Faculteit Letteren & Wijsbegeerte Jolien Follens The court of Henry VIII in early modern literature A comparison of the depiction of His Majesty, Anne Boleyn, Cardinal Wolsey and the Catholic Church Masterthesis voorgedragen tot het bekomen van de graad van Master in de Taal-­‐ en letterkunde (Engels) 2013 Promotor Prof. Dr. S. Jung Vakgroep Letterkunde 2 Acknowledgements I would like to thank my promoter, Professor Jung, for giving me the chance to write about, what I believe, is one of the most fascinating reigns in English history. Moreover I would also like to show my appreciation to Professor Jung for helping me compose the list of sources that I needed for successfully writing this dissertation. My family also deserves to be thanked for supporting me and helping me in the course of writing this master thesis. I would also like to express my gratitude to my uncle for lending me his books The Autobiography of Henry VIII by Margaret George and The Six Wives of Henry VIII by Antonia Fraser, because these books have helped me out a lot, and have given me the historical background I needed for the completion of my thesis. Furthermore I would like to thank anyone who has assisted me and helped me in any way possible while I was writing this dissertation. 3 Table of contents: p. 5 2. Chapter 1: Catholic Church, Two bulls roaring out excommunications, p. 8 1. Introduction anathemas and total deprivation by Pope Paul III against King Henry VIII 2.1. Theoretical framework p. 8 2.2. Analysis of the Papal bull p. 10 2.3. Authenticity of the Papal bull p. 20 3. Chapter 2: King Henry VIII, p. 22 An epistle of the most myghty and redouted Prynce Henry the .viii. by the grace of God Kynge of Englande and of Fraunce, lorde of Irlande, defender of the faith, and supreme heed of the Churche of Englande 3.1. Theoretical framework p. 22 3.2. Analysis of the epistle p. 24 3.3. Authenticity of the epistle p. 33 4. Chapter 3: John Banks, Vertue Betray’d, or Anna Bullen 4.1. Theoretical framework p. 34 4.2. Analysis of major characters p. 47 4.3. Authenticity of the play p. 58 5. Chapter 4: Anonymous, The History of the life, victorious reign, p. 34 p. 59 and death of K. Henry VIII 5.1. Introduction p. 59 5.2. Politics p. 60 5.3. Religion p. 63 5.4. Personal life p. 68 5.5. Authenticity of the History p. 75 6. Conclusion p. 77 Works cited p. 80 4 1. Introduction In this master dissertation it is my aim to discuss and analyse four different texts, which all talk about some aspect of King Henry VIII’s reign and all date back to the early modern period. The Monarch had an enormous significance on both the early modern and Restoration period, because of the changes he has made throughout his reign. Not only did he discard all ties with Rome, he also founded his own Church, which is still maintained as the Church of England today. Looking back, this can be regarded as the main and most important achievement throughout his reign. After a short period of Catholicism under Queen Mary, England had returned to Anglicanism under the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. Her reign is still considered as one of the most glorious eras of England, which was peaceful and profiled Protestantism as the main religion of the country. In the Restoration period King Charles II was also a Protestant King but there had been difficulties with the fact that his successor and brother James II was a Catholic. This shows that there still were some differences in England during the Restoration period when it comes to religion. Therefore I think it is important to look at four texts written during the early modern period because they will all be influenced by the achievements made by King Henry VIII. I will consider how the Monarch himself was depicted in various sources, which were written in different time periods. I will show that there are important differences between these historical representations of King Henry in different political contexts and in various moments in time. As I will explain, the depiction of the King has not remained the same throughout the ages. In these texts, which were written in two successive centuries, one can already distinguish very different opinions towards the Sovereign. Thus, King Henry VIII will be portrayed in various manners depending on the contemporary socio-­‐political situation and changes going on at the time. We can perceive for example that during Henry’s reign people were not allowed to write any negative things about him without facing grave consequences, the only texts that talk about his Majesty in a negative way were written by important institutions such as the Church. In my dissertation I will show that this alters in the seventeenth century because of political changes, especially in the Restoration period when authors had more freedom to write about the political situation both at the time and in the past. This will obviously have consequences and influences on the depiction of King Henry VIII. 5 I will also look at how his contemporaries were portrayed, since I will analyse the depiction of Anne Boleyn, Cardinal Wolsey and the Catholic Church as well. I believe it is important to examine these portrayals because all of these people and institutions were of significant influence on Henry’s reign. These people have affected the rule of King Henry in such a way that it has changed English history. Similar to the depictions of King Henry, I will show that the portrayals of the Monarch’s contemporaries also differ depending on political contexts and the time frame in which the texts were written. Therefore I have chosen four different texts which all belong to different literary genres. The first text is a Papal bull written by Pope Paul III in 1538 and will thus talk about religious and political aspects, the second source also dates back to 1538 and is an epistle written by King Henry VIII himself, and again highlights religious and political features of the Monarch’s reign. In the Papal bull Pope Paul III excommunicates King Henry because of his ‘outrageous’ actions, which according to the Pope, have gone too far and need to be stopped. In the epistle King Henry defends himself against the accusations made by the Pope and also justifies why he should not be present at the council of Mantua, which was summoned by the Pope. Firstly, I will discuss these texts because I would like to analyse the texts in chronological order; it is important to look at the texts sequentially because it will be easier to identify changes in the portrayal of the King and his contemporaries. The third text I will talk about is a play written by the English playwright John Banks in 1682, which also focuses on political facets and the last text was written in the same year by an anonymous author and is a history that narrates the life and reign of the Sovereign. This text calls attention to different sides of Henry’s life and reign, varying from his youth to his several marriages and the divorce question. But it also talks about his political leadership and his warfare, and also extensively discusses the Reformation, which was done by King Henry VIII. All of these texts have different portrayals of the King and his coevals, which I will analyse and compare. It seems interesting to me to perceive how his Majesty has been depicted in early modern literature, to see if there is a difference in his portrayal throughout those two centuries. I will compare the texts written during the King’s reign to the two texts written more than a century after his death, to discover how the King’s representation has undergone change. I will also look at how political changes might have affected the representation of the King and his contemporaries in literary texts that talk about Henry’s reign. 6 I will discuss each text separately and I will be talking about some theoretical framework concerning the texts, e.g. Papal bulls, texts written by his Majesty and tragedies dating back to the Restoration period. This is important to get a more general overview of certain characteristics of the text, moreover this can teach us something about the literary conventions of the era in which the texts were written. Then I will perform an analysis of the text, I will look at how certain topics are addressed and how certain individuals are represented. I will specifically focus on the portrayals of the King and his coevals. In comparing the texts, it will become clear that they take on different opinions of the Sovereign, e.g. the Papal bull will present us with a negative image of the King, whereas the epistle will obviously not since it was written by the Monarch himself. There are also differences in the depictions of the King depending on the time frame in which the text was written. I will show that there are significant differences between the texts written during the Monarch’s time and those written one century later. In each chapter I will also analyse whether or not the texts can be regarded as authentic and historically accurate, depending on the attitudes they have towards the King and his contemporaries and the period in which they were written. 7 2. Chapter 1: Catholic Church, Two bulls roaring out excommunications, anathemas and total deprivation by Pope Paul III against King Henry VIII.1 2.1.
Theoretical framework In 1535, the Catholic Church had already pronounced Henry’s excommunication but had not carried out the sentence. However, by 1538 the Pope’s authority had become larger by uniting France and Spain; this gave him the assertiveness to openly act against England which had denied his Papal authority. 2 The bishop of Rome wanted to convince the Emperor of Spain to invade England so that they would surrender to the power of the Catholic Church. Because Henry had rejected all ties with Rome, had founded his own Church and had tried to diminish Papal authority in England, the Pope saw no other way out than to excommunicate Henry, but this time for real. On December the seventeenth he proclaimed Henry’s banishment and wrote a Papal bull to support this allegation.3 This document is this Papal bull, in which the Vicar of Christ proclaims Henry VIII to be banished from the Catholic Church if he does not succumb to Papal authority. In this chapter I will examine the Papal bull to see how King Henry VIII has been portrayed by the Pope in times when the bishop of Christ felt threatened by the English Monarch. Firstly, I will explain what a Papal Bull is, it is an authorized letter or document commissioned by the bishop of Rome or the Catholic Church.4 The name “bull” originates from the “lead seal” or bulla, which was attached to the letter. Since the twelfth century the lead seal portrays “the heads of the apostles Peter and Paul on one side and the Pope’s signature on the other.”5 Before the thirteenth century these bulls were used for different kinds of public communication, but after the thirteenth century bulls were only 1
Pope Paul III, Two Bulls Roaring Out Excommunications, Anathema’s, and total Deprivation, Catholic Church, Cornhill, 1538, p. 1 -­‐ 15. 2
Fraser Antonia, The Six Wives of Henry VIII, Phoenix Press, London, 2002, p. 359. 3
Ibid., p. 359. 4
Encyclopaedia Britannica, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/84314/bull-­‐Papal, last visited on 14 March 2013. 5
Ibid. 8 used for essential documents assigned by the Vicar of Christ.6 This shows that these Papal bulls were only commissioned in serious cases. According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia a Papal bull can be described as a cleric letter with “a leaden seal”, which had a formal salutation that was written in the third person verb form.7 This can be seen in this Papal bull: Pope Paul III is introduced together with Pope Pius V, it is stated that “these popes” have written this bull, so we can see a third person plural instead of a first person plural “we”. This shows that we are dealing with an authentic document written by the Catholic Church, this validates the authority of this bull. This document consists of two bulls, one is addressed to King Henry VIII and one to his daughter Queen Elizabeth I. A Papal letter begins with a clarification of why the bull is being written, which is also the case for this Papal bull. This version of the Papal bull states that it was written February 24th 1569, the fifth year that the Pope was elected to rule over Rome, even though I have said it was written in 1538. This is the case because there is also a bull aimed at Queen Elizabeth who ruled from 1558 until 1603, so this collection of two bulls was printed throughout her reign. A Papal bull ends with a declaration of the day, month and year in which it was written, which can thus also be found in this bull. The fact that this bull also has the typical characteristics we can find in any bull written by the Church, shows us that this is an accurate and authentic source. From 1431 until 1878 Papal bulls were used for various causes, firstly they could be used in “canonizations”; these bulls would have different forms and the Pope would personally sign his name on the letter, which was accompanied by a stamp and the signatures of other cardinals.8 Secondly bulls were used for the denomination of bishops, thirdly for “the promotion to benefices”, and lastly also for permission of marriages.9 The permission given to Henry VIII to marry Catherine of Aragon is an example of this last category.10 Pope Julius II wrote two different forms of authorising this marriage, since he wrote a brief and a Papal bull.11 It is important to identify these 6 Encyclopaedia Britannica, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/84314/bull-­‐Papal, last visited on 14 March 2013. Ibid. 8
Thurston, Herbert. "Bulls and Briefs." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 3. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 18 Mar. 2013 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03052b.htm> 9 Ibid. 10 Encyclopaedia Britannica, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/84314/bull-­‐Papal, last visited on 14 March 2013. 11 Thurston, Herbert. "Bulls and Briefs." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 3. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 18 Mar. 2013 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03052b.htm> 7
9 various features of Papal bulls because they show us the authenticity of this document, which is significant because this means that the text will show us a legitimate description of how the Pope regarded King Henry. Because it was written by Pope Paul III and is not a falsified document, we can interpret the portrayal of Henry as an accurate representation of the bishop of Rome’s attitude towards the English Monarch. 2.2.
Analysis of the Papal bull I will analyse the Papal bull by looking at how the Pope presents himself and more specifically justifies himself, and how he presents King Henry and condemns him for his actions. I will investigate the descriptions the Pope makes to see what he is saying about Henry and the contemporary situation. I will also examine several quotes from the original text, because this will give us more insight in the text and the political and religious situation going on at the time. Pope Paul III wrote this Papal bull in 1538, and as the title indicates, it was addressed to King Henry VIII of England, who had founded the Anglican Church in 1534. Moreover, the title demonstrates that the Church wants to excommunicate and banish Henry VIII from the Catholic Church. However, as I have said before, this is not the first time the Pope threatens to banish the English King since Henry VIII was actually already ostracized by Pope Clement VII by means of a Papal bull in which the Pope also declared his marriage to Anne Boleyn invalid.12 As a consequence all ties with Rome were discarded.13 The Church was critical of several of Henry’s actions, since he had lessened Papal authority in England, they were afraid of losing power over the country; and by extension maybe even more countries. Moreover, the fact that he separated from the Catholic Church bothered the bishop of Rome a lot; furthermore they also detested the fact that Henry married Anne Boleyn against their will and while Catherine was still alive.14 The Bull begins with an explanation by the bishop of Rome of what he is capable of by means of his Godly power: 12 Fraser Antonia, p. 240. 13 Thurston, Herbert. "Henry VIII." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 21 Mar. 2013 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07222a.htm>. 14 Pope Paul III, p. 3. 10 Wherein these Popes have (so far as lies in their power) given away the Kingdoms of these Princes, Absolv’d their Natural Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance; and cursed all their adherents, stiling them Hereticks; and countenancing Murder and Rebellion with a promise of Absolution.15 Firstly he says he has the ability to separate the kingdom from its prince or king, or in other words, to depose a king. The Pope presents the Church as a very powerful and imperious institution, which has an influence on other countries. Basically, no leader of a country has full dominance over his own realm since the Holy Father is the most authoritative person in the world. Secondly, he states that the monarch’s subjects are released from their pledges of allegiance and loyalty to their King. Thirdly, the Pope also curses all the King’s devotees and supporters, calling them heretics. Furthermore, the bishop of Rome says he will support any rebellion against his Majesty in exchange for forgiveness or absolution. This is important because by saying this, the Vicar of Christ tells us what he can do with his power. Moreover he already calls the King’s supporters heretics, in the sixteenth century people were still very reliant on the Church, so no one wanted to be accused of being heretical. In this quote the bishop of Christ already makes clear that he is very critical of Henry, so we can expect the portrayal of the King to be negative. The fact that the Pope says he will support rebellion seems quite a strong claim to make, because he would approve of murder or violence if it helps him in his cause to depose Henry. Now he portrays himself as the most powerful person in the world who is not afraid to use violence if this is needed. We must look at this from a sixteenth century point of view, where King Henry saw himself as the substitute of God on earth; obviously this is not very much to the Pope’s liking because he sees himself as the replacement of God. Moreover, this probably caused frictions in the population’s conscience because Christians might have had difficulties in understanding who should be regarded as the most authoritative person: King Henry or the Pope. This statement sounds very tyrannical and Machiavellian. Machiavelli was an Italian philosopher and politician, who wrote a book called “Il Principe”, or “The Prince”. In this book he explains what a good leader must do to get to power and to retain power.16 One of the most famous messages of the book is “the ends justify the means”, which means that the leader needs to do 15
Pope Paul III, p. 1. 16 Machiavelli Niccolò, The Prince, Florence, 1532. 11 whatever it takes to keep his power, or to get to power. This can be seen in the statement made by the Pope, because it does not matter how he discards Henry, as long as he is dethroned. We must look at this from a sixteenth century perspective, when the Catholic Church was not only in control in religious matters, but also in political matters. As I will explain later on in my dissertation, the bishop of Rome actively engaged in warfare and politics, his rule was not only limited to the religious world. In the prologue of this Papal bull, the head of the Catholic Church provides us with an explanation why he has power over the Kings, Queens, or Emperors. His justification for such a power is derived from what Christ said to Peter, since he said: “Feed my sheep”, the Vicar of Christ has the ability to overrule the policy of other people. By these words Christ made Peter the protector of his “flock, or the religious community, as His secular substitute.17 As a consequence, being Pope indicates “his supreme and universal primacy”, both in terms of honour and jurisdiction, “over the Church of Christ.”18 Therefore, the Pope believes it is in his power to dethrone a King if he is not pleased by his governing, moreover he says he can give the kingdom to whomever he wants. The Pope gives us another justification for saying this; he reasons that in doing this, God has managed to free certain people from slavery or repression, as can be seen in this quote from the Bible: Therefore tell the children of Israel, 'I am Yahweh, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm, and with great judgments.19 (Exodus 6:6) Furthermore he believes it is his duty to help people from “those wolves in sheep – clothing”, 20 this actually refers to King Henry whom he considers to be one of these wolves who portrays himself differently than he actually is. On the contrary, the Vicar of Christ represents himself and the Church as a conciliatory institute. Additionally, he believes he should react against those leaders who rule without faith in God. Basically he sees himself as a human substitute of God on earth; therefore one should not question 17
Pope Paul III, prologue, p. i. 18 Fanning, William. "Vicar of Christ." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 15. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 21 Mar. 2013 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403b.htm>. The World English Bible: Exod. 6:6., Ed. Michael Paul Johnson. Colorado: Rainbow Missions, 1997. Print. 20 Pope Paul III, p. 2. 19
12 his banishments or excommunications, because it is what God wants. It is the Pope’s responsibility to eliminate those who do not accept his superior position, or who do not treat him with respect, but the bishop of Rome must do this with justice and strictness. The bishop of Rome believes Henry belongs to that category of those who do not pay him the necessary respect, since he was in an adulterous matrimony when he married Anne Boleyn. Moreover he punishes people by means of imprisonment or execution, which are obviously grave penalties. Furthermore, and this undoubtedly bothered the Pope the most, he created his own ecclesiastical constitutions without taking into account the opinion of Catholic Church: … hath ordained Laws, and certain Ecclesiastical Constitutions of his own head, by which he hath seduced divers to Schism and dangerous Sedition.21 In doing this, Henry neglects all Papal authority because he creates his own ecclesiastical constitutions, which led to the foundation of his own Church. The Pope says this caused schisms and rebellion, because he is afraid of losing power. For him it is all just a matter of power and authority. Before the writing of this Bull, the Catholic Church already wanted to restrict Henry’s power and act against him, because they were afraid of the power Henry was acquiring. However, they refrained out of respect for the King.22 This shows us that the Pope at first took on a peaceable role. However, because of King Henry’s recent transgressions, he has decided to proclaim his final sentence, which is excommunication. The Vicar of Christ shows us that they are at heart a respectful institution and they only decided to take measurements against Henry VIII because his behaviour was getting out of hand. After announcing this in the Papal bull, Pope Paul III again refers to the power he received from God by referring to a statement made by God in Jeremiah 1:10: “Behold, I have this day set you over the nations and over the kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down and to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant.”23 According to Matthew Henry, God has made Jeremiah a prophet to not only the Jews but to the whole world. Henry says that Jeremiah is a prophet because God wanted him to be one, and he must convey the messages in his own words. Moreover, he argues that whatever people may 21
