[View a larger version]

Commentary on the Woodcuts    Close

In conjoining two adjacent reports in the text, this woodcut appears (unusually) to misrepresent Foxe's account, by showing prisoners from two different prisons confined in one place. In 1570 Foxe changed his first report of the prisoners' locations, but the story still involved two prisons. The three men shown seated in the stocks (finally identifed as Thomas Leyes, John Wade and George King), part of the group of ten accused, some of whom featured in the illustration a few pages earlier, were indeed reported as awaiting trial by Bonner in the Lollards' Tower (the southern of the two western towers of old St Paul's Cathedral). There they became so ill that they were confined to houses in the city where they died. William Andrewe however, an Essex carpenter who had been sent up to the council by Sir Richard Rich, was imprisoned in Newgate after examination by Bonner. Depicted here collapsed on the straw, seemingly as broken as the pitcher beside him (his condition attributed in the text to 'straite handlynge' in prison) he died m Newgate. The author's verification of his stories is reflected in the changes of the prisoners' names. In 1563, the central figure in the stocks was labelled 'Ri. Smith', but in 1570 and thereafter, probably because of doubts about his reported death in prison, Smith was replaced by the correct name of John Wade. George King was named Thomas in 1563, corrected to George in 1570. The typeface label for Andrewe, originally set upside down as 'Androws' (1563) and then 'Andrew' (1570), was only placed the right way up in the block in 1583. This illustration therefore shows the endeavour to provide accuracy, as reflected in the changes to the names, combined with the pictorial licence of representing in one prison individuals who were incarcerated in different places. However, the latter procedure may be seen as analogous to the temporal elisions that appear elsewhere (with separate episodes of one narrative being set in a single picture frame), itself an old and accepted device of pictorial narrative. A comparable picture of prison stocks appears in the scene of 'Maister Philpots beyng in the Colehouse'.

The martirdom of Thomas Coo of Melford in Suffolke, first examined before the Byshop of Norwich, and by hym condempned. Anno. 1555. 

Commentary    Close

The Martyrdom of Roger Coo

In the Rerum, Foxe simply stated that 'Thomas' Coo was burned at Yoxford on 3 September 1555 (Rerum, p. 525; the month was correct, the date was not. His name was given as 'Thomas' in 1563 and Foxe seems to have confused him with Thomas Cobb. But in this edition Foxe did print what is either Coo's own account of his examination by Bishop Hopton of Norwich, or an account of it by a protestant sympathiser. In Foxe's papers are the sentence and accusations against Coo from Norwich official reords (BL, Harley 421, fos. 186v and 197r-198r. The sentence was the original document and not a copy). Foxe did not print these documents (once again we see Foxe's preference for personal narratives over archival sources for the trials of the martyrs) but they apparently gave him Roger Coo's true name which appears correctly in the 1570 edition. There were no further changes to this account in the 1576 and 1583 editions.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaThomas Coo.THe Bishop asked why he was imprisoned. Coo answered at the iustices commaundemente. The Byshopp saide that there was some cause whye. Coo saide here is my accuser, let him declare. And his accuser saide that he woulde not receiue the Sacrament. Then the Byshop said that he thought he had transgressed a lawe. But Coo answered þ^t there was no law to transgresse. The Byshop then asked what he said to the law that then was? Coo aunswered how he had bene in prison alonge time and knew it not. No said his accuser, nor wlt not: my Lord aske him when he receaued the Sacrament. When Coo harde him saye so, he said: I praye you my Lord, let him sitte downe, and examine me him selfe. But the Byshop woulde not heare that, but saide: Coo, why? wil ye not receiue? Coo aunswered him that the bishop of Rome had chaūged Gods ordidaunces, and giuen the people bread and wine, in the stede of the Gospel and the beliefe of the same. The Byshop saide howe proue you that? Coo answered that our sauiour saide, my flesh is meate in dede, & my bloud is drinke in dede: he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloude, abydeth in me and I

in him, and the breade and wine dothe not so. The Byshop then saide: well Coo, thou doest slaūder our holy fathers. Did not Christ take breade, giue thankes, and brake it & said, this is my body? Coo said yes, & so Coo wēt further with the texte, saying: which shal be giuen for you, thys do in the remēbraunce of me. The bishop said ye haue said the truth. Then Coo replied further & said: Christ willed to do this in the remembraunce of him, and not to say this in the remembraunce of him, neither dyd the holy ghost so lead the Apostels, but taught thē to giue thankes, and to break bread from house to house, & not to say as the Byshop said. The Bishop saide: how proue you that? Coo said: it is written in the seconde of the Actes: then the Bishops chapplaine said it was true. Coo saide: the byshop asked him if he coulde his beleife. And Coo answered yea, and so said part of the crede, and then after, he said, he beleued more. For he beleued the ten commaundementes, that it was mete for all suche as loke to be saued, to be obedient vnto them. The byshop saide, is not the holy church to be beleued also? Coo saide: yes if it be buylded vppon the woorde of God. The Byshop said to Coo that he had charge of his soule. Coo said: haue ye so my Lorde? then if ye go to the diuell for youre sins, wher shal I become? The Bishop said: do ye not beleue as your father did? Was not he