English Historical Documents 1485-1558 (English Historical Documents, 1485-1558)

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS

General Editor DAVID C.DOUGLAS M.A., F.B.A.

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS General Editor: DAVID C.DOUGLAS, M.A., D.LITT., F.B.A.

VOLUMES

ANTIQUITY TO EARLY MEDIEVAL I c. 500–1042 DOROTHY WHITELOCK II 1042–1189 DAVID C.DOUGLAS AND GEORGE W.GREENAWAY III 1189–1327 HARRY ROTHWELL LATE MEDIEVAL IV 1327–1485 A.R.MYERS V 1485–1558 C.H.WILLIAMS EARLY MODERN VI 1660–1714 ANDREW BROWNING VII 1714–1783 D.B.HORN AND MARY RANSOME MODERN VIII 1783–1832 A.ASPINALL AND E.ANTHONY SMITH IX 1833–1874 G.M.YOUNG AND W.D.HANDCOCK X 1874–1914 W.D.HANDCOCK

GENERAL PREFACE

E

NGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS is a work designed to meet a present need. Its purpose is to make generally accessible a wide selection of the fundamental sources of English history. During the past half-century there has been an immense accumulation of historical material, but only a fraction of this has been made readily available to the majority of those who teach or who study history. The transcendent importance of the original authorities is recognized, but direct approach to them remains difficult, and even some of the basic texts (which are frequently quoted) are hard to consult. A gulf has thus opened between the work of the specialist scholar and those students, both at schools and universities, who best can profit by his labours. Historical studies tend too often today to consist of a commentary on documents which are not included in the available books; and, in the absence of any representative and accessible collection of the sources, the formation of opinion proceeds without that direct study of the evidence which alone can give validity to historical judgment. The editors of these volumes consider that this situation calls for a remedy. They have striven to supply one by providing what they hope can be regarded as an authoritative work of primary reference. An enterprise of this nature could be effective only if planned on a large scale. In scope and content, therefore, these volumes differ materially from the conventional “source-books” which usually contain only a restricted number of selected extracts. Here, within much wider limits, the editors have sought to produce a comprehensive corpus of evidence relating generally to the period with which they deal. Their aim, in each case, has been to present the material with scholarly accuracy, and without bias. Editorial comment has thus been directed, in the main, towards making the evidence intelligible, and not to drawing conclusions from it. Full account has been taken of modern textual criticism to compile a reliable collection of authentic testimony, but the reader has in general been left to pass his own judgment upon it, and to appraise for himself the value of current historical verdicts. Critical bibliographies have been added to assist further investigation. The material to be included in each volume naturally varies according to the needs of each period as assessed by the editors. The period 1485–1558 is by common consent regarded as having been of critical importance in the political and religious history of England; and one of the objects of this book has been to illustrate the interconnexion between the constitutional, the ecclesiastical and the social movements which marked the age, which so notably influenced the English future. The scope of the volume, the unity of the period iii

iv

GENERAL PREFACE

with which it deals, and the principles upon which the documents have been selected are explained by the editor in his general introduction. All concerned in this Series are fully aware of the magnitude of the undertaking to which they have addressed themselves. They are conscious of the hazards of selecting from the inexhaustible store of historical material. They realize also the difficulties involved in editing so large a mass of very varied texts in accordance with the exigent demands of modern scholarship. They believe, however, that the essential prerequisite for the healthy development of English historical studies is wider acquaintance with the original authorities for English history. And they are content that their work should be judged by the degree to which they have succeeded in promoting this object. DAVID DOUGLAS

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS 1485–1558 Edited by

C.H.WILLIAMS M.A.

London and New York

First published in 1967 by Eyre & Spottiswoode Ltd Reissued in 1996 by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane London EC4P 4EE This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2003. Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 29 West 35th Street New York, NY 10001 © 1967 Routledge All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress ISBN 0-203-19575-2 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 0-203-19578-7 (Adobe eReader Format) ISBN 0-415-14370-5 (Print Edition) Complete set

0-415-14361-6

Boxed set 1 Boxed set 2 Boxed set 3 Boxed set 4

0-415-14362-4 0-415-14363-2 0-415-14364-0 0-415-14365-9

Vol. I Vol. II Vol. III Vol. IV Vol. V Vol. VI Vol. VII Vol. VIII Vol. IX Vol. X

0-415-14366-7 0-415-14367-5 0-415-14368-3 0-415-14369-1 0-415-14370-5 0-415-14371-3 0-415-14372-1 0-415-14373-X 0-415-14374-8 0-415-14375-6

VOLUME V

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS 1485–1558

To Clare

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

T

HE editor wishes to thank Professor A.G.Dickens for permission to print his text of Sir John Gostwick’s advice on household management (no. 143). He is also obliged to the following authors and editors whose texts have been used in preparing this volume: W.G.Clark Maxwell, Archaeologia, XXXIII (1933), 167–170; Hitchcock and Chambers, Harpsfield’s Life of More; C.F.Malfatti, Two Italian Accounts of Tudor England; Professor K.Muir, Life and Letters of Sir Thomas Wyatt; J.A.Muller, Letters of Stephen Gardiner; W.T.Mellows, Last Days of Peterborough Monastery, A.L.Merson, Third Book of Remembrances of Southampton, A.Raine, York Civic Records; Sir A.Wagner, Heralds and Heraldry. If by a mischance any work which should have been acknowledged has been omitted from this list the editor takes this opportunity to express his regret for what would be an entirely unintentional discourtesy.

x

CONTENTS GENERAL PREFACE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS GENERAL INTRODUCTION I. The Period II. The Land III. Population IV. The Dynasty V. Government VI. Society VII. The Church VIII. The Sources

page iii x 1 1 5 7 9 18 26 35 64

GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY: The more important secondary and original sources of English history between 1485 and 1558

70

Part I. THE WRITING OF HISTORY, 1485–1558 INTRODUCTION TO PART I SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY OF CHRONICLES AND HISTORIES

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Select passages from The Great Chronicle of London Select passages from Wriothesley’s Chronicle Select passages from Polydore Vergil’s Anglica Historia Lord Berners on the study of history Select passages from Edward Hall’s Chronicle The antiquarian interests of John Leland described in a letter to Henry VIII (1546) Select passages from the writings of John Bale John Foxe on historical method The diary as a narrative source The new biographical narrative

87 93 109 123 130 138 141 153 157 162 167 174

Part II. THE LAND INTRODUCTION TO PART II SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

An impression of England by an Italian visitor (17 November 1497) A description of England in an early Italian “Relation” (c. 1500) A Scottish impression of England (1521) A Spanish impression of England. From a private letter (1554) Descriptions of the English countryside, by John Leland xi

181 184 187 192 202 207 210

xii

CONTENTS

Part III. THE COMMONWEAL INTRODUCTION TO PART III SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

page 223 230

A. THE STRUCTURE OF SOCIETY Social structure defined by statute (1510) The social effects of procedure by attainder. Illustrated from statutes The Heralds and ennoblement, illustrated from various sources The rise of new families, illustrated from various sources The gentry: good and bad. Described by Thomas Becon Two descriptions of the yeoman The enfranchisement of villeins. Some examples Select documents on wardship and marriage from various sources

B. THE THEORY OF THE COMMONWEAL 24. A supplication of the Poore Commons, 1546 25. Thoughts on social responsibilities from the Works of William Tyndale 26. The nature of the Commonweal. From Thomas Starkey, Dialogue between Pole and Lupset 27. Selections from the writings of Robert Crowley 28. Criticism of society in the writing of Henry Brinkelowe 29. The Church and the Commonweal. Selections from The Primer 30. Latimer’s Social Teaching illustrated from his sermons 31. Thomas Lever’s Social Theory illustrated from his sermons 32. Denunciation of rebellion by Cranmer (1549) 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43.

C. LEADERS IN SOCIETY Character sketch of Henry VII. From Polydore Vergil, Anglica Historia Impressions of Henry VIII. From various sources Some impressions of Edward VI. From various sources Mary Tudor described by a Venetian ambassador (1557) Empson and Dudley. From Polydore Vergil, Anglica Historia Two impressions of Wolsey Impressions of Thomas Cromwell An impression of Protector Somerset Reminiscences of Cranmer by his secretary (c. 1565) Impressions of Stephen Gardiner. From various sources An impression of Cardinal Pole

249 252 255 259 268 272 273 274 276 292 295 303 325 336 338 356 361 387 388 394 397 400 402 412 413 418 422 426

Part IV. GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATION INTRODUCTION TO PART IV SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. THE CROWN 44. The problem of the succession. Illustrated from various sources

429 429 445

CONTENTS

xiii

45. Arrangements for the coronation of Edward VI. From the Council Records page 466 46. Arrangements for a royal minority 470 47. The king’s style defined by statute 474 48. The law of treason. From statutes and other sources 475 B. THE SECRETARIAT 49. Development of the office of King’s Secretary. From various sources 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55.

C. CHAMBER AND HOUSEHOLD An impression of Henry VII’s financial policy. From Polydore Vergil’s Anglica Historia Commissions illustrating Henry VII’s exploitation of feudal dues and other sources of revenue. From the Patent Rolls The new officials for exploiting revenue. Illustrated from the Patent Rolls The Surveyor of the King’s Prerogative. From the Patent Rolls Legislation on financial organization Reform of the Royal Household. Illustrated from the Eltham Ordinances (1526)

489

493 495 497 500 500 510

56. 57. 58. 59. 60.

D. THE KING’S COUNCIL Henry VII’s Council. Described by Polydore Vergil The King’s Council before 1540 The statute of proclamations The emergence of the Privy Council. Illustrated from Council Records Reorganization of the Privy Council

515 516 521 524 527

61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67.

E. THE CONCILIAR COURTS The problem of lawlessness. From a law report (1485) Conciliar Jurisdiction. Illustrated from the Patent Rolls, etc. The Court of Star Chamber. Some typical proceedings The Court of Requests The Council of the North The Council in the Marches of Wales England and Wales. Towards the Act of Union

532 535 539 546 549 552 554

F. THE COMMON LAW 68. A description of legal education with proposals for reform 69. (a) Example of a law reading (b) Example of a law report (c) Legislation affecting the Common Law

563 573 577 580

G. PARLIAMENT 70. Records of Parliament. From the Journals 71. Speeches in Parliament. From various sources

583 597

xiv

CONTENTS

72. Parliamentary Privilege 73. Parliamentary Procedure

page 605 608

H. LOCAL GOVERNMENT 74. The Justice of the Peace. Illustrated from various sources 75. The Lords Lieutenant

613 617

I. THEORY OF GOVERNMENT 76. Illustrations of political and constitutional theory. From various sources 618

Part V. RELIGION SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

633 635

A. THE EVE OF THE REFORMATION An act for bishops to punish priests and other religious men for dishonest life An act to take away the benefit of clergy from certain persons A criticism of the English clergy (1511) The case of Richard Hunne A satire on the clergy Selections from the writings of William Tyndale Latimer on “The New Learning”

651 651 652 660 669 677 694

INTRODUCTION TO PART V

77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83.

84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89.

B. THE KING’S PRIVATE MATTER Negotiations for the marriage of Prince Henry and Catherine of Aragon (1503) The letters of Henry VIII to Anne Boleyn (c. 1527–28) Henry VIII’s “Scrupulous Conscience” Stages in the “Divorce” proceedings. From various sources The trial and execution of Anne Boleyn (1536). From Wriothesley’s Chronicle The Seymour marriage and the birth of Prince Edward. From Wriothesley’s Chronicle

697 699 706 709 723 725

C. THE BREACH WITH ROME 90. An act concerning fines and sums of money to be taken by the ministers of bishops and other ordinaries of Holy Church for the probate of testaments 727 91. An act concerning the taking of mortuaries 728 92. An act concerning the pardon granted to the king’s spiritual subjects of the province of Canterbury for the Praemunire 730

CONTENTS

xv

93. An act concerning the pardon granted to the king’s temporal subjects for the praemunire page 731 94. The supplication of the commons against the ordinaries (1532) 732 95. An act for restraint of payment of annates to the see of Rome (1532) 737 96. An act in restraint of appeals (1533) 738 97. An act for the submission of the clergy to the king’s majesty (1534) 741 98. An act restraining the payment of annates (1534) 743 99. An act for the exoneration from exactions paid to the see of Rome (1534) 744 100. An act for the king’s highness to be supreme head of the Church of England and to have authority to reform and redress all errors, heresies and abuses in the same (1534) 745 101. An act concerning the payment of first fruits and tenths (1534) 746 102. Returns of Church property. From the Valor Ecclesiasticus 748 103. An act against papal authority (1536) 759 104. An act for the king to make bishops (1539) 760

105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110.

D. CONFISCATION OF CHURCH WEALTH Precedents for the dissolution of religious houses. From the Patent Rolls Conditions in religious houses, c. 1518. Illustrated from episcopal visitations The dissolution of the monasteries. Illustrated from various sources Sidelights on the dissolution of the monasteries. From various sources Monastic lands after the dissolution Inventories of Church goods

761 762 770 777 788 789

111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117.

E. DOCTRINE UNDER HENRY VIII Henry VIII and theology. Described by Cranmer The Ten Articles Cromwell’s First Injunctions (1536) The Institution of a Christian Man (1537) The second Royal Injunctions of Henry VIII (1538) An act abolishing diversity in opinions (1539) The King’s Book (1543)

794 795 805 809 811 814 817

118. 119. 120. 121. 122.

F. THE ENGLISH BIBLE The pioneer work of William Tyndale Petition for the Bible in English (1534) The Coverdale Bible Matthew’s Bible The Great Bible

820 823 823 824 825

G. HERESY 123. Licence for Thomas More to keep and read heretical books (1528) 124. Proclamation against erroneous books and heresies (1530) 125. An act for punishment of heresy (1534)

828 829 832

xvi

CONTENTS

126. An act for he renewing of three statutes made for the punishment of heresies (1554) page 834 127. Examples of heresy trials 835 128. The Marian persecution 839 129.

130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137.

H. THE CHURCH UNDER EDWARD VI (i) An act against such as shall irreverently speak against the sacrament (1547) (ii) Proclamation concerning the irreverent talkers of the sacrament (1547) (iii) Cranmer to John à Lasco (1548) The Order of the Communion (1548) The first Act of Uniformity (1548) An act enjoining abstinence (1548) An act for the abolishing and putting away of divers books and images (1550) An act that the king may nominate thirty-two persons to peruse and make ecclesiastical laws (1550) An act for the ordering of ecclesiastical ministers (1550) Second Act of Uniformity (1552) An act for the keeping of holy days and fasting days (1552)

I. THE CHURCH UNDER MARY 138. Mary’s first proclamation on religion (1553) 139. An act for the repeal of certain statutes made in the time of the reign of King Edward VI (1553) 140. Second statute of repeal (1554) 141. Reconciliation with Rome 142. The last days of Thomas Cranmer. From various sources (1555)

839 840 842 844 849 851 853 854 854 855 857

858 860 862 865 869

Part VI. DAILY LIFE IN TOWN AND COUNTRY INTRODUCTION TO PART VI SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

893 896

A. LIFE IN THE COUNTRY 143. Select documents illustrating estate and household management 144. Materials concerning enclosures. Illustrated from various sources (I) Legislation relating to enclosures (II) Documents concerning the Commissions on Enclosures (1517) 145. Select examples of the literature on enclosures

905 926 926 929 940

B. LIFE IN THE TOWNS 146. The central government and the towns 147. Town life illustrated from town records

954 964

CONTENTS

C. INDUSTRY AND INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS 148. Industrial organization illustrated from statutes and other sources 149. Types of industry illustrated from various sources

xvii

page 995 1003

D. MONEY 150. A selection of documents relating to usury 151. Documents illustrating the debasement of the coinage

1009 1013

E. POVERTY AND THE POOR LAW 152. Stages in the growth of the Poor Law 153. Examples of private charity for relief of the poor. From London wills 154. The local authorities and the poor. Illustrated from various sources

1023 1034 1035

155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161.

F. BRINGING UP THE YOUNG Dean Colet’s statutes for his foundation, St. Paul’s School (1518) Education for the sons of gentlemen Foundation of schools A tutor’s report, c. 1530 Foreign travel (1541) Sir Thomas Wyatt’s advice to his son (1537) Life at the universities

INDEX TO TEXTS

1039 1046 1063 1065 1066 1066 1070 1077

GENERAL INTRODUCTION I. THE PERIOD

G

ERMAN historians have an industry they call “periodisierung”, and they take it very seriously. It is not unknown to English scholars but they, with typical Anglo-Saxon levity, treat it with less reverence, for they look upon it as a recreation rather than as a science, and when they engage in it they do not consider they are on oath. They are right: periodisation, this splitting up of Time into neatly balanced divisions is, after all, a very arbitrary proceeding and should not be looked upon as permanent. The utility of such dividing lines comes from their experimental and tentative nature, for if they are accepted as easily removable signposts along the road of Time periodisation itself becomes an agent of criticism by forcing historians to vindicate their own selections of dates, thereby providing a powerful stimulus to new ideas. The vitality of historical writing derives strength from constant revisions caused by the discoveries of research, and very often some suggestions inspired by periodisation provide a new approach. This is certainly what has happened as a result of such experiments for the early Tudor period. Until about 1874, when J.R.Green developed his thesis of a “new monarchy” suggesting that it came into being with the accession of Edward IV, the conventional dividing line between medieval and modern English history was usually drawn at 1485. In recent years Green’s theme has been exploited in greater detail because of an increased interest in the history of the fifteenth century, and an attempt to find the precedents for early Tudor policy in ideas of government sponsored by the Yorkist kings. The time seems to have come for a more critical look at this thesis. It is extremely doubtful whether this concept of a new type of kingship originating with Edward IV and continuing under the Tudors is acceptable today. This is not the place to explore claims made on behalf of the Yorkists: what can be asserted here is that Henry VII was essentially a medieval king, medieval in the great traditions of the masters of kingcraft in the Middle Ages, not particularly indebted, save perhaps by coincidence, to his immediate predecessors, except in so far as any king must be influenced to some extent by the achievement, failures, and examples of those he is directly following. As will be discussed later, the revolution in government in the Tudor period came about half way through Henry VIII’s reign, when ideas were developed which could have owed little to Yorkist precedents. When all the cards are out the ultimate test of a monarchy is its success in establishing continuity, and this can only be done by creating a dynasty. This, by the way, explains a feature appearing so consistently and 1

2

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

with such emphasis in this collection of documents: the anxiety of Henry VIII to ensure an unimpeachable succession to his Crown. If this standard is to be applied to the shortlived Yorkist effort at kingship then it must be adjudged a failure: the Tudor achievement, on the other hand, despite all the anxieties and troubles accompanying it was a success. There is, then, something to be said for the traditional ideas: 1485 is a date of considerable significance in English history: it is the birthday of a new dynasty. The second dividing line need arouse little controversy: 1558 is suitable and indeed desirable. The last of the Tudors left too clear an impression on her reign for it to be known as anything other than The Elizabethan Age, and for that, and several other reasons, what has come to be known as the early Tudor period must end in 1558. For one thing, with the death of Mary in that year the swing of the pendulum in politics and religion from one extreme to the other between 1547 and 1558 was checked, and the way was opened for a settlement in Elizabeth’s via media. There is another, no less powerful justification for this dividing line. The historian of the sixteenth century is compelled on practical grounds to make a division at this point. Both the great number of significant problems and events which have to be examined as well as the enormous wealth of historical evidence needing study makes imperative some distribution of labour among sixteenth century historians, and 1558 is the suitable point at which a division can be made. With the chronological limits 1485–1558 thus settled, something needs to be said about the general features of the early Tudor period. First, it can be described, with little fear of contradiction, as a time of great upheaval and violent change: and if the study of change is accepted as a major interest for the historian then the attractions offered him are tempting. It was a time of change more challenging, more radical, than any which had been seen in England since the Norman Conquest. Politics is the struggle for power: it is also the means for getting things done. Judged by both these tests the political history of these years is of more than ordinary interest. The full meaning of change as it was seen by contemporaries is best realized by an example which is also an opportunity for another exercise in periodisation. Let it be put quite simply. A man born in 1485 might possibly even in those dangerous days have had an expectation of life of seventy-five years, so that two years after the accession of Elizabeth I, he could have looked back upon a life which had begun when Henry VII ascended the throne. Over those years he would have seen a succession of outstanding events. For one thing, he would have been a subject of five Tudor sovereigns. This in itself would have been no mean triumph, especially if he happened to be a subject of some importance, for if this Tudor age was exciting to all who were living through it, it could also be a time of great uncertainty, and indeed of physical

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

3

insecurity for anyone save the meanest and most inconspicuous of subjects. Those who had any share in public affairs needed great suppleness if they were to pass unscathed through the hazards of the time. Quite a few of them, no doubt, would have subscribed to the worldly wisdom of William Paulet, first marquis of Winchester (?1485–1572), who, when asked how he managed to live through all the crises of his long life, replied, “Ortus sum e salice, non e quercu”.1 Insecurity was not the only factor likely to cause disturbance for our sixteenth-century citizen. He would have found grounds for anxiety in the rapidly increasing tempo of change during his lifetime. Towards the end of his days he might well have thought of its significance by indulging in an exercise of periodisation. The successive divisions into which he could split up the history of his own times were not unlike the phases of his own life. For the first fortyfive years, that is from his birth until he was approaching middle age (1485– 1529), he would have been living in a world of comparative peace, when the grave civil strife about which his father might have spoken to him had been stamped out, the Yorkists had been defeated, and a strong king had taken firm grip of the government and the country. Life was not, on the whole, strenuous during those years, and even if there were a risk that too-efficient government officials might enforce excessive demands upon him in addition to rigorous normal taxation there were, by and large, compensating advantages in living in a country where the great landmarks in Church and State still remained very much as he had known them when he was a boy at school. In the decade when he passed from forty-five to fifty-five (1530–40) there had been a period of violent revolutionary change. Life for him, as for everyone else in England, had been more exciting and more perilous. These were years on which he would look back wondering how he had managed to live through them without getting into trouble: years full of sensational events, the tragic disgrace and death of the arrogant statesman-cleric Wolsey, the king’s repudiation of his wife Catherine, and his scandalous liaison with the upstart Anne Boleyn, the crowded, exciting, and revolutionary sessions of the Reformation Parliament, when no man could guess what new-fangled device the king and his advisers, especially Thomas Cromwell, might be putting into a statute, the elevation of this second Tudor monarch to heights of supremacy under God in Church and State, the wholesale nationalization of church property, the pensioning off of men and women of religion, and the destruction of their monastic homes which, over the years, had grown old with the English countryside and had become an accepted though not necessarily an approved 1 In addition to William Paulet some other near examples from real life chosen at random can be cited: George Cavendish, biographer of Wolsey, 1500–61; Sir Thomas Smith, 1513–77; Sir William Petre, 1505–1572; Bishop Thomas Thirlby, 1500–70.

4

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

feature of the church life of the country, the rapid rise and surprisingly sudden fall of Thomas Cromwell, earl of Essex, draftsman of so many of Henry VIII’s spectacular designs in Church and State, the death of Henry VIII’s first Queen and the judicial murder of her successor, Anne Boleyn, the King’s ignoble vengeance on John Fisher and Thomas More. They had been stirring, dangerous years, when a man could count himself lucky if he did not end his days at Tyburn or the Tower. As he began to leave middle age behind him, between his fifty-fifth and sixty-second years (1540–47) his energies would no doubt be beginning to flag, and he would be losing the fire of youth just as his king, too, was showing signs of age and decrepitude, and as if to keep company with them the rhythm of national life was also easing, until by the end of this phase he would have heard with some relief, but with more misgivings, that the awe-inspiring author of so much disturbance, the master of England for the last thirty-eight years had gone to his last rest. Le Roy est mort: Vive le Roy. When the old king’s son became Edward VI another stirring phase in the life of this man of sixty-two would be opening. By the time he was sixty-eight he would have lived through a period (1547–53) of yet more violent change and shattering iconoclasm, in which the full force of what neighbouring continental countries knew as the Reformation struck this country. To a man of his age and experience it is likely that this would not be a phase with which he would find himself in sympathy. As he saw and heard of the innovations in religion and politics accompanying the intrigues and fierce struggle for power in which upstarts, nobles, and scheming politicians fought for their lives he must have looked back nostalgically to the comparatively peaceful days of his youth. He would, however, still have seven more years to live, time enough for him to see Queen Mary’s obstinate attempt to put back the hands of the clock only to find that it could not be done, a conclusion her successor interpreted to mean that she would have to come to terms with reform. So much for the attempts at periodisation of an ageing Tudor citizen. A modern historian looking back over the same period is better equipped than the contemporary to reach some conclusions about the general features of the age. The first point he is likely to make is that it was an extremely tough age. He knows only too well that if he would take its full measure he must be prepared for many experiences. He will have to face some grim realities; be ready to rub shoulders with a tense crowd at Smithfield callously watching the death agonies of a martyr burning at the stake for a faith which authority had labelled heresy, or to stand on Tower Green as the head of a queen rolls from the executioner’s block. He must not be surprised, much less shocked, at the curious in-sensitivity he will meet with even in high places: Henry VII solemnly proposing himself as a husband for the mad queen Joanna of Castile, and again prepared to marry

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

5

his own daughter-in-law, Catherine of Aragon, rather than allow her dowry to leave the country after the death of her husband Prince Arthur: Henry VIII ready to bastardize by act of parliament his two daughters: Edward VI solemnly noting in his diary, apparently without a suspicion of emotion, that his uncle, Protector Somerset, had been put to death on that day. These and many other incidents woven into the pattern of those years combine to reveal the unlovely traits, and justify the succession of historians who have judged with severity the men and manners of this puzzling age. Our historian might make a second point, which would go some way towards explaining the first. If there is one feature of the early sixteenth century which impresses the observer more than any other it is that this was a time when men lived under a cloud of uncertainty and fear. Throughout those years from 1485– 1558 subjects of these Tudor kings, that is to say, those of them endowed with even a minimum of political acumen, must have been in constant dread of what the next step in government policy might have in store for them individually. Certainly, from 1529 onwards, at any rate, Englishmen were at the mercy of rulers wholly committed to great adventures in religion and politics, and in their determination to achieve their ends they had little regard for the rights or the liberty of the individual. Nor was this the only source of anxiety. Side by side with the kaleidescopic changes in religion and politics there was also going on a succession of social and economic disturbances, the causes of which were not understood, but the results were all too plainly felt in rising prices, unemployment, and poverty. These were additional factors accentuating the sensation of fear and uncertainty which were so marked a feature of the times. II. THE LAND

Before discussing some of the major historical problems of the early Tudor period there are some preliminary matters which ought to be noticed since conclusions about them play an important part in shaping historical interpretation. First of these is the land. What, the historian must ask, was the physical condition of the country during the first half of the sixteenth century? Simple as that question seems it is one which, for earlier periods, can cause great embarrassment since the lack of satisfactory contemporary descriptions of the landscape and the natural resources of the country means that the historian has little data upon which to work. The interest in topography shown by a Giraldus Cambrensis in the twelfth century, or a Ralph Higden in the fourteenth, or a William of Worcester in the fifteenth, genuine and praiseworthy as their efforts may be, can only be described as naïve, and certainly not sufficiently explicit to satisfy the demands of the modern student. The historian of early Tudor England is more fortunately placed. Although it would be an exaggeration

6

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

to suggest that the information available is anything like adequate, yet during this period there was revealed sufficient interest in the nature and appearance of the countryside to encourage some descriptive writing of a topographical nature. This, combined with some other material, provides a reasonable basis for conclusions about the main features of the English countryside. The foreign visitor to England is an important source of information. He was usually impressed by the prosperous look of the land as he saw it in his short journey through Kent on his way from Dover to London. This picture was one which produced a crescendo of praise as the visitor entered the city of London. Unfortunately the average foreigner does not seem to have travelled around the country to any great extent and so he was not qualified to speak about the interior, nor was he sufficiently interested in what he actually did see to set down his experiences in the detail which would be illuminating to the modern reader. A more general picture is that provided by English observers, and most particularly in the notes made by John Leland. Here, again, it must be remembered that Leland was primarily an antiquarian and that the main object of his extensive travels through England was to rescue manuscripts from destruction, and the notices of places of archaeological and antiquarian interest which he made appealed to him more than did the landscape through which he passed. Thus, while his descriptions of the towns and villages are invaluable, they were incidental to his main purpose, and they omit much of the detail it would be so good to know. Welcome as the results of his labour are, they would have been even more so if his mind had been as alert to the ordinary things of the present as it was to the relics of the past. Despite their shortcomings these materials provide sufficient data to justify some general comments. Firstly, it should be observed that the England with which this volume deals was predominantly a rural, and therefore an agricultural, country. In the main, life for most of its inhabitants was centred on the manor or the village. Apart from the very few concentrations of population deserving the name of cities (London, Bristol, Norwich, and York are the main examples) life in the small towns and cathedral cities was scarcely divorced from the open country, a fact which accounts for many features of early Tudor history, including the readiness with which the townsman tended to take his chance to convert his capital into land. The second point deserving emphasis is that the countryside was the scene of much activity, not to say unsettlement. This affected all kinds of people, from the new landlords coming in from the towns to take over country estates to the peasants often evicted from their homes to make way for new ideas of farming. As will appear later, it will not do to exaggerate the effects or the amount of social change taking place, but there can be little doubt that there was enough to play a considerable part in creating problems in the countryside, most of which are reflected in contemporary literature.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

7

A third point worth considering is that while the England of the period was essentially rural there were towns in which an important part of the population was actively engaged in trade and industry. Such towns were not large: their population probably ranged from five to fifteen thousand inhabitants, but they could lay claim to well-established institutions of government and more sophisticated standards of living than the villages, and they were characterized by their own variety of lively activities and interests. Nothing illustrates more vividly the contrast between these early Tudor communities and the urban life of modern England than the mention of them made by Leland. The towns he names as the most flourishing in the early sixteenth century are today for the most part small centres now languishing in the deep countryside, places like Lavenham in Suffolk or Bradford-on-Avon in Wiltshire, while the Manchesters and Birminghams of today scarcely draw a mention from him, or if they do, are described as small villages or at most as very rudimentary towns. When it comes to giving an impression of the agricultural or industrial resources of the country the modern historian is confronted by several difficulties, not the least being the lack of anything in the nature of reliable statistics, so that he is reduced to generalizations which may be misleading or at best so devoid of detail as to be almost worthless. From the fairly detailed descriptions in the writings of Polydore Vergil, Leland, and the more comprehensive of the Italian Relations, it is possible to reach some firm conclusions about the features and the natural resources of the country at that time.1 When due allowance is made for the excessively eulogistic reports of some of these observers it would seem that, generally speaking, conditions were not unduly hard. Over a large area, south of a line from the Humber to the Bristol Channel, England was a fruitful land, well suited to the growth of wheat and other cereals, and even better adapted to the grazing of sheep and cattle, while in many parts of the country as a whole there were adequate supplies of mineral wealth including lead, tin, iron, and some silver. Even in the less favoured parts of the country to the north and west where mountain ranges made life more strenuous and less productive there were considerable areas where conditions not unlike those obtaining in the south could be found. The general conclusion must be that this was a country with plenty of native resources, but where life for most people was strenuous and standards of living, though in general they were bearable, could not be said to be high. III. POPULATION

Next in importance to the land come the people who live on it. Their numbers, characteristics, and distribution are topics of importance, but unfortunately, 1

Nos. 11–15.

8

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

for the period under review, these are not subjects which can be discussed with any degree of assurance. In the absence of reliable statistics too much of what has been written about them is not far removed from guess work. True, the work of demographers in recent years has shown that here there is a field of study in which improvements in technique and possibly the discovery of fresh evidence may yield more accurate results, but at present it would seem that for some of these topics there is likely to be no more information. In the present state of knowledge, therefore, it is only possible to make some general comments with the warning that they must be regarded as most tentative. One thing can be said with some confidence: it is that the total population of England and Wales during the early Tudor period was small. Estimates vary from a figure of about 2,500,000 to something over 3,000,000. If this latter figure be accepted some appreciation of its significance will be realized by a comparison with modern standards. In 1965 a population of this size was living in the four cities of Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds. Next, it should be observed that this total population of 3,000,000 was spread very thinly over the country. The larger cities did not account for a great proportion of that figure. London, capital city as it was, might be expected to show signs of growth, and this it certainly did, but in 1539 its population was, it has been suggested, something between 60,000 to 80,000. This figure had probably increased to 90,000 by 1559, but the great increase came after that date so that by 1605 a rough estimate has been suggested of 224,275. When these figures are compared with those for the population of Greater London in 1965, which was 8,151,750, it will be seen that this relatively small population figure for the early sixteenth century will have an influence over many features of the history of the country. The other major cities were Norwich, York, and Bristol (not, it should be noted, Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, as it would be today) with population figures estimated as: Bristol 10,500, Norwich 8000–9000, York about 8000. Smaller towns were even less impressive, suggested figures ranging from Gloucester 4738, Leicester 4375, in 1461, Coventry 6600 in 1520, Worcester 6500, Cambridge in 1513 4000–5000, with probably an equal number of townsmen, and Oxford about the same. Without attempting to make too much of figures drawn from uncertain materials one would be justified in saying that excluding the population of the larger cities the majority of the people were distributed in a number of small towns of 3000–5000 persons, or in very small communities in the villages. From this it may be inferred that most Englishmen were by environment, instinct, and nurture countrymen at heart, and their most lively interests were concentrated within the narrow limits of the small communities to which they belonged.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

9

IV. THE DYNASTY

The Tudor dynasty came into existence at the will of Henry VII, when, in his first parliament, without explaining why, or how, he authorized a bill to the effect that the crown of England should rest and remain in the king, the heirs of his body and his successors.1 That is the most important fact about the year 1485: it is the first landmark in the history of the dynasty whose members were to control the destinies of Englishmen for more than a hundred years. The constitutional significance of Henry’s decree need not be discussed at this stage although it might be pointed out in passing that since the life of a dynasty derives from a regular undisputed succession it is easy to appreciate why a succession problem, or rather a series of succession problems, runs through the whole of the sixteenth century, providing a constant preoccupation for every Tudor sovereign and influencing directly or indirectly many of the crucial issues in the politics of the time. If an unquestioned succession means so much in the history of a dynasty, the personal contribution of each of its members is hardly less important. On that the quality of the dynasty as a whole depends: the strength and the weakness, the virtues and the vices of its individual members, these are the factors which will decide the verdict of the world upon the dynasty’s contribution to history. For this reason something should be said of the personal quality of each of the Tudor monarchs. First there is Henry VII. Much is known about the achievements of the founder of the dynasty: what still remains elusive is the character and personality of the king himself. There are several reasons for this. Although the source material for Henry’s reign is considerable there is a lack of the kind of evidence needed to bring his personality sharply before us. Henry does not reveal himself very clearly in his limited private correspondence, and the few attempts at a description and analysis of his character made by contemporaries are not clearcut enough to carry conviction. The image of the king was really established by one contemporary, the historian Polydore Vergil, who knew Henry personally, had been treated considerately by him, and was on the whole disposed to write in favourable terms about Henry and his work.2 Even so, the picture he provides is not altogether attractive. In particular Vergil is responsible for an interpretation of the reign which suggests that a serious deterioration in the king’s character and policy set in after about 1504 when, largely under the influence of two unprincipled advisers, Empson and Dudley, Henry indulged in an avaricious and extortionate financial policy which bore very heavily upon his subjects, and made Henry most unpopular during his later years.3 Important as Vergil’s interpretation was as a model for later writers, the next attempt to analyse the king was of greater influence. This was the classic 1

No. 44.

2

No. 33.

3

No. 50.

10

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

biography written by Francis Bacon. Produced about 16211 by a man born half a century after Henry’s death this book has, of course, no authority as a contemporary source, but so powerful was its influence in later times that when William Busch wrote his history of Henry’s reign in 1892 he felt it necessary, after making a serious examination of Bacon’s technique and use of materials, to urge that Bacon’s work, outstanding as it was in style and perfection of narrative, ought to be expunged from the list of original authorities for the history of the reign. Serious study of the king and his reign, first set in motion by this German historian, was followed in the next few years by the publication of fresh records and other sources. These made possible studies more sympathetic to the king. In the light of these contributions Henry began to come to life. Justice was done to sides of his character ignored by earlier writers. Instead of the cold unattractive and unapproachable figure described by Polydore Vergil Henry now appeared in a new guise. Thus, for example, Gladys Temperley’s biography reflects this newer approach.2 Writing in 1914 she says that although the portrait Bacon drew still holds the field, his impression of the politic king drawn with a master hand, “remote from human feelings, guiltless of love or hatred, without pity and without resentment, without passion and without weakness”, is a striking figure, grey, relentless, and inhuman. Her own study, based on some materials not known by Bacon, modifies this impression. Royal letters, patent rolls, privy purse, and household accounts reveal a king who was generous and benevolent. In her pages the harsh and sinister despot yields place to a monarch both kindly and considerate. The royal accounts reveal a king with a taste for resplendent clothes and magnificent jewels, used to cultivate a popular image of the king’s personal dignity, surrounded by a court designed to impress foreign ambassadors as well as his own subjects with an impression of his wealth and the splendour of his bearing. Henry was not simply a symbol of kingship. He was as well a man of action, a keen sportsman, fond of the chase, and generous to those who served his entertainment. There was much that was old-world in his sympathies, and religion seems to have for him a deeper meaning than mere outward conformity. Such were some of the gentler, more human attributes introduced by this historian into her character study of the king. And yet, despite such modifications Henry stands out in her pages with some of the qualities of “the dark prince and infinitely suspicious” described by Bacon, a cautious, calculating, cold personality making his appeal to the head rather than to the heart, a lonely man with a strength of will and character 1 Although put into the form in which we now have it, at that date, Bacon had long contemplated such a work. See J.Spedding, Collected Works of Francis Bacon, VI, p. 17, for a fragment of such a history, which John Speed (1552–1629), whose History was published in 1609, knew and used. 2 G.Temperley, Henry VII, p. 376.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

11

which had won him success but not much sympathy. Not a miser, certainly— but here the old legend still lingers—when premature old age had gripped him then the darker shades of his character were accentuated and he forfeited the good opinion of his subjects by his ruthless financial policy. As the researches of more recent historians into the administrative and financial history of the reign have revealed the technical mastery of Henry’s achievement it has become possible to appreciate more thoroughly his great ability and skill as a ruler. His financial policy was masterly in conception and in timing. It was not, of course, carried out without assistance from expert ministers, who by their loyal service incurred unpopularity in their own day, and have only recently received the recognition to which their ability entitled them. These men were never more than Henry’s agents: behind them was the king, supervising and controlling their activities, and showing a patient devotion to duty which would be considered in these days exceptional in a dedicated accountant, but which was scarcely esteemed as one of the kingly virtues in the early sixteenth century. In recent opinion attention to this side of Henry’s work has led to a reconsideration of the pattern Polydore Vergil had imposed upon the reign. The first feature to go was the theme that Empson and Dudley, tyrannous oppressors of the king’s subjects, succeeded about 1504 in leading Henry to embark on an unscrupulous use of his powers in order to make exorbitant demands intended to humble overmighty subjects and fill the king’s coffers. These imputations against them are explained away: they were the victims of their own zeal: there was nothing illegal in this drive on the part of the king’s servants to collect all the revenue to which the king was legally entitled. The fact that this revenue was due to the king did not make its collection any the more popular, and inevitably the onus of responsibility for royal policy fell upon his agents. Later interpretation has gone even farther.1 A recent defence of the King, well documented and cogently argued has rejected this story of steady deterioration in his character, for which according to Bishop Fisher Henry himself expressed his remorse shortly before his death. Henry, it is now argued, pursued a financial policy which was perfectly consistent, quite legal, and although admittedly severe, especially towards the more important and wealthy of his subjects, could not fairly be described as unjust, nor is there satisfactory evidence that he either felt or expressed remorse. There is much to be said in favour of this general reaction away from the older view of Henry VII and his reign. And yet, it is extremely doubtful whether these newer views will ever succeed in making this king any more popular with the layman. Bacon was not far from the truth when he wrote that Henry was that best sort of wonder, a wonder for wise men. His appeal is to the intellect: he is best understood by experts in the strategy and tactics of finance and 1

Below, p. 493.

12

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

administration. For those who can appreciate his work in these spheres his name stands high: they know that without his contribution there would not have been a Tudor dynasty. If the character and personality of the first Tudor king are difficult to assess what shall be said of his successor? The direct opposite of his father in nearly all respects he yet presents much the same problem when it comes to assessing his quality as a king and his character as a man. The difficulty is not entirely due to lack of material on which judgments can be based, although, of course, the historian could wish for more documents of a personal and intimate nature, in which the king unburdened himself of his innermost thoughts, motives, and emotions. There need be no controversy about the impression this king made upon his contemporaries: they have left their reactions on record in several lively descriptions. From his early years Henry won popular admiration for his fine physique and good looks while his passion for all kinds of open-air pursuits such as tilting, jousting, the chase and all kinds of field sports, his love of tennis, dancing, and the other recreations indulged in by a gay and brilliant court all combined to give the world an image of a monarch well equipped to be a formidable rival to the other kings in western Europe. The high regard in which his subjects held him seems to have lasted on even into the years after 1540 when ill-health and excessive corpulence had transformed him out of all recognition, and had led to a grave deterioration in his temper and character. While Henry’s destiny, like that of all men, was in the last resort shaped by forces over which he had no control, it is no less true that his own influence upon the events of his time was masterful and far-reaching in its consequences. This was the result of the combined effect of several personal qualities. He was by nature a man of high intelligence, quick and ready wit, and sound commonsense. These gifts were quickened by a good education. Even when due allowance has been made for the flattering comments of observers there is evidence pointing to reasonable linguistic knowledge, proficiency in Latin and French, with, a little Spanish, and possibly some Italian. In his early years his interest in things of the mind was reflected in the comments of Erasmus, Mountjoy, More, and others, while later on in the reign, when difficulties very largely of his own making involved him in legal and theological problems of deep complexity he showed himself quite able to come to grips with them in a way which sometimes surprised men who had every reason to think that they knew more about such things than he did. All these were facts that made the first twenty years of Henry’s reign on the whole easy years for his subjects, and interesting to his contemporaries in foreign courts discovering that he was the head of a state they could not afford to leave out of their diplomatic calculations. If Henry’s attractions in those early years must be summed up it is that he seems to have possessed a personal quality which clearly drew from some of

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

13

those in close contact with him—More, Gardiner, and Cranmer are examples— a very sincere and respectful affection, and from many of his subjects a loyal recognition of his kingly bearing which could survive even when his leadership seemed to mean the destruction of many of the things they most deeply cherished. That this king could do no wrong would not have been a maxim acceptable to many of Henry’s subjects, but that there was hardly any wrong they would not overlook if done by his orders seems for some reason a consequence of a curious relationship binding subjects to their prince. A more concrete explanation may well be that the loyalty of the subject was willingly given to a king who, despite all the stresses of his reign, gave them peace and stood between them and the uncertainties of faction such as had blighted the lives of their fathers in the fifteenth century. There might even be general agreement, although from some critics it would be a grudging one, that Henry possessed some other qualities most useful when it came to establishing his position as master of the kingdom. He was undoubtedly a shrewd judge of men. It was not altogether good luck which ensured for him the services of men like Wolsey and Cromwell: and the evidence of Thomas More, Stephen Gardiner, or William Thomas is enough to show that contemporaries recognized the perfection of his technique in captivating and handling men. At the same time they were equally aware of the curiously irresponsible ease with which, if he thought fit to do so, Henry got rid of men to whose whole-hearted service he owed so much. This failing is to some extent explained by one of the gravest defects in this king’s character: a defect revealed only too clearly in many situations during his reign. When full acknowledgment has been made of all his kingly qualities they have to be weighed against a strain of vindictive cruelty which prompted him to so many ignoble actions and meanspirited revenges that detract from any claim to greatness. Thus far there is fairly general agreement concerning Henry VIII as a man: beyond this there is room for as great a variety of interpretations of his qualities as there are historians to make them. The reader seeking expert guidance has some classic alternatives from Lord Herbert of Cherbury to present-day scholars. They will give many answers to his questions. There are, in the first place, the severe condemnations of those early partisan writers who could find nothing good to say about him since they were completely out of sympathy with all the developments of the reign. They assume without question that Henry was himself the author of all policy and was, therefore, personally responsible for all the evil consequences they deplore. The vehemence of their strictures and the unscientific nature of their comments usually put them out of court as serious critics. Next, there is the qualified defence of Henry VIII forced on Froude by his study of the facts and against all his own preconceived notions. This view— and it is also to some extent the opinion of Henry’s earliest biographer, Lord

14

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

Herbert of Cherbury—draws a clear cut distinction between Henry’s private character and his public acts.1 In defending the king Froude imagined that all he was doing was reinstating the judgment upon Henry’s motives and actions which had been held by all moderate Englishmen in Henry’s own generation, and which had been “displaced only by the calumnies of Catholic or Antinomian fanatics, when the true records were out of sight; and when in the establishment of a new order of things the hesitating movements, the inconsistencies and difficulties inevitable in a period of transition could no longer be understood without an effort”.2 Throughout his narrative Froude makes no attempt to conceal the fact that Henry’s personal flaws were great: but, assuming that he had complete control of policy, he argues that his position was one of unexampled difficulty, and that the greatness of the work he accomplished out-weighs his personal failings. In a word, Froude’s estimate of the King is favourable: it makes Henry master of his own and his country’s destiny, and concludes that the stupendous changes of the reign in religion and politics owe everything to the personal leadership of the King himself. Not very different is the judgment of an historian whose work has retained until the present day the respect of scholars.3 Like all works of art A.F.Pollard’s interpretation owes much of its success to skilful simplification. Here, too, the assumption is that Henry is in sole control of policy. In his admiration of Henry’s achievement Pollard is prepared to go farther than Froude in estimating favourably Henry’s personal character and morals. The architectonics of this study are not complicated: from 1514 to 1529 Henry is nominally in control while he is learning his craft from Wolsey who is in those years the King’s alter ego: from 1529–47 Henry is the supreme ruler and master of his policy. In the hands of a younger generation, and as a result of more intensive research into some aspects of administration during the reign, a more subtle interpretation has been gaining ground in recent years. Without denying completely Henry’s political abilities this view suggests that his powers and achievements have been greatly over-rated. The really important policy makers, it is maintained, were the king’s ministers Wolsey and Cromwell, and his reign from 1540–47, when Henry had got rid of the latter and had no one of similar calibre to take his place, reveals by contrast with earlier phases how badly the king could go astray when acting on his own initiative. Allowing that Henry took a personal interest in such matters as important political trials and the persecution of high-ranking individuals from whom he was alienated Henry was not, so the argument runs, in control of policy, and this is explained on several grounds. Firstly, Henry was not an active administrator in the way his father had been, for he disliked and 1 2 3

Lord Herbert of Cherbury, The Life and Raigne of King Henry the eighth. Froude, History of England, IV, 236. A.F.Pollard, Henry VIII.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

15

shirked the hard work and concentration necessary for sustained clerical labour. Secondly, he was an opportunist, relying on others for the day-to-day conduct of affairs, and allowing them to provide him with his opinions. Thirdly, although he certainly read state papers the point is made that he relied on others to advise him as to the import of their contents and the action he should take upon them. In fine, then, this king was a man of full vigour, intelligence, shrewdness, and skill, but he was somewhat shallow, an opportunist whose sole concern was the advancement of his own interests by whatever means possible. He is described as lacking originality and foresight: his distinction being his ability to estimate rapidly and accurately the needs of the situation, in a dauntless determination, and in his shrewd choice of advisers, and it is doubtful if he was the architect of anything, least of all of the English Reformation.1 Not everyone will accept this interpretation without at any rate some modifications, for some will consider that it does Henry less than justice. They will find it difficult to accept this reduction in his status. What this estimate fails to take into account, they would argue, is the extraordinary change which took place in the character of government and administration between the reigns of Henry VII and of his son after 1529. While the father gained, and thoroughly deserved, a distinguished reputation as an administrator by his strict attention to what might be described as mainly clerical duties—do not his approving initials literally cross every page of his household accounts as a token of his audit?— such methods would have been quite impossible after the great changes in administration in his son’s reign. The sovereign then had a different part to play, and Henry VIII succeeded in adapting himself to the new conditions. He rose above the flood of administrative detail by leaving that work to subordinates while he kept control of his ministers and his subjects by consummate mastery of the art of delegation, and by keeping firm control over the essentials of policy. Surely this is the first lesson every administrator has to learn and some may well think that Henry VIII was anything but a novice in government.2 Such was Froude’s opinion, and he would go even farther, crediting the King with great application. In his opinion “as his [Henry VIII’s] life drew onwards his lighter tastes disappeared, and the whole energy of his intellect was pressed into the business of the commonwealth. Those who have examined the printed State Papers may form some impression of his industry from the documents which are his own composition, and the letters he wrote and received: but only persons who have seen the original manuscripts, who have observed the traces of his pen in sidenotes and corrections, and the handwritings of his secretaries in diplomatic 1 For the most recent concise statement of this estimate, G.R.Elton, Henry VIII. An Essay in Revision (Historical Association, 1962). For an opposite view, R.B.Wernham, E.H.R., 1959, p. 95. 2 Politicians of a later day seem to have acquired similar wisdom, but in the hard way. See Hugh Dalton, High Tide and After, pp. 20–21. For an example of Henry’s methods see No. 111.

16

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

commissions, drafts of acts of Parliament, in expositions and formularies, in articles of faith, in proclamations, in the countless multitude of documents of all sorts, secular or ecclesiastical which contain the real history of this extraordinary reign, only they can realize the extent of labour to which he sacrificed himself, and which brought his life to a premature close.”1 Although the major contributions to the establishment of the dynasty were made by these first two kings it would not be right to ignore completely the distinctive though less significant results of the other two reigns. It might seem that the sickly boy who took Henry VIII’s place at the age of nine years, and died three months before his sixteenth birthday, can hardly claim a place in Tudor history. Such an estimate leaves out of account the indisputable fact of the young king’s precocity. Enough is known about him to justify the impression that he had all the qualities, good and bad, of his Tudor forbears, and he revealed their potentialities during his reign, brief as it was. The might-havebeens of history are not the lawful concern of the historian, and there would be little profit from speculation about what would have happened in England had this youth, who showed every sign of developing into a masterful, but most unattractive and bigoted autocrat, lived on into middle age. Keeping firmly to facts it can be said that Edward’s reign had a significance of its own for two reasons: firstly, because it was a minority, and secondly because it was so short. As a result of the minority, which put the Henrician kingship to the most severe test possible, conditions were created similar to those which had encouraged the faction fights of the fifteenth century. Ambitious politicians— and John Dudley, earl of Warwick and finally duke of Northumberland was the most unscrupulous of them—realized that the way to power was by winning control of the body and mind of the young king. Hence the extremely bitter feud between Protector Somerset and Northumberland, swinging the country back into faction and party strife, and threatening to bring about a recurrence of fifteenth-century conditions. The brevity of the king’s reign put an end to this menace, but it also cut short the millenial dreams of the reformers, who had seen in the young king their new Josiah, destined to lead them to victory. Instead, his early death meant for many of them a hasty retreat to the continent and the end of the Edwardian Reformation. For these reasons the young Edward has his niche in the story of the Tudor dynasty. Someone once summed up the significance of the reign of Mary Tudor in the specious epigram that it was a parenthesis in the Tudor period. Nothing could be more misleading. To ignore the essentially Tudor qualities in Mary’s character and personality is to miss the meaning of the problems with which she had to cope. The thin frail woman of thirty-seven, who had endured the ignominy of being bastardized by order of her own father, and obstinately 1

Froude, History of England, IV, 242.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

17

resisted in the reign of her brother the pettifogging efforts of the reformers to force her to deny her religion, at last triumphed over the ambition of the egregious Northumberland, and for five harassing years ruled over a people not very much in sympathy with the aims she had in mind. If Mary was in some ways the opposite of her spectacular father she was, nevertheless, a true daughter of the Tudor House, and the problems of her reign had much in common with those facing other members of her family: including her insistence on a marriage according to her own mind, regardless of the grudges of her people at the thought of further entanglement with the royal house of Spain, and their well-grounded fears of the consequences of a foreign Prince Consort, together with a disturbing succession problem due to her failure to produce an heir to the throne. There was nothing very novel about these issues. What was new was that they now had to be handled by Mary and not by Henry VIII. There was lacking, therefore, the deft touch with which he had steered the country around similar difficult situations. All the same she faced her problems in the true Tudor spirit. She was not without courage nor the instincts of regality, and her self will and determination to the point of stubbornness made her reign as true to Tudor traditions as those of her father or half-sister. Up to the time of her accession life had not been easy for her, and it is not surprising if she looked upon her accession as a divinely planned opportunity for her to fulfil her destiny. Well-educated she certainly was, her mother had seen to that, but intellect was not her strength, and she lacked the power of imagination so essential to statesmanship. Her religion meant everything to her, and her faith was such as left none of the doubts and questionings afflicting so many of her subjects. Sincerity and a naïvety approaching simplicity were the special features of her character. The circumstances of early life had kept her inexperienced in the ways of the court, and as queen she was a child in the hands of the astute politicians and place-seekers by whom she was surrounded. At a time when what was needed in the ruler was tact, subtle diplomacy, political understanding, and tolerance, Mary was rigid, fixed in her prejudices, self-willed and obstinate when she should have been conciliatory, and in many a crisis unable to make up her own mind when quick decision and firm action were imperative. While her subjects were bitterly antagonized by her insistence on the Spanish marriage the resentment aroused by the horrors of the burnings which disgraced her reign left the deepest impressionon later generations. Her immediate personal responsibility for the persecutions and the martyrdoms has often been questioned: but when all that can be said on her behalf has been taken into account there yet remains evidence not easy to rebut, making it difficult to acquit her wholly of blame. Her reign was in many respects the least attractive in Tudor history, and although her own personal tragedy must evoke deep sympathy the conclusion about her work as a queen must be that it was

18

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

disastrous. Her greatest contribution to the dynasty to which she belonged was her decision, made at the end of her reign, and even then with no great enthusiasm, to name as her successor her half-sister Elizabeth. V. GOVERNMENT

During Henry VII’s reign the rehabilitation of the kingship was a major problem of politics. The fifteenth century had been a time when that institution was weakened by being made the sport of faction. Even if it be conceded that the Yorkist kings were inspired by a wish to create more stable conditions of government their brief tenure of the throne combined with the weakness of character displayed both by Edward IV and Richard III was enough to justify the opportunism which brought the earl of Richmond to Bosworth Field. This first Tudor king was not greatly given to theorizing. As already noticed, he summoned Parliament at the opening of his reign in order to tell his newly acquired subjects that he had come to England to stay. The act for. the king’s title did two things with consummate brevity and efficiency: it created the Tudor dynasty, and made an entail of the Crown in its favour. By the very precision of its wording it conveyed a strong hint that the new king did not expect to have to answer any questions about his right to the inheritance. There was, it may be said, every reason for this defiant challenge. Henry was taking over what might be described as a very battered crown, and the need to refurbish it was urgent. The work of his reign was wholly dedicated to that end. By two essential contributions Henry went a long way towards achieving his designs. He made the kingship respectable, and the king a professional. The first of these plans he accomplished by virtue of the strong points in his own character: by the sincerity of his own personal and family life, unshadowed as they were by any suspicion of scandal: and by the undemonstrative but integrated achievements of his policy. By his keen attention to his kingly duties, by daily inspection of financial accounts, by keeping closely abreast of developments in government Henry impressed his courtiers as a king who knew his own mind, and would not be satisfied with inferior service from his officials. Another feature of his policy also affected the kingship. His energetic and skilful financial policy—some of the general outlines are illustrated in these documents1—produced great, really very great, wealth for the Crown. This enabled Henry to take farther his policy of making the kingship respectable. His display of dress, jewels, and brilliant court surroundings might appear ostentatious, but all this was deliberately calculated to give majesty and splendour to the kingship especially in the eyes of the representatives of foreign courts, and there are indications that this policy was not unsuccessful. 1

Nos. 50–53.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

19

Henry VII’s contribution to the kingship was continued and exceeded by that of his son. Accident as well as design combined to enable Henry VIII in the early years of his reign to take still farther the process of rehabilitation. His own personal gifts were such as made the task easy. It would be a mistake, however, to think of the young Henry as an example of anything new in the practice of kingship, and those who are looking for signs of a “new monarchy” before 1530 are wasting their time. The young king’s idea of kingship lay in the past. He would be a king after the order of the greatest and most splendid of his medieval predecessors. Did he not in 1523 encourage Lord Berners, the literary genius of his court, to translate into unforgettable English prose the deeds of England’s soldiers recorded for all time in that text-book of chivalry, the chronicles of Sir John Froissart?1 And were not the pages of Edward Hall’s chronicle full of the pageantry and the dressing-up of Henry’s courtiers and their ladies in medieval costumes, and what of the tournaments in which the king himself so often took the leading part? And are not the royal account books crowded with entries testifying to the cost of all these extravagances which, thanks to the full treasury left him by his prudent father, Henry VIII could, during the early years of the reign at any rate, easily meet? Meanwhile officialdom took its cue from the general increase in respect for kingship. The word “majesty” takes on a special meaning: it implies that the king is different in nature from even the most exalted of his subjects. In the wording of statutes “the king’s own liege lord” of Henry VII’s first Parliament becomes in the year 1504 “the king our most dread sovereign lord” or “the king’s grace” while by 1530 it has changed to “the king’s royal majesty” and by 1533 “the most rightful and dreadful sovereign lord”. The most significant change comes in 1534 when Parliament decides that the king is not only head of the secular state but is also the only supreme head on earth of the Church of England. It would seem that by the early 1530’s the English kingship has taken on a new look for the king’s subjects. The breach with Rome, approved and achieved by the king in Parliament, has helped to create the image of the ruler as a high, solitary, and dedicated figure of majesty, far removed from his humble and obedient servants, many of whom must have looked on in awe, full of wonderment at where these unforeseen and unforeseeable happenings were likely to lead. The legislation of the Reformation Parliament made the king the residuary legatee of the Pope in England and Henry emerges as the sovereign lord of Church and State. The lawyers were swept off their feet by events, and once again in its history the law proved itself an ass. Maitland did not know where to look in the whole sum of our lawbooks for so marvellous a display of metaphysical—or we might say metaphysiological-nonsense. It is worth a quotation:2 1

No. 4.

2

Maitland, Collected Papers, III, p. 250, quoting Plowden, Reports, p. 213.

20

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

So that the King has a body natural adorned and invested with the estate and dignity royal, and he has not a body natural distinct and divided by itself from the office and dignity royal, but a body natural and a body politic together indivisible, and these two bodies are incorporated in one person and make one body and not divers, that is, the body corporate in the body natural et e contra the body natural in the body corporate. So that the body natural by the conjunction of the body politic to it (which body politic contains the office government and majesty royal) is magnified, and by the said consolidation hath in it the body politic.1 Modern investigation has revealed the nature and the extent of government propaganda in the early sixteenth century. It is interesting to note what the leaders of political controversy made of the office of king as it acquired more and more power and dignity. Some of them spoke a different language from that of the lawyers but they travelled along the same road. They justified the breach with Rome, and accepted its consequences. The king was Head of the English Church, ergo he was supreme over the clergy of his realm, possessed of the powers and authority over the English Church which up to then had been exercised by the Pope alone. True, there were qualifications upon which they insisted. Some of them were not sure whether these powers were transferred to the king per se, or to the king in Parliament. All of them would have agreed on one point. However clearly the king emerged in their thought as the successor of the Pope they were none of them prepared to accept him as a priest-king. In the technicalities of the canon law they were prepared to concede that the king took over from the Pope the potestas jurisdictionis, the powers of jurisdiction, but he did not, and indeed could not, acquire the potestas ordinis, the spiritual functions of the priest. Henry could be a pope: he could not, and did not wish to, be a priest. Within these limits the thinkers of the period faced up to the problems of the king’s newly acquired powers. On one point there was a degree of unanimity amongst them which might, at first sight, seem difficult to explain. One and all they emphasized a doctrine of absolute non-resistance to the king’s authority. This was true of staunch Henricians like Stephen Gardiner and Fox: it was also true of men of quite different convictions like William Tyndale and Robert Barnes. And what the political pamphleteers discussed as theory was observed strictly in practice by the majority of the king’s subjects. One of the most puzzling features of English public life in this early Tudor period is the extent to which absolute passive obedience to the king was observed by his subjects, even by those about to suffer death at his command. Inexplicable as this attitude must appear to a modern observer it must be accepted as an un-questionable feature of the period. It can be accounted for on strictly historical grounds. To men of the 1530’s, and 1

See also No. 69, b.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

21

even of the 1540’s, the civil wars of the fifteenth century had as yet hardly sunk into the Past. They knew that much of the trouble of those years had arisen from the failure of both Lancastrian and Yorkist kings to exact full obedience from the nobility. Hence the faction of those years. There was, too, an uncomfortable reminder, much nearer in time, from Germany, where the rising of the peasants against their rulers in 1525 had a sobering effect upon some of the more reflective minds among the reformers, alarmed that other ideas besides Lutheran propaganda might be imported into this country from Germany. Lastly, from the point of view of the government, and its controlled propaganda, the need for absolute obedience from the subject was imperative for a dynasty as yet hardly established on a throne from which rebellion, perhaps with the help of foreign intervention, might so easily remove it. It was for these reasons, also, that the problem of the succession to the throne looms so large in the politics of the whole of the sixteenth century.1 In each of the five Tudor reigns there was a greater or lesser uncertainty concerning the inheritance of the throne. The dangers of such uncertainty were as obvious to the men of the time as they now are to the historian. They are in themselves enough to explain why the succession problem was a major issue throughout the period, and why it has been given such prominence in this collection. Insistence on complete obedience did not, of course, mean that the theorists were advocates of absolutism, still less that they contemplated any theory of the divine right of kings. Nor did the Tudor kings themselves hold any such ideas. The English kingship had a long history behind it, but whatever part of that history had been forgotten by the men of the early sixteenth century two principles established over the years were thoroughly appreciated by theorists and ordinary folk alike. The first was that the king had responsibilities as well as prerogatives. The second was that the king was under the law. The Tudor king most likely to challenge these principles was, one might have thought, Henry VIII: but in fact he showed no inclination to do so. For the greater part of his reign, certainly after 1529, he had too much at stake to allow himself to get at loggerheads with his subjects, especially on theoretical discussions. He needed their goodwill, and if needs be their co-operation. At this stage it will be useful to return to the question with which this section opened, that is, the contribution made by the Tudors to the institution of kingship. What has just been shown is that largely through the efforts of the first two of them, and more particularly by the achievements of Henry VIII, the kingship was appreciably changed before the middle of the century. So much was this so that there has always been difficulty in defining this “new monarchy”. The dictates of fashion are as arbitrary in historical criticism as in other spheres. No one today would presume to talk about a Tudor despotism. 1

No. 44.

22

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

It needed a Victorian accent tuned to a nicely balanced mixture of limited monarchy, parliamentary democracy, representation of the people, bicameralism and the British Constitution according to Bagehot to convey the precise notation of contempt and patronage the term was originally intended to imply. Yet, fashions change: they even have a habit of repeating themselves sometimes. Is it possible that the day may yet come when historians alert to the subtleties of totalitarian dictatorships, one-party states, democratic elections with only government candidates, government propaganda, the prison and the concentration camp may interpret with deeper understanding the efforts of sixteenth-century statesmen forced to work with more primitive tools than those their modern successors have at hand? If so, the term Tudor despotism, or even Tudor dictatorship, may become more meaningful than they are today. Be that as it may, the position at present is that there is no satisfactory definition of the kind of government created by the early Tudor kings and their ministers. One suggestion, in favour of which much can be said is the phrase “personal monarchy”. Yet it has disadvantages, since by implication it makes insufficient allowance for the functions of the king’s ministers, and gives no indication of the place of the Council and Parliament within the framework of government. “Limited monarchy” is even less satisfactory, because it anticipates developments of a much later date in the history of the English kingship. No rule prevents the historian from using terms he believes convey his ideas accurately provided he makes clear the ideas he is attaching to them, and on that basis the suggestion is here put forward that a flexibility superior to that of the above definitions may be found in the term “responsible kingship”. It indicates that the kings of this dynasty were not despots, that they were prevented from governing arbitrarily by the responsibilities they owed to their subjects. Further, the term can be made to imply a secondary responsibility, that of the king’s ministers to himself. Whatever the outcome of a search for a satisfactory definition of the Tudor kingship may be, the essential fact about it is not in dispute: government was a co-operative process in which the king (acting more often than not in association with one minister whose powers were only limited by his ultimate responsibility to the king) gave effect to policy with the advice of his Council, and where legislation was needed, with the assent of his Parliament. The contribution of the master statesman in Tudor government has been too often described to need more than a passing reference here. Modern studies, for example, of Wolsey and Cromwell have revealed how much the energy and drive of such men contributed to the success of the reign. Their achievement deserves full recognition. Something, too, must be allowed to the two first Tudor kings for the way in which they used the outstanding ability so zealously devoted to their service. The rise to power of a Wolsey or a Cromwell may

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

23

have owed more to the ambition and pertinacity of the men themselves than it did to skill on the part of Henry VIII in selecting them on the promise of their qualities, but the wisdom the king displayed in giving them a free hand to work out their own ideas once they had proved their ability was his own. It is an asset in Henry’s character. On the other hand, the rapidity with which they could fall out of favour and be ruthlessly crushed is a sharp reminder of the minister’s responsibility to the king, as well as an illustration of the curious waywardness of judgment too often revealed in Henry’s actions. The importance of these outstanding ministers needs no elaboration. They were, under the king, the policy makers. Their work was as spectacular as it was decisive: but their efforts do not account entirely for the efficiency with which the administration worked. Beneath them there was a chain of officials upon whom they relied for the execution of their general designs. These men constituted a small army tending constantly to increase in number as a result of what has been aptly called the Tudor revolution in government. The advance made in recent years in research into this development has shown how ingenious the policy-makers were in devising new offices, departments, judicial courts like that of Star Chamber, and financial like that of Augmentations to deal with the legal and financial problems created by the political changes of the time. Success largely depended upon the efficient and conscientious labours of the officials, major and minor, appointed to cope with the ever-increasing weight of business. So considerable was the recruitment of staff for these purposes that a part of the revolution in government might well be described as the beginnings of a civil service in the modern sense of the term, for these new officials not only introduced new methods into their offices, but also established professional standards of conduct which, on the whole, seem to have been accepted by the majority of these newly appointed servants of the Crown. To complete this general picture of Tudor government something must be added concerning the Council and Parliament. Without attempting a detailed analysis of either institution a hint at some of the general tendencies in their development will indicate their relationship to the monarchy. Henry VII inherited in the King’s Council an institution with a long and complicated history, and although its efficient working during the Yorkist period is a subject of less certainty than its historians could wish, it is evident from the views of Sir John Fortescue that he, at any rate, fully appreciated the part it ought to play in the government of the country. Henry VII accepted the medieval precedent. His Council was a large and not very clearly defined body. Its history during his reign and in the early years of that of his successor has been the subject of considerable research in recent years, but although this has made many of the generalizations of earlier studies look rather unsophisticated no one has yet felt confident enough to survey in detail the subject of origins

24

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

between 1485 and 1540. Actually these problems are very complex: some of them are indicated in this collection. What has become very clear is the emergence in 1540 of the institution to which the name Privy Council has been attached. The crucial phase in its development was probably between 1534 and 1536, when Cromwell became actively interested. By 1540 the Privy Council had its Register, and from it some part of its activities can be analysed. It is clear that from that date until the end of this period the Privy Council was a powerful agent of the monarchy. It was the body in which were centralized the general supervisory powers of government. As a result it was beginning to assert an authority which went on increasing in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries whereby it became the all-powerful institution for supervising on behalf of the Crown the duties and the shortcomings of its servants both central and local, and for controlling the affairs of the individual citizen in every aspect of his daily life. Next to the King in Council the other institution with a direct influence was the King in his Parliament. Here again the two first Tudors were dealing with a body with a long history, and again this was a time of lively experiments with important results upon the functions, composition, organization, and status of the two houses. The dividing line can be drawn through the year 1529, when Henry VIII summoned the Reformation Parliament. In the first phase, 1485– 1529 the institution was comparatively unimportant. Henry VII used it as earlier rulers had done, summoning parliaments on a few occasions and for special purposes as when he wished to make public announcement of his accession, for instance, or for seeking its approval when he was seeking money grants. In Henry VIII’s reign, during Wolsey’s regime, the government’s record in its dealings with parliaments was even less regular since Wolsey’s autocratic handling of them caused trouble, and led him to avoid contact with them so long as he could dispense with financial aid. After 1529 the situation was radically altered. Neither Henry VIII nor Cromwell was afraid to meet the representatives of the Commons in Parliament, and both were skilled in controlling the most active of all the parliaments of the reign, which they kept in being for seven sessions, from 1529–36. By careful supervision, although not without occasional spirited opposition from members of the lower house, they obtained from it legislation for all the momentous changes of the first phase of the English Reformation. It was with this same Parliament that great innovations were made in the status of the institution. From being looked upon as the highest court in the land, as it had been earlier (although of course even then its functions as a legislative body were not unrecognized) it emerged as the high court of Parliament but with a greater recognition of its law-making functions, and of its character as representing the whole realm. As Sir Thomas Smith wrote in 1565 every

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

25

Englishman was represented in it and was bound by its acts, for “the consent of the Parliament is taken to be everie man’s consent”.1 It was as a result of its increased responsibility acquired through Henry VIII’s emphasis both by word and deed, coupled with Cromwell’s dexterity in using it that Parliament emerged after 1536 as a legislative body which was the embryo of the institution as it would appear in more modern times. This position it retained for the rest of this period. It sat for a greater length of time during the short reign of Edward VI than Henry VII’s parliaments had done, and was responsible for the highly important reforms of the reign, while Mary had to cope with its strong reactions to her attempts to undo the legislation of the years from 1530–53. In several ways this was a crucial phase in the history of this institution. It was the time when the two components, Lords and Commons, definitely separated into the two Houses, when the Commons acquired a meeting place in St. Stephen’s in the Palace of Westminster, when both Houses underwent changes in composition, the House of Lords losing many of its ecclesiastical members and becoming secular in character, while the House of Commons entered on a period of considerable increase in size. Most significant change of all was the increasing importance the House of Commons now began to win for itself by asserting its rights to privileges such as much greater freedom of debate, free speech, and freedom from arrest for its members. This is an appropriate point at which to end these comments on government. They have, of necessity, been all too brief, but not much space is needed in which to stress the conclusion to which they lead. They should provide adequate reasons why an appreciation of the importance of government must be a priority in any study of these years. The fact that from the beginning of the reign of Henry VII the attention of statesmen was concentrated on schemes for providing efficient control, and on devising, reforming, adapting, and extending machinery for this purpose is the most noteworthy feature revealed in the records. That there were shortcomings and some downright failures cannot be ignored, but after these have been discounted there yet remains the solid creation of those years, a new type of monarchy, set within the framework of a bureaucratic state, differing in some essentials from the medieval pattern, and showing promise already of some of the developments which are associated with the England of more modern times. Other features of Tudor history, attractive though their problems are, must yield to this essential subject of government since its experiments provide the best possible introduction to those other features. The new monarchy prepared the way for them by giving the country peace and security, and by maintaining it even in the later years when a royal minority followed by the accession of a woman put its work to the severest of tests. Without those conditions it is 1

Sir Thomas Smith, De Republica Anglorum, ed, L.Alston, p. 49.

26

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

probable that some of the achievements in other fields might never have emerged or, if they had, might not have commanded so high an importance in the life of the time. That is not the only significance of these developments in government. Its improved methods and increased efficiency provided the means whereby advances in other fields became possible. VI. SOCIETY

No historians today would write as if class distinctions did not exist in early Tudor England. The men of that time were not all born equal any more than their fathers had been in medieval England, and the lines of demarcation recognized in those earlier times still formed the basis of social distinction in these later days. Care must, however, be taken in interpreting the status symbols separating individuals, and it is especially important to avoid the crude error of reading back all the implications of nineteenth-century ideology into a period inspired by very different ways of thought. There, perhaps, lies the way to understand that society. A glance at the social thought of the time may explain the practice as well as the theory of society as it appeared to the men who were living within its framework. Early Tudor social theory was complex, made up of many traditions. Medieval thought contributed some fundamental ideas. It provided, in the first place, that conception of society so greatly favoured by its thinkers, and made the subject of numerous sermons on State occasions such as the opening of a parliament, a conception which might be described as the anthropomorphic theory of society. In an elaborate and detailed analogy exponents of this theory likened society to the human body, and individuals as part of that body, their importance to society varying as the members vary in the human body according to the nature, qualities, and functions of the individual. The idea behind this theory was the ultimate unity and harmony of society: being an organism its health depends upon every individual member performing his predestined functions with regularity and discipline. Closely associated with this view there was another, not greatly differing in concept, but because it was to a large degree popularized by the reformers it was more emphatic in its insistence on the importance of the Christian virtues of resignation and obedience. This is the teaching to be found in the writings of Tyndale, and in the sermons of most of the early reformers. According to these teachers the divine purpose for man was life in a society ensuring the good of all through the practice of these virtues. Society and the State were identical in this theory: these thinkers had a word which covered both: a term in common use in their works, “the common weal”. The achievement of the common weal was by way of observing one’s vocation. God had called every

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

27

man to his place and his work in the common weal, and every man fulfils his destiny by performing ungrudgingly the duties attached to that place to which he has been called. The tendency was for some of these teachers to make greater use of this term common weal as a synonym for the State. Until more research has been done on the subject it would be hazardous to speak of these “common wealth men”,1 as they have been sometimes called, as though they were a closely knit organized party, but enough is known already to make it clear that whether they were an organized group or not they were all thinking along very similar lines. Side by side with these ideas there can be discerned even more clearly a third concept of society. Again it owes much to the past. It is important because it translated theory into practice, for it was the continuation into practical life, through law and politics, of the ideas and institutions of feudal society. Thus, there grew out of the theory of “estates” of feudal society a view of human society divided into a hierarchy of classes. On the surface this would appear to be the most widely accepted concept since it dominated legal thought and action, but it would not be correct to think of it as conflicting with the other theories. The truth is that social theory in the early sixteenth century was not clear-cut: men were receptive to the variety of ideas in the air, but they were not as yet ready to weave them together into a closely patterned social theory. Such opinions were held and taught: but it did not follow that the closed society they advocated was wholly attained in practice. Desirable as the functional theory might seem it was not allowed to interfere with the activities of those who had the opportunities and the urge to throw off the responsibilities to which God had called them in favour of others more desirable to which they aspired. As a matter of fact this was a time of great mobility in the social order caused by the beginnings of great agrarian change. Under the influence of the developments in rural and urban life there was a considerable displacement of individuals. The increasing importance of capitalism in both town and country was having its effect upon the social structure. Rural England was experiencing the beginnings of a breakdown of the personal relationship of lord and man which had been a main feature of medieval organization: it was now being replaced by the less intimate relationship of landlord and tenant farmer, and farmer and hired labourer. Similar changes in the towns produced like effects: it was rapidly becoming the day of the wealthy city merchant, the large industrialist, and the worker fated never to rise out of the ranks of the wage-earners. It is against this background of theory that the actual social structure of early Tudor England must be viewed. The framework can be seen most clearly in documents connected with the law, since its innate conservatism made it a safe custodian of customary ways, and the traditional organization of society.2 So, too, 1

See below, p. 228.

2

Nos. 16, 17.

28

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

it sometimes comes to light in legislation, for example, in several statutes for the regulation of dress.1 Perhaps even more directly powerful was the influence of the heralds, who, since the favour shown them by Richard III, were making themselves conspicuous during the reigns of the first two Tudors as arbiters of established titles of dignity, and sponsors of the new aristocracy.2 The whole situation was aptly summed up from the standpoint of law and the heralds by Sir Thomas Smith in 1565. Looking at the subject as a lawyer and a politician, the rigorous test of social status which he applies is to ask what part did an individual play in government, and what office did he bear in the commonwealth. From this point of view Smith divides society into the following groups: first, the greater nobility (nobilitas major), a rank which includes dukes, marquises, earls, viscounts, barons: secondly, the lesser nobility (nobilitas minor), consisting of the knights, esquires, and gentlemen: thirdly, the citizens and burgesses of the towns, the yeomen; and lastly, there should be noticed a miscellaneous group, those who have no voice or authority in the commonwealth, and no account is made of them, but only to be ruled, and not to rule others. These are the day labourers, the poor husbandmen, and the wage-earning artificers.3 If this be accepted as the prevailing structure of early sixteenth-century society, life for the individual should not be described as excessively constricted. If he had the ability to advance his own fortunes so as to change to a position more attractive than that into which he had been born then the move was not difficult, and enough examples are forthcoming to show that social mobility was easy and common.4 It explains the rise of the “new men” in the political life of the time. Perhaps too much has been made of this feature of the social organization. There has been a tendency to attribute to the early Tudor kings, and especially to Henry VIII, a quite original policy creating a class of “new men” whom he trained and used as administrators. It is of course true that in all the Tudor reigns it was possible for a young man lacking worldly influence and resources, and not distinguished in lineage, to achieve a spectacular career in the royal service: but this was not a phenomenon peculiar to that age. At all times there have been able interlopers of this kind, in earlier centuries more often known as king’s favourites. All the same it can be accepted that in the early sixteenth century there was a clear line of demarcation between the old aristocracy whose titles went back before 1485, and new men holding titles and dignities bestowed after that date for their services. Some illustrations of the forces affecting both the old and new aristocracy are suggested in these documents, but a more detailed study of both types is needed before any conclusive generalizations can be made. Changes were undoubtedly taking place: but it is unsafe to jump to quick conclusions. New families did not always materialize: ministerial office 1 3

No. 16. Below p. 272, n.1.

2 4

No. 18. No. 19.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

29

was a hazardous profession, and not a few aspirants fell by the way. So too, it is inadvisable to stress at this stage the possibility of clashes between the two elements, the new and the old. Such rivalries did occur: there are some interesting examples: but how significant they were in the social history of the time is not easy to estimate. In the same way, opinion about another social group has been modified in recent years. Some half-century ago historians were obsessed by what they described as the emergence of a new element in sixteenth-century society, the “middle class”, which seemed to provide the stimulus for social and economic change, and was the inspiration for many of the improvements taking place. Second thoughts amongst historians all go in the direction of attaching a diminished importance to this group. In the first place, revisionists suggest a more precise definition of this “middle class”. Instead of bundling into this social group any and every individual just falling short of being identifiable as nobility, thus creating a fluid class about which all kinds of generalizations are risked, it is suggested that the term should be strictly limited to a group composed of merchants, financiers, industrialists, the rich men of the towns.1 Next, there has been a reassessment of the achievements formerly attributed to this class. The most widely accepted of these used to be the social results of inter-marriages between members of the landed aristocracy and widows and children of the rich merchant families of the towns, and the activities of members of this same middle class, especially the merchants, in the purchase of landed estates, thus setting themselves up as members of the landed gentry. While they are prepared to admit that both these tendencies can be observed during this period the revisionists claim that there is nothing novel about either of these processes, and that it happened in earlier centuries of English history. In any case, it is asserted, these processes were of far less significance than the advocates of the older view of the middle class maintained: that the influence of these new-rich merchants entering upon their country estates did not make such a great impact upon rural society: that, on the contrary, the tendency was for the newcomers to be taken captive by the social conventions and customs of the countryside into which they were, in most instances, only too anxious to be received. These re-assessments are salutary. They put the middle class in its proper perspective. They should not, however, be construed as a denial of the importance of these members of society, for within the limits as here described, they had a very distinct place in relation to the king and the common weal, and in practice the government knew only too well the importance of these wealthy members when it came to a question of taxation. One final thought on this subject may well return to the hint with which 1

Below, p. 231.

30

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

this section opened. Enough has been said to indicate the existence of a class structure in these years, side by side with theory revealing its specific meaning. What is not found in contemporary literature is any indication of an ideological encouragement of class war between the social orders of the common weal. To read back into the period any such notions is to reveal a complete misunderstanding of the thought and practice of the early Tudor world. PROBLEMS OF DAILY LIFE A people whose prevailing characteristics were a passion for material prosperity and an absolute indifference to human suffering.1 These words were the considered verdict upon early Tudor society by one well qualified to give his opinion. Like all sweeping judgments it needs some reservations, but there is enough truth in it to justify a closer examination. The indictment cannot be entirely rebutted, but there are some forceful reasons why it can only be accepted as a partial character-reading of Tudor society. Briefly, and dispensing for the time being with the necessary explanatory commentary, what had happened was that a society experiencing some severe tensions in its economy was obsessed by the difficulties of the problems confronting it, and in its attempts to solve them and to achieve security it tended to stress as the means of salvation the amassing of wealth and the acquisition of material goods. In the process there were naturally those who exploited their opportunities regardless of the common good, but there was a lively opposition to them amongst the leaders of opinion who expressed disapproval of all such anti-social behaviour. The criticisms they offered, and the remedies they proposed were not as successful as they deserved to be, but they were at least an indication that sweeping generalizations about the materialism of the age need to be qualified. In the same way it is not true to indict Tudor society as being wholly indifferent to human suffering. While on the one hand it is a legitimate criticism that people were curiously callous in their toleration of severe punishment for heresy and opposition to government policy, it is also true that in the social and economic field they recognized the evils of poverty and tried to cope with some of the problems it raised. True, the attempts which were made did not go very far, and certainly did not lean to the side of generosity, but this should be attributed to factors over which society did not have control, rather than to indifference. Ignorance of the deep-seated causes of social maladjustment prevented men from arriving at the kind of action necessary for dealing with it. The key will be found in a tendency which set in early in the century, and was experienced by this country in common with the other nations of western Europe. Throughout the early sixteenth century there went on in the west a 1

A.F.Pollard, Henry VIII, p. 431.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

31

steady rise in prices. The effects upon English life are not easy to calculate since tracing the trends with any approach to scientific accuracy would entail the making of a price index, an almost impossible task since the economic needs of early Tudor people are difficult to discover. What is clearly revealed in the complaints and debates of contemporary writers, and from those statistics which are available is that the general rise in prices was not balanced by a corresponding rise in wages. To the men of the time this was a puzzling, and indeed an unnatural, phenomenon. They could only explain it as the result of sin: it must be the direct result of human selfishness and greed. In this diagnosis they were, perhaps, nearer to fundamentals than economists of more sophisticated days allow to enter into their calculations. Be that as it may, their explanation did not get them very far, or rather, it would be more correct to say that it led them along the wrong track for, as these sources suggest, their remedy for all their difficulties was coercion by the government.1 There was a naïve belief that the profound social problems so closely linked to inflation could be solved by the passing of acts of Parliament. What was thought of as an infallible remedy did not do its work. Failure was in part due to the complexity of the problems. One which certainly had effects upon price levels was only slowly appreciated: that was the debasement of the coinage. The first steps on this primrose path were not taken irresponsibly but were attempts to keep in line with other European countries. That was why, in 1489, Henry VII carried out such a transaction. Then in 1526 Wolsey raised the price of gold from 40s. to 45s. an ounce and issued new lightweight coins. There was a further debasement in 1543 whereby the amount of alloy in the coins was increased. A wide extension of this practice took place two years later. By the end of his reign Henry VIII’s coinage was in a disgraceful condition. The full effects of this policy were hardly realized at the time, but soon would be. The precedent set was unfortunately followed by Edward VI’s ministers in 1551 with grave social and economic results, including a sharp movement of opinion against the government. There were other factors resulting in economic disturbances: they can best be appreciated by a closer examination. Such a survey may well begin in the countryside, since it was there that some of the most troublesome issues emerged. By the opening years of Henry VIII’s reign, if not earlier, the effects of a series of economic disturbances were making themselves felt. Whether their impact upon society was violent enough to justify their being labelled “the agrarian revolution” is a matter for argument amongst the experts, although it might be suggested in passing that there is probably more risk than profit in applying terms which have gained currency in one situation to a set of circumstances in another where the similarities are probably very superficial. Even if the processes of change were more gradual 1

Nos. 152–4.

32

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

than is suggested by this term there can be little doubt that contemporaries were fully aware of the working together of factors which were having serious effects upon their daily life. Changes consequent upon the Black Death and subsequent visitations of pestilence during the later Middle Ages had released forces which were having serious effects upon the rural economy, or to be more precise, upon the manorial organization which was the heritage of medieval England. Although that system would continue to be the framework of English rural society for many years to come, the fact was that already the pressure of new demands leading to the commutation of labour services, the introduction on an increasing scale of money rents, and the elimination of villeinage were all rapidly transforming the conditions of manorial life by making conditions of tenure harder for the copyholder and the customary tenant, and by encouraging the increase in the number of tenant farmers holding land for a term of years by fixed annual rents. At the same time the less fortunate peasantry, on the one hand free from the burden of personal services were, on the other hand, losing their old security of tenure and interest in the land, and were well on the way to becoming a landless group dependent for their livelihood on being engaged to work for the owner of the estate at a daily wage. These changes were to a large extent the result of what was happening at the top of rural society, where the pressure of high prices was being felt very keenly, and serious efforts were being made to counterbalance the economic discomforts they were causing. The infiltration into rural society of men from the towns, bringing with them into the running of their estates novel ideas they had learned in their world of trade, must have had some effect in revealing that the possession of land was not merely a status symbol, that it could also be a profitable form of investment. As a result there was coming into the countryside a fiercely competitive market in land, and this quickened the tendencies towards change in rural organization. These opportunities were beginning to be exploited before Henry VII came to the throne. They were increased by a development which shows how easily unrelated factors might, and did, affect the general economic structure. This was a fresh enterprise in English industry. Instead of exporting all her wool to Europe as had been done in the Middle Ages it was being realized that clothmaking was an even more profitable way of dealing with it, and a rapidly expanding clothmaking industry brought wealth and work to the country. The demand for increased quantities of wool became more urgent. Sheepbreeding was seen to be a profitable undertaking, but it needed space if it was to be carried on extensively. That space could best be provided by taking over land previously under the plough. Here, then, was a forceful reason for the competition for land, and the introduction of new methods on the farms. Here, too, lies the explanation of some of the unemployment and the depopulation of the countryside, where

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

33

the sheepfarmer and the cattle breeder were getting to work exploiting the growing demand for meat in the nearby urban markets. This sequence of events leads up to the subject of enclosures, which has long been and will probably continue to be for some time a topic for discussion among the experts. No one now would treat this as a simple subject. It would be as wrong to accept all the criticisms which have been levelled against the crusading pamphlets of the social theorists and the denunciatory sermons of the reformers as it would be to take for granted all the diatribes against enclosures which those contemporaries pronounced, often it must be admitted, out of the depths of their ignorance of the complex factors involved. On the other hand, it would be just as wrong to accept what they wrote without making allowance for the fact that they saw, and were frightened by, the results of some kinds of enclosure, although they had very little knowledge of the complications of the problem, or the relative importance of the various factors involved. Modern research has long since learnt to distinguish between the different kinds of enclosures, recognizing that some were beneficial, such as the approvement of waste lands and the consolidation of strip holdings, while some, such as imparking, and the transformation of arable into pasture were thoroughly pernicious, and the source of grave social evils. At all points enclosure is a subject the expert handles gingerly. The mass of official information arising from Wolsey’s inquisition1 seemed impressive enough when it was first made available, but the promise held out by the plentiful statistics it provided seems less reliable now that the critics have discovered their inadequacies. In a word, it seems that there is still room for discussion on this involved subject. Turning next to the development of industry, it will be found even less easy to substantiate the claim sometimes made that an “industrial revolution” was under way. True, there was change both in organization and, to some extent, in technique, in some of the industries, but this development was hardly on such a scale, in the early part of the century, that it could be called a revolution. While there was a considerable amount of industry of one kind or another, England can in no way be rightly called an industrial society during those years. Industry was largely centred in the towns, but even though they were town dwellers, the workers were never very far away from the fields, and even where industry had spread to the villages and the countryside one of the great reasons for that development was that gild restrictions were avoided, work could be done in the homes of the workers, and they could still eke out their wages by cultivating their own plots of land. Leland was not particularly interested in the state of the country’s industries, but he did not miss altogether the main features, and there are many references in his notes to what he saw when on his journeys. There are, for example, 1

No. 144.

34

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

several references to coal mines in various parts of the country, to stone and slate quarries, marble and alabaster, iron mining in the Mendips, the Forest of Dean, the Midlands: lead mining in Yorkshire and Wales, tin in Cornwall. References to the textile industries are numerous: Yorkshire has its smiths and cutlers: Birmingham is a hive of industries of a similar kind: the Wiches are the seat of,a flourishing salt-making industry: shipbuilding is common to most of the ports of the country; and building is naturally a general occupation. It is clear from sources other than Leland that textiles were the most widely distributed and the most flourishing of English industries. Here there were indications of important changes. The industry was in some parts being modernized, following the example of the tin and lead mining industries, by the injection of capital. There are some signs of a primitive factory organization at Malmesbury and elsewhere, while all over the country wealthy clothiers were taking the weight of a busy domestic industry by providing the materials and the tools, while their employees worked in their own homes. Fresh resources stimulated the introduction of some primitive types of machinery, and quickened a tendency for industry to escape from the towns into the countryside where water power was more easily procured, and where the restrictive regulations of the gilds could be avoided. In the towns the craft gilds continued to exercise their supervisory functions as they had done in former times for the protection of their members and of the consumer, but already in the fifteenth century and even earlier in some of them, great and far-reaching changes were having their effect. For one thing, the more prosperous and forceful members were taking control of their gilds with the result that many of these societies had become narrow oligarchies in which the powerful minority worked things to their own advantage. The old procedure whereby the apprentice who had served his term could easily rise into the hierarchy of masters and leaders in the gild had become more difficult, so that within many gilds there were members who could not expect to rise out of the inferior rank of the yeomanry of the gild, and many would spend their lives as wage-earners working for the wealthy master employers. These developments in agriculture and industry did not take place without creating considerable discontent among the workers, and many problems for the administrators. This is illustrated in the records by occasional hints of strikes and labour disputes,1 by statutes and proclamations against enclosures and the decay of towns,2 by regulations for dealing with apprenticeship and laws affecting industrial conditions.3 The outstanding social problem for the government was, undoubtedly, the problem of poverty. While it is difficult to estimate the intensity of the social evils of unemployment and poverty, the long sequence of efforts by the legislators to come to grips with them, and the 1

No. 149, ii. b.

2

No. 144.

3

No. 148.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

35

constant criticisms of the pamphleteers all go to show that there was here a very real problem to which there was no easy solution. Notice has been taken in another place of the stages in poor law legislation.1 It will be enough to state here that slowly and with much fumbling the legislators arrived at certain principles in that search. Of these the greatest was the distinction which was at last drawn between the two types of poor, those produced by unemployment and the workshy vagabond, on the one hand, and those victims of ill-health and weakness, the impotent poor, on the other hand. The treatment of the former, the able-bodied beggars reveals very clearly that there was some truth in the quotation with which this section began: that the age was callous to a degree in its attitude towards human suffering, but it is not wholly true. This very legislation bears witness to a genuine recognition of the duties of society towards those whose troubles were not of their own making. It might, indeed, be urged in defence of these legislators that in dealing with this serious problem they were beset with anxieties. They were dealing with matters they did not fully understand, with conditions for which they were unable to find a cause. In the circumstances they could hardly be expected to rule all their actions by reason, and it is understandable if on occasion they failed to temper their emotions with mercy. VII. THE CHURCH

It is only when the full extent and the far-reaching consequences of the reforms in government under the first two Tudor kings have been recognized that the real nature of the changes within the Church summed up in the phrase The English Reformation can be rightly appreciated. The term itself is worth a thought. It is revealing, for with this as with so many other landmarks in the history of England (for example, the reception of feudalism, the creation of English monarchy, the development of representative government) the English people went their own way, assimilating, rejecting, and transmuting ideas coming to them in strange ways and from many sources, combining them with ideas of their own, until finally they are seen to have created something distinguished by what can only be described as a unique English quality. Thus, implicit in the phrase The English Reformation, are many components, some indigenous, others extraneous, which combine to produce a unique religious experience. The term, therefore, epitomizes a series of changes in the institutions, doctrine, material possessions, and the personnel of the Church in England, resulting at first in schism, and ultimately in a complete severence of that Church from obedience to the papacy, and finally to the establishment of a Protestant Church with the distinguishing characteristic of being entirely and exclusively 1

No. 152 and p. 894.

36

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

Anglican. These are revolutionary changes, and it is of some interest to discover how they could have happened. It is doubtful whether any historian could be expected to treat the history of these changes with complete detachment. Indeed, there is an established school of thought which would argue that such an attitude is undesirable, that a history of these changes written without bias can only display the smouldering embers of a dying past, and that it needs the angry words of passionate, even prejudiced, belief and proselytizing fervour to stir these embers into flame. Certainly, there has been no shortage of such stimulus in the writings of earlier historians, and probably the most serviceable method of indicating the bibliography of Reformation history is that which divides the literature into two sections, Roman Catholic and Protestant, according to whether the contributor’s views have been influenced by one or other of these two divisions of the Christian Church. The fact is, of course, that rare indeed are the historians to whom this test cannot be applied, down even to the present day, for of few European minds can it be said with certainty that they have not consciously or otherwise imbibed formative ideas from one or other of those sources. For this reason much in the works of earlier historians gives rise to more questions than they answer, and they have to be handled with great discrimination. In fact most of the works of earlier writers of this kind can now be ignored, save where they occasionally include transcriptions of original documents. Even these must be used with caution for they are only too often untrustworthy. It is a welcome sign of the spread of modern ideas of scientific method in historical studies that scholars of all trends of thought now recognize the need to keep their writings free from polemics, striving always to follow the facts, once they have been established, whitherso-ever they may lead. If such problems affect the modern observer’s outlook on the Reformation what shall be said of those men and women whose fortune it was to live through those times? Quite certainly, a decision had to be made by each of them as to their own individual attitude to what was happening, and for many the choice could not have been easy. There were, in the first place, those who looked upon the changes affecting the Church of England with favour. For such people they represented an important spiritual and intellectual advance, a freeing of the human spirit by a vindication of the exercise of private judgment in matters where a man’s conscience was involved, an assertion of the right to read and draw conclusions for oneself from the Scriptures, made available in an English translation, the detachment of the Church from what they considered as superstitions and corrupt practices, and the confiscation of its material wealth which, in their opinion, had been the prime cause of the decline in moral standards amongst both the regular and secular clergy by the end of the Middle Ages.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

37

Those, on the other hand, opposed to what appeared to them disastrous changes, could only see in these iconoclastic ideas an outrageous attack upon the doctrine and the practice of the Church in which they had been nurtured, and which they had been taught to revere, a challenge to a world of tradition, customs, and beliefs which they cherished as a rich inheritance preserved for them by Rome. If it could be said that this clear-cut division presented a complete picture of the religious situation on the eve of the Reformation then the interpretation of the first, that is, the Henrician, phase of the English Reformation would be simple. The fact that the King and his ministers were able to sever the links with Rome, and establish a royal supremacy in Church and State without having to coerce a whole nation would suggest that the majority in the country trusted their king and acquiesced in the changes as he had devised them. The situation was not quite as simple as this explanation suggests, for such an analysis leaves out of account what was probably an important but indeterminate part of the population. These were the people indifferent to the religious causes at issue, unprepared to take their stand either for or against the religious innovations. They cannot be counted by heads, but they were probably not a negligible part of the population. When the acquiescence of the country, not only to Henry VIII’s changes, but also to the violent swings to the left and the right respectively in the reigns of Edward VI and Mary is being considered, the presence of this hard core of Laodiceans is of real importance. Their indifference to religious changes coupled with the prevailing political idea that the duty of the subject to the prince should be one of unquestioning obedience may help to explain what is sometimes represented all too confidently as an enthusiastic complicity on the part of his subjects in the projects of Henry VIII and his advisers. Nor should it be forgotten that it needed determination bordering on the heroic or the foolhardy to come out in open opposition to a government as ruthless as that of the early Tudors; and this is not likely to have been an attribute of those indifferent to the principles at stake. These considerations should be a reminder of something too often forgotten in surveys of this period. In the reigns of Henry VIII and his son the English Reformation, especially in matters of doctrine, was the work of a small minority group consisting mainly of bishops instigated by the two men most confident of their objectives, Thomas Cromwell and Thomas Cranmer. Many of the ordinary people, even those moderately interested in these matters, could not have had a deep realization of what was implied in the controversy over doctrine. The people of England then, drifted along with the current change in all three reigns. Sporadic outbursts of revolt like the Pilgrimage of Grace can be read as indicating that there was no unanimity of popular enthusiasm for what was happening: but they suggest, too, that forces had been unleashed which were too overpowering to be influenced by what the ordinary subject said or did.

38

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

The impression of popular approval for the Reformation is in part derived from the fact that policy on religious matters had to find expression in acts of Parliament. The statute book provides a blue print of the Edwardian Reformation and the Marian Counter-Reformation in just as great detail as it reveals the purposes of Henry VIII’s ecclesiastical policy. Now it is, of course, true that the English Reformation was established by acts of Parliament: but it does not follow that all the premises on which such legislation was based can be accepted as fact. Discrimination must be used in deducing royal policy from the statement by which it is justified in the preamble to a statute. For convenience of reference the essential texts illustrating legislation on Church matters have been brought together in a special section.1 Presented in that form, from the first act of the Reformation Parliament to the final Marian statute of repeal, they suggest a pattern more deliberate and logical in the drafting than should be credited to the government. To the historian the pattern may be clearly discernible, but when he explains ho wit was contrived he must put himself in the place of Henry VIII and the legislators. By so doing the whole historical process will present a different picture. The legislation was not so rationally planned as all that. There was quite an amount of uncertainty about it, much experimenting, much fumbling. They made a patchwork, and historians run a risk in calling it a design. To contemporaries, even to some of the legislators themselves, the whole process must have presented many perplexities. This process of getting the approval and support of Parliament for the changes contemplated was not done for the reason sometimes stated. It was not that the king sought the co-operation of Parliament as an equal in legislation, and as a guarantee that the country, represented by Parliament, was endorsing and approving the king’s policy. Approval by Parliament was essential on quite other grounds: it had to be obtained even if on occasion this could only be under strong pressure because without a statute the royal policy would have had no sanctions and could not have been enforced. That is the real meaning of Henry VIII’s close co-operation with Parliament, and what was true of the legislation of his reign is equally true of the reigns of his two successors. The statutes dealing with religion in the years between 1530 and 1558 are numerous and also formidable examples of circumlocution. They have their historical value, and considerable it is, providing evidence of a special kind, but they are not the only source on which the historian can draw for answers to the problems of religious history in the early sixteenth century. There are others, quite as important, some of them illustrated in this collection.2 One of the functions of the historian is to ensure that the relationship of each of these sources to the others is accurately determined, for upon this co-ordination will depend the nature of the historical pattern he seeks to interpret. 1

Nos. 90–104.

2

Nos. 129–140.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

39

There have been many interpretations of the English Reformation. Nearly all of them follow a method which puts Henry VIII, with or without his advisers, at the centre of events as the controlling factor responsible for all that went to the making of that movement, pursuing a well thought out and far-sighted policy, possible only to men certain of their ultimate objective and the way whereby it could be achieved. Now, instead of following traditional narrative it may be profitable to look at these things from a different point of view, by shifting attention away from the leaders on to the logic of events. Thus, the main interest will then centre on events rather than on personalities, and in the way in which these events occur in sequence, determining and making intelligible the reactions of the individuals concerned in them. From this point of view the first essential is to place in its proper perspective the affair usually referred to in contemporary sources as “the king’s private matter”.1 There has been a tendency among some historians to minimize it as a feature in the religious history of the time. This is a mistaken approach, for here was something which involved a great deal more than Henry VIII’s morals. The king’s private matter proved to be also very much of a public affair. The motives for the King’s decision can only be presented as hypothesis since none of them can at this date be discussed with any assurance. Historians have tried to read a priority among several, but whether it was a genuine desire for a legitimate son as his successor, or a reaction against his marriage (which he had not previously questioned throughout its long duration), or a deep infatuation for Anne Boleyn, or a serious scruple of conscience at the sinfulness of marriage with a deceased brother’s widow, these are all possible alternatives: but which was uppermost in Henry’s mind who can tell? Beyond reports of a few speeches by the king2 (to some extent suspect because they were made as a public justification of his own conduct) there is no more intimate expression of his own emotions than the letters he wrote over a brief period to Anne Boleyn.3 These, unfortunately, are undated so that they give no clues concerning the origins of the infatuation. Beyond revealing with damning clearness that Henry’s sentiments towards a young girl in her teens were not such as should have been entertained by a man sixteen years her senior, with eighteen years of married life behind him, these letters provide little if any worthwhile evidence of what was actually going on in the King’s mind. To discover how that complicated mechanism worked calls for an interpretation of evidence even more indirect in character, and a probing of motives which is largely conjectural. Henry’s reactions in this situation can only be understood in the light of the views of marriage obtaining in his day. Within established families, including not only those of the nobility, but also of well-to-do citizens, marriage was looked upon as a strict matter of business rather than of sentiment, and commonsense 1

Nos. 84–89.

2

Nos. 86–87.

3

No. 85.

40

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

rather than romance governed its arrangements. The institution was primarily intended for the procreation of a family—and equally important—for adding to the status and material well-being of the families concerned. Any marriage which did not achieve these results was, generally speaking, looked upon as a failure. All this, of course, was especially true of marriages within a royal house. Here the giving and taking in marriage was a powerful instrument of policy, and rare indeed were the occasions when it was the spontaneous union of two self-chosen partners, rather than the product of some shrewd bargaining on the part of the elders of the respective families. For starkly realistic views of marriage such as these Henry VIII had no need to look beyond the actions of his own father. Henry VII’s own marriage had been an expert, and apparently a successful, essay in tactful policy. More revealing was his reaction to the situation caused by the untimely death of his eldest son, Prince Arthur. Faced by the risk that he might be asked to return Catherine of Aragon’s dowry to her parents he is credited with the scheme that he himself, recently become a widower, should marry his own daughter-in-law. It would not be difficult to add other examples illustrating the general attitude of royalty to the marriages of its sons and daughters. Henry VIII’s own marriage to Catherine, six years his senior, was a marriage for reasons of state if ever there was one, and rich indeed it was in its consequences for English history. The sacrifice of Henry VIII’s young sister Mary Tudor to the ageing King Louis of France is another: while the numerous attempts to get the Princess Mary married during the reign of her father is an almost classic example of the huckstering which went on over such transactions. Given these pragmatic ideas concerning marriage in sixteenth-century practice there should be no great difficulty in accepting as genuine Henry’s frequently revealed worries concerning the succession to his throne, and in understanding, without condoning, his behaviour in the Boleyn affair. The failure of his lawful wife to produce the desired heir, and the practical certainty that she never would be able to do so, left him free-every thing known about Henry indicates that he would have considered that it imposed upon him the solemn duty—to seek a solution of his problem elsewhere. It would have been quite in keeping with these ideas if Henry looked upon it as part of his royal prerogative to set aside a childless marriage in order to ensure the future of the dynasty. This suggestion, put forward as an explanation rather than as a justification of Henry’s conduct merits consideration since it makes intelligible much that is difficult to understand in his behaviour. Later on, a similar failure on the part of Anne Boleyn to produce the required heir left Henry with the same problem on his hands, and explains the ruthlessness with which she was cast aside, although it does not explain nor excuse the horrible vindictiveness with which Henry sanctioned her judicial murder. Throughout the Boleyn liaison there was quite clearly fixed in Henry’s mind

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

41

one overriding condition. It was so important that it governed all the king’s actions, and was expressed in speech and writing on many occasions. It was that there must be no possible question about the legitimacy of the king’s heir. Hence Henry’s long-maintained insistence upon the formal procedure for separation from Catherine, and a lawful marriage with Anne Boleyn, for it was much more likely to have been Henry’s calculations of policy rather than Anne’s appraisal of her virtue which dictated the long course of events in “the king’s private matter”. Hence, too, the patience and persistence, over a period of nearly six years, with which he tried to obtain the acquiescence of the Pope, until finally, in January 1533, as the result of accident or design, Henry had to ensure the legitimacy of a prospective heir by a secret marriage with Anne. The long drawn-out negotiations with Rome had to be brought to an abrupt end. Without delay on 21 February 1533 Pope Clement granted bulls for the appointment of Thomas Cranmer as Archbishop of Canterbury. In March there was passed the bill forbidding Appeals to Rome, intended to checkmate Catherine. On 11 April Cranmer asked the king for permission to try the king’s cause of matrimony. It was granted, and he opened his court at Dunstable on 14 May 1533. On 23 May he gave judgment and Henry’s marriage to Catherine was dissolved. On 28 May he declared, after secret investigation, that Henry and Anne were legally married. On 1 June Anne was crowned Queen in Westminster Abbey. On 7 September Henry waiting for news of the birth of an heir was told that he had a daughter soon to be christened Elizabeth! The way in which Henry met these problems makes it possible to take more seriously than some historians have done his much-displayed conscience. On more than one occasion he claimed to be greatly distressed at the thought that by his first marriage he had in all probability sinned against God’s law. To brush on one side these scruples of his as hypocritical is to shirk a real issue. It must be remembered that there was a strong theological bent in Henry’s intellectual equipment, and there is every reason to believe that he was touched to the quick by the criticism that his first marriage was contrary to the law of God. It was Campeggio who said that all Henry wanted was for them to say whether his marriage was valid or not: he wanted nothing else because he was certain in his own mind that it was invalid. And Campeggio believed that if an angel descended from Heaven he would not be able to persuade his Majesty to the contrary, for it was the Cardinal’s firm opinion that in this case Henry knew more than any great theologian and jurist.1 Henry was not necessarily hypocritical when he said that his was a case which ought to be looked into: he could, however, afford to be complacent, since he was confident that all his difficulties could be resolved for him in England by Wolsey. 1 L.P. IV, ii, 4858. Campeggio to Sanga. London, 17 Oct. 1528. Also, S.Ehses, Römische Dokumente, No. 31, 26 Oct. 1528.

42

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

The conclusion to be drawn from all this is that “the king’s private matter” should not be passed over lightly, it had too many grave consequences. There is, however, a real risk that it might be taken seriously for the wrong reason. In this human situation what is really important is not Henry’s rather sordid liaison with Anne Boleyn. The really significant matters came later: they are the consequences, immediate and indirect, of Henry’s misguided efforts to solve the dynastic problem by methods entirely selfish in aim and equivocal in practice. What had begun as a personal problem soon developed into a much wider issue. Looked at from Henry’s angle there would hardly seem to have been a problem at all. His case was such as might have been put forward by any ordinary member of the Roman Church. Henry VIII, however, was not such an ordinary person. A monarch such as he, a loyal son of the Church (had he not been named in 1521 Fidei Defensor by the Pope himself?), a king ranking in dignity with the most impressive European sovereigns might well expect to be heard by the Head of Christendom with exceptional grace and favour, especially since the relief he was seeking could be represented not as something sought for his own self-gratification but as a remedy for a misfortune threatening all his subjects. His knowledge of what was going on in the world around assured him his request would be granted. The procedure suggested on his behalf had immediate precedents even within his own family circle, and others could be cited from outside. In 1515 Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk was granted an annulment of his previous marriage to enable him to marry Henry’s sister, Mary Tudor, widow of King Louis of France. In 1527 Henry’s sister Margaret Queen of Scotland obtained a divorce from her second husband. The way to Henry’s own release seemed straightforward. On 17 May 1527 Wolsey as legate, in collusion with the king, summoned Henry and Catherine to appear before him and Warham, Archbishop of Canterbury. The plan was that Wolsey should declare the dispensation for Henry’s marriage to Catherine null and void, so that the king might make a fresh marriage with anyone he pleased, and that the Pope should confirm the verdict of the court. Such procedure might have been successful had Catherine not objected to Wolsey’s jurisdiction and appealed to the Pope. Naturally all looked very different from Pope Clement’s point of view. However sympathetic he might be to Henry’s situation—and there is evidence suggesting that he would have liked to help him if he could—he was, after all, Head of the Church Universal. He had to consider other sovereigns who were no less his subjects than Henry was. By the time the king’s envoys reached Italy, briefed to plead for a trial in England the Emperor’s troops had sacked Rome, the Pope was in deep distress at Orvieto, his relations with Henry took second place to his relations with the Emperor, and the Emperor was Catherine’s

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

43

nephew. Events beyond the control of Henry and Clement had engulfed both of them. Assuredly Clement was wise in deciding to walk warily. This sequence of events makes sense if it is realized that both pope and king had in mind the same objective. Each wanted to bring to an end “the king’s private matter”: each was groping his way towards a plan for achieving that end. The irony of the situation was that their plans were utterly and diametrically opposed. Henry’s was clear-cut. What he and his advisers sought to do was to force Clement to a speedy decision in favour of hearing the case in England, followed by papal approval of the decision of the English court, which would of course be in Henry’s favour. There could then be a fresh marriage with Anne Boleyn, and in a not too distant future the arrival of a lawful heir. Clement saw things differently. He seems to have been sceptical about Henry’s arguments, thinking that they were merely excuses to make the king’s affair look respectable. He seems to have persuaded himself that if he could delay a decision for a sufficient length of time Henry’s passion would have burnt itself out, he would return to Catherine, and Clement would have kept the esteem of all parties to the dispute. It is hard to decide which of the two men made the greater miscalculation of the other’s motives and tactics. Instead of being able to win a decision in his favour by a series of menacing acts against the English Church and its clergy Henry had to suffer several years of futile negotiations which at last convinced him that nothing could be expected from papal diplomacy save duplicity and guile, while Clement was to discover that he had completely underestimated the intensity of Henry’s determination to persist in his design to marry Anne Boleyn. The real significance of the gulf thus opened up between these two men will be appreciated if attention is directed to the way in which the argument concerning the dispensing power of the Pope developed. Two phases can be discerned. In the first, which lasted until 1530, the question in dispute was over the original dispensation granted by Julius II for the marriage of Catherine and Henry. The main line of attack was directed against canonical defects in that document. After 1530 the nature of the attack changed. Basing their arguments now on scriptural texts some of Henry’s supporters took the line that the Pope was unable to use the dispensing power in the case of a marriage with the widow of a deceased brother since this prohibition was a divine law which could not be altered by a pope. In other words what was now being discussed was the question of the limitations on papal power. It is a reminder that more was at stake than the king’s private matter. Henry’s experiences in sueing for the annulment of his marriage provided strong grounds for criticism of the Church for the theory of marriage it had developed over the centuries, and the practice it had worked out in accordance with it. By the rules laid down regarding espousals (no masterpiece of human wisdom is one verdict1), by its multiplication of impediments to marriage based on consanguinity or

44

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

affinity between the parties, and by the abuses, especially financial, which had grown up around the administration of dispensations the Church was already coming under heavy fire.2 Henry’s case drove home the suspicion in minds more hostile to the papacy than his that the papal claims to such powers were as much open to challenge as were some of its claims on the theological side which were being attacked by the Reformers. While the long drawn-out negotiations about the king’s marriage were being carried on, at the same time there was being worked out in England a policy designed to put pressure on the Pope so as to force him to agree to Henry’s demands. That policy was given shape in the English Parliament, and is on record in the legislation of the Reformation Parliament between 1530 and 1536.3 It is for this reason that foreign observers see such a striking contrast between the Reformation in England and that on the Continent. Unlike the course of events abroad the first phase of the English movement, the breach with Rome, was far less concerned with problems of religion than it was with questions of law and politics. The State seized control of the Church and decided its future by statute. By 1536 the breach with Rome had been fully achieved. The first step on the way was taken in January 1531 when the clergy admitted their transgression under praemunire and acknowledged the king as their supreme lord, and as far as the law of Christ allows even supreme head. Then came a spate of legislation. One pattern, that of the chronology within which the legislation was worked out, can be seen in this collection.4 Another may be suggested. First, legislation intended to intimidate the Pope included an act in conditional restraint of payment of annates to the see of Rome followed by an act forbidding appeals to Rome, and one relieving the king’s subjects from paying exactions to the See of Rome. Next come the acts for reorganizing the Church in England: one pardoning the clergy for all offences against the statutes of provisors, provisions, and praemunire, an act for the submission of the clergy, an act concerning the king’s highness to be supreme head of the Church in England and to have authority to reform and redress all errors, heresies, and abuses in the same, and finally an act which extinguished the authority of the bishop of Rome. Closely connected with this legislation went an act for the 1

Maitland, Hist. Eng. Law, II, 368. W.E.Lunt, Papal Revenues in the Middle Ages, I, 132: “In place of the one type of matrimonial dispensation which had required a composition early in the fifteenth century, there were at the end of the century five”. For a tariff of taxes for matrimonial dispensations in use 1492–1513, ibid. II, 525. Cf. Maitland, H.E.L., II, 389: “The men and women who are the pawns in this game may, if they be rich enough, evade some of the forfeits by obtaining papal dispensations: but then there must be another set of rules marking off the dispensable from the indispensable impediments. When we weigh the merits of the medieval church and have remembered all her good deeds, we have to put into the other scale as a weighty counterpoise the incalculable harm done by a marriage law which was a maze of flighty fancies and misapplied logic.” 3 4 Nos. 90–104. Part v, Sections C–E. 2

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

45

establishment of the king’s succession, which was completed later by a statute providing an oath to be taken by subjects, and a treason act. The oath to the succession was taken by many of the king’s subjects, by some no doubt with misgivings they dared not express: but there were some brave exceptions, and the greatest of these were John Fisher and Thomas More. As far back as 16 May 1532 More, having by then realized the direction in which Henry’s mind was moving, and knowing that he would not be able to give his approval to the king’s policy, resigned from the Lord Chancellorship. For the next two years he had been closely watched by the government. He had a narrow escape in 1534 when he was involved in the affair of the Holy Maid of Kent, and his name was only removed from the bill of attainder at its third reading in the Lords. On 12 April 1534 he was warned to appear at Lambeth to take the oath. He refused it, as he did again on 17 April 1534. He was taken to the Tower. Parliament met in November and, as mentioned above, passed an act which made it high treason after 1 February 1535 to deprive the king, queen, and their heirs of any of their dignitaries and titles. The same Parliament passed an act of attainder against More.1 Later Henry decided to proceed further against both Fisher and More under the Treasons Act, and on 28 June 1535 a Grand Jury returned a true bill against More, and his trial began on 1 July 1535. By 6 July he had been found guilty and executed. The earliest evidence for the trial was the indictment, the legal record which presents the case for the prosecution. From it and from Nicholas Harpsfield’s Life of Thomas More the essentials can be reconstructed. This is not the place to enter into the textual problems connected with the evidence of the trial, but a brief summary of the conclusions suggested by More’s experiences will not be out of place.2 Why should this tragedy have happened? There is, of course, a quick answer that will satisfy many. It is that for Henry the submission to his will of so eminent a subject as an ex-Lord Chancellor would have had a great effect upon public opinion, but that once More’s refusal was made public Henry could not do other than let the law take its course. To this it might be said that this explanation exaggerates the influence More could have had in any clash with the royal policy. Henry had resources greater than this: his plans could go on regardless of More’s opinions. There is another explanation, one which is much less favourable to the king. This is yet another example of the vindictive strain in Henry’s character which showed itself on several occasions in his dealings with prominent subjects against whom fear or suspicion led him to bear a grudge. There may be truth in the assertion made by More’s biographers that Anne Boleyn did “by her importunate clamour so sore exasperate the King” that he sent More to the Tower. She may well have added fuel to the 1

St. 26 Hen. VIII, c. 23.

2

No. 48, x.

46

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

flames of Henry’s anger, but even if this were so it cannot take away from the king himself the sole responsibility for More’s death. Neither Anne Boleyn nor any minister would have dared to bring it about unless Henry gave his approval. Henry’s guilt is too clear to need much discussion. Of greater interest is the reaction of his victim to these questions. Why did he stand so firmly in opposition? From the time when he had first heard of Henry’s marriage project he had made no secret of his disapproval: but that was not the issue at his trial. He was tried because by refusing to recognize the king’s title of Supreme Head he was maliciously denying to the king his title and dignity and therefore came under the Treasons Act. It was this claim to supremacy in Church and State which appeared to him as so monstrous, an outrage of his whole conception of human institutions. He saw clearly, perhaps more clearly than any of his contemporaries, the ultimate and inevitable conclusion of these royal projects. Schism could only engender heresy, which for years More had been fighting with all his powers, for he realized that heresy in turn was bound to shatter the unity of Christendom, and bring down in ruins all that he, and Catholics like him, held dear. It is possible that to some readers this emphasis on the “king’s private matter” may have given the impression that the English Reformation was wholly contrived by Henry VIII and his ministers working through the Reformation Parliament. If so it is high time to correct such a misconception. This is best done by concentrating upon the logic of events, so that the king’s activities are seen merging into the background of contemporary ideas, the product of the intellectual and spiritual searchings of men into problems only incidentally connected with the personal issues with which Henry himself was so deeply concerned. Modern scholarship has recognized how shrewd a judge William Tyndale was when he emphasized in his writings that what his generation needed was an English translation of the Scriptures, and foretold how great an influence it would have in the spreading of ideas critical of the contemporary Church. The deep sense of urgency with which he settled down to provide such a work is impressive. In 1524 he left England for a self-imposed exile in Germany which only ended with his death. In 1526 the Worms edition of his first New Testament in English was in print, and copies of it were reaching England. Those in authority within the English Church were quick to realize the dangers. By October 1526 Bishop Tunstall was ordering his archdeacons to collect all the copies they could, threatening with excommunication any subjects who neglected to give them up. A month later Archbishop Warham followed his example, and copies were burned at Paul’s Cross, while Tunstall preached a sermon in which he challenged over two thousand errors he said he had found in the translation. Such measures did not prevent copies from circulating in England, nor was the scheme for buying up on the Continent as many copies

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

47

as possible in order to destroy them a very practical idea since in all probability this only provided the printers with funds to print more copies. In 1528 Tunstall licensed Sir Thomas More to read heretical books in order to refute them. By June 1529 he had fired his first shots against Tyndale in a volume of some 180 closely printed folio pages.1 This opened a war of words between the two men which lasted for five or six years, growing more bitter as the struggle went on. More was answered by Tyndale in 1531.2 This produced a full-scale reply from More in the next year in three books,3 with a second part in five books in 1533.4 Tyndales’s answer contained some 90,000 words: More’s reply was nearly ten times that length. The merits of the writings of the two disputants have been discussed by many critics, and each of them has his supporters. The first of More’s books contains the best, and certainly the most readable of More’s writing, and a fair judgment would seem to be that in literary style it is superior to Tyndale’s Answer, but, on the other hand Tyndale is More’s master in controversy, and the more convincing in argument. In the Confutation More loses his way and his temper. In his Apology5 (1533) he has to admit that contemporaries complained of the length of the book, which became tedious, that scholars deny the force of its arguments. Modern critics condemn also the venomous vituperation which he hurls at his opponent. The controversy added nothing to More’s reputation, but Tyndale emerges from it with a greatly enhanced qualification to be regarded as the ablest of the controversialists on the side of the reformers. Although Tyndale did not live to complete the great enterprise to which he had devoted all his energies his enthusiasm was of the greatest importance both because it prepared the way for other workers and also because so much of his remarkable literary style left a lasting impression on later English translations of the Bible. Tyndale’s efforts soon bore fruit. In December 1534 Convocation petitioned the king for an English translation of the Bible which should be more reliable than his. Next year there appeared a folio volume with a dedication to Henry VIII by Miles Coverdale. The New Testament text was that of Tyndale. It seems likely that after his arrest in 1536 he had handed over to John Rogers a translation of the Old Testament on which he had been working, and in 1536 Rogers prepared an English version of the whole Bible in which he used Tyndale’s New Testament, and borrowed Coverdale’s Old Testament. This 1

More, Dialogue concerning Heresies, published by John Rastell, June 1529. Tyndale, An Answere unto Sir T.More’s Dialogue, 1531. More, The Confutacyon of Tyndales answere made by Syr Thomas More (published by William Rastell, 1532). 4 More, The Second part of the Confutacyon of Tyndale’s Answere…(published by William Rastell, 1533). 5 The apologye of syr T.More Knyght (published by William Rastell, 1533). 2 3

48

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

translation, printed at the Antwerp press of Jacob van Meteren for Richard Grafton and Edward Whitchurch was attributed to Thomas Matthew, as also was the dedication to Henry VIII, and for that reason it is known as Matthew’s Bible. Cranmer commended it to Cromwell and in August 1537 the king authorized its circulation. On 5 September 1538 the second Royal Injunctions ordered that a copy of the largest size should be set up in all parish churches. Cromwell next decided on a new Bible, and in May 1538 Coverdale and Grafton went to Paris to carry out the work, writing on the 23 June 1538 they tell Cromwell that they are sending him what was later known as the Great Bible. The text was a revision of Rogers’ text. Owing to an edict forbidding the printing in Paris it was completed by Grafton in England. In 1540 Coverdale edited a second Great Bible which, because it contained a preface by Cranmer, came to be known as Cranmer’s Bible. The victory for an English Bible had not yet been won. In 1543 the king was persuaded to react away from this advance. A proclamation vetoed all Tyndale’s translations, the annotations and prologues in Matthew’s Bible were to be erased, Coverdale’s Bible was forbidden. The right to use the Great Bible, although restricted to members of the upper classes, was still officially recognized until the end of Henry VIII’s reign. In the first year of Edward VI’s reign the royal Injunctions of 1538 were re-issued, and orders were given for a Great Bible to be installed in every parish church. These arrangements remained in force throughout Mary’s reign. The Great Bible was reprinted in 1549, and again in 1553. Returning to Tyndale’s first New Testament, it can be said that by 1526 those who could read it could easily possess it. Soon they would be asking some curious questions. But who were they? This question involves one in a problem not yet adequately answered by the specialists. The records of the ecclesiastical courts contain accounts of many men and women in trouble for voicing heretical opinions. They are not, in the main, prosperous people, educated, and likely to be well read in such theological literature as was then current. On the contrary, they are usually quite simple folk, artisan and peasant types, and the homely language in which they express their opinions upon the teaching and doctrines of the Church often savours of unintentional blasphemy. Their views, if closely examined, are curiously reminiscent of ideas which had been current in England in the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, when they had been voiced by the followers of John Wycliffe, commonly known as Lollards. This will not surprise those who can recall what the Lollards could have gleaned from the teachings of their master. Wycliffe was indeed the herald of the English Reformation: he anticipated the reformers of the sixteenth century in so many of their views. Like them Wycliffe censured the papacy for grasping after temporal power, thought of the Pope as Anti-Christ, since he had departed from the simple faith and practice of Christ as revealed in the New Testament:

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

49

disapproved as strongly as they did of the practices of excommunication and indulgences, auricular confession, and image worship: chastised the clergy for simony, pluralism, absenteeism. Like the reformers Wycliffe insisted on the ultimate authority of the Scriptures, and had, too, his own ideas about transubstantiation and the Real Presence. In the light of these similarities it is only to be expected that historians should look for traces of the continuity of Wycliffite teaching through the Lollards into the sixteenth century. It is not easily established. In the later Middle Ages the Lollards were a persecuted people, sharing their beliefs with their fellows in secret. It is not easy, if one may say so, to count heads when they have gone underground. Historians have, therefore, been unduly cautious in estimating the strength of Lollard opinion on the eve of the Reformation. That it existed is certain. There is evidence of heresy proceedings in London between 1489 and 1511, and again in 1528–29. Bishop Tunstall tried many Lollards from Essex, mainly in the area around Colchester, Braintree, and Steeple Bumstead, while the existence of members of the sect in theChilterns has long been known. Most interesting have been the results of researches in the records of the diocese of York, which have revealed surprising Lollard strength in these parts. Further studies are needed before firm conclusions for the country as a whole can be reached, but it is certainly safe at this stage to say that there was a strong enough stream of Lollard opinion to provide the inspiration for a movement hostile to the Roman Church, and receptive to criticism of its doctrine and practice. For the most part Lollard traditions lingered on among the simple folk. In the 1520’s more exciting ideas were making their appeal to the lively minds of the young in both universities, more especially at Cambridge. The material arrived in the numerous books of Lutheran propaganda which English merchants were finding a most profitable cargo on their return journeys from the continent. Some of this literature, no doubt, reached members of the group of young graduates who met at the White Horse Inn (nicknamed Little Germany) to discuss these novelties. There is just a chance that Tyndale, a postgraduate student from Oxford, may have been inspired here. It is quite certain that several of the leaders of the English Reformation were active members of the group. To what extent and in what ways these two currents of religious thought, the one the native-born Wycliffite tradition, the other the German thought of Lutheranism, came together is not very clear: but there is enough evidence from heresy trials and the controversial literature of the early reformers to indicate that some such processes did take place, from which there emerged a popular Protestantism giving the English Reformation its unique quality. These were all people with an interest in religious problems and their influence in providing a body of opinion in the country ready to support new ideas was great. There was also another element which must not be ignored. There were

50

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

many Englishmen, especially among the citizens of London who were not particularly interested in theological issues, but who were always ready to exchange scandals about the clergy, be they parish priests, monks, or friars, and when occasion offered, as it did over the tragedy of Richard Hunne, were ready to start a disturbance which could be a menace to the clergy.1 They provided an ill-defined but potential source of trouble to any government when feelings were running high over matters of religion. Many characters of this kind must have derived great satisfaction from the most destructive and radical enterprise of the Henrician Reformation. So, too, did a considerable number of members of parliament who approved the policy initiated by Cromwell for confiscating to the use of the Crown the lands and other possessions of the religious houses, the monasteries, nunneries, chantries, and even the property of the parish churches of the country. An intelligent observer in the early 1530’s might well have anticipated that something of the kind was likely to happen. For one thing, the suggestion of such action was not a novelty. It had been canvassed as serious policy during the fifteenth century. There had, indeed, been closures of individual houses in the reign of Henry VII, and Wolsey’s ambitious project for his colleges at Ipswich and Oxford had been helped by papal consent for similar transactions on a wider scale. There were, also, the many attacks made by social reformers stressing the shortcomings of the religious and pointing out the advantages of using their wealth for worthier purposes than the maintenance of lazy monks. At last came signs of government action. In January 1535 Cromwell was appointed Vicar General. In July 1535 a commission was named to investigate the extent of Church wealth preparatory to an assessment of first fruits and tenths granted to the Crown in the previous year. It reported in the ValorEcclesiasticus,2 which provided a general survey of the property of the Church. Acting on the powers given to the king in the Act of Supremacy to inquire into the conduct of the clergy, Cromwell began making arrangements for a visitation of the monasteries. The consequence was the first act for the dissolution of all monasteries, priories, and other religious houses of monks, canons, and nuns, not possessing property to the clear yearly value of £200: they, their sites, properties, and all possessions were to pass to the king, his heirs, and successors.3 The larger religious houses were, for the time being, spared but it was only for a season. During the next three years they were subjected to intimidation and pressure from Cromwell’s tough agents, and as a result many of them made “Voluntary” submissions. The whole process was wound up by a second act of dissolution.4 Further confiscation planned in Henry VIII’s reign, but delayed through the king’s death, resulted in the taking over of chantries, colleges, free chapels, and their properties in Edward VI’s 1

No. 80.

2

No. 102.

3

No. 107. ii.

4

No. 107. iii.

