SOURCE: Bartlett, I. Ross. “John Foxe as Hagiographer: The Question Revisited.” Sixteenth Century Journal, 26, no. 4 (winter 1995): 771-89.

[In the following essay, Bartlett examines the motivations and purposes behind Foxe's writing of Acts and Monuments.]

By using modified forms of the analysis categories developed by hagiographic scholars we can demonstrate that John Foxe shares the twofold purpose of all authors in the genre, especially within the portions of Acts and Monuments that address the reign of Mary Tudor. First, he bore witness to the truth as he understood it; second, he sought to do some eternal spiritual good for the reader. Until we fully appreciate these aims we will not understand the breadth of Foxe's purpose in this sprawling work. I argue that when he chose to use the hagiographic forms employed from the earliest days of the church, Foxe made a conscious selection of material and style to give us, not only accounts of individual lives, but also exemplars of actions and attitudes he wished to take root in the reader's life.

A certain degree of scholarly debate continues to swirl around the nature of John Foxe's Acts and Monuments.¹ Having largely left behind the sectarian battles of previous generations, most scholars are prepared to accept (with varying degrees of credence) the general accuracy and forthrightness of what Foxe records for the Lollard and Marian periods.² What remains undecided, however, is just what it was that Foxe wrote. Was it theology, history, hagiography, or something completely different? It often seems as if those who support Foxe as a credible historian are embarrassed by the faith dimensions of Acts and Monuments, as if hagiography and history were absolutely antithetical. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the Marian sections of Acts and Monuments as hagiography according to the best standards developed for the consideration of early church and medieval accounts.

It is helpful to recall the purpose of Foxe himself. What may have originated simply as an attempt to help English Protestants understand the shattering events going on around them soon became much more as Foxe elaborated the categories of good and evil, right and wrong, and populated them with major, minor, and fragmentary characters. His major figures became representative of categories larger than human, and his minor characters were molded to fit those standards, too. It is central to our understanding of Acts and Monuments, much of which is vehement in tone and violent in content, that we grasp this ultimate reality which Foxe was advocating. He is never just John Foxe, chronicler of English history. He is always John Foxe, advocate of a certain theological and spiritual attitude. His heroes, martyrs both important and unknown, are the bricks and mortar with which he constructs an image of the church and of the lives of faithful Protestants. Foxe's image of the church comes from its apostolic roots and is marked not only by the Reformation patterns of scripture rightly preached and sacraments properly administered, but also (and perhaps more importantly) by the twin signs of persecution from established authorities and comfort from the Holy Spirit.

Scholars have long been skeptical about the historical merit of accounts of martyrdom, in part because of their very nature as confessional and devotional documents. The various schemes which have been presented to evaluate systematically the acta of the early and medieval church have met with only limited acceptance. Edmund Frederic Le Blant's method of determining accuracy on the basis of court terminology³ is dismissed as being of little value on the grounds that imitating official language is not a difficult process, especially if one's intended readers are not familiar with that language. Adolf von Harnack is representative of scholars who reject martyr accounts which contain any hint of the absurd, the miraculous, or the unhistorical.⁴ Unfortunately, such an approach often misses the historical detail, which may have been embellished over the centuries. The most systematic work on the Christian martyrs of the early centuries has been conducted by the Bollandists, in particular Hippolyte Delehaye, who offers a more scholarly and acceptable means of evaluating the historical content of the various acta and whose work will form the core of this analysis of Acts and Monuments.

DETAILING THE STORY

Delehaye established a schema by which hagiographical documents may be analyzed, and he described a method for determining “materials that the historian can use and those that he should leave to poets and artists as their property.”⁵ In response to both Harnack and Le Blant, Delehaye is also concerned lest we accept or reject documents on the basis of some preconceived formulae. His warnings are particularly relevant for Protestant scholars, who may tend to approach martyrologies and the like with a bias against so-called legend. On the other hand, Delehaye is quick to acknowledge that hagiographers, like poets, “affect complete independence of, and sometimes a lordly contempt for, historical facts.”⁶ What then can we glean from his study of hagiography for our inquiry into Foxe's work?

Since a hagiographical work may be presented in any literary form which seems appropriate to the subject matter, each selection must be judged on a case-by-case basis. Each case may contain a mixture of myth, tale, or legend which can stir the reader's imagination or which was used as a literary device by the person who first recorded it.⁷ Thus, we may find in many legends the repetition of certain stock details, sometimes to the extent that we lose sight of an individual's characteristics and recognize only a name with the appropriate trials, inspirations, ordeals, virtues, miracles, and so on. Even those details beloved by historians, such as dates and locations, “often have an origin which is purely literary.”⁸ For centuries, history and rhetoric followed many of the same conventions and rules; matters such as accuracy, factual truthfulness, and exactness were often of less concern to the reporter of a saint's life than the effectiveness of the portrayal for heightening devotion. These were accounts written for a precise purpose: to do good for people's souls. Hagiographical accounts are part biography, part panegyric, part moral lesson—all of which admit no blame, infirmity, or failing on the part of the hero unless it serves to enhance the story. Thus the modern historian can become frustrated by the absence of material which he or she has come to expect and must resist the urge to reject the whole genre of literature as having no basis in fact. Nor should we blame the hagiographers if, as a product of a particular generation, they created their tales according to the standards of their time. Foxe, like many others, was clearly not content to restrict himself to the role of a compiler. He was much more interested in what his readers wanted and needed than in the troublesome quest for some abstract concept which modern historical studies might label as “truth” divorced from the real life of his reader.

To label a document as hagiographical is to use a precise term, to refer to a writing of “a religious character which aims at edification … confined to writing inspired by religious devotion to the saints and intended to increase that devotion.”⁹ It may be helpful here to point out some of the more obvious differences between the Roman Catholic Delehaye and the Protestant Foxe. Clearly, Foxe contends that it is God who creates a saint or martyr, not the action of an ecclesiastical body. Therefore, the absence of the technical act of canonization would trouble Foxe not at all; indeed, he might construe it as an argument in favor of the later martyrs. Again, we might wonder if “devotion” is exactly what Foxe was aiming for, unless we widen that concept to include loyalty to, modeling after, and veneration of the memory of the martyrs. He certainly had no intention of starting a new cult of martyrs in which prayers would be offered to or through them. Instead, it was their loyalty to what they conceived of as the call of God which Foxe wished to have repeated by his readers.

