Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations
The Graduate School
2013
Patronage, Public Spheres and the Problem
of Female Rule: Henry Howard and the
Politics of Writing in Sixteenth Century
England
Anna Christine Caney
Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
PATRONAGE, PUBLIC SPHERES AND THE PROBLEM OF FEMALE RULE:
HENRY HOWARD AND THE POLITICS OF WRITING IN SIXTEENTH CENTURY
ENGLAND
By
ANNA CHRISTINE CANEY
A Dissertation submitted to the
Department of History
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Awarded:
Summer Semester, 2013
Anna Christine Caney defended this dissertation on April 18, 2013.
The members of the supervisory committee were:
Charles Upchurch
Professor Directing Dissertation
Gary Taylor
University Representative
Darrin McMahon
Committee Member
Jonathon Grant
Committee Member
Peter Garretson
Committee Member
The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and
certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements.
ii
For Andrew, Allison, Catherine, and my parents
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The understanding, patience and criticism and encouragement of my committee membersProfessors Charles Upchurch, Darrin McMahon, Jonathan Grant, Peter Garretson, and Gary
Taylor- as this project would not have been successful without them. They have helped form me
as a historian and I sincerely appreciate their help and commitment in allowing me to finish this
dissertation.
Professor Richard Greaves- who opened the door to this topic, and Dr. David Mock who
provided invaluable resources in order to move forward with my research and enabled me to
move forward with the project.
My parents and uncle, Mike Sullivan- they provided support and resources to help me conduct
research under very difficult circumstances.
Andrew McRory- he had amazing willingness to step in and help as a partner and friend while
accepting my frustration, late nights, and absence from the kitchen while writing. I could not
have completed this project without him. He has my deepest love and appreciation for standing
by me over the past few years.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract
vi
Abbreviations
vii
1. INTRODUCTION
1
2. A NOBLEMAN’S LIFE
24
3. THE ELIZABETHAN COURT IN THE 1560’S AND 1570’S
56
4. INCEPTION
82
5. THE VIA MEDIA AND POLITICS
114
6. THE FINAL ATTEMPT
142
7. PREFERMENT AND LEGACY
173
REFERENCES
192
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
210
v
ABSTRACT
This dissertation analyzes the career of Henry Howard, Elizabethan courtier, and his
principle intellectual work, “A Dutifull Defence of the Lawful Regiment of Weomen,” in order
to better understand the politics of Elizabethan court culture, the nature of political loyalty in the
face of confessional pluralism, and the ways in which gender difference was theorized in the
early modern period. Henry Howard’s career constitutes one of the most remarkable success and
survival stories of the sixteenth and early seventeenth century. Born into the most prominent
Catholic family in England, Howard saw his father, two cousins, and his brother be executed for
treason. During his life he constantly remained under suspicion for being a practicing Catholic,
consorting with Jesuits, and participating in conspiracies against Queen Elizabeth. Howard was
deprived of his income and position, arrested and imprisoned numerous times, and was forced to
survive on the periphery of the court. Yet remarkably, he survived. At the accession of James I
he was awarded the title Earl of Northampton, and by the time of his death in 1614 he was the
wealthiest man in England.
The story of the “Dutifull Defence” is no less extraordinary. Several authors wrote
defenses of Queen Elizabeth in response to John Knox’s First Blast of the Trumpet. However,
Henry Howard had the advantage of not only being a nobleman, but he was also a graduate of
Cambridge University. He had the education and ability to respond to Knox. “Dutifull Defence”
contains over 400 sources, which Howard used to reject Knox’s arguments against women based
on Aristotelian biology. Instead he proposed a Platonic understanding of gender difference. By
combining Platonic ideas of gender with his extensive knowledge of the Church fathers,
Scripture, and English Civil law, Howard was able to construct an intellectually consistent and
sound defense of queenship.
vi
Previous historians have usually only looked at aspects of Howard’s life, and only
superficial fragments of the “Dutifull Defence,” and none have tried to integrate the study of the
two. This dissertation combines the dynamic of Henry Howard’s life and his composition of
“Dutifull Defence” in order to reveal the importance of the manuscript. In composing “Dutifull
Defence” he contributed a significant work to the gender debate based on his own personal
experiences and a genuine belief that a woman was capable of ruling a country. In analyzing the
content, production, and circulation of the “Dutifull Defence” in conjunction with Howard’s
experiences as a courtier, this dissertation, following the model of early modern public spheres
developed in the work of by Peter Lake and Steven Pincus, demonstrates the ways in which
identities, ideas, and publics could be successfully manipulated to create stability in the
tumultuous world of Elizabethan court politics.
vii
ABBREVIATIONS
Add.
BL
DNB
“Dutifull Defence”
CSPD
CSPF
CSPS
HLRO
MSS
OED
PRO
SP
s.v.
Additional
British Library
Dictionary of National Biography
Henry Howard, “The Dutifull Defence of the Lawful
Regiment of Weomen.” BL Lansdowne MSS, 813 (1590)
Calendar of State Papers Domestic Series. Vol. 1, 15471580; Vol. 2, 1581-1590.
Calendar of State Papers Foreign Series. Vol. 15, Jan.
1581-Apr. 1582
Calendar of State Papers Spanish Series. Vol.3, 1580-1586
House of Lords Record Office
Manuscript
Oxford English Dictionary
Public Record Office
State Papers
sub verdo
viii
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
In 1590, Queen Elizabeth I received a leather bound manuscript as a gift from a courtier.
It was a treatise, “A Dutifull Defence of the Lawful Regiment of Women,” written by Lord
Henry Howard in an attempt to defend Elizabeth’s right to rule, and also to win the favor and
patronage of the queen. The purpose of Howard’s work was to defend the queen’s right to rule as
a woman, and in stating his opinion, Howard did not mince his words:
Whosoever will deprive a lawfull owner of lesse matters then inheritannce of
kingdomes must produce sounde evidence. In triall of this question there is no
doubte but woemen have a voice because according to that principle of the Civile
Lawe quod omnes tangit etc. that which concerneth all, must be approved in like
sorte by all before it take effect. If weomen speak not in printe against themselves
theie can receive no hurte…1
The work was not unique in that written works about, and presented to Queen Elizabeth were
common during her reign. Numerous authors penned books, pamphlets, and treatises concerning
the different aspects of her monarchy that elicited public debate. In particular, her gender, her
marital status, and the nature of her religious confession were popular subjects of both written
work, and verbal debate. Howard’s treatise is different, however, in that it was written by a
nobleman, who was also educated. Howard’s family was the highest ranking in England, holding
the Dukedom of Norfolk.2 Howard was educated at Cambridge, taking his degree in 1564 and
then remaining on to teach at the university.3 “Dutifull Defence” was composed in the 1580s,
late in the debate on gender, as most works for and against female rule appeared early in
1
Howard, Henry. “A Dutifull Defence of the Lawful Regiment of Women” (1590), 30r.
See W.A. Sessions, Henry Howard the Poet Earl of Surrey, A Life. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 2022.
3
Linda Levy Peck, Northampton: Patronage and Policy at the Court of James I. (London: George Allen and
Unwin, 1982), 8; Daniel Andersson, Lord Henry Howard (1540-1614): An Elizabethan Life. (Woodbridge, Suffolk:
D.S. Brewer, 2009), 9.
2
1
Elizabeth’s reign. Howard’s decision and motives for writing “Dutifull Defence” is included in
the queries surrounding Howard and his life. The manuscript is an intricately assembled work
that Howard began in 1577, but due to intrigue and court politics, he did not complete until
thirteen years later. “Dutifull Defence” represents over a decade of time and effort put into
composition and rhetoric. However, it is also a representation of the society, culture, politics, and
religion that surrounded and challenged Queen Elizabeth and her reign.
England had already faced decades of diplomatic, cultural, and religious crisis that in
many respects, only worsened at the advent of her reign in 1558. Her father, Henry VIII, had torn
the Church away from Rome and declared the monarch the head of the new Church of England.4
During the brief reigns of both her brother Edward and sister Mary, religion played a powerful
role that was inseparable from the political world as the monarchy struggled to bend the nobility
and the general population to its particular confession of faith. Noble families and court factions
of Reformed and Catholic leanings vied for attention from the monarch in order to support their
own interests. Foreign powers sought to influence diplomatic decisions that involved the faith of
a queen, whose country was deeply involved in the religious and political conflicts dividing the
continent. And, religious bodies fought to protect the interests of their own confessions through
support or detraction of the monarch. In 1559 Elizabeth was able, for the most part, to convince
her councilors and subjects to compromise on the issue with a religious settlement. Two acts
settled in Parliament, the Act of Supremacy and the Act of Uniformity set England firmly on a
reformed path leaving powerful, Catholic families, which included the Howards, wondering how
they would fit into the new regime.5 However, in spite of religious settlement, there was one
4
For a discussion on Henry VIII and the English Reformation see A.G. Dickenson, The English Reformation.
(University Park, Pennsylvania: The University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989).
5
For a discussion and outline of the Elizabethan Religious Settlement see A.G. Dickens. The English Reformation.
2nd ed. (University Park, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989), 349-361.
2
overriding, undisputable factor that could not be ignored by Catholic priest, Reformed pastor, or
royal councilor- Elizabeth was a woman. And, considering the tenuous position that both
Catholic and Protestant scholars placed women in theologically and legally, it is not surprising
that men committed time to an issue that challenged the traditional boundaries of society—
whether or not a woman could rule as sole monarch.
The upheaval created by four distinctly different monarchs in ten years, and the discord
that ensued over religious divisions and challenges to tradition incited men of both Protestant and
Catholic leanings to publically declare their opinions on the state of religion and the monarchy in
England. Authors took advantage of the written word to express their opinions and declare their
position on the subjects of women, law, and faith. The continued use of manuscripts and the
increased use of print allowed for multiple copies of pamphlets, tracts, and sermons to be
circulated within the court and out to the broader general public, and all topics were fair game for
editorial comment.6 More specifically, for authors declaring judgment on the subject of female
rulers, individual opinion was more important than knowledge on the subject, and writers
articulated their views with confidence, hoping to convince, or at least persuade men that their
words represented the truth. However, despite the complexity of the possible ramifications, the
problem facing men of both the religious and the political world was straightforward- for the first
time since the twelfth century, there were no legitimate male heirs to the English throne.
6
The dissolution of the monasteries in the 1530s and the subsequent dispersal of many of the monastic libraries
opened up the number of sources available to public men. Furthermore, the expansion of the printing, bookbinding,
and bookselling trade increased the number of volumes available, in addition to facilitating the exchange of
knowledge on subjects. One of the results of this enhanced awareness was the formation of the Elizabethan Society
of Antiquaries in 1586, a group dedicated to historical knowledge. Howard was a member of the Society of
Antiquaries, as were Sir Thomas Heneage and Sir Robert Cotton, both recipients of copies of “Dutifull Defence.”
See May McKisack, Medieval History in the Tudor Age (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), vii. Publication will be
discussed in a later chapter.
3
When Mary I acceded to the throne in August 1553, she became the first female to rule
England in her own right, and the concern over a female sovereign was not simply a matter of
petty opinion. Before 1553, there had been no example of successful female rule to set a
precedent. The only previous princess to assert her title as outright queen was in 1135, when
Matilda, Henry I’s direct heir, claimed the crown of England, resulting in nineteen years of civil
war.7 The subsequent success of male lineage had engrained in the English mind that the
monarch should be a man. Henry VIII’s treatment of his eldest daughter was a clear example of
preference for the male. Throughout Mary Tudor’s childhood, her father attempted to wed her to
a foreign prince in hopes that she would then be able to rule under her husband as more of a
consort than a queen regnant.8 At issue was not Mary’s right to inherit the office of monarch, but
the prevailing idea that a woman would not be physically or mentally able to fulfill the duties of
a sovereign, for the whole notion of monarchy revolved around traditionally male roles. A king
was expected to show military leadership, dispense justice, and, since Henry’s break with Rome,
uphold the Christian faith as Supreme head of the Church of England. If a woman were allowed
to manage any of these roles as the head of state, and be admitted fit to govern men, it would
alter the traditional social, political, and religious hierarchy, and require a new vision for
society.9 More importantly, the theoretical limitations of a female monarch posed a threat, not
only to herself, but also to the peace of her kingdom as a whole.10 Everything from her choice of
7
R. B. Wernham, Before the Armada (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World Inc., 1966), 99.
Judith Richards, "'To Promote a Woman to Beare Rule': Talking of Queens in Mid-Tudor England," Sixteenth
Century Journal 28, no. 1 (1997), 102; Retha M. Warnike, Women of the English Renaissance and Reformation
(Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1983), 49.
9
Constance Jordan. "Feminism and the Humanists: The Case of Sir Thomas Elyot's Defence of Good Women."
Renaissance Quarterly 36 (1983): 181-201.
10
Ibid., 421.
8
4
councilors, attendants in the privy chamber, and most importantly, a spouse, could create
factions well beyond those surrounding a king.11
Much of the rhetoric claiming that a woman would be unfit to rule evolved from the
ancient idea that women were considered inherently physically frail, emotionally weak and
therefore, inferior to men and subject to male authority.12 Female subordination was based on the
traditional order of society that clearly defined a woman’s role as that of a wife and domestic
matron. Legal and ethical boundaries were also based on a woman’s supposed frailty and
incapacity to reason, justifying her pre-ordained functions as a subordinate, and excluding her
from public life.13 The rules of proper feminine behavior acknowledged that women should be
silent and chaste, another reason used to prevent them from participating in a civil forum.14 As a
result, women were traditionally prohibited from holding public office and exercising authority
over anyone outside their own estates. Nevertheless, although gender roles were defined
theoretically, the reality of daily life provided many English women, especially those of the
higher classes, the opportunity to wield power.15
Even if social and political boundaries were not always clearly defined, religiously the
placement of women by the tenets of Scripture was more definitive. According to Christian
tradition, by the order of their creation and God’s decrees in Genesis chapters two and three,
women were subordinate to men and remained socially inferior. God created Adam first; then
11
For a discussion on the Tudor Court and the changes made with the advent of a female monarch see David
Loades, The Tudor Court (Totowa, NJ: Barnes and Noble Books, 1987).
12
Richards, “To Promote a Woman,” 101.
13
Ian Maclean, The Renaissance Notion of Women (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 43-6, 57-8, 68.
14
Constance Jordan, "Feminism and the Humanists: The Case of Sir Thomas Elyot's Defence of Good Women,"
Renaissance Quarterly 36, no. 2 (1983), 182.
15
Throughout English history, women had established and maintained authoritative roles in religious society as
abbesses or prioresses. Additionally, high-ranking, married English women could exert great political influence.
Tudor women often controlled the running of their estates, managing the political, legal and social responsibilities
that came with owning land. They were also able to influence their husband’s financial and political decisions.
Legally, women could inherit estates, control wardships, participate in business ventures and hold guild
memberships and since 1503, women were allowed to serve as justices of the peace. See Richards, “’To Promote a
Woman to Beare Rule,’” 101-103.
5
Eve was formed from Adam, making her an ancillary subordinate even before the Fall. After the
Fall, God made her subjection permanent.16 Some arguments went so far as to state that women
were not created in the image of God, but only in the image of man, from whom she was
drawn.17 Once established in Christian belief, opinion on women remained theoretically constant
throughout the Middle Ages. She may have been praised for her womanly virtues, but it did not
alter her position in legal and social hierarchy.
Historically, discussions on the role on women in society were certainly not uncommon.
Beginning in antiquity and moving through the Middle Ages, male opinions on the female nature
and her proper position in society helped form the traditional views on women that were
maintained through the early modern period. Aristotle was the most influential non-Christian
writer on women, regarding them as imperfect due to biological fault; a woman was an
incomplete male. From the twelfth century, theologians and scholars combined Aristotle’s ideas
with Christian writing, synthesizing the idea of a woman’s inherent natural inferiority with God’s
pre-determination of female subjection and subsequent sentence due to Eve’s sin.18 The writings
of Christian theorists like Tertullian, Augustine of Hippo, John Chrysostom, Jerome, and
Thomas Aquinas provided the sources for later Renaissance debates not only on Eve’s position,
but also on how her example applied to women in a changing political, economic, and social
culture.19 When humanist scholars entered the discussion in the late fifteenth-century, the debate
over the nature of women became less a matter of malediction of the female character, and more
a glorification, and at times hyperbole, of the acceptable female virtues. The most notorious of
16
Margaret R. Sommerville, Sex and Subjection: Attitudes to Women in Early-Modern Society (London: Arnold,
1995), 29.
17
Augustine expressed this view in On the Trinity, 12: 7. See Augustine, On the Trinity. Edited by Gareth B.
Matthews (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).
18
Merry E. Wiesner, Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993),
14.
19
Katherine Usher Henderson and Barbara F. McManus, Half Humankind: Texts and Contexts of the Controversy
About Women in England, 1540-1640 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985), 7.
6
these works was Cornelius Agrippa’s Declamation on the Nobility and Preeminence of the
Female Sex (1529), which claimed that women were not only equal to, but superior to men in all
respects. However, though praising women, these works did not debate the essential equality of
a woman in comparison to a man, spiritually or politically. Agrippa did not go beyond the
physical in his glorification of the lady.20 Despite his radical view that women should be priests
in his work Utopia, Sir Thomas More expressed that women were still subject to men, especially
their husbands.21 As a writer and tutor for Mary Tudor, Juan Luis Vives espoused education for
high-born women; however, he stressed that women were unsuited to be rulers.22
The debate over the nature and position of women entered a new phase with the
accession of Mary Tudor. For the earlier humanists, the idea of a female queen regnant was
theoretical, but in 1553 the concept became a reality. A war of words ensued as men penned their
opinions on a woman’s position in society, her character, her ability to hold a position of public
or private authority, and especially, if Mary Tudor could rule as a sole monarch. The most vocal
authors were English and Scottish Protestant exiles who had fled to the continent after Mary’s
accession. Although their foremost concern was Mary’s dedication to the Roman Catholic
Church, they were also convinced that a queen regnant opposed the laws of God, nature and
society. Moreover, her mental incapacity would endanger the safety of the kingdom. Sir David
Lindsay (1490- 1555) was one of first to oppose female rule in the mid-century debate. In his
1553 work, Ane Dialougue betuix Experience and ane Courteour, off the Miserabyll Estait of the
World, the Scottish poet and Protestant reformer used narrative poetry to condemn female rulers,
20
Cornelius Agrippa, Declamation on the Nobility and Preeminence of the Female Sex. Translated and edited by
Albert Rabil, Jr. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996).
21
Sir Thomas More, Utopia (1556). Translated by Ralph Robynson. Edited by David Harris Sacks (Boston,
Massachusetts: Bedford St. Martins, 1999), 193.
22
Foster Watson, ed., Vives and the Renascence Education of Women (New York: Longmans, Green and Co.,
1912), 54.
7
asserting divinely ordained male preeminence and authority over women.23 In 1554, Thomas
Becon published An humble suplicacioun unto God for the restoring of his holye woorde unto
the churche of England.24 An exiled propagandist, Becon mercilessly attacked Mary I and her
council, comparing her to Jezebel and proclaiming her reign to be a sign of divine punishment.25
The most vehement condemnations of Mary Tudor, and any women who dared to place
themselves in positions of authority, came from Christopher Goodman and John Knox, Calvinist
radicals who advocated physical resistance against ungodly rulers. To them, a Catholic queen
regnant was a direct threat to God’s ordained hierarchy and to the independence of England and
Scotland if Mary wed a foreign, Catholic prince.26 Knox’s First Blast against the Monstrous
Regiment of Women (1559) directly attacked Mary Tudor, by declaring female monarchy to be
an abhorrence to the laws of God, nature, and civil society, and by condemning her and all
women who dared to assume a position of authority over men.27 Christopher Goodman was less
concerned with the gender of the ruler, though he did not approve of female regiment, but the
religion of the sovereign. He denounced Mary Tudor as a tyrant in his 1558 work, Howe
Superior Powers oght to be Obeyed.28 Later into Elizabeth’s reign, George Buchanan published a
History of Scotland (1582), in which he bewailed that women were incapable of overseeing a
23
David Lindsay, Ane dialog betuix Experience and ane courteour Off the miserabill estait of the warld (Paris: J.
Petit(?), 1558); Greaves, Theology and Revolution, 157.
24
Thomas, Becon, An humble supplicacion vnto God for the restoring of hys holye woorde, vnto the churche of
Englande, mooste mete to be sayde in these oure dayes, euen with teares of euery true [and] faythfull English harte
(Strasburg: J. Lambrecht(?), 1554).
25
Paula Louise Scaingi. "The Scepter or the Distaff: The Question of Female Sovereignty, 1516-1607." The
Historian 41(1978): 59-75.
26
Ibid.; Jordan, “Woman’s Rule,” 430; Richards, 117 .
27
John Knox, The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstruous Regiment of
Women (Genevea: n.p. 1558; reprint, New York: De Capo Press, 1972). Knox declared that women were, by nature,
“weak, frail, impatient, feeble, and foolish, and experience hath declared them to be un-constant, variable, cruel, and
lacking the spirit of counsel and regiment.” 10r.
28
Christopher Goodman, How Superior Powers Oght to Be Obeyd (Geneva: John Crispin, 1558; reprint, Columbia
University Press, 1931); Richard Greaves. Theology and Revolution in the Scottish Reformation: Studies in the
Thought of John Knox (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Christian University Press,1980),163; Jordan, “Woman’s Rule,”
425.
8
successful government, due to their natural inferiority.29 Detractors also attacked Elizabeth in
respect to her marriage choices. For example John Stubbe published The discuerie of a gaping
gulf whereinto England is like to be swallowed by an other French marriage (1579) in objection
to the Queen’s marriage negotiations with the Hapsburgs.30
In response to the attacks against women and female rulers, treatises began to appear at
the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign supporting her position. Even with the accession of a
Protestant queen, there was concern over the influence the published attacks, still being
circulated in England, might have on men unhappy with the 1559 religious settlement.31 The
queen’s defenders supported the view that a queen regnant was not against God’s law or the law
of nature, and that a woman could successfully act as a head of state. In 1559, John Alymer
published An Harborowe For Faithfull and Trewe Subjectes, a direct rebuttal of Knox.32 John
Leslie, an emissary for Mary Stuart, declared his support for the queen and all women rulers in A
Defence of the Quene of Scotland (1569).33 The Defence of the Apology of the Church of
England (1562) written by John Jewel, the Bishop of Salisbury, and a staunch supporter of
Elizabeth, defended the right of female inheritance and extolled female virtues.34 It is not
surprising that most of Elizabeth’s defenders were men in the service of the crown, related to the
court in some manner, and members of the aristocracy. Their works supported the crown’s
29
George Buchanan. The History of Scotland. Written in Latin, by George Buchanan. Faithfully rendered into
English. J. Fraser, 1689. Buchanan writes: “greatness of mind was never required in this sex;it is true, women have
other proper virtues, but as for his, it was always reckoned among virile, not female endowments; besides, by how
much the more they are obnoxious to commotions, passions and other efforts of mind, by reason of imbecility of
their nature.” 406.
30
John Stubbe. The discuerie of a gaping gulf whereinto England is like to be swallowed by an other French
marriage (1579).
31
Scalingi, “The Scepter and the Distaff,” 69.
32
John Alymer. An harborovve for faithfull and trevve subiectes agaynst the late blowne blaste, concerninge the
gouernme[n]t of vvemen. wherin be confuted all such reasons as a straunger of late made in that behalfe, with a
breife exhortation to obedience (London: John Day, 1559).
33
John Leslie, A Defence of the Honour of the Right Highe, Mighty and Noble Princesse Marie Quene of Scotlande
and Dowager of France (London: Eusebius Diczophile, 1569).
34
John Jewell, An apologie, or aunswer in defence of the Church of England concerninge the state of religion vsed
in the same. Newly set forth in Latin, and nowe translated into Englishe (London: Reginald Wolf, 562).
9
decisions and the queen. They were written to influence opinion, but were also intended to attract
patronage, or elicit favor from the crown. Alymer and Jewel were Marian exiles who returned to
serve in the Church of England. Leslie was the Catholic Bishop of Ross and served Mary Stuart
until her death in 1586. Their writings were published and accepted as successful rebuttals of
radical detractors, some of who may have written at the suggestion of members of the court as
well since direct disagreement with the queen might not be politically advantageous.
All of the numerous negative tracts and treatises being circulated at the time were
intended to influence the public at large and to incite opinion against Elizabeth as a ruler, and
both the general public and members of the court had access to published tracts.35 They provide
an example of what is currently emerging as the “public sphere” in Early Modern England.
Following models recently developed by Peter Lake and the emergence of a public sphere, it can
be defined as a platform of debate revolving around both conceptual and physical spaces, and
verbal transmission of ideas from person to person. Discussions were generated by numerous
issues including gender, politics, culture and religion.36 Issues that centered on the state of the
monarchy and its importance to the well being of the country were especially popular. In
particular, Elizabeth’s physical wellness, her state of sexual activity, the people she spent time
with, and her marriage negotiations were all considered topics of relevant public discussion as
they were essential well being of the state. The king’s bedroom activities may have been private,
but the queen could not open her bed to just anyone, and everyone had an interest in who she
might sleep with. Foreign ambassadors were especially prone to circulating reports of
35
Howard directly quotes John Knox in his early drafts of “Dutifull Defence.”
Peter Lake and Michael Questier. “Puritans, Papists, and the ‘Public Sphere’ in Early Modern England: The
Edmund Campion Affair in Context.” The Journal of Modern History. Vol. 72, No. 3 (September, 2000): 595;
Natalie Mears, Queenship and Political Discourse in the Elizabethan Realms (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2005), 200, 204.
36
10
Elizabeth’s sexual activity.37 However, as public debate emerged in England, books, pamphlets,
and reports came out as detractions to the queen who responded at times by prohibiting books
and pamphlets thought to be insulting or treasonous. After publishing First Blast of the Trumpet
John Knox was prohibited from entering England and the book was banned. John Stubbes had
his right hand cut off with a cleaver in public for writing and publishing Gaping Gulf. 38 Some
evidence also exists of verbal detractors in villages and towns. One Edward Fogged was cited for
stating in 1570 that he “care not for the queen marye nor for queen Eliza.’39 However, regardless
of whether a person was a nobleman or a commoner, Elizabeth elicited great interest as a public
topic of debate.
Henry Howard straddled both the inner and outer spheres of the world surrounding
Elizabeth for most of his life. As a nobleman, scholar, and prolific writer, Howard should have
personified the ideal courtier who could elicit favor from his queen. Instead, due to the mishaps
of his family, he spent thirty years of his life, 1570-1603, defending his honor, protecting his life,
and writing to maintain his livelihood. He resided in great estate houses, and small city dwellings
at different times in his life. He had contact with the highest persons in the land, as well as the
common people who surrounded him during his times of difficulty.
In 1540 his birth position and state in life seemed assured. He was the youngest son of
Henry Howard, earl of Surrey, and grandson of the duke of Norfolk. The Howard’s held the
highest peerage in England, and the only extant dukedom during her reign. Therefore, even as a
younger son, Henry’s position as a Howard should have guaranteed him an existence far better
than most men would be able to achieve. However, his grandfather and father seriously faltered
37
Natalie Mears. Queenship and Political Discourse, 224, 225. Elizabeth’s intimacy and possible pregnancy was
critical to resolve the succession question. For that reason, not only foreign diplomats, but the public in general had
an interest in who she would marry and have children by.
38
Ibid.,187.
39
Ibid., 194. Mears provides an introduction into the use of assizes as a source for a discussion on the public sphere.
11
in Henry VIII’s final years when they displayed the arms of England in the first quarter of his
amorial bearings, and more significantly, the arms of Edward the Confessor in his escutcheon,
which rightfully belonged to Prince Edward.40 Henry was already suspicious of both men after
defeats in battle and failed diplomatic negotiations with the French. Surrey’s arrogant display
angered the king and both Norfolk and Surry were charged with treason.41 The duke and earl
were both convicted for the offense of imperiling the succession, and Surrey was beheaded on
January 19, 1547. Norfolk was scheduled to be executed on January 28, but Henry VIII died on
January 27 and Norfolk’s life was spared.
Surrey’s two boys, Thomas and Henry were left to the care of their aunt, Mary Fitzroy,
Duchess of Richmond, and the crown after their father’s execution. Young Henry was tutored by
John Foxe, the martyroligist while Edward was king. When Mary became queen, Foxe was
dismissed and Henry was placed with the Catholic Bishop of Lincoln, John White. Elizabeth
finally sent Henry to Cambridge in 1559 where he entered King’s College and studied law,
graduating in 1564. He then secured a teaching position at Trinity Hall, Cambridge, but sought
to be closer to the queen and in the late 1560’s he attempted to enter the social circles of the
court. His timing could not have been worse. His brother, Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk was
tried and convicted of treason in 1572 after attempting to marry Mary Queen of Scots and
conspire against Queen Elizabeth. Henry was named as an accomplice in the conspiracy, the first
of many in which he was suspected of being actively involved. He was able to acquit himself in
40
See David Head, The Ebbs and Flows of Fortune: The Life of Thomas Howard, Third Duke of Norfolk (Athens,
GA: The University of Georgia Press, 1995), 225. The escutcheon is the defined area on which amorial bearings are
displayed, usually a shield.
41
Surrey was charged under the succession act of 1536, which made any act that threatened the succession treason.
Ibid., 226.
12
all cases, but for the next twenty years he struggled to convince Elizabeth, and her councilors
that he was a loyal subject, and worthy to carry his family’s name.42
In order to prove his worthiness Howard became a prolific writer, composing numerous
written works between in the 1570’s and 1580’s, all of which were produced to express personal,
and academic, opinion on most of the contentious issues at the time.43 In doing so, he actively
sought to be a part of the circles that encompassed the Elizabethan public sphere. For example he
wrote in favor of her marriage proposals, and against John Stubbe. Howard wrote from the
perspective of an impoverished man, yet he was an educated member of the nobility. In 1577 he
began what would become his final major treatise, a defense of women’s rule. He states that he
was given a copy of a “raising invective against the regiment of queens” with an “earnest
charge” to compose a rebuttal.44 Howard began to do so, but over the next decade he found
himself continuously under interrogation for intrigue and accusations of sedition and treason.
Howard writes candidly in the introduction about his experiences while composing the work,
revealing glimpses of his life during the 1570’s in “Dutiful Defence.” Even though his papers,
and then a draft of the work were stolen several times, he continued to write, and in 1590 he
finally presented “Dutiful Defence” to Queen Elizabeth.45
“Dutiful Defence” is important not only because of its vivid evocations to Howard’s life,
and the sixteenth century in general, but also because evidence of the writer’s process survives,
providing a unique glimpse into the world of preparation, composition and production at the
time. There are numerous extent manuscripts of “Dutiful Defence” including several quarterfolio pages of hand written notes, three early drafts of the work, eight complete, bound copies of
42
Before Howard’s father and brother were executed for treason, Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, both his
cousins, were also executed by Henry VIII.
43
Howard’s motives and written works will be discussed in a later chapter.
44
“Dutifull Defence,” 2r.
45
Ibid., 7v.
13
the presentation manuscripts, and four partial copies of the work that were produced
posthumously. Although mentions of “Dutifull Defence” are often relegated to footnotes and
inadequate analysis, the significance of Howard’s treatise remains underrated. “Dutifull
Defence” is a well researched and thoroughly written work that addresses the subject of female
rule that encompassed in nearly all of the contemporary publications on the subject. Howard
reveals the depth of his knowledge in the body of the work by using his education to refute those
objecting to women’s rule. His use of rhetoric and sources is concurrent with the humanist style
at the time, but Howard moves beyond other authors on the subject of women, by expounding on
three separate books, each addressing a specific aspect of the law- natural, civil, and divine law.
He approaches one argument at a time, using history, theology, and his knowledge of the law to
determine that women are mentally, spiritually, and legally able to inherit offices and rule as
queens regnant, and are equal to men. His ideas were unique, his conclusions bold, and his
legacy stands as a true defender of women’s equality, ability and right to hold positions of
authority.
There is no doubt that Henry Howard’s early life and long held beliefs influenced his
work. Both privilege and adversity are revealed in his writing. He was the only nobleman in the
Elizabethan court with a formal university education, allowing him to claim a position few other
writers could at the time. Analysis of “Dutifull Defence” in relation to evidence from earlier
works and letters will show that Howard’s views on women came from a genuine, long standing
belief in the equality of women as understood by Howard through his own personal experiences
and formal education.46 He formed the content of “Dutifull Defence” by drawing from his own
experiences with women growing up and his formal education through exposure to law and
46
It is understood that the use of the word “equality” may be considered anachronistic. Howard uses the word
“equal” in Dutiful Defence in reference to a woman’s position spiritually, and in a philosophical essence as defined
by Plato in Republic, Book V. Howard’s interpretation of Plato will be discussed in a later chapter.
14
theology at Cambridge. The compilation of physical drafts and copies of “Dutifull Defence” are
unique in that it provides a thorough look at the process of the written work, from the first
draughts to the finished work, to the legacy it left via reproduction.
Howard and “Dutifull Defence” provide a vivid example of extent of the emerging public
sphere when fit into the context of the Elizabethan court and society, and “Dutifull Defence’s
longevity and success are apparent by the continued interest in an unpublished work after his
death. Although Howard only set one of his works to print, the manuscripts still represent a
strong example of an individual who participated in the public sphere surrounding the
Elizabethan court in his attempts to influence the monarch and her privy council. His body of
work dealt with the most contentious issues at the time, and he actively sought to be a player in
the debates. His position as a scholar gave him the ability to argue his position on an issue. His
position as a nobleman and a scholar allowed him access that many authors who published on
particular queries did not have. And, importantly, the troubles that kept him away from
Elizabeth’s presence, and often in abject poverty, drove him to write with a motive that few had,
which was not only to influence policy, but gain access to the personal presence of the queen due
to his family name and “place by birth my due.”47
Howard’s legacy is an example of how the world of influence, debate, and engagement
with the public sphere was able to help him finally achieve his goal of preferment and reward of
position after he presented “Dutifull Defence” to the queen. In the final decade of Elizabeth’s
reign he was accepted in the court, admitted to Elizabeth’s presence, and acted as the
intermediary between Robert Cecil and James VI in Scotland in the negotiations for his
succession to the English throne. His efforts were rewarded. By the time he died in 1614 he was
47
Letter from Henry Howard to James I. As cited in G.F. Nott. The Works of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, and of
Sir Thomas Wyatt, the Elder. 2 vols. (New York: AMS Press, 1965), I 446n.
15
one of the wealthiest men in England, had been granted the title Earl of Northampton, Baron of
Marnhull, made Warden of the Cinque Ports, given the Order of the Garter, and appointed Lord
of the Privy Seal after having lived most of his life, as he put it, “beneath the compass of my
birth.”48 “Dutifull Defence” was the last of his major written works, and his opus to the world in
which he lived under Elizabeth. Containing over 400 sources, its content reveals a lifetime of
belief and experiences from a man who confronted tradition, refuted religion, and challenged
law. His perseverance, contributions, and longevity establish him as an active participant in the
sphere of social and political discourse, a significant contributor to the Elizabethan era, and a
patron to the commencement of the Jacobean age.
Essential to understanding Henry Howard, his involvement in court and society, and
“Dutifull Defence” are the numerous manuscript sources available containing Howard’s letters
and papers. The main manuscript sources for documents from Howard’s life through before
James’s reign are the British Library Cotton manuscripts that include his personal letters, and
papers for the period up to 1603. The State Papers contain documents concerning Howard’s
numerous interrogations in the 1580’s and his relationship with Mary queen of Scots. Still
unused as a source for Howard’s life during Elizabeth’s reign are many of the official papers
pertaining to his family and closest friends. For example, the papers of the earl of Sussex, a good
friend of Howard’s, of the countess of Richmond, his guardian after his father’s death, and of his
three sisters with whom he remained in contact for most of his life, have yet to be utilized as a
source for Howard’s life before 1590.
Scholarship on Lord Henry Howard and his writing has only recently become an interest
to the academic community. In the past his life and work have been glossed over with brief
notations in books on other subjects, while more recent publications have addressed both his life
48
MS Cotton Titus C vi f. 11r
16
and his work in more detail.49 The most recent book on Howard is D. C. Andersson’s Lord
Henry Howard (1540-1614): An Elizabethan Life, is a discussion on Howard’s use of rhetoric in
his writing.50 Andersson provides and updated biography on Howard’s early life at Cambridge,
and provides a full text of several of his works, but only mentions “Dutifull Defence” in passing
in his book. Beyond Andersson, Linda Levy Peck is the only other author to specifically write
about Howard’s life, be it the last ten years. In her biography Northampton: Patronage and
Policy at the Court of James I, she presents an overview on Howard’s life after 1603, but limits
her coverage of his life during Elizabeth’s reign to the first chapter.51 Peck also writes about
Howard in her chapter “The Mentality of a Jacobean Grandee,” once again focusing on
Howard’s later career under James I. In both pieces she presents Howard as a sycophant and
“consummate actor” who only wrote to gain power and position. She does not examine any
particular work or motive for writing them, but discusses his life under Elizabeth in context of
what he was to become as Earl of Northampton. Her sources for the tantalizing few pages on
Howard’s early life are drawn from works about Howard including a brief biography appearing
in the appendix of G. F. Nott’s, The Works of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey; the Dictionary of
National Biography; and the various manuscript collections contained in English libraries. Nott’s
work is the oldest, a very positive account, with at times sycophantic support of Howard’s
career.52
Another work containing glimpses of Howard’s life is a biography of his father, Henry
Howard, the earl of Surrey. W. A. Sessions, Henry Howard, the Poet Earl of Surrey, provides
49
Howard is usually mentioned in books on his father and brother, as well as works on gender related books at the
time.
50
Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 8.
51
Peck, Northampton, 6.
52
Nott, Works.
17
details of Howard’s early childhood and some analysis of his later memories of his father.53
Biographies and document collections on other significant courtiers, for example, Sir
Christopher Hatten; Sir Robert Dudley, the earl of Leicester, and Edward de Vere, the earl of
Oxford, include Howard in their analysis, though most often as a insignificant and embittered
figure, living in the shadows of glorious men. Howard is also briefly mentioned in Wallace
MacCaffrey’s biography Elizabeth I, and a few works on Tudor England, including
MacCaffrey’s second book in his series on the queen’s political world, Queen Elizabeth and the
Making of Policy, 1752-1588.54 Except for D. C. Peck’s analysis of Catholic courtiers and their
involvement in conspiracy during the 1570s and 80s, most historians ignore Howard’s
involvement in the shady world of court politics. In his edited edition of Leicester’s
Commonwealth Peck is the only author to discuss in detail Howard’s involvement in the
numerous conspiracies against Elizabeth.55
If sources for Howard’s early life are difficult to find, examinations of his work are
nearly impossible. The only book analyzing any part of “Dutifull Defence” is Amanda
Shephard’s Gender and Authority in Sixteenth Century England. Using Howard’s manuscript as
part of a larger discussion of the debate that arose over John Knox’s First Blast of the Trumpet
Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women (1558), the most widely used book when focusing on
the debate over female rule, Shephard provides analysis of Howard’s use of the civil law and the
creation debate, but lacks analysis of his theories of natural law, the platform on which Howard
focuses on the first, and longest, section of “Dutifull Defence.” She only briefly mentions
Howard’s theory of natural law, but provides no further discussion on the subject. In doing so,
53
Sessions, Henry Howard,216.
Wallace MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I (London:Arnold Publishing, 1993); Queen Elizabeth and the Making of Policy,
1752-1588 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981).
55
D. C. Peck, ed., Leicester's Commonwealth: The Copy of a Letter Written by a Master of Art Cambridge (1584)
and Related Documents (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1985).
54
18
she fails to credit Howard for having a theory regarding the original state of nature.56 However,
Howard is very specific in stating that even though women are physically weaker than men, in
essence, according to nature, women are in all other ways equal. His view rejected Aristotelian
biology in favor of Platonic form, directly challenging the tracts written about women at the time
that relied on Aristotle to support their position of female inferiority.
Very few books discuss Howard or “Dutifull Defence” in detail, though it has received
more attention in articles. However, in these discussions Howard’s work is either only mentioned
by title or entirely left out of the debate. Richard Greaves, Theology and Revolution in the
Scottish Reformation, briefly acknowledges his work. Constance Jordan, Judith Richards, and
Paula Louise Scalingi, discuss the Knox debate, but leave Howard out completely.57 Katherine
Henderson and Barbara F. McManus also disregard Howard’s work in their treatment of the
Renaissance debate on women in Half Humankind: Contexts and Texts of the Controversy about
Women in England, 1540-1640,58 focusing on how interpretations of Eve and their applications
to the social and political world. In this respect they use Knox’s condemnation of Eve in Genesis
chapter three as the basis for the argument, but do not address Howard’s rebuttal of Knox in
“Dutifull Defence,” but instead focus on Alymer, perhaps because of the late date for Howard’s
contribution to the debate.
The world of publishing and print is vital to understanding the process of the physical
text and understanding why Howard chose to use manuscript publishing over print publication
for his treatise. English Humanist Books: Writers and Patrons, Manuscript and Print, 14751525 is presented by David R. Carlson and helps set the context for work on the evolution of
56
Amanda Shephard, Gender and Authority in Sixteenth-Century England.
Jordan, “Woman’s Rule”; Judith Richards, ""to Promote a Woman to Beare Rule"; Paula Louise Scalingi, "The
Scepter or the Distaff."
58
Henderson and McManus, Half Humankind.
57
19
manuscript and print publication in the sixteenth century. Information on Howard’s use of scribal
publication can be found in Peter Beal's In Praise of Scribes: Manuscripts and Their Makers in
Seventeenth-Century England. Beal discussed Howard’s use of scribes specifically in this
respect, and talks about particular scribes that Howard chose to use.59 Harold Love’s Scribal
Publication in Seventeenth-Century provides information on why authors chose to use a scribe
over print when publishing a work. Members of the aristocracy and upper gentry often chose
handwritten replication over print in order to distribute their writing. Scribal texts were produced
only upon demand and were regarded as the best way of providing monographs for a pre-chosen
clientele, or when a work was intended to attract a particular type of reader.60 David Zaret
provides valuable information on print culture in the sixteenth century in Origins of Democratic
Culture: Printing, Petitions, and the Public Sphere in Early Modern England.61 Zaret bridges the
gap between publication and the public sphere by discussing print culture and its affect on
emerging forms of political communication and the conflict it created. Both forms of publication
were used by Howard in his lifetime. Copies of “Dutifull Defence,” were presented in bound
manuscripts to specific people, but not all of them were members of Elizabeth’s court from
whom he sought favor. Copies were presented after Elizabeth’s death to members of the
Jacobean council.62 Howard also used print publication for a work on a particularly contentious
issue. A Defensative against the Poyson of supposed Prophecies (1583) was a published work
59
Peter Beal, In Praise of Scribes: Manuscripts and Their Makers in Seventeenth-Century England (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1998), 215.
60
Harold Love. Scribal Publication in Seventeenth-Century England. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 127.
61
Zaret, David. Origins of Democratic Culture: Printing, Petitions, and the Public Sphere in Early- Modern
England (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), 134.
62
Copies were presented to Sir Robert Cotton, and John Trumbull. The recipients of copies of “Dutiful Defence”
and their connection to Howard will be discussed in a later chapter.
20
dedicated to Sir Francis Walshingham that disputed the use of astrology, as the subject continued
to have a public following at the time.63
With regard to the issue of the public sphere, the idea of applying the construct to the
sixteenth century is relatively new. Drawing from Habermas’ pivotal work On Society and
Politics, authors are reevaluating the idea of the public sphere and applying to the sixteenth
century by expanding the construct to include a broader base of participants in a less structured
system than originally defined.64 By doing so, religion and gender join politics as point of debate
for the Elizabethan public. In 2000, Peter Lake and Michael Questier published their article
“Puritans, Papists, and the ‘Public Sphere’ in Early Modern England: The Edward Campion
Affair in Context,” applying the idea to a specific religious connotation- the Jesuit mission to
England in 1581. According to Lake and Questier, it was specifically the threat of Catholicism
that helped mobilize the need to generate public interest, creating a public sphere for debate on
the subject.65
Natalie Mears followed in 2005 with Queenship and Political Discourse in the
Elizabethan Realms, using the construct of the public sphere for the issue of gender and opinion
about the queen’s person. Her work expands the idea of the public sphere to include multiple
spheres based on tangible locations and the movement of people that helped facilitate an interest
in debate. She focuses on debate inside Elizabeth’s court, which she refers to as “situated,” and
the debate in general public in villages and towns where verbal transmission, rather than written
63
Peck, Northampton,12.
See Jurgen Habermas. On Society and Politics: A Reader. Edited by Steven Seidman (Boston: Beacon Press,
1989). For a strong analysis of Habermas in a broader context see Craig Calhoun. “Habermas and the Public
Sphere.” In Habermas and the Public Sphere. Edited by Craig Calhoun (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1999).
65
Peter Lake and Michael Questier. "Puritans, Papists and the Public Sphere in Early Modern England: The Edmund
Campion Affair in Context." The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 72, No. 3 (September 2000): 587-627. Lake and
Questier refer to their application of the term “public” as “spaces (both conceptual and practical) created by
particular politico-religious circumstances of Elizabeth’s reign for “public” debate and discourse on a number of
topics central to the future and purposes of the regime.” 590.
64
21
works created debate, referred to as “unsituated.” Accordingly, ideas were transmitted between
the two spheres by members of the situated court who lived in London, but also maintained
estates in the counties as well. Social gossip and political information reached the general public
through the movement of households, fostering discussion about the queen’s physical body and
sexuality, her marriage negotiations, and political decisions in the unsituated sphere of the
county and village.66
In 2006 Peter Lake joined with Steve Pincus to discuss the idea of the early modern
public sphere in “Rethinking the Public Sphere in Early Modern England and “reconfigure”
They present the idea of multiple spheres, as Mears does, but incorporate a conceptual “series of
public spheres” based on the use of ideas transmitted through pamphlets, sermons, manuscripts,
and rumors as a mode of “political maneuver and public politics” emanating from the inner
sphere of the court, down to the outer sphere of the public.67 The article was re-printed in Lake
and Pincus eds. The Politics of the Public Sphere in Early Modern England. In addition to their
chapter, several other authors in the book help clarify and reveal the extent of the public sphere.
Richard Cust discusses the outsider in the Elizabethan public sphere, men who were who not in
the inner sphere of the political loop, but considered themselves qualified to speak because they
were not tainted by court.68
Henry Howard was able to traverse both the physical and conceptual spheres in
Elizabethan England. He was intricately involved in court politics, religious controversy, and
66
Mears, 9. ith regard to her construct of the public sphere she writes: “One of the most important and interesting
aspects of the court and its relationship with public debate is the permeable barrier between the two, a permeability
created by courtiers who were able to traverse or occupy the different physical spaces of the royal palaces and the
counties.”
67
Peter Lake and Steve Pincus. "Rethinking the Public Sphere in Early Modern England. Journal of British Studies,
Vol. 45, No. 2 (April, 2006): 270-292. Lake and Pincus write: “In the period after the Reformation, issues of
religious identity and division came together with issues of dynastic and geopolitical rivalry to create a series of
public spheres.” 274.
68
Richard Cust. "The 'public man' in late Tudor and early Stuart England." In Politics of the Public Sphere in Early
Modern England. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007), 116,117.
22
diplomatic intrigue, while spending most of his existence outside of the court and away from
Elizabeth’s presence. He engaged the public through his connections to Cambridge and his
personal circumstances in and outside of London. His personal beliefs and experiences helped
form the ideas that encompassed his debates and writing, and his social position enabled him to
actively engage in the debates that concerned the court and queen through writing and
publication. By applying the constructs and purposes of the early modern public sphere to
Howard and his material, it is possible to reevaluate his significance as a courtier, his writing,
and his participation in the political world before his ascent to the highest sphere in the court of
James I. Contrary to Peck and Nott’s evaluation of Howard as merely a sycophant and passive
player in court politics during Elizabeth’s reign, Howard actively contributed to the social,
religious, and political discourses that were important to Elizabeth, her court, and the general
public. He wrote on subjects that were actively debated by the Elizabethan public, showing an
understanding of the importance issues at the time. He knew the parameters of engagement, and
employed rhetoric as the tool to advance his position. And, as a result, he succeeded in achieving
his goal of survival and restoration to the position of his birth.
23
CHAPTER TWO
A NOBLEMAN’S LIFE
In 1614 Diego Sarmiento, the Spanish Ambassador to the court of James I, wrote to
Philip III about the death of Lord Henry Howard. At that point, Howard was Earl of
Northampton, Lord of the Privy Seal, and Warden of the Cinque Ports. In his letter he described
Howard: “In consideration of the earl’s courage, virtue, prudence, and refinement he was for all
this accounted the first gentleman of the kingdom and with reason”69 The description was apt
considering Howard’s position at the end of his life. However, good fortune was not a state of
being Howard could always claim, for he only emerged as one of the most powerful and wealthy
men in England at the beginning of the seventeenth century after struggling for decades to
overcome his family’s misfortunes, and his own battles with religion, conspiracy, and conscious.
Born into one of the most illustrious families in England, Howard should have been in a position
to live a comfortable and successful life at court or in the church, but this was not the case. Due
to the downfall of his grandfather, father, and brother due to pride, conscious, and lust for power,
instead of influencing a monarch, Henry Howard found himself existing on the periphery of the
court, and surviving by his wits, his ingenuity, and his pen for thirty years.70
Born in 1540, Lord Henry Howard was the youngest son of Henry Howard, Earl of
Surrey, who was son of Thomas Howard third Duke of Norfolk and Frances de Vere, daughter of
John, fifteenth Earl of Oxford. Throughout his life, Howard was exceptionally conscious of his
69
“…por esto como por el valor virtud prudençia y grandes letras del conde que en todo esto era tenido por el
primero hombre de stado y con razon.” Deigo Sarmiento to King Philip III, June 30, 1614 as cited in Spain and the
Jacobean Catholics, Volume II: 1613-1624. Edited and translated by Albert J. Loomie. (Catholic Record Society,
1978), 38-40.
70
When Howard was born, it is said that his father had a Italian astrologer cast his nativity and predict that Howard
would encounter trouble during his mid life “so as event to want a meal’s meat,” but later in life “his old age should
make amends for all with a plentiful estate.” Nott, The Works of Henry Howard, II, 428. Daniel Andersson states
that it is unknown if Howard had a horoscope cast but that is was likely done. Lord Henry Howard, 15.
24
connections and position, and often referred to the Howard family’s troubles in his writing.71 He
had, no doubt, been raised hearing the tales of the Howard rise to power and had the heroic
stories ingrained into his own ideas about patrimony and position. In this respect, the Howard
family had risen to prominence during the fourteenth century through service to the crown, and
eventually married into the royal family when Robert Howard married Margaret Mowbray,
daughter of Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, Earl Marshal of England, and a direct
descendent of Edward I.72 The Howards were officially raised from the gentry when John
Howard was granted a Barony in the late 1460’s, after fighting for Edward IV during the Wars of
the Roses. Then, after supporting Richard III’s usurpation of the throne in 1483, he was created
Duke of Norfolk and Earl Marshal of England. Additionally, the family was granted the Earldom
of Surrey and John Howard’s son, Thomas, assumed the title at that time.73 The Howards
appeared to have achieved what few families at the time could by rising from the rank of gentle
family to reach the highest order of service to crown and king.
However, it appeared the Howard success might have been short lived. At the Battle of
Bosworth Field in 1485 Norfolk was slain, and after Richard III’s defeat by Henry Tudor,
Thomas Howard was stripped of his title and imprisoned for backing Richard. Nevertheless, the
newly crowned king was weak, and Henry VII knew he needed the endorsement of the Howards
and other gentle families at the beginning of his reign and, therefore, he spared Howard from the
charge of treason. Parliament restored Howard the title earl of Surrey in 1489, but denied him the
71
After his ascendency in 1603 he writes: “To the place by birth my due, from which I was ejected by the wrongs of
others than mine own deserts, your Majesty restored me. I was esteemed as a forlorn hope… I was branded with the
mark of reprobation … I was esteemed , and so termed, a man dangerous…” B.L. Cotton Titus C vi, fol 55.
72
For detailed accounts of the rise of the Howard family see Head, The Ebbs and Flows of Fortune. Sessions, Henry
Howard ; Jesse Childs, Henry VIII’s last victim: The Life and Times of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey (London:
Jonathan Cape, 2006.).
73
Head, Ebbs and Flows, 16.
