² Pollard, p. 32, col. a. Pollard gives Watson’s dates as 1513–1584. J. H. Smith, p. 17, n. 25, argues that Watson was born in 1515. To the biographical material in these two works, add that in Bridgett-Knox, pp. 120–207. This essay is aiso contained in Bridgett, T. E., ed., Sermons on the Sacraments. By Thomas Watson (London, 1876), pp. viii–xii & xix–lxxix.Google Scholar

³ From a letter to John Bradford, in Bradford, Writings, Townsend, A., ed.. Parker Society, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1848), vol. 2, p. 207 Google Scholar, quoted in Bridgett-Knox, p. 150, n. 1.

⁴ Crowley, Robert, A setting open of the subtyle sophistrie of Thomas Watson… which he used in hys two sermons… upon the reali presence (London, 1569), quoted in Bridgett-Knox, p. 149.Google Scholar Strype, John, Ecclesiastical Memorials, vol. IV (London, 1816 Google Scholar; orig. pub. London, 1721), p. 117, remarks: ‘His [Watson’s] two sermons he printed soon afterwards, which remaining unanswered fifteen years, the papists built much upon, as thinking them not answerable by those of the contrary persuasion. And such an opinion had they of the profound learning of this doctor, that whatsoever was known of his doing, was thought to be so learnedly done, that none could be found among the protestants able to answer any part thereof.’ On pp. 117f., Strype comments on Crowley’s reply.

⁵ Ridley, Jaspar, Thomas Cranmer (Oxford, 1962). p. 76 Google Scholar, n. 1, remarks that Watson contributed, along with other St. John’s theologians, to the Life of Fisher in 1577. Ridley refers to the preface to the Life by van Ortroy, F., S.J., in Analecta Bollandiana 10 (1891), 121–365 Google Scholar & 12 (1893), 97–281.

⁶ The circle also included William Cecil and many others who were to influence the Elizabethan settlement of 1559. See Hudson, W. S., The Cambridge Connection and the Elizabethan Settlement of 1559 (Durham, N.C.. 1980), pp. 3–8 Google Scholar & passim.

⁷ Roger Ascham, The Schoolmaster, Ryan, L. V., ed., Folger Shakespeare Library (Ithaca, 1967), p. 139 Google Scholar.

⁸ Preserved by Ascham, op. cit., p. 62; quoted by J. H. Smith, p. 21. Smith also reproduces another poem of Watson’s on p. 271. A book entitled Certayne Experiments and Medicines is also attributed to Watson (Pollard, p. 34, col. a).

⁹ The opinion of J. H. Smith, p. 81.

¹⁰ I have consulted the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, the Lexicon für Theologie und Kirche, and the New Catholic Encyclopedia.

¹¹ Clark, Francis,S.J., Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Reformation, 2d ed. (Chulmleigh, Devon, 1981)Google Scholar. Watson is mentioned in Stone, Darwell, The Holy Communion (London, 1904), p. 113.Google Scholar

¹² The sources for Watson’s eucharistic doctrine are these. (I have drawn these references from the secondary literature and verified them where I could.) [1] Gardiner’s, Stephen Confutatio cavillationum (Paris, 1552)Google Scholar, which Watson helped Gardiner to compile in 1551 (Pollard, p. 32, col. a). [2] Reports of a debate held at Sir Richard Morison’s house in 1551, found in Corpus Christi College (Cantab.) MS 102, p. 259, and in Strype, John, Life of Sir John Cheke (London, 1705), pp. 77–86 Google Scholar (Pollard, loc. cit.). [3] Convocation debate of 1553, reported in Harieian MS 422, ff. 38ff., which is transcribed in Dixon, R. W., History of the Church of England from the Abolition of Roman Jurisdiction, vol. 4 (London, 1903), pp. 81–85 Google Scholar, with which compare John Philpot, The Examination and Writings, Eden, R., ed., Parker Society (Cambridge, 1842), p. 168 Google Scholar, and Foxe, John, Acts and Monuments, vol. 6 (New York, 1965 Google Scholar, repr. of 1843–1849 London ed.; orig. pub. London, 1563), pp. 395–411 (Pollard, p. 32, col. b). [4] A report of one of his sermons in Harleian MS 353, f. 141, quoted in Bridgett-Knox, pp. 143f., and cited along with four other brief reports of the same sermon in Pollard, p. 32, col. a. [5] Watson’s first published book, Twoo notable sermons… concerninge the reali presence of Christes body and bloode in the Blessed Sacramente (London, 1554), with which one may consult the annotations of Nicholas Ridley, Works, Christmas, H., ed., Parker Society (Cambridge, 1841), pp. 538–540 Google Scholar, the reply by Robert Crowley (above, n. 4), and John Strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials (above, n. 4), vol. IV, pp. 117–125 (Pollard, p. 32, col. b; Bridgett-Knox, p. 149f.) [6] Oxford disputations with Cranmer, et al., in 1554, reported in Foxe, op. cit., vol. 6, pp. 439–520 (Pollard, loc. cit.) [7] Watson’s second book, Holsome and Catholyke doctryne concerninge the Seven Sacraments of Chrystes Churche (London, 1558), a modern edition of which has been edited by T. E. Bridgett (above, n. 2). This book was part of a projected series of homilies ordered by Convocation in 1558 to replace the Protestant Book of Homilies of 1547 (Bridgett-Knox, pp. 153f.; Pollard, loc. cit.) [8] The translation with which this paper is concerned, which will presently be shown to be by Watson.

¹³ A Catalogue of the Manuscripts preserved in the Library of the University of Cambridge, vol. 3 (Munich, repr. 1980; orig. pub. Cambridge, 1858;), p. 551.

