Additional Notes And Corrections

Additional Notes and Corrections.

p. 6, par. 3. "Whither the Most Christian King might send the queen of Navarre, accompanied by 7 or 8 damsels of Royal blood, especially of the houses of Lorraine, Vendôme and Nevers," says the abstract of Scepper's despatch to the Emperor; but either that despatch, originally written in French, is badly translated into Spanish, or else princess instead of queen of Navarre must be understood, for at this time (1538) Margaret, Francis' sister and widow of the duke of Alençon, had been married since 1526 to Henri II. d'Albret, titular king of Navarre, and had a daughter called Jeanne, probably one of the damsels among whom Henry wished to select a wife.

p. 10. "Charles de Bourbon," &c. There was a duke of Vendôme, so called, but as his death occurred in 1537 he cannot be the one here mentioned. He had a brother, also named Charles, better known as cardinal Bourbon, who died in 1598. On the other hand, by Mr. de Vendôme, no one can be meant but Antoine de Bourbon, son of Charles.

p. 12. "Except the nun, meaning one of the duke of Guise's daughters." At p. 10 the nun is said to be the daughter of Vendôme, and I find in Genealogies Historiques, Vol. III. pp. 400-1, that Charles de Bourbon, duke of Vendôme, who died at Amiens on the 25th of March 1537, left of Françoise d'Alençon, widow of François, duke of Longueville, seven sons and six daughters. Of the latter four went into the cloister, and became abbesses, i.e., Magdalen, of Sainte Croix de Poitiers; Catherine, of Soissons; Renée, of Chelles, and Eleanor of Fontegrant. But I also find in other works of the kind, and chiefly in Histoire de la maison de Lorraine, &c., that Claude de Lorraine, duke of Guise, left also two daughters who took the veil—Antoinette de Lorraine, at Parmentier, and Renée at St. Pierre de Reims—and became in time abbesses of their respective convents.

p. 15, No, 7, par. 2. "That the French ambassador at this court (Marillac) had sent in his excuses," &c. The French ambassador was still—at the date of Chapuys' letter—Louis Perreau, sieur de Castillon, born in 1489, and who died in 1553, having twice represented king Francis in this country: once in 1533, in the room of the bailli de Troyes, recalled; and again in October 1537 till the 6th of February 1539, when he himself was replaced by Marillac. All and every one of the references made at pp. 27, 31, 37 and elsewhere to the French ambassador in England before the month of March 1539, when Marillac himself landed in England, must therefore be understood as applying to Louis Perreau, sieur de Castillon, about whom see Introduction.

I need scarcely observe that the preceding letter—under No. 6, dated the 11th of September, and headed "The Same to the Same," as if it were one from Luigi Gonzaga to the Emperor— is altogether misplaced, and ought to have been preceded by Chapuys' of the 31st of August. At any rate, it could in nowise have been written by Luigi Gonzaga, being, as it is, immediately preceded by one of his dated the 30th from Messina, in Sicily. Its being placed in Bergenroth's Collection (Vol. XIX., p. 212), immediately after the other with the heading "Luis Gonzaga al Emperador," was the cause of my falling into this error. Besides, the letter has all the appearance of one written in French, either by the Imperial ambassador or by some other of Charles' agents in Belgium or in France, reporting news from the latter country, and especially concerning the mission entrusted to the admiral of France, Philippe de Chabot, sieur de Brion.

p. 34, No. 10. In the last line of the first paragraph, "Milan" is a mistake for "Florence," for the dowager duchess of that State was Christina of Denmark, the Emperor's niece, widow of Francesco Sforza. On the other hand the dowager duchess of Florence, widow of Alessandro de' Medici, was the Emperor's natural daughter. Both married again; the former became the wife of François de Lorraine, marquis de Pont-a-Mousson, and afterwards duke of Lorraine; the latter married Ottavio Farnese, duke of Camarino, and is better known in history as "Margaret of Parma."

The letter itself, though numbered 10, ought to have been preceded by the following of the 8th from the Emperor to Lope de Soria.

p. 42. The English ambassador at the court of Brussels, whose death is recorded in Don Diego de Mendoza's despatch to the Emperor, dated Breda, the 14th of September 1538, and described by him as "a jovial, good-humoured man, more fit for courtly and social intercourse than for political business, for which he had no great taste or capacity," was no doubt John Hutton, whose death on the 5th of September is recorded in the State Papers, Vol. VIII., p. 154.

p. 51, line 3. Your Majesty's letter to D. Juan. There can be no doubt that by "Don Juan" the Imperial ambassador at Rome is meant, but it may be observed that Spanish genealogists generally call him Don Luis, instead of Don Juan. See Introduction to Part II, Vol. V., p. xiv.

p. 55, line 12. The Signora, or Madame Costanza, mentioned in the second paragraph, was the Pope's daughter. She first was married to Bozio II., Sforza, count of Santa Fiore, and afterwards to Stephano Colonna, duke of Palestrina. By her first marriage she had two sons—Guido Ascanio Sforza, who became cardinal Santafiore on the 18th of December 1534, and died on the 7th of October 1564; and Ascanio Sforza, count de Valmontone, who died in 1575.

At p. 114, in the marquis de Aguilar's despatch to the Emperor, dated Rome, 13 Feb. 1539, a lady named Costanza Trenes is mentioned as having applied to the former to recommend a petition of hers in favor of her son, the bishop and "camarlengo" of Pope Paul. There is, however, every reason to suspect that Trenes is a bad reading for Fernés, a name which Spanish writers of the XVI. century often give to the Farnese, and, if so, Costanza Trenes is no other than Costanza Fernés, or Farnese, the Pope's daughter. On the other hand, Pedro Pacheco, the bishop of Pamplona, having been appointed cardinal about this time, and she (Costanza) having among her various sons by her first husband one who became a cardinal as early as 1534, leaves no doubt as to the identity of the two persons being fairly established. Bishop Pacheco, however, did not leave his bishopric; he retained it until January 1545, when he was appointed to the see of Jaen, in Andalucia, and lastly to Siguenza. He died at Rome in 1560, having been succeeded in the see of Pamplona by Antonio Fonseca. It will be seen at p. 140, in another despatch of Aguilar's to the Emperor (13 April 1539), that, upon the death at Rome of Alvaro Osorio, bishop of Astorga, the same lady, Signora Costanza Farnese, again petitioned the Emperor for that bishopric for her son.

p. 61, 1. 7. "Principalement par le sund de Bette allants ou venants de Prusse, Rierevel, Dantzig et aultres villes," says the text of the two copies of the same paper preserved in the Imperial Archives of Vienna. Rierevel, as above written and spelt, must be wrong, and I presume that instead of Kiel, in Denmark, and Revel, in Esthonia or North-Western Russia, some blundering clerk read and wrote Rierevel, that is Kiel-Revel.

p. 66, line 12. "Together with such rights as the Duchess [Christina] might have to her mother's inheritance." Christiern, or Kristiern II., king of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, over which he ruled from 1513 to 1523, when he was dethroned by his own subjects, had been married to Isabella (Isabel), daughter of Philip and Joanna, the father and mother of Charles V. Isabella was born in Flanders in 1501 and died in 1526, leaving two daughters, Kristierna or Christina, the widow of Francesco Sforza, duke of Milan, and Dorothea, who was married to the Count Palatine (Frederic). This last must have been the eldest, and have inherited the right to the crown of Denmark and Norway (Sweden having at the rebellion elected a king of its own), or else Henry during the long negociations for his contemplated, though not effected, marriage with her sister [Christina], could not have stipulated the cession of those rights, whatever they might be to the succession of their father's—still alive, though confined in a dungeon, where he died in 1559.

p. 72, No. 28. Philippe Chabot, sieur de Brion, admiral of France, count of Charny and Buzançois, of whom frequent mention has been made in Vol. V., Part II, of this calendar (pp. 54, 71, 77, 97, &c.), was the son of Jacques Chabot and Madeleine de Luxemburg. Early attached to the household of François, duke of Angoulême, who in 1523 became king of France under the name of Francis I., he followed him to Italy, and was made prisoner with him on the 24th of February 1525. In 1526 he was appointed admiral of France and governor of Burgundy. Six years later, in 1532, he came to England as ambassador extraordinary, and was made knight of the Garter by king Henry. He was at one time in great favor with the King, but owing to some court intrigue— about which both Brantôme and Du Bellay, two contemporary writers, differ considerably—the jealousy, perhaps, of the High Constable Montmorency, or of the cardinal Jean de Lorraine, or, which is more probable, the ill-success of his mission to Mary of Hungary, brought about his disgrace and fall in 1541; and although the turn of politics and Francis' inconstant humour again brought him to power in 1542, he never recovered in full his monarch's favor, and died on the 1st of June 1543.

