Calendar of State Papers, Spain, Volume 5 Part 1, 1534-1535. Originally published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1886.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying and sponsored by the Arts and Humanities Research Council. All rights reserved.
Additions and Corrections
p. 1. The small tract, &c., that is, the "Book of the nine articles," issued at Christmas 1533, already mentioned by Chapuys in his despatch of the 27th Dec. 1533. See Gairdner, Vol. VI., p. 634, and Pocoke ii. 523.
p. 3 note*. The Doctor was evidently Thomas Leigh, or Legh, as stated in Vol. II., pp. 818, 823; as to the other one mentioned lower down, who was to leave for Germany, there can be no doubt that his name was Nicholas Heath. Stephen Vaughan, the Chancery clerk, generally called Cromwell's man, was still at Brussels in December 1534, having started on a mission to John Frederic, duke elector of Saxony, as early as July 1533.
p. 26–1. The good bishops of Durham and Rochester. The former was Cuthbert Tunstall, formerly bishop of London; the latter, John Fisher. As to Monseigneur D'Arcy mentioned in the same line, his full name was lord Thomas Darcy, of Templehurst.
p. 30, line 40. Respecting the estate and forces of count Desmond. As early as 1530 a report, drawn by Gonçalo Fernandez, one of the Emperor's chaplains, purposely sent to Ireland to inquire into the state of that country and the forces of the rebellious earl, had been forwarded to Toledo. See Vol. IV., Part I, pp. 51–4. Chapuys, therefore, was instructed to ascertain how far the Chaplain's report of that date, and later ones made by Eric Goldscalk, could be relied upon.
p. 32. The English ambassador at the Imperial court, whose death caused Henry so much regret, was Dr. Thomas Hawkins, or Hawkines, archdeacon of Ely, who died in January 1534. The French ambassadors name must be Chastillon, for he was still in London, and did not return to France till April. His full name was Gaspard de Coligny, sieur de Chastillon or Châtillon.
p. 46, line 2. "The Viceroy (Monteleone) writes." From 1517 to 1534 Ettore or Hettore Pignatello, duke of Monteleone was viceroy of Sicily. He died in March and was succeeded by Simone Ventimiglia, marchese di Geraci. See Historia Cronologica delli Signori Vicere di Sicilia, by Vicenzo Auria, palermitano; Palermo, 1697, fol., pp. 31–3.
p. 53, last line. And inform me that the Abbot and Secretary, whom king James sent as ambassador to France, as mentioned in my last despatch. The Abbot was David Betoun, abbot of Abirbrothok (Abbroth), and nephew of James Betoun, abp. of St. Andrewes; the secretary, Sir Thomas Erskine, of Brechin; but there must be one of Chapuys' despatches missing, for in that of the 9th (pp. 30–1) nothing is said about this embassy, which was really sent on the 19th of February. See Gairdner, Vol. VII., p. 81, where king James' letters of credence to king Francis, as well as to his Chancellor, Antoine Duprat, the archbishop of Sens, have been printed.
p. 58. "As these people imagine that the war may turn out against Your Majesty and not against the count Danverain." As may be seen in the text, and note at the foot of the page, I was induced to believe that Danveran was a mistake for Souverain, the more so that there is no county so named among those of Holland, Zeeland, and Frise or Frisland, from A.D. 883 to 1556, when Philip II. of Spain became sovereign of those countries as son and heir of the Emperor Charles V. Mr. Gairdner, however, has got through the difficulty by making the word Danverain or Danveram the beginning of the following ciphered sentence, thus: "Dauveram one of the Steelyard." I still adhere to my former conjecture, as Danveran or Danverain do not seem to me to be Dutch or German names. As to the Stilliards or Stilliarts (also written Scilliards at page 74) they were merchants from the Hans-Towns, carrying on business in London.
p 98, second paragraph, line 3. "Cornelio must be with him." Of Cornelius Duplicius Scepperus or Schiperius mention has already been made in Vol. IV., Part II. of this Calendar, pp. 127, 904, 907, and 912. He was first sent on an embassy from Charles V. to his brother the king of Hungary (Ferdinand) in 1532-3; also to Switzerland (p. 297), and lastly to the Turk at Constantinople. In Papiers d'Etat du, Cardinal Granvelle (II. p. 230), under the date of 12 Nov. 1534, are the "Instructions" for his mission to France, Flanders, and Germany, one of the paragraphs of which, relating to England, has the following:
"You will also inform our sister, the dowager queen of Hungary, that no intelligence has yet been received from Master Goscarke-Etricq (Eric Godscalke), whom We sent from Toledo to Ireland first and thence to Scotland; and that We begin to fear he has met with some accident, or hinderance in his journey, for, as We say, no news has yet come from him. Goscarke had charge to say [to king James] that, having determined to marry our niece, the princess of Denmark, with the Palatine Frederic. We cannot possibly bestow her hand elsewhere, and, therefore, that the most suitable marriage for him will be that of our cousin, the princess of England, provided that with the duke of Angoulesme is not carried out. Indeed, it seems to us that if king James will only communicate again with Mr. de Beures on the subject, an answer can be made to his overtures in accordance with the instructions given to Godscalke, of which We now enclose a copy, lest king James should think that We are only entertaining him with more words, and preventing his marriage in another quarter. In short, nothing definite can be said or done in this matter until an answer comes to the proposals of our cousin's marriage with the said duke of Angoulesme. Otherwise, should king Francis reject our offers, and not consent to the said marriage We know of no other more suitable for the king James, or more advantageous for us and our subjects—especially for those of the Low Countries—than that of our said cousin the Princess of England."
