Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2013 Patronage, Public Spheres and the Problem of Female Rule: Henry Howard and the Politics of Writing in Sixteenth Century England Anna Christine Caney

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

PATRONAGE, PUBLIC SPHERES AND THE PROBLEM OF FEMALE RULE:

HENRY HOWARD AND THE POLITICS OF WRITING IN SIXTEENTH CENTURY

ENGLAND

By

ANNA CHRISTINE CANEY

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of History in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded: Summer Semester, 2013

Anna Christine Caney defended this dissertation on April 18, 2013.

The members of the supervisory committee were:

Charles Upchurch Professor Directing Dissertation

Gary Taylor University Representative

Darrin McMahon Committee Member

Jonathon Grant Committee Member

Peter Garretson Committee Member

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements.

ii

For Andrew, Allison, Catherine, and my parents

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The understanding, patience and criticism and encouragement of my committee members- Professors Charles Upchurch, Darrin McMahon, Jonathan Grant, Peter Garretson, and Gary Taylor- as this project would not have been successful without them. They have helped form me as a historian and I sincerely appreciate their help and commitment in allowing me to finish this dissertation.

Professor Richard Greaves- who opened the door to this topic, and Dr. David Mock who provided invaluable resources in order to move forward with my research and enabled me to move forward with the project.

My parents and uncle, Mike Sullivan- they provided support and resources to help me conduct research under very difficult circumstances.

Andrew McRory- he had amazing willingness to step in and help as a partner and friend while accepting my frustration, late nights, and absence from the kitchen while writing. I could not have completed this project without him. He has my deepest love and appreciation for standing by me over the past few years.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract vi

Abbreviations vii

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. A NOBLEMAN’S LIFE 24

3. THE ELIZABETHAN COURT IN THE 1560’S AND 1570’S 56

4. INCEPTION 82

5. THE VIA MEDIA AND POLITICS 114

6. THE FINAL ATTEMPT 142

7. PREFERMENT AND LEGACY 173

REFERENCES 192

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 210

v

ABSTRACT

This dissertation analyzes the career of Henry Howard, Elizabethan courtier, and his principle intellectual work, “A Dutifull Defence of the Lawful Regiment of Weomen,” in order to better understand the politics of Elizabethan court culture, the nature of political loyalty in the face of confessional pluralism, and the ways in which gender difference was theorized in the early modern period. Henry Howard’s career constitutes one of the most remarkable success and survival stories of the sixteenth and early seventeenth century. Born into the most prominent

Catholic family in England, Howard saw his father, two cousins, and his brother be executed for treason. During his life he constantly remained under suspicion for being a practicing Catholic, consorting with Jesuits, and participating in conspiracies against Queen Elizabeth. Howard was deprived of his income and position, arrested and imprisoned numerous times, and was forced to survive on the periphery of the court. Yet remarkably, he survived. At the accession of James I he was awarded the title Earl of Northampton, and by the time of his death in 1614 he was the wealthiest man in England.

The story of the “Dutifull Defence” is no less extraordinary. Several authors wrote defenses of Queen Elizabeth in response to John Knox’s First Blast of the Trumpet. However,

Henry Howard had the advantage of not only being a nobleman, but he was also a graduate of

Cambridge University. He had the education and ability to respond to Knox. “Dutifull Defence” contains over 400 sources, which Howard used to reject Knox’s arguments against women based on Aristotelian biology. Instead he proposed a Platonic understanding of gender difference. By combining Platonic ideas of gender with his extensive knowledge of the Church fathers,

Scripture, and English Civil law, Howard was able to construct an intellectually consistent and sound defense of queenship.

vi

Previous historians have usually only looked at aspects of Howard’s life, and only superficial fragments of the “Dutifull Defence,” and none have tried to integrate the study of the two. This dissertation combines the dynamic of Henry Howard’s life and his composition of

“Dutifull Defence” in order to reveal the importance of the manuscript. In composing “Dutifull

Defence” he contributed a significant work to the gender debate based on his own personal experiences and a genuine belief that a woman was capable of ruling a country. In analyzing the content, production, and circulation of the “Dutifull Defence” in conjunction with Howard’s experiences as a courtier, this dissertation, following the model of early modern public spheres developed in the work of by Peter Lake and Steven Pincus, demonstrates the ways in which identities, ideas, and publics could be successfully manipulated to create stability in the tumultuous world of Elizabethan court politics.

vii

ABBREVIATIONS

Add. Additional BL British Library DNB Dictionary of National Biography “Dutifull Defence” Henry Howard, “The Dutifull Defence of the Lawful Regiment of Weomen.” BL Lansdowne MSS, 813 (1590) CSPD Calendar of State Papers Domestic Series. Vol. 1, 1547- 1580; Vol. 2, 1581-1590. CSPF Calendar of State Papers Foreign Series. Vol. 15, Jan. 1581-Apr. 1582 CSPS Calendar of State Papers Spanish Series. Vol.3, 1580-1586 HLRO House of Lords Record Office MSS Manuscript OED Oxford English Dictionary PRO Public Record Office SP State Papers s.v. sub verdo

viii

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

In 1590, Queen Elizabeth I received a leather bound manuscript as a gift from a courtier.

It was a treatise, “A Dutifull Defence of the Lawful Regiment of Women,” written by Lord

Henry Howard in an attempt to defend Elizabeth’s right to rule, and also to win the favor and patronage of the queen. The purpose of Howard’s work was to defend the queen’s right to rule as a woman, and in stating his opinion, Howard did not mince his words:

Whosoever will deprive a lawfull owner of lesse matters then inheritannce of kingdomes must produce sounde evidence. In triall of this question there is no doubte but woemen have a voice because according to that principle of the Civile Lawe quod omnes tangit etc. that which concerneth all, must be approved in like sorte by all before it take effect. If weomen speak not in printe against themselves theie can receive no hurte…1

The work was not unique in that written works about, and presented to Queen Elizabeth were common during her reign. Numerous authors penned books, pamphlets, and treatises concerning the different aspects of her monarchy that elicited public debate. In particular, her gender, her marital status, and the nature of her religious confession were popular subjects of both written work, and verbal debate. Howard’s treatise is different, however, in that it was written by a nobleman, who was also educated. Howard’s family was the highest ranking in England, holding the Dukedom of Norfolk.2 Howard was educated at Cambridge, taking his degree in 1564 and then remaining on to teach at the university.3 “Dutifull Defence” was composed in the 1580s, late in the debate on gender, as most works for and against female rule appeared early in

1 Howard, Henry. “A Dutifull Defence of the Lawful Regiment of Women” (1590), 30r. 2 See W.A. Sessions, Henry Howard the Poet Earl of Surrey, A Life. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 20- 22. 3 Linda Levy Peck, Northampton: Patronage and Policy at the Court of James I. (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1982), 8; Daniel Andersson, Lord Henry Howard (1540-1614): An Elizabethan Life. (Woodbridge, Suffolk: D.S. Brewer, 2009), 9. 1

Elizabeth’s reign. Howard’s decision and motives for writing “Dutifull Defence” is included in the queries surrounding Howard and his life. The manuscript is an intricately assembled work that Howard began in 1577, but due to intrigue and court politics, he did not complete until thirteen years later. “Dutifull Defence” represents over a decade of time and effort put into composition and rhetoric. However, it is also a representation of the society, culture, politics, and religion that surrounded and challenged Queen Elizabeth and her reign.

England had already faced decades of diplomatic, cultural, and religious crisis that in many respects, only worsened at the advent of her reign in 1558. Her father, Henry VIII, had torn the Church away from Rome and declared the monarch the head of the new Church of England.4

During the brief reigns of both her brother Edward and sister Mary, religion played a powerful role that was inseparable from the political world as the monarchy struggled to bend the nobility and the general population to its particular confession of faith. Noble families and court factions of Reformed and Catholic leanings vied for attention from the monarch in order to support their own interests. Foreign powers sought to influence diplomatic decisions that involved the faith of a queen, whose country was deeply involved in the religious and political conflicts dividing the continent. And, religious bodies fought to protect the interests of their own confessions through support or detraction of the monarch. In 1559 Elizabeth was able, for the most part, to convince her councilors and subjects to compromise on the issue with a religious settlement. Two acts settled in Parliament, the Act of Supremacy and the Act of Uniformity set England firmly on a reformed path leaving powerful, Catholic families, which included the Howards, wondering how they would fit into the new regime.5 However, in spite of religious settlement, there was one

4 For a discussion on Henry VIII and the English Reformation see A.G. Dickenson, The English Reformation. (University Park, Pennsylvania: The University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989). 5For a discussion and outline of the Elizabethan Religious Settlement see A.G. Dickens. The English Reformation. 2nd ed. (University Park, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989), 349-361. 2 overriding, undisputable factor that could not be ignored by Catholic priest, Reformed pastor, or royal councilor- Elizabeth was a woman. And, considering the tenuous position that both

Catholic and Protestant scholars placed women in theologically and legally, it is not surprising that men committed time to an issue that challenged the traditional boundaries of society— whether or not a woman could rule as sole monarch.

The upheaval created by four distinctly different monarchs in ten years, and the discord that ensued over religious divisions and challenges to tradition incited men of both Protestant and

Catholic leanings to publically declare their opinions on the state of religion and the monarchy in

England. Authors took advantage of the written word to express their opinions and declare their position on the subjects of women, law, and faith. The continued use of manuscripts and the increased use of print allowed for multiple copies of pamphlets, tracts, and sermons to be circulated within the court and out to the broader general public, and all topics were fair game for editorial comment.6 More specifically, for authors declaring judgment on the subject of female rulers, individual opinion was more important than knowledge on the subject, and writers articulated their views with confidence, hoping to convince, or at least persuade men that their words represented the truth. However, despite the complexity of the possible ramifications, the problem facing men of both the religious and the political world was straightforward- for the first time since the twelfth century, there were no legitimate male heirs to the English throne.

6 The dissolution of the monasteries in the 1530s and the subsequent dispersal of many of the monastic libraries opened up the number of sources available to public men. Furthermore, the expansion of the printing, bookbinding, and bookselling trade increased the number of volumes available, in addition to facilitating the exchange of knowledge on subjects. One of the results of this enhanced awareness was the formation of the Elizabethan Society of Antiquaries in 1586, a group dedicated to historical knowledge. Howard was a member of the Society of Antiquaries, as were Sir Thomas Heneage and Sir Robert Cotton, both recipients of copies of “Dutifull Defence.” See May McKisack, Medieval History in the Tudor Age (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), vii. Publication will be discussed in a later chapter.

3

When Mary I acceded to the throne in August 1553, she became the first female to rule

England in her own right, and the concern over a female sovereign was not simply a matter of petty opinion. Before 1553, there had been no example of successful female rule to set a precedent. The only previous princess to assert her title as outright queen was in 1135, when

Matilda, Henry I’s direct heir, claimed the crown of England, resulting in nineteen years of civil war.7 The subsequent success of male lineage had engrained in the English mind that the monarch should be a man. Henry VIII’s treatment of his eldest daughter was a clear example of preference for the male. Throughout Mary Tudor’s childhood, her father attempted to wed her to a foreign prince in hopes that she would then be able to rule under her husband as more of a consort than a queen regnant.8 At issue was not Mary’s right to inherit the office of monarch, but the prevailing idea that a woman would not be physically or mentally able to fulfill the duties of a sovereign, for the whole notion of monarchy revolved around traditionally male roles. A king was expected to show military leadership, dispense justice, and, since Henry’s break with Rome, uphold the Christian faith as Supreme head of the Church of England. If a woman were allowed to manage any of these roles as the head of state, and be admitted fit to govern men, it would alter the traditional social, political, and religious hierarchy, and require a new vision for society.9 More importantly, the theoretical limitations of a female monarch posed a threat, not only to herself, but also to the peace of her kingdom as a whole.10 Everything from her choice of

7 R. B. Wernham, Before the Armada (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World Inc., 1966), 99. 8 Judith Richards, "'To Promote a Woman to Beare Rule': Talking of Queens in Mid-Tudor England," Sixteenth Century Journal 28, no. 1 (1997), 102; Retha M. Warnike, Women of the English Renaissance and Reformation (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1983), 49. 9 Constance Jordan. "Feminism and the Humanists: The Case of Sir Thomas Elyot's Defence of Good Women." Renaissance Quarterly 36 (1983): 181-201. 10 Ibid., 421. 4 councilors, attendants in the privy chamber, and most importantly, a spouse, could create factions well beyond those surrounding a king.11

Much of the rhetoric claiming that a woman would be unfit to rule evolved from the ancient idea that women were considered inherently physically frail, emotionally weak and therefore, inferior to men and subject to male authority.12 Female subordination was based on the traditional order of society that clearly defined a woman’s role as that of a wife and domestic matron. Legal and ethical boundaries were also based on a woman’s supposed frailty and incapacity to reason, justifying her pre-ordained functions as a subordinate, and excluding her from public life.13 The rules of proper feminine behavior acknowledged that women should be silent and chaste, another reason used to prevent them from participating in a civil forum.14 As a result, women were traditionally prohibited from holding public office and exercising authority over anyone outside their own estates. Nevertheless, although gender roles were defined theoretically, the reality of daily life provided many English women, especially those of the higher classes, the opportunity to wield power.15

Even if social and political boundaries were not always clearly defined, religiously the placement of women by the tenets of Scripture was more definitive. According to Christian tradition, by the order of their creation and God’s decrees in Genesis chapters two and three, women were subordinate to men and remained socially inferior. God created Adam first; then

11 For a discussion on the Tudor Court and the changes made with the advent of a female monarch see David Loades, The Tudor Court (Totowa, NJ: Barnes and Noble Books, 1987). 12 Richards, “To Promote a Woman,” 101. 13 Ian Maclean, The Renaissance Notion of Women (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 43-6, 57-8, 68. 14 Constance Jordan, "Feminism and the Humanists: The Case of Sir Thomas Elyot's Defence of Good Women," Renaissance Quarterly 36, no. 2 (1983), 182. 15 Throughout English history, women had established and maintained authoritative roles in religious society as abbesses or prioresses. Additionally, high-ranking, married English women could exert great political influence. Tudor women often controlled the running of their estates, managing the political, legal and social responsibilities that came with owning land. They were also able to influence their husband’s financial and political decisions. Legally, women could inherit estates, control wardships, participate in business ventures and hold guild memberships and since 1503, women were allowed to serve as justices of the peace. See Richards, “’To Promote a Woman to Beare Rule,’” 101-103. 5

Eve was formed from Adam, making her an ancillary subordinate even before the Fall. After the

Fall, God made her subjection permanent.16 Some arguments went so far as to state that women were not created in the image of God, but only in the image of man, from whom she was drawn.17 Once established in Christian belief, opinion on women remained theoretically constant throughout the Middle Ages. She may have been praised for her womanly virtues, but it did not alter her position in legal and social hierarchy.

Historically, discussions on the role on women in society were certainly not uncommon.

Beginning in antiquity and moving through the Middle Ages, male opinions on the female nature and her proper position in society helped form the traditional views on women that were maintained through the early modern period. Aristotle was the most influential non-Christian writer on women, regarding them as imperfect due to biological fault; a woman was an incomplete male. From the twelfth century, theologians and scholars combined Aristotle’s ideas with Christian writing, synthesizing the idea of a woman’s inherent natural inferiority with God’s pre-determination of female subjection and subsequent sentence due to Eve’s sin.18 The writings of Christian theorists like Tertullian, Augustine of Hippo, John Chrysostom, Jerome, and

Thomas Aquinas provided the sources for later Renaissance debates not only on Eve’s position, but also on how her example applied to women in a changing political, economic, and social culture.19 When humanist scholars entered the discussion in the late fifteenth-century, the debate over the nature of women became less a matter of malediction of the female character, and more a glorification, and at times hyperbole, of the acceptable female virtues. The most notorious of

16 Margaret R. Sommerville, Sex and Subjection: Attitudes to Women in Early-Modern Society (London: Arnold, 1995), 29. 17 Augustine expressed this view in On the Trinity, 12: 7. See Augustine, On the Trinity. Edited by Gareth B. Matthews (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). 18 Merry E. Wiesner, Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 14. 19 Katherine Usher Henderson and Barbara F. McManus, Half Humankind: Texts and Contexts of the Controversy About Women in England, 1540-1640 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985), 7. 6 these works was Cornelius Agrippa’s Declamation on the Nobility and Preeminence of the

Female Sex (1529), which claimed that women were not only equal to, but superior to men in all respects. However, though praising women, these works did not debate the essential equality of a woman in comparison to a man, spiritually or politically. Agrippa did not go beyond the physical in his glorification of the lady.20 Despite his radical view that women should be priests in his work Utopia, Sir Thomas More expressed that women were still subject to men, especially their husbands.21 As a writer and tutor for Mary Tudor, Juan Luis Vives espoused education for high-born women; however, he stressed that women were unsuited to be rulers.22

The debate over the nature and position of women entered a new phase with the accession of Mary Tudor. For the earlier humanists, the idea of a female queen regnant was theoretical, but in 1553 the concept became a reality. A war of words ensued as men penned their opinions on a woman’s position in society, her character, her ability to hold a position of public or private authority, and especially, if Mary Tudor could rule as a sole monarch. The most vocal authors were English and Scottish Protestant exiles who had fled to the continent after Mary’s accession. Although their foremost concern was Mary’s dedication to the Roman Catholic

Church, they were also convinced that a queen regnant opposed the laws of God, nature and society. Moreover, her mental incapacity would endanger the safety of the kingdom. Sir David

Lindsay (1490- 1555) was one of first to oppose female rule in the mid-century debate. In his

1553 work, Ane Dialougue betuix Experience and ane Courteour, off the Miserabyll Estait of the

World, the Scottish poet and Protestant reformer used narrative poetry to condemn female rulers,

20 Cornelius Agrippa, Declamation on the Nobility and Preeminence of the Female Sex. Translated and edited by Albert Rabil, Jr. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996). 21 Sir Thomas More, Utopia (1556). Translated by Ralph Robynson. Edited by David Harris Sacks (Boston, Massachusetts: Bedford St. Martins, 1999), 193. 22 Foster Watson, ed., Vives and the Renascence Education of Women (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1912), 54. 7 asserting divinely ordained male preeminence and authority over women.23 In 1554, Thomas

Becon published An humble suplicacioun unto God for the restoring of his holye woorde unto the churche of England.24 An exiled propagandist, Becon mercilessly attacked Mary I and her council, comparing her to Jezebel and proclaiming her reign to be a sign of divine punishment.25

The most vehement condemnations of Mary Tudor, and any women who dared to place themselves in positions of authority, came from Christopher Goodman and John Knox, Calvinist radicals who advocated physical resistance against ungodly rulers. To them, a Catholic queen regnant was a direct threat to God’s ordained hierarchy and to the independence of England and

Scotland if Mary wed a foreign, Catholic prince.26 Knox’s First Blast against the Monstrous

Regiment of Women (1559) directly attacked Mary Tudor, by declaring female monarchy to be an abhorrence to the laws of God, nature, and civil society, and by condemning her and all women who dared to assume a position of authority over men.27 Christopher Goodman was less concerned with the gender of the ruler, though he did not approve of female regiment, but the religion of the sovereign. He denounced Mary Tudor as a tyrant in his 1558 work, Howe

Superior Powers oght to be Obeyed.28 Later into Elizabeth’s reign, George Buchanan published a

History of Scotland (1582), in which he bewailed that women were incapable of overseeing a

23 David Lindsay, Ane dialog betuix Experience and ane courteour Off the miserabill estait of the warld (Paris: J. Petit(?), 1558); Greaves, Theology and Revolution, 157. 24 Thomas, Becon, An humble supplicacion vnto God for the restoring of hys holye woorde, vnto the churche of Englande, mooste mete to be sayde in these oure dayes, euen with teares of euery true [and] faythfull English harte (Strasburg: J. Lambrecht(?), 1554). 25 Paula Louise Scaingi. "The Scepter or the Distaff: The Question of Female Sovereignty, 1516-1607." The Historian 41(1978): 59-75. 26 Ibid.; Jordan, “Woman’s Rule,” 430; Richards, 117 . 27 John Knox, The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstruous Regiment of Women (Genevea: n.p. 1558; reprint, New York: De Capo Press, 1972). Knox declared that women were, by nature, “weak, frail, impatient, feeble, and foolish, and experience hath declared them to be un-constant, variable, cruel, and lacking the spirit of counsel and regiment.” 10r. 28 Christopher Goodman, How Superior Powers Oght to Be Obeyd (Geneva: John Crispin, 1558; reprint, Columbia University Press, 1931); Richard Greaves. Theology and Revolution in the Scottish Reformation: Studies in the Thought of John Knox (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Christian University Press,1980),163; Jordan, “Woman’s Rule,” 425. 8 successful government, due to their natural inferiority.29 Detractors also attacked Elizabeth in respect to her marriage choices. For example John Stubbe published The discuerie of a gaping gulf whereinto England is like to be swallowed by an other French marriage (1579) in objection to the Queen’s marriage negotiations with the Hapsburgs.30

In response to the attacks against women and female rulers, treatises began to appear at the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign supporting her position. Even with the accession of a

Protestant queen, there was concern over the influence the published attacks, still being circulated in England, might have on men unhappy with the 1559 religious settlement.31 The queen’s defenders supported the view that a queen regnant was not against God’s law or the law of nature, and that a woman could successfully act as a head of state. In 1559, John Alymer published An Harborowe For Faithfull and Trewe Subjectes, a direct rebuttal of Knox.32 John

Leslie, an emissary for Mary Stuart, declared his support for the queen and all women rulers in A

Defence of the Quene of Scotland (1569).33 The Defence of the Apology of the Church of

England (1562) written by John Jewel, the Bishop of Salisbury, and a staunch supporter of

Elizabeth, defended the right of female inheritance and extolled female virtues.34 It is not surprising that most of Elizabeth’s defenders were men in the service of the crown, related to the court in some manner, and members of the aristocracy. Their works supported the crown’s

29 George Buchanan. The History of Scotland. Written in Latin, by George Buchanan. Faithfully rendered into English. J. Fraser, 1689. Buchanan writes: “greatness of mind was never required in this sex;it is true, women have other proper virtues, but as for his, it was always reckoned among virile, not female endowments; besides, by how much the more they are obnoxious to commotions, passions and other efforts of mind, by reason of imbecility of their nature.” 406. 30 John Stubbe. The discuerie of a gaping gulf whereinto England is like to be swallowed by an other French marriage (1579). 31 Scalingi, “The Scepter and the Distaff,” 69. 32 John Alymer. An harborovve for faithfull and trevve subiectes agaynst the late blowne blaste, concerninge the gouernme[n]t of vvemen. wherin be confuted all such reasons as a straunger of late made in that behalfe, with a breife exhortation to obedience (London: John Day, 1559). 33 John Leslie, A Defence of the Honour of the Right Highe, Mighty and Noble Princesse Marie Quene of Scotlande and Dowager of France (London: Eusebius Diczophile, 1569). 34 John Jewell, An apologie, or aunswer in defence of the Church of England concerninge the state of religion vsed in the same. Newly set forth in Latin, and nowe translated into Englishe (London: Reginald Wolf, 562). 9 decisions and the queen. They were written to influence opinion, but were also intended to attract patronage, or elicit favor from the crown. Alymer and Jewel were Marian exiles who returned to serve in the Church of England. Leslie was the Catholic Bishop of Ross and served Mary Stuart until her death in 1586. Their writings were published and accepted as successful rebuttals of radical detractors, some of who may have written at the suggestion of members of the court as well since direct disagreement with the queen might not be politically advantageous.

All of the numerous negative tracts and treatises being circulated at the time were intended to influence the public at large and to incite opinion against Elizabeth as a ruler, and both the general public and members of the court had access to published tracts.35 They provide an example of what is currently emerging as the “public sphere” in Early Modern England.

Following models recently developed by Peter Lake and the emergence of a public sphere, it can be defined as a platform of debate revolving around both conceptual and physical spaces, and verbal transmission of ideas from person to person. Discussions were generated by numerous issues including gender, politics, culture and religion.36 Issues that centered on the state of the monarchy and its importance to the well being of the country were especially popular. In particular, Elizabeth’s physical wellness, her state of sexual activity, the people she spent time with, and her marriage negotiations were all considered topics of relevant public discussion as they were essential well being of the state. The king’s bedroom activities may have been private, but the queen could not open her bed to just anyone, and everyone had an interest in who she might sleep with. Foreign ambassadors were especially prone to circulating reports of

35 Howard directly quotes John Knox in his early drafts of “Dutifull Defence.” 36 Peter Lake and Michael Questier. “Puritans, Papists, and the ‘Public Sphere’ in Early Modern England: The Edmund Campion Affair in Context.” The Journal of Modern History. Vol. 72, No. 3 (September, 2000): 595; Natalie Mears, Queenship and Political Discourse in the Elizabethan Realms (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 200, 204. 10

Elizabeth’s sexual activity.37 However, as public debate emerged in England, books, pamphlets, and reports came out as detractions to the queen who responded at times by prohibiting books and pamphlets thought to be insulting or treasonous. After publishing First Blast of the Trumpet

John Knox was prohibited from entering England and the book was banned. John Stubbes had his right hand cut off with a cleaver in public for writing and publishing Gaping Gulf. 38 Some evidence also exists of verbal detractors in villages and towns. One Edward Fogged was cited for stating in 1570 that he “care not for the queen marye nor for queen Eliza.’39 However, regardless of whether a person was a nobleman or a commoner, Elizabeth elicited great interest as a public topic of debate.