25
title of duke, even though his father had died and by right it belonged to him.74 For the remainder
of Henry VII’s reign, the Howards maintained their position, but failed to forward the family
cause any further. Once Henry VIII replaced his suspicious and frugal father, the course for the
Howard family once again turned upward. The aging Thomas, earl of Surrey, and his son
Thomas, worked strategically for young king Henry, and the Howard name, in order to
strengthen their position at court. Success came quickly for both father and son under Henry
VIII. Through martial success and favor from the king, the Howard’s quickly rose through the
ranks of power. In 1510, the younger Thomas was elected to the Order of the Garter and then in
1513, he was appointed Lord Admiral. After successes in the north that left James IV of Scotland
dead, in 1514 the elder Howard was once again granted the title of Duke of Norfolk, and the
younger Thomas was made Earl of Surrey for life. In 1522 he received the position of Lord
Treasurer in England and then, in 1524 he inherited the dukedom of Norfolk from his father.75
The new duke of Norfolk also inherited his estates, with holdings worth over £4,000 per annum.
In addition to their own titles and connections to the king, the Howards had other
significant connections to the monarchy. Thomas Howard’s niece was Anne Boleyn, the
beautiful and well educated daughter of Lady Elizabeth Howard, and second duke of Norfolk’s
granddaughter.76 With family support, she attracted the king’s eye in 1526, and they were finally
married in 1533, after a long and drawn out courtship.77 From the Howard perspective, it
appeared that the family had reached the pinnacle of success. The duke of Norfolk’s niece was
married to a king, but it soon became clear that Anne’s glory would be short lived. In order to
74
Ibid., 18.
Sessions, Henry Howard, 26-27; 37-40. After success at the Battle of Flodden Field, Howard delivered the
garments of the slain James IV to the ambitious Henry VIII.
76
For a discussion on the accession of Anne to the position of queen see Retha Warnike, The Rise and Fall of Anne
Boleyn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 43.
77
Warnike mentions a rumor noted by Eustace Chapuys, an Imperial envoy, who had heard, incorrectly, that Anne
had been married to Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey. Rise and Fall, 66.
75
26
protect the Howard family, the aging duke and the earl were both involved in Boleyn’s trial.78 It
was the duty of the duke to pass sentence on his niece after a jury of twenty-six peers found her
guilty of high treason while Surrey sat in witness.79 Anne Boleyn was executed on May 19,
1536, and Henry married Jane Seymour within ten days of Anne’s death. However, for Thomas
Howard, the maneuverings of family toward the crown could not be based on the individual
position of a woman who had failed to promote the family’s cause. His primary interest was the
situation of his son, Henry, earl of Surrey, who was quickly gaining a prominent place in the
court in spite of the Boleyn downfall.80
Born in 1516 after his father’s success during the early reign of Henry VIII, the ambitious
Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey followed in his father’s footsteps by attempting to continue the
contributions to the family’s battlefield achievements. The resourceful and creative earl was the
second highest ranking peer in England, and through the efforts of his father, maneuvered his
way into Henry’s favor as a blood relative and a peer. Surrey had a heightened sense of nobility,
which both his boys acquired. In this respect, a major thorn to the Howard’s idea of inherited
position and its relationship to the king was the rise of the new man in Henry’s court. They
detested the imposition of power on men who were not from the stock of advisors traditionally
78
Before her trial, Surrey was actually arrested, sent to the tower, and interrogated on an accusation of questioning
the king’s sexual capabilities. It would be the first of many trips to the Tower and the Fleet for Surrey in the last
decade of his life. Sessions, Henry Howard, 112.
79
Ibid, 113. For a detailed account of the accusation s against Boleyn, see Warnike’s chapter “Sexual Heresy,” in
Rise and Fall, 191-233. An account of Norfolk being the judge over his niece is in “Transcript of an Original
Manuscript from George Constantyne to Thomas Lord Cromwell.” It states: And the duke of Northfolke, vncle to
them both , he was, as ti was told me, in the Kynges place and Judge. It were pittie he shuld be alive if he shuld
judge them against right.” Archaeologia: Or, Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity. (London: Society of
Antiquaries of London, Vol 23, 1831), 66. It is an interesting note that one of the results of this enhanced awareness
of history in the sixteenth century was the formation of the Elizabethan Society of Antiquaries in 1586. Members of
the society, a group of elite, literate men, collected books and regularly discussed topics in dinner meetings held on
Fridays in London. Howard was a member of the Society of Antiquaries, as were Sir Thomas Heneage and Sir
Robert Cotton, both recipients of copies of “Dutifull Defence.”
80
During the Pilgrimage of Grace in 1536, when the duke of Norfolk was in the north dealing with the rebels, he
wrote of his son, “and then in truth I love him better than all my children, and would have gladly had him here to
hunt, shoot, play cards, and entertain my servants…” As cited in Sessions, Henry Howard, 127.
27
relied on by the king. For both Surrey and his sons, the role of the new men in court would affect
their positions at court and the decisions they made while serving the monarch. By the 1540’s
the Howards saw themselves at odds with the court as the struggle for Henry’s favor, and control
of Edward, his very young son and only legal heir to the throne at the time ensued. 81 Around the
same time Lord Henry was born, Surrey made his move to enforce his belief in the importance of
the old peerage who were under threat from these “new erectyd men” who were “of vile birth.”82
The poet went on the offensive, turning to the field of battle in order to reestablish his position.
The move worked as the earl had a series of successes in 1543, 1544, and 1545. Then in 1546,
the suffered a major defeat while in France, lost favor with the king, and in part due to his own
arrogance, began a downward spiral that ended in his ultimate demise.83
As a result of his position Surrey was often a distant figure in his children’s lives as he
was more often in prison or in service for the king than at his estates in Norfolk. However, while
in the Fleet or on the field, Howard attended to his other passion in life, writing. In this respect,
he added a facet of mind to his family that his son Henry would take full advantage of in the
years to come. Surrey’s writing flourished in the 1540’s and his gift for composition was more
important to Henry Howard’s life than his ability on the battlefield or his physical presence in his
son’s life. Surrey, the poet, was brilliant, and he created sonnets that represented the torment and
ethos of his existence, composing during his times of solitude in Norfolk, while in the Fleet, or at
the Tower.84 Surry clearly used poetry as an outlet for his sense of frustration, a way to engage
81
Surrey was also witness to the death of Catherine Howard as the sole representative of the family at the
execution.
82
PRO SP 1/227 ff. 97, 105-105v. Also cited in Sessions, Henry Howard, 151. Although the young Henry never
really knew his father, this sense of heightened importance of the nobility was very evident in his son, and in Dutiful
Defence.
83
Sessions, Henry Howard, 319.
84
Surrey introduced the Italian Renaissance style into English poetry, but more importantly, he created and
introduced blank verse as it allowed him to speak in a more flexible voice, “the kind of sound our sentences would
make/If only we could leave them to themselves,” and he intended it for a specific purpose- conversation with the
28
his being. As a result, he composed constantly, including the last days of his life at the Tower.85
The circumstances of Surrey’s and Henry’s life were similar as at some point they both found
themselves suspected of treasonous crimes, and both of them chose to use the pen to assist their
causes and prove their innocence. Nevertheless, the genres they chose to support their positions
were different. Whereas Surrey chose poetry to display his deeply embedded emotions and ideas
of nobility as a way to emphasize his natural authority and uphold his honor, the younger Henry
used the treatise to express his opinion, advance his position and defend himself. Howard also
referred to his father’s poetry to reflect upon his own feelings later in life. In the introductory
letter for “Dutiful Defence” he states emphatically to the queen: “Therefore I confesse with
David in his thankfull sonett after long experience wch made his understanding ripe, and with
my father in the last thing that he wrote before his end wch made his judgment cleere Bonum est
misi, quod humiliasti me.”86 The son, like the father, had lived through his times of torment,
arrest, and misunderstanding. The son survived to overcome the obstacles, the father did not.
Before his downfall, Surrey spared no expense in the instruction of his children. Enlisting
tutors of the highest reputation, including Hadrianus Junius, a Dutch scholar and physician who
came to England in 1544 to work as the Duke of Norfolk’s physician and tutor for the earl’s
children. Surrey’s daughters, Jane, Catherine, and Margaret received the same education as his
sons, Thomas and Henry.87 The exact content of Howard’s curriculum is unknown, however, it
style of heightened sense of nobility and emphasis on the language used at court. See Sessions, Henry Howard, 260287; For a discussion on Surrey’s introduction of bland verse see Robert Shaw Burns, Blank Verse: A guide to its
History and Use (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 2007. Also see John Hollander, Rhyme’s Reason: A Guide to
English Verse (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981) 12-13. On Surrey’s formulation of blank verse see T.S.
Eliot, “What is Classic?” in On Poetry and Poets (New York: Farrar, Strause and Cuhahy, 1957), 73-74
85
For example, Surrey wrote to a former friend, who had some sway over his life or death: “But now, my Blagge,
mine error well I see’ because of the ‘goodly light King David giveth me.”
86
“It is good that you have humbled me.” “Dutiful Defence, 8v.
87
Sessions notes that the proof of the daughter’s training was demonstrated by their achievements later in life. John
Foxe wrote about Jane Howard, “she might well stand in competition with the most learned men of that time, for the
praise of elegancy in both.” Sessions, 204. Peck, Northampton, 8.
29
can be assumed that the content was that of a classical humanist education, including philosophy,
language, and religion.88 One of the only surviving texts from Howard’s childhood is an excerpt
from a Latin composition written for their father while he was in France.89 As evidenced by the
letter, the children understood the high position Surrey held, and in the letter Surrey’s character,
no doubt inspired by Junius, is described as having filum, or a heroic manner that would have
been emphasized to his children during their studies.90 Junius was well compensated for his job,
receiving more pay than even Roger Ascham for tutoring the king’s son.91 However, in spite of
the position with the Howards, Junius never minced his words about working and living at
Kenninghall. In a letter to a friend, Junius described his situation as intolerable when Surrey was
not in the house: “When he is absent, I am once again beset with unpleasant and grim solitude…
a two- headed evil is upon me on both sides.” He goes on to provide his opinion of his young
students, referring to them as having “the brazen, headlong boldness of insolent youths (I refer to
those darlings of fortune) [who] are turning everything upside down.”92 Indeed, boys would be
boys (as records of broken chairs in the nursery indicate). But, these rambunctious children, who
began their lives in one of the most affluent and well-positioned households in England, found
their world (instead of the nursery) turned upside down and their good fortune was soon lost.
Surrey had enemies at court who preyed upon the earl’s military blunders in 1546, as well
as his arrogance, and Henry VIII’s paranoia. The king was a nervous man in the last years of his
88
For a more detailed theory and comparison of the English, humanist curriculum with regard to Henry Howard
specifically, see Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 9-30.
89
Neville Williams provides a partial translation of the letter: “No tounge can declare how joyful we all are- your
children, our noble grandfather, your revered sister the duchess, your dear wife, our parent, in short all your
household- at your unexpected return. The sides of his little body cannot certainly express it. All congratulate you on
your return after defeating the French so often and vindicating the royal authority so well. We also applaud the King
and his whole realm for having had you for a vice-roy in Boulongne…” Neville Williams. All the Queens Men.
(New York: MacMillan Company, 1972), 12.
90
Ibid., 155.
91
Ibid., 6.
92
Sessions, Henry Howard, 220 n. 3.
30
reign. Prince Edward was extremely frail and surrounded by courtiers who were anxious to
control the government during his minority. Henry perceived any action that threatened the
succession as treacherous. Surrey desired to become the Lord Protector for Edward when he
became king. However, after a major loss at St. Etienne, and Surrey’s loss of favor as a result,
the major contender for control of Edward, Edward Seymour, duke of Somerset took advantage
of the earl’s precarious situation and set him up for the fall. The Howards had remained true to
the Church through Henry’s amputation from Rome and dissolution of Church lands, although
they maintained a public stance of friend to the reformation. Somerset led the reforming faction
in court and desired to completely renovate the kingdom under a reformed authority by toppling
the Virgin and child both physically and spiritually.93 He therefore convinced Sir Richard
Southwell (who had been raised with Surrey) to turn on Howard and accuse him of displaying a
coat of arms that showed the arms of Edward the Confessor, as well as silver labels that could
have been construed as those of the Prince of Wales.94 This was seen as an indication of a claim
for royal power. Both Surrey and his father were served with a bill of attainder after the duke
confessed to high treason and displaying the “arms of England” on the primary quarter on his
own arms.95 After a rapid, and damning trial, Surrey went to the block on January 19, 1547,
ending a partially fulfilled life. An Act of attainder was passed against Norfolk and Surrey on
January 27, after the earl’s execution. However, Henry VIII died on January 28, and this solemn
turn of fate saved the duke of Norfolk’s life, but not his freedom. He remained a captive in the
tower for the next six years.96
93
Somerset took on a policy of iconoclasm as well. For Somerset’s role in the dissolution of the Church see
Dickens, The English Reformation, 222-254.
94
Ibid., 366-67; L. L. Peck, Northampton, 7.
95
Sessions, Henry Howard, 391.
96
Head, The Ebbs and Flows, 229.
31
Henry was only seven years old, and in the coming months he would lose more than just
his father. Even before Surrey’s death, Junius had left the Howard’s service and retreated to
London to look for another position, attempting to avoid being caught up in the Howard
downfall.97 After the earl’s execution, Kenninghall was ransacked by the crown and a majority of
the family’s personal possessions were confiscated. The Countess of Surrey, near full term with
Surrey’s fifth child was allowed a few meager garments, her horse and carriage, enough
household goods to survive, but was separated from her children.98 The family’s titles were
stripped and lands confiscated. At that time Surrey’s eldest son, Thomas, was sent to stay with
Sir John Williams, the treasurer of the court of Augmentations. Henry and the girls were first
placed under Thomas Gawdy, and East Anglian lawyer and friend of the family before being
placed under Lord Wentworth.99 After a year of separation, the court awarded guardianship to
Mary, Duchess of Richmond, and all of the children were relocated to Reigate Priory to reside
with their aunt, the king’s daughter in law.100 After Henry VIII’s death, Edward VI granted the
duchess an annuity of 200 pounds per annum to assist with the children’s education and in
keeping with the ongoing reformation, she appointed John Foxe, the Protestant martyrologist as
their tutor.101 While under the employ of the Howards Foxe most likely constructed his Tables of
Grammar (1552). Under Foxe, Howard and his sibling continued their humanist education, and
were taught Foxe’s readings of the Scriptures. In addition, Foxe traveled with the children both
on the Howard estates and out of town. A story is related in which Foxe took the children to the
97
Williams, All the Queen’s Men, 21.
Sessions, Henry Howard, 372.
99
Williams, All the Queen’s Men, 24.
100
The countess of Richmond was married to Henry VIII’s natural son, Henry Fitzroy, duke of Richmond.
Richmond and Surrey were companions as young men. Henry VIII had hoped that Surrey would be a sort of role
model to Richmond, and indeed the two were close until Richmond’s death in 1536. See Beverly A. Murphy,
Bastard Prince: Henry VIII’s Lost Son (Thrupp, Gloucesteshire: Sutton Publishing, 2001), 120-121. DNB s.v.
Henry Howard, 22; Williams, All the Queen’s Men, 24.
101
Williams, All the Queen’s Men, 27.
98
32
family estate in Dorset. While in Lulworth on the coast, Foxe agreed to look after a pirate chest
for a day, which provided some excitement to an existence filled with fiery sermons and Latin
every day. 102 Nevertheless, the Howard children would be tossed to the waves once again, for
Edward had been in ill health most of his life, and once again in 1553, Henry was at the mercy of
a new monarch.
After Edward VI’s death, Mary I, who had been residing at Kenninghall since the earl of
Surrey’s death in 1547, immediately exonerated duke of Norfolk, who was released from the
tower and restored to all his titles. The children were reunited with their mother and grandfather
for a short time, but it was decided that the heresy that Foxe had taught them over the previous
five years had to be eradicated. The queen dismissed Foxe and split the children once again.
Thomas and Henry were placed with John White, bishop of Lincoln and then Winchester.103 It
was while in White’s service that Howard acquired a strong affinity for Catholicism after
experiencing the extremes of Foxe’s Protestantism, and also nurtured a love for books and
methodical study.104 White, a humanist and a zealous Catholic had a profound impact on Henry’s
religious outlook that would affect his personal and political decisions throughout Elizabeth’s
reign.105 Under White’s tutelage, by the time Howard turned sixteen he was fluent in Greek and
Latin, in addition to being well read in theology, philosophy, civil law, and history, an
accomplishment he referred to in a 1583 dedication letter to Francis Walsingham:
So from the sixteenth year of my age, until this present day, (I know not whether
by instinct of providence, or warning by mishaps of some that went before) my
102
Ibid.
Norfolk escaped execution, as Henry VIII died the night before the duke’s death sentence was to be carried out.
He languished in prison until Mary I freed him after Edward VI’s death.
104
DNB s.v. Henry Howard, 29; Nott, 428; L. L. Peck, Northampton, 9. In Andersson’s discussion on Howard’s
education, he compared the curriculum for other sons of the nobility at the time and suggests what Howard might
have studied. He writes: “Howard’s basic education… would have been an education that attempted to make him a
structured organizer of common themes, capable of considerable elaboration.” Lord Henry Howard, 20.
105
Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 22- 23.
103
33
manner has been in the course of all my reading, to store up all such reasons and
examples as occurred either in philosophy, the civil laws, divinity or histories.106
Having established his love of knowledge, Howard would utilize it for the remainder of his life.
Howard remained with White until Mary’s death, when his circumstance once again changed
dramatically.
Howard’s movements between 1558 and 1560 is still relatively unknown due to the lack
of documents, but upon Queen Elizabeth’s accession a private act was passed restoring Henry
and his siblings to the ranks of nobility.107 Elizabeth, like the monarchs before her, undertook
Howard’s welfare and education. The decision was made to send him to university, rather than to
a private tutor, and Henry moved to King’s College at some point during the first years of
Elizabeth’s reign.108 She granted him an annual stipend to assist, and he took his degree in 1564,
or 1566.109 After King’s College, and facing the financial difficulties of a younger son in Tudor
England, much less one who was left devoid of inheritance due to treason, Howard followed an
unusual course for a member of the aristocracy by staying on at Cambridge. He chose to move to
Trinity Hall at some point between 1566 and 1569, and an early seventeenth-century biography
of Howard commented that his achievement in securing a position at Trinity was due to his
ability: “This Lord in his youth being very studious, and given to the knowledge of good letters
became for his learning and eloquence in the Greek and Latin tongues the rhetoric reader in the
106
Henry Howard, A Defensative against the Poison of Supposed Prophesies (London: John Charlewood, 1583), iii.
1 Eliz1 n39. “An Act for the Restitution in Blood of Henry Howard, Jane Howard, and Katherine Wife to the
Lord Barkley.”
108
DNB, 29; Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 23.
109
The DNB gives the year as 1564. Andresson suggests it was not until 1566 that he supplicated MA. Andersson
provides an extensive discussion of education at Cambridge in the 1560’s. He bases his argument concerning
Howard’s education on evidence from the college and other students as there is no evidence for Howard specifically.
His work on Howard during his college years is the first to be produced. Therefore, this section on Howard’s
education is based on Andersson’s analysis in addition to the primary sources available.
107
34
University of Cambridge.”110 Teaching was a necessary course for Howard to take, since his
allowance from the crown was insufficient for his support and was paid irregularly.
Howard was the only nobleman in Elizabethan England to teach at a university, and the
colleges Howard associated with in the mid sixteenth century were dramatically different than
they had been only two generations before. Traditionally, Oxford and Cambridge were primarily
a place to train clergy. Trinity Hall was originally formed in the fourteenth century, and became
known as a “nursery for civilians” in canon law. However, in 1534 the Act of Supremecy
removed the teaching of canon law in the universities. Then, in 1540, the crown established
Regius professorships, and in 1547 endowed the royal colleges of Oxford and Cambridge.
Trinity College was created from the merging of King’s Hall, Michaelhouse, and Physwick
House.111 With the Reformation in full force, gentlemen chose to pursue a way to transform
themselves politically, and socially, as an increase in intellectual pursuits rose as a companion of
the reformed faith. They represented a new social structure that was emerging in both the
English court and society and by Elizabeth’s reign. They were the “new men,” who Howard’s
father had despised. Their presence was reflected in the halls of King’s and Trinity by men who
desired the social prestige that accompanied connection with a university.112 Nevertheless, in
spite of the destruction of the Roman Church and the format it provided for a university
education, Trinity remained religiously conservative, and deeply traditional compared to other
colleges, and Howard at times had to face implications that he was guilty of both Popery and
laziness.113 Indeed, Howard’s affiliation with Catholicism would be responsible for a majority of
110
B.L., Add. MSS 6298, fol. 285; Also cited in L. L. Peck, Northampton. 8.
Hugh Kearney, Scholars and Gentlemen: Universities and Society in Pre-Industrial Britain, 1500- 1700 (Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1970), 21. Also see G.M. Trevelyan, Trinity College, an Historical Sketch. (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1943), 13-20;
112
Ibid., 19, 23, 26. Also see Winthrop S. Hudson, The Cambridge Connection and the Elizabethan Settlement of
1559. (Durham: Duke University Press, 1980), 46-49.
113
Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 30. B.L. Cotton Titus C vi. f. 11v.
111
35
his troubles through the 1570’s and 80’s after he ventured outside the walls of Trinity and back
into the court. In the meantime, however, Howard quickly earned a reputation as an instructor
and delivered lectures on rhetoric and civil law in Latin.114 Moreover, he increased his
proficiency in Spanish, French, and Italian and knowledge of contemporary European
literature.115 His dedication to Renaissance scholarship and training in rhetoric and civil law
instilled in him an emphasis on authority and helped shape his writing in the coming decades, but
it began at Trinity. He was a scholar and a humanist. He wrote to persuade, to profit, to argue, to
flatter, and to survive while living in circumstances considered odd for a son of the nobility.116
Howard spoke of books and ideas in lively manner, describing them as “livelie Ideas of the
authors minds that compilid them.”117 When he composed “Dutiful Defence twenty or so years
later, he combined the totality of his learning to present the most complex work of his career.
It was while at Trinity that Howard produced one of his first extent works, a treatise on
natural philosophy for his sister Catherine. In general, debate over the necessity and extent of
education a woman should receive, and had the ability to understand, was frequent in the
sixteenth-century. Usually, girls obtained an education in order to prepare them for marriage.
114
Nott, Works, 429. There are few primary references to Howard’s attendance at Trinity. A grace from July 7, 1569
speaks of a Henry Howard, “Julli vt dominus Henr. Hawarde posit regere et non regere ad placitum.” Grace Book ∆
Containing the R ecords of the University of Cambridge for the Years 1542- 1589. Edited by John Venn.
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910), 241. Also cited in Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 30-31 n.
115
Elisabeth Leedham-Green, A Concise History of the University of Cambridge. (Cambridge University Press,
1996. In 1546, John Brandesby wrote of the changes occuring at Cambridge: “Aristotle and Plato are now read in
their own language by the boys- as indeed we have done for five years on our own college. Sophocles and Euripides
are more familiar that Plautus was when you were here. Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon are more on the lips and
in the hands than Titus Livius was then, Now you would hear of Demosthenes what once you did of Cicero. More
copies of Isocrates are in the boys’ hands than there were formerly of Terrence.” The Whole Works of Roger
Ascham. Edited by J.A. Giles. 4 Vols. (1865) I p. 26. As cited in Leedham Green, 42.
116
Nott, Works, 429. Nott states concerning his course: “To this he was led partly, no doubt, by his natural love of
letters; but partly it may be feared by the conviction that his abilities were his sole inheritance, and that he had no
other means of rising into the consequences that what his learning and his talents might supply.” 429.
117
BL Cotton Titus C vi f. 292v. Andersson states that for Howard, a books were not an image of the world, but a
“representation of the self…revelations of character… ethos.” In turn, ethos afforded the orator the opportunity to
project an image of himself for his audience which would anchor their perceptions of what he had to say.” Lord
Henry Howard, 62,63.
36
Most objections to providing a woman with a classical education were not based on a woman’s
mental ability to learn, but rather, that an education was not necessary for her proper vocation in
life. Moreover, because women were considered incapable of self-control, many writers believed
that endowing a woman with knowledge would lead her into sin, as it did with Eve.118 As seen
earlier, all the children in the Howard household were educated at the same level. While under
John Foxe, Jane had been the girl who excelled at Latin and Greek. In fact, her proficiency at the
language was so exceptional, that Foxe declared that “she might well stand in competition with
the most learned men of that time, for the praise of elegancy of both.”119 Catherine’s ability was
not mentioned, but throughout his life, Henry was closer to Lady Berkley. The treatise is written
in English, rather than Latin, which may be an indication of her lacking in the skills to read the
language, but Howard did not seem to think her incapable of understanding the material.120
Howard constructed the work at Catherine’s request. “A Treatise on Natural Philosophy”
is a textbook that not only contains an extensive outline of contemporary knowledge of natural
philosophy that includes sections on matter, motion, and the “causes efficient” of nature, and
astronomy, but begins with a poignant letter in which, by using examples from Plato Republic,
he attempted to convince her that she had every capability to learn and apply her knowledge. In
this letter, the beginnings of Howard’s use of Plato are revealed, as he pulled out the idea of
gender equality in Republic. Howard writes:
Plato, [who] for his wisdom was called divine, thought Commonwealths then to be most
happy when either philosophers governed them or they that governed where philosophers. And
the better to encourage you sister in the commenced travail, you shall understand that even
women have not been mute among such tropes of Philosophers.” He then goes on, “the
118
Merry E. Wiesner, Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1993), 14.
119
From Life of Fox as cited in Nott, cix n.
120
Howard addressed the issue of language in the introductory letter: “What paynes have bynne taken in the
discussinge of some though necessary unpleasant pointe; and making that place in our bare englishe tounge which
lieth soe obscurely in the copies latin I am contented to dissemble.” “Dutifull Defence,” f. 2v.
37
Pythagorians were wont to boast that all women of the sect were perfect philosophers. Among
the Grecians . . . with others have flourished . . . but especially the flower of her age . . . Cornelia,
the mother of Senators called Gracchi, who by her own diligence supplying the vein of both a
nurse and a schoolmistress, no less beautifies the mind then naturally fostering the body, brought
them both to exquisite learning and singular authority.121
At Cambridge, Howard would have been readily exposed to Plato through his instructor,
Nicholas Carr, who was known for his commentaries on Plato’s works. However, in the
discussions of Renaissance Platonism, the idea of gender equality was suppressed as Plato was
invoked in works revolving around government and religion.122 In his desire to write a personal
treatise for his sister, Howard approached Republic with a tone of affection for his sister and
interpreted Socrates’ discussion in a personal way with regard to women.123
He wanted her to read for “the attaining of perfect knowledge” and related that he
wished to “encourage you sister in this commenced travail you shall understand that even women
have not been mute among such tropes of philosophers.” He went on to declare that it was God
who “has inspired this earnest and intense desire of knowledge into your breast.” In the short
dedication letter, Howard expressed his belief that Catherine had every capability to learn and
utilize her education. If she had the ability to understand, she had the right to learn what she
121
MS Bodleian 616, fol. 8v. In his discussion of Bodleian 616 Andersson states that for Catherine, the work was
an “undemanding read, easy on the eye and for the most part untaxing to the mind.” He cites a later section of the
letter: “To repeat the sundrie opinions of the philosophers as touching the principle of things would be very
tedious…especially manie of them being brought in by waie of confutation, as Plato in sundrie places under the
name of Socrates taketh pretie occasion to strike at Anaxagoras and other obscure philosophers , wherefore I will
only alleadge the authoritie of Plato and Aristotle whose cleere knowledge hath discovered the smokie mist of
wasted ignoraunce…” f. 11r-v.
122
See Seares Jayne, Plato in Renaissance England (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwar Academic Publishers,
1995), 83-114. Jayne provides an excellent recounting the exposure to, and use of Plato in England, and of scholars
who used “allusions” to Plato in the sixteenth century. When Henry VIII founded Trinity Hall, he appointed
Nicholas Carr, Regius professor of Greek to then new college. Once there, Carr instituted lectures on Plato. 90, 111.
Jayne notes that most Elizabethan’s learned about Plato from religious works, like John Calvin’s Institutio
Chirstianae religionis (1536). Plato also appeared in books of homilies and sermons printed by the church. 104, 108.
Also see Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 43-45. Howard’s interpretation of Plato expanded in “Dutifull Defence,”
and will be discussed further in chapter four.
123
Plato’s gender equality is controversial, and modern historians disagree on whether Plato supported, or in the end
suppressed women. Howard’s use of Plato is far more simplified in the sixteenth century with regard to women,
focusing on the quality of essence, and the soul, which Plato addresses throughout the text. See Diana Coole,
Women in Political Theory (Brighton, Sussex: Wheatsheaf Books Ltd, 1988), and Steven Forde, “Gender and Justice
in Plato. The American Political Science Review (Vol. 91, No. 3, September, 1997): 657-670.
38
wanted. Howard’s willingness to present his sister with information traditionally reserved for
men, reveals his assumption that she was able to comprehend the subjects. This is the first
glimpse Howard presented to his opinions about women, and when writing “Dutifull Defence,”
some fifteen to twenty years later, he returned to the Platonic source, once again using it in
reference to a woman’s ability to rule.
Howard remained at Trinity until at least 1569. However, in spite of his success as a
reader at the college, Trinity Hall was not where Howard found the degree of reputation and
acclaim he sought. His strong belief in the rights and privileges of nobility prevented him from
being content solely as a scholar. Howard’s desire was to be at court serving the queen, and he
felt that being forced to make his living as an instructor left him clearly below the position he
was due by birth. He declared this view in a letter to Elizabeth: “I vow to almighty God that I
would gladly shorten and abridge my wretched days, without offence to God, than live beneath
the compass of my birth.”124 While at Trinity Hall, Howard became friends with Michael Hicks,
one of Lord Burghley’s secretaries and through him kept apprised of court news and gossip, and
helped Howard acquire a few of the material things he desired while in Cambridge.125 In
particular, he inquired of Hickes as to purchasing a lute so he could learn to play, and he had an
interest in the newest clothing by asking “to have a gown made in the latest fashion, with short
hanging sleeves.”126 Thoroughly determined to claim his rightful place at court, Howard left
Cambridge in 1570. He did so upon the premise that he would benefit from his main court
connection, his brother Thomas, fourth duke of Norfolk, who was the premier nobleman in
England at the time, and deeply involved in court politics. Unfortunately, Howard could not have
124
BL, Cotton MSS, Titus C VI, fol. 3v.
Lansdowne MS 109, f. 52; Nott, Works, 429; Peck, Northampton, 8; Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 16, n. 26.
126
Lansdowne MS 109, f. 114, 116 as cited in Alan H. Nelson, Monstrous Adversary: The Life of Edward De Vere,
17th Earl of Oxford. (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2003), 55.
125
39
been more wrong. His arrival at court angered Elizabeth, who withdrew his stipend and soon
forbade him from appearing at court altogether due to ongoing intrigue, which he quickly found
himself caught up in, and from which he learned an abrupt lesson about the world of politics and
personal persuasion. Howard may have felt ready to enter the world of politics and patronage,
but there was still one major obstacle for him to overcome, his tendency toward Catholicism.
Under White’s tutelage, Howard had been exposed to conservative Catholic teachings
and was aware his family’s public leaning toward the reformed faith after Henry VIII’s
separation from the Church for political reasons. Residency at Cambridge may have increased
Howard’s knowledge of Aristotle, Plato and Cicero; nevertheless, ancient wisdom did not protect
him from political reality. Trinity Hall was no refuge from the splintered world around him, and
Howard was soon reacquainted with part of his family’s troubled past. The college had been
under suspicion for Catholic leanings, and there Howard first found himself accused of
recusancy. In 1568, Howard wrote the first of many letters in his own defense, pleading with
Burghley that he not be suspected of Catholic leanings.127 Howard did not believe his religious
affiliation would affect his duty and loyalty to Elizabeth. Nevertheless, despite his protestations
and espousal of loyalty to the English queen and her regime, accusations of heterodoxy followed
him for the next twenty years.
When Mary Stuart, queen of Scots arrived in England in May 1568, she had fostered new
hopes for English Catholics, for in her they saw the opportunity for tolerance and a Catholic
succession if Elizabeth had no children. Therefore, Mary’s supporters felt it was important for
her to have a suitable English husband, and Howard’s elder brother, Thomas, duke of Norfolk
was the obvious candidate. He was of suitable rank, being the sole duke in England, and came
127
BL, Cotton MSS, Titus C VI, fol. 7r; DNB s.v. Henry Howard, 29; Nott, Works, 428; Peck, Northampton, 8.
40
from an unblemished lineage according to those who supported the match. In addition, Norfolk
was the richest subject in the realm, a widower, and most importantly, a devout Catholic, and he
was exceptionally conscious that his position at court did not match his rank.128 In order to
appease his discontent and resentment of the new favorites who enjoyed Elizabeth’s confidence,
Norfolk wound his way into conspiracy. Between 1568 and 1571, the illustrious duke was
directly involved in three intrigues involving Mary and several Catholic gentlemen in the English
court, including the earls of Arundel, Shrewsbury, Northumberland, and Westmorland.
Originally, Norfolk planned on marrying the Scottish queen so her position in England could be
stabilized, but the plan soon escalated into more treacherous actions, specifically, the Northern
Rebellion and the Ridolfi plot. Both schemes would have wed the duke to Mary and secured her
claim as heir to the English throne. However, both plots also mandated either Elizabeth’s
abdication or assassination. In the end, both arrangements failed; Norfolk was arrested for
treason and condemned. Determined to help, Howard wrote to Burghley, pleading for his
brother’s life, but to no avail.129 Norfolk was executed in 1572, and Howard was arrested for
possible involvement with his brother’s treachery. Howard was placed in the archbishop of
York’s custody and detained at Lambeth palace. While there, Howard described his incarceration
as one of “great discomfort” and expressed that he “would rather have an open imprisonment in
the Fleet than the close keeping in the archbishop’s palace.”130 He petitioned for his release, but
was denied and remained in custody for several months.
128
MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 114. Also see Francis Edwards, The Marvellous Chance: Thomas Howard, Fourth Duke
of Norfolk and the Ridolfi Plot, 1570-1572. ( London: Rupert Hart- Davis, 1968). Edwards does not include Henry
Howard in his discussion of the Ridolfi plot. His only mentioning of Howard is Appendix 5 where he discusses the
duke’s attempt to escape with the help of the earl of Oxford. Edward’s opinion of Howard is evident as he is certain
of Howard’s duplicity in religion. He writes: In a more enlightened age, he [Howard] would have been openly
agnostic or even atheist.” 402. Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 55-58.
129
BL, Cotton MSS, Caligula C III, fols. 97r-98r.
130
CSPD, 1:441; PRO, SP 12/86/25.
41
Howard was eventually cleared of any complicity in Norfolk’s treason, and his actual
involvement with either the Northern Rebellion or the Ridolfi plot is doubtful.131 When
Norfolk’s private secretary, Laurence Banister, made his confession about the affair, he stated
that Howard had been considered an appropriate suitor for Mary if his brother was unable to
marry her: “[Norfolk] did first break with me of the matter of the queen of Scots; and told me
how he was earnestly moved thereunto by divers of his friends, and that he had no great Liking
so to do, but rather wished to have his brother Henry marry her.”132 Banister went on to say,
however, that Norfolk’s friends who were in favor of the marriage would not accept Lord Henry
as an alternative candidate, “for they said, his Grace was well known unto them, and they were
assured of him what to find, but so they were not of the Lord Henry his brother.”133 Howard may
not have known about his brother’s intentions to use him as a possible substitute groom, but he
must have been aware of the general marriage scheme, since many meetings had been held at
Howard House, where he was residing at the time. Howard’s name did not appear in any of the
other documents related to the conspiracies, including the accounts of Norfolk’s interrogations
and confession.134
Nonetheless, individuals at court were convinced that Howard was involved in treachery.
As late as 1595 Lady Bacon still believed him guilty of involvement in the Ridolfi plot when she
wrote to her son: “He [Howard] is . . . no doubt a papist inwardly, and lieth in wait; the duke had
been alive but by his practicing and still soliciting him, to the duke’s ruin and the persons of that
131
Although cleared of any conspiracy charges, Burghely had considered Howard to be “dangerous,” and included
him in a list of persons of interest because of their influence. MS Cotton Caligula C.ii. ff. 82-83r. Referred to in
Stephen Alford, Burghley: William Cecil at the Court of Elizabeth I. (New Haven : Yale University Press,
2008).,165. Andersson, 58.
132
A Collection of State Papers Relating to the Affairs in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth from the Year 1571-1596.
Vol. 2, Part 1 (London: William Bowyer, 1759), 134.
133
Ibid.
134
V.J.K Brook, A Life of Archbishop Parker (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), 296.
42
stamp; [he is] a very instrument of the Spanish papists.”135 In 1572, however, Elizabeth stood as
Howard’s ally, clearing him of guilt, offering him a yearly pension, and allowing him to appear
at court. In the dedication letter of “Dutifull Defence,” Howard spoke of the queen’s generosity:
“[T]hough I was but lately crept or rather swept out of the ruins of my house, your Majesty most
graciously admitted me to the kissing of your sacred hand, you regarded me with pity and
relieved me with favor.”136 Howard was free, but he did not escape continued suspicion.137 For
the next thirty years he had to avoid the Queen’s wrath while continuously being harassed for his
supposed intrigues against her.
After Norfolk’s execution Howard retreated to Audley End, which was most likely his
primary residence through the reminder of the decade.138 There he continued with his studies,
helped with the care of his brother’s children and fostered friendships that he felt might benefit
him in his pursuit of patronage at court. In doing so Howard was not, as he is often accused of,
necessarily sycophantic or duplicitous in his behavior. He, like most of the men in the court
around him, was attempting to build his base of friendship and power where he saw it to be
politically advantageous.139 The network of patronage in the Tudor court was complex and often
based on the whim of the queen. Howard needed connections in order to gain access to, and
remain within the bounds of the court.140 Attendance and participation at court was essential for
anyone with political ambition, wanting personal favors, or simply the desire to gain an
employment position or a lease in the countryside.141 The matter was of such importance to men,
135
Thomas Birch, Memoirs of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, 1:2 (London: 1754), 227.
“Dutifull Defence,” fol. 6r.
137
See CSPD, 1547-1580, 441.
138
Nott, Works, 433; Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 100.
139
See Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 82. Peck, “Court Patronage and Government Policy: the Jacobean
Dilemma.” In Patronage in the Renaissance. Edited by Guy Fitch Lytle and Stephen Orgel. (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1981), 27.
140
J.E. Neale, Essays in Elizabethan History (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1958), 62.
141
Loades, The Tudor Court, 133.
136
43
that the issue found outlets in more than just court gossip. Writers recognized the competition for
the monarch’s attention and Edmund Spenser described the angst felt by men who strove for the
prize. He writes of the contest:
So pitiful a thing is Suters State!
Most miserable Man, whom wicked Fate
Hath brought to Court, to sue for had-ywist,
That few have found, and many one hath mist
Full little knowest thou that hast not tride,
What Hell it is, in suing long to bide:
To lose good Days that might be better spent,
To waste long Nights in pensive Discontent.
To speed to-day, to be put back to-morrow;
To feed on Hope, to pine with Fear and Sorrow;
To have thy Prince's Grace, yet want her Peers;
To have thy Asking, yet wait many Years;
To fret thy Soul with Crosses and with Cares;
To eat thy Heart through comfortless Despairs;
To fawn, to crouch, to wait, to ride, to ronne,
To spend, to give, to want, to be undonne.142
The description of the supplicant in the poem could very well be applied to Howard’s situation
with the queen and the court. It is unknown if Howard was reading Spenser yet, but he fully
understood the measure of finding allies who surrounded, and were favored by Elizabeth in order
to achieve his own goals.
Howard took advantage of his family connections and hierarchal position in choosing his
friends, especially after his brother’s downfall, in order to gain access to the queen. His closest
allies at court were a part of a small Catholic group that included Thomas Radcliffe, third earl of
Sussex. In his early career, Sussex served as Lord Deputy in Ireland, and was admitted to the
142
The Complete Works of Edmund Spenser. Edited by R. Morris (London: Macmillan and Co., 1897), 521.
Although not published until 1590, Prosoporia: or Mother Hubberd’s Tale was composed around 1580. The work
also made fun of Burghely’s desire to have Elizabeth marry the Duke d’Alençon. Margaret Heinemann, Puritanism
and Theatre: Thomas Middleton and Opposition Drama Under the early Stuarts (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1980), 57.
44
Privy Council in 1571 and then became Lord Chamberlain in 1572.143 Sussex was a staunch
supporter of the Howard family, a personal friend of Henry’s, and was considered the natural
head of the Catholic courtiers. He was the patriarch of a group who would find themselves
immersed in controversy through the 1570’s and 80’s. His relationship with Howard is still a
subject for further research, but the two men were close until Sussex’s death in 1583, and as will
be seen, when referring to a privy councilor and “the love which I professed to himself,” in the
introductory letter of “Dutifull Defence,” he was most likely referring to Sussex.144 The nucleus
of the Catholic courtiers also included Charles Arundell (Howard’s cousin and an emissary for
Mary Stuart) and Lord Paget. Due to their religious affiliation, the Catholic gentlemen felt
ostracized from the political center. By the mid 1570s the men had formed an unstable and
dangerous alliance, focusing on grievances against the state in general, and more specifically,
objecting to the power that Robert Dudley, the earl of Leicester, had amassed, and the possibility
that Elizabeth might marry him.145 The intrigue surrounding the court factions in the late 70’s
and 80’s played a major role in Howard’s motivation for writing “Dutiful Defence,” and the
length of time it took him to complete the work. In the meantime, however, the middle of the
decade saw the relationships between all of these men still forming and waiting to be played out
as Henry maneuvered his way around the political world.
It was during this period that Howard entered the world of political writing, and
composed one of his only works to be published, A Defense of the Ecclesiastical Regiment in
Englande.146 The work was most likely requested by Burghley as a response to the religious
143
Michael Barraclough Pulman, The Elizabethan Council in the Fifteen- Seventies (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1971), 25-26.
144
“Dutifull Defence.” Fol. 2r.
145
Leicester and the issue of marriage will be discussed in chapters four and five.
146
A Defense of the Ecclesiastical Regiment in Englande Defaced by T.C. in his Replie Agaynst D. Whitgifte. Seene
and allowed according to the order appointed in the Queenes Maiesties iniunctions (London:, 1574).
45
fanaticism that was emerging in the kingdom, and that Burghley felt was a threat when the
extreme Protestants did not see change coming quickly enough, and that the Elizabethan
Settlement had maintained the vestments of the Church. Lectures delivered by Thomas
Cartwright against the English church in 1570, and then the appearance in 1572 of An
Admonition to Parliament by John Field and Thomas Wilcox, showed how great the distance
was between the Protestant Church of England, and the more radical groups of reformers who
had so eagerly returned after their Marion exile.147 In response to the threats to the church and
the works by Cartwright, Field, and Wilcox, Howard decided to underscore the “intellectual
incapacity” of the fanatics and the danger they posed to the state. It also reveals Howard’s
attempt to reply to political events through the use of rhetoric.148 A Defense was produced
quickly, less than a year, and he addressed a specific problem for an audience to correct a
perspective through the use of humanist, argumentative techniques and dialectic reasoning to
prove a point. He writes: “Many other texts of scripture to like effect might be alleaged, if
decision of this question rather stoode upon heapes of places, than force of arguments, or were
sooner ended by multitude of allegations than certantie of matter.”149 It was Howard’s goal to
argue against his opponents through the use of a stronger argument- logic and evidence, rather
than and an unconvincing diatribe of exegesis. In writing A Defense, Howard entered the ring of
political writing. He would return to the defense, and use of law three years later to defend the
queen.
It was not long after Howard published A Defence, that he soon discovered that once
again, those who Elizabeth favored could create strife for someone who had been under
147
Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 84. B.L Cotton Titus C vi. ff. 19r-22v contains Howard’s letter to Burghley
about the problem of religious controversy in 1573. About a year later, his defense appeared.
148
Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 84,94. Andersson provides a brief analysis of Defense focusing on his use of
rhetoric.
149
Howard, A Defense. 149. Also cited in Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 90.
46
suspicion already. Early in the decade Howard fostered his friendship with Edward De Vere,
seventeenth earl of Oxford who was his cousin and a favorite of the queen. The young earl was
energetic, temperamental, and volatile, but Howard was considered to be “intimate friends” with
Oxford, as was Charles Arundel, who was also a cousin to both men.150 Although there are few
accounts of their time together, the extant manuscripts tell of intricate involvement in religion
and attempted conspiracy between them.151 In 1571, Oxford married Anne Cecil, Lord
Burghley’s daughter. Howard’s involvement with Oxford and the Cecil family at the time
revolved around Oxford’s escapades in Italy and his eventual return to Elizabeth’s court.152
Howard is mentioned as having been in company with Oxford numerous times, and being sent to
Dover by the queen to meet Oxford when he returned to England in 1576.153 Oxford’s erratic
actions lost him favor with the queen, but with regard to Howard, it was the emergence of
evidence five years later that Oxford, Howard, and Arundel had formally embraced Catholicism,
been reconciled to the Church, and were embroiled in pro-Catholic conspiracies.154 Known as the
Oxford Libels, in an erratic attempt to regain the queen’s favor, Oxford accused Howard and
Arundel of being restored to the Catholic Church in 1576 or 1577.155 In 1581 the French
ambassador, Mauvissiere, related the account that Howard, Arundel, and Oxford had celebrated
mass and met with a Jesuit priest. He writes: “About four and half years ago on his return from
Italy [, Oxford] made profession of the Catholic faith together with some of his relatives among
the nobility and his best friends, and had sworn, as he says, and signed with them a declaration
150
Alford, Burghley: William Cecil at the Court of Elizabeth I (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008). 207, 221.
Andersson, Henry Howard,102.
151
Nelson, All the Queen’s Men, 54.
152
Nelson, All the Queeen’s Men, 142, 143; B.M Ward, The Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, 1550-1604
(London:JohnMurray, 1928), 206-207.
153
Nelson, All the Queen’s Men, 137, 142.
154
Ibid., 166. Oxford disobeyed Elizabeth, fled to the continent, denied patrimony of his wife’s child and then
turned on Howard and Arundel to restore his position with the queen.
155
Ward, Oxford, 206
47
that they would do all they could for the advancement of the Catholic religion…”156 He also
writes of Oxford’s turnabout to the queen and betrayal of the two men and of his being asked
(Mauvissiere) to confirm that he “knew of a Jesuit who had celebrated the Mass about four years
ago at which they [Howard and Arundel] were reconciled to the Roman Church.”157 Although
made public in 1580, Howard’s profession of the Catholic faith remained a secret in 1576 and he
continued to work in order to gain Elizabeth’s favor through Oxford, and other friends at court.
The Oxford libels provide some insight into Howard’s continued movements after his
brother’s death, and possibly into his being asked to write “Dutiful Defence” in 1577. The
central point to all of the controversy surrounding Elizabeth in the 1570’s, the erratic actions of
her courtiers, and the possible instigation for an additional defense of her position, was the
problem of her marriage158 Unlike the marriage of a king, Elizabeth’s spouse would have greater
influence over, and be a potential danger to the English state, and it was an issue from the
beginning of her reign.159 The debate over her marriage amplified in the 1560’s after a bout with
smallpox left the Council wanting for a solution to the problem of there being no heir. In 1563
they tried to pass a bill that would invest interim sovereignty to the Privy Council until
Parliament chose a successor in case of Elizabeth’s death without issue, but it was rejected.160
For the next ten years factions aligned with either the pro-English position led by Leicester, or
the pro-Europe or Scotland position, led by Sussex and Cecil, worked to pull Elizabeth to their
156
Letter from Msuvissiere to the King of France, January 11, 1581. As translated in Ward, 207, 208. Also cited in
Nelson, All the Queen’s Men, 166, 167; Andersson, Henry Howard, 109. The extent of Howard’s relationship to
Mauvissiere and the subsequent French ambassador, Castleneau will be discussed in chapter three.
157
Nelson notes that during their interrogations in 1581, Howard and Arundel dated the mass early in order to avoid
prosecution under a Privy Council Act in 1573 that made attending masses in private illegal. Oxford, 67 citing TRP,
No. 599.
158
MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 82; Ilona Bell, “Elizabeth and the Politics of Elizabethan Courtship.” In Elizabeth I:
Always her own Free Woman. Edited by Carole Levin, Jo Eldridge Carney and Debra Barrett-Graves. (Aldershot,
England: Ashgate Publishing, 2003), 179.
159
Elizabeth was first petitioned to marry in 1559. The marriage appeared on several agendas in Parliament,
including when Parliament met in 1563 after Elizabeth nearly died of smallpox. See Susan Doran, Monarchy and
Matrimony: The Courtships of Elizabeth I (London: Routledge, 1996), 1.
160
MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 83.
48
position and candidate.161 Elizabeth, however, showed no signs of truly wanting to marry, and
said so to a Spanish diplomat who she trusted at the time, Guzman de Silva:
“If I could appoint such a successor to the crown as would please me and
the country, I would not marry, as it is a thing for which I have no inclination. My
subjects, however, press me so that I cannot help myself or take the other course
which is a very difficult one. There is strong idea in the world that a woman
cannot live unless she is married or at all events if she refrains from marriage she
does so for some bad reason.”162
Cecil also saw the importance of the issue: “To require both marriage and stablishing of
succession is the uttermost that can be desired.”163
Over the next few years the topic became a war of pamphlets and speeches, moves by
Parliament and rebuttals by Elizabeth as to the issue of marriage. She was sent petitions by
Parliament urging her to marry in 1559, 1563, 1566, and 1576.164 The speaker of the 1563
session inferred that if Elizabeth did not produce an heir, she might risk the loss of her people’s
loyalty: “[If] her Majestie will not settle the sucession, [she] will coole the hearte of love in any,
how fervent it be.”165 The Archbishop of Canterbury, the bishop of London, and several other
pastors feared that her failure to marry was a sign of God’s anger toward England as they feared
“that this continued sterility in your Highness’ person to be a token of God’s displeasure toward
us.” In 1565, the Recorder of Coventry admonished her to have children: “Like as you are a
161
See Conyers Read, “French Marriage Projects, 1571-72” in his book Lord Burghley and Queen Elizabeth (New
York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1960).
162
MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 93. He does not provide a citation for this letter, but it will be found- most likely in the
CSPS or in her personal letters and papers. The citation will be changed.
163
Memorandum from Burghley SP 12/40/91.
164
During the 1563 session, Sir Nicholas Bacon wrote to Elizabeth: “If your Highness could conceive or imagine the
comfort, surety and delight that should happen to yourself by beholding an imp of your own.” J. E. Neale, Elizabeth
I and her Parliaments, 1559-1581 (London: Johanthan Cape, 1953), 112. Also cited in Helen Hackett, “The
Rhetoric of (in)Fertility: Shifting responses to Elizabeth I’s childlessness.” In Rhetoric, Women and Politics in Early
Modern England. Edited by Jennifer Richards and Alison Thorne (London: Routeledge, 2007), 154.
165
PRO SP Dom.Eliz. 46/166, as cited in Proceedings in the Parliaments of Elizabeth I. Vol. I, 1558-1581. Edited
by T.E. Harley (Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier Inc., 1981).
49
mother to your kingdom…so you may, by God’s goodness and justice, be a natural mother…”166
Elizabeth needed to marry and have children to properly fulfill her natural role.
To this point, in all of the admonitions for her to marry, the primary force of the issue had
to do with her gender. When a male monarch married, it was rarely for personal choice, but it did
not have an effect on the position of the king. However, Elizabeth’s choice of a husband could
also mean choosing a new ruler.167 It was assumed that a male would, by default of the
traditional, submissive position of his wife, hold the reins of power. Under English common law,
as wife was legally subsumed to her husband and women held no proprietary rights. Everything a
woman owned became the property of her spouse.168 Although there were exceptions to his law
in both practical and theoretical forms, society believed that women were to cede to their
husband’s decisions and that a husband should control a wife’s property.169 This clearly posed a
problem if Elizabeth chose a foreign spouse who could potentially subvert England’s position as
an independent state. Additionally, for Elizabeth to rule on her own, with no male authority to
guide her through marriage was a challenge to society. It was believed that a woman who held
authority over men, and took on male roles would lose her femininity and her ability to bear
children as masculine characteristics emerged.170 Elizabeth needed a man in order to maintain
her proper role in society, and avoid being a subversive example to the women in her kingdom.
166
Also cited in Susan Doran, “Why Did Elizabeth Not Marry?” in Dissing Elizabeth: Negative Representations of
Gloriana. Edited by Julia M. Walker (Durham: Duke University Press, 1998), 31; Also cited in Hackett, “The
Rhetoric of (in)Fertility,”152.
167
MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 97. Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony, 19.
