Additions and Corrections.
p. 9, No. 8., note. The reference in the last note to David Betoun and Sir Thomas Erskine, Secretary of State for Scotland, is not rightly given. It ought to have been Vol. V, Part I., p. 633.
p. 10, line 1, No. 9. Monsieur de Vendôme. that is Charles de Bourbon, duke of Vendôme, born on the 2nd of June 1489. In May 1513 he married Françoise d'Alençon, daughter of René d'Alençon, and widow of the duke of Longueville.
p. 29, No. 13 "It is also reported, &c." The whole of this paragraph, like most in Chapuys' despatches, is ciphered. The decipherings, however, made as usual at Brussels, are occasionally incorrect. The present one contains a grave error, which I, myself, did not discover until it was too late to call the reader's attention to it. Margaret, the Emperor's natural daughter, was never duchess of Milan, but of Florence, by her marriage in 1536 to Alessandro de' Medici, assassinated in January 1537, as will be said hereafter. It was Christina or Kristierna, then widow of Francesco Sforza, duke of Milan, whose hand is said to have been offered to Francis' third son, Charles de Valois, duke of Angoulême, and afterwards of Orleans.
p. 40, No. 21, par. 3, line 1. "It appears that the English vessels, &c." Thus in the text (les vaissaulx anglois) but there is evidently error, and vaissaulx françois ought to be substituted.
p. 45, No. 21. With the same date of the 17th Chapuys wrote to Nicolas de Granvelle as follows:
"My despatch to the Emperor will inform you of late events in this country, but having omitted some particulars, I will put them down in writing for your own private information. During the last Christmas holidays, having said to the King that I wondered that, after so long a discussion on the conditions of the new understanding, no tangible proposal had been made, the King repeated several times, 'Yes, yes, proposals have been made, and more than reasonable, and Cromwell went further than he ought in this matter, having made offers which he was not empowered or authorised to make.' Upon my pressing the King to let me know what the offers had been, he could not help answering, either from shame or some other cause, that it was the marriage of his little daughter [Elizabeth]. I replied that it was perfectly true that Cromwell had spoken to me of that marriage, but so timidly that it looked as if he were offering a silver coin to an elephant, so that I had considered the proposal as not made, though Cromwell himself had insisted upon my writing home about it, as well as about other matters mentioned during our conversation.
"However that may be, I think it would be well not to reject altogether the said proposal, for fear the King, despairing of reconciliation, should treat with the French, who, he says, are daily importuning him. Such are this king's fickleness and natural inclination to new or strange things, that I could not, if I wished, find words to describe it. He had, some time ago, as mentioned in one of my previous despatches to His Imperial Majesty, given orders that no clergyman should preach on certain articles of this new sect, and yet, four days ago, he ordered just the contrary, nay, worse than before, especially as regards His Holiness, against whom the most execrable sermons have lately been preached, apart from the many lampoons, which are continually being published.
"It was generally thought the cruelty of these people had in some manner abated; but far from it, for since my letter to His Imperial Majesty was closed, someone has come to tell me that it has been resolved to put to death the three doctors who for the last two years have been confined to the Tower, and since condemned to perpetual imprisonment by Act of Parliament, for maintaining the legitimacy of the King's first marriage. One of the doctors, a man of great learning and virtue, was once the King's confessor (Dr. Nic. Wilson); the second is the Princess' own preceptor (Richard Fetherestone), and the third, Mr. Abel, whom you knew at Saragossa. It is likewise reported that several monks will be executed almost immediately. If so, I very much fear that this diabolic rage will somehow reach even the Princess' person.
"Yesterday it was moved in Parliament that no prelate should any longer have a jurisdiction nor tribunal of his own, and that all ecclesiastics should be subject to temporal or lay courts. No doubt the motion will pass, as well as any other the King pleases to bring forward, and, therefore, it is feared that the most diabolic plans will be discussed therein and approved without opposition. And yet I cannot help thinking that had the "bull of privation" come, as it ought to have come a long time ago, it might have caused some commotion in the country, for people are here daily more and more in despair, anxiously looking for help and assistance from abroad."
"Nothing more is said about Briant returning to France, nor is there, for the present, great probability of a closer alliance with that country, for the French ambassador here scarcely goes to Court."
p. 52, line 1 of last paragraph, No. 28. Guidobaldo della Rovere is decidedly a mistake, for at this time (February 1536) his father, the duke of Urbino (Francesco Maria), was still living, since, according to the best accounts, he died on the 21st of October 1538. Guidobaldo had married secretly, and very much against Clement's will, Giulia Varana, only daughter and heiress of Giovan MariaVarana, duke of Camarino. Pope Paul, who succeeded Clement in the Pontificate, disputed the possession of Camarino on the plea that it was a fief of the Church, and that the last duke (Varana) had died without male issue.
In the note at the foot of the same page one Lope de Mercado is mentioned as the bearer of a letter for Portugal, but I fancy that Lope Hurtado [de Mendoza] is meant, inasmuch as the latter had been, as early as 1525, the Emperor's agent in Savoy, Rome, and Milan, and in 1525 was sent on an important and especial mission to Portugal.
p. 55, line 17, No. 29. "Levesque de Rochestre et le Cardinal." ('The bishop of Rochester and the Cardinal.') Thus in Chapuys' original letter, or at least in the copy of the deciphering obtained from Vienna ; but unless "cardinal" be a slip of the pen for Chancellor, there must have been some words omitted between the two names; for Fisher having been created a cardinal when a prisoner in the Tower, and under sentence of death, together with More, the Chancellor, Chapuys had no need to mention him twice as "bishop" and as "cardinal." Errors of this kind are unluckily too frequent in the Vienna papers, owing, no doubt, to want of attention on the part of the deciphering clerks at the time.