Henry Howard straddled both the inner and outer spheres of the world surrounding

Elizabeth for most of his life. As a nobleman, scholar, and prolific writer, Howard should have personified the ideal courtier who could elicit favor from his queen. Instead, due to the mishaps of his family, he spent thirty years of his life, 1570-1603, defending his honor, protecting his life, and writing to maintain his livelihood. He resided in great estate houses, and small city dwellings at different times in his life. He had contact with the highest persons in the land, as well as the common people who surrounded him during his times of difficulty.

In 1540 his birth position and state in life seemed assured. He was the youngest son of

Henry Howard, earl of Surrey, and grandson of the duke of Norfolk. The Howard’s held the highest peerage in England, and the only extant dukedom during her reign. Therefore, even as a younger son, Henry’s position as a Howard should have guaranteed him an existence far better than most men would be able to achieve. However, his grandfather and father seriously faltered

37 Natalie Mears. Queenship and Political Discourse, 224, 225. Elizabeth’s intimacy and possible pregnancy was critical to resolve the succession question. For that reason, not only foreign diplomats, but the public in general had an interest in who she would marry and have children by. 38 Ibid.,187. 39 Ibid., 194. Mears provides an introduction into the use of assizes as a source for a discussion on the public sphere. 11 in Henry VIII’s final years when they displayed the arms of England in the first quarter of his amorial bearings, and more significantly, the arms of Edward the Confessor in his escutcheon, which rightfully belonged to Prince Edward.40 Henry was already suspicious of both men after defeats in battle and failed diplomatic negotiations with the French. Surrey’s arrogant display angered the king and both Norfolk and Surry were charged with treason.41 The duke and earl were both convicted for the offense of imperiling the succession, and Surrey was beheaded on

January 19, 1547. Norfolk was scheduled to be executed on January 28, but Henry VIII died on

January 27 and Norfolk’s life was spared.

Surrey’s two boys, Thomas and Henry were left to the care of their aunt, Mary Fitzroy,

Duchess of Richmond, and the crown after their father’s execution. Young Henry was tutored by

John Foxe, the martyroligist while Edward was king. When Mary became queen, Foxe was dismissed and Henry was placed with the Catholic Bishop of Lincoln, John White. Elizabeth finally sent Henry to Cambridge in 1559 where he entered King’s College and studied law, graduating in 1564. He then secured a teaching position at Trinity Hall, Cambridge, but sought to be closer to the queen and in the late 1560’s he attempted to enter the social circles of the court. His timing could not have been worse. His brother, Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk was tried and convicted of treason in 1572 after attempting to marry Mary Queen of Scots and conspire against Queen Elizabeth. Henry was named as an accomplice in the conspiracy, the first of many in which he was suspected of being actively involved. He was able to acquit himself in

40 See David Head, The Ebbs and Flows of Fortune: The Life of Thomas Howard, Third Duke of Norfolk (Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press, 1995), 225. The escutcheon is the defined area on which amorial bearings are displayed, usually a shield. 41 Surrey was charged under the succession act of 1536, which made any act that threatened the succession treason. Ibid., 226. 12 all cases, but for the next twenty years he struggled to convince Elizabeth, and her councilors that he was a loyal subject, and worthy to carry his family’s name.42

In order to prove his worthiness Howard became a prolific writer, composing numerous written works between in the 1570’s and 1580’s, all of which were produced to express personal, and academic, opinion on most of the contentious issues at the time.43 In doing so, he actively sought to be a part of the circles that encompassed the Elizabethan public sphere. For example he wrote in favor of her marriage proposals, and against John Stubbe. Howard wrote from the perspective of an impoverished man, yet he was an educated member of the nobility. In 1577 he began what would become his final major treatise, a defense of women’s rule. He states that he was given a copy of a “raising invective against the regiment of queens” with an “earnest charge” to compose a rebuttal.44 Howard began to do so, but over the next decade he found himself continuously under interrogation for intrigue and accusations of sedition and treason.

Howard writes candidly in the introduction about his experiences while composing the work, revealing glimpses of his life during the 1570’s in “Dutiful Defence.” Even though his papers, and then a draft of the work were stolen several times, he continued to write, and in 1590 he finally presented “Dutiful Defence” to Queen Elizabeth.45

“Dutiful Defence” is important not only because of its vivid evocations to Howard’s life, and the sixteenth century in general, but also because evidence of the writer’s process survives, providing a unique glimpse into the world of preparation, composition and production at the time. There are numerous extent manuscripts of “Dutiful Defence” including several quarter- folio pages of hand written notes, three early drafts of the work, eight complete, bound copies of

42 Before Howard’s father and brother were executed for treason, Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, both his cousins, were also executed by Henry VIII. 43 Howard’s motives and written works will be discussed in a later chapter. 44 “Dutifull Defence,” 2r. 45 Ibid., 7v. 13 the presentation manuscripts, and four partial copies of the work that were produced posthumously. Although mentions of “Dutifull Defence” are often relegated to footnotes and inadequate analysis, the significance of Howard’s treatise remains underrated. “Dutifull

Defence” is a well researched and thoroughly written work that addresses the subject of female rule that encompassed in nearly all of the contemporary publications on the subject. Howard reveals the depth of his knowledge in the body of the work by using his education to refute those objecting to women’s rule. His use of rhetoric and sources is concurrent with the humanist style at the time, but Howard moves beyond other authors on the subject of women, by expounding on three separate books, each addressing a specific aspect of the law- natural, civil, and divine law.

He approaches one argument at a time, using history, theology, and his knowledge of the law to determine that women are mentally, spiritually, and legally able to inherit offices and rule as queens regnant, and are equal to men. His ideas were unique, his conclusions bold, and his legacy stands as a true defender of women’s equality, ability and right to hold positions of authority.

There is no doubt that Henry Howard’s early life and long held beliefs influenced his work. Both privilege and adversity are revealed in his writing. He was the only nobleman in the

Elizabethan court with a formal university education, allowing him to claim a position few other writers could at the time. Analysis of “Dutifull Defence” in relation to evidence from earlier works and letters will show that Howard’s views on women came from a genuine, long standing belief in the equality of women as understood by Howard through his own personal experiences and formal education.46 He formed the content of “Dutifull Defence” by drawing from his own experiences with women growing up and his formal education through exposure to law and

46 It is understood that the use of the word “equality” may be considered anachronistic. Howard uses the word “equal” in Dutiful Defence in reference to a woman’s position spiritually, and in a philosophical essence as defined by Plato in Republic, Book V. Howard’s interpretation of Plato will be discussed in a later chapter. 14 theology at Cambridge. The compilation of physical drafts and copies of “Dutifull Defence” are unique in that it provides a thorough look at the process of the written work, from the first draughts to the finished work, to the legacy it left via reproduction.

Howard and “Dutifull Defence” provide a vivid example of extent of the emerging public sphere when fit into the context of the Elizabethan court and society, and “Dutifull Defence’s longevity and success are apparent by the continued interest in an unpublished work after his death. Although Howard only set one of his works to print, the manuscripts still represent a strong example of an individual who participated in the public sphere surrounding the

Elizabethan court in his attempts to influence the monarch and her privy council. His body of work dealt with the most contentious issues at the time, and he actively sought to be a player in the debates. His position as a scholar gave him the ability to argue his position on an issue. His position as a nobleman and a scholar allowed him access that many authors who published on particular queries did not have. And, importantly, the troubles that kept him away from

Elizabeth’s presence, and often in abject poverty, drove him to write with a motive that few had, which was not only to influence policy, but gain access to the personal presence of the queen due to his family name and “place by birth my due.”47

Howard’s legacy is an example of how the world of influence, debate, and engagement with the public sphere was able to help him finally achieve his goal of preferment and reward of position after he presented “Dutifull Defence” to the queen. In the final decade of Elizabeth’s reign he was accepted in the court, admitted to Elizabeth’s presence, and acted as the intermediary between Robert Cecil and James VI in Scotland in the negotiations for his succession to the English throne. His efforts were rewarded. By the time he died in 1614 he was

47 Letter from Henry Howard to James I. As cited in G.F. Nott. The Works of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, and of Sir Thomas Wyatt, the Elder. 2 vols. (New York: AMS Press, 1965), I 446n. 15 one of the wealthiest men in England, had been granted the title Earl of Northampton, Baron of

Marnhull, made Warden of the Cinque Ports, given the Order of the Garter, and appointed Lord of the Privy Seal after having lived most of his life, as he put it, “beneath the compass of my birth.”48 “Dutifull Defence” was the last of his major written works, and his opus to the world in which he lived under Elizabeth. Containing over 400 sources, its content reveals a lifetime of belief and experiences from a man who confronted tradition, refuted religion, and challenged law. His perseverance, contributions, and longevity establish him as an active participant in the sphere of social and political discourse, a significant contributor to the Elizabethan era, and a patron to the commencement of the Jacobean age.

Essential to understanding Henry Howard, his involvement in court and society, and

“Dutifull Defence” are the numerous manuscript sources available containing Howard’s letters and papers. The main manuscript sources for documents from Howard’s life through before

James’s reign are the British Library Cotton manuscripts that include his personal letters, and papers for the period up to 1603. The State Papers contain documents concerning Howard’s numerous interrogations in the 1580’s and his relationship with Mary queen of Scots. Still unused as a source for Howard’s life during Elizabeth’s reign are many of the official papers pertaining to his family and closest friends. For example, the papers of the earl of Sussex, a good friend of Howard’s, of the countess of Richmond, his guardian after his father’s death, and of his three sisters with whom he remained in contact for most of his life, have yet to be utilized as a source for Howard’s life before 1590.

Scholarship on Lord Henry Howard and his writing has only recently become an interest to the academic community. In the past his life and work have been glossed over with brief notations in books on other subjects, while more recent publications have addressed both his life

48 MS Cotton Titus C vi f. 11r 16 and his work in more detail.49 The most recent book on Howard is D. C. Andersson’s Lord

Henry Howard (1540-1614): An Elizabethan Life, is a discussion on Howard’s use of rhetoric in his writing.50 Andersson provides and updated biography on Howard’s early life at Cambridge, and provides a full text of several of his works, but only mentions “Dutifull Defence” in passing in his book. Beyond Andersson, Linda Levy Peck is the only other author to specifically write about Howard’s life, be it the last ten years. In her biography Northampton: Patronage and

Policy at the Court of James I, she presents an overview on Howard’s life after 1603, but limits her coverage of his life during Elizabeth’s reign to the first chapter.51 Peck also writes about

Howard in her chapter “The Mentality of a Jacobean Grandee,” once again focusing on

Howard’s later career under James I. In both pieces she presents Howard as a sycophant and

“consummate actor” who only wrote to gain power and position. She does not examine any particular work or motive for writing them, but discusses his life under Elizabeth in context of what he was to become as Earl of Northampton. Her sources for the tantalizing few pages on

Howard’s early life are drawn from works about Howard including a brief biography appearing in the appendix of G. F. Nott’s, The Works of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey; the Dictionary of

National Biography; and the various manuscript collections contained in English libraries. Nott’s work is the oldest, a very positive account, with at times sycophantic support of Howard’s career.52

Another work containing glimpses of Howard’s life is a biography of his father, Henry

Howard, the earl of Surrey. W. A. Sessions, Henry Howard, the Poet Earl of Surrey, provides

49 Howard is usually mentioned in books on his father and brother, as well as works on gender related books at the time. 50 Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 8. 51 Peck, Northampton, 6. 52 Nott, Works. 17 details of Howard’s early childhood and some analysis of his later memories of his father.53

Biographies and document collections on other significant courtiers, for example, Sir

Christopher Hatten; Sir Robert Dudley, the earl of Leicester, and Edward de Vere, the earl of

Oxford, include Howard in their analysis, though most often as a insignificant and embittered figure, living in the shadows of glorious men. Howard is also briefly mentioned in Wallace

MacCaffrey’s biography Elizabeth I, and a few works on Tudor England, including

MacCaffrey’s second book in his series on the queen’s political world, Queen Elizabeth and the

Making of Policy, 1752-1588.54 Except for D. C. Peck’s analysis of Catholic courtiers and their involvement in conspiracy during the 1570s and 80s, most historians ignore Howard’s involvement in the shady world of court politics. In his edited edition of Leicester’s

Commonwealth Peck is the only author to discuss in detail Howard’s involvement in the numerous conspiracies against Elizabeth.55

If sources for Howard’s early life are difficult to find, examinations of his work are nearly impossible. The only book analyzing any part of “Dutifull Defence” is Amanda

Shephard’s Gender and Authority in Sixteenth Century England. Using Howard’s manuscript as part of a larger discussion of the debate that arose over John Knox’s First Blast of the Trumpet

Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women (1558), the most widely used book when focusing on the debate over female rule, Shephard provides analysis of Howard’s use of the civil law and the creation debate, but lacks analysis of his theories of natural law, the platform on which Howard focuses on the first, and longest, section of “Dutifull Defence.” She only briefly mentions

Howard’s theory of natural law, but provides no further discussion on the subject. In doing so,

53 Sessions, Henry Howard,216. 54 Wallace MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I (London:Arnold Publishing, 1993); Queen Elizabeth and the Making of Policy, 1752-1588 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981). 55 D. C. Peck, ed., Leicester's Commonwealth: The Copy of a Letter Written by a Master of Art Cambridge (1584) and Related Documents (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1985). 18 she fails to credit Howard for having a theory regarding the original state of nature.56 However,

Howard is very specific in stating that even though women are physically weaker than men, in essence, according to nature, women are in all other ways equal. His view rejected Aristotelian biology in favor of Platonic form, directly challenging the tracts written about women at the time that relied on Aristotle to support their position of female inferiority.

Very few books discuss Howard or “Dutifull Defence” in detail, though it has received more attention in articles. However, in these discussions Howard’s work is either only mentioned by title or entirely left out of the debate. Richard Greaves, Theology and Revolution in the

Scottish Reformation, briefly acknowledges his work. Constance Jordan, Judith Richards, and

Paula Louise Scalingi, discuss the Knox debate, but leave Howard out completely.57 Katherine

Henderson and Barbara F. McManus also disregard Howard’s work in their treatment of the

Renaissance debate on women in Half Humankind: Contexts and Texts of the Controversy about

Women in England, 1540-1640,58 focusing on how interpretations of Eve and their applications to the social and political world. In this respect they use Knox’s condemnation of Eve in Genesis chapter three as the basis for the argument, but do not address Howard’s rebuttal of Knox in

“Dutifull Defence,” but instead focus on Alymer, perhaps because of the late date for Howard’s contribution to the debate.

The world of publishing and print is vital to understanding the process of the physical text and understanding why Howard chose to use manuscript publishing over print publication for his treatise. English Humanist Books: Writers and Patrons, Manuscript and Print, 1475-

1525 is presented by David R. Carlson and helps set the context for work on the evolution of

56 Amanda Shephard, Gender and Authority in Sixteenth-Century England. 57 Jordan, “Woman’s Rule”; Judith Richards, ""to Promote a Woman to Beare Rule"; Paula Louise Scalingi, "The Scepter or the Distaff." 58 Henderson and McManus, Half Humankind.

19 manuscript and print publication in the sixteenth century. Information on Howard’s use of scribal publication can be found in Peter Beal's In Praise of Scribes: Manuscripts and Their Makers in

Seventeenth-Century England. Beal discussed Howard’s use of scribes specifically in this respect, and talks about particular scribes that Howard chose to use.59 Harold Love’s Scribal

Publication in Seventeenth-Century provides information on why authors chose to use a scribe over print when publishing a work. Members of the aristocracy and upper gentry often chose handwritten replication over print in order to distribute their writing. Scribal texts were produced only upon demand and were regarded as the best way of providing monographs for a pre-chosen clientele, or when a work was intended to attract a particular type of reader.60 David Zaret provides valuable information on print culture in the sixteenth century in Origins of Democratic

Culture: Printing, Petitions, and the Public Sphere in Early Modern England.61 Zaret bridges the gap between publication and the public sphere by discussing print culture and its affect on emerging forms of political communication and the conflict it created. Both forms of publication were used by Howard in his lifetime. Copies of “Dutifull Defence,” were presented in bound manuscripts to specific people, but not all of them were members of Elizabeth’s court from whom he sought favor. Copies were presented after Elizabeth’s death to members of the

Jacobean council.62 Howard also used print publication for a work on a particularly contentious issue. A Defensative against the Poyson of supposed Prophecies (1583) was a published work

59 Peter Beal, In Praise of Scribes: Manuscripts and Their Makers in Seventeenth-Century England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 215. 60 Harold Love. Scribal Publication in Seventeenth-Century England. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 127. 61 Zaret, David. Origins of Democratic Culture: Printing, Petitions, and the Public Sphere in Early- Modern England (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), 134. 62 Copies were presented to Sir Robert Cotton, and John Trumbull. The recipients of copies of “Dutiful Defence” and their connection to Howard will be discussed in a later chapter. 20 dedicated to Sir Francis Walshingham that disputed the use of astrology, as the subject continued to have a public following at the time.63

With regard to the issue of the public sphere, the idea of applying the construct to the sixteenth century is relatively new. Drawing from Habermas’ pivotal work On Society and

Politics, authors are reevaluating the idea of the public sphere and applying to the sixteenth century by expanding the construct to include a broader base of participants in a less structured system than originally defined.64 By doing so, religion and gender join politics as point of debate for the Elizabethan public. In 2000, Peter Lake and Michael Questier published their article

“Puritans, Papists, and the ‘Public Sphere’ in Early Modern England: The Edward Campion

Affair in Context,” applying the idea to a specific religious connotation- the Jesuit mission to

England in 1581. According to Lake and Questier, it was specifically the threat of Catholicism that helped mobilize the need to generate public interest, creating a public sphere for debate on the subject.65

Natalie Mears followed in 2005 with Queenship and Political Discourse in the

Elizabethan Realms, using the construct of the public sphere for the issue of gender and opinion about the queen’s person. Her work expands the idea of the public sphere to include multiple spheres based on tangible locations and the movement of people that helped facilitate an interest in debate. She focuses on debate inside Elizabeth’s court, which she refers to as “situated,” and the debate in general public in villages and towns where verbal transmission, rather than written

63 Peck, Northampton,12. 64 See Jurgen Habermas. On Society and Politics: A Reader. Edited by Steven Seidman (Boston: Beacon Press, 1989). For a strong analysis of Habermas in a broader context see Craig Calhoun. “Habermas and the Public Sphere.” In Habermas and the Public Sphere. Edited by Craig Calhoun (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1999). 65 Peter Lake and Michael Questier. "Puritans, Papists and the Public Sphere in Early Modern England: The Edmund Campion Affair in Context." The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 72, No. 3 (September 2000): 587-627. Lake and Questier refer to their application of the term “public” as “spaces (both conceptual and practical) created by particular politico-religious circumstances of Elizabeth’s reign for “public” debate and discourse on a number of topics central to the future and purposes of the regime.” 590. 21 works created debate, referred to as “unsituated.” Accordingly, ideas were transmitted between the two spheres by members of the situated court who lived in London, but also maintained estates in the counties as well. Social gossip and political information reached the general public through the movement of households, fostering discussion about the queen’s physical body and sexuality, her marriage negotiations, and political decisions in the unsituated sphere of the county and village.66

In 2006 Peter Lake joined with Steve Pincus to discuss the idea of the early modern public sphere in “Rethinking the Public Sphere in Early Modern England and “reconfigure”

They present the idea of multiple spheres, as Mears does, but incorporate a conceptual “series of public spheres” based on the use of ideas transmitted through pamphlets, sermons, manuscripts, and rumors as a mode of “political maneuver and public politics” emanating from the inner sphere of the court, down to the outer sphere of the public.67 The article was re-printed in Lake and Pincus eds. The Politics of the Public Sphere in Early Modern England. In addition to their chapter, several other authors in the book help clarify and reveal the extent of the public sphere.

Richard Cust discusses the outsider in the Elizabethan public sphere, men who were who not in the inner sphere of the political loop, but considered themselves qualified to speak because they were not tainted by court.68

Henry Howard was able to traverse both the physical and conceptual spheres in

Elizabethan England. He was intricately involved in court politics, religious controversy, and

66 Mears, 9. ith regard to her construct of the public sphere she writes: “One of the most important and interesting aspects of the court and its relationship with public debate is the permeable barrier between the two, a permeability created by courtiers who were able to traverse or occupy the different physical spaces of the royal palaces and the counties.” 67 Peter Lake and Steve Pincus. "Rethinking the Public Sphere in Early Modern England. Journal of British Studies, Vol. 45, No. 2 (April, 2006): 270-292. Lake and Pincus write: “In the period after the Reformation, issues of religious identity and division came together with issues of dynastic and geopolitical rivalry to create a series of public spheres.” 274. 68 Richard Cust. "The 'public man' in late Tudor and early Stuart England." In Politics of the Public Sphere in Early Modern England. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007), 116,117. 22 diplomatic intrigue, while spending most of his existence outside of the court and away from

Elizabeth’s presence. He engaged the public through his connections to Cambridge and his personal circumstances in and outside of London. His personal beliefs and experiences helped form the ideas that encompassed his debates and writing, and his social position enabled him to actively engage in the debates that concerned the court and queen through writing and publication. By applying the constructs and purposes of the early modern public sphere to

Howard and his material, it is possible to reevaluate his significance as a courtier, his writing, and his participation in the political world before his ascent to the highest sphere in the court of

James I. Contrary to Peck and Nott’s evaluation of Howard as merely a sycophant and passive player in court politics during Elizabeth’s reign, Howard actively contributed to the social, religious, and political discourses that were important to Elizabeth, her court, and the general public. He wrote on subjects that were actively debated by the Elizabethan public, showing an understanding of the importance issues at the time. He knew the parameters of engagement, and employed rhetoric as the tool to advance his position. And, as a result, he succeeded in achieving his goal of survival and restoration to the position of his birth.

23

CHAPTER TWO

A NOBLEMAN’S LIFE

In 1614 Diego Sarmiento, the Spanish Ambassador to the court of James I, wrote to

Philip III about the death of Lord Henry Howard. At that point, Howard was Earl of

Northampton, Lord of the Privy Seal, and Warden of the Cinque Ports. In his letter he described

Howard: “In consideration of the earl’s courage, virtue, prudence, and refinement he was for all this accounted the first gentleman of the kingdom and with reason”69 The description was apt considering Howard’s position at the end of his life. However, good fortune was not a state of being Howard could always claim, for he only emerged as one of the most powerful and wealthy men in England at the beginning of the seventeenth century after struggling for decades to overcome his family’s misfortunes, and his own battles with religion, conspiracy, and conscious.

Born into one of the most illustrious families in England, Howard should have been in a position to live a comfortable and successful life at court or in the church, but this was not the case. Due to the downfall of his grandfather, father, and brother due to pride, conscious, and lust for power, instead of influencing a monarch, Henry Howard found himself existing on the periphery of the court, and surviving by his wits, his ingenuity, and his pen for thirty years.70

Born in 1540, Lord Henry Howard was the youngest son of Henry Howard, Earl of

Surrey, who was son of Thomas Howard third Duke of Norfolk and Frances de Vere, daughter of

John, fifteenth Earl of Oxford. Throughout his life, Howard was exceptionally conscious of his

69 “…por esto como por el valor virtud prudençia y grandes letras del conde que en todo esto era tenido por el primero hombre de stado y con razon.” Deigo Sarmiento to King Philip III, June 30, 1614 as cited in Spain and the Jacobean Catholics, Volume II: 1613-1624. Edited and translated by Albert J. Loomie. (Catholic Record Society, 1978), 38-40. 70 When Howard was born, it is said that his father had a Italian astrologer cast his nativity and predict that Howard would encounter trouble during his mid life “so as event to want a meal’s meat,” but later in life “his old age should make amends for all with a plentiful estate.” Nott, The Works of Henry Howard, II, 428. Daniel Andersson states that it is unknown if Howard had a horoscope cast but that is was likely done. Lord Henry Howard, 15. 24 connections and position, and often referred to the Howard family’s troubles in his writing.71 He had, no doubt, been raised hearing the tales of the Howard rise to power and had the heroic stories ingrained into his own ideas about patrimony and position. In this respect, the Howard family had risen to prominence during the fourteenth century through service to the crown, and eventually married into the royal family when Robert Howard married Margaret Mowbray, daughter of Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, Earl Marshal of England, and a direct descendent of Edward I.72 The Howards were officially raised from the gentry when John

Howard was granted a Barony in the late 1460’s, after fighting for Edward IV during the Wars of the Roses. Then, after supporting Richard III’s usurpation of the throne in 1483, he was created

Duke of Norfolk and Earl Marshal of England. Additionally, the family was granted the Earldom of Surrey and John Howard’s son, Thomas, assumed the title at that time.73 The Howards appeared to have achieved what few families at the time could by rising from the rank of gentle family to reach the highest order of service to crown and king.

However, it appeared the Howard success might have been short lived. At the Battle of

Bosworth Field in 1485 Norfolk was slain, and after Richard III’s defeat by Henry Tudor,

Thomas Howard was stripped of his title and imprisoned for backing Richard. Nevertheless, the newly crowned king was weak, and Henry VII knew he needed the endorsement of the Howards and other gentle families at the beginning of his reign and, therefore, he spared Howard from the charge of treason. Parliament restored Howard the title earl of Surrey in 1489, but denied him the

71 After his ascendency in 1603 he writes: “To the place by birth my due, from which I was ejected by the wrongs of others than mine own deserts, your Majesty restored me. I was esteemed as a forlorn hope… I was branded with the mark of reprobation … I was esteemed , and so termed, a man dangerous…” B.L. Cotton Titus C vi, fol 55. 72 For detailed accounts of the rise of the Howard family see Head, The Ebbs and Flows of Fortune. Sessions, Henry Howard ; Jesse Childs, Henry VIII’s last victim: The Life and Times of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey (London: Jonathan Cape, 2006.). 73 Head, Ebbs and Flows, 16. 25 title of duke, even though his father had died and by right it belonged to him.74 For the remainder of Henry VII’s reign, the Howards maintained their position, but failed to forward the family cause any further. Once Henry VIII replaced his suspicious and frugal father, the course for the

Howard family once again turned upward. The aging Thomas, earl of Surrey, and his son

Thomas, worked strategically for young king Henry, and the Howard name, in order to strengthen their position at court. Success came quickly for both father and son under Henry

VIII. Through martial success and favor from the king, the Howard’s quickly rose through the ranks of power. In 1510, the younger Thomas was elected to the Order of the Garter and then in

1513, he was appointed Lord Admiral. After successes in the north that left James IV of Scotland dead, in 1514 the elder Howard was once again granted the title of Duke of Norfolk, and the younger Thomas was made Earl of Surrey for life. In 1522 he received the position of Lord

Treasurer in England and then, in 1524 he inherited the dukedom of Norfolk from his father.75

The new duke of Norfolk also inherited his estates, with holdings worth over £4,000 per annum.