"You will also say that We presently send some one into Ireland for the purpose of encouraging the Irish to persevere in their rebellion against England, and to maintain the justice and right of our aunt, the Queen, and of our cousin, the Princess."
p. 138, line 5. "The affair of Don Juan de Foneseca, &c." Foneseca is evidently a mistake of the copyist for Fontseca or Fonseca, a noble Galician family, to which D. Alonso de Fonseca, archbishop of Santiago (1508–21), of Toledo (1524–34), and of the Emperor's Privy Council, belonged.
It has already been stated in various places of the present Calendar, and chiefly in Vol. IV., Part II, Int. pp. xv. and xvii., that Esteban Gabriel Merino was appointed to the bishopric of Jaen in June 1523. He had formerly been archbishop of Bari, in Naples, and bishop of Leon, in Spain. In. 1526 he was appointed councillor of State, and three years later sent by Charles as extraordinary ambassador to Pope Clement. Of his differences with Count Cifuentes, the Imperial ambassador in ordinary, some account has been given in the Introduction to the same volume (pp. xxiii and xxiv.) In 1533 he was promoted to the cardinalate. He returned to Spain in April 1534, but having soon after been appointed proveditor general to the fleet, which the Emperor was then fitting out against Barbarossa in Tunis, he had to leave his bishopric, and attend to his new duties at Malaga and other ports of the Mediterranean. He was again in Rome at the end of the year when the death of Clement occurred, and attended the conclave in which Alessandro Farnese was elected under the name of Paul III. He himself died at Rome on the 1st of August 1535. A full notice of his life may be found in Ximena, Catalogo de los obispos de las Iglesias Catredales (sic) de la Diocesi de Jaen y Annales ccclesiasticos de su Obispado; Madrid, 1654. fol.; as well as in Gonzalez Davila Theatro ecclesiastico de las Iglesias de España, Vol. I., pp. 211–96.
p. 202, line 16. "The more to alienate the King, his master, from Your Majesty on the Navarrese quarrel." The whole of this passage, which is rather obscure, may be better explained by the minute of a letter from Granvelle to Chapuys, dated Nov. 1534, and preserved in the Archives of Simancas under No. 861, wherein that ambassador is informed that the hand of Jeanne, daughter of Henri d'Albret, the pretender to the kingdom of Navarre, had actually been offered by Francis to James, king of Scotland; but that in doing so, the French were not in earnest; they only wanted to draw the Scotch from the Emperor's alliance, alluring him with the hope of a kingdom, to which they themselves pretended to have a right since 1512, when Jean d'Albret, the last king of that family, was dethroned by Ferdinand, the Catholic, of Spain. Jean, the son of Alain, lord of Albret, was married in 1484 to Catharine, sister and heir of François-Phebus, and became ten years later, in 1494, king consort of Navarre. He left one son, named Henri II., who assumed the title of king, and whose daughter, Jeanne, married to Antoine de Bourbon duke of Vendosme, became the mother of Henri IV., king of France and Navarre; that being the reason why that king and his successors have since used the title of "Roi de France et de Navarre."
p. 225. "Some days ago the Sieur Dacrez." This was William, lord Dacre of Gillesland, Graystoke and Weme of Naward or of the North, warden of the West Marches, whose trial is published at full in Mr. Gairdner's Calendar, Vol. VII., pp. 368–70.
p. 239. "The king of Tunis," &c. Early in 1534 Hasan, sultan of Tunis, of the family of the Hafsites or Benu Hafss, was nominally dethroned by his brother Ráshid, or rather by Barbarossa, who took possession of that capital in his name. Hasan took refuge in Naples or Spain, and induced the Emperor to interfere, which he did effectually in 1535, taking that city as well as the Goleta. Ráshid is by some writers called Muley Asis or Aziz, but the former seems more correct.
p. 265. "The Grand Master of Rhodes," &c. Villiers de l'Isle Adam, for such was his name, died at Malta on the 21st of August 1534, and was succeeded, not by Fr. Perrin del Monte, as in the Count's letter, but by an Italian knight named Fr. Pierino del Monte, who held the mastership of the Order until the 18th of November 1535. See Crónica de la Religion de San Juan Bautista de Jerusalen. 1626, Vol. II., pp. 124 and 152. Fr. Pierino must be the same knight who, according to a letter of Micer Mai (13 Feb. 1531) to the High Commander Cobos, laid claim to a commandership of his order (that of Santofimia, in Spain). See Vol. IV., Part II., p. 55.
