Sir Thomas More's "attonemente"

Sir Thomas More

Painting by Hans Holbein the Younger (1527)

(Image from Wikipedia)

Concerning yesterday's confusing citation on "atonement" from the Oxford English Dictionary, perhaps a few clarifying words are in order. Let's look at the OED's full citation:

1. The condition of being at one with others; unity of feeling, harmony, concord, agreement.

1513 MORE Rich. III Wks. 41 Having more regarde to their olde variaunce then their newe attonement. 1554 PHILPOT Exam. & Writ. (1842) 330 What atonement..is there betwixt light and darkness. 1610 HEALEY St. Aug. City of God 763 Beasts should live at more attonement and peace betweene them-selves. 1611 SPEED Hist. Gt. Brit. VI. xxv. (1632) 129 After three great and dangerous Battles came to an attonement. 1623 COCKERAM, Atonement, quietnesse.

2. The action of setting at one, or condition of being set at one, after discord or strife: a. Restoration of friendly relations between persons who have been at variance; reconciliation. Obs.

1513 MORE Edw. V Wks. 40 Of which..none of vs hath any thing the lesse nede, for the late made attonemente. 1577 HOLINSHED Chron. II. 98 At length an attonment was concluded betwixt him and the king. 1594 SHAKES. Rich. III, I. iii. 36, I Madam, he desires to make attonement Betweene the Duke of Glouster, and your Brothers. 1632 MASSINGER Maid of Hon. V. ii, As a perfect sign of your atonement with me, You wish me joy. 1685 MORDEN Geog. Rect. 201 The atonement made by Hannibal..between Bruneus and his Brother.

We find Sir Thomas More cited twice: "1513 MORE Rich. III Wks. 41" and "1513 MORE Edw. V Wks." About these, I noted yesterday:

The first listed is from his work The History of King Richard the Third, and the second is said to be from "Edw. V," but I find it also in More's work on King Richard III. Google Books gives both instances on page nine of this history.

By "this history," I meant The History of King Richard the Third, and my poorly expressed point was that both instances of "atonement" (attonement and attonemente) are from More's History of King Richard the Third, so why did the OED cite "Edw. V"? Lacking time, I did not investigate the mystery.

This latter work would seem to be More's "Historie of the pitiful life and unfortunate death of Edward the fifth and the then Duke of York his brother," which the Catholic Encyclopedia informs us was "printed incomplete in the 'English Works' (1557) and reissued with a completion from Hall's Chronicle by Wm. Sheares (London, 1641)" (Gilbert Huddleston, "St. Thomas More," The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 14, New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912).

Since the Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that this was printed incomplete in 1557, then either the OED misinforms us about 1513 or means to refer us to the date that More composed the work -- or the OED altogether incorrectly 'informs' us about the word "attonemente" appearing in this Historie of the pitiful life and unfortunate death of Edward the fifth and the then Duke of York his brother.

Or something else entirely. The book title abbreviated by the OED as "Edw. V," but given more fully by the Catholic Encyclopedia, would seem to have included a section on Richard III:

History of the pitiful Life and unfortunate Death of King E. V. and the Duke of York his Brother; with the troublesome and tyrannical Government of the Usurpation of Richard III., and his miserable end

This still fuller citation occurs in Robert Watt's Bibliotheca Britannica: A General Index of British and Foreign Literature (1818, 1824).

Anyway, since this history included a section on Richard III, then I'm guessing that this longer history by Sir Thomas More -- History of the pitiful Life and unfortunate Death of King E. V. and the Duke of York his Brother; with the troublesome and tyrannical Government of the Usurpation of Richard III., and his miserable end -- includes material borrowed from More's earlier History of King Richard the Third, thereby explaining why the OED cites both texts, for the statement "Of which..none of vs hath any thing the lesse nede, for the late made attonemente" will have appeared in both texts.

But why would the OED give 1513 as the date for "Edw. V"?