¹⁴ Letter from A. E. B. Owen, Keeper of the Manuscripts, Cambridge University Library, now retired, dated 3 January 1990. See too the note in the back cover of the first volume, where the original spine has also been pasted in. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Owen and his staff for their kindness to me when I visited their reading room briefly in February, 1990.

¹⁵ Miss J. S. Ringrose, Under-Librarian in the Department of Manuscripts, Cambridge University Library, has kindly examined the watermark on these leaves for me and informs me by letter dated 5 November 1991 that it has ‘the letters P O on a band around [a] jug, and is in nearly all respects the same as Briquet no. 12802, except that the crown on top of the jug is surmounted by a trefoil, not a quatrefoil.. See Briquet, C. M., Les filigranes, Dictionnaire historique des marques du papier dès leur apparition vers 1282 jusqu’en 1600, A. Stevenson, ed., vol. 4 (Amsterdam, 1968)Google Scholar, no. 12802. This is a common Norman pot watermark, Norman manufacturers having been the principal suppliers of paper to the English throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. See A. Stevenson, in Briquet, vol. 1, pp. *34–*36. See also below, n. 49.

¹⁶ Cambridge University Library Catalogue (above, n. 13), vol. 3, pp. 553f.

¹⁷ One hesitates to contradict the opinion expressed in the Catalogue. However, the hand has all the characteristics of secretary, as described by Hector, L. C., The Handwriting of English Documents, 2nd ed. (London, 1966), p. 61 Google Scholar, and Denhoim-Young, N., Handwriting in England and Wales (Cardiff, 1964), pp. 71fGoogle Scholar.; closely resembles the hands in Hector’s plates XIX(b) and XX(a), which reproduce letters of 1586 and 1589 respectively, and has no italic forms intermixed. That italic is used as a separate form on the title page reflects a common practice after 1550 (Hector, p. 62f.; Denholm-Young, p. 75). That the hand is not Watson’s can be confirmed by comparison of this hand with the documents in Watson’s hand reproduced in J. H. Smith, following p. 22.

¹⁸ Of the various works in this manuscript, I have had the opportunity to examine only the translation ascribed to Watson. Nevertheless, I believe I have been able to contribute somewhat to the description of the contents. Unattributed quotations in the following list are from the Catalogue.

¹⁹ A. H. Bullen, DNB, vol. 14, pp. 140–144; Sir Henry Spelman, ‘The Occasion of this Discourse’ (1627–28), the preface to his The Original of the Four Terms of the Year (1614), quoted by Wright, ‘Antiquaries’, pp. 180 & 182.

²⁰ S. L. Lee, DNB, vol. 2, p. 327, col. a.

²¹ Ibidem, col. b. The Catalogue says that these letters are printed in the Cabala, by which is meant the Scrinia Sacra: Secrets of Empire, in Letters of Illustrious Persons. A Supplement of the Cabala (London, 1654), pp. 31–35. They are also found in Spedding, James, ed., The Letters and the Life of Francis Bacon (London, 1890), pp. 197–201 Google Scholar, where it is shown that the correspondence was written by Francis Bacon, at that time still a client of Essex.

²² Miss Porter, DNB, vol. 41, p. 220.

²³ Compare the incipits and explicits of these two translations as given in the Catalogue with the texts of these two parables in Leclercq, J., O.S.B., and Rocháis, H., eds.. Sancti Bernardi opera, vol. 6, pt. 2 (Rome, 1972), pp. 282–285 & 267–273.Google Scholar

²⁴ G. J. Gray, DNB, vol. 27, pp. 56f. The De regimine principům is printed in Hoccleve’s Works, III, The Regement of Princes, F. J. Furnivall, ed., Early English Text Society (London, 1897).

²⁵ Considering the fact that the other two documents in this section concern Sir Philip Sidney, it is interesting to note that Sidney also played some part in the negotiations with the Scots, particularly in 1585. See Howell, R., Sir Philip Sidney, The Shepherd Knight (Boston, 1968), pp. 104–107.Google Scholar

²⁶ This copy of Sidney’s letter is noticed in The Prose Works of Sir Philip Sidney, Albert Feuillerat, ed., vol. 3 (Cambridge, repr. 1963; orig. pub., 1912), p. 326.

²⁷ See Alexander Gordon, DNB, vol. 12, p. 253, and Trevor-Roper, Hugh, Catholics, Anglicans, and Puritans, Seventeenth Century Essays (London, 1987), p. 45.Google Scholar

²⁸ See Thompson Cooper, DNB, vol. 14, esp. p. 272.

²⁹ J. K. Laughton, DNB, vol. 28, pp. 1–6.

³⁰ There may indeed have been some measure of accident involved in the selection of the contents of the manuscript. Cf. Wright, ‘Antiquaries’, pp. 204–206, for a discussion of Sir Robert Cotton’s binding practices.

³¹ Van Norden, Linda, ‘Sir Henry Spelman on the Chronology of the Elizabethan College of Antiquaries’, Huntington Library Quarterly 13 (1949–50), p. 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³² The dates of the College of Antiquaries are much vexed. Miss Van Norden argues that the College was established 1584–1586, flourished until 1606–1608, at which time it was ‘discontinued’, with the one attempt to revive it in 1614 (art. cit., p. 159 and passim). Her conclusions are accepted by Wright, ‘Antiquaries’, pp. 181f., whose own further specification of Miss Van Norden’s dating I report in the text above.

³³ Spelman, ‘The Occasion’, in Wright, ‘Antiquaries’, p. 180.

³⁴ Wright, ‘Antiquaries’, p. 186.

³⁵ On the documentation of their papers and on the use of one another’s libraries, Wright, ‘Antiquaries’, pp. 187–189.

³⁶ Wright, ‘Antiquaries’, pp. 19Af.; pp. 193–198 for the contents of Cotton’s library.