p 270, par. 4. "Don Gaspar de Guzman has since gone." See above, p. 265, where Count Cifuentes in his letter to the Emperor, under date of the 25th of September (No. 91), says that Don Gaspar deMendoza was sent to Lucca for the purpose of claiming from the people of that city their contingent in money towards the Italian league against France. As in the Count's letter to the High Commander of Leon (Francisco de los Cobos), dated on the 3rd of October, the same messenger is called Don Gaspar de Guzman, and it is said that he went to Lucca and obtained from the inhabitants a promise in money, I must conclude that there is some error on the part of the Embassy's clerk, or else that the messenger's full name was Don Gaspar de Mendoza y Guzman, two illustrious families of Spain.
Ibid., line 32. "Or for the hand of the sister of the king of Navarre;" that is of Marguerite, daughter of Charles and sister of Antoine de Bourbon, the father of Henri IV, king of France, and who, through his marriage to Jeanne d'Albret, took the title of king of Navarre.
p. 279. Between Chapuys' despatch of the 10th of September (No. 87, p. 252), and this one of the 3rd October, one more of the 30th of September has come to hand, though too late to be calendared in its proper place. It will, however, be found in the Supplement under No. 257.
p. 279. No. 97. "One of the counts of Hoy, brother-in-law, and, as I hear, enemy of the king of Sweden." There were at this time two counts of Hoya, Eric and John. Both were brothers-in-law of the king of Sweden (Gustavus Vassa), and, as reported, enemies of the King, whom one of them had offended. Count Eric came to London to treat on behalf of the Luebeckers, at that time hard pressed by the Duke Christian and the Danes.
p. 313. No. 106, line 9. "Garcilasso de la Vega with the despatch." Of the three Lasso de la Vega, mentioned at page 248, all of whom used the Christian name of Garcia or Garci, the one here alluded to is the celebrated poet, who, along with Boscan, is generally considered as the reformer of Spanish poetical literature. He was slain at Monay, near Frejus, in 1536. Obras de Boscan y algunas de Garcilasso de la Vega, repartidas en quatro libros, Barcelona, Carles Amorós, 1543 4to.
No. 108. The Emperor to Hannaërt." In addition to the letter of instructions to the ambassador in France here abstracted, a copy of that portion relating to the English marriage proposed by the Emperor (i.e., that of the princess Mary to the duke of Angoulême, Francis' third son,) was forwarded by Granvelle to Chapuys together with a memorandum in his own hand, enjoining him to keep the thing secret, and try to ascertain if king Henry had any suspicion of what was going on. Granvelle's letter is not in Bergenroth's collection; it has since been found at Simancas together with several others bearing on the negotiations conducted in France by Nassau and Hannaërt. I have, therefore, deemed it advisable to include it in these Additions that so important a movement in French and English politics of the time may better be understood and explained. The letter runs thus: "It is the Emperor's wish and command that after carefully perusing the enclosed copy of the instructions sent to Mr. Hannaërt, you should try to ascertain in that country (England), whether king Henry does, or does not, suspect anything of our proposals to France, and in order that you may be better informed of the state of the affair, I will transcribe to you what I myself wrote in the Emperor's name to the Imperial Ambassador in France on the 7th. "In addition to this it seems to us as if our said cousin (Nassau) and yourself ought to make every endeavour in order to ascertain what are king Francis' real views and intentions respecting the marriage of the duke of Angoulesme, his son, with our cousin the princess of England, which he (Nassau) once proposed in our name; the more so that We hear that when the Grand Master of France (Anne de Montmorency) was informed thereof, not only did he seem pleased, but observed [to Nassau] that the proposal was very acceptable, inasmuch as there was a rumour that king Henry had lately had a quarrel with Anne de Bolans (Bouleyn), and was much disgusted with her. For this reason We desire you again to bring forward the subject, and push it on as far as convenient, and in accordance with articles XXIV. to XXX. of your instructions. You might at the same time press upon the King and the Grand Master the importance of the said marriage, and remark how much it would help in future, not only towards the aggrandizement of the said duke of Angoulesme, but towards the acquittal of his father's debt to England, besides the security of his own kingdom, both of which objects are, in our opinion, far more important and advantageous for king Francis, for his kingdom and children, than his pretensions to Milan, since the project can be carried out without much difficulty, and become in future a source of power and aggrandizement to himself. However this may be, let your overtures to the King or to the Grand Master of France on the subject be made secretly and verbally, and by no means in writing. Should king Francis agree to our proposals, as in our opinion he ought, if he only attend to the above considerations, and to others more particularly detailed in our said instructions—it will be highly important to keep the whole a secret until the framing of the treaty, nor is there a necessity either, should the King refuse, for the proposals made in our name becoming public."
