Additional Notes and Corrections

Sponsor

Institute of Historical Research

Publication

Author

Pascual de Gayangos (editor)

Year published

1895

Pages

577-595

Annotate

Comment on this article
Double click anywhere on the text to add an annotation in-line

Citation Show another format:

'Additional Notes and Corrections', Calendar of State Papers, Spain, Volume 6 Part 2: 1542-1543 (1895), pp. 577-595. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=88130 Date accessed: 23 July 2014.


Highlight

(Min 3 characters)

Additional Notes and Corrections.

p. 1, No. 1. The Emperor's powers to Chapuys are not to be found in Vienna, as are most of the papers belonging to his reign, but in Brussels, in the Archives of the Ducal House of Burgundy, where Gustav Bergenroth saw them, and had them copied for his own Collection of Letters and Papers (Brit. Mus. Additional MSS. 28,593, Vol. xxviii., f. 126). They are placed immediately before the Emperor's Instructions to his ambassador, bearing the date of the 2nd of May 1542; but as Chapuys himself, in his despatch of the 16th of April of the same year (Vol. VI., part I., p. 497), tells us that on Wednesday, the 14th, he went to Greenwich at the desire of the Privy Councillors for the express purpose of exhibiting to them his powers from the Emperor, and that on entering the Council Room he found to his great dismay that his secretary had given him a document very similar in context, though not the one wanted for the occasion, and that, having made his excuses, the privy councillors were satisfied with hearing from his lips the nature and substance of the missing official document, it is natural to conclude that what his secretary gave him was queen Mary's original powers in the Emperor's name, which had already been declared insufficient (Vol. VI, part I., pp. 502, 507), instead of those granted at Valladolid on the 2nd of May. The Queen's and Chapuys's excuses for the delay of ample powers from Spain may seem at first sight plausible enough, and yet the impatience of king Henry's privy councillors in a matter of such political importance had also its reasons. The Emperor's powers, alleged Chapuys, had in the first instance to be supervised, if not entirely drawn, by Granvelle; they were afterwards to be forwarded to queen Mary, the Regent of the Low Countries, to suggest such additions or amendments in them as she considered necessary for the intercourse of trade, etc. Granvelle was then at Genoa, where, on his return from Siena and Milan, he had been obliged to take refuge in consequence of the attempt made by French cruisers to capture the galley on board of which he was sailing for Barcelona. To Genoa, therefore, were the powers and papers sent for Granvelle's supervision; but when they arrived that minister had already sailed for the coast of Spain, and Suarez de Figueroa, the Imperial agent in that city, not considering himself authorized to open the parcel, sent it back to Spain. On the first day of April, Granvelle landed at Barcelona, and therefore could hardly have examined the powers before that date. Such explanation of the delay would be natural enough, were it not for certain discrepancies as to facts and dates which do not altogether dispel the suspicion that the tardy arrival in England of the Emperor's powers to Chapuys was not an accident, but done on purpose. On the 10th of June, six weeks after their being signed at Valladolid by the Emperor, they came to London, inclosed in a letter of the Emperor to Chapuys, which letter and powers the bishop of Winchester (Stephen Gardiner) put into the Imperial ambassador's hands. Sir Henry Knivet, Henry's ambassador in Spain, was the bearer of them; as he was returning to England through France, he fell ill, was obliged to stop at Orleans, and send his servants on with the letters and papers which Edmund Bonner, his colleague in the embassy, had entrusted to him (p. 23).

p. 18, par. 1, line 5. "Addressed to Councillor de St. Moris." This St. Moris, or St. Maurice, as elsewhere written, was a connexion on the female side of Nicolas Perrenot de Granvelle. His name was Jean; he had married the sister of Francois Bonvallot, abbot of St. Vincent, whose other and elder sister, Nichole, was married to the Emperor's Lord Privy Seal. He had, in 1540, been Imperial ambassador in France, and now we find him, in 1542, in the employment of the king of the Romans on a mission to Henry, which mission had no other object than to ask assistance and help against the Turk. St. Maurice being at the time in Spain upon urgent business of the Queen Regent in the Low Countries, Chapuys was requested to substitute him in his charge, which he did, though the application was at first refused.

p. 21, line 6. "Before the Bishop's departure for Flanders." "Avant le depart de l'Eveque de Waistmestre pour Flandre"; such are the words of the copy before me; but is it likely that Thomas Thirlby, recently appointed ambassador to the Emperor's Court in Spain, and who was to embark at Bristol or some other port on the south-west of England, should go first to Flanders? Most probably the allusion made by Chapuys to his own return from Flanders in July of the preceding year (Vol. VI., part I, p. 259) was the cause of the mistake, and that the Bishop's departure for Spain was really meant.

Most likely Chapuys's secretary—for the letter is not holograph—or else the deciphering clerk at Brussels, mistook Spain for Flanders, thus rendering the passage unintelligible. I have not seen the original; but I am almost sure that it stood thus: "Et que pour ruminer davantaige iceulx points avant le partement du dit evesque [pour l'Espagne] et aussy affin que les dits deputez puissent veoir ce que escripvois à sa dite maiesté en faveur et avancement des dites affaires le dit sieur roy m'a faict prier de non partyr d'auprez de luy (ou ay tousjours esté dois mon retour de flandrez) jusques à ce que le tout soit resoulou, ce que espere sera dedans demain."

p. 40, par. 2, line 20. "A good position in Denmark to the Emperor's nieces." The words are: "que le duc de Holstein a dernierement offert une bonne position au Danemark aux nieces de l'Empereur." Kristiern, or Christian II., the dethroned king of Denmark, had been married since 1518 to Isabella, daughter of Philip of Austria and of queen Joanna of Castille, and therefore sister of Charles V. After the dethronement of her husband in 1523, Isabella led a wandering and miserable life, claiming in vain the Emperor's protection against the usurper. She died in 1527, leaving two daughters, Dorothea married to the Elector Palatine (Frederick), and Kristierna or Christina, who in 1533 became the wife of Francesco Maria Sforza, last duke of Milan, after whose death in Oct. 1535, she was again married to a son of the duke of Lorraine, who succeeded to that dukedom in 1544. Frederick I., who in these pages is generally designated as duke of Schleswig and Holstein, not as king of Denmark, reigned over the latter country till his death in 1534. He was succeeded by his son, Christian III., who in 1545 was finally recognized as king of Denmark. It was he, no doubt, who, in order to obtain from Charles the said recognition, made the offer alluded to in the text.

