APP1 Ingulph mentions a council held at London A.D. 833, to debate on the measures to be taken in consequence of the Danish invasion: the defeat at Charmouth was, no doubt, the occasion of the council.

APP2 “Notwithstanding, in the next battle,” etc.]—This sentence no doubt refers to the battle of Hengisdown, in Cornwall, and ought to have been placed at the close of the paragraph, according to the best authors (Saxon Chron., Hoveden, Rapin, Henry), and even according to Foxe himself; for the first words of the next sentence imply, that when the Danes landed in the West of England they had experienced no check since their victory at Charmouth; and the only occasion on which Egbert is anywhere reported to have rallied against the Danes, was at the battle of Hengisdown, consequent upon their descent in the West, of which Foxe presently speaks.

APP3 Foxe’s account of the reign of Ethelwolph is confused, for want of due attention to the chronological arrangement of his materials: for though be was misled by Fabian into the notion, that the Danes did not trouble Ethelwolph till toward the close of his reign (see p. 12, note 3); yet he here proceeds at once to introduce Ethelwolph’s Charter to the Church, which speaks of the ravages of the Danes as the moving cause which led him to propitiate the Divine favor by liberality toward the Church. An improved arrangement has, therefore, been adopted from Malmesbury, from whom Foxe appears to have derived his materials for this reign.

APP4 “Sergius II., who first brought in,” etc.]—Authors differ on this subject. Hoffman supports Foxe’s statement. “Hic [Sergius II.] primus Pontificum nomen mutavit, cum antea Petrus Buccaporcius diceretur.”

But Moreri says that Adrian III. was the first to change his name, which had been Agapitus, on being made pope A.D. 884. He also says that it was Sergius the Fourth who was called Petrus os Porci or Bocca di Porco, before he was made pope A.D. 1009. “Sergius II. n’osant porter le nora de Pierre, par respect de celui du Prince des Apotres, prit celui de Sergius, qui detruit l’opinion du vulgaire, qui s’imagine que ce Pape se nommoit Groin de Pourceau, et que ce fut ce qui le porta a changer de nom. On prend le change en ceci; car cette histoire ne pent regarder que Sergius IV., qui etoit d’une famille de ce nom.”—Moreri’s Dictionary.

APP5 Aventine seems to be the first who really disputed the current story. About one hundred and fifty good catholic writers assert or recognize it. One of the first modern antagonists is Florimond de Remond in his “Anti-Papesse,” in 1607, which was replied to by Alexander Cooke in his “Pope Joane,” in 1625. But the most notorious—perhaps the best—is the Protestant Blondel, first in French, rather mysteriously, in his “Familier Eclaircissement,” etc.

Amst. 1647; after his death, through the editorship of Steph. de Courcelles (Curcellaeus), in a Latin translation, “De Joanna Papissa,” 1657, with a long Apology for his friend; neither of whom was any friend to the Anti-remonstrants of Holland. The French was answered in 1655 by the Sieur Congnard, Advocate of the parliament of Normandy; the Latin by Sam. des Marets (Maresius) in his “Joanna Papissa restituta,” Groningae, 1658, the year after Curcellaeus’s edition, whose Apology he examines point by point, reprinting the whole. After these appeared, on the same side F. Spanheim and L’Enfant. Gieseler, in his valuable Text-Book, 2: 20, 21, was either ignorant of these writers, or has purposely suppressed them, although they all pretty powerfully attack his “decisive” proofs. The numismatic champion, Garampi, may be told, that the obverse and reverse of a coin are not necessarily in every case synchronous; that his chronology is not the best supported; and that there is such a place as Padua. He, however, has known better than to conceal the names of the opponents of his Thesis.—De Nummo Argenteo Ben. III. Romans 1749, pp. 8, 9.

APP6 “By this pope Nicholas I. priests began to be restrained,” etc.]— Foxe here follows the authority of Volateran and others (see infra, vol. 5: p. 326): but he rather inclines himself to say this of Nicholas II.; to whom also he considers the ensuing letter to be addressed, but by whom—both he and the critics are undecided. (See pp. 12, 97, and vol. 5: pp. 305, 311, 326—331.)

APP7 “Augustine less than Jerome.” —There is an allusion here to a passage of St. Augustine’s writings. Speaking of himself a bishop and Jerome a priest, he says:—” Quanquam enim secundum honorum vocabula quae jam ecclesiae usus obtinuit episcopatus presbyterio major sit, tamen in multis rebus Augustinns Hieronymo minor est: licet etiam a minore quolibet non sit refugienda vel dedignanda correctio.” Inter Epistolas Hieron. Epist. 77, in fine.—Hieron. Opera, Ed. Bened. Paris, 1706, tom. 4: col. 641.

APP8 The consequences of the constrained celibacy enjoined by the Romish Church on her clergy are, unhappily, so notorious, that (as Bishop Hall intimates) it would be irrelevant to dispute about the number of infants heads found in the pope’s fish-pond. To suppose that 6,000 infants, or even 1,000, (for Martene, Ampl. Coll. 1: 449, reads “plusquam millia,” leaving out sex ), should have been murdered and thrown into one pond within so short a period as the story implies, is out of the question; and some critics have even thought this circumstance sufficient to prove the letter a forgery, though they allow that it came to our hands “a pontificiis.” (See Mansi’s edition of Fabricii Bibliotheca Med, et Inf. Latinitatis, vol. 6: p. 285, and Theiner’s Einfuhrung der Erzwungenen Ehelosigkeit, 1: 467.) Nothing, however, is more common than errors as to numbers in ancient documents. Indeed, the number itself would not have been so incredible had the story referred to the age of Erasmus, who states in one part of his work, Nunc videmus mundum esse plenum sacerdotibus concubinariis. Est spud Germanos episcopus quidam, qui ipse dixit in convivio, uno anno ad se delata undecim millla sacerdotum palam concubinariorum: ham tales singulis annis pendunt aliquid episcopo.”—Erasmi Opera, Lug. Bat. tom. 9: p. 485. Erasmus wrote this in defending his published opinion respecting the celibacy of the clergy against the attacks of a papist.

APP9 “By this Adrian [III] it was first decreed,” etc.]—The emperor had no share in the election or confirmation of Adrian II., mentioned in the preceding line; for the emperor’s ambassadors, who were at Rome at the time, were not invited to the election. On complaining of this they were told, that the ceremony bad not been omitted out of any disrespect to the emperor, but to prevent, for the future, the ambassadors of any prince from pretending to interfere with the election of a pope. At page 464 we find that transaction referred to as the first instance of the exclusion of the emperor from a voice in the election of a pope. But no decree of exclusion was issued till the time of Adrian III, as stated in the text here and supra, p. 6. The decree (according to Martinus Polonus) was, “Ut Imperator non se intromitteret de electione.” (See the note in this Appendix on p. 464.)

Hoffman, in his Lexicon, says briefly:— “Adrianus II. Nicholao successit, sine consensu Imperatoris, aegre id legaris ferentibus.” “Adrianus III. legem tulit, ut pontificis designatt consecratio sine praesentia regis aut legatorum procederet.”

See also Sandini Vitae Pontiff. Born. p. 340.

APP10 The document translated at the top of the next page, and which will be found in Hoveden, says expressly, ab exordio regni Ethelwulphi regis usque ad adventum Normanorum et Willielmi regis, ad ducentos annos et triginta;” which carries us back to the very beginning of Ethelwolph’s reign. Hoveden himself says in his text, that the Danes came “primo atom regni sui.”—Script. post Bedam, p. 412.

APP11 “These things thus done,” etc.]—Asserius and the “Annales Bertiniani” both assert, that Ethelwolph went to Rome in A.D. and continued there twelve months; that he visited the French court early in July A.D. 856; and that he was married by Hincmar, abp. of Rheims, October 1st. P. Pagi adopts these dates (Crit. in Baronium), and says that the grants mentioned in the text were made—not to Leo IV., who died July 17th A.D. 855, but—to his successor, Benedict III. the Benedictine authors of “l,’Art de Verifier des Dates” follow this account.

APP12 “Reigned both together the term of five years, one with another.” — i, e. for two years and a half each from their father’s death; after which period Ethelbert reigned sole monarch for about six years, when he was succeeded by Ethelred A.D. 866.

APP13 “Inguar and Hubba...slain at Englefield.” —Brompton states that they escaped after the battle of Englefield into Ireland, and died there, Hoveden (p 416), cited by Foxe at page 23, gives a different account of their death: see the note in this Appendix on that passage.

APP14 Foxe, misled by Fabian, reads “Winborn or Woburn.” (See page 37.) Spelman in his life of Alfred states, that the following inscription was formerly to be read on Ethelred’s tomb at Wimborne, afterwards destroyed in the civil wars:—“In hoc loco quiescit corpus S. Ethelredi regis West Saxonum, martyris, qui Anno Domini DCCC LXXII., XXIII. Aprilis, per manus Danorum paganorum occubuit.” (Camden’s Britannia, and Spelman, p. 43.) Alfred certainly came to the throne in April, A.D. 872, according to the chronicle cited at page 32, note (1), which states that he died Oct. 28th A.D. 901 after a reign of twentynine years and six months. ¾ See Mr. Sharon Turner’s Anglo-Saxon History, vol. i. p. 537.

APP15 “For lack of issue of his body.” —Other authors say, that it was by virtue of his father’s will, and that Ethelbald at least left children behind him who survived Alfred—Turner, vol. 1: p. 536.

APP16 “In the next year,” etc.]—Foxe says, “the same” year: but see L’Art de Ver. des Dates. Also, it is plain that the three Danish kings left Cambridge A.D. 876; for they wintered after the battle of Wilton at London A.D. 872-3; at Torksey in Lindsey A.D. 873-4; at Repton A.D. 871-5; at Cambridge A.D. 875-6; and in A.D. 876 they seized Wareham Castle.

APP17 “But they falsely breaking their league,” etc.]—This statement is rather too elliptical. The treaty was broken toward the close of A.D. 876 by some of the Danes breaking out of Wareham, seizing the horses of Alfred’s coast-guard, and making their way to Exeter. Of the rest, some attempted to follow by sea early next year, A.D. 877, when they were wrecked at Swanawic, or Swanage: the others escaped from Wareham to Exeter on foot.—Rapin, and Spelman, p. 49.

APP18 “At Swanawic,”— says Huntingdon; i.e. Swanage on the Dorsetshire coast, not Sandwich, as Foxe says.

APP19 “Their ensign called the Raven was taken.”—“The Danish standard called Refan, or the Raven, was the great confidence of those pagans. It was a banner with the image of a raven magically wrought by the three sisters of Inguar and Hubba, on purpose for their expedition in revenge of their father Lodebroch’s murder, made (they say) almost in an instant, being by them at once begun and finished in a noon-tide, and believed by the Danes to have carried great fatality with it; for which it was highly esteemed of them. It is pretended that, being carried in battle (Asser. Annal. ad an. 878, Gale 2: 167), toward good success it would always seem to clap the wings, and do as if it would fly; but toward the approach of mishap it would hang them right down and not move. The prisal of it by the Christians was of no little consequence; for the pagans when they came to lose it, could not but lose withal their hearts and confidence.”—Spelman’s Life of Alfred, p. 61: see the note on the Italian Caroccio, mentioned by Foxe at p. 479.

APP20 “In the same conflict both Inguar and Hubba were slain.” —For a different account, see p. 19. The Annals of Ulster say that Inguar died in Ireland A.D. 872, and that Halden or Halfden was killed in Ireland at the battle of Lochraun A.D. 876; and the Saxon Chronicle says that he died in Ireland.—Turner, vol. 1: p. 538, 540.

APP21 “Coming to Winchester,” etc.]—The Saxon Chronicle says, that Guthrum was baptized at Aulre, near Etheling, but that the chrismal was pulled off him eight days after at Wedmore. In MS. Digby, p. 196, this place is called “Westin,” and soon after it says that the twelve days’ feasting which followed was at London.—Hearne’s Note to Spelman’s Life of Alfred, p. 66, and Turner, vol. i. p. 575.

APP22 “He likewise sent to India,” etc.]—Mr. Sharon Turner (vol. 2: p. 158) devotes a long Appendix to an examination into the probability of Alfred’s embassy to St. Thomas, and decides in its favor.

APP23 “The fourth year after this, which was the nineteenth year of the reign of king Alfred.” —Foxe says “the third,” but he had last mentioned the “fifteenth” year of the reign. The year was A.D. according to the Saxon Chronicle.

APP24 This page describes, though in a confused manner, the operations of the Danes under their famous Captain Hastings during three or four years. The Saxon Chronicle says that they carne from Boulogne to “Limenemuthan” in East Kent, A.D. 893. The same Chronicle places their arrival at Lea in A.D. 895 or 896.—Turner, vol. 1: pp. 587—602.

APP25 “Chester” (the Chronicles call it Legacestria) must mean Caerleon; see p. 5, note (5): this supposition alone can explain how the Danes should go thence “by North Wales to Northumberland.” In confirmation of this it may be observed that Hoveden says, ad an. 905, “Civitas, quae Karle-gion Britannice, Legacestria Saxonice, dicitur, restaurata est;” referring, no doubt, to the damage which the city had sustained from these Danes. (See the note in this Appendix on page from the bottom.)

APP26 Tanner in his Bibliotheca Britanno-Hibernica, p. 32, discusses the story about the two schools in Oxfordshire, and explodes this etymology.

APP27 “Chester, in South Wales,” clearly means the “Chester” so often mentioned by Foxe, viz., Caerleon. “Galfridus” mentioned in the text is Galfridus Monumetensis, or Geoffry of Monmouth. In the place of his history referred to (lib. 9: cap. 12) he calls the place which Foxe denominates “Chester in South Wales” “Urbs Legionum.” Arthur is there stated to have selected this place for his coronation on account of its beauty, and because “Habebat gymnasium ducentorum philosophorum, qui astronomia atque caeteris artibus eruditi cursus stellarum diligenter observabant, et prodigia ed tempore ventura regi Arturo veris argumentis praedicabant.” Foxe might have mentioned, besides, the famous school of Dubritius (afterwards archbp, of Caerleon) on the banks of the Wye, also that of Iltutus a little later, in Glamorganshire, at Llantuyt, so called from him. Dubritius died Nov. 4, A.D. 522.—Godwin de Proesulibus, and Usher Antiq. Brit. Eccl. cap. 5.

APP28 The passage in Bede reads thus:—“Quae in Gallia bene disposita vidit imitari volens, instituit scholam in qua pueri literis erudi-rentur, juvante se episcopo Felice, quem de Cantia acceperat, atque paedagogos ac magistros juxta morem Cantuariorum praebente.” Felix became bishop A.D. 630.—Wharton, Anglia Saera, tom. Malmesbury (de Vitis Pontif.) says, that Felix was a Burgundian, whom Sigebert had become acquainted with during his exile in France, and that his successor in the see of Dunwich was a Kentish man.

APP29 “Then his mother.”]—This must have been Alfred’s stepmother, Judith, who married his eldest brother, Ethelbald, after Ethelwolf’s death, and remained in England some time after Ethelbald’s death in A.D. 860; after which she married Baldwin, earl of Flanders, A.D. (L’Art de Ver. des Dates). See Mr. Sharon Turner’s Anglo-Saxon History, vol. 2: pp. 500, 505—507.

APP30 “Grinbald, Asserius, Werefrith, Neotus, Johannes Scotus”— Grinbald was a very accomplished and courteous man, and so attentive to Alfred on his way to Rome at Rheims, that he afterwards begged Fulco, Archbishop of Rheims, to send him over to England. Asset the uncle and the nephew were monks of St. David’s. The uncle wrote Alfred’s Life, and was Archbishop of St. David’s. The other was made Bishop of Sherborne. Werefrith was Bishop of Worcester, A.D. 873— 892. Neotus, called for his piety St. Neot, was the companion of Alfred’s youth: he was buried at St. Guerrir’s church, near Ginesbury, in Cornwall. Hence his body was removed to a monastery built on the site of the Duke Alric’s palace, in Huntingdonshire. Thence the bones were removed in 1213 to Croyland Abbey. Johannes Scotus, or Erigena, was very learned in Greek, Chaldee, and Arabic; he was patronized by Charles the Bald of France: he came over to England at Alfred’s invitation, and taught publicly at the monastery of Malmesbury, where he was murdered by his scholars with their penknives. He is sometimes confounded with another John, a monk of St. David’s, and called John the Monk; and whom Alfred, in his preface to Gregory’s Pastoral, calls his mass-priest.—Spelman’s Life of Alfred, p. 133, etc.

APP31 Charles the Bald reigned over France A.D. 843—877.

APP32 The Council of Vercelli was held Sept. 1st, A.D. 1050.—L’Art de Ver. des Dates.

APP33 Pleimund is said at page 103 to have been archbishop only twentynine years, and in M. West. to have been elected A.D. 889, and died A.D. 915, which only gives twenty-six years: Godwin gives him but nineteen or twenty years.

APP34 On the duration of the archbishopric of Odo, see the note in this Appendix on p. 50.

APP35 All the concurrents of time given in this note agree, by Sir H.

Nicolas’s Tables; so that the date may be looked on as certain. As Alfred died in his 53rd year, he must have been born A.D. 848 or 849.

APP36 “Bishop of Porto.” —Porto was a small place at the mouth of the Tiber, opposite to Ostia, and gave the title to one of the seven cardinal bishops. Those were the bishops of Ostia, St. Rufine, Porto, St.

Sabine, Praeneste (hod. Palestrine), Tusculum (hod. Frascati), and Albano.”—Moreri’s Dict. 5: Cardinal.

APP37 “Cum aliquando in sinistram suspicionem venisset” —are the words of Sigebert, ad an. 900. The authority which Foxe here follows is “Sigebert Gemblacensis Coenobitae Chronographia, ab an. 381 ad an. 1112,” printed in Pistorius’s” Germ. Rer. Script.” tom. 1: (edit. Ratisb. 1726, p. 804.)

APP38 “Praesertim cum ipse Formosus a Marino papa absolutus fuerit a perjurio.” ¾ Sigebert (ibidem).

APP39 “Who then marching,” etc.]—Sigebert says (ibidem):— Roman venit; sed non admissus, Romam Leonianam obsedit. Lepusculo forte versus Romam fugiente, et exercitu cum clamore nimio sequente, Romani timentes se de muro projiciunt et hostibus per factos acervos murum ascendendi locum faciunt. From which Foxe derives the following: “Who then marching towards Rome, was there prevented by the Romans from entering. But in the siege (saith the author) the Romans within so played the lions, etc.” The pun in “lions” is not perceived, from Foxe’s not fully translating “Roman Leonianam.”

APP40 Foxe says “The French king, Eudo,” but it must have been Charles the Simple: for Eudo, or Eudes, died Jan. 1st A.D. 898; but John IX. did not succeed to the papacy till the July following, and he held a council at Rome that year in favor of Formosus, the acts of which were ratified by the council of Ravenna that same year. So that the French king there present must have been Charles the Simple, who succeeded Eudes and was present at the council of Turin the July following.

Sigebert (p. 805) confirms this opinion.—L’Art de Ver. des Dates.

APP41 “Formosum sepulero extractum in sede pontificatus sacerdotaliter indutum decollari praecepit.” (Sigebert, ad an. 907.) See an allusion to this history by Pilkington infra, vol. 8: p. 292.

APP42 “Stephen VII. or VIII.” —The reason of the uncertainty as to the numbering of this pope will be found stated in the note in the Appendix to vol. 1: p. 372.

APP43 “Might be further applied than to that Marozia of Rome.” —The allusion is to Catharine of Aragon, wife of Prince Arthur, and afterwards of his brother Henry VIII. See infra, vol. 5: pp. 45—55.

APP44 “Ordo Cluniacensis.”— The Abbey of Clugny was founded by William the Pious, Earl of Auvergne and Duke of Aquitaine, by a chart dated Sept. 11th, A.D. 910; at which time Sergius III. was pope. (L’Art de Verifier des Dates.) the first abbot was Berno, who was succeeded at his death, A.D. 927, by St. Odo, who died A.D. 944. (Moteri, 5: Clugni.) See the note in this Appendix on page 57, lines 25, 26.

APP45 “Wimborne.” —So Polychronicon, Fabian, Grafton, adding “near Bath.” Foxe seems to have taken the reading of “Woburn” from a former passage of Fabian; see the note in this Appendix on p. 21.

APP46 “Chester” here, as in other places, means Caerleon. Polychronicon ad an. 908 says, “Hoc anno civitas Caerlegion sire Legecestria, quae modo Cestria dicitur, ope Etheldredi ducis Merciorum et Elfledae uxoris suae post confractiones per Danos factas restaurata eat, etc.”

See also the note in this Appendix on page 25.

APP47 This list of places occurs in Polychronicon sub. an. 912.

APP48 “Middleton and Michelenes,”—more commonly known as Melton, in Dorsetshire, and Michaelney, in Somersetshire; the founding of these two monasteries is referred to infra, vol. 5: p. 374.

See Tanner’s Notitia Monastics.

APP49 These directions concerning a bishop’s duties are printed by Mr.

Thorpe at p. 547 of his Collection of Anglo-Saxon Laws, and in Saxon with an English translation at p. 426.

APP50 The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey states that Athelstan died “6 Cal.

Novemb. feria 4. Indictione 14,” i.e. Wednesday, October 27th, A.D. 941, which concurrents of time (by Nicolas’s Tables) all fit. The Saxon Chronicle gives the same date; so that it may be considered as fixed. It also agrees with Foxe’s statement here that Athelstan reigned “sixteen years,” if we suppose him to have come to the throne A.D. 925, as stated above.

APP51 Foxe here states that Edmund reigned “six years,” and at line and page 50, “six years and a half.” In each case “four years and a half” has been substituted; for the Saxon Chronicle says he died May 26th, A.D. 946: the Melrose Chronicle adds the day of the week and the Indiction, which confirm that date. So that Edmund, by this account, reigned only “four years and a half:” it is proper to observe, however, that Foxe had authority for “six years and a half;” for the Saxon Chronicle, inconsistently with itself, assigns that period to his reign.

APP52 “Alfridus” means Alfrid, treasurer of Beverley Minster. “Alfredus Beverlaccnsis [seu Fibroleganus] in septen-trionalibus Angliae partibus natus et Cantabrigiae educatus. In patriam reversus evectus est ad canonicatum, in ecclesia S. Johannis Beverlacensis, in qua postea the aurarius constitutus. Ab hoc officio ‘Thesaurarius’ cognomine notus erat inter scriptores. Annales (lib. ix.) edidit Thos. Hearne. Obiit anno 1136, et Beverlaci sepultus erat, (Bale, Pits.) vel anno 1126, quo et Annales suos finiit. (Vossius.)”—Tanner’s Bibliotheca; which may be consulted by those who wish for further information. Alfrid is referred to by Mr. Turner on the matter in the text. “Pulcher,” two lines lower, is a corruption of” Sepulchre,” and “Pulcher-church” is still further corrupted into “Puckle-church;” which is now a small village seven miles N,E. of Bristol, and, according to Camden, was once a royal manor.

APP53 “Ode being a Dane born.” —Osberne in his life of Ode says, that he was son of one of the Danes who came over with Inguar and Ubba.

APP54 “This Ode continued bishop, the.. space. of eighteen years.”— Foxe gives different accounts of the duration of Odo’s episcopate: he here, and at pp. 32, 103, says “twenty years;” next page he says “twentyfour.”

Godwin (de Praesulibus, etc.) prefers “eighteen years,” which is here adopted in the text.

APP55 —Edmund died May 26th A.D. 946. (Sax. Chron.) the same Chronicle states that Edred died Nov. 23d, A.D. 955, having reigned (as Foxe states) “nine years and a half.”

APP56 “In his time Dunstan was promoted to be bishop of Worcester.” — This seems incorrect, and is certainly inconsistent with the statement in this and the next page, “that he was as yet but abbot of Glastonbury” after the death of Edred, and even of Edwin.

APP57 “Not crowned till fourteen years after.” —Foxe has Malmesbury’s authority for this statement (Script. post Bedam, p. 60); and doubtless he was crowned with great pomp at Bath, Whitsunday A.D. 973 (see pp. 62, 63): but that was after a seven-years’ penance, part of which was, according to Malmesbury, “diademate carere septennio” according to Osberne, “ut in tote spatio (septenni) coronam sui regni non gestaret.” In explanation of the term “gestare” it may be remarked, that it was the custom of our ancient kings to wear their crowns in public at Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide (Lord Lyttelton’s Hen. II. vol. ii p. 282); and that it was the prerogative of the Archbishop of Canterbury, or his deputy, to put the crown on the king’s head on those occasions, as well as at the original coronation. (See the notes in this Appendix on pp. 62, 63, and 110.) Speed, on the authority of Polydore Virgil, says that Edgar was crowned originally at Kingston; but no other author mentions this: most probably, however, it was the fact; and the very nature of the penance seems to require it. Mr. Taylor in his” Glory of Regality,” p. 237, takes this view of the subject.

APP58 On the promotion of Dunstan, see the notes in this Appendix on pp. 50, 74.

APP59 “Ode, archbishop twenty-four years.”—See the note on page 50.

APP60 John Cassian was born about the middle of the fourth century— Gennadius says in Scythia; but others say (with more probability) in Provence. Having conceived an earnest desire to become acquainted with the monks of Egypt, then very famous, he visited the Thebaid about A.D. 390: after residing there several years he went to Constantinople, where he was ordained deacon about A.D. 409. He retired to Marseilles about A.D. 414, and there founded two monasteries, one that of St. Victor, in which he had 5,000 monks, the other for nuns. He died A.D. 440 or 448, at the age of ninety-seven years. (See Moreri and Biographie Universelle.) His printed works are: “De institutis Coenobiorum, libri 12: ;” “Collationes Patrum, libri xxiv.”; “Johannis Cassiani de Christi Incarnatione, libri vii.;” “Flores Cassiani, sive illustriores sententiae ex ejus operibus collectae.”

APP61 “Mazises.”— Alardus Gazaeus was a Benedictine monk in the abbey of St. Vedast at Arras, who wrote a Commentary on Cassian’s works. His dedication of this Commentary is dated “Michaelis apparitione [May 8th A.D. 1615.” In his Commentary on this place in Cassianus he says: “Mazices sine ma>xikav Ptolemaeus in ea AEgypti, sine Africae, parte locat in qua Cassianus. Eorundem ut barbarorum et immanium hominum meminit Palladius (Lausiaca 7) in Arsacio, quos tamen Mazicos vocat: Et Nestorius apud Evagrium lib. 1: Hist.

Ecclesiast. cap. 7: Et Nicephorus lib. 14, cap. 13. In Vitis Patrum Gens Mazicorum dicitur, lib. 4, c. 15.”—Cassiani Opera, Lips. 1733, p. 242.

APP62 “Basil’s rule—Benet’s rule.”—St. Basil was the founder of Monkery in the East, St. Benedict in the West. St. Basil, surnamed the Great, became bishop of Caesarea A.D. 370, and died A.D. 378. He was an intimate friend of Gregory Nazianzen.—Cave’s Hist. Litt. St.

Benedict was born in Italy A.D. 480, and died A.D. 543. He built a monastery at Monte Cassino, Naples, which was destroyed by the Lombards, but rebuilt under the sanction of Gregory III., who died A.D. 741. Zachary, who followed him in the popedom, sent them the MS. rule, and made them independent of all but papal jurisdiction.

Boniface, the Anglo-Saxon, founded a Benedictine monastery at Fulda with the pope’s sanction, and Pepin, king of France, made it independent of all but papal jurisdiction. Beruo introduced the rule into Clugny, of which he was the first abbot, A.D. 910. One of his pupils and his successor, Odo, introduced it into Fleury, which had been plum-dered by the Normans. He died A.D. 944. St. Benedict’s body was brought to Fleury, which became the head quarters of the order in the West. See Sharon Turner’ s Anglo-Saxon Hist. vol. 2: p. 233.

APP63 “Cluniacenses, first set up by Otho.”—The abbot Odd, mentioned in the last note and the note on p.36, must be intended. For Sigebert mentions the rise of Clugny first ad an. 893, under the reign of “Odd,” [Eudo, “King of France,” thus:—” Hoc tempore floruit in Burgundia Berno, ex comite abbas Gigniacensis coenobii a se fundati; qui etiam ex dono Avae comitissae constituit Cluniacum coenobium in cellam Gigniacen-sem.” But afterwards ad an. 912, we read:—“Ordo Cluniacensis incipit. Berno abbas moriturus Odonem olim musicum constituit abbatem, ea conditione ut ecclesia Cluniacensis solveret annuatim ecclesiae Gigniacensi censum duodecim denariorum.” St. Odd greatly advanced the popularity of the Order of Clugny. It is, therefore, of St. Odd that we must understand Foxe to speak.

APP64 The congregation of Benedictine monks of Vallombrosa on the Apennines, was founded by John Gualbert, a Florentine, about A.D. 1030.—Soames’s Mosheim, vol. 2: p. 356.

APP65 The “Flagellants” originated in Italy, A.D. 1260, and spread over a large part of Europe. See an account of them in Soames’s Mosheim, vol. 2: p. 598.

APP66 Respecting these drinking cups, see the note on p. 168. The following words of Malmesbury will confirm Foxe, though the actual law has not been found:—“In tantum et in frivolis pacis sequax, ut quia compatriotae in tabernis convenientes jamque temulenti pro modo bibendi contendereut, ipse clayos argenteos vel aureos vasis affigi jusserit, ut dum metam suam quisque cognosceret, non plus subserviente verecundia vel ipse appeteret vel alium appetere cogeret.”—Script, post Bedam, p. 56.

APP67 “Stayed and kept back from his Coronation.”—See the notes in this Appendix on p. 51 from the bottom, and p. 63. According to the view there taken, we should here read “from the use of his crown,” rather than “from his coronation.”—Foxe in the next line says, that Edgar was “crowned” at the age of one-and-thirty, A.D. 974, as is by the Saxon chronicle of Worcester church to be proved.” The new edition and translation, however, of the Saxon Chronicle read “in 973,” and add the day, ‘5 Id. Maii, die Pentecostes’ (i.e. Whit-Sunday, May 11th), which proves (see Nicolas’s Tables) that 973 is the true reading.

Also in the next page Foxe calls it “the one-and-thirtieth year of his age,” which is here adopted instead of “the age of one-and-thirty.”

APP68 “Osberne.”—“Osbernus, gente Anglus, ecclesiae Can-tuariensis praecentor et monachus, Lanfranco archiepiscopo familiarissimus, claruit circa annum 1070. Praeter summam artis musicae peritiam, condendis Sanctorum Vitis incubuit. Notandum Osbernum duobus libris Dunstani vitam et miracula descripsisse. Priorem tantum cum posterioris prologo dedit Whar-tonus, ed quod liber secundus parum ad rem historicam conferre videbatur.”—Cave.

APP69 The following is the Latin Penance in Osberne (see Wharton’s Anglia Sacra, vol. ii.p. 111 ):—” Septennem ei poenitentiam, indixit In toto spatio coronam regni sui non gestaret. Jejunium in hebdomade biduale transigeret. Avitos pauperibus thesauros large dispergeret.

Super hoc sacrandis Deo virginibus monasterium quoddam fundaret; quatenus qui unam per peccatum Deo virginem abstulisset, plures ei per plura saeculi volumina aggregaret. Clericos etiam male actionales de ecclesiis propelleret, Mona-chorum agmina introduceret: justas Deoque acceptas legum rationes sanciret: sanctas conscriberet Scripturas, per omnes fines imperii sui populis custodiendas mandaret.” It will be observed that no nunnery is here named: “Shallesbury “is Foxe’s addition, and erroneous, see p. 24. Rumsey, in Hants, was probably the nunnery founded by Edgar on this occasion, A.D. 974.—See Tanner’s Notitia Monastica.

APP70 “Set the crown on the king’s head at Bath.” This was done at the feast of Pentecost, May 11th, A.D. 973. (Osberne, etc.)—It seems probable (as before intimated) that the crowning at Bath was not properly the coronation, but the conclusion of a seven years’ penance, during which time Edgar had not worn his crown. The resuming it was made a great event, for example’s sake. For Malmesbury himself says, that Edgar for this crime”Septennem poenitentiam non fastidivit; dignatus Rex affligi jejunio, simulque diademate carere septennio.” (Script. post Bedam, p. 60.) In the life of Dunstan, he adds—” Ita ut proceres ad specimen et normam Regis compositi, parum vel nihil contra jus et aequum auderent.” (Ibid. p. 202.) See the notes on pp. 51, 62.

APP71 —Foxe reads here “thirteenth year of his reign,” but “fourteenth” p. 51. He also says he was “only three years crowned king.”—more probably “ten,” including the first seven years of his reign. See the last note.

APP72 Foxe reads here rather obscurely, “mention of Elfleda and Editha, and also of Ulfred and Dunstan.”

APP73 Hoveden dates the death of Edgar “the 32d year of his age, the 19th of his reign over Mercia and Northumberland, the 16th of his reign over all England, Indictione 3, 8 Id. Julii, feria qninta” (Script. post Bedam, p. 426), i.e. Thursday, July 8th, A.D. 975: these concurrents agree, by Nicolas’s Tables.

APP74 Here should follow the address of Edgar to his clergy which is given afterwards at page 101.

APP75 The birth and parentage of Editha are stated at page 61.

APP76 Osberne and Brompton both represent the council as being held at Winchester. (See page 84 from the bottom.) Osberne speaks as if it were held a considerable period before that of Calne. But Wharton (Anglia Sac. vol. 2: p. 112) shows that the council of Winchester sat about A.D. 968, and that of Calne about seven years later.

APP77 “Jornalensis here maketh rehearsal,” etc.]—Foxe’s reference to Jornalensis (or Brompton) is not quite accurate. Brompton says nothing about praying to the rood: Osberne says, that the council fell to intreating Dunstan in favor of the priests; and that while he sat perplexed what to do, the image spoke. Foxe also says, that the inscription was put under the feet of the rood; which was the more usual place for an inscription; but Brompton says—” In cujus rei memoriam in capite refectorii ejusdem monasterii supra caput crucifixi, etc.” (Decem Scriptores, col. 870.) This quotation will suggest to the reader the meaning of “frater: ” it is a corruption of “fratry,” which is either a corruption of refectorium, or is derived from fratres, being a room in which they could all assemble. The “fratry” is still shown at Carlisle cathedral. For further information on the point, see Davies’s Rites and Customs of the Cathedral Church of Durham; Parker’s Glossary of Architecture, Oxford, p. 96; Fosbroke’s Encyclopaedia of Antiquities, vol. 1: p. 108; and Fosbroke’s British Monachism, 5:

Refectorium. It is hardly necessary to add, that a “rood” was a large wooden image of Christ crucified, such as may frequently be seen in France by the road-side: Osberne describes it on this occasion, as “Dominici corporis forma vexillo crucis fixa.” There are other allusions to roods in Foxe. (See Index.)

APP78 “Pope John XII.”—Foxe is rather inconsistent in his numbering of this pope, the reason of which is, that the old authors differ. Here, and at p. 462, Foxe calls him John XIII; but at p. 464, and vol. in. p. 212, he calls him John XII. As John Xl. is the last pope John named by Foxe (p. 36), this pope is in the present edition always numbered John XII. The numbering of several following Popes John has been altered in consequence of the change made here.

APP79 Pope John XIV.—This pope is not acknowledged by the Romish church, and is not inserted in the hat given in L’Art de Verifier des Dates,” which numbers the next three popes mentioned in this page XIV. XV. XVI.

APP80 “John XVI.”—The pope John preceding Gregory V. is numbered XV. in the list of “L Art de Ver. des Dates,” and his popedom dated A.D. 986—996. But see the last two notes.—There were two councils held at Rheims during his papacy, according to the lists of Councils; the first, June 17th, A.D. 991, wherein archbishop Arnold, or Arnulph, was deposed; and a second, July 1st, A.D. 995, wherein Arnulph was restored. (L’Art de Ver.) The advancement of Gilbert to the papacy is mentioned at pp. 94, 95.

APP81 “Elfrida” is substituted for Foxe’s “Alfrith,” Elfrida being his reading in all other cases.

APP82 These verses are taken from Locorum communium collectanea a Joh. Manlio pleraque ex lectionibus Ph. Melancthonis excerpta, etc., tom. in. p. 198 (8no. Basil. 1563), and were written apparently by John Strigelius. They embrace the seven Electorates of Germany, both ecclesiastical and civil.

APP83 “About the eleventh year,” etc.]—The marginal date, A.D. 988, proceeds on this supposition, and is that chosen by Godwin. If he was archbishop for twenty years, as Foxe states at p. 103, then he was appointed A.D. 968; or if he died in the ninth year of Egelred, then he was appointed A.D. 966, in the seventh year of Edgar’s reign. Some date his appointment A.D. 959, the first year of Edgar, which makes him archbishop at least twenty-seven years. (See the notes in this Appendix on pp. 50, 51.)

APP84 “After him Elfric,” etc. See the note on p. 104.

APP85 This “northern island” was Lindisfarne, or Holy Island, mentioned before at p. 5. St. Cuthbert was for twelve years abbot of a famous monastery there, the ruins of which are still visible.

APP86 “Chester-le-street” is a village six miles north of Durham, so called from being on the Roman highway. Foxe says “Rochester,” by mistake.

APP87 “Danegilt.” See the note on p. 104.

APP88 “Sailed into Denmark.”— For the real reason why Canute at this time went to Denmark, see the note on p. 81.

APP89 Most authors date the death of Egelred, St. George the Martyr’s Day, i.e. April 23d, A.D. 1016; but the Saxon Chronicle says St.

Andrew’s Day, i.e. November 30th.

APP90 There are plenty of authorities for Foxe’s statement in the text respecting the sons of Edmund Ironside; see Hoveden, Brompton, Rastal’s Chronicle, Fabian, Grafton, etc. But William of Malinesbury simply says—“Filli ejus [Edmundi Edwius et Edwardus] missi ad regem Suevorum ut perimerentur: sed miseratione ejus conservati Hunorum regem petierunt; ubi dum benigne aliquo tempore habiti essent, major diem obiit, minor Reginae sororem Agatham in matrimonium accepit.” (Scriptores post Bedam, p. 73.) And afterwards he says: —“Rex Edwardus pronus in senium,...misit ad Regem Hunorum, ut filium fratris Edmundi Edwardum cum omni familia sua mitteret.” (Ibid. p. 93.) Subsequent writers in their attempts to fill in the names, have made blunders. For example, the contemporary king of Sweden was named Olave (L’Art de Ver.), who is said to have been half-brother to Canute (Speed). His being named “Suanus” probably arose from the circumstance of the u, his patronymic “Suavus” (of Sweeden) being taken for an n. combination of the two would give, “Suanus, king of Sweden.” It is remarkable that Foxe in the next page, calls him “Suanus, king of Denmark,” where he is copying Fabian and Grafton, who cite “Guido and others.” (See vol. i.p. 347, note (3).)

This variation may be explained by the circumstance related in Brompton (p. 907), that Walgar, Canute’s domestic, was charged to carry the princes into Denmark; but that, conscious of his master’s designs, instead of carrying them into Denmark he conducted them to the king of Sweden, who, to avoid quarrelling with Canute, passed them forward to his kinsman, the king of Hungary.—Again, Salomon, king of Hungary, did indeed in A.D. 1063 marry Sophia, sister of the emperor Henry IV., and thus became brother-in-law to that emperor; but that was almost fifty years too late for the present purpose. It is no less true, however, that Stephen, the first king of Hungary, in married Gisela, sister of the emperor Henry II.: whence, Pape-broche and Lingard would have us here substitute the name of Stephen for Salomon. It is worthy of remark, however, that Fordun in his Scotichronicon says, that Stephen was called Salomon before his baptism, which may in some degree vindicate the introduction of that name here, and also may have led to the error of introducing Henry IV., Stephen being confounded with the other Salomon. (Scoti-chron. lib. 6: capp. 20, 22.)—Who Agatha was is not clear, for her name does not appear among the daughters or sisters of any of the emperors of this period, and very likely she was only a daughter of some germanus of Stephen or his queen. (See the note on p. 83.)

APP91 “The king of churls” or “ceorls.”— So called from his popularity with the common people.

APP92 “His brother, Suanus, king of Denmark.”—See the note on p. 80, note (1).

APP93 “Suanus, king of Denmark,” etc.]—Here again Foxe has Fabian and Grafton for authorities. The statement however seems incorrect, as we nowhere read in the ancient chronicles that Canute had a brother “Suanus.” This looks like a patch of Danish history, relating Canute’s accession to the throne of Denmark in consequence of his father Swanus’s death. Danish history informs us that he had a younger brother Harold, who was left Regent of Denmark when Swanus and Canute first went to England; and that on the death of Swanus he attempted to seize the throne of Denmark; but that Canute immediately went over and settled matters in Denmark, before he ventured to encounter the English (L’Art de Ver.). The statement in the text is probably only a variation of this story. The Saxon Chronicle says, that Canute sent for Emma Kal. August, A.D. 1017, and agreed to Edgar’s laws A.D. 1018.

APP94 The Saxon Chronicle dates Canute’s visit to Rome A.D. 1031, and his death at Shaftesbury 11 Id. Nov. A.D. 1035.

APP95 “Against the Norwegians.”— Godwin and his English troops distinguished themselves against the Vandals, A.D. 1019. (Malmesbury, Huntingdon, Rapin.) The Saxon Chronicle dates the expedition against Norway A.D. 1028, and Godwin does not appear to have been concerned in it.

APP96 “Which son he had by his wife, Hardicanute’s daughter.” it seems very improbable that Godwin should have married first the sister or daughter of Canute (see some lines higher), and then the daughter of Hardicanute. But the reader must remember, that he has here before him the different version of Alfred’s story which commenced with the preceding paragraph and continues to “losing all his lands in England” (next page). Consequently the Hardicanute of one writer may be identical with the Canute of another.

APP97 Gunilda, or Cunegunda, was married to the emperor Henry III.

A.D. 1036; she died two years after. Henry III. then married Agnes, by whom he had Henry IV., Sophia, and other children. Salomon, king of Hungary, married Sophia, and was thus brother to Henry IV. But it is plain that Agatha, who had brought Edward four children in A.D. 1057, could not have been a daughter of Henry IV. (See p. 80, note (1).)

APP98 “St. Benet’s in Norfolk.”— A solitary place among the marshes, then called Cowholm and Calvescroft, was given by a petty prince, named Horn, to some religious hermits A.D. 800, and destroyed by the Danes A.D. 870. Seven companions were collected and placed here by one Wolfric, the next century. After sixty years Canute founded and endowed the place as an abbey of black monks, in honor of St.

Benedict, A.D. 1020.—Tanner’s Notitia Monastics.

APP99 “St. Edmundsbury.”— Sigebert, king of East Anglia, founded a monastery A.D. 633 at Betrichesworth, in which he spent his closing days. The corpse of king Edmund was buried here, when the town changed its name, A.D. 903. Canute expelled the secular priests, and placed Benedictine monks in their room A.D. 1020.—Tanner.

APP100 “The image of the crucifix before mentioned.”— The allusion is to the occurrence mentioned in page 69; the words “being then at Winchester,” which presently follow, leave it undecided whether that occurrence happened at Winchester.

APP101 The Saxon Chronicle states, under the year 1042, that Edward was that year crowned at Winchester with great pomp on Easter-day, 3 Non. April, i.e. April 3d; but Easter-day fell that year on April 11th, and in 1043 on April 3d. Therefore in the text and margin read here 1043.

APP102 “Eustace” is put in from L’Art de Verifier des Dates. Foxe only says, “a certain earl of Boulogne.”

APP103 “Son Wilmot, and grandson Hacus.”— Foxe, from Polydore, reads “two sons, Biornon and Tostius;” but he clearly meant to adopt the reading in the text, because he refers to it next page, as preferable to Polydore’s account. Biornon was an earl, whom Swanus, one of Godwin’s sons and father of Has’s, had slain three or four years before this.

APP104 “Marianus Scotus.”— Under this year he writes—“Ego Marianus seculum reliqui;” col. 427, edit. Baslieae, 1559.

APP105 “Offa, king of Mercia.”— See vol. 1: pp. 316, 317. Foxe inadvertently places his name after Inc, “as of Ine, Offa, Alfred,” etc.

APP106 “Mercenelega,...West-Saxenelega,” “Danelega.”— Bishop Nicholson, in his letter to Dr. Wilkins, prefixed to his edition of the Saxon Laws, asserts, that this threefold division of the English laws is imaginary, and proceeded from the Norman interpreters mistaking the meaning of the word “laga,” which they thought, was the same with the word ley, or law; whereas laga signifies region, territory, or province, as is plain (he says) from several places in the Saxon laws, wherein Danelaga means the same as among the Danes, or in the territories of the Danes. (See pp. 53, 135, of Dr. Wilkins’s Anglo- Saxon Laws.) He also says that the author of the Dialogue de Sea, carlo was the first that led the way in this error, lib. 1 : cap. 16. But Mr.

Thorpe, in the Glossary appended to his Anglo-Saxon Laws 5: Lagu, differs from the bishop, and maintains the other sense to be correct.

APP107 Foxe inadvertently says “Gerardus” in the text, instead of “Giraldus.” “Giraldus Cambrensis, in his boke called Itinerarius.”— Fabian. The following extract from Higden’s Polychronicon, sub. a. 1066, will illustrate the text: “Vult tamen Giraldus Cambrensis in suo Itinerario, quod Haraldus multis confossus vulneribus oculoque sinistro sagitta perdito, ad partes Cestriae victus evasit, ubi sancta conversatione vitam, ut creditur, anachoriticam in cella Sancti Jacobi, juxta ecclesiam Sancti Johannis, feliciter consummavit, quod ex ejus ultima confessione palam fuit.” “In the selle of St. James, faste by Saynt Johan’s churche.”—Fabian.

APP108 “Cousin-germans removed,” i.e. “one remove;” for Edward and Robert (William’s father) were first cousins. (See the table, p. 4.)

APP109 Cometh in the order and name of cardinals, etc.]—The name was in use much earlier, having been used (according to Moreri) to distinguish the more dignified parochial clergy of towns from those of chapels and oratories. But Foxe is here alluding to the decree passed A.D. 1059 by pope Nicholas II., vesting the nomination of the pope in the college of cardinals. (Gratiani Decret. Distinct. 23, cap. 1.) “Ex hoc decreto, quo electio pontiff is Romani imprimis cardinalibus permittitur, ipsum cardinalium nomen post celebrari magis atque magis coeptum.” (Sigon. de regno Italiae, lib. 9, ann. 1059; Chronic.

Reicherspergens. ad ann. 1059.) On this subject see Usher, “De Christ.

Eccl. Success. et Statu,” cap. 4: Section 22. The reader can hardly need to be reminded, that Foxe’s” 1030 years after Christ” is equivalent to “A.D. 1060,” thirty years being the period then commonly allowed for our Lord’s life. (See page 726 of this volume, his.) APP110 “Petrus Premonstratensis.”—Vossius (De Script. Latinis) says he was author of a chronicle intituled “Biblia Pauperum.” He is cited again at page 711.

APP111 “Saying mass,” etc.]—‘Dum in basilica Sanctiae Crucis in Hierusalem Romae sacrificaret, fato moriturum se statim cognovit.’— Platina.

APP112 “And placed in his room Peter, the king of Hungary,” etc.]—This fact is related by Benno, in a letter printed at fol. 39 of the “Fasciculus” of Orthuinus Gratius, and of which Foxe translates a portion at page 124. Benno says that Henry sent Godfrey, duke of Lorraine, against Peter, who took him prisoner at the first onset. Henry does not appear to have retained any grudge against Peter, for (according to Lambert Schafnaburgensis) he made three expeditions into Hungary A.D. 1042, 1043, to restore him to his throne. Sylvester II. is said to have erected Hungary into a kingdom on purpose to he a balance against the Empire, which will account for the pope’s sending to the king of Hungary on this occasion.

APP113 Foxe calls Bruno, by mistake, “bishop of Cologne;” probably he was misled by the designation of another Bruno, who founded the Carthusian order and was called “Bruno of Cologne.” (See page from the bottom.)

APP114 “Another bishop, a German.”— This was Gebhard, bishop of Eichstat.—L’Art de Ver. des Dates.

APP115 “Sienna.”—Foxe says “Sens.” The Latin says “ad Senas .” Senoe is Sienna in Italy; the Latin for Sens is Senones. Several slight corrections are made in the following sentence from the Universal History.

APP116 “Johannes, archpriest of the church of St. John ad portam latinam.”—Foxe reads” archdeacon ad portam Latinam.” The correction is made from the list of the popes given in L’Art de Ver. des Dates.

APP117 “Berengarius of Tours, archdeacon of Angers.”—A correction for Foxe’s “Berengarius Andegavensis, an archdeacon.” See Cave’s Hist.

Litt.

APP118 “Anselm, bishop of Lucca.”—See the list of popes given in L’Art de Ver. des Dates. Foxe only says “another bishop, Anselm.”

APP119 “Artho, archbishop of Cologne.”—See L’Art de Verifier des Dates. Foxe reads “Otho.”

APP120 This passage about Edgar, and his oration to the clergy, should have been introduced at p. 65. The original Latin will be found in the Chronicle of Ethelredus, Abbas Rievallensis. (Decem Scrip,ores, col. 360.)

APP121 Foxe’s reading, “My great grandfather...my great great grandfather, Alfred,” corresponds better with the Latin, (“ proavus meus...attavus meus Aluredus”) than with the history. He calls Ethelwold (towards the end of the oration) “Edward,” mistaking “Edelwal dus” for “Edelwar dus.”

APP122 “Pleimund...for twenty-nine years.”—See the note in this Appendix on p. 32.

APP123 “Odo for twenty years.”—See the note in this Appendix on p. 50.

APP124 “Dunstan, who was archbishop for twenty years.” —See the note in this Appendix on p. 74 from the bottom.

APP125 If the Danegilt began A.D. 991 (as stated at p. 75), and by the advice of Siric, archbishop of Canterbury (as here stated), then it is plain that Siric must have preceded Elfric: for Dunstan died, by the earliest computation, A.D. 986; this would just leave time for Siric (if he died six years after) to give this advice before he died. But if Siric followed Elfric, and so did not come for twelve years after Dunstan, either the Danegilt could not have begun earlier than A.D. 998, or Siric could not have advised it.

APP126 “Here by the way speaking of laws,” etc.]—The following royal ordinance granted to the church an independent and separate jurisdiction, such as it did not enjoy under the Saxon kings, but which the church was everywhere struggling to obtain. This ordinance may be said to have occasioned that licentiousness in the clergy, which forced Henry II. to enact the Constitutions of Clarendon, and to maintain the arduous contest with archbishop Becket, described at pp. 196—252.

APP127 “Two hundred and thirty years.”— See before, p. 13.

APP128 “Eodem anno concilium magnum in octavis Paschae Wintoniae celebratum est, jubente et praesente rege Willielmo, domino Alexandro papa consentiente, et per suos legatos Hermenfredum Sedunensem episcopum et presbyteros Johannem et Petrum cardinales sedis apostolicae suam authoritatem exhibente. In quo concilio Stigandus, Doroberniae archiepiscopus, degradatur tribus de causis: sc. quod episcopatum Win-toniae cum archiepiscopatu injuste possidebat; et quod, vivente Roberto archi-episcopo, non solum archiepiscopatum sumpsit, sea etiam ejus pallio, quod Cantuariae remansit, dum vi et injuste ab Anglia pulsus est, in missarum cele-bratione aliquandiu usus est; et a Benedicto quem sancta Romana ecclesia excommunicavit, eo quod pecuniis sedem apostolicam invasit, pallium accepit.” (Hoveden, Scriptores post Bedam, p. 453.) Wilkins has transferred the passage into his “Concilia,” tom. i.p. 322. As Easter fell on April 4th in A.D. 1070 (by Nicolas’s Tables), the Octaves fell on April 11th.

APP129 This passage is very inaccurate in Foxe: some changes in his text have been made on the authority of the passage cited from Hoveden in the note preceding this.

APP130 “Thomas, ortu Normannus, canonicus Baiocensis.”— Godwin.

Foxe says “a canon of Bayonne” (“Baion,” Fabian); and in the next line “Cadomonencie” (Fabian’s corrupt rendering of “Cadomense” [coenobium], meaning the abbey of St. Stephen at Caen.

APP131 After the words in the text “was pressed to pay” Foxe adds, “a little before the council of Basil: ” the reader will find the reason why these have been omitted in the note in this Appendix on p. 261, note (1).

APP132 “At his second coronation, for Radulph would not suffer the first coronation to stand, because it was done by the bishop of York, without his assent.”—Foxe has the authority of archbishop Parker for this statement, who seems, however, to have misapprehended the real state of the case. The occasion referred to was the coronation of Henry’s second queen, at Windsor, Jan. 30th, A.D. 1121, at which the bishop of Salisbury claimed to do the honors, Windsor being in his “parish.” Radulph resisted this, and (as too old for the exertion) appointed the bishop of Winchester to perform the ceremonial for him. As the archbishop was about to begin the service at the altar, he spied the king sitting with his crown on his head, on which he questioned him who had placed it there, as in his [the archbishop’s presence nobody else had a right to do it. The king said that inadvertently he had put it on himself: the archbishop then, taking it off, replaced it on his head. (Parker Antiq. Brit. Hanoviae, 1605, p. 124, and Eadmer, pp. 136, 137.) The real explanation of this affair is, that our kings anciently wore their crowns at the three great festivals, and on state occasions; and that the archbishop of Canterbury claimed to put the crown on, either by himself or by deputy, on all such occasions, as well as at the original coronation. Thus Eadmer informs us (p. 105), that at the Christmas after Anselm’s death the king held a solemn assembly, at which the archbishop of York claimed to put on the crown and perform mass; but the bishop of London claimed, and was allowed.

