Again Foxe is surprisingly correct. The archbishop of Lisbon had, in the aftermath of Gardiner's sacrilege, ordered that fasting and a penitential procession be held in every church in the diocese and also decreed forty days indulgence to all who confessed their sins at this time (I. da Rosa Pereira, 'O Desacato na Capela Real em 1552 e o processo do calvinista inglês peranto Ordinário de Lisboa', Annais da Academia Portuguesa da Historia 29 (1984), pp. 619-20).

Foxe's first narrative of Somerset's downfall was in Rerum, pp.210-14. This contained the account of the end of Thomas Seymour and the enigmatic record of Somerset's downfall along with the detailed account of his execution, which were all reprinted in 1563. The Rerum account also contained praise of Somerset's virtues which were elaborated on in subsequent editions. But it concluded with passages that would never be reprinted: a scathing assessment of the duke of Northumberland's career and downfall. Foxe not only blamed Northumberland for Somerset's execution, but he also intimated that Northumberland had poisoned Edward VI . These passages were undoubtedly deleted because of the swift rise in power and favour of Northumberland's sons Ambrose and Robert Dudley in the early years of Elizabeth's reign.

Little was added to the 1563 narrative except for an extended comparison of the duke of Somerset with Humphrey duke of Gloucester, the uncle of Henry VI. Both men were regents for under-age monarchs and both were named Lord Protector. Both men were, at least in Foxe's view, upright men undone by the scheming machinations of their clerical opponents. In the 1570 edition, Foxe added a number of documents. Some of these came from a letter book of John Russell, the first earl of Bedford. A proclamation may have been obtained from the printer Richard Grafton. Other sources are harder to identify. Someone supplied Foxe with copies of two letters to the Lord Mayor and Common Council of London, one from Edward VI, the other from members of the Privy Council. This source also supplied Foxe with an account of deliberations in the Common Council in October 1549. And Foxe also obtained one of the many copies of the articles charged against Somerset in 1549.Foxe's account of Somerset helped lay the foundation for the longstanding historiographical tradition of Somerset as the 'good Duke', a man devoted to the reformation of Church and State. So great was Foxe's admiration of Somerset that he had to add a disclaimer to the 1570 edition, denying that he had intended to compare Somerset with Christ. But if Foxe had a hero, most unusually, this account did not have a villain. Even Foxe could not blame Stephen Gardiner for an execution performed by Edward VI's government. Foxe was not about to blame the godly Edward VI for Somerset's death. And, as noted above, Foxe was prevented by the power of the Dudley brothers from blaming their father, the duke of Northumberland, for Somerset's death. As a result, Foxe's contain focuses on Somerset's good death on the scaffold, but says little about how he came to be there.

Thomas S. Freeman

This is an interesting (and rare) admission from Foxe that he knows more than he is saying. As has been previously noted, the standing of the duke of Northumberland (apart from other circumstances) would have induced Foxe to caution. In addition, however, Foxe had the reputation of William Cecil, who left Somerset's 'sinking ship' to become Northumberland's secretary, to consider, besides that of Edward VI, whom he extolled as a model of mercy and piety.

I.e., Satan. See Genesis 3.

This suggestion that Somerset's death was a providential punishment for the execution of his brother, Thomas Seymour, was added in the 1570 edition (p.1545).

Foxe blamed the falling out between the Seymour brothers as being due to ill-feeling between their wives. It is disingenuous to the point of mendacity. Thomas Seymour had already defied the King and the Privy Council by marrying Henry VIII's widow. He had been involved in a sexual scandal with Princess Elizabeth and he had been plotting an (admittedly ill-conceived) coup. But it is easy to see why Foxe preferred not to air this 'dirty laundry' in public.

By 1570, Foxe had in his possession a letter book which had belonged to John Russell, the first earl of Bedford. (This was almost certainly given to Foxe by Francis Russell, the second earl, a zealous Protestant with close ties to some of Foxe's closest friends). The papers in the letter book survive among the Petyt MSS in the Inner Temple Library (Petyt MS 538/46, fos. 431r-470r) and cover the period June to October 1549. During this time Russell was campaigning in the southwest against the Prayer Book rebels and then summoned back home (with his soldiers) to support Somerset against the other nobles. (In the event, Russell sided with Northumberland - then only the earl of Warwick - against Somerset, a fact which Foxe discreetly does not mention). In fact, Foxe's use of Russell's letters is highly selective. He not only prints only the ones dealing with Somerset's fall, but he edits them in such a way as to place both Somerset and Russell in the best possible light.

This is an accurate reprinting of Inner Temple Library, Petyt MS 538/46, fo. 467r-v except that Foxe omits a postscript in which Somerset denied rumours that he was committed to the Tower and that the Mass was to be restored.

What follows is loosely based on Inner Temple Library Petyt MS 538/46, fos. 467v-468v. Foxe adds passages emphasising Russell's desire to avoid bloodshed and his concern for the safety of the realm, and for that of Edward VI. The original letter is much more non-committal and much less high-minded.