The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

As Glyn Redworth has observed, Gardiner remained in favour with Henry well in the autumn of 1546. What led to Gardiner's exclusion from the executors of Henry's will was that the bishop with admirable courage and a deplorable sense of timing declined , at the November, to agree to an exchange of episcopal properties with Crown lands. (In theory, these exchanges were equal, in practice they always favoured the Crown). Henry was irate and Gardiner was in disfavour at the crucial time when Henry died. (See Glyn Redworth, In Defence of the Church Catholic: The Life of Stephen Gardiner [Oxford, 1990], pp. 237-40 and Diarmaid MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer [New Haven, CT, 1996], p. 359).

The nucleus of this account of Edward VI appeared in the Rerum (pp. 200-201) where Foxe summarized the religious reforms which took place in Edward VI's reign and eulogized the young king for the (relative) lack of religious persecution which characterized his reign. This material was incorporated in the 1563 edition and remained a part of the account of Edward VI in all successive editions. In the 1563 edition, Foxe added material from informants, apparently including Edward VI's former tutors Richard Cox and John Cheke, regarding Edward VI's character and virtues. In the 1570 edition, Foxe pruned back some criticism of Henry VIII, for his violence and his failure to achieve a thorough Reformation of the Church, not because Foxe's views on this subject had changed, but because by now he had stated these views more sharply, elsewhere in the book. Foxe added two sections to the 1570 account of Edward VI. One was a panegyric of Edward's desire to reform the Church and of his virtues; details in it may have come (via William Cecil) from John Cheke. The other addition was further praise of Edward's character and abilities, taken from the writings of the well-known astrologer, Girolamo Cardano.

Throughout Foxe was trying to present Edward VI as a model ruler particularly in his zeal for further Reformation and in his merciful nature. This was clearly intended as a model for princes and magistrates to follow. It is noticeable that this prescriptive praise became even more intense in the 1570 edition, by which time it was becoming apparent that Elizabeth - in Foxe's eyes, at least - was sadly lukewarm in her zeal for thorough reformation. It is also noteworthy that Foxe's desire to eulogize Cranmer for his mercy was so strong, that he re-wrote his earlier account and exonerated Edward VI from any share in the execution of the religious radical, Joan Bocher.

Thomas S. Freeman

Richard Cox, the first Elizabethan bishop of Ely, was Edward VI's tutor and almoner from 1543-48. This reference is one clear indication that he was one of Foxe's sources for these tales of Edward's gifts and virtues.

The obvious bellicose intentions behind this line of study - it is necessary preparatory knowledge for invading France and Scotland - is passed over by Foxe.

I.e., during the ascendancy of the Duke of Somerset, 1548-49.

Sir John Cheke was Edward VI's tutor from 1549-53. This story probably came to Foxe from Cheke, but not directly, as Cheke had died in 1557. Cheke's close friend William Cecil may possibly have related this story to Foxe.

Foxe is slightly confused here. Cox was Edward's almoner (in charge of distributing the prince's alms or money for charity) while Edward was Prince of Wales, and not the Master of Requests (in charge of receiving petitions to the king). This reference is another indication, however, that Cox was the source for this material.

Stephen Gardiner was imprisoned in the Tower from 30 June 1548 until 3 August 1553.

Note that Foxe restricts this to 'papists'; two radical Protestants, Joan Bocher and George van Parris, were burned during Edward VI's reign.

In later editions, this criticism of Henry VIII would get even sharper. But Foxe's basic grounds for criticizing Henry VIII would not change: the old king was violent, even cruel and he did not thoroughly reform the Church. Foxe's praise of Edward VI for doing both, along with his criticisms of Henry's failings in both respects, was intended as a model for later magistrates and rulers, especially Elizabeth to follow.

Given the rebellions of 1549, war with Scotland, and the execution of the duke of Somerset, this would seem to be an overstatement. But Foxe is very concerned both to praise Edward and to show God's favour on England during the young king's reign.

Note Foxe's very similar comment on Surrey later in Book 9.

This is one of the rare times when the account Foxe started with in the Rerum ended up being larger than what was printed in any of the editions of the Acts and Monuments. In the Rerum (on p. 201), Foxe gave the account of Thomas Dobbes, which was translated and reprinted in each edition of the Acts and Monuments. But Foxe also printed (on p. 202) brief accounts of the executions of two religious radicals, Joan Bocher and George van Parris, who were executed in 1550 and 1551. He also printed two stories condemning these executions. In the first story, John Rogers, who would become the first Marian martyr, was approached by an unnamed friend (generally assumed by scholars to be Foxe himself) and urged to intercede on behalf of Joan. When Rogers not only refused to intervene, but also defended burning as merciful, given the heinousness of heresy, his friend bitterly (and prophetically) told him that one day he might receive such gentle treatment himself (Rerum, p. 202). Foxe also included an account of Humphrey Middleton, another future Marian martyr, being accused of heresy by Cranmer during Edward VI's reign, and grimly prophesying that Cranmer would one day find himself in a similar position (Rerum, p. 202).

All of these stories are an indication of the strength of Foxe's aversion to punishing heretics with death. Yet only the account of Thomas Dobbes was reprinted in the Acts and Monuments. (The executions of Joan Bocher and George van Parris are merely mentioned in the Acts and Monuments, see later in Book 9). Foxe was unwilling the surrender the moral high ground by admitting that his martyrs were persecutors themselves. And an admission that Protestants persecuted each other, only served to support the validity of Catholic charges of Protestant disunity. However, Foxe did add one short account to this section, that of John Hume. This, however, did not end in an execution and was thus fairly innocuous.

Most of Foxe's sources for these persecutions drew on his own experiences or on accounts from informants. However, Foxe's limited knowledge of the case of John Hume, was entirely based on the sparse entry on the case in Cranmer's register.

Thomas S. Freeman

These articles included beliefs that Foxe himself regarded as heretical, such as denial of Christ's human nature and denial of the Trinity. Foxe was reluctant to even rehearse such deviant theology.

Foxe first printed this account of Thomas Dobbe in the Rerum (p. 201), which means that he obtained this account during his exile. The account, which must have been received from a informant, is rather puzzling. Two of the individuals named (John Taylor and Roger Hutchinson) were prominent evangelicals and are very unlikely to have objected to Dobbe's wishing to marry. Perhaps there were other, more personal reasons, for Dobbe's bad relations with the other fellows. Perhaps Dobbe's religious beliefs were more radical than Foxe describes. In any case, it would seem there is more to this story.

Injunction 3 cautiously endorses iconoclastic destruction of images 'abused' by pilgrimages, offerings, or censings. It permits employment of images as objects of 'remembraunce, whereby, men may be admonished, of the holy liues and conuersacion of theim, that the saide Images do represent: whiche Images, if thei do abuse for any other intent, thei commit Ydolatrye in the same, to the great daungier of their soules' (a3v). Taken in conjunction with Injunction 28, this provision renders apparent the iconoclastic thrust of official policy.

Injunction 4 represents an early, albeit radical, step in the introduction of a new vernacular worship service.

In a striking reversal of the 1543 withdrawal of permission for Bible reading by commoners (see n. 41, below), Injunction 7 mandates provision of chained copies of the Great Bible and the two-volume English translation of Erasmus's Paraphrases of the New Testament (1548-49; STC 2854-2854.7) for public reading by members of the laity.

Injunction 8.

Injunction 9.

Injunctions 10-11.

Injunction 12.

Injunction 14.

Injunction 15.

Injunction 20 is designed to eliminate ignorance of the New Testament on the part of clerics.

In requiring the reading of passages from the Old and New Testaments in vernacular translation, Injunction 21 represents the starting point in a radical departure from the Latin service that survived England's 1534 schism from the Church of Rome. Readings from the Great Bible in conjunction with those from the forthcoming Book of Homilies (Injunction 32) and Book of Common Prayer (forthcoming in 1549) would comprise a wholly new church service in the English language. King, English Reformation Literature, pp. 123-38.

Injunction 23. The 1544 Litany was the first component in the vernacular worship service contained in the Book of Common Prayer (forthcoming in 1549).

Injunction 24.

Injunction 25.

Injunction 26.

Although Injunction 27 mandates strict observance of ecclesiastical ceremonies, it anticipates the forthcoming abrogation of many elements in the traditional service by denying that ceremonies discharge any soteriological function.

Injunction 28 gives official sanction to the iconoclastic destruction of shrines and religious images and to shrines that constitute objects of veneration, including those in stained glass windows.

Injunction 29.

Acknowledging the existence of an inadequate supply of learned clerics, Injunction 32 enjoins unlicensed preachers to read officially authorized sermons in Certain sermons, or homilies, appoynted by the kynges maiestie, to be declared and redde. Its initial publication on 31 July 1547 coincided with that of the Royal Injunctions. The King's Printer, Richard Grafton, or his associate, Edward Whitchurch, published eleven editions of the Book of Homilies during 1547 (STC 13638.5-13641.9). Various hands contributed twelve sermons on a range of topics (e.g., exhortations on original sin, against whoredom and adultery, and against strife and contention). It is a virtual certainty that Archbishop Cranmer composed the homilies on Bible reading, salvation, faith, and works, which expound the core Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone and the concomitant position that good works lack efficacy in themselves and possess no validity if they are not grounded in faith. King, English Reformation Literature, pp. 131-34.; MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer, pp. 372-75.