p. 62, No. 31. "That the duke of Ferrara (Guidobaldo)." This is a decided error; there was no duke of Ferrara so named. The one here mentioned was Hercole II. d'Este, who lived till 1558. He it was who in 1539 married Renée de France, second daughter of king Louis IX. and of Anne de Bretagne. Of his father, Alphonso I., born in 1476, and who died on the 31st of August 1534, frequent mention has already been made in the pages of this Calendar. In Pope Paul's "Engagement to keep neutrality" (24 April 1536), a similar mistake occurs, Alphonso being named instead of Hercole. See No. 44, p. 103.
p. 68, line 14, No., 36. Brian-Chabot is a misprint for Brion-Chabot or Philippe de Chabot sieur de Brion or Brionne in the departement de l'Eure (France). As Admiral of France he has been frequently mentioned in these pages.
p. 83, No. 43. In the note at the foot of the page, Bona is said to have been the wife of Francesco Sforza, duke of Milan. It is a mistake ; she was his cousin, not his wife. She was the daughter of Giovan Galeazo Sforza III., duke of Milan, and sister of another Francesco who died in 1512. She, herself, was born in 1491, and married, in 1518, to Sigismond, king of Poland. The duke Francesco had been married to one of the daughters of Christiern II. king of Denmark, named Khristierna or Christina.
p. 84. No. 43. "Maistre Gelyot" can be no other than Thomas Elyot, Henry's ambassador at the Imperial Court, 1531–32. See Part I., p. 296, note.
p. 85, No. 43. The number of pages of Chapuys' despatch (No. 43), including deciphering, is 14.
p. 103, par. 4, No. 44. Alphonso d'Este, &c. is an error for Hercole II., since the former, his father, had died on the 4th of August, 1534. See Vol. V., Part I., p. 409.
p. 106, No. 47. "In the room of Mr. de Bourgain." I need not observe, having already done it in Vol. IV., Part II., p. 992, that Bourgain, or Burgnen, as written elsewhere, is for George Neville, Lord Burgavenny or Abergavenny, who died in 1535.
p. 109, No. 50. "And yet prince Don Juan de Labret," Jean d'Albret, or Labret as Spaniards of that time called him, died in 1516. It was not he, but his son Henri II., then married to Marguerite, the sister of Francis I., who on this occasion visited his estates in the South of France. The Madame de Labret mentioned in the text was his wife.
p. 110, No. 50, par 3. "At a town called Dorca." Thus, in Hannaërt's original despatch, of which a copy is in the British Museum. If, however, Dorca is turned into Diorca or "la comte d'Iork" as I have often seen it written in French documents, the transposition of the letters is not unusual. At any rate, my interpretation of that word at the bottom of the page is quite erroneous, since the revolt took place at York not at Dorchester.
p. 111, No. 50. Hannaërt's despatch (No. 50) must have been written at Montbrisson in the Forcz, ancient province of France, formerly in the Lyonnais, and now forming part of the departement de la Loire. King Francis was then journeying towards Lyons, and the Imperial ambassador was no doubt attending his court. It would appear that the original, one of those retained from Simancas, is torn or defective as appears from Bergenroth's copy.
p. 113, No. 52. "I offered him the hand of my sister-in-law," that is of Renée de France, who in 1527 (30th July) was married to Hercole d'Este, son of Alphonso, duke of Ferrara. Renée was the second daughter of king Louis XII., whose eldest, Claude de France, king Francis had married as early as the year 1515. The sister-in-law alluded to in this passage could therefore be no other than Renée de France. As to Francis' daughters he had four. 1o Louise, born the 12th of August 1515, and who died in September 1517, having been promised, as the text says, to Charles of Austria before his election to the Empire 2o Charlotte, born the 23rd of October 1516, who died 8th September 1524. 3o Magdelaine, born 10th August 1520, married to James V., king of Scotland in 1536 (died 1537) and lastly; 4o. Marguerite born in 1523, and who in 1559 was married to Philibert Emmanuel, duke of Savoy.
p. 114, No. 52. Rys in the note at the foot of the page is a misprint for Rye (Gerard de), sieur de Balançon. See Vol. IV., Part II., pp. 18, 685, &c.
p. 119, No. 53, note. Dexar, Dixar or D'Ixar, is the contracted name of capt. Antonio, about whom, see Vol. III., Part II., p. 395. Being a native of Hijar, a town and district of Aragon, erected afterwards into a duchy, he was generally designated under the appellative of Antonio de Hixar or Hijar, also written and pronounced Ijar, owing to the H being guttural, and subsequently, D'Ixar.
p. 120, No. 54. I presume that the lady, under whose keeping Anne Boleyn was while in the Tower, was no other than Mrs. Coffin, about whom, see Gairdner, Letters and Papers, &c., vol. x., pp. 334, 337, 644 notes.
The Emperor's letter, alluded to by Chapuys in the same despatch (No. 54) came to hand too late to be inserted in its proper place. I will, however, give here a short abstract of it, as its reading may help to explain Charles' political views, and what his aim was in the negociations entrusted to his ambassador in England. It is dated Vercelli, 15th May 1536. Along with it came letters to be shown and read to Cromwell and to the Privy Councillors, and even to the King ; but on no account was he (Chapuys) to give a copy of them or let them out of his hands. Reference is made therein to previous letters which the ambassador might use, adding or suppressing passages at will, as the state of politics might require. Should king Henry consent to treat, he (Chapuys) was to follow substantially the instructions sent to him on a previous occasion. If there was any difficulty and nothing better could be done, he was to temporise on some excuse or other, such as the expediency of consulting him (the Emperor), and so forth, the object in view being to prevent king Henry from assisting France, directly or indirectly. "This to be done, however, without letting that King (Henry) imagine that any arguments or pressure of his are likely to deter king Francis from his purpose. Nothing short of lack of means and power will stop him in his career, and as to his forces in the field, prepared as I am, I fear him not. Were king Henry to remain under that impression he would no doubt imagine that he had done much for me, and that his representations had been successful, and thus become more intractable than ever in other matters."