Nothing would be more natural than that the king should wear his crown at his new queen’s coronation, and that the archbishop of Canterbury should assert his prerogative, especially as the bishop of Salisbury had shown a disposition to interfere with it. But archbishop Parker has given the affair a different turn, and says that Radulph was displeased at the king’s putting on his own crown as having never been properly crowned at all, “quod absente, ut supra diximus, Anselmo a Thoma Eboracensi archiepiscopo in consecratione diadema ei impositum est” (Antiqu. Brit. p. 124); where archbishop Parker forgets that (at p. 117) he had said—” Rufo autem mortuo successit frater ejus Henricus, a Mauricio Londinensi consecratus.” All the historians say the same thing, except that M. Paris and M. Westm. join the archbishop of York with Maurice in the ceremonial. Maurice, no doubt, acted by Anselm’s direction, and Eadmer, who says that on Anselm’s arrival the king apologised to him for not deferring his coronation, gives no hint of Anselm’s expressing any dissatisfaction.

Some years after, Becket, writing to the pope (Epist. D. Thomae, lib. 5: 45), distinctly asserts that the rights of his see in regard to the coronation had never yet been infringed; for that Stigand, as an usurper, had no right to crown the Conqueror; and that Anselm crowned Henry I. by the bishop of Hereford as his deputy, and repeated the ceremonial on arriving in England. (See the note on p. 159.) Archbishop Parker and Foxe are therefore incorrect in representing this affair at Windsor as Henry’s “second coronation,” and in so doing have made the same mistake as Malines-bury seems to have made respecting Edgar’s crowning at Bath, Whitsunday, May 1lth, A.D. 973, which (strictly speaking) was not his coronation, but his resuming the use of his crown at the great festivals; and it would be archbishop Dunstan’s prerogative, on such an occasion, to place it on his head. (See the notes on pp. 51, 62, 63.)—Foxe is mistaken in saying the “twenty-seventh” year of Henry, as it was Jan. 30th, A.D. 1121, which was 22 Hen. I.; and Radulph died October A.D. 1122, which was 23 Henry I.—See Richardson’s Godwin de Proesulibus.

APP133 It was on this occasion that the Humber was made the division of the two provinces.—Godwin de Proesulibus.

APP134 “Of divers such contentions,” etc.]—The following quarrel is related by a contemporary writer, supposed to be Waltram, bishop of Naumburg, in the “De Conservanda Unitate Ecclesiae,” lib. it. cap. 13. (See the note on p. 155.)

APP135 “Notwithstanding,” etc.]—The reader will find extracts from the letters presently named in Eadmer’s “Historia Novorum” (edit.

Selden), p. 127.

APP136 “For the order of sitting,” etc.]— As the order of precedence among the English prelates here laid down has obtained ever since, the reader may feel interested to see the original canon, together with the preamble which introduces it, as given by Wilkins, Cone. tom. 1: p. 363. “Et quia multis retro annis in Anglico regno usus conciliorum obsoleverat, renovata sunt nonnulla, quae antiquis etiam canonibus noscuntur definita. “Ex concilio igitur Toletano quarto Milevitano atque Bracharensi statutum est, ut singuli secundum ordinationis suae tempora sedeant, praeter eos, qui ex antiqua consuetudine, sive suarum ecclesiarum privilegiis, digniores sedes habent: de qua re interrogati sunt senes et aetate provecti, quid vel ipsi vidissent, vel a majoribus atque antiquioribus veraciter ac probabiliter accepissent [See the remarks on recordatio et recognitio in the note on p. 216;] super quo responso petitae sunt induciae, ac concessae, usque in crastinum. Crastina autem die concorditer, perhibuere, quod Eboracensis archiepiscopus ad dextram Dorobernensis sedere debeat; Lundoniensis episcopus ad sinistram; Wentanus juxta Eboracensem. Si vero Eboracensis desit; Lundoniensis ad dextram, Wentanus ad sinistram.”—Ex vetusto registro Wigorn. eccles. collat, cum MS. Cantuar. eccles. A. 7: 6.

APP137 Foxe renders the word “villae” in the second canon “villages,” both in this place and at page 140; but at p. 113 he renders it “townships.”

APP138 Godwin (“De Praesulibus”) states that Lanfranc only ornamented the cathedral with new buildings, but “palatium archiepiseopale quod eat Cantuariae fere totum construxit.” Foxe repeats his statement at page 718.

APP139 “As Marcellus,” etc.]—See vol. 1: pp. 21-25.

APP140 Foxe, in this and the next three pages, seems to have had before him Illyricus’s “Cat. Test.” cols. 1304, 1305 (Edit. Genevae, 1608).

APP141 “And this election,” etc.]— This and the next two sentences are considerably improved from Aventine, whom Foxe is here translating, though probably he was immediately citing Illyricus. (See Aventine, “Annaliure Boiorum,” lib. 7: Ed. Cisner, fol. Bas. 1580, p. 446, and Franco-furti 1627, p. 345.)

APP142 “Dominion of the West.”— So Aventine. Foxe says, “both of the East and West church.”

APP143 Also bishops, etc.]—Hence to the bottom of the page will be found in Aventine (ut antea), p. 448; whence the proper names have been a little amplified.

APP144 This and the next page are taken by Foxe (or rather Illyricus, col. 1335) from Lambert’s “Historia Germanorum,” sub annis 1074, 1075.

This Lambert was born at Aschaffenburgh near Mentz, and became a monk March 5th, A.D. 1058, in the abbey of Hirsfeld. The same year he was ordained priest, and set off to Jerusalem, and afterwards returned to Hirsfeld. He wrote a history, “ab orbe condito ad annum usque 1077: qua res gestas ante annum 1050 ordine chronologico, eoque brevissimo, percurrit; deinceps vero res Germanicas ad annum 1077 fusissime enarrat.” (Cave Hist. Litt.) He is a much esteemed author, and has been several times printed.

APP145 As several corrections have been made in Foxe’s text hereabout, the reader is presented with the original: — “Ad ultimum congregata synodo in Erfordia mense Octobri, A.D. 1074, pressius jam imminebat, ut, relegata omni tergiversatione, in praesentiarum aut conjugium abjurarent, aut sacri altaris ministerio se abdicarent. Multas e contra illi rationes asserebant, quibus instantis perurgentisque improbitatem eludere sententiamque cassare niterentur.

Cumque adversus Apostolicae sedis authoritatem, qua se ille ad hanc exactionem procter voluntatem propriam comobtendebat, nihil argumenta, nihil supplicationes precesque proficerent; egressi tanquam ad consultandum, consilium ineunt ut in synodum non redeant, sed injussi omnes in domos suas discedant. Nonnulli etiam confusis vocibus clamitabant, melius sibi videri, ut in synodum regressi ipsum episcopum, priusquam execrabilem adversum eos sententiam promulgaret, cathedra episcopali deturbarent, et merita morte multato insigne monumentum ad posteros transmitterent, ne quis deinceps successorum ejus talem sacerdotali nomini calumniam struere tentaret.

Cum ad episcopum relatum esset hoc eos machinari, commonitus a suis ut tumultum qui oriebatur matura moderatione praeverteret, misit ad eos foras, rogavitque, ut sedato pectore in synodum regrederentur; se, cum primum opportunitas arrisisset, Romam missurum, et dominum Apostolicum, si qua posset ratione, ab hac sententiae austeritate deducturum. Postero die, admissis in auditorium communiter laicis et clericis...subito efferata mente se foras proripiunt Ita soluta est synodus.”

Under the next year Lambert adds: “Synodum tamen eodem anno, A.D. 1075, mense Octobri, Moguntiae congregavit [Sigifridus archiep. Moguntinus], ubi inter alios episcopos qui convenerant aderat Curiensis episcopus, Apostolicae sedis literas et mandata deferens, quibus ei sub interminatione gradus et ordinis sui praecipiebat, sicut antea quoque multis legationibus praeceperat, ut presbyteros omnes, qui intra suam dioecesim essent, cogeret, aut in praesentiarum conjugibus renunciare, aut se in perpetuum sacri altaris ministerio abdicare. Quod dum facere vellet, exurgentes qui undique assidebant clerici ita eum verbis confutabant, ita manibus et totius corporis gestu in eum debacchabantur, ut se vita comite synodo excessurum desperaret. Sic tandem rei difficultate superatus statuit, sibi deinceps tali quaestione omnino supersedendum, et Romano pontifici relinquendum ut causam, quam ipse toties inutiliter proposuisset, ille per semetipsum, quando et quo-modo velit, peroraret.”—Lambertus Schafnaburgensis De Rebus Germanicis, printed in the collection of Pistorius, tom. i.p. 391, edit. Ratisbonae, 1726.

APP145A Bishop Hall in his “Honour of the married Clergy,” book 3, Section 8, observes, that Aventine declares “Hildebrand” to mean “titio amoris,” or the brand of love; but that Chemnitius named him “Titio infernalis,” or “Hell-brand.”

APP146 It is of consequence to observe, that the substance of the foregoing account from Lambert will be found also in the “German Chronicle of Huldricus Mutius,” lib. 15: (tom. 2: p. 119, of Pistorius’s collection of Germanici Scriptores”); for Foxe (or rather Illyricus) afterwards refers to this contest at Mentz as recorded by Mutius, not Lambert. (See page 133, note (1).) Mutius says of this Council of Mentz, that it was attended not only by the clergy of the diocese of Mentz, but by—“alii ecclesiastici praelati, inter quos erat Curiensis episcopus, qui linguae facundia vir potens erat: veniebant autem ut caverent schisma ecclesiae, quod providebant futurum ex sacerdotum Moguntinae ecclesiae contentione cum Romano pontifice. Aderat etiam apostolicus ex Roma legatus cum bullis pontificiis, quae continebant horrendas minas,” etc. Lambert above represents the bishop of Coire himself as the pope’s legate at the council.

APP147 “John, the master of the singing school.”— “Primicerius scholae cantorum” is Benno’s expression. Ducange observes that this officer is sometimes improperly confounded with the “Proecentor.” This officer is again mentioned at page 125.

APP148 Foxe’s text has, “And it followeth, moreover, in the Epistle of the said Benno to the cardinals.” But the passage just before cited is in fact the conclusion of the epistle. This and the ensuing epistle are Gratius, and in Illyricus’s “Catalogus Testium;” whence Foxe’s translations have been revised and corrected.

APP149 “Propter ecclesiasticum testimonium et propter stilum veritatis,” are Benno’s words. No constitution exactly of the nature described has been discovered; but the reader may refer for more information to the note in the Appendix on vol. 1: p. 193.

APP-150 See the excommunications at pp. 127, 131.

APP151 Lambert says that Henry went “nudis pedibus et laneis ad carnem indutus: ” Benno himself says here “laneis vestibus,” which Foxe probably mistook for “line is vestibus,” for he says “thin garments.”

The penance thus enjoined on Henry by Hildebrand is the same as that which in old English is termed “to go woolward.” See this expression infra, vol. 5: p. 654 (his). Nares, in his Glossary, 5: Woolward, quotes this Latin definition of it, “Nudis pedibus et absque lintels vestibus circumire.” This penance was enjoined on our Henry II. by pope Alexander III. after the murder of Becket, and on the murderers themselves: see the notes on pp. 253, 254.

APP-152 “Pedissequus ejus Turbanus.”—Benno.

APP-153 “Herman, bishop of Bamberg.”—Nauclerus in his history of these transactions calls Herman bishop of Bremen, and afterward speaks of Robert, bishop of Bamberg. But Foxe is supported by the contemporary writer “De unitate Ecclesiae conservanda. (See the note on p. 155.)

APP154 Nauclerus says that some both of the Saxon and German bishops resisted the decree in the council, especially those of Wurtzburg and Mentz.

APP155 For “accuseth,” which is the reading in all the editions, we should read “accurseth.”

APP156 This use of the term “commencement” is retained in the phrase— “the Cambridge commencement.”

APP157 Lambert says that the “Teutonici principes,” who met at Oppenheim, September 15th, A,D. 1076, resolved to request the pope to meet them and Henry at “Augusta,” on the feast of the Purification [February 2d next ensuing], and that the pope set out thither. Some authors, and among them Platina, interpret “Augusta” of Augsburg in Germany; whom Foxe here follows. Nauclerus, however, calls it “Augusta Praetoria,” venire statuens, venit cum cardinalibus Vercellas.

See L’Art de Verifier des Dates , where this sense of “Augusta” is adopted. See also the note on p. 144.

APP158 “Adelaide, countess of Savoy.”—Foxe reads “Adelaus, earl of Savoy,” for which he has the authority of Platina and Nauclerus. It appears, however, from the list of Earls of Savoy in L’Art de Verifier des Dates, that there never was a count or earl of Savoy of that name; but Amedeus I., count of Savoy, appears to have died about A.D. 1072, leaving behind him a widow, Adelaide, who would be dowager countess of Savoy; she afterwards married a second time to Rodolph the Anti-Caesar. It is most probable, therefore, that for “Adelaus” we should here read “Adelais: ” indeed, the following passage from Aventine, relative to this matter, puts it beyond a doubt: — “Gregorius adhibita Machtylda, et Adelhaide, primariis Italiae foeminis, Caesarem epulo pontificio veluti pignoribus, redintegratae, amicitiae excipit” Lambert mentions, as the parties concerned, “Matildam, socrumque suam, et marchionem Azonem, et Cluniacensem Abbatem.”

APP159 “Altman, bishop of Passau.”—Foxe reads “Altiman bishop of Padua.” This mistake might easily be made, as “Pataviensis” would stand for either see. Moreri has made the same mistake. It appears, however, from the lists of bishops of the two sees giver in the “Bibliotheque Sacree” of Richard and Giraud (Paris, 1824), that S.

Altman was bishop of Passau, A.D. 1069—1091, and that there never was a bishop of that name at Padua.

APP160 “This being done,” etc.]—This account is supported by Aventine; but others represent the crown as being sent on occasion of the second excommunication; see bottom of the next page.

APP161 —Aventine dates this second battle “7 Id. Augusti, 3 die septimanae, 1078;” i.e. Tuesday, August 7th, A.D. 1078, which would be correct by Nicolas’s Tables; the abbot of Ursperg says it was fought at Stronui.

APP162 The passage in the text between square brackets is introduced on the authority of the best historians, and is necessary to make Foxe consistent with himself; for, having mentioned the first and second battles between Henry and Rodolph in this page, the next which he mentions is the decisive engagement at Merseburg (p. 133) which issued in the death of Rodolph, and which Foxe in the margin calls “the fourth battle.” He has Aventine’s authority for this: —“Quarto Idus Octobris ducum copiae in Mysnia juxta Ellestram amnem aperto marte quarto con confligunt. Aventine, however, mentions a third battle, as well as Platina. A contemporary writer, supposed to be Waltram, bishop of Naumburg (see the note on page 155), in the “De conservanda Ecclesiae unitate,” lib. 2: cap. 16 (Freheri “Germ. Script.”

Argent. 1717, tom. 2: p. 284), thus briefly enumerates the four principal battles: 1. In Thuringia, 5 Id. Jun. 1075. 2. In Orientali Francia, 7 August, 1078. 3. In Thuringia, 6 Id. Feb. 1080. 4. 4 Id. Aug. 1080. This account is followed by the Benedictine authors of L’Art de Verifier des Dates .

APP163 “The emperor on his part,” etc.]—Foxe most unaccountably makes this council of Brixen to follow the battle of Merseburg; whereas the date of the Sentence, and the date of the battle in Aventine and all the other historians, show that it must be otherwise (see the last note): a portion of the text, therefore, which precedes this paragraph in Foxe, has been transposed to the next page: see the next note.

APP164 “After and upon this” etc,—The whole passage, from. these words to “could find no favor with him,” (line 34)—would, according to Foxe’s arrangement, stand at p. 132, after the paragraph ending “with full authority.” The reason for this transposition has been already given in the last note.

APP165 Aventine says this battle was fought on the banks of the Elster, near Merseburg, which is near Leipsic. Foxe says “at Hyperbolis,” meaning Herbipolis, or Wurtzburg, near which the first of the four battles was fought, but not the fourth.

APP166 Foxe says that Henry “besieged the city all Lent, and after Easter got it.” This is too elliptical a mode of speaking: Aventine and Urspergensis say, that Henry sat down before Rome “Vigilia Pentecostes, 1081, and after two years (biennium) soon after Easter A.D. 1083 took it, Friday June 2d, just before Trinity Sunday; which concurrents fit, by Nicolas’s Tables. A change has, therefore, been made in the text; which also makes it fit better chronologically with what follows.

APP167 This remark of Foxe’s (or rather Illyricus’s) stood as a parenthesis in the body of the Sentence, but is better placed at the foot of the page. For explanation of the remark itself, see the note in this Appendix on page 120, note (3).

APP168 “To Sienna.”—Foxe says “Senas,” leaving it untranslated. See the note in this Appendix on p. 98.

APP169 “Carried him away to Campagna.”—Urspergensis says he retired to Salerno, and there remained till his death, May 25th, A.D. 1085.

APP170 “Or not long after.”— About two years and five months intervened; Hildebrand died May 25th, an 1085, William, September 9th, A.D. 1087.—L’Art de Ver. des Dates.

APP171 Mantes is a town in the Isle of France, twelve miles from the Norman boundary. Foxe, misled by Fabian, says “Meaux.”

APP172 Foxe here makes the extraordinary statement that William built a monastery “named Barmoundsey, in his country of Normandy.” He evidently had before him the following passage of Fabian’s Chronicle, cap. 222. “He builded twoo abbaies in Englande, one at Battaile, in Sussex, where he wanne the fielde against Harold, and is at this daye called the Abbay of Battaile; and an other he set beside London, upon the south side of Thamis, and named it Barmondesay; and in Normandie he builded also.” Grafton copies this, only varying the last clause thus:—“And he builded also one in Cane, in Normandie, where he was buried, and dedicated the same unto Saint Steven.” It is a mistake, however, to represent the king as the founder of Bermondsey; for it originated in an endowment by Aylwin Child, about A.D. 1082; William Rufus afterwards aided it by adding to it the manor of Bermondsey and other revenues.—Tanner’s Notitia Monastica.

Hollinshed correctly mentions Selby in Yorkshire, as the other English abbey founded by the Conqueror, about A.D. 1069.—Tanner.

APP173 “Eulogium.”—See the note on page 317, note (1.)

APP174 Foxe erroneously calls Bruno “bishop of Cologne,” confounding him with another Bruno, who was a bishop: see page 96 from the bottom.

APP175 The true Clement III., acknowledged as such by the Romish Church, was not made pope till A.D. 1187, nearly a century later: see pp. 273, 294.

APP176 Foxe has derived the whole of the paragraph in the text from Fabian, who miscalls Rievale ‘Merivale.’ Tanner in his Notitia Monastica says, that Walter Espec founded the first Cistercian abbey in England at River (near Helmsley, in Yorkshire), olim Rievall, or Rivaulx, quasi the valley through which the Rie flows. (See Gentleman’s Magazine for 1754, p. 426) It is called the abbey of Rivaulx infra, vol. 5: p. 148.

APP177 Adhemar, bishop of Le Puy, was the chief leader of this crusade: he acted as the representative of pope Urban, who excused his personal service. (Fleury, Eccl. Hist.) Moreri says that it is not correct, though common, to call Bohemund duke of Apulia; for though his father, Robert Guiscard, was duke of Apulia, the son was only prince of Tarentum. Fabian, and after him Foxe, uses the term “Puell;” “Pouille is the French for “Apulia.” Raymund was earl of Toulouse: his original title was that here given, which is corrupted by Anna Comnena into Sangeles.—Moreri.

APP178 For “Liege” Foxe has (from Fabian) “Eburone,” “Eburonum Urbs” being a name for Liege. Godfrey—son of Eustace II. count of Boulogne, and Ida countess of Bouillon—with his mother’s consent sold his estate of Bouillon to Otbert, bishop of Liege, for, some say 7000 marks of silver, others say only 1300 or 1500.—L’ Art de Verif. des Dates, and Gallia Christiana.

APP179 “Civita.”—“Cybolus,” which our writers call Civiol, was a village near Nice, in Bithynia. (See Nalson’s Crusades, book i.p. 22.)

APP180 Phirouz, called Pyrrhus by Foxe after the Latin writers, was a Christian at Antioch of noble birth, who had turned Turk.

APP181 Kerboga, called by M. Paris Corboran, was prince of Mosul on the Tigris, and commander-in-chief to the Persian monarch.

APP182 The words, “stand sponsors in baptism to the same child,” are introduced instead of Foxe’s “christen one child.” The following is the decree of Urban II on the authority of which this change has been made; it is the last but one of those cited in note (4):—Causa 30: quaest. 4, cap. 6. “Quod autem uxor cum marito in baptismate simul non debeat suscipere puerum, nulla auctoritate reperitur prohibitum.

Sed ut puritas spiritualis paternitatis ab omni labe et infamia conservetur immunis, dignum esse decernimus ut utrique insimul ad hoc aspirare minime praesumant.”

APP183 “This Anselm was an Italian, born in the city of Aosta,”— The place of Anselm’s nativity is called by Foxe “Augusta,” which means Aoust or Aosta, in Piedmont. (See the note on page 127, note (4).)

Foxe’s subsequent account of Anselm is derived from Malmesbury and Eadmer: the latter was the secretary of Anselm, and companion of his exile. The title of Eadmer’s work is:—“Eadmeri Monachi Cantuariensis Historito Novorum sive sui saeculi Libri 6: Res gestas (quibus ipse non modo spectator diligens sed comes etiam et actor plerumque interfuit) sub Gulielmo I. and II. et Henrico I. Regibus, ab anno nempe salutis 1066 ad 1122, potissimum complexi. Edidit Seldenus, Lond. 1623.”

APP184 Milner, in his Church History, thus defends Anselm’s saying in the text: “Eadmer says, that he used to say, ‘If he saw hell open, and sin before him, he would leap into the former to avoid the latter.’ I am sorry to see this sentiment, which, stripped of figure, means no more than what all good men allow, that he feared sin more than punishment, aspersed by so good a divine as Foxe the martyrologist. But Anselm was a papist, and the best protestants have not been without their prejudices.”

APP185 Malmesbury’s words are:—” Peculiaritatis vitium cum in se voluntate, tum in allis praedicatione, extirpabat; id esse solum dictitans, quod Diabolum e coelo hominem e paradiso eliminaverat, quod ipsi, Dei transfugae praecepti, voluntati indulsissent propriae. Itaque proprio mentis arbitrio indulgentiam auferens,” etc.

APP186 “It was to be referred,” etc.]—“Differendum id ad frequentiorem conventum respondit.”—Malmesb. The council to which it was referred was that of Rockingham, held Sunday 5 Id. Mart. i.e. 11th of March, A.D. 109.5. (L’Art de Ver.)

APP187 The king returned home June 10th, A.D. 1095.—Simeon Dunelm.: Flor. Wigorn., and Malmesb.

APP188 “Quod dicis me non debere ire Romam, quod gravi peccato caream et scientia affluam,” etc.]—Malmesbury. Also at the end of the same document—“Deus forsitan procurabit ut non sic res ecclesiasticae, ut minaris, tuis famulentur compendiis.”—Malmesbury.

APP189 “There was not!”—“Papae,” is Malmesbury’s word.

APP190 Anselm left London “feria quinta, Id. Oct.” i.e Thursday, October 15th, A.D. 1097, and arrived at Clugny three days before Christmas.— Eadmer, pp. 41, 42.

APP191 “William Warlwast.”—“ Electus Exoniensis.”—Malinesbury.

APP192 “From thence came,” etc.]—Eadmer says that Anselm left Lyons “feria tertia ante Dominicam diem Palmarum,” i.e. Tuesday before Palm Sunday (March 16th, A.D. 1098, by Nicolas’s Tables).

APP193 For the proceedings of the council of Bari, see Labbe, Concil. tom. x col. 611.

APP194 “Alleging for them the fifth canon.”— The 5th of the Apostolic Canons is perhaps alluded to; it stands thus in Labbe Cone. Genesis tom. 1: col. 25:— jEpi>skopov h\ presbu>terov h\ dia>konov thtw profa>sei th~v eujlabei>av. JEallh|, ajforize>sqw? ejpime>nwn de<, kaqairei>sqw.

Episcopus, vel presbyter, vel diaconus, uxorem suam ne ejiciat religionis praetextu: sin autem ejecerit, segregetur; et si perseveret, deponatur.

APP195 Foxe here and in the next page calls Waltram “bishop of Nurenburg.” Dodechinus calls him “Episcopus Numbergensis;” Baronius “Hurrenburgensis,” to which he puts a marginal conjecture “Nurenburgensis,” which conjecture Dodechinus himself adopts elsewhere. (See the note on page 155.)

APP196 “Revested.”— “Revestio” is Malmesbury’s word. The following interview between the pope and the king’s messenger took place at Christmas, A.D. 1098.—Eadmer, p. 52, Malmesbury .

APP197 “The next council,” etc.]—This was held April 25th, A.D. (L’Art de Ver. des Dates), which was Monday in the third week after Easter that year. (See Nicolas’s Tables.) Urban died July 29th following.

APP198 “Waltram, bishop of the church of Naumburg.”— From the Chronicon Citizense of Paulus Langius it appears, that Waltram was bishop of this see for twenty-one years, having been appointed A.D. 1089. Naumburg is a city of Thuringia, in Upper Saxony, whither the episcopal see was removed from Zeitz, A.D. 1026 (Fabricii Lux. Ev.

Exoriens); hence the bishop is intituled Citizensis, or Naumburgensis.

Waltram has been variously intituled by dillbrent authors, Megburgensis, Nurenburgensis, Magdeburgensis, Hurrenburgensis.

Foxe here (following Dodechinus’s Appendix to Marianus Scotus) calls him bishop of Megburgh; but at pp. 151, 152, bishop of Nurenburgh. See the observations of Struvius on his true title in the first volume of his Collection of German Historians. There is a treatise extant “De Unitate Ecclesiae conservanda” (printed in vol. 2: of “Freheri Script. Germ.” with a preface), which is generally ascribed to this Waltram; it was certainly written by some contemporary, and with the same object as this letter to Louis, viz. to recal the Germans to a sense of their duty to the emperor; and it throws much light on the emperor’s history. Foxe’s translation of Waltram’s Letter to Louis has been collated with the Latin in Dodechinus and Freherus, and corrected.

APP199 “Rodolph, Hildebrand, Egbert.”—See pp. 133, 134. Egbert was son of a Saxon marquis, who was patruelis to Henry, the present emperor; the father contrived, with other nobles, to get young Henry when only six years old, Christmas A.D. 1056, under his tutorship.

The son was very uncertain in his allegiance. (“De Unitate conserv.” lib. 2: cap. 33.) He was defeated at a battle in Thuringia, Sunday, Christmas eve, A.D. 1088, and died soon after by being crushed in a mill A.D. 1090. (Ibid. cap. 33 - 36.) Freheri “Rerum Germanicarum Scriptores,” tom. 2: p. 304—309.

APP200 “The railing answer of Earl Louis,” etc.]—Louis, surnamed Debonnaire, was landgrave of Thuringia from A.D. 1168 to A.D. or 1197. (L’Art de Ver. des Dates.) Dodechinus states, that the following reply to Waltram’s letter was written at the prince’s desire by Stephen Herrand, bishop of Halberstadt, in Saxony. Foxe’s translation has been revised from the Latin in Dodechinus and Freherus.

APP201 The passage in the text cited from St. Augustine is in his “Sermo 72, in Matthew viii.” ( Opera Ed. Bened. tom. 5: col. 362.) It is quoted more at length by the archbishop of Sens at page 620.

APP202 Foxe reads “Babemberge” from the original. “Babenberga” is a common variation of “Bamberga.” APP203 Grafton calls this Welsh king “Rees.” APP204 “Began his reign” August 5th, on which day he was crowned by Maurice, bishop of London, assisted by Roger, archbishop of York.

Becket, however, says “by the bishop of Hereford, as Anselm’s deputy. “Post cujus [Rufi obitum, cum Sanctus] Anselmus Canturiensis Archi-Episcopus exularet ex eadem causa qua et nos, unus suffraganeorum Canturiensis Ecclesiae S. Girardus Herefordensis, vice Archi-Episcopi sui tunc absentis, Regem Henricum non contradicente Archi-Episcopo Eboracensi consecravit. Revertente autem ab exilio Beato Anselmo, accessit ad eum Rex Henricus, tradens ei Diadema, et rogans ut eum coronaret, nec imputaret illi quod ipsum necessitate Regni praepediente non exspectaverat. Fatebatur enim coram omnibus hanc esse Canturiensis Ecclesiae dignitatem, ut Anglorum Reges inungat et consecret. Et hac quidem satisfactione placatus sanctus Archi-Episcopus approbavit, quod a suffraganeo suo factum fuerat, et Regi Coronam imposuit.”—Epistoloe D. Thomoe, lib. 5: 45. (See the note on p. 110.)

APP205 “By the consent of Anselm.”— Given at the council of Lambeth, where Maud proved that she had not properly entered a religious life.

The marriage and coronation were both performed by Anselm on Sunday, St. Martin’s day (Nov. 11th), A.D. 1100.

APP206 Robert landed about the end of July, an. 1101, at Portsmouth, and left again about Michaelmas. Henry afterwards defeated him at Tenerchebray, September 28th, A. D. 1106, and taking him prisoner, confined him twenty-eight years in Cardiff Castle, till his death in the year A.D. 1134.

APP207 “Divers strict laws,” etc.]—Some of these were Anselm’s synodical constitutions. In fact, this seems only a summary of the chief acts of the parliament and convocation mentioned in the next paragraph, and which were held simultaneously at Westminster, A. D. 1102.

APP208 “In the story of William Rufus,” etc.]—This paragraph and the next two are an anticipation of the subsequent history, and tend rather to perplex the reader. Anselm landed at Dover, September 23d, A.D. 1100 (Eadmer, p. 55); but the council and convocation presently spoken of were not held till Michaelmas, A.D. 1102. It was at the said council that the ambassadors reported their contradictory answers from Rome, as related at p. 164; and it was at the said convocation that the canons given at pp. 167, 168 were passed.

APP209 “And so returned again,” etc.]—Anselm landed at Dover 9 Cal.

Oct. (Sep. 23d.) A.D. 1100. (Eadmer, p. 55.) The parliament and convocation, however, next mentioned, did not meet till September 28th, A. D. 1102.

APP210 “About the end of the second year of this king, which was by computation A. D. 1102, a variance happened between king Henry and Anselm, the occasion whereof was this.— Foxe’s account of the variance between Anselm and Henry I. is not very Clearly arranged. It would have commenced better at the next paragraph—“the king required of Anselm to do him homage,” etc.; which took place immediately on Anselm’s return from his first exile, September 23d, A.D. 1100. The ambassadors sent to Rome for the pope’s opinion on the subject (as related at the conclusion of the paragraph, p. 162) went about the end of A.D. 1100, and returned Aug. A.D. 1101. (Eadmer.) A second embassy to Rome then ensued (pp. 162, 163), which made its report about Michaelmas A.D. 1102 at the council of Westminster (as stated at p. 160). The contradictory nature of the answers only perplexed the matter more (as told at p. 164). The king, standing upon the answer brought by “the three bishops,” then proceeded forthwith to invest, and archbishop Gerard to consecrate, the bishops of Salisbury and Hereford (as mentioned pp. 160, 161); upon which Anselm held his convocation, at which he deprived several dignitaries who had taken their investiture from the king (p. 160), and also passed the constitutions afterward given at pp. 167, 168. The issue was, that Anselm left England again for his second exile April 29th A.D. (p. 164), and reached Rome the following September. (Eadmer, pp. 70, 72, Malmesbury.) The above statement will tend to clear up Foxe’s account, and to prevent the reader from being misled by it, as he otherwise might be. Foxe opens this paragraph by saying—“About the end of the third year of this king, which was by computation A.D. 1104:” but the third year of Henry I, ranged from August 5th, A.D. 1102 to August 4th, A.D. 1103; and the foregoing remarks rather show that the rupture took place at the council of Westminster, September, 1102, i.e. about the end of the second year, or the beginning of the third.

APP211 “In his council of Rome a little before.”— This refers to the council held at Rome April 25th, A. D. 1099, and mentioned at page 153 (Eadmer’s “Historia Novarum,” p. 53). Eadmer gives the words of the decree passed at that council (which are presently cited by Anselm) at 1059 of his “Historia Novarum.”

APP212 These messengers were despatched toward the close of A.D. 1100, and returned about August the following year.—Eadmer.

APP213 “Two monks, Baldwin of Bec, and Alexander of Canterbury.”— Foxe merely says “two monks, Baldwin and Alexander;” the rest is added on the authority of Eadmer, 1062; Baldwin is afterwards miscalled by Foxe “Abbot of Ramsey.” (See the notes on 10. 164, and p. 166.)

APP214 “Sent two bishops.”—Eadmer (p. 62) and Malmesbury both say “tres,” including Gerard, archbishop of York. Foxe himself afterwards says “three.” (See the note on p. 164.) It would seem, however, from the tenor of the king’s letter in p. 163, that Foxe is strictly correct in not reckoning Gerard as one of the original ambassadors, though he was competent to be afterwards a third witness of what had really taken place at the Papal court. (See p. 164.)

APP215 “This your promotion.”— Pascal II. was elected August13th, A.D. 1099. (L’Art. de Ver.)

APP216 The messengers returned with contradictory answers a little before Michaelmas, A.D. 1102; and what follows happened at the Parliament of Westminster, mentioned before at 10’ 160.—Eadmer, p. 65.

APP217 “Which, mine author saith, the king did not shew.”—This author is Malmesbury; Eadmer does not mention the point, though it may be inferred from his narrative.

APP218 “The testimony of the three bishops.”—Foxe here says “the two bishops,” of course referring to the bishops of Lichfield and Norwich, mentioned at p. 162; but 12 lines lower he says “the three bishops,” and in a marginal note explains that he meant to include Gerard, archbishop of York; but he ought also to have been included in this place; “two,” therefore, has been changed into “three.”

APP219 “Baldwin, the Monk of Bee.”— See the note on p. 162 from the bottom. Foxe miscalls him “Abbot of Ramsey;” but the abbot of Ramsey was one Baldwin, not Baldwin, and, so far from being a friend of Anselm’s, was one of those deprived by him at the convocation of Westminster, A. D. 1102, though restored at the council of Westminster, A.D. 1107.—Eadmer, pp. 67, 92.

APP220 “Then Anselm seeing,” etc.]—The circumstance which convinced him of the king’s determination to persist was, his investing the two bishops, as mentioned at pp. 160, 161 (see Eadmer, “Hist. Nov.” P10 65, 66).

APP221 “Then was it agreed,” etc.]—This was about Midlent A.D. 1103, according to Eadmer (p. 69).

APP222 Anselm left England April 29th, A.D. 1103, quitted the abbey of Bee in August, and reached Rome about September.—Eadmer, pp. 70- APP223 “Overtaketh Anselm at Placentia.”—Eadmer says that this happened toward the end of November, A.D. 1103.—Eadmer, p. 74.

APP224 Anselm remained a year and four months at Lyons, and left it in May A.D. 1105, to visit Adela.—Eadmer, 10. 79.

APP225 last paragraph.—This letter of Anselm to Henry is given by Eadmer, p. 75.

APP226 This “reconcilement” took place at L’Aigle, in Normandy, July 22d, A.D. 1105.—Eadmer, p. 80.

APP227 “Then were ambassadors,” etc.]— Henry did not send these ambassadors to Rome till the Christmas following, being in no hurry, till he had gained more ground against his brother in Normandy.— Eadmer, p. 82.

APP228 “Baldwin, above named, the Monk of Bec.”— Foxe here again miscalls him “Abbot of Ramsey;” see the note on p. 164. Eadmer, p. 83, calls him “Baldwinus Monachus.” It is observable that the king, in a letter given by Eadmer, p. 82, calls him “Baldwinus de Tornaio.”

APP229 “The late council holden at London.”— i.e. the council at London mentioned at p. 160, and of which the acts are given at pp. 167, 168.

APP230 “The messengers being now returned from Rome.”— The pope’s letters, dictating the terms of compromise, are dated March 23d, A.D. 1106.—Eadmer, p. 87.

APP231 last paragraph. “Not long after,” etc.The pope (as the result of this last embassy) sent a brief to Anselm at Bec, dated March 22d A.D. 1106, permitting him to communicate with those whom the king had invested. Illness prevented Anselm from going at once to England, and after that he thought proper to wait for Henry’s coming over to Normandy. Henry defeated Robert at Tenerchebray, a castle of William, count of Mortaigh, Sept. 28th A.D. 1106.

APP232 “At the abbey of Bee, he convented and agreed.”— This reconciliation took place “xi. Cal. Aug., the third year of his exile;” i.e.

July 30th, A.D. 1106.—Eadmer, p. 89.

APP233 Anselm landed at Dover, August, A.D. 1106.—Eadmer, p. 89.

APP234 “In the seventh year of his reign,” etc.]— Foxe says, “about the sixth year;” but, owing to the king’s absence in Normandy completing his conquest, the council referred to by Foxe did not meet till August 1st, A.D. 1107, the very end of the seventh year of the reign.— Eadmer, p. 91.

APP235 “In another council.”—Foxe says “In this council,” which is a mistake. The canons affecting the clergy were adopted at the council held at Westminster the following Pentecost, May 24th, A.D. 1108. (Eadmer, p. 95.) Foxe repeats the error at p. 169, where it is again corrected. The decrees of this latter council are given at p. 169.

APP236 Malmesbury says, “Se nihil de his ecclesiis accep-turum, quamdiu pastore carerent, promisit;” for which Foxe gives, “That he should require nothing of the said churches, or provinces, in the time of the seat being vacant.”

APP237 The following canons are those of the council of Westminster, A.D. 1102, and are given in Eadmer, pp. 67, 68; see the note on p. 161.

APP238 “That abbots should make no knights.”— “It was the ancient custom of abbots in those days to make knights, as you may find from the example of Abbot Brand’s knighting his nephew Hereward, in the reign of King William I., the form of which I have there, also, set down; and yet this is certain, that, notwithstanding this canon, King Henry I., some years after, granted, and King John confirmed, to the abbot of Reading, the power of making knights, with some cautions for their behavior therein.”—Tyrrell’s Hist of England, vol. 2: p. 126.

APP239 “That such persons as did wear long hair,” etc.]— “This the Church then thought it had cognizance of, as being contrary to the dictates of St. Paul. (1 Corinthians 2:14.) This fashion, having very much prevailed in the last king’s reign, was come to that height, that the same author (Eadmer) tells us the young gentlemen of the court used to wear their hair very long, and daily combed out like women; which archbishop Anselm not enduring, when several of those gallants came on Ash-Wednesday to hear his mass, he refused to sprinkle ashes on them, or to give them absolution, unless they would cut off their hair; whereupon a good many of them did. But it seems this fashion could not be suddenly rooted out, and therefore this decree was now made against it, and yet all to little purpose (as you will see anon), till the king himself reformed it by his own example.”—Tyrrell’s Hist. of England, vol. 2: p. 127.

Lord Lyttelton gives another view of the subject:—” The extraordinary fervor of zeal expressed by Anselm, and other churchmen of that age, against this fashion, seems ridiculous; but we find, from the words of Ordericus Vitalis (lib. 8: p. 862, sub an. 1089), that they combined it with the idea of an affected effeminacy, and supposed it to indicate a disposition to an unnatural vice which was very prevalent in those times: The good prelate, whose piety was so much scandalized by it, would have done well to consider how much more the celibacy to which he forced the clergy, and the number of monasteries in this kingdom, might contribute to increase that abominable wickedness than any mode of dress.”—Lord Lyttelton’s Henry II. vol. 2: p. 336.

APP240 Our author has, in his translation, given the spirit, though not the letter, of the original canon, which ordains that “Presbyters do not go to drinking bouts, nor drink to pins.” Foxe informs us at p. 59, that king Edgar, in order to cheek the drunkenness introduced among the English by the Danes, directed that none should drink below a certain pro, or peg, to be fixed inside the cups. This regulation soon gave rise to a new abuse, which will be best explained in the words of a distinguished antiquarian: “The peg-tankards, to which the old canons allude, when they say, ‘Ut Presbyteri non eant ad potationes, nec ad pinnas bibant,’ had in the inside a row of eight pins, one above another, from top to bottom. The tankards hold two quarts, so that there is a gill of ale, i.e. half a pint of Winchester measure, between each pin. The first person that drank, was to empty the tankard to the first peg, or pin; the second, to the next pin, etc.; by which means the pins were so many measures to the compotators, making them all drink alike, or the same quantity; and as the distance of the pins was such as to contain a large draught of liquor, the company would be very liable by this method to get drunk; especially when, if they drank short of the pin, or beyond it, they were obliged to drink again.” (Anonymiana, 125, Gent.

Mag. 38: 426.) “A very fine specimen of these peg-tankards, of undoubted Anglo-Saxon work, formerly belonging to the abbey of Glastonbury, is now in the possession of Lord Arundel of Wardour. It holds two quarts, and formerly had eight pegs inside, dividing the liquor into half-pints. On the lid is the Crucifixion, with the Virgin and John, one on each side the cross. Round the cup are carved the twelve Apostles.”—Fosbroke’s Encyclopoedia of Antiquities, vol. 1: p. 258.

London, 1835. See also Hone’s “Year Book.” Dueange in his Glossary, 5: Potus, mentions a canon being passed at a council in France, which forbad “aequales potus,” a canon of the same import with this of Anselm’s.

APP241 “At another council...May 24th, A.D. 1108.”—Foxe says, “here, also, at this present council at Westminster, in the year of this king aforesaid.” For the reason of the alteration, see the note on page 167.

The following translation of the canons is revised from the Latin in Eadmer, p. 95.

APP242 Correct 1108 for 1208.

APP243 “Henry and Christian.”—Henry, surnamed Felix, was appointed archbishop of Mentz, A.D. 1142, and deposed at Pentecost A.D. 1153. (L’Art de Ver. des Dates.) Having become obnoxious to the clergy by his attempts to reform them, he was complained of to the pope and deposed. Such is the account given of him by Conrad, in his “Chronicon Moguntiacum;” but Otho Frisingensis considers him to have been a troublesome man, and justly deposed.—Foxe gives no account of Christian, whose history is also recorded by Conrad, “Chron. Mogunt.,” thus:—“Non stetit diu in episcopatu [he was elected A.D. 1249;] accusatur enim ad papam quod omnino inutilis esset ecclesiae, et quod evocatus ad expeditiones regis invitus veniret.

Hoc autem verum erat, eo quod fierent incendia, sectiones vinearum, devastationes segetum; dicebat etenim, nequaquam decere talia sacerdotem, sed quicquid deberet per gladium Spiritus, quod est Verbum Dei, omnimode se promptum asserebat et voluntarium servitorem. Quumque ejus predecessorum vestigia sequi moneretur, respondit, Scriptum est, Mitte gladium in vaginare. Ob hoc in odium regis et multorum incidit laicorum, qui omnes accusantes eum apud papam obtinuerunt eum ab episcopatu omni submoveri. Cessit ergo A.D. 1251.”

APP244 The foregoing account of Arnold is also taken from Conrad’s “Chron. Moguntiacum,” whence some trifling improvements are made in the text. He was slain on John Baptist’s day, A.D. 1160. The two cardinals above referred to were Bernard, a presbyter, and Gregory, a deacon. Conrad’s apostrophe to the cardinals runs thus in the Latin:— “O cardinales, hujus rei vos estis initium. Venite ergo, venite, haurite nunc, et ferte archi-triclino vestro diabolo, eique offerte cum ea quam deglutistis pecunia etiam vosmetipsos.” Arnold is the same individual as Arnulph mentioned at p. 192.

APP245 Foxe omits “at Florence;” but Sabellicus, Ennead 9: lib. 4, says, the council was held at Florence; and he attributes the bishop’s conduct to the influence of some prodigies in nature—a very large comet, and an inundation of the sea through a very high tide—which occurred about that time.

APP246 “Council at Troyes.”—Foxe reads without translating it “at Trecas.”—See Labbe’s Concilia, tom. 10: col. 754.

APP247 “his declared sufficiently before.”— See pp. 125—134.

APP248 “A general assembly.”— The diet of Mentz was held on Christmas-day, A.D. 1105.—L’Art de Ver. des Dates.

APP249 “Ingelheim,” a town ten miles W.S.W. of Mentz; the diet was held there soon after Christmas. Foxe reads, corruptly, “Hilgeshem.” —L’Art de Ver, des Dates.

APP250 ”There for sorrow died,” August 7th, A.D. 1106.—L’Art de Ver. des Dates.

APP251 “Five years;” so says Godfridus Viterbiensis; but the Hildesheim Chronicle says only “two.”

APP252 “Where he indenteth with him,” etc.]—i.e. at the council of Lateran, Feb. 12th, A.D. 1111. Henry was crowned, April 13th.— L’Art de Ver. des Dates.

APP253 “Calling a Synod,”—i.e. at Lateran, March 18 th -23rd, A.D. 1112.—L’Art de Ver. des Dates.

APP254 “Proemonstratenses.”—This order was founded by St. Norbert, who was of a noble family in Cologne. He gave up his benefices, and commenced preacher A.D, 1118. He was noticed by Barthelemi, bishop of Laon, at the council of Rheims (A.D. 1119), whither he had gone to obtain the confirmation from Calixtus II. of those privileges which he had received from former popes. St. Bernard seconded Barthelemi’s wishes to have him in his diocese, by giving him the valley of Premontre, in the forest of Couci, Picardy, A.D. 1120. The order of Premontres was continued by Honorius II. A.D. 1126. (Moreri’s Dict.) Their place is said to have been shown by the Virgin Mary.

APP255 The council at Rheims met October 19th to the 30th, A.D. 1119.—L’Art de Ver.

APP256 “The same year, A.D. 1114.”— Foxe erroneously says, “The next year following.” See the Table of Archbps. of Canterbury at page 723.

APP257 “A solemn assembly at Salisbury.”— This was held March 20th, A.D. 1116.—L’Art de Ver . des Dates.

APP258 “As ye heard before.”— See the note on page 176.

APP259 Gisburn, in Cleveland (so called to distinguish it from another Gisburn in the West Riding), a priory of Austin Canons, was founded by Robert de Brus, A.D. 1129 (Tanner). “Reading” Abbey was founded for Austin monks by Henry I. A.D. 1121. The charter is given by Dugdale, dated A.D. 1125; also the instrument presenting the hand of St. James. (Dugdale.) Dugdale says that William Fitz-Nigelle founded a priory for Austin monks at Runcorn A.D. 1133 or 1138, which was removed by his son William, constable of Cheshire, to Norton, in Stephen’s reign.

APP260 “The second year of Ms induction.”—Honorius II. was enthroned December 21st, A.D. 1124, (L’Art de Ver. des Dates;) Simeon of, therefore, more correctly dates the ensuing affair. “Honorii II. primo anno.”

APP261 “Assembled the whole clergy together.”— This council was held at Westminster Sept. 8th or 9th, A.D. 1125. See Pagi “Crit. in Baronii Annales,” an. 1125. See an account of this council in Simeon of Durham, and Wilkins’s Concilia, tom. 1: p. 408.

APP262 “The next night after,” etc.]—Baronius is very angry at the charge here made against Crema, and observes, that the historians all follow one leader, Henry of Huntingdon, who was peculiarly averse to the celibacy of the clergy; whence Baronius concludes that Huntingdon is not a credible witness. Hoveden copies Huntingdon, except in placing the affair in the following year. Lastly, M. Westminster adds an excuse of Crema’s, viz. that he was only in deacon’s orders, which must be fictitious; for he was priest-cardinal of St. Chrysogon. Baronius further remarks, that Malmesbury (who makes particular mention of the council) and Wigorniensis (who speaks as though he had been present) do not mention the affair. He further remarks, that Peter Leoni’s (the rival pope) party did all they could by their writings to blacken those cardinals who chose Innocent II. A.D. 1130, the chief of whom was Crema, and yet do not mention this fact. St. Bernard also and others boasted that the cardinals who chose Innocent were the holiest of all the cardinals. Rapin. however, observes that this is all negative proof, and of no force against the positive testimony of the contemporary historian. Henry, also, quite believes it, and attributes to it the failure of the canon.

APP263 “Certain historians,” etc.]—Foxe opens this paragraph thus— “Certain histories make mention of one Arnulphus, in the time of this Pope Honorius II. Some say he was archbishop of Lyons, as Hugo, Platina, Sabellicus, Trithimius,” etc. The sentence of Illyricus, from which this is taken, runs thus:—“Narrant Hugo, Platina, et Sabellicus, Arnulphum quendam archiepiscopum Lugdunensem, qui magna nominis celebritate magnoque mortaliure concursu divinam Legem per Gallias, Italiam, et tandem Romae praedicabat, impie a spiritualibus ob reprehensa eorum scelera, libidines, et errores, necatum esse, tulisseque id Honorium Papam iniquo animo, sed tamen quaestione abstinuisse: quod ipsum subindicat, eum non nimium iniquo animo tulisse. Accidit id duodecimo post Christum seculo. Hugo quidem dicit captum et suspensum, quod sine publica authoritate fieri non potuit. Similis ferme per omnia historia narratur de quodam Illyrico monaoho, quae circiter ante 72 annos Romae acciderit. Vetum adjiciamus sane narrationem Trithemii de hoc Arnulpho, ex ejus Chronico Hirsaugiensi, quandoquidem id nondum opinor editum esse.” (Cat. Test. edit. 1608, col. 1432.) Illyricus here rather assumes that Arnulph was “archbishop of Lyons,” than makes Hugo, Platina, and Sabellicus, positively assert it; and, in point of fact, they virtually assert the contrary. Hugo (as he is cited in the Magd. Cent. col. 1710) only calls him a presbyter.

Platina calls him merely, “Christianae religionis concionator insignis,” and says, “Fueritne sanctus vir presbyter, an monachus, an eremita, haud satis constat: ” Sabellicus (Ennead. lib. 4: fol. 94) mentions him in the same way, and calls him “Anulphus.” But the fact is, that he could not possibly have been archbishop of Lyons, as there never was an archbishop of Lyons of that name, according to the account of that see given in Gallia Christiana. There was one Arnold of Breschia, of whom Aventine speaks thus:—“Arnoldus tum Brixia oppido Italiae ortus, sacras literas professus, discipulus Petri Abelardi, in avaritiam fastumque sacerdotum pro concione crebro peroravit, tandem captus in crucemque a sacrificulis actus, poenas temerarii caepti luit.” But Illyricus in the next Colossians (1433) very properly distinguishes him from this Arnulph, Martinus Polonus, however, may be speaking of Arnulph, when he says,—“Hujus (Conradi II.) tempore quidam magister, Arnoldus nomine, proedicavit in urbe Roma, reprehendens luxus et superfluitates. Postea captus, in odium clericorum est suspensus.” (Colossians 196 of his Supputationes, subjoined to Marianus Scotus, Bas. 1559.)

Hugo Altissiodorensis is probably the author above referred to. (See Usher “De Christ. Eccl. Statu et Sue.” 10: Sections. 41, 47, 48.)

Thuanus, Hist. lib. 6: Section 16, mentions one Arnold, an associate of Peter Waldo of Lyons, who became eminent as a Waldensian pastor and preacher in the diocese of Albi: he may have been known as “Pastor or Praises Lugdunensis,” by some, ignorantly or playfully, turned into “Archiepiscopus Lugunensis;” and Illyricus may have Identified him under that title with this Arnulph. The Magdeburg Centuriators relate the same particulars respecting Arnulph, quoting also Trithemius’s account; but they give no hint of his being archbishop of Lyons.—Cent. 13: cols. 46, 1401, 1710.

Gerhohus Reicherspergensis, quoted with other authorities in D’Argentre’s Collectio Judiciorum de novis erroribus, tom. 1: p. (Lutet. 1724) writing of an Arnold about this period, says:— “Pro qua etiam doctrina non solum ab ecclesia Dei anathematis mucrone separatus insuper etiam suspendio neci traditus. Quin et post mortem incendio crematus, atque in Tiberim fluvium projectus est: ne videlicet Romanus populus, quem sua doctrina illexerat, sibi eum martyrem dedicaret.”

APP264 “At Rome” is added from Trithemius; “cum ad praedicandum Romam mitteretur;” also, in the next line, “shortly” is put in from the “brevi” of Trithemius.

APP265 “Having expressed,” etc.]—“Cum haec alta voce clamasset, subjunxit” (Trithemius): and, at line 31, “impuritatibus” is the Latin: and at line 33, “Sed Deus est vindex.”

APP266 “Sabellicus and Platina say they hanged him.”— Illyricus says:— “Scribit hic [Trithemius submersum esse:] sed Sabellicus et Platina suspensum esse affirmant, quibus tanquam rerum Romanarum magis gnaris potins credendum esse arbitror,” (Illyr. col. 1433.) Sabellicus, however, only says “impie necarunt;” and Platina “insidiis necabant.”

Illyricus had just before said, “Hugo quidem dicit captum et suspensum.”

APP267 “Above four hunded years ago.”— Illyricus says it was written “circa duodecimum saeculum;” it would seem, however, from the allusion to the king of Portugal in the next page, as if the work was written in the thirteenth century. Illyricus does not connect it with Arnulph, but mentions it at a later page. Foxe’s text has been a little improved from Illyricus.

APP268 “Who say,” etc.]—“Quae dicunt, quod plus lucrantur,” etc.]— Illyricus.

APP269 Illyricus refers here, and for what follows, to lib. in. of the “Opusculum,” capp. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12.

APP270 Philip I. took to wife Bertrade, wife of the earl of Anjou, his first wife Bertha being yet alive; for which he was excommunicated by Urban II. A.D. 1094, and again in 1095, and again by the council of Poitiers in ü.—L’Art de Ver. des Dates.