Foxe advises the reader to consult page 684 of the first edition of the Book of Martyrs in order to consult a more expansive paraphrase of Injunctions 13, 16-19, 22, 30-31, and 33-34.

Edmund Bonner.

Cattley/Pratt, V, 843: 'This letter of the council is in the Bonner Register, folio 110, and the Westminster, folio 268'.

Injunctions 3 and 28 had spurred iconoclastic attack on images 'abused' and rightly 'used'. Phillips, Reformation of Images, pp. 89-90.

On the ground that contention concerning religious images has resulted from the ambiguous wording of the prohibition against 'abused' images in Injunction 3, the Privy council takes the further step of endorsing iconoclastic destruction of all religious images.

Cattley/Pratt, V, 843: 'These letters missiue from the Council are given at folio 112 of the Bonner Register, and folio 269 of the Westminster'.

The Act for Submission of the Clergy (1534), Act of Supremacy (1534), and related legislation.

The outbreak on 12 July of a rebellion in Norfolk led by Robert Kett supplies the immediate context for this letter of 23 July from Edward VI to Edmund Bonner, which reproves him for negligence in assuring conformity to the Book of Common Prayer within the diocese of London.

Cattley/Pratt, V, 843: 'This letter of Bonner to the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's is in the Bonner Register, folio 219 verso'.

Bonner ignored Edward VI's order that he preach against rebellion and in favor of the king's authority to proceed with ecclesiastical reform and failed to call for obedience to the king. In his sermon on 24 August, the bishop instead reaffirmed the doctrine of transubstantiation. For this offense he was remanded to Marshalsea Prison and deprived of episcopal office. ODNB.

Edmund Bonner. He wrote this letter to the Dean and members of the Chapter of St. Paul's Cathedral barely two weeks after the imposition of the Book of Common Prayer on 9 June had triggered the Western Rebellion, in which the populace of Cornwall and Devon rose up in resistance to the new prayer book and ecclesiastical reforms promulgated under Protector Somerset.

John King

Cattley/Pratt, V, 844: 'This letter from the king and his council to Bonner is at folio 219 of Bonner's Register.

Bishop Edmund Bonner of London was the first to express his dissent from the Royal Visitation of August 1547. Bonner had been translated to London from Hereford in 1540, and had served Henry VIII as a diplomat. He was a committed supporter of the Royal Supremacy, but also an upholder of the conservative Act of Six Articles. When the Royal Commissioners entered his diocese he received them with a protestation that he would observe the Injunctions only 'if they be not contrary and repugnant to God's law and the Statutes and Ordinances of this church…'. This was construed as contumacy, and he was brought before the Council and committed to the Fleet. He protested that his words had been misconstrued, and submitted. For the next two years Bonner conducted himself acceptably in the eyes of the Council, even taking steps to ensure that the First Prayer Book was observed and used when it came into force in June 1549. However, he became increasingly concerned by the spread of radical preaching within his diocese, and by the appearance of extremist pamphlets. Consequently he took no action against Catholic non-conformity, and this worried the Council, particularly given what was happening in the West Country at that time. In August 1549 they sent for Bonner again and required him to preach a sermon at Paul's Cross upon certain articles which were prescribed to him.

David Loades
University of Sheffield

Mary's campaign of overt resistance to the protestant policies of the Protector' s government began with the introduction of the 1549 Prayer Book at Whitsun in that year, a day upon which she caused mass to be celebrated with exceptional splendour in her chapel at Kenninghall. On 16 June the Council wrote to her a restrained letter 'giving her advice to be conformable and obedient to the observation of his Majesty's laws…', which provoked the response given here. Mary based her resistance on two points: firstly that her father's settlement should not be changed while her brother was a minor, because the Royal Supremacy was vested in him personally, and secondly that her conscience could not accept the validity of 'a late law of your own making', which called in question the whole authority of a minority government. For a discussion of these issues, see D. Loades, Mary Tudor: A Life (1989), pp.145-6. Mary's position was supported and exploited throughout by the Imperial ambassadors, first Francois Van der Delft and later Jehan Scheyfve, whose aim was to cause the maximum embarrassment to the English government, short of an outright breakdown of diplomatic relations. At the change-over of ambassadors in July 1551, Mary planned to escape to the continent, and then changed her mind (D.L. Loades, Mary Tudor (, pp.153-5). The most disturbing letter from the King was that of 24 January 1550, wherein he makes it clear that he is personally supportive of the policies which she has been attributing to his council. Her reply of 3 February makes the extent of her disquiet plain.

David Loades
University of Sheffield

Although a number of letters from the council to Mary, and vice versa, survive in the State Papers and among the Harleian MSS, these are not among them, and the originals appear to be lost. The Council's latter of advice to the princess 'that the mass should not be used' survives as MS Harley 6195, f.5. A note of the instructions issued to Dr,.Hopton appears in the Council Register (Acts, II, pp.291-2), but the note is brief and it is not certain that this document is being referred to. The original of this does not appear to survive. The instruction given to the Lord Chancellor (Richard Rich), Sir Anthony Wingfield and Sir William Paget on 24 August 1551, does appear in the Council Register, together with their report. (Acts, III, pp.333, 336, 347), which is full and circumstantial, but which was not used by Foxe.

Stephen Gardiner's troubles with the Council sprang from the same root as Bonner's - an unwillingness to accept the changes of direction in religion which Cranmer was trying to introduce. Edward Vaughn was Captain of Portsmouth, and in the spring of 1547 it came to the bishop's attention that there had been an outbreak of iconoclasm in the town, and that this 'containeth an enterprise to subvert religion'. Gardiner subsequently preached in the town. There are accounts of this episode in Jordan, Edward VI: the Young King (London, 1968), p.155; James Muller, Stephen Gardiner and the Tudor Reaction (London, 1926), p.150; and Glyn Redworth, In Defence of the Church Catholic (Oxfrod, 1990), pp.255-6. In 1547 Gardiner was regarded as the principal champion of conservative values, and was also incarcerated in the Fleet for his opposition to the Injunctions. His delaying and evasive tactics during the autumn of 1547 were masterly, but ineffective. Having been forced into a show of conformity, he was released on the 20th February 1548, and retuned to his diocese (Redworth, In Defence of the Church Catholic, pp.255-69). This whole exchange was drastically reduced after the 1563 edition

David Loades
University of Sheffield

Gardiner's letter to Edward Vaughan was printed by Foxe from a lost original, and reprinted by James Muller (Letters of Stephen Gardiner (Cambridge, 1933), pp.272-6). The letter to Somerset of 28 February [1547] is similarly printed by Muller, citing Foxe as his source (pp.264-7). The same is true of his letter of 21 May, although Muller notes (p.276) that 'a sixteenth century copy of the last twelve lines is in BL, Add.MS 28,571, f.21'. Muller identifies no MS source for the letter of 6 June (pp.286-295), again quoting Foxe as his source. The letters of 10 June and 'after 12 June' concerning the homilies, are similarly reprinted by Muller from Foxe (pp.296-7, 297-8). When Gardiner wrote again to Somerset from the Fleet in October 1547, Foxe edited the version which he had in front of him. About 40% of the original survives in BL Harley MS 417, fols 84-9 (one of Foxe's manuscripts) and most of the rest in a sixteenth century copy (BL Cotton MS Vespasian D.XVIII, ff.138-45). Foxe edited a good deal out of the original, but is the only source for the last paragraph, which does not appear in the other versions. The letter which follows, whish is not dated, but which Muller ascribes to the 27 October, is again known only from Foxe's version (pp.402-10). Muller's order of printing thereafter differs from Foxe's. That appearing on pages 746-7 is dated by Muller to the 20 November, and appears on pp.419-23, while that appearing on p.748, and tentatively dated 'shortly after 4th November' appears on p.410. In each case, Foxe is used as the source, although in respect of the letter appearing on pp.748-9, it is noted that the first twelve lines can also be found in BL Add.MS 28,571, f.14. The 'certaine additions' and the 'summe and conclusyon' appear to be Foxe's own composition. The letter to Nicholas Ridley, criticising a sermon which he had preached at court, which appear here on pp.751-4, is placed by Muller in its correct chronological place (February 1547), and appears on pp.255-63. Foxe is once again the only source. The originals of Somerset's side of the correspondence do not appear to have survived at all, and no scholar has so far collected the Protector's letters. John Strype in his Ecclesiastical Memorials (London, 1809 edition), 2, p.785, prints a version of Gardiner's letter to the Protector concerning the Book of Homilies, taken from BL Cotton MSS Vespasian D. XVIII, f.139, with the comment 'I remit the reader for the rest of this letter to Winchester's ninth letter in Foxe's Acts, the former part of the letter which is now exposed to view having been by him ommitted'. Partial drafts of the same letter are to be found in Harleian MS 417, ff.8 and 9, and these appear to have been Foxe's source.