In addition to their own titles and connections to the king, the Howards had other significant connections to the monarchy. Thomas Howard’s niece was Anne Boleyn, the beautiful and well educated daughter of Lady Elizabeth Howard, and second duke of Norfolk’s granddaughter.76 With family support, she attracted the king’s eye in 1526, and they were finally married in 1533, after a long and drawn out courtship.77 From the Howard perspective, it appeared that the family had reached the pinnacle of success. The duke of Norfolk’s niece was married to a king, but it soon became clear that Anne’s glory would be short lived. In order to

74 Ibid., 18. 75 Sessions, Henry Howard, 26-27; 37-40. After success at the Battle of Flodden Field, Howard delivered the garments of the slain James IV to the ambitious Henry VIII. 76 For a discussion on the accession of Anne to the position of queen see Retha Warnike, The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 43. 77 Warnike mentions a rumor noted by Eustace Chapuys, an Imperial envoy, who had heard, incorrectly, that Anne had been married to Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey. Rise and Fall, 66. 26 protect the Howard family, the aging duke and the earl were both involved in Boleyn’s trial.78 It was the duty of the duke to pass sentence on his niece after a jury of twenty-six peers found her guilty of high treason while Surrey sat in witness.79 Anne Boleyn was executed on May 19,

1536, and Henry married Jane Seymour within ten days of Anne’s death. However, for Thomas

Howard, the maneuverings of family toward the crown could not be based on the individual position of a woman who had failed to promote the family’s cause. His primary interest was the situation of his son, Henry, earl of Surrey, who was quickly gaining a prominent place in the court in spite of the Boleyn downfall.80

Born in 1516 after his father’s success during the early reign of Henry VIII, the ambitious

Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey followed in his father’s footsteps by attempting to continue the contributions to the family’s battlefield achievements. The resourceful and creative earl was the second highest ranking peer in England, and through the efforts of his father, maneuvered his way into Henry’s favor as a blood relative and a peer. Surrey had a heightened sense of nobility, which both his boys acquired. In this respect, a major thorn to the Howard’s idea of inherited position and its relationship to the king was the rise of the new man in Henry’s court. They detested the imposition of power on men who were not from the stock of advisors traditionally

78 Before her trial, Surrey was actually arrested, sent to the tower, and interrogated on an accusation of questioning the king’s sexual capabilities. It would be the first of many trips to the Tower and the Fleet for Surrey in the last decade of his life. Sessions, Henry Howard, 112. 79 Ibid, 113. For a detailed account of the accusation s against Boleyn, see Warnike’s chapter “Sexual Heresy,” in Rise and Fall, 191-233. An account of Norfolk being the judge over his niece is in “Transcript of an Original Manuscript from George Constantyne to Thomas Lord Cromwell.” It states: And the duke of Northfolke, vncle to them both , he was, as ti was told me, in the Kynges place and Judge. It were pittie he shuld be alive if he shuld judge them against right.” Archaeologia: Or, Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity. (London: Society of Antiquaries of London, Vol 23, 1831), 66. It is an interesting note that one of the results of this enhanced awareness of history in the sixteenth century was the formation of the Elizabethan Society of Antiquaries in 1586. Members of the society, a group of elite, literate men, collected books and regularly discussed topics in dinner meetings held on Fridays in London. Howard was a member of the Society of Antiquaries, as were Sir Thomas Heneage and Sir Robert Cotton, both recipients of copies of “Dutifull Defence.” 80 During the Pilgrimage of Grace in 1536, when the duke of Norfolk was in the north dealing with the rebels, he wrote of his son, “and then in truth I love him better than all my children, and would have gladly had him here to hunt, shoot, play cards, and entertain my servants…” As cited in Sessions, Henry Howard, 127. 27 relied on by the king. For both Surrey and his sons, the role of the new men in court would affect their positions at court and the decisions they made while serving the monarch. By the 1540’s the Howards saw themselves at odds with the court as the struggle for Henry’s favor, and control of Edward, his very young son and only legal heir to the throne at the time ensued. 81 Around the same time Lord Henry was born, Surrey made his move to enforce his belief in the importance of the old peerage who were under threat from these “new erectyd men” who were “of vile birth.”82

The poet went on the offensive, turning to the field of battle in order to reestablish his position.

The move worked as the earl had a series of successes in 1543, 1544, and 1545. Then in 1546, the suffered a major defeat while in France, lost favor with the king, and in part due to his own arrogance, began a downward spiral that ended in his ultimate demise.83

As a result of his position Surrey was often a distant figure in his children’s lives as he was more often in prison or in service for the king than at his estates in Norfolk. However, while in the Fleet or on the field, Howard attended to his other passion in life, writing. In this respect, he added a facet of mind to his family that his son Henry would take full advantage of in the years to come. Surrey’s writing flourished in the 1540’s and his gift for composition was more important to Henry Howard’s life than his ability on the battlefield or his physical presence in his son’s life. Surrey, the poet, was brilliant, and he created sonnets that represented the torment and ethos of his existence, composing during his times of solitude in Norfolk, while in the Fleet, or at the Tower.84 Surry clearly used poetry as an outlet for his sense of frustration, a way to engage

81 Surrey was also witness to the death of Catherine Howard as the sole representative of the family at the execution. 82 PRO SP 1/227 ff. 97, 105-105v. Also cited in Sessions, Henry Howard, 151. Although the young Henry never really knew his father, this sense of heightened importance of the nobility was very evident in his son, and in Dutiful Defence. 83 Sessions, Henry Howard, 319. 84 Surrey introduced the Italian Renaissance style into English poetry, but more importantly, he created and introduced blank verse as it allowed him to speak in a more flexible voice, “the kind of sound our sentences would make/If only we could leave them to themselves,” and he intended it for a specific purpose- conversation with the 28 his being. As a result, he composed constantly, including the last days of his life at the Tower.85

The circumstances of Surrey’s and Henry’s life were similar as at some point they both found themselves suspected of treasonous crimes, and both of them chose to use the pen to assist their causes and prove their innocence. Nevertheless, the genres they chose to support their positions were different. Whereas Surrey chose poetry to display his deeply embedded emotions and ideas of nobility as a way to emphasize his natural authority and uphold his honor, the younger Henry used the treatise to express his opinion, advance his position and defend himself. Howard also referred to his father’s poetry to reflect upon his own feelings later in life. In the introductory letter for “Dutiful Defence” he states emphatically to the queen: “Therefore I confesse with

David in his thankfull sonett after long experience wch made his understanding ripe, and with my father in the last thing that he wrote before his end wch made his judgment cleere Bonum est misi, quod humiliasti me.”86 The son, like the father, had lived through his times of torment, arrest, and misunderstanding. The son survived to overcome the obstacles, the father did not.

Before his downfall, Surrey spared no expense in the instruction of his children. Enlisting tutors of the highest reputation, including Hadrianus Junius, a Dutch scholar and physician who came to England in 1544 to work as the Duke of Norfolk’s physician and tutor for the earl’s children. Surrey’s daughters, Jane, Catherine, and Margaret received the same education as his sons, Thomas and Henry.87 The exact content of Howard’s curriculum is unknown, however, it

style of heightened sense of nobility and emphasis on the language used at court. See Sessions, Henry Howard, 260- 287; For a discussion on Surrey’s introduction of bland verse see Robert Shaw Burns, Blank Verse: A guide to its History and Use (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 2007. Also see John Hollander, Rhyme’s Reason: A Guide to English Verse (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981) 12-13. On Surrey’s formulation of blank verse see T.S. Eliot, “What is Classic?” in On Poetry and Poets (New York: Farrar, Strause and Cuhahy, 1957), 73-74 85 For example, Surrey wrote to a former friend, who had some sway over his life or death: “But now, my Blagge, mine error well I see’ because of the ‘goodly light King David giveth me.” 86 “It is good that you have humbled me.” “Dutiful Defence, 8v. 87 Sessions notes that the proof of the daughter’s training was demonstrated by their achievements later in life. John Foxe wrote about Jane Howard, “she might well stand in competition with the most learned men of that time, for the praise of elegancy in both.” Sessions, 204. Peck, Northampton, 8. 29 can be assumed that the content was that of a classical humanist education, including philosophy, language, and religion.88 One of the only surviving texts from Howard’s childhood is an excerpt from a Latin composition written for their father while he was in France.89 As evidenced by the letter, the children understood the high position Surrey held, and in the letter Surrey’s character, no doubt inspired by Junius, is described as having filum, or a heroic manner that would have been emphasized to his children during their studies.90 Junius was well compensated for his job, receiving more pay than even Roger Ascham for tutoring the king’s son.91 However, in spite of the position with the Howards, Junius never minced his words about working and living at

Kenninghall. In a letter to a friend, Junius described his situation as intolerable when Surrey was not in the house: “When he is absent, I am once again beset with unpleasant and grim solitude… a two- headed evil is upon me on both sides.” He goes on to provide his opinion of his young students, referring to them as having “the brazen, headlong boldness of insolent youths (I refer to those darlings of fortune) [who] are turning everything upside down.”92 Indeed, boys would be boys (as records of broken chairs in the nursery indicate). But, these rambunctious children, who began their lives in one of the most affluent and well-positioned households in England, found their world (instead of the nursery) turned upside down and their good fortune was soon lost.

Surrey had enemies at court who preyed upon the earl’s military blunders in 1546, as well as his arrogance, and Henry VIII’s paranoia. The king was a nervous man in the last years of his

88 For a more detailed theory and comparison of the English, humanist curriculum with regard to Henry Howard specifically, see Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 9-30. 89 Neville Williams provides a partial translation of the letter: “No tounge can declare how joyful we all are- your children, our noble grandfather, your revered sister the duchess, your dear wife, our parent, in short all your household- at your unexpected return. The sides of his little body cannot certainly express it. All congratulate you on your return after defeating the French so often and vindicating the royal authority so well. We also applaud the King and his whole realm for having had you for a vice-roy in Boulongne…” Neville Williams. All the Queens Men. (New York: MacMillan Company, 1972), 12. 90 Ibid., 155. 91 Ibid., 6. 92 Sessions, Henry Howard, 220 n. 3. 30 reign. Prince Edward was extremely frail and surrounded by courtiers who were anxious to control the government during his minority. Henry perceived any action that threatened the succession as treacherous. Surrey desired to become the Lord Protector for Edward when he became king. However, after a major loss at St. Etienne, and Surrey’s loss of favor as a result, the major contender for control of Edward, Edward Seymour, duke of Somerset took advantage of the earl’s precarious situation and set him up for the fall. The Howards had remained true to the Church through Henry’s amputation from Rome and dissolution of Church lands, although they maintained a public stance of friend to the reformation. Somerset led the reforming faction in court and desired to completely renovate the kingdom under a reformed authority by toppling the Virgin and child both physically and spiritually.93 He therefore convinced Sir Richard

Southwell (who had been raised with Surrey) to turn on Howard and accuse him of displaying a coat of arms that showed the arms of Edward the Confessor, as well as silver labels that could have been construed as those of the Prince of Wales.94 This was seen as an indication of a claim for royal power. Both Surrey and his father were served with a bill of attainder after the duke confessed to high treason and displaying the “arms of England” on the primary quarter on his own arms.95 After a rapid, and damning trial, Surrey went to the block on January 19, 1547, ending a partially fulfilled life. An Act of attainder was passed against Norfolk and Surrey on

January 27, after the earl’s execution. However, Henry VIII died on January 28, and this solemn turn of fate saved the duke of Norfolk’s life, but not his freedom. He remained a captive in the tower for the next six years.96

93 Somerset took on a policy of iconoclasm as well. For Somerset’s role in the dissolution of the Church see Dickens, The English Reformation, 222-254. 94 Ibid., 366-67; L. L. Peck, Northampton, 7. 95 Sessions, Henry Howard, 391. 96 Head, The Ebbs and Flows, 229. 31

Henry was only seven years old, and in the coming months he would lose more than just his father. Even before Surrey’s death, Junius had left the Howard’s service and retreated to

London to look for another position, attempting to avoid being caught up in the Howard downfall.97 After the earl’s execution, Kenninghall was ransacked by the crown and a majority of the family’s personal possessions were confiscated. The Countess of Surrey, near full term with

Surrey’s fifth child was allowed a few meager garments, her horse and carriage, enough household goods to survive, but was separated from her children.98 The family’s titles were stripped and lands confiscated. At that time Surrey’s eldest son, Thomas, was sent to stay with

Sir John Williams, the treasurer of the court of Augmentations. Henry and the girls were first placed under Thomas Gawdy, and East Anglian lawyer and friend of the family before being placed under Lord Wentworth.99 After a year of separation, the court awarded guardianship to

Mary, Duchess of Richmond, and all of the children were relocated to Reigate Priory to reside with their aunt, the king’s daughter in law.100 After Henry VIII’s death, Edward VI granted the duchess an annuity of 200 pounds per annum to assist with the children’s education and in keeping with the ongoing reformation, she appointed John Foxe, the Protestant martyrologist as their tutor.101 While under the employ of the Howards Foxe most likely constructed his Tables of

Grammar (1552). Under Foxe, Howard and his sibling continued their humanist education, and were taught Foxe’s readings of the Scriptures. In addition, Foxe traveled with the children both on the Howard estates and out of town. A story is related in which Foxe took the children to the

97 Williams, All the Queen’s Men, 21. 98 Sessions, Henry Howard, 372. 99 Williams, All the Queen’s Men, 24. 100 The countess of Richmond was married to Henry VIII’s natural son, Henry Fitzroy, duke of Richmond. Richmond and Surrey were companions as young men. Henry VIII had hoped that Surrey would be a sort of role model to Richmond, and indeed the two were close until Richmond’s death in 1536. See Beverly A. Murphy, Bastard Prince: Henry VIII’s Lost Son (Thrupp, Gloucesteshire: Sutton Publishing, 2001), 120-121. DNB s.v. Henry Howard, 22; Williams, All the Queen’s Men, 24. 101 Williams, All the Queen’s Men, 27. 32 family estate in Dorset. While in Lulworth on the coast, Foxe agreed to look after a pirate chest for a day, which provided some excitement to an existence filled with fiery sermons and Latin every day. 102 Nevertheless, the Howard children would be tossed to the waves once again, for

Edward had been in ill health most of his life, and once again in 1553, Henry was at the mercy of a new monarch.

After Edward VI’s death, Mary I, who had been residing at Kenninghall since the earl of

Surrey’s death in 1547, immediately exonerated duke of Norfolk, who was released from the tower and restored to all his titles. The children were reunited with their mother and grandfather for a short time, but it was decided that the heresy that Foxe had taught them over the previous five years had to be eradicated. The queen dismissed Foxe and split the children once again.

Thomas and Henry were placed with John White, bishop of Lincoln and then Winchester.103 It was while in White’s service that Howard acquired a strong affinity for Catholicism after experiencing the extremes of Foxe’s Protestantism, and also nurtured a love for books and methodical study.104 White, a humanist and a zealous Catholic had a profound impact on Henry’s religious outlook that would affect his personal and political decisions throughout Elizabeth’s reign.105 Under White’s tutelage, by the time Howard turned sixteen he was fluent in Greek and

Latin, in addition to being well read in theology, philosophy, civil law, and history, an accomplishment he referred to in a 1583 dedication letter to Francis Walsingham:

So from the sixteenth year of my age, until this present day, (I know not whether by instinct of providence, or warning by mishaps of some that went before) my

102 Ibid. 103 Norfolk escaped execution, as Henry VIII died the night before the duke’s death sentence was to be carried out. He languished in prison until Mary I freed him after Edward VI’s death. 104 DNB s.v. Henry Howard, 29; Nott, 428; L. L. Peck, Northampton, 9. In Andersson’s discussion on Howard’s education, he compared the curriculum for other sons of the nobility at the time and suggests what Howard might have studied. He writes: “Howard’s basic education… would have been an education that attempted to make him a structured organizer of common themes, capable of considerable elaboration.” Lord Henry Howard, 20. 105 Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 22- 23. 33

manner has been in the course of all my reading, to store up all such reasons and examples as occurred either in philosophy, the civil laws, divinity or histories.106

Having established his love of knowledge, Howard would utilize it for the remainder of his life.

Howard remained with White until Mary’s death, when his circumstance once again changed dramatically.

Howard’s movements between 1558 and 1560 is still relatively unknown due to the lack of documents, but upon Queen Elizabeth’s accession a private act was passed restoring Henry and his siblings to the ranks of nobility.107 Elizabeth, like the monarchs before her, undertook

Howard’s welfare and education. The decision was made to send him to university, rather than to a private tutor, and Henry moved to King’s College at some point during the first years of

Elizabeth’s reign.108 She granted him an annual stipend to assist, and he took his degree in 1564, or 1566.109 After King’s College, and facing the financial difficulties of a younger son in Tudor

England, much less one who was left devoid of inheritance due to treason, Howard followed an unusual course for a member of the aristocracy by staying on at Cambridge. He chose to move to

Trinity Hall at some point between 1566 and 1569, and an early seventeenth-century biography of Howard commented that his achievement in securing a position at Trinity was due to his ability: “This Lord in his youth being very studious, and given to the knowledge of good letters became for his learning and eloquence in the Greek and Latin tongues the rhetoric reader in the

106 Henry Howard, A Defensative against the Poison of Supposed Prophesies (London: John Charlewood, 1583), iii. 107 1 Eliz1 n39. “An Act for the Restitution in Blood of Henry Howard, Jane Howard, and Katherine Wife to the Lord Barkley.” 108DNB, 29; Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 23. 109 The DNB gives the year as 1564. Andresson suggests it was not until 1566 that he supplicated MA. Andersson provides an extensive discussion of education at Cambridge in the 1560’s. He bases his argument concerning Howard’s education on evidence from the college and other students as there is no evidence for Howard specifically. His work on Howard during his college years is the first to be produced. Therefore, this section on Howard’s education is based on Andersson’s analysis in addition to the primary sources available. 34

University of Cambridge.”110 Teaching was a necessary course for Howard to take, since his allowance from the crown was insufficient for his support and was paid irregularly.

Howard was the only nobleman in Elizabethan England to teach at a university, and the colleges Howard associated with in the mid sixteenth century were dramatically different than they had been only two generations before. Traditionally, Oxford and Cambridge were primarily a place to train clergy. Trinity Hall was originally formed in the fourteenth century, and became known as a “nursery for civilians” in canon law. However, in 1534 the Act of Supremecy removed the teaching of canon law in the universities. Then, in 1540, the crown established

Regius professorships, and in 1547 endowed the royal colleges of Oxford and Cambridge.

Trinity College was created from the merging of King’s Hall, Michaelhouse, and Physwick

House.111 With the Reformation in full force, gentlemen chose to pursue a way to transform themselves politically, and socially, as an increase in intellectual pursuits rose as a companion of the reformed faith. They represented a new social structure that was emerging in both the

English court and society and by Elizabeth’s reign. They were the “new men,” who Howard’s father had despised. Their presence was reflected in the halls of King’s and Trinity by men who desired the social prestige that accompanied connection with a university.112 Nevertheless, in spite of the destruction of the Roman Church and the format it provided for a university education, Trinity remained religiously conservative, and deeply traditional compared to other colleges, and Howard at times had to face implications that he was guilty of both Popery and laziness.113 Indeed, Howard’s affiliation with Catholicism would be responsible for a majority of

110 B.L., Add. MSS 6298, fol. 285; Also cited in L. L. Peck, Northampton. 8. 111 Hugh Kearney, Scholars and Gentlemen: Universities and Society in Pre-Industrial Britain, 1500- 1700 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1970), 21. Also see G.M. Trevelyan, Trinity College, an Historical Sketch. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1943), 13-20; 112 Ibid., 19, 23, 26. Also see Winthrop S. Hudson, The Cambridge Connection and the Elizabethan Settlement of 1559. (Durham: Duke University Press, 1980), 46-49. 113 Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 30. B.L. Cotton Titus C vi. f. 11v. 35 his troubles through the 1570’s and 80’s after he ventured outside the walls of Trinity and back into the court. In the meantime, however, Howard quickly earned a reputation as an instructor and delivered lectures on rhetoric and civil law in Latin.114 Moreover, he increased his proficiency in Spanish, French, and Italian and knowledge of contemporary European literature.115 His dedication to Renaissance scholarship and training in rhetoric and civil law instilled in him an emphasis on authority and helped shape his writing in the coming decades, but it began at Trinity. He was a scholar and a humanist. He wrote to persuade, to profit, to argue, to flatter, and to survive while living in circumstances considered odd for a son of the nobility.116

Howard spoke of books and ideas in lively manner, describing them as “livelie Ideas of the authors minds that compilid them.”117 When he composed “Dutiful Defence twenty or so years later, he combined the totality of his learning to present the most complex work of his career.

It was while at Trinity that Howard produced one of his first extent works, a treatise on natural philosophy for his sister Catherine. In general, debate over the necessity and extent of education a woman should receive, and had the ability to understand, was frequent in the sixteenth-century. Usually, girls obtained an education in order to prepare them for marriage.

114 Nott, Works, 429. There are few primary references to Howard’s attendance at Trinity. A grace from July 7, 1569 speaks of a Henry Howard, “Julli vt dominus Henr. Hawarde posit regere et non regere ad placitum.” Grace Book ∆ Containing the R ecords of the University of Cambridge for the Years 1542- 1589. Edited by John Venn. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910), 241. Also cited in Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 30-31 n. 115 Elisabeth Leedham-Green, A Concise History of the University of Cambridge. (Cambridge University Press, 1996. In 1546, John Brandesby wrote of the changes occuring at Cambridge: “Aristotle and Plato are now read in their own language by the boys- as indeed we have done for five years on our own college. Sophocles and Euripides are more familiar that Plautus was when you were here. Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon are more on the lips and in the hands than Titus Livius was then, Now you would hear of Demosthenes what once you did of Cicero. More copies of Isocrates are in the boys’ hands than there were formerly of Terrence.” The Whole Works of Roger Ascham. Edited by J.A. Giles. 4 Vols. (1865) I p. 26. As cited in Leedham Green, 42. 116 Nott, Works, 429. Nott states concerning his course: “To this he was led partly, no doubt, by his natural love of letters; but partly it may be feared by the conviction that his abilities were his sole inheritance, and that he had no other means of rising into the consequences that what his learning and his talents might supply.” 429. 117 BL Cotton Titus C vi f. 292v. Andersson states that for Howard, a books were not an image of the world, but a “representation of the self…revelations of character… ethos.” In turn, ethos afforded the orator the opportunity to project an image of himself for his audience which would anchor their perceptions of what he had to say.” Lord Henry Howard, 62,63. 36

Most objections to providing a woman with a classical education were not based on a woman’s mental ability to learn, but rather, that an education was not necessary for her proper vocation in life. Moreover, because women were considered incapable of self-control, many writers believed that endowing a woman with knowledge would lead her into sin, as it did with Eve.118 As seen earlier, all the children in the Howard household were educated at the same level. While under

John Foxe, Jane had been the girl who excelled at Latin and Greek. In fact, her proficiency at the language was so exceptional, that Foxe declared that “she might well stand in competition with the most learned men of that time, for the praise of elegancy of both.”119 Catherine’s ability was not mentioned, but throughout his life, Henry was closer to Lady Berkley. The treatise is written in English, rather than Latin, which may be an indication of her lacking in the skills to read the language, but Howard did not seem to think her incapable of understanding the material.120

Howard constructed the work at Catherine’s request. “A Treatise on Natural Philosophy” is a textbook that not only contains an extensive outline of contemporary knowledge of natural philosophy that includes sections on matter, motion, and the “causes efficient” of nature, and astronomy, but begins with a poignant letter in which, by using examples from Plato Republic, he attempted to convince her that she had every capability to learn and apply her knowledge. In this letter, the beginnings of Howard’s use of Plato are revealed, as he pulled out the idea of gender equality in Republic. Howard writes:

Plato, [who] for his wisdom was called divine, thought Commonwealths then to be most happy when either philosophers governed them or they that governed where philosophers. And the better to encourage you sister in the commenced travail, you shall understand that even women have not been mute among such tropes of Philosophers.” He then goes on, “the

118 Merry E. Wiesner, Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 14. 119 From Life of Fox as cited in Nott, cix n. 120 Howard addressed the issue of language in the introductory letter: “What paynes have bynne taken in the discussinge of some though necessary unpleasant pointe; and making that place in our bare englishe tounge which lieth soe obscurely in the copies latin I am contented to dissemble.” “Dutifull Defence,” f. 2v. 37

Pythagorians were wont to boast that all women of the sect were perfect philosophers. Among the Grecians . . . with others have flourished . . . but especially the flower of her age . . . Cornelia, the mother of Senators called Gracchi, who by her own diligence supplying the vein of both a nurse and a schoolmistress, no less beautifies the mind then naturally fostering the body, brought them both to exquisite learning and singular authority.121

At Cambridge, Howard would have been readily exposed to Plato through his instructor,

Nicholas Carr, who was known for his commentaries on Plato’s works. However, in the discussions of Renaissance Platonism, the idea of gender equality was suppressed as Plato was invoked in works revolving around government and religion.122 In his desire to write a personal treatise for his sister, Howard approached Republic with a tone of affection for his sister and interpreted Socrates’ discussion in a personal way with regard to women.123

He wanted her to read for “the attaining of perfect knowledge” and related that he wished to “encourage you sister in this commenced travail you shall understand that even women have not been mute among such tropes of philosophers.” He went on to declare that it was God who “has inspired this earnest and intense desire of knowledge into your breast.” In the short dedication letter, Howard expressed his belief that Catherine had every capability to learn and utilize her education. If she had the ability to understand, she had the right to learn what she

121 MS Bodleian 616, fol. 8v. In his discussion of Bodleian 616 Andersson states that for Catherine, the work was an “undemanding read, easy on the eye and for the most part untaxing to the mind.” He cites a later section of the letter: “To repeat the sundrie opinions of the philosophers as touching the principle of things would be very tedious…especially manie of them being brought in by waie of confutation, as Plato in sundrie places under the name of Socrates taketh pretie occasion to strike at Anaxagoras and other obscure philosophers , wherefore I will only alleadge the authoritie of Plato and Aristotle whose cleere knowledge hath discovered the smokie mist of wasted ignoraunce…” f. 11r-v. 122 See Seares Jayne, Plato in Renaissance England (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwar Academic Publishers, 1995), 83-114. Jayne provides an excellent recounting the exposure to, and use of Plato in England, and of scholars who used “allusions” to Plato in the sixteenth century. When Henry VIII founded Trinity Hall, he appointed Nicholas Carr, Regius professor of Greek to then new college. Once there, Carr instituted lectures on Plato. 90, 111. Jayne notes that most Elizabethan’s learned about Plato from religious works, like John Calvin’s Institutio Chirstianae religionis (1536). Plato also appeared in books of homilies and sermons printed by the church. 104, 108. Also see Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 43-45. Howard’s interpretation of Plato expanded in “Dutifull Defence,” and will be discussed further in chapter four. 123 Plato’s gender equality is controversial, and modern historians disagree on whether Plato supported, or in the end suppressed women. Howard’s use of Plato is far more simplified in the sixteenth century with regard to women, focusing on the quality of essence, and the soul, which Plato addresses throughout the text. See Diana Coole, Women in Political Theory (Brighton, Sussex: Wheatsheaf Books Ltd, 1988), and Steven Forde, “Gender and Justice in Plato. The American Political Science Review (Vol. 91, No. 3, September, 1997): 657-670. 38 wanted. Howard’s willingness to present his sister with information traditionally reserved for men, reveals his assumption that she was able to comprehend the subjects. This is the first glimpse Howard presented to his opinions about women, and when writing “Dutifull Defence,” some fifteen to twenty years later, he returned to the Platonic source, once again using it in reference to a woman’s ability to rule.