168
Margaret R. Sommerville, Sex and Subjection: Attitudes to Women in Early Modern Society. (London: Arnold,
1995), 97-98. Sommerville notes that women were not sui iuris, but were considered sub potestate viri. Legally, the
term was feme covert.
169
Sommerville, Sex and Subjection, 105; Doran, “Why did Elizabeth not Marry?” 33.
170
Sommerville, Sex and Subjection, 120-121; Doran, “Why did Elizabeth not Marry, 32; Also see Lawrence Stone,
The Family, Sex and Marriage in England, 1500-1800. (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1979), 136-142;
MacCaffrey writes: “…the boldness and persistence of Councillors and Parliamentarians alike is not surprising.
They were reacting in traditional way, by petition and counsel to a novel problem. They felt justified in stubborn
persistence because what was at stake was not only the fate of the dynasty but the essential interests of the whole
society.” 97.
50
The impact of Elizabeth’s attitude toward marriage and potential mates can be seen in the
events of the next few years as active plots to dethrone her and instill her rival, Mary Queen of
Scots, who had been married and had a legal heir. The Norfolk Marriage plot, the Northern
Rebellion, and the Ridolfi plot all revolved around the issue of marriage, succession and proper
rule. As problems with continental allies festered in early 1570’s, the issue of Elizabeth’s
marriage continued to be a subversive undertone of any negotiations. In turn Elizabeth rejected
Philip of Spain, Erik of Sweden, Archduke Ferdinand and Archduke Charles. She had flirted
with Francis, Duke of Anjou, but had made no commitments to negotiations, and she continued
to vacillate and outright ignore the issue into the middle of the decade.171 Elizabeth may have
avoided matrimony so she could have the opportunity to assert her role as an independent ruler,
and overcoming the obstacle of gender.172 Nevertheless, by 1577 there was no potential partner
in sight, Council and country was still left without an heir, and they believed the answer still lay
in the queen finding a spouse.
The issues of Elizabeth’s possible marriage partners helped foster the advancement of the
Catholic faction, and the possibility of an alternative heir. When Mauvissere referred such
advancement, he was referring to Mary Queen of Scots and her claim to the English throne.
And, in this regard, it was around the same time as his reconciliation to the Church that Howard
was once again under suspicion for intriguing against Elizabeth and, therefore, attracted the
attention of Sir Francis Walshingham, Elizabeth’s Secretary of State, and ardent Protestant who
was involved in rooting out the Catholic conspiracies in and around the court. According to
Walsingham’s network of spies, Henry Howard had maintained correspondence with Mary
171
Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony, 21.
Doran, “Why did Elizabeth not Marry?” 35. Doran cites the emphasis on representation of the Virgin Queen, and
someone married to her country as an example of this motive. See Louis A. Montrose, “Shaping Fantasies’:
Figuration of Gender and Power in Elizabethan Culture.” In Representing the English Renaissance. Edited by
Stephen Greenblatt (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988).
172
51
Stuart during and after his brother’s death. In late 1574 one Henry Cockyn was arrested for
carrying letters from the Scottish queen. He was brought before Burghley for questioning in
1575. During his interrogation, Cockyn not only confessed to having worked with the earl of
Shrewsbury in assisting Mary’s cause, but admitted to carrying letters between the queen of
Scots and Howard. Howard’s nephew Philip, future earl of Arundel, was also implicated, “He
[Cockyn] hath much conference with D. Astlow D Good Mr. Morgan and the Lord Harry.”173
Howard was questioned by Lord Hunsdon on the matter, although no evidence was found to
convict him, he was detained once again.174 Howard appealed to Walsingham on points of
consciousness, “Trewe it is that resting not well satisfied in point abowt the Sacrament I rather
chose in some sorte communicat wth daunger of the Lawe than altither to neglect that pipe
whereby so great a strength maie be derived to me faith and so quite a discharge of a loden
conscience.”175 It seems that Walshingham desired to thoroughly indict Howard, but perhaps
because of Burghley’s influence, he was instead released.176 Howard once again retreated o
Audley End, and actually experienced a time of relative peace, in which he attended to his
writing and personal activities. Although he was prohibited from appearing at court, he was able
to keep up with gossip and personal intrigues.177 Dependent on a small income given to him by
his sister, Howard also continued his attempts to seek patronage and restore his reputation by
writing numerous epistles, letters, and treatises to Burghley and other members of court.
It was during this time he composed his next work, “Regina fortunate” (1576).
Composed in Latin, “Regina” is a concise work of praise and council for the queen, but also a
173
PRO, SP, 53/10/78. SP, Mary Queen of Scots, 10/12. Cited in Conyers Read, Mr. Secretary Walsingham and the
Policy of Queen Elizabeth, 2: 3 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1925), 349. Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 96.
174
BL, Cotton MSS, Caligula C IV, fol. 209; CSP Scottish, 1574-81,134; PRO, SP 12/103/53. See Andersson, Lord
Henry Howard, 98,99 for an additional account.
175
PRO, SP 12/147/6. Also cited in Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 110.
176
Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 96,97.
177
PRO, SP 12/103/53.
52
reflection of pathos in regard to his relationship with her and his continued distance from the
court.178 Howard was on the periphery, writing letters instead of participating in conversations.
During this time, his correspondence with Burghley is frequent, pleading, and lamenting the
paucity of his position, banished to Audley End where he attended to his nephews.179 However,
Burghley did see Howard, and use his services occasionally, and by 1576 Howard once again
seemed to be on good terms with the queen’s minister.180 In June 1576, and again in January
1577, Howard dined with the Lord Treasurer at his residence.181
It was also in 1577 that Howard was asked to write a treatise in response to a “scurrilous
tract” by John Knox’s, The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of
Woemen.182 The work was written in the mid 1550’s against the Catholic, and female, tyranny
that Knox saw in both Scotland and England. However, the work was not published until 1558,
after the Protestant Elizabeth was already on the throne. By 1577, several authors had already
written, and published works against Knox, including John Alymer’s An Harborowe For
Faithfull and Trewe Subjectes (1559), John Jewell’s The Defence of the Apology of the Church of
England (1562), and John Leslie’s A Defence of the Quene of Scotland (1569).183 For Howard to
178
“Regina Fortunata” BL Egerton MS 944. The manuscript is compact, clean with gilt-edged paper and bound as a
single book. Howard’s own italic hand is present in the dedication letter, and represents Howard’s first use of scribal
publication for presentation, a format he returned to with “Dutiful Defence.”; Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 110111.
179
Lansdowne MS 18, f. 11.
180
Burghley apparently used Howard to assist him at times. Burghley writes: “I sent for my son th Cecil who was
more than hundred miles from London to come in post and mete him at Dover within ii hours after my Lord Howard
and others, and thither carried my commandument.” HMC, Hatfiled House: II, 131-132.
181
Conyers Read, "Lord Burghley's Household Accounts," Economic History Review, n. s. Vol.9, no. 2, (1956): 347,
348. Read cites from Cecil Papers, Vol.226.
182
John Knox, The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstruous Regiment of
Women (Genevea: n.p. 1558; reprint, New York: De Capo Press,1972).
183
John Alymer. An harborovve for faithfull and trevve subiectes agaynst the late blowne blaste, concerninge the
gouernme[n]t of vvemen. wherin be confuted all such reasons as a straunger of late made in that behalfe, with a
breife exhortation to obedience (London: John Day, 1559); John Jewell, An apologie, or aunswer in defence of the
Church of England concerninge the state of religion vsed in the same. Newly set forth in Latin, and nowe translated
into Englishe (London: Reginald Wolf, 1562); John Leslie, A Defence of the Honour of the Right Highe, Mighty
and Noble Princesse Marie Quene of Scotlande and Dowager of France (London: Eusebius Diczophile, 1569).
53
write a treatise in 1577 seems a bit tardy, but for some reason, to whoever asked him to compose
a defense of women’s rule seemed advantageous. Perhaps it was Elizabeth’s continued strife
between her and her counselors with regard to marriage and the insecure alliance England faced
as a result. It is possible to make several assertions about what might have been grumbled in the
Council and the court about Elizabeth’s vacillation having to do with her gender. However, there
is no documentary evidence to the possibility that has yet been surfaced, so the exact reasons for
the request remain unknown. Perhaps, after a time of concession and contemplation at Audley
End, it was an appropriate time for Howard to seek reconciliation with Elizabeth. Perhaps a
councilor thought the situation at court serious enough to warrant another entry in defense of
Elizabeth’s rule. The only extent evidence available is provided by Howard in the introductory
letter to “Dutifull Defence.” He writes that, “an honorable privy councilor with an earnest charge
upon the duty which I ought unto your Highness before all the world, and the love which I
professed to himself for special respect to shape some present answer to the same.”184 It is
accepted that Lord Burghley asked Howard to write “Dutifull Defence.” However, it is also
possible that Sussex, and not Burghley, asked him to compose the work. Howard and Sussex
were extremely close and both were a part of the Catholic courtiers who shared common thought.
Sussex and Howard were cousins, and Sussex had also been close to his brother the duke of
Norfolk. Cecil was aware of the relationship between Sussex and the Howard brothers and writes
about it: “My lord of Norfolk loveth my lord Sussex earnestly and so all that stock of the
Howards seem to join in friendship together.”185 Howard refers to the petitioner as someone who
he loves, a description not necessarily applicable to Burghley, with whom Howard had a more
torrid relationship. Sussex was a Privy Councilor in 1577 and was also involved in the
184
185
“Dutifull Defence,” fol. 2r.
Lansdown C ii. fol. 121. As cited in MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 92.
54
machinations surrounding Essex, Howard, and Arundel in 1576, 1577. As noted earlier he was
the leader of the Catholic faction at court. He is someone Howard trusted. Importantly, Sussex
had been an active participant in Elizabeth’s marriage negotiations, and was familiar with the
protestations of the Council in public and in private.186 Further on in the introduction letter,
Howard notes that after he started writing “Dutifull Defence,” “his pilot perished.”187 Sussex
died of natural causes in 1583. The relationship between the two men was close enough that it
was noted in the state papers that Howard was not present at his funeral, and there were
questions as to why.188 In the previous years, it is evident that Howard was still in contact with
and involved with Mary Queen of Scots. Perhaps the treaty began as a work composed for a
different queen. These questions remain to be answered, but Howard was asked to write, and he
accepted the commission.189 Nevertheless, it was not long after he began organizing his thoughts
on paper that Howard found himself in trouble again and his freedom from suspicion of
conspiracy against Elizabeth did not last long. Howard’s troubles soon returned, and instead of a
time of rest, repose, and time to write another quick defense with a chance to advance his cause,
the years between 1577 and 1590 were a time of poverty, persecution, and accusations due to his
Catholicism, his dealings with the Spanish, and his correspondence with Mary Queen of Scots.
186
Sussex headed the embassy to Vienna for negotiations with Archduke Ferdinand.
“Dutifull Defence.” 3v.
188
CSPD October, 1583. “Interogatories to be administered to some person was to where he was at the burial of the
Earl of Sussex; of his connexion with on Mosse, communications with the French Ambassador about the Queen of
Scots, conference with Fr. Throckmorton, Charles Arundel, Lord Paget, or others.” 127. Although not mentioned by
name, it is most likely Howard the entry refers to.
189
Additional research beyond the scope of this work will be required to answer, if possible, the questions about
motives for authorship, and who asked him to write. At this point, the evidence is circumstantial, but at least
partially convincing.
187
55
CHAPTER THREE
THE ELIZABETHAN COURT IN THE 1560’S AND 1570’S
When Henry Howard sought to vie for a position at court in the 1570’s, he attempted to
do so at the beginning of the most contentious period in Elizabeth’s reign with regard to personal
politics. The machinations of the Norfolk Marriage plot, and the Ridolfi plot, were only a
precursor to a time of heightened tension and violence in the court, and intrigue on the periphery.
Men who were determined to sway Elizabeth to their position and beliefs took sides and created
exclusive groups at court who used their kinsmen, their friends, their servants, and the general
public to influence Elizabeth’s political policy and personal decisions.190 The parameters of court
society and politics changed during the Tudor era, and by the 1570’s, were reflected in the
particular issues facing Elizabeth’s regime. As a part of one of the groups who maintained a
vested interest in who Elizabeth married, Howard continued to play a part in activities that kept
him on the edge of conspiracy and under the watchful eye of Elizabeth’s Councilors. But, this
position also continued to give him opportunity to write, and a reason to pursue his rightful place
at court.
The structure of the Tudor court was drastically altered both politically and physically
from the courts surrounding medieval kings. Henry VII focused the center of political gravity on
the royal court as the power of the magnate families declined, distancing himself from his
190
The workings of court factions, its definition, and application are discussed in a series of related works and
responses on the subject. See David Loades, The Tudor Court (New Jersey: Barnes and Noble Books, 1987); David
Starkey et. al, The English Court from the War of the Roses to the Civil War (New York: Longman Group,1987);
David Starkey, “From Feud to Faction,” History Today 32 (November, 1982): 16-22; Simon Adams, “Faction,
Clientage, and Party: English Politics, 1550-1603.” History Today 32 (December, 1982): 33-39; and Robert
Shephard, “Court Factions in Early Modern England.” The Journal of Modern History. Vol. 64, No. 4 (December,
1992): 721-745. All three authors follow the earlier works of J.H. Neale, “Essays in Elizabethan History.” (see
above) and Wallace T. MacCaffrey, “Place and Patronage in Elizabethan Politics,” in Elizabethan Government and
Society: Essays Presented to Sir John Neale. Edited by S.T. Bindoff, Joel Hurstfield, and C.H. Williams (London:
1961), 95-126.
56
courtiers through changes made to the geography of the environment in which he lived.191 The
appearance of the Privy Chamber allowed the monarch to discuss matters with only a few people
who attended him directly, and spared him the influence of all but his most trusted councilors.192
Henry VIII was more open than his father in respect to his affiliations with the court outside the
chamber, but with the accession of Edward VI, the monarchy was once again distanced from the
greater court as his regents sought to control access to the king.193 After Edward’s death, the
court changed considerably, and the makeup of the Privy Chamber was altered physically and
politically once again as the new dimensions of religion and gender were introduced in the form
of a queen. Where kings surrounded themselves by their political councilors in the Privy
Chamber, Mary and Elizabeth were surrounded by women in the Chamber, who wielded no true
political power on their own.194 As both queens had already run households of their own prior to
ascending the throne, they brought their intimate friends and trusted servants with them, rather
than retaining those of the previous monarch.195 In addition to her confidants, Elizabeth instilled
the wives and daughters of her councilors and ministers in order to keep a connection between
the Chamber and the Council, hence the desire for men to gain access to the ladies of the
Chamber. 196 Henry Howard was known to be friendly with the ladies. Bernandino de Mendoza,
the Spanish Ambassador to England from 1578- 1584, commented on Howard’s relationships
with the women at court in a letter to Philip II: “[Howard] is friendly with the ladies of the privy
191
David Loades describes the late medieval court as a “highly amorphous entity” that faced “the constant struggle
to impose order, definition, and above all economy upon an organism which was always threatening to get out of
control.” During the fifteenth century, and especially the reign of Henry VII, the physical layout of royal
households changed. More private lodgings appeared, with apartments separated in sequence by increased
specialization, hence the appearance of the Privy Chamber . 38; Starkey, “From Feud to Faction,” 17.
192
See Loades, Tudor Court, 44-59 for the evolving structure of the Privy Chamber; Starkey, The English Court,
71- 118.
193
Ibid., 89.
194
Simon Adams, Leicester and the Court: Essays on Elizabethan Politics (Manchester: Manchester University
Press, 2002), 36; Loades, Tudor Court, 55. Starkey, The English Court, 5.
195
Adams, Leicester and the Court, 36; Loades, Tudor Court, 57. In respect to Mary and Elizabeth, the religion of
the ladies also played a part in who was chosen to attend the queen.
196
Loades, Tudor Court, 58.
57
chamber who tell him exactly what passes indoors.”197 The Chamber may have been closed off
to men, but information flowed freely to the men on the council and in the court.
Corresponding to the changes in the structure of the Court was the composition of the
men who surrounded the monarch. The Howards were the last of the great noble families to
survive into the sixteenth century. As mentioned before, Henry Howard, earl of Surrey despised
the men who had risen from the gentry class to the council of the king. By the time of Norfolk’s
death in 1572, England was governed by men from the gentry class, a point emphasized by the
execution of the only duke in the kingdom.198 Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester aligned himself
with the Protestant men in court, and rose quickly in the queen’s household because of his
personal relationship with Elizabeth. As a result, he was resented by the more conservative,
Catholic nobility, and men like Sir William Cecil, who rose to prominence by their ability as
administrators rather than through intimacy with the queen.199 In fact, Howard and those who
supported his family blamed Leicester for Norfolk’s death. Leicester had informed Elizabeth of
the duke’s scheme to marry the queen of Scots, and lured him into getting involved in the Ridolfi
plot.200 The Howard’s felt personal enmity for Leicester for this, and the fact that he and many
men of the reformed faith, including more radical Puritans, were attaining positions of power at
court.201 In addition to counseling the monarch, reformed courtiers identified their purpose in
government as the advancement of the Reformation in the kingdom, attesting that they were the
true subjects of the queen.202
197
CSPS, 246. As will be seen, there were numerous times in which Howard extracted information from the ladies in
the Privy Chamber and then used the information to advance the cause of those he was aligned with at court.
198
Adams, Leicester and the Court, 35.
199
Peck, Leicester’s Commonwealth, 1; Adams, Leicester and the Court, 17.
200
Ibid.,15. Peck believes that the duke of Norfolk my not have acted so foolishly if Sussex had been present to
guide him at the time. During these years, Sussex was serving as Lord President in the north. Also see Francis
Edwards, Marvellous Chance. Pollen, The English Catholics,160-184.
201
Adams, Leicester and the Court, 15.
202
Pollen, The English Catholics, 162.
58
As such, Leicester and his followers were a threat to Elizabeth’s Catholic councilors, like
Sussex and the remainder of the Howard family, who held more conservative views and were
tied to the old nobility.203 According to the reformed politicians, the Elizabethan Settlement of
1559 had not gone far enough in dismantling the Church hierarchy and disposing of the symbols
of ecclesiastical power, including vestments. Negative sentiment toward the settlement in the
pulpit was reflected in the court and Parliament as reformed and Puritan representatives openly
attacked Elizabeth’s religious policy.204 One Robert Snagge spoke out against the Church
Settlement in the House of Commons in 1572. He was within his right to protest, but he was
also the earl of Leicester’s steward at the time, an example of what differences of opinion were
doing to the atmosphere of the court as it appeared that it was splitting into two religiously based
groups, both of whom were convinced that their position represented the true faith and the best
interest of the queen. In order to promote a reformed agenda, attempts at legislation against
Catholics and recusancy were abundant in the Parliaments of the early 1570’s.205 The revolt of
the Catholic northern earls in 1569 in response to the changes being forced upon them,
Elizabeth’s subsequent excommunication by Pope Pius V when he issued Regnans in Excelsis in
April, 1570, and the Catholic dominated Ridolfi Plot attempting to overthrow her rule in 1571,
all added to movements against the Catholics.206 Although only involved peripherally in any of
these events, they affected Henry Howard’s opinions and choices when attempting to enter the
world of court politics. By the time he arrived, the division of men’s ideologies was set and
would play out around him for the next decade.
203
For a discussion on the reformed and Puritan movement in court and Parliament in the 1570’s and 80’s see
Robert Ashton, Reformation and Revolution, 1558-1660 (London: Granada Publishing, 1984); Peck, 15.
204
The term Puritan was reserved for the more radical facets of reformed belief.
205
Ashton, Reformation and Revolution, 168. Ashton notes that active legislation occurred in the Parliaments of
1571, 1572, 1584-5, and 1586. Measures included attacks on pluralism, non-residency, the archiepiscopal Court of
Faculties, the enforcement of attendance at communion, for reform of ecclesiastical law, against the Court of High
Commission, and the ex officio oath.
206
For the papal bull against Elizabeth, see Pollen, The English Catholics, 142-160.
59
The idea of the court faction is central to the positions taken by Henry Howard, Sussex,
Leicester, and any other gentleman who wished to remain close to those involved with the queen.
There is debate over whether the groups involved in court politics during the 1570’s and 80’s
were true factions by definition, but there is no doubt that personal loyalty to an individual
swayed men to take a stand for the specific ideological and religious positions they supported.207
Men who were able to directly influence the queen held a very powerful position and those who
wanted a share of that power gravitated toward them. In this respect, it is accepted that Sussex
and Leicester were the most influential men representing each side. Both were Privy Councilors,
and both enjoyed the queen’s favor. They had already disagreed over the Hapsburg marriage
issue, so it is not unreasonable to understand their widening separation later in the decade.208
Competition between men led to the alliances, rivalries, and bitter debates as each moved within
the Privy Chamber. Friends and followers who were unable to directly access the monarch
sought the help of Sussex, Leicester, and Burghley to act as intermediaries for them.209 Howard
was a personal friend of Sussex and relied on Burghley, or his servants such as Michael Hickes,
for information and attempts at admission to the court during his time of his censure. The sheer
number of letters he wrote during the 1570’s to Burghley testifies to the importance he placed on
position and access.210
Access the monarch had traditionally depended on personal ties to long standing
councilors and relatives. This changed as the strength of the nobility deteriorated in favor of men
207
See Shephard, “Factions in Early Modern England.” He defines a faction as “a political group whose members
are bound to a leader by a variety of personal, informal ties and which vies for power with other, similar groups.”
722; Also see Natalie Mears, “Courtiers, and Culture in Tudor England.” The Historical Journal. Vol. 46, No. 3
(September,,2003): 703-722. Mears provides a historiography of the debate over the idea of factionalism in the
Tudor court.
208
Peck, 15.
209
Shephard, “Factions,” 723. Shephard differentiates between “friends,” “followers,” and “servants.” Howard is
considered a friend of Sussex and possibly a follower of Burghley. Followers tended to have less power than friends
or servants, and Howard’s frustration with his position in relation to Burghley is often evident in his letters.
210
B.L Cotton Titus C vi, contains the bulk of Howard’s personal letters to Burghley during the 1570’s and 80’s.
60
like Burghley and Leicester who had not used the traditional line of patronage to access the
queen. Rather than maintaining loyalty to family or tradition, courtiers gravitated to the new men
who were gaining influence. Leicester’s friends and followers represent this kind of organization.
He maintained the group of ideologically committed reformers who were not necessarily related
by blood, but religious orientation, and who had formed under his father and continued to
support Leicester into Elizabeth’s reign. Howard on the other hand still felt affiliated with
kinsmen. The group he aligned with, centered around Sussex, and had ties of kinship, friendship,
and religion. They had emerged from the loss of Norfolk scandals tolerably unscathed, but still
felt a sense of “outness” due to their Catholic and familial ties.211 As stated earlier, Sussex,
Howard, Arundel, Southwell, and Oxford were all related by blood or marriage and had all been
reconciled to the Catholic Church in 1575 or 1576. They remained strongly tied through the
remainder of the 1570’s, but would be torn apart when Elizabeth’s opinion on marriage once
again vacillated throughout the next decade. Howard spoke of this loss of kinship ties in his later
years. In relating the changes he had seen in a lifetime, and the shift in influences at court, he
notes that it “was very seldom in this age for the ties of kinship and friendship to concur in one
man.”212 However, in the meantime, while the ties of the family and religion seemed strong, they
would prove dangerous and unstable as the Catholic alliance moved forward with the debate over
a husband for the queen.
An additional and important group of men who were involved in the politics of the
1570’s and 80’s acted as a layer of diplomatic influence with the queen, the Council, and
factional leaders. The numerous foreign ambassadors and their households who were in
residence in England were representatives of their monarchs, and diplomats who negotiated with
211
212
John Bossy, “English Catholics and the French Marriage, 1577-1581.” Recusant History. Vol. 5 (1959): 2.
HLRO Abergavenny Peerage MS, 16 June 1610. As cited in Peck, Northampton and Shephard, “Factions,” 743.
61
Elizabeth concerning the contentious situation on the continent and its relationship to her
potential choice of a marriage partner.213 The three prominent foreigners who were directly
involved with Elizabeth’s marriage were also involved to varying degree with the court
Catholics, and Henry Howard. The French Ambassador, Michel de Castelnau, Seigneur de
Mauvissére had been at the English court since 1575. As a rule, he had tended to stay out of
English religious affairs, but actively sought company with the Sussex group as they were in
favor of a French match.214 Jean de Simier served as a French emissary from 1579 to 1581,
specifically for the purpose of negotiating the terms of, and writing a document for, any potential
marriage treaty with the French. He had the least contact with the English Catholics, but as the
official representative for the marriage he had numerous meetings with Elizabeth and her
councilors through the years in which it was thought a marriage might actually occur.215
Bernardino de Mendoza was the Spanish Ambassador to England from 1578 to 1584 and was
intricately involved in the politics of marriage, and consequent supposed conspiracies against
Elizabeth in the early 1580’s.216
Simier successfully stayed out of the jumble of rumor driven accusations and chaotic
political alignments that surrounded the match he was charged to secure. However, Mauvissére
directly involved himself by using the court Catholics in an attempt to achieve his own ends.217 It
was in this capacity that he came into contact with Henry Howard, and used Howard’s and
other’s movements and observations to keep Henry II informed of what was going on in the
213
Thomas M. McCoog, “The English Jesuit Mission and the French Match, 1579-1581.” The Catholic Historical
Review. Vol. 87, No. 2 (April, 2001): 191, 194.
214
McCoog, 191.
215
Andersson, Northampton,114; Doran, Monarch and Matrimony, 154; Read, Burghley, 212.
216
Read, Burghley,189.
217
McCoog, “The Jesuit Mission,”191, Read, Burghley, 149. Burghley did not think that Mauvissére would be
helpful in the debate over the French match: “I am sorry to find Mauvissiére so near hitherward, for surely he can
bring no vessel to carry or hold any honesty...” PRO SP xii. 105-124. Bossy, “English Catholics,” 3. Michael C.
Questier, Catholicism and Community in Early Modern England: Politics, Aristocratic Patronage and Religion, c.
1550-1640 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 154.
62
English court. Mendoza, as will be seen, became directly involved with Henry Howard toward
the end of the Anjou marriage talks, but would find his connections with Howard to be quite
beneficial as a source of information when he was refused access to the court.218 Regardless of
nationality or loyalties, all of them played a role in creating intrigue at the court. The influences
of the new men in Elizabeth’s council, the growing factions, and foreign diplomats, were brought
together between 1579 and 1581 in the dynamic and animated attempt to contract a marriage
between Hercule François duke of Alençon and Anjou (Francis), youngest son of Henry II of
France and Catherine de’Medici, and Elizabeth.219 Understanding the events before and during
the marriage negotiations with Francis reveals the reasons why many people were still having
difficulties accepting her role as a monarch, and were also important components in why Henry
Howard was prompted to respond in writing to defend Elizabeth’s right to rule,
The combination of politics, diplomacy, and religion fueled Elizabeth’s movements
throughout her courting of Anjou. However, there were two issues that Elizabeth had to contend
with that directly influenced attitudes and opinions from both the court and the public. The ideas
behind her needing to marry at all, and the fact that from the beginning of her reign her long time
relationship with Leicester had created an atmosphere of scandal around his actions as a married
man with an unmarried queen, dominated debate in court and in the pubic.220 Ideas about women
and marriage in the sixteenth century were centralized between Biblical tenets about the
institution and physiological beliefs about women being biologically and emotionally inferior to
218
Howard’s relationship with Mendoza will be discussed in the next chapter.
Alençon received the title of Duc d’Anjou in 1576. His brother, Henry III held the title until his accession to the
French throne in 1574. For the purpose of the discussion of marriage negotiations with Elizabeth he will be referred
to as Alençon for the time between 1572 and 1578, and then Anjou for the second set of negotiations between 1579
and 1581, which are the main focus of this chapter.
220
Peck, Leicester’s Commonwealth, 1.
219
63
men.221 The fact that Elizabeth was a queen only compounded the issues as her position put her
in a precarious state with regard to what a proper wife should be and how this applied to the
political world of a queen regnant. In short, the opinion of the council and the country was
unanimous, the queen had to marry. Society assumed that marriage was the proper state for a
female in the eyes of God. The Catholic Church allowed celibacy on the premise that the
individual who chose chastity was fulfilling the highest ideal for a Christian life, but Protestant
belief rejected this idea. For them, marriage was necessary to prevent fornication and sin, as the
apostle Paul had taught.222 However, within both Catholic and Protestant hermeneutic, women
were especially prone to temptation and emotional problems, therefore, needed to be married to
keep their temperament subdued and in submission. Within the context of Elizabeth’s life, these
beliefs were expressed by many of her councilors. Burghley conveyed the opinion that marriage
would protect Elizabeth from physical illness and a poor emotional state:
“It may be good reasons maintained that by forebearing from marriage her
Majesty’s own person shall be subject to such dolours and infirmities as all
physicians do usually impute to womankind for lack of marriage, and specially to
such women as have their bodies apt to conceive and procreate children. And to
this end were to be remembered of her Majesty’s pains in her cheek and face to
come only of lack of the use of marriage.”223
Moreover, unmarried women tended to face hostility as their position threatened the traditional
roles apportioned to women, and Elizabeth faced the intensification of this idea toward her own
person the longer she waited to marry and have children.224
As a single woman, Elizabeth always faced an uphill battle with her councilors, her court,
and many of her people to prove herself a legitimate monarch who was capable of ruling a
221
Ian Maclean, The Renaissance Notion of Women (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 43-6, 57-8,
68; Sommerville, Sex and Subjection, 29.
222
See, Judith Richards, "to Promote a Woman ,” 101-21.
223
Cited in Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony, 197, Read, Burghley, 211.
224
Levin, “Gender, Monarchy, and the Power of Words,” in Dissing Elizabeth: Negative Representations of
Gloriana. Edited by Julia M. Walker (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press), 85.
64
kingdom because of events that occurred during her early years, and some that originated from
before her birth. She was haunted by her mother’s reputation as a whore and a witch in her
dealings with Henry VIII.225 She was surrounded by the stigma of her mother’s execution and
subsequent disinheritance as an heir to the throne.226 Some still saw Elizabeth as an illegitimate
bastard, and as such did not have a legal claim to rule England. On top of the accusations of her
mother’s whoredom and infidelity, Elizabeth faced the same allegations about her own actions
throughout her life.227 Leicester and Elizabeth had been friends since her childhood, and his
presence in court was resented by those who objected to his rapid rise to power, mainly the old
nobility.228 His reputation was tarnished by his relationship with Elizabeth, and the supposed
sexual excursions between them. In 1560, his wife Amy had died after falling down a flight of
stairs. It was commonly believed that Leicester had either pushed her, or had her pushed, in order
to clear his way to marry Elizabeth.229 Rumors prevailed for most of her reign that Elizabeth and
Leicester had several children together, as many as five by 1581. It was declared that Elizabeth
“never goeth in progress but to be delivered” with Leicester’s children.230 In fact, in 1587, a man
who went by the name of Arthur Dudley was arrested in Spain after claiming that he was
Elizabeth and Leicester’s son who was born at Hampton Court and then sent to Spain.231 For
Cecil and other men on the council early in her reign, it was of the upmost importance that she
marry, have an heir, and put to rest the scandalous rumors that surrounded her succession. As the
225
Ibid, 87.
Levin, “Gender, Monarchy”, 87; MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 4-5.
227
See Levin, “Gender, Monarcy,”88-89.
228
MacCaffrey, Elizabeth, 7; Peck, Leicester’s Commonwealth, 1-2.
229
Levin, “Gender, Monarchy,” 86. MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, I7; Peck, Leicester’s Commonwealth, 1-2.
230
PRO SP 12/148/34. Edmond Lodge, Illustrations of British history, biography, and manners, in the reigns of
Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary, Elizabeth, and James I (London, 1791), 1:514; Peck, Leicester’s Commonwealth,1;
Levin, “Gender, Monarchy,” 89.
231
Letter dated 28 May, 1588 from Madrid, BL Harleian MS 295, f. 190v. Cited in Peck, 53 n. 1.
226
65
years went by, and Elizabeth still did not take a husband, mistrust and suspicion of why she had
not married continued to dominate the political scene.232
Bastard children or not, the division between Sussex, Leicester, the court Catholics, and
the reformed movement first flared in the 1560’s during the marriage negotiations between
Elizabeth and Emperor Ferdinand of Austria.233 During the Haspburg negotiations, lines were
drawn between supporters of the marriage and those who objected. Norfolk, Sussex, and Cecil
stood in favor of the match against Leicester and his growing number of supporters. Early on in
the deliberations, Norfolk was one of only a few who supported the match, but Sussex soon
returned from Ireland to act as Elizabeth’s embassy to Austria to negotiate a marriage treaty.234
In 1559, the faith of a particular suitor was less important the possible political influence of a
foreigner. However, as the 1550’s moved into the 1560’s, religion became more of a concern for
a possible foreign match and more men voiced their opinion, creating division in the court.235 At
times, rhetoric came close to violence as both Leicester and Sussex carried weapons to court.
Leicester had “great bandes of men with swords and buckles” at his disposal to protect himself
against the Sussex and Howard.236 Additionally, both groups wore bands of different colors to
show support for their position.237 Henry Howard was still in residence at Cambridge during the
232
See Susan Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony; The Courtships of Elizabeth I (London: Routledge, 1996), 195-209
for a discussion on the underlying debates about Elizabeth’s need to marry and consequences if she did not.
233
Susan Doran, “Religion and Politics at the Court of Elizabeth I: The Hapsburg Marriage Negotiations of 15591567. The English Historical Review. Vol. 104, No.413 (October, 1989): 908.
234
Ibid,.
235
Part of the problem regarding religion in the Hapsburg negotiations was attempting to explain to Austria what
England’s actual beliefs were. Two letters stand out with regard to the confusion . The Spanish ambassador, in
commenting on Sussex, writes: “although he was a native-born Englishmen [sic], and knew as well as others what
was passing in the country, he was at a loss to state what was the religion that really was observed here.” CSPS,
1558-1567, 236-7. Also cited in Doran, 918. Sussex was advised to clarify England’s confession as “in dede no
quyet Catholick may neede to forebeare to resorte to our churches and common prayers, for that ther is nothing red
or spoken other in praiers, or in ministration of the sacramente but only they very words of the scripture.” BL Cotton
Vitellius C xi. Ff 240-2. Also cited in Doran, 918.
236
PRO SP 12:36, f. 152, CSPS, 1558-1567, 445-446.
237
Supporters of Sussex and Howard wore yellow, while supporters of Leicester wore purple. CSPS, 1558-157-67,
511.
66
first contentious debates about matrimony, but he most likely was apprised of the situation, and
the same divisions were present in 1579 when Howard was involved, and writing in support of
the queen’s suitor. Elizabeth had her reasons for rejecting earlier suitors, but during the middle of
her reign the climate changed as the political situation on the continent became more volatile,
and Elizabeth was approaching an age that would make it difficult for her to conceive or
successfully bear a child. Her age was of concern to her councilors, and once again, Burghley
came forward with a defense of the queen when the issue of her age was raised in marriage
negotiations: “So for anything that can be gathered from argument, all other things, saving the
number of years, do manifestly prove her Majesty to be very apt for procreation of children when
they are past the years her Majesty hath.”238
Hanging over all of the personal relationships at court was the continuing strain of the
situation between England, France, and Spain on the continent. England feared subjugation of
the Low Countries by either France or Spain as a threat to English trade by cutting off markets
and imposing a moratorium on necessary imports. Also involved was the concern that someone
would attempt to marry the queen of Scots, helping her move toward the English throne. Finally,
Burghley feared the murdering of Englishmen by the Spanish through the Inquisition.239 The
council agreed that a marriage with the French would assist in the diplomatic maneuvers of the
Spanish to claim suzerainty over Protestant territory in the Low Countries and directly threaten
France. To this end Elizabeth attempted to align England with France against the Spanish in
1569, when she entered into marriage talks with Alençon’s older brother Henry, Duke of Anjou,
heir to the French throne. The negotiations ultimately failed in January, 1572, after the duke
changed his position on religion and turned to support the ultra-conservative Catholics who were
238
239
Read, Burghley, 210.
Ibid., 185.
67
determined to destroy peace made between Charles IX and the leader of the Huguenots in the
Low Countries, Henry of Navarre, in 1570.240 The concern with the match with Henry was
primarily political, although religion did play a part in the discussions once he chose to support
the ultra-Catholics instead of his Huguenot allies.241 In spite of the duke withdrawing his
proposal for marriage, Charles IX and Catherine de Medici still wanted an alliance with England
against Spain to prevent Spanish aggression and protect French troops in the Netherlands
through English financial contributions.242 They were aware of England’s wavering position on
Elizabeth needing to take a spouse, but they valued the benefits that could be gained by an
alliance with England. Therefore, they offered up Francis, their youngest son, as an alternative
candidate to Anjou.243
The relationship between England and the continent was severely strained during the
1570’s due to the ongoing conflict for control of the Low Countries, and the rights of the Spanish
and French crowns in the primarily Protestant territory. England had a vested interest in peace
between them, or at least trying to contain one or the other’s power.244 As the situation in the
Netherlands vacillated through the decade, it appeared that they would not be able to hold out
against Spain or French aggression. The Low Countries desperately needed financial assistance
and a loss there would leave England vulnerable to invasion. An alliance with Alençon was
acceptable to both the English and French as he was not likely to inherit the throne and was
supported by the Huguenots who had fled his brother’s service. Additionally, his personal piety
240
Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony, 131, Read, Burghley, 173. Also see A.M.F. Robinson, “Queen Elizabeth and
the Valois Princes.” The English Historical Review. Vol 2, No. 5 (January, 1887), pp. 40-77. Robinson provides a
straight forward narrative of the events surrounding the marriage negotiations and the events from a continental
perspective.
241
See MacCaffrey, Queen Elizabeth, 224- 228.
242
The alliance between France and England against Spain was solidified in the Treaty of Blois in 1572. The French
sought a dynastic union with England in order to strengthen the alliance.
243
Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony, 130. Robinson, 62.
244
Read, Burghley, 206
68
was less extreme than Henry’s, which made him more favorable to the reformed members of
Elizabeth’s council.245 In May 1572, Parliament reminded her once again of the problem of
succession and that the queen needed an heir, preferably in the form of a child.246 A French
embassy arrived in London in June, led by the duke of Montmorency and Paul de Foix.
Elizabeth’s first concerns were the rebuff from Henry and the fact that Alençon was some twenty
years younger than her.247 However, as important as their difference in age was their difference
in confession. Religion quickly became the central focus of the negotiations as Elizabeth and her
counselors questioned Montmorency and de Foix over what the prince would require to satisfy
his conscience. Of most concern was whether Alençon would desire to hear the Mass. Even
though Alençon was more adaptable than his brother on the issue of the Mass, he was less
willing to yield than Elizabeth and her councilors would consider acceptable. He agreed to make
a concession on the issue of public worship, but he still insisted on hearing the Mass for reasons
of conscience.248 After hearing that the duke wanted to retain the Mass in private, she consulted
her council, and their decision reveals the beginnings of the divisiveness emerging from the
negotiations. Many of the Protestant councilors were absent from council on the day the
proposals were discussed, and as a result the council decided that the duke’s demands were
acceptable. When the council met again on June 25 with the Protestant members present, there
was open disagreement. Nevertheless, Elizabeth was not convinced and continued to delay on a
decision. She asked for a month to think about the conditions presented. 249 Interestingly,
245
Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony,132.
By this time, Elizabeth knew that the only way to solve the succession issue, was to deal with Mary Queen of
Scots- who was by this time imprisoned. Elizabeth was under pressure to execute Mary, or at least exclude her from
the throne, by having a child of her own.
247
The French representative, Montmorency remarked, “usa plusieurs parolles pour monstrer qu’elle se ressentoit
des empeschemens qui avoient esté mis au mariage.” bDoran transcribes the French comments on the embassy from
Fonds Français 3253 pp. 371-410.
248
Read includes a detailed discussion and transcripts of the marriage negotiations in Burghley, 208-209.
249
Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony, 135
246
69
Leicester supported the match in 1572 as it would facilitate England assisting the Protestant
William of Orange, who was fighting against the Spanish in the Netherlands. As the discussions
dragged on, and events on the continent were unresolved, Leicester’s opinion on the suitability of
the match altered. In July 1572, Elizabeth suggested that a personal meeting be arranged
between her and Alençon.250 His personal servant was sent to England with letters from the duke,
and reports on both sides of the channel were positive about a meeting and finalization of a
marriage treaty. However, on August 24, Huguenot leaders in Paris were murdered on the orders
of Charles IX and over the next three days Huguenots throughout the city were slaughtered.251
Protestants in England were shocked at the actions of the French Catholics, and the council was
alarmed. Even though Alençon was in no way responsible for the actions of the French king or
the massacre in Paris, they still saw him as guilty regardless as he was a part of the French,
Catholic family who supported the persecution.252 Nevertheless, after initial demonstrations
against the violence in France, both Elizabeth and Charles IX kept the negotiations open for
marriage as both England and France needed the alliance for political purposes, but religion
became more centralized as the object of concern for the Elizabeth and the council.253
The years between 1572 and 1579 were filled with the continued interplay between
France and England, Elizabeth and Alençon, as well as the council and the queen. Both England
and France maintained a provisional, and positive, position on the idea of marriage, while
watching how the affairs in the Netherlands played out. Throughout 1573 the French continued
to aggressively pursue the Huguenots, but then made peace with them if it suited their desire to
250
Elizabeth faced the reality that a union with Alençon might be her last chance to marry.
Robinson, 60.
252
Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony,138.
253
Charles IX want to ensure that Elizabeth did not give Huguenots refuge in England or assist them in their cause
on the continent. Elizabeth wanted to keep France out of Spain’s grip or see them send troops to Scotland where the
pro-Marian Catholics were gaining ground. Ibid. Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 115.
251
70
gain power in the Low Countries.254 For England, moving into open war with France would be
dangerously expensive, and the English council was not in agreement on the value of a conflict.
Fortunately, the decision was made by the French to once again make peace with the Huguenots
in 1576. The English then pursued of a policy of pressure without intervention, using the
possibility of marriage as a tool to push for peace in France and security in England. Outside the
court, the people of England were more reluctant to accept a French consort for the queen.
However, the events in France elicited “general feare and mislyking” as “the nombre of such ar
zealous to the Queen’s Majesty for the favor of religion.”255 Alençon had additional problems on
the continent as the accession of his brother to the Polish throne in 1573, the siege of La
Rochelle, and then his own imprisonment in France due to suspicion of treasonous activities to
prevent Anjou’s accession to the French throne.256 Charles IX died in 1574, and Henry III’s close
affiliation with the conservative Catholics pushed the Huguenots to seek assistance abroad and
push for the formation of Protestant league. The new French king decided that re-opening the
marriage negotiations with Elizabeth was the best way to quell the possibility of continued war
by neutralizing the Protestants and removing Alençon to England where he would be less of a
problem.257 Nevertheless, Alençon was restless and after receiving the title of duke of Anjou
from his brother. He turned to support his brother Henry in 1577 as another war broke out in
France, but as he also considered going to the Netherlands to assist Henry of Navarre and the
rebels against Spain, a point that concerned the English as they did not want to see the
254
In 1573, Alençon was the leader of a siege of La Rochelle, a Huguenot controlled city. Robinson, 66.
Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony, 141. She cites PRO SP 70/128 ff 117-120.
256
Ibid, 142.
257
MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 201.
255
71
Netherlands fall to the French either. The council insisted that Anjou had to be stopped, but also
wanted to avoid confrontation with Spain.258
Therefore, in 1578, the earl of Sussex took it upon himself to contact Mauvissière and reopen marriage negations with the duke in order to draw him away from the Netherlands.259 In
fact, it was Sussex during this phase, and not Burghley, who pushed for a marital entente to quell
the duke’s pursuits, and the French saw Sussex as the men who could help them secure a
marriage with the queen.260 With lines of communication open Anjou once again sent envoys to
England late in the year to pursue a marriage treaty. However, as the affair moved into 1579,
Leicester and the Protestant councilors, who were at one time favorable to the match for political
reasons if nothing else, were now solidly against any alliance with Anjou.261 Unable to openly
disagree with the queen on the issue, they quietly contemplated their position as Elizabeth turned
to favoring the marriage for both political and personal reasons. By the time Simier arrived in
England in 1579, it appeared to all involved that a marriage might actually take place. Facing
complete Spanish victory in the Low Countries, and the elimination of the Huguenots, an AngloFrench, dynastic alliance still seemed the best way to force both the French and the Spanish to
make peace and guarantee freedom of worship.262 But, divisions emerged between the queen and
her councilors that would become central to the negotiations, and moved out into the countryside
as her subjects began to openly object to the duke, his religion, and the association of marriage
between them.
258
See MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 188-197 for a discussion on England’s relationship with the Low Countries from
1576.
259
Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony,146. MacCaffrey, Elizabeth, 198.
260
“Notre guide et conducteur en cest affaire.” PRO SP 31/3/27 f. 246. Also cited in Doran, Monarchy and
Marriage, 147.
261
Peck, Leicester’s Commonwealth, 19.
262
MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 198.
72
Returning to the ways in which religion swayed politics, by the second round of
negotiations with Anjou in 1579, the earl of Leicester’s clientage at court had increased
considerably, but of more importance was that he and English reformists who were opposed to
the marriage were adopting a type of extreme ethos that supported political positions that
advanced the Protestant, and now Puritan, cause.263 The first expressions of discontent had been
seen in Parliamentary actions regarding the Religious settlement. Puritans objected to the
queen’s marriage, and they protested Elizabeth’s potential union with a Catholic. There was also
the concern about a possible alliance with a foreign power and the potential threat it might pose
to English sovereignty.264 In 1578, however, religion amplified the political situation and there is
no doubt that the issue of Elizabeth’s possible marriage to Anjou elicited intense responses from
both the Council, and the men who supported the members of the Council- primarily Leicester,
Sussex, and Burghley.265
The re-opening of negotiations inflamed the opinions of all members of the council and
sides were quickly taken with regard to Anjou. Sussex quickly emerged as the leader of the promarriage party with Burghley on his side, as they saw the match as the best way to quell Spain’s
power.266 Leicester and Walsingham represented the opposition to the marriage and disagreed
with Sussex on the outcome of an entente. The council agreed on the need for an anti-Spanish
policy, but Leicester, Walsingham, and other reformed members were very wary of Anjou’s
Catholicism.267 In line with the context of factionalism, men congregated on both sides of the
263
Puritan was seen as a term of extremity.
MacCaffrey, Queen Elizabeth, 248- 249.
265
Adams, 11; Michael Questier, Catholicism and Community in Early Modern England: Politics, Aristocratic
Patronage and Religion, c. 1550-1640. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006): 153.
266
Peck, Leicester’s Commonwealth, 17.
267
Ibid.
264
73
line supporting either Sussex or Leicester.268 As will be seen, in order to increase support for the
marriage and sway the council, Mauvissière looked to the restlessness of the Catholics, and
actively courted Oxford, Arundell, and Howard since they were close to Sussex. The duke of
Norfolk’s son, Philip, still titled earl of Surrey at the time, also joined the supporters of the
match, as well as Stafford, who used his mother’s position as a lady in the Privy Chamber in
order to influence the queen.269 Elizabeth, who seemed intent to make the marriage work even
went so far as considering the admission of four more leading Catholics to the council to push
the marriage negotiations through.270
Convinced that she wanted the marriage to succeed, Elizabeth instructed all of her
councilors to convince Simier and Mauvissière that the entire council favored the match with
Anjou. Even Leicester had to nominally agree, but he subversively worked against the match. He
and other unwavering Protestants believed Anjou would assist the English Catholics, yet in the
moment they were forced to comply with the marriage in order to maintain favor with
Elizabeth.271 Simier and Mauvissiére were pleased with the queen’s enthusiasm, and for the next
three months, the Council debated the details of the matrimonial treaty. Included in discussions
were the individual clauses regarding religious expression, and the implications of a marriage to
Anjou for both domestic and international policy. They negotiated Anjou’s request to freely
express his faith with the Mass, the possibility of his coronation, how he and Elizabeth would
share authority over patronage, and the issue of the duke’s pension.272 Moreover, underlying the
268
Opposing the match were Leicester’s brother the earl of Warick, his father in law, Sir Francis Knollys, Warick’s
father in law, the earl of Bedford, Sir Christopher Hatton, and Sir Thomas Smith.
269
Peck, 18. Read, Burghley, 206.
270
Questier, Politics, Aristocratic Patronage and Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 2006), 154. He
notes that the four Catholic men put up for consideration included First Viscount Montague, a relative by marriage
to Sussex; Sir William Cordell, a Marian privy councilor and friend of Montague’s and Edmund Campion, one of
the Jesuit priests in England at the time.
271
Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony, 156.
272
Ibid., 158.
74
meetings was still the issue of the queen’s age, and Anjou’s youth. When the possibility of a
match with the French was first envisioned in 1569, there was still a chance that Elizabeth could
have a child. However, ten years on several of her councilors were convinced that she was now
too old to have a child, as the risk to her physical person was too great. If she was able to
conceive there was a high chance of her dying in childbirth. If she did have a successful delivery
and the child died, it raised the possibility of a contested succession and the possibility of Mary
Stuart attempting to claim the throne through her familial connections with the French royal
house.273 Furthermore, Henry III had yet to produce an heir, and if he failed to have a child,
Anjou would be heir to the French crown, raising the possibility of England losing its
sovereignty to France altogether.274
All of these issues would not have been as relevant if the monarch had been a king
instead of a queen. Queen consorts died in childbirth and kings had illegitimate sons who were
still politically viable if necessary. Kings did not have to marry, and although women could be
used to solidify political alliances as needed, consorts were not absolutely essential to the welfare
of a kingdom. With Elizabeth, the idea that she must marry and be associated with a man was
still a prevalent issue. Burghley made note in 1579 of the precariousness of Elizabeth’s position
as a spinster queen: “Without marriage, her majesty shall stand alone, withowt ayd of any
myghtye prynce…and weakened at home.”275 The fact that Mary Stuart had a child was never
forgotten and Burghley saw the consequences of Mary failing to secure a successful marriage
after the death of Lord Darnley, her son’s father. The possibility was still very real that if
Elizabeth did not marry, France and Spain would join to support Mary Stuart, start a war with
273
Read, Burghley, 212-213.
Ibid., 234.
275
Hatfield MS 148 ff. 27-38; HMC Salisbury , ii. 244-245, 250-252. Also cited in Doran, Monarchy and
Matrimony, 159.
274
75
England, and overthrow Elizabeth. She needed to marry if any form of security was going to be
achieved to protect her realm, and her own throne.276
Burghley’s support of the marriage allowed him to gain ground with Elizabeth, as
Leicester and Walsingham stood openly against the marriage. They thought Burghley’s
interpretation of possible events exaggerated and did not believe the Catholic threat was as great
as he had claimed.277 They were supported by the public in their assertions against the marriage,
as Protestant ministers throughout the kingdom denounced the possibility of her marriage to a
Catholic foreigner.278 One of the bishops composed a treatise outlining the evils of the union,
trying to convince Elizabeth not to marry Anjou.279 Elizabeth was also subjected to a sermon on
the first Sunday of Lent declaring that if Elizabeth married the duke it would bring about the
destruction of the kingdom.280 Some believed that Leicester, Walsingham and other councilors
who stood against the match encouraged and facilitated the sermons while protecting the
speakers. Elizabeth was disturbed enough that she prohibited ministers from speaking publically
about her marriage to Anjou, although no minster was ever prosecuted under the decree.281 The
most open act against the marriage occurred in July, 1579 when someone attempted to murder
Simier while he was traveling with Elizabeth on the Thames.282
Clearly, there was objection to the marriage from the Protestant led coalition at court.
Over the three years of negotiations, the court Catholics aligned themselves in opposition to
Leicester by actively supporting the Anjou marriage. Tempers and emotions ran high. Sussex
276
See Read, Burghley, 208-211 for a detailed account of Burghley’s memoranda on the objections to and reasons
for the marriage. MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 201.
277
Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony, 160.
278
Those who objected to Elizabeth’s marriage included her former tutor, Richard Cox, bishop of Ely. MacCaffrey,
Elizabeth, 203.
279
Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony, 160; MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 203.
280
CSPS 1568-79, 659.
281
Lodge, Illustrations, ii. 149-150.
282
Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony, 161.