The 'copie of a writte or evidence' which appears in the 1570 edition (p.1521) may be an edited version of a Council letter, or it may be Foxe's own work.

The original of the 'Articles and imposicions ministered…' (1563, p.755) can be found in BL Harleian MS 304, no.13, where it is described as 'written for the use of the Right honourable and my singular good lord, my Lord Archbishop of York's Grace '[Robert Holgate]. The remaining proceedings against Gardiner, including the 'sentence definitive' and the 'circumstances of the Counsayles proceedings….(p.766) are taken from a unknown source. They do not appear either in Gardiner's Register (edited for the Canterbury and York Society by H. Chitty, volume 37, 1930) or in Cranmer's register. The accounts of Gardiner's troubles given by James Muller Stephen Gardiner and the Tudor Reaction (London, 1926), pp.161-216; Glyn Redworth (In Defence of the Church Catholic (Oxford, 1990), pp.248-81) and W.K. Jordan Edward VI: The Threshold of Power (London, 1970), pp. 243-5) are based mainly on Foxe. The whole story was drastically reduced in 1576 and 1583.

David Loades
University of Sheffield

'Capernaite' is a prejorative term for anyone who held an overly-carnal understanding of Christ's Real Presence in the sacramental bread and wine. The term is based on John 6: 52.

This sounds like a rejection of the Real Presence, but it is not necessarily so. Thomas Aquinas had maintained much the same thing, arguing that Christ was only present in the Sacrament under the species of bread and wine, but his actual location was in heaven.

Tertullian was a major patristic writer and theologian.

Irenaeus was an early patristic writer and theologian.

Although both William Seres (A Reporte of Maister Doctor Redmans answers (London, 1551), 20827, sig A2r-v) and Alexander Nowell himself (A Confutation as wel of M. Dormans last Boke…[London, 1567], STC 18739, fos. 11v-13r) are quite disingenuous about the origins of this document, its apparent genesis is revealing. Word of Redman's deathbed reached William Cecil, who instructed Nowell to draw up this of doctrinal points made by Redman and to get witnesses to subscribe to it. (For the identities of these witnesses see commentaries earlier in this section.) Cecil gave this document to Seres who printed it in A Reporte, fos. A3r-A6r). This again is indicative of the efforts made by Cecil and the Edwardian authorities to capitalize on Redman's death for purposes of religious propaganda.

What Redman is saying here is that the Sacrament should not be offered in Requiem masses, not that these masses should not be celebrated. But this would contradict the third point, since if if there is no Purgatory, Requiem masses serve no useful purpose.

Now this, if said, is truly evangelical. Note that JohnYoung and Richard Wilkes, both theological conservatives, did not subscribe to the accuracy of this article.

This is less radical than it sounds. No one, Catholic and Protestant, denied that faith alone saved, but were good works inseparable from faith? The ambiguity here comes from the clause that the faith must conform with true doctrine. A Catholic (like John Young) would maintain that this meant acceptance of the teachings of the Church.

These are John Young's own comments on Redman's points; they may have been added at Young's insistence, in return for his subscribing to Nowell's list of Redman's points.

This letter, which Foxe claimed was a translation of the autograph, almost certainly passed from Cheke to Cecil, and thence to Foxe. But Cecil probably obtained this letter after the report of Redman's answers was printed or it would have been included. Young's version of what Redman said is basically consistent with the versions given by Wilkes and Nowell, but in his version Redman is less doubtful about the Real Presence in the Sacrament. In Young's version, Redman also accepts Purgatory, while in the third of Nowell's points, Redman denies its existence.

Psalm 97: 3.

For Simon Magus see Acts 8: 14-24. This account specifically relates that Simon, traditionally regarded as the proto-heretic, received Christian baptism.

I.e., Justin Martyr, one of the early patristic writers.

Redman's belief in the merits of prayers for the dead seems to contradict the third point in the list Nowell compiled, which denied Purgatory. It also drew a sharp response from Foxe who, in a marginal note, observes that Redman's judgment on this point.

These are both series of Requiem Masses, celebrated to mitigate the punishments inflicted on departed souls in Purgatory.

Romans 6: 23.

This account of William Gardiner's spectacular act of sacrilege was first printed in the Rerum (pp. 203-8). A faithful translation of it was printed in the first edition of the A&M and reprinted, without significant change, in all subsequent editions. The most surprising thing about this account, however, is not Gardiner's extraordinary actions, but the accuracy of Foxe's account of them. A comparison of Foxe's narrative with the records of the Portuguese Inquisition records of the case, show that Foxe's narrative of Gardiner's crime and punishment, despite occasional errors, was accurate in even small details. [The records of the case are printed in I. da Rosa Pereira, 'O Descato na Capela Real em 1552 e o processo do calvinista inglês peranto Ordinário de Lisboa', Anais da Academia Portuguesa da Historia 29 (1984), pp. 597-623. English translations of some of these documents are available in Thomas S. Freeman and Marcelo J. Borges, '"A grave and heinous incident against our holy Catholic Faith": Two Accounts of William Gardiner's Desecration of the Portuguese Royal Chapel in 1552', Historical Research 69 (1996), pp. 2-17]. Needless to say, Foxe did not have access to these records. Rather, the accuracy of Foxe's account was clearly due to an informant who was not only present at the event, but knew Gardiner well. Foxe identifies this informant as one Pendigrace. The fact that Foxe was able to obtain this account from a person with whom he had no known association and whilst he was in exile, speaks volumes about the network of associates that supplied Foxe with information for his work, both during Mary's reign and afterwards. Yet it should also be remembered that, for all of its accuracy, Foxe's account of Gardiner provides one of the rare examples of his inventing a speech and claiming that it actually took place.

Gardiner's case clearly caught Foxe's imagination, at least partly because of his constancy during excruciating torments. One of the rare woodcuts in the Acts and Monuments depicts Gardiner being raised and lowered into the fire (Rerum, p. 209). And Foxe wrote a poem - only printed in the Rerum - eulogizing Gardiner's fortitude and villifying his tormenters. In the A&M, Foxe made the reasons for his admiration clear. Gardiner's constancy and willingness to suffer for the Gospel made him a model for Christians to follow, if not in dying for Christ, than in living the Christian life.

Thomas S. Freeman

This acknowledgement that Pendigrace was Foxe's source first appears in Rerum, p. 206. For a possible identification of 'Pentigrace' as one Thomas Pendigrace, see Thomas S. Freeman and Marcello J. Borges, '"A grave and heinous incident against our holy Catholic Faith": Two Accounts of William Gardiner's Desecration of the Portuguese Roayl Chapel in 1552', Historical Research 69 (1966).

The wedding which putatively inspired Gardiner's act of sacrilege took place on 4 December 1552 (not September as Foxe states); the act of sacrilege itself took place on 11 December.

Interestingly, a witness testified before the tribunal investigating Gardiner that, at the time of his act of sacrilege, he was 'a man of respectable appearance' ['um homem bem disposito'] (Thomas S. Freeman and Marcello J. Borges, '"A grave and heinous incident against our holy Catholic Faith": Two Accounts of William Gardiner's Desecration of the Portuguese Royal Chapel in 1552', Historical Research 69 [1996], p. 5).

Foxe is in error on this point. The Cardinal-Infante Henrique was unquestionably present at the service, but testimony at Gardiner's trial reveals that a royal chaplain was celebrating Mass (Thomas S. Freeman and Marcello J. Borges, '"A grave and heinous incident against our holy Catholic faith": Two Accounts of William Gardiner's Desecration of the Portuguese Royal Chapel in 1552', Historical Research 69 [1996], p. 13).

In a pastoral letter written after Gardiner's sacrilege, the Archbishop of Lisbon wrote that Gardiner had crushed the Host with one hand and overturned the chalice with the other (I. da Rosa Pereira, 'O Desacato na Capella Real em 1552 e o processo do calvinista inglês peranto Ordinário de Lisboa', Annais da Academia Portuguesa da Historia 29 (1984), pp. 618-19).

Witnesses testified at Gardiner's trial that the crowd attacked Gardiner and were only stopped from killing him by the personal intervention of João III (Thomas S. Freeman and Marcello J. Borges, '"A grave and heinous incident against our holy Catholic Faith": Two Accounts of William Gardiner's Desecration of the Portuguese Royal Chapel in 1552', Historical Research 69 (1996), pp. 14-15).

To accept that this speech actually took place, one must accept that a person who seriously wounded by an enraged mob would have had the presence of mind to deliver this oration and that the king, anxious to forestall the mob, would have listened patiently while he delivered it. It is almost certain that Foxe wrote this little speech himself. His reason for doing so was clear. The martyrologist was anxious to clear Gardiner (and Protestants in general) of any taint of disrespect for monarchs or sedition.