p. 69, No. 34. "The Queen Regent's Instructions to Messire Eustace Chapuys and Master Jehan de le Sauch." The second gentleman named in these Instructions had already been in England in 1525 and made part of the Imperial embassy in this country. This time, in July 1542, he came again to help Chapuys in the negotiation for a closer alliance, defensive and offensive, between Henry and the Emperor, at least in that part of it which particularly concerned the Low Countries, such as the intercourse of trade, the defence of Belgium should it be invaded by the French, etc.

p. 81, No. 38. "Chancellor Poyet to Mr. de Tournon." Poyet (Guillaume) was the son of a barrister (avocat) at Angers in France (dep. Maine et Loire). He gained reputation as a lawyer by pleading before the Parliament of Paris the cause of Louise de Savoie, king Francis' mother, who pretended to have certain rights to the confiscated estates of the Constable of France, Charles de Bourbon, slain at the siege of Rome in the Emperor's service. As a reward for his pleading (plaidoyer) in favour of that princess, Poyet was appointed "avocat general au Parlement," then "president au Mortier" of a court of justice, and lastly "chancellier." His ability in procuring funds for the Royal Treasury during king Francis's wars against the Emperor gained him the favour of that monarch; but having, as it appears, followed the party of Anne de Montmorency against that of the admiral of France (Philippe de Brion-Chabot), he fell a victim to Francis's capricious humour, was sent to prison and condemned to a heavy fine.

p. 113, line 2. "His (Fallaix) Instructions which he will show you." Falaix, Fallaix, or Phallaix, for his name is written in three different ways, was herald to the Order of the Golden Fleece under the appellative of "Toyson d'Or"; he was besides "esquire" to the Emperor in Flanders. His Instructions on this occasion were to try and procure from Henry assistance in men or money against king Francis, who, having unexpectedly, and without previous challenge, declared war to the Emperor, was on the point of invading Flanders. He came to England again in June 1542, for the express purpose of taking to Francis, conjointly with the English herald Garter, king Henry's and the Emperor's formal declaration of war against Francis.

p. 113, par. 2, line 1. "With regard to Tournehem and La Montoire." These were two small towns in Artois, afterwards called French Flanders. The name of the latter is variously written in Chapuys's correspondence, sometimes La Monterie, and at others La Moutiere, and even La Moutheria.

p. 140, line 3. "The French themselves." There is at the end of the sentence an unnecessary and erroneous repetition of certain words, which should have been left out, as being contradictory of the former statement. The entire sentence to be altered thus: "For it might happen after all that the French, themselves, would afford us an opportunity of shutting them out of their own country."

p. 140, line 19, at the end. The words "[in London]" are evidently out of place, and should have been inserted in the preceding line as follows:—"For the purpose, offering in the meantime to remain here [in London] as hostages, and to stake their lives for the fulfilment of the treaty."

p. 209, note †. There were two cardinals of the Farnese family during the sixteenth century: 1st, Alessandro, born in 1468, cardinal in 1493, and pope in 1534, as Paul III. He died in 1549, aged 81. 2nd, Alessandro, son of Pier Luigi, du. of Castro, and therefore grandson of the preceding; born 7th of October 1520, cardinal in 1534, died 1589. This is the one alluded to in the note, though, by a mere slip of the pen, he has been wrongly designated as "son," instead of "grandson," of pope Paul. Besides these two there was a third Alessandro Farnese, duke of Parma and Piacenza, son of Ottavio, duke of Camerino, and of Margarita, the Emperor's natural daughter, but better known in history as Alessandro di Parma, the general of Philip II. of Spain.

p. 212, par. 3, line 8. "My information is (I answered), that the duke of Florence [Gonzaga] has sent thither [to Genoa] one of his secretaries." Such is the literal translation of the Spanish test; but there must be error or omission of words in the passage, for the Gonzaga were never dukes of Florence, but of Mantua, whilst the name of the duke of Florence was Cosmo de' Medici, who at that time was ruling over great part of Tuscany. Most likely the paragraph, most of which is ciphered, ought to be thus amended: "My information is that the duke of Florence, Cosmo de' Medici, sent thither one of his secretaries, and that the duke of Mantua [Gonzaga] did the same, but I believe that they and the others went thither merely for the purpose of congratulating the Emperor upon his safe arrival at Genoa." See Bradford, Itinerary of Charles V., p. 536.

p. 213, par. 2, at the end. "And about M. de Granvelle's journey to Mantua for the purpose of the Diet." The words in the original Spanish are: y sobre el viage de Monseñor de Granvela à Mantua para el proposito de la Dieta; but it is to be presumed that by "Diet," the Pope in his inquiry meant that of Nürnberg in Bavaria, in which that minister took so conspicuous a part. No Diet or assembly was held at Mantua, which, though an Imperial city, was within the pale of the Italian Peninsula: a sort of thing which the German princes mostly disliked and always resisted, besides which the Emperor, as appears from his letter to Chapuys of the 30th of May (No. 145, p. 359), had some time before ordered his Lord Privy Seal to meet him in that city, where he himself stayed from the 27th to the 29th of June. As to the duke of Alburquerque (Don Beltran de la Cueva) and his secret mission, nothing is known. Neither Sandoval, the historian, nor Lopez de Haro, the genealogist who wrote about that chivalrous Spanish grandee, says one word concerning his mission to Rome.—Nobiliario Genealogico de los Reyes y Titulos de España. Vol. II., pp. 348–50.