76
was publically insulted by one of Leicester’s men, and the Spanish ambassador noticed that those
who stood against the marriage were “greatly incensed against Sussex.”283 Infamously, the
“tennis court quarrel” between the earl of Oxford and Philip Syndey also occurred as a result of
the heightened emotions due to the Anjou match.284 However, the most damaging of events at
court due to the marriage debate was the exposure of the earl of Leicester’s marriage to
Elizabeth’s lady, Lettice Knollys.285 Someone had informed Elizabeth of the secret marriage,
and whoever it was needed access to information from the council, and more importantly to the
ladies in the Privy Chamber. The person was Henry Howard. Leicester had secretly married
Knollys in 1578 when he believed all hopes were dashed of his ever marrying the queen.286 On
receiving Howard’s information, Elizabeth was furious and Leicester had to flee the court.287 At
least partially as a result of Leicester’s duplicity, Elizabeth conceded to pressure from Sussex
and Burghley to allow Anjou safe passage to England on June 16, 1579. The event did not go
unnoticed. Mary Stuart commented on the whole affair:
[Leicester’s marriage] hath so offended this Queen, that it is thocht she hath bene
led, upon such miscontentment, to agree unto the sicht of the duke d’Alençon,
notwithstanding she had differed thre whol dayis, with an extreme regrete, and
many teares, before she would subscribe the passport, being induced thereunto,
and almost forced by those that have led this negotiation.288
Anjou arrived at Greenwich on August 17, 1579. For the short time that Anjou was in
England, Elizabeth appeared to be thrilled about his presence. It seemed that after all of
the haggling about the duke, he was physically attractive to the queen, and his political
283
CSPS 1568-79, 606-607, 609.
Peck, Leicester’s Commonwealth, 18.
285
Read, Burghley, 206.
286
Andersson, 116; Doran, 161. Both Andersson and Doran are referring to Camden, History, 95; CSPS 1568-79,
681-682.
287
He was absent from council meetings in June or July, 1579.
288
Alexander Labanoff, Letters of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland : selected from the "Recueil des lettres de Marie
Stuart" : together with the chronological summary of events during the reign of the queen of Scotland (London : C.
Dolman, 1845), 94-95.
284
77
and religious position did not seem so unattractive. After all, he was a first prince of the
blood from one of the most prestigious families in Europe.289 Elizabeth appeared to be in
love. However, the Protestants of the kingdom did not share her enthusiasm. There was
still a battle with her kingdom to be won if she was going to be able to marry and so
fulfill the desires of her people and her council, no matter how unlikely it was at this
point to have a child. However, the situation also provided Henry Howard with his next
opportunity to step into the political process by producing a work in support of the
queen’s marriage to Anjou.
At some point in 1579, individuals on Elizabeth’s council, most likely Leicester
or Walsingam, felt compelled to ask John Stubbs to write a tract against the Anjou
marriage.290 Stubbs was an ardent reformer who had attended Cambridge and then
Lincoln’s Inn, where he composed The Discovery of a Gaping Gulf Whereinto England is
Like to Be Swallowed by Another French Marriage if the Lord Forbid Not the Banns by
Letting Her Majesty See the Sin and Punishment Thereof.291 Extremely Puritan and
alarmist in its content, the book attacked the possible marriage of Elizabeth and Anjou,
stating that there would be grave consequences if the union was made as England would
be absorbed by France.292 Stubbs also declared that a marriage between Elizabeth and a
Catholic was against Divine Law as any child produced would not be Protestant. Finally,
he declared that Elizabeth, as a woman, should only rule under the guidance of her
289
Robinson, 63.
See Natalie Mears, Queenship and Political Discourse, 200-203. It is debated if Lecicester or Walsingham asked
Stubbs to write the tract. Mears does not believe they did, because of the Stubbs political activity, commitment to
Protestantism, and education. Peter Lake and Michael Questier do believe that Stubbs was asked to write the tract,
as the ideas in it so closely reflect the opinions of the councilors who were against the marriage. “Puritans, Papists,
and the ‘Public Sphere,’” 595-596.
291
Mears, Queenship and Political Discourse, 201.; John Stubbs’s Gaping Gulf: With Other Relative Documents.
Edited by Lloyd E. Berry. (Charlottesville, Virginia: The University Press of Virginia, 1968), xxii.
292
Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony, 165. Ilona Bell, “Elizabeth, Stubbs, and the Gaping Gulf.” In Dissing
Elizabeth, 100.
290
78
councilors.293 Stubbs’s work was printed in London, and thousands of copies were
released to the public. It did not take long for the court to obtain the book. A letter from
Mendoza to Philip II is the first recorded mention of the work. On September 25, 1579 he
wrote to the king stating that “a printed book has recently been published here setting
forth the evils arising from a union with the French.”294 Two days later, Queen Elizabeth
issued a proclamation prohibiting the book, describing it as “lewd” and “seditious” and
stated regarding the book, “wheresoever they, or any like, may be found, shall be
destroyed in open sight of some public officer.”295 The Lord Mayor of London was told
to have all copies confiscated, and then the council ordered the Archbishop of Canterbury
and other clergy to command the loyalty of all subjects. Justice was swift. Stubbs was
apprehended and sentence pronounced against him on October 30. His right hand was cut
off the next day as an act against “the authors and sowers of seditious writings.”296
Elizabeth’s point was made.
In response to Gaping Gulf, the main points of Stubbs’s work were handed over
to an author by Burghley in order to compose a response.297 Within a couple of months,
Henry Howard produced a tract, supporting the Anjou match.298 In the work, Howard
explains that public’s dislike of the marriage should be expected given their “weakness of
293
Stubbe, A Gaping Gulf, ff. A2v-A3r, 4Fr, Eiv. As cited in Lloyd, Gaping Gulf; Mears, Queenship, 200 n.
CSPS 1568-1709, 700. As cited in Lloyd, xxvii. Gaping Gulf was not Stubbs first attempt at writing. In 1574 he
composed The Life of the 70. Archbishop off Canterbury. He may have collaborated on the project with Burghley
and Michael Hicks. Mears, The Elizabethan Public Sphere, 200.
295
As cited in Lloyd, Gaping Gulf, 149, 152. Lloyed provides a complete transcription of the queen’s proclamation.
296
Camden, The History of Princess Elizabeth, III, 10. As cited in Lloyd, xxxiv. Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony,
166.
297
Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony, 167; Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 117.
298
Howard’s tract survives in BL Additional MS 48027; BL Additional MS 34216; BL Cotton Titus C. xviii; and
BL Harleian MS 180. The Harleian copy is the only one with a title: “The Lord Henry Howard after Earle of
Norhtampton his defence of the ffrench Monsieurs…in answere to mr. Stubbs.” The book
294
79
judgment to discern of things beneficial for them.”299 Howard stated that there was
danger in the queen not producing an heir, and that any heir coming from an Englishman
would have dire consequences.300 Importantly though, Howard also gave Castelnau a
direct compliment referring to him as “A gentleman of good note and credit about him
and of a godly wit and great dexterity in managing of affairs.”301 He then used the
example of Mary Stuart and Lord Darnley as an example of an unhappy union, which
would be the case if Elizabeth married an Englishman, and spoke positively about the
Scottish queen. In this respect, Howard may have been trying to influence more than just
Englishmen when he wrote. As well as convincing his countrymen that they should
support the marriage, Howard was reaching out to Castelnau, and the French.302 He knew
the French, and the Spanish, would see his work, as they had seen Stubb’s book. For
Howard, the possible connections went further than Anjou’s possible marriage to the
queen. Howards tone in the work focused on England, but if the marriage failed, and
Elizabeth had no child, Mary Stuart was still alive and Howard wanted to make sure he
was in a position to assist in the possible outcome.303 He maintained as politically neutral
position as possible, and in doing so, his options remained open to whoever would
emerge victorious in the decisions about Elizabeth’s throne.
Howard had been able to write the tract in favor of the French match because he had
maintained a positive relationship with the Catholic gentlemen, the French, and Burghley. The
Stubbs issue had been silenced, but the difficulty with the Anjou marriage, Elizabeth’s failure to
299
Lloyd, Gaping Gulf, 156.
It is assumed that Howard was referring to Leicester in this statement. Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 119.
301
Lloyd, Gaping Gulf, 156.
302
See Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 120-121 for his interpretation of Howard’s interest in pleasing Castlenau
with the tract. He states Howard’s audience as a duel one- English and French, Anjou and Mary.
303
Ibid.
300
80
produce an heir, and the public’s response to the situation was still the focus of the court.
Therefore, at some point in the early 1580’s Howard returned to his response to the attack on
Elizabeth that he had been asked to write in 1577, and began the process of composing a defense
of female rule. The 1580’s would prove to be as difficult for Howard as the 1570’s were, but in
spite of the troubles he encountered, he found time to write. As he gathered his thoughts on
paper, “Dutifull Defence” began to form, first as a response to John Knox, but eventually
encompassing the broader history of the new decade.
81
CHAPTER FOUR
INCEPTION
Between 1572 and 1580 discontent with Elizabeth and her continuing marriage
negotiations had been openly expressed in speeches, sermons, and letters passed in court. These
public and private opinions were the provocation that resulted in Howard defending the queen in
writing. In the introductory letter to the first draft of “Dutifull Defence” Howard writes that he
received a tract “raising incentive against the regiment of Queenes”304 A counselor had given
him the tract and he was given the charge “to shape some preasant aunswere to the same.”305 The
raising incentive was John Knox’s First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of
Women.306 First published in 1558 at the very beginning of Elizabeth’s reign, by 1577 many
other authors had produced numerous defenses supporting Elizabeth and female rule.
Nevertheless, the continuing problems surrounding Elizabeth’s marriage issues and personal
image were serious enough that Howard’s patron felt the need for further response. Howard
accepted, and set out to compose his reply.307
John Knox had been forced to deal with the ideas of female rulers since the beginning of
his time as a religious reformer in Scotland. Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, was crowned in 1542
when she was only six days old. In 1558 she left for France, betrothed to the Dauphin, and
briefly ruled as queen consort to the French king until his premature death in 1560. She returned
to Scotland intent on preserving and practicing the Catholic faith. Marie of Guise- Mary’s
mother and ardent Catholic, served as regent in Scotland for her daughter from 1554 to 1560.
304
“Dutifull Defence,” f. 1r.
Ibid.
306
John Knox, First Blast.
307
Knox wrote First Blast anonymously in 1558 while living Geneva, and only openly admitted authorship of the
work in 1561. Defenses included John Alymer’s An Harborowe For Faithfull and Trewe Subjectes (1559), John
Leslie’s A Defence of the Quene of Scotland (1569), and John Jewell’s The Defence of the Apology of the Church of
England (1562).
305
82
Mary Tudor, ascended the throne of England in 1553 determined to restore England to the
Roman Church.308 All three women served as sole rulers, and although Mary Tudor’s husband,
Philip II, was granted the title of king, he served with Mary as a co-ruler, and not above her. All
three women were also devout Catholics, and all three insisted on openly practicing their faith,
even though they were surrounded by men of the reformed faith in their governments and in the
general population. Therefore, according to Knox, the worst possible scenario that could have
occurred on his watch had come to pass- he was surrounded by female, Catholic rulers who were
hostile to the Reformation and living contrary to how Knox believed women should live
according to Scripture.309
Between 1554 and 1558, Knox resided in Geneva where he sought the council of John
Calvin and Heinrich Bullinger with regard to a woman’s proper position and the idea of female
rule. Both Calvin and Bullinger agreed that although it was considered unnatural, they would
accept a queen regnant as “it would not be lawful to unsettle governments which are so ordained
by the peculiar providence of God.”310 However, both men agreed that even though a female
could inherit the title of monarch, she should properly transfer power to a spouse or councilors.
Both Calvin and Bullinger held up the example of Deborah, a female judge in ancient Israel as
the precedent for female rule in the sixteenth century.311 Knox disagreed with Calvin and
Bullinger, and their interpretation of Deborah, so while living in Europe, he spoke out publically
308
Judith Richards, “Mary Tudor as ‘Sole Quene’?: Gendering Tudor Monarchy.” The Historical Journal. (Vol. 40,
No. 4. December, 1997), 902-903. For Mary’s contribution to the religious issues in England see Dickens, The
English Reformation, 287-309.
309
Robert M. Healey, “Waiting for Deborah: John Knox and Four Ruling Queens.” The Sixteenth Century Journal,
Vol. 25, No. 2 (Summer, 1994): 371.
310
John Calvin to William Cecil in Knox, Works, 4:357. Also cited in Roberty M. Healey, “Waiting for Deborah,”
372-373. Healey provides a helpful narrative of the relationship between Knox and the queens in Scotland and
England.
311
Bullinger states: “If a woman in compliance with, or in obedience to, the laws and customs of the realm, is
acknowledged to a husband, or in the meantime holds the reins of government by her councilors,” then her rule
would be acceptable. Bullinger, “An Answer Given to a Certain Scotsman,” in Knox, Works, 3:217-226. See Judges
4-5 for an account of Deborah as judge.
83
and on paper against all three Marys. In the case of Mary Tudor, he called for God’s vengeance
and England’s destruction: “Repress the pride of these bloodthirsty tyrants; consume them in thy
anger according to the reproach which they have laid against thy holy name.” He even went so
far as to extol Englishmen to pray that a Jehu would rise up to slay Mary, the evil Jezebel.312
After being denied the right to return to Scotland in 1557, Knox began composing First Blast,
possibly out of frustration and animosity, but his conclusions about women had already been
determined; they were commanded by God to serve men, and Eve’s judgment was evidence of
her state of permanent submission.313 Although there had been a few other works published by
this time against female rule, they focused more on the religion of the ruler, than the gender.314
Knox was convinced that as the inferior sex due to physiology and theology, women were both
incapable of holding positions of authority, as well as forbidden to do so by God, and his use of
language expressed the depth of his anathema to the idea.
Knox turned to the construct of a monster to describe the idea of a female monarch,
evoking a deep rooted construct in the Tudor mind of something that was visibly and physically
deformed, as well as a sign from God of both the inner sin and iniquity of an individual person or
the entire land. Historically and contemporarily, Monsters were something to be feared and they
induced a sense of loathing, and were often an omen of bad tidings to come.315 Monstrous
312
John Knox, “A Faithful Admonition to the Professors of God’s Truth in England,” Works, 3:328-30. Knox states
that Deborah did not usurp authority because her authority was only as a prophetess, and not the inheritor of a title
or the throne of a king. “ Israel was no such usurped power as our Quenes unjustlie posesse this day…For she saith
not, ‘I being thy Princesse, thy Maistresse, thy Sovereine Ladie and Quene, commande thee upon thine allegiance,
and under pain of treason, to go gathedr an armie.’ No, she spoileth her self of all power to commande, attributing
that authoritie to God, of whom she had her revelation and certitude to appoint Barak capitain…” Knox, Works, 4:
406-407.
313
Breslow, Political Writings, 159-160; Healey, “John Knox,” 376.
314
Examples include: David Lindsay, Ane dialog betuix Experience and ane courteour Off the miserabill estait of
the warld (1554); and, Thomas, Becon, An humble supplicacion vnto God for the restoring of hys holye woorde,
vnto the churche of Englande, mooste mete to be sayde in these oure dayes, euen with teares of euery true [and]
faythfull English harte (1554).
315
Kathryn M. Brammall, “Monstrous Metamorphosis: Nature, Morality, and the Rhetoric of Monstrosity in Tudor
England.” The Sixteenth Century Journal. Vol. 27, No. 1 (Spring, 1996): 5,7.
84
occurrences and tales of monsters on the continent and in England were prevalent in the
sixteenth century, and were written about in both educated literature and more popular books
known as broadsides.316 After the accession of Queen Elizabeth, incidents of reported monsters
actually increased and many saw this as a sign to the English people that God was not pleased
with England.317 Monsters were a sign, and one J. Phillips compared monsters and the wrath of
God in a 1570 poem:
Come neer good Christians all,
beholde a monster rare:
Whose monstrous shape (do doubt) fortels
God’s wrath we should beware
His wondrous works we ought not judge,
as toyes and trifles vaine:
Whither it be Childe or brutish Beast,
forwarnings they are playne.318
First Blast provided an example of a treatise in which the ideas of abnormality and deformity are
used to define monsters with no outward deformity, but rather an inward horridness that reflected
the outward being.319 Knox altered the physical visualization of monsters from the outward
appearance of something grotesque and horrible to an inward condition of decay and sin. Instead
of focusing on the physicality of a monster, he constructed the idea of inward monstrosity where
the being and actions of the person were abnormal and an anathema to God.320 He evoked the
316
Lorraine J. Daston and Katherine Park, “Unnatural Conceptions: The Study of Monsters in Sixteenth-and
Seventeenth Century France and England.” Past and Present No. 92, (August, 1981): 22. Daston and Park point out
the before newspapers, broadsides were the primary format for disseminating information in print. They were sold
on the streets by vendors. Monsters were a popular topic in these broadsides and contained an illustration of the
animal or child involved and the circumstances of the birth, then providing an interpretation of God’s message for
the event. 28.
317
Brammel, “Monstrous Metamorphasis,” 8. Bramall presents evidence for sixteen accounts monstrous births
between 1552 and 1570, with a total of thirty-five for the two decade period. She notes that Elizabeth’s accession
did not bring an end to the country’s problems of hunger, disease, and a poor economy, which facilitated the account
of monsters in writings and ballads. All of his was contrary to the image of Elizabeth as the saving Deborah she was
portrayed as at her coronation. 7,8.
318
J.P. Phillips A Mervaylous Straunge Deformed Swyne (London: W. How, 1570). As cited in Brammall, 7.
319
Brammal, “Monstrous Metamorphasis,” 19. Also see Susan Felch, “The Rhetoric of Biblical Authority: John
Knox and the Question of Women.” The Sixteenth Century Journal. (Vol. 26, No. 4. Winter, 1995), 816.
320
Ibid.
85
image of the monster throughout First Blast referring to the “monstriferous empire of women,”
and calling any woman who violated the law of God as a “monster in nature.” His goal was to
induce fear in his audience and provoke them to rebel against such a horrific aberration from
what God intended, and foretold that the kingdom would suffer the wrath of God for allowing
female regiment to continue by using the monster metaphor for the entirety of the people who
supported such rule: “No less monstrous is the bodie of that common welth, where a woman
beareth empire.”321
Knox’s terms were harsh, but he was referring to Catholic queens who, according to him,
openly rebelled against god. However, when Elizabeth came to the throne in 1558, Knox was
left in a quandary. She was not the Catholic Jezebel who formed the base of his abomination, but
a woman portrayed as the Protestant Deborah described by Calvin and Bullinger, and she was
presented as such at her coronation.322 Knox’s timing was ill timed to say the least. Elizabeth
resented First Blast, for even though it had been written in objection to Mary of Guise, Mary
Stuart, and Mary Tudor, his arguments clearly encompassed and objection of any female ruler.
When Knox requested permission return to Scotland by traveling through England in 1559,
Elizabeth repeatedly refused him permission to do so.323 When forced to confront the queen’s
more reformed position on religion, Knox played his hand by refusing to back down on his
conclusions, but admonish Elizabeth to fulfill her proper role to avoid judgment. At this point he
offended both Cecil and the queen, which did not help re-establish his presence in England. First,
he wrote to Cecil in 1559 accusing him of being a traitor for conforming to the Marion church.
321
Knox, First Blast, 6v, 53v, 12v, passim. Howard does not refer to, or reply to the construct of monsters or the
monstrous in “Dutifull Defence.”
322
In the fifth and last pageant on the coronation route contained a young woman on the throne in parliamentary
robes consulting with her three estates. Above her head was the inscription “Deborah, the judge and restorer of
Israel.” Neale, Queen Elizabeth, 61; Ridley, John Knox, 271; Healey, “Waiting for Deborah,” 381.
323
Knox, History, 285. Knox stated at the time in a letter to Mrs. Anna Locke on April 6, 1559 that “my FIRST
BLAST hath blown from me all my friends in England.” Works, vi, 14.
86
Then he wrote to Elizabeth the same year, admonishing her not to step outside the boundaries
Knox believed were set for her as a female ruler:
I cannot deny the writing of a book against the usurped Authority and unjust
Regiment of Women; neither [yet] am I minded to retract or call back any
principal point or proposition of the same…I that affirm ‘That no woman may be
exalted above any realm…And therefore of conscience I am compelled to say,
that neither the consent of the people, the process of time, nor multitude of men,
can establish a law which God shall approve…And, therefore, Madam, the only
way to retain and keep those benefits of God, abundantly poured now of late days
upon you, and upon your realm, is unfeignedly to render to unto God, to his
mercy, and undeserved grace, the [whole] glory of this your exaltation. Forget
your birth, and all title which thereupon doth han; and consider deeply how, for
fear of your life, ye did decline from God, and bow to idolatry...But, if the
premises (as God forbid) neglected, ye shall begin to brag of your birth, and to
build your authority and regiment upon your own law, flatter you whoso list,
your felicity shall be short.”324
Elizabeth was not amused. Knox returned to Scotland without traveling through England and
launched his attacks on Elizabeth from safely across the border. He objected to the Religious
Settlement, and in 1561 he commented on a series of letters passed between the Queen of Scots,
her councilor and Elizabeth. Knox wrote of Elizabeth: “And yet is she that now reigneth over
them neither good Protestant nor yet resolute Papist: Let the world judge which is the third.”325
He finished the statement by declaring that the queen was offended.
When Howard began the composition of his response to Knox, he no doubt saw a twofold opportunity once the composition was completed; his work might be useful as a defense of
the queen, and it would help him in his quest for favor with Elizabeth. He noted that after reading
the “raising incentive” he saw that “arrows” were being aimed at the queen and presuming that
she would accept his offering, he decided to write in order “to weigh down the fear of far more
324
Knox says to Cecil, “…for seeing that his mercy hath spared you, being traitor to his Majesty; seeing further, that
amongst your enemies he hath preserved you; and, last, seeing, although worthy of hell, he hath promoted you to
honours and dignity, of you must he require (because he is just) earnest repentance for your former defection…”
History, 283-284; Works, The complete letter to Elizabeth, 291-294. Brackets are placed in the text by Knox.
325
History, 369; Works, 174.
87
dangerous conflict.”326 His statements fall in line with the continued attacks on Elizabeth and
fear over the Anjou marriage, and indicate that First Blast was most likely still being circulated.
To this point, Howard writes that he was concerned over the effect Knox’s work might still have
in England:
I saw those Satyrs, which undertook both to cool and kindle with one blast, and
feared the hearts of these unfaithful soldiers which followed the colors of their
captain but in mutiny. There was great cause of doubt lest the vulgar multitude,
which hath ears to hear and eyes to see, but no discretion to judge, might as well
incline in matters of this moment as they rose in cockfight to the weaker side.327
Clearly, his use of the word “blast” is a direct play on Knox’s use of the word, although
by the time the dedication letter was written he was able to refer to several Satyrs, rather
than just the work of one man. Howard then started work immediately on the treatise and
it appears he was able to complete an early draft by 1580. Purporting that Howard could
have finished the first draft this quickly is not unreasonable considering the speed at
which he was able to produce other works at the time.328
The earliest surviving drafts of “Dutifull Defence” are two separate, partial copies of the
same work.329 One section is in Howard’s own italic hand, while the other is in a form of script,
although it has not yet been determined to be Howard’s own handwriting, or a srivner’s secretary
hand. Both sections appear to be portions of complete, early drafts. The pages in italic hand
contain sentences that have been crossed out and corrected, and correspond to the third book on
326
“Dutifill Defence,” f. 2v.
“Ibid.,” fol. 3r.
328
Howard had produced his Defense of the Ecclesiastical Regiment, and Defensative in about a year each.
Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 84, 117.
329
British Library, MS Cotton Appendix xxvii, ff. 83r-93r and 94r-133v. Portions of the folio pages are damaged
and illegible. However, enough remains intact and legible to draw these conclusions. More work will be done on the
Appendix manuscripts in order to provide additional details in reference to the content, and will be compared to the
early notes that remain non vidi in Durham.
327
88
Divine Law in the final treatise. The marginalia matches the citations in the final treatise as
well.330
Works with “defense” in the title were common, and those produced in the sixteenth
century often glorified feminine virtues without discussing any change of hierarchal status or
alteration of a woman’s inferior position in relation to men. Howard expanded the breadth of the
argument for women, and his use of the word in “Dutifull Defence” was two-fold. He not only
wrote a literary apology of a woman’s character, but also built a legal defense of her status in
society, her right to inherit titles, and her right to rule as a monarch. Moreover, Howard’s
construction of the title revealed his motives and opinion on the position he supported. In his
dedication letter, Howard expressed that it was his duty to construct an answer in response to the
detractors of women; and because those men who objected to a queen ruling in her own right
equated feminine monarchy with tyranny, and therefore unlawful in the eyes of God, Howard
seized upon the analogy by presenting his arguments as a trial on the lawfulness of female
rulers.331 To this point, Howard organized his response to Knox into three books, each discussing
separate, but ultimately related topics: natural, civil, and divine law. The Divine Law section
present in the first drafts, and discussion of it in the text of “Dutifull Defence” shows Howard’s
direct reaction to First Blast.
330
Both comparisons help indicate that the Appendix pages are early copies of “Dutifull Defence.” The sections of
First Blast are copied verbatim into the text: “hereby maye suche as are nto altogether blinded planlye see that gode
by his sentence hathe deprived all women from empire and dominion … through whiche is produced for the one
and the other..,” followed by “Blaste Divis”and a number: “ Blaste Divis 38 ‘I am not ignorant that the moste parts
of mennes doo understandeth this …” f. 84v, 89r. Folio 86r.contains a tiny sketch of a flower, a small circle with
the petals drawn around it. The flower also appears on a separate cut out of writing on 93r, which is a note with
some form of a dedication on it. This flower has been recognized as a notation Howard used, and it is present other
books he owned. In a copy of Castiglione’s Il lebro del cortegiano, a work he most likely acquired at Cambridge in
the 1560’s, he placed a little flower symbol in the marginalia next to a section of writing he had underlined on the
his desire for a musical education and a note about his playing the lute. B. Castiglione, Il libro del cortegiano.
Venice: Aldus Manutius, 1541. F 2v. As noted in Andersson, Henry Howard, 70 n. 68. Andresson indicates that he
has seen the work, which was in the private possession of Dr. Bent Juel-Jenson. However, since Dr. Juel-Jenson’s
death at the end of 2006, the book’s location is unknown, and remains non vidi.
331
“Dutifull Defence,” fol. 2r.
89
In establishing a premise from which to debate the subject of women, the revival of
Thomist belief that had spread through French and Spanish universities in the sixteenth century
was essential to Howard’s arguments in “Dutifull Defence.” Revived by the Dominicans and
expounded by the Jesuits from the 1560’s, they transformed Thomas Aquinas’ interpretation of
law into a systematic view of what political organization was and ought to be.332 In turn, the
Thomists synthesized Aquinas’ laws into two forms. First, they combined the idea of positive
human law with the law of nature, making natural law the moral framework wherein all human
laws must operate. To this point, the aim of all human law was to conform to the higher law of
God, which was already “inscribed” in all men through their conscience.333 Secondly, they
connected natural law to the will of God. The natural law, therefore, was a dual essence because
it came both from God and reasonable man. Consequently, Jesuit scholars expanded natural law
theory in the mid century to include the nascent concept of the original state of nature, an idea
that went beyond Seneca’s idea of the golden age of man. The assertion, one later seized upon by
theorists like John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, proposed a time before political organization
when no man ruled over another, and society lived in a state of equality and independence.334
The Dominican and Jesuit interpretation contested what they saw as the “Lutheran
heresies,” propagated by Lutheran radicals, picked up by Calvinist theorists, and eventually
332
Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, 2 vols., vol. 2: The Age of the Reformation
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978),135 Aquinas discussed his theories on law in the Summa
Theologica: XC-XCV. He adopts a four part theory of law: the lex aeterna, by which God acts upon creation; the lex
divina, God’s revelation to man through the Scriptures; the lex naturalis, or ius naturale, the implantation of God’s
spirit or consciousness in man so that they could understand his will; and the lex humana, lex civilis or ius
positivum, those laws that men enacted for themselves to govern the states they had organized.
333
Ibid., 149; Donald R. Kelley, "Law," in The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 1450-1700, ed. J. H. Burns
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 261. Also see Jean Porter, “Contested Catagories: Reason, Nature,
and Natural Order in Medieval Accounts of the Natural Law. The Journal of Religious Ethics. Vol. 24, No.2 (Fall,
1996): 207-232.
334
Skinner, Foundations, 136, 155, 156. Francisco de Vitoria, a Dominican, wrote that, “before men congregated
together”, in commonwealths, “no one man was superior of all the others.” Vitoria’s Relectiones, was published
posthumously. Luis de Molina used the phrase status naturae and in statu naturae, and although Molina’s first book
was not published until after “Dutifull Defence” was written, he had lectured on the subject of natural law between
1577 and 1582 in Portugal.
90
claimed by reforming writers like John Knox.335 The Catholic Church viewed political
organization as a product of God’s conscious imprint on reasonable man, based on the general
knowledge of His will. In contrast, the “Lutheran” theory claimed that God ordained all political
organization according to the tenets of Scripture, effectively separating the formation of political
society from the bounds of natural law. This being the case, according to radical Protestant
theory, it was acceptable to oppose an ungodly ruler; for, if the ruler was supposed to be divinely
chosen and rule according to Scriptural standards, tyranny proved a ruler’s ungodliness. Knox
claimed that God ordained earthly rulers could be removed by force if they transgressed the law.
Furthermore, he supported the specific removal of all female rulers, who clearly defied God’s
order laid down at creation. For Knox, all law was derived directly from Scripture, and for him,
nature provided the physical evidence that God had created women incapable of ruling.
Knox provided a clear declaration that a women ruler was “repugnant to nature.”336 For
Knox, natural law secondary to the laws in Scripture. Accordingly, he stated that women were,
by nature, “weak, frail, impatient, feeble, and foolish, and experience hath declared them to be
un-constant, variable, cruel, and lacking the spirit of counsel and regiment.”337 In doing so, Knox
espoused a two-fold definition of natural law; first, law made evident by simply observing a
woman’s natural, physical and emotional attributes, and secondly law as the “revealed will and
perfect ordinance of God,” that absolutely forbade a woman to rule over a man.338 As evidence,
Knox invoked Aristotle’s Politics and sections of the Roman Digest, associating them with the
335
The opinions propagated by radical thinkers in the sixteenth century, were not supported by a majority of the
populous. Richard Greaves provides a discussion of the major religious affiliations views on political organization
and resistance against governments in his article, “Concepts of Political Obedience in Late Tudor England:
Conflicting Perspectives,” Journal of British Studies 22, no. 1 (1982) 23-34.
336
Knox, First Blast, 9r. See Sommerville, Sex and Subjection, 10-11.
337
Ibid., 10r.
338
Ibid., 13r.; Marvin A. Breslow, ed., The Political Writings of John Knox (London: The Associated University
Press, 1985), 45; Flech, "The Rhetoric of Biblical Authority," 805; Greaves, Theology and Revolution, 161; Jordan,
“Women’s Rule,” 433;
91
sacred laws of God as laid down at creation.339 He then associated natural law with the Roman
law, but not specifically with the law of nations, as addressed in book one of the Digests.
It is possible that Howard had knowledge of the theories presented by the Dominicans in
Spain and France, and by assimilating contemporary thought and scholarship with his traditional
academic experience he could present a far more multifaceted argument on female rule than the
radical, Protestant writers.340 Combining Aquinas’ position on natural law, as stated in the
Summa Theologica, and early Thomist political theory, Howard presented an intricate and
thorough definition of natural law.341 He separated natural law into two “kinds,” following the
theories of those he deemed to be the “learned civilians”—mainly Ulpian and Aquinas. The first
kind was instinct, which was “common unto men with beasts.” This branch of natural law
included all the faculties necessary to ensure life in all living beings: procreation, the nurturing of
the young, and self-defense. On this point, Howard derived his thought directly from the Roman
Digests.342 The second branch of natural law consisted of the capacities “proper unto men that
are endowed with the gift of reason,” and it was on the basis of reason that he formed his
arguments.343
Howard based his second branch of natural law on reason, the attribute by which men
resembled God and were different from beasts. His premise, that God endowed man with reason
consisting of the principles of honesty and right at the time of creation, was similar to those
339
Knox cites the Digest, 50.17.2; 3.1.1; 16.1pr.; 3.1.pr.; and 1.5.9. Sommerville, Sex and Subjection, 16-17.
Peck points out that “secret” knowledge was particularly important to Howard, including Catholic and Jesuit
writings. “Mentality,” 162. Porter notes the interest in natural law to the Dominican masters at Paris and Cremona
and their Platonic approach to the subject. “Contested Catagories,” 215 n.12.
341
Skinner, 152. Skinner notes that the traditional view of civil lawyers was that the law of nations formed a part of
the law of nature. As will be seen, Howard did not depart from this opinion, but expanded it in order to prove his
argument that women were allowed to rule.
342
Digest 1:1:3. “Natural Law is that which nature has taught to all animals, for this law is not peculiar to the human
race, but applies to all creatures which originate in the air, or the earth, and in the sea. Hence arises the union of the
male and the female which we designate marriage; and hence are derived the procreation and education of children.”
343
“Dutifull Defence,” fol. 29r. Porter, “Contested Catatgories,” 213-214.
340
92
proposed by Dominican and Jesuit scholars.344 Howard backed his assertion that reason was the
basis of natural law by citing Chrysostom, Origen, Tertullian, Hillary, and St. Paul. He then set
himself firmly in the tradition of civil law by stating that the natural law of reason was also the
law of nations; and without it, no government could function, nor could people be able to fulfill
the basic tenets of society, mainly “obedience to magistrates, love to parents, care for our
country, provision for our families, constancy in keeping promise, abstinence from doing wrong;
and whatsoever is understood without instruction and either observed or acknowledged without
enforcement by necessity.”345 Based on his assertion of how the law of nations was a part of the
law of nature and imprinted in man at the time of creation, Howard insisted that countries must
base all decrees and laws on natural law, which invokes integrity and right, or they are not valid.
Using the analogy of a civil trial Howard wrote, “this is the court in which all pleas concerning
titles both by men and women must be tried.”346 The highest judge of the law is man’s right
reason, engrained by God and, therefore, the only precedent to which man can appeal.
As important as defining what natural law was, Howard also had to expound on the
traditions that placed women in their position of permanent submission to men. Almost all theory
concerning the makeup and character of women in the early modern period was based on
Aristotle’s views of female anatomy and biological makeup. Aristotelian physiology had
determined that women were less developed males who functioned at a lower metabolic level
than men, and were therefore, colder, wetter, and more humid than the male species.347 After the
translation of Aristotle’s ideas about women into English during the Middle Ages, the
344
Ibid. Howard wrote: The law of nature “consists wholly upon principles of honesty and right, which God
himself engraved with his holy finger in the heart of man at the first creation of humanity.”
345
Ibid., fol. 29v.
346
Ibid.
347
Aristotle, Generation of Animals, trans. A.L. Peck (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1943), 737a.;
Sommerville, Sex and Subjection,10.
93
perceptions of cold, wet, and humid were correlated with inefficiency and weakness. Due to their
physical imperfection, women were also regarded as lacking intelligence and judgment and were
considered emotionally inconsistent. Additionally, the medieval combination of Aristotelian
thought and Christian exegesis on the order of creation and the consequences of the fall
reinforced the concept of female inferiority. During the Renaissance, these views on women
remained dominant; and because classical morality was inexplicably bound to scriptural censure
by centuries of interpreting one in the light of the other, a woman’s inadequacy compared to
man’s remained the standard argument for female subjection.348
Written detractions of women relied on the combination of Aristotelian interpretation of
natural law and Scriptural condemnation to form arguments against female authority. In the
fifteenth century, John Fortesque, an influential lawyer in the court of Henry VI, drew on the
Thomistic-Aristolelian tradition of natural law to write on the proper order of succession to the
English throne.349 He then added Scriptural commands—God’s declaration of natural law in
Genesis—to exclude women from inheriting the crown. Similar arguments were posited in the
sixteenth century when the debate over female regiment became a reality. Political theorists like
Jean Bodin, The Six Books of a Commonweale, as well as Protestant reformers like John Calvin
followed the same line of thinking, integrating the ideas of natural, inherent inferiority with
Scriptural pronouncements in Genesis that decreed women to be subject to men at creation.
Bodin posited the standard list of female vices in his declaration against female regiment:
“Gynecocracy is squarely against the laws of nature that give men strength, the prudence, the
348
Sommerville, Sex and Subjection, 10,12,13.
Joan Lockwood O'Donovan, Theology of Law and Authority in the English Reformation (Atlanta, GA: Scholars
Press, 1991), 43, 44.
349
94
arms, and the power to command and take away from women [their authority].”350 All of them
agreed that, as a rule, women should not rule. However, Calvin was willing to accept that under
certain conditions, a woman could hold the office of monarch, but only as an exception or as a
punishment from God, and was in no way to intended to set a precedent. As mentioned earlier,
Calvin made his occasional acceptance of a queen regnant clear in a response to an inquiry from
Knox about the legality of a female sovereign: “the government of a woman badly adjusted to
the country is like a government of a tyrant, which has to be borne till God put an end to it.”351
Knox was forced to agree with Calvin that a few exceptions to God’s prohibition on female
authority had existed, Deborah for example, but disagreed that the current queens qualified, and
it was left to him to make the most inclusive combination of Aristotelian physiology and biblical
censure. According to Knox, a woman’s inabilities were evident in every facet of nature, and
absolutely proved by Scripture. A woman’s inferior attributes were simply evidence of God’s
malediction on Eve in Genesis. Regardless of the reasoning, each author reached the same
conclusion, the female sex was substandard compared to the male, as made evident by nature,
verified by Scripture, and should therefore remain in subjection to men.352
Howard, by contrast, presented a complex interpretation of classical sources, and
disregarded traditional Aristotelian biology as a factor in establishing the female position.
Howard turned to Plato’s concept that in essence, there was no difference in gender. Citing the
Republic, Howard summarized Plato’s argument that women should receive training in the same
disciplines as men “for the better service of the commonwealth.” Howard wrote: “He tells that
neither men nor women have any office proper or peculiar to the sex alone but that women are as
350
Jean Bodin, The Six Bookes of a Commonweale: A Facsimile Reprint of the English Translation of 1606, ed.
Kenneth D. McRae (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962), 753.
351
Cited in Richard Greaves, Theology and Revolution, 159. See Porter “Contested Catagories,” 215.
352
Susan Felch, “The Rhetoric of Biblical Authority: John Knox and the Question of Women.” Sixteenth Century
Journal. Vol. 26 (1995): 805-806; Healey, “Waiting for Deborah,” 376.
95
capable of all offices as men though in comparison they be reckoned the weaker.”353 It can be
recalled that Howard used the Platonic position in 1569 when writing to his sister Catherine. In
“Dutifull Defence,” He continued the idea by stating that with regard to women holding
positions of authority, Aristotle had almost always been misinterpreted by medieval writers due
to his “obscure and dark manner in delivering his mind.”354 Indeed, when speaking on Aristotle’s
prohibition of female authority, Howard claimed that the philosopher did not present a universal
rule, but spoke of a specific woman, Olympia, who was “unworthy for some personal defects,”
or who “sought to rule by wicked and unlawful means.”355 Aristotle’s objection was not based on
gender, but performance. Howard concluded that the opinions of philosophers had a place, but
they did not carry the same weight as God’s providence acting through natural law. He then
refuted one of the main objections to female authority, that women were mentally weaker than
men.
Howard linked the idea of equality in essence with equality in mind, offering a
progressive view of women for the early modern period. Howard believed that women were as
mentally capable as men because they both came from God and “the griffin of scions of every
tree carries in itself the virtue of that root from whence it was taken.”356 Using Eve as his
example, Howard declared that God created Eve out of flesh, a superior substance to the “gross
clot of clay” from which Adam came, and she was created “no less holy according to the sacred
image of God represented in the faculties of understanding will and memory than Adam. She
was endowed with a reasonable soul.” Therefore, the standard of judgment with regards to
inherited titles had to be the same for both men and women: “Therefore, whosoever will deprive
353
“Dutifull Defence,” fol. 34v.
Ibid.
355
Ibid., fol. 36r. Howard was referring to Aristotle’s comments on Queen Olympia, the mother of Alexander the
Great.
356
Ibid., fol. 37r.
354
96
a lawful owner of less matters than inheritance of kingdoms must produce sound evidence.”357
He maintained that physical or mental inability could not be a determining factor in establishing
inheritance. Minority males were weaker than adult men or women, and did not have the same
cognitive ability, but there was no question that they could inherit a title and had the right to rule.
Howard stressed that before the fall, women were as perfect as men. After the fall, God
punished Eve for her offence, but this punishment did not affect any of the physical or emotional
qualities that would have bearing on her ability to perform tasks perceived solely as masculine.
He also emphasized that if God had created women so imperfect in mind and body, the
detractor’s standards of judgment would not apply, for society would have to judge women
according to the proportion of their faculties.358 He then concluded his argument on the principle
that:
Women shall be tried with men at one bar, examined by one Judge and
condemned by one law. We shall all stand before the tribunal seat of God to give
account of our actions, good and bad, as we received so we shall deliver . . .
therefore I conclude that to both sexes one reverence is due. The virtues are equal,
the rewards ought to be equal and like condemnation belongs to both sides if in
Christ there be no difference.359
In the second book on civil law, Howard accused Knox of manipulating the law to
corroborate his opinions, calling his interpretations, “false and frivolous objections which have
been most unjustly countenanced with deceitful colors.”360 He, therefore, set out to prove that the
civil law allowed women to hold positions of authority361 The body of civil law used in
sixteenth-century England was directly translated from Roman law as it stood at the beginning of
357
Ibid., fol. 39r.
Ibid., fol. 37r.
359
Ibid.
360
Ibid., fol., 125r.
361
Ibid., fol., 126r. Acts 25: 10-12. “Even as Festus said to Paul Cesarem appelasti ad Caesarem ibis, to Caesar you
have made this appeal and to Caesar you shall go. So say we to those that since they have appealed to the civil court,
by the civil law their action shall be determined.”
358
97
the millennium.362 By the fifteenth century, the Roman legal tradition had evolved and was
separated into the civil, canon and customary law. Significantly, when Howard studied Roman
law in the 1550s, the Corpus had been subjected to several generations of interpretation, a fact
Howard drew upon in his arguments against Knox.363 Knox cited the Digest in First Blast
reminding his readers that within its legislation, “Women are removed from all civil and public
office, so they neither may be judged, neither yet may they occupy the place of the magistrate,
neither yet may they be speakers for others.”364 In this instant, Knox did not differentiate
between Roman law and natural law, believing that they were both written as they were because
of a woman’s inherent inferiorities.365 He appealed to Aristotle, picking up his traditional
concept of the female: “Wherever woman bear dominion there must needs the people be
disordered, living and abounding in all intemperance, given to pride, excess and vanity.”366 Knox
did not make a distinction between the public roles of women and private inheritance. He viewed
the public law as setting precedent for the private law; if women could not be judges, out of
necessity, they could not hold offices higher than a judge, therefore excluding them from
monarchy.367
As a lecturer on civil law, Howard used similar principles, mainly equity and use of legal
theory, to argue for the right of women to inherit the throne. His argument was not without
precedent. Early modern theorists on civil law equated a daughter’s right to inherit from her
362
During the sixth century, the Emperor Justinian set out to restore and codify the entirety of ancient Roman law, as
part of an attempt to re-establish imperial authority in the west. The Digest consisted of fifty books, which
represented the law of the classical period, and were primarily concerned with private law and principles of
jurisprudence. The civil law was expanded in the twelfth century, becoming central to the European legal tradition
by providing both the terminology and conceptual basis for customary law. In addition, the Institutes and the Digest
formed a significant part of the legal curriculum in European universities. Porter, “Contested Catagories,” 210-211.
363
Donald R. Kelley, “Law,” The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 1450- 1700, ed. J. H. Burns (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1991), 66, 67. Porter, “Contested Catagories,” 210-211.
364
Knox, Works, 44; Digest, 50.17.2.
365
Jordan, “Woman’s Rule,” 433.
366
Knox, First Blast, 12r.
367
Shephard, Gender and Authority, 136.
98
father as part of natural law. Therefore, despite the actual written law, daughters should not be
excluded from their inheritance.368 To this point, men who regarded inheritance as a part of
natural law condemned the sections of civil law that prohibited women from inheriting their
rightful portions or titles.369Howard also asserted that the civil law was a part of natural law.370
He agreed with those who supported a female’s rights under civil law, declaring that “the civil
laws, being principally grounded upon the law of nature are the fittest measures to try out a
certain truth in this point, whether women ought to rule or not.”371 Reason, a derivative of
natural law, formed the base of the civil law; as a woman’s right to inherit was an extension of
natural law, and her competence to rule was based in natural reason, the civil law should
logically guarantee her rights. However, the laws of the ancients did not necessarily apply to
contemporary circumstances, or as Howard stated, “at this day it is otherwise.”372 The
interpretation of civil law, like all law, could be altered or rejected, adjusting as necessary to the
needs or wishes of society, a point he would further emphasize in his argument on sacred law.
Howard addressed two sets of objections with regard to civil law. First, he dealt with a
woman’s right to inherit titles, which he referred to as the “body” of the civil law, the linchpin of
his argument.373 Instead of focusing on the statutes in the Digests as Knox had, Howard turned
toward the imperial legislation of the Institutes to prove that blood, not gender, determined
succession: “The natural reason being only looked to without distinction either of sex or of right
368
Sommerville, Sex and Subjection, 56. Sommerville cites two civil theorists that claimed this position during the
time that Howard was writing “Dutifull Defence,” Cornelius Benincasa, Tractatus de paupertate ac eius privilegiis,
(1562), fol., 72r.; and Joannes Nevizanus, Sylvae nuptialis libri sex, (1570), 255.
369
Ibid.
370
Ibid., 67. Making the connection between the civil law and the natural law was a common one made in the early
modern period when referencing the Digest and the Institutes.
371
“Dutifull Defence,” fol. 133v.
372
Ibid., fol. 150v.
373
When referring to the “body” in this section of the work, Howard is not referring to the Corpus, but the main part
of a unit, which then has sections branching off of it.
99
in power they that are in blood and kindred next ought to succeed in inheritance.”374 According
to Howard, Justinian had corrected earlier degrees of difference in the law, making males and
females equal inheritors. Furthermore, Howard asserted that a distinct difference existed between
the inheritance of private estates and the office of monarch. Laws concerning the private disposal
of estates, which were determined by man, did not apply to the inheritance of crowns, because
God chose monarchs.375
Secondly, Howard addressed the right of women to act upon the authority that came with
public offices. Howard referred to this section of the law as the “branches” of the law, specific
ordinances concerning women, such as exclusion from the public offices of judge and
magistrate, and private issues, such as the prohibition on women offering testimony, and dealing
with their children and adopting heirs. In doing so, he directly focused on the references in the
civil law that Knox had used in First Blast. Howard acknowledged that there was a difference
between the role of women in public offices and private estates, including the inheritance of
kingdoms. Nevertheless, he posited that women did exercise authority in the public realm, and in
this respect, Howard had contemporary custom on his side. Upper class English women regularly
took advantage of their position to influence civil and political decisions both directly and
indirectly.376 At the public level, boundaries were not as absolute as some might have liked
them.377 In 1503 the Inner Temple determined that women, both single and married, could act as
374
Ibid., fol. 126v. Cited in Shephard, Gender and Authority, 138.
Howard writes:“They [the detractors] are blind as I think that can’t find a difference between private persons and
heirs to crowns, between free will and necessity, between the council of a corporation that disposes as seems good
for their particular estate, and princes of dominion and power that provide for their posterity.” Fol.133v.
376
See Barbara Harris, “Women and Politics,” Judith Richards, “To Promote a Woman to Beare Rule,” Constance
Jordan, “Woman’s Rule,” and Margaret Sommerville, Sex and Subjection for discussions on ways in which women
expressed political influence and authority in society.
377
In English law, women were not considered a single category, nor were they explicitly prevented from holding
offices or participating in the political process. See Anne Laurence, Women and England, 1500-1760: A Social
History (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994), 238. However, Howard notes that Elizabeth had an active role in the
governing process: “we find that women are not so simple but they can deal both warily and soundly in resolving
375
100
justices of the peace.378 In 1549 Lady Elizabeth Copely sat as sole elector in Gatton, Surrey.379
And in 1572, a ruling confirmed the right of a peeress to transmit titles, although there was
debate as to whether a female could sit in the House of Lords if an heir was still in minority.380
More significant to Elizabeth I was the 1554 Act of Parliament ensuring Mary I’s authority as
equal to a male monarch’s by stating that she “shoulde have…and use suck lyke royal
authoritie…as kynges of thys realme her moost novle progenitours, have heretofore done.”381
Finally, Howard offered an alternative explanation as to why women had traditionally
been prevented from participating in public life. Within Roman law, women were protected from
the possibilities of defamation, insult, and strident behavior that often accompanied public
debates and law cases: “The first devisers of the law did rather mean it as a shield to modesty
then as a bar to right.”382 They were not barred due to inferiority, nor did the restrictions on
public life have any bearing on the inheritance of a royal estate. Howard drew his conclusions
from the precedents he believed he had set:
If these examples may be orderly compared to with those limitations which are alleged
out of the civil law, I doubt not but all reasonable men will soon perceive that rather
private women for the surer guard of their good names then heirs to kingdoms in respect
of any derogation from right were comprised in the prohibition.383
To this point, he wrote that women were, “equally capable of politick conceits, equally sufficient
to give sound advice, equally necessary for the maintenance of the commonwealth.”384 Women
matters of debate so often as they are put in trust.”139r. His reasoning for the deficiency in female representation
was not the lack of ability, but lack of the practical education necessary to fulfill the role of a judge or a magistrate.
378
Harris, “Women and Politics,” 269.
379
Ibid., 268-269.
380
See Richards, “To Promote a Woman to Beare Rule,” 104-105 for a discussion of Catherine Willoughby’s case
before Parliament.
381
“An Acte declaring that the Regall power of thys realme is in the Quenes Maiestie as fully and absolutely as ever
it was in anye her mooste noble progenytours kynges of thys Realme.”Tudor Constitutional Documents: 14851603, edited by J.R. Tanner (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948), 123. Also see Richards, “Mary Tudor
as ‘Sole Quene?’
382
“Dutifull Defence,” 137r.; Shephard, 139.
383
“Dutifull Defence,” fol. 132r.
384
Ibid., fol.155r.
101
may have been barred from certain positions for their protection, but when their services were
required, they were to be treated with equal respect and given equal authority because they were
fully able to fulfill the duties of their office.385
Following a standard pattern of rebuttal for each assertion and objection to the civil law,
Howard provided numerous historical examples of women who had held positions of authority
throughout the history of the Roman, Ptolemaic, and Byzantine Empires as evidence. Using the
histories of Tacitus and Suetonius, Howard offered commentary on Livia, Agrippina, Drusilla,
Theodora, and even Cleopatra—placing their positions of authority in reference to the kings and
Caesars they were related to. Within the context of the women he chose to highlight, Howard did
not differentiate between the authority of women who were regents, queen consorts or queens
regnant. The fact that they could inherit and offer political advice was based upon the same
principle, the theory of the law was overridden by reality; women were not barred from
“administration of the state or from succession in government.”386
In order to refute the objections to women holding positions of authority within the
family, Howard used biblical examples of women who had influence or control over their
children. Because Scripture was considered a valid part of law, and viewed as historically true, it
was common for authors to use biblical women to prove an argument.387 Howard discussed two
stories of women in Scripture, Rebecca and Ruth, as evidence of a woman’s control over their
385
See Jane F. Gardner, Women in Roman Law and Society (London: Croom Helm, 1986), 264. Gardner asserts that
women did play a role in the public sphere, even though they were officially barred from holding office through the
influence of personal connections and position. Also see Suzanne Dixon, “A Family Business: Women’s Role in
Patronage and Politics at Rome, 80-44 B.C. Classica et mediaevalia (34, 1983), 91-112.
386
“Dutiful Defence,” fol. 136v. See Richard Bauman, Women and Politics in Ancient Rome. (London: Routledge,
1992). Durham states that although the bar on women’s participation was constitutional in Rome, there were many
“avenues that gave women access to a more direct public role.”, 2. Bauman discusses the political roles of the same
women Howard discusses in his text.
387
Shephard, Gender and Authority, 144.
102
children.388 Moreover, he paid special attention to the daughters of Salphaad, whose story in the
book of Exodus was solid evidence in favor of female inheritance. Salphaad had no male issue.
However, Howard’s inclusion of the story in this section of his work was peculiar. He asserted
that if, hypothetically, Salphaad had been king of Judah, his eldest daughter would have received
the title and the power associated with her inheritance. Howard’s purpose was to confront Knox,
for the Scotsman could not disprove a woman’s right to inherit property. Instead, Knox denied
that women could act upon the authority that came with titles:
The question is not if women may not succeed to possession, substance, patrimony, or
inheritance, such as fathers may leave to their children; for that I willingly grant. But the
question is if women may succeed to their fathers in offices.389
Howard disagreed with Knox’s conclusion and chose to use the story of Salphaad as a
conclusion to his proof of the difference between private inheritance and titles to thrones.
