This Introduction to Book Six is noteworthy for two things. The first is a declaration of Foxe's chronological organization for the Acts and Monuments. Foxe probably always intended the Reformation period would require several books but it might well be that the decision to break the material from Wiclif to Luther into separate books was originally unintended and made suddenly. The other notable item is Foxe's declaration that the major purposes of the material in Book Six is to demonstrate the Antichrist's continuous persecution of the True Church and the existence of the True Church and its members in the centuries before Luther.

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

In the Commentarii (fos. 82r-83r) and then the Rerum (p. 72), there is a brief account of William White, a Lollard leader in the diocese of Norwich. This account was taken word-for-word from a note John Bale made in the Fasciculus Zizanniorum (Bodley MS e Musaeo 86, fos. 63r and 98r-101r). In the 1563 edition, this account was replaced with material drawn from a Norwich diocese court book, covering a series of heresy trials that took place in 1428-31 Much of this court book survives as Westminster Diocesan Archives MS B.2. (This manuscript has been printed as Norwich Heresy Trials 1428-31, ed. Norman P. Tanner, Camden Society Fourth Series 20 [1977]). The contents of this volume are now out of order, indicating that it has been unbound at some point, probably when Foxe used it. When the volume was unbound, material was apparently lost as Foxe records examinations for which material no longer survives: those of John Florence, Richard Belward, John Goddesel, Hugh Pye, John Exeter, Iacolet Germaine, the six Lollards in Bungay, Thomas Pie, John Mendham, John Beverley, Nicholas of Eye and the depositions of William Wright are no longer extant. In the 1563 edition, Foxe also added a description of William White's recantation taken from John Bale's Catalogus (pp. 564-5) and a description of White's execution that is clearly drawn from oral tradition. Finally Foxe 's account of Richard Howden was printed in the Commentarii (fo. 83r) and the Rerum (p. 72) and reprinted in all editions of the Acts and Monuments without change. It was drawn from a biographical note on Howden wriiten by Bale in the Fasciculi Zizaniorum (Bodley MS e Musaeo 86, fo, 63r). The 1563 account was reprinted without change, exception for the deletion of Latin versions of some documents, in subsequent editions. Foxe chose to print this material in such detail because it provided a convincing answer to the Catholic challenge of where was the Protestant Church before Luther. Yet, from Foxe's point of view, there were drawbacks to reprinting these records. For one thing, Foxe was clearly troubled by the number of Lollard abjurations and tried to explain this away by comparing the Norwich Lollards to 'new trained soldiours in gods field'. Foxe was even less comfortable with some of the views expressed by these Lollards. He 'explained' that statements by the Norwich Lollards denying that baptism was a sacrament, that tithes might lawfully be witheld from wicked priests and that marriages need not be celebrated in church, were really lies placed by the notaries recording the examinations. Although this disclaimer would seem to indicate that Foxe edited these records with a relatively light hand - he could have removed the offending passages rather than disavowing them - there are still examples of his rewriting the text. For example, Foxe has Margery Baxter describe William White as a good and holy man; what she actually said was that he was a 'magnus sanctus in celo' [a great saint in heaven] (Norwich heresy Trials, p. 47).

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

Between his account of the persecution of Lollards in the diocese of Norwich in 1428-31 and his account of the council of Basel, Foxe gives the accounts of several diverse individuals punished for heresy during the second and third decades of the fifteenth century. All of Foxe's information on these martyrs came from John Bale in one form or another. Foxe first printed the accounts of Thomas Bagley, Paul Kr?var (or Craw) and Thomas of Rennes in his Commentarii (fos. 83r-90r) and reprinted this material without change in the Rerum (pp. 72-5). Apart from a Latin poem praising Thomas of Rennes, which was dropped, this material was translated and reprinted in every edition of the Acts and Monuments. Each of these accounts was taken, virtually word-for-word, from John Bale's notes in Bodley MS e Musaeo, fos. 63r-v and 293r-v. The list of martyrs burned in German territories in the 1420s was added in the 1570 edition and it was taken entirely from John Bale's Catalogus (p. 564). The brief note on Eugenius IV was also added in 1570 and it was also taken from Bale's Catalogus (p. 548). These brief accounts were of use to Foxe in two respects. In the first place, they served to underline a point dear to Foxe's heart: that the faithful members of the True Church existed throughout Christendom. And, secondly, it allowed Foxe to picture the persecution of these faithful as continuing without let-up through the final centuries of the world.

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

In his Catalogus, Bale gave an account of a 'Roger Onley', a chaplain to Eleanor Cobham, the wife of Duke Humphrey of Gloucester. Bale described 'Onley' as an Oxford graduate, who became a Lollard. The clergy, because he was a Lollard, and because they hated Gloucester, falsely accused 'Onley' and the duchess of Gloucester of sorcery. 'Onley' and certain others were hanged, drawn and quartered. Eleanor Cobham was tried by an ecclesiastical tribunal and imprisoned for the rest of her life (Catalogus, pp. 584-5). The individual whom Bale identified as Roger Onley was, in fact, Roger Bolingbroke, the principal of St Andrew's Hall, Oxford. (One of Bale's sources, the chronicle of John Hardyng, misidentified Bolingbroke as Onley). Bale's account was, moreover, highly tendentious. Eleanor Cobham had, in fact, dabbled in astrology in an effort to find out when her husband (the heir to the childless Henry VI) might become king. Cobham also obtained love potions from one Margery Jourdemane, a reputed witch, whom Bale failed to mention. (For an account of the episode see R. A. Griffiths, 'The Trial of Eleanor Cobham', Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 51 [1968-9], pp. 381-99). Most importantly, no medieval source gives the slightest hint that Bolingbroke and Cobham were, as Bale claimed, Lollards. This is based solely on Bale's assumption, stemming from his desire to see proto-Protestants throughout the Middle Ages, that anyone condemned by an ecclesiastical tribunal was a Lollard or a Protestant avant la lettre. Bale simply ignored detailed descriptions of Cobham's sorcery and the inconvenient involvement of Jourdemane.

Foxe first printed an account of this incident, based solely on Bale, in the Rerum (p. 116). Foxe, however, added an important error of his own. He stated that Onley (or Bolingbroke), was a knight, while Bale (and Bale's sources) are clear that he was a cleric. Foxe repeated his brief account of Onley and Cobnam in the 1563 edition. The combination of Bale's and Foxe's errors provided Nicholas Harpsfield, Foxe's most important contemporary critic, with an invaluable opportunity to discredit Foxe. Harpsfield seized upon it with alacrity. Harpsfield pointed out that Onley was not a knight and that he was really Roger Bolingbroke. He also made something of Foxe's mention of a woman, the mother of Lady Young, whose account appeared in the 1563 edition (just after that of Cobham and 'Onley') and made his own mistaken assumption: that the mother of Lady Young was actually Margery Jourdemane. (The mother of Lady Young was actually Joan Boughton, who was executed in 1494; see The Great Chronicle of London, ed. A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley [London, 1938], p. 252. Boughton was the mother-in-law of Sir John Young, a mayor of London). Harpsfield also pointed out that no source claimed that Cobham, Bolingbroke and Jourdemane were heretics. Rather all were agreed that they were convicted of sorcery (Dialogi sex, pp. 830-1).

In the 1570 edition, Foxe responded to Harpsfield. He conceded that he was incorrect about Onley/Bolingbroke having been a knight, but that was his only concession. The 1570 account of Cobham, including Foxe's response to Harpsfield, was repeated, without change, in subsequent editions.

Thomas S. Freeman,
University of Sheffield

Foxe's account of Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, was drawn from an impressive range of print and manuscript sources. The most important of these was Edward Hall's chronicle. The background to the feud between Gloucester and Cardinal Beaufort, the articles Gloucester objected against Beaufort, the hostility of the earl of Suffolk and Margaret of Anjou to Gloucester, the death of Gloucester, the death of Beaufort and the murder of the earl of Suffolk are all taken from Hall, in some instances, on a word-for-word basis. (Edward Hall, The union of the two noble and illustre famelies of Lancastre and York [London, 1560], STC 12723a, fos.142v-148r, 151v-152v and156v-158v). Foxe supplemented Hall with the Great Chronicle for Beaufort trying to ambush Gloucester and for the intervention of the archbishop of Canterbury and the the duke of Coimbra to mediate the quarrel (The Great Chronicle of London, ed. A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley [London, 1938], pp. 136-7). Foxe also drew on Polydore Vergil's history for small points of detail: Henry Chichele's death and college foundations, the observation that the title 'duke of Gloucester' was unlucky, and William Wainfleet's foundation of Magdalen college (Polydore Vergil, Anglica historia [Isengrim, 1555], pp. 491-3). And while the burning of St. Paul's steeple could have come from a number of sources, Foxe's wording is quite close to the account of the event in Robert Fabian, Fabyans cronycle (London, 1559), STC 10664, p. 441.

Foxe took the story of Gloucester's exposing the fraudulent miracle from Thomas More's Dialogue Concerning Heresies (2 parts., vol. 6 The Complete works of St. Thomas More [New Haven, CT, 1981], I, pp. 86-7). Foxe also cites William Tyndale as a source for this story, but Tyndale simply referred to More's account. But Foxe did draw on Tyndale's The Practice of Prelates for the summoning of the Parliament at Bury St. Edmund's in 1447. (See William Tyndale, Expositions and Notes…with the Practice of Prelates, ed. Henry Walter, Parker Society [Cambridge, 1849], p. 297). The quotations from dedications to Gloucester by Piero del Monte and Lapo are from Bodley MS Auct. F.5.26, pp. pp. 1-2 and 117. And Foxe drew the writ forbidding Cardinal Henry Beaufort from entering England in his capacity as papal legate from Bodley Tanner MS 165, fos. 81r-82v. (Foxe notes that he borrowed the manuscript he used as a source for this writ from William Bowyer and Bowyer owned Tanner MS 165).

Although modern historians have questioned Gloucester's character and political judgement, he enjoyed a universally good press from his contemporaries. This was partly because Gloucester was an aggressive proponent of a popular, albeit unsuccessful, war with France and partly because he was the foe of those, like Beaufort and Suffolk, who were seen as evil, but influential, councillors to the king. Contemporary praise of Gloucester shaped sixteenth-century perceptions of him; Tyndale and More agreed on little but they agreed on Gloucester's virtues. Writers such as More and Foxe were also influenced in their assessments by Gloucester's undeniable prominence as a patron of humanist writers. This allowed Foxe to present Humphrey as an ideal lay magistrate opposed to evil worldy clerics led by Cardinal Beaufort.

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

Foxe's account of the invention of printing is one of the most famous and often-quoted sections of the Acts and Monuments. However, most citations of it and quotations from it, fail to appreciate a crucial dimension to these passages: Foxe saw the invention of printing as a milestone in the unfolding of the end times. In the 1563 edition (p. 362), Foxe printed a declaration that the invention of printing had been prophesied by the Sibyls. This declaration was never reprinted, but was replaced in a much longer and more detailed account in the 1570 edition. Although no mention was made of the Sibyls in the revised account, Foxe insisted on the providential timing of the invention, which he saw as a divine response to the burnings of Jan Hus and Jerome of Prague. Foxe never lost his belief in the apocalyptic significance of printing. In his commentary on Revelation, he maintained that the invention of printing had been prophesied by St. John (See John Foxe, Eicasmi seu meditationes in sacram Apocalypsim [London, 1587}, STC 11237, p. 107). Foxe's narrative of the invention of printing contains a great deal that was his own opinion and his own writing - including the well-known passage that printing-presses were blockhouses against the Castel St Angelo. He also provided the first account of Gutenberg and the invention of printing in English. Foxe drew this material from two sources. The first was a treatise, De typographiae inventione by the Lutheran reformer, Matthaeus Judex. This provided almost all of Foxe's narrative of Gutenberg, Schaeffer and Faust. (See Matthaeus Judex, De typographiae inventione [Copenhagen, 1566], pp. 14 and 29). The citations of Wimpheling and Ziegler came fom Caspar Hedio's continuation of the chronicle attributed to Conrad of Lichtenau, the abbot of Ursperg. Also from Hedio is the material on John Mentell, Ulrich Han and the Latin poems in this account. (See Abbatis Urspergensis Chronicum, ed. Caspar Hedio [Basel, 1569], pp. 403-4).

Thomas S. Freeman

Foxe's account of the fall of Constantinople is taken from Caspar Peucer's continuation of the chronicle of Johann Carion. (See Chronicon Carionis, ed. Philip Melanchthon and Caspar Peucer [Wittenberg, 1580], pp. 581-3). Foxe follows this account closely, although he abridges it somewhat. The fall of Constantinople may seem a curious disgression for Foxe, but he uses it as an opportunity to remind his readers of the dangers of the Ottoman threat and to urge them to pray to God to avert it.

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

It is profoundly ironic that Bishop Reginald Pecock, who devoted a great deal of time and effort to combatting the Lollards in print, should have been enshrined by Foxe as a proto-Protestant. The reason for this, however, is clear: following Bale, Foxe assumed that anyone condemned for heresy during the Middle Ages must have been one of the numerous hidden members of the True Church that that existed before Luther. As a bishop and a university trained scholar, Pecock was a particularly valuable individual for Foxe to appropriate.

Foxe's first account of Pecock was printed in his Commentarii. It began with long passages of Foxean rhetoric on the tyranny of the Roman Church, the existence of a godly remnant who did not bow their knees to Baal and the theology of the Eucharist (fos. 157r-168v). This was followed by copy of a letter from Thomas Bourchier, the archbishop of Canterbury, forbidding discussion of Pecock's case while it was still sub judice (fos. 169r-171r). There is no other surviving copy of this document, and how Foxe obtained it is a matter for speculation, but it gives every appearance of being genuine. This followed by a version of a recantation that Pecock made at Paul's Cross on 4 December 1457 (fos. 171r-172r). With one important exception, Foxe's version of this conforms to the other known versions of this document. No other surviving copy of the recantation contains Pecock's denial that it was necessary to believe that Christ's body was materially in the sacrament and it is safe to assume that this was Foxe's invention. The Commentarii account of Pecock then concludes with Foxe's declaration that Pecock's recantation must have been coerced and insincere, since he was imprisoned (fos. 172r-173r). However, over 50 pages later, Foxe printed a 'Collectanea quaedam ex Reginaldi Pecocki Episcopi opusculis exustis conservata, ex antiquo psegmate transcripta'(fos. 199r-203v). This was a series of articles, apparently - from Foxe's description - copied out of an 'ancient' manuscript fragment. Foxe identified the first article as coming from Pecock's The Book of Signs, a work now lost. The remaining eleven articles are all drawn from Pecock's Book of Faith; although they are abridgements, they do reflect fairly accurately what Pecock does say in portions of his text (cf. Reginald Pecock, Reginald Pecock's Book of Faith, ed. J. L. Morison [Glasgow, 1909], pp. 264-66, 287-91, 302-3, 283-6, 112-14, 222-9, 234-5, 161-2, 147-8, 148-9 and 149-50).

In the Rerum, the account of Pecock was repeated (pp. 109-16), but the 'Collectanea' was dropped, never to be reprinted. In the 1563 edition, the Rerum account was faithfully translated and reprinted. In the 1570 edition Foxe retained Bourchier's letter and Pecock's recantation, but dropped the rest of his earlier account of Pecock. However, Foxe added a summary of the charges against Pecock which was entirely taken from Bale's Catalogus (p. 595), even the attack on Polydore Vergil at the conclusion. The 1570 account of Pecock was reprinted, without change, in the 1576 and 1583 editions.

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

Between his account of Reginald Pecock and his narrative of the Wars of the Roses, Foxe digresses here to deal with church history during the pontificates of Nicholas V, Calixtus III, Pius II, Sixtus IV and Innocent VIII. The material on these pontificates was added to the 1570 edition and, as usual with papal history, Foxe drew heavily on John Bale's Catalogus for his information. Most unusually, however, Foxe drew on Bartomoleo Platina's series of papal biographies for the opinions (Foxe calls them 'sentences') of Pius II. (See Bartomoleo de Sacchi di Platina, Historia de vitis pontificum Romanorum, ed. Onophrio Panvinio [Venice, 1562], fos. 248v-249r). Normally, Foxe distrusted Panvinio's work (although it was considered authoritative by contemporaries) as being too partisan to the Papacy. However, Pius's opinions, written before he became pope, sounded reformist, and fitted in with Foxe's point that the evil inherent in the Papacy corrupted even those popes who were initially devout and wise. (Foxe probably took the quotation from the second book of Pius' commentaries, on the evils of clerical celibacy from Matthias Flacius - see Catalogus Testium Veritatis [Strassburg, 1562], p.550 - this quotation is not in Platina). Pius's letter, written before he was pope, to Caspar Schlick is taken from Aeneas Sylvius Picclomini,Opera quae extant omnia (Basel, 1561), pp. 538-41; the extract quoted is on p. 539. The material on Pius II's quarrel with the archbishop of Mainz is taken from Caspar Peucer's continuation of Carion's chronicle; see Chronicon Carionis, ed. Philip Melanchthon and Caspar Peucer (Wittenburg, 1580), pp. 672-3. The remainder of the material on these fifteenth-century popes is from John Bale, Catalogus, pp. 550, 602, 615 and 624-5.