It is worth noting that, despite Portuguese suspicions that Gardiner was not acting alone, the incident did not disturb either diplomatic or trade relations between England and Portugal.

Actually Portuguese; Foxe seems to have believed that the language of Portugal was Spanish.

This is an astonishing claim and another indication of Foxe's admiration for Gardiner and his conviction that Gardiner was a model for all Christians.

Gardiner's examinations were conducted in Latin but recorded in Portuguese.

The Portuguese records state that torture was applied to Gardiner, but they do not describe the tortures. The tortures described by Foxe have a grim plausibility since conventional tortures could not be used on a severely wounded man.

Once again, Foxe is anxious to describe providential punishments befalling persecutors and here the reason why is obvious: the actions of Providence 'prove' that Gardiner was indeed a martyr of God.

In the Rerum (p. 208) and 1563 (p. 878), Foxe stated that João III died three or four months after Gardiner's execution. In later editions, Foxe modified that statement to the one year given here. In actual fact, the Infante died in January 1554 and João III in June 1557.

Again Foxe is surprisingly correct. The archbishop of Lisbon had, in the aftermath of Gardiner's sacrilege, ordered that fasting and a penitential procession be held in every church in the diocese and also decreed forty days indulgence to all who confessed their sins at this time (I. da Rosa Pereira, 'O Desacato na Capela Real em 1552 e o processo do calvinista inglês peranto Ordinário de Lisboa', Annais da Academia Portuguesa da Historia 29 (1984), pp. 619-20).

I.e., Cyriac and Crescentius. These along with Ignatius, Laurence and Gordian, were martyrs of the early Church. Foxe is developing his belief that Gardiner was fully the equal of the martyrs of the early Church.

Foxe is careful here to remind his readers that the saints were not intercessors between God and man.

This is the beginning of a long discourse by Foxe on how William Gardiner's constancy provided a model for Christians to follow in their daily lives, not in seeking martyrdom, but in resisting temptation and renouncing the pleasures of the flesh.

Gardiner's examinations by the Portuguese confirm that he came from Bristol but also contain a detail that is not in Foxe; Gardiner claimed that he had studied at Oxford (Thomas S. Freeman and Marcello J. Borges, '"A grave and heinous offence against our holy Catholic faith": Two Accounts of William Gardiner's Desecration of the Portuguese Royal Chapel in 1552', HistoricalResearch 69 (1996), pp. 3 and 16).

This was the marriage of the Portuguese Infante João, son of João III, to Juana, a daughter of Charles V, on 1 September 1552.

These is a hint here that Foxe did not approve of organs and choral music during church services.

Foxe's first narrative of Somerset's downfall was in Rerum, pp.210-14. This contained the account of the end of Thomas Seymour and the enigmatic record of Somerset's downfall along with the detailed account of his execution, which were all reprinted in 1563. The Rerum account also contained praise of Somerset's virtues which were elaborated on in subsequent editions. But it concluded with passages that would never be reprinted: a scathing assessment of the duke of Northumberland's career and downfall. Foxe not only blamed Northumberland for Somerset's execution, but he also intimated that Northumberland had poisoned Edward VI . These passages were undoubtedly deleted because of the swift rise in power and favour of Northumberland's sons Ambrose and Robert Dudley in the early years of Elizabeth's reign.

Little was added to the 1563 narrative except for an extended comparison of the duke of Somerset with Humphrey duke of Gloucester, the uncle of Henry VI. Both men were regents for under-age monarchs and both were named Lord Protector. Both men were, at least in Foxe's view, upright men undone by the scheming machinations of their clerical opponents. In the 1570 edition, Foxe added a number of documents. Some of these came from a letter book of John Russell, the first earl of Bedford. A proclamation may have been obtained from the printer Richard Grafton. Other sources are harder to identify. Someone supplied Foxe with copies of two letters to the Lord Mayor and Common Council of London, one from Edward VI, the other from members of the Privy Council. This source also supplied Foxe with an account of deliberations in the Common Council in October 1549. And Foxe also obtained one of the many copies of the articles charged against Somerset in 1549.Foxe's account of Somerset helped lay the foundation for the longstanding historiographical tradition of Somerset as the 'good Duke', a man devoted to the reformation of Church and State. So great was Foxe's admiration of Somerset that he had to add a disclaimer to the 1570 edition, denying that he had intended to compare Somerset with Christ. But if Foxe had a hero, most unusually, this account did not have a villain. Even Foxe could not blame Stephen Gardiner for an execution performed by Edward VI's government. Foxe was not about to blame the godly Edward VI for Somerset's death. And, as noted above, Foxe was prevented by the power of the Dudley brothers from blaming their father, the duke of Northumberland, for Somerset's death. As a result, Foxe's contain focuses on Somerset's good death on the scaffold, but says little about how he came to be there.

Thomas S. Freeman

Once again, Foxe's chronology is inaccurate. Somerset was released from the Tower on 6 February 1550; he was rearrested on 16 October 1551.

This account was in Foxe's hands during his exile. The most likely candidate for an aristocrat likely to have been present at Somerset's death and to have sent an account of it to Foxe or his friends is Francis Russell, the second earl of Bedford.

I.e., Satan. See Genesis 3.

John Stow, who was present at Somerset's execution, blamed the noise on the huge size of the crowd (John Stow, The Annales, ed. E. Howes (London, 1615), p. 607). Another contemporary account - independent of Foxe - also compared the noise to gunpowder set on fire (BL, Cotton Charters, IV.17). Henry Machyn, also present, thought that the noise sounded like gunfire or horseman riding in the distance. Machyn also observed that the soldiers on guard panicked at the commotion (Diary of Henry Machyn, ed. J. G. Nichols. Camden Society, original series 42 (1848), p. 14).

In this very interesting Freudian slip, Foxe refers to high priests who ordered Christ's arrest as 'bishops'.

This passage appeared in the Rerum and 1563. In the 1570 edition, Foxe introduced this caveat: 'this is not to be expounded as though I compared in any part the Duke of Somerset with Christ' (the last page of the prelims in the 1570 edition, 1576, p. 2008 and 1583, p. 2149).

The account of the rivalry between Cardinal Beaufort and Humphrey , duke of Gloucester, is taken from Edward Hall, The union of the two noble and illustre families of Lancastre and York [London, 1550], STC 12723a, fo. 94r.

Tyndale, Expositions and Notes…with the Practice of Prelates, ed. Henry Walter. Parker Society (Cambridge, 1849), p. 297.

Cattley/Pratt, VI, 352, fn 1: '"The witnesses hereof present were, sir Thomas Wrothe, sir Henry Sidney, two of the chief gentlemen of the privy-chamber; doctor Owen, doctor Wendy, and Christopher Salmon, groom." See Edition 1563, page 888, second set'.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

Although Gregory VII (1073-85) was only one of a number of reforming popes in the late eleventh century who sought to suppress clerical marriage and to end secular jurisdiction over the Church and its clergy, he was the one who most profoundly impressed contempories. Partly this was due to his dramatic conflict with Emperor Henry IV, but partly to his forceful personality and his complete inability to compromise. To Protestant reformers the causes for which Gregory had fought so hard were iniquitous and his spectacular, if ephemeral, triumph over Henry IV at Canossa made him the epitome of the antichristian pope inversing God's natural order. Their ability to demonize Gregory was enhanced by the emnities that Gregory had aroused in many of his contemporaries and the numerous hostile accounts they wrote about him.

Foxe's account of Gregory first appeared in the 1563 edition and most of it is based on two sources. From Platina's history of the popes Foxe obtained his general narrative background, including the account of Canossa and the events leading up to it as well as the events leading up to Gregory's second excommunication of Henry, the excommunication itself and Gregory's expulsion from Rome. (See Bartomoleo Sacchi Platina, Historia de vitis Pontificum Romanorum, ed. Onuphrio Panvinio [Venice, 1562], fos.131r-135v. Foxe may have drawn on Platina - a writer whom he felt to be biased in favour of the papacy and whom he did not utilize often - not only for his detailed account, but because this material was so controversial that Foxe felt safer relying on, and citing, an account by a Catholic author. This way, if criticized, Foxe could declare that he was merely repeating what an internationally respected Catholic writer had stated. As it was, however, Foxe felt free to insert his own opinions into Platina's text, as when he declared flatly - and baselessly - that Matilda of Tuscany was Gregory VII's lover).

