and after lyke oration, had Tuisday appointed him to answere in the scholes to these articles: But he alleging that he had bene long kept frō bokes, his studie, and notes, that he had drawē & gathered together, saide that the tyme was to shorte, being of so weightye matters. He hadde also the copy of the Articles and bookes offered him.
Foxe relied entirely on the first informant's account for Ridley's interview with Weston on 14 April (see textual variant 41). The first informant's account was far more detailed about this exchange and, in particular, did justice to Ridley's acerbic wit in answering Weston.
Laste of all, came in maister Latimer in like sort, with a kerchief, and two or thre cappes on his head, his spectacles hanging by a string at his breast, and a staffe in his hand, and was set in a chayre: for so was he suffered by the Prolocutor. And when he had Wednisday appointed for disputation, he alleged age, sickenesse, disuse, and lacke of bookes. He sayde he was permitted to haue neyther penne, nor ynk, nor paper, nor yet any booke, but his newe Testament, whiche he had in his hande, sayinge that he had deliberately redde ouer that. vii. tymes, and coulde not find the Masse, nor yet the marye bones, nor sinewes of the same: and those termes were verye haynouslye taken of the Commyssioners, and foorthwith they put him to sylence, so that where he was desirous to tell what he ment by those termes, he coulde not bee suffered. There was a verye greate prease and throng of people: and one of the Bedels swounded by reason therof, & was caryed into the vestry. After this, bringing home the Prolocutor first, the Cambridge men, videlicet Doctor Yong vicechauncellor, Seaton, Glin, Atkinson, Scot, Watson, Sedgewick, wente to the crosse Inne to supper.
For the account of Latimer's interview with Weston on 14 April, Foxe interwove elements from the accounts of both informants. The vivid description of Latimer's appearance was taken from the second informant (textual transposition 11), while the equivalent passages in the first account, which described Latimer as feeble, aged and speaking in a low voice, were omitted (textual variant 42). Foxe then added a phrase, in neither informant's account, to the 1570 edition, making it clear that Latimer denied the three articles which were to be disputed (textual variant 43). Foxe then briefly followed the second informant's account of Latimer's interview (textual transposition 12) - this was in order to quote a sarcastic remark Latimer made to Weston - before returning to the first account (textual variant 43). (At this point, the two informants' accounts are admittedly almost identical; the belief that Foxe was following the first account is largely derived from textual variant 44. Foxe returned to the second informant's account for the conclusion of Latimer's interview (see textual transposition 13 and textual variant 45). Foxe also added a sentence, in the 1570 edition, clarifying the date (textual variant 46).[Back to Top]
MarginaliaApryl. 15On Sonday maister Harpsfield preached at sainct Maries the Vniuersity churche, at. ix. of the clocke, where diuers of the Doctors of both vniuersities had their copes, and were placed accordingly. After sermon they went all to dyner to Magdalene Colledge, and there hadde a great diner, the byble being red at a deske in þe myddle of the Hall by a scholer, with a verye loude voyce, grace after diner lykewyse sayde, with an antempe in pricksōg. They supped at Lincolne college with the Prolocutor: and D. Cranmer sent aunswere of his mynde vppon the articles, in writyng.[Back to Top]
On mondaye (beyng the. 16. of Apryll) mayster Say, and mayster Whyte Notaries, went aboute this mornyng to colledges, to get subscriptions to the articles. And at. viii. or soone after, the Prolocutor with all the Doctors wēt to Exceter colledge, besyde the scholes, and there taryed in the Garden a quarter of an hower, for the Vicechauncellour: and then they wente into the scholes: and so, when the Vycechauncellour, the Prolocutor and Doctours were placed, and foure appoynted to bee Exceptores argumentorum, sette a Table in the myddeste, and foure Notaryes sittynge with them, Doctour Cranmer came to the[Back to Top]
Aunswerers place, the Mayor and Aldermen syttynge by hym, and so the dysputation beganne, sette a worke by the Prolocutor with a verye shorte Præludium. Doctour Chedsey beganne to argue fyrste: And, or he lefte, the Prolocutour dyuers tymes, Doctour Tresham, Oglethorpe, Marshall Vicechauncellour, Pye, Cole, and Harpsfielde, dyd interrupte with theyr argumentes, so that euerye manne sayde somewhat, as the Prolocutour would suffer. disorderly, sometime in Latin, sometyme in Englishe, so that thre howers of the tyme was spente, or the Vicechauncellour of Cambridge beganne: and Doctour Scotte coulde not bee sufferrd to dispute. The Vycechauncellour of Cambridge also was interrupted as before. He beganne wyth three or foure questions suttely. Here the Bedels had prouided drynke, and offered the Aunswerer: but he refused wyth thankes. The Prolocutour offered hym, yf he woulde make water or otherwyse ease hymselfe, he shoulde. Thus the disputation contynued vntyll almost two of the clocke, with this applausion audientium, vicit veritas. Then were all the argumentes (wrytten by the foure appoynted,) delyuered into the hande of mayster Saye, Register. And as for the prisoner, he was hadde a waye by the Mayor: And the Doctours dyned together at the vniuersitie colledge.
