Bonner's order to his curates to report the names of all those who did not confess during Lent or receive the eucharist at Easter is printed from Bonner's register (cf. Guildhall MS 9531/12, fol. 341r with 1563, p. 923; 1570, p. 1585; 1576, pp. 1352-53; 1583, p. 1423). It is yet another example of Foxe's quarrying of the London episcopal registers before the publication of the 1563 edition. There is a curious discrepancy; Foxe gives the date of the document as 23 February in all his editions, but it is 24 February on the original document.

Queen Mary's articles to her bishops, instructing them how to deal with heresy, married clergy and re-establishing the ceremonies and practices of the Catholic church, and her accompanying letter to Bonner, are printed by Foxe from Bonner's register (cf. Guildhall MS 9531/12, fol. 342r-v with 1563, pp. 924-25; 1570, pp. 1585-86; 1576, pp. 1353-54; 1583, pp. 1423-24). Once again, Foxe misdated this document; the letter is dated 4 March but Foxe dates it 3 March.

Mary ordered that, where necessary, one curate should serve 'alternis vicibus' (1563, p. 925; 1570, p. 1586); in the 1576 edition this was misprinted as 'alienis vicibus' (1576, p. 1354), a mistake which was repeated in the 1583 edition (p. 1414). Once again, careless typography in the 1576 edition was uncorrected in that of 1583.

In the 1563 edition, Foxe printed an order which Bonner had issued for the repairing of churches; this was another document printed from Bonner's register (Guildhall MS 9531/12, fol. 345r). Curiously, Foxe never reprinted this order (textual variant 28); if this was deliberate, it is difficult to see the reason for it.

A passage following the order in the 1563 edition (1563, p. 926), which reads 'About the same yeare and time when Doct. Bonner set forth this prescript or monitory' was retained in subsequent editions (1570, p. 1587; 1576, p. 1354; 1583, p. 1425) even though the prescript itself had been deleted.

The mandate of the Lord Mayor to the aldermen of London to ensure that all householders kept their households in order during the Easter season was added to the 1570 edition (see textual variant 29). According to Susan Brigden, no copy of the mayor's order survives among the London municipal records (Susan Brigden, London and the Reformation [Oxford, 1989] p. 348 n 177). It is doubtful that Foxe transcribed the order from municipal records; in any case, they were a source he rarely exploited. Instead he probably printed a copy of the order which someone had retained from Mary's reign and sent to him.

The proclamation expelling foreigners from England appeared in every edition of the Actes and Monuments (1563, pp. 926-27; 1570, p. 1587; 1576, p. 1354; 1583, p. 1425). Foxe probably derived it from a version printed by John Cawood. (For surviving copies of the proclamation see Tudor Royal Proclamations, II, pp. 31-32).

Foxe's description of the diaspora of religious exiles from England was copied in the 1563 edition from Crowley's chronicle (cf. Crowley, Epitome, sig. Ffff3v with 1563, p. 927) (This was the last borrowing Foxe made from Crowley's chronicle in Book 10). Foxe added details to it in subsequent editions (see textual variant 30).

The identification of John Alasco (i.e., John a Lasco or, more properly, Jan Łaski) as the king of Poland's uncle is Crowley's mistake; Laski's nephew was the chancellor of Poland.

'Cleveland' is the duchy of Cleves.

Foxe added Emden to Crowley's list of places to which the exiles fled (cf. 1563, p. 927 with 1570, p. 1587; 1576, p. 1354; 1583, p. 1425). Crowley's failure to mention it is an indication of how isolated the Emden exiles were from their English brethren in Switzerland.

Two anecdotes follow, both centring around Sir Thomas White the Lord Mayor in 1554, and both concerning the alleged involvement of Elizabeth and of Edward Courtenay in Wyatt's rebellion. Although not named by Foxe as his source, White passes several acid tests that identify Foxe's informants: he is a witness to all the events recounted, he is a prominent figure in both anecdotes and he is consistently reported in a favourable light in both anecdotes. Both anecdotes first appear in the 1570 edition (see textual variant 31). White died in 1567.

Is the material Foxe obtained from White accurate? Wyatt had visited Courtenay before his execution, although what was said cannot be verified. Several sources reported that Wyatt had cleared Elizabeth and Courtenay on the scaffold, over the objections of Hugh Weston (J. G. Nichols, [ed.], The Chronicle of Queen Jane and of two years of Queen Mary, Camden Society Original Series 48, [London, 1850] pp. 72-74).

As for the story of the trial of 'one Cut' in Star Chamber, Richard Cutt, a grocer's apprentice, was placed in the pillory on 20 April 1554 for declaring that Wyatt had exonerated Elizabeth (City of London Record Office, Repertory 13, fol. 153r).

In the first edition, Foxe declared that Oxford had been forward in restoring the 'olde religion'. (1563, p. 927). In later editions, this was changed to 'popish religion' (1570, p. 1588; 1576, p. 1355; 1583, p. 1426), probably in an effort to avoid conceding the superior antiquity of catholicism.

Foxe added a passage in the 1570 edition that emphasised that the title of Supreme Head of the English Church had been used by Henry VIII and Edward VI (textual variant 32). The order summoning Convocation, of which Foxe prints a few lines in order to demonstrate Mary's abandoning the title of Supreme Head, is in Bonner's register (Guildhall MS 9531/12, fol. 337v; cf. 1563, p. 927; 1570, p. 1588; 1576, p. 1355; 1583, p. 1426).

Foxe states that his extract from Bonner's oration to the Convocation of 1554, was based on the notes of those who heard it (1563, p. 927; 1570, p. 1588; 1576, p. 1355; 1583, p. 1426). A number of speeches and sermons which Foxe prints in Book 10 are based on the notes taken by those in attendance and later given to Foxe.

The dialogue between Ridley and Sir John Bourne continues the pattern of argument about the eucharist alternating with political narrative which runs throughout Book 10. The dialogue first appeared in print in the 1563 edition (1563, p. 929-32; 1570, p. 1589-91; 1576, p. 1356-58; 1583, p. 1426-28); there is no earlier surviving print or manuscript version. Foxe states that the dialogue was penned with Ridley's own hand; apparently Foxe obtained a unique copy. As will be seen in Book 11, George Shipside, Ridley's brother-in-law, was one of Foxe's sources; it is quite possible that he obtained the dialogue for Foxe.

'Bertram' is Ratramnus of Corbie, a ninth-century theologian known, among other works, for his De Corpore et sanguine Domini, which emphasised the figurative nature of the elements of the Sacrament (1563, p. 929; 1570, p. 1590; 1576, p. 1357; 1583, p. 1427).

The English translations of passages from patristic fathers and from the Vulgate, which appear throughout this dialogue, were introduced in the 1570 edition.

The English translations of passages from patristic fathers and from the Vulgate, which appear throughout this dialogue, were introduced in the 1570 edition.

The English translations of passages from patristic fathers and from the Vulgate, which appear throughout this dialogue, were introduced in the 1570 edition.

It is not clear to which book of Cranmer's Bourne is referring. He may have been citing Justas Jonas's catechism (STC 5992.5), which was produced under Cranmer's auspices. But, given the context, it is more probably a reference to Cranmer's Defence of the true and catholike doctrine of the sacrament of the body and bloode of Christ (STC 6000).

In the dialogue Ridley refers to a Paul's Cross sermon he had delivered (1563, p. 930; 1570, p. 1591; 1576, p. 1357; 1583, p. 1428). The sermon was delivered in the first year of Edward VI's reign and is mentioned earlier in Foxe (1563, p. 855; not in any subsequent edition).

A few distortions occurred in the printing of the dialogue from edition to edition. In 1563 (p 929), a passage reads 'then they do not affirme what ye take but what they ment' (my emphasis). In 1570 (p 1589), the word 'not' was omitted and this omission was repeated in subsequent editions (1576, p. 1356; 1583, p. 1427).

In the first two editions, Bourne asks Ridley about Bertram: 'What man was he, and when was he?' (1563, p. 929; 1570, p. 1590). In the edition of 1576, this was mistakenly changed to 'What man was he and whom was he' (p. 1357); this was repeated in the next edition (1583, p. 1427).

In the 1563 edition, Foxe printed a commission from Bishop Bonner, divorcing John Draper, of the parish of Rayleigh, from the wife he had married in Edward VI's reign; it was omitted in subsequent editions (see textual variant 33). The source for this information was Bonner's register (Guildhall MS 9531/12, fol. 348r)

Foxe's comment that he planned an appendix listing priests who divorced their wives under Mary (1563, p. 931; 1570, p. 1591; 1576, p. 1358; 1583, p. 1428) explains his gathering together in his papers lists of clergy deprived for marriage (see BL Harley 421, fols. 56r-63v). Apparently Foxe decided against publishing this appendix, probably because it would have embarrassed too many Elizabethan clerics.

Material from the Privy Council register (i.e., orders to send Ridley, Cranmer and Latimer to Oxford, and Rowland Taylor to Hadley) was added to the 1583 edition (see textual variant 34 and APC IV, p. 406 and APC V, p. 3). Note that the order to the Lieutenant of the Tower is dated 8 March 1553 in APC V, p.406; not 10 March as in Foxe. Earlier in the book, Foxe had given the date of the journey of the three bishops to Oxford as April 10 (1563, p. 931; 1570, p. 1591; 1576, p. 1358; 1583, p. 1428); Foxe never corrected this discrepancy. One of the major problems in Book 10 is Foxe's failure to collate and synthesise the factual data which came to him from different sources.

The account of the disputations at Oxford in April 1554 is the heart of Book 10. Foxe took special pains both in acquiring information about the disputations and in shaping it. The number of different versions upon which Foxe was able to draw and his meticulous, almost obsessive care in editing, make the section on the Oxford disputations the most complex in Book 10, if not in the entire Actes and Monuments. The intensive rewriting and editing of Foxe's account of the disputations, while making it difficult to collate, also provide a remarkable look at Foxe's editorial goals and practices.

Paradoxically, the lengthy account of the preparations for the disputations, which one would expect, given its relative unimportance, to be fairly straightforward, is in fact remarkably intricate. There was nothing on these preparations in the Rerum, but in the 1563 edition Foxe had two separate reports of events, both by eyewitnesses. (The first informant's account was obtained by Foxe while in exile and used, sparingly, in the Rerum, for events during and after the disputation). Both informants were staunch protestants but their accounts are quite different. The first informant's account covers all of the disputations, the second informant merely the events preceding the actual disputations; consequently the second informant's account, although shorter, is more detailed. The second informant may have been connected to Oxford University as he is much more knowledgeable about the reaction of the Oxford faculty to the disputations. In the 1563 edition, Foxe did not have the time to synthesise the two accounts and he printed them separately (pp. 932-36 and 936-38 respectively). In the edition of 1570, Foxe welded the two accounts with remarkable patience and attention to detail.

But why did Foxe bother with this carefully crafted and detailed account of what were merely the preparations for the disputations? Partly because, as we have seen, Foxe had good sources; but particularly because this detailed account enabled Foxe to set the David versus Goliath theme of the disputations; the pomp and ceremony of the serried ranks of academia defied by three lone men.

In the 1563 edition, Foxe began with a list of the disputants (drawn from his first informant) appointed to debate with Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer, which was quite inaccurate. William Chedsey and Richard Smith were incorrectly listed as disputants, while William Tresham, Owen Oglethorpe, William Glyn and Thomas Sedgwick, who were disputants, were not listed. A 'Thecknam' was listed as one of the disputants; this is probably an error for John Feckenham (or Fecknam), although 'Thecknam' is listed as representing Cambridge, whereas Feckenham represented Oxford (1563, p. 932). This informant did better with the list of those who actually participated in the debate (1563, pp. 933-34), confirming that he was a spectator at the disputations. (It is to be noticed how easily he might have made the mistake in identifying Feckenham, if he only heard the name and did not read it).

Moreover, Foxe compiles a correct list of the disputants (with one exception) in the 1570 edition (1570, pp. 1591-92; 1576, p. 1358; 1583, p. 1428-29). It might be thought that he drew on two letters which survive in his papers, firstly a letter from John Young, the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge and the Senate, authorising seven Cambridge theologians to participate in the disputations (BL Harley 416, fol. 39r); and secondly a letter from Young and the Senate to Hugh Weston, notifying that the disputants were being sent (BL Harley 422, fol. 101r). Although Alban Langdale was one of the disputants appointed by Cambridge (and listed in both letters) Foxe does not mention him. (Langdale said nothing during the disputations and Foxe's other sources do not mention him). This omission suggests that Foxe acquired the letters but that he did not consult them.

The first thing that Foxe did in synthesising the accounts of his two informants in the 1570 edition was to eliminate some passages from the previous edition which introduced the first informant's account, (see textual variant 36). Then Foxe took material in the second informant's account describing events unmentioned by the first informant, which took place in the week of 7 to 14 April, and placed it in correct chronological order at the beginning of the account (see textual transposition 7).

A number of minor but distinct changes were made to this material in the 1570 edition. Some of these appear to have been corrections: e.g. the name of Bonner's servant is given as 'Wakefield' in 1563 (p. 936), but is changed to 'Wakeclyn' (1570, p. 1592; 1576, p. 1358; 1583, p. 1429).

Foxe stated in 1563 (p. 936) that documents were in Watson's chambers; in later editions he stated that they were in his keeping (1570, p. 1592; 1576, p. 1358; 1583, p. 1429).