Almost everything else in this account is drawn from Matthis Flacius's Catalogus testium veritatis (Strausburg, 1562], pp. 205-6, 211-212, 223-4 and 227-8. Because Flacius, while rich in anecdotal detail and documentation, did not providemuch in the way of background information, Foxe also drew on the annals of Lambert of Hersfeld for the synods at Mainz and Erfurt and clerical resistance to Gregory'sdrive for clerical celibacy. (See 'Lamberti Hersefeldenses annales a 1040-1077' inMonumenta Gemaniae Historiae, Scriptorum V [Hanover, 1845], pp. 217-18 and 30.This was an unusual source for Foxe to consult and he followed up references by Baleand Flacius to check it for himself. Again, this scrupulousness and care was probablydue to Foxe's concern about criticism, due to the controversial nature of the material.And Foxe could not resist including an unfounded account by Bale of Gregory VII, on his deathbed, repenting his wickedness; see Bale, Catalogus, p. 160.

In the 1570 edition, Foxe - who had already printed a letter by Cardinal Benno, a staunch opponent of Gregory VII, describing the pope as a sorcerer - addedfurther letters by the Cardinal, detailing Gregory's crimes, including sacrilege againstthe Host and attempts to assassinate Henry IV. These letters were reprinted fromFlacius, Catalogus testium veritatis, pp. 220-5. No further changes were made to this account in subsequent editions of the Acts and Monuments.

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The legend that Pope Alexander III trod on the neck of the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa has no basis in fact. It was first circulated by partisans of Alexander III and it was widely repeated throughout the Middle Ages. It was seized upon by the Protestants and joined the humiliation of Emperor Henry IV at Canossa as a classic example of the overweening pretensions of of the papacy to secular jurisdiction. Foxe's account of Barbarossa first appeared in the 1563 edition and was reprinted without change in subsequent editions. Apart from Barbarossa's letter to his subjects, proclaiming his authority to be superior to that of Pope Hadrian IV - and which comes from Matthias Flacius, Catalogus testium veritatis (Strausbourg, 1562), pp. 247-9 - this entire account is taken from John Bale, Catalogus, pp. 178-80 and 200-2.

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008) because it was awaiting the delivery of research materials from the British Library. This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008) because it was awaiting the delivery of research materials from the British Library. This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008) because it was awaiting the delivery of research materials from the British Library. This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Waldensians were of crucial interest and importance to Protestant historians and martyrologists. They traced their origins to Peter Waldo, a wealthy twelfth-century merchant of Lyons, who gave away his money and became a wandering preacher. He began to attract followers, but the ecclesiastical authorities were suspicious and denied Peter and his followers permission to preach. In 1215, the Waldensians were condemned as heretics and this, in turn, radicalized the movement. Much of what is known about the Waldensians comes from reports by Reinerius Saccho (d. 1259), a former Cathar who became an informant for the Inquisition. The Waldensians were almost completely suppressed in southern France but they spread into the Piedmont, northern Italy, southern Germany and Bohemia. Aeneas Sylvius, in his influential history of the Hussites, linked them to the Waldensians. The importance of the Waldensians to Protestant historians stems from their relative antiquity and geographical diffusion. This made them a useful counter-example to Catholic challenges that there were no Protestants before Luther. They were even more useful because, in contrast to the Albigensians, their beliefs were compatible with those of the Reformers. Interestingly, Catholic writers like Reinerius and Aeneas were particularly useful to the Protestants because both groups of writers, albeit for different reasons, wished to emphasize the continuity between the early Waldensians and late medieval heresies.

Foxe's account of the Waldensians first appeared in his 1563 edition and itwas reprinted without change in subsequent editions. It began with a history of Peter Waldo and the genesis of the Waldensians, which was taken from Matthias Flacius, Catalogus testium veritatis (Strasbourg, 1562), pp. 705-9. The list of Waldensian articles is taken directly from Flacius, although one article, stating that only baptism and communion were sacraments was - accidently? - dropped by Foxe. (Cf. Flacius, Catalogus testium, pp. 709-10). The letter from the Waldensians to the king of Hungary is excerpted from Ortwin Gratius, Fasciculus rerum expetendarum ac fugiendarum (Cologne, 1535), fos. 87v-88r, 92r and 92v-93r. All of the remaining material in the account of the Waldensians is reproduced accurately from scattered items in Flacius, Catalogus testium veritatis, pp. 711-12, 721-7, 757-6 [recte 759], and 760-1. It is worth noting that the one item in this account, the letter to the king of Hungary, not from Flacius, argued against any real or corporal presence of Christ in the sacramental bread. This belief was offensive enough to Flacius not to print (Flacius was well aware of Gratius's book) and important enough to Foxe for him toinsert it into the other material Flacius had provided on the Waldensians.

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

This passage reflects the remarkable English protestant reversal of the accepted historiography of the reign of King John, whom medieval chronicles had, almost without exception, vilified. The process had begun with William Tyndale's The Obedience of a Christian Man (1528), which presented John's reign as that of a good king battling heroically against papal tyranny and it reached its canonical limits with Bale's drama, King Johan (see Caroline Levin, Propaganda in the English Reformation: Heroic and Villainous Images of King John [Lewiston, NY, 1988), esp. pp. 55-104). These reassessments all had, however, the weakness that they were not based on newly-discovered evidence, but a skewed reading of the sources that were already common knowledge. Foxe's account, at the first read, seems to rectify that deficiency, supported a favourable account of John's reign with quiverfuls of new sources: Matthew Paris, Roger of Howden's Chronicle, the life of John by Ralph Niger, Caxton's edition of the Brut, and the fourteenth-century chronicle known as the Eulogium Historiarum. These are carefully enumerated in the marginalia to the 1563 account, which would become a commonplace for English protestant polemicists thereafter.

The account of John's reign is surprisingly detailed and circumstantial. It begins with Arthur, John's nephew, challenging his uncle's rights to the crown, supported by Philip Augustus, King of France. It alludes to Philip's conquest of Normandy before concentrating at length on the dispute over the election of the archbishop of Canterbury and Pope Innocent III's rejection of the royal candidate and installation of his own nominee, Stephen Langton. The consequences (the papal interdict, the royal confiscation of ecclesiastical lands and revenues, the failures of mediation and the excommunication of John) are all given substantial coverage. Following a digression to describe (and denounce) the Fourth Lateran Council, Foxe's narrative picks up the continued scheming of the clergy against the king, the Dauphin Louis' invasion, John's reconciliation with some of the rebellious nobles (Magna Carta goes unmentioned) and the king's death (by poisoning). The account was the first, thorough 'post-medieval' narrative of John's reign to be based on such a wide range of sources.

Yet, as this project has argued in extensor elsewhere (Tom Freeman, 'John Bales' Book of Martyrs?: The Account of King John in Acts and Monuments', Reformation 3 (1998), 175-223) this section was very unlikely to have been written by Foxe, and that it was very probably an account of the reign, prepared by John Bale after his return to England in 1559, as part of a long-projected continuation of his Acts of the English Votaries, originally published in its first two parts in 1551, and which had ended with the reign of Richard I. We surmised that, when Bale realised that his final illness would prevent his completing the work, he sent the account of King John to Foxe, who readily incorporated it into the first book of the Acts and Monuments, itself evidently (the tell-tale signs are its irregular pagination and the awkward transition to the next book) a late addition to the work. This circumstantial reassignation of authorship is advanced on the basis of a detailed discussion of the sources used for the narrative, and the way in which they are handled. The account relies, directly or indirectly, on the following:-a) Roger of Howden's chronicleb) Roger of Wendover's Flores Historiarumc) Matthew Paris' Cronica Majorad) Matthew Paris' Historia Anglorume) The Barnwell Chroniclef) The Eulogium Historiarum, also quoted in William Caxton's The chronicles of England (London, 1482)g) Ranulph Higden's Polychroniconh) The chronicle sometimes known as the 'Annals of Winchester'The article, cited above, examines these borrowings, and the ways in which the sources were more available to Bale than to Foxe in 1563. It also demonstrates how the ways in which they were used are much more consistent with Bale's handling of historical sources than Foxe's. Whilst Foxe was capable of the heavily partisan and selective citation of his sources to construct his narrative, he was generally not disposed to inventive elaboration of them, such as occurs in this passage.

One element of this account of King John's reign became the target for Foxe's critics after 1563. It concerned the final account of a monk poisoning the king. In 1565, the Catholic apologist Thomas Harding (in A Counterblast to M. Hornes vayne blast [Louvain, 1567], fols 312B-314A) attacked the credibility of Foxe's narrative by enumerating those sources which unambiguously attributed John's death to natural causes. Two years later, Thomas Stapleton questioned the credibility of the Eulogium Historiarum in the version edited and printed by Caxton. Foxe's response in the 1570 edition did not specifically refer to Stapleton's criticism, but responded indirectly in two ways: firstly, by the addition of another account of John's poisoning, taken from Walter of Guisborough's chronicle, in which the monks murder John with a poisoned dish of pears (see Freeman, 'John Bales' Book of Martyrs', p. 207; and p. 223). His second response was the late addition to the 1570 text of two texts, the first on the 'Primacy of the Popes' and the second entitled 'The Image of Antichrist'. Foxe's other changes in 1570 were minor (thus indicating that, even if he had not composed the narrative himself, he certainly was in accord with its views), and reflect the tensions and fears of catholic conspiracy prevalent in 1569-70. He inserted 'another chronicle' account of John's inconclusive conference with two papal legates in 1211 (taken from the Eulogium) and designed to emphasise that the Pope sought to humiliate the English king. He also expanded on a passage in 1563 in which Pope Innocent III announced that any soldiers invading England were entitled to war the livery of Crusaders. The revised passage read that the Pope promised the French king and his soldiers remission of sins if they invaded England. Foxe probably had the rebellion of the Northern Earls of 1569 in mind when he wrote that John submitted to the Pope from fear of foreign invasion and 'his own people, especially his lords and barons being rebelliouslye incited against him, as by the popes curses and interdictions against such as tooke hys part' (1570, p. 331). The passage did not change in the editions following 1570.