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

With two minor exceptions, Foxe's account of Richard of York's bid for the throne, death and his son Edward's seizure of it, is based on an anonymous chronicle in a manuscript that he owned, which is now College of Arms MS Arundel 5. The chronicle (Arundel 5, fos. 121r-172v) is entitled 'Compilatio brittanorum et anglorum' but Foxe refers to it as 'Scala mundi' (from a chronology at the beginning of the manuscript tracing the history of the world from Adam and Eve to 1469). The concluding section of the 'Compilatio' covering the reigns of Henry VI and Edward IV was printed as 'A Brief Latin Chronicle' in Three Fifteenth-Century Chronicles, ed. James Gardiner, Camden Society, Second series 28 (London, 1880), pp. 164-85. The unknown author of this chronicle almost certainly lived in London during the reigns of Henry VI and Edward IV and was probably a cleric. (Apart from the chronicle being written in Latin, it pays close attention to church affairs). There is no ready answer to the question of why Foxe used this chronicle when he had more detailed accounts at hand in the histories of Polydore Vergil and Edward Hall. Perhaps Foxe was demonstrating that he had other sources than the readily available Vergil and Hall; perhaps Foxe desired to be as independent as possible from these works, which he criticized in his account of Sir John Oldcastle.

One of the two items in this section not contained in the 'Compilatio' is Parliament's rejection of papal bulls authorizing Louis of Luxembourg, the arch-bishop of Rouen, to hold the bishopric of Ely in commendam (This comes from Rotuli Parliamentorum, ed. J. Strachey et al., 6 vols. {London, 1783], IV, pp. 304-5 ). Both Foxe and Parliament were concerned to demonstrate that the Crown would not concede papal jurisdiction over English episcopal appointments. But in reality, the wealthy bishopric of Ely was Henry VI's reward to Louis, a key ally in the Hundred Year's War. The account of the Breton (the reader should not be confused by Foxe calling him a 'Briton') who murdered a widow is taken from Robert Fabian, Fabyan's cronicle (London, 1559), STC 10664, p. 418. Foxe's interest in the case comes from the fact that the culprit was able to claim sanctuary and abjure the realm without further punishment; to Foxe, these were clerical abuses.

Finally, it is worth noting Foxe's emphasis throughout this account that the disasters which overwhelmed Henry VI came about because he no longer had the advice and protection of his uncle, Humphrey of Gloucester, to rely upon. (For Foxe's praise of Humphrey of Gloucester see 1570, pp. 832-7; 1576, pp. 678-81 and 1583, pp. 703-7. For the reasons for Foxe's favourable view of Duke Humphrey see the commentary to these pages).

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

Foxe's account of Edward IV's reign down through the recovery of Berwick is based largely on two sources: Edward Hall's chronicle and Polydore Vergil's Anglica historia. These were the two most detailed sources for this period available to Foxe, but the use of the latter posed problems for Foxe. Vergil's elegantly written history of England was highly esteemed by contemporaries and it was also hostile to Wiclif, the Lollards and the Reformation. On key issues - notably Oldcastle's rebellion - Foxe felt obliged to discredit Vergil's version of events. Therefore, Foxe only used Vergil when he was the most detailed source available and then Foxe was careful, as he was here, to disparage Vergil's reliability - in this case by accusing Vergil of burning his sources. With the exception of the capture of Henry VI, all of the events Foxe described down to Edward IV's arrival at Leicester in 1471 were taken from Edward Hall, The union of the two noble and illustre famelies of Lancastre and York (London, 1560), STC 12723a, fos. 189r-191r, 193r-196r, 199r-204v, 208r-211r and 214v-215r. After this, Foxe largely relied on Vergil's more detailed account of the campaigns of 1471; see Polydore Vergil, Anglica historia (Isengrim, 1555), pp. 524-530 and 532. (Foxe also drew on Hall for additional details: Somerset's murder of Lord Wenlock [Union, fo. 231r] and the claim that Henry VI's canonization failed because Henry VII was unwilling to pay the necessary fees and bribes [Union, fo 223v]). Foxe also drew the story of Henry VI's capture in 1465 from Robert Fabian, Fabyan's cronicle (London, 1559), STC 10664, p.418. (Foxe was apparently attracted by the few additional details in Fabian - e.g., that the king was captured in a wood - which could not be found in Hall and Vergil). Foxe quoted an anonymous contemporary chronicle on the burial of Henry VI at the abbey of Chertsey. Foxe refers to this chronicle as the 'Scala Mundi' because the MS in which he found the chronicle (now College of Arms Arundel MS 5) began with a chronological table extending from the creation of the world until (The chronicle is actually titled 'Compilatio de gestis Britanorum et Anglorum' and it is fos.121r-172v of Arundel MS 5). The section of the 'Compilatio' covering the reigns of Henry VI and Edward IV has been published as 'A Brief Latin Chronicle' in Three Fifteenth-Century Chronicles, ed. James Gardiner, Camden Society, second series 28 (London, 1880), pp. 164-85; the passage Foxe is quoting is on p. 184. Foxe also drew the account of the 'heresy' that Christ was a beggar and Paul II's bull denouncing it, from the 'Compilatio' (see 'Brief Latin Chronicle', p. 181). The question remains: why did Foxe bother to recount, in such details, the military and political vicissitudes of Edward IV's reign, in what was an ecclesiastical history? Partly this was because Foxe took the opportunity to moralize, as when he sees Edward IV's deposition as divine punishment for his wantonness. More basically, the rapid reversals of fortune endured by all the major political players in this period allowed Foxe to depict providence at work, protecting the relatively good and punishing others for their misdeeds or the misdeeds of their forebears.

Thomas S. Freeman,
University of Sheffield

Foxe relates two incidents from Edward IV's reign before returning to deal with events on the Continent. The first of these incidents was the burning of John Goose, a Lollard, in London in 1473. Although Foxe states that he derived this account 'Ex Polychro' (i.e., from a continuation of Ranulph Higden's Polychronicon), this cannot be correct, as none of the continuations of the Polychronicon extend further than 1461. In actual fact, Foxe is drawing his account of Goose, on virtually a word-for-word, basis from Robert Fabyan's chronicle. Foxe's interest in Goose is obvious, any pre-Reformation martyr was another proof that the true church existed before Luther. At first glance, Foxe's reasons for including the execution of George, Duke of Clarence are less obvious. But the reason was that one explanation for Clarence's downfall - that Edward IV believed a prophecy that someone whose name began with the letter 'G' would reign after him , thus usurping his son's throne - provided a foundation for a moralizing lecture on discerning true from false prophecies. Foxe derived his account of Clarence's death from Polydore Vergil's Anglica Historia and, possibly, Thomas More's History of King Richard III.

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

By 'departed' Foxe means that Cheke died. Foxe is being so guarded in his description of what happened, that a word of explanation is desirable. Cheke, who had been Edward VI's principal secretary, was in exile in Strasbourg in 1556. He journeyed to Antwerp to meet his wife and was kidnapped enroute and brought to England. There he was forced to publicly recant and affirm his belief in the real presence. Cheke died on 13 September 1557.

Foxe is referring to the Book of Tobit, one of the books in the Apocrypha.

I.e., paganism.

Although Foxe did not kow this, Goose had already abjured and he was being burned as a relapsed heretic (J. A. F. Thomson, The Later Lollards, 1414-1520 [Oxford, 1965], pp. 72-3).

'Hus' means goose in Czech and this enables Foxe to equate John Goose with Jan Hus.

I.e. a written record, in this case, Robert Fabyan's chronicle (see Robert Fabyan, The Chronicle of Fabian [London, 1559], STC 10664, p. 507). Although Foxe declares that he is drawing his account from Ranulph Higden's Polychronicon, this is an error.

This is a martyrological trope, but Foxe is not putting words into Goose's mouth. The London chronicler Robert Fabyan has Goose making the same comment (see The Chronicle of Fabian [London, 1559}, STC 10664, p. 507).

The reasons for Clarence's execution (on the orders of his brother, Edward IV) are obscure; for a discussion of these see Charles Ross, Edward IV (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1974), pp. 239-45. Foxe is taking his account almost entirely from Polydore Vergil, Anglica historia (Basel, 1555), p. 537. Vergil, however, does not blame Edward's queen, Elizabeth Woodville, for Clarence's death. Foxe probably took this suggestion from Thomas More's History of King Richard III, (See The History of King Richard III, ed. Richard S. Sylvester, in The Complete Works of St. Thomas More, vol. II [New Haven and London, 1962], p. 7).

This prophecy was almost certainly invented after Richard III usurped the the throne. Richard had been the duke of Gloucester, so his name also began with a 'G'.

For Foxe's sources for the prophecies of Sylvester II's and Henry IV's deaths, see 1570, p. 663; 1576, p. 535; 1583, p. 557.

Foxe is referring to Sir John Cheke. Foxe is being this circumspect because Cheke was the mentor of William Cecil, Foxe's patron.

Why did Foxe devote a section of an ecclesiastical history to the dynastic struggles on the Continent in the later fifteenth century? There were three reasons. In the first place, Foxe wished to trace the fate of Bohemia after the Hussite Wars. In the second, this is an early appearance of the Ottoman Turks in his history and it serves as an introduction to Foxe's later account of their history. And finally the continuing threat that they present underscores Foxe's urgings that the rulers of Europe abandon their destructive and petty wars and unite against their common foe. For Imperial and Bohemian history, which takes up about half of this section, Foxe drew on Aeneas Sylius Piccolomini's De Bohemorum origine (Salingraci, 1538), pp. 113-22, 125, 130-41, 144-50 and 156-61. (Piccolomini became Pope Pius II; he had been a papal legate to Bohemia). Hungarian history, the campaigns of Charles the Bold and the wars of Emperor Maximilian I, are all taken from Chronicon Carionis, ed. Phillip Melanchthon and Caspar Peucer (Wittenberg ['Wittenburg'], 1580), pp. 640-1, 672-678, 680-1, 686-7 and 700-1. The complaints made at the Council of Basel about papal exactions are all taken from Matthias Flacius, Catalogus Testium Veritatis (Strasbourg ['Strassburg'], 1562), p. 291 as is the material on the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges (Catalogus Testium Veritatis, pp. 291-304 and 474-5). The passages denouncng Pius II are based on Bartolomeo de Sanchi de Platina, Historia de vitis Pontificum Romanorum, ed. Onophrio Panvinio (Venice, 1562), fo. 244r. Foxe's quotation of Pius II's praise of George of Pod?brady is particularly interesting. Foxe took it, as he states, from the 'Descriptione Europae' in Pius II's Cosmographia (Cologne, 1522), p. 117. But Foxe sates that Pius said that George was 'magnus vir alioqui, et rebus bellicis clarus' [otherwise a great man and illustrious in military matters]. What Pius actually said was that George 'putetur magnus vir alioqui, et rebus bellicis clarus' [was considered to be otherwise a great man and illustrious in military matters]. This piece of selective quotation is a reminder of how subtly Foxe could make a source serve his purposes. Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

Foxe first related the history of Johann Ruceruth of Wesel in the 1563 edition. This narrative was based on based on the documents of Ruceruth's trial, printed in Ortwin Gratius, Fasciculi rerum expetendarum et fugiendarum and the account of Ruceruth in Matthias Flacius, Catalogus testium veritatis. In the 1563 edition, Foxe also had a brief account of Sixtus IV, which was based on John Bale's Catalogus, pp. 602-3 and 625-5. This account briefly mentioned Sixtus's sponsorship of the Rosary of the Psalter of Our Lady, but largely emphasized the pope's alleged liscensing of brothels and his granting of indulgences for sodomy to his intimates. The account of Ruceruth was expanded in the 1570, with further material from Ortwin Gratius, in response to criticisms from Nicholas Harpsfield. Foxe also added a brief relation of a Franconian cowherd who was burned as a heretic in 1479; this was taken from Bale's Catalogus (p. 625). The account of Sixtus IV was greatly expanded in the 1570 edition with Foxe's denunciation of the devotions to the Vurgin Mary, which the pope had sponsored. None of this material was altered in subsequent editions. This section of the Acts and Monuments contains a number of what Foxe believed were features of the late medieval Church: the existence of a small remnant of members of the True Church in every region and from every background, their persecution by the False Church and the 'idolatry', sexual depravity, and 'superstition' which characterized it.

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

The material on Sixtus IV - including the pasquinades - is taken entirely from John Bale's Catalogus, pp. 602-4 and 624-5.

I.e., the prostitutes paid a tax every July.

In the 1563 edition, Foxe printed an account of Alan de Rupe's founding of a rosary and a confraternity in honour of the Virgin Mary and of the vision which inspired it. Foxe drew this account from Bale, but (interestingly) was openly sceptical about it. By 1570, Foxe had checked Bale's source and found that Bale's report was accurate. (See Thomas S. Freeman, 'Offending God: John Foxe and English Protestant Reactions to the Cult of the Virgin Mary' in The Church and Mary, ed. R. N. Swanson, Studies in Church History 39 [Woodbridge, 2004], pp. 232-5).

The book was Jodocus Beissel, Rosacea augustissime christiferae Maria corona (Antwerp, 1495). The passage quoted (accurately) below, is on sig. b5v .

I.e. Bale's Catalogus, which was divided into 'centuries'.

Foxe is quoting the story accurately; it is taken from Jodocus Beissel, Rosacea augustissime christiferae Maria corona (Antwerp, 1495), sigs. a4v-a5r.

A neatherd is a cowherd.

Johann Ruceruth von Wesel should not be confused with his similarly named contemporary, Wesel Gansfort. This mistake is particularly easy to make when reading the 1563 edition (p. 396)., where Foxe - repeating Matthias Flacius - calls the former 'Doctor Weselianus' and the latter 'Doctor Weselus' respectively.

This narrative of Ruceruth's trial is derived from Ortwin Gratius, Fasciculi rerum expetendarum et fugiendarum (Cologne, 1535), fos. 163r-167r and Matthias Flacius, Catalogus testium veritatis (Strasbourg, 1562), p. 560.

I.e., Ruceruth believed that the Holy Spirit proceeded from God the Father, but not Jesus Christ. As Foxe observes, the Greek Orthodox church held (and holds) the same opinion, but in the late medieval Catholic church, this belief was heresy.

The following paragraph is taken from Ortwin Gratius, Fasciculi rerum expetendarum et fugiendarum (Cologne, 1535), fo. 166v. It was added in the 1570 edition, in response to Nicholas Harpsfield's attacks on Ruceruth. Harpsfield maintained that Ruceruth's belief that the Holy Spirit proceeded only from God the Father, made him a heretic. (Nicholas Harpsfield, Dialogi sex contra summi pontificatus, monasticae vitae, sanctorum Sacrarum imaginum oppugnatores et pseudomartyres [Antwerp, 1556], p. 822). Foxe is not concerned to conceal Ruceruth's belief, which he did not regard as necessarily heretical. Instead the purpose of this addition is to demonstrate that Ruceruth's beliefs were grounded in his study of Scripture.

The following quotation is from Ortwin Gratius Fasciculi rerum expetendarum et fugiendarum (Cologne, 1535), fo. 166v. The 'Paralipomena' to which Foxe is referring is Casper Hedio's continuation of Burchard of Ursperg's chronicle. In this case, Hedio is merely repeating passages from Gratius.

This entire quotation, regarding contemporary disapproval of Ruceruth's trial, is taken directly from Matthias Flacius, Catalogus testium veritatis (Strasbourg, 1562), p. 560.