p. 213, par 3. "The law-suit with the Genoese bankers." As early as the year 1526, perhaps before, the duke of Sessa, D. Luis Fernandez de Cordoba, Charles's ambassador at Rome, and count du Rœulx, his High Steward in Flanders, borrowed from certain Genoese bankers a sum of money, pawning as pledge and security for the payment of the same one diamond-ring, belonging no doubt to the Emperor, besides silver-plate and wearing apparel, the property of Andrea Doria. Notice of the jewel occurs already in 1533 as being still in the hands of a Genoese merchant, who would wait no longer for his money, and threatened to dispose of the pledge. (Vol. V., part I., p. 409.) Doria's "silver plate" and other effects were redeemed about that time, or shortly after, but the redemption of the principal jewel, and the payment of interest on the loan, gave rise to a law-suit, in which the marquis de Aguilar, then at Rome, as ambassador, had naturally to interfere on the Emperor's behalf. As Sessa, the ambassador, had died at Rome in 1527, and as the diamond ring and other jewels of the Emperor's had been pawned in his and Du Rœulx's name, it was necessary that the heirs-at-law of the former, and the Emperor's lord high steward, should lay claim to it after paying capital and interest. Of the jewel itself, no particular description is anywhere given; sometimes it is described as a "diamond ring," at others as a "valuable gem." Emperor Maximilian I., Charles's grandfather, is known to have once possessed a jewel of inestimable value, a fleur-de-lis set in diamonds, which he also pawned to Henry VII. of England for the purpose of carrying on war against the Venetians. As to the arch-duke Ferdinand, his grandson, more than once had he to pawn his jewelled gold crown to defray the expenses of his Hungarian and Turkish wars.

p. 229, last line. "The secretary of the Privy Council called at this embassy." In the note § corresponding to the above sentence, the Secretary is said to have been most probably "Sir John Mason," who, though at this time only a clerk in the Privy Council, had been formerly Henry's "secretary for the French tongue," and is occasionally called "second secretary to the King's Privy Council." There is, however, no particular reason to suppose, in this instance at least, that it was he (Mason) who took the King's message to the Imperial ambassador, for Thomas Wriothesley, the first secretary, was in continual communication with him respecting the treaty of alliance against France.

p. 238, No. 99. Though bearing the date of the 28th January, the letter (No. 99) is substantially the same as that of the 17th, only that it has by way of a postscript, entirely ciphered, and dated the 28th, the paragraph beginning:—"Madam,—After writing my letter on the 17th, the King's secretary (Sir Thomas Wriothesley) came to this embassy, etc." There are two copies of it, both in the handwriting of Chapuys's secretary, one of them being thus endorsed:—"Copie des lettres de l'ambassadeur de l'Empereur en Angleterre du 27 (sic) de Janvier 1543, ou à la Royne en Flandre" which would seem to imply that one of the letters, at least, was meant for the Emperor's perusal. As the latter was already in Italy preparing to wage war on France, it was the duty of his ambassador in London to inform him of whatever report concerning Francis and his ally the Turk might reach England, and as in most cases the passage of couriers through France was thoroughly interdicted, the Imperial ambassador had naturally to address his despatches through Flanders, to be afterwards transmitted to the Emperor in Italy.

p. 244, par. 2, line 14. "Inasmuch as the recovery of Marano, which belongs to the king of the Romans, is stipulated in the treaty of alliance." Marano, a fortress and port of Friuli on the Adriatic, in the Northern coast of Italy, or Lombardo-Venetian territory, was first taken from the Venetians by Charles V., and by him made over to his brother Ferdinand, then archduke of Austria and afterwards king of the Romans, who kept it till the end of 1541, when two Italian adventurers, aided by another named Spagnoletto, managed to surprise the garrison, consisting only of 40 men. Whether the enterprise, which proved completely successful, was planned by the above-mentioned, or what is more probable, had its origin in king Francis, then on the point of breaking the truce of Nizza and declaring war to the Emperor is uncertain, but the fact is that Francis accepted the offer, took the town under his protection, provided it with a French garrison, and kept possession of the place until the peace of Crêpy, when it was again restored to Austria.

p. 262, No. 109. Of Granvelle's letter to Chapuys, dated Nürnberg, 5th March 1543, two different drafts are preserved, one partly ciphered with the postscript at the end of it, another with decipherings but without the postscript. It is quite evident that instead of "Depuis cestes escriptes ay reçu celles de l'Empereur en Italie," the deciphering clerk ought to have read par la voye d'Italie, for Charles did not embark at Barcelona until the 1st of May, and landed at Savona on the 24th, Corpus-Christi day. See Bradford's Itinerary of Charles V., pp. 535, 536.

p. 262, par. 3. "His [the Emperor's] departure from Madrid was fixed for the day after St. Matthias." Vandenesse's Itinerary does not always agree as to dates. According to Bradford's translation (p. 535), "Charles arrived at Madrid on the 30th of December 1542, stayed there until the 9th of February, and for the first time conducted the Crown Prince, his son, to the High Court of Justice. He left Madrid for Alcalá on the 1st of March." This is, perhaps, the proper place to observe that the dates given by Vandenesse do occasionally differ when compared with those mentioned in the letters and despatches abstracted in this Calendar. After all the Emperor may have fixed his departure for Barcelona on the 24th of February, anniversary of the battle of Pavia, or on the day after,— a usual and favourite practice with him whenever he had to start on some warlike expedition, especially against his inveterate enemy king Francis—but he was most likely detained a few days longer in order to invest, as he did, his own son (Philip) with the necessary powers to govern Spain during his absence.

p. 281, line 12. "Avecque deux cents (sic) chevauls et mille (sic) hommes de pied dont les quatre mille sont de la Haute Allemagne," are the words in the draft or minute; but there must be error, for the cavalry and the infantry seem equally out of proportion; 2,000 horse and 10,000 foot soldiers would be more adequate. Had the quantities been expressed in numerals the error might be easily explained, but being as they are in letters, there is no excuse for the blundering clerk who drew out the report.