Howard remained at Trinity until at least 1569. However, in spite of his success as a reader at the college, Trinity Hall was not where Howard found the degree of reputation and acclaim he sought. His strong belief in the rights and privileges of nobility prevented him from being content solely as a scholar. Howard’s desire was to be at court serving the queen, and he felt that being forced to make his living as an instructor left him clearly below the position he was due by birth. He declared this view in a letter to Elizabeth: “I vow to almighty God that I would gladly shorten and abridge my wretched days, without offence to God, than live beneath the compass of my birth.”124 While at Trinity Hall, Howard became friends with Michael Hicks, one of Lord Burghley’s secretaries and through him kept apprised of court news and gossip, and helped Howard acquire a few of the material things he desired while in Cambridge.125 In particular, he inquired of Hickes as to purchasing a lute so he could learn to play, and he had an interest in the newest clothing by asking “to have a gown made in the latest fashion, with short hanging sleeves.”126 Thoroughly determined to claim his rightful place at court, Howard left

Cambridge in 1570. He did so upon the premise that he would benefit from his main court connection, his brother Thomas, fourth duke of Norfolk, who was the premier nobleman in

England at the time, and deeply involved in court politics. Unfortunately, Howard could not have

124 BL, Cotton MSS, Titus C VI, fol. 3v. 125 Lansdowne MS 109, f. 52; Nott, Works, 429; Peck, Northampton, 8; Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 16, n. 26. 126 Lansdowne MS 109, f. 114, 116 as cited in Alan H. Nelson, Monstrous Adversary: The Life of Edward De Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2003), 55. 39 been more wrong. His arrival at court angered Elizabeth, who withdrew his stipend and soon forbade him from appearing at court altogether due to ongoing intrigue, which he quickly found himself caught up in, and from which he learned an abrupt lesson about the world of politics and personal persuasion. Howard may have felt ready to enter the world of politics and patronage, but there was still one major obstacle for him to overcome, his tendency toward Catholicism.

Under White’s tutelage, Howard had been exposed to conservative Catholic teachings and was aware his family’s public leaning toward the reformed faith after Henry VIII’s separation from the Church for political reasons. Residency at Cambridge may have increased

Howard’s knowledge of Aristotle, Plato and Cicero; nevertheless, ancient wisdom did not protect him from political reality. Trinity Hall was no refuge from the splintered world around him, and

Howard was soon reacquainted with part of his family’s troubled past. The college had been under suspicion for Catholic leanings, and there Howard first found himself accused of recusancy. In 1568, Howard wrote the first of many letters in his own defense, pleading with

Burghley that he not be suspected of Catholic leanings.127 Howard did not believe his religious affiliation would affect his duty and loyalty to Elizabeth. Nevertheless, despite his protestations and espousal of loyalty to the English queen and her regime, accusations of heterodoxy followed him for the next twenty years.

When Mary Stuart, queen of Scots arrived in England in May 1568, she had fostered new hopes for English Catholics, for in her they saw the opportunity for tolerance and a Catholic succession if Elizabeth had no children. Therefore, Mary’s supporters felt it was important for her to have a suitable English husband, and Howard’s elder brother, Thomas, duke of Norfolk was the obvious candidate. He was of suitable rank, being the sole duke in England, and came

127 BL, Cotton MSS, Titus C VI, fol. 7r; DNB s.v. Henry Howard, 29; Nott, Works, 428; Peck, Northampton, 8.

40 from an unblemished lineage according to those who supported the match. In addition, Norfolk was the richest subject in the realm, a widower, and most importantly, a devout Catholic, and he was exceptionally conscious that his position at court did not match his rank.128 In order to appease his discontent and resentment of the new favorites who enjoyed Elizabeth’s confidence,

Norfolk wound his way into conspiracy. Between 1568 and 1571, the illustrious duke was directly involved in three intrigues involving Mary and several Catholic gentlemen in the English court, including the earls of Arundel, Shrewsbury, Northumberland, and Westmorland.

Originally, Norfolk planned on marrying the Scottish queen so her position in England could be stabilized, but the plan soon escalated into more treacherous actions, specifically, the Northern

Rebellion and the Ridolfi plot. Both schemes would have wed the duke to Mary and secured her claim as heir to the English throne. However, both plots also mandated either Elizabeth’s abdication or assassination. In the end, both arrangements failed; Norfolk was arrested for treason and condemned. Determined to help, Howard wrote to Burghley, pleading for his brother’s life, but to no avail.129 Norfolk was executed in 1572, and Howard was arrested for possible involvement with his brother’s treachery. Howard was placed in the archbishop of

York’s custody and detained at Lambeth palace. While there, Howard described his incarceration as one of “great discomfort” and expressed that he “would rather have an open imprisonment in the Fleet than the close keeping in the archbishop’s palace.”130 He petitioned for his release, but was denied and remained in custody for several months.

128 MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 114. Also see Francis Edwards, The Marvellous Chance: Thomas Howard, Fourth Duke of Norfolk and the Ridolfi Plot, 1570-1572. ( London: Rupert Hart- Davis, 1968). Edwards does not include Henry Howard in his discussion of the Ridolfi plot. His only mentioning of Howard is Appendix 5 where he discusses the duke’s attempt to escape with the help of the earl of Oxford. Edward’s opinion of Howard is evident as he is certain of Howard’s duplicity in religion. He writes: In a more enlightened age, he [Howard] would have been openly agnostic or even atheist.” 402. Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 55-58. 129 BL, Cotton MSS, Caligula C III, fols. 97r-98r. 130 CSPD, 1:441; PRO, SP 12/86/25. 41

Howard was eventually cleared of any complicity in Norfolk’s treason, and his actual involvement with either the Northern Rebellion or the Ridolfi plot is doubtful.131 When

Norfolk’s private secretary, Laurence Banister, made his confession about the affair, he stated that Howard had been considered an appropriate suitor for Mary if his brother was unable to marry her: “[Norfolk] did first break with me of the matter of the queen of Scots; and told me how he was earnestly moved thereunto by divers of his friends, and that he had no great Liking so to do, but rather wished to have his brother Henry marry her.”132 Banister went on to say, however, that Norfolk’s friends who were in favor of the marriage would not accept Lord Henry as an alternative candidate, “for they said, his Grace was well known unto them, and they were assured of him what to find, but so they were not of the Lord Henry his brother.”133 Howard may not have known about his brother’s intentions to use him as a possible substitute groom, but he must have been aware of the general marriage scheme, since many meetings had been held at

Howard House, where he was residing at the time. Howard’s name did not appear in any of the other documents related to the conspiracies, including the accounts of Norfolk’s interrogations and confession.134

Nonetheless, individuals at court were convinced that Howard was involved in treachery.

As late as 1595 Lady Bacon still believed him guilty of involvement in the Ridolfi plot when she wrote to her son: “He [Howard] is . . . no doubt a papist inwardly, and lieth in wait; the duke had been alive but by his practicing and still soliciting him, to the duke’s ruin and the persons of that

131 Although cleared of any conspiracy charges, Burghely had considered Howard to be “dangerous,” and included him in a list of persons of interest because of their influence. MS Cotton Caligula C.ii. ff. 82-83r. Referred to in Stephen Alford, Burghley: William Cecil at the Court of Elizabeth I. (New Haven : Yale University Press, 2008).,165. Andersson, 58. 132 A Collection of State Papers Relating to the Affairs in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth from the Year 1571-1596. Vol. 2, Part 1 (London: William Bowyer, 1759), 134. 133 Ibid. 134 V.J.K Brook, A Life of Archbishop Parker (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), 296. 42 stamp; [he is] a very instrument of the Spanish papists.”135 In 1572, however, Elizabeth stood as

Howard’s ally, clearing him of guilt, offering him a yearly pension, and allowing him to appear at court. In the dedication letter of “Dutifull Defence,” Howard spoke of the queen’s generosity:

“[T]hough I was but lately crept or rather swept out of the ruins of my house, your Majesty most graciously admitted me to the kissing of your sacred hand, you regarded me with pity and relieved me with favor.”136 Howard was free, but he did not escape continued suspicion.137 For the next thirty years he had to avoid the Queen’s wrath while continuously being harassed for his supposed intrigues against her.

After Norfolk’s execution Howard retreated to Audley End, which was most likely his primary residence through the reminder of the decade.138 There he continued with his studies, helped with the care of his brother’s children and fostered friendships that he felt might benefit him in his pursuit of patronage at court. In doing so Howard was not, as he is often accused of, necessarily sycophantic or duplicitous in his behavior. He, like most of the men in the court around him, was attempting to build his base of friendship and power where he saw it to be politically advantageous.139 The network of patronage in the Tudor court was complex and often based on the whim of the queen. Howard needed connections in order to gain access to, and remain within the bounds of the court.140 Attendance and participation at court was essential for anyone with political ambition, wanting personal favors, or simply the desire to gain an employment position or a lease in the countryside.141 The matter was of such importance to men,

135 Thomas Birch, Memoirs of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, 1:2 (London: 1754), 227. 136 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 6r. 137 See CSPD, 1547-1580, 441. 138 Nott, Works, 433; Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 100. 139 See Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 82. Peck, “Court Patronage and Government Policy: the Jacobean Dilemma.” In Patronage in the Renaissance. Edited by Guy Fitch Lytle and Stephen Orgel. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981), 27. 140 J.E. Neale, Essays in Elizabethan History (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1958), 62. 141 Loades, The Tudor Court, 133. 43 that the issue found outlets in more than just court gossip. Writers recognized the competition for the monarch’s attention and Edmund Spenser described the angst felt by men who strove for the prize. He writes of the contest:

So pitiful a thing is Suters State! Most miserable Man, whom wicked Fate Hath brought to Court, to sue for had-ywist, That few have found, and many one hath mist Full little knowest thou that hast not tride, What Hell it is, in suing long to bide: To lose good Days that might be better spent, To waste long Nights in pensive Discontent. To speed to-day, to be put back to-morrow; To feed on Hope, to pine with Fear and Sorrow; To have thy Prince's Grace, yet want her Peers; To have thy Asking, yet wait many Years; To fret thy Soul with Crosses and with Cares; To eat thy Heart through comfortless Despairs; To fawn, to crouch, to wait, to ride, to ronne, To spend, to give, to want, to be undonne.142

The description of the supplicant in the poem could very well be applied to Howard’s situation with the queen and the court. It is unknown if Howard was reading Spenser yet, but he fully understood the measure of finding allies who surrounded, and were favored by Elizabeth in order to achieve his own goals.

Howard took advantage of his family connections and hierarchal position in choosing his friends, especially after his brother’s downfall, in order to gain access to the queen. His closest allies at court were a part of a small Catholic group that included Thomas Radcliffe, third earl of

Sussex. In his early career, Sussex served as Lord Deputy in Ireland, and was admitted to the

142 The Complete Works of Edmund Spenser. Edited by R. Morris (London: Macmillan and Co., 1897), 521. Although not published until 1590, Prosoporia: or Mother Hubberd’s Tale was composed around 1580. The work also made fun of Burghely’s desire to have Elizabeth marry the Duke d’Alençon. Margaret Heinemann, Puritanism and Theatre: Thomas Middleton and Opposition Drama Under the early Stuarts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 57. 44

Privy Council in 1571 and then became Lord Chamberlain in 1572.143 Sussex was a staunch supporter of the Howard family, a personal friend of Henry’s, and was considered the natural head of the Catholic courtiers. He was the patriarch of a group who would find themselves immersed in controversy through the 1570’s and 80’s. His relationship with Howard is still a subject for further research, but the two men were close until Sussex’s death in 1583, and as will be seen, when referring to a privy councilor and “the love which I professed to himself,” in the introductory letter of “Dutifull Defence,” he was most likely referring to Sussex.144 The nucleus of the Catholic courtiers also included Charles Arundell (Howard’s cousin and an emissary for

Mary Stuart) and Lord Paget. Due to their religious affiliation, the Catholic gentlemen felt ostracized from the political center. By the mid 1570s the men had formed an unstable and dangerous alliance, focusing on grievances against the state in general, and more specifically, objecting to the power that Robert Dudley, the earl of Leicester, had amassed, and the possibility that Elizabeth might marry him.145 The intrigue surrounding the court factions in the late 70’s and 80’s played a major role in Howard’s motivation for writing “Dutiful Defence,” and the length of time it took him to complete the work. In the meantime, however, the middle of the decade saw the relationships between all of these men still forming and waiting to be played out as Henry maneuvered his way around the political world.

It was during this period that Howard entered the world of political writing, and composed one of his only works to be published, A Defense of the Ecclesiastical Regiment in

Englande.146 The work was most likely requested by Burghley as a response to the religious

143 Michael Barraclough Pulman, The Elizabethan Council in the Fifteen- Seventies (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971), 25-26. 144 “Dutifull Defence.” Fol. 2r. 145 Leicester and the issue of marriage will be discussed in chapters four and five. 146 A Defense of the Ecclesiastical Regiment in Englande Defaced by T.C. in his Replie Agaynst D. Whitgifte. Seene and allowed according to the order appointed in the Queenes Maiesties iniunctions (London:, 1574). 45 fanaticism that was emerging in the kingdom, and that Burghley felt was a threat when the extreme Protestants did not see change coming quickly enough, and that the Elizabethan

Settlement had maintained the vestments of the Church. Lectures delivered by Thomas

Cartwright against the English church in 1570, and then the appearance in 1572 of An

Admonition to Parliament by John Field and Thomas Wilcox, showed how great the distance was between the Protestant Church of England, and the more radical groups of reformers who had so eagerly returned after their Marion exile.147 In response to the threats to the church and the works by Cartwright, Field, and Wilcox, Howard decided to underscore the “intellectual incapacity” of the fanatics and the danger they posed to the state. It also reveals Howard’s attempt to reply to political events through the use of rhetoric.148 A Defense was produced quickly, less than a year, and he addressed a specific problem for an audience to correct a perspective through the use of humanist, argumentative techniques and dialectic reasoning to prove a point. He writes: “Many other texts of scripture to like effect might be alleaged, if decision of this question rather stoode upon heapes of places, than force of arguments, or were sooner ended by multitude of allegations than certantie of matter.”149 It was Howard’s goal to argue against his opponents through the use of a stronger argument- logic and evidence, rather than and an unconvincing diatribe of exegesis. In writing A Defense, Howard entered the ring of political writing. He would return to the defense, and use of law three years later to defend the queen.

It was not long after Howard published A Defence, that he soon discovered that once again, those who Elizabeth favored could create strife for someone who had been under

147 Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 84. B.L Cotton Titus C vi. ff. 19r-22v contains Howard’s letter to Burghley about the problem of religious controversy in 1573. About a year later, his defense appeared. 148Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 84,94. Andersson provides a brief analysis of Defense focusing on his use of rhetoric. 149 Howard, A Defense. 149. Also cited in Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 90. 46 suspicion already. Early in the decade Howard fostered his friendship with Edward De Vere, seventeenth earl of Oxford who was his cousin and a favorite of the queen. The young earl was energetic, temperamental, and volatile, but Howard was considered to be “intimate friends” with

Oxford, as was Charles Arundel, who was also a cousin to both men.150 Although there are few accounts of their time together, the extant manuscripts tell of intricate involvement in religion and attempted conspiracy between them.151 In 1571, Oxford married Anne Cecil, Lord

Burghley’s daughter. Howard’s involvement with Oxford and the Cecil family at the time revolved around Oxford’s escapades in Italy and his eventual return to Elizabeth’s court.152

Howard is mentioned as having been in company with Oxford numerous times, and being sent to

Dover by the queen to meet Oxford when he returned to England in 1576.153 Oxford’s erratic actions lost him favor with the queen, but with regard to Howard, it was the emergence of evidence five years later that Oxford, Howard, and Arundel had formally embraced Catholicism, been reconciled to the Church, and were embroiled in pro-Catholic conspiracies.154 Known as the

Oxford Libels, in an erratic attempt to regain the queen’s favor, Oxford accused Howard and

Arundel of being restored to the Catholic Church in 1576 or 1577.155 In 1581 the French ambassador, Mauvissiere, related the account that Howard, Arundel, and Oxford had celebrated mass and met with a Jesuit priest. He writes: “About four and half years ago on his return from

Italy [, Oxford] made profession of the Catholic faith together with some of his relatives among the nobility and his best friends, and had sworn, as he says, and signed with them a declaration

150 Alford, Burghley: William Cecil at the Court of Elizabeth I (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008). 207, 221. Andersson, Henry Howard,102. 151 Nelson, All the Queen’s Men, 54. 152 Nelson, All the Queeen’s Men, 142, 143; B.M Ward, The Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, 1550-1604 (London:JohnMurray, 1928), 206-207. 153 Nelson, All the Queen’s Men, 137, 142. 154 Ibid., 166. Oxford disobeyed Elizabeth, fled to the continent, denied patrimony of his wife’s child and then turned on Howard and Arundel to restore his position with the queen. 155 Ward, Oxford, 206 47 that they would do all they could for the advancement of the Catholic religion…”156 He also writes of Oxford’s turnabout to the queen and betrayal of the two men and of his being asked

(Mauvissiere) to confirm that he “knew of a Jesuit who had celebrated the Mass about four years ago at which they [Howard and Arundel] were reconciled to the Roman Church.”157 Although made public in 1580, Howard’s profession of the Catholic faith remained a secret in 1576 and he continued to work in order to gain Elizabeth’s favor through Oxford, and other friends at court.

The Oxford libels provide some insight into Howard’s continued movements after his brother’s death, and possibly into his being asked to write “Dutiful Defence” in 1577. The central point to all of the controversy surrounding Elizabeth in the 1570’s, the erratic actions of her courtiers, and the possible instigation for an additional defense of her position, was the problem of her marriage158 Unlike the marriage of a king, Elizabeth’s spouse would have greater influence over, and be a potential danger to the English state, and it was an issue from the beginning of her reign.159 The debate over her marriage amplified in the 1560’s after a bout with smallpox left the Council wanting for a solution to the problem of there being no heir. In 1563 they tried to pass a bill that would invest interim sovereignty to the Privy Council until

Parliament chose a successor in case of Elizabeth’s death without issue, but it was rejected.160

For the next ten years factions aligned with either the pro-English position led by Leicester, or the pro-Europe or Scotland position, led by Sussex and Cecil, worked to pull Elizabeth to their

156 Letter from Msuvissiere to the King of France, January 11, 1581. As translated in Ward, 207, 208. Also cited in Nelson, All the Queen’s Men, 166, 167; Andersson, Henry Howard, 109. The extent of Howard’s relationship to Mauvissiere and the subsequent French ambassador, Castleneau will be discussed in chapter three. 157 Nelson notes that during their interrogations in 1581, Howard and Arundel dated the mass early in order to avoid prosecution under a Privy Council Act in 1573 that made attending masses in private illegal. Oxford, 67 citing TRP, No. 599. 158 MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 82; Ilona Bell, “Elizabeth and the Politics of Elizabethan Courtship.” In Elizabeth I: Always her own Free Woman. Edited by Carole Levin, Jo Eldridge Carney and Debra Barrett-Graves. (Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing, 2003), 179. 159 Elizabeth was first petitioned to marry in 1559. The marriage appeared on several agendas in Parliament, including when Parliament met in 1563 after Elizabeth nearly died of smallpox. See Susan Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony: The Courtships of Elizabeth I (London: Routledge, 1996), 1. 160 MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 83. 48 position and candidate.161 Elizabeth, however, showed no signs of truly wanting to marry, and said so to a Spanish diplomat who she trusted at the time, Guzman de Silva:

“If I could appoint such a successor to the crown as would please me and the country, I would not marry, as it is a thing for which I have no inclination. My subjects, however, press me so that I cannot help myself or take the other course which is a very difficult one. There is strong idea in the world that a woman cannot live unless she is married or at all events if she refrains from marriage she does so for some bad reason.”162

Cecil also saw the importance of the issue: “To require both marriage and stablishing of succession is the uttermost that can be desired.”163

Over the next few years the topic became a war of pamphlets and speeches, moves by

Parliament and rebuttals by Elizabeth as to the issue of marriage. She was sent petitions by

Parliament urging her to marry in 1559, 1563, 1566, and 1576.164 The speaker of the 1563 session inferred that if Elizabeth did not produce an heir, she might risk the loss of her people’s loyalty: “[If] her Majestie will not settle the sucession, [she] will coole the hearte of love in any, how fervent it be.”165 The Archbishop of Canterbury, the bishop of London, and several other pastors feared that her failure to marry was a sign of God’s anger toward England as they feared

“that this continued sterility in your Highness’ person to be a token of God’s displeasure toward us.” In 1565, the Recorder of Coventry admonished her to have children: “Like as you are a

161 See Conyers Read, “French Marriage Projects, 1571-72” in his book Lord Burghley and Queen Elizabeth (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1960). 162 MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 93. He does not provide a citation for this letter, but it will be found- most likely in the CSPS or in her personal letters and papers. The citation will be changed. 163 Memorandum from Burghley SP 12/40/91. 164 During the 1563 session, Sir Nicholas Bacon wrote to Elizabeth: “If your Highness could conceive or imagine the comfort, surety and delight that should happen to yourself by beholding an imp of your own.” J. E. Neale, Elizabeth I and her Parliaments, 1559-1581 (London: Johanthan Cape, 1953), 112. Also cited in Helen Hackett, “The Rhetoric of (in)Fertility: Shifting responses to Elizabeth I’s childlessness.” In Rhetoric, Women and Politics in Early Modern England. Edited by Jennifer Richards and Alison Thorne (London: Routeledge, 2007), 154. 165 PRO SP Dom.Eliz. 46/166, as cited in Proceedings in the Parliaments of Elizabeth I. Vol. I, 1558-1581. Edited by T.E. Harley (Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier Inc., 1981). 49 mother to your kingdom…so you may, by God’s goodness and justice, be a natural mother…”166

Elizabeth needed to marry and have children to properly fulfill her natural role.

To this point, in all of the admonitions for her to marry, the primary force of the issue had to do with her gender. When a male monarch married, it was rarely for personal choice, but it did not have an effect on the position of the king. However, Elizabeth’s choice of a husband could also mean choosing a new ruler.167 It was assumed that a male would, by default of the traditional, submissive position of his wife, hold the reins of power. Under English common law, as wife was legally subsumed to her husband and women held no proprietary rights. Everything a woman owned became the property of her spouse.168 Although there were exceptions to his law in both practical and theoretical forms, society believed that women were to cede to their husband’s decisions and that a husband should control a wife’s property.169 This clearly posed a problem if Elizabeth chose a foreign spouse who could potentially subvert England’s position as an independent state. Additionally, for Elizabeth to rule on her own, with no male authority to guide her through marriage was a challenge to society. It was believed that a woman who held authority over men, and took on male roles would lose her femininity and her ability to bear children as masculine characteristics emerged.170 Elizabeth needed a man in order to maintain her proper role in society, and avoid being a subversive example to the women in her kingdom.

