This summary of the wars of Julius II is drawn entirely from Bale, Catalogus, pp. 636 and 643-44.

As Foxe's opening comments indicate, this section was intended as a preface for Foxe's account of the Hunne case which follows it. Foxe's purpose indescribing these late Lollard martyrs and confessors was, as always, to demonstrate the existence of the True Church before Luther (using the existence of the Lollards). Foxe also probably wished to make's Hunne's ordeal seem less exceptional and more part of a general pattern of persecution. With the exception of John Browne (see 1570 pp. 1453-1480; 1576, pp. 1239-41 and 1255; 1583, pp. 1276-1293), all of these Lollards are from the diocese of London. Foxe's source for these martyrs - except for his account of John Browne - is the register of Bishop Fitzjames or diocesan courtbooks that have not survived that Foxe drew upon.

Both the records and the Lollards themselves gave Foxe a good deal of trouble. The records not only listed numerous abjurations by the Lollards, they alsolisted of opinions they held which were embarrassing to Foxe. Occasionally Foxe tried to explain these inconvenient facts, more frequently, however, Foxesimply excised the offending passages from the documents that he quoted (as in the accounts of Joan Baker and William Pottier).

Thomas S. Freeman

In this case 'great multitudes' actually means around 40 people.

This is a very valuable (and rare) indication by Foxe of the assistancehe received in having official transcribed. It also indicates that, even for records in London, Foxe relied on transcriptions of archival documents, rather than examiningthe documents himself.

Here, and in the following passages, Foxe tries to justify both theoccasional 'erroneous' beliefs of the Lollards as well as their readiness to abjuretheir believes rather than die for them.

Foxe is stating here precisely why these Lollards were importantassets to his history, despite the their theological imperfections and 'weaknesses';they provided evidence that there was a church before Luther despite Catholicclaims to the contrary.

Here, and in the following passages, Foxe tries to justify both theoccasional 'erroneous' beliefs of the Lollards as well as their readiness to abjuretheir believes rather than die for them.

Foxe asserts that these names came from Bishop Fitzjames's register.Some of these people are mentioned in Fitzjames's register; most are not. Instead,Foxe was almost certainly drawing on a courtbook, now lost, of heresy trials in thediocese during this period (There is corroboration for these heretical trials in notes made by James Ussher (Trinity College, Dublin, MS 775, fos. 122r-125r).

Foxe never does anything for the sake of brevity and that this is, in effect, a warning that he has edited these accounts to remove materials he found un-desirable.

Foxe abridges the articles against Joan Baker, although for the most part, he prints them accurately. Occasionally he refines Baker's language (sheactually said that she would do no more reverence to the crucifix in church than to a dog), but most importantly he supresses two of her replies. Interestingly, in bothcases where he did this, in was to conceal her anti-clericalism, not any doctrinaldeviance. Foxe omitted her statement that she could hear a better sermon at homethan any priest or doctor could give at Paul's Cross or anywhere else. Foxe alsodeleted her denunciation of clerical tithes (cf. Guildhall MS 9531/9, fo. 25r-v).Richard Hunne came to the attention of the auorities trying to defend Joan Baker(One of the articles charged against him at his posthumous heresy trial was that he had declared that Joan Baker - who was forced to do public pennance for her outspokenly heretical beliefs in 1511 - held correct views and that the bishop of London was more worthy of punishment than Baker.).

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).

The charges against William Pottier, and his replies to them, are obscure and clearly baffled Foxe, who was unusually candid in printing as much of them as he did. Pottier did, in essence, deny the benefit of Christ's passion, bystating that a person who committed a mortal sin was damned. (Perhaps this wasan attempt to deny the power of pennance or confession to absolve mortal sin). PaceFoxe, Pottier did not confess that the Trinity was only one God (Guildhall MS9531/9, fo.26v). Andrew Hope has persuasively argued that Pottier's confusing belief in six gods was a distortion of views commonly found in Lollard treatises(Andrew Hope, 'Lollardy: the Stone the Bulders Rejected?' in Protestantismand the National Church in Sixteenth Century England, ed. Peter Lake and MariaDowling [London, 1987], p. 18).