry. 8. A Sermon in the Saxon tongue against Transubstantiation.” The Modern English translation appears on pages 1045–1046, with the running title “K. Henry 8. A sermon agaynst transubstantiation translated out of Saxon.” Since the layout of the 1610 edition follows the 1597 edition so closely, the printer could “formulate a precise estimate for the amount of paper required” for this edition (King, 2006, p. 138). The political and religious climate during the planning of the 1610 edition was not without anxiety, as London experienced a near-catastrophic event with the 1605 Gunpowder Plot. As a result, the “Commons called for firmer action to be taken against Catholics” in January 1606 (The Parliament of 1604–1610, Institute of Historical Research, 1995) and enforcement of the Penal Laws became even stronger. During this time, a new edition of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs would have been a welcome text among the monarchy and English Protestants.

The transcription and translation of the homily are identical to the 1583 edition, with one interesting exception in layout and one change in a printed marginal note. The 1610 edition is the first instance in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs when the Old English transcription stops on one page, and the English translation begins on a new page, which does create a tidier appearance on the page. For the first time, we see “Torath” instead of “Torat” used in the printed marginal note: “Thys Hebrewe letters [Thau] was not marked for the signe of the crosse, but for the word [Torath] that is, the lawe of God: the first letter for the whole word.” While formatting and textual changes are taking place in this edition, Foxe’s omissions in the homily continue to remain unaltered.

The 1631–32 folio edition of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs is published by Adam Islip (active years 1591–1640), and it is the first time the text is printed in 3 volumes (Pollard and Redgrave, 1976–1991, I:496). The Old English transcription is in volume 2, pages 450–453 ^[3], with a running title “A Sermon translated out of Latine, into the Saxon tongue, by Elfricus, against Transubstantiation, Anno. 995.” The Modern English translation is on pages 454–456, with a running title “The same in English. A Sermon on Easter day.” Islip has an interesting connection to John Day; he and Roger Ward, along with others, printed Day’s ABCs without license to do so. “Ward admitted that Adam Islip furnished him with some of the type from Thomas Purfoote’s printing house, without his master’s knowledge” (Arber, 1875–1894, 2:765 & 769). While Islip had a few instances of printing texts without license to do so, he, along with Felix Kingston and Robert Young, did have a license from the Stationers’ Company to reprint Foxe’s Book of Martyrs in 1631 (Arber, 1875–1894, 3:699, 700–04; McKerrow, 1910, pp. 148–49). King posits that the division of the project among Islip, Kingston and Young resulted in the three volumes and that Islip was the one who led the project (King, 2006, p. 146).

As with all the editions of Book of Martyrs, the 1631–32 edition reflects the political and religious climate in England at that time. Charles I’s Bishop of London seemingly favored William Laud, who endorsed the wearing of canonical robes and altars. According to King, this caused resistance from Calvinists, “who feared that they entailed restoration of Roman Catholic sacramentalism and ritual” (King, 2006, p. 146). “Warning that the present moment represents a time of peril that will result in a renewal of persecution in England, a prefatory ‘Treatise of Afflictions and Persecutions of the Faithfull, Preparing Them with Patience to Suffer Martyrdome’ redirects this book from the optimistic mood of 1610 to an era when international Protestantism was retreating before the resurgent force of Counter-Reformation Catholicism” (King, 2006, p. 149). The marriage of Charles I (1600–1649) to a devout Catholic, Henrietta Maria of France (1609–1669), in 1625 further fueled religious mistrust in the monarchy among English Protestants, arguably making a new edition of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs even more valuable to Protestant readers.

The transcription and translation follow the 1596–97 fifth edition closely, with the exception of two departures:

1. Line numbers are printed in this edition.

2. In the Old English transcription, this is the first edition of Book of Martyrs where many of the letters have been replaced with contemporary Roman letters, such as the “ɼ” replaced by “ſ” and the “ƿ” by “w” in “leofostan” in the first line and “Nuwille” in the fourth line. Since the use of this construct is not consistent, it is difficult to determine if this is potentially a result of the printer not having enough Old English type or if it was an attempt to create more “familiar” looking words in the transcription for readers. Regardless, this shows that alterations in the format of the transcription were intentionally made, but Foxe’s omissions continue to remain unchanged.

The 1631–32 edition is the first instance in all editions of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs where the biblical references deviate. Significant textual and formatting changes are made in the homily within this edition of Book of Martyrs, but Foxe’s omissions in the homily continue to remain unaltered. Many of the textual and formatting changes that happen in the posthumous editions are created to enhance the readership of a more literate English society. Printers were using the knowledge they had for financial profit and reader access, thereby disseminating misinformation to a larger audience.

The 1641 folio edition of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs is printed by the Company of the Stationers of London; this is the second time it has been printed in three volumes (Wing, 1982–1998, 2:95). During the planning and printing of this edition, England saw significant changes both in leadership and in laws surrounding printing. King writes,

The Root and Branch Petition was presented on December 11, 1640, and called on Parliament to abolish episcopacy. In 1641, the Root and Branch Bill was defeated in the House of Commons, leading to riots throughout Westminster. Tensions were mounting during 1641, as the First English Civil War began just a year later in 1642.

