as that which happened in the past and continues into the colloquial present. Discussing Foxe in the constructions of historical (national/religious) consciousness has always been also a discussion about the meaning and writing of history. Approaching this subject puts researchers into a kind of liminal zone between borders, where relations slip from one category to another – from writing history, to discussing history writing (historiography), to considering collective history in human consciousness (historical consciousness and collective memory). The text in this case has always been multiple and complex. Several researchers have remarked on how malleable, how easily mutable Foxe's text was, and so inherently contradictory, characteristics that increased its potential influence. It is a difficult text to pin down, what Collinson called "a very unstable entity", indeed, "a moving target". "We used to think that we were dealing with a book," Collinson mused aloud at the third Foxe Congress (1999), "understood in the ordinary sense of that term, a book written by an author, subject to progressive revision but always the same book ... and [we thought] that what Foxe intended he brought about." Through the late nineties and into the twenty-first century, the Foxe Project has maintained funding for the new critical edition of Acts and Monuments and to help promote Foxeian studies, including five "John Foxe" Congresses and four publications of their collected papers, in addition to dozens of related articles and two specialized books or more produced independently. Modern reception and anniversary March 2013 marked 450 years since Foxe's 1563 publication. Foxe's first edition capitalized on new technology (the printing press). Similarly, the new critical edition of Acts and Monuments benefits from, and is shaped by, new technologies. Digitalized for the internet generation, scholars can now search and cross-reference each of the first four editions, and benefit from several essays introducing the texts. The conceptual repertoire available for reading has so altered from that of John Foxe's era that it has been asked how it is possible to read it at all. Netzley posed this question focusing on the sixteenth century texts, polemics, and its readers. In its own time, and as Foxe had anticipated, people sought out the parts that felt most relevant. There is extensive literature on the culture and politics of reading in the early modern period. Patrick Collinson concluded at the third Foxe Congress (Ohio, 1999) that as a result of the "death