166 Also cited in Susan Doran, “Why Did Elizabeth Not Marry?” in Dissing Elizabeth: Negative Representations of Gloriana. Edited by Julia M. Walker (Durham: Duke University Press, 1998), 31; Also cited in Hackett, “The Rhetoric of (in)Fertility,”152. 167 MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 97. Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony, 19. 168 Margaret R. Sommerville, Sex and Subjection: Attitudes to Women in Early Modern Society. (London: Arnold, 1995), 97-98. Sommerville notes that women were not sui iuris, but were considered sub potestate viri. Legally, the term was feme covert. 169 Sommerville, Sex and Subjection, 105; Doran, “Why did Elizabeth not Marry?” 33. 170 Sommerville, Sex and Subjection, 120-121; Doran, “Why did Elizabeth not Marry, 32; Also see Lawrence Stone, The Family, Sex and Marriage in England, 1500-1800. (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1979), 136-142; MacCaffrey writes: “…the boldness and persistence of Councillors and Parliamentarians alike is not surprising. They were reacting in traditional way, by petition and counsel to a novel problem. They felt justified in stubborn persistence because what was at stake was not only the fate of the dynasty but the essential interests of the whole society.” 97. 50

The impact of Elizabeth’s attitude toward marriage and potential mates can be seen in the events of the next few years as active plots to dethrone her and instill her rival, Mary Queen of

Scots, who had been married and had a legal heir. The Norfolk Marriage plot, the Northern

Rebellion, and the Ridolfi plot all revolved around the issue of marriage, succession and proper rule. As problems with continental allies festered in early 1570’s, the issue of Elizabeth’s marriage continued to be a subversive undertone of any negotiations. In turn Elizabeth rejected

Philip of Spain, Erik of Sweden, Archduke Ferdinand and Archduke Charles. She had flirted with Francis, Duke of Anjou, but had made no commitments to negotiations, and she continued to vacillate and outright ignore the issue into the middle of the decade.171 Elizabeth may have avoided matrimony so she could have the opportunity to assert her role as an independent ruler, and overcoming the obstacle of gender.172 Nevertheless, by 1577 there was no potential partner in sight, Council and country was still left without an heir, and they believed the answer still lay in the queen finding a spouse.

The issues of Elizabeth’s possible marriage partners helped foster the advancement of the

Catholic faction, and the possibility of an alternative heir. When Mauvissere referred such advancement, he was referring to Mary Queen of Scots and her claim to the English throne.

And, in this regard, it was around the same time as his reconciliation to the Church that Howard was once again under suspicion for intriguing against Elizabeth and, therefore, attracted the attention of Sir Francis Walshingham, Elizabeth’s Secretary of State, and ardent Protestant who was involved in rooting out the Catholic conspiracies in and around the court. According to

Walsingham’s network of spies, Henry Howard had maintained correspondence with Mary

171 Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony, 21. 172 Doran, “Why did Elizabeth not Marry?” 35. Doran cites the emphasis on representation of the Virgin Queen, and someone married to her country as an example of this motive. See Louis A. Montrose, “Shaping Fantasies’: Figuration of Gender and Power in Elizabethan Culture.” In Representing the English Renaissance. Edited by Stephen Greenblatt (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988). 51

Stuart during and after his brother’s death. In late 1574 one Henry Cockyn was arrested for carrying letters from the Scottish queen. He was brought before Burghley for questioning in

1575. During his interrogation, Cockyn not only confessed to having worked with the earl of

Shrewsbury in assisting Mary’s cause, but admitted to carrying letters between the queen of

Scots and Howard. Howard’s nephew Philip, future earl of Arundel, was also implicated, “He

[Cockyn] hath much conference with D. Astlow D Good Mr. Morgan and the Lord Harry.”173

Howard was questioned by Lord Hunsdon on the matter, although no evidence was found to convict him, he was detained once again.174 Howard appealed to Walsingham on points of consciousness, “Trewe it is that resting not well satisfied in point abowt the Sacrament I rather chose in some sorte communicat wth daunger of the Lawe than altither to neglect that pipe whereby so great a strength maie be derived to me faith and so quite a discharge of a loden conscience.”175 It seems that Walshingham desired to thoroughly indict Howard, but perhaps because of Burghley’s influence, he was instead released.176 Howard once again retreated o

Audley End, and actually experienced a time of relative peace, in which he attended to his writing and personal activities. Although he was prohibited from appearing at court, he was able to keep up with gossip and personal intrigues.177 Dependent on a small income given to him by his sister, Howard also continued his attempts to seek patronage and restore his reputation by writing numerous epistles, letters, and treatises to Burghley and other members of court.

It was during this time he composed his next work, “Regina fortunate” (1576).

Composed in Latin, “Regina” is a concise work of praise and council for the queen, but also a

173 PRO, SP, 53/10/78. SP, Mary Queen of Scots, 10/12. Cited in Conyers Read, Mr. Secretary Walsingham and the Policy of Queen Elizabeth, 2: 3 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1925), 349. Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 96. 174 BL, Cotton MSS, Caligula C IV, fol. 209; CSP Scottish, 1574-81,134; PRO, SP 12/103/53. See Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 98,99 for an additional account. 175 PRO, SP 12/147/6. Also cited in Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 110. 176 Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 96,97. 177 PRO, SP 12/103/53. 52 reflection of pathos in regard to his relationship with her and his continued distance from the court.178 Howard was on the periphery, writing letters instead of participating in conversations.

During this time, his correspondence with Burghley is frequent, pleading, and lamenting the paucity of his position, banished to Audley End where he attended to his nephews.179 However,

Burghley did see Howard, and use his services occasionally, and by 1576 Howard once again seemed to be on good terms with the queen’s minister.180 In June 1576, and again in January

1577, Howard dined with the Lord Treasurer at his residence.181

It was also in 1577 that Howard was asked to write a treatise in response to a “scurrilous tract” by John Knox’s, The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of

Woemen.182 The work was written in the mid 1550’s against the Catholic, and female, tyranny that Knox saw in both Scotland and England. However, the work was not published until 1558, after the Protestant Elizabeth was already on the throne. By 1577, several authors had already written, and published works against Knox, including John Alymer’s An Harborowe For

Faithfull and Trewe Subjectes (1559), John Jewell’s The Defence of the Apology of the Church of

England (1562), and John Leslie’s A Defence of the Quene of Scotland (1569).183 For Howard to

178 “Regina Fortunata” BL Egerton MS 944. The manuscript is compact, clean with gilt-edged paper and bound as a single book. Howard’s own italic hand is present in the dedication letter, and represents Howard’s first use of scribal publication for presentation, a format he returned to with “Dutiful Defence.”; Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 110- 111. 179Lansdowne MS 18, f. 11. 180 Burghley apparently used Howard to assist him at times. Burghley writes: “I sent for my son th Cecil who was more than hundred miles from London to come in post and mete him at Dover within ii hours after my Lord Howard and others, and thither carried my commandument.” HMC, Hatfiled House: II, 131-132. 181 Conyers Read, "Lord Burghley's Household Accounts," Economic History Review, n. s. Vol.9, no. 2, (1956): 347, 348. Read cites from Cecil Papers, Vol.226. 182 John Knox, The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstruous Regiment of Women (Genevea: n.p. 1558; reprint, New York: De Capo Press,1972). 183 John Alymer. An harborovve for faithfull and trevve subiectes agaynst the late blowne blaste, concerninge the gouernme[n]t of vvemen. wherin be confuted all such reasons as a straunger of late made in that behalfe, with a breife exhortation to obedience (London: John Day, 1559); John Jewell, An apologie, or aunswer in defence of the Church of England concerninge the state of religion vsed in the same. Newly set forth in Latin, and nowe translated into Englishe (London: Reginald Wolf, 1562); John Leslie, A Defence of the Honour of the Right Highe, Mighty and Noble Princesse Marie Quene of Scotlande and Dowager of France (London: Eusebius Diczophile, 1569). 53 write a treatise in 1577 seems a bit tardy, but for some reason, to whoever asked him to compose a defense of women’s rule seemed advantageous. Perhaps it was Elizabeth’s continued strife between her and her counselors with regard to marriage and the insecure alliance England faced as a result. It is possible to make several assertions about what might have been grumbled in the

Council and the court about Elizabeth’s vacillation having to do with her gender. However, there is no documentary evidence to the possibility that has yet been surfaced, so the exact reasons for the request remain unknown. Perhaps, after a time of concession and contemplation at Audley

End, it was an appropriate time for Howard to seek reconciliation with Elizabeth. Perhaps a councilor thought the situation at court serious enough to warrant another entry in defense of

Elizabeth’s rule. The only extent evidence available is provided by Howard in the introductory letter to “Dutifull Defence.” He writes that, “an honorable privy councilor with an earnest charge upon the duty which I ought unto your Highness before all the world, and the love which I professed to himself for special respect to shape some present answer to the same.”184 It is accepted that Lord Burghley asked Howard to write “Dutifull Defence.” However, it is also possible that Sussex, and not Burghley, asked him to compose the work. Howard and Sussex were extremely close and both were a part of the Catholic courtiers who shared common thought.

Sussex and Howard were cousins, and Sussex had also been close to his brother the duke of

Norfolk. Cecil was aware of the relationship between Sussex and the Howard brothers and writes about it: “My lord of Norfolk loveth my lord Sussex earnestly and so all that stock of the

Howards seem to join in friendship together.”185 Howard refers to the petitioner as someone who he loves, a description not necessarily applicable to Burghley, with whom Howard had a more torrid relationship. Sussex was a Privy Councilor in 1577 and was also involved in the

184 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 2r. 185 Lansdown C ii. fol. 121. As cited in MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 92. 54 machinations surrounding Essex, Howard, and Arundel in 1576, 1577. As noted earlier he was the leader of the Catholic faction at court. He is someone Howard trusted. Importantly, Sussex had been an active participant in Elizabeth’s marriage negotiations, and was familiar with the protestations of the Council in public and in private.186 Further on in the introduction letter,

Howard notes that after he started writing “Dutifull Defence,” “his pilot perished.”187 Sussex died of natural causes in 1583. The relationship between the two men was close enough that it was noted in the state papers that Howard was not present at his funeral, and there were questions as to why.188 In the previous years, it is evident that Howard was still in contact with and involved with Mary Queen of Scots. Perhaps the treaty began as a work composed for a different queen. These questions remain to be answered, but Howard was asked to write, and he accepted the commission.189 Nevertheless, it was not long after he began organizing his thoughts on paper that Howard found himself in trouble again and his freedom from suspicion of conspiracy against Elizabeth did not last long. Howard’s troubles soon returned, and instead of a time of rest, repose, and time to write another quick defense with a chance to advance his cause, the years between 1577 and 1590 were a time of poverty, persecution, and accusations due to his

Catholicism, his dealings with the Spanish, and his correspondence with Mary Queen of Scots.

186 Sussex headed the embassy to Vienna for negotiations with Archduke Ferdinand. 187 “Dutifull Defence.” 3v. 188 CSPD October, 1583. “Interogatories to be administered to some person was to where he was at the burial of the Earl of Sussex; of his connexion with on Mosse, communications with the French Ambassador about the Queen of Scots, conference with Fr. Throckmorton, Charles Arundel, Lord Paget, or others.” 127. Although not mentioned by name, it is most likely Howard the entry refers to. 189 Additional research beyond the scope of this work will be required to answer, if possible, the questions about motives for authorship, and who asked him to write. At this point, the evidence is circumstantial, but at least partially convincing. 55

CHAPTER THREE

THE ELIZABETHAN COURT IN THE 1560’S AND 1570’S

When Henry Howard sought to vie for a position at court in the 1570’s, he attempted to do so at the beginning of the most contentious period in Elizabeth’s reign with regard to personal politics. The machinations of the Norfolk Marriage plot, and the Ridolfi plot, were only a precursor to a time of heightened tension and violence in the court, and intrigue on the periphery.

Men who were determined to sway Elizabeth to their position and beliefs took sides and created exclusive groups at court who used their kinsmen, their friends, their servants, and the general public to influence Elizabeth’s political policy and personal decisions.190 The parameters of court society and politics changed during the Tudor era, and by the 1570’s, were reflected in the particular issues facing Elizabeth’s regime. As a part of one of the groups who maintained a vested interest in who Elizabeth married, Howard continued to play a part in activities that kept him on the edge of conspiracy and under the watchful eye of Elizabeth’s Councilors. But, this position also continued to give him opportunity to write, and a reason to pursue his rightful place at court.

The structure of the Tudor court was drastically altered both politically and physically from the courts surrounding medieval kings. Henry VII focused the center of political gravity on the royal court as the power of the magnate families declined, distancing himself from his

190 The workings of court factions, its definition, and application are discussed in a series of related works and responses on the subject. See David Loades, The Tudor Court (New Jersey: Barnes and Noble Books, 1987); David Starkey et. al, The English Court from the War of the Roses to the Civil War (New York: Longman Group,1987); David Starkey, “From Feud to Faction,” History Today 32 (November, 1982): 16-22; Simon Adams, “Faction, Clientage, and Party: English Politics, 1550-1603.” History Today 32 (December, 1982): 33-39; and Robert Shephard, “Court Factions in Early Modern England.” The Journal of Modern History. Vol. 64, No. 4 (December, 1992): 721-745. All three authors follow the earlier works of J.H. Neale, “Essays in Elizabethan History.” (see above) and Wallace T. MacCaffrey, “Place and Patronage in Elizabethan Politics,” in Elizabethan Government and Society: Essays Presented to Sir John Neale. Edited by S.T. Bindoff, Joel Hurstfield, and C.H. Williams (London: 1961), 95-126. 56 courtiers through changes made to the geography of the environment in which he lived.191 The appearance of the Privy Chamber allowed the monarch to discuss matters with only a few people who attended him directly, and spared him the influence of all but his most trusted councilors.192

Henry VIII was more open than his father in respect to his affiliations with the court outside the chamber, but with the accession of Edward VI, the monarchy was once again distanced from the greater court as his regents sought to control access to the king.193 After Edward’s death, the court changed considerably, and the makeup of the Privy Chamber was altered physically and politically once again as the new dimensions of religion and gender were introduced in the form of a queen. Where kings surrounded themselves by their political councilors in the Privy

Chamber, Mary and Elizabeth were surrounded by women in the Chamber, who wielded no true political power on their own.194 As both queens had already run households of their own prior to ascending the throne, they brought their intimate friends and trusted servants with them, rather than retaining those of the previous monarch.195 In addition to her confidants, Elizabeth instilled the wives and daughters of her councilors and ministers in order to keep a connection between the Chamber and the Council, hence the desire for men to gain access to the ladies of the

Chamber. 196 Henry Howard was known to be friendly with the ladies. Bernandino de Mendoza, the Spanish Ambassador to England from 1578- 1584, commented on Howard’s relationships with the women at court in a letter to Philip II: “[Howard] is friendly with the ladies of the privy

191 David Loades describes the late medieval court as a “highly amorphous entity” that faced “the constant struggle to impose order, definition, and above all economy upon an organism which was always threatening to get out of control.” During the fifteenth century, and especially the reign of Henry VII, the physical layout of royal households changed. More private lodgings appeared, with apartments separated in sequence by increased specialization, hence the appearance of the Privy Chamber . 38; Starkey, “From Feud to Faction,” 17. 192 See Loades, Tudor Court, 44-59 for the evolving structure of the Privy Chamber; Starkey, The English Court, 71- 118. 193 Ibid., 89. 194 Simon Adams, Leicester and the Court: Essays on Elizabethan Politics (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002), 36; Loades, Tudor Court, 55. Starkey, The English Court, 5. 195 Adams, Leicester and the Court, 36; Loades, Tudor Court, 57. In respect to Mary and Elizabeth, the religion of the ladies also played a part in who was chosen to attend the queen. 196 Loades, Tudor Court, 58. 57 chamber who tell him exactly what passes indoors.”197 The Chamber may have been closed off to men, but information flowed freely to the men on the council and in the court.

Corresponding to the changes in the structure of the Court was the composition of the men who surrounded the monarch. The Howards were the last of the great noble families to survive into the sixteenth century. As mentioned before, Henry Howard, earl of Surrey despised the men who had risen from the gentry class to the council of the king. By the time of Norfolk’s death in 1572, England was governed by men from the gentry class, a point emphasized by the execution of the only duke in the kingdom.198 Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester aligned himself with the Protestant men in court, and rose quickly in the queen’s household because of his personal relationship with Elizabeth. As a result, he was resented by the more conservative,

Catholic nobility, and men like Sir William Cecil, who rose to prominence by their ability as administrators rather than through intimacy with the queen.199 In fact, Howard and those who supported his family blamed Leicester for Norfolk’s death. Leicester had informed Elizabeth of the duke’s scheme to marry the queen of Scots, and lured him into getting involved in the Ridolfi plot.200 The Howard’s felt personal enmity for Leicester for this, and the fact that he and many men of the reformed faith, including more radical Puritans, were attaining positions of power at court.201 In addition to counseling the monarch, reformed courtiers identified their purpose in government as the advancement of the Reformation in the kingdom, attesting that they were the true subjects of the queen.202

197 CSPS, 246. As will be seen, there were numerous times in which Howard extracted information from the ladies in the Privy Chamber and then used the information to advance the cause of those he was aligned with at court. 198 Adams, Leicester and the Court, 35. 199 Peck, Leicester’s Commonwealth, 1; Adams, Leicester and the Court, 17. 200 Ibid.,15. Peck believes that the duke of Norfolk my not have acted so foolishly if Sussex had been present to guide him at the time. During these years, Sussex was serving as Lord President in the north. Also see Francis Edwards, Marvellous Chance. Pollen, The English Catholics,160-184. 201 Adams, Leicester and the Court, 15. 202 Pollen, The English Catholics, 162. 58

As such, Leicester and his followers were a threat to Elizabeth’s Catholic councilors, like

Sussex and the remainder of the Howard family, who held more conservative views and were tied to the old nobility.203 According to the reformed politicians, the Elizabethan Settlement of

1559 had not gone far enough in dismantling the Church hierarchy and disposing of the symbols of ecclesiastical power, including vestments. Negative sentiment toward the settlement in the pulpit was reflected in the court and Parliament as reformed and Puritan representatives openly attacked Elizabeth’s religious policy.204 One Robert Snagge spoke out against the Church

Settlement in the House of Commons in 1572. He was within his right to protest, but he was also the earl of Leicester’s steward at the time, an example of what differences of opinion were doing to the atmosphere of the court as it appeared that it was splitting into two religiously based groups, both of whom were convinced that their position represented the true faith and the best interest of the queen. In order to promote a reformed agenda, attempts at legislation against

Catholics and recusancy were abundant in the Parliaments of the early 1570’s.205 The revolt of the Catholic northern earls in 1569 in response to the changes being forced upon them,

Elizabeth’s subsequent excommunication by Pope Pius V when he issued Regnans in Excelsis in

April, 1570, and the Catholic dominated Ridolfi Plot attempting to overthrow her rule in 1571, all added to movements against the Catholics.206 Although only involved peripherally in any of these events, they affected Henry Howard’s opinions and choices when attempting to enter the world of court politics. By the time he arrived, the division of men’s ideologies was set and would play out around him for the next decade.

203 For a discussion on the reformed and Puritan movement in court and Parliament in the 1570’s and 80’s see Robert Ashton, Reformation and Revolution, 1558-1660 (London: Granada Publishing, 1984); Peck, 15. 204 The term Puritan was reserved for the more radical facets of reformed belief. 205Ashton, Reformation and Revolution, 168. Ashton notes that active legislation occurred in the Parliaments of 1571, 1572, 1584-5, and 1586. Measures included attacks on pluralism, non-residency, the archiepiscopal Court of Faculties, the enforcement of attendance at communion, for reform of ecclesiastical law, against the Court of High Commission, and the ex officio oath. 206 For the papal bull against Elizabeth, see Pollen, The English Catholics, 142-160. 59

The idea of the court faction is central to the positions taken by Henry Howard, Sussex,

Leicester, and any other gentleman who wished to remain close to those involved with the queen.

There is debate over whether the groups involved in court politics during the 1570’s and 80’s were true factions by definition, but there is no doubt that personal loyalty to an individual swayed men to take a stand for the specific ideological and religious positions they supported.207

Men who were able to directly influence the queen held a very powerful position and those who wanted a share of that power gravitated toward them. In this respect, it is accepted that Sussex and Leicester were the most influential men representing each side. Both were Privy Councilors, and both enjoyed the queen’s favor. They had already disagreed over the Hapsburg marriage issue, so it is not unreasonable to understand their widening separation later in the decade.208

Competition between men led to the alliances, rivalries, and bitter debates as each moved within the Privy Chamber. Friends and followers who were unable to directly access the monarch sought the help of Sussex, Leicester, and Burghley to act as intermediaries for them.209 Howard was a personal friend of Sussex and relied on Burghley, or his servants such as Michael Hickes, for information and attempts at admission to the court during his time of his censure. The sheer number of letters he wrote during the 1570’s to Burghley testifies to the importance he placed on position and access.210

Access the monarch had traditionally depended on personal ties to long standing councilors and relatives. This changed as the strength of the nobility deteriorated in favor of men

207 See Shephard, “Factions in Early Modern England.” He defines a faction as “a political group whose members are bound to a leader by a variety of personal, informal ties and which vies for power with other, similar groups.” 722; Also see Natalie Mears, “Courtiers, and Culture in Tudor England.” The Historical Journal. Vol. 46, No. 3 (September,,2003): 703-722. Mears provides a historiography of the debate over the idea of factionalism in the Tudor court. 208Peck, 15. 209 Shephard, “Factions,” 723. Shephard differentiates between “friends,” “followers,” and “servants.” Howard is considered a friend of Sussex and possibly a follower of Burghley. Followers tended to have less power than friends or servants, and Howard’s frustration with his position in relation to Burghley is often evident in his letters. 210 B.L Cotton Titus C vi, contains the bulk of Howard’s personal letters to Burghley during the 1570’s and 80’s. 60 like Burghley and Leicester who had not used the traditional line of patronage to access the queen. Rather than maintaining loyalty to family or tradition, courtiers gravitated to the new men who were gaining influence. Leicester’s friends and followers represent this kind of organization.

He maintained the group of ideologically committed reformers who were not necessarily related by blood, but religious orientation, and who had formed under his father and continued to support Leicester into Elizabeth’s reign. Howard on the other hand still felt affiliated with kinsmen. The group he aligned with, centered around Sussex, and had ties of kinship, friendship, and religion. They had emerged from the loss of Norfolk scandals tolerably unscathed, but still felt a sense of “outness” due to their Catholic and familial ties.211 As stated earlier, Sussex,

Howard, Arundel, Southwell, and Oxford were all related by blood or marriage and had all been reconciled to the Catholic Church in 1575 or 1576. They remained strongly tied through the remainder of the 1570’s, but would be torn apart when Elizabeth’s opinion on marriage once again vacillated throughout the next decade. Howard spoke of this loss of kinship ties in his later years. In relating the changes he had seen in a lifetime, and the shift in influences at court, he notes that it “was very seldom in this age for the ties of kinship and friendship to concur in one man.”212 However, in the meantime, while the ties of the family and religion seemed strong, they would prove dangerous and unstable as the Catholic alliance moved forward with the debate over a husband for the queen.