³⁷ In 1604 we find Lancelot Andrewes seeking membership, Wright, ‘Antiquaries’, p. 186. The greatest antiquary of the period, James Ussher, was not a member, though he was a ‘frequent correspondent’ of Cotton’s, Wright, ‘antiquaries’, p. 202. Nor, it seems, was William Crashawe, father of the poet Richard and avid book collector, who knew both Cotton and Ussher and also Camden (Fisher, p. 120).

³⁸ Oates, J. C. T., Cambridge University Library, A History, From the Beginnings to the Copyright Act of Queen Anne (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 306–309 & 314–327Google Scholar.

³⁹ Loe. cit. & pp. 343–348, where Oates discusses the provenance of the manuscripts in Holdsworth’s collection. On Holdsworth’s life, see Lionel Cust, DNB, vol. 27, p. 125.

⁴⁰ Oates, op. cit., pp. 343 & 334. Holdsworth also owned some printed volumes from the library of another great book collector, John Dee, mentioned above, but I have found no manuscript in Dee’s manuscript catalogue which remotely resembles MS Kk 1.3. See The Private Diary of Dr. John Dee and the Catalogue of his Library of Manuscripts, Halliwell, J. O., ed., Camden Society (London, 1842)Google Scholar and M. R. James, Lists of Manuscripts formerly owned by Dr. John Dee with Preface and Identifications, Supplement to the Bibliographical Society’s Transactions No. 1 (Oxford, 1921).

⁴¹ Fisher, p. 123.

⁴² Fisher, p. 124.

⁴³ Fisher, p. 121, n. 52. Both Crashawe and Holdsworth ‘performed parochial duties during the plague’ in London in 1626.

⁴⁴ Fisher, pp. 117f. & 121–123. See also Wallis, P. J., ‘The Library of William Crashawe’, Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society 2 (1956), pp. 222–225.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Bridgett-Knox, p. 163. The reference given is Council Register, vol. 1, A 1558–1559. Mary, Elizabeth, p. 263.

⁴⁶ Bridgett-Knox, p. 183f. The reference given is P.R.O., Dom. Eliz., vol. 11, n. 16.

⁴⁷ The Knyvett Letters (1620–1644), ed. Bertram Schofield (London, 1949), p. 17.

⁴⁸ Quoted by Wright, , ‘Dispersal’, p. 158 Google Scholar & n. 26.

⁴⁹ See Mary Pollard Brown, ‘Paperchase: The Dissemination of Catholic Texts in Elizabethan England’, in English Manuscript Studies, 1100–1700, vol. 1, P. Beal & J. Griffiths, eds. (Oxford, 1989), p. 128, who notices that our Sir Thomas’ son, Thomas, was the recipient of a New Year’s gift of a manuscript of Catholic devotional works from the recusant scrivener Peter Mowle. [There is also record of a Katherine Knivett, wife of Thomas Knivett, esq., of East Harling, Norfolk, who was guilty of three months’ recusancy in 1587. See Dom Hugh Bowler, O.S.B., Recusants in the ExchequerPipe Rolls 1581–1592, T. J. McCann, ed. (C.R.S., 1986), p. 104.1 cannot fit this lady into the family tree of the Ashwellthorpe Knyvetts as given in Schofield, op. cit., pp. 52f., but her husband may have been a cousin in some degree. Magee, Brian, The English Recusants, A Study of the Post-Reformation Catholic Survival and the Operation of the Recusancy Laws (London, 1938), p. 143 Google Scholar, also records a Sir Philip Knevett of Norfolk amongst the recusant knights and baronets for the years 1624–1654. This gentleman may also have been a cousin.] Professor Brown shows that Peter Mowle copied Catholic works for a number of recusant families of East Anglia (art. cit., pp. 125–129). She also shows that the paper Mowle used in his ‘Commonplace Book’, really his copy-text book (p. 128), bears the same watermark, Briquet no. 12793 (p. 129; cf. above, n. 15), a Norman pot mark, as the paper used in a number of other works connected with the East Anglian recusant network which had its headquarters in the Spitalfields property belonging to the Countess of Arundel. The existence of such a network of Catholic laity eager for suitable devotional works, whether in manuscript or from the press, suggests both a motive for Dr. Watson’s translation—why, after all, would he have made the translation for his own use?—and a means for its dissemination beyond the places of his confinement.

⁵⁰ Miss Bradley, DNB, vol. 18, p. 285. One should supplement this essay with the sketch of Feckenham’s life by David Knowles, Dom, Saints and Scholars, Twenty-five Medieval Portraits (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 192–202 Google Scholar. [This sketch was adapted from Knowles’s The Religious Orders of England, vol. 3 (Cambridge, 1959), pp. 428–437.] Knowles gives a sympathetic account of the gradual hardening of theological positions which took place in Feckenham’s generation (pp. 199–201), which should be consulted in trying to understand Watson’s gradual change from ‘Henrician’ to papalist.

⁵¹ Bridgett-Knox, pp. 174f. & 183.

⁵² Ascham, op. cit., p. 139.

⁵³ Bridgett-Knox, p. 180, quoting P.R.O, Dom. Eitz., vol. 114, n. 69. See also McGrath, Patrick, Papists and Puritans under Elizabeth I (London, 1967), pp. 109f.Google Scholar, whose view is that until the late 1570’s, when the Douay priests began to enter England, the government was confident in its relations to Roman Catholicism and thus relatively mild to the recusants.

⁵⁴ Bridgett-Knox, p. 198, quoting P.R.O., Dom. Eliz., vol. 143, n. 17. McGrath, op. cit., p. 277, states that while treatment of the Wisbech prisoners was originally severe, it was relaxed over the years, to the extent that ‘the prisoners enjoyed a good deal of freedom and considerable contact with people outside.’