Since the above was written I have been able to ascertain that my conjecture about the document which forms the subject of this note having originally been been drawn out in French and translated into Spanish becomes a certainty. At Simancas, as I am informed, is preserved the original document in French, on the margin of which is the following note in Spanish: Este Chabote, como aqui se le llama, fui prisionero en Pavia, y tenia entonces y despues el oficio de almirante de Francia, que alli, como aqui, era hereditario, y tendrian los de su familia, como los Enriquez lo tienen en Castille, siendolo hoy dia D. Fernando Enriquez, duque de Medina de Rioseco—which statement, however, is wrong with regard to France, where the charge of Admiral was not, as in Spain, hereditary.

p. 93. Paragraph XXIX., where the duchy of Urbino is mentioned, stands as it is in the original at Simancas; but either, instead of Urbino, the word Camarino is to be substituted, or else a whole sentence must have been left out by the clerk of the Council who prepared the minute, for the possession of Urbino was never disputed to Guidobaldo della Rovere; it was Camarino, which that duke owned in right of his wife, Julia Varana, daughter of the last duke, that was invaded by Paul in 1540 and finally given to his grandson, Ottavio Farnese. Most likely the passage above alluded to ought to be read thus: "recobrar el ducado [de Camarino], que ahora tiene el de Urbino," i.e., "to recover by force the duchy of Camarino, which he of Urbino now retains unduly."

p. 99. "The viceroy of Naples [Don Pedro de Toledo] and the duchess of Castro's dower." Margaret of Austria, the Emperor's natural daughter, was never duchess of Castro. This title was conferred by Pope Paul on his eldest son, Pier Luigi Farnese, in 1536. It was to Ottavio Farnese, Pier Luigi's son, that Margaret was married on 19 Jan. 1539, at the time that she was dowager duchess of Florence as widow of Alessandro de' Medici, Clement VII.'s nephew, or son, as some historians will have it. Ottavio became in time duke of Camarino, which title and estate his grandfather, the Pope, conferred upon him in 1541.

p. 106, No. 36. A more accurate copy of these credentials received since affords me an opportunity to correct the name of the Landgraf's agent as follows: "Philipp, landgraf of Hessen, to the queen dowager of Hungary, regent in the Low Countries for her brother, the Emperor.

"We have sent Our very learned, beloved, and faithful Doctor Sigfried Lauemburg to Your Royal Majesty with Our orders and mandate respecting the business which he himself will explain of Our marriage demands.—Wirhaven (Cassel), in Germany, 13 January 1539.

German holograph, p. 1."

What the offer of marriage was is not explained, but most likely the Landgraf, then about forty, was one of the many suitors for the hand of the dowager queen of Hungary.

ibid. The following letter, No. 37, is wrongly headed, owing to the intercalation at the last hour of the Landgraf's letter to queen Mary (No. 36). Instead of "to the Same," it ought to be headed, "to the Emperor."

p. 160, par. 1. The two "fuorusciti" here mentioned—one from Naples, the other from Spain—are Cesare Cantelmo, the Neapolitan, and Antonio Rincon, the Spaniard, so often mentioned in these pages.

ibid, last par. "Ottavio Farnese's younger brother," &c. Pier Luigi Farnese, duke of Castro, Pope Paul's son, who died in 1547 by the hand of an assassin, had four sons and one daughter:—1st, Alessandro, the cardinal, born in 1520, who died on the 1st of March 1589. 2nd, Ottavio, duke of Camarino, of whose marriage with Margaret of Austria, the Emperor's natural daughter, frequent mention occurs in the pages of the present volume; he was born in 1524, and died on the 11th of September 1586. 3rd, Horazio, duke of Castro, married to Diana, natural daughter of Henri II., king of France (d. 1553); this Horazio or Orazio Farnese is no doubt the individual alluded to in the passage. 4th, Ranucio, born the 11th of August 1530, who became a cardinal and archbishop of Ravenna in 1545, and died on the 28th of October 1565. 5th, Pier Luigi's only daughter was Vittoria Farnese, who in 1548 married Guidobaldo, duke of Urbino.

As to Costanza, Pier Luigi's sister, too frequent mention has been made of her in these pages to necessitate a further notice. She married first Bosio Sforza, count of Santafiore, and afterwards Stefano Colonna, prince of Palestrina.

Pier Luigi's wife was a lady of the family of Orsino, named Hieronyma, daughter of Luigi, count of Pitigliano.

p. 164, par. 2. "The bishop Lanchano," &c. The copy from Simancas has distinctly el Obispo de Lanchano, which I have translated by "bishop Lanchano," as if this last were his proper name, for although there was, and is to this day, a small town in Naples formerly called Lanciano, and now Lansano, it is too insignificant a place to have ever been a bishopric, besides which Gams omits it altogether in his Series Episcoporum, &c.

p. 169, par. 2. "Indulto Quadragesimal" &c., read "Indulto quadregesimal" or Lenten Indulgence—Cardinal's hat for the bishop of Geneva, &c., these being the two ecclesiastical affairs spoken of in the paragraph abstracted. The bishop of Geneva's name was Pierre de Labaume.

p. 171. The nomination of cardinal Tavera to the post of Grand Inquisitor of Spain did not take place until the 7th of September 1539, when the bulls from Rome confirming his appointment arrived. He resigned in 1544, and died the year after on the 1st of August. He had been archbishop of Toledo since 1534, and president of the Council of Regency.

p. 176, No. 77. The letter of Cornelis Scepper, the Emperor's ambassador in France, is not in the Imperial Archives of Vienna, nor at Simancas, as it was natural to suppose, but in Paris, at the Hôtel Soubise. I need not point out here the reason for such transference, having already had occasion to record, as my predecessor also did, the flagrant spoliation of the Archives at Simancas. See Introduction to Vol. V., Part II, p. xix.

Bergenroth had it copied, with many others, in 1868, adding it to his Collection of Papers for the reign of Charles V., now in the British Museum. It is, like the rest of them, written in Spanish, either by Scepper himself, who was evidently a Dutchman by birth, or by his secretary. Owing to this, to the bad writing, perhaps, or to some other cause which I cannot determine—not having seen the original—certain it is that the transcripts, all in the same hand, are full of blunders and mis-readings, with now and then an occasional blank, as if the French transcriber had been unable to read one or more words in the original. Without going any further, in the 6th line of No. 77, "the day after (the 29th Aug.)" must be an error (of the writer or of the transcriber?) for "the 29th of July," the letter itself being dated "the 2nd of August."

p. 177, No. 78. I scarcely need observe here that Tinteville is wrong for Dinteville, French ambassador in England in 1536, and afterwards in Rome in 1538. His full name was Jean Policy, sieur de Dinteville and bailli de Troyes.

p. 180. To the note at the foot of that page about Laval, I may add in confirmation that Lavour is the name of an old episcopal town in Languedoc, of which George de Selve was bishop from 1529 to 1543. George was the son of Jean de Selve, first president of the Parliament of Paris, and brother of Odet de Selve, twice French ambassador in England. George, the bishop, had also been employed by Francis in various missions to Venice, to Rome, and to Germany.

p. 183, No. 80. In another abstract of Aguilar's letter to the Emperor, 13 Aug. 1539, which has lately come to hand from Simancas, the passage about England is differently worded. It stands thus:—