The king of Portugal, presently alluded to, must have been Sancho II. surnamed Capel, who came to the throne A.D. 1223, and for some time reigned with applause; but, afterwards giving himself up to debauchery, his subjects complained of him, A.D. 1245, to pope Innocent IV. who excommunicated him, put his realm under interdict, and made his brother Alfonso regent. Sancho died A.D. 1248. ¾L’Art de Ver. des Dates.

APP271 “Upon St. Stephen’s day,”—i.e. Thursday, Dec. 26th, A.D. 1135.

Sir Nicolas reasons in favor of this date.

APP272 “The castle of Vies,”— an old form of “Devises.” See Malmesbury, p. 181, and Hoveden, p. 484, in the Script. post Bedam, Francof. 1601. Grafton reads “Vises.”

APP273 Gratian was monk of St. Felix, at Bologna. (Cave’s Hist. Litt.)

Cave states that many writers have asserted Gratian, Peter Lombard, and Peter Comestor, to have been all brothers, and born at the same time: but he adds that this assertion does not rest on any good authority.

APP274 Trivet calls him “scutifer” to Charlemagne, and places his death A.D. 1139.

APP275 For “Farness” and “Fountains,” Foxe (misled by Fabian) reads corruptly, “Finerneis” and “Fomitance.”

APP276 The following information from Tanner’s “Notitia Mon.” will confirm the account in the text:—“Feversham Abbey was founded A.D. 1147 by king Stephen and his wife Maud for monks of Clugny, who being afterward released from their subjection to the foreign monastery, it became Benedictine. “Furness, a Cistercian abbey, founded A.D. 1124, by Stephen, then earl of Morton and Boulogne: removed to Furness, in Lancashire, An. 1127. “Fontanense cocnobium ,” or Fountains Abbey, near Ripon, Yorkshire.

Most of the historians mention this abbey under Stephen’s reign, not however as exactly built by him. It was founded by the aid of Thurstin, archbishop of York, A.D. 1132. Henry I. made it tithe-free, and Stephen confirmed all previous charters to it. It was burnt A.D. 1140, and was not fairly rebuilt for nearly one hundred years.”

APP277 “The Jews crucified a child at Norwich.— Brompton is the first person who mentions this circumstance; who adds that the Jews crucified another child at Gloucester, A.D. 1160. About thirteen or fourteen years after, Gervase says that they crucified another at Bury St. Edmund’s at Easter, and that his bones wrought miracles for some years. See “Anglia Judaica,” p. 11, a work by D’Blossiers Tovey, LL.D. principal of New Inn Hall, Oxford, 1738. He throws a doubt on all these accounts, observing that the crime is never said to have happened but when the king was notoriously in want of money, and wanted a pretext against the Jews. However that be, the Romish church has canonized several such alleged victims of Jewish malice.

Alban Butler, in his “Lives of the Saints,” gives an account of this very child, who was canonized as St. William of Norwich. Butler further states that he was apprentice to a tanner at Norwich, and only twelve years of age when he was seized by the Jews, on Good Friday, and treated in imitation of Christ. On Easter-day they took his body in a sack to Thorp Wood, now a heath, near the gates, to bury him; but, being discovered, they left him hanging on a tree. He was honored with miracles, and in 1144 his body was removed to the cathedral of the Holy Trinity, and in 1150 into the choir. A chapel was built on the site where he was found, called St. William in the Wood. His day in the English Calendar was March 24th. Buffer adds, that pope Benedict XIV. decided that infants, though baptized, dying before the age of reason, could not be canonized, except those slain out of hatred to the name of Christ. Such were the Innocents, St. Simon of Trent (canonized by the archbishop of Trent, with the approbation of Sixtus V., confirmed by Gregory XIII.), St. Richard of Pontoise, A.D. 1182, St. Hugh of Lincoln, A.D. 1255. See Bloomfield’s History of Norfolk, and Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales ,425.

APP278 “The first year,” etc.]—Fabian says, “He increased his heritage so mightily that he won Ireland by strength, and took William, king of Scots, and joined that kingdom to his own. From the south ocean to the north islands of Orcyes he closed all the lands, as it were, under one principate, and spread so largely his empire that men read of none of his progenitors that had so many provinces and countries under their dominion and rule. For, beside the realm of England, he had in his rule Normandy, Gascoyne, and Guion, Anjou and Chinon, and he made subject unto him Auvergne and other lands; and by his wife he obtained, as her right, the mounts and hills of Spain, called Montes Pireni.” Grafton, apparently copying Fabian, says:—“He increased his heritage so mightily that he won Ireland anon after his coronation, by strength, and took the king of Scots prisoner, and joined that kingdom of Scotland to his own. From the south ocean unto the north islands of Orcades, he closed all the lands as it were under one dominion, and spread so largely his empire that we read not that any of his progenitors had so many provinces and countries under their government and rule. For, beside the realm of England and Scotland, he had in his rule Normandy, Gascoyne, and Guienne, Anjou and Poictou; and he made subject unto him Auvergne and other lands. And by Eleanor, his wife, he obtained, as in her right, the earldom of Toulouse.” Grafton afterwards adds, “In his third year he lost Auvergne, warring against the king of France;” Hoveden seems to contradict what is said about the city of Toulouse, Script. post Bedam, p. 491. The Pyrenees and the north ocean are mentioned as the limits of the king’s deminions at page 231, in an epistle of the English bishops to Becket.

APP279 “The first year of his reign he subdued Ireland.”— Rymer gives Adrian’s grant of Ireland, “ad subdendum illum populum legibus et viciorum plantaria inde extirpanda,” and on condition of paying “de singulis domibus annuam unius denarii beato Petro pensionem, et jura ecclesiarum illius terrae illibata et integra conservare.”

APP280 “Against whom it was alleged chiefly,” etc.]—Foxe says, “Who in their time, according to their gift, did earnestly,” etc.; which seems a mis-translation of Illyricus, “Lis praecipue vitio datum est, quod docuerint,” etc. He calls them “Gerhardus Sagarelli, Parmensis, et Dulcinus Navarrensis,” and says that they labored for at least forty years in Gallia Cisalpina, and Piedmont; and that they were esteemed heresiarchs by the Romanists.—“Cat. Test.” Genevae 1608, col. 1762.

APP281 “And now, according to my promise,” etc.]— The ensuing account of the emperor Frederic I. is apparently taken from Illyricus, col. 1365, etc. For the anecdote which presently follows he cites “Helmoldus in Chronicis Sclavorum,” cap. 81.

APP282 “After this, as they were come in,” etc.]—Illyricus (col. 1366) cites for his authority here, “Barnus in Vita Hadriani, ex Johanne de Cremona.”

APP283 Apulia was now “a Nortmannis occupata.”—Illyricus.

APP284 “The next day after,” —i.e. “4 Cal. Julii, anno regni sui quarto.”— Helmoldus in Chron. Sclavorum, c. 80.

APP285 “Sendeth to Emmanuel.”—Illyricus (col. 1367), referring to Nauclerus gen. 39, says that Emmanuel offered to the pope 5,000l. and to expel William out of Apulia, if three maritime cities of Apulia were granted him, APP286 “Ex tota Sicilia exercitu contracto.”—Nauclerus.

APP287 “Ariminum,”— or Rimini. Platina says “Anagni.”

APP288 “How the pope had given Apulia, which of right belonged to the empire, to duke William.”—“Apuliam juris imperii, se inscio atque invito, Wilhelmo concessam.” (Nauclerus.) This clause is passed over by Foxe.

APP289 See Illyricus, cols. 1369, 1370.

APP290 This “Arnulph, bishop of Mentz,” is the same individual as Arnold mentioned at page 172: see the note on that passage.

APP291 “And first taking his occasion,” etc.]—Foxe is translating Illyricus—“Nactus occasionem captivitatis Leodiensis episcopi.”

Leodiensis or Leodicensis (i.e. of Liege) gave birth to Foxe’s “Bishop of Laodicea.” There was indeed a “Gerardus bishop of Laodicea” living about this period, who wrote a work, “De Conversatione Servorum Dei,” alluded to by Foxe infra, vol. in. p. 105, though he there post- dates him by a century. The person, however, here intended, was not bishop either of Liege or of Laodicea, but Eskyl archbishop of Lunden, in Sweden. Others have made other corruptions of his title, as will appear from the following extract from Pagi,” Crit. in Baron. Annalea,” ad annum 1157:— “Verum loco, E. Londonensis Arehiepiscopus, legendum, E. Lundensis Archiepiscopus, et intelligendus Eskyllus, quem ex illis verbis eruimus anno superiori peregrinationem instituisse ad Hadrianum Papam, qui illum Legatum suum in Dania constituerat, ut quicunque maximi Sueonum Pontifices creandi essent, Pallio a Curia dato per Lundensem insignirentur Antistitem; eamque sedem pro patrio venerarentur obsequio, sicut ait Saxo Grammaticus, lib. 14. Hinc Sirmondus, in Notis ad Epist. 23. lib. 1. Petri Cellensis, de Eskyllo recte scribit: ‘Qui cum ex Urbe in Daniam rediret, captus spoliatusque fuit in Germania.

Quae res—dum injuriam missis ad Fredericum Imp. Legatis acrius persequitur Hadrianus IV. Pontifex, cut Eskyllus privato etiam nomine charus erat—exacerbatis hinc inde animis ansam praebuit schismati, quod inter illos erupit, ut inquit Radevicus, lib. 1. de Gest. Friderici, cap. 8, et seqq. Sed apud Radevicum Londonensis vitiose scriptum est, foedius etiam apud Innocentium III. Epist. 321 Lugdunensis, pro Lundensi. Ita Sirmondus. Quae conjectura eo certior, quod nullus hoc seculo E. Episcopus Londinensi Ecclesiae praefuit. Praeterquam quod Londonia Sedes est Episcopalis, non vero Archiepiscopalis.”

APP292 “Divers and sharp letters,” etc.]—The reader will find Pope Adrian’s letters to Frederic in Baronius, an. 1157, Section 2, 3. The legates appear to have been Roland, cardinal-priest of St. Mark, and Bernard, cardinal-priest of St. Clement; and Pagi in his notes on this part of Baronius shows, that they were sent with the said letters A.D. 1156, and that in the same year also the seizure of the Archbishop of Lunden took place.

APP293 The volume referred to is “Ottonis Episc. Frisingensis Chronicon, et Radevicus Frising. Canonicus,” etc., folio, Basileae, 1569. If any information is needed upon these writers, “Vossius de Hist. Latinis.” will supply it, pp. 427—431, edit. 1651.

APP294 “The proud pope, setting his foot,” etc.]— “Fuerunt quidem nonnulli, inter quos etiam Card. Baronius, qui in dubium vocarunt narrationem de Imp. Frederico I. et Alexandro III. collun, ejus premente pedibus, his etiam verbis usurpatis, super aspidem et Basilicum ambulabis, etc.; quod factum indecorum, arrogans, et penitus insuetum agnoscit Baronius (tom. 12: ad an. 1177, Section 86), et negat unquam accidisse, tanquam abhorrens a tanti Christi vicarii mansuetudine, turgens fastu facinus. Quam tamen historiam referunt viginti historici, omnes pontificii, quorum testimonia citantur ab Hieronymo Bardo in libro cui titulum fecit ‘Victoria Navalis,’ Venetiis edito, 1584. Sed ‘Jos. ille Stevanus’ qui de ‘osculo pedum Papae’ cripsit Romae, ad Gregorium XIII., non solum factum non negat; sed ex eo deducit quantum Papa possit in Reges et Principes.”—Riveti Jesuita Vapulans, cap. 28, Section 4.

A picture of this transaction was formerly to be seen in the vestibule of St. Mark’s, at Venice, and also in the ducal palace (vide Ern. S.

Cypriani Dissertationes, Coburgi, 1755, p. 70); though the circumstance has, from different reasons, been rather warmly discussed, and partially questioned (see Sagittarii Introduct. in Hist.

Ecclesiastes tom. 1: p. 630; tom. 2: p. 600). But such assumptions are not always considered misplaced, even by Baronius himself; as in the case of Henry VI., Emperor of Germany, whose crown Celestine III. thought well to strike off his head A.D. 1191; under which year see Baron.. Annal. Section. 10; Roger Hoveden, p. 689, edit. 1601; and the present vol. of Foxe, p. 304.

APP295 “Two-and-twenty years.”—Foxe says, “one-and-twenty.” But Alexander III. was elected Sept. 7th, A.D. 1159, crowned Sept. 20th, and died Aug. 30th, A.D. 1181.—L’Art de Ver. des Dates.

APP296 The Council of Tours sat May 19th A.D. 1163; the General (eleventh) Council of Lateran March 5th—19th, A.D. 1179.—L’Art de Ver. des Dates.

APP297 “In Quadrilogo.”—The full title of this work is “Vita et Processus Thomae Cantuar. martyris super libertate ecclesiae; sive Quadripartita Historia continens passionem Martyris Archipraes.

Cantuariensis.” It is a history of Becket compiled by order of Pope Gregory XI. from the biographies of four contemporaries of Becket, who are mentioned by Foxe in the note. Of these, 1. Herbert de Boscham in Sussex, was one of Becket’s chaplains, a companion of his flight, and witness of his death. 2. John, a native of Salisbury, whence he is commonly called John of Salisbury, afterwards bishop of Chartres (Carnotensis), was one of the most distinguished men of his day. He was an old and intimate friend of Becket, so much so, that in the autumn of A. D. 1163 Henry thought it necessary to interrupt their intercourse by banishing him to France, where he resided chiefly at Rheims till his return to England on the final arrangement between the king and Becket. He was in the cathedral of Canterbury at the time his friend was murdered. He is supposed to be the person who arranged the large collection of 435 letters relating to the contest between Church and State, written between 1165 and 1171, preserved in the Vatican, and printed thence by Christianus Lupus at Brussels, 1682, under the title of “Ep. D. Thomae.” 3. Alan was a monk of St. Trinity, Canterbury, and afterwards abbot of Tewkesbury. 4. William was also a monk of St. Trinity, Canterbury. (See Tanner’s Bibliotheca, and Cave’s Hist. Litt.) The “Quadrilogus” is patched together from the histories of these four, each portion being headed by the name of the author from whom it is taken. It was printed in 4to., first in black letter at Paris, A.D. 1495; and again at Brussels, A.D. 1682, when it was prefixed by Ch. Lupus to the “Ep. D. Thomae” above mentioned. The former edition contains several errors which are corrected in the latter, and which now for the first time have been corrected in Foxe’s text: they will be noticed in this Appendix. Foxe’s account of Becket is derived mainly from the “Quadrilogus;” most of it will also be found verbatim in Grafton’s Chronicle, the principal additions being the documents, which are all printed in the “Quadrilogus;” from which it would appear, that, though Foxe availed himself of Grafton’s labors in translating, yet he consulted the original for himself.

APP298 “And first, to omit here the progeny,” etc.]—A life of Becket compiled by William Stephanides or Fitz-Stephen, a monk of Canterbury and an intimate friend of Becket, says, “Beatus Thomas natus est in legitimo matrimonio et honestis parentibus, patre Gileberto, qui et vice-comes aliquando fuit, matte Mathilda; civibus Lundoniae mediastinis, neque foenerantibus, neque officiose negotiantibus, sed de redditibus suis honorifice viventibus.”— Stephanides, Edit. Sparke, Lond. 1723, p. 10.

APP299 Dr. Clutterbuck states, in his History of Hertfordshire, vol. 2: p. 48, that the rectory of Brantfield in that county was given by Hardvin de Scalers, a powerful Norman baron, to the Abbey of St. Alban’s, which retained it till the Dissolution; also that Thomas Becket was once rector; in confirmation of which he adds, that near the rectorial house there is a pond called “Thomas Becket’s Pond.”—Brantfield is in the liberty of St. Alban’s, about three miles from Hertford. (Carlisle.)

APP300 “Left playing the archdeacon, and began to play the chancellor.”—The following is the testimony on this point of Grime, the monk who interposed his own arm in order to shield Becket from the assassin’s sword at Canterbury, and who wrote a life of Becket, preserved in Sion College and the Arundel MS. in the Brit. Mus. “Jamque pedem porrexit in semitas seculi, jam ad honores aspirate, effundere animum in exteriora, et vanas mundi amplitudines arabire coepit.”—Grime, fol. 4, MS. Arund. “Novus itaque erigitur, super Egypt Joseph, praeficitur, universis, regni negotiis, post regem secundus; augentur honores, preadia, possessiones, et divitiarum splendor, ac mundi gloria multiplicatur, sequuntur ex more innumeri mancipiorum greges, stipantur electorum catervae militum, nec cancellario minor quam regi comitatus adhaesit, ita ut nonnunquam corriperetur a rege quod regis hospitium vacuasset.”—Grime, fol. 7.

APP301 “Richard Lucy, one of the chiefest.”— “Richardum de Luci aliosque magnates Angliae,” (Quadril.) Richard de Lucy was the chief justice. “If I were dead,” said Henry to Lucy, “wouldst thou not devote thy life and thy energies in favor of my son? Then cease not in thy endeavours until my chancellor is raised to the see of Canterbury.” (John of Salisbury, in Quadrilogo.) The reason of Henry’s partiality may be given in few words from the “Life and Ecclesiastical History of St. Thomas of Canterbury,” a work published in English under papal sanction at Cologne, 1639, p. 6. “The king having had manifold trial of him, deemed his magnanimity and fidelity to be fit for so high a dignity; and also that he would have a care of his profit, and govern all things in the church and common weal to his good liking.”

The following passages may be quoted here with advantage, from an Article on the Life and Times of Thomas Becket, in the Church-of- England Quarterly Review for April, 1841, written in confutation of the view taken of Becket’s character in vol. 4: of “Froude’s Remains.” “The expectation that Becket would unhesitatingly obey the will and pleasure of the king in matters ecclesiastical is distinctly asserted by Grime (‘Rex autem arbitratus cancellarium suas per omnia velle sequi voluntates ut ante et imperiis obtemperare, ipsi archiepis-copatum dedit.’—Grime, MS. Arund fol. 7 a.), and reiterated by Fitz-Stephen (‘Statuit Rex Angliae cancellarium suum in archiepiscopatum promovere, intentu meritorum personae, et confidens quod se ad placitum et nutum, ut cancellarius fecerat, archiepiscopus obsequeretur.’—Fitz-Stephen.), and the Lambeth biography (‘Irerum Archiepiscopo Theobaldo rebus humanis exempto, deferendi locum honoris suo dilecto Rex se nactum esse gavisus est; in multis enim expertus magnanimitatem ejus et fidem, tanto quidem fastigio bene sufficiente credit, scilicet ad suas utilitates facile semper inclinandum.’—MS. Lamb. fol. 2 b.). It is useless, then, to deny that such, at least, was the view taken by those who wrote during the continuance of, or immediately after the conclusion of, these troubles; that they were justified in their assertion, their agreement renders more than probable; that Henry was justified in holding such an opinion, the already cited cases would seem to warrant us in asserting. One of the primate’s biographers has recorded a warning from Becket to the king, of his inability to serve him and the Church at the same time. The solitariness of the authority is not our only reason for rejecting this assertion; we have been far more influenced by the improbability of one so shrewd and politic as Henry, wilfully and with his eyes open running his head into a noose like this, in a matter of such importance, and, when his mind was set on the reformation of the Church, deliberately forcing the primacy on one who forewarned him of his and-reforming notions and intentions.”

The same writer gives the following facts as justifying the king’s opinion what kind of an archbishop Becket was likely to prove:— “Towards his own order, Becket acted rather as a statesman than as an ecclesiastic. First, he hesitated not to impose on them a scutage for the maintenance of the war of Toulouse—an imposition which Gilbert Foliot characterized as ‘that sword plunged into the bowels of mother Church’ (‘Divi Thomae,’ epist, 1: 126; Cotton MS.); and his patron, Theobald, on his death bed, vowed to God to prohibit, under pain of excommunication, the exaction of the second aid his brother the archdeacon had imposed on the Church (Joan Salis. Ep. 49, cited by Lord Lyttelton). John of Salisbury admits (epist. 159) that Becket had allowed the measure to pass, and was therefore justly punished in being now persecuted by the very person whom he had preferred to his original benefactor. Secondly, when, in his presence, the supremacy of the pope was upheld by the bishop of Chichester, and Henry rebuked that prelate, and declared in the hearing of all, ‘that the supremacy of the pope was upheld by man alone, but that of the king by God,’ then we are told the new chancellor joined the king against the pope, reminded the bishop of his oath of allegiance, and seconded, if he had not previously prompted, the rebuke of the king. (Wilkins’ Concilia, 1: p. 431—a passage sadly mutilated, but still sufficiently preserved to show the intentions of Becket. See the full account of the matter in the Appendix to Sir F. Palgrave’s ‘Constitution of England.’

The old chronicler there quoted fully bears out the assertion just made.) And, lastly, if we are to believe Matthew Paris—and we see no reason to the contrary, more especially as his assertions are confirmed by Radulphus de Diceto—the views of Becket respecting the relative power of the pope and the king continued the same for some little time after his elevation to the primacy. In the great cause between the bishop of Lincoln and the abbot of St. Alban’s, a bull had been obtained by the bishop, referring the cause to the decision of the papal legates. Henry, however, determined to hear it in his own court, and accordingly summoned the contending parties before him. The abbot, fearful of being brought before the legates for a second hearing, demanded of the king that proof made before him should be subject to no appeal. The king admired his prudence, and commended him for it to Becket, who sat by his side. The case was heard; the privileges having been proved, judgment was given in favor of the abbot, and signed among others by Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury. (‘Unum peto [said the abbot,] quod, si in audientia vestra libertatem ecclesiae meae declaravero et evicero, ne me coarctent judices delegati iterato litigare de evicta libertate. Tunc Rex prudentiam ejus cum optima-tibus suis admirans, ad Archiepiscopum Thomam Cantuariensem conversus ait, Quod dicit abbas rationi consentaneum est, neque enim nostrae majeso tati honorificum foret, si lis in Palatio nostro decisa in Domini papae consistorio iterandam praestolaretur sententiam.’” (See Matthew Paris, Vitae Abb. Sancti Albani, pp. 77 and 79; Radulphus de Diceto, sub. ann. 1162.)

APP302 “The monks said it was not meet,” etc.]— Becket himself states that he was kept out of the see for a year through the opposition of the Chapter (Epist. D. Thomae, lib. 1: 126). His predecessor, Theobald, died April 18th, A.D. 116.—Godwin. Great opposition was made to Becket’s election by Foliot, bishop of London, not without incurring much odium; for he says in reference to this in a letter of his own, quoted by Lord Lyttelton, “Quod loquimur experto novimus,...verbum proscriptionis illico audivimus, et exilio crudeliter addicti sumus.” Cott.

MS, Claud. b. 2: let. lib. 1: 126. Grime tells us that the matter was deferred, “donec a conventu extorqueret [rex consensum, qui liberam ab antiquo solet habere vocem in electione pontificis” (Grime, folio 6, b.); and that in the meeting at London (May 26th) to confirm the appointment, Gilbert Foliot, though alone, still objected. The author of a MS. biography of Becket at Lambeth, professing to be written by an eye-witness, speaks of the election having been secured rather by the “instantia regis” than the votes of the clergy and people. “Unde totis enitens viribus, non prius destitit [rex] quam apud Angliae clerum optimum eum in archiepiscopatum subrogavit. Nonnullis tamen id circa promotionem ejus visum est minus canonicum, quod ad eam magis operata est regis instantia quam cleri vel populi vota,” (MS. Lamb. fol. 2, b.) And, lastly, William of Newborough speaks of the primacy as “Minus sincere et canonice, id est per operam manumque regiam, susceptum;” and of Becket’s tendering his insignia of office into the pope’s hands, on account of the informality of his election: “Secundo promotionis anno concilio Turonensi inter-fuit, ubi (ut dicitur) pontificatum,...pungentis conscientiae stimulos non ferens, secreto in manus domini papae resignavit.” (Gul. Neub. I. 16, p. 169. Ed. Paris, 1610.) It is to this cause that we must refer Becket’s own words and conduct, related at page 218 of this volume. The form of the election, however, seems to have been quite correct, for Becket himself asserts this against his adversaries at page 235.

APP303 “In the four and fortieth year of his age,” etc.]—He was born A.D. 1118, where Mercer’s chapel was afterwards erected, according to Fuller’s “Worthies of England,” p. 203. In A.D. 1162 Easter fell on April 8th, and Trinity Sunday on June 3(t. (Nicolas’s Tables.)

APP304 “As first, when, according to custom,” etc.]—The old tax called “danegelt,” of two shillings on every hide of land, was abolished (Foxe, p. 181); but perhaps the sheriff of each county received some compliment for his services from the wealthier landowners, which the king aimed at getting converted into a regular tax for the public service.

The original runs thus:— Publicae potestatis ministri per regionem Anglicanam de consuetudine sibi de singulis Hidis vel Aidis (ut verbis comprovincialium utar) pecuniam colligunt, tanquam laboris mercedem, quem tuitioni patriae impendunt. Quam pecuniam tamen Rex tanquam reditum nitebatur in fiscum redigere. Obstitit Primas, dicens non oportere pro reditu computari quod suo et aliorum arbitrio daretur.”—Quadrilogus, edit. 1495, cap. 22.

APP305 “Were divers clerks.”— The Quadrilogus says “clerici:” Grafton and Foxe say “divers others.”

APP306 “One Bruis, canon of Bedford.”— The “Quadrilogus” (citing Alan) says, “Philippus quidam de Brois canonicus;” Grafton and Foxe, “a canon of Bruis.” Fitz-Stephen calls him “Philip, de Brois, canon of Bedford,” and Brompton Philip Brock, canon of Bedford.

APP307 “They passed so little of (i.e. cared so little for) the spiritual correction.” ¾ “Adjiciens [rex] ad nocendum fore promptiores nisi post poeham spiritualem corporali poenae subdantur; et poenam parum curare de Ordinis amissione, qui Ordinis contemplatione a tam enormibus manus continere non verentur.”—Quadrilogus, edit. 1495, cap. 23.

APP308 “Was greatly, rebuked of the achbishop,” etc. “In recessu vero episcopus, quem supradiximus, ab Archi-Praesule acriter est objurgatus, quod et se et co-episcopis inconsultis commune omnium verbum mutare praesumpsisset.”

APP309 Hollinshed seems to have pondered these words “luculenter et probabiliter;” and thus endeavors to express their force: “The archbishop, and his suffragans, with the rest of the bishops, answered very pithily, laboring to prove that it was more against the liberties of the Church than that they might with reason well allow.”

To show how the original narrative was interrupted by the introduction of the constitutions, the context is here given from the “Quadrilogus:”—“Archi-episcopus una cum comprovincialibus et cum praefatis eruditis suis librato consilio, cum plurimum et ipse pro cleri libertate Secundum Antiquorum Patrum Canonicam Institutionem luculenter satis et probabiliter respondisset, in fine Sermonis cum omni devotione Regiam obsecrabat Clementiam ne sub novo Rege Christo et sub nova Christi lege in nova et peculiari Domini sorte contra Sanctorum Patrum Instituta Novato per Regnum suum induceret conditionem.” “Verum Rex nihil motus ad hoc, sed eo amplius commotus quod cerneret Archi-Praesulem et Episcopos adversus ipsum (ut reputabat) unanimes sic et constantes, sciscitabatur mox, an consuetudines suas Regias forent observaturi: Replicans illos tempore Avi sui ab Archi-episcopis et Episcopis Privatis et Privilegiatis observatas, non oportere suo tempore tristi judicio damnari. Ad quod Archi-Praesul, praehabito cum Fratribus suis consilio, respondit illas se et Fratres suos obser-vaturos, salvo Ordine suo. Et id ipsum etiam ex Ordine responderunt Pontifices singuli, singulatim et a Rege interrogati.

Unus autem, Hilarius scilicet Cicestrensis Episcopus, audiens ob hanc omnium vocem Regem magis exacerbatum, Archi-Praesule et Co- Episcopis inconsultis mutavit Verbum, dicens se Regias Constitutiones observaturum bona fide.”—Quadrilogus, edit. 1495, cap. 24. edit. 1682, cap. 19.

It is worthy of observation, that Foxe was led on from a small beginning to interrupt the text here in the manner intimated. For in Grafton the interruption is only this:—“And those constitutions are in number XX viii, or 29: whereof certeine followe.” “Concerning the nomination and presentation into benefices, if any controversy arise between the laity and clergy, or between one spiritual man with another, the matter to be brought into the king’s temporal court, and there to be decised. “Churches, such as be de feodo regis, to be given at no time without the assent and permission of the king. “All spiritual and ecclesiastical persons, being accused of any crime, whatsoever it be, cited by the king’s justice, to come and appear in the king’s court, there to answer, whether the matter appertain to the spiritual court or to the temporal; so that, if the said person or persons be found guilty and convicted of any crime, the church not to defend him nor succor him. “No archbishop, nor bishop, nor person being of any ecclesiastical dignity, to attempt to go over the sea out of the realm without the king’s knowledge and permission; and in so doing, yet. notwithstanding to be bound, tarrying in any place, to procure no damage either to the king or to the realm. “Such goods or catells as be forfeited to the king, neither any sanctuary of church or churchyard to detain them, contrary to the king’s justice, for that they belong to the king, whether they be found in the church or churchyard. “No orders to be given to husbandmen’s children, without the assent and testimonial of them, which be the lords of the country where they were born and brought up.”

In the edition of Foxe, 1563, p. 48, the interrnption was somewhat enlarged:—“The copy of those lawes and constitutions are conteined in the number of eight or ix and twentye, whereof I thought here to resite certayne, not unworthie to be knowne. “The copy and effect of certain Laws and Constitutions set forth and proclaimed in the days of King Henry II.” [Here follow the above Articles from Grafton, almost totidem verbis.] “Besides these constitutions, there were many other, which I passe over, for that the afore rehersed articles are the chiefe. And now let us returne to the matter betwixt the king and Thomas Becket aforesayd.

The king, as is aforesayd, conventing his nobles and clerks together, required, to have the punishment of the aforesayd misdoers of the clergie; but Thomas Becket would not consent thereto. “Besides these constitutions were other at the same time set forth, to the number of 29: in all; but these were the chief, namely and expressly condemned by the bishop of Rome, amongst all the rest. “Certayne other Constitutions, besides the XX ix, which the forsaid King Henry the third (sic), a little after, sent from Normandy to England, after Becket was fled over. “I. If any person shall be found to bring from the pope, or from the archbishop of Canterbury, any writing containing any indict or curse against the realm of England, the same man to be apprehended without delay for a traitor, and execution to be done upon the same. “ II. That no monk, nor any clerk, shall be permitted to pass over into England without a passport from the king, or his justices; whoso doth contrary, that man to be attached and imprisoned. “ III. No man to be so bold once to appeal to the pope, or to the archbishop of Canterbury, out of England. “ IV. That no decree or commandment, proceeding from the authority of the pope, or the bishop of Canterbury, to be received in England, under pain of taking and imprisoning. “V. In general to forbid any man to carry over any commandment or precept, either of clerk or layman, to the pope, or to the archbishop of Canterbury. “ VI. If any bishop, clerk, abbot, or layman, shall do contrary to this inhibition, the same incontinent to be thrust out of the land, with all their kindred, and to leave all their goods behind them. “ VII. All the possessions, goods, and cattell, of such as favor the pope or the archbishop of Canterbury, to be seized and confiscate for the king. “ VIII. All such of the clergy as be out of the realm, having their rents and profits out of the land, to be summoned and warned through every shire within three months to repair home, or else their rents and goods to return to the king. “IX. That St. Peter’s-pence should be no more paid to the apostolical see, but to be reserved diligently in the king’s coffers, and there to be at his command. (Atque haec ex Quadrilogo.) “By these, and such other laws and decreements, it may appear, that the abolishing of the pope is no new thing in the realm of England. This only difference there is, that the pope being driven out then, could not be kept out so long as now. The cause is, that the time was not yet come that antichrist should so fully be revealed; neither was his wickedness then so fully ripe in those days, as it hath been now in our time. Now, these premised, let us return where we left, to the matter betwixt the king and Thomas Becket. “The Communication and Controversy between the King and Thomas Becket, with his Clergy. “The king, as is aforesaid, conventing his nobles and clerks together, required to have the punishment of certain misdoers of the clergy; but Thomas Becket not assenting thereunto, the king came to this point, to know whether he would consent, with his clergy, that the customs then set forth in the realm (meaning the first, part of those, decrees above specified), should be observed.”

The interruption became still greater in the subsequent editions, see p. 217, note. It will be perceived, that this first English edition of Foxe does not contain the absurd title which crept into the succeeding editions—“Other lewes and constitutions made at Clarendoun in Normandy, and sent to England,” etc.

APP310 “And in the dead of the night, unknown to the bishops, removed from London.”— Foxe omits this altogether. The Quadrilogus of (cap. 24) says:—“Et nec salutans nec salutatus a pontificibus, immo nesci-entibus ipsis, clam et ante lucanum Londonia recessit. Et quidem hoc grandis irae et indignationis argumentum extitit. Videres tunc murmur in populo et motiones in clero. Episcopi turbati et tremuli regem abeuntem sunt perseeuti, metuentes se non prius inventuros, quam audirent se omnia bona sua perdituros.” It proceeds (cap. 25):— “Accidit post modicum tempus,” etc.

APP311 “Bishop of Chichester.”—Grafton and Foxe says, “bishop of Chester:” the Quadrilogus, Cicestrensis.

APP312 These “two noble peers” were, according to Hoveden, Reginald, Earl of Cornwall, and Robert, Earl of Leicester.

APP313 The original, whence the text is derived, runs thus in the Quadrilogus of 1682:—“Accidit post modicum Episcopum Lexoviensem reconciliandi gratia Regem ex transmarinis adiisse, nam ab amicitia ejus exciderat; qui (forsan ut recuperaret gratiam quam perdiderat) consilium dedit (utinam non in laesione nominis sui) ut ad se partem cleri converteret, ne praevalerent adversus eum, dum simul quasi conserta acie starent et communicato suffragio sibi subvenirent.”

The Quadrilogus of 1495 (cap. 25) reads in this passage “Londoniensem.” Grafton strangely misunderstands the whole (in connection with the previous context, as cited in the last note) to mean, that “the king, removing from London unknown to the bishops, sailed over to Normandy, whither the bishop of London, called Gilbert, not long after resorted to crave the king’s favor, and gave him counsel withal to join some of the bishops on his side, lest, if all were against him, peradventure he might sooner be overthrown.” The errors of his sentence are corrected in Foxe’s text. The corrections made receive confirmation from Hoveden, who says (Script. post Bedam, p. 492)— “Deinde post multum tempus Ernulfus, Lexoviensis Episcopus venit in Angliam, et solicite laboravit die ac nocte, ut pax fieret inter regem et Archiepiscopum, sed ad plenum fieri non potuit. Deinde per consilium Lexoviensis Episcopi rex separavit Rogerum Archiepiscopum Eboracensem, etc. etc. et alios quosdam ecclesiae praelatos a consortio et consilio Cantuariensis Archepiscopi, ut per illos praefa-tum Cantuariensem Archiepiscopum in suos conatus facilius alliceret.”

APP314 “In the king’s promise.”— “In regis promissione.” (Quadrilogus.)

One would rather have expected “in regis postulatione,” or some such word. The king’s “request” is mentioned a few lines above.

APP315 Foxe (or rather Grafton) reads in the text, “After this came to him two rulers of the temple, called Templar one, Richard de Hast; the other, Costans de Hoverio, with their company.” The Quadrilogus says:—“Igitur cum tertio per Richardum, magni nominis virum, qui templo Hierosolymitano tunc praeerat sibi cavere moneretur et cleri misereri, non tulit eorum supplicationes, non geniculationes. Nam, tanquam in ipsius verticem vibratos gladios viderent, plangere videbantur, et tanquam funus praesens futurum facinus lugebant.” The second Templar is not named here; yet it is plain, from the plural number being used in the rest of the sentence, that more than one came to Becket. Grafton seems to have supplied an “et” after “Richardum,” and so made out two “qui praeerant templo,” “two rulers of the temple.” Hoveden says there were two Templars, and names them correctly “Richardus de Hastings et Tostes de Sancto Homero.” (Scriptores post Bedam, pp. 492, 493.) Gervase calls the latter “Hosteus de Bolonia.” (Script. Decem. col. 1386.) A slight mistake has been made in the text by the present editor, in calling Richard de Hastings the grand master of the temple, a title exclusively belonging to the master of the whole order residing at Jerusalem: the provincial governors were called simply “Master,” or “Grand Prior,” or “Grand Praeceptor.” (Addison’s “History of the Knights Templars,” London, 1842, p. 105.) This last cited writer shows that Henry II. was a very great patron of the Templars; also that Richard de Hastings was a great man in his day, and Master of the Temple at the king’s accession. (Addison, pp. 99,109,110.) The clause “with their company” has been dropped in the text, there being no authority for it: for the cause which led to its introduction, see the next note.

APP316 “At length came these last messengers again from the king.”— “Tandem uitimi nuncii regis venerunt lacrymis et verbis els expressis seorsum iterato significantes quid futurum erat si non acquiesceret.”

The two Templars came again (itetaro), and in private (seorsum) expostulated with Becket. Hoveden, Brompton, and Gervase give them the credit of overcoming the archbishop’s reluctance. Graf, on, also, seems so to have understood the sentence; but he renders “ultimi nuntii” by “the last message,” instead of “these last messengers.” The word “seorsum” no doubt suggested to him the idea, that they came the first time “with their company” (see the last note): it rather means that they now conferred with Becket apart from “his company,” viz.

The lords and bishops. (See Lord Lyttelton.) It is singular, however, that these words “Tandem ultimi. . . acquiesceret” are omitted in the second edition of the Quadrilogus, which, after the words cited in the last note, goes on, “Undo potius super clerum quam super se motus miseratione annuit de consilio illorum Regiae voluntati parere.” This omission proves that the editors of that edition thought, either that the Templars did not come a second time, or that at least they were the “ultimi nuncii.”

APP317 “The bishop of Eureux.”—The Quadrilogus of 1495 says, “Interea elaboratum est ab episcopo Eboracensi,” etc.; but the later edition says, “Ebroicensi.” This is confirmed by Grime’s MS. history, and. Gervase (Script. Decem. col. 1388). “Ebroicensis” is easily corrupted into “Eboricensis,” and this into “Eboracensis.”

APP318 “Legacy,” an old word for “legation” or “legateship.” it is curious, that while “legatio” is here translated as if it were “legatum,” Foxe has at p. 598, Section 10, translated “legatum” “legation,” as if it were “legatio”—which (as a mis-translation) has been altered into “legacy” in this edition.

APP319 “That the king should be legate himself”— Hoveden adds, “on condition of not molesting Becket.” This explains the king’s indignation.

APP320 The translation in the text has been revised from the Latin.

APP321 “Anaclitus and Euaristus.” See Labbe’s Cone. tom. 1: cols. 518, 537, 538, for the passages of their writings referred to.

APP322 “Cited up to appear by a certain day at Northampton.”— William Fitz-Stephen lays particular claim to accuracy in his account of the council of Northampton. He thus speaks of himself in the Preface to his Life of Becket:—“Ejusdem domini mei concivis, clericus, et convictor: et ad pattem solicitudinis ejus oris ipsius invitatus alloquio, fui in cancellaria ejus dictator; in capella, eo celebrante, subdiaconus; sedente eo ad cognitionem causarum, epistolarum et instrumentorum quae offerebantur lector, et aliquarum (eo quandoque jubente) patronus; concilio Northamptonioe habito, ubi maximum fuit rerum momentum, cum ipso interfui; passionem ejus Can-tuariae inspexi; caetera plurima quae hic scribuntur oculis vidi, auribus audivi, quaedam a consciis didici relatoribus.”

Fitz-Stephen’s account of the council of Northampton differs in some respects from that in the Quadrilogus. Dr. Brady gives the principal features of both in his History of England, vol. 1: Foxe’s account has been compared with both, and several inaccuracies corrected. The “certain day” for which Becket was cited to Northampton was, according to Fitz-Stephen, “Octava St. Michaelis, feria tertia,” i.e.

Tuesday, October 6tb, A.D. 1164. He adds, that the king spent so much time on his way thither in hawking, that he did not arrive till too late to transact any business that day: the “prima actio” of the council, therefore, did not take place till the Wednesday, or “feria quarta” as the Quadrilogus calls it.

APP323 “Hoveden writeth,” etc.]—As a change has been made here in Foxe’s text, Hoveden’s words are given:—“Ubi [apud Northampton] taedium magnum fecit [Rex Thomae] Cantuariensi archiepiscopo.

Imprimis enim fecit Rex equos suos hospitari in hospitiis illius: sed archiepi-scopus mandavit regi quod ipse ad curiam non veniret, donec hospitia sua vacuarentur ab equis et hominibus suis. In crastino colloquii venit Thomas archiepiscopus ad curiam regis,” etc. The Quadrilogus opens the account of the council thus:—“Facta igitur concione trahitur ad causam archiepiscopus, quod ad quandam regis citationem se in propria persona non exhibuerit. Qui licet se suffficientem responsalem pro se misisse probaverit, tamen omnium proce-rum et etiam pontificum judicio mox omnia ejus bona mobilia sunt confiscata, nisi forte regia Clementia vellet temperare judicium.”

Out of these two statements of Hoveden and the Quadrilogus Grafton makes up the following: ¾ “So when the day was come, all the peers and nobles with the prelates of the realm upon the king’s proclamation being in the castle of Northampton, great fault was found with the archbishop, for that he, being personally cited to appear, came not himself, but sent another for him. The cause why he came not Hoveden assigneth to be this: for that the king had placed his horse and horsemen in the archbishop’s lodging (which was a house there of canons), wherewith he, being offended, sent word again that he would not appear, unless his lodging were voided of the king’s horsemen.

Whereupon,” etc. It will be at once perceived, that Grafton in this statement quite misrepresents the meaning both of Hoveden and the Quadrilogus, and that the amended text places the matter in its true light.—The occupation of Becket’s lodgings by the king’s horses was a circumstance not at all unlikely to occur, in consequence of the king’s arrival late on the Tuesday from his field sports, as mentioned from Fitz-Stephen in the last note. Grafton renders Hoveden’s “man-davit sent word;” but as it is followed by the word “colloquii,” the more equivocal term “warned” might have been better. Fitz-Stephen says that Becket did not see the king on Tuesday; but next morning (Wednesday) waited on him and complained of William de Curci’s having occupied one of his lodgings, and requested he might be ejected, which the king complied with: he then offered to enter into the affair of John the Marshal, but the king put it off till John’s return from London. This probably was the “colloquium” which Hoveden refers to. Fitz-Stephen adds, that the next day (Thursday) Becket was condemned for his non-appearance at the king’s court on Holy Cross day (Sept. 14), concerning John the Marshal’s business: ¾ “Quia scilicet a Rege citatus pro causa cujusdam Joannis (mareschalli) neque venisset, neque idonee se excusasset.” (Fitz-Steph.) This John, the king’s marshal, claimed a manor which was in Becket’s possession.

When called on in the spiritual court to swear to his case, he swore, not on the Gospels, but on a troparium. Becket refused to accept such an oath, and the man accused him to the king of refusing him justice. Being summoned to the king’s court to explain the affair on Holy Cross day, Becket sent four knights to answer for him. This, then, constituted the first charge against Becket: “Quod ad quandam Regis citationem se in propria persona non exhibuerit.” The merits of the case itself were to be afterwards tried. The accusation here against Becket was simply that he did not appear in person in the king’s court (agreeably to the Constitutions of Clarendon), to explain his conduct in the affair. A fine of five hundred marks was accepted in lieu of his forfeited moveables.

The Quadrilogus differs here from Fitz-Stephen in placing this transaction to the Wednesday, and then bringing up the affair of John the Marshal on Thursday as an entirely distinct charge.—Mr. Carte and Lord Lyttelton state, that the troparium above mentioned was not a song-book (as some have rendered it), but a book of church music, with a portion of a Gospel inserted at the beginning, and that it was the constant practice to be sworn on such books; so that Becket’s objection to hear the suitor on that score was really a frivolous one.

APP324 “A house of Canons.”— The Cluniac convent of St. Andrew. See the note on page 214.

APP325 “And this was the first day’s action.”—The Quadrilogus says:— “Et haec sententia sic lata in archipraesulem feria quarta prima fuit concilii actio.”

APP326 “The next day an action,” etc.]—The Quadrilogus calls this the second day of the council, and “feria quinta” or Thursday.

APP327 The Quadrilogus of 1495 (cap. 32) says:—“In palatio veto et qui ad conecilium venerant universi jam audientes hoc obstupuerunt. Et jam passim ubmurmurabant solam captionem archipraesulis superesse.

Alii verb etiam graviora suspicabantur. Et hoc quidera jam passim. ‘Super his’ (inquit verb arehiepiscopus) ‘prudentiores volumus consulere, et de consulto respondere.’ Dum igitur pontifices qui aderant quid super his respondendum agendumve esset requirerent, Henricus tunc,” etc. Fitz-Stephen says (p. 38):—“Jubetur super his omnibus regi rationem exponere. Respondit archiepiscopus se non ad hoc venisse paratum vel citatum. Super hoc si convenire deberet, loco et tempore domino suo regi quod juris esset faceret. Exegit rex ab eo super hoc cautionem fidejussoriam. Dixit ille, se oportere super hoc hubere consilium suffraganeorum et clericorum suorum. Rex sustinuit.

Ille discessit; et ex illa die amplius ad hospitium ejus non venerunt eum videre barones, aut alii milites, intellecto regis animo. Quarta die, ad hospitium domini archiepiseopi venerunt omnes ecclesiasticae personae illae. Cum episcopis semotim, cum abbatibus semotim, super hujus-modi tractatum habuit, consilium captavit,” etc. On the authority of the foregoing passages, the following words have been added to Foxe’s text (140-42):—“Becket, astonished at this demand, begged leave to consult with his brother bishops apart, before he made his answer, which was granted.” The ensuing words—“And so ended that day’s action. On the morrow”—are added to Foxe’s text on the authority of Fitz-Stephen, who makes this last claim to be “propounded” on the Friday, and the consequent deliberation to occupy the Saturday. This last addition is also necessary to explain Foxe’s own narrative; for his expression “the morrow after,” at the opening of the previous paragraph, must mean Friday; and yet the next day named, and which Foxe describes as immediately following the deliberation, is Sunday (p. 209). It was necessary, therefore, to introduce a more distinct notice of the intermediate Saturday, in order to make out the week. It is singular that the Quadrilogus of 1495 makes the claim only “triginta marcarum: ” but the Quadrilogus of 1682 says “ducenta triginta marcarum millia.”

APP328 The words in the text—“The archbishop was sitting apart in a certain conclave with his fellow-bishops about him, consulting together, the doors fast locked to them, as the king had willed and commanded”—would stand, according to Foxe, near the beginning of the previous paragraph, after the words—“The morrow after which was the third day of the council:” they are brought down here conformably to Fitz-Stephen’s statement, which (as already intimated) makes this last claim on Becket to have been “propounded” in open council on the Friday, and discussed in conclave on the Saturday; and in fact, Foxe’s subsequent narrative shows the same thing; for at page 208, 117, 18, 45, he distinctly says that Becket and his suffragans were shut into the conclave by the king for the express purpose of this deliberation, which (as already proved) took place on the Saturday.

The expression “sitting apart” is a variation from Foxe, who says “sitting below”; the Quadrilogus of 1495 (which he followed) says “deorsum,” but the edition of 1682 says “seorsum,” apart; and Fitz- Stephen says the deliberation took place ad hospitium domini archiepiscopi.

APP329 “Who hath thus,” etc. This passage will be found in Fitz-Stephen (p. 30), whence the text is amended. The Latin of the part so amended is as follows:—“Et quis vos fascinavit, O insensati pontifices? Quid prudenti vocabulo dispensationis manifestam iniquitatem vestram contegitis? Quid vocatis dispensationem totius ecclesiae Christi dispendium? Rebus vocabula serviant; non cum rebus pervertantur vocabula. Quod autem dicitis, malitiae temporis multa fore indulgenda, assentior certe: sed non ob id peccata accumulanda esse peccatis.”

APP330 “Sunday, nothing was done.”— “In crastino vero, dominica viz. die, propter diem quievit concilium.” (Quadrilogus.) Fitz-Stephen, however, makes a very different representation:—”Quinta dies, quae et dominica erat, tota consiliis dedita est. Vix reficiendi hora respirare licebat. Archiepiseopus ab hospitio non discessit” (p. 39).

APP331 “Amoto ab humeris pallio cum infula, caeteris indutus vestibus sacris, cappa clericali superjecta.” (Quadrilogus.) Cappa was a cloak.

APP332 These chaplains of the archbishop are named in the Quadrilogus: “Erant enim ibi Magister Robertus Magnus [Grandis, edit; 1682] cognomine et Osbertus de Arundel [Arundelli, edit. 1682.] Cum autem qui ostiarii dicebantur cum virgis et baculis de coenaculo regis in quo rex erat cum magno impetu descendissent et vultu minaci et digitis extensis versus archipraesulem, quotquot in domo erant crucis signaculo se signantibus, etc.”—Quadrilogus.

APP333 “William Fitz-Stephen.”— This is Becket’s biographer Fitz- Stephen, miscalled here “John” by Grafton, who was probably misled by the mention of one “John Plancia” in the context.—Quadrilogus, edit. 1495, lib. 1: cap. 26.

APP334 The Quadrilogus says: “Dicum est etiam quod Joselinus Sarisburiensis et Wilhelmus Norvicensis episcopi, qui adhuc restiterant, traherentur statim ad supplicium in membris mutilandi: qui et ipsi pro salute sua Cantuariensem rogabant. Intuens igitur Archiepiscopus in Exoniensem, air, etc.”

APP335 “In all haste to the pope in France.”— “Ad Romanam sedem.” (Quadrilogus.) Foxe, from Grafton, says “up to Rome.” But the papal see was then at Sens. In like manner, at line 8 of the next page, “before the pope” is substituted for “up to Rome.”

APP336 “Et sic catholicae ecclesiae et apostolicae sedis auctoritate hinc recedo.”—Quadrilogus.

APP337 “Ad ecclesiam Beati Andreae, religiosorum monachorum conventuale monasterium.”—Quadrilogus.

APP338 Fitz-Stephen says, that Becket was lurking in the kingdom from the Quinzaine of St. Michael (October 13th) to the commemoratio defunctorum fidelium (November 2d); on which day Gervase says “4 Non. Nov. [November 2d] apud Graveninges in Boloniensi territorio applicuit.” Gervase also says that he assumed the name of Frater Christianus.”

APP339 Wingham was one of the manors belonging to the see of Canterbury: but both editions of the Quadrilogus read here “Mungeaham,” which was another manor of the see of Canterbury. (See Hasted’s Kent, 5: Great Mungeaham.)

APP340 Becket himself states generally what the ordinances were which he mainly objected to, at page 230.

APP341 “A remembrance and recognition:” “recordatio et recognitio.”— These are somewhat technical terms, “recordatio” implying an examination of witnesses as to what the usage and precedent have been in any case, and “recognitio” the allowance, ratification, and recording thereof. The following passage in the Appeal of the bishops against the excommunications of Vezelai refers to this transaction at Clarendon, and seems to express the force of the two words in question:—“It was now necessary, with a view to restoring a good understanding, that an enquiry should be instituted into the ancient usages.of the kingdom, and the question thus finally brought to an issue. And, accordingly, evidence was sought among the oldest of our bishops and nobility, and their combined testimony was publicly recorded.”—Ep. D. Th. 1: 128, Froude, vol. 4: p. 177. See Ducange, and Thorpe’s Glossary to his Anglo-Saxon Laws,5: Recordatio.

Another illustration of this peculiar meaning of “recordatio et recognitio” will be found at Page 114, Canon I. of the Council of London. (See the note in this Appendix on that Canon.)

APP342 Frank-A1moigne was a tenure peculiar to ecclesiastics, and exempted from all secular services.—Lord Lyttelton’s Henry II. vol. 2: p. 249.

APP343 “I entered into the fold of Christ,” etc.]—For explanation of this passage, see the note on p. 199.

APP344 For “Sens”...“four years”...“six years.”—Foxe (copying Grafton) reads “Senon” (from the latin “Senones”),...“five years,”...“seven years.” But Foxe himself, at p. 244, rightly considers his banishment to have lasted “six years: ” and as Becket left Pontigny about Martinmas (Nov. 13th) A.D. 1166, it is plain that his sojourn there lasted, as Foxe says, two years; which leaves but four years for his residence at Sens:

Gerause expressly says he was there four years.

APP345 “In the mean time,” etc.]—The matter from hence to p. 241, consisting chiefly of translations of letters, is Foxe’s addition to Grafton, who only briefly alludes to them. They were all written before Becket’s removal to Sens.

APP346 For “four years” Foxe reads “five.” See the last note. Becket resided in the abbey of St. Columban while at Sens.

APP347 This epistle is found in “Epist. D. Thomae,” lib. 1: 64. In the Cave manuscript in the Bodleian, this letter occurs with the words prefixed “sine salutatione.” For an allusion to this absence of a salutation, see p. 231. For a translation of this letter, see Froude’s Remains, vol. 4: p. 141.

APP348 “The prior of Montdieu, and Bernardus de Corilo.”— Hoveden reads (Script. post Bedam, p. 507), “Prior de Monte Dei et Bernardus de Corilo.” Foxe from some obscure or corrupt copy reads, “Petrus de ponte Dei, and Bernardus de Corilio.” The prior of Montdieu was named Simon; he was afterwards again sent by the pope as an envoy to Henry about 1168, with Engelbert, prior of Val de St. Pierre, and Bernard, a monk of Grammont, to warn the king against Becket’s then threatened excommunication. (Epist. D. Thomae. 1, 29. Froude’s Remains, vol. 4: pp. 360, 370, 388.) Probably this Bernard de Corilo is the same individual as that Bernard of Grammont.