Pope Paul III, p. 2. 22 Ibid., p. 2. 23 The World English Bible: Jer., Ed. Michael Paul Johnson. Colorado: Rainbow Missions, 1997. Print. 13 think, whether they are politicians or intelligent men, the security of kingdoms is determined by the word of God.24 According to this quote, this gives the Pope the authority to build wherever he wants, he also has power over princes of the earth, and moreover he must act against princes who have crossed the boundary of mercy. What is remarkable is that the Holy Father constantly refers to the grounds by which he can claim this authority; it is almost as if he has to defend himself for the actions he takes. He fears that Henry might not be the only one to discard ties with Rome and does not want this to happen. Therefore he wants to emphasize the power he has and wants to draw attention to the fact that he got this power from God; so no one should question him. One would expect that the bishop of Rome does not need to vindicate himself, especially since he just mentioned why he can claim authority and that he is in control of other kingdoms and kings; however he repeats it recurrently. The reasons why the Church wants to go against Henry is not only because he wanted to separate from the Church and because he divorced from Catherine and married Anne, but also because he wrote a learned book against that of the Church and because he called himself the defender of faith.25 What we can then read in this Papal bull is quite remarkable, because while talking about the King, the Pope uses words like “diabolical” or, “infernal”, this means that the Pope regards King Henry’s political actions as bad decisions, as if he was influenced by a diabolical spirit. The bishop of Rome reasons that Henry was: … tempted by diabolical suggestions of that infernal spirit, to the perpetration of these unheard of Impieties, he goes on to punish with death, and inflict grievous penalties on such as should oppugn or gainsay his Usurped Jurisdiction26. Here we can see that the bishop of Rome clearly makes use of terms linked to the devil and hell. His Holiness accuses Henry VIII of being overpowered by the devil, which clouded his reasoning and which is why he is responsible for all of these errors. The Vicar of Christ reasons that his actions are unholy and unchristian. Furthermore he argues that Henry punishes those who neglect his authority. The Pope describes this authority as “usurped” or stolen, so he declares that King Henry is not the rightful Monarch of England, but only got to power out of corruption. These claims can be seen 24 Henry Matthew, Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary, Jeremiah 1:10, Bible commentary, http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=mhc&b=24&c=1, last visited on 20/05/2013. 25 Pope Paul III, pp. 2 -­‐ 3. 26 Ibid., p. 3. 14 as pretty grave accusations, up until now the Pope remained quite calm and polite in his Papal bull, this is shown for example when he said that he has a lot of respect for Henry. However, in justifying violence as a means to dispose of Henry, the Pope is not entirely good-­‐natured. Pope Paul III believes that Henry started to despise Papal authority because Pope Clement VII advised him to take Queen Catherine back.27 The Monarch is depicted as a rebellious person who refuses to acknowledge the authority of the Pope and the Catholic Church. Since the King has not acted upon the warnings of the Church, they have decided to excommunicate him. The punishments of the Church are quite grave: people who commit adultery, like Henry, shall be stoned to death. Furthermore, authors of schisms, like Henry, shall be “swallowed alive in the pit of destruction”28 and their supporters or devotees shall be burned with fire. This is also a grave consequence and sentence for the English population as well, they are now involved in this dispute between the Catholic Church and their King. Pope Paul III uses a Christian precedent to justify his decision, he mentions Elimas who condemned the Lord and was brought to Satan: And also seriously recollecting how Elimas the Sorcerer gainsaying the Spirit of the Lord, was condemned and delivered up to Satan by the prayers of the Apostles; and in the close, knowing that one day, a strict accompt will be required of us for the Impunity of that Apostate Henry the Eight, and his backsliding Heretical Subjects, forasmuch as Power is concredited to us from above to proceed against him and his seduced Subjects, whose Crimes are so Execrable, and openly visible as they cannot possibly admit of the least excuse or cover.29 Because Elimas did not believe in the Lord, he was taken to Satan by the Apostles. They compare Henry to Elimas because this is similar to Henry condemning Christian faith and therefore he should be punished and brought to the devil, just like Elimas. Again the Pope refers to his authority that he got “from above” to act against Henry and his 27
Pope Paul III, p. 3. Ibid., p. 4. 29
Ibid., p. 4. 28
15 supporters because their crimes are atrocious and openly done so they cannot ignore them and must act against them. The Catholic Church makes him a proposition: if he and his devotees come back to the Church and if he annuls the laws, constitutions and decrees against Papal authority then they will not banish them. However, if they refuse to do so, they will be excommunicated and they will be without prayers, privileges and Papal protection. Henry must appear in front of the supreme Pontiff and the cardinals within 90 days after this decree was sent, his accomplices within 60 days. If they refuse to meet the Pope, their sentence of banishment from the Catholic Church will be trebled; this way the King no longer has any regal power: But in case the said Henry with his Complices, Counsellors, Fauterors, or Abetters shall peremptorily refuse to appear either in Person or by Proxie, within three dayes after the time limited and predicted, and persist still (which Heaven forbid) perverse and willfully obstinate, then we shall treble this our Curse of Excommunication upon the Head of the said Henry, depriving him of all Regal Power and Dignity, and leaving him to be abandoned, derelict, and forsaken of God, and all good Men.30 He calls the Monarch a headstrong man who refuses to give in to the Catholic Church. Moreover, by using the words “all good Men”, it becomes clear that the Pope does not regard Henry as a good Man, which he had already made clear by calling him diabolical. Pope Paul III is giving examples of what might happen if he were to excommunicate Henry VIII, firstly he is presenting us with a consequence on national scale, any building belonging to the monarch will become abandoned and no divine services will be conducted therein. Thus, this again has consequences for the English Catholic population who will no longer be able to go to Church or attend the mass. His negative feelings towards the English head of state are extended to the whole of England and its inhabitants. The second consequence he gives us is limited to the King’s family, and the families of his accomplices: they will no longer have any Church privileges, and will be “deprived of profit, benefit and income.”31 Thirdly, the Pope talks about the consequences for Henry VIII himself: he will absolve the King from all duty and submissiveness; moreover the Pope will no longer obey him or his devotees. 30 Pope Paul III, p. 5. 31
Ibid., p. 6. 16 Furthermore, the Vicar of Christ wants him to be seen as an infamous person, and no notary should register his wills, laws and testimonies. All of these consequences are quite grave. Firstly the population gets involved in the quarrel between the Pope and their King, it is almost as if they must choose sides; however if they side with the Vicar of Christ they would be disloyal to their King, which could be seen as treason. If no notary should write down his wills, laws and testimonies, then the King no longer has any power and his children cannot lawfully become his successors. Clearly, these are grave consequences for both the King and the English population. After showing us the possible consequences of not abiding by the Pope’s request, the supreme Pontiff gives advice to good Christians by saying that Henry and his devotees are not good Christians. Since he has already referred to Henry VIII as being possessed by the devil, he obviously makes clear that he thinks that the monarch does not truly possess Christian faith. Because his Majesty wanted to segregate from the Catholic Church and founded the Anglican Church in the English Reformation he is considered not a good Christian. The reason why Henry wanted to separate from Rome was because they would not grant him his divorce, and would not allow him to marry Anne Boleyn. The Reformation is actually the result of political differences rather than religious differences. The fact that Henry discarded the ties with Rome does not imply that his Majesty is not a good Christian; he was a devout person who truly believed in Christian and also Catholic morals. As I have said, the separation was caused by political differences and not religious disagreements; this can be seen in the fact that intrinsically Anglicanism is very similar to Catholicism. Dairmaid MacCulloch even calls it “a strange sort of Catholicism”.32 The fact that Henry was a very religious person can be seen in his book The Defence of the Seven Sacraments, in which he reacted against Luther’s religious ideas: What so hot and inflam’d force of speaking can be invented, sufficient to declare the Crimes of that most filthy Villain, who has undertaken to cut in pieces the seamless 32 MacCulloch Diarmaid, The Reign of Henry VIII: Politics, Policy and Piety, Palgrave Macmillan, United States of America, 1995, p. 161. 17 Coat of Christ, and to disturb the quiet state of the Church of God?33 This book shows that the King is a most devoted religious follower of the Catholic Church. When Pope Leo X read this book he, ironically, rewarded him by giving him the title of Defender of the Faith.34 The English Monarch was a very devout person and considered himself to be Catholic before the problematic situation of the divorce came about. Henry VIII made his church less conservative and more liberal, since he reformed the sacrament of marriage and abolished celibacy.35 The reason why the bishop of Rome calls him a bad Christian is because the King had proclaimed himself Head of the Church.36 This means that he now became the worldly substitute of God and a powerful person in the world in both religious and worldly matters, thus challenging the power of the Pope. The bishop of Rome could not stand that anyone questioned his power; it is more a question of maintaining power rather than of religion. What the Vicar of Christ advises to the good Christians is to not enter Henry’s cities, nor drink or eat with his followers, if not, they will also be excommunicated. So, anyone who was supporting Henry and was devote to him, could also run the risk of being banished: And we do further Will and Command all good Christians within the pale of the Church, under pain of Excommunication and other supradicted penalties, that they abhor, and fly from the Society of these Reprobates, accursed and condemned Caitiffs, and not to enter into their Cities, Towns, Corporations, or Castles, and neither to eat nor drink within them.37 This is also a pretty severe penalty of the Vicar of Christ, since we can again see that people who do not really have anything to do with this dispute between Henry VIII and the Pope are now also punished. The bishop of Rome reasons that he should save the people from the dangerous English King, it is presented as if he is doing it out of respect and safety of the people. They also advise good Christians to leave the realm and only come back when Henry has repented: 33 King Henry VIII, The Defence of the Seven Sacraments, 1521, p. ii – iii. 34
Fraser Antonia, p. 166. Yost John K., The Reformation Defense of clerical Marriage in the Reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI, Church History, Vol. 50, No. 2, 1981, p. 152. 36 Pope Paul III, p. 3. 37 Ibid., p. 7 35
18 As for the above named Members of the Church, Monasteries, Priories, Cells or Cloisters, we command and conjure them that they depart out of that Accursed Realm, and thereto never to return till the forementioned Excommunicated, Accursed; and Damned Reprobates from the tacit guilt and horror of their wounded Consciences, return to the Bosom of the holy Church, and humbly submit themselves to that Papal power, whose Clemency and kind offers they have so refractorily disobeyed and willfully condemned.38 The Holy Father also involves the leaders from other countries, saying that if they collaborate with Henry they are considered enemies to God and all good Christians: We do (with all respect and reverence to their Dignities) desire and intreat all other Christian Princes within the pale and communion of the holy Church, as well as Emperors as Kings, that are in the League or Confederation or Amity, or hold any correspondancy with that perfidious Prince Henry the eight, an enemy to God, and all good Men.39 What the Pope is doing here is displaying his power, showing that he overrules all other leaders. He asks them to break any bonds they may have with Henry VIII, and if they do not, their towns will also be condemned. This punishment would last until Henry and his accomplices come to senses. Furthermore, he asks other nations to unite against the King and reason with him to convince him, and if he refuses, they can raise their arms against him and his accomplices, so again he wants to use violence to dethrone Henry: And in case of their refusal to do so, to cause other good Christians to raise up Arms against them, and cause the Confiscation of their Goods, Merchandize, Monies, Shipping, Goods and Chattels.40 The bishop of Rome cannot stand the rebellion of Henry, however, he supports any rebellion against the King. This seems a bit strange, he cannot endure the fact that the Monarch does no longer support his causes, but now he asks people to do what intrinsically is the same thing. His goal is to make this sentence of excommunication known all over the world; he asks priests, monks, abbots, and bishops to proclaim this message. He wants the entire world to know of the Monarch’s actions, which he obviously is very critical of because he 38 Pope Paul III., p. 7. 39 Ibid., p. 8. 40 Ibid., p. 8. 19 neglects Papal authority. Moreover he wants to affirm his authority to other countries by declaring Henry’s banishment from the Catholic Church. He wants to make clear to other princes and leaders that he is still the most powerful man on earth, and that he is not afraid to excommunicate people. After England had separated itself from Rome, the Pope might have been afraid that other countries would take over the example England had set; this way he would lose his power over other countries as well. He wants other leaders to realise that he is the descendant of God and therefore the most important person on the planet, so that they will respect his choices and will not try to overrule him, like Henry VIII tried to do. This entire Papal bull is written against King Henry VIII out of political reasons: he is afraid to lose power over England and the countries that have allegiances with England. The actions and decisions Henry has taken go against the Pope’s wishes; therefore he reasons that he must undertake action and put a stop to this. 2.3.
Authenticity of the Papal bull When looking at the time frame, I can argue that it is an authentic text. It can thus be regarded as a historically legitimate document. However, the text is rather one-­‐sided in its depiction of the truth. The Pope depicts the King as the cause of the entire problem; it is obvious that he is representing himself as not having any role in this debate; he is not the one to blame. His Holiness does not elaborate on the causes of the dispute between King Henry and himself Moreover, the bishop of Rome represents the Church as a glorious institution that only has the best interest at heart for other people and does not engage in any activities out of their own interest, he depicts King Henry VIII as a devil who only makes wrong decisions and who wants to undermine their authority. It only portrays a partial image of the contemporary events and does not provide us with the bigger picture. In the Papal bull we only get the Pope’s side of the story; which is obviously a very positive description in comparison to the portrayal of the King. It may seem strange that the Pope can write a text that depicts such a negative image of the King, because at the time it was basically impossible to write against King Henry. If you dared to do so you ran great risks. Nevertheless, this article was written during the period when Henry wielded the sceptre; but this was only possible because it was written by the Pope himself. I can argue that the Pope does describe certain events truthfully, for example when he talks about how he already wanted to excommunicate Henry before but decided not to do out of respect for the King. When reading this text, we can regard this as an accurate event, so I can say that parts of the document are 20 historically accurate, but since it is written from a rather biased position, I am not entirely convinced it is completely accurate. Therefore, I would reason, we must read this text critically and take it with a pinch of salt, certain things might be exaggerated and other things might be disguised and silenced out of self-­‐interest. 21 3. Chapter 2: King Henry VIII, An epistle of the most myghty and redouted Prynce Henry the .viii. by the grace of God Kynge of Englande and of Fraunce, lorde of Irlande, defender of the faith, and supreme heed of the Churche of Englande41 3.1.
Theoretical framework In this chapter I will analyse the epistle written by King Henry, which can be linked to the previous chapter since the Monarch responds to a Papal bull, written by Pope Paul III in 1536. In this Papal bull the bishop of Rome suggested to hold a council in Mantua, Italy and proposed May 23th 1537 as the day on which the council would take place. According to Erwin Iserloh, Pope Paul III commissioned this council because he saw that Protestantism was spreading all over Europe, even Italian preachers had taken over the new teaching.42 Most probably the bishop of Rome saw this movement towards Protestantism as a threat against the Church, and wanted to challenge Protestantism at the council. This would explain why many Protestant European leaders were opposed to this council, e.g. Luther reasoned that this council was not required because he believed that it would lead to nothing.43 Because of this the council was deferred for nine years, until it finally took place in 1545 in Trent.44 Henry’s epistle talks about his resistance to this council, because he explains why he believes he should not be present at Mantua. I will analyse the epistle looking at Henry’s self-­‐fashioning and how he depicts the Pope. I will look at how the Monarch defends himself and I will also refer to events happening at the time that might have influenced the words of his Majesty. This epistle was written by King Henry VIII himself in 1538. It thus dates back to the last decade of his reign. We must read this in the context of the literary education King Henry had received during his childhood. The King often wrote various texts himself, 41
King Henry VIII, An epistle of the most myghty and redouted Prynce Henry, London, 1538, pp. 1 – 18. 42
Iserloh Erwin, Luther and the Council of Trent, The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 69, No. 4, 1983, p. 566. 43 Ibid., p. 565. 44 It took place in Trent because the Duke of Mantua refused to let the council be held in the city, if the Pope could not promise him he would protect the city with his Papal army. 22 from a very young age he was interested in writing poetry.45 He was not the only king to have written literary texts, Richard I also performed poetic arts since it was a common and polite practice at his court. Other monarchs who wrote literature were Edward II, Henry V and Henry VI. Henry VIII’s mother also spent her time writing, her most famous love lyric was “My heart is set upon a lusty pin”, his grandmother translated from Latin into English and his first wife, Catherine of Aragon took part in “courtly poetic exchanges”.46 People who engaged in writing literature thus characterized Henry’s immediate environment. Even though the Sovereign claimed writing was a very dull and time -­‐ consuming act,47 his literary contribution is quite remarkable. Examples of his literary criticism are: an “answer to Martin Luther’s On the Babylonian Captivity, the Assertio septem sacramentorum aduersus M. Lutherum”, he also revised the Bishop’s Book, and supervised the production of Book of Hours.48 Other than that he also wrote several love letters, musical compositions, and poems. The King not only was an innovator when it came to writing literature, but also when it came to reading and collecting literature. Henry collected a lot of books, not for the sake of displaying them, like Francis I, but to actually read them.49 His collection of books was used a lot for private matters; for example, he read many books during his divorce. His majesty had four different libraries: Westminster, Greenwich, Hampton Court and Woodstock.50 The books came into his possession in various ways; he acquired some through inheritance, he bought some and he also received a lot of books as gifts. Those presents were personalized with illustrations, verses, and letters. Similarly, his books talked about various subjects: he possessed bibles in various languages, he read travel books and books about music.51 It is important to consider the literary contributions Henry has made because it shows us that Henry has had a remarkably academic upbringing; it becomes clear that he was a very well read man. This has shaped his literary contributions, if he had not received this literary education, he might not have written that many texts, and maybe had not even written this particular text. 45 Siemens Raymond G., Henry VIII as a Writer and Lyricist, Musical Quarterly, Oxford Journals, 2009, p 2. 46 Ibid., p 3. 47 Ibid., p 3. 48 Ibid., p. 3. 49
Hamilton Dakota L., The Books of King Henry VIII and His Wives by James P. Carley, The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2006, p. 474. 50
Ibid. p. 474. 51 Ibid., p. 474. 23 3.2.