This paragraph was added in the 1570 edition in response to Nicholas Harpsfield's claim that Ruceforth was not a tue martyr because he did not die violently. (See Nicholas Harpsfield, Diaogi sex contra summi pontificatus, monasticae vitae, sanctorum Sacrarum imaginum oppugnatores et pseudomartyres [Antwerp, 1566}, p. 822). Foxe wanted to emphasize that Ruceruth was a victim of persecution.

Apart from the description of Richard III's coronation, which is drawn from Hall's chronicle, Foxe's narrative of the brief reigns of Edward V and Richard III is based entirely on Thomas More's History of King Richard III and Polydore Vergil's Anglica historia. (Although Foxe regarded both historians as Catholics and untrustworthy sources on religious history; on secular affairs he preferred their humanist histories to chronicle accounts). For Richard's seizure of the throne, which is covered by both authors, Foxe preferred More's fuller and more dramatic account. For Richard III's reign after Buckingham's rebellion - which Foxe barely mentions - Foxe had to rely on Vergil.

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

From here until the defeat and death of Richard III at Market Bosworth, Foxe's account is based on Polydore Vergil, Anglica historia (Isengrim, 1555), pp. 553-65.

This would seem to indicate that Foxe was using the Latin edition of Thomas More's works, which was printed at Louvain in 1565, as this edition supplemented More's history of Richard III - which ended, incomplete, in 1483 - with Polydore Vergil's account.

More alludes to the incident (see The History of the Reign of King Richard III, ed. Richard S. Sylvester, The Complete Works of St. Thomas More 2 [New Haven, CT, 1963], p. 70). But Foxe has details found in no other source; probably he drew on the memories of individual informants.

Foxe is probably adding this gloss so as not to disparage the memory of the boy king, Edward VI.

Foxe passes over the details of Richard's seizure of Edward V at Stony Stratford, as the young prince was heading from Wales back to London. On hearing the news that her eldest son was in Richard's custody, Elizabeth Woodville, Edward IV's widow, fled with her youngest son into sanctuary at Westminster Abbey.

This is one indication that Foxe is following More, rather than Vergil's account of the same incident. Both authors see Hasting's sudden execution as a providential punishment, but while Vergil claims that that the crime being avenged was participation in the killing of Henry VI's son Edward (see Polydore Vergil, Anglica historia [Isengrim 1555], p. 573), More - and Foxe - feel that the crime was complicity in the executions of Edward V's maternal uncles (see The History of King Richard III, ed. Richard S. Sylvester in The Complete Works of St. Thomas More 2 [New Haven, CT, 1963], p. 52).

The remainder of the this account of the reign of Edward V is based on The History of King Richard III, ed. Richard S. Sylvester in The Complete Works of St. Thomas More 2 [New Haven, CT, 1963], pp. 49, 58-68 and 75-82.

The accounts of Richard III's coronation, of the elevation of certain nobles, and the fates of Stanley and Morton, are all taken from Edward Hall, The union of the two noble and illustre famelies of Lancastre and York (London, 1560), STC 12723a, fo. 25v.

Foxe's account of the murders of Edward IV's sons and of the providential punishments of their murderers is drawn from The History of King Richard III, ed. Richard S. Sylvester in The Complete Works of St. Thomas More 2 (New Haven, CT, 1963), pp. 85-87.

Foxe passes over the events of Richard III's reign between the deaths of the sons of Edward IV and the invasion of Henry VII, most especially Buckingham's rebellion against Richard in the autumn of 1483.

Foxe's starting point for a great deal of the material in this section layin the work of John Bale. Joan Boughton and Philip Norris were both discussed in Bale's notes in Bodley Library MS e Musaeo 86, fo 63v; Foxe repeated these accounts in his Commentari, fos. 174v-175r and 176r-v. Foxe also printed a brief account of Savanorala in the Commentari, which was also drawn from Bale (see Commentari, fo 177r-v). However, while Foxe may have drawn on Bale for his accounts of these people in the Commentari, for the A&M, he was able to draw on other sources. Theaccount of Savanorola in the 1563 edition, was taken on Matthis Flacius's Catalogus testium veritatis, as was the account of Wesel Gansfort which also appeared in the 1563 edition. These accounts were reprinted without alteration in all subsequent unabridged editions of the A&M. Foxe also reprinted two letters of Maximilian I, also from Flacius's Catalogus, in his first editions. In the 1570 edition, edition Foxe added all of the other material in this section. The material on Maximian I was drawn from Casper Peucer's continuation of Carion's chronicle. Foxe took his account of thr persecution of Lollards around the year 1500 from the manuscript of what is now known as the Great Chronicle of London. And the accounts of Alexander VI and Julius II were drawn almost entirely from John Bale's Catalogus. Although there is no unifying theme for this section and it covers events inEngland, Italy and the Holy Roman Empire, it does make a number of pointsimportant to Foxe. It recounts the existence of proto-Protestants before Luther,including Lollards as well as Wesel Gansfort and Savanorola. (As a corollary ofthis, Foxe also associates Protestantism with both the invention of printing andhumanism). Foxe was also able to demonstrate the financial corruption of the Papacy, through the letters of Maximilian (complaining of ecclesiastical abuses) and its moral corruption, through the careers of Alexander VI and Julius II.

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

There is actually no evidence that Lady Jane Young, the wife of Sir John Young, a wealthy draper and Lord Mayor of London, was ever burned.Andrew Hope has argued that Joan Baker confused Jane Young with her motherJoan Boughton, who was burned at Smithfield on on 28 April 1494. It is true,however, that Jane Young was herself suspected of heresy. (See Andrew Hope,'The lady and the baliff: Lollardy among the gentry in Yorkist and early TudorEngland' in Lollardy and the Gentry in the Middle Ages, ed. Margaret Aston and Colin Richmond [Stroud, 1997], p. 260 and J. A. F. Thomson, The Later Lollards,1414-1520 [Oxford, 1965}, pp. 156-7).

See The Great Chronicle of London, ed. A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley (London, 1938), pp. 252-3. It should be noted that Foxe is putting apositive spin on the account in The Great Chronicle, whose author regarded Joan Boughton as a deluded heretic.

The Great Chronicle records that Boughton's ashes were removed'and kepyd ffor a precious Relyk, In an erthyn pott' (The Great Chronicle of London,ed. A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley [London, 1938], p. 253). Foxe is careful todisguise the suggestion that her remains were regarded as relics.

The following accounts of Londoners punished for heresy are drawn from The Great Chronicle of London, ed. A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley (London, 1938), pp. 261, 262 and 264.

I.e., 17 January 1497.

Actually 1499; Foxe was misled by the author of the Great Chroniclereckoning years by the Lord Mayor's term of office which began in the spring. This account is from The Great Chronicle of London, ed. A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley(London, 1938), p. 286.

Actually 1500; Foxe was misled by the author of the Great Chroniclereckoning years by the Lord Mayor's term of office which began in the spring.

Foxe made a mistake error, there was no such person. In the Great Chronicle, it reads that in July there 'was a town in Norfolk [sic] namyd Babramconsumed the more part therof with fire' (The Great Chronicle of London, ed. A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley [London, 1938], p. 294). This reference to burning is followed immediately by the account of the execution of a heretic in Smithfield. In the manuscript Foxe consulted a marginal note reads: Babram hereticus (London Guildhall MS 3313, fo. 273v).

Reading rapidly Foxe must have thought that Babram was the name of a heretic andthat he was burned. By the way, Babraham is a village in Cambridgeshire, notNorfolk.

Foxe is referring to the Great Chronicle, which he believed was written by the chronicler Robert Fabian. These histories of English martyrs are all derived from London Guildhall MS 3313 (now printed as The Great Chronicle of London), which belonged to John Stow and possibly was loaned by him to Foxe (certainly Foxe consulted the work at some point). Foxe attributes this work (probably correctly) to the chronicler Robert Fabyan.

Foxe is referring to the version of Fabian.s chronicles in print, incontrast to the Great Chronicle, which Foxe believed was written by Fabian, butwhich was in manuscript. These histories of English martyrs are all derived from London Guildhall MS 3313 (now printed as The Great Chronicle of London), which belonged to John Stow and possibly was loaned by him to Foxe (certainly Foxe consulted the work at some point). Foxe attributes this work (probably correctly) to the chronicler Robert Fabyan.

The following account of Emperor Maximilian I is drawn fromCaspar Peucer's continuation of Carion's chronicle. (See Chronicon Carionis [Wittenburg, 1580], pp. 688-90). Foxe concentrates on the praise of Maximilian'svirtues and gives little of the political and military history in Peucer's account, particularly ignoring Peucer's fairly detailed account of Maximilan's Italian wars.

This is from The Great Chronicle of London, ed A. H. Thomasand I. D. Thornley (London, 1938), p. 294. The execution of an unnamed old man at Smithfield is recorded in a number of sources (e.g., The Great Chronicle of London, ed. A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley [London, 1938], p. 294 and Fabyan's Chronicle, ed. H. Ellis [London, 1911], p. 687). None of the surviving sources supply the details of the man's attempted escape and injury, so it must be assumed that whatever the source that Cary supplied to Foxe was, it was subsequently lost.

Foxe had an account of Savanorola in his Commentari (fo. 177r-v)but this account is conflated from two sources. The first is the admiring accountof Philippe de Commynes, whose praise of Savanorola as a prophet who foresawthe future and who was dedicated to the reform of the Church, helped establishSavanorola as a proto-Protestant to the Reformers (see Philippe de Commynes,De Carlo Octavo…et bello Neapolitano Commentarii [Paris, 1561], pp. 105-7). The other source was the account of Savanorola in Matthias Flacius,Catalogus testium veritatis (Basel, 1562), p. 565.

This is a prejorative term for priest.

The first eight of these articles come from Matthias Flacius, Catalogustestium veritatis (Basel, 1562), p. 565. The remaining six are culled from the accountof Savanorola in Philippe de Commynes, De Carlo Octavo…et bello Neapolitano Commentarii [Paris, 1561], pp. 105-7, where they are not, however, presented as articles objected against Savanorola.

The statement that Savanorola prophesied the destruction of Florence and Rome and also the renewal of the Church comes from Matthias Flacius, Catalogus testium veritatis (Basel, 1562), p. 565; the claim that he prophesied thatthe Turks would convert to Christianity and that Charles VIII would cross the Alpsand conquer Italy comes from Philippe de Commynes, De Carlo Octavo…et belloNeapolitano Commentarii {Paris, 1561], pp. 106-7.

The description of the learned men who hailed Savanorola as a prophet, including Commynes, is translated word-for-word from Matthias Flacius,Catalogus testium veritatis (Basel, 1562), p. 565.

This brief mention of Philip Norice is based either on Bale's mentionof Norrice in his Catalogus (p. 608) or Bale's note on Norice in Bodley library MS e Musaeo 86, fo. 63v.

John Bale, Foxe's source for his account of Norice, did not say that Norice was a professor or even that he taught at Oxford.

This list of grievances is translated from Matthias Flacius, Catalogustestium veritatis (Basel, 1562), pp. 321-22.

Advowson is the English term - inserted by Foxe - for an expective grace, a lien or claim upon a particular benefice

Actually Mary of Burgundy died in 1482.

First fruits are an English term for an annate, which is a tax of the entire first year's income upon the incoming holder of a benefice. But in England, first fruits were paid to the Crown, in Germany annates were paid to the Papacy.

This list of remedies for the grievances is translated from Matthias Flacius, Catalogus testium veritatis (Basel, 1562), pp. 322-23.

I.e., Mainz.

This 'advertisement' (or warning) to Maximilian I from the Germanestates is translated from Matthias Flacius, Catalogus testium veritatis (Basel, 1562),pp. 323-4.

This decree asserted the sole right of princes to the revenues from churches in their territories.

This exhortation to Maximilian from the German estates is translatedfrom Matthias Flacius, Catalogus testium veritatis (Basel, 1562), p. 324.

I.e., courtiers.

This is the celebrated humanist Jacob Wimpheling.

Maximilian's edict is translated from Matthias Flacius, Catalogus testium veritatis (Basel, 1562), pp. 324-5.

I.e., Innsbruck.

Once again Foxe praises printing as an aid to the reform of the Church.This passage may have been inspired by a similar reflection by Peucer (see ChroniconCarionis [Wittenberg, 1580], p. 687) but the list of names of enlightened (and anti-papal) writers appears to have been culled from John Bale's Catalogus.

This letter from Jacob Wimpheling to Maximilian is translated fromMatthias Flacius, Catalogus testium veritatis (Basel, 1562), pp. 326-7.

Foxe has two, not entirely consistent accounts, of Alexander VI's holding the Turkish prince Djem hostage. One comes from John Bale's Catalogus(pp. 626-27). The other is from Sebastion Munster, Cosmographia (Basel, 1559),p. 965.

This story of Alexander VI's mutilation of a writer who denounced him is taken from Matthias Flacius, Catalogus testium veritatis (Basel, 1562), p. 576.

Mark Anthony ordered the Roman orator Cicero killed after Cicero had denounced him in a series of speeches.

The stories of Alexander VI's death and of the statue of the angel struck by lightning are from Bale, Catalogus, p. 634.

The following account of Julius II, including the poems and epigraphs, is taken, word-for-word, from Bale, Catalogus, pp. 636 and 642-4.

This is a mistake; the celebrated humanist Lorenzo Valla is meant.

See C 174/1.

The person whom Foxe refers to as 'Johannes Wesalia' is JohannesRuceruth von Wesel. 'Johannes Weselus' is Johannes of Wesel, better known asWesel Gansforth, a well-known humanist philosopher and theologian. Foxe's account of Wesel Gansforth is entiely - including the anecdotes about him attributed to Noviomagus and Philip Melancthon - derived from Matthias Flacius, Catalogus Testium Veritatis (Basel, 1562), pp. 561-3.

Once again, Foxe takes the opportunity to associate the invention ofprinting with the advent of Protestantism.

These histories of English martyrs are all derived from London Guildhall MS 3313 (now printed as The Great Chronicle of London), which belongedto John Stow and possibly was loaned by him to Foxe (certainly Foxe consulted the work at some point). Foxe attributes this work (probably correctly) to the chronicler Robert Fabyan.

In a number of ways the sudden inclusion of a large - even by A&Mstandards - section on the history of the Turks in an ecclesiestical history is somewhatsurprising. Virtually no attention had been paid to this subject in either of Foxe'sLatin martyrologies. There were, moreover, only cursory references to the Turks in the 1563 edition (pp. 422 and 442): although the characterization of the Turks' 'extreme cruelty and tirrany' in the first of these passages is revealing of Foxe'sattitudes. Foxe himself recognized that his account of the Turks was an unusual ex-cursus and offered several justifications for it: that an understanding of the history ofthe Turks was necessary for an understanding of Biblical prophecy; that it was impor-tant to understand the danger the Turks presented to the survival of the Church; thatit enabled the reader to recognize the Turks as God's scourge and to repent sin; thatit would inspire Christians to unite against the Turks; that it showed that the Turkswere backed by the Devil and could only be defeated with God's aid and finally thatthe English tended to minimize the imminence of the Turkish threat and needed to bealerted to it.

All of these reasons were inter-connected. The importance of understanding the Turkish role in prophetic history, at least to Foxe, is demonstrated by the fact thathe devoted a section of his account of the Turks to the subject. Two thingsare essential to understanding Foxe's view of the Ottoman empire. The first is that hethought, whether or not it was Antichrist (as we shall see, Foxe was unsure about this), it was unquestionably in league with Satan. Moreover, the rise of the Ottomanempire took place in what - in Foxe's eyes, at least - was the the final days of theworld, with the Apocalypse imminent. Thus the Ottoman empire was not a politicalpower, posing a military threat, it was a spiritual power, posing a supernatural threatand it had to be fought by spiritual means. Yet the Turks were also part of God's planand should inspire people to repentance and right conduct. By emphasizing the powerand the cruelty of the Turks (which he would do stridently), Foxe was following whathe believed was his duty: alerting God's flock to danger and exhorting them to repentance.

The interesting question is why did Foxe believe that the Ottomans were adiabolical threat? One reason was their invincibility. Foxe wrote his account of theTurks in 1566, at the very end of the reign of the greatest sultan of the Ottomanempire, Süleyman I (reined 1520-1566). From this vantage point, the trajectory of theOttoman empire was one of almost unbroken success. Secondly, and probably mostimportantly, the Turks seemed to fit the descriptions of Antichrist in certain key respects, such as their cruelty and their hostility to Christianity. Less obviously, butof equal importance to Foxe, was that their state was tyranny without law, order ormorality; a diabolical parody of a godly commonwealth. But above all, at least inFoxe's eyes, the Turks had no true family structure. Instead of godly monogamousmarriage, the Turks had concubines and harems; instead of an orderly successionfrom father to son, there were assassinations and civil wars.