APP349 The excommunication of which the king was warned by the pope (p. 228) under date of May 27th, was pronounced by Becket at Vezelai on the Sunday after Ascension, June 5th, A.D. 1166: for this date, see a letter by John of Salisbury to the bishop of Exeter, Epist.

D. Thomae 1: 140, translated by Froude, p. 149.

APP350 “Earl Huah.”—Hugh, Earl of Chester, mentioned at p. 276.

APP351 “Letard, cleric of Northfleet.”— Foxe reads “Norfolk;” but the Quadrilogus has “Northfleit,” and Hoveden (Script. post Bedam, p. 513) “Norflicta,” and Hasted’s Kent (i. 446) says that Letard died incumbent of Northfleet, A.D. 1199. (Reg. Roff. p. 506). For “Monkton,” Foxe reads “Monchote,” wherein he follows the Quadrilogus; but Hoveden (ut supra) reads “Novo Cotona,” an evident corruption (as well as the “Monchoto” of the Quadrilogus) of “Monocotona,” or Monkton (called in Doomsday “Monocstune”).

Monkton was one of the churches in the archbishop’s gift.

APP352 “Richard of Ilchester.” —Foxe reads “Rice of Wilcester. The letter reads Wicester, which is meant for Yvelcester, or “Ivecestre” (as Hoveden reads it, Script. post Bed. p. 506), or Ilchester. Foxe in the next page mis-calls him “Richard of Worcester.” Richard of Ilchester was at this time archdeacon of Poictiers, and a great partisan of the king’s; he was afterwards made bishop of Winchester. He is mentioned in Letters in Froude, pp. 135, 153, 154, 159, 161.—See Godwin de Proesulibus, Cave, and Tanner.

APP353 “John of Oxford,” son of Henry a burgess of Oxford, was chaplain to Henry II., and much employed by him in his political affairs. At his command he presided at the council of Clarendon: he was sent with others to appear at Sens before the pope against Becket (p. 214): he was chief envoy to the diet of Wurtzburg in 1165: he was sent with other envoys to Rome in 1166 to threaten pope Alexander, that, unless he would abandon Becket, Henry would do all in his power to overthrow his authority. See Henry’s letter to Reginald, archbishop of Cologne, stating this (Ep. D. Thomae, 1: 69, translated by Froude, p. 127). The other envoys were, the archbishop of York, the bishop of London, the archdeacon of Poictiers, and Richard de Lucy.—The allusion to the “oath” may be explained by a passage in one of John of Salisbury’s letters (Ep. D. Th. 1: 73. Joan. Sarisb. 182): “It appears that John of Oxford has, in the name of our king, entered into compact with this German tyrant, and sworn that he shall be supported with English arms and counsel against all mortals, saving only the king of France.” (Froude, p. 126.) It was no doubt in allusion to this oath, that Becket in a letter (Ep. D. Thomae 1: 155, translated by Froude, p. 236) calls him “Jurator” “the Juror.” Respecting the other two charges alleged here against him, see the last note, and the note on page 236, note (1). He was made bishop of Norwich, A.D. 1175, and itinerating justice, A.D. 1179, and died A.D. 1200. (See Fuller’s Worthies, and Tanner’s Bibliotheca.) APP354 “That infamous schismatic of Cologne.”— Reginald, archbishop of Cologne, is meant. “It was at his suggestion, principally, that the emperor had set up Pascal (Guido de Crema) as antipope, to succeed Victor (April 22nd, A.D. 1164). At a meeting lately held at Wittemberg or Wurtzburg (May 23rd, A.D. 1165), to support the emperor in this attempt, Reginald opened the proceedings, and gave out, on the authority of the English envoys, that Henry was about to join them, and would bring fifty bishops with him; on the strength of which reinforcement he proposed adopting strong measures, and banishing all persons of any station in the Church who declined acknowledging Pascal. The archbishop of Magdeburgh objected, and called upon the archbishop of Cologne to commit himself first, by receiving consecration from Pascal. The latter hesitated; but on the emperor becoming furious, and charging him with treachery and false dealing, he consented, and received orders from the antipope, promising to receive consecration afterwards. (Ep. D. Th. 1: 72.) The archbishop of Rouen denied, afterwards, that the king had made any such promise as that asserted of him, ‘quia quinquaginta quos exhiberet Rex non haberet’ (Ep. D. Th. 1: 102). Reginald was then only archbishop elect, nominated to the see A.D. 1159 by the emperor, whose nomination at that time the pope of course would not recognize. Before this he was only chancellor (Ep. D. Th. 1: 33).” Froude, vol. 4: p. 153, and L’Art de Ver. des Dates. Reginald came into England A.D. 1165, to conduct Matilda, the king’s daughter, to the duke of Saxony, to whom she was betrothed. After his departure, the churches where he and his attendant priests had said mass were re-consecrated. The king was forced to submit to this, to prevent the breach between him and Alexander from becoming wider than it was. (Rapin, vol. 2: p. 314.) Probably, it was then that John of Oxford communicated with Reginald, in the way which is here laid to his charge.

APP355 “The king himself we have not yet excommunicated personally,” etc.]—The king was not excommunicated at Vezelai, in consequence of a letter arriving from the king of France on the Friday previous, signifying, under the oath of Richard, archdeacon of Poictiers, and Richard de Humet, the king’s severe indisposition.

APP356 For a translation of this letter of the clergy of England to Becket, see Froude, p. 171. The letter is in “Epist. D. Thomas,” 1: 126.

APP357 “A threatening letter, wherein there is no salvation premised.”— For “salvation” read “salutation.” The original is “sine salute premissa;” and the allusion is to the letter at p. 221, note (1). See the note in this Appendix on that letter.

APP358 This sentence is better rendered by Mr. Froude, p. 172: “Lastly to secure your lordship against worldly reverses, he wished to establish your power in the things of God; and, against the advice of his mother, the remonstrances of his kingdom, and the sighs and longings which the Church ventured to express, exerted all his influence to place you in your present exalted situation, hoping thereby to secure the happiness and prosperity of his reign.”

APP359 For a translation of most part of this letter of Becket to his suffragans, see Froude, p. 185. The letter itself is in “Epist. D.

Thomae” 1: 127.

APP360 This appeal was resolved on after a debate, June 24th: it is in Epist. D. Thomas,1: 128, and Froude, p. 176.

APP361 “ And where you write in your letters of my promotion,” etc.]— The reference is to the top of p. 232. See the note on that page; Mr.

Froude, p. 187, thus renders this passage:—“Next you insinuate in your letter, nay you expressly assert, that the whole kingdom exclaimed against my promotion, and the church sighed and groaned over it. Know ye what the word of truth says—‘The mouth that belieth slayeth the soul?’ (Wisdom, 1:11.) Would not even one of the commonalty be ashamed to say such things? And priests, above all others, are bound to speak the truth. Consult your own consciences; revert to the manner in which the election was conducted; to the unanimity which prevailed in all who had a voice in it; to the assent of the king, given through his son, and confirmed by the chief nobles of the realm. If any of these opposed or protested at all at the time, let him declare it: but it is not for one man to say that the whole of the kingdom was dissatisfied, because he himself had his own private reasons for dissatisfaction.” Where Becket means to insinuate that Foliot bishop of London had been ambitious of being archbishop himself.

APP362 “The deanery of Salisbury had lately become vacant on the promotion of Henry, the late dean, to the bishopric of Baieux. (Ep.

Joan. Sarisb. 148, 201.) At this time some of the canons of that church were in banishment with the archbishop, and the pope forbade the election of a new dean to proceed without their consent and privity. (Ep. D. Th. 1: 100.) But as the bishop was under the king’s displeasure, he found it necessary to make his peace, in defiance of the pope’s command, by conferring the deanery on the king’s nominee. (Ep. D. Th. 1: 104. 2: 7.) According to the statement made by John of Oxford to the pope, he accepted the deanery on compulsion.”— Froude, p. 154.

APP363 “The talk between,” etc.]—Here Foxe resumes his quotation of Grafton, suspended at p. 220.

APP364 The subject of prince Henry’s coronation, by archbishop Roger of York, is involved in some obscurity, owing doubtless to the pope’s duplicity. Rymer gives a letter of pope Alexander III., directed to Roger, archbishop of York, forbidding him to crown the king’s son, as being the exclusive prerogative of the archbishop of Canterbury, dated Cisvinarium, 4 Cal. Martii an. 16, Hen. II. (ex Labbei Conc. tom. 10: 1219). Another to the same, stating that it was unlawful for any, and forbidding any, to crown or anoint the kings of England, except the archbishop of Canterbury (ex Bibl. Cotton. Vesp. c. 14: 128). Also another to the same, and Hugh, bishop of Durham, suspending them for having crowned the king, dated Ferentini, 6: Cal. Oct. (ex Hovedeno). Also a letter to Becket, dated Anagni, 4 November, ordaining for ever that none shall crown or anoint the kings of England, except the archbishop of Canterbury. Also a suspension (without date) of the bishops of London, Salisbury, Exeter, Chester, Rochester, St.

Asaph, and Landaff, for their share in it. (Ex Bibl. Cotton. Vesp. c. 14: fol. 1286.)

It is certain, however, that a bull, giving Roger permission to perform the ceremony, is found in three MSS., though omitted from the collection of letters made by Lupus under the pope’s eye. It is as follows (the Italics are not in the original):—“A1exander Papa Rogero Eboracensi Archiepiscopo.—Quanto per carissimum filium nostrum, Henricum illustrem Anglorum Regera, ampliora commoda et incrementa in hujus necessitatis articulo ecclesiae Dei pervenisse noscuntur, et quanto nos eum pro suae devotionis constantia majori affectione diligimus et cariorem in nostris visceribus retinemus, tanto ad ea quae ad honorem incrementum et exaltationem ipsius et suorum cognoscimus pertinere libentius et promptius aspiramus. Inde est utique, quod, ad ejus petitionem, dilectum filium nostrum Henricum, primogenitum fillum suum, communicato fratrum nostrorum consilio, ex auctoritate Beati Petri ac nostra concedimus in Anglia coronandum.

Quoniam igitur hoc ad officium tuum pertinet, fraternitati vestrae per Apostolica Scripta mandamus, quatenus, cum ab eodem filio nostro rege propter hoc fueris requisitus, coronam memorato filio suo ex auctoritate sedis Apostolicoe imponas, et nos quod a to exinde factum fuerit ratum ac firmum decernimus permanere. Tu vero debitam ei subjectionem et reverentiam, salvo in omnibus patris sui mandato, exhibeas et alios similiter commoneas exhibere.”—Lambeth MS. fol. 246 b and 247 a; Cotton MS. Claudius, b. 11. lib. 2, fol. 288; and Bodleian MS.

The authority given in this letter tallies with that which was previously granted by Alexander to Roger of York in an early letter, in which, after he has confirmed the ancient grant of bearing the cross, he adds the power of crowning the king, “sicut ex literis antecessorum nostrorum predecessoribus tuis concessum est, et sicut eosdem predecessores tuos constat ex antiquo fecisse.” (Epist. D. Thomae, lib. 1: 10.) This power may only refer to assisting at the coronation; the fact, however, is worthy of remark, especially as Becket procured afterwards a bull revoking that grant to the Archbishop of York (Ep.

D. Thomae, lib. 4: 41.). As a further argument in favor of the authority of this letter, it be remembered that it tallies with the assertion made at the time of the coronation, by the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of London, that they had obtained the pope’s consent to the coronation being performed by the hands of the latter, or any other bishop. Can we believe that men of such characters, therefore, would have either wilfully stated an untruth, or forged the letter by which the authority was conveyed? Nay, it actually appears that the pope himself, wrote to Henry, entreating him to keep it secret from Becket, that such a permission had been given. (Epist. D. Thomae, 5: 45.)

Indeed, when it is remembered what the conduct of the pope had been regarding the legatine commission, the suspension of Becket, and the absolution of Foliot, it may be easily credited, that within a very short time after this letter he sent other letters to Becket, expressly forbidding the bishops, and especially the Archbishop of York, from doing anything to the detriment of Becket’s rights in the coronation of the prince; or that he afterwards suspended the Archbishop of York for the very act for which he had so lately given his written permission, and guaranteed him scatheless from all its consequences, These letters of prohibition never arrived in England, in consequence of the careful watch placed over the sea-ports, by which all suspicious messengers and despatches were prevented from entering the kingdom.

In the absence of these, and in obedience to the former letter, the Archbishop of York performed the ceremony, and Henry for the time was triumphant. (See Ch. of E. Quart. Revelation April 1841.)

APP365 It appears that these very expressions which were the immediate occasion of Becket’s death, were used by the king four years before at a conference with his courtiers at Chinon, just before the excommunications at Vezelai. John of Salisbury in a letter to the bishop of Exeter (Ep. D. Th. 1: 140, and Ep. Joan. Saresb. 159) states, that at that meeting, “According to those who were present at the time, he [the king] asserted, with tears in his eyes, that the said archbishop would take from him both body and soul; and, in conclusion, he called them all a set of traitors, who had not zeal nor courage enough to rid him from the molestations of one man.”—Froude, p. 150.

APP366 “Soldiers,” “milites” (Quadrilogus), i.e.”Knights.” Fitz-Stephen calls them “domestici regis barones;” Hoveden and Brompton, “quatuor milites;” Hoveden adds, “viri quidem generis praeeminentia conspicui.”

APP367 The words “on pilgrimage” are added from Grafton.

APP368 The manor of Knaresborough (Foxe writes it “Gnarsborough,” or ‘Gnasborough “) belonged to Morvile.—Hoveden.

APP369 “To go in linsey-wolsey,” etc.]—Foxe (copying Grafton) says erroneously “in their linen clothes,” owing probably to “laneis” being mistaken for “lineis” (see the notes in this Appendix on pp, 124, 254); but no passage has been met with in any of the old chronicles, in which this part of the penance is described. (See Gervase, Hoveden in Script, post Bedam, p. 522, Neubrigensis, lib. 2: c. 25.)

APP370 “Died a few years after,” etc.]—Mr. Carte observes that the biographers of Becket are quite mistaken in this, for that William de Traci, whom they particularly mention to have died most miserably, lived above fifty years longer, and having expiated his crime with the monks of Christ Church, by the gift of his manor of Doccombe, was seneschal of Normandy in 1175 and 1176, joined with the barons against King John, and served in the expedition into Wales in 1222, and had scutage from all his military tenants for that service. It is likewise certain from records, that Hugh de Morvile was living in King John’s time, and had several privileges granted him.

APP371 Gervase (Decem Script, col. 1422) dates this penance, “Avranches, 5 Cal. Oct.”

APP372 See the note on p. 276, note (1).

APP373 Foxe omits one part of the king’s penance. Hoveden’s words are (Script. post Bedam, p. 539), “extractis calceamentis, nudus, pedes, et in pannis laneis, per tria milliaria, profectus usque ad sepulcrum martyris,” etc. Gervase also says (Decem Script. col. 1427), In veste lanea, nudis pedibus ab ecclesia S. Dunstani quae longe extra urbem posita est usque ad tumbam sancti Thomae Martyris perveniens,” etc. (See the notes on pp. 124, 253.) The Quadrilogus says, “Toto nudato corpore, praeterquam vili quadam tunica super nudo amictus.”

APP374 “Coventry.” Foxe says, “Chichester;” Brompton, “Cestriae;” which meant “Lichfield and Coventry.” See page 343, note (4).

APP375 “This year the contention revived again.”— Rather, the year preceding. See Hoveden, p. 550, edit. Francof. 1601; and Rad. de Diceto in Twysden’s Hist. Ang. Scriptores X. col. 589, also col. 1109.

L’Art de Ver. des Dates also places this council to A.D. 1176.

APP376 “A council at Westminster.”— Held (according to Hoveden, Wilkins, and “L’Art de Ver. des Dates”) March 14th, A.D. 1176.

APP377 See before, p. 111, and vol. 1: p. 335.

APP378 Mr. Palmer, in his “Origines Liturgicae,” gives the following account of the casule, chimer, and rochet:—“The casule, or chasible, or vestment, was an outer garment, extending from the neck nearly to the feet, closed all the way round, with only one aperture, through which the head passed. Originally the casula was worn, not only by bishops and presbyters, but by all the inferior clergy; but in the course of ages it became peculiar to presbyters and bishops. It is appointed by the English ritual to be worn by bishops in celebrating the eucharist, and in all other public ministrations, in which, however, they may use a cope instead of it.—The name chimer was probably derived from the Italian zimarra, which is described as ‘vesta talere de’ sacerdoti e de ‘chierici.’

It was a long garment closed all round, with apertures for the arms to pass through; formerly, scarlet, but afterwards changed for the black satin chimer now used by bishops.—The rochet differed from the surplice chiefly in having narrower sleeves; for the ancient English bishops do not appear to have used the very wide and full lawn sleeves, now worn by the bishops.”

APP379 “Protector of France.”— See Diceto sub anno 1181.

APP380 Grafton says that Heraclius, the patriarch of Jerusalem, brought letters to the king from Pope Lucius III. making him this offer.

APP381 “The wisdom,” etc.]—Documents about most of the affairs alluded to in this paragraph will be found in Hoveden.

APP382 “Jacobus, the Archbishop of Mentz...a little before in the Council of Basil, where the price was wont” etc.]— Foxe alludes to this story four times in the “Acts and Monuments,” here and at p. 109, and vol. 4: pp. 12, 164. In the edition of 1570, p. 294, this passage appears for the first time, and without the word “in:”—“Jacobus, the Archbishop of Mentz...a little before the council of Basil, where the price was wont” etc. Whether this statement is to be accurate or not, will depend on whether the middle clause, “a little before the council of Basil,” be connected with what follows, or with what precedes: The latter supposition, makes Jacobus. to pay the exorbitant sum named a little before the council of Basil: this supposition Foxe adopted; for in the same edition, in the places corresponding to p. 109 of this volume, and to vol. 4: p. 164, he reads—“which sum Jacobus, archbishop of Mentz, was pressed to pay a little before the council of Basil.” The former supposition ¾i.e. as though the text meant, “whereas the price was wont a little before the council of Basil to be” etc.]—makes the price for some reason rise rapidly after the council from 10,000 to 27,000 florins. This last is the truth, as appears from L’Art de Ver. des Dates, which makes Jacques de Liebenstein become archbishop of Mentz A.D. 1504, sixty years after the council of Basil: it also appears from the statement of grievances called “Liber Gravaminum Nationis Germanicae” referred to here in Foxe’s note as his authority, and of which, as also of the proposed. “Remedy,” he gives a translation infra, vol. 4: pp. 11-15; and at p. 12 this very case of the archbishopric of Mentz is fully stated: from that passage two errors have been corrected in this, viz. ten thousand is here read for Foxe’s ‘a thousand,’ and “twenty-seven thousand” for “twenty-six thousand.” Whether the word “in” was afterwards introduced into our author’s text by accident or design, does not appear; but it is not unlikely that Foxe had before him some writer, as Henry Token (cited by him at p. 354, and vol. in. p. 772), who said that statements were made on this subject “in concilio Basiliensi: ” that such was the fact there is no doubt, as the following extract from L’Art de Ver. des Dates, Areheveques de Mayence, 5: Conrad, will show;—“L’An 1429, sur la convocation qui fut faite du concile de Bale, Conrad dressa un etat des griefs de l’eglise Germanique contre la cour de Rome, avec les moyens de les redresser.

Mais avant de rendre public ce memoire, il assembla le 12 Novembre 1431 ses comprovinciaux dans la ville d’Aschaffenbourg, pour en conferer avec eux. Le memoire fut approuve par l’assemblee et envoye au concile de Bale, ou Conrad, malgre le desir qu’il en avait, ne put assister.” This memorial no doubt stated that the usual price was then 10,000 florins; and even that statement would much contribute to produce the decree of the council against Annates, and furnished useful data to the future memorialist who presented the “Liber Gravaminum” to Maximilian, A.D. 1510, when the price was nearly trebled.—The foregoing remarks will explain why the words “a little before the council of Basil” at p. 109, and vol. 4: p. 164, have been dropped in this edition; they might indeed have been changed into “a little after the council of Basil,” but that expression seemed rather too slight to describe an interval of 60 years.

APP383 “Ex libro Gravaminum nationis Germanicoe.”— The list of grievances here alluded to were presented to the emperor Maximilian in 1510; and again in 1518, no attention having been paid to the complainers, nor any remedies suggested by the Lateran Council: see the note on vol. 4: p. 11.

APP384 “Baldwin, of a Cistercian monk made a bishop.”— See pp. 718, 723. Foxe, vol. 5: p. 876, represents Baldwin as not becoming monk till he was elected archbishop. But this account is the correct one: Neubrigensis says (lib. in. cap. 8), “Ex abbate Fordensi Episcopus Wigorniensis factus.” M. Westminster says the same at the year 1181, adding, “he was of the Cistercian order.”

APP385 “Gratian, Master of the Decrees.”— See some account of his “Decretum” supra, vol. 1: p. 801, note (3).

APP386 “Peter the Lombard, master of the sentences.”— Peter Lombard, Professor of Divinity at Paris, after Bishop of Paris, 1159, died 1164.

His great work is the celebrated “Book of Sentences,” in which he treats of all the principal questions which were then debated in the schools, and illustrates them by a copious and methodical collection of apposite passages from the Fathers, chiefly from Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine. The work soon became classical, and was made the subject of voluminous commentaries by most of the great scholastic divines in that and the following centuries.

APP387 “In vulgarem sermonem vertere, docendo declarare.” Illyricus, “Cat. Test.” edit. 1608, col. 1499, B.

APP388 “And this, they said,” etc. ¾ “Et haec institutio diu stetit, sicut chronica gestorum ostendunt; et vetustissimus Graecus Origines, qui statim post Christi tempora fuit, sicut primarius magister scribit super tertium librum Mosi: Quicunque,” etc.]—Fratrum Waldensium Responsio Excusatoria apud Fasciculum Orth. Gratii, fol: 88, A. (vol. 1: p. 175, ed. 1690.)

APP389 The statement of the Apologist is this: “Duplex est purgatorium, unum est hic, alterum in futuro saeculo. Primum habet fidem in Sacris Scripturis, et est certum, etc....Secundum purgatorium est in alio mundo, et hoc est incertum, quia Scriptura Sacra non dat de hoe testimoninm, de quo primitiva ecclesia nihil seivit, neque sequaces per longum tempus; et veteres doctores non confirmant, proecipue de loco.

Sed proxime novi quidam, non a longo tempore, ut Thomas Aquinas, is locum invenit tertium in inferno. Sed vetns doctor Augustinus aliter sensit, dicens, Locus purgatorii non est ostensus, nisi quod multis exemplis se animae ostenderunt in his locis, et cruciatibus ostensae sunt Sicque vetus doctor Augustinus cum aliis veteribus doctoribus contradicit Thomae, quoniam priores tenuerunt, quod post resurrectionem Salvatoris nullae animae ingrediuntur infernum nisi damnatorum. Sed Thomas invenit in inferno duo loca, unum non baptizatorum, alterum animarum purgandarum,” etc.]—(“Responsio Excusatoria Fratrum Waldensium,” apud Orth. Gratium, fol. 89. C.D.)

From the foregoing extract it would seem, that Foxe exhibits the meaning of the Apologist more correctly in the margin than in the text—“Thomas Aquinas the finder of Purgatory.”

APP390 “Sacerdotem quocunque loco sacrum Christi corpus conficere posse, petentibusque ministrare.”—Illyricus, col. 1525.

APP391 “So long as a man may say,” etc.]— “Ita diu, quod possunt dicere triginta vel quadraginta Pater Noster et Amen aliquoties.”—Illyricus, col. 1523, o.

APP392 The following is the Latin of the two foregoing sentences: “Item nullam aliam orationem dicunt nec docent nec habent, nisi orationem Dominicam, Pater Noster, etc. Nec orationem reputant salutationem Angelicam, Ave Maria; nec symbolum Apostolorum, Credo in Deum; et dicunt ilia per Romanam Ecclesiam non per Christum fuisse ordinata seu composita. Veruntamen articulos fidei 7 de divinitate, et 7 de humanitate, et 10 precepta, et 7 opera misericordiae, sub quodam compendio quodammodo ab eis ordinato et composito, dicunt et docent, et in illo plurimum gloriantur et statim offerunt se promptos ad respondendum de fide sua.”—Illyricus, col. 1524, B.

For the words “Nec orationem reputant” in the above passage the first edition of the “Catalogus Testium” had “nec aliud reputant,” while Illyricus wrote in his margin, “Id est, negant symbolum esse orationem.” This marginal note was afterwards wrought into the text, and “aliud” changed into “orationem.” Mr. Maitland proposes to read “allquid” for “aliud;” i.e. “they reject the Salutation and the Apostles’ Creed, classing them as human compositions made up by the Romish Church.” See Pihchdorf contra Waldenses, cap. XX.

The seven articles of faith “pertinentes ad mysterium Trinitatis, quorum quatuor pertinent ad Divinitatis intrinseca tres vero ad effectus,” are enumerated in the Constitutions of Archbishop Peckham, Wilkins’s Conc. tom. 2: p. 54. Also the seven articles “qui pertinent ad Christi humanitatem:” (Ibid.) Then follows a brief commentary on the Ten Commandments: then the Seven Works of Mercy, “quae ex Matthaei Evangelio patefiunt,” viz. “famelicum pascere, potare sitibundum, hospitio recipere peregrinum, vestire nudum, visitare infirmum, consolari carcere mancipatum;” Septimum ex Tobia colligitur, scil.” Sepelire corpora mortuorum.” (Ibid. p. 55.)

APP393 Reinerius Saccho, a native of Placenza, first a zealous Waldensian, afterward a preaching friar, general inquisitor of heretics, and a bitter persecutor. He was at length banished Milan A.D. 1259, and died in exile. (Cave’s Hist. Litt,) The greater portion of his “Summa de Catharis et Leonistis” is published in Illyricus’s “Catalogus Testium,” edit. 1608, col. 1507.

APP394 Two or three other instances of these mis-translations are given from Reinerius, in Mr. Maitland’s “Albigenses and Waldenses,” p. 402.

APP395 This citation is not quite exact. Reinerius says, that “there were forty-one schools in the diocese of Passau alone;” and the next place he calls “Clemmate.”—Maitland’s Albigenses and Waldenses, p. 403.

APP396 “Habeo consultationes jurisperitorum Avenionensium, item archiepiscoporum Narbonensis, Arelatensis, et Aquensis, item ordinationem episcopi Albanensis de extirpandis Valdensibus jam ante annos 340 scriptas.”—Illyricus, col. 1501.

APP397 “Is apparent from,” etc.]—“Facile ex praedicta trium archiepiscoporum Galilcorum consultatione ante annos 340 scripta apparet.”—Illyricus, col. 1501.

APP398 “Translated out of Sleidan into English.”— This was done by John Daus, and was printed by John Daye, in London, 1560. See Dibdin’s “Ames,” vol. 4: p. 77.

APP399 See the note on page 188.

APP400 “St. William of Paris.”— See the last note.

APP401 Urban III. died October 11th, A.D. 1187, and Gregory VIII. died December 17th, following.—L’Art de Ver. des Dates.

APP402 Wharton, in his History of English Poetry, mentions this bishop Stephen, and supposes him to have been a comic poet. Trivet’s words are as follows:—“Stephanus Redonensis Episcopus obiit, cui ante mortem (ut ipse fassus est) apparens quaedam persona, parvo levique sibilo dixit ei hos versus: ‘Desine ludere temere; nitere surgere propere de pulvere.’ Ipse enim multa, rythmico carmine et prosa, jocunde et ad plausus hominum scripserst. Et quia Miserator hominum eum in proximo moriturum sciebat, monuit eum, ut a talibus abstinens poeniteret.”—Nicolai Triveti Annales, Oxonii, 1719, p. 73.

APP403 “Johannes Burgundio, Pisanus civis,” is mentioned by Cave in his Hist. Litt. He flourished A.D. 1148, was at the Roman council A.D. 1180, and died A.D. 1194.

APP404 “Richard Peck.”—Wharton, ex fide Annal. Eccl. S. Werburgae Cestrensis, says he died October 6th, A.D. 1182; Hoveden says A.D. 1183. He was consecrated bishop of Lichfield and Coventry A. D. 1161. ¾Godwin de Proesulibus.

APP405 “Hugo.”— “Caenobii Carthusiani Witthamae in Somersetia, ab Hen. II. nuper positi, prior,” born at Grenoble, in Burgundy; consecrated A.D. 1186; died about November A.D. 1200. M. Paris (sub anno 1200) relates his miracles.—Godwin.

APP406 “Baldwin.”—Baldwin began to build the college for canons at Hackington, near Canterbury, with a view to transfer the election of archbishop from the monks of Canterbury to persons who would be more obsequious to the king. The monks prevailed with pope Urban III. to stop the building and forbid the plan. On his death, October 11th, A.D. 1187, Baldwin proceeded to found the archiepiscopal establishment at Lambeth. but was interrupted by death, A.D, 1190.

Clement III. was elected December 19th, A.D, 1157.—Godwin.

APP407 Foxe has authority for the statement in the text (see Rastal’s Chronicle, etc.), but it is not quite accurate. Hugh, earl of Chester, was taken prisoner at Dol in Bretagne, on Sunday, August 26th, A.D. (Carte, Henry); and the king sent for the earl of Leicester early next year into Normandy, and confined him with the earl of Chester in the castle of Falaise; and brought them over with him as prisoners to England, Monday, July 8th, A.D. 1174 (Hoveden, Carte, Henry).

Henry performed his penance at Canterbury the following Friday, and the king of Scots was taken at Alnwick the next day, Saturday tertio idus Julii, i.e. July 13th, A.D. 1174. (See Fordun’s “Scoti-chronicon,” Gul. Neubrigensis, Hoveden, Henry, and Nicolas’s Tables.) The statement in the text, therefore, is only correct as to the king of Scots.

APP408 Foxe is a little incorrect in the text. It was Urban III. who died for sorrow for the Holy Cross, as related at p. 271. (See the note on that page.)

APP409 “One thousand and five hundred.”—Hoveden says, “Quingenti viri, exceptis mulieribus et parvulis:” on which expression Foxe probably grounded his number, for which no other authority has been discovered.

APP410 Foxe’s description of Richard’s preparation for his departure to the Holy Land is very embarrassed, and it has been necessary to make several changes and transpositions of his text, to reduce it to accurate history. In the text, anticipating a subsequent stage of the negotiations, he says, that they agreed to go “about Easter next ensuing;” for which the words “at a certain interview” have been substituted in the text.

APP411 “Hugh Puzas, biship of Durham” ¾This Hugh de Pudsey, bishop of Durham, ordered a Bible to be writen for him some time between the years 1153 and 1194, which is now extant in the library of the Chapter, and is divided into chapters.—Faber’s Hist. of the Waldenses, p. 375.

APP412 “Philip the French king,” etc.]—Foxe, by mistake, makes Richard send to remind Philip. The text has been altered in conformity with Hoveden, Script. post Bedam, p. 660; Acta Publ. tom. 1: p. 63; Brompton; Diceto; M. Paris.

APP413 “After which the king,” etc.]—This paragraph is made up of two passages of Foxe, which would stand at pp. 280, 298. Richard embarked at Dover, December 11th, and kept his Christmas at Lionsla- foret, seven leagues from Rouen, whence he proceeded to Gue St.

Reme, and held the interview with Philip described in the text on St.

Hilary (January 13th). See for authorities, Vinesauf’s “Iter Hierosolymitanum Regis Richardi,” Hoveden, Brompton, Henry.

APP414 Foxe says in the text that the Jews were to be called on for “lx thousand” pounds (Ed. 1570);” 60,000,” (Ed. 1571;) but, erroneously, “6000,” (Edd. 1583, 1596.)—See Stowe’s Chronicle, ad an. 1188.

APP415 “Gardeviance” —is a word used, at least three times in Foxe, viz. here, and at vol. 5: p. 102, and vol. 6: p. 413, and in each case in reference to a religious procession; it seems to mean “the pomp and circumstance,” the customary paraphernalia and observance, of such processions.

APP416 Respecting the duration of Anselm’s episcopate, consult the account of him at pp. 144—171, and p. 723.

APP417 Foxe or his MS. seems to have mis-read 38 Hen. II. instead of Hen. II.

APP418 “The court” means “the court of France.” (See Gervase, apud Script. Decem. col. 1497.)

APP419 Foxe says Urban died the “nineteenth” day after. He should have said the “eighth,” or “ninth” including the first.—L’Art de Ver. des Dates.

APP420 Read “seventeenth.” ¾ See L’Art de Ver. des Dates.

APP421 “Clement III.”—See the note in this Appendix on p. 142.

APP422 Hoveden says that the king came to Canterbury Nov. 27th, and proposed the compromise two days after.

APP423 “Theobald” is here substituted for Foxe’s “Richard: ” see pp. 187, 281.

APP424 “Roger” is here substituted for Foxe’s “Richard:” for the occasion referred to, see p. 110; the archbishop of Canterbury was named “Richard,” but there is not a “Richard of York” in all Godwin’s list.

APP425 This “agreement” was made Nov. 29th. See the note on p. 295.

APP426 “He committed,” etc.]—What is here related took place at a council held by Richard in France on English affairs, February 2d.— Benedict. Abbas, p. 583; Hoveden, p. 379.

APP427 “These things and others.”— This and the next sentence stand in Foxe’s text at p. 280; the words “and came to Chinon” are added on Hoveden’s authority, to connect the narrative.

APP428 “To Tours, and after that.”— These words are brought from a previous sentence of Foxe; Richard received at Tours the pilgrim’s scrip and staff.

APP429 They marched from Vezelai, July lst.—Vinesauf (who accompanied the king, and wrote the “Itinerarium”).

APP430 Vinesauf says that Richard stayed three weeks at Marseilles, and embarked the day alter the Assumption, or August 16th.

APP431 “The seventh day of August,” etc.]—This sententce as far as “seacoast of Italy,” had slipped lower down in Foxe’s text.

APP432 “Octavian,” by Foxe, here and at p. 315, mis-called “Ottoman” (see Moreri 5: Cardinal): “Octavianus,” Hoveden, p. 668.

APP433 “ Passing on horseback to Salerno.”—” In equis conductis.” (Hoveden, p. 668.) Foxe says, “partly by horses and waggons, partly by the sea, passing,” etc.

APP434 “A stronghold called De la Bagnara, or Le Bamre.”— Foxe is quoting Hoveden, p. 673:—“quod est in medio fluminis del Far inter Messanam et Calabriare.” M. Paris says, “transivit fluvium qui Far dicitur.”

APP435 Vinesauf and Diceto (col. 657) call this place “Mategriffum.” APP436 “Richard, hearing of Joachim,” etc.]—See a reference to this story infra, vol. in. p. 105. Joachim was born in Calabria, about A.D. 1130. Having traveled in Palestine, he assumed, on his return, the habit of a Cistercian monk, and became abbot of Curazzo in Calabria, and afterwards founder and first abbot of Flora in Calabria. He was celebrated for his prophecies: what Merlin was among the English, Malachy among the Irish, and Nostrodamus among the French, such was Joachim among the Italians. He wrote many works. Two years before his death he published a confession of his faith, in which he begs that his works might be submitted to the censorship of the Church after his death, in case he died without putting his last hand to them.

APP437 “Should have sojourned.”— “Ambularet” (Hoveden); Foxe, “travailed.”

APP438 Clement III. died March 27th, A.D. 1191, and Easter fell that year on April 14th. (See Nicolas’s Tables.)

APP439 The archbishop of Apamea might probably have been in Europe to stir up the Christian princes, as the archbishop of Tyre was a few years before.

APP440 Hoveden says, “de Appamia, Anxiensis, et Woracensis.” The names and titles in the text are put in from the passage in Hoveden, compared with numerous contiguous passages, in which the same bishops evidently recur again and again. Gallia Christiana has also been consulted, and confirms the titles which are put in.

APP441 “On Saturday, the thirtieth day of March.”— Foxe says, erroneously, the eight and twentieth day of March. Vinesauf says, “Sabbato post Annunciationem B. Virginis,” and Hoveden, “Sabbato tertio Cal. Aprilis,” which means the same thing, March 30th. (Nicolas’s Tables.) Foxe’s next date also requires this; for as Easter in the year 1191 fell on April 14th, and Hoveden describes that date “Sabbato in Hebdomade Pasehae,” i.e. Saturday April 20th, it would be the twenty-second day after March 30th, including (as usual) that day itself.

APP442 “After the departure,” etc.]—“Eodem die” (Hoveden). Vinesauf implies the same.

APP443 “Elenor departed.”— Hoveden says, “quarto die sequente;” and Vinesauf adds, “to be joint guardian of England with Walter, archbishop of Rouen.”

APP444 This behavior of Pope Celestine III. to Henry VI. is referred to again, vol. 4: pp. 114, 143. See Hoveden (Script. post Bedam, p. 689), Knighton (Script. Decem, col. 2403), and Baronius, ad an. 1191, Section 10.

APP445 “The tenth day of April.”— Hoveden says, “feria quarta ante Coenam Domini.” “Coena Domini” means Maunday Thursday (or the day before Good Friday), which in A.D. 1191 fell on April 11th (Nicolas’s Tables). The “feria quarta,” or Wednesday before, would therefore be April 10th. Vinesauf says, “die Mercurii post Dominicam Palmarum,” which is the same date with Hoveden’s.

APP446 “Good Friday”—“In die Parasceues.”—Hoveden.

APP447 ” Applicuit in insula de Creta, deinde in insula de Rhodes.”— Hoveden.

APP448 “Sunday, St. Pancras’ day.”—(Vine- saul) which gives May 12th in the year 1191. (Nicolas’s Tables.)

APP449 Foxe inadvertently says “sixth” instead of “seventh,” and at line 23 “seventh” for “eighth.” Richard certainly reached Acre “proximo Sabbato ante festum beati Barnabae Apostoli, in Hebdomade Pentecostes.”

In the year 1191 Pentecost fell on June 2nd, and St. Barnabas’ day was June 11th. The Saturday between would, therefore, be June 8th. (See Nicolas’s Tables.)

APP450 “Ducentos serpentes perniciosissimos.”—Vinesauf.

APP451 Vinesauf says the surrender of Acre took place “die Veneris proxima post translationem beati Benedicti;” that feast was July 11th, and in the year 1191 fell on a Thursday. (Nicolas’s Tables.) The surrender of Acre was, therefore, on July 12th, as Foxe states.

APP452 Vinesauf gives a terrible description of the “Graecus ignis,” or wildfire, here used. See Lord Lyttelton’s Henry II. vol. 2: p. 164.

APP453 The day of “St. Peter ad Vincula,” i.e. August lst.—Vinesauf.

APP454 The battle of Azotus was fought September 7th, or the “twentysecond day after Richard’s leaving Acre,” which was August 22d. (Vinesauf.) At this battle 20 emirs and 7000 of the flower of the Turkish cavalry were slain; and Richard boasted that in forty campaigns the Turk had not received such a blow.

APP455 Gerard de Camville had bought the government of Lincoln Castle from Richard, and yet Longchamp demanded it of him, and tried to displace him by force.—Brompton.

APP456 “Matthew le Clere.”—Foxe calls him “their constable;” he is by Diceto (Decem Script. col. 671) called “municeps principalis castelli de Dovera.”

APP457 The earl of Salisbury was William Longspey: see page 374.

Foxe’s names of the English nobles have been corrected here, and in many other passages, from Dugdale’s Baronage, and other authentic sources of information.

APP458 Foxe says, “If he would restore to him again Sclavonia, in as good state as it was when he took it.” It is “Scalona” in Hoveden, which led to the mistake of “Sclavonia.” Foxe has misunderstood the condition, which was—“si Ascalon dirimeretur, ut in posterum non reaedificaretur Christianis nec a Turcis: “see Brompton, who afterward says it was agreed that Ascalon should be dismantled for three years: it was dreaded by the Sultan, as a strong fortress on the frontier toward Egypt. For the state in which Richard found it, see Foxe, p. 309; after which he had been at immense pains and expense in restoring the walls and fortifications. It was there that he affronted the duke of Austria, who afterwards took him prisoner.

APP459 Foxe says erroneously, that Richard embarked “the next spring.”

APP460 “Eulogium.”—This Chronicle extends from the Conquest to the year 1367. Among the “Notae Anonymi” written in the margin of Cave’s Hist. Litt. in the Lambeth library, in the handwriting of archbishop Tenison, and printed in the Oxford edition of Cave, 1743, this Chronicle is ascribed to John Wicliff. The passage referred to by Foxe occurs at folio 163 of the Cotton MS. “Anglici multum condolentes de regis incarceratione miserunt pro eo 100,000 libras argenti. Unde fere omnes calices et omnia vasa argentea fuerunt in monetam, ut regem suum liberarent, qui honorifice honoratus est.

Impetratum fuit a Domino Papa ut celebrare possent sacerdotes in calicibus de stanno, et sic longo tempore fecerunt, quod et nobis visum est...Dominus veto Austriae, qui regem incarceravit, lite inter papam et ipsum ingruente moritur excommunicatus anno 1196.”

There is much contradiction as to the real amount paid for Richard’s ransom; for at page 438 we read (on the authority of M. Paris, sub. an. 1246) that the English clergy assured the pope, that Richard’s ransom cost 60,000 marks, which were raised with the help of the church plate. M. Paris, however, in this place says that 140,000 marks were demanded: at page 794 Foxe mentions only 30,000 marks as paid for Richard’s release. There is a letter in Hoveden, from Richard to his mother and the justices of England, dated Haguenau, 3 Cal. Maii, A.D. 1193, stating that he would be released on the payment of 70,000 marks. The final settlement of the matter, given by Hoveden and from him by Rymer, states that 150,000 marks (100,000l.) were to be paid, 100,000 at once, and the remainder in seven months after his return to England; 30,000 of this remainder were to go to the emperor, and 20,000 to the duke; sixty hostages for the payment being given to the emperor, and seven to the duke. Foxe’s account in this place very nearly coincides with Hoveden.

APP461 “These words of Fulco,” etc.]—The king only dissembled for the moment. The original passage is here given, which is more terse than our author’s version. “Dico tibi, O Rex, ex parte omnipotentis Dei, ut tres filias quas habes pessimas citius marites, ne aliquid deterius tibi contingat. Cui fertur, ‘O digito compesce labella: Accusator erit qui verum dixerit;’ ‘Nemo sine vitiis nascitur; beatus qui minimis urgetur;’ et alibi, ‘Nemo sine crimine vivit.’ Cui fertur regem respondisse: Hypocrita mentitus es in caput tuum, qui filiam non habeo ullam. Ad quod Fulco respondens ait: Certe non mentior, quia (ut dixi) tres habes filias pessimas, quarum una est Superbia, altera Cupiditas, tertia Luxuria. Convocatis igitur ad se Comitibus et Baronibus multis qui aderant, ait Rex: Audite universi commonitionem hujus hypocritae, qui dicit habere me tres filias pessimas, videlicet, etc.”—See Hoveden, Brompton, Camden’s Remains, etc.

APP462 “Ademar.”—Foxe calls him “Wido-marus .” Hoveden (Script. post Bedam, p. 790) calls him “Widomarus, vice-comes de Limoges.”

L’Art de Ver. des Dates, Viscomtes de Limoges, calls him “Ademar III. le Barbu.”

APP463 This Fulco is the “Eximius Praedicator” of France, mentioned by Grosthead at p. 530 of this volume. Hoveden introduces this story by the following account of Fulco (Script. post Bedam, p. 789).—”Eodem anno erat in Gallia quidam sacerdos nomine Fulco, quem magnificavit Dominus in conspectu regum; deditque ei potestatem caecos illuminare, claudos, mutos, et alios diversis languoribus oppressos curare, daemones effugare; hic autem mere-trices relicto impudicitiae fraeno ad Dominum convertit: usurarios etiam ad coelestem thesaurum invitans, quem nec aerugo nec tinea demolitur nec fures furantur, fecit omnem substantiam quam usura et foenus devoraverat in usus pauperum distribuere. Ipse quidem praedixit regibus Franciae et Angliae, quod unus illorum in mala morte in proximo interiret, nisi celerius ab hostilitate cessassent. Et quia in illo tempore messis quidem erst multa et pauci operarii, conjunxit ei Dominns viros sapientes verba salutis aeternae praedicantes, magistrum Petrum, et dominum Robertum, et dominum Eustachium abbatem de Flai, et caeteros quosdam, qui missi per orbem terrarum praedicaverunt ubique, Domino coope-rante et sermonem confirmante sequentibus signis.” And Brompton (col. 1274) says, “Illis quoque diebus quidam propheta efficacissimus in Francia surrexit, seilicet Magister Fulco, pro quo Dominus manifeste dignatus est mirabilia operari. Hic summo opere usuram conabatur extirpare. Hic etiam Fulco quendam religiosum ac facundum praedicatorem, abbatem sc. de Flay ordinis Cisterciensis. in Angliam misit ad commercia quae Dominicis diebus solebant tunc fieri deponenda.” But Brompton (col. 1278) tells the story in the text of Walter, archbishop of Rouen.— These extracts respecting Fulco are given at full, as illustrating a passage of Foxe in page 530.

APP464 The king had a regiment of Flemings in his service, the captain (“ dux”) of which was named” Marchadeus” (Hoveden). Foxe amusingly calls him “the duke of Brabant” here and next page.

Brompton calls him “Marcbadeus” (col 1277), Knighton, “dux Brabanciae” (col. 2413). “Princeps nefandae gentis Braibancanorum” (Hoveden, 768); “Marcadeus nephariis Brabantinorum vallatus catervis” (Diceto, col. 697). He seems to have been a “soldier of fortune,” who was ready to enlist wherever sufficient inducements offered, and was now in Richard’s pay.

APP465 Foxe in this place makes Geoffrey the third, and Richard, the fourth, son of Henry II.: this error is corrected in the text. Diceto (col. 657) says that Richard “Arturum haeredem suum instituit, si sine prole discesserit.” Clearly implying that Richard was older than Arthur’s father. Also Gervase (col. 1590) says that Alfred, when a boy, “familiarium suorum et imperitorum seductus consilio coepit rebellare,” etc. See Sandford’s Genealogical History of the Kings of England.

APP466 “Simon Langton...became archbishop of York, as appeareth in the course of this story.”—He was elected by the chapter A.D. 1215, but rejected by the pope, as stated at page 338; nevertheless, Foxe in the margin of p. 393 calls him “archbishop of York.”

APP467 The sentence being corrected, the original is given from M. Paris: “El quod magis in praejudicium et subversionem libertatum ad coronam suam spectantium redundat, ipsius consensu a monachis (qui ilium postulasse debuerat) nec rite requisito, eundem Stephanum temere promovere praesumit.”

APP468 “Three bishops.”—Foxe says, “four” and adds “Giles, bishop of Hereford.” But M. Paris (p. 157, Ed. Paris, 1644) mentions only three—“Willielmus Londinensis, Eustachius Eliensis, et Malgerus Wigorniensis;” and soon after he mentions these three as flying from England, together with Joceline of Bath, in order to avoid the king’s rage. Hence Foxe may have thought that all four were engaged in pronouncing the interdict. Foxe also says “Walter, bishop of Winchester,” instead of “Mauger, bishop of Worcester.” (See Godwin de Praesulibus.) The date of the interdict, as given by M. Paris, is “Quadragesima sequenti, prima die Lunae in passione Domini, quae tunc contigit Decimo Calendas Aprilis;” i.e. Monday, April 24th, A.D. 1208. (Nicolas’s Tables.)

APP469 This scene between the king and Pandulph is given in the “Annales Waverleienses.”

APP470 “Peter Wakefield, of Poiz,” rather “of Pomfret.”

APP471 “Scant were there three, saith the chronicle,” etc.]—Grafton says, “three in the realm, said he, that lived Christianly.”

APP472 King John reckoned his regnal years from Ascensionday, on which day (May 27th, A.D. 1199) he was crowned. Ascension-day in 1213 happened on May 23d; John’s fourteenth regnal year would therefore end May 22d, A.D. 1213.—Nicolas’s Chronology of History.

APP473 This obligatory document is given in M. Paris, p. 164 (ed. 1644), dated Wednesday, May 15th, A.D. 1213. The submission spoken of in the previous paragraph, was made two days before Monday 13th, at Dover.—M. Paris, p. 163.

APP474 “Upon this obligation the king was discharged,” etc.]—The king was absolved from the sentence of excommunication by Archbishop Langton, at St. Swithin’s church, Winchester, on the feast of St.

Margaret the Virgin [July 13, A.D. 1213], according to the “Annal.

Waverl.”: the archbishop had been specially sent for from France for the purpose, as the barons refused to accompany John in his expedition into France while he continued excommunicate. The kingdom was not relieved from the interdict till Wednesday, 6 Non.

Julii [July 2d], the year following.—Thos. Wikes, Ann. Waverl.

APP475 “Pandulphus subdiaconus papoe.”—M. Paris, p. 164 (ed. 1644).

APP476 The words “and a great sort more...Toulouse,” are inserted from Grafton, whom Foxe is copying; they seem to have been left out by accident. “Sataloni” seems a corrupt word, formed from some transposition of the syllables of “Tolosani;” or it may be a corruption of “Carcassone.” Catalonia does not seem to have come under the papal thunders, or it might have been supposed to be meant here.

APP477 “Homely handling of his majesty” is introduced from Grafton.

Foxe says “humble handling of his majesty’s will,” which is not sense.

APP478 “Hieron. Marius.”— He was an Italian physician, but fled to Switzerland upon embracing the tenets of the Reformed Church, as stated by himself in the dedication to his book entitled Eusebius captivus, sire modus procedendi in curia Romans contra Luteranos, etc., Basileae, 1553: and Foxe has apparently rather overstepped this authority in the present instance, the words of Marius being “lege sancivit (Innocentius III.) ut maledicentibus Papoe poena infligeretur: ” p. 29.

APP479 “Rebellion.”—This word, intended to describe the struggle for the Magna Charts, Foxe borrows from Grafton. See the note on p. 840.

APP480 “In the same year, A.D. 1215.”—Foxe says, “the next year, A.D. 1216;” but see Richardson’s edition of Godwin “De praesulibus,” etc.

Seven lines lower Foxe erroneously calls Walter Gray “bishop of Winchester.”

APP481 M. Paris states (p. 282) that Gervais Hobrugge was Praecentor of St. Paul’s.

APP482 “Despoiled.”—” Depraedatus est,” M. Paris; Foxe, “destroyed.” APP483 M. Paris, in the same passage in which he mentions this anecdote of King John (p. 245), speaks of him as of a sceptical turn, and as doubting of a future state, and of other articles of the Christian faith.

John’s remark on the fat stag certainly savours of profaneness more than anything else; but, judging from observation, infidelity and profaneness are the natural knits of Popery to a mind which has once seen its delusions, unless true religion be at the same time presented and embraced.

APP484 Foxe says here “Lincoln,” instead of “Boston.” Mr. Pegge, in an Article in vol. 4: of the Archaeologia on the story of King John’s being poisoned by a monk, expresses his surprise that Foxe, as a native of Boston, should have spoken of Swineshead Abbey as not far from “Lincoln,” whereas it lay six miles east of Boston, and Boston thirtyseven miles southeast of Lincoln (Gazetteer). But the fact is, Foxe is copying Grafton, from whom he borrows en masse the greater part of his account of King John’s reign. So that the blunder is Grafton’s, though it may be somewhat surprising that Foxe should not have seen and corrected it.

APP485 “Yet Matthew Paris,” etc.]—Mr. Pegge, in the Article in the Archaeologia referred to in the last note, mentions with dishonor Foxe’s name among others, as perpetuating the story about King John’s being poisoned by a monk. But the fact is, that (as has been before observed) Foxe’s account of this reign is little else but a transcript from Grafton’s Chronicle, which he gives nearly as he found it. In this particular instance, however, he has gone beyond his author, and gives, out of pure candour and desire for truth, the other (more charitable, though then less popular) statement of M. Paris (pp. 287, 288) as to the cause of John’s death.

APP486 “Peaches and new ciser.”— “Fructus persicorum, et ciceris potatione novi.”—M. Paris.

APP487 “In notre quae diem St. Lucre Evangelistae proxime secuta est.” (M. Paris ) St. Luke’s day is October 18th. Foxe says, “Upon St.

Lucy’s even.” John’s death is commonly dated October 19th.

APP488 The work here referred to is intituled “The Pastime of People, or the Chronicles of Divers Realms, and most especially of the Realm of England, briefly compiled, and imprinted in Cheapside, by John Rastell [A.D. 1529]: “reprinted and systematically arranged, London, 1811.

Rastell here says, “Also about this tyme, the citezyns of London made such sute to the kynge, that they optayned that the kynge graunted them, to chose of them-selfe yerely a mayre and 2: sheryffes, and the names of baylyffes clerely to be voyded: whose names of the meyre and sheryffes were, the first mayre Henry Fitz Alwyn; the first sheryffes, Peter Duke, Thomas Nele.”

King John granted a charter to the citizens of London for choosing their own sheriffs, dated July 5th, in the first year of his reign [A.D. 1199], and another for choosing a mayor, dated May 19th, in the sixteenth year of his reign [A.D. 1214]. (Maitland’s History of London, vol. 1: pp. 74, 76.) Between the Conquest and this latter year, the sheriffs were called bailiffs; and during the Anglo-Saxon period, the chief magistrate of London was called the port-grave, or portreve; after the Conquest, he was called the provost. Mayor was taken from the French meyre, which was the title of the chief magistrate of Rouen. (Maitland, vol. 2: p. 1192.) Arnold’s Chronicle says, that Henry Fitz Alwyn, or Heryson A1wyn as he calls him, first took the title of mayor A.D. 1207, for that of custos (see p. 802 of this volume) or bailiff; under which title he had held the office for twenty years. Fitz Alwyn appears at the head of the list of mayors in Maitland (vol. 2: p. 1195) for twenty-four consecutive years, A.D. 1189—A.D. 1212; and in the list of sheriffs (ibid. p. 1202) Thomas Fit. Neel and Peres le Duc appear at A.D. 1208.