One change appears to have been a typographical error: 'coapes' [copes] in 1563 (p. 937) became 'roabes' [robes] (1570, p. 1592; 1576, p. 1358; 1583, p. 1429).

Foxe omitted the phrase 'where they had a junkery but sat not down' from the 1570 edition (cf. 1563, p. 936 with 1570, p. 1592; 1576, p. 1358; 1583, p. 1429), probably because he thought the phrase too informal or inelegant. (Foxe also purged a marginal note containing the word 'junkery' from the 1570 edition [see textual variant 621M]).

Foxe also omitted the words 'being gremials' (cf. 1563, p. 937 with 1570, p. 1592; 1576, p. 1358; 1583, p. 1429).

For Cranmer's exchange with Weston on 14 April, Foxe, in the 1570 edition, selected passages from the two accounts, weaving them skilfully together, see (textual transposition 7, textual variant 37, textual transposition 8, textual variant 38, textual transposition 9, textual variant 40 and textual transposition 10. Foxe selected those passages which supplied the most detail or were the most favourable to the three bishops. Thus, for example, the first informant's account gave fuller versions of Cranmer's answers and described, at some length, the favourable impression made on the spectators, but included the second informant's description of Cranmer's defiant refusal to sit and Weston's promise that Cranmer would be allowed access to books in preparation for the disputation.

Foxe also omitted the description of the articles to be debated being read to Cranmer (see textual variant 39); since Foxe had already printed the articles, this was repetitious.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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).

In 1563 (p. 939), Foxe wrote that Cranmer addressed those present, stating that they were assembled 'to vnfold the plytes and wrinkles of these doubtefull controversyes'. In later editions this became 'to discusse these doubtefulle controversies' (1570, p. 1594; 1576, p. 1360; 1583, p. 1430). Clearly, Foxe changed Cranmer's words to make them more dignified and lofty.

An interesting misprint occurred in the 1583 edition. Where all previous editions rendered a phrase in Cranmer's explication (i.e., his written response to the articles being debated) as 'the bread and wine which is set before your eyes' (1563, p. 941; 1570, p. 1595; 1576, p. 1361), the 1583 edition reads: 'the bread and wine which be set before our eye' (1583, p. 1432). This is obviously a typographical error.

Foxe reworded a syllogism made by Chedsey. In the 1563 edition, the syllogism concludes 'having the minor and the Conclusion both negative in the first figure' (1563, p. 943). In later editions the syllogism concludes: 'the major in the second figure being not universal' (1570, p. 1596; 1576, p. 1362; 1583, p. 1432). A curious feature of many of the corrections which Foxe made to this disputation in the 1570 edition, is that they made the Catholic arguments clearer and more forceful.

Foxe deleted a passage that described Weston's behaving courteously to Cranmer (See textual variant 50).

Foxe added the phrase 'with the which word of the sacrament of the body' to the 1570 edition (1570, p. 1598; 1576, p. 1363; 1583, p. 1434). Probably Foxe did this for explanatory purposes in order to show exactly at what Henry Cole was taking offence.

Foxe took one of Chedsey's arguments and rewrote it as a formal syllogism (see textual variant 51). Throughout the 1570 edition, Foxe almost compulsively rewrote theological arguments as syllogisms.

Foxe changed Chedsey's phrase 'that God is said to be touched, it happened through the union' (1563, p. 947), to 'this is because of the union, so that God is sayd to be touched' (1570, p. 1599; 1576, p. 1364; 1583, p. 1435).

Foxe also reworded a statement Cranmer made: 'unto Tertulliane I aunswere (for as much as the disputation is uncertain, what he calleth fleshe and what he calleth the Sacrament)' (1563, p. 947). This became: 'unto Tertullaine I aunswer (because our disputation is wandryng and uncertayne) that he calleth the flesh which is the Sacrament' (1570, p. 1599; 1576, p. 1365; 1583, p. 1435). This transforms an observation that Tertullian's Eucharistic formulas were ambiguous into an affirmation by Cranmer that Tertullian called the sacrament the flesh.

'Phocius' (1563, pp. 947-48) or 'Phoceus' (1570, pp. 1599-1600; 1576, pp. 1364-65; 1583, pp. 1435-36) is Photius (c.820 - 891), a Byzantine theologian and patriarch of Constantinople.

The entire passage by Cranmer: 'He doth communicate to us his own nature ... but that we should be also partakers of the nature of everlasting life' is not in the Rerum. It was introduced in the 1563 edition with a note saying 'Ex exempl. manu Cranmeri descripto' (1563, p. 950; 1570, p. 1602; 1576, pp. 1366-67; 1583, p. 1437). Clearly these passages were inserted into the account of the debate from a written statement by Cranmer which Foxe obtained between 1559 and 1563. It is possible that this was the copy of Cranmer's account which Grindal had obtained. It is also possible, however, that this was a statement Cranmer submitted to Weston, and was taken by Foxe from the Convocation records which he had asked Grindal to obtain for him.

Weston's words 'write sirs' (1563, p. 950; 1570, p. 1602; 1576, p. 1367; 1583, p. 1437) was a command to the notaries which at least one of them transcribed. Its appearance in the Rerum, as the imperative 'scribite', is another sign that the Rerum version of the disputation came from a notary's account.

A rejoinder by Cranmer to a sally by Weston does not appear in the 1563 edition (See textual variant 52). It is not in the Rerum either and it may have been invented by Foxe to allow Cranmer the last word.

In the Rerum, (p. 654) and 1563 (p. 933), Foxe identifies Cranmer as saying 'you omitte these thinges which followe, which make the sense of Ambrose plain, reade them'. In subsequent editions Weston is (correctly) identified as the speaker (1570, p. 1603; 1576, p. 1368; 1583, p. 1439).

The Rerum reads 'columbum vocat spiritum, cum spiritus descenderet in specie columbae' (Rerum, p. 655). Someone with an uncertain grasp of both theology and Latin translated this as 'he called the dove the spirit, when the spirit descended in lykeness of a dove' (1563, p. 953). In later editions, this was corrected to 'he calleth the spirit a Dove, when the spirite descended in likeness of a Dove' (1570, p. 1604; 1576, p. 1368; 1583, p. 1439). This is a recurring issue in the 1570 edition: the need to correct faulty Latin translations made in the 1563 edition.

In the edition of 1563, no translation was provided for the sentence 'Vides quam sit sermo Christi' (1563, p. 953). A sentence translating this as 'You see what a working power the word of Christ hath' was added in the 1570 edition (see textual variant 53).

Chedsey addressed Cranmer as 'dominatio tua' in the Rerum (p. 656) and 'your Lordship' in 1563 (p. 954); this is changed to 'you' in 1570, p. 1604; 1576, p. 1369; 1583, p. 1439. Here Foxe again changes the text to make the catholics appear more rude and more disrespectful to Cranmer.

A translation of a passage in Greek (from Justin's Second Apology) is in the first edition, but was omitted from later editions (see textual variant 54) because the passage was translated later in the disputation.

'Marcus Constantius' (see 1563, p. 954; 1570, p. 1605; 1576, p. 1369; 1583, p. 1440) was Stephen Gardiner's nom de plume when writing the Confutatio cavallationum quibus Eucharistiae sacramentum ab impiis Capharnatis impeti solet (Paris, 1552).

Chedsey's quotation from Justin (1563, p. 954-55) - 'We doe teache that Jesus, by whom our fleshe and bloude is ... the same Jesus incarnate' - was altered in the next edition to read: 'We are taught that the meate, consecrated ... the same Jesus made flesh' (1570, p. 1605; 1576, p. 1370; 1583, p. 1440). Possibly this is a correction of an inadequate translation.

'Emissene' or 'Emissenus' (1563, p. 955; 1570, p. 1605; 1576, p. 1370; 1583, p. 1440) is Eusebius, Bishop of Emesa (or Emissa), now Homs, from c.340 - 359.

Foxe concluded the account of Cranmer's disputations by transposing a brief description of it to its proper chronological place (textual transposition 16).

In the Rerum, Foxe's account of Ridley's disputation was based on a single version of Ridley's own narrative of his disputation (Rerum, pp. 660-95). One again, Grindal had obtained a copy of Ridley's account of his disputation in the Bishop's own hand (BL Harley 417, fol. 119r) and once again, it does not seem to have been available to Foxe for the Rerum. In the Actes and Monuments, Foxe continued to rely on this narrative, but he had multiple versions of it. There are a number of different versions of Ridley's narrative which survive in Foxe's papers: BL Lansdowne MS 389, fols. 118r-124v and 130r-134v; ECL MS 262, fols. 3r-15v and 17v-25v; BL Harley MS 422, fols. 54r-58v and (in Latin) fols. 68r-83v. The number of these copies is testimony to Foxe's zeal in obtaining as much material on the Oxford disputations as he could gather; he obtained one copy from Grindal (see 1570, p. 1901).

As with Cranmer's disputation, the 1563 version of Ridley's disputation has sections of text which are not in the Rerum; almost certainly because Foxe's single copy of Ridley's narrative was defective and also because Foxe had multiple versions on which to draw for the 1563 edition.

Foxe made some interesting additions to Ridley's disputation in the 1570 edition. The first of these was a brief account of Dr. Richard Smith's career together with a grovelling letter from Smith to Cranmer written in 1550 (see textual variant 55). This letter, with another similar epistle from Smith to Cranmer, written about the same time, was printed in Peter Martyr Virmigli, Defensio D. Petri Martyris Vermelli Florentini ... ad Ricardi Smythaei Angli, olim Theologicae professoris Oxoniensis duos libellos de Caelibatu Sacerdotum, et votis monasticis, nunc primum in luce editu (Basel: Peter Peran, 1559), pp. 645-48. (The letters may well have been given to Martyr by Cranmer himself). Foxe almost certainly translated this letter from Martyr's book.

In the edition of 1570, Foxe transposed a section of the first informant's eyewitness account of the disputations, summarising Ridley's disputation (see textual transposition 5). Foxed used this as an introduction to Ridley's narrative of his disputation.

Weston's initial speech and Smith's proposing the three questions to be debated first appear in the 1570 edition (see textual variant 56). These were probably added from an account made by one of the notaries; it is probably the only aspect of this disputation for which Foxe did not rely on Ridley's account.

Foxe corrected what was an excessively verbose translation made in the 1563 edition (1563, p. 959) of Ridley's exchange with Pye and Weston (see 1570, pp. 1608-09; 1576, p. 1372; 1583, p. 1443).

The first part of the syllogism which forms Ridley's sixth argument supporting his second proposition was rewritten in the 1570 edition to avoid repetition and circumlocution (cf. Rerum, p. 666 and 1563, p. 961 with 1570, p. 1610; 1576, p. 1373; 1583, p. 1444).

The first and second syllogisms of Ridley's arguments confirming his answer to the third proposition are recast to change what were oral arguments into more correct and logically balanced syllogisms (cf. 1563, p. 962 with 1570, p. 1611; 1576, p. 1374; 1583, p. 1445).

The fifth syllogism of Ridley's arguments confirming his third proposition was recast for the same reason (cf. 1563, p. 962 with 1570, p. 1611; 1576, p. 1374; 1583, p. 1445).

The first and second syllogisms of Ridley's arguments confirming his answer to the third proposition are recast to change what were oral arguments into more correct and logically balanced syllogisms (cf. 1563, p. 962 with 1570, p. 1611; 1576, p. 1374; 1583, p. 1445).

The fifth syllogism of Ridley's arguments confirming his third proposition was recast for the same reason (cf. 1563, p. 962 with 1570, p. 1611; 1576, p. 1374; 1583, p. 1445).

The first and second syllogisms of Ridley's arguments confirming his answer to the third proposition are recast to change what were oral arguments into more correct and logically balanced syllogisms (cf. 1563, p. 962 with 1570, p. 1611; 1576, p. 1374; 1583, p. 1445).

The fifth syllogism of Ridley's arguments confirming his third proposition was recast for the same reason (cf. 1563, p. 962 with 1570, p. 1611; 1576, p. 1374; 1583, p. 1445).

In the 1570 edition, Foxe inserted a note making clear a fact which had gone unremarked in previous editions: that Ridley had not been allowed to read his prepared statements (the three propositions together with supporting arguments) which Foxe nevertheless printed (see textual variant 57). Since this material was printed in the Rerum and in all editions but had not been part of the disputation, this is further corroboration that Foxe's account of Ridley's disputation was not based on the notaries' transcripts of the disputations.

The remark of one of the judges to one of Ridley's answers was changed from 'It is an answere to be laughed at, and a very fond aunswere' (1563, p. 968) to 'It is ridiculous and a very fond aunsweare' (1570, p. 1615; 1576, p. 1378; 1583, p. 1449). Possibly this is a variant version of what the judge said; possibly Foxe reworded this to make the narrative more dignified.

Foxe added the word 'wonderful' to Hilary's commentary on Psalm 118 (cf. 1563, p. 969 with 1570, p. 1616; 1576, p. 1378; 1583, p. 1449).

The word 'position' in Ridley's exchange with Watson in 1563, p. 974, is clearly a mistake (cf. Rerum, p. 691) which was corrected in 1570, p. 1619; 1576, p. 1381; 1583, p. 1452. This is another indication that the 1570 edition, in contrast to the other editions, was thoroughly proofread.