5

No. 107. iv.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

51

reign.5 In December 1547 Somerset ordered an inventory of Church property to save it from being scattered and sold. Under Northumberland much of this wealth was confiscated: elaborately ornamented vestments, jewels, gold and silver plate, altar cloths, and church furniture of all kinds were seized by the agents of the government and disposed of in most wasteful ways. A less spectacular, but by no means inconsiderable process of sequestration went on during the reign of Henry VIII and Edward VI whereby bishops were, at the time of taking over their temporalities or later, manoeuvered into making exchanges, which more often than not, turned out to be “gifts” to the Crown of manors and other lands which belonged to their episcopal see. The effects upon public opinion of these wholesale confiscations of the wealth of the Church is indicated by the statement of grievances put forward by the leaders of the Pilgrimage of Grace. While it is true that other factors, largely social and economic were the causes of that outbreak of popular resentment against the government, it is no less a fact that discontent with the dissolution of the monasteries ran high. The impression which the spoliation made upon later historians can be read in almost every account of the period written between the sixteenth century and the present day. Easily accessible modern studies provide more details of what happened than it is possible to give here, so that a summary indication of the kind of problem such research has raised is all that is needed. A great change has come over the attitude of modern historians in their handling of a difficult question. For their forerunners the dissolution of the monasteries could only be considered against the general background of the Reformation as a whole, and the emotional tension of their personal reactions to these wider issues were inevitably reflected in their treatment of the lesser problem. Hence, most of these earlier accounts of the dissolution are prejudiced, usually tending to concentrate attention upon the one issue of the morals of the monks as the test to justify the dissolution. The modern approach is different, while recognizing that in practice it is almost impossible to eliminate altogether the influence of environment and personal beliefs in the study of this subject, the modern aim is to reach an objective discussion so far as this is possible. Historians of all schools of thought have at last realized that there is no profit in a propagandist controversy. As a result the attention of students has shifted to other aspects of the subject. Discussion of the morality of the monks has been given far less prominence, and when it is being considered it is treated with much greater understanding. The evidence presented to Parliament and summarized in the first act of dissolution is now heavily discounted as the work of men by no means very reputable in character, who were quite clearly instructed to produce a brief for dissolution by a wholesale condemnation. The majority of historians today would agree that although a few of the accusations of gross

52

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

immorality can be substantiated there is no reason for supposing that the monasteries in general were the hotbeds of vice described in some of the reports of the commissioners, and gloated over in unctuous hypocrisy by some historians and more Protestant propagandists. It can be allowed now that prejudiced as the commissioners were they had to admit that there were some religious houses with which they could find no fault. On the other hand, few historians today would be prepared to deny, without making reservations, the charge that monasticism in England at that time was in a thoroughly unsatisfactory condition. While it is difficult to collect reliable figures, and although some evidence can be produced showing that recruits were still joining the monasteries, the general impression must be that the monasteries and the religious life were making a much diminished appeal, that many houses were very much below strength, often containing as large or even a larger number of lay servants than of monks to whose wants they ministered. That the vitality of the institution as a whole was at a low ebb is revealed by tests other than morals. It does not escape notice, for example, that the traditions of monastic historiography, so splendid a feature of monastic culture in earlier days, were no longer being maintained, that the majority of foundations could no longer be regarded as educational centres, that there is little reason to believe that the monasteries of the time were the active dispensers of charity some of their more enthusiastic and less critical admirers have asserted. On the other hand, doubt is now thrown on the sweeping generalization sometimes made that the monks of the later Middle Ages were bad agriculturalists and had failed to keep abreast of changes in technique and estate administration. It has been found that more often than not they were as enterprising and (as many of their tenants were to discover) as ruthlessly efficient landlords as any of their lay neighbours. Most modern research would be prepared to accept these answers to the questions earlier writers emphasized: but their own interests have tended to be directed to different problems. Firstly, there is the important series concerned with the fate of the lands and other properties taken over by the Crown. It is not a subject on which it is safe to dogmatize: too much work still remains to be done before generalizations can be ventured, but there are already suggestions indicating the need for some revisions of long accepted views. Even so, whatever reassessments may come to be accepted one fact remains in support of older impressions. It is that for many who had advocated this policy of confiscation the actual results were a profound disappointment. Genuine social reformers had pressed for such a policy because they honestly believed that the huge resources of the Church could be put to better use for education, philanthropy, and the relief of poverty. They were to be bitterly disillusioned: the great opportunities presented by such wholesale confiscation were hardly noticed by those in control. Apart from the creation and endowment of six new bishoprics

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

53

and seven new cathedral chapters with dean and secular canons instead of monastic chapters, together with a few professorships at Oxford and Cambridge, very little of the wealth of the Church was put to uses which these idealists could approve. The fate of so much of this property is summed up in that of the chantry lands after confiscation under Edward VI. Part of their endowments went towards the support of established schools or for the foundation of grammar schools: but most of the remainder was swallowed up by rapacious ministers and courtiers who, by gift, purchase, or illegal appropriation absorbed the greater portion of the chantry revenue before it ever reached the royal treasury. The extent to which the Crown benefited from the spoliation is, again, a subject calling for more detailed research before general conclusions can be safely formulated. The original motive for this wholesale confiscation was Cromwell’s determination to ensure the success of his administrative and religious policies by restingthem on sure financial foundations. The first act of dissolution made no provision for the monastic property which was to be confiscated, but before the end of the session an act was passed setting up the Court of Augmentations to which authority was given to receive and deal with all monastic lands and property.1 Once a monastery was surrendered and was taken over by the commissioners they surveyed and valued the lands and property, farm stock, ornaments, plate, jewels, household stuffs, lead, bells, stone, and miscellaneous equipment belonging to it, and placed them in safe keeping until they could be disposed of by the court. The more the work of the Court of Augmentations is studied the more impressive appears Cromwell’s foresight in planning the strategy of the dissolution, and the more praiseworthy seems the efficiency with which the officers of the Court carried out their responsibilities. The latest study of the subject reveals the conscientious way in which they worked. They seem on the whole to have done their work fairly although they had to put up with much sharp practice on the part of some of the heads of religious houses trying to conceal treasures and evade the due execution of the law. To what extent in actual practice did the Crown benefit from this tremendous transfer of land and moveable property? This, too, is difficult to assess. As Professor Richardson has shown, the actual receipts from a dissolved house often differ very considerably from the commissioner’s report. There may be a long inventory of moveable goods and impressive accounts of fertile estates and woodlands: but these may well be very deceptive. Such a report does not take into account the liabilities of the house: its debts, corrodies, pensions, annuities to servants, and the costs of administration, which have been estimated at about 5 per cent of the gross income. Then, again, only too often there has to be made an allowance for property which the head of the house may have 1 2

No. 54. iv. p. 34. W.C.Richardson, History of the Court of Augmentations, 1536–1554. Baton Rouge, 1961, p. 34.

54

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

alienated on the eve of the commissioner’s arrival. Even so, when due allowance has been made for wastages of this kind, the amount of property transferred to the Crown was very considerable and imposed a great strain on the staff dealing with it. Owing to the methods by which the transfers of land were made it is fairly clear that the Crown did not make the huge profits it should have done. The objective of the government had been to get the wealth of the Church into its own hands. The old impression that it squandered its resources by extravagant gifts to subjects is not borne out by the records. True, some gifts had to be made, but on the whole it would appear that the officials of the Court of Augmentations did the best they could to get an economic price for the lands which were being sold. The closely allied subject, which again has not yet been fully explored, concerns the working of the great land market thus created, the extent and nature of the activities of land speculators, the way in which officials, courtiers, and the landed gentry benefited by the transfer of lands, and the speed and enthusiasm with which professional men and merchants seized their opportunities to acquire landed estates. These are all questions to which researchers are only beginning to get the answers. In addition to the problem of the monastic lands is that of the disposal of the other types of monastic property, which included the rich treasures of the monastic libraries, the ornaments, the vestments, the works of art accumulated by the Church over the centuries, to say nothing of the valuable stores of lead, church bells, and other miscellaneous materials seized by the commissioners. The fate of much of this treasure is not in doubt. The confiscation resulted in the scattering into private hands on the continent as well as in England of these rich assets in a prodigality the extent of which it is now impossible to estimate. What happened to the dispossessed religious turned out of their homes? This question has been looked into afresh by several historians. Here again the conclusions arrived at have been largely critical of the old propagandists who described with emotional rhetoric how hordes of homeless monks and nuns roamed the highways, joining the bands of vagabonds, thereby creating a menace to the peace and security of the country and a problem for the poor law administrators. As a matter of fact many of the more capable of the monks found benefices and other positions within the Church, while the pension lists among the records of the Court of Augmentations show that most of the dispossessed religious were adequately provided for, compensation being in many cases on the generous side, although as might be expected the heads of houses and others in authority in the monasteries were treated more generously than were their less important brethren. The sums paid in pensions had increased to a heavy total by 1547, and did not decrease as much as they should have done during Edward’s reign. Abuses were not all on the side of officialdom.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

55

There are recorded instances of pensions continuing to be collected by friends of monks who had fled the country, and some seem to have been paid long after their rightful recipients were dead. One other question will surely not be missed by anyone concerned about the reactions of the laity. What effects must so devastating an assault upon tradition and the long established way of life in England have had upon the simple folk in the countryside whose contacts with the monasteries had always been very close? The answer is two-fold. On the one hand it would appear according to so determined a political protest as the Pilgrimage of Grace that the dissolution inflamed in many people a resentment so bitter that the results might have been very serious for the monarchy if the revolt had not been put down with ruthless severity. On the other hand, some minds already prejudiced by Lollard and Lutheran teaching were strengthened in their hostility to image worship and pilgrimages and the like by the rumours, and sometimes the visual demonstrations they received of the trickery behind miracle-working relics and the impedimenta of pilgrimage shrines. In a word, the destruction of the monasteries was seen by them as a triumphant assault upon the outworks of the citadel of Anti-Christ. These are some of the matters which have to be examined when trying to place the spoliation of the Church in its rightful place in the history of the English Reformation. The dissolution of the monasteries is one of several factors which went to the making of that movement. It was not the most significant, but it was certainly the most spectacular, and for that reason, and because of its attraction for the propagandist, it has received perhaps more attention than it deserves from the historians of the Church. There are, of course, other points of interest in this question of confiscation. It should not be overlooked when the social, economic, and financial history of this period is being studied. That it is now possible to look at the whole subject dispassionately, and with due regard to the complexities of the evidence is the result of the scientific technique of modern research. The stage has now been reached in this survey whan all the threads needed to weave the pattern of the English Reformation have been brought together, with one exception, and that the most important since it provides the material for the central feature of the design. It is the theme which explains how English theologians took advantage of the opportunities offered them in order to fashion doctrine for a Church no longer subject to the authority of Rome. The origins of these efforts have to be seen against the background of ideas which might have been discussed already as a feature of the 1520’s under the name of Lollard and Lutheran propaganda. In the early stages these teachings were described by opponents as “the new learning”. The phrase originally described the new attitude taken by critics of the Roman Church who believed

56

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

in the Scriptures as the ultimate authority for the Christian way of life, and advocated the rejection of what they considered as the sophistications of contemporary Roman doctrine, ecclesiastical practice, and institutional religion, and a return to the primitive simplicity of the Christian faith as revealed in the New Testament. As time went on and opinion on religious questions hardened with the reception of more Lutheran propaganda the term tended to be pushed into the background: the English Reformation, still retaining its peculiarly English cast of thought on doctrinal issues approached closer to the religious ideology of the continental reformers. As they unfolded themselves the essentials of English reform thought may be summed up briefly on the following lines. First came the emphasis already mentioned on the importance of the Scriptures. Next, as a result of that emphasis came attacks on the practice of the Roman Church, and the condemnation of those features gathered together under the general description of superstitious practices, e.g. image worship, pilgrimage, auricular confession, indulgences, and purgatory. The crux of the criticism brought to bear on the doctrines of Rome centred on the Mass. Discussion of this was the dominant theme in the religious controversy in England as elsewhere. There were many stages in the discussions and a man—Cranmer is an outstanding example—might pass through several of them before taking a final stand. More clearly Lutheran in origin was the controversial doctrine of justification by faith, which again gave rise to many fierce discussions. For some historians of our own day the mere recital of these topics may be distasteful. They will even think it incredible that men in any age could find satisfaction in discussions so largely taken up with verbal quibbles about doctrine concerning hidden mysteries apparently so far removed from the realities of daily life. The obvious retort to such an attitude is that it scarcely befits the historian, whose function it is to understand the mind of the age he is seeking to interpret. And since these theological issues did loom large in sixteenth-century thought for the simple reason that they were matters of faith, and to the men of the time were the key to man’s destiny, it is essential that their ideas should be studied sympathetically. Far from being scholastic quiddities the topics of these controversies were concerned with symbols behind which were deep realities about which men were in conflict, freedom of the spirit, the right of private judgment, the real meaning of the Gospel message, the mysteries of the Christian faith, and the unity of Christendom. It is probable that the impact of such questions on the layman of the time was not at first very great, but as the pattern of events took shape the dangers confronting him began to be realized. As royal proclamations, statutes, injunctions, and formularies of faith followed on each other in quick succession, all designed to tell the layman what he must believe at his peril, it is obvious that an indiscreet word or act might easily lay him open to a charge of treason

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

57

or heresy. For this cause the doctrinal controversies must be taken very seriously by the historian. While he may, quite justifiably, decide that these are questions best left to the theologian he must, at least, take notice of the effects such doctrinal controversies had upon practical politics. Notwithstanding his book against Luther, it is extremely doubtful whether Henry VIII would of his own free will have meddled with such high matters of doctrine as entered into the political controversies of the latter years of his reign. Despite his difference with the papacy, and even more so after its consequences were realized, he continued in a very real sense to think of himself still as Fidei Defensor, and his religious beliefs remained in essentials what they had been before political necessity forced him to reject the primacy of the Pope. As a result the Church of which he was the head after 1530 was not allowed to break away from Roman doctrine even though its independence had been so violently asserted. All the same, whether he wished it or not the king as Supreme Head had to accept the effects of changing circumstances, and conflicting opinions on questions of belief. These are questions, too, which the historian, even though he may be a layman, has to consider for the peculiar nature of the English Reformation resulted in doctrinal problems and questions of Church discipline becoming matters for discussion and legislation by Parliament. Between 1530 and 1547 they were political issues, decided by a lay parliament, and as such are essential features of the political history of England. The main responsibility for dealing with them naturally fell on the bishops, and in their debates in convocation, and in Parliament the pattern of new opinions was shaped: not without conflict. There were two groups. The first was in sympathy with Lutheran opinion, and was ready to introduce doctrinal changes of a protestant nature. When in 1535 Cromwell was made the king’s Vicar-General in Spiritual Matters he was in a position to implement his own ideas on doctrine and Church discipline. He was the leader of this group. His sympathies were with the New Learning, as was shown in his first Injunctions of 1536 which tilted at images, relics, and pilgrimages.1 His activity in promoting the publication of an English Bible has already been mentioned. His support for the ideas of the German reformers shaped his policy of trying to promote an understanding with them, and his plans to that end through a marriage between Henry VIII and Anne of Cleves was the ultimate cause of his fall in 1540. Working in close co-operation with him was Thomas Cranmer. From 1532, when he was appointed ambassador to the imperial court he was in close touch with the German reformers, and after 1533, when he became Archbishop of Canterbury he devoted himself to intensive study of the endless variations of doctrinal controversy taking place among the leaders of religious thought on the continent. What Cranmer’s own opinions were on these 1

No. 113.

58

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

questions in the later years of Henry’s reign it is difficult for theologians, and much more so for laymen, to understand. What can be said with certainty is that he was prepared to follow the main lines of Cromwell’s policy. Between them these two men were able to control the appointment of new bishops, and it is not surprising to find on the episcopal bench a group of men who supported them in their plans. They included Latimer, bishop of Worcester, Shaxton of Salisbury, Goodrich of Ely, Foxe of Hereford, Barlow of St. David’s, and Hilsey of Rochester. In debate they acted as a well defined group, always on the side of advanced ideas. On the other side, always ready to put up a fight against doctrinal innovations was a group later known as the Henricians. The leaders were Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, Stokesley of London, Bonner of Hereford, and Tunstall of Durham. They had gone along with the king in the first stages of the break with Rome. They had supported the divorce, and agreed to the royal supremacy, but after that some of them, Gardiner in particular, had seen at close hand the dangerous political results which had followed religious novelties on the continent, and they were afraid that similar results might follow similar innovations in England. From 1536 to the end of Henry’s reign all attempts to formulate the doctrine and control the discipline of the English Church were made against the background of conflict between these two parties, with the king, his sympathies with the Henricians, acting as the final arbiter. The essential documents in which declarations of faith were put forward during this reign were the Ten Articles, the Institution of a Christian Man, and A Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian Man. In addition, closely connected with the control of matters of faith and discipline were the Injunctions of 1536 and 1538.1 The Ten Articles (1536) were intended to establish concord and unity within the Church of England by distinguishing between those necessary things to salvation and expressly commanded by God, and other things which ought to be observed although they were not expressly commanded by God, and were not necessary to salvation. In the first category were the Bible, the three creeds, the four councils, and those traditions of the Fathers not contrary to God’s word: secondly, were the sacraments of baptism, penance, the altar, and finally Justification. In the second category those things to be retained although not necessary to salvation were images, veneration of saints, prayer to saints, rites and ceremonies, and purgatory. The Articles were a compromise between the old and the new learning. Injunctions issued in August 1536 ordered that they should be read from the pulpit at least once in three months, with comments on them twice quarterly. 1

Nos. 112–115, 117.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

59

Public reaction to the Articles was shown in the Pilgrimage of Grace (October 1536) with the result that in the following year The Institution of a Christian Man (1537) was produced.1 Known as the Bishops’ Book, it was more definitely orthodox than the Ten Articles. It was divided into four parts. In the preface the bishops asked the king to allow them to publish the work as a plain and sincere doctrine concerning the whole sum of things which appertain to the profession of a Christian man. The first part expounds the twelve articles of the Apostle’s Creed: the second deals with the seven sacraments; the third comments on the Ten Commandments, and the fourth with the seven petitions of the paternoster with the ave and the two articles on justification and purgatory. Henry’s answer to his prelates was to the effect that he had not yet had time to study their book, but in the trust that it was according to the Scriptures he was willing to order that it should be read in part each day for the next three years. Henry did have his own opinions on the book, as is indicated by the notes and criticisms by him, with comments on them by Cranmer which are still extant.2 The next attempt to establish a formulary which, as the title of the act said, should “abolish diversity of opinions”, was the notorious Act of Six Articles (1539).3 During the debates preceding the passing of the act the king appeared in Parliament in person. This Act reasserted the orthodox doctrines of transubstantiation, celibacy of the clergy, communion in one kind, monastic vows, private masses and auricular confession, declaring them necessary and enforcing them by threats of very severe pains and penalties. The act was a severe setback to the hopes of the advanced party. The last statement of faith for the reign came some years later. This was the formulary entitled “A Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian Man, set forth by the King’s Majesty”4 (1543). The final draft of the document was submitted to the King, and he wrote a preface for it, hence it is generally known as the King’s Book. It was a revision of The Institution of a Christian Man. The interest of these last articles of the reign is that they reasserted the swing away from the principles of the New Learning. Thus, the doctrinal position at the end of Henry VIII’s reign can be said to have justified the king’s determination to keep the English Church on an even keel, and to ensure that in matters of doctrine the heady teachings and speculations of continental iconoclasts should not lead the English nation astray. These Articles maintained the essentials which were the objects of Lutheran attack, transubstantiation, communion under one kind, the Mass, purgatory, veneration of saints, clerical celibacy. The advanced party within the Church had been checked, but it was not broken. It was soon to be given fresh opportunities by the death of Henry VIII. 1 2 3

No. 114. J.E.Cox (ed.), Miscellaneous Writings and Letters of Thomas Cranmer, 83–114. 4 No. 116. No. 117.

60

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

From 1547–53 with the new king a minor in the hands of men determined to take the English Church farther along the road towards Reformation than Henry VIII had permitted, the main interest in English religion and politics is concerned with questions of faith and doctrine. There was a growing realization amongst the laity that these were questions with an impact upon their own lives, and some of them were translating the technicalities of theological speculation into language they could more easily understand. As early as 24 May 1547 a royal proclamation was protesting against the divers lewd and light tales told, whispered and secretly spread abroad by uncertain authors in markets, fairs, and alehouses concerning innovations and changes in religion, and ceremonies of the Church purporting to be done by the king, the Lord Protector, and the Council which were quite untrue and would for the future be severely punished. This was followed by a statute against revilers of the Sacrament1 and enforcing communion in both kinds. In part, no doubt, the lively popular interest was due to the publicity such matters were receiving in debates in Parliament, in statutes, and in proclamations, but something must also be attributed to the fact that men were uncertain where they stood in matters of faith: the full effects of continental propaganda were being felt: and the heady novelties extremists were offering them were tempting subjects for discussion. In a word, the second phase of the English Reformation destined to rush the country into Protestantism was on the way. The practice established in Henry VIII’s reign continued to be observed: the essentials of the religious changes under Edward VI were carried out by legislation. Again, Parliament was the chief agent in bringing about the Reformation. So, too, the dynamics of politics, as in Henry’s reign, governed the movement towards Protestantism. The reign has an intense dramatic interest owing to the struggle for power between two personalities, Somerset and Warwick. This struggle decides the chronological landmarks of the reign, and dictates the speed and direction of the Reformation. Chronologically there are two phases: first, from 1547–52, the period of Somerset’s Protectorate (broken, it should be said, by his first fall from power in 1549), and secondly, from 1552–53 when Nothumberland, having manoeuvred Somerset’s final fall, trial, and execution between October 1551 and January 1552, took control of the young king and the government of the country until the death of the kng in July 1553, and the collapse of Northumberland’s foolhardy plan to secure the succession for his own family through the Lady Jane Grey. The character of these two phases are in as direct opposition to each other as are the personalities of the two men. The first, under Somerset, is a period of steady but discreet movement in the direction of Lutheranism. Moderate in temperament, and liberal in mind to the point of weakness Somerset was fairly advanced in his religious outlook, and during his tenure of office the movement 1

No. 129.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

61

towards reform was steady. The second phase, under Northumberland, was very different. His religious ideas and his policy cannot be described as based on anything other than expediency and his ambitions for the aggrandizement of his family. Once Somerset was out of the way Northumberland gambled on the chance of extreme revolution, got rid of Henrician bishops supplanting them by extremists, and accepted whatever plans Cranmer had to suggest. Important as the influence of these two men was upon the nature and rate of progress of the English Reformation they do not account for everything. There is another figure in some ways more important than either of them. Thomas Cranmer was the creative force behind the events of Edward’s reign. The skill with which he impressed his own theological beliefs upon the English Church was remarkable. What is a biographer to make of him? It is not for lack of trying that the question is still an open one. Many have examined the problems of his career, and their judgments are varied. Naturally there is a great disparity between impressions coming from Catholic critics and those put forward by Protestants. The former, as might be expected, have seen him as a heretic who was not even sincere in his beliefs, a hypocrite, and a traitor to Queen Mary through his support of Lady Jane Grey. To Protestants he has appeared otherwise: as an honest thinker, born and brought up a papist and believing the doctrines of the Roman Church until truth dawned. His most recent biographer1 will have neither the traditional Catholic nor the Protestant analysis. In his opinion a consistent personality only emerges if one essential can be accepted, namely Cranmer’s unswerving belief in royal absolutism and the obligation of the Christian to uphold the king by complete obedience. To this he adds another feature in Cranmer’s intellectual make-up, his intense dread of the consequences of revolution and faction, which probably does explain, and to some degree justifies the reliance he placed upon royal authority; There is much to be said for emphasizing Cranmer’s acceptance of the doctrine of passive obedience: but it will not explain everything that is perplexing in his character and actions. While obedience to the king’s commands rather than personal ambition may rightly explain his acceptance of the archbishopric, and even his subservience to Henry’s religious policy, it is not a satisfactory explanation of the discrepancy between his official actions and his personal beliefs, nor his ever-shifting attitude to fundamental questions of doctrine. A fuller understanding of these and other inconsistencies will be found by looking elsewhere. For one thing it is worth while to recall the quality of Cranmer’s scholarship. Throughout his life, from his university days onwards he showed all the instincts of the dedicated student and the habits formed in earlier days remained with him even when the administrative cares of his ecclesiastical office must have limited his opportunities for the literary pursuits he enjoyed. With a mind trained 1

J.Ridley, Thomas Cranmer, Oxford, 1962, 12.

62

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

especially on theological studies he read widely, making it his business to keep in close touch with the latest products of advanced continental thought, testing them with an open mind, making copious notes of ideas which would later find a place in his own writings. Although receptive to new theology he was cautious to the point of conservatism, and he did not lightly put aside beliefs or practices which had served him well in the past. Here, surely, lies the clue to his hesitancy in coming to conclusions about the real nature of the Eucharist. He saw merits in the arguments of the continental leaders who were rejecting the doctrine of the Real Presence, but why the intellectual hesitations before his slow adoption of these doctrines as his own? The answer would seem to be that he could not bring himself to reject completely the orthodox teaching and practice of the Mass he had experienced over many years, and that he was ever hoping to find a formula which would combine the new theology of the reformers with enough of the traditional doctrine to retain the essential mystery of the Last Supper. For this will to compromise, as naïve as it is optimistic, was a distinct feature of Cranmer’s character. It came out strongly in his activities during Edward VI’s reign when he hoped to assemble in England some of the leading reformers in Europe in order to compose their differences especially concerning the Eucharist and bring unity into Protestantism. Needless to say his hopes were destined to be disappointed, while the presence of some of the foreigners he had at various times invited to England helped to lead him along the road of reform more quickly than he might otherwise have moved. The doctrinal changes of the Edwardian Reformation can be quickly summarized. The first phase, 1547–49, was marked by cautious change under the direction of Somerset, prompted by Cranmer. After the act against revilers of the sacrament, which also introduced communion in both kinds there appeared in the next year a proclamation authorizing a new communion office to be in use until a new Prayer Book should be published. The new Order of Communion introduced a novelty:1 the whole service was to be in English, a step in the Lutheran direction, and it allowed communion in both kinds. The Order was a compromise document designed to enable all parties to accept the moderate innovations introduced. Reformers saw in it some hope of progress, and it came in 1549 with the introduction of the First Book of Common Prayer and the first Act of Uniformity.2 Largely the work of Cranmer, the Book of Common Prayer was, owing to the resistance of the Henrician bishops, more of a compromise than the reformers could have wished, but it did embody Lutheran ideas in so far as it aimed at substituting Holy Communion for the Mass, thereby destroying the sacrificial character of the service. After publication of the Prayer Book the Eucharist was referred to as the Holy Communion. Although submitted to the bishops the Prayer Book did not receive the sanction of Convocation. The Act 1

No. 130.

2

No. 131.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

63

of Uniformity, which received the royal assent on 14 March 1549, to come into force from 9 June, imposed uniformity in the order of service throughout the whole country under severe penalties for non-observance. The innovations made were not revolutionary, but they were accepted even by continental critics. More striking changes would soon be on the way. With the fall of Somerset between II October and 28 December 1549, and the rapid rise to power of Northumberland there were some important developments. Between 1549 and 1551 some significant comings and goings were noticeable. The comings were the work of Cranmer, who invited several continental reformers to settle in this country. He hoped, as already suggested, to find with their help, an Anglican formula which would be acceptable to all schools of reform thought. In the event, some of their influence took him more quickly towards an advanced doctrinal position than would have happened if they had not been near him. The goings, on the other hand, describes what happened to the Henrician bishops. They were forced out of their sees, and their places were given to men ready to subscribe to Cranmer’s doctrinal ideas. The way was now prepared for further advance. On 22 January 1552 Northumberland secured the execution of Somerset, and next day Parliament met. The result of its debate was a revised Prayer Book, and a second Act of Uniformity.1 Finally, in 1553, the last doctrinal achievement of the Edwardian Reformation appeared in the Forty-two Articles. With the accession of Queen Mary the history of doctrinal change is no longer a topic for the historian. Her own private wishes would have been to undo immediately the whole of the religious history of England since 1529, but this was not a simple matter. From the doctrinal point of view the reign falls into two phases, each dominated by one man, the first by Gardiner, the second by Pole. The former had protested strongly against the making of religious changes during the years when the king was a minor. He was, therefore, anxious to return to the state of things as they were at the end of Henry VIII’s reign, with the King as Supreme Head, the Pope and Roman authority rejected, and toleration practised. When Pole became Archbishop of Canterbury, 22 March 1556, his policy in doctrinal matters was like that of the queen, one of complete reconciliation with Rome, and to a point this policy was embodied in legislation.2 The same Parliament revived the heresy laws,3 and the last years of Mary’s reign sees the vain attempt to undo the work of a quarter of a century by the burning of believers in the new doctrines. Complete reconciliation with Rome could not be achieved. The struggle between new and old ideas, between the traditions of Rome and the innovations of Puritanism entered upon a new phase with the accession of Mary’s successor. 1

No. 136.

2

Nos. 139, 140.

3

No. 126.

64

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

VIII. THE SOURCES

Those with interests centred on earlier periods of English history may well be impressed by the great wealth of original material at the disposal of the historians of the early sixteenth century. There are several reasons which account for this marked disparity, and some of them should be interesting as an introduction to the examples collected in this volume. The first will be found in the growing complexity of administration during the early sixteenth century. The creation of new government departments and agencies of administration, many of them instructed to keep records, and the singular increase in the paper work needed to cover their activities led to a sharp proliferation of official and semi-official records. Thus, to give one example, the financial reforms of the first two Tudor reigns greatly increased the records connected with the Chamber and the Household, and such financial courts as that of Augmentations, while the setting up of the conciliar courts produced the bulky files of the courts of Star Chamber and Requests. Next, it should be observed that with the early Tudors the diplomatic service of the European nation states was gaining in importance through the new practice of accrediting diplomatic representatives in the persons of ambassadors resident at the English court, one of their major duties being to send back to their own governments regular reports concerning the affairs of the English nation. In the same way the English kings had their own representatives charged with similar duties from the foreign courts. As a result there is available a quantity of diplomatic correspondence far exceeding that existing for any earlier period of English history. Another considerable collection of material comes from the activities of private individuals who are beginning in a quite novel way to put on paper the memoranda of their business transactions and the casual courtesies of their social relationships. For the early sixteenth century there exists, as a consequence of this new habit, an accumulation of private papers of varying interest and importance consisting of private correspondence, odd business papers, books and jottings, some autobiographical notes, essays in biography, and even some early forms of elementary diaries. This is the time when the printing press was beginning to make its influence felt. Controversial treatises discussing all kinds of problems of politics and religion were steadily increasing in quantity, and were being widely distributed for propaganda purposes. This provides a substantial addition to the original sources, but also adds to the worries of the historian upon whom falls the responsibility of assessing its reliability as evidence. This greatly increased material has had significant results. It has made possible a remarkable change in the content of historical writing. This is best seen by a

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

65

comparison. Whereas, with a few exceptions, the historians of earlier periods find themselves hampered by the extreme scarcity of material of a personal nature, that is, material which brings to life individual character, and provides colour for their narrative, the sixteenth century, on the other hand is relatively rich in such material, with the result that it is possible to impart life and action to the historical scene and to provide an insight into the lives not only of the outstanding personalities but even of quite ordinary people. The cut and thrust of personal rivalries among politicians and publicists, the motives, actions, characters of individuals can be analysed and used to reveal the personal element in such a way as to bring out the fact that people are not the stereotyped figures they so often appear to be in earlier periods, and that history is not merely a study of institutions, but is the richer by the light it throws on the people by whom, and for whom, the institutions come into being. The next point worth making is that the use of this material presents new problems. The historian must cultivate to a high degree of sensitivity his awareness of dangers in the use of sources apparently quite straightforward, but which abound in snares for the unwary. He must be always on the lookout for the booby trap, for things that are not what they seem. This, of course, is only a way of saying that like historians of any period he has to be critical in his assessment and cautious in his use of evidence, but for this early Tudor period the need for such precautions is more urgent than it is for earlier times. An example will illustrate, taken from the above-mentioned diplomatic sources. On the surface these reports by ambassadors would seem to contain much valuable information not easily found in other sources. This is partly true, but it is only when the historian begins to put together the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle that he perceives how much of this information is the gossip of courtiers, and is about as reliable as that of any other rumour-mongering people. On the other hand, some of these foreign diplomatists were skilled observers, wellprimed with highly important information given them by men high in authority—Renard in Mary’s reign is a good example—and such witnesses provide valuable information not only on questions of foreign policy but also on many other aspects of domestic affairs in England. A similar question of the reliability of evidence is provided by parliamentary legislation. The use made of statutes in this collection is sufficiently great to indicate their importance for many aspects of English life, but they present many difficulties. First the long-winded text of even the simplest of them, seemingly contrived to conceal the purposes of the legislators in a cloud of words, makes it impossible to print in such a collection as this more than the bare essentials indicating the scope and nature of the particular statute. When it is recalled that the text of the legislation between 1485 and 1558 is contained in the greater part of four large folio volumes the impossibility of doing more

66

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

than this will be appreciated. Even more important is a second problem. Obviously the text of a statute should normally indicate the intention of its draftsman, but the preamble of any Tudor statute is another matter. What weight should the historian attach to the statements included in this part of the text? Froude had no doubts on the subject: he accepted the preamble as an authentic narrative source. Later historians look at them differently. Recognizing that they were regarded as a powerful means of propaganda they attach as much importance to them as Froude did, but for totally different reasons. They suspect them as statements of fact, but find them greatly revealing as clues to the motives of government policy. It is as such that they are presented in this collection. Turning again to a consideration of the sources as a whole, emphasis should be placed upon two features: firstly, the considerable amount which has been made available in print, and secondly, the various techniques which have been developed in order to set out the material in the most convenient form possible for the use of historians. The great activity in publication is in itself an indication of the importance attached to the history of this period alike by scholars and less expert readers, since all of them realize that here can be found the origins of many modern problems. The nineteenth century was a time of great enthusiasm for editorial work upon the sources. It was largely done by H.M. Government, acting through the Master of the Rolls as head of the Public Record Office. Credit must, however, also be given to local history societies, and to private groups specializing in the publication of literary, religious, and various other kinds of texts and records. Great efforts have been made to develop the most efficient methods of putting this great wealth of material into use. Examples of most of them will be found in this collection: but mention ought to be made of three. These are the publication of state papers, the abstracts of the letters and papers of Henry VIII’s reign, and the calendars of the correspondence of foreign ambassadors from England. Of these the texts of state papers may be dismissed briefly. The object of this series was to give the full text of the state papers of Henry VIII in their original language and form. The series contains much important material, but the published volumes show how vast such an enterprise would have been if it had been completed. More practical was the adoption of a calendar form for the letters and papers of Henry VIII. This great series originally began as a calendar, that is, a set of summaries of the contents of documents preserved in the Public Record Office, but editors gradually aimed at completeness by including in the later volumes summaries of documents from the British Museum and other archives. This series of calendars contains the essence of many thousands of documents. The calendar form has also proved the most practical method of dealing with the foreign diplomatic documents mentioned above.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

67

While it is probably true to say that the historians of the early Tudor period, and especially of the reign of Henry VIII, are better supplied with printed materials for their work than historians of many other periods of English history, it is equally true that despite all this output nothing like all of the documents still extant and housed at present in the Public Record Office have as yet been published. There are still in manuscript large collections such as the bulky plea rolls of the common law courts, the rolls and other records of the Exchequer, much of the material derived from the conciliar courts, and many other records of a similar kind: and in addition there are documents of a less official nature in the various national libraries, and in private ownership which still await editors. Since the original material for a work such as this volume of Historical Documents must be selective allowances have perforce to be made for the prejudices of the editor. The principles on which he has worked will be revealed in the arrangement of the documents. The main objective he has had in mind has been to illustrate the various types of sources available for the history of this period. So far as possible examples have been given of most of the main records of the various institutions and departments of government, and of the various types of narrative sources. A display of such a nature is straightforward, and does not lend itself to prejudiced manipulation, save perhaps that it may give a slightly misleading picture by over emphasizing the importance of one or other kind of source. Next, wherever possible historical problems have been illustrated by bringing together more than one kind of material which, in combination, contribute to a full understanding of the problem. In so far as this method has been successful it illustrates one feature of historical method, the collation and comparison of all the relevant sources. In the third place, and here obviously the prejudices of an editor, conscious or otherwise, may well lay him open to a charge of bias, the documents naturally throw into relief what he regards as the main historical features of the time. Here the decisions must reflect his own initiative, and can only be his own responsibility. In constructing the historical framework he has aimed at conformity with general historical opinion, and his choice of topics is conservative rather than unconventional. In the last resort, it should be pointed out, this collection of sources is at the disposal of the student, and can be used in accordance with his own interpretation of their meaning, regardless of the emphasis the editor may have placed upon them. Enough has been said to show the extent of the available sources. Not everyone making use of them may realize what he owes to the labours of the pioneers, those translators, transcribers, and editors who worked on them. These men performed great tasks, often under difficulties hard to appreciate, and they have not always received the credit their devotion to scholarship

68

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

deserves. To describe the work of all of them, even to list their names and achievements, would entail too great a digression to be permissible in this place, but an indication of the kind of work they did may be given from the way in which some of the foreign state papers were made available in print. Of all the European archives likely to be of service to historians of the sixteenth century those of the Spanish monarchy housed at Simancas are essential since at that time the Spanish monarchy dominated European politics and had contacts with all European states. In the early nineteenth century these archives were scarcely known, shut away as they were in the desolate village of Simancas, and in the keeping of archivists whose function seemed to be to hinder access to the documents in their charge. In 1860 Gustave Bergenroth (1813–69) arrived at Simancas. This colourful personality whose earlier adventures in the wilds of California, Mexico, and other parts of America held little of the promise of the scholarly recluse he was to become, settled there to collect materials for the history of Tudor England. With a marked tendency to elaborate original theories on the flimsiest foundations, and with too great a relish for the picturesque and the dramatic in history Bergenroth did not have the instincts of a reliable historian, but he proved himself an outstanding worker among manuscripts. At Simancas he had opportunities enough to keep him busy. According to his own account the archives there contained considerably more than 100,000 Legajos, or bundles: a Legajo might contain anything from 10 to 100 records. They were preserved in the forty-six rooms of the old castle, and he estimated them as amounting to some millions. His first investigations revealed a rich store of records bearing on English history, and a little later he was commissioned by the English government to produce a calendar of these documents. A description of his work, and of his problems and triumphs in the deciphering of secret passages (there were more than twelve ciphers with which the Spanish officials were either unacquainted or they refused to let him have the keys to them) is found in the preface of the first calendar he published, and in his letters to the Master of the Rolls.1 A second volume appeared in 1868, giving an analysis of the period 1509–25. After Bergenroth’s death his work was continued by a succession of editors by whom his standards were maintained. Another worker in the foreign field was Rawdon Lubbock Brown 1 J.S.Brewer visited Simancas in 1861. In a letter to the Master of the Rolls he wrote: “In Simancas all is as primitive, as native and as shameless as the days of Adam. None of the decencies of life are to be found there—not any, not so much as would be found in the poorest village in France—I say nothing of England. Simancas is a collection of wretched hovels, half buried in dust and sand. There is not a good house in the place…. Nothing but the strongest desire to do service to history could reconcile any man to so much hardship, and Mr. Bergenroth in speaking of his residence there does not exaggerate when he calls it the life of a hermit, and complains of his total isolation. I cannot but admire the perseverance and resolution which could set at defiance so many personal inconveniences, to say nothing of other obstructions, especially as Mr. Bergenroth undertook all in the first instance from his sole desire to advance the study of English history, without any prospect of remuneration for his labours.”

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

69

(1803–1883) who settled in Venice in 1833, and worked there until his death. He was the first to appreciate the importance for English history of the Italian Relations, and in 1854 he produced an account of the English Court under Henry VIII based on the dispatches of Sebastian Giustiniani, Venetian ambassador in England in the early years of that king’s reign.1 The reception of this work in England persuaded the government to commission him in 1862 to calendar the Venetian state papers which throw light on English history, a work on which he was engaged for the rest of his life. He worked with scholarly thoroughness, and is said to have examined twelve million packets of documents, most of them in Venetian archives, but some coming from other towns of North Italy. His first volume of the calendar with an important introduction appeared in 1864, covering the years 1202–1509. Brown presented to the Public Record Office 126 volumes of transcripts from the Venetian archives: these have been used in the Letters and Papers of Henry VIII, and in the Calendar of State Papers, Venice. The work of these two men opened up great resources from foreign archives and acted as a great stimulus to historical studies: but it should be emphasized that they were only two among many whose devoted services in transcribing and editing sources in English as well as in foreign collections have lightened the labours of historians working on the sixteenth century. The student will meet some of these others when he consults some of the series of volumes for which they were responsible, and which are used in this book. These editions are the ultimate reference works to which this selection of Historical Documents will be, it is the editor’s hope, a useful introduction. 1

Rawdon Brown, Sebastian Giustiniani, Four years at the court of Henry VIII, 2 vols, 1854.

GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY This Bibliography reviews the more important secondary and original sources of English history between 1485 and 1558. Further guides to more specialized literature will be given in the appropriate sections of this book.

A. SECONDARY WORKS For works published before 1956, Conyers Read, Bibliography of British History: Tudor Period (Oxford, 1959) is an indispensable guide. For works after that date the Annual Bulletin of Historical Literature (1930–) published by the Historical Association gives a catalogue raisonné of the most important historical publications of the year. The Association also publishes periodically bibliographies and pamphlets, some of which are concerned with this period. A useful guide to English history in general is A.T.Milne, Writings on British History (1937–60) 8 volumes have appeared dealing with publications between the years 1934 and 1945. With this work should be noticed The International Bibliography of Historical Sciences published by the International Committee of Historical Sciences, Lausanne (Paris, vol. I, for 1926 [1930] to vol. xxx for 1961 [1964], L.B.Frewer, Bibliography of Historical Writings published in Great Britain and the Empire 1940–45 (Oxford, 1947), and J.C.Lancaster, Bibliography of Historical Works issued in the United Kingdom 1946– 56 (1957) continued by C.W.Kellaway, 1957–60 (1962). Some earlier general bibliographical works still worth consulting are C.Gross, The Sources and Literature of English History (2nd ed., 1951) and A Bibliography of British Municipal History (Harvard Hist. Studies, v, 1897); F.W.Bateson, The Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature I (Cambridge, 1940), and the bibliographies in the handbooks to the period mentioned below. For early printed books A.W.Pollard and G.R.Redgrave, A Short-Title Catalogue of Books printed in England, Scotland, and Ireland and of English Books printed abroad, 1475–1640 (Bibliographical Society, 1926); C.E. Sayle, Early English Printed Books in the University Library, Cambridge, 1475–1640 (Cambridge, 4 vols., 1900–7), and A.W.Pollard, Hand Lists of Books printed by London Printers, 1501–56 (Bibliographical Society, 1913) are essential. There are many general introductions to the early Tudor period. Recent brief surveys are S.T.Bindoff, Tudor England (1950); C.Morris, The Tudors (1955); Conyers Read, The Tudors: Personalities and Politics in Sixteenth Century England (1936). The most recent handbooks are J.D. Mackie, The Earlier Tudors 1485–1558, in The Oxford History of England (Oxford, 1952), and G.R.Elton, England under the Tudors, in the Methuen History of England (1955), while the two older volumes in the Longmans Political History of England, The History of England from the Accession of Henry VII to the death of Henry VIII, by H.A.L.Fisher, and The History of England from the Accession of Edward VI to the Death of Elizabeth, by A.F.Pollard (1910, 1913) are still useful. The period is also covered in the first two volumes of The New Cambridge Modern History, I: The Renaissance, 1493–1520, ed. G.R.Potter (1957), and II: The Reformation, 1520–1559, ed. G.R.Elton (1958). Some reference works are essential. They should include the following: F.M.Powicke and E.B.Fryde, Handbook of British Chronology (2nd ed., 1961) provides lists of rulers, with their styles, regnal years, and brief bibliographical data, English officers of State, the succession of bishops, lists of dukes, marquises, and earls, lists of parliaments, and provincial and national councils of the Church of England; C.R.Cheney, ed., Handbook of Dates for Students of History (1945, rev. edn., 1955), covers some of the same ground, but adds valuable information, such as reckonings of time and the beginning of the year, saints days, and legal chronology; calendars for all possible dates of Easter, and a select bibliography. E.L.C.Mullins, Texts and 70

GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

71

Calendars. An analytical guide to serial publications (1958) gives information on works relating to English and Welsh history issued in general collections or in series by a public body or private society before the end of March 1957. Serious work on the personalities of the period should begin from The Dictionary of National Biography usually referred to as the D.N.B., ed. L.Stephen and S.Lee (63 vols., 1885–1900: repr. 22 vols., 1908–9) where many of them are discussed in scholarly articles, with brief bibliographies. Corrections and additions to some of these articles are published regularly in the Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research. For geographical data R.L.Poole, Historical Atlas of Modern Europe (Oxford, 1896– 1902), and H.C.Darby, ed., Historical Geography of England before 1800 (1936), should be used, and still useful for facts, S.Lewis, A Topographical Dictionary of England (4. vols., 1831, 7th edn. 1849). The coinage of the period is a difficult, but vital subject. Some useful information will be found in J.D.Mackie, Earlier Tudors, App. 604–608; G.C.Brooke, English Coins (4th edn., 1955); Sir C.Oman, The Coinage of England (1931); A.E.Feaveayear, The Pound Sterling (Oxford, 1931). For palaeography and diplomatic, H.Jenkinson, The Later Court Hands in England: from the fifteenth to the seventeenth century (Oxford, 1927), and Hubert Hall, Studies in English official historical documents (Cambridge, 1908), are standard reference works. Much general history and information on local, ecclesiastical, architectural, economic, and social history is presented in the monumental Victoria History of the Counties of England (the V.C.H.); well over 100 volumes have been produced, and the work is still in progress. The history of the early Tudor period was not scientifically studied prior to the nineteenth century, and the most important of the works produced by the earlier writers can be left to the specialist. When such writers were not obsessed by the religious upheaval as a feature to which all other matters were subordinated, they usually adopted a biographical approach limited to individual rulers. Francis Bacon, Historie of the raigne of King Henry the Seventh (1622) loses much of the authority earlier historians attributed to it when it is recalled that it was written over a century after Henry’s death, and was, therefore, no more a contemporary source than a life of Palmerston would be if written by a man of sixty-seven in 1964. Much the same comment holds good for Sir John Hayward, Life and Raigne of King Edward the Sixth (1630, 1636). More interesting is Lord Herbert of Cherbury, The Life and Raigne of King Henry the Eighth (1649, 1672, 1682, 1741), for his vigorous defence of the king was based on serious research amongst original documents. Richard Fiddes, Life of Wolsey (1724, 1726) was a work of considerable merit, based on serious investigations, and even now it is of use for its appendix of documents. The works of John Strype (1643–1737) are now mainly important for their collections of documents, and since his interests were, in the main, concentrated on the Reformation it will be advisable to discuss them elsewhere.1 In the nineteenth century serious historical study of the period began with the Roman Catholic priest, John Lingard (1771–1851). His History of England from the first invasion by the Romans to the Revolution of 1688 (8 vols., 1819–30: enlarged edn., 10 vols., 1849, the last revised by the author: latest ed. H.Belloc, II vols., 1915), is still treated with respect. Lingard’s most original work was contained in the fourth and fifth volumes, in which he dealt with the sixteenth century. He worked conscientiously from original authorities, and had the advantage of access to the Vatican archives. Although, of course, he made no secret of his Catholic affinities, he was moderate in his approach, and scholarly in his methods. The first treatment of the whole period in the grand manner was the contribution of J.A. Froude (1818–94). His main work was the History of England from the fall of Wolsey to the defeat of the Spanish Armada (12 vols., 1856–70: rev. edn., 12 vols., 1862–70: later edns., 1881–82, 1893, 1912), but he returned to the earlier period in The Divorce of Catherine 1

Below, p. 636.

72

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

of Aragon (1891, 1897) without changing materially his earlier views, although he brought additional evidence from the Letters and Papers. It is not easy to do justice in a few words to Froude’s work. His claim to a high place among the great English stylists was quickly recognized by his contemporaries, and it is now assured, but his qualities as a historian have not been accepted without qualifications. In his own lifetime grievous damage was done to his reputation by the singularly vicious attacks upon his methods made by the historian Edward Freeman.1 When at long last Froude turned upon his critic with a disconcerting vindication the mischief had been done. As so often happens the words of Freeman had convinced a wider audience than Froude’s defence could reach. Everyone has heard that there were inaccuracies in Froude’s History, that he was disgracefully careless in his proofreading, that he made mistakes in copying documents, and that his method of making quotations from documents was lacking both in method and logic. What is not so well known is that he worked with exemplary industry among manuscripts in this country, was the first English historian to get to grips with the rich, but not very accessible, store of documents at Simancas and elsewhere, and that to the best of his powers he sought to provide contemporary evidence for what he thought was the truth. Scholars coming after him, their work made easier by the tremendous range of printed sources at their disposal, are in a better position than were Froude’s contemporaries to appreciate the industry behind his work. They can afford to be more generous in recognizing his achievement. Even though they cannot approve of the highly dramatic form in which his History is cast, nor accept wholly his interpretation of events, they can make allowance for the strength and honesty of Froude’s convictions, of which he made no secret, that the Reformation in England was a movement for the freedom of the human spirit, that Henry VIII was a great patriot, and that his subjects were wholeheartedly behind him in his struggle with Rome. In the light of later research they can see that some of his misconceptions were the natural consequence of the poor resources at his call: that, for example, much of his interpretation of government policy was coloured by his genuine belief that a great part of the domestic history of England could be written from the statute book. Only recently have modern scholars, with far greater resources of knowledge and technique at their command, been able to appreciate the efficiency of Tudor government propaganda, and they will understand how easy it was for Froude to be the unsuspecting victim of the special pleading in the preambles to Tudor statutes. It can be said that like every great classic of historical interpretation time has dealt hardly with Froude’s work: it no longer satisfies the standards or the tastes of later generations: but that should not prevent his History from being given its rightful place as a landmark in the history of early Tudor historical studies. Two men whose names are inseparable because of their co-operative work in making available the original sources for this period, also contributed some important writings of their own. The first was J.S.Brewer (1810–79). He buried much of his profound knowledge in the learned introductions he supplied to the first four volumes of the Letters and Papers. They were collected by his colleague, James Gairdner (1828–1912) with the title The Reign of Henry VIII from his accession to the death of Wolsey (2 vols., 1884). It was the first modern full-scale attempt at an appreciation of Wolsey’s policy. With his wide knowledge of the sources Gairdner carried on Brewer’s work on the Letters and Papers to its conclusion. He himself was no mean student of the period. In addition, to his numerous introductions to editions of texts, including a long introduction to his excellent edition of the Paston Letters (6 vols., 1904), his Life and Reign of Richard III (1878: a much revised and enlarged edition, Cambridge, 1898) threw much light on the obscure early years of Henry VII, and solved some of the problems connected with Perkin Warbeck. His Henry VII (1889) was the first concise summary of that king’s reign, while his numerous articles in the D.N.B. still 1 For an account of this attack, and Froude’s reply see W.H.Dunn, James Anthony Froude, II (1963), c. 28. “Freeman the Froude-Slayer”, 456–470, and H.Paul, Life of Froude (1905) 147–198.

GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

73

stand the tests of modern needs. His interest in the religious history of the period resulted in several books.1 Gairdner excelled in narrative history, and the elucidation of conflicting evidence in contemporary authorities: he was less happy in his discernment of character. In the work of A.F.Pollard (1869–1948) the great mass of printed material which was accumulating during the late nineteenth century was exploited with masterly skill. He had, it might almost be said, grown up with the edition of the Letters and Papers, reviewing many of the later volumes and other similar publications as they appeared, and his numerous contributions to the D.N.B., of which he was an assistant editor for many years, writing mainly on sixteenth-century characters, gave him a mastery of bibliographical, genealogical, and biographical information which enriched his own studies. These include England under Protector Somerset (1900), the first, and still the most valuable account of Edward’s reign; The Reformation under Edward VI (Cambridge Modern Hist., II, 474–511); Thomas Cranmer and the English Reformation (1904:1926), Henry VIII (1902 in the Goupil illustra ted edition: 1905 with references added: 1913, 1953) The History of England, vol. VI of the Political History of England, Wolsey (1929:1953 illustr. edn.). His other books and specialist articles are noticed in the appropriate bibliographies of the various sections. The material available for the problems connected with war and peace in the early sixteenth century are numerous. It may conveniently be considered under the headings of (a) Diplomatic Relations, and (b) Military and Naval History.

(a) DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS A short scholarly survey by G.Mattingly (Renaissance Diplomacy, 1956) provides an excellent general introduction to this subject, whilst the starting point for the study of English diplomatic practice should be the standard reference histories such as The Oxford History of England and the Cambridge Modern History.2 To these may be added H.Hauser, Les Débuts de l’âge moderne. La Renaissance et la Réformation (Paris, 1929). All have good bibliographies. More specialized studies of phases of English foreign policy will be found in W.Busch, England under the Tudors; G. Mattingly, Catherine of Aragon; A.F.Pollard, Wolsey, and his Henry VIII; R.B.Merriman, Letters of Thomas Cromwell; A.D.Meyer, Die englische Diplomatie in Deutschland zur Zeit Eduard VI und Maria (Breslau) and E.H.Harbison, Rival ambassadors at the Court of Queen Mary (1940). The French approach can be seen in E.Lavisse, Histoire de France (Paris, vol. V, i, ii,), and J.S.C.Bridge, A History of France from the death of Louis XI (Oxford, 5 vols.). More specialized studies are A.Dupuy, Histoire de la réunion de la Bretagne à la France (Paris, 2 vols., 1880), valuable for the early foreign policy of Henry VII; F.Decrue, Anne de Montmorency, grand maître et connétable de France à la cour (Paris, 1885), dealing with Anglo-French relations between 1526 and 1559; F.A.M.Mignet, La Rivalité de François 1er et de Charles Quint (2 vols., Paris, 1875), and C.Terrasse, François 1er (Paris, 2 vols., 1945–48). Of the many works describing the policy of Charles V, who dominated the European scene for the greater part of this period it will be sufficient to mention some key works from which references can be obtained. An excellent biography by Royall Tyler, The Emperor Charles the Fifth (1956) is the posthumously published work of one who had edited five volumes of the Spanish Calendar, and was an authority on the widely scattered Spanish and Imperial archives. It has a good bibliography. An earlier work by an eminent specialist on the history of Charles V’s reign is Karl Brandi’s Kaiser Karl V. The first volume (Munich, 1936) was translated by C.V. Wedgwood, Charles V (1939, repr. 1949). The second volume, Quellen und Erörterungen (Munich, 1941) is scarce and has not been translated into English. This is an elaborate apparatus of notes and bibliography. With these works at hand the English student is no longer dependent 1 See below, p. 635. A better approach is now possible in R.B.Wernham, Before the Armada, (1966), which describes in detail the growth of English foreign policy, 1485–1588. 2

74

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

upon E.Armstrong, The Emperor Charles V (2 vols., 1902:1913) although this is still a serviceable biography. R.B.Merriman, The Rise of the Spanish Empire (1918–34, 4 vols.) is the best general survey of Spanish development in the sixteenth century. England’s relations with the papacy down to the breach with Rome are adequately discussed in the histories of the English Reformation. The history of the papacy during the period can be studied in L.Pastor, The History of the Popes from the close of the Middle Ages (vols, V–XIV, 1898–1914) and A.Fliche and V.Martin (edd.), Histoire de l’Église (vol. XV. R.Aubenas and R.Ricard, L’Église et la Renaissance, 1449–1517, Paris, 1951, and E.du Moreau, P.Jourda and P.Janelle, La Crise religieuse du XVI siècle, 1950) Much may be gleaned from studies of some of the diplomatic envoys of the period. For English representatives see J.A.Muller, Stephen Gardiner and the Tudor Reaction, Jervis Wegg, Richard Pace (1933), G.L.Undreiner, Robert Wing field, enter ständiger englischer Gesandter am deutschen Hofe 1464?–1539 (Freiburg, 1932). G.Mattingly, “The reputation of Dr. De Puebla” (E.H.R., 1940, LV, 27–46) deals with that curious Spanish representative at Henry VII’s court, and in “A humanist ambassador” (Journ. Mod. History, 1932, IV, 175–185) he gives an account of the materials available for the life of Eustache Chapuys, Charles V’s ambassador in England, whose correspondence is calendared in Letters and Papers, and the Spanish Calendar, and whose lively dispatches have been so valuable for English historians of the period. There are several monographs on French diplomats, e.g. Pierre de Vaissière, Charles de Marillac (Paris, 1896), resident ambassador in England between 1539 and 1543; V.L.Bourrilly, Guillaume du Bellay, seigneur de Langay (Paris, 1905).

(b) MILITARY AND NAVAL HISTORY The military history of the period can be studied in Sir C.Oman, History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages (2 vols., enl. edn. 1924), and his History of the Art of War in the Sixteenth Century (1937), and F.L.Taylor, The Art of War in Italy, 1494–1529 (Cambridge, 1921); E.M.Lloyd, A review of the history of infantry (1908); F.Lot, L’Art militaire et les armées au moyen âge en Europe (Paris, 2 vols., 1946). G.Dickinson, Les Instructions sur le Faict de la Guerre of Rougemont de Beccaire de Paire, sieur de Fourquevaux (1954) contains a good introduction dealing with the French army in the reign of Francis I. There are few English monographs dealing with the subject for the first half of the sixteenth century. J.Wake (ed.), A copy of Papers relating to Musters (Northants. Rec. Soc., in, 1926) contains an important introduction on the militia system for the later part of the century which is worth consulting, as also are G.Bruce, “The English expedition into Scotland in 1542” (Arch. Aeliana, 3rd Ser. III, 1907, 191–212), and T.Hodgkin, “The Battle of Flodden” (ibid., N.S., XVI, 1894, 1–45). For naval history, the following are important: M.Oppenheim, The Administration of the Royal Navy (1896); W.L.Clowes, A History of the Royal Navy from the earliest times to the death of Queen Victoria (7 vols., 1897–1903); G.S.Callendar, “The evolution of seapower under the first two Tudors” (History, V, 141–158); and C.S.Goldingham, “The Navy under Henry VII” (Eng. Hist. Rev., 1918, 72–88). The affairs of Wales, Scotland, and Ireland are of special interest in the early Tudor period not only because these countries, compared with England, reveal very different systems of social organization, but because each presented the English government with specific political problems. A survey of much of the relevant literature is in Read, op. cit. 410–544.

(a) WALES Reference may be made to R.T.Jenkins and W.Rees, A Bibliography of the History of Wales (Cardiff, 1931), and to J.F. and W.Rees, “A Select Bibliography of the Economic History of Wales” (Econ. Hist. Rev., II, 1930, 320–326). Indispensable for detailed study are the Bulletin of Celtic Studies of the University of Wales (Cardiff, 1923 f), the publications of the Cymmrodorion

GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

75

Society, Y Cymmrodor. (1877 f.), Transactions (1892 f.), and its Record Series (1892 f.); Archaeologia Cambrensis (1846). The main local societies responsible for transactions are the Anglesey Antiq. Soc. (1913), Cardiganshire Antiq. Soc. (1909), The Caermarthen Antiq. Soc. (1905), The Flintshire Hist. Soc. (1911), and The Historical Society of West Wales (1910). There is no complete survey of sixteenth-century Welsh history, but some attention is given to the period in general histories, D.Williams, A History of Modern Wales (1950) being the best recent survey. Special aspects are studied in J.F.Rees, Studies in Welsh History (1948); C.A.J. Skeel, “Wales under Henry VII” (Tudor Studies, 1–25); W.Ll.Williams, The Making of Modern Wales (1919); W.Garnon Jones, “Welsh Nationalism under Henry Tudor” (Soc.. of Cymmrodor, 1917–18, 1–59); J.B.Nevins, “Wales during the Tudor Period” (Liverpool, 1893). In constitutional history the problem of greatest interest is that which resulted in the Act of Union (1536). Several studies have been devoted to it, notably W.Rees, “The Union of England and Wales” (Trans. Hon. Soc. Cymmrodorion, 1937, 27–100), and W.Ll.Williams, “The Union of England and Wales” (ibid. 1907–8, 47–117). Closely connected with this subject is that of conciliar government in Wales. Earlier work on the subject was superseded by a scholarly monograph by C.A.J.Skeel, The Council in the Marches of Wales (1904). The relation of Wales to the English parliament has been examined by W.R.Williams, The Parliamentary History of the Principality of Wales, 1541–1895 (Brecknock, 1895), and by A.H.Dodd, “Wales’s parliamentary apprenticeship 1536–1625” (Trans. Soc. Cymmrodorion, 1944, XLII, 8–72). There is no detailed survey of the economic history of Wales as a whole during this period, but D.J.Davies, The economic history of South Wales prior to 1800 (Cardiff, 1935) may be consulted. The following specialist articles are important: E.A.Lewis, “A contribution to the commercial history of medieval Wales” (Y Cymmrodor, XXIV, 1913, 86–188); C.A.J.Steel “The cattle trade between England and Wales from the fifteenth to the nineteenth century” (R. Hist. Soc., 4th Ser., 1, 1926, 1–38); and (by the same author) “The Welsh woollen industry in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries” (Arch. Camb., 7th Ser., IV, 1924, 1–38). For Welsh ecclesiastical affairs, the nearest approach to a general survey is J.W.James, A Church history of Wales (1945), while a good special study is E.T.Davies, An ecclesiastical history of Monmouthshire (Risca, 1953). E.J.Newell, A History of the Welsh Church to the Dissolution of the Monasteries (1895) is still of value. There is much topographical information about Wales in L.T.Smith’s edition of Leland’s Itinerary (Vol. III), whilst useful maps are available in W.Rees, An Historical Atlas of Wales from early to modern times (2nd edn., 1959), and in H.N.Jerman, “A Map showing the territorial divisions of Wales before the Act of Union” (Arch. Cambr., XCII, 1937, 170–172).

(b) SCOTLAND In addition to articles in English historical periodicals many important articles and reviews appeared in The Scottish Historical Review (Glasgow, 1903–28, and the new Series which began in 1947). Also valuable are the publications of the Historical Association of Scotland, while the numerous Scottish local history societies (see below) often contain important monographs on special subjects. There are several introductory surveys of Scottish history, the best being P.Hume Brown, A Short History of Scotland (2nd ed. by H.W.Meikle, Edin., 1951), and A.Muir Mackenzie, The Rise of the Stewarts 1329–1513; The Scotland of Queen Mary and the Religious Wars 1513–1628 (Edin., 1957, 2 vols, of a reprint of a History of Scotland, Edin., 1936). Older and fuller narratives which are still the standard reference works are A.Lang, A History of Scotland (4 vols., Edin., 1900–7:2nd ed., 1900–3); J.H.Burton, History of Scotland (8 vols., Edin., 1853:1868–70: New York, 1898–1901) and F.P.Tytler, History of Scotland (9 vols., Edin., 1828–43; 5th ed., 4 vols., 1873–7). For Anglo-Scottish relations the narrative in J.D.Mackie, The Earlier Tudors is a helpful

76

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

introduction. A.Conway, Henry VII’s Relations with Scotland and Ireland 1485–98 (Cambridge, 1932) is a scholarly monograph based on much fresh record material. Later phases are dealt with by G.Bruce, The English Expedition into Scotland in 1542 (Arch. Aeliana. 3rd Ser., in, 1907, 191–212); A.F.Pollard, The Protector Somerset and Scotland (E.H.R. XIII, 1898, 464–472, and his England under Protector Somerset. The only general survey of constitutional development is the not very satisfactory work by J.Mackinnon, The Constitutional History of Scotland from the early times to the Reformation (1924). An important monograph is R.S.Rait, The Parliaments of Scotland (Glasgow, 1924), while the studies of R.K.Hannay, General Council and convention of estates (Scot. Hist. Rev., 1922, XX, 98–116) and On parliament and general council (ibid., 1920, XVIII, 157–171) are pioneer works. J.D. Mackie and G.S.Pryde discuss Scottish borough representation in The estate of burgesses in the Scots parliament and its relation to the convention of royal boroughs (St Andrews, 1923). There is a good survey of economic history, I.F.Grant, Social and Economic Development of Scotland before 1603 (Edin., 1934), which replaces the old-fashioned work by J.Mackinnon, Social and Industrial History of Scotland from the earliest times to the Union (2 vols., 1920–21). There is some important material on trade, industry, and finance in Theodora Pagan, The Convention of the Royal Burghs of Scotland (Glasgow, 1926), while L.A.Barbé, Sidelights on the History, Industries, and Social Life of Scotland (1919) contains economic information derived from a study of the Lord High Treasurer’s accounts. Agriculture is represented in T.B.Franklin, History of Scottish Farming (Edin., 1952), and there is a general account of the Scottish mining industry in R.P.Arnot, History of the Scottish Miners from the earliest times (1955). For ecclesiastical history the general works noted above give good descriptive accounts. More specialized studies include C.S.Black, The Scottish Church: a short study in ecclesiastical history (Glasgow, 1953); D.G.Donaldson, The Scottish Church from Queen Margaret to the Reformation (1954); G.Grub, An Ecclesiastical History of Scotland (4 vols., Edin., 1861). Much information is packed into the notes and appendices to the classic edition by D.Laing of The Works of John Knox (6 vols., Edin., 1846). Strongly Protestant in outlook are the two books by D.Hay Fleming, The Reformation in Scotland (1910) and Mary Queen of Scots from her birth to the flight into England (1897), as is also A.R.Macewen, A History of the Church in Scotland (2 vols., 1918). The most weighty contribution from the Roman side, and it is still a standard work, is A.Bellesheim, Geschichte der Katholischen Kirche in Schottland (2 vols., Mainz, 1883: Engl. transl, and enlarged by Hunter Blair, 4 vols., Edin., 1887–90). The condition of the Scottish religious houses at the Reformation has been discussed by G.G.Coulton, Scottish Abbeys and Social Life (Cambridge, 1933).

(c) IRELAND Periodicals specially concerned with Irish problems are Studies (Dublin, 1912–f.) and Irish Historical Studies (1958–f.). Learned societies publishing work relative to Irish history in this period include The Royal Irish Academy Transactions (1786–1906) and Proceedings (1836–f.); The Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland (1849–f.); the Irish Text Society; and the archaeological societies of Cork and Waterford. Among the numerous brief introductions to Irish history may be mentioned: J.C.Beckett, A short history of Ireland (1952); B.Ingles, The Story of Ireland (1956); and R.Dunlop, Ireland from the earliest times to the present day (1922). The standard general history for this period is R.Bagwell, Ireland under the Tudors (3 vols., 1885–90). The background is admirably described in E.Curtis, A History of medieval Ireland, 1110–1573 (6th ed., 1950). Some interesting special studies include: A.Conway, Henry VII’s relations with Scotland and Ireland 1485–98 (Cambridge, 1932); P. Wilson, The Beginnings of modern Ireland (Dublin, 1912); and R.Dunlop, “Some aspects of Henry VIII’s Irish policy” (Owens College Historical Essays, 1902,).

GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

77

The only attempt at a general survey of Irish constitutional history is J.G.S.Macneill, The Constitutional and Parliamentary History of Ireland till the Union (Dublin, 1917). T.Gilbert, History of the Viceroys of Ireland (Dublin, 1865) is a valuable work, but unfortunately although the author quotes freely from unprinted material, much of which is not now extant, he does not give adequate references. B.Fitzgerald, Geraldines: an experiment in Irish government (1951) is a general survey from 1169–1601, but it contains much important information for this period. Two studies in parliamentary history are C.L.Falkiner, “The Parliament of Ireland under the Tudors” (Proc. Roy. Irish Acad., xxv, Sect. C, x, 1905), and D.B.Quinn, “Parliaments and great councils in Ireland, 1461–1586” (Irish Hist. Studies, 1942, III, 60–77). The significance of Poynings law has been reconsidered by R.Dudley Edwards and T.W.Moody, “The History of Poyning’ Law, 1494–1615” (ibid., 1941, II, 415–424) and D.B.Quinn, “The early interpretation of Poyning’s Law, 1494–1534” (ibid., 241–254). The economic history of the period is still very largely un worked, and there is no satisfactory general handbook. W.F.Butler, Gleanings from Irish History (1925) is a scholarly work containing much information on Irish social life in the sixteenth century. A monograph of real worth is A.K.Longfield, Anglo-Irish Trade in the Sixteenth Century (1929). It is based on a close examination of the English customs accounts and the port books. The best modern survey of the history of the Church in Ireland in the period is R.D.Edwards, Church and State in Tudor Ireland, 1534–1603 (Dublin, 1935). The main works from the Roman side are A.Bellesheim, Geschichte der Katholischen Kirche in Irland (volume II covering the period 1509–1690), and M.V.Ronan, The Reformation in Dublin, 1536–58 (1926). J.T.Ball, The Reformed Church in Ireland, 1557–1886 (1886, rev. ed. 1890) is a good survey of ecclesiastical legislation.

B. PRIMARY SOURCES Some account has been given above of the basic secondary works for the history of England in this period. What follows is a guide to some of the chief categories of the original sources available in print.

I. THE PUBLIC RECORDS It is interesting to note the extent to which the Public Records for this period were available in print when Froude published the first volume of his History in 1856, and to observe the developments which have taken place since that date. Such a review not only emphasizes the limitations with which Froude had to cope, but it also indicates many of the activities which in this matter were so substantially to increase our knowledge during the second half of the nineteenth century and later. In 1856 the most important of the printed sources available were as follows. First, there was the great corpus of documents in Thomas Rymer, Foedera (20 vols., 1704–35; best edn. The Hague, 1739). This great work contained collections of treaties, diplomatic documents, selections from the patent and close rolls, etc. Although some parts are now superseded there still remains much important material that is worth consulting for this period. Next were The Statutes of the Realm (II vols., 1810–28). Other parliamentary records available were the Rolls of Parliament, vols, v and VI covering the period Edward IV to Henry VIII which appeared in 1771 and 1783 with an Index volume, 1832, the Journal of the House of Commons (1803) and the Journal of the House of Lords (1846). Records of the Council were represented by some brief records of 1540–42 in the seventh volume of N.H.Nicolas, Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council (1834– 37). The great source of information about the wealth of the Church in the reign of Henry VIII the Valor Ecclesiasticus was available in the edition of J.Caley and J.Hunter (6 vols., 1810–34). There was one other important work which Froude had to hand: State Papers

78

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

during the reign of Henry the Eighth (II vols., 1830–52). To appreciate what was still to be done a word must be said of this last experiment. Early in the sixteenth century, certainly during the first few years of Henry VIII’s reign, a change came over the nature of the public records, a change largely due to the new methods of administration then coming into use. It was not a complete transformation. The medieval system of government departments still functioned, producing the types of record familial to English medievalists. The close and patent rolls of the Chancery, for example, were still maintained, so too were the plea rolls of the courts of common law, and many of the records of the Exchequer, but the new machinery was beginning to put out new records. Most important development of all was the increase in the status of the king’s secretaries, through whose hands went correspondence of all kinds of business, domestic and foreign. There was produced a wholly new type of record, the State papers. They consist of a miscellaneous indefinable collection of records of the king’s business, drafts of letters, schedules, reports, and memoranda on all kinds of topics, which cannot be easily arranged save chronologically. These State papers provide the historian with many fresh possibilities, but making them available in print has given the archivists many difficult problems, leading them to make many experiments. The first of them was the edition of the State Papers during the reign of Henry the Eighth. In this edition, the documents printed in full were grouped in several sections. The first volume contained domestic correspondence: the second and third correspondence relating to Irish affairs, the fourth and fifth to Scottish affairs, and the remaining six volumes to correspondence of the English court and foreign countries. Admirable as this experiment was, it showed that treated on such a scale the publication would have become quite unmanageable. Another experiment was therefore made by publishing a Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1547–80 (1856). It was not very successful, being little more than a catalogue of the papers, which gave the reader very little information on the contents of the documents. A Calendar of State Papers, Foreign, Edward VI, 1547–53 and of Mary, 1553–58, (1861) were on similar lines. At the same time there was published in the Master of the Rolls series of medieval chronicles, as if to illustrate the point that changes in the types of material were coming into view at the end of the Middle Ages, J.Gairdner’s Letters and Papers of the Reigns of Richard III and Henry VII (2 vols., 1861, 1863) a valuable but by no means exhaustive collection of State papers for the reign of Henry VII. A different approach was made in the publication of Facsimiles of National MSS. of England, Pt. I, William I–Henry VII (1865): Pt. II, Henry VIII to Edward VI (1866), Pt. III, Mary to Elizabeth (1867), in which, of course, only a limited selection of documents was presented. The next experiment was on more ambitious lines, nothing less than as full a calendar as possible of the State papers of Henry VIII’s reign, Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the reign of Henry VIII. Between 1862 and 1910 twenty-one volumes in 33 parts were issued covering the whole of that king’s reign. This magnificent collection contained State papers not only from the Public Record Office, but also from the British Museum Library, Lambeth, and the libraries of Oxford and Cambridge. In addition there are included detailed summaries of the contents of the patent and close rolls, royal houshold books and various miscellaneous materials from the public records. These materials are arranged chronologically, in calendar form with elaborate indexes. The first volume was re-edited in 1920 in 3 parts (1509–13, 1513–14, and Index) when much additional material was incorporated. Two addenda volumes were added in 1929 and 1932, which included miscellaneous material covering the period 1509–47. This great collection is the working material for all students of the reign of Henry VIII. Materials for the other Tudor reigns in print are not so abundant. W.Campbell, Materials for the reign of Henry VII (2 vols., 1873–77) contains much that is still useful but the extracts from patent rolls has been superseded by the Calendar of Patent Rolls, Henry VII, 1485–94:494–1509 (1914, 1916), and Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry VII, 1485– 1500:1500–09 (1955, 1963), the Calendar of Fine Rolls, 1485–1509 (1962), and the

GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

79

Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Henry VII (3 vols., 1898–1956). For the reign of Henry VIII the contents of these rolls are included in the Letters and Papers. For succeeding reigns they are separately published, Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward VI (6 vols., 1924– 29), and Calendar of Patent Rolls, Philip and Mary (4 vols., 1936–39). An addition to the records of legislation in the Statutes of the Realm, were royal proclamations. They are of general interest for all kinds of topics in the history of the period. R.Steele, Tudor and Stuart Proclamations, 1485–1714 (2 vols., Oxford, 1910) calendared them in chronological order, but a full text is now available in P.L.Hughes and J.F.Larkin, edd., Tudor Royal Proclamations, I: The Early Tudors, 1485–1553 (New Haven and London, 1964). The scanty records of the Council received an important addition by the publication of J.R.Dasent, ed., Acts of the Privy Council of England (vols. 1–6 cover the years 1542–58 (1890–93). This immense work does not exhaust the experiments in publication of sources undertaken from the public record office in the later part of the nineteenth century and after. A great mass of diplomatic documents were contained in the national archives in this country, and also in the archives of foreign states. The work of making them available was taken in hand. First came the Calendar of State Papers, Spain. These were followed by similar calendars of State papers, Venice, and also Milan. Many State papers and other official and private documents found their way into private hands. In 1869 the Historical Manuscripts Commission was set up to make known the whereabouts and contents of such material. The earlier reports of the Commission included very brief surveys of such collections, but later the appendices to the reports take the form of full calendars, and provide a great corpus of miscellaneous material. For a list of the Reports containing material for this period see Read, 10–22. The official Guide to the Contents of the Public Record Office (H.M.Stationery Office, 2 vols., 1963) is an essential work of reference for any student undertaking work on the Public Records. Useful introductions to the subject are: V.H.Galbraith, Introduction to the use of the Public Records (Oxford, 1934); V.H.Galbraith, Studies in the Public Records (1934); and F.J.Weaver, The Materials of English History (1938).

II. LOCAL RECORDS In addition to the public records produced by the machinery of the central government, a large quantity of records came into being through other agencies, particularly those of local government. They present the historian with problems, for they are often difficult of access, being scattered in many depositaries, and their publication is not the responsibility of the central government: if it is done it has to be through the activity and resources of local initiative. Such records are of different types, and some of them, e.g. manorial and ecclesiastical documents, the records of city companies, etc., are best dealt with in other sections but one important kind, the municipal records, it will be convenient to deal with here, since they are of general interest, and being the product of the machinery of local government they display in miniature many of the features of the public records. Satisfactory bibliographies of the municipal records will be found in Read, and Gross, and note should be taken of Gross, A Bibliography of British Municipal History. One important type of municipal document is the town charter. There is an adequate collection of such documents in print. They include F.W.Maitland and Mary Bateson, edd., The Charters of the Borough of Cambridge, Cambridge (1901.) H.W.Gidden, Charters of the Borough of Southampton (Southampton Rec. Soc., 1909, 1910), S.P.H.Statham, Dover Charters (1902), W.G.Benham, The Charters and Letters Patent of Colchester (Colchester, 1904). For a general survey of this type of source, and the problems arising, see M.Weinbaum, British Borough Charters, 1307–1660 (Cambridge, 1943). Records of town governments are for the most part preserved in the borough archives. They usually conform to a common pattern, and if they are in a reasonably complete state of

80

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

preservation they will contain the royal charters of the town, rolls recording the proceedings of the assembly or council, the town’s accounts, presented by the town chamberlain, court rolls of legal proceedings, and very often a book or books usually given a name such as the White Book, Red Book, Oath Book, etc., which will contain miscellaneous collections of borough customs, oaths of officials, ordinances, and other miscellanea connected with the government of the town. Such records are often of interest for national history; they are certainly of great importance for the history of the town. Several of the larger cities have published their records. Of the many in print the following are representative: Mary Bateson, Records of the Borough of Leicester, I (Cambridge, 1899); A.Raine, York Civic Records, II, 939, etc., Yorks. Arch. Soc. Rec. Ser.; A.F.Leach, Beverley Town Documents, Seld. Soc., 1900; W.H.Stevenson, Records of the Borough of Nottingham (Nottingham, 1882); J.M.Guilding, Reading Records (1892) and J.C.Tingey, Records of the City of Norwich (Norwich, 1906– 1910); C.A.Markham and J.C.Cox, Records of the Borough of Northampton (Northampton, 1898); W.H.Turner, Selections from the Records of the City of Oxford (Oxford, 1880). Some examples of town books are A.B.W.Chapman, The Black Book of Southampton (South Rec. Soc., 1912); H.W.Gidden, Book of Remembrance of Southampton, 1440–1620 (3 vols., 1927– 28, 1930); A.L.Merson, The Third Book of Remembrance of Southampton (1514–40, 1540– 73, 1952); W.G.Benham, The Red Paper Book of Colchester (Colchester, 1902) and The Oath Book or Red Parchment Book of Colchester, 1327–1564. Many documents illustrating both national and local history have been published by the various societies both national and local which exist for the promotion of such work and their publications have been listed, E.L.C.Mullins, Texts and Calendars. An analytical guide to serial publications (Roy. Hist. Soc. Guides and Handbooks, No. 7, 1958).

III. SOURCES FOR DIPLOMATIC HISTORY The chief sources of English diplomatic history in this period consist of the letters of the king to foreign rulers, instructions to his diplomatic representatives abroad, reports home from such agents, reports from representatives of foreign rulers in England to their home governments, and finally the texts of truces and treaties. The amount of such material in print, either in the form of calendars, or printed in extenso, is considerable, much of it being produced under the authority of the various European governments. The contribution of the British government has been considerable. For the reign of Henry VII the Rolls Series provided J.Gairdner, Letters and Papers illustrative of the reign of Richard III and Henry VII (2 vols., 1861–63), and Memorials of King Henry the Seventh (1858), which includes the Journals of Roger Machado, describing an embassy to Spain in 1489, and two to Brittany in 1490. For the reign of Henry VIII, the Letters and Papers gives summaries of such papers and is essential for reference purposes, while the edition of State Papers Henry VIII (vols, VI–XI) provides the full text of many of the papers thus summarized. For the reigns of Edward VI and Mary there is an unsatisfactory Calendar of State Papers, Foreign 1547–58 (2 vols., 1861), edited by W.B.Turnbull. Even more important is the magnificent series of calendars of documents in foreign archives concerned with English affairs. The Calendar of State Papers, Spanish (1862–1954) is now complete in 13 volumes for the period 1485–1558 (vols. I, II, edited by G.A. Bergenroth; vols, III-VII by Don Pascual de Gayangos: vols, VII, VIII, by M.A.S.Hume: vol. IX by Hume and R.Tyler: vols, X–XIII by R.Tyler). In addition G.Mattingly has edited a supplement to vols, I, II, which adds some important material especially for the years 1521–25. The editing of the earlier volumes was of indifferent quality, but the later volumes maintain a high standard. The documents calendared were drawn from the archives at Simancas, Vienna, Brussels, Besançon, and elsewhere. The Calendar of State Papers, Venice (1867–84) consists of 6 vols, in 8 parts, running from 1202 to 1558. They were edited by Rawdon Brown from the Venetian archives, and the introductions to the earlier volumes are especially valuable. This Calendar is of

GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

81

particular importance for the period Sept. 1555–January 1558, a period for which reports sent from London by Philip’s agents, which should have appeared in the Spanish Calendar, seem to be lost. A Calendar of State Papers, Milan (vol, I, 1385–1618), edited by A.B.Hinds (1912) contains some interesting diplomatic material from the archives of Milan. France supplied some important texts in the great collection of Documents Inédits sur l’Histoire de France. They include N.Tommaseo, Relations des ambassadeurs vénitiens sur les affaires de France au XVIe. siècle (vols, I, II, 1838); C.Weiss, Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle, I, 1516–32 (1841); J.J.Champillon Figeac, Lettres de rois, reines, et autres personnages des cours de France et d’Angleterre (2 vols., 1845–47); A.J.G.Le Glay, Négociations diplomatiques entre la France et l’Autriche durant les trente premières années du XVIe. siècle (1845). Other French collections, largely in the form of ambassadors’ papers, are V.L.Bourrilly and P.de Vaissière, Jean du Bellay, ambassades en Angleterre (1905), in England, Sept. 1527–29; J.Kaulek, De Castillon et de Marillac, correspondance politique (Paris, 1885), ambassadors to England 1537–41; R.A.de Vertot and C.Villaret, MM. de Noailles, ambassades en Angleterre 1553–59 (5 vols., Leyden, 1763) and G.Lefèvre-Pontalis, Odet de Selve, correspondance politique 1546–49 (Paris, 1888). For Spain and the Empire the most important collections are the great Colección de documentos inéditos para la historia de España, edited by M.F.Navarrete and others (Madrid, 1842–1895), a vast collection of source material from the Spanish archives containing much that is valuable for English history: the Correspondencia de Gutierro Gómez de Fuensilida, edited by El Duque de Berwick y de Alba (Madrid, 1907), useful for the later years of Henry VII; I.Stich, G.Turba, and A.F.Pribram, Venetianische Depeschen vom Kaiserhof (3 vols., Vienna, 1889–95), covering the years 1538–76, and containing many important documents on Anglo-German relations not in the Venetian Calendar. W.Bradford, Correspondence of the Emperor Charles V and his ambassadors to the Court of England and France (1850) is a small collection of State papers in translation. From Italian archives come some important sources, including the valuable series of “Relations”, E.Albèri, Relazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al senato, Ser. I–IV (Florence, 1839–63), and the Diarii de Marino Sanuto 1496–1535 (vols. I–VIII, Venice, 1879–1903). Rawdon Brown translated under the title Four Years at the Court of Henry VIII (2 vols., 1854) a selection from the dispatches of Sebastian Giustiniani to the Signory, 1515–19. P.Friedman edited, with a scholarly introduction, Les Dépêches de G.Michiel [Giovanni Micheli] (Venice, 1869) who was Venetian ambassador in England, 1554–57. For English diplomatic relations with the Papacy, especially in the affairs of Henry’s divorce there is an excellent collection of documents in Stefan Ehses, Römische Dokumente zur Geschichte der Ehescheidung Heinrichs VIII (1893), and J.A.Muller, Letters of Stephen Gardiner (Cambridge, 1933) is also important.

IV. MATERIAL RELATING TO WALES, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND Much of the material for Welsh history will be found in the official records of the Public Record Office, and in MSS. in the British Museum, and the National Library of Wales at Aberystwyth, as well as in local libraries in Wales. Such materials as are dealt with in the calendars of close and patent rolls, the Letters and Papers, and the various collections of State papers contain numerous references to Welsh affairs. So also, do the registers of the Council as published in N.H.Nicolas, Acts and Proceedings of the Privy Council and J.R.Dasent, Acts of the Privy Council. The records of the Council of the Marches of Wales for this early period in its history have largely perished, but there is a detailed list of extant manuscripts and a discussion of such material in Skeel, Council of the Marches in Wales (1904). Royal proclamations affecting Wales are in R.Steele, Tudor and Stuart Proclamations, vol. II, and texts of statutes are in Statutes of the Realm, and in I.Bowen, The Statutes of Wales (1908). Guides to the records of the conciliar courts are available in I. ab. O.Evans,

82

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

Catalogue of Star Chamber Proceedings relating to Wales (Cardiff, 1929), and E.A.Lewis and J.C.Davies, Records of the Court of Augmentations relating to Wales and Monmouthshire (Cardiff, 1954). Other important references are E.Owen, A Catalogue of the Manuscripts relating to Wales in the British Museum (Cymmrodorion Soc. Rec. Ser. IV, 4 pts., 1900–22), H.Owen, Calendar of the Public Records relating to Pembrokeshire (ibid., VII, 3 pts., 1911– 1918), and J.Ballinger, Calendar of the Wynn (of Gwydir) Papers, 1515–1690 (Aberystwyth 1926). Some interesting records of local administration are printed in W.O.Willis, Calendar of the Caernarvonshire Quarter Sessions, I (Caern. Hist. Soc., 1956), covering the years 1541– 58, and C.R.Straton, Survey of the Lands of William, first Earl of Pembroke (Roxburghe Club, 2 vols., Oxford, 1909). This survey was made in 1562, but it provides a trustworthy picture of agrarian conditions during the early Tudor period. The chief records available for ecclesiastical history are R.F.Isaacson and R.A.Roberts, The Episcopal Registers of St. David’s, 1397–1518 (Cymmrodorion Rec. Soc., 3 vols., 1916– 20), whilst A.I.Pryce, The Diocese ofBangor in the sixteenth century (Bangor, 1923) contains a summary of the episcopal registers from 1512 to 1646. For Scotland there are useful collections of documents relating to this period in W.C. Dickinson, A Source-book of Scottish history (Edinburgh, 1952–54), and in P.Hunter Blair, Scotland before 1700 from contemporary documents (Edinburgh, 1893). Much record material for Scottish history is preserved in the Public Record Office in London, and in the Register House, Edinburgh. An account of the latter collections will be found in M. Livingston, A Guide to the Public Records of Scotland deposited in His Majesty’s General Register House, Edinburgh (Edinburgh, 1905); in J.M.Thomson, The Public Records of Scotland (Glasgow, 1922); and in J.R.N.Macpheil, “The National Records of Scotland” (Scot. Hist. Rev., XXIV 1926, 202–211). The printed calendars of the English sources contain much information on Scottish affairs, while from the Register House come some important publications. These include the Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland (vols, I–IV, 1814), The Register of the Great Seal of Scotland (vols. I–IV, 1882–1886), The Register of the Privy Seal of Scotland (vols, I–V, 1908, 1957). The Exchequer Rolls of Scotland (vols, IX–XIX, 1886–98), and The Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer of Scotland (vols, I–IX, 1877–1911). The records of the Council in Scotland are available in a series of publications. First come The Acts of the Lords of the Council in Civil Causes (2 vols., 1839, 1943). These are mainly judicial records for the years 1478– 1501. A third volume, for the years 1501–3, was published by the Stair Society (1943). For the period 1513–45 the political business of the Council was entered with the records of its judicial business. This political material was extracted by R.K.Hannay, Acts of the Lords of Council in Public Affairs, 1501–54 (Scot. Rec. Public., 1932) to serve as an introduction to The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, which begins in 1545 (vol. I, 1877). Among the materials from the Public Record Office calendared in such publications as Campbell, Materials, and the Letters and Papers, there is much that is important for Scottish historians. There are also some specific Scottish volumes such as a Calendar of State Papers relating to Scotland and Mary Queen of Scots 1547–1603 (vol. I, 1898), and The Hamilton Papers, edited by J.Bain (2 vols., Edin., 1890–92) containing letters and papers illustrating the political relations of England and Scotland from materials originally in the archives of the Council of the North, now in the British Museum. Two valuable collections are The Letters of James IV, 1505–13, and The Letters of James V, 1513–42. Both were calendared by R.K.Hannay, and after his death were edited by R.L.Mackie and Anne Spelman (Scot. Hist. Soc., 1953), and D.Hay respectively (Edin., 1954). To these should be added The State Papers and Letters of Sir Ralph Sadler, edited by A.Clifford (2 vols., 1809). Some materials bearing on Scottish affairs which are in foreign archives should not be neglected. The most important are A.Teulet, Papiers d’état, pièces et documents inédits ou

GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

83

peu connus à l’histoire de l’Écosse au XVIe. siècle (3 vols., Bannatyne Club, 1852–60), and in a later edition with changes in content as Relations politiques de la France et de l’Espagne avec l’Écosse au XVIe. siècle (5 vols., Paris, 1862), and an Inventaire chronologique des documents relatifs à l’histoire d’Écosse (Abbots-ford Club, 1839). Documents from the papal registers are in A.Theiner, Vetusta Monumenta Hibernorum et Scotorum historiam illustrantia (Rome, 1864). The Reports of the Historical Manuscripts Commission contain much scattered material for Scottish history. A guide to some of it is C.S.Terry, An Index to the Papers relating to Scotland in the Historical Manuscripts Commission Reports (Aberdeen, 1908). The activities of the various Scottish historical societies have resulted in many important publications, which often contain in addition to important texts, some extremely interesting introductions on many topics of Scottish history. A guide to them is forthcoming in C.S.Terry, A Catalogue of the Publications of the Scottish historical and kindred clubs and societies, 1780–1908 (Glasgow, 1909). Both these guides were continued for the period 1908–27 by C.Matheson (Aberdeen, 1928). Some indication of the nature and variety of these publications may be seen from the following random selection: M.Wood, Foreign Correspondence with Marie de Lorraine, Queen of Scotland (Scot. Hist. Soc., 2 vols., 3rd Series, IV, VII, 1923–25); A.I.Cameron, The Scottish Correspondence of Mary of Lorraine, 1543–60 (ibid., 3rd Ser., X, 1927); M.Wood, Flodden Papers (ibid., 3rd Ser., 1933); A.I. Cameron and R.S.Rait, Warrender Papers (ibid., 3rd Ser., 1931), W.C.Dickinson, The Sheriff Court Book of Fife, 1515–22 (ibid., 3rd Ser., XII, 1928); J.Stuart, The Pittodrie Papers, 1524–1628, being the papers of Thomas Erskine, Secretary to James V (Spalding Club Misc., II, 1842); J.D. Marwick, Extracts from the Records of the burgh of Edinburgh (Scot. Burgh Rec. Soc., 1869–92). The most important contemporary narrative sources for this period are The History of Scotland from the death of James I…to 1561, edited by T.Thomson (Bannatyne Club, 1830), which is an English translation of part of John Leslie, De origine, moribus, et rebus gestis Scotorum (1578), and John Knox, The History of the Reformation in Scotland (1st edn., 1587: edited by D. Laing, Edin., 1846–48; another edn. by W.C.Dickinson (2 vols., Edin., 1949). A most informative contemporary description of Scotland is in John Major, De gestis Scotorum (Paris, 1521: English translation by A.Constable, Scot. Hist. Soc., X, 1892). For some other contemporary descriptions see P.Hume Brown, Early Travellers in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1891). For Ireland there is a useful selection of extracts from the original sources in Constantia Maxwell, Irish History from contemporary sources, 1509–1610 (1923). There are deplorable gaps in the official records of Ireland. Much that was formerly in the Irish Public Record Office was destroyed in the political troubles in 1922. Some impression of the loss may be gained from H.Wood, A Guide to the Records deposited in the Public Record Office in Ireland (Dublin, 1919) and from an article by the same author on “The Public Records of Ireland before and after 1922” (R. Hist. Soc., 4th Ser., XIII, 1930, 17– 48). Some of the material thus described had appeared in print before this destruction happened. The amount of material dealing with Irish affairs in the English Public Record Office is considerable. Valuable for Anglo-Irish relations are some of the documents in J.Gairdner, Letters and Papers illustrative of the reigns of Richard III and Henry VII (2 vols., R.S., 1861–63). For later years there are the State papers collected in the second and third volumes of State Papers, Henry VIII (1830–52) where the correspondence between the two governments, 1515–46, is printed in extenso. Summaries of numerous documents reflecting on Irish affairs are also published in Letters and Papers (passim), The Calendar of State Papers, Ireland, ed. H.C.Hamilton (1860–90) covers the years 1509–85 in the first two volumes, but unfortunately this is so brief as to be little more than a catalogue. The Calendar of the Carew MSS., 1515–1624, ed. by J.S.Brewer and W.Bullen (1867–73) is a

84

ENGLISH HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS (1485–1558)

curious miscellaneous collection of documents and memoranda concerned with Irish affairs. This material, consisting largely of copies rather than original pieces is preserved at Lambeth Palace. It is very fully calendared. A useful collection of documents for ecclesiastical history is E.P. Shirley, Original Letters and Papers in illustration of the history of the Church in Ireland during the reign of Edward VI, Mary, and Elizabeth (1851). Royal proclamations affecting Ireland are in R.Steele, Tudor and Stuart Proclamations, vol. II. Legislation affecting Ireland is in J.G.Butler, The Statutes at Large passed in the parliaments held in Ireland (Dublin, 1786), the first volume covering this period. Although incomplete this work is of great value, since the original MSS. have been destroyed. The Acts of the Privy Council in Ireland are in H.M.C. Rep., XIII, and XIV, App. III, 1–296, but unfortunately they only begin in 1556. There is a calendar of fiants (i.e. warrants to the Court of Chancery for grants under the great seal) in the Rep. Dep. Keeper of the Public Records in Ireland (VII– IX, Dublin, 1875–90), and a rather brief collection of Patent and Close Rolls ed. J.Morrin (Dublin, 1861–63). The main narrative sources for Irish history in the sixteenth century comprise J.O’Donovan, Annals of the Four Masters (Dublin, 1851:1856); W.M.Hennessy, Annals of Loch Cé, 1014– 1590 (R.S., 2 vols., 1871), and W.M.Hennessy and B.MacCarthy, Annals of Ulster (Dublin, 1887–1901). W.Harris, Hibernica (Dublin, 1747:1770) contains an account of the voyage of Sir Richard Edgecombe into Ireland in 1488 to take new oaths of allegiance, and a “Breviat of the getting of Ireland”, by Patrick Finglas, Chief Justice of Ireland in the reign of Henry VIII.

Part I THE WRITING OF HISTORY

INTRODUCTION

T

HE historian’s first duty is to understand the intrinsic nature, quality, and reliability of the materials from which he expects to derive his information. When these sources consist of historical narrative something more is involved than textual criticism. Some estimate must also be made of the attitude towards the past of those who produced them, and the extent to which such narratives provide a general framework of the events of the period which is under consideration. When such tests are applied to the historical narrative of the early Tudor period some interesting results emerge. As in other spheres, it was a time of experiment in the writing of history. Developments are visible which were to have significant results; the way was being prepared for considerable changes. Some of the main tendencies can be illustrated by a few generalizations. In all periods of history there can be found individuals possessed of what may be described as a sense of news-value, which makes them responsive to the meaning and relative value of the events they experience. Such awareness is usually accompanied by an urge to make some note, however brief, which will retain an impression of the impact such events make upon the individual and the life of his time. Earlier volumes in this series provide ample evidence of the way in which, during the Middle Ages, such an urge resulted in the production of numerous monastic chronicles. From the seclusion of the monastery a writer, or more often a succession of writers, kept the chronicle of the house, recording in it the events and incidents of the daily life of the institution, and, where the writer’s interests were not too closely concentrated upon his immediate surroundings, incorporating in his manuscript notices of events of a more general character happening in the world outside his monastery. By the early fifteenth century, when their inferior quality reflected a general decline in the vigour of such religious foundations, monastic chronicles lost their importance. The initiative in recording events passed from the monk to the officials and citizens of London. In the several texts of London chronicles still extant there appear narratives very similar in form and content to those emanating earlier from the monasteries. The characteristics of these city chronicles have been closely studied. Briefly, they may be described as short notices of events of civic and national importance recorded under the mayoral year, headed annually with the name of the mayor and sheriffs, with sometimes a mention of the city company to which the mayor belonged. Taken as a whole these chronicles contain a mixed assortment of news-items in which notices of real historical significance, with now and again the text of an official document, sit side by side with tales of portents, reports about the weather, and other trivial matters. The general picture they suggest is that of a colourful, bustling city life, with its official banquets, civic processions, and the less spectacular, but more normal give and take of everyday life in the city. They provide useful sidelights on social life and reflect popular opinion. That such narratives were appreciated by contemporaries is suggested by the 87

88

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

fact that several versions are still extant, written by anonymous scribes, who copied from each other or from a common source, in just the same way as the monastic chroniclers had done. The textual problems to which these different versions give rise have been the subject of some delicate scholarship, some of which is discussed below. While it is true that the greater part of the material in the London chronicles is concerned with the period before 1485, they cannot be entirely ignored by the historian dealing with the early Tudor period. Some important examples continued to be written during the period, and the information they provide is by no means negligible. What is even more noteworthy is the fact that the early sixteenth century saw the first printed texts of some of them, and these provided the inspiration for other experiments in the chronicle form. While such material has its value, it must not be exaggerated. The chronicle provides the framework of events in civic and national history which contemporary opinion considered significant. The information it provides is strictly contemporary evidence, and the picture it gives of city life has a warmth of colour lacking in some other types of material the historian of this period has to use. Here and there it contains information which might otherwise not be known, and it is often useful as corroborative evidence. Yet, when all is said on behalf of the chronicles, they still remain a minor part of the narrative material available for the period. What is more, they represent a type of source that was reminiscent of a world which was yielding to change. Despite the efforts of a little group of men like John Rastell, Reynold Wolfe, and, after the middle of the century, Stow, Holinshed, and Harrison, they had no real future as a narrative form. By the time of Queen Elizabeth even the best of them were beginning to look oldfashioned, and bright young men of the time were sharpening their wits on these “lay chronographers that write of Mayors and Sheriffs, and the dear year and the great frosts.”1 Only some stimulus from outside could break through the crust of convention imprisoning narrative history within the confines of the chronicle form. If the selfcentred complacency of the chronicles was to give place to a more profound realization of the past it could only be achieved by the reception of the new ideas about the past and its study which were already finding expression in the writings of the humanists of the Italian renaissance. These new ideas were introduced into England through the work of one man. It is hardly too much to claim that Polydore Vergil’s Anglica Historia revolutionized the writing of English history. Bringing to his studies the fresh eye of the foreigner, the training and culture acquired in youth in the Italy of the Renaissance, and the technique of scholarship which he had already shown in some reputable works of literary research, Vergil was well fitted to be the pioneer in a new form of English narrative history. Vergil saw English history as a whole, and his narrative was at once a work of literary art and according to his lights, of sound scholarship. His survey was planned on an impressive scale, nothing less than an account, in twenty-six books, of the history of the country from the earliest times down to Vergil’s own day. The earlier books do not call for notice here, save to mention that his account of the long period lying outside his 1

Nash, Pierce Pennilesse, Works II, 62.

INTRODUCTION

89

own personal experience was a bold, and to no small degree, a critical interpretation based on as firm a foundation of facts as he could gather from a wide range of authorities whose work he had studied. When he came to deal with events nearer his own day, and within his own experience, he spared no pains to get at the truth not only from the written word, but also from the first-hand evidence of contemporary witnesses, so that for the reign of Henry VII, and to a lesser degree for the reign of Henry VIII down to 1537 his book is a historical source of the greatest value. The challenge implicit in Vergil’s new methods did not fail to meet with a response. There were those who, while they found little to quarrel with in that part of his history dealing with contemporary events, were horrified by the ruthless iconoclasm with which he handled such hallowed themes of English history as the Arthurian “myth” and his sceptical reaction to so famous an authority as Geoffrey of Monmouth. First to be roused was John Leland, who devoted two works to refuting Vergil’s theories. His friend John Bale, fired as usual by his venomous anti-papal animosity, denounced him for polluting our English chronicles most shamefully with his Romish lies and other Italish beggaries, and even went so far as to write his own account of the life and trials of Sir John Oldcastle, Lord Cobham, in opposition to Vergil’s history. A little later Sir John Price followed Leland’s example in his detailed defence of the traditional story of early British history against the new-fangled interpretation by Vergil. These men, and in particular Leland and Bale represent England’s native contribution to historical scholarship at this time. Their antiquarian interests merit a passing reference. Leland’s actual contribution to written history was small, but his indirect influence upon historical scholarship was certain, although it is not easy to assess. That he had an unrivalled knowledge of the earlier materials of English history is evident in the few writings he managed to complete, that he had ambitions as an historian is revealed in his “New Year’s Gift”, the report on his antiquarian researches he prepared for Henry VIII. Inspired by a deep love of the English past, and appalled by the wanton scattering of manuscript treasures which resulted from the closing of the religious houses, he did his best to save from the wreckage what he could, by acquiring manuscripts, and by laboriously copying them, and by accumulating information from them in copious notes he hoped eventually to work into a history. This he never did: he died with his notes only partly arranged: but he left behind him materials contemporary scholars and those coming after them were glad to use. Leland’s name stands high in the list of English antiquarians. He was not an historian. His attempt at a refutation of Vergil, despite the close intimacy it reveals with medieval historical literature shows a lack of critical sense sometimes bordering on the naïve, and a persistent special pleading reminiscent of the advocate rather than the historian. To dismiss Leland, with the remark that he is merely a superstition, is just silly. It shows a profound ignorance of his real importance. Granted that his creative historical work is negligible, that his attitude to the past is primarily that of an antiquarian, that in relation to the development of English historiography he is of far less importance than Poly dore Vergil, it still remains true that he has to be reckoned among the powerful influences of his day. His own special contribution was to English topography.

90

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

In the notes he gathered during his great survey of England, notes which, incidentally, he made for his own use not for publication, he was blazing a new trail. The Itinerary is the work of a pioneer. History it most certainly is not, nor could such crude memoranda ever be regarded as literature, but as a contemporary example of the historical geography of early Tudor England as seen by an English antiquary it is unique. Leland’s importance, however, does not derive solely from his Itinerary. As early as 1536 he was encouraging his friend John Bale to continue the work he had begun in early life of making collections for a history of the Carmelite order in which Bale had been nurtured, and later Bale was to do much to foster that enthusiasm for manuscripts Leland did so much to stimulate. Even before Leland’s death Reynold Wolf, printer and publisher, with leanings towards historical scholarship, planned chronicle history on a new scale, to embrace universal history. Towards that end he acquired some of Leland’s manuscripts. Through his efforts a new generation of younger men like William Harrison, Raphael Holinshed, and others were to do something to infuse chronicle writing with new ideas. The use later writers were to make of Leland’s collections can be read in the works of the historians and antiquaries of the sixteenth and seventeenth century. Returning to Vergil’s Anglica Historia, we may note one grave disadvantage from which it suffered. It was written in Latin. True, in the early sixteenth century this was still the language of scholars, and some English writers, Thomas More and Stephen Gardiner, for example, found it difficult to decide whether to risk giving the world their masterpieces in the vernacular. To Edward Hall must be given the credit of seeing the possibilities not only of the new form of history Vergil had introduced, but also the advantages of the new medium, English, in which it might be written. Hall’s English style, although it had many qualities, can hardly be described as limpid prose: but it showed, at any rate, what might be done. He wrote a history of his country from Lancastrian times down to his own day. A full appreciation of it must take account of several things. Hall was no renaissance scholar or man of letters. He was a Londoner, with all the civic pride of the average citizen, and he knew—he may even have owned— copies of the London chronicles. Like many of his countrymen he had seen with relief how the Tudor dynasty had succeeded in ending the civil strife of the fifteenth century. He did not set out to write the continuation of a London chronicle for he had a great theme to work out which gave a unity to his book. It was the story of the successful marriage of the first Tudor king and the benefits it had brought to England. There was a moral too: the dire consequences for any state where party rivalries were allowed to degenerate into civic strife. Because the Tudor kings had ended such strife he could write in magnificent praise of the new dynasty. He had at hand Vergil’s history, and he used it to the full, so much so that his own account of Henry VII’s reign seems at first sight little more than a free translation of that work. This is not quite true: Hall had other sources on which he also relied, and when he writes about Henry VIII’s reign he is a more authoritative guide than Vergil. Hall’s book is of great interest, for in it the two forms of historical writing, the chronicle and the history, can be seen coming together. Here is the bridge between the old world and the new. The relations between

INTRODUCTION

91

his work and that of Vergil were so close that they naturally give rise to some difficult problems in textual criticism. Some of them are indicated below. Whenever a writer’s interest in the past rises above the mere collection of facts, and he is prompted to analyse motives, estimate character, and judge achievement, whenever in a word chronicle is transformed into history, the point has been reached when that writer’s own opinions, prejudices, and methods of work call for careful scrutiny before his contribution as historical material can be assessed at its true value. This is particularly true of such a period as the sixteenth century, when the questions in dispute in religion and politics were a challenge to the most intimate beliefs of the individual, evoking emotions which quickly flared up into passion, and making it impossible for even the most ordinary topics to be treated objectively. All writers of the period were affected, the narrative historians no less than others, and the need for a searching test of their credentials is imperative. The extent to which the contemporary historian can be trusted will only be revealed after such tests are applied. They are complicated. It is not merely a question of veracity: a writer may quite honestly be of the opinion that what he says is the truth: but in an age in which governments and lesser associations were learning with incredible facility to create and exploit a machinery of propaganda, based to no small degree on the printed word, on a scale previously unimagined, it is always possible that the writer under examination is either the deliberate agent or the unsuspecting victim of propaganda: in either alternative the result will be the same: his evidence will be tainted, and although it may not be wholly useless it will need severe tests. Nor is that all. The violence with which opinions were held by all the conflicting parties justified in the opinion of all controversialists of the time the use of the most scandalous language against their opponents and an intolerance of opposition which turned into persecution whenever the possession of power made it practicable. In these circumstances even the most out-spoken had to be circumspect in their written words. Thus, moved by fear, discretion, prejudice, or partisanship a writer might (and frequently did) adopt expedients which eluded contemporaries and often baffle modern research by concealing their identity, withholding essential information, or deliberately twisting the facts to suit their arguments. With these, and similar devices, the historian of today has to cope. Sometimes he can do so successfully, as when he discounts Vergil’s anti-Wolsey prejudice, or takes at their real value Hall’s panegyric of Tudor kingship. There are times, however, when he faces problems which not even the technique of modern historical criticism can yet solve. What, for example, is he to make of the writings of John Foxe? The answer to that question is two-fold. For Foxe’s work can be looked at from two points of view. Firstly, his book may be regarded as itself a piece of historical evidence reflecting the thought-world of its author, and of the sixteenth century. Secondly, it may be considered as a repository of historical materials in the form of documents. These two points of view do not yield exactly the same results. The distinction needs a word of explanation. As itself a piece of historical evidence Foxe’s Acts and Monuments has a unique place in the historical literature of the early sixteenth century. It was not an ordinary book. Foxe did not write it for disinterested readers. He wrote for men whose religious

92

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

sentiments were as passionate and as radical as his own. What he offered them was not an objective study of events, but a book of saints and martyrs. This was quickly realized. Almost at its first appearance it was popularly referred to as “The Book of Martyrs”, a title which it has retained in popular opinion even down to the present time. Others might fashion for the early reformers new forms of worship, restate for them their doctrines, and justify the innovations in religion they were ready to support: but it was to the pages of Foxe they went for the story, which transformed the immediate past into a golden legend. Naturally such a book will have little appeal for those who view the religious history of the period from the side opposite to that of Foxe. Such opponents have much to justify their attitude. Foxe was an avowed partisan, and his objective was to pillory the Roman Church and all its works. He did not weigh his words, and in language frequently going beyond the limits of good taste he scored all the points he could against his hated opponents. They in return, it is fair to mention, showed that neither he nor those who thought with him had a monopoly of the idiom of controversy. Some of Foxe’s critics seem to think they have disposed of his book when they discuss it as a vast essay in hagiography in the service of history. It would not matter if every sentence in Foxe’s book could be proved false. The work would yet remain a piece of evidence of the first importance, for in it there is mirrored for all time the conflict of ideas, the heroic impulses, the tragic errors of the English Reformation. Quite different must be the attitude of the historian to Foxe’s book seen as a great repository of historical documents. One thing is certain. The Acts and Monuments cannot be ignored. Here is a work, formidable in size, running to some thousands of pages, in which a good part of the religious history of England between the reigns of Henry VIII and Mary is described in considerable detail. The author was quite strictly a contemporary. He was a university student when the first attacks on papal supremacy were being made. He knew personally many of the prominent personalities he describes. He prints a great many of their letters and papers, which came into his hands. He was unwearied in seeking out public and private documents in support of his narrative, and some of that material is not now extant save in the form which Foxe gave to it. Here, then, if anywhere is contemporary evidence of the clearest kind. It has not gone unchallenged. The criticisms levelled against Foxe’s methods include charges of weighting the evidence by printing documents drawn almost exclusively from the side he supports, of careless and inaccurate statements, of omitting from his text important points which tell against his case, of ignoring or misrepresenting evidence when it suits his purpose. There has been a tendency in recent times for scholars to react away from the extreme criticism which brought Foxe into grave disrepute in the nineteenth century, but it cannot be said that he is completely cleared of all the charges. A friendly biographer has said that Foxe was temperamentally incapable of writing what is now called scientific history:1 and while that criticism remains in force no historian can use his work without applying to it the most rigorous standards of criticism. Enough has been said to show that the early Tudor period deserves attention from the student of the history of English historiography as one in which very considerable 1

Mozley, John Foxe and his Book, 153.

INTRODUCTION

93

development was taking place. That must not lead to an exaggerated estimate of the value of the narrative as a source for the history of the period. The most important feature of the source material available is the remarkable wealth of documentary evidence of all kinds that is provided for the historian. Some of these types are dealt with elsewhere in this volume. Their variety, as well as their quantity, sometimes almost embarrassing in their riches, is a welcome change from the materials available for the earlier years of the fifteenth century. They make it possible to answer questions it would not be worth asking if the historian had nowhere to look for the answers save in the historical narratives. These facts remind us of the limitations of the narrative sources. They should not prevent us from recognizing the debt we owe to the pioneers who, whatever the shortcomings of their efforts set the example, and provided the framework around which a greater and more accurate knowledge of the period can be constructed.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY OF CHRONICLES AND HISTORIES (A) CHRONICLES Questions of authorship, provenance and textual criticism of the manuscripts of the London chronicles have been the concern of several scholars, and the combined results of their work have established the relative value of the different versions. Much of that work has been concerned with manuscripts covering the period before 1485, and does not require notice here, but it is necessary to review that part of such researches which have a bearing on manuscripts of the early Tudor period. The arguments are complicated, but they are by no means without interest for they illustrate the skill whereby the scholar applies critical technique to the investigation of the reliability of the materials out of which he fashions his history. Scientific criticism of the chronicle sources for this period began with the German historian Wilhelm Busch, England under the Tudors (transl. A.M.Todd, 1895, pp. 400–415). Buschhad at his disposal two printed texts, Richard Arnold’s Customs of London (ed. F.Douce, 1811) and Robert Fabyan’s The New Chronicles of England and France (ed. Sir Henry Ellis, 1811). From these he made some deductions. Since the problems connected with Arnold’s work present no serious difficulties it can be quickly dismissed. Richard Arnold (d. 1521) was a London merchant with literary ambitions. He put into print (? at Amsterdam) a curious commonplace book. Among its contents, a miscellaneous jumble including copies of city charters, a statement of the difference between English and Flemish currencies, and the earliest known version of the “Ballad of the Nut-Brown Maid”, Arnold included a poor specimen of a London chronicle, only important because it was the earliest to get into print. In a second edition of his book this narrative was continued to January 1521. As a source for the period this continuation is of no value: it is important only for what it inspired. For this continuation was closely connected with The Chronicle of the Grey Friars of London, first edited by J.F.Nichols (C.S. 1st Ser., LIII, 1852), but a better text appeared in Monumenta Franciscana (R.S. 1853–82, II, 143–260). Since this chronicle had a connection with a Franciscan convent, it has sometimes been assumed that it is a late example of the monastic type of chronicle. In fact, down to 1501–2 this narrative is little more than a copy of Arnold, but from then on it is an independent work until its end in

94

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

1556. A similar reliance on Arnold applies to the more important work of Charles Wriothesley (1 508–62). His Chronicle of England during the reigns of the Tudors, edited by D.Hamilton (C.S., 1875, 2 vols.) is far more valuable. Wriothesley was a member of a well-known family closely connected with the Herald’s Office. His father, Sir Thomas Wrythe, or Wriothesley, was made Garter in 1505, having been created pursuivant to Arthur, Prince of Wales in 1489, while his uncle William was York Herald. Charles Wriothesley entered the office when under sixteen, in 1524, as Rouge Croix pursuivant. He was made Windsor Herald on Christmas Day 1534, an office he retained until his death on 25 January 1562. His working life was spent wholly within the City, and he had ample opportunities to know at first hand many of the events he recorded. His chronicle begins in 1485. He took as his model Arnold’s chronicle, and for the period 1485–1518 his work is virtually a copy of that work. After that it becomes wholly original work, and is the chronicle covering the whole of the years 1521–59. For this period the author seems to have depended entirely upon his own observation and knowledge. He is, therefore, a first-hand witness to the events of his time. Some indication of the original character of Wriothesley’s work may be gathered from the fact that in the printed edition only twelve out of three hundred and thirty-three pages of text contain material from Arnold’s chronicle. Carrying on the form he found in Arnold, Wriothesley made his entries under the mayoral years, so that the general effect is that of the traditional city chronicle, but his reporting is essentially personal. He seems to have kept his journal regularly, writing his account of events as they occurred. His reactions to the political and religious events of his day probably represent the feelings of the average London citizen. He seems to have accepted without scruples the changes of Henry VIII’s reign, but he was shocked at the sweeping away of age-old ceremonies by the Edwardian reformers, and he welcomed the return of what he thought was the old order under Mary until, like others of the queen’s subjects, he was alienated by the persecution, and sought refuge in reticence. His chronicle is an important source for the period. The original MS. is not known to be extant and the modern edition was printed from a transcript made early in the seventeenth century, probably for Henry Wriothesley, the third earl of Southampton 1573–1624. The editor preserved the seventeenth-century spelling as it is in the manuscript, but in places introduced modernizations. The problems connected with Fabyan’s chronicle presented Busch with much greater difficulties, but he arrived at some interesting conclusions. Robert Fabyan (d. 1513) was, like his father, a clothier and a member of the Drapers’ Company. He married the rich heiress of a London clothier, became sheriff of the City in 1493, played an active part in civic affairs, but withdrew from public life to avoid being chosen Lord Mayor, on the grounds that he could not afford the expense. Fabyan had a taste for historical studies. His chronicle was a compilation in which he attempted, not very cleverly, to harmonize various texts of the London chronicles. It was first printed in 1516 by Richard Pynson. It ended with the reign of Richard III. When it appeared again, in 1533, printed by John Rastell, it had a continuation from 1485 to 1509. It is this continuation which aroused Busch’s interest. In his investigations he closely examined a manuscript of a London chronicle (B.M.Cott. Vitellius A. XVI). This had been much used by historians but up to then had not been printed. Busch came to the conclusion that the printed continuation of Fabyan’s Chronicle and this Vitellius chronicle were derived independently from a common original, and that the continuation had been written by Fabyan himself. Now Busch also discovered the existence of another manuscript London Chronicle, which he suspected might have some connection with these works. Unfortunately it was in the possession of the Bromley Davenport family, and he was unable to get access to it. The Vitellius Chronicle was edited, with some other examples of London chronicles by C.L.Kingsford in Chronicles of London (Oxford, 1905). In his introduction the editor

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

95

discussed the many textual problems connected with these city chronicles, including those which had interested Busch. He agreed that the continuation of Fabyan’s chronicle and the Vitellius version had links with a common original: but he produced arguments rejecting the theory that Fabyan was its author. When Kingsford returned to these problems in his English Historical Literature in the Fifteenth Century (Oxford, 1913) he was in a position to take his arguments further. The manuscript Busch had not been able to see had been sold by the Bromley Davenport family in 1903, and when Kingsford was preparing his book the owners allowed him to examine it. He discovered that it was an important manuscript, the fullest and most valuable of all the versions of the London chronicles. Because it is exceptionally full he suggested that it should be called “The Great Chronicle”. In his opinion it is the best representative of the lost prototype of all these versions, from which they are all derived, and to which he gave the name “The Main City Chronicle”. Despite Kingsford’s statement that the “Great Chronicle” was soon to be printed (so confident was he that he included it in his bibliography of printed sources) the work did not appear. In 1933 the manuscript again came up for auction. It was acquired by Viscount Wakefield of Hythe, and presented to the Guildhall Library. In addition Lord Wakefield generously defrayed the cost of production of a de luxe edition of the chronicle limited to 500 copies. This beautiful example of modern book production, The Great Chronicle of London, edited by A.H.Thomas and I.D.Thornley (1938) contains a scholarly introduction which deals, in the light of new evidence, with the problems their predecessors had discussed. The intricate arguments by which they arrived at their conclusions cannot be considered here, but the main results may be indicated. They show that the problems of the interrelation of the various manuscripts is even more complex than Kingsford had realized, and they modify some of his conclusions. The “Great Chronicle” consists of two parts, the second being a separate chronicle for the period 1439–1512. They confirm Kingsford’s statement that there was a close relationship between the Vitellius chronicle, the continuation of Fabyan’s chronicle, and the “Great Chronicle”. All these are deeply indebted to the lost London chronicleto which Kingsford had given the title “The Main City Chronicle”. Assessing the relative value of the three versions they bring out very clearly the superiority of the “Great Chronicle”. For the period 1461–93 the “Great Chronicle” far surpasses the other two in substance and interest: from 1491–1503 its superiority over Vitellius A XVI is not so marked, and there is close verbal comparison, while the Fabyan continuation beginning in 1485 seems to repeat merely an abstract of the common sources. From 1503 to 1512 the “Great Chronicle” stands alone, a copious narrative of independent value. If the writing of civic chronicles tended to decrease in the sixteenth century it will not do to write their epitaph too soon. Two versions, one covering the years 1523–40, and the other the years 1548–55 are known to have been in the possession of the antiquary John Stow, and he used them in compiling his summary of English chronicles (1565). They were edited by C.L. Kingsford, “Two London Chronicles” (C.S. Misc. XII, 1910). Another brief specimen was edited by C.Hopper, “A London Chronicle during the years of Henry VII and Henry VIII” (C.S. Misc. IV, 1859). Mention must also be made of town chronicles from other places. Many are still in manuscript. They are discussed in R.Flenley, Six Town Chronicles (Oxford, 1911), where a version of a King’s Lynn chronicle is printed, pp. 184– 201. From Bristol comes an early specimen, forming part of The Maire of Bristowe is Kalendar, edited by L.T.Smith (C.S. 2nd Ser., V, 1872). Begun by Robert Ricart, town clerk of Bristol in the latter half of the fifteenth century this chronicle records events of both national and local interest, and although it does not seem to owe anything to the London chronicles it is not unlike them in form. References to other town chronicles of a like nature will be found in Flenley, op. cit. pp. 27–38. There are several minor narratives which, although they were

96

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

independent works not always in the tradition of the London chronicles should nevertheless be included in this category of chronicle sources. The earliest of these writers is Bernard Andreas (d. 1521). Not much is known about him before 1485, when he seems to have come to England in the service of Henry VII. He was born at Toulon, and became a friar of the order of St Augustine. His main function at Henry VII’s court was to act as poet laureate, celebrating special events in French or Latin verse. He also did some teaching at Oxford, for which he was granted a pension of 10 marks a year from November 1486 until such time as he should obtain church preferment from the crown to a similar value. Such preferment came during the next few years. About 1496 he was made tutor to Arthur, Prince of Wales. In 1500 he retired from court in order to resume his studies, and he began writing a life of the king. In the preface he proposes to send the king every year some kind of literary work, a promise he carried out in the form of an annual chronicle of outstanding events. Only two are extant for Henry VII’s reign, but he wrote two others for 1515 and 1521, neither of them of any importance. Andreas was a good classical scholar, capable of respectable Latin verse, and the quotations in his prose writings suggest a very fair knowledge of classical literature. As a historian he was greatly handicapped by blindness. The last date at which it can be said with any certainty that he was alive is 1521. The historical works of Andreas were edited by J.Gairdner, Memorials of King Henry the Seventh (R.S., 1858). They consist of (i) the life of Henry VII (pp. 5–75), printed from B.M. MS. Cott. Domitian XVIII, f. 126–228; (ii) Annals of the year 20 Henry VII (1504–5) from B.M. MS.Cott.Julius A. IV, and for the year 23 Henry VII (1507–8) from B.M.MS.Cott.Julius A. in. Gairdner in Memorials, p. XVI, and Busch, England under the Tudors, pp. 393–395, have evaluated the historical work of Andreas. Neither rate the Life very highly, finding its effusive praise of the king no substitute for its lack of facts. Busch, indeed, is more severe, deploring the writer’s indifference to facts, his extreme carelessness, and lack of judgment, and says that the Life has produced more confusion than enlightenment. Of the Annals, those for 1504–5 are rough notes, and are not very valuable. Those for 1507–8, although fuller, are bare recitals of facts, with no reference to their political importance. An interesting example of an independent chronicle form is The Chronicle of Calais, edited by J.G.Nichols (C.S., XXXV, 1846). We owe the text to a transcript (B.M. Harl. MS. 542) made by Stow. The narrative extends from 1485–1540. At the head of the manuscript stands the name of one Richard Turpyn, burgess of Calais, but whether he was merely the owner of the manuscript or the author of the chronicle is uncertain. The editor has put together all that is known about two Richard Turpyns, closely related. The value of this text is enhanced by the valuable documents dealing with Calais, which the editor has printed in appendices. A work entitled The Chronicle of Queen Jane and of two years of Queen Mary, and especially of the rebellion of Sir Thomas Wyatt written by a resident in the Tower of London, edited by J.G. Nichols (C.S. XLVIII, 1850) is a diary (B.M.Harl. MS. 194) extending from July 1553–October 1554 so wretchedly scribbled that even Stow, who printed some passages from it wrongly deciphered several words. It is the authority for the account given by Stow and Holinshed for the execution of Lord Guilford Dudley and Lady Jane Grey, as well as for the greater part of their narrative of events during the period when the Council governed in the name of “Jane the Queen”. The writer was sufficiently important to be admitted to dine at Lady Jane’s table in the Tower. The editor conjectured from internal evidence that the author must have been an officer of the Mint. The chronicle itself, together with the copious appendices of illustrative documents is of considerable value for events from the time of Edward VI’s death to the arrival and marriage of Philip and Mary, and is especially full for Wyatt’s rebellion.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

97

(B) HISTORIANS When Polydore Vergil (c. 1470–1555) first landed in England in 1502 he was thirty years of age, a young man with considerable achievements to his credit. Born at Urbino into a family of some standing, he had passed through the university at Padua, had been secretary to the duke of Urbino, had taken orders, and had moved to Rome, where he entered the service of Pope Alexander VI. While at Padua he had already shown his bent for scholarship by editing a new edition of a popular commentary on Martial (1496), an original work, the Prouerbiorum Libellus or the Adagia (printed at Venice, 1498) and the De Inuentoribus Rerum (Venice, 1499). The Adagia, a collection of proverbs and obiter dicta from the classics, with brief comments, was the first book of quotations, and although it was soon outshadowed by a similar book by Erasmus credit for being first in the field must go to Vergil. The De Inuentoribus Rerum was a great success: over 30 editions appeared in Vergil’s lifetime. As an encyclopaedia treating of the origins of human institutions, and the history of inventors and inventions it is remarkable for the range of its scholarship. Some material rewards for his industry followed. In 1502 Adriano Castello, collector of Peter’s Pence, and Henry VII’s agent at Rome, sent Vergil to look after his affairs in England, with the status of deputy collector. He was, by his own account, most courteously received by the king. His enquiring mind naturally turned to examine the nature of the country to which he had been posted, and it may have been his own comments to Henry VII which led the king to encourage him to write the history of this country. He began by collecting materials: this seems to have been about 1506. By 1513 he had completed a first draft, in which he brought his narrative down to that year. In 1514 he visited Rome, taking his manuscript with him. On his return in the winter of 1514 he found himself in difficulties. Wolsey seems to have expected Vergil to support at Rome his attempt to obtain a nomination as cardinal. An Italian rival of Vergil in England, anxious to get his post for himself, intrigued against Vergil, intercepting his letters, and revealed to Wolsey some indiscreet reference made in them about himself. In April 1515 Vergil was put in the Tower where he was kept until the end of the year. He never forgave Wolsey for this insult, and later took his revenge by pillorying him in his history as the evil genius of Henry VIII’s reign, in language which would be repeated almost without a change by a succession of historians. Vergil’s literary achievements in England showed first fruits in 1525 when he produced, as a by-product of his historical studies, an edition of the works of Gildas. This first critical edition of an English historical text was a preparation for the daring critical treatment of the traditional story of early British history he was to work out in his history. The later years of Vergil’s residence in England were without incident. After a stay of fifty years in the country he decided in 1550 to return to his native city of Urbino. He probably left England about the time of Edward VI’s death. He died at Urbino on 18 April 1555. The textual history of Vergil’s book is complicated. The work appeared in four distinct versions during his lifetime: a manuscript version (now in the Vatican Library) written by 1513 and ending with events of that year; an edito princeps: Historiae Anglicae libri viginti sex (Basle, 1534), covering events to 1509: a second edition (Basle, 1546) also ending in 1509: and a third edition which brought the narrative down to 1537 (Basle, 1555). Professor D.Hay has edited, with a translation, The Anglica Historia of Polydore Vergil, 1485–1537 (C.S. LXXIV, 1950) and has brought out very clearly the nature of the variations found in these different texts. He prints Books XXIV and XXV (i.e. from 1485–1513) from the text of the Vatican manuscript, collated with the printed versions, in which there are some important alternative readings. The remainder of the text, from 1513 when the Vatican manuscript ends, to 1537 is printed from the third edition.