In contrast to the legendary acta of the early and medieval church, Foxe's characters have a more tangible reality. The figures are not entirely abstract, but they do tend to take on language and characteristics that hint at some degree of homogeneity. While individual names and descriptions may differ, there are several stock types depicted. There are those of rank and brilliant promise, such as Patrick Hamilton; those with personal gifts, as exemplified by John Frith; a small group that manages to overcome temporal position to accentuate spiritual riches, such as the brew master Dirick Carver; and there is the woman martyr of classic style, with poise and sharp tongue, who peeks out in Foxe's account of Anne Askew. Again we catch a glimpse of the reality for the other acta when it is observed that “poverty of invention is another characteristic of the popular mind.”¹⁰ This is detectable when Foxe recounts stories that have come to him from popular sources; some details, which may strike the inexperienced reader as wonderfully original, wander from tale to tale, as it were, attached now to this saint, now to that.

When we evaluate Acts and Monuments as hagiography it is only fair to note that Foxe rejects vigorously any suggestion that there might be similarities between his book and the despised Golden Legend of late medieval Roman Catholicism. He appears to have based his position on the conclusion that his methodology distinguished Acts and Monuments from Roman Catholic efforts. Having searched the registers, consulted witnesses, and so on, he felt he could contrast his “solid ecclesiastical history” with the “fabulous” content of the Golden Legend. In his preface Ad Doctum Lectorem he writes:

Golden legend! They call it so, without even waiting for the publication. Clearly they are ashamed of their own Golden Legend, with which they have mocked the world. They judge others by themselves. Are we to have no solid ecclesiastical history in these times? As to my book, I make known to all that I have taken pains to put nothing that is fabulous, or in any way like their golden (say rather leaden) legend. My story is compiled from the archives and registers of the bishops, and partly from the letters of the martyrs themselves. I say not that all is an oracle, but we have come as near as possible to the old law, to avoid the two pests of history, fear and flattery, saying too much or saying too little.¹¹

Clearly there is a methodological difference between the two works. There is also a stylistic difference, and the recounting of documents, registers, condemnations, and other material gives a very different flavor to Acts and Monuments from that which we find in most late medieval hagiography. However, Foxe's purposes in writing—to do people good, to inspire faith, to proclaim the triumph of a particular view of the truth, and to assert God's role in the sometimes troubling events of human life—placed him in close company with hagiographic writers in many generations. While it was important for Foxe, for a variety of theological, devotional, and political reasons, to establish a clear distance from Roman Catholic writings, differences in style and methodology detract only in part from the similarity of intent.

THE EVALUATIVE SCHEMA

When examining Acts and Monuments as hagiography, it is useful to rely on evaluative tools developed for the analysis of early church and medieval acta, especially in the works of Delehaye and Herbert Musurillo. The first stage of such an analysis is to modify the schema used for the medieval accounts to fit those of Foxe. We will then proceed to apply the evaluative model to the evidence from Acts and Monuments. In this evaluation, Delehaye's process and procedure are reversed and the accounts are approached from the opposite end of the study. This is done for a very good reason. Delehaye works with accounts that are openly hagiographical and seeks to determine what, if any, portion of the content can be said to be historically factual. I, on the other hand, proceed from the position that the general historical accuracy of Foxe's accounts has been established, but that in recounting these events, Foxe adopted the styles and methods of hagiographical accounts.

Delehaye offers a six-part schema for verifying legends of the saints. It is a list of categories in descending order of reliability. Musurillo augments this pattern without materially altering it, so the two are presented together as the basis for the pattern used to evaluate Foxe's martyrological accounts.

1. Official written reports of interrogations, which include accounts of:
   • A. Witty judges
   • B. Recorded retorts from bystanders
   • C. The martyr's expression of faith in some pattern of Acts 4:24
   • D. The martyr who urges the judge or executioner to do his duty
2. Reliable eyewitnesses or well-informed contemporaries working from:
   • A. Firsthand accounts in documents by witnesses
   • B. Evidence of others as recorded by a contemporary writer
   • C. A combination of 2.A and 2.B in a direct, living contemporary testimony without an intervening written source¹²
3. Emendations to documents in (1) or (2) above
4. Historical romances in the form of literary recollections, popular traditions or fictional situations
5. Imaginative romances in which the hero is invented
6. Forgeries¹³

As can be seen, the variety of sources available to authors compound the difficulty in classifying martyr stories. The martyr stories which Foxe provides tend to have few blatant hagiographical additions. Furthermore, because of the stories' relative chronological modernity and the fact that Foxe has been subjected to searching analysis as a historian (whether appropriate or not), we can be more confident in our use of the stories he presents.

The first common and easily identifiable hagiographic error in Foxe's accounts is his not separating a saint from his legend. In other words, the author is tempted to accept a narrative because it refers to a well-known figure. Foxe does some of that, although if there is conflicting material he is more inclined to record both accounts and leave a decision to his readers. A second failing is that he puts the trust appropriate for a saint into the written accounts. As Acts and Monuments passes through various editions, Foxe can be seen correcting and amending accounts which he may have trusted because of their subject.¹⁴ Another error is the tendency to classify something as being accurate historically simply because its topographical elements are accurate.¹⁵

As with all accounts of martyrdom, many of Foxe's stories have dramatic movement and an air of inevitability. They contain witty, worldly judges who do their best to weaken the resolve of the hero. While they are by no means entirely satisfactory evidence for the events and conditions of the time that they purport to portray, martyrological tales are valuable sources of what was important for their compilers to share. Musurillo notes: “The ultimate legal basis of the hearings was for the most part misunderstood by the compilers of the Christian documents.¹⁶ To the extent that this is true, what is revealed in the ancient and medieval acta is what the compilers thought was important and their portrayal of the crucial issues at hand. In the case of Foxe the issue is somewhat more subtle. For the persecuting bishops and their supporters the question was one of submission to a duly constituted authority with divine underpinnings. For the victims, however, the very nature of that authority was under question. Thus, one side accepted as a given what the other side contended was the subject of the disagreement. Hence the tediously regular appearance in Acts and Monuments that the judges and the judged are talking at cross-purposes.