⁵⁵ For this reason I cannot agree with the editor of Absalom, who, because of the connection of the Absalom manuscript (Stowe MS 957) with Penshurst Place, the Sidney estate in Kent, conjectures that the manuscript, which is a holograph (J. H. Smith, pp. 3 & 12), was acquired by John Bale in his travels between 1548 and 1551, was taken to Ireland and abandoned there by Bale, and was subsequently acquired there by Sir Henry Sidney (pp. 10f.) It seems much simpler to assume that the manuscript passed directly from Watson in his last years of imprisonment to some connection of the Sidney family, who then passed it along to a member of the family, perhaps Sir Philip himself. Christopher Blount (1565?–1601), for example, third husband of Lettice Knollys (1540–1634), whose first husband was Walter Devereux, earl of Essex, to whom she bore Robert Devereux, earl of Essex, (with whom Blount was later executed), and whose second husband was Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester, was a Catholic convert. Perhaps he had dealings with the prisoners at Wisbech. (We have already noticed that MS Kk 1.3 contains papers associated with Essex, Leicester, and Sidney.) If Blount, as is probable, was the son of James, sixth baron Mountjoy, it is interesting to notice that his great-grandfather William was a pupil of Erasmus, his grandfather Charles a friend of Roger Ascham, his father James and brother William alchemists, and his brother Charles, lover of Sir Philip Sidney’s ‘Stella’, who was the sister of Robert, earl of Essex. On Sir Christopher Blount and Lettice Knollys, see S. L. Lee, DNB, vol. 5, pp. 245f.; on William Blount (d. 1534), idem, ibidem, pp. 259f.; on Charles Blount (d. 1545), idem, ibidem, pp. 239f.; on James Blount (d. 1581), idem, ibidem, p. 240; on William Blount (d. 1594), idem, ibidem, p. 240, and on Charles Blount (1563–1606), idem, ibidem, pp. 240–243.

⁵⁶ Cf. n. 49 above.

⁵⁷ If it was restrained, then it is just conceivable that some official of the church or of the government with antiquarian interests, perhaps Lord Burghley himself, might have taken it. On Burghley’s book collecting, see Wright, ‘Dispersal’, p. 170. It is interesting to note that Lancelot Andrewes, whom we have already noticed in connection with the College of Antiquaries, was suggested to Burghley as one who might debate with Watson and the other recusants at Wisbech (Bridgett-Knox, p. 202).

⁵⁸ That Watson was still remembered with interest at the turn of the century is evidenced by the tempest which blew up in print between 1600 and 1603 over the assertion that he had been afraid to exercise jurisdiction over his fellow prisoners (Bridgett-Knox, p. 203). On the apocalyptic view of their own times which animated the Eliabethan antiquaries Trevor-Roper’s essay on James Ussher is instructive (op. eit., pp. 124—133). One can see this spirit already in John Bale, one of the earliest collectors of the books dispersed from the monasteries, himself a conduit by which German chiliasm flowed into England (Trevor-Roper, op. cit., p. 127), who wrote, ‘And as concernynge bookes of antiquitie, not printed… [s]ome I found in stacyoners and bokebyndeers store howses, some in grosers, sope sellers, taylers, and other occupyers shoppes, some in shyppes ready to be carryed over the sea into Flaunders to be solde—for in those uncircumspecte and careless dayes, there was no quiyckar merchaundyce than iybrary bookes, and all to destructyon of learnynge and knowledge of thynges necessary in thys fall of antichriste to be knowne—but the devili is a knave, they saye…’ (Wright, ‘Dispersal’, pp. 153f.)

⁵⁹ Fell, John and Pearson, John, eds., Sanai Caecilii Cypriani opera (Oxford, 1682)Google Scholar, Praefatio, p. 2. On Arnold’s life, see R. U. Smith, pp. 35–92, and idem, ‘Arnold of Bonneval, Bernard of Clairvaux, and Bernard’s epistle 310’, Analecta Cisterciensia 49 (1993), 273–318. On certain problems associated with the text of the De cena domini, idem, ‘The Eucharistic Meditations of Arnold of Bonneval, A Reassessment’, Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale (forthcoming).

⁶⁰ A critical text of this work can be found in R. U. Smith, pp. 189–389. The text can also be found in PL 189. 1609–1678.

⁶¹ See R. U. Smith, pp. 15–18.

⁶² R. U. Smith, pp. 18f.

⁶³ Thomas Cranmer had Erasmus’s 1525 Basle edition in his library (The Works of Thomas Cranmer, G. G. Duffield, ed., Courtenay Reformation Classics 2 [Appleford, Berks., 1964], p. 348). The only edition of Cyprian containing Arnold’s work other than Erasmus’s at that time available was the Rembolt and Waterioes edition of 1512. Though Watson may have known the latter, it seems highly unlikely that he should not have known Erasmus’s edition, since it was the most current, and since Watson was educated in a college, and lived among a circle, where the influence of Erasmus must have been even more deeply felt than amongst the generality of humanist scholars. (See J. Huizinga, Erasmus and the Age of Reformation, F. Hopman, tr. (New York, repr. 1957; trans, orig. pub., 1924), pp. 109–116, for an assessment of Erasmus’s mind and its influence.) John Fisher, who virtually established St. John’s, to whose biography Watson was a contributor, drew Erasmus to Cambridge to teach in the second decade of the sixteenth century (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed., F. L. Cross & E. A. Livingstone, edd. (Oxford, 1978), s.n. ‘Erasmus’; cf. Huizinga, op. cit., pp. 79–86).