Near the very end of Ridley's disputation, his reply to Weston is completely rewritten (see textual variant 60 and textual variant 61). It is very likely that Foxe rewrote this passage to make it more theologically explicit.

The conclusion to Ridley's account of his disputation, addressed to the reader, in which the bishop complained that promises which were made to him by Weston (that Ridley be allowed to examine the official records of the disputation, and that he be allowed to amend the record of his answers) were broken, was only printed in the 1563 edition (see textual variant 62; this conclusion was also printed in LM, pp. 112-13). This was probably because Foxe would go into this issue in more detail later in the 1570 edition.

Much of this section on the origins and development of the mass (1563, pp. 889-900, and 1583, pp. 1397-1405, omitted from the editions of 1570 and 1576) is based on three works: John Bradford's The Hurt of Hearing Mass; John Bale's Scriptorum Maioris Brytanniae ... Catalogus and Polydore Vergil's De inventoribus Rerum. There are also a number of works on which Foxe drew for isolated passages in this section. These definitely include: Platina's papal history; Walafrid of Strabo, Gulielmus Durandus's Rationale divinorum officiorum, Johann Sleidan's Commentaries and Gratian. But although Foxe added some material out of his not inconsiderable knowledge of canon law, liturgy and church history, the framework of this section is from the words of Bradford, Bale and Vergil. It is important to note that the source citations Foxe gives are not reliable guides to the sources Foxe actually consulted.

What Foxe did in this section was to join together two previous types of protestant polemic: denunciation of the elements of the mass as superstition (although few writers are as witty in this attack as Foxe) and an attack on the elements of the mass as papist inventions. Its placement at the beginning of Book 10 indicates Foxe's determination to use this book as a sustained attack on the mass. This idea was temporarily abandoned when the section was omitted from the 1570 edition in an effort to maintain a manageable edition. The section was restored in the 1583 edition, together with other material omitted from the edition of 1570, because Foxe felt that it should be a part of what he regarded as the definitive edition of his work. When it was reprinted, it was completely unchanged, another indication of Foxe's satisfaction with this section of his work.

Unlike the disputations of Cranmer and Ridley, Latimer's disputation was relatively unchanged from edition to edition. Partly this was because Foxe apparently used one source for this disputation. A complete copy of Latimer's disputation survives in Foxe's papers (BL Harley MS 422, fols. 92r-100v); this may well be Foxe's source for the disputation. (Whatever Foxe's source was, he had it before he wrote Rerum, which means that it almost certainly came from a protestant source and was probably the record of one of the protestant notaries). A copy of Latimer's protestation at the beginning of the disputation is in ECL MS 262, fols. 171r-174r; a version of this is also printed in Strype, EM III, 2, pp. 288-95. (Unless Strype greatly altered this document in printing it, it was not the same version as ECL 262, fols. 171r-174r). Further, a Latin summary of Latimer's disputation is also in Foxe's papers (Harley 422, fols. 65r-67r); this may well be the original version of the similar summary printed in (only) 1563, pp. 934-35.

Another reason for Foxe's relative restraint in editing Latimer's disputation was that it, unlike the other disputations, was largely conducted in English rather than Latin, thus eliminating the need (so apparent in Cranmer's disputation) for Foxe to correct the work of earlier translators. Furthermore, Latimer eschewed elaborate theological or logical arguments during his disputation and quoted few patristic authors, thus obviating much of the need for the revisions which Foxe had made in the other two disputations.

In the edition of 1563 Foxe added descriptions of the beginning of Latimer's disputation (1563, p. 978; 1570, p. 1622; 1576, p. 1384; 1583, p. 1454) and the conclusion (1563, p. 985; 1570, p. 1627; 1576, p. 1389; 1583, p. 1459); these almost certainly came from another eyewitness.

In the edition of 1563 Foxe added descriptions of the beginning of Latimer's disputation (1563, p. 978; 1570, p. 1622; 1576, p. 1384; 1583, p. 1454) and the conclusion (1563, p. 985; 1570, p. 1627; 1576, p. 1389; 1583, p. 1459); these almost certainly came from another eyewitness.

There was an omission in the Rerum account. Latimer's comment 'It is in my booke of Erasmus translation, Probet se ipsum homo' (1563, p. 981; 1570, p. 1624; 1576, p. 1385; 1583, p. 1456; this is not in Rerum, p. 690). This omission was probably inadvertent.

In later editions, Latimer states, 'It is not long, Syr, since I have bene of this opinion' (1570, p. 1624; 1576, p. 1386; 1583, p. 1456); in 1563 (p 981) he says, 'It is long, Syr, since I have bene of this opinion'. (The 1563 version was clearly in error for the Rerum reads: 'Non valde diu, a bone').

In the edition of 1563, Weston says, 'Ye have sayde masse at Grenewyche full devoutely' (1563, p. 981), while in later editions this is rendered: 'The tyme hath bene when you sayd Masse full devoutly' (1570, p. 1624; 1576, p. 1386; 1583, p. 1456). (Rerum, p. 690, does not mention Greenwich in its translation of the remark).

An obvious mistake occurs in the 1570 edition. Latimer is quoted as saying, 'And therefore worthely a man may say to my Lords and maysters Offerers' (i.e., the priests offering up the host) (1563, p. 979). In the edition of 1570, 'offerers' was changed to 'officers' (1570, p. 1623; 1576, p. 1384; 1583, p. 1455). Not only does the change not make sense, but the Rerum, which reads 'oblatoribus' (p. 687), indicates clearly what is meant.

Two other minor changes in the 1570 edition were deliberate. Foxe altered the word order of a sentence in Latimer's protestation, apparently to make it less stylistically awkward. In the first edition, the sentence reads: 'meaning by Marybones, the chief and principal portions ... and had in price the same' (1563, p. 980). In the later editions, this was changed to read: 'these cheefe and principal partes and poyntes ... I call þe marrowbones of the masse' (1570, p. 1623; 1576, p. 1385; 1583, p. 1455).

Foxe added a classical tag - 'non sine suo Theseo' - to the conclusion of Latimer's disputation (1563 p. 985; 1570, p. 1627; 1576, p. 1388; 1583, p. 1459).

The text Latimer repeatedly cited as 'Cranmer's book' was Thomas Cranmer, A defence of the true and catholike doctrine of the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ (STC 6000-6002).

The text Latimer repeatedly cited as 'Cranmer's book' was Thomas Cranmer, A defence of the true and catholike doctrine of the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ (STC 6000-6002).

Weston, in alleging that Luther declared the devil taught him that the mass was evil (1563, p. 981; 1570, p. 1624; 1576, p. 1386; 1583, p. 1456), was repeating a charge levelled at Luther by Johannes Cochlaeus and repeated by such leading polemicists as Fredericus Staphylus, Stanislaus Hosius and Nicholas Harpsfield. It was based on Luther's declaring, in the work cited by Weston, that the devil tempted him to despair by charging him with hypocrisy in performing the mass even though he did not believe in transubstantiation.

Weston's phrase 'without Noes Arke, there is no health' (1563, p. 985; 1570, p. 1627; 1576, p. 1388; 1583, p. 1459) is a reference to the common medieval image of the church as Noah's ark. Weston is saying that there is no salvation outside the church. In fact, since Weston's remark was almost certainly made in Latin, 'health' is probably a misleading translation of 'salvus', which also means salvation.

The 'runnagate Scot' to whom Weston refers (in 1563, p. 985; 1570, p. 1627; 1576, p. 1388; 1583, p. 1459) is Alexander Alane (or Alesius) who translated portions of the first Edwardian prayer book.

In the 1570 edition, Foxe also added a concluding note to the formal disputations, addressed to the reader, emphasising how arbitrary, disorganised and unfair they were to Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer (see textual variant 64). He also printed, in full, a quotation from Cyprian which had been discussed during the debate (see textual variant 63).

Following the formal disputations, Cranmer was invited to participate in the disputations held as part of John Harpsfield's receiving his D.D. Foxe included this disputation for two reasons: firstly, the debate was on the eucharist and, secondly, Cranmer did much better in it than he had done in his formal disputation.

As with Latimer's disputation, Foxe's version of this disputation remained essentially unchanged from the Rerum to the 1583 edition. In this case, however, Foxe seems to have been relying solely on notes taken by an eyewitness to the debate. (Passages in the text indicating that it was based on notes from an eyewitness are 'wherunto maister Ward ... as it is thought he spake them' (1563, p. 988; 1570, p. 1629; 1576, p. 1390; 1583, p. 1461)). The comments, such as the claim that Ward based his argument on Duns Scotus but not on Scripture (1563, p. 988; 1570, p. 1629; 1576, p. 1390; 1583, p. 1461), indicate that this note-taker was protestant in sympathy. (This is also likely because these notes reached Foxe during his exile). The Rerum account of the disputation (Rerum, pp. 997 [recte 697]-704) was translated accurately in 1563, pp. 986-991.

Ward was described as a philosopher in 1563 (p. 988), this was changed to 'sophister' in later editions (1570, p. 1629; 1576, p. 1390; 1583, p. 1461).

The description of Ward's argument as a 'goodly tale' (1563, p. 988) was changed to a 'formall tale' (1570, p. 1629; 1576, p. 1390; 1583, p. 1461), probably to avoid appearing to commend him.

Foxe could not resist inserting into the narrative a counter-argument of his own to rebut Harpsfield (textual variant 65).

In the 1563 edition, Foxe followed the Oxford disputations with a remarkable summary of all the arguments in the debate. First came a statement claiming that Ridley, Latimer and Cranmer were not defeated in the debate by flaws in their logic or their theology but, if they appeared to be overcome, it was because the debate was controlled by their adversaries; in Foxe's words - paraphrasing Weston's claim that 'vicit veritas' - 'vicit non veritas, sed potestatas' (see textual variant 67 and 1563, p. 991). The opening sentences of this statement would be reprinted in subsequent editions, the rest of it was omitted, and a new transitional sentence was added (textual variant 66).

In the edition of 1563, Foxe went on to present a summary of his theology of the Sacrament (p. 992), followed by a diagram (which Foxe calls a table) illustrating it (pp. 993-94). These were never reprinted by Foxe. This was followed by a series of summaries of the major arguments advanced against Cranmer (1563, p. 995). Ridley (1563, pp. 995-96), Latimer (1563, p. 996) and Cranmer, during Harpsfield's disputation (1563, p. 996). Foxe followed this with his own answer to each argument (1563, pp. 997-99). Foxe did not ever reprint these summaries and answers. Finally, almost as an afterthought, Foxe printed a letter from Mary to the mayor, alderman and inhabitants of Oxford, ordering them to keep Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer in custody during the disputations (1563, p. 999) (It is unknown from where Foxe obtained this document; he did no work in the Oxford municipal archive, and he certainly would not have had time to search before the publication of the 1563 edition. A copy of the letter was probably placed with the official transcript of the disputations). This letter, as well as a brief note which followed it noting the condemnation of the three bishops (1563, p. 999), was also never reprinted.

This section is another demonstration of the enormous importance which Foxe attached to the Oxford disputations as a means of proselytisation and propaganda. Together with the section on the canon of the mass, the dispute in Convocation in 1553 and Jane Grey's dialogue with Feckenham, this is part of the attack on the mass which is the theme of Book 10.

Why then did Foxe omit this material (except for a few introductory sentences which were retained) from the editions after 1563? One reason which led to much of the material which appeared in the 1563 edition being omitted was the press for space and the need to conserve paper in the subsequent editions. But, unlike the canon of the mass, this material was never restored, even in the edition of 1583. Foxe may also have felt that this digest impeded the flow of his narrative and that he could achieve the same results through other means. One strategy was the reorganisation of material. By moving material appearing in the 1563 edition (such as Ridley's protestations concerning the conduct of the disputations and the first informant's description of the condemnation of the three bishops, to follow the account of the disputations) it was possible for Foxe point out both the unfairness of the debate and the condemnation of Ridley, Cranmer and Latimer, without repetition. More importantly, he was able to make the same points in marginal notes, without the obtrusive apparatus of appendices and diagrams.

In the 1570 edition, rather than following the disputations with a digest of the arguments, Foxe moved Ridley's letter protesting about the conduct of the disputations from the beginning of Ridley's account of his disputation to the end of Foxe's account of all the disputations (textual transposition 17).

In the Rerum and the 1563 edition, Foxe had printed all the material after Ridley's narrative of his disputation in the order in which it occurred in the manuscripts: first Ridley's prefatory letter (Rerum, pp. 659-61; 1563, pp. 956-58), followed by the disputation itself (Rerum, p. 661-95; 1563, p. 957-77), further followed by Ridley's letter to Weston (Rerum, p 695; 1563, p. 977) and a concluding letter addressed to the reader (Rerum, p. 696; 1563, p. 978).

In later editions, Foxe transposed the sections of Ridley's account. Phrases were appended to Ridley's letter of protest in the 1570 edition which had not appeared in the Rerum or the 1563 edition (or in LM, pp. 76-78, where it was also printed; see textual variant 69). By this time, Foxe had several different manuscript copies of this letter - Harley 422, fol. 53r-v; Lansdowne 389, fols. 117v-118v and ECL 262, fols. 16r-17v - and it is possible that this new conclusions appears in one of these. Alternatively, it might have been invented by Foxe. Conversely, closing passages in Ridley's prefatory letter, which had served as a bridge between the letter and the account of his disputation, were omitted (see textual variant 70).