With these general considerations in mind, we need to ask which parts of the Delehaye/Musurillo schema can be retained as useful for understanding Foxe, and which parts need to be rejected. Each category is examined in turn; suggestions are made for modifications and application of the schema to the Marian sections of Acts and Monuments.

OFFICIAL WRITTEN REPORTS OF INTERROGATIONS

For ancient acta, official written reports of interrogations rarely survive in a pure state; those which do are already in an edifying framework. Foxe frequently had both registers and transcripts from trials and burnings. In almost every case where he quotes from a register or transcript Foxe notes the fact, although in many cases the source is not directly specified.¹⁷

These transcripts need to be separated for our purposes since Foxe employs them in two different ways. First, there is the account of an educated reformer—a Ridley, Philpot, Rogers, or Bradford—who is able to argue points of scripture and trade quotations from canon law and the fathers with the judges. To the modern reader this material may become tedious because it deals with the finer points of doctrine and belief, not once but many times. However, for Foxe's intended audience, the purpose of the constant repetition may have been to anchor those doctrinal points firmly in the believer's mind. Thus, not only the reports of the disputations, but also tracts, such as those of Nicholas Ridley,¹⁸ and written conversations¹⁹ form a ready reference or commonplace book for the reader who can claim no theological sophistication yet can find there, in clear and eloquent terms, the scriptural and historical grounds for his or her faith. It may also be that a Tudor audience enjoyed the working out of theological and legal questions. What becomes apparent to the modern reader, however, is that the two parties are proceeding from entirely different assumptions and, therefore, stand little or no chance of converting one another. The presence of these disputes is for the reader's edification.

The second and larger group of transcripts present the stalwart, simple, scriptural faith of the unlettered believer in the face of the sophistication, blandishments, and threats of the persecutors. These are clearly offered by Foxe to heighten the contrast between those who have authority on their side and those who represent the truth. Foxe regularly accuses the authorities of being overly subtle, and these simple testimonies are blunt and unmistakable as to the speaker's intent. So Causton says to Stempe and Feckenhem, “Ye say that the Bishops lately burnt were heretics. I pray God make me such a heretic as they were”(6:730). Alice Austoo tells Bonner simply that the religion currently practiced in England is “false and corrupted” (8:419), while Anne Albright denounces her persecutors: “You priests are the children of perdition and can do no good by your confession” (7:751). Even more supportive of a “biblical” faith were comments such as: “Where can ye find any anointing or greasing in God's book?”²⁰ “I will bear nothing which is contrary to God's word,”²¹ or “I cannot find it in the Scriptures that priests should lift up over their head a cake of bread.”²² The basis of most comments in this category lay in the perceived opposition between the “clear word of scripture”²³ and what might be described as traditional, liturgical, or legal standards adopted by the Roman Catholic Church. These two groups of official documents are further divided in the Delehaye/Musurillo schema according to what they present to the reader:

WITTY JUDGES

Delehaye's term “witty” is not entirely appropriate for the picture of the judges as Foxe presents them and so we will be satisfied simply with the term “judges” under which Foxe presents a great deal of material. Another place where the comments of judges are recorded is at the actual burnings. In Delehaye's schema, however, there is no separate category for this material so we will examine it under the general category of “judges” as well.

The persecutors, whether lay or clerical, exhibit certain characteristics in Foxe's hands. In the first place, one is struck by the sheer amount of time even the hated Edmund Bonner spent arguing and cajoling and pleading with those brought before him. In some cases, such as that of Haukes, the bishop suggested that he attend evensong and read from an English psalter in order to give the outward appearance of conformity (7:101). In dealing with nineteen-year-old William Hunter, Bonner offered him either a position in his own house or the status of freeman of London and £40 to start life on (6:724). In yet another case, Cicely Ormes was given the possibility of outwardly conforming while keeping her beliefs to herself, but she declined (8:428). These cases are quite apart from the hours spent with people like John Philpot, John Bradford, and others, great and simple, in order to get them to change their views. Clearly Foxe was attempting to convey the cruelty of the bishops and their untrustworthiness, as he observes: “Having sufficiently taken his pleasure with Master Philpot in his private talks” (7:677), Bonner proceeded to pronounce sentence. Whenever an official takes time to reason at length with a prisoner, often over many sessions, Foxe takes it in the worst possible light. To someone who is not entirely convinced of the bishops' absolutely evil intentions, what becomes clear is their desire, in many cases, to save those brought before them.

Another place where the comments of judges are recorded is in the report of the actual burning. It is clear, even from official transcripts, that some persecutors truly enjoyed their work. These are less likely to be clerics (although some are included) as lay helpers such as Anthony Browne and Edward Tyrrel. To William Hunter, while he is at the stake, Browne snarls “Pray for thee? I will no more pray for thee than for a dog,” while Tyrrel, at the same burning, accuses Hunter of lying in his translation of Psalm 51 as he reads from the stake (6:728). However, clerics are not immune to such action, as John Story proves when he orders a faggot hurled at John Denley, who is singing psalms at the stake, and then comments, “Truly, thou hast marred a good old song” (7:734).

RECORDED RETORTS FROM BYSTANDERS

This is a smaller category in Foxe than in early church and medieval acta, but sufficient material is presented to justify retaining this category for evaluation. Foxe's general reports of people at burnings are not always to be taken at face value, but some accounts which he gives of public reaction to the courage and fervor of the martyrs are similar enough to reports from later recusant and early church martyrdoms to be ignored entirely. These comments, however, come later in the schema. There is remarkably little comment recorded from bystanders at the trials except as, in the case of George Marsh, they were urging the defendants to conform (7:52).