98

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

There exists a mid-sixteenth century English version of the 1546 edition (B.M.MS.Royal C. VIII and IX), but this only comes down to 1485. It was edited by Sir Henry Ellis, Polydore Vergil’s English History from an Early Translation: containing Books I–VIII (C.S. 1846), and Three Books of Polydore Vergil’s English History comprising the Reigns of Henry VI, Edward IV, and Richard III, from an Early Translation (C.S. 1844). The introductions to these volumes contain useful information about Vergil and his history. Vergil dealt with the period 1485–1537 in the last four books of the Anglica Historia. He came to England in 1502, and with the exception of three short visits to Italy he lived in this country until 1553. During these years he was in close touch with prominent men of affairs, took a lively interest in political life, and made himself acquainted with the reactions of public opinion to the events of the time. His independent mind shaped his interpretation, and in the judgments he passed he was not always able to control his personal prejudices. Yet, open to criticism as his work undoubtedly is, it has rightly received high praise from historians. The first critical assessment of its authority was made by Wilhelm Busch, England under the Tudors, I, 395–398. His conclusions vindicated Vergil as the prime narrative source for the period 1485–1509, revealing that for some features in that period he was the only existing authority. In Busch’s opinion Vergil’s treatment of Henry VII’s reign was the most original part of his work: he hinted very strongly that the subsequent portion dealing with the period from 1509–1537 was not so valuable. Busch was at a disadvantage for he had to work from the uncritical edition of the Historia by Antonius Thysius (Leyden, 1651). His conclusions were confirmed by C.L.Kingsford, English Historical Literature (pp. 254–260). Cardinal Gasquet first drew attention to the significance of the Vatican manuscript in “Some Materials for a New Edition of Polydore Vergil’s History” (T.R.H.S., 2nd Ser., XVI, 1902, 1–17), while E.A.Whitney and P.P.Cram, “Polydore Vergil’s Will” (ibid. 4th Ser., XI, 1928, 117–136), and I.S.Leadam, “Polydore Vergil in the English Law Courts”, (ibid., New Ser., XIX, 1905, 279–294) contributed fresh information about the author himself. D.Hay’s scholarly edition of the Historia, and his monograph, Polydore Vergil: Renaissance Historian and Man of Letters (Oxford, 1952) threw much light on Vergil’s methods. They prove that the Vatican manuscript is in Vergil’s own handwriting, not as had been previously said, in that of Frederico Veterani, librarian to the duke of Urbino, while they bring out very clearly the important fact that in the printed editions of his book Vergil rewrote and modified the text, adding in the 1555 edition an extra book which brought the story down to 1537. On the important question of the relation between the works of Vergil and Hall, Hay disposes of the theory, based entirely on dates of publication, that Vergil’s narrative for the reign of Henry VIII depends on Hall. While accepting Busch’s view that Vergil is the better authority for the reign of Henry VII, he argues that for the later period Vergil deserves attention even though he may not be as good a source as Hall. Edward Hall (d. 1547) was born in the parish of St Mildred, Poulteney, and much of his active life was connected with the city. Educated at Eton, which he left in 1514, he took his B.A. degree from King’s College, Cambridge, in 1518, and then read law at Gray’s Inn. He was Autumn Reader there in 1533, and Lent Reader in 1540. In 1533 he was made Common Serjeant in the city, and was undersheriffin 1535. His political activities are first indicated by his return to the Parliament of 1529 as member for Wenlock. His legal training probably explains the part he played in drafting some of the bills before this Parliament, while he sat on a committee of which Cromwell was a member. His sympathies were evidently with the government. Foxe gives an abstract of a speech Hall made in 1539, in reply to Thomas Brooke’s attack on the bills for the Six Articles. If it reports him accurately, Hall argued that the command of the king was a sufficient discharge of the subject’s conscience before God for the observance thereof. It is not surprising to find that in the next few years he was on commissions connected with the Act of Six Articles, and in March 1544 was a witness to the confession of Anne Askew. Hall’s political and religious ideas come out very clearly in his

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

99

history, which is a glorification of the Tudor dynasty. He represents the opinions of the average London citizen, his independence, his acceptance of the king’s policy and his intense dislike of Wolsey. In descriptions of tournaments, pageantry, and other ceremonial occasions he is at his best. Hall’s will was proved on 25 May 1547, and it has been suggested that he probably died on 15 April, his successor as under-sheriff being appointed on 19 April 1547. In his preface to the chronicle Grafton has a cryptic remark to the effect that in the later time of his life Hall was “not so painful and studious as before he had been”: he goes on to say that Hall did not continue his history beyond 1533: the rest he left in many different pamphlets and papers. These he (Grafton) has brought together in the printed book but without making any additions of his own. The full title of Hall’s history is The Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Families ofLancastre and Yorke. It was seen through the press after Hall’s death by Richard Grafton, who issued one edition in 1548, and had another printed for him by Richard Jugge in 1550. The standard edition is that of Sir Henry Ellis, Hall’s Chronicle (1809). Charles Whibley edited a modernized text beginning with the accession of Henry VIII (2 vols., 1904). Hall has not received the attention he deserves, partly because much of his history was incorporated into the later chronicles of Grafton, Holinshed, and Stow and their popularity tended to eclipse him. Busch naturally scrutinized his work, and concluded that while Hall is an entirely original authority for the reign of Henry VIII, the early portion is only a translation of Vergil for the reign of Henry VII. He was followed by Kingsford, English Hist. Lit., 261–265. Busch noticed an affinity between Hall’s history, and the two city chronicles, Rastell’s continuation of Fabyan and Vitellius A XVI. This hint was examined more closely by the editors of The Great Chronicle, p. xvii. They found passages in Hall’s work which showed a remarkable resemblance to the text of The Great Chronicle, resemblance so strong that they were tempted to suggest that Hall may have owned and used it for his book. Hall’s close official connection with the city would have given him access to city manuscripts, while it should be remembered that he might have known that common source, the lost Main Chronicle. Closer examination of Hall’s text would probably confirm the suspicion that even for the reign of Henry VII, where he borrowed freely from Vergil, he contributed something from other sources, and from his own personal experience. Some fresh information will be found in two papers. In the first, “Edward Hall’s Will and Chronicle” (Bull.I.H.R. IX, 1932, 171–177) A.F.Pollard prints the will, adding some brief biographical data collected from the Letters and Papers. His discovery that Hall sat in the Parliament of 1529 brings out the point, not previously recognized, that Hall’s account of that Parliament is the work of an eyewitness and an active participator in its proceedings, so that his description is in a sense a parliamentary journal. Pollard concludes that from about 1518 until 1533 Hall is a more independent and more strictly contemporary authority than has commonly been inferred. There has been confusion about the publication of Hall’s book. This question has been explored by G.Pollard in “The Bibliographical History of Hall’s Chronicle” (ibid. 12–17). Early copies of the history are often imperfect, and owing to its prohibition by the Marian government in 1550 they are also rare. Careful examination of them proves that the statement found in many places to the effect that the first edition was one printed by Berthelet in 1542 may be confidently set down as a myth. Grafton, working from Hall’s manuscripts and notes issued the first edition in 1548. There is room for a new edition in which these, and other questions, could be fully discussed. The antiquarian element in the early Tudor period has received some attention, interest centring mainly on John Leland (1506–52) and John Bale (1495–1563). Of Leland’s family and early life little is known, but from one of his Latin poems it would appear that he was at St Paul’s School under William Lilley. He was supported by a patron at Cambridge, where he took his B.A. degree from Christ’s College in 1522. There is a tradition that he then migrated to Oxford, perhaps to All Souls. Going to Paris he studied under Francis Sylvius, and met some of the French humanists, including William Budé

100

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

and Paolo Emilio. He returned with a fine knowledge of Latin, proficiency in Greek, and a working knowledge of French, Spanish, and Italian. He took holy orders before 1525. Some time before 1530 he was made keeper of the king’s library. In 1533, as Leland himself tells us in his “New Year’s Gift”, the king commissioned him to search the libraries of monasteries and colleges for the manuscripts of ancient writers. The commission itself has not been found. From 1534 until 1543 he toured large parts of England and Wales on the look-out for books for the king’s library, and also, making copious notes on matters of topographical and antiquarian interest. The dissolution of the monasteries caused him much distress. He saw great libraries being broken up, and manuscripts of all kinds scattered and destroyed. He did what he could to rescue some of them for the royal library. His travels seem to have ended in 1542 or 1543, when he settled in London to arrange his notes. In 1546, following the custom of the Court in making New Year gifts to the King, Leland sent him a brief account of his travels and his plans for the future. This is interesting for its insight into a mind soon to lose grip with reality. In the spring of 1547 Leland had a mental breakdown. He did not recover: on 21 March 1551 he and his property were put into the custody of his elder brother. He died on 18 April 1552. He was only forty-six. Very little of Leland’s historical and antiquarian material was put into print during his lifetime. After his death his manuscripts came into the hands of Sir John Cheke, and while they were in his keeping he allowed John Bale to use them. After Cheke’s death some of them went to Lord William Paget, and some to William Cecil, Lord Burghley. Four volumes of paper had been given by Cheke to Humphrey Purefoy, his son passed them to his cousin William Burton, the Leicestershire antiquary. From Burton they were acquired by the Bodleian Library. Leland’s manuscripts were much used by Bale, Stow, Harrison, Holinshed, Camden, Lambarde, Dugdale and other scholars. The first attempts to bring some kind of order into this mass of notes was made by Thomas Hearne (1678–1735), who published the topographical material under the title The Itinerary of John Leland the Antiquary (Oxford, 9 vols., 1710–23:2nd edn., revised with additions, 1744–45). The standard modern edition is that of Lucy Toulmin Smith, The Itinerary of John Leland in or about the years 1535–43 (1907–10, 5 vols.). Hearne also published the contents of three folio volumes of Leland’s manuscripts under the title Collectanea (Oxford, 1715:2nd edn., 1774). This was a collection of extracts from chronicles, public and private documents, genealogical notes, catalogues of manuscripts, etc. Some of this material is still only available in this form. Leland’s “New Year’s Gift” was first printed by Bale, with his own commentary, under the title The Laboryouse Journey and serche of Johan Leylandefor Englandes Antiquities, geven ofhym as a newe yearesgifte to Kynge Henry the VIII. in the XXXVII yeare of his Raygne (1549). Bale’s text has been reprinted several times, the last, not very scholarly, edition being that of W.A.Copinger, Bibliographiana: No. 1: Leland’s New Year’s Gift to King Henry VIII. (Privately printed, Manchester, 1895.) The text of the letter, without Bale’s commentary, is printed by L.T.Smith, op. cit. 1, xxxvii–xliii, from the manuscript copy in Leland’s hand at the end of vol. III of his Collectanea. Originally the letter had no title: that was supplied by Bale. Leland left in manuscript “De viris illustribus, sive De Scriptoribus Britannicis”, an account of British writers, in four books, chronologically arranged. Bale was working along the same lines, and his book undoubtedly owes some of its material to Leland’s work, which was not published until the eighteenth century. Leland’s anger at Poly dore Vergil’s strictures on the inaccuracies of Geoffery of Monmouth, and his scepticism in dealing with the history of King Arthur, fired him to put his ideas into writing. “Codrus sive Laus et Defensio Gallofridi Monumetensis contra Polydorum Vergilium”, first published by Hearne, Collectanea, vol. V, was an essay preliminary to his Assertio inclytissimi Arturij regis Britanniae, printed by John Herford,

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

101

1544. The Latin text, together with an Elizabethan translation, or rather paraphrase, by Richard Robinson (1582) was printed by W.E. Mead in his edition of Christopher Middleton’s The Famous Historie of Chinon of England (E.E.T.S. Old series, 165, 1925, 87–150). Bale gave some impressions of Leland in his preface to The Laboryouse Journey. Longer accounts are in W.Huddesford, Lives of Leland, Hearne, and Wood (Oxford, 1772, 2 vols.), and E.Burton, Life of Leland with notes and bibliography (1896). The essential facts are in L.T.Smith’s introduction to The Itinerary, I, v–xxxv: III, v–xi. The activities of John Bale as dramatist and religious controversialist have long been recognized. What has not received sufficient emphasis is the nature of his antiquarian and historical studies. His close friendship with Foxe and Leland connects him directly with their interests, and his own studies in these fields deserves notice. Born on 21 November 1495, at Cove near Southwold, Suffolk, of a poor family, Bale at the age of twelve was placed by his parents with the Carmelite Friars at Norwich. He was sent to Jesus College, Cambridge, in 1514, where he studied until 1528, when he had a year’s leave to visit the universities of Toulouse and Louvain. After his return to Cambridge he took his B.D. degree and went to various houses of his order, until 1533 when he was made Prior of the Carmelite house at Ipswich. At this time he was interested in the history of his order, and collected information on the subject from manuscripts belonging to it. At Ipswich Bale came under the influence of Thomas, Lord Wentworth, whose religious opinions were advanced, and whose political opinions marched with those of Cromwell. The result was that Bale withdrew from his order about 1533, married, and became a secular priest. He was installed in the vicarage of Thornden, Suffolk. In his spare time, encouraged by Leland, Bale continued his researches into Carmelite history, and in a letter of 1536 he tells Leland of his keen interest in such work, and of his desire to preserve the manuscripts of English history. His growing interest in religious controversy was a hindrance to this work. Early in 1537 his advanced views brought him into conflict with authority, but largely through the influence of Cromwell he was released from detention. He repaid his assistance by writing propaganda plays for Cromwell. After that minister’s fall Bale’s position became difficult, and he fled abroad. His whereabouts between 1543 and 1545 are uncertain: but in 1546 he has been traced to Marburg, Hesse, and Wesel in the duchy of Cleves. His controversial writings at this time were numerous. The accession of Edward VI enabled him to return to England, where he found shelter with Mary, duchess of Richmond, the wife of Henry Fitzroy, duke of Richmond. Here he met Foxe, who encouraged him to continue antiquarian studies. He busied himself in visiting libraries and collecting materials for a catalogue of writers, and in publishing Leland’s “New Year’s Gift”. On 26 June 1551 Bishop Ponet made him rector of Bishopstoke, in Hampshire. Shortly afterwards the Council offered him the bishopric of Ossory in Ireland. Bale accepted, without enthusiasm, and he was consecrated at Dublin, 2 February 1553. It was a thoroughly bad appointment. Bale, with his advanced religious views, was hopelessly out of place in a country where religious innovation was, to put it mildly, looked upon with great suspicion. His strenuous fight for his views was made more difficult by the accession of Mary, and he was soon in great danger. He managed to escape, and after a series of exciting adventures he found himself in exile again, in Holland, by November 1553. Next year he was at Frankfurt, where he was involved in the famous controversy which split the ranks of the English religious exiles. Accompanied by Foxe he went to Basle, where he managed to publish the first part of his Catalogue. At Elizabeth’s accession Bale returned to England. He received a prebend at Canterbury, 1 January 1559–60. It was a disappointing preferment for one of his standing, and Bale’s thoughts turned to his earlier plans for writing a history of England. To that end he sought the queen’s help to get back the rich collection of books and manuscripts he had left behind

102

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

him when he left Ireland. His plans did not materialize. He died at Canterbury, November 1563, at the age of sixty-eight. Bale’s main work in the field of literary history and bibliography is contained in his Illustrium Majoris Britanniae Scriptorum Summarium (Ipswich, really Wesel, 1548), and in the enlarged and revised edition, Scriptorum Illustrium Majoris Britanniae… Catalogus (Basle, 1557–59). A large manuscript notebook, which he began about 1548, contains much of Bale’s research work on manuscripts and libraries. It was edited by R.L.Poole and M.Bateson, Index Britanniae Scriptorum…(Oxford, Anecdota Oxoniensia, 1902). These works reveal him as an erudite bibliographer. His historical interests are shown in A brefe chronycle: concerning the examination, and death of the blessedMarter Sir John Oldcastell: the Lord Cobham (1544), in which he attacked Polydore Vergil’s methods; The first Examinacon of Anne Askewe… (Marburg, 1546); The Lattre Examinacon of Anne Askewe… (Marburg, 1547), which illustrates his Protestant propaganda in the guise of contemporary history. All three works are in H.Christmas, Select Works of John Bale (Parker Soc., 1849). H.R.Luard printed a most interesting sidelight on Bale’s scholarship in a letter from Bale to Archbishop Parker, found in the Cambridge University Registry (Cambridge Antiquarian Communications: Cambridge Antiq. Soc., III, 1864–76, 157–173). Bale’s writings have received considerable attention from the historians of literature. Bibliography is dealt with in H.McCusker, “Books and MSS. formerly in the possession of John Bale” (The Library: XVI, 1935–36, 144–165); W.T.Davies, “A Bibliography of John Bale” (Oxford Bibl. Soc. Proc. and Papers, v, pt. 4, 1940). Two useful monographs discuss his career and works: J.W.Harris, John Bale: A study in the minor literature of the Reformation (Illinois Studies in Language and Literature, xxv, no. 4, Urbana, 1940) and H.McCusker, John Bale: Dramatist and Antiquary (Pennsylvania, 1942). C.E.Wright, in a paper on “The Dispersal of the Monastic Libraries and the beginnings of Anglo-Saxon Studies” (Trans. Cambridge Bibl. Soc.: 1953, I, 208–237), is primarily concerned with the antiquarian activities of Archbishop Parker and his circle in the reign of Elizabeth I, but he has some useful comments on the dispersal of manuscripts during the critical years, 1530–60. The minor antiquaries of the period include Reynold (or Reyner) Wolfe (d. 1573), a native of Strasburg, who settled in England about 1537, at Cranmer’s invitation, A man of scholarly interests, and a Protestant, he was a printer, and by Edward VI’s reign he achieved an appointment as printer to the king. He was Leland’s publisher, and before that scholar’s death in 1552, had acquired some of his manuscripts. As early as 1548 he planned a universal history or cosmography, with maps and illustrations, and collected materials for the British section. He employed William Harrison and Raphael Holinshed on the work, but he did not live to see any results. Thomas Lanquet (1521–45) was one of the early Tudor pioneers in the writing of a world chronicle but his early death occurred before he could complete his work. It was carried on by Thomas Cooper (1517?–94), who published it as an Epitome of Chronicles (1549). Of both it might be said that their intentions were laudable: but their achievement was not history. Robert Talbot (1505?–58) was a friend of Leland. Scholar at Winchester (1517), fellow of New College, Oxford (1521) he was one of the early reformers in the university, but he later renounced his extreme views. Talbot did not publish much, but he had the reputation of being an industrious antiquary, and after his death his collection of manuscripts was acquired by his college. Since the antiquarians, chroniclers, and historians who continued the work of Leland and Bale (men like Archbishop Parker, 1504–75), Raphael Holinshed (d. 1580), William Harrison (1534–93), John Stow (1525–1605), Richard Grafton (d. 1572), William Lambarde (1536–1601), and Sir Thomas Smith (1513–77), did most of their work after 1558 they are reserved for discussion in a future volume. How close John Foxe (1516–87) was to the events he put on record in his monumental work will emerge from a brief note on his career. Born in Boston, Lincolnshire, Foxe lost his

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

103

father at an early age, and owed his chance of a university education to the generosity of friends. Not much is known with certainty about him until he became a probationer fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, in July 1538. His college was divided on religious questions, and Foxe, already a partisan of reform, joined others in resigning their fellowships in July 1545. After getting temporary employment as tutor to the son of William Lucy of Charlecote, Warwickshire, Foxe and the wife he married in 1547 went to London, when he became tutor to the orphan children of Henry Howard, earl of Surrey, who had been executed in July 1547. For some years Foxe lived with them at their grandfather’s manor of Reigate. During these years he wrote some theological tracts. On 24 June 1550 he was ordained deacon by Ridley, bishop of London. The accession of Mary brought him no luck. He lost his tutorship, and realizing the dangers a catholic reaction must bring him, he fled to Strasburg. In his baggage was the manuscript of a Latin book he was writing about persecution in Europe from the time of Wycliffe. At Strasburg he found a publisher. By the end of 1554 he was at Frankfurt where he was drawn into the sharp controversy concerning forms of worship which divided the English refugees there. Finding his position difficult he left with Bale in November 1555, and settled at Basle. Here he lived in poverty, glad to work for Johan Herbst, a well-known publisher of Protestant books. When the Marian persecution began Foxe received reports of events in England through his friend Grindal, and with his encouragement set to work to continue his history of persecution. By 1559 he had completed his account almost to the end of Mary’s reign. In September of that year there appeared a large Latin folio containing his account of the Marian martyrs. A month later Foxe came back to England. In January 1560 Grindal, now bishop of London, ordained him priest. His main occupation at this time was the translation of his book into English. He had obtained the papers of Ralph Morice, Cranmer’s secretary, and these, together with other information he was busily collecting gave him much additional material. On 20 March 1562–63, the printer John Day published The Acts and Monuments. It was an immediate success. Its author, on the suggestion of Jewel, bishop of Salisbury, received a prebend in Salisbury cathedral, and a vicarage at Shipton, but he soon took an individual line at Salisbury, refusing to conform to chapter rules, and expressing strong opinions about vestments. As a result, it is not surprising that he was not in very great favour with authority, and did not get advancement. Foxe’s later years fall outside the limits of this volume, and it will be enough to note that from 1563 until his death in 1587 he was mainly busy with work connected with his book. The prototype of the Acts and Monuments was the Commentarii rerum in ecclesia gestarum… Liber primus (Strasburg, 1554). This rare work deals mainly with persecution in the time of Wycliffe and Hus and only comes down to 1500. Enlarged to contain an account of the later period it appeared as Rerum in ecclesia gestarum commentarii (Basle, 1559). The first edition in English of The Actes and Monuments of these latter andperillous dayes: touching matters of the Church …appeared in 1563. Four editions appeared during Foxe’s life-time, in 1563, 1570, 1576, and 1583. There were other editions in 1596, 1610, 1632, 1641, and 1684. Modern attempts to provide a standard text is a sad story of well-intentioned incompetency. First came what was described as a new and complete edition by S.R.Cattley, with a preliminary dissertation by G.Townsend (8 vols., 1837–41), a long memoir on Foxe, and an elaborate defence of the edition against criticisms directed against it while it was appearing (vol. I). Although it was stated that the text was prepared from the 1583 edition, collated with the Latin text and the three earliest English editions, the editorialwork was not scholarly. A revised edition by G.Townsend (8 vols., 1843–49) was little better. There was another revision by J. Pratt with an introduction by J.Stoughton (8 vols., 1877). The least unsatisfactory edition is that of J.Pratt in his series The Church Historians of England, Reformation Period (1853–70, 8 vols. in 16). Here some of the editorial mistakes of the earlier modern editions were corrected, and there are additional appendices of useful material.

104

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

Foxe’s papers included much evidence sent him by those wishing either to support or to criticize statements in his book. Much of this he never used. After his death this collection remained with his family until about 1701, when John Strype, the historian, acquired it. He used some of it in his Life of Cranmer, and printed some papers in his Ecclesiastical Memorials. After Strype’s death they were bought by Edward Harley, earl of Oxford, and from him they finally passed into the British Museum (Harl. MSS., vols. 416–426, 590.) Some others are in the Lansdowne MSS., 335, 388–389, 819, and 1045. A selection from these papers, including two contemporary biographies of Cranmer, was edited by J.G.Nichols, Narratives of the Days of the Reformation (C.S., 1859). Materials for the life of Foxe raise difficulties. An early life appeared in English and Latin as a preface to Acts and Monuments (edn. 1641). It was attributed to Foxe’s eldest son, Samuel (1560–1630), but criticism based on internal evidence suggests that neither he nor his younger brother Simeon (1568–1642) was responsible for it. Its value has been questioned. Richard Day edited and translated Foxe’s Christus Triumphans (1579) and the preface has some biographical data. Townsend’s memoir in Acts and Monuments (1841, 1) was heavily criticized by S.R.Maitland. While the Acts and Monuments won instant popularity, which it retained amongst Protestant readers for a very long time, on the other hand, Roman Catholics, naturally, had nothing good to say about it. Criticism began in Foxe’s lifetime from Nicholas Harpsfield (?1519–75) writing under the pseudonym Alan Cope, in Dialogi Sex (Antwerp, 1566). Foxe’s methods came under heavy fire in the nineteenth century, and his reputation suffered severely. In a series of papers, S.R.Maitland not only criticized the work of Foxe’s modern editors, but also impugned Foxe himself for his inaccuracy and prejudice: Six Letters on Foxe’s Acts and Monuments (1837), Twelve Letters on Foxe’s Acts and Monuments (1841), Notes on the contributions of G.Townsend to the new edition of Foxe’s Martyrology (3 pts., 1841– 42), and Remarks on Cattley’s Defence of his edition of Foxe’s Martyrology (1842). As a result of these and later criticisms (e.g. J.Gairdner, History of the English Church in the Sixteenth Century, and Lollardy and the Reformation) historians found difficulty in assessing Foxe’s work at its true value. The difficulty is assuredly there. Obviously the first step should be a thorough check of all Foxe’s facts, but this is a task so exacting that none as yet has dared to attempt it. Specialists working out specific problems have analysed Foxe’s materials and methods for their own particular needs. On the whole, such experiments, so far as they have gone, have told in Foxe’s favour: but it is not merely the factual accuracy of Foxe’s work which is challenged. It is the use to which he puts the facts, the sources from which he draws them, the passion and coarseness of his attack on opponents that are in question. These are not easy to judge, and only too often are closely associated with the personal affinities of the critic engaged in assessing them. The problem then becomes one of conviction rather than science. Whither this leads may be briefly suggested. J.F.Mozley, John Foxe and his Book (1940), reinforces a whole-hearted defence of Foxe’s book by admitting some of its deficiencies, and by conceding that its author is temperamentally incapable of writing what is now called scientific history (p. 153). Considering this approach Fr Philip Hughes, The Reformation in England (II, 258, n.i.), for whom the book is, naturally, a mighty piece of anti-Catholic propaganda, with “all the qualities that will delight the partisan and that must torment the historian”, reacts with a question: “But what of the historical writer of today who must either use Foxe as though he were history, or else not use him at all, and who now, in order to protect his source from what criticism may do to it—in order that Foxe may still pass muster—disparages the discipline that alone gives historical writing any claim on men’s attention?” There is an answer to that question. It is given by one whose claims to be a scientific historian will not easily be challenged. J.A.Muller in Stephen Gardiner and the Tudor Reaction (1926) had to follow Foxe’s tracks very closely. His considered opinion on Foxe’s authority

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

105

he sums up thus (p. xiii) “(1) When he quotes letters, documents, books, or pamphlets, he usually does so with honesty and a fair degree of accuracy. (2) When he retails a rumour or story based on hearsay he usually indicates that it is such, which should be a warning to the student to apply to it the canons of historical criticism. (3) His animus towards Gardiner and his admiration for the reformers are so frank and obvious that they may readily be discounted. He remains, therefore, for those who use him with judgement and historical knowledge, an invaluable collection of material for Tudor history.” For a popular account of Foxe’s book studied against what the author “conceives to be the context of its own time” see William Haller, Foxe’s Book of Martyrs and the Elect Nation (1963). William Thomas (d. 1554) deserves a note in any account of Tudor historiography. By birth and extraction a Welshman, his ancestry and early years are not well documented. When he first leaves some traces, about 1540, he is evidently doing business relating to dissolved religious houses. By 1545 he was abroad, having got into difficulties through embezzling funds from his patron, Sir Anthony Brown. For the next five years he spent most of his time in Italy, and becomes one of the earliest Italianate Englishmen. By the summer of 1549 he was back in England. Next year he was appointed one of the clerks of the Privy Council, and began to accumulate grants. He seems to have ingratiated himself with Edward VI, for whom he wrote essays on political topics. The accession of Mary ended his career at court. Siding with the extremists he was active in Wyatt’s conspiracy. He was tried at Guildhall (8 May 1554) and ten days later was hanged and quartered at Tyburn. Setting on one side his Italian grammar and dictionary, and various essays, Thomas claims the attention of historians for two works. In The Historie of Italie (1549) he was the first Englishman to attempt a description of the Italian states and their forms of government, in a history largely modelled on Italian historians. It had an influence in stimulating interest in Italy amongst Englishmen. Another work of his worth notice is Il Pellegrino Inglese (1552). According to his account, if that is not a literary fiction, when news of Henry VIII’s death reached him at Bologna, Thomas was asked by some Italian noblemen to give his views on the dead king’s character. Later he drew up an account of the ensuing discussion, which was published in 1552. In 1774 this dialogue was published from an English translation, made but not published by Thomas, by Abraham D’Aubant in The Works of William Thomas. J.A.Froude edited it as The Pilgrim: a Dialogue of the Life and Actions of King Henry the Eighth (1861). The work is interesting. If Thomas is to be believed it was a brief history of his own times written from memory without any reference to authorities. This would account for some of its inaccuracies. If it cannot be accepted as scholarly history it should not be dismissed as brusquely as Adair suggests, as undiluted eulogy written to curry favour with the Edwardian government. It is of value because it gives a vivid picture of what was undoubtedly the impression of Henry VIII and his reign accepted by the average Englishman at the time of the king’s death. E.R.Adair has collected all that is known about Thomas in his paper, “William Thomas: A forgotten Clerk of the Privy Council” in Tudor Studies, ed. R.W.Seton Watson, 133–160.

(C) PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE From about the middle of the fifteenth century the practice of letter-writing, even by quite ordinary folk was far from being an exceptional accomplishment, but it was only in the sixteenth century that such private letters begin to appear on a scale unequalled in any earlier period of English history. Thus there was added to the narrative sources for the period a new type of document, which makes its own peculiar contribution to the historian’s resources. So heterogeneous a collection of personal interests as are represented in such material defies any simple system of classification. It may include, at one extreme, rough cryptic

106

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

notes concerned with unimportant business matters, or simple messages of goodwill or condolences, to elaborate self conscious literary efforts at the other extreme, written with great care, and obviously intended by the writer to reach a wider circle of readers than the person to whom they were ostensibly addressed. They may sometimes, but only rarely, be beautiful specimens of calligraphy: more often they are in the vilest of illegible handwriting, and their orthography is often so archaic as to seem to be written in a foreign language. Whatever form the private letter may take, it is often a valuable historical source, from which much useful information may be extracted by the discerning historian on topics of social, and occasionally, of political history. The private letter is particularly likely to provide the historian with those touches of local colour which add reality to the historical scene, while it often reveals some bypath into the past that leads on to some unsuspected point of view. To attempt a representative selection of even the best specimens of this type of material would make demands on space not to be contemplated here, and yet it would be a serious omission if no notice were taken of such documents. A few have, therefore, been brought together almost at random. They will indicate the nature and quality of the contribution such material can make to the resources at the disposal of the historian. For some interesting comments on the value of private correspondence C.L.Kingsford, English Historical Literature in the Fifteenth Century, c. viii, and J.Gairdner, The Paston Letters, Introduction, are worth consulting. There are some interesting general collections including H.Ellis, Original Letters illustrative of English History, 3 Series in II vols. (1824, 1827, 1846); J.O.Halliwell, Letters of the Kings of England (2 vols., 1846–48); M.A.E.Wood, Letters of Royal and Illustrious Ladies of Great Britain (3 vols., 1846); H.Robinson, Original Letters relating to the English Reformation, 1531–58 (Parker Soc., 1846–47), chiefly from the archives of Zürich, a collection of letters by various reformers, English and foreign, the Latin originals being printed as Epistolae Tigurinae (Cambridge, 1848). Many letters will be found in the several Reports of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, the Letters and Papers, the State Papers of Henry VIII: P.F.Tytler, England under the reigns of Edward VI and Mary (2 vols., 1839), and in J.Foxe, Acts and Monuments. The most valuable collections of family letters of this period are T.Stapleton, Plumpton Correspondence (C.S., IV, 1839), the private letters of a family of country gentlemen in Yorkshire extending from the reign of Edward IV to that of Henry VIII, J.Gairdner, The Paston Letters (6 vols., 1904), ranging over the years 1422–1509; and J.Bruce, Letters and Papers of the Verney Family (C.S., LVI, 1853). In the Public Record Office, among the State papers supplementary there is a series of about a thousand letters written or received by John Johnson, a merchant of the Staple coming from the period 1542–52. They give a vivid picture of a merchant family of the period. Some of them, mainly from the year 1543, are calendared in Letters and Papers: but many are still only available in the originals. In Tudor Family Portrait (1955) Barbara Winchester presented (but without references) a few of the letters, enough alas! to show how much more valuable than her book would have been a full edition of the whole series. There are many important collections of the letters of prominent individuals of the period. Many of Wolsey’s more personal letters will be found with his official correspondence in State Papers Hen. VIII, vol. 1. A full collection of Cromwell’s correspondence was edited by R.B. Merriman, Life and Letters of Thomas Cromwell (2 vols., Oxford, 1902). Less important, but not without value, is T.N.Toller, The Correspondence of Edward: 3rd Earl of Derby (Chetham Soc., 1890). The correspondence of the religious leaders of the period is well represented in print. Some of the most important of these are P.S. and H.M.Allen, Letters of Richard Fox: 1486–1527 (Oxford, 1928); J.A.Muller, Letters of Stephen Gardiner (Cambridge, 1933); J.E.Cox, Miscellaneous Writings and Letters of Cranmer (Parker Soc., 1846); G.E.Corrie, Sermons and Remains of Hugh Latimer (Parker Soc., 1845); H.Christmas, Works of Nicholas

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

107

Ridley (Parker Soc., 1841); A.M.Quirini, Epistolae Reginaldi Poli (Brescia, 5 vols., 1744–57); J.Bruce and T.T.Perowne, Correspondence of Matthew Parker: 1535–75 (Parker Soc., 1853). The prince of letter writers of the period was Erasmus, and many of them were to English friends. His letters can be read in the sumptuous edition by P.S. and H.M.Allen, Opus Epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami (12 vols., Oxford, 1906–58). A handy English translation of some of the most important letters bearing on English topics is by F.M.Nichols, The Epistles of Erasmus, (3 vols., 1901–18) and the letters of one of his friends, Sir Thomas More, are available in an excellent edition by Elizabeth Frances Rogers, The Correspondence of Sir Thomas More (London: Cumberlege for Princeton Univ. Press, 1947). Some of More’s letters will also be found in a collection of the letters of a foreign humanist H.de Voecht, Literae virorum eruditorum ad Franciscum Craneveldium, 1522–8 (Louvain, 1928). The letters of a later humanist have been collected by J.A.Giles, Works of Roger Ascham (4 vols., 1865). It is difficult to separate the public correspondence of a king from his private letters. Only a few specimens of Henry VII’s intimate correspondence are known. Miss M.St Clare Byrne has attempted a collection for Henry VIII in The Letters of King Henry VIII (London, 1936). She included the famous series of letters from the King to Anne Boleyn. Earlier editions by T. Hearne (Oxford, 1730 and W.Gunn, 1813) were superseded by the scholarly edition by G.A. Crapelet (Paris, 1826). Miss Byrne makes some changes in the chronological order of the letters as adopted by Crapelet. Some interesting specimens of the letters of the young King Edward VI are printed in J.G.Nichols, Literary Remains of Edward VI (Roxburghe Club, 1857). There is no edition of Mary’s letters although several are printed by T.Hearne, Titi Livii Foro-Juliensis Vita Henrici Quinti. App. Sylloge epistolarum. (Oxford, 1716). The increasing variety of original sources available for this period in the form of State papers and other official records frees the historian from too close a dependence upon chronicles, histories, and other unofficial or narrative materials. The latter have their value, of course, as contemporary and highly individualistic impressions of persons and events, while they often supply the chronological framework within which the phases of the period are by convention contained. Narrative sources thus provide a starting point for the study of the general history of the period, and they are frequently used for this purpose in several Sections of this book. They can, however, be looked at from another point of view. They have an intrinsic value of their own, as examples illustrating changes in fashion and standards in the actual writing and study of history. It is to illustrate these tendencies that selections from some typical narrative sources have been brought together in this Section. The early Tudor period is a significant one in the development of historical writing in England and these examples, highly selective as they have to be are enough to show the nature of the fresh ideas and the experiments with new methods of writing contemporary history which are a feature of the period. Some of them have hardly as yet advanced beyond a primitive form. They are, therefore, all the more significant, the first indications of important changes in the attitude of Englishmen to the study and writing of history. The general lines of development are indicated in the following examples. Passages I, II, are specimens of the traditional chronicle type of historical writing at this time. Passages III, IV, show the revolutionary change resulting from the Italian influences introduced by Polydore Vergil. The awakening antiquarian interests of the period find some expression in passages VI, VII, and X, while the realization of the use of history as propaganda can be seen in passages VIII, XI, and XII. Extracts IX to X provide a few specimens of other types of narrative which, from the sixteenth century onwards will become of increasing importance. These are the diary and the biographical memoir. In view of what has been said about the great abundance and variety of letters, both official and private, examples of this kind of material should be included in this Section, but considerations of space and the fact that many examples appear in most of the other Sections makes it unnecessary to do more than emphasize their importance among the narrative sources available for this period.

1. Select passages from The Great Chronicle of London This is the best of the London chronicles dealing with the Tudor period. Its place in the development of this type of source is discussed above. The two following passages illustrate the style and method of the chronicle. The first gives a general account of events in the early years of Henry VII’s reign, and is a good example of the quality of the narrative and the miscellaneous information it records during the years from 1485 to 1512 when this chronicle ends. The first passage opens with a comment on the murder of the two young sons of Edward IV. This reference to the conflicting rumours concerning that crime, and the suggestion that it happened before Henry invaded England has not passed unnoticed by those who have tried to shift responsibility for the murder from Richard III to Henry VII. They see here a suggestion of government propaganda in Henry’s favour. There was a revival of interest in this problem in 1933 when bones discovered in the Tower in 1674, presumed to be those of the young princes were examined by L.E.Tanner and W.Wright. “Recent investigations regarding the fate of the Princes in the Tower” (Archaeologia, LXXXIV, 1934, pp. 1–26) set out the opinion that the victims were dead by the end of 1483 thereby absolving Henry VII from any responsibility for the deaths. There is, however, no sure evidence that these were the bones of the Princes, so the problem is still open to argument and rash theorizing. The most recent objective discussion is that by P.Kendall, Richard III, App. I, pp. 393–418. While not prepared to accept the arguments for Henry’s responsibility advanced by Sir Clements Markham, Richard III: his life and character, Professor Kendall supports the view that the crime was the work of Henry Stafford, second duke of Buckingham rather than of Richard III but he concludes that the available evidence admits of no decisive solution. The second passage describing the conspiracy of Perkin Warbeck is interesting because it includes in the narrative what is said to be his confession. According to Bernard André this confession was printed by order of Henry VII. It also appears in the other versions of the London chronicle, edited by C.L.Kingsford, Chronicles of London, 218–222, and in Hall’s Chronicle, 488–490. For a discussion of the evidential value of this document see J.Gairdner, Richard the Third, rev. edn., 1898, 265, and W.Busch, England under the Tudors, 335–337.

(i) The Accession of Henry VII (A.H.Thomas, The Great Chronicle of London, 236–245)

T

hus passing this troublous and misordered world, word sprang quickly of a gentleman being in the parts of Brittany named Henry, and son unto the earl of Richmond that made speedy provision for to come into England to claim the Crown as his right, considering the death of King Edward’s children, of whom as then men feared not openly to say that they were rid out of this world, but of their death’s manner was many opinions, for some said they were murdered between ij feather beds, some said they were drowned in malmesy and some said that they were choked with a venemous potion. But howsoever they were put to death, certain it was that before that day they were departed from this world. Of which cruel deed Sir James Tyrell was reported to be the doer, but other put that wygth1 upon an old servant of King Richard’s named.2 When these tidings were thus blown about the world, the gentlemen and men of honour were in such a doubt that they wist not which party to lend unto, howbeit the more in number grudged so sore against the King for the death of the innocents that as gladly would they have been French, as to be under his subjection, and for that, some fled unto that other party, among whom Sir James [Blount] being then chief ruler of [Hammes] and having the earl of Oxford under his rule, took with him the said earl and sailed into Brittany unto the forenamed gentleman, also the Bishop of 1 2

Blame. There is no blank in the MS., the compiler evidently did not notice the omsssion. 109

110

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

[1]

Ely, doctor Morton, that in the beginning of this King’s reign got by licence or otherwise over the sea, and by sundry times was again sent for, hearing of the King’s cruel dealings, held him off by fair and wise excuses, till he had more experience of the sequel. And thus passing the time, true knowledge came to the King, in the beginning of August,1 of the landing of the forenamed prince Henry, the which so soon as he was landed at Milford Haven in Wales kneeled down upon the bare ground, and holding his hands towards heaven meekly and devoutly said these words, Judica me deus et discerne causam meam, and after proceeded upon his journey. Then King Richard in all haste arrayed his people, and made quick provision for to meet his enemies, which at the beginning were but of small strength, but anon as his landing was known to many of the knights and esquires of this land, they gathered much people in the King’s name, and straight sped them unto that other party, by means whereof his power hugely increased. Then King Richard, being well accompanied sped him toward his said enemies till he came to Leicester, and that other party which in this while had proclaimed himself King Henry the vijth drew fast thitherward. But that night King Richard lost much of his people, for many gentlemen that held good countenance with master Brackenbury, then lieutenant of the Tower, and had for many of them done right kindly, took their leave of him in giving to him thanks for his kindness before shewed, and exhorted him to go with them, for they feared not to shew unto him that they would go unto that other party, and so departed, leaving him almost alone. In this while the earl of Derby and the earl of Northumberland, which had everyone of them great companies, made slow speed toward King Richard, so that he with the duke of Norfolk and the earl of Surrey, the lord Lovell and others departed from Leicester with great triumph and pomp upon the morn being the xxij day of August, and after continued his journey till he came unto a village called Bos worth where, in the fields ajoining, both hosts met, and fought there a sharp and long fight whereof in the end, the victory fell unto King Henry. In this battle was slain King Richard, the duke of Norfolk, the lord Lovell, with Brackenbury and many others, and incontinently, as it was said, Sir William Stanley, which won the possession of King Richard’s helmet with the Crown being upon it, came straight to King Henry, and set it upon his head saying, Sir here I make you King of England. In this field was taken the earl of Surrey with others, and thus by great fortune and grace, upon the aforesaid xxij day of August won this noble prince the possession of this land, and then was he conveyed to Leicester the same night, and there received with all honour and gladness, and Richard late King as gloriously as he by the morning departed from that town, so as irreverently was he that afternoon brought into that town, for his body despoiled to the skin, and nought being left about him, so much as would cover his privy member, he was trussed behind a pursuivant called Norrey as an hog or another vile beast, and so all to bespring with mire and filth was brought to a church in Leicester for all men to wonder upon, and there lastly, irreverently buried, and thus ended this man with dishonour as he that sought it, for had he continued still protector and have suffered the children to have prospered according to his allegiance and fidelity, he should have been honourably lauded over all, whereas now his fame is dirked and dishonoured as far as he was known, but God that is all mindful forgive him his misdeeds. 1

7 August, 1485.

[1]

PASSAGES FROM “THE GREAT CHRONICLE OF LONDON”

111

The names of Mayors and Sheriffs in the time of King Henry the Seventh, the which began his reign the xxijd. day of August in the year of our Lord God Mlcccclxxxvj. Anno domini 1485º Grocer (Thomas Breten) 1486º Thomas Hyll (Rauff Astry) anno primo.1 This mayor continued still his office till the xxvij day of September, in which time, that is to mean upon the xxvij day of August the King was received into London, the citizens being then again clothed in violet, and so brought unto Paul’s where at the Rood of the North door he offered up three standards, whereof one was of the arms of Saint George, the second a red fiery dragon, painted upon white and green sarcenet, and the third was a banner of tarteron belt with a dun cow, and that done he was conveyed into the bishop’s palace and there lodged, and the earl of Oxford was lodged at the Erber, to whom was then made great suit and labour as well for matters concerning himself as for causes touching soliciting of causes unto the King. For then such persons as had occupied his lands by gift of King Edward, or by purchase, were fain to restore it, with all such profits as they had perceived of the said lands by all the time of his absence. Then, shortly after, began the sweating sickness, whereof died much people suddenly for lack of good guiding, for they were kept so hot and close that many were smothered, that might have been saved with moderate keeping, of the which sickness died Thomas Hill, then mayor, upon the xxvij day of September. Anno domini 1486o draper (Thomas Breten) 1486o Sir William Stocker (Ralph Astry) Anno dicto Anon as Thomas Hill the mayor was departed out of this world, the aldermen and the commoners assembled at their place accustomed, and there after their ancient customs elected to occupy as mayor for the full of the old mayor’s year, the forenamed Sir William Stocker. The which Sir William, for so much as then the King was departed from the City, and the Barons of the King’s Exchequer were not then sitting, by reason that the term was not as yet begun, was conveyed with his brethren, the aldermen and the commoners of the City unto the Tower Gate, that leadeth toward Our Lady of Barking, where without the said gate sitting the lieutenant of the Tower with such learned men as he then had appointed, charged the said Sir William with such oath as he should have been charged in the King’s Exchequer and so, departed. But this mayor lived not over vij days after, but by occasion of the abovesaid sickness died, as in that season many more died, for from the time that Thomas Hill died unto this mayor’s departing died iiij aldermen, as Thomas Ilam, Richard Rawson, Thomas Norland, and John Stocker, brother to Sir William Stocker, beside many head commoners, which died the same season, by reason of which Sir William’s death, the aldermen with the commoners assembled them again at Guildhall upon the viij day of October, and there chose for their head officer this man following. Anno domini 1486o. Grocer (Thomas Breten) 1486o John Warde (Ralph Astry) Anno primo This mayor continued his office the full of Thomas Hill’s year, that is to mean till the feast of Simon and Jude, in which season, loving be to God, the sickness aforenamed 1

Hill was mayor 1484–85. The figures were originally written correctly (1484 to 1485) and altered.

112

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

[1]

slackened by the sufferance of God and good and moderate keeping of such patients as then were vexed therewith. Also in this mayor’s time was made speedy provision for the King’s coronation. Anno domini 1486o. Goldsmith (John Tate) 1487o Hugh Bryse (John Swan) Anno dicto. The King upon the day following that this mayor had taken his charge before the Barons of the Exchequer, which was upon the xxxti day of October, was solemnly crowned at Westminster, and after that solemnisation within the monastery was finished, a royal and excellent feast with all circumstances to such a feast appertaining was holden within Westminster Hall the same day. And this year about [blank] the King sent my lord treasurer with Master Bray and other honourable personages unto the mayor, requiring him and his citizens of a prest of vj Ml. marks, wherefore the mayor assembled his brethren and the common council upon the Tuesday following, by whose authority was then granted to the King a prest of MlMl li., the which for him was shortly levied after, and this was assessed by the fellowships and not by the wards, for the more ease of the poor people. Of the which prest the fellowships of mercers, grocers, and drapers lent and forbare ixcxxxvij. pounds vj. shillings. The which prest was justly repaid in the year following. And in this mayor’s time fell great altercation among the merchant adventurers into Flanders for choosing of the master of the fellowship called adventurers, whereof the occasion was for so much as all fellowships of the City were discontented that the master of that company was most taken of the mercery, and by that reason it was thought unto all the other adventurers that the mercers had much more favour many and sundry ways than other merchants of other mysteries had. To appease this variance the mayor called before him to his dwelling place the wardens of as many companies or fellowships of the City as were adventurers into Flanders, and there before him heard all such reasons as the mercers made for them, and in likewise the reasoning of the others, and took thereabout more labour than thank, for in conclusion they departed from him unreconciled how well that at the next mart after, the companies of sundry mysteries held so fast their opinion that the master then being a mercer was discharged, and for an indifferency1 one named Robert Rydon, a learned man in the law civil, was admitted. But when he had a short season occupied, he was again discharged, and then a draper named Robert Drayton occupied that room for a time after, and so others, to the restfulness of the said adventurers. In this mayor’s time was wheat at iij.s. a bushel, Bay Salt also at ij.s. viij.d. and iij.s. a bushel. Anno domini 1487o mercer 1488o (John Percival) Sir Henry Colet (Hugh Clopton) Anno ijo. In this mayor’s time and [blank] was the King married unto dame Elizabeth, the eldest daughter of King Edward the fourth. And upon the xvjth day of June was the Field of Stoke. The which was by the force of the earl of Lincoln, son and heir of the duke of Suffolk, that late days before was fled this land, and so passed to the duchess of Burgundy, sister unto King Edward the IVth. The which duchess, as the fame went, 1

Absence of bias or prejudice.

[1]

PASSAGES FROM “THE GREAT CHRONICLE OF LONDON”

113

aided and excited the said earl to make war upon England, trusting to have great aid of some estates of the same, and so being furnished with a small company of Burgundians, having to their captain a fierce and strong soldier named Martin Swart, they to their sorrow landed at [blank] and so held on their journey till they came near unto the aforesaid town or village of Stoke, where they were encountered with the King’s host, and there fought a sore and sharp fight, for the while that it endured, upon the aforesaid xvjth day of June, the victory whereof fell unto the King, loved be God, howbeit that by subtle ways men were set between the place of the field, and many of the King’s subjects which were coming toward his grace, shewing unto them that the King had lost the field, and was fled, by which subtle means and report many a true man to the King turned back again, and some men of name for fear went into sanctuary and tarried there till to them was brought better tidings. This field was the sorer fought by reason that forenamed Martin Swart was deceived. For when he took this voyage upon him he was comforted and promised, by the earl of Lincoln, that great strength of this land after their landing would have resorted unto the said earl. But when he was far entered and saw no such resort, then he knew well he was deceived. Wherefore he said unto the earl, “Sir, now see I well that ye have deceived yourself and also me, but that notwithstanding, all such promise as I made unto my lady the duchess, I shall perform,” exhorting the earl to do the same. And upon this sped them toward the field with as good a courage as he had had xxMl men more than he had, and there held promise in such wise that he and the earl both were slain upon the field, with much of their people. And when the tidings of this victory was brought unto the mayor, anon he caused Te deum to be sung in the more part of all the churches of London. Also in the latter end of this mayor’s year,1 that is to say, the [blank] day of September was born the first child of the King and Queen, and named Arthur, at Winchester. Anno domini 1488o Salter William Horn (John Fenkyll) 1489o (William Romington) Anno3 In the beginning of this mayor’s time was Queen Elizabeth crowned at Westminster upon the day of Saint Katherine, or the xxvti day of November, whereof to tell all the circumstances with the royate2 of the Feast, it would ask a long leisure, but for I intend to set the Order of one Coronation in fine libri I pass over this as I have done many more.3 In the month of July following was another prest made unto the King by the City of iiij M1 li. which also was assessed by the crafts or fellowships, whereof the mercers, grocers, and drapers lent MlVjC and xv li and the goldsmiths, fish-mongers, and tailors lent IXC xlvj. li xiij.s. iiij.d., and the residue of this iiij Ml li which was MlCCCCxxxviij li. Vj.s. Viij.d. was lent by all the other crafts of the City. In the month of [blank] following was another or a third prest made to the King of MlMl li, which was levied after the manner of the other, the which were all paid again in the next year folowing. The which sums of money, with many more, which his grace borrowed of his 1 2 3

A year too late. Arthur was born at Winchester 20 Sept. 1486. splendour. This promise was not fulfilled.

114

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

[1]

lords and other honourable men of this land was to aid the archduke of Burgundy against the duke of Brittany, as after more plainly shall appear. And in the end of this mayor’s time was John Ashley, the son of Sir John Ashley, knight, with ij others drawn from Westminster to the Tower Hill and there beheaded. Anno domini 1489o mercer Robert Tate (William Isaak) 1490o (Ralph Tynley) Anno iiijo This mayor’s time the commons of the north by the exciting of a yeoman named John of Chamber made an insurrection, the which the earl of Northumberland intending to appease by fair means, took with him his household men and drew toward them to have communed with them in peaceable manner, forasmuch as the said John of Chamber had before time refused to come unto the said earl at such time as he before sent for him. But so soon as the said earl approached near unto them they, owing unto him deadly malice for the disappointing of King Richard at Bosworth Field, set upon him and slew him and a certain [number] of his servants. Whereof, when the King had word, he sent thither the earl of Surrey with a band of men. The which earl the King had late before accepted unto his grace and delivered him from imprisonment of the Tower, where he had lain from the time of the aforesaid field of Bosworth. And that done, the King with a strong company sped him after, but ere the King was thither come, the earl had skirmished with them and slain and scaled of them the strength, and taken alive their head captain aforenamed, the which with others Was presented unto the King at York. Then the poor commons that had aided John of Chamber and his accessories in this riot, fearing grievous punishment, put halters about their necks, and in their shirts came into a great court of the palace where the King was lodged, and there kneeling cried lamentably for mercy and grace. To whom at length the King granted forgiveness and pardon. And shortly after was the said John of Chamber and a certain number with him of such as were found procurers of this riot hanged at the said City of York upon a foursquare gallows, and one gibbet made upon the iiij above the others, whereupon the said John was hanged as head captain, and the others hanged upon the lower gallows as his followers or lewd disciples. And when the King had set that country in a quietness, he then returned to London, where shortly after he called a Great Council, to the which was monished [summoned] certain persons of every city and head town of this land, by authority of which council was granted unto the King the Xth penny of men’s goods through this land, for the maintenance of the aforesaid war against the Bretons, which as now had put them under the French King’s protection, which lastly married the duchess of that land, that Before days was assured unto the archduke of Burgundy. By this grant of the tenth penny of men’s goods, as well of moveables as unmoveables, it was thought to the King’s council that huge sums of money should have been levied to the King’s great profit, but by the time it was levied and summed, what by the favour of the commissioners, and such charges as were spent in levying of the same, it amounted little over a fifteenth. With this money the King repaid such prests as before in the other mayor’s time he had borrowed of his subjects, and ordered other charges for the war abovesaid, which first and last cost the King far

[1]

PASSAGES FROM “THE GREAT CHRONICLE OF LONDON”

115

above the sum of an hundred thousand pounds. In this mayor’s days, also, the lord Daubeney, then lieutenant or deputy for the King at Calais, with a crew of ij M men made a voyage into Flanders, and besieged there a walled town called Dixmude, which at that time was strongly fortified with French men and Flemings. Notwithstanding, he assaulted that town so fiercely, that in the end he won that hold, and slew of his enemies above ij Ml, and won from them much ordnance, as great guns, crossbows, and other, which was sent unto Calais. In this skirmish was slain the lord Morley with other Englishmen to the number of an hundred or more. And when he had delivered that town to the archduke’s use, he then returned to Calais, and not without great danger, for a French captain named the lord Cordis1 being accompanied with a company of X Ml men or more, sped him fast to have stopped his way. But, as good fortune would, he came too short. Anno domini 1490o Draper (William Capell) 1491o William White ( ) Anno Vo (John Brook ) In this mayor’s time a tailor named Roger Shavelok dwelling within Ludgate and holding there a shop well stored with drapery, cut his own throat, whereof hearing, the sheriffs in all haste sped them thither, and albeit that much of his short stuff was by his wife and servants conveyed aside, yet they possessed much cloth and other stuff to the value of a thousand marks or near about. But while they were laying and searching of gutters and other places of these goods to Guydyrs2 cometh thither the King’s almoner, named Master Urswick, and assessed the said goods by virtue of his office, and so constrained the sheriffs to leave their further search, and such goods as they were possessed of, to put it in indifferent keeping till their title or his were justly determined. The which, in the end, was deemed his right, and so had he the said goods, and as it was reported, he after gave the said goods again unto the widow upon condition that she would marry with a servant of his named William Flower, the which shortly after was married unto her. Anno domini 1491o. mercer. (Henry Coot ) 1492º John Mathew (Robert Revell ) Anno vjo. (Hugh Pemberton) This mayor’s time, about Candlemas, died Robert Revell one of the sheriffs, for whom incontinently was chosen Hugh Pemberton. And shortly after Sir Robert Chamberlain, knight, that with one of his sons was going over into Flanders, for then was talking in secret wise that the duchess of Burgundy had in her keeping the duke of York, was after hard imprisonment within the Tower, and pining there upon the pine bank was arraigned with his said son at Stratford Langthorn, and there both adjudged to be drawn, hanged, and quartered, and then conveyed again unto the Tower, and from thence unto Westminster, whereupon the [blank] the sheriffs received the said ij persons with one named [blank] which iij. persons were drawn from thence unto the Tower Hill, where the said Sir Robert was only beheaded, and the other ij pardoned. This mayor’s time also the King, intending his royal voyage into France, attempted the 1

The Sieur des Querdes.

2

together.

116

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

[1]

manner and way of King Edward in the time of Robert Drope being mayor, and after he had felt the good wills of his nobles, he sent for the mayor, and so handled him by his great policy, that he caused him to grant toward his good speed, if his grace [went] in proper person CC. pounds. By precedent whereof all the aldermen were fain to grant the same, albeit that sundry of them withheld the payment, term of their lives, and then paid by their executors, but ere that extreme way were used, or that such as withheld any part of the same CC. pounds were put in action, an act passed by authority of a parliament holden at Westminster in the time of Richard Chawry, mayor, in the Xth year of this King’s reign compelled them to pay it and every parcel thereof, as after more at large appeareth. When the King had thus used the aldermen, he committed the commoners of the City unto sundry lords spiritual and temporal, and joined unto them other honourable persons, the which lords, as chief commissioners, divided the mysteries or crafts of the City among them for the more speediness, so that my lord chancellor, then Doctor Morton, had to his lot the fellowships of drapers with other, the which he dealt with so sore that many of them were charged with lx. pounds a man, and none that escaped under X. pounds or near about, whereas my lord of Winchester, having the examination of the mercery with other worshipful crafts, suffered them to pass for xl. marks the best. This Benevolence was so chargeable unto the City that the whole sum thereof extended unto ixMlvjCiiijxx.ij pounds XVij.s. iiij.d. By reason whereof, and of the hard dealing of the lord chancellor and some others, it was named after for Benevolence malevolence. But yet the King did graciously in one thing, that where King Richard as before is shewed, borrowed many notable sums of the citizens and laid for them good pledges which, by his royal power, he might have caused to have been restored unto his Treasury without payment for them, yet he of his goodness allowed unto all such as had any of the said pledges, all such sums as they had laid for them, though some of them were not so much in value as the money which they lay for. Then the King visited many countries, and the commissioners the residue, in calling the people before them, and in such wise exhorted them that the King’s grace was well contented with the loving demeanour of his subjects. And so he had good cause, for by this way he levied more money than he should have done with four fifteenths, and also with less grudge of his commons, for to this charge paid none but men of good substance, where at every fifteenth are charged poor people, which makes more grudging for paying of vj.d than at this time many did for paying of vj. nobles. In this mayor’s time also was an act made by the Common Council that where in time passed the Chamberlain of London and the masters of the Bridge have been yearly chosen by the commonalty of the City upon the day of Saint Matthew, and every man there being at the time of the said election hath named for Chamberlain or Bridge master such as they have favoured, not regarding the common weal of the City, whereby many times needy men and unable for that office have been admitted, and done the City no good nor worship. Wherefore, in remedying of that misorder, it was now enacted by the mayor and aldermen, with the assent of the Common Council, that fromthence forth the mayor and his brethren shall name ij. persons, such as they shall think able for the office of the Chamberlain, of the which two, the Commons shall choose one for their Chamberlain, for the year

[1]

PASSAGES FROM “THE GREAT CHRONICLE OF LONDON”

117

following, and in like manner the mayor and his brethren shall name iiij persons such as they think most able for the Bridge masters. Of the which iiij the Commons shall choose two. In this mayor’s time also whete was at XXd. and xxij.d. a bushel, in London.

(ii) Perkin Warbeck’s Confession (Ibid. 281–288)

And in this month of September landed in an haven of Cornwall, Perkin Warbeck, with iij small ships only, as it was reported, and with him to the number of vj score persons or fewer, which rode unto a village named Bodmin whereas then drew unto him more people, so that, shortly after, his company was numbered at iij Ml. or above, whereof the most part were naked men and rascals, the whole flock. Then he, thus being accompanied, made his proclamations, and named himself King Richard the iiijth, and second son unto Edward IVth., late King, and so, being established with iij. noble captains and his chief counsellors, that is to mean John Heron, mercer, of London, which before days had fled the city of London for debt, Richard Skelton and John Asteley, a scrivener, of like authority, and dishonest, sped him towards Exeter, and upon the xvij. day of September assaulted the said town in ij places, that is to wit, at the East and North gates. But by the manly knighthood of the earl of Devonshire, and the help of the citizens, he was there put off, and upon CC. of his men there slain. Then, upon the morrow, they made another assault and then fired the gates and fought sharply for the while, but by the prowess of the forenamed earl, and good assistance of the said citizens, they were again beaten off, to their more shame and damage, at which said second assault the said earl was hurt in the arm with an arrow, and so were divers others, but few or none, thanked be God, slain. When Perkin with his rebels saw the mighty defence that of the city of Exeter was made, and the peril of him and his, if he there longer rested, he, as dismayed, considering the loss and hurt of his adherents, departed thence, and took his way toward Taunton where, upon the Wednesday following, being the xxth. day of September he, in the fields adjoining, mustered and counted the number of his adherents, the which he found diminished and somewhat decreased, for when the poor and needy people saw the rescue and defence made against him at the city of Exeter, and that no men of honour, nor yet of honesty, drew unto him as they before were put in comfort by him and by his lewd counsellors, anon they withdrew by sundry and secret companies from him, in providing their own safeguard. The which, he then perceiving, as a man comfortless, passed forth that day with dissembled countenance, and at night with lx. horsemen in a company, in the dead of the night, departed from that place and secretly came unto a sanctuary town besides Southampton, named Beaulieu, where he, with certain of his accomplices, were registered as John Heron and other for sanctuary men, upon the Friday after his foresaid departure from the poor commons, his adherents. Anon, as this was known, my lord chamberlain being sent towards him with a company of spears and others, sent in all possible wise then toward the seaside, v.C. of his spears to keep him from the sea, and to search the

118

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

[1]

country, if they might hear of him, the which shortly after were informed that he was in the forenamed sanctuary town, whither forthwith were sent certain persons to see that he and his accomplices were surely kept till the King’s pleasure were further known. And in the time of the rage of this Perkin, a rebel and rover named James, the which upon the sea had gathered a company of rovers to the number of vij. or viij. C. and them at his retinue had led by a certain of time to the intent to have aided the said Perkin, met and took the provost of Penrhyn, and so brought him unto the foresaid town of Taunton, and there tyrannously dismembered him in the market place, and after shewed unto the people that he was one of the chief procurers and occasioners of the rebellion of the Cornish men by reason that he, being admitted for a commissioner in those parts, levied of them much more money than came unto the King’s use, which caused great murmur and grudge among the commons towards the King, and lastly rebellion as after ensued. Upon the xxv day of the said month came unto Westminster the lord chancellor of the said Perkin, a priest that before days had been steward with Sir Ralph Hastings, knight. This was named Sir William Lounde, whom his master trusted so well that he had the rule and guiding of his house, insomuch that plate and other jewels were wholly at his commandment, and thereupon, he having plenty of money in his hands of his said master’s, trussed certain plate with him and secretly departed from his said master, and sailed over unto Perkin, and there obtained of him such favour that he was named among his adherents his chancellor, for whose departure his said master was after in great danger, as after shall appear. Upon the Sunday following came a messenger from the King unto the mayor ascertaining him that Perkin was taken, wherefore the mayor assembled his brethren at Saint Paul’s and there caused Te Deum to be sung in most solemn wise. And upon the Wednesday following was tidings brought to the said mayor that the said Perkin, with certain of his accomplices as John Heron and others, were brought to the King’s presence at Taunton, where he of his abundant grace, after their confession of their malicious disposition to his grace uttered and shewed, clearly and liberally them pardoned and forgave, after which pardon thus to them granted, the said Perkin gave his attendance upon the King by all the time that he rode his progress westward. And upon Saint Luke’s eve, or on the xvij. day of October, came the Queen towards London from Walsingham, whereof the mayor, having knowledge, met with her grace at Bishopsgate, he with the aldermen being on horseback conveyed her grace from that place unto the King’s wardrobe, the streets being garnished with the crafts of the city standing in their best liveries as she passed by, and upon the morrow, being Saint Luke’s day, her grace after certain presents received from the mayor, departed that afternoon to Sheen, where upon the Saturday before the feast of Simon and Jude was presented to her grace the wife of the forenamed Perkin, which was a fair and goodly lady and daughter unto the lord Huntley, an earl of Scotland. Anno domini 1498o. mercer William Purchas (Bartholomew Rede) 1499o (Thomas Wyndowth) Anno 13o This year upon the Saturday, being the xviij.th. day of November, the King, after his journey done in the west country, came unto his manor of Sheen, and there rested till

[1]

PASSAGES FROM “THE GREAT CHRONICLE OF LONDON”

119

Wednesday following, upon the which day he came on horseback to Lambeth, and there took his barge and landed at Westminster Bridge, where the mayor, standing within the palace with his brethren the aldermen, and a great number of the citizens in order along Westminster Hall in their best liveries, received his grace with a short proposition to him made by the Recorder of the good exploit of his journey, and subduing of his rebels, before whom in his so passing towards his lodging rode the forenamed Perkin leading a gentleman by the arm, upon whom was not a little wondering, nor yet few curses cast at his head, that time and sundry days after. Upon a Tuesday being the xxviij. day of November the said Perkin was conveyed on horseback through the high streets of the City, and after him was also a tall and likely man conveyed on horseback, fast bound in an hermit’s habit, the which was then reported to be a servant of the King’s and his serjeant farrier before days, that falsely had withdrawn him out of the King’s service and stole over unto this Perkin, and became his servant, and so continued with him till he came into England. And when he perceived that all was otherwise than he before supposed, and that all his purpose was come to an ill effect or to nought, then he disguised him in an hermit’s habit, and so passed through sundry countries unsuspected, till lastly that he was taken and in his feigned habit so brought unto the King, whom, when the King had examined and known the effect of his mind and purpose, he commanded his said master Perkin to bring him unto the Tower for his faithful service whither with shame enough he was, as before is said, conveyed, and there left in hard and strong prison. And when the said Perkin had delivered his servant unto the guardians of the Tower, he then with such as were assigned to ride with him returned again by Candlewick street towards Westminster with much wondering and many a bitter curse. And upon the Saturday following, or the second day of December, was the said farrier and one named Edwards, which sometime had been a yeoman of the household of Queen Elizabeth, arraigned in the White Hall, and there judged to death. And upon the next Monday the said two persons were drawn from the Tower unto Tyburn and there hanged, beheaded, and quartered was the farrier, and that other only hanged till he was dead, whose bodies were after buried at the Friar Augustines within London, to whom God be merciful. Amen. In this past time to the end that this ungracious person Perkin might be notoriously known what a man he was, and how many men lacking grace had erred in him, in taking him for the second son of King Edward, to their confusion, the King, therefore, in avoiding the further harm of his subjects caused to be put in print the pedigree and all the conveyance of the past time of this unhappy Imp in taking upon him to be inheritor unto the crown of England, whereof the tenor ensueth, after his own confession. First is to be known that I was born in the town of Tournai in Flanders, and my father’s name is called John Osbek, which said John Osbek was controller of the said town of Tournai, and my mother’s name is Katherine de Faro, and one of my grandsires upon my father’s side was named Derrick Osbek, which died, after whose death my grandmother was married unto the within-named Peter Flamme, that was receiver of the forenamed town of Tournai, and dean of the boatmen that row upon the

120

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

[1]

water, or river of Leyscow. And my grandsire upon my mother’s side was called Peter de Faro, the which had in his keeping the keys of the gate of St. John’s within the same town of Tournai. Also I had an uncle named Master John Stalyn dwelling in the parish of Saint Pyas within the same town, which had married my father’s sister, whose name was Joan or Jane, with whom I dwelt a certain season, and afterwards I was led by my mother to Antwerp for to learn Flemish in a house of a cousin of mine and officer of the said town called John Steinbeck, with whom I was the space of half a year, and after that I returned again unto Tournai, by reason of the wars that were in Flanders. And within a year following I was sent with a merchant of the said town of Tournai named Berlo and his master’s name Alexander, to the mart of Antwerp, whereas I fell sick, which sickness continued upon me V. months, and the said Berlo set me to board in a skinner’s house, that dwelt beside the house of the English nation, and by him I was thence carried to Barrow mart and lodged at the sign of the old man, were I abode the space of ij. months, and after this the said Berlo set me with a merchant in Middlesborough to service for to learn the language, whose name was John Strewe, with whom I dwelt from Christmas to Easter, and then I went into Portugal in the company of Sir Edward Brampton’s wife, in a ship which was called the Queen’s ship. And when I was come thither I was put in service to a knight that dwelt in Lushborn, which was called Peter Vacz de Cogna, with whom I dwelt a whole year, which said knight had but one eye. And then because I desired to see other countries I took licence of him, and then I put myself in service with a Breton called Pregent Meno, the which brought me with him into Ireland. And when we were there arrived in the town of Cork, they of the town, because I was arrayed with some clothes of silk of my said master’s, came unto me, and threeped upon me1 that I should be the duke of Clarence’s son, that was before time at Dublin. And forasmuch as I denied it, there was brought unto me the holy evangelist and the Cross by the mayor of the town, which was called John le Wellin, and there in the presence of him and other I took mine oath as the truth was that I was not the aforesaid duke’s son, neither of none of his blood. And after this came unto me an Englishman, whose name was Stephen Poytron, with one John Water, and said to me in swearing great oaths that they knew well I was King Richard’s bastard son. To whom I answered with like oaths that I was not, and then they advised me not to be afraid, but that I should take it upon me boldly, and if I would so do they would aid and assist me with all their power against the King of England, and not only they, but they were assured well that the earls of Desmond and Kildare should do the same, for they cared not what party they took so that they might be revenged upon the King of England. And so against my will made me to learn English, and taught me what I should do and say, and after this they called me duke of York, the second son of King Edward IVth, because King Richard’s bastard son was in the hands of the King of England. And upon this the said John Water, Stephen Poytron, John Tyler, Hubert Burgth, with many other, as the aforesaid Earls, entered into this false quarrel, and within short time after the French king sent unto me an embassy into Ireland whose names were Loyte Lucas and master Stephen Fryon to advertise me to come into 1

asserted.

[1]

PASSAGES FROM “THE GREAT CHRONICLE OF LONDON”

121

France, and thence I went into France, and from thence into Flanders, and from Flanders into Ireland, and from Ireland into Scotland, and so into England. Of the which confession as before is rehearsed thus imprinted, many of them were sent into all places of England and elsewhere, that the truth of such covered malice and falsehood abominable might be known to the great rejoicing of all the King’s friends and true subjects, and utter discomfort and great agony unto all his enemies. Upon Saint Nicholas’ day, or the VIth day of December, in the forenoon was proclamation made through the City of a continual and stablished peace to be had between England and Scotland for the term of both King’s lives and a year after of them longest living. And shortly after was the weathercock of Paul’s taken down and again set up by a carpenter of London, called Godfrey [blank in MS] but it was the latter end of May or he had all finished his business about the same. The King this year holding his Christmas at his manor of Sheen, upon the night following Saint Thomas’ day the martyr, about IX of the clock began suddenly an huge fire within the King’s lodging, and so continued till midnight. By violence whereof much and great part of the old building of that place was burnt, and much more harm done upon costrings1 and hanging beds of cloth of gold and silk, and much other rich apparel with plate and other manifold jewels as belongeth to such a noble court. How well loving thereof be to God no Christian creature was there perished, which was to the singular comfort of the King, considering the notableness of the court there at that principal feast holden, at the which was at that time with his grace accompanied, the Queen, my lady the King’s mother, my lord of York, my lady Margaret, with divers other estates of this realm. Upon New Year’s day following died master John Brown, alderman, a father and profferer of the common weal, which left not his like behind him, considering his wisdom and good mind toward the common weal of the City, and for him was chosen alderman, John Wyngar, grocer. About the midst of April sprang certain tidings of the French king’s death. And in the beginning of May, the King then being at Canterbury, was burnt a priest for heresy, the which was so obstinate in his opinion that all the clerks and doctors then being there might not remove him from his error. Whereof the King being informed commanded him to be brought to his presence, and that done, his grace took so great pain, that after long argument and exhortation he caused him to refute his erronious opinions, and died in the faith of the Church, whereby the King won excelling honour and fame of great wisdom. Upon the Vth. day of May was kept a solemn exequy at Paul’s for the French king, and upon the morn a solemn mass, at the which was present the mayor with the aldermen and all the fellowships of the city in their liveries, and there offered. Ye have before heard of the taking of Perkin and his confession and pedigree, and how graciously it pleased the King’s grace to deal with him, and after kept him in his court at liberty with many other benefits, which would ask long time to write. But he, forgetting the goodness and gracious disposition of the King, upon the even of Trinity 1

curtains.

122

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

[1]

Sunday being the IXth day of June about midnight, stole out of the court, the King then being at Westminster, for whom was made much search, albeit, he seeing he might not escape, in short time after rode unto the Charterhouse of Sheen, and there instanced the father of that house so lamentably, that he, after his putting him in a sure keeping, rode to the King in whose favour he stood greatly, and left not till he had gotten grant for his life, and so was brought again to the court. Then upon the Friday following was ordained a scaffold within the palace of Westminster, made of pipes and of other empty vessels, whereupon was Set a pair of stocks and he in them fast locked, and so there was wondered upon the more part of the forenoon. And upon the Monday following was a like scaffold made against the King’s Head in Cheap, whereupon stood the said Perkin from X. of the bell in the morning till three at afternoon, to his great shame, and that done he was with sure guides brought through Cornhill unto the Tower of London, and there left as prisoner. In the month of July was Henry Cote, alderman, discharged of his cloak after long suit and labour made to the Bench for the same, and for him was chosen Bartholomew Rede, one of the sheriffs for this year. And in the said month was repaid the iiij Ml li. before borrowed by the King, of the City in the time of master John Tate being mayor. This year was great drought, insomuch that from Easter to the beginning of August fell little rain, by reason whereof grass increased not, so that that year a load of hay, which before days was sold at London for V. or Vj. s., was this year sold for X. or Xij. s., and above. This year also, the King by means of a Venetian, which made himself very expert and cunning in knowledge of the circuit of the world and islands of the same, as by a chart and other demonstrations reasonable he showed, caused the King to man and victual a ship at Bristol to seek for an island which he said he knew was rich and replenished with rich commodities, which ship, thus manned and victualled at the King’s cost, divers merchants of London adventured in her small stocks, being in her as chief patron the said Venetian, and in the company of the said ship sailed also out of Bristow iij. or iiij. small ships fraught with slight and gross merchandise as coarse cloth, caps, laces, points, and other trifles. And so departed from Bristol in the beginning of May. Of whom this mayor’s time returned no tidings. Upon Saint Edward’s day after the mass of the Holy Ghost was sung, and the mayor, with his brethren, was come into the inner council chamber to commune of such matters as them liked, was shown by the mayor a letter sent from the King, whereof the effect was that the mayor and aldermen should, if that the commons laid Sir John Percival in the election to be mayor for the year following, that they should at the King’s request choose him to the said office, by means whereof and by a letter of request made lately before and directed from doctor Savage, then bishop of London, unto the mayor, aldermen, and commonalty of the City, the said Sir John Percival was that day chosen mayor of London, which by sundry years passed was put by, by the mayor and aldermen, forasmuch as it was thought by them that he was very desirous to have it, in other manner than other of his predecessors, mayors before him.

[2]

SELECT PASSAGES FROM WRIOTHESLEY’S “CHRONICLE”

123

2. Select passages from Wriothesley’s Chronicle (W.D.Hamilton, A Chronicle of England, II, 24) The following passages illustrate the peculiar nature of Wriothesley’s narrative. It is independent of the London chronicles, and has some of the characteristics of the diary form. It is, indeed, a link between the traditional chronicle form and the new historical technique of Polydore Vergil. Both of the following passages reveal the author as a well-informed observer of current affairs. The first gives a good account of the proceedings taken against Protector Somerset in 1549: the second describes Thomas Wyatt’s rebellion.

(i) Proceedings against Protector Somerset, 1549

S

unday, the 6 of October, in the morning, the Earl of Warwick with other lords, of the Council sent for my Lord Mayor and the Aldermen to his place in Holborn where was declared to them by the Lord Chancellor and other of the King’s Majesty’s council divers abuses of the Lord Protector concerning the king’s majesty’s person and other his affairs, both in England and also in Scotland and other his parts beyond the seas. And that afternoon was kept a court of the aldermen in the Guildhall, where was shewed a letter from the King and my Lord Protector, for to have a M. men of the city well harnessed with weapons for the defence and surety of the king’s majesty’s person. And another letter also from the Lords to have 2000 men to aid them for the defence and surety of the king’s person also. And also that the city should be well kept with watches both day and night; whereupon the said Aldermen agreed that precepts should be sent forth to every Alderman in his ward, and also other precepts to certain persons of the chief companies of the city, to have 16 persons to watch at every gate of the city of every of their companies, and every person one servant with him in harness, all the day, and a double watch of the constables every night from 9. of the clock till 5, in the morning, which was begun the morrow after, And also that 2. of the aldermen should ride every night about the city to peruse the said watches. This day also the King’s majesty lying at Hampton Court, the Lord Protector caused proclamations to be made in divers towns near the Court for men to aid the King against the Lords and sent letters likewise to divers towns, whereupon great assembly of people gathered to Hampton Court; and in the night he conveyed the King’s Majesty to Windsor, with a great number of horsemen and footmen. Monday, the 7 of October, was kept a common council in the Guildhall, where was read both the letters of the King and the Lords aforementioned. And this day all the Lords of the Council sat in the forenoon at the Mercers Hall, and dined at my Lord Mayor’s, and sat there in council till night. And this day the warding of the gates began their watch in harness, and all the Lords lodged within the city, and set Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Domer, and another, to be aiding with the lieutenant of the Tower for the safeguard of the same to the use of the king. Tuesday the 8 of October was kept another common council in the Guildhall, whither all the lords came, and there by the mouth of the Lord Chancellor and other of the lords was declared the great abuses of the said Lord Protector, desiring all the citizens to be aiding and assisting with the lords for the preservation of the king’s majesty’s person, which they greatly feared being in his adversaries’ hands, and this day they dined at Mr. York’s, sheriff. This day in the afternoon about iiii. o’clock a proclamation was made in the city of

124

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

[2]

London in divers places with two trumpets, iiii heralds, and 2 kings of arms, Norey and Clarentius, with their coats of arms, the sergeant of the trumpeters and the common crier riding with their maces afore them. Mr. Turcke, sheriff, and Mr. Chaliner, one of the clerks of the council, which read the proclamation, which proclamation contained the very truth of the Duke of Somerset’s evil government, false and detestable proceedings. The 9 of October was kept another common council, where was granted v.C. men of the city to be set forth to aid the lords for the safeguard of the king’s majesty’s person. The 10 of October was kept another common council in the forenoon, where was read a letter to have of the v.C. men ii.C. to be horsemen, but they granted to i.C. which should be ready on the morrow by two of the clock in the afternoon in Moorfield. Also this day in the afternoon was an assembly of all the commons of the city having liveries, where was read in the Guildhall a letter sent from the lords concerning the casting abroad of divers libels touching the lords, my Lord Mayor, and the aldermen, and all the city of London, exhorting all the citizens to be circumspect to search and find out such persons as wrote and endited them. And this day all the lords dined at Mr. Turkes, sheriff, and sat in his house in council from vii. of the clock in the morning till iiii in the afternoon, and then went to supper to my lord Great Master’s house by London Wall. The 11 of October in the afternoon the said v.C. persons well armed all in white coats mustered in Moorfields, whereof divers were bowmen, gunners, and i.C. horsemen, which after they had mustered went in at Moorgate, iii in a rank, every sort of weapons by themselves, and so through Coleman Street, through Cheap, and out at Newgate, and so into Smithfield, the sword bearer riding afore them as captain, with a trumpet and a drum in the midst of them, and there they broke off and were discharged by the commandment of the council for this time. This day the lords of the council sat in my Lord Great Master’s house. And Sir Anthony Wingfield, captain of the Guard, was sent to Windsor to the King, and severed my Lord Protector from his grace, and caused the Guard to watch him till the lords coming. The 12 of October my Lord Chancellor, with the rest of the lords of the council, rode to Windsor to the King, and this night the Lord Protector was put in ward within the castle of Windsor in Beauchamp’s Tower, and there was watched by the Guard and other. The 14 of October, in the afternoon, the Duke of Somerset was brought from Windsor to the Tower of London, riding through Holborn and in at Newgate, and so through all the high streets to the Tower, accompanied with divers lords, knights, and gentlemen with iii.C. horsemen, every band in their masters’ livery, my Lord Mayor, Sir Raufe Warreine, Sir John Gresham, Mr. Recorder, Sir William Lock, and both the sheriffs, Sir John Baker, chancellor of the tenths, Sir Richard Southwell, Sir Edmund Candish, and Sir Thomas Pope, knights, sitting all on their horses against Sooper-lane, with all the officers of the sheriffs standing by them with bills and halberds in their hands; and

[2]

SELECT PASSAGES FROM WRIOTHESLEY’S “CHRONICLE”

125

from Holborn bridge to the Tower certain Aldermen or their deputies sitting on horseback in every street, with a number of householders standing by them with bills in their hands, in every quarter, as he passed through the streets to the Tower hill, where he was delivered to the Constable of the Tower with these persons following. Names of the prisoners.

The Duke of Somerset. Sir Michael Stanhope, knight of the Privy Chamber. Sir Thomas Smith, Secretary. Sir John Thynne, knight. Edward Wolfe of the Privy Chamber. William Grey of Reading. The 17 of October at a court of aldermen the watches at the gates of the citizens in harness were discharged, and also the watches of the aldermen at nights.

(ii) Wyatt’s Rebellion 1 The 25 day of January [1554] tidings were brought to the Lord Mayor, by Sir John Gage, Lord Chamberlain to the Queen, that Sir Thomas Wyatt, with certain rebels, were up in Kent, about Maidstone. Whereupon a court of Aldermen was called immediately in the afternoon; and that night the Lord Mayor rode to peruse the watch of the city, and so every night after two aldermen to ride to peruse the said watches. Also, that night, by the Council’s commandment, the Lord Mayor secretly with the sheriffs apprehended the Lord Marquis of Northampton, lying in Mr. Warner’s house, by Carter Lane, and brought him to his own house, where he lay that night; and Mr. Warner lay with Mr. Huet, sheriff. The 26 of January the Lord Marquis was sent from the Lord Mayor’s house to the Tower of London by the Sword-bearer, and Mr. Warner was sent thither likewise by Mr. Huet’s officers, by the council’s commandment. Also, this day the gates of the city began to be warded by the citizens. The 27 of January the Lord Treasurer came to the Guildhall from the council to declare that the city should make out 500 footmen, well harnessed, to go against the rebels, whereupon a Common Council was called in the afternoon to have their assents thereunto, which they granted, and had them ready that night among the Companies of the city; which was put off till the morrow. And the 28 of January, being Sunday, the said 500 men were assembled at Leadenhall, and there delivered to the Captains, and sent by water to Gravesend. The Lo. Warner, being Captain of one hundred, with other-captains for every 100 men, appointed by the Council. The 29 of January the Duke of Norfolk, with the Captain of the guard that were sent from the Queen, with certain other soldiers and yeomen of the guard, with the captains and soldiers that went out of the city, offered to assault Rochester Castle 1 D.M.Loades, Two Tudor Conspiracies (Cambridge, 1965) is a detailed study of Wyatt’s rebellion in 1554, and the Dudley Conspiracy of 1556, based on the Wyatt MSS. and other original sources.

126

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

[2]

where the traitor Wyatt and his rebels lay, and the captains of the city with their soldiers fled to the rebels over Rochester Bridge and drew up the bridge, so that the Duke was fain to fly, and then the rebels took the Queen’s ordnance and treasure. The 30th of January Wyatt removed with his rebels from Rochester and came to Blackheath, and there camped with the Queen’s ordnance and lay in the town of Greenwich and there about. This day also ordnance was laid at every gate of the city. The 31 January Wyatt removed to Greenwich and Deptford with his camp. The first day of February a proclamation was made in the city of London with an herald, a trumpet, and the Common Crier, the knight marshal riding with them; which was the traitor the Duke of Suffolk, which was fled westward, was discomforted, and his horesmen and baggage taken, and he and his two brethren fled in servingmen’s coats. And also that Peter Carew and his uncle Gawain Carew and Gibbes were fled into France, and that certain of their adherents were taken and kept in Exeter. And, further, that whosoever should take the traitor Wyatt should have a 100.l. lands to him and his heirs for ever. The same day in the afternoon, being Candlemas Even, all the Commons of the City were assembled in their liveries at the Guildhall. The Queen’s Majesty, with her Lords and Ladies riding from Westminster to the said Guildhall, came thither by 3 of the clock the same afternoon. First she went up to the Council Chamber, where the Aldermen use to sit, and there paused a little, the Lord Mayor and Aldermen receiving her Majesty at the steps, going up to the Mayor’s Court. Then her Majesty came down into the great hall up into the place of the hustings, where was hanged a rich cloth of estate, she, standing under it, with her own mouth declared to the audience there assembled the wicked pretence of the traitor Wyatt, which was utterly to deprive her of her crown, and to spoil the City; which was so nobly and with so good spirit declared, and with so loud a voice, that all the people might hear her Majesty, and comforting their hearts with so sweet words that made them weep for joy to hear her Majesty speak. This done she came down and went up again into the Council Chamber and drank, and then departed and rode through Bucklersbury to the Crane in the Vintry, and there took her barge, and so to Westminster by water. The 2 of February, being Candlemas day, the citizens made preparation for a 1000 men of the householders of the said City, well harnessed, to defend the City, the Lord Mayor and Aldermen every one in his ward taking the muster of them. Wherefore, this day the going to Paul’s in the afternoon was left; and also that day the Lord Mayor’s officers served him at dinner in harness. The 3 day of February, being Saturday, in the afternoon, the traitor Wyatt with his rebels came into Southwark, and there trenched at the bridge foot, and set two pieces of ordnance against the gate at London Bridge. And then came the Lord William Howard, Lord Admiral, to the Lord Mayor, with a commission from the Queen, and made a proclamation against the said Wyatt, and that the Queen had sent him to be Captain General, with the Lord Mayor, for the defence of the City, declaring to the citizens that he would die in the defence of it. And that night the said Lord Admiral watched the bridge with 300 men, and brake the drawbridge, and set rampeers with great ordnance there.

[2]

SELECT PASSAGES FROM WRIOTHESLEY’S “CHRONICLE”

127

Sunday the 4 of February the Lord Admiral made strong defence on the bridge and warded with 300 of the citizens with him all the day till 8 of the clock at night; and then relieved them with other 300 men to ward all the night, and by 5 in the morning other 300 fresh men came to relieve them, and every morning and evening fresh relief was set. The 6 of February, being Shrove Tuesday, afore six of the clock in the morning, Wyatt with his rebels went out of Southwark, and went to Kingston, over the bridge, and came toward Brentford; and that afternoon were 2 men hanged on a gibbet, in Paul’s Churchyard, by martial law, one being the Duke of Suffolk’s servant a rich man, and undersheriff of Leicester, and the other a baker, one of the rebels. Also the same day tidings came that the Duke of Suffolk and his brother were taken by the Earl of Huntingdon. And that day also the Lord Cobham and Harper were committed to the Tower. The 7th. of February, being Ash-Wednesday, early in the morning, the Earl of Pembroke, Lieutenant of the Queen’s army, with the horsemen and footmen of the noblemen, gathered their armies together with the Queen’s ordnance, and pitched their field by St. James beyond Charing Cross, to abide the said traitor Wyatt and his rebels. The Lord Mayor and the Lord Admiral set the citizens in good array at Ludgate, Newgate, and from Cripplegate to Bishopsgate, lest the rebels would draw to Finsbury field, they to defend that side. Then Wyatt with his rebels came to the park pale by St. James about 2 of the clock in the afternoon, and Knevett, one of his captains with his rebels went by Tothill, through Westminster, and shot at the Court gates. But Wyatt, perceiving the great army of the Queen’s camp, and ordnance bent against him, suddenly returned by the wall of the park at St. James, towards Charing Cross, with the lightest of his soldiers, where the Earl of Pembroke’s men cut offhis train and slew divers of the rebels; but Wyatt himself with divers other came in at Temple Bar, and so through Fleet Street to the Bell Savage, crying “a Wyatt! a Wyatt! God save Queen Mary!” But when he saw that Ludgate was shut against him, and the ordnance bent, he fled back again saying, “I have kept touch”; and by Temple Bar was taken, with the lord Cobham’s son, and other of his captains and rebels, and brought to the court gate, and from thence sent by water to the Tower of London. And then all the Queen’s host came through London in goodly array, and Te Deum was sung in the Queen’s Chapel for joy of said victory, and so few slain. The 10th, of February the Lord Mayor with other justices sat on the rebels by commission of Oyer and determiner at the justice hall in the Old Bailey, where that day were condemned of treason 82 persons of Kent and other places; and 32 were condemned to be drawn, hanged, and quartered. Also the same day in the afternoon the Duke of Suffolk, which was taken in Leicestershire, was brought through the City of London by the Earl of Huntingdon, and one of his brethren with 200 light horsemen, and so had to the Tower. The 12 of February was beheaded at the Tower hill. And Lady Jane his wife was immediately after his death beheaded within the Tower upon the green. The 14 of February divers of the rebels were put to death, that is to say, Bothe, one

128

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

[2]

of the Queen’s footmen, one Vicars, a Yeoman of the Guard, great John Norton, and one King, were hanged at Charing Cross. And three of the rebels, one called Pollard, were hanged at the park pale by Hyde Park; three also in Fleet Street, one at Ludgate, one at Bishopsgate, one at Newgate, one at Aldgate, three at the Cross in Cheap, three at Soper Lane end in Cheap, and three in Smithfield, which persons hanged still all that day and night till the next morning, and then cut down. And the bodies of them that were hanged at the gates were quartered at Newgate, and the heads and bodies hanged over the gates where they suffered. The 15 of February were hanged of the rebels 3 against St. Magnus Church, 3 at Billingsgate, 3 at Leadenhall, one at Moorgate, one at Cripplegate, one at Aldersgate, two at Paul’s, 3 in Holborn, 3 at Tower Hill, 2 at Tyburn, and at 4 places in Southwark 14. And divers others were executed at Kingston and other places. Also this day about 9 of the clock in the forenoon was seen in London in the midst of the Element a rainbow like fire, the ends upward, and two suns, by the space of an hour and a half. The 17 of February the Duke of Suffolk was arraigned at Westminster and there condemned of treason. The same day a proclamation was made in London for strangers, not being denizens and merchants known, using the trade of merchandise, should depart and avoid the realm within 24 days after this proclamation, upon pain to forfeit all their goods movable, and also upon pain of imprisonment. The 18 of February Bright, one of the captains of the Londoners that fled to Wyatt, and 22 persons more of the Kentish men were delivered to the sheriff of Kent, to be executed in divers places in Kent appointed by the Queen’s Council. The 22 of February certain of the rebels which lay in Newgate, both of the Counters, the King’s Bench, the Marshalsea, and Westminster, to the number of 400 and more, were led to Westminster to the Court, coupled together with collars and halters about their necks, and there in the Tiltyard kneeled afore the Queen looking out at the gallery by the gate, and cried for mercy, who most graciously gave to them their pardon. Friday, the 23 of February Lord Gray, Duke of Suffolk, was beheaded at the Tower Hill. The first day of March, the parsons and curates of the City of London that were wedded were cited to appear in the Consistory in Paul’s afore the Bishop of London’s commissioners, and there deprived from their benefices. And those that were and had been religious men were deprived both from their wives and benefices also. The 9 of March one Fermer, a woodmonger, was set on the pillory in Cheap with 4 billets hanging at his shoulders, 2 before him and 2 behind him, for buying wood at 8.s.4.d. the thousand and selling it again for 18.s. the thousand, which penance was enjoined him by a Court of Aldermen the 8 of March. The 15 March Wyatt, captain of the rebels, was arraigned at Westminster and there condemned of high treason. And the same day the Earl of Devonshire was committed again to the Tower. The 18 of March, being Palm Sunday, the Lady Elizabeth was had to the Tower

[2]

SELECT PASSAGES FROM WRIOTHESLEY’S “CHRONICLE”

129

from Westminster by water privily, after the Queen had gone a procession, which was about 10 of the clock in the forenoon. The same Palm Sunday the old service after the use of Sarum in Latin was begun again and kept in Paul’s and other parishes within the City of London, with also bearing of Palms, and creeping to the Cross on Good Friday, with the Sepulchre lights and the Resurrection on Easter Day. Also the Scriptures written on roodlofts and about the churches in London, with the arms of England was washed out against the feast of Easter in most parts of all the parish churches of the diocese of London. And Dr. Feckenham was made Dean of Paul’s, and Dr. May put out, and the sacrament of the altar hanged or set on the altar in every parish church. The first day of April was consecrated in Southwark six new bishops after the old sort, the Lord Chancellor and Bishop of Winchester singing the mass, the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Durham assisting him. Monday the 2 of April, 1554, the Parliament began at Westminster, which should have been kept at Oxford, the Queen’s Majesty riding in her parliament robes from her palace of Whitehall to St. Peter’s church with all her lords spiritual and temporal in their robes, and there heard mass of the Holy Ghost and a sermon. And that afternoon the Common House did choose Mr. Robert Brooke, esquire, and serjeant at law and Recorder of London, for their speaker in this parliament. Sunday the 8 of April was a villainous fact done in Cheap early or day1. A dead cat having a cloth like a vestment of the priest at mass with a cross on it afore, and another behind put on it; the crown of the cat shorn, a piece of paper like a singing cake out between the forefeet of the said cat bound together, which cat was hanged on the post of the gallows in Cheap beyond the Cross in the parish of St. Matthew, and a bottle hanged by it; which cat was taken down at 6 of the clock in the morning and carried to the Bishop of London, and he caused it to be shewed openly in the sermon time at Paul’s Cross in the sight of all the audience there present. The Lord Mayor, with his brethren the aldermen of the City of London, caused a proclamation to be made that afternoon that whosoever could utter or shew the author of the said fact should have £6.13.s.4.d. for his pains, and a better reward, with hearty thanks. But at that time, after much enquiry and search made, it could not be known, but divers persons were had to prison for suspicions of it. The 11th day of April Sir Thomas Wyatt, chief captain of the late rebellion in Kent, was beheaded at Tower Hill at nine of the clock in the forenoon, and his body after quartered on the scaffold. His head was set on the gallows at the park pale beyond St. James, where Pollard and two other were hanged in chains. And his four quarters were hanged on gibbets in chains at four several places without the Liberties of the City. 1

Before daybreak.

130

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

[3]

3. Select passages from Polydore Vergil’s Anglica Historia The significance of Polydore Vergil’s contribution to English historical writing has already been discussed. The following passages are typical of his methods. In the first he describes the steps by which Henry VII established his authority after his victory at Bosworth Field, with a digression on the outbreak of the sweating sickness. The second passage describes the change which came over Henry’s domestic policy after 1502.

(i) Henry VII’s policy after Bosworth Field (Anglica Historia, ed. D.Hay, 2–12)

I

n the previous book we have recounted Richard’s actions after the death of Edward, the defection of the nobles, and, further, his own death. Now we shall set out at length what followed afterwards. Henry, the master of events, determined from the beginning of his reign to wipe out sedition. So, before he left Leicester, he sent Robert Willoughby into Yorkshire to bring in Edward, earl of Warwick, the only surviving son of George, duke of Clarence, a lad of fifteen, whom Richard had up to then detained in a fortress called Sheriff Hutton. For, indeed, Henry feared that if this lad were to escape, at some time or another, owing to a change in circumstances he might stir up other troubles, for he was not unaware of the habits of the mob, which is always keen for change. Reaching the fortress without delay, Robert received the lad from the governor of the place and brought him to London, where the wretched boy, born to trouble, remained in the Tower until his death, as will be told elsewhere. In the same fortress was the lady Elizabeth, the eldest daughter of King Edward, whom Richard had kept safely with the idea of making her his wife. This the young woman utterly loathed, and for this reason weighed down by her sorrow she daily mourned saying, “I will not be thus married, but miserable creature that I am, I will rather endure the torments which, so they say, St. Catherine bore for love of Christ, than be joined to a man who is the enemy of my family.” This young woman, too, was brought to her mother in London, attended by noblewomen. Meanwhile, Henry set out for London, like an emperor on triumph, receiving wherever he went the greatest rejoicing from everyone. For everywhere the people lined the roads to greet him as king, and filled his journey all the way with groaning tables and overflowing cups, so that the weary conquerors might refresh themselves. And when he drew near to the capital, the chief magistrate, known as the “Mayor”, and all the citizens came out to meet him and ceremoniously accompanied him as he entered the city, trumpeters leading the way with the spoils of the enemy and sounding martial airs. Thus Henry came into his kingdom after his labours, welcomed by everyone. And afterwards, he called a parliament, according to custom, in which he might receive the crown of the kingdom by popular assent. His first care was to arrange affairs of the state well, and in order that the English people should not be further torn by rival parties, he publicly proclaimed that (as he had already promised) he would take to wife Elizabeth, the daughter of King Edward, and that he would give complete pardon and forgiveness to all who swore obedience to his name. And so, at last, having won the goodwill of all men, he was made King by the will of the nobles and the people, on the 31 October, at Westminster, and he was called Henry, the seventh of that name. These things took place in the year 1486 after the birth of our Saviour.

[3]

PASSAGES FROM POLYDORE VERGIL’S “ANGLICA HISTORIA”

131

Thus Henry gained the kingdom of England, an event which had been foretold centuries earlier, and also soon after his birth. For 797 years before, there appeared one night to Cadwallader, the last king of the Britons (as we have recorded in the third book of this history) a spirit of some kind with a divine appearance. It prophesied that long afterwards it would come to pass that his descendants would recover the country. That prophecy, men say, was fulfilled in Henry, who traced his descent back to Cadwallader. Henry VI made the same prediction to Henry when he was a lad (as we have mentioned in the life of Edward). But we must get back to our task. Immediately afterwards the king created his uncle Jasper, to whom he owed much, duke of Bedford: Thomas Stanley he made earl of Derby, Giles Daubeney lord Daubeney, Robert Willoughby lord of Broke; and many others he made lords. To others he restored their rank and estates. Upon others he bestowed office or preferment, or gave them grants of money according to what he thought they deserved. Further he ransomed and summoned home Thomas, marquis of Dorset and John Bourchier, lord Fenewary, who (as we have related in the life of Richard) had been left behind at Paris as sureties or guarantees for the money which had been advanced there as a loan. At the same time he called to his side John Morton, Bishop of Ely, from Flanders. To his mother Margaret, a most worthy woman whom none can ever praise too greatly or too often for her commonsense and holy life, Henry allotted a part of his private and public resources, whereby he lightened her old age. Also, he was the first English king to appoint retainers to the number of about two hundred as a bodyguard: these he made part of his household so that they should never leave his side, in this copying the French kings so that henceforth he might be the better protected from treachery. When he had done these things the king straightway granted his pardon for all past offences to all regardless of party provided they swore allegiance to him, thus deserving well both of friends and enemies. Then he took to wife Elizabeth, the daughter of Edward, a woman shrewd indeed above all others, and at the same time, beautiful. This must be regarded as the work of providence, for by this union all the causes of the two most deadly factions were completely destroyed, whereby the two houses of Lancaster and York became one, and from it sprang the true and established royal line which now reigns. In the same year immediately after Henry’s landing in this island, a new type of sickness swept the whole country: a dreadful affliction which no previous age had experienced. For suddenly a deadly sweating attacked the body, and at the same time head and stomach were in pain owing to the violence of the sweating. When attacked by the disease some could not bear the heat and threw off the bedclothes if they were in bed, or took off their clothes if they were dressed: other slaked their thirst with cold drinks, while others put up with the heat and the smell (for the sweat stank foully) and by adding more bedclothes increased the sweating. But all alike died (either as soon as they had begun to sweat or not long after), so that of all those infected scarcely one in a hundred escaped death. And those who survived for twenty-four hours after the sweating ended (for such was the period when the fever raged) were not then rid of it, since they continually relapsed and many thereby perished. At last, however, the disease itself revealed the cure. For those who had the sweat once, when they had another

132

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

[3]

attack, took notice of what had relieved the first attack, and used these as a cure, each time adding something useful to the remedy. So those who fell victims to the disease a third time learnt how to cure themselves and easily escaped the full force of the sweat thereby profiting from their previous experience. Thus it came about (although after a terrible mortality) that an effective remedy was discovered for everyone, and it was this: anyone attacked by the sweat in the daytime should go to bed dressed just as he is: if he begins to sweat at night while he lies in bed, he should keep quiet and not get out of bed for exactly twenty-four hours. Meanwhile he should keep himself well covered not in order to bring on the sweat, but so as to perspire gently and naturally. He should take nothing to eat if he can put up with hunger for so long, but may drink enough of his usual drink warmed as will quench his thirst. In this treatment care should above all be taken that not even an arm is exposed outside the bedclothes to get cool, for this is fatal. This remedy was discovered for the new sickness by which England was gravely stricken at that time and by which it is again somewhat troubled today. It certainly ought not to pass unnoticed that this disease, hitherto unknown, only began to rage at the opening of Henry’s reign: although shortly afterwards it died down, it flared up again at the end of his reign, four years ago: and still continues, but it is fatal to none save those who neglect to carry out the cure. It was popularly supposed to be a warning of the severity Henry would employ in governing. But maybe the sweating sickness portended something else: namely that Henry would only rule by the sweat of his brow, because that certainly was true. For from the very start of his reign he began to be harassed by the treachery of his opponents and, frequently attacked thereafter by the forces of his enemies and the rebellions of his own subjects, he did not escape dangers without effort. But let us return whence we digressed. After Henry had well ordered all his affairs in London he set out for York to keep in control the people of the north, wild and readier than others for rebellion. He broke journey at Lincoln, where he kept the feast of Easter. While he lingered there, he was informed that Francis lord Lovell, together with Humphrey Stafford, had gone out of sanctuary at Colchester but none could say for certain where they had gone. Making light of the matter the king set out for York according to plan. But no sooner was he there than the whole city was suddenly full of the news that Francis Lovell had collected a large force in Yorkshire itself, a little beyond the castle of Middleham, to march with hostile intent on the city itself, and further that Humphrey Stafford was provoking a major rebellion in Gloucestershire. At first, as the news lacked confirmation, the king was not greatly disturbed, but when he learned from the letters of his own servants that what at first had been rumour was indeed true, he was greatly troubled, for he had neither an army nor arms ready for his followers, and he did not know where he could get together a reliable force at that time in a town not conspicuously loyal to himself, which up to then had cherished the name of king Richard. But since speedy action was essential for fear of giving his opponents the chance to increase their numbers, he sent against his enemies his whole retinue, including his own bodyguard, a total force of 3,000 men, though ill equipped, for the greater part had made shields for themselves out of leather. Meanwhile he scraped together soldiers from every possible source. The

[3]

PASSAGES FROM POLYDORE VERGIL’S “ANGLICA HISTORIA”

133

extemporised force which had been sent forward speedily advanced until they approached the camp of the enemy where they forthwith announced the royal terms: that the king would freely grant his pardon to those who would lay down their arms. This proved to be the king’s salvation. For Francis, whether he had less faith in his troops because of this, or because his lack of purpose brought on a vain fear, fled by night secretly from his men. When the flight of their leader was known, they all without delay submitted themselves to the king’s power. Francis, who had not attempted a fight owing to his lack of courage betook himself with all speed into the district or county of Lancaster, and turned to Thomas Broughton, a knight of great authority in those parts, with whom he hid for some months. Humphrey, frightened by the flight of Francis, fled from his troops to the sanctuary called Culham, not far from the place called Abingdon. But since this sanctuary does not protect those accused of lèse-majesté, Humphrey was taken out from there and beheaded: but his brother Thomas sued a pardon. When he had thus subdued these rebellions which had filled his heart with great fear, and after he had cleared up all matters among the northern folk, the king returned to London. From there he went in a few days to Winchester where Queen Elizabeth, his wife, gave birth to a son whom he named Arthur. Shortly afterwards he returned to London.

(ii) The Cornish Revolt, 1498 (Ibid. 90–103)

When King Henry learnt that King James had entered his territory and that the English nobles in the north parts remained loyal, he cancelled the preparations he had begun to meet the impending threat. But in order to prevent the enemy from being encouraged by their evil deed, he decided to avenge his injury by arms, invading Scotland with a force sufficient to punish that country and its subjects for the crimes which had been committed. So, having summoned a meeting of nobles, he told them his plans, and with many arguments urged the need to continue the war begun by the enemy. It was agreed by all the nobles, who no less than himself, were infuriated by such effrontery of the Scots that war should be waged, and that it should be financed by a general tax. Thereupon the king, with the support of all, ordered the people to pay a tax assessed on every individual, and then, having dismissed the council, he prepared anew for war. Meanwhile, the Scottish king, seeing that the English would not remain inactive for long, prepared his own forces with no less energy so that he could either march against the enemy and hold them up, or else he might enter England again on a plundering raid. So now the kings were under arms. But King Henry, stung by the wrongs done to him, was so furious against the Scots that he had ready a most formidable army long before them. This he ordered to take the field against Scotland under the leadership of Giles Daubeney. Giles, delighted to have under his command troops as mature in age as they were experienced in all kinds of arms, was all ready to set out on a major campaign over the border, when suddenly there broke out at home, where it might least have been expected, a very serious rebellion.

134

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

[3]

For the men of Cornwall, who live in a part of the island as small in area as it is poor in resources, began to complain that they could not carry the burden of taxation imposed for the Scottish war. First, they accused the king, grumbling at the cruelty and malice of his counsellors: then they began to get completely out of hand, threatening the authors of this great oppression with death, and daring to seek them out for punishment. While the people were thus in a ferment, two men out of the scum of the people, namely Thomas Flammock, a lawyer, and Michael Joseph, a blacksmith, two bold rascals, put themselves at the head of the rising. When they saw that the mob was aroused they kept on shouting that it was a scandalous crime that the king in order to make a small expedition against the Scots, should burden with taxes the wretched men of Cornwall, who either cultivated a barren soil, or with difficulty sought a living by digging tin, that is, white and black lead, of which a great quantity is found in that region, from the bowels of the earth. They put the blame especially on John Morton, archbishop of Canterbury, and Reginald Bray, and some other counsellors. And so they urged the people that having promptly taken up arms they should not hesitate to follow their leaders, promising that from then on no taxes should be paid, and that the people should for retribution drag to execution these particular evil counsellors who were plotting against the poor. Spurred on by such talk the people took these two men as their leaders, and pledged themselves to follow them wherever they might lead. Praising this decision of the people, their leaders prepared to march, leading the disorderly mob towards Wells, on the road to London, where they had heard the king was. When this news reached the king, he was moved by sorrow and anxiety that simultaneously he should be suddenly confronted by a double attack, that is, by a foreign and a civil war. And since the danger seemed equally menacing from each direction, he was for some time uncertain which he should deal with first. Meanwhile, he learnt that James Touchet, lord Audley, and some other nobles had joined the Cornishmen, and were speedily marching on London. Realizing then that civil war was already upon him, Henry decided to turn all his forces against it, so that once the rebellion was quashed he could the more effectively deal with the Scottish business. So he recalled Giles Daubeney, who was marching against the Scots with his army, and having levied fresh troops, he increased Giles’ forces. Also, in case the Scots should learn that he was fully engaged in dealing with a rebellion of his subjects at that time, and might be the more daring in raiding the English border, he sent Thomas, earl of Surrey, into the county of Durham to gather together a band of soldiers there, with which, together with some of the nobles of the district, he could keep back the enemy from the border until Henry could send Giles and his army back to the north after he had repressed the Cornish fury, which the king thought could be easily done. During this time Charles, king of France, returned from his Neapolitan expedition, sent an embassy to Henry in order to tell him about his doings in Italy, and to conclude other business designed to preserve peaceful relations: for Charles, involved as he was with his Italian projects, was particularly anxious to remain for ever at peace with England. When he heard that the ambassadors had arrived at Calais, Henry sent Christopher Urswick to meet them on their way to Dover, to hold them there until the

[3]

PASSAGES FROM POLYDORE VERGIL’S “ANGLICA HISTORIA”

135

rebellion had been suppressed, and to take steps to prevent them from hearing anything about the affair. All this Christopher diligently carried out. In the meantime the Cornishmen had left Wells, where they had accepted with enthusiasm James, lord Audley, as their leader, and first came to Salisbury, then Winchester, and finally turned towards Kent, hoping to link up with the Kentish mob. They were, however, unsuccessful in this, for the Kentish men were not keen on rebellion, remembering only too well that their fathers had often paid the penalty for such rashness. This failure so cooled the enthusiasm of the cowardly Cornish mob that soon afterwards a goodly number of them secretly deserted the ranks and returned to their homes by night. When the leaders of the band saw that the Kentish men would not rise, they marshalled their forces and led the whole mob to a hill about four miles from London, called commonly Blackheath. They pitched their camp on the wide plain there, and prepared for a battle so that they could either resist the king if he came against them, or else could attack the city. For they judged that the king must have been overwhelmed by fear since so far he had not opposed their progress, therefore they had no qualms, they were so full of confidence about attacking the city, believing as they did that the king had shut himself in there. Throughout the king acted with great prudence. He decided not to go out to meet the approaching mob, but to cut them off and surround them suddenly with troops in some place where, far from their homes, and weary from their march, the rebels had no hope of reinforcements, and when their enthusiasm had cooled and they regretted their rashness. This he soon did. Meanwhile, there was great alarm in the city. There was a general call to arms, the gates were manned, guards and sentries were posted everywhere for fear lest by any chance that rascally host suddenly descending on the city to despoil it of its wealth should attempt to force an entry without effort or danger. But the king at once calmed the panic, for when he learnt that the Cornishmen were drawn up on the nearby hill determined to fight, he sent at once a large force of archers and horsemen to move behind the hill, so that when all ways were blocked, the wretched mob would be without any hope of safety. Afterwards, when his army had been posted, the king himself left London and marched towards the hill. Giles Daubeney with the vanguard went ahead, and began to engage the rebels. The cowardly and badly armed mob could not stand up to the attack: at the first onslaught and tumult their ranks were pierced. Then, when their line everywhere broke up, all of them turned tail. Some, terror-stricken, sought safety in flight, others laid down their arms and surrendered. Thus, while many were killed, the number of prisoners was very great. All the leaders were taken, one of whom, that is to say, James, lord Audley, was beheaded since he was a nobleman. The other two, Thomas Flammock and Michael Joseph, the blacksmith, were hanged. The other captives had their lives spared out of consideration for their rustic simplicity. Later the king would have ordered that the dismembered corpses of Thomas Flammock and Michael Joseph should be displayed in various places throughout Cornwall, in order that the penalties for treason might be more widely known and seen: but when he heard that those who had stayed at home were not cowed by the catastrophe which had befallen their fellows, but were still keen to begin a rebellion if they were roused in any way, Henry changed his mind

136

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

[3]

for fear he might embarrass himself with even greater burdens at a time when he considered it enough to end civil strife so as to be able to undertake the Scottish campaign more readily, and was satisfied that the matter had been so successfully settled for the time being. While the English were taken up with these affairs news reached James, king of Scots, that no English army had been prepared against him, and that king Henry and some nobles with the men of Cornwall were waging civil war amongst themselves. James, thinking a splendid chance had been provided for a successful operation, once again hurriedly invaded the English border territory, laying waste everything with slaughter, fire, and pillage. While part of his forces laid waste the county of Durham James himself, with the rest of his forces began a siege of the strongest castle on the Anglo-Scottish border, called locally Norham, which belongs to the bishop of Durham. Shortly before the Scottish attack Richard Fox, bishop of Durham, had provided the castle with a strong guard, for he had anticipated that once the Scottish king heard of the rising in England he would break through the English borders on a sudden raid. This same Richard, whom we mentioned above as bishop of Exeter was later, on account of his great loyalty, honesty, and discretion called to the see of Bath and Wells, and was afterwards translated from that see to Durham. He at once, by frequent messengers, informed the king (who was then in London) of everything that had happened. Other messengers he sent to summon as quickly as possible Thomas, earl of Surrey, who had collected a strong force in Yorkshire, to come by forced marches to the relief of Norham. Thomas, realizing the urgency, went quickly, as did the other magnates of the region, each of them collecting, according to his resources, a small or large band of troops. In the meantime the Scots, after spending many days besieging the castle and incurring great losses without breaching the fortifications, decided of their own will to withdraw. When, shortly afterwards, they discovered that earl Thomas was drawing near with his troops, and that the English were gathering around in various places, they raised the siege and withdrew into Scotland, taking with them as much loot as they could. When Thomas heard of the flight of the enemy he invaded Scotland in pursuit, and laid waste the land. Since, however, he could nowhere come upon the enemy, and owing to the speed with which he had made his pursuit, he had not taken with him provisions for more than a few days, he was forced, as a result, to return in haste to Durham county. Pitching his camp there he decided to await a more favourable chance to get to grips with the enemy. In the middle of these events Pedro de Ayala, a man not learned, but very clever, and extremely discreet, came to Scotland, sent by Ferdinand, king of Spain to king James, to negotiate a peace between the kings of England and Scotland. For Ferdinand and his wife Isabella, a most remarkable woman of our time, whose virtues will ever be the admiration of posterity, had the most friendly feelings towards king Henry, wishing him well, and anxious to make a marriage alliance with him. They had in their family a marriageable daughter Catherine, whom they sought to marry to Henry’s elder son, Arthur, shortly before this created Prince of Wales. Ferdinand therefore was all the more willing to put himself forward to each king as a peacemaker. Pedro at once began

[3]

PASSAGES FROM POLYDORE VERGIL’S “ANGLICA HISTORIA”

137

to discuss peace terms with king James: and when he discovered that the king was not unfavourably inclined, he wrote at once to king Henry suggesting that he should entrust the task of making peace to one of his subjects, with whom he might negotiate the terms for a treaty with the Scottish king. Henry was a lover of peace so long as it could be gained without disadvantage to himself, and he particularly wanted it at this time when he was troubled by sedition amongst his subjects. He at once entrusted the negotiations to Richard, bishop of Durham, to whom he usually left the conduct of all his affairs. So Richard and Pedro as an impartial mediator met the Scottish envoys and proceeded to discuss the business of a treaty. After long discussions it was found impossible to agree upon any peace terms. This was because king Henry insisted that Peter Warbeck should be handed over to him. On the other hand, king James specially urged that he could not hand Peter over into the hands of his enemy: although James was at last beginning to be aware of Margaret’s deceit, but because he was related to the young man by marriage he deemed it dishonourable to deliver him up to his death. At last, after many days of discussion, a treaty of lasting friendship was agreed, which they preferred to call a truce for a period of years. Among other clauses in this treaty or truce the most important clause was that James should expel Peter Warbeck from his kingdom. And so peace was established between the two kings. While these negotiations were being carried on in the north Henry in the meantime received in London the ambassadors of king Charles whom we have described above as being deliberately held up at Dover lest the upheaval in the country should reach their ears. Henry congratulated them on the safe return of Charles, and shortly afterwards dismissed them, giving them rich gifts. Henry also received with courtesy the ambassadors of the archduke Philip sent to him at the same time, or a little earlier or later, to negotiate a treaty, and after long discussions with them a treaty of perpetual friendship was made with Philip. Having thus established friendly relations with neighbouring princes Henry then wrote to king Ferdinand, sending him his most sincere thanks for acting as intermediary for peace between him and the Scottish king. Pedro de Ayala, Ferdinand’s envoy, was indeed considered so deserving that he was first presented with many gifts, and then promoted to several valuable ecclesiastical preferments in England. These agreements between the kings were arrived at in that year which was 1498, after the birth of our Saviour, and the twelfth from the beginning of Henry’s reign.

138

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

[4]

4. Lord Berners on the study of history (From his translation of Froissart’s Chronicles, 1523–25) An important influence upon historical writing during this period came from the translations of medieval works done by Lord Berners. John Bourchier, second Lord Berners (1467–1533), was one of the more cultured members of Henry VIII’s court during the early years of that king’s reign. In September 1520 he was made Deputy of Calais, and for the rest of his life was actively engaged there in strengthening the defences of the town. His leisure was given up to literary pursuits. Chief among his preferences was the reading of histories. Between 1523 and 1525 he published his translation of Sir John Froissart’s brilliant chronicles of the early years of the Hundred Years War. According to Berners’ own account this work was undertaken at the suggestion of Henry VIII himself, to whom, indeed, the work is dedicated. As a translation of Froissart’s text Berners’ work won its popularity not so much as a faithful rendering of the original (it was, indeed, a very free translation), as for its rendering into clear, idiomatic English of the ideals of chivalry which made a powerful appeal to Henry VIII and his contemporaries, since it reflected that cult of the tournament and the theatrical side of an idealized chivalry which was a lively part of court fashions in these years. There was, too, a more political consideration. At a time when Henry VIII, constantly reminded as he was by his “style” that he was king of France, was seriously considering the chances of the reconquest of that country, it was useful for him to have in print a work which recalled to Englishmen the great days of the fourteenth century, and fixed in their minds the brilliant achievements of the English armies at Crécy and Poitiers. On another plane, top, this work made an appeal to intellectuals. Together with Sir Thomas Malory’s Morte d’Arthur, it acted as a stimulus for the growth of interest in antiquarian studies, such as were exemplified in the works of a Leland, a Stow, or a Camden, and aroused a taste for historical writing which is reflected in the writings of Fabyan, Hall, Holinshed, and other chroniclers of the period. The following example of Berners’ writing is the Preface to his translation of Froissart’s Chronicles. The standard text is that edited by W.P.Ker, Tudor Translations, 6 vols., 1901–3: repr. in 8 vols., Oxford, 1927–28. Other translations of romances of chivalry by Berners include Huon of Burdeux, a Carolingian romance in French prose, (ed.) S.Lee, E.E.T.S., 4 pts., 1882– 87; modernized R.Steele, 1895: Arthur of lytell Brytayne, (ed.) E.V.Utterson, 1814.

W.P.Ker (ed.). Berners’ Froissart. Preface

W

hat condign graces and thanks ought men to give to the writers of histories, who with their great labours have done so much profit to the human life. They show, open, manifest and declare to the reader, by example of old antiquity, what we should enquire, desire and follow, and also what we should eschew, avoid, and utterly fly: for when we, being unexpert of chances, see, behold, and read the ancient acts gests and deeds, how and with what labours, dangers and perils they were gested and done, they right greatly admonish, ensign and teach us how we may lead forth our lives. And farther he that hath the perfect knowledge of others’joy, wealth and high prosperity, and also trouble, sorrow, and great adversity, hath the expert doctrine of all perils. And albeit that mortal folk are marvellously separated, both by land and water, and right wondrously situate, yet are they and their acts done per-adventure by the space of a thousand year, compact together by the historiographier, as it were the deeds of one self city and in one man’s life. Wherefore I say that history may well be called a divine providence; for as the celestial bodies above complect all and at every time the universal world, the creatures therein contained and all their deeds, semblably so doth history. Is it not a right noble thing for us by the faults and errors of other to amend and erect our

[4]

LORD BERNERS ON THE STUDY OF HISTORY

139

life into better? We should not seek and acquire that others did, but what thing was most best, laudable and worthily done, we should put before our eyes to follow. Be not the sage counsels of two or three old fathers in a city, town or country, whom long age hath made wise, discreet and prudent, far more praised, lauded and dearly loved than of the young men? How much more then ought histories to be commended, praised and loved, in whom is included so many sage counsels, great reasons, and high wisdoms of so innumerable persons of sundry nations and of every age, and that in so long space as four or five hundred year. The most profitable thing in this world for the institution of the human life is history. One, the continual reading thereof maketh young men equal in prudence to old men, and to old fathers stricken in age it ministereth experience of things. More, it yieldeth private persons worthy of dignity, rule and governance: it compelleth the emperors, high rulers and governors to do noble deeds to the end they may obtain immortal glory: it exciteth, moveth and stirreth the strong, hardy warriors for the great laud that they have after they be dead, promptly to go in hand with great and hard perils in defence of their country. And it prohibiteth reprovable persons to do mischievous deeds for fear of infamy and shame. So thus through the monuments of writing, which is the testimony unto virtue, many men have been moved, some to build cities, some to devise and establish laws right profitable, necessary and behoveful for the human life, some other to find new arts, crafts, and sciences, very requisite to the use of mankind. But above all things whereby man’s wealth riseth, special laud and cause ought to be given to history: it is the keeper of such things as have been virtuously done, and the witness of evil deeds; and by the benefit of history all noble, high and virtuous acts be immortal. What moved the strong and fierce Hercules to enterprise in his life so many great incomparable labours and perils? Certainly nought else but that for his merit immortality might be given to him of all folk. In semblablewise did his imitator, noble duke Theseus, and many other innumerable worthy princes and famous men whose virtues be redeemed from oblivion and shine by history. And whereas other monuments in process of time by variable chances are confused and lost, the virtue of history diffused and spread through the universal world hath to her custos and keeper it (that is to say, time) which consumeth the other writings. And albeit that those men are right worthy of great laud and praise, who by their writings show and lead us the way to virtue, yet nevertheless the poems, laws and other acts that they found devised and writ be mixed with some damage, and sometime for the truth they ensign a man to lie. But only history, truly with words representing the acts, gests and deeds done, complecteth all profit. It moveth, stirreth and compelleth to honesty; detesteth, irketh and abhorreth vices. It extolleth, enhanceth and lifteth up such as be noble and virtuous; depresseth, poistereth and thrusteth down such as be wicked, evil and reprovable. What knowledge should we have of ancient things past an history were not, which is the testimony thereof, the light of truth, the master of the life human, the president of remembrance and the messenger of antiquity? Why moved and stirred Phalerius the King Ptolemy oft and diligently to read books? Forsooth for none other cause but that those things are found written in books that the friends dare not show to the prince.

140

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

[4]

Much more I would fain write of the incomparable profit of history, but I fear me that I should too sore torment the reader of this my preface; and also I doubt not but that the great utility thereof is better known than I could declare; wherefore I shall briefly come to a point. Thus, when I advertised and remembered the manifold commodities of history, how beneficial it is to mortal folk, and eke how laudable and meritorious a deed it is to write histories, fixed my mind to do something therein; and ever when this imagination came to me I volved, turned, and read many volumes and books containing famous histories. And among all other I read diligently the four volumes or books of Sir John Froissart of the country of Hainault, written in the French tongue, which I judged commodious, necessary and profitable to be had in English, since they treat of the famous acts done in our parts, that is to say in England, France, Spain, Portugal, Scotland, Brittany, Flanders and other places adjoining; and specially they redound to the honour of Englishmen. What pleasure shall it be to the noble gentlemen of England to see, behold, and read the high enterprises, famous acts and glorious deeds done and achieved by their valiant ancestors? Forsooth and God, this hath moved me at the high commandment of my most redoubted sovereign lord King Henry the Eighth, King of England and of France, and high defender of the Christian faith etc., under his gracious supportation to do my devoir to translate out of French into our maternal English tongue the said volumes of Sir John Froissart; which chronicle beginneth at the reign of the most noble and valiant King Edward the Third, the year of our Lord a thousand three hundred and twenty-six and continueth to the beginning of the reign of King Henry the Fourth, the year of our Lord God a thousand and four hundred: the space between is threescore and fourteen years; requiring all the readers and hearers thereof to take this my rude translation in gre. And in that I have not followed mine author word by word, yet I trust I have ensued the true report of the sentence of the matter. And as for the true naming of all manner of personages, countries, cities, towns, rivers or fields, whereas I could not name them properly or aptly in English, I have written them according as I found them in French. And though I have not given every lord, knight or squire his true addition, yet I trust I have not swerved from the true sentence of the matter. And there as I have named the distance between places by miles and leagues they must be understood according to the customs of the countries whereas they be named, for in some place they be longer than in some other. In England a league or a mile is well known. In France a league is two miles, and in some place three, and in other country is more or less: every nation hath sundry customs. And if any fault be in this my rude translation, I remit the correction thereof to them that discreetly shall find any reasonable default, and in their so doing I shall pray God to send them the bliss of heaven. Amen.

[5]

SELECT PASSAGES FROM EDWARD HALL’S “CHRONICLE”

141

5. Select passages from Edward Hall’s Chronicle Edward Hall’s account of early Tudor history is probably better known than Polydore Vergil’s historical writing. This is partly because Hall, unlike Vergil, wrote in English, in a prose style which, despite Ascham’s criticism of it, is vigorous, picturesque, and clear. While it is true that Hall was deeply influenced by Vergil’s work, following the text of the Anglica Historia so closely that in some places his own is a free translation of it, he cannot be brushed aside as a slavish copyist. Hall had his own sources of information, while through his official position in the city of London and as a member of parliament he could write with an intimate and independent knowledge of many important events. Hall’s contribution to the writing of narrative history in England is significant. His work combines some of the characteristic features of the London chronicles with a technique he must have acquired from Vergil. Something of this duality is suggested by the fact that although his history is, through long usage, referred to as a chronicle, its original title was very different. The following passages illustrate the most important features of Hall’s writing. The first and second indicate his approach to history, and his deliberate objective, which was unqualified praise of the achievements of the Tudor dynasty. The third passage is a typical example of his mastery of descriptive narrative, and his zest for reporting national and civic festivities and pageantry.

(i) Oblivion and the Historian (Hall, Chronicle, v–vii)

O

blivion the cankered enemy to Fame and renown the sucking serpent of ancient memory, the deadly dart to the glory of princes, and the defacer of all conquests and notable acts, so much bare rule in the first and second age of the world, that nothing was set out to men’s knowledge either how the world was made either how man and beasts were created, or how the world was destroyed by water till father Moses had by divine inspiration in the third age, invented letters, the treasury of memory, and set forth five notable books, to the great comfort of all people living at this day. Likewise Mercury in Egypt invented letters and writing, which Cadmus after brought into Greece. So every nation was desirous to enhance lady Fame, and to suppress that deadly beast Oblivion. For what diversity is between a noble prince and a poor beggar, ye a reasonable man and a brute beast, if after their death there be left of them no remembrance or token. So that evidently it appeareth that Fame is the triumph of glory, and memory by literature is the very dilator and setter forth of Fame. How much therefore are princes, governors, and noble men bound to them which have so lively set forth the lives and acts of their parents, that although they be dead by mortal death, yet they by writing and Fame live and be continually present. If no man had written the goodness of noble Augustus, nor the pity of merciful Trajan, how should their successors have followed their steps in virtue and princely qualities: on the contrary part, if the cruelty of Nero, the ungracious life of Caligula had not been put in remembrance, young princes and frail governors might likewise have fallen in a like pit, but by reading their vices and seeing their mischievous end, they be compelled to leave their evil ways, and embrace the good qualities of notable princes and prudent governors: thus, writing

1 The work is dedicated “To the most mighty, virtuous, and excellent prince Edward the Sixth, by the grace of God King of England, France and Ireland, Defender of the Catholic faith and under God supreme head of the Churches of England and Ireland, your most humble subject Edward Halle wisheth health, honour, and felicity”.

142

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

[5]

is the key to induce virtue, and repress vice: thus memory maketh men dead many a thousand year still to live as though they were present; thus Fame triumpheth upon death, and renown upon Oblivion, and all by reason of writing and history. Alas my sovereign lord,1 my heart lamenteth to know and remember what rule this tyrant Oblivion bare in this realm, in the time of the Britons. For from the first habitation of this land, no man of the Britons either set forth history of their beginning, or wrote the whole lives of their princes and kings, except Gildas which inveighed against the evil doings of a few tyrants and evil governors. In so much that Caesar writeth, that when he was in this realm, the people could not tell their lineage, nor their beginning. But one Geoffrey of Monmouth a thousand year and more after Julius Caesar, translated a certain British or Welsh book, containing the coming of Brute with the sequel of his lineage, till the time of Cadwalader, which British book if it had slept a little longer, Brute with all his posterity had been buried in the poke of Oblivion, for lack of writing. The strong Saxons, after they had gained this land, set up the banner of Fame, and had their lives notably written by divers and sundry famous clerks, even from their first entry into this land, till the first Monarchy, and so successively. In the Norman’s time many notable works hath been set forth, some of one prince particularly, and some of more: so that in fine, all the stories of kings, from king William the first, to king Edward the third, be set forth at length by divers authors in the Latin tongue, as by Matthew of Paris sometime religious in Saint Albans and other. After whom John Froissart wrote the lives of king Edward the third, and king Richard the second, so compendiously and so largely, that if there were not so many things spoken of in his long works, I might believe all written in his great volumes to be as true as the Gospel. But I have read an old proverb which saith, that in many words, a lie or twain soon may escape. Since the end of Froissart, which endeth at the beginning of king Henry the fourth, no man in the English tongue, hath either set forth their honours according to their deserts, nor yet declared many notable acts worthy of memory done in the time of seven kings, which after king Richard succeeded: except Robert Fabian and one without name, which wrote the common English Chronicle, men worthy to be praised for their diligence, but far shooting wide from the butt of an history. Wherefore most dread and benign sovereign lord, lest cankered Oblivion should deface the glory of these seven princes, to whom you be of all sides lineal heir and very inheritor, I have compiled and gathered (and not made) out of divers writers, as well foreign as English, this simple treatise which I have named the union of the noble houses of Lancaster and York, conjoined together by the godly marriage of your most noble grandfather, and your virtuous grandmother. For as king Henry the fourth was the beginning and root of the great discord and division: so was the godly matrimony, the final end of all dissensions, titles and debates. Beseeching your high majesty, to take this my simple and rude work, according to your accustomed goodness in good part, not regarding the thing, but my good will to my native country, whose fame for lack of writing may much be darkened and defaced, and thus I pray to the celestial Lord to send you victory over your enemies, peace with your confederates, love of your subjects: and in conclusion, perpetual joy and eternal felicity.

[5]

SELECT PASSAGES FROM EDWARD HALL’S “CHRONICLE”

143

(ii) The Union of the Houses of Lancaster and York (Ibid. 1–2)

What mischief hath insurged in realms by intestine division, what depopulation hath ensued in countries by civil dissension, what detestable murder hath been committed in cities by separate factions, and what calamity hath ensued in famous regions by domestical discord and unnatural controversy: Rome hath felt, Italy can testify, France can bear witness, Beame [Bohemia] can tell, Scotland may write, Denmark can shew, and especially this noble realm of England can apparently declare and make demonstration. For who abhorreth not to express the heinous facts committed in Rome, by the civil war between Julius Caesar and hardy Pompey, by whose discord the bright glory of the triumphant Rome was eclipsed and shadowed? Who can rehearse what mischiefs and what plagues the pleasant country of Italy hath tasted and suffered by the seditious factions of the Guelphs and Ghibellines? Who can report the misery that daily hath ensued in France, by the discord of the houses of Burgoyne [Burgundy] and Orleans: Or in Scotland between the brother and brother, the uncle and the nephew? Who can curiously endite the manifold battles that were fought in the realm of Beame, between the catholics and the pestiferous sects of the Adamites and others? What damage dissension hath done in Germany and Denmark, all christians at this day can well declare. And the Turk can bear good testimony, which by the discord of Christian princes hath amplified greatly his seigniory and dominion. But what misery, what murder, and what execrable plagues this famous region hath suffered by the division and dissension of the renowned houses of Lancaster and York, my wit cannot comprehend nor my tongue declare neither yet my pen fully set forth. For what noble man liveth at this day, or what gentleman of any ancient stock or progeny is clear, whose lineage hath not been infested and plagued with this unnatural division. All the other discords, sects, and factions almost lively flourish and continue at this present time, to the great displeasure and prejudice of all the Christian public wealth. But the old divided controversy between the forenamed families of Lancaster and York, by the union of matrimony celebrate and consummate between the high and mighty prince king Henry the seventh and the lady Elizabeth his most worthy queen, the one being indubitate heir of the house of Lancaster, and the other of York was suspended and appalled in the person of their most noble, puissant and mighty heir king Henry the eight, and by him clearly buried and perpetually extinct. So that all men (more clearer than the sun) may apparently perceive, that as by discord great things decay and fall to ruin, so the same by concord be revived and erected. In likewise also all regions which by division and dissension be vexed, molested and troubled, be by union and agreement relieved, pacified and enriched. By union of the Godhead to the manhood, man was joined to God which before by the temptation of the subtle serpent, was from him segregate and divided. By the union of the catholic church and the outworn synagogue, not only the hard ceremonies and deadly pains of the Mosaical law were clearly abolished and made frustrate, but also Christian liberty is inferred and Christ’s religion stablished and erected. By the union

144

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

[5]

of man and woman in the holy sacrament of matrimony the generation is blessed, and the sin of the body clean extinct and put away. By the union of marriage peace between realm and realm is exalted, and love between country and country is nourished. By conjunction of matrimony, malice is extinct, amity is embraced, and indissoluble alliance and consanguinity is procured. What profit, what comfort, what joy succeeded in the realm of England by the union of the forenamed two noble families, you shall apparently perceive by the sequel of this rude and unlearned history. And because there can be no union or agreement but in respect of a division, it is consequent to reason that I manifest to you not only the original cause and fountain of the same, but also declare the calamities, troubles, and miseries which happened and chanced during the time of the said contentious dissension. For the which you shall understand (according as it is in an Act of Parliament made in the first year of the reign of king Edward the fourth specified and declared) that the high and mighty prince king Henry the third of that name, had issue Edward his first begotten son born at Westminster the eleventh kalends of July in the vigil of Saint Mark and Marcilian in the year of our Lord a thousand two hundred twenty-nine. And Edmund his second begotten son born on the day of Saint Marcell in the year of our Lord a thousand two hundred forty-five. Which Edward after the death of king Henry his father, was entitled and called king Edward the first, and had issue his first begotten son entitled and called after the death of his father king Edward the second, which had issue the right noble and honourable prince king Edward the third which king Edward had issue Edward his first begotten son prince of Wales, William of Hatfield the second begotten son, Lionel duke of Clarence the third begotten son, John of Gaunt duke of Lancaster the fourth begotten son, Edmund of Langley duke of York the fifth begotten son, Thomas of Woodstock duke of Gloucester the sixth begotten son, and William of Windsor the seventh begotten son. The said prince Edward died in the life of his father king Edward the third and had issue Richard born at Bordeaux, which after the death of king Edward the third as cousin and heir to him, that is to say son to the said Edward prince of Wales son to the said king Edward the third succeeded him in royal estate and dignity, lawfully entitled and called king Richard the second and died without issue, Lionel duke of Clarence the third begotten son of the said king Edward the third had issue Philippa his only daughter which was married to Edmund Mortimer earl of March and had issue Roger Mortimer earl of March: which Roger had issue Edmund Mortimer earl of March, Anne, and Eleanor, which Edmund and Eleanor died without issue. And the said Anne was married to Richard earl of Cambridge, son to Edmund of Langley duke of York, the fifth begotten son of the said king Edward the third which Richard had issue the famous prince Richard Plantagenet duke of York, which had issue that noble prince king Edward the fourth, father to Queen Elizabeth united in matrimony to the high and sage prince king Henry the Seventh. John duke of Lancaster had issue Henry earl of Derby, and John earl of Somerset. This Henry earl of Derby had issue king Henry the fifth, father to king Henry the sixth which begat prince Edward that was slain at Tewkesbury, and deceased without issue. John the earl of Somerset before-named, son to John duke of Lancaster, engendered

[5]

SELECT PASSAGES FROM EDWARD HALL’S “CHRONICLE”

145

John duke of Somerset, father to the lady Margaret, countess of Richmond mother to the noble and high prince king Henry the seventh, which espoused lady Elizabeth the heir of the illustrious family of York, by the which marriage the device or badge of the house of Lancaster, which was the red rose, was united and joined with the white rose, which was the cognisance and ensign of the noble progeny of York as by the genealogy contained in the end of this work more plainly shall appear.