p. 288, par. 2, line 12. Sittard or Sittaerd (Sittaërt), in the duchy of Juliers, three miles from Heinsberg, was the spot where the engagement took place. It may be that the news communicated to king Henry by the agent of Clèves in England, or by the French ambassador in England, was somewhat exaggerated (p. 310), but, on the other hand, it must be owned that neither queen Mary's letters to Chapuys, nor the "Advices from the Emperor's camp," under No. 126, p. 304, nor the semi-official report sent by the Council of Flanders (No. 171, p. 424–5), convince the readers that the engagement was a signal victory of the Imperialists over the enemy. Indeed, the historians of France, and among them Father Daniel, the Jesuit, speak of it as of a shameful and complete defeat of the Imperialists. Le mois de Mars de cette annee [1543] (are his words) commença par la sanglante defaite de Philippe de Croys, duo d'Arscot, qui après avoir ravitaillé Heinsberg, fut atteint au retour par Martin Rossen, général de l'armée du due de Clèves, aupres de Zittard, taillé en pièces avec perte de trois mille Imperiaux tuez sur la place, d'un plus grand nombre de prisoniers, de tout leur bagage et de toute leur artillerie. (Histoire de France, Amsterdam, 1720, 4to., 2nd ed., vol. III, p. 381.) Of course Sandoval and the Spanish or Italian historians of Charles' reign give a, very different account.

p. 300, No. 126. "Advices from the Emperor's camp." The statement made at the very beginning of the paragraph that the Emperor's army before Heinsberg amounted to 10,000 foot and 24,000 horse, is a gross exaggeration; the 20,000 infantry and 4,000 cavalry of the semi-official report (at p. 288) addressed by the duke of Aarschot to the president of the Council of Flanders for transmission to Chapuys and Chantonnay in London, seems a more adequate force to meet an enemy at the head of 20,000 foot and 6,000 horse. The report, moreover, said to come from the Emperor's camp, is unfinished, and has no date. As stated in the note to the following page (425), it seems to have been addressed to some friend in Brussels, who most likely forwarded it to Chapuys, with other papers and letters relating to the engagement at Sittaërt.

p. 302, par. 2, line 1. "The Ambassador of France." In the corresponding note at the foot of the page, it has been stated that as Marillac had left at the beginning of April, and was by that time at Calais, detained until Henry's ambassador, Sir John Paget, had safely returned to England, his successor must have been Mr. de Morvilliers. That is a decided mistake, for only a few pages before (p. 296) Chapuys wrote to queen Mary of Hungary "that Marillac had left for France, and that his successor in the embassy, having on the 1st of April received letters from king Francis, counted upon seeing the King on that very day; but that through his going to Court first, the Frenchman had been prevented from having his audience." There is some doubt as to who may have been Marillac's successor in England; perhaps D'Orthez, or Mr. D'Aspremont (certainly it was not Morvilliers); but these and other points I purpose to discuss in the Introduction to which I refer the reader.

p. 307, par. 2, line 8. "That they did actually help to the taking of Castilnovo by the Turk." This sentence being in complete contradiction with the preceding, it is quite clear that the negative not should be inserted between the words did and actually. We are not in possession of the original draft sent to Chapuys, specifying the demands to be made from king Francis at the time of the intimation and delaration of war by the allies, but it is natural to suppose that, finding the accusation insufficiently grounded, the Emperor should wish it to be omitted, as it really was, in the declaration of war by Toyson d'Or, his herald. See pp. 411–3.

Castilnovo was taken by the Turks at the end of August or beginning of September 1539, just about the time that Francis was meditating how and where he would again commence war against the Emperor. It was then rumoured that his galleys, under the baron de St. Brancard, who some time before had, according to report, been at Constantinople, had helped the Turks to take that fortress, which, though formerly belonging to the Venetians, happened to have at the time a Spanish garrison.

p. 315, par. 2, line 3. "For the twenty ships laden, some with wine and others with pastel." This is not the first time that the word pastel occurs in Chapuys's correspondence, especially since the conclusion of the treaty of closer alliance between England and the Empire, its ratification in May 1543, and the declaration of war to king Francis. As about this time both king Henry and queen Mary, the regent of the Low Countries, had an interest in preventing the trade of provisions, as well as of gunpowder and war ammunition, I naturally concluded that pastel in connexion with vin was meant for "biscuit," the more so that in a Spanish despatch to the Emperor, dated the 27th of May, and alluding to the capture by the English of several ships of the Guicciardini laden with wine and pastel, the latter word happens to be translated by bizcocho, or galleta. This error, however, has since been corrected, owing to the kind assistance of Mr. James Gairdner, of the Public Record Office, who not only pointed out the mistake to me, but added other valuable suggestions, which I fully acknowledge, and am exceedingly thankful for. "Pastel" in French means "woad," or dyer's woad, or woadwaxen, the Genista tinctoria, much used by cloth dyers in the xvth and xvith centuries.

p. 327. The Queen's letter to Chapuys (No. 138) should naturally have been placed before that ambassador's despatch of the 12th; although its date, as stated, is, Maëstricht, 11th May 1543. There is no reason to suppose it to be, as one of Chapuys' clerks states on the dorse:—"Lettre pour l'ambassadeur reçue à Londres après lui avoir ecrite (sic) celle du 12 May." Readers of these calendars, moreover, must have observed that at times letters addressed by Chapuys to the Emperor through the regent of Flanders, to be forwarded to Spain or Italy, are often to be found in duplicate, and that even then the dates do not generally agree. In the present case, however, there can be no doubt, for the letter begins with the word "Madame."