"Should the king of France or the Grand Master object that once aware of the negociation that is going on, Anne de Boulans might be driven to extremities, and the life of princess Mary, our cousin, be endangered through it—which We can hardly believe, considering that the former could not so far forsake the duties of her conscience, or king Henry tolerate such conduct—you will say to them that in such an event (which may God forbid), and the proposed marriage being put aside, We shall be very happy to promote another between the said duke of Angoulesme and our niece, the Infanta of Portugal, and that besides bringing forward the paternal and maternal rights, which may belong and appertain to each of them respectively, We shall take care that they (the Duke and the Princess) do virtually inherit the kingdom of England, procuring to that effect every possible assistance from the Holy Father and others, as well as anything else that may be required, and previously agreed upon between us." [Madrid], Nov. 15, 1534.
p. 369. "Lastly We have written to the archbishop of Lunden (Lonen in Sweden) to sound the Duke's intentions." The archbishop's name was not Terbornus Bilde from 1532 to 1536, as stated in the corresponding note at the foot of the page, but John a'Vesa or Vesalius, who in 15 was expelled from Denmark, at the same time as King Christian or Kristiern. Since then he had been in the service of Charles, who had employed him on various missions. See Gairdner, Vol. II., pp. 272, 402, 453, and 476.
p. 400. No. 132. "D'Andalot to Hannaërt, ambassador in France." The name of this officer, who during this year 1534 was employed by Charles on various missions connected with the politics of France and Germany, is variously written in the Papiers de Granvelle, Andalot, Andelot, and Mr. D'Andalot or D'Andelot, as in his letter to viscount Lombecke (Hannaërt), the Emperor's ambassador in France. He was probably a native of Flanders or of the Low Countries, though he may also have been a Frenchman, perhaps one of the followers of the Constable Bourbon, who, after his death, took service with the Emperor.
p. 401. The reference at the bottom of the page to Hannaërt's report of his conversation at Paris with the English ambassador (Sir John Wallop) is wrongly given, as No. 131 is only a copy of the Emperor's general instructions to that official. Hannaërt's despatch, containing, as it is said, a summary of the overtures made to him by Henry's ambassador, is certainly not in the Archives of Vienna, though it may still be found in those of Simancas, where the papers belonging to the XVIth century are not yet satisfactorily filed.
p. 403. It has been stated (p. 624) that notwithstanding Bergenroth's scrupulous search for papers at Simancas in connexion with the history of this period, several have since been found, which he had not the opportunity of abstracting or copying for his collection, now in the British Museum. Among them are a few letters from the Imperial Chancellor, Nicholas de Granvelle, or from his son Antoine, at that time the Emperor's secretary, and particularly one from the former bearing on the negociations with France, the substance of which he thought fit to communicate to Chapuys that he might in his conference with Cromwell steer his course safely amidst the shoals of English politics. It is dated Madrid, the 29th of February 1535, and runs thus:—
"Monsieur l'Ambassadeur, &c. That you may be better informed of the Emperor's views in the present emergency, I enclose the letter addressed in his name to the ambassador at the court of France (Hannaërt) in reply to his of—December, reporting a conversation he had with the English ambassador, during which clear and distinct overtures were made, as it would appear, for a renewal of the old friendship existing between the two countries. I shall only transcribe those paragraphs which bear on the English business, leaving it entirely to your discretion and well-known sagacity to make such use of the information as you may think proper for the better issue of our master's affairs."
The Emperor to Viscount Hanaërt, his ambassador in France. "We have received your ciphered letter of the—, giving us a full account of your conference with the English ambassador (Wallop) at your own house, where, after questioning you with regard to our armaments against Barbarossa, the former proceeded to say that he had received letters from a friend at home, indicative of a wish there was [in England] that a solid and firm friendship should be at once re-established between Us and the king of that country. We entirely approve of your answer concerning the first point. With regard to the second, and more important one, that is to say, the overtures of the English ambassador, We desire you to bear in mind the following considerations, and adhere strictly to the instructions, which our Privy Council shall forward to you hereafter. Meanwhile, and should the English ambassador introduce the subject again, you will shape your conduct in accordance with our interests in the matter. We need not tell you that under present circumstances, our wish being, as it has always been, to promote, the peace and welfare of Christendom, We cannot do otherwise than take every opportunity of listening to proposals, however vague and undefined, working towards that desirable end. These premises once settled, you may easily conceive that any prospect of bringing on a firm peace between the Empire and England will be extremely welcome. Indeed, if through the English ambassador's overtures means could be found to stop king Henry's practices, and prevent his now bestowing favour and assistance on king Francis—whose ill-will and animosity towards Us know no bounds—We shall be most happy to entertain and consider any proposals likely to secure that friendship and alliance of which the English ambassador spoke to you. But We strongly recommend you to ascertain as nearly as possible from him on what grounds the king of England intends to treat, so that our conscience and honour may be safeguarded; for if the ground be, as maybe conjectured, the suspension for an indefinite time of the Papal sentence on the divorce affair, that, as you may guess, will be a weapon in our hands, for it is likely to engender suspicion, and lead to a, final separation between the kings of France and England, and perhaps enable us in time to do in favour and to the advantage of our aunt and cousin in the latter country what could not otherwise be done as long as those two kings remain united and friendly. We scarcely need tell you that whatever may be said or treated on this matter must remain a profound secret between you and the person or persons appointed to treat with you; for should the negociation fall to the ground, or be unsuccessful, it would not do to have the thing published and commented upon, lest some inconvenience, harm, or danger should befall our said aunt and cousin, or the King himself should imagine that We could in any wise consent to their being ill-treated or otherwise deprived of their rights.