Analysis of the epistle As the title of the document already indicates, he describes himself as the Defender of the Faith and the supreme head of the Church of England. This is thus an epistle in defence of himself and the decisions he has made to segregate from the Catholic Church and to deny any Papal authority. King Henry indicates that he wrote this letter for all “Christian princes, and those who truly possess Christian faith.”52 According to the King’s reasoning he also belongs to this category; in contrast with the Pope, which is a pretty severe attack against Rome and the Church. They are described as if they do not truly possess Christian faith and as if they are not good Christians. This can be linked to the Papal bull I discussed in chapter 2, where Pope Paul III asked all “good Christians” to not enter Henry his cities. They both accuse one another of not being a good Christian or not really possessing Christian faith. In this epistle the King explains why he should not be present at the council in Mantua, which was commissioned by the supreme Pontiff. Henry VIII had written a book in which he explained why he refused to be present at this council “nor any other council called by the bishop of Rome.”53 He believed that the Pope should not ask for the council, but that it should be summoned by the Emperor and princes or kings who attended the council, such as the Spanish Emperor or King Francis of France. This suggests that Henry believed that the Pope did not have the power to request the presence of the earthly kings at the council. This implies that the Monarch did not believe that the bishop of Rome has power over other kings, in contrast to what the Vicar of Christ claims. Moreover, the Emperor and Francis of France were at war, so the timing was not very convenient. The King argues that there is nothing more that damages Christian faith or religion than general councils, if they are used for personal gain, as we can see in this example: Truly as our forefathers invented nothynge more holyer thanne generalle councilles: so there is almost no thinge, that may do more hurt to the Christian common welthe, to the faith, 52 King Henry VIII, p. 1. 53
Ibid. p. 2. 24 to our religion, than general councils, if we do abuse them to luker to gayness, to the establyshment of errours.54 King Henry portrays the Church as an institution that only pursues things for their own personal benefit and gain; obviously this is not a very positive description. While the Pope depicted the Church as an institute that was peaceful and respectful for other people, and only did things for the benefit of others; we are here presented with an entirely different description. Henry VIII accuses the bishop of Rome and the Church of only doing things in their own interest and not for the good of others. He states that these councils are called general because any Christian person could speak his mind without the fear of retribution or punishment. According to Diane Parkin-­‐Speer, freedom of expression became a right in parliament during the sixteenth century. Moreover, she argues that this meant the “right to express the truth as the speaker or writer perceived it, not to say anything one pleased.”55 However, King Henry believes they should not be called ‘general’ because only certain people were heard, only leaders of important countries, such as the Kings of France and Spain, were invited to these councils; common people could not take part in these councils. According to Kenneth Meyer Setton, the King did not want a council to take place because he was afraid of possible reactions to the problems in his marriage, moreover he did not want any opposition against declaring himself supreme head of the English Church56: Despite occasional pious statements to the contrary, Henry was opposed to a council, for he feared conciliar reflections on his matrimonial problems and conciliar objections to his recently declared supremacy over the Church of England.57 Henry VIII calls the bishop of Rome his biggest foe, because he sees by his behaviour that the Pope hates him: The bishop of Rome is our great ennemy, He beareth us immortall hatred, as we and 54 King Henry VIII., p.3. 55 Parkin-­‐Speer Diane, Freedom of Speech in Sixteenth Century English Rhetorics, The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1981, p. 65. 56 Setton Meyer Kenneth, The Papacy and the Levant, 1204 – 1571, Volume IIII, The Sixteenth Century to the Reign of Julius III, The American Philosophical society, Philadelphia, 1984, p. 415. 57 Ibid., p. 415. 25 all other men maye well perceyue by his doynges. He desireth nothing more than our hurt, and the destruccion of our realme: Do not we than violate the iugement of nature, if we gyve him power and auctoritie to be our iudge?58 Henry can see from the Pope’s actions that he wants to hurt him and wants to demolish his kingdom. Moreover, he states that everyone can perceive this from the Vicar of Christ’s attitude towards the English Monarch. According to Henry’s reasoning it interferes with common sense to give the Pope the power to pass judgement on English matters. If it were the Pope’s goal to destroy England, as Henry seems to claim, then giving him the power over England would be a very bad decision to make. Not only would the King no longer be in power of his own country, which is obviously not what Henry wants, but the Vicar of Christ would also try to destroy the realm. Furthermore, he calls the bishop of Rome a blind man for not seeing for what end the King undertakes these actions: “Certaynly he is very blynde, that seeth not, what ende we maye loke for of our controuersyes.”59 I would say this is again a grave attack against the Pope, calling him blind because he does not see the virtuous causes of the monarch’s actions. This is basically saying that the Holy Father does not see that what Henry is doing is a good religious act. Moreover, by saying this, it is as if the Vicar of Christ is not aware of what good religious behaviour is, and he therefore does not see that Henry’s actions are justified. The negative depictions of the Church keep increasing since Henry VIII now also accuses the Church of being corrupt. The King asks for a new council that will restore everything that is “depravate”, the word depravate means “corrupt”, and refers to the Pope and the Church. Furthermore Henry says that if this is not done, this will destroy Christian religion: We desire, if it were in any wyse possible, a Councyl, where some hope may be, that those thynges shall be restored, which now being depravate, are lyke, 58
King Henry VIII, p. 5. Ibid., p. 5. 59
26 if they be not amended, to be the utter ruyne of christen religion.60 Henry believes that they will destroy true Christian faith because the Pope wants to interfere in English matters and wants to claim authority over Kings. This is a very negative portrayal of the Church, since it is supposed to be the institution that keeps Christian faith alive, and now Henry presents it as the establishment that will cause the downfall of Christianity. Henry is criticizing His Holiness, accusing him of being a blind man and not seeing the truth, but it becomes clear he does this for one purpose: he does not want any interference of the Pope and he wants to make decisions without any intervention from outside. In his epistle the Monarch does say he hopes such a council will be installed “not so much for our excuse”, but “that controversies in religion may once be taken away”,61 but I do think the main reason why he is asking for such a council and why he is writing this letter, is exactly for his own “excuse”. The king reasons that if they talk about religion in this council, this discussion will only become more problematic: The tyme also, and the state of thynges is suche, that matters of religion may rather nowe be brought farther in trouble, as other thynges are, than be commodyously intreated of, and decyded.62 Henry could be referring to the Reformation that was going on at the time; he had rejected all connections with the Catholic Church and founded his own Church. It seems logic that he preferred not to have any comment on the fact that he separated from Rome, and basically switched from Catholicism to Anglicanism. He reasons that if they do talk about it at the council, it will only lead to more difficulties between Protestant and Catholic countries. He admits having difficulties with the Pope, but he does not want to be under surveillance of proctors: 60 King Henry VIII, p. 6. 61
Ibid., p. 7. Ibid., p. 8. 62
27 What other princes wyll do, we can not tell, but we wyll neyther leave our realme at this tyme, neyther we wyll truste any proctor with our cause, wherein the holle stay and welthe of our Realme stodethe, but rather we wyll be at the handlynge therof our selfe.63 He wants to handle the rule of his country himself. He refuses to be present at the council because he does not want the bishop of Rome to be the arbitrator of English causes. Furthermore, Henry believed that it was not right to settle problematic religious issues by the Pope himself because he would be the “judge in his own cause”. Moreover, Henry was sure that the purpose and aim of this council was for the Vicar of Christ to affirm his authority rather than to come to a reformation.64 He wants to distance himself from Papal forces, but he still wants to follow the Holy Scripture because he believes it is the “only touchstone of true learning”.65 This shows that he is leaning more towards Protestantism, because they only followed the rules of the Bible and not of the Church. When Henry founded the Anglican Church he took over both certain Protestant features and certain Catholic features.66 The King says he will defend the Scripture with his life and at the jeopardy of his kingdom: We wyll not suffre them to be abolished, ere ever they be discussed, ne to be oppressed, before they beknowen: moche lesse we wyl suffre them to be trodden downe, beying so clerely trewe. No, as there is no iote in Scripture, but we woll defende it, though it were with ieopardye of oure lyfe, and peryll of this oure realm.67 This shows that the Monarch intrinsically is a very religious person who believes in the touchstones of the Bible. The fact that he says that he would defend it with his life and even jeopardize his country for it shows that he is a very devout person. Moreover he says that nothing may oppress the article of faith, but he will be in continuous struggle with it: “Soo is there nothynge, that dothe oppresse this doctryne or obscure it, but we woll be at contynuall warre therewith.”68 63 King Henry VIII, p. 9. 64 White, Hughes, Strype, Aylmer A Complete History of England: I. The history of King Henry VIII., written by Edward, lord Herbert of Cherbury, Great Britain, 1706, p. 211. King Henry VIII, p. 10. 66
MacCulloch Diarmaid, Putting the English Reformation on the Map: The Prothero Lecture, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Sixth Series, Vol. 15, 2005, p. 75. 67 King Henry VIII, p. 10. 68 Ibid., p. 10. 65
28 This shows that his attitude towards the Bible is dubious: on the one hand he would defend it with his life, but on the other he is constantly at war with it. He perceives himself, thus, as a devout religious person but he lost his faith in the bishop of Rome. The Monarch says he even abolished all old Papal customs in England, which enlarged the Pope’s dominance and pride and he will be sure to not install any new traditions in England: As we have abrogated all olde popysh traditions in this our realme, whiche eyther dydde helpe his tyranny, or increase his pryde: so yf the grace of God forsake us not, we will well forsee, that no newe nowghtye traditions be made with our consent.69 The Holy Father believes he has the right to interfere in the affairs of foreign countries because he is the descendant of God on earth, however Henry now refuses him to interject in English affairs, which means that he basically neglects Papal authority. The King is afraid that the supreme Pontiff will have more authority over his country than himself; this is also a reason why he wants to separate from the Catholic Church. He believed he was chosen by God to rule over his country. Therefore he has the right to be the most powerful person in his realm. However the Holy Father claims the same reason for which he can interfere in foreign affairs, they both argue to have been chosen by God. The King takes the Duke of Mantua as a precedent since he refused the Pope to keep his council in this city. So Henry reasons, if the Duke has this kind of power over the Holy Father, then there is no reason that he should consent to the Vicar of Christ’s wishes. The Sovereign wants to show us that the Church does not have that much power anymore and that they are not as authoritative as they claim to be. Moreover he wonders why the Pope does not punish the Duke of Mantua for disrespecting his demand while he is so displeased with Henry’s doings and wants to punish him for it: The Duke wolde not suffre it. No, he forbade hym his towne. Nowe chaunceth it, that here excommunycations flye not abroode? Why doth he not punyshe this Duke? 69 King Henry VIII, p. 10. 29 Whye is his power, that was want to be more then full, here empty? Wonte to be more than all, here nothynge?70 His Majesty argues that other Kings may discard the invitation just like the Duke of Mantua who discarded the demand of the bishop of Rome to set his council in Mantua: Dothe he not calle men in vayne to a Councylle, if they that come at his callynge, be excluded the place, to whyche he calleth them? May not kynges iustely refuse to come at his calle, when the Duke of Mantua maye denye hym the place that he choseth?71 Moreover, Henry accuses the Pope of not being very inviting because he prefers to keep his councils in cities that are not his own. He even wonders if the Holy Father were to keep a council in one of his own cities, if the kings and leaders would be able to walk around safely: Trewely he is not wonte to appynte one of his owne Cytyes, a place to kepe the Councill in. No the good man is so faythefull and frendely towarde other, that seldome he desyreth Princis to be his gestes. And admytte he shulde calle us to one of his Cities, shulde we safely walking within the walles of such our enemyes towne?72 The Church is thus also represented as not being a place of safety; the King accuses the bishop of Rome of not being able to provide security for his people. This can be linked to the fact that in the Papal bull the Pope is not afraid to justify violence in order to reach his goals, because advocating and endorsing violence does not concord with safety. The King seems to be suggesting that the Pope is not afraid to abuse his power and might plot against other leaders for his own benefit. He seems to say that the Vicar of Christ is not afraid to do things that are not politically correct in order to maintain his power. 70 King Henry VIII, p. 12. 71 Ibid., p. 12. 72
Ibid., p. 13. 30 As Kenneth White, John Hughes, and John Strype argue, the place where the council would be held, Mantua, was not fitting because the English were not only unsure if they could come in safety, but also because they were uncertain about whether they could “declare themselves freely”.73 This means that they were not sure whether or not they could communicate freely and could speak their minds. This seems to me another serious assault against the Pope, he implies that the Vicar of Christ is not afraid to use violence to remove anyone standing in his way or denying his Papal authority. The King reasons that if the Pope cannot safeguard their wellbeing in his own cities, he most certainly cannot have authority over other dominions since he cannot even have power and control over his own Papal States. Henry VIII also challenges the Papal armies, he argues that it does not seem just for a descendent of God to have an armed council. This obviously is a very negative portrayal of the Holy Father and the Church; Henry depicts him as being incapable of keeping his subjects in check and incompetent to use his power in a good way. Moreover Henry suggests that the Pope is not afraid to do things that are not politically right. At the end of the epistle the King says that if he said something in too harsh a manner it is not done out of ill will, but out of the hatred he bares against vices: If we have sayde aughte agaynste the decytes of the Bishoppe of Rome, that maye seme spoken to sharepely, we pray you impute it to the hatredde we bare unto vyces, and not to any yvell wyll that we bare hym.74 He clearly regards the bishop of Rome as someone who does evil and corrupt things. He asks the Pope and his followers to open their eyes and to work together with him to continue to spread the everlasting love and glory of God: No, that he, and all his, maye perceyve, that we are rather at stryfe with his vices, than with hym, And his, oure prayer is, bothe that it maye please god at the last to open theyr eyes, to make softe theyre harde hartes, and that they ones may with us (theyr owne glorye sette aparte) studye to sette for the the everlastynge glorye, of the everlastynge God.75 73 White, Hughes, Strype, Aylmer, p. 211.
74 King Henry VIII, p. 17. 75 Ibid,. p. 17 31 He even wishes that everyone “fares him well”,76 which seems a bit odd considering all the attacks he has made against His Holiness. This epistle shows some struggles Henry faces, he obviously considers himself a true religious person who regards the Bible as the only true touch-­‐stone of religion, and even accuses the Pope of not being a good Christian. The King was a very devout person, but he could not stand the actions and decisions the bishop of Rome took. According to me he was struggling with the fact that he saw himself as a good Christian while he was condemning the Church and neglecting all Papal authority. However, if he showed support to Protestantism then this is not so odd, since Protestants used the Bible as the basis for their religion, and were critical of the Church. He wanted to get the divorce settled, and could not stand the fact that the Pope could prevent this from taking place. Therefore he also founded the Anglican Church out of personal reasons. The Anglican Church has elements of both Protestantism and Catholicism; and is perceived as a middle way between both religions.77 These are some of the characteristics of Anglicanism: they view the Bible as the Word of God and supreme rule of faith, just like Catholicism and Protestantism; they believe in two of the sacraments of the Gospel78 instead of seven in Catholicism; and just like in Protestantism they do not believe in the authority of the Pope. He has problems with the Vicar of Christ and the Catholic Church. He reasons that the Holy Father only used the council as an excuse for affirming his authority. As I have explained in the previous chapter, the Vicar of Christ defended his power by referring to the fact that he was the worldly descendant from God, he believed he had power over all princes and could interfere when needed. Obviously, this was not to Henry’s liking, he had power over England and, as he did not want any proctors inspecting England, he did not want anyone to meddle in his affairs. This is also why he proclaimed himself Supreme Head of the Church. It is more a matter of politics rather than religion since he was a very religious person, he just did not want any intrusion from outside. The best solution for Henry was to found his own church and declare himself the earthly substitute of God, so his decisions would overrule everything. 76
King Henry VIII, p. 18. 77 MacCulloch Diarmaid, Putting the English Reformation on the Map: The Prothero Lecture, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Sixth Series, Vol. 15, 2005, p. 75. Moyes, James. "Anglicanism." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 21 May 2013 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01498a.htm>. 78
32 3.3.
Authenticity of the epistle Similarly to the Papal bull, the text is written by King Henry himself and can therefore be seen as chronologically and historically accurate. However, it cannot be seen as a very objective text because the Monarch writes from a prejudiced point of view. He portrays himself in the best possible light and will, obviously, not depict himself in a negative way, comparably to what the Pope does in his Papal bull. He attacks the bishop of Rome and accuses him of being a bad leader and a bad Christian, just like the Pope accuses his Majesty of not being a good leader for England. This document is written from a biased viewpoint, so we must not accept everything that is said as true. We need to read this text from a critical point of view, and must take into account that certain things might be downplayed. The King often refers to events taking place at the time, which we can see as trustworthy, but similarly to the Papal bull certain things might be silenced. The Monarch will remain silent about certain actions taken by him, which might paint himself in a bad light. We must realise that Henry VIII only provide us with positive depictions of his actions and will not talk about his bad decisions or deeds. Likewise, he will only say negative things about the Pope to portray him in a bad light so that we might also become critical of the Vicar of Christ’s actions. The text is written in order to convince other people to share the King’s point of view and unite against the authority of the Pope. 33 4. Chapter 3: John Banks, Vertue Betray’d, or Anna Bullen79 4.1.