⁶⁴ Erasmus’s words are: ‘Praeterea nec habebatur in exemplaribus manu descriptis, quibus usus sum, et in aeditione Badiana [sic. sed “Remboltiana” scribenda erat; v. R. U. Smith, p. 19] separatum habebatur a reliquo uolumine, Vita Cypriani interiecta, in prioribus aeditionibus omnino non habebatur, sed tamen habenda gratia iis qui causa fuerunt, ut haec nobis supersint, idque debemus nomini Cyprianico. quod huius commendatione semata sint, fortassis alioqui peritura.” Petit’s exemplar for the De cardinalihus Christi operibus was a manuscript now lost. See R. U. Smith, pp. 17f. For my text I used the following manuscripts: Bibliothèque Nationale ms. lat. 2946; Montpellier Fac. de Méd. ms. 400; Troyes Bibliothèque Municipale ms. 509; Corpus Christi College (Oxon.) MS 210; Bodleian MS Bodi. 197; Bodleian MS Laud Misc. 371, and All Souls College MS 19.1 have since seen references to manuscripts at Heiligenkreuz and Zwettl. There is also a renaissance manuscript, Malines cod. 45, which was copied from Erasmus’s edition.

⁶⁵ Philip Melanchthon included a passage from the De cena domini (PL 189.1643D–1644A) in his Sententiae veterum aliquot scriptorum de coena Domini (1530) with this title: ‘Cyprianus in sermone de Coena Domini, si tamen non fallit titulus, sed cuiuscunque est autoris opus. apparet non esse recens scriptum’ (Corpus Reformatorum, K. G. Bretschneider and H. E. Bindseil, eds., vol. 23 (Brunswick, 1855), col. 742). He seems here to take much the same position as Erasmus, that though perhaps spurious, the text was ancient and useful. Melanchthon’s fiorilegium was his second publication in the course of a eucharistic controversy with Oecolampadius which had begun in 1529. In that year, he had published his Epistola Philippi Melanchthonis ad Iohannem Oecolampadium de coena domini (noticed in Corpus Reformatorum, vol. 23, coll. 729–730; the lettercan be found in vol. 1, coll. 1048–1050). It is to the second of these publications (1530) that Stephen Gardiner refers in his An explication of the true Catholique fayth, touehyng the moost blessed Sacrament of the aulter (1551), where he notices to Thomas Cranmer that Melanchthon accepts Cyprian’s authority in the De cena domini (ff. 6^r & 55^v–56^r). Oecolampadius’s reply to Melanchthon, his Diallogus de eueharistia, was also produced in 1530 (noticed in Corpus Reformatorum, vol. 2.3, coll. 731–732). In 1527 John Fisher, bishop of Rochester, had already, though with some slight reservation, defended Cyprian’s authorship of this work against Oecolampadius. See his De veritate corporis et sanguinis Christi in eueharistia … adversus lohannem Oecolampadium 5.21 (in Opera, Würtzburg, 1597, col. 1184f.): ‘Cypriani quinetiam sermones de cardinalibus operibus Christi, si sustuieris è medio, nihil tibi conferei. Nam idem in aliis suis operibus, sententiam ecclesiae comprobat apertissime. Caeterum si variet phrasis in concionibus ad populum habitis, non ob id continuo pronunciandum est eas conciones non fuisse ab eo scriptas. Neque enim dubito, quin Arnobiana phrasis alia fuerit. quam qua super psalmos vtitur: alius enim ad piebem, alius ad eruditos habendus est sermo.’ The work in which Oecolampadius had rejected Cyprian’s authorship was his De his verbis Domini, hoc est corpus meum, expositio (Fisher, Opera, ed. cit., col. 753). Reference is apparently made to this work of Fisher in Bodleian MS Laud Misc. 371, in which Arnold is called Arnulph, on fol. 15^r, in a scholium in a sixteenth-century hand, which states that Fisher and Oecolampadius debated whether the De cardinalibus Christi operibus was by Cyprian or by a certain Arnobius, the scholiast seeming to take Fisher’s last sentence quoted above as indication that Oecolampadius attributed the work to an Arnobius. (I am grateful to Dr. B. C. Barker-Benfield and Dr. Martin Kauffmann, both of the Bodleian Library, for their help in reading this scribbled note. Dr. Barker-Benfield also suggested that the ‘Roffensis’ of the note was Fisher. The note can be found transcribed in R. U. Smith, pp. 12f.) The scholiast concludes eirenically, ‘Sed hie apparet huius esse Arnulphi qui tamen (ut est probabile) multo maximam partem opens mutuatus est ex Cypriano.’ Both Cranmer and Gardiner used the De cena domini. See especially Writings and Disputations of Thomas Cranmer… relative to the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, Parker Society (Cambridge, 1844), pp. 27, 106, 208, 209, 308–311, 340, and in the appendix, pp. 30, 37, 79, 80. Watson and other Catholic preachers of his generation also used it (see Section iv below). Richard Hooker in the next generation used it extensively in his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity 5.56.8–9 and 67.11 & 12. (I am grateful to the Rev’d Professor John E. Booty, who first set me the problem of Hooker’s use of Arnold in a reading course on Hooker at the Episcopal Divinity School in 1981.)

⁶⁶ J. H. Smith, p. 27.

⁶⁷ Besides the passages which follow in the text above, compare: [1] MS. Kk 1.3(9), ff. 33^v–34^r with HCD, f. iv^v (PL 189.1643A); [2] MS. Kk 1.3(9), f. 34^r with TNS, quire B.iiii^v–v^f (PL 189.1643B); [3] MS. Kk 1.3(9), f. 34^v with HCD, f. 1^v–11^r (PL 189.1643D); [4] MS. Kk 1.3(9), f. 35^r with HCD, f. xl^r (PL 189.1644B–C); [5] MS. Kk 1.3(9), f. 35^v with TNS, quire K.ii^r–iii^r and HCD f. xli^r (PL 189.1644C–D); [6] MS. Kk 1.3(9), f. 36^v with HCD, f. Ii^r (PL 189.1645C); [7] MS. Kk 1.3(9), ff. 37^v–38^r with HCD, f. xliiii^v (PL 189.1646C); [8] MS. Kk 1.3(9), f. 38^r with TNS, last quire, f. i^r(PL 189.1646D–1647A), and [9] MS. Kk 1.3(9), f. 38^v with TNS, quire F.v^r and HCD, f. xlvi^v (PL 189.1647A–B).