"Since the English ambassador speaks, as you say, in the name of a third person—a friend writing to him from England—you will take care to do the same, uttering your own sentiments in the matter, as if the thing came entirely from you without previous consultation. You will endeavour to ascertain as far as possible whether any effectual means can be found of making king Henry acknowledge his past errors, and the injuries he has inflicted upon our said aunt and cousin, promising the redress thereof, and at the same time emerging from the blindness and sin in which he lives. Should he, as may be feared, still persist in the suspension of the Papal sentence, you will ask his ambassador how long the King intends the said suspension to last, and whether he will or will not consent to its being deferred until the meeting of the future General Council; and if so, whether he is willing to take a formal engagement of faithfully and sincerely helping in the convocation and celebration of the same in the hitherto accustomed form, as well as abiding by its final determination in the matter of the divorce. Meanwhile, and during the said suspension, both the princesses, mother and daughter, to be honourably treated, as appertains to their quality and royal rank, the King declaring, if necessary, that neither of them shall be obliged to sign papers, treaties, or covenants without our special knowledge and approbation; and that our said cousin in particular shall not be married without our consent and that of her mother queen Katharine and other royal relatives. The king of England himself, not in any wise to help, directly or indirectly, the enemies, whoever they may be, of our brother, the king of the Romans, and of our respective kingdoms, subjects, or vassals, but to prevent as much as may be in his power war being made upon him in conformity with the old treaties of defensive and offensive alliance between the Empire, the kingdom of Spain, England, Germany, and the Low Countries. The King, moreover, to refrain from all hostile practices in Germany and Denmark as well as in other Hanseatic towns, and to promise besides that no injury or harm shall be done to those who have hitherto maintained and defended the rights of the Princesses, our aunt and cousin.
"The above points and conclusions to be discussed and treated of as advantageously as possible for our interests, adding, however, another condition which, besides being for God's service, cannot fail to be profitable to the King himself, to his kingdom and subjects, as well as honourable for our aunt, our cousin, and ourselves, namely, that he be persuaded to return to the pale of the Roman Church and Apostolic See, even if it should be expressly stipulated beforehand that in that event We shall procure for him from the Holy See the means of getting from the churches in his kingdom more profit than he has enjoyed up to the present time."
"Although the suspension of the Papal sentence until the future Council must be a rather hard condition for our said aunt and cousin to bear under their present pitiable circumstances—above all, as justice is in their favour, and a sentence has already been gained—yet We consider this a lesser evil than the other, provided the General Council assemble quickly, and king Henry willingly consent to it. For, should the suspension be during that King's natural life, it would be tantamount to throwing into despair the said princesses and all their friends and supporters. If it were only for a fixed period of time, however short, and without the intervention of the Council, We might in the meantime expect something better; but this would, on the other hand, seem a dishonourable, and by far too grievous a condition for the princesses to accept. Should, however, the King insist upon the suspension being during his lifetime, or for a fixed period without the Council's intervention, We may ask time for consultation, and shape our answer according to circumstances, the state of public affairs in England, and the King's inclinations or intentions hereafter; but let it be well understood that the principal point of the negociations, if there be any, must be to prevent king Henry from helping and effectively assisting Francis; to make him relinquish his practices in Germany, Denmark, and the Hanseatic towns, and in case of king Francis declaring and making war by himself or others, and king Henry refusing to side with us according to the terms of the treaty of Cambray, that he at least remain neutral and forsake his ally. And let all these points and conditions be so clearly settled and defined that there be no need in future of further explanation.