(iii) The Accession of Henry VIII (Ibid. 505–512)

Now after the death of this noble prince, Henry the VIII. son to King Henry the VII. began his reign the 22nd. day of April in the year of our Lord 1509, and in the 18th. year of his bodily age: Maximilian then being emperor, and Louis the XII reigning in France. And Fernando being the king of Aragon and Castille and king James the fourth then ruling over the Scots: whose style was proclaimed by the blast of a trumpet in the city of London, the 23rd. day of the said month, with much gladness and rejoicing of the people. And the same day he departed from his manor of Richmond to the Tower of London, where he remained closely and secret with his council till the funeral of his father was finished and ended. The same day also Sir Richard Empson, knight, and Edmund Dudley, esquire, great counsellors to the late king were attached and brought to the Tower, not to the little rejoicing of many persons, which by them were grieved, which attachment was thought to be procured by malice of them, that with their authority in the late king’s days were offended, or else to shift the noise of the straight execution of penal statutes in the late king’s days, by a punishment of those persons and other promoters, for to satisfy and appease the people. The same day also was attached the lord Henry Stafford, brother to the duke of Buckingham and sent to the Tower, the cause was not thought to be great, because he was so soon delivered, and the same year was created earl of Wiltshire. And the same day also Doctor Ruthall was named Bishop of Durham. Soon after were apprehended divers called promoters, belonging to Empson and Dudley, as Canby, Page, Smith and divers others, as Derby, Wright, Simpson, and Stockton, of the which the most part wore papers, and stood on the Pillory. Howbeit, the most craftiest knave of all, called John Baptist Brimald, escaped and came to Westminster, and there took sanctuary. The 25th. day of April was proclaimed that the king’s grace ratified all the pardons granted by his father, and also pardoned all such persons as was then in suit for any offence whatsoever it was, treason, murder, and felony only excepted. After that all things necessary for the interment and funeral pomp of the late king were sumptuously prepared and done: the corpse of the said defunct was brought out of his privy chamber into the great chamber, where he rested three days, and every day had there Dirige and Mass sung by a prelate mitred: and from thence he was conveyed into the hall, where he was also three days, and had like service there, and so three days in the chapel, and in every of these three places was a hearse of wax, garnished with banners,

146

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

[5]

and 9. mourners giving their attendance all the service time: and every day they offered, and every place hanged with black cloth. Upon Wednesday, the 9th. day of May, the corpse was put into a chariot, covered with black cloth of gold drawn with 5. great coursers, covered with black velvet, garnished with cushions of fine gold: and over the corpse was an image or a representation of the late king, laid on cushions of gold, and the said image was apparelled in the king’s rich robes of estate with a crown on the head, and ball and sceptre in the hands: and the chariot was garnished with banners and pencels1 of the arms of his dominions, titles, and genealogies. When the chariot was thus ordered, the king’s chapel, and a great number of prelates set forward praying: then followed all the king’s servants in black, then followed the chariot: and after the chariot 9. mourners, and on every side were carried long torches and short to the number of 600, and in this order they came to Saint George’s field, from Richmond. There met with them all the priests and clerks and religious men within the city and without, which went foremost before the king’s chapel, the Mayor and his brethren, with many commoners, all clothed in black, met with the corpse at London Bridge, and so gave their attendance on the same through the city: and in good order the company passed through the city, whereof the streets on every side were set with long torches, and on the stalls stood young children holding tapers, and so with great reverence the chariot was brought to the cathedral church of Saint Paul, where the body was taken out and carried into the Quire, and set under a goodly hearse of wax, garnished with banners, pencels, and cushions, where was sung a solemn Dirige, and a Mass, with a sermon made by the bishop of Rochester: during which time the king’s household and the mourners reposed them in the bishop’s palace. The next day the corpse in like order was removed towards Westminster, Sir Edward Haward bearing the king’s banner, on a courser trapped in the arms of the defunct. In Westminster was a curious hearse, made of 9. principals, full of lights, which were lighted at the coming of the corpse, which was taken out of the chariot by six lords, and set under the hearse, the image or the representation lying upon the cushion on a large pall of gold. The hearse was double railed: within the first rails sat the mourners, and within the second rail stood knights bearing banners of saints, and without the same stood officers of arms. When the mourners were set, Garter King at Arms cried for the soul of the noble prince king Henry the VII., late king of this realm: then the choir began Placebo and so sung Dirige, which being finished, the mourners departed into the Palace, where they had a void, and so reposed for that night. The next day were three Masses solemnly sung by bishops, and at the last Mass was offered the king’s banner and courser, his coat of arms, his sword, his target, and his helm, and at the end of Mass the mourners offered up rich palls of cloth of gold and baudekin2, and when the Choir sang Libera me, the body was put into the earth, and then the lord treasurer, lord steward, lord chamberlain, the treasurer, and comptroller of the king’s household broke their staves and cast them into the grave. Then Garter cried with a loud voice, Vive le Roy Henry le huitiesme, Roy Dangliter et de Fraunce, sire Dirland. Then all the mourners, and all other that had given their attendance on this funeral obsequy departed to the Palace, where they had a great and a sumptuous feast, 1

A small pennon or streamer.

2

rich brocade.

[5]

SELECT PASSAGES FROM EDWARD HALL’S “CHRONICLE”

147

Wonder it were to write of the lamentation that was made for this Prince amongst his servants, and other of the wisest sort, and the joy that was made for his death by such as were troubled by rigour of his law: yet the toward hope, which in all points appeared in the young king did both repair and comfort the heavy hearts of them which had lost so wise and sage a prince: and also did put out of the minds of such as were relieved by the said king’s death, all their old grudge and rancour, and confirmed their new joy by the new grant of his pardon. When the funeral of this late king was thus honourably finished, great preparation was made for the coronation of this new king, which was appointed on Midsummer Day next ensuing: during which preparation the king was moved, by some of his council, that it should be honourable and profitable to his realm to take to wife the lady Katherine, late wife to Prince Arthur, his brother deceased, lest she having so great a dowry, might marry out of the realm, which should be unprofitable to him: by reason of which motion, the king being young, and not understanding the law of God, espoused the said lady Katherine, the third day of June, the which marriage was dispensed with by Pope Julius, at the request of her father, King Ferdinand, contrary to the opinion of all the cardinals of Rome, being divines. This marriage of the brother’s wife was much murmured against in the beginning and ever more and more searched out by learning and scripture, so that at the last by the determination of the best universities of Christendom it was adjudged detestable, and plain contrary to God’s law, as you shall hear, after 20. years. If I should declare what pain, labour, and diligence the tailors, embroiderers, and goldsmiths took, both to make and devise garments for lords, ladies, knights and esquires, and also for decking, trapping, and adorning of coursers, jennets, and palfries it were too long to rehearse, but for a surety, more rich, nor more strange, nor more curious works hath not been seen than were prepared against this coronation. On the 21. day of this month of June, the king came from Greenwich to the Tower, over London Bridge, and so by Gracechurch, with whom came many a well apparelled gentleman, but in especial the Duke of Buckingham, which had a gown all of goldsmith’s work, very costly, and there the king rested till Saturday next ensuing. Friday, the twenty and two day of June, everything being in readiness for his coronation, his grace with the queen, being in the Tower of London, made there Knights of the Bath, to the number of twenty and four, with all the observances and ceremonies to the same belonging. And the morrow following, being Saturday, the 23. day of the said month, his grace with the Queen, departed from the Tower through the city of London, against whose coming the streets where his grace should pass were hanged with tapestry and cloth of Arras. And the great part of the south side of Cheap, with cloth of gold and some part of Cornhill also. And the streets railed and barred, on the one side, from over against Gracechurch unto Bread Street, in Cheapside, where every occupation stood, in their liveries in order, beginning with base and mean occupations, and so ascending to the worshipful crafts: highest and lastly stood the Mayor with the Aldermen. The Goldsmiths’ stalls unto the end of the Old Change, being replenished with Virgins in

148

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

[5]

white, with branches of white wax: the priests and clerks in rich copes, with crosses and censers of silver, with censing his grace and the queen also as they passed. The features of his body, his goodly personage, his amiable visage, princely countenance, with the noble qualities of his royal estate to every man known, needeth no rehearsal, considering that for lack of cunning I cannot express the gifts of grace and of nature that God hath endowed him withal: yet partly, to describe his apparel, it is to be noted his grace wore in his uppermost apparel a robe of crimson velvet, furred with ermine, his jacket or coat of raised gold, the placard embroidered with diamonds, rubies, emeralds, great pearls, and other rich stones, a great baldrick about his neck, of great balasses. The trapper of his horse, damask gold, with a deep pursel of ermine, his knights and esquires for his body in crimson velvet, and all the gentlemen, with other of his chapel, and all his officers and household servants were apparelled in scarlet. The Barons of the Five Ports bore the canopy, or cloth of estate: For to recite unto you the great estates by name, the order of their going, the number of the lords spiritual and temporal, knights, esquires, and gentlemen, and of their costly and rich apparel, of several devices and fashions, who took up his horse best, or who was the richest beseen, it would ask long time, and yet I should omit many things, and fail of the number, for they were very many: wherefore I pass over, but this I dare well say, there was no lack or scarcity of cloth of tissue, cloth of gold, cloth of silver, broderie, or of goldsmiths’ works: but in more plenty and abundance than hath been seen or read of at any time before, and thereto many and a great number of chains of gold and baldrics, both massy and great. Also before the king’s highness rode two gentlemen, richly apparelled, and about their bodies traverse, they did bear two robes, the one of the duchy of Guienne and the other for the duchy of Normandy, with hats on their heads, powdered with ermine for the estate of the same. Next followed two persons of good estate, the one bearing his cloak, the other his hat, apparelled both in goldsmiths work, and embroidery, their horses trapped, in burned silver, drawn over with cords of green silk and gold, the edges and borders of their apparel being fretted with gold of damask. After them came Sir Thomas Brandon, Master of the king’s horse, clothed in tissue, embroidered with roses of fine gold, and traverse his body a great baldric of gold, great and massy, his horse trapped in gold, leading by a rein of silk the king’s spare horse, trapped bardwise, with harness embroidered with bullion gold, curiously wrought by goldsmiths. Then next followed the nine children of honour, upon great coursers, apparelled on their bodies in blue velvet, powdered with fleur de lys of gold, and chains of goldsmiths’ work, every one of their horses trapped with a trapper of the king’s title, as of England, and France, Gascony, Guienne, Normandy, Anjou, Cornwall, Wales, Ireland, &c. wrought upon velvets, with embroidery and goldsmiths work. Then next following in order came the Queen’s retinue, as lords, knights, esquires, and gentlemen in their degrees, well mounted, and richly apparelled in tissues, cloth of gold, of silver, tinsels, and velvets embroidered, fresh and goodly to behold. The Queen then by name Katherine, sitting in her litter, borne by two white palfreys, the litter covered and richly apparelled, and the palfreys trapped in white cloth of gold, her person apparelled in white satin embroidered, her hair hanging down to her back, of a very great length,

[5]

SELECT PASSAGES FROM EDWARD HALL’S “CHRONICLE”

149

beautiful and goodly to behold, and on her head a coronal, set with many rich orient stones. Next after, six honourable personages on white palfreys, all apparelled in cloth of gold, and then a chariot covered, and the ladies therein all apparelled in cloth of gold. And another sort of ladies, and then another chariot, then the ladies next the chariot, and so in order, every after their degrees, in cloth of gold, cloth of silver, tinsels, and velvet, with embroideries, every complement of the said chariots, and the draught harnesses, were powdered with ermine, mixed with cloth of gold: and with much joy and honour came to Westminster, where was high preparation made, as well for the said coronation, as also for the solemn feast and jousts thereupon to be had and done. The morrow following being Sunday, and also Midsummer Day, this noble prince with his queen, at time convenient, under their canopies borne by the Barons of the Five Ports, went from the said Palace to Westminster Abbey upon cloth, called vulgarly cloth of Ray, the which cloth was cut and spoiled by the rude and common people, immediately after their repair into the Abbey, where, according to the sacred observance and ancient custom, his grace with the queen were anointed and crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury, with other prelates of the realm there present, and the nobility, with a great multitude of commons of the same. It was demanded of the people whether they would receive, obey, and take the same most noble Prince for their king, who with great reverence, love, and desire, said and cried, yea, yea. After the which solemnity and coronation finished, the lords spiritual and temporal did to him homage, and returned to Westminster Hall, with the Queen’s grace, every one under their canopies, where by the lord marshall and his tip-staffs was made room, and every lord and other nobleman, according to their tenures, before claimed and viewed, seen, and allowed by the lords and others of his grace’s council, entered into such room and office that day, to execute their services accordingly. The king’s estate on the right hand, and the Queen’s on the left hand, the cupboard of 9. stages, their noble personages being set: first, at the bringing of the first course, the trumpets blew up. And in came the Duke of Buckingham, mounted upon a great courser, richly trapped, and embroidered, and the Lord Steward, in likewise on an horse, trapped in cloth of gold, riding before the service, which was sumptuous, with many subtleties, strange devices, with several poses, and many dainty dishes. At the king’s feet, under the table, were certain gentlemen. And in like wise with the queen, who there continued during that long and royal feast. What should I speak, or write, of the sumptuous, fine, and delicate meats prepared for this high and honourable coronation, provided for as well in the parts beyond the sea as in many and sundry places within this realm, where God so abundantly hath sent such plenty and foison.1 Or of the honourable order of the services, the clean handling and the breaking of meats, the ordering of the dishes, with the plentiful abundance. So that none of any estate being there did lack, nor no honourable or worshipful person went unfeasted. The second course being served, in at the hall door entered a knight, armed at all points, his bases rich tissue embroidered, a great plume and a sumptuous of ostrich feathers on his helmet, sitting on a great courser trapped in tissue and embroidered with the arms of England, and of France, and an herald of arms before him. And passing through the hall, presented himself with humble 1

Foison, plenty.

150

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

[5]

reverence before the king’s majesty, to whom Garter King of Heralds cried and said with a loud voice, Sir Knight, from whence come you, and what is your pretence. This knight’s name was Sir Robert Dymmock, champion to the king by tenure of his inheritance, who answered the said King of Arms in effect after this manner: Sir, the place that I come from is not material, nor the cause of my repair hither is not concerning any matter, of any place or country, but only this. And therewithal, commanded his herald to make an Oyez. Then said the knight to the king of arms, Now shall ye hear the cause of my coming and pretence. Then he commanded his own herald by proclamation to say: If there be any person, of what estate or degree soever he be, that will say or prove that King Henry the Eight is not the rightful inheritor and king of this realm, I, Sir Robert Dymmock, here his champion, offer my glove, to fight in his quarrel with any person to the utterance, which proclamation was made in sundry places of the hall: and at every time his gauntlet cast down, in the maintenance thereof. After which several proclamations done, and offers made, the said knight or champion eftsoons repaired to the king’s presence, demanding drink, to whom the king’s grace sent a cup of gold, with wine, whereof after this knight had drunk, he demanded the cover of the said cup, which to him was also delivered. That done, he departed out of the hall with the said cup and cover as his own. The manner of his tenure is this, that at the coronation of the king, he should go to the armoury, and there take the king’s best harness, save one, the best and rich bases saving one, then of the plumes, or other things, for the garnishing of his crest or helm, and so to the stable, there taking the next courser or horse to the best, with like trapper, and so furnished, to enter ut supra, and his office done, to have all these things, with the cup of gold and cover, to his own use. After the departure of the said champion, the King of Arms, with all the heralds, and other officers of arms, made proclamations in several places of the hall, crying largess. Briefly to pass over, this high and long solemnity of this honourable coronation and feast, more honourable than of the great Caesar, whom many historiographers so high set out and magnified, if the Latins of England were not promoted or advanced to dignities and promotions unless they first should (as other poor clerks in the parts beyond the sea, exalt and set forth the gests and chronicles of their native countries, with high laud and praise and in some part more than truth, for small mede or reward do) put in writing, either in English or Latin tongue, the noble triumphs, chivalrous feats, valiant acts, victorious battles, and other noble gests of this realm, and in especial of our time and knowledge, of this most valiant and goodly prince, it should appear much more honourable than any other stories. But promotion and benefices put away labour and pain, albeit the greater part of them will say that the high cure and charge is to edify the people with the word of God, taking cure of the souls. There against I will not reply, but no displeasure, I perceive that they take as great cure for the profit of their purses, with pleasure of hunting and hawking, besides other their pastimes, after they come to the best of their promotion, with small keeping of hospitality: as other which were their predecessors, and much worse, so that part of their pastimes spent in writing, and setting forth the gests, acts, and deeds of the nobility of England, with the manifold commodities of the same, should much ennoble the princes thereof, seeing by

[5]

SELECT PASSAGES FROM EDWARD HALL’S “CHRONICLE”

151

daily experience bishops, archbishops, abbots, and other clerks in the parts beyond the sea, as well learned as of high knowledge, and better lineage, and as virtuous as they, daily enforce themselves to advance their princes, their realms, and native countries as well in Latin as in their vulgar tongue. But to return to the end of this honourable feast, the tables avoided, the wafers were brought. Then Sir Stephen Jenyns, that time Mayor of London, whom the king before he sat down to dinner had dubbed knight, which began the Earls’ table that day, arose from the place where he sat, to serve the King with Hippocras, in a cup of gold, which cup, after his grace had drunken thereof, was with the cover, given unto the said Sir Stephen, like as other his predecessors, mayors of the said city, were wont to have at the coronation of the king. Then after the surnap laid, and that the king’s grace, and the queen, had washed, every of them under their cloths of estate, the tables being avoided, went unto their chambers. For the more honour and ennobling of this triumphant coronation, there were prepared both jousts and tourneys to be done in the Palace of Westminster, where, for the king’s grace and the queen was framed a fair house, covered with tapestry, and hanged with rich cloths of Arras, and in the said palace was made a curious fountain, and over it a castle: on the top thereof a great crown imperial, all the embattling with roses and pomegranates gilded: and under and about the said castle, a curious vine, the leaves and grapes thereof gilded with fine gold, the walls of the same castle coloured white and green lozenges. And in every lozenge either a rose or a pomegranate, or a sheaf of arrows, or else H. and K. gilded with fine gold, with certain arches or turrets gilded to support the same castle. And the targets of the arms of the defendants appointed for the said jousts thereupon-sumptuously set. And out at several places of the same castle, as well the day of the coronation as at the said days of the jousts and tourney, out of the mouths of certain beasts, or gargoyles, did run red, white, and claret wine. The enterprisers of these jousts was Thomas, lord Howard, heir apparent to the earl of Surrey, Sir Edward Howard, Admiral, his brother, the lord Richard, brother to the Marquis Dorset, Sir Edmund Howard, Sir Thomas Knevet, and Charles Brandon, esquire. The trumpets blew to the field, the fresh young gallants and noblemen gorgeously apparelled, with curious devices, of cuts and of embroideries, as well in their coats as in trappers for their horses, some of gold, some in silver, some in tinsels, and divers other in goldsmiths work, goodly to behold, first entered the field in taking up and turning their horses, neatly and freshly. Then followed a device (carried by strength of men and other provision) framed like a castle or a turret, wrought with fine cloth of gold: the top whereof was spread with roses and pomegranates hanging down on every side of the said device, wherein was a lady, bearing a shield of crystal, named Pallas. After whom, the said Lord Howard with his companions followed, armed at all points, their basses and bards or trappers were of green velvet, beaten with roses and pomegranates of gold, embroidery with fringes of damask gold. The said device or turret, being brought before the king, the lady Pallas presented the said persons, whom she named her scholars, to the king’s highness, beseeching the same to accept them as her scholars, who were desirous to serve him to the increase of their honours, which said scholars had about them on foot, to the number of an hundred persons, freshly apparelled in velvets of

152

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

[5]

sundry colours, with hose and bonnets according to the same. And further, the said lady desired the king that it might please his grace that her said scholars might be defendants to all comers, which request was granted. Then came in another band of horsemen, freshly and well apparelled in cloth of gold, in silver, in goldsmiths work, and embroidery, to the number of three score, with trappers according to their garments, with great baldrics, collars, and chains of gold about their necks, and traverse their bodies, every man with a coif of gold on his head, and a great plume of feathers thereupon, some of one colour and some of another, entering before into the field, with drums and fifes a great number, every man taking up his horse in his best manner, as well for their ladies as also for laud or praise to be given them. After whom followed a good number of footmen in velvets and other silks, cut and embroidered, with hose to the same accordingly, and bonnets and other furniture, after a fresh and lusty fashion. Next to them came on horse back eight persons, whose names were Sir John Pechy, Sir Edward Neville, Sir Edward Guildford, Sir John Carr, Sir William Parr, Sir Giles Capell, Sir Griffith Dun, and Sir Roland, armed also at all points, with shields of their own arms, with rich plumes, and other devices on their headpieces, their bases, and trappers of tissue, cloth of gold, silver, and velvet, and next before them, a gentleman on horseback, in a coat of blue velvet, embroidered with gold, and his horse trapped in the same suit, with a spear of gold on his thigh, and the same presented to the queen: saying, that it was informed those knights of his company how that Dame Pallas had presented six of her scholars to the king, but whether they came to learn or to teach feats of arms they knew not. And further declared that his knights were come to do feats of arms for the love of ladies, wherefore he besought her grace to license those knights to prove themselves against Dame Pallas’ scholars: and that in case her scholars brake more spears on the said knights, by the view of the judges, and the report of the heralds, than the same knights should do on them, then the said scholars of Pallas’ knights to have the spear of gold for their prize. And if the knights broke more spears than Dame Pallas’ scholars, the said knights to have the crystal shield. The which request to them granted, the jousts began, where every man did acquit himself well and valiantly, but who had the prize of other I know not, the night coming on, the jousts ended. The next day approached the foresaid defenders, scholars to Pallas, on horseback armed cap a pie, the one side of their bases, and bards of their horses white velvet, embroidered with roses of gold and other embroideries, the other side green velvet embroidered with pomegranates of gold, every one of them on his headpiece had a hair of flat gold of damask, presented themselves before the King ready to tourney. Then immediately on the other part came in the forenamed eight knights ready armed, their bases and barees of their horse green satin, embroidered with fresh devices, of bramble branches, of fine gold curiously wrought, powdered over-all. And after them a great number of horns blown by men apparelled in green cloth, with caps and hose of like suit, as foresters or keepers, and a pageant made like a park, paled with pales of white and green, wherein were certain fallow deer, and in the same park curious trees made by craft, with bushes, ferns, and other things in likewise wrought, goodly to behold. The which park or device, being brought before the queen, had certain gates thereof opened, the deer

[6]

THE ANTIQUARIAN INTERESTS OF JOHN LELAND

153

ran out thereof into the palace, the greyhounds were let slip and killed the deer: the which deer so killed were presented to the queen and the ladies by the foresaid knights. Crocheman, which the day before brought in the spear of gold, there declared that the same knights were servants to Diana, and being in their pastime of hunting, news were brought unto them that Dame Pallas’ knights were come into those parts to do deeds of arms: wherefore they had left their hunting and chase, and repaired also thither to encounter with the knights of Pallas, and so to fight with them for the love of ladies to the utterance: saying that if Pallas’ knights vanquished the other, or made them to leave the field, then they to have the deer killed, and the greyhounds that slew them. And in case Diana’s knights overcame the other, they to have their swords, and none other thing more. Whereupon the queen and ladies sent to the king to have his advice and pleasure in this behalf, his grace conceiving that there was some grudge and displeasure between them, thinking if such request were to them granted some inconvenience might ensue, would not thereunto agree, so that for the appeasing thereof it was awarded that both parties should tourney together, giving but a certain strokes, which done they departed. And so these jousts broke up, and the prizes given to every man after his deserts.

6. The antiquarian interests of John Leland described in a letter to Henry VIII 1546 This letter, in Leland’s handwriting, originally had no heading, but when Bale published it in 1549 he gave it the title “The Laboriouse Journey and Serche of Johan Leylande for Englandes Antiquitees, geven of hym as a Newe Yeares Gyfte to King Henry the VIII. in the XXXVII yeare of his Raygne”. It is likely that this letter really was a New Year’s gift to the King in 1546. It has been reprinted several times, by Bale (1549), by R.Brooke in Discoverie of Certaine Errours (1596), by J.Weever, Funerale Monuments (1631), by J.Hearne, in his edition of the Itinerary (1710), and by W.A.Coppinger (1895). The best text is that by L.T.Smith, The Itinerary of John Leland, I, xxxvii-xliii.

W

hereas it pleased your Highness upon very just considerations to encourage me, by the authority of your most gracious commission in the twenty-fifth year of your prosperous reign, to peruse and diligently to search all the libraries of monasteries and colleges of this your noble realm, to the intent that the monuments of ancient writers as well of other nations, as of this your own province might be brought out of deadly darkness to lively light, and to receive like thanks of the posterity, as they hoped for at such time as they employed their long and great studies to the public wealth; yea and farthermore that the holy Scripture of God might both be sincerely taught and learned, all manner of superstition and craftily coloured doctrine of a rout of the Roman bishops totally expelled out of this your most catholic realm: I think it now no less than my very duty briefly to declare to your Majesty what fruit hath sprung of my laborious journey and costly enterprise, both rooted upon your infinite goodness and liberality, qualities right highly to be esteemed in all princes, and most especially in you as naturally your own well known proprieties. First I have conserved many good authors, the which otherwise had been like to

154

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

[6]

have perished to no small incommodity of good letters, of the which part remain in the most magnificent libraries of your royal palaces. Part also remain in my custody. Whereby I trust right shortly so to describe your most noble realm, and to publish the majesty and the excellent acts of your progenitors (hitherto sore obscured both for lack of printing of such works as lay secretly in corners, and also because men of eloquence have not enterprised to set them forth in a flourishing style, in some times past not commonly used in England of writers, otherwise well learned, and now in such estimation that except truth be delicately clothed in purple her written verities can scant find a reader;) that all the world shall evidently perceive that no particular region may justly be more extolled than yours for true nobility and virtues at all points renowned. Furthermore part of the exemplaries curiously sought by me, and fortunately found in sundry places of this your dominion, have been printed in Germany, and now be in the presses chiefly of Frobenius that not only the Germans, but also the Italians themselves, that count, as the Greeks did full arrogantly, all other nations to be barbarous and unlettered saving their own, shall have a direct occasion openly of force to say that “Britannia prima fuit par ens, altrix” (addo hoc etiam &jure quodam optimo) “conservatrix” cum virorum magnorum, tum maxime ingeniorum. And that profit has arisen by the aforesaid journey in bringing full many things to light as concerning the usurped authority of the Bishop of Rome and his accomplices, to the manifest and violent derogation of kingly dignity, I refer myself most humbly to your most prudent, learned and high judgment to discern my diligence in the long volume1 wherein I have made answer for the defence of your supreme dignity, only leaning to the strong pillar of holy Scripture against the whole College of the Romanists, cloaking their crafty assertions and arguments under the name of one poor Pighius of Ultrajecte in Germany, and standing to them as to their only anchor-hold against tempests that they know will rise if truth may be by licence let in to have a voice in the general council. Yet herein only I have not pitched the supreme mark of my labour whereunto your Grace most like a princely patron of all good learning did animate me: but also considering and expending with myself how great a number of excellent goodly wits and writers, learned with the best, as the times served, hath been in this your region, not only at such times as the Roman Emperors had recourse to it, but also in those days that the Saxons prevailed of the Britons, and the Normans of the Saxons, could not but with a fervent zeal and an honest courage commend them to memory, else, alas, like to have been perpetually obscured, or to have been lightly remembered, as uncertain shadows. Wherefore I, knowing by infinite variety of books and assiduous reading of them who have been learned, and have written from time to time in this realm, have digested into four books the names of them with their lives and monuments of learning and to them added this title, “De viris illustribus,” following the profitable example of Hieronyme, Gennadie, Cassiodore, Severiane, and Trittemie a late writer: but always 1 A reference to Leland’s antipapal treatise in 45 chapters, “Dialogus cui titulus Antiphilarchia: inter-locutores Philalethes et Tranotes”, written in defence of Henry VIII against the book Hierarchiae ecclesiasticae Assertio (Cologne, 1538), by Albertus Pighius, a canon of Utrecht The MS, of Leland’s work, which was not printed, is in Cambridge University Library.

[6]

THE ANTIQUARIAN INTERESTS OF JOHN LELAND

155

so handling the matter that I have more expatiated in this camp than they did as in a thing that desired to be somewhat at large, and to have ornature. The first book beginning at the Druids is deducted unto the time of the coming of St. Augustine into England. The second is from the time of Augustine unto the advent of the Normans. The third from the Normans to the end of the most honourable reign of the mighty, famous, and prudent Prince Henry the VII. your father. The fourth begins with the name of your Majesty, whose glory in learning is to the world so clearly known, that though amongst the lives of other learned men I have accurately celebrated the names of Bladudus, Molmutius, Costantinus Magnus, Sigebertus, Alfridus, Alfridus Magnus, Aethelstanus and Henry the first, kings and your progenitors; and also Ethelward, second son to Alfred the Great, Humphrey Duke of Gloucester and Tiptoft Earl of Worcester; yet compared with your grace they seem as small lights (if I may freely say my judgment, your high modesty not offended,) in respect of the day-star. Now farther to insinuate to your Grace of what matters the writers, whose lives I have congested into four books, have treated of, I may right boldly say, that beside the cognition of the three tongues, in the which part of them have excelled, that there is no kind of liberal science, or any feat concerning learning, in the which they have not shown certain arguments of great felicity of wit; yea and concerning the interpretation of holy Scripture, both after the ancient form, and since in the scholastic trade, they have reigned as in a certain excellency. And as touching historical knowledge there have been to the number of a full hundred, or more, that from time to time, have with great diligence, and no less faith, would to God with like eloquence, described the acts of your most noble predecessors, and the fortunes of this your realm, so incredibly great, that he that has not seen and thoroughly read their works can little pronounce in this part. Wherefore after that I had pondered the honest and profitable studies of these historiographs, I was totally inflamed with a love to see thoroughly all those parts of this your opulent and ample realm, that I had read of in the aforesaid writers: in so much that, all my other occupations intermitted, I have so travelled in your dominions both by the sea coasts and the middle parts, sparing neither labour nor costs, by the space of these six years past, that there is almost neither cape, nor bay, haven, creek or pier, river or confluence of rivers, breches, washes, lakes, meres, fenny waters, mountains, valleys, moors, heaths, forests, woods, cities, boroughs, castles, principal manor places, monasteries, and colleges, but I have seen them; and noted in so doing a whole world of things very memorable. Thus instructed I trust shortly to see the time that like as Carolus Magnus had among his treasures three large and notable tables of silver richly enamelled, one of the site and description of Constantinople, another of the site and figure of the magnificent city of Rome, and the third of the description of the world; so shall your Majesty have this your world and empire of England so set forth in a quadrate table of silver, if God send me life to accomplish my beginnings, that your grace shall have ready knowledge at the first sight of many right delectable, fruitful, and necessary pleasures, by the contemplation thereof, as often as occasion shall move you to the sight of it.

156

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

[6]

And because that it may be more permanent, and farther known than to have it engraved in silver or brass, I intend (by the leave of God) within the space of twelve months following, such a description to make of your realm in writing, that it shall be no mastery after for the graver or painter to make a like by a perfect example. Yea and to wade farther in this matter, whereas now almost no man can well guess at the shadow of the ancient names of havens, rivers, promontories, hills, woods, cities, towns, castles, and variety of kindreds of people, that Caesar, Livy, Strabo, Diodorus, Fabius Pictor, Pomponius Mela, Plinius, Cornelius, Tacitus, Ptolemaeus, Sextus Rufus, Ammianus Marcellinus, Solinus, Antoninus, and divers others make mention of, I trust so to open this window that the light shall be seen so long, that is to say, by the space of a whole thousand years, stopped up, and the old glory of your renowned Britain to reflourish through the world. This done I have matter at plenty all ready prepared to this purpose, that is to say, to write an history, to the which I intend to adscribe this title, De Antiquitate Britannica, or else Civilis Historia. And this work I intend to divide into so many books as there be shires in England, and shires and great dominions in Wales. So that I esteem that this volume will include a fifty books, whereof each one severally shall contain the beginnings, increases and memorable acts of the chief towns and castles of the province allotted to it. Then I intend to distribute into six books such matter as I have already collected concerning the isles adjacent to your noble realm and under your subjection. Whereof three shall be of these isles, Vecta, Mona and Menauia, sometime kingdoms.1 And to superadd a work as an ornament and a right comely garland to the enterprises aforesaid, I have selected stuff to be distributed into three books, the which I purpose thus to entitle, De Nobilitate Britannica. Whereof the first shall declare the names of kings, queens, with their children, dukes, earls, lords, captains and rulers in this realm to the coming of the Saxons and their conquest. The second shall be of the Saxons and Danes to the victory of King William the Great. The third from the Normans to the reign of your most noble grace, descending lineally of the British, Saxon and Norman kings. So that all noble men shall clearly perceive their lineal parentage. Now if it shall be the pleasure of Almighty God that I may live to perform these things that be already begun and in a great forwardness, I trust that this your realm shall so well be known, once painted with his native colours, that the renown thereof shall give place to the glory of no other region; and my great labours and costs, proceeding from the most abundant fountain of your infinite goodness towards me, your poor scholar and most humble servant, shall be evidently seen to have not only pleased but also profited the studious, gentle, and equal readers. This is the brief declaration of my laborious journey, taken by motion of your highness, so much studying at all hours the fruitful preferment of good letters and ancient virtues. Christ continue your most royal estate, and the prosperity with succession in kingly dignity of your dear and worthily beloved son Prince Edward, granting you a number of princely sons by the most gracious, benign, and modest lady your Queen. Joannes Lelandius Antiquarius scripsit. 1

The Isle of Wight, Isle of Man, and Anglesey.

[7]

SELECT PASSAGES FROM THE WRITINGS OF JOHN BALE

157

7. Select passages from the writings of John Bale The following passages from his writings indicate Bale’s antiquarian interests. In the first passage he laments the dispersal of manuscripts from the monastic libraries after the Dissolution, and pays a tribute to the work of John Leland. In the second he gives further information about the monastic libraries.

(i) John Leland, antiquarian (Bale’s preface to Leland’s New Year’s Gift, ed. W.A.Copinger, privately printed, Manchester, 1895, 13–30)

John Bale to the Reader. n what estimation antiquities have been had among men of grave wits and judgments, the histories which are, as testifieth Cicero, the mistresses of life and expositors of times, have not omitted to declare. The most ancient and authorizable antiquities are those, which Moses left to the Hebrews, and Berosus to the Caldeanes, as most precious treasure, and lively memorials in writing, that both the Jews and the Gentiles, and in them all nations of the world might thereby know their original beginnings. What hath been done besides in the particular kingdoms abroad by their antique writers, it is known to them which have of long time been exercised in the reading of their most ancient chronicles. Though Gyldas Badonicus do report on the one side, in his first treatise de exicidio Britanniae,1 that all the old monuments of the Britons had perished afore his time, and were partly burnt by the enemies, and partly conveyed into other lands by them that fled from hence. And although that Bedas Girwinus also on the other side, in setting forth the history of the English Saxons, doth omit the antiquities of the said Britons their predecessors, partly of hate, as it is supposed, and partly for want of their old writings, yet remained there of late years in certain libraries of this realm (I have seen part of them) the most worthy monuments, concerning antiquity, of Ninianus, Patricius, Ambrosius Merlinus, Gildas Albanius, Merlinus Syluester, Thelesmus, Melkinus, Kentigernus, Nennius, Samuel and other like, of whom the more part wrote long afore them. But this is highly to be lamented, of all them that hath a natural love to their country, either yet to learned antiquity, which is a most singular beauty to the same. That in turning over of the superstitious monasteries, so little respect was had to their libraries for the safeguard of those noble and precious monuments. I do not deny it, but the monks, canons, and friars, were wicked both ways, as the oiled2 bishops and priests for the more part are yet still. First for so much as they were the professed soldiers of antichrist, and next to that, for so much as they were most execrable livers. For these causes, I must confess them most justly suppressed. Yet this would I have wished (and I scarcely utter it without tears) that the profitable corn had not so unadvisedly and

I

1 Gildas, De excidio et conquestu Britanniae, ed. T.Mommsen, Anct. Antiq. XIII. Chronica Minora, vol. III, pt. i, Monum. Germ. Hist. 2 anointed.

158

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

[7]

ungodly perished with the unprofitable chaff, nor the wholesome herbs with the unwholesome weeds, I mean the worthy works of men godly minded, and lively memorials of our nation, with those lazy lubbers and popish belly-gods. But diverse were the workers of this desolation, like as the things dissipated were diverse. The verity and promise of our eternal God, made an end of the pope’s disguised rabble, as it will do his remnant, which are well known by their fruits. All plants (saith Christ) which my heavenly father hath not planted, shall be plucked up by the roots, lest any longer the blind leaders should lead the blind multitude. Math. xi. Avarice was the other dispatcher, which hath made an end both of our libraries and books without respect like as of other most honest commodities, to no small decay of the common wealth. Cyrus the king of Persians (as testifieth Esdras) had a noble library in Babylon, for the conservation both of the land’s antiquities and also of the prince’s acts, laws, and commandments, that when necessity should require it, the certainty of things might there be sought and found out. I.Esdre. vi. Nehemias the Prophet made a library also, and gathered into it books from all countries, specially the books of the prophets and of David, the epistles and acts of the kings, with certain annotations and writings, Judas Machabeus adding diverse victories to the same. II. Macha. ii. Thus are builders of libraries commended in the scriptures, then must their destroyers have of the same, their justly deserved infamies, namely when covetousness is found the most busy doer, whose works are always to be detested. Wherefore Salomon saith: A discreet and just ruler much profiteth a land, where a covetous ravenor destroyeth it again. Prover. xxix. O most wicked avarice, Saint Paul calleth thee a worshipping of idols, which is a taking away of all godly honour, Collos. iii. He saith, thou art such a temptation and snare of the devil, as bringeth all to perdition. Yea, he reporteth thee to be the root of all mischief. I.Timot. vi. Nothing upon earth (saith Jesus Syrach) is so evil, as a covetous man. Eccles. x. Never had we been offended for the loss of our libraries, being so many in number, and in so desolate places for the more part, if the chief monuments and most notable works of our excellent writers, had been reserved. If there had been in every shire of England, but one solemn library, to the preservation of those noble works, and preferment of good learnings in our posterity, it had been yet somewhat. But to destroy all without consideration, is and will be unto England for ever, a most horrible infamy among the grave seniors of other nations. A great number of them which purchased those superstitious mansions, reserved of those library books, some to serve their jakes, some to scour their candlesticks, and some to rub their boots. Some they sold to the grocers and soap sellers, and some they sent over sea to the bookbinders, not in small number, but at times whole ships full, to the wondering of the foreign nations. Yea, the universities of this realm, are not all clear in this detestable fact. But cursed is that belly, which seeketh to be fed with such ungodly gains, and so deeply shameth his natural country. I know a merchant man, which shall at this time be nameless, that bought the contents of two noble libraries for forty shillings price, a shame it is to be spoken. This stuff hath he occupied in the stead of grey paper by the space of more than these ten years, and yet he hath store enough for as many years to come. A prodigious example is this, and to be abhorred of all men which love their nation as they should do.

[7]

SELECT PASSAGES FROM THE WRITINGS OF JOHN BALE

159

O cities of England, whose glory standeth more in belly cheer, than in the search of wisdom godly. How cometh it, that neither you, nor yet your idle mass mongers, have regarded this most worthy commodity of your country? I mean the conservation of your antiquities, and of the worthy labours of your learned men: I think the renown of such a notable act, would have much longer endured, than of all your belly banquets and table triumphs, either yet of your newly purchased halls to keep St. George’s feast in. What else made the ancient Greeks and Romans famous to the world, but such virtuous and necessary provisions in their common wealths? What else hath made the Jews now an obscure nation, but the decay of their kingdom and continual destructions besides. Yea, what may bring our realm to more shame and rebuke, than to have it noised abroad, that we are despisers of learning? I judge this to be true, and utter it with heaviness, that neither the Britons under the Romans and Saxons, nor yet the English people under the Danes and Normans, had ever such damage of their learned monuments, as we have seen in our time. Our posterity may well curse this wicked fact of our age, this unreasonable spoil of England’s most noble antiquities, unless they be stayed in time, and by the art of printing be brought into a number of copies. The monks kept them under dust, the idle headed priests regarded them not, their latter owners have most shamefully abused them, and the covetous merchants have sold them away into foreign nations for money. Step you forth now last of all, ye noble men and women (as there are in these days a great number of you most nobly learned, praise be to God for it) and shew your natural noble hearts to your nation. Tread under your feet the unworthy examples of these Herostrates or abominable destroyers. And bring you into the light, that they kept long in the darkness, or else in these days seeketh utterly to destroy. As ye find a notable antiquity such as are the histories of Gildas and Nennius among the Britons, Stephanides and Asserius among the English Saxons, let them anon be imprinted, and so bring them into a number of copies, both to their and your own perpetual fame. For a more notable point of nobility can ye not shew, than in such sort to beautify your country, and so to restore us to such a truth in histories, as we have long wanted. We have the fable of Diocletian and his 33 daughters and how this realm was called Albion ab albis rupibus, with lie and all, but the verity as yet we have not, how this land was first inhabited. If we find them mixed with superstitions, we shall measure them by the scriptures, and somewhat bear with the corruption of their times. Unknown is it not unto you, but that the most noble conquerors of the world, have evermore had in much price the antiquities of stories, and have learned of them the thing which hath most increased their worthy fame. Now come we to the author of this present treatise, which plenteously hath declared the abundance of a noble heart to his country. This was John Leyland, an excellent orator and poet, moreover a man learned in many sundry languages, as Greek, Latin, French, Italian, Spanish, British, Saxon, Welsh, English, and Scottish. A most fervent favourer was this man, and a most diligent searcher of the antiquities of this our English or British nation, as will appear not only by this treatise following, but also by many other notable works which he hath learnedly compiled. Because I will not stand alone in the praise of him and his worthy acts, I will now bring forth another witness, a man

160

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

[7]

learned and loving his country also, which wrote unto me three years ago, dolorously lamenting his sudden fall. Master Leyland (saith he) whose printed works I have sent you, is in such a frenzy at this present, that little hope I have of his recovery, whereby he might finish such things as he began, and would have ended, if life, health, and right reason had served him thereunto. There be divers which (by report of his enemies, as Polydore Vergil and others) say, that he would never have set forth such things as he promised, affirming him to be a vainglorious person, which would promise more than ever he was able or intended to perform. I much do fear it that he was vainglorious, and that he had a poetical wit, which I lament, for I judge it one of the chief things that caused him to fall besides his right discernings. But this dare I be bolde to say, as one that knoweth it (for I saw and read of them in his study, divers and many times) that he never promised to set forth so many works as he had digested in an order, and had in a forward readiness to have set forth. And surely in such a sort he handled the matters by him treated of, that (by my simple judgment) if he had so finished them and set them forth according as he then intended and would have done. Truly I suppose no less, but it would have been a wonder (yea, a miracle to the world) to have read them. And that all other authors, which have written of us and of ours in times past, concerning things memorable, to be chronicled either yet put in writing, should have been counted but as shadows, or of small estimation in respect of him. So learnedly, lively, evidently, and groundedly, and with such authorities (yea, and as it were with a certain majesty) would he have fully and wholly painted, described, or set forth this our realm and all things therein, with all the dominions thereof, and with all such things as have from time to time been done in them. I was as familiarly acquainted with him, as with whom I am best acquainted, and do know certainly, that he from his youth was so earnestly studious and desirous of our antiquities, that always his whole studies were directed to that end. And for the true and full attaining thereunto, he not only applied himself to the knowledge of the Greek and Latin tongues, wherein he was (I might say) excellently learned. But also to the study of the British, Saxon, and Welsh tongues, and so much profited therein, that he most perfectly understood them. And yet not herewith all content, he did fully and wholly both labour and travail in his own person through this our realm and certain of the dominions thereof, because he would have the perfect and full knowledge of all things that might be gathered or learned, both for things memorable, and for the situation of the same. And as for all authors of Greek, Latin, French, Italian, Spanish, British, Saxon, Welsh, English, or Scottish, touching in any wise the understanding of our antiquities, he had so fully read and applied them, that they were in a manner grafted in him as of nature. So that he might well call himself Antiquarius. Surely my friend, I can not therefore but lament this his estate, boldly affirming, that England never saw (nor as I believe, shall see, except God say Amen thereto) a man to him herein in all things to be compared. For undoubted he was in these matters wonderful and peerless, so that as concerning them, England had yet never a greater loss. But what shall we say? It hath pleased God that he should thus be deprived of his wits, that Lord knoweth best what he hath to do, his name be for evermore blessed. But this shall be my

[7]

SELECT PASSAGES FROM THE WRITINGS OF JOHN BALE

161

prayer still, that if the Lord will not give him his right understanding again, that it may yet please his goodness, to put in the minds of some that best may, to do it. That not only such things as master Leyland intended to have set forth by his own, but also such old authors as he hath gathered together into his libraries (and as yet not printed) may (and that with speed) be set forth in print, for the necessary knowledge of all men touching antiquities. But after such rate and sort as Master Leyland himself (if his right reason had served him) would have set them forth, for that do I never look. But hereof once to make an end as Terence feately saith, ut quimus, quando ut volumus non licet. We must do as we may, when we cannot do as we would. All these are the testimonies of my friend. Thus am I not alone in opinion concerning John Leyland and such other for antiquities’ sake, but have so many more with their good wills to assist me as naturally favoureth England. By this worthy property (saith Cassiodorus) is a noble citizen known. He seeketh the commodity, praise and advancement of his country, sweet is the remembrance of a man’s natural land, to him that is absent. The birds that fly abroad, do love their own nests. The beasts that run astray, seeketh their accustomed couches. And the fishes within the water, resorteth to their hollow dens. Right notably was it alleged of Plato, that we are not born only to our own commodities. But we ought to have respect both to our country and kindred. Of our natural country we have our parents, our food, our nourishment, friendship, friends, acquaintance, house, wife, children, with such like. The fathers in the old law, had such an inward love to their native soil, that they would no where else be buried. Though Christ our most loving master said it. That a prophet is not without honour but in his own country and kindred. Matth. xiii. Yet beautified it he above all nations, both with his doctrine and miracles, alleging many of their noble antiquities in Noah, Loth, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Salomon, Elias, Eliseus, and other to confirm them in the true faith. He that naturally loveth his land, obeyeth therewith the commandments of God concerning the love of his neighbour, and the faithful obedience of kings. Which I instantly desire all godly subjects to follow, to the praise of him which gave those necessary commandments.

So be it. (ii) The Dissolution of the monasteries and the dispersal of libraries (Letter from Bale to Archbishop Parker, edited by H.R.Luard, Camb. Antiq. Soc. Communications, III (1867–68), 157–173).

Most reverend father in God, and my special good lord: I received your grace’s letters the 18th. day of this month, with no small rejoice, etc. And as concerning books of antiquity, not printed: when I was in Ireland I had great plenty of them, whom I obtained in time of the lamentable spoil of the libraries of England, through much friendship, labour, and expenses. Some I found in stationers and book binders store houses, some in grocers, soap-sellers, tailors, and other occupiers shops, some in ships ready to be carried over the sea into Flanders to be sold—for in those uncircumspect and careless days, there was no quicker merchandise than library books, and all to the destruction of learning and knowledge of things necessary in this fall of antichrist to be known—but the devil is a knave, they

162

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

[8]

say—well, only conscience with a fervent love to my country moved me to save that might be saved. And how I have been rewarded of my country hitherto for my pains, the Lord well knoweth, Since that time, I was in Ireland, deprived of all that I had, by the papists under queen Mary, and havoc was made of the books, by another work of the devil, that they should not yet come to light. I send unto your grace a register of their titles, imprinted at the request of Gesnerus, Lycosthenes, Simlerus, and other learned men at Zurich and Basle. I desire your grace at your leisure, to send it me again, lest I lose the whole volume by the want thereof. Sir Anthony Sellenger,1 being then deputy of Ireland, had for his part, a great dry vessel full of those books: and at his deathly departure, left them to his brother master Robert Sellenger in Kent and to his son master Warham Sellenger also. These men received now of late, a letter from the queen’s majesty’s council in my behalf, to deliver them, for performance of an English chronicle, which I have begun and not finished: either else to tell me where they are. But their mocking excuse is, that they never had them, neither yet know they where they are become. And yet do I know that they have dispersed and distributed them among the most obstinate papists of all the whole country, to bring them to naught. And this is the third device of the devil, to have them destroyed. One Glazier, in queen Mary’s time a prebendar of Canterbury, had a great number of them, and dispersed them among his companions, the Pope’s sworn soldiers. In Ireland are more than 4 score of them, as I am credibly informed, in the keeping of master Nicolas Hearne captain of Lechlyne bridge, and another sort of them at Dublin, besides them that remain at Kilkenny, among the prebendars there: for I had in Ireland more than 2 great wainloads of them. If it would please your grace to send for the vicar of Yealdinge in Kent, called Robert Cage, dwelling but 4 miles from Maidstone: he would not only inform your grace of the whole history, but also recover a great number of them: for why, he knoweth the persons, places, books and all. My miserable state and poverty is and hath been such, that I am able to do nothing as yet, towards the recover of them. Now to the answering of your register….

8. John Foxe on historical method (Foxe, Acts and Monuments, III, 348–349; 373–393) The value of Foxe’s historical writing is a highly controversial subject. The following passage shows that he was not wholly lacking in a sense of historical criticism, nor entirely ignorant of the standards by which historical sources should be tested. There still remains however the formidable question whether, and to what extent, he respected those standards in the writing of his own history. To this problem Catholic and Protestant historians have given widely different answers.2 As is suggested in the opening paragraph of this passage, Foxe was led to make these comments because of the attack made upon his writings by Nicholas Harpsfield (1519?–75). While in prison in the Tower Harpsfield wrote Dialogi Sex—in which he attacked some of Foxe’s accounts of martyrs. He sent the MS to his friend Alan Cope who, anxious to protect Harpsfield, published the work under his own name. See R.W.Chambers, Harpsfield’s Life of More, CXCVI. 1 Sir Anthony St. Leger (?1496–1559). Lord deputy of Ireland, 7 July 1540. His second son, Sir Warham, may have served in Ireland under his father during Mary’s reign. About 1559 he was named as a commissioner to transfer to England Bale’s MSS. and books. 2 Above, p. 104.

[8]

A

JOHN FOXE ON HISTORICAL METHOD

163

s I was entering into this story of the lord Cobham, after the tractation of all the A former histories hitherto passed, having next set upon this present matter, luckily, and as God would, in such opportunity of season as God may seem to work himself for the defence of his saints, cometh to my hands a certain book of new-found dialogues, compiled in Latin, by Nicholas Harpsfield, set out by Alanus Copus, an Englishman, a person to me unknown, and obscure, hitherto, unto the world, but who now to purchase himself a name with Erostratus, or with the sons of Anakim, cometh out, not with his five eggs, but with his six railing dialogues; in which dialogues the said Alanus Copus Anglus (whether he, under the armour of another, or another under title of his name, I know not, nor pass not), uncourteously behaving himself, intemperately abusing his time, study, and pen, forgetting himself, neglecting all respect of honesty, and mild modesty, neither dreading the stroke of God, nor caring for shame, neither favouring the living, nor sparing the dead, who, when alive as they never offended him, so now cannot answer for themselves, being gone; thus, provoking both God and man against him, after an unseemly sort, and with a foul mouth, and a stinking breath, rageth and fareth against dead men’s ashes, taking now the spoil of their good name, after their bodies lie slain in the field; his gall and choler being so bitter against them, that he cannot abide any memory after them to remain upon earth; insomuch that for the hatred of them he spurneth also against me, and flieth in my face, for that in my Acts and Monuments, describing the history of the church, I would say anything in favour of them, whom the Romish Catholics have so unmercifully put to death. The answer to whose book, although it would require a several tractation by itself, (as, if Christ grant space and leisure, hereafter it shall not be forgotten), yet, because such opportunity of the book is offered to me at this present, coming now to the matter of the lord Cobham, sir Roger Acton, and others, with whom he beginneth first to quarrel, it shall be requisite a little by the way to cope with this Cope, whatsoever he be, so much as truth shall give me for their defence to say something… [After a lengthy discussion of the problem whether Lord Cobham is to be judged a traitor or a martyr based on an examination of St. 2, Hen. V, c. 7, and the evidence supplied in the English chroniclers, Fabyan, Hall, Polydore Vergil, &c. whose accounts Foxe seriously criticises he proceeds:] As touching the order and ground of writing among these chroniclers, ye must consider, and cannot be ignorant, that as none of all these by you forenamed was present at the deed, nor witness of the fact, so have they nothing of themselves herein certainly to affirm, but either must follow public rumour and hearsay for their author, or else one of them must borrow of another: whereof neither seemeth to me sufficient; for, as public rumour is never certain, so one author may soon deceive another; by reason whereof it cometh oft to pass, that as these story writers hit many times the truth, so again all is not gospel that they do write; wherefore great respect is here to be had, either not to credit rashly everyone that writeth stories, or else to see what grounds they have whom we do follow. Now to demand, Master Cope, of you, what authority or foundation hath your Robert Fabyan, have Polydore Vergil, Edward Hall and other of your authors, to prove

164

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

[8]

these men to be traitors? What authority do they avouch? What acts, what registers, what records, or out of what court do they show, or what demonstration do they make?… Wherefore you see, Master Cope, how it is not sufficient, nor sure, to stick only to the names and authorities of chronographers, unless the ground be found substantial whereupon they stand themselves, which yet in none of these whom you have produced doth appear. Secondly, In alleging and writing of chronicles, it is to be considered to what place and effect they serve. If ye would shew out of them the order and course of times, what years were of dearth and of plenty, where kings kept their Christmas, what conduits were made, what mayors and sheriffs were in London, what battles were fought, what triumphs and great feasts were holden, when kings began their reign, and when they ended, &c; in such vulgar and popular affairs the narration of the chronicler serveth to good purpose, and may have his credit, wherein the matter forceth not much whether it be true or false, or whether any listeth to believe them. But where a thing is denied, and in cases of judgment and in controversies doubtful, which are to be decided and bolted out by evidence of just demonstration; I take them neither forj udges of the bench, nor for arbiters of the cause, nor as witnesses of themselves sufficient necessarily to be sticked unto: albeit I deny not but histories are taken many times, and so termed for witnesses of times, and glasses of antiquity, &c., yet not such witnesses as whose testimony beareth always a necessary truth, and bindeth belief… …But, certes, Master Cope, your mastership must first understand, that if ye think so to depress me, and disprove me of untruth in my history, you must go more groundly to work, and bring against me other authors than Edward Hall. You must consider, Master Cope, if you will be a controller in story-matters, it is not enough for you to bring a railing spirit, or a mind disposed to carp and cavil where any matter may be picked: diligence is required, and great searching out of books and authors, not only of our time, but of all ages. And especially where matters of religion are touched pertaining to the church, it is not sufficient to see what “Fabian” or what “Hall” saith; but the records must be sought, the registers must be turned over, letters also and ancient instruments ought to be perused, and authors with the same compared; finally, the writers amongst themselves one to be conferred with another; and so with judgment matters are to be weighed; with diligence to be laboured; and with simplicity, pure from all addition and partiality, to be uttered. [After a critical examination of Hall’s account of Oldcastle and Cobham.] But I cease here, and temper myself, considering not what Master Cope deserveth to be said unto, nor how far the pen here could run, if it had its scope; but considering what the tractation rather of such a serious cause requireth; and therefore seriously to say unto you, Master Cope, in this matter: where you charge my history of Acts and Monuments so cruelly, to be full of untruths, false lies, impudent forgeries, depravations, fraudulent corruptions, and feigned fables; briefly, and in one word, to answer you, not as the Lacones answered to the letters of their adversary, with “si”, but with “osi”: would God, Master Cope, that in all the whole Acts and Monuments, from the beginning to the latter end of the same, were never a true story, but that all were false, all were

[8]

JOHN FOXE ON HISTORICAL METHOD

165

lies, and all were fables!—would God the cruelty of your catholics had suffered all them to live, of whose death ye say now, that I do lie! Although I deny not but in that book of Acts and Monuments, containing such diversity of matter, something might overscape me, yet I have bestowed my poor diligence. My intent was to profit all men, to hurt none. If you, Master Cope, or any other, can better my rude doings, and find things out more finely and truly, with all my heart I shall rejoice with you and the common wealth; taking profit by you. In perfection of writing, of wit, cunning, dexterity, fineness, or other endowments required in a perfect writer, I contend neither with you nor any other. I grant that in a laboured story, such as you seem to require, containing such infinite variety of matter, as this doth, much more time would be required: but such time as I had, that I did bestow; if not so laboriously as others could, yet as diligently as I might. But here partly I hear what you will say—I should have taken more leisure and done it better. I grant and confess my fault; such is my vice, I cannot sit all the day, Master Cope, fining and mincing my letters, and combing my head, and smoothing myself all the day at the glass of Cicero; yet, notwithstanding, doing what I can, and doing my good will, me thinks I should not be reprehended, at least not so much be railed on at Master Cope’s hand; who if he be so pregnant in finding fault with other men’s labours, which is an easy thing to do, it were to be wished that he had enterprised himself upon the matter; and so should he have proved what faults might have been found in him. Not that I herein do utterly excuse myself, yea rather am ready to accuse myself, but yet, notwithstanding, think myself ungently dealt withal at Master Cope’s hand, who, being mine own countryman, an Englishman, as he saith, also of the same university, yea, college and school that I was of; knowing that the first edition of these Acts and Monuments was begun in the far parts of Germany, where few friends, no conference, small information could be had; and that the same edition was afterwards translated out of Latin into English by others, while I, in the mean time was occupied about other registers; and now the said Cope, hearing moreover and knowing that I was about a new edition of the same Acts and Monuments, at this present time to be set forth, for the amending of divers things therein to be reformed, if he had known any fault needful to be corrected, he might gently, by letters, have admonished me thereof: gentleness would so have required it, time would well have suffered it. Neither was he so far off, but he might sooner have written a letter to me, than a book against me; neither was I so ungrateful and inhuman, but I would have thanked him for his monition; neither yet so obstinate, but being admonished, I would have corrected willingly, where any fault had been committed. [Foxe defends the Calendar of Martyrs prefixed to his book.] … Leaving, therefore, the consideration of your ungrateful doings, I will now consider only the points wherein you charge me in your book, answering briefly unto the same: briefly, I say, because the greatness of this volume, and abundance of other more fruitful matter, give me little leisure at this present to stand about brawling words. First, he seemeth to be highly grieved with me for my Calendar prefixed before the Book of Monuments: wherein he hath no cause either to be offended with me, or to

166

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

[8]

chafe with himself. As touching that calendar I have sufficiently and expressly declared before so much as might quickly satisfy this scruple of Master Cope, if he either would have taken the pains, or else had the leisure to read the words contained in the Latin preface before the book prefixed, which are thus: “Quanquam a me quidem non aliter Calendarium hoc institutum est, nisi ut pro indice duntaxat suum cujusque Martyris mensem et annum designante, ad privatum lectoris serviret usum,” &c.: in which words preventing beforehand the cavilling objection of the adversary, I forewarned the reader touching the calendar, wherefore it was ordained and prefixed; for no other purpose, but only to serve the use of the reader, instead of a table, showing the year and month of every martyr, what time he suffered, &c. What hurt, I pray you, is in this calendar, prefixed before the Book of Monuments, more than in the table of Master Cope’s book, set after his Dialogues? But Master Cope had no leisure to pursue this place; it made not for his humour. But this grieveth him in the calendar, and that very sorely: for that I place in this calendar, sir John Oldcastle, sir Roger Acton, Brown, Beverly and others, for martyrs: and displace for them other holy ancient martyrs and saints, as Anatholius, Sother, Dorothea, Clarus, Lucianus, Severinus, &c.—Answer: If Master Cope cannot abide the lord Cobham, sir Roger Acton, Brown, and Beverly, who were hanged (as he saith, for treason), to have the name of martyrs, then let them bear the name of witnessbearers, or “testes” of the truth, because they were also burned for the testimony of their faith: seeing there is no difference in the said names, all is one to me, by which they are called… … And if ye think it much, that I would exemplify these whom ye call traitors in the Book of Martyrs; first, ye must understand, that I wrote no such book bearing the title of the “Book of Martyrs”; I wrote a book called the “Acts and Monuments of things passed in the Church”, &c. wherein many other matters be contained beside the martyrs of Christ. But this, peradventure, moveth your choler, that in the calendar I name them for martyrs. And why may I not, in my calendar, call them by the name of martyrs who were faithful witnesses of Christ’s truth and testament, for which they were also chiefly brought to that end? or why may I not call them holy saints, whom Christ hath sanctified with his blessed blood? And what if I should also call the thief and murderer, hanging on the right side of the Lord, by the name of a holy saint and confessor, for his witnessing of the Lord? what can Master Cope say against it? And as for colouring the names of certain martyrs in the said calendar in red or scarlet letters (although that pertaineth nothing to me, which was as pleased the painter or printer), yet, if that be it, that so much breaketh patience, why rather doth he not expostulate in this behalf with the great saint-maker of Rome, who hath redded them much more than ever did I? for he did red and dye them with their own blood, whereas I did but only colour them, with red letters. And thus for matter of my calendar enough.

[9]

THE DIARY AS A NARRATIVE SOURCE. TWO SPECIMENS

167

9. The diary as a narrative source. Two specimens The personal diary does not figure prominently among the source materials for English history before 1500. In the early sixteenth century examples became more common. Their value for the historian is illustrated in these two early specimens. Edward VI’s Journal is not only an historical source, it is also a literary curiosity, and a revealing illustration of the young king’s precocity. He began it, probably at the instigation of his tutor Sir John Cheke, when in his thirteenth year, and the last entries were made in it at the end of November 1552, some seven months before his death. Burnet produced an inferior version of the Journal in his History of the Reformation, but the standard text is that in J.G.Nichols, Literary Remains of King Edward the Sixth. Both editors took the view that there was enough internal evidence to justify them in accepting it as Edward’s own work. The first passage describes the young king’s reactions to Ket’s rebellion, and to the first attack on Protector Somerset. There is a more detailed account of these events in Norfolk in F.W. Russell, Kett’s rebellion in Norfolk (1859), based primarily on an unprinted manuscript by Nicholas Sotherton (1549) and Alexander Neville, Defuroribus Norfolcensium, Ketto duce (1575). The second passage is a curiously unemotional reference to the trial and death of the King’s uncle, Protector Somerset. That the Journal is evidence of Edward’s intellectual ability, and is a useful source for the events of his reign cannot be questioned, but many readers will be inclined to agree with Hallam’s regret that the work was genuine, for “the manner in which Edward speaks of his uncle’s death does not show a good heart”.1

(i) (a) Edward VI’s Journal (J.G.Nichols, Literary Remains of King Edward the Sixth, II, 209)

T

he people began to rise in Wiltshire, where Sir William Herbert did put them down, over-run, and slay them. Then they rose in Sussex, Hampshire, Kent, Gloucestershire, Suffolk, Warwickshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, a piece of Leicestershire, Worcestershire, and Rutlandshire, where by fair persuasions, partly of honest men among themselves, and partly by gentlemen, they were often appeased, and again, because certain commissions were sent down to pluck down inclosures, then did rise again. The French king, perceiving this, caused war to be proclaimed, and, hearing that our ships lay at Jersey, sent a great number of his galleys, and certain ships to surprise our ships; but they lying at anchor beat the French, that they were fain to retire with the loss of a 1,000 of their men. At the same time the French king passed by Boulogne to Newhaven with his army, and took Blakeness by treason, and the Almaine Camp; which done, Newhaven surrendered. There were also, in a skirmish between three hundred English footmen and 700 French horsemen, six noblemen slain. Then the French king came with his army to Boulogne, which they seeing raised Boulogne berg. But because of the plague he was compelled to retire, and Chastilion was left behind as governor of the army. In the mean season, because there was a rumour that I was dead, I passed through London. After that, they rose in Oxfordshire, Devonshire, Norfolk, and Yorkshire. To Oxfordshire the lord Grey of Wilton was sent with 1500 horsemen and footmen; whose coming, with the assembling of the gentlemen of the country, did so abash the rebels, that more than half of them ran their ways, and other that tarried were some slain, some taken, and some hanged… 1

H.Hallam, Constitutional History (1829), I, 116.

168

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

[9]

…Now to Norfolk. The people suddenly gathered together in Norfolk, and increased to a great number; against whom was the lord marquis Northampton sent, with the number of 1060 horsemen, who winning the town of Norwich, kept it one day and one night, and the next day in the morning with loss of 100 departed out of the town; among whom the lord Sheffield was slain. There were taken divers gentlemen and serving men to the number of 30, with which victory the rebels were very glad. But afterwards, hearing that the earl of Warwick came against them, they began to stay upon a strong plat of ground upon a hill near to the town of Norwich, having the town confederate with them. The earl of Warwick came with the number of 6000 men and 1500 horsemen, and entered into the town of Norwich, which having won, it was so weak that he could scarcely defend it, and oftentimes the rebels came into the streets killing divers of his men, and were repulsed again; yea, and the townsmen were given to mischief themselves. So, having endured their assaults three days, and stopped their victuals, the rebels were constrained for lack of meat to remove, whom the earl of Warwick followed with 1000 Almains and all his horsemen, leaving the English footmen in the town, and overcame them in plain battle, killing 2000 of them and taking Ket their captain, who in January following was hanged at Norwich, and his head hanged out. Ket’s brother was taken also, and punished alike…. In the mean season in England rose great stirs, like to increase much if it had not been well foreseen. The council, about 19 of them, were gathered in London, thinking to meet with the lord Protector, and to make him amend some of his disorders. He, fearing his state, caused the secretary in my name to be sent to the lords, to know for what cause they gathered their powers together, and, if they meant to talk with him that they should come in peaceable manner. The next morning, being the 6. of October, and Saturday, he commanded the armour to be brought down out of the armoury of Hampton Court, about 500 harnesses, to arm both his and my men withal, the gates of the house to be repaired; people to be raised. People came abundantly to the house. That night, with all the people, at 9 or 10 o’clock at night, I went to Windsor, and there was watch and ward kept every night. The lords sat in open places of London, calling for gentlemen before them, and declaring the causes of accusation of the lord Protector, and caused the same to be proclaimed. After which time few came to Windsor, but only mine own men of the guard, whom the lords willed, fearing the rage of the people so lately quieted. Then began the Protector to treat by letters, sending Sir Philip Hoby, lately come from his embassy in Flanders to see to his family, who brought in his return a letter to the Protector very gentle, which he delivered to him, another to me, another to my house, to declare his faults, ambition, vain glory, entering into rash wars in mine youth, negligent looking on Newhaven, enriching of himself of my treasure, following his own opinion, and doing all by his own authority, etc.; which letters were openly read, and immediately the lords came to Windsor, took him, and brought him through Holborn to the Tower. Afterwards I came to Hampton Court, where they appointed by my consent six lords of the council to be attendant on me,—at least two, and four knights; lords, the marquis Northampton, the earls of Warwick and Arundel, lords Russell, St. John, and Wentworth; knights Sir Andrew Dudley, Sir Edward Rogers, Sir Thomas Darcy, Sir Thomas Wroth. After I came through London to

[9]

THE DIARY AS A NARRATIVE SOURCE. TWO SPECIMENS

169

Westminster. The lord of Warwick made Admiral of England. Sir Thomas Cheney sent to the emperor for relief, which he could not obtain. Mr. Wotton made secretary. The lord Protector, by his own agreement and submission, lost his protectorship, treasureship, marshalship, all his moveables, and near 2000 pound land, by act of parliament.

(b) Trial and Death of Somerset (Ibid. 370)

1551. The duke of Somerset came to his trial at Westminster Hall. The lord treasurer sat as high steward of England, under the cloth of estate, on a bench between two posts, 3 degrees high: all the lords, to the number of 26…sat a degree under, and heard the matter debated… The lawyers rehearsed how to raise men at his house for an ill intent, as to kill the duke of Northumberland, was treason by an Act 3. anno of my reign against unlawful assemblies; for to devise the death of the lords was felony; to mind resisting his attachment was felony; to raise London was treason; and to assault the lords was felony. He answered that he did not intend to raise London, and swore that the witnesses were not there. His assembling of men was but for his own defence. He did not determine to kill the duke of Northumberland, the marquis, etc., but spake of it and determined after the contrary; and yet seemed to confess he went about their death. The lords went together. The duke of Northumberland would not agree that any searching of his death should be treason. So the lords acquitted him of high treason, and condemned him of treason felonious, and so he was adjudged to be hanged. He gave thanks to the lords for their open trial, and cried mercy of the duke of Northumberland, the marquis of Northampton, and the earl of Pembroke for his ill meaning against them, and made suit for his life, wife and children, servants and debts, and so departed without the axe of the Tower. The people, knowing not the matter, shouted half a dozen times, so loud that from the hall door it was heard at Charing Cross plainly, and rumours went that he was quit of all…. The duke of Somerset had his head cut off upon Tower Hill between eight and nine o’clock in the morning.

(ii) The Diary of Henry Machyn (Ed. J.G.Nichols, Camden Soc., xlii, 1848, 37–43) Henry Machyn was a citizen of London who specialized in arranging funerals. Beginning in 1550 to make notes on the funerals in which he took part professionally, he made a note in February 1550/1551 of Bishop Gardiner’s committal to the Tower, and after that he kept up the practice of commenting on all kinds of events down to 1563. He took a keen interest in recording City pageantry such as the show on Lord Mayor’s Day, May day celebrations and the like, although his main concern was with the funerals. His diary is an early example of this form of writing. Strype made copious extracts from it.

The 19th. day of July was Queen Mary proclaimed queen of England, France and Ireland, and all dominions, as the sister of the late king Edward the VI, and daughter unto the noble king Henry the VIII, between 5 and 6 of the clock at night, and there were at [the] proclamation four trumpeters and two heralds of arms, and the earl of Arundel, the earl

170

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

[9]

of Shrewsbury, the earl Pembroke, my lord Treasurer, my lord Privy Seal, my lord Cobham, my lord Warden, master Mason, and my lord Mayor, and divers other noblemen; and this was done at the cross in Cheap, and from that place they went unto Paul’s and there was Te Deum Laudamus, with song, and the organs playing, and all the bells ringing through London, and bonfires, and tables in every street, and wine and beer and ale, and every street full of bonfires, and there was money cast away. The 21st day of July was taken in Cambridge the duke of Northumberland, with divers lords and knights; and that day queen Mary was proclaimed in Cambridge, and incontinent through England. ***

The 29th day of July was a fellow set in the pillory for speaking against the good queen Mary. The same day came riding through London my lady Elizabeth’s grace, and through Fleet Street, and so to my lord of Somerset’s place that was, and it is my lady grace’s place; attended with 2000 horse, with spears and bows and guns, and other…1and special sir John William, sir John Brygys, master Chamberlain, all in green garded with white velvet satin taffety…. The 25th day of July, the which was St. James, there came into London, and so to the Tower, certain traitors; the first was Doctor Sandes, a priest; and next him sir Thomas Palmer, sir Harry Gattes, sir John Gattes, sir Andrew Dudley, lord Harry Dudley, lord Ambrose Dudley, lord Hastings, the earl of Huntingdon, the earl of Warwick, the duke of Northumberland attended by 4000 men beside the guard with guidons and trumpeters, and with spears and guns to the Tower. The 26th day of July came unto the Tower my lord marquis of Northampton, by and my lord Robert Dudley, and the bishop of London2 and sir Richard Corbett; and after came into the Tower my lord chief justice Chamley, the lord Montague, at 5 of the clock at night. The 27th day of July the duke of Suffolk, master Cheke the king’s schoolmaster, Master Coke, and sir John York, to the Tower. The 31st day of July was delivered out of the Tower the duke of Suffolk; and the same day rode through London my lady Elizabeth to Aldgate, and so to the queen’s grace, her sister, with a 1000 horse with a 100 velvet coats. The same time came to the Fleet the earl of Rutland and my lord Russell, in hold. The queen’s grace made Sir Thomas Jarningham vice-chamberlain and captain of the guard, and sir Edward Hastings her grace made him the master of the horse the same time. The 3rd day of August the Queen came riding to London, and so to the Tower; making her entrance at Aldgate, which was hanged, and a great number of streamers 1

This was one of the Cotton MSS. damaged by fire in 1731. From here on dots indicate gaps in the text. Edmund Bonner was consecrated Bishop of London, 4 April 1540. On 1 October 1549 he was deprived of his see, and imprisoned in the Marshalsea. Nicholas Ridley was given his place, being instituted in April, 1550. On 26 July 1553, after Mary’s accession, Ridley was deprived of his see and imprisoned in the Tower. On 5 August 1553 Bonner was released from the Marshalsea, and restored to his see. He was again deprived, 30 May 1559. 2

[9]

THE DIARY AS A NARRATIVE SOURCE. TWO SPECIMENS

171

hanging about the said gate; and all the street unto Leadenhall and unto the Tower were laid with gravel, and all the crafts of London stood in a row, with their banners and streamers hanged over their heads. Her grace came, and before her a 1000 velvet coats and cloaks embroidered and the Mayor of London bore the mace, and the earl of Arundel bore the sword, and all the trumpets blowing; and next her my lady Elizabeth, and next her the duchess of Norfolk, and next her the marchioness of Exeter, and other ladies; and after her the aldermen, and then the guard with bows and javelins, and all the residue departed at Aldgate in green and white, and red and white, and blue and green, to the number of 3000. horse and spears and javelins. The funeral, the 4th day of August, of my lady Brown, the which she died in childbed; with a herald and four banners of arms, and many scutcheons; and a great doll, and many mourners, and a great dinner to the poor and rich; the wife of sir Antony Brown in Sussex. The 5th day of August came to the Tower doctor dean of Westminster, master Cokes. The same day came out of the Marshalsea, the old bishop of London, Bonar1, and divers bishops bring him home unto his place at Paul’s; and doctor Cokes went to the same place in the Marshalsea that the bishop was in. The 5th day of August came into the Tower my lord Ferrys by…at 9 of the clock, and so went he before the Council, and so within an hour he was delivered unto sir John Gage, constable of the Tower, and so he had the custody of my lord for that time. The queen released from prison the lord Courtenay, soon after created earl of Devonshire, and many others. And the queen’s grace made sir Edward Hastings master of the horse, and sir Thomas Jerningham vice-chamberlain and captain of the guard, and master Rochester master controller; my lord marquis of Winchester lord treasurer of England, and divers other officers, and divers other. The 6th day of August came into the Tower, from Calais, sir Hare Dudley, that was going into France. The 8th day of August was buried the noble king Edward VI, and seventh year of his reign; and at his burying was the greatest moan made for him of his death as ever was heard or seen, both of all sorts of people, weeping and lamenting; and first of all went a great company of children in their surplices, and clerks singing, and then his father’s bedemen, and then two heralds, and then a standard with a dragon, and then a great number of his servants in black, and then another standard with a white greyhound, and then after a great number of his officers, and after them comes more heralds, and then a standard with the head officers of his house; and then heralds, Norey bore the helmet and the crest on horseback, and then his great banner of arms inbrodery2, and with divers other banners, and then came riding Master Clarencieux with his target, with his garter, and his sword gorgeously and rich, and after Garter with his coat armour in brodery, and then more heralds of arms; and then came the chariot with great horses trapped with velvet to the ground, and every horse having a man on his back in black, and everyone bearing a banner-roll of divers kings’ arms, and with 1

Sup. 170, n.

2, 2 Embroidery.

172

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

[9]

scutcheons on their horses, and then the chariot covered with cloth of gold, and on the chariot lay a picture lying piteously with a crown of gold, and a great collar, and his sceptre in his hand, lying in his robes and the garter about his leg, and a coat in embroidery of gold; about the corpse were borne four banners, a banner of the order, another of the red rose, another of queen Jane (Seymour), another of the queen’s mother. After him went a goodly horse, covered with cloth of gold unto the ground, and the master of the horse, with a man of arms in armour, which was offered, both the man and the horse. There was set up a goodly hearse in Westminster Abbey with bannerrolls and pensells, and hung with velvet about. The same day, the which was the 8th day of August, came to London the good earl of Derby with 80 in coats of velvet and other 218 yeomen in a livery, and so to Westminster. The 9th day of August came the bishop of Winchester out of the Tower (conducted) by the earl of Arundel to his own parish of St. Mary Overy’s, and from thence with my lord of Arundel to dinner to Bath place. The 10th day of August were drowned seven men at London Bridge by folly; one was master Thomas of Brygys (Bridges), the Lieutenant’s son and heir, and three gentlemen more, besides other; and one…. The 13th day of August did preach at Paul’s cross doctor Bourn, parson of High Ongar, in Essex, the queen’s chaplain, and there was a great up-roar and shouting at his sermon, as it were like mad people, what young people and women as ever was heard, as hurly-burly, and casting up of caps; if my lord Mayor and my lord Courtenay had not been there, there had been great mischief done. The 16th day of August was a man set on the pillory for forging of false letters in other men’s name(s). The 17th day of August was made a great scaffold in Westminster hall against the morrow, for the duke of Northumberland coming to be arraigned, with other, as the marquis of Northampton and the earl of Warwick. The 18th day of August was arraigned at Westminster hall the marquis of Northampton, the duke, and the earl of Warwick, and so they were condemned to be had to the place that they came from, and from thence to be drawn through London unto Tyburn, and there to be hanged, and then to be cut down, and their bowels to be burnt, and their heads to be set on London Bridge and other places. The 19th day were arraigned at Westminster hall sir Andrew Dudley, sir John Gates, sir Harry Gates, sir Thomas Palmer, and cast to be hanged and quartered. The same day was a great fire at Chelsea beyond Westminster, and there were divers houses burnt, and divers barns with corn burnt, to the number…. The 20th day of August did preach at Paul’s cross master Watson, chaplain unto (blank), and there were present all the crafts of London in their best livery, sitting on forms, every craft by themselves, and my lord Mayor and the aldermen, and two hundred of the guard, to see no disquiet done. The same day was buried master Kyrtun, alderman and merchant tailor, and merchant of the Staple of Calais, aforenoon. The 21st of August was, by 8 of the clock in the morning, on the Tower hill about

[9]

THE DIARY AS A NARRATIVE SOURCE. TWO SPECIMENS

173

10000. men and women for to have seen the execution of the duke of Northumberland, for the scaffold was made ready, and sand and straw was brought, and all the men that belong to the Tower, as Hoxton, Shoreditch, Bow, Ratcliffe, Limehouse, St. Katherine’s, and the waiters of the Tower, and the guard and the sheriffs’ officers, and every man stood in order with their halberds, and lanes made, and the hangman was there, and suddenly they were commanded to depart. And the same time after was sent for my lord mayor and the aldermen and chiefs of the crafts in London, and divers of the Council, and there was said mass for the Duke and the rest of the prisoners. The 21st day of August was set on the pillory, two men, one a priest and another a barber, and both their ears nailed to the pillory, the parson of St. Ethelburga within Bishopsgate for heinous words and seditious words against the queen’s majesty’s highness at the sermon at Paul’s cross, that was the Sunday the 13th day of August, and for the up-roar that was there done. The priest…twice. The 21st day of August was a proclamation that no man should reason against her grace’s majesty and her council, doing the which she will do to the honour of God and his mother. The 23rd day of August was the same priest set on the pillory again for more words. The same day began the mass at St. Nicholas Colabay, goodly sung in Latin, and tapers, and set on the altar, and a cross in old Fish Street. Item, the next day a goodly mass sung at St. Nicholas Wyllyms, in Latin, in Bread Street. The 25th day of August was burned the Great Harry, the greatest ship in the world, and it was pity and if it had pleased God, at Woolwich, by negligence and for lack of over-sight; the first year of queen Mary. The 28th day of August died sir John Harrington knight, of Rutlandshire, within St. Helen’s Bishopsgate street, and from that day that he died till he was carried into his country, was mass and dirge every day sung; and Monday the 4th day of September, he went into the country in a horse litter, with his standard and his pennant of arms, and after his horse…with four pennants of arms borne about him, and with a goodly helmet gilt, with target, sword, and crest, and a ten dozen of scutcheons, and ten dozen of pensells for a hearse, and staff torches, and a hearse of wax, and a fair mageste, and the vallance gilded and fringed, and so to Ware, and so forwards. The 6th day of September came out of the Tower my lord Ferrys, my lord chief justice Cholmley, and my lord Montague, unto the dean’s place, for there sat the council, and there they were delivered and discharged of the Tower with a great fine. The 3rd day of August, at Richmond, was my lord Courtnay created the earl of Devonshire of our noble queen Mary. The 12th day of September the citizens began to adorn the city against the Queen’s coronation; to hang the streets, and prepare pageants at Fenchurch and Gracechurch and Leaden-hall, and in Gracechurch street, and at conduit at Cornhill, and the great conduit in Cheap, at standard in Cheap, the cross repaired at the little conduit, a pageant in Paul’s church yard, another pageant and many speeches, and Ludgate newly repaired, and many children; at the conduit in Fleet Street a pageant, and newly trimmed very

174

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

[10]

gorgeously, and the street hanged, and places for every craft to stand severally, made with timber from every craft there standing, and so to remain unto every hall for ever when they shall have need for such doing.

10. The new biographical narrative While fresh ideas were transforming the writing of narrative history, similar experiments were producing interesting results in the related field of biography. Much of this work was closely associated with Sir Thomas More. He was himself the author of a life of Richard III, and one scholar has gone so far as to group together the writings of William Roper, Nicholas Harpsfield, and John Rastell as the work of “the school of More”.1 There was one exponent of this new literary form who was outside this circle, and his work was an outstanding achievement. George Cavendish, author of a memoir on Wolsey was in the Cardinal’s service as a gentleman usher until Wolsey’s death. He wrote his recollections some time between 1554 and 1558.2 Strictly speaking, none of these early memoirs are biographies in the modern sense of the word. They are impressionistic eulogies which contain much first-hand information but omit a great deal of the factual material provided in a modern biography. They are important as a link between the hagiographical lives of saints common in the Middle Ages and the complete factual biography of later times. While these authors certainly broke fresh ground it is doubtful whether the suggestion that they were consciously attempting to create a new type of literature can be accepted.3

(i) A Biographer’s Motives R.S.Sylvester (ed.), Cavendish’s Life of Wohey, E.E.T.S. Orig. Ser. No. 243, 1959,) pp. 1–3 and 187–188)

M

e seems it were no wisdom to credit every light tale, blazed by the blasphemous mouths of rude commonalty, for we daily hear how with their blasphemous trump they spread abroad innumerable lies, without either shame or honesty, which (prima facie) sheweth forth a visage of truth, as though it were a perfect verity, and matter indeed, wherein there is nothing more untrue. And among the wise sort so it is esteemed, with whom these babblings be of small force and effect. Forsooth, I have read the exclamations of divers worthy and notable authors made against such false rumours and fond opinions of the phantastical commonalty, who delighteth nothing more than to hear strange things, and to see new alterations of authorities, rejoicing sometimes in such new phantasies, which afterwards giveth them more occasion of repentance than of joyfulness. Thus may all men of wisdom and discretion understand the temerous madness of the rude commonalty and not giving to them too hasty credit of every sudden rumour, until the truth be perfectly known by the report of some approved and credible person, that ought to have thereoftrue intelligence. I have heard and also seen set forth in divers printed books some untrue imaginations after the death of divers persons, which, in their life, were of great estimation, that were invented rather to bring their honest names into infamy and perpetual slander of the common multitude than otherwise. The occasion thereof that maketh me to rehearse all these things is this, that forasmuch 1 2 3

Hitchcock and Chambers, Harpsfield s Life of More, CLVII. See below p. 242. R S.Sylvester and D.P.Harding, Two Early Tudor Lives, p. vii.

[10]

THE NEW BIOGRAPHICAL NARRATIVE

175

as I intend, God willing, to write here some part of the proceedings of the said Legate and Cardinal Wolsey, Archbishop of York, and of his ascending and descending to and from honourable estate, whereof some part shall be of mine own knowledge, and some of other persons’ information. Forsooth, this Cardinal was my lord and master, whom in his life I served, and so remained with him after his fall continually during the term of all his trouble until he died, as well in the south as in the north parts, and noted all his demeanour and usage in all that time, as also in his wealthy triumph and glorious estate. And since his death I have heard divers sundry surmises and imagined tales made of his proceedings and doings, which I myself have perfectly known to be most untrue, unto the which I could have sufficiently answered according to the truth, but as me seemeth then, it was much better for me to suffer and dissemble the matter and the same to remain still as lies, than to reply against their untruth, of whom I might for my boldness sooner have kindled a great flame of displeasures than to quench one spark of their malicious untruth. Therefore I commit the truth to Him that knoweth all truth. For whatsoever any man hath conceived in him when he lived or since his death, thus much I dare be bold to say without displeasure to any person or of affection, that in my judgment I never saw this realm in better order, quietness, and obedience than it was in the time of his authority and rule, nor justice better ministered with impartiality, as I could evidently prove if I should not be accused of too much affection or else that I set forth more than truth. I will, therefore, here desist to speak any more in his commendation, and proceed first to his original beginning, ascending by fortune’s favour to high honours, dignities, promotions, and riches…. Who list to read and consider with an indifferent eye this history may behold the wondrous mutability of vain honours, the brittle assurance of abundance, the uncertainty of dignities, the flattering of feigned friends, and the uncertain trust to worldly princes, whereof this Lord Cardinal hath felt both of the sweet and the sour in each degrees, as fleeting from honours, losing of riches, deposed from dignities, forsaken of friends, and the inconstancy of princes’ favour, of all which things he hath had in this world the full felicity as long as that fortune smiled upon him, but when she began to frown how soon was he deprived of all these dreaming joys and vain pleasures, the which in twenty years with great travail, study, and pains obtained, were in one year and less (with heaviness, care and sorrow) lost and consumed. O madness, O foolish desire, O fond hope, O greedy desire of vain honours, dignities and riches, O what inconstant trust and assurance is in rolling fortune! Wherefore the prophet said full well, Thesaurizat et ignorat cui congregabit ea.1 Who is certain to whom he shall leave his treasure and riches that he hath gathered together in this world? It may chance him to leave it unto such as he hath purposed, but the wise man2 saith “that another person who peradventure he hated in his life shall spend it out and consume it”.

(ii) The School of Thomas More (E.V.Hitchcock (ed.), The Lyfe of Sir Thomas Moore, Knighte, E.E.T.S. Orig. Ser. No. 197, 1935, pp. 3–5 and 21–25)

Forasmuch as Sir Thomas More, knight, sometime Lord Chancellor of England, a man of singular virtue and of a clear unspotted conscience, as witnesseth Erasmus, more 1

Psalms xxxviii, 7.

2

Eccles. vi, 2.

176

THE WRITING OF HISTORY

[10]

pure and white than the whitest snow, and of such an angelical wit as England (he saith) never had the like before, nor never shall again, universally, as well in the laws of our own realm, a study in effect able to occupy the whole life of a man, as in all other sciences right well studied, was in his days accounted a man worthy perpetual famous memory: I, William Roper, though most unworthy, his son-in-law by marriage of his eldest daughter, knowing—at this day—no one man living that of him and of his doings understood so much as myself, for that I was continually resident in his house by the space of sixteen years and more, thought it therefore my part to set forth such matters touching his life as I could at this present call to remembrance. Among which things, very many notable things (not meet to have been forgotten) through negligence and long continuance of time are slipped out of my mind. Yet to the intent the same should not all utterly perish, I have at the desire of divers worshipful friends of mine, though very far from the grace and worthiness of them, nevertheless as far forth as my mean wit, memory, and knowledge would serve me, declared so much thereof as in my poor judgment seemed worthy to be remembered. This Sir Thomas More, after he had been brought up in the Latin tongue at Saint Anthony’s in London, was by his father’s procurement received into the house of the right reverend, wise, and learned prelate Cardinal Morton. Where, though he was young of years, yet would he at Christmas-tide suddenly sometimes step in among the players, and never studying for the matter, make a part of his own there presently among them, which made the lookers-on more sport than all the players beside. In whose wit and towardness the Cardinal much delighting would often say of him unto the nobles that divers times dined with him, “This child here waiting at the table, whosoever shall live to see it, will prove a marvellous man.”… This Sir Thomas More, among all other his virtues, was of such meekness that, if it had fortuned him with any learned men resorting to him from Oxford, Cambridge, or elsewhere, as there did divers, some for desire of his acquaintance, some for the famous report of his wisdom and learning, and some for suits of the universities, to have entered into argument (wherein few were comparable unto him) and so far to have discoursed with them therein that he might perceive they could not, without some inconvenience, hold out much further disputation against him, then lest he should discomfort them— as he that sought not his own glory but rather would seem conquered than to discourage students in their studies, ever showing himself more desirous to learn than to teach— would he by some witty device courteously break off into some other matter and give over. Of whom for his wisdom and learning had the king such an opinion that at such time as he attended upon his highness, taking his progress either to Oxford or Cambridge, where he was received with very eloquent orations, his grace would always assign him, as one that was prompt and ready therein, ex tempore to make answer thereunto. Whose manner was, whensoever he had occasion either here or beyond the sea to be in any university, not only to be present at the readings and disputations there commonly used, but also learnedly to dispute among them himself. Who being Chancellor of the Duchy

[10]

THE NEW BIOGRAPHICAL NARRATIVE

177

was made ambassador twice, joined in commission with Cardinal Wolsey—once to the Emperor Charles into Flanders, the other time to the French king into France. Not long after this, the Water-bailiff of London, sometime his servant, hearing (where he had been at dinner) certain merchants liberally to rail against his old master, waxed so discontented therewith that he hastily came to him and told him what he had heard. “And were I, sir,” quoth he, “in such favour and authority with my prince as you are, such men surely should not be suffered so villainously and falsely to misreport and slander me. Wherefore I would wish you to call them before you, and to their shame for their lewd malice to punish them.” Who, smiling upon him. said: “Why, Master Water-bailiff, would you have me punish those by whom I receive more benefit than by all you that be my friends? Let them, a God’s name, speak as lewdly as they list of me and shoot never so many arrows at me. As long as they do not hit me, what am I the worse? But if they should once hit me, then would it indeed not a little trouble me. Howbeit I trust, by God’s help, there shall none of them all once be able to touch me. I have more cause, I assure thee, Master Waterbailiff, to pity them than to be angry with them.” Such fruitful communications had he oft-times with his familiar friends. So on a time, walking with me along the Thames-side at Chelsea, in talking of other things he said unto me: “Now would to our Lord, son Roper, upon condition that three things were well established in Christendom, I were put in a sack and here presently cast into the Thames.” “What great things be those, sir,” quoth I, “that should move you so to wish?” “Wouldst thou know what they be, son Roper?” quoth he. “Yea, marry, with good will, sir, if it please you,” quoth I. “In faith, son, they be these,” said he. “The first is that where the most part of Christian princes be at mortal war, they were all at an universal peace. The second, that where the Church of Christ, is at this present sore afflicted with many errors and heresies, it were settled in a perfect uniformity of religion. The third, that where the King’s matter of his marriage is now come in question, it were to the glory of God and quietness of all parts brought to a good conclusion.” Whereby, as I could gather, he judged that otherwise it would be a disturbance to a great part of Christendom. Thus did it by his doings throughout the whole course of his life appear that all his travail and pains, without respect of earthly commodities either to himself or any of his, were only upon the service of God, the prince, and the realm, wholly bestowed and employed. Whom I heard in his later time to say that he never asked the King for himself the value of one penny.

Part II THE LAND

INTRODUCTION

O

NE of the most fruitful results of co-operation in the social sciences has been the steady, if somewhat tardy, recognition of the contribution which can be made to historical understanding by the investigations of the historical geographer. Fortunate, indeed, is the historian who is able to borrow the results of the scientific study of the physical features and natural environment of the region with which he is concerned. The greater the knowledge of this kind he has at his disposal the better he will appreciate the nature of the framework within which a society is contained, for without that knowledge many of the problems, political, social, and economic, with which that society has to contend will not be fully appreciated. The key to many of them may well be found in the keeping of the historical geographers. The materials with which such studies are concerned consist mainly of historical data, and modern work has revealed how the historical geographer, coming to such evidence with a fresh eye and specialist knowledge, may extract a new meaning from historical materials by an independent interpretation of the evidence, or, more revealing still, by presenting on a map coincidences and interrelationships between facts which might otherwise not be noticed. The application of these new methods is not yet as fully advanced as could be wished, and for many periods of English history the historian will seek in vain the guidance of such expert interpreters. In their absence he has to fall back upon such descriptions of physical phenomena as he can find in contemporary sources. For the earlier centuries such material is not very satisfactory, since it was produced by men for whom the questions which occur to modern investigators had not yet been formulated, while the poverty of the resources available to medieval pioneers is revealed in the naïve credulity of a Giraldus Cambrensis (whose work as a pioneer topographer, nevertheless, ought not to be despised), or the crude efforts at an Itinerarium of a William of Worcester. With the early Tudor period the historian is moving on to surer ground. Contemporary interest in the physical world is beginning to be reflected in sources more abundant and more thorough than any which had appeared earlier. True, the resources available to observers were still far from adequate, men had not yet mastered the art of translating their facts into maps (it would be 1593 before John Norden engraved his map of Middlesex), but they were at any rate beginning to realize the significance of man’s physical environment, and were finding their observations sufficiently interesting to encourage them to write detailed accounts of what they had learnt. To no small degree these developments were unquestionably the result of the new humanist attitude towards the external world. When Polydore Vergil wrote his history he thought it necessary to begin with a description of the physical features and natural resources of the country, and his account set the fashion and provided the information for many later writers and travellers. His work first appeared in print in 1513. Vergil was not entirely original. He had earlier models on which to base his topographical chapter. Bede’s Ecclesiastical History (A.D. 731) was prefaced by a description of England 181

182

THE LAND

to which Vergil’s account bears a strong resemblance, and there was the fourteenth century example, Ranulf Higden’s Polychronicon, made available in print by Caxton (1480), and by Wynkyn de Worde (1498). In 1521 John Major’s history of Britain followed. Although the description of Scotland in that work was obviously written from a close personal knowledge, and contained many individual touches drawn from personal experience, when dealing with the southern part of the country there is a similarity in the general approach which would almost suggest the possibility of influence from Vergil’s example. Whether this be so or not, between them, Vergil and Major provided a very competent survey of the country, the nature and habits of its peoples, and the extent and quality of its resources. Very different from their approach is that of the antiquarian Leland. His love of the past and his fondness for manuscripts has already been mentioned. It must not be forgotten that he was an indefatigable and observant traveller. He claimed to have visited in his six years of journeying nearly every cape, bay, haven, creek, and river in the country, and to have omitted very few of the striking physical features of the country from his notebooks. These copious notes he intended to organize into what would have been, had he achieved his project, the first thorough topographical description of the country. Even in the untidy and incomplete shape in which it has come down to us, this account of his wanderings is a precious collection, and the first serious contribution to the historical geography of England and Wales. There were others besides Leland who were looking across the English landscape in the early sixteenth century. They were gathering different impressions, for unlike him, they were foreigners, and most of what they saw was strange and unfamiliar to them. Of these, some of the Italian visitors to the country contributed most to the resources of the modern historian. That it should be so was partly the result of a curious piece of bureaucratic efficiency. As early as the thirteenth century the Grand Council of State at Venice gave orders that all ambassadors, on completing their diplomatic missions, should present a written report of their activities to the city authorities. Out of this order arose a class of documents known as “Relazioni”, or as they have been known in England, “Italian Relations”. In the course of time it became the practice to add to these reports a description of the country to which the representative had been posted, with comments on its climate, products, manufactures, the general character of its people, their manners, customs, laws, with descriptions of the rulers and prominent personalities, together with any other information likely to be of interest to the home government at Venice. As these “Relations” were read before the Council, they were treated seriously and considerable trouble was taken over their composition. Since it was the rule (not, however, constantly observed in practice) that the ambassador’s tour of duty should be two years, it will be seen that a considerable number of these reports ought to have survived. In actual fact they are not as numerous as might have been expected: but the total is quite impressive and the “Relations” have long been recognized as valuable records of foreign impressions of England. They have, of course, their limitations. They do not profess to be more than impressions gleaned by foreign observers who were not always completely at home with the language nor with English ways of life. As time

INTRODUCTION

183

went on the reports tended to become stereotyped. Yet, notwithstanding these defects they remain an invaluable series of the impressions of England formed by foreigners. No other European state had so regular or formal a system of reporting, but naturally other states with representatives in England received from time to time examples of this kind of information. Some of them will be found incorporated in foreign state papers in the printed Calendars. From these sources it is possible to get a reasonably clear picture of some of the outstanding features of early Tudor England. Most observers seem to have found it an attractive country, with many novelties they did not know in their own homes. Like travellers in every age, of course, they were enthusiastic rather than skilled observers, and they tended to visit and describe the obvious, while they often missed the significance of some of the things they saw. There is, too, the probability that some of them used, without acknowledgment, the information available in a writer like Polydore Vergil. Few of them penetrated far into the English countryside. The places they knew best were towns like Dover, and Canterbury, through which they passed on their way to London, and most of their impressions were limited to the south-eastern corner of England which these places suggest. They had too little knowledge of the English countryside to appreciate how change was already cutting deep furrows into some of the features they were noticing as typical of the country. They can hardly be blamed: even the mature observer, Leland, is hardly more certain in his observations. His comments on the English landscape reveal a real interest, but they tend to be brief, and they are not always informative. He is, it is true, aware of the changing scenes through which his journeys take him, but his normal practice is to make the cryptic comment “champaign” (i.e. open country), or to note that it is plentiful of wood, pasture, meadow, corn. It needs the expert to read between the lines of his brief notes, and to deduce more, probably, than Leland could have realised about the steady transformation taking place in land utilization, the growth of animal husbandry, and the real nature and progress of enclosure. With his respect for antiquity, Leland’s eye was ever on the watch for castle and monastery, so often he comments on the melancholy fact that they are far gone in decay: but did he fully appreciate that the fair new mansions he found springing up in so many places were the symbols of a new age in which his ruinous sites would but serve as lingering memories of a world that would never return? These, certainly, were not the reflections likely to occur to the average traveller from the continent. For him the sights of London with its great houses, shops, and people provided the real attraction, and most accounts give full appreciation to these noteworthy signs of England’s wealth and historic tradition. It is for the enthusiasm with which the average foreigner greets these things that his accounts are worth at least a passing glance. They serve as a reminder that England in the early sixteenth century had resources of which her citizens had no cause for diffidence.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY The historical geographers have not yet given the problems of this period the consideration they deserve. There is no detailed survey of the historical geography of the country, as a whole, and there are few regional studies, or monographs on special problems. Professor E.G.R.Taylor provides a light introduction in an essay on “Leland’s England” in An Historical Geography of England before A.D. 1800, edited by R.C.Darby (Cambridge, 1936, c. iv) but it is hardly more than a suggestion of what is involved in such studies. Her larger work on Tudor Geography 1485–1583 (1930) is mainly concerned with English geographical thought in relation to overseas expansion, but it contains a survey of English geographical literature to 1550, which reveals how little contemporary interest had been aroused for the study of the geography of this country in the early sixteenth century. Some good work in this field has been done by the social and economic historians. Useful information on specific problems of historical geography can often be found in the Victoria County History, but no special chapters are devoted to the subject. A historian whose work is always distinguished by his strong sense of the bearing of geographical factors upon local history, and whose interpretation of documents is often illuminated by field studies is Dr W.G. Hoskins. His Essays in Leicestershire History (Univ. of Liverpool Press, 1950) contains an interesting study of two Leicestershire villages, “Galby and Frisby” (pp. 24–66) and another on “The Deserted Villages of Leicestershire” (pp. 67–107) which have a bearing on this period. His Local History in England (1959) is an admirable introduction to historical geography, and it contains helpful bibliographical information. His Midland History (1949) should also be consulted, and his Devonshire Studies (in association with H.P.R.Finberg, 1952), which contains an essay on “The Making of the Agrarian Landscape” (pp. 289–332). Regional studies concerned with this period which are worth notice are H.C.Darby, The Draining of the Fens (Cambridge, 1940), and Joan Thirsk, Fenland Farming in the Sixteenth Century (Univ. College Leicester, Dept. of English Local History, Occasional Papers, III, 1953, 3–45). Some of the problems of historical geography relating to Wales are discussed in E.G.Bowen, A Study in Geography and History (Univ. of Wales Press, 1941). For Scottish problems consult Sir A.Mitchell and C.G.Cash, A Contribution to the Bibliography of Scottish Topography (Edinburgh, 1917), and P.H.Brown, Early Travellers in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1891). The literature of foreign travellers in England is considerable. It is best approached through E.G.Cox, A Reference Guide to the Literature of Travel in, Great Britain (U.S.A., Seattle, 1949), an exhaustive bibliographical guide; W.D.Robson-Scott, German Travellers in England, 1400–1800 (Modern Language Studies Series, ed. J.Boyd and J.Seznec, Oxford: Blackwell, 1953), a careful monograph which summarizes the accounts of German visitors to England in the early sixteenth century; Clare Williams, Thomas Platter’s Travels in England (1937), which has a valuable introduction tracing the development of travel literature concerning England; E.G.Salter, Tudor England through Venetian Eyes (1930), a brief popular account of the Italian “Relations”, which should be supplemented by the introduction by Rawdon Brown to Calendar of State Papers: Venetian, vol. 1, xlii–lx. H.Cust, Gentlemen Errant (1909) deserves credit for being an early recognition of the importance of travellers’ descriptions of England, some of which are summarized, but its scholarship is not beyond reproach. The main collection of the Italian Relations is Eugenio Albèri, Relazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al senato durante il secolo decimasexto, Ser. 1, vols, II, III (Florence, 1838–53). The earliest of the English “Relations”, probably written by the secretary of Francesco Capello, the earliest known resident Venetian ambassador to England, has been edited (with translation) by C.A. Sneyd, Italian Relation of England (C.S. 1847). The most important 184

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

185

Italian Relations for the early Tudor period, with dates and particulars of publication are the following: 1506. By Vincenzo Quirini, Venetian ambassador to the archduke Philip and Queen Joanna of Castile, whom he accompanied to England where he wrote this account (Florence, 1839, 1, 8–22). 1515–19. By Sebastiano Giustiniani. His lively and extremely valuable reports are summarized in Cal St. Pap. Venetian: II, 557–563. A selection was published by Rawdon Brown as Few Years at the Court of Henry VIII (2 vols., 1854). 1529. By Marcantonio Verrier, summarized in Cal. St. Pap. Venetian, IV, 205. Sanuto curtly dismissed it as “very unskilful”. 1531. By Ludovico Falier. Printed incompletely in Alberi, III, 3–28, and summarized fully in Cal St. Pap. Venetian, IV, 292–301. 1535. By Carlo Capello. The brevity of his account is attributed to illness. Summarized in Cal. St. Pap. Venetian, v, 25–27. 1551. By Daniele Barbaro. Printed in Alberi, II, 227–271. Summarized in Cal. St. Pap. Venetian, v, 338–362. Part printed for George, earl of Macartney (1804, 36 pp.). 1554. By Giacomo Soranzo. Printed in Alberi, III, 31–87, and summarized in Cal. St. Pap. Venetian, v, 532–563. 1557. By Giovanni Michiel. Printed in Alberi, II, 291–380, and summarized in Cal. St. Pap. Venetian, VI, ii, 1043–1085. The earliest private description of this country by an Italian visitor is in the form of a letter from one Andreas Franciscius to a friend describing a journey from Trento to London in 1497. It was published, with a translation, by the owner of the manuscript, Baron C.V.Malfatti, together with another description of England, giving a picture of English life in the reign of Mary. (Privately printed, Barcelona, 1953.) There is an interesting impression of a visit to this country in 1531 sketched by Mario Savororagno, a Venetian scholar and military engineer, summarized in Cal. St. Pap. Venetian, IV, 285–289. A curious description of a journey to England about the end of Henry VIII’s reign is in Greek, edited with a translation by J.A.Cramer, The second book of the Travels ofNicander Nucius of Corcyra (C.S. 1841). The impressions of German visitors are not as numerous nor as important. The earliest description is that of Wilwolt von Schaumburg, a knight captain of mercenaries, who visited this country in 1489. His brief account was edited by A. von Keller, Die Geschichten und Taten Wilwolt von Schaumburg (Bibliothek des Literarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, 1, 1859). Herbertus Thomas Leodius (1495–1555), secretary and counsellor to Frederick II of the Palatinate visited England in 1533 and 1539. His description, Ein Fürstenspiegel: Denkwürdigkeiten des PfalzgrafenKurfürsten Friedrich II beim Rhein, was edited by E. von Bülow (Breslau, 1849). Joshua Maler (1529–99) came to study theology in England in 1551. For a description of this little-known visitor see Robson Scott, German Travellers in England, p. 23, and his fuller account, “Joshua Maler’s visit to England in 1551” in Mod. Lang. Rev. (XLV, July 1950, pp. 346–351). German and Swiss students and reformers in England during the reign of Edward VI frequently made some comments on the country in their letters home, but their impressions tended to be limited to the reactions of English people towards the religious changes of the time. They will be found in Original Letters, ed. Hastings Robinson (P.S. 1846–47). French descriptions of England are not numerous. A useful introduction is G.Ascoli, La Grande-Bretagne devant l’opinion française (Paris, 1927). The best examples are Estienne Perlin, Description des royaulmes d’Angleterre et d’Écosse (Paris, 1558. Another edn. by R.Gough, 1775) and G.Paradin, Angliae Descriptionis Compendium (1545). The Spanish government had no organized system of reports similar to those arranged by

186

THE LAND

the Venetian government: but there were regular dispatches from its diplomatic representatives in England during the period. These are available in Cal. St. Pap. Spain. Amongst this correspondence will be found some letters containing impressions of the country and its inhabitants not unlike the Venetian Relations. This is particularly true of the volumes covering the reign of Mary. English writers to whom we are indebted for accounts of the country based on their own personal observations are Poly dore Vergil, John Major, and John Leland. Their works have been described above (pp. 97–101).

11. An impression of England by an Italian visitor, 17 November 1497 This early description of a journey to England from Trento in Italy comes from a private letter written by one Andreas Franciscius to his friend Jacobus Sansonus. It is dated from London, 17 November 1497. The editor has not succeeded in identifying the writer of the letter, but suggests that he may have been connected with a legation from one of the Italian states. There were two in London in 1497, one headed by Andrea Trevisano, Venetian ambassador to Henry VII from 1497–1502, and one from Milan, which was at court during August and September 1497. The manuscript is in the possession of C.V.Malfatti, who has printed it (with an English translation) in Two Italian Accounts of Tudor England (privately printed, Barcelona, 1953). The other text he printed was a “Ritratti del regno de Inghilterra” from the manuscripts of the Escorial Library, a description in Italian of English institutions and customs round about 1550.

B

efore leaving you, my dearest friend, to set out for the western countries, I recollect that I frequently used to remark to you, when, as we often do, we were discussing all sorts of different subjects, that this journey of ours would be a wonderful experience, because we should have the pleasure of seeing many interesting things of various kinds such as a traveller delights in. But since arriving at our destination, which is a very long way away, indeed, I realize that this legation has proved far more enjoyable than I could ever imagine when living near you. For, even leaving out several towns in the German province and celebrated cities in the Low Countries, we were able to observe so many, varied and different sorts of people, so many ways of life of both men and women, that I doubt if I shall ever obtain a more comprehensive survey. And the result of seeing such a variety of things and disparity of customs is that even men of low intelligence soon become quick-witted and clever. In fact there can be scarcely anyone who, by picking out the best and worst of all he sees, will not quickly form sensible habits of life and improved virtues. And so, having come to the conclusion that I shall never again visit any more enjoyable countries, I have decided to compile a little book containing descriptions of every town or fort that I visited, together with the ways of life and government characteristic of them, in the hope that it may provide some pleasure to our friends and to readers in general. And, as I consider you to be far more deserving than anyone else, not only because of your excellent qualities, but also in view of our mutual friendship and the exceptional affection I have been entertaining for you for a number of years, I have decided to dedicate to you this book of mine, written in my leisure hours, being convinced that it should not be entrusted to better hands, since you are well known to be particularly interested in subjects such as these. I am therefore sending it to you, and I want you to read it over and over again; for, if you have not had the opportunity to see for yourself and study all that this report describes, you may get the same pleasure from reading it as if you had been on the spot with us. You must realize, by the way, that I have avoided the use of any art in the writing, or beauty of style. I merely jotted down daily, while on my journey, a few remarks, as I did not want you to miss anything. So, if you find anything rough or badly written such as offends your ears, please put it right or improve it. I shall not be at all annoyed. On the contrary I shall be glad to know that you are getting a fair idea of what we saw, even if it has not been neatly described…. [Then follows a description through the towns of Germany and Flanders until the party came to Calais]. 187

188

THE LAND

[11]

…which is called “Calisia” in our language, and is fifty-four miles from Bruges. Its circumference is scarcely more than a mile. It stands on the sea coast just opposite the island of Britain, and is carefully guarded by a very large garrison, as Henry, King of England, hardly possesses any other land on the continent. Every day in the afternoon, when the inhabitants take their rest, the gates are closed; and this also happens on holidays, only, instead of once, as on working days, it is done twice, the first time when services are being held in the churches, and the second time, as before, when the people are having lunch. At these times sentries and guards keep watch from the town’s walls on all sides, so much so that I never heard of a guard being kept anywhere else with such care. The town’s harbour is very capacious and convenient. Every twelve hours the ocean’s tides ebb and flow, and in this period the sea generally rises and falls twenty-five feet, so that at low water, ships lying in the harbour are forced to go aground. And, for this reason, they can only enter the harbour on the flood tide as it flows faster than in any other sea. From Britain, which rises out of the sea at a distance of thirty miles, they import a vast quantity of wool, which is later conveyed to Italy, or into France or anywhere else by land. In fact, if merchants want to buy English wool, and do not want to go to the island themselves, they have to buy it at Calais. We spent fifteen days in this town, because the wind was blowing from the West, which was quite the opposite direction to the one we wanted, and was very strong. At last, having chartered a big ship, and put on board our horses and luggage, we set sail on the 23rd. of August with a light wind, and reached Britain in eight hours, though the wind had dropped at noon for nearly three. We landed at a port called Dover, in Latin “Doveria”, mounted our horses and rode on to Canterbury, which is called “Cantuaria” town. There seems to me nothing to be said about this town, unless anyone would like to know that it has a big cathedral dedicated to St. Thomas, which is very expensively and elaborately constructed, and contains a stone tomb housing the body of the said Saint, which is decorated with many varied precious stones, brocades and gold in great quantity. There are also several objects of worship made of pure gold inlaid with many jewels, and a large number of sacred vestments also, made of silk interwoven with gold and brocade. Everyone considers these very wonderful, owing to the lavish use of gold and precious stones, which all Englishmen boast of continually. The Bishop of this town is the Cardinal, with the title of St. Anastasius, and ranks first of all at the English Court in dignity and authority. He has a very large income from the bishopric of Canterbury. After leaving Canterbury and visiting some other places of small importance, we entered London at last with a great retinue of all kinds of people, so that two hundred horses could be counted. Now I must write somewhat more fully about the town of London, since it is the capital of the whole kingdom. First of all its position is so pleasant and delightful that it would be hard to find one more convenient and attractive. It stands on the banks of the river Thames, the biggest river in the whole island, which divides the town into two parts and forms the border of Kent, the country and district which extends from Dover

[11]

IMPRESSION OF ENGLAND BY AN ITALIAN VISITOR

189

to London. The town itself stretches from east to west, and is three miles in circumference. However, its suburbs are so large that they greatly increase its circuit. It is defended by handsome walls, especially on the northern side, where they have recently been rebuilt. Within these stands a very strongly defended castle on the banks of the river, where the King of England and his Queen sometimes have their residence. There are also other great buildings, and especially a beautiful and convenient bridge over the Thames, of many marble arches, which has on it many shops built of stone and mansions and even a church of considerable size. Nowhere have I seen a finer or more richly built bridge. Throughout the town are to be seen many workshops of craftsmen in all sorts of mechanical arts, to such an extent that there is hardly a street which is not graced by some shop or the like, which can also be observed by everyone at Milan. This makes the town exceedingly prosperous and well-stocked, as well as having the immediate effect of adding to its splendour. The working in wrought silver, tin or white lead is very expert here, and perhaps the finest I have ever seen. There are also very many mansions, which do not, however, seem very large from the outside, but inside they contain a great number of rooms and garrets and are quite considerable. Six inch oak beams are inserted in the walls the same distance apart as their own breadth, and walls built in this way turn out to be made of the same material as the houses I described at Maastrich. All the streets are so badly paved that they get wet at the slightest quantity of water, and this happens very frequently owing to the large numbers of cattle carrying water, as well as on account of the rain, of which there is a great deal in this island. Then a vast amount of evil-smelling mud is formed, which does not disappear quickly but lasts a long time, in fact nearly the whole year round. The citizens, therefore, in order to remove this mud and filth from their boots, are accustomed to spread fresh rushes on the floors of all houses, on which they clean the soles of their shoes when they come in. This system is widely practised not only by Londoners but also by all the rest of the island’s inhabitants, who, it seems, suffer from similar trouble from mud. There are a great many churches, but the most important of them is St Paul’s Cathedral, which is very magnificent and was built at great expense. Its roof is all made of lead, a practice that can be seen in many other buildings also. Merchants from not only Venice but also Florence and Lucca, and many from Genoa and Pisa, from Spain, Germany, the Rhine valley and other countries meet here to handle business with the utmost keenness, having come from the different parts of the world. But the chief exports from this island are wool and fabrics, considered the best in the world, and white lead, for the island is more freely endowed with these commodities than any other country. By sea and the Thames goods of all kinds can be brought into London and taken from the city to other destinations; and nature, the maker of all things, has facilitated this with the most convenient arrangement. The ocean is sixty miles away from the city, but notwithstanding this, its high tide is so strong and flows up the Thames with such power that it not only stops the river’s current, but even pushes it back and forces it to return upstream, which is a wonderful sight and quite contrary to

190

THE LAND

[11]

the nature of rivers. This we can see happening every day during the six hours of high tide; then for an equal period the ocean’s level descends, and so allows the river to flow freely again. In spite of this the sea’s saltness does not reach the town, but only a spot twenty miles short, otherwise the town’s position would not be so favourable and worthy of admiration. As regards the town’s appearance, then, its position and the benefits to be derived from it especially with regard to trade, I shall leave it at what I have written so far. Now I shall say something about the inhabitants, their culture and methods of government, thinking that readers will find no less entertainment in these. Londoners have such fierce tempers and wicked dispositions that they not only despise the way in which Italians live, but actually pursue them with uncontrolled hatred, and whereas at Bruges foreigners are hospitably received and complimented and treated with consideration by everybody, here the Englishmen use them with the utmost contempt and arrogance, and make them the object of insults. At Bruges we could do as we liked by day as well as by night. But here they look askance at us by day, and at night they sometimes drive us off with kicks and blows of the truncheon. Some of the men are exceptionally tall. All exercise themselves in a marvellous way with great bows made of yew wood, with which they practise continually outside the walls. They also fight with them on foot in such a way as to show that they have been enthusiastically trained in this from their earliest youth. They dress in the French fashion, except that their suits are more full, and, accordingly, more out of shape. They show no trace of schooling (I am talking of the common people): but they delight in banquets and variety of meat and food, and they excel everyone in preparing them with an excessive abundance. They eat very frequently, at times more than is suitable, and are particularly fond of young swans, rabbits, deer, and sea birds. They often eat mutton and beef, which is generally considered to be better here than anywhere else in the world. This is due to the excellence of their pastures. They have all kinds offish in plenty and great quantities of oysters which come from the sea-shore. The majority, not to say everyone, drink that beverage I have spoken of before, and prepare it in various ways. For wine is very expensive, as the vine does not grow in the island; nor does the olive, and the products of both are imported from France and Spain. In certain places, mainly inland, silver and iron are found. But although there is abundance of these, gold is very scarce, and copper scarcer still: they import it from Germany. The first governor of this town is an Englishman and is called Mayor, and has great power and authority; this dignity cannot be bestowed on a man unless he has served the apprenticeship in the trade guilds, a rule said to be established by law among them. The town is also divided into twenty-four districts, at the head of each of which is set a magistrate whose term of office is unlimited: these are called, in their language, Aldermen, and the Mayor is chosen from their number. When a new Mayor is elected for the yearly term of office, on the same day that he swears to do his duty with integrity, he entertains not only all the Aldermen but also all the tradesmen of London to a solemn and magnificent banquet, which nearly two thousand people attend: as if nothing else

[11]

IMPRESSION OF ENGLAND BY AN ITALIAN VISITOR

191

could show their rejoicing than one of these banquets, which are so popular with them. But, since the Mayor cannot attend satisfactorily to everything himself, they appoint two magistrates of a different class, whose term of office is also one year; they are called Sheriffs and try cases of lesser importance than the Mayor. But the Mayor and Aldermen come first of all in the city and surpass everyone in dignity. There are also other Judges chosen by the King, who have very great authority. They have their residence in the Monastery of the West, which is a pleasant spot on the bank of the Thames, and is called Westminster, because it lies to the west. It is a mile from the town and there is also the palace of the King. In this place there is the higher right of asylum, and nobody can be carried off from it, even, if he be guilty of “lèse majesté”. Similar asylums and shelters exist in the city of London as well as at other places in the island, and not even the King is allowed to infringe their privileges and dignity. The last magistrates I mentioned are far superior in dignity and authority to all others in the town, and, indeed, all citizens of England apply to them. They have several harsh laws and customs, one of which, still in force today, we would consider the most severe of all. This lays down that, at death, a man must leave all his property to his wife, completely excluding the children, for whom they show no affection, lavishing all their love on their wives. And consequently since the wives have the same dislikes for their children, they choose in the end a husband from among the servants and ignore the children. This custom, apart from being contrary to nature, may also be objected to as impious and profane. There are also other habits in this style, very different from our own customs; but from what I have said it can easily be guessed what they are. Now it seems necessary to add some information on the island and its coasts. The whole island is divided into two parts, one of which is called England, and,the other, at the North, Scotland. At the head of Scotland is a King who rules very fierce and courageous tribes, who are always the enemies of the English, and ver/y frequently at war with them. At the head of England is a King, Henry by name (VII), of whom I have already spoken. I refer, therefore, to England, which is undoubtedly, in spite of this division, together with Scotland called Britain. It seems that it does not breed wolves, wild boars nor any other wild animal. It has many oak forests. There are many towns in the island, one of which we visited called Oxford, where people devote themselves especially to learning, and where a great number of books can be seen. There are also numerous villages. The farmers are so lazy and slow that they do not bother to sow more wheat than is necessary for their own consumption; they prefer to let the ground be transformed into pasture for the use of the sheep that they breed in large numbers. They harvest their corn in the autumn, because the heat, if it comes, is specially great at that time, and because it does not get enough heat from the sun. In many places they preserve in the ear that part which is not fully dried; thus it is known to keep better. Throughout the island there are plenty of hills, many of them being of chalk, so that many people have even thought that the whole island might be made of chalk. Fruits are scarce,

192

THE LAND

[12]

because they lack the great heat of summer. The shape of the island, as Caesar notes, is that of a triangle, and it measures all round, to reproduce his own words, “two million paces”. Nothing else remains to be said on this subject. Anyone who goes further will perhaps see and describe more things. As regards Ireland, which is not very far from Britain on the western side, I could say a few things: such as that their life is crude and coarse and that men’s clothing is made from rough and greasy cloths, and other suchlike things. But I fear that I should appear to fail in the duty of a good friend if I put in writing what I had not seen with my own eyes. Therefore I shall leave it to those who have the chance to travel further. Let them write of these things as they please, for my part I have decided to make an end here.

12. A description of England in an early Italian “Relation”, c. 1500 (Charlotte A.Sneyd (ed.), A Relation of the Island of England (Camden Soc., 1847).) This is the earliest Italian “Relation” at present in print. It was probably the report on the country sent to the Venetian Senate by a special mission headed by Andrea Trevisano, sent to complete the treaty of Ayton (September 1497), by which Henry VII agreed to join a league of Italian states against France.

M

agnificent and most illustrious Lord! The Kingdom of England is situated in the island named Britain, which, as your Magnificence has seen, is in the Ocean, between the north and the west. Her form is triangular, like that of Sicily, and she lies, though at a considerable distance, over against Germany, France, and Spain; Germany being opposite to her to the north, France to the east and south, and Spain to the south, a little to the west; but the boundaries to the actual north, i.e. without anything intervening, are the Orcades islands, which, it is said, are one hundred and eighty in number; and Ireland would be the real boundary to the west, were it not for the Menanian isles, two of which are named Man and Anglesey; but these are so small that Ireland may fairly be called the western boundary of Britain. I cannot say what the circumference of this island is, because the Islanders of our day do not care to understand such matters, and I find that writers differ on the subject. Julius Caesar, counting the three sides of the island, sets it at 2,000 miles; Bede, an English priest who had read the Commentaries, at 3,600 miles. There is also another difference in their statements; Caesar affirming that the shortest way to cross from the continent to Britain is 30 miles, and Bede calling it 50; and, as all the navigators of our time say that from Calais, a town in Picardy, which according to my opinion is the Portus Iceius of Caesar, to Dobla (Dover), a place in Britain, where the passage is the shortest, it is 30 miles, I believe both measurements to be correct, but that the computation of Caesar, which agrees with that of the present day, was, together with other things, altered when Bede wrote, which was about the year of grace 731, and this may also be the case with the circumference of the Island. The climate, as your Magnificence knows, is very healthy, and free from many complaints with which Isola1 is afflicted; and, though so far to the north-west, the

[12]

DESCRIPTION OF ENGLAND IN ITALIAN “RELATION”

193

cold in winter is much less severe than in Italy, and the heat proportionately less in summer. This is owing to the rain, which falls almost every day during the months of June, July, and August; they have never any spring here, according to the report of the Islanders. In addition to this equality of temperature, they have, as I have read, and which has been confirmed to me by the inhabitants themselves, a great abundance of large rivers, springs, and streams, in which are found every species of Italian fish, excepting, however, carp, tench, and perch; but on the other hand they have a quantity of salmon, a most delicate fish, which they seem to hold in great estimation, because these people greatly prefer sea-fish; of which, indeed, they have many more than we have. Nor are they without springs of hot water, wholesome and salutary for various disorders. They abound also in every description of tree, though, according to Caesar, they have not the beech, or the fir. They have laurels, and myrtles, and all our fruit trees, with the exception, however, of the olive, and the class of the orange. They are not without vines; and I have eaten ripe grapes from one, and wine might be made in the southern parts, but it would probably be harsh. This natural deficiency of the country is supplied by a great quantity of excellent wines from Candia, Germany, France, and Spain; besides which the common people make two beverages from wheat, barley, and oats, one of which is called beer, and the other ale; and these liquors are much liked by them, nor are they disliked by foreigners, after they have drunk them four or six times; they are most agreeable to the palate, when a person is by some chance rather heated. Agriculture is not practised in this island beyond what is required for the consumption of the people; because were they to plough and sow all the land that was capable of cultivation, they might sell a quantity of grain to the surrounding countries. This negligence is, however, atoned for, by an immense profusion of every comestible animal, such as stags, goats, fallow-deer, hares, rabbits, pigs, and an infinity of oxen, which have much larger horns than ours, which proves the mildness of the climate, as horns cannot bear excessive cold; whence, according to Strabo, in some northern countries, the cattle are without horns. But above all, they have an enormous number of sheep, which yield them quantities of wool of the best quality. They have no wolves, because they would immediately be hunted down by the people; it is said, however, that they still exist in Scotland, as well as in the forest of Caledonia at the extremity of the island, towards the north. Common fowls, pea-fowls, partridges, pheasants, and other small birds abound here above measure, and it is truly a beautiful thing to behold one or two thousand tame swans upon the river Thames, as I, and also your Magnificence have seen, which are eaten by the English like ducks and geese. Nor do they dislike what we so much abominate, i.e. crows, rooks, and jackdaws; and the raven may croak at his pleasure, for no one cares for the omen; there is even a penalty attached to destroying them, as they say that they keep the streets of the towns free from all filth. It is the same case with the kites, which are so tame, that they often take out of the hands of little children, the bread smeared with butter, in the Flemish fashion, given to 1

?Italia.

194

THE LAND

[12]

them by their mothers. And although this is general throughout the island, it is more observed in the kingdom of England, than elsewhere. This island also produces a quantity of iron and silver, and an infinity of lead and tin; of the latter, which is of the purest quality, they make vessels as brilliant as if they were of fine silver; and these are held in great estimation. A certainshell fish is taken in the sea, called by the inhabitants Mussels, in which many, though small, pearls are found; and I myself, dining one morning with the Milanese Ambassador, discovered several; but, as I have said, they were very minute, and not round like oriental pearls. I believe that what has been written concerning the extreme shortness of the nights in summer is true; for many persons of veracity tell me, and assure me that it is a positive fact, that at the farthest extremity of Scotland, at the time of the summer solstice, one may see to read and write at any hour of the night, and that the days in winter are short in the same proportion. But this cannot be the case all over the island, because during the whole winter that I found myself there with your Magnificence, I observed the length of the daylight with great attention, and there were never less than seven hours together, in which one could see to read and write. How many hours the sun might be above the horizon, however, I cannot say, he is so rarely to be seen in the winter, and never but at mid-day: but our Italian merchants say, that in London also, the nights in summer are much shorter than the days in winter; and as London, where your Lordship resided, is a place in the south of the island, and more than 600 miles from the highest point of Scotland, the nights there may possibly be much shorter; but English authors never touch upon these subjects. The form of the island is triangular, as we have said before, and it is divided into three parts, thus: Scotland, Wales, and England. Scotland lies to the north, and is separated from England by two arms of the sea, which penetrate very far inland, one to the east, and the other to the west. These do not, however, meet, for there is about 60 miles of mountainous country between them; and there are some who say that two rivers rise in these mountains, one of which falls into the eastern, and the other into the western sea. And as the tide rises and ebbs every six hours with great vehemence, and affects these rivers throughout their course, it is the common opinion that they themselves are the two arms of the sea. This is the modern opinion, for Bede does not positively say so. Wales is in the western part of the island, and wherever it is not surrounded by the sea, it is bounded by England; from which it is separated to the north, by a river called by these inhabitants Da (the Dee) and to the south by another named Offa.1 All the rest, which comprises the most beautiful, the best, and the most fertile part of the whole island, is called England…. The English are, for the most part, both men and women of all ages, handsome and well proportioned; though not quite so much so, in my opinion, as it had been asserted to me, before your Magnificence went to that kingdom; and I have understood from persons acquainted with these countries, that the Scotch are much handsomer; and that the English are great lovers of themselves, and of everything belonging to them; 1

Offa’sDyke.

[12]

DESCRIPTION OF ENGLAND IN ITALIAN “RELATION”

195

they think that there are no other men than themselves, and no other world but England; and whenever they see a handsome foreigner they say that “he looks like an Englishman”, and that “it is a great pity that he should not be an Englishman”; and when they partake of any delicacy with a foreigner, they ask him, “whether such a thing is made in their country?” They take great pleasure in having a quantity of excellent victuals, and also in remaining a long time at table, being very sparing of wine when they drink it at their own expense. And this, it is said, they do in order to induce their other English guests to drink wine in moderation also; not considering it any inconvenience for three or four persons to drink out of the same cup. Few people keep wine in their own houses, but buy it, for the most part, at a tavern; and when they mean to drink a great deal, they go to the tavern, and this is done not only by the men, but by ladies of distinction. The deficiency of wine, however, is amply supplied by the abundance of ale and beer, to the use of which these people are become so habituated, that, at an entertainment where there is plenty of wine, they will drink them in preference to it, and in great quantities. Like discreet people, however, they do not offer them to Italians, unless they should ask for them; and they think that no greater honour can be conferred, or received, than to invite others to eat with them, or to be invited themselves; and they would sooner give five or six ducats to provide an entertainment for a person, than a groat to assist him in any distress. They all from time immemorial wear very fine clothes, and are extremely polite in their language; which, although it is, as well as the Flemish, derived from the German, has lost its natural harshness, and is pleasing enough as they pronounce it. In addition to their civil speeches, they have the incredible courtesy of remaining with their heads uncovered, with an admirable grace, whilst they talk to each other. They are gifted with good understandings, and are very quick at every thing they apply their minds to; few, however, excepting the clergy, are addicted to the study of letters; and this is the reason why any one who has learning, though he may be a layman, is called by them a Clerk. And yet they have great advantages for study, there being two general Universities in the kingdom, Oxford, and Cambridge; in which are many colleges founded for the maintenance of poor scholars. And your Magnificence lodged at one named Magdalen, in the University of Oxford, of which the founders having been prelates, so the scholars are also ecclesiastics. The common people apply themselves to trade, or to fishing, or else they practise navigation; and they are so diligent in mercantile pursuits, that they do not fear to make contracts on usury. Although they all attend Mass every day, and say many Paternosters in public, (the women carrying long rosaries in their hands, and any who can read taking the office of our Lady with them, and with some companion reciting it in the church verse by verse, in a low voice, after the manner of churchmen,) they always hear mass on Sunday in their parish church, and give liberal alms, because they may not offer less than a piece of money, of which fourteen are equal to a golden ducat; nor do they omit any form incumbent upon good Christians; there are, however, many who have various opinions concerning religion.