APP489 Foxe, misled by Walter Hemingford, reads “Gloucester;” but M.

Paris, “Chester.” Dugdale’s Baronage states (vol. 2: pp. 42, 43, 211) that the earl of Chester was materially useful to the king at this time; while the earl of Gloucester joined Louis, and was taken prisoner at the battle of Lincoln.

APP490 This list is corrected by M. Paris and Dugdale’s Baronage.

APP491 The former account of John’s children is copied from Grafton, and is substantially correct: the other is not. The three sons, William, Guy, and Ethelmar, bishop of Winchester, were his step-sons with Isabella of Angouleme, his third wife, by whom he had the other two sons, and three daughters. “Guy de Lusignan” is by Grafton and Foxe called here “Guido Disenaie.” “Liziniac” might easily be mistaken for Disenaie in a MS. Ethelmar is mentioned at pp. 423, 441. Joan’s marriage is mentioned at p. 374.

APP492 Honorius III. was crowned July 24th preceding—L’Art de Ver. des Dates.

APP493 “The new pope.”— Honorius III. was crowned pope July 24th previous.—L’Art de Ver ties Dates.

APP2 494 This list is corrected from M. Paris (p. 295) and Dugdale’s Baronage.

APP495 Louis was not himself at the battle of Lincoln, being engaged at the time in the siege of Dover Castle: the earl of Perche acted as his commander in chief,. Foxe represents the nobles presently mentioned as slain with the earl of Perehe; whereas they were only taken prisoners.—See Matthew Paris, pp. 295, 296, and Dugdale’s Baronage.

APP496 “Eustace, a French monk.”—Foxe calls him “a French lord.” But he is called “Eustachius Monathus” in the Forma Pacis, where one stipulation is, that Louis shall compel the brothers of Eustachius Monachus to surrender the islands belonging to England. He is also called “Archipiratam Francorum” (Melrose Chron.); “Eustachius, cognomento Monachus” (Annales Waved.); M. Paris (p. 298) says “Eustachio monacho, viro flagitiosissimo;” and, soon after, “Eustachius monachus, proditor regis Angliae, et pirata nequissimus.” Hemingford calls him” quidam tyrannus ex Hispania, cognomine Monachi, qui cum multas exigisset praedas, multaque loca suo subjugasset imperio, tandem anhelavit ad regnum Angliae conquaerendum.” “Eustachius ut fertur monachus, qui ut decebat apostatam ostendens suam inconstantiam saepe de uno rege transivit ad aliurn, et tanquam de Monacho factus Doemoniacus dolo et perfidia plenus fuit.” (Walsingham,. Hypodigma Neustriae.). Mr. Carte (History of England, tom. 2: p. 9) calls him “Eustace le Mome, who had formerly deserted from John to enter-the king of France’s service.” M. Paris states that the French had eighty ships besides other craft, and the English forty of all sorts.

APP497 The “Forma Pacis” between Henry and Louis is in Rymer, dated Lambeth, Sept. 11th, A.D. 1217.

APP498 “The archbishop of Canterbury.”—M. Paris says, “William, earl of Pembroke;” and the Melrose Chronicle says that the archbishop did not return to England from the general council (of Lateran, A.D. 1215) till May, A.D. 1218; whereas this treaty was concluded “3 Id. Sep.” i.e. Sept. 11th, A.D. 1217.—See M. Paris, and the last note.

APP499 Foxe says “fifteen thousand marks,” but M. Paris (p. 299) “quinque millia librarum sterlingorum.” Foxe at page 383 says “one thousand marks,” where the corresponding passage of M. Paris (p. 336) says “quinque millia marcas.”

APP500 “The bishop of Canterbury.”—M. P aris still says “William, the earl of Pembroke,” and represents Louis’s departure as anything but honorable.

APP501 “Whereof mention was made before.”—See pp. 338, 339.

APP502 “About this season,” etc.]—This is an inaccuracy of M. Paris (p. 297). Foxe has already mentioned the death of Innocent III. and the accession of Honorius III. at the right places (pp. 340, 344). Innocent III. died July 16th, A.D. 1216.—L’Art de Ver. des Dates.

APP503 “Frederic, the nephew of Frederic Barbarossa.”— Here “nephew” is used, as in other places of Foxe, for (nepos) “grandson.”—See Glossarial Index. Foxe means to refer the reader to pp. 455-509.

APP504 M. Paris gives this letter, p. 301.

APP505 Honorius III. died March 18th, A.D. 1227.—L’Art de Ver. des Dates.

APP506 “The second of this king’s reign.”— Foxe says, “the third” year; but the parliament met just after Michaelmas (Ann. Waverl.), and Henry’s second regnal year did not close till October 27th, A.D. 1218.—See Nicolas’s Tables.

APP507 Foxe takes up the history of Frederic II. at pp. 455-509.

APP508 “Throughout England.”— After these words, should be read the sentence in the next page from the edition of 1563.

APP509 “Forty-ninth” is substituted for Foxe’s “fiftieth.” Becket was slain Dec. 29th, A.r. 1170, and the third year of Henry III. ended Oct. 27th, A.D. 1219. M. Paris (p. 310,) places the shrining of Becket under the year 1220.

APP510 Isabella was married to the earl of Marche, A.D. 1217.—L’Art de Ver. des Dates.

APP511 William, earl of Pembroke, died in March A.D. 1219; which occasioned the promotion of Hubert de Burgh, just before mentioned, and of Peter, bishop of Winchester, to be “regis et regni rector.”—M. Paris, p. 304.

APP512 Engelard de Ciconia, is, in M. Paris, called Engelard de Athie.

This list has been corrected by Dugdale’s Baronage.

APP513 “Foukes, who fortified the castle of Bedford,” etc.]—This is out of place. Foukes de Breant for certain outrages in the neighborhood was condemned by the king’s justices, sitting at Dunstable A.D. 1224, in a great sum of money. This occasioned his seizure of one of them, which led to the siege of Bedford Castle by the king’s forces during seven weeks, at the end of which time it was taken by storm, on the Assumption, August 15th, A.D. 1224. He did not leave England till the year A.D. 1228, soon after Bartholomew-tide (August 24th), as Dugdale shows in his Baronage, vol. 1: p. 745. (See M. Paris, p. 320.)

APP514 This second coronation took place on Whitsunday, May 17th, A.D. 1220.—M. Paris, p. 309.

APP515 The passage in the text is from Hoveden.

APP516 M. Paris (p.,299, an. 1209) calls this bishop of Lincoln “Hugo, archidiaconus Wellensis:” Godwin, “Hugo Wallis, archidiaconus Wellensis.” This story about his fine is in M. Paris, p. 299, an. 1217.

APP517 Robert Curson is the famous preacher against usury, mentioned in the note in this Appendix on p. 318, note (1), and by bishop Grosthead at p. 530. He was an Englishman, chancellor of Paris, created by Innocent III. cardinal of St. Stephen in Coelio Monte A.D. 1212, and died at Damietta A.D. 1218.—Moreri.

APP518 “The life and arts of Pope Innocent III.” etc.]— From hence to p. 363 is a digression, the greater part of which falls chronologically rather under the preceding reign; and at p. 350, Foxe says, “this King John,” as though he had originally written this matter for the preceding reign.

APP519 Foxe says, by mistake, “five” instead of “six” year see p. 333.

APP520 As Foxe’s text has been a little amplified in this paragraph, the original passage from Mutius is given. By the way, it may be remarked, that Foxe erroneously calls this author Hermannus Mutius.—“Anno Domini 1212, fuit haeresis in Alsatia, qua seducti erant nobiles et vulgus. Affirmabant qualibet die licere carnes comedere, in piscium esu immodico tam inesse luxum, quam in reliquis carnis generibus. Item male facere, qui contrahere matrimonia prohiberent, cum Deus omnia crearit, et saneta omnia sint cum gratiarum actione accepta a fidelibus. Hi pertinaciter opinionem illam suam defendchant, et credebant multi illis, nec dubitabant blasphemias dicere in sanctissimum dominum Papam, qui prohiberet eccle-siasticis contrahere, et quibusdam diebus a cibis corporum humanorum constitutioni idoneis (sic). Quapropter Pontifex Romanus praecepit ejusmodi homines e medio tollere. Suntque uno die circiter centum ab episcopo Argentinensi combusti. Multi carceribus mancipati, donec revocaverunt, palam professi se errare.”—Hulderieus Mutius, German.

Chronic. Liber 19: apud Pistorii “Germ. Script.” tom. it. edit. Ratisb. p. 809.

APP521 “Nauclerus, another historian,” etc.]—An inaccuracy of Foxe’s having been discovered and corrected in this paragraph, the original is here cited, where Illyricus for “Mediolanum” reads “Mediolanensibus;” but Foxe seems to have taken “Mediolanum” for “Mediolanenses,” and made it the nominative to “miserunt.” “In pattibus etiam Alsatiae tum haeresis et error tam nobilium quam plebeiorum multum increvit, volentium et asserentium licitum et nequaquam esse peccatum, in Quadragesimae diebus et reliquis Sextis feriis anni coinedere carnes: quicquid etiam peccarent homines cum his membris quae sub umbilico forent licite fieri posse, dicentes haec fieri secundum naturam. Unde quotannis hujus erroris et haeresis authoribus Mediolanum certum censure miserunt: tandem vero ab Episcopo Argentinensi ac civibus capti utriusque sexus et conditionis homines fete octoginta una die omnes igni traditi sunt et combusti.”—Naucleri Chronographia, Volumen Tertium. Gener. 41. sub anno 1212.—See Usher, De Christ. Eccl. Suc. et Statu, lib. 10: Sections. 33, 34.

APP522 “The prophecy of Hildegard.”— She was born at Spanheim about A.D. 1098, and became abbess of St. Rupert near Bingen. She attracted the notice of pope Eugene III., St. Bernard, and all the chief men of her day, by her prophecies, which were publicly approved and confirmed at. the council. of Treves. She died Sept. 27th, A.D. 1180. Her visions were printed at Pans 1513, Colon. 1628. (Cave’s Hist. Litt.) M. Paris says that Hildegard flourished in the days of pope Alexander III., who was pope A.D. 1159—1181. He. says that. she slept for four days, during which sleep the spirit, of prophecy was. refused into her, and a supernatural acquaintance with learning. (M. Pans, p. 548, anno 1241.)

See more of Hildegard infra, vol. tit. pp. 87, 193.

APP523 “Johannes de Rupe-scissa.”—(Cutcliffe) is mentioned several times again in this volume. See Index.

APP524 “Henry Token.”— This writer is mentioned by Foxe infra, vol. in. p. 772.

APP525 This prophecy of Hildegard’s is repeated entire at vol. in. p. 87.

APP526 “Simon Ecclesiaslicus,” otherwise “Simon, earl of Mont-fort.”— He was the great grandson of Almaric, a natural son of Robert, king of France, who gave him the town and title of Montfort. This Simon was the first of his family who settled in this realm, having by his marriage with Amicia (sister and co-heir to Robert Fitz-Parnel, late earl of Leicester) obtained a title to a moiety of that earldom, with other properties, in the 8th of king John. Having sided with the barons against king John, he was disinherited and banished. In the year be was made by the pope general of the papal forces against the Albigenses, and the lands of Reymund, earl of Toulouse, were bestowed on him in recompense of his services. (II Joh.) He was killed at the siege of Toulouse by a stone from a sling, according to M.

Westminster and M. Paris A.D. 1219; but the Waverley Annals say A.D. 1218, which is correct, as is evident from Claus. 2 Hen. Ill. m. 3.

He left by Amicia two sons, Almaric and Simon, the latter of whom became so distinguished in English history. The father was called Simon Ecclesiasticus on account of his zeal in the service of the papal church, and to distinguish him from Simon the son. (Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. 1: p. 751.) He is mentioned again at pp. 372, 376, and vol. in. p. 173.

APP527 “In principio.”— The opening words of St. John’s Gospel, the first ten verses of which transcribed were used by way of charm, and are so at the present day, a Roman Catholic gentleman who was drowned in his passage from Cork to England having been found with one about his person. A very early instance of it as used by our Saxon ancestors is quoted from an unpublished MS. in the Hurleian Collection, by Mr. Boucher in his “Glossary of Archaic and Provincial Words,” edit. London, 1833, under the word “Awvishly.” “About these Catholkes necks and hands are always hanging Charmes, That serve against all Miseries and all unhappie harmes:

Amongst the threatening writ of Michael maketh one, And also the beginning of the Gospell of Saint John.” (Barnaby Googe’s Translation of Naogeorgus’s Popish Kingdom, fol. 576, cited in Brand’s Popular Antiquities, vol. 2: p. 566.)

APP528 See Erasmus’s account of his introduction to the monastic life, in the Appendix to Jortin’s Life of Erasmus. Armachanus also illustrates this section at p. 760 of this volume, second and third paragraphs.

APP529 See pp. 349, 350, respecting Otho IV.

APP530 “We mean to touch.”— See pp. 455—509.

APP531 “By his advice Simon Montfort, earl of Leicester.”— Foxe erroneously says, “and the Earl of Leicester.” This Simon Montfort was the son of Simon Ecclesiasticus. (See the note on p. 356.) His contest A.D. 1226 with Reimund, Earl of Toulouse, for the lands of that earl, which had been given by the Pope to Simon Ecclesiasticus, is related at p.377. His brother Almaric ceded to him his right to the earldom of Leicester, and petitioned Henry IIl. A.D. 1229 to restore to this Simon the forfeited rights and honors of their father: he was accordingly made Earl of Leicester, about A.D. 1232, 16 Hen. III. (Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. 1: p. 752.) His name is brought in here rather prematurely; and, in fact, the remainder of this paragraph is a translation of a passage of the Continuator of M. Paris ad an. 1260, and refers to Foxe’s narrative at pp. 539—541 of this volume. But the letter ensuing is in M. Paris ad an. 1231, and belongs to Foxe’s narrative at pp. 393, 394.

APP532 M. Paris (p. 330) relates that Romanus went into France this same year, and then made the same request with the same arguments, and with equally bad success. (See pp. 378—380 of this volume.)

APP533 “Magistri Johannis Bedefordensis arcdiaconi.”— M. Paris (p. 328); who afterwards (p. 355) calls him “Johannes de Houtona.” (See pp. 386, 421, of this volume.)

APP534 “And so the assembly for that time brake up.” —Foxe does not give the real termination of this affair. He proceeds, indeed, in the next paragraph—“Not long after,” as if he were going to tell the sequel of the previous matter; but Otho did not return till eleven years later. (See M. Paris pp. 447—455, sub anno 1237, for the matter of the next paragraph.) The fact is, that Otho was suddenly recalled to Rome, but left instructions for the archbishop of Canterbury to procure a meeting of the Estates of the realm and press the pope’s request. They met, but flatly refused to comply till they knew what other realms thought of the proposal. This council at Westminster was held soon after Easter, A.D. 1226.—M. Paris, p. 330.

APP535 The “Tullianum” was a prison of ancient Rome, on the site of which was built the church of St. Peter ad Vincula, which gave a title to one of the cardinals.—Hoffman in vocem. It would seem from this cardinal’s title, that the church of St. Nicholas also was built on the same site; but see Burton’s Topography of Rome, p. 29.

APP536 “In crastino octavarum Sti. Martini,”—i.e. November 19th.—M. Paris, p. 447.

APP537 “Centum summus electi tritici, et octo dolia vini meracissimi.”— (M. Paris, p. 446.) These words are again translated by Fox, at p. 425, where e, summa” is correctly rendered “seme.” A coomb is four bushels: but a seme (or somme, p. 537) is a quarter. (See the note on p. 537.)

APP538 “Five years after this.”— Foxe says “Not long after this.” He represents the ensuing articles as “exhibited in the Council of Lyons,” whereas the first article refers to “the late general council.” The council of Lyons sat June 28th—July 17th A.D. 1245; and this council of London met Midlent (M. Paris, p. 699), which in the year 1246 fell on March 16th. (Nicolas’s Tables.)

APP539 “Last of all, the king himself.”— M. Paris (p. 702) gives the king’s letter, dated “Westin. March 28th, 30 Hen. III.” A.D. 1246.

APP540 The papal order was first issued by Walter, bishop of Norwich, “9 Cal. Aprilis,” or March 24th of the previous year: the king s letter ensuing complains that the demand was pressed in spite of the decree of the late council of London: the king’s letter is given by M. Paris, p. 708.

APP541 —Fox, says that the ambassadors returned “about the end of December, bringing word that the pope, hearing what was done by the council of Winchester,” etc. But M. Paris says (p. 709) that they reported their answer at the council of Winchester, held on the translation of Th. Becket, i.e. July 7th; Becket’s day was December 29th. Foxe did not advert to this distinction, which occasioned his making the blunder in his text. The next date which he mentions is the Assumption, i.e. August 15th. See these events repeated at pp. 436, 437.

APP542 “Stephen, the pope’s chaplain.”— (See p. 387.)—“Marinus” was another chaplain of the pope, and came into England A.D. 1247, about the same time with “Johannes Anglicus.”—“Johannes Anglicus, bishop of St. Sabine,” is mentioned by M. Paris (p. 731, ad an. 1247) as the pope’s legate to Norway, who, under pretense of merely passing overland from Dover to Lynn, spent three months here, and is said to have raised 4000 marks, with which he embarked at Lynn for Norway. He is mentioned by Fox, at pp. 436, 437, 440.

APP543 This affair at Oxford happened A.D. 1238.—M. Paris, p. 469.

APP544 M. Paris (p. 469) states that this cook was Otho’s own brother, whom he placed in that office for fear of being poisoned. The scholars, according to M. Paris, nicknamed him “Nebuzaradan, i.e. Magistrum co-quorum.”

APP545 “De spoliis nostris ditat alienos.” (M. Paris.)

APP546 Foxe, however, in every, succeeding edition, gives the history of Frederic II. at large; see pp. 455—509.

APP547 See pp. 356, 376, and vol. in. p. 173.—M. Paris, p. 809.

APP548 Foxe here calls Louis “the young French king: ” but see p. 377.

Foxe improperly dates this war A.D. 1220, instead of A.D. 1218. (See the note on p. 356.)

APP549 See M. Paris, p. 301, an. 1217.

APP550 St. Francis died at his native place, Assissi, twenty years after the founding of his order, Sunday, 4 Non. Oct. A.D. 1226.—M. Paris, p. 335.

APP551 John Giles was the Dominican who attended bishop Grosthead. (See p. 5: 28.)—Alexander of Hales, in Gloucester-shire, studied theology and canon law at Paris if he was called doctor irrefragabilis: he became a Franciscan A.D. 1222, and dying August 27th A.D. at Paris, was buried there in the Franciscan convent. Cave enumerates his works.

APP552 “Hethorp” Foxe calls “Heitrope.” Aitherop or Hethorp was in Gloucestershire. Els had a park at Henton, in Somersetshire; Lacock was in Wilts, and Tanner says Els laid the foundation of the one house in Snayles Mead, near Lacock, in the morning, and of the other at Henton in the afternoon.—Tanner’s Notitia Monastics.

APP553 The ensuing anecdote is in M. Paris, p. 315, sub anno 1222.

APP554 The words of Trivet, ad an. 1221, are: “Disconus quidam apostata convictus degradatus est, et manui saeculari traditus flammis ultricibus est absumptus. Rusticus etiam quidam seipsum crucifigens, et stigmata vulnerum Christi superstitione quadam circumferens, perpetuo immuratur.”

APP555 “Fifteen thousand marks.”—Foxe says “fifteen hundred;” but M.

Paris (p. 315) “quindecim millia marcarum.”

APP556 “ Peter, bishop of Winchester.”— M. Paris (p. 313) says “P.

Wintoniensem.’ Godwin shows this to be “Peter:” Foxe calls him “Philip.” Soon after, M. Paris has “Thomam de Mertona et Richardum de Dunstaple priores.”

APP557 See at pp. 356, 372.

APP558 “But because there was a discord feared,” etc.]—As Foxe’s text needed correction here, the original words of M. Paris (ad. an. 1226) are given:—”Sed quoniam Lugdunensis Archiepiscopus vendicabat sibi primatiam super Archiepiscopum Senonensem, et Rothomagensis super Bithuri-censem, Auxianensem, Narbonensem, et eorum Suffraganeos, timebatur de discordia; et ideo non fuit sessum quasi in concilio, sed ut in consilio.”

APP559 This general council was that of Lateran, A.D. 1215. (See p. 372.)

APP560 Foxe says, “twelve peers of France;” he should have said “the twelve peers of France,” of whom the earl of Toulouse was one. “Pairs de France, officiers de la couronne de France, sont les premiers conseillers du parlement de France, qui pour cela s’appelle la cour des Pairs. Il y en a d’anciennete six ecclesiastiques et six laics. Les premiers sont l’arche-veque de Reims et les eveques de Langres et de Laon qui sont ducs et pairs; ceux de Beauvais, de Noyon, et de Chalons-sur-Marne, solar comtes et pairs. Les laics sont les ducs de Bourgoyne, de Normandie, et de Guienne, les comtes de Flandre, de Toulouse, et de Champagne.” (Moreri’s Dictionary, 5: Pairs.) The twelve peers of France are also mentioned at p. 446.

APP561 “Unam a capitulo, alteram ab episeopo.”— See a similar demand on the English at p. 364, in a parliament held at Westminster January 13th of this year.

APP562 “All to-be-cursed.”— “All,” quite: as in Judges 9: 53, “All to brake his scull. Mr. Boucher in his Glossary of Archaic Words says, that in this phrase the “to” as well as the “be” belongs to the succeeding word, and should not be connected with “all.” M. Paris here says, “Legatus excommunicavit publice comitem Tolosanum et omnes ejus fautores, et terram illius totam supposuit interdicto.”

APP563 Louis VIII. died November 8th A.D. 1226 (L’Art de Ver. des Dates), and M. Paris says (p. 334) that he was kept for a month.

APP564 “Five thousand marks.”—M. Paris (p. 336) says “quinque millia marcas: ” Foxe, “one thousand.” (See the note on p. 345.)

APP565 “Ex Burgensibus autem et Northamptuensibus cepit de auxilio mille libras et ducentas.”—M. Paris, p. 336.

APP566 Milo, earl of Hereford, founded in A.D. 1136 a monastery on the south side of the city of Gloucester for the black canons of Lanthony in Monmouthshire, driven from their habitation by the ill usage of the Welsh. This priory was at first only a cell to the old monastery, from whence it gained its name; but afterwards it became the head house, and much exceeded the other in revenues.—Tanner’s Notitis Monasticka.

APP567 An explanation of the word Postil will be found in the note on p. 781, note (4).

APP568 “Steterat in causis.”—M. Paris, p. 350.

APP569 “Johannes de Houtona.” (M. Paris, p. 355.) See the note on p. 365.

APP570 “First day of March.”—Foxe says the “second.” M. Paris only says “ crastino Cinerum,” which (by Nicolas’s Tables) fell on March 1st in the year 1229.

APP571 “Caursini.”— The Italian money-lenders. See the note on p. 530.

APP572 Foxe says “Richard, his predecessor, a bishop of Coventry;” but Godwin shows that there were five bishops of Lichfield and Coventry between Richard Peche and Alexander de Savinsby: the immediate predecessor of the latter was William de Cornhull.

APP573 “Soretze.” Near Toulouse. (Hoffman, 5: Suricinium.) Foxe says “Saracene: ” the Latin is “Suricinium.”—M. Paris, p. 349.

APP574 Foxe says “the countries of Normandy and Gaunt.” But Henry had nothing to do with Gaunt. Normandy alone is mentioned at p. 397.

M. Paris mentions that the nobles of Gascored, Aquitaine, Poictou, and Normandy sent to him about Christmas 1228, offering him the sovereignty of their territories.

APP575 Foxe miscalls Henry “earl of Normandy.” (See 21. Paris, and L’Art de Ver. des Dates.) APP576 “Vacantes custodiae Comitum et Baronum et eorundem haeredum.”—M. Paris, p. 437.

APP577 See the note on p. 323.

APP578 “In crastino Dominicae qua cantatur laetare Hierusaleto” (M.

Paris, p. 371), i.e. the Monday after Midlent Sunday; which, by Nicolas’s Tables, fell on March 3d in the year 1231.

APP579 “His ita gestis, praedieta universitas misit per milites et ministros literas has, novo quodam sigillo signatas, in quo seulpti erant duo gladii, et inter gladios scriptrm erat, “Ecce gladdi duo hic,” in modum citationum ad eeclesias regni cathedrales: ut si quos invenirent contradictores, juxta quod provisum fuerat punirent eos.”—M. Paris, p. 872. The letter will be found translated supra, at p. 363.

APP580 “Surnamed Twing.”— Rather—“but whose real name was Sir Robert de Thweng.” M. Paris says (p. 374), “Magistrum babentes Wilielmum quendam cognomento Witham (sire Robertum de Thinge militem et virum generosum, sed sic palliatum): ” and in the next page he says, “Robertus de Thinge, juvenis elegans et miles strenuus, ex partibus Angliae Aquilonaribus originem praeclaram ducens; qui Willielmum Wither se nominari fecerat.”—See Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. 2: p. 37, 5: Thweng.

APP581 The term “universitas “is used, as applied to this combination of the English against the aliens, in the passage cited from M. Paris, in the note before the last, also in the opening of the letter issued about this time by the English lords, of which a translation is given at p. 363, and which opens: “Tali episcopo universitas omnium qui magis volunt mori quam a Romanis confundi, salutem.”

APP582 “A valiant knight.”— “Miles strenuus.”—M. Paris, p. 375.

APP583 “De quibus erat in possessione a die obitus Willielmi,” etc.]—M. Paris, p. 376.

APP584 “Of fines likewise.”— “Pretia” (M. Paris). Foxe renders it “prices,” which is unintelligible. See vol. 1: p. 17, for a similar use of “pretia.”

APP585 The words of M. Paris (p. 377) are:—“Proposuit contra Hubertum idem rex, quod, cum nuncios solemnes misisset ad ducem.

Austriae filiam ejus petens in uxorem, scripsit eldera duci Hubertus per literas, in praejudicium ipsius Regis et regni, dissuadens ne illi filiam suam matrimonio copularet.”

APP586 “William Briwere.”—We should read “William de Braose.” M.

Paris reads “Willielmus de Brausia.” Foxe’s MS. may have read “Brauria.” This William de Braose had been taken prisoner in a foraging excursion by Llewellyn A.D. 1228, when acting in the service of Hubert de Burgh. (M. Paris.) It is curious, however, that he was nephew to William de Briwere.—See Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. 1: p. 419.

APP587 Merton, nine miles and a half southwest of St. Paul’s, in Brixton Hundred. Some canons regular of the Augustine Order began to settle here about A.D. 1117, by the encouragement of Gilbert Norman, sheriff of Surrey; at whose request Henry I. bestowed the whole town upon them. They erected a fine church and priory to the honor of the Virgin Mary.—Tanner’s Notitia Monastiea.

APP588 “Radulph, bishop of Chichester.”—M. Paris attributes this suggestion to Ranulph, earl of Chester (comiti Cestrensi); but he ascribes the good management, by which a second messenger was sent, and Hubert’s life saved, to Radulph, bishop of Chichester. (See Carte’s History of England, vol. 2: p. 45, and Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. 1: p. 696.) The Latin hexameter in the margin stands corruptly in M. Paris and Foxe: “Alis ales alis alium ne longius ales.” APP589 “Till the thirteenth.” “Ad octavas Epiphaniae,” which Foxe incorrectly renders “the twelfth.”

APP590 This town was “Brentwood, in Essex: ” see the next note but one.

APP591 Sir Godfrey Craucombe, or Geoffrey Crancumb, was coustable of the Tower. (See Pat. 19 Hen. III. m. 14, apud Bayley, Hist. of the Tower, vol. 2: p. 657.) APP592 “Ran unto the chapel.” ¾ “Scilicet ad Capellam de Boisars.” (Chron. Dunstap. ad an. 1232.) “Boisars” is Bois arse (Normanice), i.e. Boscus arsus, Burntwood or Brentwood. A chapel was built there A.D. 1221 by the convent of St. Osyth, in honor of St. Thomas the Martyr.—Newcourt’s Repertorium, vol. 2: under Southweld.

APP593 “Sendeth him out of the Tower.”— “Quinto Cal. Oct.” (M. Paris, p. 379,) i.e. September 27th.

APP594 Ranulph, earl of Chester, died “5 Cal. Nov.” i.e. October 28th, A.D. 1232.—M. Paris, p. 380, M. Westm. and Dugdale, vol. i.p. 44.

APP595 “And who in my time,” etc.]—The remainder of this sentence is by M. Paris put into the mouth—not of the king, but—of the blacksmith who was required to fasten his fetters at Brentwood chapel (see p. 400), who refused to do it, alleging De Burgh’s merits with his king and country.

APP596 “Conveyed him...into the parish church.”— This was “in vigilia St. Michaelis,” or September 28th. (M. Paris, p. 388.) He was brought back again into the church “15 Cal. Nov.” or October 18th (ibid.), and carried away thence into Wales “3 Cal. Nov.” or October 30th. (Ibid.)

APP597 “Caursini.”—See the note on p.530. Foxe is here translating M.

Paris, p. 417, sub anno 1235.

APP598 M. Paris (p. 376) says, that Peter de Rivaulx was “son” to the bishop of Winchester.

APP599 “A parliament.”— “Ad fastum Sti. Johannis,” June 24th, A.D. 1233.—M. Paris.

APP600 “A council at Westminster.”—February 1234.—M. Paris.

APP601 See M. Paris, pp. 397, 398. There is no mention, however, of the “Catini” there or in the context, and the word is probably corrupt.

APP602 “The Chorasmian.”— See the note on p. 448.

APP603 “There was a certain archbishop,” etc.]—See M. Paris, p. 465.

APP604 The archbishop of Constantinople here meant was the Latin patriarch, Nicolas de Plaisance, formerly bishop of Spoleto, fifth in the list of Latin patriarchs, appointed by Gregory IX. A.D. 1234, and died A.D. 1251; the council of Lyons was A.D. 1245.—See L’Art de liar. des Dates, and M. Paris, p. 663.

APP605 See M. Paris, pp. 457—460, for what follows. This letter must belong to A.D. 1232, for it is given in Labbe’s Concil. Genesis tom. 11: and the pope’s answer to it (p. 318) dated “Reate, 7 Cal. August. pontificatus nostri anno sexto,” i.e. July 26th, A.D. 1232; and another letter is then given in Labbe, De Unitate Ecclesioe, from the pope to Germanus, dated “Laterani, 15 Cal. Junii, pontif, nostri anno septimo,” i.e. May 18th, A.D. 1233. L’Art de Ver. des Dates says, that meantime he had sent letters, by his nuncios, dated January “pontif. anno sexto,” i.e. A.D. 1233, to the council which sat at Nympha in Bithynia, April 24—May 10 A.D. 1233, on the points in dispute with Rome.

APP606 “Another letter.”—See M. Paris, p. 460.

APP607 “Shortly after the sending,” etc.]—See M. Paris, p. 465.

APP608 This council of Lateran sat from the 11th to the 30th of October, A.D. 1215.—L’Art de Ver. des Dates.

APP609 “So in the house of St. Alban’s,” etc.]—See M. Paris, p. 410, sub an. 1235. He mentions as the messengers of the minus Nicolaus de Len, dominus Reginaldus Phisicus, et magister monks, “do “Galfridus de Langelia, clericus.”

APP610 “Another contention.”—See M. Paris, pp. 473, 519, 556, 573, 605-607, 617, 634, 636.

APP611 “After the death of Stephen Langton,” etc.]—See M. Paris, pp. 350, 355. “Magister Alexander de Stavensby episcopus Cestrensis, et Magister Henricus de Sanford Roffensis episcopus, et praecipue Magister Johannes de Houtona.” This last was the archdeacon of Bedford, mentioned at pp. 365, 386, of this volume.

APP612 “Dorsels,” quasi “door-sills.” APP613 “Master William.”—i. e. W. Scot, archdeacon of Worcester, a clerk of the chapter of Durham.—M. Paris.

APP614 “The pope’s exactors.”—See M. Paris, p. 526. The archbishop’s eight hundred marks are mentioned again at p. 427 of this volume.

APP615 “Simon Montfort.”—See M. Paris, pp. 465, 467, 470.

APP616 “The case of this Henry III”—See M. Paris, p. 643, sub an. 1244: and for the next paragraph, see p. 866: and for the succeeding, see p. 883, sub an. 1252.

APP617 “Semes.”— This affair has been mentioned at p. 365, where it is “coombs.” M. Paris calls them “summae,” for the measure of which see the note on p. 537 of this volume.

APP618 “The example given by Edmund.”— This has been mentioned at p. 422.

APP619 See p. 367 of this volume, note (3).

APP620 “Three and twenty.”—M. Paris (p. 540, an. 1240) says “viginti quatuor.”

APP621 “In the time of this council.”—This paragraph (which is from M.

Paris, p. 681) must be considered parenthetic, for the next (from M.

Paris, pp. 566, 573) takes up the narrative again an. 1241.

APP622 “Praebenda opima, spectans ad praecentorem.”—M. Paris, p. 614.

APP623 This letter is given at p. 623 of M. Paris, an. 1244, and cannot be of a later date than Oct. 27th of that year.

APP624 These blank charts are given in M. Paris, p. 641, dated 25 Hen.

III. i.e. A.D. 1241.

APP625 “Was not ashamed to take of David,” etc.]—Rymer gives a Convention between Henry III. and David, to relier their differences to arbiters, at the head of whom is named Otto, the pope’s legate. See M.

Paris, p. 624, for a bull of Innocent’s making this vile proposal to David, dated “7 Cal. Aug. pontif, an. 2,” i.e. July 26th, A. D. 1244.

APP626 “Seals and obligations.”— Rymer gives the final “Promissiones et Pacta of David, dated Decoll. of John Bap. (Aug. 29th) 25 Hen. III., and a confirmation of them August 31st, A.o. 1241.

APP627 “A general Council.”— Viz. that of Lyons next year, June 28th— July 17th A. D. 1245.—M. Paris, p. 644.

APP628 “Two bills...the other, with the Articles of Grievances.”— This statement is incorrect. The bill of grievances (given supra p. 869) was exhibited at the council of London, the year after that of Lyons. (See the note in this Appendix on p. 368.)

APP629 This “Supplication” is given by M. Paris, p. 666.

APP630 The list given in M. Paris (p. 6.59) is— “Comes Rogerus Biged, Johannes filius Galfridi, Willielmus de Cantelupo, Philippus Basset, Radulphus filius Nicolai, et Magister Willielmus de Powerie, clericus.”

Roger Biged was earl of Norfolk (Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. 1: pp. 133, 184). “Magister Willielmus Powic, jurisperitus, et Henricus de la Mare” were despatched the next year after the parliament at London, mentioned supra. p. 368, with another remonstrance to the pope, April 9th, being Easter-Monday.—M. Paris, pp. 707, 709.

APP631 “About the feast of St. Andrew [Nov. 30th].”—This is M. Paris’s date (p. 683): the tidings of the pope’s intrigues at that meeting against England reached Henry at London the beginning of the next year (p. 691). Foxe erroneously says, that the interview at Clugny happened “in the beginning of the next year (A.D. 1246).”

APP632 The second reason stated by M. Paris (p. 691) is, “Quia jus non habet Rex Francorum in regnum Angliae manifestum.”

APP633 M. Paris (p. 691) dates this peace soon after Hilary, or Jan. 13th, A.D. 1246.

APP634 The pope’s order is dated by M. Paris (p. 692)—Lyons, 6 Cal.

Sep. 1245.

APP635 “Over and besides,” etc.]—In this place might have been introduced the Parliament which met at London, Midlent (March 18th, A. D. 1246), mentioned at p. 368, and from which W. de Powic and H. de la Mare were despatched to Rome.

APP636 The words “for half a year” are added from M. Paris (p. 706), “usque ad dimidium annum.”

APP637 Foxe says, by mistake, “William, bishop of Norwich;” it was “Walter de Suffield.”—M. Paris, p. 707.

APP638 “Directeth contrary letters to all the prelates.”—A translation whereof is given by Foxe at p. 369.

APP639 The Assumption was August 15th. See M. Paris, p. 709, and p. 370 of this volume.

APP640 “Qui culmen sumus ecclesia?” M. Paris, p. 715.

APP641 “Spain is fieree,” etc.]—A council was held at Lerida, Oct. 19th, A.D. 1246, at which James, king of Aragon, who had cut out the tongue of the bishop of Gironne, was reconciled to the Church.—L’Art de Ver. des Dates.

APP642 “By district censures of the Church,” etc.]—The Latin is, “quod per censuram ecclesiasticam compescant contradictores.” the word “district” is borrowed from the preamble to the articles”literas districturn praeceptum papale cum diversis articulis continentes.”

APP643 The original, whence Foxe’s text is a little corrected, is as follows:—”Quam tamen pecuniam postea penitentia ductus nunquam recepit nec recipere voluit in vita sua. Imo in literis suis et epistolis, toro tempore suo, se Ducem Normanniae appellavit. Sedeo mortuo Edwardus filths ejus et successor in regno illa duo verba (Dux Normanniae) in suis epistolis non posuit.”—Hemingford, ad an. 1259.

APP644 Foxe does not quite correctly represent M. Paris, according to the printed copy (Lond. 1640, p. 716); where it appears that the clergy, in order to calculate the sum sterling which it would be necessary to produce, to satisfy the pope’s demands, take for the basis of their calculations the fact, that a recent demand of a twentieth realized marks (supra, p. 436). Hence they inferred that the pope’s present demands would be equivalent to a sum of 80,000 (quater viginti millia) marks. Foxe should, therefore, have said “eighty thousand marks.” On the sum paid for Richard’s ransom, see the note on p. 317; perhaps the 60,000 marks here mentioned is a confusion with the sum paid by the emperor to the duke, p. 316; or the clergy put the ransom low to aggravate the difficulty of now raising 80,000 marks; or the text may be corrupt.

APP645 “London.”—Foxe says “Winchester,” but see M. Paris, p. 722.

The parliament was held at London: hence the letters to the pope just mentioned are sealed with the common seal of the city of London. The king had held his court at Winchester during Christmas, which perhaps led Foxe into the mistake.

APP646 From the language of M. Paris (p. 728), “in Principio Quadragesimae venit quidam de Ordine Minorum Johannes nomine, de quo facta est mentio in foliis praecedentibus, etc.” it would seem that it was the same John as is mentioned at pp. 370, 436, 437. The first mention of John and Alexander is at p. 722 of M. Paris. St. Giles’-day was Sept. 1st. The legate’s charges were another hundred marks.

APP647 See 31. Paris, p. 754, ad an. 1248.

APP648 “Dicto Romano ad arbitrium papae satisfecit, annuas quinquaginta marcas de camera sua in magnam suae ecclesiae laesionem conferendo.”—M. Paris.

APP649 This is given at p. 799 of M. Paris, sub anno 1250. The pope’s brief to Berardo is by M. Paris dated “Lugd. 3 Cal. Mail, pont. nostri anno 7.” It states Herigetto to be “natus nobilis viri Perrini de Malachana de Volta, civis Januensis.”

APP650 This happened about Advent, Nov. 27th, A.D. 1244.—M. Paris, p. 651.

APP651 “Which piece,” etc.]—M. Paris merely says of these relics “suo tempore acquisitas;” but at p. 546, ad an. 1240, he says that the Emperor Baldwin, in great want of money for his wars against the Greeks, sold the crown of thorns to Louis for a large sum; and at p. 551, ad an. 1241, he mentions the purchase of the holy cross by Blanche for 25,000 pounds from the Venetians, who had purchased-it of two sons of the king of Jerusalem, who wanted money to fight against the Greeks. Louis bought it of his mother, and made a grand procession at Paris, to display this and the purchase of the year before, on the Friday after Easter-day, i.e. April5th, A.D 1241. M. Paris adds, that Louis also possessed the robe, spear, sponge, and other reliques, which he put in a splendid chapel at Paris; and that the pope allowed forty days indulgence to all who there visited them.

The deposition of Baldwin here alluded to is not his final one, but early in the year 1244; see M. Paris, p. 618, where it is related that, all his treasure being exhausted, he was forced to fly to the Emperor Frederic.

APP652 This list of French nobles has been verified and corrected by L’Art de Ver. des Dates.

APP653 This parliament was held “circa medium Quadragesimae” A.D. 1247, according to M. Paris, p. 725.

APP654 “In os.”—M. Paris, p. 743.

APP655 “In insula verb Cypri dum ibidem Rex Franciae hyemaret, migraverunt ad Dominum viri multi praeclari: et multi in itinere, thin per terram quam per mare, quos longum numerare. Obiit tamen vir praeclarus, Episcopus Noviomensis, comes Palatinus et unus de XII paribus Franciae, in navi non procul a Cypro.” (M. Paris, p. 771.) Who the twelve peers of France were, is stated in the note on p. 378; they are enumerated by M. Paris, p. 941, ad an. 1557.

APP656 “Chorasmi, populi Asiae ad utramque Oxi fluvii ripam incolentes, in Sogdianae et Bactrianae confinio, quorum regio hodie Corassan in tabulis recentioribus nominatur.”—Hoffman.

APP657 “In the meantime,” etc.]—M. Paris (p. 792) represents this as occurring after Louis had heard of his brother’s defeat and death. The letter to the earl of Cornwall (M. Paris, p. 796) is not contradictory to this.

APP658 “Now upon the land,” etc.]—There is a slight deviation here from M. Paris, who represents the affair of Mansor as occuring before the altercation just before described, and therefore showing Earl Robert’s rashness in a still stronger light. (See M. Paris, p. 789.) But in the letter to the earl of Cornwall (p. 790) the representation is the same as that given by Foxe.

APP659 The letter to the earl of Cornwall (M. Paris, p. 796) dates this passage of the Nile “Octavis Paschae;” i.e. April 3d, A.D. 1250 (by Nicolas’s Tables.)

APP660 “A hundred thousand marks.”— Foxe says “sixty thousand.” The original demand was “100,000 librarum auri’“(M. Paris, p. 794), or “centum millia marcarum argenti” (p. 795).

APP661 “Eighty thousand persons.”— This does not appear in M. Paris: he says that 8200 were lost in the army of Robert, earl of Artois, and that is said to have been one—third of the whole army, which, at that rate, would not exceed 30,000. M. Paris also states that 17,200 were slain or taken in the last conflict, at which Louis was made prisoner. So that it is most likely the story of 80,000 has arisen from mistaking 30,000 for 80,000.—M. Paris, p. 793.

APP662 The passage between asterisks from the edition of 1570 is retained, partly for the purpose of showing that the following translation was not made by Foxe himself, and partly for the sake of the expression “collected and translated,” which much more accurately describes the performance than “faithfully translated.” The work to which Foxe refers is intituled “Nicolai Cisneri de Frederico II.

Imperatore Oratio, habita in celebri Heidelbergensium Academia in promotione aliquot doctorum Juris, anno salutis humanoe MDLXII, mense Augusto.” It was printed at Basil, 4to, 1565, and again (more correctly) at Strasburg, 12mo, 1608. Both these editions are in the British Museum. Foxe’s translation has been collated with the original; many passages of which have been so erroneously or obscurely rendered by Foxe’s translator, that it has been found necessary to retranslate or correct them; in doing which, the present editor has availed himself of Mr. Maitland’s criticisms and translations.

Respecting Cisner himself, Struvius in his Bibliotheca Scriptorum Rerum Germanicarum, Section 33, calls him “Assessorem Judicii Cameralis, rerum Ger-manicarum peritissimum;” and at Section 71, Struvius informs us that his works were collected and published by Quirinus Reuter, Francfort, 1658. With respect to the particular production of his pen, which Foxe here makes use of, Struvius bears the following testimony:—“Elegans ea est oratio de Frederico II. quam Nicolaus Cisnerus composuit, et quae cum iis de Othone III. et Conradino edita Argentorati 1608, et inter Opuscula Cisneri historica junctim edita, praeclaras de eorum temporum statu sententias habet.” (Biblioth. Script. Rer. Germ. Section 78.) He adds at Section 71, that in his Oration de Othone III. “contra Onuphrium Panvinium, Romano Pontifici Italisqne jus in Electione Imp. Romani tribuentem in libro ‘de Comitiis Imperatoriis,’ disputat, et varia de statu eorum temporum sapienter monet.”

APP663 “One [example] is.”— “Sibyllae viduae Tancredi suasit, ut ad recuperanda Siciliae regna, quae maritus ante habuerat, opem a Philippo rege Francorum peteret; et cure, regis consilio opera et subsidio, Walterus, vetusta comitum Brennorum familia ortus, qui antiquam sedem in Barensi pro-vincia habebant, duets in matrimonium Alteria Tancredi regis natu maxima filia, spe regnorum illorum inductus Campaniam et Apuliam invasisset, idem Pontifex (ut tutoris scilicet et patroni officio fungeretur) datis literis missisque legatis.ad proceres utriusque regni, ut Walterum pro rege suo acciperent sub gravissima proscriptionis ex communitate Christianorum poena mandavit.”— Cisner.

APP664 The statement in the text respecting the age of Constantia when Frederic was born, is a common but incorrect statement, being, probably, at least ten years beyond the truth. For Godfrey of Viterbo, a contemporary writer, says that she was a posthumous child of Roger I. (who died Feb. 26th, A.D. 11,54), and was married at thirty years of age, in A. D. 1184. Henry VI. died Sept. 28th, A. D. 1197, or (as some say) early in A.D. 1198: so that there were not above forty-four years between her father’s and her husband’s death, and the probability is, that when Frederic was born, Dee. 26th A.D. 1194, she was about forty years old. (See “L’Art de Ver. des Dates,” and “Encyclop.

Metrop.” Hist. III. p. 637.)

APP665 —“Eumque de more Aquisgrani coronaret.”—Cisner. See infra, p. 663.

APP666 Philip was assassinated in his own house at Bamberg, 10 Cal.

Julii, A.D. 1208, not, as Foxe says, “between Otho and him [i.e. the pope],” but by Otho de Wittelspach, on a private pique (see Cisner, and Aventine’s Annales Boiorum, lib. vii.): Cisner then adds, “Philippo per summam injuriam occiso, Otho ad fastigium Imperii Germaniae proceribus evectus, a fautore et amico suo Innocentio III.

Romae est inauguratus.”

APP667 “Non enim solum Latinarum et Graecarum literarum, quae barbarie obrutae tum primum emergebant, sed et Germanicam...addidicit.”—Cisner.

APP668 “Being now called,” etc.]— “Missis igitur a, Germania ad Fredericum legatis, qui ilium ad imperium suscipiendum accerserent, nihil moratus in Germaniam proficiscitur. In itinere Pontificem adit, et cum eo consilia de instituenda profectione communicat. Narrat Fazellus magno honore ab Innocentio Fredericum Romae esse acceptum; certam tamen de inauguratione spem ei non esse factam, quid Pontifex nomen ejus ex recordatione avi Frederiei suspectam haberet.”—Cisner.

APP669 Cisner says that Frederic “vigesimum agebat annum,” which, however, cannot be correct, and in the text “eighteenth” is substituted.

Frederic was born at Jessi, in Ancona, Dec. 26th, A.D. 1194: elected King of the Romans, A. D. 1196: again, soon after his father’s death: and again by the Diet of Bamberg, A. D. 1211: crowned at the Diet of Mentz, Dec. 6th, A.D. 1212.—L’Art de Ver. des Dates.

APP670 “Ad res imperii in Italia constituendas, civitates quae illi subjectae erant obit, et in verba sua jurare cogit. Deinde, in regna sua se confert.”—Cisner.

APP671 The following is the original from which this paragraph is taken:—“Roma Tridentum cum venisset, quod iter rectius et expeditius ab Othonianis locis superioribus obsideri cognovisset, magna cum difficultate inviis et asperis Rhoetorum Alpibus superatis, secundum Rheni tractum omnibus in ora Rhenana civitatibus ad Imperii ditionem pertinentibus in fidem suam acceptis; Othone (qui quam maximis poterat itineribus ex Italia in Germaniam contenderat, ut Frederico ad Rhenum occurreret et tran-situ prohiberet) spe sua dejecto, Aquisgrani de more coronatur. In hy-berna Francofurtum profectus: et post, conventibus aliquot in Norico habitis, Othone mortuo, rebus Imperil ordinatis, omnique fere Germania pacata...ad Romam reversus.” (Cisner.) The first coronation at Mentz has been thrown into the text, to make the narrative more complete. The diets mentioned as subsequently held were those of Ratisbon, toward the close of A. D. 1215, and Nuremberg, 11 Cal. Feb. A.D. 1216.—Adventine, Ann.

Boior. lib. vii.

APP672 ”Tum praesertim Thomam et Richardum, Innocentii III. fratres, comites Anagninos, quibus castella quaedam in regno Neapolitano erant, regni cupiditate inductos, cum Othone IV. (quando is id hostili manu invaserat) conspirasse reperiebat.”—Cisner.

APP673 “Causam hujus detestationis.”—Cisner.

APP674 “Insignia Imperil regnique coronam me prius depositurum.”— Cisner.

APP675 “And first, by the Holy Scripture,” etc.]—“Ac primo quidem, quod in prima Christianorum ecclesia distribuendorum munerum ecclesiasticorum praecipua cura et potestas penes populum Christianum, intercedente etiam administrorum divinarum curationum consilio fuerit, facile ex sacrosanctis scripturis et ex conciliorum decretis et ex primae ecclesiae consuetudine perspici potest: quo etiam pertinent, cum alii in Decreto a Gratiano consarcinato loci, tum praesertim,” etc.]—Cisner.

APP676 “For that in determining,” etc.]— “Quod et contra authoritatem sacrorum canonum de electione summi pontificis decreverit, et civili magistrati nulla de rebus nedum ordinibus ecclesiasticis dispensandi facultas attributa legatur.”—Cisner.

APP677 “In quibus malta capita Honorio et Theodosio accepta referuntur.” (Cisner.) The books of Justinian are those contained in the Corpus Juris Civilis, viz. Institutionum libri iv.; Pandectorum sire Digestorum libri 1.; Codicis libri xii.; et Novellae; published A.D. 528—535.—Cave.

APP678 “In gravissimam poenam proscriptionis publicationisque omnium bonorum incurreret.”—Cisner.

APP679 “John XII.” See pp. 71, 464.

APP680 This John XVIII. is mentioned as John XVII. at pp. 72, 73, and in L’Art de Ver. des Dates.

APP681 “Johanne XVIII…naso oculisque privato et de Capitolio praecipitatio.” (Cisner.) This last expression must be taken metaphorically: he was in reality thrust into prison by Otho, and survived about a year.—L’Art de Ver. Des Dates.

APP682 “Qui eundem quoque Pontificem, se omnibus allis episcopis in celebri synodo ab Henrico Moguntiae habita, anteponentem, Moguntmo cedere compulut.”—Cisner APP683 “Tamen regi Henrico IIII. regi impuberi, cui imperium delatum erat, jus in hac re suum voluit esse salvum.”—Cisner.

APP684 “For the canons,” etc.]—“Nam quibus capitibus Gratianus ante illa tempora Romanae civitati potestatem illam eligendi Pontificem absque consensu Imperatorum datam esse vult demonstrate (ut can. 29, 30, adjunetaque palea posteriori, et can. 31 eadem distinctlone 63) fraudulenter a Gratiano assentatore Pontificio pro veris supposita esse, et ante in Plerisque Carolus Molinaeus notavit, et ex observatione temporum a quovis vel mediocriter in historiis Francicis et Germanicis versato animadverti potest.”

APP685 “For, first, five bishops,” etc.]— “Primo enim, Gregorium IV, cui 29 can. inscribitur, quinque ex ordine Pontifices subsecuti sunt ante Adrianum illum II. qui arrepta a populo per vim potestate Pontificis eligendi Pontifex factus est: cum praesertim is Gregorius ante pontificatum accipere noluisset, quam imperator in ejus electionem consensisset.”

APP686 “Adrian II who,” etc.]— See the note in this Appendix on page 12. The following is the account of the election of, Adrian II. in Anastasii Bibliothecarii de “Vitis pontificum (p. 223):—Collectis igitur omnibus tam episcopis cum universo clero, quam primoribus urbis cum obsecundantibus sibi populis, ab ecclesia sanctae Dei genetricis semperque virginis Mariae, quae appellatur ad Praesepe, rapitur, trahitur, et ad Lateranense Patriarchium certatim, ac a procerum et plebis multitudine, deportatur. Quod audientes tunc missi Principis moleste tulere, indignati seilicet, non quod tantum virum nollent Pontificem, quem nimirum anxie cupiebant, sed quod sedum praesentes essent Quirites non invitaverint, nec optatae a se futuri Praesulis electioni interesse consenserint. Qui accepta ratione, quod non Augusti causa contemptus, sed futuri temporis hoc omissum fuerit omnino prospectu, ne videlicet Legatos principum in electione Romanorum Praesulum mos expectandi per hujusmodi foreitem inolesceret, omnem mentis suae indignationem medullitus sedavere, ac salutandum electum etiam ipsi humiliter accessere.”

APP687 “Secondly, Molinoeus,” etc.]— ” Deinde canoni 30 Molinaeus authoritatem Raphaelis Volaterani opponit; qui inde etiam suspectus est, quod Eugenio pontifice, hujus Pascalis, quocum pactum Ludovicus inisse dicitur, successore, idem Ludovicus Pius ejusque filius Lotharius, principis Romani potestate, Romae, cum omnibus imperii subjectis tum ipsis etiam Romanis leges constituerunt: ut de illa taceam renovatione decreti a Lothario facta. Tum quomodo paleam illam, cujus initum ‘Constitutio,’ Leo IIII. ad Lotharium et Ludovicum Augustos scribere potuit ?”—Cisner.

