These passages first appeared in the Commentarii (fos. 1r-8r), where they formed the beginning of the work. They also appeared, unchanged, at the beginning of the Rerum (pp. 1-4). They were faithfully translated in 1563, where they appear at the beginning of Book Two. They served as an introduction to Foxe's view of history in the editions where his history essentially began Wiclif. (The first book of the 1563 edition was a late addition to the work, as can be seen by its irregular, indeed chaotic, pagination). The passages - and thus the early editions of Foxe - began with an idea that would remain central to Foxe's interpretation of history: that in every age the Holy Spirit raised up champions of true doctrine even in the dark ages before Wiclif. This followed by praise of Wiclif, including the comparision, coined by Bale in 1548 (in his Illustrium maioris Britanniae scriptorum…summarium [Wesel, 1548], fo. 154v) , of Wiclif as the morning star. There follows a long diatribe on the superstition and corruption of the Church in Wiclif's time, with particular emphasis laid on the folly of the Crusades. (Foxe was all for a war against Moslems if its goal was to liberate Christian peoples, but the recovery of the Holy Land was, in his eyes, not worth fighting for). Foxe then moved to a discussion of the source of this evil, the Papacy, and attacked the idea of the Petrine succession and papal claims to authority over the Church. These passages were not reprinted in subsequent editions. This was probably not because Foxe had lost confidence in these ideas but because the expanded coverage in the Acts and Monuments of the eras before Wiclif, made this summary overview and introduction unnecessary.

Thomas S. Freeman

The following passages sharply criticizing the employment of capital punishment for heresy was first printed in Commentarii (fos. 12r-15r) and it is an important early indication of Foxe's opinions on this subject. These passages were reprinted in the Rerum (pp. 6-7) and in the 1563 edition, but subsequently dropped.

That is, the Catholic clergy.

A tremor was felt in London during the Blackfriars council, which has led to it being known as the Earthquake council; the meaning of this portent was interpreted in differing ways by Wiclif's followers and foes. Foxe is taking his information on the council (and the tremor) from the Fasciculi Zizaniorum (see Bodley Library MS, Musaeo 86, fo. 70r-v).

These two stories - of the church struck by lightening and Wiclif's 'prophesying' his recovery from illness - were first related by Foxe in the Rerum (p. 13) and repeated in the 1563 edition. They were subsequently dropped, probably as part of Foxe's growing caution about relating miraculous stories in the face of Catholic. We do not know Foxe's source for the story of the church struck by lightning. The story of Wiclif's wondrous recovery is from Bale, Catalogus, p. 469).

Archbishop Courteney's orders to Bishop Braybroke of London, commanding that action be taken against Wiclif and his followers are copied from Lambeth Palace Library, Courteney Register, fos. 25v-26r.

These passages extolling Oxford only appear in the 1563 edition (p. 97). They were perhaps dropped in subsequent editions as Foxe became aware of the conservative religious stance of most Oxford colleges in Elizabeth's reign.

In 1563, Foxe wrote a passage praising Bale for his work in recovering the works of Wiclif. In 1570 - the first edition of the Acts and Monuments printed after Bale's death - Foxe replaced this with a passage stating that he had discovered certain lost works of Wiclif. Of these, De veritate Scripturae was known to Bale, who had consulted the copy in Queens' College Cambridge (the Carmelite house in Cambridge where Bale had resided was just across the Cam). De Eucharistia confessio was part of the Fasciculii Zizaniorum which had belonged to Bale. There is a work by Wiclif titled De Ecclesia but this only survives in copies in Prague and Vienna. Foxe is probably referring to De fide catholica, which Bale referred to as De ecclesia catholica. In other words, Foxe was appropriating Bale's work. Interestingly, Foxe never compiled this projected collection of Wiclif's works.

In the Rerum, Foxe printed Jan Hus's public defence of some of the articles charged against of Wiclif. These were taken from Johannis Hus et Hieronymi Pragensis confessorum Christi Historia et Monumenta, 2 vols. (Nuremburg, 1558), I, fos, 111r-121r and 124r-128r with Rerum, pp. 28-52. This material was translated with reasonable accuracy in 1563, but dropped from the next two editions. It was reprinted, however, in the 1583 edition.

Because Hus referred to Hildegard of Bingen in his defence of the seventeenth article attributed to Wiclif, Foxe inserts here, in the 1563 edition, the section on Hildegard from Matthias Flacius, Catalogus testium veritatis [Strasbourg, 1562], pp. 391-3. (Confusingly, Foxe had already printed this material in 1563, fo. (71)r-v; 1570, pp. 340-341; 1576, p. 264 and 1583, pp. 260-261). The Hildegard passage would be reprinted, along with everything else in the 1563 version of Hus's defence of Wiclif, in the 1583 edition.

At this point, the citation of Flacius ends and the text resumes with Hus's defence of Wiclif.

This long denunciation of the Council of Constance's decrees against Wiclif first appeared in the Rerum (p. 23) and was translated and expanded in the 1563 edition. It was subsequently dropped.

This long denunciation of the execution of heretics as an absolute evil, unpractised in the early Church, is Foxe's own personal and rather idiosyncratic opinion. These passages were first printed in the Commentarii (fos. 50v-51v) and reprinted in the Rerum (pp. 52-57) adding the denunciation of clerical celibacy and the citations from Gration. These passages were translated and reprinted in the 1563 edition, with the addition of a denunciation of Bonner and persecuting bishops. This entire section was omitted from the 1570 edition, not because Foxe had changed his mind on these issues, but as part of a cutback in this edition of lengthy rhetorical passages, which grew out of the need to conserve paper. These passages were never reprinted.

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

This list of prophecies predicting Antichrist's rise and persecution of the faithful was first printed in the Commentarii (fos 55r-57v) and reprinted faithfully in the Rerum (pp. 57-8). It was reprinted in the 1563 but dropped from all subsequent editions. The list is of particular interest as being the first evidence of what would become Foxe's consuming interest in interpreting prophecies of the end times. Yet an examination of the provence of this material makes it clear that it was provided to Foxe by John Bale. The story of Richard's conversation with Joachim of Fiore, which ultimately from Roger Howden's chronicle, had already been related by Bale - see John Bale, The first two partes of the Actes of the Englyshe votaryes (London, 1551), STC 1273.5, fos. 108v-109r. The prophecy of Gerard of Nazareth (identified in the text as 'Gerardus Loadicen. episc') was also drawn from Bale; see Andrew Jotischsky, 'Gerard of Nazareth, John Bale and the Origins of the Carmelite Order', Journal of Ecclesiastical History 46 (1995), pp. 214-36. And Bale had already referred to Guy Perpignan's account of Peter John Olivi's prophesy in his A brefe chronicle concerning the examinacyon and death of syr J. Olcastell (Antwerp, 1544), STC 1276, fo. 56v. For the rest, Vincent of Beauvais' Speculum historiale was the source for Hildegard of Bingen's prophecy. Savonorola's prophecy came from Caspar Hedio's continuation of the chronicle attributed to Conrad of Lichtenau. Jonannes de Rupeciisa's prophect came from Froissart's chronicle and Manfred of Vercelli's prophecy from the chronicle of St. Antoninus of Florence. Arnold of Villanova's prophecy was taken from Bernard of Gui's manual of heresies. Most of these works would later be used by Foxe, but significantly Froissart and Bernard of Gui, although used extensively by Bale, were not utilized by Foxe.

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

In the Commentarii (fos. 60v-61r), Foxe wrote that he had read an account in a 'vetustae historiae' [old history] of an elderly priest burned in Smithfield in 1401. (The 'vetustae historiae' was, in fact, College of Arms MS Arundel 7, a version of Thomas of Walsingham's Chronica Majora). Foxe speculated that this elderly priest was William Swinderby and reprinted the reference to the 'vetustae historiae' and his opinion that it referred to Swinderby in the Rerum (pp. 59-60) and in all of the editions of the Acts and Monuments. But in the 1570 edition, Foxe added a great deal more material about Swinderby. His account of Swinderby's trial and abjuration in Lincoln is taken from the Fasciculi Zizianniorum. The remaining material, concerning Swinderby's 1391 appearances before Bishop John Trefnant of Hereford come from Bishop Trefnant's register. Comments by Foxe indicate that he consulted the actual register and made a copy from it, and furthermore, that he had borrowed the register and had to return it. It seems likely that Bishop John Scory of Hereford, who had been bishop of Chichester under Edward VI, and who went into exile under Mary, procured the register for Foxe. The 1570 account of Swinderby was reprinted faithfully, without change, in all subsequent unabridged editions of the Acts and Monuments. Foxe concluded his account with his persistently held, but erroneous belief that Swinderby was executed. In fact, Swinderby was condemned by Trefnant in 1391, escaped from custody, appealed to Richard II, and by March 1392 was being sought in Wales. He eluded his pursuers and later researchers, and vanished from the historical record.

