^{page 173 note 1} Allen, P. S. (editor), Opus Epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami, Oxford 1913, III. 239Google Scholar, ep. 785: Erasmus to Thomas More, Louvain, 5 March 1518, ‘Mitto … Conclusiones de veniis Pontificum …’ [Hereafter cited as Allen, Ep. Eras.] Huizinga, J., ‘Selections from the Letters of Erasmus’, Erasmus of Rotterdam, London 1952, 222, ep. xii.Google Scholar

^{page 173 note 2} Preserved Smith, Luther's Correspondence, Philadelphia 1913, i. 162, ep. 125. John Froben to Martin Luther, Basle, 14 February 1519. [Hereafter cited as P. Smith, L. C.] D. Martin Luthers Werke, Kritische Gesammtausgabe, Briefwecksel, Weimar 1930 ff., i. 332, #146: ‘Praeterea libellos tuos in Brabantiam et Angliam missimus.’ [Hereafter cited as WA, Br., i.] [The symbol # is used for ‘number’, here and below.]

^{page 173 note 3} Smith, L. C., i. 164, ep. 127, Wolfgang Fabricius Capito to Martin Luther, Basle, 18 February 1519. WA, Br., i. 336, #147. This Frankfort Fair, held at Frankfort-on-the-Main, was still one of the great international fairs in the early sixteenth century. Very brief references to it are made by James Westfall Thompson in his Economic and Social History of Europe in the Late Middle Ages (1300–1530), New York and London 1931, 492 and 495. See also Thompson, James Westfall, The Frankfort Book Fair: the Francofordiense Emporium of Henri Estienne, Chicago 1911.Google Scholar

^{page 173 note 4} H. Maynard Smith, Pre-Reformation England, London 1938, 219: ‘It is not surprising that English merchants at Antwerp, or in the Baltic ports of the Hanseatic League, should listen to the new Lutheran teaching and cease to be orthodox. They then smuggled Lutheran books into England, and formed secret societies for the dissemination of Lutheran opinions. Protestantism entered England at the ports, and the Reformation, in so far as it was a religious movement, was of middle-class origin: it was the most important result of international commerce.’

^{page 174 note 1} P. Smith, L. C, i. 192, in his introduction to ep. 155 tells of the publication of this letter already in June 1519, and of the trouble it made for Erasmus.

^{page 174 note 2} Allen, Ep. Eras., iii. 606, ep. 980, Erasmus to Luther, Louvain, 30 May 1519; WA, Br., i. 413, #183; P. Smith, L. C, i. 193, ep. 155; J. Huizinga, op. cit., 230; ep. xiv; H. Maynard Smith, op. cit., 499.

^{page 174 note 3} Smith, Preserved, ‘Luther and Henry VIII’, English Historical Review, XXV (1910), 654–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 174 note 4} Smith, Preserved, Age of the Reformation, New York 1920, 281 f.Google Scholar

^{page 174 note 5} Brewer, J. (editor), Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, London 1870–1883, III, i. 105Google Scholar, 106, #303. [Hereafter cited as L. and P.] Allen, Ep. Eras., iii. 610–13, ep. 985. Allen dates this letter Antwerp, 1 June 1519. Erasmus to Jodacus Jonas.

^{page 174 note 6} Smith, P., ‘News for Bibliophiles’, The Nation, XCVI (29 May 1913), 543; P. Smith, Age of the Reformation, 281.Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 1} Allen, Ep. Eras., iii. 590, ep. 967. Erasmus to Wolsey, Antwerp, 18 May 1519. The references are probably to Luther's Resolutiones disputationum de indulgentiarum virtute, the Instructio pro confessione peccatorum abbrevianda, and the Sermo de poenitentia. The first was published in August 1518. See D. Martin Luthers Werke, Kritische Gesammtausgabe, Weimar 1883 ff., i. 525–628. [Hereafter cited as WA.] The second was printed in February 1518; the third, in April 1518. See WA, i. 258–65; WA, i. 319–24.

^{page 175 note 2} L. and P., III, i. 157, #444.

^{page 175 note 3} L. and P., III, i. 167, #476.

^{page 175 note 4} L. and P., III, I 194, #567.

^{page 175 note 5} L. and P., III, i. 77, #227. See also L. and P., III, i. 194, #566, Erasmus to Pet. Mosellanus from Louvain, 1519. Allen, Ep. Eras., iii. 546, 547, ep. 948. Allen dates this letter from Louvain 22 April 1519.