Foxe transposed a description of the condemnation of Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer from the first informant's account of the Oxford disputations (see textual transposition 6). These passages first appeared in the Rerum (pp. 704-05), demonstrating that Foxe had obtained the first informant's account while he was in exile. The description of the procession and of Latimer's reaction to it is particularly interesting. The identification of 'Augustine Cooper' (see 'Augustine Kyrke' - "Personal Identifications") as a catchpole was accurate and confirms the accuracy of the first informant and his status as an eyewitness.

After adding a transitional sentence (textual variant 71), Foxe transposed Ridley's letter to Weston, which also protested the unfairness of the disputations, from after Ridley's disputation, to follow all the disputations. Foxe divided this letter into two parts (see textual transposition 18 and textual transposition 19). Between the two sections of the letter, Foxe interposed an account of Weston's having opened a letter which Cranmer had sent to Privy Council, his reading it and refusing to deliver it (textual variant 73). (This is based on material in Guildhall MS 9531/12, fol. 339r; a copy of this letter, in Matthew Parker's handwriting is Harley 422, fol. 46r-v). Foxe's insertion of this story in the letter gives the impression that there were two letters. The reason for this unusual editing is that Foxe apparently wanted the description of Weston's 'treachery' to precede Ridley's demand in the conclusion of his letter, that Weston exhibit this letter, as well as Ridley's written answers to the articles of disputation to Convocation. In this process, a few lines of the letter were (inadvertently?) omitted (see textual variant 72).

After adding a transitional sentence (textual variant 71), Foxe transposed Ridley's letter to Weston, which also protested the unfairness of the disputations, from after Ridley's disputation, to follow all the disputations. Foxe divided this letter into two parts (see textual transposition 18 and textual transposition 19). Between the two sections of the letter, Foxe interposed an account of Weston's having opened a letter which Cranmer had sent to Privy Council, his reading it and refusing to deliver it (textual variant 73). (This is based on material in Guildhall MS 9531/12, fol. 339r; a copy of this letter, in Matthew Parker's handwriting is Harley 422, fol. 46r-v). Foxe's insertion of this story in the letter gives the impression that there were two letters. The reason for this unusual editing is that Foxe apparently wanted the description of Weston's 'treachery' to precede Ridley's demand in the conclusion of his letter, that Weston exhibit this letter, as well as Ridley's written answers to the articles of disputation to Convocation. In this process, a few lines of the letter were (inadvertently?) omitted (see textual variant 72).

After adding a transitional sentence (textual variant 71), Foxe transposed Ridley's letter to Weston, which also protested the unfairness of the disputations, from after Ridley's disputation, to follow all the disputations. Foxe divided this letter into two parts (see textual transposition 18 and textual transposition 19). Between the two sections of the letter, Foxe interposed an account of Weston's having opened a letter which Cranmer had sent to Privy Council, his reading it and refusing to deliver it (textual variant 73). (This is based on material in Guildhall MS 9531/12, fol. 339r; a copy of this letter, in Matthew Parker's handwriting is Harley 422, fol. 46r-v). Foxe's insertion of this story in the letter gives the impression that there were two letters. The reason for this unusual editing is that Foxe apparently wanted the description of Weston's 'treachery' to precede Ridley's demand in the conclusion of his letter, that Weston exhibit this letter, as well as Ridley's written answers to the articles of disputation to Convocation. In this process, a few lines of the letter were (inadvertently?) omitted (see textual variant 72).

Foxe inserted the letter which Cranmer wrote and which Weston failed to deliver, together with a letter from Ridley to Cranmer (See textual variant 73). Cranmer's letter was first printed by Henry Bull in LM, pp. 16-17 and was presumably uncovered by Bull's research. (This would suggest that copies of the letter circulated among the Marian protestants, as Bull had no access to Privy Council records. A copy of the letter, made by Bull, is ECL MS 260, fol. 15r).

The source for the letter from Ridley to Cranmer is problematic; this letter is not in the Rerum, 1563 or in LM. A possible source was Cranmer's family; Thomas Norton, Cranmer's son-in-law, was Foxe's friend.

The Oxford disputations were the last section of Book 10 that had any basis in the Rerum. All of the remaining narrative in this book was researched and composed in the period 1559 - 1570 from a medley of sources, mostly oral informants, chronicles and official documents. The very nature of these sources meant that Foxe's acquisition of them was relatively unplanned and somewhat chaotic.

The section on events in the first year of Mary's reign provides a classic example of how the later editions (to say nothing of the Victorian editions) conceal the sources and development of the Acts and Monuments. In every edition there are a few introductory sentences in which Foxe apologises for breaking the chronological order of his narrative to include further material on the first year of Mary's reign (1563, p. 1000; 1570, p. 1634; 1576, p. 1394; 1583, p. 1465). This was because new material reached him during the printing of the 1563 edition which he inserted into the text as he acquired it.

This material was a list of events about the reimposition of catholicism in Cambridge and London (1563, pp. 1000-01). The source for this was a journal or chronicle, now lost, by a source who was well informed about events in Cambridge. The London material either came from him or was added by Foxe from other sources. (The evidence suggests, however, that there was a single source for the London material; it is noticeable that all the London events take place in the area of Cheapside).

Almost all of this material was retained in later editions - the exception being which was very probably dropped because it depicted protestants as coming very close to sedition in their opposition to Mary - but this material was broken up and scattered (in chronological order) among new information which was added in the 1570 edition. This information was drawn largely from a London chronicle (or chronicles) now lost. Foxe printed this source en bloc, resulting in a great deal of repetition of events already discussed, irrelevancies (it was simpler to reprint than select and edit this material), inconsistencies (especially in dates) and inaccuracies. Foxe never reworked this material or tried to integrate it with the earlier political narrative in Book 10. This relative neglect, contrasted with the laborious editorial care devoted to the Oxford disputations, clearly demonstrates Foxe's editorial priorities.

Among the many repetitions is a notice of Gilbert Bourne's Paul's Cross sermon of 13 August 1553 (1570, p. 1634; 1576, p. 1394; 1583, p. 1465). (Incidentally, the date of the sermon is given as 13 August earlier in Foxe - 1570, p. 1570; 1576, p. 1339; 1583, p. 1397 - and as 11 August here. This is one of a number of cases where Foxe reprinted differing dates for events by different sources and never bothered to correct, or apparently even to check, them).

It is also worth observing that notes in the different editions direct the reader to the account of Bourne's sermon given earlier in Foxe. But in 1583, the note directs the reader to page 1339, which is the correct page in the 1576, not the 1583, edition. (The correct page in the 1583 edition is page 1397). This failure to revise the cross-references is a recurring problem in the 1583 edition.

Among other repetitions in this section of Book 10 are a description of Mary's proclamation against heretical books (1570, p. 1634; 1576, p. 1395; 1583, p. 1465) already printed in 1563, pp. 903-04; 1570, p. 1570; 1576, p. 1338; 1583, pp. 1408-09, and a new account of the executions of Northumberland, Gates and Palmer (1570, 1634; 1576, p. 1395; 1583, p. 1465) already described in 1563, p. 902; 1570, p. 1569; 1576, p. 1338; 1583, p. 1408. One cause of numerous repetitions was Foxe's introduction of material from the Privy Council Register into the 1583 edition. In many cases, Foxe had already related the incident, drawing it from other sources. Thus, for example, Foxe had a notice of John Bradford, Thomas Becon and Jean Veron being sent to the Tower in 1570, p. 1634; 1576, p. 1394; 1583, p. 1465) when he added another notice of this to 1583, p. 1497 [recte 1409], based on APC IV, p. 321.

Some egregious inaccuracies come in a list of Mary's episcopal appointments (1570, p. 1636; 1576, p. 1395; 1583, p. 1467). Maurice Griffith's name is given only as 'Mores'. David Pole, who later became Bishop of Peterborough, is listed as Bishop of St. Asaph instead of Thomas Goldwell, the true holder of the see. Thomas Rainolds, who was made Dean of Exeter, is stated to have been made Dean of Bristol (Henry Joliffe actually got this post) and John Moreman is mistakenly declared to have been made Bishop of Exeter. What is revealing here is not only that Foxe must have been repeating errors given by his source, but that if he had made even cursory inquiries, he would have readily discovered that they were errors. (It is also revealing of a larger problem in the Acts and Monuments that all of these errors concern clergy in the west, southwest and Wales, areas about which Foxe was always sketchily informed).

The very interesting account of Thomas Sampson eluding capture at Elsing's house (1570, p. 1634; 1576, p. 1394; 1583, p. 1465) almost certainly came from an oral source, very probably Sampson himself.

The Privy Council's letter ordering the imprisonment of those who did not attend mass was taken from the Privy Council Register. (It was also misdated by Foxe; the letter was sent on 19 August 1554, not 1553 (see APC V, p. 63)). The account of Suffolk's execution (1570, p. 1634; 1576, p. 1394; 1583, p. 1465) was taken from an eyewitness.

The account of Weston's Paul Cross sermon of 22 October 1553 (1570, p. 1636; 1576, p. 1395; 1583, p. 1466) was clearly based on someone's notes. (By the way, Foxe refers to a rebuttal of this sermon by Coverdale; this has not survived).

The most important of the items derived from non-chronicle sources in this section is Cranmer's 'purgation' of rumours that he had celebrated mass, (1570, p. 1695; 1576, p. 1395; 1583, pp. 1465-66) which is one of the first items Foxe took from Bull's LM. In the account of Cranmer's life in the 1563 edition, Foxe discussed the purgation (1563, p. 1474) and, in fact, the wording of this description of the circumstances behind the purgation is strikingly close to passages in this account. Foxe had also mentioned the purgation earlier in the 1570 edition (1570, p. 1579; 1576, p. 1397; 1583, p. 1418). But when Foxe printed the actual purgation, he was simply reprinting it from the LM (pp. 17-19).

The value of his sources might have been considerably enhanced were it not for Foxe's rigorous self-censorship on anything connecting protestants to treason or rebellion. This reaches almost farcical lengths in Foxe's account of Suffolk; a reader of Foxe, with no other information, would be unaware that Suffolk led a rebellion. Rather the duke 'tooke hys voyage into Leycester shyre' (1570, p. 1637; 1576, p. 1396; 1583, p. 1467); Foxe does not mention the rebellion and here he does not mention Suffolk's capture (he had described it earlier). Foxe never states that Suffolk was convicted of treason, only that he was sentenced to death (1570, p. 1637; 1576, p. 1396; 1583, p. 1467).

After following his chronicle source(s) through the minutiae of events in London in 1553-54, Foxe suddenly passes over Wyatt's rebellion and Suffolk's uprising 'because most of these matters have bene briefly touched before, or els may be founde in other Chronicles' (1570, p. 1637; 1576, p. 1397; 1583, p. 1468).

The curate of the Round Parish (1563, p. 1000; 1570, p. 1636; 1576, p. 1396; 1583, p. 1466) was the curate of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Cambridge, which is round rather than cruciform in shape.

The account of Suffolk's death and the printing of the 'apology' of Walter Mantel (the elder) are both in the Acts and Monuments for one reason: to exorcise the spectre of Northumberland and his recantation. Without explicitly mentioning Northumberland, Foxe could use the constancy of these high-profile protestants to counteract the charge (made decades earlier by Thomas More) that the protestants were unwilling to die for their faith.

In the 1563 edition, Foxe already had a brief account of the elder Mantel's refusal to recant his beliefs at his execution. (It was originally part of an account of the Marian persecution in Kent at the end of the work. In the 1570 edition, Foxe moved the brief account to introduce Mantel's denial of rumours that he had recanted.

Mantel's denial, first printed in the 1570 edition (1570, pp. 1638-39; 1576, pp. 1397-98; 1583, pp. 1468-69) must have circulated among the protestants in Kent and was very probably sent to Foxe by one of them after the 1563 edition was published.

Foxe resumed following his chronicle sources for events in the spring of 1554. One of these sources was the 'Cheapside chronicle,' which first appeared in 1563; the remaining material was added in 1570.

Once again the introduction of material from different sources, covering the same time period, into different editions created repetition. As an example, a brief account of Elizabeth being sent to the Tower was added in the 1570 edition (1570, p. 1639; 1576, p. 1398; 1583, p. 1469); this repeated the more detailed account already printed in an earlier section of the Acts and Monuments (1563, p. 927; 1570, p. 1587; 1576, p. 1355; 1583, p. 1425) and this episode would also be described, in great detail, at the end of all four editions. (As was all too often the case, the dates in the different versions did not correspond; the first version stated that Elizabeth was sent to the Tower on 15 March; the second version (correctly)gave the date as 18 March. As always, Foxe never corrected, or apparently noticed, the discrepancy).

An example of repetition concerning Elizabeth was the story of Wyatt exonerating Elizabeth and Courtenay at his execution. One version of the story was printed in 1563, p. 1001; 1570, p. 1639; 1576, p. 1399; 1583, p. 1469; another, more detailed, version of the story, derived from Sir Thomas White, was added in the 1570 edition. It is also interesting that the shorter version of the story was printed in indirect quotation in 1563 (p. 1001) but rendered in direct quotation in subsequent editions (1570, p. 1639; 1576, p. 1399; 1583, p. 1469).

