'"St Peter did not do thus": Papal history in the Acts and Monuments'
by Tom Freeman

Part One

In April, 1579, the daily routine of the town of Guatulco, Mexico was dramatically interrupted when Francis Drake sailed into port. The privateer detained several of Guatulco's leading citizens aboard his ship as hostages while his crew secured supplies of wood and fresh water. One of the captives, Simon de Miranda, the priest of the town, later testified to the Inquisition that each day

the said Francis Drake had a large book brought to him and read it for some time. He said it was to them what the Bible was to us. It contained many illuminated pictures of the Lutherans who had been burned in Spain. He spoke much of evil of the Supreme Pontiff. He also said "How can it be tolerated that a prince or monarch is to kiss the foot of the Pope?" This is a swindle, and St Peter did not do thus. He also expressed his abomination of the Pope in other words of great audacity.[1]

The port's factor, Gomez Rengifo, testified that every day Drake had a large book placed on a table, read from it and then prayed with nine members of his crew and recited the Psalms. The veneration paid to this book aroused Rengifo's curiosity and he had the temerity to question Drake about it. Drake showed his involuntary guest pictures in the book of Protestants being burned and then, according to the Inquisition's summary of Rengifo's testimony,

Turning over the pages of the book he showed [the] witness, further on, another picture which he said "figured the astounding [arrogance] of the Supreme Pontiff." Conjecturing from what the witness understood and from his [i.e., Drake's] tone and mien, it seemed to him that Francis Drake did not think rightly about this.[2]

From these descriptions, it is clear that the book which the most celebrated Elizabethan mariner held in such reverence, and from which he drew historical examples of papal iniquity, was the Acts and Monuments . [3] And while Drake's captives may not have found their encounter with Foxe's book particularly instructive or edifying, it should be more reveling to modern scholars as it indicates an important lacuna in scholarship on the Acts and Monuments. While there has been increasing, and long overdue, attention paid to analyzing Foxe's research and historical methodology, these studies have focused exclusively on Foxe's treatment of the Lollards and of post-Reformation English history.[4] Yet a significant portion of every edition of the Acts and Monuments published in Foxe's lifetime was devoted to the Church before Wiclif and to Continental as well as English history. And, as Drake's conversations with the citizens of Guatulco suggest, Foxe's readers were interested in these sections of his work as well as those parts of it dealing with subjects chronologically and geographically closer to home.

The reason for the focus of historical study on the sections of the Acts and Monuments devoted to the English Reformation is obvious; it is in these areas alone, from Wiclif to Mary, that Foxe is an independent source, presenting the historian with material not to be found elsewhere. But a study of the pre-Wiclifite and Continental history in the Acts and Monuments has the potential to cast a great deal of light on Foxe's research and accuracy. Such a study also offers the opportunity to identify and examine some of the major themes which run through the Acts and Monuments in a larger context than the history of the English Church.

An examination and analysis of all the pre-Wiclifite history in the Acts and Monuments is far too large a project to undertake here. But an examination of the material on papal history in Foxe's book would be possible and still cover the chronological range and much of the variety of sources used in the Acts and Monuments. At the same time, the ideological and polemical importance of the subject, and the consequently strong temptation to falsify or distort the historical record, make it an excellent touchstone for Foxe's accuracy. And the importance of the history of the papacy to Foxe's readers entailed citation and repetition of his text which affords an opportunity to trace some of the possible influences the Acts and Monuments had on English religious and cultural life. Finally, consideration of papal history in the Acts and Monuments would help to correct an Anglocentric bias inherent in studies that focus on Foxe's account of Lollardy and the English Reformation.

An important aspect of Foxe's work that has been largely swamped in the wake of William Haller's influential theory that the Acts and Monuments presented England as an elect nation is Foxe's reliance on European scholarship and the incorporation of this continental erudition into his magnum opus. It is, for example, ironic that the patriotic, not to say chauvinist, Thomas Rogers, related a story of Alexander III forcing the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa to lie prostrate before him and kiss his feet, citing the Acts and Monuments as his source, as part of an effort to rally the English against the threat of foreign invasion. [5] For the story of the emperor's fictitious humiliation, used to support Rogers's xenophobic argument, had a long foreign provenance. It was created by the Venetians, who, as Alexander Ill's allies, claimed to have defeated Barbarossa. It was also depicted in a mural in the Palazzo Publico in Siena as part of an effort to glorify the city by celebrating the triumph of (at the time the mural was painted) the only Sienese pope. The story was related, with embellishments such as the pope treading on the neck of the prostrate emperor, by German humanists, most notably Johannes Nauclerus, encouraged or supported by Maximilian I, to garner support for that emperor's anti-papal policies with an account of papal arrogance. The story was taken up by Luther and Lutheran writers such as Caspar Hedio and Robert Barnes, as a classic example of papal usurpation of legitimate secular authority.[6] John Bale drew the story from Barnes's Vitae Romanorum pontificum and Foxe repeated Bale's account exactly.[7] And from the Acts and Monuments it was read by Drake and cited by Rogers.

The provenance of much of Foxe's material on papal history is as rich as this. But it can be difficult to establish it accurately. Foxe was quite capable of reprinting a substantial portion of a work without supplying any indication of where it came from or even the fact that the words were not his own.[8] More importantly, what appear to be Foxe's opinions or commentary can simply be passages transcribed from other authors and reprinted without acknowledgement. Thus, after mentioning that some scholars believed that the Guelphs and Ghibellines originated in the wars of Frederick II with the papacy, Foxe wrote that 'I rather cleave to the opinion of Nauclerus, Hermanus, Antonius [i.e., Antoninus] Florentinus, and other writers which say that these Guelphes and Gibellines tooke theyr begynning of Conradus.3.' This appears to be Foxe's considered judgement after reading these authors but in fact this is simply a word-for-word translation of another author's opinion.[9] Similarly, the following statement appears in the Acts and Monuments after Foxe described the antipope John XXIII's refusal to release the Czech reformer Jan Hus: 'In myne opinion, forasmuche as Pope John feared that which in dede did after folowe, that he should be deprived of his dignitie, he thought to wyn the favour of these Herodian Cardinalles and byshops, by betraying the good man unto them.' The unwary reader might well conclude that this was Foxe's parenthetical judgement inserted into the narrative, but once again Foxe was only reprinting what his source had already said.[10]

Confusingly, Foxe also often listed sources for his accounts that he had not read or at least had not consulted for the information for which he cited them. Thus Foxe listed Giovanni Stella, Peter the Prae-monstratensian, Johannes Nauclerus, Antoninus, Robert Barnes and John Bale as his sources for his account of the pontificate of Sylvester II.[11] Yet this account was, in fact, derived completely from works by Matthias Flacius (whom Foxe did not even cite for this material) and John Bale; all of the other writers were cited by either Flacius or Bale.[12] In another case, Foxe cited Thomas Gascoigne's theological dictionary as his source even though he had admitted elsewhere in the Acts and Monuments that 'I have not it in my handes at present'. and referred the reader to his real source, John Bale.[13] As a result, one can go seriously astray by reading Foxe's citations and concluding that these were actually his sources.[14] A real understanding of the Acts and Monuments is not possible without a thorough investigation of what Foxe's sources actually were, and once this has been done, a systematic comparison of Foxe's text with the texts of his sources.

There was little papal history in the two Latin martyrologies Foxe wrote in the 1550s; apart from brief references to Urban III and Gregory VIII and their concern about the recovery of the Holy Land from the Moslems, a letter from Gregory XI to Richard II and a letter from Wiclif to Urban VI are the only items dealing with individual pontiffs in these volumes.[15] Nevertheless, it was in the period between the publication of his two Latin martyrologies (i.e., between 1555 and 1559) that Foxe's interest in papal history began to manifest itself. In a play, Christus Triumphans, which he wrote in 1556, Foxe identified the papacy as the Antichrist and described it corrupting the church, persecuting the faithful and usurping the authority of secular rulers through the Middle Ages.[16] In the Commentarii rerum in ecclesia gestarum, his first martyrology, Foxe had already denied the Petrine succession and attacked papal 'tyranny' over the church and its doctrines.[17] In a tract, the Ad inclytos ac praepotentes Angliae proceres supplicatio, published in 1557, Foxe went far beyond this, not only denying papal primacy and the Petrine succession, but also denouncing the cruelty and moral depravity of the popes through the ages. In a foretaste of his later treatment of papal history, Foxe claimed that the popes aspired to complete domination of both church and state and had tried to achieve this by inciting wars and massacres. The popes also corrupted the church with superstitious ceremonies and doctrines and ferociously persecuted those who did not conform to these satanic inventions.[18]

In 1560, shortly after Foxe's return from exile, an anti-papal tract entitled A solemne contestation of divers popes, was published. The author of this work (a collection of direct quotations from works of canon law, papal bulls and letters as well as ecclesiastical histories and chronicles, arranged into a first person oration in which the 'Papacy' presented extreme claims of jurisdiction over spiritual and secular affairs and boasted of its wealth and power) was anonymous, but it was very probably John Foxe.[19] This was Foxe's most detailed treatment of papal history to date and the wealth of sources incorporated in the tract demonstrates the depth of his interest in papal history and the research he had already begun on it during his exile. The Solemne contestation may also have affirmed for Foxe the interest and topicality of papal history in the confessional debates of the decade following Elizabeth's accession; there is evidence that Jewel and his opponents consulted the Solemne contestation in their controversies.[20]

Three years later, the first edition of the Acts and Monuments was published. For purposes of this discussion, this edition can be considered to be divided into two parts: a first book of about 100 pages, dealing with episodes of church history before Wiclif and the remainder of the volume dealing with church history from Wiclif until the death of Mary Tudor. The bulk of the first edition, beginning with Wiclif, is an elaboration of the Rerum, covering the same span of time, but adding a great deal of new material to the narrative. The episodes of papal history in the post-Wiclif section of the first edition are, up to Pius II, largely incidental to the main narrative; the popes appear in it in connection with the persecution of the Lollards and Hussites. With Pius II a series of brief papal biographies begins which runs through JuliusIII and which focuses on the vices and foibles of the Renaissance popes.

The material on papal history in the Rerum (drawn largely from two sources, the Fasciculi Zizaniorum, a collection of Lollard 'tares' compiled by the Carmelites and Thomas Walsingham's Historia Anglicana) had been reprinted from Foxe's Commentarii and was in turn incorporated into the 1563 edition. Most of the material on papal history that was added to this section of the first edition came from John Bale's Scriptorum illustrium maioris Britanniae.[21] Another important source for the papal history in this section was the Catalogus testium veritatis of the Lutheran scholar, Matthias Flacius; some data on Gregory XII and John XXIII was taken from the great collection of Jan Hus' writings compiled under Flacius's auspices.[22] In fact, Lutheran scholars were well represented with Foxe drawing on chronicles edited by Caspar Hedio, Christian Masseus and Caspar Peucer.[23] There was also a great deal of material from the collection of documents, the Fasciculus rerum expetendarum ac fugiendarum, amassed by the Catholic humanist, Ortwin Gratius: in particular Pius II's Commentaries on the Council of Basle which was reprinted in its entirety by Gratius and in the first edition of the Acts and Monuments.[24] The history of the Hussite wars written by Gratius's friend, the Catholic controversialist Johannes Cochlaeus, was also consulted.[25] In contrast to the second edition of the Acts and Monuments, Foxe made little use of English chronicles in the first edition; in this section of the book the only exception to this was the addition of Walsingham's description of the election and coronation of Martin V.[26] And while the first edition of the Acts and Monuments differed from Foxe's Latin martyrologies in its use use of archival sources, none of this archival material, with one exception, a commission from Paul IV sanctioning the execution of Archbishop Cranmer which Foxe reprinted from Bishop Bonner's register, pertained to papal history.[27]

The first book was the last section of the 1563 edition to be written, in fact, its composition appears to have been completed only just in time for publication.[28] This first book deals with events in church history before Wiclif focusing largely on the corruption of the church by the papacy and papal conflicts with various secular rulers. The book begins with an introduction tracing the domination of the papacy by Antichrist from when, about the year 600, the popes began to claim the title of universal bishop until the pontificate of Gregory VII. A detailed account of this pontificate follows, along with an excursus on the Waldensians and brief accounts of Gregory's successors through Eugene III. Next come detailed accounts of Frederick Barbarossa's battles with the papacy, Thomas Becket's turbulent career and Innocent Ill's struggle with John. An account of other events in Innocent's pontificate, a disgression on the founding of the mendicant orders and a prophecy of Hildegard of Bingen, a series of episodes in Anglo-papal history drawn from Matthew Paris and an account of Frederick II conclude the first book.

It seems that a decision was made sometime in 1562 (the first edition of the Acts and Monuments was published in March, 1563) to extend the scope of the Foxe's work and to balance the account of the Reformation with an account of the medieval church, especially the medieval papacy. (It is interesting that 1562 also saw the publication of the first editions of John Jewel's Apology. His direct attacks on fundamental doctrines the Catholic church inevitably entailed discussion of the medieval church and the simultaneous extension of the 1563 edition raises the intriguing possibility that there was some coordination between the publication of the two works). The overwhelming majority of this material was drawn from John Bale's Catalogus.[29] Another important source was Flacius's Catalogus testium veritatis, which Foxe drew on extensively for the struggles of Henry IV, Henry V, Frederick Barbarossa and Frederick II with the papacy.[30] Matthew Paris's Chronica majora was also the source for quite a bit of material in the first book of the 1563 edition.[31] The Quadrilogus, a hagiographical work consisting of four lives of Thomas Becket, was the Foxe's source for Alexander III letters and dealings with the controversial primate.[32] Other English historical works, William of Malmesbury's De gestis pontificum, Bede's Ecclesiastical History, Roger Howden's Chronica and William Caxton's Chronicles of England, were the sources for individual items of papal history.[33] Foxe reprinted incidents of contemporary resistance to Gregory VII's imposition of clerical celibacy from Lambert of Hirsfeld's chronicle and details of Gregory's pontificate and that of Urban II from Platina's papal biographies.[34]

Most of what Foxe wrote about papal history in the 1563 edition would be incorporated in the second edition of the Acts and Monuments, published in 1570. And although a great deal of material on the papacy would be added to the 1570 edition, some of the basic patterns of Foxe's research in papal history were already clearly delineated in the 1563 edition. One major characteristic of this research was Foxe's marked tendency to rely on a few key sources for most of his papal history. Apart from some sources which were extensively reprinted but only for limited topics (Gratius's Fasciculus on councils, the Quadrilogus on Becket and the Hus monumenta), most of the papal history in the 1563 edition came from four sources: Bale's Catalogus, Flacius's Catalogus testium veritatis, Matthew Paris's Chronica majora and Thomas Walsingham's Historia Anglicana. Foxe's use of these four sources would be expanded in the 1570 edition and, with the addition of the Magdeburg Centuries, these would be his most important sources for papal history.

Nowhere is the reliance on a few key sources clearer than in Foxe's account of the popes of the primitive church, from St Peter through the martyrdom of Marcellinus in the Great Persecution. All of this material was added in the 1570 edition and almost all of it came from the Magdeburg Centuries.[35] But it should always be borne in mind that because Foxe copied large extracts from a single work, this does not mean that he did not also consult other sources on the same events - in many cases, the same sources his major source had cited.[36] He also freely added material from other sources into his narrative when it suited his purposes.[37] The point is worth emphasizing because all too often Foxe is dismissed as an energetic, yet undiscriminating, compiler of source material. [38] He certainly was industrious in compiling material, but, as his constant additions to and deletions from the texts he was reprinting demonstrate, Foxe carefully shaped the sources he amassed to his own ends.