"Respecting the English business, I (Aguilar) spoke to His Holiness as instructed by Your Majesty's letters. I did so in the presence of cardinal Farnese and of his secretary, Marcelo, who reported most minutely the substance of their conference with the members of Your Majesty's Privy Council, namely, that the English matter ought not to be proceeded with for the present, and that it was better to wait until the affairs of Germany had been settled one way or other. Hearing which from my lips, His Holiness uttered a long discourse, complaining bitterly that the delay in the execution of the concerted plans would be the cause of the king of England acting every day worse and worse. He could not help thinking (said he) that there was coolness and hesitation in the matter, for whilst Your Majesty urged that cardinal Pole should go first to the king of France and communicate the whole affair to him, the latter declined to receive the Cardinal, and made excuses, saying that there was no need of the Cardinal coming to him unless he were furnished with full powers from Your Majesty to declare your intention as to what had better be done in case of the friendly admonition to be made to the king of England by their ambassadors failing to have the desired effect, and the King persisting in his disobedience to the Holy See. 'Even if king Francis (continued His Holiness) should consent to receive cardinal Pole, and hear from his lips the means he himself proposes to adopt with the advice of cardinal Farnese, and the ambassadors of the two princes went to England on a mission of exhortation and admonition, the measure would be completely useless unless the king of England and his subjects were at once deprived of the trade with Flanders and the Low Countries, and the ports—chief staple for their goods and merchandise—should be shut against them. Without that measure the exhortation by the ambassadors will only have the effect of over-irritating the King.' 'I know of no other available means (continued His Holiness), of making that king come to his senses again than the one I propose; all others will be insufficient. At any rate, the affair must be kept alive, lest the king of England should imagine that the offence has been forgotten. But what I most regret in all this affair is that king Francis is never constant in his good purposes, and, although he seems at present to be in favor of my views, he may one of these days disconcert all our plans.'"

p. 187, No. 85. Under the head of "Deciphering of letters from the Ambassador in France," there is at Simancas (L. 1484, No. 21), a Spanish translation of several despatches formerly written in French, the dates of them being the 3rd, 10th, 18th, and 20th of August, all of which will be found in Bergenroth's Collection, Vol. X., as transcripts, not indeed from Simancas, but from the Archives in Paris, under the signature of Simancas Olim, B. 4, No. 57.

p. 200, No. 91, par. 2, 1. 4. Sentleger is meant for Sir Anthony St. Leger, of Henry's Privy Chamber. He had a brother named Robert.

p. 207, par. 3. The son of Gian. Battista Sabello (Savelli),can be no other than Jacopo, bishop of Nicastro and Teramo, who in December 1539 was created cardinal by Pope Paul. The rest of the future cardinals, in the order they are mentioned in the passage, were:—1, Henry, or Enrique, de Borja, son of the duke of Gandia; 2, Prothonotary Guidichon (Bartholomeo Guidiccione), vicar of Rome; 3, Prothonotary Uberto Gambara; 4, Marcello Cervini, bp. of Nicastro; 5, Ascanio Parisani, bp. of Rimini, Paul's treasurer; 6, the auditor of the Apostolic Chamber at Rome [Jacopo Simonetta]; 7, the Genernl of the Servites (Magister Dyonisius, generalis Ordinis Servorum).

p. 208, par. 2. "The Pope will not appoint Orsino, the abbot of Farfa." His name was Napoleone, the celebrated abbé and "condottiero," so often mentioned in the pages of this calendar. "Di nome tremendo nell' opere sue, risveglio nelle monti Italiane la vecchia memoria de' pascati Napoleoni," says Sansovino (L'Historia di Casa Orsino. Ven., 1565; fol., pp. 55 and 58). His life was one of continual stir and trouble. At times the ally of France against the Emperor, and generally hostile to the Colonna, he always upheld the French party in Italy. After a war with his own brothers, he returned to Rome under the pontificate of Paul, and whilst conducting to Naples a sister of his, who was to be married in that town, was attacked on the road by brigands and slain, near Fossombrone in the duchy of Orbino. The author above mentioned quotes the following verse composed by an anonymous poet after his death:—

"Cadde l'Orsino, & nel cader s' estinse

Ogni glorie di Marta, et Roma pianse

Poiche chi inuitto uisse, morto uinse."

He was the son of Gian. Giordano Orsino, and Pier Luigi Farnese, the Pope's son, had been married to a lady of that family, called Hieronima.

p. 219. To the note (†) at the foot of that page the following supplementary remarks will not be considered superfluous. There were at this time two marchionesses of Pescara living: one the widow of the marquis Ferrante Davalos d' Aquino, who commanded the Neapolitan infantrv at Pavia, and died in 1527; the other the wife of his cousin, Alfonso, better known as marquis del Gasto, and Pescara. The former's name was Vittoria Colonna, daughter of Fabricio and sister of Ascanio. The latter was Maria de Aragon, whose sister, Joanna, was married to Ascanio Colonna, Which of the two—the dowager widow of Ferrante, or the wife of Alfonso — is the one described in Lope Hurtado's letter, No. 23, p. 59, as maliciously interfering in the marital quarrels of the Emperor's natural daughter [Margaret] with her young husband [Ottavio Farnese] it is difficult to determine; for Vittoria, soon after her husband's death at Milan, withdrew to a nunnery in Naples, where she died in 1547; whereas Gasto's wife, D. Maria, was still living when he died in 1546. To judge, however, from the passage there alluded to, in which Ascanio's son [Fabricio?] is mentioned, I should say that by "the marchioness of Pescara" the wife of Gasto must be meant, since she was the sister of Joanna or Juana de Aragon, duchess of Tagliacozzo and Pagliano by her marriage to Ascanio Colonna, and consequently aunt of Fabricio, son of Ascanio.

p. 234, par. 2. The Prince of the Green Turbans or Caps, as elsewhere (p. 9), was no other than the khan of Tatary (sic), a descendant of Timur or Tamerlane. It was to him that shah Thamasp married his sister, or, as in the passage alluded to, his own daughter.

p. 243, No. 114. The reader will be surprised to find the first mention of Cromwell s execution occurring in a letter from high commander Cobos, the Emperor's chief secretary, to the marquis de Aguilar, the ambassador at Rome. The original draft of this letter is at Simancas, and there is also a transcript of it in the Bergenroth Collection. In his journey to Flanders through France, at the end of the year 1539, the Emperor did not take his secretary with him; he left him behind at Madrid as a councillor of State. It was from there, on the 29th of July, that Cobos wrote to the Imperial ambassador at Rome the news of the Lord Privy Seal's execution, which he himself must have received either from Alonso Idiaquez or from Juan Vazquez de Molina, the two secretaries whom the Emperor took with him to Flanders. But how could Cobos at Madrid have heard of an event which took place in London on the same day? for Cromwell's execution, according to all accounts, took place six weeks after his arrest on the 11th June, that is, on the 29th of July 1540. It is only by supposing the date of the minute to be altogether wrong, and the clerk to have written July instead of August, that the similarity between the two dates can be accounted for; the more so that in the next letter (No. 115) from the High Commander to secretary Juan Vazquez de Molina, dated the 3rd of August, mention is made of Anne de Cléves' repudiation by Henry, which is known to have preceded Cromwell's arrest and execution by some weeks.

As neither the dean of Cambray [Maioris], who in March 1540 came to London as Charles' ambassador, nor Chapuys, who replaced him in October, says a word about Cromwell; as, on the other hand, Charles de Marillac, Francis' ambassador in England, has given us full details respecting the Privy Seal's arrest, condemnation, and execution, it will not be amiss for me to abstract here some of his despatches to king Francis or to the High Constable (Anne de Montmorency), lately published by the Foreign Office of France—Correspondence politique de Mons. de Marillac, Paris, 1885.