In the introductory comments Foxe made to the declaration by leading protestants opposing the idea of a disputation at Cambridge, Foxe reminded his readers that Ridley had reported rumours of the proposed disputation in a letter to Cranmer. Foxe stated that John Bradford, Laurence Saunders and John Rogers were the proposed disputants (1570, p. 1639; 1576, p. 1399; 1583, p. 1469). But Ridley had stated in his letter that they were Bradford, Edward Crome and Rogers (1570, p. 1634; 1576, p. 1394; 1583, p. 1464).

The declaration of 8 May 1554 by the leading incarcerated protestants protesting against a projected disputation in Cambridge was printed without alteration in every edition of the Acts and Monuments; unusually even the paragraph breaks were unaltered (1563, pp. 1001-03; 1570, pp. 1640-41; 1576, pp. 1399-1400; 1583, pp. 1469-71). The basic reason for this textual stability was that, from Foxe's perspective, this document was an answered prayer, too valuable to dream of cutting, abridging or paraphrasing. The declaration goes into detail about the unfairness of the Oxford disputations and then continues with a ringing confession of faith, defending justification by faith and attacking Latin services, the intercession of saints, purgatory, transubstantiation and clerical celibacy. It concludes with a denunciation of rebellion and an insistence of their loyalty to the queen.

In the 1563 edition, this section consists of a fairly lengthy account of Elizabeth's imprisonment in the custody of Sir Henry Bedingfield and a brief account of Philip's arrival in England.

The account of Elizabeth and Bedingfield was severely truncated in 1570. Part of the deleted material was praise for Elizabeth's mercy to Bedingfield. (This includes Elizabeth's oft-quoted quip in dismissing Bedingfield: that if she needed a prisoner straitly kept she would send for him). Possibly the deletion of this praise was one sign of Foxe's growing dissatisfaction with Elizabeth. Also deleted was an anecdote that Dr. John Story argued that Elizabeth should be executed, maintaining that it was useless to lop the branches from the tree without striking at the root. This remark would, in another section of the Acts and Monuments, be attributed to Stephen Gardiner (see 1563, p. 1383).

A brief account of Philip's arrival in England in the 1563 edition was expanded in later editions, with material probably taken from Foxe's lost chronicle source(s). The date of Philip's landing at Southampton is given as 'xix July' in 1563, p. 1004, but as 'xx July' in 1570, p. 1642; 1576, p. 1401; 1583, p. 1471. This could be a correction but other sources also give 19 July as the date, so this was probably a typographical error.

In the case of Latin poems, written by John White, the marian Bishop of Lincoln, elegising the marriage of Philip and Mary as well as two sets of verses attacking the marriage and responding to White (1563, pp. 1004-05). The author of the first set of verses is identified as 'James Caufield' in the 1563 edition; this is altered to 'J. C.' in subsequent editions (cf. 1563, p. 1005, with 1570, p. 1642; 1576, p. 1401; 1583, p. 1472). 'Caufield' was probably James Calfhill, the celebrated Elizabethan divine, whose name is variously given as 'Calfill,' 'Calfeld,' or 'Calfilde' (see Foster). The author of the second set of verses, identified as 'I. F.' in the 1563 edition (p. 1005) was almost certainly Foxe himself.

White's verses celebrate the common ancestry of Philip and Mary through John of Gaunt, ancestor of both the Tudors and the monarchs of Castille. (Interestingly, White anticipated by four decades Robert Person's arguments that Philip III, not James VI, was Elizabeth's rightful heir). In an effort to counter English xenophobia, White maintained that this common ancestry meant that Philip was really English. Those who opposed this marriage were foreigners such as the French and the Scots, and traitors such as Northumberland and Wyatt, 'the Catiline of our age'.

Calfhill's response denounced the polluting of English royal blood with Spanish and claimed that the marriage was God's punishment for the sins of the English. Northumberland was a hero and Wyatt fought valiantly against the papacy. Interestingly, Foxe in his verses said nothing about Northumberland or Wyatt and emphasised that the marriage was not God's will. Cruelly, Foxe also mocked Mary's childlessness and the failure of her marriage.

In the 1570 edition, Foxe added two poems by John Parkhurst. Although the poems were added to the 1570 edition, their content makes it clear that they were written at the same time as White's verses. Parkhurst denounced Philip as a foreigner, he denounced Charles V and he was lavish in praise of both Wyatt and Dudley.

Most unusually, Foxe never provided a translation for these verses. It is not difficult to see why poems praising rebels and discussing the foreign marriage of a queen and the royal succession should remain in the relative obscurity of Latin. It was probably the very topicality of these verses, however, that led Foxe to include, and later increase, them. A Hapsburg marriage was a real possibility in the 1560s and there is some evidence that Foxe discreetly opposed this, and any other marriage of Elizabeth to a catholic. These verses allowed Foxe to attack such a marriage safely. Foxe may also have been happy to take advantage of the opportunity these verses gave him to rehabilitate Wyatt.

In the 1570 edition, Foxe followed the verses with a description of Philip's progress from Winchester to London and his entry into London. The account of Philip's entry into London may have been taken from John Elder's A copie of a letter sente unto Scotland (London, 1555), STC 7552, sigs. B5r-C4v. This hypothesis is strengthened by the fact that Foxe would draw other material in the Acts and Monuments from Elder's book. But on closer examination, this looks unlikely. Some important portions of Foxe's account of Philip's entry into London, notably the story of Gardiner painting out a picture of Henry VIII holding a Bible, are not in Elder. (A brief version of this story is in Foxe's papers but it lacks much of the detail of Foxe's account; cf. BL Harley MS 419, fol. 131r with 1570, p. 1654; 1576, p. 1402; 1583, p. 1472). Another objection to Elder as Foxe's source is that other material Foxe drew from Elder first appeared in 1563; Philip's entry did not appear until the 1570 edition. Most likely, Foxe drew this account of Philip's entry from an eyewitness, possibly augmented by a chronicle or chronicles.

The images of the two giants, 'Corineus' and 'Gogmagog' which Foxe describes (1570, p. 1654; 1576, p. 1402; 1583, p. 1472) were images of Corineus Brittanus and Gogmagog Albionus, both characters in Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Britons. For the significance of these images in this entry, see Sydney Anglo, Spectacle, Pageantry and Early Tudor Policy, 2nd edition (Oxford, 1997) pp. 327-29.

Foxe's interpretation of the pageant of Orpheus (1570, p. 1654; 1576, p. 1402; 1583, p. 1472) is tendentious; other comtemporary observers (e.g., Elder, Copie of a letter, sigs. B8v-C1v) did not perceive the alleged insult to the English.

Foxe's mention of a man who plunged headfirst from St. Paul's (1570, p. 1654; 1576, p. 1402; 1583, p. 1472) refers to an acrobat who performed the sixteenth-century equivalent of bungee-jumping to celebrate the occasion (see Anglo, Spectacle, pp. 336-37). Foxe's concluding comment suggests that the acrobat performed this stunt once too often.

The story of the 'merry fellow' who mocked the newly-erected rood in St. Paul's originally appeared in an appendix to the 1563 edition and was moved to its proper chronological place in the 1570 edition. It is unquestionably an oral anecdote related to Foxe as the printing of the 1563 edition neared completion.

The remainder of the material in this block - Philip and Mary retiring to Hampton Court, Bonner's visitation, and a proclamation against vagabonds and servants without masters - was added in 1570 from unidentifiable sources (1570, pp. 1654-55; 1576, p. 1402; 1583, p. 1473).

This is the first example of what will be a recurring pattern throughout Book 10 (and not typical of any other section of the Actes and Monuments) - extended theological discussion followed by bald political narrative. This section of narrative had a purpose: it emphasises Mary's 'perjury' to the protestants who supported her and it is as close as Foxe ever came to directly criticising her.

The section of Book 10, from Edward VI's illness and Jane Grey's marriage to Mary's arrival in London, is based on Foxe's Rerum, pp. 232-34 (translated with varying degrees of fidelity). Essentially the sources for this section were reports from protestants in England during Mary's reign to English protestants in exile and continental reformers, which Foxe gathered while he was overseas. Some new material was added in later editions (notably Mary's letter to the Privy Council and the Council's response), but on the whole, there was little new information added to this section. Many of the remaining changes to the substance of this section (e.g., the accounts of Northumberland's death) reflect the changing circumstances in which Foxe's work was written.

Mary's letter to the Privy Council and the Council's response first appear in the 1570 edition (see textual variant 2); clearly Foxe had access to some Privy Council records between the publication of the 1563 and 1570 editions. As will become clear, he also had further access between the publication of the 1576 and 1583 editions.

One instance where Foxe did obtain new information was concerning the Duke of Suffolk's holding the Tower and the reluctance of Northumberland's soldiers to take the field against Mary (see textual variant 3). Probably this came to Foxe from an oral source.

The word 'former' was 'firmer' in 1563 (p. 902) and 1570 (p. 1568). The word was changed in 1576 (p. 1337); undoubtedly this was a typographical error. It is worth noting as one of a number of errors arising from careless typesetting in the 1576 edition which were perpetuated in subsequent editions.

On one occasion - see textual variant 4 and textual variant 5 - Foxe replaced a shorter passage in the 1563 edition with a longer and superficially more detailed account. But actually there was no new information here; Foxe was simply polishing his rhetoric.

Foxe added a passage to the 1570 edition - see textual variant 6 - which diluted the charge of treason against Northumberland.

There is some fairly subtle re-writing of the passages describing the Duke of Northumberland's death - 'But the Duke within a moneth after his comming ... conversion or rather subversion as then appeared' - in the 1570 edition; (compare 1563, p. 902 with 1570, p. 1569; 1576, p. 1338 and 1583 pp. 1407-08). The 1563 edition speculates that Northumberland recanted because he might have been offered a pardon; the later editions assert this as fact. Again Foxe is mitigating Northumberland's conduct.

Gardiner's Paul's Cross sermon of 30 September 1554 was mentioned, and a brief summary of it given, in 1563 (p. 1008). This was replaced in the next edition by a fuller and more detailed account (1570, p. 1644; 1576, pp. 1402-03; 1583, p. 1473). This account was based on notes taken by someone in the audience which survive in Foxe's papers (BL Harley 425, fol. 118r). The account printed by Foxe is more detailed than the material in his papers, and more hostile to Gardiner: Foxe seems to have embellished his source.

The treasure carts passing through London (1570, p. 1644; 1576, p. 1403; 1583, p. 1473) are mentioned in a number of contemporary chronicles, although Foxe included details in no other surviving source. The incident was probably taken from Foxe's lost chronicle source(s).

Foxe's narrative of John Street's desecration of a Corpus Christi procession in 1554 (1563, p. 1005; 1570, p. 1644; 1576, p. 1403; 1583, p. 1473) is of extraordinary interest. Foxe states at the conclusion of the narrative that 'the briefe Chronicle of London in this poynt is not to be credited, which untruely reported that he [Streat] fayned himselfe in Newgate to be mad: which thing, we in writing of this history by due inquisition of that partie [Streat], have found to be contrary'. Obviously this 'brief chronicle' was Foxe's initial source for this incident, but can this chronicle be identified? Only two of the surviving London chronicles, histories or diaries which preceded the 1563 edition contained this story. One is Machyn's diary, which clearly was not Foxe's source (see J. G. Nichols (ed.), The Diary of Henry Machyn, Camden Society Original Series 42 (London, 1848), pp. 63-64).

The other version of the story is in what is called the Grey Friars' chronicle and this was very probably Foxe's source. It has the essential details of the incident, including Streat's name, that Streate was 'put in Newgatte and then fayned him selffe madde' (J. G. Nichols (ed.), Chronicle of the Grey Friars of London, Camden Society Original Series 53 (London, 1856), p. 89). This is particularly interesting since the Grey Friars' chronicle is known to have passed through the hands of John Stow. Foxe and Stow are known to have exchanged materials but not until after the 1563 edition, under the auspices of Matthew Parker. (There seems to have been a certain amount of personal tension between Foxe and Stow, and their cooperation was not entirely voluntary). Thus it appears that it was Foxe who originally acquired a copy of the Grey Friars' chronicle and passed it to Stow.

That said, Foxe made very little use of the Grey Friars' chronicle, probably because he disliked and distrusted its anti-protestant bias. This distrust can be seen in his taking the trouble to find Streat and interview him about the incident, after he learned of it from the chronicle. (This is also an example of Foxe hunting down oral sources to confirm or deny written reports).

After relating Streat's misfortunes, Foxe added a recital of the events of October and the first third of November 1554, all drawn from lost chronicle sources (1570, pp. 1644-45; 1576, p. 1403; 1583, 1473-74).

The incident of five priests doing penance at Paul's Cross on 4 November 1554 is in the chronicle extracts in Foxe's papers (Harley MS 419, fol. 132r).

Foxe continues with anecdotes of Bonner's 1554 visitation of his diocese, also added in the 1570 edition (1570, pp. 1645-46; 1576, pp. 1403-1440 [recte 1404]; 1583, p. 1474). The purpose of these anecdotes was the assassination of Bonner's character. Foxe unsubtly implied that Bonner lusted after his nephew"s wife and behaved improperly with her (1570, p. 1645; 1576, p. 1403; 1583, p. 1474). Most of the narrative, however, is devoted to describing Bonner's choleric temper; this is the first of a number of anecdotes scattered throughout the Acts and Monuments relating Bonner's rages. As is often the case, however, in Foxe's anecdotes about Bonner, if one reads between the lines, one sees that Bonner's anger was not groundless. The bishop clearly suspected the religious allegiance of the parson of Hadham (probably rightly so, since the rood was not erected and there was no sacrament above the altar) and this, combined with the lack of greeting for Bonner, would have looked like open defiance. It should also be remembered that Bonner was in prison when Foxe heard this story and it probably lost nothing in the telling.