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

John Ball, the leader of the 1381 Peasant's Revolt, was charged by contemporary chroniclers such as Thomas Walsingham and Henry Knighton, who sought to link heresy with sedition, with being a Lollard. Inspired by such claims, John Bale wrote a biographical note in Bodley MS e Musaeo 86, fo. 61v, stating that Ball was a priest accused of heresy and imprisoned, only to be liberated by the common people storming the prison. (This is as close as Bale gets to mentioning the Peasant's Revolt). Bale concludes by noting that a justice named Robert Trevalyn had Ball hanged for treason and, afterwards, by divine providence, was hanged himself. In the Commentarii (fo. 175r-v), Foxe repeated Bale's note verbatim. (Significantly, Foxe ignored the material hostile to Ball in e Musaeo 86, fo. 70r-v). In the Rerum, Foxe noted cautiously that Polydore Vergil suspected that Ball was involved in the Peasant's Revolt, but added that this was unlikely since a man endowed with knowledge of the gospel would scarcely be involved in a rebellion. Foxe retained Bale's comment about the providential punishment of Trevalyn (Rerum, p. 117). Foxe translated this note exactly in the 1563 edition (p. 140). Yet this note was never reprinted subsequently, probably because as Foxe gained greater knowledge of late fourteenth-century sources, Ball's involvement in the rebellion became manifest.

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

William Thorpe's account of his informal examination by Archbishop Thomas Arundel, on 7 August 1407, is one of the very few accounts by a Lollard of their persecution. As such it was of considerable interest to evangelicals anxious to demonstrate that there were 'true' Christians before Luther. Thorpe's account appeared in print, from the Antwerp press of Hans Luft around 1530. It was probably edited by William Tyndale, George Constantine or both. This version of Thorpe's examination formed the core of Foxe's account of Thorpe.

In the Commentarii, Foxe printed an abridged version of the 1530 version of Thorpe's examination (fos. 116r- 156v). This abridged version was copied from Bale's translation written in Bodley Library MS e Musaeo 86, fos. 108v-110v). The Commentarii account was reprinted almost exactly in the Rerum (pp. 79-96). In the 1563 edition, Foxe had obtained a copy of the 1530 version of Thorpe's examinations. Foxe stated that he was printing Thorpe's examination as it had been printed by William Tyndale. Foxe then reprinted The examinacion of Naster William Thorpe, ed William Tyndale? or George Constantine?, (Antwerp, 1530?), STC 24045, in its entirety. In the 1570 edition, Foxe declared that he would rather have printed an original version of Thorpe's examinations, but all he could obtain was Tyndale's version. Foxe also stated that David Whitehead, a prominent Protestant preacher, had seen a copy of an MS copy of the work in George Constantine's hands before it was printed. Apart from these changes, the account of Thorpe in the 1570 edition repeated that in the 1563 edition. The 1570 account of Thorpe was reprinted, without alteration, in subsequent editions.

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

In the Commentarii (fo. 43r-v), Foxe wrote a brief account of John Purvey, describing his persecution by the authorities, and summarised his writings. This was based on a brief biography of Purvey written by John Bale in Bodley Library MS e Musaeo 86, fo. 62v and notes on Purvey's wrings on fo. 91v. This material was reprinted in the Rerum (p. 20). In the 1563 edition, Foxe translated this material and added the articles that Purvey recanted (these were taken from e Musaeo 86. fos. 91v-95r). In the 1570 edition, Foxe reprinted all of the earlier material and added a fuller list of 'heretical' statements compiled from Purvey's writings by the Carmelite Richard Lavingham. This new material was taken from e Musaeo 86, fos.95r-96v. For the most part, Foxe reprinted this material accurately, although he surreptitiously omitted passages in which Lavingham maintained that Purvey had declared that lay people could legimately administer the sacraments. The 1570 account of Purvey was reprinted without change in subsequent editions of the Acts and Monuments. A note of caution should be added, however: Anne Hudson has pointed out how little is known of Purvey and has been persuasively sceptical about the attributions of anonymous Lollard writings to him (see Anne Hudson, 'John Purvey: A Reconsideration of the Evidence for his life and Writings' in Lollards and their Books [London, 1985], pp. 85-110).

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

Thomas Wimbledon's Paul's Cross sermon, preached in 1387 or 1388, was circulated widely in manuscript in the late Middle Ages. Its apocalyptic tenor and impassioned call for clerical reform caught the imagination of English evangel-icals, anxious to find evidence of the True Church before Luther. These evangelicals believed that Wimbledon's sermon - and it is important to remember that they did not know that Wimbledon was the author - was a Lollard work. The sermon was first printed by an evangelical, John Maylor, sometime around 1541. (For evangelical interest in this sermon and its early printing history, see Alexandra Walsham, 'Inventing the Lollard Past: The Afterlife of a Medieval Sermon in Early Modern England', Journal of Ecclesiastical History 58 [2007], pp. 628-655). There were five editions of the sermon printed before Foxe's 1563 edition. In his first edition, however, Foxe reprinted the first edition of the sermon. This can be seen in the fact that - most unusually - reprinted most of the marginal notes, as well as the text, of this edition. However, Foxe made a careless error: he reprinted the title page of the work, but where the title page stated that the sermon was preached in MCCCLXXXVII, Foxe stated that it was preached in 1388. In the 1563 edition, Foxe tentatively speculated that the sermon was authored by John Wiclif. While working in the records of Archbishop William Courtenay between the 1563 and 1570 edition, Foxe discovered 'an old worne copy' of the work and learned that it had been written by Richard Wimbledon. Foxe printed his discovery in the 1570 edition, replacing the sixteenth century version he had reprinted in 1563. He also identified Wimbledon as the author. Interestingly, as Alexandra Walsham has observed, although Foxe knew that the sermon was preached around 1388, he printed it just after the account of William Thorpe, thereby subtly associating Wimbledon's sermon with persecution and martyrdom. The 1570 version of the sermon, and its placement, were repeated in all subsequent editions of Foxe.

Thomas S. Freeman,
University of Sheffield

Foxe's first account of Sir John Oldcastle came in the Commentarii (fos. 90v-107v). Apart from praise of Oldcastle, this material consisted of the process against Oldcastle which was described in a letter from Archbishop Arundel to the bishop of London, which was contained in the Fasciculi Zizaniorum (Bodley Library MS Musaeo e 86, fos. 101v-105v). In the Rerum (pp. 100-106), Foxe reprinted this material, adding material from Fabyan's chronicle on Oldcastle's confrontations with the clergy before his revolt. (See Robert Fabyan, The Chronicle of Fabian [London, 1559], STC 10664, p. 390). It is interesting that Foxe apparently did not have access to John Bale's Brief Chronicle, a hagiography of Oldcastle, during his exile. He remedied this in his first edition. There he replaced the account of Oldcastle in his Latin martyrologies with a reprinting of all of Bale's Brief Chronicle, except for the preface and the conclusion. (See John Bale, A brefe chronycle concernyng the examination and death of the blessed martir of Christ sir Johan Oldcastel [London, 1548?], STC 1278, B3r-G2v). Foxe also added a brief account of Arundel's death, which was taken from John Bale's Catalogus (p. 577). In 1570, Foxe reprinted this material but with a few changes. He dropped the beginning of Bale's Brief Chronicle and replaced it with an account of the 1413 Convocation drawn from College of Arms MS Arundel 7, a version of Thomas Walsingham's Chronica majora. (See Thomas Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, ed. H. T. Riley, 2 vols., Rolls Series 28 [London, 1863-4], II, p. 291). Foxe also deleted some of the more sharply anticlerical passages in the Brief Chronicle. The 1570 version of the account of Oldcastle was repeated without change.in the 1576 and 1583 editions.

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

Starting with Martin Luther and his followers, the Protestant Reformers had hailed Jan Hus as an important, arguably the most important, proto-Protestant of the entire Middle Ages. This it seems a little surprising that Foxe had only a relatively brief account of Hus and his teachings in the Commentarii (fos. 62v-78r). This account was based on John Bale's notes in the Fasciculi Zizaniorum (see Bodley Library MS Musaeo e 86, fos. 128r-135r); Bale, in turn drew them from the inquisitorial manual of Bernard of Luxemburg, which explains the emphasis on Hus's doctrines in this account. Foxe reprinted the account of Hus in the Rerum (pp. 61-67) without change. In the 1563 edition, however, Foxe rewrote this account with material from the Catholic polemicist Johannes Cochlaeus's history of the Hussite wars. This described how Hus was denounced as a heretic to the antipope John XXII, how he was summoned to Rome, and how Weceslaus IV of Bohemia prevented his going there - see Johannes Cochlaeus, Historia Hussitarum (Mainz, 1549), pp. 19-24). In the 1570 edition, Foxe drew further on Cochlaeus to describe the spread of Hus's teachings in Bohemia, the initiatives from the University of Prague to stop Hus and his followers, the division of Prague into pro-Hus and anti-Hus factions, Hus's objections to the a decree from the University of Prague against him and to reprint John XXIII's letter to Wenceslaus, urging the king to crack down on Hus (Cochlaeus, Historia Hussitarum, pp. 22-3, 25, 29-33, 38-50, 53-54 and 56-66). This account of Hus before the Council of Constance was unchanged in subsequent editions.