Mons. de Marillac to king Francis:

"I have just been told that Master Thomas Cromwell, keeper of the Privy Seal, and this king's vicar-general in spiritual matters, who ever since the death of cardinal Wolsey has had the chief management of affairs in this kingdom, and was lately created Lord High Chamberlain (Grand Chambellan), was one hour ago sent a prisoner to the Tower, and all his property judicially confiscated; which piece of intelligence, though it may be interpreted by some as a private act of the King, and one comparatively of small importance—since after all it only signifies reducing a personage of that class to the low state and condition from which he was raised and exalted, and treating him as in the opinion of many here he richly deserved to be treated—I consider of great importance, as it must sooner or later have an effect on this King's political views, if it does not indicate, as I presume, a radical change with regard to the religious innovations of which Master Cromwell himself had been the chief inventor and promoter. On this account, and considering the news to be important, I have deemed it my duty to inform you as soon as possible of the event, adding that until now no radical measure or final resolution in matters of religion has been taken, though the bishops are every day meeting together, and Parliament is still sitting to decide."

"I was about to close and seal this letter when a gentleman courtier came to tell me, in the King's name, not to wonder at Master Cromwell having been lodged in the Tower, for although common people, as usual, assigned various and different causes for his imprisonment, which causes I might perhaps have considered reliable, and probably reported home as such—yet the King wished me to hear from his own lips the exact truth and his reasons for the arrest of his privy councillor, whatever his authority and rank might be. The causes were substantially these: that whilst he (the King) was desirous by all means in his power to establish the fact of religion (establir le faict de la religion) and reduce it to the true way, the said Cromwell, strongly attached, as he was, to the party of the German Lutherans, had always resisted with all his power his desires in that line, favoring those doctors and theologians who preached the erroneous doctrines [of those sectarians], and preventing the others as far as he could from preaching and asserting the contrary of those doctrines. That very lately, having been falsely advised and admonished by some of his own confidential servants, apparently his friends, to think seriously of what he was planning and doing against the intentions and wishes of his Royal master and the Acts of Parliament, he had openly declared that he had no hope whatever of being able to suppress the old preachers, and letting the new ones be heard; but that matters would soon come to a crisis. The King, with all his power, would be unable to stop the former, and then his own party (Cromwell's) would become so strong that the King, willingly or unwillingly, would be obliged to embrace the new opinions in matters of religion, or else take up arms against him (prendre les armes a l'encontre de luy). Should this be the case (Cromwell had said), he trusted not to be inferior in the contest, but superior and stronger, so as altogether to win the day and firmly establish the order of things of which he had been thinking long ago. These projects and intrigues of Cromwell had been revealed to the King by the very people on whom he himself most trusted, and who, preferring fidelity to him (the King) to favor and grace from their private master, had gone up to him, and reported what they had heard and seen.

"The King's messenger further said that on the very first occasion of my going to Court the King will tell me so many and such things about Cromwell, that I shall be fully convinced of his criminality. He (the King) had long dissembled, but could no longer postpone the punishment of the culprit on this occasion."—Marillac to king Francis; London, 11 June 1540, pp. 189–90.

The Same to the High Constable [Montmorency]:

"Monseigneur,—The split between this king's ministers, of which I wrote in one of my late despatches as likely to end in the ruin and destruction of one of the two parties, has come to pass. That of lord Cromwell seemed some days ago to be the stronger, owing to the dean of the Royal Chapel [at Windsor], bishop of Chichester [Richard Sampson] having been arrested; but now it is almost entirely destroyed by the sudden arrest of its chief, not one of his former friends and adherents remaining by his side, save, perhaps, the archbishop of Canterbury (Cranmer), who dares no longer open his mouth in his defence, and the Lord Admiral of England, who for a long time back has learned the art of sailing with every wind. These two, however, could do nothing against such adversaries in the King's Council as the duke of Norfolk and the rest of the councillors, so that Cromwell's disgrace became an accomplished fact—indeed, his fall and his imprisonment are things so wonderful and so unexpected that they have taken every one by surprise."—Marillac to the High Constable Montmorency; London, 11 June 1540, pp. 190–1.

King Francis to Marillac:

"Master Walop, the English ambassador, has to-day come to apprize me, in his master's name, of Master Cromwell's arrest, a piece of intelligence which not only has been agreeable to me, but which, owing to the singular and perfect friendship which I have always professed, and do profess, for the said king, my brother, I have received with singular pleasure, as it has given me an opportunity to thank God. I beg you, Mr. Marillac, to present to the King the enclosed letters of credence, and to tell him that, in my humble opinion, he has good reason to thank God for having afforded him cognizance of the faults and malversations of that wretched individual Cromwell—the sole cause of all the suspicions and ill-will by him entertained, not only against his friends but against his most private, loyal, and best servants, as it has been proved by the facts which God has been pleased to bring to Ids knowledge. My brother will thus learn how easy it will be for him, after removing from his side so wicked and wretched an instrument, to devote himself entirely to the peace and quieting of his own kingdom, the common weal of the Church, and especially that of the princes, nobles, and commoners of England—a thing, Mr. Marillac, which I beg you to put before the King's eyes as coming from me, his friend and perpetual ally."—King Francis to Marillac; Fontainebleau, 15 June 1540, pp. 191–2.

Mr. de Marillac to king Francis:

...................

"Cromwell's arrest took place at Westminster, in the Council Hall (Chambre du Conseil). On the governor (cappitaine) of the Tower entering the Hall and announcing to him that he had the King's commands to take him prisoner, the latter burst into a passion, took his bonnet off his head, and flung it on the ground. 'Is this,' said he to the duke of Norfolk and to the rest of the privy councillors there assembled, 'the reward for the services I have done to the King, my master? I appeal to your consciences, am I a traitor, as I have been accused of being? Since I am treated in this manner, I must at once renounce all hope of mercy and grace—I who never thought that I was offending. If the King thinks that I have, my only request is that he make quick work of me, and will not let me languish long in prison.' Upon which part of the councillors said that he was really a traitor; others said that he should be judged by the same laws which he himself had made—so rigorous and sanguinary that words idly spoken had often been construed into treason and crimes of lese majesty. The duke of Norfolk particularly, after reproaching him with some villanies, tore the St. George from his neck. Then the Admiral (Fitzwilliam), to show himself as great an enemy of his in adversity as he would have been a friend in prosperity, as people imagined, stripped off the Garter. He was then led down into a barge, by a gate which opened into the river, and rowed secretly and without noise to the Tower, the people of this city not becoming aware of it until they actually saw the King's archers, under the conduct of Mr. Cheney, at the door of the prisoner's house, where an inventory was taken of his property and chattels. This, however, was not so valuable as people might have imagined, and yet considerable enough for a man of his stuff (pour ung compaignon de telle estoffe), since a sum of 7,000 pounds sterling, equivalent to 28,000 crs, (escus) of our French money, was found, and perhaps a larger one in silver plate, including crosses, chalices, mitres, vases, and other utensils coming from the spoliation of churches and monasteries, the whole of which were before night deposited in the Royal treasury, which is to me a sign that the King does not intend giving them back and releasing his prisoner.

"The day after the minutes of many letters were found addressed by Cromwell to the German princes and lords who adhere to Luther's doctrines, as well as the answers to those letters. I have not yet been able to ascertain what the correspondence was about, but I hear from a good source that the King is so incensed against him that he will not allow any one to mention his name in his presence; on the contrary, he wishes all memory of him to be forgotten as soon as possible, as if he had been the most miserable wretch that ever lived in England. In proof of which, soon after Cromwell's arrest, the King began to distribute all the offices and commissions he formerly had, as you will presently hear, a proclamation being is sued forbidding all persons to call him Lord of the Privy Seal, as though he had never held that office or give him any other title or signory, but merely mention him as Thomas Cromwell, the shearer of cloth, thus taking away from him all privileges and prerogatives of nobility conferred on him. His less valuable household furniture, vestments, and so forth, were by the King's order distributed among Cromwell's servants, who, however, were enjoined not to use in future their master's livery. Such things make people think that Cromwell will not be judged by the lords, and that, if sentenced to death by them, he will not be beheaded, as is the custom of this country, but will be dragged through the streets of this city, and then hung and quartered as a low traitor. Perhaps in a few days' time we shall witness the catastrophe, especially as for the last few days Parliament, which is to close at the end of this month, has been deliberating about having the prisons emptied.