Finally Foxe was greatly influenced in his perception of the Turk by hisexile. Continental writers, particularly those in Germany and Italy, were greatly concerned about the Ottoman threat, for obvious reasons, and in Basel, Foxe wasexposed to their writings on the subject. In fact, much of his history of the Turkswould be based on two works, both of which were printed in Basel. One of theseworks, De origine et rebus gestis Turcorum, was printed by Foxe's employerJohann Oporinus in 1556; Foxe may well have corrected. The other work wasTheodore Bibliander's Latin translation of the Koran, which was printed in 1550,a few years before Foxe arrived in Switzerland. It is not easy to perceive Foxe's indebtedness to these books. Both works were actually compilations of texts about the Turks. De origine is a collection of histories of the Ottomans by different authors; it is usually attributed to the Greek humanist Laonicus Chalkokondylas, but, in fact, he was only the author of the first work in the collection. Bibliander's translation of the Koran was also bound with works on the history and religion of the Turks. Foxe did not cite these works, but rather the individual works contained in them, giving the impression that he had read dozens of books when he had read two books.

Apart from these two works, Foxe also drew on a few reliable and obvious sources: Sebastian Munster's Cosmographia and Caspar Peucer's edition of Carion'schronicle. Foxe also consulted Johann Cuspinian's De Turcorum origine. These sources, although secondary, were some of the finest works on the Ottomans in sixteenth-century Europe. As a result, Foxe's history of the Ottomans was the bestavailable in English during the sixteenth century.

Because of its quality, the relative popularity of the Acts and Monuments, and the authority Foxe's work enjoyed, his account of the Turks was quite influential. This was especially true in two areas. One of these was in the exegesis of Revelationand the development of apocalyptic thought in England. The other wasin English literature, particularly drama. Christopher Marlowe based his drama Tamburlaine on the Acts and Monuments. (See William J. Brown, 'Marlow'sDebasement of Bajazet: Foxe's Actes and Monuments and Tamburlaine, Part I',Renaissance Quarterly 24 [1971], pp. 24-38 and Roy W. Battenhouse, Marlowe'sTamburlaine [Nashville, 1964]).

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

The following account of Mohammed is from Sebastian Munster, Cosmographiae universalis (Basel, 1559), pp. 1037-38.

I.e., the Koran.

For his account of Mohammed's immediate successors Foxe is relyingon Theodore Bibliander, Machumetis Saracenorum principis…Alcoran (Basel,1550), I, p. 218.

For the accounts of Heraclius and Constans, Foxe is following Sebastian Munster, Cosmographiae universalis (Basel, 1559), p. 947.

The following summary of pre-Ottoman Turkish history down to 1330,is taken from Casper Peucer, Chronicon Carionis (Wittenburg, 1580), pp. 583-6.

Foxe is explaining the Turkish conquests as being due to the disunityand backsliding among the Christians whom they conquered. In part, this explanation fits Foxe's homiletic purposes. But it also fits in with his apocalyptic interpretation ofTurkish history and his exegesis of 2 Thess. 2..

This is a stark statement of Foxe's beliefs that the Ottomans represented a diabolical inversion of God's social order.

Most of this account of Osman comes from Sebastian Munster, Cosmographiae universalis (Basel, 1559), p. 957. The description of Osman's conquests, the length of his reign and his death are from Casper Peucer, Chronicon Carionis (Wittenburg,1580), p. 587.

The following sentence is Foxe's opinion.

Actually Osman was dead by 1324.

The following passages are meant to identify the Ottoman Empire withthe Antichrist. This was not an identification that Foxe would make consistently(as a rule he favoured the Papacy for this role) but here he is making the case for theOttomans as Antichrist quite explicitly.

Orhan did not kill his brothers.

The account of Orhan is taken entirely from Casper Peucer, Chronicon Carionis (Wittenburg, 1580), pp. 587-8.

In 1341, a civil war broke out in the Byzantine Empire between two rival candidates for the imperial throne: John VI Kantakouzenes and John V Palaiologos. Kantakouzenes allied with Orhan and was successful. Further warfareensued in 1352 between Palaiologos and Kantakouzenes's son Matthew., who again called on Orhan for aid. In return for these interventions, the Ottomans were allowedto establish themselves on the Gallipoli peninsula.

Orhan died in 1360 from natural causes. He was neither wounded nor killed in battle.

Foxe's account of Murad I is taken entirely from Casper Peucer, Chronicon Carionis (Wittenburg, 1580), pp. 588-9.

Murad I may have come to the throne after a civil war with his brother Hälil (the sparse sources for the period are unclear about this) but his elder brother Süleyman had died in 1358, two years before Orhan died.

In 1373 John V Palaiologos allied with Murad, not against the Kantakouzenes family, but against his rebellious son Andronikos. Andronikos was defeated and imprisoned. In 1376, he escaped and with Genoese and Ottoman assistance defeated and imprisoned his father. In 1379, John escaped and enlisted Ottoman aid against Andronikos. In 1381, John was restored to the throne. These civil wars enabled the Ottomans to expand their power in the Balkans.

This was the hard-fought, and decisive, Ottoman victory at Kossovo on 15 June 1389.

Prince Lazar died in the battle of Kossovo, but was not taken prisoner.

Murad I died in battle at Kossovo.

2 Thess. 2: 1-4.

Except for brief excerpts from Munster's Cosmographia, the account of Bayezid is taken entirely from Caspar Peucer, Chroicon Carionis (Wittenburg, 1580), pp. 642-6.

The battle of Nicopolis was 25 September 1396; Bayezid was defeatedby Timur on 28 July 1402.

Sebastian Munster, Cosmographiae universalis (Basel, 1559), p. 959.

The passages on the numbers in Timur's army, on his conquests, andon his sons losing what their father had conquered, are taken from Sebastian Munster,Cosmographiae universalis (Basel, 1559), pp. 959-60.

Actually Bayezid died on 9 March 1403, less than seven months after his defeat.

These passages are taken from Casper Peucer, Chronicon Carionis(Wittenburg, 1580), pp. 645-6 and they make a confused situation even more confusing. Bayezid's sons were: Süleyman (Calepine), Isa (Jesus; pace Peucer and Foxe there was only one son with this name), Mehmed, Musa (Moses) and Mustapha. There was no son named Hälil (or Hali). There was no son named 'Musulman'; if this is meant to be Mehmed, then the account in Peucer and Foxe is inaccurate from beginning to end. After Timur's victory, the Ottoman terriories were divided. Süleyman, the eldest, ruled the European territories, Mehmed, the youngest, ruled what is now northeastern Turkey. Isa ruled western Turkey. Musa and Mustapha had been taken prisoner along with Bayezid. Musa eventually fell into the hands of his brother Mehmed. Mustapha presumably died in Timur's custody. In 1403, Mehmed defeated Isa, seized his lands and drove him into exile. Isa secured Byzantine aid and re-invaded his former territories in 1404. Mehmed defeated him again, and Isa fled and disappeared from history. Later that year Süleyman invaded Turkey and occupied Isa's lands, driving Mehmed back into northeastern Turkey. In 1409, Mehmed took revenge against Süleyman by releasing their brother Musa and sending him against Süleyman. Musa entered into a marriage alliance with the Voyvode of Wallachia and, with troops supplied by his father-in-law, invaded Süleyman's teritories. Süleyman withdrew his armies from Turkey to deal with the threat and Mehmed overran these territories.

The account of Süleyman (Calepine) is taken largely from Casper Peucer, Chronicon Carionis (Wittenburg, 1580), pp. 645-6 with some material from Cuspinian. Despite Foxe's hailing him as an Ottoman emperor, Süleyman, is not generally considered one as he never ruled over the entire empire.

The Partians were actually a nomadic people who created an empireextending from the Euphrates, which flourished from the second century BCE tothe the third century AD. Peucer and Foxe are using a classical term to describeTimur's armies.

Actually Süleyman (Calepine) and his brother Mehmed retreated fromthe battle and abandoned their father. Neither brother was captured.

Foxe is taking his account from Johannes Cuspinian, De Turcorumorigine (Antwerp, 1541), fos. 14v-16v. Actually there was no such battle; it is probably a confused version of Sigismund's defeat at Nicopolis. Cuspinian admitsthat he does not know whether this battle took place in Murad's reign. This is from Johannes Cuspinian, De Turcorum origine (Antwerp, 1541), fo. 16v .

In an unusual piece of exegesis, Foxe is is interpreting the 'defection'usually regarded as a reference to apostasy by exegetes, of the conversion to Islamof regions in the Middle East and North Africa that were formerly Christian.

This is from Johannes Cuspinian, De Turcorum origine (Antwerp, 1541), fo. 16v.

Musa (see C 177/35) caught Süleyman by surprise and defeated him. Musa's troops caught up with Süleyman as he was fleeing and killed him. This was in 1411, not 1410.

Foxe took this very garbled account of Orhan and Musa from CasperPeucer, Chronicon Carionis (Wittenburg, 1580), pp. 646-7.

These passages are taken from Casper Peucer, Chronicon Carionis(Wittenburg, 1580), pp. 645-6 and they make a confused situation even more confusing. Bayezid's sons were: Süleyman (Calepine), Isa (Jesus; pace Peucer and Foxe there was only one son with this name), Mehmed, Musa (Moses) and Mustapha. There was no son named Hälil (or Hali). There was no son named 'Musulman'; if this is meant to be Mehmed, then the account in Peucer and Foxe, is inaccurate from beginning to end. After Timur's victory, the Ottoman terriories were divided. Süleyman, the eldest, ruled the European territories, Mehmed, the youngest, ruled what is now northeastern Turkey. Isa ruled western Turkey. Musa and Mustapha had been taken prisoner along with Bayezid. Musa eventually fell into the hands of his brother Mehmed. Mustapha presumably died in Timur's custody. In 1403, Mehmed defeated Isa, seized his lands and drove him into exile. Isa secured Byzantine aid and re-invaded his former territories in 1404. Mehmed defeated him again, and Isa fled and disappeared from history. Later that year Süleyman invaded Turkey and occupied Isa's lands, driving Mehmed back into northeastern Turkey. In 1409, Mehmed took revenge against Süleyman by releasing their brother Musa and sending him against Süleyman. Musa entered into a marriage alliance with the Voyvode of Wallachia and, with troops supplied by his father-in-law, invaded Süleyman's teritories. Süleyman withdrew his armies from Turkey to deal with the threat and Mehmed overran these territories.

Orhan was the eldest son of Süleyman (Calepine), the eldest son of Bayezid. Musa (Moses) was Süleyman's brother, who defeated and killed him. After Süleyman's death, the Byzantine emperor, who had Orhan in custody, released him to make war on Musa. Musa retalitated by un-successfully besieging Constantinople in 1411. The same year he also defeated his brother Mehmed. In 1413, however, Mehmed defeated Musa and killed him. Mehmed then defeated Orhan, captured him and had him blinded.

This account of Mehmed I is taken from Casper Peucer, Chronicon Carionis (Frankfurt, 1594), p. 1205.

Mehmed was the youngest son of Bayezid, Süleyman (Calepine) was his elder brother.

Mehmed I reigned from 1413-21.

Most of this account of Murad II - including the citations of the twoauthors in this passage - is taken from Casper Peucer, Chronicon Carionis (Wittenburg,1580), pp. 647-51. Portions of it are taken from Christophe Richer's account of the Ottomans (via Bibliander's edition of the Koran) and Johannes Cuspinian's history of the Turks.

Rev. 13:18.

'Mustapha' was an imposter, supported by the Byzantine emperor, who claimed to be the son of Bayezid who was taken prisoner by Timur. After considerable initial success, he was defeated and captured in 1422. He was not strangled with a bowstring (a punishment reserved for royalty) but instead hanged as a common criminal.

Mustapha, the younger brother of Murad II, was defeated and strangled at Bursa in 1423.

This sentence is not is not from Casper Peucer, but is Foxe repeating his exegesis of 2 Thess. 2: 1-4. In an unusual piece of exegesis, Foxe is is interpreting the 'defection' usually regarded as a reference to apostasy by exegetes, of the conversion to Islam of regions in the Middle East and North Africa that were formerly Christian.

Up to this point, Foxe's account of Murad II is taken almost entirelyfrom Peucer. Here he adds an atrocity story taken from Christophe Richer's historyof the Turks, which was printed along with Bibliander's edition of the Koran (Theodore Bibliander, Machumetis Saracenorum principis…Alcoran [Basel, 1550], III, p. 203).

This account of the 'winter war' of 1443 and events through thebattle of Varna is taken from Johannes Cuspinian, De Turcorum origine (Antwerp,1541), fos. 22v-25v.

These victories were won in the 'winter war' of 1443. Although Vladislav III and Hunyadi won several victories, the weather forced them to retreat.Their campaign was, however, hailed as a success in Europe.

In fact, Murad wished to abdicate in favour of his son Mehmed.To serve that end, and ease the crisis in the Ottoman treasury caused by having towage war in both Anatolia and Europe, he made peace with Vladislav III ofHungary, George Brankovi?, despot of Serbia and with the emir of Karaman. News of Murad's subsequent abdication led the papacy to break the treaty and launch a newcrusade against the Turks.

1583, pp. 697-700.

This sentence in Foxe's addition to Cuspinian's account of the battleof Varna. Blaming the papacy for Ottoman successes is a favourite theme of Foxe's.

Murad returned to Europe from Anatolia, but he had not been at warwith Karaman. He had been in retirement, but re-ascended the throne to deal withthis emergency.

Rev. 16:12.

Actually Byzantine, Venetian and Burgundian ships tried to preventMurad's army from crossing the Bosporus but were thwarted by storms and Turkishcannon.

The comment about a dirty death being suitable for the pope's bishopsis Foxe's insertion into Cuspinian's accout.

The description of Julian's death is from Johannes Cuspinian, DeTurcorum origine (Antwerp, 1541), fo. 25v, but Foxe adds the comment blaming Julian for the defeat.

This encomium of Hunyadi is Foxe's addition to the text.

Foxe draws the reminder of his account of Murad's reign from Casper Peucer, Chronicon Carionis (Wittenburg, 1580), pp. 649-51.

The material in round brackets is Foxe's insertion into Peucer's account.

After the battle of Varna, Murad had retired again to an asceticlife, only to re-ascend the throne in 1446. The reason for Murad's return, however,was to deal with a revolt of the Janissaries and not because of Hunyadi.

This description of the founding of the Janissaries is from CasperPeucer, Chronicon Carionis (Wittenburg, 1580), p. 651. This includes the emotive passages on the horrors of Christian children being brought up as Moslems.

There are two basic sources for Foxe's account of the reign ofMehmed II. The first is Casper Peucer's chronicle, which he relies on for theoverall course of the reign. The second is Giovan Ramusio's history as excerptedin Laonicus Chalkokondylas, De origine et rebus gestis Turcorum (Basel, 1556), which Foxe uses for the siege of Constantinople. This will increasingly become the pattern in Foxe's history of the Turks. As Foxe gets nearer to his own era, he reliesincreasingly on more detailed sources than Munster and Peucer.

On ascending the throne on 1451, Mehmed II had his only brother,Ahmed, murdered. Ahmed's mother was married to a slave.

The reference is to Johannes Lucidus, De emendationibus temporum ab orbe condito ad hanc usque nostram aetatem (Venice, 1546), p. 123.

Halil Canderli was the Grand Vizier (whom Mehmed inherited from his father Murad) and a powerful Turkish noble. Halil oppossed the attack on Con-stantinople and soon after the city fell, Halil was executed. The story of Halil killinga son of Murad is pure fiction.

Up until this point, Foxe was following Casper Peucer, ChroniconCarionis (Wittenburg, 1580), p 652. From here, through the conquests of Constantinople and Pera, Foxe follows Giovann Battisto Ramusio's history as excerpted in Laonicus Chalkokondylas, De origine et rebus gestis Turcorum (Basel, 1556), pp. 191-3.

The chronology is in error here, Mehmed did capture Athens, but not until 1456, after Constantimople fell.

Foxe is translating the incident of the crucifix accurately from Ramusio (as printed in Laonicus Chalkokondylas, De origine et rebus gestis Turcorum (Basel, 1556), p. 192. The moral for Christian's to give up 'superstition', however, is Foxe's insertion.