"As it is highly important to gain time in order to secure king-Henry's co-operation, or at least neutrality, it seems to us that if you see any likelihood of the English ambassador being in earnest, you ought at once to commence the negociation, and request him to write home to his friends in England, whoever they may be, advising your acceptance, and at the same time encouraging those who have started the idea, to communicate with our ambassador in London, on whose zeal and discretion We rely implicitly. At any rate, you would do well to write to Master Chappuys and inform him of what has passed between you and the English ambassador in that Court. Madrid, 26 of February 1535."
p. 423. No. 141. Chapuys' letter to Antoine Perrenot, eldest son of Nicholas, the Emperor's Chancellor, is really indorsed, A Monseigneur Anthoine Perreni, Secretaire d'Estat de l'Empereur. It is to be presumed, however, that Perreni is for Perrenin, as he is called elsewhere; the scribe, whoever he was, having omitted to draw a line over the i, as generally done during the XVIth century.
p. 467, line 4 of second paragraph. Alleging as an example the case of Clothaire, the Emperor. Clothaire is evidently a mistake of Chapuys' for Lothaire II, third son of Lothaire I., emperor of the West, who reigned over the greater part of France from 817 to 855. Lothair I. left three sons: Louis II., who inherited the kingdom of Italy with the title of "Emperor"; Charles, who ruled over Provence as far as Lyons; and Lothaire II., who had as his share all the country lying between the Rhine and the Meuse, then called Lotharingia or Lorraine, from his name, Lotharius. He it was who in 862 repudiated his wife Teutberge, to marry Valdrade, his concubine, although pope Adrian II. obliged him, under pain of excommunication, to take again his first wife. See also Part II. Vol. IV. p. 810, Chapuys' letter to the Emperor, of the 27th of September 1533, wherein he made use of the same argument at a conversation he had with Cromwell.
p. 462. The gentleman alluded to in line 4 of the second paragraph as about to be sent to Rome, at the Pope's solicitation, for the purpose of settling the Camarino affair, could be no other than Don Alonso Fernandez Manrique, marquis de Aguilar, of whom more will be said hereafter. The Marquis, however, owing to the resident ambassador (Cifuentes) having obtained from Paul III. a suspension of the suit for six months, did not arrive in Rome until some months after.
p. 479. The Emperor's embarkation for his Tunisian expedition must have taken place at the end, not at the beginning, of May, as stated in the note at the foot of the page. On the 1st of that month, Doria arrived at Barcelona with his 20 galleys; Don Alvaro Bazan with 12 from Naples; and a few days after the viceroy of Granada [count of Tendilla] with 50 ships and five caravals from various ports of Spain. The king of Portugal sent also a large galley. On the 3rd of June the Emperor landed at Majorca; on the 5th he was at Mahon, in Minorca. On the 10th the Imperial fleet met with a heavy storm and was dispersed, so that no one ship knew anything of the rest. Until the first week in July the coast of Africa was not reached.
p. 482, line 2 of the third paragraph:— "That Your Majesty had once, according to report, thought of going to Naples rather than to Tunis." Thus, in Chapuys' original letter; but there must be some mistake in the text, for what would the Emperor have to do in Naples at the time, and what danger would there be in going thither? If, instead of Naples, we read Constantinople, the meaning becomes more perceptible. In my opinion the paragraph ought to be altered thus: "The King added that Your Majesty, according to common report, had first thought of going to Constantinople rather than to Tunis, but that you had considered the matter over, and had decided for the latter, as the former would have been too hazardous an enterprise for Your Majesty," &c.
p. 495. The Spanish word "rebautizados" literally means the "rebaptised" or twice baptized, alluding to the Moriscoes of Granada and of other cities and towns in Spain, who, having been forcibly baptized pèle-mèle by hundreds, in the times of Ferdinand and Isabella, were again baptized under this reign. They are often designated by writers of the time as moros ó judios conversos, or nuevamente convertidos de moros.
p. 496, last paragraph of letter No. 175. Prince Philip and the Infante, our sons. At this time the Emperor had only one son, Philip, born on the 21st of May 1527, and one daughter, Maria, born on the 21st of June 1528, and married in the course of time to Maximilian II., the Emperor. The word infante (Lat. infans, Fr. enfant) had in former time no gender, and could be applied without distinction to a male or female. Nowadays we say infante and infanta.
p. 496, No. 176. The names of the Carthusians and other monks executed on this occasion for refusing to swear to the statutes are hardly recognizable in Ortiz' narrative. True is it that there is nothing more unsettled and perplexing than the English orthograpy of the XVIth century, when proper names were spelt and written in various ways; and that, as Dr. Ortiz derived his information chiefly from Chapuys,—who certainly was not over particular in that respect,—some confusion must have been caused by so many transcripts. So Juan Howughton is John Houghton, the prior of the Charter-house in London; Roverto Lorenço, prior of the convent of Velle Vallis, must be Robert Lawrence, prior of Bellville; Augustin Vnester (r. Vuester), prior of Ahlome, is Webster, prior of Axholm; and Ricardo Rainaldo is meant for Father Reynolds, monk of Sion, a bridgettine, or of the Order of St. Brigittis.
p. 499, par. 2. "Recommends Tello de Guzman." I suspect Guzman to be a mistake of the writer, or of the scribe, for on the 16th of July count Cifuentes wrote recommending one Tello de Meneses for the very same commandery, said to be vacant by the death of Lanuça, who previously held it. See p. 517.