THE MARTYR'S EXPRESSION OF FAITH IN SOME PATTERN OF ACTS 4:24

The point here is the conviction on the part of the martyrs that all events are in the hands of God and they respond in like fashion. However, for the purposes of examining Foxe we may modify this section to include all expressions of faith and joy, not only at the time of condemnation, but, more importantly, at the time of death. Joy is often demonstrated by the victims. The six Colchester martyrs of August 2, 1557 (8:422), clap their hands for joy as the flames leap up around them. Elizabeth Folkes responds to her condemnation by William Chedsey by thanking God that she is worthy to suffer for Christ (8:389). One of the few clerics to go to the stake, after being degraded from the priesthood, is John Hullier, who thanks his captors, for “you have delivered and lightened me of all this paltry” (8:379), while Thomas Thirtel responds in a fashion typical of several martyrs when he tells Bonner, “My lord, if you make me a heretic, you make Christ and the apostles heretics” (8:313-314).

THE MARTYR WHO URGES THE JUDGE OR EXECUTIONER TO DO HIS DUTY

Again we are presented with a category for the medieval acta which applies to Acts and Monuments only after it is modified somewhat. Foxe's martyrs never seem to need to urge their captors to do their duty, but they do comment regularly on the way the executioner is performing. Their comments to the authorities are also recorded, and they are often noted as forgiving their executioners, whether or not that is desired. So Hunter offers Browne forgiveness, only to have it rejected: “I ask not forgiveness of you” (6:728). Some celebrate their condemnation. Hugh Lavercock said to John Appice: “Be of good comfort, my brother, for my lord of London is our good physician. He will heal us both shortly, thee of thy blindness and me of my lameness” (8:141). For his part, Appice throws out to Bonner, “And ye are not of the Catholic church; for ye make laws to kill men and make the queen your hangman” (8:141). More common is the defiance of Thomas Higbed, “Do what ye will, ye shall do no more than God will permit you” (6:735), while John Spicer actually sympathizes with the position the authorities are placed in: “O master sheriff, now you must be their butcher, that you may be guilty also with them of innocent blood before the Lord.”²⁴

Delehaye writes, “It may be objected that such authentic records do not belong in any category of hagiographical documents and strictly speaking we ought to disregard them.”²⁵ However, in much hagiography, and certainly in Foxe's works, the documents themselves rarely survive in a pure state. Often for details of events used in other histories of Tudor England, scholars have discovered that it is Foxe alone who preserves such material.

RELIABLE EYEWITNESSES OR WELL-INFORMED CONTEMPORARIES

FIRSTHAND ACCOUNTS IN DOCUMENTS BY WITNESSES

This category of the Delehaye/Musurillo schema applies to Acts and Monuments as Foxe, in several cases, preserves accounts by witnesses currently living and makes reference to having consulted with them between editions. Examples of such witnesses are found in the cases of Rawlins White, where the testimony comes from “John Dane, yet alive” (7:28), that of Joan Waste, where several living witnesses are named (8:247), as is a witness for William Tyms' case (8:106) and the situation of three women burned in Guernsey, which seem to cause Foxe particular difficulty as he makes special mention of sources, both English and French.²⁶

Other firsthand reports include accounts by relatives. William Hunter's brother provides the account of his ordeal (6:722-727), while the story of John Bland is found in letters to his father (7:287-306). Others are letters from John Fortune to friends (8:160-163), Robert Glover to his wife (7:384-402), Cuthbert Simson (8:454-460), and Haukes (6:704, 717). One particularly moving case is the letter of Clark, Chittendon, Foster, Potkins, and Archer, written while they were being starved in jail (8:254). Robert Gibson even goes so far as to offer articles against Bonner, based on what he takes to be the proper New Testament deportment of a bishop (8:436-443). These letters are often intermingled with other official accounts, such as registers, or word of mouth which has reached Foxe, and it is not always easy to tell where the dividing line occurs. Even more revealing at times is the material found in a diary or record that is miraculously preserved or smuggled out of prison, such as those of Stephen Gratwicke (8:315-320), Richard Woodman (7:332-376), George Marsh (7:39-48), and John Newman (7:328-343). In the case of Julins Palmer (8:201-219), we have part of the story from his own hand and part is reconstructed from evidence by witnesses to his second hearing. The credibility of such documents is difficult to gauge. It would be hard for individuals not to be self-serving and write down what they might have wanted to say, or ought to have said. How much editing has gone on by Foxe is virtually impossible to determine. For example, in the story of John Philpot, part of the account includes page after page of supposed trial transcript reported from memory (7:605-613), and in Rogers' “miraculously preserved” diary we have several instances of answers Rogers would have given had the opportunity been afforded him (6:591-612). Even more graphic examples are the accounts that are recorded as being written in the martyrs' own blood, such as those of Allerton (8:405) and Richard Rothe (8:304-310) but the content is similar to that just noted.

EVIDENCE OF OTHERS AS RECORDED BY A CONTEMPORARY WRITER

Unlike the writers of medieval or early church acta, Foxe is his own contemporary writer. In some places he gives special attention to his sources, but generally he simply gives the account; it is a frustrating, and ultimately futile in most cases, to try to discern whether the source is a letter he has received or a story he has been told or which might have some other origin. But Foxe does vary the information he chooses to tell, and so we can rename this category “the evidence of others as used by Foxe.” Sometimes the number of victims is emphasized, as in the thirteen burned together at Stratford-the-Bowe on June 27, 1556 (8:154-156). Sometimes it is the horror of the situation, as when Laurence Saunders was burned with green wood (6:628) or when, for lack of faggots, Bishop Ferrar was burned with turfs and sods in Wales (7:28). Chance occurrences might give very different circumstances, as when Ridley suffers horribly while Latimer's death is comparatively easy (7:480). Foxe makes much of such occurrences to laud the hero and vilify the persecutors.

FIRSTHAND ACCOUNTS AND CONTEMPORARY RECORDS WITHOUT INTERVENING WRITTEN SOURCE

Again we have a category which seems to clarify our understanding of Acts and Monuments. Especially for his later editions, Foxe was inundated with this sort of material. He received items such as letters and testimonials, often unsolicited, and he sent researchers hunting for eyewitness accounts and depositions. Much of the material which he received centered around the experiences and perceptions of witnesses to the executions. Evidence suggests that he quite painstakingly cross-referenced these offerings as far as he was able. This whole category is further subdivided as follows:

SCENES FROM IMPRISONMENT OR EXECUTION

SPECIAL CRUELTY

Foxe did not hesitate to share with his readers examples of the maltreatment of the victims by those with authority or power. What follows is a particularly vivid description of the cruelty of the times as Foxe relates the case of a poor painter imprisoned in the bishop's house in Colchester.