APP688 “Louis of Bavaria.”— The Latin is “Ludovicus Boius,” which the translator mistook for Ludovicus Plus, and rendered accordingly “Louis the Pious.” The Latin also says “Fredericus I. et II.”

APP689 “Wisdom and energy.”—“Prudentia et virtute.”—Cisner.

APP690 “Fazellus saith.”—Fazellus was a Dominican, born A.D. 1498, died at Palermo in 1570: see page 5, vol. 1: De rebus Siculis, edit.

Catanae, 1749. The passage alluded to appears in vol. in. of this edition, p. 7: “Hujus [Honorii] successor Gregorius IX. initio statim sui Pontificatus Fridericum urget, ac sub diris etiam monuit, ut primo quoque tempore in Asiam cum expeditione trajiceret Sed cum diu Fridericus moram suam per sacramenti, quo inito inter Saracenos et Christianos pax firmata era, religionem purgasset, commodum affuit Iole Frederici sponsa, quae jam in portum Pisanorum applicuerat, eaque de causa Joannes demum Brenna Rex Romam profectus cum pontifice reconciliationem Friderici, ac filiae nuptias his legibus conclusit, ut Fridericus electionis ins nonnullaque oppida quae in Cainpania detinebat, restitueret, ac primo quoque tempore cum copiis in Asiam properaret.”

APP691 “He gave in commandment to Henry his son.”— At Aix-la- Chapelle, however, not at the places just mentioned: “Henrico deinde filio Caesari mandat ut apud Aquisgranum indictis comitiis de bello Hierosolymitano referat.”—Fazellus de rebus Siculis, tom. in. p. 7.

APP692 “Howbeit, some others affirm that these things were done in the time of Honorius.”— The editors of Fazelli remark (p. 17), “Cum Iole nuptias anno 1225 Fridericus celebravit, Honorio adhuc superstite qui non nisi post biennium Gregorio hujus nominis nono locum cessit; praemature igitur Honorii mors reponitur.”

APP693 “Ludovico Thuringo et Sigeberto Augustano episcopo ducibus.”—Cisner.

APP694 Aventine and Fazellus state, that both the generals died.

APP695 Cisner’s words are as follow:—“Et ejusdem instinctu ab Arsacida sicarios in Europam Christianos reges trucidatum missos, et regem Francorum ut ab ejusmodi insidiis sibi caveret admonitum, accepisset.”

By Arsacidas is here meant the sovereign of a curious fanatical tribe, who inhabited the mountains in the neighborhood of Damascus, called Assassini, from an .Arabic word signifying “to slay:” from them came the modern word assassin. They derived their origin from a sect of Mahometans founded by Hassan, son of Sabah, who fixed his seat near Casween, in Persia, A.D. 1090. He trained his followers to the most implicit submission; he taught them that immortal bliss after death would be the sure reward of such as executed his commands; he was in the habit of despatching them on secret errands, particularly to assassinate those, whether Christians or Mahometans, against whom he had conceived any aversion. His dynasty expired with the eighth king, A.D. 1257.

The Assassini of Syria were a branch of these; who adopted their principles and practices, and maintained correspondence with them.

Their sovereign was called “The Old Man of the Mountain.” They were destroyed by a sultan of Egypt, A.D. 1272. See Hoffman’s Lexicon, and Du Cange 5: Assassini, who gives their various names as corrupted by different historians. See also Moreri’s Dict. 5: Ismaeliens, and the authorities there cited. Rigord, a French historian, says that Philip Augustus, the French king, when at Pontoise A.D. 1192, received letters from Palestine, warning him that the king of England had hired the O/d Man of the Mountain to procure his assassination.

The marquis of Montferrat is said to have been assassinated by one of them in Palestine. William de Nangis, anno 1236, says two were despatched into France to assassinate St. Louis. Walsingham says (also the Continuator of M. Paris) that Edward, son of Henry III., was assaulted by one of them in Acre A.D. 1271. See p. 571 of this volume. “The History of the Assassins,” by Chevalier Yon Joseph Hammer, translated from the German by Charles Oswald Wood, M.D., 8vo, London, 1835, will furnish the reader with full information on this subject.

APP697 “Sailed for Asia.”— “In Asiam navigavit.” (Cisner.) Foxe says “into Italy.”

APP698 “The settled belief.”—“ Constans opinio.”—Cisner.

APP699 “Eamque ob causam ut regnum illud ab injuriis hostium defendatur et conservetur magnopere sua privatim quoque interesse.”—Cisner.

APP700 “Sine cujusquam injuria.”—Cisner.

APP701 Peter de Vineis was an Italian, secretary to Frederic II., whom he served with faithfulness and zeal. Being, however, falsely accused of treason, he was by the emperor thrown into prison at Capua, where he laid violent hands on himself A.D. 1249. (See Foxe, p. 503.) Foxe alludes here to a collection of letters which passes under his name, though (as Cave observes) some of them were dearly written even after Frederie’s death. The collection is intituled Epistolarum Historicarum libri vt. de gestis Frederici I1. imperat, et allis. It was printed at Basil, 1566, and Hamburgh, 1609.

APP702 This epistle from the emperor to Henry III. is in M. Paris, ed.

Lond. 1640, p. 348, and the translation has been collated with the Latin and revised.

APP703 “Posteaquam magnas rursus coegisset copias classemque reparasset, Brundusio profoctus,” etc.]—Cisner.

APP704 Justingen was a town of Suabia, the head of a barony.

APP705 Aventine dates their arrival at Joppa “17 Kal. Dec.” i.e.

November 15th, A.D. 1228.

APP706 Aventine dates the peace “die solis, 12 Kal. Martii,” i.e. Sunday February 18th, which fits the year 1229 by Nicolas’s Tables.

APP707 “Ordinesque militum Templi et Hospitalis loci.”—Cisner.

APP708 The passage in the text reads thus in Cisner: “Solenni Dominicae Resurrectionis festo, anno Salutis 1229, coronatus est; praesentibus omnium illius regni urbium legatis ac proceribus, patriarcha solum, clero, Cypri regis legato, ac Oliverio Templi Magistro cum suis militibus, exceptis, ob Christi Templum Saracenis relictum conquerentibus, quos et pontificis minae etiam exterruerant.”

APP709 “Militumque ordinis Teutonici.”—Cisner.

APP710 “Non potuit, simulatque tantum facinus commisisset, hoc uno scelere esse contentus, quin aliud contra eundem moliretur.” (Cisner.)

The translator, not perceiving that simulatque was a mis-print for simul atque but taking it for the verb simulat-que, says, “he could not dissemble this his mischievous fact.” Both the editions of Cisner read “simulatque.” Another curious mis-translation, occasioned by a misprint in the first edition of the Latin, is pointed out in the note on p. 504 from the bottom.

APP711 M. Paris, ed. 1640, p. 353.

APP712 “Unde Blondus perfidiam imperatoris legntis ejus pontificem coram exprobrasse tradit.”—Cisner.

APP713 “Baseness.”—“Turpitudinem.”—Cisner.

APP714 “Curia et senatu amovit.”—Cisner.

APP715 Ira “Ille ancipiti contentione opprimeretur.”—Cisner.

APP716 “Cum jam regnum Hierosolymitanum in meliorem stature redegisset.”—Cisner.

APP717 “Pontificios conatus omni consilio evertendos et suos in officio permanentes confirmandos existimans, relicto in Asia Renaldo cum praesidiis, reliquis copiis se subsequi jussis, quam celerrime cum duabus trire-mibus in Calabriam contendit.”—Cisner.

APP718 “Hermanni Teutonici Ordinis magistri et Messaniensis Antistitis opera.”—Cisner.

APP719 “Jura in regno Siciliae.”—Cisner.

APP720 “Pontificem Reatae accessit—sibi ecclesiam Romanam curae fore eamque se defensurum, oblato etiam filio suo obside, spondet.”— Cisner.

APP721 “Majorem igitur laudem consecutus fuisset Blondus, si hanc pontificis perfidiam notasset, quam cum (sui oblitus, ut mendacibus saepe accidit), contra suae narrationis seriem contra rerum a Frederico gestarum veritatem, ab eo Romanos ad rerum novarum studia invitatos refer,.”—Cisner.

APP722 Foxe says, “Henry Caesar and Frederic of Austria, his sons.” But Frederic duke of Austria was not Frederic’s son. He had a bastard son, Frederic prince of Antioch, mentioned at p. 505. Foxe repeats the same mistake (which is not Cisner’s) next page, and at pp. 481,484. See the note on p. 478.

APP723 “Kelhemii cum deambularet, letali vulnere percussus.” (Cisner.) “A Stichio morione, quem per ludum incesserat, cultello letali vulnere percussus, decessit, 16 Cal. Oct. 1231.—Aventine.

APP724 “Reginoburgi” (Cisner); i.e. at Ratisbon.

APP725 “Fredericum Austriacum mandatis suis non parentem proscribit et pro hoste Reipublicae habet.” (Cisner.) Foxe here, as elsewhere, confounding this Frederic with the emperor’s bastard son Frederic (see note on page 477), says: “By public commandment he renounced Frederic of Austria for his son.”

APP726 “Pacis specie, quam ad subsidium belli sacri inter Christianos tuendam jampridem promulgarat.”—Cisner.

APP727 “Eo ipso die.”—Cisner.

APP728 “Inique facere qui per pacis causam sein eo quod optimo sibi jure liceat impedire velit, quo minus ita se comparet, ut qui se a regnis heredltariis intercludere conati sunt, vi pellere posset; et qui se imperioque defecissent, eosque, quos vel ad conventus communium rerum gratia vel ob sacrum bellum evocasset, itinere prohibuissent, et in suam perniciem multa improbe et nefarie machinati essent, in ordinem cogeret et uti commeruissent plecteret.”—Cisner.

APP729 “Sine ulla temporis notatione, conditionis adjectione, dignitatis jurisve imperii non minuendi exceptione.”—Cisner.

APP730 “Gregory.”—Cisner invariably writes “Georgius” for “Gregorius.”

APP731 The following extract from the Life of Frederic by Colenuccio, prefixed to “Petri de Vineis Epist. Fred. II.”, will explain the word Caroccio:— “Carocium Mediolanensium cum Petro Teupolo, patricio Veneto ac ducis Venetiarum filio, Mediolanensium praefecto ac duce quem illi Potestatem vocant, cepit, eumque captivum in Apuliam transmisit.

Parta vero tam insigni victoria, in modum ducis triumphantis Cremonam ingressus Carocium secure duxit, in quo dux Mediolanensium brachio et collo funibus ad lignum alligatus erat, vexillis Lombardorum convolutis atque sequentibus innumeris captivis.

Trahebatur vero Carocium ab elephanti castellum gestante, in quo affabre et artificiose facto tibicines residebant una cum Imperialibus vexillis explicatis et loco maxime conspicuo suffixis. Et his eum aa modum praecedentibus in signum victoriae Fredericus cum copiis sequebatur. Sciendum est, Carocium, quo eo tempore in Italia utebantur, fuisse genus carri valde quidem amplum et a multis paribus bourn trahi consuetum, circumdatum undique gradibus ad modum tribunalis et suggestus, affabre elaboratum multisque ornamentis excultum et coopertum: eo gestabantur et vexilla populi cujus Carocium erat, aliarumque civitatum confederatarum. Et erat Carocium in exercitu quasi praetorium aut tribunal quoddam commune, ad quod se recipiebant milites, tanquam ad curiam et locum principalem totius exercitus, et ubi magistratus et omne robur meliorque pars exercitus veluti in subsidio consistebant. Atque tum quidem exercitus prorsus credebatur fusus quando Carocium amissum erat. Prae omnibus autem allis Mediolanenses Bononienses Parmenses et Cremonenses Carocio usos fuisse invenio, quo minus essent prompti ad fugam, conspicientes robur totius exercitus et vexilia facile loco moveri non posse aut aliqua fuga subduci ob ipsius aedificii molem. Tale itaque erst Carocium a Frederico in triumpho Cremonae invectum.”

APP732 “Exempla.”—Cisner.

APP733 Itaque, quod Jacobum Teupolum, ducem Venetum, ob iram capti filii facile se in suam sententiam perducturum confideret (quod inter tantos terrores solatio ei fuisse Blondus scribit), epistola, quadam captandae benevolentiae causa, illum Croatiae atque Dalmatiae quartae partis et dimidiatae totius Romani imperii dominum nuncupat, contra Fredericum solicitans.”—Cisner.

APP734 “Idem, cum Germanorum optimam voluntatem,” etc.]—Cisner.

APP735 “Praeterquam enim quod imperatori suo hominis appellationem detrahit, perfidiae. . . incusat.”—Cisner.

APP736 “Albertum Behamum (ipse Boiemum nominat) equestri familia natum, Balcaniensis collegii Decurionem Battaviensis, insignem cum primis veteratorem,” is Cisner’s description of this man. Aventine calls him “Albertus Beham, Bathaviensis Templi Decanus.”

APP737 “Propinquos et necessarios suos.”—Cisner.

APP738 Foxe says, “Frederic of Austria, his son, who because he was proscribed or outlawed by the emperor, his father.”—See the notes on pp. 477, 478.

APP739 “But Wenceslaus and Otho,” etc.]—“Sed Boiemo et Palatino Aegram venire recusantibus et per legatos, quibus Austriaci se associarant, intercedentibus, distractis animis re infects discesserunt.”— Cisner.

APP740 Foxe says, “Then Frederic of Austria, the emperor’s second son,” etc.: see the note on p. 477.

APP741 “Etsi vero pontificii emissarii.”—Cisner.

APP742 “All which things,” etc. ¾ “Ipse quoque Pontifex, ab Alberto de illorum in Imperatorem constantia, certior factus, ut spe ampliorum dignitatum aliquos adversus illos concitaret, sacerdotibus et monachis qui illis suberant potestatem facit, ut.”—Cisner.

APP743 “Eaque de causa ad Imperatorem provocant.”—Cisner.

APP744 “Et quidem summi Boiorum praesulis Juvavensis consilio opera, et suasu.”—Cisner.

APP745 “But Albert,” etc.]— “Albertus contra, horum collegia et coenobia, veluti publicorum hostium et proscriptorum, pontificiis aperte distribuit; multos ex procerum ordine nobilium et equitum largitione bonorum ecclesiasticorum devincit. Ac nominatim quidera Johannes Aventinus commemorat, quibus, ut Pontificias partes defendereut, decimae ecclesiasticae precario concessae; quae a quibus collegia et coenobia direpta, reditusque eorum ablati, et praedia vi occupata fuerint.”—Cisner.

APP746 “Cum Germaniae universae tum Boioriae.”—Cisner.

APP747 “Quo, cum inductu Hugonis Rambarti (qui sine periculo id eum facere posse dixerat) ad legatum colloquii causa venisset, contra fas et aequum intercepto.”—Cisner.

APP748 “Pisis Viterbium se confert.”—Cisner.

APP749 “For that,” etc.]— “quod aditis a suis omnibus Italiae oppidis et civitatibus, ut exploratum haberet qui sibi qui pontifici faverent, illos Gibellinos hos Guelphos appellaverit.”—Cisner.

APP750 “Naucleri, Hermanni Contracti, Antonini Florentini, Castellionaei, aliorumque, qui haec nomina Conrado III., Magni Frederici patruo, imperante in Italia coepisse; Pontificique deditos Guelphos a Guelpho, ultimo Henrici Superbi fratre, Imperatori autem addictos vel ab ipso Conrado vel filio ejus in pago Vaiblingen enutrito Ghibellinos appellatos, prodiderunt.”—Cisner.

APP751 “Decreta supplicatione, circunlatis capitibus,” etc.]—Cisner.

APP752 “Quoscunque caperet, eos, vel inusta vel incisa crucis nota, exeruciari jussit.”—Cisner.

APP753 “Graviter mulctatis.”—Cisner.

APP754 “Condita urbe Aquila.”—Cisner.

APP755 “Asculinum adversae factionis munitum oppidum obsedit.”— Cisner.

APP756“Emissarii.”—Cisner.

APP757 “Such heart of grace.”—“Tantos spiritus.”—Cisner.

APP758 “Impudenter affirmant , neque ulla fidel religione teneri.”— Cisner.

APP759 “Imperiose” (Cisner); and next line “exitii poena.”

APP760 “Ipsos quoque servituti Pontificiae obnoxios fore.”—Cisner.

APP761 “Attain.”—“ Nactus fuerit.”—Cisner.

APP762 “Qui missos cum his literis legatos ejusdem argumenti orationem habuisse narrat.” (Cisner.) Aventine dates this Epistle, “Datum in obsidione Aesculi, Julii duodevicesimo die, indictlone tertiadecima.”

APP763 “And so much,” etc.]—“Opera Bohuslai Zelauconis filii et Budislai Tarozelai filii, qui principes erant Regii senatus (pollicitationibus et muneribus jam ante sibi devinctorum) perficit, ut dies comitiis Libussae statueretur, ubi de novo Imperatore creando in Frederici Augusti ejusque filii Conradi contumeliam ageretur.”—Cisner.

APP764 “Praesul Coloniae Agrippinae.”—Cisner.

APP765 “Milites magno fortique animo et incredibili labore in operibus castrorum conficiendis, tabernaculis ad arcendam tempestaris injuriam excitandis et contegendis, iisque parandis quae oppugnationi usui essent, cuni-culisque agendis, omnia superaverunt.”—Cisner.

APP766 “Neque vi atque armis se el, quamvis nihil intentatum reliquisset, cum suis conjuratis resistere posse videret.”—Cisner.

APP767 “Itaque Henricus Sardiniae regem (quem Itali Entium vocant) Pisas ire jussit.”—Cisner.

APP768 “Itaque Tartari Roxolanos, Bodolios, Mudavos, Walachos, Polonos, Borussos, nemine fete repugnante subigunt, agros depopulantur, urbes, oppida, pagos, villas, aedificia omnis generis diripiunt, incendunt,” etc.]—Cisner.

APP769 “Ut manus nulla, non praesidium, non urbs esset, quae se armis defenderet.”—Cisner.

APP770 —“Itaque, cum videret,” etc.]—Cisner.

APP771 “Cum vero.”—Cisner.

APP772 “Sent orders.”— “Imperat.”—Cisner .

APP773 “Magnus exercitus in Germania eorum qui nota, se coelesti signarant, contra Tartaros operam suam deferebant, quos Pontificis in Germania, procurator, Albertus ille, domi expectare jussit.”—Cisner.

APP774 “Hac vastatione. . . factum est, quo minius (ut constitutum erat) Libussae conjurati principes convenirent, aliumque Imperatorem crearent.”—Cisner.

APP775 “Quod si praedicta ad vesirae mentis sculos nolitis reflectere, Penestrinum episcopum et altos legatos ecclesiae in praejudicium vestrum volentes subsidium implorare manifestissime repulimus; nec in regno nostro contra majestatem vestram potuerunt aliquid obtinere: ” where Penestrinum is a corruption of Proenestinum, which has led to the appearanee in Foxe’s text of “the bishop of Penestrum:” read “Preaneste” or the modern” Palestrine.” We find, however, Penestriensis and Penestrinus in Rymer, Sept. 20th, 1343, and Feb. 20th, 1345.

APP776 “Concilioque praepedito perturbatus.”—Cisner.

APP777 Cisner says, “Quod cujusmodi sit, certe Carolus Molinaeus in annotationibus suis ad Platinam de vita Gregorii docet; cujus sententiae equidem non possum non accedere.” The text, however, is more exact.

This is the Carolus Molinaeus mentioned supra, vol. i.p. 11, note (I).

The passage to which Foxe refers is the following:— “Qui” [that is Raymond Pennafort, whom the pope employed to make the collection] “tamen non solum superflua posuit, ut sed saepe male truncavit Decretales...quandoque studiose truncavit, ut lateret invidiosum argumentum, ut in cap. ‘ex fre-quentibus’ [i.e. Lib. it. Titus 7: cap. 3] ‘de Instit. quod latum erat contra regalia Regis Augliae. Sic in plerisque latis in favorem inimicorum Regis Franciae, ut in cap.’ Novit de Judie. [Lib. it. Titus 1: cap. 13.]” APP778 “Nihil aliud cogitarunt, quam ut cum aliis regnis debilitatis tum Imperio violato suum amplificarent dominatum. Cujus rei exempla Molinaeus de regibus Gallorum et Anglorum refert.”—Cisner.

APP779 “Patria Mediolanensis, Castelloneae gentis.”—Cisner.

APP780 “Et reipublicae suamque dignitatem commendat,” etc.]—Cisner.

APP781 “Relicto Viterbio, et oppido Faliscorum omnibus rebus necessariis instructo et munito, Aquam Pendentem adit.”—Cisner.

APP782 “lind although,” etc.]—“Et indictum a Pontifice concilium, in quo ille et actoris et judicis partes ageret, et ad quod beneficio obstrictos coegerat, ad suam perniciem pertinere intelligebat.”

APP783 “Teutonici Ordinis.”—Cisner.

APP784 Foxe inadvertently says “in the history of King John.” See the narrative referred to at pp. 532, 533.

APP785 “After this, Frederick had retired,” etc.]—This paragraph is not in Foxe, but is given from Cisner, and is necessary to fill up an evident hiatus in Foxe’s narrative. Henry, landgrave of Thuringia, was elected at the Diet of Hocheim, May 22d, A.D. 1246; William, earl of Holland, at the Diet of Weringhen, Sept. 29th, A.D. 1247.—L’Art de Ver. des Dates.

APP786 This council was called at Meldorf early in the year 1249, on purpose to endeavor to force the Duke of Bavaria to take up arms against Frederic II. and his son Conrad: they gave him till the following May to decide (L’Art de Verifier des Dates). It was probably then that the Pope pronounced his anathema against him, as stated in the text., Otho persevered in his fidelity to the cause of Frederic, and his son and successor Conrad, till his death, which took place Nov. 29th, A. D. 1253. (Ibid.)

APP787 “Albertus vero Reginoburgensis.”—Cisner. Struvius (Germaniae Historic, Jenae, 1730, tom. 1: p. 481), citing the principal German historians, places this event to the night of Innocents day, Dec. 28th, A. D. 1250, immediately after Frederic’s death.

APP788 St. Emeran was a native, some say bishop, of Poictiers, who proceeded as a missionary to Bavaria, A.D. 640. Being slain by the idolaters at Helfendorff, near Munich, his body was conveyed to Ratisbon, and buffed there, whence he came to be regarded as the patron saint of Ratisbon. A Benedictine monastery was afterwards built outside the city, dedicated to St. Peter and St. Emeran, which became the most famous monastery in the whole empire.— Martiniere’s Geography, 5: Ratisbon, & Butler’ s Lives of the Saints.

APP789 “Albertus Antisres in monachorum ordinem poenae causa, redactus est.”—Cisner. This Albert was the immediate predecessor in the see of Ratisbon of Albert the Great, according to Chronicon Augustense (apud Freheri Germ. Script. tom. 1: p. 533), which states his deposition ad an. 1259, thus:— “Albertus Ratisponensis Episcopus pro quibusdam criminibus spud sedem apostolicam accusatus, cum se defendere non possit, cessit, eique frater Albertus de ordine Praedicatorum subrogatur.”

APP790 “Ac primum impetum Marchio Maidspina sustinet.”—Cisner.

APP791 “Praedictumque sibi recordatus est, Florentiae se moriturum, facto testamento, eoque tum infinita, pecuniae summa ad pias causas (ut vocant) legata, tum Conrado aliisque filiis Imperii regnorumque suorum haeredibus institutis successoribusque (veluti cujusque aetas et conditio ferebat) designatis, ex hac vita, migravit.”—Cisner.

APP792 “Pandolpho writeth,” etc.]—“Ut qui ei in extremis adfuerunt sibi persuaserint animam ejus ad condilium caelestium delatum felicitate perfrui sempiterna, Pandulphus Colenucius tradit. Ejusdem rei testes cum Gulielmum Puteanum, Andream Pandalum Venetum, tum Manardum Episcopum Imolensem, Iralos scriptores, profert.”— Cisner. “Pandulphus Collenucius, Pisaurensis, Jurisconsultus et orator; apud Johannem Sfortiam Pisaurensem tyrannum, qui deprehensis literis offensus ignovisse se ei fidera fecerat, strangulatus in carcere A.D. 1500. Collenucius libris 6: historiam Neapolitanam prosecutus est Italice, Latine transtulit Johannes Nicolaus Stupanus Rhaetus, Bas. 1572. Vita Frederici II. Imperatoris ex Italica historia Neapolitans Collenucii prodiit cum Petri de Vineis Sex libris Epistolarum Basileae 1566, Latine versa a Simone Schardio.” (Fabricii Bibliotheca Med. et Infim. Latinitatis.)

APP793 “Alii enim ei venenum Pontifficis instinctu propinatum eoque exanimatum tradunt. Plerique a Manfredo filio pulvinari compressis faucibus suffocatum referunt.” The edition of Cisner which Foxe used (Basil, 1565) reads “Phoerique ,” which is corrected in the edition of Strasburg, 1608, into “Plerique.” This misprint, however, led the translator into the following odd statement:—“Others, that he was strangled with a pillow by Manfred, the son of Pherus.” See the note on p. 472.

APP794 “Sed febri confectum scribit” (Cisner): it is also “febrim” at line 80 of page 504.

APP795 Cisner gives most erroneously A.D. 1268. See the note in this Appendix on page 456, note (1).

APP796 “Whence the kings,” etc.]—“Unde jus et titulus regni Hierosolymitani jure haereditario ad reges Siciliae et Neapolis pervenit.”—Cisner.

APP797 “But as in this corruption of nature,” etc.]—“Sed quia in hac vitiositate naturae perfectio in hominem non cadit, neque ullus unquam ita animo ac vita, constitutus est ut ratio postulat; nec Fredericus perfectus et ab omni vitio liber fuit.”—Cisner.

APP798 “Atque haec fere omnis ex ea destriptione Frederici quae est apud Colonucium.”—Cisner.

APP799 “Haud scio an non idcirco a pontificibus ecclesiae hostis jndicatus sit. quod vel in dicenda veritate,” etc.]—Cisner.

APP800 “Fraught and full both of pitiful complaints. . ., also full of his admonitions,” etc.]— “Epistolas plenas tum querelalrum...tum admonitionum. ”—Cisner.

APP801 “Cum his praeceptis.”—Cisner.

APP802 “Lastly, when I behold,” etc.]—“Cum denique Imperatorem fortunatum, felicem, victoriosum, Pontificios autem infortunatos, calamitosos, victos, fusos esse considero” (Cisner): whence the text might be improved.

APP803 “Injury.”—“Detrimentum.”—Cisner.

APP804 “Exhorteth.”—“Hortatur.”—Cisner.

APP805 “Qui praecipuas in ecclesia dignitates consecuti sunt.”—Cisner.

APP806 “At assentatores pontificii, qui et illis et insequentibus temporibus ad nostram usque aetatem ad scribendum animum applicarunt, non ut veritatis testes essent, sed ut pontificiam gratiam sibi demererentur, et opima ab eo sacerdotia aucuparentur, hinc occasionem calumniandi Imperatorem acceperunt.”—Cisner.

APP807 Arnold de Villa Nova is mentioned again at page 598, Section 5, and infra, vol. in. page 106.

APP808 “Beyond mercy.”— “Extra charitatem” (Illyricus); “void of charity” (Foxe).

APP809 William de St. Amour was born at St. Amour, in Franche Compte.

He became a doctor of the Sorbonne, and was a very distinguished lecturer in divinity at Paris. Foxe here calls him “chief ruler then of that university,” but, as he certainly was not the rector of the university, “canon of the church of Beauvais” is put in from Cave. He was not the only author of the “De periculis Ecclesiae;” for Foxe himself assigns him two distinct sets of coadjutors at pp. 521,752, the former of which is correct.

The “De periculis Ecclesiae” was written to counteract the effects of a mischievous publication called “Evangelium Eternum,” or “Evangelium Spiritus Sancti,” put forth by the friars A.D. 1256, of which some account will he given in the note on page 520. This book was condemned by Alexander IV. at the instance of the friars, by a bull dated Anagni, 3 Non. Octob. pontificatus anno 2 [October 5th, A.D. 1256]. (Du Boulay, Hist. de l’Univ. de Paris, tom. in. p. 310.) St.

Amour was, moreover, silenced, and ordered to quit France. He seems, however, to have remained there, and to have died at his native place, A.D. 1272.—Biographie Universelle, Moreri, Dupin.

APP810 “Omnis parati simus negligere propter Christum.”—Illyricus.

APP811 “Evangelium Eternum.”— Mosheim has investigated the history of this book with great diligence (Soames’s Edition, vol. 2: p. 568, note). He says that both ancient and modern writers are mistaken about it. The “Evangelium Eternum” seems to have been written by some weak enthusiast about the year A.D. 1200; for William de St.

Amour in the “De Periculis Novissimorum Temporum” says, that fifty-five years had elapsed since the first publication of these views, and they were in five years more to be triumphant, A.D. 1260, at least according to the prediction of the book. To gain the more credit to this production, it was announced under the name of Joachim, the abbot of Flora. Its title was taken from Revelations 14:6; and its chief doctrine was, that, as there were three Persons in the Godhead, so there were to be three Dispensations: that of the Father, which ended at the coming of Christ; that of the Son, which was to continue till 1260; and that of the Spirit, which was to continue to the end of time. This doctrine was advocated by Amauri of Chartres, who was condemned for it, first by the doctors of Paris A.D. 1204, and again by the Lateran Council A.D. 1215. “Almaricus Doctor Parisiensis docuit legem Dei Parris durasse usque ad adventum Christi: legem Christi usque ad Almaricum: legem Spiritus S. usque ad finem mundi. Docuit multa alia perniciossima.

Vide Joan. de Turrecremata, 1. 4: Summae part 2: c. 35, et Vincentium in Speculo Historiali, 1. xcix. c. 107.” (Chronologia Bellarmini.) The book would probably have fallen into contempt, had not the Franciscans eagerly appropriated its doctrines to themselves, and republished the “Evangelium Eternum” with an Introduction, in which they asserted that St. Francis was the Angel spoken of in the verse of Revelations, and that the Mendicant friars were destined of God to be the instruments of establishing the new and purer state of the church.

It is this “Libellus Introductorius” which is named in the damnatory bull of Alexander IV. as the great object of offense. See the note on page 521. This Introduction was long attributed to John of Parma, general of the Franciscan order, but is now believed to have been the production of his friend Gerard.

APP812 “The errors of the book condemned,” etc.]— The following statement will partly confirm, partly correct, the text. Du Boulay (Hist. Universitatis Parisien. Paris, 1666, tom. in. p. 292) gives a bull of Alexander, in which “Libellus quidam, qui in Evangelium aeternum seu quosdam libros Abbatis Joachim Introductorius dicebatur,” is condemned, together with “Ex cerpta quaedam seu sehedulae in quibus multa quae Libello non continentur nequiter illi adscripta fuisse dicuntur;” dated Anagni, 10 Kal. Novemb. Pontificatus an. [October 23d, A.D. 1255.] Du Boulay (page 293) gives another bull, dated Anagni, 2 Non. Novemb. pontif, an. [October 31st], alluding to the preceding, and directing the bishop of Paris to act discreetly in publishing the aforesaid censure, for the sake of the credit of the friars: “Quod dicti fratres nullum ex hoc opprobrium nullamque infamiam incurrere valeant sive notam; ut oblocutores et aemuli non possint exinde sumere contra ipsos materiam detrahendi.” In the next page (294) Du Boulay states that, through the intrigues of the Dominicans, the pope was induced to issue three bulls against the other party; and that William de St. Amour, Odo of Douay, Nicholas, dean of Bar, and Christian, a canon of Beauvais, were denounced as the leading opponents of the friars. A temporary peace was then concluded between the two parties at Paris, dated “die I Martii, A.D. 1256.” This peace, however, was soon interrupted; for the pope was induced by the friars to condemn the University men, and to charge them to receive the friars, under date of Anagni, 15 Cal. Julii, pontif, an. 2 (Du Boulay, p. 303). This led to the publication of the “De Periculis Novissimorum Temporum,” which Louis immediately sent to the pope for his opinion of it. The University, on their part, sent up nuncios, with the “Evangelium Eternum.” The pope promptly condemned the former, before the University nuncios had arrived, under date of Anagni, 3 Non. Octob. pontif, an. 2 (Du Boulay, p. 310); and thanked Louis for sending it, in a letter dated 16 Cal. Nov. (ib. p. 312); enjoining the French bishops to conform, in a bull dated 12 Cal.

Nov. (ib. p. 313). Odo of Douay and Christian of Beauvais, arriving first of the University nuncios, were brought to recant, October 18th (lb. pp. 313, 315): St. Amour, however, resolutely defended his book, and so successfully that some errors in the “Evangelium Eternum” were condemned, and the pope wrote a complimentary letter to the University, dated Nov. 15th (ib. pp. 316—332). (See Usher “De Christ. Ecclesiastes Suc. et Statu,” cap. ix. Section 20-29.)

APP813 “Magister Willielmus de Sancto Amore, et Magister Odo de Doato, qui nobiliter rexerant in artibus, in decretis, et tunc in theologia:

Magister Christianus, Canonicus Beluacensis, qui maximus quasi philosophus emeritus, postquam in artibus rexerat, in theologia lecturivit; Magister Nicolaus de Baro super Albam, qui rexerat in artibus, legibus, et decretis, ad legendum in theologia praeparatus; Magister Johannes de Sectavilla [Sicca Villa], Anglicus, Rhetor Universitatis; et Magister Johannes Belin, Gallicus; nomi-natissimi philosophi, regentes in artibus.” (M. Paris, p. 939.) Nicolas was dean of Bar-sur-Aube, according to several documents in Du Boulay.

APP814 The first of these sermons is printed at page 43 of Browne’s Appendix to the “Fasciculus,” and begins—“Luke 19: In hodierno evangelio proponit vobis Dominus in parabola duas personas,” etc.

This must have been preached on the eleventh Sunday after Trinity.

The second sermon is printed at p. 48 of Browne’s Appendix. Foxe says that it was “upon the Epistle read in the church on May day,” but that is not the fact. Doubtless, it was preached on May day, for internal evidence proves that it was the feast of St. Philip and St.

James, i.e. May 1st; but the only portion of the services of that day which at all refers to the subject of the sermon is the Second Lesson for the Evening Service, which is the Epistle of St. Jude. The text, or motto, however, of the sermon was really compounded of two passages (Ecclesiasticus in. 26, and Jeremiah 20: 9), and stands thus in Browne:—“Qui amat periculum peribit in illo. Factus est sermo Domini in corde meo quasi ignis aestuans.” It then proceeds: “Verbum secundo propositum scribitur in Jeremia...Ac ut possim ardentius ac diligentius facere, in principio oremus.” He then resumes:—“Qui amat periculum, peribit in illo.” “Verbum istud scribitur in Eccles...Unde omissa commemoratione et laude SS. Apost. Philippi et Jacobi, quorum hodie est festum . . .”

APP815 “In capite quinto” (Illyricus); “in the first chapter.” (Foxe.)

APP816 “Vana Gloria, et Religionis Dissipatio.”—Illyricus.

APP817 Nicholaus Gallus flourished about A.D. 1270: he wrote a treatise called Sagitta Ignea, on the corrupt state of the Monastic Orders.— Illyricus, col. 1655.

APP818 “In nocte Sti. Dionysii” (M. Paris, p. 876). St. Denis’s Day is October 9th.

APP819 The Burton Annals give this letter (page 405), heading it “Litera papalis Deo odibilis et hominibus.” By the list in Hasted’s Kent, the archbishop of Canterbury, mentioned in the beginning of it, must have been Othoboni, a Genoese. See also Knighton, Script. Decem. col. 2436.

APP820 Guilleaume de Fiesque, of a famous Genoese family, and nephew to pope Innocent III. was made cardinal-deacon of St. Eustace December A.D. 1244, and died A.D. 1256.—Moreri’s Diet. 5:

Cardinal.

APP821 For the first beginning of these provisions, see Wilkins’s Cone. tom. i.p. 558, sub anno 1225.

APP822 This letter is called by Knighton (col. 2436) “Epistola satis tonans:” it is found in M. Paris, page 870, ed. 1640, the Burton Annals, page 326, Browhe’s Appendix to the “Fasciculus,” page 400; and in MS. in Trinity College, Cambridge, and the Cotton MS.; also in the Exchequer, as appears from the following:—“The memorable Epistle of Robert Grosthead, bishop of Lincoln, to pope Innocent IV. against his Provisions, wherein he compares him to Lucifer and Antichrist, is enrolled ‘in perpetuam rei memoriam’ in the Red Book in the king’s Exchequer at Westminster, folios 16 and 179, to a transcript whereof I find this marginal note—‘PAPA ANTICHRISTUS.’ No wonder, then, pope Clement V. refused to canonize him for a saint, though earnestly requested by king Edward I.” (Prynne’s History of King John, Hen. III. and Ed. I. page 132.) Prynne (page 1134) gives the king’s letter to pope Clement for the canonization of Grosthead, dated Carlisle, 6 die Mail, 34 Ed. I. [A.D. 1306.] The bishops and clergy and people of England are stated to join in the application: but there is no record of its being granted; and Knighton says (col. 2436) that in consequence of this letter he never was canonized.

APP823 “The answer of bishop Grosthead to the pope.”— Foxe, following M. Paris, represents this letter as addressed to the pope: the Burton Annals (page 327) more correctly represent it as addressed to the two persons to whom the pope’s letter was addressed, and as beginning thus:—“Robertus, Dei permissione Lincolniae episcopus, Cantuariensi archidiacono et Magistro Innocentio Domini Papae scriptori salutem et benedictionem. Intelleximus vos literam Domini Papae recepisse in haec verba:—Innocentius episcopus, etc....Dilectis filiis Archidiacono Cantuariensi et Magistro Innocentio scriptori nostro in Anglia commoranti salutem, etc. ut infra. [The pope’s letter on behalf of his nephew is not given in the Burton Annals till seventy-five pages later, having been omitted at its proper place.] Noverit autem discretio vestra,” etc. M. Paris, however, takes up Grosthead’s letter at the word “Salutem,” and makes it the opening of a letter from Grosthead to Innocent : ¾ “Rescripsit ei ad haec verba: Salutem. Noverit discretio vestra,” etc. It is not easy, however, to understand how Grosthead should talk to Innocent about—“Proedictoe literae tenor;” and, further on, “Propterea, reverendi Domini;” and near the end, “his quae in proedicta litera continentur.” The explanation of these expressions is, that Grosthead was immediately addressing the archdeacon of Canterbury and the pope’s scribe, Innocent, and had begun his letter by adverting to that which they had received from Innocent.

APP824 Foxe adds “Hebrew,” but that is not in the original; see, however, p. 523.

APP825 Gilles de Torres, a Spaniard, was canon of Burgos, afterwards archbishop of Toledo, created cardinal-deacon of St. Cosmus and St.

Damien A.D. 1216, died A.D. 1254. (Moreri, 5: Cardinal.) He seems to have been a very thoughtful and respectable person. M. Paris mentions his death sub an. 1255, and gives him this high character: “Qui aetate ferme centenarius, singularis, pare carens, exstitit columns in curia Romana veritatis et justitiae, et munerum aspernator, quae rigorem aequitatis flectere consueverunt.”

APP826 “John de St. Giles.”—Mr. Pegge (Life of Grosthead, page 220) says that he probably derived his name from the parish of St. Giles in St. Alban’s, now demolished.—Fuller’s Worthies, Tanner, and Wood.

APP827 “In paupertate voluntaria, quae est paupertas spiritus.”—M.

Paris.

APP828 “Approved”— “Authenticam” (M. Paris, page 874); “Solemn” (Foxe).

APP829 It seems doubtful whether the words “Heresis enim Graece, electio est Latine,” should be considered a part of Grosthead’s definition of heresy, or whether they were originally written in the margin as a gloss, and were afterwards inserted in the text by some transcriber. “Enim” is wanting in the printed copies of M. Paris, but it is inserted in the passage as cited by Ducange, 5: Haeresis. Grosthead seems to have had some reference to St. Jerome’s definition of heresy (Comment. ad Galatas, cap. v.), cited in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Causa 34: Quaest. in. cap. 27: “Haeresis Graece ab electlone dicitur,” etc.

APP830 “A boy.”— “Parvulo” (Grosthead); “puero parvulo” (Butt. Ann.); “nepotulo suo puero” (Knighton).

APP831 “Non caret scrupulo societatis occultae, qui manifesto facinori desinit obviare.”—M. Paris, p. 874.

APP832 “The Caursini.”— “The Caursini were a set of Italian merchants, infamous for usurious contracts, particularly in France, whence the kings drove them out by repeated laws and statutes. Of those issued by the king of France the most famous is an edict of St. Louis, 1268, permitting them to act as merchants provided they did not practice usury; and another of Philip de Valois, 1346. M. Paris speaks of them as a public nuisance in England in the middle of the thirteenth century.

Henry III. expelled them, but, by the interference of the pope, readmitted them, and soon after in 1251 drove them away again. They were one division of the Lombards, by which general name the Italian Merchants who lent money were distinguished all over Europe, but divided into societies or companies called, from the head of the firm or house, Amanati, Accaioiuli, Bardi, Corsini, Caorcini, Caursini, or Cawarsini. Du Cange, voc. Caorcini. Rymer has preserved a recommendation from Edward III. 1331, to David king of Scotland, to repay on his account to certain merchants of the society of Bardi at Florence 1000 out of 1300 marks due to him from David’s father, Robert.”—Mr. Pegge, Archoeologia, vol. 10: p. 242.

APP833 Most of the individuals mentioned in this section have been spoken of in the note on p. 318. Jacobus de Viteri is also called de Vitriaco (Cave); he became cardinal-bishop of Frascati, and, with Robert de Curson and others, engaged actively in preaching up the crusade against the Albigenses A.D. 1215 (See Usher, “De Christ.

Ecclesiastes Suc. et Statu,” lib. 10: Section 41). Respecting Roger, bishop of London, see supra, p. 403.

APP834 M. Paris states (edit. 1640, p. 734) that Richard, earl of Cornwall, by authority from the pope gathered large sums of money from those who were signed with the cross (Dugdale’s Bar. vol. 1: p. 763); and he states at p. 732, that William Longspee, earl of Salisbury, made this precedent a ground of application to the pope for a similar licence, which was granted him, and yielded him above 1000 marks.—Dugdale, vol. 1: p. 178.

APP835 “Luxuria” is here lust; hence lechery.—Pegge’s Life of Grosthead, p. 210, note (c), and Nards Glossary, 5: Luxury.

APP836 “A legate should never come into: England unless the king himself desire it.”— See supra, p. 255.

APP837 “Nee potuit ei Cardinalis Albi physica suffragari, non enim pepercit Robertus Lincolniensis Sinebaldo Genuensi.” (M. Paris.)

Albus de Viterbo is mentioned by Moreri, 5: Cardinal, as created cardinal A.D. 1252, but his title is not stated. He was of the Cistercian order.

APP838 See the Burton Annals, p. 344. Rymer gives an order, dated Woodstock, 20th August, 40 Henry III. [A.D. 1256] “De domibus Judaeorum suspensorum pro puero crucifixo apud Lincoln vendendis.” (See the note on p. 188.) The expulsion of the Jews from France is mentioned by M. Paris, p. 861, ad an. 1252; M. Westm. ad an. 1253.

This pillage of the Jews by Henry is in M. Paris, p. 887, ad an. 1254, soon after Easter.

APP839 “In partibus Transalpinis.”—M. Westminster.

APP840 This affair is related ad an. 1260, 44 Hen. III.: the bishop of London, Fulco, died May 12th, A.D. 1259.—M. Paris.

APP841 “Thesaurario suo.”—M. Westminster.

APP742 The text of the foregoing paragraph has been revised in several places from the original.

APP843 M. Paris wrote to 43 Hen. III., which ended 27th October, A.D. 1259. He records the death of Fulco by the plague in the spring, and says he was buried at St. Paul’s on St. Urban’s day, i.e. May 25th.

APP844 This was the first occasion on which tenths were levied by the king on the clergy; and it was done on the authority of a special bull, granted to the king by Pope Innocent IV., who at the same time ordered a new valuation to be taken of all the benefices in England, with a view to this tax; the making of this valuation was committed to Waiter de Suthfeld, bishop of Norwich, A.D. 1254; whence this valuation was called the ‘Taxatio Nor-wicensis.’ The following note of Wharton, in his Anglia Sacra, vol. 1: p. 411, on B. Cotton’s “De Episcopis Norvicensibus,” will show the matter in its true light. The grant itself will be found, according to Brady and Tyrrell, 27 Hen. III., M.P. f. 866, n. 20, 303. “Iste Walterus, mandato Innocentii Papae, qui Regi decimam omniam bonorum Ecclesiasticorum per triennium percipiendam concesserat, anno 1254 fecit descriptionem valoris reddituum ad Eccle-siasticos in tota Anglia spectantium. Missis enim (verba sunt Annalium Burton.) per totum regnum praeceptis, in singulis Capitulis et Decanatibus cujuscunque Diocesis fecit decanum et tres rectores vel vicarios, qui fuerint majoris auctoritatis, inquirere veritatem et sub juramento certificare quae sit justa aestimatio omnium proventuum Ecclesiasticorum tam majorum quam minorum, et praedictas justas aestimationes in scriptis fideliter redigere, ad se transmittendas. Ista descriptio Walteri cura habita in tabulas publicas descripta est, et dato, Taxoe Norwicensis nomine, in cunctis fere Cleri censibus deinceps usurpata fuit.”

APP845 “Summa or Sagma, onus. Summa bladi quanti constiterit, docer Charta an. 1223. ‘Summam bladi, scilicet tres modios bladi:’ vide Sarcina” “Qualis fuerit Sarcina bladi apud Montepessulanos, definitur in Charta an. 1340. ‘Sarcinae bladi quinque sextaria ad mensuram loci illius continentes.’” (Carpentier’s Supplement to Ducange.) Bp.

Fleetwood, in his Chronicon Pretiosum (page 57) defines it a quarter of eight bushels; and Dr. Kelly (Universal Cambist), and Sir H. Ellis, in his Introduction to the Doomsday-Book, page 42: note (11), leads to the same conclusion. M. Paris, an. 1205, says, “Summa frumenti duodecim solidis vendebatur.”

APP846 This affair of Sicily lasted from A.D. 1255, when Edmund was actually invested by Alexander IV. with the two Sicilies, to A.D. 1266, when Clement IV. finding the English would be squeezed no more, offered the kingdom of Sicily to Charles, earl of Anjou. Rapin remarks that this affair of Sicily was the main source of Henry’s troubles, of the establishment of the charters, and the downfal of popery. Richard, earl of Cornwall, was crowned at Aix-la-Chapelle on Ascension day, May 17th, 1257. See a letter of his own to a friend in England preserved by M. Paris, in which the feast of St. Philip and St. James (May 1) is incidentally mentioned as happening on a Tuesday, which (by Nicolas’s Tables) suits the year 1257. M. Paris calls Ascension Day “sexto Cal. Junii,” leaving out “decimo,” for 16 Cal. Jun. is May 17th, which (by Nicolas’s Tables) was Ascension Day in 1257.

APP847 M. Paris (page 989) says, “trecenta millia librarum parvarum Turonensium. Foxe, “thirteen hundred thousand of Turen pounds.”

APP848 Wikes says they were married on the Feast of Stt. Fabian and Sebastian, 1235, i.e. January 20th, A.D. 1236, which was a Sunday (Nicolas’s Tables).

APP849 Foxe’s text has been improved from the original, which is as follows:—“Justitiarii regis Angliae qui dicuntur ‘Itineris,’ missi Herefordiam pro suo exequendo officio, repelluntur; allegantibus his qui Regi adversabantur ipsos contra formam provisionum Oxoniae nuper factarum venisse.”—Nich. Triv. ad an. 1260.

APP850 “One month after Pentecost [June 11th].”—Foxe here, following Hemingford, says, “The fifteenth day after Easter.” But, in truth, the previous, application of the barons to Henry was made in a parliament, which, the king summoned to discuss the affairs of the country, and especially the pope’s demand for Sicily, on the Quindene of Easter, 1258, i.e. April 7th. (Nicolas’s Tables.) Henry himself refers to the above parliament in a letter given by Rymer, dated Westminster, May 2d; and in another letter of the same date (given also by Rymer) he grants the barons a parliament, to meet at Oxford one month after Pentecost, to reform the government. St. Barnabas’ Day is assigned by the Burton Annals and Wikes, i.e. June 11th, and it sat eleven days.

Pentecost that year was on May 12th.

APP851 “That they departing the realm.”—Rymer (an. 1258) gives a safe conduct of the king to his brothers, dated Winchester July 5th, by which it appears that they were to leave England by July 14th.

APP852 “Thirteenth.”—Foxe says “fourteenth.” But Hemingford and the Burton Annals say, the Quindene of St. Michael, i.e. Oct. 13th; the latter adds that it was Edward the Confessor’s day, i.e. Oct. 13th, 1258. The Provisions of Oxford were proclaimed after this Parliament.

Oct. 13th fell on a Sunday in 1258, so that probably they did not proceed to business till the Monday, Oct. 14th.

APP853 “To be released of their oath.”— Three bulls are given in Rymer, sub anno 1261: one to the king, absolving him from his oath, dated Lateran, Id. April. anno pontif. 7; a second, to the Magnates, Praelati, and all concerned, absolving them, dated Rome,3 Cal. Maii, anno pontif. 7; a third, requiring them to return to their obedience, dated Viterbo, Non. Mail anno pontif. 7.

APP854 “A parliament at Winchester.”— Foxe says “Another parliament at Oxford.” But a parliament was held at Winchester, Whit-sunday, June 12th A.D. 1261, at which the king made known the dispensation which he had received from the pope, and his determination not to adhere to his oath, as the barons had neglected theirs.—Thomas Wikes.

APP855 This list of nobles is corrected from Dugdale’s Baronage.

APP856 “Was referred to Louis.”— Hemingford is here rather speaking by anticipation, for the reference to Louis was not made till the close of A.D. 1263, after which the Parliament met at Oxford, and the barons there continuing firm, matters were brought to extremity. (See M.

Westm.) Thos. Wikes, indeed, says, that the reference to Louis was made Candlemas [Feb. 2d] A.D. 1262, but he was misled by the date of Louis’s award. (See the note on p. 547.)

APP857 Thomas Wikes dates this temporary peace St. Nicholas’S day, i.e.

Dec. 6th, A.D. 1261.

APP857A “Commanded the same to be published.”— Rymer gives a letter of the king’s, commanding all the sheriffs to proclaim him absolved from his oath, dated May 2d, A.D. 1262.

APP858 “The same year,” etc.]—Alexander IV. died May 25th, an. 1261; and the course of Foxe’s narrative has already brought us into the year A.D. 1262; we should, therefore, rather read here “the previous year.”

Urban IV. was crowned pope, September 4th, A.D. 1261.—L’Art de Ver. des Dates.

APP859 Rymer gives Henry’s application to Urban for dispensation from his oath, dated January 1st.

APP860 Foxe’s text leaves out “Baldwin, earl of Devonshire,” and makes “Richard, earl of Gloucester and Hereford” (sic) the person who died in France. This is at variance with the truth (see Dugdale’s Baronage), and with his own alleged authority, from which the text has been corrected.

APP861 “Joh. Mansel, qui domini regis principalis consiliarius extitit, arridente sibi fortuna in tantum ditatus est reditibus, ut septingentis de novo sibi accumulatis ad quatuor millia marcarum totalis ejus reditus annuus aestimabatur. Ita ut nostris temporibus non est visus clericus in tantam opulen-tiam ascendisse.”—M. Paris, an. 1252.

APP862 “To hear and stand to the arbitrement of Louis.”— This is rather a premature statement; see the next note. Henry, however, did go to France at this time, for Rymer gives a letter of the king’s, dated Westminster, September 15th, A.D. 1263, stating, that being invited to attend a parliament of the French king at Boulogne-sur-mer on the Quindene of the nativity of the Virgin Mary (i. e. September 22d), he meant to return to England by the Octaves of St. Michael, i.e. October 6th.

APP863 The parliament at which the king and the barons agreed to make this reference to the French king was held at London on St. Lucy’s day, i e. Dec. 13th, A.D. 1263; and the agreement itself is given by Rymer, dated Windsor, Sunday after St. Lucy’s day, i.e. December 16th, A. D. 1263 (by Nicolas’s Tables).

APP864 Louis’s award is given by Rymer, dated “Amiens, the morrow after St. Vincent’s day [i. e. January 23d] A.D. 1263,” i.e. 1264 of our reckoning: but that was the day of the parliament assembling: the award was pronounced February 3d (see Tyrrell’s Appendix). Pope Urban’s confirmation of this award is also given by Rymer, dated “17 Cal. April. anno pontific. 3,” i.e. March 16th, A.D. 1264.

APP865 The reader is not to suppose that the affair between the king and Simon Montfort in Southwark was now repeated.

APP866 The parliament met at Oxford on Mid-lent Sunday (March 30th); where the king produced the pope’s absolution again, and the French king’s award: but neither was allowed.

APP867 Thomas Wikes says that the king set out from Oxford, and displayed his banner at Northampton on the Nones (5th) of April, being Saturday before Passion Sunday, which suits the year 1264, according to Nicolas’s Tables.

APP868 This list is corrected from Hemingford and Dugdale.

APP869 Rymer gives the king’s order to the scholars to retire from Oxford to make way for the Parliament, dated Oxford March 12th A.D. 1264.

APP870 The following list has been collated with the text of Hemingford: the names have also been verified and corrected by Nash’s History of Northamptonshire.

APP871 Foxe dates the battle of Northampton “the Sabbath day in Passion Week, being the third of April.” But M. Wests. says, “Hoe actum fuit Sabbato primo Passionis Dominicae;” Hemingford, “Sabbato primo in Passione Domini:” i.e. the Saturday before Passion Sunday, April 5th (by Nicolas’s Tables). See also the note on p. 548.