196

THE LAND

[12]

They have a very high reputation in arms; and from the great fear the French entertain of them, one must believe it to be justly acquired. But I have it on the best information, that when the war is raging most furiously, they will seek for good eating, and all their other comforts without thinking of what harm might befall them. They have an antipathy to foreigners, and imagine that they never come into their island, but to make themselves masters of it, and to usurp their goods; neither have they any sincere and solid friendships amongst themselves, insomuch that they do not trust each other to discuss either public or private affairs together, in the confidential manner we do in Italy. And although their dispositions are somewhat licentious, I never have noticed any one, either at court or amongst the lower orders, to be in love; whence one must necessarily conclude, either that the English are the most discreet lovers in the world, or that they are incapable of love. I say this of the men, for I understand it is quite the contrary with the women, who are very violent in their passions. Howbeit, the English keep a very jealous guard over their wives, though any thing may be compensated in the end, by the power of money. The want of affection in the English is strongly manifested towards their children; for after having kept them at home till they arrive at the age of 7 or 9 years at the utmost, they put them out, both males and females, to hard service in the houses of other people, binding them generally for another 7 or 9 years. And these are called apprentices, and during that time they perform all the most menial of offices; and few are born who are exempted from this fate, for every one, however rich he may be, sends away his children into the houses of others, whilst he, in return, receives those of strangers into his own. And on inquiring their reason for this severity, they answered that they did it in order that their children might learn better manners. But I, for my part, believe that they do it because they like to enjoy all their comforts themselves, and that they are better served by strangers than they would be by their own children. Besides which the English being great epicures, and very avaricious by nature, indulge in the most delicate fare themselves and give their household the coarsest bread, and beer, and cold meat baked on Sunday for the week, which, however, they allow them in great abundance. That if they had their own children at home, they would be obliged to give them the same food they made use of for themselves. That if the English sent their children away from home to learn virtue and good manners, and took them back again when their apprenticeship was over, they might, perhaps be excused; but they never return, for the girls are settled by their patrons, and the boys make the best marriages they can, and, assisted by their patrons, not by their fathers, they also open a house and strive diligently by this means to make some fortune for themselves; whence it proceeds that, having no hope of their paternal inheritance, they all become so greedy of gain that they feel no shame in asking, almost “for the love of God”, for the smallest sums of money; and to this it may be attributed, that there is no injury that can be committed against the lower orders of the English, that may not be atoned for by money. Nevertheless, the apprentices for the most part make good fortunes, some by one means and some by another; but, above all, those who happen to be in the good graces

[12]

DESCRIPTION OF ENGLAND IN ITALIAN “RELATION”

197

of the mistress of the house in which they are domiciliated at the time of the death of the master; because, by the ancient custom of the country, every inheritance is divided into three parts; for the Church and funeral expenses, for the wife, and for the children. But the lady takes care to secure a good portion for herself in secret, first, and then the residue being divided into three parts as aforesaid, she being in possession of what she has robbed, of her own third, and that of her children besides, (and if she have no children, the two-thirds belong to her by right) usually bestows herself in marriage upon the one of those apprentices living in the house who is most pleasing to her, and who was probably not displeasing to her in the lifetime of her husband; and in his power she places all her own fortune, as well as that of her children, who are sent away as apprentices into other houses. Then, when the boys are of age, their fortunes are restored to them by their mother’s husband, who has enjoyed them for many years, but never to the full amount; and these boys in process of time enact to others the same part that their step-fathers performed to them. No Englishman can complain of this corrupt practice, it being universal throughout the kingdom; nor does any one, arrived at years of discretion, find fault with his mother for marrying again during his childhood, because, from very ancient custom, this license has become so sanctioned, that it is not considered any discredit to a woman to marry again every time that she is left a widow, however unsuitable the match may be as to age, rank, and fortune. I saw, one day, that I was with your Magnificence at court, a very handsome young man of about 18 years of age, the brother of the Duke of Suffolk, who, as I understood, had been left very poor, the whole of the paternal inheritance amongst the nobility descending to the eldest son; this youth, I say, was boarded out to a widow of fifty, with a fortune as I was informed, of 50,000 crowns; and this old woman knew how to play her cards so well, that he was content to become her husband, and patiently to waste the flower of his beauty with her, hoping soon to enjoy her great wealth with some handsome young lady: because when there are no children, the husband succeeds to the whole of the wife’s property, and the wife in like manner to her husband’s, as I said before; the part, however, belonging to the Church always remaining untouched. Nor must your Magnificence imagine that these successions may be of small value, for the riches of England are greater than those of any other country in Europe, as I have been told by the oldest and most experienced merchants, and also as I myself can vouch, from what I have seen. This is owing, in the first place, to the great fertility of the soil, which is such, that, with the exception of wine, they import nothing from abroad for their subsistence. Next, the sale of their valuable tin brings in a large sum of money to the kingdom; but still more do they derive from their extraordinary abundance of wool, which bears such a high price and reputation throughout Europe. And in order to keep the gold and silver in the country, when once it has entered, they have made a law, which has been in operation for a long time now, that no money, nor gold, nor silver plate should be carried out of England under a very heavy penalty. And everyone who makes a tour in the island will soon become aware of this great wealth, as will have been the case with your Magnificence, for there is no small innkeeper, however poor and humble he may be, who does not serve his table with silver dishes and drinking

198

THE LAND

[12]

cups; and no one, who has not in his house silver plate to the amount of at least £100 sterling, which is equivalent to 500 golden crowns with us, is considered by the English to be a person of any consequence. But above all are their riches displayed in the church treasures; for there is not a parish church in the kingdom so mean as not to possess crucifixes, candlesticks, censers, patens, and cups of silver; nor is there a convent of mendicant friars so poor, as not to have all these same articles in silver, besides many other ornaments worthy of a cathedral church in the same metal. Your Magnificence may therefore imagine what the decorations of those enormously rich Benedictine, Carthusian, and Cistercian monasteries must be. These are, indeed, more like baronial palaces than religious houses, as your Magnificence may have perceived at that of St. Thomas of Canterbury. And I have been informed that amongst other things, many of these monasteries possess unicorn’s horns, of an extraordinary size. I have also been told that they have some splendid tombs of English saints, such as St. Oswald, St. Edmund, and St. Edward, all kings and martyrs. I saw, one day, being with your Magnificence at Westminster, a place out of London, the tomb of the Saint King Edward the Confessor, in the church of the aforesaid place Westminster; and, indeed, neither St. Martin of Tours, a church in France, which I have heard is one of the richest in existence, nor anything else that I have ever seen, can be put into any sort of comparison with it. But the magnificence of the tomb of St. Thomas the Martyr, Archbishop of Canterbury, is that which surpasses all belief. This, notwithstanding its great size is entirely covered over with plates of pure gold; but the gold is scarcely visible from the variety of precious stones with which it is studded, such as sapphires, diamonds, rubies, balas-rubies and emeralds; and on every side that the eye turns, something more beautiful than the other appears. And these beauties of nature are enhanced by human skill, for the gold is carved and engraved in beautiful designs, both large and small, and agates, jaspers, and cornelians set in relievo, some of the cameos being of such a size, that I do not dare to mention it: but every thing is left far behind by a ruby, not larger than a man’s thumb-nail, which is set to the right of the altar. The church is rather dark, and particularly so where the shrine is placed, and when we went to see it the sun was nearly gone down, and the weather was cloudy; yet I saw that ruby as well as if I had it in my hand; they say that it was the gift of a king of France. The population of this island does not appear to me to bear any proportion to her fertility and riches. I rode, as your Magnificence knows, from Dover to London, and from London to Oxford, a distance of more than 200 Italian miles, and it seemed to me to be very thinly inhabited; but, lest the way I went with your Magnificence should have differed from the other parts of the country, I enquired of those who rode to the north of the kingdom, i.e. to the borders of Scotland, and was told that it was the same case there; nor was there any variety in the report of those who went to Bristol and into Cornwall, where there is the promontary that looks to the south-west (The Land’s End). The same thing is asserted bythose who wrote the history of King Richard the 2nd; for they state, that England being threatened with an invasion by the French, about the year of grace 1390, the number of men capable of bearing arms was computed,

[12]

DESCRIPTION OF ENGLAND IN ITALIAN “RELATION”

199

and found to be 200,000 archers. And the bow being as decidedly the weapon of the English, as the pike is that of the Germans, I apprehend that there were not many more soldiers in England, at that time. The English, however, could muster a very large army, were they as devoted to their crown as the Scotch are; but from what I understand few of them are very loyal. They generally hate their present, and extol their dead sovereigns. Nevertheless, they reject the Cesarean code of laws, and adopt those given to them by their own kings. Nor are proceedings carried on in this country by the deposition of any one, or by writing, but by the opinion of men, both in criminal and civil causes. And if any one should claim a certain sum from another, and the debtor denies it, the civil judge would order that each of them should make choice of six arbitrators, and when the twelve are elected, the case they are to judge is propounded to them; after they have heard both parties, they are shut up in a room, without food or fire, or means of sitting down, and there they remain till the greater number have agreed upon their common verdict. But before it is pronounced each of them endeavours to defend the cause of him who named him, whether just or unjust; and those who cannot bear the discomfort, yield to the more determined, for the sake of getting out sooner. And therefore the Italian merchants are gainers by this bad custom every time that they have a dispute with the English; for although the native arbitrators chosen by the English are very anxious to support the cause of their principal, before they are shut up, yet they cannot stand out as the Italians can, who are accustomed to fasting and privations, so that the final judgment is generally given in favour of the latter. This practice extends also to criminal causes, and any one may be accused of great and glaring crimes, and be put to the torture, though he may openly deny the truth of the accusation. But when the chief magistrate of the place has received notice of any such malefactor, he causes him immediately to be thrown into prison, and then twelve men of that place are elected, who must decide according to their consciences, whether the prisoner has or has not committed the crime of which he is accused, and if the greater number vote that he has, he is considered to be guilty. He is not, however, punished at that time; but it is necessary that twelve other men should be chosen, who must hear the cause over again; and if their verdict should agree with the former one, the days of the delinquent are brought to a close. It is the easiest thing in the world to get a person thrown into prison in this country; for every officer of justice, both civil and criminal, has the power of arresting any one, at the request of a private individual, and the accused person cannot be liberated without giving security, unless he be acquitted by the judgment of the twelve men above named; nor is there any punishment awarded for making a slanderous accusation. Such severe measures against criminals ought to keep the English in check, but, for all this, there is no country in the world where there are so many thieves and robbers as in England; insomuch, that few venture to go alone in the country, excepting in the middle of the day, and fewer still in the towns at night, and least of all in London. Such is the bad effect that has arisen from an excellent cause. There are three estates in England, the popular, the military, and the ecclesiastical. The people are held in little more esteem than if they were slaves…. Although the Church of England is so rich, there are not more than two archbishops,

200

THE LAND

[12]

Canterbury and York. In the province of the former, there are thirteen English and four Welsh bishops; in that of the latter, only two. But the number of religious houses in England, both for men and women is prodigious, and the greater proportion are of royal foundation. Nor can I omit to mention here, that in the diocese of Bath, there are two convents, not above twelve miles distant from each other; the one for monks, named Glasberi [Glastonbury], and the other for nuns, named Santsberi [Shaftesbury], both of the order of St. Benedict. The abbot of the former has an annual income of more than 25,000 crowns, and the abbess of the other above 10,000; and the English say amongst themselves, that “the finest match that could be made in all England, would be between that abbot and abbess!” However, there are few of the monasteries of England that send to Rome for their bulls; nor are the deaneries, or canonries, or even the parochial livings, of which it is said that there are 52,000, in the gift of the crown. I, for my part, believe that the English priests would desire nothing better than what they have got, were it not that they are obliged to assist the crown in time of war, and also to keep many poor gentlemen, who are left beggars in consequence of the inheritance devolving to the eldest son. And if the bishops were to decline this expense, they would be considered infamous, nor do I believe that they would be safe in their own churches; which churches, although so rich as I have already mentioned, are not in fine cities, for there are scarcely any towns of importance in the kingdom, excepting these two: Bristol, a seaport to the west, and Boraco (Eboracum) otherwise York, which is on the borders of Scotland; besides London to the south. Eboracum was in ancient times the principal city of the island, and was adorned with many buildings by the Romans, in their elegant style; but, having been sacked and burnt in the reign of King William the Conqueror, she never afterwards could recover her former splendour; so that, at present, all the beauty of this island is confined to London; which, although sixty miles distant from the sea, possesses all the advantages to be desired in a maritime town; being situated on the river Thames, which is very much affected by the tide, for many miles (I do not know the exact number) above it; and London is so much benefited by this ebb and flow of the river, that vessels of 100 tons burden can come up to the city, and ships of any size to within five miles of it; yet the water in this river is fresh for twenty miles below London. Although this city has no buildings in the Italian style, but of timber or brick like the French, the Londoners live comfortably, and, it appears to me, that there are not fewer inhabitants than at Florence or Rome. It abounds with every article of luxury, as well as with the necessaries of life; but the most remarkable thing in London is the wonderful quantity of wrought silver. I do not allude to that in private houses, though the landlord of the house in which the Milanese ambassador lived, had plate to the amount of 100 crowns, but to the shops of London. In one single street, named the Strand,1 leading to St. Paul’s, there are fiftytwo goldsmith’s shops, so rich and full of silver vessels, great and small, that in all the shops in Milan, Rome, Venice, and Florence put together, I do not think there would be found so many of the magnifi cence that are to be seen in London. And these vessels are 1 E.Jeffries Davis, History, vol. XVII (1932), p. 47 corrects this as a mistranslation of la Strada, suggesting that the street leading to St. Paul’s must be Cheapside.

[12]

DESCRIPTION OF ENGLAND IN ITALIAN “RELATION”

201

all either salt cellars, or drinking cups, or basins to hold water for the hands; for they eat off that fine tin, which is little inferior to silver (pewter). These great riches of London are not occasioned by its inhabitants being noblemen or gentlemen; being all, on the contrary, persons of low degree, and artificers who have congregated there from all parts of the island, and from Flanders, and from every other place. No one can be mayor or alderman of London, who has not been an apprentice in his youth; that is, who has not passed the seven or nine years in that hard service described before. Still, the citizens of London are thought quite as highly of there, as the Venetian gentlemen are at Venice, as I think your Magnificence may have perceived. The city is divided into several wards, each of which has six officers; but superior to these are twenty-four gentlemen whom they call aldermen, which in their language signifies old or experienced men; and, of these aldermen, one is elected every year by themselves, to be a magistrate named the mayor, who is in no less estimation with the Londoners, than the person of our most serene lord [the Doge] is with us, or than the Gonfaloniero at Florence; and the day on which he enters upon his office, he is obliged to give a sumptuous entertainment to all the principal people in London, as well as to foreigners of distinction; and I, being one of the guests, together with your Magnificence, carefully observed every room and hall, and the court, where the company were all seated, and was of opinion that there must have been 1,000 or more persons at table. This dinner lasted four hours or more; but it is true the dishes were not served with that assiduity and frequency that is the custom with us in Italy; there being long pauses between each course, the company conversing the while. A no less magnificent banquet is given when two other officers named sheriffs are appointed; to which I went; being anxious to see everything well; your Magnificence also was invited, but did not go in consequence of the invitation having come from the Lord Privy Seal. At this feast, I observed the infinite profusion of victuals, and of plate, which was for the most part gilt; and amongst other things, I noticed how punctiliously they sat in their order, and the extraordinary silence of every one, insomuch that I could have imagined it one of those public repasts of the Lacedemonians that I have read of. In imitation of London, which is truly the metropolis of England, every town, however small, elects its mayor, and the least towns their bailiff, and the shires their sheriff. I believe that the same is done in the island of Jersey, one of the Menanian isles, lying near the kingdom of England to the south; and in other small islands appertaining to Normandy, but nevertheless under the dominion of England.

202

THE LAND

[13]

13. A Scottish impression of England, 1521 John Major or Mair (1469–1550) was the author of the first critical history of Scotland. Educated at Cambridge and Paris, where he took his first degree in 1496, he spent some years teaching scholastic philosophy at the Sorbonne. In 1518 he returned to Glasgow as a professor of philosophy. Four years later he moved to the University of St Andrews, where he taught logic and theology. In 1525 he went back to Paris. Returning to St Andrews in 1531 he became dean of the theological faculty, and remained there until his death. His theological writings were considerable, but he is best known for his history of Scotland, first published in Paris in 1521. The Latin text was edited and translated by Archibald Constable, A History of Greater Britain as well England as Scotland (Scottish Hist. Soc. Publics., x, 1892).

Chapter II (p. 5), Bk. I

Of the description of Britain and its extent: that is, its breadth, length, and circumference; also of its fruitfulness, alike in things material and infamous men

I

n the preceding chapter we have spoken of the origin of the names of Albion and Britain as applied to our island. We have now to speak of the island itself. Britain is a many-angled island of the ocean, separated by the sea from the whole continent—as Virgil has it in his verse: Et penitus toto divisos orbe Britannos.

To the east lie Gaul, Belgium, and Germany. Between Calais or Isius and Dover is a great strait of thirty miles, which a ship under a fair wind may cross in two hours. In other parts it is separated by a greater breadth of ocean from every land. To the southwest lies Hesperia, to the west Ireland, which is likewise an island, to the north the islands of the Orkneys. From south to north its length is eight hundred miles. The point of departure you may take in this way:—from Penwichstreit, fifteen miles beyond Michaelstow in Cornwall, to the furthest point of Caithness. We may put the matter more clearly thus:—the length extends from the furthest harbour of Wales in England to the end of Caithness in Scotland, which we now call Wick of Caithness. Whatever former writers have said of the breadth of the island, this I would have you know: that it presents a great diversity. In some places, as from St. Davids, the extreme point of Wales, to Yarmouth in Norfolk, we find a breadth of two hundred miles; in most places, however, the breadth is less—say eighty, seventy, or sixty leagues. We must, therefore, reduce this variety of breadth to a mean measure, as the philosophers would say. I conceive the whole island to have a mean breadth of seventy leagues. I mean that it is equal in size to another country four hundred leagues in length and seventy leagues in breadth. Ptolemy, in his Geography, gives it after Ceylon the first place among islands, and Solinus calls it another world, and its renown is evident from the records of Greek and Latin writers. And though Cicero, in a letter to Trebatius, calls Britain barren, and affirms that it yields no grain of gold, or of silver, or of brass, while it is wanting too in every liberal art, some allowance must be made for a man whose attention was engaged by other matters, and who had not, like the second Pliny, and Ptolemy, and other writers of their kind, made an exhaustive study of cosmography and of the fertility or barrenness of various countries. For more than most does Britain abound in minerals, such as gold in Crawford Moor in Scotland, while silver, brass, and iron are found

[13]

A SCOTTISH IMPRESSION OF ENGLAND, 1521

203

almost everywhere. It yields, too, a sulphurous and bituminous kind of earth, whose fire is hotter and more active than a fire obtained from wood. This is no matter for wonder, since in denser matter there is more of form than there is in rarer. Now as, according to the philosophers, vigour of action proceeds from form, there must of necessity be greater vigour of action where there is more form. Now earth is denser than wood, for which reason this substance, rather than wood, is used by smelters of iron. It produces, however, more smoke than is the case with wood, but of the latter fuel there is no scarcity. The island has, further, a sufficiency for its own needs of soil fitted for the culture of wheat, winter wheat, pease, oats; an abundance too of pleasant rivers, well-watered meadows, rich pastures for its herds of cattle; nowhere shall you find softer or finer wool. The woods are well stocked with stags, hinds, and wild boars; and nowhere, it is thought, do rabbits swarm as they do here. The inhabitants of all Britain are of a proud temper and given to fighting, and though many may come by their death within the island in civil war, they are still in force sufficient not only to resist a foreign invader, but even to carry the struggle into his country. This matter has been fully treated by foreign historians, and with them I leave it. Wheat will not grow in every part of the island; and for this reason the common people use barley and oaten bread. And as many Britons are inclined to be ashamed of things nowise to be ashamed of, I will here insist a little. And first I say this: that though the soil of all Britain were barren, no Briton need blush for that—if we approve the answer made to a certain Greek by Anacharsis the Scythian. For when this Greek was taunting Anacharsis with the barrenness of Scythia, well did Anacharsis answer: “Thou indeed art a disgrace to thy country, but my country it is that disgraces me.” And I go further: I say that he should not have said “my country disgraces me”; unless in the opinion of the unthinking. In both Hesperiae, in several provinces of both Gauls, nay further, in the Promised Land in the fourth zone, bread made from barley is in common use. Just such bread were Christ and his apostles wont to eat, as may be seen from the fourteenth chapter of Matthew and the sixth chapter of John. Pliny, too, makes mention in his thirtieth book of meal made from oats, and there is in Normandy, near to Argentolium, a village called Pain d’Aveine. But you may object that it is so called in derision, and because such meal is an un-common thing among the Gauls. I say, for my part, that I would rather eat that British oaten bread than bread made of barley or of wheat. I nowhere remember to have seen on the other side of the water such good oats as in Britain, and the people make their bread in the most ingenious fashion. For those who may be driven to use it, I will explain their method. The oats having been grown in a soil of a middling richness, they roast the grain thus: a house is built in the manner of a dovecot, and in the centre thereof/cross wise from the wall, they fix beams twelve feet in height. Upon these beams they lay straw, and upon the straw the oats. A fire is then kindled in the lower part of the building, care being taken that the straw, and all else in the house, be not burnt up. Thus the oats are dried, and thereafter carried to the mill, where, by a slight elevation of the upper millstone the outer husk gets shaken out. The flour alone then remains, dried, and in good condition, more excellent by far than the flour that is used by confectioners in any part of the world. From this dried grain, which

204

THE LAND

[13]

from its resemblance to lentil flour they call by that name, after it has been ground small in the manner of meal, the oaten bread is made. As the common people use it both leavened and unleavened, oats are very largely grown. Just eat this bread once, and you shall find it far from bad. It is the food of almost all the inhabitants of Wales, of the northern English (as I learned some seven years back), and of the Scottish peasantry; and yet the main strength of the Scottish and English armies is in men who have been tillers of the soil—a proof that oaten bread is not a thing to be laughed at. But that you may know how to get good oats, observe this rule. If from a fixed quantity of oats, even with the outer husk, you get an equal or greater quantity of flour, your oats are good and fullbodied; but if the quantity of flour be less, then the oats are not good. In Britain the quantity of flour thus obtained is often greater than that of its oats. From a smaller quantity of compact and firm meal, you shall get, because of its rarity, a larger quantity of flour; and from equal quantities of meal you shall often get unequal quantities of flour. Bakers often find this to be the case with corn; and a purchaser will pay a different price for the same quantity of wheat in two villages not far distant from one another. Chapter V, pp. 19–27

Of the situation of Britain In England there are, further, three chief rivers, the first of which, the Severn, or, by its British name, Habern, is in mid Wales. This river has its source to the east, making towards Shrewsbury; afterwards, flowing southwards, by Bridgenorth, Worcester, and Gloucester, it turns westward by Bristol, and in some parts is the boundary between England from Wales. The second river is the Humber, which winds its way toward the southern part of Yorkshire; into it flow Trent and Ouse, making of the Humber a mighty stream, who then carries them with him into the Northern Ocean. The third river is the Thames, which takes part of its name from an Oxfordshire streamlet, and flows by London. ’Tis a river of no great size, save when it is increased by the flowing tide. In Britain you need not look for a large river—and the reason is this: that its streams flow across the island—following not its length, but its breadth, which is not great. The sea on one side or other is at hand, and soon swallows them. For in their course rivers tend to join one with another, and lose their old names as they receive tributary streams. Not otherwise does the Metro1 increase—not otherwise the king of European rivers, the Danube himself; for in his long course the Danube receives the waters of sixty large streams. In Britain, however, you shall find rivers equal to the Marne, or the Seine before its union with the Marne; only, as there is in parts but small depth of water, they are not well fitted for navigation. Full of fish they are, and fair to see, since they flow for the most part over pebbles and sand. The Thames at London is three times as large as the Seine at Paris, because further up even than London Bridge the ocean rushes, under agitation of the moon; and so it happens that the largest vessels in Europe can make their way to London Bridge. Londinum is called by the Britons London, and is the capital of England, and of all the cities of Britain the largest and the 1

Metanus in Umbria.

[13]

A SCOTTISH IMPRESSION OF ENGLAND, 1521

205

fairest in its situation. There shall you find merchant vessels from every part of Europe. The city is adorned with a right noble bridge, on which are houses richly built, and likewise a church. One mile beyond the city westward you reach Westminster, that is, the Western Monastery. The king’s palace is there, likewise monuments of kings, and the supreme courts of justice in constant session. Between the monastery and the city, on the banks of the river, are the palaces of the bishops and nobles; while near them are the dwellings of the handicraftsmen—and so the whole city in all its length lies along the river. Three miles eastward, likewise on the Thames, is Greenwich, the common dockyard of the kings of England. There you shall find ships (which they call “barges”) in great numbers, ascending the river to London, and descending to its seaport—not drawn, as in the Seine, by horses, but either answering to the action of the wind, or simply to the flow and ebb of the tide without wind. Every year is chosen one of a craft, opulent and up in years, as prefect. Him they call mayor of the city, and before him is borne a sword, in symbol of justice. Of the royal prerogatives it is the king’s Justice that falls to his share. If there shall chance a scarcity of provisions in the city, it falls to him to send to foreign countries and find a remedy for such scarcity. In point of population I place London before Rouen, the second city of both Gauls. In wealth it surpasses Rouen by much, for three things go chiefly to the enriching of this city: the supreme courts of justice; the almost constant presence of the king, who at his own expense provides for a great household and supplies to them all their food; and-what is the strongest element of all—a great concurrence of merchants. Yet, in the judgment of some Englishmen—and this is my own judgment too—Paris has a population three times greater than that of London; but I do not reckon the wealth of Paris to be three times greater than the wealth of London. There are to be found on the Thames three or four thousand tame swans; but though I have seen many swans there, I did not count them; I merely report what I heard. The second city is York, the seat of an archbishop, and fifty leagues distant from Scotland. In circuit it is great, but not in population or in wealth; in respect of these matters it falls much behind London. It has no duke apart from the king, nor a resident archbishop, by whose favour the city might be enriched. The third city is Norwich, an episcopal see, in which is made that kind of cloth which is called “ostade”,1 both double and single. Other cities there are and wealthy, such as Bristol; Coventry—it has no river, and that is worth noting, but ’tis a goodly city; Lincoln, of renown in old days, and many other cities and villages. There are, further, in England, two illustrious universities: of which one—I mean Oxford—is famous even among foreigners. Into it, as I have heard, the kings of England dare not set foot, lest they should meet with insult, on account of insolence which was offered to a certain holy virgin by one of the kings of the English. In ancient times this university has produced philosophers and theologians of renown—such as Alexander Hales, Richard Middleton, John Duns, that subtle doctor, Ockam, Adam of Ireland, Robert Holkot, Bokinham, Eliphat, Climito Langley, John Roditon, an English monk, Suiset, a most ingenious mathematician, Hentisbery, a very skilful dialectician, Strode, Bravardinus, and many more. Famous colleges there are too in that university, founded 1

Worsted.

206

THE LAND

[13]

by kings, queens, bishops, and princes, and from their revenues provision is made for the education of many scholars, whom at Paris we call “bursars”. Some colleges are of a reputation beyond the others, the new college of the blessed Magdalene, and a college founded by a bishop of Winchester (who was once a fellow of New College). Each of these colleges has a hundred bursars, of whom some give themselves to the study of divinity and the hearing of lectures, and others continuously to letters. There is yet another university, that of Cambridge, somewhat inferior to Oxford, both in the number of its scholars and in reputation for letters. It too possesses very fair foundations of kings and queens. One of these, and indeed the chief, is King’s college, worthy to be placed along with New college in Oxford. There is too the Queen’s college (that is, founded by a queen), a very fair building, and the King’s hall, in revenues and in bursars not inferior to Queen’s college. Another college is Christ’s (in which I formerly heard lectures for three months—for this reason, that I found it to be situated within the parish of Saint Andrew). A certain convent for women was changed into Jesus college, by the counsel of a most learned and worthy man, Stubbs, a doctor in theology. Those women refused to keep their enclosure, and added to their own a society of students of the other sex; and this was a scandal to men of serious mind. Wherefore, when these had been turned out, and other foundations for the common life had been prepared, there were admitted in their place poor students, who should give themselves to letters and the practice of virtue, and bear fruit in their season. This expulsion of women, I approve. For if, from being nurseries of religion, these houses become nurseries of prostitution, honest foundations must be put into their place. There are besides many other colleges in which lectures are given daily. The course of study in the arts is in these universities of seven or eight years before the taking of the Master’s degree. A Chancellor (whom in Paris they call a Rector)—a man always of grave repute—is every year elected from the highest faculty. The Chancellor of Oxford was Thomas Bradwardine. Two proctors are chosen yearly; in their hands are all the functions of justice—for their authority extends over every layman in the city. And though in number the laymen be equal to or more than the scholars, as a matter of fact they dare not rise against them; for they would be crushed forthwith by the scholars. In either university you shall find four thousand or five thousand scholars; they are all of them no longer boys; they carry swords and bows, and in large part are of gentle birth. In the colleges however they do not give themselves to the study of grammar. In England every village, be it only of twelve or thirteen houses, has a parish church; their places of worship are most richly adorned, and in the art of music they stand, in my opinion, first in all Europe. For though in France or in Scotland you may meet with some musicians of such absolute accomplishment as in England, yet ’tis not in such numbers. Their churchmen are of an honest walk and conversation, and should they be taken in adultery or fornication, yea, though they were benefited priests, from their place they are compelled to go. In courage, in prudence, in all virtues of this nature, Englishmen do not think themselves the lowest of mankind; and if, in a foreign land, they happen upon a man of parts and spirit, “’tis pity,” they say, “he’s not an Englishman.”

[14]

A SPANISH IMPRESSION OF ENGLAND

207

14. A Spanish impression of England. From a private letter, 1554 This lively account of England and the English people was given in a letter to a friend at Salamanca by a courtier who accompanied Prince Philip to England in 1554. Spanish text in Pascual de Gayangos, Viage de Felippe II en Inglaterra (Madrid, 1877): English summary in Cal. St. Pap. Spain, XIII, 30–34, and for a second letter, pp. 60–2.

I

wrote to you from Southampton, but have had no time or place to do so since, so have had to leave it. You will have heard that at Winchester his Highness met the Queen, who had been waiting for him there two weeks, and also that the wedding ceremonies were a fine sight, for there were six bishops in their pontificals with crosiers and mitres, and I have never seen so many at any wedding. Their Majesties are the happiest couple in the world, and more in love than words can say. His Highness never leaves her, and when we are on the road he is ever by her side, helping her to mount and dismount. They sometimes dine together in public, and go to mass together on holidays. The Queen, however, is not at all beautiful: small, and rather flabby than fat, she is of white complexion and fair, and has no eyebrows. She is a perfect saint, and dresses badly. All the women here wear petticoats of coloured cloth without admixture of silk, and above come coloured robes of damask, satin or velvet, very badly cut. Their shoes are sometimes of velvet, but more often of leather, and they wear black stockings and show their legs up to the knee when walking. As their skirts are not long they are passably immodest when walking, and even when seated. They are neither beautiful nor graceful when dancing, and their dances only consist in strutting or trotting about. Not a single Spanish gentleman has fallen in love with one of them nor takes any interest in them, and their feelings for us are the same. They are not the sort of women for whom Spaniards feel inclined to take much trouble or spend their substance, which is an excellent thing for the Spaniards. There are no distractions here except eating and drinking, the only variety they understand. The Queen spends over 300,000 ducats a year on her table, for all the thirteen councillors eat in the palace, as well as the household officers, the master of the horse, the master of the household, the Queen’s as well as our own—for we also have English officers—and the wives of all these gentlemen into the bargain. The Queen’s ladies also eat by themselves in the palace, and their servants, as well as all the councillors, governors and household officials. And then there are the 200 men of the guard. So all these ladies and gentlemen have their private quarters in the palace, and each gentleman has his cook in the Queen’s kitchens, which cook only looks after his master. There are usually eighteen kitchens in full blast, and they seem veritable hells, such is the stir and bustle in them. The palaces here are enormous, for the smallest of the four we have seen is certainly much bigger, and has more and larger apartments, than the Alcazar of Madrid, but the throng of people is such that they are full to bursting. The usual daily consumption is eighty to one hundred sheep—and the sheep here are very big and fat—, a dozen fat beeves, a dozen and a half calves, without mentioning poultry, game, deer, boars and great numbers of rabbits. There is plenty of beer here, and they drink more than would fill the Valladolid

208

THE LAND

[14]

river. In summer the ladies and some gentlemen put sugar in their wine, with the result that there are great goings on in the palace. Now, in spite of all the room there is here, they have never offered apartments in the palace to the Duchess of Alva—they are the most selfish people ever seen—and even in the country estates we have stopped at, for each man here has one, they have only given the Duke and Duchess a house in the village, and a poor one at that. Our lords have great trouble in finding lodgings for the English are not satisfied with preventing them from serving the King, but must inflict other miseries upon them. The English hate us Spaniards worse than they hate the Devil, and treat us accordingly. They rob us in town and on the road; no one ventures to stray two miles but they rob him; and a company of Englishmen have recently robbed and beaten over fifty Spaniards. The best of it is that the councillors know all about it and say not a word. There are incredible numbers of robbers here; they go about in bands of twenty, and neither justice nor fear of God avail to hold them back. Mass is rarely celebrated, and meagrely attended by a few who seem to hear it unwillingly; though wherever the Queen is the Christian religion is kept up in all its dignity, for she is most holy and God-fearing. We have justice of our own; for his Majesty has commanded that while we are here no one shall say a word, but put up in silence with all the provocations of the English; so they ill-treat us without fear. We have complained to Briviesca and the ambassadors, who tell us that in order to serve his Majesty we must continue to dissemble. This match will have been a fine business if the Queen does not have a child, and I am sure she will not. They were saying in Castile that once his Highness was King of England we would lord it over France; and the very opposite has happened, for the French are stronger than ever, and are gaining ground and burning in Flanders every day. Yesterday his Highness received news that the King of France’s forces had occupied a Flemish town called Renty, and his Majesty was going to try to retake it, so it was supposed a battle would take place near there. The lords and gentlemen who came with his Highness have therefore asked leave to accompany his Majesty in this campaign, so as to be able to do their duty if there is a battle. The first to apply was the Duke of Medinaceli; then came Don Antonio de Toledo, the Count of Chinchón, Gutierre López, the Marquis de Las Navas, both sons of the Duke of Alva, the Marquis de Aguilar and the Count of Fuensalida. When Don Diego de Acevedo, who was at a place in the country three miles hence, heard the news, he came with thirty gentlemen, and all requested his Highness to let them go. He consented, and since then other gentlemen have been coming in day and night to ask for leave, with the result that over eighty have gone off to his Majesty’s camp. All the Flemings who were here have also gone, and the Italians have accompanied the Marquis of Pescara, who is going to camp and if there is not going to be a battle will depart for Naples, where he is to take possession of that kingdom on his Highness’s behalf. There are thirty-three leagues from here to the Emperor’s camp, so it is a two days’ and a half or three days’journey. The finest company of gentlemen that ever was seen has gone thither, and all well-equipped. His highness is now alone, save only for the Duke of Alva, the

[14]

A SPANISH IMPRESSION OF ENGLAND

209

counts of Feria and Olivares, Don Pedro de Cordova and three household officers to whom he refused leave to go; and since the day before yesterday almost all the gentlemen who came with him have departed, and they had better never come back to be treated as they are treated here.1 Last night there came a servant of the Duke of Florence, with news that the Marquis of Marignano had broken up 5,000 French and Gascons, and had skirmished with the Germans and Italians on their way to relieve Siena to such good effect that our men routed them, took their artillery and baggage, killed over 1,500 and chased them two miles. Letters from Italy say that the King of France’s partisans who are defending Siena will not be able to hold out much longer because their munitions and stores are running short. These were good news. A courier has also come from his Majesty’s camp with the report that the Spaniards have seized a hill overlooking Renty and routed more than 600 French, killing 150 and more; and now this hill has been taken the King of France will no longer be able to occupy Renty because the artillery has been hoisted upon the hill, and if the King does not retire his camp will greatly suffer from our fire. These good tidings have also arrived. The King and Queen have no more authority in this realm than if they were vassals, for the Councillors govern, and are lords of the kingdom and even of the King and Queen. Some of these gentlemen are self-made, enriched by the rents torn from the Church, which has been utterly overthrown, others were born to their estate, and they are much more obeyed and looked up to than the King and Queen. They are saying publicly that they intend to see to it in this gathering of theirs (i.e. Parliament) that his Highness be not allowed to leave the kingdom without the Queen’s and their consent; for they think this realm good enough for its King to be able to do without another. The English being as they are, I should not be at all surprised to see them do it, for they rejoice to see Flanders in the sorry condition it has found its way into, and would not stir a finger were matters much worse, or even if the Low Countries were lost, and the Emperor with them. They are certainly more like Frenchmen than Spaniards. We went to London last Saturday, which we ought not to have done, seeing the way Spaniards are treated there. The kind of welcome that is good enough for them is to refuse to give them lodgings and insult them as if they were savages; and even in inns they are ill-treated and robbed. It would have been well to excuse the friars his Highness brought with him from coming hither, for the English are so bad and fear God so little that they handle the friars shamefully, and the poor men do not dare to leave their quarters. The English tried to tear their cloaks off the backs of Don Pedro de Gordova and Don Antonio, his nephew, who are commendadores (i.e. of Spanish Military Orders), asking what they meant by wearing crosses and jeering at them; and everything else goes to the same tune. Doña Hierónima de Navarra and Doña Francisca de Córdova, who came over here, have not yet seen the Queen, and are not going to see her, for they have not joined the Court because they would have no one 1 Ten days later they were all back in London again: see Pedro de Hoyo to Juan Vázquez de Molina, 27 August 1554, p. 39.

210

THE LAND

[15]

to talk with, as the English ladies are of evil conversation. The Duchess of Alva1 has been once to the palace, and I do not believe she will go again. In London, they say, we shall not stay more than ten days, and then we shall come back to remain here until the middle of October, when we shall go to another pleasure-house about four miles hence, called Hampton Court, one of the finest and most commodious in the land. All the Queen’s houses are well furnished with tapestries, and most of the tapestries are adorned with sacred subjects, for they come from churches and monasteries which were burnt down in order to seize their revenues; and so the monks and nuns perished. It is said that on certain days two hundred monks and nuns were beheaded because they obeyed the Pope; and although that is a thing of the past, property from the churches and monasteries found its way into the exchequer to the amount of double the former royal revenues. From the way things are going here, these godless folk do not seem to be at all firm in matters of faith, and will not make their sub-mission to the Pope, but die stiff-necked heretics. Queen Mary—blessings on her—is beginning, to set matters right, however, and a month before we arrived here she created a bishop because he had always been a good Christian; though it was done without obeisance being paid to the Pope, an obligation rarely complied with here. The man who wrote Amadis and other books of chivalry, with all the flowery meads, pleasure-houses and enchantments, must first have visited England and seen the strange customs of the country. For who, in any other land, ever saw women riding forth alone as they do here, where many of them manage their horses with consummate skill and are as firm in the saddle as any man? You may be certain that there are more sights to be seen here in England than are described in any book of chivalry: country-houses, river-banks, woods, forests, delicious meadows, strong and beautiful castles, and everywhere fresh springs; for all these things abound here, and make the country well worth a visit and most delightful, especially in summer-time. I might give you many more details of life here, but to avoid tiring you I will only say that we would rather be in Spain than see England or the sea, and we are all desiring to be off with such longing that we think of Flanders as paradise. So now you may reflect on the way things are going in this realm.

15. Descriptions of the English countryside, by John Leland (i) Description of Gloucester (Leland, The Itinerary, Pt. v, 57–59)

F

rom Cheltenham to Gloucester a 6. miles all by low ground, corn, pasture and meadow. All the quarters thereabout from Winchcombe to Evesham and to Tewkesbury, and all the way from Cheltenham to Gloucester, and thence to Tewkesbury, and partly down from Gloucester on Severn ripes [banks] to Newnham much low ground, subject to all sudden risings of Severn: so that after rains it is very 1

Doña María Enríquez de Alva de Aliste.

[15]

THE ENGLISH COUNTRYSIDE, BY JOHN LELAND

211

foul to travel in. I passed over 2. or 3. small becks1 going betwixt Cheltenham and Gloucester, and they resort to Severn. The town of Gloucester is ancient, well builded of timber, and large, and strongly defended with walls, where it is not fortified with a deep stream of Severn water. In the wall be 4 gates by east, west, north and south, and so bear the names, but that the east gate is commonly called Aillesgate. The ancient castle standing south on the town by Severn left ripe. The quay on Severn left ripe, whither picards and small ships come, is almost by the castle. I learned there that the old quay on Severn stood hard by St. Oswald’s, and for strife between the town and the house of St. Oswald it was thence removed. When the quay was by St. Oswald’s, there were divers pretty streets that now be clean decayed, as St. Bride’s Street, and Silver Girdle Street. The truth is [that] those streets stood not most wholesomely, and were subject to the raging flood of Severn, therefore men desired more to inhabit in the higher places of the town. The beauty of the town lieth in two crossing streets, as the gates of the town lie; and at the place of the middle meeting, or quarterfois of these streets is aquaduklyd encastled. There be suburbs without the east, north, and south gates of Gloucester. The bridge only with the causeway lieth at the West gate. The bridge that is on the chief arm of Severn, that runneth hard by the town, is of 7. great arches of stone. There is another a little more west of it, that hath an arch or 2, and serveth at a time for a ditch or drain of the meadows. A little way farther is another bridge, hard without the west gate, and this bridge hath 5. great arches. From this bridge there goeth a great causeway of stone, forced up through the low meads of Severn by the length of a quarter of a mile. In this causeway be divers double arched bridges, to drain the meadows at floods. At the end of this causeway is a bridge of 8. arches not yet finished. Bell a merchant of Gloucester [now living, considering to a commonwealth bridges and causeways be, and to the town of Gloucester]2 hath given x.li. lands the year toward the maintenance of these bridges. There be a II parish churches in Gloucester town. In the…suburb is St. Ewins. I cannot tell surely whether this be one of the II. The Greyfriars college stood without the town not far from the south gate. One of the Lord Berkeleys was founder of it. It is now a brewhouse. King Henry the 3. and one Stephen dominus de Harnshull miles were founders of the Blackfriars about the year of our Lord 1239. The Blackfriars stood within the town not far from the castle. This house is by one Bell made a draping house. The Whitefriars college stood in the suburb without the north gate. There is in that suburb somewhat more by north an hosptial for poor folks endowed with lands dedicate to St. Margaret. The township hath the order of this. Not far from that is another poor hospital of St. Mary Magdalen, somewhat more by north than St. Margaret’s. The prior of Lanthony was taken founder there, and was wont to maintain it with certain charity of bread. There is an hospital of St. Bartholomew a little within the west-gate. This hospital 1

brooks or streams.

2

Omission in MS.

212

THE LAND

[15]

had once a master and 52. poor men, and now it hath a master and 32. poor men and women. The bishop of Worcester doth give this hospital. Some say it was of the king’s foundation. One Pancefoote, that was living in the mind of old men, is buried in the chapel of this hospital. Whitmaster, a suffragan, now ruler of this house, raised this hospital that before was very subject to the rising of Severn, and built a fair lodging for himself in the hospital.

(ii) Tudor building (Ibid. Pt. 1, 105)

Thence I passed by hilly, woody, and much barren ground to Chenies a V. miles off. And or I came very near Chenies I passed over a little brook, and even in the valley by Chenies over another, and they resort about Rickmansworth to the moor water. The old house of the Chenies is so translated by my Lord Russell, that hath that house on the right of his wife, that little or nothing of it in a manner remaineth untranslated: and a great deal of the house is even newly set up made of brick and timber: and fair lodgings be new erected in the garden. The house is within divers places richly painted with antique works of white and black. And there be about the house 2 parks, as I remember. The manor place standeth at the west end of the parish church.

(iii) Bewdley. A new town (Ibid. Pt. v, 87–89)

The town of Bewdley is set on the side of a hill, so cunningly that a man cannot wish to set a town better. It riseth from Severn bank by east upon the hill by west; so that a man standing on the hill trans pontem by east may describe almost every house in the town, and at the rising of the sun from east the whole town glittereth, being all of new building, as it were of gold. There be but 3. streets memorable in the town. One from north to south, all along Severn bank. The second is the market place, a fair large thing and well built. The third runneth in length from north to south on the hillside, as the first doth in the valley by Severn. In the town is but a chapel of ease, and that is of timber in the heart of the town. The parish church standeth a mile lower at Ripley in dextra ripa Sabrinae, as Bewdley doth. Mr. Acton hath a goodly manor place at Ripley, ut aqua defluit ripa dextra. By the distance of the parish church I gather that Bewdley is but a very new town, and that of old time there was but some poor hamlet, and that upon the building of a bridge there upon Severn, and resort of people unto it, and commodity of the pleasant site, men began to inhabit there, and because that the-plot of it seemed fair to the lookers it took a French name Bewdley quasi bellus locus. I asked a merchant there of the ancientness of the town, and he answered me that it was but a new town, adding that they had liberties granted by King Edward.

[15]

THE ENGLISH COUNTRYSIDE, BY JOHN LELAND

213

There is a fair manor place by west of the town standing in a goodly park well wooded, on the very knap of a hill that the town standeth in. This place is called Ticknell. Whether there were any ancient house there in times past or no I am not assured; but this that now is there seemeth but new, and, as I heard, was in a manner totally erected by King Henry the 7. for Prince Arthur. It was repaired for the Lady Mary. [Since, I heard that Richard Earl of March and Duke of York builded there. It was Mortimer’s Earl of March’s land.] There was privilege of sanctuary given to this town that now is revoked and abrogated.

(iv) Birmingham. An industrial centre (Ibid. Pt. v, 96–97)

I came through a pretty street or ever I entered into Bremischam [Birmingham] town. This street, as I remember, is called Deritend, in it dwell smiths and cutlers, and there is a brook that divideth this street from Birmingham. Deritend is but a hamlet or member belonging to…parish thereby and is clean separated from Birmingham parish. There is at the end of Deritend a proper chapel and mansion house of timber, hard on the bank as the brook cometh down, and as I went through the ford by the bridge, the water ran down on the right hand, and a few miles lower goeth into Thame ripa dextra. This brook riseth, as some say, a 4. or 5. miles above Birmingham toward the Black hills in Worcestershire. This brook above Deritend breaketh into 2. arms that a little beneath the bridge close again. The beauty of Birmingham, a good market town in the extreme parts that way of Warwickshire, is in one street going up along almost from the left bank of the brook up a mean hill by the length of a quarter of a mile. I saw but one parish church in the town. There be many smiths in the town that use to make knives and all manner of cutting tools and many lorimers that make bits, and a great many nailers. So that a great part of the town is maintained by smiths. The smiths there have iron out of Staffordshire and Warwickshire and sea coal out of Staffordshire.

(v) Droitwich and the salt industry (Ibid. Pt. v, 92–95)

From Worcester I rode to the Wiche [Droitwich] by enclosed ground, having meetly good corn, sufficient wood, and good pasture, about a 6. miles of. The Wiche [Droitwich] standeth somewhat in a valley or low ground betwixt 2 small hills on the left bank of a pretty river that not far beneath Droitwich is called Salwarpe brook. The beauty of the town in a manner standeth in one street. Yet be there many lanes in the town beside. There is a mean church in the chief street, and in the town is once a week a meetly celebrate market. The town of itself is somewhat foul and dirty when any rain falleth, with much carriage through the streets, being over ill paved or not paved. The great advancement of the town is by making of salt; and yet though the commodity thereof be singular great, yet the burgesses be poor for the most part; because

214

THE LAND

[15]

gentlemen have for the most part the great gain of it, and the burgesses have all the labour. I saw on a hill hard by the town of Droitwich, a little or I entered into it, a parish church. I saw also another church on a hillet a little beyond the town in dextra ripafluvii, beyond the wood bridge, and a little above the principal salt spring. There be at this present time 3. salt springs in the town of Droitwich, whereof the principal is within a butt shot of the right bank of the river, that there cometh down; and this spring is double as profitable in yielding of salt liquor as both the other. Some say that this salt spring did fail in the time of Richard de la Wiche Bishop of Chichester, and that after by his intercession it was restored to the profit of the old course. [Such is the superstition of the people. In token whereof, or for the honour that the Wichemen and salters bare unto this Richard their countryman, they used of late times on his day to hang about this salt spring or well once a year with tapestry, and to have drinking games and revels at it.] There be a great number of salt coots or furnaces about this well, wherein the salt water is decocted and brought to the perfection of pure white salt. The other 2. salt springs be on the left ripe of the river, lower a pretty way than the other great spring and at the very town’s end; and at these springs be also divers furnaces to make salt; but the profit and plenty of these 2. springs be nothing comparable to the great spring. I asked a salter how many furnaces they had at all the 3. springs, and he numbered them to an 18 score, that is 360, saying that every one of them paid yearly 6.s. 8.d. to the King. The truth is that of old they had liberties given them for 300 furnaces or more; and thereupon they give a fee farm [or vectigal] of £100 yearly. The vectigal is as it was; but the number of furnaces is now increased to a 400. There was of late search made for another salt spring at Droitwich, by the means of one Mr. Newport, a gentleman dwelling in Droitwich; and the place where it was appeared, and the wood and timber that had been set about it for holding up the earth for falling in it. But this pit was not occupied since, whether it were for lack of plenty of the salt spring, or for letting the profit of the other three. Men think that if wood and sale of salt would serve, they might dig and find more salt springs about Droitwich. I heard that of late years a salt spring was found in another quarter of Worcestershire; but the Wichemen have such privilege that they alone in those quarters shall make salt. The Wichemen use the commodity of their salt springs in drawing and decocting the water of them only by 6. months in the year, that is from Midsummer to Christmas; as I guess, to maintain the price of their salt, or for saving of wood, the which I think to be their principal reason. For making of salt is a great and notable destruction of wood, and hath been, and shall be hereafter, except men use much coppices of young wood. The lack of wood is now perceived in places near the Wich. For whereas in places near about they used to buy and take their wood, the wonted places are now sore decayed in wood. They be forced to seek wood as far as Worcester town, and all the parts about Bromsgrove, Alvechurch, and Alcester.

[15]

THE ENGLISH COUNTRYSIDE, BY JOHN LELAND

215

I asked a salter how much wood he supposed yearly to be spent at the furnaces, and he answered that by estimation there was spent a 6000 loads by year. And it is young pole wood for the most part, easy to be divided in pieces. The people that be about the furnaces be very ill coloured. The just rate of every furnace is to make 4. loads of salt yearly; and to every load goeth…quarters. If the furnace-men make more in one furnace than four loads it is, as it is said, their own avail. Going out of the town’s end I saw a fair new house of timber, belonging to one Mr. Newport, on the right hand. And on the left hand I saw a bridge of 4. arches of stone over the brook that runneth by the Wich, and at the hither end of this bridge was a fair new chapel of timber. I rode from the Wich [Droitwich] to Bromsgrove a 4 miles by enclosed ground, having some good corn, meetly wooded and well pastured; and in this way I passed over 2. or 3. times over the water that cometh on Droitwich; and as far as I could gather, either Bromsgrove water goeth a little beneath Bromsgrove into the Wich water, or else it is the very same brook that goeth to Droitwich.

(vi) Bolton and mining (Ibid. Pt. XI, 139)

Bolton village and castle is 4. miles from Middleham. The castle standeth on a rock side, and all the substance of the lodgings in it be included in 4 principal towers. It was an 18 years in building, and the expenses of every year came to 1000 marks. It was finished or King Richard the 2. died. One thing I much noted in the hall of Bolton, how chimneys were conveyed by tunnels made on the sides of the walls betwixt the lights in the hall; and by this means, and by no louvers, is the smoke of the hearth in the hall wonder strangely conveyed. Most part of the timber that was occupied in building of this castle was fetched out of the forest of Engleby in Cumberland, and Richard Lord Scrope for conveyance of it had laid by the way divers draughts of oxen to carry it from place to place till it came to Bolton. There is a very fair clock at Bolton ’cum motu solis et Lunae, and other conclusions. There is a park walled with stone at Bolton. There is a hill with a lead mine 2 miles beyond Bolton. There be some veins of coals found in the upper part of the west mountains of Richmondshire, but they be not used for incommodity of carriage to the lower part. Most of the coal that be occupied about the quarters of Richmond town be fetched from Rayle Pitts towards the quarters of Akeland. The veins of the sea coals lie sometime open upon cliffs of the sea, as around about Coket Island and other shores; and they, as some will, be properly called sea coal; but they be not so good as the coals that are digged in the upper part of the land. The vein of coals sometimes lieth as a yard deep of the substance of the coal. Sometimes the vein itself is an ell in depth, sometimes the whole height of a man, and that is a principal vein.

216

THE LAND

[15]

The craft is to come to it with the least pain in deep digging. Some veins of coal lie under rocks and heads of stones: as some suppose that coals lie under the very rocks that the minster close of Durham standeth on.

(vii) Bath and the antique (Ibid. Pt. II, 139)

Or ever I came to the bridge of Bath that is over Avon I came down by a rocky hill full of fair springs of water: and on this rocky hill is set a long street as a suburb to the city of Bath: and in this street is a chapel of S. Mary Magdalen. There is a great gate with a stone arch at the entry of the bridge. The bridge hath 5 fair stone arches. Betwixt the bridge and the south gate of Bath I marked fair meadows on each hand, but especially on the left hand, and they lie by south west on the town. The city of Bath is set both in a fruitful and pleasant bottom, the which is environed on every side with great hills, out of the which come many springs of pure water that be conveyed by divers ways to serve the city. Insomuch that lead being made there at hand many houses in the town have pipes of lead to convey water from place to place. There be 4 gates in the town by the names of east, west, north and south. The town wall within the town is of no great height to the eyes: but without it is a fundamentis of a reasonable height and it standeth almost all, lacking but a piece about Gascoyn’s tower. In the walls at this time be no towers saving over the town gates. One Gascoyne an inhabitant of the town in hominum memoria made a little piece of the wall that was in decay, as for a fine for a fault that he had committed in the city: whereof one part as at a corner riseth higher than the residue of the wall, whereby it is commonly called Gascoyne-tower. There be divers notable antiquities engraved in stone that yet be seen in the walls of Bath betwixt the south gate and the west gate: and again betwixt the west gate and the north gate. The first was an antique head of a man made all flat and having great locks of hair as I have in a coin of C.Antius. The second that I did see between the south and north gate was an image, as I took it, of Hercules: for he held in each hand a serpent. Then I saw the image of a foot man vibrato gladio & praetenso clypeo. Then I saw a branch with leaves folded and wrethin into circles. Then I saw 2 naked images lying along, the one embracing the other. Then I saw 2 antique heads with hair as ruffled in locks. Then I saw a grey-hound as running, and at the tail of him was a stone engraved with great Roman letters, but I could pick no sentence out of it. Then I saw another inscription, but the weather hath except a few letters clear defaced. Then I saw toward the west gate an image of a man embraced with 2 serpents. I took it for Laocoon.

[15]

THE ENGLISH COUNTRYSIDE, BY JOHN LELAND

217

Betwixt the west and the north gate. I saw 2 inscriptions, of the which some words were evident to the reader, the residue clean defaced. Then I saw the image of a naked man. Then I saw a stone having cupidines & labruscas intercurrentes. Then I saw a table having at each end an image vivid and flourished above and beneath. In this table was an inscription of a tomb or burial wherein I saw plainly these words: vixit annos xxx. This inscription was meetly whole but very diffusely written, as letters for whole words, and 2. or 3. letters conveyed in one. Then I saw 2 images, whereof one was of a naked man grasping a serpent in each hand, as I took it; and this image was not far from the north gate. Such antiquities as were in the walls from the north gate to the east, and from the east gate to the south, hath been defaced by the building of the monastery, and making new walls. I much doubt whether these antique works were set in the time of the Romans’ dominion in Britain in the walls of Bath, as they stand now: or whether they were gathered of old ruins there, and since set up in the walls reedified in testimony of the antiquity of the town. There be 2 springs of hot water in the west south west part of the town. Whereof the bigger is called the Cross Bath, because it hath a cross erected in the middle of it, This bath is much frequented of people diseased with leprosy, pocks, scabs, and great aches, and is temperate and pleasant, having 11 or 12 arches of stone in the sides for men to stand under in time of rain. Many be helped by this bath from scabs and aches. The other bath is 200 feet off, and is less in compass within the wall than the other, having but 7 arches in the wall. This is called the Hot Bath; for at coming into it men think that it would scald the flesh at the first, but after that the flesh is warmed it is more tolerable and pleasant. Both these baths be in the middle of a little street, and join to S.John’s hospital: so that it may be thought that Reginald Bishop of Bath made this hospital near these 2 common baths to succour poor people resorting to them. The King’s Bath is very fair and large standing almost in the middle of the town, and at the west end of the cathedral church. The area that this bath is in is compassed with a high stone wall. The brims of this bath hath a little wall encompassing them, and in this wall be 32 arches for men and women to stand separately in. To this bath do gentlemen resort. There goeth a sluice out of this bath, and served in times past with water derived out of it 2 places in Bath priory used for baths: else void; for in them be no springs. The colour of the water of the baths is as it were a deep blue sea water, and reeketh like a seething pot continually, having somewhat a sulphurous and somewhat unpleasant savour. The water that runneth from the 2 small baths goeth by a dyke into Avon by west beneath the bridge.

218

THE LAND

[15]

The water that goeth from the King’s Bath turneth a mill, and after goeth into Avon above Bath-bridge. In all the 3 baths a man may evidently see how the water bubbleth up from the springs. There be within the walls of Bath…parish churches, of the which the towered steeple of the parish church at the north gate seemeth to be ancient. There is a parish church and a suburb without the north-gate. There is an hospital of S.John hard by the Cross Bath, of the foundation of Reginald Bishop of Bath. The town hath of a long time since been continually most maintained by making of cloth. There were in hominum memoria 3 clothiers at one time, thus named, Style, Kent and Chapman, by whom the town of Bath then flourished. Since the death of them it hath somewhat decayed. It appeareth in the book of the antiquities of the late monastery of Bath that King Osric in the year of our Lord 676, Theodore then being Archbishop of Canterbury, did erect a monastery of nuns at Bath, and Bertane was the first abbess thereof. It appeareth by a charter that one Ethelmod, a great man, gave, by the leave of King Ædelrede in Theodore the archbishop of Canterbury’s time, lands to one Bernguid abbess of Bath, and to one Foulcburc. The book of the antiquity of the abbey of Bath maketh no great mention of any great notable doing of Offa King of the Merches at Bath. The prior of Bath told me that after the nuns time there were secular canons in S.Peter’s church at Bath; peradventure Offa King of Merches set them there, for I have read that Offa did a notable act at S.Peter’s in Bath. Or else the canons came in after that the Danes had rased the nunnery there. Eadgar was a great doer and benefactor to S.Peter’s at Bath, in whose time monks were in Bath, and since; except Alfarus Earl of Merch, that was a scourge of monks, expelled them for a time. John a physician, born at Tours in France, and made Bishop of Wells, did obtain of Henry the first to set his see at Bath; and so he had the abbey lands given unto him, and then he made a monk prior there, dividing the old possessions of the monastery with him. This John pulled down the old church of S.Peter at Bath, and erected a new, much fairer, and was buried in the middle of the presbytery thereof, whose image I saw lying there 9 years since, at the which time all the church that he made lay to waste, and was unroofed, and weeds grew about this John of Tours’ sepulchre. This John of Tours erected a palace at Bath in the south west side of the monastery of S.Peter’s at Bath; one great square tower of it with other ruins yet appear. I saw at the same time a fair great marble tomb there of a bishop of Bath, out of the which they said that oil did distil: and likely; for his body was embalmed plentifully. There were other divers bishops buried there. Oliver King Bishop of Bath began of late days a right goodly new church at the west

[15]

THE ENGLISH COUNTRYSIDE, BY JOHN LELAND

219

part of the old church of S.Peter, and finished a great piece of it. The residue of it was since made by the priors of Bath: and especially by Gibbes the last prior there, that spent a great sum of money on that fabric. Oliver King let almost all the old church of S.Peter’s in Bath to go to ruin. The walls yet stand. King Eadgar was crowned with much joy and honour at S.Peter’s in Bath; whereupon he bore a great zeal to the town, and gave very great franchises and privileges unto it. In knowledge whereof they pray in all their ceremonies for the soul of King Eadgar. And at Whitsunday tide, at the which time men say that Eadgar there was crowned, there is a king elected at Bath every year of the townsmen in the joyful remembrance of King Eadgar and the privileges given to the town by him. This king is feasted and his adherents by the richest men of the town.

Part III THE COMMONWEAL

INTRODUCTION

T

HE selection of documents in this section illustrates the nature and structure of early Tudor society. The documents have been arranged in three groups. The first is concerned with the relationships forming the framework and actual structure of society during the period. The second indicates the nature of contemporary social thought, both in justification and in criticism of that pattern of society. The third group gives some impressions of personalities providing the leadership on which the achievements of that society depended. Of all the features of early sixteenth-century society, that which is most difficult to assess, and the least satisfactory to illustrate in a selection of documents, is the nature and actual structure of that society. This is not due to lack of information, although it is true that the subject has not received full attention and that much still remains to be done before anything like a complete picture can be forthcoming, nor does it result from a dearth of suitable documents from which it may be observed. The problem is almost entirely one of presentation. The complex of relationships out of which a society is formed can only be described as it exists at a given moment in time: but such relationships are rarely, if ever, static. They are always subjected to change, so that the general structure of the society can never be observed at rest. It is, indeed, this process of change which has a special interest and challenge for the social historian. His task is really a twofold one: he has to construct out of a series of changing relationships an outline of the structure of society which will give an impression of stability, but he must do so in such a way as to avoid the suggestion of a complete rigidity. Thus, while society in the early Tudor period must be presented as a complex of relationships inherited from the Middle Ages and therefore, to a large degree, stereotyped by custom and tradition, it must never be forgotten that this pattern was being subjected to the modifying influences of change, in part the result of late medieval factors, in part the direct product of the political, religious, and economic transformations which were the distinctive features of early sixteenth century conditions. The difficult task of suggesting these different elements is the theme of the first section. They must be considered in the light of some important historical facts. The rigid legal framework of that society is well represented at the outset in a document1 where, for legal and administrative purposes, the picture given is that of a hierarchical society whose pattern is the legacy of centuries of historical development. Early Tudor society was, in essence, based upon two principles which had dominated feudal society. These were the principles of nobility of blood as the test of social status, and of land tenure as the nexus of a series of estates and the nucleus of an agrarian economy. From the first of these principles came the great social distinction between those of gentle birth and the base-born, to which must be added varying degrees of complication based upon the accident of birth and the nature of family relationships. From the second came the supreme importance of land as a source not only of wealth, 1

No. 16. 223

224

THE COMMONWEAL

but also, what was more important in such a society, of power. While both these principles continued to dominate early Tudor society, they were both subjected to important modifications, the effects of which went a long way towards breaking through the rigidity of the social framework as it appeared to the legislator. What happened to the principle of nobility of blood during the early sixteenth century is significant. Some tendencies which can be traced back into the later Middle Ages now took on a much greater meaning. During the political upheavals of the fifteenth century, when the crown of England was the prize of contesting factions, the need for the victor to take action against his political opponents was imperative. A technique for the purpose was found in the bill of attainder, whereby opponents could be burdened with the full consequences of a conviction for treason. These were serious: more than death for the victim was implied. The lands of the attainted man were forfeited to the king. His blood was corrupted, which meant not only that members of his family were unable to inherit from him, but also that the attainted man himself could not inherit from an ancestor. His incapacity to do so had direct results for his family, since his heirs could not derive a title through him from a more remote ancestor. This technique was further developed by the Tudors. During the fifteenth century the full effects of attainder and forfeiture had been mitigated to some extent by the creation of estates tail, for when a tenant in tail was attainted, the forfeiture extended only to the term of his life— as he did not possess the fee simple he could not forfeit it—and so the lands of such attainted persons remained with the family even though there was no reversal of the attainder. An act of 15341 took away this relief by bringing estates tail within the law of treason and forfeiture. Much use was made of the process of attainder during the early sixteenth century, and the effects upon the social structure were considerable. There resulted much mobility in the higher ranks of society through the disfranchisement of old and powerful families, and the rise of new unknown ones benefiting from the generosity with which the Crown bestowed upon them these forfeited estates and dignities. On the other hand, these results must not be exaggerated. If the process of attainder was much used, so too was the process of reversal of attainder, whereby after petition by the heir of an attainted man the Crown rescinded the attainder, granting a restoration in blood to the heir, accompanied usually by a return of forfeited estates. Examples of both these processes will be found below. Nor was this the only way in which the higher ranks of society were recruited. Throughout the period the government was active in creating fresh titles or resuscitating old ones by the use of letters patent of creation.2 This was the way in which the services of new men to the demands the Tudor state was making for administrators could most easily be recognized: it was the way, too, in which new blood was introduced into the older and higher ranks of society. There have, of course, been new men in all periods of history: but there is assuredly, something to be said in recognition of the extent to which they appeared on the Tudor scene. Equally important in its effects upon the social structure was the way in which the principle of ennoblement was extended during the early Tudor period. This development 1

St. 26 Hen. VIII, c. 13, sect. 5. See below, No. 48, iii.

2

No. 18. iii.

INTRODUCTION

225

was closely connected with the rise in importance and authority during this period of the College of Heralds. As usual, this cannot be claimed as a Tudor innovation. There is ample evidence to show that the heralds had been exercising control over grants of arms throughout the fifteenth century, if not earlier: but it is a document of 1530 which enables the historian of heraldry to speak with certainty about established practice. By a grant of letters patent of that year, to the heralds, the Crown recognized some important principles. The power of the heralds to grant and regulate the use of arms by the issue of letters and by visitation was confirmed. More significant was the recognition of the principle that such a grant of arms was open to any-one who had done service to the king, and had the wealth necessary to maintain his dignity, provided such a person was not of vile blood, a rebel against the King, or a heretic against the faith. With the confirmation of these conditions the way to social advancement was open to all who had their career to make unsupported by long family trees and inherited titles. Once that first step had been taken, and the aspirant to social distinction had crossed the great dividing line of gentility, the heralds could be relied upon to throw the mantle of chivalry over his obscure origins, and, indeed, provide him and his descendants with a pedigree which, with more ingenuity than genealogical accuracy, enabled the lowliest upstart to mingle on terms of social equality with those of more fortunate birth upon whom had descended titles and distinctions which had been within their families for generations. Great indeed in the social history of this period (and later) was the power of the heralds. Using all the language and science of an age of chivalry which was rapidly becoming only a memory they contrived to maintain its forms long after its spirit was dead, and, decking out with his blazon, helm, and crest the new aspirant to the renown of ancient nobility, they acted as conservators of a framework of society which was beginning to take many strains. Their formal, high sounding documents may have concealed from contemporaries the real significance of what was taking place. They have not deceived the modern scientific genealogist, who has so ruthlessly stripped off the trappings of nobility from more than one Tudor upstart, and discovered in not a few Tudor mansions the cupboard in which the family skeleton was concealed. In short, they have uncovered the truths which the unscrupulous fictions and falsifications of the herald Wriothesley and his successors had been intended to conceal: that despite all their pedigree making, what was going on was a social revolution, and that under cover of their letters patent of nobility a feudal hierarchy was being transformed into a landed aristocracy. A landed aristocracy. The term is a reminder that land tenure, the second great principle of feudal society had lost none of its importance by the opening of the sixteenth century, despite the great changes which had begun to undermine the feudal character of late medieval English society. In what was pre-eminently an agrarian society the ownership of land was accompanied by a control of power in the state in general and over a local community in particular, and with the fresh opportunities open for the exercise of power in the Tudor state the urge for the acquisition of land became a major feature of the period. Political and religious change provided openings on a scale

226

THE COMMONWEAL

unparalleled in England since the time when William the Conqueror made England “terra regis”. The ruthless policy of confiscation and forfeiture enforced by the first two Tudor kings against political offenders had caused much land to fall into the king’s hands. This was, however, a mere bagatelle, compared with what happened as a result of the spoliation of the religious houses by Henry VIII. The dead hand of the Church was lifted from hundreds of thousands of acres of land, much of it comprising some of the most fully developed farming land in the country. All of this was now at the disposal of the government. How efficiently, in the interests of the Crown, that vast accumulation of property was distributed, is not, for the moment, the question under discussion here. What is important as affecting the social structure of the country is the manner in which it changed hands, and the type of people who benefited from the re-distribution. The immediate effect was, of course, that much of it went to increase the estates of established noblemen, courtiers, and some of the land-hungry administrators whose sedulous devotion in the royal service had as incentive the sure prospect of rapid and satisfying social promotion: but the changes did not end with them. By the early forties the land jobbers were getting active. The splitting up of large estates, and the sale and re-sale of relatively small parcels of land scattered over the whole country brought opportunities for the lesser nobility and the gentry to consolidate their estates, and changes affecting the whole of society were soon set in train. Whereas at the opening of the century many English villages had no resident squire, by the middle of the century a new type of local magnate was beginning to appear: the lawyer, the merchant, even the prosperous yeoman were investing in landed estate and joining the ranks of the gentry. They were types likely to want a material profit from their investments, and it is not surprising if their appearance gave rise to dissatisfaction in some of the rural communities where they settled. With the play of such forces as these the framework of early Tudor society was being subjected to some powerful tensions which, as will be seen later, did not pass unnoticed by contemporary observers. It will be well to bear this in mind as a corrective against the temptation to define in too rigid terms the structure of that society. Examination of the sources used in Division A. below will show that no single type of historical document reveals the full nature of early sixteenth-century society. Valuable information may be forthcoming from the most unpromising materials. To stress this fact every opportunity has been taken to bring together, whenever possible, evidence from a variety of types of document. They may not always be very significant in themselves, but when dove-tailed together they shape into a definite pattern, contributing towards an understanding of some of the more important features of the society of the period. There are, however, some special sources deserving a little more comment. The first feature of early Tudor society inviting illustration is, of course, the framework of social ranks, dignities, estates, and groups within which that society was contained. Since much of this classification was a result of political and legal requirements, the value of the main political, legal, and administrative records will be obvious. From them can be gained an impression of the forms and descriptions of social rank, examples of the machinery of the process of attainder, and the methods for

INTRODUCTION

227

the creation of new titles and dignities, together with much miscellaneous information concerning the status of individuals in society. Since all such sources are fully described elsewhere,1 they need not be specifically dealt with here. Closely connected with this aspect of society is the material provided by the activities of the College of Heralds. It takes the form of information on the powers, functions, and authority of the heralds themselves, in the records they made of their visitations, their grants of arms, and the pedigrees they provided. Much of this material is among the muniments of the College of Heralds and has not been published, a considerable amount that is better known to scholars is among the manuscripts in the British Museum and elsewhere, but there are available in print enough specimens of these types of sources on which conclusions can be based concerning the work of the heralds, and its importance for the historian of society. Valuable as it is in itself, such an anatomical description of the rigid framework of social ranks, dignities, and degrees is not, by itself, an adequate account of society. More information is needed on other important features, on the way of life, the social habits, and the environment of the various groups comprised in society. Obvious, even commonplace, as much of this information may seem, it is not always easily obtained, especially for periods earlier than the sixteenth century. On the whole, it may be said that the early Tudor period is reasonably well supplied with material of this kind. One extremely useful source for such information is provided in a few admirable examples of Household Books, consisting of regulations ordering the organization and administration of the royal and some of the larger households of the nobility, while less elaborate books of accounts from smaller household establishments contain detailed records of income and expenditure, which give invaluable information on the consumption and cost of food, fuel, clothing and many other particulars of domestic life. The early Tudor period is more fully supplied than previous centuries with material giving evidence about the possessions and the social environment of various individuals. First in importance and quantity is the large bulk of individual wills still extant, many of them easily accessible in print. Closely connected with them are numerous inventories of household effects. These are of various kinds, ranging from elaborate inventories of the contents of substantial possessions belonging to important victims of sequestrations by the State to the humble lists of contents of cottages, drawn up by simple villagers after the death of one of their neighbours. The latter type of inventory has only recently received the attention it merits. Already the indications are that when more have been brought to light they will add appreciably to the data now available for reconstructing the way of life and the social environment of the lesser gentry and groups further down in the social scale.2 The selection of documents in Division B illustrates the contemporary attitude towards questions which changes in the social structure were beginning to suggest. These changes did not occur without creating many problems. The new emphasis placed on wealth, the ever-widening gulf opening up between rich and poor, government extravagance, 1

See p. 230–33.

2

W.G.Hoskins, Local History in England, pp. 57, 101,

228

THE COMMONWEAL

the debasement of the coinage, the steady pressure of ever increasing inflationary movements, these and other disturbing factors reacting upon a society rapidly being swept away from its moorings in immemorial custom and tradition, were causing some of the more reflective minds of the age to ponder some pertinent questions. Such men were sensitive enough to appreciate that all was not well with their society, that “the common weal” was being badly served. Slowly they were arriving at opinions which would ultimately find expression in concepts of social and economic theory, although the day of such a consummation was not, as yet, at hand. Already, in the early years of Henry VIII’s reign there can be discerned some elements common to all the criticisms of a widely miscellaneous group of publicists, which comprised so sensitive and cultured an intellect as Thomas More, the serious-minded—perhaps from the standpoint of the social theorist, the simple-minded-bible enthusiast, William Tyndale, agitators like Simon Fish and Henry Brinkelowe, government agents and pamphleteers like Robert Starkey, Richard Morison, and Richard Taverner. They make up a heterogeneous collection of individuals exercised in mind and conscience concerning “the common weal”, but not organized as a self-conscious group, nor bound together as a political party. That term “common weal” was soon to become closely associated with a later group of critics who were fully active in the reign of Edward VI. These were the men who would soon be referred to as “Commonwealth men”, and were much nearer to being a coherent party. This group included popular preachers like Hugh Latimer, their most eloquent spokesman, Thomas Lever, and Thomas Becon; the pamphleteer, preacher, poet Robert Crowley, and John Hales, of Coventry, an experienced administrator, with more than a shade of skill in matters social and economic. None of them, not even Hales, was an expert in the modern sense of the word. With the exception of More and Starkey, both of whom had caught something of the spirit of the ancient Greek philosophers, and applied their reading to the solution of contemporary problems, none of them wrote treatises on social theory, or fully grasped the complexity of the problems for which each thought he had a simple remedy. They expressed their opinions in many forms, in sermons, pamphlets, scriptural commentaries, and even in the crudest of doggerel verse. The impression left by these efforts is that they were more successful in diagnosing symptoms than they were in prescribing effective remedies. Even the best of them were only groping after answers to questions troubling their consciences and baffling their intelligence. It is not easy to decide how best to give an impression of this literature. Lack of space prevents the assembly of a complete canon of such writings. The alternatives are to provide a limited number of complete texts, or to make an anthology of selected passages representing some of the main features of their thought. There are disadvantages in both methods, but the scales seem tipped in favour of the anthology. The main themes can be indicated briefly. Most of these critics of early Tudor society were equipped with a few clear notions in the traditions of medieval thought. They took for granted the concept of a functional society, sometimes repeating with approval the well-worn analogy of the human body so frequently stated in medieval texts. From this followed two conclusions, which most of them accepted. The first was the

INTRODUCTION

229

individual’s duty of obedience to authority, and the second was insistence on the idea of vocation, that every man had his “calling”, his allotted place and his function in society, with which he should be content and from which he should not expect to move. On these foundations the best of these thinkers proceeded to build. They had many suggestions to offer: to the wealthy the responsibilities of steward-ship of their wealth and the duties of charity, to the poor contentment with their lot, to all the need for greater production and the dignity of work, the redistribution of wealth, the elimination of covetousness and greed from human life, in a word the achievement of the Christian society. All were admirable ideals, but they involved the acceptance of the rigid social framework of the Christian society at a time when its essentials were under challenge and social movement, not rigidity, was the order of the day. Even the partial realization of some of the remedies only brought disappointment. The dissolution of the monasteries certainly achieved redistribution of wealth, but before the end of this period its advocates were disillusioned: it had not brought about the results they had hoped. Only towards the end of the period is there a more realistic approach. It is to be found in the Discourse of the Common Weal: when the first whispers of something that might almost be called economic science are beginning to be heard. The documents in Division C are the logical successors of those in the first two. They bring together some contemporary assessments of the personalities upon whom fell the responsibilities of leadership, both in thought and action, in the society of early Tudor England. The material includes examples of studied character-drawing (we have arrived at an age when men are consciously feeling their way towards the writing of biography as the modern world would understand it), and angry vituperation born of religious and political controversy, the sympathetic tributes of friendship often expressed in a brief, unstudied private letter, and the professional assessments of astute foreign diplomats whose duty it was to give their own rulers shrewd advice about the quality of the actual leaders of English society with whom they had to deal. Taken together such materials provide a portrait gallery of the age on a scale impossible for any earlier period of English history. This fact is, in itself, a forceful illustration of the remarkable developments taking place: men are beginning to show greater interest than their predecessors had done in individual personality: they are acquiring more skill in depicting character: they are bolder in the expression of their own unrepressed observations. The extracts themselves call for little comment. They will be read as interesting reflections of a period and a society remarkable as much for the complex problems confronting them, and the need for leadership, as for the number of able men ready to put their talents at the service of the church, the state, and the Tudor dynasty. Let it not pass unobserved, also, how many of them were men to whom life in a flexible, far from static, society offered opportunities of advancement from the lowliest of origins to the highest positions of responsibility and dignity.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY There is no general work devoted exclusively to the study of early Tudor society, but historians in several fields are concerned with it, and much information can be collected from their works. Some of the literature discussed in other sections will be found useful. Early Tudor society is best approached from the background of the late Middle Ages. Some of the older works dealing with that social framework are indispensable. They include Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law (Cambridge, 2nd ed., 1911), L.O.Pike, Constitutional History of the House of Lords (1894); A.F.Pollard, The Evolution of Parliament (1926); Vernon Harcourt, His Grace the Steward and the trial of Peers (1907); F.B.Palmer, Peerage Law in England (1907). Modern scholars have been interested in the development of a society in which the process of change was producing features which could not be adequately fitted into the feudal framework, and for which it has not been easy to invent a name (neither neo-feudalism nor bastard feudalism are precise enough although they do indicate the nature of the change). Some suggestions about such transformation are made in F.M.Stenton, “The Changing Feudalism of the Middle Ages” (History: XIX, N.S., 76, 289–301); H.M.Cam, “The Decline and Fall of English Feudalism” (History, xxv, 1940,216–230) and in Law-Finders and Law-Makers in Medieval England, pp. 44–58; K.B.McFarlane, “Parliament and Bastard Feudalism” (T.R.H.S. 4th Ser., Ser., XXVI, 1944, 53–79) and idem, “The Lancastrian Kings”, and C.H.Williams, “The Yorkist Kings” (Camb. Med. Hist, VII, c. XI and XII). An interesting monograph dealing with some neo-feudal aspects of late medieval society is W.H.Dunham, “Lord Hastings’ Indentured Retainers 1461–83” (Trans. Connecticut Acad. of Arts and Sciences, New Haven, VII, 39, 1955, 175 pp.), a study of the practice of livery and retaining under the Yorkists and the Tudors. Not much guidance is available concerning the effects of development in politics, religion, and economic life upon the framework of society in the first half of the sixteenth century. The question raised by T.L.K.Oliphant, “Was the old English Aristocracy destroyed by the Wars of the Roses?” (T.R.H.S. 1, 1868, 437–463) is still not satisfactorily closed. It has been discussed again, all too briefly, by K.B.McFarlane, “The Wars of the Roses” (Proc. Brit. Acad., vol. L, 1965, pp. 87–119). The effects upon society of the redistribution of church property by the dissolution of the monasteries has only received a very general treatment in S.B.Liljegren, The Fall of the Monasteries and the Social Changes in England leading up to the Great Revolution (Lunds Univ. Arsskrift. N.F. Avd. 1, Bd. 19,1924), but the results indicate how valuable more detailed studies would be. A work of the utmost importance both as an investigation into problems of social history and also as a work of reference on individuals in sixteenth-century society is a trilogy by W.K.Jordan, Philanthropy in England: 1480–1660 (1959); The Charities of London: 1480–1660 (1960); The Charities of Rural England, 1480–1660 (1961). Further results have been published for separate counties in the publications of the appropriate local history society, e.g., Kent, Lancashire. The technique involved an exhaustive analysis of wills with a view to discovering from the legacies and bequests left for charitable purposes the nature of the changing pattern of social aspirations, and the results upon the problem of poverty. The most illuminating and amusing in-sight into the early Tudor aristocracy, old and new, is presented in the devastating criticisms by J.H.Round, that acknowledged master of genealogical scholarship. His essays break through the mystique of the Tudor heralds, and reveal how some of the families rising to high rank in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries had their origins in very lowly circumstances in the fifteenth century, and tried to conceal the facts with the aid of the science of heraldry. Round’s main work in this field will be found in Peerage and Pedigree (2 vols., 1910), Studies in Peerage and Family History (1901), Family Origins (1930), a posthumous selection 230

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

231

of his papers, together with a full bibliography of Round’s writings, edited by W.Page. Work on similar lines will be found in O.Barron, Northamptonshire Families (1906). A lively introduction to some of the problems of social history dealt with in these books will be found in some stimulating and witty essays by J.H.Hexter, Reappraisals in History (1961). Of special importance are the essays on “A New Framework for Social History” (pp. 14–25), “The Myth of the Middle Class in Tudor England” (pp. 71–116), and “The Education of the Aristocracy in the Renaissance” (pp. 45–70). This leads naturally to the doings of the heralds. Their activities in the period give them significance. The most scholarly brief account of the evolution of their office is A.R.Wagner, Heralds and Heraldry in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1939, 2nd edn,, rev. 1956). This enquiry into the growth of the armorial functions of the herald is concerned primarily with the later Middle Ages, but there is considerable discussion of the commission of 1530, and the powers then given to the heralds, as well as with the records of early sixteenth-century heralds’ visitations. See also his Records and Collections of the College of Arms (1952). Useful, too, is the enlarged and illustrated catalogue of the Herald’s Commemorative Exhibition 1484–1934 (1936). For the greater nobles there is no composite study in print, and impressions must be based on the biographies of individuals. The following standard reference books are indispensable: G.E.Cockayne, Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, and Ireland, extant, extinct, and dormant (Rev. Edn. by Hon.V.Gibbs and others. 13 vols., 1910–49); J.E.Doyle, The Official Baronage of England 1066–1885 (3 vols., 1886); A Collins, The Peerage of England (1709, best edn. by S.E. Brydges, 9 vols., 1812); W.Dugdale, The Baronage of England (3 vols., 1675–76). The social environment of members of this group is described by P.V.B.Jones, The Household of a Tudor Nobleman (Urbana, 1917), which has a useful bibliography. J.M.W.Bean, The Estates of the Percy Family: 1416–1537 (Oxford, 1958) is a scientific analysis of the possessions and revenues of this important family. The powerful Howard Dukes of Norfolk have been studied in two rewarding biographies: Melvin J.Tucker, Thomas Howard Earl of Surrey and 2nd Duke of Norfolk, 1443–1524 (1964, The Hague), and Neville Williams, Thomas Howard 1538–72 Fourth Duke of Norfolk (1964). The lesser nobility, comprising all those from the knight upwards, who could pass successfully the tests of gentility, formed an element in English society which was particularly sensitive to the impact of new social forces during this period. Contemporaries and later historians alike concerned themselves with the group. The former asked questions about the standing of the gentleman and the ideals implicit in the word: the latter have tried to analyse the answers to create a tidy scheme. Unfortunately the answers were not framed in the precise language of the lawyer, and the social group which emerges is bound to appear somewhat vague. The problem forms the theme of two good monographs: Ruth Kelso, The Doctrine of the English Gentleman in the Sixteenth Century (Urbana, 1929), and J.E.Mason, Gentlefolk in the Making (Philadelphia, 1935). For a realistic picture based on facts, P.A.Kennedy, “A gentleman’s home in the reign of Henry VII” (Northampton Past and Present, II, 1954, pp. 17–28), the home of Henry de Vese of Addington. The education of the English gentleman is discussed by D.Bush, The Renaissance and English Humanism (Toronto, 1939), P.N.Siegel, “English Humanism and the New Tudor Aristocracy” (Journ. Hist. Ideas: XIII, 1952, pp. 450–468), and Fritz Caspari, Humanism and the Social Order in Tudor England (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1954). For the most part, these works are based on literary sources. They can be supplemented by more technical studies dealing with documents. The best is W.G.Hoskin’s “The Leicestershire Farmer in the Sixteenth Century”, in Essays in Leicestershire History (1950). This essay is of special interest because of the use made of evidence from wills and inventories, and it can be said that many of the conclusions reached have relevance for other parts of the country. It brings out very clearly the difficulty of defining the limits between the country squire, well within the social group, and the yeoman, often as well-to-do in material wealth,

232

THE COMMONWEAL

who was beginning to take his opportunities to acquire landed property, but had not as yet arrived among the gentry. The situation suggests that some of the questions which have been asked about the gentry in the later sixteenth century need to be applied to the fifteenth century, and the early Tudor period. Similar questions are considered in M.E.Finch, The Wealth of Five Northamptonshire Families 1540–1640 (Northampton Rec. Soc., 1956). Since the family was as significant an institution as social rank and distinction, much may be learnt about the nobility (both the greater and the lesser) through the histories of individual families. There is no lack of such studies, but they must be used discreetly. The best of them often contain special illustrative material from public and private archives, the worst often produce neat, but fictitious pedigrees, and doubtful genealogical guesses. A guide to this literature is T.R. Thomas, Catalogue of British Family Histories: 2nd edn., 1933. A strictly limited selection might include some of the following: John Smyth’s Lives of the Berkeleys, edited by Sir J.Maclean (Bristol and Glouc. Arch. Soc., 1883–85); E.Harrison, Annals of an Old Manor House (1893–99), an admirable survey of the Westons, an average Tudor country gentry family, and the history of their house, Sutton Place, Guildford; G.Scott-Thomson, Two Centuries of Family History (1930), describing the rising fortunes of the Russell family; H.S.Bennett, The Pastons and their England (1922); J.Conyers Reed, Mr. Secretary Cecil and Queen Elizabeth (1955, c. 1) for the origin of the Cecil family; G.H.Ryan and L.J.Redstone, Timperley of Hintlesham (1930), a study of a Suffolk family; H.P.R.Finberg, “The Gostwicks of Willington”, (Bedford Hist. Rec. Soc. XXXVI); E.A.Barnard, The Sheldons (Cambridge, 1936), a Warwickshire family; J.E.Jackson, Wulfhall and the Seymours (Wilts. Arch, and Nat. Hist. Mag. XV, 1875, pp. 140–207), for the family origins of Protector Somerset. Considerable information can be gathered about the prosperous and rising group of individuals whose wealth was being acquired in trade. The starting point for such study should be S.Thrupp, The Merchant Class of Medieval London, 1300–1500 (1948). T.S.Willan, The Muscovy Merchants of 1555 (Manchester, 1953), is an unpretentious, but extremely useful analysis, with much biographical data, of all the merchants mentioned in the Company’s charter, many of whom were in business for the greater part of the early Tudor period. B.Winchester, Tudor Family Portrait (1955), is something of a missed opportunity. Many readers would have spared much of the commentary in exchange for the publication of the complete text, or at least a generous selection, of the letters on which the book is based. John Johnston (c. 1514–90) was a merchant of the Staple. He was an exemplary correspondent, and his letters to and from relations, and business acquaintances—nearly a thousand have survived from the period February 1542 to March 1552—give a lively picture of the social life of the community to which this group belonged. Another such picture is given in the model study by G.C.Moore Smith, The Family of Withypoll (Walthamstow Antiq. Soc. Monographs, 1936), while an older work, J.W. Burgon, The Life and Times of Sir Thomas Gresham (2 vols., 1839), is a well-known study of a family conspicuous in the financial and commercial circles of the period. A good account of the activities of a provincial merchant, based largely on materials drawn from his account book, is by John Webb, Great Tooley of Ipswich (Suffolk Rec. Soc. Public., 1962). Studies of the inferior social groups, the peasants and labourers are not so plentiful. The most authoritative account is still R.H.Tawney, The Agrarian Problem in the Sixteenth Century (1912). Although concerned with the later period, M.Campbell, The English Yeoman under Elizabeth and the Early Stuarts (New Haven, 1942) has some comments on the position of the yeoman in the early sixteenth century. The problem of the personal and legal status of the peasant was looked at very closely in F.G.Davenport, “The Decay of Villeinage in East Anglia” (T.R.H.S. 2nd Ser., XIV, 1900, pp. 123–141); T.W.Page, “Villeinage in England” (Amer. Econ. Assoc. 3rd Ser., 1, No. 2, N.Y., 1900); E.P.Cheyney, “Disappearance of English Serdom” (E.H.R. xv, 1900, pp. 20–37); I.S.Leadam, “The last days of bondage in England”

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

233

(L.Q.R. IX, 1893, pp. 348–365); H.E.Maiden, “Bondmen in Surrey under the Tudors” (T.R.H.S. 2nd Ser. XIX, 1905, pp. 305–307); A.Savine, “Bondmen under the Tudors” (T.R.H.S. 2nd Ser., XVII, 1903, pp. 235–289). A good picture of the Midland conditions is supplied in Hoskins, Essays in Leicestershire History, “The Husbandman”, p. 146 f., and “The Yeoman”, p. 150 f. For a contemporary study of conditions in Europe on the eve of the sixteenth century, see E.Power, “Peasant Life and Rural Conditions” (Camb. Med. Hist, VII, c. 24); H.Nabholz, “Medieval Agrarian Society in Transition” (Camb. Econ. Hist, 1, viii); and G.G.Coulton, The Medieval Village (Camb., 1925). A large part of the original authorities connected with the heralds is still in manuscript, particularly that part which forms the muniments of the College of Heralds. Enough, however, has been printed from other archives to indicate their functions and methods. The commission to which the heralds owed their powers in the early Tudor period is printed in Wagner, op. cit. 9–10. In App. D. (pp. 139–146) the author prints a visitation made by Thomas Hawley, Carlisle Herald, of St Paul’s, London, and of twelve other City churches (28 July to 3 September 1530), and of six churches on the eastern side of the City, made by Clarencieux 27 March 1532–33. The special interest of the manuscript is the evidence it gives of the powers exercised by Clarencieux after the commission of 1530. Heraldic authority was rapidly coming into its own. Some other visitations in print are C.H.Hunter Blair (ed.), A Visitation of the North of England c. 1480–1500 (Surtees Soc., 1930, vol. 144), containing pedigrees of the royal house, and of north-country gentry, most of them of the time of Henry VII: Heraldic Visitation of the Northern Counties in 1530, by Thomas Tonge, Norroy King of Arms: ed. W.H.D.Longstaffe (Surtees Soc., 1862, xli) with north-country grants of arms, 1470–1650, and F.W.Dendy (ed.), Visitations of the North (Surt. Soc., 122, Pt. 1, 1912) containing William Harvey’s visitation of 1552, and Lawrence Walton’s of 1557. Various commissions to the heralds will be found on the patent rolls for Edward VI and Mary. Important for the light they throw on the organization and running of noble households are some extant household books and accounts. The most important is T.Percy (ed.), The Northumberland Household Book (1770; 1827). This exceptionally fine specimen contains the regulations governing the elaborate establishment of the great household of Henry Algernon Percy, 5th earl of Northumberland, together with interesting details of the daily catering within the establishment. It was begun in 1512. For the historical background of this family there is a careful study by J.M.W.Bean, The Estates of the Percy Family, 1416– 1537 (Oxford, 1958). J.P.Collier edited The Household Books of John, duke of Norfolk and Thomas, earl of Surrey: 1481–90 (Roxburgh Club, 1844),1 while J.Gage edited “Selections from the Household Books of Edward, Duke of Buckingham, 1507–8” (Archaeologia, XXV, 1834, pp. 311–314). Similar documents from the accounts of Richard Bertie and his Lady are in H.M.C. Rep. Ancaster MSS., pp. 459–472). Materials of a similar kind for royal households are privy purse accounts. Several are in print, e.g. S.Bentley, Excerpta Historical Privy Purse expenses of King Henry VII, 1491–1505 (1831, 85–132); N.H.Nicolas, Privy Purse Expenses of Elizabeth of York (1830); N.H.Nicolas, Privy Purse Expenses of King Henry the Eighth: Nov. 1529–Dec. 1532 (1827); F.Madden, Privy Purse Expenses of the Princess Mary (1831); P.C.S.Smythe, Household Expenses of the Princess Elizabeth (C.S. Misc. II, 1853). Interest in the social theory of the early Tudor period was greatly stimulated during the nineteenth century by the publication of some of the works of the lesser known pamphleteers, moralists, and preachers in the series of texts published by various learned societies. The editors of such texts were not primarily concerned with social problems or economic conditions: they studied their texts as specimens of philology and orthography, or as materials illustrating the nature of religious controversy. They were inclined to accept at their face 1 Melvin J.Tucker, Household Accounts (1490–91) of John de Vere, earl of Oxford (E.H.R. LXXV, 1960 pp. 468–474), corrects Collier’s edition.

234

THE COMMONWEAL

value generalizations they found in them about contemporary society, with the result that their impressions of the period had few bright spots to relieve the prevailing gloom. With the growing interest in economic history characteristic of the nineteenth century, and the close study of economic conditions as revealed in official records, doubts began to be cast upon some of the generalizations of the pamphleteers, and the denunciations of the moralists. It was realized that not all their criticisms could be supported by facts, and that on such subjects as enclosures, for example, much they said was too crude a simplification of the evidence. Like most revisions of accepted opinions, some of these later criticisms went too far, and further reflection led to a more cautious approach. It had to be admitted that although some of the sixteenth-century criticisms could not be accepted as they stood, there was much in the evidence which could not be wholly rejected. Allowance had to be made for the fact that these contemporary critics knew their world, and that although they sometimes made their points by exaggeration going to the length of caricature, this did not wholly destroy the value of the evidence they provided: it only made the task of the historian more delicate. While social problems attracted considerable attention, contemporary interest in the nature of political obligation and in constitutional theory was less sustained. As might be expected, the problems stimulating the liveliest discussion were those concerned with the relations of Church and State; the nature of monarchy, and the mutual duties and responsibilities of king and subject. The best short introduction to these questions is C.Morris, English political thought from Tyndale to Hooker (Oxford, 1954), while the ground is covered in greater detail in J.W.Allen, A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century (1928). A thorough study of some of these problems is F.L.Van Baumer, The Early Tudor Theory of Kingship (Yale Univ. Press, 1940), while the constitutional issues are stated by R.W.K Hinton, “English constitutional doctrines from the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries: Theories from Sir John Fortescue to Sir John Elyot” (E.H.R. LXXV, 1960, pp. 410–425). Essential texts include Edmund Dudley, The Tree of Commonwealth (1509: first published Manchester, 1859, new edition D.M.Brodie, Cambridge, 1948); Sir Thomas More, Utopia; William Tyndale, The Obedience of a Christian Man and how rulers ought to govern (ed. H.Walter, Doctrinal Treatises…by William Tyndale (P. S., 1848, pp. 129–344); Christopher St Germain, Dialogus defundamentis legum Anglie et de conscientia (1523: many reprints under title Doctor and Student, e.g. ed. W.Muchall, Cincinnati, 1874; Treatise concernynge the division betwene the spiritualite and temporaltie (1532: reprinted by A.I.Taft, The Apologye of Syr Thomas More); Thomas Elyot, The boke named the governour (1531: ed. H.H.S.Croft, 1883: Everyman Lib., 1907); Stephen Gardiner, De vera obedientia oratio (1535: ed. P.Janelle, Obedience in Church and State, Cambridge, 1930); W.S.Hudson, John Ponet (?1516–1556), advocate of limited monarchy (Chicago, 1942); Sir Thomas Smith, De republica Anglorum (1583: ed. L.Alston, Cambridge, 1906). For a more elaborate handlist of early Tudor political literature consult Baumer (cited above, App. B, pp. 225–243). Attempts to arrive at the real meaning of early Tudor thought about contemporary society led to some interesting work. An early sketch in which this material was set against the back-ground of prevailing social conditions was made by E.P.Cheyney in Social Changes in England in the Sixteenth Century as reflected in contemporary literature (Univ. of Penn. Publns. Philosophy, Literature, Archaeology, IV, 2, 1895), but the book was on a small scale, and could not be exhaustive. A fine attempt to analyse the ideals, and interpret the significance of some of the more important minds such as More, Starkey, and Crowley, was made by J.W.Allen, Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century (pp. 121–156). The subject was considered in more detail by Helen C.White in Social Criticism in Popular Religious Literature of the Sixteenth Century (N.Y. Macmillan, 1944), a conscientious, scholarly, but uninspired analysis of the several elements which went to the making of early Tudor social thought. Two recent works bearing on the subject are W.G.Zeeveld, Foundations of Tudor

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

235

Policy (Harvard Univ. Press, 1948) and Fritz Caspari, Humanism and the Social Order in Tudor England (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1954). The former is the more original. Its subject is the continuity of the humanist movement in England during the first half of the sixteenth century. In developing this theme the author produces some evidence for the view that a small group of humanists, largely influenced by contacts with Reginald Pole’s household in Italy, was of greater significance than has been realized, and that two, at least, of the number, Thomas Starkey and Richard Morison, came back to England, and used their knowledge and experience as government propagandists. If the evidence is accepted, Starkey’s two books may have exerted a more direct influence on government policy than earlier historians imagined. Caspari’s book deals with a slightly different problem. Its thesis is that the treatises on education produced by humanists in England (especially by Erasmus, More, Elyot, and Starkey) were prompted by the desire to provide an educational programme whereby the sons of the gentry, now rising to power, could be trained to undertake the responsibilities of government devolving upon them in the new Tudor state. The book is more useful for its summaries of the educational treatises than for its analysis of the social group of the gentry and its place in the social order, but it is a competent monograph. The main texts available for the study of these problems are best displayed in a rough chronological order, and some impressions of the authors may be suggested by brief bibliographical notes: Sir Thomas More (1478–1535)1 More’s masterpiece of social theory, the Utopia, first appeared, in Latin, with the title Libellus vere aureus nec minus salutaris quamfestiuus de optimo reip. statu: deque nova Insula Utopiae authore clarissimo viro Thoma Moro inclytae ciuitatis Londonensis due et vicecomiti cura M.Petri Ægidii Antuerpiensis: et arte Theodorici Martini Alustensis: Typography almae Louaniensium Academiae nunc primum accuratissime editus (1516). The best critical edition of this text is by Marie Delcourt, L’Utopie ou le traité de la meilleure forme de gouvernement (Paris, 1936), based on the three earliest editions, Louvain, 1516, Paris, 1517, Basel, 1518. For most readers the Utopia is best known in the English version made by Ralph Robinson in 1551, with the title A fruteful andpleasaunt worke of the best state ofapublyque weale: and of the new yle called Utopia: written in Latine by Syr Thomas More Knyght: and translated into Englyshe by Raphe Robynson Citizein and Goldsmythe of London: at the procurement: and earnest request of George Tadlowe Citizein and Haberdassher of the same Citie. Imprinted at London by Abraham Vele: dwelling in Pauls churchyarde at the sygne of the Lambe. Anno 1551. Although somewhat verbose in style, Robinson’s translation has retained its popularity. A second edition appeared in 1556, a third in 1597, and others in 1624 and 1639. Later editions of this text have been numerous. It was edited by T.F.Dibden (1808), E.Arber (1869), J.R.Lumby (1879), J.H.Lupton published the Latin text together with this translation (Oxford, 1895), as did G.Sampson and A.Guthkelch (1910) in an edition to which they appended a good bibliography. Handy editions are those by J. Churton Collins (Oxford, 1904), the one published in the Everyman Library (1935), and P.E. Hallett (1937). An independent translation by Gilbert Burnet (1684) was reprinted by H.Morley (1885), and by Sir Sidney Lee (1906). Translations by A.Cayley (1808), by V.Paget (1908), and G.C. Richards (1923) have not superseded Robinson’s text. The Utopia has been the subject of infinite commentary and critical exposition, good, bad, and indifferent. A fairly representative assortment should include the following: G.Dudok, Sir Thomas More and his Utopia (Amsterdam, 1923), a useful survey of More’s theories and the influences bearing upon them; G.E.Dermenghem’s discussion of More in relation to contemporary thought, Thomas Morus et les utopistes de la Renaissance (Paris, 1

For further bibliographical material concerning Sir Thomas More, see below, p. 246–7.

236

THE COMMONWEAL

1927); W.E.Campbell, More’s Utopia and his Social Teaching (1930); and H.W.Donner, Introduction to Utopia (Uppsala, 1945), a concise, critical survey. The most recent scholarly addition to this body of criticism is J.H.Hexter’s admirable commentary, More’s Utopia: the biography of an idea (Princeton, 1952). More’s views have received considerable attention from enthusiasts thinking along special lines. His communistic theories have naturally been closely scrutinized, and the Marxist reaction to them was ably stated by Karl Kautsky, Thomas More und seine Utopia (Stuttgart, 1887:2nd edn., 1907: English translation, 1927) in which he argues that More’s project of communism was the result of, and the reaction to, the rise of capitalism. If later exponents of the same theme, including perhaps the best of them, Russell Ames, Citizen Thomas More and his Utopia (1949), have contributed any new scholarship worthy of serious consideration great intellectual acumen will be necessary to perceive it. Simon Fish (d. 1531) This shadowy figure was an early, vehement, rather than subtle, critic of Tudor society. Nothing is known of his early life save that he studied at Oxford and Gray’s Inn about 1525. In London he was a member of a circle of young men hostile to Wolsey. As a consequence he had to flee to the Low Countries, where he consorted with Tyndale and Roye. After his return to England he acted as agent for the sale of Tyndale’s New Testament. At the end of 1527 he was again in the Low Countries, where he wrote his Supplication. It arrived in England in 1529, on the eve of the meeting of the Reformation Parliament, and the fact that copies were available has led to the suggestion that the government found it useful as propaganda against the clergy. Towards the end of the year Fish was back in England, where he soon came under suspicion of heresy, and his book was condemned by Archbishop Warham. Fish died of plague early in 1531. A Supplicacyon for the Beggers (1529) was first published in England in 1546. It was edited by F.J.Furnivall, and printed in the same volume as three similar supplications edited by J.M. Cowper (E.E.T.S., Ext. Ser., xiii, 1871). William Roy or Roye (fl. 1527) Another obscure satirist. He may have been the son of William Roye, a native of Brabant, who obtained letters of denization in London in 1512. Roye studied at Cambridge, and became a friar observant in the Franciscan convent at Greenwich. He joined Tyndale at Cologne in 1525, and for a time helped him in his translation work. More says, on hearsay, that Roye was burnt in Portugal. Foxe repeats the story, dating it 1531. (Acts and Mon, 1837, IV, p. 696.) The texts containing Roye’s attacks on society are, “Rede me and be nott wrothe, for I say no thynge but trothe” (Worms, 1526). A proper dyalogue betwene agentillman and a husbandman: eche complaynynge to other their miserable calamitie through the ambicion of the clergy (Marburg, 1530: a facsimile edn. by Francis Fry. London and Bristol, 1863). Some information about him is in A.Wolf’s introduction to his reprint, William Roye s Dialogue between a Christian Father and his stubborn son (Vienna, Akad. der Wissenschaft, 1874). Roye’s relations with Tyndale are discussed by J.F.Mozley, William Tyndale (1937, pp. 51–60). Thomas Starkey (?1499–1538) Thomas Starkey is worth a place by the side of More as a writer on social problems. He was born somewhere between 1495 and 1499, into a Cheshire family. He took his first degree from Magdalen College, Oxford, in 1516, and after graduation lectured at Oxford. His close connection with Renaissance culture through his friendship with Reginald Pole has been stressed by Zeeveld. In 1529 he seems to have been Pole’s secretary in Paris, but he returned to England and in 1530 was presented by Archbishop Warham to the living of

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

237

Great Mongeham, Kent, which he held until his death. After spending some time in retreat at the Carthusian monastery at Sheen, he accompanied Pole, in the spring of 1532, to Paris, whence they went to Avignon. Here Starkey stayed to study civil law. In July 1533 he rejoined Pole’s household at Padua, where he continued his legal studies. His hopes of getting employment under Henry VIII are indicated in a letter of April 1533, offering his opinions about the divorce and advocating reference of the question to a general council. By the end of 1534 Starkey was back in England as chaplain in the household of Pole’s mother, the Countess of Salisbury. By this time he was in touch with Cromwell, who probably gave him his chance. He became a royal chaplain, and was used by the king as a go-between to persuade Pole to come out on the king’s side on the question of the royal supremacy and the Boleyn affair. In May 1536, Pole’s treatise “Pro ecclesiasticae mutatis defensione” reached England. Its bitter attack on the king horrified Starkey. Zeeveld has collected evidence to show that during the Pilgrimage of Grace Starkey was used by the government as a propagandist against the rebels. In December 1536 he was appointed to the collegiate chapel of Corpus Christi, Candlewick Street, London, but afterwards does not seem to have been very active in public affairs. He died in August 1538. Starkey’s best known work was his Dialogue between Pole and Lupset, written between 1533 and 1536. It was printed for the first time by J.M.Cowper (E.E.T.S., 1871) from the only known MS. (P.R.O. St. Pap. 1/90), which was presumably the one sent to Henry VIII by Starkey. A modernized edition (there is no substantial modification in the text) was edited by Kathleen M.Burton (1948). Starkey’s other treatise was an Exhortation to Christian Unity (1534), published by the King’s printer in 1536. Several of Starkey’s letters, which throw light on his relations both with Henry VIII and with Pole, were printed by S.J.Herrtage, England in the reign of King Henry the Eighth, 1, Life of Starkey (E.E.T.S., 1878), and some others are described in Macray, Register of Magdalen College (1894), 1, 159–163. Starkey has been closely studied in recent years. Zeeveld, Foundations of Tudor Government, has gathered new evidence about his relations with Pole, and about his employment by the government. If his thesis is accepted it would seem that Starkey’s Dialogue may have had more influence in government circles than was thought by earlier critics who considered it was unknown until its publication in 1871. Zeeveld’s claim for Starkey as the first advocate of an Anglican via media does not come up for discussion here. Miss Burton provides a fairly full biographical sketch, but Zeeveld should also be consulted. There is a sane appraisal of Starkey’s thought in J.W.Allen, Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century. The problem of dating the Dialogue is considered by J.A.Gee, Life and Works of Thomas Lupset (New Haven, 1928, 150–152), and by Burton op. cit. App. William Tyndale (?1490–1536)1 Tyndale’s observations on society and social problems are found scattered in his various writings. A workmanlike text is provided in the edition by H.Walter, including Doctrinal Treatises and Introductions to Different Portions of the Holy Scriptures (containing “The Parable of the Wicked Mammon and The Obedience of a Christian Man”), Tyndale’ s Expositions and Practice of Prelates: and An Answer to Sir Thomas More’s Dialogue, the Supper of the Lord, and William Tracy’s Testament expounded (Parker Soc., 3 vols. 1848; 1849, 1850). Henry Brinkelowe (d. 1546) The eldest son of a farmer of Kintbury, Berks, he knew something of the religious life, for he was a friar who married and settled down as a citizen and mercer of London. Not much is known of his later career save that he was an extreme reformer. His will, proved 24 November 1546, suggests that he became a man of some substance. His pen name was Roderick Mors. The two works by which Brinkelowe is known are his Complaynt of Roderyck Mors: 1

Below, p. 243.

238

THE COMMONWEAL

sometime agrayfryre: unto the parliament house of England his natural country: For the redresse of certen wicked lawes: euel customs and euel decreys (c. 1548) and The Lamentacyon of a Christian Agaynst the Cytye of London made by Roderigo Moss (1542). Both were edited by J.M.Cowper (E.E.T.S., 1874, Extr. Ser., xxii). Robert Crowley (?1518–1588) An important critic of society from the side of the religious reformers. He does not emerge very clearly until about 1534, when he was a student at Magdalen College, Oxford. He took an M.A. in 1542. Not much is known of his activities until 1549, when he set up a printing press at Ely Rents, Holborn, where he produced reform literature until 1551. In that year Bishop Ridley ordained him deacon. At Mary’s accession Crowley joined the religious refugees at Frankfurt, where he remained until Elizabeth’s accession made his return possible. In 1559 he was made archdeacon of Hereford. Further promotion was impeded by his obstinacy over the Vestments problem. His career ended in 1588. The most important of Crowley’s writings were edited by J.M.Cowper, The Select Works of Robert Crowley (E.E.T.S., 1872, Extra. Ser., xv). They comprise: “One and thyrtye Epigrammes, wherein are briefly touched so many abuses, that maybe and ought to be put away” (1550); “The Voyce of the laste trumpet, blowen by the seventh Angel (as is mentioned in the eleuenth of the Apocalips) callyng al estats of men to the ryght path of theyr vocation, wherin are conteyned xii. Lessons to twelue seueral estats of men, which if thei learne and folowe, al shall be wel, and nothing amis” (1550); “Pleasure and Payne, Heauen and Hell: Remembre these foure, and all shall be well” (1551); “The Way to Wealth, wherein is plainly taught a most present Remedy for Sedicion” (1550); “An Informacion and Peticion agaynst the oppressours of the pore Commons of this Realme, compiled and Imprinted for this onley purpose that amongest them that haue to doe in the Parliamente, some godlye mynded men, may hereat take occacion to speake more in the matter then the Authoure was able to write” (1549). Hugh Latimer (?1485–1555)1 The most convenient edition of Latimer’s sermons is that edited by G.E.Corrie, vol. 1, Sermons, II, Sermons and Remains (Parker Soc., 1844, 1845). There is a popular selection, Latimer s Sermons, ed. H.C.Beeching (Everyman Library, 1906). It is important to notice, from the point of view of Latimer’s opinions on social problems, that the greater part of his extant sermons come from the years 1549–53. Thomas Lever (1521–1577) Lever was a Lancashire man, who took his degree from St John’s College, Cambridge, in 1541–42. He was an acquaintance of Ascham at Cambridge, and was prominent among the extreme reformers at the University. He was admitted fellow of his college in July 1548: later in the year he joined Roger Hutchinson in debate with Roman Catholics on the Mass. In June 1550 he was ordained deacon by Bishop Ridley, and was well known as an eloquent preacher, specializing in denunciations of society. In December 1551 he became Master of St John’s. He made the political blunder of supporting Lady Jane Grey, and after Mary’s accession he resigned his mastership and fled to Zurich and Geneva, where he attended sermons and lectures by Calvin. On Elizabeth’s accession he returned to England. He did not get the recognition he might have hoped, and in his later years he had many difficulties. He died in July 1577. Not many of Lever’s sermons are available. Three which he preached in 1550 (at St Paul’s in the Shrouds; before Edward VI: and at Paul’s Cross) were printed separately in 1550, and were collected by Lever and reprinted together in 1572. These were edited by E.Arber, Lever’s Sermons (British Classics, 1870). 1

See below, p. 245.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

239

John Hales (d. 1571) Belief that Hales was the author of the Discourse of the Commonweal still commands general acceptance, and indeed, the known facts about his career fit very neatly with that conclusion. The younger son of Thomas Hales of Halden, Kent, he was not apparently educated at either university, although he somehow acquired a knowledge of Latin, Greek, French, and German. He seems to have profited from the dissolution of the monasteries, and may well have been the first founder of a free school in Edward VI’s reign by his conversion of St John’s Hospital, Coventry (which he received by grant in 1548) into a free school. Somerset used Hales on the commission for dealing with enclosures. He sat as M.P. for Preston, Lancs., in Edward VI’s first Parliament, when he was responsible for bills in support of the poor, for rebuilding decayed towns, for the maintenance of tillage, and against regrators. All were rejected. After Somerset’s fall Hales encountered hostility from Warwick, and left for the continent. He was a conspicuous member of the refugee colony at Frankfurt. He returned to England after Elizabeth’s accession, and sat in the Parliament of 1562. In 1564 he was in difficulty owing to the expression of views about the succession to the throne, and he spent some time in the Tower. He died 28 December 1571. The work edited by Miss E.Lamond as A Discourse of the Common Weal of this Realm of England (Cambridge, 1893) has an interesting history. It was first printed in 1581 under the tide A Briefe Conceipte ofEnglishe Policie: and was assumed to be an original work by one W.S. This text was reprinted in 1751, 1808, 1813, 1876, one of these later publishers hazarding the guess that the initials concealed William Shakespeare! William Lambarde had known better. In his manuscript copy of the treatise (a transcript he had caused to be made as early as 1565) he made a note attributing the work to John Hales or William Smith. Working on this statement Miss Lamond stated a strong case for Hales, and produced a text of the Discourse earlier than, and differing from, that of W.S., which, she claimed, could be accepted as a social survey of England in 1549. While this section is devoted mainly to the sources available for the study of the leading personalities of the period, the opportunity has been taken to make a selective survey of the biographical literature, and it includes, therefore, some of the lesser figures who may, for one reason or another, have attracted the attention of a biographer, although the attainments of such men may not justify their inclusion among the leaders of that society. The standard biographical dictionaries and reference works1 should be consulted. Most of the important characters are noticed in them, and guidance is often given to other relevant literature. Estimates of some of the leaders are available in collections of essays, e.g. W.Stubbs, Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Medieval and Modern History (Oxford, 1886); A.D.Innes, Ten Tudor Statesmen (1906, new and rev. edn., 1934); K.Garvin (ed.), The Great Tudors (1935, new edn., 1956); Conyers Reed, The Tudors: Personalities and Politics in SixteenthCentury England (1936); C.Morris, The Tudors (1956). The development of biographical writing at this time is discussed by R.W.Chambers in his introduction to Harpsfield’s Life of More, and D.A.Stauffer, English Biography before 1700 (Camb., Mass., 1950). It must not be forgotten that this is the first time in our history when it is possible to see a number of the leading personalities as they really appeared to their contemporaries. The portraits and drawings of Hans Holbein the Younger, Hans Eworth, and other unknown artists are as important as historical evidence as are the literary witnesses. The bibliography is too specialized to be dealt with at length here, but E.Auerbach, Tudor Artists (1954) is a useful introduction. There are numerous reproductions of Holbein’s work. The best are H.A.Schmid, Hans Holbein derJünger: seinAufstieg zur Meisterschaft undsein englischer Stil (Basle, 1948,3 vols.), magnificently illustrated; the standard reference work, P.Ganz, The Paintings of Hans Holbein (1956); K.T. Parker, The Drawings of Hans Holbein in the Collection of H.M. the King at Windsor Castle (Oxford and London, 1945); The Windsor 1

See above, p. 70.

240

THE COMMONWEAL

Collection of Holbein Portraits of the Court of Henry VIII (Arundel Society, 5 pts., 80 plates, 1877); R.R.Holmes, Portraits of Illustrious Personages of the Court of Henry VIII (I, II); A.B.Chamberlain, Hans Holbein the Younger (2 vols., 1913); C.R.L.Fletcher and E.Walker, Historical Portraits 1400–1600 (Oxford, 1909). More’s iconography over three centuries has been studied by Stanley Morison (ed.), The Likeness of Thomas More (new edn., supplemented, by N.Barker, 1963). The early Tudor sovereigns have, of course, been described in all the general histories. The following works consist of those concerned primarily with their private lives and characters so far as they can be separated from their public actions as heads of the State. Historians have begun to recognize that Henry VII was a personality in his own right, and not merely a prototype of his own dynasty. This fresh appraisal has not yet found expression in a full-length study but there has been a lively skirmish: G.R.Elton, “Henry VII: Rapacity and Remorse” (Hist. Journ. 1 (1958) pp 21–39); J.R.Cooper, “Henry VII’s last years reconsidered” (Ibid, II, 1959, pp 103–129); and Elton, “Henry VII: A Restatement” (Ibid, IV, 1961, pp 1–29). The best of older biographies is that by G.Temperley, Henry VII (1914:1918). J.Gairdner’s short study, Henry the Seventh (1889) and Richard III (Cambridge, rev. edn., 1898) are by a leading authority and are still useful. Of contemporary descriptions that by Polydore Vergil, Anglica Historia, was written from first-hand knowledge, and is, on the whole favourable, as also (although obviously bound to be a eulogy) is Bishop Fisher’s funeral oration, Works, ed. J.F.B. Mayor (E.E.T.S., XXVII, 1878). There are several brief descriptions by foreign observers in the calendars of State papers (Spanish, Venetian, and Milanese). Francis Bacon’s Historie of the raigne of King Henry the Seventh (1622, standard edn., J.R.Lumby, Cambridge, 1885) is interesting, but must not be quoted as a primary authority. The private life and character of Henry VIII has naturally excited great interest, although it is surprising how few were the attempts made to deal with the subject seriously before the nineteenth century. A.F.Pollard’s fine study, Henry VIII (first published in a sumptuously illustrated Goupil edition in 1902, and then in a simpler format with references (1905:1913) has not been superseded by a more recent popular study, J.Bowle, Henry VIII (1964), although Pollard’s favourable verdict on the King’s ability and achievement has been challenged somewhat indecisively by G.R.Elton, Henry VIII. An essay in revision (Hist. Assoc. Gen. Ser., 51, 1962). Contemporary descriptions are numerous. The shrewdest judge, and certainly the most loyal admirer of the king was Stephen Gardiner, in whose letters will be found several pithy reminiscences of his conversations with him. Foreign observers sent home several descriptions, which will be found in L.P. and the calendars of state papers. The earliest serious estimate of the King’s character was made by William Thomas, whose forthright defence probably reflects the opinion of the ordinary Englishman of the time.1 In the seventeenth century Lord Edward Herbert of Cherbury made a spirited and able defence in The Life and Raigne of King Henry the Eighth (1649. Later editions, 1672, 1682, 1741). W.S.Brewer, whose knowledge of the unprinted sources was unrivalled, assembled much fresh information in his introductions to the volumes of L.P. he edited: these were collected by J.Gairdner, The reign of Henry VIII from his accession to the death of Wolsey (2 vols., 1884). The shrewd comments of that great judge of human character, Bishop Stubbs, make his witty and penetrating estimate of the king in Seventeen Lectures well worth consideration. Attempts have been made to diagnose Henry’s ailments, in the expectation that his character, and actions might be explained by a knowledge of his medical history. They have not been very successful. Why should they? The evidence available is slight, much of it the merest gossip of laymen, not the precise language of medical men, and what modern doctor would hazard diagnosis of a patient he was not allowed to see? There is danger in this line 1

See above, p. 105.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

241

of research. The conclusion arrived at by some of these writers is that Henry was a syphilitic, hence the running sore on his leg, hence, too, the failure of Catherine to produce an heir. The modern mind, affected by the anti-social implications of this disease, if not by moral considerations, is forthwith influenced by these medical opinions towards a tendentious judgment upon Henry’s character. Despite its façade of references there is nothing substantial in F.Chamberlain, The Private Character of Henry VIII (1932), nor in A.S.McNalty, Henry VIII: a difficult patient (1952). The most scientifically restrained examination of this kind is J.F.D.Shrewsbury, “Henry VIII: A medical study” (Journ. Hist. Medicine, VII, 2, pp. 142– 185). The author concludes that most of the king’s physical troubles were due to gout, and the doleful story of Catherine’s miscarriages might be explained by medical factors less concerned with Henry than that mentioned above. From time to time there appear foolish individuals with a little knowledge of the facts of life, a smattering of Freudian jargon, and a sublime confidence in their own ability to reveal the secret of Henry’s complex psychology. They die unmourned by bibliographers. It is difficult to distinguish between Henry’s public and private correspondence, and not much of the latter reveals his innermost thoughts, still less his motives. Many of his letters of both kinds are in print in extenso in the State Papers Henry VIII (Record Comm., 11 vols.) and in summaries in L.P. A selection of these letters more strictly personal and private was carefully edited by M.St Clair Byrne, Letters of Henry VIII (1936). All that needs to be known about Edward VI was brought together by J.G.Nichols in his elaborate introduction to the Literary Remains of King Edward the Sixth (Roxburgh Club, 1857) This monograph is not only a detailed survey of the reign; it is also a sure guide to the source material, much of which is printed in full or in extracts in the text and footnotes. This is a work on a much fuller and more scholarly scale than the earlier biography by Sir John Hay ward, Life and Raigne of King Edward the Sixth (1630). Sir C.R.Markham, King Edward VI: his Life and Character (1907) adds nothing new except some eccentric theories. The young king’s precocity is staggering, even when due allowance is made for the flattery of courtiers. Evidence for it is the diary he kept from his accession until 28 November 1552, his letters, and a few original papers, all of which are printed by Nichols, with a discussion of their authenticity. Nichol’s work provided the material for the latest popularization of the young king, Hester W.Chapman, The Last Tudor King (1958), a study which substitutes for the conventional portrait of a sickly helpless tool in the hands of unscrupulous politicians the theme that Edward was a vigorous high spirited youth who was, to a considerable degree, himself responsible for creating the forces by which he was destroyed. Queen Mary I has been well served by modern biographers. There have been three: J.M. Stone, The History of Mary I: Queen of England (1901); B.White, Mary Tudor (1935); and H.F.M.Prescott, Mary Tudor (1952). The last named is a revised edition, with a new introductory chapter on the social background, of a book originally published as Spanish Tudor (1940). It is the best of the three. A sympathetic study by F.Madden forms the introduction to his edition of Privy Purse Expenses of the Princess Mary (1831) which gives many interesting sidelights on Mary’s tastes and way of life. There are descriptions of the Queen in J.Kaulek (ed.), Correspondance politique de MM. de Castillon et de Marillac (Paris, 1885), and in the calendars of State papers (Spanish and Venetian). Mary’s letters are printed in T.Hearne, Sylloge Epistolarum (Oxford, 1716), and many are summarized in calendars of State papers (Spain), and some interesting materials from Spanish sources were edited by C.V.Malfatti, The Accession, Coronation, and Marriage of Mary Tudor (Barcelona, 1956). The chief ministers of Henry VII were Reginald Bray, Edmund Dudley, and Richard Empson. There is a good short account of Bray in W.C.Richardson, Tudor Chamber Administration, 451–458, with a bibliography. Dudley has been studied by D.M.Brodie, “Edmund Dudley, Minister of King Henry VII” (T.R.H.S.: 4th Ser., vol. xv, 133–161), and

242

THE COMMONWEAL

in the introduction to her edition of his treatise on The Tree of Commonwealth (Cambridge, 1948). There is no satisfactory account of Empson, although most students of Henry VII’s reign would now support the view that it is time for a revision of the old, unfavourable accounts of his character, and activities. So far as is known there is no contemporary biography of any one of these statesmen, but references to them, usually unfavourable, will be found in the obvious authorities, e.g. Polydore Vergil, The Great Chronicle, etc. For the reign of Henry VIII, until 1529, the political scene was dominated by Wolsey. The authoritative biography is by A.F.Pollard, Wolsey (1929:1953), which does ample justice to his home policy, a feature barely recognized in earlier estimates. Scholarly interest in the cardinal may be said to have begun with R.Fiddes, The Life of Cardinal Wolsey (1724:1726), still to be consulted for its appendix of documents. Mandell Creighton’s short study, Cardinal Wolsey 1898), is too favourable, and concentrates too closely on his foreign policy. H.Belloc, Wolsey (1930), is a vigorous piece of writing, but due allowance must be made for the author’s prejudices, and all its facts are in Pollard. A life was written by George Cavendish (1500–1561). Cavendish entered Wolsey’s service as gentleman usher, about 1526, and was with him constantly until the cardinal’s death. It would appear from internal evidence that his book was written by 1557, but Cavendish probably thought it imprudent to print it during his lifetime, although several manuscript copies were in circulation during the sixteenth century. A garbled version, produced for political purposes, was printed in 1641 (reprinted in the Harleian Miscellany (1744–46)). A better text, printed from two Lambeth MSS., was published by C.Wordsworth in his Ecclesiastical Biography (1810). A text with some pretensions to scholarship was edited by S.W.Singer, Cavendish’ s Life of Cardinal Wolsey (1815, 2nd edn., 1827). Three later versions in private press editions (Kelmscott Press 1893; Alcuin Press, Chipping Campden, 1930; and Folio Society, 1961) are inadequate. A, definitive text was edited by R.S.Sylvester (E.E.T.S., 1959) and a modernized edition of that text was published by R.S.Sylvester and D.P.Harding (Yale Univ. Press, 1962). For the significance of Cavendish in early sixteenth century biographical writing consult R.W.Chambers, Harpsfield’s Life of More. Descriptions bitterly hostile to Wolsey are in Polydore Vergil, Anglica Historia, and in the poems of John Skelton, Works, ed. A.Dyce (2 vols., 1843): “Colin Cloute”, “Why come ye not to Court?”, and “Speke Parrot”. Also in William Roy, “Rede me and be not wrothe”. Lively personal impressions and comments by foreign diplomats are in the calendars of state papers. To what extent Wolsey’s place was taken by Thomas Cromwell is still a question for discussion. The first full scale study was R.B.Merriman, Life and Letters of Thomas Cromwell (Oxford, 2 vols., 1902), which, while it is very thorough did not break with the older tradition of hostility to its subject. A provocative short study by P.Van Dyke in Renascence Portraits (N.Y., 1905), did make that break and stated some of the evidence in favour of Cromwell’s character. Two historians have, in recent times, approached the subject from this standpoint, and have been much more in sympathy with Cromwell and favourable in their judgment of his importance. First came the work of G.R.Elton, The Tudor Revolution in Government (1953),which he followed with a series of articles developing his arguments. They include: “King or Minister? The Man behind the Henrician Reformation” (History, XXXIX, 1954, pp. 216–232); “The Political Creed of Thomas Cromwell” (T.R.H.S., Ser. V, 1956, pp. 69–92); “Thomas Cromwell’s Decline and Fall” (Camb. H.J., x (1951), pp. 150– 185. Further support for this interpretation was provided by A.G.Dickens, Thomas Cromwell and the English Reformation (1959), a sensitive study which emphasizes the religious ideas behind Cromwell’s policy. Merriman prints the text of many of Cromwell’s letters, and the large mass of his papers are calendared in L.P. vols, IV, V, while there are some sidelights in Cavendish’s Wolsey. The

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

243

sources for his career are difficult. A letter from Chapuys to Granvelle (21 November 1535: L.P. v, 228) gives the commonly accepted account of his origins and early struggles: but the most damaging estimate was that of Cardinal Pole in his “Apologia ad Carolum Quintum Caesarem” in Quirini Epistolae, 1744 I. p. 133). Statesmen coming to the political scene in the later years of this period have been studied in three examples of modern scientific biography: F.G.Emmison, Tudor Secretary (1961), a definitive life of Sir William Petre (1505–72), based on family papers now in the Essex Record Office; Mary Dewar, Sir Thomas Smith 1513–77 (1964), replaces the life by J.Strype (1698: Oxford edn., 1820), and S.E.Lehmberg, Sir Walter Mildmay and Tudor Government (Univ. of Texas, 1964), using family papers now in the Northamptonshire Record Office. There was no dearth of commanding figures and leaders of opinion in the Church, many of them, of course, active as well in affairs of State. The ablest of Henry VII’s ecclesiastical advisers was, undoubtedly, John Morton. There is a rather pedestrian biography by R.L.K.Woodhouse (1895), a short essay by C.Jenkins, “Cardinal Morton’s Register”, in Tudor Studies. Contemporary estimates are in Polydore Vergil, and Hall, while Sir Thomas More, who livedin Morton’s household as a youth, gives some impressions of him in Utopia. The close relations existing between Morton and More have given rise to doubts as to which of them really wrote the Life of Richard III, usually attributed to More. The problem is discussed by R.W.Chambers and A.F.Pollard, “Sir Thomas More’s ‘Richard III’” (History, XVII, 317–323); “The Making of Sir Thomas More’s Richard III” (Hist. Essays in honour of James Tait, 1933, pp. 223–228). The man who gave the sixteenth century the Scriptures in English can hardly be omitted from a list of those who shaped the opinions of his generation, but William Tyndale (?1490– 1536) did most of his work outside England, and was not prominent in affairs. His concentrated dedication to the work of translation was well described by R.Demaus, William Tyndale: A Biography (1871, rev. edn., R.Lovett, 1886), and this is still an important reference work. J.F. Mozley, William Tyndale (1937), while it examines afresh some of the controversial problems, does not supplant it. Complementary to this book is C.C.Butterworth and A.G.Chester, George Joye 1495?–1533 (1962, Philadelphia), a scholarly monograph on the translator of parts of the Bible who had a serious quarrel with Tyndale. Tyndale can be studied in his own writings, the most important are available in H.Walter (ed.), Doctrinal Treatises and Introductions to different parts of the Holy Scriptures; Expositions and Practice of Prelates; An Answer to Sir Thomas More’s Dialogue (P.S., 1848:1849:1850). A selection from these texts is edited, with an introduction, by G.E.Duffield, The Work of William Tyndale (Courtenay Library of Reformation Classics. Appleford, 1964). There is an excellent appraisal of the man and his work in S.L. Greenslade’s anthology, The Works of William Tyndale (1938). John Fisher, bishop of Rochester (1459–1535) deserves attention not only as a tragic victim of the claims of royal supremacy (he was a zealous advocate of Catherine’s cause), but also because the sources for his biography have given rise to some neat problems in textual criticism. The study of his career was long hampered by some curious obscurities. Two things are certain. At some point in the sixteenth century someone wrote, in English, a life of the bishop, and a little later this life was translated into Latin. From the early seventeenth century the English life was attributed to a Dr Richard Hall, a teacher at Douai, who died in 1604. This work remained in manuscript until 1655, when a Thomas Bayly produced The Life and Death of that renowned John Fisher: Bishop of Rochester. This was not quite what it seemed, a biography of Fisher by Bayly, but a work in which Bayly, using a copy of the English life, and hacking it about as he pleased, passed off his strangely garbled version as an original work of his own. When John Lewis attempted a serious biography he worked from some orginal materials but he did not get behind Bayly’s text. Although Lewis’s M.S. is dated 1730, it was not published until T.H. Turner edited it (2 vols., 1855).