Foxe returned to the second account for the events of 15 April and the morning of 16 April (see textual transposition 14 and textual transposition 15), making two deletions from this account. The first (textual variant 47), seems to have been made to conceal the fact that the catholic disputants in the debate listened to the Bible being read to them during dinner; the second (textual variant 48), probably to eliminate what even Foxe considered to be irrelevant detail. Much of the remaining relatively short narration of the Oxford disputation in the first informant's account was omitted (textual variant 49), as Foxe had, even in the edition of 1563, much more detailed accounts of the remaining disputations.[Back to Top]
And thus muche concernynge the generall order and maner of these dysputations, wyth suche circumstances as there happened, and thynges there doone, as well before the dysputations, and in the preparation thereof, as also in the tyme of theyr dysputyng. Now foloweth to inferre and declare the orations, argumentes, and aunswers, vsed and broughte forth in the sayd disputations on both partes.[Back to Top]
All three of the disputations had been described in the Rerum. Yet it is indicative of the enormous importance which Foxe attached to the disputations that even before he returned to England, he had tried to obtain further information on them. In the first half of 1559, Foxe wrote to Francis Russell, the Earl of Bedford, stating that he had heard that the earl possessed a record of the disputations and asking the earl to send a copy to him at Basel, 'since by these collected copies a more certain, trustworthy narrative of the event may be produced' (BL Harley MS 417, fol. 120r). On his return to England, Foxe continued to pursue additional records of the disputation. In late 1562 or early 1563, Foxe wrote to Bishop Grindal, stating that he had just discovered in Bonner's records that an official account of the disputations, with the seal of Oxford University and the subscriptions of the notaries, was exhibited in Convocation. Foxe requested Grindal's help in obtaining this record (BL Additional MS 19400, fol. 97r). This official account survives (BL Harley MS 3642); it is almost certain that Foxe did consult it and it could usefully be compared with Foxe's text.[Back to Top]
Each account of each of three disputations was based on different sources. Since Foxe stated, regarding his account of Cranmer's disputation, that he 'receyved it out of the Notaries booke' (1570, p. 1599; 1576, p. 1364; 1583, p. 1435), his account was based on one of the five notarial copies of the disputation. Judging by the account's favourable tone to Cranmer (e.g., its characterisation of Cranmer's 'mild voice' and the criticism of Weston for inciting the 'rude people' to heckle and boo Cranmer on 1563, p. 946; 1570, p. 1598; 1576, p. 1346; 1583, p. 1434), it was probably the account written by one of the two protestant notaries, John Jewel or Gilbert Mounson.[Back to Top]
It is noteworthy that the passages cited above are not in the Rerum version of Cranmer's disputation (Rerum, pp. 640-68). During their exile, Grindal had written to Foxe stating that he had obtained a copy of Cranmer's account of his disputation written in the archbishop's own hand, as well as a notary's account of the disputation (BL Harley, 417, vol 119r). The Rerum account of Cranmer's disputation is apparently based on a notary's account, since Foxe stated that it came 'ex ipso notoriarum archetypo' (Rerum, p. 659); presumably this was the notary's account which Grindal had acquired. (Strangely, Foxe does not seem to have had access in the Rerum to the account Cranmer had written). The Rerum account of Cranmer's disputation is not only somewhat briefer than the 1563 version, it has some odd gaps throughout. The most likely explanation is that Foxe started with a notary's account in the Rerum (and his getting such an account at that period, probably from Grindal, also suggests that it was one of the protestant versions) and had nothing beyond this single source for Cranmer's disputation. In the 1563 edition, a number of different accounts of Cranmer's disputation appear to have been collated. (This is also indicated by Foxe's printing an alternative version of one of Chedsey's arguments which he declared he found 'in some other copies' [1563, p. 943; 1570, p. 1596; 1576, p. 1362; 1583, p. 1432; this alternate argument is not in the Rerum]). What is particularly significant, however, is that Foxe did not translate the Rerum account of Cranmer's disputation but replaced it with a new account. (There is a portion of Cranmer's disputation in Foxe's papers [BL Harley MS 422, fols. 44r-45v], as well as two independent versions of Cranmer's disputation, one in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge MS 340, and one in CUL MS Kk.5. 14).[Back to Top]