^{page 175 note 6} L. and P., III, i. 215, #640. Dated 28 February 1502 [sic] in the calendar, an obvious error for 1520.

^{page 175 note 7} L. and P., III, i. 148, #408) Erasmus to Fisher, Louvain, 21 February 1520. Allen, Ep. Eras., iv. 191 f., ep. 1068.

^{page 175 note 8} L. and P., III, i. 378 f., #1051, Erasmus to Reuchlin, Cologne, 6 November 1520. Allen, Ep. Eras., iv. 370–2, ep. 1155. Allen dates this letter 8 November 1520. ‘Mihi semper studio fuit Lutheri causam a tua bonarumque literarum causa seiungere, …’

^{page 176 note 1} Polydori Vergilii Vrbinatis, Anglicae Historiae Libri Vigintiseptem, Basle 1570, lib. xxvii, p. 664. Jacobs, Henry E., The Lutheran Movement in England during the Reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI, and Its Literary Movements: a Study in Comparative Symbolics, Philadelphia 1894, 4.Google Scholar Jacobs, however, cited Charles Hardwick, History of the Reformation, 182. In Hardwick, Charles, A History of the Christian Church During the Reformation, Cambridge 1856, 182, the entire matter is relegated to a footnoteGoogle Scholar.

^{page 176 note 2} Mackinnon, James, The Origins of the Reformation, London, New York, Toronto 1939. 133.Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 3} Rupp, E. G., Studies in the Making of the English Protestant Tradition (Mainly in the Reign of Henry VIII), Cambridge 1949, 1–6. Rupp speaks of ‘the eagerness with which they welcomed the new teaching from beyond the sea, the risks they ran to get hold of it, the sacrificial efforts they made to further it’ (p. 6).Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 4} Madan, F. (editor), ‘The Daily Ledger of John Dorne, 1520’, in Collectanea, First Series, edited by Fletcher, C. R. L., published by the Oxford Historical Society in 1885, 71–178. [Hereafter cited as Dorne in Collectanea.]Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 5} Dorne in Collectanea, 82, lines 153 and 156. The de potestate papae might have been either the Ad dialogum Silvestri Prieratis de potestate papae responsio (WA., i. 647–86) or Resolutio Lutheriana super propositione sua decima tertia de potestate Papae (WA., ii. 183–240). The price would argue in favour of the longer work. So, too, would the entry on lines 411 and 413, Dorne in Collectanea, 92.

^{page 176 note 6} Dorne in Collectanea, 88, line 320.

^{page 176 note 7} Ibid., 92, lines 411, 412, 413. Although the identity of the resolutio luteri cannot be established definitely it may be suggested that the reference is to the Resolutiones disputationum de indulgentiarum virtute. 1518. WA., i. 525–628.

^{page 176 note 8} Collectanea, 164.

^{page 177 note 1} Dorne in Collectanea, 103, line 727.

^{page 177 note 2} Ibid., 121, line 1281.

^{page 177 note 3} Ibid., 126, line 1429. A copy of the R. P. Doct. Martini Lvtheri Avgvstiniani Theologi Synceri Lvcvbrationvm, etc. printed in Basle by Adam Petri in 1520 is in the library of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, (270.608/Bas). It is probable that two copies of the same edition were sold by John Dorne in 1520, since these sales come late in the year.

^{page 177 note 4} Dorne in Collectanea, 125, line 1371.

^{page 177 note 5} Ibid., 127, line 1437.

^{page 177 note 6} Collectanea, 164.

^{page 177 note 7} Ibid., 131, line 1569.

^{page 177 note 8} Ibid., 164.

^{page 177 note 9} Dorne in Collectanea, 131, line 1548.

^{page 177 note 10} Ibid., 139, line 1850. Collectanea, 164, the editor asks if this was the Resolutiones super propositionibus suis Lipsiae disputatis. It is quite likely that it was.

^{page 177 note 11} P. Smith, L. C, i. 162, n. 3, gives the list of the 12 or 13 copies sold. See also his Age of the Reformation, 281, and his article in The Nation, XCVI (29 May 1913), 543.Google Scholar Among other secondary authorities Lindsay, Thomas, A History of the Reformation, New York 1925, II. 320, has a reference of Dorne's daybook.Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 12} L. and P., III, i. 50, #152.