Hannaërt has written to Granvelle on the 9th inst. that the King's concubine had been surprised in bed with the King's spinet player. If so, it is to be believed that the King will be more inclined to treat, especially as regards the Princess (Mary). The ambassador, however, is to use all his dexterity to prevent the King from marrying in France; he should rather choose for a wife one of his own subjects, either the one he is now in love with (Jane Seymour) or some other lady.
P.S.—Since the above was written your man George has arrived and confirmed the above statement. As it is to be supposed that the king (being of an amorous complexion and always desirous ofmale children) will put her and her accomplices to death and take another wife; as on the side of France they are sure to propose to him various matches, the ambassador is to suggest, either to the King himself or to Cromwell, as he may deem it most fit, a marriage with the Infanta of Portugal (Mary), daughter of the queen of France (Eleanor), with a dowry of 400,000 ducats left her by her father's will. Another marriage might also be arranged for the Infante Dom Loys of Portugal with the princess of England. The ambassador is to point out, either to the King or to Cromwell, as it may be, the importance and expediency of such matches; since, in the first place, it would remove partly any scruples and promote friendship between England and Portugal, as well as be particularly advantageous for the former country in case of the King having male succession by that marriage, as it may be reasonably expected from the youth of the Infanta and the education and training she has had. Should the ambassador perceive that the King has no inclination for that marriage he may propose one between the King, himself, and the dowager duchess of Milan, a beautiful young lady well brought up and who has, besides, a rich dowry, though without putting aside the other marriage of the princess of England and the Infante Dom Loys of Portugal. The former marriage, however, of the King and the Infanta Maria of Portugal would be preferred, as in case of the King not accepting the duchess of Milan might be disposed of otherwise.—Bersel (Bercelli), 15 May 1536.
[Enclosed are copies of letters for Cromwell, as well as for the dukes of Richmond, Norfolk, and Suffolk, these last in credence of Chapuys.]
Three days after, on the 18th, after receiving Chapuys' letter of the 2d of May (No. 48), the Emperor wrote : "We have received by your man, George, who will be the bearer of this, your two letters. You did well to dispatch him post haste with the news about the concubine. Since the case is so manifest and the King takes it to heart, it is natural enough that he should wish to marry again. Having, since our letter of the 15th, thought over the marriages therein mentioned, between the King and the Infanta of Portugal and between Dom Loys and the Princess, We have resolved that it will be better for you to declare to the King openly and without dissimulation, as you shall see most fitting and according to the information you may receive from Cromwell and others respecting the King's inclination, that in order to show the cordial affection We entertain for him, We have charged you to put before him the said two marriages, and that if it please him to listen to Our proposals in that matter, We have good hope of conducting that affair to his satisfaction. You are to use all possible dexterity to forward the said matches, and pray do not for the present mention that of the dowager duchess of Milan unless you see him disinclined to the other and looking out for a wife in another quarter. We are now journeying towards Piedmont, where the French are, and will do against them what We shall consider fit.—San Donino, 18 May 1538.
p. 121, No. 54, line 3. "Two more English gentlemen." These were, according to Gairdner, Letters and Papers, Vol. x., p. 380, Sir Thomas Whyatt and perhaps Sir Thomas Paget.
p. 136, No. 60. The blank in note at the foot of the page ought to be filled up thus, the 15th of May 1536.
p. 161, last par., No. 61. I am not sure of having properly understood the corresponding passage in French as printed in the note at the foot of the page. If the word "conditions" is to be taken for "temper," that is temperaments, complexions, I am at loss to discover on which point of their personal character Francis and the duke of Norfolk resembled each other. If the word means "the stipulations" of a treaty of alliance such as the Emperor was negociating at the time with Henry, it is very natural to suppose that the Duke, who had always been a staunch partisan of France, should, if not oppose it altogether, at least show some reluctance in the affair. That is why I have added non to the word conformity, meaning that the Duke inclined more to the side of France owing to "his not conforming with the conditions of the treaty." It must, moreover, be observed that the last part of the paragraph, that relating to Norfolk, is written in cipher, and that the deciphering clerk may have omitted the negative particle. On the other hand the Duke is represented by Cromwell and Chapuys as of fickle and versatile humour, and as Francis and the French are generally so described, "conditions" might be here meant for "tempers."
The next paragraph at the top of the next page 162, must refer to Margaret Erskine, daughter of Lord Erskine, and wife of Sir Robert Douglas, whom James married about this time. See Gairdner, Lets, and Paps., vol. x., pp. 452–3, &c.
p. 162, No. 61. To this letter of Chapuys' to the Emperor (No. 61) another one to Granvelle is appended which, like those in the Appendix, came too late from Vienna to be included in the body of the work. It is dated London, 6th June 1536.
"Thanks him for his kindness as shown in the letters received by George. Has written to the Emperor at full, and in cipher, giving him an account of the negociations. The King evidently wishes to become mediator of the peace, and if not, to have a just excuse and honourable means to declare against France. Fancies that the English will not join the French against the Emperor unless the latter consent to cast off their obedience to His Holiness. Privy councillors here are glad at being freed from their subjection to France, whose King led them by the nose. The Emperor should write to congratulate this one upon his marriage, and at the same time thank him for what he has done in favour of the Princess. It would not be amiss to address a letter to treasurer Fitz-William, a man of sense, and a good servant of the Princess."
"Encloses copy of a letter he wrote to the King soon after the arrest of the concubine. He had previously shown it to Cromwell who, however, suggested no alterations. The King was pleased with it."
"The night before her execution La Ana (Anne Boleyn) talked and jested, saying among other things that those boasters who had invented an unheard of name for queen Katharine, would find it very hard to find out one for her. Perhaps they would nickname her 'queen Anne, the beheaded.' saying which she laughed heartily, though she knew she was to be executed next day. The very morning before her execution, when they came to lead her to the scaffold, she was heard to say that she did not consider herself as condemned by Divine judgment unless it were for the ill-treatment of the Princess, of which she was the cause, and for having conspired to promote her death."