p. 368. "Lartigue's report." The name of the Frenchman who informed king Henry's ministers respecting the best mode of effecting a landing in Brittany, and perhaps also getting possession of some of its fortified towns, is variously written Lartige, L'Artigue, and Lortigue. D'Aspremont, who seems to have succeeded D'Orthez in the French embassy—if he was not the same ambassador under a different name—calls him Lartigue (p. 367), whilst at p. 373 the paper containing the "names of the captains of men-at-arms, etc.," is distinctly signed L'Artigue. That he was a Frenchman, perhaps also a native of La Basse Bretagne, where, as I am assured, a family of that name is still to be found, cannot be doubted, and yet it is surprising that Chapuys, always so diligent in procuring information about France, and who never failed to report on Henry's warlike plans, should only mention him once (p. 459) as capt. L'Artigue. Nor is it less remarkable that both Aspremont's original letter, and L'Artigue's principal paper (dessing), pointing out the weakest points on the coast of Brittany, should be still preserved at Simancas in Spain, whilst the latter's report "on the strong places in France which had at the time a garrison and a governor," and a third giving the names of the captains of men-at-arms throughout France, should be in the Imperial Archives of Vienna. The only plausible conjecture is that Aspremont's letter of the 7th of June, and L'Artigue's report on the coast of Brittany were intercepted and sent to Spain, and that the other two papers under No. 152 were drawn later on in the year when the invasion of France by the allies was about to take place.

This, however, may be said about the papers themselves. No French historian that I know of alludes to them, and I have in vain looked among the general historians of France, and particularly those of Bretagne, for the name of Lartigue, or for an account, however slight, of his stay in England. It might after all turn out that this L'Artigue or Lartigue was only the captain or master of some French vessel or another captured by the English at a time when king Henry ordered his fleet to go out to sea and seize every privateer that could be found in the Channel, and that having been taken prisoner, he became an informer against his own country.

p. 374, No. 153. "From San Remo, in the Riviera of Genoa, We wrote to you on the 23rd ultimo giving you an account of Our voyage thither." No letter from San Remo has been preserved in the Royal Archives of Simancas, or if it is there, Bergenroth did not have it copied for his collection. San Remo being on that coast, between Savona and Genoa, the Emperor might possibly have landed there, and written the letter to his son Philip to which he himself alludes, describing his voyage thither, perhaps also his stay before Marseilles, and so forth. Yet Vandenesse's account makes no mention at all of San Remo, saying only that the Emperor landed at Savona on Corpus Christi Day, and that on the following Friday, towards four o'clock in the afternoon, he set sail for Genoa, where he remained till the 2nd of June.

However this may be, it seems very natural that immediately after his landing in Italy the Emperor should officially announce to his son, prince Philip — recently appointed governor of Spain during his absence—his safe arrival in the Italian Peninsula, and, moreover, that a few days later, on the 9th of June, he should again write informing him in detail of his political plans for the future, as well as of the overtures first made by Gasto at Genoa, and afterwards confirmed by Pier Luigi Farnese, and his son the Cardinal, concerning the most coveted investiture of the duchy of Milan on Ottavio duke of Camerino, for which investiture two millions of gold were offered.

Nor could the Emperor do less than consult his son on these and other important affairs closely connected with Spanish politics, for a few weeks before prince Philip, who in 1542 was publicly proclaimed heir to the kingdom at the Cortes of Toledo, had been appointed governor of Spain, at the head of a Council composed of cardinal Loaysa, Francisco de los Cobos, and the duke of Alba. From that time ambassadors in foreign parts were ordered to communicate with him directly. That is why so many letters addressed to him by Chapuys and the three Perrenot, that is Nicholas, sieur de Granvelle, Antoine, bishop of Arras, and Thomas, sieur de Chantonnay, will be found in this and the subsequent volumes to the end of Henry VIII's reign.

p. 402, at the end. "Nienove (Ninove), le XVII. de Juing 1543." Such is the date of the Emperor's Instructions to Mr. de Chantonnay, No. 160, p. 397, but there must be an error in the date, for the Emperor, as it has been frequently stated, left Genoa for Cremona, Pavia, and Parma, on the 14th of June, and stayed at Cremona until the 20th. During the Emperor's stay there the Papal Legate, cardinal Santa Croce, arrived and was received by him within the precincts of the cathedral, and on the 21st both together (the Emperor and the Cardinal) went to Bussetto, on one of the branches of the Po, nineteen miles north-west of the city of Parma, where pope Paul had arrived that very morning. Both Bradford and Gachard agree in this particular case as to these dates in their respective editions of Vandenesse's Itinerary, though it must be observed that as the former of those writers took for guide a clumsy German translation, which he turned into English, whereas the latter published Vandenesse's original in French with notes, there is occasionally some discrepancy between the two.

However this may be, immediately after the Emperor's Instructions to Chantonnay, bearing the date of Ninove, 17 June 1543, which are not in the Imperial Archives of Vienna, but in those of Brussels, follows a letter from the Emperor to Chapuys in London, also dated the 17th June, from Cremona (not from Ninove), in which letter Chantonnay's appointment is announced, and the Instructions for his mission are more fully explained "that the resident ambassador in England might act in concert with him." Both the Instructions and the letter agree as to the subjects treated in them. The interview with pope Paul at Bussetto had already taken place; frequent allusions are made therein to the affairs discussed at Genoa, to Paul's pressing requests for an interview, which is at last fixed for Parma or its immediate neighbourhood, and above all to the treaty of alliance with England, which at that time was exceedingly distasteful to the Pope; of the interview not a word is said. There can be no doubt that both documents issued from the Imperial Chancery on the 17th of June 1543, at the time that the Emperor, before holding his interview with Paul, was preparing to march against the duke of Clèves and wished to inform king Henry, his ally, of all his movements. But how to reconcile the letter to Chapuys from Cremona in Lombardy, and the Instructions to Chantonnay from Ninove in East Flanders? The only plausible conjecture is that both the Instructions and the letter were drawn at Cremona, and these latter again re-issued, or perhaps altered at Ninove in Flanders, for in his letter to Chapuys (p. 403) the Emperor says distinctly: "Mr. de Chantonnay is to go first to Our sister, the queen of Hungary, and exhibit his Instructions, in order that if in view of the condition of affairs at his arrival she thinks that anything in them ought to be added to, retrenched, or changed, she may, after communicating with the English ambassadors in Brussels, order such corrections and emendations to be made in the Instructions as she may think proper and convenient. With the Instructions thus modified or changed, as it may be, Mr. de Chantonnay shall return to Us as hastily as possible that We may send him on to England."