^{page 178 note 1} Turner, Wm. H. (editor), Selections from the Records of the City of Oxford, 1509–83, Oxford and London 1880, 29.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 2} L. and P., III, i. 191, #558.

^{page 178 note 3} P. Smith, L. C., i. 295, ep. 235. P. Smith in his Age of the Reformation, 281, said that ‘a government official in London wrote to his son in the country’. On p. 295 of the first volume of Luther's Correspondence he headed this excerpt, ‘G. Cowper to his father, Thomas Cowper’. The excerpt itself is quoted from the MSS. of the Shrewsbury and Coventry Corporations, 1899, p. 47, dated 3 March 1520, which the present writer has not seen.

^{page 178 note 4} P. Smith, L. C., i. 321 f., ep. 257; L. and P., III, i. 284, #3810; Allen, Ep. Eras., iv. 260, ep. 1102. P. Smith dated the letter 14 May 1520; Brewer, 15 May 1520; Allen, 15 May 1520.

^{page 178 note 5} Allen, Ep. Eras., iv. 286–8, ep. 1113. Bretschneider, (editor), Corpus Reformatorum, Halle 1803, I. 205 ff., #80, Erasmus to Melanchthon, Louvain, c. 21 June 1520.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 1} Cooper, Charles Henry, Annals of Cambridge, Cambridge 1842, I. 303–4. To support the year 1520 he has a reference to R. Parker, Hist. of Cambridge, 197, which the present writer has not seen.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 2} See e.g., Jacobs, Lutheran Movement, 6–11, and Rupp, English Protestant Tradition, 15–46.

^{page 179 note 3} H. Maynard Smith, Pre-Reformation England, 497.

^{page 179 note 4} The argument from silence is always precarious. However, it was not until after the papal bull was issued on 15 June 1520, which called for their extirpation, that Luther's books were burned on the continent. They were burned in Rome in the Piazzo Navona on 15 June 1520. Fife, Robert H., The Revolt ofMartin Luther, New York 1957, 497Google Scholar, with reference to Kalkoff, ‘Zu Luthers romischem Process’, ZKG, xxv. 129. Luther learned that his books were to have been burned in Ingolstadt early in 1520, but they were not burned then. WA. Br., ii. 35, #251; Luther to Spalatin, Wittenberg, 8 February 1520. Luther's books were burned in Louvain on 8 October 1520; in Cologne, 12 November 1520. ‘Libellos meos exusserunt Colonienses et Louvainiensis.’ WA. Br., ii. 219, #354; Luther to Johann Lang, Wittenberg, 28 November 1520. Cf. WA. Br., ii. 246, #366, ii. 270–1, #378. Bertram Lee Woolf, Reformation Writings of Martin Luther, London 1956, ii. 73–5, has an excellent summary of the events in his introduction to ‘Why the Books of the Pope and His Followers were Burned by Doctor Martin Luther’. The Venetian Senate received the report of Luther's burning of the papal bull, interpreted in part as a retaliation for the burning of his books. Brown, Rawdon (editor), Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts Existing in the Archives and Collections of Venice, London 1869, III (1520–6), 98–9, #147. [This volume is hereafter cited as Ven. Cal. iii.]Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 5} Since no other evidence of the burning of Luther's books in Cambridge in 1520 exists, and the expense account refers to a trip to London, the present writer has discounted the date as given.

^{page 179 note 6} P. Smith, L. C., i. 414 f., ep. 355, Martin Luther to George Spalatin, Wittenberg, 10 December 1520. WA. Br., ii. 234, #361.

^{page 180 note 1} P. Smith, L. C., i. 446, ep. 383, Cuthbert Tunstall to cardinal Wolsey, Worms, 21 January 1521. Kalkoff, Paul, Briefe, Depeschen und Berichte uber Luther vom Wormser Reichstage 1521, aus dem Englishen, Italienischen und Spanischen übersetzt und erläutert, Halle 1898, 32, #V.Google Scholar

^{page 180 note 2} L. and P., III, i. 293, #847. Silvester de Giglis, bishop of Worcester, to Wolsey, Rome, 28 May 1520.

^{page 180 note 3} L. and P., III, i. 430, #1155. See also Calendar of Letters, Dispatches, and State Papers, relating to the Negotiations between England and Spain, preserved in the Archives at Simacus and elsewhere, London 1873, ii. 341, #325. Juan Manuel to the emperor Charles V, Rome, 20 March 1521. [Hereafter cited as Span. Cal.]