This section is fairly representative of the rest of the disputations in its marginalia. Many of the glosses mark points of conflict and arguments, often with forms of textual privileging present in the 1563 edition which later became glosses (e.g. 'The contents of Cranmers explication geuen vp in writing', 'Argument', 'Aunswere', and 'D. Smith purposing to write for the mariage of Priestes'). From 1570 onwards 'Articles' appears in the margin in several places, with the numbers of the articles incorporated in the text; in 1563 the numbers are in the margin. The later method offers a clearer guide for a reader seeking the scholastic bones of the debate.[Back to Top]
All texts use alternative fonts for the articles ('Articles', '1', and 'Argument'). In several places the editions from 1570 onwards use glosses where the 1563 edition indents the corresponding piece of text (e.g. 'How Christ is really present'; 'Argument') or uses a different font (e.g. '1. Cor. 11'; 'Iohn. 1.'). The glosses provide more explicit signposting.[Back to Top]
Logical points and objections to Cranmer's interlocutors abound (e.g. 'D. Westons argument denyed: we eate the true body of Christ: Ergo we eate it with our mouth' and the next gloss, 'An other false argumēt wherein the 3. figure the Minor is a negatiue', 'The argument of Chedsey is not formall', and '* The forme of this argument which he repeateth, stood better before: for the fourme of this connexion answereth to none of the three figures of Sillogismes'), including one gloss which implicitly criticizes Cranmer himself for missing a logical error of his opponent ('Doct. Cranmer might haue foūd fault with this argument as well as with his latin being made in no moode or figure'). There are also several definitions of school terms present in all editions (e.g. 'Organicall is called that which is a perfect body, hauing all the members and partes complete belonging vnto the same' and 'Disparata, is a Schoole terme, meaning diuers substances being so sondred in nature, that one can neuer be sayd to be the other'). Along with logical points there are some (though fewer) grammatical criticisms of the interlocutors ('D. Weston speaketh truer then he wisse', 'D. Oglethorp breaketh Priscians head & speaketh false latin'). Perhaps to be linked to these are glosses which emphasize the rhetorical and figurative nature of scriptural discourse ('How the doctours doe take the speach of Christ. Tropical. Figuratiue. Anagogicall. Allegoricall', 'Tropes may be vsed in mens testaments, why not?'): on one level, these simply show the greater intellectual sophistication of Cranmer and his brand of humanist analysis, but at another level they also connect with the central matter at hand: the sacrament, and what is meant by the real presence. Many of the glosses are concerned with this issue. While Cranmer seems to have been paying close attention to the specific questions of scriptural and patristic interpretation under discussion, Foxe's glosses often lead things back to a wider perspective and the fundamental opposition between protestant and catholic views of the sacrament.[Back to Top]
Foxe distinguishes the protestant emphasis on the mystery of the sacrament and its proper reception ('What is meant by eating the misticall bread') from the more grossly physical catholic version: hence his gloss in response to Weston's point that we receive Christ's body by the mouth, 'A grosse saying'; see also 'The argument of Chedsey is not formall' 'God cannot be touched'). Two lengthy glosses are concerned with what 'naturally' might have to do with all this. The first ('* The Papistes by this one word [naturally] confound themselues ... Wherefore it remayneth that the naturall vniting to Christes body commeth not by the bodely eating of the Sacrament vnto our body, but to our soule, & so shall redounde at length vnto our bodyes') again criticises the papists for imagining that we eat Christ's body in a physical sense in the sacrament, as this would imply that perfection was conveyed to our sinful selves in the sacrament (which helps to show a connection between sacramental theology and the question of justification), while the second ('* Christ not after his manhod but after his diuine nature liueth naturally by his father ... and so onely the bodyes of the faythfull doe lyue by eating the bodye of Christe naturally, in particypatyng the naturall propertyes of the bodye of Christe') makes the point that only the faithful live by the sacrament, rather than anyone who receives it: a pastoral distinction of fundamental significance. The distinction created between a protestant reliance on faith and a spiritual understanding of the sacrament and a debased, gross catholic eating obviously has a polemical utility and should be connected to the many logical objections to papist arguments as part of a concerted effort to show the Romish rule of appetite over reason. Along with these insinuations, there are some more direct attacks in the margins as in the glosses 'Westō falsifieth the wordes of Chrysostome' and 'Vnreuerend wordes vsed in the Schoole agaynst Doctor Cranmer'. Several glosses show the relative failings of the 1583 edition in the accuracy of its references and the positioning of its glosses ('Easy. 53' and two glosses following, 'Heb. 9', 'Heb. 17', '* Alloiosis rerū & symbolorū').[Back to Top]