Marginalia1555. March.weakened with euyll keepyng) was borne to the fyre in a chayre, and so sitting, was in his constant fayth, consumed wyth fire.
MarginaliaThe Martyrdome of Iohn Laurence Priest at Colchester. Anno. 1555.At the burnyng of this Laurence, he sitting in the fire, the young children came about the fire, and cryed, (as wel as young children could speake) saying: MarginaliaEx ore infantium.Lorde strengthen thy seruaunt, and keepe thy promise, Lord strengthen thy seruaunt and keepe thy promise:
The Venetain ambassador reported on the sympathy of the crowd at Laurence's execution for the martyr (C.S.P. Venetian, VI, i, nos. 45 and 49).
In Foxe's presentation, Ferrar's sufferings under Mary are almost an anticlimax to what he endured in the reign of Edward VI. This emphasis is already apparent in the Rerum, where Foxe blames Ferrar's troubles solely on the malice of George Constantine and on the duke of Northumberland, who, Foxe maintained, hated Ferrar because he was favoured by the duke of Somerset. (These charges against Northumberland would not be repeated in any of the editions of the Acts and Monuments. This is undoubtedly due to the power and influence of Northumberland's two sons Ambrose and Robert, in Elizabeth's reign). According to Foxe, Ferrar was stripped of his bishopric and imprisoned in the Fleet until the beginning of Mary's reign. (This is demonstably inaccurate; see Brown, pp. 216-18). He remained in prison under Mary until the end of January 1555, when he was sentenced to death. He was taken to Carmarthen and burned, dying a slow death because the wood for the fire was taken from a bog and was wet. The account ends with an interesting physical description of Ferrar, describing him as short, stout and swarthy (Rerum, pp. 423-25). Unlike many detailed accounts in the Rerum, there are no documents. All of this information seems to have come from a person familiar with St David's (the burning suggests an eyewitness account) and sympathetic to Ferrar.
[Back to Top]It is reasonable to suppose that this person was responsible for the flood of information about Ferrar that washed over Foxe before the 1563 edition was printed. Except for the detail of Ferrar being burned with wet wood, nothing from the Rerum account was reprinted in 1563. The reason for this was that Foxe had an enormous cache of papers pertaining to Ferrar's case to work from. Someone had copied these papers (probably from Ferrar's records) and sent them to Foxe, presumably in an effort to vindicate the bishop. (BL, Harley 420 consists largely of the papers in this collection which Foxe did not print. They all are written in a single hand, indicating that they were copied and sent to Foxe). Foxe constructed his narrative of Ferrar in Edward VI's reign entirely from these documents. The same individual was probably also responsible for sending Foxe copies of the official documents on which Foxe based his account of Ferrar's examinations in Wales in 1555 and his degradation there. An eyewitness seems to have supplied Foxe with his account of Ferrar's examination by Gardiner.
[Back to Top]Whoever Foxe's sources for the Rerum and 1563 accounts were, they succeeded in making Foxe an ardent champion of Ferrar. Foxe's printing of thedocuments in Ferrar's case is not only detailed, but it is very partisan. Foxe printed the basic complaint which Ferrar's opponents made to the privy council, but he did not even mention a further complaint (BL, Harley 420, fol. 90r-v charging Ferrar with sedition) and an affadavit supporting it (BL, Harley 420, fol. 92r), as well as Ferrar's denial of the charge (BL, Harley 420, fol. 93r). Nor did Foxe print many of the depositions against Ferrar (BL, Harley 420, fos. 80r-89v and 95r-104v) or the depositions of 124 witnesses testifying against Ferrar (BL, Harley 420, fos. 111r-178r). Even more striking is the fact that he printed this detailed pro-Ferrar account at all; he could have simply omitted this unsavoury feud and focused on Ferrar's martyrdom under Mary. One of Ferrar's opponents was Thomas Young, the first Elizabethan archbishop of York, and this could only have increased the pressure on Foxe for silence. (One of Foxe's friends wrote to the martyrologist begging him not to discuss this aspect of Ferrar's history; the best that Foxe would do was not name Young while the archbishop was alive). Foxe seems to have been genuinely outraged at Ferrar's treatment by his canons; perhaps Foxe's friendship with John Parkhurst - Elizabeth's first bishop of Norwich and another prelate circled by sharks - influenced him. (Foxe would know about Parkhurst's troubles; he lived at Parkhurst's palace in Norwich from 1560 to 1562 and his family resided there until 1563).