An additional and important group of men who were involved in the politics of the

1570’s and 80’s acted as a layer of diplomatic influence with the queen, the Council, and factional leaders. The numerous foreign ambassadors and their households who were in residence in England were representatives of their monarchs, and diplomats who negotiated with

211 John Bossy, “English Catholics and the French Marriage, 1577-1581.” Recusant History. Vol. 5 (1959): 2. 212 HLRO Abergavenny Peerage MS, 16 June 1610. As cited in Peck, Northampton and Shephard, “Factions,” 743. 61

Elizabeth concerning the contentious situation on the continent and its relationship to her potential choice of a marriage partner.213 The three prominent foreigners who were directly involved with Elizabeth’s marriage were also involved to varying degree with the court

Catholics, and Henry Howard. The French Ambassador, Michel de Castelnau, Seigneur de

Mauvissére had been at the English court since 1575. As a rule, he had tended to stay out of

English religious affairs, but actively sought company with the Sussex group as they were in favor of a French match.214 Jean de Simier served as a French emissary from 1579 to 1581, specifically for the purpose of negotiating the terms of, and writing a document for, any potential marriage treaty with the French. He had the least contact with the English Catholics, but as the official representative for the marriage he had numerous meetings with Elizabeth and her councilors through the years in which it was thought a marriage might actually occur.215

Bernardino de Mendoza was the Spanish Ambassador to England from 1578 to 1584 and was intricately involved in the politics of marriage, and consequent supposed conspiracies against

Elizabeth in the early 1580’s.216

Simier successfully stayed out of the jumble of rumor driven accusations and chaotic political alignments that surrounded the match he was charged to secure. However, Mauvissére directly involved himself by using the court Catholics in an attempt to achieve his own ends.217 It was in this capacity that he came into contact with Henry Howard, and used Howard’s and other’s movements and observations to keep Henry II informed of what was going on in the

213 Thomas M. McCoog, “The English Jesuit Mission and the French Match, 1579-1581.” The Catholic Historical Review. Vol. 87, No. 2 (April, 2001): 191, 194. 214 McCoog, 191. 215 Andersson, Northampton,114; Doran, Monarch and Matrimony, 154; Read, Burghley, 212. 216 Read, Burghley,189. 217 McCoog, “The Jesuit Mission,”191, Read, Burghley, 149. Burghley did not think that Mauvissére would be helpful in the debate over the French match: “I am sorry to find Mauvissiére so near hitherward, for surely he can bring no vessel to carry or hold any honesty...” PRO SP xii. 105-124. Bossy, “English Catholics,” 3. Michael C. Questier, Catholicism and Community in Early Modern England: Politics, Aristocratic Patronage and Religion, c. 1550-1640 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 154. 62

English court. Mendoza, as will be seen, became directly involved with Henry Howard toward the end of the Anjou marriage talks, but would find his connections with Howard to be quite beneficial as a source of information when he was refused access to the court.218 Regardless of nationality or loyalties, all of them played a role in creating intrigue at the court. The influences of the new men in Elizabeth’s council, the growing factions, and foreign diplomats, were brought together between 1579 and 1581 in the dynamic and animated attempt to contract a marriage between Hercule François duke of Alençon and Anjou (Francis), youngest son of Henry II of

France and Catherine de’Medici, and Elizabeth.219 Understanding the events before and during the marriage negotiations with Francis reveals the reasons why many people were still having difficulties accepting her role as a monarch, and were also important components in why Henry

Howard was prompted to respond in writing to defend Elizabeth’s right to rule,

The combination of politics, diplomacy, and religion fueled Elizabeth’s movements throughout her courting of Anjou. However, there were two issues that Elizabeth had to contend with that directly influenced attitudes and opinions from both the court and the public. The ideas behind her needing to marry at all, and the fact that from the beginning of her reign her long time relationship with Leicester had created an atmosphere of scandal around his actions as a married man with an unmarried queen, dominated debate in court and in the pubic.220 Ideas about women and marriage in the sixteenth century were centralized between Biblical tenets about the institution and physiological beliefs about women being biologically and emotionally inferior to

218 Howard’s relationship with Mendoza will be discussed in the next chapter. 219 Alençon received the title of Duc d’Anjou in 1576. His brother, Henry III held the title until his accession to the French throne in 1574. For the purpose of the discussion of marriage negotiations with Elizabeth he will be referred to as Alençon for the time between 1572 and 1578, and then Anjou for the second set of negotiations between 1579 and 1581, which are the main focus of this chapter. 220 Peck, Leicester’s Commonwealth, 1. 63 men.221 The fact that Elizabeth was a queen only compounded the issues as her position put her in a precarious state with regard to what a proper wife should be and how this applied to the political world of a queen regnant. In short, the opinion of the council and the country was unanimous, the queen had to marry. Society assumed that marriage was the proper state for a female in the eyes of God. The Catholic Church allowed celibacy on the premise that the individual who chose chastity was fulfilling the highest ideal for a Christian life, but Protestant belief rejected this idea. For them, marriage was necessary to prevent fornication and sin, as the apostle Paul had taught.222 However, within both Catholic and Protestant hermeneutic, women were especially prone to temptation and emotional problems, therefore, needed to be married to keep their temperament subdued and in submission. Within the context of Elizabeth’s life, these beliefs were expressed by many of her councilors. Burghley conveyed the opinion that marriage would protect Elizabeth from physical illness and a poor emotional state:

“It may be good reasons maintained that by forebearing from marriage her Majesty’s own person shall be subject to such dolours and infirmities as all physicians do usually impute to womankind for lack of marriage, and specially to such women as have their bodies apt to conceive and procreate children. And to this end were to be remembered of her Majesty’s pains in her cheek and face to come only of lack of the use of marriage.”223

Moreover, unmarried women tended to face hostility as their position threatened the traditional roles apportioned to women, and Elizabeth faced the intensification of this idea toward her own person the longer she waited to marry and have children.224

As a single woman, Elizabeth always faced an uphill battle with her councilors, her court, and many of her people to prove herself a legitimate monarch who was capable of ruling a

221 Ian Maclean, The Renaissance Notion of Women (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 43-6, 57-8, 68; Sommerville, Sex and Subjection, 29. 222 See, Judith Richards, "to Promote a Woman ,” 101-21. 223 Cited in Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony, 197, Read, Burghley, 211. 224 Levin, “Gender, Monarchy, and the Power of Words,” in Dissing Elizabeth: Negative Representations of Gloriana. Edited by Julia M. Walker (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press), 85. 64 kingdom because of events that occurred during her early years, and some that originated from before her birth. She was haunted by her mother’s reputation as a whore and a witch in her dealings with Henry VIII.225 She was surrounded by the stigma of her mother’s execution and subsequent disinheritance as an heir to the throne.226 Some still saw Elizabeth as an illegitimate bastard, and as such did not have a legal claim to rule England. On top of the accusations of her mother’s whoredom and infidelity, Elizabeth faced the same allegations about her own actions throughout her life.227 Leicester and Elizabeth had been friends since her childhood, and his presence in court was resented by those who objected to his rapid rise to power, mainly the old nobility.228 His reputation was tarnished by his relationship with Elizabeth, and the supposed sexual excursions between them. In 1560, his wife Amy had died after falling down a flight of stairs. It was commonly believed that Leicester had either pushed her, or had her pushed, in order to clear his way to marry Elizabeth.229 Rumors prevailed for most of her reign that Elizabeth and

Leicester had several children together, as many as five by 1581. It was declared that Elizabeth

“never goeth in progress but to be delivered” with Leicester’s children.230 In fact, in 1587, a man who went by the name of Arthur Dudley was arrested in Spain after claiming that he was

Elizabeth and Leicester’s son who was born at Hampton Court and then sent to Spain.231 For

Cecil and other men on the council early in her reign, it was of the upmost importance that she marry, have an heir, and put to rest the scandalous rumors that surrounded her succession. As the

225 Ibid, 87. 226 Levin, “Gender, Monarchy”, 87; MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 4-5. 227 See Levin, “Gender, Monarcy,”88-89. 228 MacCaffrey, Elizabeth, 7; Peck, Leicester’s Commonwealth, 1-2. 229 Levin, “Gender, Monarchy,” 86. MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, I7; Peck, Leicester’s Commonwealth, 1-2. 230 PRO SP 12/148/34. Edmond Lodge, Illustrations of British history, biography, and manners, in the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary, Elizabeth, and James I (London, 1791), 1:514; Peck, Leicester’s Commonwealth,1; Levin, “Gender, Monarchy,” 89. 231 Letter dated 28 May, 1588 from Madrid, BL Harleian MS 295, f. 190v. Cited in Peck, 53 n. 1. 65 years went by, and Elizabeth still did not take a husband, mistrust and suspicion of why she had not married continued to dominate the political scene.232

Bastard children or not, the division between Sussex, Leicester, the court Catholics, and the reformed movement first flared in the 1560’s during the marriage negotiations between

Elizabeth and Emperor Ferdinand of Austria.233 During the Haspburg negotiations, lines were drawn between supporters of the marriage and those who objected. Norfolk, Sussex, and Cecil stood in favor of the match against Leicester and his growing number of supporters. Early on in the deliberations, Norfolk was one of only a few who supported the match, but Sussex soon returned from Ireland to act as Elizabeth’s embassy to Austria to negotiate a marriage treaty.234

In 1559, the faith of a particular suitor was less important the possible political influence of a foreigner. However, as the 1550’s moved into the 1560’s, religion became more of a concern for a possible foreign match and more men voiced their opinion, creating division in the court.235 At times, rhetoric came close to violence as both Leicester and Sussex carried weapons to court.

Leicester had “great bandes of men with swords and buckles” at his disposal to protect himself against the Sussex and Howard.236 Additionally, both groups wore bands of different colors to show support for their position.237 Henry Howard was still in residence at Cambridge during the

232 See Susan Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony; The Courtships of Elizabeth I (London: Routledge, 1996), 195-209 for a discussion on the underlying debates about Elizabeth’s need to marry and consequences if she did not. 233 Susan Doran, “Religion and Politics at the Court of Elizabeth I: The Hapsburg Marriage Negotiations of 1559- 1567. The English Historical Review. Vol. 104, No.413 (October, 1989): 908. 234 Ibid,. 235 Part of the problem regarding religion in the Hapsburg negotiations was attempting to explain to Austria what England’s actual beliefs were. Two letters stand out with regard to the confusion . The Spanish ambassador, in commenting on Sussex, writes: “although he was a native-born Englishmen [sic], and knew as well as others what was passing in the country, he was at a loss to state what was the religion that really was observed here.” CSPS, 1558-1567, 236-7. Also cited in Doran, 918. Sussex was advised to clarify England’s confession as “in dede no quyet Catholick may neede to forebeare to resorte to our churches and common prayers, for that ther is nothing red or spoken other in praiers, or in ministration of the sacramente but only they very words of the scripture.” BL Cotton Vitellius C xi. Ff 240-2. Also cited in Doran, 918. 236 PRO SP 12:36, f. 152, CSPS, 1558-1567, 445-446. 237 Supporters of Sussex and Howard wore yellow, while supporters of Leicester wore purple. CSPS, 1558-157-67, 511. 66 first contentious debates about matrimony, but he most likely was apprised of the situation, and the same divisions were present in 1579 when Howard was involved, and writing in support of the queen’s suitor. Elizabeth had her reasons for rejecting earlier suitors, but during the middle of her reign the climate changed as the political situation on the continent became more volatile, and Elizabeth was approaching an age that would make it difficult for her to conceive or successfully bear a child. Her age was of concern to her councilors, and once again, Burghley came forward with a defense of the queen when the issue of her age was raised in marriage negotiations: “So for anything that can be gathered from argument, all other things, saving the number of years, do manifestly prove her Majesty to be very apt for procreation of children when they are past the years her Majesty hath.”238

Hanging over all of the personal relationships at court was the continuing strain of the situation between England, France, and Spain on the continent. England feared subjugation of the Low Countries by either France or Spain as a threat to English trade by cutting off markets and imposing a moratorium on necessary imports. Also involved was the concern that someone would attempt to marry the queen of Scots, helping her move toward the English throne. Finally,

Burghley feared the murdering of Englishmen by the Spanish through the Inquisition.239 The council agreed that a marriage with the French would assist in the diplomatic maneuvers of the

Spanish to claim suzerainty over Protestant territory in the Low Countries and directly threaten

France. To this end Elizabeth attempted to align England with France against the Spanish in

1569, when she entered into marriage talks with Alençon’s older brother Henry, Duke of Anjou, heir to the French throne. The negotiations ultimately failed in January, 1572, after the duke changed his position on religion and turned to support the ultra-conservative Catholics who were

238 Read, Burghley, 210. 239 Ibid., 185. 67 determined to destroy peace made between Charles IX and the leader of the Huguenots in the

Low Countries, Henry of Navarre, in 1570.240 The concern with the match with Henry was primarily political, although religion did play a part in the discussions once he chose to support the ultra-Catholics instead of his Huguenot allies.241 In spite of the duke withdrawing his proposal for marriage, Charles IX and Catherine de Medici still wanted an alliance with England against Spain to prevent Spanish aggression and protect French troops in the Netherlands through English financial contributions.242 They were aware of England’s wavering position on

Elizabeth needing to take a spouse, but they valued the benefits that could be gained by an alliance with England. Therefore, they offered up Francis, their youngest son, as an alternative candidate to Anjou.243

The relationship between England and the continent was severely strained during the

1570’s due to the ongoing conflict for control of the Low Countries, and the rights of the Spanish and French crowns in the primarily Protestant territory. England had a vested interest in peace between them, or at least trying to contain one or the other’s power.244 As the situation in the

Netherlands vacillated through the decade, it appeared that they would not be able to hold out against Spain or French aggression. The Low Countries desperately needed financial assistance and a loss there would leave England vulnerable to invasion. An alliance with Alençon was acceptable to both the English and French as he was not likely to inherit the throne and was supported by the Huguenots who had fled his brother’s service. Additionally, his personal piety

240 Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony, 131, Read, Burghley, 173. Also see A.M.F. Robinson, “Queen Elizabeth and the Valois Princes.” The English Historical Review. Vol 2, No. 5 (January, 1887), pp. 40-77. Robinson provides a straight forward narrative of the events surrounding the marriage negotiations and the events from a continental perspective. 241 See MacCaffrey, Queen Elizabeth, 224- 228. 242 The alliance between France and England against Spain was solidified in the Treaty of Blois in 1572. The French sought a dynastic union with England in order to strengthen the alliance. 243 Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony, 130. Robinson, 62. 244 Read, Burghley, 206 68 was less extreme than Henry’s, which made him more favorable to the reformed members of

Elizabeth’s council.245 In May 1572, Parliament reminded her once again of the problem of succession and that the queen needed an heir, preferably in the form of a child.246 A French embassy arrived in London in June, led by the duke of Montmorency and Paul de Foix.

Elizabeth’s first concerns were the rebuff from Henry and the fact that Alençon was some twenty years younger than her.247 However, as important as their difference in age was their difference in confession. Religion quickly became the central focus of the negotiations as Elizabeth and her counselors questioned Montmorency and de Foix over what the prince would require to satisfy his conscience. Of most concern was whether Alençon would desire to hear the Mass. Even though Alençon was more adaptable than his brother on the issue of the Mass, he was less willing to yield than Elizabeth and her councilors would consider acceptable. He agreed to make a concession on the issue of public worship, but he still insisted on hearing the Mass for reasons of conscience.248 After hearing that the duke wanted to retain the Mass in private, she consulted her council, and their decision reveals the beginnings of the divisiveness emerging from the negotiations. Many of the Protestant councilors were absent from council on the day the proposals were discussed, and as a result the council decided that the duke’s demands were acceptable. When the council met again on June 25 with the Protestant members present, there was open disagreement. Nevertheless, Elizabeth was not convinced and continued to delay on a decision. She asked for a month to think about the conditions presented. 249 Interestingly,

245 Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony,132. 246 By this time, Elizabeth knew that the only way to solve the succession issue, was to deal with Mary Queen of Scots- who was by this time imprisoned. Elizabeth was under pressure to execute Mary, or at least exclude her from the throne, by having a child of her own. 247 The French representative, Montmorency remarked, “usa plusieurs parolles pour monstrer qu’elle se ressentoit des empeschemens qui avoient esté mis au mariage.” bDoran transcribes the French comments on the embassy from Fonds Français 3253 pp. 371-410. 248 Read includes a detailed discussion and transcripts of the marriage negotiations in Burghley, 208-209. 249 Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony, 135 69

Leicester supported the match in 1572 as it would facilitate England assisting the Protestant

William of Orange, who was fighting against the Spanish in the Netherlands. As the discussions dragged on, and events on the continent were unresolved, Leicester’s opinion on the suitability of the match altered. In July 1572, Elizabeth suggested that a personal meeting be arranged between her and Alençon.250 His personal servant was sent to England with letters from the duke, and reports on both sides of the channel were positive about a meeting and finalization of a marriage treaty. However, on August 24, Huguenot leaders in Paris were murdered on the orders of Charles IX and over the next three days Huguenots throughout the city were slaughtered.251

Protestants in England were shocked at the actions of the French Catholics, and the council was alarmed. Even though Alençon was in no way responsible for the actions of the French king or the massacre in Paris, they still saw him as guilty regardless as he was a part of the French,

Catholic family who supported the persecution.252 Nevertheless, after initial demonstrations against the violence in France, both Elizabeth and Charles IX kept the negotiations open for marriage as both England and France needed the alliance for political purposes, but religion became more centralized as the object of concern for the Elizabeth and the council.253

The years between 1572 and 1579 were filled with the continued interplay between

France and England, Elizabeth and Alençon, as well as the council and the queen. Both England and France maintained a provisional, and positive, position on the idea of marriage, while watching how the affairs in the Netherlands played out. Throughout 1573 the French continued to aggressively pursue the Huguenots, but then made peace with them if it suited their desire to

250Elizabeth faced the reality that a union with Alençon might be her last chance to marry. 251 Robinson, 60. 252 Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony,138. 253 Charles IX want to ensure that Elizabeth did not give Huguenots refuge in England or assist them in their cause on the continent. Elizabeth wanted to keep France out of Spain’s grip or see them send troops to Scotland where the pro-Marian Catholics were gaining ground. Ibid. Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 115. 70 gain power in the Low Countries.254 For England, moving into open war with France would be dangerously expensive, and the English council was not in agreement on the value of a conflict.

Fortunately, the decision was made by the French to once again make peace with the Huguenots in 1576. The English then pursued of a policy of pressure without intervention, using the possibility of marriage as a tool to push for peace in France and security in England. Outside the court, the people of England were more reluctant to accept a French consort for the queen.

However, the events in France elicited “general feare and mislyking” as “the nombre of such ar zealous to the Queen’s Majesty for the favor of religion.”255 Alençon had additional problems on the continent as the accession of his brother to the Polish throne in 1573, the siege of La

Rochelle, and then his own imprisonment in France due to suspicion of treasonous activities to prevent Anjou’s accession to the French throne.256 Charles IX died in 1574, and Henry III’s close affiliation with the conservative Catholics pushed the Huguenots to seek assistance abroad and push for the formation of Protestant league. The new French king decided that re-opening the marriage negotiations with Elizabeth was the best way to quell the possibility of continued war by neutralizing the Protestants and removing Alençon to England where he would be less of a problem.257 Nevertheless, Alençon was restless and after receiving the title of duke of Anjou from his brother. He turned to support his brother Henry in 1577 as another war broke out in

France, but as he also considered going to the Netherlands to assist Henry of Navarre and the rebels against Spain, a point that concerned the English as they did not want to see the

254 In 1573, Alençon was the leader of a siege of La Rochelle, a Huguenot controlled city. Robinson, 66. 255 Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony, 141. She cites PRO SP 70/128 ff 117-120. 256 Ibid, 142. 257 MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 201. 71

Netherlands fall to the French either. The council insisted that Anjou had to be stopped, but also wanted to avoid confrontation with Spain.258

Therefore, in 1578, the earl of Sussex took it upon himself to contact Mauvissière and re- open marriage negations with the duke in order to draw him away from the Netherlands.259 In fact, it was Sussex during this phase, and not Burghley, who pushed for a marital entente to quell the duke’s pursuits, and the French saw Sussex as the men who could help them secure a marriage with the queen.260 With lines of communication open Anjou once again sent envoys to

England late in the year to pursue a marriage treaty. However, as the affair moved into 1579,

Leicester and the Protestant councilors, who were at one time favorable to the match for political reasons if nothing else, were now solidly against any alliance with Anjou.261 Unable to openly disagree with the queen on the issue, they quietly contemplated their position as Elizabeth turned to favoring the marriage for both political and personal reasons. By the time Simier arrived in

England in 1579, it appeared to all involved that a marriage might actually take place. Facing complete Spanish victory in the Low Countries, and the elimination of the Huguenots, an Anglo-

French, dynastic alliance still seemed the best way to force both the French and the Spanish to make peace and guarantee freedom of worship.262 But, divisions emerged between the queen and her councilors that would become central to the negotiations, and moved out into the countryside as her subjects began to openly object to the duke, his religion, and the association of marriage between them.

258 See MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 188-197 for a discussion on England’s relationship with the Low Countries from 1576. 259Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony,146. MacCaffrey, Elizabeth, 198. 260 “Notre guide et conducteur en cest affaire.” PRO SP 31/3/27 f. 246. Also cited in Doran, Monarchy and Marriage, 147. 261 Peck, Leicester’s Commonwealth, 19. 262 MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 198. 72

Returning to the ways in which religion swayed politics, by the second round of negotiations with Anjou in 1579, the earl of Leicester’s clientage at court had increased considerably, but of more importance was that he and English reformists who were opposed to the marriage were adopting a type of extreme ethos that supported political positions that advanced the Protestant, and now Puritan, cause.263 The first expressions of discontent had been seen in Parliamentary actions regarding the Religious settlement. Puritans objected to the queen’s marriage, and they protested Elizabeth’s potential union with a Catholic. There was also the concern about a possible alliance with a foreign power and the potential threat it might pose to English sovereignty.264 In 1578, however, religion amplified the political situation and there is no doubt that the issue of Elizabeth’s possible marriage to Anjou elicited intense responses from both the Council, and the men who supported the members of the Council- primarily Leicester,

Sussex, and Burghley.265

The re-opening of negotiations inflamed the opinions of all members of the council and sides were quickly taken with regard to Anjou. Sussex quickly emerged as the leader of the pro- marriage party with Burghley on his side, as they saw the match as the best way to quell Spain’s power.266 Leicester and Walsingham represented the opposition to the marriage and disagreed with Sussex on the outcome of an entente. The council agreed on the need for an anti-Spanish policy, but Leicester, Walsingham, and other reformed members were very wary of Anjou’s

Catholicism.267 In line with the context of factionalism, men congregated on both sides of the

263 Puritan was seen as a term of extremity. 264 MacCaffrey, Queen Elizabeth, 248- 249. 265 Adams, 11; Michael Questier, Catholicism and Community in Early Modern England: Politics, Aristocratic Patronage and Religion, c. 1550-1640. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006): 153. 266 Peck, Leicester’s Commonwealth, 17. 267 Ibid. 73 line supporting either Sussex or Leicester.268 As will be seen, in order to increase support for the marriage and sway the council, Mauvissière looked to the restlessness of the Catholics, and actively courted Oxford, Arundell, and Howard since they were close to Sussex. The duke of

Norfolk’s son, Philip, still titled earl of Surrey at the time, also joined the supporters of the match, as well as Stafford, who used his mother’s position as a lady in the Privy Chamber in order to influence the queen.269 Elizabeth, who seemed intent to make the marriage work even went so far as considering the admission of four more leading Catholics to the council to push the marriage negotiations through.270

Convinced that she wanted the marriage to succeed, Elizabeth instructed all of her councilors to convince Simier and Mauvissière that the entire council favored the match with

Anjou. Even Leicester had to nominally agree, but he subversively worked against the match. He and other unwavering Protestants believed Anjou would assist the English Catholics, yet in the moment they were forced to comply with the marriage in order to maintain favor with

Elizabeth.271 Simier and Mauvissiére were pleased with the queen’s enthusiasm, and for the next three months, the Council debated the details of the matrimonial treaty. Included in discussions were the individual clauses regarding religious expression, and the implications of a marriage to

Anjou for both domestic and international policy. They negotiated Anjou’s request to freely express his faith with the Mass, the possibility of his coronation, how he and Elizabeth would share authority over patronage, and the issue of the duke’s pension.272 Moreover, underlying the

268 Opposing the match were Leicester’s brother the earl of Warick, his father in law, Sir Francis Knollys, Warick’s father in law, the earl of Bedford, Sir Christopher Hatton, and Sir Thomas Smith. 269 Peck, 18. Read, Burghley, 206. 270 Questier, Politics, Aristocratic Patronage and Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 2006), 154. He notes that the four Catholic men put up for consideration included First Viscount Montague, a relative by marriage to Sussex; Sir William Cordell, a Marian privy councilor and friend of Montague’s and Edmund Campion, one of the Jesuit priests in England at the time. 271 Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony, 156. 272 Ibid., 158. 74 meetings was still the issue of the queen’s age, and Anjou’s youth. When the possibility of a match with the French was first envisioned in 1569, there was still a chance that Elizabeth could have a child. However, ten years on several of her councilors were convinced that she was now too old to have a child, as the risk to her physical person was too great. If she was able to conceive there was a high chance of her dying in childbirth. If she did have a successful delivery and the child died, it raised the possibility of a contested succession and the possibility of Mary

Stuart attempting to claim the throne through her familial connections with the French royal house.273 Furthermore, Henry III had yet to produce an heir, and if he failed to have a child,

Anjou would be heir to the French crown, raising the possibility of England losing its sovereignty to France altogether.274

All of these issues would not have been as relevant if the monarch had been a king instead of a queen. Queen consorts died in childbirth and kings had illegitimate sons who were still politically viable if necessary. Kings did not have to marry, and although women could be used to solidify political alliances as needed, consorts were not absolutely essential to the welfare of a kingdom. With Elizabeth, the idea that she must marry and be associated with a man was still a prevalent issue. Burghley made note in 1579 of the precariousness of Elizabeth’s position as a spinster queen: “Without marriage, her majesty shall stand alone, withowt ayd of any myghtye prynce…and weakened at home.”275 The fact that Mary Stuart had a child was never forgotten and Burghley saw the consequences of Mary failing to secure a successful marriage after the death of Lord Darnley, her son’s father. The possibility was still very real that if

Elizabeth did not marry, France and Spain would join to support Mary Stuart, start a war with

273 Read, Burghley, 212-213. 274 Ibid., 234. 275 Hatfield MS 148 ff. 27-38; HMC Salisbury , ii. 244-245, 250-252. Also cited in Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony, 159. 75

England, and overthrow Elizabeth. She needed to marry if any form of security was going to be achieved to protect her realm, and her own throne.276

Burghley’s support of the marriage allowed him to gain ground with Elizabeth, as

Leicester and Walsingham stood openly against the marriage. They thought Burghley’s interpretation of possible events exaggerated and did not believe the Catholic threat was as great as he had claimed.277 They were supported by the public in their assertions against the marriage, as Protestant ministers throughout the kingdom denounced the possibility of her marriage to a

Catholic foreigner.278 One of the bishops composed a treatise outlining the evils of the union, trying to convince Elizabeth not to marry Anjou.279 Elizabeth was also subjected to a sermon on the first Sunday of Lent declaring that if Elizabeth married the duke it would bring about the destruction of the kingdom.280 Some believed that Leicester, Walsingham and other councilors who stood against the match encouraged and facilitated the sermons while protecting the speakers. Elizabeth was disturbed enough that she prohibited ministers from speaking publically about her marriage to Anjou, although no minster was ever prosecuted under the decree.281 The most open act against the marriage occurred in July, 1579 when someone attempted to murder

Simier while he was traveling with Elizabeth on the Thames.282

Clearly, there was objection to the marriage from the Protestant led coalition at court.