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

Foxe's account of the Council of Constance served two basic purposes. The first was to provide a background for the executions of Jan Hus and Jerome of Prague. Secondly the account allowed Foxe to provide more details of the Great Schism as well as of papal politics and scandals. One indication of Foxe's readiness to develop the latter theme was the inclusion, first in the 1563 edition, of a story of an owl appearing at a council in Rome and being regarded as an evil spirit by antipope John XXIII, who summoned this council and was to summon the Council of Constance. Foxe obtained this story from Ortwin Gratius, Fasciculus rerum expetendarum et fugiendarum [Cologne, 1535], fo. 201r. In the 1563 edition , the account of the Council of Constance itself was taken from Casper Hedio's continuation of the chronicle of Conrad of Lichtenau. (See Conrad of Lichtenau, Abbatis Uspergensis chronicum, ed. Conrad Hedio [Basel, 1569], pp. 373-4 and 379-81). The letter of the 54 Moravian nobles also came from Hedio (pp. 381-84). Also included in the 1563 edition was an account of Hus attending the Council on receipt of a safe-conduct from the Emperor Sigismund, the proceedings against Hus at the Council and Hus's condemnation. All of this material came from Johannis Hus et Hieronymi Pragensis confessorum Christi Historia et Monumenta, ed Matthias Flacius, 2 vols. (Nuremburg, 1558), I, fos. 1v-27v. In the 1570 edition, Foxe deleted some documents from this material: two testimonials as to Hus's good character, presented at the Council and a document concerning an earlier hearing on Hus's heresies held by the Archbishop of Prague. But Foxe also added a rebuttal of Catholic arguments justifying the execution of Hus despite the safe conduct. The 1570 account of the Council of Constance and Hus's trial there was repeated without change in the 1576 edition. In the 1583 edition, this account was repeated but the two testimonials on behalf were re-inserted.

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

Interestingly, although Foxe has a fair amount to say in the Commentarii and in the Rerum about Hus, his first Latin martyrologies had very little to say about Hus's execution per se. This situation changed dramatically in the 1563 edition, as Foxe made full use of the magnificent two volume Johannis Hus et Hieronymi Pragensis confessorum Christi Historia et Monumenta, edited anonymously by Matthias Flacius and printed in Nuremburg in 1558. All of Foxe's account in 1563 of Hus's reaction to his condemnation, his degradation, Hus's execution, his behaviour and the crowd's reactions to it are taken from this work, even including the comparison of Hus to Hercules. (See Hus…Historia et Monumenta, I, fos. 28r-29r and 346v-347r). In the 1570 edition, Foxe repeated Johannes Cocleaus's speculation that the ultimate source of this account of Hus's martyrdom was Jan Prizibram; Foxe drew this from Johannes Cochlaeus, Historiae Hussitarum (Mainz, 1549), pp. 74-5. Foxe also added a letter from the Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund (who was also the king of Bohemia) to the Bohemian nobles, absolving himself from any responsibility for Hus's execution. This letter is translated from Cochlaeus's Historia Hussitarum, pp. 156-7. The 1570 account of Hus's martyrdom was reprinted without change in subsequent editions of Foxe.

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

Apart from the martyrdom of Thomas Becket, it is arguable that no violent death in the Middle Ages caught the imagination of contemporaries as did that of Jerome of Prague. This was not due to Jerome's intrinsic importance, but to the remarkable fortitude he displayed at his execution. Poggio Braccioloini, the celebrated humanist, was an eyewitness to Jerome's execution, and although not sympathetic to Jerome's cause, he wrote a public letter, which circulated widely, comparing Jerome to Socrates. Therefore it is not surprising that Jerome was one of the relatively few non-British martyrs included in the Commentarii (fos. 78r-81v). Foxe cited Bernard of Luxembourg as his source, but he was an author whom Foxe did not use. It is probable that Foxe's source for this account was a short account by John Bale, who cited Bernard frequently. Foxe repeated this account in the Rerum (pp. 67-71). In the 1563 edition, Foxe replaced this material with an account of Jerome's martyrdom based on accounts of eyewitnesses contained in the two volume collection of documents relating to Jan Hus, the Johannis Hus et Hieronymi Pragensis confessorum Christi Historia et Monumenta, which was anonymously edited by Matthias Flacius, and printed in Nuremberg in 1558 (cf. Hus...Historia et Monumnenta, II, fos. 349r-354r). In the 1570 edition, Foxe reprinted this account, but he also added Poggio's more elegant, and famous, account of Jerome's death which was also printed in the Hus…Historia et Monumenta (fos. 358r-359r). The 1570 account of Jerome Prague was reprinted without change in the 1576 and 1583 editions of the Acts and Monuments.

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

In the Commentarii (fo. 62v), Foxe had a brief account of 'William' Claydon, which describes him being burned in 1414 as a heretic. This brief, account, including the erroneous first name of the victim, was taken from College of Arms MS Arundel 7. (See Thomas of Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, ed. H. T. Riley, 2 vols., Rolls Series 28 [London, 1863-64], II, p. 307). In the Rerum (p. 60), Foxe repeated this account, although he corrected Claydon's first name to John. Later in the Rerum (p. 109), however, Foxe gave an account of the burning of John Claydon and Richard Turmyn, for which he cited Fabyan's chronicle as the source. (And, in fact, was clearly did draw this information from Fabyan; see Robert Fabyan, The Chronicle of Fabian [London, 1559], STC 10664, p. 390). In the 1563 edition, Foxe dropped the brief entry taken from Walsingham and reprinted the notice taken from Fabyan. In 1570, Foxe greatly expanded his account of the unfortunate pair by drawing on the register of Archbishop Chichele for Claydon's background, trial and examination. (See The Register of Henry Chichele, ed. E. F. Jacob, 4 vols. [Oxford, 1943-47], IV, pp. 132-8). He also printed Arcbishop Chichele's proclamation against the Lollards from the same source (Chichele Register, III, pp. 18-19). Foxe also delved deeply into Chichele's register for other accounts of accused heretics being imprisoned, questioned and being forced to recant (Chichele Register III, pp. 15-16, 25, 44, 187- 208 and IV, pp. 138-40, 155-8, 192-3, 203-4 and 297-301). Claydon and Turmyn were the only accused heretics among this group who were executed, but these additional episodes, no matter how inconsequential, provided evidence that there were members of the True Chuch before Luther and that the Catholic clergy were zealous in persecuting them. It should also be remembered that the episodes Foxe lists (although Foxe does not make this clear) extended over thirteen years.

Foxe intensified the theme of persecution by recording, with these other prosecutions, the arrest and execution of Sir John Olcastle. In the 1563 edition this consisted of an account of these events, previously printed in the Rerum (pp. 106-7), which was based on The Chronicle of Fabian (pp. 390 and 389 [recte 397]). To this Foxe added the account of Oldcastle's execution, which was taken from John Bale, A brefe Chronycle concerning the examination and death of the blessed martir of Christ sir Johan Oldcastel (London, 1548?), STC 1278, sigs F8v-G1r. In the 1570 edition, however, Foxe replaced this account of Oldcastle's martyrdom with a defence of him against the charge made by Nicholas Harpsfield that Oldcastle had been a traitor.

There were no further changes made to any of this material in subsequent editions of the Acts and Monuments.

