Dear John,
I don't have the answer to your specific questions about the concurrence
between Foxe, *Fasciculi Zizaniorum*, Wilkins, the Courtenay register, etc.
(not having those volumes to hand, either). In general, though, Foxe is
fairly trustworthy when he transcribes documents, although he will omit
passages if they don't fit his purposes (Lollards' denial of the efficacy of
baptism, for instance). Another point that may or may not affect your use of
Foxe: not only is the edition scholars have most frequently used (the
19th-century one, I forget the publisher) not an entirely accurate
reproduction of the 1583 edition of *Acts and Monuments*, but the various
editions of *A&M* issued during Foxe's lifetime are also substantially
different. As you might expect, the later editions have more material than
the first, but in some cases there is material in the 1563 edition that is
dropped in later editions. (From what I myself have seen, the dropped
material involves questionable anecdotes from word-of-mouth rather than
transcriptions of documents, so it's less likely that it would affect his
account of the early Lollards.) Checking the various editions should become
much easier when David Loades finishes his CD-ROM project of the *A&M*,
which will (I believe) include transcriptions of the 1563, 1570, 1576, and
1583 editions.
Shannon
Shannon McSheffrey
Associate Professor of History
Concordia University
LB 601, 1455 de Maisonneuve W.
Montreal QC Canada H3G 1M8
Ph. (514) 848 2417; Fax (514) 848 4538
[log in to unmask]
http://alcor.concordia.ca/~shannon
|