That Foxe was drawing on oral sources for his narrative of Bonner's visitation is indicated by his statement that the incidents were: 'Testified by such as there and then were present, Rich. K. etc' (1570, p. 1646; 1576, p. 1403; 1583, p. 1474). Who 'Rich. K.' and the others were may be impossible to determine, but the Sir Thomas Joscelyn who derided Bonner's temper was the father of John Joscelyn, Matthew Parker's secretary. I suspect that Foxe learned of the incident, and the names of witnesses to it, from John Joscelyn. In Foxe's papers (Harley 421, fol. 1r-v) is an incomplete, eyewitness account of a disastrous sermon given by Dr. Henry Bird (Bonner's suffragan and vicar of Dunmow, Essex), preached before Bonner during the same visitation. (In fact, the records of Bonner's visitation show that he visited Dunmow on Friday 12 October immediately before visiting Hadham (Guildhall MS 9537/1, fol. 46v)). It therefore seems probable that the story of Bird's sermon came from the same informant(s) as the story of Bonner striking Joscelyn; Foxe printed the latter but did not print the former which remained in his papers.

The story of the ill-fated erection of a rood in Cockerham, Lancashire, was also added to the 1570 edition (1570, p. 1646; 1576, p. 1440 [recte 1404]; 1583, pp. 1474-75). This story came to Foxe from an individual anonymous informant, whose account survives in the martyrologist's papers (ECL 260, fols. 96r-97v). Foxe reproduced this account fairly faithfully, although he abridged it slightly.

Foxe reprints Bonner's mandate to remove scripture verses from the church walls in his diocese from Bonner's register (cf. Guildhall MS 9531/12, fol. 357v with 1563, pp. 1006-07; 1570, p. 1646; 1576, p. 1440 [recte 1404] -1405 and 1583, p. 1475). In the first edition both the Latin original as well as an English translation were provided; in subsequent editions the Latin original was deleted. (The elimination of Latin documents from the 1570 edition was a consistently pursued policy).

The account of Christopherson presenting Cambridge University with Gardiner's three articles and of twenty-four fellows being forced from St. John's appears to have come from a Cambridge informant, possibly the same informant who supplied the material on John Young's activities there which first appeared in 1563, p. 1000. Like that material, this account appeared in all four versions (1563, p. 1007; 1570, pp. 1646-47; 1576, p. 1405; 1583, p. 1475).

A comment that Foxe made in 1563 is revealing of Foxe's loyalty to his old college. Foxe lamented the catholic zeal displayed in Oxford 'which before in Wicliffes time ... [was] the first eye that gave lyghte to al other places, to discerne true religion from blyndenesse and ignoraunce' and the fact that the mass was celebrated in Merton, Corpus Christi and New College even before it was legally required. Foxe took the opportunity to praise Madgalen College for its godly zeal.

The account of William Tresham's exhortation to the students of Christ Church also appears in all four editions, although considerably altered between 1563 and 1570. (See 1563, p. 1007; 1570, p. 1647; 1576, p. 1405; 1583, p. 1475). For one thing, the 1563 edition mentioned that the incident happened while 'Doctoure [Richard] Marshall' was dean of Christ Church. This reference was removed from all subsequent editions. Foxe also moderated the insulting language between the editions and also muted his sarcasm. Foxe also deleted one of Tresham's arguments enumerating the different types of mass and the different purposes which they served. With regard to Tresham's promise to secure the 'Lady Bell of Brampton' for Christ Church, it should be noted that Tresham was the vicar of Brampton, Oxfordshire.

After the account of Tresham's oration, Foxe went on in the 1563 edition to give brief relations of a few important events in the autumn of 1554. Most of these were later dropped in favour of more detailed accounts of the same events which Foxe obtained.

A few phrases of Foxe's description of the opening of parliament on 12 November 1554 in the 1563 edition were retained; otherwise this material was replaced in 1570 with more detailed accounts drawn from Foxe's lost chronicle source.

A letter from Privy Council to Edmund Bonner announcing that Mary was pregnant was moved in the 1570 edition from its place after Pole's letter to Julius III to before Pole's oration to Parliament. This minor rearrangement was merely to place these materials in their proper chronological order. Foxe's note that the letter was printed by John Cawood (a note printed only in 1563, p. 1014) shows that Foxe's source was a printed copy of the letter, not an archival source.

All editions of the Acts and Monuments contain Gardiner's short introduction of Pole in parliament on 28 November 1554 and Pole's speech celebrating the restoration of England to the catholic faith (1563, pp. 1008-10; 1570, pp. 1647-49; 1576, pp. 1405-07; 1583, pp. 1476-77). In the 1570 edition, however, Foxe added a few phrases to Gardiner's introduction of Pole's oration. This addition included the information that the gate to parliament was locked during Pole's oration (which somewhat detracts from the cardinal's eloquence). Gardiner's introduction and Pole's oration were reprinted from John Elder, A copie of a letter sente unto Scotland (London, 1555), STC 7552, sigs. D1r-E2r. Elder states (sig. E2r-v) that he based his version on notes taken by a friend of his, an MP, who was present.

The supplication of parliament to Philip and Mary for permission to present their submission to Pole together with an account of Pole's receiving that submission are reprinted from Elder (cf. Copie of a letter, sigs. E3r-E5r with 1563, p. 1010; 1570, p. 1649; 1576, p. 1407; 1583, p. 1477).

The description of Pole's absolution of parliament (in response to its submission) does not come from Elder. A copy of the absolution (in an English translation identical to Foxe's) survives in Foxe's papers (cf. Inner Temple Library, Petyt MS 538/47, fol. 39r with 1563, p. 1011; 1570, p. 1649; 1576, p. 1407; 1583, p. 1478). The account of the absolution being read was probably based on notes made by an eyewitness. The text of the absolution itself was probably translated from a contemporary tract, the Copia delle lettere del Serenissimo Re d'Inghilterra et del Reverendissimo Card. Polo Legato della S. Sede Apostolica alla Santita di N. S. Iulio Papa III sopra la reduttione di quel Regno alla unione della Santa Madre chiefa et obedienza della Sede Apostolica (Rome, 1554), sig. A6r-v. As was so often the case, the Latin original of the absolution was printed, along with a translation, in 1563, but was dropped from later editions.

Philip's letter to Julius III, announcing the reconciliation of England to the catholic church, was printed in all four editions (1563, pp. 1011-12; 1570, p. 1650; 1576, pp. 1407-08; 1583, p. 1478). Pole's letter to Julius III, announcing the same reconciliation, was also printed in all four editions (1563, pp. 1012-14; 1570, pp. 1650-51; 1576, p. 1408; 1583, pp. 1478-4179 [recte 1479]), although the original Latin version of the letter was printed only in the 1563 edition. The source of both letters was a contemporary tract, the Copia delle lettre del Serenissimo Re d'Inghilterra et del Reverendissimo Card. Polo Legato della S. Sede Apostolica alla Santita di N. S. Iulio Papa III sopra la reduttione di quel Regno alla unione della Santa Madre chiefa et obedienza della Sede Apostolica (Rome, 1554). Pole's letter is printed on sigs. A3v-A5r and Philip's letter, in its original Spanish, on sig. A2r-v, in an Italian translation on sigs. A2v-A3r. (Foxe states that he had the letter translated from Spanish. His willingness to go to this trouble is an indication of the importance he attached to this letter).

In the 1563 edition (only), Foxe printed the account of the ordeals of John Bolton. Clearly, Foxe"s source for the story, as Foxe himself states, was Bolton, although Bolton's account was apparently supported by 'sufficient and credible testimonies, as well of the inhabitours of the sayd towne of Reading, whose letters at this present, for the certification therof we have to shewe' (1563, p. 1018). This is a good example of Foxe's efforts to secure testimony for an episode he knew might be controversial. However, for neither the first nor the last time, the ground of apparently solid testimony gave way beneath Foxe's feet. Bolton's story became intertwined with a heated dispute between Thackham, a resident of Reading who claimed to have aided Julins Palmer and Elizabeth Fane, and his critics who denounced him as a self-serving liar (see J. G. Nichols (ed.), Narratives of the Days of the Reformation, Original Series 77 (London, 1859), pp. 85-98). In the ensuing controversy, several different accounts of Bolton's ordeal were told, some of which suggested that Bolton had recanted to save his skin (Strype, EM III, 2, pp. 427-30). If this were not enough, Bolton also emerged in 1567 as a prominent member of the separatist group meeting in Plumber's Hall in London (Patrick Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (London, 1967), p. 90). For these reasons, all mention of Bolton was eradicated from future editions of Foxe's book.

The statement that Bolton was released by Sir Francis Englefield (1563, p. 1018) is explained by the fact that Englefield, in addition to his numerous other offices, was keeper of Reading gaol (Bindoff, Commons).

Even his almost innumerable enemies conceded Stephen Gardiner's mastery of rhetoric and the Paul's Cross sermon of 2 December 1554 was one of his masterpieces. The impact of the sermon is indicated by its rapid dissemination. A detailed précis of this sermon appears in John Elder, A copie of a letter sente unto Scotlande (London, 1556), STC 7552, sigs. E6r-F1r, and the sermon was also translated into Latin: Concio reveren. Stephani episcopi Wintonien. Angliae cancellari, habita domenica prima adventus, praesentibus sereniss. rege et reverendiss. legato apost. in maxima populi (Rome, 1555). Neither was Foxe's source. Elder does not record many important details in Foxe's version; conversely Foxe does not have details in the Latin translation, especially its discussion of the queen's pregnancy. (Admittedly, this omission could be due to censorship on Foxe's part, although the reason for such censorship is obscure). Most importantly, Foxe states that his version was based on 'Some notes whereof as they came to my hands faithfully gathered (as it appeareth by sundry copyes)' (1563, p. 1018; 1570, p. 1651; 1576, p. 1408; 1583, p. 4179 [recte 1479]).

No other events for the year 1554 are described in the 1563 edition. In the 1570 edition, accounts were added of events in London and at court during December 1554 (1570, p. 1652; 1576, p. 1409; 1583, pp. 4179 [recte 1479]-1480. These events seem to have come from Foxe's lost chronicle source(s).

When Foxe states that parliament asked the pope 'to Confirme and establish the sale of Abbey landes and Chantry landes,' he means that Parliament asked the pope to confirm the purchasers of such lands in their ownership and not to reclaim them.

In the 1570 edition Foxe continues with an account of the arrest of the Bow Church congregation on 1 January 1555 (1570, p. 1652; 1576, p. 1409; 1583, p. 1480). This account also probably came from Foxe's lost chronicle source(s) and it replaced an account of the same event in the 1563 edition, on p. 1020. The reason for this replacement probably was that it was simpler for Foxe, in 1570, to print the new version along with other material, which preceded and followed it, from the same source.

In any case, the 1570 narrative, based on these chronicle source(s), continued through parliament passing a new act of supremacy and a tumult between the English and the Spanish at Westminster (1570, p. 1652; 1576, p. 1409; 1583, p. 1480.

Southwell's exclamation in parliament over the expected birth of Mary's child (1570, p. 1652; 1576, pp. 1409-10; 1583, p. 1480; this probably came from an oral source.

The lengthy extract from 1 and 2 Philip and Mary, cap. 10 (printed in 1570, p. 1652; 1576, p. 1410; 1583, p. 1480) is the fruit of Foxe's delving into the parliament rolls. Foxe's comments following the act, thanking God that the Spanish had not become heirs to the throne (1570, p. 1653; 1576, p. 1410; 1583, p. 1480) help confirm that the Latin verses Foxe printed against the marriage of Philip and Mary were designed to influence Elizabeth against a foreign marriage.

Three prayers made for the safe delivery of Mary's child were moved from where they had been printed in 1563 to bring them into the correct chronological position within the narrative. Foxe also deleted the Latin original of the first of these prayers, that made by Hugh Weston, which had been printed in the 1563 edition, from subsequent editions. Weston's prayer (1563, p. 1015; 1570, p. 1653; 1576, p. 1410; 1583, pp. 1480-81) was a printed text circulated by the government; Foxe declared (only in 1563) that it was 'Imprinted by Iohn Cawode'.

The second prayer (1563, pp. 1015-16; 1570, pp. 1653-54; 1576, pp. 1410-11; 1583, p. 1481) seems also to have been officially inspired, although there is no sign that it was printed.

The third prayer (1563, pp. 1016-17; 1570, p. 1654; 1576, p. 1411; 1583, p. 1481) is stated (only in 1563) to be by Thomas Smith; presumably Sir Thomas Smith. The note identifying Smith as the author of this prayer may well have been removed at Smith's request.

Foxe makes the reason he printed the prayers quite clear: to show 'what litle effect the prayers of the Popes Churchmen had wyth almighty God' (1570, p. 1653; 1576, p. 1410; 1583, p. 1480).

Once again, Foxe added material to the 1570 edition from his chronicle source(s), this time concerning events in January 1555. Some of these events, such as the dissolution of parliament or the revival of the statutes for punishing heresy, were mentioned with less detail in the first edition (in 1563, pp. 1022 and 1019-20 respectively).