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

Those who continue to insist that one of the purposes of the Acts and Monuments was to present England as the elect nation, might do well to examine Foxe's glorification of the Hussites. With the possible exception of Thomas Cromwell, there is no magistrate or secular leader whom Foxe admired as much as the Hussite military commander, Jan Ziska. Foxe's account of the Hussites allowed him to stress two themes important to him: that the False Church, led by the Papacy, was unrelenting in its determination to eradicate the True Church and that God could be counted on to protect his people. With the exception of Zisca's epitaph, which was taken from Matthias Flacius, Catalogus testium veritatis [Strassburg, 1562], p. 499, all of Foxe's account of Zisca and of the Hussite wars in the 1563 edition is taken from Aeneas Sylvius Picclomini's Historia Bohemica (Basel, 1489), sigs. c8v-e2v. In the 1570 version, Foxe reprinted most of this material, although he deleted material which had been included in the first edition but was now considered too embarrassing: among them a description of the Adamites (radical sectarians who renunciation of worldly goods allegedly extended to nudity) and Picclomini's descriptions of massacres perpetrated by the Hussites. In the 1570 edition, Foxe added two documents. One was a bull of Martin V ordering prosecution of the followers of Wiclif and Hus. Foxe stated that he received a copy of this bull from Richard Hakluyt the elder, the cousin of the Richard Hakluyt who compiled The Principal Navigations. The other document was a manifesto sent by the Hussites to European rulers in an effort to garner support. Foxe states simply that this document came 'ex vetustissimo codice manuscripto'. The account of the Hussite wars in the 1570 edition was reprinted without change in subsequent editions of the Acts and Monuments.

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

One of the the more important results of the Council of Constance was the decree 'Frequens', mentioned in Foxe's text, which mandated that a general council was to held at regular intervals. The Council, which was in session from 1431-49, met despite the implacable hostility of Eugenius IV, who tried to dissolve it. In 1439, as Foxe will relate, the Council elected their own pope (or antipope), Felix V. At this point, the Council had over-reached itself by initiating fears of a new schism and it rapidly lost support. Ultimately the Council was out-manoeuvred by Eugenius and accomplished few of its objectives. Yet it was remembered positively by Protestants for its attempts to reform the Church and to restrict papal authority. It is for these reasons, particularly the latter, that Foxe devotes so much attention to it.

Foxe's account of the Council of Basel was added to the 1563 edition. There is no section about it in either of his two Latin martyrologies. Apart from background material on Martin V, Cardinal Julian and the council at Ferrara, all of which came from Caspar Peucer's continuation of Carion's chronicle (see Chronicon Carionis, ed. Philip Melancthon and Caspar Peucer [Wittenburg, 1580], pp. 634-5), it was taken entirely from the first book of Aeneas Sylvius Picclomini's commentaries on the council. The commentary is devoted to events in the year 1439, when Picclomini was actually attending the council. At this point in his life, Picclomini, who later became Pope Pius II, was an ardent conciliarist and his approving account of the council was quite congenial to Foxe.

As a result, in the 1563, Foxe followed the first book of Picclomini's account quite closely, although he abridged it. (Foxe would have been able to consult it in Ortwin Gratius' Fasciculus rerum expetendarum ac fugiendarum, where it was printed, or in the 1571 edition of Pius II's Opera omnia, both of which works he is known to have used. For a modern edition of this work, see Aeneas Sylvius Picclomini, De Gestis Concili Basiliensis Commentarium libri II, ed. Denys Hay and W. K. Smith, Second edition [Oxford, 1992]). In the 1570 edition, Foxe further abridged his already abridged version of Picclomini's text. The 1570 version was reprinted without further changes in subsequent editions.

Most of Foxe's abridgements were relatively innocuous and were made simply to save paper in a book that was expanding to an alarming length. But some of Foxe's deletions were more tendentious. For example, Picclomini relates that Louis d'Aleman, the cardinal of Arles, president of the Council, and a staunch anti-papalist, at a critical juncture, 'quod erat futuram, plurimasque sanctorum reliquias tota urbe perquiri iussit…quae res maxime devotionem adauxit intantum ut vocato postmodum de more Spiritu Sancto nemo lachrymas continuerit' ['considered what was going to happen, and had ordered search to be made for the very many relics of the saints throughout the whole city….This so greatly increased the devotion that when, as usual, the Holy Spirit had been invoked, nobody restrained his tears'] (Picclomini, Commentarium, ed. Hay and Smith, pp. 178-9). Foxe's version of this passage ran: 'Arlatensis considered before what would come to passe. And after theyr prayers made unto almightie GOD, wyth great tears and lamentation that he would send them his holy spirit to aid and assist them, they were greatly comforted and encouraged' (1563, p. 319). Foxe did not want his godly, anti-papalist venerating relics, so this inconvenient passage was simply rewritten.

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

In the 1563 edition, Foxe reprinted almost all of the second book of Aeneas Sylvius Picclomini's Commentaries on the Council of Basel, which describes the election of Amadeus, the duke of Savoy, as anti-pope Felix V by the Council. (Cf. Aeneas Sylvius Picclomini, De Gestis Concili Basiliensis Commentarium libri II, ed. Denys Hay and W. K. Smith, second edition, [Oxford, 1997], 189-255 with 1563, pp. 320-330). In the 1570, edition, simply to save space (and paper which was running short in this edition), Foxe made a series of cuts to this material. The editing was actually quite skillfully done; Foxe removed a considerable amount of extraneous detail - e.g., passages detailing the complicated system adopted for electing the anti-pope at Basel, the seating arrangements of the conclave and the ceremonial that took place - while preserving the substance of the theological and ecclesialogical debates.

In the 1563 edition, Foxe also introduced a letter written by Cardinal Julian Caeserini, the papal legate in Germany to Eugenius IV, urging the pope not to dissolve the Council of Vienna. The letter was taken from Ortwin Gratius, Fasciculus rerum expetendarum ac fugiendarum (Cologne, 1535), fos. 32r-34r; Foxe's version is complete and accurate. In the same edition, Foxe also introduced a narrative of the summoning of the Hussites to the Council of Basel and of Cardinal Caeserini's oration to them. Although Foxe declares that this material came from Picclomini's Commentaries, it actually came from Picclomini's history of Bohemia. (Although Foxe definitely used the history elsewhere, in this case he was probably repeating the excerpt of it in Gratius' Fasciculus, fos. 156r-160r). Foxe continued to mine Gratius's collection by reprinting a petition from the Hussites to the Council of Basel (cf. Gratius, Fasciculus, fo. 180r-v). Significantly, Foxe did not reprint the response of the Council - whose members, because of their anti-papalism, Foxe was depicting as heroes - which defended communion in one kind and not having the Scriptures in the vernacular (see Gratius, Fasciculus, fos. 180v-181r). And a description of reforms enacted by the Council of Basel also came from Gratius (see Fasciculus, fos. 34v-35v). Ironically, one item, a letter from Martin Meyer to Picclomini, which Foxe states came from Gratius's Fasciculus, actually came from Matthias Flacius, Catalogus Testium Veritatis (Strasbourg, 1562), p. 318.

In 1570, in addition to pruning the lengthy extract from Picclomini's Commentaries, Foxe also deleted the letter from Cardinal Caesarini to Eugenius IV. However, he added a laudatory description of Felix V, of the accession of Albert II and of the capture and rescue of the cardinal of Arles, from Conrad of Lichtenau, Abbatis Ursprengensis Chronici, ed. Caspar Hedio (Basel, 1569), pp. 392-3 and 397-8. Foxe also expanded the account of the Hussites and the Council of Basel with extracts from Johannes Cochlaeus, Historiae Hussitarum (Mainz, 1549), pp. 257-8, 260-2 and 267-71. The 1570 version was reprinted without change in the 1576 edition. The letter of Cardinal Caesarini, which had been deleted from the 1570 edition, was restored in 1583.

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

Foxe's account of Richard Wyche was first printed in the 1570 edition. Foxe listed two sources for his account, Robert Fabian's chronicle, and an old English chronicle he borrowed from someone named Permynger. This last named item is impossible to identify, particularly since Foxe's account is taken virtually word-for-word from Fabian. (See Fabyan's cronycle [London, 1559], STC 10664, p. 436). In the 1583 edition, Foxe added a royal proclamation to the sheriffs of London and Middlesex, ordering them to suppress the cult of Richard Wyche. How Foxe obtained a copy of this document is unknown, but the document survives and Foxe printed it accurately. (See the summary of the proclamation in Calendar of Close Rolls. Henry VI. Vol. III. 1435-1441, pp. 385-6).

Foxe assumes, as almost every scholar examining the incident has, that Wyche was executed for Lollard beliefs and that his cult was generated by other Lollards. For a compelling case that neither assumption is true, and for the best account of the episode, see Richard Rex, 'Which is Wyche? Lollardy and Sanctity in Lancastrian London' in Martyrs and Martyrdom in England, c. 1400-1700, ed. Thomas S. Freeman and Thomas F. Mayer (Woodbridge, 2007), pp. 88-106.