"With regard to other prisoners, no one can say what their fate will be, only that hope is entertained that the Debitis (Deputy of Calais) will be spared, inasmuch as the King was heard to say two days ago that he cannot persuade himself that the Debitis (Deputy of Calais) has acted maliciously, but merely out of sheer ignorance, in the affair of which he is accused.

"It now remains for me to tell you who has succeeded to the various honors, charges, and estates of the said Cromwell. I will say nothing of those personages whom you already know, presuming that no further information is required concerning them. The Privy Seal has been given to the admiral Fitzwilliam, whilst Master Russel has become Lord High Admiral of England in his room. The bishop of Durham (Cuthbert Tunstall) has been appointed first secretary, or vicegerent in ecclesiastical causes. In spiritual matters nothing has yet been decided. It is, however, rumoured that if one be appointed to that office, it will be the bishop of Westminster, who, since the arrest of his adversary and capital enemy (Cromwell), has been recalled to the Privy Council, which he rarely attended before. For the affairs of justice, the Chancellor (Lord Thomas Audeley) has been deputed, who, among other accomplishments (vertus), has that of being unable to speak either French or Latin, and has besides the reputation of being a good salesman of justice whenever a good bidder is to be found. They have appointed under him a clerk or chancellor of the Court of Augmentations, the most wretched creature in all England, and the first inventor of the destruction of abbeys and monasteries, the general confiscation of Church property, and all sorts of innovations in religious matters. (fn. n1) The Chancellor I speak of was the real adviser of such measures, whilst Cromwell was the executor of them by lending his authority, on which account he had the title of Chancellor of the Court of Augmentations, owing to his having thereby increased or augmented the King's treasury and revenue. He might just as well have been called the 'Chancellor of the Diminutions,' for having diminished and curtailed the property of the Church, as well as the reputation he himself had of being a learned and wise man."—Marillac to the High Constable Montmorency; 23 June 1540, pp. 192–3.

Marillac to Montmorency:

"Master Thomas Cromwell, condemned and sentenced to death by Parliament, as I announced in one of my last despatches, was beheaded this morning in front of the Tower, the spot where similar executions generally take place, the King having graciously exempted him from a graver and more ignominious sort of death. At the same time with him, and in the same place, was beheaded lord Haigrefort (Hungerford), a nobleman aged about 40, accused of sodomy, of having had incestuous intercourse with his own daughter, and made use of magical arts and invocations to the Devil. Since noon someone has called to tell me that Dr. Barnes and some others will be burnt alive. That will make me keep this my letter closed till the evening, that I may let you know whether the execution has really taken place or not, for I am told that the number of those condemned to death amounts to forty-two (sic). It is, moreover, thought that this very week many more executions will take place of people condemned and sentenced by Parliament, who, not being included in the general amnesty and pardon granted by the King, have been sentenced either to death or to perpetual confinement in the Tower prison, according as the King may use clemency or rigour towards them. I observe that among those to be executed there are some of whose names mention should be made, and that is why I call your attention to the enclosed memorandum and list of them." (fn. n2) —London, 23 of June 1540, p. 193.

Marillac to the King:

"Sire,—My despatch of the 23rd contained an account of the execution of Master Cromwell and of the seigneur Lord Hangrefort (fn. n3) (Hungerford). Two days after took place that of the six doctors, three of whom were hung as traitors, in the usual way, for having some time ago spoken in favor of the Pope. Their names are Pol (Powel?), Abel (Abell), and the prior of Dencaster (Doncaster). The other three were burnt as heretics, namely, Drs. Barnes, Garard, and Hierosme (Jerome). And certainly it was wonderful to witness the execution on the same day and at the same hour of people professing different doctrines and belonging to opposite parties: an equally scandalous execution for the one as for the other party—each of them pretending to have been offended by the other—and a most horrible one to witness or hear of, considering the stubborn obstinacy with which each of the parties respectively defended their case, complaining to the last that justice had not been observed, but, on the contrary, had been perverted and infringed in their case, each and every one of them maintaining to the last that they had never been summoned before a judge, and were entirely ignorant of the cause of their imprisonment and condemnation to such an ignominious death—that the condition of the Christians in this century of Grace was far worse than that of the Jews—at the time when it was strictly forbidden among them to try and sentence a man to death before hearing his defence, and his being convicted of the crime or offence of which he was accused.

"I need not give here the names of those, ten in number, who were executed last Wednesday. One was the natural son (filz, bastard) of the late Grand Squire, Master Carau (Sir Nicholas Carew), and by his side a friar, who would not put off his frock, but persisted in wearing it in public. The other eight were all men of low rank and almost unknown."—Marillac to the King; London, 23 June 1540, pp. 193–6.

p. 244, par. 2. "Half-fruits," &c. After the word division, ending with a —, the word "pension" ought to be inserted, otherwise the sentence has no meaning. Uberto Foglieta, who is there recommended by the high commander (Francisco de los Cobos, or Covos) for a pension on the archbishopric of Granada, was most likely the brother of Agostino, a Roman lawyer employed by Mai, Cifuentes, and other Imperial ambassadors in the long suit instituted by queen Katherine in consequence of her divorce (see Vol. IV., Part II., p. 12).

Corda, in the third line of the same paragraph, is an "erratum" for Coria, a town of Extramadura, and in the note (†) at the foot of the page, La Corda is again wrong for La Cerda, the family name of the dukes of Medinaceli. The general of the Franciscans at this time was no longer Fr. Francisco de Quiñones, whose death is recorded at p. 289, but Fr. Vincencio Lunel, a Spaniard, whose brother Antonio is erroneously called by Gams Lunelli.

p. 247, No. 117. In this letter of the 10th of August from Mr. de St. Mauris to the Emperor, reference is made to a previous one of the 5th, which is not in the Imperial Archives of Vienna nor at Simancas. This is the more to be regretted that there are certain obscure passages in the one abstracted that cannot be sufficiently cleared up. For in the first place, what does the Imperial ambassador in France mean, whilst condoling with the Emperor at the sharp and long attack of gout from which he was still suffering, by the words "owing to your journey to Iceland?" No historian, that I know of, speaks of a journey to that island made by the Emperor in 1540; whilst Vandenesse, who accompanied him in all his journeys, and marked down with scrupulous care all the places his master staid at, makes no mention at all of Iceland. After leaving Paris in January, visiting queen Mary of Hungary in Brussels, putting down the rebellion of Ghent in May and punishing its inhabitants, the Emperor visited Flushing, Dordrecht, Rotterdam, and La Hague; on the 11th of August he was at Haarlem, on the 12th at Amsterdam, and on the 14th at Utrecht. The only plausible conjecture I can offer is that the writer of the letter may have employed the word Iceland figuratively, as the "country of Ice," or Northern Germany.

ibid, par. 3. "With regard to the Clèves marriages," &c. It might be supposed at first sight that the Imperial ambassador alludes to that of Anne de Clèves and king Henry, but it is not so; the Emperor's inquiry and the ambassador's answer refer to that of the duke of Clèves and Juliers (Guillaume de La Mark) with Jeanne d'Albret, Francis' niece, which really took place, but was subsequently annulled.—Henri Martin, Histoire de France, Vol. VIII, liv. xlix.

p. 248, par. 2. "This information was imparted to me by Mr. d'Ezcurren, who had it from Mons. Antoine de la Cruz," &c. In Part II. of Vol. V., pp. 462, 484–5, frequent mention is made of one Azcarren, or L'Azcarren, a Navarrese gentleman attached to the suite of Henri II. d'Albret, titular king of Navarre, then residing at Pau. He it was who introduced Martin de Salinas, the king of the Romans' ambassador in Spain, to Henri and to Margaret, his wife, sister of Francis I. The object of Salinas' mission was to ascertain what sort of compensation Henri d'Albret, a son of Jeanne, the last queen of Navarre, would ask to relinquish his pretended rights to that kingdom. Mr. d' Azcarren, or Ezcurren, as he is there called (see pp. 248–9), must be the same person elsewhere alluded to as having commenced the negociation at Pau, the more so that he is said to have derived his information from Mr. Antoine de la Croix, as the writers of the time call him: i.e., Antoine de la Cruz de Albret, son of Henri I. of Navarre, and brother of the second Henri d'Albret, whom the Austrian ambassador visited in 1538.