APP872 “Warren” is substituted for “Worcester,” which is Foxe’s reading.

See Dugdale’s Baronage.

APP873 “Bannerets.”—“Vexillarios.”—Hemingford.

APP874 The edition of 1571 correctly reads “Winchelsea,” which afterwards was erroneously altered into “Winchester.”

APP875 “The Saturday.”—Hemingford says “Sabbato,” which Foxe mistranslates “Sunday.” The “twelfth day of May,” presently mentioned, fell in the year 1264 on a Monday. (Nicolas’s Tables.)

APP876 The following names are corrected from Hemingford and Dugdale.

APP877 “Warren” is substituted for Foxe’s “Warwick,” agreeably to Hemingford and Dugdale.

APP878 “Bannerets.”—“Vexillarios.”—Hemingford.

APP879 “Et erat ibi juvenilis aetas quasi totius militiae suae.”— Hemingford.

APP880 “Per partes utrasque tumultuabat.”—Hemingford.

APP881 Foxe says “upon the nineteenth day of May.” In thus dating the battle of Lewes he is misled by Hemingford, who says, “Acta haec sunt in mense Mail, die Sancti Dunstani.” But Tho. Wikes says it was fought “Prid. Id. Maii, 14: se. ejusdem mensis, die Mercurii proxima ante festum S. Dunstani,” i.e. Wednesday, May 14th, A. D. 1264. St.

Dunstan’s Day is May 19th, and fell that year on a Monday. (Nicolas’s Tables.)

APP882 “Decrescente parte Regis,” says Hemingford: this paragraph has been corrected from his text.

APP883 Foxe here refers to Parker’s “Antiquitates Britannicae Ecclesiae.”

This passage is to be found in the edition printed at Hanover, 1605, page 188. The first edition was printed at London by John Daye, 1572.

APP884 The Latin copy in Rymer does not name his chaplains. “Tertio actum est, quod magistros tales, familiares clericos suos secum adducat; et hos tantum clericos alienigenas de consilio suo et familia retineat.”

Baldwin does not appear to have returned till Ascension Day, May 6th, A.D. 1266.—2, Wikes, ad an.

APP885 See p. 719.

APP886 Urban IV. died October 2nd, A. D. 1264. Clement IV. was crowned Feb. 22rid or 26th, A.D. 1265. (L’Art de Ver. des Dates.) He had been made cardinal-bishop of St. Sabine, A.D. 1261.—Moreri 5:

Cardinal.

APP887 The words “in England” are put in from Trivet.

APP888 Thomas Aquinas was called the angelic doctor, Bonaventure the seraphic doctor: both died the same year, A.D. 1274.

APP889 Foxe says “Concerning non-residents: ” the document itself proves the propriety of the change made, both here and in the margin.

APP890 “The park of Dunetish and Tiley.”— See Hutchins’s Dorsetshire, vol. in. pp. 257, 260, and Dugdale’s Monasticon 5: Cerne. At line “Alfred” is substituted for “abbot,” which is a manifest lapsus.

APP891 “I bid you adieu.”— “Commendo vos Deo” (Hemingford), which Foxe renders “betake you to God.”

APP892 Simon Montfort wanted to monopolize the ransoms of the principal prisoners.

APP893 “Philip Basset.”—So says Hemingford, correctly. See supra, p. 548, and Dugdale’s Baronage. Foxe says “John.”

APP894 Foxe’s text says “Robert,” for which he had Hemingford’s authority: but Wikes says “Thomas de Clare;” and Dugdale states, that for this very action he was included with the earl, his brother, in a pardon, which is preserved among the Tower Records.

APP895 “Si forte torneare deberet, sicut et aliquando volu.” (Hemingford.)

Foxe renders the last words “as they might when they listed.”

APP896 “And when this,” etc.]— “Nunciatumque est hoc Edwardo filio Regis per exploratorem suum Margoth, qui cum muller esset, in veste tum virili velut homo gradiebatur Eratque tunc Edwardus apud Wircestriam quam post Gloucestriam paulo ante devicerat, et accepto nuncio consurgens de nocte abiit.”—Hemingford.

APP897 “Cum processissent in itinere, venerunt hostium longae quadrigae, ut victualia quaererent, et continuo captae sunt, et equi distributi in loco lassatorum equorum per exercitum.”

APP898 “Prince Edward immediately returned to Worcester.”— These words are added to the text from Hemingford: “Et statim ad Wircestriam reversi sunt.”

APP899 “Dixit [speculator] ad comitem...apparent vexilia tuorum. Et ille, Filius mens est: ne timeas. Sed vade et circumspice, ne forte praeoccupemur circumventi; non enim cognoverat adhuc de his quae filio acciderant. Perrexit ergo speculator ille in altum in cloccario Abbatiae,” etc.]—Hemingford.

APP900 “Festinavitque ut Monte Elyno ascenso primos belli ictus occupare posset.”—Hemingford.

APP901 Hemingford says: “Praecepitque ut confiterentur omnes, et essent parati in praelium, qui pro legibus terrae mori vellent et pro justitia: ” which Foxe renders “should make himself ready to God, and to fight out the field; for that it was their will to die for their laws and in a just quarrel.”

APP902 “But after the battle,” etc.]—This and the next sentence had slipped into the middle of the next paragraph.

APP903 Othobon arrived in England with the queen about All-saints’ day, i.e. Nov. 1st, and the parliament and convocation met at Northampton on St. Nicholas’s day, i.e. Dec. 6th. (Chron. Dunstap.) Another parliament met at Northampton, April 11th, n.y. 1266.—Evesh.

Annales.

APP904 The last name mentioned in the above list of slain meant was undoubtedly Sir Roger de Ruhala, or, as the name was afterwards spelt in the more modern portion of the pedigree, Rowde or Rowell, Rouall, or Roall; and Dugdale, who is an authority on these points, calls the name Rowele, which spelling is the best that can be given. The family of Rowell was of consequence in the county of Lincoln, and possessed lands in the Isle of Axholme, whither the barons retired. He should by no means be called the lord Roger Rowele, but sir Roger Rowele, being one of the many (some say 150) knights who were slain with Simon.

For this information, the editor is indebted to the kindness of William Courthope, Esq., Rouge Croix.

APP905 Foxe represents the barons as having been disinherited somewhat later, at the parliament of Northampton. But the Tower Record referred to in this note, and cited, by Brady and Tyrrell, proves that they were disinherited and their estates seized into the king’s hands at the parliament of Winchester, Sept. 8th. Foxe, however, had authority. (See Hemingford, and Knighton.) The error has been corrected in the text by a slight transposition. A commission is printed in Brady’s Appendix (vol. 1: No. 223), directing an account to be taken of the forfeited estates, to be sent in with the Michaelmas Rents on or before St. Edward’s day next ensuing [Oct. 13th]. On that day the parliament resumed, its sittings for eight days, when the estates of the barons were absolutely given to the king, who bestowed them on his friends. (Tyrrell, p. 1056.)

APP906 The bishops referred to were those of Lincoln, London, Worcester, and Lichfield. They were pronounced excommunicate by Othobon at the council of Northampton, and ordered to appear “infra Quadragesima” to answer for their rebellion. In the meantime the bishop of Worcester led, but was absolved on his death-bed (Godwin de Praesulibus). The other three appeared at the time appointed, and were ordered to crone and receive judgment “on the quindene of Easter;” when they were sent off to the court of Rome, there to answer for their conduct.—Chron. Dunstap. and Thos Wikes, ad an. 1266.

APP907 Foxe had authority for his statements in the text, as the following extract from Hemingford will show:—“Tenuitque Rex Parliamentum suum mense Novembri apud Northampton, et exhaeredati sunt omnes qui comiti Simoni astiterunt, et uxori ejus cum liberis; tenuitque ibidem concilium Othobon, legatus Domini Papae, et excommunicavit omnes Episcopos, qui eidem comiti Simoni auxilium praestiterant et favorem.

Misitque quosdam eorum ad praesentiam Papae, pro beneficio absolutionis obtinendo; publicavitque quaedam statuta quae fecerat, et concessionem Domini Papae Clementis quam fecerat Regi et Reginae; et decima Anglicanae Ecclesianae concessa eisdem per sex annos sequentes; fiebatque cito post taxatio Norwicensis per Walterum Norwicensem Episcopum, qui ad hoc onus electus est. Factaque sunt haec in anno Domini 1266.”—Hist. Angl. Scriptores, Edidit Thomoeus Gale, Oxon. 1691, vol. 2: p. 587. The same passage is copied by Knyghton in the Decem Scriptores, col. 2454; it is also quoted by Wilkins in his Concilia, ad annum.—But besides the error of representing the barons as disinherited at Northampton (pointed out in the last note but one, and corrected in Foxe’s text), there is probably some error as to the extent of “the new grant made to the king and queen of the tenths for seven” (or even “six,” as Hemingford states) “years to come.” Several papal bulls are printed in Rymer, dated Viterbo Id. Sep. and 8 Cal. Oct. 1265, transferring to the use of the king one year’s tenths which had been previously levied on the church by the barons: and afterward a grant was made to the king of the tenths for three years, out of which the queen was to have 60,000; see the notes in this Appendix on pp. 566, note (3,) and 567, note (6.)—But Hemingford is certainly mistaken in representing the “Taxatio Norwicensis” as now first made, and Foxe is still further mistaken in translating his words “shortly after a tax was also fined upon the county of Norfolk.” The time and occasion of the said “Taxatio Norwicensis” being made have been stated in this Appendix, in the note on p.536. Bartholomew Cotton states in his “Annales Norwicenses” that a twentieth was this year voted by Parliament to the disinherited barons, “secundum taxationem domini Walteri de Suthfend quondam Episcopi Norwicensis” (Anglia Sacra, tom. 1: p. 398); and Wikes (see the note in this Appendix on p. 566, note (3)) calls it “taxatio’ nequiter innovata,’” from such expressions, probably, Hemingford erroneously inferred, that the present was the original occasion of the “Taxatio Norwicensis” being made.

APP908 Foxe omits to mention that Simon de Montfort, jun. as well as D’Eyvile, threw himself into Axholm. Henry ordered an army to assemble at Northampton to reduce the rebels in Axholm “circa festum Stae. Luciae” [Dec. 13th]. They surrendered at discretion, Dec. 27th, saving life and limbs. (M. Paris, Annul. Waverl.). On. presenting, himself, before the king at Northampton, Simon, through the intercession of Richard, king of the Romans, was kindly received by the king., and appointed, a pension of 500 marks during good behavior: he accompanied the king to London Jan. 13th, but hearing that he was to be imprisoned in the Tower he suddenly absconded on the night of St. Scholastica’s day, being Ash-Wednesday [which gives Feb. 10th, A.D. 1266, by Nicolas’s Tables]; he joined the pirates of the Cinque Ports, till they were defeated by Prince Edward at Winchelsea on the feast of SS. Perpetua and Felicitas [March 7th], after which he took refuge in France. Rymer gives a proclamation of Henry, dated Northampton May 18th, A.D 1266, stating that Simon and his friends were raising forces in France to invade England; and Rymer gives also a bull of excommunication against him for intriguing at Paris against Henry, dated Viterbo, 17 Cal. Oetob. A.D. 1266; after which he joined the barons in the Isle of Ely, and there surrendered.—Annal. Waverl., M. Paris, Chron. Dunstap., Rymer.

APP909 Some place the death of Walter in the year 1267, while all place it in the month of February. There seems little doubt, however, that he died in 1266, for his successor, Nicholas of Ely, appears (by the Annul. Waverl.) as bishop of Worcester among the twelve commissioners chosen at Coventry in the ensuing summer. Nicholas seems also to have been consecrated, with the bishop of Landaff, “octavis Pentecostes,” May 23d, A.D. 1266, on the return of archbishop Boniface about Ascension-day (Thomas Wikes); or rather with Roger, bishop of Norwich, Sept. 19th. (Annal. Wigornienses:) (see Wharton’s note, Anglia Sacra, tom. i.p. 496.)

APP910 “Twelve persons were chosen.”— These twelve were chosen and sat at Coventry (M. Paris, Chron. Dunstap.), which will explain the allusion at page 567.

APP911 This mention of Simon Montfort tallies with the account given of him in the note on p. 564, note (5).

APP912 The king was roused to attack the Isle of Ely by the excesses committed by the barons, who had taken refuge there. (Chronicon de Barnewelle, Leland’s Collectanea, vol. 2: p. 439.) They attacked and plundered Norwich, 17 Cat. Jan. 1267 (Anglia Sacra, tom. 1: p. 398), “circa festum Sti. Nicolai, in mense Decembri.” (T. Wikes.) The king came to Bury on his way to Ely on the Octaves of St. Hilary (Jan. 20th), and held a parliament there “Crastino Purificationis (Feb. 3d), where he asked for a second tenth beside what the pope had granted him, but was refused. (T. Wikes, Chron. Dunstap.) He besieged the Isle of Ely all Lent; after which he was joined by prince Edward from the North; and left for London, which had been invested by the earl of Gloucester about Easter (April 17th). Henry advanced about 3 Non.

Mail (May 5th), and stopped several weeks at Stratford. The earl evacuated London 8 Id. Julii, and made terms for his party.—Leland’s Collect. 2: p. 439, T. Wikes, Annal. Waverl.

APP913 Walter Gifford, chosen bishop of Bath and Wells May 22d, A.D. 1264, seems to have been translated to York October 15th, A.D. 1265 (Richardson’s Godwin); T. Wikes and the Waverley Annals, however, confirm Foxe’s statement.

APP914 Foxe says, “In this year also the Church of England began to pay the tenths of all her revenues, as well spiritual as temporal, to the king.” Probably he is quoting here “Scala Mundi,” and a little misapprehends the meaning of the original, applying “spiritual and temporal” to the revenues instead of the clergy. The following is the account of the matter in the Waverley Annals:—“Item hoe anno (1266) concessa est Domino Regi decima omnium Ecclesiarum et omnium bonorum Religiosorum et Ecclesiasticarum personarum Angliae, Waillae, Hyberniae, et Scotiae, exceptis Templariis, Hospitalariis, et Ordine Cisterciensi, per tres annos.” (Gale, vol. 2: p. 223.) Thomas Wikes, ad annum 1267, says to the same effect:—“Et ne Clericorum marsupia sacculis laicorum abundantins intumescerent, sed esset Cleris sicut et populis, summus Pontilex excedens potius, si fas sit dicere, potestatis plenitudinem, quam exercens, inaudito contributionis genere Anglicanam Ecclesiam concedendo Domino Regi Anglorum decimam partem omnium bonorum et proventuum annuorum, tam Clericorum, quam religiosorum, paucis religiosis duntaxat exceptis, quicum ne cum aliis contribuerent, et sic sua laederent privilegia, inestimabili data pecunia redimenda duxerunt, et non solum sub antiquam vel pernequiter innovatam taxationem decimas suas unius anni reddere sunt coacti, sed et trium annorum sub decimatione verum et plenum rerum suarum valorem singuli persolvebant...“ (Gale, tom. 2: p. 84.) In explanation and confirmation of the above statements, it may be remarked, that there is in Rymer a bull, dated “Viterbo Id. July, pontificatus anno tertio” [1267], and directed to Othobon, intimating that the pope had previously granted the king the tenth of all ecclesiastical revenues in England, Ireland, and Wales, for three years, out of which 60,000 pounds Tours were to be deducted and allowed the queen to pay her debts. This bull urges the immediate raising of these 60,000 pounds (si forsitan non sint collecta), to be paid over to the queen’s creditors. To the same matter Hemingford probably refers in the passage cited from him in the note on p. 564, note (3).

APP915 Mention is made of the Peches in the Chronicle of Barnwell Priory (Leland’s Collectanea, vol. 2: p. 439), as a family of considerable consequence in those parts, and in particular the brothers Hugh and Robert Pecche are stated to have saved the Priory from being burnt by the “Insulares” on the retirement of the king from Cambridge for London. The Priory was founded by an ancestor of theirs. (Tanner’s Notitia Monastica.)—Baldwin Wake’s ancestor was active in maintaining the Isle of Ely against the Conqueror. Baldwin obtained pardon, and restitution of his lands, on paying three years’ value to those to whom they had been given.—Pat. 51 Hen. III 3 m. 26, apud Dugdale, vol. 1: p. 540.

APP916 This council met “in Quindena Paschae, quae ipso anno contigit Id. Aprilis.” (T. Wikes.) It was at this council that the famous Constitutions of Othobon were passed, printed in Wilkins’s Concilia, tom. 2: p. 1 Some of them tended to abridge the power of the bishops, and such strong opposition was made to them, that Othobon was forced to adjourn the assembly to the next day: he improved the interim so well by promises or threats, that next day he carried his point.—M. Westin. ad an., T. Wikes, p. 85.

APP917 These new valuations (taxationes) were evidently much disliked by the clergy. We have already seen how Wikes speaks of the Norwich valuation in the note on p. 566, note (3). It is not improbable that Othobon attempted (as Foxe says) to get a still more perfect valuation than that, but found the proceeding so odious that he was obliged to desist; for we have no such valuation on record: but it would appear from the following passage from Wikes, ad annum 1269, that the king compounded the matter in another way:—“Circa idem tempus Rex Anglorum, cui, sicut praediximus, Dominus Papa decimam clericorum sub verum suum valorem (minus sane, si liceret dicere) diu ante concesserat, perpendens quod nec antiqua beneficiorum taxatio, nec Walteri Norwicensis Episcopi taxatio acquirer innovata, verum valorem posset attingere, pessimis pessima superaddens, Pontificibus, (qui se pro subditorum defensione murum inexpugnabilem exponere debuissent,) annuen-tibus, nec non in modico contradicentibus, tandem extorsit, ut pro recompensatione veri valoris non percepti per triennium decimam quarti anni singuli reddere cogerentur” (Gale, vol. 2: p. 88): that is, the king demanded a fourth year’s tenths in compensation for the defect of the three previous years’ tenths below, their true value...The juxtaposition of “quarti” and, “tres,” may have misled Foxe, or his authority, into the statement about seven years tenths, noticed in p. 564.

APP918 “Theobaldum archidiaconum Leodiensem, quem vulgus consueto vocabulo vocitabat Tyardum, quique tunc temporis cum domino Edoardo peregrinationis causa morabatur.” (T. Wikes, p. 96, ad an. 1270.) Foxe calls him an “archdeacon cardinal;” but he does not appear to have been a cardinal. (See Moreri, 5: Cardinal.) He was elected Sept. 1st, A.D. 1271, and consecrated at Rome, March 27th, A.D. 1272. (L’Art de Ver. des Dates.) Foxe omits all mention of the six ensuing popes, Innocent V., Adrian V., John XX . or XX I., Nicholas III., Martin IV., and Honorius IV.: Nicholas III. is introduced at p. 579 by the present editor.

APP919 Foxe in the text says, “Robert Burnell, their chancellor:” but he was at this time (A.D. 1270) only canon of Wells, archdeacon of York, and the prince’s chaplain: he was made chancellor Sept. 21st, A.D. 1274, and bishop of Bath and Wells January 1275, and consecrated by the archbishop at Merton April 7th following. (Richardson’s Godwin “De Praesulibus.”) Another unsuccessful attempt was made by the prince, when Edward I., to obtain for him the primacy in A.D. 1278. (See p. 579.)

APP920 John, of Darlington in the diocese of Durham, was a Dominican, of great learning and probity. He was made private confessor to Henry III. He was made pope’s collector in England. “Gregorii X. anno 3,” i.e.A.D. 1271 or 1272; and continued such under John XX I., Nicholas III., and Martin IV. He was consecrated archbishop of Dublin on the Sunday after Bartholomew, A.D. 1279, and died suddenly at London, 5 Cal. Ap. A.D. 1284. His concordance was called Magna and Anglicana.—Bale, Fuller’s Worthies, Tanner’s Biblioth.

APP921 “Then the Christians, etc.” —Hemingford’s words are (p. 590): “Animati itaque Christiani tertio exierunt circa festum Beati Petri ad vincula, usque ad Sanctum Georgium, et peremptis quibusdam, cum non invenirent qui resisterent, reversi sunt cum gaudio in locum suum.”

APP922 This messenger is commonly supposed to have been one of the Assassini, of whom some account has been given in the note on p. 467.

APP923 “Through Palestrina and Metmes.”— These appear barbarous words. Gale’s edition of Hemingford reads Paloestinam et Mechines, and gives in the note a various reading Platlam and Messinam; but this is not satisfactory.

APP924 Thomas Aquinas “was born at Aquino, in Italy, 1224. the number of his works is prodigious, amounting to seventeen volumes folio, though he died at the early age of fifty. He is styled ‘The Angelical Doctor;’ and his authority among the schoolmen was almost decisive in theology. Like our own Hooker he was little less eminent for his self-denying humility than for his wide erudition and deep reasoning powers. It is said that when pope Clement IV. showed him a vast heap of wealth, observing, ‘You see the church cannot now say, Silver and gold have I none;’ ‘True,’ replied the great schoolman, ‘neither can she now say to the sick, Take up thy bed and walk.’ Though, like other fallible men, and especially voluminous writers, he is sometimes found in error, yet Protestant divines and scholars have done justice to the vast attainments of this wonderful man. Dean Philpotts says, ‘I do not affect to be deeply versed in his writings; but I have read enough of them to bear testimony to the uncommon vigor and astonishing acuteness of his mind.’ (Letters to Charles Butler, Esq.) And Mr.

Southey speaks of him as ‘a man whose extraordinary powers of mind few persons are competent to appreciate.’ (Vindiciae Ecc. Ang.) As calculated in an especial manner to stamp the character of the man, and as a hint to those who forget that Bene orasse est bene studuisse, it may not be improper to insert here: “The prayer of Thomas Aquinas before commencing study:— Ineffably wise and merciful Creator! illustrious Source of all things! true Fountain of light and wisdom! Vouchsafe to infuse into my understanding some ray of thy brightness; thereby removing that twofold darkness under which I was born, the darkness of sin and ignorance. Thou, that makest the tongues of infants eloquent, instruct, I pray thee, my tongue likewise: and pour upon my lips the grace of thy benediction. Give me quickness to comprehend, and memory to retain: give me a facility in expounding, an aptitude in learning, and a copious eloquence in speaking. Prepare my entrance into knowledge: direct me in my pursuits, and render the issue of them complete: through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.’”—Allport’s Davenant, vol. 1: p. 33, note. Jacobus de Voragine, “rectius de Viragine urbe maritima Ligurum.” He was archbishop of Genoa: he was the first to translate the Bible into Italian, about A.D. 1270. He wrote a book called Legends Aurea, being a collection of Lives of the Saints, full of fables, which Ludovicus Vives and Melchior Canus, bishop of the Canaries, called Legenda ferrea. He wrote also Chronicon Genuense. He died A.D. 1294.— Hoffman, Moreri, and Cave.

Vincentius of Beauvais, a Burgundian, of the Preaching Friars, flourished A.D. 1244: He was author of the famous “Speculum Quadruplex” (Historicum, Naturale, Morale, Doctrinale).—Cave.

By the Cardinal of Ostia is meant Henry de Segusa or Susa, who was, first of all, made bishop of Sisteron, and then archbishop of Embrun A.D. 1250, and cardinal-bishop of Ostia, A.D. 1262: he wrote on the Decretals. He was denominated “Fons et Splendor Juris.”—Cave.

Albertus, styled Magnus, “a German, of the Dominican order, and a follower of Peter Lombard; ‘a man,’ says Mosheim, ‘of vast abilities, and an universal dictator in his time.’” His celebrity, however, is so clouded with the legendary tales related of his acquirements and performances in occult philosophy, that it is impossible to say what portion of it is duly merited; and of the twenty-one folio volumes attributed to him, it has since been ascertained that many pieces which are there inserted were not composed by him. Still, the distinction he obtained for his extensive acquaintance with the subtle philosophy and obscure theology of the times was so great, that in 1248 he was called to Rome by Pope Alexander IV., and appointed ‘Master of the Sacred Palace. (See the next paragraph.) In 1260, he was elected bishop of Ratisbon; but, finding his episcopal duties inconsistent with his love of retirement and study, he resigned his bishopric, and returned to Cologne, to enjoy the leisure of monastic life. He was, however, drawn from his retirement by Pope Gregory X., who sent him into Germany and Bohemia to preach the Crusade. He afterwards attended the council of Lyons, and then returned to Cologne, where he remained until his death in 1280.”—Allport’s Davenant, vol. 1: p. 148, note. Durandus, “one of the most learned lawyers of his time, who flourished in the thirteenth century. He was a pupil of the celebrated Henry de Susa or Segusa, after quitting whom, and taking his doctor’s degree, he taught canon-law at Bologna and Modena, and published a famous work, entitled ‘Speculum Juris,’ which gained him the surame of ‘Speculator.’ Being introduced by his former tutor, now cardinalbishop of Ostia, at the court of Rome, he was employed by Clement IV. and four succeeding pontiffs in important and honorable charges.

Among other posts of disinction assigned him, he was made ‘Master of the Sacred Palace.’ The person holding this office was ‘a kind of domestic chaplain or preacher of the pope.’ A part of his jurisdiction in this capacity ‘referred to the printing of books, and the power of prohibiting them.’ Of this office Mr. Mendham has given a full and interesting account in his valuable work on the ‘Literary Policy of the Church of Rome’ (ch. 1: pp. 11—13). In the progress of his preferments and honors, Durandus was created bishop of Mende, and employed as Gregory’s legate at the council of Lyons. Being recalled to Rome, he was afterwards created marquis of Ancona, and then count of Romagna, which provinces he governed during the tumults of the Guelph and Ghibelline factions. The ‘Rationale Divinorum Officiorum’ is the best known of his works, and has been the most frequently reprinted. It is a detailed view of the rites and worship of the Roman church, and contains a competent portion of fable. He died at Rome in 1296.”—Allport’s Davenant, vol. i.p. 38, note.

APP925 The Tartar invasion is mentioned supra, at p. 491.

APP926 See p. 491.

APP927 “The fourth day of March.”—Godwin says “4 Cal. Martis,” i.e.

Feb. 26th.

APP928 Foxe erroneously makes Henry III. die “A.D. 1273, in the fiftyseventh year of his reign.” (See Nicolas’s Tables.)

APP929 Edward I. landed at Dover, August 2d, A.D. 1274, and was crowned at Westminster, on Sunday, August 19th.—Nicolas’s Chronology of History.

APP930 “The halfpenny and farthing,” etc.]—See the note on p. 690, note (4).

APP931 Edward I., when Prince of Wales, had made a previous attempt to obtain the primacy for this Robert Burnell, then his domestic chaplain. (See the note on p. 568, note (2).) This fresh attempt was made on the abdication of Kilwardby, early in 1278. Electi [R. Burnell] causam Rex Nicolao papae impense commendavit literis datis 10 Julii (Rymer), aliisque ad Robertum dignitatem oblatam detrectantem Aug. 1278 scriptis ipsum enixe rogat, ut electioni de se factae consentiat. Paruit Robertus, missisque ad Curiam Romanam nunciis electionem confirmari petiit. Incassum autem. (Wharton, Anglia Sacra tom. i p. 567, note d.) Foxe, in consequence of his having misplaced this portion of his narrative after the account of Boniface VIII., was misled into the notion that this affair happened under “Pope Boniface VIII.”—or vice versa: this portion (as already intimated at the foot of p. 578) has been transposed, and “Nicholas III.” substituted for “Boniface VIII.” Nicholas III. was pope Dec. 26th A.D. 1277— August 22d A.D. 1280.

APP932 The, parliament of Bury was held “in Crastino Animarum Omnium, 24 Ed. I.; i.e. Nov. 3, A.D. 1296.

APP933 “In crastino Sti. Hilarii.”—(Nicholas Trivet, and Knighton.) Foxe says, “the next Hilary term.”

APP934 Edward embarked at Winchelsea, August 22d, A.D. 1297.

APP935 This is called, in the Public Acts, “Colloquium et Traetatus.”

Another meeting was summoned for Oct. 6th, to finish the matter. The “Magna Charta” and “Charta de Foresta” referred to as binding on the kings of England, are those passed 9 lien. III A.D. 1224. (See supra, p. 376.) The king himself ratified these proceedings at York on Whitsunday, May 25th, A.D. 1298.

APP936 For “William I.” Foxe, by a slip, reads “David;” and for “this John Baliol” four lines lower he reads “Edward.” APP937 “Who immediately sendeth down his precept to the king.”— Foxe here follows Walsingham. This communication from the pope purports, according to the course of Foxe’s narrative, to have been made A.D. 1299, or 27 Ed. I. It does not appear, however, from the other historians, that any such communication passed that year. It is true, that the pope (at Baliol’s procurement) endeavored to mediate, and persuaded Edward to surrender John Baliol into the hands of his legate with a view to some award, but with the express proviso on Edward’s part (dated Canterbury, June 14th, 27th year of his reign), that the sovereignty of Scotland belonged to him of right, and that John Baliol had acted against his allegiance: this was read over before the legate, John Baliol, and the king’s proctor, and assented to, at Witsand, July 18th, when Baliol was surrendered. This renders it the more extraordinary, that when Edward in the following year (28 Ed. I.) again went into Scotland to quell a fresh rebellion, he was met at the abbey of Dusques, in Galloway, by Archbishop Winchelsey, bearing a papal bull from Boniface, claiming the sovereignty of Scotland for the Pope, and desiring him to give over vexing them: this was delivered to the king August 26th, A.D. 1300, and is what Walsingham calls the pope’s “secundariae literae.” It is very remarkable, however, that this bull is dated the previous year, “5 Cal. Julii, quinto pontificatus,” i.e. June 27th, A.D. 1299, the very time when Edward’s claim was being admitted by the pope, with a view to obtaining the surrender of Baliol; which gives us a painful view of papal duplicity, of which, however, this volume has already afforded instances. We may add, that the date of this bull may have misled Walsingham into the belief of a papal “precept” having been sent in the year 1299, the only foundation for which seems to be the “secundariae literae” having been written in 1299, though not delivered till A.D. 1300.

APP938 “Robert Bruce, grandson of Robert Bruce above mentioned.”— Foxe says “Robert Bruce above mentioned,” which Henry, in his History of England, proves to be wrong.

APP939 Robert Bruce slew Cumming in the cloisters of the Grey Friars at Dumfries, Feb. 2d, A. D. 1306, and was crowned at Scone Abbey Lady-day following. Clement V. was crowned pope Nov. 14th, A.D. 1305.—L’Art de Ver. des Dates.

APP940 See the note in this Appendix on p. 567.

APP941 The large type in the ensuing narrative of the dispute between Philip le Bel and Boniface VIII. is a translation from Trivet and Walsinghain, somewhat modified in the present edition, in order to render the narrative more accurate. Whence Foxe obtained the documents does not appear: the originals are printed in Prynne’s History of John, Henry III., and Edward I.; also in Pierre de Pithou, “Prennes des Libertez de l’Eglise Gallicane;” as well as in Dupuy’s “Histoire du Differend.”

The affair of the bishop of Pamiers, which Foxe properly mentions as the origin of the dispute, began as far back as A.D. 1295. The monastery of St. Anthony at Pamiers was a peculiar, and had a jurisdiction over the town and suburbs of Pamiers. Clement IV. entrusted this to the protection of Louis, the grandfather of Philip le Bel, “for the honor of the Roman Church.” However, Roger, earl of Foix, in A.D. 1295, attempted to bring the abbot and monastery of Pamiers under his jurisdiction, not without the approbation of Philip; which produced remonstrances and threats from Boniface VIII.

Boniface proceeded to erect the abbey into a bishopric against the king’s declared wishes, and appointed Bernard Saizetti, the abbot, to be the first bishop of Pamiers; who rewarded his patron by the most treasonable measures against his lawful sovereign. This led to his being summoned before a parliament at Senlis, where he was put under arrest, and committed to the custody of Giles, archbishop of Senlis, and a process commenced against him the Wednesday after Trinity, i.e.

May 24th, 1301; which produced an immediate rupture between Boniface and Philip. (Dupuy.) This therefore was the origin of the quarrel, viz. “Bonifacius Apameam jussit civitatem fieri, abbate S.

Antonini primo episcopo constitnto” (p. 154 of” Bonifacius VIII. e familia Cajetanorum principum Romans Pontilex, Joh. Rabei opus, Romae, 1651)”.

APP942 Stephen Auffere, mentioned in this note, was an eminent lawyer, and president of the parliament of Toulouse. The short paragraph in the text—“Boniface, bishop and Servant,” etc. is called in history “La Petite Bulle,” and is thought by some too concise to have been Boniface’s, and that it is rather an abstract of the bull “Auscalta Fili” That bull, however, is dated “quarto Nonas Decembris, pontificatus nostri anno sexto [A.D. 1301].”

APP943 “The archdeacon of Narbonne” was Jacques des Normans, who, in February 1302, presented to Philip a letter from Boniface, requiring the release of the abbot of Pamiers and declaring that he had ipso facto incurred the church’s censure; also the petite bulle, and the bull “Ausculta fili,” citing the French bishops to a council to be held at Rome Kal. Nov. 1802.

APP944 The greater part of the foregoing paragraph in the text, viz. from “Moreover to provide” to the words “leave the realm,” is added to Foxe’s text on the authority of the ensuing letter, of the. bishops. This addition is absolutely necessary to connect the narrative, and is too important to be lost; for it is supposed that this was the first parliament to which the “Tiers Etat” was summoned. The Writ of Summons is not extant, but that the Commons were summoned is positively stated by the bishops in the ensuing letter.

APP945 The ensuing letter of the French bishops to Boniface VIII. would stand, according to Foxe’s arrangement, at page 603, and is represented by him as their apology for joining in the proceedings of Thursday and Friday, June 13th and 14th, A.D. 1303. The internal evidence, however, of the letter itself shows that it has no reference to those proceedings whatever. The note of time (page 59 , lne 12), Tuesday, the 10th of this present month of April, [“hac die Martis 10 praesentis mensis Aprilis,”—Dupuy, Prynne,] is alone sufficient to prove that it belongs to A.D. 1302. (See Nicolas’s Tables.) It is proper to inform the reader, that Foxe’s text has “Wednesday,” instead of “Tuesday,” which fits the year 1303; and perhaps this was the reason why “Wednesday” was written, “die Martis” being supposed to be a blunder for die Mercurii.” But the letter concludes also, “Datum Parisiis, die Martis praedicta.”

APP946 “These things,” etc.]—It may be proper to inform the reader, that, in reply to the foregoing letter of the French bishops, Boniface reproached them for suffering Peter Flotte to utter such “calumnies.”

The proposed council met at Rome Oct. 3d, and three representatives of the French church were there in spite of the king’s prohibition; the result was the bull “Unam Sanctam;” also a bull excommunicating all who should hinder persons going or returning from Rome, dated Nov. 13 th . Boniface sent Jean le Moine, cardial-priest of St. Marcelline, as his legate into France, Nov. 24th. Philip then wrote a conciliatory letter to Boniface, which was not satisfactory to him, as appears from his answer to the earl of Valois, Philip’s brother, dated “6 Cal. Martii, pontif, anno 9:” i.e. Feb. 24th, A.D. 1803. Boniface then threatens to proceed against Philip both with the temporal and spiritual sword. At length Gilleaume de Nogaret brings forward his protest and appeal, March 12th.

APP947 Foxe’s copy gives 30 articles, the reason of which is, that he divides some of the articles differently.

APP948 Arnold of Villa Nova is mentioned at page 510.

APP949 As the reader may feel curious to see the original of this list of French ecclesiastical dignitaries, it is here given; the final “sis” of course requires to be added to complete each adjective. The modem names of the sees are derived from Gallia Christiana, and Fabricii Lux Evangelii Exoriens. “Nos Nicosien. Remen. Senonen. Narbonen. et Turonen. Archiepiscopi; Laudunen. Beluacen. Cathalaunen. Antissiodoren. Melden. Nivernen. Camoten. Aurelianen. Ambianen.

Morinen. Silvanecten. Andegaven, Abrincen. Constantien. Ebroicen.

Lexovien. Sagien. Claromonten, Lemovicen. Anicien. Matisconen.

Episcopi; Cluniacen. Praemonstraten. Majoris Monasterii, Cistercien, Sancti Dionysii in Francia, Compendien. Sancti Victoris, Sanctae Genovefae Parisiis, Sancti Martini Laudunen. Figiacen. et Belliloci in Lemovicinio, Abbates; Frater Hugo Visitator domorum Ordinis Militiae Templi, ac Sancti Joannis Ierosolymit. in Francia, et Sancti Martini de Campis Parisiensis, Priores.

Gerard, archbishop of Nicosia in Cyprus, happening to be in France, took part in this appeal: he had been previously ordered home to his see by Boniface, but refused to comply, and a bull was published dated August 15th, 1303, suspending him from his bishopric.—L’Art de Verifier des Dates, and Fleury Eccl. Hist. “Majoris Monasterii” means Marmouter, in Tours. See Recueil des Archeveques, Evesques, Abb. et Prioreux, etc. en France par Dom.

Beaunier, Paris, 2 vol. quarto, 1726, page 888. In Dupuy there are some lists of abbots about this time, where it is called “Majoris Monasterii Turonensis.”

APP950 “Done at Paris,” etc.]—The passage in the text stands thus in the original (see Dupuy, page 109):— “Actum Parisiis apud Luparam in camera dicti domini Regis, anno, indictione, meuse, diebus Joyis et Veneris, ac pontifficatu praedictis, praesentibus nobilibus viris dominis Andegaven. Bolon. Dampni-Martini, et aliis comitibus superius nominatis; Matthaeo de Trya, Petro domino Chanbliaci, P. domino de Wirmes, Hugone de Bovilla, militibus; necnon Magistris, Stephano Archid. Brugen., Nic. Archid. in ecclesia Remen., G. Thesaurario Andegaven., Petro de Bella Pertica, Reginaldo dicto Barbou, et Joanne de Montegneyno, ac nonnullis aliis, tam clericis quam laicis, ad hoc vocatis specialiter et rogatis testibus.”

APP951 The foregoing introduction to the writ of summons is added to the text for greater clearness.

APP952 The whole of the ensuing paragraph is added to the text on the authority of Dupuy, Fleury, etc. in order to connect the narrative.

Prynne gives the king’s circular, inviting the instruments of adhesion, dated “die Joyis post festum Sti. Johannis Baptistae.”

Dupuy (Preuves, p. 166) gives a bull of Boniface, dated Anagni, 18 cal.

Sept., grounded on his having heard that “in festo nativitatis B.

Iohannis Baptistoe proxime praeterito, Philippo Regi Francorum Parisiis in praesentia multorum in Iardino ejusdem Regis congregatorum contra nos diversa crimina denuntiata fuerunt, quandoque eidem Regi supplicatum extitit, quod ipse hujus modi denunciationibus assentiret et consilium super hoc apponeret dando ad convocandum seu convocari faciendum Concilium Generale opera et operam efficaces . . ,” APP953 Foxe, in this sentence, puts Michael and Andronicus Palaeologus in each other’s place.

APP954 For “Gregory IX.” read “Gregory X.” ¾ See the last note.

APP955 “The Frenchmen, A.D. 1204, with whom the empire remained the space of seventy years.”— Foxe says “fifty-eight years;” L’Art de Ver. des Dates says “cinquante-sept.” But it is more correct to say “seventy years,” i.e. from the time that Baldwin, earl of Flanders, was crowned emperor of Constantinople at the church of St. Sophia, May 16th A.D. 12.04, to the death of Baldwin II. at the close of A.D. 1273, when the Greek emperor, Michael Palaeologus, was left sole master of the city: this was in the time of Gregory X. (not Gregory IX. as the text reads), who was pope A.D. 1271—A.D. 1276. Gregory IX. was pope A.D. 1227—1241: Michael was emperor A.D. 1259—1282.— L’Art de Ver. des Dates.

APP956 This general council of Lyons sat May 7th—July 17th, A.D. 1274.—L’Art de Ver. des Dates.

APP957 The foregoing paragraph is a translation of Illyricus’s “Catalogus Testium,” edit. 1608, cols. 1818, 1819, 1698. At page 575, Foxe correctly mentions Urban IV. as the first founder of Corpus Christi; Clement V. may have confirmed it.

APP958 Foxe says, erroneously, “under the reign of the aforesaid king Philip.”

APP959 For “John XX II.” Foxe reads, erroneously, “Clement V.” The allusion is to page 609. Of the contest between the emperor Louis IV. and pope John XX II. more is said afterwards.

APP960 Bertrand’s “Libellus” was first printed in black letter, 4to, at Paris, A.D. 1495, uniform with and by the same printer as the “Quadrilogus,” viz. Johannes Philippi Alemannus, and was finished only a few days after it; the “Quadrilogus” having been finished March 27th, and the “Libellus” April 2d, as the Colophons show. In the British Museum the two are bound together in the same volume.

This was the edition which Foxe used: it contains two or three errors, which are corrected in later editions.

Considerable paths have been taken to verify and correct the numerous references to Scripture and to the canon and civil law, which are very corrupt: it is believed that all have been discovered, except one or two references to the civil law.

APP961 “Ad diem octavrum festi sancti Andreae, proxime venturum.” At the end of this summons, in the printed copies, is subjoined—“die Veneris 15 Decembris;” whence Foxe inserts in the body of his translation of it “the fifteenth day of December,” instead of the date expressed in the Latin. Why this second date was foisted in, will be shown in the note on page 635. Fleury expresses the date nearer, though not exactly, to the Latin, “huitieme jour de Decembre.” See the note in p. 619.

APP962 “Die verb superius in dictis literis contenta.” The following is the Latin list of bishoprics: “Domini Bituricensis, Auxitanus, Turouensis, Rotomagensis, Senonensis, archiepiscopi: Beluacensis, Cathalanensis, Laudunensis, Parisiensis, Noviomensis, Carnotensis, Constantiensis, Andega-vensis, Pictaviensis, Meldensis, Cameracensis, Sancti Flori, Briocensis, Cabilo-hensis, et Eduensis, episcopi.”

APP963 “On remit l’affaire au Vendredi suivant, quinzieme de Decembre.”—Fleury.

APP964 Peter Roger had been elected to the see of Arras, but was appointed to Sens, and “camerae apostolicas promisit” Dec. 12th, A.D. 1829. See Gallia Christiana; which says that he spoke in this debate “die Veneris, 22 Dec. 1329, and 8 Jan. 1330.” He was translated to Rouen 12 Dec. 1330; made Cardinal A.D. 1338; and became Pope Clement VI. A.D. 1342; died A.D. 1352. Francis Petrarcha speaks highly of his talents, and particularly of his memory, which (he states) could not forget anything. Petrarcha attributes this faculty to a blow which he had received on his head!—Gallia Christiana, tom. 11: xii.

APP965 The archbishop of Sens seems to have conjectured the reference to Augustine on Romans xiii. “from a comparison of the heading of the Canons” Item Augustinus sermone 6 de verbis Domini,” with the opening of the Canon itself, “Qui resistit potestati, Dei ordinationi resistit,” etc. The passage which the Canon recites does not occur in Angustine on Romans 13: but “in Sermone 72 in Matthew viii.” (See the note in this Appendix on page 156, note (1).)

APP966 “Blessed St. Gregory in his Register.”— Foxe says, “Blessed St.

Jerome, in his register:” for which he had the authority of the Libellus of 1495, and that in Goldasti de Monarchia: but the Bibliotheca Patrum” corrects it.

APP967 “Gregory talketh in his pastoral.”— Foxe says “Ambrose talketh in his pastoral,” for which he has the same authorities as before (see last note), and the same authority as before corrects the error.

APP968 “It is my duty and office to consult the interest of the emperor in this matter.”— Foxe says “to consult with the high Emperor of Salvation in this matter what is to be done,” following his text, “Deinde me consulere oportet imperatorem salutis:” the later editions read “imperatoris saluti.”

APP969 “Nots hic de castro date Sancto Remigio pro ecclesia Laudunensi per Clodoveum regem.”

APP970 Fleury calls the foregoing speech of the archbishop of Sens “longue et ennuyeuse harangue.” He gives an abstract of the former part, and says, “Je ne rapporterai le reste des preuves de l’archeveque de Sens, parcequ’il faudroit en meme temps en montrer la foiblesse, en faveur de ceux qui ne sent pas verses en ces matieres: ce qui convient mieux au discours par-ticulier de la jurisdiction ecc1esiastique.”

APP971 “On the Friday next but one, being December the twenty-ninth.”— Foxe calls this “the Friday following,” which, according to the course of the previous narrative, would bring us to December 22nd, the last day mentioned being Friday, December 15th, (p. 619.) And accordingly Gallic Christiana in the account of Peter Bertrand says, “Egit primo Rogerius apud Vicenas, Deinde die 22nd Decembris subsequente Petrus noster dixit in Palstio Regis, also says, “Le Vendredi suivant, vint-de-sixime de Decembre.” It is certain, however, that this session was held on December 29th; for when the bishop of Autun proceeds to reply to the articles sigillatim, the “Libellus” says, “Deinde praefatus dominus Eduensis Episc. ad finem praedictum, videlicet ad informandam conscientiam domini regis et ad praestandum consilium, etc ad singulos articulos sic respondit, et divisit articulos traditos in tres partes; quia quidam articuli tangebant jura ecclesiae perpetua etc quos erant parati defendere sicut B. Thomas Cantuariensis Episcopus, cujus festum erst illa die, jura ecc lesiae defenderat.” Thomas Becket’s day was December 29th. The first Editor of the Libellus (if not some previous copyist), aware of this, endeavored to pull the previous proceedings onwards, by appending to the parliamentary summons—“die Venetia 15 Decembris;” as if to intimate that the parliament did not get to business till that day, instead of December the 7th or 8th. But the fact is that the Latin date of the present session has been misunderstood. “Altera autem die Venetia immediate subsequenti, videl, die 29 Decmb.: ” where “Altera die Venetia immediate subsequenti” means the second, not the next, Friday following. “Proximus, alter, tertius.—Cic.” (Ainsworth,) “Immediate subsequenti” is added, to prevent “alters” from being taken to mean indefinitely some other, another, Friday; and limits it to mean the next but one. ,Where the Friday next following is meant, as at pp. 619, 637, the “Libellus ‘ says simply, “dies Venetia sequens,” and “post haec die Veneris sequenti.” We may suppose the long interval of a fortnight to have been required for the celebration of Christmas; and this will also account for the bishop of Autun’s repeating at such length the arguments of the archbishop of Senn, which might easily have been forgotten during the Christmas celebration.

APP972 Peter Bertrand was created bishop of Autun about A.D. 1319. He was eminent for his knowledge of law, both canon and civil. For the talent which he displayed on the present occasion the king himself paid him the compliment of allowing him to put a stem of lilies on his coat of arms. He died July23d, A.D. 1348 or 1349. (Gallic Christiana, tom. iv.) His title is Augustodunensis, or Eduensis, from Augustodunum, the Latin name of Autun, which was the capital of the ancient Edui.

APP973 “On that day [January the 5th].”— “Post haec die Venetia sequenti.” (Libellus). “Le Vendredi suivant, vingt-neuvieme de Decembre.” (Fleuri.) Paulus AEmilius (apud Oderici Raynaldi continuationem Annal. Baron, tom. v., says—” PrimS. actione nihil constitutum. Cum am-pliatur, die D. Thomae Cantuar. festo cum Patrum frequente globe Bertrandus Regem adiit, admonuitque illum illuxisse diem quem pro libertate ecclesiae Thomas sanguine sue consecraverat. Respondit Rex, omnia sibi curae futura. Anceps vex.

Bertrandus, ut certius laetiusque eliceret responsum, oravit ut ambiguo responsu non dimitteret tristes a se sacerdotes.” Where it is plain that Aemilius (as well as Fleury) connects the passage at p. 639, with T.

Becket’s day, or Dec. 29th. But see the note on p. 635.

APP974 Gaveston was banished by a decree dated Feb. 22nd, A.D. 1307—Rymer.

APP975 Edward I. died July 7th, A.D. 1307.—Nicolas’s Chronology of History.

APP976 That parliament met the quindene of Easter, April 28th: the writs for the coronation appoint the Sunday after Valentine’s-day for the ceremony, i.e. Feb. 18th, A.D. 1308 (Rymer); but a memorandum from the Close Rolls (Rymer) says that it actually took place the Sunday after St. Peter in Cathedra, being the morrow after St. Matthias’s Day, or Feb. 25th. (See Nicolas’s Tables).

APP977 This letter is given by Rylner.

APP978 The archbishopric of York was not vacant at this time: it had been vacant toward the close of the last reign between the death of Thomas Corbridge, September 22d A.D. 1303, and the consecration of William Greenfield, January 30th A.D. 1305 (Richardson’s Godwin “De Praesulibus”); and in that interval Edward I. seems to have presented his chaplain, Walter de Bedwynd; for Prynne, page 1187, gives (from Claus. 35 Ed. I. m.10, dense pro Rege et Waitero de Bedewind clerico) a writ to the sheriff of York, dated “Carlisle, 10die Marcii, 35 Ed. I.,” forbidding any one to molest the said Walter in his possession of the treasurership of York which he held by virtue of his royal collation.

There was no other vacancy in the see of York till the death of Greenfield, December 6th A.D. 1315. It seems most natural to suppose that Edward I. left the dispute as a legacy to his son, and that the pope made a fresh attempt on the inexperience of the young king: who seems, however, to have defended and confirmed his father’s appointment with considerable spirit. The notes on page 702 will prove this last supposition to be correct.

APP979 Edward’s letter of recal to Gaveston is in Rymer, dated Dumfries, August 6th, A.D. 1307.

APP980 Foxe puts “Arpontacus Burdegalensis” at the end of the foregoing paragraph, as though he were the authority for the whole paragraph, which is not the case. Moreover, “Arpontacus” is a misprint for “Ar.

Pontacus,” the running head line of his Chronographia being “Ar.

Pontacus Burdegalensis.”

Bishop Hall’s “Honour of the Married Clergy” (lib. 1: Section 12, and lib. ill. Section 3,) furnished the clue to the other author cited, viz.

Matth. Parker. Parker cites for his authority Adam Minimonth’s first Chronicle, and W. Thorn’s Chronica [printed in the Decem. Script.] This last is identical with bishop Hall’s “Hist. Radulphi Bourne, Augustadensis Eccl. Abbatis.” Thorn states (Script. Decem. cols. 2009, 2010) that Ralph Bourne was elected abbot of St. Austin’s, Canterbury, March 7th, 1310: he waited on the pope then at Avignon for his confirmation, and landed at Dover on his return, xi Cal. Oct. 1310.

Provins is a village (once a very important place) eighteen leagues south of Paris, in Brie. The nunnery here meant was very probably that of Men Notre Dame des Provins, which was broken up as a female establishment soon after this period, and turned into a priory for monks. See Beaunier (Recueil des Archeveques, Eveques, Abbes, et Prioreux, etc. en France, 4to. Par. 1726), who assigns a very confused reason, but it probably was the abominable state of the Society. See also Gallia Christiana, under the church of Sens.

APP981 “The black dog of Arden.”— This is from Walsingham. Arden was a district of Warwickshire, in which the earl had extensive estates; and being fond of the chase, he acquired this nickname with Gaveston, “niger canis de Arderiua [Ardenna], eo quod fuscus esset.”— Walsingham.

APP982 In the treasury of Durham Cathedral is preserved a mandate from bishop Beaumont to the prior and convent of Durham, in which the bull of pope John XX II. is recited, commanding the prior and convent to collect for these cardinals fourpence per mark from all beneficed persons in the diocese.

APP983 The king’s letter to Rigand is in Rymer; also the letter given in the next page, which Foxe mis-calls “a prohibition for paying the pope’s Peter-pence.” Rigand was not a cardinal (see Moreri, 5: Cardinal), and he seems to have had nothing to do with the affair just mentioned.

APP984 The truce is in Rymer dated May 30th, A.D. 1223: it was for “thirteen” years.

APP985 Lyranus, or Nicholas de Lyra, “so called from the place of his nativity, Lyre, a small town in Normandy. He was of Jewish parents, but, on embracing Christianity, entered among the Franciscans at Verneuil, in 1291. Having remained there some time he was sent to Paris, where he applied with the greatest diligence to his studies, and was admitted to the degree of Doctor. He was author of ‘Postils,’ or a commentary on the whole Bible, which occupied him seven years in accomplishing. The Revelation James Smith, a man of considerable learning, who was educated for the Romish priesthood at Lisbon, but afterwards became a Protestant clergyman, in a valuable work published by him in 1777 on ‘The Errors of the Church of Rome’ says that Lyra ‘was one of the most celebrated commentators on the Scripture, of the fourteenth century.’ ‘It is no inconsiderable praise that, by the general soundness and justness of his expositions he attracted the admiration, and contributed probably in some measure to the instruction, of Luther and of his great coadjutors in the work of the Reformation.’ Luther said of him in reference to his work, ‘Ego Lyranum ideo arno et inter optimos pono, quod ubique. diligenter, retinet et persequitur historiam, quanquam auctoritate patrum se vinci patitur, et nonnunquam eorum exemplo deflectit a proprietate sententiae ad ineptas allegorias.’ The best edition of Lyra’s Commentary is that of Antwerp, 1634, in six vols. folio: it is also found in the Biblia Maxima, edited by Father de la Haye in nineteen vols. folio. Lyra was also the author of ‘Moralia,’ or ‘Moral Commentaries upon the Scriptures.’ For further account of this author, his works, and the principles that guided him, vide Conybeare’s Bampton Lectures for 1824, pp. 210—215, and ‘Horne’s Critical Introduction.’—Allport’s Davenant, vol. i.p. 198.

APP986 This bishop of Hereford was Adam de Orlton, who was bishop of Hereford 1317—1327, of Winchester 1327—1345. These proceedings were in the 16th year of Edward II., as appears from the Close Rolls, referred to in Godwin’s “De Praesulibus,” Richardson s note.