His wife, in the time of the suit, while he was yet at Fulham, being desirous to see her husband, and pressing to come in at the gate, being then great with child, the porter lifted up his foot and struck her on the body, that at length she died of the same; but the child was destroyed immediately.

(4:695)

Foxe offers no comment, leaving the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. Another example is when Perontine Massey, in the excruciating circumstances of burning, gives birth and the child is thrown back on the flames.²⁷ Foxe is generally ready to credit any cruelty to the papists. However, if Foxe is to be believed (and it would be to his advantage to exaggerate rather than to understate occasions of barbarity), strikingly little cruelty and torture was used beyond the generally inhumane conditions of confinement in a Tudor jail, which led to the deaths of many.²⁸ Thus incidents of wanton cruelty stand out, such as when Tyrrel attempts to “prove” Rose Allen by holding a candle under her wrist until “the very sinews cracked asunder,” but he does not achieve the desired result (8:328).

There were some, such as John Hooper (6:647-648), whose mistreatment in prison was so severe as to call for comment. Others encountered typical Tudor treatment reserved for criminals and vagrants. For example, Philpot was set in the stocks for a time (7:645), Cuthbert Simson was racked twice by the constable of London (8:455), Alice Driver had her ear cropped when she likened Mary to Jezebel (8:495), and Eagles was hung, beheaded, drawn, and quartered (8:395-396). Former preacher Robert Samuel was suspended from a pole for a time with only the tips of his toes touching the ground while deprived of food and water (7:734), and Flower had his right hand cut off before his execution (7:69). Hunter was held in “as many irons as his body could stand” and provided with only a half-penny a day for his needs (6:725). In a different category was the trick played on Alice Coberly when her jailer's wife heated a key red hot and tricked her into picking it up. The pain of that experience convinced her that she could not face burning (8:104). Some of the burnings were truly horrific, as when Saunders was burnt with green wood (6:628) and when damp and breeze kept Hooper alive in the flames for forty-five minutes, crying out, “For God's love good people, give me more fire.” (6:653) But on the whole there is no indication that the burnings were deliberately prolonged to make them more horrific. From the examples of cruelty at the executions which Foxe gives, we can conclude that such instances were incidental in the course of fulfilling other duties rather than being pursued as a matter of deliberate policy. This is the case when Ferrar was burned with sods for lack of wood (7:28).

Perhaps it should not surprise us, but Foxe portrays Bishop Bonner as the most active perpetrator of incidents of deliberate cruelty. His victims include former minister John Rough, who had some of his hair torn out by the bishop (8:445); Thomas Tomkins, who was first beaten by Bonner and then had his hand burned by the bishop in the presence of others who eventually intervened (6:719); and Thomas Whittle, who was beaten about the face by Bonner (7:719). Bonner seems to have had a particularly violent nature that embarrassed even his intimates. Foxe records John Feckenham saying to the rector of Hadham, after Bonner lost his temper and struck him for a trivial reason, “Bear with my lord; for truly his long imprisonment in the Marshalsea … hath altered him” (6:563).

SPECIAL PRAYER

Again it is the case that if Foxe presents any quantity of information about a martyr, it usually records the martyr praying at the stake. Alternatively, many of the letters which are noted in the martyr list can be read as prayers. In this connection, however, George Roper is singled out, both for his model prayer and his death (7:604), and Philpot's prayer at the stake is specifically commended to others (7:686). In a section entitled “A Prayer to be said at the Stake, of all them that God shall account worthy to suffer for his sake,” Philpot's prayer commences by setting his death in the context of those of Stephen and Paul. The prayer moves back and forth (for twenty lines or just under half the total length) from the immediate circumstances of the martyr, brought on by faithfulness to God's call, to the sustaining and forgiving power of the Divine. The prayer goes on to acknowledge that “though thy justice doth require … that thou shouldst not hear me,” because of the many sins of the martyr, yet there is confidence both in the mercy of God and the mediation of Christ. The martyr then gives thanks to God for choosing him as “a record-bearer of thy verity and truth” as taught by Christ. In the middle of the prayer Philpot seeks God's help in suffering and dying in such a way that he might “propagate and ratify thy verity, comfort the hearts of the heavy, confirm thy church in thy verity, [and] convert some that are to be converted.” From there he moves on to seek God's favor in finding an eternal rest free from the “terrors of death, the torments of fire, the pangs of sin, the darts of Satan and the dolours of hell.” Finally, the prayer commends to God's care the martyr himself, his family and friends, the “whole church,” and the realm of England.

All in all, the prayer forms a very able summary of Foxe's intent with Acts and Monuments. It emphasizes God's gracious involvement in all the events which come to the martyr and elevates the power of the Divine by elaborating at length on the martyr's sins. At its outset, the prayer places the martyr's suffering in the context of the sufferings and witness of many faithful people down through the centuries (as illustrated by the references to Paul and Stephen), but it also focuses honestly and directly on the current reality facing the martyr. In offering the prayer the victim underlines the hope for an edifying and useful death, not only for himself and those who support and agree with him, but also for those whom God has destined to be converted through the witness. Finally, as Acts and Monuments does, the prayer moves outward in ever growing circles from the martyr to his family to the church to the realm. Each death has not only immediate personal consequences, but is part of a greater whole in which God is acting for the good of the church and, ultimately, for the good of the realm.

THE MARTYR'S REMARKS UNDER TORTURE

This category will be modified to include observations about the victim's constancy in the face of affliction. In Foxe's day the hope of those executed for religion was that their death would be a good testimony to their beliefs; the fear was that a bad death might call into question all of a person's doctrine. Some of the comments to the captors have the sound of bravado rather than that of deep inner quiet, like that of thirty-year-old husbandman John Ardley, who says to Bonner: “If every hair on my head were a man, I would suffer death in the opinion that I am now in” (7:87). There were, however, more thoughtful expressions. Former bishop Ferrar is noted as having told a friend that “if he saw him once stir in the pains of his burning, he should then give no credit to his doctrine. And as he said, so right well performed the same; for so patiently he stood, that he never moved” (7:26). We may also note Haukes' constancy in clapping his stumps together in the flames to prove “a man could keep his mind quiet and patient” (7:114). Others used their last moments to give warnings to the people. “Ah good people, beware of this idolater and this Antichrist,” said William Hale concerning Bonner (7:370). William Hunter cried out his confidence to his father: “God be with you, good father; be of good comfort, for I hope we shall meet again, when we shall be merry” (6:724).