⁶⁸ The translations in TNS always follow a quotation of the passage in the original language, which suggests that in these sermons Watson worked directly from the Latin and not from a previously existing translation.

⁶⁹ Bonner, Edmund, The exposition of the Sacrament of the Altar, in A profitable and necessarie doctryne, with certayne homelies adioyned therevnto (London, 1555)Google Scholar, quire X.iii^v–iiii^r. Only a small section from a longer passage is given in the text above. Bonner’s whole passage is worth comparing with MS Kk 1.3(9) (see paragraph 3, lines 9–21 of the text below), since it shows how differently two contemporaries could turn a text. ‘The sacramentes in tymes past from the tyme of Melchisedech, prefigured do come forth. And the most high preist vnto the chyldren of Abraham doyng his workes doth brynge forth breade and wyne. Thys is sayth Chryst my body: they dyd eate, and they dyd drynke of the same breade and of the same cupe, after the visible forme: but before these wordes, that common foode or meate was apt or fitte onely to nouryshe the body, and did gyue sustenaunce to the corporal lyfe: but after that it was sayde of our Lorde, doo you this in my remembraunce, thys is my fleshe. and this is my bloud, so often as with these wordes, and with this fayth, the thynge is done, that substancian fode, and that cuppe consecrated or sanctified with the solempne benediction or blessynge, doeth profytte”, etc. Notice in particular the rather wooden effect achieved by Bonner’s habitual correlation of alternative translations of a single Latin word: ‘food or meate’, ‘apt or fitte’, ‘consecrated and sanctified’, ‘benediction or blessynge’. This is perhaps the most notable feature of Bonner’s style.

⁷⁰ Bridgett-Knox, p. 152, list all the Catholic sermons in print in Watson’s day. I have simply looked through them to garner these quotations. I was not able to locate the publication attributed to Hugh Glasier (1555).

⁷¹ A. F. Pollard, DNB, vol. 45, p. 45.

⁷² Also found in Thomas Cranmer, Writings and Disputations (above, n. 65), p. 309.

⁷³ Cf. Cranmer’s remarks on Gardiner’s “latin english”, ibidem, p. 310. See also Muller, J. A., Stephen Gardiner and the Tudor Reaction (New York, 1970), pp. 104fGoogle Scholar. The point of Gardiner’s latinized English here was, as he says, to avoid the inadequate (as he considered them) English words ‘shed’ and ‘pouring’ for ‘infudit’. One notices that Watson also avoids these translations. Since we know that Watson worked with Gardiner on the latter’s Confutatio cavillationum during 1551 (above, n. 12), one might suppose that Watson had Gardiner’s concern in mind when he made his own translation.

⁷⁴ The bishop of Worcester seems to have been instrumental in having the sermons published. See Miss Bateson, DNB, vol. 46, p. 60.

⁷⁵ Here again (cf. n. 69 above) Bonner translates a long section of the Latin sermon, of which only a small part is given in the text above. Bonner’s translation is at quires Aa.i^v–Aa.ii^r of his book. The Latin can be found in PL 189.1647B & 1647C–D, though Bonnerquotes it, too. I give Bonner’s translation here simply to reinforce the conclusion already reached, that Bonner, at least, could not have done the translation in MS Kk 1.3(9). Bonner translates as follows. ‘Thys breade or fode of Aungels, hauing al delite with maruaylous power or vertrue [sic], doth fauour vnto all them which worthely and deuoutly receyue it, accordyng to theyr hartes desyre, and more fruytefully doth fulfill and satiat the appetites of the eaters, than dyd that Manna in the wyldernes, and doth far passe fragantnes [sic] of al earthly sauours, ye and the pleasures of all swetenes… But they which eyther be present at these holye mysteryes, or els receyue these gyftes onely accordynge to the outwarde word, being drye in harte, and wythered in theyr minde, they truely do licke the rocke, but thereoute sucke they neyther honye or oyle, which nether be quyckened or nouryshed with anye swetnes of Charitie, nor fatnes of the holye Ghost, nor do iudge them selves, nor yet discerne the sacramentes, but irreuerently do vse these holy gyftes, as they woulde other commen meates, and inpudently preasse or thrust themselfes in, to come to Goddes borde in a fylthy garment. For whom it were better, that they had a mylne stone tyed about there necke, and so were drowned in the sea, then to take with an vncleane conscience, a morsell at the hande of our lord: who vntyll this day doth create and sanctifye, and blesse, and to the worthye receyuers, dothe deuyde thys hys most true, and most holye bodye. In the presence’, etc. Cf. paragraphs 17–19 of the text below.

⁷⁶ An examination of the other passages which these three works have in common shows identical double translations of single Latin words and unusual translations made in common.

⁷⁷ See n. 68 above.

⁷⁸ See n. 12 above and Muller, op cit., pp. 214 and 313f.; Bridgett-Knox, p. 139, and Hudson, op. cit., p. 85.

⁷⁹ Nothing is known of Watson’s life from 1551 to 1553. See Bridgett-Knox, p. 140.

⁸⁰ See n. 49 above and n. 56 and the text at that point.

⁸¹ See above, n. 49 and the paragraphs which follow at that place.

⁸² Above, n. 60.

⁸³ Where the agreement of Arnold’s manuscripts and early printed editions is indicated in the critical apparatus, the spelling given is that of my critical edition.