Mark Greengrass
University of Sheffield

The account of Henry III's reign is full of evidence that the papacy was abusing its power and taking heavy taxes to the impoverishment of the country. Apart from a short paragraph on King John's children taken from The Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough, ed. Harry Rothewell, Camden Society, 3rd Series, 89 (London, Camden Society, 1957), pp. 156-7 the account is a new addition to the 1570 edition partly added to from Guisborough, pp. 157-8 but also largely extracted from Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, ed. Henry Richards Luard, Rolls Series (7 vols, London, 1872-1884), vol. 3, pp. 1-6, 31, 43, 121-2. The account of the Viscount of Meluns on his deathbed confessing the French plans to the rebellious English Barons was taken from Guisborough, pp. 158-9 and Matthew Paris, Flores Historiarum, ed. Henry Richards Luard, Rolls Series (3 vols., London, 1890), vol. 2, p. 163. Foxe also accuses Legate Guala Bicchieri of using the situation to heavily tax the rebellious clerics once the rebellion had ended (taken from Chronica Majora III, pp. 31-2) extending the metaphor of 'gathering the harvest' from Matthew Paris' own words. This is a theme to which Foxe would continually return.

The early reign of Henry III is completed with a premonition of Cencio (the future Pope Honorius III) that he would become Pope. Foxe denounces this premonition as a piece of propaganda to gain support for the fifth crusade taken from Konrad of Lichtenau, Burchardi et Cuonradi Urspergnsium Chronicon, ed. Abel H. Friedrich Otto and Ludwig Weiland (Hannoverae, 1874), pp. 104-6. The account of Honorius III's accession to the papal see is taken from Matthew Paris' Chronica Maiora, vol. 3, p. 529. A brief mention is also made to the canonisation of Thomas Becket, which is taken from Arundel MS 5, now in the Royal College of Arms. The 'Scala mundi' was the name Foxe gave for this manuscript.

Matthew Phillpott
University of Sheffield

Foxe moved the short tract on the life and acts of Innocent III from the end of the section on King John in the 1563 edition to the beginning of the section on Henry III's early reign in the 1570 edition. The account is almost entirely extracted out of John Bale, Scriptorum Illustrium maioris Brytanniae …Catalogus (Basel, 1557), pp. 234-5 but also supplemented with evidence from Innocent III's papal decretails, commonly called Corpus Juris Canonici. There were various manuscript versions in existence making it difficult to know which version is used here.

From this summary Foxe indulges in anti-papal polemics from the thirteenth century as a framework for his rewriting of the Cathar heresy into agents of Christ's church. First Foxe attacked the increase of Monastic Orders as a sign that the Roman Church could not even agree from within itself. The text is largely lifted from John Bale's Catalogus pp. 234-5 and The Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough, ed. Harry Rothewell, Camden Society, 3rd Series, 89 (London, Camden Society, 1957), pp. 150-1. The list of 101 Orders is interesting. Martin Luther did not produce any such list despite Foxe's reference to him. The unidentified English book that Foxe refers to is also unknown. It is possible that Foxe was relying on an unprinted list compiled by John Bale.

Next follows the prophecy of the nun, Hildegard written down in her Scivias, Liber vitae meritorum and Liber divionorum operum, which represented a popular prophecy about the Antichrist from the early thirteenth century that had transmitted to the fourteenth-century primarily through Gebeno, Prior of Eberbach's Speculum Temporum Futurorum (1220). This text had attempted to link Hildegard's prophecy to the growing Cathar heresies. Hildegard was the abbess of Disibodenberg and Rupertsberg. In the 1563 edition Foxe took this account from Matthias Flacius, Catalogus testium veritatis (Strasbourg, 1556), pp. 650-655. However, in the 1570 edition Foxe has corrected the date of the prophecy from 1170 to 1146 and rearranged the prophecy itself. This suggests that he had either consulted Flacius' source, the Chronica Martini Poloni from Matthew Parker's collection (probably CCCC MS 372 or CCCC MS 59) or alternatively from a composite manuscript (CCCC MS 404) containing various prophesies including Hildegard.

Once this prophecy is outlined Foxe begins his discussion of the Cathars (Albigenses). Foxe publishes a letter by the Pope's legate concerning the Cathars setting up of a rival Pope. This account was first printed in the 1563 edition but from the 1570 edition onwards would be followed by a larger account of the Albigensian crusade (1209-1229) after further discussion of England's financial plight. The inclusion of the 1563 account without change even though Foxe had discovered more details reveals something of Foxe's working practise for the second edition. The account is extracted from either Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, ed. Henry Richards Luard, Rolls Series (7 vols., London, 1872-1884), vol. 3, pp. 78-9 or Roger of Wendover, Flores Historiarum, ed. Henry G. Hewlett, Rolls Series (3 vols., London, 1886-9) vol. 2, pp. 272-3.

This section is then completed by a full reproduction of a post-Wyclif Lollard tract attacking the practises and corruption of friars probably written in the early fifteenth century. Jack Upland was either mistaken as a work of Chaucer or for political and religious reasons attributed to the famous author of the fourteenth century to by-pass the ban on Lollard writings under the Six Articles. The popularity of Chaucer also made the association a powerful propaganda tool. In 1550 Robert Crawley had published a similar tract for reformist purposes entitled Piers Plowman, which had proved successful. See John N. King, 'Robert Crawley's editions of "Piers Plowman": A Tudor Apocalypse', Modern Philology, 73:4 (1976), pp. 342-352. If the reformists could show that Chaucer was a 'proto-Protestant' then this would help to popularise acceptance of the Elizabethan Church. P.L. Heyworth, 'The Earliest Black-letter editions of "Jack Upland"', The Huntingdon Library Quarterly, 30:4 (1967), pp. 307-314 has suggested that its original publication in the 1530s by John Gough and then again by John Day was to support the Henrician break from Rome and the subsequent dissolution of the monasteries. Jack Upland allowed Foxe to trace, through the association of Chaucer with Wyclif as 'faithful witnesses', the apostolic church at a time when the Antichrist was in full control of the church. The decision must also be, in part, related to John Day's earlier publication of the tract in the 1540s, which made its inclusion in the Acts and Monuments an easy addition to print. Its publication in the midst of Henry III's reign was to demonstrate the corruption of monkish orders, which Foxe had listed two pages earlier.

Matthew Phillpott
University of Sheffield

In this account Foxe stated that after the events of King John's reign England was now a tributary to Rome. This is the crucial point to how Foxe deals with the reign of Henry III. Through heavy taxation, neglect of royal authority and trickery the Pope consistently sends Legates to collect tithes and taxes and to trample on English sovereignty. First, Foxe has published a statement drawn up by the English Bishops explaining why they are unwilling to pay the Pope. Extracted from Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, ed. Henry Richards Luard, Rolls Series (7 vols., London, 1872-1884), vol. 4, pp. 35, 37-8. The story then follows the events during the visitation of Legate Otto (Otho) to England and how he abused his position at the 1240 council of Bishops in London. This account is told entirely from Matthew Paris' Chronica Majora vol. 3, pp. 97, 102-3, 412, 414-7, 419-441, 473; vol. 4, pp. 6-10, 31-2. The account begins with Otto calming a contention between the Archbishops of York and Canterbury as a means to assert his own authority and act almost as if he were a 'god' overseeing his flock. The account then details the various monies that the Pope required from England to finance his war against the Emperor Frederick II. The Pope also demanded that room be made in England for 300 Romans to be beneficed. This was a result of a promise he had made the Roman Bishops in return for their support of his war. This is an excellent example of how Foxe used Matthew Paris. His translation remains true to the original manuscript Latin, but through the use of marginalia and a sentence of explanation here and there the basic facts are transformed from that of a disgruntled monk unhappy with papal interference into a powerful polemical attack against papal disregard for English authority and their abuse of taxation to fund a war which has nothing to do with England. It is interesting to note that Legate Otto's mission to England was one of church reforms and reasserting the peace after the events of King John's reign. However, Matthew Paris' suspicion of papal interference meant that his account recorded very little of the true nature of the mission. For Foxe this was a much more useful interpretation of the events than was available in other sources.