Foxe reprinted the letters to and from John Hooper about the arrest of Thomas Rose's congregation on 1 January 1555. All of these letters were first printed by Henry Bull in An apology made by the reverende father and constante martyr of Christe Iohn Hooper (London, 1562), STC 13742, sigs. C6r-D3v. (ECL MS 261, fols. 1r-14r form the manuscript of the book sent to Grindal for his imprimatur; ECL 261, fols. 11r-14r are the letters concerning Rose's congregation). In the 1563 edition (only), Foxe printed an anonymous letter sent to Hooper, informing him of the arrest of Rose's congregation (1563, p. 1020). This letter is in Apology, sigs. C6r-C7r and ECL MS 261, fol. 11r-v; it is not printed in other editions of the Acts and Monuments nor is it printed in the LM.

This was followed by Hooper's brief reply to this letter (1563, p. 1020; 1570, p. 1654; 1576, p. 1411; 1583, p. 1482; cf. Apology, sigs. C7v-C8r; ECL 261, fol. 12r and LM, p. 120).

Foxe includes Hooper's letter to the imprisoned congregation, urging them to be constant unto death (1563, pp. 1021-22; 1570, pp. 1654-55; 1576, pp. 1411-12; 1583, p. 1482; cf. Apology, sigs. C8v-D3v; ECL MS 261, fols. 12v-14r and LM, pp. 121-23. ECL MS 260, fol. 225r-v and Lansdowne MS 389, fols. 3r-4v are copies of this letter).

The date of the letter is given as 4 January 1555 in all manuscript versions and every printed version up to and including 1570. In 1576, p. 1412, it is changed to 14 January 1555 and the mistake is reprinted in 1583, p. 1482. Once again, we can see the pattern of careless typography in the 1576 edition going uncorrected in the 1583 edition.

Foxe returns to lost chronicle source(s) for material on the release of prisoners implicated in Wyatt's rebellion in January 1555 which he added in 1570.

In every edition, Foxe recorded the death in prison, on 7 January 1555, of one James 'Gorge' (in 1563, p. 1022 and 1570, p. 1655) or James 'George' (in 1576, p. 1412 and 1583, p. 1482). This is almost certainly a confusion with James Gore, a Protestant who died in Colchester Castle around 7 December 1555 and whose death will be described in Book 11. None of the other contemporary lists of Marian martyrs - i.e., those of Brice, Crowley and Knox - list either a James Gorge or a James George dying at this time.

Foxe returns to his chronicle source(s) for an account of Pole's exhortation to convocation on 23 January 1555.

Foxe, in 1570, corrects the date of the procession through London (wrongly given as 24 January 1555 in the first edition) celebrating England's reconciliation with Rome.

Foxe deleted a statement, printed in the 1563 edition, which tied the procession to parliament's proclamation of England's submission to Rome, probably because it was demonstrably inaccurate on chronological grounds alone.

In the 1570 edition, Foxe added more detail to his account of the festivities; probably this was taken from another chronicle source.

In the 1570 edition, Foxe added brief accounts of the examinations of John Hooper, John Rogers, Rowland Taylor, John Bradford, Edward Crome, Laurence Saunders and Robert Ferrar, by Stephen Gardiner at the end of January 1555. This is clearly based on the original court book. The book itself no longer survives, but copies of the relevant pages are still extant in Foxe's papers as Harley MS 421, fols. 36r-51v. Foxe printed the gist of these records quite accurately and omitted nothing important. But Foxe did make one statement that goes beyond what is in these records. He declared that the commission to try these protestants came from Cardinal Pole (1570, p. 1635; 1576, p. 1412; 1583, p. 1483). The records of Hooper's examination by Gardiner state, however, that the trial was held under Gardiner's authority (Harley 421, fol. 36r). This does not necessarily mean that Pole did not issue such a commission; Gardiner may well have been trying to exert his own authority. Nevertheless, there is no evidence to support Foxe's claim of Pole's culpability.

Foxe dropped a passage, originally printed in the 1563 edition, which tied the punishment of heresy to the restoration of papal supremacy in England, probably because he realised this was an error and that the one was not the immediate cause of the other.

Foxe printed a petition by imprisoned protestant ministers to Philip and Mary. The initials of the suppliants, given in the document - H., F., T., B., P., R., S. - seem to indicate that the authors of this document were Hooper, Ferrar, Taylor, Bradford, Philpot, Rogers and Saunders. The suppliants denounced the persecution of religious dissenters, requested a disputation or debate (but one conducted on their terms) and proclaimed that if such a disputation were held, they would prove that their doctrine was doctrine of the true catholic church.

A sentence, which appeared in the 1563 edition, introducing what would later become Book 11, was dropped.

Mary's proclamation banning unlicensed preaching, printing, etc. (1563, pp. 903-04; 1570, pp. 1569-70; 1576, pp. 1338-39 and 1583, pp. 1408-09) was undoubtedly printed from an original copy, probably from the version printed by John Cawood. This is confirmed by the fact that the 1563 edition prints the words 'God save the Quene' at the conclusion of the proclamation; this fidelity to the original was not repeated in subsequent editions. For a copy of this proclamation, with a list of the surviving copies, see Paul L Hughes and James F Larkin (eds.), Tudor Royal Proclamations, (3 vols, New Haven, 1964-99) II, pp. 5-8.

The story of Bradford's appeasing a mob incited by Gilbert Bourne's Paul's Cross sermon (1563, pp. 904-05; 1570, p. 1570; 1576, p. 1339 and 1583, p. 1407 [recte 1409] is taken word for word from Robert Crowley's continuation of Lanquet's chronicle (see Robert Crowley, An epitome of cronicles ... to the reigne of our soveraigne Ladye Queene Elizabeth [London, 1559], STC 15217.5, sigs. Eeee4v-Ffff1r). This is Foxe's first extract from Crowley's chronicle, which will be his basic source for the political history of Mary's reign in the 1563 edition.

The violence at Bourne's sermon, however, was known to Foxe when he wrote the Rerum. He will repeat an account of the incident, with different wording, in 1563, p. 1173; 1570, p. 1780; 1576, p. 1339 and 1583, p. 1604; this second account is an exact translation of the Rerum.

The Privy Council order, following Bourne's sermon, making householders responsible for keeping order, is inserted in the 1583 edition (see textual variant 7) and is the first example in Book 10 of Foxe's renewed research in the Privy Council records between the publication of the 1576 and 1583 editions.

The word 'day' in 1583, p. 1497 [recte 1409], is 'Sunday' in the previous three editions. This is a misprint in the 1583 edition which changes the chronology.

More material from the Privy Council acts for August and September 1553 was inserted in the 1583 edition (see textual variant 8 and textual variant 9).

More material from the Privy Council acts for August and September 1553 was inserted in the 1583 edition (see textual variant 8 and textual variant 9).

It should be noted that the 'M. Vernon', sent to the Tower along with Bradford and Becon (1583, p. 1497 [recte 1409]), is Jean Veron, the Huguenot minister (cf. APC IV, p. 221).

The 'Hugh Saunders' listed as appearing before the Privy Council on 2 September is actually Hugh Symonds, who is referred to several times in these records. [NB: the name is mistakenly given as Saunders in the Privy Council records - see APC IV, p. 338).

The 'Austen' mentioned in 1583, p. 1410, is Augustine Bernher, Latimer's aide and an important figure in the Marian protestant church.

The entry for 5 September, concerning Peter Martyr, first appears in the 1563 edition and was taken from Crowley's chronicle (cf. Crowley, Epitome, sig. Ffff1v with 1563, p. 905; 1570, p. 1571; 1576, p. 1339; 1583, p. 1397 [recte 1409]).

In the 1563 edition (p. 905), Foxe reports that John Taylor, the Bishop of Lincoln, was sent to the Tower after refusing to attend mass at the opening of Parliament. In subsequent editions (1570, p. 1571; 1576, p. 1339 and 1583, p. 1410) Foxe corrected this to say that Taylor was commanded to attend and died soon afterwards at Ankerwicke (in Sir Thomas Smith's house, although Foxe does not say so). This is a good example of the detailed correction of the first edition from well informed oral sources.

The material on the repeal of the Henrician and Edwardian religious statutes and the story of Judge Hales is taken entirely from Crowley's chronicle (cf. Crowley, Epitome, sig. Ffff2r with 1563, p. 905; 1570, p. 1571; 1576, p. 1339-40; 1583, p. 1410).

Foxe would later (in Book 11) repeat the story of Hales at greater length, drawing upon other sources.

In the 1570 and subsequent editions, Foxe replaced a short notice about the 1553 Convocation with a more detailed account of its commencement (see textual variant 10 and textual variant 11). The short notice in the 1563 edition was reprinted entirely from Crowley's chronicle (see Crowley, Epitome, sig. Ffff2r). Up to and including the 1563 edition, all the information Foxe had about the Convocation came from Crowley's brief description and, of course, Philpot's account of it; for the 1570 edition he clearly had consulted some records of it.

There is a complete version of Philpot's account of the 1553 Convocation in Rerum, pp. 215-30. The version in the 1563 edition is a reprinting of John Philpot, The trew report of the dysputacyon had and begonne in the convocacyon hows at London the XVIII daye of Octobre MDLIIII, (Emden, 1554), STC 19890. In fact, in the 1563 edition, Foxe reprinted the title of Philpot's book (including its erroneous date of 1554) as the heading of his account (1563, p. 906). In subsequent editions Foxe corrected the date to 1553. In the 1570 edition, Foxe made both stylistic and substantive changes to Philpot's text; the most important of these will be discussed below. For all practical purposes, this text remained unchanged in succeeding editions.

In the edition of 1570, Foxe recast the arguments presented in this Convocation into syllogisms. Moreover, on several occasions, Foxe went beyond this to re-word or even change Philpot's arguments.

Thus when Philpot argued that 'The body of Christ givyn by the sacrament hath a promes of remission of synnis adjoyned vnto all them that receyve it dewely, but this promes could take no effect in chryst, ergo christ ate not his own body in the sacrament', (Trew report, sigs. B6v-B7r; 1563, p. 909); Foxe changed this to 'Receaving of Christes body hath a promise of remission of sinnes with it annexed, Christ eating the Sacrament had no promise of remission of sinne, ergo, Christ in the Sacrament dyd not eate his own body' (1570, p. 1573; 1576, p. 1342; 1583, p. 1412).

Foxe altered the passage: 'To this answer, Fyllpot replyed, and sayd that he inforced not his argument upon the saying of the angell, (Christ is rysen and not here), but toke his beginnyng therby to procede as is before is rehearsed: so that process wherof yow have not thorowli answered' (Trew report, sig. C5r-v; 1563, p. 911) to read 'To this Philpot replied and sayd, you have not directly aunswered to the saying of the Aungell: Christ is risen and is not here, because you have omitted that which was the chiefest point of all' (1570, p. 1575; 1576, p. 1343; and 1583, p. 1414). Foxe's emendations concealed Philpot's damaging admission that the Scriptural passage he quoted did not support his argument.

Philpot said: 'we must byleve so moch of his [God's] omnipotency as he by his word hath declared and taught us that the heavens must receyve his body vntill the daie of dome therfor we ought to bileve' (Trew report, sig. E2v; 1563, p. 915). Foxe made Philpot's argument more explicit and recast it as a syllogism: 'Only so much is to bee beleved of Gods omnipotence as is in the word expressed. That Christs body is both in heaven and here also really in the Sacrament is not expressed in the worde, Ergo, It is not to be beleved that the body of Christ being in heaven is here also really in the Sacrament' (1570, p. 1578; 1576, p. 1346; and 1583, p. 1416).

And, where Philpot in answer to a scriptural passage which John Harpsfield had cited to rebut his arguments, declared 'the places were not like which he [Harpsfield] went about to compare, which thing ought to be observed in conferring of wordes or scriptures together' (Trew report, sigs. E2v-E3r; 1563, p. 915). Foxe's version reads: 'the places were not alike whych he went about to compare, and that in comparing Scriptures we must not consider the named wordes, but the meaning rather of the Scriptures' (1570, p. 1578; 1576, p. 1346; and 1583, p. 1417).

Philpot said: 'we must byleve so moch of his [God's] omnipotency as he by his word hath declared and taught us that the heavens must receyve his body vntill the daie of dome therfor we ought to bileve' (Trew report, sig. E2v; 1563, p. 915). Foxe made Philpot's argument more explicit and recast it as a syllogism: 'Only so much is to bee beleved of Gods omnipotence as is in the word expressed. That Christs body is both in heaven and here also really in the Sacrament is not expressed in the worde, Ergo, It is not to be beleved that the body of Christ being in heaven is here also really in the Sacrament' (1570, p. 1578; 1576, p. 1346; and 1583, p. 1416).

And, where Philpot in answer to a scriptural passage which John Harpsfield had cited to rebut his arguments, declared 'the places were not like which he [Harpsfield] went about to compare, which thing ought to be observed in conferring of wordes or scriptures together' (Trew report, sigs. E2v-E3r; 1563, p. 915). Foxe's version reads: 'the places were not alike whych he went about to compare, and that in comparing Scriptures we must not consider the named wordes, but the meaning rather of the Scriptures' ' (1570, p. 1578; 1576, p. 1346; and 1583, p. 1417).