APP987 Foxe erroneously calls this archbishop “Walter Winchelsey.” (See Godwin.)

APP988 John XX II. was crowned Sept. 25th, A.D. 1316, and died Dec 4th, A.D. 1334.—L’Art de Ver. des Dates.

APP989 See supra, p. 457.

APP990 Matthew of Westminster’s and Nicholas Trivet’s Chronicles both come down to the year A.D. 1307.

APP991 This peace was ratified March 1st, A.D. 1328.—Rymer.

APP992 Mortimer was hung at Elmes, now called Tyburn, Thursday Nov. 26th, A.D. 1330.

APP993 The queen dowager was confined twenty-eight years at Castle Rising, but not so straitly (as Mr. James shows) as some have supposed.

APP994 All agree in saying that the prince was born on Friday, June 15th, which suits the year 1330 (Nicolas’s Tables); but there is some variation among the historians as to the year. Mr. James says he can find no state paper dated from Woodstock in 1329 or 1331, but abundance in the summer months of 1330.

APP995 Mr. James, in Appendix II. to his Life of the Black Prince, gives from the Archives of the City of London a letter of the prince containing an account of this battle.

APP996 “A mighty navy of ships.”— The original adds, “in portu de Swina:” Zwyn was then the name of the great Sinus leading to the port of Sluys.—James.

APP997 The letter is in Rymer, dated “Teste custode praedicto, apud Waltham Sanctae Crucis, June 28th.”

APP998 The king’s letter and Philip’s answer are both in Rymer.

APP999 The original of this article is: “Item ordinatum est, quod onmia levata qualiacumque sint et qualitercunque sint ante dictas treugas tempore guerrae, sive sint de bonis spiritualibus vel aliter, remanebunt levata: sine hoc quod aliquis teneatur ad restitutionem durantibus dictis treugis.” Foxe renders “levata” bands, which makes nonsense. The translation of this article adopted in the text is Mr. Maitland’s, who rightly observes that “levata” is to be understood in the nearly obsolete sense of the English word lifted, i.e. taken and carried off; in which he is confirmed by Carpentier’s Supplement to Ducange, “Levare, abducere, Fr. enlever, lever.”

APP1000 This letter of the archbishop to the king is by Foxe placed after the ensuing letter of the king to the dean and chapter of St. Paul’s. The dates of the two show that this order should have been reversed, and they have been transposed accordingly. This transposition has rendered a little modification of the text necessary.

APP1001 Avesbury states that this letter was written for the king by Adam, bishop of Winchester, a great enemy of Stratford’s.

APP1002 Foxe reads “a horse in a satchell;” Avesbury “equus in pera,” on which Hearne has this note:—“Lineolam sub ‘equus’ duxit manus recentior in Cod. Sebrightiano, et ‘mus’ e regione reposuit. Quid quod et ‘mus’ habent tam Walsinghamus quam et Antiqu. Britannicae.”

APP1003 Higden died A.D. 1363, and so far continues his chronicle.

APP1004 This last sentence is put in from the archbishop’s own letter, as quoted by Dr. Brady from Histotia Sacra. The archbishop’s letter is intituled “Excusatio Archiepiscopi ad famosum libellum.” Dr. Brady (vol. 2: p. 215) gives a full analysis of the letter, and says that it concludes thus: “Haec ad libellum famosum responsa sufficiant in praesenti.”

APP1005 In the foregoing paragraph, Foxe has been misled by his authorities to say, that the truce of Tournay was prolonged for “three years” more: but see the king’s proclamations in Rymer, dated June 18th and September 27th A.D. 1341, announcing the extension of that truce first to August 29th, and then to June 24th A.D. 1342. This extension of the truce of Tournay has evidently been confounded with the truce of Malestroit, which is not distinctly mentioned by Foxe, and has been of necessity introduced into his text at p. 690. (See the note on page 690, note (2).)

APP1006 Benedict XII. died April 25th, A.D. 1342, and Clement VI. was crowned pope, May 19th.

APP1007 The account given in the paragraph of the text above tallies with the Extracts from the Parliamentary Rolls at pp. 783, 784, relative to this period (17,18 Ed. 11I.). The penalty attached to transgression ¾ “imprisonment and losing his life—is that stated by Walsingham, and no doubt by the “Chronicon Albanense;” but it is not correct: see the Extracts from the Parliamentary Rolls 18 Ed. III. at p. 784. Rapin has been betrayed into the same mistake.

APP1008 Foxe, at the top of this page, correctly informs us that the ensuing letter was addressed to the pope by “the nobles and commons,” and it was written originally in French. Hence it tallies with the allusion at page 787, Section 12: to some such letter as having been once sent by the nobles and commons of England to the pope: it is rather singular, however, that Foxe heads it—“Letter of the King of England and of the Nobles and Commons of the same,” etc. That this heading is incorrect sufficiently appears from the opening of the letter itself: and the allusion at page 787, Section 12: would lead us to look for any such letter from the king in Latin, not in French. And certainly the king was not wanting in the business: for, besides a letter dated Clarendon, July 23d, “ad Vicecomites Angliae contra Provisiones Papales,” grounded on the petition of the Commons at the parliament convoked at Westminster, in Quindena Paschae; he also addressed one ‘ad Papam,’ dated Westminster, August 30th—“de regno per exercitus Provisorum invaso,” and alluding to the complaints of the recent parliament at Westminster on begging that provisions might cease.

Walsingham gives the greater part of this last letter, dated Sept. 26th, heading it, Epistola missa Papoe Clementi pro libertate ecclesioe Anglicanoe, plena fructu, cui pro tunc Papa aut Cardinales respondere rationabiliter nesciebant.

APP1009 line 5 from the bottom.—Edward, the Black Prince, was made Prince of Wales, May 12th, A.D. 1843. See Cart. 17 Edw. III. m. 24, n. 27, quoted by Mr. James, vol. 1: p. 891.

APP1010 The pope’s letter to Edward, complaining of the opposition to his provisions for these two cardinals, is given by Walsingham, dated “Villa Nova, diocese of Avignon, quinto Calend., Septemb. pontificatus anno secundo,” i.e. August 28th, A.D. 1343: also Edward s reply, dated Westminster, September 26th, dated September 10th in Rymer. (See the last note but one.) It appears from these letters, that the two cardinals mentioned in the text were Ademar Robert, a Frenchman, priest-cardinal of St. Anastasia, and Gerard Domar, the pope’s own nephew, priest-cardinal of St. Sabine: these two were created together, n.y. 1342. (Moreri. 5: Cardinal.) The Parliamentary Rolls of the same year, 17 Ed. Ill. (see the top of page 784), speak also of two cardinals as having been amply provided for, but one of them was cardinal Talleyrand de Perigord; so that these were a totally fresh pair.

APP1011 This paragraph is added to the text, being necessary to connect the narrative, and to explain a subsequent allusion to “the truce of Vannes” in the next page, which would be unintelligible without this paragraph. The aggressions which led to this expedition of Edward were committed by the French king on the expiration of the prolonged truce mentioned at page 686, which terminated June 24th, 1342, but which Foxe and his authority said was to last for three years, evidently confounding it with this truce of Vannes or Malestroit.

APP1012 The words “to France” are put in from Walsingham, who says “de jure sun in regnum Francinae.” (See Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. 1: p. 784.) The emperor Louis made the most abject submissions to Clement VI. A.D. 1343; but the diets of Frankfort and Rens refused to sanction such submissions, and the quarrel soon broke out afresh between the pope and the emperor.—L’Art de Ver. des Dates.

APP1013 “Within the time of this year, pence, halfpence, and farthings,” etc.]—The following passage from Rapin’s remarks on the coinage at the end of (he reign of Edward III. will serve to explain what is meant by this statement: “In the eighteenth year, every pound weight of gold of this (a given) standard, was to be coined into fifty florences at six shillings a-piece, which made in all fifteen pounds, or into a proportionable number of half and quarter fiorences...Fabian calls the floren a penny, the half floren a halfpenny, and the quarter a farthing, of gold. And these words are often met with in old histories and accompts, applied to several coins, as reals, angels, etc. where it is to be understood by denarius, the whole; by obolus, the half; and by quadrans, the fourth part, or farthing.” See supra, p. 578 from the bottom.

APP1014 “Ad sectam suam sine partis.”—The Act in which these words occur, was passed at the parliament which met at Westminster, the Monday after the Octaves of Trinity 18 Ed. III. [June 16th, A.D. 1344], star. 3, cap. 2. The French words of the Act are, “a nostre suyte ou a la suite de partie,” “at our suit, or at the suit of the party.”— Statutes at Large, vol. i.p. 242.

APP1015 The following passage—down to the end of the king’s letters of Defiance, and the two lines immediately succeeding it in next page— has been brought back from a much later position which Foxe had assigned it, to the utter confusion of the narrative.

APP1016 Edward had commissioned the Duke of Lancaster to raise an army to defend his right in Aquitaine, March 24th, A.D. 1344. (Rymer.) The expedition was delayed till now: between June 4th and 11th the earl of Northampton sailed with an army for Bretagne, and the earl of Lancaster soon after, with another for Guienne and Gascony.— James.

APP1017 The original Latin of this passage will be found in Avesbury (edit. Hearne, p. 128), and runs thus:—“Post conflictum vero habitum in Cadamo, quidam magnus clericus, de ordine Praedicatorum, dicti Domini Regis confessor, existens ibidem, de dicti Domini Regis Anglorum gestis a Cadamo usque Pussiacum scripsit in haec verba:

Benedicere debemus Deum coeli,” etc.

The king’s confessor here spoken of was, no doubt, Thomas Bradwardine, a native of Hartfield, in Sussex, who, after passing through Merton College, Oxford, became D.D., and Proctor and Divinity Professor at Oxford, and afterwards attended Edward III. as his confessor during his wars in France. Whilst so employed he was elected archbishop of Canterbury by the monks, but Edward was too fond of him to part with him: being afterwards again elected, he was consecrated A.D. 1349, but lived only forty days. See the account of him in Parker’s “Antiquitates Britannicae” and Godwin’s “De Praesulibus.”

APP1018 The Latin of the passage in the text runs thus:—“Post adventum verb dicti Domini Regis spud Pussiacum, praefatus magister Michael Northburgh, valens clericus, de consiliariis dicti Domini Regis existens et continue progrediens, cum eodem, progressum, ipsius Domini Regis et Anglorum gesta a Pussiaco usque villam de Caleys scripsit in hunc modum: “Salutz, voilletz savoir, etc.” (Avesbury, p. 136.) Walsingham by “praefetus” does not refer to the writer of the last letter (as Foxe represents), but to the writer of a previous letter not mentioned by Foxe, detailing the march from La Hogue to Caen and the battle at Caen: that letter Avesbury thus introduces (p. 121):— “Deinde progrediens versus Cadamum, Magister Michael de Northburgh, valens clericus, de consiliariis dicti Domini Regis Anglorum existens, et progrediens cum eodem, ipsius Regis adventure ibidem, et progressum versus Cadamum scripsit in haec verba: De progressu Regis Anglioe de Hogges usque Cadamum. Fait a remembrez,” etc. It is plain, then, that that letter and this were written in French by Michael de Northburgh, “valens clericus, e consiliariis Domini Regis;” but that the intermediate Latin letter was written by a different person, who was the king’s confessor, conjectured in the last note to have been Thomas Bradwardine.

APP1019 Foxe reads, “the earl of Northampton and the earl of Norfolk;” Avesbury reads, “le Counte de Northampton et les Countes de Northfolk et Warewik;” but it is certain there was no earl of Norfolk at this time. (Dugdale’s Baronage). Mr. Barnes therefore proposes to read with Mirimouth Suffolk for Norfolk; and this reading is adopted in the text.

APP1020 The following is Foxe’s text above, which evidently needed correction:—“After the siege and winning of Poissy, the third day of September, A.D. 1346, the king through the midst of France directed his passage unto Calais, as by the tenor of this letter you hear, and besieged the same; which siege he continued from the third of September aforesaid,” etc.

APP1021 The dates of these two letters are corrected from Avesbury.

APP1022 “About the twenty-seventh day of July.” Foxe reads, “about the seventh day of June.” Avesbury says, “Vicesimo septimo die Junii.” But Avesbury presently after says “dicti mensis Julii” and he gives a letter of Edward to the archbishop of Canterbury, relating this whole affair, in which he says that Philip came the Friday before the Gule of August, i.e. July 27th, in the year 1347 (by Nicolas’s Tables). It is clear, therefore, that Avesbury intended to say “Julii ” instead of “Junii.”

APP1023 “That the next year after, A.D. 1349,” is brought up from the end of the paragraph, to render the statement of the matter more exact.— See Nicolas’s Chronology of History, 5: Pestilences.

APP1024 The first account of the battle of Poictiers was addressed by the Black Prince to his former preceptor or tutor, Reginald Bryan, bishop of Worcester, in a letter written in French, so remarkable for its piety, modesty, and politeness, that if Foxe had known such a letter was (and is still) extant in the archives of the dean and chapter of Worcester, he would hardly have failed to transcribe it, and embody it in his work.

The following translation of it is given in Dr. Nash’s History of Worcestershire, vol 1: p. 34:— “Reverend Father in God, and most dear friend, we thank you heartily, because we are informed that you are so well and so sincerely attached to us, in offering up your prayers to God for us and for our expedition; and we are very certain, that on account of the devout prayers of you and others, God has been pleased to assist us in all our exigencies, for which we are daily bound to return Him our thanks, praying, at the same time, that you would on your part continue to behave towards us as you have done hitherto, for which we hold ourselves highly obliged to you. And, reverend father, as to our condition, of which we suppose you desire, of your good will, to hear some account, he pleased to know that at the writing of this letter we were well in health, happy, and every way in good condition, praised be God! May He at all times cause us to hear and know the same of you, and that you will be pleased to certify us by your letters, and by such persons as pass to and fro, as often as you conveniently can. As to the news in these parts, be pleased to know, that on the Eve of the translation of St.

Thomas of Canterbury, we began to ride with our forces towards the parts of France, and principally because we had received intelligence of the arrival of our most honored lord and father, the king, there, in Berry, Orleans, and Tours; and having also received intelligence that the king of France, with a great number of forces near the borders, was coming to give us battle, we approached so near them that an engagement ensued between us in such sort that the enemy were discomfited, praised be God; and the said king and his son and many other persons were taken and killed; the names of whom we send you by our most dear knight, Roger de Cortesford, the bearer of these letters. “Reverend Father in God, and our very dear friend, may the Holy Spirit have you daily in his keeping!” “Given under our private seal at Bourdeaux, the 10th day of October.” [This letter was delivered to Reginald de Brienne, bishop of Worcester, at Alvechurch, December 1356, with a schedule containing the names of the prisoners and slain in the aforesaid engagement.] Superscribed, “To the Revelation Father in God, the Bishop of Worcester.”

APP1025 This passage confirms the conjecture thrown out in the note on p. 642, viz. that it was Edward I. and not Edward II. who presented his clerk to the treasurership of York during the vacancy of the see, and that Edward II. only inherited from his father the dispute which grew out of that appointment. It will appear in the next note to this, that Edward III. inherited the very same quarrel. Dr. Brady bears his testimony to the existence of letters in the Records of the very nature here described, and addressed to the same individuals as those whom Foxe mentions.

APP1026 The king’s letter to the pope is printed in Rymer, dated Westminster, 14th Dec. 4 Ed. III. It is also given by Dr. Brady, vol. 2:

Appendix No. 97, from “Rot. Romae” 4 Ed. III. n. 2. It appears from the letter itself, that Walter de Bedewynd had been presented by Edward’s grandfather “ratione vacationis archiepiscopatus,” and “per privationem domini Johannis de Columna;” that the pope originally wanted to annul the king’s presentation of Walter, in favor of Cardinal Francis Gayta (Cajetan), who was his own nephew; but that the said Walter de Bedewynd had, notwithstanding, continued in possession of the office ever since till now, when “ex causa permutationis” he had resigned it to William de la Mare. But the pope assuming that in consequence of the exclusion of Cardinal Gayta by Edward I. the office had been ever since vacant, he wanted now to disturb the new occupant, De la Mare, and to put in by provision, one Peter, cardinal of St. Stephen in Coelio Monte.—Franeis Cajetan was created deaconcardinal of St. Mary in Cosmedin, A.D. 1295, died A.D. 1317.— Moreri, 5: Cardinal.

APP1027 This article is thus put obliqua oratione by Illyricus—“Quibus scriptis aut sacrarum literarum interpretationibus ad salutem necessario credendum.” On referring to the “Secunda Dictio seu Pars” of the “Defensor Pads,” cap. 19, the matter is thus stated:—“Nullam scripturam irrevocabiliter veram credere vel fateri tenemur de necessitate salutis aeternae, nisi eis quae canonicae appellantur, vel eis quae ad has ex necessitate sequuntur, aut scripturarum sacrarum sensum dubium habentium eis interpretationibus seu determinationibus quae per generale fidelium seu catholicorum concilium essent factae, in his praesertim in quibus error damnationem aeternam induceret, quales sunt articuli fidei Christianae.” And he proceeds to say, afterwards, “Quod vero ipsarum interpretationibus, sic factis ut diximus, eadem sit praestanda credulitas [quae sacris scripturis ipsis] ostendere possumus.” His proof is, the promise, “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world;” a promise which he considers to be peculiarly the property of a general council. Marsilius, therefore, cannot be considered quite so clear on the Rule of Faith as might be inferred from Foxe’s language in the text. Milner (Cent. 14, chap. i.) speaks rather hesitatingly of his claim to be numbered among the genuine Reformers, though he, with others mentioned by Illyricus and Foxe, very vigorously resisted the papal encroachments on the imperial jurisdiction.

APP1028 The text (ed. 1583, p. 391) makes Antoninus say “that they were condemned in the Extravagant of Pope John, with one Johannes de Poliaco.” Illyricus says, “Damnatus est (M. Cesenas) cum Joanne quodam propria bulla, in Extravagantibus Joan. 22. Antoninus Florentinus sic in quarts parte Summae de hisce proximis duobus et de Petro de Corbaria scribit: ‘In Extravagante Joan. 22 quae incipit Dudum ab audientia, etc. reprobantur ut haereses errores Petri de Corbaria, Joannis, et Michelini ordinis Minorum, qui pertinaciter asserebant,’ etc....“Hactenus Antoninus.” If the “Johannes” here mentioned means “Johannes de Poliaco,” the statement of Illyricus is more correct than that of Antoninus, for he was condemned propria bulla, in a separate bull by himself, “Vas electionis” in the Extravagantes Communes.

We find printed in Martene’s Thesaurus Anecdotorum (tom. 11: cols. 640—842): “Processus Varii Johannis Papae XX II. adversus Ludovicum Bavarum Imperatorem et ejus asseclas, ex MS. Illustrissimi Episcopi Mon-tis Pessulani.” Among these processes there is one (cols. 652—660) excommunicating the emperor, dated 10 Cal. April. pontificatus anno 8 [March 23, A.D. 1324]; another (cols. 727—736) making void his coronation, dated 2 Cal. April. pontificatus a. [March 31, A.D. 1328]; another (cols. 704—716), “Licet juxta doctrinam,” stating and condemning the opinions of John de Janduno and Marsilius Patavinus, dated 10 Cal. Nov. pontif, a. 12 [Oct. 23, A.D. 1327], and another (cols. 736-742) excommunicating themselves, dated 2 Cal. April. pontif, a. 12 [March 31, an. 1328]; another (cols. 749-752), “Dudum ad vestri apostolatus auditum, ‘excommunicating three Minorites, Michael Cesenas, Bonagratia, and William Ockham, dated 8 Id. Jun. pontif, a. 12 [June 6, A.D. 1328]; another (cols. 763— 770) containing the excommunication of Petrus de Corvario, dated Cal. Maii, pontific, a. 13 h Apri120, A.D. 1329], and a long process is added (cols. 806—816), containing is recantation, dated 8 Id. Sept. pont. a. 15 [Sep. 6, A. D. 1330].

APP1029 Walsingham says, that two were burnt at Avignon “feria tertia, in Hebdomade Pentecostes,” i.e. Whit-Tuesday, or June 3d, A.D. 1354. Innocent VI. was crowned pope Dec. 30th, A.D. 1352, and died Sep. 12th, A.D. 1362.

APP1030 This dispute happened in the year A.D. 1281, of which the dominical letter was E, suiting (by Nicolas s Tables) the concurrence of St. Nicholas’s Day (Dec. G) with a Saturday, and the day of the Conception (Dec. 8) with a Monday, and St. Thomas’s Day (Dec. 21) with a Sunday. The introduction of Friar Gilles, and the bishop of Amiens, is also confirmatory of this date. Du Boulay also and Crevier, in their histories of the University of Paris, and Fleury, in his Ecclesiastes Hist., place this affair to the year A.D. 1281; in which year, also, it appears among the Councils in L’Art de Ver. des Dates.

APP1031 Copia prophetiae fratris Johannis de Rupe-Scissa, Ordinis fratrum minorum provinciae Aquitaniae, custodis Ruthenensis (Rodez), ac causidici Aureliaci (Orleans), in Romana curia Avenione capti in carcere domini Papae Clementis VI. Pontificatus sui anno 8, qui Carcer vocatur Carcer Soldan, in mense Novembris, anno ab incarnatione Domini MCCCXLIX”—(Browne’s Appendix, p. 494.) “Ejusdem Johannis de Rupe-Scissa liber Vade mecum in tribulatione, is at p. of Browne.

APP1032 Godfridus de Fontanis, or de Fontibus, is mentioned again by Foxe in connection with the dispute between the clergy and the friars at page 752, where he is stated to have been concerned with others in the compilation of the treatise “De Periculis Ecclesiae:” the anachronism of connecting his name with that treatise is incidentally shown by the introduction of his name in this affair of A.D. 1281. (See the note on p. 752.)

APP1033 Simon de Beaulieu en Brie was made cardinal in A. n. 1294, which occasioned his being superseded in the see of Bourges that same year by Gilles de Colonne. (See the note on p. 714.)

APP1034 Foxe’s text (ed. 1583, p. 392) says, “Neither do I thinke to be any of us prelates here now, which have not sometime been taken out of this university of yours.” Godfridus says, “Credo enim quod non sit hodie praelatus inter nos, qui de hac Universitate non sit assumptus;” which Crevier and Fleury both understand to imply, that the whole French episcopal bench of that day had been educated at the University of Paris.

APP1035 The following extract from Gallia Christiana, tom. x., relative to this bishop of Amiens, will show his great zeal in the cause of the clergy against the friars, and illustrate the text. “Romam anno cure Simone Carnotensi episcopo nomine cleri Gallicani missus est ad obtinendam a Martino IV. canonizationem Ludovici IX. Francorum Regis, ut patet ex bulla ejusdem pontificis data x calend. Jan. pontificatus an. 1. Dum autem Romae consisteret Gulielmus, fratres minores impetrarunt a summo Pontifice ut possent audire confessiones et absolvere, praelatis minime requisitis, propter quod orta fuit magna contentio inter praelatos regni Franciae et fratres praedictos. Occasione hujus controversiae una cum Gul. archiepiscopo Rotomagensi scripsit Guilelmus die Mercurii post festum App. Petri et Pauli, 1282, ad Archiepp. Remensem, Senonensem, et Turonensem, ut eos hortaretur ad concilium cele-brandum adversus fratrum minorum molitiones...A.D. 1284 interfuit Parisiis synodo multarum Galliae provinciarum et acerrime pugnavit pro decreto Innocentii III.—‘Omnes utriusque sexus,’—adversus nova mendicantium privilegia. Quod ad confirmandum Baluzius in notis ad “Vit. Pap. Aven.,” col. 578, laudat codicem Bibliothecae Colbertinae 3266, aitque ea de causa Gulielmum a Mathia Flacio Illyrico Testibus Veritatis fuisse annumeratum.”

APP1036 Foxe’s text says, “It was not long after, that the feast of St.

Thomas the Apostle followed, in whose Vigil all the heads of the University again were warned the third day after to congregate together in the church of St. Bernard, at the sermon time.” Godfridus says, “Caeterum in vigilia Beati Thomae iterum praelati praeconizari fecerunt per scholas ut omnes dominica, tertia scilicet die, hora sermonis, ad S.

Bernhardum convenirent.” Du Boulay reads “dominica 3 scilicet die.”

But Fleury says “le lendemain;” and Crevier speaks of the meeting as happening on the feast of St. Thomas, December 21st, which would fall on a Sunday in the year A.D. 1281 (by Nicolas’s Tables):

Godfridus’s error has been corrected in the text.

APP1037 “Master Friar Gilles.”— Gilles de Columna, a Roman by birth, and a friar of the order of the Eremites of St. Augustine, has been already mentioned by Foxe, supra p. 508. He was called “Doctor fundatissimus.” “A variis academiis virisque principibus expetitus, in Galliam concessit, a Philippo Audace ad Philippum filium, cognomento Pulchrum, honis literis ac moribus imbuendum evocatus: unde in Academia Parisiensi Hist. Litt.) He was made General of his Order in A.D. 1292, and archbishop of bourges A.D. 1294. (See more in Cave, Moreri, and Gallia Christiana.) The introduction of his name here confirms the date assigned in the text to the dispute at Paris.

APP1038 See vol. 1: p. 292, note (1).

APP1039 Foxe seems to have rather puzzled himself, calculating sometimes from the nativity, sometimes from the death of Christ.

APP1040 “In Froysard, as yet, have I not found it.”—The different copies of Froysard very much vary, which may account for Foxe’s not having been able to find this story about John de la Roche-Taillade. It is, however, in the Paris edition of 1574, vol. in. p. 77, chap. XX iv., and we have it in Lord Berner’s translation, vol. 2: chap. 42, fol 53; and in Johnes’s translation, vol. in. chap. 47. John de Rupe-Scissa has been mentioned at pp. 707, 708, 710.

APP1041 “Froysard , who both heard and saw him.”— Froysard first mentions this friar in his 1st vol. chap. ccxi.; and in chap. ccxv, he mentions who the first of the two undermentioned cardinals was, viz.

Peter de Colombier, more usually called Bertrand, in honor of his maternal uncle Peter Bertrand, bishop of Autun, and called Bertrand the younger. He was made bishop of Arras, 1339; cardinal, 1344; bishop of Ostia, 1353.

Froysard does not appear to have heard or even seen the friar. His words, as translated by Johnes, are these:—“It comes to my remembrance, how, in my young days’ during the reign of pope Innocent at Avignon, there was confilled in prison a learned clerk, called friar John de la Roche-Taillade. This friar, as I have been told by several privately, for it was never talked of in public, foretold, while in prison, many of the great events which would happen shortly in the world, more especially those that related to France, and the misfortunes that were to befal the church from the pride and arrogance of those who governed it. It was said that during his imprisonment he was brought to the pope’s palace, when the cardinal of Ostia, commonly called cardinal of Arras, and the cardinal of Auxerre, disputed with him on those subjects.”

The person meant by “the cardinal of Auxerre” was Talleyrand de Perigord, made cardinal bishop of Auxerre by John XX II. A.D. 1331: he died A.D. 1364. (See Moreri 5: Cardinal.) He is referred toby Roche-Taillade with much respect at the conclusion of his prophecy given by Browne in his Appendix to the Fasciculus. He was one of the two cardinals who endeavored to mediate between the English and French armies just before the battle of Poictiers, 1356, according to Walsingham; he is mentioned infra, p. 784.

APP1042 Richard Fitz-Ralph was made dean of Lichfield, then chancellor of Oxford, 1333; and archbishop of Armagh, 8 id. July, 1347: he preached in London, 1356, was three years at Avignon, and died 46 cal.

Dec. 1360.—Waroei Hibernia Sacra; Cave.

APP1043 In Froysard there is more in application of the fable. The following closing words out of Johnes s translation are necessary:—“It was his intention that these should be prudently and properly managed, and not with pomp and pride, as is now done: for which the Lord is wroth, and his anger will be much increased against you in times to come. Should the nobles excuse themselves from giving support to the church, and grow cold in their devotions, and perhaps retake what they had given, it must speedily be destroyed.” (See the Latin in Illyricus Flacius.) Johnes, at the end of his translation, gives many references about this friar. He considers it a witty application of Aesop’s fable of the crow.

APP1044 Gulielmus Botonerus. [Scripsit antiquitates Anglicas, lib. in.: floruit 1460, Gesneri Bibliotheca, p. 300, edit. 1583.] See also Vossius de Hist. Lat. p. 654, edit. Lug. Bat. 1651.

APP1045 The extravagant “Non sine multa cordis amaritudine,” etc. is printed in Bzovius’s “Ecclesiastes Annales post Baronium,” ad an. 1257, dated “Laterani, 3 cal. Ap. pont. nostri a. 31,” i.e. March 30th, A.D. 1257.

APP1046 Foxe is quite correct in representing the four persons just named as leading opponents of the friars. But he is mistaken in representing them as the joint authors of the “de periculis ecclesiae.” the real author of that treatise was Gulielmus de S. Amore, assisted by several others whom Foxe names, supra, p. 521. (See the note in this Appendix on page 520, note (1), and Usher” de Christ. Ecclesiastes Sue. et Statu.” lib. 9: Section 20.) Foxe’s statement here involves anachronism; for Godfridus de Fontibus figured against the friars at a later period, A.D. 1281. (See p. 712.) Simon Jornalensis, or Tornacensis, (see Foxe’s Prefaces to vol. 1: p. XX i.) is said by Cave to have flourished A.D. 1216, and Henricus de Gandarn about the same time with Godfridus de Fontibus, A.D. 1280.

APP1047 The period assigned in the text for the absence of Armachanus from England seems too long, according to the statement made in the note on p. 749.

APP1048 Mr. Browne, in his Appendix to the “Fasciculus” of Orthuinus Gratius, gives the foregoing sermon in the original Latin, and places it to the year 1363. That this is the true date, appears from Nicolas’s Tables, which show that in A.D. 1363 Advent Sunday re-lion December 3d, whence “the fourth Sunday of Advent” would fall on December 24th, the day before Christmas day; this sermon was also preached in the second year of pope Urban V. [see the conclusion], who was consecrated November 6th, 1362. That the sermon was preached on the fourth Sunday in Advent, being the day before Christmas Eve, seems implied at page 768, and 12 from the bottom.

APP1049 “Hujus opuscula primus edidit Flacius Illyricus; dein Bollaventura Vulcanius recensuit; nuper Cl. Salmasms ex amphissimi Serini emendatione in integrum restituit. De aetate laboratur. C1.

Salmasius in Praefatione ad Lectorem: ‘Nili archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis qui meminerit, ex veteribus neminem extare puto.

Alias causas non possum dicere quam quod nimis recens est. Plures quidem Nili hujus cognomines nominantur et memorantur: si quis autem ex illis hunc nostrum esse putat, ut paucis dicam fallitur; illi omnes sunt vetustiores, istum recentissimum esse mihi constat, Thomae enim Aquinatis in alii, scriptis suis quae nondum edits sunt meminit. Thomam veto illum recentissimum esse, nemo est qui ignoret.

Sunt qui putent eum tempore Concilii Basiliensis, circiter annum Domini 1438, vixisse pariter et hunc tractatum scripsisse.”—Goldasti De Monarchia, tom. 1: preliminary “Dissertatio de Auctoribus.” See also Cave’s Hist. Lit. 5: ”Nilus Cabasilas.” APP1050 “Postils.” ¾ Vocem hanc compositam ex praepositione Post et pronomine Illa , ut significaretur post illa (sc. Verba textus) legendam esse explicationem illis subjunctam, satis notum est. Media aetate vocabulum Postilla de expositione cujusvis textus adhibitum fuit.

Imprimis tamen pericoparum evangelicarum et epistolicarum interpretationem, uti adhuc illud usurpatur, designabat.”—Walchii Biblioth. Theol. tom. 4: p. 945, cited in Dr. Cardwell’s Preface to Taverner’s Postils.

APP1051 Bingen is a town on the Rhine, between Mentz and Coblentz.

Illyricus refers for this story to Gaspar Bruschius’s “Germ.

Monasteriorum Historic.” It appears in another work of his, “De omnibus Germaniae Episcopatibus Epitome,” lib. primus, Archiep.

Mogunt. comprehendens. See supra, p. 22: of Foxe’s Prefaces to vol. 1: note (10). The council of Mentz, which Condemned these persons, is mentioned in the list of councils, A.D. 1387.—L’Art de Ver. des Dates.

APP1052 “Prince Aimericus hanged,” etc.]—Massaeus says, “et ipsius dominam in puteo lapidibus obruerunt.” Hoffman, referring to this story in his Lexicon, 5: Armericus, calls him the praefect or mayor of Lavaur, and states that the lady was Girada, a principal lady of the place.

APP1053 “Moreover in the Chronicles of Hoveden,” etc.]—Foxe, in his Latin edition, page 59, refers to Hoveden, A.D. 1182.

APP1054 “One Eckhard, a Dominican friar.”—It seems doubtful whether he “suffered.” Foxe says in his Latin edition, page 59—“Nec multum Wiclevi tempora praecessit Echardus, Dominicanus, qui Heidelbergae damnabatur haereseos, autore Tritemio anno 1330.” It appears from Trithemius that he flourished A.D. 1330, and that A.D. 1430 (a hundred years after) the faculty of Heidelberg passed sentence against some of his opinions. Illytitus has given a fragment of one of his sermons “De Eucharistia.”

APP1055 This parliament met on the Quindene of Easter, 17Ed. III. [April 18th, A.D. 1343.’—See Cotton’s Abridgment of the Parliamentary Rolls, vol. 2: p. 135.

APP1056 It is worthy of observation that Foxe, in the paragraph which introduces the extracts from the Parliamentary Rolls, speaks of a nonappearance of archbishop Stratford at the king’s summons, referring expressly to that particular occasion (A. D. 1341, 15 Ed. III.) which the king complains of at p. 684. Foxe there as well as here, complains of the unsatisfactory nature of Virgil’s account; he therefore proposes now to illustrate the secret causes of this his non-appearance by the ensuing Parliamentary Extracts, but immediately produces Extracts relative to a previous non-appearance of the archbishop at York (A.D. 1332, 6 Ed. III.) not mentioned in the course of Foxe’s narrative, though alluded to infra, vol. in. p. 381; nor does he produce any Extract from the Parliamentary Rolls referring to his second non-appearance; he merely alludes to his impeachment in the very last extract, p. 790, APP1057 Taleyrand de Perigord, bishop of Auxerre, was made priestcardinal of St. Peter ad Vincula A.D. 1331, and afterwards bishop of Albano; died A.D. 1364. (Moreri, 5: Cardinal.) He is the “cardinal of Auxerre” mentioned at p. 748. He is also mentioned in an instrument in Rymer, A.D. 1344, as “Cardinal de Peregortz.” The late famous French diplomatist, cardinal Taleyrand, was of the same family.

APP1058 This parliament met the Monday after the octaves of Trinity, Ed. III. [June 16th, A.D. 1344].—See Cotton, vol. 2: p. 146.

APP1059 “On a former occasion.”— The reference here is undoubtedly to the parliament of 17 Ed. III. [A.D. 1343], at which the following reply was made by the king to the petition of the Commons:— “Le Roi est avisez de cet mischief, et voet, q entre les Grantz et les communes soit ordeignez remede et amendment, et il s’accordera. Et aussint le Roi voet et assentuz est; q bones Lefts soient faites au Pape sur ceste matiere, aussi bien de p. le Roi et les Grantz, come de p. la commune.” (Cotton, page 144; 17 Ed. III. tit. 59). That such letters were sent, is proved in the note in this Appendix on page 689.

APP1060 “With the clause ‘Anteferri.”— “To have the preference or precedence” of all other “reservations” which might have been granted on the same benefices the first presented formerly had the preference: see Decretales Greg. IX. Lib. I. Titus III. cap 30. “Capitulum.” But Boniface VIII. introduced the clause “Anteferri,” see Sixt. Decretal.

Lib. III. Titus IV. Cap. 40. “Quodam per literas.” Another decretal of the same Pope, Sixt. Lib. III. Titus VII. Cap. 7, so well shows the force and operation of the “Anteferri” clause, that it is here subjoined:— “Auctoritate Martini Papae praedecessoris nostri, quodam ad Praebendam primo in Parmensi Ecclesia vacaturam nulli alii de jure debitam in ejusdem Ecclesiae Canonicum recepto, et clio a nobis in eadem Ecclesia similem gratiam adepto secundo, tertius deinde auctoritate nostra in ipsa Parmensi Ecclesia in Canonicum et in fratrem recipitur, cum praerogativa gratiae, quod omnibus praedecessorum nostrorum auctoritate non autem nostra receptis in assecutione Praebendae debeat anteferri; post haec autem quaedam vacavit Praebenda in Ecclesia memorata; quaeritur, quis eorum alteri praeferatur: et secundum quem ordinem Praebendas assequi debeant tres praedicti? Cum igitur extenore gratiae tertio a nobis concessae appareat evidenter nos voluisse primo tertium, et secundum tertio anteferri, decernimus, quod primam secundus, secundam tertius, et tertiam primus debet obtinere Praebendam: alias forma mandati minime servaretur. Licet enim ex persona sua, secundus primam obtinere non posset, ex persona tamen tertii, qui primum superat, illam habet. Sicut contingit in successione illius, qui ab intestato relictis patre (in adoptiva familia constituto) matre atque fratre decedit, in qua successione pater ex se matrem excludit: sed quoniam talem patrem agnatus, materque vincit agnatum, mater patti non ex semetipsa, sed agnati personae, in successione hujusmodi antefertur.”

APP1061 The “gold crowns of the sun,” mentioned in this paragraph, “ecus d’or sol,” were worth about six shillings.—See Kelham’s Dictionary, and Ducange, vv. Moneta, Scutum, Solaris.

APP1062 Foxe says that Wicliff and his colleagues went “over into the parts of Italy;” but Bruges, where they met the papal legates, was in Flanders, which is here substituted for “Italy.” The reader may be surprised to find a dignitary of the Spanish Church among the English envoys. But the factis, that John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, Edward’s fourth son, married Constantia, eldest daughter of Peter the Cruel, king of Castile; and, on the expulsion and assassination of Peter by his bastard brother, Henry, earl of Tristamare, the duke of Lancaster asserted his claim to the crown of Castile against Henry, and passed in England by the title of king of Castile. This may account for the appointment of John Guter to the deanery of Segovia, in Old Castile. The object of the conference at Bruges was to negotiate a peace between the English and the king of France, who had espoused the cause of Henry, earl of Tristamare.

APP1063 “Odeus the Second.”— See the note on this name at p. 22: of Foxe’s Prefaces. Foxe, however, can scarcely be alluding to the poet, who posterior to Wickliff. Foxe probably had in his eye a passage of Walsingham’s History, in which, speaking of Wickliff, he says (sub anno 1381): “Johannes Wyclif, reassumens damnatas opiniones Berengarii et Oclefe, astruere laboravit post consecrationem in missa a sacerdote factam remanere ibidem verum panem et vinum, ut fuere per prius.” Tanner (in his Bibliothe,a) seems to have read this passage of Walsingham as though the comma were at “Berengarii,” and “Oclefe” (as well as “Wyclif”) the nominative to “laboravit;” and hence infers that Thomas Ocleve, the poet, “astruere labo ¾ ravit,” etc.; but adds, Videtur tamen se ab omni heretica pravitate purgare in libro ‘Consolatio sibi a sene oblata.’” The poet, however, was not born till 1370, and flourished 1410. Why Foxe calls this witness Ocleus “secundus” is not apparent; perhaps it was on purpose to distinguish him from the poet: but in that case he should have been called “primus.” APP1064 “Bruno of Angers.”— There is in the “Bibliotheca Patrum,” (de la Bigne, Paris, 1624,) tom. in. page 319, a treatise thus intituled: “Epistola Durandi Leodiensis Episcopi, de Corpore et Sanguine Domini, contra Brunonem Andegavensem Episcopum et Berengarium Turonensem.” There was also a charge against Bruno that he was unfriendly to the baptism of infants: but Usher shows (“ De Christ.

Ecclesiarum Successione et Statu,” cap. 7: Section 37), that he only denied any benefit to result merely ex opere operato.

APP1065 “Thirty thousand marks.”— See the note in this Appendix on p. 317.

APP1066 The last two sentences of the foregoing paragraph read thus in the Latin edition, p. 3: “Hinc Ricardi invictissimi regis facta in Hierosolymam expeditio, qui mox eodem captus itinere, ac Caesari deditus, vix triginta marcarum millibus redimi poterat. In eadem expeditione Fridericus Romans Imperator augustissimae virtutis, in atone submersus interiit, anno 1189. Quin et Philippus Gallorum rex vix sine luculentis damnis in pattiam incolumis rediit. Tanti erat sanctae urbis crucisque recuperatio” . The English editions all most strangely render “in atone submersus interiit” “was much endamaged;” and give 1179 instead of 1189, or rather 1190 (see L’Art de Ver. des Dates; and supra pp. 301—309, 315—317). The ransom really paid for Richard was 100,000 marks (see supra p. 317, and the note in this Appendix on that page).

APP1067 The two foregoing sentences read thus in the Latin edition, p. 3: “Quid erat causae, cur Urbanus se dolore conficeret, quod Antiochia cum sancta cruce e manibus Christianorum amitteretur? Sic enim reperimus in annalibus, quod ubi Hierosolyma cum rege Guidone et cruce Domini in Sultani potestatem redigeretur, Urbanus rei gravitate nimium ictus, curae magnitudine occubuit. Cui successit Lambertus, qui Gregorius octavus dicitur, cujus instinctu receptum est a Cardinalibus, ut abjectis divitiis et delitiis omnibus praedicarent crucem Christi, et mendieando omnium primi acciperent crucem, aliosque praecederent in terrain Jerusalem. Sic enim habent historiae verba.” Antioch is clearly a mistake for Jerusalem: (see supra, p. 271,) and Lambertus is a mistake for Albertus. (See Hoffman, Moreri, and L’Art de Ver. des Dates.)

APP1068 “Then he who doth succeed,” etc.]—This sentence would be more intelligible were we to read, “then it followeth—not that he who doth succeed to Peter’s chair, doth of course express Peter’s faith; but—that whoever doth most nearly express Peter’s faith, deserveth, in whatever chair he sit, to be accounted a successor of Peter, and is such, albeit in such wise, that he getteth thereby no sort of worldly splendor and glory.” The whole passage is here given from the Latin edition, p. 4:—“Sin propter divinam sublimem ac expeditam confessionem, quam Petrus, non solus, sed unus omnium nomine expresserat—jam, non is qui in cathedram succedit Petri, illico exprimit fidem Petri; sed quisquis proxime exprimit Petri fidem, quacunque sedet cathedra, merito Petri successor habendus est, sicque successor est, ut nihil tamen hinc humani splendoris ac gloriae corroget. Functio est non gradus, ministerium non magisterium, apostolatus.

Quemadmodum nec inter ipsos, opinor, apostolos ulla erat dignitatis aut loci praeeminentia: sed una omnes mente, eodem spiritu, Domini non suum agebunt negotium: sic ut qui minor inter ipsos foret, plugs haberetur apud Christum testera. Quocirea et horum suc-cessio laudem quidem apud Deum, spud mundum vero nullam dignitatem emerebatur.

Quo pacto entre, enim praeclare apud Eusebium proconsult respondet Polycarpus, cum mundanis divitiis aut terreno fastigio cohaeret illorum pro-fessio, qui pro Christo omnis habent pro derelictis.”

APP1069 “Keningham, a Carmelite Friar.”— He is mentioned repeatedly at the opening of the next volume. His name is also spelt Kiningham, and Kynyngham.

APP1070 “As years and time,” etc. Here Foxe begins again to quote from a Latin chronicle which he calls “Chronicon D. Albani,” lent him by archbishop Parker (p. 801, note), and which seems to supply all the following narrative to p. 806. This chronicle has been searched for, but without success. There is, however, printed in the Archaeologia, vol. 22: a transcript of a chronicle in the Harleian Library of MSS. No. 6217, intituled, “An Historicall Relation of certain passages about the end of King Edward the Third, and of his Death;” by Sir George Amyot, who communicates it to the S. A., which is supposed to be a translation of the Latin chronicle which Foxe used here and calls the Chronicle of St. Aiban’s. Foxe’s pages have been collated with that chronicle. Several illustrations and corrections of Foxe’s text have been derived from thence, which shall be noticed in their place; the notes, also, of the editor have furnished some useful information.

APP1071 The Latin edition (p. 5,) here says—“Post hos tum sacerdotes, mox episcopi rem capessebant: postremo cum nec horum potentia satis valere videbatur adversus prorumpentem veritatem, ad fulmen pontificis tanquam ad triarios concursum est. Haec enim extrema esse anchors solet in istiusmodi procellis, ubi monachorum clamores ac Pharisaica improbitas parum proficiunt.”

APP1072 The benefice from which Wicliff is here said to have been ejected was the Wardenship of Canterbury Hall, into which he had been instituted by the founder, archbishop Simon Islip, A.D. 1365: he was ejected by archbishop Simon Langham, A.D. 1367. Wicliff appealed to the pope, who, after three years, confirmed his expulsion, A.D. 1370, and charged Simon Sud-bury (then bishop of London) to execute this order. (See the documents in Lewis s Life of Wicliff.)

A correspondent of the Gentleman’s Magazine, in August 1841, brings forward some plausible arguments to show, that the John Wicliffe who was Warden of Canterbury was a different person from John Wicliffe the Reformer. This paper produced a succession of papers in several subsequent numbers of the Gentleman’s Magazine, which elicit the curious fact, that there were at least three or four individuals named “John Wicliffe” contemporaries, and all ecclesiastics.

APP1073 “Which, in the slanderous pen of Polydore Virgil,” etc.]—There is some flaw in the construction here, which the reader may supply for himself. The passage is here given...from Virgil—“Fuere ea tempestate viri longe sanctissimi, multo doctissimi atque fortissimi, quorum supra mentionem apposite fecimus, idcirco nihil est, quod de els rursum commemoremus. Extitere et aliqui insigni infamia, quorum caput et princeps Joannes Vuythcliffus: is, ut fama est, a primo indignatus, quod non potuisset ad summos sacerdotalis ordinis aspirare honores, factus inde sacerdotibus cunctis inimicior, coepit divina scripta perverse interpretart, atque novam instituere sectam, usque eo, ut in nobill Oxoniensi gymnasio publice sit in sacerdotes ut legis eversores debacchatus.”—Polyd. Virgil. Ang. Hist. lib. 19: Edouardus tertius, p. 399.

APP1074 “Which day was Thursday the nineteenth of February.”— This date is thus expressed in the contemporary English Chronicle in the Harleian, just adverted to: “Thursday, before the feast of St. Peter his chaire,” which (by Nicolas’s Tables) would give Feb. 19th, A.D. 1377.

The following useful observations are made on this date by the editor of the Chronicle:—“The date here assigned to this remarkable transaction is doubted by Lowth, because the Pope’s Bull, which he supposes to have been the cause of Wicliffe’s citation to St. Paul’s, bears as late a date as the 22d of May, 1377. He therefore concludes, that the tumult could not have happened many days before the death of Edward the Third, which occurred on the 21st of June. Lewis, in his Life of Wicliffe (p. 50), supposes the meeting at St. Paul’s not to have taken place till the February of the succeeding year, after the accession of Richard the Second; in which he is followed by Mr. Baber, in the memoirs prefixed to his edition of Wicliffe’s New Testament, p. 17:

This, however, is completely at variance not only with the relation in the text, but also with that of Walsingham, the continuator of Murimuth, and the other contemporary or early authorities. Mr.

Godwin (Life of Chaucer, 2: p. 251) defends the earlier date, suggesting that the citation to St. Paul’s was the immediate and personal act of the English prelacy, and that it was the citation of Wicliffe to Lambeth in the following year, which was the result of the Pope’s interference, the English Bishops having found themselves too weak in the contest, and having, on that account, invited the interposition of the sovereign Pontiff. This appears to be the true solution, agreeing with the statement in the text, that it was upon the suggestion of the bishops, that archbishop Sudbury had been unwillingly moved to issue the citation. It is true, indeed, that the mandate (preserved in Wilkins’ Concilia, in. p. 123,) which the archbishop and the hi,hop of London, in consequence of the authority vested in them by the pope’s bull, issued to the chancellor of Oxford on the 5th of January following, required Wicliffe’s presence at St. Paul’s on the thirtieth juridical day from that date. But, as we have no-account from the contemporary writers that any second meeting in St. Paul’s actually took place, it may be reasonably concluded that Lambeth was afterwards substituted, as a less likely scene for the renewal of popular commotion, though the result proved otherwise. The opinion here expressed may be strengthened by remarking that not only Foxe, but his able antagonist, Harps-field, who, though a zealous papist, was furnished with materials for his Ecclesiastical History by archbishop Parker (in whose mild custody he was a prisoner), understood the tumult at St. Paul’s to have preceded and been the cause of the pope’s interference, and that the proceeding at Lambeth was the consequence of it.”—Hist. Wicliffiana, p. 683.

APP1075 “Erubuit dux, quod non potuit proealere litigio.”— In the Harleian Chronicle we read, “The duke was ashamed that he colde not in this stryfe prevail;” which is alleged in the Archaeologia (vol. 22: p. 258) as one of the proofs that that Chronicle is a translation of the St.

Alban’s Chronicle, which Foxe used.

APP1076 Of Walter, lord Fitzwalter, a particular account will be found in Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. 1: p. 220. As hereditary Constable of Castle Bay-nard and Banner-bearer of London, he enjoyed very important rights and privileges in the city, which are set forth in Stow’s Survey of London, Strype’s edition, vol. 1: p. 60. Guy de Bryan was, as Dugdale observes, a person of very great note in his time. He had been Standard-bearer to the king in Calais, and was afterwards employed in many important military and civil services.—Baronage, vol. 2: p. 151; Archoeologia, vol. 22: p. 260.

APP1077 “Captain.”— It is “Custos” in the Harleian Chronicle. See the note on p. 342, note (3).

APP1078 “John Philpot, then burgess for the city.”— It appears from the list of city members, given in Maitland’s History of London, that John Philpot was M.P. for the city of London in the years 1377, 1381, 1383. In the Harleian Chronicle he is called “a cytezen of special name.” He was exceedingly rich, and was afterwards knighted by king Richard, for the share which he took in quelling Wat Tyler’s insurrection in 1381. See Editor’s note in the Archaeologia for more about him.

APP1079 “The mayor would never suffer,” etc.]—The Harleian Chronicle (p. 259) says, “the mayor and commons.”

APP1080 “In his place within himself.”— The Harleian Chronicle (p. 260,) says, “in the inn of the marshall.”

APP1081 “With their bills,” etc.]—“The armed men wandered up and down the chambers, thrusting through the beds with their lances. The privy houses were searched, but all in vain.”—Harleian Chronicle, p. 261.

APP1082“John Yper...had desired them to dinner,”— “This was at Ipres inn, in St. Thomas Apostle, west of the church. William of Ipres, a Fleming, who came over to the aid of king Stephen against the empress Maud in 1138, built this ‘great messuage’ (as Stow calls it) near the Tower Royal, where the king ‘was then lodged, as in the heart of the city, for his more safety.’ (Stow’s London, by Strype, vol. in. p. 8.)

William was created earl of Kent by Stephen, but in the subsequent reign was forced to leave England, and died a monk at Laon, according to Dugd. Bar. 1: p. 612. But Stow says he was recalled and restored to his possessions, which remained his descendants. John of Ipres, named in the text, was a person of sufficient importance to be appointed one of king Edward’s executors. See Nichols’s Royal Wills, p. 63.”— Archoeologia, vol. 22: p. 261, note.

APP1083 For Kingston, the Harleian Chronicle (p. 262) reads “Kenyngtou.” The princess here mentioned was Joan, widow of the Black Prince.

APP1084 “One of his gentlemen.”— “A certayn soldier of the duke’s, called Thomas Wynton, a Scotchman borne.”—Harleian Chronicle, p. 263.

APP1085 Foxe reads “Sir Albred Lewer,” the Harleian Chronicle (p. 263) “De Vet.” Sir Aubrey de Vere was uncle to Robert earl of Oxford, afterwards duke of Ireland, the favourite of Richard the Second.

Sir Lewis Clifford, an ancestor of lord Clifford of Chudleigh, became a leader among the Lollards, but afterwards recanted to archbishop Arundei. (Walsingham, p. 409.) His very remarkable will. in which he enjoins his executors to bury him,” false and traytor to his Lord God,” with extraordinary indignities, is preserved in Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. i.p. 341.—Archoeologia, vol. 22: p. 264.

APP1086 This story about the martial bishop of Norwich is given in the Harleian Chronicle, p. 277; where we find the place correctly named “Lynn,” of which the Latin is Lenna: Lynn is also the reading in the interdict of archbishop Sudbury, printed in Wilkins’s Concilia, vol. in. p. 118.

APP1087 Foxe, in the text, professes himself uncertain what the occasion was of this fresh return of benefices held by aliens in England. It is certain, however, that the return was required in consequence of an order of the parliament which met at Gloucester, the Wednesday after the feast of St. Luke the Evangelist,2 Rich. II. [October 19th, A.D. 1378,] that the temporalities, of all the benefices held in England by, those cardinals and others, who took part with the antipope Clement VII. against the true pope Urban VI., should be seized into the king’s hands. The schism in the papacy between Urban VI. and Clement VII. divided all Christendom, each state declaring for one or other of the two popes, not so much on account of the right of the parties, for political reasons. France, whose interest it was that the pope should as reside at Avignon, joined with Clement; and, for a contrary reason, England thought it more advantageous to adhere to the pope of Rome. (Rapin.) The enactment of the parliament will be found in Cotton, p. 46, 2 Rich. II. titt. 70, 71, 78. Rymer gives many instruments founded on this parliamentary enactment, appropriating the proceeds of the benefices in question and transferring the benefices to new parties.