Again, on the 28th of June the queen regent of Flanders and the Low Countries (p. 471, No. 170) writes to Chapuys:—"Mr. de Chantonnay, gentleman of the Chamber of the Emperor, Our lord and brother, is now sent to the king of England as special ambassador, with certain Instructions, which he will show you on his arrival. Among other charges, which We find to be wisely conceived and sufficiently well explained, he has that of acting entirely under your guidance and by your advice."

Whether Chantonnay's Instructions were or not modified in Brussels, it is difficult to say, as we have no proofs. He, himself, most likely had no occasion to return to the Emperor, for his arrival in London took place, according to Chapuys, on the 2nd of July (p. 42, No. 170). At any rate it is possible that before embarking for England he may have waited upon the Emperor at Ninove. True it is that this town does not appear in the Emperor's Itinerary during the month of June, but, as above said, no complete reliance is to be placed in Vandenesse's book whenever the dates assigned by him, or by his editors of the Emperor's passage to, or stay at different places, do not agree with those recorded in the original documents, and, therefore, I conclude that both the Instructions and the letter were drawn at Cremona on the 17th, and that the former document alone, modified or not, was re-written or re-issued on the 27th at Ninove in Flanders.

p. 412, par. 3, line 5. "The duke of Savoy, the Emperor's uncle." Carlo III. of Savoy had been married since 1522 to Beatrix of Portugal, daughter of king Dom Manoel, and of Doña Maria infanta of Castille, aunt of Charles, since she was the sister of Joanna, his mother.

p. 455, No. 202. "The Same to the Same" is the heading of the copy at Simancas, but on inquiry I find that the document in question is not, as described, a duplicate of prince Philip's letter to his father, the Emperor, but a fuller and more detailed account of the deliberations and votes of the councillors. To judge from its contents, it might be said that it is in contradiction with the former statement, where the offer is considered advantageous to the Emperor, provided the two millions are paid immediately, and the principal fortress of the Duchy remain in the Emperor's hands. "In short, says the Prince, it is very hard for the Council to think that under such conditions His Holiness and his family can possibly be in favour of the alienation." And so it was, for soon after the sum was reduced to one million, and then the Pope refused altogether to pay the money down unless the fortresses remained in his hands. Mendoza's letter to the Emperor may be seen in Sandoval, Book XXV., chap. XXXV.

p. 501, par. 2, line 2. "From Italy and the Mediterranean coast the intelligence is—" This account of the attempt on Nizza by the combined French and Turkish fleets, though evidently abstracted from semi-official reports sent to Spain, differs considerably from that at page 497. Nor do the French historians —who, however, own Barbarossa's complete defeat— state facts, or record the event in a manner to allow us to arrive at the truth. According to De Thou (Histoire Universelle. Vol. V., p. 389), Monsr. de Grignan, then governor of Marseilles, had, by means of four "Savoyard" soldiers belonging to the garrison of that town, procured intelligences with those of Nizza, who had faithfully promised that upon the arrival before that town of four French galleys under the command of Sieur de Magdalon, a brother of St. Brancard, the keys of the town would be immediately delivered. The execution of the treacherous plan was fixed for the 21st of June. It appears, however, that the prince of Piedmont, who was inside the place, having had information of the treason that was prepared, sent a message to Andrea Doria, then at Genoa, who, sailing thither with his fleet of galleys, laid in ambush behind cape St. Soupir. No sooner had captain Magdalon—whom the duke of Enghien, commander-in-chief, was following for greater security with the rest of the French fleet—anchored before Nizza, than Doria sallied out of his ambush, and a naval engagement ensued, in which Magdalon himself was killed, whilst the duke of Enghien, with the whole of the French fleet, had to fly in the direction of Marseilles. Three weeks after this Barbarossa arrived, as it is said, with one hundred and seventy four galleys, and on the 5th of August, reinforced by the French fleet under Enghien, again laid regular siege to the town, which André de Monfort, its governor, defended with great courage until the 22nd, when he abandoned it and shut himself in the castle. So stout was his defence there that Enghien and Barbarossa, being in want of powder and ammunition, and hearing of Doria's approach by sea and the simultaneous arrival of Gasto and the duke of Savoy by land with considerable forces, suddenly raised the siege of Nizza, and sailed, the former for Marseilles and the latter for Toulon.

As to the statement that four of Joannetino Doria's galleys having approached too near the coast, were cast on shore (p. 498), there is a conformity between the Spanish and French accounts, as well as respecting Barbarossa's discontent at seeing himself baffled of his prey. "Le comte d'Anguyen fut obligé d'emprunter des poudres de Barbarousse, qui chagrin de voir son entreprise prête d'echouer traita les François avec beaucoup de hauteur et de mepris." These last sentences, copied from the work of De Thou (p. 390), may perhaps help to the explanation of certain ambiguous expressions in the Spanish text as transcribed in the foot-note p. 497.

p. 515, end of note‡. There is every reason to presume that Visal is an erratum for Vidal, a common name frequent enough in historical books of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, unless it be a corruption of the Italian Vitale, also a name of frequent occurrence. At any rate, the prefix Alphonso or Alfonso, and the charge he held at the Emperor's Court, "gentilhombre de la Boca [de Su Magestad]," are to me sufficient proofs that a Spanish officer named Vidal was meant by Sandoval, whose valuable and carefully composed history of the reign of Charles V., first printed at Pamplona in 1614, and which has since passed through several editions, ought to be carefully expurgated of the many errata, especially as regards names of towns and individuals, with which it swarms. Nor is that of Antwerp, 1681, 2 vols. fol., though splendidly illustrated, much better in point of orthography.