Howard concluded “Dutifull Defence” with a third book on Divine law, tackling the
traditional belief that the law of nature reflected God’s will through the physical world. Civil law
emanated from God to man through man’s ability to reason. Therefore, they were both, at some
point, subject to natural variance and interpretation of circumstance. On the other hand, divine
law came directly from the mouth of God, through Scripture, and was not generally subject to
interpretation. The highest condemnation and declaration against female rulers was based on
divine law and Knox declared that a woman ruler violated the law of God. Howard disagreed and
began his argument with a bold statement- declaring that God created women equal to men. He
was fully aware of the debate about Eve, and how it related to contemporary women. Therefore,
388
“Dutifull Defence,” fol. 151r.; Genesis 26: 34-5; Ruth 2:2. Rebecca was displeased with her son’s choice of a
wife. Ruth was obedient when her mother in law instructed her on how to approach Boaz.
389
Knox, First Blast, 46v. “To bear rule or authority over man can neither be right nor inheritance to woman. For
that can neither be just inheritance to any person which God by his word hath plainly denied unto them, but to all
women hath God denied authority above man, as most manifestly is before declared.” Ibid.
103
he reviewed the assertions he had made about a woman’s position earlier in the manuscript so he
could “proceed” in a “more orderly” manner.390
The writings of St. Paul and the Church Fathers had heavily influenced opinion about
women’s position at creation and conventionally supported three truths about Eve. God had
created Eve after Adam, from Adam, and for Adam, evidence of her original subordination. As a
result, Eve’s person was not a complete image of God, and therefore flawed. After the fall, God
permanently sanctioned Eve’s position of subjection as a punishment for the sin for which she
was responsible: “You [Eve] are the Devil’s gateway. You are the first deserter of divine law;
You destroyed so easily God’s image, man.” 391 St. Augustine declared that the female was not
even made in the image of God: “the woman together with her own husband is the image of God,
so that the whole substance may be one image; but when she is referred separately to her quality
of help meet, which regards the woman herself alone, then she is not the image of God.”392 By
the early sixteenth century, when reformers disputed the traditional exegesis of Scripture, new
ideas about women emerged, challenging the conventional interpretation of Eve’s position in
Genesis. Eve was no longer seen as being created unequal to Adam. Instead, Eve was declared
equal to Adam from conception and created in the same image. Therefore, she was also the
spiritual equal to man and guaranteed salvation.393 John Calvin had accepted this more
progressive position, writing that the sexes were equal in “that glory which peculiarly shines
forth in human nature, where the mind, the will, and the senses, represent the divine order.”394
Martin Luther based his declaration of spiritual equality on Genesis 1:27: “Male and female, he
390
“Dutifull Defence,” fol. 156r.
Margaret Sommerville, 25, 26. Cited in Weisner, 12. Terutullian associated Eve’s position with all women.
392
St. Augustine, On the Trinity. 12:7; cited in Diana H. Coole, Women in Political Theory: From Ancient Misogyny
to Contemporary Feminism (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. 1988), 63.
393
Jordan, “Women’s Rule,” 421.
394
Shephard, Gender and Authority, 183.
391
104
created them.”395 However, Luther did not go so far as to claim total equality with men. Spiritual
equality did not equal social or political equality, and both religious reformers believed that
women were still subject to male authority in home and realm.396
Knox embraced the idea of female inferiority due to her condemnation by God: “For
God first by the order of his creation, and after by the curse and malediction pronounced against
the woman, by the reason of her rebellion; woman in her greatest perfection was made to serve
and obey man, not to rule or command him.”397 He associated Eve’s subjection to Adam with all
women: “This sentence I say, did God pronounce against Eve and her daughters . . . so that no
woman can ever presume to reign above man.”398 Knox then cited St. Augustine to support his
conclusion that women were not created in God’s image: “How can woman be the image of God,
seeing (says he) she is subject to man . . .compared to man, she may not be called the image of
God, for she bears not rule and lordship over man, but ought to obey him.”399 Eve’s sentence of
physical pain, multiplied sorrows, and subordination to her spouse was a permanent change
because God transferred Eve’s punishment to all women. Examples of women holding positions
of authority in Scripture were extraordinary exceptions and did not set any precedent for women
in the sixteenth century. Furthermore, natural and civil law simply reinforced divine law, which
was as binding in the sixteenth-century as it was in biblical times.
In his reply, Howard asserted four truths about women. First, women were endowed with
reason and therefore had equality of condition. Secondly, because women were given possession
over beasts at the same time as Adam, they had equal dominion over them. Third, women had
395
Genesis 1:27.
Shephard, Gender and Authority, 183.
397
Knox, First Blast, 13r.
398
Ibid., 14v.-15r; Sommerville, Sex and Subjection, 29-34.
399
Ibid., 20r. See Ian Maclean, The Renaissance Notion of Woman: A Study in the Fortunes of Scholasticism and
Medical Science in European Intellectual Life. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 13-14.
396
105
free will and were created in the image of God. Fourth, since women were created in the image
of God, they had the sanction to be monarchs: “Wherever we perceive to find the image of God,
we need not doubt that there is also power to bear rule.” These truths provided evidence of “the
plot of providence, this was the law of nature, this was the manner of our first creation.”400
Concerning the interpretation of Genesis chapter three, Howard disagreed with Knox, declaring,
“that equality of condition wherein both Sexes were created in the first.”401 Eve was not a
servant, but a helper in the sense of being a personal companion and a partner in procreation.
Howard interpreted man as meaning husband, not all humankind, claiming that it was the proper
translation from the Hebrew.402 A woman was indeed subject to her husband, but single women,
widows, and married women connected to other men were allowed to exercise authority if they
had the proper right to do so. Emphasizing the difference between private position and public
office, Howard went on to say specifically that the law laid down in Genesis did not apply to
women in positions of authority, “since he [God] is neither immutable nor contrary to himself,
the law set down in Genesis concerning duty and obedience of wives is not repugnant to the right
of any governess.”403 Concerning Eve’s position in relationship to God, Howard believed God
created her in His image, and on that basis, she was fully capable of exercising authority. He
wrote:
We find that women were endowed with reason, which is the rule of government as
well as men that they had equal dominion over creatures that possession was given
to both by God at one time and with one act in one degree with mind that both were
fashioned according to God’s Image; wherever we perceive or find the Image of
god we need not doubt that there is also the power to bear rule.404
400
“Dutifull Defence,” fol. 157r.
Ibid.
402
Ibid., fol. 187v.; Sheppard, “Henry Howard,” 597.
403
Ibid., fol. 162v.-163r.
404
Ibid., fol. 158r. Maclean , Renaissance Notion, 13-14.
401
106
Howard established Eve’s equality, and then moved on to discuss a woman’s right to
inherit property and titles, and once received, how a woman demonstrated their authority
according to natural and divine law. Howard asserted that in the sense of law, inheritance rights
were a part of a natural, evolutionary process. At the time of creation, God had not established
any laws concerning monarchy: “in this dawning of the day that were a foolish part to enquire of
any queen when the first foundation of monarchy was not yet established.”405 Mankind had
dominion over animals, but not over one another. He then emphasized his view on the natural
progression of law. The law, as laid down in Scripture, was definitive and unchanging. Instead,
he asserted that the decrees in Genesis were the starting point of a divinely inspired, natural, and
logical progression of principles that evolved, as reflected in Canon law.
Howard’s view was concurrent to the traditionally Catholic view of biblical exegesis and
Canon law. As stated earlier, Protestant belief tended to hold to a literal interpretation of
scripture, and Martin Luther’s construct of Sola Scriptora- “scripture alone.” However, Catholic
belief held onto the idea of the “four senses of Scripture.” According to the Church fathers, the
sacred word did have a literal sense, but also the spiritual, allegorical, moral, and analogical,
which ensured a “living” reading of Scripture that was malleable. The senses allowed scholars to
interpret it more completely in Canon law- the law of the Church as determined by Scripture and
tradition.406 Canon Law was divided into divine and natural law, and to this point, although
divine law was immutable, and unchanging, natural law was in essence, changeable in order to
adapt to different circumstances over time. In this respect, Howard’s stance reflected the
405
Ibid., fol. 157v.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica. 1:1:10. Aquinas: Summa Theologica. Complete English Edition in Five
Volumes. Vol. 1. (Notre Dame: Christian Classics, Ava Maria Press, 1948), 10-11. Also see Henri De Lubac,
Medieval Exegesis: The Four Senses of Scripture. Translated by Mark Sebanc. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998).
406
107
acknowledgement of the differences between divine and natural law that were recognized by the
Church after the Reformation.407
According to Howard, as mankind’s social needs changed, organized political systems
developed, including precedent for inheritance, and by the time complaints concerning
inheritance were first made in Genesis, some form of precedent must have been set. As an
example, he used Leah and Rachel, two daughters who complained against their father in
Genesis 31 for not honoring their right to inherit. Howard wrote: “for this they could not have
done with any likelihood unless both by the law of nature and the custom of that age they had
been sometime capable not of movables alone but for the same respect of natural inheritance.”408
He continued with his point by noting that by the time Salphaad’s daughters petitioned for their
inheritance in Numbers 27 it was natural for God to include women in the laws of inheritance.409
Howard asserted that God “pronounced with his voice that the motion was reasonable.”
Inheritance determined that “the daughters of Salphaad had not required a thing that was
unnatural but just carried in my opinion a special weight for answer to their natural demand.”410
It was a part of the natural process of evolving law.
As the law developed, God then established monarchy: “After it had seemed good to him
that governs all to limit all men’s actions by a written law…that an order was set down for
kings.”411 Furthermore, if God could change the law to allow monarchs in general, then he could
then modify the law to allow women to rule. Numerous biblical women had inherited property
and he used their examples as precedent to underscore God’s sanction on female authority: “Sure
407
See Strigi, R. Handbuch des Katholischen und Protestantischen Kirchenrechts. (Regensburg, 1983), 16.
Ibid., fol. 158r.
409
See Craig Taylor, “The Salic Law, French Queenship, and the Defense of Women in the Late Middle Ages.”
French Historical Studies. Vol. 29, No.4. (Fall, 2006): 543-564.
410
Ibid., fol. 160r.
411
Ibid., fol., 158r.
408
108
I am that the holy ghost acknowledges no difference in this respect for even as a daughter may
continue the name and honor of her father, so may she in like sort for anything I find, continue
his estate and claim all titles of authority that are linked to inheritance.”412 If women were equal
and could through the natural progression of the laws inherit property, it was also the natural
intention of God’s law for them to utilize the power that came with their titles. He then made the
association between the biblical examples and contemporary female heirs: “The same respect
and reason by which the Daughters of Salphaad demanded their allowance is as proper, if not
more expedient, for heirs general to kings. The right is one to all the mean, the curse, the end are
all the same.”413 Accordingly, cases cited in Scripture could be used as precedent to judge
current cases of female heirs.
After establishing the right of a woman to inherit and rule, Howard discussed a woman’s
capacity to fulfill the demands of the office. The accusation of unworthiness was not an unusual
argument. Citing Aristotle to Augustine, men had proclaimed the unworthiness of women to
govern men, and Knox addressed the assertion in First Blast. In fact, one of his main reasons for
forbidding female rule, after the pronouncement laid down in Genesis, was that women were
simply not capable or worthy of holding positions of authority. Knox drew heavily upon the
examples of Tertullian, Augustine, Ambrose and others, citing them extensively to prove a
woman’s inferior character.414 Knox declared women to be, “weak, frail, impatient, feeble and
foolish: and experience hath declared them to be inconstant, variable, cruel and lacking the spirit
of counsel and regiment.”415 Women placed into positions of authority over men were incapable
of resisting pride. Individuals who governed had to be “constant, stable, prudent, and doing
412
Ibid., fol. 159v.
Ibid., fol. 161r. See Numbers 36:1-12.
414
Greaves, Theology and Revolution, 162. Felch, “The Rhetoric of Biblical Authority,” 806.
415
Knox, First Blast, 12v.
413
109
everything with discretion and reason, which virtues women cannot have in equality with
men.”416 Knox also used the biblical examples of Jezebel and Athalia to prove the incapability of
women, even though he had previously stated that the use of examples was not valid for making
a point.
Instead of focusing on the opinions of the Church as Knox had, in his section on female
ability to rule, Howard concentrated on the numerous biblical women who were considered
capable of holding the positions they were given. He cited Deborah as a chief example of a
worthy woman, and her position as a Judge as dramatic proof of a woman’s ability to rule
“because a woman was not thought unworthy to rule in the choice of God (from whom the
fountain of wisdom springs) to bear rule over men; and the same god …made Deborah sufficient
to rule.”417 He praised her ability to stabilize the nation stating that “Israel did hold a most direct
and godly course while she bare rule.”418 Howard noted that during the reigns of male Judges,
Israel had gone astray and went so far as to say that the Israelites preferred Deborah’s rule to
those before her who “had proved to their loss how unable sundry men that governed before had
been.”419 Interestingly, for Howard’s focus on Deborah was in keeping with the construct of
Elizabeth as Deborah, an analogy Protestants made after her accession. Elizabeth was a Deborah,
sent by God to save the people of England from the Roman Church.420 In his analogy of
Deborah, Knox made no exception for Deborah in relation to English queens. Her authority was
simply prophetic and was not a substitute for authority. Knox also took the opportunity to refute
the claims of Salphaad’s daughters in the same section of commentary, and stated of all three
416
Ibid., 24r.
Ibid., fol.163r. See Michele Osherow, “ ‘Give ear o’ Princes’: Deborah as a Model for Female Authority. In her
Biblical Women’s Voices in Early Modern England (London: Ashgate, 2009) for a discussion on Deborah in
thought and relation to Elizabeth I.
418
Ibid., fol. 163v.
419
Ibid.
420
Osherow, Biblical Women’s Voices, 81.
417
110
women: “To sum up: “…neither the example of Deborah, neither the law made for the daughters
of Salphaad, neither the foolish consent of an ignorant multitude, be able to justify that which
God hath so plainly condemned…”421 First Blast may have been published before Elizabeth’s
accession, no doubt his negative commentary toward Deborah, and all women was not ignored
by the new queen.422
Howard brought his arguments together and concluded the issue of inheritance by stating
he believed that the intention of God’s law was to provide for the well-being and peace of his
people. If this meant changing a law in order to maintain the good, then it could be done without
changing God’s intention. For Howard, laws were to be seen in their essence. Knox tended to
look at the letter of the law because he would go no further than the first ordinance of God.
Howard saw the law as more pliable and states, “for as it was apparent to the providence of god
that the question would oftentimes fall out so in like sort, it pleased him to take certain order
beforehand that it might be decided always according to one rule of equity.”423 Believing this to
be so, Howard posited that some laws were meant for only a time, that some were meant to be
changed or repealed if they needed to be changed for the good of the people, but all law, like that
laid down in the Scriptures was still the law of God, since the law came from Him to begin with.
Knox dedicated a considerable amount of First Blast to Paul’s advice laid out in his
letters in the New Testament. Knox believed that Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and
therefore binding as God’s word: “but the Holy Ghost gives to us another interpretation of this
place, taking from all women all kind of superiority, authority and power over man, speaking as
flowing by the mouth of Saint Paul.”424 Knox cited Paul’s recommendations to the Church, and
421
Knox, First Blast; Political Writings, 64-65.
Healy, “Waiting for Deborah,” 377-378.
423
Ibid., fol. 160v.
424
Knox, 15r.
422
111
extrapolated from them the association to all women under all circumstances: “The apostle takes
power from all woman to speak in the assembly, ergo, he permits no woman to rule above
man.”425 Furthermore, he believed the writings of Tertullian and Augustine supported his
conclusion, and accused men who accepted a woman’s rule to the blinded by “miserable
bondage.” The Pauline condemnations combined with the decrees in Genesis, made a woman’s
subjection complete, and he likened any attempt to deviate from his conclusion as tyranny.426
In addressing each objection, Howard maintained the same style of argument he had used
when addressing the objections according to natural and civil law. First, he refuted the statement
against women, and then provided examples to prove that women could perform the supposedly
prohibited role. He presented a progressive view of scriptural exegesis by stating that Paul’s
prohibition of women speaking in the Church, should be interpreted in light of the situation at the
time. Paul’s command may have applied to women in a particular congregation, but application
of the decree could not be applied to all women, nor could it be extrapolated that it applied to any
situation outside the Church: “I deny that either Moses or David or Joshua spoke to the people in
that kind which they that are precise call speaking at this day that is preaching of the word or that
Saint Paul, whose words without his meaning they would urge did speak of any congregation
then the Church.”427 His opinion fit in with his view of law in general, that laws were applicable
to certain people under certain circumstances, and no law could be deemed as unalterable. With
regard to God’s law, man may not have been able to change it, but God could, and did when he
saw it as necessary.
Ultimately, Howard’s objection to Knox’s declarations was the Scotsman’s literal view of
Scripture and his refusal to apply alternate interpretations of law to a given circumstance.
425
Ibid., 16v.
Ibid., 33r.
427
“Dutifull Defence,” fol. 217r.
426
112
Howard refuted Knox in each case by offering views of scriptural exegesis and application. God
created women in his image and they were therefore equal to men in mind and spirit. According
to Scripture, women were able to inherit titles and act upon their authority. Furthermore, laws
could evolve and change as necessary to ensure the well-being of people and the state. Natural
law reinforced sacred law and both provided women with the sanction needed to rule as a
monarch—a position that no man was allowed to prevent them from acceding to, or take away
from them if they were the legal heir. If it can extrapolated from the remaining sections in the
Appendix manuscripts that Howard had completed his arguments against Knox, the treatise may
very well have been finished based on the copy in secretary hand as well as Howard’s own
handwriting. However, the very circumstances that induced him to write in 1577 also created a
series of events that dramatically changed Howard’s life over the next decade. The 1580’s
produced extensive political change, and introduced additional authors writing against the queen,
and as will be seen, it provided Howard with the opportunity to change and expand “Dutifull
Defence” beyond its first edition into a work more reflective of Elizabeth’s world in 1590.
113
CHAPTER FIVE
THE VIA MEDIA AND POLITICS
Henry Howard completed the first drafts of “Dutifull Defence” at some point between
1577 and 1581, and he may have desired to present the treatise to Elizabeth during the Anjou
negotiations while the Catholics were still maintaining an aura of power at court. However,
events over the next five years inflamed suspicion of Catholics and possible conspirators,
interfering with his ability to continue working on the defense. Between 1581 and 1585 Howard
faced accusations of conspiracy and treason resulting in numerous arrests, interrogations and
confinements. All of the plots he was supposedly involved in between 1581 and 1587 revolved
around the continuing problem of Elizabeth producing or declaring a legitimate heir for the
English throne and support for Mary Queen of Scots. Intrigues ensued involving courtiers,
councilors, ambassadors, and numerous commoners who had contact with both Elizabeth’s court
and the Scottish queen. Mary’s supporters still believed she was the legitimate heir to the English
throne. In reaction, Elizabeth’s ministers sought to eliminate Mary as a threat to England and
their queen. Elizabeth knew Mary was dangerous, but hesitated at the thought of executing a
sovereign queen. Her unwillingness to act, combined with her refusal to name a successor,
opened the door to several attempts to invade England, dethrone Elizabeth and put Mary in her
place, or assassinate Elizabeth in order to clear the way for Mary’s ascent. And, not surprisingly,
Howard ended up being associated with all of the plots, and once again found himself in trouble.
As has been seen, in the early 1580’s the Catholics in court aligned themselves in
opposition to the earl of Leicester by supporting the Anjou marriage, and Sussex was the
principal patron of the group. Howard had taken advantage of his favorable position with Sussex
114
and the Catholic gentlemen by writing the treatise in favor of a union with Anjou.428 In fact,
during the Anjou negotiations, Henry II had written to Howard thanking him for his assistance:
I have heard from my ambassador, M. de Mauvissiere, how on every opportunity
that can serve to confirm the friendship between the Queen of England and
myself, and especially in regard to her marriage according to my desire with my
brother the Duke of Anjou, you employ your good offices, and forget nothing
which your good natural disposition, desiring of seeing our amity established, can
affect. From which I assure you I have received great pleasure and satisfaction,
and am most grateful to you, as you deserve, and as I shall always on occasion be
glad to show.429
However, when it became clear that the French would not support the English Catholics if the
marriage were not to occur, the Sussex contingent turned to Spain, opening up a new avenue of
intrigue and facilitating the events that would cause Henry Howard much trouble in the first half
of the decade. The earl of Oxford, Howard’s one time companion, cousin, and confidant betrayed
his fellow Catholics, and facilitated the disintegration of the group from 1581 on.
Oxford, saw the Catholic’s overtures toward Spain as treasonous, and after Howard had
informed Elizabeth about Leicester’s marriage to one of the queen’s ladies in waiting, Lettice
Knollys, the earl vowed retaliation. In December 1580 he managed to woo Oxford away from
Catholic alliance.430 Fearful of repercussions for his behavior during the 1570’s and the treatment
of his wife, Oxford openly and eagerly confessed his Catholic associations to the queen and then
accused Howard and his Catholic allies of recusancy and conspiracy.431 Leicester offered
Howard’s friend, Philip Arundell a thousand pounds to implicate Howard specifically, but
Arundell refused to betray his friend.432 Luckily for Howard, at this point Elizabeth did not
consider the matter to be very serious, as Howard and Arundell had actively supported the
428
B. L., Harleian MSS 180, “Discourse Concerning the Match Between Queen Elizabeth and duke’ d’Anjou.”
CSPF, 252.
430
Peck, Leicester’s Commonwealth, 19.
431
Ward, Oxford, 206; Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 124.
432
PRO, SP 15/27A/46.
429
115
French marriage. Moreover, her prior knowledge of their religious affiliation did not seem to
cause alarm. Elizabeth said she would “close her eyes to it,” so long as it went no further and
both Howard and Arudell were released.433 Nevertheless, Leicester refused to give up, and
approached the queen a second time with information intended to implicate the two friends. This
time Leicester presented the queen with a list of formal charges against Howard and Arundell,
including not only recusancy and conspiracy, but disrespectful conduct toward the queen.434
Fearing that his liberty would soon be compromised once again, Howard wrote to Walsingham,
protesting his innocence.435
Howard’s suspicions were well founded. Using Oxford’s information given to Leicester
as warrant, Howard and Arundell were arrested for discussing treasonable activities while
frequenting a tavern in London, and associating with Jesuit priests.436 Shortly after being taken
into custody, Howard again wrote to Walsingham, attempting to explain his conduct. He insisted
that he had never been unfaithful to Elizabeth, and that he only attended mass in order to satisfy
his conscience on points of the sacraments.437 Arundell underwent several interrogations, always
denying that he and Howard had met on the occasions mentioned in Leicester and Oxford’s
accusations. Howard then went a step further than Arundell in order to defend himself, not only
refuting Oxford’s accusations, but accusing the earl of being an atheist, participating in
dangerous practices, attempting to murder Leicester, and committing indecent acts including
433
C.R.S. 21. 29-30, as cited in Peck, Leicester’s Commonwealth, 20.
See Nelson, Monstrous Adversary, 273-275 for an account of Howard’s and Arundel’s arrest.
435
PRO, SP 12/150/81. Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 123.
436
PRO, SP 12/151/42 and 12/151/47. Howard and Arundell were alleged to have met at a tavern in Fleet Street as
well as at Northumberland’s home. Howard was accused of supporting the interests of the young king of Scots and
of slandering the queen. “He hath said the duke of Guise who was a rare and gallant gentleman should be the man to
come to Scotland, who would breech her Majesty for all her wantonness.” Documents 12/151/42-57 detail the
account in full. These entries are dated 1581, but contain no month or day. However, they correspond with the
events of late 1580 and early 1581.
437
PRO, SP 12/147/6.
434
116
bestiality, necromancy, and sodomy with Sir Philip Sidney438 Howard even went so far as to
claim that Oxford had conscripted a murder in 1577, which Howard had witnessed.439 In
addition, Howard appealed to Burghley, providing the names of several people who could vouch
for his conduct.440 The matter reached a climax when Oxford was forced to make an account of
his own adulterous exploits on the continent and in his marriage in July, 1581. Elizabeth also
forced Oxford to confront Howard and Arundell directly with his accusations, and although there
was no formal trial over the matter, Howard was remitted to custody for several months.441 He
wrote to Sir Christopher Hatten, the Lord Chamberlain concerning his situation: “I have lain
seven months in prison, and yet am not privy to the least offence either to my Prince or
country.”442 Howard believed that Hatton would help him as the Lord Chamberlain had a
reputation with the Catholics as a supporter of their cause and the belief that he was a possible
co-religionist.443 However, the plea went unheard and Howard and Arundell remained in custody
from December 1580 until July 1581. Once released, Howard decided to write to Leicester in an
attempt to improve their relationship, but to no avail.444 Leicester continued his mission to break
up the Catholic supporters of the Anjou match. The Catholic gentleman, realizing the French
marriage negotiations had failed, continued their work on behalf of Mary Stuart and her claim to
the English throne.
438
PRO, SP 12/151/57. Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 123; More specifically, Howard stated that Oxford had
“often tymes copulation with a female spirite in Sir George Howardes house at Grenwich,” that “Charles Tyrrell
apperid to him with a whippe after he was dead and his mother in a shete fortelling things to come,” and “that he
could coniure and had often conference with Satan.” LIB 4.2/2 as cited in Nelson, Monstrous Adversary,58-59.
439
LIB 3.1/4 as cited in Nelson, Monstrous Adversary, 174. Arundel backed up all of Howard’s accusations in his
own testimony.
440
BL, Cotton MSS, Titus C CVI, fols. 2r-3r; fols. 4r-5v contain a letter to the Queen concerning Oxford.
441
PRO, SP 12/151/69. Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 124.
442
BL Add. MSS 15891, fol. 119b. Cited in Sir Nicholas Harris, Memoirs of the Life and Times of Sir Christopher
Hatton, K.G. (London: Richard Bentley, 1847), 377.
443
MacCaffrey, Queen Elizabeth, 103.
444
PRO, SP 12/150/51.
117
Significantly, it was during the 1581 dispute that Howard became acquainted with
Bernardino de Mendoza, the Spanish ambassador. Mendoza had arrived at the English court in
1578 with orders to maintain civil relations with Queen Elizabeth and support Spanish interests,
but was unsuited in temperament for his assigned task. Shunned by Elizabeth’s councilors,
Mendoza courted, and was courted by, the English Catholics and supporters of the queen of
Scots.445 By 1581 Mendoza was a confidant of Mary Stuart. He was also sympathetic to the
Howard family, referring to Henry as “a good Catholic” who had faithfully performed his duties
to the Church.446 In fact, Mendoza considered him one of the more dedicated Catholics in the
realm: “This gentleman is in close connection with all the Catholic gentlemen in the kingdom;
for this reason, I have kept up a close intimacy with him.”447 He was also aware of Howard’s
problems with Oxford and became personally involved in the situation.
In a letter to Philip II in late 1581, Mendoza explained that after Howard and Arundell
learned of the queen’s desire to have them arrested the two came to his house, seeking refuge.
Mendoza obliged, because he had known Howard “by repute for years past, by means of
priests.”448 At that point, the ambassador had been out of favor with the queen for some time and
was forbidden to appear at court. Therefore, after his release in 1581, Howard became
Mendoza’s court contact during the ambassador’s times of absence:
In his gratitude for my kindness in sheltering him, Lord Harry has expressed to
me most emphatically that all that he has is at your Majesty’s service, thus
showing his acknowledgment for the favor I did him, which is no small novelty
for an Englishman to do.449
445
Mendoza initiated contact with Mary Queen of Scots in 1581. Andersson suggests that one of the reasons
Howard openly engaged in contact with Mendoza was because of the ambassador’s new association with Mary.
Lord Henry Howard, 121.
446
CSPS, 145.
447
CSPS, 315.
448
CSPS, 246; MacCaffrey, Queen Elizabeth, 316. Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 124.
449
Ibid.
118
Over the next few years, Howard provided Mendoza with information and court gossip,
especially regarding the issue of the queen’s marriage negotiations with Anjou, and the issue of
Mary Queen of Scots.450 In 1582, Mendoza encouraged the king to grant Howard a pension, for
he was considered an “extremely zealous” and valuable contact. Agreeing to Mendoza’s request,
Phillip granted Howard 1,200 crowns a year for his services.451 Howard and Mendoza continued
to correspond until Mary Stuart’s death, but the contact would cost Howard his freedom and
nearly his life.
In the introductory letter of “Dutifull Defence,” Howard attests to the danger of the
situation in 1581. He indicates that he began to work on the treatise in earnest after a brief respite
from suspicion, but he was forced to stop work once again due to all of the problems he had been
facing: “So likewise after I had put my vessel under sail and doubled the Cape of Good Hope
with wind at will, my mast was broken, my tackle torn, and which did most of all discourage me
my pilot perished.452 Howard’s language may have been florid, but his analogy directly
referenced events in the early 1580’s, his association with Mendoza, and the Catholics, who,
though keeping a low profile, were still attempting to secure their agenda at court. Importantly
to Howard during these years was his close relationship with Sussex. Howard and Sussex were
especially close, and Sussex’s death in 1583 was a blow to Howard personally.453 Sussex had
been a good friend to Henry’s late brother Thomas, and has always cautioned the impetuous
450
Even though Howard was directly involved with Mary, she was always cautious about contact with Howard,
perhaps because of his close contact with people at court. She wrote to Mendoza about her reservations: “I will write
you a word by Lord Harry to assure you that you may safely send by him any letters to me that you may think
proper, but do not trust him with anything of importance.” CSPS, 315.
451
CSPS, 364. Medoza writes: Lord Harrry continues to serve with his usual care and intelligence. I understand that
we cannot give him less than 1,000 or 1,200 crowns a year.”; MacCaffrey, Queen Elizabeth, 322-23.
452
"Dutifull Defence," fol. 3v.
453
Mendoza noted their friendship in his correspondence with Philip: “He is extremely intimate with Sussex.” CSPS,
246; MacCaffrey, Queen Elizabeth, 317.
119
duke against trusting men who claimed to be his allies.454 Exceptionally loyal to the queen,
Sussex was involved in the problems surrounding Mary Stuart from the beginning.455 When
Howard found himself in danger again toward the end of 1583, Sussex’s death in October
compounded his destitution. When Howard lamented that his pilot had perished, he was speaking
of Sussex as Sussex had been his stronghold through the early 1580’s. However, after the earl’s
death, when Howard spoke about his broken mast and torn tackle, he was referring to the
consequences of the next plot to threaten Elizabeth-the Throckmorton Plot.
In late 1583, the duke of Guise sponsored a plot to assassinate Elizabeth for the sum of
100,000 francs. When the hired assassin backed out of the venture, Guise and the English
Catholics living on the continent joined forces with the papal nuncio in Rome in planning a
double invasion of England.456 In September, under Guise’s direction, Charles Paget (Lord
Paget’s brother and another emissary for Mary Stuart) arrived in England with instructions to
enlist the support of Catholic magnates for a planned invasion of the Sussex coast. The incursion
was intended to be two pronged, with the Spanish army landing in Scotland and the French army
in England. Their intention was to rescue Mary Stuart, secure toleration for Catholics, and if
necessary, depose Elizabeth. Mendoza and a common recruit named Francis Throckmorton were
given instructions to organize the English Catholics and plan a rising when the two armies
arrived.457 Throckmorton had been previously involved with Mary Stuart, working as one of her
postmen. For her part, Mary was fully aware of the plan and approved the entire enterprise.458
454
Sussex and Norfolk had aligned themselves against Leicester during the Hapsburg marriage negotiations, which
were inflated to levels of near violence between court factions in the 1560s. For a discussion of the Norfolk-Sussex
alliance and how it affected court Catholicism, see Susan Doran, “Religion and Politics at the Court of Elizabeth I.”
add full entry
455
MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 118, 130.
456
Ibid., 341; Read, Walsingham, 384;
457
Ibid., 341, 342; Peck, Leicester’s Commonwealth, 23.
458
Mary’s letters approving the conspiracy provided the evidence needed to finally expedite her demise and eventual
execution in 1587.
120
In spite of careful planning, the conspiracy was soon discovered. Due to his frequent
visits to the French embassy, Throckmorton quickly aroused the suspicion of Sir Francis
Walsingham, Secretary of State and Privy Councilor. Walsingham responded rapidly, and for the
next six months his network of agents tracked Throckmorton, who was finally seized in
November. Henry Howard was pulled into the group of suspects in April, 1583 when one of
Walsingham’s spies, Henry Fagot, reported that the chief agents for the queen of Scots were
Throckmorton and Lord Henry Howard.459 It was implied that on April 29, 1583 Howard had
visited the French ambassador at Salisbury Court to discuss Mary Queen of Scots.460 Howard
was brought in for questioning in July, 1583, but was not imprisoned at the time. He was then
brought in again in November for further questioning. On November 9, Robert Beale, a clerk of
the Council, wrote to Walsingham stating that Sir Ralph Sadler and Sir Walter Mildmay, both
anti-Catholic privy councilors who objected to the possible Stuart succession, had information
concerning Henry Howard that they wished to relate to Elizabeth. Lord Hunsdon, a privy
counselor, led Howard’s interrogation, and Howard was directly accused of secretly
corresponding with the queen of Scots. He was also asked about his knowledge of, and
correspondence with Charles Paget, and about his communications with the French ambassador
with regard to Mary’s plight. Howard was also accused receiving a ring from the Scottish queen
as a token of her regard for him, accusations he denied. Howard wrote:
[N]either I spake ever with one Throckmorton (with whose familiar acquaintance
I was charged) more than once, and then of nothing otherwise than fell out by
chance, without offence to any man alive; neither did I ever receive any ring from
the queen of Scots, whereof I was accused.461
459
Read, Walsingham, 381. Fagot’s confession was originally transcribed in French. “Le grande fauteurs de la royne
decosse est le Sieur Frocquemorton et le milord Henry Howard et ils ne vienent jamais raporte chose d’icelleque la
nuit.” SP Mary Queen of Scots, 12/61; Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 145.
460
BL Cotton MS Caligula, C VII, fol. 214; Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 145.
461
BL Cotton MS Caligula C VII, fol. 261. Also cited in Nott, 435; BL, Add.MSS.15891, fol. 122b. Also cited in
Read, Walsingham, 369.
121
Hunsdon was not convinced and Howard remained in custody. The situation became worse later
in the month when William Herle, diplomat and spy for Walsinghsam, accused Howard of being
a priest, being in the pay of one of the Pope’s cardinals, and wanting to start a revolt: “Ytt is he
[Howard] that advised Simier to procede by the papists to establish his Monsieur here, and to
purge religion by the blood of sondry of our gretest houses in England.”462 It seemed as if
Howard would finally be defeated by his enemies.
The interrogation continued on December 17 when members of the council met with
Howard once again, and the earl of Northumberland questioned Howard about his knowledge of
Throckmorton and Lord Paget. The next day one George More was questioned about his
knowledge of Throckmorton, Paget, one T. Morgan, the earl of Shrewsbury, Charles Arundel,
and Henry Howard in regard to their dealings with the Queen of Scots.463 Howard was then
examined by Lord Hunsdon and Robert Beale on January 1, 1584, and questioned about letters
that had passed between Paget and Mary Queen of Scots.464 Howard relates in both a personal
letter and the introductory letter of “Dutifill Defence” that in 1584 his home was invaded, and as
he stated, my “desks and coffes have been broken uppe my papers serched.”465 Moreover, during
January, a servant of George More’s confessed that he had delivered letters from Mary to the earl
of Arundel and a Catholic nobleman. The servant’s account was confirmed when one of Mary’s
letters fell into Walsingham’s hands: “If you can, get access directly or indirectly to
Throckmorton or [Lord Henry] Howard, assure them in my name that I shall never forget their
462
November, 1583. BL Lansdowne MS 39, f. 190v.
CSPD, 138, 139.
464
BL, Cotton MSS, Caligula C VII, fol. 269. In the interrogation, Howard acknowledged arranging to deliver
letters,, which were always blank on the outside, and he did not know who was wanting them delivered. Alford,
Burghley, 251. Alford describes Henry Howard as “a dangerous man.” He states that Howard’s education,
cleverness, “social clout,” and connections through his late brother, made it necessary for him to be watched.
465
DUL Howard MS 5, fol. 40v as cited in Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 150.
463
122
affection for me and their great suffering in my cause.”466 The final blow for Howard came on
February 12, when he was committed to the Tower on suspicion of treason.467 For their part,
Lord Paget and Charles Arundel fled to France when they heard of Throckmorton’s arrest, and
the details of the plot came out. Guise had sent an agent to England in 1583 to brief Catholic
sympathizers. Throckmorton worked as an informant for Guise, and had been helped by
Mendoza. If Throckmorton fell, Paget would take over.468 For Howard’s part no proof could be
found of his direct complicity, but he was still imprisoned. In desperation, he appealed to
Burghley: “I will protest unto your Lord after the close endurance of six months wherein I have
been subject to all kinds of search, and trial that may bolt out truth, that I stand most free from
guilt in any point whereof I was accused.”469 Yet, once again, Howard was not set free.
Howard remained in the Tower until he was finally released in August, 1584. He was
permitted to go to Redgrave, although he remained under close observation for several months.
Writing in 1590, Howard recalled his troubles with candor, and spoke about opinions of him and
the motives for his work:
Integrity was then accounted flattery, respect to conscience corruption, plain
dealing fraud. The drift of my discourse was wrongfully indicted at a privy
council session before it could appear by any outward act, process was served on
my arguments before they could be set in readiness to pass and I myself uncited,
unexamined, unheard was adjudged guilty by voice of many spiteful jurors.470
Howard then expounded on the particular accusations that had been brought against him.
He claimed there were individuals who thought that the defense of female rule should not
466
Read, Walsingham, 389. Read cites Labanoff, Lettres de Marie Stuart, 5/424
PRO, SP 12/168/14; DNB, s.v. Henry Howard 29; Nott, 435. There is a discrepancy between authors as to
whether Howard was placed in the Tower or the Fleet. The DNB and Nott both state that Howard was incarcerated
in the Fleet. However, the entry for his arrest in the Calendar of State papers states that he was removed to the
Tower and is cited as such in this work.
468
Alford, Burghley, 255. Also see Read, Walsingham, 422;
469
BL, Cotton MSS, Titus C VI, fol. 32v.
470
"Dutifull Defence," fol. 3v.
467
123
have been addressed. More importantly, Howard believed he had been attacked for his
supposed participation in conspiracy with the Spanish, and interestingly, that he was
composing his defense specifically for Mary Stuart: “Another company accused me of
sailing with a side wind of hailing to the north point like a cunning bargeman, when my
eye was in the south of offering to saints unknown and seeking under the safe protection
of an eagles wings to hatch a cockatrice.471 Howard had previously been accused of
communicating with Mary Stuart during the Ridolfi Plot, and then the Norfolk marriage
plot. It is not surprising that those who were suspect of Howard might think he was
writing for the Scottish queen rather than Elizabeth. Nevertheless, Howard protested,
stating that he felt the interrogations he underwent were unfounded, and that those
accusing him had no proof of his guilt. He accepted that, considering the circumstances,
it was advantageous for him to stop writing, “cast anchor in a quiet harbor,” and attend
less controversial pursuits.472 Nevertheless, Howard continued to be harassed for the
remainder of the decade and expressed his frustration to the queen: “I know not where to
place myself, without displacing my desires nor where to pick up any better comfort than
in remaining altogether comfortless.”473 Howard may have despaired over his situation,
but his resilience never abated. He continued his attempts to appease the Queen and
convince her of his loyalty.
Howard was vehement that he had never transgressed his loyalty to Queen Elizabeth.
Nevertheless, he frequently teetered on the brink of treason by involving himself in the
471
Ibid., fol. 4r. A cockatrice, or basilisk, was a serpent like creature whose breath and glance were fatal. The term
was often applied to people or used as a reference of reproach for a woman. Howard uses the word with a touch of
irony, not referring to a woman, but a conspiracy revolving around a woman reproached by the English regime.
OED s.v.
472
Ibid., fol. 4v.
473
Ibid., fol. 5v.
124
dangerous world that combined religion and politics. Often, he was aware of the risk he was
taking. In his letters to Philip II, Mendoza related Howard’s concerns, and revealed something
of Howard’s relationship with the Spanish:
He [Howard] assures me that, seeing the many enemies he has in England, he is
greatly desirous of rendering service to your Majesty, in order that, if he is
unfortunate enough to be obliged to leave this country before he sees the queen of
Scotland in the position he desires, your Majesty may receive him.474
For men disillusioned by the lack of tolerance for English Catholics, Mary Stuart’s declining
position, and Elizabeth’s unsuccessful marriage negotiations, it might be worth the possible
appearance of treason to secure religious acceptance and political success.
In addition to intermittent persecution he suffered in the early 1580’s, in 1586 Howard
again found himself indirectly involved in another conspiracy known as the Babington plot.475 A
seminary priest named John Ballard had met with Mendoza in France, informing the then exiled
ambassador that a plan was evolving among the English Catholics to assassinate the queen. After
Mendoza’s support was secured, Anthony Babington, a wealthy, young Catholic gentleman and
supporter of the Jesuit mission in England, was enlisted to help raise support for the uprising,
which would free Mary Stuart from captivity after Elizabeth was dead.476 The design of the plot
expanded through July, but Walsingham intercepted several letters from Mary Stuart, which
openly discussed the plan. Babington was captured on August 14, and the affair ultimately gave
Walsingham the evidence he needed to justify Mary’s execution.477 Howard was never
questioned or named as an official conspirator, but in a letter to Philip II, Mendoza mentioned
474
CSPS, 316.
See Read, Lord Burghley and Queen Elizabeth, 342-347; Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 157-158.
476
Read, Lord Burghley, 343; Andersson, 157. Also see Antonia Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots (New York: Random
House, 1969), 481-484.
477
Ibid., 493.
475
125
Howard as one of the Catholic gentleman prepared to raise troops.478 It is unlikely that Howard
would have been deeply involved in a plan supporting a sovereign’s murder. Throughout his life,
he consistently discouraged open resistance that called for such extreme measures. In a letter
written later in life, Howard spoke of his counsel to Queen Mary during her time as a prisoner: “I
did ever advise her to win time . . . to discourage practice with patience . . . so I fled those giddy
councilors of ill seasoned colors, which did not stick, out of the fervency of ambition, to put her
life in the hazard for the satisfaction of their vast desires.”479
It is remarkable that in spite of the intrigue and imprisonments between 1581 and 1585,
no sustaining evidence was found against Howard, and unlike his father and brother, he survived.
Moreover, during all of the turmoil Howard experienced during the 1580’s, he never gave up on
his writing, even if his attention was not focused on “Dutifull Defence.”480 For Howard, like his
father the earl of Surrey, adversity only seemed to stimulate the creative process, and perhaps
provided an escape from the troubles surrounding him at the time. Over the years he wrote many
works, including five devotional offices written between 1580 and 1589, reflecting his continued
preference for Catholicism.481 For Howard and other Catholics in Elizabethan England, the use
of devotionals had become important as a source in personal worship as Elizabeth’s reign
progressed and laws altered how Catholics could outwardly express their faith.482 Devotional
aids were printed on the Continent, and families also relied on surviving copies of older
478
CSPS, 604.
BL, Cotton MSS, Titus C VI, fol. 138.
480
Howard’s notes from the time, contained in DUL Howard MS 1 indicate the beginnings of a work on alchemy.
As cited in Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 151.
481
The offices include: BL Arundel MS 300; BL Additional MS 78414; DUL Howard MS 1; DUL Howard MS 5;
and University of Virginia, Rare Book School 4876. All of them are complete or partial copies of devotional
materials. Andersson discusses the devotionals, but fails to indicate who they were presented to, except for
Additional MS 78414. Howard indicates that copying Scripture was a way to impress them upon the heart. Fol. 42.
This idea was not unheard of. All of them are at this time non vidi.
A Defensative Against the Poyson of Supposed Prophecies (London: Iohn Charlewood, printer to the right
Honourable Earle of Arundell, 1583).
482
Christopher Haigh, “The Continuity of Catholicism in the English Reformation.” Past and Present. No. 93,
(November, 1981): 66.
479
126
devotional works already in their possession.483 Howard combined the use of traditional
Catholic, liturgical material, with the practice of versification of the Psalms.484Interestingly, one
of the devotions recalled a motet based on Psalm 136 by English composer, and ardent Catholic,
William Byrd.485
Like Howard, William Byrd had been accused of recusancy and involvement in the
Babington Plot. He was also involved with the Paget family during the Throckmorton Plot, and
during the first Jesuit mission to England in1580, he was described as one of the likely “friends”
and “ayders” to exiled Catholics. 486 He was interrogated along with Howard in 1583.487 It is
possible that Howard may have been writing one of the devotionals for Byrd, who was a friend,
and had been through very similar experiences. He also dedicated one of them to Lord Burghley.
Being acutely aware of the precariousness of his position at court, it was necessary to pacify the
reformed councilor as well as write privately for his friends.488
It was also during this time that we wrote one of his only published works, A Defensative
Against the Poyson of Supposed Prophecies (1583). The work is a discourse against astrology
and the occult and, oddly enough, dedicated to Walshingham, even though the minster had done
everything possible to find Howard guilty of treason.489 Howard was, no doubt, trying to appease
the minister and bolster his defense. Howard’s basis for the work is the implication that astrology
is a flawed system due to its absence of gratitude toward God. To Howard, reason is inferred to
483
Ibid., 67
Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 151-152. Andersson notes the the relationship between Howard and his father
in that the earl of Surrey also produced works based on the Pslams. Howard was particularly fond of the Pius V
breviary, which he mentions in a note to Burghley in Additional MS 78414.
485
The motet is Super flumina Babylonis.
486
Jeremy L. Smith, “ ‘Unlawful song’: Byrd, the Babington Plot and the Paget Choir.” Early Music. Vol. 38, No. 4.
(2010): 498.
487
Ibid.; Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 153.
488
The devotion in BL Additional MS 78414 is prefaced by an dedication to Lord Burghley.
489
A Defensative Against the Poyson of Supposed Prophecies. London: Iohn Charlewood, printer to the right
Honourable Earle of Arundell, (1583). Andersson is the only author to discuss or analyze any part of Defensative.
484
127
man by God. He draws on mythical character types in Homer’s Odyssey to show humans who
fail to use reason and then points out that this same kind of wrongdoing can be seen every day:
“it falleth out by dayly proofe among our selves.”490 He then presents his objections based on the
standard three critiques against astrology at the time by using the divine, the legal, and the
philosophical to make his points.491
The work would not stand out in relation to his life in the 1580’s except that it played a
role in his troubles with Walsingham in the early 1580’s. At the time of his arrests and
interrogations during the course of the Throckmorton plot, William Herle, who had previously
accused Howard of being a priest, relayed to Burghley some information he had received from a
gentlemen who suggested that Howard’s work be looked at by a censor: “for that the said booke
is conserved by some of good judement to conteyne sundrie heresies and spyces withal of
treason, though somewhat closelie carreyed as the author imagynes.”492 Luckily for Howard, in
this case, the accusation was not pursued, although it mattered little as Howard was already
under arrest for the numerous other accusations he had been facing. Nonetheless, Defensative
provides an additional example of Howard’s persistence to keep working if the face of adversity.
It took him a year to complete, and he was, as with “Dutifull Defence,” interrupted several times
during the writing process. It is likely that the composition of Defensative overlapped his work
on “Dutifull Defence.” However, “Dutifull Defence” was still another seven years away from
completion. At the moment, Defensative was more important to the immediate situation.
Howard may have been in brief trouble for his Defensative, but it was not the most
notorious work that he was involved with during his time of troubles. In 1584 the publication of
Leicester’s Commonwealth, or as it was originally called, The Copy of a Letter Written by a
490
Defensative, fol. B3v. as cited in Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 135.
Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 136.
492
BL Lansdowne MS 39, f. 193r. Also cited in Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 147,148.
491
128
Master of Arts of Cambridge created such a stir at court that Parliament became involved. 493 The
anonymous tract was written with three distinct goals; to discredit the earl of Leicester in both
his private and public life, advance Mary Queen of Scots claim to the English throne, and curtail
growing anxieties about English Catholics.494 The book became popular immediately on the
continent and in England. Accounts recall copies being brought in from the continent with other
Catholic material. The book was openly read at court and a copy even made its way in an out of
the Tower of London unnoticed.495 However, the book attracted immediate attention from the
queen and Walsingham, who set out to suppress the work as they saw it as an attack on Elizabeth
and her entire regime. Elizabeth was so upset she issued a proclamation from Hampton Court
denouncing the contents as lies and requiring all copies to be surrendered to authorities. Persons
found in a possession of a copy would be imprisoned. The queen went so far as to attempt to
push a bill through Parliament against “scandalous libeling.”496
The government then set out to find the author of the work, and Henry Howard was on
the list of potential culprits. He was known to be a part of the court Catholics who held a grudge
against Leicester, and only someone who knew the court well could have written it due to the
details in the book.497 There was no proof that Howard composed the work, but there was also no
doubt that his ideas and attitudes played a major role in its composition, and he may have written
some of the first drafts of the work. The final product reflects his input, and as one of the top
493
The phrase, “Leicester’s Commonwealth” only appears in the text once, but by 1586, the readers were referring
to the tract as Leicester’s Commonwealth, rather than its original title. Peck, Leicester’s Commonwealth, 5.
494
Ibid., 4. Also see, Peck, Northampton, 10.
495
Ibid., 5.
496
Simond D’Ewes, Journals of All the Parliaments (London, 1682) as cited in Peck, Leicester’s Commonwealth, 78. The bill received a reading in the House of Lords on December 16, 1584, but was not passed. Additionally, a
similar bill was presented to the House of Commons on March 17, 1585, but also rejected. Peck indicates that in
spite of the offensive nature of Leicester’s Commonwealth, the Puritans in Parliament might have seen it as an
avenue to thwart their own opinions and writing.
497
Peck states that in some ways the Commonwealth seems more Howard’s than anyone else’s because of its
support of the old nobility, its support of the Anjou marriage, and its expression of devotion to the Queen of Scots.
She writes: “ it is not so much a product of the Catholic laymen as [it is] a product of Lord Harry’s own sensibility,
as translated to the Paris circle by his friends Arundell and Lord Paget.” 31.
129
men in the group of court Catholics he had a personal interest in bringing Leicester down.498 The
government continued its search for the author, or authors, of Leicester’s Commonwealth into
1585. By that time they learned that over 1,000 copies of the tract had been confiscated from a
printer in Rouen. State prisoners were interrogated, and in 1586, it was linked in a letter as one of
the components of the larger undertaking against the English crown.499 The book may have been
a response to Leicester’s dealings with Oxford and the Court Catholics in 1581, when Leicester
accused Howard and Arundell of conspiracy. Nevertheless, Walsingham was never able to
determine authorship, and in this case, Howard escaped from potential arrest and inquiry.
In spite of all the disruption to Howard’s life, he continued to write and at some point
after 1586, he was able to return to “Dutifull Defence,” completing a final draft at some point in
1590.500 He included a complete copy of the introductory letter as well as the title, salutations,
and the entire body of the work divided into three books based on natural, civil, and divine law.
Howard produced the copy on his own, most likely as the template for a scrivener to use when
creating the presentation treatise for Elizabeth. The writing is informal, and is a reflection of
Howard’s scant finances at the time. In producing the copy, he was frugal with his use of paper,
and in many places the script decreases in size and the lines are forced closer together toward the
bottom of the pages. Considering the poor situation he was continuously in, it is not surprising
that he wanted to conserve on paper use.501 He also made minute changes to the final text before
turning it over to be copied. In the text he often crossed out lines, changed the wording, and
498
Ibid., 31.
SP 53/15/552. The letter is cited in full in Peck, Leicester’s Commonwealth, 54.
500
The Newberry Library, Case MS fJ 5452.634. The manuscript is bound as a single unit with guilt edged paper.
The front piece on the manuscript contains a name plate indicating the manuscript was at one time owned by Alfred
Cock. This may be Alfred Cock Q.C. who was involved in the Wiedemann v. Walpole trial in 1888. He owned an
extensive library that was gifted to the London Guildhall Library in 1903. However, at the bottom of the nameplate,
the name Harry Sears appears with a date of 1887.
501
There was no vast improvement in Howard’s life as he moved into the late 1580’s, which will be discussed in
more detail in chapter six.
499
130
indicated that he wanted sentences deleted. Overall, the manuscript is the compilation of years of
work for Howard, and the content reflects not only the changes in his own life from the time he
began to write, but also the changes at court and Queen Elizabeth as well.