p. 263. "Bishop Pietro Bossio." It is doubtful whether Bossio is not an error for Blosio (Pietro), Clement VII.'s secretary, mentioned at p. 244.

p. 266. D. Gaston de la Cerda, third duke of Medina Celi, was the second son of duke D. Juan. At the death of D. Luis, the eldest, who left no children, D. Gaston inherited the large estates of his family—one of the noblest in Spain, since they claim their descent from the Infante Don Fernando de la Cerda. D. Gaston, however, who early in life, and whilst his brother was still alive, had taken the frock in a Hieronimite convent, and had afterwards become Knight of St. John, must have appealed to an ecclesiastical court in demand of some sort of dispensation to leave the Church and marry, and hence the suit at Rome instituted by his own brother, Don Juan, who succeeded him as fourth duke.—Lopez de Haro, Nobiliario Genealogico, Vol. I., lib. i., cap. xi., p. 83.

p. 267, par. 4. Two officials of the name of Sanchez are mentioned in the High Commander's letter to secretary Alonso Idiaquez, who had then replaced him near the Emperor. One is Alonso, who from 1531 to 1535 was the king of the Romans' ambassador in Venice and in Rome, and another Antonio Gabriel, whose death is recorded as having happened before the 22nd of Sept. 1541. This latter, who was treasurer first of Aragon and afterwards of Naples, may have been the son or nephew of another Gabriel Sanchez, who, under the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, held the office of treasurer to those monarchs, and furnished Columbus with part of the funds required for his voyage of discovery.

ibid. Gonzalo Perez, who in paragraph the fifth is said to be wanting the abbey of Aries, is no other than the translator of Homer's Odyssey in verse, and the father of Antonio, who succeeded him in his post of secretary to the Emperor. There is, however, no place in Spain called Arles or Artes, and therefore I am inclined to think that the correct reading is Arbas or Arbes, the name of a rich abbey in Navarre.

ibid, same par. Dr. Scoriazo (a misprint for Scoriaza) can be no other than the Emperor's chief physician, Escoriaza, whose letters and reports on Charles' health during his frequent absences from Spain have already been abstracted. See Vol. IV., Part II., of this Calendar, pp. 42, 197, 449, 618, 780.

p. 280, No. 132, par. 1. The name of the cardinal of the Borgia (Borja) family there mentioned was Enrique (Henry), who in 1539 was bishop of Squillace, in the kingdom of Naples. Created cardinal by Paul III. in January 1540, he died shortly after at Viterbo, of a malignant fever, before he could go to Rome and take his seat in the Sacred College. See Raynaldus, Annales Ecclesiastici, Vol. XIII., p. 517. He was the son of the duke of Gandia.

p. 286. The date of the letter (No. 137) is altogether wrong, for on the 3rd of November 1539 the Emperor was still in Spain, on his way to Paris. He passed the night of the 27th at Bayonne, where he was met by the dauphin of France (Henri de Valois), cardinal Châtillon, the High Constable of France (Montmorency), and several princes, officers, and gentlemen of Francis' household. On the 10th, at noon, he was at La Roche, and reached Loches at night of the same day. Here he was met by cardinals Bourbon, Lorraine, Lisieux, Tournon, Boulogne, Macon, Paris, Châtillon, and Gaddi. There he was met by king Francis, and Paris was reached on the evening of the 1st of January 1540. After a week's stay in Paris, and a visit to Madrid—a pleasure house in the Bois de Boulogne, built by Francis, and probably so called in order to elude his promise of visiting the Emperor in his capital—the latter left for Flanders, and on the 21st of the same month was at Valenciennes.

p. 292. In the second paragraph of Cobos' letter (No. 141) to Sarmiento de Mendoza, Imperial ambassador in Portugal, reference is made to a bishop of Viseu (Miguel de Silva), who was at Rome in September or October 1540, most likely on a mission of Joaõ III. to the Pope, and perhaps also soliciting a cardinal's hat for himself. At least such is the inference naturally to be drawn from the Pope's declaration to Aguilar respecting him. However, notwithstanding Paul's dislike and reluctance to create Silva a cardinal, it appears that the Portuguese prelate at last succeeded in gaining Papal favor, and being promoted to the purple in 1541. An inedited letter of the marquis de Aguilar to the Emperor, dated the lath of January 1541, has the following:—"His Holiness, in the Consistory held before the last Temporas (Ember-days), suddenly got up from his chair, and without any previous notice declared that the bishop of Viseu was the cardinal he had reserved 'in pectore' at his last creation. The cause of his nomination, as cardinal Santa Croce has given us to understand, is no other than his having been once the Pope's schoolfellow 'in minoribus,' and so great a friend of his that in after life he stood godfather to cardinal Alessandro Farnese, Paul's grandson, and, more particularly perhaps, his having brought here [to Rome] a large sum of money, of which he may have divided a good portion among those who have interceded for him. At any rate, the French ambassador has, I am told, complained of the nomination of the Portuguese, and spoken to the Pope against it, saying, among other things, that his master, the King, had written ordering him to suspend all negociations until he receives fresh instructions from France."

p. 294. The note at the foot of the page is erroneously given. After his return to England, at the end of August or beginning of September, Chapuys wrote to Granvelle on the 3rd of the latter month, to the queen of Hungary on the 23rd of October (No. 134), and on the 31st to the Emperor (No. 135). No letter of the 16th of October is to be found in the Imperial Archives of Vienna, unless it be misplaced, as is often the case, in some other bundle of official papers of later date. It has already been observed that Chapuys was out of England when Cromwell's execution took place; but he had already returned to his post when Henry's marriage to Katharine Howard was made public, and yet the first allusion to her is that contained in his letter of the 23rd of December, when he waited upon the King at Hampton Court, and had audience from him. From this I conclude that some of that ambassador's despatches must be either missing or misplaced. However this may be, as Marillac, in his exceedingly interesting letters to king Francis or to his ministers, speaks of the rumours afloat among courtiers five weeks before, in July, I will abstract here two of his letters in which the Royal marriage is mentioned. In one of them, dated the 21st of July 1541, after lamenting the repudiation of Anne de Clèves by the King, he continues:—

"However that may be, it is generally reported that the King will shortly marry a lady of great beauty, the daughter of the brother, now deceased, of the [present] duke of Norfolk. Should I be allowed to express my own opinion on the matter, I should say that, if my information from various quarters be correct, the King's marriage to the lady has already been effected and consummated. Yet, as the affair is kept secret, I dare not announce the latter as a positive fact, especially as in a few days I shall be able to ascertain what truth there may be in the whole affair."—Marillac to the High Constable Montmorency; London, 21 July 1540, p. 202.

Five weeks after the same ambassador wrote:—

"I have nothing more to write about, save that during this journey (a ce progrez) I have had occasion to see the new queen— a young lady of middling beauty (fn. n4) and greater grace, short and delicate-looking, very modest countenance, and sweet though deliberate looks, of whom this king is so passionately fond just now that he could not, however affectionately he may treat her, sufficiently manifest the love he bears her, which, to judge from outward demonstrations, far exceeds that which he ever professed for other ladies [of this court]. She dresses in the French fashion, as all the other ladies of this court, and bears the following motto round her armorial scutcheon: "Non aultre volunte que la sienne."—Marillac to the High Constable Montmorency; London, 4 Sept. 1540, p. 218.

p. 302, No. 144. The Scotch ambassador there called "Jean Camail" can be no other than Sir John Campbell. See State Papers, Vol. V., p. 238.

p. 305, No. 149. The duchess of Suffolk's name was not Margaret, as erroneously stated in line 13 of the first paragraph, but Mary, the sister of king Henry, and wife of king Louis XII. of France, after whose death, on the 1st of January 1515, she married Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk.

p. 336, 1. 35. "Junto al puerto del Tube" are the words of the copy, but no such a name appears on the maps I have consulted. According to other accounts, the murder of Fragoso and Rincon took place at the confluent of the Ticino and the Po by Spaniards from the garrison of Pavia.

p. 339, No. 171. The Medici (Lorenzo) mentioned in the last paragraph, line 15 of Don Diego de Mendoza's letter to the Emperor, dated 12 July, as residing then in France, and having applied for the post of French ambassador at Constantinople in the room of Fragoso (Cesare) and Rincon (Antonio), murdered a few weeks before, can be no other than the celebrated Lorenzo de' Medici, generally known by the surname of Lorenzino, the same who in January 1537 is reported to have slain with his own hand his kinsman Alessandro, at the time duke of Florence. Lorençino was the son of Laurentio or Lorenzo de' Medici and of Semiramis Apiano, daughter of Jacopo or Giacopo, lord of Piombino. He himself, after being employed on various missions by king Francis, was slain by robbers on his way from Paris to Venice.