Theoretical framework This chapter will examine a play written by the English playwright John Banks. The play is called Vertue Betray’d, or Anna Bullen, and was written in the seventeenth century. During this century Henry VIII was still an important figure because England had now fully undergone the Reformation under Queen Elizabeth I; Henry’s daughter who under her reign completely favoured Protestantism. The play was written during the Restoration period when there had been again disputes between Catholicism and Protestantism, as I will explain later on. In order to analyse this play, I will firstly discuss some theoretical framework concerning the seventeenth century tragedies because this will give us more insight in the characteristics of the literary conventions at the time. More specifically, since the playact was written during the English Restoration period, I will talk about tragedies written during this period, which lasted from 1660 to 1685 and covered the whole of Charles II’s reign. During this period the monarchy was restored after the failed attempt of installing a republic, and literary bans were set up, as the theatre had been shut down for 18 years. Many authors wrote about the political events taking place at the time both during the Protectorate and the Commonwealth and after the Restoration, moreover these political changes and turmoil influenced literature heavily. For example, Vertue betray’d, or Anna Bullen was written in 1682, in the middle of the Restoration period, and it discusses the political situation at the time since it is a disguised attack on the governing and reign of King Charles II. The monarchy was restored by 1660 and this is shown in plays and tragedies which represent the “feudal aristocratic ideals”, as J. Douglas Canfield reasons, they specifically refer to “fidelity, loyalty, trust between friends, lovers, subjects and kings, man and God”.80 In this chapter I would like to discuss and analyse the depiction of some of its most important characters, such as the King, Anna Bullen, Cardinal Wolsey and Lady Blount. I will prove that they are represented in very different ways and this can be linked to the 79
Banks John, Vertue Betray’d, or Anna Bullen, Covent Garden, 1682, pp. 1 – 80. 80 Canfield Douglas J., Royalism’s Last Dramatic Stand: English Political Tragedy, 1679 – 89, Studies in Philology, Universtiy of North Carolina Press, 1985, p. 235. 34 time frame in which the play was written. In this play these characters are presented differently from their real-­‐life counterparts; this has to do with the fact that the play functions as a camouflage for underlying critique on the regime of Charles II. The depiction of all of these personae depends on the contemporary political situation and is not a truthful representation of their realistic equivalents. Therefore I will first explore various sources that have written about Restoration tragedies and what their main characteristics were. This will allow us to understand the contemporary literary customs which have influenced the play and the portrayal of its main characters. Then I will apply this to the play because we can see that Vertue Betray’d, or Anna Bullen belongs to these Restoration tragedies and shows examples of these characteristics. Firstly, I will talk about the protagonists of Restoration tragedies, the leading characters in works of major authors such as Tate, Crown, Southerne, Dryden, Lee and Banks were Kings which rule in a very patriarchal system. These plays, as Canfield states: “represent royalism’s last dramatic stand”.81 Many playwrights concentrated on characters that were empowered by passions they cannot control and which they eventually cannot resist. This leads to a certain kind of fall or loss of something important, such as the people they love or kingdoms. Most of the time the protagonists actually are not actively in control of their fall or loss, because they are mostly ruled by something or somebody else which causes their downfall. They are mere victims in the hands of others who are overcome by their passions or evil doings. This could be linked to the fact that the Royalists lost not only a lot of lands during the civil war such as the North which had fallen into the hands of the Parliamentarians,82 but it also led to the abolition of the Monarchy and the instalment of the Commonwealth. Another characteristic element of these plays is that the atmosphere becomes darker, and the endings are often unhappy,83 which is something we can see in Vertue betray’d, since it ends with the executions of Anna, Lord Rochford, Lord Norris and the death of Piercy. Banks’ play obviously shows these characteristics, since it deals with a protagonist of high status, the Queen of England, Anne Boleyn, and it talks about the loyalty to the King. Anna is definitely overpowered by a passion she cannot resist, which is her love for Henry Piercy, and this will eventually bring about her fall out of the monarch’s grace and her execution, thus it leads to an unhappy ending. This is important 81 Canfield Douglas J., p. 235. 82 Worden Blair, The English Civil Wars: 1640 – 1660, Weidenfield and Nicolson, Great Britain, 2009. Digital file. 83 Canfield Douglas J., p. 236. 35 since I will later on be discussing Anna’s role and depiction in the play; she is portrayed as a victim, which is of great significance for the analysis and understanding of the play. Moreover, the interpretation of Anna’s function in the play is important because it contrasts with the portrayal of King Henry since he is represented as a tyrant. Banks has portrayed Henry in such a way to critique the contemporary government of King Charles II, but also because he was in doubt of the decisions King Henry has made. Furthermore, Banks has depicted Anna as a victim to explain why people in the seventeenth century might have become more critical of Henry VIII. Secondly, it is important to see how these Restoration tragedies reacted against the political situation of the country at the time. According to Allardyce Nicoll, not one literary work was produced during the Restoration period that did not refer to the political events taking place. He also argues that most of the playwrights had ties with the court or parliament; this meant that they were either Puritan or Catholic.84 Now that the Monarchy was restored, these playwrights were able to express their own ideas freely on things they were passionate about through the medium of theatre, for the first time in eighteen years. Although we must keep in mind that they were not entirely free in proclaiming their feelings and thoughts since there was still some censorship. As I have said before, during Henry VIII’s reign people had the right “to express the truth as the speaker or writer perceived it, not to say anything one pleased.”85 This means that they were not entirely free in pronouncing their opinions, they could not say whatever they wanted, there were limits to this freedom of speech. This also meant that they could not say anything negative about the King, in contrast to the seventeenth century when authors could criticize the reign of previous Kings. During the Commonwealth the theatre had been banned for eighteen years, it was only reinstalled when the monarchy was restored and authors started to write in dialogic form again.86 Many writers used this form of literature to express their thoughts, ideas and satire, in the shape of varying subjects. However, we do see that in the period of 1659 to 1695, as Nicoll argues, most plays engage with a political or religious subject. This is, nevertheless, not a new phenomenon that dates back to the restoration period, one can also find anonymous 84
Allardyce Nicoll, Political Plays of the Restoration, Modern Language Review, Modern Humanities Research Association, 1921, p. 224. 85 Parkin-­‐Speer Diane, Freedom of Speech in Sixteenth Century English Rhetorics, The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1981, p. 65. 86 Allardyce Nicoll, p. 224. 36 political plays in Elizabethan times or during Cromwell’s reign. But a true enthusiasm for political plays only came about after the abolition of the Commonwealth.87 According to Nicoll, these plays can be divided into three different groups corresponding to the political events happening at the time, the first group concords with the fall of the Commonwealth and the reinstallation of the monarchy (1660 – 1665).88 The second group dates from 1679 to 1685, to which Vertue Betray’d, or Anna Bullen belongs. What is typical for this period is that it represents the strive between the Catholic and Protestant in both drama and national history. Most authors who wrote during this period based themselves on contemporary events and characters since they used living friars or prominent people from political parties as characters or protagonists of their tragedies. Banks, however, forms an exception to this in his play Vertue betray'd, since it is not concerned with important people from the political parties or belonging to the religious world, but with the King of England himself and Anne Boleyn, dating back over 100 to 150 years. Moreover, he also does not represent living friars or Whigs. He does base himself on real-­‐life characters, but from a different century. Banks might have done this because he used the character of Henry to criticize Charles II’s reign, furthermore he also made use of Henry to condemn him for the actions he has taken throughout his rule. The third group of Restoration tragedies dates back to plays written after 1685, the year in which Charles II passed away, with operas such as Dryden’s Albion and Albanius,89 which was very critical of the Whig party.90 The political events linked to these three periods are not related to international politics, they are concerned with national events, and have to do with the Catholics, the Whig party and Shaftesbury,91 which are linked closely together. During the Restoration Period, the Whig party was led by Lord Shaftesbury and wanted to depose Charles II’s brother from the throne because he was a Catholic. They were afraid that his Catholicism would jeopardize the Protestant religion and therefore they would rather not have him on the throne.92 Since Henry separated England from Rome people had become quite suspicious of Catholics; this is what we can also see happening here. 87 Allardyce Nicoll, p. 225. Ibid., p. 235. 90
Ibid., p. 236. 88 Ibid., p. 226.
89
91 Ibid., p. 231. 92 Bliss, Robert M. "James II (1633–1701)." Encyclopedia Virginia. Virginia Foundation for the Humanities, 17 Sept. 2012. Web. 29 Apr. 2013. 37 Similarly, when it comes to religion, this can also be divided into two groups: plays written by the Court Party, with authors such as Mrs Behn, D’Urfey and Banks, and plays written by Protestants, represented by Settle, Shadwell and Dryden.93 The Court Party was accused of plotting the murder of Charles II, who was a Protestant, in order to get his brother, James II on the throne.94 This is linked to the Whig party trying to prevent this from happening so that James II would not become King. The difference between the two is that the Whigs were Protestants, while the Court party was in favour of Catholicism. Nicoll argues that both the prologue and epilogue of the play clearly show links with contemporary politics, since they refer to the political parties, however the play itself shows Banks’ support of royalism.95 However, Paula De Pando Mena argues that the critic Canfield noted links between “sentimental tragedy and the Whig faction”96 since the portrayal of weak or dominant kings in theatrical plays was used by the Whig party as propaganda to “create an anti-­‐monarchic consciousness during and after the Exclusion Crisis (1678 – 81)”.97 This can be seen in the play, because we encounter King Henry who shows to be both weak and dominant at the same time, he is a tyrannical king who does not accept any criticism, however he lets his personal life take control over his political decisions, therefore he could also be seen as somewhat weak. As Paula de Pando Mena argues in her article, this reference to both the Tory and Whig parties was made by Banks to defend himself from possible attacks concerning his disengagement from both political parties.98 In addition, I would like to consider some more theoretical framework and apply it to Vertue Betray’d, or Anna Bullen. I would like to talk a bit more about Paula de Pando Mena’s article, she argues that Banks’ play is not in favour of Catholicism, which can be seen in the portrayal of Wolsey99. The Cardinal is depicted in a very negative way, he is represented as a Machiavellian leader who is not afraid to use people in order to get to his goals. He wants to dethrone Anna and therefore makes use of Lady Blount, however he does not actively engage in the disposal of the queen, he would rather let Lady Blount 93 Allardyce Nicoll, p. 232. 94 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Popish Plot, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/470083/Popish-­‐Plot, accessed on 29 April 2013. 95 Allardyce Nicoll, p. 234. 96 De Pando Mena Paula, Emasculated subjects and subjugated wives: discourses of domination in John Banks’s Vertue Betray’d (1682), University of Seville, 2006 p. 161. 97 Ibid., p. 161. 98
De Pando Mena Paula, Emasculated subjects and subjugated wives: discourses of domination in John Banks’s Vertue Betray’d (1682), University of Seville, 2006. 99 Ibid, p. 163. 38 undertake all the action, as she said: “This is I, and Malice would have done alone, Without the mighty Aid of Woolsey’s Brain.” 100 He is depicted as a somewhat weak person and does not show any remorse or guilt for what he has done. Moreover at the end of the play he even flees the scene and disappears: “King. Where is the Traitor Woolsey? North. Fled to Esher.”101 This shows that he is too faint-­‐hearted to face the consequences of his actions. This negative portrayal of the Cardinal has to do with the playwright’s rejecting attitude towards Catholicism, which I will discuss later on. This negative depiction of Wolsey can be seen in this example, Act 1, scene 1 of the play, when the narrator introduces Cardinal Wolsey: Behold the proud imperious Cardinal, With such a furious Tempest on his Brow, As if the World’s four Winds were pent within His blustering Carcass. He has heard the News, And comes to argue with his Friend the Devil, The reason of his No Intelligence.102 John Banks describes Wolsey as “imperious”, which means that he is an authoritarian person; he is depicted as a person overcome by rage. The author makes use of two different descriptions to indicate the fury of the Cardinal: there’s a furious tempest on his brow, and the four winds are held back in his thundering and ranting body. Moreover, Banks indicates that Wolsey’s friend is the devil; this is obviously also a very negative depiction. Since Wolsey is the personification of Catholicism, this can also be regarded as an extremely condemning image of the Church. Banks here links the Pope and the Church with the devil, which is something we would not expect. Furthermore, he is described as if he has no intelligence; clearly John Banks is not very positively orientated towards Cardinal Wolsey. In contrast, Banks is very sympathetic with the character of Anna Bullen, who was a Protestant. An example of Anne’s Protestantism can be found in Act 1, Scene 1 when Cardinal Wolsey is talking about how angry he is that Anna Bullen is now queen, especially because she is a Protestant: 100 Banks John, p. 62. 101 Ibid., p. 79. 102
Ibid., p. 3 39 Card. Marry’d in private, and declar’d his Queen! Katherine divorc’d, and Anna Bullen marry’d! (…) A Lutheran Queen upon the Throne of England!103 The word Lutheran makes clear that Anna has ties with Luther’s doctrine and considers herself to be a Protestant rather than a Catholic person. Moreover, he gives Elizabeth a chance of justifying herself and taking revenge on what has been done to her mother. When her mother is taken away to the scaffold Elizabeth says: “Well, I’m resolv’d when I am grown a Woman, I’le be reveng’d, and cry, Hough, too.”104 This can be seen in the fact that Queen Elizabeth I reinstalled Protestantism as the religion of England, after the bloody reign of her sister Queen Mary who was a Catholic. With the return to Protestantism, Elizabeth follows her mother’s example since she was also a Protestant. According to De Pando Mena, Anna Bullen is depicted as a “protomartyr of Protestantism” who is attacked by popish powers.105 She argues that the play is a practical example of using emotional drama for political ends; an example of this is the tyranny of Henry VIII who is portrayed as a king who is not interested in the wellbeing of his subjects.106 She also reasons that in his tragedies Banks linked a “recreation of a recent political past”107 to emotional and sentimental struggles of women who have difficulties of combining love and duty. This is similar to what Protestants might encounter if they were to be governed by a Catholic King. I would now like to talk about the political situation at the time the play premiered for the first time, which was in March 1682 after the Exclusion Crisis had ended. The Whig party had tried to deny Charles II’s Catholic brother James succession to the throne, but failed in their attempt. This had grave consequences since the leaders of this political party were persecuted or banished. However, the Whig party was still very prominently present in the streets, using press and spreading propaganda, which led to a belief that the Whig party was actually more powerful than the Tories.108 As a consequence, the theatre became linked to politics and both parties.109 De Pando Mena states that the 103
Banks John, p. 3. 104 Ibid., p. 68. 105 De Pando Mena Paula, p. 167. 106 Ibid., p. 161. 107 Ibid., p. 162. 108 Ibid, p. 162. 109
Ibid., p. 162. 40 reference to Whigs and Tories in the prologue and epilogue was made to defend himself from possible allegations, which could have brought about censorship of the play. In the prologue Banks states that he does not “meddle with either Whig, or Tory” and warns us of the coming of a possible new civil war.110 De Pando Mena argues that Banks was indubitably referring to the political turmoil going on in his time. Although Banks may argue that he does not interfere with either Whig, or Tory, De Pando Mena reasons that his compassion with Anna and Elizabeth, the negative description of Wolsey and the tyrannical and easy to influence king show supporting ties with the Whigs.111 Furthermore I would like to discuss the contemporary political influences on the play. In her study of Restoration drama, which was affected by the Exclusion Crisis, Jessica Munns divided these Restoration plays into three groups. First of all there are plays that talk about “dysfunctional royal families”, the second category consists of plays that talk about the “succession crisis” and lastly there are plays that portray “rulers who struggle against the necessity of putting the public good above private inclination.”112 Banks’ play belongs to this last category, since it deals with Henry VIII who cannot put the public good above his private life. As a result, this had consequences for his political rule. Since King Henry’s attention was all taken up by his problems with Anna Bullen, he can no longer focus on the ruling of his kingdom. This can be seen in the fact that throughout the play we never encounter King Henry engaging in any political activities, we only encounter him when he is talking about Anna. This can be linked to Bank’s political affiliation; in the prologue and epilogue of the play he distances himself from both Whigs and Tories, however there were traces in the play that showed his support of the Whig Party. They were Protestant and not in favour of the ascension of James II on the throne, but they were also not happy with Charles II’s reign. According to Paula De Pando Mena, this was the case because Charles II was too dependent on France, which was Catholic, but also because he wanted to rule without a parliament.113 According to De Pando Mena, the depiction of Henry is linked to Charles II since Henry’s lust and wildness mimic those of Charles II, and it is because of these traits that Henry fails to think about the needs of his people. 110 De Pando Mena Paula, p. 162. 111 Ibid., p. 161. 112 Ibid., p. 163.