The mention of Helena and Constantine is Foxe's insertion.

This sentence is Foxe's insertion.

Except for a few instances, the remainder of the account of Mehmed II is fromCasper Peucer, Chronicon Carionis (Wittenburg,1580), pp. 652-55.

The anecdote of a heroic Bohemian at Mehmed's siege of Belgradeis taken from Hieronymous Ziegler, Illustrium Germaniae virorum (Ingolstadt,1562), fos. 89v-90r. This is the only time Foxe used this work in his history of theTurks.

This sentence is Foxe's insertion.

The following anecdote is from Giovann Battisto Ramusio as excerpted in Laonicus Chalkokondylas, De origine rebus gestis Turcorum (Basel, 1556), p. 193.

Actually Munster dates it to 623 (Sebastian Munster, Cosmographiae universalis (Basel, 1559), p. 1037.

This sentence is from Giovann Battisto Ramusio as excepted in Laonicus Chalkokondylas, De orgine rebus gestis Turcorum (Basel, 1556), p. 194.

These last sentences are from Giovann Battisto Ramusio as excepted in Laonicus Chalkokondylas, De origine rebus gestis Turcorum (Basel, 1556), p.194.

This account of Bayezid II's reign is largely taken from Casper Peucer, Chronicon Carionis (Wittenburg, 1580), pp. 657-63 although the narrative of Selim's accession to the throne is taken from Giovann Battisto Ramosio's history, as excerpted in Laonicus Chalkokondylas, De origine et rebus gestis Turcorum. One detail (of Bayezid's payment to the Master of the Knights of St John) came from Johannes Cuspinian, De Turcorum origine.

The details of Bayezid's payment to the Master of the Knightsof St John (who at this time were based in Rhodes) is from Johannes Cuspinian,De Turcorum orgine (Antwerp, 1541), fos. 43v-44r.

Foxe is taking his account of this battle from Casper Peucer,Chronicon Carionis (Wittenburg, 1580), p. 659 but no such battle ever took place.

These raids actually took place in the years 1499-1502.

Again, this chronology (taken from Peucer) is inaccurate. Thecoastal fortress of Methoni fell to the Turks in 1500. There were a series of largeTurkish raids on the Peloponnesos, but the full-scale invasion described by Peucerand Foxe never occurred.

Shah Ismail I, of the Safavid dynasty, ruler of Persia, was not aTurk.

This account came from Casper Peucer, Chronicon Carionis (Wittenburg, 1580), pp. 600-602. It confuses Shah Ismail I with Shah Kulu, the leader of a rebellion against Ottoman rule, which broke out in 1511 in a region ruled by Bayezid's son Korkud. During the course of the rebellion, Shah Kulu defeated and killed Karagöz Pasha, the Ottoman governor of Anatolia. Shah Kulu then defeatedand killed Hadim Ali Pasha, the Ottomam grand vizier. However, Shah Kulu was also killed in this battle and his death ended the rebellion.

This passage is from Caspar Peucer, Chronicon Carionis (Wittenburg, 1580), p. 1233 although Foxe would have wholeheartedly endorsed the sentiment.

Martin Luther's dating is from Theodore Bibliander, Machumentis Saracenorum principis…Alcoran (Basel, 1550), II, p. 9. Casper Peucer gave the same date in his edition of Carion's chronicle (Casper Peucer, Chronicon Carionis [Wittenberg, 1580], p. 275).

The following narrative, which takes up the remainder of Foxe'saccount of the reign of Bayezid II, comes from the Italian historian Giovann BattistoRamusio's history, as excerpted in Laonicus Chalkokondylas, De origine et rebusgestis Turcorum (Basel, 1556), pp. 195-6. Foxe went to the trouble of includingthis account because it underscored what he perceived as the lack of family loyaltyamong the Ottomans (see C177/93).

Bayezid II wished for his eldest son Ahmed to succeed him. ButBayezid and Ahmed were badly compromised by the success of Shah Kulu (Ahmedwas blamed for not pursuing the fleeing rebels effectively). Korkud, Bayezid's otherson, was also damaged by the rebellion which took place in his province. A third son Selim, seized the opportunity to rebel againstBayezid in 1512 and force him to abdicate. Bayezid died two months later. Selimproceeded to purge those involved in Shah Kulu's rebellion.

The story which follows is completely fictitious and taken fromGiovann Battisto Ramusio.

This final comment, emphasizing the lack of family loyalty amongthe Ottomans, is Foxe's insertion.

The account of the reign of Selim I is taken largely from CasparPeucer, Chronicon Carionis (Wittenburg, 1580), pp. 663-68. But Foxe also introduces two stories; one from the French courtier and diplomat, Christophe Richer and one from Sebastian Münster which gave variant accounts of the death of Ahmed. Ahmed rose in rebellion against Selim and was defeated and killed in battle in 1513.

This story comes from the French diplomat and historianChristophe Richer's De rebus Turcorum as excerpted in Theodore Bibliander,Machumetis Saracenorum principis…Alcoran (Basel, 1550), III, pp. 210-11.

This account of Ahmed's death comes from Sebastian Münster,Cosmographiae universalis (Basel, 1559), p. 967.

While Foxe's account of the reign of Süleyman I emphasizes the same themes as his history of the reigns of previous sultans, there are two significant differences. The first is in the detail which Foxe gives to the reign (it is roughly equalto that given to all eleven of Süleyman's predecessors combined). There are a number of reasons for this extended coverage. Süleyman had a long reign (46 years) and a great deal happened within it. Although the conquests of Selim were arguably more notable, they took place in the Islamic world. Süleyman's major triumphs, the capture of Rhodes and the conquest of Hungary, were, on the other hand, directed against Europeans. Consequently, European writers devoted a good deal of attention to Süleyman's reign. Because of this attention and because Süleyman was a contemporary, Foxe was able to draw on more numerous and detailed sources for his reign. As a result, Foxe no longer relied on the necessarily brief accounts in the world chronicle of Johann Carion. Instead, apart from the occasional use of Sebastian Münster's Cosmographia universalis, Foxe relied on the histories collected in Laonicus Chalkokondylas, De orgine et rebus gestis Turcorum (Basel, 1556). Although Foxe pays far more attention to the military and politics in his history of theOttomans than he does elsewhere in his work, it is important to look for the ways inwhich he was able to use such 'secular' topics in relation to other incidents, to paint the Ottomans as a diabolical enemy, if not the actual Antichrist.

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

The following passages attributing the failure of Süleyman to takeVienna to divine intervention and the quotation from Psalm 127 are Foxe's interpo-lation into the text.

Psalm 127:1.

Foxe resumes with a translation of Ramusio's account of the siegeof Vienna. From here through the siege of Vienna, Foxe is taking his detailednarrative of events from Giovann Battisto Ramusio's history as excerpted inLaonicus Chalkokondylas, De origine et rebus gestis Turcorum (Basel, 1556), pp.199-209. Foxe abridged a great deal of the detail in the account, particularly thedescription of the Ottoman army and the topography of Vienna.

The following passages, declaring that the Ottoman failure at Viennawas due to God's favour and protection of the Protestants, are Foxe's interpolations into the text.

The number of assaults on Vienna and the size of the Ottoman army are taken from Giovann Battisto Ramusio's history as excerpted in LaonicusChalkokondylas, De origine et rebus gestis Turcorum (Basel, 1556), pp. 207-8.

This passage, relating purported cruelty of the Turks, was taken from the German historian Wolfgang Dreschler's De Saracenorum et Turcorum orgine etrebus gestis, as excerpted in Laonicus Chalkokondylas, De orgine etr rebus gestisTurcorum (Basel, 1556), p. 233. This is a good example of Foxe seizing uponstories of Turkish atrocities.

This brief account of Süleyman's conquest of Guns (Koeszegh), afortress (not a town as Foxe states) comes from Giovann Battisto Ramusio's historyas excerpted in Laonicus Chalkokondylas, De origine et rebus gestis Turcorum(Basel, 1556), pp. 207-8. In fact, as other accounts cited by Foxe indicate, Süleyman had to raise the siege of Guns.

Foxe draws on Melchior Soiterus's history of Süleyman's wars in Hungary and the Balkans, De bello Pannonico, as excerpted in Laonicus Chalkokondylas, De orgine et rebus gestis Turcorum (Basel, 1556), pp. 519-20,for this account of the siege of Guns. Foxe also consulted Wolfgang Dreschler's history. Dreschler also relates that the Ottoman army numbered 200,000and that they besieged Guns for 30 days (see Laonicus Chalkokondylas, Deorigine et et rebus gestis Turcorum [Basel, 1556], p. 233).

Dreschler also relates that the Ottoman army numbered 200,000and that they besieged Guns for 30 days (see Laonicus Chalkokondylas, Deorigine et et rebus gestis Turcorum [Basel, 1556], p. 233).

This account of Süleyman's retreat in 1532 comes from Giovann Battisto Ramusio's history (as excerpted in Laonicus Chalkokondylas, De origineet rebus gestis Turcorum [Basel, 1556], p. 208), except that the mention of theColloquies of Augsburg and Ratisbon are from Foxe.

The material on the failed conspiracy against Süleyman and on his capture of Belgrade is taken from Sebastian Münster, Cosmographiae universalis(Basel, 1559), p. 968.

The brief account of the Tunisian campaign, the Ottoman invasionof Persia and the assault upon Corfu come from Wolfgang Dreschler's history asexcerpted in Laonicus Chalkokondylas, De origine et rebus gestis Turcorum (Basel, 1556, p. 234).

This Ottoman defeat never took place. Süleyman tried to engage theSafavid ruler in battle, but Shah Tahmasb I relied on scorched earth tactics and avoided battle.

The following account of of Süleyman's conquests in the Aegean comes from the account written by Giovanni Crispi, the duke of Naxos, as excerpt-ed in Laonicus Chalkokondylas, De origine et rebus gestis Turcorum (Basel, 1556),pp. 589-90. The horrified descriptions of Turkish cruelty are in Crispi's text and arenot Foxe's insertions.

From here down to the Venetian treaty with the Ottomans, Foxe isdrawing on Wolfgang Dreschler's history as excerpted in Laonicus Chalkokondylas,De origine et rebus gestis Turcorum (Basel, 1556), p. 234.

Not Apulia in in Italy but Napoli de Romania (or Napulia), a Venetianfortress in the Aegean.

The following accounts of Süleyman's campaign in Hungary in 1540and the Hapsburg campaign in 1542 are taken from Giovann Battisto Ramusio'shistory as excerpted in Laonicus Chalkokondylas, De origine et rebus gestis Turcorum (Basel, 1556), pp. 209-10. Again the horror stories of Turkish savagery are in Foxe's sources and are not the martyrologist's invention.

This occurred in 1542.

I.e., soldiers from the Low Countries.

This comparison of the Turks to Pharoah, and the cry for a new Moses,are Foxe's interpolations into Ramusio's account.

Foxe took the following account of Ottoman conqusts, and allegedatrocities, in Hungary during 1542-44, down to the Ottoman invasion of Persia (in1548) from Martin Stella's letters, as excerpted in Laonicus Chalkokondylas, Deorigine et rebus gestis Turcorum (Basel, 1556), pp. 605-620. Stella was a contempor-ary to these events, who lived in Vienna, and wrote letters to his brothers in 1543 and1544, describing Turkish campaigns in Hungary.

The passage on Lajos II being dominated by his nobles and prelates is from Sebastian Münster, Cosmographiae universalis (Basel, 1559), p. 968, but Foxe adds strictures on the greed of the clergy.

Martin Stella. Foxe took the following account of Ottoman conquests and allegedatrocities in Hungary during 1542-44, down to the Ottoman invasion of Persia (in1548) from Martin Stella's letters, as excerpted in Laonicus Chalkokondylas, Deorigine et rebus gestis Turcorum (Basel, 1556), pp. 605-620. Stella was a contempor-ary to these events, who lived in Vienna, and wrote letters to his brothers in 1543 and1544, describing Turkish campaigns in Hungary.

Foxe is making a pun on the castle name of 'Papa' to suggest that the Turks might one day overthrow the Papacy.

This account of disease ravaging the Ottoman army (in 1552, althoughFoxe does not say so) is taken from Giovann Battisto Ramusio's history, as excerptedin Laonicus Chalkokondylas, De origine et rebus gestis Turcorum (Basel, 1556), pp.210-11.

Foxe draws this account of the execution of Süleyman's eldest son,Mustapha, from a work by Nicholas Mossen, which was bound with BartolomeoGeorgevits, De origine imperii Turcorum (Wittenburg, 1560), sigs. L4r-M5v. Much of Georgevits' work was extracted in Theodore Bibliander, Machumetis Saracenorumprincipis…Alcoran (Basel, 1550), III, pp. 164-91. Foxe probably consulted Georgevits's De origine after he read the extensive excerpts of it in Bibliander'sedition of the Koran.

Süleyman's son Cihangir did die shortly after his brother, but the storythat he committed suicide is fanciful. Foxe derived it from Mossen's account of Mustapha's murder in Bartolomeo Georgevits, De origine imperii Turcorum (Wittenburg, 1560), sigs. M4v-M5r.

This is apparently Foxe's opinion, but it was widely held one. Mustapha was a favourite of the Janissaries.

Foxe is referring to a pamphlet, Newes from Vienna the 5 dayof August 1566 (London, 1566), STC 24716, which he proceeds to quote from at length.

The following account of a Turkish repulse when besieging thefortress of Gyula in Hungary in 1566 is reprinted from Newes from Vienna the5 day of August (London, 1566), STC 24716, sigs. B2r-B3r. In fact, the successwas ephemeral: Gyula fell to the Turks on 1 September 1566.

The passages that follow, on the need for Christian unity and thepossibility that the Turks might capture Rome are Foxe's opinions.

These rumors were false.

The passages blaming the fall of Belgrade on the wars among Christians and on the Papacy are Foxe's additions to the text.

Matthew 26:52.

Rev. 18:2.

This anecedote is taken from Paolo Giovio's commentary on theTurks as excerpted in Paolo Giovio, Machumetis Saracenorum princips…Alcoran (Basel, 1550), III, p. 132.

Johannes Aventinus, Annalium Boiorum (Ingolstadt, 1554), p. 301.

Foxe drew Savanorala's alleged prophecy from Matthias Flacius,Catalogus Testium Veritatis (Basel, 15620, p. 585.

Süleyman I died on 6 September 1566.

Foxe draws this account of the execution of Süleyman's eldest son,Mustapha, from a work by Nicholas Mossen, which was bound with BartholomeoGeorgevits, De origine imperii Turcorum (Wittenburg, 1560), sigs. L4r-M5v. Much of Georgevits work was extracted in Theodore Bibliander, Machumetis Saracenorumprincipis…Alcoran (Basel, 1550), III, pp. 164-91. Foxe probably consulted Georgevits's De origine after he read the extensive excerpts of it in Bibliander'sedition of the Koran. Süleyman's son Cihangir did die shortly after his brother, but the story that he committed suicide is fanciful. Foxe derived it from Mossen's account of Mustapha's murder in Bartolomeo Georgevits, De origine imperii Turcorum (Wittenburg, 1560), sigs. M4v-M5r.

Foxe's use of Sebastian Münster, Cosmographiae universalis (Basel,1559), pp. 968-9 resumes here and continues through the fall of Belgrade, the fall ofRhodes and the battle of Mohács.

In the 1563 edition (TV 178/2) printed a letter purportedly from Süleyman to Phillipe Villiers de l'Isle Adam, Grand Master of the Knights of St.John. The letter is not genuine (it has Süleyman referring to Mohammad as God),and it is apparently Foxe's composition, based on details he obtained from EdwardHall, The unyon of the twoo noble and illustre families of Lancastre and York (London, 1550), STC 12723a, fos. CVIv-CVIIr.

This was the overwhelming Ottoman victory at Mohács on 29 August1526.

From here through the siege of Vienna, Foxe is taking his detailednarrative of events from Giovann Battisto Ramusio's history as excerpted inLaonicus Chalkokondylas, De origine et rebus gestis Turcorum (Basel, 1556), pp.199-208. Foxe abridged a great deal of the detail in the account, particularly thedescription of the Ottoman army and the topography of Vienna.

In the 1563 edition, Foxe prints an account of Süleyman's1529 campaign in Hungary and the siege of Vienna. Foxe based this account on Edward Hall, The unyon of the twoo noble and illustre families of Lancastre andYork (London, 1550), STC 12723a, fos. CXLIv-CXLIIr.