"Though he (Chapuys) has seen no positive sign of it, yet he fancies that the English, in making a new treaty, will stipulate for the restitution of those provinces which once belonged to them, and Francis now retains, perhaps, too, they would wish to be assured that their disobedience to the Holy See would be tolerated by the Emperor. If so, he (Chapuys) should like to know how to act. The day after the execution one of the King's chamber said to one of his (Chapuys') secretaries that the ambassador of France (Castelnau) went up to the King and offered him the hand of Madame Magdelaine. The King replied that she was too young for him, and that he had had too much experience of French bringing up and manners, alluding to the late concubine, to take her to wife. The same gentleman related that the wife with whom king James of Scotland is now living had formerly given him a bastard son. Having married her to another man, who had long lived with her, he has now taken her back and wishes to marry her."
"The Emperor has now won the affection of the English by his bold and sensible speech in Consistory. The duke of Suffolk says that this will profit His Majesty more than if he had gained one or two great battles. The Duke, though a pensioner of France, and a knight of the Order [of St. Louis] dislikes and hates the French, owing to their dealings with the Turk. London, 6th June 1536."
p. 178. No. 70, par 2. In various parts of this Calendar the editor has had occasion to refer to the marquisate of Saluzzo, and to its owners in the first half of the XVIth century. As after the death of the last marquis the estate proved a bone of contention between the different princes, who considered they had a right to it; as the paragraph containing Chapuys' reply to the assertions made by Castelnau before the Privy Council is anything but clear, and contains besides some slight errors, it will not be amiss to recapitulate here what has been said in previous volumes of this compilation, and add a few more particulars. The marquisate of Saluzzo, according to La Chiesa, owes its origin to the Emperor of Germany, Otho of Saxony, who in 967 gave it as dowry to one of his daughters —(Chapuys calls her niece)—married to one of the sons of Aleram (Paleologo ?), marquis de Montferrato. Saluzzo continued to be united to Montferrato and Ibrea until the twelfth century, when Boniface, son of Pietro, marquis de Susa, became first marquis. In 1475 Luigi II. married to Anna de Montferrato, was marquis of Saluzzo, when a dispute arose between him and the duke of Savoy (Philip), whose vassal he was; a war ensued, and Luigi was obliged to take refuge in France; but on the death of Philip  he was reinstated, and died in 1504, leaving by his wife Marguerite de Foix-Candalle, four sons:— 1. Giovan Luigi; 2. Micaele Antonio; 3. Francesco ; 4. Gabriele. The eldest [Giovan Luigi] having been destined to the church, his brother Micaele Antonio succeded, who having become the vassal of France, and followed the fortunes of king Francis, received at the siege of Aversa a wound in the knee, of which he died in 1528. As he left no children his brother Giovan Luigi, who had from his early youth taken ecclesiastical orders, was by his people taken out of Vercelli, where his mother, Margarita, kept him in confinement, and proclaimed marquis; but a few months after, at his mother's request, he was declared incapable of government and deposed. Then his brother, Francesco, took the reins of government into his hands, and on the death of Giovan Giorgio, last marquis of Montferrato, claimed in right of his mother, Joana di Montferrato, and even joined to his title of marquis de Saluzzo, that of Montferrato also.
Two pretenders, however, laid claim to the estate, namely: Frederic II. Gonzaga, duke of Mantua, who had been married to two sisters of Bonifazio VI., XXII. marquis of Montferrato, that is Maria and Margarita Paleologo. The former he had divorced soon after marriage; and in September 1532 taken her sister to wife. The other pretender was the duke of Savoy (Carlo III.), who claimed Saluzzo, as nephew of Iolanda di Montferrato, and of Aimon, count of Savoy. The Emperor then advoked the suit, and undertook to be the judge of the dispute, Francesco having in the meantime, by the advice of Leyva—who, it is said, promised him his own daughter in marriage—abandoned the party of France, and placed himself under the Emperor's protection. This notwithstanding the latter decided in favour of the duke of Mantua, at which king Francis, furious, took Giovan Luigi out of prison and replaced him in his estate. He soon after fell into the hands of the Imperialists, whilst Francesco himself was killed at the siege of Carmagnola in 1537.
After them king Francis gave the investiture of Saluzzo to the last son of Luigi, that is Gabriele Paleologo, then bishop of Aire (Landes) in France, who, having been taken prisoner by the Imperialists, was, nevertheless, put in possession of the marquisate at the peace, in 1538.
Giovan Luigi remained, who after a series of unfortunate attempts to maintain himself in possession of Saluzzo, exchanged it for the county of Beaufort in the Anjou, and retired to France, where he died in 1567.
France then remained in possession of Saluzzo until 1588, when the duke of Savoy, Emmanuel Philiberto, got possession of it after a short campaign. In 1601 it was definitely ceded to Savoy in exchange for the counties of Bresse and Bugey.
p 182, No. 70. Lady Mary Shelton in the footnote is a mistake for Lady Anna, as in part I, pp. 34, 129, 329, 458, 465. She was the sister of Sir Thomas Boleyn, earl of Wiltshire.
p. 199, par. 2, No. 72. "Katharine's physician." His name was Miguel Lasco, and yet in Mr. Gairdner's last volume X., he is always called Miguel de la Sa.
p. 214, No. 77. "With the daughter of the queen of Scotland, by the earl of Angus," that is, with Margaret Douglas. The culprit was Lord William Howard, half-brother of the duke of Norfolk. See Part I., pp. 355. He was attainted as aspiring to the Crown, and confined to the Tower.
p. 214, No. 78. Of this letter of king Henry to the Emperor, there are several copies, or rather translations, at Simancas. Most likely it was originally written in French, but as the copies differ slightly, it has been considered advisable to publish here at least one of the others. At p. 217, under No. 81, there is again a letter from Henry to Charles, dated Dover, the 22nd of July, a duplicate of the one under No. 79, p. 215. Both are translations from the French into Spanish.
