In the first decade of the sixteenth century, one Jetzer, a novitiate atthe Dominican convent in Berne, began to have visions of the Virgin Mary andvarious saints. Encouraged by the prior of the convent, Jetzer publicly announcedhis visions, which were confirmed by a statue of the Virgin that miraculously moved,wept, groaned, etc. These visions appear to have been originally intended to glorify the convent, but they rapidly came to have been used to buttress the Dominican order.Ultimately Jetzer claimed that the Virgin Mary denounced the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in his visions. After an investigation by the Church, fourDominicans, including the prior (but not including Jetzer) were found guilty of fraud, handed over to the secular authorities and burned at Berne on 31 May 1509. (For details of the case see R. Reuss, 'La procès des Dominicains de Berne en 1507-1509',Revue de l'histoire des religions 52 [1905], pp. 237-59 and Die Akten des Jetzerprozesses nebst dem Defensionnium, ed. Rudolf Steck, Quellen zur Scweitzergeschichte 21 [Basel, 1904]). The affair became an international scandal,discussed in Erasmus's colloguy Exequiae Seraphicae (1531).

From this note, it is clear that Foxe was drawing on Johann Stumpf's chronicle, which contained a detailed account of the Jetzer affair (Johann Stumpf, Gemeiner loblicher Eydgenossschaft…Chronikwirdiger [Zurich, 1548], fos 455r-459r) and on civic records of the affair. (These may, or may not, have also includedThomas Murner's account of the affair, De quattor heresiarchis…in civitate Bernensicombustus, which was printed in Berne in 1509). These materials were probably sent to Foxe by a contact in Switzerland. (Since there is no evidence that Foxe could readGerman, and since Stumpf's chronicle was not available in Latin, Foxe's contactprobably translated extracts from it for the martyrologist).

Not the martyr St. Catherine, but St. Catherine of Siena, who was arguably the most famous Dominican mystic of the Middle Ages.

In fact, the Franciscans played no part at all in unmasking the Dominicans. The fraud was exposed by an investigation initiated by the bishop of Lausanne and furthered by a papal commission.

Foxe is using mendicant disagreements to support his claim that there is doctrinal disunity among Catholics.

Foxe now uses both the debate over the Immaculate Conception and the Jetzer affair to denounce the 'superstition' of the Church before Luther.

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).