113
Ibid., p. 163. 41 In the play we can see examples of Henry’s lust and wildness, since we can see that King Henry is easily enraged, for example, Anne must not talk too long with Henry Piercy because she is afraid that the King will be jealous and angry with her, as can be seen in Act 4, Scene 1: Queen. What Shall I do! Where teach my trembling Feet Their way! Was ever Virtue Storm’d like mine! Within, without, I am haunted all alike; Without tormented with a jealous King.114 An example of Henry’s lustfulness can be seen when King Henry first sees Jane Seymour, he does not think about Anna and is immediately is infatuated by her: The lovely Seymour, whom thou toldst me of, I did devour her Beauties from thy Lips And fed my Ears with the delicious Feast; But since I’ve seen this Wonder of her Sex! The Charming’st Creature e’re adorne’d the World; And find her all as far above thy Praises, As Heav’n can be beyond Man’s frail description.115 Another example of Henry’s wildness can be found in Act 4, Scene 1, when the King enters holding a letter in which it says that Anna has committed adultery, he is immediately overcome by rage and is furious: King. Where is this Woman! this most abhorr’d of Wives! This Scandal to her Sex, my Crown and Life! What by your Minion? Oh good Natur’d Husband! Down on your Knees, and thank me for the favour -­‐ See – here are Letters faln into my Hands, Where your dear Brother says he has enjoy’d you.116 Without listening to Anna, he immediately assumes the contents of the letter are the truth and does not give her any chance to defend herself. Moreover, he compares her to Messalina, the third wife of the Roman Emperor Claudius who had the reputation of promiscuity: 114 Banks John, p. 48. 115 Ibid., p. 17. 116
Ibid., p. 59. 42 Oh thou more Damn’d, and more Infatiate far, Than Messalina. She was Chast, to thee. Her, half the Men and Slaves of Rome, Could satisfy; bout thou, not all Mankind, With Husband, Brother, Kindred in the Number.117 Henry suggests that Anna is even worse than Messalina who had been intimate with “half the men and slaves of Rome”. He says that Anna makes Messalina look chaste in her betrayal. From these quotes we can see that Banks thus makes use of Henry to provide criticism against the rule of Charles II by portraying a “corrupt monarchy, suspiciously similar to the absolutist court the Whigs challenged.”118 Other examples of similarities between King Henry VIII and King Charles can be found, according to Paula De Pando Mena, when Henry easily believes Wolsey’s accusations because they are useful in his plan of pursuing Jane Seymour.119 In the play King Henry actually is willing to surrender his power to Wolsey as long as he can have Jane, this careless conveyance of power reminds us of Charles II.120 As De Pando Mena argues, it was Charles’ strategy “to make concessions to a Catholic power, the France of Louis XIV, in order to obtain the financial support necessary to rule without Parliament.”121 Another example can be seen in the fact that Henry can be influenced without effort by his subjects, we can specifically see this with the character of Lady Blount.122 De Pando Mena reasons that this is comparable to Charles II because people were sceptical about his relationships with his mistresses, because they believed they had an influence on his international politics.123 The play is completely dedicated to Anna Bullen, however this was a rather new phenomenon. From the seventeenth century onwards a playact could be entirely devoted to a woman. Before the seventeenth century, women were not always present in theatre or literature, as we could see for example in Marlowe’s drama, which is very 117
Banks John, p. 59. 118 De Pando Mena Paula, p. 164. 119 Ibid., p. 165. 120 Ibid., p. 165. 121 Ibid., p. 165. 122 Ibid., p. 169. 123 Ibid., p. 169. 43 much focused on male protagonists.124 However, this alters in the last twenty-­‐five years of the seventeenth century, when a lot more playwrights and authors make use of a female protagonist in their dramas. Examples of these authors are Thomas Otway, Thomas Southerne and also John Banks, who gained fame with writing these “she tragedies”, which portrayed English queens as tragic heroines, as Paula de Pando Mena argues. Nicholas Rowe was the first to call these dramas “she-­‐tragedies”125, but he was not the first author to have a female heroine in his story. Female protagonists were typical for this era, but this does not mean that female characters were not present in works that were written before the last quarter of the seventeenth century, as we can see for example in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, where Juliet plays a remarkable role, or the importance of Cleopatra in Antony and Cleopatra. According to Laura Brown these tragedies written during the late restoration show us a very unparalleled view of this phenomenon. In these dramas, the female protagonist becomes a kind of heroine, whose “victimization” shapes the general plot and whose “defenselessness” differentiates from the aspiring and ambitious female characters in previous plays. Laura Brown argues that this rise of the “she-­‐tragedies” occurred at the same time as the shift from the “aristocratic heroic drama” to the “bourgeois tragedy”,126 which indicates that this female figure also has historical significance. She also reasons that in drama from the 1680s to the 1810s women play a very important part in tragedies, since they shape the general plot and they are represented as victims. Laura Brown argues that they are victims “of their husbands, of fate, of circumstance, of unintentional error, or of love.”127 Anna Bullen is clearly also a victim who is not in control of her own destiny, this is important for the story because she is contrasted with the figure of the King. His rage, anger and tyranny is highlighted in this opposition with Anna, it accentuates the unreasonableness of King Henry. This representation of women is something we can definitely see in Vertue betray’d or Anna Bullen, where the fate of Anna Bullen is not in her hands, because other people are trying to bring about her downfall. First of all we have Wolsey and Lady Blount who want to depose her from the throne, therefore they make use of the previous betrothal between Anna and Henry Piercy, and Lady Blount uses Lord Rochford to make Anna 124 Brown Laura, The Defenseless Woman and the Development of English Tragedy, Studies in English Literature, 1500 – 1900, Restoration and Eighteenth Century, 1982, p. 429. 125 Rowe Nicholas, The Tragedy of Jane Shore, ed. Harry William Pedicord (London: Edward Arnold, 1975), Epilogue, p.75, line 29. 126 Brown Laura, p. 430. 127 Ibid., p. 430.
44 look like an adulterous and incestuous woman. Anna is clearly a victim of their jealousy and she cannot really do anything about it, because she is not aware of this conspiracy, though Anna does compare Wolsey to a devil who only wants to corrupt her. This can be seen in the play when she describes Wolsey as: “that proud, That great bad man, and Lucifer, ne’re meant Me nor my Virtue well.”128 She is also overpowered by her own family, who makes her marry the King in order to have a better social situation; they basically use her for their own good. This can be seen in the play in Act 4, Scene 1 when Rochford reads a letter written by Anna in which she explains that she was forced to marry: “By Wicked Woolsey, Harry, and our Parents I was betray’d, and forc’d to Wed the King.”129 She never hurt the King in any way, occasionally she felt like she was going to give in to Piercy, but she managed to withdraw herself from her former betrothed. The King was always on her mind, and in the play we do not see her engaging in anything risky. However, she is condemned to death for something she was not guilty of. The fact that she is overpowered by all these forces shows us that she really is a victim who is unable to have control over her own life. As Paula de Pando Mena argues, Anna can foresee her future, she feels it will have a disastrous ending, but she cannot do anything about it because she is forced by external powers to walk towards her own downfall.130 Thirdly, Anna is also a victim of her husband, King Henry VIII, who received a letter in which it is said that her brother and her have been intimate and immediately condemns Anna without her being able to defend herself to him. Later Anna gets the opportunity to defend herself in trial, but this is all in vain, because everyone has already decided she is guilty. This can be seen in Act 5, Scene 1 when Piercy and Lady Talbot are talking about Anna’s trial: Diana. Then with the meekness of a Saint she stood; With such amazing Oratory dazled, And like the Sun, darted quite through her Judges, And sham’d their Guilt, that none durst look upon her: But oh! What’s destin’d in the blackest Pit of Hell; what Innocence can n’ere withstand. What e’re she said, that Angels cou’d not finer, And shew’d a Soul, no Crystal nigh so clear; 128
Banks John, p. 39. 129 Ibid., p. 53. 130 De Pando Mena Paula, p. 169. 45 Tho’all appear’d to be the Plot of Devils; Yet was she guilty found, and, oh sad Piercy! (May all Eyes weep at it, like thine and mine) Condemn’d to lose her Head.131 Lady Talbot describes Anna in very positive words: she looks like a saint who is patient and humble. Anna is portrayed as a very eloquent person who shines like the sun and who with her rhetoric made the judges feel ashamed that they had proclaimed her guilty. Moreover, Lady Talbot describes Anna’s eloquence as finer than that of the angels; this is contrasted by the description of the judges: they are portrayed as devils. Lady Talbot shows us that Anna defended herself greatly, but despite her efforts they still found her guilty. This commentary of Lady Talbot displays John Banks’ sympathy to Anna, he portrays her like an angel; it is obvious that he is depicting Anna in a very positive way. This quote can be linked to what had happened in reality, because King Henry had already made up his mind that Anne Boleyn was not innocent, and if anyone defended her, his Majesty would condemn him or her guilty as well.132 The portrayal of the King often deviates from the real-­‐life Henry VIII, but here we get an example of something that corresponds to reality. As I have said before, the playact is entirely devoted to Anna, since the actions evolving around her make up the entire plot of the play. It starts with her engagement to the Sovereign, talks about the conspiracy between Cardinal Wolsey and Lady Blount, about her relationship with Piercy, and eventually about her arrest and death. This shows that John Banks was influenced by literary conventions at the time because during the seventeenth century plays could be completely dedicated to women. Another characteristic of John Banks’ works is that his plays are pathetic tragedies, as a reader we immediately sympathize with the actions taking place in the play.133 We do feel sorry for Anna when we read about Wolsey and Lady Blount trying to conspire against her, and she can do nothing to defend herself from being condemned and sentenced to death. Despite being influenced by literary customs, Paula de Pando Mena argues that there were still two other reasons why Banks chose women as his protagonists. Firstly, it increases the play’s pathos and sentiment, and secondly, Banks selected female 131 Banks John, pp. 64 – 65. 132 Walker Greg, Rethinking the Fall of Anne Boleyn, The Historical Journal, Cambridge University Press, 2002, p. 3. 133 Brown Laura, p. 434. 46 protagonists because female and male characters were linked to different political associations in drama.134 She reasons that female characters can express “political nuances” while this was not possible with male protagonists. If Banks would have used a male protagonist, this would have been seen as an attack on the regime, however now Banks could defend himself by saying that his play was written “for the fair sex”.135 Having a female character that functions as a protagonist was not an innovation, as I have explained above, but in an era where women were now allowed to act on stage, this triggered an enhanced attention to women in theatre. This occurred at the same time as the reopening of the theatres under the rule of Charles II. They could not only act, but also write, spectate and be patronesses.136 4.2.
Analysis of major characters The portrayal of these characters depends on the contemporary political circumstances in which the play was written because they have influenced the playact heavily. Furthermore, by comparing the events portrayed in the play to the events that actually happened during the deposition of Anne Boleyn as queen, and her execution, we can see that the roles of some characters do not agree with their real-­‐life counterparts. For example, we can see that Lady Blount and Cardinal Wolsey take on a role in this play that is very different from their real lives, since they both take part in the downfall of Anna Bullen, while in reality they never got involved in this matter. This has to do with the negative depiction of Cardinal Wolsey, as I will explain later on. I will first talk about Lady Blount, she is represented as a very strong, powerful and dominant woman who has Cardinal Wolsey in her power. This can be seen in Act 5, Scene 1 when Lady Blount says that she basically brought about Anna’s downfall without Wolsey’s power: We ought to veil before your Priestly Robe; My Crown of Wit shall ne’re stand Candidate With yours; and yet I dare be bold to say, This is I, and Malice would have done alone, Without the mighty Aid of Woolsey’s Brain.137 134 De Pando Mena Paula, p. 173. 135
De Pando Mena Paula, p. 173. 136 Ibid., p. 173.
137 Banks John, p. 62. 47 Lady Blount praises Wolsey for his intelligence, saying that her mental capacity is not as big as Wolsey’s. Despite saying this, she claims that she is the one who actually disposed of Anna, and did this without the help of Wolsey. I would reason that normally, one would not speak to a Cardinal this way. It is clear that she believes that this entire plan has only succeeded because of her and not because of Cardinal Wolsey, even though it was Wolsey who came up with the plan of using Henry Piercy. Moreover, I would argue that she is also in power of Wolsey because in the beginning of the play Lady Blount is angry with Wolsey because he promised her she would be the new queen. Once more, I would think that in a hierarchical and patriarchal society, one would show more respect and be more humble to a Cardinal, and someone who is so close to the King. This can be seen in Act 1, Scene 1: Blunt. Awake thou wretched dreaming Priest, look up: Can you behold your proud Saint Peter shake? The mighty Pillar of that spreading Church That holds the great Religion of the World To stagger, and bestow no help, no aid From mighty Woolsey’s Shoulders to support it? Is this the great King Cardinal, who late From smallest Root began to shade the Land, And stood tallest Cedar of the Church? Shame to thy Priest-­‐hood, and thy Scarlet Robe, Ev’n thou to whom the liberal See of Rome Has given all, next giving of her self: Unworthy Servant of so kind a Mistress.138 Lady Blount calls Wolsey a miserable priest and argues that his priesthood is shaking. She reasons that she barely recognizes him, this becomes clear in the questions she asks, e.g.: “Is this the great King Cardinal, who late from smallest root began to shade the land and stood tallest Cedar of the Church?” She even says he should be ashamed and argues he is an undeserving servant of Christianity. Again, she does not speak to him like someone who is subordinate; rather she talks to him as if she is the one who is superior to him. 138 Banks John, p. 4.
48 However, the character Lady Blount in Vertue betray’d, or Anna Bullen does not at all conform to the actual Elizabeth Blount. Lady Blount was Henry VIII’s mistress and the mother of his first and illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy.139 After the King’s interest was raised in Mary Boleyn, Elizabeth Blount was married off to Lord Talboy, and therefore no longer of any interest to the King.140 Thus, we can conclude that Lady Blount in this play is almost a fictitious character, because she never engaged in the fall of Anne Boleyn in order to get her son on the throne. I think this might be done by John Banks because he portrays Wolsey as somewhat weak. He does not actively pursue Anna’s downfall because it seems as if Wolsey lacks the courage and strength to try and discard Anna himself. We can see that he is a weakling because he flees the scene at the end of the play because he does not want to face the King and admit that he caused Anna’s downfall. He is the instigator who convinces Lady Blount that her son could be the next king, so that she would become his accomplice. Maybe Banks made use of Lady Blount as Wolsey’s collaborator because of his slothfulness. This laziness is part of Wolsey’s character and is necessary because Banks portrays him as a personification of Christianity and the Catholic Church. What Banks is doing here, is criticizing the Catholic Church by means of Wolsey. Because of the Cardinal’s laziness he does not actively engage in Anna’s downfall, and this is why he needed a fellow conspirator. Lady Blount is portrayed as the mastermind regarding the downfall of Anna, since she is the one who acquaints herself with Lord Rochford, seduces and uses him. Moreover, she is the one who says she wants to dispose of Anna in Act 1, Scene 1: Give me Saint Dagger or Saint Poison straight, And I will do that Meritorious Act: Dispatch her streight to Hell, from whence she fetch’d Those Looks that robb’d me of the King and Crown.141 She clearly describes Anna as a devil; she came from hell and now she wants to send her back. Lady Blount does not seem to care about the way in which she wants to murder Anna, as long as she is eliminated. Lady Blount’s motive becomes clear in this quote: she wants to dethrone Anna because she took the King and the crown from her. 139 Fraser, Antonia, p. 103. 140 Ibid., p. 103. 141 Banks John, p. 5.
49 Furthermore, she comes up with the plan of making use of Anna’s brother, Lord Rochford to reach their goals: Blunt. I will. Good Fortune has been so propitious To make young Rochford, Anna Bullen’s brother, Enamour’d of my Beauty; him I’le mould, Sound ev’ry thought of his unguarded Soul, Linking him close in amorous Intrigues, ‘Till I have discover’d from him our Design Of Peircy’s Love, and of his Sisters Conduct.142 Lady Blount informs us that Anna’s brother is in love with her, she uses him as a pawn in her game. She says she will play along in this game and pretends to be in love with Rochford as well. Her goal is to find out whether or not Henry Piercy and Anna are still in love or not, and if so, then she will make use of this love affair. She convinces Lord Rochford to correspond with her as “his sister”, because she does not want to communicate with him openly, out of fear of the King, whose mistress she used to be. When Henry VIII receives these letters, he falsely assumes that Lord Rochford and Anna Bullen are communicating and are in love with one another, which, according to Edythe Backus, is historically inaccurate. Backus argues that all historical documents state that “the dropped handkerchief at Greenwich” was “the final excuse for the accusation”.143 Lady Blount actually is of more importance than Wolsey, because the arrest of Lord Rochford, Piercy and Anna is accomplished by her doing. As I have stated before, she is represented as a dominant woman, but by the end of the play she is transformed into a woman who is overcome by guilt, which drives her mad, meaning that she thus has undergone psychological change. This can be seen at the end of the play when Northumberland talks about what happened while she was watching Anna being executed: And saw ‘em with a Hellish Cruelty; Till Anna Bullen’s Head lopp’d from her Body; The brightest Ornament of that Person fell Upon that wretched Womans knees, as She Was fitting to behold the Dismal sight: 142
Banks John, p. 6. 143 Backus, Edythe, PMLA, The MS. Play, Anna Bullen, Modern Language Association, 1932, p. 747. 50 The Trunkless Head with darting Eyes beheld her, Making a motion with its Lips to speak As if they meant t’upbraid her Cursed Treason. When streight the dreadful Accident so struck her, Swift as a Hind she gave a leap, and with A sudden shriek, she started into Madness, So fierce, that just and speedy Death must follow; Then uttering strange, and horrid Guilty speeches, In her distraction she accus’d her self, And Woolsey: talkt the Queen was Innocent; Saying, the Letters found within her Closet Were false, and plac’d by them to ruin Her: For which her Cruel Ghost, she said, did haunt her.144 This quote shows us that Lady Blount initially callously watched Anna being executed, as if she could not care less, until Anna’s head fell upon her knees. Banks here also says that Anna, even after her death, seems to proclaim her innocence and seems to accuse Lady Blount of betraying her. This caused Lady Blount to go crazy, as the quote says: “she started into madness” and confessed she was the one who framed Anna. While Lady Blount shows remorse and feels guilty for what has happened, it does not affect Cardinal Wolsey at all. We can see this because, in contrast to Lady Blount, we never encounter Wolsey showing any repentance. It is important to see how this character deviates from her real-­‐life persona, because this shows us that literature is not always objective. We must thus not read this playact as an unbiased representation of the truth, as I will explain later on, this is the same for the portrayals of Cardinal Wolsey and King Henry. The second character I will discuss is Cardinal Wolsey; in the play he wants to make sure his Majesty divorces Anna so she will no longer be queen. He mentions that he prefers not to have her queen because King Henry had to divorce Queen Catherine, which is not accepted in Christian religion. But a second reason is, that she is a Lutheran, which is not very much to Wolsey’s liking. Anna is aware of Wolsey’s attitude towards her, as she describes him as being friends with the devil who wants nothing more than to bring 144 Banks John, pp. 78 – 79. 51 about her fall: “that proud, That great bad man, and Lucifer, ne’re meant Me nor my Virtue well.”145 This obviously happens, and at the end of the play Northumberland informs the King of this, who gives him the task to look for Cardinal Wolsey and arrest him when he finds him. Similar to Lady Blount, the character of Cardinal Wolsey does not conform to the actual person Wolsey. John Banks changed the perception of Wolsey because he used him as a personification of the Catholic Church of which he was very critical. Because the country had returned to Protestantism after the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, he is represented in such a negative way. Moreover, because Charles II’s catholic brother occupied the throne, the Whig party, to which Banks was linked, faced grave consequences. This is also why Banks is so critical of Catholicism. It is a disguised critique on the Catholic religion through the persona of Cardinal Wolsey. The institution is represented by a corrupt Cardinal who is not afraid to abuse his own power and to make use of other people to reach his goals. The play represents the typical struggle between the Catholics and the Protestants, which was, as I have said before, exhibited in many of the Restoration plays. In reality, the Cardinal was not in favour of the annulment of the marriage, just like in the play, but he did try everything to get the divorce between the monarch and Catherine settled, because Henry asked him to.146 He tried to do this in several ways with the help of Cardinal Campeggio,147 but because the Emperor, who was Queen Catherine’s nephew,148 overruled the Pope he could not grant the divorce.149 Thus, Wolsey failed in his mission and fell out of the King’s grace. It seems to me that the roles are reversed in this play; we can see this because in reality, it was Anne Boleyn who wanted nothing more than to bring about Wolsey’s downfall and to see him disappear from court. John Banks portrays Wolsey in a very negative light because he had a condemning attitude towards Catholicism. John Banks needed a reason for Wolsey to want revenge on Anna; therefore he might have switched their roles. This is an ideal way to represent Anne as a victim, which she was not in real life, by making Wolsey the initiator of her misfortune. In reality, Anne instigated his downfall because Wolsey had declared the betrothal between Henry Piercy and her as void.150 Anne Boleyn believed 145 Banks John, p. 39. 146 Gairdner James, The Fall of Cardinal Wolsey, The Royal Historical Society, Vol 13, 1899, p. 75. 147
Fraser Antonia, p. 181. 148 Ibid., p. 103. 149
Ibid., p. 202. 150 Ibid., p. 103.