Over the three years of negotiations, the court Catholics aligned themselves in opposition to

Leicester by actively supporting the Anjou marriage. Tempers and emotions ran high. Sussex

276 See Read, Burghley, 208-211 for a detailed account of Burghley’s memoranda on the objections to and reasons for the marriage. MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 201. 277 Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony, 160. 278 Those who objected to Elizabeth’s marriage included her former tutor, Richard Cox, bishop of Ely. MacCaffrey, Elizabeth, 203. 279 Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony, 160; MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 203. 280 CSPS 1568-79, 659. 281 Lodge, Illustrations, ii. 149-150. 282 Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony, 161. 76 was publically insulted by one of Leicester’s men, and the Spanish ambassador noticed that those who stood against the marriage were “greatly incensed against Sussex.”283 Infamously, the

“tennis court quarrel” between the earl of Oxford and Philip Syndey also occurred as a result of the heightened emotions due to the Anjou match.284 However, the most damaging of events at court due to the marriage debate was the exposure of the earl of Leicester’s marriage to

Elizabeth’s lady, Lettice Knollys.285 Someone had informed Elizabeth of the secret marriage, and whoever it was needed access to information from the council, and more importantly to the ladies in the Privy Chamber. The person was Henry Howard. Leicester had secretly married

Knollys in 1578 when he believed all hopes were dashed of his ever marrying the queen.286 On receiving Howard’s information, Elizabeth was furious and Leicester had to flee the court.287 At least partially as a result of Leicester’s duplicity, Elizabeth conceded to pressure from Sussex and Burghley to allow Anjou safe passage to England on June 16, 1579. The event did not go unnoticed. Mary Stuart commented on the whole affair:

[Leicester’s marriage] hath so offended this Queen, that it is thocht she hath bene led, upon such miscontentment, to agree unto the sicht of the duke d’Alençon, notwithstanding she had differed thre whol dayis, with an extreme regrete, and many teares, before she would subscribe the passport, being induced thereunto, and almost forced by those that have led this negotiation.288

Anjou arrived at Greenwich on August 17, 1579. For the short time that Anjou was in

England, Elizabeth appeared to be thrilled about his presence. It seemed that after all of the haggling about the duke, he was physically attractive to the queen, and his political

283 CSPS 1568-79, 606-607, 609. 284 Peck, Leicester’s Commonwealth, 18. 285 Read, Burghley, 206. 286 Andersson, 116; Doran, 161. Both Andersson and Doran are referring to Camden, History, 95; CSPS 1568-79, 681-682. 287 He was absent from council meetings in June or July, 1579. 288 Alexander Labanoff, Letters of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland : selected from the "Recueil des lettres de Marie Stuart" : together with the chronological summary of events during the reign of the queen of Scotland (London : C. Dolman, 1845), 94-95. 77 and religious position did not seem so unattractive. After all, he was a first prince of the blood from one of the most prestigious families in Europe.289 Elizabeth appeared to be in love. However, the Protestants of the kingdom did not share her enthusiasm. There was still a battle with her kingdom to be won if she was going to be able to marry and so fulfill the desires of her people and her council, no matter how unlikely it was at this point to have a child. However, the situation also provided Henry Howard with his next opportunity to step into the political process by producing a work in support of the queen’s marriage to Anjou.

At some point in 1579, individuals on Elizabeth’s council, most likely Leicester or Walsingam, felt compelled to ask John Stubbs to write a tract against the Anjou marriage.290 Stubbs was an ardent reformer who had attended Cambridge and then

Lincoln’s Inn, where he composed The Discovery of a Gaping Gulf Whereinto England is

Like to Be Swallowed by Another French Marriage if the Lord Forbid Not the Banns by

Letting Her Majesty See the Sin and Punishment Thereof.291 Extremely Puritan and alarmist in its content, the book attacked the possible marriage of Elizabeth and Anjou, stating that there would be grave consequences if the union was made as England would be absorbed by France.292 Stubbs also declared that a marriage between Elizabeth and a

Catholic was against Divine Law as any child produced would not be Protestant. Finally, he declared that Elizabeth, as a woman, should only rule under the guidance of her

289 Robinson, 63. 290 See Natalie Mears, Queenship and Political Discourse, 200-203. It is debated if Lecicester or Walsingham asked Stubbs to write the tract. Mears does not believe they did, because of the Stubbs political activity, commitment to Protestantism, and education. Peter Lake and Michael Questier do believe that Stubbs was asked to write the tract, as the ideas in it so closely reflect the opinions of the councilors who were against the marriage. “Puritans, Papists, and the ‘Public Sphere,’” 595-596. 291 Mears, Queenship and Political Discourse, 201.; John Stubbs’s Gaping Gulf: With Other Relative Documents. Edited by Lloyd E. Berry. (Charlottesville, Virginia: The University Press of Virginia, 1968), xxii. 292 Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony, 165. Ilona Bell, “Elizabeth, Stubbs, and the Gaping Gulf.” In Dissing Elizabeth, 100. 78 councilors.293 Stubbs’s work was printed in London, and thousands of copies were released to the public. It did not take long for the court to obtain the book. A letter from

Mendoza to Philip II is the first recorded mention of the work. On September 25, 1579 he wrote to the king stating that “a printed book has recently been published here setting forth the evils arising from a union with the French.”294 Two days later, Queen Elizabeth issued a proclamation prohibiting the book, describing it as “lewd” and “seditious” and stated regarding the book, “wheresoever they, or any like, may be found, shall be destroyed in open sight of some public officer.”295 The Lord Mayor of London was told to have all copies confiscated, and then the council ordered the Archbishop of Canterbury and other clergy to command the loyalty of all subjects. Justice was swift. Stubbs was apprehended and sentence pronounced against him on October 30. His right hand was cut off the next day as an act against “the authors and sowers of seditious writings.”296

Elizabeth’s point was made.

In response to Gaping Gulf, the main points of Stubbs’s work were handed over to an author by Burghley in order to compose a response.297 Within a couple of months,

Henry Howard produced a tract, supporting the Anjou match.298 In the work, Howard explains that public’s dislike of the marriage should be expected given their “weakness of

293 Stubbe, A Gaping Gulf, ff. A2v-A3r, 4Fr, Eiv. As cited in Lloyd, Gaping Gulf; Mears, Queenship, 200 n. 294 CSPS 1568-1709, 700. As cited in Lloyd, xxvii. Gaping Gulf was not Stubbs first attempt at writing. In 1574 he composed The Life of the 70. Archbishop off Canterbury. He may have collaborated on the project with Burghley and Michael Hicks. Mears, The Elizabethan Public Sphere, 200. 295 As cited in Lloyd, Gaping Gulf, 149, 152. Lloyed provides a complete transcription of the queen’s proclamation. 296 Camden, The History of Princess Elizabeth, III, 10. As cited in Lloyd, xxxiv. Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony, 166. 297 Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony, 167; Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 117. 298 Howard’s tract survives in BL Additional MS 48027; BL Additional MS 34216; BL Cotton Titus C. xviii; and BL Harleian MS 180. The Harleian copy is the only one with a title: “The Lord Henry Howard after Earle of Norhtampton his defence of the ffrench Monsieurs…in answere to mr. Stubbs.” The book 79 judgment to discern of things beneficial for them.”299 Howard stated that there was danger in the queen not producing an heir, and that any heir coming from an Englishman would have dire consequences.300 Importantly though, Howard also gave Castelnau a direct compliment referring to him as “A gentleman of good note and credit about him and of a godly wit and great dexterity in managing of affairs.”301 He then used the example of Mary Stuart and Lord Darnley as an example of an unhappy union, which would be the case if Elizabeth married an Englishman, and spoke positively about the

Scottish queen. In this respect, Howard may have been trying to influence more than just

Englishmen when he wrote. As well as convincing his countrymen that they should support the marriage, Howard was reaching out to Castelnau, and the French.302 He knew the French, and the Spanish, would see his work, as they had seen Stubb’s book. For

Howard, the possible connections went further than Anjou’s possible marriage to the queen. Howards tone in the work focused on England, but if the marriage failed, and

Elizabeth had no child, Mary Stuart was still alive and Howard wanted to make sure he was in a position to assist in the possible outcome.303 He maintained as politically neutral position as possible, and in doing so, his options remained open to whoever would emerge victorious in the decisions about Elizabeth’s throne.

Howard had been able to write the tract in favor of the French match because he had maintained a positive relationship with the Catholic gentlemen, the French, and Burghley. The

Stubbs issue had been silenced, but the difficulty with the Anjou marriage, Elizabeth’s failure to

299 Lloyd, Gaping Gulf, 156. 300 It is assumed that Howard was referring to Leicester in this statement. Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 119. 301 Lloyd, Gaping Gulf, 156. 302 See Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 120-121 for his interpretation of Howard’s interest in pleasing Castlenau with the tract. He states Howard’s audience as a duel one- English and French, Anjou and Mary. 303 Ibid. 80 produce an heir, and the public’s response to the situation was still the focus of the court.

Therefore, at some point in the early 1580’s Howard returned to his response to the attack on

Elizabeth that he had been asked to write in 1577, and began the process of composing a defense of female rule. The 1580’s would prove to be as difficult for Howard as the 1570’s were, but in spite of the troubles he encountered, he found time to write. As he gathered his thoughts on paper, “Dutifull Defence” began to form, first as a response to John Knox, but eventually encompassing the broader history of the new decade.

81

CHAPTER FOUR

INCEPTION

Between 1572 and 1580 discontent with Elizabeth and her continuing marriage negotiations had been openly expressed in speeches, sermons, and letters passed in court. These public and private opinions were the provocation that resulted in Howard defending the queen in writing. In the introductory letter to the first draft of “Dutifull Defence” Howard writes that he received a tract “raising incentive against the regiment of Queenes”304 A counselor had given him the tract and he was given the charge “to shape some preasant aunswere to the same.”305 The raising incentive was John Knox’s First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of

Women.306 First published in 1558 at the very beginning of Elizabeth’s reign, by 1577 many other authors had produced numerous defenses supporting Elizabeth and female rule.

Nevertheless, the continuing problems surrounding Elizabeth’s marriage issues and personal image were serious enough that Howard’s patron felt the need for further response. Howard accepted, and set out to compose his reply.307

John Knox had been forced to deal with the ideas of female rulers since the beginning of his time as a religious reformer in Scotland. Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, was crowned in 1542 when she was only six days old. In 1558 she left for France, betrothed to the Dauphin, and briefly ruled as queen consort to the French king until his premature death in 1560. She returned to Scotland intent on preserving and practicing the Catholic faith. Marie of Guise- Mary’s mother and ardent Catholic, served as regent in Scotland for her daughter from 1554 to 1560.

304 “Dutifull Defence,” f. 1r. 305 Ibid. 306 John Knox, First Blast. 307 Knox wrote First Blast anonymously in 1558 while living Geneva, and only openly admitted authorship of the work in 1561. Defenses included John Alymer’s An Harborowe For Faithfull and Trewe Subjectes (1559), John Leslie’s A Defence of the Quene of Scotland (1569), and John Jewell’s The Defence of the Apology of the Church of England (1562). 82

Mary Tudor, ascended the throne of England in 1553 determined to restore England to the

Roman Church.308 All three women served as sole rulers, and although Mary Tudor’s husband,

Philip II, was granted the title of king, he served with Mary as a co-ruler, and not above her. All three women were also devout Catholics, and all three insisted on openly practicing their faith, even though they were surrounded by men of the reformed faith in their governments and in the general population. Therefore, according to Knox, the worst possible scenario that could have occurred on his watch had come to pass- he was surrounded by female, Catholic rulers who were hostile to the Reformation and living contrary to how Knox believed women should live according to Scripture.309

Between 1554 and 1558, Knox resided in Geneva where he sought the council of John

Calvin and Heinrich Bullinger with regard to a woman’s proper position and the idea of female rule. Both Calvin and Bullinger agreed that although it was considered unnatural, they would accept a queen regnant as “it would not be lawful to unsettle governments which are so ordained by the peculiar providence of God.”310 However, both men agreed that even though a female could inherit the title of monarch, she should properly transfer power to a spouse or councilors.

Both Calvin and Bullinger held up the example of Deborah, a female judge in ancient Israel as the precedent for female rule in the sixteenth century.311 Knox disagreed with Calvin and

Bullinger, and their interpretation of Deborah, so while living in Europe, he spoke out publically

308 Judith Richards, “Mary Tudor as ‘Sole Quene’?: Gendering Tudor Monarchy.” The Historical Journal. (Vol. 40, No. 4. December, 1997), 902-903. For Mary’s contribution to the religious issues in England see Dickens, The English Reformation, 287-309. 309 Robert M. Healey, “Waiting for Deborah: John Knox and Four Ruling Queens.” The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Summer, 1994): 371. 310 John Calvin to William Cecil in Knox, Works, 4:357. Also cited in Roberty M. Healey, “Waiting for Deborah,” 372-373. Healey provides a helpful narrative of the relationship between Knox and the queens in Scotland and England. 311 Bullinger states: “If a woman in compliance with, or in obedience to, the laws and customs of the realm, is acknowledged to a husband, or in the meantime holds the reins of government by her councilors,” then her rule would be acceptable. Bullinger, “An Answer Given to a Certain Scotsman,” in Knox, Works, 3:217-226. See Judges 4-5 for an account of Deborah as judge. 83 and on paper against all three Marys. In the case of Mary Tudor, he called for God’s vengeance and England’s destruction: “Repress the pride of these bloodthirsty tyrants; consume them in thy anger according to the reproach which they have laid against thy holy name.” He even went so far as to extol Englishmen to pray that a Jehu would rise up to slay Mary, the evil Jezebel.312

After being denied the right to return to Scotland in 1557, Knox began composing First Blast, possibly out of frustration and animosity, but his conclusions about women had already been determined; they were commanded by God to serve men, and Eve’s judgment was evidence of her state of permanent submission.313 Although there had been a few other works published by this time against female rule, they focused more on the religion of the ruler, than the gender.314

Knox was convinced that as the inferior sex due to physiology and theology, women were both incapable of holding positions of authority, as well as forbidden to do so by God, and his use of language expressed the depth of his anathema to the idea.

Knox turned to the construct of a monster to describe the idea of a female monarch, evoking a deep rooted construct in the Tudor mind of something that was visibly and physically deformed, as well as a sign from God of both the inner sin and iniquity of an individual person or the entire land. Historically and contemporarily, Monsters were something to be feared and they induced a sense of loathing, and were often an omen of bad tidings to come.315 Monstrous

312 John Knox, “A Faithful Admonition to the Professors of God’s Truth in England,” Works, 3:328-30. Knox states that Deborah did not usurp authority because her authority was only as a prophetess, and not the inheritor of a title or the throne of a king. “ Israel was no such usurped power as our Quenes unjustlie posesse this day…For she saith not, ‘I being thy Princesse, thy Maistresse, thy Sovereine Ladie and Quene, commande thee upon thine allegiance, and under pain of treason, to go gathedr an armie.’ No, she spoileth her self of all power to commande, attributing that authoritie to God, of whom she had her revelation and certitude to appoint Barak capitain…” Knox, Works, 4: 406-407. 313 Breslow, Political Writings, 159-160; Healey, “John Knox,” 376. 314 Examples include: David Lindsay, Ane dialog betuix Experience and ane courteour Off the miserabill estait of the warld (1554); and, Thomas, Becon, An humble supplicacion vnto God for the restoring of hys holye woorde, vnto the churche of Englande, mooste mete to be sayde in these oure dayes, euen with teares of euery true [and] faythfull English harte (1554). 315 Kathryn M. Brammall, “Monstrous Metamorphosis: Nature, Morality, and the Rhetoric of Monstrosity in Tudor England.” The Sixteenth Century Journal. Vol. 27, No. 1 (Spring, 1996): 5,7. 84 occurrences and tales of monsters on the continent and in England were prevalent in the sixteenth century, and were written about in both educated literature and more popular books known as broadsides.316 After the accession of Queen Elizabeth, incidents of reported monsters actually increased and many saw this as a sign to the English people that God was not pleased with England.317 Monsters were a sign, and one J. Phillips compared monsters and the wrath of

God in a 1570 poem:

Come neer good Christians all, beholde a monster rare: Whose monstrous shape (do doubt) fortels God’s wrath we should beware His wondrous works we ought not judge, as toyes and trifles vaine: Whither it be Childe or brutish Beast, forwarnings they are playne.318

First Blast provided an example of a treatise in which the ideas of abnormality and deformity are used to define monsters with no outward deformity, but rather an inward horridness that reflected the outward being.319 Knox altered the physical visualization of monsters from the outward appearance of something grotesque and horrible to an inward condition of decay and sin. Instead of focusing on the physicality of a monster, he constructed the idea of inward monstrosity where the being and actions of the person were abnormal and an anathema to God.320 He evoked the

316 Lorraine J. Daston and Katherine Park, “Unnatural Conceptions: The Study of Monsters in Sixteenth-and Seventeenth Century France and England.” Past and Present No. 92, (August, 1981): 22. Daston and Park point out the before newspapers, broadsides were the primary format for disseminating information in print. They were sold on the streets by vendors. Monsters were a popular topic in these broadsides and contained an illustration of the animal or child involved and the circumstances of the birth, then providing an interpretation of God’s message for the event. 28. 317 Brammel, “Monstrous Metamorphasis,” 8. Bramall presents evidence for sixteen accounts monstrous births between 1552 and 1570, with a total of thirty-five for the two decade period. She notes that Elizabeth’s accession did not bring an end to the country’s problems of hunger, disease, and a poor economy, which facilitated the account of monsters in writings and ballads. All of his was contrary to the image of Elizabeth as the saving Deborah she was portrayed as at her coronation. 7,8. 318 J.P. Phillips A Mervaylous Straunge Deformed Swyne (London: W. How, 1570). As cited in Brammall, 7. 319 Brammal, “Monstrous Metamorphasis,” 19. Also see Susan Felch, “The Rhetoric of Biblical Authority: John Knox and the Question of Women.” The Sixteenth Century Journal. (Vol. 26, No. 4. Winter, 1995), 816. 320 Ibid. 85 image of the monster throughout First Blast referring to the “monstriferous empire of women,” and calling any woman who violated the law of God as a “monster in nature.” His goal was to induce fear in his audience and provoke them to rebel against such a horrific aberration from what God intended, and foretold that the kingdom would suffer the wrath of God for allowing female regiment to continue by using the monster metaphor for the entirety of the people who supported such rule: “No less monstrous is the bodie of that common welth, where a woman beareth empire.”321

Knox’s terms were harsh, but he was referring to Catholic queens who, according to him, openly rebelled against god. However, when Elizabeth came to the throne in 1558, Knox was left in a quandary. She was not the Catholic Jezebel who formed the base of his abomination, but a woman portrayed as the Protestant Deborah described by Calvin and Bullinger, and she was presented as such at her coronation.322 Knox’s timing was ill timed to say the least. Elizabeth resented First Blast, for even though it had been written in objection to Mary of Guise, Mary

Stuart, and Mary Tudor, his arguments clearly encompassed and objection of any female ruler.

When Knox requested permission return to Scotland by traveling through England in 1559,

Elizabeth repeatedly refused him permission to do so.323 When forced to confront the queen’s more reformed position on religion, Knox played his hand by refusing to back down on his conclusions, but admonish Elizabeth to fulfill her proper role to avoid judgment. At this point he offended both Cecil and the queen, which did not help re-establish his presence in England. First, he wrote to Cecil in 1559 accusing him of being a traitor for conforming to the Marion church.

321 Knox, First Blast, 6v, 53v, 12v, passim. Howard does not refer to, or reply to the construct of monsters or the monstrous in “Dutifull Defence.” 322 In the fifth and last pageant on the coronation route contained a young woman on the throne in parliamentary robes consulting with her three estates. Above her head was the inscription “Deborah, the judge and restorer of Israel.” Neale, Queen Elizabeth, 61; Ridley, John Knox, 271; Healey, “Waiting for Deborah,” 381. 323 Knox, History, 285. Knox stated at the time in a letter to Mrs. Anna Locke on April 6, 1559 that “my FIRST BLAST hath blown from me all my friends in England.” Works, vi, 14. 86

Then he wrote to Elizabeth the same year, admonishing her not to step outside the boundaries

Knox believed were set for her as a female ruler:

I cannot deny the writing of a book against the usurped Authority and unjust Regiment of Women; neither [yet] am I minded to retract or call back any principal point or proposition of the same…I that affirm ‘That no woman may be exalted above any realm…And therefore of conscience I am compelled to say, that neither the consent of the people, the process of time, nor multitude of men, can establish a law which God shall approve…And, therefore, Madam, the only way to retain and keep those benefits of God, abundantly poured now of late days upon you, and upon your realm, is unfeignedly to render to unto God, to his mercy, and undeserved grace, the [whole] glory of this your exaltation. Forget your birth, and all title which thereupon doth han; and consider deeply how, for fear of your life, ye did decline from God, and bow to idolatry...But, if the premises (as God forbid) neglected, ye shall begin to brag of your birth, and to build your authority and regiment upon your own law, flatter you whoso list, your felicity shall be short.”324

Elizabeth was not amused. Knox returned to Scotland without traveling through England and launched his attacks on Elizabeth from safely across the border. He objected to the Religious

Settlement, and in 1561 he commented on a series of letters passed between the Queen of Scots, her councilor and Elizabeth. Knox wrote of Elizabeth: “And yet is she that now reigneth over them neither good Protestant nor yet resolute Papist: Let the world judge which is the third.”325

He finished the statement by declaring that the queen was offended.

When Howard began the composition of his response to Knox, he no doubt saw a two- fold opportunity once the composition was completed; his work might be useful as a defense of the queen, and it would help him in his quest for favor with Elizabeth. He noted that after reading the “raising incentive” he saw that “arrows” were being aimed at the queen and presuming that she would accept his offering, he decided to write in order “to weigh down the fear of far more

324 Knox says to Cecil, “…for seeing that his mercy hath spared you, being traitor to his Majesty; seeing further, that amongst your enemies he hath preserved you; and, last, seeing, although worthy of hell, he hath promoted you to honours and dignity, of you must he require (because he is just) earnest repentance for your former defection…” History, 283-284; Works, The complete letter to Elizabeth, 291-294. Brackets are placed in the text by Knox. 325 History, 369; Works, 174. 87 dangerous conflict.”326 His statements fall in line with the continued attacks on Elizabeth and fear over the Anjou marriage, and indicate that First Blast was most likely still being circulated.

To this point, Howard writes that he was concerned over the effect Knox’s work might still have in England:

I saw those Satyrs, which undertook both to cool and kindle with one blast, and feared the hearts of these unfaithful soldiers which followed the colors of their captain but in mutiny. There was great cause of doubt lest the vulgar multitude, which hath ears to hear and eyes to see, but no discretion to judge, might as well incline in matters of this moment as they rose in cockfight to the weaker side.327

Clearly, his use of the word “blast” is a direct play on Knox’s use of the word, although by the time the dedication letter was written he was able to refer to several Satyrs, rather than just the work of one man. Howard then started work immediately on the treatise and it appears he was able to complete an early draft by 1580. Purporting that Howard could have finished the first draft this quickly is not unreasonable considering the speed at which he was able to produce other works at the time.328

The earliest surviving drafts of “Dutifull Defence” are two separate, partial copies of the same work.329 One section is in Howard’s own italic hand, while the other is in a form of script, although it has not yet been determined to be Howard’s own handwriting, or a srivner’s secretary hand. Both sections appear to be portions of complete, early drafts. The pages in italic hand contain sentences that have been crossed out and corrected, and correspond to the third book on

326 “Dutifill Defence,” f. 2v. 327 “Ibid.,” fol. 3r. 328 Howard had produced his Defense of the Ecclesiastical Regiment, and Defensative in about a year each. Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 84, 117. 329 British Library, MS Cotton Appendix xxvii, ff. 83r-93r and 94r-133v. Portions of the folio pages are damaged and illegible. However, enough remains intact and legible to draw these conclusions. More work will be done on the Appendix manuscripts in order to provide additional details in reference to the content, and will be compared to the early notes that remain non vidi in Durham. 88

Divine Law in the final treatise. The marginalia matches the citations in the final treatise as well.330

Works with “defense” in the title were common, and those produced in the sixteenth century often glorified feminine virtues without discussing any change of hierarchal status or alteration of a woman’s inferior position in relation to men. Howard expanded the breadth of the argument for women, and his use of the word in “Dutifull Defence” was two-fold. He not only wrote a literary apology of a woman’s character, but also built a legal defense of her status in society, her right to inherit titles, and her right to rule as a monarch. Moreover, Howard’s construction of the title revealed his motives and opinion on the position he supported. In his dedication letter, Howard expressed that it was his duty to construct an answer in response to the detractors of women; and because those men who objected to a queen ruling in her own right equated feminine monarchy with tyranny, and therefore unlawful in the eyes of God, Howard seized upon the analogy by presenting his arguments as a trial on the lawfulness of female rulers.331 To this point, Howard organized his response to Knox into three books, each discussing separate, but ultimately related topics: natural, civil, and divine law. The Divine Law section present in the first drafts, and discussion of it in the text of “Dutifull Defence” shows Howard’s direct reaction to First Blast.