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

Foxe's decision to expand the 'second age' of the church, briefly mentioned in the 1563 edition of the martyrology, into a separate, second book in 1570 'contayning the next 300. yeres following' the 'Ten Persecutions of the Church' allowed him much more space to broaden the historical and polemical foundations of his underlying narrative. In this passage, he took the oppotunity to do so, firstly in assembling the 'domestical histories' to confute the proposition that British Christianity owed its origins to Rome. The issue was, as he put it, 'a great controversie in these our popish days'. Foxe's response was both to deny the deduction and to assail the premise. Even if British Christianity owed something to Rome, especially at the time of St Augustine of Canterbury, it 'foloweth not therby, that we must therfore fetch our religion from thence still, as from the chiefe welhead and fountayne of all godlines'. The Christianity which then prevailed in Rome was very different: 'For then, neither was any vniuersal Pope aboue al churches and councils...neither any name or vse of the Masse....Neither any sacrifice propiciatory....Neither were then any images of sayntes departed....Likewise neyther reliques nor peregrinations...'. His attack upon the premise was undertaken with seven documented 'probations'. The nature of Foxe's argument is such that he seems to have been aware that the evidence being adduced here was, if not flimsy, certainly deductive and capable of being construed in different ways.

The second issue which he was able to confront was the importance of the monarchy in England to his overarching narrative. By emphasising the significance of King Lucius and his conversion, and cataloguing the succession of British kings until the coming of the Saxons, Foxe was beginning, even at this early part of his narrative, to construct one of the important building-blocks for his argument about the dynamic forces that would triumph in the protestant reformation. It was also a moment for an earnest aside on 'what incommoditie commeth by lacke of succession'. With Elizabeth's succession such an unresolved problem, a present danger to the protestant cause in England in 1570 as Foxe saw it, his reminder of how the English 'inwrapped themselues in such miserye and desolation, which yet to this day amongst them remayneth' had long-term consequences, which he did not hesitate to emphasise, and contemporary resonances, which he did not need to insist upon.

How did Foxe put together his seven 'probations' describing the pre-Augustinian possibilities of the Christian conversion of Britain? His proofs were almost entirely extracted from the Magdeburg Centuries volumes I-III (mainly vol. 2, chs. 2-3). It is interesting to note that a similar list, however, appeared at the beignining of Matthew Parker's De Antiquitate Britanniae (1572). Although both entering the same debate, Foxe and the De Antiquitate differ in certain ways. They both cite Gildas, Tertullian's Adversus Judaeos, Origen's Fourth Homily on Ezechiel, and Nicephorus. The De Antiquitate adds evidence from Julius Caesar whilst Foxe adduces that of Bede, Peter of Cluny and the epistle of Eleutherius to King Lucian (which he prints). Foxe's source for this letter is interesting. It had been printed in William Lambarde, Archaionomia (London: 1568), fol 131. It is possible that Foxe simply reproduced it from that source. However, comparing the two sources leads us to suppose that he had perhaps been given the epistle in manuscript form. It is possible that he had completed the drafting of this book before the publication of Lambarde's book in 1568. This, at least, would explain why Foxe did not cite the Anglo-Saxon law-codes in Book Two from Lambarde, choosing instead to take them directly from Brompton's Chronicle.

Matthew Phillpott and Mark Greengrass
University of Sheffield

Foxe is explicit about the difficulties of dating the letter from King Lucius to Pope Eleutherius to receive him into the Christian faith. Foxe primarily follows the details in Fabian's Chronicle (R. Fabyan, The Chronicle of Fabian [London, 1559], book 3, chs 58-59). Fabian himself notes that the sources differ, which is probably why Foxe had recourse to the Magdeburg Centuries, II ch. II, pp. 8-9 to pursue the issue, and also to Bale's English Votaries p. 14 for its mention of the evidence from Geoffrey of Monmouth and other authors. Interestingly, Fabian explicitly says that he disregards Monmouth's evidence. Foxe chose to disregard this, and thereby follow Bale's account. For the relevant passage in Geoffrey of Monmouth, albeit not directly used by Foxe, so far as one can judge, see The historia Regum Britannie of Geoffrey of Monmouth, edited and translated by Neil Wright, vol. 5 (Cambridge, 1991), ch. 72, pp. 125-6.

Foxe here elaborates briefly on several important and implied parallels between the Christian conversion of the British Isles and the contemporary experience of reformation. The conversion had occurred through the activity of preachers ('through whose ministery this realm & ileland of Britain was eftsones reduced to the faith & law of the Lord'. The British Isles were Christianised whilst the Roman emperors were still heathens. Foxe weaves in a prophecy from Isaiah ch. 42 and the passage is loosely based on Henry Huntingdon's Chronicle (T. Arnold, ed. Henry of Huntingdon. Henrici Huntendunensis Historia Anglorum, the History of the English, by Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, from B. C. 55 to A. D. 1154 [London: Rolls Series, 1879], ch. 1, pp. 27-8). For the narrative of the death of King Lucius and events thereafter, Foxe relied on Matthew Paris' Flores Historiarum, which had been published in 1567 (H. R. Luard, ed. Matthew Paris. Flores Historiarum 3 vols [London: Rolls Series, 1890], 1, p. 149) and also on the Magdeburg Centuries, II, ch. 2, p. 9.

This is the first in a series of tables running through the early books of Foxe's martyrology from the 1570 edition onwards, laying out the English regnal succession. Here Foxe provides that for the early British kingship. Foxe constructed it independently, and from a number of sources. It is a good example of his collating and critical skills. He certainly used Ranulph Higden's Polychronicon (J. R. Lumby, ed. Polychronicon Ranulphi Higden monachi Cestrensis: together with the English translations of John Trevisa and of an unknown writer of the fifteenth century [London: Rolls Series, 1879], book 4, ch.19-book 5, ch. 4) as well as Bede book 1. Geoffrey of Monmouth (ch. 79) might have been drawn on indirectly (through John Bale's Catalogus or the English Votaries, or even from Fabian's Chronicles (R. Fabyan, The Chronicle of Fabian [London, 1559], preface: table 3). He would almost certainly have consulted one of the editions of the sixteenth-century Breviat chronicles, with their lists of British King, and may even have worked with John Stow whilst he was preparing his A Summary of English Chronicles (London, 1565), which furnishes a similar genealogy, albeit Foxe here provides some telling additional details. Information may have also been taken from Henry Huntingdon's Chronicle (T. Arnold, ed. Henry of Huntingdon. Henrici Huntendunensis Historia Anglorum, the History of the English, by Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, from B. C. 55 to A. D. 1154 [London: Rolls Series, 1879], book 8 ch. 8, pp. 575-77). The evidence suggests that Foxe prepared this material independently, and made up his own mind on the various issues relating to the sensitive issues of chronology which the table contains.

Foxe's account of the Roman government of Constantine in Britain and the eventual retreat of Rome from the British Isles made the important point, from Foxe's point of view, that it was religious persecution, rather than Christianity, which had been imported from Rome. He could have taken his material from a number of sources. He seems to have used Fabian's Chronicle as his base-text (R. Fabyan, The Chronicle of Fabian [London, 1559], book 5, chs 68-75) for most of the passage, although the brief reference to the rise of persecution in the British Isles under Diocletian seems most closely to correspond to Henry Huntingdon's Chronicle (T. Arnold, ed. Henry of Huntingdon. Henrici Huntendunensis Historia Anglorum, the History of the English, by Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, from B. C. 55 to A. D. 1154 [London: Rolls Series, 1879], book 1, ch. 36). The source for the two Latin citations from Gildas at the end of the passage represents something of a puzzle. Neither of them appear in Fabian's Chronicle. The first one could have come from one of a number of sources, though the Joscelyn edition of Gildas, published in 1567, includes it in a version which accords most nearly to the form it appears in Foxe's text. The second quotation does not appear, however, in the Joscelyn edition - indeed it does not appear in Gildas at all, or in any of the sources Foxe habitually used. Its appearance here is something of a mystery.