RETORTS OF THE CROWD

Crowds and spectators appear at many different points in Acts and Monuments, and they serve different functions in the narrative. Sometimes those commenting are family members as when we find husbands and wives encouraging one another. Children also prayed for parents and parents for children in these settings. In one of the rare instances where Foxe reports on relics, the crowd seizes the heart, scalp, and so on of John Hullier after his death (8:380).²⁹ The lamentation of the crowd is especially noted at Latimer's death (7:551), all the more so since he seems to have been a genuinely loved figure. At John Laurence's burning, little children appear in the story, crying out, “Lord, strengthen thy servant and keep thy promise” (6:740). A huge crowd of some twenty thousand supportive people attended the burning of nine men and two women at Smithfield on June 27, 1556 (8:156). Joyce Lewes, who was turned from the Roman Catholic Church by the burning of Laurence Saunders, was surrounded by well-wishers at her own death, with whom she drank a toast “to all them that unfeignedly love the gospel of Christ and wish for the abolishment of papistry” (8:405). Another case in which a crowd of thousands appears is that of William Mount and his company, who were burned on the afternoon of August 2, 1557, “with such triumph and joy that the people did no less shout to see it than they had in the morning” (8:392). When Taylor, former rector of Hadleigh, went to his death, his parishioners turned out to line the streets weeping, “Ah, good Lord! There goes our good shepherd from us who hath so faithfully taught us, so fatherly cared for us and so godly hath governed us. O merciful God! What shall we poor scattered lambs do?” (6:697).

FIRST-PERSON NARRATIVE TECHNIQUE

This is one of Delehaye's categories and is of special note in medieval acta. In the case of Foxe, however, it has been covered above under 2.A and 2.B; therefore we will eliminate it.

VISIONS AND MIRACLES

BY THE MARTYR

Here we enter into an area where Foxe clearly had some difficulty which we will need to analyze in conjunction with the evidence that is presented. Despite his obvious discomfort with the comparisons which might unite Acts and Monuments and the late medieval Golden Legend, Foxe was in the position of recounting a story in which God was fully active. Thus when he recounts events which appear either miraculous or visionary, he is careful to set them in the context of a proper cause. It is difficult to imagine how the apparently visionary and miraculous could be avoided, for Foxe is convinced of the immanent involvement of God in the events of the martyrs, teaching them what to say at their trials and keeping them true to their testimony with the hope of eternity. In fact, it is not too much to suggest that the very fact that a man or woman could retain any degree of composure under those circumstances is miraculous. Robert Smith, burned in 1555 comforted his friends with the assurance that his body would rise again:

And said he, I doubt not, but that God will show you some token thereof. At length he being well nigh half burnt, and all black with fire, clustered together as in a lump, like a black coal, all men thinking him for dead, suddenly he rose right up before the people, lifting the stumps of his arms, and clapping the same together, declaring a rejoicing heart unto them, and so dying down again, and hanging over the fire, slept in the Lord, and ended this mortal life.

(7:369)

Foxe has instances where people are credited with the gift of prophecy in foreseeing their own deaths. These include Bradford (7:147) as well as Hooper, who predicted his death to Bullinger at the accession of Edward VI: “I shall take most pains, there you shall hear of me to be burned to ashes” (6:638). Puritan theologies concerning the trustworthiness of dreams were still several years in the future, but Foxe is clearly torn over how to treat them. He records Cuthbert Simson's dreams with some reluctance, but attempts to distinguish them from the “prodigious visions and apparitions … which I will not admit to be true” in Roman Catholic “books and legends of saints” (8:454-460). However, the difference between the two is not readily apparent to the reader. Foxe also reports the vision of Thomas Read that persuaded Read not to recant or go to church because he could not join a company of angels because of his “spots” (8:380) and those visions of Robert Samuel, which Foxe himself interprets as forecasting Samuel's death with Potten and Trunchfield (7:373).

There are also “miraculous occurrences,” such as Hunter's calling forth the Sun from a dark sky with his prayer “Son of God, shine on me” (6:728), and the account of the burning of Milles, Cotton, Dynes, Wright, Slade, and Pikes in Brentford on July 14, 1558, at which a white cross appeared from the breast of one of them (8:479).

APPARITIONS OF THE MARTYR AFTER DEATH

It will surprise no one that, at least in the Marian portion of Acts and Monuments, the martyrs, once dead, are not seen again. That very common aspect of early church and medieval acta—the apparitions of the martyrs—is entirely missing from Foxe's text.

APOLOGETIC SPEECHES

These are so constant in Acts and Monuments that it would be their absence rather than their presence which would occasion comment. In almost every case where he has more information than simply a name and the record of a death, Foxe also has comments made by the martyr. These are, for the most part, not the lengthy disputations of a Cranmer or a Ridley, but the terse comments of simpler champions. However, they can be divided in a fashion which Delehaye would never have found in the medieval acta: assaults on the Roman Catholic Church and on its practices.

ASSERTIONS OF CORRUPTION IN CHURCH PRACTICES

The first group of speeches asserts that church practices are corrupt. Thus we find references to liturgy, doctrine, or government in general. In this category of comments we find several different sorts of observations. Again, the extent of such comments seems directly dependent upon the information which Foxe had available to him. For most of the simpler figures the conflict with the Roman Catholic Church centers on either a general rejection of that church or a specific point of doctrine or liturgy. Representative of the first group, we find Dirick Carver, who told his judges “your doctrine is poison and sorcery” (7:325), and Ambrose, who was one of many to defend his decision not to attend church because the word was not preached and sacraments were not rightly administered.³⁰ Alice Austoo is one who observed the change from the recent past by saying that the religion now in England was “false and corrupted” (8:418), while Elizabeth Folkes simply dismisses Roman doctrine as “trumpery” (8:389). One of the wittier responses comes from John Maundrel, who when asked about the images in church, declares that “wooden images were good to roast a shoulder of mutton on but evil in church” (8:104). A good summary of Protestant objections to Roman Catholic practices is given by Robert Streater, who responds to those trying him: “You do maintain heresy and idolatry in that ye teach to worship a false god in the sacrament, enclosed in a box. It is you that are the malignant church” (7:383).