244

THE COMMONWEAL

The first biography with any claim to scholarship was T.E.Bridgett, Life of the Blessed John Fisher (1888), and it has remained the most reliable authority down to the present time. Bridgett went back to the manuscript English life, and he also had the advantage of the edition of Letters and Papers. Even so, he did not solve all the problems. The next step forward was taken by a Bollandist Father, Van Ortroy in Vie du bienheureux martyr Jean Fisher: cardinal évêque de Rochester (Brussels, 1893: reprinted from Analecta Bollandiana, ix. (1891) and xii (1893). Here was polished scholarship, which provided a definitive text of the sixteenth century English life, together with the Latin translation, and an introduction in which the textual problems were dissected with delicate skill. Van Ortroy based his conclusions on a study of eleven manuscripts of the English life, and five of the Latin translation. He concluded that Richard Hall did not write the English life, but that he was responsible for the Latin translation, which he made about 1599. While unable to fix the identity of the author of the English life he very tentatively suggested that it may have been Dr. John Young. His textual criticism revealed that the unknown author had received much information from men who had known Fisher, and that he worked into his text some precious extracts from the last life of Thomas More, by Rastell. From the notes he collected during Mary’s reign, the author wrote his narrative in the early years of Elizabeth. An edition of Fisher’s works was begun by J.E.B.Mayor, Bishop Fisher’s English Works (E.E.T.S., Extra Ser., XXVII, 1876), in which appeared a funeral oration on Henry VII, a memorial sermon on Lady Margaret Beaufort, a sermon against Luther, etc. After a long interval R.Bayne added The Life of Fisher (E.E.T.S., Extra Ser., CXVII, 1921), the text of Harl. MS. 6382, another MS. of the early English life, but he added nothing by way of editorial comment. Another edition of the earliest English life is by Fr. Philip Hughes (1935). E.E.Reynolds, St John Fisher (1955), has used these various contributions to produce a competent biography, but it is not the definitive life which Fisher undoubtedly deserves. Further information may be obtained from J.F.McMahon’s bibliography of Fisher (Oxford Bibliographical Society, 1955). No figure in the English Reformation is more important than Thomas Cranmer, and none has been the object of such opposing estimates. Foxe in his Acts and Monuments incorporated much contemporary evidence, and amongst his papers was some biographical material given to him by Cranmer’s secretary, Ralph Morice. This was edited by J.G.Nichols, Narratives of the Reformation (C.S. 1859). The first biographical study of any significance was J.Strype, Memorials of Thomas Cranmer (1694: Oxford, 3 vols. 1848–54), which is still useful for its documents. A detailed, but not very important biography was H.J.Todd, Life of Cranmer (2 vols., 1831), much of which was put more compactly in A.J.Mason, Thomas Cranmer (1898). The first biography to take advantage of the materials made available in the nineteenth century was A.F. Pollard, Thomas Cranmer and the English Reformation (1926), still in many ways a most reliable guide. C.H.Smythe, Cranmer and the Reformation under Edward VI (1926), is less concerned with Cranmer’s life than with the development of his doctrinal opinions and is a, technical and difficult theological monograph. A.C.Deane, Life of Cranmer (1927), and H.Belloc, Cranmer (1931), are popular restatements from opposite points of view, the latter, of course, utterly hostile to everything connected with Cranmer and his opinions. A scholarly, and altogether admirable survey is F.E.Hutchinson, Thomas Cranmer and the English Reformation (1951). G.W.Bromily has written a short, readable biography, Thomas Cranmer (1955), and a concise, useful monograph, Thomas Cranmer: Theologian (1956), an explanation in non-technical language of the reformer’s doctrinal position. The most recent comprehensive study, based on sound scholar-ship, but somewhat conventional in its interpretation, is Jasper Ridley, Thomas Cranmer (1962). Cranmer is easily studied in his own writings. There are two editions between which

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

245

there is not much to choose, H.Jenkyns, The Remains of Thomas Cranmer (Oxford, 4 vols., 1833), and J.E.Cox, The Works of Thomas Cromwell (P.S., 1844–1846). After a long period of complete neglect, Cranmer’s rival, the powerful Stephen Gardiner, has received justice at the hands of modern scholars. J.A.Muller wrote a judicious, exhaustive biography, Stephen Gardiner and the Tudor Reaction (1926), with an admirable critical apparatus which makes it an indispensable reference book for the religious history of the early Tudor period. It is a sympathetic study, on the whole, very favourable to Gardiner. He completed his work with a fine edition of The Letters of Stephen Gardiner (Cambridge, 1933), a most important addition to the sources for this period. Valuable work has also been done by a French historian, P.Janelle, who edited, in Obedience in Church and State (Cambridge, 1930), three of Gardiner’s political tracts. There is a valuable introduction on Gardiner’s political thought. He also edited a contemporary poem on Gardiner by one William Palmer (B.I.H.R., 1928). Nicholas Ridley (?1503–1555) was an important figure in the English Reformation mainly because of the influence he exerted in shaping Cranmer’s doctrinal opinions, while his martyrdom, in company with Latimer, was stamped on the English Protestant conscience through the account in Foxe, Acts and Monuments. The first biography was by a kinsman, Gloucester Ridley, Life of Dr. Nicholas Ridley (1763), a solid contribution from the “prescientific age”. J.H.Moule brought together some useful material in his introduction to Bishop Ridley on the Lord’s Supper (1895), a treatise which is Ridley’s best contribution to that great controversy. Another descendant, J.C.Ridley, has written a full-length study, Nicholas Ridley (1957); based on close research, it is a thorough, competent work. As usual Foxe, Acts and Monuments is indispensable. Much of his text is incorporated in Ridley’s Works, edited by H.Christmas (P.S., 1843). This contains letters and treatises, and Ridley’s “Last Farewell”, a remarkable piece of autobiography well worth reading. Hugh Latimer (?1485–1555) has been much studied. Among contemporaries Foxe, who knew him personally, uses materials he obtained from various acquaintances, and Thomas Becon, who came under his spell at Cambridge speaks in praise of him in The Jewel of Joye (Parker Soc.). R.Demaus, Hugh Latimer: a Biography (1869: rev. edn., 1903) long remained the classic reference work, but recent studies by A.G.Chester, Hugh Latimer: Apostle to the English (Phil., 1954), and H.S.Darby, Hugh Latimer (1953), now take its place. Latimer’s own works were edited by G.E.Corrie, Sermons: and Sermons and Remains (Parker Soc., 1844 and 1845). There is a handy selection of his Sermons, edited by H.C.Beeching (Everyman Library, 1916). The part played by Reginald Pole both in English affairs as well as in the Roman Church makes him a figure of outstanding importance. Yet his career and influence, extending over so wide a field, seems to have made biographers chary of such a large subject. The pioneer work was T.Phillips, Life of Reginald Pole (Oxford, 1761; 2nd edn., 1767), a sympathetic and fairly accurate interpretation by a Jesuit father. Later attempts were A.Zimmermann, S.J., Kardinal Pole: sein Leben und seine Schriften, Regensburg, 1893); and R.Biron and J.Barennes, Reginald Pole (Paris, 1923). They are inferior to a short study by W.Schenk, Reginald Pole: Cardinal of England (1950), which is a concise and reliable guide so far as it goes. Pole was a prolific letter writer, verbose to the point of weariness: but his letters contain much autobiographical material. A great many of them were brought together by Cardinal A.M.Quirini, Epistolarum Reginaldi Poli… Collectio (Brescia, 5 vols., 1744–57). Here will also be found the earliest life in Italian by Ludovico Beccadelli, Pole’s secretary (English translation by B.Pye, 1776). These and additional correspondence are summarized in L.P.Hen. VIII: the Calendar of State Papers Venetian (especially vols, V and VI), and the Calendar of State Papers Spanish. Cardinal F.A.Gasquet introduced historians to a Vatican MS. containing correspondence between Pole and a circle of humanist friends, Cardinal Pole and his Early Friends (1927). He edited the manuscript in a way which leaves much to be desired, printing only translations of some of the letters with a running commentary.

246

THE COMMONWEAL

Few would dispute Sir Thomas More’s right to be regarded as an outstanding figure in the intellectual life of his age. Yet, paradoxically enough, despite his great reputation More did not have fulljustice done to him until very modern days. The background to recent studies is provided in an elaborate survey compiled by R.W.Gibson (with a bibliography of Utopiana by J.M. Patrick), St Thomas More, a preliminary bibliography of his work and of Moreana to the year 1750 (Yale, 1961). Some idea of the trends of recent scholarship may be gathered from the following notes. More’s works were available at an early date: a collected edition of his English works appeared in 1557, and of his Latin works in 1566. The earliest form of a biography consisted of some notes written about 1556 by William Roper for the use of Nicholas Harpsfield, who was planning a biography. Roper’s notes were not published until 1626. Harpsfield’s life of More was probably completed before 1557, but it remained in manuscript. In 1588 there was printed at Douai a Latin work by Thomas Stapleton, Tres Thomae, biographical essays on St Thomas the Apostle, St Thomas of Canterbury, and Sir Thomas More, the last being based to some extent on the testimony of More’s contemporaries. A life written by More’s nephew, William Rastell, disappeared. About 1600 a biography was written by one “Ro. Ba.” (his identity has never been discovered), but this, too, remained in manuscript. About 1631 Cresacre More, great-grandson of More, published at Paris a biography which long remained the main account of his career. This was the position until the nineteenth century. Then, in 1810, C.Wordsworth printed in his Ecclesiastical Biography, vol. II, the biography of More written by “Ro. Ba.” With the opening up of source material through the publication of Letters and Papers. Henry VIII it became easier to deal with More, and to take to heart a comment made by Lord Acton in 1877.1 Some time still had to elapse before the first attempt at a life which included study of some of the sources came in Fr. T.E.Bridgett, Life and Writings of Sir Thomas More (1891). This was to be the standard biography for a long time, until, in fact, much work was done in making available fresh source material. The publication of the first volumes of P.S.Allen, Opus Epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami (Oxford, 1906, etc.), threw much fresh light on the relations of the great humanist with More and his circle in England, and F.M.Nichols, The Epistles of D.Erasmus (1901– 18) made available an English translation of a considerable n umber of these letters. Some time later scholarly editions of the primary sources began to appear. Mgr P.E.Hallett produced an English translation of Stapleton, Tres Thomae, under the title The Life and Illustrius Martyrdom of Sir Thomas More (1928), and A.I.Taft in The Apologye of Syr Thomas More: Knyght (E.E.T.S., 1930) provided a scholarly text of the work published in 1533, in which More defended his opinions against attacks from St Germain and others. In 1931 a plan was made for publication of an edition, in seven volumes, of More’s English works, under the direction of W.E.Campbell, A.W.Reed, and others. It was to contain a facsimile of Rastell’s black letter text, together with a modernized version. Unfortunately, only two volumes were completed, the first containing early poems, the translation of Pico, Richard III, and Four Last Things; the second, the Dialogue against Tyndale (1931). Each volume has useful introductions. Important work was now beginning to appear. Dr E.V.Hitchcock and Professor R.W. Chambers edited, with all the subtlety of modern textual criticism, Nicholas Harpsfield, The Life and Death of Sir Thomas Moore: Knight (E.E.T.S., O.S., 186, 1932). This is indispensable for any serious study of More. In addition to the text and introduction there are important appen dices containing some fragments of the lost Rastell Life of More, a 1 “Some progress may be looked for in biography: for the early lives of Gardiner, Tunstall, and Cromwell have not been studied; nobody has taken the pains to restore the true text of the original life of Fisher, and not one of More’s fifteen biographers has worked from manuscripts.” Lord Acton, Historical Essays (1908), p. 2.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

247

Paris newsletter describing More’s trial and death, widely circulated abroad immediately after the event, and a transcript of the official record of the indictment. Dr Hitchcock next edited The Mirror of Virtue in Worldly Greatness: or the Life of Sir Thomas More, the work Roper published in 1625 (E.E.T.S., O.S. 197 1935), The Life by “Ro.Ba.” was edited by Hitchcock, Hallett and Reed (E.E.T.S., O.S.2221950). The way was now open for fresh assessments of More’s career. The first contribution came from E.M.G.Routh, Sir Thomas More and his Friends (1934), a competent study, particularly useful for drawing attention to More’s City connections. It was, however, quickly superseded by R.W.Chambers, Thomas More (1935), a work that must long remain a classic to be read in close reference to the same author’s comments and notes in the edition of Harpsfield’s Life. Meanwhile, more materials continued to appear. With Miss E.F.Rogers, The Correspondence of Sir Thomas More (Princeton, 1947), a long-awaited corpus of More’s letters appeared. This gives in one volume all More’s letters (Latin or English) save those to Erasmus which had been printed by P.S.Allen, and references are given to them. Professor Henry de Vocht, whose splendid volume Literae Virorum Eruditorum adFranciscum Craneveldium, 1522–8 (Louvain, 1928) contains much information about the English humanists, and some of More’s letters, produced a significant study in textual criticism, Acta Thomae Mori (Louvain, 1947), in which he published a document (“Ordo Condemnationis Thomae Mori”), which is linked with the documents connected with the trial printed in Hitchcock and Chambers’ edition of Harpsfield.L.Bradner and C.A.Lynch, The Latin Epigrams of Thomas More (Chicago, 1953) made accessible in translations some interesting poetical pieces written by More. The writing of books about More continued. A.Cecil, A Portrait of Sir Thomas More (1937), is, as the title suggests, only an exercise in interpretation, adding no new facts, and the same may be said of W.E.Campbell, Erasmus, Tyndale, and More (1949). E.E.Reynolds, St. Thomas More (1953) is a more serious contribution, written from the Roman Catholic point of view, as an attempt to replace Bridgett’s Life, by making available the results of modern research, with special emphasis on the religious rather than the literary or political influence of More. In another book, The Trial of St. Thomas More (1964), he has brought together the results of some later specialist articles, especially concerned with the trial and death of More. Closely connected with Erasmus and More, and influential in the religious and cultural life of England on the eve of the Reformation was John Colet (?1467–1519). The first full biography was S.Knight, The Life of Dr. John Colet (1724: Oxford, 1823), still useful, but largely superseded by J.H.Lupton, Life of John Colet (1887:1909). A slight biography by J.A.R.Marriott (1932) adds nothing to this work. Lupton did much to make known Colet’s works, editing a “Sermon before Convocation” (in Life, 293–304), Two Treatises on the Hierarchies of Dionysius (1869); An Exposition of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (1873); An exposition of St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians (1874); and a Letter to Radulphus on the Mosaic Account of the Creation (1876). Lupton also translated The Lives of John Vitrier and John Colet (1883), written by Erasmus. An illuminating technical introduction to Colet’s teaching is E.W.Hunt, Dean Colet and his Theology (1956). Among the lesser known intellectuals of the period the following have received attention. Thomas Lupset (1495–1530) was well studied by J.A.Gee, Life and Works of Thomas Lupset (Yale Univ. Press, 1928). This is a scholarly biography, and includes a critical text of his original treatises and letters, together with a bibliography and canon of Lupset’s writings. Thomas Linacre (1460?–1524) has been described by J.N.Johnson, The Life of Thomas Linacre (ed. R. Graves, 1835), and W.Osler, Thomas Linacre (Cambridge, 1908). The life and works of Sir Thomas Elyot (1490?–1546) were the subject of an exhaustive examination by H.H.S.Croft in his edition of The Boke named The Governor (2 vols., 1880). F.Caspari,

248

THE COMMONWEAL

Humanism and the Social Order in Tudor England, has an interesting chapter on Elyot’s social and political ideas, and S.E. Lehmberg, Sir Thomas Elyot. Tudor Humanist (1960), is a painstaking monograph based on solid research. There is a handy text of The Governor, by F.Watson (Everyman Library). Richard Pace (1482?–1536) is the subject of a short biography by Jervis Wegg (1932). Sir John Cheke (1514–57) has been undeservedly neglected. J.Strype, The Life of the learned Sir John Cheke (1705: standard text, Oxford, 1821) still remains the best authority, although there is a slight modern monograph by W.L.Nathan, Sir John Cheke und der englische Humanismus (Bonn, 1928), but it does not go very deeply into the subject. There is a good study of Roger Ascham (1515–68) by L.V.Ryan (California, 1963). His writings are available in the Works of Roger Ascham, edited indifferently by J.A.Giles (4 vols., 1865), and more efficiently, the texts of Toxophilus Report of the Affaires of Germany, and The Scholemaster, by W.Aldis Wright (Cambridge, 1904).

A. THE STRUCTURE OF SOCIETY 16. Social structure defined by Statute (1510) Early Tudor legislation provides a detailed survey of the ranks and orders of society in the statutes passed for the regulation of dress. This sumptuary legislation was not new: the earliest examples come from the fourteenth century. When first introduced such legislation was intended to curb extravagance in dress, to encourage the use of English products, and to some extent to preserve distinctions between the various orders of society. All these considerations were in the minds of Tudor legislators, and four acts dealing with such regulation were passed in Henry VIII’s reign.1 There was no legislation on the subject in Edward VI’s reign, and only one statute in that of Mary. The act of 1510 was the first example of Tudor sumptuary legislation, and it was the model for all later acts. It defined the degrees in great detail, and was prohibitive rather than permissive. While this legislation had an important place in the regulation of economic matters by the government2 it is introduced into this section because of the light it throws on the official interpretation of the structure of early Tudor society. The general history of sumptuary legislation in its various aspects has been traced by F.Baldwin, Sumptuary Legislation and Personal Regulation in England, while there is a special study of the sixteenth century legislation by W.Hooper, “The Tudor sumptuary laws”, E.H.R, xxx (1915), 433–449.

An Act against wearing of costly apparell. St. 1 Hen. VIII, c. 14, 1510 (Stat. Realm, III, 8)

F

orasmuch as the great and costly array and apparell used within this realm contrary to good statutes thereof made hath been the occasion of great impoverishing of divers of the king’s subjects and provoked many of them to rob and to do extortion and other unlawful deeds to maintain thereby their costly array: in eschewing whereof, be it ordained by the authority of this present parliament that no person of what estate condition or degree that he be use in his apparell any cloth of gold of purple colour or silk of purple colour but only the King the Queen the King’s Mother the King’s Children the King’s Brothers and Sisters upon pain to forfeit the said apparell wherewith soever it be mixed, and for using the same to forfeit xx. pound: and that no man under the estate of a Duke use in any apparell of his body or upon his horses any cloth of gold of tissue upon pain to forfeit the same apparell wherewith soever it be mixed and for using the same to forfeit xx. mark; and that no man under the degree of an Earl wear in his apparell any sables upon pain to forfeit the same apparell. And that no man under the degree of a Baron use in his apparell of his body or of his horses any cloth of gold or cloth of silver or tinsel satin nor no other silk or cloth mixed or broidered with gold or silver upon pain of forfeiture of the same apparell, albeit that it be mixed with any other silk or cloth, and for using of the same to forfeit x. mark. And that no man under the degree of a Lord or a Knight of the Garter wear any woollen cloth made out of this realm of England Ireland Wales Calais or the Marches of the same or Berwick, upon pain to forfeit the said cloth and for using of the same to forfeit x. pound. And that no man under the degree of a Knight of the Garter wear in his gown or coat or any other his apparell any velvet of the 1 St. 1 Hen. VIII, c. 14; St. 6 Hen. VIII, c. 1; St. 7 Hen. VIII, c. 6; St. 24 Hen. VIII, c. 13; St. 1/2 P. 2 and M, c. 2. St. See below, p. 958.

249

250

THE COMMONWEAL

[16]

colour of crimson or blue upon pain to forfeit the same gown or coat or other apparell and for using of the same to forfeit xl. shillings. And that any of the Ushers of the King’s Chamber for the time being that first sueth his action of detinue for the same apparell have the said forfeitures of the said apparell, and if none of the said Ushers commence their action thereof within xv. days in the term next after the said forfeiture, then the King’s Chamberlain for the time being to have thereof his like action. And the King our sovereign lord and his heirs to have the one half of the said forfeitures of the said money so forfeited, and the said Chamberlain of the King for the time being to have the said other half of the money. Provided that if there be any like forfeiture committed or done by any of the Queen’s servants being in her checker roll that then any of the Ushers of her Chamber, and in their default the Queen’s Chamberlain for the time being have like action for the said forfeitures as is aforesaid for the King’s Ushers and his Chamberlain. And that no man under the degree of a Knight, except Esquires for the King’s body, his cupbearers carvers and sewers having the ordinary fee for the same and all other Esquires for the body having posession of lands and tenements—or other hereditaments in their hands or other to their use to the yearly value of CCC. mark and Lords’ sons and heirs, Justices of the one Bench or of the other, the Master of the Rolls, and Barons of the King’s Exchequer and all other of the King’s Council and Mayors of the city of London for the time being, use or wear any velvet in their gowns or riding coats or furs of marten in their apparell upon pain to forfeit the same fur and apparell wherewith soever it be mixed and for using of the same to forfeit xl. shillings. Nor no person other than the above named wear velvet in their doublets nor satin nor damask in their gowns nor coats, except he be a Lord’s son or a Gentleman having in his possession or other to his use lands or tenements or annuities at the least for term of life to the yearly value of an hundred pound above all reprises, upon pain to forfeit the same apparell wherewith soever it be mixed and for using of the same to forfeit xl. shillings. Nor no person use or wear satin or damask in their doublets nor silk or camlet in their gowns or coats not having lands or tenements in his possession or other to his use office or fee for term of life or lives to the yearly value of xx. pound, except he be a Yeoman of the Crown or of the King’s guard or grooms of the King’s Chamber or the Queen’s having therefor the king’s fee or the queen’s upon pain to forfeit the same apparell wherewith so ever it be mixed and for using of the same to forfeit xl. shillings. And that no man under the degree of a Gentleman except Graduates of the Universities and except yeomen grooms and pages of the King’s Chamber and of our sovereign lady the queen’s, and except such men as have lands tenements or fees or annuities to the yearly value of x.li. for term of life or an hundred pound in goods use or wear any furs, whereof there is no like kind growing in this land of England Ireland Wales or in any land under the king’s obeisance, upon pain to forfeit the same furs and for using of the same to forfeit xl. shillings. The value of their goods to be tried by their own oaths. And that no man under the degree of a Knight except spiritual men and sergeants at the law or graduates of universities use any more cloth in any long gown than four broad yards, and in a riding gown or coat above three yards upon pain of forfeiture of the same. And that no serving man under the degree of a gentleman use or wear any gown or coat or such like apparell of more cloth than two broad yards and an half in a short gown and three broad yards in a long gown, and that in the said gown or coat they wear no manner fur upon pain of forfeiture of the said apparell or the value

[16]

SOCIAL STRUCTURE DEFINED BY STATUTE (1510)

251

thereof. And that no serving man waiting upon his master under the degree of a Gentleman use or wear any guarded hose or any cloth above the price of xx.d. the yard in his hose except it be of his master’s wearing hose upon pain of forfeiture of iii.s. iiii.d. And that no man under the degree of a Knight wear any guarded or pinched shirt or pinched [partlet] of linen cloth upon pain of forfeiture of the same shirt or [partlet] and for using of the same to forfeit x. shillings. And that no servant of husbandry nor shepherd nor common labourer nor servant unto any artificer out of city or borough nor husbandman having no goods of his own above the value of x. pound use or wear any cloth whereof the broad yard passeth in price two shillings nor that any of the said servants of husbandry shepherds nor labourers wear any hose above the price of x.d. the yard upon pain of imprisonment in the stocks by three days. And that he that will sue for any of the said forfeitures of the said apparell forfeited by any person under the degree of a Lord or a Knight of the Garter have the said apparell so forfeited by way of detinue. And the king our sovereign lord to have the one half of the forfeiture of the said money so forfeited, or the lord of the franchise if it be recovered or presented within a franchise or leet, and the party that will sue have the other half; and the suit to be by action of debt; and that in any wise of all the said actions the defendant shall not wage his law nor by protection no essoin nor the party to be barred by the king’s pardon nor be delayed by any plea to the disablement of his person. And that the Lord Steward of the King’s House for the time being within the Verge and Justices of Assize and Justices of the Peace, Stewards in leets or lawdays and every of them have also power to inquire and hold plea of every default of the premises as well by examination of the party as after the course of the common law. And to determine the same as well at the king’s suit as at the suit of the party. Provided always that this act be not prejudicial nor hurtful to any spiritual nor temporal man in wearing any ornaments or the Church in executing divine service nor to any merchant strangers. Provided also that it shall be lawful to all mayors recorders aldermen sheriffs and bailiffs and all other head officers of cities or boroughs or towns corporate that now be or hereafter shall be to use and wear like apparell in their gown, doublets, cloaks, and other apparell as their predecessors have done in times past, this act in any wise notwithstanding. Provided also that this act be not prejudicial nor hurtful to any woman or to any ambassadors henchmen heralds of arms minstrals players in interludes, nor to any man wearing any apparell of the king’s livery given him by the king, for the time being of his attendance about the king’s grace. Also be it enacted by authority aforesaid that all other statutes of array made before the making of this present statute, and all penalties or forfeitures to be levied or demanded by reason of them or any of them be utterly void repelled and of none effect and discharged. And that this act of array made in this present parliament begin to take his effect at the Feast of Saint Michael the Archangel next coming and not before, and to endure unto the next parliament. Provided also that this act extend not to any person nor persons using any manner of apparell as well upon himself as upon his horse, being in the king’s service in time of war. Provided always that the king’s grace by this present act be not letted nor restrained of his liberty but that his highness at his pleasure by his placard or his letter or his bill assigned with his most gracious hand may grant and give licence and authority to such of his subjects as his grace shall think convenient to wear all and such singular apparell on his body or his

252

THE COMMONWEAL

[17]

horses as shall stand with the pleasure of the king’s grace, without damage or forfeiture to him or them that so doeth of any apparell or other pain contained in this statute.

17. The social effects of procedure by attainder. Illustrated from statutes (i) An act for the reversal of attainders. St. 19 Hen. VII, c. 28, 1503–4 (Stat. Realm, II, 669)

T

he King our sovereign lord, considering that divers and many persons whereof some of them, and some of their ancestors, were and be attainted of high treason for divers offences by them committed and done against their natural duty of their allegiance, make and have made instant and diligent pursuit in their most humble wise to his Highness of his mercy and pity to have the said attainders reversed and the same persons so attainted to be severally restored1…the King’s highness of his especial grace, mercy, and pity, being sorry for any such untruth and fall of any of his subjects in such case, is therefore inclined to hear and speed reasonably the said petitioners, so, if there were convenient time and space in this present parliament, as it is not, for the great and weighty matters concerning the common weal of this land treated in the same, and that the said parliament draweth so near to the end, and that after the same his Highness is not minded, for the ease of his subjects, without great, necessary and urgent causes, of long time to call and summon a new parliament, by which long tract of time the said suitors and petitioners were and should be discomforted and in despair of expedition of their suits, petitions and causes, unless convenient remedy for them were purveyed in this behalf: Wherefore, and in consideration of the premises the King’s Highness is agreed and contented that it be enacted… that the King’s Highness, from henceforth during his life, shall have plain and full authority and power by his letters patent under his great seal, to reverse, annul, repeal and avoid all the attainders of the said persons and every of them and the heirs of every of them, and of all other persons and the heirs of such persons and every of them as hath been attainted of high treason by act of parliament or by the common law, at any time from the 22nd day of August the first year of his most noble reign to the first day of this present parliament; And also of all persons attainted in and by this present parliament; and also of all other persons attainted of treason at any time during the reign of King Richard the Third as well by the course and order of the common laws as by authority of parliament or otherwise: And furthermore the king’s grace by his letters patent under his said great seal to have full authority and power to restore the same persons so attainted and their heirs and every of them, and so to enable them in name, blood and inheritance as if the said attainders or any of them had never been had nor made; and that the said letters patent rehearsing the said reversal, repeal, annulation and avoidance of this said act of attainders or any of them, and the restitutions and enablements of the said persons or any of them, and the inheritance contained in any of the King’s said letters patent at any time hereafter to be made according to the effect of this act, be as good, effectual and available in the law to every of the same persons to whom they shall be made, according to the effect, tenor, purport, grant and words in the same so made according to the effect of this act, as if the same matters, words, tenors, and purports, contained in any of the 1 The following are mentioned: Humfrey Stafford, John Baynton, Robert Ratclyff, Thomas Mountford, Thomas Wyndham, Thomas Tyrrell, John Charleton, Charles Clyfforde, John Mallory.

[17]

SOCIAL EFFECTS OF PROCEDURE BY ATTAINDER

253

said letters patent so made, were fully enacted, established, and authorized by authority of parliament.

(ii) Act of attainder of Edward, late Duke of Buckingham. St. 14/15, Hen. VIII, c. 20, 1523 (Ibid, in, 246)

Forasmuch as Edward, late Duke of Buckingham, late of Thornbury in the county of Gloucester, the 24th day of April in the fourth year of the reign of our sovereign Lord the King that now is and divers times after, imagined and compassed traitorously and unnaturally the destruction of the most royal person of our said sovereign lord and subversion of this his realm, and then traitorously committed and did divers and many treasons against our said sovereign lord the King, contrary to his allegiance, in the counties of Gloucester and Somerset, the City of London, the counties of Kent and Surrey, of the which treasons and offences the said late Duke…was severally indicted. And afterward for and upon the same treasons the 13th day of May the 13th. year of the reign of our said sovereign lord the King at Westminster in the county of Middlesex before Thomas, Duke of Norfolk, for that time only being Great Steward of England by the King’s letters patent, by verdict of his peers and by judgment of the said Steward against the said late Duke then and there given after the due order of the law and custom of England, was attainted of high treason, as by records thereof more plainly appeareth. Wherefore be it ordained, enacted, and established …that the said late Duke for the offences above rehearsed stand and be convicted, adjudged, and attainted of high treason, and forfeit to the King our sovereign lord and his heirs for ever all honours, castles, manors, lordships, hundreds, franchises, liberties, privileges, advowsons, nominations, knight’s fees, lands, tenements, rents, services, reversions, remainders, portions, annuities, pensions, rights, possessions, and other hereditaments whatsoever, in England, Ireland, Wales, Calais, and Marches of the same, or elsewhere whereof the said late Duke or any other person or persons to his use were seised or possessed in fee simple, fee tail, or for term of any other man’s life or lives, or any estate of inheritance or otherwise the said 24th. day of April or any time since, or in the which the said late Duke or any other person or persons seised to his use had then or any time since lawful cause of entry within England, Ireland, Wales, Calais, and Marches of the same, or elsewhere; And over that, the said Edward to forfeit unto our said sovereign lord all goods and chattels, as well real as personal, whatsoever, whereof the said Edward was possessed to his own use, or any other person or persons was possessed to the use of the same late Duke, the said 13th. day of May, or whereof the said late Duke had lawful cause of seisure to his own proper use the said 13th. day of May; And also to forfeit unto our said sovereign lord all debts which were owing by any person or persons unto the said late Duke or unto any other person or persons to the use of the said late Duke the said 13th. day of May.

(iii) The act of authority. St. 14/15 Hen. VIII, c. 21, 1523 (Ibid, in, 259)

The King our Sovereign Lord considering that divers and many persons whereof some of them be deceased and some of them be on life have been attainted of high treason for divers treasons by them committed and done against their natural duty of their allegiance,

254

THE COMMONWEAL

[17]

yet nevertheless the King’s Highness of his most goodly and blessed mind and of his especial grace inclined to mercy and pity considering the merits and deserts of the said offenders or such as should have been their heirs if the said attainders had not been had, is agreed and contented that it be enacted…that his said Highness from henceforth during his life shall at his pleasure have full authority and power by his letters patent under his great seal to reverse annul repeal and avoid the attainders of all and singular persons and every of them as have been attainted of high treason by authority of parliament or by the common law at any time from the xxii day of June the first year of the reign of King Richard the Third or any time since or any time during this present parliament. And furthermore that the King’s Grace by his said letters patent under his great seal have full authority and power to enable the said persons so attainted and every of them and such as should have been their heirs if the said attainders had not been, in name blood pre-eminence and dignity and to restore the same persons and every of them to all such castles manors lands tenements rents reversions possessions and hereditaments as at the time of the said restitution shall rest or be in the hands or possession of our said Sovereign Lord by reason of the said attainders or any of them, as if the said persons attainted had not been attainted nor any such attainders had never been had or made; And that the said letters patent rehearsing the said reversal repeal annulation and avoidance of the said act or acts of attainder or of the said judgment or judgments of attainders and the enablements of the said persons or any of them that it shall please the King’s Highness so to enable and the restitution of the inheritance contained in any of our said Sovereign Lord the King’s letters patent at any time hereafter to be made according to the effect of this act shall be as good effectual and available in the law to every of the same persons to whom they shall be made and to their heirs and assigns after the effect tenour purport grants and words of the same, as if the same matters words tenours and purports contained in any of the said letters patent so made were fully enacted established and authorised by authority of parliament.

(iv) An act for Henry Stafford. St. 14/15 Hen. VIII, c. 23, 1523 (Ibid. III, 269) This Act confirmed letters patent of 20 September 1522 by which some of Buckingham’s manors were restored to his son. A petition by the son for restitution in blood, made after Wolsey’s fall, was rejected, but he was restored by an Act of the Parliament which met in November 1547, when he was declared to be Baron Stafford by a new creation, and as such he received a summons to the next Parliament.

In the most humble wise sheweth unto your Highness your humble true and faithful subjects: and daily orators Henry Stafford son of Edward Stafford late Duke of Buckingham deceased and Ursula his wife: that where the said late Duke was attainted of high treason before Thomas Duke of Norfolk great steward of England thereunto by your letters patent deputed and assigned for that time only and by him thereupon judgment was given against the same late Duke at Westminster the [1] day off [1] in the [1] year of your most noble reign as by the record thereof appeareth. Since which time it hath pleased your highness of your most noble and abundant grace and charitable disposition by your letters patent under your great seal whereof the date is the 20th day of December in the 1

Blank in MS.

[18]

THE HERALDS AND ENNOBLEMENT

255

fourteenth year of your most noble reign to give and grant unto your subjects Henry and Ursula his wife and to the heirs of their two bodies lawfully begotten certain castles manors lordships boroughs lands tenements rents services reversions and with other hereditaments in the same letters patent specified and contained [Prayer that it shall be enacted that the petitioners may hold and enjoy their possessions] given and granted according to the tenour form and effect of the said letters patents: any act of attainder of treason of or against the said late Duke or any act or acts other than this present act in this present parliament made or to be made or anything in them contained the contrary notwithstanding, and as if the same act of attainder or any other act or acts in this present parliament made or to be made had never been had nor made.

(v) An example of a transfer of forfeited estates. 1486 (C.P.R. 1485–94, 121)

Grant to John de Veer, earl of Oxford, the great chamberlain, and his heirs male, of the castle, lordship, and manor of Framlyngham and the manors of Kelshale, Haccheston, Pesanhale, Walton cum Trymley and the hundred of Loose, co. Suffolk, and the manor of Willington co. Bedford, late of John duke of Norfolk which by his for-feiture on the act of I Henry VII came into the king’s hands; also the manors of Borham, Walkefare and Powers in Little Waltham co. Essex, late of Francis, viscount Lovell, which by his forfeiture and an act of parliament came into the king’s hands: also the manor of Botesworth, co. Northampton, and all lands there, which were of William Catesby esquire, which by his forfeiture and the said act came into the king’s hands; also a great inn called “le Herber” in the parish of St. Mary Bothowe, in the ward of Dowgate, London, and another messuage in the same parish and ward, and four messuages in “Busshelane”, in the aforesaid parish and ward, late of George, duke of Clarence; with knights’ fees &c, and all issues from Michaelmas last. Further grant to him and the heirs male of his body of the manor or lordship of Busshy, co. Hertford, as above; to hold until the king provides for him in lands or rents in the realm of the same value.

18. The Heralds and ennoblement, illustrated from various sources (i) A Grant of Arms by Thomas Wriothesley, Garter King, 1510 This document is an early example of the way in which the authority of the heralds was sought by those anxious to scale the social ladder. John Mundy, born about 1465, came from High Wycombe, where he acquired property. In 1482 he was apprenticed to Sir John Shaa, goldsmith, the wellknown London citizen who was Lord Mayor in 1501–2. Mundy was his executor in 1509–10. About that time he married his second wife, Juliana, daughter of William Browne, gold-smith, and Lord Mayor in 1513. By his first wife Mundy had a daughter Margaret, who married as her second husband (and his third wife) Lord Edmund Howard, son of the duke of Norfolk, the father of Queen Catherine Howard. In 1516 Mundy was an alderman of Calais. In 1518 he became Sheriff, and in 1522 Lord Mayor of London. He was knighted in 1529. He died in 1537, and was buried in St Peter’s, Cheapside. His name appears in L.P. as supplying New Year’s gifts for the court, and he had financial dealings with Margaret, Countess of Richmond, the duke of Buckingham, and Lord Audely. These suggest that as a moneylender he benefited by the extravagance of Henry VIII’s courtiers.

(Printed by W.G.Clark-Maxwell, “A grant of arms, 1510”, in Archaeologia, LXXXIII (1933), pp. 167–170)

256

THE COMMONWEAL

[18]

T

o all present and to come who shall see or hear these presents, Thomas Wriothesley otherwise called Garter King of English arms, greetings with humble recommendation. Equity wills and reason ordains that men of virtue of noble spirit should be rewarded for their merits and good renown, and not only their own persons, in this brief and transitory mortal life, but after them, those who should issue and be procreated of their bodies may be renowned in all places perpetually with others by certain signs and tokens of honour and nobility: to wit, with blazon, helm, and crest, so that by their example others will be induced to use their days in feats and works of arms, to acquire the renown of ancient nobility in their line and posterity. And forasmuch as I, Garter King of English arms aforesaid; not only by common report, but also by the testimony and witness of several trustworthy noble men know by true information that John Mundy of Chakenden in the county of Oxford, gentleman, has long pursued deeds of virtue so that he has well deserved and is worthy that hence-forth for ever he and his posterity should be in all places honourably admitted, renowned, counted, numbered, and received into the number and company of other ancient gentle and noble men. And for the remembrance of this his nobliity by virtue of the authority and power annexed and attributed to my said office of King of Arms I have devised, ordained, and assigned to the said John Mundy for him and his said posterity with their due difference the blazon, helm, and crest in manner as follows, to wit: of gules and of sable party per pale to a cross in grail silver, on the cross five lozenges of purple to a chief of gold, on the chief three crow’s legs rasus in pale of azure: for his crest a panther’s head of sable bezants halaunt of gules set in a torse of gold and azure mantle of gules double silver, as is shown in the drawing in the margin herewith: to have and to hold for him and his said posterity….1 In witness of this I, Garter of English arms aforesaid here sign with my hand and seal with the seal of my arms together with the seal of my office of Garter these presents. Made and given at London, the eighth day of November the year of our Lord one thousand five hundred and ten. And the second year of the reign of King Henry the Eighth, our very dread and sovereign lord.

(ii) Royal Commission for Heraldic Visitation (Letters Patent, 19 April 1530) This significant document, illustrating the rise of the heralds to a position of authority, was issued by Henry VIII to Thomas Benolt, Clarencieux. It is important for the following reasons. First, its terms indicate that the regulation of arms, and their use by royal authority was not an innovation at this date: there was clearly a well-developed system already in being, and a register in which they were recorded. Secondly, visitation by the heralds was also accepted practice. Thirdly, the principle is now established that a grant of arms is open to anyone who has done service to the king, and has the wealth necessary to maintain his position, provided he is not of servile blood, a rebel against the king, nor a heretic. This Commission, in the form of letters patent, was not entered on the Patent Roll: but its contents are known from a privy seal warrant of 6 April 1530, and from a contemporary certified copy in the College of Arms. It is printed in A.R.Wagner, Heralds and Heraldry in the Middle Ages, 9–10, where the historical importance of the document is fully discussed.

Henry by the grace of God King of England and of France, Defender of the faith, and Lord of Ireland. To all manner noble estates, as well spiritual as temporal, of what estate, 1

Blank in MS.

[18]

THE HERALDS AND ENNOBLEMENT

257

degree, or condition, they or any of them be, bearing arms. And to all mayors, sheriffs, bailiffs, constables, and all other our officers, ministers, and subjects, these our letters hearing or seeing, and to every of them, greeting. Forasmuch as our trusty and well beloved Thomas Benolt, otherwise called Clarencieux King at Arms of the south, east, and west, parts of this our realm from the river of Trent southward, now by our especial licence, entendeth by way of nobleness to visit among other your arms and cognisances, and to reform the same if it be necessary and requisite, and to reform all false armoury and arms devised without authority, marks unlawfully set or made in escutcheons, squares, or lozenges, which escutcheons, squares, or lozenges, be tokens of nobleness and them to deface and take away wheresoever they be set, and the same to take for his own behoof, whether it be in stone, windows, plate, or any other manner of wise set, and all such as set upon churches, or other places, banners, standards, pennons, or coats of arms, not having authority so to do, and also over this to take the note of your descents according to his oath and bond made at his creation in this part. And also the said King at arms to give to any person or persons spiritual, the which be preferred by grace, virtue, or cunning, to rooms and degrees of honour and worship, arms according to their merits: and likewise to any person or persons temporal, the which by the service done to us or to other, that be increased or augmented to possessions and riches able to maintain the same, so that they be not issued of vile blood, rebels to our person, not heretics contrary to the faith, but men of good honest reputation. And all such which shall be enobled to have their arms registered in the Earl Marshal’s book, and his seal to be put to every patent which shall be granted at all times. We therefore will, and not only exhort you, but also command you and every of you, that unto our said servant in full execution of that which belongeth to this his affairs and authority in all and singular the premisses ye will shew unto him all the favour with your aid and assistance if he require you in all that you goodly may, as ye tender our favour and the honour and weal of noblesse in this behalf, inhibiting by this our present writing all other our officers of arms, what degree soever they be, not to meddle nor intromit them with none of these his affairs in any of the things aforesaid nor to meddle with any interments or funerals at any time from henceforth nor with the liberties, profits, nor other emoluments appertaining to the said King at arms within his said province, without his especial licence and authority by him granted in that behalf and that apparently to appear willing and granting by these our letters that the same shall be at all times in full power, strength, and effect now and hereafter while our said servant liveth, and to execute his visitations in his said province whensoever he thinketh best to employ him thereunto. In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patents. Witness ourself at Windsor the nineteenth day of April the one and twenty year of our reign.

(iii) Creation of peers, 1547 Charter of the creation of the King’s uncle, Edward earl of Hertford, as duke of Somerset, whom the King invests with that name, etc., by girding on the sword, putting on his head the cap and circle of gold and handing him the golden rod. To hold the dignity to him and the heirs male of his body and of Anne, now his wife, already begotten and to be begotten; with remainder, in default of such heirs, to Edward

258

THE COMMONWEAL

[18]

Seymour, esquire, son of the said duke by Katharine, deceased, his first wife, and the heirs male of his body, who shall enjoy the dignity of duke of Somerset with all the honours to the said duke appendant and annexed, and shall be invested also by girding on the sword, putting on his head the cap and circle of gold, and handing the golden rod; and if Edward Seymour chance to die without heir male of his body the heirs male of the body of the present duke by any future wife shall in like manner succeed. And, that the rank of duke may be the more honourably maintained, the King hereby grants to the foresaid duke of Somerset and his successors a yearly rent of £40. from his manors of Crickern alias Crokhorne, Stokegorsey and Wykeffitzpane, Soms., which came to Henry VIII’s hands by the attainder of Henry late marquess of Exeter. Witnesses Thomas archbishop of Canterbury, the King’s councillors Lord Seynt John and Lord Russell, his kinsmen the earls of Arundel and Shrewsbury, the bishops of Durham and Ely, the councillors Paget and Petre, chief secretaries, and others. 16 Feb. 1547 (C.P.R., Edward VI, 1547–48, 173) Appointment of the King’s uncle Edward earl of Hertford, protector of his realms and governor of his person, as Treasurer of the Exchequer; from 29 Jan. 1 Edw. VI as long as the King pleases, as amply as John Dynham, Knight, lord Dynham, or Thomas duke of Norfolk father of Thomas late Duke of Norfolk, attainted, or the said late Duke held the office. 10 Feb. 1547 (Ibid. 180) Grant for life to the King’s uncle Edward, duke of Somerset, of the office of Earl Marshal of England as amply as John Mowbray formerly duke of Norfolk or Thomas duke of Norfolk, lately attainted, held the office, and grant that the said Earl Marshal or his deputy shall bear as well in the King’s absence (presentia has apparently been altered to absencia) as in the King’s absence (sic) a golden stick ringed with black at each end, graven with the seal of the King’s arms in the upper end and the duke’s in the lower end: and that he may bear himself the more honourably the King grants him £20 yearly for life out of the profits of the Hanaper of Chancery. 17 Feb. 1547 (Ibid. 180) Whereas the King desires to increase the weakened forces of the baronage, the number of barons having been diminished by the expulsion of abbots and priors and death of other barons: Charter of creation of William Herbert, Knight, councillor, and Master of the Horse, as a baron of Parliament with the title of Baron Herbert of Cardyff, co. Glamorgan; to hold to him and the heirs male of his body. This without fine or fee. 10 Oct. 1551 (C.P.R. Edward VI, 1550–55, 122) Whereas those whom Divine Providence has set in monarchy and the regal throne (as it were vicars on earth of that Celestial Majesty) rule what is committed to them and therein represent what the eyes do in the body, whose office is to direct all its members; so, monarchs and princes, as the eyes of the state, ought to look into all the estates and orders of their empire without which no civil administration can exist, and when they see the nobility of the estates and orders weakened increase their number in order that,

[19]

THE RISE OF NEW FAMILIES

259

others whom virtue and glorious ancestry ennoble being called to honour, the glory of the orders and estates may be perpetuated: Now therefore the King seeing one of the orders suffering from its fewness and knowing that his councillor William Herbert, K.G., lord Herbert of Cardyff, president of the Council of Wales, and Master of the Horse, both in Henry VIII’s time served well in wars against France and in offices at home and also served the King many times especially in that rebellion raised by desperate men in Devon which put the realm in danger, when the said William at grave risk gave such aid that partly through his leadership the rebels were reduced to obedience: Creation of the said lord Herbert as earl of Pembroke; to him and the heirs male of his body. And grant towards the support of their rank of an annuity of £20. out of the custom and subsidy within the port of Bristol. II Oct. 1551 (Ibid. 128)

19. The rise of new families, illustrated from various sources No analysis of early Tudor society would be complete without some account of the rise of new men who, profiting from their opportunities amassed riches and acquired positions which enabled them to equip their children for life at a higher social level than they themselves enjoyed. The following documents show some of the ways by which such a result was achieved.

(a) The Bertie Family The rise of this family was remarkable. The son of a working mason married a duchess: the grandson sat among the peers of the realm as the holder of a feudal barony: while the great grand-son received an earldom and established his right to the ancient office of Great Chamberlain of England. By the reign of Elizabeth there was in existence a family pedigree which provided the fitting background for such distinctions. Its myths did not survive the devastating criticisms of Horace Round. The following selection of references will indicate the way in which the genealogist set to work, while at the same time will provide an illuminating picture of the possibilities of advancement in early Tudor England. For the full story the indispensable material is contained in J.H.Round, Peerage and Pedigree, 1., 1–54; Georgina Bertie, Five Generations of a Loyal House. The fortunes of Richard Bertie and Catherine, dower duchess of Suffolk, are described by Evelyn Read, Catherine, Duchess of Suffolk.

(i) Family origins The humble origins of the Bertie family is suggested in the will of Robert Bertie. 4 October 1501.

T

his is the last will of me Robert Bertie aforesaid made the day and year of our Lord God aforewritten and the seventeenth year of King Henry the Seventh of and in all my lands and tenements with all their appurtenance lying in the parishes of Berghsted and Maydeston in the which William Hadsole and Robert Carter by me of confidence are infeoffed as by a deed to them by me made more plainly appeareth. First I will that my said Feoffees after my decease shall let Marion my wife to have enjoy and occupy my messuage which I dwell in with all the lands to the same messuage pertaining unto the time that Thomas my son come to the age of 21 year in keeping upon the same competent reparations. And when the said Thomas cometh to the age of 21. year then I will my wife shall have half my said messuage, that is to say, the north part, with the barn and garden, which was late one John Bartie, and a croft of land called Hawkes Land, a piece of land called Helfeld with all their appurtenances to have and to hold the aforesaid half messuage

260

THE COMMONWEAL

[19]

with all their appurtenances to the said Marion during the life of the same Marion. Also I will that Marion my wife shall pay to Johane my daughter 5. marks to her marriage and 5. marks within the space of a year after her marriage. Also I will my executors shortly after my decease shall sell my messuage with all the appurtances lying in Maidstone next to a street called Yerlys Lane. And the money thereof coming to be delivered to Marion my wife to the intent to perform my bequests afore written. And if it happen that the said Johane die or she be married then I will that the said 10. marks shall be disposed for me in the church of Bersted in form following, that is to say every year during 20. years 6s. 8.d.. to be disposed for anniversaries for me. Also I will that Thomas my son shall have when he cometh to the said age of 20. year the south part of my dwelling house with the stable, barn, and further house and all the lands and tenements to the same pertaining except and reserved always such lands and tenements as is afore bequeathed and willed to Marion my wife during her life. And after decease of Marion my wife I will that all my said lands and tenements unbequeathed hole1 shall remain unto Thomas my son and to the heirs of his body lawfully begotten under form and condition following, that is to say that Thomas my son or his executors shall pay to William my son when he cometh to the age of 21. years 10.li. And if it happen the said Thomas my son die without heir of his body lawfully begotten then I will all my said lands and tenements hole shall remain to William my son and to his heirs of his body lawfully begotten. And if it happen the said William my son die without heir of his body lawfully begotten then I will all my said lands and tenements hole shall remain to Johane my daughter and to her heirs and assigns for ever. Also I will that the longest liver of Thomas and William and Johane shall have enjoy and possess all my lands and tenements in fee simple. Also I will that William my son shall have half my cottage garden and croft lying in the plain at Berghsted to him and to his heirs for ever. Also I will that Marion my wife shall dispose for me at the day of my year’s mind 6.s. 8.d. and so she in like manner 40.s. to dispose for me at every year’s mind unto the said Thomas my son come to the said age of 21. years. Also I will that my sons Thomas and William shall have my working tools for such as be for mason’s craft. (Bertie, Five Generations of a Loyal House, App. 464–467)

(ii) The rise of Thomas Bertie The following documents shew Thomas carrying on his father’s craft, but steadily bettering himself. Beginning as a stonemason at Winchester, and carrying on in a similar capacity for the earl of Southampton at his new house at Titchfield, Hants., Bertie was next employed by the King building forts in the Solent, at Calshot, and Hurst Castle. His rise to office at Hurst was soon followed by a grant of arms.

(i) [1532–3]. And in payment to Guy the stonemason working on the pointing of the windows of the aforesaid vault by bill of Thomas Bartewe, 5.s.; and to the same likewise for the pointing of eight arches in the church, 5.s. 6.d.: and for making a scaffold over the shrine of St. Swithin and removing the tomb of a bishop before the shrine, and for fixing the same tomb again, 10.s. Total 20.s 6.d. And in payment to Thomas Bartewe for an agreement made with him for the repair of the said vault on his part, 100.s. (Compotus Rolls of the Obedientaries of St. Swithin’s Priory, Winchester, Ed. G.W.Kitchen, Hampshire Record Soc., 1892, 219, Latin) 1

wholly.

[19]

THE RISE OF NEW FAMILIES

261

(ii) [1539]. Please it your good lordship, this bearer my fellow, Mills, came hither to have spoken with you. The cause of whose coming, in your lordship’s absence, I have declared to the King, which resteth in these two points. The one for the works at Calshorispoynte, touching which his saying is, that the Barbican of the Tower will be ready by Michaelmas, if they may know where to have covering for it, and in that the King’s majesty is resolved that there shall be lead taken, as well for the said Barbican, as the Tower itself, of the leads that are at Beaulieu: so that for delivery of the same, Master Wriothesley must make a warrant, and his grace will sign it. The other point is touching money and charges of the said works, and also the work at the Cowe in the Isle, concerning which this said bearer saith that by the next pay day, the money already received will be spent: so that he thinketh, and also it appeareth by the declaration of Bartine,1 that it will ask at both places no less than one thousand marks more. And that by estimation the said thousand marks, with the money now remaining in his hands, will perform the works…. (Earl of Southampton to Cromwell (LP., XIV, i, 152: transcribed in Ellis, Orig. Letters, 2 Ser., ii, 86)) (iii) Warrant to—to deliver to Thomas Bartrie Captain of Hurst £17. 15. 0. for 230 quarters of lime by him sent to Sir Hugh Powlet to Jersey, and more to him for 63 quarters of lime, which maketh £23. 6. 3. (A.P.C. 1550–52,141) (iv) To all nobles and gentles these present letters reading hearing or seeing, Thomas Hawley alias Clarencieulx principal Herald and King of Arms of the south-east and west parts of this realm from the river of Trent southward, sendeth humble commendation and greeting. Equity willeth and reason ordaineth that men virtuous and of noble courage be by their merits and good renown rewarded not only their persons in this mortal life so brief and transitory, but also after them those that shall be of their bodies descended to be in all places of honour with other nobles and gentles accepted and taken by certain ensigns and demonstrances of honour and noblesse, that is to say blason healme and timber, to the end that by their examples others may the more enforce themselves to have perseverance to use their days in feats of arms and works virtuous to get the renown of ancient noblesse in their lines and posterities. And therefore, I Clarencieulx, not only by the common renown, but also by the report and witness of divers worthy to be taken of word and credence, am plainly advertised and informed that Thomas Bertie of Berested in the county of Kent gentleman is descended of an house undefamed and being at this present time Captain of Hurst Castle for the King’s Majesty and hath of long time used himself in feats of arms and good works so that he is well worthy to be in all places of honour admitted numbered and taken in the company of other nobles and gentles, and for the remembrance of the same by the virtue authority and power annexed, attributed given and granted by the King our sovereign lord’s highness to me and to my office of Clarencieulx King of Arms by express words under his majesty’s most noble great seal, have devised ordained given and granted to the said Thomas Bertie gentleman, and for his posterity the arms and crest as hereafter followeth, that is to say, silver three faulcys of muttons the bodies of timber headed, armed, horned, azure upon the timber a ring of the same two above one. Upon his healme on a torse silver and sable on a hussock vert a date 1

?Bartiue.

262

THE COMMONWEAL

[19]

tree and the dates in their proper colour levied vert, mantelled gules doubled silver, as more plainly appeareth depicted in this margent. To have and to hold for him and his posterity and they it to use and enjoy for evermore. In witness whereof I, the said Clarencieulx King of Arms have signed these presents with my hand, and set thereunto the seal of my Arms with the seal of my office of Clarencieulx King of Arms. Given and granted at London the xth. day of July in the fourth year of the reign of our sovereign lord Edward the Sixt by the grace of God King of England France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, and of the Church of England and Ireland, under Christ in earth the supreme head. 10 July 1550 (W.A.Littledale (ed.), Miscellaneous Grants of Arms, Pt. 1, p. 26 (Harl. Soc., LXXVI, 1925); G.Bertie. Five Generations, 448)

(v) The career of Richard Bertie Thomas Bertie’s son, Richard (1517–82), was admitted a scholar of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, in 1533–34, and is said to have become fellow of his College. Later he joined the household of Sir Thomas Wriothesley, Lord Chancellor. About the end of 1552 he married Catherine, duchess dowager of Suffolk, who was in her own right Baroness Willoughby of Eresby. Her Protestant sympathies and indiscreet tongue brought her under Gardiner’s suspicion in Mary’s reign, and she and Bertie fled the country. The story of their wanderings until their return to England in Elizabeth’s reign, and the further advancement of the Bertie fortunes lie outside the limits of our period, they can be traced in the references given above.

1555. A letter to Sir Edward Mountague and certain other Commissioners in Lincolnshire for the finding of an office of all such lands, goods, and chattels as the Lady Katherine, duchess dowager of Suffolk and Bartue her husband, being contemptuously without licence departed the realm, had before their departure within the said shire… A.P.C. 1554–56, 180 1558. Whereas by inquisition taken by commission at Estgrenewiche, co. Kent, 18 January 3 and 4 Philip and Mary, before William Roper, Nicholas Rookewood, and John Beare, esquires, it was found that Richard Bartue and Lady Katherine duchess of Suffolk, his wife, on 5 Feb. 1 and 2 Philip and Mary, quitted the realm for parts beyond the seas without licence and at the time of the inquisition were living at the city of Basel in Germany, and there adhering to the enemies of the King and queen, and that on the said 5 February they were possessed of the custody of the body and marriage of Agnes Woodhill, daughter and heir of Anthony Woodhill, esquire, deceased: by which inquisition the said custody and marriage and all the goods and chattels of Bartue and Lady Katherine were forfeited to the Crown, and because from Lady day next after the said 5 Feb., for 2 years until Lady day the payment of £40 (sic) from the Court of Wards, which Bartue and lady Katherine had for the bringing up of the said Agnes had ceased. Grant to Agnes of the entire sum of £53. 6. 8. for the said 2 years at the rate of 4C marks a year to be paid by the receiver general of the said court: and further grant of an annuity of 40 marks to be paid from the issues of the lands late of the said Anthony from Ladyday last so long as the lands shall remain in the Crown’s hands for default of sueing for livery of the same. C.P.R. 1557–8. p 101

[19]

THE RISE OF NEW FAMILIES

263

(b) The Wriothesley family The most direct way of acquiring wealth and position was through office under the government. Many examples of the rise of new families by this means could be cited. The career of Thomas Wriothesley (1505–50) illustrates the process. The origin of his family is obscure although, of course, there is a pedigree which traces it back into the thirteenth century. In actual fact it emerges into the light with Sir John Wry the (d. 1504), who was Falcon herald under Henry VI. His two sons, William and Thomas, both followed their father’s profession but changed the family name to Wriothesley. William’s eldest son, Thomas, was the member of the family whose career as an administrator was especially successful. He seems to have devoted himself to a ruthless policy of self-aggrandisement. After a spectacular rise to power and wealth Wriothesley over-reached himself in the intrigues of Edward VI’s court and ultimately lost the battle of wits to Warwick. His failure and death did not, however, mean the end of the family. Wi th Wriothesley’s grandson Henry, the third earl of Southampton (1573–1624), the patron of Shakespeare, it was again a prominent feature of Elizabethan society. Thomas Wriothesley’s career is suggested by the following documents.

(i) Thomas Wriothesley, clerk of the Signet. Grant in reversion of the office of bailiff of the towns or lordships of Warwyk and Snyterfield, Warwick, with custody of the warren there, and a certain ground or soil with houses thereon built in War-wick, called “le Bothe hall” and the herbage of a pasture called “le marsshes Pakimore and Tappingclose” Warwick; all which offices &c. were granted by patent, 7 Oct., I Hen. VIII. to Edward Ferrys, one of the king’s stewards. (Grants in August 1530, L.P. IV, 6600, II) (ii) Thomas Wriothesley, one of the clerks of the Signet. Reversion of the offices of coroner and attorney in the King’s Bench, which was granted by patent, 1 June 1 Hen. VIII. to Thomas Fermour. (1536, ibid, x, 12,) (iii) Thomas Wriothesley. Grant in fee of the house and site of the late monastery of Beaulieu alias de Bello Loco Regis, Hants., the church, steeple, and churchyard of the same; the manor of Beaulieu and the great close of Beaulieu, also a close called [blank] lying near “the great close of Beaulieu” and the three chapels of Boverey, Througham, and St. Leonard’s within the limits of the said great close…which came into the King’s hand by grant of the abbot and convent of Beaulieu. Rent. £10..5.s..8.d. (29 July 1538, ibid, XIII, i, 1519, g. 67) (iv) 1540. This year in April, my cousin Mr. Thomas Wriothesley, was made the King’s Secretary, and Mr. Sadler, of the Privy Chamber joined with him, and were both made knights also. (Wriothesley, Chronicle, 1, 115) (v) Sir Thomas Wriothesley, one of the King’s secretaries. Grant, in fee, of the great mansion late in tenure of Sir Richard Rich, within the close of the Augustinian Friars in London, with a great hall, a bakehouse, a stable, and 2 gardens adjoining, and tenements near, in the several tenures of the said Sir Richard, Will.Shurland, and Ric.Duke; and all the messuages. &c. within the site of the said Augustinian Friars, which belonged to Thomas, earl of Essex, attainted. To hold to the said Sir Thomas and his heirs by a rent of 5.s. (July 1540, L.P. xv, 942, g. 113) (vi) Sir Thomas Wriothesley, one of the King’s principal secretaries. Licence to build walls and towers around and within the late abbey of Tychefeld, Hants., and the site and grounds &c, thereof, and to embattle and fortify the said walls. Also pardon to the

264

THE COMMONWEAL

[19]

said Sir Thomas for having, without licence, transformed the said late abbey and the manor-house of Tychefeld &c. into a chief messuage of the manor or great and solemn place, and decorated it with towers and battlements; and licence to hold the same to him and his heirs and assigns for ever. (February 1542, ibid, XVII, 137, g. 54) (vii) Thomas Wriothesley, one of the king’s primary secretaries. Creation as baron Wryothesley, with succession in tail male. (1 January 1544, ibid, XIX, i, 80, g. i) (viii) The 30 day of April, 1544, Sir Thomas Audley, knight, Lord of Walden and Chancellor of England, my late lord and master, departed this worldly life at his place of Christ’s Church, in London. The second day of May, Sir Thomas Wriothesley, knight, Lord Wriothesley, was sworn Chancellor of England, in the Chancery at Westminster Hall. (Wriothesley, Chronicle 1, 147) (ix) 28 June, 1550. That because the earl of Southampton is very sick and therefore hath need of the air of the country, he therefore shall repair down into Hampshire, and not to depart out of the compass of that shire, but to be ready to answer and to appear before the Council upon any reasonable warning, upon pain of forfeiture of five thousand marks taken by recognisance.1 (Dasent, A.P.C. 1550–52, 59) (x) Memorandum: the 30 of July Sir Thomas Wriothesley, Lord Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, and knight of the garter, and one of the executors of King Henry VIII. departed out of this transitory life at his place in Holborn, called Lincoln’s place, about midnight: he had been long sick, and the 3 of August in the forenoon he was buried in St. Andrew’s Church in Holborn, at the right hand of the high altar, Mr. Hooper, Bishop of Gloucester preaching there at the burial. (1550, Wriothesley, Chronicle, II, 41) (c) The Spencer family The Spencer family, living in south-east Warwickshire on the Northamptonshire border, is an interesting example of the rise of a new family. It reached nobility in Robert Spencer, first baron of Wormleighton (d. 1627). The pedigree which linked it with the baronial Despencer house is described by Round as a deliberate invention by herald Clarencieux Lee in 1595. In actual fact the Spencers emerge from obscurity in the reign of Henry VII. The founder of the family fortunes was John Spencer (d. 1522), described in a deed of 26 November 1497 as a grazier. He rose to be High Sheriff of Northants in 1511, L.P. 1, i, 969, g. 23, and was knighted c. 1519. Round considers this a rare example of a family which owed its riches and its rise neither to the favour of a court, nor to the spoils of monasteries, nor to a fortune made in trade, but to successful farming. But successful marriages may have helped: Sir John Spencer (d. 1586) had as his mother the daughter of Sir Thomas Kytson, the rich London mercer. The following documents throw some light on the rise of the family: J.H.Round, Studies in Peerage and Family History, 279– 329; V.C.H. Northants, II, 293.

7 May 1498. Grant to the King’s servant William Coope, esquire, cofferer of the 1 In September and October 1549, Wriothesley took a leading part in the plot which led to the down-fall of the Protector: but he did not regain position or influence for himself. By February 1550 he was no longer a member of the Council, and soon after was placed under house-arrest.

[19]

THE RISE OF NEW FAMILIES

265

household, his heirs and assigns, of the manors of Wormleighton, alias Wilmeleghton and Fenny Compton, co. Warwick, and all the lands of Simon Mountfort, Knight, in Wormeleghton and Fenny Compton forfeited by the attainder passed on the said Simon in the parliament held 14 October, 11 Henry VII., with all issues from Michael-mas last, to hold in socage, to wit, by fealty and a rent of 20 marks a year. (C.P.R. 1494–1509, p. 133) November, 1512. John Spencer of Olthorp. Licence to impark lands in Olthorp and Wykehamond, Northampton, and grant of free warren in all his lands and several fishery and vivary in all his waters in Olthorp, Brynketon Magna, Wykehamond, and Bodyngton Superior, Northampton: and licence to castellate the manors of Olthorp, Northampton and Wormeleighton, Warwickshire. (L.P. 1, i, 1494, g. 28) And the jurors say that John Spencer was of late, and still is, seised in his demesne as of fee of 40 acres of arable land and of 40 acres of land and wood with appurtenances in Wykedyve and Wykhamond in the aforesaid county, and thus thereof seised on the fourth day of December in the fourth year of the reign of the present lord King, enclosed the aforesaid lands with hedges and ditches, and caused these lands to be joined to and included in his park in Wicken, and imparked them, and enlarged his park with these lands and converted them to pasture for animals whereby a half plough is lost…. And these tenements were worth 20/- per annum. And they are held of the lord King. And further, the same jurors say that Thomas late Marquis of Dorset was of late seised in his demesne as of fee of 30 acres of arable land accustomed to be tilled, with appurtenances in Wykedyve and Wykehamond in the aforesaid county, and thus thereof seised on the 4th day of September in the 6th year of the reign of the aforesaid late King, he converted the aforesaid lands from their original cultivation and use into pasture for sheep and other animals whereby half a plough is lost, and four persons were rendered idle. And one John Spencer now has the estate of the late Marquis of and in these aforesaid lands. And these lands are worth 30/- per annum. And they are held of the lord King. And they say that John Spencer was of late, and still is, seised in his demesne as of fee of one messuage and forty acres of arable land suitable for cultivation and with that messuage accustomed to be occupied in Wykedyve and Wykehamond in the county aforesaid. And being thus seised thereof, on the 20th. day of February in the fourth year of the reign of the present lord king he freely caused the aforesaid messuage to be knocked down and wasted and so allowed it to fall into ruin and decay, and four persons who up to then had been living and working there to their great loss were driven into vagrancy. And these lands are worth 13/4 per annum. And these tenements are held of the lord King. (Leadam, Domesday of Enclosures, 1, 285–286) c. 1519. In most humble wise sheweth unto your grace your daily Orator John Spencer of Wormeleighton in the county of Warwick that where one sir Symond Mountford knight was seised of the manor of Wormeleighton aforesaid, and so seised was attainted for treason done against the noble prince king Henry the VIIth. by reason whereof the said manor with all other lands and tenements which were the said Symond’s were forfeit to his grace, and he so being thereof seised, by his letters patent granted the said manor of Wormeleighton to one William Cope then being Cofferer to his grace, to

266

THE COMMONWEAL

[19]

have to him his heirs and assigns for ever, paying therefor to the king and to his heirs yearly 20 marks, which was then but of the value of £8., and so the rent was increased to the king by the said William when he enclosed the said manor to 20 marks a year, and so duly paid yearly, and the same William Cope afore the time of enclosure purchased of the mesne lords within the same lordship all the rest of the lands and tenements within the said lordship. And so the said William Cope enclosed the same lordship of Wormeleighton long time before the said John Spencer bought the said lordship of the said William Cope to his great cost and charge which hath cost him to the said William and his executors 20 hundred pounds. Whereupon he made him a dwelling place, where he had none to inhabit himself in his country where he was born, for at Hodnell where he dwelt before he had it no longer but during the nonage of his uncle’s son which now there dwelleth and hath done this 3 years, and so this 3 years the said John Spencer hath been in building in Wormeleighton to his great cost and charge. And first in building and maintaining of the church and bought all ornaments, as cross, books, cope, vestments, chalices and censers, for all the church gear that was within the church at the time when husbandmen were there inhabited was not worth £6. for they had never service by note for they were so poor and lived so poorly that they had no books to sing service on in the church. And where they never had but one priest, I have had and intend to have 2 or 3. And also he hath builded and in-habited 4 houses. And men women and children dwelling in them. And so what with his own house, and the other 4 houses there is within 20 persons, as much people as was in the town before. And where there is no wood nor timber growing within 12 or 13 miles of the same lordship the said John Spencer hath there set trees and sown acorns for timber and wood, and double dyked and set with all manner of wood both in the hedgerows, and also betwixt the hedges adjoining to the old hedges that William Cope made before in the said lordship, whereupon now groweth much wood which is already grown to the profit of all them that should dwell in the said lordship, as also to the country adjoining thereunto, for in those parts there is no wood, so that the poor men of the country are fain to burn the straw that their cattle should live by, therefore it were a great loss to destroy those hedges for it is a greater commodity than either corn or grass in those parts, for they were set to the most increase of wood that might be devised at the great cost and charge of the said John Spencer as first in purchasing, building, hedging, and ditching of the same which hath been to him a marvellous charge above all men, and most loss shall have if ye be not good and gracious lord to him in the same, for he hath none other pasture left him now in his country but the same. Which if now should be put in tillage and none of that reserved that when tillage for pasture several reserved for his cattle it should be to his utter undoing for his living is and hath been by the breed[ing] of cattle in his pastures, for he is neither buyer nor seller in common markets as other grasiers be, but liveth by his own breed of the same pastures, and sold it when it was fat to the City of London and other places yearly as good cheap in all this 5 or 6 years past as he did in other years when they were best cheap within 2.s. in a beast and 2.d. in a sheep, and he hath bred and fed within the said lordship which was never good for corn as the country will testify, more cattle this 6. years than was bred in the lordship when the town was inhabit[ed] in 20 years before or shall be in 20 years after it shall be inhabited. (Ibid. 485–487)

[19]

THE RISE OF NEW FAMILIES

267

(d) Cloth and status The following documents again illustrate the flexibility of the social structure of the period: (i) John Bonde was a wealthy clothier in Coventry, and a merchant of the Staple. The park which he made was of thirty acres, on which he put down deer. (Dugdale, Warwickshire, 647.) (ii) While the career of William Stumpe was exceptionally successful, it shows what could happen in early Tudor society. His father is said to have been a weaver before he rose to be a clothier, and at one time was parish clerk at North Nibley in Gloucestershire. The son had acquired wealth as early as 1524, and in Leland’s day he was a power in Malmesbury. His will suggests that he intended his eldest son James, knighted during his father’s lifetime, to be the founder of a county family, while his other sons carried on his business. This happened. His son James married the daughter of Sir Edward Baynton, and James’ three granddaughters, co-heiresses of the Stumpe fortune, married the earls of Suffolk, Lincoln, and Rutland. For a fuller account of this family see Wilts. N. & Q., VIII, 1916, 385, and G.D.Ramsay, Wiltshire Woollen Industry, 32–37.

(i) John Bonde. And the aforesaid Jurors say that John Bonde of Coventry Draper, was and still is, seised in his demesne as of fee, of 30 acres of pasture and woods with appurtenances in Little Bromwich in the aforesaid county, and thereof so seised on the sixth day of March in the sixth year of the reign of the present lord king he inclosed and imparked those lands with ditches, hedges, and palings around, and caused to be made there a new park for breeding beasts there, and placed, and still places, cattle in the same park, and still holds these lands thus imparked, and changed them from their former use. And these lands are held from [blank in MS.] and they are worth 46. shillings and 8. pence, per annum. (I.S.Leadam, Domesday of Inclosures, II, 400) (ii) William Stumpe. Malmesbury. The whole lodgings of the abbey belong now to one Stumpe, an exceeding rich clothier that bought them of the King. This Stumpe’s son hath married Sir Edward Baynton’s daughter. This Stumpe was the chief causer and contributer to have the abbey church made a parish church. At this present time every corner of the vast houses of office that belonged to the abbey be full of looms to weave cloth in, and this Stumpe intendeth to make a street or two for clothiers in the back vacant ground of the abbey that is within the town walls. There be made now every year in the town a 3000 cloths. (Leland, Itinerary, 1, 132) In the name of God, Amen. I, William Stumpe, do make my Testament and last will etc. 15 Oct. in 4th. year of Edward VI. etc. I give thanks to God that I am in good mind and memory as ever I was and not sick in body… I bequeath my soul to our lord Jesus Christ, etc., and my body to be buried wheresoever that God will have the body as he please… I bequeath to John Stumpe, my second son, my leases that I have of Gale’s house, John Wyndowe’s house and Richard Smith’s house at Charleton with ten broad looms and in money £500, all this to be delivered after my departing, when he will have it. I bequeath to Richard, William, and Thomas Stumpe, my brother John’s children £10 apiece, to be delivered to them when they come to age of 21…. I bequeath to every woman servant 20.s. above their wages and to every man servant in my house 40.s. that is John Chappell 40.s. and to Robert Samson £4, my debts paid, all the rest of my goods unbequeathed to be given to James Stumpe, my son, whom I do make my executor. (Abstract by Canon F.H.Manley, Wilts. Notes and Queries, VIII (1916), 385)

268

THE COMMONWEAL

[20]

20. The Gentry: good and bad. Described by Thomas Becon (T.Becon, Works (“The Fortress of the Faithful”), II, 597)

P

hilemon. Ye have heard my mind of preachers, which were slandered (I speak of P the godly) in this behalf: I will now speak somewhat of gentlemen. As I do not allow all that be called preachers, so do I not approve the doings of all them that be called gentlemen. And as I do not condemn all preachers, so do I not dispraise all gentlemen. For as there are which are true preachers indeed, so likewise are there which are true gentlemen indeed. But some abuse the name of preachers, by teaching papistry, anabaptistry, epicurism, &c., and are no preachers indeed, but rather praters and deceivers of the people: so likewise are there many which are called gentlemen and are no gentlemen, indeed, but pollers and pillers, rakers and catchers, bribers and extortioners, yea, and very caterpillars of the commonweal. For they abuse the name of a gentleman, which is unfeignedly a name of much worship and great honour, and worthy to be had in reverence and high estimation. Without the true gentleman the commonweal can no more safely be than the body without eyes. For as the eyes are the principal comfort of an whole body, so likewise are the true gentlemen of the commonweal. And look, what the nose is without smelling, the tongue without speaking, the hands without feeling, the feet without going, the very same is a commonweal without them that are true gentlemen, as the wise man saith1: “Where no good counsel is, there the people decay; but where as many are that can give good counsel, there is wealth.” For such as are true gentlemen are fathers of the country, maintainers of the poor, defenders of the widows and fatherless, succourers of the needy, comforters of the comfortless, and upholders of the commonweal, in fine, gentlemen both in name and deed. These be pearls and jewels to a realm, and as necessary for the conservation of a public weal as fire, water, and heat is for the health of man’s body. For their principal respect is not unto their own private lucre and singular commodity but their whole study is how they may profit the commonweal and do good to many as Salamon saith:2 “The righteous laboureth to do good; but the ungodly useth his increase unto sin”. Not only their goods, but their very life also will they bestow to do good to other; so far it is off that for their own advantage they will impoverish or hinder any man. Eusebius. Would God we had many such gentlemen! Philemon. We have without all doubt many, although not so many as I would wish; for of good things we can never have enough. Then there is another sort which glory in the title of gentlemen also, and they are such as this common proverb noteth: As riseth my good So riseth my blood. They think all nobility to consist in the abundance of worldly goods, in wearing of golden chains and costly apparel, in having fair houses and pleasant gardens. And to set forth this their gentlemanry they poll, they pill, they wake they rake, they sweat, they fret, they gripe, they nip, they face, they brase, they semble, they dissemble: yea, they move every stone, as they say, to maintain and set forth their unnoble nobility, not 1

Prov. xi.

2

Prov. x.

[20]

THE GENTRY: GOOD AND BAD

269

caring how they come by it, so they have it. All is fish that cometh to the net: it is good to be taking. Bonus est odor lucri ex re qualibet.1 These study not, as the true gentlemen do, to profit many, to do good to the country, to maintain the poor, to relieve the succourless, to nourish the weak, to cherish their needy tenants; neither seek they the commodity of the commonweal, but their own private advantage. They labour to possess much, but they distribute nothing. Their hand is stretched out to receive, but shut when they should give. If they once creep into a town or village, they for the most part never cease, till they have devoured and eaten up the whole town. Whatsoever is pleasant or profitable must be theirs, by hook or by crook; it lieth handsomely for them, and so near their nose, though it be a mile off. If there be either farm or sheep-ground, upon the which some honest poor man liveth, both he and his family, out he must. Had it must be, whatsoever it cost, though the poor man and all his should go a-begging, it lieth so commodiously for our new-come gentle-man. If they buy any tenement, and let it out again to the poor man, O how they do rack it and stretch out the rents thereof, almost from a penny to a pound! yea, and some of them, buying house and land in a town, suffer the houses to fall down, and turn the ground into pasture, the poor man not having where to hide his head. Who will be troubled, say they, with such a sort of shake-ragged slaves in a town, which do nothing but burn up our hedges, eat up the common, fill the town full of beggar’s brawls? Who? No man, I trow, namely where such fine and long-nosed gentlemen dwell. Some, buying the lordship of a town, handle the inhabitants thereof on such sort, that they lose divers of their liberties, being in much worse case than they were afore. Thus the poor people be so wrung of these ungentle gentlemen, that the silly souls are like unto dry haddocks. Some Irishman, beholding them, might well think that they came lately out of St. Patrick’s purgatory: they are so withered away, even to the hard bones, for cold and hunger. Against such churlish gentlemen speaketh God by the prophet, saying2: “O ye heads of the house of Jacob, and ye leaders of the house of Israel…should not ye know what were lawful and right? But ye hate the good, and love the evil: ye pluck off men’s skins and the flesh from their bones: ye eat the flesh of my people, and flay off their skin: ye break their bones; ye chop them in pieces as it were into a cauldron, and as flesh into a pot.” Theophilus. These greedy gripes and hungry horse-leeches, by usurping the name of gentlemen, do much obscure the renown, worship and honour of true gentlemen, and cause the name of a gentleman to be much disdained among the common people: as we have both heard and seen now of late days. And though they challenge to themselves never so much the name of a gentleman, by their goods, by their ancestors, by antiquity, by the worthiness of their stock, and many good morrows; yet, if they do degenerate and grow out of kind from the natural manners of a true gentleman, they are no gentlemen indeed, but carles and churls, yea, and in hurting their neighbours they are tyrants and murderers, as the holy scripture calleth them; and in polling and pilling them they are thieves, lions, and wolves, as the prophets term them. An ape shall be an ape, though she be clad in purple and gold. Esop’s crow was still a crow, even when he had decked himself with the pleasant and goodly feathers of other birds. 1

Juv. xiv, 204–5.

2

Mac. iii

270

THE COMMONWEAL

[20]

It is virtue and not gross flesh and blood, which thing we all are, that maketh the true noble and gentleman. It is a mind disposed to do good, yea, and doth good in deed when occasion serveth, and not sumptuous apparel and golden chains, that setteth forth true nobility. It is justice, mercy, liberality, kindness, gentleness, hospitality for the poor, and such other godly gifts of the mind, and not the multitude of riches, that declare who is a gentleman and who a churl, who is noble, who unnoble. He that can nighest approach unto lady virtue, and most lively set forth her natural disposition in his conversation and behaviour, he is the best gentleman, be his parents never so base, and his kindred never so vile in the judgment of the world…. Eusebius. Would God all they which will be taken for gentlemen were gentlemen in deed! Then should it go much better with this realm of England. Christopher. This endless encroaching of worldly possessions shew evidently that they which use it are not friendly to the commonweal, seeing through it the poor commons are brought to beggary. Salomon hath a notable saying, and would God all men would learn it! It is this:1 “The increase and prosperity of the commons is the King’s honour; but the decay of the people is the confusion of the prince.” Theophilus. Friendly to the commonweal? Marry, Sir, they are not friendly to the king, by Salomon’s saying, that impoverish the commons: if the commons increase, wealth and prosperity be the honour of the king, and if the decay and impoverishment of the commons be the confusion and destruction of the prince, then are they extreme enemies to the king, which, without any respect had to the commonweal, seek through their unsatiable covetousness to beggar the king’s subjects, whereby they shall be the less able both to serve the king, and to bear for their portion the charges of the realm when time requireth. Philemon. Certes a king can never be poor so long as his subjects be wealthy. And better it is to have many that should help in time of need, than few; and easier is the burden and the gladlier it is borne, that many bear than few. Christopher. If that same gentleness and liberality were found at this present among the rich men of this world, that hath been heretofore in men of like degree, the commons should not only at all times be quiet, but also the realm should flourish with great wealth, yea, and that universally; whereas now it resteth in few men’s hands. Gentlemen to be encroachers of farms, notable sheepmongers, graziers, butchers, clothiers, weavers, brewers, &c, as I may speak nothing of their parsonages, vicarages, prebends, &c., having otherwise whereof abundantly to live! O unworthy act! O unseemly sight! O abomination! What is it to beggar the realm, to famish the king’s subjects, to bring slavery into this realm, if this be not? Do they not suck the poor men’s blood, that suffer them not to have whereof to live? The wise man saith:2 “The bread of the needy is the life of the poor: he that defraudeth him of it is a murderer.” Philemon. Well, neighbours, although I doubt not but that the king’s majesty and his most honourable council will see redress in these things when they have convenient leisure, yet, if the world should go forth and continue as it is, and the rich worldlings more miserably oppress the poor than they heretofore have done, 1

Prov. xiv.

2

Eccles. xxxiv.

[20]

THE GENTRY: GOOD AND BAD

271

God forbid that the common people, or any kind of people, should raise up tumults, stir up seditions, lift up their hand against the high powers! For that is a sin which by no means can escape unplagued; yea, they that so do run into the danger of eternal damnation, as ye have heard afore. Christopher. I say, God forbid also! but ye know the common proverbs: “The belly hath no ears:” “Hunger is sharper than thorn:” “Necessity is an hard dart:” “Need maketh the old wife trot.” Philemon.St. Paul had rather never to eat flesh nor drink wine, than he should offend his weak brother. Would he then, think you, trouble an whole commonweal, make uproars, raise up commotions, come armed in the field, assemble a sort of idle brains and brainless people together, rob men’s houses, spoil their goods, break up their hedges, make several pastures common to all men, hunt carnal liberty, make a communion, yea, confusion of all things, and all for the belly? Paul would rather, like unto the poor Lazar, have died for hunger, than once violently and unjustly to take away other men’s goods. Christopher. Ye see the unmercifulness of the rich: what, would ye have the poor people starve, and die for hunger? Philemon. Rather starve and die for hunger, as poor Lazar died, than to trouble a commonweal. As riches, so likewise poverty, cometh from God: and both are to be taken thankfully, and not to be grudged at. If oppression be done to the poor of the rich worldlings, shall they avenge themselves? God forbid! yea, rather take that cross patiently, and think that they have deserved far worser things, which have so oft deserved hell; and pray to God to give these rich men merciful hearts, that according to their duty they may be moved with pity and compassion toward the poor. Again, if they have injuries done unto them, if they cannot otherwise be redressed, let them complain to the magistrates and officers of the commonweal, which are appointed to hear men’s causes. Christopher. If the poor oppressed complain to the justices of peace or such-like in the country where he dwelleth, that hath the injury done unto him, little redress, as I hear, can be had, one so serveth another’s turn, even as the mules scratch one another’s back. Philemon. If there be any such partial officers, which are not indifferent, but judge for favour, yet remaineth there another refuge, and that is to complain unto the king’s majesty and his most honourable council, which without all doubt, will both gladly hear their lamentable complaints, and redress their matters according to justice. But whoso leaveth godly means and attempteth wicked wayes, both he and his enterprise must needs come to naught, as we have seen of late days. The Lord himself hath spoken it: “All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword”. All they that are private men, and go about with force and violence to avenge their own cause, and to redress their own matters, shall surely come unto destruction. For they be order-breakers and despisers of God’s holy ordinance, which hath appointed magistrates and head rulers justly to judge between man and man in all matters of controversy, that peace and quietness may be maintained in a commonweal.

272

THE COMMONWEAL

[21]

21. Two descriptions of the yeoman The first of these descriptions of the yeoman is Latimer’s sketch of his father, which he brought into the first sermon he preached before Edward VI. It has been quoted so often that its appearance here would call for an apology were it not that until some other contemporary document is found which performs the miracle of saying in a more felicitous way all that Latimer says, this will remain the classic description of the early Tudor yeoman. The second description suggests a prosperous member of the yeoman class, a sheep farmer on a considerable scale, whose fortunes have clearly not suffered as a consequence of the political and social changes of the time. This lease was enrolled on the patent roll 1540,.1

(i) A typical yeoman (G.E.Currie (ed.), Sermons by Hugh Latimer (Parker Soc.), 101)

… My father was a yeoman, and had no lands of his own, only he had a farm of three or four pound by year at the uttermost, and hereupon he tilled so much as kept half a dozen men. He had walk for a hundred sheep; and my mother milked thirty kine. He was able, and did find the king a harness, with himself and his horse, while he came to the place that he should receive the king’s wages. I can remember that I buckled his harness when he went unto Blackheath field. He kept me to school, or else I had not been able to have preached before the king’s majesty now. He married my sisters with five pound, or twenty nobles apiece; so that he brought them up in godliness and fear of God. He kept hospitality for his poor neighbours, and some alms he gave to the poor. And all this he did of the said farm, where he that now hath it payeth sixteen pound by year, or more, and is not able to do any thing for his prince, for himself, nor for his children, or give a cup of drink to the poor. Thus all the enhancing and rearing goeth to your private commodity and wealth. So that where ye had a single too much, you have that; and since the same, ye have enhanced the rent, and so have increased another too much: so now ye have double too much, which is too too much. But let the preacher preach till his tongue be worn to the stumps, nothing is amended. We have good statutes made for the common-wealth, as touching commoners and inclosers; many meetings and sessions; but in the end of the matter there cometh nothing forth. Well, well, this is one thing I will say unto you: from whence it cometh I know, even from the devil. I know his intent in it. For if ye bring it to pass that the yeomanry be not able to put their sons to school, (as indeed universities do wonderously decay already,) and that they be not able to marry their daughters to the avoiding of whoredom; I say, ye pluck salvation from the people, and utterly destroy the realm. For by yeomen’s sons the faith of Christ is and hath been 1 These two descriptions confirm the view of the yeoman taken by Sir Thomas Smith, De Republica Anglorum (ed. L.Alston, p. 42), written in 1565: “This sort of people confess themselves to be no gentlemen, but give the honour to all which be or take upon them to be gentlemen, and yet they have a certain preeminence and more estimacion than labourers and artificers, and commonly live wealthily, keep good houses, and do their business, and travail to acquire riches: these be (for the most part) farmers unto gentlemen, which with grazing frequenting of markets, and keeping servants not idle as the gentleman doth, but such as get both their own living and part of their masters’: by these means do come to such wealth that they are able and daily do buy the lands of unthrifty gentlemen, and after setting their sons to the school at the Universities, to the law of the realm, or otherwise leaving them sufficient lands whereon they may live without labour, do make their said sons by those means gentlemen.”

[22]

THE ENFRANCHISEMENT OF VILLEINS

273

maintained chiefly. Is this realm taught by rich men’s sons? No, no; read the chronicles: ye shall find sometime noblemen’s sons which have been unpreaching bishops and prelates, but ye shall find none of them learned men. But verily they that should look to the redress of these things be the greatest against them. In this realm are a great many folks, and amongst many I know but one of tender zeal, who at the motion of his poor tenants hath let down his lands to the old rents for their relief. For God’s love let not him be a phoenix, let him not be alone, let him not be an hermit closed in a wall; some good man follow him, and do as he giveth example.

(ii) Nicholas Jenney, yeoman. (27 Nov. 32 Hen. VIII, 1540. L.P. XVI (1540–41), 305, g. 70)

Nic. Jenney, yeoman. Lease of the site of the late monastery of Lewes, Sussex (except the cloister called “Le Frater” and other buildings, which the King has ordered to be destroyed within three years, and some other reservations), with the brew-house, watermill, and horse-mill, in the said site, and 100 cart-loads of wood for burning yearly in the said brew-house; and divers parcels of land in the parish of Bercombe, Sussex, with reservations; and pasture and herbage for 1,840 sheep in the sheep-courses in the lordship of Falmer, except pastures for certain numbers of sheep in different enclosures, and, among others, herbage for 250 sheep in that of Will. Awsten; also tithes of corn arising from the parish of Kyngeston next Lewes, with the portion of tithes of the land called Dyggyns lands, with reservations. All which premises the said Nicholas held to farm of Thomas, late earl of Essex, attainted, for 21 years, by indenture dated 21 June 31 Hen. VIII. Also herbage for 100 sheep and 12 cows among the cattle of the tenants of Kyngeston near Lewes, and carriage for 600 cart-loads of wood which the tenants of the manor of Balneth used of old to carry from the woods of the said late priory in said county to the site of the same late priory; and the King’s rent (“locagium”) in Kyngeston, Boroughmer, and Langney, Sussex, viz., 16 hens, four cocks, and 60 sheep yearly from the tenants in Kyngeston, and the same from the tenants in Boroughmer and Langney; and the customs on the carriage of dung without the precincts of the said late priory. For 21 years at the yearly rent of £84. 13.s. 4.d.

22. The enfranchisement of villeins. Some examples The following examples taken from the patent rolls and state papers serve as a reminder that villeinage was still a reality in the social system at this time.

(i) Manumission of Henry Aleyns, bondman, of the manor of Borowe by Aylesham, co. Norfolk which is in the king’s hands by the forfeiture of Edmund de la Pole, earl of Suffolk: to the intent that the said Henry may take priest’s orders. (1 December 1503, C.P.R. Hen. VII, II, 340) (ii) I have received your letters desiring me, at the instance of Sir Edm. Walsingham, to manumit a bondman of mine, named Thomas Goodfreye. He is in truth my bondman, as all his progenitors have been, and if I made him free it would be to the prejudice of my inheritance for ever. I should be glad to gratify you otherwise in a better thing. (26 June 1538, William, Earl of Arundel to Cromwell, L.P. XIII, i. 1263.)

274

THE COMMONWEAL

[23]

(iii) Whereas William Cuckoo, “bocher” and John Cuckoo, his brother both of Ersham, Norf., are villeins regardant to the king’s manor of Ersham: Now, by advice of Richard Sackville, knight, chancellor of augmentations, for fines of £3.6.s.8.d. each paid in the Augmentations by the said William and John the king manumits the said William and John and their sequela and grants them all their goods and lands. (20 August 1550, C.P.R. Edward VI (1549–51), p. 316)

23. Select documents on wardship and marriage from various sources (i) Appointment during pleasure of the king’s servant John Husee, knight for the body, as chief immediate officer for over seeing, managing and selling the wardships of all lands which may be in the king’s hands. (9 December 1503, C.P.R. 1494–1509, 334) (ii) Pardon and release to Walter Devereux for marrying while within marriageable age, during the life of his father John Devereux knight, lord of Ferrers, Mary the daughter of Thomas late marquess of Dorset, the same Walter being at the death of his said father a minor and under marriageable age, whereby his wardship and marriage belonged to the king. (15 December 1503, C.P.R. 1494–1509, p. 334) (iii) Thomas duke of Norfolk. Custody of the lands of John Veer, Earl of Oxford, a minor, kinsman and heir of John Veer, late Earl of Oxford, viz., son of Sir George brother of the said late Earl; with reversion of that portion of the possessions of the said late Earl which Elizabeth his widow holds in dower. Also, during Veer’s minority, the offices of Great Chamberlain of England, steward of the forest of Essex or forest of Waltham in co. Essex, and constable of the castle of Colchester. And whereas the espousals between the said earl and Anne his wife were, during the life of the said late earl, celebrated according to the laws of the Church, the said earl then and after the late earl’s death being within marriageable age, viz., within 14 years, it pertains to the King’s prerogative to offer him another woman for wife, and the King lately offered him Margaret Courtenay, whom he utterly refused, the King hereby grants to the Duke the value and double value of the Earl’s marriage forfeited thereby. (29 May 1514, Patent Roll, 6 Hen. VIII, p. 2, m. 2; L.P. 1, ii, 2964 (80)) (iv) There was never such marrying in England as is now. I hear tell of stealing of wards to marry the children to. This is a strange kind of stealing: but it is not the wards, it is the lands that they steal. And some there be that knit up marriage together, not for any love, or godliness in the parties, but to get friendship, and make them strong in the realm, to increase their possessions, and to join land to land. And other there be that inveigle mens’ daughters, in the contempt of their fathers, and go about to marry them without their consent: this marrying is ungodly. And many parents constrain their sons and daughters to marry where they love not, and some are beaten and compulsed. And they that marry thus, marry in a forgetfulness and obliviousness of God’s commandments. But as in the time of Noe suddenly a clap fell in their bosoms; so it shall be with us at the latter day, when Christ shall come.

[23]

SELECT DOCUMENTS ON WARDSHIP AND MARRIAGE

275

We have as little conscience as may be; and when he shall come, he shall lack lady Faith. Well is them that shall be of that little flock, that shall be set on the right hand &c. (Fourth Sermon preached before Edward VI, 29 March 1549. G.E.Currie (ed.), Sermons by Hugh Latimer (Parker Soc.), 101) (v) An act for the punishment of such as shall take away maidens that be inheritors, being with the age of xvi. years, or that marry them without consent of their parents. Where maidens and women children of noblemen gentlemen and others, as well such as be heirs apparent to their ancestors, as others having left unto them by their father or other ancestor and friends lands tenements and hereditaments or other great substances in goods and chattels moveable, for and to the intent to advance them in marriage somewhat like according to their degrees and as might be most for their surety and comfort as well for themselves as of all their friends and kinsfolk, be oftentimes unawares to their said friends and kinsfolk, by flattery trifling gifts and fair promises of many unthrifty and light personages, and thereto by the entreaty of persons of lewd demeanour and others, that for rewards buy and sell the said maidens and children, secretly allured and won to contract matrimony with the said unthrifty and light personages, and thereupon either with sleight or force oftentimes be taken and conveyed away from their said parents friends or kinsfolk, to the high displeasure of Almighty God, disparagement of the said children and the extreme continual heaviness of all their friends; which ungodly dealing for lack of wholesome laws to the redress thereof remaineth a great familiar and common mischief in this our common wealth: for remedy whereof be it enacted…that it shall not be lawful to any person or persons to take or convey away or cause to be taken or conveyed away, any maid or woman child unmarried, being under the age of sixteen years, out of or from the possession custody or governance and against the will of the father of such maiden or woman child, or of such person or persons to whom the father of such maid or woman child by his last will and testament or by any other act in his life time hath or shall appoint assign bequeath give or grant the order keeping education or governance of such maid or woman child, except such taking and conveying away as shall be had made or done by or for such person or persons as without fraud or covin be or then shall be the master or mistress of such maid or woman child or the guardian in socage or guardian in chivalry of or to such maiden or woman child. ii.…every such person and persons so offending, being thereof lawfully attainted or convicted by the order and due course of the laws of this realm, (other than such of whom such person taken away shall hold any lands or tenements by knight service,) shall have and suffer imprisonment of his or their bodies by the space of two whole years without bail or mainprise, or else shall pay such fine for his or their offence as shall be assessed by the council of the queen’s highness, her heirs or successors in the star chamber at Westminster. v. And further be it enacted…that if any woman child or maiden, being above the age of twelve years and under the age of sixteen years, do at any time consent and agree to such person that so shall make any contract of matrimony contrary to the form and effect of this statute, that then the next of the kin of the same woman child or maid, to

276

THE COMMONWEAL

[24]

whom the inheritance should descend return or come after the decease of the same woman child or maid, shall from the time of such assent and agreement have hold and enjoy all such lands tenements and hereditaments, as the same woman child and maiden had in possession reversion or remainder at the time of such consent and agreement, during the life of such person that so shall contract matrimony; and after the decease of such person so contracting matrimony, that then the said lands tenements and hereditaments shall descend revert remain and come to such person or persons as they should have done in case this act had never been had nor made, other than to him only that so shall contract matrimony. (St. 4/5. P. and M. c. 8, Stat. Realm, IV, i, 329)

B. THE THEORY OF THE COMMONWEAL 24. A supplication of the Poore Commons, 1546 (J.M.Cowper (ed.), Four Supplications, 61–92) True to the form of earlier examples of this type of literature, e.g. Simon Fish, Supplication for the Beggars, below p. 661, there is the usual criticism of society with the conventional attacks on the clergy for their lack of faith and their neglect of preaching, faults which are condemned as the cause of the unrest of the times. But in this later example there can also be detected some traces of the disappointment with the actual results of the social and religious changes of Henry VIII’s reign. In the new order the monk has gone, but his place has been taken by the sturdy extortioner and the possessioners.

P

iteously complaineth the poor commons of this your Majesty’s realm, greatly lamenting their own miserable poverty; and yet much more the most lamentable and more than wretched estate of their children and posterity. Whose misery, foreseen and thoroughly considered, is and ought of very nature, to be more dolorous and sorrowful unto every natural heart than that which we ourselves feel and sustain. Not many years before, your highness’s poor subjects, the lame and impotent creatures of this realm, presented your highness with a pitiful and lamentable complaint, imputing the head and chief cause of their penury and lack of relief unto the great and infinite number of valiant and sturdy beggars which had, by their subtle and crafty demeanour in begging, gotten into their hands more than the third part of the yearly revenues and possessions of this your highness’ realm. Whereupon (as it seemed) your highness (seeking a redress and reformation of this great and intolerable enormity,—as a merciful father over this your natural country; moved with pity towards the miserable and pitiful number of blind, lame, lazar, and other the impotent creatures of this your realm) hath, with most earnest diligence, supplanted and, as it were, weeded out a great number of valiant and sturdy monks, friars, canons, hermits, and nuns. Which disguised hypocrites, under the name of the contempt of this world wallowed in the sea in the world’s wealth. And to the intent your loving and obedient subjects might the better be able to relieve the needy and impotent creatures, you took from them the great number of gilded

[24]

A SUPPLICATION OF THE POORE COMMONS, 1546

277

beggars whose holiness was so fast rooted in the hearts of us your poor commons, through the false delusions of the foresaid sturdy and valiant beggars, that we would not stick to go an hundred miles on our bare feet to seek one of them, that we might not only bestow our alms upon them, but also do them reverence and honour none otherwise than if they had been very gods. Yea, when your highness had ordained that all these foresaid beggars should be utterly abolished never to deceive us of our alms any more, we, like men always brought up in foolish superstition of these false Pharisees and flattering hypocrites, knew not the obedience that we owe to you, our natural and most rightful prince, but incontinent, fell in an uproar crying, “Our holydays, abbeys, and pilgrimages!” None otherwise than the Ephesians did against the elect vessel of God, Saint Paul, when he said, “They are not gods, which be made with hands,” and as the Jews did against holy Stephen when he said that “God dwelleth not in an house made with man’s hand”. Yea, had not God wrought on your part, in appeasing that sturdy throng, this realm had even then, been like to have been utterly decayed. For even those whom your highness had called together to assist you in that dangerous time were (for the most part) so bent to the opinion of the other that many of them would not stick to say, “When we shall come to the battle,—we know what we have to do.” But now (the Lord be thanked therefor) that your highness hath finished that your godly purpose without bloodshed of your poor commons, and that the word of God hath been so set forth and taught by your commandment, that every man that listeth may therein learn his duty and office; we are fully persuaded that all such as resist the powers whom God hath ordained and appointed to rule and govern the multitude of this world do not resist man but God. Be you certain, therefore, (most gracious Prince) that we (your most obedient subjects) walking in the fear of the Lord, will not from henceforth (so long as the knowledge of God’s Word shall reign amongst us) attempt any such so devilish enterprise as to rebel against your highness, our most natural sovereign and liege lord; either for our forefathers’ popish traditions, or other our own fantastical dreams; notwithstanding that the remnant of the sturdy beggars not yet weeded out) do daily in their writings, counsels, and preachings, stir us thereunto. For what mean they in their sermons when they lament the great discord and miserable estate of this our time, wishing that everything was now as it was twenty years since, but that they would have a Pope, pardons, lighting of candles to images, knocking and kneeling to them, with running hither and thither on pilgrimage; besides the infinite number of purgatory horseleeches on whom the vengeance of God is so manifestly declared for their beastly buggery, that the very places where they dwelt are not thought worthy to be the dwellings of men, but the caves of brute beasts and venemous worms. They tell us what vice, uncharitableness, lack of mercy, diversity of opinions, and other like enormities have reigned ever since men had the Scripture in English. And what is this other than to cause men’s conscience to abhor the same, as the only cause and original of all this? They say that it sufficeth a layman to believe as they teach, and not to meddle with the interpretation of the Scriptures. And what meaneth that but that they would have us so blind again as we were when we would have fought against our natural Prince for the maintenance of their popish traditions and purgatory patrimony?

278

THE COMMONWEAL

[24]

They cannot abide this name, “the Word of God”; but they would have the Scripture called the commandment of God. And what meaneth this, but that they are the same enemies of God whom that two-edged sword shall destroy? Finally, they have procured a law that none shall so hardy have the Scripture in his house unless he may spend ten pounds by year. And what meaneth this, but that they would famish the souls of the residue, withholding their food from them? We appeal to your highness’ judgment in this behalf whether this law be indifferent or not. If none should be allowed meat in your highness’ house but such as were clothed in velvet with chains of gold about their necks, what servants would your majesty have shortly? What starvelings would your servants be above all other! For no man within your realm may refuse to do your grace service. Hath God put immortal souls in none other but in such as be possessioners of this world? Did not Christ send word to John the Baptist that the poor received the Gospel? And the Gospel that they shut up from us, was it not the writings of poor fishermen and simple creatures, even taken for the dregs of the world? Were not the setters forth of it and the prophets also persecuted, tormented, and slain? And why do these men disable them for readers of the Scriptures, that are not endued with the possessions of this world? Undoubtedly (most gracious Sovereign) because they are the very same that shut up the kingdom of God before men; they enter not themselves, neither suffer they them to enter that would. They are like to a cur dog lying in a cock of hay. For he will eat none of the hay himself nor suffer any other beast that cometh to eat thereof. But some will peradventure say they were not all sturdy beggars that were in the Parliament when this law was established. For many of them, and the most part, were secular men, and not of such ability that this law would permit them to have the Scripture in their houses. Wherefore, this law is indifferent, and taketh not the Word of God from us; but we with our full consent have committed it to them, in the said law limited. Whereunto we answer that if we have given it over from us to the possessioners of this world we may well be likened to the Gedarites, Mark, 5. which desired Christ to depart from their country, and the lurking night birds which cannot abide the bright beams of the sun. We may boldly affirm that what man soever doth wittingly and willingly for-sake the knowledge of the lively Word of God (the food of our souls, and light of our footsteps) is none of the flock of Christ, forasmuch as his sheep hear his voice, and rejoice in the same. Did they that took their names of any philosopher shut up their master’s doctrine from themselves? Did they not think themselves unworthy to be named after their masters, unless they knew their precepts and rules? Did not the monks, friars, and other the superstitious religious, employ all their study to know their rules and statutes? Do not the Coelginers1 at this day set the book of their statutes at liberty, straightly commanding each fellow under pain of punishment to employ them to have the thorough knowledge of the same? And should we glory to be the flock of Christ, and to be called of him Christians, when we do willingly and wittingly exclude ourselves from the knowledge of the rule which he hath commanded us to follow on pain of damnation of our souls? Would your highness think that man were willing to do your commandment that would not diligently read over your highness’s 1

Meaning doubtful.? a religious sect.

[24]

A SUPPLICATION OF THE POORE COMMONS, 1546

279

letters sent from you to certify him of your will and pleasure in his office? And what other thing is the whole Scripture than the declaration of the will of God? Were it likely therfore that we, excluding ourselves from the knowledge thereof, should be willing to do his will? If we have therefore rejected this merciful proffer of our most merciful Father when he used your highness as his instrument to publish and set forth his most living Word, wherein is declared the inestimable love that he bear towards us, in that he gave his only Son to be an acceptable sacrifice for our sins; and the unspeakable mercy which caused him to accept us as just, even for his Son’s sake, without our works or deservings; let us now humbly fall down prostrate before his majesty with perfect repentance of this, the contempt of his merciful gift; most humbly beseeching him of his infinite goodness tenderly to behold the dolours of our hearts for that we neglected so merciful a proffer; and to forget our obstinacy therein, giving your highness such desire of our salvation that you will as favourably restore unto us the Scripture in our English tongue as you did at the first translation thereof set it abroad. Let not the adversaries take occasion to say, the Bible was of a traitor’s setting forth, and not of your highness’s own doing. For so they report, that Thomas Cromwell, late Earl of Essex, was the chief doer and not your highness, but as led by him. All this they do to withdraw the minds of us, your highness’s subjects, from the reading and study thereof. Which thing doth easily appear by the diligence they show in setting forth and execution of your highness’s proclamations and injunctions concerning the same. For when your highness gave commandment that they should see that there were in every parish church within this your highness’s realm one Bible at the least set at liberty so that every man might freely come to it and read therein such things as should be for his consolation, many of this wicked generation, as well priests as other their faithful adherents would pluck it either into the quire or else into some pew where poor men durst not presume to come. Yea, there is no small number of churches that hath no Bible at all. And yet not sufficed with the with-holding of it from the poor of their own parishes they never rested till they had a commandment from your highness that no man, of what degree soever he were, should read the Bible in the time of God’s service (as they call it); as though the hearing of their Latin lies, and conjuring of water and salt were rather the service of God than the study of his most Holy Word, the only food of our souls and light of our foot-steps; without which no man can walk uprightly in perfect life worthy our name and profession. This was their diligence in setting forth the Bible at your highness’s commandment. But when your highness had devised a proclamation for the burning of certain translations of the New Testament they were so bold to burn the whole Bibles because they were of those mens’ translations. And if your highness would enquire of them who took the pains in translating the Great Bible that your highness hath authorised we think they could not, for very shame, deny but even against their wills grant that those poor men whose pains and great travail they have rewarded with fire and banishment were the doers thereof. See, gracious Prince, how they play bo-peep with your highness’s commandments, suppressing in all that they dare the thing that your highness hath authorised; even as it were men that looked for a fair day which we trust

280

THE COMMONWEAL

[24]

in the Lord Jesu they shall never see. As we heard say, they profferred your highness that if it would please you to call in the Bible again (forasmuch as it was not faithfully translated in all parts) they would oversee it, and within seven years set it forth again. A wiles; we think they have read the story of a certain man who, being condemned to die, profferred that if he might have his life, he would do his prince such a pleasure as never man did, for he would within the space of fourteen years teach him an ass to dance. Whereupon he had his life granted him upon condition that if he did not perform his promised enterprise that then he should nevertheless suffer death. This done, he was demanded of one of his familiars why he was so mad to take upon him such an enterprise so far beyond all reason and possibility? He answered, “my friend, hold thee content; I have wrought wisely, for within these fourteen years either the king, I, or the ass shall be dead; so that by this means I shall escape this reproachful and shameful death”. So your bishops, most victorious Prince, if they might have gotten in the Bible for seven years they would have trusted that by that time either your highness should have been dead, or the Bible forgotten, or else they themselves out of your highness’s reach, so that you should not have had like power over them as you have now. Well, go to, we trust ere the seven years be past God shall reveal unto your highness much more of their subtle imaginations than we are worthy to know of. Moreover, will your highness see how faithfully they did your commandment when you appointed two of them to overlook the translation of the Bible? They said they had done your highness’s commandment therein, yea, they set their names thereunto; but when they saw the world somewhat like to wring on the other side, they denied it, and said they never meddled therewith, causing the printer to take out their names which were erst set before the Bible to certify all men that they had diligently perused it according as your highness had commanded. One other point of their diligence your highness may note in the setting forth and using of your highness’s Primer both in English and Latin. And in the diligent reading unto the people the exhortation to prayer, which you ordained and commanded to be read always before the Procession in English. We think no man can blameless say that ever he heard one of them read it twice over. Yea, when your highness was returned from your victory done at Boulogne they did what they could to have called it in again. Insomuch that they caused all such parishes as they might command to use their old Kyrie Eleison again. And yet to this day they use on solemn feasts to follow their old ordinary notwithstanding your highness’s commandment. But when they catch anything that soundeth to the contrary it shall not escape so we warrant you. It shall be swinged in every pulpit with, “this is the King’s gracious will; and yet these heretics will be still doing in the Scriptures. A shoemaker, a cobbler, a tailor, a boy not yet twenty years of age shall not stick to reprove that a learned man of forty years study shall affirm in the declaration of God’s Word. O how godly were the people disposed when they knew nothing of the Scripture, but as they were taught by pro-found clerks and well learned men! Then were there hospitals builded for the poor. Then were there colleges builded for the maintenance of learning.” Yea, if they durst they would say “Then were abbeys and chantries founded for the relief of the poor souls in the bitter pains of purgatory. Then were our purses filled with the offerings of

[24]

A SUPPLICATION OF THE POORE COMMONS, 1546

281

the devout people that used to seek the blessed images and relics of our Saviour Christ and of his blessed Mother Mary with the residue of his saints.” If your highness would raise up but one abbey, chantry, or pilgrimage you should easily perceive which way they are bent. We doubt not but for these seven years following, masons occupation with others belonging to building would be the best handicrafts within this your realm. We pray God their subtle imaginations may always come to light before they prevail to the hindrance of God’s verity. And that it may please him always to assist your highness in the defending and setting forth of the same to his glory and the soul health of us, your highness’s most faithful and obedient subjects. And that you leave not off till you have rooted out all these sturdy beggars, that the poor members of Christ may have that portion to live upon which was from the beginning appointed for them. We mean the tenth part of every man’s yearly increase. For though at the coming of Christ, and long before, these tenths were given to the priests of the law, yet was it not so from the beginning; for at the first because the world was not so replenished with people, but that every man was a great possessioner, it was thought good to take of the best of their increase and to offer it to the living God in sacrifice, as it appeareth by the story of Abel and Cain. But when the people grew to so great a number that every man could not have a sufficient portion to live upon unless he were able to labour and till the ground then was it provided that every possessioner should set the tenth of his yearly increase in the porch of his house, that the lame, blind, sick, and diseased might be there relieved. This order continued till the time that Moses, by the commandment of God, gave a law to the Israelites, and appointed that a certain kindred amongst them, that is, the Levites, should be always their priests and ministers of the Tabernacle; unto whom he appointed certain parts of every sacrifice, that they might live thereby. For as yet there was no tenths to be paid, for then they were in their journey from Egypt, which journey continued full forty years; but after that they were once settled in the land of Promise and gathered the fruits of the ground, they thought good to give the tenths of their increase to the priests that ministered in the Tabernacle that they might live thereupon, according to the words of the prophet Mal. 3.:—“Bring in every tenth into my barn, that there may be meat in my house.” But then there was another provision for the poor, Levi. 23. For no man might lease, rake, or glean his ground after he had gathered of his crop. No, they might not gather their grapes nor fruits twice, but must leave the lateward fruit, with the scattering of their corn, for the poor to gather, that they might have some relief thereby; this order continued to the coming of Christ. After whose coming the Christian sort had all things common, so that no man knew of any increase, forasmuch as no man took any thing for his own, Acts. 4. But when the number of Christians increased so much that they possessed whole cities, countries, and kingdoms, it was thought good that every man should know his own to the intent that such as otherwise would have lived idly should thereby be provoked to labour, as appeareth by the rule that Saint Paul gave to the Thessalonians, 2. 3. which was this:—“Whoso laboureth not, let him not eat”. Yet was there no tenths paid to the ministers, for Paul writing to the Corinthians, I, Corinthians, 9. desireth them to be good to such as labour in the ministration of the Gospel, affirming that it is but meet that such as serve the altar

282

THE COMMONWEAL

[24]

should have a living thereby; and that it were far indecent to muzzle the ox that travaileth all the day in treading the corn out of the straw, Deutro. 25. Which thing he needed not to have done if the tenths of each man’s increase had as then been given to them; for that might have sufficed them well enough (unless they had been as greedy as our ministers be, which be never satisfied). Yet after this, when the Christian religion was thoroughly established in many congregations, and many men had laboured over the Scriptures, they thought good to provide for the poor impotent creatures according to the example of the ancient fathers of the old law. And because they were persuaded that Christ, offering up himself upon the cross had ended all sacrifice, Hebr. 10., so that the ministers among them needed not to be pestered with any other thing than preaching, they agreed to add unto the preachers another sort of ministers which might supply the office of holy Steven, and the other which, in the primitive church, were appointed to distribute the goods of the congregation according as every man should stand in need, Acts. 6. To these men they gave the tenth of their yearly increase, to the intent that they should thereupon minister all necessaries, as well to the preachers as to the poor impotent members of the church. But after that persecution began to cease and the preachers of the word of God lived in peace, and that the people were fully bent to learn and follow the doctrine of Christ; they did by the preachers as the Israelites would have done by Christ when he had fed so many of them with so little bread, John 6. They made them their rulers, thinking that those men which had brought them out of the darkness of error and instructed them in the true knowledge of God could best govern the public weal. And would walk most uprightly in example of life, compelling the people thereby to embrace all godly and honest living, and to detest and abhor the contrary. This was their intent, most gracious Prince, when they gave rule to the preachers of God’s truth and verity. And in very deed the thing proved according to their expectation for a season. But alas, after the true shepherds were departed out of this life there entered into the fold most ravening wolves, of whom Saint Paul gave us warning when he said “I know for a certainty that immediately after my departing from you there shall enter in among you certain in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves”, Acts. 20. The like thing did Saint Peter foresee when he admonished the elders that they should not behave themselves toward the people as men having dominion over them, I Pe. 5. These hirelings intended not to maintain and increase the spiritual treasure of the congregation but to fill their own coffers with gold and vain treasure; to bring themselves above kings and emperors, yea, to be taken for God’s vicars upon earth. And that they might the sooner bring this their purpose to pass, they persuaded the people that it should be much more convenient that they had the tenths and patrimony of the church, as they call it, than the deacons, whom the people had elected thereunto. And that it should be more beseeming that the deacons were at their finding than that they should be at the deacons finding; for they would keep hospitality for the poor according as the institution of Apostles was that they should; which thing they could not do unless they had wherewithal to maintain it. By these means were the people soon persuaded to give

[24]

A SUPPLICATION OF THE POORE COMMONS, 1546

283

unto them not only the tenth, but certain possessions also, to the intent they might maintain the more liberal hospitality for the relief of the poor. This done, all their study was to set themselves so high in the conscience of the people that they should take all their traditions to be of no less authority than the commandment of God. To do this they could find none so ready a way as to name their traditions the laws of the church. For if we believe that Christ is the head of the church, and that he is God, then must we needs grant that the laws of the church be God’s laws. O devilish subtlety, more than serpentical! What subtle fowler could have devised a more subtle train to bring the poor simple birds into his net? Certes, if all the devils in hell had been of their counsel (as we think they were) they could not have concluded upon a more subtle imagination. Now have they enough, what needeth them to seek any further? Now may they command us to build them goodly churches with high steeples and great bells to ring our pence into their purses when our friends be dead. Now may they make us believe that their masses be helpful sacrifices, both for the quick and the dead. Now must we believe that the Pope’s pardons do release us both from pain and fault, but Christ releaseth the fault only. Now must we believe they can make of two creatures one, that is to say, conjure water and salt that it be made a medicine both for body and soul; and of such force that it may be able to root out the devil himself with all his angels and ministers. Now must we believe that repentance availeth us not, unless we declare all our sins, with the circumstance thereof to one of them, and do such satisfaction as they shall appoint us to do. Now can we not deny but that the outrageous bellowing of a sort of sodomitical bulls, mingled with the proud piping of organs is the service of God, and worthy to be preferred before the reading and preaching of God’s Word. Now must we believe that God will not hear our prayer unless we be in favour with some of the dead saints which will be our advocate. Now must we believe that the making and gilding of images, building of abbeys, churches, chantries, gilds, hermitages, and giving of book, bell, candlestick, basin, ewer, cruets, pax, chalice, corporas, vestments, altar cloths, curtains, hangings, towels, torches, tapers, ship, censers, pixes, copes, canopies, and running on pilgrimage, is more acceptable to God than the seven works of mercy. Now must we believe that they can not err, though they set up the blood of a duck to be honoured for the very blood of Christ, though they made the Rood of Kent to wag his eyes, though they were bawds and fornicators with the holy whore of Kent. We may not think they ought to marry wives, though we take them daily abusing other men’s wives. We must not say that they are ravening wolves, but the true shepherds of Christ; although we see them both buy and sell the congregations of Christ; and when they have them look for nought else but what yearly rents may be clearly raised thereof. Your highness knoweth right well what desire they have to feed the flock, for it is not yet many years since your highness, in your high Court and Parliament, was by their negligence, constrained to establish a law that under pain of a forfeit they should preach in every of their parishes four times in a year at the least, and that none should have more benefices than one, whereupon he should be resident. But here they put your highness in mind of all such chaplains as do service to your highness, and to other your nobles of this your realm, besides other, certain graduates of the universities. Whereupon it was provided by the

284

THE COMMONWEAL

[24]

authority of the said parliament, that every such chaplain might have many benefices and be non-resident, to lie at the university, or elsewhere, at his pleasure, so he were in any of your nobles’ service. Oh gracious Prince, here are we your natural and most obedient liege people constrained to forget (with all humble subjection we speak it) that we are of nature and by the ordinance of God your most bounden subjects, and to call to remembrance that by our second birth we are your brothers and fellow servants (although in a much inferior ministry) in the household of the Lord our God. Most humbly beseeching your highness to forget also in this point that you are our liege lord and sovereign, taking our words as a token of the fervent desire that we (your most faithful subjects) have of your soul’s salvation. Ahab king of Israel, when he intended to make a voyage and to take by force the country and inhabitants of Ramoth Gilead, he caused his prophets to the number of four hundred false prophets to be brought before him that he might know by them whether the Lord would prosper his journey or not. These false prophets, standing in the sight of the king, and being demanded of him whether he should make expedition against Ramoth or not, answered with one voice, “Make expedition, the Lord shall give it into the hands of the king,” 3 Reg. 22. In like manner (most dread sovereign) your highness and your most noble predecessors have always consulted a great number of false prophets which, as Ahab’s prophets did, prophesied unto you lies; wringing and wresting the Scriptures to establish your highness in all such things as they perceived you bent unto. And if at any time any true Micheas have prophesied unto you the truth of God’s Word, one Sedechias or other boxeth him on the cheek that he runneth straight into the fire. So that hitherto they have led your highness in this detestable error, that you think it lawful for you and your nobles to reward those false flattering Babilonical prophets with that portion which, by the ordinance of God, is due to the poor impotent creatures, the lame, blind, lazer, and sore members of Christ. We beseech you, most dear sovereign, even for the hope you have in the redemption by Christ, that you call to remembrance that dreadful day when your highness shall stand before the judgment seat of God in no more reputation than one of those miserable creatures, which do now daily die in the streets for lack of their due portion wherewith you and your nobles do reward those gnatonical elbowhangers, your chaplains. If their ministry be so necessary to your highness that you cannot lack them, yet let not the insatiable dogs devour the bread that was prepared for the children; let them be appointed livings worthy their ministration. What reason is it that a surveyor of buildings or lands, an alchemist, or a goldsmith, should be rewarded with benefice upon benefice, which of very reason ought to be committed to none other but such as, through godly learning and conversation were able, and would apply themselves, to walk amidst their flock in all godly example and purity of life? How great a number is there of them that under the name of your chaplains may dispend yearly by benefices some one hundred, some two hundred, some three hundred, some four hundred some five hundred, yea, some one thousand marks and more! It is a common saying among us, your highness’s poor commons, that one of your highness’s chaplains, not many years since, used when he listed to ride abroad for his repast to carry with him a scroll wherein were written the names of the parishes whereof he was

[24]

A SUPPLICATION OF THE POORE COMMONS, 1546

285

parson. As it fortuned in his journey he espied a church standing upon a fair hill, pleasantly beset with groves and plain fields, the goodly green meadows lying beneath by the banks of a crystalline river garnished with willows, poplars, palm trees, and alders, most beautiful to behold. This vigilant pastor, taken with the sight of this terrestrial paradise, said unto a servant of his (the clerk of his signet no doubt it was, for he used to carry his master’s ring in his mouth) “Robin”, said he, “yonder benefice standeth very pleasantly, I would it were mine.” The servant answered, “Why, sir,” quoth he, “it is your own benefice;” and named the parish. “Is it so?” quoth your chaplain. And with that he pulled out his scroll to see for certainty whether it were so or not. See, most dread sovereign, what care they take for the flock. When they see their parish churches they know them not by the situation. If your highness had so many swine in your realm as you have men, would ye commit them to the keeping and feeding of such swineherds as did not know their swinescots when they saw them? Oh merciful God, how far wide is this our time from the primitive church! Defer not, most dear sovereign, the reformation of this miss, for the day of the Lord is at hand, and shall come upon us as a thief in the night, 2 Peter, 3. Deceive not yourself through the false glosses of these flattering hypocrites. Turn them out after their brethren, the pied purgatory patriarchs; and restore to the poor members of Christ their due portion, which they trusted to have received when they saw your highness turn out the other sturdy beggars. But alas! they failed of their expectation, and are now in more penury than ever they were. For although the sturdy beggars got all the devotion of the good charitable people from them, yet had the poor impotent creatures some relief of their scraps, whereas now they have nothing. Then had they hospitals, and almshouses to be lodged in, but now they lie and starve in the streets. Then was their number great, but now much greater. And no marvel for there is instead of these sturdy beggars crept in a sturdy sort of extortioners. These men cease not to oppress us, your highness’s poor commons, in such sort that many thousands of us which herebefore lived honestly upon our sore labour and travail, bringing up our children in the exercise of honest labour, are now constrained some to beg, some to borrow, and some to rob and steal, to get food for us and our poor wives and children. And that which is most like to grow to inconvenience, we are constrained to suffer our children to spend the flower of their youth in idleness, bringing them up either to bear wallets, or else, if they be sturdy, to stuff prisons and garnish gallow trees. For such of us as have no possessions left to us by our predecessors and elders departed this life can now get no farm, tenement, or cottage at these mens’ hands without we pay unto them more than we are able to make. Yea, this was tolerable so long as, after this extreme exaction, we were not for the residue of our years oppressed with much greater rents than hath of ancient time been paid for the same grounds; for then a man might within a few years be able to recover his fine, and afterwards live honestly by his travail. But now these extortioners have so improved their lands that they make of forty shillings fine forty pound, and of five nobles rent five pound, yea, not sufficed with this oppression within their own inheritance they buy at your highness’s hand such abbey lands as you appoint to be sold. And when they stand once full seised therein they make us, your poor commons

286

THE COMMONWEAL

[24]

so in doubt of their threatenings that we dare do none other but bring into their courts our copies taken of the convents of the late dissolved monasteries and confirmed by your High Court of Parliament they make us believe that by the virtue of your highness’s sale all our former writings are void and of none effect. And that if we will not take new leases of them we must then forthwith avoid the grounds as having therein none interest. Moreover, when they can espy no commodious thing to be bought at your highness’s hand they labour for, and obtain, certain leases for twentyone years in and upon such abbey lands as lie commodiously for them. Then do they dash us out of countenance with your highness’s authority, making us believe that by the virtue of your highness’s lease our copies are void. So that they compel us to surrender all our former writings whereby we ought to hold some for two, and some for three lives, and to take by indenture for twenty-one years, overing both fines and rents beyond all reason and conscience. This thing causeth that such possessioners as heretofore were able and used to maintain their own children and some of ours to learning and such other qualities as are necessary to be had in this your highness’s realm are now of necessity compelled to set their own children to labour, and all is little enough to pay the lord’s rent and to take the house anew at the end of the years. So that we your poor commons, which have no grounds, nor are able to take any at these extortioners’ hands, can find no way to set our children on work, no, though we proffer them for meat and drink and poor clothes to cover their bodies. Help, merciful Prince, in this extremity; suffer not the hope of so noble a realm utterly to perish through the insatiable desire of the possessioners. Remember that you shall not leave this kingdom to a stranger, but to that child of great towardness our most natural Prince Edward; employ your study to leave him a Common Weal to govern, and not an island of brute beasts, amongst whom the strongest devour the weaker. Remember that your office is to defend the innocent and to punish the oppressor. God hath not suffered all your nobles to distain 1 their consciences with this most ungodly oppression. If your highness would take in hand the redress of these great oppressions doubt ye not you could lack no aid, for he is faithful that hath promised to prosper all them that seek his glory and the wealth of his poor members in this church militant. Contrariwise, if you suffer his poor members to be thus oppressed, look for none other than the rightful judgment of God, for your negligence in your office and ministry. For the blood of all them that through your negligence shall perish shall be required at your hand. Be merciful therefore to yourself and us your most obedient subjects. Endanger not your soul by the suffering of us, your poor commons, to be brought all to the names of beggars and most miserable wretches. Let us be unto your highness as the inferior members of the body to their head. Remember that your hoary hairs are a token that nature maketh haste to absolve the course of your life; prevent the subtle imaginations of them that gape and look after the crown of this realm after your days. For what greater hope can they have as concerning that detestable and devilish imagination than that they might win the hearts of us, your highness’s commons, by the delivering us from the captivity and misery that we are in? We beseech God your 1

Distayne, meaning to stain.

[24]

A SUPPLICATION OF THE POORE COMMONS, 1546

287

highness may live to put away all such occasions, and to see the confusion of all such traiterous hearts, and that your grace may see that worthy Prince Edward able to govern and defend this your realm, vanquishing all his enemies both far and near as your highness, by the aid of Almighty God, hath done hitherto. Defer not, most dread sovereign lord, the reformation of these so great enormities; for the wound is even unto death if it continue any while longer. A prince wellbeloved of his people is much more rich than he that hath houses full of gold. And yet is he much more rich that is beloved of God. For if God be on your part, who can prevail against your highness? By this we mean the great and mighty abomination of vice that now reigneth within this your highness’s realm this day. For whoredom is more esteemed than wedlock, although not universally, yet amongst a great number of licentious persons. Simony hath lost his name, and usury is lawful gains. These things, unless they be redressed, will bring the ire of God upon the realm. For what doth it less than declare us to be clean fallen from the doctrine of Christ, who taught us to lend looking to have no gain thereby? What example of life is in us this day to declare that we rather be the people of God than the Jews or Mahometans? Certes, most renowned Prince, none but that we confess him to be God. And that were sufficient if our deeds did not deny him. If the rulers have given the occasion of these things, alas for them; they had been better to have had millstones hanged about their necks, and have been cast into the sea. But if the people have taken it of themselves, and be not punished of the rulers, but be permitted freely to use it, the blood of them that perish shall be required at the watchman’s hand, Ezechi. 33. Thus princes are punished when the people offend. But now, most dear sovereign, your highness may in this matter try your prelates whether they be of God or not; for if they were of God they would, according to the words of the prophet never cease but openly and with a crying voice declare unto the people their faults, Isaiah, 58. and not be hushed with an act in parliament; for that declareth them to be the setters forth of man’s traditions and not of God’s laws, so that this saying of our Saviour Christ is verified in them:—“This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me: they teach the doctrines and commandments of men,” Math. 15. But here they think to stop our mouths with the fear of your highness’s displeasure; they say your highness’s laws are God’s laws, and that we are much bound to observe them as the law of God given by Moses. Truth it is, most dear lord, that we are bound by the commandment of God to obey your highness and all your laws set forth by your High Court of Parliament, but if they dissent from or be contrary to any iota of the Scripture we must, with John and Peter say, Acts. 4. “Judge you whether it be better for us to obey God or man.” We speak not this because we think by this that we may rebel against you, our natural Prince. But that if your highness would enforce us by a law to do anything contrary to that God hath commanded us, that then we ought manfully to cleave to the truth of God’s word, boldly confessing the truth thereof, fearing nothing the death of this body; and yet most humbly submitting ourselves unto you, ready to abide and patiently to suffer what kind of torment soever should be laid upon us, knowing for certainty that we are happy when we suffer persecution for the truth’s sake, and that he is faithful

288

THE COMMONWEAL

[24]

that hath promised to be revenged of our injuries. But these dumb dogs have learned to feign upon them that use to bring them bread, and to be wonderful hasty when they be maintained and cherished; but if they be but once bid couch they know their liripope so well that they draw the tail between the legs, and get themselves straight to the kennel. And then come who so will and do what they will, these dogs will stir no more till they hear their master say “high cut and long tail”. So afraid are they of stripes, and lest they should be tied up so short, that they might not range abroad and worry now and then a simple lamb or two. Before it was passed by Act of Parliament that men might take ten pounds by year for an hundred pound loan, how vehement were they in the matter? All their sermons were little other than invectives against usury. Then they could allege both Christ and the Psalmist to prove that Christian men ought to lend what they may spare, and to look for no gains thereof. But now they do not only hold themselves still as concerning this matter, but also they endeavour to imitate, yea, and to pass the example of the extortioners and usurers. For even the last year they obtained by their importunate suit a grant which, if it be not revoked, will in continuance of time be the greatest impoverishment of us your poor commons, (and chiefly in the city of London) that ever chanced since the first beginning thereof. They have obtained, and it is enacted, that every man within the said city shall yearly pay unto them according to the rents they are charged with sixteen pence ha’penny of every ten shillings, So that if the lords of the grounds do double and triple the rents (as they do indeed) then must the poor tenants pay also double and triple tenths as due increase of their riches: this is not unlike unto that which is practised in the country amongst us your highness’s poor commons. For when it hath pleased God to punish us with the rot of our sheep, so that perhaps some one of us hath hylded1 one hundred sheep, then have some of the parsons constrained us to give them ten of the fells, for they call it increase so long as we sell them. And therefore must they (as God’s deputies) take the tenth thereof. Have compassion upon us (most gracious sovereign); suffer not these insatiable dogs thus to eat us out of all that we have; consider that it is against all reason and conscience that we, your poor commons, should be thus oppressed; that where the landlord taketh of us double and triple rent, that then we shall pay also to the parson double or triple tenths. But see (most dear sovereign) how craftily they have wrought this feat; they require not the tenths of the landlords that have the increase, but of the tenants, which of necessity are constrained to pay to the lords their asking, or else to be without dwellingplaces. They know right well that if they should have matched themselves with the landlords they haply should have been too weak for them at the length. But they were in good hope that we, your poor commons, should never be able to stand in their hands, as in very deed we shall not unless your highness will vouchsafe to take our cause in hand; for if we have not wherewith to pay them, they may, by the virtue of the act distress2 such implements as they shall find in our houses. They know our conditions of old, since they took their mortuaries. We had rather, in manner, famish ourselves for lack of food, and to make right hard shift besides, than that we would be troubled for any such thing. And doubtless, most renowned Prince, if 1

skinned.

2

distrain.

[24]

A SUPPLICATION OF THE POORE COMMONS, 1546

289

the oppression were not too much beyond all reason and conscience, we would never have troubled your highness withal. Yea, if there were any hope that they would be satisfied by this, we would rather fast three days every week than we would seem to be slack in doing all such things as the law bindeth us to. But we see daily so great increase of their insatiable desire that we fear lest in process of time they will make us all beg and bring to them all that we can get. It is no rare thing to see the poor impotent creatures beg at Easter to pay for the Sacrament when they receive it. And it is no less common to see men beg for such dead corpses as have nothing to pay the priest’s duty. Yea, it is not long since there was in your highness’s city of London a dead corpse brought to the church to be buried, being so poor that it was naked without any cloth to cover it. But these charitable men, which teach us that it is one of the works of mercy to bury the dead, would not take the pains to bury the dead corpse unless they had their duty as they call it. In fine, they caused the dead corpse to be carried into the street again, and there to remain till the poor people which dwelled in the place where the poor creature died had begged so much as the priests call their due. O merciful Lord, who can be able worthily to lament the miserable estate of this time? When those men which in all things profess to be the light of the world, the teachers of the ignorant, and the leaders of the blind, are so far without mercy (which Christ preferred before sacrifice) that they will not do so much as waste a little of their breath in reading over a few psalms at the burial of one of the poor members of Christ, unless they have money for their labour! And when those persons whom the other, called spiritual, do count but as brute beasts calling them temporal, shall show more mercy, the badge of the Christian soldiers towards the poor members of Christ, than they which glory to be the true prophets of Christ and successors of the Apostles! Yea, when those painted sepulchres be so merciless that they pity not them whom the very infidels would pity! Where is there so little mercy showed as amongst them? Insomuch that their covetousness is grown into this proverb, “No penny, no pater noster”. For they will not do that thing which every Christian is bound to do for other unless they may be waged for money; they wed and bury, and sing full merry, but all for money. If your highness would call a count of them, and cause them to show the books of the names of them that have been buried and married within this year, conferring1 that number with the sum of money they take for every such burial and marriage, you should easily perceive how little need they have to oppress us with double and triple tenths. Judge then, most victorious Prince, what an unreasonable sum the whole and gross sum of these enhanced tenths with other their petty bribery draweth to. They receive of every hundred pounds thirteen pounds fifteen shillings, and of the thousand one hundred and thirty-seven pounds ten shillings. Then may your highness soon be certified what they receive of the whole rents of the city. No doubt, gracious Prince, they receive of us yearly more than your highness did at any timewhen you were beset on every side with mortal enemies. And yet their conscience would serve them well enough to take three times as much as they do if your highness would suffer them. For they use to say that forasmuch as it is established by a law they may, with good conscience, take it if it were 1

comparing.