Between 1638 and 1644, there are four printings of Ælfric’s Easter Homily by three different printers and translators. It is the only period in history when this happens, and it is the only time when the homily is printed four times in a span of 6 years. William Lilse’s Divers ancient monuments in the Saxon tongue (1638), John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs (1641), Abraham Wheelock’s Bede’s Historiae (1643 & 1644). It is no coincidence that the heaviest production of Ælfric’s Easter Homily takes place during the English Civil Wars and the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. The opposition between the Royalists and the Parliamentarians was exacerbated by religious differences around Laudianism and the belief of predestination. We can hypothesize with confidence that these four editions that contain Ælfric’s Easter Homily demonstrate the anxieties surrounding the war. As with many historical moments, this is a catalyst for the growing momentum of Old English scholarship in universities and print houses.

Printed for the Company of Stationers of London, the 1684 folio edition returns to a two-volume format (Wing, 1982–1998, 2:95). This edition of Book of Martyrs is positioned near the end of the Restoration and the reign of King Charles II (1630–1685). In 1683, one year prior to the printing of this edition, a plan to assassinate King Charles II and his brother, James, Duke of York (1633–1701), had been uncovered. Protestants feared that Charles II’s Catholic wife and close relationship with King Louis XIV (1638–1715) was a potential threat to Anglican England. Anti-papal and anti-Catholic attitudes were widespread in England during King Charles II’s reign, and the Rye House Plot is demonstrative of these sentiments.

This edition does not include line numbers, and the columns are closer together. The translation does not begin on a new page as it does with the 1610, 1631 and 1641 editions. The printed marginal notes are the same as the 1570 edition, with the exception of the variance of the biblical references and an added marginal note on p. 381, column 1, “Anno. 1219.” Compositor errors are the same as those in the 1583 edition. Just as in the 1631–32 and 1641 editions, the 1684 Old English letters have been replaced with contemporary letters, such as the “ſ” in “leofoſtan” in the first sentence and the “w” in “Nuwille” on the second one. This is also the first instance where the use of Roman font is employed throughout the entire translation (King, 2006, pp. 159–160). Again, we see that significant textual and formatting changes have been made to the homily in this edition of Book of Martyrs; however, Foxe’s omissions in the homily remain unaltered. His disinformation survives and thrives through the dissemination of misinformation during the 17th century.

Using Kuo’s and Marwick’s framework for Critical Disinformation and a History of the Book approach, we can see how John Foxe’s status, wealth, connections and education positioned him well to manipulate the Old English manuscript of Ælfric’s Easter Homily for political, religious and financial gain. By omitting sections that contained any Catholic sections, Foxe launched a disinformation campaign to prove to his readers (both Protestants and Catholics of all socio-economic classes) that England, through proof of Ælfric’s Easter Homily, was truly Protestant and not Catholic. The power, however, is in Foxe’s ability to not only create the disinformation but also to disseminate it. Using black letter font (a font more legible to the common reader) and publishing the translation in English demonstrates how Foxe was aiming to reach the largest audience possible, with a focus on individuals from a lower socio-economic status. Backed by powerful players and having access to the most impressive printer of his time, further highlights how Foxe was well-positioned to enact his disinformation campaign for political gain. Penal Law during the late 16th and early 17th centuries oppressed Catholics by means of severe punishment, such as fines, imprisonment and death. Whether an individual was practicing Catholicism or harboring a priest, it would have been treasonous and punishable under the Penal Law. The victims of these attacks were further subdued through loss of land, inability to vote or hold public office. In 1,571, during the production of Book of Martyrs, Pope Pius V excommunicated Queen Elizabeth I, nullifying “any bonds of allegiance and obedience sworn to the queen by her Catholic subjects” (Henriksen, 2021, p. 39). Parliament responded by passing An Acte whereby certayne Offences be made Treason (Henriksen, 2021, p. 39). Aware of these laws and tensions with the Treason Act, Foxe had the power and means to create disinformation that further disenfranchised Catholics in England, and he devoted a significant portion of his life to these efforts through his Book of Martyrs. Foxe’s version of Ælfric’s Easter Homily is printed unchanged for over a century, with no one catching or correcting the omissions, which exemplifies the challenges of correcting disinformation once it is in the public domain.

Examination of disinformation in early modern England, or in any area of study for that matter, is vastly productive with an interdisciplinary approach. Utilizing a Critical Disinformation Studies framework and a History of the Book approach to analyze how disinformation and misinformation operated in early modern England helps us understand structures in place that privileged certain people to create and disseminate disinformation to subdue and harm oppressed groups. Likewise, it illuminates how and why misinformation continues to circulate and who is impacted by the disinformation and misinformation. Through this study, we can see that disinformation and misinformation in early modern England are pervasive and harmful and that harnessing disinformation and misinformation was nearly impossible, much like today. Moreover, this approach demonstrates how human behavior and engagement with disinformation in early modern England is not significantly different in the postmodern world. Powerful players control and manipulate disinformation to subdue and disenfranchise marginalized groups. This study is one example of how an interdisciplinary approach can lead to a better understanding of critical disinformation history and “see the larger and longer trends of human social development” (Weller et al., 2026, p. 19).

Thank you to Dr Shaun Hughes, Dr Angelica Duran, Dr David Bawden, the Purdue University Libraries and School of Information Studies Writing Group and the peer reviewers for their thoughtful feedback and time on this article.