Foxe's account of the early Saxon kingdoms was added to the 1570 edition, after which it remained in all the succeeding editions in precisely the same format. It is remarkable for its attempt to produce a clear regnal succession and structure to the Saxon heptarchy, first delineated by Henry of Huntingdon's Chronicle in the twelfth century. To this account, Foxe appends a somewhat perplexed narrative as to how we should assess the 'many noughty & wicked kings' of the period. It was true, he noted, that this was partly because the 'vulgar and rascal sorte' of nobles, left behind by the departure of the Romans, had descended 'into all maner of wickedness, wherto mans nature is inclined: and especiallye into that which is the overthrowe of all good estates'. They were responsible for the anointing as kings 'those who exceded all other in crueltie'. Although there were some notable examples of godly rule (Foxe carefully singles them out), there were 'none almost from the first to the last, which was not either slayne in warre, or murdered in peace, or els constrayned to make himself a Moonke'. On the latter, Foxe's views were understandably severe, aware that he was consciously departing from the judgments recorded in the 'Monkish histories' (on which he was compelled largely to depend for constructing this narrative). They misguidedly sought 'in that kinde of life to serue & please God better' but, in so doing, they abandoned their 'publique vocation' and jeopardised the public weal. At the end of the section, Foxe sought to bring the strands of his narrative together, linking the ten great persecutions of the church which had structured the narrative of book one and the first age of the church, with the 'foure persecutions in Britainie' under later Roman rule and the Saxon heptarchy. These persecutions frame the British context to the periodisation from the 'firste springing of christes gospel in this land' in AD180 and the coming of Augustine in 1596.Foxe clearly worked hard to resolve the various discrepancies in his sources and produce the regnal tables of the Saxon heptarchy. His account differs substantially from that which had appeared in the Breviat Chronicles, originally published by John Mychell in successive editions from 1551 (for further details see D.R. Woolf, Reading History in Early Modern England [Cambridge, 2000], pp. 39-47, 53). It also differs from the information furnished by John Stow in A Summary of English Chronicles (London, 1565). In some respects, Foxe built upon the attempt by William Lambarde in the Archaionomia (London: 1568) and it is conceivable that Lambarde (or Nowell, one of his associates) and Foxe may have collaborated in assembling some of this material.

Matt Phillpott and Mark Greengrass
University of Sheffield

For the earliest material on Hengist and Horsa, Foxe was inclined to draw on William of Malmesbury's Gesta Regum (J. S. Brewer, and C. T. Martin, 'William of Malmesbury: Gesta Regum.' In Reigistrum Malmesburiense. The Registor of Malmesbury Abbey, ed. by J.S. Brewer and C.T. Martin [London: Rolls Series, 1869-1880], book 1, chs 1 and 5), supplemented by Ranulph Higden's Polychronicon (J. R. Lumby, ed. Polychronicon Ranulphi Higden monachi Cestrensis: together with the English translations of John Trevisa and of an unknown writer of the fifteenth century [London: Rolls Series, 1879], book 5, ch. 4, 302-317). Although Foxe mentions Geoffrey of Monmouth ('Ex Alfrido in suo Brittanico') the reference probably derives from Bale's Catalogus, p. 42.

The sources used for this table may well have been numerous, and Foxe seems to have tried to collate his material from several different chronicles. His base-text was probably Henry of Huntingdon's Chronicle (T. Arnold, ed. Henry of Huntingdon. Henrici Huntendunensis Historia Anglorum, the History of the English, by Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, from B. C. 55 to A. D. 1154 [London: Rolls Series, 1879], book 1, ch. 4; 2, ch. 40; 4, ch. 30) but he probably also consulted Bede's Ecclesiastical History, book 1, ch.5, William of Malmesbury's Gesta Regum (J. S. Brewer, and C. T. Martin, 'William of Malmesbury: Gesta Regum.' In Reigistrum Malmesburiense. The Registor of Malmesbury Abbey, ed. by J.S. Brewer and C.T. Martin [London: Rolls Series, 1869-1880], book 1, ch. 6; 8-15) and Fabian's Chronicle (R. Fabyan, The Chronicle of Fabian [London, 1559], book 5, chs 83 and 90). Foxe also mentions at various points drawing upon Roger of Howden's Chronicle (for the Wessex kings) - W. Stubbs, ed. Chronica magistri Rogeri de Houdene 4 vols, Rolls Series (London, 1868), 1, pp. 34-5. He discreetly used Matthew Paris' Flores Historiarum (H. R. Luard, ed. Matthew Paris. Flores Historiarum 3 vols [London: Rolls Series, 1890], 1, pp. 563-66) and the manuscript Historia Cariana belonging to William Carye as furnishing some additional information (on Bernard's character) as well as William of Malmesbury's Gesta Pontificum for Swæfred of the East Saxons. Neither the Breviat Chronicle nor Stow's account separated out the regnal succession in the heptarchy and, for Wessex, Stow missed out several of the early kings as well as Cuthbert, cited by Foxe. For Kent, Stow started with Hengist, but then did not mention Eosa, Ocha or Eormenric. He does mention Æthelbert but does not record the length of his reign nor that he was the first of the Saxon kings to receive the Christian faith and that he subdued all the six other kings except the king of Northumbria. Stow simply states that he battled with Ceolwulf, king of Wessex. Stow largely agreed with Foxe on the order of British Saxon kings, although Foxe separated Aurelius and Conanus whilst Stow listed just one king: Aurelius Conanus. Stow's account of the seven kingdoms is confused and disordered, compared to the account produced by Foxe.

The introductory text to this table was furnished from Matthew Paris' Flores Historiarum (H. R. Luard, ed. Matthew Paris. Flores Historiarum 3 vols [London: Rolls Series, 1890], 1, p. 280-1). The table of regnal succession could also have derived from that source, from Henry of Huntingdon's Chronicle (T. Arnold, ed. Henry of Huntingdon. Henrici Huntendunensis Historia Anglorum, the History of the English, by Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, from B. C. 55 to A. D. 1154 [London: Rolls Series, 1879], book 8, ch. 10) or from Fabian's Chronicle. On the death of Hengist, Foxe mentions Geoffrey of Monmouth. Elsewhere in book 2, Foxe was inclined to cite this source indirectly (especially through Bale's Catalogus or the English Votaries). Here, however, it seems plausible that Foxe consulted the source directly, despite its controversial nature, perhaps believing that on matters related to King Arthur, it might have retained credibility. He also used the 'Historia Cariana' a manuscript formerly belonging to William Carye - see A. G. Watson, 'Christopher and William Carye, Collectors of Monastic Manuscripts, and John Carye', The Library, 5th series 20 (1965), pp. 135-42. This now-lost manuscript may well be the source for the Gildas reference which he also cites since it does not appear elsewhere. On the reign of King Arthur, Foxe turned to Fabian's Chronicle (R. Fabyan, The Chronicle of Fabian [London, 1559], book 5, ch. 104), picking up from that source his own skepticism about King Arthur's time in France. For the long Latin citation on 'the causes of the destruction of the Britains declared', Foxe declares that he has taken the source 'here out of an olde author, and partly out of Gildas, as I haye found it'. How should we construe this Delphic reference? The citation is to be found, almost word for word, in Geoffrey of Monmouth (ch. 195). So perhaps we should accept that here, as elsewhere in this table, Foxe made direct use of that source. In which case, we must explain his reluctance to admit his direct source as resulting from the doubts raised over its legitimacy by Polydore Vergil. An alternative hypothesis, however, is that Foxe was referring to the now-lost manuscript which had been in the possession of William of Carye, referred to elsewhere as the 'Historia Cariana', and from which Foxe seems to have derived other material that he believed came from Gildas. The hypothesis rests, however, no more than that at this stage.