Pietro Strozzi, his friend and confederate, who became Marshal of France and died in June 1558, had married Laudemia de' Medici, daughter (or sister?) of Lorenzino.

p. 345, 1. 2. "The duke of Clèves, my nephew," says king Francis to Marillac, his ambassador in England, in one of the letters, of which Chapuys procured a copy through Philip Honz. The Duke is no other than Guillaume de La Mark, duke of Clèves and Juliers, who, after the death of Charles d'Egmont, duke of Ghelders, claimed this latter duchy as his inheritance. He was the son of John III., and the brother of Anne, Henry VIII.'s repudiated wife. Francis I. perceiving that, nothwithstanding the Emperor's offers, he could not obtain possession of the much coveted duchy of Milan, decided to break the truce made at Nizza in June, and confirmed at Aigues Mortes in July of the previous year. There was about that time a secret negociation between the Emperor's agents and those of the titular king of Navarre, Henri II. of Albret, pending which a marriage between prince Philip of Spain, the Emperor's son, and Jeanne d'Albret had been offered on condition of Henri and his wife, Marguerite de Navarre, a sister of king Francis, consenting to the cession of whatever rights they might have, or pretend to have, to that kingdom. That the marriage was really effected, though subsequently annulled, is a fact which Henri Martin records in his Histoire de France, Vol. VIII., liv. xlix.

p. 355, No. 182, par. 1. Passano, in l. 5, where Martin Alonso, the Emperor's messenger, is said to have met the Pope and have had an audience from him, must be an error for Pagliano, a small town of the Roman States, and capital of a duchy belonging to the Colonna family.

ibid, par. 2. The cardinal of Medicis, of whose assassination Pope Paul was accused by Hieronymo de Carpi, chamberlain of the duke of Florence (Alessandro de' Medici), can be no other than Ippolito, son of Julio, or Giuliano, governor of Florence, whom Pope Clement created cardinal in 1529. He was bishop of Avignon, and died, according to Ciaconius, torn, iii., p. 234, of the plague, when he was preparing to join Charles' expedition against Algiers. Of this Julio or Giuliano Pope Clement is generally reputed to have been the natural son, whilst Alessandro was that of Clement.

p. 368, No. 196. "I am now expecting from the same man four more ciphered alphabets," &c. It is with the help of these that Chapuys was enabled to read and transcribe the letters and papers which the French ambassador's servant or secretary procured him from time to time.

Joined to this despatch of Chapuys' to the queen of Hungary, dated Oct. 5, 1541, are several documents in cipher, which I suppose are the copies of Marillac's correspondence with king Francis and his ministers during the years 1540–1—the same which the Imperial ambassador deciphered and sent home; if so, they have already been abstracted and chronologically placed according to their dates.

p. 384, No. 204. It would have been important to obtain a copy of the letter which Chapuys says he had written les Caresmaux passes—last Lent—that is, in June or July 1541, announcing to the queen of Hungary that there had been during that time much consultation and talk about the King's divorce from his Queen (Katharine Howard), but the letter is not to be found at Vienna nor at Simancas. As a substitute for that letter I will abstract here what Marillac himself says, at about the same time, concerning an event which seems to have taken every one by surprise:—

"What induces me to suspect that I am right in my conjecture is, that I know for certain that the lady in question has lately been accused of having had connexion with a gentleman of this court, whilst she was living in the house of the old duchess of Norfolk, the mother of lord William [Howard], and that the King's physicians have declared her unable to bear children. I also take into consideration the fact of the King having for some time back behaved towards her as he did towards his late queen Anne [Boleyn]—avoiding as much as possible her company; and that the Queen herself, who formerly did nothing but dance and amuse herself, keeps now her apartments without showing herself, and that when musicians with their instruments call at her door they are dismissed, saying that it is no longer time for dancing. Her brother [Lord Henry], a gentleman of the King's Privy Chamber, has been exiled from Court without his being told the cause or reason for it; and if matters have come to this pass, the duke of Norfolk must be exceedingly sorry and troubled, for the said Queen happens to be his own niece, and the daughter of his brother [Lord Edmund], just as Anne [Boleyn] was also his niece on his sister's side, and his having been the chief cause of the King marrying her.

"I set people of mine to watch in the neighbourhood of Hampton Court, and the only thing they have learned is that yesterday, at night, the archbishop of Canterbury [Cranmer], to whom the fact had been first revealed, entered the Royal palace with others; and since then, I am told, that an inventory has been taken of all rings and jewels belonging to the Queen, which, if true, there can be no doubt as to the rest. However this may be, so many people of my acquaintance affirm the fact that, if I have been deceived in this matter, it must be owned that they and I, and indeed all those who can judge and have experience of English affairs, must be in error.

"With respect to the lady whom the King is likely to take for wife, all here think that she will be the same that he repudiated a year ago, who has conducted herself as wisely and virtuously as is possible to imagine; who, moreover, is now more beautiful (plus belle) than ever she was, more regretted and sympathized with than even queen Katharine of Aragon in a similar case. Besides which there is no signal, that I know of, of the King wishing to marry again, or of his having placed his affections elsewhere."—Marillac to the King; p. 352–4.

p. 390. Mary (Maria), the Emperor's daughter, was born at Madrid on the 21st of June 1528, In 1548 she was married to the archduke Maximilian II., who, upon the death of Ferdinand, his father, in 1564, became emperor of Germany. After Maximilian's death in 1575, Maria, his widow, returned to Spain, and entered the convent of Las Descalzas Reales, in Madrid, founded by her sister, Doña Juana. She died there on the 26th of February 1603.

There lived at the same time two Infantas of Portugal of the same name, both belonging to the Royal house of Portugal, of whom frequent mention has been made in the pages of this Calendar. As they have been often mistaken one for the other, it will not be considered inopportune to give here some notice of both. One was Maria, the daughter of king Dom Manoel, of Portugal, and of Eleanor, of Austria, the Emperor's sister. The other, born in 1527, was the daughter of Dom Joaõ III., son and successor of Dom Manoel, who occupied the throne of Portugal from 1521 to 1557. The former was betrothed to the Dauphin, Charles de Valois, duke of Orleans, son of Francis I., but the marriage never took place, and she died single in 1577; whilst the latter married, in November 1543, Philip II., son of Charles V., and died on the 12th of July 1545, after her confinement. She was the first of the four wives of that monarch, and the mother of prince Don Carlos, whose untimely and somewhat mysterious end has furnished subject for many a novel.

p. 391, last par. "Nicolao Ardinghello, bishop of Vessumbrun." The name of this bishop is variously written in the marquis of Aguilar's despatches, sometimes Andrighelli, at others Ardinghelli, but by consulting Gams' Series Episcoporum, &c., and Baronio's Annales Ecclesiastici, Vol. XXXIII., p. 573, I find that the latter spelling is the correct one. He became Paul's first secretary and datary, and was sent to France as Papal Nuncio in November 1541 to solicit the observance of the truce by Francis, and the release of the archbishop of Valencia, George of Austria, natural son of the emperor Maximilian, and uncle of Charles, who, on his journey to Liège, whose episcopal coadjutorship he had just obtained, was taken prisoner—no doubt in retaliation for Fragoso and Rincon, murdered in Italy. As to Vessumbrun, which is also called Frossombrone and Foss San Bruno, I need not observe that it is a corruption of Fossombrone, the ancient "Forum Sempronii," an episcopal town in the legation of Urbino.