p. 218, No. 83. The same observation applies to the Emperor's answer. Two drafts of it are preserved at Simancas, and one more in the National Archives of Paris (k. 1622), proceeding also from Simancas. By comparing them together they would seem on first sight to differ materially, the second being much fuller than the first; but upon closer inspection they are translations of the same document made by different clerks. Both, however, were written at Frejus, in Provence, where the Emperor's army was encamped, though one is dated the 1st and the other the 11th of August.
p. 220, No. 85, par. 2, line 11. "Princes" is a mistake or rather a misprint for Princess.
p. 232, No. 90, par. 5. "To the place where His Majesty now is." The then Emperor must have been at Asti, for at the end of September he is said to have reached Genoa, where he embarked for Spain.
p. 234, No. 93. The Emperor's answer to king Francis' manifesto is badly placed, since it was delivered in the Cardinal's College at Rome in April. "On the 17th (says Vandenesse in his Itinerary of Charles V.) the Emperor, in the presence of the Pope and the congregational cardinals, of the ambassador of France, and many lords and prelates made the celebrated address, in which, after reviewing the conduct of the king of France, since the beginning of his reign, offered him either a lasting peace or single combat, the price of which was to be Burgundy and Milan for the conqueror."
p. 237, No. 93, line 8. "That your Majesty's men had defeated, &c." The engagement took place at Brignolles (Var) where Gonçaga defeated the French under Montejean and Boissy.
p. 246, No. 98, line 7. The blank to be filled with "18th."
p. 247, No. 98, par. 2. "The King sent for the three commissioners, that is Fox, Sampson, and Cromwell. See above, p. 240. The two mentioned lower down were Sir William Paulet, controller of the Royal household, and Master Quin (Coyn ?) again mentioned at p. 266.
p. 275, No. 108. The Empress Isabella's letter to Luis Sarmiento de Mendoza is curiously enough signed "Yo la Royna," as printed, instead of "Yo la Reyna."
p. 275, No. 109. The Emperor's letter to Reginald Pole (No. 109) must be in answer to that of the 17th June (No. 63). See above, p. 163.
p. 282, No. 116. Gilles de la Pomeraye, or Pommeraye, as elsewhere written, had been twice in England as ambassador of Francis. On this occasion (Nov. 1536) he seems to have come on an extraordinary mission to promote the marriage of the duke of Orleans, Francis' third son, with princess Mary.
p. 285, No. 116. Chapuys' letters of the 5th, 14th, and 22nd, usually written in French, were translated into Spanish and sent to Spain, where an abstract of them was made for the Privy Council.
About this time, or perhaps during the lengthy negociations carried on between Chapuys and Cromwell for a closer alliance, and to make Henry abandon France and side with the Emperor, a herald of the latter and another of king Henry are said to have met at Calais and travelled to the court of France. The instructions to the former are in the National Archives of France, and a copy in the Bergenroth Collection, vol. xx., f. 79. It runs thus:—
"Instructions to Franchois de Phalaix, (fn. 1) the Emperor's councillor [in Flanders], and his chief king-at-arms, of what he will have to do conjointly with the king-at-arms or herald of England, whom the king of France and England [Henry] may be pleased to send along with him."
"Firstly. Mons. de Phalaix shall go to Calais, and there wait for the king-at-arms of England, that they both may travel together to the court of France."
"At Calais, and about to depart on his mission with the English king-at-arms, Mons. de Phalaix will despatch a trumpeter to the next good town of France to ask for a safe conduct, and when obtained, will go to the court of France with his colleague, and on his arrival there apply for an audience from the King."
"Once in the Royal presence, and after making due reverence, though without any salutation whatever, the said Mr. de Phalaix will ask the King's permission to speak out freely, tell and expose without hindrance what his master, the Emperor, has charged him to say in his name, and, the permission being granted, and under the security which all princes are in the habit of granting to kings-at-arms, will proceed to say :—"
"That owing to the troubles and divisions now existing throughout Christendom, and which have chiefly their origin in, and emanate from, the king of France, inasmuch as since the commencement of the present war of which he (king Francis) was the principal cause—having begun the same in direct contravention to the treaties existing between the two countries, and without previous challenge or defiance—the Turk, that cruel and inveterate enemy of our holy religion, has been daily advancing in order to invade Christendom. His Imperial Majesty, therefore, considering that the dignity to which God by His divine clemency has raised him, imposes upon him the obligation of putting a stop to that approaching calamity, has now by the counsel and advice of his good brother, and perpetual friend and ally the king of France and England [Henry], decided to send him [Phalaix] to remonstrate with, admonish, and request, the said king to consider and bear in mind that the Turk, that sworn enemy of all Catholic princes, has never for some years past ceased molesting with all his power, and invading Christian countries in the hope of gaining his end by subduing the inhabitants thereof, subjecting them to his rule, and perhaps, too, causing them to swerve from their faith and religion to the incomparable regret of all good Christians.
Owing to which and other reasons His Imperial Majesty requests the king of France, since he bears the title of "Most Christian," to refrain altogether and desist from any friendship and alliance with the said Turk, also to revoke and recall the ambassadors and agents he has or may have at his court, and consider him henceforwards as his enemy.
That he (the King) may pay to the king of the Romans (Ferdinand) and other Christian princes, as well as to the States depending from the Empire, damages and interest on all the sums they may have spent through the said Turkish invasions, made entirely at his instigation and request. Also return and restitute to the said king of the Romans the town of Maran (Marano, in Frioul?), which he (king Francis) still retains in his possession.
Likewise to pay to the said king of France and England (Henry) all he owes him, according to the treaties between them, as the English king-at-arms or herald himself will more fully declare.
To abstain, in future, from waging war against His Imperial Majesty, his kingdoms, countries, subjects, and allies, and restore to, and indemnify him of all expenses incurred, as well as of all damages and interests which he (the Emperor) and his kingdoms may have sustained or suffered during the last wars up to the present time.
Also to restore all the countries, provinces, and lands that he and his predecessors on the throne have taken and usurped from the Holy Empire, or from its vassals, to the great disregard and contempt of the rights of the said Empire ; such as those he has seized from his own uncle, the duke of Savoy, Carlo III., whom he has violently despoiled and robbed. These he is bound to return, besides indemnifying the Duke for his expenses, damage, and interest.