p. 537, par. 5, line 2. "You will offer Our most cordial commendations to the Queen [of Hungary], Our good sister, and also to Madame, Our Cousin, etc." The insertion [of Hungary] between brackets is entirely wrong in this instance. True is it that queen Mary, the regent of the Low Countries, was the Emperor's sister; but as the Instructions are dated from Brussels, and Gonzaga was to proceed immediately to England, at which Court he was accredited, it is evident that Charles' "commendations" were intended for Catharine Parr, sixth and last queen of Henry VIII., to whom the Emperor, according to the almost general use of the times, gave the affectionate title of "Sister." As to Madame Mary in the following line, there can be no doubt that Henry's daughter is meant, for she was really and truly Charles' first cousin. It will be observed that since the conclusion of the treaty of closer alliance with England, following a suggestion of Chapuys, in all documents and letters issued from the Imperial Chancery king Henry was no longer to be addressed as "Bel Oncle," nor was his daughter Mary to be called "Princess of England," but only "Madame Marie." See p. 16.

p. 540, No. 269. "Secret Instructions to Ferrante Gonzaga." Though dated from Brussels 13th December 1543, these are the same as those of the 7th (p. 527, No. 268), but meant only for the ambassador's private guidance, with this difference, that the latter contain a few remarks and directions, whilst those of the 7th were, if desired, to be exhibited in the Privy Council, a common practice, as has already been seen, in the diplomacy of the xvith century. Ferrante (or Fernando) Gonzaga was the son of Francesco Gonzaga, marquis of Mantua, who died in 1519, and the brother of Frederic II., first duke of Mantua and marquis de Monferrato. He was born in 1507; served the Emperor in his Italian, French, and Hungarian wars, was made by him knight of the Golden Fleece and viceroy of Sicily from 1536 to 1545. After the death of Gasto in 1545 he was for a short time appointed governor of Milan. Ferrante Gonzaga died at Brussels on the 15th of November 1557, shortly after the celebrated battle of St. Quentin, where he commanded the Spanish cavalry. He is generally designated in history as "conte di Guastalla," and "duca di Molfetta," having married (November 1557) Isabella di Capua, daughter of Ferrante or Fernando di Capua, prince of Molfetta.

p. 543, No. 271. The second paragraph of Chapuys' despatch of the 13th of December, relating to Scotland, is not only obscure in meaning but incorrect. I here transcribe it that readers may judge:—

"Touchant des [les?] affaires d'Escosse à ce qu' entens ilz ne sont gueres prospices en faveur de ce roy, car celluy qui se disoit grand gouverneur sest allye avec le Cardinal et aultres du parti contraire, comme aussi ont faict quelques aultres que tenoient pour le dit sr. roy. Et aulcungs des aultres ont este constituez prisonniers, entre les quelz est mylord Machuell, lune des personnes de plus dimportance du dit Escosse, gouverneur et capitaine general des frontieres, lequel a este frauduleusement prins par ung abbez frere du dit jadis gouverneur, nonobstant que passant par içy en retournant de France il eust este bien traicte et presenté, et quil eu (eust) promis de fere beaucoupz de choses en faveur du dit sr. roy." (fn. 1)

p. 545, par. 2, line 15. "The same may be said of the count of Lynns, who bears the family name and arms of the late king of Scotland [James V.]." Lynns or Lynus is evidently for Matthew Stuart earl of Lennox. The French accounts of the political troubles in Scotland after the death of king James are far from agreeing with those of the native historians. For instance, De Thou says that "Mathieu, comte de Lenox, chef de la faction ecossaise," was sent by king Francis to Scotland for the express purpose of supporting and aiding with his counsels both the Queen widow, Marie de Guise, and the Cardinal of St Andrews (Beton), both of whom (he says) were the friends of France; but that the Queen, having suspected him (Lennox) of being in correspondence with king Henry, had him recalled and replaced by Jacques de Lorges, count of Montgomery, "homme d'honneur et de resolution, mais ennemi declaré du comte." De Thou, Hist. Univ. Tome I. p. 70.

p. 557, No. 280. Long after the present volume was in print and the general index was in progress, a letter from Vienna came to the editor's hands announcing that four more bundles of letters and papers relating to the reign of Charles V. in connection with the history of England had been found in the Imperial Archives. One of them, under the title of Varia (Haus—Hof—Correspondenz), contains letters, mostly original, from the Emperor Charles V. to king Henry VIII., as well AS from the latter to the former. The second has letters from king Henry to the dowager queen of Hungary, and from Ferdinand, king of the Romans, to king Henry. The third, docketed on the outside, "Papiers relatifs à la ligue offensive entre l'Empereur et le roi d'Angleterre contre France (1543)," contains chiefly papers and documents relating to the treaty of closer alliance, defensive and offensive, as well as a copy of the treaty of Cam bray avec des notes marginales relatives à certaines modifications du dit traié [de Cambray] avec Supplementpresenté par Vambassadeur d'Angleterre en forme de mémoire.—Copie de la ratification du traite' d'alliance par l'Empereur (1543), in Latin, beg. Carolus Quint us, Dei gratia.—Two copies of Monsr. d'Aspremont's letter to king Francis, dated 7th June 1543 (No. 150, pp. 367–8), and another of each of Lartigue's papers, already abstracted under Nos. 151 and 152, with this difference, that the one abstracted at page 368 is at Simancas, and bears no date at all, whilst that of Vienna is dated October, and begins: "Pour avoir des nouvelles de Bretagne," which naturally indicates that either it is the commencement of Lartigue's report (No. 151, pp. 368–71), which, as the reader must have observed, begins rather abruptly with the words, "It seems to me," or else quite a different paper. I must add that in the Vienna copies the author of the report is always called "le Sieur de Lartigue."

