I have before me a somewhat scarce volume of Theological Tracts (small
8vo.), ranging between the years 1533 and 1614. With the exception of
one relating to the Sacraments, by John Prime (Lond. 1582), the most
curious treatise is that entitled "The Supper of the Lorde, after
the true meanyng of the sixte of John, &c.... wherunto is added,
an Epystle to the reader, And incidentally in the exposition of the
Supper is confuted the letter of master More against John Fryth." To
a motto taken from 1 Cor. xi. is subjoined the following date, "Anno
M.CCCCC.XXXIII., v. daye of Apryll," together with a printer's device
(two hands pointing towards each other). This Tract was promptly
answered by Sir Thomas More (A.D. 1533, "after he had geuen ouer
the offyce of Lorde Chauncellour of Englande"), and is described by
him as "the poysoned booke whych a _nameles_ heretike hath named the
Supper of the Lorde" (_Works_, pp. 1035, seqq., ed. Rastell). From
the following passage of the reply, we learn that this offensive
publication, like so many others of the same class, has been printed
abroad:--
"And in thys wyse is ther sent ouer to be prynted the booke
that Frythe made last against the blessed sacrament answering
to my letter, wherewyth I confuted the pestilent treatice that
he hadde made agaynst it before. And the brethen looked for it
nowe at thys Bartlemewe tide last passed, and yet looke euery
day, except it be come all redy, and secretly runne among
them. But in the meane whyle, _ther is come ouer a nother
booke againste the blessed sacrament_, a booke of that sorte,
that Frythe's booke the brethren maye nowe forbeare. For more
blasphemous and more bedelem rype then thys booke is were that
booke harde to be, whyche is yet madde enough, as men say that
haue seen it" (p. 1036. G.).
More was evidently at a loss to discover the {333} author of this
work; for, after conjecturing that it might have come from William
Tyndal, or George Jaye (_alias_ Joy), or "som yong unlearned fole,"
he determines "for lacke of hys other name to cal the writer mayster
Masker," a sobriquet which is preserved throughout his confutation.
At the same time, it is clear, from the language of the treatise,
that its author, though anonymous, believed himself well known to
his opponent:
"I would have hereto put mi name, good reader, but I know wel
that thou regardest not who writteth, but what is writen; thou
estemest the worde of the verite, and not of the authour. And
as for M. More, whom the verite most offendeth, and doth but
mocke it out when he can not sole it, _he knoweth my name wel
inough_" (sub fin).
But here rises a grave difficulty, which I have taken the liberty of
propounding to the readers of "Notes and Queries." Notwithstanding the
above statements, both of the writer and of Sir Thomas More, as to the
_anonymous_ character of the treatise we are considering, the "Epistle
to the Reader" is in my copy subscribed "Robert Crowley," naturally
inducing the belief that the whole emanated from him.
Perhaps this difficulty may be resolved on the supposition that, while
the body of the Tract was first published without the "Epistle to
the Reader," and More's reply directed against it under this form, it
might soon afterwards have reached a second edition, to which the name
of the author was appended. It is certain that More's copy consisted
of 32 leaves only (p. 1039, G.), which corresponds with that now
before me, excluding the "Epistle to the Reader." Still, it is
difficult to conceive that the paragraph in which the author speaks
of himself as anonymous should have remained uncancelled in a
second edition after he had drawn off what More calls "his visour
of dissimulacion." There is, indeed, another supposition which would
account for the discrepancy in question, viz. that the epistle and a
fresh title-page were prefixed to some copies of the original edition;
but the pagination of the Tract seems to preclude this conjecture,
for B.i. stands upon the third leaf from what must have been the
commencement if we subtract the "Epistle to the Reader."
Wood does not appear to have perceived either this difficulty, or
a second which this treatise is calculated to excite. He places the
_Supper of the Lorde_ at the head of the numerous productions of
_Robert Crowley_, as if its authorship was perfectly ascertained. But
Crowley must have been a precocious polemic if he wrote a theological
treatise, like that answered by More, at least a year previously to
his entering the university. The date of his admission at Oxford was
1534; he was elected Fellow of Magdalene in 1542; he printed the
first edition of _Piers Plowman_ in 1550; and was still Parson of St.
Giles's, near Cripplegate, in 1588, i.e. fifty-five years after the
publication of the Tract we are considering. (See _Heylin's Hist. of
the Reformation_, ii. 186., E.H.S. ed.) Were there _two_ writers named
_Robert Crowley?_ or was _the_ Crowley a pupil or protégé of some
early reformer, who caused his name to be affixed to a treatise for
which he is not wholly responsible? I leave these queries for the
elucidation of your bibliographical contributors.
If I have not already exceeded the limits allowable for such
communications, I would also ask your readers to explain the allusion
in the following passage from Crowley's tract:
"And know right well, that the more they steare thys
sacramente the broder shal theyr lyes be spreade, the more
shall theyr falsehoode appeare, and the more gloriously
shall the truthe triumph: as it is to se thys daye by longe
contencion in thys same and other like articles, which the
papists have so long abused, and howe more his lyes utter the
truthe every day more and more. For had he not come begynge
for the clergy from purgatory, wyth his 'supplicacion of
soules,' and Rastal and Rochester had they not so wyselye
played theyr partes, purgatory paradventure had served them
yet another yere; neyther had it so sone haue bene quenched,
nor the poor soule and proctoure there ben _wyth his bloudye
byshoppe christen catte so farre coniured into his owne Utopia
with a sachel about his necke to gather for the proud prystes
in Synagoga papistica_."
The Rastell here mentioned was doubtless he whom More (_Works_, p.
355.) calls his "brother" (i.e. his sister's husband), joining him
with Rochester (i.e. Bp. Fisher), as in this passage, on account of
his great zeal in checking the progress of the earlier Reformation;
but what is the allusion in the phrase "with his bloudye bishoppe
christen catte," &c., I am unable to divine. Neither in the
_Supplicacion of Soules_, nor in the reply to the "nameles heretike,"
have I discovered the slightest clue to its meaning.