This section of Foxe's account of the Turks consists of two parts: onedescribing Ottoman massacres and rapine during their wars and the other describingtheir harsh treatments of captives. This section may seem disgressive, but it links thethe history of the Turks which preceded it, and the exegesis of Biblical and extra-Biblical prophecies that follow it. The depiction of the Turks as persecutors is, asas Foxe's comments will reveal, absolutely central to his identification of the Ottoman Empire as Antichrist. This emphasis is also part of Foxe'smessage that even with the accession of Elizabeth to the throne, God's true churchwas being persecuted, as indeed it would be (in Foxe's view) until the imminent second coming of Christ.

Apart from his quotation of an oration printed in Ortwin Gratius's com-pendium, Fasciculus rerum expetendarum ac fugiendarum (Cologne, 1535) and,of course, his own opinions, Foxe drew the material in this section from twobasic sources. The first was the collection of historical works printed in LaonicusChalkokondylas, De origine et rebus gestis Turcorum (Basel, 1556). The varietyof authors Foxe drew on from this work - including some such as the history ofChalkokondylas himself and the narrative of the German pilgrim Bernard ofBreydenbach, which he had previously used sparingly, or not at all - stronglysuggests that Foxe combed this compendium for particularly graphic stories ofTurkish cruelty. Foxe also relied heavily on the narrative of Batholomaeus Georgevits. He was a native of Transylvania, who had been captured by a Turkish raiding party. After eight attempts to escape, he finally succeeded in 1458. Some time thereafter, he entered the Dominican order, and, in his old age, wrote his memoirs, which also contained an account of Ottoman society and culture. This work, was published in numerous editions and translated into most major European languages. (Foxe probably originally came to know of Georgevits's work through theextensive excerpts of it printed in Theodore Bibliander's edition of the Koran). Foxewas quite selective in his use of Georgevits's accont. He repeated the Transylvanian'sstories of Ottoman abuse of their prisoners, but largely ignored Georgevits's accountsof Ottoman social and religious life.

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

Foxe is repeating an account he gave earlier: This account of Bayezid II's reign is largely taken from Casper Peucer, Chronicon Carionis (Wittenburg, 1580), pp. 657-63, although the narrative of Selim's accession to the throne is taken from Giovann Battisto Ramosio's history, as excerpted in Laonicus Chalkokondylas, De origine et rebus gestis Turcorum. One detail came from Johannes Cuspinian, De Turcorum origine.

These examples are Foxe's list, with the examples taken from Foxe's account of Turkish history.

This story, and the following story, both illustrating the ferocity ofMehmed II, are taken from Laonicus Chalkokondylas's Turco-Byzantine historyas excerpted in Laonicus Chalkokondylas, De origine et rebus gestis Turcorum(Basel, 1556), pp. 179-80.

This story comes from Wolfgang Dreschler's history as excerptedin Laonicus Chalkokondylas, De origine et rebus gestis Turcorum (Basel, 1556),p. 232. The slaughter of 500 inhabitants in Methoni (but not the death of thebishop) is also given in Andrea de Lacuno's history as excerpted in Laonicus Chalkokondylas, De origine, p. 219.

The examples of Turkish depredations in Serbia, are taken from an oration by Johannes Faber, urging Christian unity against the Turk, printedin Ortwin Gratius, Fasciculus rerum expetendarum ac fugiendarum (Cologne,1535), fo. 237r.

Most of this story comes from Wolfgang Dreschler's history, asexcerpted in Laonicus Chalkokondylas, De origine et rebus gestis Turcorum(Basel, 1556), p. 230. The details, however, of the Serbian prince being killedand then flayed, come from Johann Faber's oration, excerpted in Ortwin Gratius,Fasciculus rerum expetendarum ac fugiendarum (Cologne, 1535).

These concluding remarks on Turkish 'butchery' and the introductory remarks on Ottoman enslavement of Christian captives are Foxe's own.

The entire description which follows, of Ottoman treatment of theircaptives, comes from Bartolomaeus Georgevits, De origine imperiiTurcorum, asexcerpted in Theodore Bibliander, Machumetis Saracenorum principis…Alcoran(Basel, 1550), III, pp. 175-9. Foxe abridges this account but otherwise follows itfaithfully.

This description of the Ottoman sultan as a master thief is one ofonly two interpolations Foxe made into Georgevits's description of Ottomantreatment of their captives. The addition of this adjective, 'blasphemous', is one of only two interpolations that Foxe made to Georgevits's description of Ottoman treatment of their captives.

The addition of this adjective, 'blasphemous', is one of only twointerpolations that Foxe made to Georgevits's description of Ottoman treatment oftheir captives. This description of the Ottoman sultan as a master thief is one ofonly two interpolations Foxe made into Georgevits's description of Ottomantreatment of their captives

The beginning of this section, depicting the Turks, along with the Roman emperors and the papacy, as the great persecutors of the True Church isFoxe's own opinion.

This description of covert Christianity under the Ottomans, and of aprophecy of Christian overthrow of the Turks, are all taken from BartolomeoGeorgivits, De origine imperii Turcorum as excerpted in Theodore Bibliander,Machumetis Saracenorum principis…Alcoran (Basel, 1550), III, p. 179..

The following remarks on the afflictions of Christians under Ottomanrule and the need to make them known to English readers, are Foxe's own comments.

Rev. 16:13.

This is an excellent example of Foxe's emphasizing alleged Ottomancruelty as a means of depicting the Ottomans as diabolical or even the Antichrist.

All of the examples of Ottoman slaughter, from here down through thecapture of the island of Lesbos, are drawn from Marino Barleito's report to theVenetian senate on Turkish offensives in the Aegean, as excerpted in Laonicus Chalkokondylas, De origine et rebus gestis Turcorum (Basel, 1556), pp. 462-3. These examples came from an oration in Barleito's report which was purportedly made torouse the defenders of a city to resistance against the Turks.

This anecdote is taken from the German historian Mechior Soiterus'saccount of the wars in Hungary, De bello Pannico, as excerpted in LaonicusChalkokondylas, De origine et rebus gestis Turcorum (basel, 1556), p. 514.

Foxe is taking these stories of atrocities that allegedly took placewhen Otranto was sacked, from the narrative of Bernard of Breydenbach, a Germancleric and pilgrim to the Holy Land, as excerpted in Laonicus Chalkokondylas, Deorigine et rebus gestis Turcorum (Basel, 1556), p. 382.

Contrary to what Foxe claims, these accounts of rape and slaughter after the Turks took the island of Negroponte in 1470, do not come from Bernardof Breydenbach. They are instead from the work of the great Venetian historianMarco Antonio Sabellico, as excerpted in Laonicus Chalkokondylas, De origineet rebus gestis Turcorum (Basel, 1556), pp. 371-2.

This story, including its emotive language, is virtually a word-for-word translation of Marco Antonio Sabellico's account of the taking of Negroponte,as excerpted in Laonicus Chalkokondylas, De origine et rebus gestis Turcorum(Basel, 1556), pp. 331-2.

This description of the extent of the Ottoman empire may seem thegreatest disgression in Foxe's apparently discursive account of the Turks. But it serves one important purpose: to demonstrate, if not magnify, the power and extent of the Ottoman empire. This supports Foxe's identification of the Ottomans as a diabolical power, if not, indeed, Antichrist itself. Foxe's emphasis on how the Turks(and other Moslems) overran formerly Christian countries also supports his interpre-tation of the 'defections' mentioned in 2 Thess. 2 as the conversion of Christians toIslam, which further reinforces the identification of the Ottomans as Antichrist.

The geographical information in this section is obtained from two works: PiusII's Cosmographia and Sebastian Münster's Cosmographiae universalis. Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

This list is based on Pius II, Cosmographia (Paris, 1509), fos. 52r-75v.

This list is Foxe updating the list of Turkish conquests from Pius II's Cosmographia with material drawn from his account of Ottoman history.

The following account of a Turkish repulse when besieging thefortress of Gyula in Hungary in 1566 is reprinted from Newes from Vienna the5 day of August (London, 1566), STC 24716, sigs. B2r-B3r. In fact, the successwas epemeral; Gyula fell to the Turks on 1 September 1566.

Foxe, like many European scholars of his era, considered the Americasas part of Asia, particularly as this conformed to the ancient division of the world intothree continents.

This description of Asia Minor is taken from Pius II, Cosmographia(Paris, 1509), fos. 34v-78v.

This incident is recounted in Pius II, Cosmographia (Paris, 1509), fo.60v.

The information on India is from Sebastian Münster, Cosmographiaeuniversalis (Basel, 1559), pp. 1083-90. The information on Persia is from pp. 1041-44 of the same work and the information on Arabia is from pp. 1031-7.

I.e., the Safavid shah. The Safavids ruled an empire based on what isnow Iran. They were Shiite Moslems (the Ottomans were Sunnis) and bitter rivals ofthe Ottomans.

This description of Africa is from Sebastian Münster, Cosmographiaeuniversalis (Basel, 1559), pp. 114-26.

A legendary Christian ruler. Earlier in the Middle Ages, his kingdom was considered to be in central Asia. From the fifteenth century onwards, Africabecame the favoured location and Prester John's kingom came to be identified with Ethiopia.

This description of Turkish conquests in Europe comes from Pius II,Cosmographia (Paris, 1509), fos. 87v-151r.

To Foxe, all of the material on the Turks which preceded this sectionon prophecy was merely illustrative detail. This is the heart of his account of theTurks and, in fact, the reason why Foxe included a history of the Turks in his martyr-ology. The purpose of this section was to identify the Turks as a manifestation of Antichrist. Like most sixteenth-century Protestants, Foxe regarded Antichrist as a spiritual force, and not as an individual. Thus Antichrist could be the Turks, but also the papacy. This flexibility allowed Foxe (and other Protestants) to make almost every event in human history conform to Biblical prophecy. But it wasdifficult for people to accept both the papacy and the Ottomans as Antichrist.

And, in fact, Foxe himself wavered on this point. The best summary of Foxe's complicated thoughts on the identification of the Turk as Anti-christ comes from Katherine Firth: 'Foxe described as Antichrist both the Turk andthe pope: but when by Antichrist he meant to indicate the second beast of theApocalypse, or the whore of Babylon, then he meant only the Papacy' (TheApocalyptic Tradition in Reformation Britain, 1530-1645 [Oxford, 1979], p. 99).Yet the fact that the tension existed in Foxe between the identification of the Papacy or the Turks as Antichrist is worth noting for several reasons.

The first is that the Acts and Monuments was a crucial work in shaping English apocalyptic thought for the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Along with the Eicasmi, Foxe's Latin commentary on the Book of Revelation, the Acts and Monuments provided what was by far and away the most detailed and authoritative historicist interpretation of that difficult Biblical text in early modern England. It is a historicist interpretation of Revelation in the sense that Foxe maintained that the book contains prophecies describing the history of the Church until the second coming of Christ and that many of the events it prophesied had already taken place. For the relationship between the Eicasmi and the Acts and Monuments, see the entry on John Foxe in the ODNB. For the importance of Revelation see Frith, Apocalyptic Tradition, pp. 109-110.

The second is that Foxe's changing views on whether the Turks could be identified as Antichrist provide a clear example of the way in which contacts made during his exile influenced his thought. In his 1556 drama, "Christus Triumphans", Foxe explicitly rejected the suggestion that the Turks were Antichrist. (See Two Latin Comedies by John Foxe the Martyrologist, ed. J. H. Smith [Ithaca, NY, 1973}, p.353. But clearly woks that Foxe studied during his exile - in particular a compilation of histories of the Turks, De origine et rebus gestis Turcorum, and the texts bound with Theodore Bibliander's edition of the Qur'an, both works printed by Foxe's employer Johannes Oporinus - induced him to share the viewpoint, widespread among German and Swiss Protestants, that the Turks were Antichrist. In fact, the Acts and Monuments brought these views, hitherto not widely disseminated in England, into the mainstream of English intellectual life. Foxe's work also contributed to creating a demonic conception of the Ottoman Turks in England. (See Matthew Dimmock, Newe Turkes: Dramatizing Islam and the Ottomans in Early Modern England [Aldershot, 2005], pp. 76-81, 135-61 and 198-207).

Nevertheless the identification of the Turk as Antichrist largely atrophied in England during the sixteenth century. In the seventeenth century, however, it revived as Laudian writers, notably Richard Montagu and John Cosins, anxious not to identify the Papacy as Antichrist, argued - drawing on Foxe - that the Turk was Antichrist. (See Christopher Hill, Antichrist in Seventeenth-Century England [Oxford, 1971], pp. 34-40). Another controversial feature of this section of the Acts and Monuments was Foxe's use of non-Scriptural prophecies, such as those attributed to the Sibylls (legendary pagan prophetesses) and to Methodius of Patara, a third-century bishop. Many Protestants considered such sources as, at best, superfluous to scripture or, at worst, superstitious. Edward Topsell, an Elizabethan cleric, openly attacked this part of the Acts and Monuments when he deplored the fact that 'Many of the learneder sort are much affected with the prophecies of the Sibilles, Methodius and others…' (Edward Topsell, Times lamentation (London, 1599), STC 24131, p. 63). Foxe's reason for relying on these dubious sources was that they were more explicit, and conformed more closely to the history of the Turks than Biblical prophecies did.

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

1 John 2:18. This is an excellent example of the tendency of Foxe and Protestant writers to see Antichrist as a spiritual force and not as an individual.

See 1570, p. 885, 1576, p. 722 and 1583, p. 747.

These cities were captured in 1291.

Holofernes is the Assyrian general slain by the Jewish heroine Judith in the Apocryphal Old Testament book of Judith.

This prayer is Foxe's composition.

Foxe cites the great fourteenth century theologian Nicholas of Lyra as his source for this passage but he is really drawing on a summary of Nicholas's views on Antichrist made by Mathias Flacius. The marginal motes made by Paul de Santa Maria, archbishop of Burgos, in a copy of the celebrated 'Postilla' of Nicholas of Lyra, which the arch-bishop sent to his so, were posthumously publuished. These amplifications of Nicholas's work were criticized and largely rejected by Matthias Döring, the provincial of the Franciscans in Saxony. Foxe is drawing this summary of the comments of the three on the identification from Matthias Flacius, Catalogus testium veritatis (Basel, 1562), p. 553.

For what follows see Daniel 11:30-45.

Daniel 7:7-18.

These arguments are from the fourth homily of Rudolph Walther's De antichristo. See Rudolph Walther, Antichrist, trans. J[ohn] O[ld] (London, 1556), STC 25009, fos. 15r-147v.

Ezekiel 39:1-29.

2 Thess. 2:2-4.

In an unusual piece of exegesis, Foxe is interpreting the 'defection'usually regarded as a reference to apostasy by exegetes, of the conversion to Islamof regions in the Middle East and North Africa that were formerly Christian.

The lack of pagination for this section (at least in the 1570 edition where it first appeared) is almost certainly because it was a late insertion into thetext. It is also almost certain that this section was a response to the revolt of thenorthern earls in 1569 and the papal deposition of Elizabeth at the beginning of 1570. This section is illustrated with a dozen woodcuts depicting historical, or putatively historical, instances of papal dominance over secular rulers. All but one of thesewoodcuts was newly created, apparently for this section. (The woodcut depicting thehumiliation of Henry IV at Canossa, which had been used earlier in the volume, wasreused in this section). The expense involved in creating these woodcuts suggeststhat Day may have received financial support for producing this section. It iscertainly true that Archbishop Parker aided Foxe in researching this section.

Yet while the carving of the woodcuts must have taken weeks, if not months,it would appear that the text for this section was composed fairly quickly. This section consists of a summary of the rise of the papacy, an exegesis of passages in St Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians identifying the Antichrist, as well as a summary of papal attempts to depose and dominate European rulers. This sectionconcludes with 'The Image of Antichrist', which, in turn, is an exact reprinting of ananonymous work, A solemne contestation of diverse popes for the advancing of their supremacy (London, 1560), STC 20114, which had been printed by John Daya decade earlier. (For a discussion of this work, and an argument that Foxe himselfcompiled it, see Thomas S. Freeman, 'A solemne contestation of diverse popes: A Work by John Foxe?', English Language Notes 31[1994], pp. 35-42). Apart from nuggets of information contributed by others, there is littlenew research in this section, which largely reiterates episodes already described in theActs and Monuments. What is striking, however, are the important borrowings, acknowledged and unacknowledged, from William Tyndale's Practice of Prelates.Foxe did not normally cite Tyndale's work, probably becausehe had access to better and more detailed sources. But in this section, Foxe gives an indication that Tyndale's interpretation of history had on his thought. For a discussion of this book see Thomas S. Freeman, 'A solemne contestation of diverse popes: A Work by John Foxe?' English Language Notes 31 (1994), pp. 35-42.