52 Wolsey delayed the divorce because he was afraid to lose his power.151 Wolsey tried very hard to annul his Majesty’s marriage to Queen Catherine,152 but he was overruled by not only the supreme pontiff, but also by Anne who tried to keep him and the King separated.153 Moreover, as James Gairdner argues, she kept on portraying Cardinal Wolsey in a bad light.154 Wolsey was basically helpless to these accusations. Anne’s uncle bribed Wolsey’s doctor to tell Henry that the Cardinal was trying to convince the Pope to excommunicate Henry and to take over the English throne, however this was not true.155 Because of these accusations, Wolsey was arrested for high treason.156 This arrest and his fall out of the monarch’s grace made him fall ill, which was the cause of his death in 1530.157 In the play we see the exact opposite happening, Wolsey is trying to portray Anna in a bad light and make her look like an adulterous and incestuous woman, the character Anna cannot defend herself or do anything against these accusations. Letters written by her brother were intercepted and seen as love-­‐letters to Anna, while they were actually addressed to the Lady Blount, as can be seen in the play: Blunt. And you may write to me, and best by Proxy: For tho the King not visits me, as he was wont, Yet he is Jealous -­‐ Let all your Amorous letters be disguis’d, Under the borrow’d Name of Brother still, Directed to me by the stile of Sister.158 In this quote we can see that Lady Blount is convincing Rochford to write letters to her. This is part of her sharp-­‐witted plan to find out more about the relationship between Henry Piercy and Anna. Lady Blount persuades Rochford to sign the letters as brother and sister because otherwise the King would become jealous. Obviously this is not the real reason, she is just trying to find a way to make it look as if Rochford and Anna are exchanging love letters. These letters were given to the King and he immediately believes its contents: 151 Bernard G.W., The Fall of Wolsey Reconsidered, Journal of British Studies, Vol. 35, No. 3, 1996, p. 282. 152 Gairdner James, p. 76. 153 Ibid., p. 82. 154 Gairdner James, p. 84. 155 Weir Allison, The Six Wives of Henry VIII, Grove Press, 1991, p. 218 156 Ibid. p. 218. 157 Fraser Antonia, p. 204. 158 Banks John, p. 35. 53 Enter the King in a Fury, with Letters in his Hand. Attendants and Guards. Card. The King is here! Queen. Then he is Merciful! King. Where is this Woman! this most abhorr’d of Wives! This Scandal to her sex, my Crown and Life! What by your Minion? Oh good Natur’d Husband! Down on your Knees, and thank me for the favour -­‐ See – here are letters faln into my Hands, Where your dear Brother says he has enjoy’d you.159 We can see here that the King is not very kind to Anna; he calls her despicable and a scandal to her sex, and his life. It is clear that the King has read the letters, and he immediately believes that Anna and her brother have been intimate. These same letters led to Anna’s arrest on grounds of treason and adultery. After the King reads them he immediately condemns her to the scaffold: King. Damn thy hot Lustful Breath; thy Poysonous Tongue! Here, take ‘em hence, to Tortures, Racks to Death.”160 He wants to punish Anna and her brother by torturing them and subjecting them to the rack. The rack was a very painful method of torture, and could lead to agonizing pain. The image of the rack shows us that the King is not afraid to use tormenting methods to punish his subjects, even his wife who he loved dearly. This shows us again the fury and wildness of the King who acts without reasoning. It is almost as if Banks makes the character Wolsey take revenge on what the real-­‐life Anne Boleyn has done to real Wolsey. However, Banks portrays him in a very bad manner, and this has to do with Banks’ critical attitude towards Catholicism. Wolsey is almost a kind of Machiavellian person for whom the end justifies the means. He does not care if he has to use Lady Blount in his conspiracy, nor does he seem concerned about the fact that because of him not only Anna but also Lord Rochford, Lord Norris and Henry Piercy die. The Cardinal is content that Anna is no longer queen and that he was successful in his plan to dispose her from the throne. Any other casualties are merely coincidental and are needed for the succession of his stratagems. 159 Banks John, p. 59.
160 Ibid., p. 60. 54 However, this play is not chronologically right, since Wolsey passed away in 1530,161 six years before the execution of Anne Boleyn. This means that he did not have anything to do with the plot against Anne, because he had already died by the time she was accused and tried. It seems to me that John Banks is taking quite some liberty with the truth, since he portrays Lady Blount as somebody who she was not in real life, and he makes her do things she never did, which is also true for Cardinal Wolsey. Paula de Pando Mena reasons that Banks changed chronology to invent an “allegorical character, simplistically Manichean because it does not correspond to the portrait of a real man.”162 She refers to Dreher, who argues that the disruption of chronology represents Wolsey as an evil mockery who stands for the Catholic Church itself.163 John Banks was not at all supportive of Catholicism because contemporary England had converted to Protestantism under Queen Elizabeth I and had lived through the Glorious Age of the celebrated Queen. Moreover, the contemporary politics also affected this dislike of Catholicism; the Whig Party was not in favour of Catholicism since Charles II’s Catholic brother had occupied the throne. This had severe consequences for the Whig Party, which was the party Banks sympathized with; these events could also be a reason why Banks shows to be so critical of Catholicism in the portrayal of Wolsey. After discussing the characters of Lady Blount and Cardinal Wolsey, which both deviate from their real-­‐life personae, I would now like to prove that this was also the case for the character of King Henry VIII. The depiction of the Monarch is a mimicking of Charles II; we are presented with a very powerful, authorial King who does not accept any critique. He does not give Anna the chance to defend herself against these outrageous accusations; instead, he has already condemned her and will not change his mind about her, as can be seen in the example I have given before about Lady Talbot describing Anna’s trial. Whatever she said, or whatever argument she brought up to defend herself, this was all in vain. He acts without reasoning and does not take the needs of his subjects into account; since he fails to separate public from private life. Private matters take over his ruling ability; his body natural is taking over his body politic. Not once do we see the King engaging in political activities, we encounter him when he is daydreaming about Jane Seymour and when he is enraged by Anna. I reason that this portrayal of Henry is a negative one, since he cannot separate his public and private life, which is something a 161 Fraser Antonia, p. 204. 162 De Pando Mena Paula, p. 167. 163 Ibid., p. 167. 55 good ruler must do. He seems to be overpowered by his own emotions and anger. Furthermore, he seems to be blind to what his subjects really need, they need a firm, strong and just King, which he proves not to be. According to Paula de Pando Mena, one could not directly criticize the King; therefore authors must make use of allegories or parallelisms with previous times of turmoil.164 This depiction of Henry is thus also a criticism on the reign of Charles II, which the playwright could not disapprove of in a direct way.165 Under Charles II’s reign the voices of the Whigs were silenced because they were not allowed to print. Moreover from 1681 onwards, people who did not share the Anglican religion were victimized. Furthermore, after 1681 he also becomes a much more independent and authoritative leader.166 This can be seen in the character of Henry in the play who is also a very authoritative person who does not consult his parliament when making decisions but rather makes decisions entirely on his own. The parliament is barely mentioned in the play, this is probably done by Banks to show how impulsive King Henry is. Laslty, I would like to discuss the character of Anna a little more. As De Pando Mena argues, this is not only a story of a woman who is dominated by a man, but also a tragedy of a woman who is ruined by the dictatorship of the King.167 She is overruled by other people. For example Anna is forced to marry King Henry because her family wants to rise on the social ladder, and they do not take into account that she was already secretly engaged to Piercy. Anna only reluctantly accepts the marriage to the King because Lord Rochford informs her that Piercy is married to the heiress of Shrewsbury, while this is not true.168 She is thus a powerless woman who is not in control of her fate since she is dominated by other forces. As Wolsey provides Henry with forged letters, the King is convinced of Anna’s guilt. The King is thus presented with false evidence but not once does he doubt Wolsey’s words: King. Where is this Woman! this most abhorr’d of Wives! This Scandal to her sex, my Crown and Life! What by your Minion? Oh good Natur’d Husband! Down on your Knees, and thank me for the favour -­‐ 164
De Pando Mena Paula, p. 163. 165 Ibid., p. 163. 166 DeKrey Gary. Review of Tapsell, Grant, The Personal Rule of Charles II, 1681-­‐85. H-­‐Albion, H-­‐Net Reviews. July, 2008. 167 De Pando Mena Paula, p. 164. 168 Ibid., p. 164.
56 See – here are letters faln into my Hands, Where your dear Brother says he has enjoy’d you.169 This quote clearly shows that he condemns Anna for what she allegedly has done, the King relies on the letters he has gotten, but they are false. This is important because Banks represents Anna as a victim and Henry as a tyrannical leader, this shows us the contrasts between the two characters. As De Pando Mena reasons, Anna is a very faithful and loyal wife who unfortunately falls in the hands of corrupt people of the court and the Sovereign’s inadequacy. The King believes Wolsey’s accusations immediately because he had already fallen in love with Jane Seymour, and these allegations came in useful for him in pursuing his private goals and marrying Jane.170 We are thus presented with a depiction of Henry that is not positive at all. He is portrayed as not very empathetic when it comes to Anna. It seems as if he does not even care about her now that he has found a new woman with whom he can marry. Moreover, his reign is described as corrupt and he is depicted as an incompetent ruler, this could again be seen as a critique on Charles II since Banks shows to be very critical of his reign. Obviously, we are here presented with a very negative image of King Henry. I reason that John Banks was also critical of Henry’s actions because of what had happened to Anne Boleyn, since the play shows to be very much in favour of King Henry’s second queen. As I have said before, Anne is portrayed as a victim under the rage and tyranny of the King. After the glorious Elizabethan period Anne Boleyn was regarded from a very different perspective in comparison to the period in which Henry VIII reigned. Therefore, I would argue, John Banks portrays such a negative version of his majesty. Since Henry condemned her to death for reasons which were speculative, as Edythe Backus argues, English people one century later looked in a more critical way at the English Sovereign. Therefore we need to look at the time frame in which the play was written, it was written over a century after Henry rose to the throne. During Henry’s reign you were probably not allowed to criticize the King or depict him in a negative way. Anyone who neglected the King’s power or refused to acknowledge him as the Supreme Head of the Church ran the risk of being executed. Over one hundred years later this is no longer the case, especially during the Restoration period. 169 Banks John, p. 59.
170 De Pando Mena Paula, p. 165. 57 4.3.
Authenticity of the play The play is chronologically not accurate, since it was written in 1682, almost 150 years after Anne’s fall; I think we should not believe that it portrays the truth. The play might portray realistic events but I think we should take it with a large pinch of salt, since John Banks was not an eyewitness to the events. Moreover, the play is also not historically accurate since John Banks obviously actively portrayed King Henry and Wolsey in a bad light to make Anna appear as a good, virtuous and also powerless woman. The depiction of Anna stands in contrast with the portrayal of both the King and the Cardinal, who stand for Catholicism and the corrupt monarchy, which Banks is critical of. Anna, on the other hand, stands for Protestantism, which the playwright is in favour of. The play was written after politically unstable times, and it seems as if Banks is looking back in nostalgia to the peaceful times under Queen Elizabeth I. This is why he portrays Anna in such a positive light. I reason that he deliberately portrayed all the characters in such a way to criticize the contemporary reign of Charles II. Furthermore, as I have said before, some of its characters do not conform to their real-­‐life counterparts. I proved that Lady Blount and Cardinal Wolsey differ very much from the actual persons. This shows us that it is not an accurate source; it does not portray the events truthfully. I argue that he was not trying to represent the truth correctly; he was merely criticizing Charles II under the guise of his play. 58 5. Chapter 4: Anonymous, The History of the life, victorious reign, and death of K. Henry VIII171 5.1.
Introduction The History of the life, victorious reign, and death of K. Henry VIII was written by an anonymous author in 1682, the same year in which Vertue Betray’d, or Anna Bullen was written. This means that it was penned down 135 years after King Henry VIII’s death and the succession of his son Edward VI, about whom this report also makes mention. The history starts with a short introduction in which the author explains the purpose of this text, he wants to “entertain” us with an account of the life of his Majesty. The narrator describes the king’s reign as being very dynamic and turbulent; moreover according to the author no other sovereignty was as animated as King Henry VIII’s reign: Whose Reign was attended with such various Occurrences, as hardly hardly any Age, whatsoever can parallel, and which perhaps thou wilt no where meet with, within the compass of so small a History.172 I would argue that, when it comes to King Henry, the chronicle is written in a rather objective manner. The author provides us with both negative and positive depictions of the Monarch and is not afraid to criticize some of Henry’s actions. The narrator tells us that initially Henry was a very diligent promoter of the Church and of Rome but eventually he was very eager to neglect all Papal power because of the abuses and usurpations of the Church. The use of the words “abuses” and “usurpations” show that the author is critical of the Church and does not portray the institution in a positive light. This can be contrasted with the portrayal of King Henry, because as I will explain later on, the depiction of the Church is a very negative one. Therefore I could reason that the author is no longer objective in portraying the Church, but subjective. Another example of this objectivity towards King Henry can be seen when the narrator describes the many wars Henry has waged on France as “glorious” but also “chargeable”, meaning that they were blame-­‐worthy. So it becomes clear that the storyteller is also critical of Henry’s actions: the wars were victorious but also questionable. Even though 171 Anonymous, The History of the life, victorious reign, and death of K. Henry VIII, 1682, pp. 1 – 123. 172 Anonymous, The History of the life, victorious reign, and death of K. Henry VIII, 1682, pp. i – ii . 59 he portrays Henry as celebrated and courageous when it comes to warfare, he is not afraid to be critical of the King on other matters. However, the narrator is not entirely objective, as I will demonstrate when I will discuss the depiction of Anne Boleyn, Cardinal Wolsey and the Church in comparison to the portrayal of the King. In this introduction the author provides us with the many subjects of this History of Henry’s life: he will talk about the wars, the attempts that led to the reformation, the struggles Henry faced with Rome, his various marriages, and the falls of Wolsey and Cromwell. The narrator not only shows to be critical of Henry, but also of the Church since he tells us that Henry attempted to expose all the lies and deceits of Rome. Moreover the narrator proves to be evaluative and analytical about the Pope as well. Since I will also be discussing the depiction of the Church, it is important to take this into account. 5.2.
Politics To introduce his report on Henry, the starts by telling us more about his family history, because he was the second son of Henry VII, he was second in line to become King. Therefore he received specific training and the author tells us he was the “best read prince of his time”,173 as was previously discussed in chapter 2: he was very well read from a young age. The narrator also mentions that Henry liked to spend his pastime by reading. He read books of several subjects such as religious, moral or historical books. The author then jumps ahead, telling us why Henry had to marry Catherine of Aragon. Since his brother was previously married to Catherine, but died five months after the marriage, Henry was obliged to marry her to maintain the ties with Spain. As I have mentioned in chapter two, this marriage was accepted by Rome, which was made clear by the use of a Papal bull. They wanted a favourable reception from the Pope because Henry was about to marry the widow of his brother. The narrator makes it clear that Henry was not in favour of this marriage and reluctantly accepted because he was commanded to marry her: King Henry the 7th. being loth to part with so great a Dower, And being so desirous to continue his Alliance with Spain, 173
Anonymous, p. 2. 60 prevailed with his other son Prince Henry, though not without great reluctance, to be contracted with the princess Katherine, his brother’s Widow.174 The author then says that Henry first wanted to resolve the problems at home and only then began to look abroad: treaties were made or confirmed with Scotland, France and Spain. By doing this, the author makes clear that Henry was very structured in his work; furthermore he shows us that Henry thought about the welfare of his own country. The author then provides us with an account of the political situation at the time and the political ties England had with other countries. It is important to tell us about these political links because these ties constantly changed throughout history, which sometimes makes it confusing. The narrator also refers to the political ties his Majesty had with the Pope, who was turbulent and in favour of wars: Julius the second was at that time Pope of Rome, a Turbulent and Warlike Prelate, his Designs being so unsutable to the Function and Dignity of an Ecclesiastical person, that his Endeavours were to set all Europe in a Combustion; hoping by such a general Distraction and Variance, to gain his Ends, and advance his own Interests.175 This quote shows us that His Holiness was not a passive leader but someone who actively and dynamically pursued his goals. However, according to the anonymous author these were not good traits for a Pope, because it was due to these characteristics that all of Europe was in peril. The narrator even argues that his plans were unsuitable for an ecclesiastical person. Again the narrator shows to be critical of the Catholic Church as well. Moreover, he reasons that Pope Julius II only engaged in these activities for his own benefit, which does not conform to what a good and pious leader of the Church would do. This can be linked to the epistle, where King Henry said the exact same thing. This negative portrayal of the Catholic Church could also be influenced by political events taking place at the time the author was writing the History. Similar to Vertue Betray’d, the History was also written during the Restoration period, thus this depiction could be affected by the problems going on between the Whigs and Tories, or by the Popish plot and the Gunpowder plot. According to the narrative, the 174 Anonymous, p. 2. 175
Ibid., p. 8. 61 contemporary leaders were also not very pleased with the Pope’s actions, since they neglected his authority by declaring an excommunication made by Julius II as invalid: … The Pope proceeded to excommunicate the Duke of Ferrara, with all his Adherents. Hereupon the French King calls a Synod of the Gallican Church at Tours in France, wherein certain Queries being started concerning the Pope’s late Actions and Authority, they were all resolved against him, and his Excommunication pronounced void.176 Thus, not only the author of this history was critical of the bishop of Rome, but the Pope’s contemporaries as well, since they did not accept his decisions. This could be a reason why the author is so critical about the Holy Father, if major leaders such as Ferdinand, Francis or Henry questioned the bishop of Rome’s power, this could be set as an example. An illustration of important leaders doubting the Pope’s power can be seen when the author tells us about the French King who summoned the Vicar of Christ to Lyon to justify his actions: “they adjourned the council to Milan, and for the same reason, from thence to Lyon in France; where they summoned the Pope to appear and answer, and at length suspended his authority.”177 This however enraged the Pope, which led to a council being held at the Lateran. He invited Henry VIII and asked to wage war against France, the English King then asked the French King to not quarrel the Holy Father, which he refused. Therefore Henry declared war against France. This shows that initially the King was in favour of the Pope and wanted to help him in contrast to what was going to happen later on. In this war upon France, England was supported and helped by King Ferdinand and Spain; this shows how important such political marriages, as that of Henry and Catherine, were. It is important to understand that before the divorce question Henry was a supporter of the Catholic Church; this shows us that he only started to discard ties with Rome when they refused to grant him the divorce. The author mentions that the King was not hasty in taking any action. He represents King Henry as a rational Sovereign who does not want to make certain decisions on his own. Therefore he relied on his council for advice. He would not undertake any action unless he had debated and discussed it with his parliament: … but not thinking fit to undertake any thing of his own Head nor relying in so great an Affair upon the Advice of his Privy Council, 176 Anonymous, p. 10. 177 Ibid., p. 13 – 14. 62 he judged it not safe to take any Resolution before he had it debated and concluded in Parliament.178 This quote shows that he is not an impulsive man, who makes decisions on his own, on the contrary he would not undertake any action before having debated the problem with his parliament. This demonstrates that Henry valued the opinions and meanings of his council and that he did not take action too hastily. This can be contrasted with the character Henry in Vertue Betray’d, or Anna Bullen. In the play the Monarch is described as a tyrant who refuses any criticism and takes decisions without the help of his parliament. Moreover, the character Henry is an easily influenceable person; as can be seen when he immediately believes Wolsey’s accusations of Anna. However, in the History, his Majesty is described as a very powerful and courageous man, who led his armies in person; he personally marched his troops to Therouenne and was ready at the head of his army to receive the French. The character Henry in the play would not do such a thing since he was not able to separate his private from his public life. His private life was taking over his ruling ability. In the play we also do not see him as a political leader; we only encounter Henry when he is enraged by Anna, which leads to him acting without reasoning. The way Henry is portrayed in this History is much more solid, he is depicted as a strong and firm monarch, who does not let his rage take over his ruling ability. As the previous quote demonstrated, he always takes the opinions of his parliament into consideration, and does not act without thinking. A good leader must not act impulsively; he must contemplate all the possibilities before undertaking action. This is not what the character Henry does, he does not reason with his head but rather with his heart, and a good leader must be able to separate between the two. 5.3.