On the terms above specified, and with the consent of the king of France and England (Henry), His Imperial Majesty will be glad to receive the king of France as a friend, and make peace with him on reasonable conditions, and with proper securities on both sides. An answer to the above is earnestly requested.
This being done, Mons. de Phalaix will wait until the king-at-arms of the king of England has equally declared his charge according to the instructions that may have been given to him in England.
Should the king of France desire to have the above in writing Mons. de Phalaix will give it to him; but, should the King delay his answer, saying that he will have the propositions carefully examined in Council in order to make a proper reply to them, then, in that case, Mons. de Phalaix will beg the King to let him have a written answer within the term of ten days, the longest period of time he can wait, according to his instructions.
Should the King ask, or cause Mons. de Phalaix to be asked, whether the various points of the above proposition, once granted, he (Phalaix) has sufficient mandate from the Emperor to agree to the peace, the Imperial king-at-arms will answer without hesitation that should the proposed conditions be accepted as a whole, His Imperial Majesty will be glad, during the next ten days, to appoint commissioners, who, conjointly with the deputies of the king of France and England [Henry], will be furnished with sufficient powers to adjust a peace under reasonable conditions convenient to both parties. "But should the king of France refuse to answer, and make excuses, as most likely he will; should he delay his answer beyond the ten days above specified, or should he make no answer at all, and order the Imperial king-at-arms to quit France, in any of the three cases Mons. de Phalaix will tell the King that since he will not accede to so just a demand and requisition on the part of His Imperial Majesty, he (Phalaix) has charge to make the following declaration."
"He is to say that the Emperor requests and summons him to effect and accomplish the above, and, besides that, to restore to him and to his successors the duchy of Bourgogne, the counties of Charolois, Auxerrois, Maconnais, viscounty of Auxonne, and lordships of Noyers, Chastelchinon, Bar sur Saine (sic), and the resort of St. Leu, Amyens, Abbeville, Corbye, Peronne, and St. Quentyn, with their territories, bailiwicks, and jurisdictions, as just indemnity for all the sums and taxes raised by him since their occupation.
"To restore to the said king of France and England [Henry] all and everyone of the provinces and towns formerly belonging to him, and which king Francis still retains, as he will hear more in detail from the English king-at-arms."
[This article is couched in general terms, and without any specification, because the king of England, in his great wisdom, cannot fail to give his king-at-arms a far more detailed set of instructions than We could furnish him from Spain.]
"In a like manner to restore to His Imperial Majesty the town, castle, and bailiwick of Hesdin, as well as the town and castle of Atheney, the towns of Ivois and Damvillers with their respective territories, and in short all he has occupied in the duchy of Lutzembourg (Luxemburg) and its vicinity belonging to the Empire."
"Also the whole of the provinces, Dauphiné and adjacent territories, which Francis' predecessors took from the Emperor's ancestors, and he still occupies.
In addition to that king Francis is summoned to fulfil in all their parts the treaties of Madrid and Cambray, and pay costs and interests on the sums and expenditure which His Imperial Majesty or his subjects may have been put to, through his wilful contravention of the said treaties."
"To reimburse the Archbishop of Valencia (Erard de la Mark) of the 30,000 gold crowns which, owing to his unjust detention, he was obliged to disburse, as well as pay him damage and interest for his long and unjust imprisonment and captivity."
"Otherwise, and should the king of France refuse to make the above restitutions, His Imperial Majesty, with the help of God, who alone gives victory to whom he pleases, and the assistance of the said king of France and England (Henry), his good brother and perpetual friend and ally, His Imperial Majesty will prosecute against the said king of France this present war so wilfully and without reason commenced by him, will continue the same by sea and by land, and reject any proposals whatever of peace and friendship made to him unless it be with the knowledge and consent of the said king of France and England (Henry)."
"After making the above declaration Mons. de Phalaix will wait until the king-at-arms of the English king has said and declared the charge with which he himself may have been instructed."
"The said Mons, de Phalaix will take care to listen attentively, as well as understand and retain in his memory whatever may be said to him in this matter, in order to report it in writing.
"Should he, whilst in Calais, or on his road to Court and back hear any remarks touching the present war, or concerning the Emperor and king Francis, he (Mr. de Phalaix) will take no notice whatever; and should he be pressed to state his own opinion in the matter, will excuse himself by saying that he has been sent to that country for the sole purpose of delivering a message, and for nothing else. In short, he is to avoid all occasions and means likely to arouse the jealousy of the English herald, and never speak to Frenchmen except in the presence of his colleague."
"Whilst drawing out the present instructions it has been deliberated in Council whether the Emperor's king-at-arms ought to speak in the name of both princes, or whether the king of England might not possibly make a proposition to that effect. It was, however, settled as a far more fit and convenient measure for each king-at-arms to speak for himself, and express his master's wish and intentions. If so, should the king of England wish to address the Most Christian king of France in words indicating that he had lately assumed the title of Sovereign Chief and Head of the Anglican Church, and so forth, all discussion on that point might be avoided and be a further proof that both princes and each of them had the affair at heart. Otherwise people might think that this was entirely the Emperor's doing, and that the king of England went for nothing in the affair save sending one of his own heralds to be present at the requisition. In short, the opinion of the councillors is that the French will be too much disposed, as it is, to dispute the affair without giving them further opportunity for contention."