p. 406 par. 3. "Cardinal Parisio and auditor Marcello." The former's name name was Paolo; he was bishop of Nicastro until 1541, when he was raised to the purple. Marcello—that is, Antonio Marcello Cervini, for such was his full name—had been secretary to cardinal Alessandro Farnese when this latter went to Spain as legate. (See above, pp. 184, 207, 218, 406.) He was created cardinal by Paul III. in December 1539, and after the death of Julius III. (Giovan M. Giocchi), in 1555, was elected Pope, under the name of Marcellus II., but died some days after.

p. 424. Francesco Sfondrato (not Sfrondato, as his name has been sometimes spelt) was born at Cremona in 1494. His father, Gian. Battista, who died in 1497, had been senator of Milan. Francesco, who was at first count of La Riviera, was also created Senator by Francesco II. Sforza, duke of Milan. He married Anna Visconti, by whom he had a son, named Nicolao, born on the 21st of Feb. 1535, and who, in 1560, became bishop of Cremona, cardinal in 1583, and lastly, in Dec. 1590, Pope, under the appellation of Gregory XIV. He died on the 15th of October 1591.

Soon after his wife's death count Francesco went into the Church, became bishop of Sarno, and afterwards archbishop of Amalfi. In December 1541 he was appointed, as has been seen, temporary governor of Siena (Sena), then promoted to the cardinalate, and lastly sent to the Diet of Spires as legate to Charles V. He died at Cremona in 1550, on the 21st of July.

Count Francesco Sfondrato, therefore, is the same person as cardinal Sfondrato, though sometimes mentioned as Count, and at others as Cardinal.

p. 427. The paragraph relating to the Cardinals' hats offers some difficulty. As to the bishop of Viseu (Miguel de Silva (1527–47), the son or nephew of Alfonso de Silva, Portuguese ambassador in Rome, 1525–6), he is already mentioned at p. 192 as about to quit that capital and return to Portugal. He was appointed Cardinal in December 1541, at the eighth and last creation made by Paul, and then sent on a mission to the Emperor, for the purpose, as it was said, of inducing him to come to terms with king Francis. The cardinal of Viseu died in 1547. Of the three French ecclesiastics, one was the ambassador at Rome; the chancellor of France [Antoine du Prat] was the other; but who was "the nephew of Mr. Sambaut" (?) that I cannot guess, for the name may be so disfigured as to render any conjecture almost hopeless. Yet I find that there was in France a bishop and cardinal of Lisieux of the name of Annebaut (Jacques), a nephew of the Marshal of France, Claude d'Annebaut (generally written Hannebault), king Francis' lieutenant-general in Piedmont, and if so, Sambaut might well be a misreading for "Annebaut."

p. 429, No. 220, 1. 21. "The registers of the 'tonlieu' of Calais." This word "tonlieu" must have been used in former times to designate the tonnage of ships, as well as the duty, toll, or tax to be levied on each ton (tonneau) of merchandise. Like the word debitis, or debitys, for deputy, it must have belonged to the local dialect of Picardy, for it is not to be found in French dictionaries however old. On this last word debitis, see above p. 541.

p. 464, The name of the ambassador sent on this occasion to France was Knyvet (Sir Henry). (fn. n5) Sir Henry must have had a brother called Sir Anthony, who in 1541 was lieutenant of the Tower, for Marillac in his correspondence (p. 315), after mentioning, on the 14th of June, the execution of two archers of Henry's body guard, convicted of having waylaid and robbed a rich merchant of this city [of London], goes on to say: "More fear than actual harm has also been caused to the brother of the ambassador just now sent to the Emperor by this king, that is, Sir Anthony Knybet, who having been accused of giving a slap in the face to a gentleman within the precincts of the Royal Palace, was sentenced to have his right hand cut off at the wrist. He was actually conducted by the executioner of justice to a place where a scaffold had been erected for the purpose; then his hand was tied and secured to a stake; the executioner lifted up his axe, and was about to discharge the blow, when the King's pardon came."—Marillac to king Francis; London, 14 June 1541.

p. 468, No. 230. "And likewise for a daughter by the first marriage of the wife of Monsieur de Lyt, once debitis of Calais." There can be no doubt that by Monsieur de Lyt, or Lyte, as otherwise written, Arthur Plantagenet, viscount Lisle, the King's deputy (debitis) or governor of Calais is meant. His wife was Elizabeth Grey.

As to the daughter of Mme. Albart (?), and niece of the Grand Esquire, I leave it for the English genealogists to find out who she was; most likely the name is very much corrupted.

p. 505. Count Luigi or Ludovic Rangone, mentioned in Chapuys' letter to the Emperor, dated the 16th April, seems to be the same personage whose arrival in England that ambassador records about the middle of March (p. 484), and yet he is there named count Glaudio (Claude), whereas in his letter of April his christian name is said to be Luigi. In the State Papers, Vol. X., p. 414, his arrival in London is also mentioned, though his name is spelt Rincon, as if he were a relation of the ambassador of Francis at Constantinople, who, on his return from that city, together with Cesare Fragoso, was murdered by Gasto's spies. I need not observe that the Italian name Rangone has nothing in common with Antonio Rincon, the Spaniard.

p. 508. The severe illness (for such it must have been) of princess Mary, at the same time as that of the prince of Wales, must have considerably alarmed the French ambassador, who on the 28th of April wrote to king Francis as follows: "Mme. Marie est fort mallade d'une fievre estrange qui l'a tenue depuys Pasques, par où lon estime quelle est en dangier de mourir, car parfoys il y [luy?] vient des faiblesses si grandes qu'on la tient quelque espace de temps comme morte. Le prince de Galles aussi est mal disposé, mais ce n'est pas si aigrement que la dite dame sa sœur."—Marillac to the King; London, 28 April 1542; pp. 410–1.

Francis' letter of the 28th (No. 248), in answer to Marillac's of the 22nd, shows how concerned he must have been respecting the health of the Princess; at a time, too, when the negociations for her marriage to Charles, duke of Orleans, were being still briskly carried on—at least on his part. On the 2nd of May, however, all danger had passed, and Marillac wrote to his master: "Au demeurant, Mme. Marie, se trouve beaucoup myeulx quelle ne soulloit, et disent les medecins que pour ceste foys elle est hors de dangier."

p. 514, No. 253. The Pope's instructions to cardinal Rosario, like most of the papers comprised in the Appendix, are undated. There can be no doubt, however, as to that cardinal's mission having taken place before August or September, which is the supposed date of the document copied by Berzosa from the original minute in the Archives of the Vatican, for Zapoli, or king John of Hungary, as he was persistently called by the enemies of the king of the Romans, died on the 21st of July 1540, not in 1538, as erroneously stated elsewhere (pp. 13 and 118). In February 1539 he married, at Buda, Isabella, daughter of Sigismond, king of Poland, by whom he had a son called John Sigismond, who succeeded him.

p. 520, No. 259. These instructions to Mons. de St. Vincent, as well as most of the letters contained in the Appendix, were lately procured from Simancas, though too late to be inserted in their proper place. They begin thus: Le Roy de France vient d'envoyer a ses ambassadeurs à Rome les sieurs evesques de Lavaur et de Hellin; but though there was a bishop of La Vaur, in Languedoc, of the name of George de Selve (see p. 180, note), there was, I am sure, no bishopric of Hellin, nor was there at any time a town in France of that name, much less a bishopric. The only way to get out of the difficulty is to suppose that the blundering clerk—who drew out the instructions in Brussels (for they are dated from that city), or else made the copy in Bergenroth's Collection (Vol. XXI., f. 97), which is more probable—read Hellin instead of Macon; for in March 1538 Charles Hèmard Denonville, bishop of Macon since 1531, and who became cardinal in 1536, was Selve's colleague in the embassy of Rome.