290

THE COMMONWEAL

[24]

more. Yea, if your highness would suffer them, their conscience would serve them to lie with our wives every tenth night or else to have every tenth wife in the parish at their pleasure. But our trust is that your highness will tie them shorter, and to say the truth it is time; for if you suffer them a while they will attempt to make your highness pay the tenths unto them as long at they have paid them to you. For they have already sought out our warehouses, storehouses, stables, wharves, and barns, causing us to pay, not only the tenth for that we never paid before, but also the seventh penny of the whole rents raised throughout the whole city. Who can judge other therefore, most dread sovereign, but that they would, if they wist how, cause your highness to pay unto them not only the tenth of your yearly revenues, but also the tenth penny of all such spoils as your highness shall take in wars; for they carp much upon Abraham’s giving of the tenth of his spoil to Melchisedech. Wherefore, most merciful Prince, consider with mercy this pitiful complaint of us your most faithful servants, delivering us from the mouths of these insatiable beasts, which do daily employ themselves to devour us, our wives and children, even as we were food prepared for them to devour. Let the order that Paul took with the faithful of the primitive church take effect in these our days, the last days of this miserable world. Let none eat that laboureth not, 2 Thessal. 3. Let them also that be called to be preachers have the reward of preachers; overload them not with the possessions and riches of this world, for the cares thereof do choke the word. Let not each ravening wolf that cometh with a sheephook in his hand be received as a shepherd. Let not the simple lambs of Christ be committed to the tuition of these so ravening wolves. Let not the portion of the poor be committed to them that distribute not, but rather gather and heap up, counting all fish that cometh to the net. Let the worthy prophets that walk diligently in their vocation be called to the governance of the spiritual flock of Christ, and let them be repelled that come uncalled, we mean such as sue to bear the name of your highness’s chaplains only because they trust to obtain thereby lordly livings out of the portion of the poor. Take pity, most merciful Prince, upon us your poor and faithful liege people; take pity upon your own soul which shall at the last day be charged with all abuses that your highness suffereth freely to reign. Believe not those gnatonical adherents that will not stick to affirm and deny, so that they may trust to please you thereby. Let them not persuade your highness that all is good that is concluded in your High Court of Parliament. Remember, O, how they led your highness when you sent forth your letters under your broad seal straightly commanding every and singular your highness’s subjects, under pain of your highness’s displeasure, to aid, support, and further all and singular proctors and pardoners. Remember in what case they had brought your highness when you thought it godliness to visit in your own person the graves, images, and relics of dead saints, doing to them divine honour and reverence. Let them not persuade you that God is or can be better served in the Latin tongue than in the English; consider what great folly Saint Paul counteth it for men to pray, which is to talk with almighty God, in a tongue they understand not, 1. Corinth. 13. Yea, and how much greater folly it is to think holiness in hearing a tale told in a strange tongue. Your highness commanded that none should receive the Sacrament at Easter but such as could and did use the Lord’s

[24]

A SUPPLICATION OF THE POORE COMMONS, 1546

291

prayer with the articles of the faith in the English tongue. But they bid us use that which is most ready to us. They baptise our children in the Latin tongue, bidding us say, “Volo” and “Credo”, when we know not what it is that they demand of us. By this means is it brought to pass that we know not what we profess in our baptism, but superstitiously we think that the holiness of the words which sound so strangely in our ears, and of the water that is so oft crossed is the doing of all the matter. Yea, we think that if our children be well plunged in the font they shall be healthful in all their limbs ever after, but if they, by any misadventure, receive any hurt in any of their members, incontinent we lay the fault in the priest, saying that member was not well christened. Oh merciful God, what heart can be able worthily to lament this more than Judaical superstition? The thing that is mere spiritual we apply wholly to the flesh. Was there ever any vain idolaters that would honour their gods in a language they understood not? Were the monks, friars, and canons, with other superstitious religious, professed in a strange tongue? Is not the oath of obedience that we your liege people take unto you ministered in the English tongue? And for what other purpose but that we may thereby know our most bounden duty toward you our natural Prince and liege lord? Is it then beseeming that we, taking an oath of obedience to the King of all kings, the God of all the world, and Maker thereof, should not know what is demanded of us nor what we answer again? If we hold us still as concerning this more than hell darkness the very stones of your palace would make exclamation. Prevent, therefore, most gracious Prince, the ire of God which hangeth over this your realm. Remember that his long sufferance shall be recompensed with the extremity of the punishment. Wherefore, most worthy Prince, we humbly beseech our heavenly Father, the Giver of all goodness even for the Lord Jesu Christ’s sake our Saviour and Redeemer, that he preserve you always, giving you grace to walk circumspectly in your vocation and ministry, that, at the last day, you may receive the incorruptible crown of glory, and reign with our Elder Brother the first begotten Son of God the Father Almighty; to whom with the Holy Ghost be all honour and glory for ever and ever. All true English hearts say, Amen. Psalm 40. “Happy is the man that pitieth the poor; for in time of trouble the Lord shall deliver him.” Thus have we, your most obedient subjects, declared the fervent desire we have not only of your prosperous success in the affairs of this life, but also of your eternal reign with the Lord Jesus in the celestial kingdom, of whose faith ye are, in earth, Defender, and of the faithful congregation in this little angle of the earth congregate, the Supreme Head immediately next unto him, by whose mighty hand you have hitherto vanquished not only the external enemies of this most noble realm, but all such as have most devilishly imagined, conspired, and attempted treason against your highness, their most natural liege lord and governor. What histories should we read to know of so many and so dangerous conspiracies, so wonderfully detected and avoided? Who might so soon have wrought the most detestable purpose of treason as she that slept in your bosom? What mighty princes have been betrayed by them that they have loved above

292

THE COMMONWEAL

[25]

all creatures? And how wonderfully, even at the very point, and in the time of most danger hath the mighty hand of the Lord delivered you? Besides this, that most abominable idol of Rome, which sat so high not only in the consciences of us your most bounden subjects and poor commons, but also your nobles (even from the highest to the lowest) were all his faithful adherents; in so much that some of them would not stick to shed the best blood of their bodies in his quarrel. And yet how wonderfully hath the Lord our God made him your footstool? Rejoice, dear Sovereign, rejoice. The Lord is your right hand, he hath found you faithful in a little, and shall ordain you over much more. Only beware that you, putting your hand to the plough do not look backward. Go forth manfully to conquer, and turn not again till you have purged this vineyard of the Lord, so that there remain not one little imp besides those that our Heavenly Father hath planted. Let not that noble Prince Edward be oppressed in the days of his youth, with the cumbrous weeding out of such rotten and fruitless trees, lest perchance they take deeper root than that his tender youth may be able to move. Forget not your own youth, when these adulterine trees were too strong for you. Think not but that you shall leave behind you a great number that would be glad to see the old stumps of these fruitless trees spring again. The Lord bring them all to confusion, giving your highness long life, with assistance of his grace, to perform that which you have begun. The wisdom of the Lord our God lead you into all truth. Amen. Your most faithful and obedient subjects the Poor Commons of the Realm of England. Anno 1546.

25. Thoughts on social responsibilities from the Works of William Tyndale (i) The idea of vocation (Tyndale, Doctrinal Treatises (ed. H.Walter, Parker Soc., 1848, 100–103. “The Parable of the Wicked Mammon”)

A

s pertaining to good works, understand that all works are good which are done within the law of God, in faith, and with thanksgiving to God; and understand that thou in doing them pleasest God, whatsoever thou doest within the law of God, as when thou makest water. And trust me, if either wind or water were stopped, thou shouldest feel what a precious thing it were to do either of both, and what thanks ought to be given to God therefore. Moreover, put no difference between works; but whatsoever cometh into thy hands that do, as time, place, and occasion giveth, and as God hath put thee in degree, high or low. For as touching to please God, there is no work better than another. God looketh not first on thy work as the world doth, as though the beautifulness of the work pleased him as it doth the world, or as though he had need of them. But God looketh first on thy heart, what faith thou hast to his words, how thou believest him, trustest him, and how thou lovest him for his mercy that he hath shewed thee: he looketh with what heart thou workest, and not what thou workest; how thou acceptest the degree that he hath put thee in, and not of what degree thou art, whether thou be an apostle or a shoemaker. Set this ensample before

[25]

THOUGHTS ON SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES

293

thine eyes. Thou art a kitchen-page, and washest thy master’s dishes; another is an apostle, and preacheth the word of God. Of this apostle hark what Paul saith, in the 1st. Cor. IX. “If I preach,” saith he, “I have nought to rejoice in, for necessity is put unto me;” as who should say, God hath made me so. “Woe is unto me if I preach not. If I do it willingly,” saith he, “then have I my reward”; that is, then am I sure that God’s spirit is in me, and that I am elect to eternal life. “If I do it against my will, an office is committed unto me;” that is, if I do it not of love to God, but to get a living thereby, and for a worldly purpose, and had rather otherwise live, then do I that office which God hath put me in, and yet please not God myself…. Now that thou ministerest in the kitchen, and art but a kitchen-page, receivest all things of the hand of God; knowest that God hath put thee in that office; submittest thyself to his will; and servest thy master not as a man, but as Christ himself, with a pure heart, according as Paul teacheth us; puttest thy trust in God, and with him seekest thy reward. Moreover, there is not a good deed done, but thy heart rejoiceth therein; yea, when thou hearest that the word of God is preached by this apostle, and seest the people turn to God, thou consentest unto the deed; thine heart breaketh out in joy, springeth and leapeth in thy breast, that God is honoured: and in thine heart doest the same that that apostle doth, and haply with greater delectation and a more fervent spirit. Now “he that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive the reward of a prophet;” that is, he that consenteth to the deed of a prophet, and maintaineth it, the same hath the same Spirit and earnest of everlasting life, which the prophet hath, and is elect as the prophet is. Now if thou compare deed to deed, there is difference betwixt washing of dishes, and preaching of the word of God: but as touching to please God, none at all: for neither that nor this pleaseth, but as far forth as God hath chosen a man, hath put his Spirit in him, and purified his heart by faith and trust in Christ. Let every man therefore wait on the office wherein Christ hath put him, and therein serve his brethren. If he be of low degree, let him patiently therein abide, till God promote him, and exalt him higher. Let kings and head officers seek Christ in their offices, and minister peace and quietness unto the brethren; punish sin, and that with mercy, even with the same sorrow and grief of mind as they would cut off a finger or joint, a leg or arm, of their own body, if there were such disease in them, that either they must be cut off, or else all the body must perish. Let every man, of whatsoever craft or occupation he be of, whether brewer, baker, tailor, victualler, merchant, or husbandman, refer his craft and occupation unto the commonwealth, and serve his brethren as he would do Christ himself. Let him buy and sell truly, and not set dice on his brethren; and so sheweth he mercy, and his occupation pleaseth God. And when thou receivest money for thy labour or ware, thou receivest thy duty. For wherein soever thou minister to thy brethren, thy brethren are debtors, to give thee wherewith to maintain thyself and household. And let your superfluities succour the poor, of which sort shall ever be some in all towns, and cities, and villages, and that I suppose the greatest number. Remember that we are members of one body, and ought to minister one to another mercifully: and remember that whatsoever we have, it is given us of God, to bestow it on our brethren. Let him that eateth, eat and give God

294

THE COMMONWEAL

[25]

thanks, only let not thy meat pull thine heart from God; and let him that drinketh do likewise. Let him that hath a wife, give God thanks for his liberty; only let not thy wife withdraw thine heart from God, and then pleasest thou God, and hast the word of God for thee. And in all things look on the word of God, and therein put thy trust, and not in a visor, in a disguised garment, and a cut shoe.

(ii) The office of a mastery and how he ought to rule (Ibid. 201 (“The Obedience of a Christian Man”))

Paul (Eph. vi th) saith: “Ye masters, do even the same things to them,” (that is, be masters after the ensample and doctrine of Christ, as he before taught the servants to obey to their masters as to Christ,) “putting away threatenings,” that is, give them fair words, and exhort them kindly to do their duty; yea, nurture them as thy own sons with the Lord’s nurture, that they may see in Christ a cause why they ought lovingly to obey: and “remember (saith he) that your master also is in heaven; neither is there any respect of persons with him;” that is, he is indifferent and not partial: as great in his sight is a servant as a master. And in the ivth chapter to the Colossians saith he: “Ye masters, do unto your servants that which is just and equal, remembering that ye also have a master in heaven.” Give your servants kind words, food, raiment, and learning. Be not bitter unto them, rail not on them, give them no cruel countenance: but according to the ensample and doctrine of Christ, deal with them. And when they labour sore, cherish them again. When ye correct them, let God’s word be by; and do it with such good manner, that they may see how that ye do it to amend them only, and to bring them to the way which God biddeth us walk in, and not to avenge yourselves, or to wreak your malice on them. If at a time through hastiness ye exceed measure in punishing, recompense it another way, and pardon them another time.

(iii) The duty of landlords (Ibid. 201 (“The Obedience of a Christian Man”))

Let Christian landlords be content with their rent and old customs; not raising the rent or fines, and bringing up new customs to oppress their tenants; neither letting two or three tenantries unto one man. Let them not take in their commons, neither make parks nor pastures of whole parishes: for God gave the earth to man to inhabit; and not unto sheep and wild deer. Be as fathers unto your tenants: yea, be unto them as Christ was unto us, and shew unto them all love and kindness. Whatsoever business is among them, be not partial, favouring one more than another. The complaints, quarrels, and strife that are among them, count diseases of sick people; and, as a merciful physician, heal them with wisdom and good counsel. Be pitiful and tender-hearted unto them, and let not one of thy tenants tear out another’s throat; but judge their causes indifferently, and compel them to make their ditches, hedges, gates, and ways. For even for such causes were ye made landlords: and for such causes paid men rent at the beginning. For if such an order were not, one should slay another, and all should go to waste. If thy tenant shall labour and toil all the year, to pay thee, thy rent, and when he hath bestowed all his labour, his

[26]

THE NATURE OF THE COMMONWEAL

295

neighbours’ cattle shall devour his fruits; how tedious and bitter should his life be! See therefore that ye do your duties again; and suffer no man to do them wrong, save the king only. If he do wrong, then must they abide God’s judgment.

26. The nature of the Common Weal. From Thomas Starkey, Dialogue between Pole and Lupset (J.W.Cowper, Dialogue between Pole and Lupset, E.E.T.S. Extra Ser. XII, 1871, pp. 25, 45, 76, 82, 86, 185, 32) Although this remarkable book, written before 1539, was not printed until 1871 it ranks high in the social and political literature of the early sixteenth century. Whether the ideas it expounds are entirely those of Starkey, or a reflection of Cardinal Pole’s thought, the book is a searching analysis of the evils in contemporary society. It is, too, in its quest after “the very and true commonweal” and the methods whereby it might be established in early Tudor England, a representative example of the ideals of those writers of the 1530’s and ’40’s who merit the distinction of being grouped together as “the commonwealth men.” There is also a modernized version, by K.M.Burton, 1948. For Starkey and the commonwealth men see W.G.Zeeveld, Foundations of Tudor Policy.

(i) The preface of the Dialogue

P

ole: Well, Master Lupset, if you like it well, after this manner we shall devise, because every man speaketh so much of the common weal, and many more, I fear me, do know it indeed. And forbecause the common weal is the end of all parliaments and common counsels, first therefore (to keep a certain process with order) we will search out, as near as we can, what is the very and true common weal, wherein it standeth, and when it most flourisheth, that we may, having this plainly set before our eyes, all our counsels to this point ever resolve and refer. Second, we will search out thereby the decay of our common weal, with all the common faults and misorders of the same. Thirdly, we will devise of the cause of this same decay, and of the remedy and mean to restore the common weal again. And this shall be the process of our communication. Lupset: Sir, this process liketh me well; but here of one thing, I pray you, take heed that in this your device of your communication you follow not the example of Plato, whose order of common weal no people upon earth to this day could ever yet attain. Wherefore it is reputed of many men but as a dream and vain imagination, which never can be brought to effect; and of some other it is compared to the Stoic philosopher, who never appeared yet to the light, such virtue and wisdom is attributed to him, that in no mortal man it can be found. Therefore, look you to the nature of our country, to the manner of our people, not without respect both of time and of place, that your device hereafter, by the help of our most noble prince, may the sooner obtain his fruit and effect.

ii) The functional theory of society Pole: First, this is certain: that like as in every man there is a body and also a soul, in whose flourishing and prosperous state both together standeth the weal and felicity of man: so likewise there is in every commonalty, city, and country, as it were, a politic

296

THE COMMONWEAL

[26]

body, and another thing also, resembling the soul of man, in whose flourishing both together resteth also the true common weal. This body is nothing else but the multitude of people, the number of citizens, in every commonalty, city or country. The thing which is resembled to the soul is civil order and politic law, administered by officers and rulers. For like as the body in every man receiveth his life by the virtue of the soul, and is governed thereby, so doth the multitude of people in every country receive, as it were, civil life by laws well administered by good officers and wise rulers, by whom they be governed and kept in politic order. Wherefore the one may, as me seemeth, right well be compared to the body, and the other to the soul.

Lupset: This similitude liketh me well. Pole: Then let us go forth with the same, and we shall find, by and by, that like as the weal of every man separately by himself riseth of the three principal things before declared, so the common weal of every country, city, or town, similarly riseth of other three things proportionable and like to the same, in the which all other particular things are comprehended. And the first of them, shortly to say, standeth in health, strength, and beauty of this body politic and multitude of people, wherein resteth the ground, and, as it were, the foundation of the common weal. For if the country be never so rich, fertile, and plentiful of all things necessary and pleasant to man’s life, yet if there be of people either too few or too many; or if they be, as it were, eaten away, daily devoured and consumed by common sickness and disease, there can be no image nor shadow of any common weal, to the which first is required a convenient multitude and conveniently to be nourished there in the country. For whereas there be either too many people in the country, inasmuch that the country by no diligence nor labour of man may be sufficient to nourish them and minister them food, there without doubt can be no common weal, but ever miserable penury and wretched poverty. Like as if there be of people overfew, insomuch that the country may not be well tilled and occupied, nor crafts well and diligently exercised, there shall also spring thereof great penury and scarceness of all things necessary for man’s life; and so then civil life and true common weal can in no case be there maintained. Wherefore a convenient multitude meet for the place, in every country and commonalty, as the matter and ground of the common weal, is first to be required of necessity. Further, also, though the number of people were never so meet to the place, city or town, yet if they flourished not in bodily health, but commonly were vexed with grievous sickness and contagious disease, by the reason whereof the people should be consumed, no man could say there to be any commonweal. But like as every particular man in bodily sickness, and in such specially whereof he himself is cause, lacketh the most prosperous state, so doth every country, city, and town likewise affected and disposed, want much of his perfect common weal. Therefore, to this multitude of people and politic body, first, as ground and foundation of the rest of his weal, is required a certain health, which also by strength must be maintained. For like as the body, if it be not strong, soon by outward occasions, as by intemperance of air, labour, and travail, is oppressed and overthrown and so loseth his health, so doth the multitude of people in every country, city, or town soon, by wars and injury of enemies, without strength, lose

[26]

THE NATURE OF THE COMMONWEAL

297

his wealth and soon is oppressed and brought into misery and wretched captivity. Wherefore to this politic body strength is also required, without the which his health long cannot be maintained; but shortly, of necessity it must decay. This strength standeth in this point chiefly: so to keep and maintain every part of this body, that they promptly and readily may do that thing which is required to the health of the whole. Like as we say, then every man’s body to be strong, when every part can execute quickly and well his office determined by the order of nature; as the heart then is strong when he, as fountain of all natural powers, ministereth them with due order to all other; and they then be strong when they be apt to receive their power of the heart and can use it according to the order of nature, as, the eye to see. the ear to hear, the foot to go, and hand to hold and reach, and so likewise of the rest. After such manner the strength of this politic body standeth in every part being able to do his office and duty. For this body hath his parts, which resemble also the parts of the body of man, of the which the most general to our purpose be these: the heart, head, hands and feet. The heart thereof is the king, prince and ruler of the state, whethersoever it be one or many, according to the governance of the commonalty and politic state. For some be governed by a prince alone, some by a council of certain wise men, and some by the whole people together, as hereafter, when occasion requireth, more plainly I will show. But now to our purpose. He or they which have authority upon the whole state right well may be resembled to the heart. For like as all wit, reason, and sense, feeling, life, and all other natural power, springeth out of the heart, so from the princes and rulers of the state cometh all laws, order and policy, all justice, virtue and honesty, to the rest of this politic body. To the head, with the eyes, ears and other senses therein, resembled may be right well the under-officers by princes appointed, forasmuch as they should ever observe and diligently wait for the weal of the rest of this body. To the hands are resembled both craftsmen and warriors which defend the rest of the body from injury of enemies outward, and work and make things necessary to the same. To the feet, the ploughmen and tillers of the ground, because they, by their labour, sustain and support the rest of the body, These are the most general parts of this politic body, which may justly be resembled after the manner declared, to those chief parts in man’s body. Now, as I said, the strength of these parts altogether is of necessity required, without the which the health of the whole cannot long be maintained.

(iii) Criticism of early Tudor society Lupset: Sir, indeed, as you say, when I look to the cities and towns and villages in the country, I cannot deny but there hath been more people here in our country than there is now. Wherefore, without further cavillation, agreeing upon this, let us go forward. Pole: Well, then, let us consider and behold how that, beside this lack of people there is, also, in this politic body another disease and sickness more grievous than this, and that is this, shortly to say:—A great part of these people which we have here in our country is either idle or ill-occupied, and a small number of them exerciseth themself in doing their office and duty pertaining to the maintenance of the common weal: by the

298

THE COMMONWEAL

[26]

reason whereof this body is replenished and over-fulfilled with many ill-humours, which I call idle and unprofitable persons, of whom you shall find a great number, if you will a little consider all states, orders and degrees here in our country. First, look what an idle rout our noblemen keep and nourish in their houses, which do nothing else but carry dishes to the table and eat them when they have done; and after, giving themselves to hunting, hawking, dicing, carding, and all other idle pastimes and vain, as though they were born to nothing else at all. Look to our bishops and prelates of the realm, whether they follow not the same trade in nourishing such an idle sort, spending their possessions and goods, which were to them given to be distributed among them which were oppressed with poverty and necessity. Look, furthermore to priests, monks, friars and canons with all their adherents and idle train, and you shall find also among them no small number idle and unprofitable, which be nothing but burdens to the earth; insomuch that if you, after this manner, examine the multitude in every order and degree, you shall find, as I think, the third part of our people living in idleness, as persons to the common weal utterly unprofitable; and to all good civility, much like unto the drone bees in a hive, which do nothing else but consume and devour all such thing as the busy and good bee, with diligence and labour, gathereth together. Lupset: Master Pole, me seemeth you examine this matter somewhat too shortly, as though you would have all men to labour, to go to the plough, and exercise some craft, which is not necessary, for our mother the ground is so plenteous and bountiful, by the goodness of God and of nature given to her, that with little labour and tillage she will sufficiently nourish mankind none otherwise than she doth all beasts, fishes, and fowls which are bred and brought up upon her, to whom we see she ministereth food with little labour or none, but of her own friendly benignity. Wherefore if a few of our people busy themselves and labour therein, it is sufficient; the rest may live in triumph, at liberty and ease, free from all bodily labour and pain. Pole: This is spoken, Master Lupset, even as though you judged man to be born for to live in idleness and pleasure, all thing referring and applying thereto. But, Sir, it is nothing so; but, contrary, he is born to labour and travail (after the opinion of the wise and ancient antiquity) none otherwise than a bird to fly, and not to live (as Homer saith some do) as an unprofitable weight and burden of the earth. For man is born to be as a governor, ruler and diligent tiller and inhabitant of this earth, as some, by labour of body, to procure things necessary for the maintenance of man’s life; some, by wisdom and policy, to keep the rest of the multitude in good order and civility. So that none be born to this idleness and vanity, to the which the most part of our people is much given and bent, but all to exercise themselves in some fashion of life convenient to the dignity and nature of man. Wherefore, though it be so that it is nothing necessary all to be labourers and tillers of the ground, but some to be priests and ministers of God’s Word, some to be gentlemen to the governance of the rest, and some servants to the same, yet this is certain, that over-great number of them, without due proportion to the other parts of the body, is superfluous in any commonalty. It is not to be doubted but that here in our country of those sorts be over-many, and specially of them which we call servingmen, which live in service to gentlemen, lords, and other of the nobility. If you

[26]

THE NATURE OF THE COMMONWEAL

299

look throughout the world, as I think, you shall not find in any one country proportionable to ours like number of that sort. Lupset: Marry, sir, that is truth; wherein, me seemeth, you praise our country very much, for in them standeth the royalty of the realm. If the yeomanry of England were not, in time of war we should be in shrewd case; for in them standeth the chief defence of England. Pole: O, Master Lupset, you take the matter amiss. In them standeth the beggary of England. By them is nourished the common theft therein, as hereafter at large I shall declare. Howbeit, if they were exercised in feats of arms, to the defence of the realm in time of war, they might yet be much better suffered. But you see how little they be exercised therein, insomuch that in time of war it is necessary for our plough-men and labourers of the country to take weapon in hand, or else we were not like long to enjoy England, so little trust is to be put in their feats and deeds. Wherefore doubt you no more but of them, like as of other that I have spoken of before (as of priests, friars, monks and other called religious), we have over-many, which altogether make our politic body unwieldy and heavy, and, as it were, to be grieved with gross humours, insomuch that this disease therein may well be compared to a dropsy in man’s body.

(iv) Division in society Pole: Sir, yet there is another disease remaining behind which greatly troubleth the state of the whole body, the which (though I somewhat stand in doubt whether I may well call it a disease of the body or no) yet because, as physicians say, the body and mind are so knit together by nature that all sickness and disease be common to them both, I will not now stand to reason much herein, but boldly call it a bodily disease, and, briefly to say, this it is: the parts of this body agree not together: the head agreeth not to the feet, nor feet to the hands: no one part agreeth to other: the temporalty grudgeth against the spiritualty, the commons against the nobles, and subjects against their rulers: one hath envy at another, one beareth malice against another, one complaineth of another. The parts of this body be not knit together as it were with spirit and life, in concord and unity, but dissevered asunder, as they were in no case parts of one body. This is so manifest it needeth no proof, for sure arguments thereof are daily among us, both seen and heard in every place. Wherefore of this disease we need not further to doubt, which is open to every man’s eye…. Pole: There is also likewise in the feet and in the hands which sustain the body and procure by labour things necessary for the same, as it were, a common disease. For both the feet and the hands (to whom I resembled ploughmen and labourers of the ground, with craftsmen and artificers in procuring of things necessary) are negligent and slow to the exercise thereof which pertaineth to their office and duty. Ploughmen do not diligently labour and till the ground for the bringing forth of fruits necessary for the food and sustenance of man; craftsmen also and all artificers show no less negligence in the use of their crafts, by the reason whereof here is in our country much dearth thereof, and penury. Lupset: Sir, this you do, as me seemeth, but only say; you neither prove it by argument nor reason.

300

THE COMMONWEAL

[26]

Pole: Me seemeth it need no more to do so than to show the light of the sun by a candle, this matter is so open to every man’s eye. For those many and great waste grounds here in our country, the great lack of victual and the scarceness thereof, and dearth of all things worked by man’s hand, do not only show the great negligence of the rest of our people, but in the ploughmen also and artificers doth argue and declare manifest lack of diligence. For this is sure, if our ploughmen here were as diligent as they be in other parts (in France, Italy, or in Spain) we should not have so much waste ground, void and unfilled, as there is now: and if our artificers applied themselves to labour as diligently as they do in other countries, we should not have things made by men’s hand so scarce and so dear as they be now here commonly. For this is a certain truth: that the people of England is more given to idle gluttony than any people of the world: which is, to all them that have experience of the manners of others manifest and plain…. That is truth, Master Lupset, without fail, as we shall see in our process more plain. For as physicians say, when they have removed the chief cause of the malady and disease in the body, by little and by little then Nature herself cureth the patient; even so now in our purpose, this fault that we have before spoken of, which was and is the cause of many other, once perfectly cured, shall minister unto us the most convenient mean to proceed to the cure of the rest. Among the which, as I remember, was there noted the fault of bringing up the nobility, which, for the most part, are nourished without cure, both of their parents, being alive, and much worse of them in whose ward commonly they do fall after their death: the which care for nothing but only to spoil their pupils and wards, or else to marry them after their pleasure, whereby the true love of matrimony was and is utterly taken away and destroyed; to the which, as every man knoweth, succeed infinite miseries and misorders of life. Wherefore this thing must be remedied, if we will proceed to our end and purpose. And, first as concerning the wards: of this we must begin all our old barbarous customs utterly to abrogate, without respect of the beginning in thereof, though they appear never so good. And ever they which have the nobility in ward must be bounden to make a reckoning and count before a judge appointed thereto, not only of all his income, rents, and revenues but much more of the ordering and institution of his ward both in virtue and learning. But here is, Master Lupset, not only in our country but also in all other which ever yet I knew, a great lack and negligence of them which rule in common policy, and that is this: that in no country there is any regard of the bringing up of youth in common discipline and public exercise, but every man privately in his own house hath his master to instruct his children in letters, without any respect of other exercise in other feats pertaining to nobility no less than learning and letters, as in all feats of chivalry. Therefore there would be some ordinance devised for the joining of these both together, which might be done after this manner, likewise as we have in our universities, colleges, and common places to nourish the children of poor men in letters, whereby, as you see, cometh no small profit to the common weal. So much more we should have, as it were, certain places appointed for the bringing up together of the nobility, to the which I would the nobles should be compelled to set forward their children

[26]

THE NATURE OF THE COMMONWEAL

301

and heirs, that in a number together they might the better profit. [To this use turn both Westminster and St. Albans, and many other.]1 And to this company I would have appointed rulers certain of the most virtuous and wise men of the realm, the which should instruct this youth to whom should come the governance, after, of their own common weal. [Prebends should be premia to young gentlemen married and larned in scripture; by this mean scripture should be more communed than it is.]1 Here they should be instructed not only in virtue and learning, but also in the feats of war pertaining to such as should be hereafter, in time of war, captains and governors of the common sort. This should be the most noble institution that ever was yet devised in any common weal; of this, surely, should spring the fountain of all civility and politic rule. Yea, and without such a thing, I cannot tell whether all the rest of our device will little avail. I think it will never be possible to institute our common weal without this ordinance brought to pass and put in effect. Our old fathers have been liberal in building great abbeys and monasteries for the exercise of a monastical life among religious men, which hath done much good to the virtuous living of Christian minds, whose example I would that we should now follow in building places for the institution of the nobility, or else in changing some of these to that use, because there be over-many of this sort now in our days; that, even like as these monks and religious men there living together exercise a certain monastical discipline and life, so the nobles, being brought up together, should learn there the discipline of the common weal. You see now how the nobles think themselves born only to triumph and spend such lands, the which their ancestors have provided for them, in their vain pleasures and pastimes. They never look to other end and purpose. But here I would have them in this discipline, first, to take heed and diligently to learn what they be, and what place they occupy in the common weal, and what is the office and duty pertaining to the same. Here they should learn how and after what manner they might be able and meet to do and put in exercise that thing which pertaineth to their office and authority, and so, plainly and fully, to be instruct in the administration of justice both public and private. And, as I said, at void times also convenient to the same, they should use to exercise themselves in feats of the body and chivalry, no less expedient for time of war than the other exercises be for time of peace. And thus they should be worthy of the name which we now unworthily give unto them commonly: then they should be nobles indeed: then they should be true lords and masters; then the people would be glad to be governed by them, when they perceived so plainly that they regarded the weal of them no less than their own privately. But, Master Lupset, the particular means of bringing this matter to pass requireth, as I said before, a whole book. It is enough for us now to show and touch the manner and means in general.

(v) The true Commonweal Lupset: Well, then, let us now, I pray you, return to our purpose; that we may the better, and easier also, avoid this ignorance (the fountain of all ill), and search out what 1

Marginal annotations.

302

THE COMMONWEAL

[26]

is the true common weal. For, indeed, I think this now to be truth: that if men knew what it were, they would not so little regard it as they do, they would not so highly esteem their own private pleasure and weal. Pole: This thing is, and ever hath been, yea, and I dare boldly affirm, ever shall be, the destruction of all true common weals, and so, consequently, the destruction also of them which so blindly esteem so much their own profit and pleasure, as we shall see more plainly herafter. But now to our purpose. After the mind of the ancient and most wise philosopher Aristotle, in the very same thing wherein standeth the wealth and prosperous state of every particular man by himself, resteth also of every city or country, the very and true common wealth: the which thing is to all men by common reason evident, forasmuch as the wealth and substance ever of the whole riseth of the wealth of every particular part. Wherefore, if we can first find out that thing which is the wealth of every particular man, we shall then consequently find out also what thing it is that in any city or country we call the very true common weal. And this let us take as a ground to the rest of our communication. Lupset: Marry, sir, but herein, me seemeth, lieth a doubt: for if it be thus, that the common weal rise of the particular weal of every one, then every man ought to study to maintain the particular weal, to the setting forward of the common. And so that thing which you noted before to be the destruction of every common weal, now by this reason and ground should maintain the same. Pole: Nay, Master Lupset, not so, for these two things agree very well. Overmuch regard of private and particular weal ever destroyeth the common, as mean and convenient regard thereof maintaineth the same. For this is truth, as it is commonly said: if every man would mend one, if every man would cure one, as he should do, we should have a very true common weal. But now whereas many, blinded with the love of themselves, regard their particular weal overmuch, it is necessary by politic persons, having regard of the common weal, to correct and amend such blindness and oversight grown into many men’s minds by the inordinate love of themselves; like as physicians now be necessary in cities and towns, seeing that men commonly give themselves to such inordinate diet, whereas, if men would govern themselves soberly by temperate diet, then physicians were not to be required of necessity in no common wealth nor policy. And so, I say, if every man would govern one well, nothing blinded with the love of himself, you should then see a true common weal. And this it is true, that even like as overmuch regard of particular weal destroyeth the common, so convenient and mean regard thereof maintaineth and setteth forward the same. And in this there is no controversy.

[27]

SELECTIONS FROM THE WRITINGS OF ROBERT CROWLEY

303

27. Selections from the writings of Robert Crowley Robert Crowley may be taken as representative of the group of social reformers sometimes referred to as “the commonwealth school”. His writings were numerous, but the selections which follow provide a fair impression of the style and content of his work.

(i) The dangers of sedition (From “The Waie to Wealth”, 1550. J.M.Cowper (ed.), The Select Works of Robert Crowley, E.E.T.S. 1872. pp. 131–150)

C

onsidering that all men may plainly perceive the great hurt that (of late days) Sedition hath done in this realm, and that all wise men may easily gather what greater hurt is like to ensue, if it be not speedily seen unto, it shall be every true Englishman’s duty forthwith to employ his whole study to the removing of so great an evil out of so noble a realm and commonwealth: lest, haply (if through negligence it grow and take deeper root) it be shortly too strong and more surely grounded than that it may be rooted out without the utter destruction of the whole realm. For what can be more true than that which the Truth itself hath spoken? “Every kingdom” (sayeth Christ) “that is divided in itself shall be brought to nought.” Intending, therefore, to play the part of a true Englishman, and to do all that in me shall lie to pluck this stinking weed up by the root, I shall in this good business do as, in their evil exercise, the dice-players (that gladly would, but have nothing to play for) do:—Hold the candle to them that have wherewith, and will set lustily to it. And so doing, I shall be no less worthy the name of a true-hearted Englishman than the trumpeter is worthy the name of a man of war, though he do not indeed fight, but animate and encourage other. Sedition therefore, being a dangerous disease in the body of a commonwealth, must be cured as the expert physicians do use to cure the dangerous diseases in a natural body. And as the most substantial way in curing diseases is by putting away the causes whereof they grew, so is it in the pulling up of Sedition. For if the cause be once taken away, then must the effect needs fail. If the root be cut off the branch must needs die. The boughs cannot bud if the tree have no sap. Give ear therefore (O my countrymen) give ear! And do not disdain to hear the advice of one of the least of your brethren, for the matter requireth every man’s counsel, and God revealed unto young Daniel that which the whole counsel of Babylon perceived not. Give ear, I say, and if I tell you truth, be not ashamed to do that I bid, though ye know me to be at your commandment. For Abraham was contented to do at the bidding of Sarah his wife, because he knew that her bidding was God’s will. And the Ninevites did, at the bidding of poor Jonas, sit in sackcloth and ashes because they perceived that he told them the truth. Yea, cruel Herod did not refuse to hear John Baptist, because the thing which he told him was true. Lest you therefore should be more lofty than the Babylonians, more shamefaced than Abraham, more stubborn than the Ninevites, and more cruel than Herod, give ear, and patiently hear what I shall say! The causes of Sedition must be rooted out. If I should demand of the poor man of the country what thing he thinketh to be the cause of Sedition, I know his answer. He would tell me that the great farmers, the graziers, the rich butchers, the men of law, the

304

THE COMMONWEAL

[27]

merchants, the gentlemen, the knights, the lords, and I cannot tell who; men that have no name because they are doers in all things that any gain hangeth upon. Men without conscience. Men utterly void of God’s fear. Yea, men that live as though there were no God at all! Men that would have all in their own hands; men that would leave nothing for others; men that would be alone on the earth; men that be never satisfied. Cormorants, greedy gulls; yea, men that would eat up men, women, and children, are the causes of Sedition! They take our houses over our heads, they buy our grounds out of our hands, they raise our rents, they levy great (yea unreasonable) fines, they enclose our commons! No custom, no law or statute can keep them from oppressing us in such sort that we know not which way to turn us to live. Very need therefore constraineth us to stand up against them! In the country we cannot tarry, but we must be their slaves and labour till our hearts burst, and then they must have all. And to go to the cities we have no hope, for there we hear that these insatiable beasts have all in their hands. Some have purchased, and some taken by leases, whole alleys, whole rents, whole rows, yea whole streets and lanes, so that the rents be raised, some double, some triple, and some four fold to that they were within these twelve years last past. Yea, there is not so much as a garden ground free from them. No remedy therefore, we must needs fight it out, or else be brought to the like slavery that the French men are in! These idle bellies will devour all that we shall get by our sore labour in our youth, and when we shall be old and impotent, then shall we be driven to beg and crave of them that will not give us so much as the crumbs that fall from their tables. Such is the pity we see in them! Better it were, therefore, for us to die like men than after so great misery in youth to die more miserably in age! Alas, poor man, it pitieth me to see the miserable estate that thou art in! Both for that thou art so oppressed of them by whom thou shouldest be defended from oppression, and also for that thou knowest not thy duty in this great misery. Thou art not so much oppressed on the one side, but thou art more destituted on the other side. They that should nourish and defend thy body in thy labour, do oppress thee; and they that should feed thy soul and strengthen thy mind to bear all this patiently, do leave that alone. If thy shepherd had been a diligent watchman, and had espied the wolf coming upon thee, before thou hadst been within his reach, he would have stepped between thee and thine enemy, and instructed thee in such sort, that, though he had come in nine sheepskins, yet he should not have deceived thy sight. The devil should never have persuaded thee that thou mightest revenge thine own wrong! The false prophets should never have caused thee to believe that thou shouldst prevail against them with the sword, under whose governance God hath appointed thee to be. He would have told thee that to revenge wrongs is, in a subject, to take and usurp the office of a king, and, consequently the office of God. For the king is God’s minister to revenge the wrongs done unto the innocent. As he that taketh in hand, therefore, or presumeth to do any office under a king, not being lawfully called unto it, presumeth to do the office of a king, so he that taketh in hand to do the office of a King taketh God’s office in hand. We read that our Saviour Christ, being in the estimation of the world but a private man, would not walk out of the bounds of that vocation. But when a certain man came

[27]

SELECTIONS FROM THE WRITINGS OF ROBERT CROWLEY

305

unto him and desired that he would command his brother to divide the inheritance with him, he asked who had appointed him to be judge in such matters? And again, when the woman taken in adultery was brought unto him, he should not give sentence of the law against her, but asked her if any man had condemned her, and upon her denial let her go. If these examples, with the terrible stories of Corah, Dathan, Abiram and Absalom had been diligently beaten into thine head, thou wouldst (no doubt) have quieted thyself, and have suffered thyself rather to have been spoiled of altogether, yea, and thy body torn in pieces, rather than thou wouldest have taken on thee more than thou art called unto. For no cause can be so great to make it lawful for thee to do against God’s ordinance. But thy shepherd hath been negligent, as (alas the while!) all shepherds be at this day, and hath not instructed thee aright. He espied not the wolf before he had worried thee, or haply he knew him not from a sheep. But it is most like he was but an hireling, and cared for no more but to be fed with the milk and fatlings and clad with the wool, as the greatest number of them that bear the name of shepherd in England be at this day. Yea, perchance he had many flocks to keep, and therefore was absent from them all, leaving with every flock a dog that would rather worry a sheep than drive away the wolf. Well, brother, these be great plagues, and it behoveth the sins to be great that have deserved these so great and intolerable plagues at God’s hand. Return to thy conscience therefore, and see if thou have not deserved all this, and more too. Consider, first, if thou have loved thy neighbour as thyself; consider if thou have done nothing unto him that thou wouldest not that he should do unto thee. Look if thou have not gone about to prevent him in any bargain that thou hast seen him about; look if thou have not craftily undermined him to get something out of his hand, or to deceive him in some bargain. Look if thou have not laboured him out of his house or ground. See if thou have not accused him falsely or of malice, or else given false evidence against him. See if thou have not given evil counsel to his wife or servants, which might turn him to displeasure. Consider if thou have not desired and wished in thine heart to have his commodity from him if thou mightest, without blame of the world, have brought it about. For God looketh upon the heart, and if thine heart have been infected with any of these evils, then hast thou been abominable in the sight of God, and hast deserved these plagues at God’s hand. Now if you be found abominable in thy behaviour towards thy neighbour what shalt thou be found, trowest thou, in thy demeanour to God ward? God requireth thine whole heart, thine whole mind, and all the powers of thy body and soul. “Thou shalt love thy Lord God with all thy life, with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.” That is to say, there shall be nothing in the which thou shalt not apply wholly to the love of thy Lord God. But how was it possible for thee to love God (whom thou seest not), sith thou lovest not thy brother whom thou seest? God requireth thee to love him ever, and how often nast thou gone whole days together, whole weeks, yea whole years, and never thought once to love him aright? How many and how great benefits hast thou received at God’s hand, and how unthankful hast thou been for them, thinking that thou hast gotten them by thine own labour and not received them freely at God’s

306

THE COMMONWEAL

[27]

hand? As though God had not given thee thy life, thine health, and thy strength to labour! Yea, and as though it were not God only that giveth the increase of every man’s labour. But knowing by thine own creation and bringing up, and also by the young fruit that God sendeth thee of thy body, and further by the fruits that God sendeth, and causeth yearly to grow out of the earth, that there is a God Almighty. Yet thou hast not honoured him as God, but hast turned the glory of God into an image made after the shape, or similitude, of mortal man; running and riding from place to place to seek and to honour things of thine own making; crying and calling upon them in thy need and paying unto them thy vows, and thanking them for thine health received; doing them daily worship and reverence in the temples, and bestowing thine alms upon them in decking them and setting lights before them! Besides this thou hast put confidence of salvation in pardons that thou hast bought, in prayers that thou hast hired, or mumbled up thyself, in Masses that thou hast caused to be said, and in works that thou thyself hast fantasied; and hast not thankfully received the free mercy of God offered unto thee in Christ, in whom only thou mayest have remission of thy sins! And therefore God hath given thee up into a reprobate mind to do the thing that is not beseeming. Even to stand up against God and God’s ordinance, to refuse his Holy Word, to delight in lies and false fables, to credit false prophets, and to take weapon in hand against God’s chosen ministers: 1 say his chosen ministers, for be they good or bad, they are God’s chosen, if they be good, to defend the innocent, if they be evil, to plague the wicked. If thou wilt therefore that God shall deliver thee or thy children from the tyranny of them that oppress thee, lament thine old sins, and endeavour amendment of life. And then he that caused King Cyrus to send the Jews home to Jerusalem again, shall also stir up our young king Edward to restore, thee to thy liberty again, and to give straight charge that none shall be so bold as once to vex or trouble thee. “For the heart of a king is in God’s hand, and as he turneth the rivers of water, so turneth he it.” Be sure, therefore, that if thou keep thyself in obedience and suffer all this oppression patiently, not giving credit unto false prophecies that tell thee of victory, but to the word of God that telleth thee thy duty; thou shalt at the time, and after the manner, that God hath already appointed, be delivered. Perchance God will take from thine oppressors their hard stony hearts and give them hearts of flesh; for it is in his power so to do. Let him alone therefore. Read the prophecy of Jeremiah, and especially the seven and twenty chapter, the eight and twenty and the nine and twenty, and therein thou shalt learn thy duty in captivity, and how vain a thing it is to credit the prophets that prophesy victory to them that have, by their sins, deserved to be led away captive, yea, and to remain captive till such time as the time be complete during which God hath determined to punish them. And know thou for certainty, that if thou be still stubborn, God will not leave thee so. He will bring thee on thy knees; he will make thee stoop! If the gentlemen and rulers of thy country should be too weak for thee he would bring in strange nations to subdue thee (as the Babylonians did the Jews) and lead thee away captive. So that, refusing to serve in thine own country, thou shalt be made a slave in a strange country. Quiet thyself, therefore, and strive not against the stream. For thy sins have deserved this oppression, and God hath sent it thee as a just reward for thy sins;

[27]

SELECTIONS FROM THE WRITINGS OF ROBERT CROWLEY

307

and be thou never so loth, yet needs sustain it thou must. Appoint thyself, therefore, to bear it. Let it not be laid upon thee in vain; let it do the thing that God hath sent it for; let it cause thee to acknowledge thy sin, repent it, and become altogether a new man. That in the day when God shall deliver thee, his name may be glorified in thee. And then God shall send thee plenty of true prophets that shall go before thee in purity of life and godly doctrine. They shall not come or send four times in a year and no more; neither shall they set one to gather up the tenth of thine increase to their behoof, and leave thee destitute of a diligent guide (as thy shepherds do nowadays)! But God hath promised by his prophet to take away these shepherds from thee, and to commit thee to the keeping of David, his faithful servant; that is to say, to such as will be as diligent in feeding thee as David was in governing the people of whom he had governance. Give ear, therefore, ye shepherds of this church of England! Ye Bishops, ye Deans, Archdeacons and Canons; ye Parsons and ye Vicars, whatsoever ye be that receive any part of the tenth of men’s yearly increase, or any other patrimony of preachers, give ear to the prophet Ezechiel! For the same Lord that bade him speak unto the shepherds of Judah biddeth him speak unto you now also. “Thou son of man,” saith the Lord, “prophesy against the shepherds of England, prophesy and say unto those shepherds: thus saith the Lord God: Woe be to the shepherds of England, that have fed themselves! What ought not those shepherds to have fed those flocks of England? Ye eat the fat and deck yourselves with the wool, and the mutton that is fat ye kill to feed upon, but these silly sheep ye feed not. The sorrowful and pensive ye have not comforted, the sick ye have not healed, the broken ye have not bound up, the stray sheep ye have not brought again nor sought for the lost. But with extreme cruelty ye have played the lords over them, &c.” I need not to rehearse more of this prophet’s saying unto you, for ye know where to have it, and have leisure enough to seek it, for aught that I see you busied withal; unless it be with purchasing lands for your heirs, and fine fingered ladies, whose womanlike behaviour and motherlike housewifery ought to be a light to all women that dwell about you, but is so far otherwise that, unless ye leave them lands to marry them withal, no man will set a pin by them when you be gone. Well, look to this gear betimes, lest perhaps it breed a scab among you. I would not your wives should be taken from you, but I would you should keep them to the furtherance of God’s truth whereof ye profess to be teachers. Let your wives therefore put off their fine frocks and French hoods, and furnish themselves with all points of honest housewifery, and so let them be an help to your study and not a let. S.Paul teacheth you not to make them ladies or gentlewomen. Neither doth he teach you to be so greedy upon livings that, for the living’s sake, ye will take upon you the duties of twenty men, and yet do not the duty of one; no, some of you be not able to do any part of one duty! If God’s word do allow it that one of you should be a dean in one place, a canon in another, a parson here and a parson there, a master of a house in Oxford or Cambridge and an officer in the king’s house, and yet to do none of the duties hereof thoroughly; then set your pens to the paper, and satisfy us by God’s Word, and we will also help you to our power to satisfy the consciences of them that be offended at your doings herein. If you cannot do so, then give over your pluralities and

308

THE COMMONWEAL

[27]

make your insatiable desires give place to God’s truth. Content yourselves with one competent living, and fail not to be diligent in doing the duty thereof. But if ye will do neither of both, trust to it ye shall hear more of it! Your checking of one or two in a corner can not stop every man’s mouth in a matter of truth, being so great an infamy to the Gospel of God which ye profess. And if ye will needs hold still your pluralities for your lordlike living sake, doubt ye not ye will be charged with that which ye would seem to be clear of. For a great number of your unworthy curates have been the stirrers up of the simple people in the late tumults that have been; whereas if you had not robbed them of that which they pay yearly to have a learned and godly teacher, they had been better instructed, as appeared by the quietness that was among them that had such shepherds. Well, brother, thou, I say, that art thus oppressed on the one side and destituted on the other, take mine advice with thee. Submit thyself wholly to the will of God. Do thy labour truly, call upon God continually. I mean not that thou shouldest be ever muttering on thy beads, or that thou shouldest have any beads, but my meaning is that thou shouldest ever have thine heart lifted up unto God; for so meaneth Saint Paul when he saith, “I would men should pray always and in all places, lifting up their pure hands, &c.” And in all thy doings let thy desire be that God’s will be ful-filled in thee, and whatsoever God sendeth thee, hold thee content withal, and render unto him most hearty thanks for that he dealeth so mercifully with thee; acknowledging that by his justice he might pour out upon thee more plagues than ever were heard of. And when thou comest to thy parish church, if thy curate be an evil liver, then remember what Christ said unto his disciples:—“When the Scribes and Pharisees do set them down upon Moses’ seat, then do all that they command you to do, but do not as they do; for they say and do not.” Remember this, I say, and whatsoever thy curate biddeth thee do when he sitteth on Christ’s seat, that is, when he readeth the Bible unto thee, that do thou. But follow not his example! Do not as thou seest him do; but at thy first entrance into the church lift up thine heart unto God, and desire of him that he will give thee his Holy Spirit to illumine and lighten the eyes of thine heart, that thou mayest see and perceive the true meaning of all the Scriptures that thou shalt hear read unto thee that day. And so shalt thou be sure that though thy curate were a devil and would not that any man should be the better for that which he readeth, yet thou shalt be edified and learn as much as shall be necessary for thy salvation. And for thy sake God shall make thy curate (that otherwise would mumble in the mouth and drown his words) to speak out plainly, or else he shall give thee such a gift that thou shalt understand him plainly. Of such power is God, for when the Apostles spake in the Hebrew tongue only, all that were present heard every man his own language. Doubt thou not, therefore, but if thou be desirous to learn thy duty out of that thy curate readeth to thee, God will make it plain unto thee though it be not plainly read. For he that could make the Hebrew tongue (which soundeth far otherwise than other tongues do) sound all manner of languages to every man his own language, can also make thine own language sound plain unto thee, though it were not spoken any thing plain. Thus seest thou that the cause of Sedition is not where thou layest it, for I have

[27]

SELECTIONS FROM THE WRITINGS OF ROBERT CROWLEY

309

declared to thee that thine own sin is the cause that thou art seditious. For Sedition is poured upon thee to plague thy former sin withal. Because thou knewest God by his creatures, and yet didst not honour him as God, he hath given thee over into a reprobate sense to do the thing that is unseemly, even to stand up against God and God’s ordinance, as I have said before! Now if I should demand of the greedy cormorants what they think should be the cause of Sedition, they would say:—“The peasant knaves be too wealthy, provender pricketh them! They know not themselves, they know no obedience, they regard no laws, they would have no gentlemen, they would have all men like themselves, they would have all things common! They would not have us masters of that which is our own! They will appoint us what rent we shall take for our grounds! We must not make the best of our own! These are jolly fellows! They will cast down our parks, and lay our pastures open! They will have the law in their own hands! They will play the king! They will compel the king to grant their requests! But as they like their fare at the breakfast they had this last summer, so let them do again.1 They have been meetly well cooled, and shall be yet better cooled if they quiet not themselves. We will teach them to know their betters. And because they would have all common we will leave them nothing. And if they once stir again, or do but once cluster together, we will hang them at their own doors! Shall we suffer the villains to disprove our doings? No, we will be lords of our own, and use it as we shall think good!” Oh good masters, what should I call you? You that have no name, you that have so many occupations and trades that there is no one name meet for you! You ungentle gentlemen! You churl’s chickens, I say! Give me leave to make answer for the poor idiots over whom ye triumph in this sort. And this one thing I shall desire of you that ye report me not to be one that favoureth their evil doings (for I take God to witness I hate both their evil doings and yours also), but give me leave to tell you as freely of your faults, as I have already told them of theirs. And forasmuch as you be strong and they weak, I shall desire you to bear with me though I be more earnest in rebuking your faults than I was in rebuking theirs. True it is, the poor men (whom ye call peasant knaves) have deserved more than you can devise to lay upon them. And if every one of them were able and should sustain as much punishment as they all were able to sustain, yet could they not sustain the plagues that they have deserved. But yet if their offence were laid in an equal balance with yours (as no doubt they are in the sight of God) doubt not but you should soon be ashamed of your part. For what can you lay unto their charge, but they have had examples of the same in you? If you charge them with disobedience, you were first disobedient. For without a law to bear you, yea contrary to the law which forbiddeth all manner of oppression and extortion, and that more is contrary to conscience, the ground of all good laws, ye enclosed from the poor their due commons, levied greater fines than heretofore have been levied, put them from the liberties (and in a manner inheritance) that they held by custom, and raised their rents. Yea, when there was a law 1 A reference to the rising of the summer 1549, when the rebels in the West of England and East Anglia were dealt with severely.

310

THE COMMONWEAL

[27]

ratified to the contrary, you ceased not to find means either to compel your tenants to consent to your desire in enclosing, or else ye found such mastership that no man durst gainsay your doings for fear of displeasure. And what obedience shewed you, when the king’s proclamations were sent forth, and commissions directed for the laying open of your enclosures, and yet you left not off to enclose still? Yea, what obedience was this which ye shewed at such time as the king’s most honourable council, perceiving the grudging that was among the people, sent forth the second proclamation concerning your negligence, or rather contempt, in not laying open that which contrary to the good statutes made in Parliament you had enclosed? It appeareth by your doings that there was in you neither obedience to your prince and his laws, nor love to your country. For if there had been obedience in you, you would forthwith have put all his laws in execution to the uttermost of your power. And if you had loved your country, would you not have prevented the great destruction that chanced by the reason of your insatiable desire? I am sure you be not rulers in your country, but ye can see before what is likely to follow upon such oppression, and especially in a realm that hath heretofore had a noble and a valiant commonalty. But grant ye were so beastish, yet have you not lacked them that have told you of it both by words and writings. You have been told of it I say, and have had the threatenings of God laid plainly before your eyes, wherein you must needs see the vengeance of God hanging over your heads for your lack of mercy. There is not one story of the Bible that serveth to declare how ready God is to take vengeance for the oppression of his people, but the same hath been declared unto you to the uttermost; beside the notable histories and chronicles of this realm, wherein doth most plainly appear the justice of God in the revenging of his people at such time as they have kept themselves in quiet obedience to their prince and rulers, and their destruction when they have rebelled. Wittingly and willingly, therefore, ye have both disobeyed your king and his laws, and also brought your country into the misery it is in, by pulling upon yourselves that vengeance of God which of his justice he cannot hold back from such people as do willingly and wittingly oppress him in his members in such sort as ye have done. How you have obeyed the laws in raking together of farms, purchasing and prowling for benefices, robbing the people of good ministers thereby, all the world seeth, and all godly hearts lament. Look at the statutes made in the time of our late sovereign of famous memory Henry the VIII, and say, if ye may, by those statutes (taken in their true meaning) either being no priests nor students in the Universities, have benefices, or other spiritual promotions (as you call them, for ye are ashamed to call them ministrations because ye neither will nor can minister) or being priests have pluralities of such ministrations. Well, I will burden you no more with your faults, lest perhaps you cannot well bear them. But this I shall say unto you:—You shall never the sooner be gentlemen for your stout oppression, nor the later have things in private for that ye let your tenants live by you upon their labour. And think not to prosper the better in your insatiable desire, for that you triumph so lordlike over the poor caitiffs that, being seduced by the vain hope of victory, promised them in pious prophecies, have greatly offended God by rebellion: for the greater their offence is the greater shall your plague be when it cometh. For you have been the only cause of

[27]

SELECTIONS FROM THE WRITINGS OF ROBERT CROWLEY

311

their offence. If he, therefore, that is the occasion of one man’s falling unto any kind of vice were better have a millstone tied about his neck and be cast into the deep sea withal, what shall be thought of you that have been the occasion of so many men falling into so detestable sin and trespass against God, as to disturb the whole estate of their country with the great peril and danger of their anointed king in his tender age, whose blood (if he had perished) should have been required at your hands, as the blood of all them that have perished shall? Oh merciful God, were it not that God’s mercy is more than your sins can be, there were no way but to despair of forgiveness! But God is not only mighty in mercy and able to forgive all the sins of the whole world, but he is also ready to forgive all that return from their wicked ways, and with a constant faith and sure belief to obtain, do call on him for mercy. I advertise you, therefore, and in the name of Christ (whose name you bear) I require you that without delay ye return to your hearts and acknowledge your grievous and manifold offences, committed in your behaviour towards the poor members of Christ (your brethren both by religion and nation) whom you have so cruelly oppressed, and wish even from the bottom of your hearts that you had never done it. Be fully determined to make restitution of that ye have miss-taken, though ye should leave yourselves nothing. For better is a clear conscience in the hour of death in a beggar’s bosom than mountains of gold with a conscience that is guilty. Wish that you had contented yourselves with that state wherein your fathers left you, and strive not to set your children above the same, lest God take vengeance on you both suddenly when ye be most hasty to climb. And if for your worthiness God have called you to office so that ye may with good conscience take upon you the state that ye be called unto, then see you deal justly in all points, and follow not filthy lucre to make your children lords, but study to furnish them with all knowledge and godly manners that they may worthily succeed you. Grudge not to see the people grow in wealth under you, neither do you invent ways to keep them bare, lest haply it chance unto you as it did to king Nebuchadnezzar1 and his servants when they devised ways to keep the Hebrews in slavery still. They rebelled not, but quietly did their labour, referring their cause to God. They prepared not for wars, neither had any confidence in their own strength, but when the Egyptians thought to have had a fair day at them, God drowned them all in the Red Sea, and drove their dead bodies on land in such sort that they, whom they thought to keep still in slavery, might easily take the spoil of them. Think not, therefore, but if the people quiet themselves in their oppression, and call unto God for deliverance he will by one means or other give them the spoil of their oppressors. He is as mighty now as he was in those days, and is now as able to slay both you and yours in one night as he was to slay all the firstborn of the Egyptians. And then who shall have the spoil? Be warned betimes, lest ye repent too late! Leave off your greedy desire to pull away the living from the clergy, and seek diligently to set such ministers in the church as be able and will instruct the people in all points of their duty, that you with them and they with you may escape the wrath of God that hangeth presently over you both. The king and citizens of Nineveh 1

Pharaoh.

312

THE COMMONWEAL

[27]

were not ashamed to sit in sackcloth and in ashes lamenting their sins, and thereupon found mercy. Wherefore, if ye will find mercy, ye must not be ashamed to do the like, for certainly the greatness of your sins importeth as present destruction to you as if ye were the same Ninevites that Jonas was sent unto. Be not ashamed, therefore, to proclaim a solemn fast throughout the whole realm, that all at once with one voice we may cry unto God for mercy. Leave offyour communions in a corner and come to the open temples, that men may see that ye regard the Lord’s institution. Break your bread to the poor, that all men may see that ye regard fasting. For that is the true fast, to refrain the meat and drink that accustomably we were wont to take, and give the same (or the value thereof) to the needy. So shall you both feel and know their disease, and ease it also. Trust not to your great number of valiant warriors, neither to your mighty provisions, but remember what befell to Holofernes the stout captain of king Nebuchadnezzar, when he would not hearken to the right advice of Achior, his undercaptain. For certainly I say unto you God was never more ready to deliver his people of Israel from oppression at all times when they, walking in his ways, committed their cause unto him, than he is now ready to deliver all Christian men that do with like confidence call upon him. If you, therefore, will not hearken unto Achior his counsel, but determine to torment him when ye shall triumph over the rest, doubt you not but Judith shall cut off all your heads one after another, and God shall strike your retinue with such a fear that none shall be so bold as once to turn his face. Yea, if there were no men left alive to put them in fear, they should be feared with shadows! And though there were no guns to shoot at them, yet the stones of the street should not cease to fly among them, by the mighty power of God, who will rather make of every grass in the field a man than such as trust in him should be overrun or kept in oppression. Be warned, therefore, and seek not to keep the commons of England in slavery, for that is the next way to destroy yourselves! For if they commit their cause to God and quiet themselves in their vocation, being contented with oppression, if God’s will be so, then shall ye be sure that God will fight for them, and so are ye overmatched. But if they will needs take in hand to revenge their own wrong, God will fight against you both, so that you both, consuming one the other, shall shortly be made a prey to them that ye doubt least of all the world. As you tender your own wealth, therefore, and the public wealth of this noble realm of England, which God hath enriched with so many and so great commodities, and as you desire to use and enjoy the same, and not to be led away captive into a strange nation, or else be cruelly murdered among your wives, kinsfolk, and children, and finally to be damned for ever; so look upon these causes of Sedition, and do your best endeavour to put them away. You that be oppressed, I say, refer your cause to God. And you that have oppressed, lament your so doing and do the office of your calling, in defending the innocent and feeding the needy, Let not covetousness contsrain you to rob the people of that portion which they pay to have godly ministers to instruct them in their duty, and to relieve the unwieldy that be not able to labour for their food. Be careful and diligent to seek for such ministers, and, when you have found them, let

[27]

SELECTIONS FROM THE WRITINGS OF ROBERT CROWLEY

313

them have all that the people pay yearly out of their increase, that they may live thereon and minister unto the poor out of the same. Thus doing, ye shall not only escape the vengeance that hangeth presently over you but also be rewarded at God’s hand, both with exceeding plenty of all good things in this life, and also with life everlasting when nature shall end the same. Whereas, if ye will not take counsel but remain still in your wicked purpose, Pharaoh nor the Sodomites were never so hardened as you shall be, neither is the remembrance of their destruction so terrible to us as the destruction of you shall be to others that shall come after. The spirit of God work in your hearts, that ye, being admonished of the sword that is coming, may by repentance of your sin escape the danger thereof. So be it.

(ii) An information and Peticion agaynst the oppressors of the pore Commons of this Realme This work is cast in the form of a petition to the Parliament of Edward VI. The theme is that no subject needed speedier attention than the oppressions inflicted by clergy and laity alike upon the poor commons of the realm. Crowley launches a fierce attack on the possessioners, leasemongers landlords, who, through their unreasonable fines and rack rents, are the cause of great misery. (Crowley, Works, 153–176)

To the most honourable Lords of the Parliament with the commons of the same: their most humble and daily orator, Robert Crowley, wisheth the assistance of God’s Holy Spirit. Among the manifold and most weighty matters (most worthy counsellors) to be debated and communed of in this present Parliament,1 and by the advice, assent, and consent thereof speedily to be redressed, I think there is no one thing more needful to be spoken of than the great oppression of the poor commons by the possessioners, as well of Clergy as of the Laity. No doubt it is needful, and there ought to be a speedy redress of many matters of religion, as are these:—The use of the sacraments and ceremonies; the usurping of tenths to private commodity; the superfluous, unlearned, indiscreet, and vicious ministers of the church, and their superstitious and idolatrous administrations. Of these things, I say, ought there to be a speedy reformation. For they are now most like hastily to bring upon this noble realm the inevitable vengeance of God if they be not shortly reformed; forasmuch as it hath pleased the almighty and living God to open unto us those abominations, which have heretofore been kept secret and hid from us. These things, I say, are yet far out of joint, and had great need to be reformed. For notwithstanding the king’s majesty’s late visitation, the ignorant people, who have long been fostered and brought up in the superstition and wrong belief of these things, and are yet, no doubt, secretly instructed by their blind guides and by them holden still in blindness, will not be persuaded that their forefathers’ superstition was not the true faith of Christ, till such time as they have continuing among them such preachers as shall be able, and will, by the manifest Scriptures, prove unto them that both they and their fathers were deceived and knew not how to worship God aright; but shamefully seduced by the covetousness of the shepherds and guides, sought him where he was not; and when they thought they had been most high in his favour, by doing him such honour 1

Probably the Parliament which met in January 1549.

314

THE COMMONWEAL

[27]

as they thought most acceptable in his sight, then committed they most detestable blasphemy, and were abominable before him. This knowledge, I say, will not be beaten into the heads of the ignorant, so long as their shepherds be but hirelings and follow livings, for such minister not to the congregation but to their own bellies. They are not shepherds but butchers. They come not to feed, but to be fed. And doubtless, (most Christian counsellors) I think it not possible to amend this great enormity, otherwise than by reducing the order of choosing of the ministers unto the order that was in the primitive church, whereof is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. For so long as idle bellies may come to the bishop and be smeared for money, God shall say to them by his Prophet, “You did run but I sent you not.” They shall be called feeders of feeding themselves, and not of feeding the flock. They shall study to please men and not to please God. In fine, they shall differ nothing from the craftsmen which apply an occupation to get their living upon, and not to the intent to profit the common weal. The craftsman sueth for the freedom of a city, not because he intendeth to be a maintainer of the city, but because he hopeth that he shall live so much the more wealthily himself. And even for like causes do our ministers, and are like still to do (so long as they may be received when they come uncalled) apply themselves to priesting, because they like well the idleness of the life. I doubt not but the king’s majesty’s visitors know more of this matter than I can be able to write. And by them, I doubt not, you shall be moved to commune of this matter at the full. The sacraments they still abuse, using them as matters of merchandise, and chiefly the most worthy memory of our redemption; for that they sell both to the quick and to the dead, to the rich and to the poor. None shall receive it at their hands without he will pay the ordinary shot, and so are they ready to serve every man. They look upon the money only and nothing upon the mind. Whether it be taken to comfort of conscience or judgment, they pass not; they tell the money, they look for no more. If they will deny this to be true, let them say why they suffer the poor to beg money to pay for their housel, as they call it? Perchance they will answer that the money is not paid for the sacrament, but for the four offering days? Then ask I this question:— Why they appoint not another time to receive it in than that time which is too little to be occupied in declaring to the people the right use and profit of the sacraments, and to instruct them, so that they do not receive it to their judgment, but to their comfort and quietness of conscience, for which purpose it was first instituted? Undoubtedly (most Christian counsellors) they cannot deny but that they appoint to receive it then because they will be sure of it. Their doings will declare it though they would deny it, for none may receive the sacraments unless he do first pay the money. And then, with how little reverence it is ministered and received every Christian heart seeth and lamenteth. These things (I doubt not) are so evident and plain unto you that it needeth not to trouble you with many words concerning the abuses thereof. Many godly-minded men have both written and preached, and do daily write and preach, of and against those

[27]

SELECTIONS FROM THE WRITINGS OF ROBERT CROWLEY

315

abuses; wherefore I am certain that you have just occasion and can do no less but seek a further redress hereof (which all Christian hearts do desire) in this present parliament. But as for the oppression of the poor, which is no less needful to be communed of and reformed than the other, I fear me will be passed over with silence, or if it be communed of, I can scarcely trust that any reformation can be had; unless God do now work in the hearts of the possessioners of this realm, as he did in the primitive church, when the possessioners were contented and very willing to sell their possessions and give the price thereof to be common to all the faithful believers. Take me not here that I should go about by these words to persuade men to make all things common; for if you do, you mistake me. For I take God to witness I mean no such thing. But with all mine heart I would wish that no man were suffered to eat but such as would labour in their vocation and calling according to the rule that Paul gave to the Thessalonians. But yet I would wish that the possessioners would consider who gave them their possessions, and how they ought to bestow them. And then (I doubt not) it should not need to have all things made common. For what needeth it the servants of the household to desire to have their master’s goods common, so long as the steward ministereth unto every man the thing that is needful for him? If the possessioners would consider themselves to be but stewards and not lords over their possessions this oppression would soon be redressed. But so long as this persuasion sticketh in their minds,—“It is mine own; who shall warn me to do with mine own as myself listeth?”—it shall not be possible to have any redress at all. For if I may do with mine own as me listeth, then may I suffer my brother, his wife, and his children to lie in the street, except he will give me more rent for mine house than ever he shall be able to pay. Then may I take his goods for that he oweth me, and keep his body in prison, turning out his wife and children to perish, if God will not move some man’s heart to pity them, and yet keep my coffers full of gold and silver. If there were no God, then would I think it lawful for men to use their possessions as they list. Or if God would not require an accompt of us for the bestowing of them I would not greatly gainsay, though they took their pleasure of them whilst they lived here. But forasmuch as we have a God, and he hath declared unto us by the Scriptures that he hath made the possessioners but stewards of his riches, and that he will hold a straight accompt with them for the occupying and bestowing of them; I think no Christian ears can abide to hear that more than Turkish opinion. The philosophers who knew nothing of the bond of friendship which Christ our Master and Redeemer left among us, affirmed that among friends all things are common, meaning that friendship would not suffer one friend to hold from another the thing that he hath need of. And what shall we say? Are we not friends? Surely if we be not friends, we bear the name of Christ and be called Christians in vain. Yea, if we have not a more perfect friendship than that whereof the philosophers speak, we are but feigned Christians, we bear the name only and are nothing less in deed. For this is the token that Christ gave whereby we should be known to be of him:—“If we love one another as he loved us”. How he loved us is declared by the words of the Apostle, saying that

316

THE COMMONWEAL

[27]

Christ gave himself for us. According to this example ought our friendship to be such that we will not spare to spend our life for the wealth of our brothers. Not to fight in their quarrel (for Christ bade Peter put up the sword into his place) but to teach the truth boldly, without any fear of death, and not to suffer our brothers to be led in error, though present death should ensue for so doing. Some, perchance, will think that this friendship is to be understood only of the pastors and shepherds toward their flock; because Christ sayeth that a good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep. Forsooth, if the pastors or shepherds only were the flock of Christ, then might this friendship right well be understood of them only. But for-asmuch as the lay and private persons are as well of the flock of Christ as the other, this friendship pertaineth unto them no less than to the other. And this causeth me (most worthy counsellors) not to fear the displeasure of men in this behalf; knowing for certainty that the greatest number of this assembly are not free from this oppression that I speak of, and that it is far unlike that a private person, by no means worthy to be called to such an assembly, should be favourably heard and accepted of them whom God hath called to be counsellors of a realm; and chiefly in a cause taxing and blaming the judges before whom it is pleaded. I might well conjecture with myself that I should in this point be counted a busy body, and one that runneth before he is sent. But I am ready to suffer not only all such report, but even the very death also (if it shall please the almighty and everliving God to lay it upon me) for your sakes, most worthy counsellors, and the residue, my natural brothers of this noble realm. And here I protest unto you all that the same spirit that sent Jonas to the Ninevites, Daniel to the Babylonians, Nathan to King David, Achior unto Holofernes, Judith unto the Priests and Elders of the Jews, the prophet to Jeroboam in Bethel, John the Baptist unto Herod, and Christ unto the Jews, witnesseth with my conscience that I ran not unsent. For even the same spirit that said unto Isaiah, “Cry and cease not declare unto my people their wickedness;” crieth also in my conscience, bidding me not spare to tell the possessioners of this realm that unless they repent the oppression wherewith they vex the poor commons, and shew themselves, through love, to be brothers of one father and members of one body with them, they shall not at the last day inherit with them the kingdom of Christ, the eldest son of God the Father, which hath by his Word begotten him many brothers and coinheritors in his kingdom. Unless, I say, the possessioners of this realm will repent the violence done to the poor and needy members of the same, and become as hands, ministering unto every member his necessaries, they shall, at the day of their accompt, be bound hand and foot and cast into utter darkness, where shall be weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth; that is, dolour and pain, the greatness whereof cannot be expressed with tongue nor thought with heart. And this much more saith the Spirit. Unless ye purge yourselves of this blood, and stop the mouths of the poor that the voice of their complaint come not unto mine ears, I will not prosper your counsels in the reformations of those abominations which I shewed unto you, but will leave you to the spirit of error, the prince of this world, whose darlings ye are so long as ye seek not the wealth of the needy, but your own private commodity. These things hath the Spirit of God spoken. Heaven and earth shall perish, but the

[27]

SELECTIONS FROM THE WRITINGS OF ROBERT CROWLEY

317

words of the Spirit shall not perish, but be fulfilled. Now hearken, you possessioners, and you rich men lift up your ears; ye stewards of the Lord, mark what complaints are laid against you in the high court of the living God. “Lord” (saith the Prophet) “hast thou forsaken us? Dost thou hide thyself in the time of our trouble? Whilst the wicked wax proud the poor man is afflicted and troubled. Would to God the wicked might feel the same things that they invent for other. For the sinner praiseth himself in the desires of his soul, and he extolleth and setteth forth the covetous man. He provoketh the Lord and is so proud that he will not seek him. He never thinketh upon God. His ways be defiled at all times. He looketh not upon thy judgments, Lord, he will revenge him upon all his enemies. “He thinketh thus with himself, I will not remove from one generation unto another without mischief. His mouth is full of malediction and evil report, fraud and deceit, and under his tongue is affliction and iniquity. “He lieth in wait with the rich men of the villages or granges, in secret corners, to the intent to slay the innocent. His eyes are fixed upon the poor; he lieth await even as a lion in his den. He lieth await to take the poor man by force, and when he hath gotten him within his reach, then will he take him violently. In his net will he over-throw the poor, and through his strength shall the multitude of the oppressed be over-charged and fall. For in his heart he saith, God hath forgotten, God turneth away his face, and will never regard the oppression of the poor,” etc., to the end of the same Psalm. What sentence (think you) will the Lord give upon this evidence? No doubt (most worthy counsellors) even the same that we read in Isaiah the Prophet :—“I looked for judgment and righteous dealing amongst my people, and behold there is iniquity, I looked also for justice, and behold there is an outcry. Woe be unto you therefore that do join house unto house and couple one field to another, so long as there is any ground to be had. Think you that you shall dwell upon the earth alone? The Lord of hosts (saith the Prophet) hath spoken these words unto me. Many large and goodly houses shall be desert and without inhabitants; ten acres of vines shall yield but one quart of wine, and thirty bushels of seed shall yield but ten bushels again.” Behold, you engrossers of farms and tenements, behold, I say, the terrible threatenings of God, whose wrath you cannot escape. The voice of the poor (whom you have with money thrust out of house and home) is well accepted in the ears of the Lord, and hath stirred up his wrath against you. He threateneth you most horrible plagues. Ten acres of vines shall yield but one quart of wine, and thirty bushels of seed but ten bushels again. The seed of God’s Word sown in your hearts shall be barren and not bring forth fruit. For covetousness, the root of all evils, occupieth that ground so that the heavenly seed can by no means give increase. This is a plague, of all plagues most horrible. And doubt ye not, you lease-mongers, that take grounds by lease to the intent to let them out again for double and triple the rent, your part is in this plague. The Lord shall take his Spirit from you. He shall forbid the clouds of his mercy to rain upon you with the sweet dew of his grace. And you surveyors of lands, that often pound land can make twenty, you shall not be forgotten in the effusion of this plague. For when you have multiplied your rents to the highest, so that ye have made all

318

THE COMMONWEAL

[27]

your tenants your slaves to labour and toil and bring to you all that may be ploughed and dug out of your grounds, then shall death suddenly strike you, then shall God withdraw his comfortable grace from you, then shall your conscience prick you, then shall you think with desperate Cain that your sin is greater than that it may be forgiven. For your own conscience shall judge you worthy no mercy, because you have shewed no mercy. Yea, the same enemy that hath kindled and doth yet maintain in you this mischievous, outrageous, and insatiable covetousness, shall then be as busy to put you in mind of the words of Christ, saying, “the same measure that you have made unto other shall be now made unto you.” You have shewed no mercy, how can you then look for mercy? Oh noble counsellors, be merciful to yourselves. Destroy not your own souls to enrich your heirs. Enlarge not your earthly possessions with the loss of the eternal inheritance. Learn to know the estate that God hath called you unto, and to live according to your profession. Know that you are all ministers in the common weal, and that the portion which you are born unto, or that your prince giveth you, is your estate. Know that your office is to distribute and not to scrape together on heaps. God hath not set you to survey his lands, but to play the stewards in his household of this world, and to see that your poor fellow servants lack not their necessaries. Consider that you are but ministers and servants under the Lord our God, and that you shall render a straight accompt of your administration. Stand not too much in your own conceit, glorying in the worthiness of your blood; for we are all one man’s children, and have (by nature) like right to the riches and treasures of this world, whereof our natural father Adam was made Lord and King. Which of you can lay for himself any natural cause why he should possess the treasure of this world, but that the same cause may be found in him also whom you make your slave? By nature (therefore) you can claim nothing but that which you shall get with the sweat of your faces. That you are lords and governors therefore, cometh not by nature but by the ordinance and appointment of God. Know then that he hath not called you to the wealth and glory of this world, but hath charged you with the great and rede1 multitude. And if any of them perish through your default, know then for certainty that the blood of them shall be required at your hands. If the impotent creatures perish for lack of necessaries, you are the murderers, for you have their inheritance and do minister unto them. If the sturdy fall to stealing, robbing, and ravening, then are you the causers thereof, for you dig in, enclose, and withold from them the earth out of the which they should dig and plough their living. For as the Psalmist writeth:—“All the heaven is the Lords; but as for the earth he hath given to the children of men”. The whole earth therefore (by birth right) belongeth to the children of men. They are all inheritors thereof indifferently by nature. But because the sturdy should not oppress the weak and impotent, God hath appointed you stewards to give meat unto his household in due season. And if you be found faithful in this little, then know that he will prefer you to much greater things. 1

?scattered.

[27]

SELECTIONS FROM THE WRITINGS OF ROBERT CROWLEY

319

But if ye be found oppressing your fellow servants, then know for certainty that the Lord your Master shall at his coming reward you with many stripes. Call to your remembrance the history of King Nebuchadnezzar, who, for his presumption became as a brute beast, feeding upon grass and hay as other beasts did. Consider Pharaoh with his great army, whom the Lord overwhelmed in the Red Sea for oppressing and persecuting his people. Yea, consider all the nobility that have possessed the earth even from the beginning; and then say how you be their successors, and by what title you may claim that which was theirs. Many hundred years since the noble Romans held all Europa and part of Africa and Asia in quiet possession; and where are they that succeed them in their empire? The brutish Goths invaded and vanquished the empire of Rome; and where are their successors? What should I stand in the rehearsal of the great possessioners that have heretofore possessed the earth, whose lineal descent cannot be found? It shall suffice me to remit you to the words of the Lord unto Nebuchadnezzar, which are written in the book of Daniel the Prophet. There shall you learn that it is God that giveth the empire to whom it pleaseth him, and that all power is from above, according to the answer that our saviour Christ made unto Pilate, when he bragged him with the power that he had to crucify him and to deliver him. “Thou shouldest,” said our Saviour “have no power over me at all were it not given thee from above.” Thus is it evident unto you (most worthy counsellors) that your power and estate cometh from above; and that by nature you can claim nothing of the possessions of this world more than that which you get with the sweat of your faces. I doubt not, therefore, but that your consciences do condescend and agree unto that which I have spoken concerning your office and ministry; knowing that God hath appointed you to minister necessaries to the impotent, and to defend the innocent. Do not, therefore, neglect this principal point of your duty, to seek in this parliament a redress of this great oppression wherewith the poor members of this noble realm are most unmercifully vexed on every side. The landlords for their parts, survey and make the uttermost penny of all their grounds, besides the unreasonable fines and incomes, and he that will not or can not give all that they demand shall not enter, be he never so honest, or stand he never so great need. Yea, though he have been an honest, true, faithful and quiet tenant many years, yet at the vacation of his copy, or indenture, he must pay almost as much as would purchase so much ground, or else void in haste, though he, his wife, and children should perish for lack of harbour. What a sea of mischiefs hath flowed out of this more than Turkish tyranny! What honest householders have been made followers of other not so honest men’s tables! What honest matrons have been brought to the needy rock and cards! What menchildren of good hope in the liberal sciences, and other honest qualities (whereof this realm hath great lack) have been compelled to fall, some to handicrafts, and some to

320

THE COMMONWEAL

[27]

day labour, to sustain their parents’ decrepit age and miserable poverty! What forward and stubborn children have hereby shaken off the yoke of godly chastisement, running headlong into all kinds of wickedness, and finally garnished gallow trees! What modest, chaste, and womanly virgins have, for lack of dowry, been compelled either to pass over the days of their youth in ungrate servitude, or else to marry to perpetual miserable poverty! What immodest and wanton girls have hereby been made sisters of the Bank (the stumbling stock of all frail youth) and finally, most miserable creatures, lying and dying in the streets full of all plagues and penury! What universal destruction chanceth to this noble realm by this outrageous and insatiable desire of the surveyors of lands! I report me to you (most Christian counsellors) which are here assembled from all parts of this noble realm to consult for the wealth of all the members of the same. On the other side there be certain tenants not able to be landlords, and yet, after a sort, they counterfeit landlords by obtaining leases in and upon grounds and tenements, and so raise fines, incomes, and rents; and by such pillage pick out a portion to maintain a proud port, and all by pilling and polling of the poor commons, that must of necessity seek habitations at their hands. That this is true, I report me to my Lord the Mayor, and other the head officers of the City of London, who (if they be not ignorant of the state of the City) can witness with me that the most part, yea, I think nine of the ten parts of the houses in London be set and let by them that have them by lease and not by the owners. How they poll the poor tenants would soon be tried if their leases were conferred with their rent-rolls. It is not to be thought contrary but that the great leasemongers have great gains by their leases, and the little ones, that hold but a piece of housing of twenty or thirty shillings by year, can find the means to hold and dwell upon the chief part thereof rent free, by letting out the residue for the whole yearly rent. I think not contrary, but these things do appear in the sight of many to be but very trifles, and not worthy to be spoken of in so noble an assembly as this most honourable Parliament. For they are no matters concerning the wealth of the nobility; yea, it is rather hindrance to many of them to have these things redressed than any increase of their wealth. Yea, even you (most Christian counsellors) which are here assembled to debate the weighty matters of this realm are not all so free from this kind of oppression but that you could be well contented to wink at it. And therefore, forasmuch as the in-ordinate love of men toward themselves is such that either they cannot see their own faults, or else if they do see them or be told of them, they take them not to be so great as they are indeed; I think it no marvel, though such of you (most worthy counsellors) as have any profit by this oppression do within themselves deride and laugh to scorn my foolhardiness and rash enterprise herein, knowing that it is not the use of them that be assembled to the intent to establish such things as shall be for the wealth of a whole realm to condescend and agree to those things which shall be unprofitable unto the chief members of the same. Truth it is (most worthy counsellors) I might well and worthily be laughed at if I

[27]

SELECTIONS FROM THE WRITINGS OF ROBERT CROWLEY

321

would attempt any such thing. But the thing that hitherto I have spoken of is not to the disprofit of any, but to the great commodity and profit of all the whole realm. For what discommodity is it to the head, shoulders, the arms, and other the upper members of the body, being already sufficiently clothed, to put on the legs and feet a pair of hose and shoes to defend them also from the injuries of the weather, and other hurts that might chance unto them in their travelling to carry the body from place to place, for his commodity and pleasure? Verily, in mine opinion, that body is far unworthy to have either legs or feet that will let them go bare, having wherewith to cover them. Even so you, being the chief members of this noble realm, and having in your hands the wonderful and incomparable riches of the same, what should it grieve you to depart with some portion thereof, that the inferior members thereof may at all times be able to do their ministry and office accordingly. Once remember, that as the body without the inferior parts is but lame and as a block unwieldy, and must, if it will remove from place to place, creep upon the hands; even so you, if ye had not the poor members of this realm to till the ground and do your other drudgery, no remedy, you must needs do it yourselves. Use them therefore as the necessary members of the mystical body of this most noble realm, and be not in this point more unnatural than the heathen philosophers were. They in their writings declare no less than I have here written. This ought not a little to move you, being Christians (whose Redeemer, Jesu Christ, sitteth at the right hand of God his Father) to study, not only to be equal with, but to pass the heathen and unchristian in this matter, even as far as the excellence of the name and religion which we profess passeth theirs. Remember (most Christian counsellors) that you are not only naturally members of one body with the poor creatures of this realm, but also by religion you are members of the same mystical body of Christ, who is the head of us all (his members), and esteemeth all that is done to the least of us his members as done to himself. For he saith:— “Whatsoever ye do to one of the least of these little ones that believe in me, ye do it unto me.” If you, therefore, neither will yourselves oppress our Saviour Christ in his members, nor suffer other to do it, fail not to find a redress of this great oppression which I have declared to the same end. And then I doubt not but God shall so work with you that every man shall willingly embrace a reformation of all matters of religion. For the Spirit of God shall dwell in you and in us all, and Christ himself (as he hath promised) shall be in the midst among you. Whereas, contrariwise, if you suffer our loving Saviour thus to be oppressed he will forsake you, he will leave you to the spirit of error. Your reformations shall take no place. All your devices shall be abominable in his sight, because ye have not purged your hands from the blood of this oppression. Let the decrees which were established in this place by a Parliament assembled for a like purpose be your precedent, not to follow, but to beware by them that ye establish not the like.

322

THE COMMONWEAL

[27]

The intent of that assembly was no less to reform the abuses of our religion than this is. But because Christ was not delivered from oppression he would not be among them. They were not congregated in his name, but rather against him and his doctrine, for he himself is dear love, and (as his Apostle John writeth) where this dear love is not, there is not he. This thing is well proved by their proceedings in the same Parliament. For they established Articles1 even directly against God’s word forbidding to marry, and commanding to put asunder those that God hath joined together. If you will call these Articles into question again (as indeed you have just occasion to do) I doubt not but you shall be fully persuaded that they proceeded of the spirit of error, and not of the Spirit of God; because the charity of God was not among them in that assembly. Other things there be whereby the poor members of Christ in this noble realm are oppressed; whereof I have made no mention, partly because I am loth to offend with the multitude of my rude words and partly for that I know you cannot seek for a redress of these things whereof I have spoken. But the other will offer themselves unto you, I mean the great extortion and usury that reigneth freely in this realm, and seem to be authorised by Parliament within these three years last past. The clergy of the City of London have, for their part, obtained by Parliament authority to over tenths even after the example of the landlords and leasemongers, and may, by the virtue of the act, require for double rents double tenths. If the rent of any kind of housing or ground within the City of London be raised (as there is indeed very much) from ten shillings to twenty shillings then may the parson (who had before but sixteen pence ha’penny) by the virtue of this act demand two shillings and ninepence, the double. Besides this, the exactions that they take of the poor commons is too much beyond all reason and conscience. No couple can be married but these men must have a duty, as they call it. No woman may be purified but they and their idle ministers must have some duties of her. None can be buried but they will have a slice. Not three months before the beginning of this present Parliament I had just occasion to be at the payment of this duty for the burying of an honest poor man, whose friends were willing to have his body reverently laid in the ground; and, according to the custom, gave warning to the curate that they would bring the dead body to the church desiring him that he would do his duty, and to be there to receive it, and according to the custom to lay it in the ground. But this raven, smelling the carrion, could not but reveal it to the other carrion birds of the, same church, and so would needs come all together in a flock to fetch their prey, with cross and holy water as they were wont to do, notwithstanding the King’s Injunctions and late visitation. The friends of the dead man refused all this, and required to have no more but the common coffin to put the body in, agreeing to pay to the keeper thereof his accustomed duty, and in like manner to the grave maker, and the four poor men to carry the body, so that the whole charges had been but seven pence. But when the corpse was buried, without either cross or holy water stick, Dirige, or Mass, with prayers of as small devotion as any poor curate could say, yet must we 1

St. 31, Hen. VIII, c. 14.

[27]

SELECTIONS FROM THE WRITINGS OF ROBERT CROWLEY

323

needs pay seven pence more. That is to say one penny to the curate, which he called an head penny, and sixpence to two clerks that we had no need of. This was done in Sepulchre’s parish in the City of London. And if it shall please any of this noble assembly to try the truth of this, I will verify it wheresoever I shall be called, even in the presence of all the idle ministers of the same church. This have I written (most worthy counsellors) to give you occasion to set such an order in this and such other things that either we may have ministers found upon the tenths that we pay yearly to the churches, or else that it may be lawful for us to do such ministries ourselves, and not to be thus constrained to feed a sort of carrion crows, which are never so merry as when we lament the loss of our friends. This much have I spoken of the extortion that reigneth freely in the clergy. Now, with your patience, I will, with like brevity, speak of the great and intolerable usury which at this day reigneth so freely this realm over all, and chiefly in the City of London, that it is taken for most lawful gains. Yea, it is almost heresy to reprove it, for men say it is allowed by Parliament. Well, the most part, I am sure, of this most godly assembly and Parliament do know that the occasion of the act that passed here concerning usury1 was the insatiable desire of the usurers, who could not be contented with usury unless it were unreasonably much. To restrain this greedy desire of theirs, therefore, it was communed and agreed upon, and by the authority of Parliament decreed, that none should take over ten pounds by year for the loan of a hundred pounds. Alas, that ever any Christian assembly should be so void of God’s Holy Spirit that they should allow for lawful anything that God’s Word forbiddeth. Be not abashed (most worthy counsellors) to call this act into question again. Scan the words of the Psalmist concerning this matter. “Lord”, saith he, “who shall enter into thy tabernacle, and who shall rest in thy holy mountain?” He answereth: “That entereth without spot and worketh right. That speaketh truth in his heart, and hath not deceived with his tongue; that hath done his neighbour no harm, nor accepted any reproach against his neighbour. He regardeth not the wicked, but them that fear the Lord he glorifieth and praiseth. He that sweareth to his neighbour and deceiveth him not. He that hath not given his money unto usury, and hath not taken gifts and rewards against the innocent.” If you (most Christian counsellors) do glory in the knowledge of God’s Spirit, who hath spoken these words by the Prophet, how can you suffer this act to stand which shall be a witness against you in the latter day that you allow that which God’s Spirit forbiddeth? If he that giveth not his money to usury shall dwell in the Lord’s tabernacle, where shall he dwell that giveth his money to usury? Shall he not be shut out, and cast into utter darkness? Their works be contrary, and why should not their reward be also contrary? If the one be received in, the other must be shut out. Yea, and you that have made this law, unless you do revoke it and establish an act to the contrary, the Bridegroom, the only Son of God, shall at the last day deny you, and say that he never knew you; “Depart from me,” shall he say, “all ye workers of iniquity”. Scan the words of the Prophet, therefore, and scan the words of our Saviour Christ also, in the six of 1

St. 37, Hen. VIII, c. 9.

324

THE COMMONWEAL

[27]

Luke, where he saith thus:—“Do you lend looking for no gains thereof, and your reward shall be plenteous, and you shall be sons of the Highest, because he is gentle and liberal toward the unthankful and wicked.” I am not ignorant what glosses have been made upon this place, and how men have wrested and made it no precept but a counsel of our Saviour; and therefore not to infer necessity to Christians, but to leave them at liberty either to do it or leave it undone. Oh merciful Lord, what manner of religion is it that these men profess? They boast themselves to be the disciples of Christ and setters forth of his glory. They will bear the name of him and be called Christians, and yet will be at liberty to choose whether they list to follow his counsel or leave it undone. Our shepherd Christ, of whose flock they boast themselves to be, saith that his sheep hear his voice and follow him. And immediately before he sheweth the cause why the Jews did not credit his words to be none other but that they were not his sheep. And doubt ye not (most worthy counsellors) whatsoever he is that will defend or teach that any one little iota of the counsels of Christ should be so vainly spoken that any of his flock might refuse to practise the same in his living to the uttermost of his power, is no less than a member of the Devil, and a very Antichrist. For he that desireth not in his heart to practise in his living all the counsels of Christ our Master and Teacher, shall be numbered among the obstinate Jews for none of the flock of Christ, because he heareth not his voice nor followeth him. Thus I make an end. Wishing unto you (most worthy counsellors) the same Spirit that in the primitive church gave unto the multitude of believers one heart, one mind, and to esteem nothing of this world as their own, ministering unto everyone according to his necessities; that you, led by the same Spirit may at the least way ordain such a law that the oppression of the poor reign not freely among them that bear the name of Christians. But if they will be still oppressing the poor members of Christ, after once or twice admonition let them no more be named Christians after Christ whom they serve not, but Mammonists after Mammon whose badge they bear. And this reformation had, no doubt the majesty of God shall so appear in all your decrees that none so wicked a creature shall be found so bold as once to open his mouth against the order that you shall take in all matters of religion. Yea, the very enemies of David shall do homage unto Solomon for his wisdom. All the kings christened shall learn at you to reform their churches. You shall be even the light of all the world. But, if you let these things pass and regard them not, be ye sure the Lord shall confound your wisdom. Invent, decree, establish, and authorise what you can; all shall come to nought. The ways that you shall invent to establish unity and concord shall be the occasions of discord. The things whereby you shall think to win praise through all the world shall turn to your utter shame; and the ways that you shall invent to establish a kingdom shall be the utter subversion of the same. The merciful Father of our Lord Jesus Christ endue you with his Spirit, that you be not partakers of these plagues. Amen.

[28]

CRITICISM OF SOCIETY

325

28. Criticism of society in the writings of Henry Brinkelowe (J.M.Cowper (ed.), The Complaynt of Roderyck Mors (E.E.T.S., 1874 pp 5–14:16– 18:37:48–53.) Henry Brinkelowe’s satires on social and religious topics appeared under the pseudonym of Roderigo Mors. They bring together most of the grievances and criticisms of early Tudor society voiced by the pamphleteers of the period. Written towards the end of Henry VIII’s reign Brinkelowe’s Complaynt has another significance. It reflects the disillusion which was beginning to haunt the reformers.

O

merciful Father, Almighty God, and everlasting, being without end or beginning, without whom nothing is, by whom alone all things have their being, both in heaven and earth. To thee, in whom only is all aid, to thee only do I cry for aid, inasmuch as thou hast the hearts of all men in thy hands (yea, even of princes), that it will please thee, of thy infinite mercy and for thy Son’s sake, Iesus Christ our only Redeemer, to send thy Holy Spirit into the hearts of all the degrees of men in the Parliament house: that this my complaint may receive favour in the sight of them that sit in the Parliament, whereby things needful may be redressed to the glory of thy name, the commodity of the commonwealth, and to the better provision for the poor; which is the thing that I only seek, as to thee, Oh Lord, it is not unknown.

Inasmuch as there is no power but of God, and whensoever any persons be grieved, oppressed, or over yoked, they must resort unto the higher powers for remedy, which be ordained of God only for the same cause; and inasmuch as the Council of Parliament is the head Council of all realms, for, it being done with the consent of the King, what laws soever be made thereby, being not against the Word of God, we be bound to observe them. And though they be against God’s Word, yet may we not bodily resist them with any war, violence, or insurrection, under pain of damnation. But now, contrariwise, as we may not resist the power of a prince, even so may we not observe nor walk in his wicked laws, if he make any against God’s word, but rather to suffer death; so that we may neither observe them, nor yet violently resist them in that case. Well then, inasmuch as the Parliament is of such power and strength, although I be a man banished my native country, only by the cruelty of the forked caps of England for speaking God’s truth, yet, seeing so many cruel laws and heavy yokes upon the shoulders of the people of my native country (especially upon the commons), and again considering how little the poor be regarded and provided for, I can but reckon myself bound to open and disclose unto the said Council of Parliament part of the aforesaid yokes. The ever-living God grant that they may be as ready to see them redressed as their predecessors were to bring the people into such calamity by the making of them! For the which cause I have made this little work, to cause them to have instruction, that they may see a reformation whereunto they be bound; and for such causes be they called together of God, and for no particular or private wealth to themselves, nor yet to the King’s grace. THE FIRST CHAPTER It is a laudable thing, that in the beginning of any council or assembly, the name of God should be called upon, that he of his mercy will send his Spirit to sanctify the hearts of

326

THE COMMONWEAL

[28]

them which bear any authority or stroke in the Council or Parliament, that they agree to such statutes and acts as be to the setting forth of God’s glory, the sanctifying of his name, and augmentation of his kingdom. For when we call upon God for such things, we either acknowledge, or should acknowledge, that we have need of his help, and that we cannot, without his assistance, neither determine nor yet assent to the determination of anything that may please God: for if we could, what need we to call upon him for any help? And it is certain and infallible, that if we, knock, seek and cry diligently, with earnest and hearty petitions, with true humbleness of our hearts, and without dissimulation, we shall be heard. Therefore, I say, it is both laudable and necessary, that all councils be begun with prayer unto our merciful Father, and in our prayers to open unto him our necessities, and to call upon him for aid to rule our hearts wholly to seek his glory. But this must be done earnestly with hearty mourning unto him; not slenderly, not for a face and custom only, as hath been hitherto used, to have an unholy Mass of the Holy Ghost rolled up with descant, pricksong, and organs, whereby men’s hearts be ravished clean both from God, and from the cogitation of all such things as they ought to pray for. Whereas it were more convenient, that they were diligently exhorted and put in mind to consider and ponder, whereunto they be called, and what a reckoning God will require of them. And, forasmuch as the most part of the lords and burgesses take it rather for an honour than for an office, wherefore they shall answer; and for a dignity, rather than for any burden, to be counted of the Parliament or Council house; and never ponder nor consider before, what things in the realm be amiss to be reformed by them, it were more necessary, in the stead of the mumbled and minced Mass (whereby neither God is glorified, nor the hearers edified), that some honest, well learned man, such one as would neither flatter lords, burgesses, commons, nor King, but frankly and freely speak the verity, should be appointed to preach not only at the beginning of the Parliament, but at the least 3 times every week so long as the Parliament endureth; and to stand in the pulpit an hour at the least, and not above an hour and a half, and there to tell the lords and burgesses their duties, and to open unto them such abuses as are to be reformed in the realm. And let all the lords and burgesses be bound to be present at every sermon, or else to be excluded the Parliament house. If ye will seek such ways, then will the Holy Ghost lighten your council, or else never, for all your piping and singing. And keep both lords and burgesses all in one house together; for it is not the riches or authority that bringeth wisdom. And what should one house make one act, and another shall break and disannul the same? That way is not after the doctrine of the Gospel. But now let us go to other matters. THE SECOND CHAPTER Of enhancing of rents by landlords, etc. Consider you, what a wickedness is commonly used through the realm unpunished, in the inordinate enhancing of rents, and taking of unreasonable fines, and every day worse than other; and even of them specially to whom the King hath given and sold the lands of those imps of Antichrist, abbeys and nunneries; which lands being in their hands, but only for that they led us in a false faith (as their companions the bishops still

[28]

CRITICISM OF SOCIETY

327

do)—but for the faith’s sake, I say (for the which they were justly suppressed), it had been more profitable, no doubt, for the commonwealth, that they had remained still in their hands. For why? They never enhanced their lands, nor took so cruel fines as do our temporal tyrants. For they cannot be content to let them at the old price, but raise them up daily, even to the clouds, either in the rent or in the fine, or else both; so that the poor man that laboureth and toileth upon it, and is his slave, is not able to live. And further, if another rich covetous carl, which hath too much already, will give anything more than he that dwelleth upon it, out he must, be he never so poor; though he should become a beggar, and after a thief, and so at length be hanged, by his outgoing: so little is the law of love regarded, oh cruel tyrannies! Yea, it is now a common use of the landlords, for every trifle, even for his friends pleasure, in case his tenant have not a lease, he shall put him out of his farm; which thing is both against the law of nature and of charity also, he being an honest man, paying his rent, and other duties well and honestly. I think there be no such wicked laws nor customs in the universal world again. What a shame is this to the whole realm, that we say we have received the Gospel of Christ, and yet is it worse now in this matter than it was over fifty or 60 years, when we had but the Pope’s law, as wicked as it was, for then leases were not known. And now the letting and engrossing of them (leases I mean) is one great cause of the enhancing of rents; wherefore I pray God these leases may have a fall, and come to an end shortly. Look well upon this, ye Christian burgesses; for this enhancing of rents is not only against the commonwealth, but also, at length, shall be the chiefest decay of the principal commodity of this realm. For why? This inordinate enhancing of rents, which is sprung up within few years past, must needs make all things dear, as well pertaining to the back as to the belly, to the most great damage of all the King’s subjects, landed men only except. Yea, and even they themselves were more wealthier when their lands went at the old price. For why? They buy all things the dearer, and yet the commonwealth is robbed thereby notwithstanding; as the godly which seeketh his brother’s wealth as his own, will soon judge. Howbeit this matter is so far gone, that there is no remedy to the redress of it but one, and that is this:—If the King’s grace, of his goodness, will consider whereunto God, hath calleth him, and for what purpose. A King is anointed, to be a defence unto the people, that they be not oppressed nor over-yoked, but by all godly and politic means to seek the common wealth of his people; so if his grace will call down the price of his own lands as they went over fifty, yea forty years, and compel all other landed men to the same, upon pain of forfeiting his whole lands, one part of them to the King’s grace, another to be employed to the common wealth, and the third to the presenter that can justify the matter, a reformation may be had, to the singular ease and commodity of the commonwealth, and that many ways. For this being reformed, above all other acts shall bring the cloth of England to a continual vent, and all victuals to a reasonable price, that all cloths of other countries shall stay, whereas English cloth shall come in place, as in times past hath done, which things old merchants and all clothiers can tell. Some will object, and say it is a common wealth to bring the commodities of the realm to an high price; which I utterly deny to be a common wealth;

328

THE COMMONWEAL

[28]

for what maketh riddance or good sale so much, as when a commodity is at a price reasonable? As afore is said, when English cloths were sold at a price reasonable, then all other foreign cloth stayed till that was sold. But now is English cloth brought to so high a price, that the cloth of many countries is sold before English cloth. And that causeth merchants to keep their cloths long upon their hands, many times to their great damage. I will say further. In case this matter be not well looked upon, the sooner it will be a greater decay than is yet perceived. For cloth will be brought to so high a price, that they will mar all. Above all things beware of extremity; for that ever seeketh a mischief for a remedy. For what with the abundance of wool, that goeth out by licences and by the staple, foreign realms mixing it with their coarse wools, they make better cheap cloth than English merchants can sell; yea and better for the price. Whether it be a common wealth to bring cloth to so high a price or not, first demand of the honest farmer. But I speak not of the extortioner, engrosser, encloser, or great shepherd, but of the honest, poor farmer, whether he lived not better when he sold his wool at an indifferent and mean price, than he doth now, selling it for half as much more? And I warrant you, if he be none of those destroyers aforesaid, he will say yea. Then demand the clothier, if he lived not better when he sold his cloths for a reasonable price the pack, and his kerseys for 22 or 23 pounds the pack, than he doth now, selling them for 30 pounds the pack? And except it be a few, which be inordinately rich, and eat out their neighbours, they will also say yea; and that they gained more in one pack than they do now in three. And as for the poor spinner and carder, though they have a little more for their pains, they pay double so much for all things that go both to back and belly, and scant can get a house to put in their heads; or, at least, not able to furnish it for their very necessaries. And thus everyone eateth out another. And the only cause of all these is the inordinate raising of rents. It is unreasonable to see how much they be enhanced in manner throughout the realm; except it be a few such, whereof the leases were given out over 20 or 30 years. And the chief cause of all this be even the landlords; for, as he increaseth his rent, so must the farmer the price of his wool, cattle, and all victuals, and likewise the merchant of his cloth; for else they could not maintain their living. And thus I say, the lords be the only cause of all the dearth in the realm. God grant, that the King’s grace look well upon this matter himself! for it is hard to have it redressed by Parliament, because it pricketh them chiefly which be chosen to be burgesses for the most part, except they would choose their burgesses only for their virtuous living, discretion, honest behaviour, and other godly qualities, be he never so poor; such as would his neighbour should live as himself. And would to God they would leave their old accustomed choosing of burgesses! for whom do they choose, but such as be rich, or bear some office in the country, etc., many times such as be boasters and braggers! Such have they ever hitherto chosen; be he never so very a fool, drunkard, extortioner, adulterer, never so covetous and crafty a person, yet if he be rich, bear any office, if he be a jolly cracker and bragger in the country, he must be a burgess of the parliament! Alas, how can any such study or give any godly council for the commonwealth? But and if any man put forth anything against Christ’s religion, or against the common wealth, so that it make for the profit of Antichrist’s Knights and temporal

[28]

CRITICISM OF SOCIETY

329

rulers of the realm, they shall be ready to give their consent with the first. And whether this be true or no, let the acts of few years past be judge. Every man perceiveth that there is a fault, and they be grieved, that all things be at so high a price, and some be offended at one degree of men, and some at another; as the merchant at the clothier, the clothier at the farmer, the farmer at the landlord, which is most just of all. In London and other places there be many offended with the great price of victuals, but few men consider the ground and original occasion thereof; that it is only by enhancing of rents, fines, &c., that maketh all things dear, which is an urgent damage to the common wealth. And till ye have a redress therein, look to have all things more dear, make what acts ye can devise to the contrary. As touching the King’s lands, some say that he enhanceth none; and whether it be true or not, I cannot tell, but this am I sure of, it is as evil or worse. For the chancellors and auditors take such unreasonable fines and other bribes, that the tenants were better pay yearly a greater rent; for the tenants are half undone in their incoming! Who hath the vantage, God knoweth; whether the King, or that the officers rob his grace, and poll and pill his liege subjects in his name, which is most likest. THE FOURTH CHAPTER Of the enclosing of parks, forests, chases, &c. Oh Lord God, that it would please thee to open the ears of the King, lords, and burgesses of the Parliament, that they may hear the crying of the people, that is made through the realm, for the enclosing of parks, forests, and chases, which is no small burden to the commons. How the corn and grass is destroyed by the deer many times, it is too pitiful to hear! It is often seen, that men, joining to the forests and chases, have not reaped half that they have sown, and yet sometime altogether is destroyed. And what land is your parks? Be not the most part of them the most fertile and fruitful ground in England? And now it is come to pass by wicked laws, that if a man kill one of those beasts which bear the mark of no one private person, but be in-different for all men, coming upon his own ground, devouring his corn or grass, which is his livelihood; and yet if he kill them upon his own ground, being chase or forest, it is felony, and he shall be hanged for it! But what saith the prophet to the makers of this wicked act, and such other like? “Woe be unto you which make wicked laws,” &c. To write of what unreasonable length and breadth they be it is superfluous: the thing is too manifest. God grant the King grace, to pull up a great part of his own parks, and to compel his lords, knights, and gentlemen to pull up all theirs by the roots, and to let out the ground to the people at such a reasonable price as they may live at their hands. And if they will needs have some deer for their vain pleasure, then let them take such heathy, woody, and moory ground, as is unfruitful for corn or pasture, so that the common wealth be not robbed; and let them make good defence, that their poor neighbours, joining unto them, be not devoured of their corn and grass. Thus should ye do, for the earth is the poor man’s as well as the rich. And ye lords, see that ye abuse not the blessing of the riches and power which God hath lent you, and remember that the earth is the Lord’s and not yours. For ye be but stewards, and be ye sure that ye shall give account unto the Lord for the

330

THE COMMONWEAL

[28]

bestowing of your riches. And to you burgesses, seeing such things will not be reformed, but only by your power and authority, I say to you, as in the beginning:—Consider whereunto ye be called and for what purpose; not for your own particular and private wealth, nor yet for the King’s in anything prejudicial to the common wealth. THE FIFTH CHAPTER Of the selling of wards for marriage, whereof ensueth adultery, which ought to be punished by death. Oh merciful God, what innumerable inconveniences come by selling of wards for marriage for lucre of goods and lands, although the parties never favour the one the other after they come to discretion, to the great increasing of the abominable vice of adultery, and of devilish divorcement, which hath of late been much used. Now God confound that wicked custom; for it is too abominable, and stinketh from the earth to heaven, it is so vile. What mischief hath come of it, it is too well known to many men, I need to write no further therein. But for Christ’s blood sake, seek a redress for it; and consider, that ye be called to the Parliament for such purposes. And further, ye that be godly burgesses, and of Christ’s congregation, consider that even the same God that sayeth “Thou shalt not steal,” the same God sayeth also, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” He that stealeth is hanged, and why ought not he also to be hanged that committeth adultery? Well, though that vice reigneth most abundantly in noble and rich men, and in the Pope’s shavelings most shamelessly, which shame to take them honest wives of their own, I say to you that be godly learned, although it reign chiefly in such persons, shame ye not, nor fear ye not, to make it felony indifferently to all men. Look you ever to your office whereunto ye be called, and seek to discharge your own conscience, that ye may give a good account at the day when ye shall be arraigned at the judgment seat of God, to receive judgment according to your deeds. THE FOURTEENTH CHAPTER Of lords that are parsons and vicars. Ye that be lords and burgesses of the parliament house, I require of you, in the name of all my poor brethren, that are Englishmen and members of Christ’s body, that ye consider well (as ye will answer before the face of Almighty God in the day of judgment) this abuse, and see it amended. Whereas Antichrist of Rome durst openly, without any visor walk up and down throughout England, he had so great favour there, and his children had such crafty wits (“for the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light”) that they had not only almost gotten all the best lands of England into their hands, but also the most part of the best benefices, both parsonages and vicarages, which were for the most part all impropriated unto them. And when they had the gifts of any not impropriated, they gave them unto their friends, of the which always some were learned; for the monks found of their friend’s children at school. And though they were not learned, yet they kept hospitality, and helped their poor friends. And if the parsonage were impropriated, the monks were bound to deal alms to the poor and to keep hospitality, as the writings of the gifts of such parsonages

[28]

CRITICISM OF SOCIETY

331

and lands do plainly declare in these words, “In puram elemosinam”. And as touching the alms that they dealt, and the hospitality that they kept, every man knoweth that many thousands were well relieved of them, and might have been better, if they had not had so many great men’s horses to feed, and had not been overcharged with such idle gentlemen as were never out of the abbeys. And if they had any vicarage in their hands they set in sometime some sufficient vicar (though it were but seldom) to preach and to teach. But now that all the abbeys with their lands, goods, and impropriated parsonages, be in temporal men’s hands, I do not hear tell that one halfpenny worth of alms or any other profit cometh unto the people of those parishes where such parsonages and vicarages be. Your pretence of putting down abbeys was to amend that was amiss in them. It was far amiss, that a great part of the lands of the abbeys (which were given to bring up learned men, that might be preachers afterwards, to keep hospitality, and to give alms to the poor) should be spent upon a few superstitious monks, which gave not forty pounds in alms, when they should have given two hundred. It was amiss, that the monks should have parsonages in their hands, and deal but the twentieth part thereof to the poor, and preached but once, in a year to them that paid the tithes of the parsonages. It was amiss that they scarcely among twenty set not one sufficient vicar to preach for the tithes that they received. But see now how it that was amiss is amended, for all the goodly pretence. It is amended, even as the devil mended his dame’s leg (as it is in the proverb): when he should have set it right, he broke it quite in pieces! The monks gave too little alms, and set unable parsons many times in their benefices. But now, where twenty pound was given yearly to the poor, in more than an hundred places in England, is not one meal’s meat given. This is a fair amendment. Where they had always one of other vicar, that either preached or hired some to preach; now is there no vicar at all, but the farmer is vicar and parson all together, and only an old castaway monk or friar, which can scarcely say his matins, is hired for twenty or thirty shillings, meat and drink; yea, in some place, for meat and drink alone without any wages. I know, and not I alone, but twenty thousand more know, more than five hundred vicarages and parsonages thus well and gospelly served, after the new gospel of England. And if a man say to the farmers, “Why have the people no preachers, seeing you have the tithes and offerings you should find preachers?” They will answer, “We have hired the parsonages of this or that lord, and he, or he, is parson or vicar; we pay for the tithes and offerings to the lord that is parson.” Well then, I say unto thee, my lord parson and vicar, thou doest wrong to have parsonages and vicarages, to have the tenth pig, the tenth sheaf, the tenth lamb, goose, fleece, and so of all other things, seeing that thou art no minister nor no priest of Christ’s church, and canst neither preach, teach, nor do any office of a parson or of a vicar, but poll and pill! What, canst thou say for thyself, my lord parson and vicar? Thou wilt say, peradventure “The King gave me the abbey and all that belongeth thereto, which had them given him by the parliament. Therefore, if thou speak against my being parson and vicar, though I neither preach nor teach, nor yet procure none to do it for me, thou art a traitor; for this is the thirteenth article of our creed added of late, that whatsoever the parliament

332

THE COMMONWEAL

[28]

doeth, must needs be well done, and the parliament, or any proclamation out of the parliament time, cannot err. Therefore let no man be so hardy in pain of death, to speak or complain for the redress of anything that is done amiss, either by the parliament or by any proclamation.” If this be so, my lord parson, then have ye brought Rome home to your own doors, and given the authority to the king and the parliament, that the cardinal bishops gave unto the pope; which was this:—“Si papa, etc.” If the pope through his fault should send infinite thousands to the devil, yet must no man speak against him! And if ye have given the same authority unto the parliament, that the papists gave to their general councils, that is, that they cannot err, and, whatsoever is once determined in a general council must needs be true, and of no less authority than the gospel:—if this be so, it is all in vain to look for any amendment of anything; and we be in as evil case as when we were under the bishop of Rome, if we have all the laws of him confirmed with fire and death. Surely the popish bishops, when they were robbed of the pope of Rome, they would needs have a pope; and therefore they would have made the King their pope, and they gave him authority to do all things in England that the pope did in Rome; as, to forbid marriage certain times in the year, and then to sell licences for the same; to sell licence to eat flesh in Lent, nonresidences, and such other. And even the pope’s proctor said (as it was told me) that he might make saints also! And lest there should want anything to a perfect popedom, the bishops caused a proclamation to be set out in the King’s name, that from henceforth the ceremonies of the church, that were of the pope’s making, should no more be taken for the pope’s ceremonies, but the King’s; and so they made the King father to the pope’s children. But I am sure, though the bishops would make the King pope, he would not take it upon him. And I trust, that every day more and more his grace shall spy their popish intents. But to you, my lord parsons, how can ye defend yourselves, if a man should bring this argument against you, and prove you all thieves, that have parsonages and vicarages in your hands and cannot preach? Christ sayeth, (John x.) “he that entereth not into the sheepfold by the door, but climbeth in another way, is a thief and a murderer;” but ye entered in another way, wherefore ye are thieves and murderers. That ye come not in by the door, I will prove it thus:—Christ is the door, but by Christ ye came not into the sheepfold; that is to say, to be parsons and vicars, for ye grant that ye came in by the act of parliament, and the act of parliament is not Christ, for it is not confirmed by Christ’s word; therefore ye came not by Christ, and so be ye thieves and murderers; as your works proved of late, in shedding of the blood of so many true preachers and shepherds, which spent their lives for their sheep. If this argument be not strong enough, what say ye by this? “All they that come before me (sayeth Christ) are thieves and robbers;” ye come into the sheepfold before Christ; ergo, ye be thieves and robbers. To come in before Christ is to be a parson or a vicar before Christ send him. And ye came in before Christ sent you, for he sendeth none to be shepherds, but such as he knoweth to be able to feed his flock: ergo, he never sent you; for he knoweth you unable to do that office. And thus to conclude, ye be thieves and robbers for a thief cometh not but to steal and to kill. Wherefore give over your parsonages to learned men, and enter not into other men’s vocations, to rob the

[28]

CRITICISM OF SOCIETY

333

ministers both of their office and of their living, that ye be not punished of God. But if ye will needs be parsons and vicars still, and have all the profits of the parsonages, and will have all, even to the tithe egg of a poor woman that hath but two hens, ye must have the pains that belong to such parsons as you be. Hear what Almighty God sayeth unto you my lords, which will be parsons and pastors, Ezekiel 33.:—“If I say unto the wicked, thou shalt die the death, and thou speak not unto him, to keep the wicked from his way, the wicked his own self shall die in his wickedness, but his blood shall I require of thy hand.” Mark well, lord parson, for this is said to all them that are parsons, and take wages and living of the people, as tithes and offerings, for feeding of then? with God’s word; or else by what title canst thou challenge the tithes? Look well upon this matter, and build thy conscience upon God’s word. THE TWENTIETH CHAPTER That one priest ought to have but one benefice, and one farmer, one farm. This thing is also to be looked upon, that even as one man may have but one wife, so let a priest have but one benefice; for if he have more flocks than one to keep, he will never feed them both well. And if that be not a living for a man, his wife, and his children, as some be not, then join him to the next parish, whereby the poor may be at less charge with the priest. The popish priests will make a mock at this, which hypocrites I send to the tenth chapter of Matthew, where Christ sayeth to his Apostles and ministers of his congregation, that they shall not possess gold, silver, nor brass, etc.; how much less then should they enjoy their inordinate possessions! And even as a priest should have but one benefice, so make that one man, of what degree soever he be, shall hold and keep in his own hands or occupying no more than one farm, manor, or lordship, being a competent living, as of twenty pounds yearly rent. So that it may be lawful for one man to keep two if they both together be not above twenty pounds; but no man to keep above three, be they never so small rent. This were a brotherly and godly act. For by your oppressors and extortioners, how be the towns and villages decayed? Whereas were eight, ten, twelve, yea, sixteen households and more, is now but a sheep house and two, or three shepherds. And one man shall have two or three such things, or more, in his hands, that a poor man scarcely have an hole to put in his head for these great extortioners. So if ye seek this godly redress, whereas ye have a few in a country, which be inordinately rich extortioners, and a great multitude of poor people, then shall ye have but a few poor and a great number of a mean and reasonable substance, and few poor, and less extortioners; which would be no small ease to the common wealth. Here shall all enclosers, grossers up of farms, extortioners, and oppressors of the common wealth, be offended at me and call me heretic and traitor. But all such I send unto the fifth chapter of the prophet Isaiah, where he sayeth:—“Woe be unto you which join one house to another, and bring one land so nigh unto another, till ye can get no more ground; will ye dwell upon the earth alone,” etc.? Ye extortioners! learn to fear God, and mark what, and how vehemently the Holy Ghost speaketh here in the prophet, “will ye dwell upon the earth alone?” Here is a fearful sentence for you !

334

THE COMMONWEAL

[28]

THE TWENTY-FIRST CHAPTER Of the enhancing of the custom, which is against the commonwealth, etc. Another grievous burden, sprung up of a few years past, is the enhancing of the custom of wares inward, which was granted for certain years to help the King towards his wars; and yet but upon a condition, that the King should be a shield and defence of the merchant’s goods against all pirates and robbers upon the sea, and to make them good such goods as should be taken. And now it is not holden for certain years, but as it were for ever, and from a subsidy to a custom. And yet the merchants not defended according to the covenant neither, whereby many an honest merchant hath been undone. This burden is not prejudicial to the merchants only, but it is to the great damage of the whole realm also. For why? All wares to be raised thereby five in every hundred, and some much more; so that the commons buy all things so much the dearer. I think if the King’s grace knew what a burden it is to the commons, and with what evil will his merchants pay it, he would, I doubt not, be content with the old subsidy, that is to say, a certain of every fardel, chest, mawnd, bale, or whatsoever it be, as was in old time; and as it is in Flanders, and over all the Emperor’s lands at this day. Oh that men, which be about a King, would be as ready to give counsel to do righteousness, and to seek discharge of their prince’s conscience, and the wealth of his soul, as they be to enveigle him to yoke his commons, seeking the only profit of the body; as though there were no world after this, or as though the King of all Kings saw no further than a mortal prince! THE TWENTY-SECOND CHAPTER A godly advisement how to bestow the goods and lands of the bishops, etc. Although there be many godly minded, I trust, in the parliament house, which can devise ways enough to employ the goods and lands of bishops, deans, canons, and chantries, to God’s glory, to the common wealth, and to the help of the poor (as there are ways full many, whoso listeth to study them); yet I think myself bound partly to write mine advice in some things which be most needful. First, part of them may be distributed to the poor, as well to poor maidens’ marriages and poor householders, as to the blind, sick, and lame; unless it be the one half of the plate to come to the King’s grace, for this purpose, that it be turned into the coin of the realm. And of their temporals, let eight or ten pound and not above of every hundred be granted to the King, that he thereof may have homage as chief lord and King, as reason is. And to ease the commons of subsidies, when need shall be, that the poor and middle sort of the people may be eased thereby, the rest to be employed upon poor cities and towns, and to the provision of the poor; as, part of it to be lent to poor occupiers, to every city according to the number of the occupiers in the same. And let every occupier have according to his need; and every one to be bound brotherly for another jointly to the King. That is to say, the whole town, as many as have any part of the money; and the first year to pay no entries, but every year after three pound of every hundred pound, that the sum may increase and not decay. And make a proviso, that

[28]

CRITICISM OF SOCIETY

335

no cloth be made but in cities and great towns, and the town seal to be upon every cloth, which town shall make good all such faults as shall be found in their cloths. And again also, that the clothiers shall keep no farms in the country, except it be one for his own provision. And thus shall ye have true cloth made, and every neighbour live by other. The lords and gentlemen by their lands; the merchant only by his merchandise; the clothier by making his cloth; the farmer by tilling his land and breeding, etc. Item, part of these aforesaid goods may be employed to this use, that in every hundred, good town, or city, certain houses be maintained to lodge and keep poor men in, such as be not able to labour, sick, sore, blind, and lame. And everyone of them to have wherewith to live, and to have poor whole women to minister unto them. And for Christ’s sake, ye rulers, look upon your hospitals, whether the poor have their right there, or no. I hear that the masters of your hospitals be so fat that the poor be kept lean and bare enough: the cry of the people is heard unto the Lord, though ye will not hear. Now to our former purpose again. Let physicians and surgeons be found in every such town or city, where such houses be, to look upon the poor in that town and in all other joining unto it; and they to live upon their stipend only, without taking any penny of their poor, upon pain of losing both his ears and his stipend also. Item, in divers head cities and good towns, let schools be maintained and lectures to be had in them of the three tongues,—Hebrew, Greek, and Latin; and the readers to have an honest stipend. Item, in every such city and town to have a certain number of poor men’s children found of free cost, till they be of good age and well learned. Item, the increase of the money, that is to say three pound of every hundred, to be bestowed upon poor couples at their marriages to begin the world withal. These ways and such like, may those goods and lands be bestowed, of another sort than to find such a sort of belly gods, and idle stout and strong lorels1 as ye have done, yea, a sort of drunken buzzards. And thus have the Germans (whereas the Gospel is received) bestowed the goods and lands of such abbeys as they have suppressed. And I think no godly heart can be against this device. Now therefore I exhort the higher powers, in the name of the everliving God, that if they will not look upon these spiritual extortioners (I mean bishops, canons, and chanterers2) for the zeal which they ought to bear to the congregation of God, neither for the love that they ought to have to the common wealth and to the poor; yet let them remember it for their own wealth’s sake. And let the King’s grace consider how tyrannously, by the virtue of their wicked mammon, they used part of his progenitors, Kings of England; as William Rufus, Henry the Second, and King John. Read the stories, and ye shall see part of their knavery; yet is the best made to cloak their wickedness. It were hard to say whether they were the authors of the commotion in the north or no. I think it is as well possible for the ocean sea to be without water, as it is for them to cease musing of mischief. 1

boors.

2

chantry priests.

336

THE COMMONWEAL

[29]

29. The Church and the Commonweal. Selections from The Primer (From The Primer: or Book of Private Prayer needful to be used of all Christians, authorized and set forth by order of King Edward VI, 1553. J.Ketley (ed.), The Two Liturgies, A.D. 1549 and A.D. 1552, Parker Soc., 1844, 457–463)

(i) For gentlemen

A

lbeit whatsoever is born of flesh is flesh, and all that we receive of our natural parents is earth, dust, ashes and corruption, so that no child of Adam hath any cause to boast himself of his birth and blood, seeing we have all one flesh and one blood, begotten in sin, conceived in uncleanness, and born by nature the children of wrath; yet forasmuch as some for their wisdom, godliness, virtue, valiantness, strength, eloquence, learning and policy, be advanced above the common sort of people unto dignities and temporal promotions, as men worthy to have superiority in a Christian commonwealth, and by this means have obtained among the people a more noble and worthy name: We most entirely beseech thee, from whom alone cometh the true nobility to so many as are born of thee and made thy sons through faith, whether they be rich or poor, noble or unnoble, to give a good spirit to our superiors, that as they be called gentle men in name, so they may shew themselves in all their doings gentle, courteous, loving, pitiful, and liberal unto their inferiors; living among them as natural fathers among their children, not polling, pilling, and oppressing them, but favouring, helping, and cherishing them: not destroyers, but fathers of the commonalty: not enemies to the poor, but aiders, helpers, and comforters of them: that when thou shalt call them from this vale of wretchedness, they afore shewing gentleness to the common people, may receive gentleness again at thy merciful hand, even everlasting life, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

(ii) For landlords The earth is thine, (O Lord) and all that is contained therein; notwithstanding thou hast given the possession thereof unto the children of men, to pass over the time of their short pilgrimage in this vale of misery: We heartily pray thee, to send thy holy Spirit into the hearts of them that possess the grounds, pastures, and dwelling places of the earth, that they remembering themselves to be thy tenants, may not rack and stretch out the rents of their houses and lands, nor yet take unreasonable fines and incomes after the manner of covetous worldlings, but so let them out to other, that the inhabitants thereof may both be able to pay the rents, and also honestly to live, to nourish their families, and to relieve the poor; give them grace also to consider, that they are but strangers and pilgrims in this world, having here no dwelling place, but seeking one to come; that they, remembering the short continuance of their life, may be content with that that is sufficient, and not join house to house, nor couple land to land, to the impoverishment of other, but so behave themselves in letting out their tenements, lands, and pastures, that after this life they may be received into everlasting dwelling places: through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

(iii) For labourers and men of occupations As the bird is born to fly, so is man born to labour: for thou, O Lord, hast commanded

[29]

THE CHURCH AND THE COMMONWEAL

337

by thy holy word, that man shall eat his bread in the labour of his hands and in the sweat of his face: yea, thou hast given commandment that if any man will not labour, the same should not eat. Thou requirest of us also, that we withdraw ourselves from every brother that walketh inordinately, and giveth not his mind unto labour; so that thy godly pleasure is that no man be idle, but every man labour according to his vocation and calling: we most humbly beseech thee, to grave in the hearts of all labourers and workmen a willing disposition to travail for their living according to thy word, and to bless the labourer’s pains, and travails of all such as either till the earth, or exercise any other handicraft; that they studying to be quiet and to meddle with their own business, and to work with their own hand, and through thy blessing enjoying the fruits of their labours, may knowledge thee, the giver of all good things, and glorify thy holy name. Amen.

(iv) Of masters Thy commandment is by thine holy apostle, O most merciful Lord Christ, that masters should entreat their servants gently, putting away threatenings, and doing that unto them which is just and equal, forasmuch as we also have a master in heaven, with whom there is no respect of persons: Grant, I most heartily pray thee, that I may so order my servants, that I attempt no unrighteousness against them; but that I may so use my rule and authority over them, that I may alway remember that thou art the common Lord of all, and we all thy servants: again, that I may not forget, that we be all brethren, having one Father, which is in heaven, and look for one glorious kingdom, where thou, with the Father and Holy Ghost, livest and reignest true and everlasting God for ever. Amen.

(v) Of servants O Lord Jesu Christ, we are commanded by thy blessed apostles, that we should honour and obey our bodily masters in fear and trembling, not only if they be good and courteous, but also though they be froward, and serve them, not unto the eye as menpleasers, but with singleness of heart, not churlishly answering them again, nor picking, stealing, or conveying away any part of their goods, unjustly, but shewing all good faithfulness unto our masters, as though we served God and not men: Grant me grace, I most humbly beseech thee, so to serve my master and my superiors, that there may be found no fault in me, but that I, behaving myself uprightly, justly, faithfully, and truly in my vocation, may do worship to the doctrine of thee my God and Saviour in all things. Amen.

338

THE COMMONWEAL

[30]

30. Latimer’s Social Teaching illustrated from his sermons The sermons of Hugh Latimer (especially those preached before Edward VI) are worth reading on all counts, but particularly for the references in them to social problems. Latimer had a powerful appeal for the common man partly due to his shrewd judgment of the problems which worried his hearers. The following selection of passages, small as it is, should be enough to indicate why Latimer can be regarded as one of the most prominent of “the commonwealth men”.

(i) The essentials of the Christian Society (G.E.Corrie (ed.), Sermons by Hugh Latimer (Fifth Sermon on the Lord’s Prayer, 1552) Parker Soc., 1844, 406–410)

R

emember this word “our”: what it meaneth I told you. And here I have occasion to speak of the proprieties of things: for I fear, if I should leave it so some of you would report me wrongfully, and affirm, that all things should be common. I say not so. Certain it is, that God hath ordained proprieties of things, so that that which is mine is not thine; and what thou hast I cannot take from thee. If all things were common, there could be no theft, and so this commandment, Non faciesfurtum, “Thou shalt not steal”, were in vain. But it is not so: the laws of the realm make meum et tuum, mine and thine. If I have things by those laws, then I have them well. But this you must not forget, that St. Paul saith, Sitis necessitates sanctorum communicantes; “Relieve the necessity of those which have need”. Things are not so common, that another man may take my goods from me, for this is theft; but they are so common, that we ought to distribute them unto the poor, to help them, and to comfort them with it. We ought one to help another; for this is a standing sentence: Qui habuerit substantiam hujus mundi, et viderit fratrem suum necessitatem habere, et clauserit viscera sua ab eo, quomodo caritas Dei manet in eo? “He that hath the substance of this world, and shall see his brother to have need, and shutteth up his entire affection from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?” There was a certain manner of having things in common in the time of the apostles. For some good men, as Barnabas was, sold their lands and possessions, and brought the money unto the apostles: but that was done for this cause,—there was a great many of christian people at that time entreated very ill, insomuch that they left all their goods: now, such folk came unto the apostles for aid and help; therefore those which were faithful men, seeing the poverty of their brethren, went and sold that that they had, and spent the money amongst such poor which were newly made Christians. Amongst others which sold their goods there was one Ananias and Saphira his wife, two very subtle persons: they went and sold their goods too; but they played a wise part: they would not stand in danger of the losing of all their goods; therefore they agreed together, and took the one part from the money, and laid it up; with the other part they came to Peter, affirming that to be the whole money. For they thought in their hearts, like as all unfaithful men do, “We cannot tell how long this religion shall abide; it is good to be wise, and keep somewhat in store, whatsoever shall happen.” Now Peter, knowing by the Holy Ghost their falsehood, first slew him with one word, and after her too: which indeed is a fearful example, whereby we should be monished to beware of lies and falsehood. For though God punish thee not by and by, as he did this Ananias, yet he shall find thee; surely he will not forget thee. Therefore learn here to take heed of falsehood, and beware of lies.