.

Rev. 9:14-18.

2 Kings 18-23 and 2 Chronicles 36.

Rev. 9:19

Rev. 16:12

Rev. 16:13-14.

Rev. 16:17. Foxe quoting the angel as saying 'factum est' suggests that he was consulting the Vulgate.

Rev. 16:15.

The marginal motes made by Paul de Santa Maria, archbishop of Burgos, in a copy of the celebrated 'Postilla' of Nicholas of Lyra, which the arch-bishop sent to his so, were posthumously publuished. These amplifications of Nicholas's work were criticized and largely rejected by Matthias Döring, the provincial of the Franciscans in Saxony. Foxe is drawing this summary of the comments of the three on the identification from Matthias Flacius, Catalogus testium veritatis (Basel, 1562), p. 553.

Foxe is quoting the passage from Boniface VIII's 1248 collection of canon laws accurately, but he is implying that the pope was claiming secular, as well as spiritual, dominion and this is untrue.

Rev. 13:11.

Rev. 13:12.

Rev. 13:11-12.

See Rev. 2:5.

Rev. 13:14.

AD 456 - when Odoacer deposed Romulus Augustulus, the last Roman emperor in the West - is traditionally given as the date for the fall of the Roman empire. But Rome had already been sacked by the Visigoths in 410 and again in 455. The Lombards ruled Rome in the sixth century but, in contrast to the other tribes mentioned, never captured nor occupied the city.

Rev. 13: 15-17.

AD 456 - when Odoacer deposed Romulus Augustulus, the last Roman emperor in the West - is traditionally given as the date for the fall of the Roman empire. But Rome had already been sacked by the Visigoths in 410 and again in 455. The Lombards ruled Rome in the sixth century but, in contrast to the other tribes mentioned, never captured nor occupied the city. Odoacer was not the king of Heruli.

Rev. 13:15.

Now Foxe is denying that the second beast in Revelation could be identified as the Turk.

The marginal motes made by Paul de Santa Maria, archbishop of Burgos, in a copy of the celebrated 'Postilla' of Nicholas of Lyra, which the archbishop sent to his son, were posthumously published. These amplifications of Nicholas's work were criticized and largely rejected by Matthias Döring, the provincial of the Franciscans in Saxony. Foxe is drawing this summary of the comments of the three on the identification from Matthias Flacius, Catalogus testium veritatis (Basel, 1562), p. 553.

Rev. 20:1-3.

Rev. 20:7-9.

This is an excellent example of how Foxe could interpret a prophetic image in Revelation as pertaining to two separate historical entities.

1 Cor. 10:11.

Rev. 11:2 and Rev. 13:5.

Actually Daniel 9:25-6, which 'prophisied' that there would be sixty-nine months between the rebuilding of the Temple at Jerusalem and the destruction of Jerusalem. To make this timeframe accord somewhat with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in AD 64, many Christian exegetes interpreted a 'month' in Daniel as actually representing seven months. To support his interpretation of Revelation, Foxe is calculating that each month in Revelation actually equals seven months.

The numbers do not add up. The fourteenth year of the reign ofTiberius was AD 32-33. Maxentius was slain in AD 312.

Rev. 14:10.

'About' being the operative word; Boniface VIII - an extreme proponent of papal authority - was pope from 1294-1303.

These passages are from Laonicus Chalkokondylas, De origine et rebus gestis Turcorum (Basel, 1556), pp. 3 and 6. But Chalkokondylas does not mention Innocent III; that is Foxe's insertion.

Ezekiel 38:15-19.

Hildegard is Hildegard of Bingen, a twelfth-century Benedictine visionary, whose writings on the apocalypse were highly regarded in the later Middle Ages. By 'Sibylla' Foxe is referring to the Sibyls, pagan prophetesses who putatively foretold the birth of Christ and were supposed to have predicted events in world history. Texts attributed to the Sibylls were written from the second century BC and throughout the first millennium of the Christian era. Foxe's sources for these oracular writings will be discussed in future commentaries. The Revelations falsely attributed to Methodius, bishop of Patara (d. circa 311), is a collection of apocalyptic materials largely composed in the late seventh century as Islam was on the rise. The Revelations seek to explain the sudden success of the 'false' religion as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. The application of Biblical references and figures such as Gog and Magog to Islamic history made this work particularly useful to Foxe.

The 'Master of the Sentences' is the famous theologian Peter Lombard (c. 1100-1160). Foxe is saying that, since Methodius's Revelations contain a reference to Lombard's writings, the Revelations could not have been written by a third century bishop.

Note Foxe's refusal to endorse the prophecies in pseudo-Methodius.

Phillip Melanchthon, In Danielem prophetam Commentarius (Wittenberg, 1543), fos. 52v-57v.

Pseudo-Methodius, Revelationes (Basel, 1515), sigs. a8v-b1r.

Pseudo-Methodius, Revelationes (Basel, 1515), sig. b2r.

Pseudo-Methodius, Revelationes (Basel, 1515), sigs. c2r-c4v. The Arabs were considered to be descendants of Abraham's son Ishmael, as the Jews were said to be considered to be descendants of his son Isaac.

Foxe does not say how he arrived at this figure. One would think that eight weeks of years would be fifty-six years.

Pseudo-Methodius, Revelationes (Basel, 1515), sigs. c7v-c8v. Foxe, however, omits the passages from these prophecies in which the King of the Romans would conquer the Turks and slaughter apostate Christians.

Pseudo-Methodius, Revelationes (Basel, 1515), sigs. b4r-b6r and d1r-d2v.

Pseudo-Methodius, Revelationes (Basel, 1515), sigs. d2r-d4v.

Note Foxe's refusal to endorse the authenticity of the prophecies attributed to Methodius.

From Paolo Giovio, Turcarum rerum Commentarius as excerpted in Theodore Bibliander, Machumetis Saracenorum principis…Alcoran (Basel, 1550), III, p. 107.

St. Antoninus, Historiarum Domini Antonini Archipraesulis Florentini (Paris, 1543), III, fo. 26v.

These two tables are intended to demonstrate the parallels between the Selucid rulers of Syria (the villains of the books of Macchabees) and the Ottomans. The purpose of this was to depict (and link) both families as 'figures' of Antichrist. The first table is taken from Johannes Lucidus, Chronicon (Venice, 1570), fo. 39r. The second table is taken from Bartholomeo Georgevits, De origine imperii Turcorum (Wittenberg, 1560), sigs. A5r-B2v.

Gratian flourished in the mid-twelfth century and Peter Lombard lived from c.1100-1160. But Innocent III reigned 1198-1216. It is hardly accurate to say that they created transubstantiation, but they personified (respectively) canon law, scholastic theology and papal power.

The following incidents are described in more detail in other parts of the Acts and Monuments.

This actually took place in1213.

This actually took place in 1177.

Pseudo-Methodius, Revelationes (Basel, 1515), sigs. d3v-d4r.

This is a reference to a work by Hus, De anatomia Antichristi.

Pseudo-Methodius, Revelationes (Basel, 1515), sig. d4v.

The 'Master of the Sentences' is the famous theologian Peter Lombard (c. 1100-1160). Foxe is saying that, since Methodius's Revelations contain a reference to Lombard's writings, the Revelations could not have been written by a third century bishop. Again, Foxe is casting doubt on the traditional identification of Methodius as the author of the Revelationes.

See Joannes Aventinus, Annalium Boiorum (Ingolstadt, 1554), p. 301.

See Memoriale effigatum librorum prophetiarum seu visonum B. Brigidae (Rome, 1556), sig. S4v. For those using a different edition of St. Bridget's writings, it should be noted that Foxe's citation of the book and chapter are correct.

Actually it was Murad I who moved the capital in 1375.

Foxe is during these prophecies, atributed to the Erythraen Sibyl from Berthold Pürstringer's Onus ecclesiae. Pürstringer, the bishop of Chiemese (1508-25), was dedicated to the reform of the church and he was also a staunch opponent of Lutheranism. The Onus ecclesiae, first published anonymously in 1524, is a call to repentance and reform. Pürstringer uses the Sibylline prophecies to support his view that the Turks are an instrument of God's judgement. I have used the second edition of this work, published in Venice in 1531.

Berthold Pürstinger, Onus ecclesiae temporibus (Venice, 1531), sig.Y1v.

Berthold Pürstinger, Onus ecclesiae temporibus (Venice, 1531), sig.Y1v.

Berthold Pürstinger, Onus ecclesiae temporibus (Venice, 1531), sig.Y1v.

Berthold Pürstinger, Onus ecclesiae temporibus (Venice, 1531), sigs.Y1v and Y2r.

Berthold Pürstinger, Onus ecclesiae temporibus (Venice, 1531), sig.Y2r.

Berthold Pürstinger, Onus ecclesiae temporibus (Venice, 1531), sig.Y2r..

Berthold Pürstinger, Onus ecclesiae temporibus (Venice, 1531), sig.Y2r.

Berthold Pürstinger, Onus ecclesiae temporibus (Venice, 1531), sig.Y2r-v.

Foxe is during these prophecies, attributed to the Erythraen Sibyl from Berthold Pürstringer's Onus ecclesiae. Pürstringer, the bishop of Chiemese (1508-25), was dedicated to the reform of the church and he was also a staunch opponent of Lutheranism. The Onus ecclesiae, first published anonymously in 1524, is a call to repentance and reform. Pürstringer uses the Sibylline prophecies to support his view that the Turks are an instrument of God's judgement. I have used the second edition of this work, published in Venice in 1531.

1 Macchabees 1:43-67.

See Bartolomeo Georgevits, De origine imperii Turcorum (Wittenberg,1560), sig. A2v.

This prophecy in its 'Persian' and Latin versions is from Bartolomeo Georgevits, De origine imperii Turcorum as excerpted in Theodore Bibliander, Machumetis Saracenorum principis…Alcoran (Basel, 1550), III, p. 166.

Bartolomeo Georgevits, De origine imperii Turcorum as excerpted in Theodore Bibliander, Machumetis saracenorum prinpipis…Alcoran (Basel, 1550), III, pp. 166-71.

The following table, which lists events in Near Eastern history from the death of Muhammed in AD 632 until the fall of Acre, the last Crusader stronghold in the Holy Land, in 1291. This table is Foxe's own composition. When it is dealing with history of the Crusades and the Crusader kingdoms it is fairly reliable, but otherwise it can be very inaccurate; in fact, some of the events and people it describes are fictitious.

Jerusalem actually fell to the Moslems in AD 638; the conquest of Persia was complete in 636.

The conquest of Egypt occurred in AD 641. Cairo did not become the capital until AD 972.

If one includes the Fatimid caliphs, than these caliphs ruled Egypt for 530 years from AD 641 until AD 1171..

The following sequence of events is fictitious.

The following sequence of events is fictitious.

Various Turkish kingdoms (notably the Uighars and the Ghazanavids) were established in the seventh to the tenth centuries, but this is probably a reference to the domination of the Seljuk Turks which began in the late tenth century.

Daniel 9:4-27.

The Seljuk Turks conquered Jerusalem in 1075.

This entry is fictitious. In fact, the Seljuk Turks and the Fatimid caliphs of Egypt were bitter rivals.

Süleyman ibn Kutalmish was the Seljuk ruler of the sultanate of Rûm in Anatolia from 1077-1086. He was a kinsman (but not the nephew) of Alp Arslan, the second Seljuk sultan.

After the death of Süleyman ibn Kutalmish in 1086, the Armenians overran the sultanate of Rûm.

Salah al-Din (or Saladin) was the nephew of Shirkuh, a commander of Nur ad-Din, the ruler of Syria. In 1171, Shirkuh and Salah al-Din overthrew the last Fatimid caliph of Egypt.

Shirkuh had slain Raymond of Poiters, prince of Antioch, in 1149.

The events described in this entry took place in 1189-92..

Note that Foxe here, as elsewhere, blames the failure of the Crusades on the Papacy.

I.e., the Mongols. This passage describes the Mongol invasions of the Near East in 1258-1260.

This is a garbled account of the overthrow of the Ayyubid dynasty in 1250 and the establishment of the Mamluk caliphs in Egypt.

These accounts of Lollards executed or disciplined during the reign ofHenry VII were important to Foxe, as they helped him to demonstrate (to Foxe'ssatisfaction at least) that there was a True Church before Luther. (Foxe makes thispoint explicitly later). Yet Foxe had to rely on the co-operation ofothers to obtain this information. On one level, there were reports by individualinformants, some of whom were eyewitnesses to the events described, and some ofwhom were repeating what they had heard from others. Foxe based his account ofthe Lollards tried at Coventry in 1486 and 1488 on a transcription (possibly atranslation) of extracts in the register of John Hales, the bishop of Coventry and Lichfield; this was almost certainly sent to Foxe. And for information about other Lollards, Foxe also relied on chronicles and documents supplied tohim by antiquaries such as William Bowyer and William Cary.

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

This must be Robert Cosin, of Little Missenden, who is recorded on TNA C 85/115/10 as being condemned to death for heresy. Foxe will laterdescribe the execution of Thomas Man, but he says nothing about the executionsof William Scrivener or Nicholas Collins.

A James Marden was handed over to the secular arm for burning in1522 (TNA C 85/115/13).

There is no surviving information on Thomas Chase apart from theaccount in Foxe. This account - as Foxe makes clear - is based on testimony from contemporaries to the events and the cruelty with which Chase was treated undoubtedly lost nothing in the telling. It seems reasonable to accept that Thomas Chase was arrested for heresy and committed suicide in prison. There is no way of telling what happened beyond that but claims that he was murdered seem far-fetched.

Acts 12:1-3.

Matthew 5:7.

Matthew 10:26; Luke 12:2.

Foxe's source for this is John Bale, Scriptorum Illustrium maiorisBrytanniae…Catalogus (Basel, 1557), p. 644. Bale has an additional detail not inFoxe: Noris was from Brockforth, Suffolk.

Foxe's source for these articles was the register of Bishop Fitzjamesof London (Guildhall MS 9531//9, fo. 4r-v). The register reveals that Elizabeth was was the wife of John Sampson, a carpenter of St. Mary Aldermanbury. Sampson's abjuration took place on 31 March 1510, not 1508 as Foxe declares. Foxe omits twoof the articles against her (the rest he prints accurately). One of the articles Foxedeleted charged that she had declared that 'moo soules than is in hevyn all ready shall come to hevyn'; the other charged that she denied the bodily resurrection of Christ.

Foxe's account, obtained from two second-hand sources, provides theonly surviving information on the burning of Laurence Ghest. But there was anotherburning in Salisbury, of one William Prior, at about the same time (J. A. F. Thomson, The Later Lollards, 1414-1520 [Oxford, 1965], p. 83).

William Russell, a tailor of Coleman Street, London, hosted Lollardconventicles in his house during the 1520s (Susan Brigden, London and the Reformation [Oxford, 1989], p. 103).

This is yet another example of Foxe considering the 'persecution'of Christians as a basis for identifying them with Antichrist.

Webb is also the source for a demonstrably fictitious story. The Richard Webb who is the source for this story was Foxe's source for the burning of Laurence Ghest.

Although there is no surviving record of this woman's execution and,although the coda to this tale is untrue, it is true that Dr. ThomasWoodington was chancellor and vicar general of the diocese of Worcester in 1500-1501. (See Emden A; also see J. F. Mozley, John Foxe and his Book [London, 1940], p. 164). It is therefore probable that this burning took place.

It seems a shame to spoil a splendid story, but Thomas Woodington, far from being slain by a bull in the reign of Henry VII, rose to become dean of theArches in 1513 and died around 1522 (Emden A).

The Richard Webb who is the source for this story was Foxe's source for the burning of Laurence Ghest. Webb is also the source for a demonstrably fictitious story.

The author of these verses is almost certainly Thomas Hatcher, a notedantiquary and fellow of King's College, Cambridge (where he was one of the fellows who accused the provost of the college of being a Catholic sympathiser).