The fourth contains the original letters of king Henry's Privy Council to Eustace Chapuys and others, as follows:— Greenwich, 1 July, 1543, beg., "Mons. l'ambassadeur: Nous promisons vremeut (?)"—Hampton Court, 10, 1543, beg., "Monsr: La Mate du roy nous commande."—Colly Weston, 5 August 1543, beg., "Par ce present porteur nous avons reçeu."—Sunning Hill,(?) 7 Aug. 1543, beg., "Par ce present porteur La Mate du Roy vous envoye;" inclosing an Italian letter from the governor of Terracina about Capt. Polino and the Turk (No. 277, p. 557).—Windsor, 10,1543, beg., "Avecque la letre que nous vous avons envoyé orig.—Hatfield, 22 Aug. 1543, beg., "Par ce porteur nous avons reçeu la lectre de la royne d'Hongrie."—Le More, 24 Aug. 1543, beg., "Nous entendons vos nouvelles."—Woodstock, Sept. 16, 1543, in Latin, beg., "Oppidum Arde;" orig.—Ampthill, 16 Oct. 1543, beg., "Nous avons reçeu vos lectres du ixe de ce present mois, par lesquelles;" orig.— Grafton, 17 Oct. 1543, beg., "Nous avons reçeu vos lectres du xe ensemble celles de l'Empereur;" orig.—Grafton, 20 Oct. 1543, beg., "Nous avons reçeuz vos lectres ensemble, et combien que ne doubtons;" orig.— Ampthill, 25 Oct. 1543, beg., "Nous avons reçeu vos lectres du xxe de ce present;" —Hampton Court, 6 Dec. 1543, beg., "Monsr., Ce present porteur, nommé Guillaume Bougins; "orig. (No. 265, p. 526).

As to king Henry's letters to the Emperor and to the queen of Hungary, their dates are as follows:—King Henry to Charles V., beg., "J'envoy presentement ce porteur Mons. Françoys Bryant;" orig., without date (in a modern hand, Oct. 1543).—Woodstock, Oct. 7, 1543, beg., "N[sym]ē très chier et très aimè cousin comte de Surrey;" orig. (No. 235, p. 494).—Dampthil (d'Ampthill), beg., "Comme ainsi soit que pieça;" orig.—Henry VIII., à la Roine Marie de Hongrie, Westminster, beg., "Comme ainsi soit que nous envoyons presentement Monsr. Thomas Saintmaur et N. Wotton;" orig. (No. 133, p. 523).

Lastly, the fourth packet is said to contain some more letters, chiefly official, from the King's Privy Council to Sir Francis Bryant, to the purveyors and pursers of the English army in Flanders and Picardy, as auxiliary of the Emperor, but of these I have had no list yet, and, therefore, cannot form a conjecture about their contents.

p. 562, par 2. "His Holiness and his ministers are satisfied that a marriage between his own grand-daughter and the son of Ascanio Colonna should be arranged."

Pier Luigi Farnese, duke of Castro, son of pope Paul, had only one daughter, i.e., Vittoria Farnese, who in 1548 was married to Guidobaldo, duke of Urbino. Long before that time, however, in the year 1538, various princely marriages had been in contemplation or solicited by the Pope for his grand-daughter, such as that with Antoine de Bourbon, duke of Vendôme, or Cosmo de' Medici, duke of Florence; the prince of Orange (Henri de Nassau); Emmanuel Philibert of Savoy, prince of Piedmont, son of the duke of Savoy (Carlo III.), and lastly Philip of Bavaria, or the duke of Aumale, son of Claude de Lorraine, duke of Guise. Not one of the above-mentioned suitors for the hand of Vittoria Farnese obtained his aim; and in 1543, when negotiations were again resumed at Rome for a marriage alliance between the duke of Orleans (Charles de Valois, Francis' third son) and Paul's grand-daughter, we hear of the French ambassador proposing to the Pope a great marriage in France for his grand-son Horatio Farnese, brother of Vittoria. To the proposed marriage of Vittoria Farnese with Fabricio Colonna, which never took place, did the Emperor allude in his Instructions to Vega when he wrote from Trent on the 4th of July 1543: "If that marriage is effected, of course all negotiations respecting that of the duke of Orleans must fall to the ground" (p. 562). In fact it has been asserted that, in order to bring on a peace between the Emperor and Francis, a project of marriage between Charles de Valois, duke of Orleans, third son of that monarch, and a lady of the Farnese family, had been formed as early as 1542, and that a French ambassador had gone to Rome for the purpose. Both this project of marriage, which was never accomplished, and another of Horatio Farnese, Pier Luigi's son, with a French lady of rank, are frequently mentioned in the correspondence of the marquis de Aguilar, the ambassador at Rome (fn. 2) (pp. 261–3).

p. 567. Note * to be supplemented as follows:—This Francesco III., of the house of Gonzaga, second duke of Mantua, and marquis de Monferrato, was only seven years old when his father, Frederico II., died. In February 1549, still under the wardship of his uncle, Cardinal Hercole Gonzaga, he married Catharine of Austria, daughter of the king of the Romans, Ferdinand, brother of the emperor Charles V. Francesco III. died at the age of seventeen on the 21st of February 1550, without posterity, being succeeded by his brother Guglielmo, aged fourteen, who died in 1561, married to Elinor (Leonor), sister of emperor Maximilian II. As to Catharine, the widow of Francesco III., she married Sigismond II., king of Poland, and died in 1572. See Généalogies Historiques. Vol. II., p. 284.

Footnotes

1 The "grand gouverneur" must be the title assumed by James Hamilton, earl of Arran, and therefore qui se disoit is wrong, for at this time he was still at the head of affairs in Scotland; but the abbot was John Hamilton, brother of the Earl, and not, as might have been supposed, of Cardinal Beton, for the expression jadis gouverneur might possibly be referred to the latter. If instead of jadis Chapuys' secretary had written desja dit, that is "above mentioned," the whole paragraph would have become clearer and more intelligible.
2 Vittoria Farnese after all did not marry Fabricio Colonna, but became in 1548, as above stated, duchess of Urbino.


<--Previous:
Spain:
Appendix