[Back to Top]Except for details about Ferrar's death, all the information which Foxe would ever print on Ferrar was in the 1563 edition. In the 1570 edition all the documents pertaining to Ferrar's Edwardian ordeals were omitted except for two letters which Foxe moved to the end of his account of Ferrar. (In this edition, Foxe also erroneously declared that Bishop Goodrich of Ely was the recipient of these letters). Foxe replaced the deleted documents with a brief narrative of Ferrar's troubles under Edward VI. He also replaced the account of Ferrar's execution with a new version, obviously drawn from an eyewitness, which gave the precise date of Ferrar's death and the story that, in a demonstration of stoicism, the martyr did not move in the flames. The 1570 account of Ferrar was reprinted in the 1576 edition without change.
[Back to Top]But in the 1583 edition, Foxe restored all of the documents that had appeared in 1563 and were deleted afterwards. This appears to have been done without much care since the two letters Ferrar purportedly wrote to Goodrich were restored along with the other documents from the first edition but also printed at the end of the account, as they were in the 1570 edition. As result the letters are printed twice in 1583 (on pp. 1552-53 and 1555-56).
[Back to Top]The date is incorrectly given as 22 February in 1563.
There is a long section dealing with the stirring in Farrar's diocese under Edward. This precedes the account of Farrar's troubles under Mary and leads to a different balance in the glosses from the previous few martyrs. The many articles against Farrar are noted in the 1563 and 1583 editions only; readers are advised in 1570 and 1576 to consult a copy of 1563. The 1583 glosses seem to have been set from the 1563 version. In these glosses, Foxe occasionally uses terms supportive of Farrar, describing the charge of Praemunire against him as 'pretensed' ('Premunire pretended agaynst B. Farrar') and noting the 'crafty packing' of his opponents ('Crafty packing agaynst Farrar'). Stoical phrases such as 'stoutly standeth' are used, along with commendation of constancy ('B. Farrar stoutly stādeth vpon his truth'; 'B. Farrar standeth to his oth made to the K. agaynst the Pope'; 'A memorable example of constancie in this blessed B. & Martyr'). The familiar charge that Winchester once supported the royal supremacy is introduced when opportunity serves ('Winchesters periury touched'), and there is a repeat of the restrained drawing attention to an appeal to the cardinal ('B. Farrar appealeth from the B. of S. Dauids to the Cardinall'). There is a mistaken date in 1583 (March 32) which was correctly given as March 30 in 1570 and 1576.
[Back to Top]Foxe does not supply any details of a quarrel which been festering between Ferrar and his canons long before this denunciation of Ferrar was sent to the privy council. Over a year before this document was written, Ferrar had suspended some of his leading opponents from their diocesan offices and they had appealed to the Council of the Marches. And along with the complaint made against Ferrar to the privy council, another complaint had been brought against Ferrar in the Court of Great Sessions in Carmarthen. (For the details of the feud between Ferrar and his canons, see Brown, pp. 82-185).
[Back to Top]edition, it shall suffice for this present briefly to touche the names of his principall aduersaries, with the effect and cause of the whole controuersie betweene hym and them: registred and witnessed by the Bishop hym selfe in order as foloweth.
MarginaliaThe principall aduersaryes agaynst B. Farrar in the dayes of K. Edward.1 Thomas Young Chaūter of the Cathedral church of saint Dauids.
On 29 January 1561 Richard Pratt, a friend of the martyrologist, wrote to Foxe and asked him not to discuss Ferrar's feud with his canons as it would create scandal and encourage the catholics, particularly since Thomas Young was about to become archbishop of York (BL, Harley 416, fol. 170r-v). Foxe obliged to the extent of witholding the names of Meyricke and Young from his first edition. In the second edition, with both men dead, he supplied their names and even identified Meyricke ashaving been bishop of Bangor and Young as having been archbishop of York.
[Back to Top]2 Rowland Mericke Doctor of law, and Canon resident of the same Church.
On 29 January 1561 Richard Pratt, a friend of the martyrologist, wrote to Foxe and asked him not to discuss Ferrar's feud with his canons as it would create scandal and encourage the catholics, particularly since Thomas Young was about to become archbishop of York (BL, Harley 416, fol. 170r-v). Foxe obliged to the extent of witholding the names of Meyricke and Young from his first edition. In the second edition, with both men dead, he supplied their names and even identified Meyricke ashaving been bishop of Bangor and Young as having been archbishop of York.