Once again, the text is occasionally altered by typographical errors in the edition of 1576. A reference to Augustine's 'xc' treatise on St. John (Trew report, sig. B4v), rendered as 'lxxxx' in 1563 (p. 908) and 1570 (p. 1513) became '70' in 1576 (p. 1513) and was reprinted as '70' in 1583 (p. 1412).

The statement that a passage in Theodoret was on 'their side' (Trew report, sig. D4v; 1563, p. 913 and 1570, p. 1576 [recte 1577]) was misprinted to read 'the other side' in 1576 (p. 1345). This error was reprinted in 1583 (p. 1415).

The text reads (1563, p. 912; 1570, p. 1576; 1576, p. 1344; and 1583, p. 1414) that James Haddon's arguments on the fourth day of the 1553 Convocation, relating to a passage in Theodoret, would not be repeated because they were in Greek. This abridgement was Philpot's, and Foxe was merely repeating it (see Trew report, sigs. C8r-D1v). But Foxe had an account of this expurgated portion of the debate which he never printed, and it survives in his papers (BL Harley MS 422, vols. 38r-40r. This document was printed in R. W. Dixon, A History of the Church of England (6 vols), London, 1884-1902, IV, pp. 81-85.

Philpot states that a messenger came to Convocation on 20 October 1563 from the 'lord gret master' (Trew report, sig. A7r) and this is repeated in every edition of the Actes and Monuments (1563, p. 906; 1570, p. 1572; 1576, p. 1340; and 1583, p. 1411). In the Rerum the official's title is given as 'Domine magni oeconomi', but, more helpfully, a marginal note reads 'Is est Comes Arundellus, qui ad nobilitatis antiquiss. ornamenta, adiecit etiam eruditionem non vulgarem' (Rerum, p. 216). This not only identifies the office of 'lord gret master' (it is Lord High Steward, the Earl of Arundel's hereditary office) but it also confirms that Foxe did not even consult the Rerum, much less translate it, when printing Philpot's account of the Convocation for the 1563 edition.

Generally, if Foxe quotes a document in the 1563 edition which pertains to the London diocese, it came from the London diocesan records, one of the few archival collections which Foxe systematically exploited before the 1563 edition. Mary's precept to Bonner to dissolve Convocation probably came from these records.

The notices of the mayor of Coventry sending four prisoners (including John Careless) to the Privy Council and of the Council ordering the arrest of John Huntingdon were added in the 1583 edition (see textual variant 12), and were taken from the Privy Council register (see APC IV, pp. 368 - 69). Note that Foxe does not print the Council's characterisations of the Coventry men's behaviour as 'lewde and sediciouse' or of Huntingdon as a 'sedicious preacher'.

The notices of the mayor of Coventry sending four prisoners (including John Careless) to the Privy Council and of the Council ordering the arrest of John Huntingdon were added in the 1583 edition (see textual variant 12), and were taken from the Privy Council register (see APC IV, pp. 368 - 69). Note that Foxe does not print the Council's characterisations of the Coventry men's behaviour as 'lewde and sediciouse' or of Huntingdon as a 'sedicious preacher'.

The most interesting of these items is a rather remarkable passage on the execution of the Earl of Surrey: 'a worthy and ingenious gentleman, for what cause or by whom [he was beheaded], I have not here to deale, this is certeine, that not many yeres after his death, followed the beheading of both the L. Semers and at last of the Duke of Northumberland' (1570, p. 1579; 1576, p. 1343; and 1583, p. 1417). This passage, implying that Surrey was unjustly executed and that this injustice was providentially punished, first appeared when Surrey's son (who was Foxe's pupil and patron) was in the Tower awaiting execution.

Much of the remaining material, particularly that concerning the rumours that Cranmer had celebrated mass and his public denial of these rumours, would be treated in greater detail later in the Actes and Monuments (cf. 1570, p. 1579; 1576, p. 1347; and 1583, p. 1418; with 1570, p. 1465-66; 1576, p. 1395; and 1583, p. 1635).

'Argentine', mentioned in 1570, p. 1579; 1576, p. 1347; and 1583, p. 1418, is a slightly anglicised version of the Latin name for Strasburg.

The description of the arraignment of Cranmer, Jane Grey and Northumberland's sons is taken from Crowley's chronicle (cf. Crowley, Epitome, sig. Ffff2v with 1563, p. 916; 1570, p. 1579; 1576, p. 1347; 1583, p. 1418) except for the passage which reads: 'which at the intreatye of certayne persons were had againe to the Tower and there kept for a time'. This passage is excerpted from Thomas Cooper, Coopers chronicle ... vnto the late death of Quene Marie (London, 1560), STC 15218, sig. Yyyy2r. This is Foxe's only borrowing from Coopers chronicle in Book 10 (or, as far as is known, anywhere in the Actes and Monuments).

The passages on the restoration of the festivals of St. Catherine and St. Nicholas and of the repeal of the statutes of praemunire and of the Edwardine religious statutes, were added to the 1570 edition (see textual variant 14). The sources cannot be determined; possibly they are an individual's recollections transmitted to Foxe.

The detaining of Pole by the emperor and the coming of an embassy sent to arrange the marriage of Philip and Mary are recounted by Crowley and reprinted by Foxe (cf. Crowley, Epitome, sig. Ffff2v with 1563, p. 916; 1570, p. 1579; 1576, p. 1347; 1583, p. 1418).

Much of the material in this section is reprinted from Crowley's chronicle. Later in Book 10, after the Oxford disputations, Foxe would draw on yet another chronicle or chronicles to form a political narrative of the early years of Mary's reign. Because he was drawing on different sources which covered roughly the same chronological period, there was a good deal of repetition (and a certain amount of inconsistency) between these different sections of Book 10. For example, Foxe gave one account of the capture of the Duke of Suffolk here (1563, p. 916; 1570, p. 1579; 1576, p. 1347; and 1583, p. 1418) and another, different, account of the same events later in Book 10 (1570, p. 1637; 1576, p. 1396; and 1583, p. 1467). Foxe made no attempt, at any time, to reconcile any of these differing versions of the same events.

The notices of the imprisonment of Edward Crome and Thomas Wotton (see textual variant 15) both come from the Privy Council register; Foxe omitted the phrase about Crome's 'lewde behaviour'.

It might be noted here that in the Appendix of 1563 (p. 1731), Foxe prints a letter from Mary to the third Duke of Norfolk, informing the Duke of Wyatt's defeat. (This letter was removed from the editions of 1570 and 1576, but was reprinted in the 1583 edition). This letter was almost certainly loaned or given to Foxe by the fourth Duke of Norfolk.

The brief description of Wyatt's rebellion, Suffolk's capture and the flight of Sir Peter Carew are all taken from Crowley (cf. Crowley, Epitome, sigs. Ffff2v - Ffff3 with 1563, pp. 916-17; 1570, pp. 1579-80; 1576, pp. 1347-48; 1583, p. 1419).

There is one interesting piece of re-writing here, however. Crowley described the fate of the Duke of Norfolk's expedition against Wyatt: 'Thomas Duke of Norfolk, who beynge forsaken of them that went with hym, escaped to London agayne with great difficultie, as he thought, although no man followed him' (cf. Crowley, Epitome, sig. Ffff2v). Foxe, apparently thinking that this made the Duke of Norfolk sound too much like the Duke of Plaza Toro, rendered this: 'Thomas D. of Norfolke, who being aboute Rochester Bridge, forsaken of them that went with him, returned safe to London with out any more harme done unto him, and withoute bloudshed on either partie' (1563, p. 916; 1570, p. 1579; 1576, p. 1347; and 1583, p. 1418). Once again Foxe's loyalty to the Howard family shaped his narrative.

While Foxe reprinted the account of Suffolk's capture directly from Crowley, in the 1570 edition, he added one detail not in Crowley's account: that the name of the servant who betrayed the duke was Underwood.

The version of Mary's speech in the London Guildhall on 1 February 1554, which is printed in the 1563 edition (see textual transposition 23), is different from the version printed in subsequent editions. The substance is generally similar but the version in the later editions is much smoother. The 1563 version appears to have been based on a spectator's notes; Foxe may have worked this up into a more polished version or he may have obtained a better version. (It is more likely to be the latter, and this is partially confirmed by Foxe's adding of anecdotes in the 1570 edition, together with his account of the speech, describing what happened when the speech was given [see textual variant 17]). In any case, the initial appearance of this oration in the concluding pages of the 1563 edition suggests that Foxe obtained this version of the speech only as the Actes and Monuments was going to press. Earlier, in the 1563 edition, Foxe was able only to summarise the speech (see textual variant 16).

Although Foxe promises an account of the theft of Wyatt's head (1563, p. 917; 1570, p. 1580; 1576, p. 1348; 1583, p. 1419), such an account does not appear in the Actes and Monuments. This is because the passage is taken, word for word, from Crowley (cf. Crowley, Epitome, sig. Ffff4r), who did not give this account himself.

To paraphrase Voltaire, if Jane Grey had not existed, Foxe would have invented her. Her constancy and articulate championing of her evangelical convictions did a great deal to counteract the recantation of her father-in-law and some of his closest adherents. And, unlike her father and Wyatt, who also died 'good deaths', she was regarded as being innocent of treason. Yet at the same time, Foxe's account of her is more than merely the narrative of a martyrdom. Jane Grey's conference with Feckenham and her letter to Harding also form an important part of the arguments against the mass and the eucharist which are the overriding themes of Book 10. Moreover, her connections with the Marian exiles (particularly James Haddon and John Aylmer, who had been her tutor), and continental reformers with whom she had corresponded (notably Bullinger), ensured that Foxe had ample information about her even when he was in exile.

In fact, most of the material Foxe printed regarding Jane Grey had already been printed in the Rerum and this material was largely unchanged in the Actes and Monuments. The items in the Rerum include the dialogue with Feckenham (pp. 234-36), Jane's letter to Catherine Grey (pp. 236-38) and Jane's speech at her execution (pp. 237-38). Jane's prayer 'in time of trouble' and her letter to Harding are not in the Rerum, but appear in the 1563 and all subsequent editions. These items were rearranged in the 1570 edition (see textual transpositions 1 to 4 inclusive), apparently to bring them into chronological order. (Jane's letter to Catherine Grey was reprinted from the 1563 edition in Bull's LM, pp. 662-63). Also reprinted from the Rerum are Latin verses by Foxe, Laurence Humphrey and John Parkhurst, praising Jane Grey for her learning, emphasising the pathos of her death and acclaiming her as a martyr.

There are, however, some passages about Jane Grey in the Rerum which were never reprinted in the Actes and Monuments. One set of passages states that Jane Grey was no more than seventeen when she died but that she was very gifted, especially in her mastery of Latin, Greek and Hebrew, and that she died through no fault of her own, but for the sins of her parents and of the family into which she had married (Rerum, p. 238). The last comments explain why this passage was not reprinted. Not only did it attack the very powerful Dudley family, but it also attacked the Duke of Suffolk, whom Foxe would portray as very nearly a martyr in the Actes and Monuments.

Another set of passages which only appeared in the Rerum described 'D. Ioanne Brugius' (i.e., Sir John Brydges, the Lieutenant of the Tower), asking Jane Grey to write some verses in a book of his. These verses are printed in the Rerum and form a conventionally pious exhortation which ends with a rather lugubrious but apt quote from Ecclesiastes: 'Tempus est nascendi, tempus moriendi: meliorque est dies mortis dies nativitatis' (Rerum, p. 238.) (A prayer book, now BL Harley MS 2342, is traditionally supposed to have been the book Jane Grey gave to Brydges, [J. G. Nichols, (ed.), The Chronicle of Queen Jane and of two years of Queen Mary, Camden Society Original Series 48, (London, 1850) pp. 57-58]. The verses printed in the Rerum match the verses printed in Harley 2342).

The evolving headings to this letter - from a letter to an unnamed 'learned man of late falne from the truth' (1563, p. 920) to a letter to 'M. H. late Chaplayne to the Duke of Suffolk' (1570, p. 1582; 1576, p. 1399) and finally a letter to 'M. Harding late Chaplayne to the Duke of Suffolk (1583, p. 1420), as well as the appearance of marginal notes in the edition of 1570 identifying Harding and describing his apostasy in detail, (see textual variant 204M and textual variant 205M) reflect Foxe's increasing desire to embarrass Thomas Harding (Jewel's adversary and a bitter critic of the Actes and Monuments.

Note that the translations of the Latin verses praising Jane Grey are eliminated from the 1570 and all subsequent editions (see textual variant 24 and textual variant 25). Again this seems to run counter to the argument that the later editions were more 'populist' and accessible to the general reader than the first edition.

The account of Justice Morgan's providential punishment for condemning Jane Grey first appeared in 1563, p. 1704 (in an appendix devoted to divine chastisement of sinners). This version of the story was reprinted in 1570, p. 1704; 1576, p. 1990; and 1583, p. 2099. The version of the story added to the narrative of Jane Grey in the edition of 1570 (see textual variant 26) is substantially the same account, but with different wording.

The brief accounts of the executions of Jane Grey and her husband, Guildford Dudley (with the memorable phrase that they were innocents by comparison with their judges) are reprinted from Crowley's chronicle (cf. Crowley, Epitome, sig. Ffff3v with 1563, p. 923; 1570, p. 1585; 1576, p. 1352; 1583, p. 1423).