p. 512, No. 182. In Cifuentes' letter to the Emperor, of the 16th July, the name of Giovan Battista Savello, or de Savelli, the Pope's general, has been by misprint turned into Battisti Savella, and in the following page (p. 513, line 8) Baltista Savelli.
p. 514, last line. That the English ambassador residing at the Imperial Court. The ambassador was Richard Pate, archdeacon of Lincoln, and nephew of bishop Longland. It was not he, as Cifuentes erroneously states, but his secretary, who came to London with despatches. As early as September 1534, Chapuys announced the latter's arrival in London with a message from Pate (p. 264); and on the 10th of August 1535 he says distinctly, "On the 3rd inst. I wrote by the secretary of the English ambassador returning to those parts."
p. 521, line 3. Since then the bishop of Tarbes, &c. Gabriel de Gramont was no longer bishop of Tarbes in Gascony; he had been promoted to the see of Bordeaux in 1529, and made cardinal in 1531. It was his nephew, Antoine de Castelnau, who succeeded him in that former bishopric, and who in 1534 came to England as Francis' ambassador. See above, pp. 263, 562–3, 586.
p. 524, line 5. For the hand of the princess Mary for his son, the dauphin Henri. This is altogether a mistake. Francis was the name of the Dauphin, duke of Britanny, who died in 1536, on the 10th of August. Henri, duke of Orleans, the second son of Francis, had already been married in 1533 to Catherina dé Medici, daughter of Lorenço, duke of Urbino, and niece of Pope Clement VII. As to king Francis' third son, Charles, duke of Angoulême, he was only 13 years and six months old at the time, being born on the 22nd of January 1522. Therefore the Dauphin (Francis) ought to be understood.
p. 538, last paragraph. The former (Eleanor) was accompanied by the King's daughters, by his (the King's) daughter-in-law, &c. Francis had only two daughters living at the time,—Magdeleine de France, who in 1536 was married to James V. of Scotland; and Marguerite, who in 1559 became the wife of Emmanuel Phillibert, duke of Savoy. His daughter-in-law was Caterina de' Medici, Clement's niece, then married to Henri, duke of Orleans.
p. 543, second paragraph. Monsieur Leonard; that is lord Leonard Grey, the brother of the marquis of Dorset (lord Thomas Grey); not as in the note at the foot of the same page, "Leonard Skeffington,"—a great oversight, which can only be accounted for by the fact that Sir William Skeffington, the lord deputy of Ireland, had really a son named "Leonard," who served under him, and was most instrumental in putting down the Irish rebellion. The circumstance often occurring of Chapuys calling him Mr., which may mean Master or Monsieur, instead of Sieur or Lord, led to the compiler's involuntary mistake.
p. 545. The "Fetiplett" in the second paragraph, said to be Henry's chamberlain, or groom of the chamber, must be Fetiplace or Fetyplace, mentioned twice in Cromwell's Remembrances, under July 1534. See Mr. Gairdner's Calendar, Vol. VIII., pp. 418 and 443. In the latter (No. 1130) he is called keeper of Donnington manor and park, belonging to the duke of Suffolk. It must, however, be observed that Fetiplace's Christian name was Edmund, whereas Dr. Ortiz, who in another of his letters writes "Pepiplet," calls him Thomas.
p. 551, line 16. That Baron Grammont, the ambassador's brother. The ambassador, as stated at pp. 505, 511, 519, was Antoine de Castelnau, bishop of Tarbes. The Baron de Grammont (r. Gramont) must have been a nephew of Gabriel de Gramont, bishop of Tarbes, and Francis' ambassador at Rome, who was raised to the cardinalate by Clement VII. in 1530, and died in 1534. This Gabriel de Gramont had a brother named Guillaume, who was bishop of Aux, and afterwards of Bourdeaux, from Oct. 1529 to the end of 1530; another, named Charles, who was bishop of Conserans, in Gascony; and most likely a third, who inherited and held the family possessions in the Basse Navarre. Gramont was the name of this illustrious family, to which belonged, towards the end of the XVI. century the celebrated Philibert, comte de Guiche, the husband of "La Belle Corisande," to whom Henry IV. of France addressed several love letters. What connexion this Philibert de Gramont, count de Guiche or de la Guiche, may have been of Claude de la Guiche, Francis' ambassador in England in 1531, I cannot determine; but as, during the XVI. and XVII. centuries, embassies, like hereditary offices, used to run almost periodically in certain noble families, I am inclined to think that "the Baron" here named as brother of bishop Castelnau, belonged to the family of Gramont de la Guiche, who must not be confounded with the Grammont de Bourgogne. Castelnau, the ambassador, who is everywhere described as the Cardinal's nephew, succeeded him in the bishopric of Tarbes, and died in 1539. He had a brother, named Louis, who was also bishop of Tarbes, and died in 1549.
p. 551, par. 2. Both the ambassador and the bailiff. That is Antoine de Castelnau and his predecessor in office, Jean Dinteville, bailiff of Troyes, "who left London, rather dissatisfied," as Chapuys says, in October 1535. See above, p. 549.