[30]

LATIMER’S SOCIAL TEACHING

339

For this Ananias, this wilful Ananias, I say, because of this wilful lie, went to hell with his wife, and there shall be punished world without end. Where you see what a thing it is to make a lie. This Ananias needed not to sell his lands, he had no such commandment: but seeing he did so, and then came and brought but half the price, making a pretence as though he had brought all, for that he was punished so grievously. O what lies are made now-a-days in England, here and there in the markets! truly it is a pitiful thing that we nothing consider it. This one example of Ananias and Saphira, their punishment, is able to condemn the whole world. You have heard now, how men had things in common in the first church: but St. Paul he teacheth us how things ought to be in common amongst us, saying, Sitis necessitatibus sanctorum communicantes: “Help the necessity of those which be poor.” Our good is not so ours that we may do with it what us listeth; but we ought to distribute it unto them which have need. No man, as I told you before, ought to take away my goods from me; but I ought to distribute that that I may spare, and help the poor withal. Communicantes necessitatibus, saith St. Paul: “Distribute them unto the poor,” let them lack nothing; but help them with such things as you may spare. For so it is written, Cui plus datum est, plus requiretur ab illo; “He that hath much, must make account for much; and if he have not spent it well, he must make the heavier account.” But I speak not this to let poor folks from labour; for we must labour and do the works of our vocation, every one in his calling: for so it is written, Labores manuum tuarum manducabis, et bene tibi erit, “Thou shalt eat thy hand-labour, and it shall go well with thee.” That is to say, every man shall work for his living, and shall not be a sluggard, as a great many be; every man shall labour and pray: then God will send him his living. St. Paul saith, Qui non laborat, non comedat; “He that laboureth not, let him not eat.” Therefore those lubbers which will not labour, and might labour, it is a good thing to punish them according unto the king’s most godly statutes. For God himself saith, In sudore vultus tui vesceris pane tuo; “In the sweat of thy face thou shalt eat thy bread.” Then cometh in St. Paul, who saith, Magis autem laboret, ut det indigentibus; “Let him labour the sorer, that he may have wherewith to help the poor.” And Christ himself saith, Melius est dare quam accipere; “It is better to give than to take.” So Christ, and all his apostles, yea, the whole scripture admonisheth us ever of our neighbour, to take heed of him, to be pitiful unto him: but God knoweth there be a great many which care little for their neighbours. They do like as Cain did, when God asked him, “Cain, where is thy brother Abel?” “What”, saith he, “am I my brother’s keeper?” So these rich franklins, these covetous fellows, they scrape all to themselves, they think they should care for nobody else but for themselves: God commandeth the poor man to labour the sorer, to the end that he may be able to help his poor neighbour: how much more ought the rich to be liberal unto them! But you will say, “Here is a marvellous doctrine, which commandeth-nothing but ‘Give, give:’ if I shall follow this doctrine, I shall give so much, that at the length I shall have nothing left for myself.” These be words of infidelity; he that speaketh such words is a faithless man. And I pray you, tell me, have ye heard of any man that came to poverty, because he gave unto the poor? Have you heard tell of such a one? No, I am

340

THE COMMONWEAL

[30]

sure you have not. And I dare lay my head to pledge for it, that no man living hath come, or shall hereafter come to poverty, because he hath been liberal in helping the poor. For God is a true God, and no liar: he promiseth us in his word, that we shall have the more by giving to the needy. Therefore the way to get is to scatter that that you have. Give, and you shall gain. If you ask me, “How shall I get riches?” I make thee this answer: “Scatter that that thou hast; for giving is gaining.” But you must take heed, and scatter it according unto God’s will and pleasure; that is, to relieve the poor withal, to scatter it amongst the flock of Christ. Whosoever giveth so shall surely gain: for Christ saith, Date, et dabitur vobis. “Give, and it shall be given unto you.” Dabitur, “it shall be given unto you.” This is a sweet word, we can well away with that; but how shall we come by it? Date, “Give.” This is the way to get, to relieve the poor. Therefore this is a false and wicked proposition, to think that with giving unto the poor we shall come to poverty. What a giver was Loth, that good man: came he to poverty through giving? No, no; he was a great rich man. Abraham, the father of all believers, what a liberal man was he; insomuch that he sat by his door watching when anybody went by the way, that he might call him, and relieve his necessity! What, came he to poverty? No, no: he died a great rich man. Therefore let us follow the example of Loth and Abraham: let us be liberal, and then we shall augment our stock. For this is a most certain and true word, Date, et dabitur vobis; “Give, and it shall be given unto you.” But we believe it not; we cannot away with it. The most part of us are more given to take from the poor, than to relieve their poverty. They be so careful for their children, that they cannot tell when they be well. They purchase this house and that house; but what saith the prophet? Vae, qui conjungitis domum domui; “Woe be unto you that join house to house!” the curse of God hangeth over your heads. Christ saith, Qui diligit patrem vel matrem velfilios plus quam me non est me dignus; “He that loveth his father, or mother or children more than me, he is not meet for me.” Therefore those which scrape and gather ever for their children, and in the mean season forget the poor, whom God would have relieved; those, I say, regard their children more than God’s commandments: for their children must be set up, and the poor miserable people is forgotten in the mean season. There is a common saying amongst the worldlings, Happy is that child whose father goeth to the devil: but this is a worldly happiness. The same is seen when the child can begin with two hundred pound, whereas his father began with nothing: it is a wicked happiness, if the father gat those goods wickedly. And there is no doubt but many a father goeth to the devil for his child’s sake; in that he neglected God’s commandment, scraped for his child, and forgot to relieve his poor miserable neighbour. We have in scripture, Qui miseretur pauperis, faeneratur Deo; “Whosoever hath pity over the poor, he lendeth unto God upon usury,” that is to say, God will give it unto him again with increase: this is a lawful and godly usury….

(ii) True obedience (G.E.Corrie (ed.), Sermons and Remains of Hugh Latimer (A Sermon preached on St John the Evangelist’s Day at Grimsthorpe, 1552), Parker Soc., 1845, 111–128)

Yesterday I entreated somewhat of the nativity of Christ our Saviour. And you have

[30]

LATIMER’S SOCIAL TEACHING

341

heard by what occasion Mary, his mother, came to Bethlehem with her husband Joseph, namely, to shew obedience, as all subjects ought to do, to their governors. You heard what good chance she had in that she was obedient; and so all those that be obedient to their rulers and governors, according to the ordinance of God, they shall have good speed. Now what happened unto Mary? She brought forth the Saviour of the world. Oh, what good chance was this! And here we learn, that it is a good thing for every one to keep him in that order as God hath appointed him. Mary with her husband Joseph were subjects, and therefore, in doing their duties, in obeying the magistrate, they pleased God: which ensample of Mary and Joseph should occasion all us to follow them in their doing; and if we do so, we shall please God. There is one thing I did forget, the last time when I spake of obedience, which is, an objection that some do make, when they are required to do their duties to the magistrates. I told you at that time that we must bear willingly those burdens which are laid upon us, considering that God commanded us so to do: and then, again, that he hath delivered us from that great burden of our sins, which should have thrust us into everlasting damnation; willing and commanding us to bear, with a good will, such little burdens as the magistrates shall lay upon us. Again, I told you at the same time, that whosoever beareth with a good will the common burden of this realm, they shall be blessed in all things: it shall not be a diminishing of their stocks, but it shall be rather an increase than a diminishing. Now cometh the objection that some make: they say, “To bear the common burden is not an increase, but a diminishing and hurt; for there hath been many burdens in England, as the burdens of the fall of money: therefore that is not so as you say; for I know that some have lost so much that they cannot recover the same again so long as they live.” And indeed, I know myself a man that lost eight score pounds by the fall of money; yet as for that man, he took it well, and I doubt not but God will work with him, so that it shall be nothing to his hurt. But to answer this carnal man which maketh such a carnal objection against the promise of God: I deny not but that there be some, which indeed shall never recover that which they have lost. But I tell you what is the cause: the cause is not in God, or in his promises or fidelity, but the fault is in themselves. As thus: you must understand that where God requireth a thing to be done, he will have it done with a good-will, with a merry heart, with a loving countenance. Now there be many of us which do it indeed, but with cursing and banning: so that, though they be no rebels outwardly, yet they rebel in their hearts. Unto such fellows God is not bound to keep his promise, for he made them no promise; but unto them that do it with a willing heart and loving countenance he hath promised increase. And they that do it with an ill will, they rather provoke God to anger than that they should receive any benefit of him. For St. Paul commandeth us to obey the magistrates, Non propter iram, sed propter conscientiam, “Not for fear of their punishment but rather for conscience sake, for God’s sake, in respect of God, of whom we have all things, who willeth us to do so”. So that they that do it with an ill will, and afterward having no increase, are not able to recover again, the fault is in themselves, and not in God; for they obey not for conscience sake, as St. Paul would have them do, but rather for fear of punishment.

342

THE COMMONWEAL

[30]

Yesterday, also, I shewed you the commodities which we receive by the coming of Christ; and, again, the discommodities if he should not have come; namely, that we should have been lost for ever, world without end. To this end I spake of such things, to give you occasion to consider his goodness and wonderful benefits, and to shew yourselves thankful towards him. Further, I shewed you what he was before he took our vile nature upon him; namely, the eternal Son of God the Father; begotten before the world began; equal to his Father in power and dignity: he took our vile nature upon him, was made very man, to the end that he might deliver man from the curse of God and eternal damnation. Then, I shewed you what we be without God, without this Saviour; namely, cursed and banished out from everlasting life to ever-lasting damnation. This we are, without him, of our own nature; for we can do nothing but commit sin, and are not able to make amends for the least sin that we commit: but he, our Saviour, I say, hath made satisfaction upon the cross for the sins of all mankind. Then, again, I told you how we should follow the ensample of David, which when he considered the great benefits of God, burst out in these words, saying, Quid retribuam Domino pro omnibus quae tribuit mihi? “What shall I give unto the Lord for all that which he hath given unto me?” Then he concludeth and saith, Accipiam calicem salutaris, “I will take the chalice of health;” that is, I will bear all the crosses which the Lord shall lay upon me. And so we must do when we consider the great benefits which God hath done unto us: then we must be content with all our hearts to bear such crosses as he shall lay upon us, and to shew ourselves thankful with a godly and honest life, for that he suffered for us; which passion he suffered, not compelled thereunto, but willingly he suffered it, moved by that great love which he bare towards us. Therefore, let us shew ourselves thankful: let us take all calamities and miseries that he shall lay upon us willingly: and in all these crosses let us call upon him, and take in good worth whatsoever it shall please him to lay upon us. This is the chiefest honour that we can do unto him. Now let us a little better consider his poverty, which he suffered as soon as he was born. We read not that Mary his mother had any midwife when she was delivered of him. And here we have occasion to speak of midwives. The same office of a midwife is a necessary office; but I would wish the bishops would see better unto them, that they might be better instructed in God’s word: for no doubt these midwives are the occasion of much superstition and dishonouring of God. The fault is because they are not instructed in the word of God; and therefore, when the women be in travailing, and so in peril of their lives, they cause them to call upon our Lady: which no doubt is very idolatry, and dishonouring of God; for we ought not to call upon any creature; we must call only upon God alone; unto him only pertaineth that honour. Further, I told you that our Saviour Christ was formed and framed of the most poorest flesh; and he became the natural son of Mary, and she also was his natural mother. I told you, the last time, of one Joan of Kent, which was in this foolish opinion, that she should say our Saviour was not very man, and had not received flesh of his mother Mary: and yet she could shew no reason why she should believe so. Her opinion was this, as I told you before. The Son of God, said she, penetrated through her, as through a glass, taking no substance of her. But our creed teacheth us contrariwise; for

[30]

LATIMER’S SOCIAL TEACHING

343

we say, Natus ex Maria Virgine, “Born of the Virgin Mary:” so this foolish woman denied the common creed, and said that our Saviour had a phantastical body; which is most untrue, as it appeareth evidently in the epistle to the Hebrews, where St. Paul plainly saith that Christ was made of the woman, that he took his flesh from the woman. And though Mary had a prerogative, as she had indeed, namely, that she knew no man, that she was a virgin; yet her prerogative took not away the very humanity of Christ. She alone, above all other women, had this prerogative, to be a virgin, and yet to bring forth a child: the Holy Ghost did supply the office of a father; she was filled with the Holy Ghost: but he was her natural son in all other points; but yet this his humanity was preserved from all sin and wickedness. In all other things he was very man, and she his very natural mother. And no doubt she had a great belly, as it appeared in the first chapter of Matthew, where the evangelist saith, Inventa est gravida, “She was found with child;” and so Joseph seeing it, could not but suspect her, and therefore was minded to go away from her, if he had not been admonished by the angel: but being in this perplexity, the angel came unto him, saying, Ne timeas, “Fear not, Joseph, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. She shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus.” So here appeared plainly that Mary was big with child, after the manner of all other women: for we may not make him a phantastical body, but a very body, having flesh, blood, and bones, as our bodies have; and I think that Mary travailed after the manner of other women. I doubt not but she had pains as other women have; for I think she was obedient unto that law, which was made by God himself, In dolore paries filios tuos, “In sorrow and pain thou shalt bring forth thy children”. For she kept other laws too, to which she was not bound, to which she had no need; as of purification; and he of circumcision: so that it is to be presupposed, seeing she obeyed other laws, she obeyed this law too, to shew and to signify unto the whole world her obedience. Therefore they that will go about and say that she brought him forth without pain, not after the manner of other women, they seem to do more hurt than good: for so we might come in doubt whether he had a very body or not. Now the evangelist saith there was no place in the inn, they had no room to refresh themselves: for the innkeepers took only those which were able to pay for their good cheer; they would not meddle with such beggarly folk as Joseph and Mary his wife were. And here we may learn by the example of Joseph and Mary to take all things in good part, and to be content with poverty and miseries. Let us follow their example. We read not that they grudged or murmured against God; but they were content to take all things in good worth, though they could get never a lodging in the whole city; so that they were fain to take a stable there, to repose themselves. And, as some writers say, it was a common stable in the market-set, as some towns have common stables for the folk that come to the market; for they are not able to spend money in the inn, and therefore they set their cattle there. But this is no certainty, whether it was such a common stable or not; but this is certain that they were in great poverty and misery; no doubt of that. Therefore, you poor folk, comfort yourselves with this example, though you have no houses after your mind: consider that Mary, the mother of Christ, lacked a lodging, and that in her greatest need. But I tell you where you may have houses

344

THE COMMONWEAL

[30]

enough, and that good cheap; for little money you may have them. In domo Patris mei sunt multae habitationes; “In the house of my Father be many dwelling-places.” There you may have them, they are offered you in Christ, and through Christ; ye need not to give money for them. Therefore, I would not have you in any wise to grudge or murmur because ye lack houses; for no doubt, if we will be content with that that God sendeth unto us, and be thankful unto him, houses or no houses in this world, we shall be sure that we shall lack no houses in the other world…. Now followeth in the text, “And there were shepherds in the same region,” &c. You know there is a common saying, Ignoti nulla cupido; “When a body knoweth not a thing, he desireth it not greatly:” so it had been with us, if this birth of our Saviour should have been hid from us; we should not have desired the same, and he had done unto us no good at all. Therefore it must needs be known; it must needs be opened. Now here the evangelist beginneth to shew to whom this birth was opened at the first, and through whom it was first published; who were the first preachers; which were the angels of God, they were the first preachers. And here you may perceive what is the office of the angels of God, namely, to serve, to keep us; and therefore St. Paul calleth them, administratorios spiritus, “serving spirits”. But now you will say, how chanced it that the angels teach not us as well as they did the shepherds? Sirs, you must understand that God hath appointed another office, other officers, which shall teach us the way to heaven; which way to heaven was opened first by the angel. He told the shepherds that Christ the Saviour was born: but now God sheweth unto us the self-same sermon of the angel by and through his ministers, which teach us the same. But, I pray you, to whom was the nativity of Christ first opened? To the bishops, or great lords which were at that time at Bethlehem? or to those jolly damsels with their vardingals, with their roundabouts, or with their bracelets? No, no; they had so many lets to trim and dress themselves that they could have no time to hear of the nativity of Christ; their minds were so occupied otherwise that they were not allowed to hear of them. But his nativity was revealed first to the shepherds: and it was revealed unto them in the night-time, when everybody was at rest; then they heard the joyful tidings of the Saviour of the world. For these shepherds were keeping their sheep in the night-season from the wolf or other beasts, and from the fox: for the sheep in that country do lamb two times in the year, and therefore it was needful for the sheep to have a shepherd to keep them. And here note the diligence of these shepherds: for whether the sheep were their own, or whether they were servants, I cannot tell, for it is not expressed in the book; but it is most likely they were servants, and their masters had put them in trust to keep their sheep. Now if these shepherds had been deceitful fellows, that when their masters had put them in trust to keep their sheep, they had been drinking in the ale-house all night, as some of our servants do now-a-days, surely the angels had not appeared unto them, to have told them this great joy and good tidings. And here all servants may learn by these shepherds to serve truly and diligently unto their masters: in what business soever they are set to do, let them be painful and diligent, like as Jacob was unto his master Laban. Oh, what a painful, faithful, and trusty man was he! He was day and night at his work, keeping his sheep truly, as he was put in trust to do: and when any chance

[30]

LATIMER’S SOCIAL TEACHING

345

happened that any thing was lost, he made it good, and restored it again of his own. So likewise was Eleazarus a painful man, a faithful and trusty servant. Such a servant was Joseph in Egypt to his master Potiphar. So likewise was Daniel unto his master, the king. But, I pray you, where are these servants now-a-days? Indeed I fear me, there be but very few of such faithful servants. Now these shepherds, I say, they watch the whole night, they attend upon their vocation; they do according to their calling: they keep their sheep: they run not hither and thither, spending the time in vain, and neglecting their office and calling. No, they did not so. Here, by these shepherds, all men may learn to attend upon their offices and callings. I would wish that clergymen,—the curates, parsons, and vicars, the bishops, and all other spiritual persons, would learn this lesson by these poor shepherds; which is this, to abide by their flocks and by their sheep, to tarry amongst them, to be careful over them; not to run hither and thither after their own pleasure, but to tarry by their benefices and feed their sheep with the food of God’s word; and to keep hospitality, and so to feed them both soul and body. For I tell you these poor unlearned shepherds shall condemn many a stout and great learned clerk: for these shepherds had but the care and charge over brute beasts, and yet were diligent to keep them, and to feed them; and the other have the cure over God’s lambs, which he bought with the death of his Son, and yet they are so careless, so negligent, so slothful over them: yea, and the most part intendeth not to feed the sheep, but they long to be fed of the sheep. They seek only their own pleasures, their own pastimes, they care for no more. But what said Christ to Peter? What said he? Peter, amas me? “Peter, lovest thou me?” Peter made answer, “Yes”: “Then feed my sheep”. And so the third time he commanded Peter to feed his sheep. But our clergymen do declare plainly that they love not Christ, because they feed not his flock. If they had an earnest love to Christ, no doubt they would shew their love; they would feed his sheep. But it is a thing to be lamented that the prelates and other spiritual persons will not attend upon their offices: they will not be amongst their flocks, but rather will run hither and thither, here and there, where they are not called; and, in the mean season, leave them at adventure of whom they take their living. Yea, and furthermore, some will rather be clerks of kitchens, or take other offices upon them besides that which they have already: but with what conscience these same do so, I cannot tell. I fear they shall not be able to make answer at the last day for their follies, as concerning that matter; for this office is such a heavy and weighty office that it requireth a whole man. Yea, and let every curate or parson keep his cure to which God hath appointed him, and let him do the best that he can; yet, I tell you, he cannot choose but the devil will have some; for the devil sleepeth not; he goeth about day and night to seek whom he may devour. Therefore it is need for every godly minister to abide by his sheep, seeing that the wolf is so near; and to keep them, and withstand the wolf. Indeed, there be some ministers here in England which do no good at all; and, therefore, it were better for them to leave their benefices and give room unto others. Again, I will not be so precise, but I say a man may be away from his benefice for a little while, having urgent and lawful causes; yet I would not allow him to tarry long:

346

THE COMMONWEAL

[30]

for a curate or whatsoever he be, having a cure committed unto him of God to feed, cannot be from them with a safe conscience. He may not run hither and thither after his own pleasure, but must wait upon his office: for, no doubt, the devil will be wonderful busy when the preacher or curate is from his cure. Moses, that worthy man, and faithful minister of God, was away from his people, which was to him committed, but two days; but what came of it? Marry, they committed idolatry in his absence: this came of it; which, no doubt, they would not have done, if he had been present: yet, he was not faulty, for he was called by God himself. I would wish all curates and parsons would tarry at their cures, till they be called from it as Moses was called: for certain it is, that as many as perish in his absence, he must make answer for them before God. Si non locutusfueris; “If thou dost not reprove them, if thou dost not teach them, they shall die, but I will require their blood at thy hand,” saith God. Again, if thy parish be stout and hard-necked, and will not hear the word of God, nor pass of it, yet the curate doing that which pertaineth unto him to do, he is discharged before God; and their blood shall be upon their own heads. But it is required of a curate to be with them, to exhort and admonish them. Therefore St. Peter saith, Pascite quantum in vobis est gregem Christi, “Feed as much as in you lieth the flock of Christ”. Then they may not be from their flock, for they cannot feed them being absent: and therefore those fellows that neglect or set aside their own cures, and run here and there before they be called, are no doubt in great danger; and they do against the ordinance of God. Therefore let them not be ashamed to learn of these shepherds here, to abide by their flock till such time as God shall call them, like as he called these shepherds. I will not say but they may be from it, but no longer than these shepherds; that is to say, no longer than they have lawful business. And here God doth consecrate every man’s vocation; that he that feareth God loveth his word, and liveth according unto the same, he shall be acceptable unto God; though he be a poor shepherd, or cobbler, that is not the matter.` The evangelist saith, “And there were in that same region shepherds abiding in the field”. Oh, what fidelity was in these men! They would not deceive their masters or put their sheep in jeopardy, but they were content to watch all the whole night. And lo! the angel of the Lord stood hard by them. The angel of God was a preacher at that time; the people and audience were the shepherds: but they were greatly astonished: they knew not what God intended to do. But the angel said unto them, Nolite timere, “Fear not,” As who say, “Ye have no cause to be afraid when you know how the matter goeth; for I come to bring you word that the light is come into the world”. For Christ is the light, the life, the resurrection, the way to heaven; when we believe in him, the gates of hell shall not prevail against us. The sermon of the angel was this, Ecce, “Lo!” When this word, Ecce, “Lo”, is set in scripture then ever followeth a great and weighty matter after it. And therefore he required audience and silence. He would have them to bear it away and note it well, what he would say unto them: Annuncio vobis gaudium magnum; “I bring you tidings of great joy, that shall come to all people.” I bring you good news, which pertaineth unto all the world, if they will receive it: but they that will not, if they refuse the offer of God, then they themselves are the cause of their own damnation. The let is not in God, but in themselves.

[30]

LATIMER’S SOCIAL TEACHING

347

Quia vobis natus est hodie, “Unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour.” This was a good angel, and he was already in the state of salvation. Therefore he saith, “Unto you is born a Saviour.” He saith not, Unto us; for the good angels of God are in the state of salvation already. Therefore Christ suffered not for them, nor saved them, but us. As for the other angels, the angels of darkness, the devil I say, they are without hope of salvation: and therefore Christ suffered not for them, but only for mankind, which was lost by the craft of the old serpent the devil. The fall of the devil was this. When Lucifer, which was at the same season the greatest angel in heaven, when he perceived that the Son of God would become man, he fell into such an enviousness against man, and in such a hatred and proudness against God, because the Son of God would not take his nature upon him; he fell therefore into such a pride, that he would set his seat above God, or like God, saying, Similis ero Altissimo, “I will be like unto the Highest.” But what was his end? He was cast down from heaven, he and all his fellows with all their whole company. And here they be amongst us, to let us of our salvation, and to occasion us to sin and to do wickedly before the face of the Lord. And no doubt this is a great matter, if we had grace to consider it, and to beware of his distinctions; for he knoweth that it is the will of God that we should be saved, and this grieveth him: but the good angels they rejoice when we do well, when we receive the word of God and follow it; but the devil waxeth sorry, he cannot abide that, in no wise; for he knoweth that if we should receive God’s word, it should be to the destruction and hindrance of his kingdom. After that when Christ was born into the world, he did what he could to rid him out of the way; therefore he stirred up all the Jews against him: but after that he perceived that his death should be our deliverance from our everlasting death, he did what he could to let his death; and therefore he stirred up Mistress Pilate, which took a nap in the morning, as such fine damsels are wont to do, that she should not suffer her husband to give sentence against Christ. For, as I told you, when he perceived that it was to his destruction, he would let it, and did what he could with hand and foot to stop it. But yet he was not able to disannul the counsel and purpose of God. Further, it is not enough to believe Christ to be a Saviour, but you must know what manner of Saviour he is; how far forth he saveth: and therefore you must understand that he was not such a Saviour as Moses was, which saved the people of Israel from hunger and thirst in the wilderness, but could not deliver them from everlasting death. Christ, therefore, our Saviour, is such a Saviour which saved us from eternal damnation, from the power of the devil, and all our enemies. The angel of God himself shewed us what manner of Saviour Christ is, in the first of Matthew, saying, Quia salvum faciet populum suum a peccatis suis; “For he shall save his people from their sins.” So we must believe him to be such a Saviour which released us from our sins; as well our original as actual wickedness. But the papists, as is most manifest, make him but half a Saviour: for they think that they with their good works must help him to save them half. So they blaspheme him, and take away his dignity; for he only hath merited with his painful passion to be a Saviour of the whole world, that is, to deliver all them that believe in him from their sins and wickedness. This we must believe undoubtedly, that

348

THE COMMONWEAL

[30]

he was born into this world to save mankind from their sins. Again, we must not only believe that he is a Saviour of mankind, but also that he is my Saviour, and thy Saviour. I must have such a trust and hope in him, that he will save me from all my sin and wickedness: so every man must have a special faith. We must apply his passion unto us, every one to himself. For when it is not applied unto us with a special faith, it is to no purpose: for what commodity have I when I believe Christ saved St. Peter, and St. Paul, and other good men, and go no further? Therefore I must have a special faith; I must believe that he saved them, and also will save me, and forgive me my sins. The Jews, that same obstinate people, think that the Messias, the Saviour, for whom they long, shall be a great ruler in this world, shall have the swing in this world; no man shall be able to withstand him: so they believe that their Saviour shall be a great king in the world; which is contrary to the most holy, infallible word of God. Again, the papists, as I told you before, make him but a half Saviour: for they think and believe that Christ is a Saviour; but how? Marry, thus: they say that all they that have lived well in this world, have deserved heaven with their good works; with almsgiving, and other such works merited everlasting life: and therefore, when they die, they shall be received of Christ, and he shall give them everlasting life, which they in their lifetime have deserved with their own deeds: so that our Saviour shall be, after their sayings, only a judge. He shall judge which be those which have deserved heaven, and them he shall receive into everlasting life; and so he shall give unto every one according to his merits. Such a Saviour the papists make him. But, I pray you, if it should be so as they say, which of us should be saved? Whose works are so perfect that they should be able to deserve heaven? For, I tell you, heaven and everlasting life is a more precious thing than can be deserved with our doings, with our outward works. And therefore the papists deprave Christ, and spoil him of his honour and dignity: for he is another manner of Saviour than they fantasy him to be; for he reputeth all them for just, holy, and acceptable before God, which believe in him, which put their trust, hope, and confidence in him: for by his passion, which he hath suffered, he merited that as many as believe in him shall be as well justified by him, as though they themselves had never done any sin, and as though they themselves had fulfilled the law to the uttermost. For we, without him, are under the curse of the law; the law condemneth us; the law is not able to help us; and yet the imperfection is not in the law, but in us: for the law itself is holy and good, but we are not able to keep it, and so the law condemneth us; but Christ with his death hath delivered us from the curse of the law. He hath set us at liberty, and promiseth that when we believe in him, we shall not perish; the law shall not condemn us. Therefore let us study to believe in Christ. Let us put all our hope, trust, and confidence only in him; let us patch him with nothing: for, as I told you before, our merits are not able to deserve everlasting life: it is too precious a thing to be merited by man. It is his doing only. God hath given him unto us to be our deliverer, and to give us everlasting life. O what a joyful thing was this! What a comfortable thing is it, that we know now that neither the devil, hell, or any thing in heaven or earth, shall be able to condemn us when we believe in Christ ! Now to our matter. The angel, after he had told them these good tidings, how the

[30]

LATIMER’S SOCIAL TEACHING

349

King of all kings was born, he gave them a sign or token whereby they should know him; and saith, Reperietis infantem jacentem in praesepe, “Ye shall find the babe lying in a manger.” This was a goodly sign. Indeed, if we consider the matter well, it was enough to make them astonished, and to cast down their belief, to tell them first of a great Saviour, and then to say, that they should find him in a stable, lying in a manger. But the wisdom of God is not according to the wisdom of this world. He went not about to please the foolish of this world, but his counsel was to deliver the world by his Son; which should not come in riches and great pomp, but in poverty and in rags. His kingdom in this world should be a weak kingdom. And so his disciples afterward were taken out of the lowest sort of men. They were poor fishers, and the most vilest men in this world; as St. Paul saith, Excrementa mundi, “Outcasts of the world”. And so shall all his disciples be, all they that will be saved by him; and specially the preachers of his holy word shall be excrementa, they shall be outcasts. When they will go about to reprove sin, as a preacher should do, as their office requireth, arguere mundum de peccato, “to rebuke the world of sin”; I warrant you that man shall have little favour in this world. So, I say, God hath no respect of persons: though they be vile before this world, and counted for nothing, yet he is content to work his will with them and through them, as here in these shepherds appeared: though they were poor, yet the angel opened unto them such things which were hidden from these glorious prelates and stubborn bishops, which in all time do but little good, for they disdain to preach Jesum crucifixum. Now, like as he was born in rags, so the converting of the whole world is by rags, by things which are most vile in this world. For to go to the matter: what is so common as water? Every foul ditch is full of it: yet we wash our remission of our sins by baptism: for like as he was found in rags, so we must find him by baptism. There we begin; we are washed with water; and then the words are added: for we are baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost, whereby the baptism receiveth his strength. Now this sacrament of baptism is a thing of great weight; for it ascertaineth and assureth us, that like as the water washeth the body and cleanseth it, so the blood of Christ our Saviour cleanseth and washeth it from all filth and uncleanness of sins. So likewise go to the Lord’s supper: when the bread is consecrated, when the words are spoken over it, then it is such an office that it beareth the name of the body and blood of Christ. Like as the magistrates because of their office are called Dii, “Gods”; so the bread presenteth his body, so that we go unto it worthily, and receive it with a good faith. Then we be assured that we feed upon him spiritually. And like as the bread nourisheth the body, so the soul feedeth upon the very body and blood of Christ by faith, by believing him to be a Saviour which delivered man from his sin. And so it appeareth that we may not seek Christ in the glistering of this world: for what is so common as water? what is so common as bread and wine? Yet he promised to be found there, when he is sought with a faithful heart. So will you have Christ? Where shall you find him? Not in the jollities of this world, but in rags, in the poor people. Have you any poor people amongst you in your town or city? Seek him there amongst the rags, there shall you find him. And I will prove it on this wise. He saith

350

THE COMMONWEAL

[30]

himself with his own mouth, “Whatsoever ye do to these little ones, minimis, that do ye unto me.” By these words appeareth manifestly, that whatsoever ye do unto the poor people which are despised in this world, ye do it to himself. Therefore I say yet again, when ye will seek Christ, seek him in the rags, seek him in the manger amongst the poor folk: there you shall find him. But you must understand that when I speak of poverty, I speak not of this wilful poverty of the monks and friars; for that same was an hypocritical poverty; that same poverty was full of all manner of delicate things. Nihil habeant, et tamen omnia habeant; “They had nothing, and yet they had all.” They were wise enough; they could make shift for themselves, I warrant you: therefore I speak not of that poverty; for it was a wicked, abominable, and hypocritical poverty. But I speak of the very poor and needy flocks of Christ, which have not wherewith to live in this world. Those I would have you to refresh, to cherish, to help them with your superfluity. Amongst that poor company seek Christ, and no doubt you shall find him. Now to make an end: consider what I have said, how Christ was born, in what poverty, and in what misery. Remember what manner of Saviour he is; namely, a perfect Saviour, which saveth and healeth all our sorrows, when we believe in him. I told you where you should seek him, namely, amongst the poor; there he will be found. The Almighty God give us grace to live and believe so, that we may attain to that felicity which he hath promised by his Son, our Saviour! To whom, with God the Father and the Holy Ghost, be honour world without end! Amen.

(iii) Social justice (G.E.Corrie (ed.). Sermons by Hugh Latimer (Sermons preached in Lincolnshire, 1552), 503–504)

Now the second weapon is to be just, to give every man that which we owe unto him: to the king that which pertaineth unto him; to our landlords what we owe unto them; to our curate or parson what pertaineth unto him; and though the curate be unlearned, and not able to do his duty, yet we may not withdraw from him, of private authority, that thing which is appointed unto him by common authority. No, not so: we ought to let him have his duty; but when he is naught, or unapt to be in the place of a curate, then we may complain to the ordinary, and desire a better for him. So likewise between married folks, there shall be justice: that is to say, they shall do their duties: the man shall love his wife, shall honour her, shall not be rigorous, but admonish her lovingly: again, the wife shall be obedient, loving, and kind towards her husband; not provoking him to anger, with ill and naughty words. Further, the parents ought to do justice towards their children, to bring them up in godliness and virtue; to correct them when they do naught: likewise the children ought to be obedient unto their parents, and be willing to do according unto their commandment. Item, the masters ought to do justice unto their servants, to let them have their meat and drink, and their wages: again, the servants ought to be diligent in their master’s businesses; to do them truly, not to be eye-servants. Likewise, the subjects ought to be obedient to their king and magistrate: again, the king ought to do justice, to see that justice have place. Finally, one neighbour

[30]

LATIMER’S SOCIAL TEACHING

351

ought to have justice with another; that is, to give him what pertaineth unto him; not to deceive him in any thing, but to love him, and to make much of him. When we do so, then are we sure we have the second part of this armour of God….

(iv) The idea of vocation (G.E.Corrie (ed.), Sermons and Remains of Hugh Latimer (Sermon preached on Christmas Day, 1552), 94)

(a) “And the shepherds returned lauding and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen” &c. They were not made religious men, nor monks; but returned again to their business and to their occupation. Where we learn every man to follow his occupation and vocation, and not to leave the same, except God call him from it to another: for God would have every man to live in that order that he hath ordained for him. And no doubt the man that plieth his occupation truly, without any fraud or deceit, the same is acceptable to God, and he shall have everlasting life. (Ibid. (Sermon preached on Sexagesima Sunday, 21 February 1552), 214–215) (b) And here peradventure, you will say, that it is not lawful for a Christian man to have riches nor to have honours, neither to bear high dignities. But I answer, We are not bounden by the commandment of God to cast away our substance and riches that God sendeth us, neither to refuse such honours as we shall be lawfully called unto. But we may not do, as many do, that greedily and covetously seek for it day and night: for some there are that have no rest, but still study and muse how they may get riches and honours. We must not do so; neither may seek for it after that sort. But if God call thee to honours, if our vocation requireth us so to do, then follow thy vocation with all humbleness and gentleness. Seek not for it; for it is the greatest madness that may be, to seek for honours or riches. If God sendeth them, refuse them not, as the scripture teacheth us, saying, Divitiae si affluant, nolite cor opponere “If riches come unto you, set not your hearts upon them; neither put your trust in them.” So St. Paul commandeth the rich men, saying, “Ye rich men, be not proud-hearted, nor trust in your uncertain riches.” Surely St. Paul giveth them a very apt name: for there is nothing so uncertain in this world as riches is, as we see daily by experience; but specially in these our days, where we daily see that men of great riches and honour are by the mighty hand of God made humble and of base estate. Therefore let us lift up our hearts unto Almighty God, and trust in him, and leave all ambition and covetousness. We subjects think in this manner, and say, “Oh, if I were a great man, or a rich man, as some men be, I would do much good; I would relieve the poor, and minister justice to them that have wrong.” So the sick man thinketh, “If I had my health and might go abroad, I would live after the will of God, and keep me from all sin and wickedness,” &c. Such foolish reasoning some have with themselves, not considering that the best service that any man can do unto God, is to apply his business in such state and order, as God hath appointed and ordered them. For thou canst do God no better service, being a poor man, than to live uprightly in thine estate. And so the sick man pleaseth God as well in his sickness, if he bear the same patiently and willingly, as another doth

352

THE COMMONWEAL

[30]

in his health. Therefore these studies to come aloft, and such other vain desires, are naught and foolish: and every good Christian must beware of them, and study to live in his order, as God hath appointed him.

(c) Obedience and its limits (G.E.Corrie (ed.), Sermons by Hugh Latimer (Third Sermon preached before Edward VI, 22 March 1549), 148)

A word or two more, and I commit you to God. I will monish you of a thing. I hear say ye walk inordinately, ye talk unseemly, otherwise than it becometh Christian subjects: ye take upon you to judge the judgments of judges. I will not make the King a pope; for the pope will have all things that he doth taken for an article of our faith. I will not say but that the king and his council may err; the parliament houses, both the high and the low, may err; I pray daily that they may not err. It becometh us, whatsoever they decree, to stand unto it, and receive it obediently, as far forth as it is not manifest wicked, and directly against the word of God. It pertaineth unto us to think the best, though we cannot render a cause for the doing of everything; for caritas omnia credit, omnia sperat, “Charity doth believe and trust all things.” We ought to expound to the best all things, although we cannot yield a reason. Therefore I exhort you, good people, pronounce in good part all the facts and deeds of the magistrates and judges. Charity judgeth the best of all men, and specially of magistrates. St. Paul saith, Nolite judicare ante tempus donec Dominus advenerit, “Judge not before the time of the Lord’s coming.” Pravum cor hominis, “Man’s heart is unsearchable”; it is a ragged piece of work; no man knoweth his own heart; and therefore David prayeth, and saith Ab occultis meis menda me, “Deliver me from my unknown faults:” I am a further offender than I can see. A man shall be blinded in love of himself, and cannot see so much in himself as in other men. Let us not therefore judge judges. We are accountable to God, and so be they: let them alone, they have their accounts to make.

(v) The place of labour in the Christian society (G.E.Corrie, Sermons by Hugh Latimer (Sixth Sermon preached before Edward VI, 12 April 1549), 213–215)

There be some, again, impute all to their labours and works. Yea, on the holy day they cannot find in their hearts to come to the temple to the blessed communion; they must be working at home. These are wide again on the other side. And some there be that think, if they work nothing at all, they shall have enough: they will have no good exercise, but gape, and think God will send meat into their mouths. And these are as far wide: they must work. He bade the fishers work: our Saviour Christ bade Peter work: and he that said so to them, says the same to us, every man in his art. Benedictio Deifacit divitem; “The blessing of God maketh a man rich.” He lets his sun shine upon the wicked, as well as upon the good; he sends riches both to good and bad. But this blessing turns to them into a malediction and a curse; it increaseth their damnation. St. Paul, writing to the Thessalonians, did put an order how every man should work in his

[30]

LATIMER’S SOCIAL TEACHING

353

vocation: Cum essemus apud vos, hocpraecipiebamus vobis, ut si quis nollet operari is nec edat; which in our English tongue is: “When I was among you,” saith he, “I made this ordinance, that whosoever would not do the work of his vocation should have no meat.” It were a good ordinance in a commonweal, that every man should be set on work, every man in his vocation. “Let him have no meat.” Now he, saith furthermore, Audivimus quosdam inter vos versantes inordinate nihil operis facientes, “I hear say there be some amongst you that live inordinately.” What is that word inordinately? Idly, giving themselves to no occupation for their living: curiose agentes, curious men, given to curiosity, to searching what other men do. St. Paul saith, “he heard say;” he could not tell whether it were so or no. But he took occasion of hearing say, to set out a good and wholesome doctrine: His autem qui sunt ejusmodi praecipimus et obsecramus: “We command and desire you for the reverence of God, if there be any such, that they will do the works of their vocation, and go quietly to their occupation, and so eat their own bread:” else it is not their own, it is other men’s meat. Our Saviour Christ, before he began his preaching, lived of his occupation; he was a carpenter, and gat his living with great labour. Therefore let no man disdain or think scorn to follow him in a mean living, a mean vocation, or a common calling and occupation. For as he blessed our nature with taking upon him the shape of man, so in his doing he blessed all occupations and arts. This is a notable example to signify that he abhors all idleness. When he was a carpenter, then he went and did the work of his calling: and when he was a preacher, he did the works of that calling. He was no unpreaching prelate. The bishop of Rome should have learned that at him. And these gainers with false arts, what be they? They are never content with what they have, though it be never so much. And they that are true dealers are satisfied with that that God sends, though it be never so little. Quaestus magnus pietas cum animo sua sorte contento; “Godliness is great gain, it is lucre enough, it is vantage enough, to be content with that that God sends.” The faithful cannot lack; the unfaithful is ever lacking, though he have never so much. I will now make an end. Labores manuum tuarum, let us all labour. Christ teacheth us to labour, yea, the bishop of Rome himself, he teacheth him to labour, rather than to be head of the church. Let us put our trust in God, Labores manuum tuarum, “Cast thy care upon the Lord, and he will nourish thee and feed thee.” Again the prophet saith, Nunquam vidi justum derelictum, nec semen ejus quaerens panem; “I never saw the righteous man forsaken, nor his seed to seek his bread.” It is infidelity, infidelity that mars all together. Well, to my text: Labores manuum tuarum quia manducabis, beatus es, et bene tibi erit; “Because thou eatest the labours of thy hands, that God sends thee of thy labour.” Every man must labour; yea, though he be a king, yet he must labour: for I know no man hath a greater labour than a king. What is his labour? To study God’s book, to see that there be no unpreaching prelates in his realm, nor bribing judges; to see to all estates; to provide for the poor; to see victuals good cheap. Is not this a labour, trow ye? Thus if thou dost labour, exercising the works of thy vocation, thou eatest the meat that God sends thee; and then it followeth Beatus es, “Thou art a blessed man in God’s favour,” et bene tibi erit, “and it shall go well with thee in this world,” both in body

354

THE COMMONWEAL

[30]

and soul, for God provideth for both. How shalt thou provide for thy soul? Go hear sermons. How for the body? Labour in thy vocation, and then shall it be well with thee, both here and in the world to come, through the faith and merits of our Saviour Jesus Christ: to whom with the father and the Holy Ghost be praise for ever and ever, world without end. Amen.

(vi) The causes of rebellion (Ibid. (Latimer’s last sermon preached before Edward VI, Lent 1550), 246–250) With this explanation of the troubles of 1549 compare the views of Cranmer.1

Therefore, to return to my matter, I say as I said at the beginning, Videte et cavete ab avaritia. Videte, “see it:” first see it, and then amend it. For I promise you, great complaint there is of it, and much crying out, and much preaching, but none amendment that I see. But cavete ab avaritia, “Beware of covetousness” And why of covetousness? Quia radix est omnium malorum avaritia et cupiditas, “For covetousness is the root of all evil and of all mischief.” This saying of Paul took me away from the gospel that is read in the church this day, and it took me from the epistle, that I would preach upon neither of them both at this time. I cannot tell what ailed me; but (to tell you my imperfection) when I was appointed to preach here, I was new come out of a sickness, whereof I looked to have died, and weak I was: yet nevertheless, when I was appointed unto it, I took it upon me, howbeit I repented afterward that I had so done. I was displeased with myself: I was testy, as Jonas was when he should go preach to the Ninivites. Well, I looked on the gospel that is read this day: but it liked me not. I looked on the epistle: tush, I could not away with that neither. And yet I remember I had preached upon this epistle once afore king Henry the Eighth; but now I could not frame with it, nor it liked me not in no sauce. Well, this saying of Paul came into my mind, and at last I considered and weighed the matter deeply, and then thought I thus with myself: Is covetousness the root of all mischief and of all evil? Then have at the root, and down with all covetousness. So this place of Paul brought me to this text of Luke, “See and beware of covetousness”. Therefore, you preachers, out with your swords and strike at the root. Speak against covetousness, and cry out upon it. Stand not ticking and toying at the branches nor at the boughs, for then there will new boughs and branches spring again of them; but strike at the root, and fear not these giants of England, these great men and men of power, these men that are oppressors of the poor; fear them not, but strike at the root of all evil, which is mischievous covetousness. For covetousness is the cause of rebellion. I have forgotten my logic, but yet I can jumble at a syllogism, and make an argument of it, to prove it by. Covetousness is the root of all evil: rebellion is an evil: ergo covetousness is the root of rebellion. And so it was indeed. Covetousness was the cause of rebellion this last summer; and both parties had covetousness, as well the gentlemen as the commons Both parties had covetousness for both parties had an inordinate desire to have that, they had not: and that is covetousness, an inordinate desire to have that one hath not. The commons would have had from the gentlemen such things as they desired: the 1

Below, No. 32.

[30]

LATIMER’S SOCIAL TEACHING

355

gentlemen would none of it; and so was there covetousness on both sides. The commons thought they had a right to the things that they inordinately sought to have. But what then? They must not come to it that way. Now on the other side, the gentlemen had a desire to keep that they had, and so they rebelled too against the king’s commandment, and against such good order as he and his council would have set in the realm. And thus both parties had covetousness, and both parties did rebel. I heard say that there were godly ordinances devised for the redress of it. But the giants would none of it in no sauce. I remember mine own self a certain giant, a great man, who sat in commission about such matters; and when the townsmen should bring in what had been inclosed, he frowned and chafed, and so near looked, and threatened the poor men, that they durst not ask their right. I read of late in an Act of Parliament; and this act made mention of an Act that was in king Henry’s days, the third I trow it was; yea, and such another business there was in king Edward’s time, the second also. In this parliament that I speak of, the gentlemen and the commons were at variance, as they were now of late. And there the gentlemen that were landlords would needs have away much lands from their tenants; and would needs have an Act of Parliament that it might be lawful for them to inclose and make several from their tenants, and from the commons, such portions of their lands as they thought good. Much ado there was about this Act: at last it was concluded and granted that they might do so; provided alway, that they should leave sufficient to the tenant. Well; it was well that they were bound to leave sufficient for them. But who should be the judge to limit what was sufficient for them? Or who shall now judge what is sufficient? Well; I for my part cannot tell what is sufficient. But methought it was well that the tenants and poor commons should have sufficient. For if they had sufficient, thought I, they had cause to be quiet. And then fell I to make this argument within myself: if at that time it were put in their will and power that they might inclose, leaving to the tenant that were sufficient for him; if they had it then in their power, thought I, that they might this do, they would leave no more than sufficient. If they left to the tenants and poor commons no more in those days but sufficient; then if they had any more taken from them since that time, then had they now not sufficient. They in Christ are equal with you. Peers of the realm must needs be. The poorest ploughman is in Christ equal with the greatest prince that is. Let them, therefore, have sufficient to maintain them, and to find them their necessaries. A plough-land must have sheep; yea, they must have sheep to dung their ground for bearing of corn; for if they have no sheep to help to fat the ground, they shall have but bare corn and thin. They must have swine for their food, to make their veneries or bacon of: their bacon is their venison, for they shall now have hangum tuum, if they get any other venison; so that bacon is their necessary meat to feed on, which they may not lack. They must have other cattle: as horses to draw their plough, and for carriage of things to the markets; and kine for their milk and cheese, which they must live upon and pay their rents. These cattle must have pasture, which pasture if they lack, the rest must needs fail them: and pasture they cannot have; if the land be taken in, and inclosed from them. So, as I said, there was in both parts rebellion. Therefore, for God’s love, restore their

356

THE COMMONWEAL

[31]

sufficient unto them, and search no more what is the cause of rebellion. Well now, if covetousness be the cause of rebellion, then preaching against covetousness is not the cause of rebellion. Some say that the preaching now-a-days is the cause of all sedition and rebellion: for since this new preaching hath come in, there hath been much sedition; and therefore it must needs be that the preaching is the cause of rebellion here in England. Forsooth, our preaching is the cause of rebellion much like as Christ was the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem. For, saith Christ, Si non venissem et locutus fuissem eis, peccatum non haberent, &c, “If I had not come,” saith Christ, “and spoken to them, they should have no sin.” So we preachers have come and spoken to you: we have drawn our swords of God’s word, and stricken at the roots of all evil to have them cut down; and if ye will not amend, what can we do more? And preaching is the cause of sedition here in England, much like as Elias was the cause of trouble in Israel; for he was a preacher there, and told the people of all degrees their faults, and so they winced and kicked at him, and accused him to Achab the king, that he was a seditious fellow, and a troublous preacher, and made much uproar in the realm. So the king sent for him, and he was brought to Achab the king, who said unto him, “Art thou he that troubleth all Israel?” And Elias answered, and said, “Nay, thou and thy father’s house are they that trouble all Israel.” Elias had preached God’s word; he had plainly told the people of their evil doings; he had shewed them God’s threatenings. In God’s behalf I speak: there is neither king, nor emperor, be they never in so great estate, but they are subject to God’s word; and therefore he was not afraid to say to Achab, “It is thou and thy father’s house that causeth all the trouble in Israel”. Was not this presumptuously spoken to a king? Was not this a seditious fellow? Was not this fellow’s preaching a cause of all the trouble in Israel? Was he not worthy to be cast in Bocardo or Littleease? No, but he had used God’s sword, which is his word, and done nothing else that was evil; but they could not abide it. He never disobeyed Achab’s sword, which was the regal power: but Achab disobeyed his sword, which was the word of God. And therefore by the punishment of God much trouble arose in the realm for the sins of Achab and the people. But God’s preacher, God’s prophet, was not the cause of the trouble. Then is it not we preachers that trouble England.

31. Thomas Lever’s Social Theory illustrated from his sermons (i) Obedience (A sermon preached at St Paul’s, 2 February 1550. E.Arber (ed.), The Sermons of Thomas Lever, 26–28)

T

hose powers which be are ordained of God. As is the power of the father over his children, of the husband over his wife, of the master over his servants, and of the King over his land and subjects: with all kinds of magistrates in their offices over their charge. Now to prove that these be the ordinances of God, we have by God’s word both in the old testament and in the new, their names rehearsed, their offices described, and their duties commanded. Yet that notwithstanding some there be that labour by wresting

[31]

THOMAS LEVER’S SOCIAL THEORY

357

of the scripture to pull themselves from under due obedience: saying that it appeareth in the acts of the Apostles how that they had all things common, and therefore none more goods or riches, power or authority, than other, but all alike. Truth it is, that the Apostles had all things common, yea and that Christian men, in that they are christian men rather than covetous men, have all things common, even unto this day. How be it there can be nothing more contrary or further dis-agreeing from that phantastical commonness, or rather from that devilish disorder, and unrighteous robbery, whereas idle lubbers might live of honest men’s labours, than to have all things common as the Apostles had, as christian men have, and as I do mean. And this is their usage, and my meaning: that rich men should keep to themselves no more than they need, and give unto the poor so much as they need. For so Paul writeth to the Corinthians. I mean not (saith Paul, speaking to the rich) to have other so eased, that you thereby should be brought in trouble of need, but after an indifferency, that at this time your abundance, might help their need. And so did the Apostles take order as appeareth in the fourth of the Acts. Quotquot habebant agros et possessions, etc.1 As many as had lands and possessions did sell them, and brought the prices unto the feet of the Apostles, and division was made unto every one according unto every man’s need. So they which might spare did freely give, and they which had need did thankfully receive For so is it meet, that christian mens’ goods should be common unto every man’s weal, and private to no man’s lust. And these common goods to be disposed by liberal givers, and not spoiled by greedy catchers. So that every man may have according to his need sufficient, and not according to his spoil so much as he can catch, no nor according to the value of the thing, every man a penny, a groat, or a shilling. For they that imagine, covet, or wish to have all things common, in such sort that every man might take what him lust, would have all things common and open unto every man’s lust, and nothing reserved or kept for any man’s need. And they that would have like quantity of every thing to be given to every man, intending thereby to make all alike, do utterly destroy the congregation, the mystical body of Christ, whereas there must needs be divers members in divers places, having divers duties. For as St. Paul saith: if all the body be an eye, where is then hearing? or if all be an ear, where is then smelling? meaning thereby, that if all be of one sort, estate, and room in the common wealth, how can then divers duties of divers necessary offices be done? So that the free heart, and liberal gift of the rich, must make all that he may spare, common to relieve the need of the poor: yea, if there be great necessity, he must sell both lands and goods, to maintain charity. And thus to have all things common, doth derogate or take away nothing from the authority of rulers. But to will to have all things common, in such sort that idle lubbers (as I said) might take and waste the gains of labourers without restraint of authority, or to have like quantity of every thing to be given to every man, is under a pretence to mend all, purposely to mar all. For those same men pretending to hate covetousness, would be as rich as the richest: and saying that they hate pride, would be as highly taken as the best, and seeming to abhor envy, 1

Acts iv. 34.

358

THE COMMONWEAL

[31]

can not be contented to see any other richer or better than they themselves be. Now I hear some say that this error is the fruit of the scripture in English. No, neither this, nor no other error cometh because the scripture is set forth in the English tongue, but because the rude people lacking the counsel of learned men to teach them the true meaning when they read it, or hear it, must needs follow their own imagination in taking of it. And the chieftest cause that maketh them to imagine this abominable error, that there should be no rich men nor rulers, cometh because some rich men and rulers (mark that I say some, for all be not such) but I say some rich men, and rulers by the abuse of their riches and authority, doth more harm than good unto the common wealth, and more grief than comfort unto the people. For nowadays rich men and rulers do catch, purchase, and procure unto themselves great commodities from many men, and do few and small pleasures unto any men.

(ii) The merchants of London (Ibid. 29–30)

As for example of rich men, look at the merchants of London, and ye shall see, when as by their honest vocation, and trade of merchandise God hath endowed them with great abundance of riches, then can they not be content with the prosperous wealth of that vocation to satisfy themselves, and to help other, but their riches must abroad in the country to buy farms out of the hands of worshipful gentlemen, honest yeomen, and poor labouring husbands. Yea, now also to buy parsonages and benefices, whereas they do not only buy lands and goods, but also lives and souls of men, from God and the common wealth, unto the devil and themselves. A mischievous mart of merchantry is this, and yet now so commonly used, that thereby shepherds be turned to thieves, dogs into wolves, and the poor flock of Christ, redeemed with his precious blood, most miserably pilled, and spoiled, yea, cruelly devoured. Be thou merchant of the city, or be thou gentlemen in the country, be thou lawyer, be thou courtier, or what manner of man soever thou be, that can not, yea if thou be master doctor of divinity, that will not do thy duty, it is not lawful for thee to have parsonage, benefice, or any such living, except thou do feed the flock spiritually with God’s word, and bodily with honest hospitality.

(iii) The Dissolution of the monasteries (Ibid. 31)

Do not think that I mean anything against that which the King’s majesty by act of Parliament hath done: no nor that I will cover in silence, or allow by flattery that which covetous officers (some as I suppose now being present) contrary to God’s laws, the King’s honour, and the common wealth use to do. For in suppressing of abbeys, cloisters, colleges, and chantries, the intent of the King’s majesty that dead is, was, and of this our King now, is very godly, and the purpose or else the pretence of either, wondrous goodly: that thereby such abundance of goods as was superstitiously spent upon vain ceremonies, or voluptuously upon idle bellies, might come to the King’s hands to bear

[31]

THOMAS LEVER’S SOCIAL THEORY

359

his great charges, necessarily bestowed in the common wealth, or partly unto other mens’ hands, for the better relief of the poor, the maintenance of learning, and the setting forth of God’s word. Howbeit covetous officers have so used this matter, that even those goods which did seem to the relief of the poor, the maintenance of learning, and to comfortable necessary hospitality in the common wealth, be now turned to maintain worldly, wicked, covetous ambition.

(iv) Social justice (A sermon preached at St Paul’s, 14 December 1550. Ibid. 106–108)

The rich man by liberality, must dispose relief and comfort unto the poor and needy. The merchant by buying and selling, and the craftsman by his occupation, must provide unto the common wealth of necessary wares, sufficient plenty. The landlord by letting of farms must dispose unto the tenants necessary lands, and houses of an indifferent rent. The husbandman by tilling of the ground and keeping of cattle, must dispose unto their landlords due rents, and unto themselves the other, both corn and other victuals. So every man by doing of his duty must dispose unto other that commodity and benefit which is committed of God unto them to be disposed unto other by the faithful and diligent doing of their duties…. O brethren, God hath given great plenty, and we in England find great lack: therefore the stewards of God be unfaithful. Who be God’s stewards? They that have God’s gifts. Surely no man hath all the gifts of God, and every man hath some gifts of God. Then if all things be lacking, yet can no one man deserve all the blame, but every man shall be found faulty for that which is amiss for lack of his duty. Do ye perceive that the laity is either altogether ignorant and blind, or else having knowledge to speak fair, hath no learning to do well? Then surely the clergy hath not been faithful in preaching of God’s word earnestly, in season and out of season to reprove, beseech and blame, in all patience and token, or discipline. Do ye see the clergy hath not wherewithal to maintain learning, to relieve the poor, to keep hospitality, and to find themselves? Then truly hath not the laity sufficiently provided that they which preach the Gospel should live on the Gospel, and that they which sow spiritual treasures might reap corporal necessaries. Do ye see that they which be in authority have not been regarded and obediently served? Then the common people have not done their duties, disobeying any men placed in authority by God’s ordinance. Do ye see the people have had injuries and yet their complaints negligently heard and long delayed? then have the higher powers omitted righteousness and judgment, which will be required at their hands of the Lord.

(v) Enemies of the Commonweal (Ibid. 128–131)

O wicked servants of Mammon, always both enemies and traitors to God and the King and the common wealth. Is it God or Mammon that hath made the corn to spring, and given you plenty? If ye say Mammon, then ye confess plainly whose servants ye be,

360

THE COMMONWEAL

[31]

what idolatry ye use. If ye say God, how dare ye confess him in your words and deny him in your deeds? Why do ye not bring forth God’s corn unto God’s people at God’s commandment? Why be ye not faithful disposers of God’s treasures? Well, he that hath no corn thinketh he hath no part, nor is not guilty in this matter, but I can tell that there is many of them that neither hath nor will have corn, which make corn most dear. I have heard how that even this last year there was certain acres of corn growing on the ground bought for 8 pounds: he that bought it for 8 sold it for 10. He that gave 10 pounds, sold it to another above 12 pounds: and at last, he that carried it off the ground paid 14 pounds. Likewise I heard that certain quarters of malt were bought after the price of 3 shillings 4 pence a quarter to be delivered in a certain market town upon a certain day. This bargain was so oft bought and sold before the day of deliverance came, that the same malt was sold to him that should receive it there and carry it away, after 6.s. a quarter. Look and see how much a craftsman or any other honest man that must spend corn in his house, by this manner of bargaining, payeth, and how little the husbandman that tilleth the ground, and payeth the rent, receiveth: then ye may see and perceive it must needs be hard for either of them to keep a house, the craftsman paying so much, and the husbandman taking so little. There is a like manner of bargaining of them that be leasemongers, for leasemongers make the tenants to pay so much, and the landlords to take so little that neither of them is well able to keep house. I hear say that within a few miles of London an honest gentleman did let his ground by lease unto poor honest men after 2.s. 4.d. an acre: then cometh a leasemonger, a thief, and extortioner, deceiving the tenants, buyeth their leases, put them from the grounds, and causeth them that have it at him now, to pay after 9.s. or as I heard say 19.s. but I am ashamed to name so much. Howbeit covetous extortioners be ashamed of no deed be it never so evil. And as I hear say, there be many leasemongers in London, that heighten the rent of bare houses: and as corn, lands, tenements and houses, so in all manner of wares, there be such buyers and sellers as cause the providers and makers of the wares to take so little and the occupiers of the wares to pay so much, that neither of them both is able to live. All the merchants of mischief that go betwixt the bark and the tree. Betwixt the husbandman that getteth the corn, and householder that occupieth corn, betwixt the landlord that letteth farms, and the tenants that dwell in the farms. And betwixt the craftsmen that maketh, or the merchant that provideth, wares, and other men that occupieth wares. I say these merchants of mischief coming betwixt the bark and the tree, do make all things dear to the buyers, and yet wonderful vile and of small price to many that must needs set or sell that which is their own honestly come by. These be far worse than any other that hath been mentioned heretofore: for although beneficed men and officers have many men’s livings, yet they do some men’s duties. But these have every man’s living, and do no man’s duty. For they have that which is indeed the living of craftsmen, merchantmen, husbandmen, landlords and tenants, and do never a one of these men’s duties. These be idle vagabonds, living upon other men’s labours: these be named honest bargainers, and be indeed crafty covetous extortioners. For they that be true merchantmen to buy and sell indeed, should and do provide great plenty and good cheap by honest buying and selling of

[32]

DENUNCIATION OF REBELLION BY CRANMER, 1549

361

their wares. But these having the names of true merchants, and being indeed crafty thieves, do make a scarcity and dearth of all things that cometh through their hands. Take away all merchantmen from any town or city, and ye shall leave almost no provision of things that be necessary. Take away leasemongers, regrators, and all such as by buying and selling make things more dear, and when they be gone all things will be more plenty and better cheap. Now may ye see who they be that make a great dearth in a great plenty. For who is it that heighteneth the price of corn, the husbandman that getteth plenty of corn by tilling of the ground.? No: the regrator that buyeth corn to make it dear, growing upon the ground. Who raiseth the rents, joineth house to house, and heapeth farms together? The gentlemen, that by giving of leases, letteth forth his own lands into other men’s hands? No, the leasemongers, that by selling leases, buyeth and bringeth other men’s lands into their own hands. Who maketh all manner of wares and merchandises to be very dear? the merchant venturer, which with faithful diligence to provide for the common wealth carrieth forth such things as may well be spared, and bringeth home such wares as must needs be occupied in this realm? No, the merchant of mischief that by crafty conveyance for his own gain, carrieth away such things as may not be spared, and bringeth again such wares as are not needful. Take heed, you merchants of London that ye be not merchants of mischief, conveying away too much old lead, wood, leather, and such substantial wares as would set many Englishmen to work, and do every man good service, and bringing home silks and sables, cattails and foolish feathers to fill the realm full of such baggage as will never do rich or poor good, and necessary service. Be ye sure, if this realm be rich, ye shall not need to be poor, if this realm be poor you shall not be able to keep and enjoy your riches.

32. Denunciation of rebellion by Cranmer, 1549 His answer to the Fifteen Articles of the rebels of Devon (J.E.Cox, Miscellaneous Writings and Letters of Thomas Cranmer, Parker Soc., 1846, 163–187) At Whitsun 1549 the Book of Common Prayer came into force. Immediately, there were risings in Devonshire, which were soon followed by a more general conservative religious revolt in the West country, an agrarian rising in Norfolk, and riots against enclosures in various parts of S.E. England. Russel, Lord Privy Seal, in charge of operations against the Devon rebels, offered to receive their grievances, which were sent to him in fifteen articles. Cranmer drew up an answer in which he denounced the wickedness of rebellion. The text is also printed in Strype, Memorials of Archbishop Cranmer, 1, 264.

W

hen I first read your request, O ignorant men of Devonshire and Cornwall, straightways came to my mind a request, which James and John made unto Christ; to whom Christ answered: “You ask you wot not what”. Even so thought I of you, as soon as ever I heard your articles, that you were deceived by some crafty papist, which devised those articles for you, to make you ask you wist not what. As for the devisers of your articles, if they understand them, I may not call them ignorant persons, but, as they be indeed most rank papists and wilful traitors and adversaries both to God and to our sovereign lord the king, and to the whole realm.

362

THE COMMONWEAL

[32]

But I cannot be persuaded so to think of you, that in your hearts willingly you be papists and traitors; but that those that be such have craftily seduced you, being simple and unlearned people, to ask you wot not what. Wherefore my duty unto God, and the pity that I have of your ignorance, move me now at this time to open plainly and particularly your own articles unto you, that you may understand them, and no longer be deceived. In your first article you require, that all the general councils and holy decrees of our forefathers may be observed and kept, and whosoever shall againsay them to be holden as heretics. This you all ask; but what you ask, I dare say, very few or none of you understand. For how many of you, I pray you, do know certainly which be called the general councils and holy decrees of the fathers, and what is in them contained? The holy decrees, as they call them, be nothing else but the laws and ordinances of the bishop of Rome: whereof the most part be made for his own advancement, glory, and lucre, and to make him and his clergy governors of the whole world, and to be exempted from all princes’ laws, and to do what they list. And would you ask, if you knew what you asked, that we should put away the laws of our own realm, and be governed by the bishop of Rome’s laws? If you mean this, then be you traitors to the king, and enemies to your own realm: and if you mean it not, consider what persons they be, and how they have deceived you, that make you ask you wot not what. And as for the general councils, you say you will have them all kept: but you be not so destitute of all reason that you would have spoken such words, if you had known what you had said. For a great number of the councils repugn one against another. How should they then be all kept, when one is contrary to another, and the keeping of one is the breaking of another? And among your own articles you say, you will have divers things observed, which be not only contrary to the general councils, but also contrary to the law of this realm, and also to God’s laws, as it shall be plainly declared when we come to the articles. And all reason is contrary that you should have asked such things, if you had known what you had asked. I have this opinion of the great number of you, that you would fain walk in the right way, if you could find it. And forasmuch as I perceive that wicked and false guides, under pretence to bring you to the high way, have brought you clean out of it, my good-will shall be, seeing you so far wandering out of the way, and so blindfolded with evil persuasions, that you cannot see where you go, to open your eyes that you may see, and to set you again into the right way. And when your eyes be so opened that you may see, and the right way shewed unto you, wherein you should walk; then if you will still wink, and not see, and run headlong in error, and not come to the right way, you may no longer be called simple and ignorant people, but perverse, froward, and wicked papists and traitors, enemies to God and your own realm. But now I will come to your articles particularly, opening every one of them by himself, that you may see the bowels thereof, and what is contained in the same; that when you shall understand the whole, you may judge whether you knew before what you asked, or you were deceived by subtle and wily papistical traitors.

[32]

DENUNCIATION OF REBELLION BY CRANMER, 1549

363

YOUR FIRST ARTICLE IS THIS: “We will have all the general councils and holy decrees of our forefathers observed, kept, and performed: and whosoever shall againsay them, we hold them as heretics.” First, to begin with the manner of your phrase. Is this the fashion of subjects to speak unto their prince, “We will have?” Was this manner of speech at any time used of the subjects to their prince since the beginning of the world? Have not all true subjects ever used to their sovereign lord this form of speaking, “Most humbly beseecheth your faithful and obedient subjects?” Although the papists have abused your ignorance in propounding such articles, which you understand not, yet you should not have suffered yourselves so much to be led by the nose and bridled by them, that you should clearly forget your duty of allegiance unto your sovereign lord saying unto him, “This we will have;” and that saying with armour upon your backs and swords in your hands. Would any of you that be householders be content that your servants should come upon you with harness unto their backs, and swords in their hands, and say unto you “This we will have?” If then you would abhor and detest this in your servants towards yourselves, how can you allow your fact? With what conscience can you, being but subjects, do to your king that thing which you would condemn in your servants towards yourselves? But answer me this: Be you subjects or no? If you be subjects, then I admonish you, as St. Paul taught Titus, saying: “Warn them to be subject to princes and rulers, obeying them at a word.” But tell me again: Pertaineth this to subjection and obedience to say, “This we will have?” St. Peter saith “Be subject unto kings, as unto chief heads, and to other rulers sent by them. For so is the will of God.” God’s will is that you should be ruled by your princes. But whether is this to be ruled by your king, or to rule your king, to say, “Thus we will have the realm governed?” Your servants be by the scripture commanded, as they fear God, to be obedient to their masters, whether their masters be good or evil. And can you think it meet and lawful for you to disobey your undoubted king, being a prince most innocent, most godly, and most careful for your surety and wealth? If any thing can declare disobedience, what can declare it more than subjects to come with force of arms to their natural king and prince, and say, “This we will have?” But now, leaving your rude and unhandsome manner of speech to your most sovereign lord, I will come to the point, and join with you in the effect of your first article. You say, you will have all the holy decrees observed and kept. But do you know what they be? The holy decrees, as I told you before, be called the bishop of Rome’s ordinances and laws: which how holy and godly soever they be called, they be indeed so wicked, so ungodly, so full of tyranny, and so partial, that since the beginning of the world were never devised or invented the like. I shall rehearse a certain of them, whereby you may judge of the rest, to the intent that yourselves may see how holy they be, and may say your minds, whether you would have them kept or no. And at the hearing of them, if you shall not think them meet to be kept here in this realm, then you may see how they deceived you, that moved you to ask this article. And if you like them, and would have them kept, after you know what they be, then I say assuredly, that you be not only

364

THE COMMONWEAL

[32]

wicked papists, but also heretics and most heinous traitors to the king and this his realm. And yet how an absolute papist varieth from an heretic or traitor, I know not; but that a papist is also both a heretic and a traitor withal. One decree saith, that “whosoever doth not acknowledge himself to be under the obedience of the bishop of Rome is an heretic”. Now answer me to this question, Whether be you under the obedience of the bishop of Rome or not? If you say that you be under his obedience, then be you traitors by the laws of this realm; and if you deny it then be you heretics by this decree. And shift is there none to save you from treason, but to renounce this decree, that commandeth you to be under the bishop of Rome; and so to confess, contrary to your own first article, that all decrees are not to be kept. Yet a great many other decrees be as evil and worse than this. One saith that “all princes’ laws which be against a decree of the bishop of Rome be void and of no strength”. Another decree saith that “all the decrees of the bishop of Rome ought forever to be kept of all men as God’s word”. Another decree there is that “whosoever receiveth not the laws of the bishop of Rome availeth neither him the catholic faith nor the four evangelists. For his sin shall never be forgiven.” Yet is there a worse and more detestable decree that “all kings and princes that suffer the bishop of Rome’s decrees to be broken in any point are to be taken as infidels.” Another is there also “that the bishop of Rome is bound to no manner of decrees, but he may constrain all other persons, both spiritual and temporal, to receive all his decrees and canons”. Another is yet more devilish than any before rehearsed, that “although the bishop of Rome neither regard his own salvation nor no man’s else, but put down with himself headlong innumerable people by heaps unto hell, yet may no mortal man presume to reprove him therefore”. But what should I tarry, and make you weary in rehearsing a number? For a thousand other like canons and decrees there be to the advancement of the bishop of Rome his usurped power and authority. I cannot think of you that you be so far from all godliness from all wit and discretion, that you would have these decrees observed within this realm, which be so blasphemous to God, so injurious to all princes and realms, and so far from all equity and reason. But here you may easily perceive what wily foxes you met withal, which persuaded you to arm yourselves, to make sedition in your own country, to stand against your princes and the laws of your realm, for such articles as you understand not, and to ask you wist not what. For I dare say for you that the subtle papists, when they moved you to stand in this article “that all the holy decrees should be observed” they shewed you nothing of these decrees, that they were taken for holy decrees: for if they had they knew right well that you would never have consented unto this article; but would have taken them for traitors that first moved you thereto. For now shall I shew you what miserable case you should bring yourselves unto if the king’s majesty should assent unto this first article “that all the decrees should be kept and observed”. For among other partial decrees made in the favour of the clergy, this is one: “That none of the clergy shall be called or sued before any temporal judge for any manner of cause, either for debt, suit of lands, felony, murder, or for any other cause or crime; nor shall have any other judge, but his bishop only”. Another is: “That

[32]

DENUNCIATION OF REBELLION BY CRANMER, 1549

365

a spiritual man may sue a temporal man before a temporal or spiritual judge at his pleasure, but a temporal man cannot sue a spiritual but only before his ordinary”. I cannot deny but these be good and beneficial laws for the liberty of the clergy. But for your own part, I suppose, you do not think it any indifferent law that a priest shall sue you where he list, with the licence of his ordinary; and you shall sue him for no manner of cause, but only before his own ordinary; or if a priest had slain one of your sons or brethren, that you should have no remedy against him, but only before the bishop. What mean those papistical priests, that stirred you to ask and will such decrees and laws to be observed in this realm, but covertly and craftily to bring you under their subjection; and that you yourselves, ignorantly asking you wist not what, should put your own heads under their girdles? For surely, if you had known these decrees when you consented to this article, you would have torn the article in pieces, and they that moved you thereto also. For these decrees be not only partial, and against all equity and reason, made only for the favour of the clergy, and the suppression of the laity; but also they be, and ever have been, clearly contrary to the laws and customs of this realm. And yet by this article you will have the old ancient laws and customs of this realm (which have ever been used in all kings’ times hitherto) to be void and to cease, and these decrees to come in their place and be observed of all men, and againsaid of no man: for whosoever speaketh against them, you will hold them for heretics. And in so saying, look what sentence to give of yourselves. Although your article say it, yet I am sure you be not so much enemies to your own realm that you would have the old ancient laws and customs of this realm (for the defence whereof all the noble kings of this realm have so valiantly and so justly stood against the bishops of Rome) now to be taken away and give place unto Romish decrees. And then by your own article you hold and condemn yourselves to be heretics. How be you bewitched by these false papists? Why do you suffer them thus to abuse you by their subtlety to make you condemn yourselves of heresy? Why do you not send them unto the king’s majesty like errant traitors, as indeed they be, saying unto him, “Most mighty prince, and most dread sovereign lord, we present here unto you most heinous traitors against your majesty and realm, and greatest dissemblers and false deceivers of us, your simple and ignorant people, and yet in our own hearts your true and faithful subjects. We have erred, we have grievously offended your majesty, but by ignorance, being so seduced and provoked by the crafty persuasions of these most heinous traitors, that we wist not what we did. But pardon us, sovereign lord, have pity upon our simplicity and ignorance; and these abominable traitors punish according to their deservings. Have mercy, most merciful prince, of us, your poor flock, which were ignorantly led out of the way; and strike with the sword those malicious guides that purposely would have led us to our utter destruction.” If you did thus, then would you do the parts of true, faithful and loyal subjects, and should declare to the world that all that you have hitherto done was done by error and ignorance. And I would nothing doubt of the king’s majesty his clemency and mercy towards you. But yet, to the intent that you may further know how unreasonable your first article

366

THE COMMONWEAL

[32]

is, I will yet rehearse another sort of the holy laws and decrees. One is: “That no layman may have a benefice to farm.” Another is: “That none of the clergy may give any thing to the relief of the commonweal and necessity of their own realm, without the consent of the bishop of Rome.” Another is: “That no layman may meddle with election or any other thing that pertaineth unto any of the clergy.” Another is: “That none of the clergy ought to give any oath of fidelity to their princes except they have temporal lands of them.” Another is: “That princes ought to obey the bishops and the decrees of the church, and to submit their heads unto their bishops, and not to be judges over the bishops.” Another is this: “Whosoever offendeth the liberties of the church or doth break any interdiction that cometh from Rome, or conspireth against the person or estate of the bishop or see of Rome, or by any ways offendeth, disobeyeth, or rebelleth against the same bishop or see, or that killeth a priest, or offendeth personally against a bishop or other prelate, or invadeth, spoileth, withholdeth, or wasteth lands belonging to the church of Rome, or to any other church immediately subject unto Rome; or whosoever invadeth any pilgrims that go to Rome, or any suitors to the court of Rome, or that let the devolution of causes unto that court, or that put any new charges or impositions real or personal, upon a church or ecclesiastical person; and generally, all others that offend in the cases contained in the bull which is usually published by the bishops of Rome upon Maundy Thursday; all these can be assoiled by no priest, bishop, archbishop, nor by none other, but only by the bishop of Rome, or by his express licence.” These, with an infinite number of like sort, be the godly and holy decrees which you long so sore for, and so much desire. Now would I know, whether you think that these decrees were made for the common wealth of all realms, or only for the private weal of the bishop of Rome and of his bishops and clergy; and whether you like and long for these laws; or now, at the hearing of them, your longing is done? If you like them, well: for my part I would you had them practised among you for a while, (so that the rest of the realm were not troubled, neither with you nor with your decrees,) until you repented yourselves of your foolish demands. I think within a year you would kneel on your knees to the king’s majesty, desiring him to take from your necks the yokes and halters which you had made for yourselves. But to conclude the sum of the first article in few words: it is nothing else but a clear subversion of the whole state and laws of this realm; and to make this realm to be wholly governed by Romish laws, and to crown the idol and antichrist of Rome king of this realm, and to make our most undoubted and natural king his vile subject and slave. Oh! what was in your minds to ask such a thing, and so presumptuously to say, that you will have it? I trust there be not in you so much malice and devilishness, as the article containeth, but that you were craftily subornate by subtle papists to ask and demand you wist not what. If you had asked, that the word of God might be duly observed and kept everywhere within this realm, and whosoever would gainsay God’s word, to be holden as a heretic; if you had declared yourselves to be godly men; all that be godly would have commended and furthered your request. But forasmuch as you ask Romish canons and decrees to

[32]

DENUNCIATION OF REBELLION BY CRANMER, 1549

367

be observed and kept here in England, and whosoever shall againsay them, to be holden as heretics, there is neither godly nor truly English man, that will allow you, or consent to your articles. But clean contrary to your articles, a great number of godly persons within this realm, for the very love that they have to God, that his name may be glorified above all things, be daily humble suitors to the king’s majesty, that he, following the steps of his father, will study and travail to weed out of this his realm all popish decrees, laws, and canons, and Whatsoever else is contrary to God’s word; and that the speakers against God’s word may be taken (as they be indeed) for heretics. And is any of you so far from reason, that he thinketh the king’s majesty ought to hearken to you, that by force and stubbornness say, you will have Romish laws and decrees kept in this realm, and to turn his ears from them that with all humility be suitors for God’s word? But now will I come to your other articles, wherein I will be brief, forasmuch as in the first I have been long and tedious. YOUR SECOND ARTICLE IS THIS:

“We will have the law of our sovereign lord king Henry VIII. concerning the Six Articles to be used again, as in his time they were.” Letting pass your rude style, nothing becoming subjects to say, “You will have”: First, I examine you of the cause of your wilful will, wherefore you will have these six articles: which never were laws in no region but this; nor in this realm also, until the 31 st. year of King Henry VIII; and in some things so enforced by the evil counsel of certain papists, against the truth, and common judgment both of divines and lawyers, that if the king’s majesty himself had not come personally into the parliament house, those laws had never passed. And yet within a year or little more the same most noble prince was fain to temper his said laws, and moderate them in divers points: so that the statute of Six Articles continued in his force little above the space of one year. Is this then so great a matter to make these uproars, and to arise against the whole realm? Will you take away the present laws of this realm, (which be and ever have been the laws of all other countries also,) and set up new laws, which never were but in this realm only, and were here in force not fully thirteen months? And how chanceth it, that you be so earnest in this article, which is directly contrary to your first article, but you know not what neither of the articles meaneth, but be persuaded by perverse papists to ask you wot not what? But now here is the repugnance of the two articles: by your first you will have all general councils and decrees observed and kept; and by your second article you will have the Six Articles used again. Then let us compare the general councils and decrees with the Six Articles; and you shall see them agree as well together as black and white. First, it is contained in the canons of the apostles that a priest under no pretence of holiness may put away his wife; and, if he do, he shall be excommunicated: and the Six Articles say that if a priest put not away his wife, he shall be taken for a felon. If he keep her not still, he must be excommunicated by the canon of the apostles: and if he keep her still, he must suffer death by the Six Articles. You be cunning men, if you can

368

THE COMMONWEAL

[32]

set these two together. Also the council of Nice, which was the chief of all the general councils, and was celebrated more than twelve hundred years past, decreed clean directly contrary to the Six Articles. For where the Six Articles command all priests to be separate from their wives, Nicene council determined clean contrary, that they should not be separated, confessing such copulation to be holy and godly. And the council Gangrense, which was about the same time, so much allowed the marriage of priests, that they accursed them that would abstain from the ministration of priests, because they were married. These councils vary so far from the Six Articles that either you must put the general councils out of your book, or else the Six Articles. Likewise concerning private masses, the law of Six Articles far differeth from the canon of the apostles, and from the councils Nicene and Antioch, as shall be declared in the next article. Other things there be divers also in the Six Articles, which cannot stand with sundry old canons, decrees, and councils: so that if you will stand to the canons, decrees, and councils you must of force be constrained utterly to put out of your book your second article, which requireth the usage of the Six Articles. But now for shortness of time I will come to your third article, which is this: THE THIRD ARTICLE

“We will have the mass in Latin, as was before, and celebrated by the priest, without any man or woman communicating with him.” Forasmuch as there is nothing with you but “will”, let your will be conferred with reason and God’s word; and then you shall see how far your will differeth from them both. First, as touching the Latin masses, whatsoever the priest saith in the old masses, whether he pray and ask anything of God, or give thanks to God, or make the true profession of the faith, or whatsoever he doth besides, all he doth in your persons and in your names; and you answer unto that which he saith, sometime Amen, sometime Et cum spiritu tuo, and sometime other things, as the matter serveth. For all the whole that is done should be the act of the people and pertain to the people, as well as to the priest. And standeth it with reason, that the priest should speak for you, and in your name, and you answer him again in your own person; and yet you understand never a word, neither what he saith nor what you say yourselves? The priest prayeth to God for you, and you answer Amen, you wot not whereto. Is there any reason herein? Will you not understand what the priest prayeth for you, what thanks he giveth for you, what he asketh for you? Will you neither understand what he saith, nor let your hearts understand what your own tongues answer? Then must you needs confess yourselves to be such people as Christ spake of when he said, “These people honour me with their lips, but their hearts be far from me”. Had you rather be like pies or parrots, that be taught to speak, and yet understand not one word what they say, than be true Christian men that pray unto God in heart and in faith? The priest is your proctor and attorney to plead your cause and to speak for you all; and had you rather not know than know what he saith for you? I have heard

[32]

DENUNCIATION OF REBELLION BY CRANMER, 1549

369

suitors murmur at the bar because their attornies have pleaded their cases in the French tongue which they understood not. Why then be you offended that the priests, which plead your cause before God, should speak such language as you may understand? If you were before the king’s highness and should choose one to speak for you all, I am sure you would not choose one that should speak Greek or Hebrew, French or Italian; no, nor one that should speak Latin neither. But you would be glad to provide such one as should speak your own language, and speak so loud, that you might both hear him, and understand him; that you might allow or disallow that that he said in your names. Why do you then refuse to do the like unto God? When the priest desireth anything of God for you, or giveth thanks for you, how can you in your heart confirm his sayings, when you know not one word what he saith? For the heart is not moved with words that be not understood. But if reason will not persuade you, I will prove what God’s word will do unto you. St. Paul, in the first epistle to the Corinthians saith, that whosoever shall speak to the people in the church to their edification, must speak such language as the people may understand; or else he willeth him to hold his peace, and speak softly to himself and to God. For he which speaketh a strange language which the people understand not, doth not edify them, as St. Paul saith. And he giveth an example of the trumpet in the field, which when it giveth such a sound that the soldier understandeth, it availeth much: for every soldier thereby knoweth what to do. But if such a blast be blown as no man understandeth, then the blast is utterly in vain: for no man knoweth thereby, whether the horsemen shall make them ready, or leap upon horseback, or go to their standard; or whether the footmen shall make them ready, or set themselves in array, or set upon the enemy, or retire to the standard. Even so should the priests be God’s trump in his church: so that if he blow such a certain blast that the people may understand, they be much edified thereby; but if he give such a sound as is to the people unknown, it is clearly in vain, saith St. Paul: for he speaks to the air; but no man is the better or edified thereby, nor knoweth what he should do by that he heareth. Furthermore, in the same place St. Paul saith that if a man giveth thanks to God in a language to the people unknown, how can they say Amen to that they understand not? He doth well in giving thanks to God; but that nothing availeth or edifieth the people, that know not what he saith. And St. Paul in one brief sentence concludeth his whole disputation of that matter, saying: “I had rather have five words spoken in the church to the instruction and edifying of the people than ten thousand in a language unknown that edifieth not”. And for this purpose allegeth the prophet Esay, who saith, that “God will speak to his people in other tongues, and in other languages;” meaning thereby that he would speak to every country in their, own language. So have the Greeks the mass in the Greek tongue, the Syrians in the Syry tongue, the Armenians in their tongue, and the Indians in their own tongue. And be you so much addict to the Romish tongue (which is the Latin tongue), that you will have your mass in none other language but the Romish language? Christ himself used among the Jews the Jews’ language, and willed his apostles to do the like in every country wheresoever they came. And be you such enemies to your own country that you will not suffer us to laud God, to thank him, and to use his

370

THE COMMONWEAL

[32]

sacraments in our own tongue; but will enforce us contrary, as well to all reason as to the word of God? So many as be godly, or have reason, will be satisfied with this. But the mere papist will be satisfied with nothing. Wherefore I will no longer tarry to satisfy them that never will be satisfied, but will proceed to the second part of this article, wherein you say that you will have neither men nor women communicate with the priest. Alas, good simple souls! how be you blinded with the papists! How contrary be your articles one to another! You say in your first article that you will have all general councils and decrees observed, and now you go from them yourselves. You say you will have nobody to communicate with the priest. Hear then what divers canons, decrees, and general councils say clean against you. There is one decree which saith thus: “When the consecration is done, let all the people receive the communion, except they will be put out of the church”. And in the canons of the apostles, in the eighth chapter, is contained “That whensoever there is any mass or communion, if any bishop, priest, deacon, or any other of the clergy being there present, do not communicate, except he can shew some reasonable cause to the contrary, he shall be put out of the communion, as one that giveth occasion to the people to think evil of the ministers”. And in the ninth chapter of the same canons of the apostles, and in the general council held at Antioch, is thus written: “That all Christian people that come into the church and hear the holy scriptures read and after will not tarry to pray and to receive the holy communion with the rest of the people, but for some misordering of themselves will abstain therefrom, let them be put out of the church until by humble knowledging of their fault, and by the fruits of penance and prayers they obtain pardon and forgiveness.” And the council Nicene also sheweth the order how men should sit in receiving the communion, and who should receive first. All these decrees and general councils utterly condemn your third article, wherein you will that the priest shall receive the communion alone, without any man or woman communicating with him. And the whole church of Christ also, both Greeks and Latins, many hundred years after Christ and the apostles do also condemn this your article; which ever received the communion in flocks and numbers together, and not the priest alone. And besides this, the very words of the mass (as it is called) shew plainly that it was ordained not only for the priest, but for other also to communicate with the priest. For in the very canon, which they so much extol, and which is so holy that no man may know what it is (and therefore is read so softly that no man can hear it) in that same canon I say, is a prayer containing this; that “not only the priest, but also as many beside as communicate with him, may be fulfilled with grace and heavenly benediction”. How agreeth this prayer with your article, wherein you say that neither man nor woman shall communicate with the priest? In another place also of the said canon the priest prayeth for himself, and “for all that receive the communion with him, that it may be a preparation for them unto everlasting life”. Which prayer were but a very fond prayer, and a very mocking with God, if nobody should communicate with the priest. And the communion concludes with two prayers made in the name of the priest and them that communicate with him, wherein they pray thus: “O Lord, that thing which we have

[32]

DENUNCIATION OF REBELLION BY CRANMER, 1549

371

taken in our mouth, let us take it also with pure minds, that this communion may purge us from our sins, and make us partakers of heavenly remedy”. And beside all this, there be an infinite sort of post-communions in the mass-books; which all do evidently shew, that in the masses the people did communicate with the priest. And although I would exhort every good Christian man often to receive the holy communion, yet I do not recite all these things to the intent that I would in this corrupt world, when men live so ungodly as they do, that the old canons should be restored again, which command every man present to receive the communion with the priest: which canons, if they were now used, I fear that many would receive it unworthily. But I speak them to condemn your article, which would have nobody, neither man nor woman, to be communicated with the priest: which your article condemneth the old decrees, canons, and general councils, condemneth all the old primitive church, all the old ancient holy doctors and martyrs, and all the forms and manner of masses that ever were made, both new and old. Therefore eat again this article, if you will not be condemned of the whole world, and of yourselves also by your first article; wherein you will all decrees and general councils to be observed. But forasmuch as I have been so tedious in this article, I will endeavour myself to be shorter in the next. YOUR FOURTH ARTICLE IS THIS:

“We will have the sacrament hang over the high altar, and there to be worshipped, as it was wont to be; and they which will not thereto consent, we will have them die like heretics against the holy catholic faith.” What say you, O ignorant people in things pertaining to God? Is this the holy catholic faith, that the sacrament should be hanged over the altar and worshipped? and be they heretics that will not consent thereto? I pray you, who made this faith? Any other but the bishops of Rome? and that more than a thousand years after the faith of Christ was full, and perfect! Innocent III about 1215 years after Christ, did ordain that the sacrament and chrism should be kept under lock and key. But yet no motion is made of hanging the sacrament over the high altar, nor of the worshipping of it. After him came Honorius III and he added further, commanding that the sacrament should be devoutly kept in a clean place, and sealed, and that the priest should often teach the people reverently to bow down to the host when it was lifted up in the mass time, and when the priest should carry it to the sick folks. And although this Honorius added the worshipping of the sacrament, yet he made no mention of the hanging thereof over the high altar, as your article purporteth. Nor how long after, or by what means, that came first up into this realm, I think no man can tell. And in Italy it is not yet used until this day. And in the beginning of the church it was not only not used to be hanged up, but also it was utterly forbid to be kept. And will you have all them that will not consent to your article to die like heretics that hold against the catholic faith? Were the apostles and evangelists heretics? Were the martyrs and confessors heretics? Were all the old doctors of the church heretics? Were all Christian people heretics, until within three or four hundred years last past,

372

THE COMMONWEAL

[32]

that the bishops of Rome taught them what they should do and believe? All they before rehearsed neither hanged the sacrament over the altar, neither worshipped it, nor not one of them all spake any one word, either of the hanging up, or worshipping of the sacrament. Marry, they speak very much of the worshipping of Christ himself, sitting in heaven at the right hand of his Father. And no man doth duly receive the sacrament except he so, after that manner, do worship Christ, whom he spiritually receiveth, spiritually feedeth and nourisheth upon, and by whom spiritually he liveth, and continueth that life that is towards God. And this the sacrament teacheth us. Now to knit up this article shortly. Here is the issue of this matter: that you must either condemn of heresy the apostles, martyrs, confessors, doctors, and all the holy church of Christ, until the time of Innocentius and Honorius, because they hanged not the sacrament over the altar to be worshipped; or else you must be condemned yourselves by your own article, to die like heretics against the holy catholic faith. Now to your fifth article. YOUR FIFTH ARTICLE IS THIS:

“We will have the sacrament of the altar but at Easter delivered to the lay-people; and then but in one kind.” Methinks you be like a man that were brought up in a dark dungeon that never saw light, nor knew nothing that is abroad in the world. And if a friend of his, pitying his ignorance and state, would bring him out of his dungeon, that he might see the light and come to knowledge, he, being from his youth used to darkness, could not abide the light, but would wilfully shut his eyes and be offended both with the light and with his friend also. A most godly prince of famous memory, king Henry VIII. our late sovereign lord, pitying to see his subjects many years so brought up in darkness and ignorance of God by the erroneous doctrine and superstitions of the bishop of Rome, with the counsel of all his nobles and learned men, studied by all means, and that to his no little danger and charges, to bring you out of your said ignorance and darkness unto the true light and knowledge of God’s word. And our most dread sovereign lord that now is, succeeding his father, as well in this godly intent as in his realms and dominions, hath with no less care and diligence studied to perform his father’s godly intent and purpose. And you, like men that wilfully shut their own eyes, refuse to receive the light saying, you will remain in your darkness. Or rather you be like men that be so far wandered out of the right way that they can never come to it again without good and expert guides: and yet when the guides would tell them the truth, they would not be ordered by them, but would say unto them, We will have and follow our own ways. And that you may understand how far you be wandered from the right way in this one article, wherein you will have the sacrament of the altar delivered to the lay-people but once in the year, and then but under one kind; be you assured that there was never such law nor such request made among Christian people until this day. What injury do you to many godly persons which would devoutly receive it many times, and you command the priest to deliver it them but at Easter! All learned men and godly have

[32]

DENUNCIATION OF REBELLION BY CRANMER, 1549

373

exhorted Christian people (although they have not commanded them) often to receive the communion. And in the apostles’ time the people at Jerusalem received it every day, as it appears by the manifest word of the scripture. And after, they received it in some places every day; in some places four times in the week; in some three times; some twice; commonly everywhere at the least once in the week. In the beginning, when men were most godly and most fervent in the Holy Spirit then they received the communion daily. But when the Spirit of God began to be more cold in men’s hearts, and they waxed more worldly than godly, then their desire was not so hot to receive the communion as it was before. And ever from time to time, as the world waxed more wicked, the more the people withdrew themselves from the holy communion. For it is so holy a thing, and the threatenings of God be so sore against them that come thereto unworthily, that an ungodly man abhorreth it, and not without cause dare in no wise approach thereunto. But to them that live godly it is the greatest comfort that in this world can be imagined. And the more godly a man is, the more sweetness and spiritual pleasure and desire he shall have often to receive it. And will you be so ungodly to command the priest that he shall not deliver it to him but at Easter, and then but only in one kind? when Christ ordained both the kinds, as well for the laymen as for the priests; and that to be eaten and drunken at all times. What enemies be you to all laymen, and to yourselves also, to refuse to drink of Christ’s cup, which he commanded all men to drink upon, saying, “Take and divide this among you;” and, “Drink ye all of it.” But what need any more be brought for the reproving of this article than your own first article, where you will have kept all decrees and councils? Now in the decrees, De Consecrat. Di. 2, there is one decree that commandeth all men to receive the communion at the least thrice in the year, at Easter, Whitsuntide, and Christmas. Another commandeth every man to receive the same upon Shere-Thursday. The council Agathenses saith, that all laymen which receive not the communion at Christmas, Easter, Whitsuntide shall not be taken for catholics: and the decree of Gelasius, that the receiving under one kind is great sacrilege. Then by your first article you do not only condemn this your fifth article, but also you shew yourselves not to be catholics, except you receive the communion at the least three times in the year, and that under both the kinds, which is clean repugnant to this article. And yet I pray God you may receive it worthily once in your life: which you shall never do, except you wonderfully repent this your misbehaviour; and all your life-time study to amend and redress that you have now offended. Now to your sixth article. YOUR SIXTH ARTICLE IS THIS:

“We will that our curates shall minister the sacrament of baptism at all times, as well in the weekday as on the holy-day.” Who letteth your ministers to baptize your children every day, if any cause of necessity so do require? But commonly it is more convenient that baptism should not be ministered but upon the holy-day when the most number of people be together; as well for that the

374

THE COMMONWEAL

[32]

whole church there present may rejoice together of the receiving of new members of Christ into the same church, as also, that all men being present may remember, and the better know, what they promised themselves by their godfathers and godmothers in their own baptism; and be the more earnestly stirred in their hearts to perform the same; and also may all together pray for them that be baptized, that they may have grace to perform their profession. St. Gregory Nazianzene, as great a clerk as ever was in Christ’s church, and master to St. Hierome, counselled that children should not be christened until they came to three years of age or thereabout, except they were in danger of life. And it was thought sufficient to our forefathers to be done two times in the year, at Easter and Whitsuntide; as it appeareth by divers of their councils and decrees, which forbid baptism to be administered at any other time than Easter and Whitsuntide, except in case of necessity. And there remained lately divers signs and tokens thereof. For every Easter and Whitsun-even until this time the fonts were hallowed in every church, and many collects and other prayers were read for them that were baptized. But alas! in vain, and as it were a mocking with God: for at those times, except it were by chance, none were baptized, but all were baptized before. For as vigils, otherwise called watchings, remained in the calendars upon certain saints’ evens, because in old times the people watched all those nights; and Vigilantius, because he speaketh against these watchings, was condemned of heresy; but now these many years those vigils remained in vain in the books, for no man did watch: even so until this day the order and form of christening was read and kept every year at Easter and Whitsuntide, but none was then christened. Wherein it appeareth how far we be swerved from our forefathers. And, to conclude this article shortly, if you will needs have baptism ministered no more at one time than another, then must you needs renounce your first article; which willeth the councils and decrees of the forefathers to be observed and kept. And this briefly sufficeth for the sixth article. YOUR SEVENTH ARTICLE IS THIS:

“We will have holy bread and holy water every Sunday, palms and ashes at the times accustomed; images to be set up again in every church; and all other ancient old ceremonies used heretofore by our mother holy church.” Oh! superstition and idolatry, how they prevail among you. The very true heavenly bread of life, the food of everlasting life, offered unto you in the sacrament of the holy communion, you refuse to eat, but only at Easter. And the cup of the most holy blood, wherewith you were redeemed and washed from your sins, you refuse utterly to drink of at any time. And yet in the stead of these you will eat often of the unsavoury and poisoned bread of the bishop of Rome, and drink of his stinking puddles, which he nameth holy bread and holy water. Consider, O ignorant people, the authors and intents of the makers of them both. The water of baptism, and the holy bread and wine of the holy communion, none other person did ordain, but Christ himself. The other, that is called holy bread, holy water, holy ashes, holy palms, and all other like ceremonies

[32]

DENUNCIATION OF REBELLION BY CRANMER, 1549

375

ordained the bishops of Rome; adversaries to Christ, and therefore rightly called antichrist. And Christ ordained his bread and his wine and his water to our great comfort, to instruct us and teach us what things we have only by him. But antichrist on the other side hath set up his superstitions under the name of holiness to none other intent but as the devil seeketh all means to draw us from Christ, so doth antichrist advance his holy superstitions to the intent that we should take him in the stead of Christ, and believe that we have by him such things as we have only by Christ; that is to say, spiritual food, remission of our sins, and salvation. First, our Saviour Christ ordained the water of baptism to signify unto us that as that water washeth our bodies outwardly so be we spiritually within washed by Christ from all our sins. And as the water is called water of regeneration, or new birth, so it declareth unto us that through Christ we be born anew, and begin a new life towards God; and that Christ is the beginning of this new life. And as the body that is new born although it have life within it, yet can it not continue without meat and drink; even so can we not continue in the spiritual life towards God except we be continually nourished with spiritual food: and that spiritual food is Christ also. For as he is the first beginning of our spiritual life, so is he the continuance and ending thereof. And for this cause did Christ ordain in the holy communion to be eaten bread, and drunken wine, that we should surely believe that as our bodies be fed with bread and wine in these holy mysteries so be we out of doubt that our souls be fed spiritually with the lively food of Christ’s body and blood; whereby we have remission of our sins and salvation. But the bishop of Rome invented new devices of his own making, and by them promised remission of sins and salvation, that he might be set up and honoured for a saviour equal to Christ; and so to be esteemed above all creatures, and to sit in the temple of God, that is to say, in the church of Christ, as he were God. And to bring this to pass he hath horribly abused holy scriptures, altering them to his purpose, in the stead of Christ’s most holy blood putting in his holy water: as it appeareth evidently in this sentence of St. Paul written in the ninth chapter of the Hebrews “If the blood of oxen and goats,” saith St. Paul, “and the ashes of a young cow purified the unclean, as touching the purifying of the flesh, how much more the blood of Christ, which through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot unto God shall purge your consciences from dead works for to serve the living God! And for this cause he is the Mediator of the new covenant.” Consider well this sentence of Paul and you shall find two purifyings, one of the body, and another of the soul or conscience. You shall find also two mediators: one was the priest of Moses’ law, and the other is Christ. The priests of the old law, with the blood of oxen and goats and other their sacrifices, purged only the bodies of them that were defiled; but the soul or conscience they could not help. But our Saviour Christ by his own blood purged both body and soul. And for that cause he, and none other, is the Mediator of the new covenant. But the bishop of Rome, to make himself also a mediator with Christ hath taken upon him to purify the soul and conscience with holy water, holy salt, and other his holy creatures of his own devising, to the intolerable injury of Christ’s blood, which only hath the effect. And to bring this to pass he hath most shamefully changed the words of the

376

THE COMMONWEAL

[32]

scripture and wrested them to his own purpose; some words putting out, and also in the stead of Christ’s blood putting in his own holy water and salt. For whereas St. Paul saith, “If the blood of oxen and goats and the ashes of a cow purified the unclean, as touching the purifying of the flesh:” here the bishop of Rome leaveth out these words “as touching the purifying of the flesh”. And where St. Paul, extolling the effects of Christ’s blood in comparison of the blood of oxen and goats saith, “How much more the blood of Christ, which through the eternal Spirit offered himself, being without spot, unto God, shall purge your consciences:” here the bishop of Rome, extolling his water and salt, puts out Christ’s blood, and in the place thereof puts his holy water and salt, saying “How much more water, which is sprinkled with salt and hallowed with godly prayers shall sanctify and purify the people!” O intolerable blasphemy against the most precious blood of Christ! O shameless audacity and boldness, so to corrupt and pervert God’s holy word! If he by his holy water presume to purify our souls as Christ did by his blood, what is that else but to make himself equal and another mediator with Christ? And what is it to tread under foot the Son of God, and to make the blood of the new testament, whereby he was sanctified, like other common things, and to dishonour the Spirit of grace, if this be not? And yet, not contented with this blaspheming the blood of Christ he preferreth his holy creatures far above the blood of Christ, promising by them many benefits which by the blood of Christ be not promised. For in the same place he promiseth by his holy ceremonies to take away from us dearth and scarcity of all worldly things, and to multiply and increase us with the same; also to defend us from the assaults of the devil, and all his deceits, and to give us health both of body and soul. But all men see him so shamefully to lie in these worldly things that no man that wise is will trust him in the rest. Nor no man that is godly will desire such things to remain still, which so much have deceived simple people and dishonoured God and been contumelious to the blood of Christ. But now to your images which, you say, you will have set up again in every church. What moved you to require this article but only ignorance? For if you had known the laws of God and the use of godly religion, as well before the incarnation of Christ as four or five hundred years next after, and by whom images were first brought into Christ’s church, and how much idolatry was every where committed by the means of the same; it could not have been that ever you would have desired this article except you had more affection to idolatry than to true religion. For Almighty God among the ten commandments rehearsed this for the second, as one of the chief: “Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them.” This commandment was diligently kept in the old Testament, so long as the people pleased God. For in their tabernacle was not one image, less nor more, that the people might see: although upon the propitiatory were two cherubims of gold by the commandment of God; and that was in such a place as the people never came near nor saw. But when the people, forgetting this commandment, began to make them images and to set them up in the place of adoration, by and by they provoked God’s indignation against them, and were grievously punished therefore.

[32]

DENUNCIATION OF REBELLION BY CRANMER, 1549

377

The church of Christ likewise in the new Testament, for the space of four or five hundred years after Christ’s ascension utterly refused to have images in the church, a place of adoration; as it may plainly appear by all the old ancient authors that lived and wrote in that time: insomuch that above four hundred years after Christ, when some superstitious and ignorant people in some places began to bring painted images, not into the church, but to the church-doors, the great clerk Epiphanius, bishop at Cyprus, finding such a painted image of Christ, or some other saint, hanging at the church-door in a town called Anablatha, he cut it in pieces, saying that “it was against the authority of scripture that in the church of Christ should hang the image of a man.” And the same Epiphanius wrote unto the bishop of Jerusalem that he should command the priests that in no wise they should suffer such images to be hanged in the church of Christ, which were contrary to our religion. But peradventure you will marvel, and ask me the question, how it was brought to pass that of late years all churches were so full of images and so much offering and pilgrimages done unto them, if it were against the commandment of God, against the usage of all godly people in the old Testament, and also against the custom of Christ’s church in the new Testament, so long as it was pure and holy, and kept from idolatry? Who was able to bring this to effect, contrary both to God’s express commandment and the custom of all godly people from the beginning of the world until four or five hundred years after Christ? No man surely could have wrought this thing so much contrary to God but antichrist himself, that is to say, the bishop of Rome; to whom God hath given great power to work great wonders, to bring into error those that will not believe the truth. But by what means did he compass this matter? By such means as were most meet for himself, and as he hath commonly practised in all other matters; that is to say, by sedition and murder, by confederacies and persecutions, by raising the son against the father, the children against their mother, and the subjects against their rulers; by deposing of emperors and princes, and murdering of learned men saints, and martyrs. For thus he wrought against the emperor of the east parties from Gregory II’s time until Gregory III; who at length, after this condition had endured above five hundred years, in a council held at Lyons, by feigned promises persuaded the emperor of the east to condescend to his purpose, as well to receive images into the churches as to other his requests. But nevertheless the bishop of Rome failed of his purpose. For yet to this day the Christian men in the east do not allow images to stand in their churches; neither the Greeks, nor the Armenians, nor the Indians, nor none other Christian men. And, that more is, search all the world throughout, of what religion soever they be, whether they be Jews, Turks, Saracens, Tartaries, or Christian people, and you shall not find an image in none of their churches but that was brought in by the bishop of Rome, and where the bishop of Rome is, or within these forty years was taken for the head of the church and Christ’s vicar in earth. And at the beginning the bishop of Rome, to cloak their idolatry, pretended to have images set up only for a remembrance to laymen, and to be, as it were, laymen’s books. But after, they defined plainly that these should be worshipped. And so it increased at length that images were kneeled unto, offered unto, prayed unto, sought unto, incensed

378

THE COMMONWEAL

[32]

and pilgrimages done unto them, and all manner of superstition and idolatry that could be devised. Almighty God knoweth our corrupt nature better than we do ourselves. He knoweth well the inclinations of man, how much he is given to worship creatures and the works of his own hands; and specially fond women, which commonly follow superstition rather than true religion. And therefore he utterly forbade the people the use of graven images, specially in places dedicated to the honour of God, knowing assuredly that of the having would follow the worshipping of them. Now (thanks be to God!) in this realm we be clearly delivered from that kind of idolatry which most highly offended God, and we do according to the council Elebertine, which ordained that no images should be in churches. And this council is so ancient that it was about the same year that Nicene council was. What should then move you to ask again your images in the church, being not only against God’s commandments and the use of God’s church evermore since the beginning of the world, when it was pure from idolatry, but also being chargeable to the realm, and great occasion of heinous idolatry, but that some papistical and covetous priests have persuaded you hereto? which care neither for God’s honour nor your damnation, so that they may have any commodity or profit thereby. I have been very long in this article, and yet the matter is so large that it requireth much more to be spoken therein, which for shortness of time I am constrained to leave until a more occasion; and to come to your eighth article. YOUR EIGHTH ARTICLE IS THIS:

“We will not receive the new service, because it is but like a Christmas game; but we will have our old service of matins, mass, even-song, and procession in Latin, as it was before. And so we the Cornish men, whereof certain of us understand no English, utterly refuse this new English.” As concerning the having of the service in the Latin tongue, is sufficiently spoken of in the answer to your third article. But I would gladly know the reason why the Cornish men refuse utterly the new English, as you call it, because certain of you understand it not; and yet you will have the service in Latin, which almost none of you understand. If this be a sufficient cause for Cornwall to refuse the English service because some of you understand none English, a much greater cause have they, both of Cornwall and Devonshire to refuse utterly the late service; forasmuch as fewer of them know the Latin tongue than they of Cornwall the English tongue. But where you say that you will have the old service because the new is “like a Christmas game”, you declare yourselves what spirit you be led withal, or rather what spirit leadeth them that persuaded you that the word of God is but like a Christmas game. It is more like a game and a fond play to be laughed at of all men to hear the priest speak aloud to the people in Latin, and the people listen with their ears to hear; and some walking up and down in the church, some saying other prayers in Latin, and none understandeth other. Neither the priest nor his parish wot what they say. And many times the thing that the priest sayeth in Latin is so fond of itself, that it is more like a play than a godly prayer. But in the English service appointed to be read there is nothing else but the eternal

[32]

DENUNCIATION OF REBELLION BY CRANMER, 1549

379

word of God: the new and the old Testament is read, that hath power to save your souls; which, as St. Paul saith, “is the power of God to the salvation of all that believe;” the clear light to our eyes, without the which we cannot see; and a lantern unto our feet, without which we should stumble in darkness. It is in itself the wisdom of God, and yet “to the Jews it is a stumbling-block, and to the Gentiles it is but foolishness: but to such as be called of God, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, it is the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” Then unto you if it be but foolishness and a Christmas game, you may discern yourselves what miserable state you be in, and how far you be from God. For St. Paul saith plainly that the word of God is foolishness only to them that perish; but to them that shall be saved it is God’s might and power. To some it is a lively savour unto life, and to some it is a deadly savour unto death. If it be to you but a Christmas game, it is then a savour of death unto death. And surely persuade yourselves that you be not led with the Spirit of God so long as the word of God savoureth no better unto you, but seemeth unto you a Christmas pastime and foolishness. And therefore the old service pleaseth you better: which in many things is so foolish and so ungodly that it seems rather to be old wives’ tales and lies than to sound to any godliness. The devil is a liar, and the author of lies; and they may think themselves governed rather of his spirit than of God when lies delight more than God’s most true word. But this I judge rather of your leaders than of yourselves who by ignorance be carried away by others, you wot not whither. For when the service was in the Latin tongue, which you understand not, they might read to you truth or fables, godly or ungodly things as they pleased; but you could not judge that you understood not. And what was the cause why St. Paul would have such languages spoken in the church as that people might understand? that they might learn and be edified thereby, and judge of that which should be spoken, whether it were according to God’s word or not. But forasmuch as you understand not the old Latin service I shall rehearse some things in English that were wont to be read in Latin, that when you understand them, you may judge them whether they seem to be true tales or fables; and whether they or God’s word seem to be more like plays and Christmas games. “The devil entered into a certain person, in whose mouth St. Martin put his finger: and because the devil could not get out at his mouth, the man blew him out behind.” This is one of the tales that was wont to be read in the Latin service, that you will needs have again. As though the devil had a body, and that so crass that he could not pass out by the small pores of the flesh, but must needs have a wide hole to go out at. Is this a grave and godly matter to be read in the church, or rather a foolish Christmas tale, or an old wives’ fable, worthy to be laughed at and scorned of every man that hath either wit or godly judgment? Yet more foolish, erroneous, and superstitious things be read in the feasts of St. Blase, St. Valentine, St. Margaret, St. Peter, of the visitation of Our Lady, and the Conception, of the Transfiguration of Christ, and in the feast of Corpus Christi, and a great number more: whereof some be most vain fables, some very superstitious, some directly against God’s word, and the laws of this realm; and all together be full of error and superstition. But as Christ commonly excused the simple people because of their ignorance, and justly condemned the scribes and Pharisees, which by their crafty persuasions led the

380

THE COMMONWEAL

[32]

people out of the right way; so I think not you so much to be blamed as those Pharisees and papistical priests which, abusing your simplicity, caused you to ask you wist not what, desiring rather to drink of the dregs of corrupt error, which you knew not, than of the pure and sweet wine of God’s word, which you may and ought to understand. But now have I sufficiently spoke of your eighth article: I will go forward unto the ninth. YOUR NINTH ARTICLE IS THIS:

“We will have every preacher in his sermon, and every priest at the mass, pray specially by name for the souls in purgatory, as our forefathers did.” To reason with you by learning, which be unlearned, it were but folly: therefore I will convince your article with very reason. First, tell me, I pray, if you can, whether there be a purgatory or no; and where, or what it is. And if you cannot tell then I may tell you that you ask you wot not what. The scripture maketh mention of two places where the dead be received after this life, of heaven and of hell; but of purgatory is not one word spoken. Purgatory was wont to be called a fire as hot as hell, but not so long during. But now the defenders of purgatory within this realm be ashamed so to say; nevertheless they say it is a third place; but where or what it is, they confess themselves, they cannot tell. And of God’s word they have nothing to shew, neither where it is, nor what it is, nor that it is. But all is feigned of their own brains, without authority of scripture. I would ask of them then, wherefore it is, and to what use it serveth? For if it be to no use, then it is a thing frustrate and in vain. Marry, say they, it is a place of punishment, whereby they be purged from their sins, that depart out of this life not fully purged before. I cannot tell whether this saying be more foolish or more contumelious to Christ. For what can be more foolish than to say that pains can wash sins out of the soul? I do not deny but that corrections and punishments in this life is a calling of men to repentance and amendment, and so to be purged by the blood of Christ. But correction without repentance can nothing avail; and they that be dead be past the time of repentance; and so no correction or torments in purgatory can avail them. And what a contumely and injury is this to Christ, to affirm that all have not full and perfect purgation by his blood, that die in his faith! Is not all our trust in the blood of Christ, that we be cleansed, purged and washed thereby? And will you have us now to forsake our faith in Christ and bring us to the pope’s purgatory to be washed therein: thinking that Christ’s blood is an imperfect lee or soap that washeth not clean? If he shall die without mercy that treadeth Christ’s blood under his feet, what is treading of his blood under our feet, if this be not? But if according to the catholic faith, which the holy scripture teacheth and the prophets, apostles, and martyrs confirmed with their blood, all the faithful that die in the Lord be pardoned of all their offences by Christ, and their sins be clearly sponged and washed away by his blood, shall they after be cast into another strong and grievous prison of purgatory, there to be punished again for that which was pardoned before? God hath promised by his word that the souls of the just be in God’s

[32]

DENUNCIATION OF REBELLION BY CRANMER, 1549

381

hand and no pain shall touch them: and again he saith “Blessed be they that die in the Lord, for the Spirit of God saith that from henceforth they shall rest from their pains.” And Christ himself saith: “He that believeth in him that sent me hath everlasting life and shall not come to judgment, but shall pass from death unto life.” And is God no truer of his promises but to punish that which he promiseth to pardon? Consider the matter by your own cases. If the king’s majesty should pardon your offences, and after would cast you into prison, would you think that he had well observed his promise? For what is to pardon your offences but to pardon the punishment for the same? If the king would punish you, would you take that for a pardon? Would you not allege your pardon, and say that you ought not to be punished? Who can then, that hath but a crumb of reason in his head, imagine of God that he will after our death punish those things that he pardoned in our life-time? Truth it is that scripture maketh mention of paradise and Abraham’s bosom after this life; but those be places of joy and consolation, not of pains and torments. But yet I know what subtle sophisters use to mutter in men’s ears to deceive them withal. David, say they, with many other were pardoned of their offences, and yet were they sore punished after for the same of God; and some of them so long as they lived. Well, be it were so. Yet after their lives they were not punished in purgatory therefore: but the end of their lives was the end of their punishment. And likewise it is of original sin after baptism, which although it be pardoned yet after-pains thereof continue so long as we live. But this punishment in this lifetime is not to revenge our original sin, which is pardoned in baptism, but to make us humble, penitent, obedient to God, fearful to offend, to know ourselves, and ever to stand in fear and awe; as if a father that hath beaten a wilful child for his faults should hang the rod continually at the child’s girdle, it should be no small pain and grief to the child, ever hanging by his side: and yet the father doth it not to beat the child for that which is past and forgiven, but to make him beware hereafter that he offend not again, and to be gentle, tractable, obedient, and loth to do anything amiss. But after this life there is no such cause of punishment; where no rod nor whip can force any man to go any faster or farther, being already at the end of his journey. Likewise a master that hath an unthrifty servant, which out of his master’s sight doth nothing but riot and disorder himself, if he forgive his servant, and for the love he beareth to him, and the desire to see him corrected and reformed, he will command him never to be out of his sight, this command, although indeed it be a great pain to the servant, yet the master doth it not to punish those faults, which before he had pardoned and forgiven, but to keep him in stay that he fall no more to like disorder. But these examples and cases of punishment here in this life can in no wise be wrested and drawn to the life to come; and so in no wise can serve for purgatory. And furthermore, seeing that the scriptures so often and so diligently teach us, almost in every place, to relieve all them that be in necessity, to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to visit the sick and the prisoner, to comfort the sorrowful, and so to all others that have need of our help; and the same in no place make mention either of such pains in purgatory or what comfort we may do them, it is certain that the same is feigned for lucre, and not grounded upon God’s word. For else the scripture in some place would

382

THE COMMONWEAL

[32]

have told us plainly what case they stood in that be in purgatory, and what relief and help we might do unto them. But forasmuch as God’s words speaketh not one word of neither of them both, my counsel shall be that you keep not the bishop of Rome’s decrees that you may come to purgatory, but keep God’s laws that you may come to heaven: or else I promise you assuredly that you shall never escape hell. Now to your next article. YOUR TENTH ARTICLE IS THIS:

“We will have the bible and all books of scripture in English, to be called in again. For we be informed that otherwise the clergy shall not of long time confound the heretics.” Alas! it grieveth me to hear your articles; and much I rue and lament your ignorance; praying God most earnestly once to lighten your eyes that you may see the truth. What Christian heart would not be grieved to see you so ignorant, (for willingly and wilfully, I trust, you did it not,) that you refuse Christ, and join yourselves with anti christ? You refuse the holy bible and all holy scriptures so much, that you will have them called in again; and the bishop of Rome’s decrees you will have advanced and observed. I may well say to you as Christ said to Peter, “Turn back again, for you savour not godly things.” As many of you as understand no Latin cannot know God’s word but in English, except it be the Cornish men, which cannot understand likewise none but their own speech. Then you must be content to have it in English, which you know, or else you must confess that you refuse utterly the knowledge thereof. And wherefore did the Holy Ghost come down among the apostles in fiery tongues and gave them knowledge of all languages, but that all nations might hear, speak and learn God’s word in their mother-tongue? And can you name me any Christians in all the world but they have and ever had God’s word in their own tongue? And the Jews, to whom God gave his scriptures in the Hebrew tongue, after their long captivity among the Chaldees, so that more of them knew the Chaldee rather than the Hebrew tongue, they caused the scripture to be turned into the Chaldee tongue that they might understand it: which until this day is called Targum. And Ptolemy, king of Egypt, caused sixty of the greatest clerks that might be gotten to translate the scripture out of Hebrew into Greek. And until this day the Greeks have it in the Greek tongue, the Latins in the Latin tongue, and all other nations in their own tongue. And will you have God farther from us than from all other countries; that he shall speak to every man in his own language that he understandeth and was born in, and to us shall speak a strange language that we understand not? And will you that all other realms shall laud God in their own speech, and we shall say to him we know not what? Although you savour so little of godliness that you list not to read his word yourselves, you ought not to be so malicious and envious to let them that be more godly and would gladly read it to their comfort and edification. And if there be an English heretic, how will you have him confuted but in English? and whereby else but by God’s word? Then it followeth that to confute English heretics we must needs have God’s word in English,

[32]

DENUNCIATION OF REBELLION BY CRANMER, 1549

383

as all other nations have it in their own native language. St. Paul to the Ephesians teacheth all men, as well laymen as priests, to arm themselves and to fight against all adversaries with God’s word; without the which we cannot be able to prevail neither against subtle heretics, puissant devils, this deceitful world, nor our own sinful flesh. And therefore, until God’s word came to light, the bishop of Rome, under the prince of darkness reigned quietly in the world, and his heresies were received and allowed for the true catholic faith. And it can none otherwise be but that heresies must reign where the light of God’s word driveth not away our darkness. YOUR ELEVENTH ARTICLE IS THIS:

“We will have Dr. Moreman and Dr. Crispin, which hold our opinions to be safely sent unto us; and to them we require the king’s majesty to give some certain livings, to preach among us our catholic faith.” If you be of Moreman’s and Crispin’s faith I like you much the worse. For “like lettuce, like lips.” And to declare you plainly the qualities of Crispin and Moreman, and how unmeet men they be to be your teachers, they be persons very ignorant in God’s word, and yet thereto very wilful, crafty, and full of dissimulation. For if they were profoundly learned and of sincere judgments, as they be not, they might be godly teachers of you. Or if they were not toto wilful, and standing wholly in their own conceits, they might learn and be taught of others. But now they be so wilful that they will not learn, and so ignorant that they cannot teach, and so full of craft and hypocrisy that they be able to deceive you all and to lead you into error after themselves. So that if you ask them you ask your own poison. Now if a man were in such a sickness that he longed for poison, (as many diseases desire things most noyful1 unto them), yet it were not the part of a good physician to give it unto them. No more is it the office of a most godly prince to give you such teachers (although you long never so sore for them) as he knoweth would corrupt you, feeding you rather with sour and unwholesome leaven of Romish pharisaical doctrine than with the sweet, pure, and wholesome bread of God’s heavenly word. And where you would have God’s word in English destroyed and Crispin and Moreman delivered unto you, you do even as the people of the Jews did which cried out that Christ might be crucified, and that Barabbas, the strong thief, might be delivered unto them. YOUR TWELFTH ARTICLE IS THIS:

“We think it very meet, because the lord cardinal Pole is of the king’s blood, that he should not only have his pardon, but also be sent for to Rome, and promoted to be of the king’s council.” In this article I will answer no more but this: If ever any cardinal or legate were beneficial unto this realm, we may have some hope of some other to follow his steps: but if all that ever were in this realm were pernicious and hurtful unto the same, I know not why we should be with child to long for any more. For by the experience of them that have 1

Hurtful.

384

THE COMMONWEAL

[32]

been heretofore, we may conjecture of them that be to come. And I fear me that cardinal Pole would follow rather the whole race of the rest than to begin a better of himself. Surely I have read a book of his making, which whosoever shall read, if he have a true heart to our late sovereign lord king Henry VIII, or to this realm, he will judge cardinal Pole neither worthy to dwell in this realm nor yet to live. For he doth extend all his wits and eloquence in that book to persuade the bishop of Rome, the emperor, the French king, and all other princes, to invade this realm by force. And sure I am that if you have him you must have the bishop of Rome also: for the cardinal cannot be a subject but where the other is his head. This sufficeth briefly to this article. YOUR THIRTEENTH ARTICLE IS THIS:

“We will that no gentleman shall have any more servants than one to wait upon him, except he may dispend one hundred mark land. And for every hundred mark we think it reasonable he should have a man.” Yet have you not foreseen one thing, you wise disposers of the commonwealth. For if a gentleman of an hundred mark land (who by your order must have but one servant, except he might spend two hundred marks) should send that one servant to London, you have not provided who shall wait upon him until his servant come home again. Nor you have not provided where every gentleman may have one servant that can do all things necessary for him. I fear me the most part of you that devised this article, (whom I take to be loiterers and idle unthrifts), if you should serve a gentleman, he should be fain to do all things himself, for any thing that you could or would do for him. But one thing methink very strange: for where much complaint is made of divers gentlemen because they keep not houses you provide by your order that no gentleman shall keep house, but all shall sojourn with other men. For who can keep an household with one servant, or with two servants, after the rate of two hundred marks, or with three, after the rate of three hundred, and so upward? For here, it seems, you be very desirous to make gentlemen rich: for after this proportion every gentleman may lay up clearly in his coffers at the least the one half of his yearly revenue, and much more. But it was not for good mind that you bare to the gentlemen that you devised this article; but it appeareth plainly that you devised it to diminish their strength, and to take away their friends, that you might command gentlemen at your pleasures. But you be much deceived in your account. For although by your appointment they lacked household servants, yet shall they not lack tenants and farmers: which if they do their duties, will be as assured to their lords as their own household servants. For of those lands which they have or hold of their lords they have their whole livings for themselves, their wives, children, and servants. And for all these they attend their own business, and wait upon their lords but when they be called thereto. But the household servant, leaving all his own business, waiteth daily and continually upon his master’s service; and for the same hath no more but meat and drink and apparel for himself only; so that all tenants and farmers, which know their duties, and be kind to their lords, will die and live with them, no less than their own household servants. Therefore I would wish

[32]

DENUNCIATION OF REBELLION BY CRANMER, 1549

385

you to put this phantasy out of your heads, and this article out of your book, as well for the unreasonableness as for the ungodliness thereof. For was it ever seen in any country since the world began that the commons did appoint the nobles and gentlemen the number of their servants? Standeth it with any reason to turn upside down the good order of the whole world, that is everywhere, and ever hath been, that is to say, the commoners to be governed by the nobles and the servants by their masters? Will you now have the subjects to govern their king, the villeins to rule the gentlemen, and the servants their masters? If men would suffer this, God will not; but will take vengeance of all them that will break his order, as he did of Dathan and Abiram: although for a time he be a God of much sufferance, and hideth his indignation under his mercy, that the evil of themselves may repent, and see their own folly. YOUR FOURTEENTH ARTICLE IS THIS:

“We will that the half-part of the abbey-lands and chantry-lands in every man’s possession, however he came by them, be given again to two places, where two of the chief abbeys were within every county; where such half part shall be taken out, and there be established a place for devout persons, which shall pray for the king and the commonwealth. And to the same we will have all the alms of the churchbox given for these seven years.” At the beginning you pretended that you meant nothing against the king’s majesty, but now you open yourselves plainly to the world that you go about to pluck the crown from his head; and against all justice and equity, not only to take from him such lands as be annexed unto his crown and be parcel of the same, but also against all right and reason to take from all other men such lands as they came to by most just title, by gift, by sale, by exchange, or otherwise. There is no respect nor difference had amongst you, whether they came to them by right or by wrong. Be you so blind that you cannot see how justly you proceed to take the sword in your hands against your prince, and to dispossess just inheritors without any cause? Christ would not take upon him to judge the right and title of lands between two brethren; and you arrogantly presume not only to judge, but unjustly to take away all men’s right titles; yea, even from the king himself. And do you not tremble for fear that the vengeance of God shall fall upon you before you have grace to repent? And yet you, not contented with this your rebellion, would have your shameful act celebrated with a perpetual memory, as it were to boast and glory of your iniquity. For, in memory of your fact, you would have established in every county two places to pray for the king and the commonwealth: whereby your abominable behaviour at this present may never be forgotten, but be remembered unto the world’s end; that when the king’s majesty was in wars both with Scotland and France, you, under pretence of the commonwealth, rebelled and made so great sedition against him within his own realm, as never before was heard of. And therefore you must be prayed for for ever in every county of this realm. It were more fit for you to make humble supplication upon your knees to the king’s

386

THE COMMONWEAL

[32]

majesty, desiring him not only to forgive you this fault, but also that the same may never be put in chronicle nor writing; and that neither shew nor mention may remain to your posterity, that ever subjects were so unkind to their prince, and so ungracious towards God that, contrary to God’s word, they should so use themselves against their sovereign lord and king. And this I assure you of, that if all the whole world should pray for you until doomsday their prayers should no more avail you than they should avail the devils in hell, if they prayed for them, unless you be so penitent and sorry for your disobedience that you will ever after, so long as you live, study to redub1 and recompense the same with all true and faithful obedience, not only yourselves, but also procuring all other, so much as lieth in you: and so much detesting such uproars and seditions, that if you see any man towards any such things, you will to your power resist him, and open him unto such governors and rulers as may straightway repress the same. As for your last article, thanks be to God, it needeth not to be answered, which is this. YOUR LAST ARTICLE IS THIS:

“For the particular griefs of our country, we will have them so ordered, as Humphry Arundel and Henry Bray, the king’s mayor of Bodman shall inform the king’s majesty if they may have safe conduct under the king’s great seal to pass and re-pass with an herald of arms.” Who ever heard such arrogancy in subjects, to require and will of their princes that their own particular causes may be ordered neither according to reason nor the laws of this realm, but according to the information of two most heinous traitors? Was it ever heard before this time that an information should be a judgment, although the informer were of never so great credit? and will you have suffice the information of two villainous papistical traitors? You will deprive the king of his lands pertaining to his crown, and other men of their just possessions and inheritance, and judge your own causes as you list yourselves. And what can you be called then but most wicked judges, and most errant traitors? except only ignorance or force may excuse you; that either you were constrained by your captains against your wills, or deceived by blind priests and other crafty persuaders, to ask you wist not what. How much then ought you to detest and abhor such men hereafter, and to beware of all such like, so long as you live; and to give most humble and hearty thanks unto God, who hath made an end of this article, and brought Arundel and Bray to that they have deserved, that is, perpetual shame, confusion, and death! Yet I beseech God so to extend his grace unto them that they may die well which have lived ill. Amen. 1

Repair, or make amends.

[33]

CHARACTER SKETCH OF HENRY VII

387

C. LEADERS IN SOCIETY 33. Character sketch of Henry VII. By Polydore Vergil Polydore Vergil could write from personal knowledge of the king. His analysis of Henry’s character is more sophisticated than other contemporary accounts and has coloured the writings of most historians.

(D.Hay (ed.), Anglica Historia, 142–146)

H

enry reigned twenty-three years and seven months. He lived fifty-two years. By his wife Elizabeth he had eight children, four boys and the same number of girls. Three survived him, an only son Henry, prince of Wales, and two daughters, Margaret married to James King of Scotland, and Mary betrothed to Charles, prince of Castile. His figure was slim, but well-built and strong: in height he was above the average. Extremely attractive in appearance, his face was cheerful, especially when he was speaking. He had small, blue eyes: a few poor black-stained teeth. His hair was thin and white: his complexion sallow. He was distinguished, wise, and prudent in character: and his spirit was so brave and resolute that never, even in moments of greatest danger, did it desert him. He had a most tenacious memory, and was, in addition, not devoid of scholarship. Further, in government he was shrewd and farseeing, so that none dared to get the better of him by deceit or sharp practice. He was gracious and kind, and as attractive to visitors as he was easy of access. His hospitality was splendidly generous: he liked having foreign visitors, and freely conferred favours on them. But to those of his subjects who did not do him the honour due to him, or who were only generous with promises, he was hard and harsh. He well knew how to maintain his royal dignity, and everything belonging to his kingship, at all times and places. He was most successful in war, although by nature he preferred peace to war. Above all else he cherished justice: and consequently he punished with the utmost vigour, robberies, murders, and every other kind of crime. He was for this reason greatly lamented by all his subjects, who had been able to conduct their lives in peace far removed from the wrongs and evil doings of bad men. He was a most ze