The despatch of Augustine by Pope Gregory the Great to England was inevitably a locus classicus for Foxe's martyrology. He had already included the 'copie of the epistle of Gregory, sent to Augustinus into England' into the 1563 edition of his martyrology (1563, pp. 16-7), taking the text from Henry of Huntingdon, book 3, ch. 6. In the 1570 edition, he provided a much fuller and contextualised account, one that would remain unchanged for the succeeding editions in his lifetime. The most obvious source for Foxe on all these matters would, of course, have been Bede's Ecclesiastical History. Yet that is the one source which Foxe (save for one gloss mention) neglects to emphasise throughout this passage. He not only avoids telling us about it; he seems to have gone out of his way not to use it. Most of the letters between Pope Gregory and Augustine were extracted from Henry of Huntingdon's Chronicle, rather than Bede. The lengthy text of the 'questions of Austen Archbishop of Canterbury sent to Gregory' ('Gregory's decrees') looks, at first glance, to have been taken from Bede's Eccleiastical History (book 1, ch. 27). But it might, in reality, have come from a manuscript copy in Parker's collection - that of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS 320 pt 3 being a suitable candidate. It is therefore possible that Foxe has used this as the source for his extraction of Augustine's Interrogations rather than the published copy of Bede.. Fabyan's Chronicle, albeit a much later source, is also heavily drawn on by Foxe. We deduce that Foxe's remarkable reticence in respect of using and citing the Venerable Bede as a source must have something to do with Thomas Stapleton's publication of a 'Catholic' edition of Bede's Ecclesiastical History in 1565 (The History of the Church of Englande (Antwerp). Foxe was, of course, accommodating himself to an interpretative tradition on this passage which had been set by Bale - see Allen J. Frantzen, 'Bede and Bawdy Bale: Gregory the Great, Angels, and the "Angli"', in Allen J. Frantzen and John D. Niles (eds), Anglo-Saxonism and the Construction of Social identity (Florida, 1997), pp. 17-39. In reality, however, Foxe was more discreet that Bale on the potentially lascivious dimensions of Gregory's encounter with English children at the market in Rome. The story had appeared in so many chronicle sources - and Foxe's gloss indicates that he had probably collated them. For Augustine's landing in Kent and his meeting with King Ethelbert, Foxe probably drew on Henry of Huntingdon (T. Arnold, ed. Henry of Huntingdon. Henrici Huntendunensis Historia Anglorum, the History of the English, by Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, from B. C. 55 to A. D. 1154 [London: Rolls Series, 1879] book 3, ch. 4, pp. 000-000) or Fabian's Chronicle (R. Fabyan, The Chronicle of Fabian [London, 1559], book 5, ch. 119, pp. 000-000). Interestingly, this is one of the rare places where Foxe betrays an interest in archaeological evidence, referring to the (Roman) ruins at Richborough on the Isle of Thanet 'whereof some part of the ruinous walles is yet to be sene'. All the other letters from Gregory Foxe could have taken from Henry of Huntingdon (book 3, chs 7-9). Foxe did not want openly to cast doubt upon the Augustinian establishment of the episcopal hierarchy in England and Wales, and he liberally referenced Augustine's consecration of the archbishops in London, York and Wales. But he carefully distanced himself from Augustine's miraculous healing of a bling man.. Foxe clearly used Fabian's Chronicle (book 5, ch. 119), but also checked the account in the Polychronicon (book 5, ch, 10), Henry of Huntingdon (book 3, ch.14) and perhaps Bede's Ecclesiastical History (book 2, ch. 2). For the final section on the synod of Bangor, Foxe probably found his basic narrative in Bale's Catalogus (pp. 63-4; 66) and may well have returned to Fabian's Chronicle for confirmation (book 5, ch. 119) as well as (perhaps) Bede's Ecclesiastical History (book 2, ch. 2). Bale's Catalogus seems also to have influenced Foxe's account of the death of Pope Gregory and the issue of the dating of Augustine's death, but he also added evidence from Henry of Huntingdon's Chronicle (book 3, ch. 17), the Polychronicon (book 5, chs 9-10) and (for David, Archbishop of Wales), William of Malmesbury's Gesta Regum (J. S. Brewer, and C. T. Martin, 'William of Malmesbury: Gesta Regum.' In Reigistrum Malmesburiense. The Registor of Malmesbury Abbey, ed. by J.S. Brewer and C.T. Martin (London: Rolls Series, 1869-1880), book 1, ch. 25).

Matthew Phillpott and Mark Greengrass
University of Sheffield

Foxe's narrative of the earliest Christian Saxon kingdoms only appeared in the 1570 edition for the first time. He attempted to weave together the evidence for God's providential inspiration towards those rulers and their kingdoms under whom Christianity was advanced. Edwin, king of Northumbria, is the cornerstone of his demonstration. Foxe could not ignore the contemporary parallel of his queen, already converted to Christianity, who 'ceased not to styrre and perswade the kyng to Chrisian faith'. In a lengthy aside, Foxe pointed out how she served as a godly goad, reminding Edwin of the connection between the afflictions of his kingdom and his failure to convert: 'for by affliction God vseth commonly to call them whom he wyl saue, or by whom he wil worke saluation vnto other'. Misfortune was an essential component of God's providence - and Foxe included the real dangers which had confronted Queen Elizabeth before her accession: 'How hardely escaped this our Quene now being, [...] by whom yet notwithstanding it hath ploeased God to restore this his Gospel now preached amongest vs?' Foxe's point in these remarks was probably to redirect the reader to a proper consideration of the relationship between God and human affairs, and away from the 'miracles' which so frequently accompanied the conversiaon stories of the early Saxon rulers. His problem was that his sources seemed often so unanimous about them - defying the renaissance techniques of source collation, comparison and analysis through which he was trying to rewrite the history of the coming of Christianity to the British Isles. Of Oswald's miraculous hand, preserved from putrifaction by the benediction of St Aidan, all Foxe's sources were in accord. His comment was one of measured scepticism: 'What the stories say more concernyng this hand of Oswald, I entend not to medle farther then simple, trye and dew probabilitie, will beare me out'. Of the 'miracle' accompanying the conversion of the king of the West Saxons, which recounted Birinus, walking back to France from midway across the Channel in order to recover his stole ('pallula'), Foxe mused: 'if it be a fable, as no doubt it is, I cannot by maruell that so many autors so constantly agree in reporting & affirming the same'. For the miracles of St Oswald, 'what it pleased the people of that tyme to reporte of him, I haue not here to affirme', Foxe preferring to emphasise 'the goodnes and charitie of Oswald toward the people' and prominently citing his sources for that. Throughout the section, Foxe balanced sceptical accounts of the 'miracles' accounted to the early Saxon kings with the more concrete evidence for their foundations in bricks and mortar at York, Westminster, and elsewhere.

Foxe pursued his energetic comparison and collation of the sources that he used for the construction of his narrative elsewhere in book 2. For the brief evocation of Pope Sabinianus and Boniface III, his source was Bale's Catalogus (pp. 63; 69). For King Ethelbert of Kent, Foxe probably started with Fabian's Chronicle (R. Fabyan, The Chronicle of Fabian [London, 1559], book 5, ch. 120), which alerted him to the fact that there were different opinions on the matter. He seems to have pursued them independently in William of Malmesbury's Gesta Pontificium, Henry of Huntingdon's Chronicle, and possibly Bede's Ecclesiastical History. For King Ethelfride of Northumbria and Edwin's conflict with Ethelbert of Kent and subsequent flight to King Redwald, we should not be too impressed by his glosses referring to Geoffrey of Monmouth and Gerald of Wales. He almost certainly copied this material directly from Fabian. For the reign of Edwin of Northumbria, including the letter sent from Pope Boniface V, Foxe's principal source was once more Fabian's Chronicle (book 5, ch. 130) although he perhaps sought confirmation from Henry of Huntingdon's Chronicle (T. Arnold, ed. Henry of Huntingdon. Henrici Huntendunensis Historia Anglorum, the History of the English, by Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, from B. C. 55 to A. D. 1154 [London: Rolls Series, 1879], book 3, chs. 34-8). For the activities of Archbishop Paulinus after Edwin's death, we have a good example of how we should not take Foxe's glosses on his sources at face value. He mentions Henry of Huntingdon and Matthew Paris' Flores Historiarum. Yet, when we pursue the source for Foxe's confident assertion that Paulinus remained at Rochester for 19 years, it transpires that this comes from neither source, but is to be found only in Ranulph Higden's Polychronicon (J. R. Lumby, ed. Polychronicon Ranulphi Higden monachi Cestrensis: together with the English translations of John Trevisa and of an unknown writer of the fifteenth century [London: Rolls Series, 1879], book 5, ch. 12). For Foxe's narrative of Oswald as King of Northumbria, Foxe's main source was once more Fabian's Chronicle (book 5, ch. 130), which provided him with the references to Geoffrey of Monmouth and the Polychronicon. Foxe also consulted John Brompton's Chronicle (J. Brompton, 'Chronicon Johannis Brompton Abbatis Jornalensis.' In Historiæ Anglicanæ Scriptores X. [....], ed. by Roger Twysden [London, 1652], cols 784-8) and William of Malmesbury's Gesta Regum for this section (J. S. Brewer, and C. T. Martin, 'William of Malmesbury: Gesta Regum.' In Reigistrum Malmesburiense. The Registor of Malmesbury Abbey, ed. by J.S. Brewer and C.T. Martin [London: Rolls Series, 1869-1880], book 1, ch. 49). Foxe cites some Latin directly from Brompton's Chronicle in his description of Berinus in England. On the death of Oswald, Foxe directly copied some of the material from Fabian's Chronicle (book 5, ch. 134); and for the character of Oswine and his murder, Foxe turned to Henry Huntingdon's Chronicle (book 9, chs. 14-17). For the final brief references in this section to Oswy, King of Northumbria and Bede, once again, Foxe turned mainly to Fabian's Chronicle (book 5, ch, 134) though it is possible that he had directly consulted Bede's Ecclesiastical History (book 4, ch. 18).