⁸⁴ Title. Edd read De cena domini et prima institutione consummantis omnia sacramenta. Codd read sacramenti for sacramenta, except for Troyes ms. 509 (sacramentis) and All Souls MS 19 (Sermo de cena domini)

⁸⁵ H adds after the title [Sometimes Master of S^t Joh: Coll: Cambr:] Taken from a MS: in the public Library Cambr: C leaves f. 32^v blank

⁸⁶ C superscribes

⁸⁷ C thus, H supplies

⁸⁸ C thus, H supplies

⁸⁹ C superscribes

⁹⁰ C thus, H soure

⁹¹ C superscribes

⁹² H thus, C perhaps writes a minuscule for the majuscule

⁹³ C thus

⁹⁴ C superscribes

⁹⁵ C has goddes power in italics also in the margin

⁹⁶ C cancels four letters, as it seems, after sett (perhaps over)

⁹⁷ This is my body. In his edition of Watson’s Sermons on the Sacraments (above, n. 2), p. xiv, T. E. Bridgett says that Watson made his own translations of Scripture for his homilies.

⁹⁸ Who dyd eate. Watson’s construction with the relative pronoun is a Latinism (= ‘And they dyd eate’), though it does not imitate Arnold’s actual construction here. Cf Bonner’s translation (above, n. 69), which does imitate Arnold’s construction.

⁹⁹ C superscribes the letter a

¹⁰⁰ substanciall. Both the codd and the edd have substantialis. Migne has supersubstantialis. The former is surely the correct reading, but the latter may have accurately captured an echo of Matt. 6:11.

¹⁰¹ C writes this word above a cancellation

¹⁰² C thus, H supplies

¹⁰³ C repeats

¹⁰⁴ C superscribes

¹⁰⁵ C world, H emends, codd & edd uerbi

¹⁰⁶ C superscribes r

¹⁰⁷ Bread is meat… godhead. This sentence (6.1–5) is found in the edd, but not in the codd.

¹⁰⁸ C writes and twice after commen but cancels one

¹⁰⁹ C seems to mark this word with inverted commas

¹¹⁰ H omits

¹¹¹ bothe … and also. Here (6.14) the edd have non tam… quam ‘not so much… as’. Thus, the translation should read: ‘ioyned to Christ not so much by his corporall as by his spirituall commyng into vs’.

¹¹² This Sacrament… participationn of him selfe. This passage (6.5–17) is given in a much different form in the codd. Hoc sacramentum aliquando carnem et sanguinem, aliquando panem, aliquando corpus suum Christus appellat. Panis dicitur propter nutrimentum uite, caro et sanguis propter ueritatem nature, corpus propter unitatem substantie. Corpus suum se et ecclesiam suam, cuius caput ipse est, intelligi uoluit, quam carnis et sanguinis sui communione uniuit (R. U. Smith, p. 291).

¹¹³ C marks a line of text here with a stroke of the pen in the margin, it seems

¹¹⁴ C superscribes

¹¹⁵ C writes is twice, but cancels one

¹¹⁶ H substances

¹¹⁷ H creatures

¹¹⁸ C hart, H emends, codd & edd caloris

¹¹⁹ C signifie, H emends, codd & edd sanctificat

¹²⁰ C confortable, H emends, codd & edd conformat

¹²¹ After paragraph [8], the edd omit a section found in the codd, which reads as follows. Omnino nos a tantarum rerum inteilectu sensus carnalis repellit et sicut ipse dominus dicit, in tantorum misteriorum intuitu caro et sanguis non prodest quicquam, quia uer ba hec spiritus et uita sunt et a solis spiritualibus uirtus hec magnifica iudicatur. Ille qui a nemine iudicatur, cuius uita uel conscientia deo cognita humana iudicia non formidat, de tantorum potest secretorum profunditatibus iudicare et, cum seipsum corpus Christi cognouerit, uiuifico cibo libenter se reficit, sciens corpori et anime sue ex sacramento et re sacramenti indissolubilem eternitatem donari, quia et ad hoc Verbum caro factum est, ut nos qui secundum carnem deo placere non poteramus, societate Verbi detersa saliua infantie et carnalis petulantie sputamentis, audiremus per Verbum et reuelaretur nobis per Spiritum cognitio ueritatis et (huius cibi nobis munere erogato) gauderemus nos ad celestem mensam admissos superno interesse conuiuio (R. U. Smith, p. 294).

¹²² C superscribes the letter r

¹²³ H omits

¹²⁴ H efte

¹²⁵ H suffyciance. Suffysance. This is a substantive, which was in use in the sixteenth century in the sense of ‘sufficient supply’ or ‘abundance’ (OED, s.v.)

¹²⁶ Here the edd omit another section found in the codd, which is as follows. Nunc interim corporalia beneficia sic ad corporis sufficiunt nutrimentum, ut alimentum anime non excludant. Immo sacramentorum institutio nullum secum ueheret commodum, si spiritualia non adessent. Cumque utrumque necessarium sit, res tamen sacramenti differentiorem obtinet locum et perfectiorem habet effectum (R. U. Smith, p. 295).

¹²⁷ C. having written defend, cancels it and superscribes absent

¹²⁸ H omits

¹²⁹ C, having written gloriouse, cancels it and superscribes gratiouse

¹³⁰ H the

¹³¹ I have added this, CH omit it, codd & edd sit

¹³² C superscribes

¹³³ C superscribes

¹³⁴ C bought, H emends, codd & edd reduxisset

¹³⁵ C here cancels 34 lines of text (PL 189,1646A–B), which were copied from the archetype out of order. The cancellation runs from f. 36^r to f. 36^v

¹³⁶ C superscribes

¹³⁷ H moistning. Moysting. This is a form of the verb ‘to moist’, which was in use in the sixteenth century, but not much thereafter, meaning ‘to moisten’ (OED, s.v.)