The final draft contains over four hundred sources drawn from the writings of the ancient
philosophers, Church Fathers, historical examples, legal interpretation, Biblical allegory, and
humanist writers, and Howard drew on his extensive knowledge from his years at Cambridge, his
extensive reading, and at times his personal opinion and emotion to engage in the debate, and
defend female rule. Moreover, the manuscript also represents the changes that occurred in both
Henry Howard’s life, and the Elizabethan court. Howard took full advantage of his personal
knowledge, court connections, and his own books when writing “Dutifull Defence.” What
sources Howard owned himself during the decades of the 1570s and 80s is unknown, except that
he still possessed several books from his time as a student and lecturer at Cambridge.502
However, with good court connections and friends who shared an interest in collecting, he most
likely had an ample selection of sources to refer to while writing. In fact, it was Howard’s
extensive use of history that set him apart from other writers in the debate over female rule.
Within the body of “Dutifull Defence,” Howard cited over one-hundred different histories,
ranging from well-known sources, like Bede, Tacitus, Suetonius, Herodotus, Hector Boethius,
and Polydore Virgil, to the less circulated works of Enea Silvio Piccolomini (Pope Pius II),
502
Andersson discusses the books Howard possibly used at Cambridge based on the standard curriculum at the time,
and the few known books he had, such as the copy of Castiglione. Lord Henry Howard, 35-38. Also see Nicolas
Barker, "The Books of Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton," Bodleian Library Record 13, no. 5 (1990): 376-78.
Howard mentions in the text that he used Alexander of Aphrodisias’s commentary on Aristotle’s Politics, though he
does not say if it was in Greek, or translated into Latin. For a treatment of Latin commentaries of Aristotle, see
Charles H. Lohr, “Renaissance Latin Translations of the Greek commentaries on Aristotle.” Jill Kraye and M.W.F.
Stone, eds. Humanism and Early Modern Philosophy (London: Routledge, 2000), 24-40.
131
drawing examples of women who held some form of authority from all of them.503 For Scriptural
references, it is probable that Howard used the Vulgate, and he cited any verses used in Latin. A
sampling of Howard’s citations indicates that objectively, he cited his sources correctly in most
cases.504 He attested to the truth of his interpretations in the work, “so neither have I wrested any
passage of scripture from the proper sense, nor abused any rare example by the sleight of
dubblenesse, or suppressed any kinde of proufe…”505
Although his citations were usually correct, Howard could read the histories subjectively,
implying inferences that were not explicitly in the source. In relating King Cyrus’s story in
Herodotus Histories, he stated that Mandane was heir by right to succeed Astyages, where
Herodotus did not speak of Mandane’s particular right to inherit, but only referred to her as an
heir. “Suppose, when he [Astyages] dies that the tyranny devolves on to Mandane.”506 Howard
converted the supposition into a right, and though he may not have been technically incorrect in
his reading, he relied on assumption to make his point. When addressing a reference to the
Queen of Sheba in Luke 11:31, he states that, “the text itself declared that she ruled by the law of
nature.” Howard made the assumption that the Scripture inferred that her rule was natural and
presumed that she was a sole monarch.507
503
A brief example of Howard’s use of sources can be found in Gustav Ungerer, Anglo- Spanish Relations in Tudor
Literature (New York: AMS Press, 1929). Ungerer mention s the Spanish sources used in the treatise, stating that he
used Esteban de Garibay’s Los XL Libros del Compendio historical de las Chronicas y uniuersal Historia de todos
los reynos de España (Antwerp, 1571), and Chronica de los muy altos y esclarecidos reyes Catolicos don Fernando
y doña Isabel compuesta por maestro Antonio de Nebrixa (Valladolid, 1565).
504
For example, Howard cites Bede’s claiming that Oswald became king through the matrilineal line. Bede’s history
read: “Now Oswald was the nephew of Edwin through his sister Acha, and it was fitting that so great a predecessor
should have so worthy a kinsman to inherit both his religion and his kingdom.” In comparison Howard wrote:
“King Oswald attained to a principality in the northern parts by the right of his mother, who was a sister to King
Edwin.” Bede, Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People, ed. Bertram Colgrave and R.A.B. Mynors
(Oxford: University of Oxford Press, 1969), 3:6.
505
“Dutifull Defence,” fol. 22r.
506
“Dutifull Defence,” fol. 39 v, 41r; Herodotus, The Histories, trans. Robin Waterfield (Oxford: University of
Oxford Press, 1998), 1:109.
507
“Dutifull Defence,” fol. 32r.
132
Howard cited extensively from the works of the Church Fathers, which were readily
available in the early modern period. Although he often used the same Christian authors as
Knox, he tended to utilize them differently. It seemed clear to most writers in the period that
Augustine, Tertullian, Aquinas, Basil, Jerome and Chrysostom held negative views toward
women and supported the idea of their inherent inferiority and subjection. However, Howard
used their works selectively, disagreed with them, or focused on more obscure sections. At the
beginning of his argument on Eve’s position at creation, Howard simply said that Chrysostom
was wrong. Howard wrote that, “It seemed good to his divine providence to create a woman also,
not as a servant or subject, as Chrysostom notes, for then she would have born some badge of
servitude as other creatures have done.”508 Instead of citing Augustine’s pronouncements against
Eve in On the Trinity, Howard only commented on the theologian’s views: “St. Augustine will
not admit that any kind of subjection was known either to nature or to sin, so long as our first
parents preserved in obedience to the law of God according to this institution.”509 In order to
make his point that Eve was created equal, Howard tried to defend his argument by looking for
the evidence to support his case, even if it meant expanding on the meaning of a passage or the
conclusions that could be drawn from a small amount of information.
Throughout “Dutifull Defence” Howard treated Aristotle, the most widely cited author
for supporting evidence against female authority, in the same manner as the Patristic writers. He
generally ignored Aristotle’s comments on the physiology of women, focusing instead on the
political writings and pulling out obscure references. For example, Howard cited Aristotle’s
Politics, book 5, a section discussing factions. In the passage several examples of disputes over
heiresses are mentioned, but the women’s right to possess their inheritance was not the point of
508
509
Ibid., fol. 33v.
Ibid.
133
the discussion. However, Howard inferred that since Aristotle was discussing female heirs, they
could possess their inheritance.510 Howard may have been correct in his assumption, but he
definitely stretched the analogy to fit his conclusion. His purpose was not to misrepresent the
sources, but to show how they could be approached differently, perhaps inferring from his belief
in the changing nature of Scripture. Early modern interpretation was subjective, often creative,
and in that respect, Howard was a man of the times. He was also aware that the stakes were high.
In the dedication letter, he mentioned his use of citations: “Neither have I wrested any passage of
the Scripture from the proper sense, or abused any rare example by the sleight of doubleness, nor
suppressed any kind of proof that may seem to make for our adversaries sufficiency.”511
The most significant change between the first drafts of “Dutifull Defence” and the final
treatise in 1590 are also a reflection on the changing political situations in the 1580’s. Compared
to the first drafts of “Dutifull Defence,” extensive changes were made to the both the arguments
and the text of the work. Primarily, Howard moved away from focusing directly on Knox and
First Blast. The headings and organization of the work reflect this compared to the first drafts, to
the point that the final draft contains no direct references to First Blast and Knox’s name only
appears once in the text. The arguments in “Dutifull Defence” are still directed at the body of
First Blast, but for some reason, Howard felt it necessary to deemphasize Knox and expand the
body of the text to include other authors of works both for and against female rule. It was
serendipitous that Howard was unable to present his original treatise to Elizabeth a decade
earlier. With the delays came opportunity, and he clearly took advantage of emerging texts and
the changing political situation to produce a more complete, and up to date work. To this point,
510
Ibid., 35v.; Aristotle, Politics, trans. H. Rackham, 23 vols., vol. 21 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932),
5:3: 2-6.
511
Ibid., fol. 22v.
134
the most significant change made in “Dutifull Defence” was the addition of George Buchanan’s
work The History of Scotland.
George Buchanan published The History of Scotland in 1586 after being alienated from
Mary Queen of Scots, with whom he had once had a close relationship he had led a life of both
adventure and persecution in Scotland as he worked through the years as a lecturer in France. As
a supporter of the Protestant reformers, he based his writing on a strong Humanist stance that he
acquired through his studies on the continent.512 He was arrested in 1539 during a persecution of
Lutherans, but managed to escape and make his way to Paris, where he laid the foundation for
his writing.513 From there he traveled to Portugal, where he was imprisoned for a short time,
eventually returning to Scotland and becoming the tutor for the young Mary Queen of Scots.514
However, he decided to join the Reformed Church in Scotland, and had a falling out with Mary
after the assassination of her second husband, and father of the James VI, Lord Darnley.515 After
Mary fled and was taken to England, he tutored the young king and was principle of St.
Leonard’s College at St. Andrews.516 When the political position of Scotland changed with the
accession of the new king, Buchanan was asked by James’s councilors to declare for or against
Mary.517 They hoped that Buchanan would bring James up to be a leader of the Reformation.518
He accepted the task, rejected Mary, and took it upon himself to set the record of Scotland
straight by composing two works that expressed his beliefs and understanding of Scotland, De
512
See D.F.S. Thompson, “George Buchanan: The Humanist in the Sixteenth Century World.” Phoenix. (Vol. 4,
No.3, Winter, 1950), 77-94 for an account of Buchanan’s early life and education. Also see I.D. McFarlane, “George
Buchanan and European Humanism.” The Yearbook of English Studies (Vol. 15, Anglo-French Literary Relations
Special Number, 1985), 33.
513
McFarlane notes that in Paris, Buchanan received his philological training and became accomplished in Latin. 35
514
He is said to have read Livy to Mary every day. Livy was considered suitable for young ladies and was also used
by Sir Thomas More for the education of his daughters. He also acted as an interpreter for Mary as he also spoke
French. Thompson, “George Buchanan,”89.
515
Ibid., 90.
516
MacFarlane, “George Buchanan,” 39.
517
Ibid., 40.
518
Ibid.
135
Jure Regni apud Scotus, and Rerum Scoticarum Historia- History of Scotland. (1586). Historia
was written with a strong nationalistic interest, setting a high ideal for what he thought the
country ought to be and his first few chapters attacked his main opponent at the time- Mary.519
Buchanan had been egregiously offended by Mary’s actions regarding her husband, Lord
Darnley, and the Earl of Bothwell.520 He used his disgust as a basis to posit arguments similar to
Knox, that women were incapable of overseeing a successful government, due to their natural
inferiority.
Howard added a critique of Buchanan’s work to “Dutifull Defence,” and throughout the
final draft, he mentioned Buchanan by name, whereas Knox fell out of the text almost
completely. Buchanan’s arguments were very similar to Knox, and they often cited the same
sources for their evidence against female rule.521 To this point, Howard blended the authors’
arguments and addressed them as a whole when refuting their ideas. It is interesting that he
would choose to add Buchanan in a defense for Elizabeth as Historia was focused on Mary.
However, his ideas were as threatening to Elizabeth as they were to Mary. Buchanan’s works
were burned publically in England, and the men in Elizabeth’s court, including Howard, were
clearly aware of the book’s ideas and that they would not be to Elizabeth’s liking.522
At one point, Howard made an interesting and significant digression from his argument,
revealing a very personal side of his character and the intensity of his emotional bond to his
family, and a significant clue as to why he chose to add Historia into his defense. In Historia,
Buchanan directly slighted Howard’s family in several chapters of the book, and wrote about
Howard’s father:
519
MacFarlane, “George Buchanan,” 42.
It was believed that Bothwell helped orchestrate Darnley’s murder. He married Mary one month after Lord
Darnley was killed. Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 303-305.
521
Ibid., 41; Shephard, “Henry Howard,” 592.
522
Thompson, “George Buchanan,” 90.
520520
136
Thomas Howard (sic), Earl of Surrey, had gone off with great renown for that
victory over the Scots, if he had used his success with moderation; but being a
man , almost drunk with the happiness of his prosperous success, and little
mindful of the instability of human affairs, he made his household servants (as the
English custom is) to wear a badge on their left arms, which was a white lion (his
own arms) on the top of a red one, and rending him with paws: God almighty did
seem to punish this his insolent ambition, for there were, in a manner, none of his
posterity, of either side, but died in great disgrace and ignominy.523
Buchanan had also discussed the Ridolfi plot and elaborated in detail on the duke of Norfolk’s
life and involvement in the conspiracy, stating that in his military actions he had “proven no
valor.”524 Howard, clearly offended by Buchanan’s statements, took the opportunity to defend
his family’s honor while discussing the Scotsman’s insults on Henry VIII and the battle at
Flodden Field, in which his grandfather had participated. Howard wrote: “Not content with this
presumption against an anointed king, he let fly in fury at his peers and chiefly at the duke of
Norfolk (whom both for honor and for duty’s sake I am bound in those matters to defend)
accusing him of pride and haughtiness after his service done at Flodden.”525 He committed the
next several folio pages to praise his family’s service to the monarchy, declaring at one point that
he desired Buchanan’s rotten bones to putrefy.526 Within these pages, there was no discussion of
women or any form of argument for female rule. Howard did not write his digression solely to
convince the queen of his family’s merits. Throughout his life, Howard maintained loyalty and
commitment to the Howard house, with an especially personal sense of dedication to his father.
It is in this section, when writing to Elizabeth, he included the references to his father, hoping
that she would remember the renewed popularity of the earl’s writing by citing his final poems:
523
George Buchanan, The History of Scotland (Written in Latin, by George Buchanan. Faithfully rendered into
English. J. Fraser, 1689), 13:27
524
Ibid., 19: 239- 41. Buchanan also stresses Norfolk’s possible marriage to the queen of Scots.
525
“Dutifill Defence,” fols. 72v.- 73r.
526
Ibid., 74r.
137
“My father in his last thing before his end, ‘Domin [sic] est michi [sic] quod humiliasti me.’” 527
Later in life, Howard constructed elaborate tombs for his father and mother in Suffolk, in which
he had both of his parents reinterred.528
The other addition to “Dutifull Defence” that was not present in the original drafts was
Christopher Goodman’s Howe Superior Powers oght to be Obeyed (1558).529 Goodman was a
Reformed clergyman and Marion exile who had fled England during the reign of Mary I.530 He
associated with John Knox while in Geneva, less concerned with the gender of the ruler than the
religion of the sovereign. Nevertheless, he did not approve of female regiment, and like Knox,
believed that women were inferior and had no right of authority over any man.531 Goodman
writes regarding female rulers: “…she has disregarded the authority of scripture which declares
that Israel shall choose a king…God is not contrarie to himself, which at the begynninge
appointed the woman to be in subjection to her housbande, and the man to be head of the
woman.”532 He denounced Mary Tudor as a tyrant in 1558 and accused her of betraying England
when she married Philip II.533 After Elizabeth’s accession, Goodman eventually recanted his
views against female rulers, declaring that his objection was to Mary and not the current
Protestant queen.534 However, in “Dutifull Defence,” Howard seems personally offended by
Goodman’s public recantation of his railings against the queen and wrote: “I heard of some
which having vented their undutiful conceits against the ground of your Majesty’s authority in
527
Ibid., fols. 6r-v.; Cited in Sessions, 386. Good is much that humbles me.
Sessions, 216; L. L. Peck, “Mentality,” 162. In the latter half of the sixteenth century a “cult” formed around the
memory of Surrey and his writing.
529
Christopher Goodman, How Superior Powers Oght to Be Obeyd (Geneva: John Crispin, 1558; reprint, Columbia
University Press, 1931); Greaves, Theology and Revolution, 163; Jordan, “Woman’s Rule,” 425.
530
See Collinson, Puritan Movement, 92.
531
See Jordan, “Women’s Rule,” 428; Shephard, “Henry Howard,” 593; Jordan, “Women’s Rule,” 432.
532
Goodman, Superior Powers, D2v.
533
Goodman writes: “For do you thinke that Philip will be crowned king of Englande and reteyne in honor English
counsellers? Will he credite them withe the government of his estate, who have betrayed their owne? Shall his
nobilite be Spaniardes without your lands an dpossessions?” Superior Powers, fol. 2v.
534
DNB s.v. Christopher Goodman; Scalingi, 69. Goodman recanted in front of an ecclesiastical commission.
528
138
printed sheets; recanted them upon compunction of the heart in public audience.”535 By the time
Howard finished his final draft, he made it clear that he felt Knox and Goodman could still be a
threat to her rule, and that this was why he felt compelled to write:
I saw those Satyrs, which undertook both to cool and kindle with one blast, and
feared the hearts of these unfaithful soldiers which followed the colors of their
captain but in mutiny. There was great cause of doubt lest the vulgar multitude,
which hath ears to hear and eyes to see, but no discretion to judge, might as well
incline in matters of this moment as they rose in cockfight to the weaker side.536
The final work that Howard criticized in “Dutifull Defence,” was Jean Bodin’s The Six
Bookes of a Commonweale.537 Bodin was a French jurist and political writer who focused on
government and supported a central monarchy.538 However, his idea of a strong, central
government did not include women. He posited the standard list of female vices in his
declaration against female regiment: “Gynecocracy is squarely against the laws of nature that
give men strength, the prudence, the arms, and the power to command and take away from
women [their authority].”539 Bodin felt that female power was unauthorized according to law,
and he also castigated men’s tendency to listen to, and follow the advice of, women whom they
love or desire.540 Women were temptresses, and as such, could control men through their sexual
lust. 541 Howard confronted Bodin directly in the final draft of “Dutifull Defence.”
535
“Dutifull Defence,” fol. 2v. Howard referred to Goodman a “poison altogether unworthy either of protection or
excuse.” Fol. 19r.
536
Ibid., fol. 3r.
537
Jean Bodin, The Six Bookes of a Commonweale: A Facsimile Reprint of the English Translation of 1606, ed.
Kenneth D. McRae (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962).
538
See Howell A. Lloyd, “Constitutionalism” in The Cambridge History of Political Though, 1450-1700. Edited by
J.H. Burns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.277-278.
539
Ibid., 753. For a discussion on Bodin’s theory of monarchy see Julian H. Franklin, “Sovereignty and the Mixed
Constitution: Bodin and his Critics.” In The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 1450-1700 (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1991), 298-328.
540
“Yet doubt I not but that many are afraid of women’s soveraigntie, who yet indeed doubt to shew themselves
most obedient to women’s lusts. But it is no matter (as old Cato was woont to say) whether that the soveraigntie it
selfe be given to women, or that the emperours and kings been themselves obedient unto womens pleasures and
commands.” 754.
541
Jordan, “Woman’s Rule,” 449.
139
“Nowe just occasion is offered of vowchinge greater store of authours and
opinions for the proof of weomens regiment then it is probable that either Bodine
hath observed or Buchanan hath red for otherwise the first would not soe
pevishelie have published in the booke of his comon wealthe that all countries
have excluded weomen from the charge of government.”542
Howard expanded the text to include authors who he felt were still having an effect on
opinions in England. Buchanan and Bodin’s works were more recent than Knox’s and
therefore more of a threat to Elizabeth’s position. Considering Buchanan’s book was
burned, and Bodin’s work so directly spoke out against women, he decided to include
them in “Dutifull Defence.”
Throughout the text of the final draft, Howard used language that was similar to other
contemporary writers on the same subject. It is interesting that parts of Howard’s writing
resemble John Leslie’s A Defence of the Honour of the Right Highe, Mighty and Noble Princesse
Marie Quene of Scotlande and Dowager of France (1569). Although Leslie served as an
ambassador for the queen of Scots during the early 1570s and Howard and Leslie served
concurrent sentences for their respective involvement in the Ridolfi plot, it is not known if the
two men had any personal contact through Elizabeth’s court.543 Nevertheless, Howard knew of
Leslie, briefly referred to him in his dedication letter, and most likely had a copy of Leslie’s
work—the only other Catholic defense. Both men derived their theories from the Digest, and
both believed there were two kinds of natural law and that as the law of nations was derived from
human reason it was necessary to maintain civil order, but they cited from separate sections of
the Digest.544 Howard and Leslie also used similar phrasing when describing the tenets of the law
542
“Dutifull Defence,” 38v.
Leslie’s involvement in the Ridolfi plot is covered in the CSP, Relating to Scotland, 348- 353; DNB, s.v. “John
Leslie.” After his release from prison in 1572, Leslie fled to the continent and continued his work on behalf of Mary
Stuart.
544
Leslie, A Defence, sig. q7. Similar to Howard, Leslie’s first kind of natural law was that which was, “proper and
appertaining as well to other living things as to man.”
543
140
of nations, and it is possible that Howard used Leslie’s work as a source without citing him.
Leslie staunchly defended Mary Stuart and continued to have problems with the English court
after her death in 1586. If Howard used Leslie’s work, it is feasible that he consciously left out
any direct citations to Leslie that Elizabeth’s Protestant court could view as contentious.545
Considering the events of Howard’s life during the 1570s and 1580s, it is remarkable that
he was able to continue working on “Dutifull Defence.” Nevertheless, throughout the decade, he
managed to produce the complete, final copy. The contents of the manuscript not only attest to
the changes that occurred in Henry Howard’s life during a tumultuous decade, but the ongoing
debates in Elizabeth’s court, and the attitudes toward the particular authors he chose to
incorporate into the final draft in addition to John Knox. It also demonstrates the length that
Howard went through to produce a detailed, and thoroughly researched, work that defended
Elizabeth’s right to rule in spite of the problems he was facing. Howard commented on the
difficulty of the work in the introductory letter: “The work is tedious and able to discourage one
that hath more idle time to spare.” “Dutifull Defence” was in a way, his magnum opus, and he
spared no expense in its construction over the thirteen years it took to create. The events of the
1580’s left Howard destitute at times, and was still failing in his ultimate goal, to regain favor
with Elizabeth and find a permanent place at court.546 With a final draft in hand the 1580’s drew
to a close, but the politics, policies, and personalities who dominated Elizabeth’s world from
1588 through the mid 1590’s would still challenge his hopes after he presented his “Dutifull
Defence” to the queen.
545
As has been noted, within the text, even Howard made very few references to John Knox, even when he was
meticulous about citing Goodman, Buchanan, Bodin. Elizabeth was indignant with Knox for what he had written in
First Blast. Goodman recanted his views and Buchanan’s addition was personal for Howard. For him to leave out
Knox and Leslie may have been a political move so as not to offend the queen.
546
Nott, Works, 438.
141
CHAPTER SIX
THE FINAL ATTEMPT
After the tumult of the mid 1580’s, the remainder of the decade was uneventful and quiet
for Henry Howard. He was finally free from suspicion and allowed to live at will after 1585,
which gave him the time to complete the final drafts of “Dutifull Defence.” The political and
diplomatic situation between England and the continent in the late 1580’s and 90’s enabled
Howard to remain out of the watchful eye of the council. Mary Queen of Scots was executed in
February, 1587 ending the threat of an alternative power base in England, and removing the
potential for conspiracy against the queen. Instead, Elizabeth and her ministers had to focus on
Spain’s continued influence on the continent, and more importantly, thwarting the threat of a
Spanish invasion of England. Moreover, the queen’s new favorites, including Robert Deveraux,
second earl of Essex, monopolized her attention for several years. As a result, Howard’s personal
life was ignored most of the time and he fell into relative obscurity. By the end of the 1580’s he
was financially destitute and by all accounts, a broken man. However, a few critical
opportunities allowed him to occasionally grace the queen’s presence, and provided Howard
with the impetus to keep moving forward to achieve his goal of patronage and preference. He did
everything he could to maintain his presence at court, even if it meant surviving on the periphery
of royal society. In this respect, the connections he was able to foster gave Howard occasion to
serve the crown and ultimately improve his situation.
For Howard, the latter half of the1580’s was an insecure time. He remained in partial
confinement through 1584, living under the watch of Sir Nathanial Bacon at his home, Redgrave
Hall. While there, Howard suffered from physical illness, and it appears that at some point in
142
1585 he was tormented by “stones” and was unable to sleep or eat for four days.547 Howard
asked Burghley if he would be allowed to travel to Warwick so he could take the waters for his
comfort, and referred to his general condition as one of “deep disgrace.”548 However, in spite of
Howard’s poor physical and mental condition, it appears he had not lost hope. In the same letter
he praised Burghley for his “enclination,” and “favore,” but in reality, his situation had never
been worse. After Sussex’s death, and the breakup of the court Catholics at the end of the queen
of Scot’s life, Howard felt deserted and alone. The pension he had been granted by the state was
only paid irregularly.549 Once he was allowed to leave Redgrave, it seems even a place to live
was not always secure. Howard refers to one residence as his “little cell at Greenwich…[where] I
have a roof to cover me from the rain, which elsewhere I have not anywhere.”550 In 1589, he
wrote that he had been driven to destitution, and although he had been offered a “beggar’s
cloak,” of assistance from one Sir Roger Townsend, he turned it down so not to appear as “one
of his almsmen.”551 Still, Howard was a proud man, and even during this time he attempted to
find ways to fulfill his duty to the queen. The increased tension between England and Spain
provided him with the possibility to do so.
After the diplomatic wrangling and wars between England, France, Spain, and the
Netherlands in the 1570’s and 80’s, Philip II still wanted to re-gain control of the Low Countries
and secure his power base on the continent and over the realm of England. Elizabeth’s failure to
547
BL Cotton Titus C vi, fol. 35r. The letter to Lord Burghley is dated July 19, 1585; Nott, Works, 437.
Ibid. Also cited in Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 155.
549
This was the stipend granted to him by Elizabeth before he attended Cambridge. Nott, Works, 438. Nott notes
that at one point, his pension was withheld for over a year. During the late 1580’s England faced a financial crisis
due to the drawn out wars on the continent and the foreseen war with Spain. England could not borrow from abroad ,
and the money needed for the war was drawn from the state’s assets. State lands were sold, and short term loans
were taken from the London merchant community. This re-focus of resources may be one of the reasons for the of
non-payment of Howard’s pension from the state. For an outline of English finances at the time, see MacCaffrey,
Elizabeth I, War and Politics, 1588-1603 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 64-66.
550
BL Cotton Titus C vi, fol. 28r.
551
Ibid., fol. 30v; Nott, Works, 438-439. DNB s.v. Henry Howard, 29.
548
143
secure a marriage with Anjou had forced the English to change the course of their foreign policy
to accommodate the increasing power of Spain and France. The assassination of William of
Orange, the leader of the Dutch revolt against the Spanish, left the Low Countries in fear of
Phillips’s overlordship, and they once again turned to England for financial and military
support.552 Elizabeth knew if she did not help Philip would move into the Netherlands, suppress
Protestantism and place a powerful enemy off of England’s north shores. Both the queen and
council believed that Phillip’s desire was for nothing short of England’s destruction and the
enslavement of her people.553 Therefore, the decision was made to send English troops to
Zealand.554 As a result, Philip decided that he needed to strike England first before moving
forward in the Low Countries.555 Preparations for Spain’s attack began in 1587 when Sir Francis
Drake raided ports along the Iberian Peninsula, in an attempt cripple Spain’s fleet.556 He was
given orders to “distress the ships within the havens themselves,” rather than simply plunder
Spanish ships at sea. Drake succeeded, destroying close to thirty Spanish vessels in Cadiz harbor
and heightening tension between the two states. Philip believed that Elizabeth’s actions created a
state of war, and his intention was to attack along the Kentish coast, landing the Duke of Parma,
Philip’s governor in the Netherlands, on English soil.557
During the preparations for war, Howard volunteered his services against the Spanish in
order to prove his loyalty to the queen and to the state: “My purpose is to give no less evident
and certain proof of my untamed loyalty upon the sea by hazard of my life, than I have already
552
MacCaffrey, War and Politics, 4.
Ibid., 5. MacCaffrey points out that the council’s perceptions of Phillip’s intention did not reflect Phillip’s actual
desires, which were to force England to withdraw from the dispute and secure tolerance for English Catholics. As
will be seen, Howard became entangled in these goals, and would once again be the focus of suspicion with the
council.
554
MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 236; Also see,MacCaffrey, War and Politics, 30-31, 75.
555
MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 235-237.
556
Ibid., 237. MacCaffrey, War and Politics, 80-82.
557
See Colin Martin and Geoffrey Parker, The Spanish Armada (London: Hamilton, 1988)
553
144
done of my obedience upon land, by conformity to orders.”558 His offers of assistance were
refused.559 At that time, all noblemen and their retainers were required to attend Elizabeth in
person during the preparation for the war. This must have been a blow for Howard since he was
a nobleman without a base or framework for service, and he held no office. Therefore, it was
natural for him to offer his service, even if the task was menial, so as to fulfill the traditional role
of a nobleman in England and serve the monarchy in time of war.560 The rejection was biting, but
his inability to discharge martial duty to the queen did not stop him from working at what he
knew he could do. Howard returned to his project, and focused on his writing.
Elizabeth, her council, and the rest of the country, had to focus on Spain and the invasion
of the Spanish fleet. English troops were withdrawn from the Low Countries in order to
supplement troops in the south of England as the queen and her councilors believed a full scale
attack from their Catholic enemy to be imminent.561 The fear of Philip’s threat to England’s
independence was very real. In a speech to Parliament in 1593, Burghley reflected on England’s
mindset in the late 1580’s: “The king maketh these mighty wars…not purposely to burn a town
in France or England but to conquer all France, all England, and Ireland.”562 English Catholics
were suspected of dissent and were given much attention as the Council feared Philip’s possible
influence over “obstinate” recusants. Elizabeth and her council believed that English recusants
558
BL, Cotton MSS, Titus C VI, fol. 38r. In the letter, Howard continues, emphasizing his family and connections to
the queen, and his continued financial plight: “And albeit I could wish, if the choice were mine, to serve in the ship
either of the Lord Admiral, a worthy member of our House, or of my nephew, whom next unto her Majesty I prefer
unto all creatures alive, yet rather than their judgment or respect of my demeanour or desert should be doubted by
respect of partiality by natural good will, I would accept any place under some less affected to myself, unto whom it
shall please you to advise me by your opinion,or assign my by your authority.”
559
DNB s.v. Henry Howard, 30; Nott, Works, 438.
560
APC 1588, 144; CSPD 2, 34.
561
MacCaffrey, War and Politics, 35.
562
John Strype, Annals of the Reformation, Vol. 4 (Oxford, 1822), 149-156. As cited in MacCaffrey, War and
Politics, 74.
145
would rise up in large numbers against her when Philip’s troops landed on English soil.563 Fear
then turned into action at the beginning of 1588. In February commissioners were charged with
mustering troops for the upcoming war, but were told that “none suspected in religion [should]
have the chardge of any nomber of soldiaurs.”564 It did not take long for the forbiddance of a
Catholic to have a command to expand to other areas, and as the breadth of suspicion expanded,
freedom for Catholics in England contracted.
Recusant’s weapons were confiscated, seminary priests were arrested, and the fear of
dissenting Catholics loomed ominous in the minds of queen and council: “It is …certaine that
such as should meane to invade the Realme woulde neuer attempt the same but vppon hope
which the fugatiues and rebels ofer to give…that are knowen to be recusauntes…”565 Active, or
“obstinate” recusants were detained and those of high rank or influence were imprisoned in
castles in the south of England. Some Catholics, when given warning of their impending
confinement, fled the country.566 Upon incarceration, each individual was questioned and their
correspondence monitored. When one Ralph Langton was asked about the beliefs of his fellow
recusants he replied, “do not thes fellowes in the castle and such like thinck that they shall taste
of the enemyes hands as well as others?”567 His point did not alleviate fear. Even after the
Protestant wind kept the Armada at bay, inquiries continued as thousands of Catholics were
examinded and “suspected upon religion.”568 Nevertheless, in spite of the inquisition against
563
James McDermott, England and the Spanish Armada: The Necessary Quarrel (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2005), 245.
564
HMC Rutland MSS, 594. As cited in McDermott, England and the Spanish Armada, 244.
565
Council to Sir Christopher Hatton, January 4, 1588; Jeremy Goring and Joan Wake eds. Northamptonshire
Lieutenancy Papers (Gateshead, England: Northumberland Press, 1975), 47; HMC Salisbury MSS, Vol. 3, 96;
McDermott, England and the Spanish Armada, 244.
566
McDermott, England and the Spanish Armada, 245.
567
K.R. Wark, Elizabethan Recusancy in Cheshire (Manchester: Chetham Society, 1971), 260; McDermott,
England and the Spanish Armada, 246.
568
McDermott states that 21, 665 English citizens were examined for recusancy, but in the end, only thirty-six
people were placed on a watch list by the state. 247.
146
them and the fear of Catholics in Philip’s service, Catholics did serve on English ships during the
armada.569 With regard to Henry Howard, it is unknown if he was suspected or questioned in any
of enquires against Catholics in 1588. In light of the fear of Catholic revolt, it is not surprising
that Howard’s offer of service was rejected considering his close affiliation with the court
Catholics in the 1580’s. Even so, Howard was related to Lord Admiral Howard and the earl of
Essex, both of whom played a role in England’s defense, which may explain why, in addition to
the queen’s previous history of leniency toward him, Howard escaped the trauma imposed upon
his fellow brothers in faith, even if he was not allowed to serve.570
Spain’s intention was to launch an attack against England early in the year, but the
Armada’s ships did not appear along England’s coast until July, 1588, and the course of events
after their arrival became legend. In short, skirmishes between Lord Admiral Howard, Sir
Francis Drake, and the Spanish dominated the beginning of the month, and although they caused
some damage to Spanish ships, they had not crippled Parma’s fleet enough to reduce the threat.
Shortly after midnight on July 29, eight English ships were set on fire and drifted into the
Spanish fleet. Over the next hours, combat between the two navies ensued, but still with no
definitive victor.571 Then, in what was hailed by the English as a “Protestant wind,” prevailing
northern Atlantic gales intervened, and even though the strength of English fleet was insufficient
to defeat Philip’s navy, the Spanish fleet was forced to sail north around Scotland, and return to
Spain on the Atlantic side.572 Even before the final outcome could be determined, revelers
569
McDermott, England and the Spanish Armada, 246-247. McDermott points out that one captain even boasted
about his Spanish, Catholic boatswain
570
Essex was appointed general of the cavalry at St. James ‘s Palace at the beginning of 1588. Sir Robert Cecil was
given the appointment of superior over the commander of the gunners of the queen’s body guard, and Sir Thomas
Heneage raised to Treasurer at Wars. As will be seen Howard had direct interaction with all three men, and two of
them would receive copies of “Dutifull Defence,” although his movements during the Armada are unknown.
571
James McDermott, England and the Spanish Armada: The Necessary Quarrel (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2005), 274.
572
Ibid.
147
around England were announcing the defeat of the Spanish. Nevertheless, the victory was more
psychological than martial, and the war between the two countries continued for the next several
years.573
Unable to assist the effort in defeating the Armada, Howard returned to his work and
finished the introductory letter for “Dutifull Defence” at some point in 1590.574 In composing
his olive branch, Howard put a great deal of time and effort, and thirteen years of work came
down to this single letter he composed for Elizabeth. In this respect, his early thoughts about the
content of the letter have survived. Partial folio pages of notes contain Howard’s early ideas
about the introductory letter and show a man who wanted to compose the precise words needed
to impress the queen. He organized sentences for the letter at random and jotted them down as
needed. With only a few changes to the wording, they were transcribed into the final text. For
example, Howard’s writes in his notes, “Integritie is reputed flattery, respect to conscience
infirmity, plaine dealing fraud.” 575 The phrase appears in the final treatise with only a few word
changes, “Integritie was then accownted flatterie, respect to conscience corruption, plaine
dealing fraud.”576 The series of notes is only a small example of the work that Howard put into
“Dutifull Defence,”
The letter is indeed a testament to how many times his home was searched, his papers
taken, and his motives questioned. One of the manuscripts of “Dutifull Defence” was confiscated
as well. In addition, the manuscript was lost, returned, and then it sat idle while Howard was
under interrogation, in prison, or simply too depressed to continue work. At one point, he was
573
For an account of the continuation of the war with Spain after the Armada see MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, and
McDermott, England and the Spanish Armada.
574
It is accepted that the work was presented to Elizabeth at some point in 1590. Howard places references in the
letter that verify a 1590 date for the introductory letter. For example, Howard mentions Edmund Spencer’s Faerie
Queene (1590: “Theis are the gracefull water nimphes attired in white vailes wch wane the love of Neptune as the
poets write from ye Queen of ye faries.”574 “Dutifull Defence,” 16r.
575
BL Cotton Vespasian F ix, fol. 194v. The series of notes appear on folio pages 187-196.
576
“Dutifull Defense,” 4r.
148
even physically assaulted.577 The ethos of his feelings about the interruptions is expressed in one
sentence. “The chiefest reasons that doth binde mee more then every vulgar subject of your state
to give my service to ye first occasion that may yeelde proofe of my devotion of your Matie may
not of congruence bee so much as dreamed of by a man already drowned and forgotten in the
black deepes of discouragement.”578 In addition, Howard was accused of composing the work for
Mary Queen of Scots instead of Elizabeth: “Another company accused me of sailing wth a side
winde of haling to ye north point like a cunning bardge man, when myne eye was in the
south.”579 With regard to his living situation, he spoke of the illnesses he suffered at the end of
the decade: “The stream of my declining comfort ebbeth very low, my minde is out of temper,
my body out of health, my penne out of exercise,” and stated that he was living below the status
of his nobility: “without your Maties unspeakable compassion of late had bin of all men living of
my birth and qualitie as I believe most miserable.”580 And finally, he offered his olive branch to
the queen, stating that: “My hope is that your Highness will accept my offer as a fruit of faith and
forgive my errour as an effect of ignorance.”581
In addition to the explanation of his personal problems, the introductory letter provides
evidence of the extent of Howard’s reading and the works he used by including a short
historiography on tracts and sermons written for and against Elizabeth. He begins by naming a
series of men who wrote on subjects surrounding the queen, but withholds titles of any of the
works they published. He mentions a sermon presented by one Mr. Norwell who spoke for
Elizabeth on a Good Friday. Included in the authors of books regarding the queen are John
577
Ibid. See folio pages 3v, 4v,7r.
Ibid., 5v.
579
“Dutifull Defense,” 4r.
580
Ibid, 5r, 5v.
581
Ibid., 22v.
578
149
Leslie, John Jewell, and John Alymer, all who composed works supporting female monarchy.582
Howard specifically directs the reader to Alymer’s work, stating that “his booke is extant and
very worthy to bee red.”583 Although these works are brought up in the letter, Howard fails to
cite any of them in the main body of the treatise. In fact, the only contemporary work cited by
name is George Buchanan’s Historia. Considering some of the similarities to Leslie’s work
found in “Dutifull Defence,” he may have also borrowed from Alymer and Jewell without giving
them credit, which was not an uncommon practice at the time.584
As stated earlier, the most common accusation against Howard’s motives, in addition to
writing for Mary Queen of Scots, was that he was a sycophant who composed his defense solely
for the purpose of seeking patronage and a position at court. Howard never denied that he hoped
to benefit from his work and admitted to the fact in the introductory letter. He articulated in
several ways his desire to be restored to the queen’s favor: “If hope of compassing your
Majesty’s desired favor be so nearly suited and so evenly prized with the means by which we
gain favor of Almighty God,” and “by removing nearer to the beams of your encouragement, I
bear green leaves with the hope that fruits will follow.”585 However, when compared to the
standard set for men who sought patronage and position in sixteenth century England, Howard
was certainly not unique, especially since he was a member of one of the highest-ranking
582
“Dutifull Defence,” 18v, 19r. John Leslie, A Defence of the Honour of the Right Highe, Mighty and Noble
Princesse Marie Quene of Scotlande and Dowager of France (1569); John Jewell, An apologie, or aunswer in
defence of the Church of England concerninge the state of religion vsed in the same. Newly set forth in Latin, and
nowe translated into Englishe (1562); John Alymer, An harborovve for faithfull and trevve subiectes agaynst the
late blowne blaste, concerninge the gouernme[n]t of vvemen. wherin be confuted all such reasons as a straunger of
late made in that behalfe, with a breife exhortation to obedience (1559).
583
Ibid. Howard briefly mentions John Calvin, but does not include his work in the treatise at any point.
584
For a discussion on the emergence of copyright see Alexander Halasz, The Marketplace of Print: Pamphlets and
the Public Sphere in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997); “Dutifull Defence”
will need to be compared in more detail to Alymer and Jewell before citing exact similarities.
585
Ibid., fol.5r.-v.
150
families in England.586 Both men and women took full advantage of marriage contracts and the
placement of their children to forge or strengthen their associations with other families or to
increase wealth and status.587 Consolidation of royal power under Henry VII and Henry VIII
forced members of the nobility and upper gentry to rely on the crown for the financial and
political resources essential to maintaining their positions.588 Men often sought out individuals
who were close to the monarch and could therefore bring their petitions to royal attention.589 As
a nobleman, Howard belonged to a tradition of men who earned their living by serving the
monarch. As a scholar, the door opened for him to use his writing abilities to advance his causea form of work more often taken on by common men.590 Due to the precarious history of his
family, he was forced to take an unconventional route of having to go through men of lower birth
to find patronage and financial support. In part, this may have been what opened him up to
criticism with regard to the motives for his work.591
Before his downfall, Howard relied on the favor of his brother, since Norfolk was the
highest ranking peer in England and was in frequent contact with Elizabeth. Thereafter, he
sought patronage from personal friends and relatives close to the queen—Sussex and Essex, or
men who had strong political influence at court—Burghley and his son Robert Cecil. For
Howard, the second son of an aristocratic family, to seek patronage would have been expected.
His generation was the third to serve the monarchy in England, and he was not the only member
586
Peck, “Mentality,”164.
Harris, “Women and Politics,” 260.
588
Ibid., 271.
589
MacCaffrey, Patronage and Politics, 24.
590
H.R. Woudhuysen, Sir Philip Sidney and the Circulation of Manuscripts, 1558-1640 (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1996), 103. See MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 453-460 for a further discussion on the rise and role of educated, common
men in the court.
591
For a discussion on how noble families produced income outside of land ownership, see Lawrence Stone, Family
and Fortune: Studies in Aristocratic Finance in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1973), 3-14. Stone mentions several ways income could be generated, including risk ventures and privateering.
However, writing is not included.
587
151
of the nobility to spend considerable time trying to maintain his personal court connections.592
Indeed, given his education, Howard had the qualifications necessary to serve the court. His
decision to remain at Cambridge as a lecturer was prudent in light of his family’s previous
history; had his brother not been involved with conspiracy in the early 1570s, Howard’s move to
take his place at court may not have been so disastrous. However, although not fully accepted by
Elizabeth, Howard successfully remained on the fringes at court, maintaining contact with men
close to the queen, as evidenced by the recipients of his written work.
With regard to his academics and work as a writer, during his career Howard chose to use
author publication (text production under the author’s personal direction) in the scribal medium
as the main method for the duplication of his work.593 He was not alone in his preference for the
scrivener; members of the aristocracy and upper gentry often chose handwritten replication over
print in order to distribute their writing. Scribal texts were produced only upon demand and were
regarded as the best way of providing monographs for a pre-chosen clientele, or when a work
was intended to attract a particular type of reader.594 There is no doubt that Howard felt
compelled to make an impression on those who saw his work, and was frustrated when he did
not feel the quality was sufficient. In a letter addressed to Burghley in 1589, Howard remarked
on his dissatisfaction with the scriveners he was forced to use in a particular location. After
writing a treatise on prayer dedicated to the Lord Chancellor, Howard complained: “Your Lord I
hope will excuse the bad writing of the book, for that is my own, being forced to take this
extraordinary labor by the ignorance of the scriveners of this town, who in a Latin copy for the
592
Harris, “Women and Politics,” 271.
Harold Love, Scribal Publication in Seventeenth-Century England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 47. Love
describes important criteria for identifying author publication as the “presence of signed dedications or epistles to
particular persons.” All of the early copies of “Dutifull Defence” contain dedications. Only one of Howard’s works
was published as a printed book, A Defensative against the Poyson of Supposed Prophecies (1583).
594
Love, Scribal Publication., 47, 133. Love indicates that cost was not necessarily a factor in choosing a scrivener
or printer as the cost and remuneration may have been similar. 127.
593
152
most part make as many faults as points.”595 In spite of his occasional criticism of scribes, dozens
of Howard’s works were circulated in manuscript form during his career, including “Dutifull
Defense.”596
Howard never intended for “Dutifull Defence” to be read by the common public. His
sense of hierarchy and strong belief in the virtue of knowledge and education prevented any
desire for the general population to voice an opinion on his work. He expressed from his early
years that he preferred to write for individuals rather than for many people; and despite his quest
for favor, personally, he was an austere and private person. For instance, Howard declared: “I
was never apt by nature to crave acquaintance with a private person without urgent cause, much
less a random multitude.”597 He addressed men whose opinions he felt were important —
members of the aristocracy and statesmen.598 For a man born into the nobility, living in poverty,
and under continuous suspicion of conspiracy and treason, Howard used the power of his pen to
regain his political and social standing at court.
Therefore, when “Dutifull Defence,” was finally complete, Howard moved forward with
the last step of a process that had begun thirteen years earlier- presenting a copy of his treatise to
Queen Elizabeth. By 1590 the treatise had taken on a greater meaning to Howard than just a
defense of a female monarch, and had become a work worthy of being read by men he deemed
as friends or influential acquaintances. Instead of a simple rebuttal of John Knox, the work had
evolved into a type of magnum opus. As such, he chose to produce multiple copies of “Dutifull
Defence,” The content of the presentation manuscripts confirms that the full copy Howard
produced in the late 1580’s is indeed the copy used by the scriveners to reproduce the final
595
BL, Cotton MSS, Titus C VI, fol. 30r.
For listings of Howard’s written works see Nott, 468-470, and Peck, Northampton, 12.
597
Peck, "Mentality," 163.
598
For example, Howard wrote for Burghley and Walsingham.
596
153
treatise. The presentation copies reflect the changes from the full draft where lines were crossed
through and changed or cut out completely. The variance between his final draft, and from copy
to copy, is minimal, and most that do occur are in the marginalia, and in the slight changing of
words in the headings. In places single words are changed, in others entire sentences.
How Howard acquired the funds to commission these copies is unknown. Many of his
earlier presentation works he wrote out in his own hand, including the treatise for his sister and a
volume of Latin prayers he presented to Lord Burghley. However, at his lowest point in life, he
hired scribes to create the presentation copies.599 He was closely involved in the production
process of the copies, as indicated by the similarity of structure, and the fact that he wrote a
personal salutation in each of the copies.600 Perhaps he was able to defray the cost by helping
with part of the production, or he may have taken a personal loan to help pay the scriveners.601
Regardless of how he found the money, the treatise was considered important enough that, even
though he was in a financially destitute situation, he made sure they were done properly. His
intended audience was specific, and he wanted to present to them something he considered to be
of value. They were the queen’s new councilors and favorites, and they were also the men who
could help Howard emerge out of obscurity.602
During the years of heightened tension between England and Spain, Henry Howard
finally received an opportunity to help in 1591. Lord Admiral Howard gave him charge of a
Spanish prisoner of war, one Don Louis. The intention was for Howard to ingratiate himself to
the prisoner with hopes that he could extract information about the Spanish fleet. However, the
599
Woudhuysen, Circulation, 102.
Ibid., 103.
601
At some point before 1598 Howard secured a loan from Michael Hickes, his friend from Cambridge who Howard
had sought information from court while at Cambridge. BL Lansdown 109, fol. 13r, referred to in Smith, Servent of
the Cecils, 90.
602
The 1590’s saw the emergence of a new group of men, including Essex, Robert Cecil and others who succeeded
Elizabeth’s core group of councilors who had passed away. Sussex had passed away in 1583, Leicester in 1588, and
although Burghley survived until 1598, he had retired and allowed his son to take his mantel.
600
154
prisoner apparently refused to cooperate and it backfired on Howard. He was accused of being
too friendly with the Spaniard, and once again suspected of treason.603 Howard was brought
before the queen and council to testify to his actions, which he did to their satisfaction, but as a
result he was barred from appearing at court again.604 He withdrew from society, expressing his
desire that he might retire to “a grove and a prayer-book,” but would once again find himself
unable to do so.605
Henry Howard’s thoughts of retirement were altered when Robert Deveraux, second earl
of Essex, and Howard’s cousin, burst onto the scene of court politics and into the queen’s heart.
Robert Deveraux first appeared at court in 1577, the year Howard was commissioned to compose
“Dutifull Defence,” but it would take several years for the young man to make his mark.
Deveraux was the son of Lettice Knollys, who had married the earl of Leicester after the death of
her first husband Walter Devereux, earl of Essex in 1572. Energetic and eager to advance,
Deveraux learned about the consequences of intrigue, and the potential of the queen’s anger, at
an early age. The aging earl of Leicester was losing his influence over Elizabeth to younger men
whose looks and abilities indulged the queen who still enjoyed the company of fit, young
gentlemen.606 More specifically, Leicester had animosity toward Walter Raleigh who had risen
rapidly in Elizabeth’s favor by actively seeking the queen’s attention.607 Leicester felt his
position was threatened and decided to use Essex as a tool to win back Elizabeth’s attention.
Therefore, he brought the boy to court when he was seventeen in order to woo Elizabeth with the
boy’s good looks and larger than life personality.608 Essex rose to the occasion and by 1587 he
603
Nott, Works of Henry Howard, 439; DMV s.v. Henry Howard, 30.
BL Cotton Titus C vi., fol. 32v; Nott, Works, 439;
605
DMV s.v. Henry Howard, 30. The dictionary does not provide a citation for this small quotation.
606
DNB s.v. Walter Raleigh; See Robert Lacey, Sir Walter Ralegh (New York: Antheneum, 1974); 92-93; Robert
Lacey, Robert Earl of Essex (New York: Antheneum, 1971), 30.
607
MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 462, Lacey, Sir Walter Ralegh, 51. Adams, Leicester and the Court, 36.
608
Lacey, Robert, Earl of Essex, 30. See Adams, Leicester and the Court, 46-47, 55.
604
155
was created Master of the Horse, a post which ensured regular court attendance.609 However,
Essex was arrogant, felt no compunction about confronting the queen when he disagreed with
her, and was prone to fits of rage and periods of deep depression- attributes that would influence
his decisions while serving the queen and eventually lead to his downfall.610 In the meantime,
personality traits aside, in the early 1590’s Essex rose rapidly through the ranks of courtiers, and
after the Armada, he became the favorite of the queen.611
With his position as favorite seemingly secure, Essex was forced to live up to the
demands of the positions he had been granted. He had a desire for self- improvement, and
understood that he needed to study. In order to achieve his goal, he sought educated men who
could help him, and also wanted to work with someone who could organize material for him to
read.612 Henry Howard was the perfect candidate. He was a cousin, educated, in need of a
position, and he saw an opportunity on which he could capitalize. Howard ignored Essex’s
connection to Leicester and attached himself to the queen’s new favorite, quickly becoming the
earl’s confidant and friend. The match was more than acceptable in social terms. Howard was
Essex’s equal in status, and Essex looked favorably on Howard’s education, as well as
experience, to the point that Howard regularly visited the earl for private counsel.613 Ironically,
Howard gave Essex advice on how to advance his interests and continue to foster his relationship
with Elizabeth. Over the next few years, Howard offered Essex opinions and counsel on dealing
with politics and the court, and set out to make Essex a statesman who could guide English
affairs with the continent, and thwart the power of men in the court who Howard felt were
609
MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 462.
Ibid., 24-25, 462. MacCaffrey notes that Essex reproached the queen at one point, telling her she was a tool of
Walter Raleigh.
611
See Peck, Northampton, for a discussion on Howard’s relationship with Essex.
612
Paul Hammer, “Elizabethan Statesman,” 13.
613
Nott,Works, 441; DNB s.v. Henry Howard, 30.
610
156
undeserving of their fortune: “The uerie time and manner of his aduancement proue ane
argument of prouidence pro bono publico. His rising to the ouerthrowe of one that opened his
mouth and utterid blasphemies against heauene &c.”614 The heretic Howard referred to was Sir
Walter Raleigh, a man who he detested and sought to destroy.615 To this point, Howard intended
to achieve what Leicester could not- use Essex to unseat Raleigh and take his place at the side of
the queen.616
While Howard’s previous offers for service had been rejected, he helped Essex advance
and the young earl pushed forward in his pursuit to be with the queen. In addition to taking
Leciester’s position as Master of the Horse, Elizabeth also transferred a monopoly on sweet
wines (which had been one of Leicester’s primary sources of income) to Essex in order to
improve his income.617 It seemed he was destined to take Leicester’s place. But, all was not well
in the earl’s pursuit. His lack of respect for his elders, and tendency to act in haste quickly
became a problem. In 1589 he directly disobeyed the queen and accompanied Sir Francis Drake
during his attack of the Spanish coast. It was one of the first signs of Essex’s recklessness, which
Henry Howard was aware of, and as such, he sought continually to curb the earl’s excesses in
personality and actions while they were friends.618 Perhaps wary of the reliance on military
success that his father the earl of Surrey had sought so readily, and which would eventually be
his undoing, Howard discouraged Essex from pursuing foreign assignments, and grand military
614
DUL, Howard Library MS 2, fol. 117r. As cited in Hammer, “Elizabethan Statesman,” 13 and Polarisation, 140.