The following account of Savanorola's prophecies and their fulfillment comes from Phillipe de Commines, De Carlo Octavo… et bello Neapolitano Commentarii, trans. Johann Sleidan (Paris, 1561), pp. 105-7. Both John Bale (Scriptorum Illustrium maioris Brytanniae…Catalogus [Basel, 1557], p. 628) andMatthias Flacius (Catalogus testium veritatis [Basel, 1562], p. 565) referred to Commines's account of Savanorola. Although neither quoted or reprinted it, theyundoubtedly inspired Foxe to look up the account himself.

This account of Charles VIII's Italian campaign is a summary of Phillipe de Commines, De Carlo Octavo…et bello Neapolitano Commentarii,trans. Johann Sleidan (Paris, 1561).

This account of Charles VIII's death and the belief that it was thefulfillment of Savanorola's prophecy is from Phillipe de Commines, De CarloOctavo…et bello Neapolitano Commentarii, trans. Johann Sleidan (Paris, 1561),pp. 205-12.

This lengthy digression, tying the prosperity of monarchs andtheir reigns to their resistance to 'papistry', is actually an attempt to goad Elizabeth and her councillors into further reforming the English Church.

These articles were copied from the register of John Hales, bishopof Coventry and Lichfield (Lichfield Record Office, Register Hales, fo. 166r-v;printed, with a translation, in Lollards of Coventry, 1486-1522, ed. Shannon McSheffrey and Norman P. Tanner, Camden Society, Fifth series 23 [2003], 64-73). It is most likely that a transcript (or even translation) of these abjurations was sent to Foxe as the 1563 edition was nearing completion (see Lollards of Coventry, pp. 53-54 for a discussion of this point).

Foxe obtained a manuscript copy of Ranulf Higden's Polychroniconfrom William Bowyer, the keeper of the Tower records from 1563-1570. Thismanuscript, with Foxe's annotations, is now College of Arms, Arundel MS 7.

Foxe omits one of the articles charged against Crowther. It follws this article and charges that Crowther wished the phrase describing Christ as conceived ofthe Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary, removed from the Apostles' Creed (seeLollards of Coventry, 1486-1522, ed. Shannon McSheffrey and Norman P. Tanner,Camden Society, Fifth series 23 [2003], p. 67).

Smith actually said that a man needed to attend school 'per unum annum' [for a year] (Lollards of Coventry, 1486-1522, ed. Shannon McSheffrey and Norman P. Tanner, Camden Society, Fifth series 23 [2003], pp. 67-8).

The phrase 'in the market of pennance' is Foxe's insertion into the text(cf. Lollards of Coventry, 1486-1522, ed. Shannon McSheffrey and Norman P. Tanner, Camden Society, Fifth series 23 [2003], p. 68).

Roger Brown went on to declare that the Lord never shed his blood onearth and that he did not have a mother (Lollards of Coventry, 1486-1527, ed. Shannon McSheffrey and Norman Tanner, Camden Society, Fifth series 23 [2003], p.69). Foxe omitted this statement.

Butler was charged with saying that nobody undergoes any punishmentfor sin after death (Lollards of Coventry, 1486-1522, ed. Shannon Mcsheffrey andNorman Tanner, Camden series, 23 [2003], p. 70). Foxe has altered this to a statement that no faithful man should be punished for sin after death.

Margery Goyte was prosecuted two years after the previous eight Coventry Lollards and there is no evidence that she had any connection with them. She was also from Ashburne, Derbyshire, which is some distance from the city ofCoventry. The account of Goyte, however, is also from the register of Bishop Hales of Coventry. (Lichfield record Office, Register Hales, fos. 168v-169v; printed in Lollards of Coventry, 1486-1522, ed. Shannon McSheffrey and Norman P. Tanner, Camden Society, Fifth series, 23 [2003], pp. 87-94).

Foxe omits two articles charged against Goyte. The first charged thatshe denied the virginity of the Virgin Mary and claimed that Christ was conceived ofJoseph. The second omitted article charged that she maintained that a child conceivedof Christian parents did not require the sacrament of baptism (Lollards of Caventry,1486-1522, ed. Shannon McSheffrey and Norman P. Tanner, Camden Society, Fifthseries, 23 [2003], p. 91).

Foxe is using the example of the Coventry Lollards to demonstrate that'true' Christianity existed before Luther and that the Protestants did not invent their doctrines. This apologetic requirement explains why Foxe purged his accounts of theCoventry Lollards of articles attributed to them that he regarded as unorthodox . This lengthy disgression, tying the prosperity of monarchs andtheir reigns to their resistance to 'papistry', is actually an attempt to goad Elizabeth and her councillors into further reforming the English Church.

Although Foxe does not openly admit it, the following brief biographyof Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, the celebrated Italian Neo-Platonist and humanist, is a response to an attack by Nicholas Harpsfield. In the first edition of the A&M, Foxe had claimed that Pico della Mirandola, Lorenzo Valla and Erasmus had preparedthe way for Luther (1563, p. 402). Harpsfield responded indignantly, insisting thatPico was completely orthodox. Drawing heavily on Thomas More's translation ofGianfrancisco Pico della Mirandola's biography of his uncle, Harpsfield pointed out that the elder Pico della Mirandola flagellated himself in honour of Christ's passion and that he wished to become a friar. He dismissed passages where Pico della Mirandola denied transubstantiation as academic exercises written when the phlosopher was still an impetuous youth (Nicholas Harpsfield, Dialogi sex [1566], pp. 910-14). Foxe replies by drawing on elements in the younger Pico's biography that support his own case. The elder Pico was, in fact, a brilliant, but not sympatheticthinker, and both Harpsfield and Foxe could find aspects of his thought and writings to appropriate.

This is somewhat distorted. It is true that Innocent VIII ordered Pico della Mirandola's arrest for heresy, but Alexander VI absolved him.

This is one of a number of occasions when Foxe acknowledged hisdebt to William Cary, a London clothworker and antiquary. (On Cary and his manuscript collection, see Andrew G. Watson, 'Christopher and William Carye, Collectors of Monastic Manuscripts, and "John Carye"', The Library Fifth series,20 (1965), pp. 135-42). Foxe's purpose in stating his sources was to demonstrateto potential critics of his work that he had evidence to support his narrative.

The execution of an unnamed old man at Smithfield is recorded in anumber of sources (e.g., The Great Chronicle of London, ed. A. H. Thomas andI. D. Thornley [London, 1938], p. 294 and Fabyan's Chronicle, ed. H. Ellis [London,1911], p. 687). None of the surviving sources supply the details of the man's attempted escape and injury, so it must be assumed that whatever the source that Cary supplied to Foxe was, it was subsequently lost.

No record of these trials survives, but the Milanese ambassador and aa number of contemporary chronicles mention the abjurations (J. A. F. Thomson, TheLater Lollards, 1412-1520 [Oxford, 1965], pp. 158-9).

The date is incorrect; the signification of Tilesworth's excommunica-tion and commitment to the secular authority survives and is dated 10 August 1511(TNA C 85/115/10). But this document - which lists Robert Cosin, William Scrivener, Nicholas Collins and Thomas Man as also being condemned - shows that,in this case, apart from the date, the information from Foxe's aged informants was essentially accurate.

Actually William Tilesworth.

The family names of many of those listed below (Chase, Harding,Phipp and Scrivener) will recur in Foxe's account of the 1521investigations into heresy in the Chilterns. TNA C 85/ 115/10 lists a William Scrivener condemned todeath as a relapsed heretic on 10 August 1511; he may be the William Scrivener included in this list.

The pre-Conquest laws excerpted in this in this section are translated from William Lambarde's Archaionomia. Lambarde's versions of these laws are based on translations made by Laurence Nowell, the antiquary. Nowell used an early twelfth-century translation of these lawcodes into Latin, the Quadripartitus. Nowell translated the Quadripartitus back into Anglo-Saxon, as he understood it. Lambarde gathered Nowell's manuscript translation together and printed them as the Archiaonomia. (See Patrick Wormald, The Making of English Law: King Alfredto the Twelfth Century [Oxford, 1999], pp. 6-7 and 260-2. For a more detailed analysis see Patrick Wormald, 'The Lambarde Problem: Eighty Years On' in Alfredthe Great: Studies in Honour of Janet Bately, ed. Jane Roberts, Janet Nelson and Malcolm Godden (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 237-75. Foxe cited these laws in anattempt to demonstrate that 'English' kings had held jurisdiction over the EnglishChurch before both were weakened and corrupted by the Papacy.Thus, while the Anglo-Saxon laws deal with multifarious criminal and economic matters, Foxe only prints those laws pertaining to the Church. Although Foxeabridges some of these laws, his translations of them are accurate.

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

Edmund reigned 940-946. Foxe is getting his dates from WilliamLambarde, Archiaonomia sive de priscis anglorum legibus libri (London, 1568),STC 15142, fo. 72r

William Lambarde, Archiaonomia sive de priscis anglorumlegibus libri (London, 1568), STC 15142, fos. 77r-78r.

Edgar reigned 959-975. Foxe is getting his details from William Lambarde, Archiaonomia sive de priscis anglorum legibus libri (London, 1568), STC 15142, fo. 72r.

Ethelred II (the Unready) reigned from 978-1016. Foxe gets the date of 979 from William Lambarde, Archaionomia sive de priscis anglorum legibus libri(London, 1568), STC 15142, fo. 82r.

See William Lambarde, Archaionomia sive de priscis anglorumlegibus libri (London, 1568), STC 15142, fo. 84r.

This passage provides a clear statement of Foxe's purpose in printing these laws.

See William Lambarde, Archiaonomia sive de priscis anglorumlegibus libri (London, 1568), STC 15142, fos. 98r-104r.

This is an accurate, if condensed, translation of William Lambarde,Archianomia sive de priscis anglorum legibus libri (London, 1568), STC 15142,fos. 1r-2r.

These laws are from William Lambarde, Archianomia sive de priscis anglorum legibus libri (London, 1568), STC 15142, fos. 19r, 29r-31r and 41r.

These laws are abridged from William Lambarde, Archianomia sive de priscis anglorum legibus libri (London, 1568), STC 15142, fos. 52r-56r.

'Gentility' in this context means pagan (from the term 'Gentile'used in theVulgate for non-Jews).

These laws are from William Lambarde, Archiaonomia sive depriscis anglorum legibus libri (London, 1568), STC 15142, fos. 57r-58r and 60r.

Athelstane reigned from 925-40, but Lambarde gives the dates of his reign as 924-940 (William Lambarde, Archiaonomia sive de priscis anglorum legibus libri [London, 1568], STC 15142, fo. 57r).

A pension or allowance; see sub 'corrody' in the OED.

William Lambarde, Archiaonomia sive de priscis anglorum legibuslibri (London, 1568), STC 15142, fos. 72r, 73r and 74r.

The lack of pagination for this section (at least in the 1570 edition where it first appeared) is almost certainly because it was a late insertion into thetext. It is also almost certain that this section was a response to the revolt of thenorthern earls in 1569 and the papal deposition of Elizabeth at the beginning of 1570. This section is illustrated with a dozen woodcuts depicting historical, or putatively historical, instances of papal dominance over secular rulers. All but one of thesewoodcuts was newly created, apparently for this section. (The woodcut depicting thehumiliation of Henry IV at Canossa, which had been used earlier in the volume, wasreused in this section). The expense involved in creating these woodcuts suggeststhat Day may have received financial support for producing this section. It iscertainly true that Archbishop Parker aided Foxe in researching this section.

Yet while the carving of the woodcuts must have taken weeks, if not months,it would appear that the text for this section was composed fairly quickly. This section consists of a summary of the rise of the papacy, an exegesis of passages in St Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians identifying the Antichrist, as well as a summary of papal attempts to depose and dominate European rulers. This sectionconcludes with 'The Image of Antichrist', which, in turn, is an exact reprinting of ananonymous work, A solemne contestation of diverse popes for the advancing of their supremacy (London, 1560), STC 20114, which had been printed by John Daya decade earlier. (For a discussion of this work, and an argument that Foxe himselfcompiled it, see Thomas S. Freeman, 'A solemne contestation of diverse popes: A Work by John Foxe?', English Language Notes 31[1994], pp. 35-42). Apart from nuggets of information contributed by others, there is littlenew research in this section, which largely reiterates episodes already described in theActs and Monuments. What is striking, however, are the important borrowings, acknowledged and unacknowledged, from William Tyndale's Practice of Prelates. Foxe did not normally cite Tyndale's work, probably because he had access to better and more detailed sources. But in this section, Foxe gives an indication of the impact that Tyndale's interpretation of history had on his thought.

Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield

I.e., the duke of Saxony.

For his summary of events from Canossa to the pontificate of Innocent III, Foxe is referencing events already discussed in the Acts and Monuments.

For his summary of events from Canossa to the pontificate of Innocent III, Foxe is referencing events already discussed in the Acts and Monuments.

This letter comes from the Patent Rolls and was probably copied forFoxe by William Bowyer, the Keeper of the Tower Records. Foxe abridges the letter, but his version is essentially accurate (cf. Thomas Rymer and Robert Sanderson, Foedera (20 vols., London, 1726-1735), I, p. 69).

Although Foxe does not say so, he is listing sources that (inaccurately)maintained that John was poisioned in response to attacks on the credibility of this story - recited by Foxe in the first edition of the Acts and Monuments - which were made by the Catholic controversialists Thomas Harding (A confutation of…An apologie of the church of England [London, 1565], STC 12762, fo. 184r-v) and Thomas Stapleton, A Counterblast to M. Hornes vayne blast [Louvain, 1567],STC 23231, fos. 312v-314r). For this, and for arguments that Matthew Parkercompiled the following list of sources, see Thomas Freeman, 'John Bale's Book ofMartyrs? The Account of King John in Acts and Monuments', Reformation 3 (1998),pp. 206-10.

I.e., the Scalachronicon.

This description is too vague to permit identification.

I.e., the Polychronicon.

This is either Thomas Rudborne's Epitome historia maioris or hishistoria minor.

This is now Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS 311.

The phrase, 'paynted out in tables' means illustrated with woodcuts.

See Thomas Freeman, 'John Bale's Book of Martyrs? The Account ofKing John in Acts and Monuments', Reformation 3 (1998), p. 10 for the suggestion that Foxe consulted an extract copied from the Eulogium, which is now in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS 101, pp. 316-17.

I.e., the chronicle of Walter of Guisborough.

This is probably Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS 182.

I have not been able to identify this work.

I have not been able to identify this work.

This could be any one of anumber of Latin versions of the Brutchronicle.

This is Trinity College, Cambridge, MS R.7.13.

What follows is an exact reprinting of an anonymous work, veryprobably compiled by Foxe himself, entitled A solemne contestation of diverse Popes for the advancing of their supremacy. This work is entirely an oration, put in the mouth of the papacy/Antichrist itself, bragging of its power andits success in corrupting the church and subverting princes. The oration is composedentirely of extracts from canon law codes, papal bulls and letters as well as historiesand chronicles. These are generally accurate, but often taken out of context, as will be seen below.

This title is quoting 2 Thess. 2:4.

I Peter 2: 13-14.

This title quotes 2 Thess 2:4, which was understood in the sixteenthcentury as a prophecy of Antichrist.

This is a good example of how Foxe can distort the sources he is quoting. The rule actually asserts the right of the papacy to hear appeals from bishops regarding offenses committed against them, even by kings, but it does not assertjurisdiction over all criminal offenses.

Acts 13:2.

Deut. 23:25.

2 Samuel 6:6-7.

Matthew 16: 18.

Romans 1: 9-10.

Psalm 8: 6-8.

1 Kings 20:23.

1 Kings 20:28.

This is a reference to a story that states that when the Donation ofConstantine was presented to the pope, a heavenly voice was heard in both Rome and Constantinople, crying in the air, 'Woe, woe woe! Today venom is poured into the church of God'. There were numerous medieval and Reformation versions of the story. In fact, Sir John Oldcastle had quoted this passage at his trial and Foxe had already printed it (1563, p. 269; 1570, p. 669; 1576, p. 541 and 1583, p. 562).

This striking analogy of the papacy to ivy growing on an oak, istaken from William Tyndale's Practice of Prelates. (See Expositions and Notes…by William Tyndale, ed. Henry Walter, Parker Society [Cambridge, 1849], p. 270.

2 Thes 2: 1-4.

Here Foxe presents his own exegesis of of 2 Thess. 2: 1-4.

Due to a misprint, this date was changed from 600 to 500 in the 1583 edition.