¹³⁸ H the

¹³⁹ C, having written heers, cancels it and superscribes hearers

¹⁴⁰ C writes the letter f after this word and cancels it

¹⁴¹ C superscribes

¹⁴² C superscribes

¹⁴³ C thus, H supplies

¹⁴⁴ C thus, H supplies

¹⁴⁵ H profession, codd & edd possidentes

¹⁴⁶ C writes this above a cancellation

¹⁴⁷ C thus, H supplies

¹⁴⁸ C writes the letter d upon the letter k, H works, codd & edd uerbum

¹⁴⁹ C superscribes

¹⁵⁰ H Priets

¹⁵¹ C prorogatyve, H prerogative, codd & edd prerogatiua

¹⁵² C writes the second 1 over a letter y, H whole, codd & edd uniuersa

¹⁵³ C thus, H supplies

¹⁵⁴ H, C worldy, codd & edd digne

¹⁵⁵ H lust, codd & edd saporum

¹⁵⁶ H issue. Vsshow. This seems to be merely an obsolete form of the verb ‘to issue’, though it more resembles forms given under the substantive than under the verb in the OED (q. v.). But there are also northern and Scots varieties of the word which resemble the form here (OED, s.vv. ‘Ish’, ‘Ush’, and ‘Ussay’), and one is tempted to see it as northern, when one remembers that Watson was born and raised near Durham (Bridgett-Knox, p. 121).

¹⁵⁷ H delicacies. Delycates. This is a word not even now too long obsolete, meaning ‘a thing that gives pleasure’ (OED, s.v.)

¹⁵⁸ H. C perhaps heaves

¹⁵⁹ C thus, H supplies

¹⁶⁰ C superscribes morning dewe… the (lines 13–14)

¹⁶¹ H. C mouring

¹⁶² H offences

¹⁶³ C superscribes be devout

¹⁶⁴ C, having written the word even, seems to cancel it and then write it in again above

¹⁶⁵ C superscribes the letter e

¹⁶⁶ H superscribes

¹⁶⁷ C writes this above a cancellation

¹⁶⁸ C thus, H supplies

¹⁶⁹ H transposes thus fine & soft

¹⁷⁰ C writes d twice and cancels the second

¹⁷¹ C superscribes

¹⁷² H adds was after kyng

¹⁷³ C here cancels these four letters alte

¹⁷⁴ C thus, H supplies

¹⁷⁵ H adds and after him, but also cancels it

¹⁷⁶ C here cancels the word excesse

¹⁷⁷ H coming. Is commen. This is a perfect form of the verb ‘to come’, which was in use until the seventeenth century (OED, s.v).

¹⁷⁸ C writes the second e above the cancellation of a letter

¹⁷⁹ H the

¹⁸⁰ C here cancels these two words that he

¹⁸¹ C here cancels the word and

¹⁸² C superscribes

¹⁸³ H This thief

¹⁸⁴ C here marks a line of text with a stroke of the pen in the margin

¹⁸⁵ C superscribes was changed

¹⁸⁶ C writes mans above the cancellation of the word gods

¹⁸⁷ C thus, H supplies

¹⁸⁸ C appears to have added th after writing experiente, H omits th and writes experience. Experiente. This is a substantive, witnessed in the seventeenth century, meaning ‘something experienced, tested, tried’ (OED, s.v.)

¹⁸⁹ C cancels three letters following hathe

¹⁹⁰ H which in, C perhaps within

¹⁹¹ C superscribes

¹⁹² H, C fowlers, codd & edd thelonearios. Towlers. ‘Tollers’, i.e., collectors of tolls or taxes (OED, s.v.)

¹⁹³ selynes. ‘Seeliness’, meaning either ‘happiness’ or ‘simplicity’, according to the OED (q.v.). But here it must have that sense of ‘seely’, which indicates the helpless state of the soul ‘in danger of divine judgement’ (OED, s.v.)

¹⁹⁴ C writes this twice

¹⁹⁵ C cancels the word fully

¹⁹⁶ C superscribes

¹⁹⁷ by this Sacrament and also by the thing and trueth signified by the Sacrament. The Latin is sacramento et re sacramenti. On the Augustinian doctrine which lies behind this phrase, common in Arnold, one might begin with H.-M. Féret, O.P., ‘Sacramentum. Res. dans la langue théologique de S. augustin’,, Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 29 (1940), 218–243. An introduction to the various eucharistic theologies of Arnold’s period can be found in Gary Macy, The Theologies of the Eucharist in the Early Scholastic period, A Study of the Salvific Function of the Sacrament according to the Theologians c. 1080–c. 1220 (Oxford, 1984). Arnold is discussed on pp. 124f. For a critique of this discussion, see R. U. Smith, pp. 180–182. See also my, ‘The Eucharistic Meditations of Arnold of Bonneval: A Reassessment’ (above n.59). An introduction to the crucial debate between Lanfranc and Berengar can be found in H. Chadwick, ‘Ego Berengarius’, Journal of Theological Studies, n.s. 40 (1989), 414–445.

¹⁹⁸ C adds this word in the margin, as it seems

¹⁹⁹ C writes Amen in textura quadrata. H adds here There are other Treatises in the same volume, & in the same hand (not D^r Watson’s) but probably compil’d by him, tho’ his name be not to them, as It is to this./ They are in the same volume with the MS: History of Ireland, compiled by Edmunde Campion Feloe of S^t Jo: Bapt: Coll: OX:, & dedicated to Robert earle of Leycester, in an epistle dated from Dybelin Maii 27: 1571, probably the originall of that History, as far as can be collected from the hand, & way of writing. In the same volume, are severall remarkable particulars, concerning Robert earle of Essex, Mary Queen of Scots &c: