Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

of, but I shall now give the reader such an assurance of my readiness to correct them, as soon as I am convinced of them, that I hope, if any thing occurs to any that deserves censure, they will communicate it first to myself; and if I do not, upon better information, retract what I have written, then I shall allow them to make it public in what manner they please. And it may be presumed I will not be for the future unwilling to do this, by the following account of the mistakes which I made in the former part, communicated to me by Mr. Fulman, of whom I made mention in the preface. With these I conclude this work.

Some mistakes in the first part of this History communicated to me by Mr. William Fulman, rector of Hampton Meysey in Gloucestershire.

P. 14. 1. 8. lord almoner.] It is questionable whether the almoner was then called lord, and more questionable whether Wolsey were then almoner, when he was thus recommended to the king's favour; for Polidore Virgil, who lived in England at that time, or very near it, says he was chaplain to king Henry the Seventh, and now made almoner to king Henry the Eighth, being before that time dean of Lincoln, made so February 2, 1508, installed by proxy March 25, 1509, and personally August 21, 1511; and so only he is styled in the university register, April 12, 1510, when he was made bachelor of divinity.

P. 15. marg. These numbers seem questionable, the temporalities of Lincoln are said to be restored 4 March 5 regni, i. e. 1513; but then it was done before his consecration, which Godwin says was the 26th of March that year. But this might be to give him a right to the mean profits, by restoring the temporalities before Lady-day, though he was not consecrated till the 26th. Before November, there should be (6) added; for on that day was he translated to York. And whereas it is said he had the bishopric of Winchester, 4 May, 20 regni, i. e. 1528; this must be a misVOL. II. P. 2.

[ocr errors]

take, for Fox's register reaches to the 9th of September that year; so perhaps it was 4 March, 20 regni, i. e. in March 1529. But I took all these dates from the roll; and I "must add one thing, that I have often seen cause to ques❝tion the exactness of the clerks in the enrolling of dates, though it seems a presumption to question the authority "of a record."

66

P. 20. 1. 8. Here, and in several other places, as pag. 69, 71, 271, 419, 642, it is supposed, that the next heir apparent of the crown was prince of Wales. The heir apparent of the crown is indeed prince, but is not prince of Wales, strictly speaking, unless he has it given him by a creation. And it is said, that there is nothing on record to prove that any of king Henry's children were ever created prince of Wales. There are indeed some hints of the lady Mary's being styled princess of Wales; for when a family was appointed for her, 1525, Veysey, bishop of Exeter, her tutor, was made president of Wales. She also is said to have kept her house at Ludlow; and Leland says, that Teken-hill, an house in those parts built for prince Arthur, was repaired for her. And Thomas Linacre dedicates his Rudiments of Grammar to her, by the title of princess of Cornwall and Wales.

P. 38. 1. 1. Besides the letter of pope Leo's, declaring king Henry defender of the faith, there was a more pompous one sent over by pope Clement the Seventh, March 5, 1523, which, as is supposed, granted that title to his successors, whereas the first grant seems to have been only personal.

P. 43. 1. 10. No wonder there was no seal to that grant of king Edgar's, for seals were little used in England before the conquest.

P. 43. 1. 21. The monks were not then settled in half the cathedrals in England; their chief seats were in the rich abbeys, that were scarce subject to the bishops.

P. 88. 1. 27. The lord Piercy was in the cardinal's family rather in a way of education (not unusual in those times) than of service.

P. 94. 1. 18. The general of the Observants in Spain seems an improper expression; for the generals have the government of the whole order everywhere; yet I find him so called in some originals: see Coll. p. 37. "Whether "it was done improperly, or whether that order was then "only in Spain, I cannot determine.”

P. 112. 1. 11. How far the cardinal had carried the foundation at Ipswich, it is not known; but it is certain he did never finish what he had designed at Oxford. “But in "this I went according to the letters patents, by which it appears he had then done his part, and had set off both "lands and money for these foundations."

66

P. 138. 1. penult. Campegio's son is by Hall, none of his flatterers, said to have been born in wedlock, i. e. before he took orders. This is also confirmed by Gauricus Genitur. 24, who says, he had by his wife three sons and two daughters.