Matthew Phillpott and Mark Greengrass
University of Sheffield

The famous Synod of Whitby, held in 664 at Saint Hilda's double monastery of Streonshalh (Streanoeshalch) ('Sternehalt': 'Streneshalch' in Foxe's narrative) was the famous centrepiece of the third book of Bede's Ecclesiastical History, the moment when King Oswiu of Northumbria decided that his kingdom would calculate Easter and observe the monastic tonsure according to the customs of Rome, rather than the customs practiced by Iona and its satellite monasteries. When Foxe came to construct his narrative of the 'second age' for the 1570 edition of the martyrology, he took his narrative of what happened at Whitby directly from Bede's Ecclesiastical History (book 3, ch. 25), translating it often word for word. The Synod had been seen as the triumph of Roman over Celtic Christianity, but Foxe prefers to gloss it as confirming the power of the Saxon monarchs to determine the religious complexion of their state, albeit the king's reasons for doing so were 'simple and rude'. Foxe accompanied the passage with a Latin tag from Claudian with obvious contemporary (Elizabethan) resonance: 'Mobile mutatur simper cum principe vulgus' ('the fickle populace always changes with the prince'). Foxe allowed himself no more than the briefest of mentions, however, of the significance of the year 666, situating it not in the context of events in England, but in terms of the rise of Islam. As Catherine Firth has argued, however, Foxe hardly felt the need to emphasise an apocalyptic framework in 1570 which was, by then, an all too familiar periodisation to his readers (Catherine Firth, The Apocalyptic Tradition, 1530-1645 [Oxford, 1979], pp. 69-110). For Foxe's continuing narrative of the coming of Christianity to the Saxon kingdoms, he relied (as is evident from other sections of books 2) principally on the chronicles of Fabian and Brompton, stretching his net more widely as and when it seemed appropriate. So, for the accession of Egfride as king of Northumbria, Foxe seems to have also used Henry of Huntingdon's Chronicle (T. Arnold, ed. Henry of Huntingdon. Henrici Huntendunensis Historia Anglorum, the History of the English, by Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, from B. C. 55 to A. D. 1154 [London: Rolls Series, 1879], book 2, ch. 35; book 3, chs 48-9; book 4, ch. 4) to supplement Fabian (R. Fabyan, The Chronicle of Fabian (London, 1559), book 5, chs 133-135) and Bede. For the dispatch of Theodorus to England as Archbishop of Canterbury and Wilfred's appeal to Rome, Foxe's references are confused. He appears to be following the account in William of Malmesbury's Gesta Pontificium (book 1, ch. 1). His references to Ranulph Higden's Polychronicon and to Bede's Ecclesiastical History, however, are mistaken (they should read: book 5, ch. 19 and book 4, ch. 12 respectively). For the Synod at Thetford, his souce is unambiguously Bede (either directly or indirectly). For the miracles of St Cuthlake ('a popish saint') Foxe allowed his scepticism to be more evident: 'But why thys Cuthlake shoulde bee sancted for hys doings, I see no great cause, as neyther do I thinke the fabulous miracles reported of himn to be true: as when the vulgar people are made to beleue, that he inclosed the deuil in a boiling pot, and caused wicked spirites to erect vp houses, with such other fables and lying miracles'. His sources here were Fabian's Chronicle (book 6, ch. 141) although he may have checked back to the Polychronicon (book 5, ch. 21). This was in line with the gradually ascending scornful tone that Foxe allowed himself towards miracles in Book II, culminating in those of Adelm and John of Beverley. For the scepticism, Foxe probably owed something here to Bale's Catalogus (pp. 82-4; 89) but for the material he relied on Fabian's Chronicle (book6, ch. 141), Brompton (J. Brompton, 'Chronicon Johannis Brompton Abbatis Jornalensis.' In Historiæ Anglicanæ Scriptores X. [....], ed. by Roger Twysden [London, 1652], col. 794), William of Malmesbury's Gesta Pontificium and Ranulph Higden's Polychronicon. Along with his crescendo of scepticism towards these miracles, however, comes a greater insistence upon the 'Monkish devises' and 'monkish fantasies' of these sources.

Matthew Phillpott and Mark Greengrass
University of Sheffield

When he came to write the later history of the Saxon heptarchy for the 1570 edition, Foxe chose to concentrate mainly on the history of three of them: Northumbria, Wessex and Mercia. In so doing, he followed the lead of Bale's Catalogus, which is his source for the unedifying history of the popes which concludes this section (Catalogus, pp. 104-6), including the 'donation of Pipinus', the 'great excommunications against Constantinus' and the 'veneration of images' and missel introduced by Pope Adrian. 'Images again maintained by the Pope to be men's Kalendars' and 'the order of the Romishe Massebooke when it came in' are Foxe's glosses to this material, thereby laying out more of the architecture for the Protestant reformation history which is to follow. At the beginning of this passage, however, Foxe chose to include an integral passage from Bede's Ecclesiastical History (book 5, ch. 21 - pp. 547-553) on 'the shauing of priestes'. Foxe accompanied it with critical marginal glosses ('much sayd nothing proued' and 'See how these shauelings would father their shauing vpon Peter, which is neither found in scripture nor in any approued story, but onelye in paynted clothes') and then followed it with 'a note to admonish the reader' in which he explained his purpose: 'By thys Monkishe letter aboue prefixed, voyde of all Scripture, of all probation and truth of historye, thou mayest note, gentle reader: how this vaine tradition of shauen crownes, hath come vp, and vpon how light and trifling occasion', the result of 'the dreaming phantasies of Monkes of that time'. The issue was one that had raised significant controversy at the time of the Dissolution, and was still in contention in reformation polemic. Foxe's decision to include a critical edition of the material is to be seen as a contribution to that debate.

For the mainly secular narrative of the later Saxon heptarchy, Foxe returned to the preferred sources which he had used elsewhere in book 2 - Fabian's Chronicle, and that of John Brompton. They were not used uncritically, however. Foxe often supplemented them, or compared them with the other 'monkish' sources at his disposal. So, for the reign of Iue, king of the West Saxons, he used William of Malmesbury's Gesta Regum (J. S. Brewer, and C. T. Martin, 'William of Malmesbury: Gesta Regum.' In Reigistrum Malmesburiense. The Registor of Malmesbury Abbey, ed. by J.S. Brewer and C.T. Martin [London: Rolls Series, 1869-1880], book 1, ch. 36, and an additional choice detail on Peter's Pence added from Mathew Paris's Flores Historiarum (H. R. Luard, ed. Matthew Paris. Flores Historiarum 3 vols [London: Rolls Series, 1890], 1, p. 369). For Iue's law-code - which he returned to in book 6 (1570, p.923) - he used John Brompton's text (J. Brompton, 'Chronicon Johannis Brompton Abbatis Jornalensis.' In Historiæ Anglicanæ Scriptores X. [....], ed. by Roger Twysden [London, 1652], fols 759-761) rather than Lambard's Archaionomia (fols 1-18v).

Foxe's generous assessment of Bede is interesting. Although Foxe often chose not to rely on Bede as his source, there was much he could readily admire in his Ecclesiastical History and in his commitment to scholarship in the pursuit of truth. He was 'a man of worthy and venerable memorie'. Foxe used Bede's own words (from the Ecclesiastical History, book 5, ch. 24) to prove that he was a native of the British Isles. He furnished the letter from Pope Sergius, citing it in the Latin original as he found it in William of Malmesbury's Gesta Regum (book 1, ch. 58) to prove 'in what price and estimation Bede was accepted, as well in the court of Rome as in other places besydes'. His summary of Bede's achievements is paraphrased from the same source. Foxe's subsequent summary of the decrees of the synod of Cuthbert in 747 came directly from William of Malmesbury's Gesta Pontificium (N. E. S. A. Hamilton, ed. William of Malmesbury. Willemesbiriensis Monachi De Gestis pontificium Anglorum [...] [London: Rolls Series, 1870], book 1, chs 5-6). For the later history of the kings of Mercia and Wessex, Foxe omitted a good deal 'because thei concern rather political affayres & do not grealy appertayne to the purpose of this Ecclesiastical History'. He relied here mainly on Brompton's Chronicle (cols 774-5) and Fabian (book 6, chs. 150-1), noting (however) at two points that Fabian's Chronicle contained errors. It was not Offa but Kenulphus that had imprisoned King Egbert of Kent. Foxe had returned here to William of Malmesbury's Gesta Regum (book 1, ch. 95) and preferred the latter's account of what happened. Again, when it came to Fabian's description of the imprisonment of King Egbert, Foxe doubted his veracity ('a place of Fabian doubted'). In this instance, he not only checked the account against William of Malmesbury's, but also probably against Ranulph Higden's Polychronicon (book 5, ch. 27).

Matthew Phillpott and Mark Greengrass
University of Sheffield

The material here is particularly interesting because it indicates Foxe's engagement with the Golden Legend, a source that he had specifically singled out for ridicule in his prefatory letter 'ad doctorem lectorem'. Foxe singled out the passage concerning the introduction of the Gregorian Missel (Jacobus De Voragine, The Golden Legend: Readings on the Saints, William G. Ryan (ed. & trans.), 2 vols. (Princeton, 1993), vol. 1, p. 183) and singled it out for harsh commentary: 'I neede not admonish thee to smell out the blinde practices of these night crowes, to blinde the worl with foreged inuencions, in steede of true stories'.