The second half of the account describes how the Pope ignored the Bishops pleas at the Council of Lyons (1245) for non-payment of tithes. The complaint, Foxe explains, was in regard to the high burden of taxation from Rome that was impoverishing the realm and acting against England's best interests abroad. In retaliation the Pope threatened to interdict England and Henry III until the king relented. This account is again extracted from Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, vol. 4, pp. 526-9, 440-444, 558, 560-1, 580. The characterisation of Legate Otto is completed when Foxe extracted a story from Matthew Paris Chronica Majora, vol. 3 pp. 481-5 of how the Legate caused a riot at the University of Oxford.

Although it is generally believed that Foxe did not have access to the Chronica Majora for the first edition (1563) the evidence in this section proves otherwise. Neither of the series of extracts that can be found in John Bale, Scriptorum Illustrium maioris Brytanniae …Catalogus (Basel, 1557) or Matthias Flacius Illyricius, Catalogus testium veritatis (Basil, 1556) can accommodate the detailed use of Matthew Paris in the first edition of the Acts and Monuments, especially in this section. Admittedly Foxe could have used Roger of Wendover for Legate Otto's arrival to England and the demand for two prebends from every cathedral church (Roger of Wendover, Liber qui dictiur Flores Historiarum, ed. Henry G. Hewlett, Rolls Series (3 vols., London, 1886-9), vol. 2, pp. 289,295-6) but the rest of this account falls outside of that chronicles chronological range. Matthew Paris, Historia Anglorum, ed. Frederick Madden, Rolls Series (3 vols., London, 1866-9), vol. 2, pp. 276-9 also covers those events, however, from that point on all of Foxe's text is more detailed than the summaries contained in the Historia Anglorum. These accounts do however conform perfectly to the Chronica Majora. For instance the Council at London in which Otto settled a dispute between the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and laid out a series of reforming statutes can be found only as short summaries in the Historia Anglorum, vol. 2, pp. 398, 400. Similarly the story of Otto causing a riot at Oxford can only be found in a summarised form in the Historia Anglorum, vol. 2, pp. 407-8. Both accounts are to be found in full in the Chronica Majora.

A similar picture emerges from analysis of the account of King John (1563, fos. 71v-69v) by Thomas S. Freeman, 'John Bale's Book of Martyrs?: The Account of King John in Acts and Monuments', Reformation, vol. 3 (1998), pp. 175-223), in which it is shown that not all of the references to Matthew Paris in that account can be found elsewhere. It would appear, therefore, that a copy, section of a copy or detailed notes was obtained to compile the accounts of King John and Henry III.

It is also interesting to note that Foxe has largely left the text from the first edition intact, when he appears to have had only limited access to Matthew Paris. For the second edition, where he had access to Matthew Parker's copies of the Chronica Majora (CCCC MS 16 and 26), Foxe produced an entirely new account which added to and repeated much of what is stated here.

Matthew Phillpott
University of Sheffield

The Albigensian Crusade was a response to the Cathar 'heresy' flourishing principally in the Languedoc region of France and in Italy. This was the first crusade against a Christian region and resulted in the successful extermination of the Cathars. The situation was more complex than Foxe details here, with political and religious priorities making the Crusade a complex event. For an outline of these complexities, especially its connection to England see Nicholas Vincent, 'England and the Albigensian Crusade', in Björn Weiler and Ifor W. Rowlands (ed.), England and Europe in the Reign of Henry III 1216-1272 (Aldershot, 2002), pp. 67-85.

Foxe's concentration on the Siege of Toulouse taken from Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, ed. Henry Richards Luard, Rolls Series (7 vols., London, 1872-1884), vol. 3, pp. 51-7 and ending with a description of the history of the persecution taken from Chronica Majora, vol. 3, pp. 57, 105-119 presents the Cathars and Count Raymond VI of Toulouse as holding 'true' doctrines and being unfairly treated by the machinations of the papacy. There were, in fact, a variety of differences in the dualistic and Gnostic doctrines of the Cathars to the beliefs of the Protestant reformers, however Foxe uses the lack of detailed documentation available to him to his advantage, by having previously stated that 'what these Albingenses were, it can not be wel gathered by the old popishe histories' (1570, f. 341). Instead Foxe concentrates on how the Papacy through greed, trickery and hatred forced the French to persecute the Cathars as they had done on a variety of other occasions. Thus Foxe uses the Albigensian Crusade as a characterisation assassination of the papacy and its legates.

In-between this account Foxe has added accounts of events going on in England at the same time largely taken from his favoured sources the Chronica Majora, Flores Historiarum and Nicholas Trivet. This includes the arrival of the Minorities to England from Chronica Majora, vol. 3, pp. 60-1, Matthew Paris, Flores Historiarum, ed. Henry Richards Luard, Rolls Series (3 vols., London, 1890), vol. 2, pp. 187-8 and Nicholas Trivet, Annalium continuatio; ut et Adami Murimuthensis Chronicon (Oxford, 1722), p. 211, Stephen Langton's holding of a meeting at Oxford from Nicholas Trivet, p. 210, an introduction to Hubert de Burgh from the Chronica Majora, vol. 3, pp. 71-3, 291, with whom Foxe would deal in detail after the Albigensian crusade, general conflicts between the Bishops of London and Westminster and bad storms across the country also from the Chronica Majora, vol. 3, pp. 74-75 and the Flores Historiarum, vol. 2, pp. 172-5. As an introduction to the Albigensian persecution Foxe also described Louis IX (ruled 1226-1270) becoming king of France from the Chronica Majora, vol. 3, p. 77, Flores Historiarum, vol. 2, pp. 177-8 and Nicholas Trivet, p. 212.

From other sources Foxe mentioned the building of Salisbury Minster from Arundel MS 5 (which Foxe names Scala Mundi) and the reaffirmation of Magna Charta from The Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough, ed. Harry Rothewell, Camden Society, 3rd Series, 89 (London, Camden Society, 1957), pp. 162-173. Guisborough was probably the most detailed account of Magna Charta available to Foxe, however he did not solely rely on it for his account. He took from Robert Fabian, The New Chronicles of England and France, ed. Henry Ellis (London, 1811), p. 326 a corrective on the dating of the affirmation.

Matthew Phillpott
University of Sheffield

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

Foxe tells the story of the Seventh Crusade (1248-1254) to show how the petty and worldly desires of the papacy led to the failure of Louis IX in the holy land. Before going on the crusade, Foxe narrates how Louis IX had first attempted to produce peace between Pope Innocent IV (ruled 1243-1254) and Emperor Frederick II (1194-1250). Although the emperor did all he could to reach an agreement the pope would not be 'mollified'. Foxe blames the failure of the crusade on the pope's excommunication of Frederick II, and his refusal to allow him to aid the crusade. 'The Emperor, which could have done most' Foxe explained, 'was deposed by the Popes tyranny' and by such means 'such a fire of mischiefe was kindled against all Christendome, as yet to this day can not be quenched' (1570, p. 378). In other words the pope's argument with the emperor had allowed the Turks to spread out across much of the world unhindered. The interference of Legate Odo is also claimed to have aspirated the failure of the crusade by damaging any attempt to negotiate with the Sultan.

The story is entirely taken out of extracts from Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, ed. Henry Richards Luard, Rolls Series (7 vols., London, 1872-1884), vol. 4-5, that was no doubt the most detailed description of the events open to Foxe. It, however, highlighted the role of an English contingent led by William Longespee II (1212-1250). A legend had grown up around Longespee in England after he had died because of the betrayal of the French forces. He became a symbol of chivalry and martyrdom. Foxe took the story from Matthew Paris in its entirety. There is in general a certain amount of anti-French feeling in the account, especially in the arguments between Longespee and Louis IX and the claim that French crusaders stole bounty from the English. The failure of the crusade is therefore also partly blamed on French greed to win more territory and pillage. Such opinion of the French is an extraction from Matthew Paris but Foxe has used it here to further enhance the godliness of the English over other peoples.

Matthew Phillpott
University of Sheffield

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

This section follows on from the detailed account of the pope's war with Frederick II, by using what is know called the antifraternal tradition to show that there were a variety of learned men writing against the papacy at this time. The antifraternal tradition concerns literary writings that were hostile to fraternal orders from the 1250s to the end of the Middle Ages. Chaucer is perhaps the most well known of these writers today although William of St. Amour is widely acclaimed as inaugurating the tradition. For more information on this form of writing and its connections to the Lollards see Penn R. Szittya, The Anti-fraternal Tradition in Medieval Literature (Princeton, 1986). It is significant that Foxe does not use Chaucer as a main source at any point in his account, and this suggests that Foxe was more interested in lesser-known but similar authors, which could act as a further confirmation of Chaucer as a proto-Protestant, widely accounted in other Elizabethan writings.

For this particular account Foxe uses various examples from Matthias Flacius, Catalogus testium veritatis (Basil, 1556) such as the preachers of Svenia (pp. 856-7), a Spaniard named Arnold (pp. 799-801), and John Semeca in Germany (p. 801). These authors act as a context for the thirty-nine arguments (signs) of William of St. Amour, which Foxe presents in their entirety to show to the reader that his condemnation and the burning of his books were for beliefs that were in agreement with the reformed church in England. Although the background to William of St. Amour was derived either from Flacius, Catalogus Testium Veritatis pp. 801-5 or Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, ed. Henry Richards Luard, Rolls Series (7 vols., London, 1872-1884), vol. 5, pp. 598-600 the articles themselves probably came from a manuscript in the collection of Archbishop Matthew Parker. The Arnaldus Bonaevallensis et Aliorum Scripta (CCCC MS 103.8) as described in M.R. James, A descriptive catalogue of the manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (2 vols., Cambridge, 1912) contained William's articles. Its relationship to the Fasciculi Zizaniorum, a collection of Lollard writings collected by John Bale and used by Foxe, suggests a connection also to Bale. Significantly Bale also published information on William of St. Amour in his Scriptorum Illustrium maioris Brytanniae …Catalogus (Basel, 1557), pp. 308-9 from which Foxe might also have derived some of his information. The section ends with further examples of books and scholars who stood against the Pope in the thirteenth century taken from Flacius, Catalogus testium veritatis, pp. 803-4, 806, 872-3 and a brief description of the prophecies of the Dominican friar, Robert Gallus who had similar visions as Hildegard against the spiritual authority of Rome (Flacius, Catalogus testium veritatis, pp. 840-3). Matthew Phillpott
University of Sheffield

The account of Robert Grosseteste can be found almost identically in Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, ed. Henry Richards Luard, Rolls Series (7 vols., London, 1872-1884), vol. 5, pp. 389-401 and in the Matthew Paris, Flores Historiarum, ed. Henry Richards Luard, Rolls Series (3 vols., London, 1890), vol. II, pp. 379-393, however Foxe largely claims to follow the Chronica Majora for this account with the occasional nod to the Flores Historiarum. The letter from Innocent III was taken from Chronica Majora, vol. 6, pp. 229-31 while the learning of Robert Grosseteste was taken from Nicholas Trivet, Annalium continuatio; ut et Adami Murimuthensis Chronicon (Oxford, 1722), pp. 242-3. Grosseteste is an interesting figure for Foxe to mention at this point in his account. Although generally less popular with sixteenth century reformers, Grosseteste had been celebrated by Wyclif and the Lollards in the fifteenth century as a thirteenth century predecessor to their religious views. However, this was a misinterpretation and one which papal supporters were able to easily deconstruct. Grosseteste opposed Pope Innocent IV on his abuse of his pastoral office in which men incapable of carrying out their duties were often selected. He was not anti-papal. Therefore, Foxe's use of Grosseteste as another sign that the true church remained at the time when the Antichrist had taken control of the papacy was at odds with the general trends of reformist polemic. Grosseteste is probably here because of a particular interest in Lollard texts inspired by John Bale, who had lent Foxe his collection of Lollard papers (the Fasciculi Zizaniorum). Despite the difficulties in using Grosseteste's campaign against the papacy, within the context of other complainants, persecutions and papal abuses of power, Foxe felt that it was worth reinventing the Lollard view of this thirteenth century scholar for a sixteenth century audience. For more detail see R. W. Southern, 'Grosseteste, Robert (c. 1170-1253)', Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press (2004) and D. A. Callus, Robert Grosseteste: Scholar and Bishop (Oxford, 1955).

Matthew Phillpott
University of Sheffield

The Aphorisms (or statements) of Grosseteste at the Council of Lyons remains the most important documents to illustrate Grosseteste's beliefs in how the church should act and reform itself. Grosseteste presented these documents in a series of rolls and by speeches to the Council. He placed the blame for the failures of the church on Antichrist's influence and that it was no good trying to ignore these problems. The arguments are described more fully in D. A. Callus, Robert Grosseteste: Scholar and Bishop (Oxford, 1955), pp. 209-215.

These statements were obviously extremely useful to Foxe's argument and could be appropriated as both evidence that corruptions had crept into the church by the thirteenth century, that the Antichrist was a recognised presence and that, in the pope's disregard to Grosseteste, he was himself under the Devils spell. This interpretation was strengthened by the retelling of Innocent IV's (ruled 1243-1254) vision of Grosseteste striking the pope on the left side with a staff, which resulted in a real injury to his left side when he woke. This provided a rhetorically impressive tale of prophecy and retribution tied into the apocalyptic drama of Foxe's account. The Aphorisms were extracted from Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, ed. Henry Richards Luard, Rolls Series (7 vols., London, 1872-1884), vol. 5, pp. 402-407 while the tale of Gregory IX's vision was almost certainly taken from John Bale, Scriptorum Illustrium maioris Brytanniae …Catalogus (Basel, 1557), p. 288 buffered with added details from Matthew Paris' Chronica Majora, vol. 5, pp. 429-430, 471-2, and the Matthew Paris, Flores Historiarum, ed. Henry Richards Luard, Rolls Series (3 vols., London, 1890), vol. 2, pp. 391-2, 404. The death and vexation of the pope one year after Grosseteste's death in 1253 and the contention for Grosseteste's bishopric that same year was taken from the same sources coupled with Nicholas Trivet, Annalium continuatio; ut et Adami Murimuthensis Chronicon (Oxford, 1722), pp. 243-4.

Matthew Phillpott
University of Sheffield

These brief accounts of Jewish activities in the thirteenth century were strategically placed to make a polemical point about the superstitions of the Roman Church. As examined in Sharon Achinstein, 'John Foxe and the Jews', Renaissance Quarterly, 54:1 (2001), pp. 86-120, the tale of a Jew falling into a privy in Tewkesbury on a Sabbath day was a direct parallel to the subsequent story of Walter Gray, Archbishop of York, taken from Flores Historiarum II, pp. 406, 408-9. Grey died when he over-fasted and Foxe describes this, in parallel to the Jews of the time, as the result of the inanity of blind superstition by both Christians and Jews. For the most part Foxe concentrates here on Jewish ceremony as an example of their superstition. Various instances of blood libel are noted, such as in the story of Hugh of Lincoln taken from Walter of Guisborough, p. 185, and the Jews of Norwich taken from Matthew Paris, Chronica Maiora III, p. 305-6, and Ranulf Higden, Polychronicon VIII, p. 249. The account from Flores Historiarum II, pp. 381, 397, 407, on the removal of the Jews from France and Henry III charging the Jews 8,000 marks whether they left the kingdom or not further emphasised the characteristics of Jews as greedy and as having a destabilising influence in both kingdoms. The story of the Jews in Northampton, who planned to burn the city of London at Lent, was taken from Eulogium III, p. 120.

Matthew Phillpott
University of Sheffield

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

Much of Foxe's narrative for the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries isdevoted to detailing the financial burdens, real and imagined, which the papacy placed upon England. This section deals with the year 1307 when papal exactionsprovoked some protest, including an eloquent letter written under the (almost undoubtedly assumed) name of 'Petrus filius Cassidori' (i.e., Peter, the son of Cassiodorus). This was a polemical work distributed in the parliament of 1307; itattacks the collection of papal tithes, annates and papal claims on the property of those who died intestate; these were all grievances addressed in this parliament. Foxe's starting point for his research into this material was John Bale's version of Peter's letter, printed in Bale's Acta Romanorum Pontificum (Basel, 1558), pp. 388-44. Bale took this letter, according to his citation, from an old chronicle at St. Alban's Abbey. (Foxe simply repeats Bale's citation in his account). Whatever Bale's source for this letter was, it failed to describe the letter's background or connect it to the 1307 parliament. Another copy of the letter is in Walter of Guisborough's chronicle. (See The Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough, ed. Harry Rothwell, Camden Society, third series 89 [London, 1957], pp. 372-4). Foxe read Walter's chronicle and discerned that Bale's letter was essentially the one Walter printed. Foxe now had the background for Peter's letter. Foxe printed Bale's version of the letter, which was sharper in its denunciations of the papacy, but he went back to Guisborough (and rather garbled what he said) for the statements that the 1307 parliament was summoned to oppose the collection of annates. (This was a tax, paid to the papal curia, amounting to the first year's income from an ecclesiastical benefice. Since English benefice holders had to pay a similar tax to the Crown as well, this amounted to a real burden). The sentence introducing Peter's letter is taken word-for word from Guisborough. (See Chronicle of Guisborough, pp. 370-2). Foxe also drew on the annals of Nicholas Trevet for the date of the parliament and the coming of the papal legate William Testa to England. (See Nicholai Triveti Annales, ed. Thomas Hog [London, 1845], pp. 411-412.

Foxe's account of the 1307 parliament and of Peter's letter first appeared inthe 1570 edition; it was reprinted, without change, in subsequent editions.

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.

The Foxe Project was not able to complete the commentary on this section of text by the date by which this online edition was compiled (23 September 2008). This commentary will become available in due course from the 'Late Additions and Corrections' page of the edition.