Religion I will now talk about the ties King Henry had with the Catholic Church. When Pope Julius II died, the King still supported his successor Leo X; this Pope also asked Henry to wage war upon France and confirmed to excommunicate James, King of Scots if he were to neglect the treaty he had made with Henry.179 Apparently, there was mutual trust between the bishop of Rome and the Monarch of England; the Pope even gave 178
Anonymous, pp. 19 -­‐ 20. 179 Ibid., p. 21. 63 indulgences to those who helped King Henry, moreover, His Holiness granted Henry the title of “Most Christian King”.180 This is very ironic when you look at it in retrospect, since as mentioned in chapter 1, the Catholic Church would banish and excommunicate those who supported and helped Henry. Furthermore, the Church was very critical of Henry proclaiming himself “Defender of the Faith”, even though they had earlier proclaimed him the most virtuous and Christian King. Moreover, Pope Leo X also proclaimed Henry “Defender of the Faith” after the Monarch had written a book against Luther; which was deemed so significant that all of Henry’s successors would be granted the same title as well.181 Likewise, the King initially answered all of the Pope’s needs and portrayed himself to be submissive to the Catholic Church. As we can read in the History, Leo X started to sell indulgences because of want of money, which caused many English people to turn their back on Rome. Moreover they began to believe in the principles of Luther, even though their Majesty had written against him.182 While this was happening, King Henry kept on supporting the bishop of Rome, thus as we can gather from the descriptions in the History, the King initially defended the bishop of Rome at all costs. In the Papal bull, however, Henry’s former aid and support is never mentioned. The supreme Pontiff depicts him as a headstrong person who is narrow-­‐minded and cannot see the righteous decisions the Catholic Church makes. The bishop of Rome portrays him as a person who is constantly quarrelling Rome. However he used to be very supportive of the Pope, but they do not provide us with this information. Another example of Henry’s support of the Pope can be seen when Rome was besieged by the Emperor. After this happened, Henry wanted to revenge this sacking and support the Vicar of Christ. However he also did this to lessen the power of the Emperor, as can be seen in this quote: So soon as king Henry heard of the Pope’s being besieged, he resented it so ill, that he resolved to enter into closer Measures with the French King; that under pretence of revenging the affront that was done to See of Rome, they might put a stop to the Emperor’s career, who began to grow 180 Anonymous, p. 31. 181 Ibid., p. 45. 182 Ibid., p. 46. 64 so formidable, that he was looked upon as an Over-­‐match for any other Prince in Christendom.183 So his support was not solely based on his relationship with the Pope, but also because his position as strongest leader was in jeopardy. As Antonia Fraser argues, there is a relationship between the divorce that was not granted by the Pope and the separation from the Church.184 All ties with Rome were abandoned and the King even passed a law in which he denied Papal authority. Since he had declared himself Supreme Head of the Church and Defender of the Faith, he was the worldly replacement of God. Because the King had founded his own Church, he no longer needed the Pope because he himself had taken over his role. Previously I argued that Henry VIII made his religion less conservative and more liberal. The History mentions how the King has distinguished the Anglican Church from the Catholic Church. For instance, priests can marry and celibacy has been abolished: 3. Or should hold it lawful for Priests to be Married, but much more, he that having entred into Holy Orders, should presume to take a wife. 4. Or that Chastity Vowed, upon mature deliberation, was not to be kept. 5. Or that private Masses ought not to be celebrated in the Church of England, or elsewhere.185 According to me, this can be linked to the divorce question because he was not allowed to divorce Catherine and remarry; he now wants to make this possible in his own Church. Even though the King might have settled these decisions based on personal reasons and motives, according to me these were good decisions. The King was quite innovative in allowing priests to marry and in abrogating celibacy because even today in Catholicism priests still cannot marry and chastity is still preserved, so it seems to me that Henry VIII was a pioneer in being so liberal. This description of the changes the Monarch has made in his own religion shows us another side of Henry: he was liberal and innovative. Furthermore, I would like to analyse the portrayal of Cardinal Wolsey in the History. The narrator tells us that Wolsey gained strength in court due to his wittiness and diligence; 183
Anonymous, pp. 63 – 64. 184 Fraser Antonia, p. 165. 185 Anonymous, p. 110. 65 therefore he was made Chaplain to the King’s household and had the privilege to converse a lot with the King: … though but of a mean birth, was observed to be of a quick and stirring Wit, (…) they had already procured him to be the Chaplain to the Houshold, and Almoner, and from thence raised him to the place of a councillor. By this means he had the opportunity of discoursing with the King upon Points of Learning.186 This gave him the opportunity to get in the Monarch’s grace; his Majesty grew quite fond of Wolsey because he managed to work his way up from his low birth. Initially, the description of Wolsey in this history is a positive one; he is praised for his skills and for the fact that he managed to rise on the social ladder, this can also be contrasted with the character Wolsey in Vertue Betray’d, because Banks does not mention one good characteristic of the Cardinal. In the play he is depicted as a vicious character who seems to find pleasure in the suffering of Anna, and wants nothing more than to bring about her downfall. However, the narrator of the History later describes Wolsey as being “intolerably arrogant”, so the author is no longer entirely positive about the Cardinal. The reason why the narrator calls him this is because when Wolsey was in the King’s chapel he commanded his cap to be rested upon the altar. Moreover he was not in favour of listening to the complaints of petitioners: But Cardinal Wolsey was grown now so intolerably arrogant, that he caused his Cardinal’s Cap to be born by some Principle Person before him on a great height; and when he came to the King’s Chappel, would admit no place to rest it on, but the very altar.187 This was not very much to the liking of the nobility. This can be seen in the fact that the dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk left the council: “the nobility and people came to have him in an extraordinary aversion; insomuch that Fox, bishop of Winchester, and the dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk absented from the council.”188 Another example of Wolsey’s arrogance can be seen when the Cardinal travelled to Calice in France, and he appeared 186 Anonymous, p. 24. 187
Ibid., p. 37. 188 Ibid., p. 37 -­‐ 38. 66 there with a lot of state and lustre, which led to many complaints by people about his vanity and pride: … appearing therein with all imaginable State and Lustre, having the great seal of England along with him: by which means great Inconveniences arose during his Absence; which occasioned great Complaints and Murmurings at his Vanity and Pride.189 Initially he was humble due to his heritage, but he probably became arrogant because he was in the King’s favour and because Henry often relied on him for important matters: for example, the Monarch wrote a letter together with Wolsey to try and persuade the Pope to write him another bull.190 The narrator then talks about the case of Edward Stafford, Duke of Birmingham, who was beheaded on Tower Hill for treason. He had thought about taking over the crown, however, the author says that Wolsey, whom the duke had offended, plotted this out of revenge: He is said to have been brought to this direful End through Wolsey’s Contrivances; of whom having spoken some Disgraceful Words, the Cardinal, out of Revenge, did plot and procure his fall.191 The depiction of the Cardinal is no longer positive. Firstly the author mentions his arrogance, but now he gives us an example of abuse of power. The Cardinal now being very much in the King’s grace cannot stand any insults, and abuses the power he has to bring about the Duke of Birmingham’s downfall. This can be linked to Vertue Betray’d, where the character Wolsey has done exactly the same with Anna Bullen: he made use of the influence he had on Henry to procure Anna’s fall. Furthermore, the narrator gives us another example to show that Wolsey’s behaviour became intolerable. He asked money from the people because the court was in need of funds. Therefore the Cardinal demanded the sixth part of every person’s possession, which was obviously quite a lot to ask from the common people.192 Moreover, he imprisoned those who refused to pay; which resulted in many riots and commotions.193 By mentioning this, the narrator, shows us another instance of abusing his power. Initially the author proved to be sympathetic towards Wolsey, but now he presents us with several negative descriptions. 189 Anonymous, p. 48. 190 Ibid., p. 69. 191
Ibid., p. 45. 192 Ibid., p. 62. 193 Ibid., p. 63. 67 It becomes clear that the author is critical of Wolsey, and he seems to depict him in a not so positive light anymore. Since many people after Henry VIII’s reign were suspicious of Catholics, this could also be the case in the History and the portrayal of Wolsey. Once more we can see that the representation of a historical figure is affected by the time in which the text was written. However it is also an example of Wolsey falling out of the King’s grace, because when King Henry became aware of this; he abolished the law and pardoned those who took part in the riots: Which coming to the King’s Ears, he publickly disowned his having any knowledge of it, remitted the Business, and pardoned the Riots that had been committed on that occasion.194 It becomes clear that Henry no longer fully supported the Cardinal in all his decisions. The document often mentions Wolsey’s arrogance, however the fall of the Cardinal is not extensively written down. It is only mentioned that he fell out of the King’s grace and had to give back the great seal and his properties. From reading the History we do not know why the Monarch was no longer content with Wolsey’s actions, as we do not get any background information. As I have mentioned in chapter 3, Wolsey tried the best he could to get the divorce settled, however, this is not brought up in this History. Moreover, Anne Boleyn took quite a big part in the downfall of Wolsey, but this is not mentioned either. According to me, this was done for a reason, namely because the author wanted to portray Anne Boleyn in the best possible light, therefore he does not want to mention how Anne actively pursued Wolsey’s downfall. This way the depiction of Wolsey is predominantly negative, if the author had talked about Wolsey’s fall and how he was controlled by other people, the portrayal of the Cardinal would not have been that negative anymore. According to me, it is strange that this is not mentioned because the divorce and remarriage are important parts of English history, so I would expect to read more about how Wolsey tried to get the marriage annulled and how Anne tried to bring about his downfall. 5.4.
Personal life Firstly, I would like to talk about the King’s personal life, to begin with I will discuss the events described in the History with regard to the divorce question. After the Emperor of Spain had questioned the lawfulness of Henry’s marriage to Catherine, the King started 194
Anonymous, p. 63. 68 to have doubts about its legitimacy. He was afraid of the consequences it might have for his kingdom; however I doubt this was the real reason. Since he had already given titles and lands to the Boleyn family, it is clear to me that Anne Boleyn had already become an important person in his life. Sir Thomas Boleyn was given the title Lord Rochford in 1529 while King Henry was already infatuated by Anne Boleyn in 1526;195 so I would argue that the main reason for his concern was not his kingdom. When he sent his ministers to the Pope to ask for permission to divorce Catherine, the bishop of Rome initially gave him his blessing, however he later on started to delay the writing of the bull. It was only when he was pressed hard by the King’s ministers that the Pope delivered a dispensation. The Vicar of Christ advised his Majesty to marry another wife, because this way it would be easier to explain the divorce, and he would send any Cardinal the King wanted. However, in England they did not really trust this, so here we can see that the Monarch started to doubt the bishop of Rome’s decisions and actions. He feared that the Pope would change his mind, or that he would seek support from the imperialists, which were people who were in favour of the Emperor. To solve this, Henry asked the bishop of Rome for a bull, which would be undisputable, however, Wolsey added a letter in which it was stated that if the Pope would not grant this, they would diminish all Papal authority: ... the King and Cardinal writ to the Pope, giving him great Thanks for the Fordwardness and Willingness he shewed in gratifying and giving Ease to his Majesty. But the Cardinal added in his Letters, that in Case the Pope did not grant the King’s Sute, he apprehended that both he, and other Christian Princes would from thence take occasion to provide themselves of other Remedies, and lessen and despise the Authority of the Apostolick See.196 We can see that the King wants to thank the Pope to help him in this delicate matter, however Wolsey makes sure that he would convince other Christian princes to discard Rome as well. He says that they will find an alternative to the Catholic Church and he even argues that they will detest the Pope and the clerical institution. This shows that the Cardinal was not afraid to use methods such as blackmailing; threatening that Rome would lose English support if they did not grant the King this divorce. I would reason 195
Fraser Antonia, p. 157. Anonymous, p. 69. 196
69 that this is a negative image of the Cardinal, since he is not afraid to abuse his power to reach his goals. This can be interpreted as a Machiavellian manner of working; which can be linked to the analysis of the portrayal of the Pope in the Papal bull and in Vertue Betray’d. Moreover, he also said that all Christian princes would neglect any Papal power, and since the French King supported Henry, the Vicar of Christ would also lose French back up. The supreme Pontiff did not actually want to grant the King this divorce, because he started to side with the Emperor. According to the narrator nothing could stop the bishop of Rome from uniting himself with the imperialists; who were supporting Queen Catherine since the Emperor was her nephew. The author argues that the Pope even made use of Henry’s divorce to bring the Emperor to better terms: ... yet neither this, nor several other Projects could hinder the Pope’s design, of uniting himself to the Emperor; to which end, he made use of the King’s Divorce, for the bringing the Emperor to better Terms.197 The narrator argues that nothing would have changed the bishop of Rome’s mind of bonding with the Emperor. Moreover, he reasons that the Pope made use of the divorce question to put the Emperor in a better position. This implies that he would make use of the problems of other people to improve his status. The author portrays the bishop of Rome as someone who takes advantage of the situation for his own benefit. This was already said by the narrator about Pope Julius II, but now he is referring to Pope Clement VII. This shows that the author was not just critical of one Pope, but of all Popes, and therefore, I would reason, the entire institution. Likewise, Henry became also very critical of the Catholic Church. This can be seen when he announced that no one was allowed to have any dealings with Rome on the penalty of imprisonment. I would reason that the author here proves to be supportive of Henry’s decision. I would say that the writer of the History is not very positively oriented towards the Catholic Church. Secondly I would like to discuss the portrayal of Anne Boleyn in the History. When the narrator introduces Anne Boleyn, he describes her as one of the loveliest women of her time and who inflamed the Monarch’s heart from the very first encounter. Because she was of such great importance, the narrator then provides us with a genealogy of Henry’s second queen. The previous betrothal to Henry Piercy is also mentioned, though 197
Anonymous, p. 81. 70 Cardinal Wolsey made sure this marriage was not actually conducted. This was the reason why she brought about Wolsey’s downfall, as I mentioned in chapter 3 of this master dissertation. At the beginning of this chapter I argued that the History was written in a rather objective manner when it comes to the portrayal of King Henry; however with regard to the depiction of the Catholic Church, Cardinal Wolsey and of Anne Boleyn, I would reason that the narrator is not entirely objective anymore. When the author talks about the divorce question, he does not mention Anne Boleyn very often. I find this a bit odd because she not only had a very prominent role in this case, but also in the foundation of the Anglican Church, which has changed the country completely. Therefore I would expect more information on Anne. However this is not the case since she is almost silenced in this text until we arrive at the point where she has fallen out of the King’s grace and has to defend herself. I would reason that she is only mentioned in a positive way and it is as if nothing negative can be said about her. From reading this text, we do not know that much about her, except that the narrator described her as one of the prettiest women and as the woman who gave birth to the most glorious Queen of England: Queen Elizabeth I. Depicting Queen Elizabeth as glorious and celebrated could also be seen as an anti-­‐Catholic attitude since she was a Protestant. It becomes clear that the author provides us with a positive depiction of Anne. This is quite remarkable since many English people during the sixteenth century did not have a positive opinion of Anne Boleyn. They saw her as a wanton person who destroyed the marriage between King Henry and Queen Catherine.198 However, this text was written over a century after Henry VIII’s death, this indicates that perhaps the English population had changed their minds about Anne Boleyn. Perhaps this is because when the author wrote this text, the English people had seen how glorious the Elizabethan Age was. So while people during the reign of Henry VIII believed Anne was a promiscuous woman, people after the Elizabethan Age saw Anne Boleyn as a good person because she was the mother of the celebrated Elizabeth.199 Moreover, after the failed attempt of the Gunpowder plot to blow up the House of Lords in 1605, people saw this as High treason against King James and Protestantism, because of this Catholics were regarded with suspicion.200 The narrator is in favour of Anne Boleyn’s influences on the King’s politics and religion as he mentions that she instigated the translation of 198 Fraser Antonia, p. 190. 199 Ibid., p. 245. 200 Walters, Elizabeth. “Renaissance authorship” Ghent University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Gent, 26 April 2013, Lecture. 71 the bible into English; which he describes as “the last public good office that unfortunate queen did.”201 Furthermore, Queen Anne has also had a big influence on the Reformation in England. But this was the last publick good Office that unfortunate Queen did, towards the Reformation; for whether, that having some time before brought forth a dead Son, the King from thence concluded, that this Marriage was as displeasing to God, as the former; or that some new Amour had worked a change in the King’s affections; or that it was through the practices of the Popish Party that she fell, they endeavouring all they could, to procure her Ruine, as looking upon her to be the main Supporter of the new opinions in Religion.202 Because the author uses the words: “last public good office”, this implies that it was not the only good thing Anne has done. Moreover he reasons that she is ‘unfortunate’, this shows that the author has pity on Anne. The writer argues that her downfall came about either through the Pope and his devotees, because they perceived her as dangerous since she actively supported the reformation, or because the King had found “some new amour”. Anne is almost depicted as a saint who has done nothing wrong. I would reason that this is not possible; the narrator merely silences her wrongdoings and bad decisions and portrays her in the best possible light. For example, the narrator does not talk about her role in the downfall of Wolsey. As I have discussed previously, Anne played a very important part in Wolsey’s fall out of the King’s grace, where she showed her negative characteristics. She actively brought about Wolsey’s fall by corrupting and convincing the King that the Cardinal was no longer supportive of him. This is completely silenced in the History, this shows that the author deliberately does not want to talk about her negative traits. The narrator does not tell us a lot about Anne’s downfall and how it came about. The author does not even mention what she was accused of, but merely mentions that she said she was not guilty. I think this is done because he wants to portray her in the best possible light and because the narrator does not want to asperse Anne’s image. Moreover, he reasons that Anne’s apology was of such great force that he had to include 201 Anonymous, p. 69
202
Ibid., p. 90. 72 it in his History. It becomes clear that the narrator is in favour of Anne and rather portrays her as a victim, similarly to the character of Anna in Vertue Betray’d or Anna Bullen. The narrator portrays her apology in which Anne mentions that that she is afraid that his Majesty has already made up his mind about her before being tried and we can see that she forgives Henry: But if you have already determined of me, and that not only my death, but an infamous slander, may bring you the enjoying of your desired happiness; then I desire of God, that he would pardon your great sin therein.203 This can also be seen in John Banks’ Vertue Betray’d, where Henry proclaimed Anna guilty without her being able to defend herself. Moreover at the end she also pardons Henry: But tell the King, I say it as I just Am going to dye; I both forgive, and bless him, And thank him as my kindest Benefactor -­‐ First from an humble Maid he lifted me to Honour; then he took me to his Bed, The highest State that I could be on Earth; And now, as if he thought he ne’re could do Enough for me, has mounted me to Heav’n.204 Despite the fact that King Henry has condemned her to death, she manages to forgive him because he has lifted her up from a “humble maid” to his Queen. Even now in her death, he has still helped her because now she will go to Heaven. Another example of a positive description of Anne can be seen when the narrator mentions that during her trial Anne showed such wittiness and gave excellent answers to all of their questions so that they actually should have acquitted her: … she sitting in a Chair, and having an excellent Wit, and being a ready Speaker, did answer all their objections, that had the Peers given their Verdict, 203
Anonymous, p. 94. 204 Banks John, pp. 74 – 75. 73 according to the expectation of the Assembly, she had been acquitted, but they pronounced her guilty.205 This is similar to what is described in Vertue Betray’d: What e’re she said, that Angels cou’d not finer, And shew’d a Soul, no Crystal nigh so clear; Tho’all appear’d to be the Plot of Devils; Yet was she guilty found, and, oh sad Piercy!206 Because the narrator portrays Anne Boleyn in such a positive light, I would reason that the History is not completely objective. The narrator proves to be critical of both Henry VIII and the Church, but when it comes to Anne he only mentions her good traits and portrays her as a victim. He never mentions any of her bad decisions or criticizes any of her actions. This can, according to me, be linked to the time in which it was written. The narrator is depicting the great Queen Elizabeth I’s mother as a good person, while he dares to challenge the decisions and actions of King Henry. The fact that the author portrays Anne and Queen Elizabeth in such a positive light is because he probably is looking back at a time when there was peace in England, and religious union, while in the seventeenth century there had been many religious conflicts. At the end of the History, for example, the narrator summarizes the Monarch’s reign as “fatal to his queens” and “burdensome to his subjects”. Thus he is not afraid to be critical of the King’s actions, which were indeed fatal to some of his queens and subjects. However, he also describes his reign as: Yet, Glorious, both in respect of his victories over his Enemies, and that the axe was then first laid to the root of superstition and the door first opened to truth and reformation.207 I could thus argue when talking about Henry VIII, the narrator is honest and objective, he was a glorious king but also did some questionable things. In this text we can again see that the contemporary political or religious situations have affected the text, we can perceive that certain historical persons are depicted from a rather biased point of view. 205 Anonymous, p. 95. 206 Ibid., pp. 64 – 65. 207
Ibid., p. 123. 74 This shows us that the author of this text is not truthful and accurate in the portrayal of the characters in the History. 5.5.