p. 556. The name of the writer of No. 214 has been omitted, but as it is signed "Comte de Cifuentes," there can be no doubt that it was Sylva's letter, and addressed to Francisco de los Cobos, high commander of Leon, in the military Order of Santiago.
p. 556, No. 214, last paragraph. After the departure of the Venetian resident ambassador. Antonio Surian or Suriano (also called Soriano) must have left Rome in August or September 1535, for on the 7th of October Lorenzo Bragadino was appointed in his stead. See Rawdon Brown, Venetian Calendar, Vol. V., p. 32.
p 560, No. 219, Divorce, third line of first paragraph. The disinclination there seems to be to pronounce censures against kings that may, &c. The passage in Spanish stands thus:—"Las cosas en que se hazia dificultad de poner en las executoriales eran que no querian las censuras contra los Reyes para que asistiesen o diesen favor â la execucion de las executoriales." Thus in Bergenroth's copy (Vol. VIII., p. 22); but there is evidently error; perhaps, too, omission of one or more words, for the meaning is obscure and imperfect. I should say that one of the objections was the disinclination observed in the draft of the executory letters to decree ecclesiastical censures against those kings, who would not help in Henry's deposition, as specified in the Bull, and invite them to work sincerely for it; in one word, make king Francis join in the undertaking. Transcripts from Simancas, in Bergenroth's volumes, are not always faithful, and in many cases would require careful collation with the originals.
p. 565. Ortiz' letter (No. 223) has no address, but from its tenour and wording it must have been addressed to the Emperor, who was then on the road to Naples, where he arrived on the 25th of November.
p. 574, third paragraph, beginning with the words. On the gate of London. The very same words are to be found in a letter of the Venetian ambassador to the Signory, published by Rawdon Brown. See Venetian Calendar, vol. v.
p. 577, last line of third paragraph. A gentleman captain and Cazadiavolo to Barbarossa, in a brigantine. The gentleman may possibly be Rincon, of whom enough will be said in the next volumes, under the year 1541, when he was murdered along with Cesare Fragoso, another spy or secret agent of Francis, near Pavia. As to Cazadiavolo or Cacciadabolo, as his name is otherwise written, he was a celebrated Turkish corsair of those days. Sandoval and others call him Cachadiablo, which seems a translation of the Italian Cacciadiabolo.
p. 587, beginning of third paragraph. According to the best accounts Francesco Sforza, duke of Milan, died on the 24th October 1535, as aforesaid (p. 586, note), although I have seen letters from a Milanese nobleman to count de Cifuentes, the Imperial ambassador at Rome, stating that it took place on the night of the 22nd.
p. 585. With respect to Dr. Adam, &c. This Dr. Adam is the same Dr. Otto Adam Pacæus mentioned at pp. 480, 524–8. 528, and 558. He is generally designated by Chapuys as "Dr. Adam" or "the secretary of Lubeck." He came to London as ambassador from that Hanseatic town at the beginning of 1534.
p. 585. The three first lines of second paragraph to be altered thus: "As to my listening to any fresh proposals that may be put forward by this King's ministers respecting the good understanding between the two countries, I can only say that these people will always find me as willing and ready as I have been hitherto, but that I shall, according to orders, avoid coming to any settlement whatever." The omission of one full line in the copy rendered the passage rather equivocal. What Chapuys was instructed to avoid was, "coming to any conclusion in the matter before consulting the Emperor." It is only by applying to Simancas that I have been able to rectify this and other errors of the copyists.
p. 587, last paragraph. No letter from Katharine later than the one of the 13th of December to Dr. Ortiz at Rome is to be found in the Imperial Archives of Vienna, and therefore Chapuys must allude to that which one of his own servants is said to have taken to Rome in November, see No. 224, p. 565. From the 25th of that month to the 22nd of March 1536 the Emperor staid at Naples. Katharine herself died in January 1536.
p. 588. In Chapuys' letter to Mr. de Granvelle, No. 241, mention is made of a certain Mr. de St. Blancay, which I take to be a mistake for St. Blancard. If so, he was a distinguished naval officer, much in favour with king Francis, who in 1537 gave him the command of his Mediterranean fleet. See Papiers de Granvelle, Vol. II., p. 5.
p. 611, third line in second paragraph. Part of the force of Scheventer. Scheventer is evidently a mistake of the writer or of the copyist for Skeffington (Sir William), who in 1534 was appointed lieutenant-governor of Ireland, and commanded the army sent against the earl of Kildare. See Chapuys' despatch of the 23rd Sept. and 3rd of Oct. 1534 (Nos. 90 and 97), besides others, in which he is generally designated under the erroneous appellation of "Scheventon."
As stated in the Introduction, this letter, a most important one from an historical point of view, came to hand too late to be inserted in its proper place, that being the reason why it was included in this Supplement. The same may be said of a few more papers from Simancas, copies of which are not to be found in Bergenroth's collection.