ABSTRACT
The few improvements that Richard Day had added to the third (1576) edition of the Acts and Monuments were not enough to divert criticism of the work. For the first time, contemporaries criticised an edition of the Acts and Monuments as an artefact; the inferior paper, in particular, coming in for sharp criticism. One of Foxe’s acquaintances from Magdalen College, Oxford, Simon Parrett spoke for the many when he complained to Foxe of the ‘blacke, burred, and torne paper’ in the third edition. He emphasised the detrimental effect upon ‘such a notable peece of worke’ that the ‘foule paper and obscure print’ had.Foxe’s friend, Lawrence Humphrey, agreed with Parrett, that the work had suffered due to its inferior presentation.1