Authenticity of the History The scope of a text that depicts historical events is to portray things as correctly and objectively as possible. Therefore it seems to be a plausible source, since it describes the entire life of the Monarch, and provides us with accounts of various events taking place during the time Henry reigned. However, this work was written in 1682, thus, over one hundred years after Henry VIII occupied the throne. Because of this we must not regard the entire document as entirely truthful. The author of the work, who is anonymous, was not an eyewitness to the events nor was he part of Henry VIII’s court so one would wonder how the writer came into possession of this information. Because the author is anonymous we also do not know anything about him, if we were provided with a name it would have been easier to identify him and to understand how he might have received this information. Moreover, the author never refers to any sources on which he bases himself so this remains a mystery. If we would have known the name of the author, we might have been able to look at his background to see if he came from a learned family and might have had access to books and sources about King Henry VIII or not. Although the fact that he could write indicates that we are dealing with someone who probably had an academic background. Because we have no information about the writer of the sources it becomes difficult to interpret this document as authentic and accurate. However, this account represents a seemingly truthful representation of the King, since it shows his good and bad sides. But it fails to do the same for the depiction of Cardinal Wolsey and Anne Boleyn. Since it actively disguises important events and only presents us with Anne’s good characteristics, it cannot be seen as objective or historically accurate. Moreover, the Cardinal is represented as a bad person, while Anne’s share in his downfall is not described, so the author again silences certain events. Therefore, according to me, we should not believe everything that it is said in this History; first of all because it talks about events that happened a century prior to 1682, and secondly because it is not written from an objective point of view. Moreover, I would argue, we must read everything he says sceptically and with reservations and not accept it as the truth. I do believe that the author has provided us with his point of view on things with regard to the very positive portrayal of Anne Boleyn and the very negative depiction of 75 Cardinal Wolsey and the Church. However, this does not mean this should be interpreted as veracity, the author might have just wanted portray them in such a way because this was his perspective on things. Thus, I would argue again that we must look at it with a critical mind-­‐set and not accept everything the author has said as the truth. 76 6. Conclusion My aim of this dissertation was to see how King Henry VIII was portrayed in early modern literature. Moreover, I also wanted to analyse how important coevals of the Monarch were represented in literature, such as Anne Boleyn, Cardinal Wolsey and the Catholic Church. Furthermore, I wanted to investigate how certain contemporary and political events affected the portrayal of historical figures. In the first chapter I examined a Papal bull written by Pope Paul III, in which the Vicar of Christ portrays himself and the clerical institution in a very good light. According to him they are a caring and pacific institute, which only does things in the best interest of its people. He justifies himself for the power he has received from God since he is seen as his earthly substitute; therefore he has authority over all others and can intervene in foreign affairs if necessary. The depiction of King Henry is a very negative one in this bull; he is seen as the instigator of all evil and is even compared to a devil who is possessed by evil spirits. He believes that the Monarch has lost sight of what good Christians must do, so he does not consider him a good Christian, and must be kept in check. The Pope is basically afraid of Henry’s power; he is scared that he will take over his authority by proclaiming himself the Supreme Head of the Church. Because the bishop of Rome had such great power, he could write such a negative texts addressed at Henry VIII, a common person would not have been allowed to write a similar text without facing grave consequences. So I can conclude that his negative depiction of the Sovereign is only portrayed in such a way because the Pope felt threatened by Henry and wanted to put a stop to his actions. Before Henry had founded the Anglican Church, he had very good and close ties with the Catholic Church, and he was of the same mind as them, but now that he no longer supports the Church, they decide to excommunicate him and proclaim him to be the archenemy. Thus, this entire Papal bull is only written out of political convictions: the Pope must be seen as the most authoritative person on the planet. The negative depiction of the historical figure King Henry VIII and the positive depiction of the historical figure Pope Paul III depend on the political and religious situation going on at the time. For that reason we must look at this text from a critical point of view because the Vicar of Christ represents the Church in a better way than it probably was. 77 In the second chapter I analysed the epistle written by King Henry VIII in 1538, similar to the Pope in the Papal bull, Henry also represents himself in a very positive light. He depicts himself as a true Christian who only has the best interest at heart for his subjects. He sees himself as God’s representative on earth and therefore considers himself to be more authoritative than the Pope. The attacks the Bishop of Rome has made against him are unjust because he is doing all these actions out of righteous causes. He accuses the Vicar of Christ of being blind to the truth and of not being a good Christian; he thus represents the Church as a negative institution that is corrupt and only does things out of self-­‐interest. It is clear that he portrays himself in a good light while he portrays the Pope and the Catholic Church in a very negative light. Again, this portrayal has been influenced by contemporary political and religious occurrences. In the third chapter I discussed the play written by John Banks, in which the King is depicted in a negative way, he is tyrannical and takes actions without thinking. He fails to see the needs of his people and is overcome by rage and anger, which clouds his reasoning and judgment. This could be seen as a concealed criticism on Charles II but this negative depiction could also be interpreted as an attack on Henry VIII himself. It could be a critique on the decisions he made during reign such as condemning Anne Boleyn to death without being absolutely sure that she was really guilty. The portrayal of Anne in the play is a very positive one; he depicts her as a victim. He shows her to be absolutely unaware of the conspiracy that had been made against her; thus, he depicts her as not guilty of the accusations she was charged with. This was done because she was Elizabeth I’s mother, and since she was such a glorious queen, the English looked at her from a very different perspective than the people who lived in the sixteenth century. Banks proves to be very critical of Wolsey, and thus also the Catholic Church because he is depicted as a corrupt and conspiring person. This could be extended to the Catholic faith in a whole, Banks provides us with such a negative portrayal because England had returned to Protestantism, but also because of the failed Popish plot and the Gunpowder plot which made people suspicious of Catholics. Once more, the political events going on in the seventeenth century have affected the portrayal of historical figures; they are represented in a way that deviates from their real-­‐life counterparts. Lastly, I analysed the History of the life and reign of Henry VIII, which proved to be rather objective in its judgment of King Henry. He describes him as a glorious and powerful King, but also dares to criticise some of the Monarch’s actions such as his wars and his 78 decisions in his personal life. Unlike the objective depiction of the King, the author shows to be subjective in the portrayal of the Church, Wolsey and Anne Boleyn. He describes the Pope as someone who loved to wage war against countries and someone who was not afraid to use violence if necessary. He is also represented as someone who does things out of his own interest and is not afraid to use other people to reach his goals; this can be seen when the author says that the Pope makes use of Henry’s divorce to create ties with the Emperor. This negative depiction could be made because of contemporary events at the time the text was written in, similarly to Vertue Betray’d, or Anna Bullen, it was written throughout the Restoration period and can thus be influenced by the contemporaneous political situation. This could be for the same reasons as we could see in John Banks’ play: the Popish plot and the Gunpowder plot created a negative image for the Catholics. Furthermore this could also be done because England had now become Protestant and no longer needed the Pope since their own King was the Supreme Head of the Church. Similarly, the depiction of Cardinal Wolsey is also mainly a negative one, he is depicted as an arrogant person who abused the power he had and was not afraid to use techniques such as blackmailing in order to get reach his goals. This text was also influenced by contemporary political and religious events, which caused the portrayals of the characters to not be entirely accurate. To conclude I can say that we must read all of these texts critically and take everything with a grain of salt. The epistle written by King Henry and the Papal bull only partially show us what really happened, moreover they are written from a biased point of view. The playact and the History should also be read analytically because they were written a century later, so we cannot be sure about the accuracy of the described events. Moreover, John Banks’ play is not historically accurate; we must read it from a seventeenth century point of view rather than analysing it from a sixteenth century point of view. The History proves to be either objective and subjective, therefore I would also argue that we must not interpret everything that is said as the absolute truth. 79 Works cited: Primary sources: Anonymous, The History of the life, victorious reign, and death of K. Henry VIII, 1682, pp. 1 – 123. Banks John, Vertue Betray’d, or Anna Bullen, Covent Garden, 1682, pp. 1 – 80. Catholic Church, Two Bulls Roaring Out Excommunications, Anathema’s, and total Deprivation, Cornhill, 1538, pp. 1 -­‐ 15. King Henry VIII, An epistle of the most myghty and redouted Prynce Henry, London, 1538, pp. 1 – 18. Secondary sources: Allardyce Nicoll, Political Plays of the Restoration, Modern Language Review, Modern Humanities Research Association, 1921, pp. 224 -­‐ 236. Backus, Edythe, PMLA, The MS. Play, Anna Bullen, Modern Language Association, 1932, p. 747. Bernard G.W., The Fall of Wolsey Reconsidered, Journal of British Studies, Vol. 35, No. 3, 1996, p. 282. Bliss, Robert M. "James II (1633–1701)." Encyclopedia Virginia. Virginia Foundation for the Humanities, 17 Sept. 2012. Web. 29 Apr. 2013. Brown Laura, The Defenseless Woman and the Development of English Tragedy, Studies in English Literature, 1500 – 1900, Restoration and Eighteenth Century, 1982, pp. 429 -­‐ 434. Canfield Douglas J., Royalism’s Last Dramatic Stand: English Political Tragedy, 1679 – 89, Studies in Philology, Universtiy of North Carolina Press, 1985, pp. 235 -­‐ 236. DeKrey Gary. Review of Tapsell, Grant, The Personal Rule of Charles II, 1681-­‐85. H-­‐Albion, H-­‐Net Reviews. July, 2008. De Pando Mena Paula, Emasculated subjects and subjugated wives: discourses of domination in John Banks’s Vertue Betray’d (1682), University of Seville, pp. 161 -­‐ 173. Encyclopaedia Britannica, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/84314/bull-­‐Papal, last visited on 14 March 2013. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Popish Plot, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/470083/Popish-­‐Plot, last visited on 29 April 2013. Fanning, William. "Vicar of Christ." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 15. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 21 Mar. 2013 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403b.htm>. Fraser, Antonia, The Six Wives of Henry VIII, Phoenix Press, London, 2002, p. 103 -­‐ 359. Gairdner James, The Fall of Cardinal Wolsey, The Royal Historical Society, Vol 13, 1899, p. 75 -­‐ 84. 80 Hamilton Dakota L., The Books of King Henry VIII and His Wives by James P. Carley, The Sixteenth Century Journal, 2006, p. 474. Henry Matthew, Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary, Jeremiah 1:10, Bible commentary, http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=mhc&b=24&c=1, last visited on 20/05/2013 Iserloh Erwin, Luther and the Council of Trent, The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 69, No. 4, 1983, p. 565 -­‐ 566. King Henry VIII, The Defence of the Seven Sacraments, 1521, p. ii – iii. MacCulloch Diarmaid, Putting the English Reformation on the Map: The Prothero Lecture, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Sixth Series, Vol. 15, 2005, p. 75. MacCulloch Diarmaid, The Reign of Henry VIII: Politics, Policy and Piety, Palgrave Macmillan, United States of America, 1995, p. 161. Machiavelli Niccolò, The Prince, Florence, 1532 Moyes, James. "Anglicanism." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 21 May 2013 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01498a.htm>. Parkin-­‐Speer Diane, Freedom of Speech in Sixteenth Century English Rhetorics, The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1981, p. 65. Rowe Nicholas, The Tragedy of Jane Shore, ed. Harry William Pedicord (London: Edward Arnold, 1975), Epilogue, p.75, line 29. Setton Meyer Kenneth, The Papacy and the Levant, 1204 – 1571, Volume IIII, The Sixteenth Century to the Reign of Julius III, The American Philosophical society, Philadelphia, 1984, p. 415. Siemens Raymond G., Henry VIII as a Writer and Lyricist, Musical Quarterly, Oxford Journals, 2009, pp. 1 -­‐ 31. The World English Bible: Exod. 6:6., Ed. Michael Paul Johnson. Colorado: Rainbow Missions, 1997. Print. The World English Bible: Jer., Ed. Michael Paul Johnson. Colorado: Rainbow Missions, 1997. Print. Thurston, Herbert. "Bulls and Briefs." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 3. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 18 Mar. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03052b.htm Thurston, Herbert. "Henry VIII." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 25 Apr. 2013 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07222a.htm>. Walker Greg, Rethinking the Fall of Anne Boleyn, The Historical Journal, Cambridge University Press, 2002, p. 3 Walters, Elizabeth. “Renaissance authorship” Ghent University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Gent, 26 April 2013, Lecture. Weir Allison, The Six Wives of Henry VIII, Grove Press, 1991, p. 218 81 White, Hughes, Strype, Aylmer A Complete History of England: I. The history of King Henry VIII., written by Edward, lord Herbert of Cherbury, Great Britain, 1706, p. 211. Worden Blair, The English Civil Wars: 1640 – 1660, Weidenfield and Nicolson, Great Britain, 2009. Digital file. Yost John K., The Reformation Defense of clerical Marriage in the Reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI, Church History, Vol. 50, No. 2, 1981, p. 152. 82