It is doubtful whether Mons. de Phalaix, to whom the above instructions were addressed, ever delivered his charge; if be did, it was certainly not conjointly with Henry's herald, or else Chapuys or Hannaërt would have mentioned the fact. Henry was too cautious a politician under the circumstances to avowedly declare against France. Most likely the document, emanating from the Emperor's Privy Council, was prepared as a draft, but never delivered. It was formerly at Simancas and is now in the National Archives of France, having been taken away with others during the partial occupation of the Peninsula by the first Napoleon, and never restored. As to the Emperor's king-at-arms, Mons. de Phalaix, I have nowhere found a notice of him, unless he be the Bastard de Phalaix, who, according to Vandenesse's Itinerary of Charles V. (Bradford, p. 505) communicated in 1537 the news of the truce between France and the Emperor, made at the instigation and by means of queen Eleanor of France and Mary of Hungary, both sisters of Charles,
The conjecture seems the more probable that, in Vol. III. of the well-known work Les Genealogies historiques des Rois, Empereurs et de toutes les maisons souveraines qui ont existé jusqu à present, Paris 1736, 4to., there is, at p. 332, a Table [XLV.] of the genealogy of the "Bastards of Bourgogne, seigneurs de Fallaix et de Bredam," beginning with one Baudouin de Fallaix, who died in 1508, leaving five sons and two daughters, the eldest of whom, Philip, died in 1542.
p.292, No. 123. "In the matter of Milan the secretary who was present," &c. By "secretary" in this passage the Pope's is meant, that is the Apostolic Prothonatory Ambrogio or Ambrosio de Recalcatis, about whom see pp. 272-3, 285, 289.
p. 342, No. 140, last line but one. "Sieur d'Orton, &c" In the heading of the Instructions (p. 336) this ambassador is named Sieur d'Arbes (Arbois?), but there is reason to believe that he never reached England, for neither his colleague Mendoza nor Chapuys mention him in their despatches.
p. 344, No. 141. The person going to England from Spain to promote the marriage of the Portuguese infante [Dom Luiz] to princess Mary can be no other than Don Diego Hurtado de Mendoza, whose instructions are at p. 336, under No. 140.
p. 344, No. 143. This is not the first time that this doctor and bishop (as he is there called) has been mentioned in the pages of this Calendar. Shortly after the murder of the duke Allessandro de' Medici, and the elevation of Cosmo, the Emperor sent him to Florence to represent him (p. 332). In March of the same year he made his appearance at Valladolid as envoy or nuncio of Pope Paul III., to propose measures in view of the General Council. The Emperor's answer to him is at p. 344, No. 143. Again in June 2 he is mentioned in the Emperor's letter to Cifuentes (No. 151, p. 363) as a lawyer "who during his short stay at Florence, has no doubt looked into the Duchess' affairs, as instructed, and will give the requisite legal advice." Lastly, in August, he must have been still at Florence, for the Emperor wrote to him from Monçon, on the frontier of Aragon, where he was holding Cortes, apprising him with the revolution of Piacenza, the attempt made by Valori, the Strozzi, and the Florentine "fuorusciti," to get possession of that city (No. 161, p. 374), their defeat near Piacenza, where Phillipo Strozzi and Bartholomeo Valori remaining prisoners. He must have held some responsible charge in Florence, for the Emperor in the same letter enjoined him to keep close watch on the prisoners and not let them free on any account, whilst in another, that of the 7th October (No. 165, p. 331), to see that in the case of the Florentine "fuorusciti," and especially of Strozzi and Valori "justice be administered according to law and conscience." His name is differently spelt in the copies of letters and documents I have had under my eyes, sometimes Aviete, at others Ariete. Which of the two is the right one I have been unable to verify, nor have 1 found his name in Gams among the bishops of the time; for although a hand of last century has written on the dorse of one of the bishop's letters, obispo de Arezzo, I take this to be a voluntary and unjustifiable assertion of some scholar working on these very papers, who, reading on the outside "el obispo Bernardo [de] Aviete," and not finding in Gams a bishopric of that name, hastily concluded that Aviete was a mistake for Arezzo. That explains, perhaps, why in the chronological index of the Simancas Papers, collected by the late Gustav Bergenroth, and now in the British Museum, Miçer Bernardo is twice designated as "bishop of Arezzo." See Nos. 69 and 85 of Add. 28,589. That he was an Italian, perhaps a Roman, by birth, and also an ecclesiastic and lawyer of some distinction, appears from the title of "Miçer" which precedes his name. And I may add that should Ariete be the right reading, it might be the corrupted name of Miçer Bernardo da Riete, whom Benedetto Varchi, in his Storia Florentina, describes as agent or resident ambassador of Charles in Firenze (Florence), fol. 170.
p. 355, No. 149, paragraph 2. Lope, &c. is a mistake for Gomez Suarez de Figueroa, the Emperor's ambassador or diplomatic agent at Genoa since 1529. See Vol. IV., Part I. Introduction, p. xviii.
He must have belonged to the family of Feria, for Lopez de Haro, in his Nobiliario Genealógico de los Reyes y títulos de España (lib. V., cap. xiv.), mentions several noblemen so-called, such as D. Gomez Suarez de Figueroa, second count of Feria, 1468-71; D. Gomez Suarez de Figueroa, third count, son of D. Lorenzo; and D. Gomez, fifth count, and afterwards first duke of Feria (1567), who died in 1571, married, during his residence in England as ambassador of Philip II., to Joanna Dormer, lady-in- waiting to queen Mary. Neither of these three D. Gomez Suarez de Figueroa can be the Emperor's agent at Genoa, for, in the first place, he is never designated by his title of "count of Feria," if he ever had it; and secondly, he must have died before the fifth count and first duke in 1567. He probably belonged to the family, although Figueroa is not an uncommon name in Spain, and I find in Bergenroth's Calendar (Vol. 2, p. 392), one Gomez Ruiz de Figueroa, who, as early as the year 1506, resided at Venice as ambasasdor of the Catholic sovereigns Ferdinand and Isabella.
p. 360, No. 154. Cepata, in the note at the foot of the page, is a misprint for Çapata or Zapata (Pedro), of whom frequent mention has been made in the pages of this Calendar. He was an ancestor of the first count of Barajas, D. Francisco Zapata, son of Juan Zapata Osorio and Da Maria Ximenez de Cisneros, owing to which he added to the family name, Zapata, that of Cisneros.