^{page 180 note 4} The present writer has not uncovered his order, nor have secondary authorities to his knowledge mentioned it. The circumstantial evidences, as given, seem to be positive enough to warrant the statement.

^{page 180 note 5} L. and P., III, i. 449, #1193; Warham to Wolsey, Knoll, 8 March 1521.

^{page 181 note 1} L. and P., III, i. 450, #1197; Leo X to Wolsey, Rome, 16 March 1521, signed by Ja. Sadoletus. The original is printed in State Papers, King Henry the Eighth, Part V: Foreign Correspondence, 1473–1527. Published under the authority of her Majesty's Commission (1849), vi. 67, #XXX; ‘… cum Luterianos libros novae vel renovatae Ussitarum damnatum perfidiam …’ L. and P., III, i. 453, #1204; Silvester, bishop of Worcester, to Pace, Rome, 29 March 1521: ‘Sends a pamphlet just composed by a learned man against Martin Luther.’

^{page 181 note 2} L. and P., III, i. 455, #1210. A mutilated manuscript in the British Museum, calendered by J. S. Brewer, who indicates that it was from cardinal de Medici. He dates it in March (?) 1521.

^{page 181 note 3} Ibid.

^{page 181 note 4} Span. Cal., ii. 342, #321, Juan Manuel to the emperor Charles V, Rome, 27 March 1521.

^{page 182 note 1} Span. Cal., ii. 344, #329, Juan Manuel to the emperor Charles V, Rome, 27 April 1521. From the remainder of the letter it is evident that the reports of what happened when Luther appeared before the Diet had not yet reached Rome. Earlier in the month, 3 April 1521, Juan Manuel had written the emperor, Span. Cal., ii. 343, #327: ‘The affairs of Luther are very troublesome to the Pope. After having heard what he communicated to him, the Holy Father exclaimed, “God be thanked who has sent me in these times an Emperor who takes so much care of the Church!” The Pope is very thankful for all he has promised him, and only begs him to fulfill his promise, and not to permit men who are “hearkening to the counsel of the Devil” to lead him astray as it is said they will do. These are the very words his holiness ordered him to write to him.’

^{page 182 note 2} L. and P., III, i. 468, #1234.

^{page 182 note 3} Baumgarten, Herman, Geschichte Karls V, Stuttgart 1885, I. 511 ff.Google Scholar; Brandi, Karl, Kaiser Karl V, Munich 1937, 131. Baumgartner and Brandi both give the date 29 May 1521. Th. Kolde, Luther und der Reichstag zu Worms. 1521, Gotha 1883, 78, gives the date as 8 May 1521.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 4} Ven.Cal., iii. 114, #195.

^{page 182 note 5} Ven. Cal., iii. 112, #191; L. and P., III, i. 468, #1237. See also Kolde, Th., Luther und der Reichstag zu Worms, 1521, Gotha 1883, 61 f.Google ScholarBrandi, Karl, Kaiser Karl V: Werden und Schicksal einer Personlichkeit und eines Weltreiches, Munich 1941, 112 f. When the news of this decision arrived in London cannot be determined absolutely. The Venetians knew about it by 11 May. In view of that fact the conjecture that Wolsey received cognisance of the emperor’ decision early in May is entirely plausible. Cuthbert Tunstal had left Worms on 11 April, five days before Luther arrived there. Kalkoff, Briefe, Depeschen, und Berichte, 13–66. On the 25th he was in Malimes ready to go to Antwerp, and then home. L. and P., III, i. 472, #1248; Tunstal to Wolsey, Malines, 23 April 1521: ‘I leave to-day for Antwerp, and then homewards.’ He could have reached London about 1 May, ready to reinforce information coming from Worms.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 6} L. and P., III, i. 516, #1297; Henry VIII to Leo X, Greenwich, 21 May 1521.

^{page 183 note 1} L. and P., III, i. 516, #1299; Wolsey to Leo X, London, 21 May 1521.

^{page 183 note 2} L. and P., III, i. 535, #1333; see also Ju. Card, de Medici to Wolsey, Florence, 13 June 1521, L. and P., III, i. 540, #1349.

^{page 183 note 3} L. and P., III, i. 535, #1332; Leo X to Wolsey, Rome, 7 June 1521.

^{page 183 note 4} L. and P., III, i. 535, #1335; Campeggio to Wolsey, Rome, 8 June 1521.

^{page 183 note 5} L. and P., III, i. 536, #1336; Campeggio to Henry VIII, Rome, 8 June 1521.