For a discussion on Raleigh’s heresy see [Anon] An Aduertisement Written to a Secretarie of my L. Treasurers.
18. Paul Hammer, “ ‘Absolute and Soverign Mistress of her Grace’?” Queen Elizabeth and her Favourites, 15811592.” In The World of Favorite. Edited by J.H. Elliot and L.W. B. Brockliss (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1991), 38-53. For one discussion on Howard’s hatred of Raleigh, see Lacey, Sir Walter Ralegh, 274-275.
616
Hammer, “Elizabethan Statesman,” 14-15.
617
Lacey, Robert, Earl of Essex, 29, 76-7.
618
Peck, Northampton, 16.
615
157
exploits, too soon.619 Essex ignored his advice, but nevertheless, Howard supported the earl as
family, and cheered on his success, which seemed to have come quickly. Essex believed he had
achieved his goal in 1589 when he was able to capture Cadiz.620 However, the victory only
bolstered Essex’s ego to the point of arrogance. His inexperience was evident and he still needed
advice to fulfill what was expected of him in his military adventures. For example, when Essex
was created Earl Marshal in 1597, Howard organized the papers Essex would need to understand
the prerogative of his new position.621 Essex came to rely on Howard’s writing skills, and
Howard helped Essex compose letters to the queen and councilors, as well as compose letters of
advice for Essex.622 The earl readily expressed his gratitude for Howard’s assistance, writing that
Howard “laboured above my strength . . . that I might rightly judge,” or, again writing, “my
inward friendship with my Lord H. Howard doth make me know his many virtues.”623 As an
outcast himself at times, Howard would certainly have been able to understand the earl’s
situation, and his devotion to family assured Essex of a loyal supporter.
In spite of his tendency for disobedience, Essex was continuously given the opportunity
prove himself worthy of his position. In 1597 he was commissioned to lead a voyage to Spain,
but the attempted invasion turned into a dismal failure after the earl’s troops succumb to physical
illness. Instead of following through and continuing on to the Spanish coast, he sailed to the
Azores in an attempt to capture a treasure ship so he could appease Elizabeth with bounty. The
619
Howard writes: The carriage of martiall forces, if it could stand with your honour, wear better lefte in another
hande.” DUL, MS 2, fol. 130r. As cited in Hammer, “Elizabethan Statesman,” 20.
620
Lacey, Robert, Earl of Essex, 157.
621
Hammer, Polarisation, 311. Howard wrote about the process: “laboured above my strength, not onlie in ryflinge
all corners of my dustie cabinet about notes belonginge to an honor that dothe now concerne your self, but besides in
sweeping downe the coppwebs everie other where, that I maie rightly judge, and yow may truly understande, what is
your authorite.” BL Harleian MS 286, fol. 268r. As cited in Hammer, Polarisation, 311.
622
Ibid.
623
BL, Harleian MSS,286, fol. 268r. As cited in Hammer, Polarisation , 311.Hammer provides an excellent portrait
of the relationship between Howard and Essex; Peck, Northampton,. 15. Peck cites BL, Add. MSS, 4123, fol. 95v.
158
bounty never arrived and Essex’s adventures were dismissed as “idle wanderings at sea.”624 His
star was beginning to dim, but even during his jaunts and escapades as a privateer, Howard
remained loyal to Essex, in spite of the grumblings at court.625 In 1598, Essex was given a final
chance to prove himself when the decision was made to send him to Ireland.626 He was appointed
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in February, 1599 and given the task of suppressing a rebellion led by
Hugh O’Neill, earl of Tyrone and overlord of Ulster.627 While in Ireland, Howard managed
Essex’s correspondence with the court and served as an intermediary between Essex and his
followers.628 However, Ireland was once again a dismal failure for the earl. His campaign against
Tyrone was inconclusive, and more importantly, Essex had called a private meeting with the
rebel leader, and signed a truce without permission. The move was seen as paramount to
treason.629 Essex was desperate to return to England, but Elizabeth said no. In spite of her
command, he sailed for London anyway in 1599. The queen was furious, and Essex was brought
before the council on September 29, accused of desertion, and taken into custody.630
During Essex’s implosion, Howard realized that even though he may have felt a personal
affiliation with the earl, he needed to maintain positive contact with other members of the court,
from who he might benefit. Howard’s main focus was Sir Robert Cecil, Lord Burghley’s son.
Cecil became a leading minister after his father’s death in 1598 and would serve both Elizabeth
624
Hammer, Polarisation, 265.
Ibid., 288.
626
Some believe that he was sent to Ireland intentionally to get him out of the court and out of the way.
627
Lacy, Robert, Earl of Essex, 216-217. The leader of the Irish rebellion was Hugh O’Neill, earl of Tyrone and
overlord of Ulster.
628
Peck, Northampton,14. In addition to official records, Howard relied on ancient, biblical and medieval historical
accounts when writing “A brief discourse on the right of giving arms.” ; Nott, Works, 441.
629
For an discussion of the campaign, see Lacey, Robert, Earl of Essex, 219-238 and
630
Ibid., 16; Hammer, “Elizabethan Statesman,” 22.
625
159
at the end of her reign, and James I.631 As a result of Howard’s relationship with his father, Cecil
was sympathetic to Howard in the 1590’s, and often kept him informed of what was going on in
court. For example, Cecil kept Howard abreast of Essex’s excursions to Cadiz in order to quell
his cousin’s apparent anxiety about the events.632 Cecil accepted Howard’s loyalty to Essex, and
helped Howard when he could. In 1598, he assisted Howard in re-gaining access to his pension,
which had been so poorly paid over the previous years.633 However, the relationship was far
from secure. When Essex returned from Ireland in 1599, he blamed Robert Cecil for his turn of
fortunes with the queen and accused Cecil of destroying his relationship with the queen.634
Howard was placed in the difficult position of remaining true to Essex while building a working
relationship with Cecil. Therefore, Howard took the opportunity to take advantage of his
relationship with both men, and ended up playing intermediary between them for the next year.
The move worked, and when Essex’s fortunes turned in an unexpected direction, Howard’s did
as well.635
By 1600 Essex was consumed with his need to be with the queen, regardless of her
opinion. Yet, even while his path toward self-destruction continued, Howard remained a friend
and loyal advisor to the frantic earl. Essex was still forbidden to appear at court, so Howard
helped him write letters to the queen and her ministers in an attempt to restore favor.636 When
Essex lost his monopoly on sweetwine, he sought to renew the contract directly with the queen,
and set out to write her a letter. Howard advised him otherwise, and instead of writing to
Elizabeth, Howard encouraged him to write Sir John Stanhope, the Treasurer of the Chamber.
631
For a discussion on Cecil’s word see Alan Haynes, Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, 1563 to 1612: Servant of two
Sovereigns (London: P. Owen, 1989). Howard’s relationship with Cecil at the end of Elizabeth’s reign will be
discussed in chapter seven.
632
Peck, Northampton, 17.
633
Ibid.
634
Lacy, Robert, Earl of Essex, 206-208.
635
Hammer, “Elizabethan Statesman,” 23. Peck, Northampton, 17.
636
Peck, Northampton, 17; Hammer, Polarisation, 335.
160
With a letter secure in the treasurer’s hand, Essex could then write the queen a few days later
with Stanhope’s support when pleading his case for a renewal of the monopoly. Howard’s
influence on the letter is evident, as the language in it exemplifies Howard’s writing style of high
praise and eloquent words: “[I- Essex] enjoin myself never to speak in that style which you are
not pleased to grant, and may be but a mute in your presence, they that have most favours of
fortune shall never be envied by me.”637 Eloquent language aside, their attempt at winning the
queen’s favor failed. Elizabeth remained unmoved, and at the beginning of 1601, the earl finally
decided to retreat to his home on the Strand, Essex House and plot a new course of action from
there.
Once secure in his own home, Essex decided that his only way to bring Elizabeth to her
senses was to raise an army, rebel, seize the court, and force his way into the queen’s
audience.638 He managed to find support from several supporters and over the next couple of
weeks, he devised a march on London in which he planned to take the city and then force his
way into the palace to see the queen.639 However, as with all of Essex’s adventures, the entire
coup came to naught. Poor planning and lack of cooperation forced Essex back to his home after
an aborted attempt to march on London on February 8. Held up in his self- proclaimed fortress,
crown forces besieged Essex House, and the earl was forced to surrender. It was a short affair
from there as Essex was tried on charges of treason and beheaded on February 25, 1601. For his
part Howard had refused to accept open rebellion against a monarch as a course of action, and
took no part in the earl’s rebellion. In fact, after all of the men involved in the rebellion were in
637
HMS Salisbury 10, 328-329. CSPD 1598-1601, 475. As cited in Peck, Northampton, 17.
Peck, Northampton, 17; Lacey, Robert, Earl of Essex, 266.
639
Lacey, Robert, Earl of Essex.
638
161
custody, a few of the men on trial actually asked Howard to intervene on their behalf with
Cecil.640
In the end, the favorite fell, and yet Howard continued to survive. He had lost another
member of his family, even if it was a distant cousin, and by all accounts was still a defeated
man. However, he had carefully navigated the earl’s storm, and the whirlwind of events
involving Essex provided a change of fortune for Howard. By 1601 he had managed to gain
enough influence with Cecil to be brought into favor. Howard’s change in status was noted by
Rowland Whyte in a letter stating that “my Lord Henry Howard hath infinitely travelled in his
business, for surely, things were far out of square between him and Mr. Secretary, which seems
by his direction to be upon better terms.”641 Howard found an open door, and although it would
take a few more years, he slowly began his climb out of suspicion and obscurity.
While navigating the Elizabethan, and then Jacobean courts of the 1590’s and early
1600’s Howard presented copies of “Dutifull Defence” to men who he worked with and
respected. To this point, there are seven extent, identifiable, full manuscripts that Howard had
prepared during or after 1590. Each manuscript is bound, often in purple velvet, with gilded
edges on the leaves and each folio page outlined in double sets of red-ruled frames- an indication
of the status of the recipients. The recto of the first leaf of each treatise contains the title, and the
recipient’s coat of arms was placed on the verso, followed by a personal dedication, written in
Latin and personally signed by Howard.642 His handwriting was also present in the marginalia in
most of the copies. The attention to detail in the preparation of the manuscripts suggests that
640
The two men were Sir John Davies and Sir William Constable. Peck, Northampton, 17. DMV s.v. Howard, 30.
Both men survived to serve James I. For an account of Davie’s involvement in the rebellion, see Lacey, Robert, Earl
of Essex, 278-282.
641
HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, II, 481. As cited in Peck, Northampton, 18; See Nott, Works, 442 for Howard’s
change of status.
642
Woudhuysen, Sir Philip Sidney, 101. Harleian 6257 is an exception. Instead of a coat of arms, a seal appears on
the first folio, which will be discussed below.
162
Howard was personally involved in their design and preparation.643 All of the monographs
produced between 1590 and 1600, were presented to members of the Privy Council or men who
were close to the queen, with the later copies being given to men connected with King James I.
In addition to the copy given to Elizabeth, Howard also presented one to Lord Burghley.
Burghley’s copy contains marginalia in Howard’s handwriting, as well as annotations written by
Burghley.644 As High Lord Treasurer, and the man whose opinion Elizabeth perhaps most
trusted, Howard sought Burghley’s approval more than any other member of council. Despite the
precarious circumstances Howard found himself in during the 1570s and 80s, he tried to
maintain regular contact with Burghley and then his son Robert. As has been seen, Howard
regularly wrote to Burghley, thanking him for his support, assuring him of his loyalty, or
pleading for deference and favor.645 Burghley was not always expedient in his responses, but he
never abandoned the beleaguered noble. In March 1589, Howard dedicated a treatise on prayer to
the chancellor, and he was no doubt one of the first to receive a copy of “Dutifull Defence.”646
The arms of Sir George Carey appear on the next copy.647 The marginalia and Latin
verses addressed to Carey are in Howard’s own hand. From the heraldry, it can be determined
that the manuscript dates before 1596, when Carey was created Lord Hunsdon. The text is
written in a single scribal hand. Cary served the queen for his entire career, culminating with his
appointment as Lord Chamberlain in 1596. He had been connected to the Scottish issues as a
consultant on the contemplated marriage between the duke of Norfolk and Mary queen of Scots.
Additionally, Howard and Cary were cousins as well as related by marriage. Howard maintained
643
Ibid.
Pepys Library MS 2191. Elizabeth’s copy has yet to be identified. See below for further discussion on this with
regard to later manscripts.
645
Howard’s letters to Lord Burghley are found in BL, Cotton MSS, Titus C VI.
646
Henry Howard, “A Work on the Trinity”(1589). Howard mentions the work in a letter written to Burghely in
March 1589. B.L. Cotton MSS, C VI,
647
BL MS Lansdowne 813.
644
163
that Carey was a personal friend and after his difficulties with the Earl of Oxford, Howard cited
Carey in a letter as one of the persons who could vouch for his conduct, since they were on
intimate terms.648
One of the more ornate copies of “Dutifull Defence” was presented to Howard’s
companion and charge, Robert Deveraux, second Earl of Essex.649 In this manuscript, the
dedication to the queen is in a scribal hand, but the Latin verses are in Howard’s own writing.
The signature at the end of the introduction is unique compared to the others. Within his
formation of “Henry Howward,” the first “w” is made to resemble a Greek omega. As has been
seen, Howard’s relationship with Essex was the most intricate and involved of any of the men
who received a copy of “Dutifull Defense.” Based on the relationship between the two men in
the 1590’s, and the fact that Howard saw himself as a councilor to the favorite, Howard would
have wanted Essex to have copy. It is the only manuscript that presents the introductory letter in
script, rather than italic hand. The opening page indicates that it was transferred out of the court
at an early date, as it was given as a gift to one Thomas Chomley in 1623. On the front page of
the manuscript, there is a note that reads, “This was written by Henry Howard E. of
Northampton. He was the learnedist among the nobility, and the most noble among the
learned.”650
Sir John Stanhope also received a copy of “Dutifull Defence,” and as with the rest,
contains notes in Howard’s own hand.651 The dedication is signed by Howard as well. The copy
is interesting in that it reveals something about how scribes worked. The bulk of the text is the
work of one scribe, however, another scribe is responsible for folios 86r-96v. Neither hand is the
648
BL, Cotton MSS, Titus C VI, fol. 5v.
Harvard, Houghton Library MS 826.
650
Ibid, fol 1.
651
Oxford Bodleian MS 903.
649
164
same as the scribe who wrote the previous copies discussed.652 In 1590 Stanhope was made
Master of the Posts and appointed to the Council of the North, as well as being appointed
Treasurer of the Chamber in 1596. Howard was in regular contact with Stanhope during the
1590s, acting as an intermediary on Essex’s behalf. After Howard was promoted to the council in
1603, he and Stanhope served together on the commission that discussed a union between
England and Scotland. Unlike Burghley, Cary, and Essex, Howard did not seek Stanhope’s
favor, but most likely considered him a friend and worthy recipient.
Unusual in its ownership is the copy with the name of William Trumbull appearing on
the manuscript, as well as gilt monogram of Lord Brougham and Vaux.653 The dedication,
marginal additions, and corrections are once again in Howard’s own hand. The title page was
written by a scribe identified as the “Feathery Scribe,” who was active between the 1620s and
the 1640s.654 The body of the work was copied by the same scribe who copied one of the other
manuscripts, and since the body of the text was written in the 1590s, the title page of the
manuscript must have been added at a later date. William Trumbull was a court messenger
during the reign of James I and was raised to the position of diplomat at the court of the
Archduke of Austria. No direct, written communication between Howard and Trumbull exists,
though it can be assumed that they would have had some contact.655 Lord Braugham and Vaux
was Lord Chancellor during the 1850s. He also helped establish the non-denominational
University College of London in 1828, where the manuscript is now housed. How he came to
own a copy of “Dutifull Defence” is unknown.
652
Peter Beal, In Praise of Scribes: Manuscripts and Their Makers in Seventeenth-Century England (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1998), 215.
653
University College London MSS Ogden 16.
654
Ibid., 58.
655
Interestingly, Trumbull was an accomplished lute player and wrote a book of music for the lute. While Howard
was still teaching at Cambridge in the late 1560’s, he requested that a master lute player be sent from London, as he
desired to learn the instrument. Letter from Lord Henry Howard to Mr. Hicks. BL, Lansdowne MSS, 109, fol. 51.
165
Perhaps the most interesting of all the copies of “Dutifull Defence” was presented to Sir
Robert Cotton in 1613, although the copy was most likely produced much earlier.656 As in the
other complete copies, it contains Howard’s autograph and annotations as well as being set in
double ruled form. However, the script is clearly more formal than that in the manuscripts
previously discussed and does not contain a coat of arms. Instead, an illustration of a crown is set
over a rose or thistle with a lion below. The words “Quid Ultra” emerge from the lion’s mouth.
The illustration has never been identified, but it could possibly be some form of motto. The copy
presented to Queen Elizabeth remains unidentified. Nevertheless, the entry for this manuscript in
the Fontes Harlieani lists the queen as an owner of it, and contains the note, “Queen’s signature
formerly f. 26b [the last page of the dedication letter], now excised.”657 It was possible that the
copy was distributed and then returned to Howard since the inscription to Cotton is “ex dono.”
However, the entries in Fontes Hareiani should be treated with caution.658 Though the possibility
is intriguing, there are no other references indicating the manuscript belonged to Queen
Elizabeth, and further research is required before original ownership can be verified. The
dedication was copied by the same scribe who wrote two of the other manuscripts, although the
body of the work was written in another hand.659 In addition, the title of the manuscript reads
“written unto Queen Elizabeth by the Right Honorable Henry Howard, late Earl of
Northampton,” indicating that the page was replaced after 1614. The original owner was not
656
BL Cotton Harleian MS 6257; Beal, 215. The manuscript was removed from the Cotton library when it was
loaned to one Ralph Starkey, who still held the manuscript in 1621; C. G. C. Tite, "'Lost or Stolen or Strayed': A
Survey of Manuscripts Formerly in the Cotton Library," in Sir Robert Cotton as Collector: Essays on an Early
Stuart Courtier and His Legacy, ed. C. J. Wright (London: The British Library, 1997), 276, 470.
657
C. E. Wright, Fontes Harleiani: A Study of the Sources of the Harleian Collection of Manuscripts Preserved in
the Department of Manuscripts in the British Museum (London: British Museum, 1972), 143. Also present on the
manuscript is the name Boothe [Nathanial], who presumably owned the manuscript in the late seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries.
658
C.G.C.Tite, "Lost, Stolen, aor STrayed: A Survey of Manuscripts Formerly in the Cotton Library." In, Sir Robert
Cotton as Collector. Edited by C.J. Wright (London: The British Library, 1997), 276, n. 94, 470.
659
The two manuscripts in the same hand are Lansdown 813 and Ogden 16.
166
identified, but the notes on the final page of the manuscript were in the same hand present in a
work “The Prayer used in the King’s Army after the Battle of Kineton [Edgehill], which was
composed in 1642.”660 In the end, Howard may have intended for his audience to remain small,
but he must have known the treatise would eventually reach a greater audience.
Howard may have written for a small audience, with no interest in having “Dutifull
Defence” released to the public, but regardless of his intent when he presented his manuscripts at
court, consciously or not, he was taking part in a world of oral and textual communication that
firmly grounded him in a sphere of public debate that was emerging in the sixteenth century.661
As has been seen, from the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign ideas and opinions were transmitted
between the public and the monarchy by members of the court and the council. Religious debate
acted as a major instigator of political conflict. Attempts to change policy and disputes over
identity and purpose created a series of spheres that pitted Protestants, and more radical Puritans,
against Catholics on issues ranging from the legitimacy of the regime, Mary Stuart, Elizabeth’s
personal relationships, and the Church of England. 662 A series of spheres emerged, emanating
from the center of the court in order to mobilize public opinion.663 Protestants in the court sought
to meet the Catholic threat to the regime, Catholics replied to the accusations of conspiracy and
sedition, and were in turn met by Protestant moves to repress Catholic opinion. As a result,
660
Cambridge University Library Add. MS 9267; Beal, In Praise of Scribes, 215.
See Lake, “The Politics of Popularity and the Public Sphere”; Lake and Pincus, “Rethinking the Public Sphere”;
Mears, Queenship and Political Discourse.” For constructs of what a “public” encompasses, see Charles Taylor, A
Secular Age (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), 186; Michael Warner, Publics and Counter Publics
(New York: Zone Books), 65. Also see Bronwen Wilson and Paul Yachnin, eds. Making Publics in Early Modern
Europe: People, Things, Forms of Knowledge (New York: Routledge, 2010 for discussions on specific aspects of
the Early Modern Public Sphere.
662
Peter Lake and Steve Pincus. "Rethinking the Public Sphere in Early Modern England. Journal of British Studies,
Vol. 45, No. 2 (April, 2006): 273, 274.
663
In the Habermasian view of the eighteenth century public sphere, it developed autonomously, and independent
of the state. This was not the case in Elizabethan England. The religious and political discourse took place in, and
disseminated from the center of the court outward to the larger public, and was controlled by the state as much as
possible. Peter Lake and Michael Questier, “Puritans, Papists and the ‘Public Sphere’ in Early Modern England: The
Edmund Campion Affair in context. The Journal of Modern History Vol. 72, No. 3. (September, 2000):591, 595.
661
167
several avenues of communication were initiated and used by several public spheres- the court
public, the public connected to the periphery of the court, the public made up of the general
population of England, and in certain cases, an associated public on the continent of both
Protestant and Catholic exiles from England and Scotland. For each sphere, the goal of debate
remained the same. They wanted to force Elizabeth to take action on policy and personal
decisions or prevent her from doing so. In this respect, books, pamphlets, sermons, manuscripts,
letters, and rumors were used as a mode of political maneuvering and public debate, by both
Protestant and Catholic members of the court and the general population in order to express
opinion and possible courses of action.664
However, in the emerging Elizabethan public sphere, intentional movement between the
publics depended on success or failure at the centre of the regime. Unless deemed necessary, the
discussion of ideas, opinions, and texts remained within the court, or Parliament, and only
filtered out to the greater public if a crisis or emergency ensued for the members involved in the
debate.665 From the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign the primary issue that permeated through all
of the public spheres was the queen’s gender, body, religious identity and personal decisions.
Social gossip and public opinion about the Elizabeth’s religion, her physical body and sexuality,
marriage negotiations, and relationship to the Church dominated her reign and elicited written
responses from the court, the general public, or collaboration between the two. Nevertheless,
even though information moved between the spheres, direct interaction between the participants
at court and in the general public was limited, except under extraordinary circumstances.666
664
Ibid.; Lake and Pincus, “Rethinking the Public Sphere,” 274. They write: “In the period after the Reformation,
issues of religious identity and division came together with issues of dynastic and geopolitical rivalry to create a
series of public spheres.” Ibid., 274.
665
Ibid., 277.
666
Lake and Pincus,“Rethinking the Public Sphere,” 276. Mears, Queenship and Political Discourse, 9. Mears
presents the discussion on multiple spheres and their interaction. She writes “One of the most important and
interesting aspects of the court and its relationship with public debate is the permeable barrier between the two, a
168
For the court public, the Anjou Match was seen as a justified reason to present a political
appeal to the general public667 When Gaping Gulf emerged as a polemic against the marriage it is
assumed, as seen earlier, that Stubbs was acting on behalf of a portion of the court, most likely
Leicester or Walshingham.668 Their goal was to expand the debate and take it to a broader
audience, hoping to generate a greater body of protest against the match, and convince Elizabeth
to abandon the idea of the French marriage.669 Members of council risked a trip to the tower if
they directly defied the queen’s desire to marry Anjou. Therefore, they created a response from
outside the court in order to lodge their displeasure with the possibility of a Catholic match. In
the end, Stubbs lost his hand, but the men who commissioned the work kept their heads.
Subsequently, Elizabeth’s reaction to instances of breaching the court sphere was to shut down
public debate on the subject altogether, and return the discussion to its normal parameters
through an act of Parliament or royal decree.670
With respect to Howard, it is clear that his body of writing in the 1580’s and 90’s was
being circulated through the court, and often, the greater public.671 Because of his unique
position of being both a member of the court and the general public, he was able to participate in
permeability created by courtiers who were able to traverse or occupy the different physical spaces of the royal
palaces and the counties.” However, Lake and Pincus refine Mear’s definition of “multiple spheres.” Although they
accept the construct of multiple spheres, they re-evaluate the relationship between the two. According to Lake and
Pinucs, the private and popular spheres only truly interacted at certain times during the Elizabethan Regime. As will
be seen, with the accession of James, the passing of information between the spheres became more commonplace
and accepted as a political tool.
667
Lake and Pincus, “Rethinking the Public Sphere,” 278.
668
Mears uses John Stubbs as an example of the movement between the realms of the public sphere, since he was
most likely asked to write it by a councilor, written by a civilian from the Inns of Court, and released to the broader,
reading public. Queenship and Poltical Discourse, 187, 192.; Lake, “The Politics of Popularity,” 73.
669
Lake and Questier, “Puritans, Papists, and the Public Sphere,” 598. Mears, Queenship and Political Discourse,
200. Mears accepts that Stubbs transversed the realms of public sphere, but she does note that she believes Stubbs to
have acted on his own, rather than writing for someone at court.
670
See chapter three for Elizabeth’s reaction to libel and her attempts to sequester opinion.
671
See Halasz, The Marketplace of Print, 187.
169
the debate with an understanding of both spheres.672 His primary audience was the court, but he
was aware of the greater public debate. For example, Howard was directly involved in the
debates over the Church of England, the contention between Catholics and Protestants at court,
Mary Queen of Scots, the threat of Catholicism to the regime, and all of Elizabeth’s possible
marriages.673 His Defense of the Ecclesiastical Regiment was written for a court audience
specifically, as the debate was primarily centered in the court sphere. However, when he wrote
against John Stubbs’ Gaping Gulf, Howard was aware of broader public opinion on the subject
and stated so in the opening sentence of his tract: “…seeing the general multitude to run
headlong in opinion one course very prejudicial to the Crown and dignity, and the same to
endeavor to fortify by sundry libels and pamphlets thrown abroad and published to the view of
the world.”674 Howard’s involvement in the production of Leicester’s Commonwealth, was to
help write a tract that was clearly meant to slip down into the broader public and influence the
course of events at court through libel and the public humiliation of the earl of Leicester.675 The
collaborators of Leicester’s Commonwealth also wanted to make it appear that the originated
from outside of the court sphere, but unlike Gaping Gulf, no author took credit for the book. The
work’s influence went well beyond the court into the broader English public, but also moved into
672
Howard also knew through his own exposure to the problems of Elizabeth’s reign, and his personal involvement
in them, that once a work was read by the queen, or council and courtiers, people would talk about it, and pass on
the treatise or the information within, to the variant circles surrounding the court and then circulate to the public
through letters, pamphlets and rumors. Handwritten documents (letters, papers, and treatises) that were intended for
private use and restricted circulation were often used for intentional political purposes. Howard learned this early in
his life through his father’s poetry, his brother’s letters, the network of documents surrounding Mary Queen of
Scotts, and the letters passed in and around the court in the 1580’s and 90’s. Howard was able to participate in the
multiple spheres by living both a civilian life at Cambridge and in London, and a noble life at court. He met with
councilors at court, and more shady characters like Mendoza and the people involved with Mary Queen of Scots
outside the control of the court. Often, as has been mentioned, Howard’s platform for discussion was in the greater
public- by meeting in pubs, outside of the court’s ears. See Lake and Pincus, “Rethinking the Public Sphere,” 277.
673
Lake and Pincus, “Rethinking the Public Sphere,” 274.
674
Howard, “Defence of the French Monsieurs,” as cited in Lloyd, Gaping Gulf, 155. Later in the tract, Howard
referred to the populous as being “seduced by the seditious persuasions of such who neither regard God (although
zealous pretenders of religion), neither honor their prince (notwithstanding their flatteries), nor respect their
countries.” 165.
675
Lake, “The Politics of Popularity,” 73.
170
the sphere that included the continental public as well. Thousands of copies of the book were
printed in Europe, providing an even greater element of pressure on Elizabeth and the council to
alter policy toward Catholics and the succession accordingly in response to the tract.676
“Dutifull Defence,” encompassed both the court public, and popular public due to the
subject of debate, even if his intent was to keep the work private. When Howard chose to cite
Knox, Buchanan, Goodman, Leslie, Alymer, and Jewell by name or by proxy in “Dutifull
Defence,” he was participating in the debate on the subject of female rule, which had already
been opened up to the general public. Both Knox’s and Buchanan’s works emanated from the
court public, but they were published and released to the general public before receiving
attention from Elizabeth and her council. In the popular public, women and men voiced their
opinions about the queen after First Blast and The History of Scotland were released. The public
voiced its response to Elizabeth’s rule, evoking opinions similar to those who wrote against
women. Joan Lister from Cobham stated that Elizabeth could not govern the realm “bycause she
is but a woman,” Mary Cleere from Kent wrote, “it did not become women to make knightes,”
and in 1559, a cleric named Peter Hall, along with laborer John Hall were indicted for stating
that “The Quene was not worthie to bear Rule, or to be Supreme Head of the Churche.”677 Both
Knox and Buchanan intended to incite public reaction, and in doing so facilitate changes they
viewed as important to the monarchy and government.678 In response, both the regime and
general public reacted accordingly through burning or banning works they thought were
seditious and unhelpful to their cause.679 In the case of Knox and Buchanan, Howard realized
676
Mears, Queenship and Political Discourse, 193
Ibid., 195. Mears directly ties these rantings to the release of First Blast, but does not state if the individuals
involved had copies of Knox’s book.
678
Knox and Goodman stop short of actually inciting the popular overthrow of a monarch, but justified their
overthrow because of ungodliness and abomination of God’s law.
679
Mears, Queenship and Political Discourse,195. As seen earlier, Knox’s work was banned in England, and
Buchanan’s work was publically burned.
677
171
their motives, and the effect their works had, and thus said with regard to “Dutifull Defence,”
“The purpose in this piece of service was sufficient to weigh downe ye feare of a farre more
dangerous conflict.”680 He may have not intended “Dutifull Defence” to be passed from the court
sphere to the popular sphere, but perhaps the men who read it might pass on his ideas.
There is no doubt that in the 1580’s and 90’s Howard wrote to influence opinion, but as
can be seen, his primary focus was to influence the court, not the general populace. Howard had
a goal, and with his ability to present Elizabeth with his treatise, he hoped court opinion would
sway in his favor and he could improve his position. It would take a few more years, but at the
end of Elizabeth’s reign Howard would achieve his goal. Elizabeth granted him favor, and in
addition, Howard achieved what he could not possibly imagine. His relationship with Robert
Cecil provided him an opportunity to ingratiate a king. At the beginning of the seventeenth
century, Howard’s life changed dramatically, and so did “Dutifull Defence.” The rapid transfer
and reproduction of his treatise to libraries outside of the court, and the debate surrounding its
content, pushed “Dutifull Defence” further into public attention than Howard intended, or could
ever realize.
680
“Dutifull Defence,” fol. 3r.
172
CHAPTER SEVEN
PREFERMENT, SUCCESS, AND LEGAGY
For Henry Howard, the late 1590’s were a time of change, and a change of fate. He had
positioned himself well through Essex’s travails, and after the earl’s death Howard continued to
foster his relationship with Robert Cecil. As a result, Howard’s situation began to improve, as he
found favor with both the elderly Elizabeth, and the young James VI of Scotland. Over the next
two years Howard also continued to write, but his works after “Dutifull Defence” took on a very
different purpose as he became one of two primary men who corresponded with James VI,
securing his succession to the English throne in 1603. After James’ accession, his written work
reflected his new political role. He had finally become the traditional noble he felt he should
have been nearly sixty years earlier. It was the final years of Howard’s life that most constructed
his legacy within later historical writings as little remained of his life during Elizabeth’s reign
except for his written work. “Dutifull Defence” also faced the same scrutiny as its author, and
over the next two centuries both would be subject to periodic re-assessment within various
historiographies.
Twenty years after beginning “Dutifull Defence,” Henry Howard finally found favor with
Queen Elizabeth and was admitted to her presence in 1597. At that time, she also granted him a
£200 pension.681 When Essex rebelled in 1600, instead of being accused of helping with the
earl’s scheme, as had been his history, he remained in favor. He remembered several years later,
“those heavy crosses which I had so often borne had been too light upon proof of guiltiness in
681
DNB s.v. Henry Howard, 30; Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 177. Several years later, Howard reflected on the
moment he was accepted by the queen: “…at my Lord of Herteford’s house in Cannon Row to receive me to her
favour by the kissing of her hand.” Lambeth Palace MS Bacon Papers, vol. 655, f.11, January 9, 1597. As cited in
Peck, Northampton, 15.
173
those things…suspected during the disgraces and disasters of my house and friends.”682 In fact,
his relationship with the elderly queen became so close that it was said Elizabeth was “used to
have much conference with him” and one point even requested that his bed be brought into the
council chamber.683 The exact reasons for her extreme change in attitude toward Howard are
unknown. No doubt both Essex and Cecil helped Howard in achieving his goal. They trusted
him, and because of this it may have helped alter her opinion.684 However, Howard, perhaps, had
an additional advantage- he was the only person of the old court who was still alive. Elizabeth
had outlived Sussex, Leicester, Burghley, Walsingham, and her new favorites, Essex and
Raleigh, had fallen as well.685 Howard might have been, in some small way, a reminder of the
years in which she had been at her height of power, and someone who had now known her
longer than anyone at court.686 Regardless of the reasons for being there, Howard had succeeded.
Nevertheless, he knew the queen was in her final years, and took advantage of his new found
allies to solidify his position at court, and ensure his position at the beginning of the new reign.
Secure in his position with the queen, Howard continued to strengthen his relationship
with Robert Cecil. In 1600, there were several possible claimants to the English throne, but
James VI was the most viable candidate, but Elizabeth continued to refuse to name a successor,
and it was a problem that could not be ignored.687 James VI had tried in vain to convince the
queen to name him as her heir, so he took a different approach to secure his position. He sought
682
Ibid.
Nott, Works, 443; Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 177.
684
Nott, Works, 443; DNB s.v. Henry Howard, 30.
685
Raleigh had secretly married Elizabeth’s lady in waiting, Elizabeth Throckmorton, in 1591. The queen was so
enraged she had him sent to the tower. When he was released, he retired from Elizabeth’s court and then pursued his
naval interests, well outside of Elizabeth’s reach.
686
See MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 443.
687
Peck, Northampton, 18. The Spanish Infanta was considered to be a viable candidate for the English throne for
this reason.
683
174
out the council of Robert Cecil, and Henry Howard.688 James needed people in England who
could guarantee him the succession while Cecil and Howard needed to assure their own power
bases in the new reign.689 The correspondence between the men was secret, and participants
were listed by number to reduce the risk of detection.690 Howard wrote to the king, instructing
him on proper etiquette and conduct with the queen (James’s own attempts had failed), and about
the character of the men who were vying for James’s favor.691 Howard was particularly
vehement against Sir Walter Raleigh and others who he personally disliked.692 His ploy worked,
and when James traveled triumphantly to the south, Raleigh and others were snubbed. Howard
received a Scottish ruby as a token of thanks.693
As a result of his role as an intermediary with James, Henry Howard was richly
rewarded. In March 1603, Robert Cecil drafted the proclamation that announced the queen’s
death and transferred her power, “absolutely, wholly, and solely to James.”694 The document was
sent to Scotland under the greatest security, and when Queen Elizabeth died on March 24, 1603 a
688
Doran, “James VI,” 41; Peck, Northampton, 19. Robert and Essex had already been in correspondence with
James, but after Essex’s rebellion James turned to Howard based on the relationship Howard had with his mother
and Cecil’s assurances of trust.
689
Peck, Northampton, 19; Nott, Works, 443.
690
Their numbers were as follows: James (30), Cecil (10), Howard (3). Akrigg, Letters of King James, 190.
691
Howard helped James understand statesmanship in his communication with Elizabeth. James was never known
for his mastery of words. For a sketch of his character see Godfrey Davies, “The Character of James VI and I.”
Huntington Library Quarterly, Vol. 5, No.1, (October, 1941): 33-63.
692
Howard warned James of Raleigh’s possible duplicity and poor character. Howard’s personal dislike of Raleigh
most definitely came out in his correspondence. Concerning Raleigh he writes, “I account it impossible for him to
escape the snares which wit my set, and weakness is apt to fall into.” Cotton Titus C vi, ff. 386-92. The letter
indicates that he wanted to snare Raleigh into a charge of treason. Ironically, it was an unnecessary attempt, for
Raleigh was the instigator of his own downfall several years later. Other men Howard wrote against include Henry
Brooke and Lord Cobham, Howard convinced James that these men were trying to poison the queen against Cecil
and himself. Peck, Northampton, 20.
693
DNB s.v. Henry Howard, 30; Peck, Northampton, 20; Nott, Works, 444. A letter to Howard in 1602 reveals
James’s feelings about the acts taken to eliminate foes: “The deep and restless care that both worthy 10 and ye have
of my safety I shall never be able to recompense.” James then compares his perceived character of Raleigh to a
knight who was used to get information from him: “…the gentleman’s nature appears to be far different from
Raleigh’s though, out of zeal for me and affection to his friend.” James to Lord Henry Howard, July 29, 1602. As
cited in Akrigg, Letters of King James, 196.
694
James F. Larkin and Paul L. Hughes (eds) Stuart Royal Proclomations. Vol. 1, Royal Proclomations of King
James I, 1603- 1625 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), 1-3. Also cited in Pauline Croft, King James (New
York: Palgrave, 2003), 48.
175
messenger was sent to Scotland, while the succession was announced at Whitehall and Hampton
Court.695 Over the next several months, James made a triumphant progression to London. While
travelling, the men who supported him went to meet him, and James rewarded those he felt had
secured his throne. Henry Howard met James at Theobald’s in Hertfordshire where he was
admitted to the Privy Council.696 After that, the honors multiplied. On January 1, 1604 Howard
was made Warden of the Cinque Ports, and Constable of Dover Castle. On August 13, James
created him Baron Howard of Marnhill and Earl of Northampton. In addition he was given rights
to execute the office of Earl Marshall, and installed as a Knight of the Garter on February 24,
1605.697
Few men could boast of falling to such a depth and then be able to make such a meteoric
rise back into the trust of a monarch. Howard did, and once at the top, he went back to work.
Between 1603 and 1614, he played an active role in politics, working closely with Robert Cecil,
now the Earl of Salisbury.698 As Northampton, he continued to write, but he became known for
his rhetorical skills as well. His work during this time as a councilor reflected his political role as
a participant in one of the major events of early reign, the Gunpowder conspiracy and plot.699
Then, in 1615, Northampton was posthumously accused for the murder of Sir Thomas Overbury.
In each case of sixteenth century intrique that Northampton was supposedly involved in, he was
able to make a case for his innocence. However, none of that seemed to matter at the beginning
of the seventeenth century. The Gunpowder plot and Overbury’s murder would become the
695
Croft, King James, 49.
DNB s.v. Henry Howard, 30.
697
Ibid., Nott, Works, 44-445.
698
For a discussion of Robert Cecil’s career see Alan Haynes, Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, 1563- 1612: Servant
of Two Sovereigns. (London: Peter Own, 1989).
699
See Peck, Northampton, 79.
696
176
primary events he was remembered for, and they both had a major effect on how he was judged
by later generations.
In 1605, a group of conspirators led by Robert Catesby and a group of Roman Catholics
plotted to blow up Parliament in order to assassinate James I in the House of Lords at
Parliament’s opening on November 5.700 At the beginning of his reign, Catholics believed they
would be given greater tolerance by a king, whose mother was a martyred Catholic, and whose
consort was also Catholic, but they were disappointed.701 James took a stance that angered both
Puritans and Catholics, for he wanted to subject them to a Church that avoided the extremes of
both radical Puritans and Papists.702 James even wrote to Howard about his feelings for both
sides: “We have kept such a revel with the Puritans here these two days as was never heard the
like, where I have peppered them as soundly as ye have done the Papists there.”703 According to
James, he was the divinely ordained, head of the Supreme Church of England and the state. As
such there would be a unity between both, fostering peace and harmony on a middle ground,
away from the extremes of both beliefs.704 While neither group was happy with James’s policy,
some more radical Catholics sought to encourage greater tolerance by force. The plot was
eventually revealed, and the eight men were sent to trial. Included in this group was Guy
Fawkes, who was discovered under the House of Lords with thirty-six barrels of gunpowder,
enough to level the House.705 Rarely mentioned in popular accounts of the plot is that
Northampton was the commissioner for Guy Fawke’s trial in 1605, and it appears that Howard
700
For discussions on the Gunpowder Plot see Parkinson, Northecote. Gunpowder, Treason and Plot. (New York:
St. Martin’s, 1976); Alan Haynes, The Gunpowder Plot: Faith in Rebellion. (Stroud, England: A Sutton, 1994).
701
See, Albert J. Loomie, “King James I’s Catholic Consort.” Huntington Library Quarterly. Vol. 34, No. 4.
(August, 1971): 306-316.
702
Kenneth Fincham and Peter Lake, “The Ecclesiastical Policy of King James I.” Journal of British Studies Vol.
24, No. 2. (April, 1985): 169-171.
703
B.L. Cotton Vespasian MS F111, f. 76. James to Lord Henry Howard, January 17(?), 1604. As cited in Letters of
King James VI and I. Edited by G.P.V. Akrigg (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 220.
704
Fincham and Lake, “The Ecclesiastical Policy,” 169-171.
705
Parkinson, Gunpowder, 73.
177
set out to write an account of the events, which he intended to publish, a very different position
from his desire for privacy during Elizabeth’s reign.706
More significant to Northampton at the time was a second trial that revolved around a
Jesuit priest named Henry Garnet, who was accused of having known about the Gunpowder Plot.
Garnet claimed no knowledge of the plot, and Northampton was put in a difficult position. As a
Catholic, he had to face a fellow Catholic in court of law to judge him for the same offences he
had been accused of himself so many times. However, Northampton delivered a speech at the
trial in which he publically denied papal power, and supported the convictions of all men
involved.707 This should not seem unusual, as he had already maintained the stance against
rebellion. His public denial of papal power was politik, and Northampton had done what was
needed to secure a conviction. The conspirators were executed in January 1605, and it was the
government that published an account of the trial, A True and Perfect Relation of the whole
proceedings against the late most barbarous Traitors, Garnet, a Jesuit, and his Confederates,
authored by Northampton.708
It is unknown during the 1580’s and 90’s who edited Northampton’s work, or if he was
even able to have anyone do so. However, in 1606, he was certainly conscientious about what he
was writing, and his editor was Robert Cotton.709 Northampton wrote to Cotton, expressing his
exasperation with his work: “I think you will like it well enough as it is and therefore I dispatch
it out of sight, for though I should read it a hundred times I should every time upon a review alter
706
Nott, Works, 469. Mention is made of a document titled “An History of the Gunpowder Plot,” and Howard spoke
of the title page in a letter to Sir Robert Cotton. Except for the title page, there is no extent copy of any manuscript,
but it is clear that it was Northampton’s desire to produce works for publication.
707
Nott, Works, 469; DNB s.v. Henry Howard, 30. Also see Peck, Northampton, 111.
708
B.L. Cotton Titus C vi. f. 153. Peck, Northampton, 111-112.The book was mentioned by the Venetian
ambassador in December, 1606 , listing Northampton as the author. CSPS, 438-439.
709
Peck, Northampton, 111.
178
it.”710 His statement reflected a lifetime of writing and cross overs, which can be seen in the
drafts of his works that still exist. Northampton also wrote a second letter after the trial, to
Cardinal Bellarmine, apologizing for his denial of papal power in the Garnet portion of the trials,
and explaining that he was indeed a true Catholic.711 In the end, Northampton’s defense of the
proceedings received little attention at the time, but his letter to Bellarmine would be noticed,
and used against him at a later date.
Northampton’s career until the end of his life remained focused on the inner workings of
James’s regime and the continued promotion of his own family. He had secured his own position
at court, and he wanted the same assurances for his extended relatives.712 In 1613 he helped his
niece, Frances Howard, Countess of Essex, who sought a divorce from her husband after falling
in love with Robert Carr, earl of Somerset, who was one of the king’s favorites.713 Carr’s good
friend and confidant, Thomas Overbury, objected to the countesses’ infidelity and the thought of
her marrying Carr.714 Northampton favored the idea of the divorce and actively supported the
proceedings toward a settlement, but Essex refused to divorce.715 Therefore, Howard pursued
and achieved a special commission in which the divorce was granted on grounds of impotence.
Howard testified that his niece was still a virgin, and the marriage had never been
consummated.716 However, afterward, Overbury convinced his friend not to go through with the
marriage. As a result, charges were brought against Overbury and he was imprisoned in the
710
B.L. Cotton Titus C vi. f. 153.
711
712
Nott, Works, 451; Peck, Northampton, 38; Miriam Allen deFord. The Overbury Affair: The Murder Trial that
Rocked the Court of King James I (New York: Chilton Company, 1960), 16.
713
DNB s.v. Henry Howard, 31; Peck, Northampton, 39; Croft, King James, 87-88. Carr’s introduction to James was
“accidental.” He was injured while competing in a court tournament, and James came to visit him while he was
recovering. From that point, his friend Overbury persuaded him to seek power at court, and not just act as a favorite.
714
Overbury disliked Frances Howard and was uneasy with Carr’s growing connection to the Howard family, as he
felt his own influence was suffering as a result. Croft, King James, 89.
715
DNB. s.v. Henry Howard, 31. Howard and the countesses’ father, the earl of Suffolk, visited Essex in May, 1613
in hopes of him agreeing to a divorce, but Essex refused.
716
Nott, Works, 452.
179
Tower in the summer of 1613.717 The hope had been that while prison, Overbury would change
his mind and support the marriage, but in September 1613, the prisoner died.718
While in prison, Overbury had been looked after by Sir Gervaise Helwys, who regularly
updated Northampton on Overbury’s condition and how he was eating.719 When Somerset lost
favor with James in 1615, Helwys came forward, admitting he had known about a plot to kill
Overbury by poison.720 By this time, Northampton had died. Frances was brought to trial and
plead guilty, Carr maintained his innocence, but Northampton was convicted in the court of
public opinion posthumously.721 Northampton’s letters to Frances were read in court, which only
heightened opinion against him: “The Earl of Northampton’s name was much used at the
arraignment of the lieutenant. His letters to Somerset were read, touching the marriage of his
lordship with that virtuous lady, his kinsman. It would turn chaste blood into water to hear the
unchaste and unclean phrases that were contained in them.”722 It was said that Northampton had
seen his influence with the king fading, and sought the marriage, and then murder, in order to
bolster his position. However, Northampton stayed true in death as he had in life, and no direct
evidence was ever produced to prove his involvement.723 Nevertheless, he was not there to speak
for his person, and as a result, his detractors were able to make their case against him.
717
Overbury was imprisoned for refusing an ambassadorship. It was supposed to be to Russia, in order to establish
an English protectorate in North part of the country. Overbury had been interested in the plan in order to stop the
spread of Catholicism in the area. Chester Dunning. “The Fall of Sir Thomas Overbury and the Embassy to Russia
in 1613.” Sixteenth Century Journal. Vol. 22, No. 4. (Winter, 1991): 695, 701. James disliked Overbury’s hold on
Somerset, so when he refused the ambassadorship, he was thrown in the tower as a way to break his influence over
the earl. Croft, King James, 89.
718
DNB s.v. Henry Howard, 30. Peck, Northampton, 39.
719
Ibid.
720
deFord, The Overbury Affair, 36, 78- 80. deFord believes that Helwys was tricked into confessing that he knew
Overbury was about to die. “Let me remember you, sir, how you sent for Sir Thomas Overbury’s servant two days
before he died, and willed him to bring his best suit of hangings to hand his chamber, which you knew were your
fees.” 78. A letter accounts the Countesses making of poison: “Birch, The Court and Times of James the First
(London: Henry Coburn, 1848), 379.
721
This will be seen below, in nineteenth century opinions on Northampton.
722
Letter from Mr. John Castle to Mr. James Miller, at Southampton, November, 1615.Birch, The Court, 381
723
DNB s.v. Henry Howard, 31. deFord, The Overbury Affair, 70.
180
Northampton had dealt with libel earlier in the reign. When the story of his letter to Bellarmine
came out, Northampton had brought the six men who had supposedly spread the rumor to court
and had them charged with libel. Northampton prevailed and the men were fined.724 However, in
the Overbury case, clearly, he had no such abilty. His guilt was presumed and his involvement in
the case would also affect his reputation over time.
Henry Howard died on June 15, 1614, and by that date he was the wealthiest man in
England. Howard had suffered with a “wenish tumor” on his thigh, and he succumbed to his
illness in the middle of the night.725 He left a detailed will, as well as an inventory of his personal
effects and the contents of his home at Northampton House.726 Howard was generous in his
bequests to his attendants and servants, and also left endowments for three hospitals, as well as
laying the foundation for a college at Greenwich, which he placed under the control of the
Mercer’s Company.727
Included in his personal items were portraits of Queen Elizabeth and Mary Stuart, his
sister Catherine, Lady Berkeley, as well as one of Essex, and other men and women he held in
high regard. Additionally, among the grouping of portraits there were “three pictures,” one each
of “one of the Passion, the Kinge, and the Queene his mother.”728 Other than this reference to the
triptych, there were no specific outward displays of Howard’s Catholicism at the time of his
death. However, in his will he provided a very specific statement of his faith: “I dye a true
constant Servaunte of his, and a member of the Catholicke and Apostolike churches, saying with
724
DNB. s.v. Henry Howard, 30.
Ibid.
726
E.J. Shipley, “An Inventory of the effects of Henry Howard KG Earl of Northampton, taken on his death in 1614,
together with a transcript of his will.” Archaeologia, or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity. Vol. 42, (1869):
347-78.
727
Shipley, “An Inventory,” 376. Nott, Works of Henry Howard, 462; DNV s.v. Henry Howard, 32. The hospitals
were located in Shropshire, Castle Rising, Norfolk, and in Greenwich. All of them were established for poor women.
728
The Kinge and Queene being Christ and the Virgin.
725
181
Saint Jerome, In qua fide puer natus fui in eadem senex morior.”729 For his entire life, he had
been forced to deal with opinions and actions against Catholicism and the threat people believed
it posed to England. Surviving the persecution of his person, and his faith, he died a Catholic,
and during his time with James, he had pled with the king to improve the positions of Catholics.
It may have seemed that with James on the throne, the void of understanding between Catholic
and Protestant might disappear, but it did not. The gulf between Catholics and Protestants
remained immense and would become even more divisive for several more centuries.
In the meantime, Henry Howard’s legacy began to take form. When Howard ascended
into his new position in James’s court it seemed that a treatise about women’s rule was no longer
important to courtiers or the general population. Nevertheless, it seems there was still an interest
in “Dutifull Defence,” and copies continued to be made. Partial reproductions of “Dutifull
Defence” survive in at least six manuscripts, and at least three of which may have come from
complete copies of “Dutifull Defence” produced after Howard’s death.730 The headings in four
of the manuscripts open with an identical title ending with the phrase “written for Queene
Elizabeth, by the right honorable Henrye Lord Howard, late Earl of Northampton,” indicating a
production date after 1614.731 They were produced around the same time, possibly as
presentation gifts or perhaps for sale in the emerging booksellers market in the seventeenth
century.
The print market increased dramatically in the seventeenth century, and although scribal
publication was still sought after as a medium of production, it was reserved for more specific
729
Shilpley, “And Inventory,” 375; DNB s.v. Henry Howard, 31. The Latin quotation also appears in Sir James
Mackintosh’s History of England Vol. 4 (London: Longman et.al., 1835), 246.
730
B.L. Additional MS 12513. Copy of the introductory letter, individually bound; B.L. Additional MS 12515 ff.
15v- 16r. Summary of section of “Dutifull Defence.”; B.L. Additioanl MS 64123. Copy of introductory letter; B.L
Harliean MS 7021 ff. 65r- 122r. Copy of introductory letter; Cambridge University Library, Additional MS 9267,
No. 7. Copy of introductory letter. Trinty College Dublin Library, MS 731, ff. 1-54r. Copy of introductory letter.
731
The title appears with this wording in Harliean MS 7021, Additional MS 64213, Trinity MS 731, and Cambridge
Additional MS 9267.