The pontificate of Gregory I was an important one for Foxe in several respects (e.g., the mission to England, Gregory's refusal to style himself universal bishop) and Foxe drew on a variety of sources for his pontificate.[39] But with the exception of a letter of Pope Sergius I (which really was part of Foxe's account of Bede), all the papal history up until the pontificate of Formosus in the 1570 edition was taken exclusively from Bale's Catalogus.[40] Similarly, apart from two brief excerpts from Sigebert of Gembloux's chronicle, a pair of terse references from Marianus Scotus and Martinus Polanus, two anecdote from Flacius's Catalogus testium veritatis and a story from William of Malmesbury 's De gestis pontificum, all of the papal history from the pontificate of Formosus (891-6) through the pontificate of Alexander II (1061-73) is taken from the Catalogus.[41]

With the pontificate of Gregory VII, Foxe for the first time moved away from his almost complete reliance on Bale's Catalogus. One episode, a fictitious account of Gregory's deathbed repentance of his evil deeds, was taken from Bale and some material was taken from the German chronicler Lambert of Hirsfeld. Apart from this, the entire, lengthy account of Gregory VII was taken from Platina and Matthias Flacius.[42] This extensive use of Platina was very unusual for Foxe, but the use of Flacius as a source, particularly on the conflicts between the papacy and the Holy Roman emperors, would continue. Foxe's accounts of the alliance of Paschal II and the future emperor Henry V against Emperor Henry IV and of Frederick Barbarossa's struggles with the papacy were drawn largely from the Catalogus testium veritatis.[43] After Gregory VII, however, Foxe returned to relying on Bale's Catalogus; except for the material taken from Flacius, and material from some English sources (William of Malmesbury, Howden, St Anselm's letters and the chronicle attributed to John of Brompton) on the investiture controversy in England, the papal history in the 1570 edition through the pontificate of Lucius III (1181-5) was drawn almost exclusively from Bale.[44]

The pontificate of Urban III (1185-7) is not normally considered a milestone, but it marked another shift in the sources Foxe consulted. Although Foxe still drew on Bale's Catalogus, it was heavily supplemented with extracts from three English chronicles, Gervase of Canterbury's, Howden's and a chonicle included in the collection allegedly compiled by Walter of Coventry.[45] Again, Foxe used these sources to elaborate themes of particular interest to him. Howden's chronicle and 'Walter of Coventry's' chronicle supplied striking examples of imperial conflict with the papacy. And Gervase of Canterbury's narrow focus on the ecclesiastical politics of Canterbury provided examples of schisms among the clergy and papal venality. Foxe also replaced the relatively brief account of Frederick II which had been in the 1563 edition, with copious extracts (actually not far short of a complete reprinting) of Nicholas Cisner's panegyric on the last Hohenstaufen emperor.[46]

For those popes of the thirteenth century that Foxe discussed (he virtually ignored the popes of the last three decades of the century) relatively little information was taken from Bale's Catalogus. Almost all that Foxe related about them came from Matthew Paris's Chronica majora, a source which Foxe quarried extensively for papal 'oppression' of the English church and of the rulers of Europe.[47] For the immediate precursors of the Avignonese popes (Celestine V, Boniface VIII and Benedict XI) and the Avignonese popes themselves, Foxe had two major sources: Bale's Catalogus and Thomas Walsingham's Historia Anglicana.[48] Other English chroniclers, Nicholas Trivet, Walter of Guisborough and Robert of Avesbury were also used.[49] Foxe relied on Continental historians; once again, Flacius's Catalogus testium veritatis was pressed into service, while the Protestant Hieronymous Massarius and the humanist Sabellicus were consulted.[50] And Foxe obtained copies of documents from the French royal archives for his narrative of Philip IV and the downfall of Boniface VIII.[51]

The Great Schism and the Council of Basle saw little use of Bale's Catalogus; instead Foxe relied on Walsingham for both English and Continental history.[52] A number of important humanist, conciliarist authors, Dietrich of Niem, Pius II and Ortwin Gratius, were used by Foxe.[53] Interestingly, Foxe drew heavily on Lutheran authors for this important era of papal history: Caspar Hedio's continuation of Burchard of Ursberg's chronicle, Caspar Peucer's editon of Carion's chronicle and the collection of Jan Hus' writings which was initiated and sponsored by Matthias Flacius.[54] In a rare use of a militantly Catholic author, Foxe drew on Johann Cochleus for papal history as it concerned the Hussites.[55] And Foxe used archival sources to illuminate aspects of papal history in the period.[56] Use of Bale's Catalogus resumed as Foxe turned to the Renaissance papacy, in fact, Bale was a source for all of the pontiffs from Nicholas V to Clement VII.[57] Ortwin Gratius's Fasciculus was the source for important documents describing German grievances at the onset of the Reformation and papal attempts to deal with them.[58] Apart from these sources, Foxe consulted Lutheran authors (Flacius, Hedio, Christian Masseus, Johann Sleidan and Luther himself) for both the vices of individual popes and Luther's challenge to the papacy.[59] There was also a miscellaneous collection of sources (an anonymous English Chronicle, two devotional works, Pius II's Historia Bohemica, Sebastian Munster's Cosmographia, Paolo Giovio's history of the Turks, Edward Hall's chronicle) each of which was used as the source for a particular facet of a pope's career.[60] Foxe also printed Leo X's bull 'Exsurge Domini' a copy of which he probably obtained from a diocesan register and he reproduced a printed copy of Clement VII's sentence affirming the validity of Henry VIII's marriage to Catherine of Aragon. Foxe had relatively little to say about the popes from Paul III on, who spearheaded the Catholic Reformation. Bale went out in a blaze of calumny as the source for stories accusing Julius III of sodomy, nepotism, gluttony and blasphemy.[61] Foxe's interest in conciallarism led him to draw on Sleidan's Commentaries and on a 'libellus' printed at Henry VIII's behest for an account of Paul Ill's attempts to summon a general council to reform the church.[62] Otherwise, all Foxe noted about the popes after Clement VII was their direct involvement in various persecutions and all of these episodes were drawn from Heinrich Panaleon's martyrology.[63]

Papal history ends in the Acts and Monuments with the brief account of Pius IV. Foxe, however, also introduced two excurses in the 1570 edition both of which contained a significant amount of papal history. The first, entitled 'The Proud Primacy of Popes' appeared at the end of the first volume, just before the reign of Henry VIII, along with a reprinting of The solemne contestation of diverse popes. Most of the 'Proud Primacy,' an account of the papal 'usurpation' of ecclesiastical and secular authority, repeated material already related in the preceding text, although a short section on the papacy from Boniface III to Gregory V bears a close resemblance to a similar survey in William Tyndale's Practice of Prelates.[64] The second excursus was a long attack on the doctrines (transubstantiation, communion in one kind, enforced clerical celibacy and auricular confession) maintained in the Six Articles. Foxe mustered theological and historical arguments against these doctrines and many of these concerned individual popes or the papacy. But almost all of the historical material again repeated what had already been said earlier in the Acts and Monuments. A significant exception to this was an account of Berengar of Tours, including the persecution he suffered from various pontiffs, for his teachings on the Eucharist. From an edition of the Acta conciliorum, Foxe obtained a chronological framework for Berengar's career and an account of his recantation at a council held in Rome by Gregory VII in 1079. From William of Malmesbury's De gestis regum Anglorum Foxe obtained a narrative of Berengar's trial by Cardinal Hildebrand, the future Gregory VII, in the synod of Tours (1054) as well as details about Berengar's supporters and his retirement into obscurity. And from Heinrich Bullinger's De origine erroris, Foxe drew accounts of Berengar's condemnation by Leo IX at the council of Vercelli (1050) and his condemnation by Nicholas II at a council in Rome in 1054.[65]

All of the papal history in the 1570 edition was reprinted in the third edition of the Acts and Monuments, published in 1576, without any change whatsoever. For practical purposes, this is also true of the fourth edition, published in 1583 and the last edition of the Acts and Monuments, printed in Foxe's lifetime. There were, however, two relatively minor additions to the material on papal history which were made to the 1583 edition. A letter from the papal legate in Germany to Eugene IV, urging the pope not to dissolve the Council of Basle, which had been printed in the 1563 edition and deleted from the 1570 and 1576 editions was reintroduced into the 1583 edition.[66] in the 1583 edition, Foxe also added a statement, derived from Bale's Catalogus, that Urban IV established the feast of Corpus Christi.[67]

From the preceding description of the sources on which the papal history in the Acts and Monuments was based, Foxe's profound indebtedness to Bale's Catalogus should be readily apparent. In fact, Bale's Catalogus was not only written while Foxe and Bale were sharing the same house, during the Marian exile, but it was written at the time when, as we have seen, Foxe's interest in papal history was commencing. On one level a biographical encyclopedia, consciously imitating the great works of Trithemius and Conrad Gesner, Bale's Catalogus went far beyond these models to present a new interpretation of church history. Interspersed among the biographical entries were historical appendices detailing the deeds of God's faithful elect and those agents of Satan who corrupted the true church and persecuted its members. A special set of appendices traced the rise of the Antichrist through a series of papal biographies. In 1558, a year after the Catalogus was published, the papal biographies were printed separately as the Acta Romanorum pontificum.[68] It is a striking indication of the esteem in which Foxe regarded Bale, that he appears to have consulted both of these works, despite the fact that one was very largely a reprinting of material in the other.[69]

Foxe's reliance on Bale for papal history is a striking example of a rather neglected aspect of the relationship between Bale and Foxe. There has been quite a bit of analysis of Bale's influence on Foxe's apocalyptic thought and of the way in which his martyrological writings provided models for Foxe.[70] What has been largely overlooked has been the extent to which Foxe built on Bale's research and incorporated it into the Acts and Monuments. Yet as we have seen, Foxe's direct borrowing from Bale's printed works was considerable. And furthermore, the importance of Bale's research to the Acts and Monuments hardly ends there. Bale's references also guided Foxe to manuscript and print sources which Bale had already used; frequently we see Foxe independently consulting these sources on exactly the issues for which Bale had cited them.[71] Perhaps most importantly of all, a number of the manuscripts which Bale had collected, and often discovered, came into Foxe's possession.[72] The Acts and Monuments is, among other things, one of the culminations of the antiquarian researches of John Leland and Bale.

If Bale's scholarship was one of the chief pillars on which Foxe's interpretation of papal history rested, the research of the Lutheran scholar Matthias Flacius was another. We have already seen Foxe's almost total reliance on the Magdeburg Centuries for the history of the pre-Constantinian papacy; the Centuries were a project that Flacius had planned and initiated, although he did not actually compose or edit them.[73] Foxe also drew some papal history from the edition of the writings of Jan Hus and Jerome of Prague compiled under Flacius's auspices and published in 1558.[74] Bu Flacius's greatest influence on the Acts and Monuments came through his book, the Catalogus testium veritatis, a collection of accounts of those who opposed or criticized the papacy in the centuries before Luther. As was the case with Bale's Catalogus, Flacius's book seems to have shaped Foxe's vieiw of papal history during the formative years of Foxe's exile. Foxe certainly had access to the Catalogus testium veritatis during this time; it was first printed in 1556 by the Basle printer Johannes Oporinus, in whose print-shop Foxe worked as a proofreader and editor. In his Ad inclytos . . . Angliae proceres Foxe drew upon Flacius's book (without acknowledgement) for precedents from the early church which could be used to challenge papal primacy over other bishops.[75] The Catalogus testium veritatis was also cited in the Solemne contestation with unusual precision; Foxe specified the exact folio in Flacius's book.[76]

Three years after the publication of the Solemne contestation, Foxe's use of the Catalogus testium veritatis in the 1563 edition of his magnum opus was pervasive and unmistakable. Apart from occasional anecdotes of curial corruption and papal turpitude, Flacius's greatest contribution to the papal history in the Acts and Monuments was as Foxe's most important source for papal conflict with secular rulers. Aside from the information he supplied on individual pontiffs and their adversaries, an indication of how profoundly Flacius influenced Foxe's thought in this area can be gleaned from the opening section of the 1570 edition, where Foxe contrasts the Roman church with the apostolic church. Large parts of this argument, particularly the historical examples, were excerpted from Flacius's book, including a list of papal 'sleightes to get money', limitations on papal jurisdiction by the sixth council of Carthage and by various kings of France, proofs of imperial control of papal elections before the eleventh century, the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges, decrees of Charlemagne regulating the church, legislation by French monarchs to reserve taxation of the French clergy to themselves and early church councils claiming supremacy over the pope.[77] It is also possible that Flacius may have supplied Foxe with documents. Foxe printed a series of documents relating to the controversy between Philip IV and Boniface VIII which he claimed came from the 'French kinges recordes.'[78] Flacius printed an exchange between Boniface and Philip; the originals of both letters were in the French royal archives.[79]

At the same time, Flacius also described Philip's condemnation of Boniface as a heretic and appeal to a general council and claimed that his information was derived from manuscripts in his possession. Strikingly, the condemnation and the appeal were in the French royal archives and were printed by Foxe.[80] None of this is conclusive but it does suggest that Flacius had copies of at least some of archival records on Philip and Boniface and he is certainly a more plausible source than most in explaining how Foxe was able to copy French government records.

Flacius's Catalogus, like Bale's Catalogus, was an indispensable repository of information for Foxe because it was based on the researsch of several generations of scholars. In fact, Protestant historical writing followed very similar trajectories in both Germany and England. In each case, a Protestant scholar (Flacius and Bale respectively) synthesized existing historical and antiquarian scholarship into encyclopedic works. In each case, the findings of these works of synthesis were in turn incorporated into the two great Protestant historical worksproduced in the succeeding decade, the Acts and Monuments and the Magdeburg Centuries. And these two great historical works were directly inspired and to a great extent initiated by Bale and Flacius.

Even before the Reformation, German humanists had developed an anti-papal interpretation of history. They were inspired by a number of disparate motives: the desire to assert and maintain a German cultural identity against what was perceived as papal and Italian condescension, resentment at curial exploitation of German ecclesiastical revenues, and the perception that the papacy was a major obstacle to ecclesiastical reform. All of the motives converged into the idealization and glorification of the Emperor both as a symbol of German identity and as the potential champion of reform of the German church.[81] (it should also be added that Maximilian I was the patron of a number of scholars and historians, including Johannes Nauclerus, whose universal chronicle, a major source for Flacius and Bale, was written at Maximilian's behest).[82]

On the basis of these convictions, a number of German humanists began a search for sources which supported their interpretation of history; often with considerable success. The result was a revision of key aspects of German history. Before 1500, for example, the works which were available about the Gregorian Reform and the Investiture Controversy, notably the biography of Gregory VII in Platina's papal lives and Gregory's writings, including the Dictatus Papae, which were preserved in the collections of canon law, were generally pro-papal. Early sixteenth century historical works such as Johannes Trithemius's Chronicon Hirsaugiense (1501) and Johannes Nauclerus's chronicle, did little to alter this. But as the century progressed, a number of pro-imperial sources were traced, discovered and printed. In 1508 Jacob Wimpfelingpublished the Carmen de bello saxonico, which eulogized Henry IV, from a manuscript he discovered in the library of Speyer Cathedral. Ten years later Johannes Aventinus discovered and published the even more laudatory Vita Henrici IV, a work which compared the embattled emperor to Christ. Also included in this volume was an appendix of Henry IV's official letters, justifying his opposition to Gregory VII, which were also discovered by Aventinus. In 1513, Sigebert of Gembloux's chronicle, which was markedly favorable to Henry IV, was published. And Ulrich von Hutten discovered, in the monastery of Fulda, one of the most important of the pro-imperial tracts written during the Investiture Con-troversey, the Liber de unitate ecclesiae conservanda, which he promptly published.[83] But the capstone came with the publication of the letters of Cardinal Benno, a contemporary opponent of the pontiff, in Ortwin Gratius's Fasciculus. All of these discoveries were described and summarized, and in the case of Benno's letters, printed verbatim, in Flacius's Catalogus, thereby entering the Protestant canon. By the time the first confessional polemics of the Reformation were written, new versions of imperial and papal history had been created by the German humanists; one sign of their success was the creation and dissemination of the widely believed and completely spurious legend of Alexander III treading on Frederick Barbarossa's neck.[84]

Although the German humanists created a version of history that was ultimately very useful to the Protestants, their own views of the papacy were fundamentally different from those of the Protestants. While many of the most eminent German humanists were capable of savage attacks on individual pontiffs there was no criticism of the institution itself.[85] As one scholar has observed of the German humanists: 'their frequent and sometimes highly strident criticisms of the papacy were geared, more often than not, to restoring that office to what they believed to be its pristine sanctity and integrity before it had become corrupted by its holders in their day'. The same scholar went on to maintain that 'the broadly shared sentiment of German humanists ... was one of harshly criticizing particular papal practices while reaffirming a fundamental loyalty to the papal monarchy in particular.'[86]

Just how far the convictions of the humanists could diverge from those of the Protestants who made use of their material is made clear by the example of Ortwin Gratius. Although he is now remembered as the object of Ulrich von Hutten's invective during the Reuchlin controversy, Gratius also compiled a collection of documents on church history, the Fasciculus rerum expetendarum ac fugiendarum, which became a cornerstone for the Protestant interpretation of history. Among the items which Foxe alone reprinted from Gratius's Fasciculus were the condemnation of Wiclif at the Council of Constance, Pius II's commentaries on the Council of Basle and Hadrian VI's negotians with the German nobles in 1522.[87] Gratius was also one of the most important creators of what would become a major part of the Protestant heritage; the collection of Waldensian documents (or what Gratius identified as Waldensian documents) in his Fasciculus was reprinted (with some abridgement) in Flacius's Catalogus and Flacius's version was reprinted (with considerable abridgement and some reorganization of the contents) in the Magdeburg Centuries and (with further alteration of the contents) in the Acts and Monuments.[88] Testimony to the significance that the Waldensian documents held for Protestants came from no less a figure than Nicholas Ridley who read Gratius's book in prison and recommended it to a friend, particularly praising the writings of the Waldensians,

men of much more learning, godliness, soberness, and understanding in Gods word, than I would have thought them to have been in that time, before I did read their works. If such things had been set forth in our English tongue heretofore, I suppose surely great good might have come to Christ's church thereby.[89]

But if Gratius had written about Peter Waldo and his followers, it was to bury them, not to praise them. In introductions to the documents he printed, Gratius vehemently denounced Peter Waldo, Jan Hus, John of Wesel and especially Wiclif, who was castigated as 'fodder for the fires of hell' [pabulum gehennae ignis] and compared to Cerberus rabidly foaming at the mouth.[90] Gratius was an ardent conciliarist who saw a general council as the only hope for reforming a thoroughly corrupt church. Gratius compiled the documents in the Fasciculus to support the call for a general council by documenting ecclesiastical abuses, tracing the rise of heresies (a result of ecclesiastical corruption which only councils could effectively combat) and by presenting the precedents for maintaining the supremacy of general councils over the pope.[91] And although his Fasciculus was used as a reservoir of sources by major Protestant historical writers, Gratius remained resolutely Catholic as the Reformation progressed. He attacked Luther in print, numbered Johannes Cochleus and Friedrich Nausea among his friends and served as spiritual advisor for a Benedictine convent through the 1520s. As editor (and de facto director) of the Quentell publishing house, Gratius shepherded anti-Protestant works through the press, notably John Fisher's De veritate et sanguinis Christi in Eucharistia, to which Gratius contributed a preface extolling the bishop of Rochester's piety and erudition.[92] That an admirer of the great Catholic martyr should have written a work which which was enthusiastically recommended by one of the pre-eminent Protestant martyrs is a demonstration of the complex relationship between the Protestant historical writers and the scholarship of their predecessors. It is also a demonstration of the readiness of Protestant scholars to subvert the purposes and disregard the arguments of the authorities from whom they drew their material. It is striking that while Flacius and Foxe both lifted their extracts of authorities criticizing the Donation of Constantine from Gratius's book, they both failed to print, or even mention, Gratius's defiant endorsement of the Donation's authenticity.[93]

But while the motivations of the German humanists in discovering.; collecting and printing anti-papal material differed from those of the Protestants, they nevertheless created a sizable body of texts that would greatly influence Protestant historical writing. The most dramatic example of this was Luther's declaration, in a letter of 1520, that he came to the conviction that the papacy was the Antichrist after reading Ulrich von Hutten's edition of Valla's declamation against the Donation of Constantine.[94] And Luther also seems to have been inspired by the example of the humanists to collect and publish documents which supported his interpretation of church history; in one case, he reprinted two letters of Hadrian VI which had been published in Gratius's Fasciculus.[95] And in his preface to Robert Barnes's collection of papal biographies, Luther urged the publication of more sources on papal history as a necessary warning to posterity.[96] His followers took him at his word and continued to add to the store of published anti-papal sources. A particularly important example of this was the new edition of the chronicle compiled by the prior of the Premonstratensian monastery of Ursberg in the reign of Frederick II and published in 1537 by Caspar Hedio. This markedly anti-papal chronicle had already been printed in 1515 from the only surviving manuscript of the complete work. Hedio added an important continuation of the chronicle, which he composed himself, taking the chronicle down to his own time.[97] Bale and Flacius, and then their successors, Foxe and the Magdeburg Centuriators, wrote great works of historical synthesis which were made possible by several generations of antiquarian labor by these humanist and Lutheran scholars.

Foxe was certainly heavily indebted to Lutheran scholarship. Hedio's edition and continuation of the Ursberg chronicle and Caspar Peucer's edition of Carion's chronicle were important sources for Foxe, while he also made use of the works of Sleidan and Christian Masseus.[98] Apart from some material from Matthew Paris's Chronica majora, all of Foxe's lengthy account of Frederick II was drawn from a panegyric written by the Lutheran lawyer Nicholas Cisner.[99] The edition of Hus's writings compiled and edited by the Lutherans was Foxe's chief source for everything to do with the Bohemian heresiarch, while the Magdeburg Centuries were his indispensable source for the early church. Merely enumerating the material on papal history Foxe derived from Flacius's Catalogus testium veritatis has conveyed some idea of how extensively Foxe relied on this work, but it represents only a fraction of what Foxe reprinted from Flacius. And it should not be forgotten that the great Protestant historical works to which Foxe was most indebted, Bale's Catalogus, Flacius's Catalogus testium veritatis and the Magdeburg Centuries, were themselves based on a wide range of Lutheran writers whose works in turn were based on those of the German humanists and the sources they discovered. When Foxe quoted Bale, Flacius or the Centuriators he was often quoting, at one remove, these earlier sources. As a result, English readers of the Acts and Monuments , would often, unknowingly, find themselves studying the texts of German humanists and Lutheran scholars and, inevitably, seeing the great sweep of church history through through the prism of their biases, preconceptions and ideals.[100]

The Lutheran scholars, and their humanist predecessors, supplied Foxe with almost all of his material on the conflicts between the papacy and the empire, much of his material on the Great Schism and the conciliar movement, much of his material on the relations between the papacy and the kings of France and almost all of his information on the pre-Constantinian papacy. Without their work, Foxe would not only have been deprived of his sources for a major part of papal history, including many of the most egregious examples of papal 'tyranny', he would have been bereft of much of the history of the pre-Reformation church. Recent scholarship has tended to emphasize the progressive waning of Lutheran theological influence on the English Reformation.[101] Yet through their contributions to the historical content and the interpretation of history in Foxe's great work, the Lutheran historical writers exerted an influence on English Protestantism which was persistent and extended beyond the confines of theology.

Foxe's extensive use of Lutheran sources points to a neglected aspect of his research. While some (not enough) attention has been paid to Foxe's obtaining of sources in England, none has been paid to his acquisition of works published on the Continent. Foxe undoubtedly obtained some of these works during his exile. Of his sources for papal history, undoubtedly acquired a copy of Gratius's Fasciculus between 1554 and 1559.[102] Foxe also secured a copy of the Lutheran edition of Hus's writings within a year of its publication in 1558.[103] Piatina's Lives of the Popes was cited in the Solemne contestation, which means that Foxe owned it in 1560, and makes it likely that he also acquired it during his exile.[104] Foxe may well have also obtained books which were printed at Oporinus's printshop while he worked there, among them the 1556 edition of Flacius's Catalogus and the editions of the chronicles of Marinus Scotus and Martinus Polanus, both published by Oporinus in 1559.[105]

By the time that the first edition of the Acts and Monuments was published, Foxe had also procured (restricting myself to sources used for aspects of papal history) Peucer's edition of Carion's chronicle, Hedio's edition of the Ursberg chronicle, Christian Masseus's chronicle, Lambert of Hirsfeld's chronicle, Johannes Cochleus's Historiae Hussitorum and a collected edition of Pius II's writings.[106] Some or all of these works may have been acquired by Foxe during his exile; but any case, Foxe clearly made a point of obtaining a number of continental histories even for an edition of the Acts and Monuments with a more limited treatment of history outside of the British Isles than any of its successors. During the period between the publication of the first and second editions of his magnum opus, Foxe consulted a number of other continental works for data on papal history. More impressive than the quantity of these works, was the systematic way in which Foxe acquired them, apparently deliberately seeking out foreign books which would fill in specific gaps in his knowledge. For example, in the first edition of the Acts and Monuments, Foxe's only sources for Frederick II's conflicts with the papacy were Bale's Catalogus and Matthew Paris's Chronica majora.[107] In the second edition, however, Foxe printed a long, detailed account of Frederick II comprised of extracts from Paris, the letters of Pier della Vigna and Nicolas Cisner's panegyric.[108] Both Vigna's letters and Cisner's oration were printed in Basle in 1566; Foxe's ability to acquire these books in time to incorporate them into a work printed in 1570, suggests that Foxe had overseas contacts who helped gather relevant books for him. Oporinus, who still communicated with Foxe after the latter's return to England, may well have been one of these contacts.[109]

Foxe's conscientious efforts to procure specific foreign books can also be seen in his use of Dietrich of Niem's De schismate. This work, an eyewitness account of the origins of the Great Schism and the horrors of the court of Urban VI, was described in Flacius's Catalogus and was mentioned in Bale's Catalogus, although Bale almost certainly never read it.[110] If Bale did not have this book during his exile, then neither did Foxe. And in the Solemne contestation, Foxe referred to Dietrich's work but gave the Catalogus testium veritatis as his source.[111] But by the time he was writing the second edition of the Acts and Monuments, Foxe had obtained this work whose description by Flacius had already caught his attention.[112] And in the Catalogus, Bale mentioned a devotional work about a Dominican named Alan de Rupe which contained a 'blasphemous' story about the Virgin Mary. (Apparently Bale derived this information from Trithemius). It is perhaps a coincidence that Foxe, who described his incredulous reaction to reading Bale's version of de Rupe's story, obtained a copy of this little known work and was thus able to confirm Bale's account, but it looks suspiciously like Foxe's interest in the matter was piqued by Bale and this led him to have a copy of the relevant incunabulum found and sent to him.[113] This directed research, the searching for sources to make specific points or illustrate specific topics, is another reminder of how carefully composed and premeditated Foxe's account of papal history, indeed the entire Acts and Monuments, was.

Great as Foxe's reliance on continental historical and religious works was for the papal history in the Acts and Monuments, he also relied greatly on English chronicles, and occasionally on English archival sources, for his accounts of the pontiffs. But for the most part, Foxe did not utilize such sources until he was writing the second edition of his work (the use of Matthew Paris in the 1563 edition is the major exception to this). When he began to rely on these sources, however, Foxe relied on them heavily. Matthew Paris was Foxe's chief source for events of the first half of the thirteenth-century, particularly papal financial relations with England and Thomas Walsingham was his most important source for the last half of the fourteenth century and the first two decades of the fifteenth century. The parochialism of Gervase of Canterbury limited his usefulness to Foxe, but his chronicle was extensively quarried by Foxe for details of ecclesiastical politics concerning the see of Canterbury. Other chroniclers, such as Robert of Avesbury and Walter of Guisborough, were relied on for specific episodes of papal history. Unlike Bale, Flacius or the Centuriators none of these chronicles can be said to have provided Foxe with a theoretical framework to aid in interpreting papal history. Instead these chronicles provided layers of detail, a sort of argumentative armor, which made Foxe's interpretation of history seemingly impervious to challenge.

What made these chronicles, particularly those of Paris and Walsingham, reservoirs of data useful to the Protestants was a certain anti-clerical and anti-papal bias running through them. .In the case of Walsingham, the anti-papalism stemmed partly from his chauvinistic support of the English cause in the Hundred Years War (the Avignonese papacy supported the French) and partly from a genuine disgust at the participants in the Great Schism.[114] In most cases, especially that of Matthew Paris, the anti-papalism was a result of resentment at the increasing financial levies the Curia made on the English church. Richard Vaughan has characterized Matthew Paris's attitude: 'All methods of raising money on behalf of the pope are considered extortionate, and almost all forms of papal interference in England are condemned as obnoxious and oppressive.'[115] As a result, Paris's great chronicle is peppered with fulminations against papal iniquity; a papal letter, for example, authorizing the bishop of Hereford to borrow money from certain monasteries, elicited a verbal blast worthy of John Bale: 'Alas! For shame and grief! These and other detestable things emanated at this time from the sulphurous fountain of the Roman church.'[116] Nor was Paris alone in this resentment; Foxe's translation of a complaint made in Parliament in 1351, that papal reservations and annates were 'a more consumption to the realm, then all the kinges warres' was quite accurate.[117]

Despite their anti-papalism, these chroniclers cannot be regarded as proto-Protestants. Like the German humanists, they may have seen individual popes, and even the entire Curia, as corrupt, but they did not see the papacy itself as a corrupt institution nor did they have theoretical or theological objections to papal authority. Nevertheless, their grievances gave credibility to Protestant claims of papal corruption and to Protestant claims that this corruption had been perceived and resisted before Luther. Their grievances may also, as will be discussed below, have helped shape Protestant views of the nature of that corruption. Medieval anti-clericalism, and the anti-papalism which formed a large part of it, may not have caused the Reformation but they helped sustain it by contributing to an interpretation of history which justified Protestant rejection of the authority of Rome.

How did Foxe obtain these English chronicles, almost all of which were unprinted at the time the second edition of the Acts and Monuments was written? The idea that Foxe personally tracked down these sources and collected them can be safely dismissed. In the seven years between the publication of the first and second editions of his great book, Foxe substantially rewrote the first edition, and added masses of new material to it. He was also active as a preacher in London and, in fact, there is no sign of his having left the metropolis for any extended time during this period. These manuscripts must have been gathered by others and loaned or given to Foxe. By far and away the most important of these benefactors was Matthew Parker, the archbishop of Canterbury. A great collector manuscripts, Parker also dedicated himself to bringing those sources which served the interests of the Elizabethan church into print.[118] By supplying Foxe with manuscripts, Parker was able to achieve his cherished goal of disseminating the material in them to a wider audience than his printed editions would reach.

Unfortunately, it is far beyond the scope of this introduction to do justice to Matthew Parker's contributions to the Acts and Monuments; only those manuscripts, a fraction of the total, which were sources for the papal history presented in the Acts and Monuments can be considered here. Nevertheless, it is still an impressive list. In 1571, Parker printed an edition of Matthew Paris's Chronica majora and in preparation for this, he had collected all the manuscripts of the Chronica majora then known to exist.[119] Foxe would have had to have obtained his manuscript copy the Chronica majora from Parker.[120] Foxe flatly stated that he obtained that portion of Thomas Walsingham's great chronicle now printed as the Chronicon Angliae 'ex accomodato D. Math. Archiepis. Cant.'[121] Although Foxe only cited it once in connection with papal history, he used the chronicle attributed to John of Brompton, abbot of Jervaulx, extensively and the sole manuscript of this work was also owned by Parker who donated it to Corpus Christi College.[122] One of the three surviving manuscripts of Gervase of Canterbury's chronicle was owned by Matthew Parker; it is very likely that Foxe also obtained this manuscript from the primate.[123] A good circumstantial case can be made for Foxe's having consulted Arundel MS 7 (in the Royal College of Arms), which was one of the texts used by Parker for his edition of Walsingham's great chronicle.[124] And while Foxe owned an incomplete manuscript of Walter of Guisborough's chronicle, Parker owned at least one complete copy of the work and may have loaned it to Foxe.[125]

The provenance of another manuscript Foxe consulted on papal history is particularly revealing of the role Parker played in the acquisition of manuscript sources for the Acts and Monuments. In the second edition of his book, Foxe mentioned, but did not print, a letter from Edward III to Benedict XII and referred the reader to the 'story of Robertus Avesbur. remaining in the library of J. Stevenson of London' for the text of the letter.[126] Of the three surviving manuscripts of Avesbury's chronicle, one, Bodleian Library Douce MS 128, passed through the hands of John Stephenson (and apparently Foxe), then subsequently belonged to Parker and afterwards came into the possession of William Lambarde, the famous antiquary and legal scholar.[127] In collecting his manuscripts, Parker created a network of other collectors and scholars who shared sources and the fruits of their research with each other; a network of which Foxe had become part.

The considerable contributions of some of these other scholars to Foxe's work, such as William Gary, Laurence Nowell and John Stow, lie outside the scope of this paper. Most of William Lambarde's contributions to the Acts and Monuments are also outside the scope of this paper, but one of the items Foxe reprinted from Lambarde's Archaionomia was the letter Pope Eleutherius supposedly wrote to King Lucius as part of what was alleged to be the first conversion of the English.[128] Since the Achaionomia was printed by John Day, who was the printer of the Acts and Monuments, in 1568, Foxe's printing of this letter does not necessarily entail his having had much knowledge of Lambarde or his book. But Foxe sent a copy of the Archaionomia, just after his publication, to William Bradbridge, the future bishop of Exeter and, at the time, the dean of Salisbury. In the flyleaf of the book, Foxe testified to his frienship with Lambarde and his interest in the Archaionomia:

lest you recieve nothing new from London, I send you this most distinguished little Saxon-Latin work, just off the press, and (as they say) out of the still warm skin, which was just written by William Lambarde, that man endowed with many and outstanding gifts, the same one who delivered your latest letters to me; a man who, in my opinion, is worthy to be received not only into yourfriendship but into your library as well.[129]

Important materials for both the papal history in the Acts and Monuments and for the work as whole were supplied to Foxe by William Bowyer, the Keeper of the Tower Records and the owner of a valuable collection of manuscripts, most notably the Lindisfarne Gospels. Foxe's borrowings from Bowyer are noted throughout the Acts and Monuments but of concern to this paper are extracts from the Parliament Rolls, which were in Bowyer's custody, concerning relations between the papacy andthe English church during the reigns of Edward III, Richard II and Henry IV.[130]

Although archival documents were important sources for the Acts and Monuments as a whole, Foxe did not rely on them greatly as sources for the papal history in his book. Apart from the extracts from the Parliament Rolls just discussed and a papal commission which Foxe copied from Bishop Bonner's register, Foxe also obtained a couple of relevant documents from friends and collaborators.[131] A letter from Richard II to Boniface IX, printed in the Acts and Monuments, was apparently found in Durham and sent to Foxe by James Pilkington, the bishop of Durham.[132] Foxe also stated that Martin V's bull ordering the suppression of Wiclif's disciples was copied 'out of a certaine old monumente remaining in the hands of Maister Hakluyt, Student in the Temple."[133] Other indications of the assistance Foxe received in obtaining sources for papal history can be found in his papers which contain a few items-which he chose not to print. There are two letters, clearly copied from an edition or manuscript of Gregory the Great's register, from that pontiff to the joint Merovingian rulers Theodoric and Theodebert and to Queen Brunhilde, requesting their protection for Augustine and his retinue on their journey to England.[134] There is also an translation, considerably emended, of a letter from Martin V to Henry Chichele, the archbishop of Canterbury, exhorting the English to assist in extirpating the Bohemian heretics.[135] Also from Martin V are a series of documents apparently copied from records of Syon monastery for Foxe's benefit and still extant among his papers.[136] Also in Foxe's papers are excerpts from unnamed sources describing incidents of papal struggles with the Hohenstaufen as well as the foundation of various religious orders.[137] None of these copies are in Foxe's handwriting; they are reminders of the labors of numbers of people who uncovered documents and copied them for Foxe, enabling him to amass the vast collection of archival materials contained in the Acts and Monuments.

Among all the different sources which Foxe utilized for the papal history in his book, one type of source is conspicuously absent: works by writers with a viewpoint that was consistently antithetical to the doctrines and beliefs championed in the Acts and Monuments. Foxe's potential sources could be divided into three groups: those that were favorable, those which were conditionally favorable and those which were hostile. The favorable sources were works written or edited by Protestants. It was from these sources exlusively that Foxe derived the themes and interpretative strategies of his papal history. Foxe also often used these sources in the way a chef uses spices, to give a dominant flavor to what he was serving up. Thus, for example, while Foxe's chief source for the Council of Basle was Pius II's commentaries, Foxe interspersed this with more inflammatory material from Caspar Peucer charging Eugene IV with trying to kidnap one of the leaders of the Council and inciting the Dauphin to lead an army against it.[138] Conditionally favorable sources were those by authors who, while not Protestant, held convictions which made their works readily amenable to Foxe's purposes. Among the examples of such sources were the chronicles of Matthew Paris and Thomas Walsingham, whose hostility to the papacy and to papal financial exactions provided an abundance of grist to Foxe's mill or Pius II's Commentaries on the Council of Basle in which the future pontiff's conciliarism had similar results. Although Ortwin Gratius was strongly Catholic, his collection of documents, stripped of his commentary (which Foxe studiously ignored), can also be grouped with the conditionally favorable sources. Foxe drew on these sources for anecdotes, examples and data to support his interpretation of papal history.

Hostile sources for papal history in the Acts and Monuments are few. In fact, at times Foxe went out of his way to avoid even the appearance of having relied on them. While Foxe definitely drew on Bede for his account of Augustine's mission to England and the conversion of the English, he cited a number of other authors (Henry of Huntingdon, William of Malmesbury, Fabian, Higden and John of Brompton) for this material, which they had, in fact, copied directly or indirectly from Bede.[139] The reason for this circumspection was not disapproval of Bede; elsewhere in his book, Foxe not only praised Bede for his learning but also (perhaps slightly defensively) asserted: 'As tochyng the holynes and integritie of hys [Bede's] lyfe it is not to be doubted: for how could it be, that he should attend to any vicious idlenes, or had any laisure to the same, who in reading and digestyng so many volumes, consumed all hys whole cogitations in writing upon the Scriptures.'[140] Instead the reason Foxe concealed his use of Bede was very probably the fact that the most accesible edition of Bede's history, and the only one in English, was the 1565 translation by the Catholic controversialist Thomas Stapleton, a work intended to support a Catholic interpretation of English ecclesiastical history.[141] Foxe was not, no matter how indirectly, going to refer his readers to such a dangerous work.

One of the rare exceptions to Foxe's eschewing of hostile sources was his use of the Historiae Hussitorum by one of the most fiery Catholic polemicists, Johannes Cochlaeus.[142] But Foxe used this work in a very limited fashion, as a source for the political and diplomatic background to Hus' career and the Hussite wars. Another exception was Platina's Lives of the Popes, which was occasionally used as a source for the Acts and Monuments . Yet although it had been the standard source for papal history throughout Europe, Platina's work was only infrequently used by Foxe. When Foxe did consult Platina it was usually, as had been the case with Cochleus, for political background. Even in the account of Gregory VII, where Foxe relied much more extensively on Platina than he ever would again, Foxe was still restrained in use of this author's work. For Gregory's character, the early years of his pontificate, the religious issues raised in his pontificate and aspects of Henry IV s reign, Foxe relied on Flacius. What Foxe took from Platina was largely a political narrative, focusing on the events leading up to Canossa, Rudolph of Swabia 's installation as a rival claimant to the imperial throne, Henry IV's capture of Rome and some important documents, chiefly Gregory's two excommunications of Henry IV.[143] jn other words, while Platina supplied factual material which helped to explain events, the tone of the account and the interpretation of Gregory's pontificate came from Flacius. Significantly, while much of the detail on the struggle between Henry IV and Rudolph of Swabia came from Platina, the two most dramatic, and heavily moralized, incidents (the deposition of Henry IV and the deathbed repentance of Rudolph) came from Flacius.

Foxe made the reason for his reluctance to rely on Platina clear when he dismissed him as 'a man not unlerned, but yet a shamefull flatterer and bearer with the wycked lyves of the Popes.'[144] This assessment was far from accurate, but while Platina was sharply critical of certain pontiffs (particularly Paul II who had ordered Platina imprisoned), he was sympathetic to the institution of the Papacy and, in the opinion of Eric Cochrane, 'relatively objective.'[145] As a result, Platina often presented an interpretation of facts acutely divergent from that of Protestant scholars. Thus Foxe preferred to repeat Flacius's assertion that Rudolph of Swabia was a puppet of Gregory VII and ignored Platina's more accurate statement that it was the German princes who elected Rudolph and that Gregory maintained a policy of nuetrality between Henry IV and his rival.[146] An object lesson in the dangers of relying on Platina was offered to Foxe in 1566. In that year, Robert Horne, the bishop of Winchester, published a rebuttal of a manuscript written by John Feckenham, the abbot of Westminster. Horne's book contained a detailed historical argument that secular rulers had legitimate jurisdiction over the church and the clergy, a jurisdiction usurped by the Papacy during the Middle Ages. The next year, Thomas Stapleton published a lengthy rebuttal of Horne's book, in which he sharply criticized Horne's historical account of the Papacy. This account was based on a few writers, chiefly Platina, and Stapleton was repeatedly able to'slice, dice and de-bone Horne's arguments by showing that Horne was misquoting Platina or citing him out of context.[147] The problem was that Horne had to take these liberties with Platina's text, in order to be able to use it to support the points he wished to make. What the English Protestants badly needed was a history of the Papacy which was not only written with a favorable bias, but was based on sources which could plausibly be made to support the interpretation such a history presented.

One of the major contributions Bale, and Foxe, buiding on his efforts, made to English Protestantism was to supply such histories. Unlike the works of Bale and Foxe, the collection of papal biographies by Robert Barnes, which had been the chief source of papal history for English Protestants had been based almost exclusively on Platina.[148] Bale and Foxe, drawing on a wide range of sources hostile to the papacy, had now created an alternative interpretation of papal history, much of which remained a part of English Protestant historigraphy well into the nineteenth century.

Yet while Foxe's reliance on favorable and conditionally favorable authors had considerable polemical advantages, there was a price to be paid. One problem was that the biases of these authors led them into inaccuracies or falsehoods which Foxe unknowingly reprinted. (It is an open question as to whether Foxe would have reprinted then if he had known that they were untrue). Matthew Paris, for example, inserted his own denunciations of papal avarice and corruption into a letter from Germanus, the patriarch of Constantinople, to Innocent IV, which Foxe reprinted, additions and all.[149] And while Foxe related a story, citing the Florentine chronicler Antoninus as his source, of Gregory VII repenting his sins and acknowledging his iniquity on his deathbed, Bale and Barnes, from whom Foxe actually took the story, neglected to mention that Antoninus, after recounting this story, stated that he did not believe it was true.[150] More importantly, by ignoring hostile sources, Foxe laid himself open to rebuttal by critics citing sources at least as authoritative as those Foxe had used.[151]

Even when Foxe's aversion to using hostile sources is taken into account, however, the fact remains that the papal history in the Acts and Monuments is based on a wealth of source material. But how accurate and faithful to these sources was Foxe? In some respects, he was quite accurate. As can be seen from the appendices to this article, Foxe's papal history was not invented; he had sources for what he related. As a general rule (a partial exception to this will be discussed shortly), Foxe did not make additions to what he printed; what he quotes is related in his sources. Foxe was notably more scrupulous in dealing with evidence than his mentor John Bale was. For example, Bale claimed that monks from the monastery at Bangor, who opposed Augustine of Canterbury, were slain 'by Augustynes procurement.'[152] Although he was well aware of Bale's charge, Foxe cautiously noted that Henry of Huntington and other writers declared that Augustine was dead at the time of the massacre.[153] Foxe also related that he had read an account of a story that the Virgin Mary entered the cell of a Dominican who founded a confraternity in her honor, kissed him and let him suck at her breasts. Foxe continued: 'This fabulous figment when I read [it] in the centuries of John Bale, I began with me selfe to mistrust the credite therof and had thought not to trouble the reader with such incredible forgeries.' He changed his mind, however, when he obtained a book which related the story.[154] Although Bale had no qualms in relating the story at second hand (he cited Trithemius as his source), Foxe restrained himself until he had confirmed the existence of the story.

Nevertheless, the papal history in the Acts and Monuments was con-ciously distorted in a number of ways. Even an accurate quotation can be misleading when it is taken out of context and Foxe often indulged in this practice. For example, in the Solemne contestation and the Acts and Monuments, Foxe quoted St Boniface to the effect that even if a pope through negligence or wickedness caused the damnation of a multitude of souls, he was still beyond human jurisdiction. Foxe quoted the passage, which was in Gratian, accurately but he ignored the point Boniface was trying to make: that the pope was specially and personally responsible to God for the spiritual welfare of all Christians. Far from flattering the popes, Boniface's words held them to higher moral standards and greater responsibilities than the rest of humanity.[155]

Foxe was often capable of bending, twisting or stretching facts in order to make them conform to his interpretation of papal history. For example, Foxe claimed that the exactions of Cardinal Otho, a legate sent by Honorius III, angered the English

insomuch that the king dreeding the displesures of his commons for the doinges of the Legate, willed him to repair home to Rome again, but yet could not so be rid of him. For he [Otho] receiving new commaundements from the Pope, applyed his harvest still, glening [gleaning] and raking whatsoever he might scrape

Yet Foxe's source for this, Matthew Paris, stated that the pope recalled; Otho many times and that it was only Henry Ill's repeated insistence which caused the pope to relent and let the legate remain in the kingdom.[156] According to Foxe, Clement III levied 70,000 pounds from English Christians and 60,000 pounds from English Jews to finance a crusade, yet Foxe's source, Gervase of Canterbury, stated that it was Henry II who actually levied these taxes and Gervase never mentioned Clement in connection with them.[157] Foxe aiso maintained that the disastrous outcome of Louis IX's crusade was 'all through the orginall cause of the Pope and Odo his legate.' As Foxe's citations indicate, his account of the crusade was derived from Matthew Paris and while Paris blamed the legate for rejecting favorable peace terms when they were offered by the sultan of Egypt, he placed by far and away the greatest blame for the disaster on Robert of Artois, Louis's brother, in passages which Foxe ignored in his zeal to blame the papacy.[158]

In certain cases, Foxe's tendentious preconceptions about the papacy led him to significantly reword a quotation. Foxe reprinted Gervase of Canterbury's account of a quarrel between Sylvester, the abbot of St Augustine's, Canterbury, and Theobald, the archbishop of Canterbury. This conflict originated with Sylvester's insistence that he be consecrated in his own abbey and his refusal to receive Theobold's benediction at Canterbury cathedral. According to Gervase: 'Quod cum renueret archiepiscopus, collecta pecunia Silvester romam profectua est, dominique Papae litteras obtinuit ut archiepiscopus praedictum Silvestram in ecclesia sua benediceret, nulla exacta professione.' Foxe translated this as:

Wherunto when the Archbishop in no wise would agree, Silvester makyng a great bagge of money, went to Rome, where he obteined of the Pope, for money (for what can not money do at Rome?) letters that the Archbishop should consecrate the Abbot, in his own church of St Austen, and also not exact of him any profession of canonical subiection.[159]

All Gervase stated was that Sylvester gathered money together and went to Rome; the assumption that the money was used for bribes (and not for the expenses of the trip) was Foxe's and having made it, Foxe hammered it home relentlessly. And when the prior of Christ Church, Canterbury, appealed the pope's decision, Gervase wrote that 'Silvester igitur, ad domuinum papam regressus,' which Foxe translated as 'For the which Silvester with a new purse of money was fayne to travaile and trot agayne to Rome.[160] In another instance, Gervase described a latter abbot of St Augustine's returning home after a legal battle in the Curia 'elatus,' Foxe translated this as 'although with an empty purse, yet full of victorie and triumph.[161] Similarly, Foxe described an abbot of St Albans securing confirmation after sending an emissary to Rome 'with a sufficient bagge of money', a detail not mentioned by Foxe's source, Matthew Paris. (In fact, Paris stated that the pope turned the case over to the bishops of Ely and London, who confirmed the election.[162]

Patrick Collinson has observred that Foxe's 'veracity is to be judged by the manner in which he composed his history, a matter not of invention, still less of forgery, but of discrimination, interpretation, and most of all of omission and deliberate exclusion.'[163] Omission and deliberate exclusion certainly were important tools by which Foxe shaped his version of papal history. In his account of the Council of Basle, Pius II stated that a crucial juncture in the Council

The Cardinal of Arles [a leader of the conciliarist faction] had thought about what was going to happen and commanded that a search be made for the many relics of the saints throughout the whole city; so that carried by the hands of priests at the session they should fill the places of absent bishops. This so greatly increased their devotion, that when, according to custom, the Holy Spirit had been invoked, no one restrained his tears.[164]

Foxe altered this passage to make the behavior of these conciliar, and hence godly, churchmen more suitable:

Arelatensis consydered afore, what would come to passe, caused prayers to be made, and after their prayers made unto Almightye God, with tears and lamentacions, that He woulde sende them hys Holye Spirite to ayde and assist them, they were greatlye comforted and encouraged.[165]

Foxe also deleted Pius II 's description of the conciliar prelates marching in procession behind relics of the saints.[166] when Foxe printed a declaration by Henry VI 's Council protesting the admission of Cardinal Henry Beaufort, in his capacity of as papal legate, to England without his having obtained the king's permission, he omitted the latter part of the document in which the Council stated that while it was not ready to receive him as legate, they were perfectly willing to receive him as a cardinal 'sanctissimo domino nostro Papa transmissus. ' Foxe also omitted Beaufort's conciliatory response, in which the Cardinal insisted that he had not intended to do anything contrary to the laws, privileges, liberties and customs of the kingdom. [167] And in reprinting the synod of Brixen's condemnation of Gregory VII, Foxe deleted a clause charging that Gregory was 'haeretici Berengarii antiquum disciplum.'[168] Foxe did not want Gregory, one of the arch-villains of his history to be portrayed as a disciple of one of the proto-Protestant elect, so he made the problem disappear along with the passage.

Thus while Foxe's papal history was based on an impressive array of sources, quoted with reasonable accuracy, it was nevertheless one that was carefully crafted to present precisely and only the interpretation Foxe wished to present. By avoiding the use of sources antithetical to his viewpoint, by quoting sources out of context, by altering the emphases of these sources to fit his own preconceptions and suppressing material which contradicted or undermined his version of events, Foxe manipulated history for his own purposes. G. R. Elton once commented that Foxe's account of the Marian persecution 'did not, ... create a legend; it commemorated a truth.'[169] Whatever the accuracy of that observation, it could be said that the papal history in the Acts and Monuments commemorated a half-truth. Nevertheless, a half-truth, while misleading, is not a lie. Bale and Foxe created an alternative interpretation of papal history which contained a great deal of truth in demonstrating that dissatisfaction with the papacy's demands and dissent from its teachings existed before Luther and that the institutions and dogmas of the Catholic Church had not existed unchanged since the apostolic era but had evolved over the centuries. Yet the impressive range of Foxe's sources should deceive no one into supposing that his papal history, or his history as a whole, was the complete truth, even as Foxe knew it.

[f1]

New Light on Drake: A Collection of Documents Relating to his Voyage of Circumnavigation, 1577-80, trans. and ed. Zelia Nuttall, Hakluyt Society, new series 34 (1914), p. 348.

[f2]

Ibid, pp. 354-7.

[f3]

As Zelia Nuttall points out, Drake is known to have taken an edition of Foxe's book with him on his 1577 voyage (ibid, p. 356 n. 3). There is one possible objection to the identification of Drake's book as the Acts and Monuments; the statements of Rengifo and Miranda that the book contained illustrations of 'Lutherans' who had been burned in Spain, a feature not usually associated with Foxe's martyrology. There are, however, illustrations in every edition available to Drake of two Englishmen executed for heresy in the Iberian peninsula: William Gardiner in Portugal (J. Foxe,Actes and Monuments [1563], p. 879; A and M [1570], p. 1544 and A and M [1576], p. 1316) and Nicholas Burton in Spain (A and M [1563], p. 1729; A and M [1570], p. 2258 and A and M [1576], p. 1950). It is also possible that Drake showed the Spaniards pictures of Marian martyrs and told them they were pictures of Protestants executed under Philip II (who had been Mary's consort) and that his hostages misunderstood him.

[f4]

The best discussion of Foxe as a historian, Patrick Collinson, 'Truth and Legend: The Veracity of John Foxe's Book of Martyrs' in Elizabethan Essays (London, 1994), pp. 151-77, is devoted almost entirely to Foxe's accounts of Marian martyrs. John Fines, J. A. F. Thomson and A. G. Dickens have discussed Foxe's use of official records as sources for the Lollards. (See John Fines, 'Heresy Trials in the Diocese of Coventry and Lichfield, 1511-12', JEH 14 [1963], pp. 173-4; J. A. F. Thomson, 'John Foxe and some sources for Lollard History: Notes for a critical appraisal' in Studies in Church History, vol. 2, ed. G. J. Cuming (London, 1965), pp. 251-7 and A. G. Dickens, 'Heresy and the Origins of English Protestantism' in Reformation Studies [London, 1982], pp. 363-83). Susan Wabuda, 'Henry Bull, Miles Coverdale, and the Making of Foxe's Book of Martyrs' in Martyrs and Martyrologies (Studies in Church History, vol. 30), ed. Diana Wood (Oxford, 1993), pp. 245-58, is crucial for understanding Foxe's research on the Marian martyrs; on this subject also see Thomas Freeman, 'Notes on a source for John Foxe's account of the Marian Persecution in Kent and Sussex', Historical Research 67 (1994), pp. 203-11. Discussion of Foxe's treatment of specific historical episodes are found in Stefan J. Smart, 'John Foxe and "The Story of Richard Hun, Martyr"', JEH 37 (1986), pp. 1-14; Thomas Freeman, 'Research, rumor and propaganda: Anne Boleyn in Foxe's "Book of Martyrs"', HJ 38 (1995), pp. 797-819 and Thomas 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. 1-17.

[f5]

Thomas Rogers, An historical dialogue touching antichrist and poperie (London, 1589) [RSTC 21237], p. 39.

[f6]

See Andrew Martindale, 'The Pope in the Palace: The Alexander Cycle, Sienna' History Today 45 (1995), pp. 40-5; Kurt Stadtwald, 'Pope Alexander Ill's Humiliation of Emperor Frederick Barbarossa as an Episode in Sixteenth-Century German History', SCJ 23 (1992), pp. 755-68 and WA 54, pp. 300-45, especially Luther's preface on pp. 307-9.

[f7]

See Appendix B under Alexander III (1154-81).

[f8]

Thus, for example, Foxe reproduced, on a word-for-word basis, a sizable section of Alexander Alesius's Of the authority of the Word of God without so much as mentioning Alesius's name or even indicating that he was quoting another author. (Cf. Alexander Alesius, Of the authoritie of the word of god against the bishop of London [Strasbourg, 1549?] RSTC 292, sigs. A5r-B7v with A and M [1563], pp. 594-8. Also see John Foxe, Rerum in ecclesia gestarum ... Commentarii [Basle, 1559], pp. 159-64. For all of my citations from the Actes and Monuments, the reference will be made to the first edition in which the material appeared). Similarly, Foxe reprinted, with only minor changes in wording, Anthony Munday's account of the execution of an English Protestant, Richard Atkins, in Rome in 1581, and once again Foxe made no acknowledgement of Munday. (Cf. Anthony Munday, The Englysh Romayne Lyfe [London, 1582], RSTC 18272, pp. 72-5 with A and M (1583), pp. 2151-2).

[f9]

Cf. A and M (1570), p. 386 with Nicholas Cisner, De Frederico II. Imp. Oratio (Strasbourg, 1608), pp. 164-5. In all quotations the original spelling and punctuation will be retained except that common abbreviations will be expanded.

[f10]

Cf. A and M (1563), p. 198 with Iohannis Hus et Hieronymi Pragensis confessorum Christi historia et monumenti (Nuremberg, 1558), fol. 14r.

[f11]

A and M (1563), p. 11.

[f12]

See Appendix B under Sylvester II (999-1003)

[f13]

A and M (1570), pp. 700 and 840.

[f14]

An example of this error occured in Vivienne Sanders 's article on Matthew Parker 's patronage, when she interpreted Foxe's statement that the condemnation of Sir John Oldcastle came 'ex magno processu Thomae Arundelli' as a declaration that Foxe copied the document from the registers of Archbishop Arundel. In fact, Foxe reprinted both the condemnation and this citation from John Bale's Brief Chronicle. (See Vivienne Sanders, 'The Household of Archbishop Parker and Public Opinion', JEH 34 [1983], p. 537 n. 19. Cf. John Bale, A briefe Chronycle concerning the examination and death of the blessed martir Christ Sir John Oldcastel [London, 1548?], RSTC 1278, sig. E5v with A and M (1563), p. 271).

[f15]

See Appendix B under Urban III (1185-7), Gregory VIII (1187), Gregory XI (1370-8) and Urban VI (1378-89).

[f16]

See Two Latin Comedies by John Foxe the Martyrologist, ed. John Hazel Smith (Ithaca, N.Y., 1973), pp. 309-41.

[f17]

John Foxe, Commentarii rerum in ecclesia gestarum (Strasbourg, 1554), fols. 6r-8r. These passages were reprinted in John Foxe, Rerum in ecclesia gestarum. . .Commentarii (Basle, 1559), pp. 3-4 and A and M (1563), p. 87 but they were dropped all subsequent editions of Foxe's work.

[f18]

The Ad inclytos . . . suplicatio was reprinted in Foxe's Rerum. The passages in question are in Rerum, pp. 243-54.

[f19]

For the identification of Foxe as the author of this tract, see Thomas Freeman, 'A solemne contestation of divers popes: A work by John Foxe?' English Language Notes 31 (1994), pp. 35-42.

[f20]

Thomas Stapleton pointed out that Jewel had misquoted and mis-cited one of Gratian's distinctions. Stapleton went on to claim that Jewel had repeated the erroneous quotation from 'the lying libell of one of your bretherne intituled The Protestation off the Pope. ' (Thomas Stapleton, A Returne of Untruthes upon M. Jewelles Replie [Antwerp, 1566], RSTC 23234, fol. 115r. The passage Stapleton was criticizing is in The Works of John Jewel, ed. John Ayre Parker Society [4 vols., Cambridge, 1845-50], I. p. 400). There is no work entitled The Protestation of the Pope listed in the RSTC but the Solemne contestation does contain the precise distinction (Corpus Juris Decretum Primus Pars, dist. xl. can. 6. cols. 194-5) cited by Jewel with the exact misquotation described by Stapleton (A solemne contestation of diverse popes [London, 1560] RSTC 20114, sig. A7r-v).

[f21]

See Appendix B under John XXIII, Pius II, Paul II, Sixtus IV, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI, Julius II, Leo X, Clement VII and Julius III. The full title of Bale's work is the Scriptorum Illustrium maioris Brytanniae, quam nunc Angliam et Scotiam vocant; Catalogus a lapheto per 3618 annos, usque ad annum hunc Domini 1557 and it will be henceforth referred to as the Catalogus.

[f22]

For Foxe's use of Flacius in this section of the first edition see Appendix B under Pius II (1458-64) and Alexander VI (1492-1503). For the use of the collection of Hus's writings see Appendix B under Gregory XII (1406-15) and John XXIII (1410-15).

[f23]

See Appendix B under Pius II (1458-64) and Leo X (1513-21). Foxe's account of Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A and M [1563], p. 369) was considerably rewritten in the second edition (A and M [1570], p. 829) but both accounts were based on Chronicon Carionis Expositum, ed. Caspar Peucer (Frankfurt, 1594), cols. 1185-6.

[f24]

See Appendix B under John XXIII (1410-5) and Eugene IV (1431-47).

[f25]

See Appendix B under John XXIII (1410-5).

[f26]

See Appendix B under Martin V (1417-31).

[f27]

Cf. A and M (1563), pp. 1440-91 with Guildhall MS 9531/12, fol. 421r. This document was not reprinted in any of the subsequent editions of the Actes and Monuments.

[f28]

This is is indicated by the extremely confused pagination for the first book of the first edition. Even the signature numbers show signs of last minute insertion as the I series is not followed immediately by a J series. Instead the I series is followed by the *I series, the *I* series and then the J series. Obviously the *I and *I* signatures were printed after the J signatures had been printed, and this special pagination was created to avoid having to renumber and reprint all those pages.

[f29]

The first two pages of the 1563 edition which breathlessly narrated episodes of papal history from the seventh to the eleventh centuries were derived entirely from Bale. (Compare these pages with Bale, Catalogus, pp. 65, 79-80, 116-22, 133 and 146-7). For other material in the first book of the 1563 edition which was taken from Bale's Catalogus see Appendix B under John XVII, Benedict IX, Sylvester III, Gregory VI, Clement II, Damasus II, Leo IX, Stephen IX, Nicholas II, Alexander II, Gregory VII, Victor III, Urban II, Paschal II, Gelasius II, Calistus II, Innocent II, Celestine II, Lucius II, Eugene III, Hadrian IV, Alexander III, Innocent III and Innocent IV. Brief accounts of Frederick II' s conflicts with Gregory IX and Innocent IV, drawn from Bale's Catalogus, were also printed in the first book of the 1563 edition. (Cf. A and M [1563], p. 73() [sig. *I3*r-v] with Catalogus, pp. 237 and 286-7. Because of the irregular pagination in this part of the 1563 edition, I have given the signature number as well; to aid the reader I will do this in any citation where irregular pagination in Foxe's book may make locating particular passages difficult).

[f30]

See Appendix B under Gregory VII (1073-85), Paschal II (1099-1118) and Hadrian IV (1154-9). A brief description of Frederick II and Pier della Vigne (Frederick's chancellor) as the authors of letters denouncing the pope as Antichrist was also drawn from Flacius (cf. A and M [1563], p. 74() [sig. *I3*v] with Flacius, CTV, p. 190).

[f31]

A letter from Clement III granting legatine authority to William Longchamp was taken from Matthew Paris and reprinted (only) in the 1563 edition (cf. A and M [1563], fol. 70v [sig. I6v] and Matthaei Parisiensis, monachi Sancti Albani, Chronica majora, ed. H. R. Luard Rolls Series [7 vols., London, 1872-83], II., p. 358. Hereafter this will be cited as CM) . For other items of papal history which Foxe took from the Chronica majora for the 1563 edition see Appendix B under Innocent III (1198-1216), Honorius III (1216-27), Gregory IX (1227-41) and Innocent IV (1243-54).

[f32]

See Appendix B under Alexander III (1159-81).

[f33]

See Appendix B under Gregory I (590-604), Nicholas II (1058 61), Alexander III (1159-81) and Innocent III (1198-1216).

[f34]

See Appendix B under Gregory VII (1073-85) and Urban II (1088-99).

[f35]

See Appendix A.

[f36]

For example, Foxe took his account of Victor I from the Magdeburg Centuries, but the Centuriators only mentioned the controversy over the observance of Easter during his pontificate, giving Eusebius as their source. Foxe followed up on the reference and added Eusebius' account of the controversy to his description of Victor's pontificare. (See Appendix A under Victor I [189-98]).

[f37]

While Foxe's history of the pre-Constantinian papacy was based on the Magdeburg Centuries, he drew on Platina's papal biographies, Eusebius1 ecclesiastical history, William Lambarde's Archiaonomia and the Flores Historiarum for specific points. (See Appendix A).

[f38]

See, for example, Frances Yates's verdict that Foxe was 'an old-fashioned chronicler' and that 'though he [Foxe] heaps together great masses of documents, these are not critically investigated' (Frances Yates, 'Foxe as Propagandist' in Ideas and Ideals in the North European Renaissance [London, 1984], p. 32) or Sidney Lee in his DNB article on Foxe, 'He was a compiler on a gigantic scale, neither scrupulous nor scholarly, but appallingly industrious, and a useful witness to the temper of the age.'

[f39]

See Appendix B under Gregory I (590-604).

[f40]

See Appendix B for Sabinian (604-6) through Stephen V (885-91).

[f41]

For the excerpts from Sigebert of Gembloux see Appendix B under Formosus (891-6) and Sergius III (904-11). For the references from Marinus Scotus and Martinus Polanus see Appendix B under Gregory V (996-9). for the anecdotes from Flacius's CTV see Sylvester II (999-1003) and Leo IX (1049-54) and for the story from William of Malmesbury see Nicholas II (1058-61). These are also good examples of Foxe grafting additional material onto his main source to make certain points. The material from Sigebert of Gembloux is used by Foxe to underscore the factional fighting and violence of the papacy in the ninth and tenth centuries, it also enabled Foxe to attack the sacrament of ordination and the miraculous powers attributed to the images of saints. Of the anecdotes from the CTV, one conveyed a homiletic lesson (the possibility of salvation for even the most desperate sinners) and the other depicted papal 'tyranny' in imposing its liturgy on the national churches. And the story from William of Malmesbury emphasized the ineffectiveness of papal excommunications and the venality of papal justice.

[f42]

See Appendix B under Gregory VII (1073-85).

[f43]

See Appendix B under Paschal II (1099-1118) and Hadrian IV (1159-81).

[f44]

For the material from Malmesbury, Howden, Anselm and Brompton see Appendix B under Paschal II (1099-1118) and Calistus II (1119-24). There are also two brief citations from Johannes Nauclerus and Giovanni Stella as well as a passage from Walter of Guisborough on Henry I's support of Innocent II. (See Appendix B under Urban II [1088-99] and Inno cent II [1130-43]).

[f45]

See Appendix B under Urban III (1185-7), Clement III (1187-91) and Celestine III (1191-8).

[f46]

Appendix B under Innocent III (1198-1216), Honorius III (1216-27), Gregory IX (1227-41), Celestine IV (1241) and Innocent IV (1243-54). An anecdote about Honorius III also came from Caspar Hedio's continuation of Burchard of Ursberg's chronicle (see Appendix B under Honorius III [1216-27]).

[f47]

See Appendix B under Honorius III (1216-27), Gregory IX (1227-41), Innocent IV (1243-54) and Alexander IV (1254-61). Foxe also took material on Alexander IV and Urban IV (1261-4) from the Flores historiarum and some information on Clement IV (1265-8) from Nicholas Trivet's Annals (see appendix B under these pontiffs).

[f48]

See the popes in Appendix B from Celestine V (1294-6) through Gregory XI (1370-8).

[f49]

For Trivet and Walter of Guisborough see Appendix B under Boniface VIII (1294-1303) and Clement V (1305-14). For Avesbury see Clement VI (1342-52).

[f50]

For Flacius see Appendix B under Boniface VIII (1294-1303), John XXII (1316-34), Benedict XII (1334-42) and Urban V (1362-70). For Sabellicus see Clement V (1305-14) and Urban V. For Massarius see Clement VI (1342-52).

[f51]

See Appendix B under Boniface VIII (1294-1303).

[f52]

For Foxe's only use of Bale as a source for papal history in this period see Appendix B under John XXIII (1410-5). For the use of Walsingham see Urban VI (1378-89), Gregory XII (1406-15), Alexander V (1409-10) and Martin V (1417-31).

[f53]

See Appendix B under Urban VI (1378-89), Eugene IV (1431-47) and Felix V (1439-49).

[f54]

For Hedio see Appendix B under Martin V (1417-31), Eugene IV (1431-47) and Felix V 91439-49). For Peucer see Martin V and Eugene IV. For the Hus monument a see Gregory XII (1406-15), Alexander V (1409-10) and John XXIII (1410-5).

[f55]

See Appendix B under Alexander V (1409-10) and John XXIII (1410-5).

[f56]

See Appendix B under Boniface IX (1389-1404) and Martin V (1417-31).

[f57]

See Appendix B from Nicholas V (1447-55) through Hadrian VI (1522-3). Bale is only a minor source, however, for Pius II (1458-64)

[f58]

See Appendix B under Hadrian VI (1522-3).

[f59]

See Appendix B under Pius II (1458-64), Alexander VI (1492-1503). Julius II (1503-13), Leu X (1513-21) and Clement VII (1523-34).

[f60]

See Appendix B under Paul II (1464-71), Sixtus IV (1471-84), Innocent VIII (1484-92), Alexander VI (1492-1503), Hadrian VI (1522-3) and Clement VII (1523-34).

[f61]

See Appendix B under Julius III (1550-5).

[f62]

See Appendix B under Paul III (1534-49).

[f63]

See Appendix B under Paul III (1534-49), Julius III (1550-5), Paul IV (1555-9) and Pius Iv (1559-65).

[f64]

Cf. William Tyndale, Expositions and Notes, ed. Henry Walter Parker Society (Cambridge, 1849), pp. 258-70 with A and M (1570), sig. NN2r (there is no pagination in this section of the Actes and Monuments). Tyndale seems to have been on Foxe's mind when he wrote this section. Foxe borrowed a metaphor from Tyndale which compared the pope to ivy which at first was dependent on a tree (the emperor) but subsequently choked and overwhelmed it. Foxe not only repeated the metaphor but in a marginal note instructed his readers to 'Looke Tyndal in his booke of the Practise of Prelates.1 (Cf. Tyndale, Expositions, pp. 270-1 with A and M [1570], sig. NN1r). Three years later, Foxe would publish an edition of the complete works of Tyndale, John Frith and Robert Barnes; he may already have begun work on it when this section of the Actes and Monuments was printed. This, together with the lack of pagination, would suggest that this section on the popes was a very late addition to the 1570 edition. One possibility is that the text of the 1570 edition had already been printed, and Foxe had already begun work on Tyndale's writings, when the decision was made .to add this section-possibly in response to news of Pius V's excommunication of Elizabeth.

[f65]

A and M (1570), pp. 1310-3 with Acta conciliorum et epistolae decretales, ed. Jean Hardouin (11 vols., Paris, 1714-5), VI. cols. 1063-4 and 1585-6; Heinrich Bullinger, De origine erroris in negocio Eucharistiae ac missa (Zurich, 1528), sigs. D1v-D2v and Willelmi Malmesbiriensis monachi de gestis regum Anglorum in libri quinque, ed. William Stubbs Rolls Series (2 vols., London, 1887-9), II. pp. 338-40.

[f66]

A and M (1563), pp. 330-5; A and M (1583), pp. 697-700. The letter is in Gratius, Fasciculus, fols. 32r-34r.

[f67]

A and M (1563), p. 338; also see Catalogus, pp. 290 and 324.

[f68]

Almost all of the Acta Romanorum pontificum consisted of material that had already been published in the Catalogus. Two items, however, appeared in the Acta which had not been in the Catalogus. One was a letter of 'Peter, son of Cassiodorus' (for which see Appendix B under Clement V [1305-14]); the other was a pseudo-Joachimist prophecy, the Oraculum Cyrilli (John Bale, Acta Romanorum pontificum [Basle, 1558], pp. 287-9 and 338-44).

[f69]

Foxe explicitly cited Bale's Catalogus as a source on A and M (1570), pp. 780, 791, 831, 840, 842, 860, 926 and 928. On the other hand, Foxe explicitly cited the Acta Romanorum pontificum as a source on A and M (1570), p. 487. Foxe also reprinted the letter of 'Peter, son of Cassiodorus' (see preceding note) which is in the Acta but not the Catalogus. The author of the Solemne contestation, presumably Foxe, also cited the Acta (Solemne contestation, sig. B8r and Clr). And in the 1583 edition of the Actes and Monuments, Foxe cited the Acta as the source for new material (A and M [1583], p. 1403). Since Foxe used both the Acta and the Catalogus as sources, and since almost all of the material in the Acta is also in the Catalogus, I will only cite the Catalogus for passages which occur in both books. (I have chosen the Catalogus because it is less difficult to obtain).

[f70]

On Bale's influence on Foxe's apocalyptic thought see Katherine R. Firth, The Apocalyptic Tradition in Reformation Britain 1530-1645 (Oxford, 1979), pp. 78-84; Richard Bauckham, Tudor Apocalypse (Oxford, 1979), pp. 73-88 and Paul Christianson, Reformers and Babylon: English apocalyptic visions from the Reformation to the eve of the Civil War (Toronto, 1978), pp. 39-42. For Bale's influence on Foxe's martyrological writing see Leslie P. Fairfield, 'John Bale and the Developmet of Protestant Hagiography in England', JEH 24 (1973), pp. 145-60.

[f71]

For example the narrative in the Catalogus of Louis of Bavaria's struggle with Clement VI was based, as Bale acknowledged in his citations, on Hieronymus Massarius's Eusebius captivus (cf. Catalogus, pp. 373-4 with Hieronymus Massarius, Eusebius captivus [Geneva, 1597], fols. 20r-21r). Foxe also drew his account of Louis and Clement from Massarius (he could not have taken the account from Bale since he described episodes, notably the poisonings of Louis and his successor, which were in Eusebius captivus but not in the Catalogus. (See Appendix B under Clement VI [1342-52]). Similarly, Bale cited Sabellicus's Enneads as his source for Urban V's wars in Italy and Foxe also cited and consulted Sabellicus for his account (more detailed than Bale's) of these wars. (See Bale, Catalogus, p. 437; A and M [1570], p. 511 and M. Antonii Cocii Sabellici Opera Omnia [Basle, 1560], cols. 817-21).

[f72]

To consider only those manuscripts which were sources for papal history in the Actes and Monuments, the only copy of the Fasciculi Zizaniorum was loaned to Foxe by Bale and was one of the major sources of Foxe's first martyrology, the Commentarii. (See Margaret Aston, 'Lollardy and the Reformation: Survival or Revival?' in Lollards and Reform; Images and Literacy in Late Medieval Religion [London, 1984], pp. 236-7). For the Fasciculi Zizaniorum as source for papal history in the Actes and Monuments see Appendix B under Gregory XI (1370-8) and Urban VI 91378-89). A chronicle, which was part of the historical collection attributed to Walter of Coventry, and which was Foxe's source for the story of Celestine III kicking the crown off of Emperor Henry VI 's head, had been in Bale's possession before it was owned by Foxe. (See Appendix B under Celestine III [1191-8]). A manuscript of Walter of Guisborough's chronicle, an important source for papal history in the Actes and Monuments, is part of Magdalen College MS Latin 53, which had been owned by Bale and then Foxe. (Foxe must have had access to at least one other manuscript of Guisborough's chronicle, however, since the Magdalen manuscript only contains a copy of the chronicle from 1327 on, while Foxe used Guisborough as a source for events prior to that date [see, for example, Appendix B under Clement V (1305-14)]). An interesting aspect of Foxe's ownership of the Magdalen manuscript is that Foxe did not use Guisborough for the 1563 edition of the Actes and Monuments. This would suggest that Foxe only obtained the manuscript after 1563, perhaps after Bale's death in 1564.

[f73]

For Flacius's contribution, and the limits of it, to the Magdeburg Centuries see Ronald Ernst Diener, 'The Magdeburg Centuries: A Bibliothecal and Historical Analysis' (Th.D. dissertation, Harvard Uni versity, 1979).

[f74]

See Appendix B under Gregory XII (1406-15) and John XXIII (1410-5).

[f75]

Cf. Rerum, p. 245 with Matthias Flacius, Catalogus testium veritatis (Basle, 1556), pp. 50-1 and 54-6. In general, my references will be to the 1562 edition of this work, which was an expanded version of the 1556 edition. Henceforth the 1556 edition will be designated CTV (1556).

[f76]

Solemne contestation, sig. G2v.

[f77]

Cf. A and M (1570), pp. 4-6, 9-10 and 12-3 with Matthias Flacius, Catalogus testium veritatis (Basle, 1562), pp. 32-3, 68-9, 201-4, 261, 270-83, 306-8, 470-1 and 477-8. (Hereafter the 1562 edition of Flacius's book will be cited as CTV).

[f78]

At one point they must have come from the French royal archives, for in the seventeenth century Pierre Dupuy copied documents corresponding to those Foxe had printed. In each case, Dupuy claimed that he had copied these documents from unpublished originals in the French royal archives. (See Appendix B under Boniface VIII [1294-1303]). Foxe, however, had no access to these archives and no apparent way of obtaining it, therefore, he must have received copies of these documents (at least) second-hand. In support of the theory that Foxe was working from a series of individual documents which had been given to him is the fact that Foxe printed these documents out of chronological order. This would suggest that while he had the documents, he needed to work out their proper arrangement on his own.

[f79]

Flacius stated that they came 'Ex lib. Stephen. Aufrerii' CTV, p. 577). Etienne Aufreri was an eminent sixteenth century legal writer and president of the Parlement of Toulouse. It is likely that Flacius obtained these letters, and perhaps other documents pertaining to the struggle between Boniface VIII and Philip the Fair, from a collection, either printed or manuscript, made by Aufreri.

[f80]

CTV, p. 476. Also see Appendix B under Boniface VIII (1294-1303).

[f81]

Ulrich von Hutten provides a good example of the reasons which caused the anti-papalism of many German humanists as well as the lengths to which this anti-papalism could lead. See Sam Wheelis, 'Ulrich von Hutten: Representative of Patriotic Humanism' in The Renaissance and Reformation in Germany, ed. Gerhart Hoffmeister (New York, 1977), pp. 111-27; Jacques Ride, 'Ulrich von Hutten centre Rome: Motivation et arriere-plans d'une polemique' Recherches germaniques 9 (1979), pp. 3-17 and John F. D'Amico, 'Ulrich von Hutten and Beatus Rhenanus as medieval historians and religious propagandists in the early Reformation' in Roman and German Humanism, 1450-1550, ed. Paul F. Grendler (Great Yarmouth, 1973), pp. 1-33. Although Hutten did become a Protestant, these authors all agree that patriotic and political motives did more to shape Hutten 's view of the papacy than religious motives did.

[f82]

Edward Fueter, Histoire de l'historiographie moderne, trans. E. Jeanmarie (Paris, 1914), pp. 226-7.

[f83]

D'Amico, 'Ulrich von Hutten', pp. 12-18.

[f84]

Stadtwald, 'Alexander Ill's Humiliation', pp. 755-68.

[f85]

See Noel L. Brann, 'Pre-Reformation humanism in Germany and the papal monarchy: a study in ambivalence' Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 14 (1984), pp. 159-85.

[f86]

Ibid, pp. 160-1.

[f87]

The sentence condemning Wiclif and an order to exhume and burn his body were not in Foxe's Commentarii but were added to the Rerum, pp. 21-3. They were reprinted in A and M (1563), pp. 103-5. Foxe copied them from Ortwin Gratius, Fasciculus rerum expetendarum et fugiendarum (Cologne, 1535), fols. 150r-151r. For Pius' commentaries see Appendix B under Eugene IV (1431-47); for Hadrian VI and the German nobles in 1522 see Appendix B under Hadrian VI (1522-3).

[f88]

See Gratius, Fasciculus, fols. 81r-95v; Flacius, CTV (1556), pp. 704-57, Ecclesiastica historia, ed. Johannes Wigand and Mattheus Judex (11 vols., Basle, 1559-70), Cent., cols. 1204-8 and A and M (1563), pp. 42-6.

[f89]

The Works of Nicholas Ridley, ed. Henry Christmas Parker Society (Cambridge, 1843), p. 374. Ridley also recommended Pius II's commentaries and Valla's commentary on the Donation of Constantine, both of which were reprinted in the Fasciculus.

[f90]

Gratius, Fasciculus, fols. 152r and 241v-242r.

[f91]

See James V. Mehl, ' Ortwin Gratius, Conciliarism and the Call for Church Reform' ARG 76 (1985), pp. 177-8, 186-8 and 190-1.

[f92]

Ibid, pp. 171-5.

[f93]

Compare CTV, p. 490 and A and M (1570), pp. 143-4 with Gratius, Fasciculus, fols. 62v-81r and 240r-241r.

[f94]

WAbr 2, pp. 48-9.

[f95]

WA 50, pp. 352-63. Another example of Luther's publication of historical documents was his publication of a group of letters written by Hus while he was imprisoned in Constance, together with a letter by 54 Bohemian nobles defending Hus to the Council of Constance.

[f96]

Ibid, pp. 3-5.

[f97]

Unfortunately, the critical edition of the chronicle (Die Chronik des Propstes Burchard von Ursberg, ed. Oswald Holder-Egger and Bernhard von Simsin MGH Scriptores [Hanover and Leipzig, 1916]) does not include Hedio's continuation. As a result, I have cited the MGH edition for the chronicle itself while references to the continuation are to Hedio's edition.

[f98]

See notes 54, 59 and 62 above.

[f99]

See note 46 above.

[f100]

For example the long introduction to Foxe's account of Gregory VII - in which the description was made of an early church in which the emperors held supreme jurisdiction over the religious and secular spheres, and in which the pope and all the bishops obeyed their respective rules, a harmonious arrangement only disrupted by the insane ambition of Hildebrand - was taken from Aventinus by way of Facius's CTV. (See A and M [1563], pp. 20-21 and Flacius, CTV, pp. 205-6.

[f101]

Basil Hall, 'The Early Rise and Gradual Decline of Lutheranism', Humanists and Protestants, 1500-1900 (Edinburgh, 1990), pp. 208-236.

[f102]

As was shown in note 87 above, Foxe added material from Gratius's Fasciculus to the Rerum. It seems reasonable to assume that if Foxe had known of this material before the Commentarii was written, he would have included it in that work.

[f103]

Material from this work (a testimony from Oxford University, in 1406, to Wiclif's learning and Hus's defense of Wiclif against charges of heresy) was added to the Rerum (cf. Hus monument a, I. fols. 108v-109v and II. fol. 367v with Rerum, pp. 24-5).

[f104]

See Solemne contestation, sigs. B4v-B7v.

[f105]

For Foxe's use of the 1556 edition of the CTV see notes 75 and 76 above. For his use of Marinus Scotus and Martinus Polanus see Appendix A under Clement I (c. 91- c. 101) and Appendix B under Gregory V (996-9).

[f106]

A and M (1563), pp. 22-3, 183, 258, 384, 388 and 416. Foxe's very limited use of Cochleus's history in the 1563 edition, compared to his greatly expanded use of it in the 1570 edition (see Appendix B under Alexander V [1409-10], John XXIII [1410-5] and Martin V [1417-31] may indicate that he obtained Cochleus's work only shortly before the 1563 edition was printed.

[f107]

Cf. A and M (1563), pp. 73()-()74 [sig. *I3*r-v] with Bale, Catalogus, pp. 236 and 286 and CM IV. pp. 119, 190, 196 and 216.

[f108]

See Appendix B under Innocent III (1198-1216), Honorius III (1216-27), Gregory IX (1227-41) and Innocent IV (1243-54).

[f109]

In a letter to Foxe, dated 1 September, 1562, Oporinus mentioned sending books to Foxe, unfortunately, he did not say which books these were (BL Harley MS 417, fol. 108v). It is interesting to note that the second edition of Flacius's Catalogus testium veritatis was published by Oporinus in 1562 and that Foxe acquired it in time to be used extensively in the first edition of the Actes and Monuments, published in March, 1563. Oporinus was also the publisher of the 1566 edition of Pier della Vigne's letters which Foxe consulted.

[f110]

Flacius, CTV (1556), p. 228; Bale, Catalogus, p. 522. As John Studley, the translator of Bale's Acta Romanorum pontificum, observed of De schismate: '[this] booke I am sure maister Bale never saw, for he would never have omitted such notable and straunge matters as are contayned in it.' See John Bale, The Pageant of Popes, trans. John Studley (London, 1574) RSTC 1304, sig. B4v.

[f111]

Solemne contestation, sig. G2v.

[f112]

See Appendix B under Urban VI (1378-89).

[f113]

See Bale, Catalogus, pp. 624-5 and Appendix B under Sixtus IV (1471-84).

[f114]

See Thomae Walsingham, quondam monachi S. Albani, Historia Anglicana, ed. H. T. Riley Rolls Series (2 vols., London, 1863-4), II. pp. 107, 119-20, 157-9, 170, 174 and 188 and Chronicon Angliae ab Anno Domini 1328 usque ad Annum 1388, auctore monacho quodam Sancti Albani, ed. E. Maunde Thompson Rolls Series (London, 1874), p. 224.

[f115]

Richard Vaughan, Matthew Paris (Cambridge, 1958), pp. 140-1.

[f116]

'Haec et alia detestabilia a sulphereo fonte Romanae eccles-iae, proh pudor, immoet proh pudor delor, tune temporis emanarunt' (CM V, p. 524).

[f117]

A and M (1570), p. 520; cf. 'ceste chose tourne a plus grande Destruction du Roialme quand toute la Guerre notre Seigneur' Rotuli parliamentorum (6 vols., London, 1767-77), II. p. 228.

[f118]

See C. E. Wright, 'The dispersal of monastic libraries and the beginning of Anglo-Saxon studies: Matthew Parker and his circle: a preliminary study' Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society 1 (1951), pp. 208-37; F. J. Levy, Tudor Historical Thought (San Marino, California, 1967), pp. 114-7 and May McKisack, Meieval History in the Tudor Age (Oxford, 1971), pp. 27-39.

[f119]

McKisack, Medieval History, pp. 40-1 and Matthae Parisiensis, monachi Sancti Albani, Historia Anglorum, ed. Frederic Madden Rolls Series (3 vols., London, 1866-9), I. pp. xxx-xxxi.

[f120]

Foxe stated that a letter from Innocent IV to the archdeacon of Canterbury was found written in the back of an old manuscript. (See A and M [1570], p. 405. Foxe does not make it clear whether he found the letter himself or whether someone else found it and told Foxe about it). This letter is part of the "Liber Additamentorum' a collection of documents which Paris had originally planned to insert into the Chronica majora. The 'Liber Additamentorum' (including the letter Foxe described is in BL Cotton MS, Nero D. 1. See CM VI, pp. vi- xii and 229-31). Either Foxe used this manuscript or, at the least, he was aided by someone who did.

[f121]

A and M (1570), p. 526. Both of the known manuscripts of the Chronicon (BL Harley MS 3634 and BL Cotton MS Otho C. II) belonged to Parker (Chronicon Angliae, pp. xii- xiv and xviii). For Foxe's use of this work see Appendix B under Clement VI (1342-52, Gregory XII (1406-15) and Martin V (1417-31).

[f122]

See M. R. James, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts of the Library of Corpus Christi College, (2 vols., Cambridge, 1912), I. pp. 183-4. For Foxe's use of this chronicle see Appendix B under Urban II (1088-99).

[f123]

See James, Corpus Christi College, II. pp. 345-7 and The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury, ed. William Stubbs Rolls Series (2 vols., London, 1879-80), pp. li-liii.

[fl24]

Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, pp. ix-xii.

[f125]

See Appendix B under Clement V (1305-14) and The Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough, ed. Harry Rothwell Camden Society Third series 89 (1957), pp. xiii-xiv.

[f126]

A and M (1570), p. 472. As frequently happened, Foxe had erroneously cited Avesbury's chronicle for material that was actually in Walsingham's chronicle (see HA I. pp. 201-8). Foxe corrected this reference to the third edition of the Actes and Monuments ( A and M [1576], p. 376).

[f127]

Adae Murimuth Continuatio Chronicarum. Robertus de Avesbury, De gestis mirabilibus Regis Edwardi Terti, ed. E. M. Thompson Rolls Series (London, 1889), p. xxv.

[f128]

See Appendix A under Eleutherius (c. 174-89).

[f129]

'Ne nihil novarum rerum accipias e Londino, mitto eximine tuae prestantiae libellum SaxoLatium, recens adhuc e preso, atque ex ipsis (quod aiunt) pellibus calentem, quern nobis emisit modo, vir multis ac egregiis dotibus ornatissimus, Gulielmus Lambardus, is ipse qui superiores tuas ad me literas pertulit: Dignus meo iudicio, quern non solum in amicitiam tuam, sed etiam in bibliothecum admittas.' The copy of the Archaionomia in which Foxe wrote this inscription is now in the Huntington Library (shelfmark RB62136).

[f130]

Cf. A and M (1570), pp. 519-22, 611-2 and 662 with Rotuli Parlementorum, II. pp. 143-5, 153-4, 163, 228, 283-4, 289-90, 337-9, 363, 367 and III. pp. 18-20, 46-8, 214, 246-7, 264-70, 304, 341, 419, 594-5, 614-6.

[f131]

For the papal commission copied from Bonner's register see note 27 above.

[f132]

Pilkington, in a work published in March, 1563 (the same month in which the first edition of the Actes and Monuments was published) mentioned a letter from Richard II to Boniface IX, in which Richard II cited examples of secular rulers having jurisdiction over the clergy. (See The Works of James Pilkington, ed. James Scholefield Parker Society [Cambridge, 1842], p. 640). Foxe stated that the letter of Richard to Boniface which he printed was drawn from 'certain Recordes of the bishop of Duresme.' Any doubts that Pilkington and Foxe were referring to the letter must be dispelled by Pilkington's letter containing the same historical examples as are found in the letter Foxe printed. Since Foxe did not print the letter until 1570, while Pilkington knew of it seven years earlier and since Foxe stated that the letter came from records at Durham, where Pilkington was bishop, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Pilkington sent the letter to Foxe.

[f133]

A and M (1570), p. 733. This was Richard Hakluyt the Elder, the cousin and guardian of the author of the Principal Navigations.

[f134]

BL Harley MS 416, fol. Ir. These letters are printed in a number of works, including MGH Epistolae, ed. P. Ewald (Berlin, 1887-99), VI. pp. 58-9 and Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents relating to Great Britain, ed. A. W. Haddan and William Stubbs (3 vols., Oxford, 1869-78), III. pp. 10-11.

[f135]

BL Harley MS 416, fols. 2r-3r. It is hard to say what the original of this document was as the copyist omitted such useful details as the copyist omitted such useful details as the salutation, the farewell and the date of the letter. I suspect that the original of this letter was part of Martin V's efforts to get the English Church to contribute money for a papal crusade against the Hussites.

[f136]

These include a partial copy of a license to found Syon (BL Harley MS 419, fol. 55r-v), a papal license allowing Henry V to translate relics from Normandy to Syon (fols. 55v-56r), a papal license to have the dean of the royal chapel to hear Henry V's confessions and absolve him (fol. 56r), a papal grant of plenary remission for Henry V (fol. 56v) and a papal license permitting Henry V to worship at a portable altar (fol. 56v-57r).

[f137]

BL Harley MS 419, fols. 26r-27v.

[f138]

See Appendix B under Eugene IV (1431-47).

[f139]

The questions which Augustine sent to Gregory the Great and the pope's replies were printed by Foxe. They are in Bede but in none of the other authors Foxe cited. (See A and M [1570], pp. 156-8 and Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People, ed. Bertram Colgrave and R. A. B. Mynors (Oxford, 1969), pp. 78-102). Foxe does cite Bede once by listing him along with the other authors in the righthand margin of A and M (1570), p. 155.

[f140]

A and M (1570), p. 170.

[f141]

RSTC 1778

[f142]

See Appendix B under Alexander V (1409-10), John XXIII (1410-5) and Martin V (1417-31).

[f143]

See Appendix B under Gregory VII (1073-85).

[f144]

A and M (1570), p. 861.

[f145]

Eric Cochrane, Historians and Historiography in the Italian Renaissance (Chicago, 1981), p. 55.

[f146]

Cf. Bartomoleo Sacchi de Platina, Historia de vitis pontificum Romanonorum ad N. Iesu Christus ad Paulum Papam II, ed. Onuphrius Panvinius (Venice, 1562), fols. 132v-133r with Flacius, CTV, p. 212. Also see Appendix B under Gregory VII (1073-85).

[f147]

See Robert Horne, An answeare made by Rob. Bishoppe of Winchester, to a booke entituled, The Declaration of Suche Scruples and States of Conscience, touching the Othe of Supremacie. . . (London, 1556) RSTC 13818, fols. 57r, 59r, 60r-61r, 64v-65r, 70v and 73r and Thomas Stapleton, A Counterblaste to M. Hornes vayne blaste against M. Feckenham (Louvain, 1567) RSTC 23231, fols. 225r-227r, 234v-235r, 239r-242v, 249v, 251v-252r, 261v, 273v, 279v and 281r.

[f148]

Most of the papal biographies in Barnes's book were based entirely on Platina, occasionally supplemented with material from well known historical writers such as Nauclerus or Sabellicus. Even Barnes's account of Gregory VII, based on a relatively wide range of sources, was still largely drawn from Platina. Of the 31 pages which made up Barnes's account of Gregory VII (including a two page diatribe against mandatory clerical celibacy) in the edition which I consulted, 26 pages were direct translations of Platina. (See Robert Barnes, Vitae Romanorum pontificum [Basle, 1555], pp. 186-217 with Platina, De vitis pontificum Romanorum, fols. 131r-135v).

[f149]

Vaughan, Matthew Paris, p. 133. The letter is reprinted on A and M (1570), pp. 364-5.

[f150]

See Barnes, Vitae, p. 211; Bale, Catalogus, p. 160; A and M (1563), p. 29; A and M (1570), p. 234 and Antoninus, Opus . . . historiarum Antonini (Paris, 1512), fol. 186v.

[f151]

Robert Parsons effectively countered Foxe's accounts of Gregory VII and Innocent III by lengthily quoting from contemporary sources and respected scholars who praised the characters and achievements of these pontiffs. See Robert Parsons, A Treatise of Three Conversions of England (St Omer, 1603) RSTC 19416, Part I, pp. 444-58.

[f152]

John Bale, The first two partes of the actes of the Englysh votaryes (London, 1551) RSTC 1273.5, fol. 29r.

[f153]

A and M (1570), p. 160.

[f154]

Ibid, pp. 860-1 and Catalogus, pp. 624-5

[f155]

Solemne contestation, sig. A7r-v; A and M (1570), p. 369. The passage is in Corpus Juris Decretum Gratian Primus Pars, dist. 40, cap. 'Si papa.' The fact that the same tendentious interpretation of this passage is printed in both the Solemne contestation and the Acts and Monuments, is another indication that Foxe was the author of both works.

[f156]

A and M (1563), p. )70( [sig. *I1*r]; CM III, pp. 473, 526 and 530-1.

[f157]

A and M (1570), p. 301; The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury, ed. William Stubbs Rolls Series (2 vols., London, 1879), I. p. 422. (Hereafter cited as GC).

[f158]

A and M (1570), p. 372; CM V, pp. 143, 165, 204 and 280.

[f159]

GC, I. pp. 147-8 and 163-4 and A and M (1570), p. 302 (my emphases).

[f160]

Cf. GC, I. p. 148 with A and M (1570), p. 302.

[f161]

Cf. GC, I. p. 275 with A and M (1570), p. 304.

[f162]

Cf. CM, III. pp. 307-8 and 313-7 with A and M (1570), fol. 365v (a brief section of this edition is numbered by folios, not pages). For other examples of Foxe altering quotations along similar lines, compare CM III, pp. 145 and 471 with A and M (1570), fols. 365v-366r.

[f163]

Collinson, 'Truth and Legend', p. 157.

[f164]

'Cogitaret Arelatensis, quod erat futuram plurimasque sanctorum reliquas tota urbe perquiri iussit, ac per sacerdotum manus in sessione portatas absentium episcoporum locum tenere: quae res maxime dev-otionem adauxit, in tantum, ut vocato postmodum de more spiritus sancto, nemo lachrymas continuerit' (Gratius, Fasciculus, fol. 19r).

[f165]

A and M (1563), p. 319.

[f166]

Cf. Gratius, Fasciculus, fol. 23v with A and M (1563), p. 327.

[f167]

Compare A and M (1570), pp. 836-7 and Bodleian Library Tanner MS, fols. 81r-82v.

[f168]

Cf. Flacius, CTV, p. 211 with A and M (1563), p. 29.

[f169]

G. R. Elton, Reform and Reformation (Cambridge, Mass., 1977), p. 386.

[f170]

See Christopher Hill, Antichrist in the Seventeenth Century (Oxford, 1971), pp. 1-40; Bauckham, Tudor Apocalypse, pp. 54-112; Firth, Apocalyptic Tradition, pp. 1-110 and Christianson, Reformers and Babylon, pp. 13-46.

[f171]

Appendix A under Linus, Anacletus, Clement I, Evaristus, Alexander I, Sixtus I, Victor I, Calistus I and Lucius I.

[f172]

Appendix A under Evaristus, Alexander I, Zephrinus, Pontian and Anterus.

[f173]

A and M (1570), p. 62, cf. Cent. II. col. 210.

[f174]

See Appendix A under Alexander I, Sixtus I, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Calistus I and Urban I.

[f175]

See Appendix A under Cornelius and Lucius I.

[f176]

See Appendix B under Gregory I (590-604), Sabinian (604-6) and Boniface III (607). The belief that Boniface Ill's pontificate marked the beginning of the Antichrist's control of the papacy goes back to Luther; see John M. Headley, Luther's View of Church History (New Haven and London, 1963), pp. 155-7 and 192-4.

[f177]

See Appendix B under Boniface V (619-25) and Sergius I (687-701).

[f178]

See Appendix B under Gregory II (715-31), Gregory III (731-41), Zacharias (741-52), Paul I (757-67), Stephen III (768-72) and Hadrian I (772-95).

[f179]

See Appendix B under Gregory III (731-41) and Zacharias (741-52).

[f180]

A and M (1570), p. 182.

[f181]

A and M (1570), pp. 182 and 185.

[f182]

See Appendix B under Leo VIII (963-5), John XII (955-64) and Gregory V (946-9).

[f183]

See Appendix B under Formosus (891-6), Stephen VI (896-7), John IX (898-900) and Sergius III (904-11).

[f184]

See Appendix B under Leo V (903), Christopher (903-4), Sergius III (904-11), John XIII (898-900) and Boniface VII (974 and 984-5) and John XIV (983-4).

[f185]

See Appendix B under Formosus (891-6), Stephen VI (896-7), Sergius III (904-11), John X (914-28), John XII (955-64), John XIII (965-72), Benedict VI (973-4), Boniface VII (974 and 984-5) and Gregory V (996-9).

[f186]

See Appendix B under Sergius III (904-11), Lando (913-4), John X (914-28) and John XI (936-9).

[f187]

See A and M (1570), p. 208.

[f188]

A and M (1570), pp. 182, 193 and 208.

[f189]

See Appendix B under Sylvester II (999-1003), John XVII (1003), John XIX (1024-32) and Benedict IX (1032-48).

[f190]

See Appendix B under Leo IX (1049-54), Victor II (1055-7), Stephen IX (1057-8) and Alexander II (1061-73).

[f191]

See Appendix B under Gregory VII (1073-85).

[f192]

A and M (1563), p. 30.

[f193]

See all the popes in Appendix B from Victor III (1086-7) to Alexander III (1159-81).

[f194]

See Appendix B under Urban II (1088-99), Calistus II (1119-24), Honorius II (1124-30), Celestine II (1144-5) and Alexander III (1159-81).

[f195]

The sections devoted to some English monarchs, such as Richard II and Henry V are longer but that is because they contain long disgressions on other topics such as the careers of individual Lollards and Jan Hus as well as an account of the Council of Constance.

[f196]

A and M (1570), pp. 311-2. For papal conflict with secular rulers in the thirteenth century see Appendix B under Urban III (1185-7), Celestine III (1191-8), Innocent III (1198-1216), Honorius III (1216-27), Gregory IX (1227-41), Innocent IV (1245-54) and Alexander IV (1254-61).

[f197]

See Appendix B under Clement III (1187-91), Gregory IX (1227-41) and Innocent IV (1243-54).

[f198]

See Appendix B under Innocent III (1198-1216).

[f199]

A and M (1570), p. 338.

[f200]

See Appendix B.

[f201]

See Appendix B under Clement V (1305-14)

[f202]

A and M (1570), p. 497. Also see Appendix B under Clement V (1305-14), John XXII (1316-34), Benedict XII (1334-42) and Clement VI (1342-52).

[f203]

A and M (1570), p. 511. Also see Appendix B under Boniface VIII (1294-1303), Clement VI (1342-52) and Urban V (1362-70).

[f204]

Cf. A and M (1570), p. 437 with Walsingham, HA I. p. 103.

[f205]

A and M (1570), p. 466. The reference is to John's bull Quia vir reprobus.

[f206]

See Appendix B under Clement VI (1342-52).

[f207]

See note 130 above.

[f208]

See Appendix B under Urban VI (1378-89), Boniface IX (1389-1404), Gregory XII (1406-5), John XXIII (1410-5), Martin V (1417-31).

[f209]

See Appendix B under Boniface IX (1389-1404), Alexander V (1409-10), John XXIII (1410-5) and Martin V (1417-31).

[f210]

For the sources of Foxe's account of Berengar's persecution see note 65 above.

[f211]

See Appendix B under Eugene IV (1431-47).

[f212]

'Sicque crucis beneficio factum, ut crucis hostes ita delerentur, quod unus ex eis non remansit.' See Appendix B under Urban VI (1378-89).

[f213]

See Appendix B under Julius II (1503-13) and Innocent VIII (1489-92).

[f214]

See Appendix B under Calistus III (1455-8) and Sixtus IV (1471-84).

[f215]

See Appendix B under Julius II (1503-13), Leo X (1513-21) and Clement VII (1523-34).

[f216]

See Appendix B under Nicholas V (1447-55), Innocent VIII (1489-92) and Leo X (1513-21).

[f217]

See Appendix B under Paul III (1534-49).

[f218]

See Appendix B under Hadrian VI (1522-3), Paul III 91534-49), Julius III (1550-5), Paul IV (1555-9) and Pius IV (1559-65).

[f219]

A and M (1570), pp. 1-85.

[f220]

Peter Lake, 'Anti-popery: the Structure of a Prejudice" in Conflict in Early Stuart England; Studies in Religion and Politics 1603-1642, ed. Richard Cust and Ann Hughes (New York, 1989), pp. 73-4.

[f221]

James I, Daemonologie, in Forme of a Dialogue (Edinburgh, 1597) RSTC 14364, p. 55.

[f222]

Lake, 'Anti-popery', pp. 73-4.

[f223]

A and M (1563), pp. 183-4.

[f224]

A and M (1570), p. 706.

[f225]

A and M (1570), p. 2097.

[f226]

A and M (1570), p. 2101. An unexpurgated version of Careless 's examination was published in A and M (1563), pp. 1529-34.

[f227]

A and M (1570), p. 354.

[f228]

A and M (1570), p. 302.

[f229]

A and M (1570), p. 313.

[f230]

See G. Wylie Sypher, '"Faisant ce qu'il leur vient a plasir"; The Image of Protestantism in French Catholic Polemic on the Eve of the Religious Wars' SCJ 11 (1980), pp. 69 and 71-2.

[f231]

A and M (1570), p. 1440.

[f232]

John Jewel, for example, used this polemical tactic. See The Works of John Jewel, ed. John Ayre Parker Society (4 vols., Cambridge, 845-50), III. pp. 71-3.

[f233]

Once again, Foxe had precedents for this; in Lutheran propaganda the Pope had been 'identified as Antichrist largely by the antithesis of his life to that of Christ' (Robert Scribner, For the Sake of Simple Folk [Cambridge, 1981], pp. 155-7). George Downame gave an ingenious twist to the argument when, after reciting a series of papal scandals, he declared that such stories were not told of the popes in the first six centuries of the Christian era, but were commonplace during the later centuries. Downame argued that this demonstrated the progressive corruption of the papacy which had taken place. See George Downame, A Treatise concerning Antichrist (London, 1603) TC 7120, p. 95.

[f234]

A and M (1563), p. 183.

[f235]

See, for example, Thomas Harding, A Confutation of a Book intituled amn Apologie of the church of England (Antwerp, 1565) RSTC 12762, fols. 188r-v and 340r; Stapleton, Counterblast, fols. 267v, 276v, 280r and 288v; Parsons, Three Conversions, I. pp. 388-90.

[f236]

See Bale, Catalogus, pp. 142-3 and Appendix B under Sylvester II (999-1003).

[f237]

A and M (1563), p. 11.

[f238]

Cf. A and M (1570), p. 252 with Flacius, CTV, p. 385.

[f239]

A and M (1570), p. 820. Felix was that rara avis in the Actes and Monuments, a virtuous pope, largely because he was the candidate of the conciliarists at the council of Basle.

[f240]

A and M (1563), p. 417; cf. Rerum, p. 136.

[f241]

See Appendix B under Alexander VI (1492-1503), also see Bale, Catalogus, p. 605.

[f242]

Cf. A and M (1570), pp. 207-8 with Bale, Catalogus, p. 131.

[f243]

Cf. A and M (1563), pp. 1117-8 with Bale, Catalogus, pp. 681-2.

[f244]

See Bauckham, Tudor Apocalypse, p. 21 and Bale, Votaryes, I. sig. C6v.

[f245]

See A and M (1570), p. 155.

[f246]

Catalogus pp. 333.4, 373, 626 and 643.

[f247]

Catalogus, pp. 663-4.

[f248]

See A and M (1570), p. 860 and Bale, Catalogus, pp. 624-5.

[f249]

A and M (1570), pp. 3-4.

[f250]

See the examples discussed in notes 159-62 above.

[f251]

A and M (1570), p. 983.

[f252]

For Luther's emphasis on papal encroachment of secular jurisdiction see Headley, Luther's View, pp. 203-6.

[f253]

After describing Archbishop John Stratford's opposition to Edward III's imposition of taxes to finance his campaign in France. Foxe speculated that the Archbishop was acting at the pope's behest, claiming that this was the 'olde practice of prelates' (A and M [1570], p. 477), a phrase which invoked the title of Tyndale's major historical work. Also see note 64 above.

[f254]

This statement is found in Simeon Foxe's biographical sketch of his father, which prefaced the second volume of the 1641 edition of the Actes and Monuments. (See A and M [1641] II. sig. B5r-v).

[f255]

See Appendix B under Boniface VIII (1294-1303) and note 79 above.

[f256]

For the often alleged connections between Lollardy and civil dissension, see Margaret Aston, 'Lollardy and sedition, 1381-1431' in Lollards and Reformers, pp. 4-6 and 19. In the wake of Wyatt's rebellion, Marian controversialists rang incessant changes upon this theme (e.g., John Christopherson, An exhortation to all menne to take hede and beware of rebellion [London, 1554] RSTC 5207, sigs. Aalr-v, Bb4v-Cc4r, Cc6v-Cc8r and R4v or Miles Hogarde, The displaying of the protestantes (London, 1556) RSTC 13557, fols. 101v-103v).

[f257]

For Bale see Fairfield, 'John Bale', p. 153 n.l; for Foxe see Freeman and Borges, '"Grave and heinous incident"', pp. 7-8.

[f258]

A and M (1570), p. 1440.

[f259]

Ibid, p. 1440.

[f260]

Jewel also listed papal 'crimes' against secular rulers to counter arguments that Protestantism fostered rebellion (Jewel, Works III. pp. 75-6).

[f261]

Scribner, Simple Folk, pp. 158-61.

[f262]

Tyndale, Expositions and Notes, p. 267.

[f263]

See A and M (1563), pp. 12-3 for a good example of Foxe making this point.

[f264]

Tyndale, Expositions and Notes, p. 294.

[f265]

A and M (1570), pp. 10-24.

[f266]

A and M (1641), II. sig. B5v.

[f267]

A and M (1570), pp. 35-41.

[f268]

Rerum, pp. 251-2.

[f269]

John Foxe, The pope confuted, trans. James Bell (London, 1580) RSTC 11241, fol. 16r-v.

[f270]

A and M (1570), p. 440.

[f271]

Lambeth Palace Library MS 2019, fols. 1r-2r.

[f272]

See Tom Betteridge '"The reformation of the church in this parliament": Thomas Norton, John Foxe and the Parliament of 1571' in Parliamentary History.

[f273]

William Ames, A fresh suit against human ceremonies in Gods worship (Amsterdam, 1633) RSTC 555, section I, pp. 17-18. Ames also cited a number of Foxe's martyrs as examples of godly opposition to vestments (ibid, sect.I, pp. 10-12 and sect. II, p. 467).

[f274]

WA 7, p. 747 and 44, p. 676; also see Headley, Luther's View, pp. 185-6. The legacy of Luther's thought in the matter can be seen in William Bradshaw's refusal to acknowledge the authority of even patristic writers when they were cited to support ceremonies. (See Peter Lake, Moderate Puritans and the Elizabethan Church [Cambridge, 1982], p. 267).

[f275]

Bale, Votaryes, I. fols. 1v-2r.

[f276]

John Bale, The first examinacyon of Anne Askewe ... with the of J. Bale (Wesel, 1546) RSTC 848, sigs. A6v-A7r; Bale, Votaryes, fol. 11r-v.

[f277]

Bale, Votaryes, I. fol. 12r-v.

[f278]

Glyn J. R. Parry, A Protestant Vision; William Harrison and the Reformation of Elizabethan England (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 20, 147-9, 174-5 and 185-90. For the influence of Bale on Harrison's thought see ibid, pp. 46-54.

[f279]

Polydore Vergil, De rerum inventoribus (Basle, 1536), pp. 298, 322, 344-5 and 448. It is important to realize, however, that while Bale and other Protestants viewed this supposed ancestory of Catholic ceremonies as proof that they were corrupt, Vergil viewed it as the legitimate adaption of old customs to the service of true religion. As Vergil stated: "Cum igitur multa ab Hebraeos, et non pauca ab Romania caeterisque, ethnicis ad nos instituta manaverint, poscit locus, et apposite ea perinde memoremus, quae ab illis simus mutuati, cum praesertim, meliora fecerimus, meliorique usui adhibuerimus' (ibid, p. 342). For further discussion of De reruro inventoribus see Denys Hay, Polydore Vergil: Renaissance historian and man of letters (Oxford, 1952), pp. 52-78.

[f280]

Select Works of John Bale, ed. Henry Christmas, Parker Society (Cambridge, 1849), p. 8.

[f281]

Cf. Bale, Catalogus, pp. 35 and 62 with Vergil, De rerum inventoribus, p. 361.

[f282]

John Bale, Yet a course at the romyshe foxe (Antwerp, 1548) RSTC 1309, fol. 5r.

[f283]

Cf. Bale, Catalogus, p. 238 and Cisner, De Frederico II, pp. 183-4.

[f284]

Flacius, CTV (1556), sigs. A1v-A2v. For Flacius's anti-adiaphoric arguments see Bericht M. Fla. Illyrici, von etlichen Artikeln der Christlichen Lehr ... und ... wider die falschen Geticht der Adiaphoristen (Magdeburg?, 1559) and especially his Liber de veris et falsis adiaphoris, (Magdeburg, 1549).

[f285]

Polydore Vergil, Zwei Capitel Polydorii Vergilii von Namen und Stifften der Press, ed. and trans. Matthias Flacius (Magdeburg, 1550).

[f286]

See De adiaphoristic corruptelis (Magdeburg, 1559), a joint work by Wigand and Judex and also the introduction to the second century of the Magdeburg Centuries.

[f287]

Robert Cotton, Cottoni posthuma (London, 1651), p. 146.

[f288]

Select Works of John Bale, pp. 496-7.

[f289]

William Charke, An answere to a seditious pamphlet lately cast abroade by a jesuite ... (London, 1580) RSTC 5005, sig. B8r.

[f290]

Certaine sermons or homilies ... (2 vols., London, 1623) RSTC 13659, II. p. 49.

[f291]

Ibid, p. 61.

[f292]

Downame, Treatise, I. pp. 92-101. For the episode to which Downame was referring see Appendix B under Sixtus IV (1471-84).

[f293]

For example, see William Tyndale, An Answer to Sir Thomas More's Dialogue, ed. Henry Walter, Parker Society (Cambridge, 1850), p. 40 or Simon Fish, A supplicacyon for the beggers (Antwerp?, 1529?) RSTC 10883, passim.

[f294]

Select Works of John Bale, pp. 259-60.

[f295]

Quoted in Hill, Antichrist, p. 47.

[f296]

A and M (1641) II., sig. B5r.

[f297]

See Appendix B under Boniface VIII (1294-1303), Clement VI (1342-52), Urban VI (1378-89), Boniface IX (1389-1404), Alexander V (1409-10) and Nicholas V (1447-55).

[f298]

A and M (1570), p. 658.

[f299]

See Appendix B under Nicholas V (1447-55).

[f300]

A and M (1563), p. 388.

[f301]

See Appendix B under Sixtus IV (1471-84).

[f302]

Thomas Taylor, Christs Victorie over the Dragon (London, 1633) RSTC 23823, p. 573.

[f303]

A and M (1570), p. 1049.

[f304]

See Frances Hastings, An Apologie or defence of the Watch-word against the Ward-word (London, 1600) RSTC 12928, pp. 32, 44-5, 60, 62 and 83 for citations of Foxe. Incidents of papal history taken from the Actes and Monuments without acknowledgement are found in Apologie,, pp. 22-3, 67-8, 71-2, 101-2 and 185-9.

[f305]

Technically, Bale's Acta Romanorum pontificum was translated into English by John Studley in 1574. But this work was far from a faithful translation of Bale's text. Among other things, Studley added excerpts from the Actes and Monuments to Bale's text. For examples of items in the Actes and Monuments reprinted in Studley's translation (none of which were in either Bale's Catalogus or Acta) compare John Bale, The Pageant of Popes, trans. John Studley (London, 1574) RSTC 1304, fols. 31r-v, 104v-105r, 118r and 164v with A and M (1570), pp. 317, 411, 460 and 841-2.

[f306]

Matthew Sutcliffe, An abridgement or survey of Poperie (London, 1606) RSTC 23448, pp. 210, 288-91, 303 and 316-7 and Matthew Sutcliffe, The subversion of Robert Parsons (London, 1606) RSTC 23469, pp. 60-2. Also see Downame, Treatise, part I. pp. 37-41, 58-60, 67, 80, 87-92 and 133 as well as part II. p. 103.

[f307]

See Firth, Apocalyptic Tradition, p. 233.

[f308]

Thomas Beard, Antichrist the pope of Rome (London, 1625) RSTC 1657, p. 118.

[f309]

Ibid, pp. 10-36 and 418-24.

[f310]

Downame. Treatise, sig. A2v. For other English writers making essentially the same point see Anthony Milton, Catholic and Reformed; The Roman and Protestant Churches in English Protestant Thought 1600-1640 (Cambridge, 1995), p. 98.

[f311]

Thomas Brightman, 'The Revelation of St John Illustrated' in The Workes of ... Tho. Brightman (London, 1644) RSTC (Wing) 4679, p. 611.

[f312]

See Malcolm R. Thorp, 'Catholic Conspiracy in Early Elizabethan Foreign Policy' SCJ 15 (1984), pp. 431-8; Peter Lake, 'Constitutional concensus and puritan opposition in the 1620s: Thomas Scott and the Spanish Match' HJ 25 (1982), pp. 805-25 and Thomas Cogswell, 'England and the Spanish Match' in Conflict in Early Stuart England, pp. 107-33.

[f313]

See John Morrill, 'The Religious Context of the English Civil War' Transactions of the Royal Historical Society Fifth series 34 (1984), pp. 155-78, especially 171-4, Anthony Fletcher, The Outbreak of the English Civil War (New York, 1981), pp. 408-16 and Caroline Hibbard, Charles I and the Popish Plot (Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1983), pp. 227-38.

[f314]

A and M (1570), p. 768.

[f315]

For Foxe's views on bishops and ecclesiastical hierarchy see V. Norskov Olsen, John Foxe and the Elizabethan Church (Berkeley, 1973), pp. 152-8.

[f316]

Cf. Henry Denne, The Doctrine and Conversation of John Baptist (London, 1634) RSTC (Wing) 1019, pp. 28-9 with A and M (1570), p. 404 and Flacius, CTV, pp. 490-1.

[f317]

Francis Godwin, A catalogue of the bishops of England (London, 1601) RSTC 11937, sig. A3r-v.

[f318]

Parry, Protestant Vision, p. 191.

[f319]

Ibid, pp. 189-92.

[f320]

See Andrew Foster, 'The Clerical Estate Revitalised' in The Early Stuart Church, 1603-42, ed. Kenneth Fincham (Stanford, California, 1993), pp. 139-60.

[f321]

See, for example, Thomas Stapleton, A Fortresse of the Faith (Antwerp, 1565) RSTC 23232, passim, but especially fols. 68v-69v.

[f322]

Milton, Catholic and Reformed, pp. 329-30.

[f323]

Ibid, pp. 461-6 and 492-3.

[f324]

A and M (1563), p. 87; cf. Commentarii, fol. 8r Rerum, p. 4.

[f325]

Foxe, Pope confuted, fol. 35r-v (my emphasis).

[f326]

Cf. A and M (1570) with Bede's Ecclesiastical History, p. 86. This precedent could have been quite useful if it had been applied the validity of Parker's consecration as archbishop, as the lack of prelates attending became a Catholic argument against its validity and consequently the validity of his successors.

[f327]

For examples of writers using the legend of Pope Joan see Joannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia (Brunswick, 1868) VII. p. 33; Thomas Bell, The survey of popery (London, 1596) RSTC 1829, pp. 190-3 and Matthew Sutcliffe, Subversion, pp. 68-64 [recte 74]. Robert Parsons, who devoted sixteen pages to refuting Foxe's account of Pope Joan, did so, as he admitted, to defend the Petrine Succession (Parsons, Three Conversions I. pp. 388-404). In the Pope confuted (but not the Actes and Monuments), Foxe briefly made the point that Joan's installation as pope invalidated the papal succession, but he only made it in passing (Foxe, Pope confuted, fol. 40r).

[f328]

See Jewel, Works III. pp. 75ff., 627ff. and 671ff. as well as Frances Yates, Astrea, The Imperial Theme in the Sixteenth Century (London, 1975), pp. 39-42.

[f329]

Peter Lake, "The Laudians and the Argument from Authority' in Court, Country and Culture; Essays on Early Modern British History in Honor of Perez Zagorin (Rochester, New York, 1992), p. 153. Also see Kevin Sharpe, 'Archbishop Laud' History Today (1983), p. 28; Peter Lake, 'The Laudian Style: Order, Uniformity and the Pursuit of the Beauty of Holiness in the 1630s' in The Early Stuart Church, p. 166 and Foster, 'Church Politics in the 1630s', p. 216.

[f330]

The Works of ... William Laud (7 vols., Oxford, 1847-60) II. p. xvi.

[f331]

John Whitgift, The Defence of the Aunswere to the admonition (London, 1574) RSTC 25430, p. 474.

[f332]

Robin Clifton, 'The Popular Fear of Catholics during the English Revolution' Past and Present 52 (1971), p. 36.

[f333]

Cf. A and M (1563), p. 12 with Flacius, CTV, p. 200.

[f334]

See Appendix A under Victor I (189-98).

[f335]

A and M (1570), p. 44.

[f336]

Milton, Catholic and Reformed, p. 157.

[f337]

Foxe, Pope confuted, fol. 35r and Peter Lake, Moderate Puritans and the Elizabethan Church (Cambridge, 1982), p. 106.

[f338]

Milton, Catholic and Reformed, pp. 319-20; also see Peter Lake, 'Calvinism and the English Church 1570-1635' Past and Present 114 (1987), pp. 74-5.

[f339]

See The Works of ... John Cosin, ed. J. Sansom (5 vols., Oxford, 1843-55) II. pp. 61-2.

[f340]

See Catherine Davies, "'Poor Persecuted Little Flock" or "Commonwealth of Christians": Edwardian Protestants Concepts of the Church' in Protestantism and the National Church in Sixteenth Century England, ed. Peter Lake and Maria Dowling (Beckenham, Kent, 1987), pp. 78-102.

[f341]

Jane Facey, 'John Foxe and the Defence of the English Church' in Protestantism and the National Church, pp. 172-4 and 183-5.

[f342]

The story first appeared in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle and in the Life of King Alfred attributed to Asser. It was reprinted in a number of sources Foxe used (e.g., Roger of Howden, Roger of Wendover, Matthew Paris and the Flores Historiarum). Since Foxe did not cite a source it is impossible to be definate but William of Malmesbury's version of the story is the closest to Foxe's version in content and wording.

[f343]

The account of this pope has no references and is so brief that it would seem impossible to be certain about the source. But much of the wording of Foxe's account follows Bale closely, particularly the comment that Benedict succeeded Joan in the whorish see which is a direct translation from Bale.

[f344]

Foxe cited Liutprand of Cremona as his source, but the citation, 'There is a story called Liuthprandus', would suggest that Foxe had scant familiarity, if any at all, with Liutprand's writings. Moreover, Foxe's reference to Liutprand's De imperatoribus 2, cap. 13 simply repeats Bale's reference for the same material.

[f345]

Although Foxe and Bale place these events in the pontificate of Benedict VII, they took place under John XV.

[f346]

Bale correctly stated that before Leo became pope he was 'episcopus Tullensis' (i.e., bishop of Toul). This was misread by Foxe, who wrote that Leo had been bishop of 'Cullen' or Cologne.

[f347]

A mistake Foxe made here illustrates his dependence on the Catalogus. Bale described Berenger, who was archdeacon of Anjou, as 'Berengarius Andegavensis archidiaconus'; in the Actes and Monuments, Berenger was called 'Berengarius Andegavensis an Archdeacon'.

[f348]

Although the editors of the modern edition claim that these passages are in the CTV (J. Foxe,Actes and Monuments, ed. S. R. Cattley and G. Townsend [8 vols., London, 1843-9] II. p. 826), this is not true for the 1556 and 1562 editions of Flacius's book, the only editions Foxe could have consulted. (Cattley et al. cite the 1608 edition of the CTV, which was expanded considerably by Simon Goulart its editor). Foxe seems to have followed Flacius's references to Lambert's work and consulted it on his own.

[f349]

Although Foxe cited Burchard of Ursperg as his source for the synod of Brixen, his repetition of a reference to Henricus Mutius's his tory (a reference in Flacius's CTV but not in Burchard 's chronicle) proves that here Foxe was copying Flacius, who in turn was drawing on (and citing) Hedio's edition of Burchard's chronicle.

[f350]

Pace Cattley et al. who maintain that Foxe took this material from Flacius's CTV (Actes and Monuments [Cattley] II. p. 191 n. 1). Much of this material is in the CTV but a comparision of the respective texts shows that Foxe was following Bale's version.

[f351]

After p. 67, the pagination in the 1563 edition becames chaotic. To aid the reader in finding references both page and signature numbers are given.

[f352]

Because almost all of the material in the Vita et processu [Quadrilogus] is reprinted in the Actes and Monuments and because there is so much of it, I have not listed each item separately.

[f353]

There are many versions of this letter (including one in Paris, CM II. pp. 539-44 but Caxton's version corresponds most closely to the one in the Actes and Monuments.

[f354]

Pagination in the 1570 edition reverts to folios for folios 361r-372v.

[f355]

The version of this story from the Catalogus was first printed in A and M (1563), p. ()74 [sig. *I3*v].

[f356]

Much of this material is given by other sources - e.g., Walsingham, Guisborough and the Flores Historiarum - but Foxe follows Trivet's order and wording almost exactly.

[f357]

This is an exaggerated version of Pastoralis cura which claimed that the pope had the right to nominate imperial vicars when the imperial throne was vacant.

[f358]

The letter is not in Bale's Catalogus. Both the version in Foxe and Bale's Acta have first and last sentences which are not in Guisborough 's version. Also both Foxe and Bale cite a manuscript found at St Albans as their source. (There were a number of contemporary copies made of this letter, see Councils and Synods with other documents relating to the English Church, ed. F. M. Powicke and C. R. Cheney [2 vols., Oxford, 1964], II. part 2, p. 1232 n. 7 for a list of some of them). Apparently Bale found the manuscript of one of these copies and printed it without knowing of the circumstances in which it had been written. Guisborough 's chronicle gave Foxe the historical context of the letter, yet interestingly, Foxe preferred to follow Bale for the text of the letter.

[f359]

Much of this material is in Bale's Catalogus, but this is because he and Foxe both drew on Massarius's account. Foxe must have consulted Massarius, however, because he includes important material (e.g., the poisoning of the emperors) which is not in the Catalogus.

[f360]

Foxe stated that the narraive came 'Ex chron. Albanensi', which is his way of referring to the text now printed as the Chronicon Angliae. The Chronicon is not really a separate chronicle but rather the first portion of a great chronicle by Thomas Walsingham. This portion was removed from the original chronicle because its hostile references to John of Gaunt had become dangerous. (See The St Albans Chronicle 1406-20, ed. V. H. Galbraith [Oxford, 1937], p. xii). Although, for obvious reasons, the material in the Chronicon often echoed and duplicated material in the revised edition of Walsingham1s great chronicle, Foxe gave no indication of ever suspecting the common authorship of both works.

[f361]

See note 132 above.

[f362]

Foxe cited the portion of Walsingham's chronicle now printed as the Chronicon Angliae as his source for this material, but none of the surviving copies of the Chronicon cover events after 1388. There are two possible explanations for Foxe's citation. One of the two extant manuscripts of this work, BL Barley MS 3634, contained a continuation, transcribed in the sixteenth century from Walsingham's chronicle, down to the year 1422 (Chronicon Angliae, pp. xxv-xxvi). It is possible that Foxe was working from this manuscript and was quoting from the continuation. (The modern editor of the Chronicon argued that Foxe did not use the Harley manuscript because Parker did not use it for the edition of Walsingham's chronicle which he published in 1574. This argument assumes, however, that Parker knew that Walsingham was the author of the Chronicon - something Foxe did not know - and also that Parker would have tried to collate all relevant manuscripts in editing a text). It is also possible that Foxe confused his citations. In any case, whether he was quoting the continuation of Walsingham's chronicle or quoting from the chronicle directly, and citing the Chronicon by mistake, the fact remains that Foxe was unquestionably drawing on Walsingham's chronicle for this material.

[f363]

Again Foxe cited the Chronicon Angliae for a material from Walsingham's chronicle; see note 362 above.

[f364]

Once again, Foxe cited the Chronicon Angliae for a reference from Walsingham's chronicle; see note 362 above.

[f365]

Foxe stated that he took the letter 'Ex Orth. Grat.' but this is an error, the letter is not in Gratius's Fasciculus.

[f366]

All but one of these 'sentences' is in Platina. The exception, which states that many priests were damned, who might have been saved if they had been allowed to marry, is not in Platina, but it is in Flacius's CTV. Another 'sentence' critical of mandatory clerical celibacy is to be found in both authors. The other 'sentences' are in Platina, but not Flacius.

[f367]

I have tried throughout this appendix to list the writings of individual popes which were printed in the Actes and Monuments, but in Pius's case I have made an exception to this. The reason is that as the author of the Bohemica historia, Pius was Foxe's major source for the Hussite wars and the history of the Holy Roman Empire in the latter fifteenth century. To list all of this material would be to expand an already bloated appendix still further. I have therefore listed only those works of Pius' which deal with individual popes, most notably his commentaries on the Council of Basle.

[f368]

In all subsequent editions of the Actes and Monuments, only the English translations of the bull were printed.

[f369]

Again, only the English translation was printed in subsequent editions.

[f370]

Paulo Giovio, Foxe's source, interpreted the incident as a sign of divine displeasure at Adrian VI's refusal to send aid to the garrison at Rhodes.

Find:
Type a keyword and then restrict it to a particular edition using the dropdown menu. You can search for single words or phrases. When searching for single words, the search engine automatically imposes a wildcard at the end of the keyword in order to retrieve both whole and part words. For example, a search for "queen" will retrieve "queen", "queene" and "queenes" etc.
in:  
Humanities Research Institute  *  HRI Online  *  Feedback
Version 2.0 © 2011 The University of Sheffield