^{page 183 note 6} L. and P., III, i. 470 f., #1245; Fitzwilliams to Wolsey, 22 April 1521. L. and P., III, i. 471, #1246; Fitzwilliam to Wolsey, 23 April 1521.

^{page 183 note 7} L. and P., III, i. 474, #1254; dated at Worms on 28 April 1521. This may have reached Wolsey by 11 May, but it was not decisive in the decision to burn Luther's books.

^{page 184 note 1} L. and P., III, i. 461, #1218; Warham to Wolsey, Canterbury, 3 April 1521.

^{page 184 note 2} L. and P., III, i. 461, #1220; Pace to Wolsey, Greenwich, 7 April 1521. Pace adds the remark, ‘as I do conjecture’.

^{page 184 note 3} L. and P., III, i. 467 f., #1233; Pace to Wolsey, Greenwich, 16 April 1521.

^{page 184 note 4} Quoted from the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum (translated by T. W., 1688, p. 53) by H. Maynard Smith, Pre-Reformation England, 506.

^{page 184 note 5} Ven. Cal., iii. 108–9, #180–3 for Venice; Ven. Cal., iii. 116, #198 for Naples.

^{page 185 note 1} Ven.Cal., iii. 121, #208.

^{page 185 note 2} Ven. Cal., iii. 122, #210; Antonio Surian to the Signory of Venice, London, 13 May 1521. Ven. Cal., iii. 123, #213; Lodovico Spinelli to Gasparo Spinelli, London, 14–17 May 1521.

^{page 185 note 3} So both Surian and his secretary Spinelli interpreted it. See references in footnote 2. The quotation is from Spinelli's letter.

^{page 185 note 4} So the postscript to Sudan's Letter. L. and P., III, i. 456, 457, #1212. L. and P., III, i. 514, #1293; Wolsey to Jerningham, Westminster, 20 May 1521, wrote that Henry VIII had been ill with fever, which now has been gone for five or six days after ‘long continuance of paraxysms of cold and heat’.

^{page 185 note 5} Ven. Cal., iii. 122, #210, Surian to the Signory of Venice, London, 13 May 1521. Surian's secretary merely noted that ‘the Cardinal was under a canopy, an unusual thing’. Ven. Cal., iii. 124, #213.

^{page 185 note 6} L. and P., III, i. 485, #1274. Writer not given.

^{page 185 note 7} Only Surian mentions the oration by the archbishop of Canterbury specifically. He, however, has the dignitaries seated on the platform or stage before the oration and does not mention a procession out of the cathedral. Ven. Cal., iii. 122, #210. Spinelli says: ‘The Cardinal was under a canopy, an unusual thing, and after the oration gave the blessing, whereupon all went out of the church processionally, into the churchyard, where there was a lofty platform, which we ascended in great confusion.’ Ven. Cal., iii. 124, #213. L. and P., III, i. 485, #1274, does not mention the oration by Warham.

^{page 186 note 1} L. and P., III, i. 485, #1274; cf. Ven. Cal., iii. 122, #210 and Ven. Cal., iii. 124, 125, #213.

^{page 186 note 2} This detail is noted by Spinelli.

^{page 186 note 3} L. and P., III, i. 485, #1274.

^{page 186 note 4} So Spinelli.

^{page 186 note 5} The time was noted by Surian.

^{page 186 note 6} Preserved Smith, Age of the Reformation, 282.

^{page 186 note 7} Spinelli.

^{page 186 note 8} Surian's report.

^{page 186 note 9} The sermon of Johñ the bysshop of Rochester made agayn ẏ pnicious docttyn of Martin Luther win ẏ octaues of ẏ asecsyon by ẏ assingnemet of ẏ most reuerend fader ī god ẏ lord Thomas Cardinal of Yorke & Legate ex latere from our holy father the pope. [colophon:] Imprynted by Wynkyn de Worde. n. d. 1521? S. T. C. 10894. The writer has used the copy in the Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington, D.C.

^{page 186 note 10} Ibid., A ii verso.

^{page 186 note 11} Ibid., B iij. second leaf verso.

^{page 187 note 1} L. and P., III, i. 485, #1274.

^{page 187 note 2} P. Smith, L. C., ii. 22, ep. 479; Luther to Melanchthon, Land-of-the-Birds (Wartburg), 12 May 1521; WA. Br., ii. 332, 333, #407.