The nature and practice of communion, and the way in which Christ was present, formed the focus of many trials beyond even those for which we have recorded interchanges. References to idol worship are so common as to be almost stock phrases. “The sacrament, as you use it, is an abominable idol,” George Catmer told his captors;³¹ “worm's meat; a patched monster and gisquised [sic] puppet,” Thomas Hudson called it (8:464). Another way of phrasing the objection was to attack the concept of a real physical presence: “If you can make your god shed blood or show any condition of a true, lively body, then I will believe you,”³² while Katherine Hut simply denounces it as “a dumb god, made with man's hands” (8:143). The mass, for many, was symbolic of the doctrines and liturgy they had learned to despise. “As for your holy bread, your holy water, and your mass, I do utterly defy them,” George Brodbridge told his judges (7:383). William Bongeor insisted to his captors that the bread was “worse” not better for having been consecrated (8:389). There were also complaints in relation to baptism and other sacraments. Anne Albright exclaims: “You priests are the children of perdition and can do no one any good by your confession,”³³ and William Allen was condemned for “not following the cross”—that is, not going in processions.³⁴

APOLOGETIC SPEECHES CONTAINING DIRECT REFERENCE TO ROME

This second category of apologetic speeches contain[s] direct, uncomplimentary references to Rome, such as calling the See of Rome the Antichrist.³⁵ In similar terms Robert Drakes denounces his judges, “I utterly defy your church of Rome, with all its works, even as I defy the devil and all his works.”³⁶ Rose Allen is a bit more creative: “His see is for crows and ravens such as you to swim in. By God's grace I shall not swim in that See” (8:391). Another significant discussion, whether or not Rome was part of the true catholic church, is summed up by weaver John Spencer, who calls Rome “The church malignant … no part of Christ's catholic church” (8:139).

COMMENTS ADDRESSED TO THE ROMAN CLERGY OR TO THE CROWD

A third category of apologetic addresses includes comments addressed to the Roman clergy or to the crowd about them. In the first group we find Bonner being called a “bloody butcher and a ravening wolf” by Allerton (8:414) and being told, “Yea, my lord, ye be a blood-sucker, and I would I had as much blood as is water in the sea for you to suck.”³⁷ After signing his confession, Henry Laurence wrote, “Ye are all of Antichrist and him ye fol.” (Foxe speculates that he meant to write “follow”; 7:341.) Bonner was told directly, “No, my lord, there is no truth cometh from your mouth, but all lies. Ye condemn men and will not hear the truth” (7:370), and Prest's wife told an artisan in a church, “Thou art accursed, and thy images” (8:501). At his death the crowd was warned by Allerton against these “blood-thirsty dogs” (8:405).

The following categories are important for Delehaye and Musurillo but are not concerns applicable to Acts and Monuments: “Antisemitism” appears in some of the theological disputes but not as a general concern. “Evidence of another hand in the written material” is not generally an issue since Foxe is normally his own author and editor. “Historical romances, imaginative romances, forgeries” is not a category; despite his critics' claims that all of Foxe is “imaginative romance,” his veracity in reporting events is generally acknowledged.

With the foregoing discussion in mind the evaluative schema as applied to Acts and Monuments can be summarized in the following fashion.

DELEHAYE/MUSURILLO MODEL FOR EVALUATING HAGIOGRAPHIC MATERIALS MODIFIED FOR FOXE'S ACTS AND MONUMENTS

1. Official written reports of interrogations
   • A. Judges
   • B. Recorded retorts from bystanders
   • C. The martyr's expression of faith or joy
   • D. The martyr's comments to the judge or executioner
2. Reliable eyewitnesses or well-informed contemporaries working from:
   • E. Firsthand accounts in documents by witnesses
   • F. The evidence of others as used by Foxe
   • G. A combination of the first two in a direct, living, contemporary testimony without an intervening written source
     • I. Scenes from imprisonment or execution:
       • a. Special cruelty
       • b. Special prayer
       • c. Martyr's remarks and constancy under torture
       • d. Retorts of the crowd
     • II. Visions and miracles of the martyr
     • III. Apologetic remarks:
       • a. Assertions of corruption in church practices
       • b. Apologetic speeches with direct references to Rome
       • c. Comments to the Roman clergy or to the crowd

From the foregoing it can be seen that Foxe's accounts fit well into the modified presentation of Delehaye's schema for hagiographical accounts, especially those of the first two categories, which he considers most trustworthy. Obviously, it is possible to write the story of Mary Tudor's reign from many perspectives and by concentrating on a variety of important areas. We see Foxe at work with economic, social, political, and ecclesiastical material, but we realize that none of those truly capture the primary focus for him. Fox works with the raw material of a persecution, which, while unusual in its scope and ferocity in English terms, was essentially limited in numbers, social class, and geography. It is Foxe's aim to convey the impression of a much wider scope encompassing large portions of the realm and population.

A hagiographer, any hagiographer, has a twofold purpose in mind. There may be other purposes, but these two are basic and common across all hagiography. The first is to bear witness to the truth as the author understands it. The second is to do some spiritual good in the life of the reader. When we grasp both sides of that aim we begin to understand Foxe's deeper intentions.

Hagiographic writings come in an almost endless variety of forms, some of which are so fantastic as to cause scholars to avoid the entire genre. But Delehaye demonstrates that the links between hagiography and history can be much closer than imagined. While saints' tales may have elements of historical truth to them, history can also be written in a style and for a purpose that can justly be labeled hagiographic. Foxe uses this style to convey his account of the Marian persecution.