[Back to Top]3. George Constantine, to whom the Bishop gaue the office of Registership.
FIrst the Bishops answeare vnto the first, second, thirde, fourth, and. xxxvi. MarginaliaOf these Articles read before in the first edition of Actes and Monumentes pag. 1085.articles doth declare the effect and controuersie betweene him and his said aduersaries.
Item, the saide George Constantine being ioyned in frendship with his sonne in law Thomas Young aforesaid, and they both confederated with the saide Rowlande Mericke, wyth diuers other their adherents, were the originall beginners of all this trouble and contention betweene the said Bishop and them, onely for their owne wicked & most couetous behaueour MarginaliaThe vices of these aduersaries described.in spoyling the Cathedral Churche of Plate, Iewels, and other ornamentes, to a notable value, conuerting it vnto their owne vses, against the kings right, and to the vtter decay of the same Church: also for omytting the kinges maiesties Iniunctions, and for committing simonie and bribery, as is declared in the exceptions against the sayd Young and Constantine: and furthermore for their abomination in manifest bearing with moste wicked and vile lyuers, as is declared in the Bishops MarginaliaOf these aunsweres read more in our first edition of Actes and Monumentes. pag. 1088.answeare to the xij. article. For which their yl demerites and wylful persisting therein, and their most stubborne disobedience against the Bishop, first with gentlenes seeking their reformation (whereunto they in no wise would encline) and thinkyng then to feare them with the lawe (as the father dooth feare þe childe wt shaking þe rod) to make thē obedient (through which attempt they became worse) at last he put them out of office.MarginaliaThe cause why these aduersaryes were so styrred agaynst B. Farrar. Sithens which tyme they haue bestowed all their wyt and cunnyng without ceasing, to inuente mischiefe against the said Bishop, seking by all vniust meanes his vtter vndoing, and finally his death, as may appeare by their proceedinges.
[Back to Top]Item, the sayd Thomas Young, Rowland Mericke, and George Constantine, to preuent the sayd Bishop, who had (as they knewe right wel) iust and haynous matter against them, dyd most maliciously conceyue, deuise, procure, as well the pretensed matter of MarginaliaPremunire pretended agaynst B. Farrar.Premunire promoted by Roger Barloe, as also the false surmised articles promoted by Hugh Rawlins priest, & Thomas Lee, vnto the kinges high Counsayle, mynding thereby vtterly to discredite & bryng vnder foot þe said Bishop, to þe end þt he should not be able to prosecute any matter against them, whereby their wicked doynges might be opened.
[Back to Top]Item, they are mainteyners and bearers of the charges of Thomas Lee brother in lawe to George Constantine, vncle to the wife of the said Tho. Young, and promoter of the said articles by them deuised, and came in for witnesses vnto their owne conceites.
Item, furthermore they obteyned a Commission into the countrey, for better proufe of the said articles,MarginaliaCommission procured agaynst B. Farrar by his aduersaryes. by vertue of which Commission, and also by colour therof they examined sixe score and seuen witnesses, and that very parcially & vnlawfully, as appeareth in the generall exceptions hereafter ensuyng: which great number of witnesses did sound much in the Counsayles eares. Neuertheles it is proueable that the one halfe at the least (of the sayd number) were defamed persons, and many of them haue bene punished for their demerites by the saide Bishop and his officers, and therefore were the readyer to witnes against hym:MarginaliaCrafty packing agaynst Farrar. as adulterers, fornicators, baudes, drunkardes, brawlers, fighters, theeues, runnagates, and beggers. And the more parte of the said witnesses are eyther kinsmen, familiar frends, farmers of benefices, seruauntes, or by some other meanes adherentes vnto the saide aduersaries. And as for the honest Gentlemē and other which haue deposed vpon the said articles, they haue said nothing that can hurt the said bishop, as it is thought by such as haue seene the depositions. And thus much briefly touching the first troubles of bishop Farrar in king Edwardes tyme.
[Back to Top]After that the foresaid M. Farrar bishop of saint Dauids had bene long deteined in custody vnder sureties in the raigne of king Edward (not for any iust cause of his part deserued, but by reason that he had ben promoted by the D. of Somerset, & now after his fall he foūd fewer frendes