p. 365, No. 155. Who Cardinal's Guidiccioni's letter is addressed to does not appear. It was evidently written during his legacy in Spain, and most probably, to judge from its contents, at Monçon, on the frontier of Aragon and Catalonia, where the Emperor was then holding Cortes. At that time Guidiccioni (Bartholomeo) was Nuncio in Spain.
p. 370, No. 158. The note at the bottom of the page intended to illustrate, or rather to explain, the very obscure, nay, to me most unintelligible, passage ending with the words, "the more so now that Don Fadrique is dead," requires further critical remark on my part. It must have been terribly vitiated by the clerk whose duty it was to put it in cypher, or else by the one to whom the deciphering was entrusted. Again, there must be in the original document proceeding from Simancas, and now preserved, with many others of the same kind and period, in the National Archives of Paris, some omission or transposition of the paragraphs in the text, which baffles all conjecture as to its real meaning. Who is Don Fadrique? What his death can have to do with king Francis, still suffering from his past illness, not going that way? And again, who is the prince to whom king Francis proposes giving him a governor for his daughter? I confess that the whole passage is a puzzle to me, for even supposing that by the words "the King and Queen" Henri d'Albret and Margaret of Navarre are meant, I see no way at all to get out of the difficulty; for Henri d'Albret, who was then holding his court at Pau, lived till 1555; his wife Marguerite de France, sister of Francis I. died in 1549. They had a daughter, Jeanne, who in 1548 was married to Antoine de Bourbon, duke of Vendôme, and subsequently king of France and Navarre.
The above facts and dates were already recorded in the note above alluded to, and yet very little advance was then made towards the elucidation of the passage in question, which to me still remains quite unintelligible. I have, therefore, deemed it necessary to return to the subject, the more so that in line 13th of the same note a misprint occurs, which, if allowed to stand as it is, might increase the confusion with reference to Henri d'Albret. It is here said, "his only daughter Jeanne, the sister of Francis I.," which ought to be read Jeanne, niece of Francis I., since she was the daughter of his sister, Marguerite de Valois.
After further thought, and having had the passage closely examined and collated, though, I must say, with no better success, I make bold to offer another conjecture. Let us suppose that by Don Fadrique Henri d'Albret or "Don Enrique de Labret," is meant. Let us then turn muerto (dead) into uuelto or vuelto (returned), and we shall get at once the solution of the riddle, as follows: "The King is still indisposed, and until he recovers and gets quite well he will not go down that way (that is to the frontier of Navarre), the more so now that Don Enrique (Henri d'Albret) has returned to Court. King Francis, however, has sent him, and his wife, a message purporting, &c." Let me add that the letter is addressed by the marquis de Cenete (Henri de Nassau) to a gentleman in the South of France, and the whole passage is thus satisfactorily explained to my mind.
p. 383, No. 166. The blank in line 3 of 2nd paragraph must be filled with "the middle of September," although not one of those letters, not even that of the 9th of October particularly referred to, is in Bergenroth's collection.
p. 479, No. 204. The contents of the instructions to commander Giron, appointed "veedor" or inspector to the Levant fleet, about to sail for Villafranca di Nizza, on the 30th of May 1538, refer also to its ultimate destination after the Emperor's landing at that town; Andrea Doria to be the chief admiral, and the viceroy of Sicily, Hernando Gonçaga, to command the infantry.
p. 506-7, No. 213. Not all the proposals of marriage mentioned in the first paragraph of this despatch have been previously alluded to in Chapuys' correspondence; perhaps some of that ambassador's letters to the queen of Hungary or to the Emperor, are missing. Of that of king Henry first with the infanta Maria, of Portugal, daughter of Joaõ and Eleanor, and secondly with the dowager duchess of Milan; of that of the princess Mary of England with the Infante Dom Luiz, enough has been said elsewhere; but this is the first time that one of Elizabeth-for she really was the King's second daughter—to the son of the duke of Savoy, and another of prince Edward, Henry's son, to the infanta Joanna, daughter of the Emperor, have been, that I am aware, at all mentioned. With regard to the marriage of Savoy, it must be observed that Lodovico, the eldest son of duke Carlo III., died one month after at Madrid (Dec. 1536), whilst Joanna, the Emperor's second daughter, born on the 24th of June 1535, at the time that her father was engaged in the Tunis expedition, was wedded in 1552 to the prince of Brazil, son of Joaõ III. and of his queen Da Catalina, who died without ascending the throne on the 2nd of January 1554. Joanna was the mother of the chivalrous, though unfortunate, Dom Sebastiaõ. She governed Spain in 1554 during the absence of her father and brother [Philip II.], and died at the Escurial on the 7th of September 1573.
p. 531, No. 226. This minute and highly interesting diary of the occurrences at Nizza during the interview of the Pope, the Emperor, and king Francis in July 1538, was written by Pedro de Gante, secretary of D. Antonio, duke of Najera, one of the noblemen attached to the Emperor's court. There are two copies of it in the British Museum. Egerton, 367, and Add. 8219.
p. 542. Our author seems to have mistaken Marguerite de France, daughter of Francis I. with Marguerite de Valois or d'Alençon, his sister. The former, born on the 1st of June 1523, though promised to prince Philip of Spain, the Emperor's only son, was ultimately married to Emmanuele Philiberto, duke of Savoy, in 1559. The latter, better known as "Marguerite Reine de Navarre," and La Marguerite des Marguerites, was the daughter of Charles d'Orleans, duke of Angoulême, and of Louise of Savoy, and consequently sister of Francis I. She was born on the 11th of April 1492, and married to Charles, duke of Alençon (Oct. 1500), after whose death, shortly after the battle of Pavia (1525), she married Henri II. d'Albret, pretender to the kingdom of Navarre, and who like his father Jean, and his daughter Jeanne (afterwards married to Antoine de Bourbon, the father of Henri IV.), assumed as long as he lived the title of king of Navarre. As widow of the duke d'Alençon, Marguerite went to Spain to console king Francis during his captivity. She died on the 29th of December 1549, and wrote a well-known book in the manner of Bocaccio, called L'Heptameron de la Reine de Navarre.