By choosing to write in this fashion Foxe, I believe, consciously emulates a genre used throughout the history of the church and even within English Protestantism, especially by his friend and colleague John Bale. But whereas Bale had only written about a couple of well-known figures, Foxe is prepared to employ the method with hundreds of stories. So his readers received a work that combines theological disputation, ecclesiastical maneuvering, dynastic politics, interpersonal relationships, and a vast array of other material, all bound together by the common conviction that in these events of the great and simple folk of society the purposes and plans of God are being worked through. In so doing he provides us with characters who fit many of the categories of the most historically reliable of the acta. These models are more than simply good in themselves; they become exemplars which the reader is urged to emulate in every way possible, thus doing good for the realm and for the souls of the readers.

Notes

1. John Foxe, The Acts and Monuments of John Foxe: With a Life of the Martyrologist, and Vindication of the Work by George Townsend (London: Seeley, Burnside, and Seeley, 1843-1849), hereafter referred to as A & M. Unless otherwise noted, quotations are taken from the eight-volume edition edited by Stephen Reed Cattely (London: Seeley, 1853-68, 1870), which is based on Foxe's 1583 text.

2. Useful summaries of the scholarship are in J. F. Mozley, John Foxe and His Book (London: SPCK, 1940), and V. Norskov Olsen, John Foxe and the Elizabethan church (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973). A more critical evaluation of Foxe's methodology and viewpoint is in Philip Hughes, The English Reformation, 3 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1951-54), esp. vol. 2.

3. Edmond Frederic Le Blant, Les Actes des Martyrs, Supplement aux Acta sincera de dom Ruinart, par M. Edmond Le Blant … (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1882).

4. Adolf von Harnack, Militia Christi: The Christian Religion and the Military in the First Three Centuries, trans. D. M. Gracie (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963).

5. Hippolyte Delehaye, The Legends of the Saints: An Introduction to Hagiography, trans. V. M. Crawford (London: Longmans, Green, 1907).

6. Ibid., xviii. For example, should DaVinci's “Last Supper” be thought of as an archeological reconstruction or an effort to bring back the poignant feelings of that night?

7. Delehaye, Legends of the Saints, 4-10.

8. Delehaye, Legends of the Saints, 30.

9. Delehaye, Legends of the Saints, 3.

10. Hippolyte Delehaye, The Legends of the Saints, trans. D. Attwater (New York: Fordham University Press, 1962), 20.

11. A & M, lvi; cf. James Frederic Mozley, John Foxe and His Book (London: SPCK, 1940), 133; Helen C. White, Tudor Books of Saints and Martyrs (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1963), 136.

12. Category 2 could be subdivided in another way, i.e.:

    • I. Scenes from imprisonment or execution
      • A. Special cruelty
      • B. Special prayer
      • C. Martyr's remarks under torture
      • D Retorts from the crowd,
      • E. Use of first-person narrative technique
    • II. Visions and miracles:
      • A. Of the martyr
      • B. Apparitions of the martyr after death
    • III. Apologetic speeches
    • IV. Antisemitism

13. Delehaye, Legends of the Saints, 89-93; Herbert Musurillo, The Acts of the Christian Martyrs; Oxford Early Christian Texts (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1972). liii-liv.

14. See e.g. the case of Julins Palmer, A & M 8:219, in which Foxe can be seen working with the material between editions and finally concluding that, despite the documentary evidence, Thackman's oath is trustworthy. Foxe therefore leaves it to the reader to decide in the case.

15. Delehaye, Legends (1962), 175-177.

16. Musurillo, Acts of the Christian Martyrs, lv.

17. For examples of directly noting the transcription from a register, see A & M, 7:91, n.1,7, 306-18; 7:113, n. 2; 7:312-313; 7:328-345; 7:340-341; 7:381-382; 8:105-113; 8:130-131; 8:163-201; 8:242, 8:424-427.

18. A & M, 7:563-567, compares “gospel and romish” religion on several key points; A & M, 7:552-563, details the errors of Rome since it fell from “gospel purity” and applies Revelation 21 specifically to England.

19. Hugh Latimer's conferences with Ridley, a discussion with one Antonian, who represents Winchester, speaks of the mass, of what truly represents schism and disunity, the use of Latin, and how one could disobey the queen's religious laws and still avoid sedition; see A & M, 7:410-423.

20. A & M, 7:342, Thomas Fust to Bonner.

21. A & M, 7:105, Haukes to Bishop Bird.

22. A & M, 8:140, Lavercock to Bonner.

23. In this particular category the “clear word of scripture” was that which was perceived through a very literal rendering of the words of the Bible.

24. A & M, 8:104. Other examples in A & M: Anne Albright, 7:751; Rose Allen, 8:391; Ralph Allerton, 8:409, 411; Thomas Bowyer, 8:154-156; Thomas Brown, 7:746; Thomas Causton, 6:739; Thomas Drowry, 8:145; Thomas Fust, 7:342; Margaret Hide, 8:314; Margaret Meary, 8:451; Prest, 8:499; Laurence Saunders, 6:626; Robert Smith, 7:348; Agnes Stanley, 8:314; Richard Yoeman, 4:488. See also the case of Julins Palmer where we see Foxe working with different evidence in different editions.

25. Delehaye, Legends (1962), 89-90.

26. A & M, 8:235. In this case Foxe appends the appeal of Katherine Cawches' brother to Queen Elizabeth, 8:320.

27. A & M, 8:235. Cf. the case of Elizabeth Pepper, burned when she was eleven weeks' pregnant, 8:145ff.

28. Cf. the case of Archer and others, who were starved to death in jail and eventually buried in fields.

29. This leads one to wonder how much Protestant relic worship remains unreported. I am not aware of any systematic investigation of this idea, but it might be one that would repay further research and analysis.

30. A & M, 8:109. Cf. Prest, “thou art accursed and so are your images,” A & M, 8:501.

31. A & M, 7:383. Other references to the mass as an idol include A & M, 7:716, 328, 752; 8.110, 154, 493, 503.

32. Joan Horns to her bishop, A & M, 8:143.

33. A & M, 7:751. Thomas Fust said he could find “no anointing or greasing in God's book,” A & M, 7:342.

34. A & M, 7:381. Similarly, John Alcock, A & M, 8:489-490.

35. Thomas Bowyer, A & M, 8:154.

36. A & M, 8:112. Cf. Yoeman, Taylor's replacement at Hadleigh, A & M, 8:489.

37. Thomas Brown, A & M, 7:746.