P. 154. 1. 7. from bottom. Campegio might take upon him to direct the process, as being sent express from Rome, or to avoid the imputation that might have been cast on the proceedings, if Wolsey had done it; but he was not the ancienter cardinal, for Wolsey was made alone, Sept. 7, 1515, and Campegio, with many more, was advanced July 1, 1517.

P. 163. l. 16. The lord Herbert says, the king gave him only the use of Richmond, which is more probable. P. 164. 1. 17. The cardinal died November 29, as most writers agree; so it is wrong set in the History the 28th.

P. 172. 1. 12. This book is in the end of it said to be printed 1530, in April; but it seems an error, for 1531: for the censures of the universities, which are printed in, and mentioned in several places of it, do all bear date after that April, except those made by these of Oxford and Orleans.

What is said concerning the author of the Antiquities of Oxford has been much complained of by him. "I find he " has authorities for what he said; but they are from au"thors whose manuscripts he perused, who are of no better

"credit than Sanders himself; such as Harpsfield, and "others of the like credit. And I am satisfied, that he "had no other design in what he writ, but to set down "things as he found them in the authors whom he made use of."

[ocr errors]

P. 188. 1. 5. Calvin's Epistle seems not to belong to this case; for besides that he was then but 21, and though he was a doctor of the law, and had often preached before he was 24, for then he set out Seneca de Clementia, with notes on it; yet this was too soon to think he could have been consulted in so great a case. That Epistle seems to relate to a prince who was desirous of such a marriage, and not of dissolving it: though it is indeed strange, that, in treating of that question, he should make no mention of so famous a case as that of king Henry, which had made so much noise in the world.

P. 223. 1. 3. The letter dated the 8th of December should have been mentioned immediately after that of the 5th, being but three days after it; and the appeal that followed should have been set down after it. It were also fit to publish the appeal itself, for the power of appealing was a point much controverted. Pope Pius the Second condemned it 1549: yet it was used by the Venetians 1509, and by the university of Paris, March 27, 1517.

P. 228. 1. 16. Pool, as dean of Exeter, is said to have been one of the lower house of convocation; which doth not agree with the conjecture, p. 262, that the deans at that time sat in the upper house of convocation.

P. 243. 1. 4. from bottom. These sent by the king to Rome came thither in February, not in March; and the articles they put in were 27, not 28, as it is there said. These, with other small circumstances, appear from a book then printed of these disputes.

P. 277. 1. penult. The order in which these books were published is not observed; they were thus printed :

1. De vera Differentia Regiæ Potestatis et Ecclesiasticæ, (written by Edw. Fox, bishop of Hereford,) 1534.

2. De vera Obedientia, (by Stephen Gardiner,) 1535, set out with Bonner's preface before it, in Jan. 1536.

3. The Institution of a Christian Man, 1537; which was afterwards reduced into another form,-under another title, viz. A necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian Man, 1540. But there was another written before all these.

De Potestate Christianorum Regum in suis Ecclesiis contra Pontificis Tyrannidem; and the distinction there made between the bishops' book and the king's book seems not well applied. It is more probable that the Institution of a Christian Man, set out by the bishops, was called their book; and that being afterwards put in another method, and set out by the king's authority, it was called his book.

P. 304. 1. penult. Bocking is called a canon of Christ Church in Canterbury. But there were then no canons in that church, they were all monks.

P. 320. 1. 18. The bishops suffragans were before common in England, some abbots, or rich clergymen, procuring under foreign, or perhaps feigned titles, that dignity; and so performing some parts of the episcopal function, in large or neglected dioceses; so the abbot or prior of Tame was one, Col. p. 234. Such was Robert King, abbot of Oseney, after bishop of Oxford; and Thom. Cornish, a residentiary of Wells, who, by the name of Thomas Episcopus Tinensis, did confer orders, and performed other episcopal functions for Fox, while he was bishop of Exeter, from 1487 to 1492, and afterwards, when he was bishop of Wells, as appears by both those registers: he died in the year 1513. Of this I could give more instances, if it were necessary.

P. 406. 1. 3. It is said some were judged to be hanged, and others to be beheaded. But this being a case of treason, the judgments must have been the same, though executed in different ways, by order from the king. "This I "copied from judge Spelman's Common-Place Book."

P. 408. I. 11. from bottom. The original declaration should have been set down; " but I thought that not ne"cessary, for the lord Herbert has published it, only he

« ZurückWeiter »