182
works that were not sought out on a large scale.732 Enthusiasm for pastimes, politics or any
number of shared interests instigated the composing of manuscript books, and Booksellers sold
them alongside printed books and pamphlets.733 It is possible that the copies of Howard’s treatise
were produced on a small scale by people who would have continued to have an interest in the
content of the work, or preserve it for personal reasons.734 To this point, scribal publication
followed a more specific path than print books. A commission had to be secured between the
supplier and the scrivener to produce for specific communities, such as the court, close friends,
or colleagues, ensuring that the content would remain personal, at least for a time.
The idea of shared a shared pastime provides a plausible reason why additional copies of
“Dutifull Defence” were produced and then moved into the open market. Howard belonged to
the Society of Antiquaries, a group of men who shared a common interest in manuscripts and
texts.735 Members of the society were elite, literate, and shared a love of history. They regularly
collected books for discussion at dinner meetings held on Fridays in London.736 Sir Thomas
Heneage and Sir Robert Cotton were members of the society, and both had received copies of
“Dutifull Defence.”737 In this respect, “Dutifull Defence” may have been personally
commissioned for individuals or members of a group, like the Antiquarians, out of interest in
Howard and his work, which then moved on to booksellers over time. The copies eventually
became a part of the market for books and pamphlets for sale to the public and encompassed an
732
Harold Love, The Culture and Commerce of Texts: Scribal Publication in Seventeenth Century England.
(Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1998); Cathy Shrank, “ ‘These fewe scribbled rules’: Representing
Scribal Intimacy in Early Modern Print.” Huntington Library Quarterly, Vol. 67, No. 2 (June, 2004): 295. Also see
Halasz, The Marketplace of Print.
733
Ibid. Love provides a list of booksellers who carried manuscript books at their shops.
734
Wouduysen, Sir Philip Sidney, 49,103.
735
Love mentions antiquarianism, the playing of particular musical instruments, astrology, or even sedition as
shared interests that could illicit the production of manuscripts for common use, 179.
736
May McKisack, Medieval History, vii.
737
Ibidl, 59, 77, 155. In 1578, Sir Thomas Heneage and his brother Michael were also keepers of the queen’s
records in the Tower of London.
183
additional sphere in which Howard’s treatise crossed into.738 Indeed, most of the partial copies of
“Dutifull Defence,” have multiple stamps from booksellers. Moving into the market place
created the potential for public discourse well beyond the court and close periphery, and well
away from the grasp of the regime or government.739
Howard and “Dutifull Defence” next emerged in the nineteenth century as a foil for a
particular type of English literature then emerging. The rapid industrialization of the nineteenth
century drastically altered existing social structures as populations moved in to more urban areas,
or new territory, creating new communities through common affiliations. Within this construct,
ideas about the past helped confer purpose, agency, and empowerment to people trying to form
or preserve a society away from traditional roots.740 The idea of the “golden age,” remembering a
shared past portrayed as a state of glorious innocence, became a way to form social identity and
ensure cohesiveness in the present.741 As a result, a “historical awareness” emerged in people
who sought to preserve personal lineage through events in documentary or literary form through
the use of historical narrative and fiction.742 What emerged was a viewpoint that emphasized
“physical, moral, and intellectual improvement” as the foundation for English history.743
The books produced revealed a heroic England that defeated the villains of the European
powers, preserving order and freedom, and enabling England to progress.744 To this point, the
738
For a discussion on the emerging seventeenth century public sphere and its relation to print see Halasz, The
Marketplace of Print, 162-203.
739
Ibid., 163.
740
Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972),
555; Patrick Joyce, “The Constitution and the Narrative Structure of Victorian Politics.” In James Vernon ed. ReReading the Constitution: New Narratives in the Political History of England’s Long Nineteenth Century
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 180, 183.
741
J.G.A. Pocock. Political Thought and History: Essays on Theory and Method. (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2009, 148.
742
Ibid,, 150; Joyce, “The Constitution,” 179.
743
See T.B. Macauley, The History of England from the Accession of James II. Vol. 1 (London: J.M. Dent and
Company, 1905), 10. Macauley’s book was first published in 1848.
744
S.R. Gardiner’s History of England from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the Civil War, 1603–1642
(10 vols. 1883-4) is a example of a heroic, English narrative. He writes in reference to Englishmen’s reactions to
184
narratives were predominantly written by Anglican men, who vilified Catholics as England’s
enemy since the Henrecian Reformation. The Armada’s defeat of Catholic Spain, events during
the Stuart dynasty, including the Gunpowder Plot and the fictitious Popish Plot, only enhanced
the construct of the Protestant England.745 The Glorious Revolution of 1688 was portrayed as a
moral victory against the absolutist Stuart dynasty, and made it illegal for a Catholic to be
monarch of England.746 Legally, Catholics were actually granted more freedom in the late
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as the government tried to appease the issue by passing
Catholic Relief Acts in 1778, 1791 and 1829.747 However, regardless of an improved legal status
both historical and fictional narrative remained set against Catholics, seeing them conspirators
and traitors.748 In this atmosphere, Howard’s works were a foil for a truer form of English
identity.
In keeping with the desire to create a corporate English past, numerous, voluminous
histories of England were published in the nineteenth century and none of them were favorable
to Henry Howard. For example, Sir James Mackintosh, Whig MP and political writer, published
The History of England in 1835.749 An early supporter of the French Revolution, and adversary
of Edmund Burke, Mackintosh worked his way through the political minefield of nineteenth
James VI’s accession: “Even in those days, the long exercise of the duties and privileges of self-government enabled
Englishmen to pass through a political crisis with calmness which appeared almost miraculous in the eyes of a
foreigner.” I, 86; Macauley, History of England, 9.
745
See Linda Colley, Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707- 1837(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992), 19,20.
Also see Theodore Koditschek, “The Making of British Nationality.” Victorian Studies. Vol. 44, No 3, (Spring,
2002): 389-398. Colley’s chapter “Protestants” provides an excellent discussion on the dominance of a Protestant
identity in England.
746
Colley, Britons, 20.
747
See Richard W. Davis, “Wellington and the “Open Question’: The Issue of Catholic Emancipation, 1821-1829.”
Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies. Vol.4, No. 29 (1997): 39-55; Colley, Britons, 339, 340.
748
For example, Charles Kingsley’s 1853 novel, Hypatia, as well as his 1855 Westward Ho! were vehemently antiCatholic. Charles Dickens portrayed aspects of anti-Catholic sentiment in Barnaby Rudge (1841) See Michael
Wheeler, The Old Enemies: Catholic and Protestant in Nineteenth Century English Culture. (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2006).
749
Sir James Mackintosh, The History of England
185
century England, eventually securing his place in Parliament as a reformer.750 In his history, the
change in attitude toward Howard was clear. He referred to Howard as “One of the worst and
vilest of those Confederates” referring to the Overbury case.751 Then, 1883, S.R. Gardiner, a
professor of history at King’s College London, and supporter of the Puritan Revolution and
Oliver Cromwell, also published a book titled The History of England.752 Gardiner was also
highly critical of Howard, and his Catholicism, believing it interfered in his work as one of the
king’s councilors.753 Gardiner writes: “of all who gathered round the new king this man was,
beyond all comparison, the most undeserving of the favours which he received.”754 Gardiner is
sympathetic to the Protestant hero in the text, Sir Walter Raleigh, believing that he was
persecuted by Howard. Referring to a letter written about Raleigh to King James, Gardiner states
“it is not complimentary; but it is very different than the constant abuse of him by Lord H.
Howard.”755
In 1858 a New York based weekly, The Albion, ran a review of “The Lawful Regiment of
Women.”756 The review states that the content is based on readings of two copies of “Dutifull
Defence,” at the British Museum, referring to it as a “exceedingly curious specimen,” and then
emphasizes the need to understand not only “who,” but “what” the writer was.”757 The original
source of the review is unknown, and it may have been a reprint from a journal in England.
750
DNB s.v. Sir James Mackintosh. For works on Mackintosh see, Patrick O’Leary, Sir James MacKintosh, the
Whig Cicero. (Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press, 1989)
751
Mackintosh, The History of England, 246-247.
752
S.R. Gardiner, History of England. 10 Vols.(London: Longman, Green and Company, 1883). DNB s.v. S.R.
Gardiner.
753
Ibid., I, 94.
754
Ibid., I, 93. Also cited in Peck, Northampton, 4.
755
Gardiner, History of England, I, 90.
756
The Albion, A Journal of News, Politics and Literature (1822- 1876). September 25, 1858, 36, 39. 457.
Underneath the title The Albion, it reads “A British, Colonial, and Foreign Weekly Gazette.”
757
Ibid. The author indicates that he is pulling information from biographers of Howard. He mentions the same
seventeenth century biography known to the authors of other pieces on Howard, but with regard to other comments,
the sources for the biographies is unknown. In reference to Howard, the line reads “it will be well to inquire who and
what the writer was.”
186
However, regardless of the source, the content is equally as negative toward Howard. It refers to
him as a “despicable and wicked wretch” who died “a Papist, since he had not chance of heaven
in any other religion.”758 It also mentions Howard’s involvement in the Overbury murder. AntiCatholic, the sentiment can be seen throughout the article. Although titled as being about the
treatise, the article ignores the body of “Dutifull Defence,” focusing only on the introductory
letter, describing it as going on for pages, “like a strain of eulogy.” After a detailed discussion of
the letter, the author concludes by dismissing Howard. There is one final paragraph on the
content of “Dutifull Defence,” stating that, “We have nothing more to say in conclusion, than
that the work prefaced by this dedicatory epistle is prosy in the extreme, full of boured
arguments, dealing abundantly in antithesis, but devoid of point and purpose, giving abundant
proof of pedantry and little evidence of real learning…In short, the book is the production of a
euphuist, and is chiefly interesting as a specimen of the heights of folly to which the euphuists of
those days loved to soar.”759 The author did not mince his words, and for whoever read this
review, any thought of pursuing a reading of “Dutifull Defence,” would have seemed pointless.
Contrary to the general vilification of his character and accusations of blatant flattery,
Howard acted in accordance of what was expected of a Tudor courtier in the drive for patronage
and personal gain. There is no doubt that Howard wore many hats, and at some points was a
consummate actor, but this was expected of all men who sought position and power in
Elizabeth’s court. Howard survived the game, which cannot be said for a good deal of the men
around him. He was a successful politician whose acts and motives were seen as treacherous
because of his religion, rather than his manner. It took Howard thirty years of tenacity and
perseverance, but he finally achieved his goals and lived to see his legacy begin. He had the
758
759
Ibid.
Ibid.
187
remains of his parents exhumed and re-interred, as well as proposing interest in erecting a
monument to Mary Queen of Scots at Westminster Abbey.760 The hospital he endowed at
Greenwich is still open today, as well as the charities that surround it. Howard’s portrait still
hangs in the entrance to the Mercer’s Company, to whom he entrusted the progress of Trinity
Hospital Greenwich, which opened in 1617.761
Henry Howard’s career constitutes one of the most remarkable success and survival
stories of the sixteenth and early seventeenth century. He was a man who from his earliest days
was forced to live by the maneuvering of his wits and education. He faced great odds and at
times was clearly torn between his loyalties to the Virgin and the virgin queen. However,
through the use of his pen and his wits he was able to conceive the position he believed he was
entitled to and continuously worked toward his goal. As an author, a scholar, and courtier,
Howard remained in the shadows, but always maintained a presence in Elizabethan politics, and
his life and work deserved to be kept in the forefront of sixteenth century history. However, this
was not the case.
Anti-Catholic sentiment during his life, and the through the following centuries ensured
that the Howard name, as well as Henry’s life and work, were reduced to villainy and Howard
was regarded as ignominious at best. As such, his role in the world of Elizabethan rhetoric and
politics has remained under studied. The rejection of Howard and his work through the
nineteenth century reveals something about British culture as Englishmen sought an identity
grounded in Protestant foundations.762 Sixteenth century fear of Catholics evolved into not only
intolerance, but a rejection of the lives and works of men and women who adhered to teachings
760
Sessions, Henry Howar, 216; DNB. s.v. Henry Howard, 32.
Ursula Carlyle, editor. The Mercer’s Company. London: The Mercer’s Company, 2002. 5. The Mercer’s
Company was kind enough to provide me with a high quality photograph of Henry Howard
762
See Colley, Britons.
761
188
of the Church. Historians ignored or condemned those figures who they felt did not ingratiate the
ideal they sought for British history.763
Moreover, the gender debate abated after Elizabeth’s death as a king returned to the
throne and the queens who followed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were content to
maintain a more traditional gender position and work within the confines of male power. Natural
law and its place in culture gave way to a drive to uncover the facts of the past, rather than its
nature. For nineteenth century men, and Whig historians, making a defense of women on
intellectual grounds or including them in the framework of British nationhood would be outside
the bounds of accepted practice.764 Therefore, both Henry Howard the Catholic, and his defense
of women were not considered in nineteenth century discussions of English history and culture.
“Dutifull Defence” is a unique manuscript that deserves scholarly attention. Using over
400 sources, Henry Howard wove together the ideas and rhetoric of the Church fathers,
Scripture, English law and ancient philosophy to reject John Knox’s arguments against women.
Howard rejected Aristotelian biology that insisted that according to nature, women were the
lesser of the sexes. Instead, he proposed a Platonic understanding of gender difference. Howard
emphasized the essence of gender over the physical attributes of women that drove ideas and
law. By combining Platonic constructs of gender with his extensive knowledge, along with
personal experience and opinion, Howard was able to construct an intellectually consistent and
sound defense of queenship that remains a seminal work of the subject of female rule.
763
See Herbert Butterfield, The Whig Interpretation of History (New York: Norton, 1965).
For further discussions on opinions and the role of women in Whig history see Stephaine Shields, “Passionate
men, emotional women: Psychology Constructs Gender Difference in the late Nineteenth Century.” History of
Psychology Vol. 10. No. 2 (May, 2007), 92- 110; Mary Spongberg and Clara Tuite, “The Gender of Whig
Historiography: Women writers and Britain’s Pasts and Presents.” Women’s History Review. Vol. 20. No. 5 (2011),
673-687; Alexis Easley, “Harriet Martineau: Gender, National Identity, and the Contemporary Historian. Women’s
History. Vol. 20. No. 5 (2011), 765-784.
764
189
The combination of evidence supports the conclusion that shallow ambition alone could
not have motivated Howard to write “Dutifull Defence.” Contrary to accusations of being a
sycophant and a hack, Howard was one of the most educated men of his time, giving him the
ability to construct a complex, structured argument in favor of women’s rule. As has been seen,
the extensive number of sources and extreme length of the work would have been unnecessary if
adulation for the purpose of promotion had been Howard’s only goal. Howard went to great
lengths to show that gender could be conceived differently in the sixteenth century. He utilized
as many sources as possible to structure his arguments, and took full advantage of his education
and the connections available to him in order to do so. In addition to the advantage of his
position as an educated man, the sheer time spent writing “Dutifull Defence,” and his refusal to
give the work up in spite of difficulty, also reveal a more genuine motive for writing than simple
flattery. His early work for his sister, written before there was a need for his to pursue
patronage, reflects the same arguments as in “Dutifull Defence,” that a women is capable of
learning and utilizing her education. “Dutifull Defence” is one of most theoretically informed
defenses of women produced at the time.
Moving into the twentieth century, the exceptionally negative portraits of Howard’s life
have given way to a more objective methodology in modern scholarship. Linda Levy Peck paid
Howard great respect in her thoughtful approach to his person, and placing him in context with
the social world in which he existed during James’s reign. Daniel Andersson followed up with an
extensive work on Howard’s use of rhetoric, focusing on his education and writing skills, but
only discusses “Dutifull Defence” in passing. Amanda Shephard provides a partial look at
“Dutifull Defence” in context to other works written at the time. The historiography on Henry
Howard’s life, and “Dutifull Defence, is still incomplete. There is, as of yet, no comprehensive
190
biography of his early life, or full edition of “Dutifull Defence” in print. Moreover, this work is
the first look at the connection between Henry Howard and his role in the early modern public
sphere.
Overall, Henry Howard encompassed both the best and worst of Elizabethan England,
participating in nearly all of the major debates of her reign. More importantly, he wrote about
them, providing readers with a glimpse of the mind of an author, and left evidence of the
processes he went through to construct a work. And, most impressively, he survived, and in
course has attracted the attention of scholars who are still trying to figure out his character, and
arrive at a conclusion about his motives. All of this provides opportunity for further research, and
discovery on a man who at one point could only describe himself as nothing more than ‘a man
obscured.”
191
REFERENCES
Manuscript Sources:
Abergavenny Peerage Manuscripts. House of Lords Record Office. London, England.
Additional Manuscripts British Library. London, England.
Additional Manuscripts. Cambridge University Library. Cambridge, England.
Bodleian Library Manuscripts. Oxford, England.
Case Manuscripts, Newberry Library. Chicago, Illinois.
Cotton Manuscripts, Appendix, British Library. London, England.
Cotton Manuscripts, Caligula, British Library. London, England.
Cotton Manuscripts, Titus, British Library. London, England.
Cotton Manuscripts, Vespasian, British Library. London, England.
Harleian Manuscripts, British Library. London, England.
Houghton Library Manuscripts. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Howard Library Manuscripts. Durham, England.
John Jay Smith Papers, Haverford College Library. Haverford, Pennsylvania.
Lansdowne Manuscripts, British Library. London, England.
Magdelane College Manuscripts, Pepy’s Library. Cambridge, England.
Ogden Manuscripts, University College. London, England.
State Papers, Public Record Office. London, England.
Trinity College Manuscripts. Dublin, Ireland.
Printed Primary Sources:
A Catalogue of the Contents of Strawberry Hill. Smith and Robins, 1842.
Akrigg, G.P.V. editor. Letters of King James VI and I: University of California Press, 1984.
192
The Albion: A British, Colonial, and Foreign Weekly Gazette. Vol. 86, No. 89. Printed in
New York, Saturday, September 25, 1858: 457-458.
Alymer, John. An harborovve for faithfull and trevve subiectes agaynst the late blowne blaste,
concerninge the gouernme[n]t of vvemen. wherin be confuted all such reasons as a
straunger of late made in that behalfe, with a breife exhortation to obedience. London:
John Day, 1559.
Agrippa, Cornelius. Declamation on the Nobility and Preeminence of the Female Sex. Translated
and edited by Albert Rabil, Jr. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
Archaeologia: Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity. Volume XXIII. London: Society of
Antiquaries of London, MDCCCXXXI
Aristotle, Generation of Animals. Translated by A.L. Peck. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1943.
_______. Politics. Translated by H. Rackham. 23 vols. Vol. 21. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1932.
Becon, Thomas. An humble supplicacion vnto God for the restoring of hys holye woorde,
vnto the churche of Englande, mooste mete to be sayde in these oure dayes, euen with
teares of euery true [and] faythfull English harte. Strasburg: J. Lambrecht(?), 1554.
Bede. Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Translated by Bertram Colgrave.
Edited by Bertram Colgrave and R.A.B. Mynors. Oxford: University of Oxford Press,
1969.
Birch, Thomas. Memoirs of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth. 2 vols. Vol. 1. London, 1754.
Bodin, Jean. The Six Bookes of a Commonweale: A Facsimile Reprint of the English Translation
of 1606. Edited by Kenneth D. McRae. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962.
Buchanan, George. The History of Scotland. Written in Latin, by George Buchanan. Faithfully
rendered into English. J. Fraser, 1689.
A Collection of State Papers Relating to the Affairs in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth from the
Year 1571-1596. 2 vols. Vol. 1. London: William Bowyer, 1759.
Bruce, John ed. Correspondance of King James VI of Scotland with Sir Robert Cecil and others
in England During the Reign of Queen Elizabeth. Westminster: Camden Society, 1861.
Goodman, Christopher. How Superior Powers Oght to Be Obeyd. Geneva: John Crispin, 1558;
reprint, Columbia University Press, 1931.
193
Grace Book: Containing the Records of the University of the University of Cambridge for the
Years 1542-1589. Edited by John Venn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910.
Harris, Sir Nicholas. Memoirs of the Life and Times of Sir Christopher Hatton, K.G. London:
Richard Bentley, 1847.
Herodotus. The Histories. Translated by Robin Waterfield. Oxford: University of Oxford Press,
1998.
Jewel, John. An apologie, or aunswer in defence of the Church of England concerninge the state
of religion vsed in the same. Newly set forth in Latin, and nowe translated into Englishe.
London: Reginald Wolf, 1562.
Kingsley, Charles. Hypatia. 2 Vols. London: Parker and Sons, 1853.
Knox, John. The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstruous Regiment of Women.
Genevea: n.p. 1558; reprint, New York: De Capo Press,1972.
Leslie, John. A Defence of the Honour of the Right Highe, Mighty and Noble Princesse Marie
Quene of Scotlande and Dowager of France. London: Eusebius Diczophile, 1569.
Lindsay, David. Ane dialog betuix Experience and ane courteour Off the miserabill estait of the
warld. Paris: J. Petit(?), 1558.
Mulcaster, Richard. "Positions Wherein Those Primative Circumstances Be Examined, Which
Are Necessary for the Training of Children, Either for Skill in Their Book, or Health in
Thier Body." (1581).
The Newcastle Courant. Friday, August 9, 1872. Issue 10311
Office, Public Record. Calendar of Letters, Despatches, and State Papers Relating to the
Negotiations between England and Spain Preserved in the Archives at Simancas [and
Elsewhere]. 13 vols. London: Longman, & Roberts, 1862-, 1862-.
_____. Calendar of State Papers Foreign Series of the Reign of Elizabeth. 23 vols. Nendeln,
Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint Ltd., 1966.
_____. Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reigns of Edward Vi, Mary, Elizabeth,
James I, 1547-[1625]. 12 vols. Nedeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint Ltd., 1967.
_____. Calendar of the State Papers Relating to Scotland and Mary, Queen of Scots, 1547-1603,
Preserved in the Public Record Office, the British Museum and Elsewhere in England. 13
vols. Edinburgh: H. M. General Register Office, 1898-1969.
Plato. Republic. Translated by G.M.A. Grube. Revised by C.D.C. Reeve. Cambridge, MA:
Hackett Publishing Company Inc., 1992.
194
Preston Chronicle. Saturday, April 8, 1837. Issue, 1284
Proceedings in the Parliaments of Elizabeth I. Vol. I, 1558-1581. Edited by T.E. Hartley.
Wilmington, Delaware, 1981.
Strong, William. Strawberry Hill: A Catalouge of a Singularly Choice Collecion of Rare and
Valuable Books in the Various Departments of Literature: Comprising Early English
Poetry and Plays, British and Foreign History and Biography, Black Letter and Privately
Printed Books, Romances, Jest Songs, Ballads, Music, and Treatises on Music, a few
Highly Interesting Manuscripts, Many Fine Books of Prints, Coins, Gems etc.,
Miniatures, Paintings, Ancient Carvings, Tapestry, Valuable Original Portraits of
Distinguished Persons, Together with Some thousands of Engraved Portraits, etc., etc.,
Principally form the Collection of Horace Walpole: The Whole are in Fine Condition.
Many of the Books are in Elegant Ancient and Modern Bindings, offered at the Prices
Affixed to Each Article by William Strong. Bristol: W. Strong, 1843.
Thorpe., Markham John, ed. Calendar of the State Papers, Relating to Scotland, Preserved in the
State Paper Department of Her Majesty's Public Record Office. 2 vols. London:
Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans, 1858.
Secondary Sources:
Adams, Simon. “Eliza Enthroned?. The Court and its Politics.” In The Reign of Elizabeth
I. Edited by Christopher Haigh. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1985.
_____. Leicester and the Court: Essays on Elizabethan Politics. Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 2002.
Addison, William. Audley End. London: J. M. Dent and Sons, 1953.
Ahlstrom, Sydney, E. A Religious History of the American People. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1972.
Alford, Stephen. Burghley: William Cecil at the Court of Elizabeth I. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2008.
Andersson, Daniel. Lord Henry Howard (1540-1614) And Elizabethan Life. Cambridge:
D.S. Brewer, 2009.
_____. “‘Embarke, But Under Caution’: A New Elizabethan Masque Fragment.” Notes and
Queries. Vol. 55, No. 2. June, 2008: 171.
Ashton, Robert. Reformation and Revolution, 1558-1660. London: Granada Publishing,
1984.
195
Baker, David Weil. Divulging Utopia: Radical Humanism in Sixteenth-Century England.
Amherst: University of Manchester Press, 1999.
Barker, Nicolas. "The Books of Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton." Bodleian Library Record
13 (1990): 375-81.
Barnes, K. "John Stubbe, 1579: the French Ambassador's Account." Historical Research. Vol.
64. No. 155 (October, 1991), 421-426.
Barrett- Graves, " 'Highly touched in honour': Elizabeth I and the Alençon Controversy." In
Elizabeth I: Always Her own Free Woman. Edited by Jo Eldridge Carney, Debra BarrettGraves and Carole Levin. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003.
Beal, Peter. In Praise of Scribes: Manuscripts and Their Makers in Seventeenth-Century
England. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.
Bell, Gary. "The Last Elizabethan Resident Ambassador in Spain." The Sixteenth Century
Journal." Vol. 7, No. 2 (October, 1976): 75-93.
Bellany, Alastair. The Politics of Court Scandal in Early Modern England: News, Culture, and
the Overbury Affair, 1603-1660. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Ben-Amos, Ilana Krausman. Adolescence and Youth in Early Modern England. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1994.
Binns, J.W. Intellectual Culture in Elizabethan and Jacobean England: The Latin Writings of the
Age. Leeds: Francis Cairns Ltd. 1990.
Bossy, John. Under the Molehill: And Elizabethan Spy Story. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2001.
Bossy, John. "The Character of Elizabethan Catholicism." In Crisis in Europe, 1560-1660, edited
by Trevor Aston., 223-247. New York: Doubleday, 1965.
_____. "English Catholics and the French Marriage, 1577-1581. Recusant History. 5 (1959): 216.
Brennen, Michael G., Noel J. Kinnamon and Margaret P. Hanney. "Robert Sidney, the Dudleys
and Queen Elizabeth." In Elizabeth I: Always her Own Free Woman. Edited by Jo
Eldridge Carney, Debra Barrett-Graves and Carole Levin. Burlington, VT: Ashgate,
2003.
Breslow, Marvin A., ed. The Political Writings of John Knox. London: The Associated
University Press, 1985.
196
Brimacombe, Peter. All the Queen's Men: The World of Elizabeth I. New York: St. Martin's
Press, 2000.
Brooks, Christopher W. Lawyers, Litigation and English Society Since 1450. London: The
Hambledon Press, 1998.
Brooks, Eric St. John. Sir Christopher Hatton: Queen Elizabeth's Favourite. London: Johathan
Cape,1947.
Bryson, Anna. From Courtesy to Civility: Changing Codes of Conduct in Early Modern England.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.
Burns, J.H. "Knox: Scholastic and Cononistic Echos." in John Knox and the British
Reformations. Edited by Roger Mason. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998.
Butterfield, Herbert. The Whig Interpetation of History. New York: Norton, 1965.
Cannadine, David. The Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2009.
Carlson, David R. English Humanist Books: Writers and Patrons, Manuscript and Print, 14751525. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993.
Carrafiello, Michael. "English Catholicism and the Jesuit Mission of 1580-1581." The Historical
Journal. Vol. 37. No. 4 (December, 1994), 761-774.
Cioni, Maria L. "The Elizabethan Court of Chancery and Women's Rights." In Tudor Rule and
Revolution: Essays for G.R. Elton from His American Friends, edited by Delloyd J. Guth
and John W. McKenna., 159-182. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
Childs, Jessie. Henry VIII's Last Victim: The Life and Times of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey.
London: Jonathan Cape, 2006.
Colley, Linda. Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707-1837. New Haven: Yale University Press,
1992.
Collins, James B. From Tribes to Nation: The Making of France, 500-1799. London: Thomson
Learning, 2002.
Collinson, Patrick. The Elizabethan Puritan Movement. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1967.
_____. "John Knox, the Church of England and the Women of England." in John Knox and the
British Reformations. Edited by Roger Mason. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998.
197
_____. "Puritans, Men of Business and Elizabethan Parliaments." In Elizabethan Essays.
London: The Hambledon Press, 1994.
Coole, Diana H. Women in Political Theory: From Ancient Misogyny to Contemporary
Feminism. Brighton, Sussex: WheatSheaf Books, 1988.
Croft, Pauline. King James. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2003.
Crossley, Nick and John Michael Roberts. "Introduction." in After Habermas: New Perspectives
on the Public Sphere. Edited by Nick Crossley and John Michael Roberts. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing, 2004.
Cust, Richard. "The 'public man' in late Tudor and early Stuart England." In Politics of the
Public Sphere in Early Modern England. Manchester: Manchester University Press,
2007.
Daston, Lorraine J. and Katherine Park. "Unnatural Conceptions: The Study of Monsters in
Sixteenth- and Seventeenth -Century France and England. Past and Present. No. 92,
August, 1981. 20-54.
Davis, Richard. "Wellington and the 'Open Question,' The Issue of Catholic Emancipation.
Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies. Vol. 29, No. 1. 39-55
De Ford, Miriam Allen. The Overbury Affair: The Murder Trial that Rocked the Court of King
James I. Philadelphia: Chilton Company, 1960.
Dickens, Bruce and Alfred Fairbank. The Italic Hand in Tudor Cambridge. London: Bowes and
Bowes, 1962.
Dictionary of National Biography. 22 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1949.
Diethorn, Bernard and Vincent P. Lannie. "For the Honor and Glory of God: The Philadelphia
Bible Riots of 1840." History of Education Quarterly. Vol. 8, No. 1. Spring, 1968. 44106.
Doran, Susan. "Elizabeth I: Gender, Power and Politics. History Today. May, 2003. 29-35.
_____. "The Political Career of Sir Thomas Radcliffe, Third Earl of Sussex, 1526?- 1583.
Unpublished dissertation
_____. "Religion and Politics at the Court of Elizabeth I: The Hapsburg Marriage Negotiations
of 1559-1567. The English Historical Review Vol. 104. No. 413 (October, 1989), 908926.
Dutton, Richard. Ben Jonson, Volpone and the Gunpowder Plot. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2008.
198
Easley, Alexis. "Harriet Martineau: Gender, National Identity, and the Contemporary Historian."
Women's History. Vol. 20. No. 5 (2011), 765- 784.
Edwards, Francis. The Dangerous Queen. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1964.
_____. The Marvellous Chance: Thomas Howard, Fourth Duke of Norfolk, and the Ridolfi Plot,
1570-1572. London: Rupert Hart- Davis, 1968.
_____. Plots and Plotters in the Reign of Elizabeth I. Portland: Four Courts Press, 2002.
Feenstra, Robert. "Law." In The Legacy of Rome: A New Appraisal, edited by Richard Jenkyns.,
399-420. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Flech, Susan. "The Rhetoric of Biblical Authority: John Knox and the Question of Women." The
Sixteenth Century Journal 26 (1995): 805-22.
Ford, Steven. "Gender and Politics in Plato." The American Political Science Review. Vol. 91,
No.3. September, 1997. 675-670.
Franklin, Julian H. "Sovereignty and the Mixed Constitution: Bodin and his Critics. In The
Cambridge History of Political Thought. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press,
1991.
_____. Jean Bodin and the Sixteenth-Century Revolution in the Methodology of Law and
History. New York: Columbia University Press, 1963.
Frasier, Antonia. Mary Queen of Scots. New York: Random House Inc., 1969.
Gillingham, John. "From Civitas to Civility: Codes of Manner in Medieval and Early Modern
England. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. Sixth Series, Vol. 12 (2002) 267289.
Gardiner, Michael E. "Wild publics and grotesque symposiums: Habermas and Bakhtin on
dialogue, everyday life and the public sphere." In After Habermas: New Perspectives on
the Public Sphere. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.
Gardiner, S.R. History of England from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the Civil
War, 1603–1642. 10 vols. London: Spottiswoode and Company, 1883.
Greaves, Richard L. "Concepts of Political Obedience in Late Tudor England: Conflicting
Perspectives." Journal of British Studies 22 (1982): 23-34.
_____. Theology and Revolution in the Scottish Reformation: Studies in the Thought of John
Knox. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Christian University Press, 1980.
199
Guerci, Manolo. "The Construction of Northumberland House and the Patronage of its Original
Builder, Lord Henry Howard, 1603-1614. The Antiquaries Journal. Vol. 90, September,
2010. 341-400.
Guy, John. The Reign of Elizabeth I: Court and Culture in the Last Decade. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1995.
_____. Tudor England. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Habermas, Jurgen. On Society and Politics: A Reader. edited by Steven Seidman. Boston:
Beacon Press, 1989.
Hacket, Helen. "The Rhetoric of (in)Fertility: Shifting Responses to Elizabeth I's Childlessness."
in Rhetoric, Women and Politics in Early Modern England. Edited by Jennifer Richards
and Alison Thorne. London: Routledge, 2007.
Haigh, Christopher. "The Continuity of Catholicism in the English Reformation." The Past and
Present Society.No. 93. (November, 1981), 37-69.
_____. "From Monopoly to Minority: Catholicism in Early Modern England." Transactions of
the Royal Historical Society. Fifth series, Vol. 31 (1981) 129-147.
Halasz, Alexandra. The Marketplace of Print: Pamphlets and the Public Sphere in Early Modern
England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Hammer, Paul J. The Polarisation of Elizabethan Politics: The Political Career of Robert
Devereux, Second Earl of Essex, 1585-1597. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1999.
_____. "The smiling crocodile: the earl of Essex and late Elizabethan 'popularity'. In The Politics
of the Public Sphere in Early Modern England. Manchester: Manchester University
Press, 2007.
Handover, P.M. The Second Cecil: The Rise to Power, 1563-1604 of Sir Robert Cecil, Late First
Earl of Salisbury. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1959.
Harris, Barbara J. "Women and Politics in Early Tudor England." The Historical Journal 33
(1990): 259-81.
Harris, Sir Nicholas. Memoirs of the Life and Times of Sir Christopher Hatton, K.G. London:
Richard Bentley, 1847.
Haynes, Alan. The Elizabethan Secret Services, 1570-1603. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1992.
_____. Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, 1563-1612. London: Peter Owen, 1989.
200
Henderson, Judith Rice. "Humanist Letter Writing: Private Conversation or Public Forum." In
Self Presentation an Social Indentification: The Rhetoric and Pragmatics of Letter
Writing in Early Modern Times. Edited by Toon Van Houdt, Jan Papy, Gilbert Tournoy
and Constant Matheeussen. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2002.
Henderson, Katherine Usher, and Barbara F.McManus. Half Humankind: Texts and Contexts of
the Controversy About Women in England, 1540-1640. Urbana: University of Illinois
Press, 1985.
Hicks, Leo. "The Growth of a Myth: Father Robert Persons, S.J. and Leicester's
Commonwealth." Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review. Vol. 46, No. 181 (1957): 91-105.
Hill, L.M. Bench and Bureaucracy: The Public Career of Sir Julius Caesar, 1580-1688.
Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988.
Hoffman, Daniel L. The Status of Women and Gnosticism in Irenaeus and Tertullian. Dyfed,
Wales: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1995.
Hoak, Dale. Tudor Political Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Houlbrooke, Ralph. James VI and I: Ideas, Authority and Government. Edited by Ralph
Houlbrooke. Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2006.
Howell, Wilbur Samuel. Logic and Rhetoric in England, 1500-1700. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1956.
Hudson, Winthrop S. The Cambridge Connection and the Elizabethan Settlement of 1559.
Durham: Duke University Press, 1980.
Jordan, Constance. "Feminism and the Humanists: The Case of Sir Thomas Elyot's Defence of
Good Women." Renaissance Quarterly 36 (1983): 181-201.
_____. "Woman's Rule in Sixteenth-Century British Political Thought." Renaissance Quarterly
40 (1987): 421-51.
Joyce, Patrick. "“The Constitution and the Narrative Structure of Victorian Politics.” In. ReReading the Constitution: New Narratives in the Political History of England’s Long
Nineteenth Century. Edited by James Vernon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1996.
Kearney, Hugh. Scholars and Gentlemen: Universities and Society in Pre-Industrial Britain,
1500-1700. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1970.
Kelley, Donald R. "Elizabethan Political Thought." In, The Varieties of British Political
Thought, 1500-1800. Edited by J.G.A Pocock. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1993.
201
Kelley, Donald R. "Law." In The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 1450-1700, edited by
J. H. Burns., 66-94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Kelso, Ruth. Doctrine for the Lady of the Renaissance. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinios
Press, 1978.
Kingdon, Robert M. "Calvinism and Resistance Theory, 1550-1580." In The Cambridge History
of Political Thought, 1450-1700, edited by J.H. Burns., 193-218. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1991.
Koditschek, Theodore. "The Making of British Nationality." Victorian Studies. Vol. 44, No. 3
(Spring, 2002), 389-398.
Lacy, Robert. Sir Walter Ralegh. New York: Athenum, 1974.
_____. Robert Earl of Essex. New York: Athenum, 1971.
Lake, Peter and Steve Pincus. "Rethinking the Public Sphere in Early Modern England. Journal
of British Studies, Vol. 45, No. 2 (April, 2006). 270-292.
_____. "The politics of 'popularity' and the public sphere: the 'monarchial republic' of Elizabeth
I defends itself." In The Politics of the Public Sphere in Early Modern England.
Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007.
_____. and Michael Questier. "Puritans, Papists and the Public Sphere in Early Modern England:
The Edmund Campion Affair in Context." The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 72, No. 3
(September 2000). 587-627.
Laurence, Anne. Women and England, 1500-1760: A Social History. New York: St. Martin's
Press, 1994.
Lawson, Jane. "This Remembrence of the New Year: Books Given to Queen Elizabeth as New
Year's Gifts" In Elizabeth I and the Culture of Writing. Edited by Peter Beal and Grace
Ioppolo. London: The British Library, 2007.
Leedham- Green, Elisabeth. A Concise History of Cambridge. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1996.
Levack, Brian P. The Civil Lawyers in England, 1603-1641: A Political Study. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1973.
Levin, Carole. The Heart and Stomach of a King: Elizabeth I and the Politics of Sex and Power.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994.
202
_____. " 'We shall never have a merry world while the queen lyveth': Gender, Monarchy, and the
Power of Seditious Words." In Dissing Elizabeth: Negative Representations of Gloriana.
Edited by Julia M. Walker. Durham: Duke University Press, 1998.
_____. "Queens and Claimants: Political Insecurity in Sixteenth-Century England." In Gender,
Ideology, and Action: Historical Perspectives on Women's Public Lives, edited by Janet
Sharistanian., 41- 66. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1986.
Levine, Mortimer. "The Place of Women in Tudor Government." In Tudor Rule and Revolution,
edited by Delloyd J. Guth and John W. McKenna., 109-126. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1982.
Lloyd, Howell A. "Contsitutionalism." In The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 14501700. Edited by J.H. Burns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Loades, David. The Tudor Court. Totowa, NJ: Barnes and Noble Books, 1987.
Lohr, Charles H. "Renaissance Latin Translations of the Greek Commentaries on Aristotle." In
Humanism and Early Modern Philosophy, edited by Jill Kraye and M.W.F. Stone., 2440. London: Routledge, 2000.
Loomie, Albert J. Spain and the Jacobean Catholics, Volume II: 1613-1624. Catholic Record
Society, 1978.
Love, Harold. Scribal Publication in Seventeenth-Century England. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1993.
MacCaffrey, Wallace. Elizabeth I. London: Arnold Publishing, 1993.
_____. "Patronage and Politics under the Tudors." In The Mental World of the Jacobean Court,
edited by Linda Levy Peck., 21-35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
_____. "Place and Patronage in Elizabethan Politics." In Elizabethan Government and Society.
London: University of London, the Athlone Press, 1961.
_____. "The Anjou Match and the Making of Elizabethan Foreign Policy." In The English
Commonwealth 1547-1640. Edited by Peter Clark, Alan G.T. Smith and Nicholas
Tyacke. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1979.
_____. Queen Elizabeth and the Making of Policy, 1572-1588. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1981.
Maclean, Ian. The Renaissance Notion of Women. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1980.
203
Macauley, T. B. The History of England from the Accession of James II. Vol. 1., 10 Vols.
London: J.M. Dent and Company, 1905
MacMahon, William and John Hungerford eds. The Ven. Philip Howard Earl of Arundel, 15571595. London: Harrison and Son's for the Catholic Record Society, 1919.
May, Steven W. "Tudor Aristocrats and the 'Mystical Stigma of Print.'" Renaissance Papers. A.
Leigh Deneef and M. Thomas Hester eds. Durham: Duke University Press, 1980.
Martin, Colin and Geoffrey Parker. The Spanish Armada. London: Hamilton, 1988.
McCarthy, Kerry. "Byrd's Patrons at Prayer." Music and Letters, Vol. 89, No. 4. November,
2008: 499-509.
McDermott, James. England and the Spanish Armada: The Necessary Quarrel. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2005.
McLaren, A.N. Political Culture in the Reign of Elizabeth I: Queen and Commonwealth, 15581585. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
McCoog, Thomas M. The Society of Jesus in Ireland, Scotland, and England 1541-1588: Our
Way of Proceeding?. New York: E.J. Brill, 1996.
_____. "The English Jesuit Mission and the French Match, 1579-1581." The Catholic Historical
Review. Vol. 87, No. 2 (April, 2001): 185-213.
McKisack, May. Medieval History in the Tudor Age. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971.
Mears, Natalie. Queenship and Political Discourse in the Elizabethan Realms. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2005.
_____. "Politics in the Elizabethan Privy Chamber: Lady Mary Sidney and Kat Ashley." in
Women and Politics in Early Modern England, 1450-1700. Edited by James Daybell.
Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate, 2004.
Montrose, Louise. "Elizabeth Through the Looking Glass: Picturing the Queen's Two Bodies." In
The Body of the Queen: Gender and Rule in the Courtly World, edited by Regina Schulte.
New York: Berghahn Books, 2006.
More, Henry. The Elizabethan Jesuits: Historia Missionis Anglicanae Societatis Jesu (1660).
Edited and Translated by Francis Edwards. London: Phillimore and Co. Ltd., 1981.
Moss, Ann. "The Politica of Justin Lipsius and the Commonplace Book." Journal of the History
of Ideas. Vol. 59, No. 3 (1998): 421-436.
204
Murphy, Beverly Anne. Bastard Prince: Henry VIII's Lost Son. Thrope, Gloucesteshire: Sutton
Publishing, 2001.
Murdin, William. A Collection of State Papers Relating to Affairs in the Reign of Elizabeth from
the Years 1571-1596. London: William Bowyer, 1759.
Neale, John E. Essays in Elizabethan History. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1958.
Nelson, Alan H. Monstrous Adeversary: The Life of Edward De Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford.
Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2003.
Nott, G. F., ed. The Works of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey and of Thomas Wyatt the Elder. 2
vols. Vol. 1. New York: AMS Press, 1965.
O'Donovan, Joan Lockwood. Theology of Law and Authority in the English Reformation.
Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1991.
Oakley, Francis. Politics and Eternity: Studies in the History of Medieval and Early Modern
Thought. Boston: Brill, 1999.
Oram, William A. "Spenser's Audiences, 1589-91." Studies in Philology. Vol. 100, No. 4. Fall,
2003. 514-533.
Peck, D. C., ed. Leicester's Commonwealth: The Copy of a Letter Written by a Master of Art
Cambridge (1584) and Related Documents. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1985.
Peck, Linda Levy. "The Mentality of a Jacobean Grandee." In The Mental World of the Jacobean
Court, edited by Linda Levy Peck., 148-167. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1990.
_____. Northampton: Patronage and Policy at the Court of James I. London: Allen and Unwin,
1988.
Pocock, J.G.A. Political Thought and History: Essays on Theory and Method. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Pollen, H.J. The English Catholics in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth. New York: Lenox Hill,
1920.
Porter, Jean. “Contested Categories: Reason, Nature, and Natural Order in Medieval
Accounts of the Natural Law. The Journal of Religious Ethics. Vol. 24, No. 2 (Fall,
1996), 207-232.
Pulman, Michael B. The Elizabethan Council in the Fifteen-Seventies. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1971.
205
Questier, Michael. Politics, Aristocratic Patronage and Religion, c. 1550-1640. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Rabb, Theodore K. Jacobean Gentleman: Sir Edwin Sandys, 1561-1629. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1998
Read, Conyers. "Lord Burghley's Househod Accounts." The Economic History Review, New
Series 9 (1956): 343-48.
_____. Mr. Secretary Cecil and Queen Elizabeth. New York: Knopf, 1955.
_____. Mr. Secretary Walsingham and the Policy of Queen Elizabeth. 3 vols. Vol. 2. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1925.
Rechtien, John. "John Foxe's Comprehensive Collection of Commonplaces: A Renaissance
Memory System for Students and Theologians. The Sixteenth Century Journal. Vol. 9,
No. 1 (April, 1978) 82-89
Reid, Peter H. "The Decline and Fall of the British Country House Library." Libraries and
Culture. Vol. 36, No. 2. Spring, 2001: 345-366.
Richards, Judith. "Love and a Female Monarch: The Case of Elizabeth Tudor." The Journal of
British Studies 38 (1999): 133-60.
_____. "to Promote a Woman to Beare Rule": Talking of Queens in Mid-Tudor England."
Sixteenth Century Journal 28 (1997): 101-21.
_____. "Mary Tudor as 'Sole Queen'?: Gendering Tudor Monarchy." The Historical Journal 40
(1997): 895-924.
Rowe, Joy. "The Lopped Tree: The Re-Formation of the Suffolk Catholic Community." in
England's Long Reformation 1500-1800. edited by N. Taycke., 167-193. London:
University College London Press, 1998.
Roy, Jody M. Rhetorical Campaigns of the Nineteenth Century Anti-Catholics and Catholics in
America. Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2000.
Scalingi, Paula Louise. "The Scepter or the Distaff: The Question of Female Sovereignty, 15161607." The Historian 41(1978): 59-75.
Schmitt, C.B. The Aristotelian Tradition and Renaissance Universities. London: Variorum
Reprints, 1984.
Sears, Jayne. Plato in Renaissance England. Boston: Kluwer Academic Press, 1995.
206
Sessions, W.A. Henry Howard, the Poet Earl of Surrey: A Life. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1999.
Sharpe, Kevin. Selling the Tudor Monarchy: Authority and Image in Sixteenth Century England.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009
Shephard, Amanda. Gender and Authority in Sixteenth-Century England. Keele, Staffordshire:
Ryburn Press, 1994.
Shields, Stephanie. "Passionate Men, Emotional Women: Psychology Constructs Gender
Difference in the Late Nineteenth Century." History of Psychology. Vol. 10. No. 2 (May,
2007), 92-110.
Shipley, E.J. "An inventory of the effects of Henry Howard KG Taken on his death in 1614,
Together with a Transcript of his Will." Archaeologia, or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating
to Antiquity. 42 (1869), 347-348.
Shrank, Cathy. " 'These fewe scribbled rules': Representing Scribal Intimacy in Early Modern
Print." Huntington Quarterly. Vol. 67. No.2 (June, 2004). 295-314.
Sigmund, Paul E. "Law and Politics." In The Cambridge Companion to Aquinas, edited by
Norman Kretzmann and Eleonore Stump. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Skinner, Quentin. The Foundations of Modern Political Thought. 2 vols. Vol. 2: The Age of the
Reformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
Smith, Jeremy L. "Unlawful Song: Byrd, the Babington Plot and the Paget Choir." Early Music.
Vol. 38, No. 4. 497-508.
Smuts, Malcolm. "Cultural Diversity and Cultural Change at the Court of James I." In The
Mental World of the Jacobean Court. Edited by Linda Levy Peck. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Sommerville, J.P. "Absolutism and Royalism." In The Cambridge History of Political Thought
1450-1700, edited by J.H. Burns., 347-373. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1991.
Sommerville, Margaret R. Sex and Subjection: to Women in Early-Modern Society. London:
Arnold, 1995.
Spongberg, Mary and Clara Tuite. "The Gender of Whig Historiography: Women writers and
Britain's Pasts and Presents." Women's History. Vol. 20. No. 5 (2011), 673-687.
Starkey, David. "Court, Council, and Nobility in Tudor England." In Princes, Patronage, and the
Nobility: The Court at the Beginning of the Modern Age, c. 1450-1650. Edited by Ronald
G. Asch and Adolf M. Birke. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
207
Stone, Lawrence. The Family, Sex, and Marriage in England, 1500-1800. Abridged Edition ed.
New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1979.
_____. Family and Fortune: Studies in Aristocratic Finance in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth
Centuries. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973.
Sumption, Jonathan. The Hundred Year's War. 2 vols. Vol. 1. London: Faber and Faber, 1990.
Taylor, Charles. A Secular Age. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004.
Tite, C. G. C. "'Lost or Stolen or Strayed': A Survey of Manuscripts Formerly in the Cotton
Library." In Sir Robert Cotton as Collector: Essays on an Early Stuart Courtier and His
Legacy, edited by C. J. Wright., 262-306. London: The British Library, 1997.
Thomas, Keith. Religion and the Decline of Magic. New York: Scribner's Sons, 1971.
Thomson, D.F.S. "George Buchanan: The Humanist in the Sixteenth-Century World. Phoenix.
Vol. 4, No. 3, Winter, 1950. 77-94.
Trevelyan, G.M. Trinity Hall, an Historical Sketch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1943.
Ungerer, Gustav ed. A Spaniard in Elizabethan England: The Correspondence of Antonio
Perez's Exile. 2vols. London: Tamesis Books Limited: 1976.
_____. Anglo-Spanish Relations in Tudor Literature. New York: AMS Press, 1929.
Vanhoutte, Jacqueline. "Queen and Country?: Female Monarchs and Feminized Nations in
Elizabethan Political Pamphlets. In Elizabeth I Always her Own Free Woman, edited by
Jo Eldridge Carney, Debra Barrett- Graves and Carole Levin. Burlington, VT: Ashgate,
2003.
Vickers, Brian. "Incomplete Shakespeare: Or, Denying Coauthorship in 1 Henry VI."
Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 58, No. 3. Fall, 2007. 311-352.
Wakelin, Daniel. Humanism, Reading, and English Literature, 1430-1530. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2007.
Warnike, Retha M. The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1989.
_____. Women of the English Renaissance and Reformation. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood
Press, 1983.
Watson, Foster, ed. Vives and the Renascence Education of Women. New York: Longmans,
Green and Co., 1912.
208
Ward, B.M. The Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, 1550-1604. London: John Murray, 1928.
Warner, Michael. Publics and Counterpublics. New York: Zone Books, 2002.
Wernham, R. B. Before the Armada. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1966.
Weil, Rachel. "Royal Flesh, Gender and the Construction of Monarchy. In The Body of the
Queen: Gender and Rule in the Courtly World. New York: Bergahan Books, 2006
Wheeler, Michael. The Old Enemies: Catholic and Protestant in Nineteenth Century English
Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Wiesner, Merry E. Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1993.
Williams, Nevile. All the Queen's Men: Elizabeth I and her Courtiers. New York: Macmillan
Company, 1972.
Wilson, Browen and Paul Yachnin eds. Making Publics in Early Modern Europe: People,
Things, Forms of Knowledge. New York: Routledge, 2010.
White, R.S. Natural Law in English Renaissance Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1996.
Wood, Andy. Riot, Rebellion and Popular Politics in Early Modern England. New York:
Palgram, 2002.
Woods, Susanne. "Spenser and the Problem of Women's Rule." Huntington Library Quarterly.
Vol. 48, No. 2. Spring, 1985. 140-158.
Woudhuysen, H. R. Sir Philip Sidney and the Circulation of Manuscripts 1558-1640. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1996.
Wright, C. E. Fontes Harleiani: A Study of the Sources of the Harleian Collection of
Manuscripts Preserved in the Department of Manuscripts in the British Museum.
London: British Museum, 1972.
Wright, David. "John Knox and the Early Church Fathers." in John Knox and the British
Reformations. Edited by Roger A. Mason. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998.
Wroxton Conservation Area Appraisal. North Oxfordshire: Cherwel District Council, 1996.
Zaret, David. Origins of Democratic Culture: Printing, Petitions, and the Public Sphere i EarlyModern England. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000.
209
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Anna Christine Caney
Anna Christine Caney received her B.A. from Florida Southern College in 2001, her M.A. Early
Modern English History from Florida State University in 2005, and her PhD in Early Modern
European History from Florida State University in 2013. Her research focuses on intellectual and
gender history, particularly the interpretations of religion, law, and philosophy with regard to
debates about gender in the sixteenth century. In the future she will further explore the
relationship between attitudes toward women and politics in the sixteenth and seventeenth
century. She is also interested in comparing ideas of female power in different sixteenth century
cultures, as well as the development of resistance theory as it related to female power.
210