330 Both comparisons help indicate that the Appendix pages are early copies of “Dutifull Defence.” The sections of First Blast are copied verbatim into the text: “hereby maye suche as are nto altogether blinded planlye see that gode by his sentence hathe deprived all women from empire and dominion … through whiche is produced for the one and the other..,” followed by “Blaste Divis”and a number: “ Blaste Divis 38 ‘I am not ignorant that the moste parts of mennes doo understandeth this …” f. 84v, 89r. Folio 86r.contains a tiny sketch of a flower, a small circle with the petals drawn around it. The flower also appears on a separate cut out of writing on 93r, which is a note with some form of a dedication on it. This flower has been recognized as a notation Howard used, and it is present other books he owned. In a copy of Castiglione’s Il lebro del cortegiano, a work he most likely acquired at Cambridge in the 1560’s, he placed a little flower symbol in the marginalia next to a section of writing he had underlined on the his desire for a musical education and a note about his playing the lute. B. Castiglione, Il libro del cortegiano. Venice: Aldus Manutius, 1541. F 2v. As noted in Andersson, Henry Howard, 70 n. 68. Andresson indicates that he has seen the work, which was in the private possession of Dr. Bent Juel-Jenson. However, since Dr. Juel-Jenson’s death at the end of 2006, the book’s location is unknown, and remains non vidi. 331 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 2r. 89

In establishing a premise from which to debate the subject of women, the revival of

Thomist belief that had spread through French and Spanish universities in the sixteenth century was essential to Howard’s arguments in “Dutifull Defence.” Revived by the Dominicans and expounded by the Jesuits from the 1560’s, they transformed Thomas Aquinas’ interpretation of law into a systematic view of what political organization was and ought to be.332 In turn, the

Thomists synthesized Aquinas’ laws into two forms. First, they combined the idea of positive human law with the law of nature, making natural law the moral framework wherein all human laws must operate. To this point, the aim of all human law was to conform to the higher law of

God, which was already “inscribed” in all men through their conscience.333 Secondly, they connected natural law to the will of God. The natural law, therefore, was a dual essence because it came both from God and reasonable man. Consequently, Jesuit scholars expanded natural law theory in the mid century to include the nascent concept of the original state of nature, an idea that went beyond Seneca’s idea of the golden age of man. The assertion, one later seized upon by theorists like John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, proposed a time before political organization when no man ruled over another, and society lived in a state of equality and independence.334

The Dominican and Jesuit interpretation contested what they saw as the “Lutheran heresies,” propagated by Lutheran radicals, picked up by Calvinist theorists, and eventually

332 Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, 2 vols., vol. 2: The Age of the Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978),135 Aquinas discussed his theories on law in the Summa Theologica: XC-XCV. He adopts a four part theory of law: the lex aeterna, by which God acts upon creation; the lex divina, God’s revelation to man through the Scriptures; the lex naturalis, or ius naturale, the implantation of God’s spirit or consciousness in man so that they could understand his will; and the lex humana, lex civilis or ius positivum, those laws that men enacted for themselves to govern the states they had organized. 333 Ibid., 149; Donald R. Kelley, "Law," in The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 1450-1700, ed. J. H. Burns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 261. Also see Jean Porter, “Contested Catagories: Reason, Nature, and Natural Order in Medieval Accounts of the Natural Law. The Journal of Religious Ethics. Vol. 24, No.2 (Fall, 1996): 207-232. 334 Skinner, Foundations, 136, 155, 156. Francisco de Vitoria, a Dominican, wrote that, “before men congregated together”, in commonwealths, “no one man was superior of all the others.” Vitoria’s Relectiones, was published posthumously. Luis de Molina used the phrase status naturae and in statu naturae, and although Molina’s first book was not published until after “Dutifull Defence” was written, he had lectured on the subject of natural law between 1577 and 1582 in Portugal. 90 claimed by reforming writers like John Knox.335 The Catholic Church viewed political organization as a product of God’s conscious imprint on reasonable man, based on the general knowledge of His will. In contrast, the “Lutheran” theory claimed that God ordained all political organization according to the tenets of Scripture, effectively separating the formation of political society from the bounds of natural law. This being the case, according to radical Protestant theory, it was acceptable to oppose an ungodly ruler; for, if the ruler was supposed to be divinely chosen and rule according to Scriptural standards, tyranny proved a ruler’s ungodliness. Knox claimed that God ordained earthly rulers could be removed by force if they transgressed the law.

Furthermore, he supported the specific removal of all female rulers, who clearly defied God’s order laid down at creation. For Knox, all law was derived directly from Scripture, and for him, nature provided the physical evidence that God had created women incapable of ruling.

Knox provided a clear declaration that a women ruler was “repugnant to nature.”336 For

Knox, natural law secondary to the laws in Scripture. Accordingly, he stated that women were, by nature, “weak, frail, impatient, feeble, and foolish, and experience hath declared them to be un-constant, variable, cruel, and lacking the spirit of counsel and regiment.”337 In doing so, Knox espoused a two-fold definition of natural law; first, law made evident by simply observing a woman’s natural, physical and emotional attributes, and secondly law as the “revealed will and perfect ordinance of God,” that absolutely forbade a woman to rule over a man.338 As evidence,

Knox invoked Aristotle’s Politics and sections of the Roman Digest, associating them with the

335 The opinions propagated by radical thinkers in the sixteenth century, were not supported by a majority of the populous. Richard Greaves provides a discussion of the major religious affiliations views on political organization and resistance against governments in his article, “Concepts of Political Obedience in Late Tudor England: Conflicting Perspectives,” Journal of British Studies 22, no. 1 (1982) 23-34. 336 Knox, First Blast, 9r. See Sommerville, Sex and Subjection, 10-11. 337 Ibid., 10r. 338 Ibid., 13r.; Marvin A. Breslow, ed., The Political Writings of John Knox (London: The Associated University Press, 1985), 45; Flech, "The Rhetoric of Biblical Authority," 805; Greaves, Theology and Revolution, 161; Jordan, “Women’s Rule,” 433; 91 sacred laws of God as laid down at creation.339 He then associated natural law with the Roman law, but not specifically with the law of nations, as addressed in book one of the Digests.

It is possible that Howard had knowledge of the theories presented by the Dominicans in

Spain and France, and by assimilating contemporary thought and scholarship with his traditional academic experience he could present a far more multifaceted argument on female rule than the radical, Protestant writers.340 Combining Aquinas’ position on natural law, as stated in the

Summa Theologica, and early Thomist political theory, Howard presented an intricate and thorough definition of natural law.341 He separated natural law into two “kinds,” following the theories of those he deemed to be the “learned civilians”—mainly Ulpian and Aquinas. The first kind was instinct, which was “common unto men with beasts.” This branch of natural law included all the faculties necessary to ensure life in all living beings: procreation, the nurturing of the young, and self-defense. On this point, Howard derived his thought directly from the Roman

Digests.342 The second branch of natural law consisted of the capacities “proper unto men that are endowed with the gift of reason,” and it was on the basis of reason that he formed his arguments.343

Howard based his second branch of natural law on reason, the attribute by which men resembled God and were different from beasts. His premise, that God endowed man with reason consisting of the principles of honesty and right at the time of creation, was similar to those

339 Knox cites the Digest, 50.17.2; 3.1.1; 16.1pr.; 3.1.pr.; and 1.5.9. Sommerville, Sex and Subjection, 16-17. 340 Peck points out that “secret” knowledge was particularly important to Howard, including Catholic and Jesuit writings. “Mentality,” 162. Porter notes the interest in natural law to the Dominican masters at Paris and Cremona and their Platonic approach to the subject. “Contested Catagories,” 215 n.12. 341 Skinner, 152. Skinner notes that the traditional view of civil lawyers was that the law of nations formed a part of the law of nature. As will be seen, Howard did not depart from this opinion, but expanded it in order to prove his argument that women were allowed to rule. 342 Digest 1:1:3. “Natural Law is that which nature has taught to all animals, for this law is not peculiar to the human race, but applies to all creatures which originate in the air, or the earth, and in the sea. Hence arises the union of the male and the female which we designate marriage; and hence are derived the procreation and education of children.” 343 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 29r. Porter, “Contested Catatgories,” 213-214. 92 proposed by Dominican and Jesuit scholars.344 Howard backed his assertion that reason was the basis of natural law by citing Chrysostom, Origen, Tertullian, Hillary, and St. Paul. He then set himself firmly in the tradition of civil law by stating that the natural law of reason was also the law of nations; and without it, no government could function, nor could people be able to fulfill the basic tenets of society, mainly “obedience to magistrates, love to parents, care for our country, provision for our families, constancy in keeping promise, abstinence from doing wrong; and whatsoever is understood without instruction and either observed or acknowledged without enforcement by necessity.”345 Based on his assertion of how the law of nations was a part of the law of nature and imprinted in man at the time of creation, Howard insisted that countries must base all decrees and laws on natural law, which invokes integrity and right, or they are not valid.

Using the analogy of a civil trial Howard wrote, “this is the court in which all pleas concerning titles both by men and women must be tried.”346 The highest judge of the law is man’s right reason, engrained by God and, therefore, the only precedent to which man can appeal.

As important as defining what natural law was, Howard also had to expound on the traditions that placed women in their position of permanent submission to men. Almost all theory concerning the makeup and character of women in the early modern period was based on

Aristotle’s views of female anatomy and biological makeup. Aristotelian physiology had determined that women were less developed males who functioned at a lower metabolic level than men, and were therefore, colder, wetter, and more humid than the male species.347 After the translation of Aristotle’s ideas about women into English during the Middle Ages, the

344 Ibid. Howard wrote: The law of nature “consists wholly upon principles of honesty and right, which God himself engraved with his holy finger in the heart of man at the first creation of humanity.” 345 Ibid., fol. 29v. 346 Ibid. 347 Aristotle, Generation of Animals, trans. A.L. Peck (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1943), 737a.; Sommerville, Sex and Subjection,10. 93 perceptions of cold, wet, and humid were correlated with inefficiency and weakness. Due to their physical imperfection, women were also regarded as lacking intelligence and judgment and were considered emotionally inconsistent. Additionally, the medieval combination of Aristotelian thought and Christian exegesis on the order of creation and the consequences of the fall reinforced the concept of female inferiority. During the Renaissance, these views on women remained dominant; and because classical morality was inexplicably bound to scriptural censure by centuries of interpreting one in the light of the other, a woman’s inadequacy compared to man’s remained the standard argument for female subjection.348

Written detractions of women relied on the combination of Aristotelian interpretation of natural law and Scriptural condemnation to form arguments against female authority. In the fifteenth century, John Fortesque, an influential lawyer in the court of Henry VI, drew on the

Thomistic-Aristolelian tradition of natural law to write on the proper order of succession to the

English throne.349 He then added Scriptural commands—God’s declaration of natural law in

Genesis—to exclude women from inheriting the crown. Similar arguments were posited in the sixteenth century when the debate over female regiment became a reality. Political theorists like

Jean Bodin, The Six Books of a Commonweale, as well as Protestant reformers like John Calvin followed the same line of thinking, integrating the ideas of natural, inherent inferiority with

Scriptural pronouncements in Genesis that decreed women to be subject to men at creation.

Bodin posited the standard list of female vices in his declaration against female regiment:

“Gynecocracy is squarely against the laws of nature that give men strength, the prudence, the

348 Sommerville, Sex and Subjection, 10,12,13. 349 Joan Lockwood O'Donovan, Theology of Law and Authority in the English Reformation (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1991), 43, 44. 94 arms, and the power to command and take away from women [their authority].”350 All of them agreed that, as a rule, women should not rule. However, Calvin was willing to accept that under certain conditions, a woman could hold the office of monarch, but only as an exception or as a punishment from God, and was in no way to intended to set a precedent. As mentioned earlier,

Calvin made his occasional acceptance of a queen regnant clear in a response to an inquiry from

Knox about the legality of a female sovereign: “the government of a woman badly adjusted to the country is like a government of a tyrant, which has to be borne till God put an end to it.”351

Knox was forced to agree with Calvin that a few exceptions to God’s prohibition on female authority had existed, Deborah for example, but disagreed that the current queens qualified, and it was left to him to make the most inclusive combination of Aristotelian physiology and biblical censure. According to Knox, a woman’s inabilities were evident in every facet of nature, and absolutely proved by Scripture. A woman’s inferior attributes were simply evidence of God’s malediction on Eve in Genesis. Regardless of the reasoning, each author reached the same conclusion, the female sex was substandard compared to the male, as made evident by nature, verified by Scripture, and should therefore remain in subjection to men.352

Howard, by contrast, presented a complex interpretation of classical sources, and disregarded traditional Aristotelian biology as a factor in establishing the female position.

Howard turned to Plato’s concept that in essence, there was no difference in gender. Citing the

Republic, Howard summarized Plato’s argument that women should receive training in the same disciplines as men “for the better service of the commonwealth.” Howard wrote: “He tells that neither men nor women have any office proper or peculiar to the sex alone but that women are as

350 Jean Bodin, The Six Bookes of a Commonweale: A Facsimile Reprint of the English Translation of 1606, ed. Kenneth D. McRae (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962), 753. 351 Cited in Richard Greaves, Theology and Revolution, 159. See Porter “Contested Catagories,” 215. 352 Susan Felch, “The Rhetoric of Biblical Authority: John Knox and the Question of Women.” Sixteenth Century Journal. Vol. 26 (1995): 805-806; Healey, “Waiting for Deborah,” 376. 95 capable of all offices as men though in comparison they be reckoned the weaker.”353 It can be recalled that Howard used the Platonic position in 1569 when writing to his sister Catherine. In

“Dutifull Defence,” He continued the idea by stating that with regard to women holding positions of authority, Aristotle had almost always been misinterpreted by medieval writers due to his “obscure and dark manner in delivering his mind.”354 Indeed, when speaking on Aristotle’s prohibition of female authority, Howard claimed that the philosopher did not present a universal rule, but spoke of a specific woman, Olympia, who was “unworthy for some personal defects,” or who “sought to rule by wicked and unlawful means.”355 Aristotle’s objection was not based on gender, but performance. Howard concluded that the opinions of philosophers had a place, but they did not carry the same weight as God’s providence acting through natural law. He then refuted one of the main objections to female authority, that women were mentally weaker than men.

Howard linked the idea of equality in essence with equality in mind, offering a progressive view of women for the early modern period. Howard believed that women were as mentally capable as men because they both came from God and “the griffin of scions of every tree carries in itself the virtue of that root from whence it was taken.”356 Using Eve as his example, Howard declared that God created Eve out of flesh, a superior substance to the “gross clot of clay” from which Adam came, and she was created “no less holy according to the sacred image of God represented in the faculties of understanding will and memory than Adam. She was endowed with a reasonable soul.” Therefore, the standard of judgment with regards to inherited titles had to be the same for both men and women: “Therefore, whosoever will deprive

353 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 34v. 354 Ibid. 355 Ibid., fol. 36r. Howard was referring to Aristotle’s comments on Queen Olympia, the mother of Alexander the Great. 356 Ibid., fol. 37r. 96 a lawful owner of less matters than inheritance of kingdoms must produce sound evidence.”357

He maintained that physical or mental inability could not be a determining factor in establishing inheritance. Minority males were weaker than adult men or women, and did not have the same cognitive ability, but there was no question that they could inherit a title and had the right to rule.

Howard stressed that before the fall, women were as perfect as men. After the fall, God punished Eve for her offence, but this punishment did not affect any of the physical or emotional qualities that would have bearing on her ability to perform tasks perceived solely as masculine.

He also emphasized that if God had created women so imperfect in mind and body, the detractor’s standards of judgment would not apply, for society would have to judge women according to the proportion of their faculties.358 He then concluded his argument on the principle that:

Women shall be tried with men at one bar, examined by one Judge and condemned by one law. We shall all stand before the tribunal seat of God to give account of our actions, good and bad, as we received so we shall deliver . . . therefore I conclude that to both sexes one reverence is due. The virtues are equal, the rewards ought to be equal and like condemnation belongs to both sides if in Christ there be no difference.359

In the second book on civil law, Howard accused Knox of manipulating the law to corroborate his opinions, calling his interpretations, “false and frivolous objections which have been most unjustly countenanced with deceitful colors.”360 He, therefore, set out to prove that the civil law allowed women to hold positions of authority361 The body of civil law used in sixteenth-century England was directly translated from Roman law as it stood at the beginning of

357 Ibid., fol. 39r. 358 Ibid., fol. 37r. 359 Ibid. 360 Ibid., fol., 125r. 361 Ibid., fol., 126r. Acts 25: 10-12. “Even as Festus said to Paul Cesarem appelasti ad Caesarem ibis, to Caesar you have made this appeal and to Caesar you shall go. So say we to those that since they have appealed to the civil court, by the civil law their action shall be determined.” 97 the millennium.362 By the fifteenth century, the Roman legal tradition had evolved and was separated into the civil, canon and customary law. Significantly, when Howard studied Roman law in the 1550s, the Corpus had been subjected to several generations of interpretation, a fact

Howard drew upon in his arguments against Knox.363 Knox cited the Digest in First Blast reminding his readers that within its legislation, “Women are removed from all civil and public office, so they neither may be judged, neither yet may they occupy the place of the magistrate, neither yet may they be speakers for others.”364 In this instant, Knox did not differentiate between Roman law and natural law, believing that they were both written as they were because of a woman’s inherent inferiorities.365 He appealed to Aristotle, picking up his traditional concept of the female: “Wherever woman bear dominion there must needs the people be disordered, living and abounding in all intemperance, given to pride, excess and vanity.”366 Knox did not make a distinction between the public roles of women and private inheritance. He viewed the public law as setting precedent for the private law; if women could not be judges, out of necessity, they could not hold offices higher than a judge, therefore excluding them from monarchy.367

As a lecturer on civil law, Howard used similar principles, mainly equity and use of legal theory, to argue for the right of women to inherit the throne. His argument was not without precedent. Early modern theorists on civil law equated a daughter’s right to inherit from her

362 During the sixth century, the Emperor Justinian set out to restore and codify the entirety of ancient Roman law, as part of an attempt to re-establish imperial authority in the west. The Digest consisted of fifty books, which represented the law of the classical period, and were primarily concerned with private law and principles of jurisprudence. The civil law was expanded in the twelfth century, becoming central to the European legal tradition by providing both the terminology and conceptual basis for customary law. In addition, the Institutes and the Digest formed a significant part of the legal curriculum in European universities. Porter, “Contested Catagories,” 210-211. 363 Donald R. Kelley, “Law,” The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 1450- 1700, ed. J. H. Burns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 66, 67. Porter, “Contested Catagories,” 210-211. 364 Knox, Works, 44; Digest, 50.17.2. 365 Jordan, “Woman’s Rule,” 433. 366 Knox, First Blast, 12r. 367 Shephard, Gender and Authority, 136. 98 father as part of natural law. Therefore, despite the actual written law, daughters should not be excluded from their inheritance.368 To this point, men who regarded inheritance as a part of natural law condemned the sections of civil law that prohibited women from inheriting their rightful portions or titles.369Howard also asserted that the civil law was a part of natural law.370

He agreed with those who supported a female’s rights under civil law, declaring that “the civil laws, being principally grounded upon the law of nature are the fittest measures to try out a certain truth in this point, whether women ought to rule or not.”371 Reason, a derivative of natural law, formed the base of the civil law; as a woman’s right to inherit was an extension of natural law, and her competence to rule was based in natural reason, the civil law should logically guarantee her rights. However, the laws of the ancients did not necessarily apply to contemporary circumstances, or as Howard stated, “at this day it is otherwise.”372 The interpretation of civil law, like all law, could be altered or rejected, adjusting as necessary to the needs or wishes of society, a point he would further emphasize in his argument on sacred law.

Howard addressed two sets of objections with regard to civil law. First, he dealt with a woman’s right to inherit titles, which he referred to as the “body” of the civil law, the linchpin of his argument.373 Instead of focusing on the statutes in the Digests as Knox had, Howard turned toward the imperial legislation of the Institutes to prove that blood, not gender, determined succession: “The natural reason being only looked to without distinction either of sex or of right

368 Sommerville, Sex and Subjection, 56. Sommerville cites two civil theorists that claimed this position during the time that Howard was writing “Dutifull Defence,” Cornelius Benincasa, Tractatus de paupertate ac eius privilegiis, (1562), fol., 72r.; and Joannes Nevizanus, Sylvae nuptialis libri sex, (1570), 255. 369 Ibid. 370 Ibid., 67. Making the connection between the civil law and the natural law was a common one made in the early modern period when referencing the Digest and the Institutes. 371 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 133v. 372 Ibid., fol. 150v. 373 When referring to the “body” in this section of the work, Howard is not referring to the Corpus, but the main part of a unit, which then has sections branching off of it. 99 in power they that are in blood and kindred next ought to succeed in inheritance.”374 According to Howard, Justinian had corrected earlier degrees of difference in the law, making males and females equal inheritors. Furthermore, Howard asserted that a distinct difference existed between the inheritance of private estates and the office of monarch. Laws concerning the private disposal of estates, which were determined by man, did not apply to the inheritance of crowns, because

God chose monarchs.375

Secondly, Howard addressed the right of women to act upon the authority that came with public offices. Howard referred to this section of the law as the “branches” of the law, specific ordinances concerning women, such as exclusion from the public offices of judge and magistrate, and private issues, such as the prohibition on women offering testimony, and dealing with their children and adopting heirs. In doing so, he directly focused on the references in the civil law that Knox had used in First Blast. Howard acknowledged that there was a difference between the role of women in public offices and private estates, including the inheritance of kingdoms. Nevertheless, he posited that women did exercise authority in the public realm, and in this respect, Howard had contemporary custom on his side. Upper class English women regularly took advantage of their position to influence civil and political decisions both directly and indirectly.376 At the public level, boundaries were not as absolute as some might have liked them.377 In 1503 the Inner Temple determined that women, both single and married, could act as

374 Ibid., fol. 126v. Cited in Shephard, Gender and Authority, 138. 375 Howard writes:“They [the detractors] are blind as I think that can’t find a difference between private persons and heirs to crowns, between free will and necessity, between the council of a corporation that disposes as seems good for their particular estate, and princes of dominion and power that provide for their posterity.” Fol.133v. 376 See Barbara Harris, “Women and Politics,” Judith Richards, “To Promote a Woman to Beare Rule,” Constance Jordan, “Woman’s Rule,” and Margaret Sommerville, Sex and Subjection for discussions on ways in which women expressed political influence and authority in society. 377 In English law, women were not considered a single category, nor were they explicitly prevented from holding offices or participating in the political process. See Anne Laurence, Women and England, 1500-1760: A Social History (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994), 238. However, Howard notes that Elizabeth had an active role in the governing process: “we find that women are not so simple but they can deal both warily and soundly in resolving 100 justices of the peace.378 In 1549 Lady Elizabeth Copely sat as sole elector in Gatton, Surrey.379

And in 1572, a ruling confirmed the right of a peeress to transmit titles, although there was debate as to whether a female could sit in the House of Lords if an heir was still in minority.380

More significant to Elizabeth I was the 1554 Act of Parliament ensuring Mary I’s authority as equal to a male monarch’s by stating that she “shoulde have…and use suck lyke royal authoritie…as kynges of thys realme her moost novle progenitours, have heretofore done.”381

Finally, Howard offered an alternative explanation as to why women had traditionally been prevented from participating in public life. Within Roman law, women were protected from the possibilities of defamation, insult, and strident behavior that often accompanied public debates and law cases: “The first devisers of the law did rather mean it as a shield to modesty then as a bar to right.”382 They were not barred due to inferiority, nor did the restrictions on public life have any bearing on the inheritance of a royal estate. Howard drew his conclusions from the precedents he believed he had set:

If these examples may be orderly compared to with those limitations which are alleged out of the civil law, I doubt not but all reasonable men will soon perceive that rather private women for the surer guard of their good names then heirs to kingdoms in respect of any derogation from right were comprised in the prohibition.383

To this point, he wrote that women were, “equally capable of politick conceits, equally sufficient to give sound advice, equally necessary for the maintenance of the commonwealth.”384 Women

matters of debate so often as they are put in trust.”139r. His reasoning for the deficiency in female representation was not the lack of ability, but lack of the practical education necessary to fulfill the role of a judge or a magistrate. 378 Harris, “Women and Politics,” 269. 379 Ibid., 268-269. 380 See Richards, “To Promote a Woman to Beare Rule,” 104-105 for a discussion of Catherine Willoughby’s case before Parliament. 381 “An Acte declaring that the Regall power of thys realme is in the Quenes Maiestie as fully and absolutely as ever it was in anye her mooste noble progenytours kynges of thys Realme.”Tudor Constitutional Documents: 1485- 1603, edited by J.R. Tanner (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948), 123. Also see Richards, “Mary Tudor as ‘Sole Quene?’ 382 “Dutifull Defence,” 137r.; Shephard, 139. 383 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 132r. 384 Ibid., fol.155r. 101 may have been barred from certain positions for their protection, but when their services were required, they were to be treated with equal respect and given equal authority because they were fully able to fulfill the duties of their office.385

Following a standard pattern of rebuttal for each assertion and objection to the civil law,

Howard provided numerous historical examples of women who had held positions of authority throughout the history of the Roman, Ptolemaic, and Byzantine Empires as evidence. Using the histories of Tacitus and Suetonius, Howard offered commentary on Livia, Agrippina, Drusilla,

Theodora, and even Cleopatra—placing their positions of authority in reference to the kings and

Caesars they were related to. Within the context of the women he chose to highlight, Howard did not differentiate between the authority of women who were regents, queen consorts or queens regnant. The fact that they could inherit and offer political advice was based upon the same principle, the theory of the law was overridden by reality; women were not barred from

“administration of the state or from succession in government.”386

In order to refute the objections to women holding positions of authority within the family, Howard used biblical examples of women who had influence or control over their children. Because Scripture was considered a valid part of law, and viewed as historically true, it was common for authors to use biblical women to prove an argument.387 Howard discussed two stories of women in Scripture, Rebecca and Ruth, as evidence of a woman’s control over their

385 See Jane F. Gardner, Women in Roman Law and Society (London: Croom Helm, 1986), 264. Gardner asserts that women did play a role in the public sphere, even though they were officially barred from holding office through the influence of personal connections and position. Also see Suzanne Dixon, “A Family Business: Women’s Role in Patronage and Politics at Rome, 80-44 B.C. Classica et mediaevalia (34, 1983), 91-112. 386 “Dutiful Defence,” fol. 136v. See Richard Bauman, Women and Politics in Ancient Rome. (London: Routledge, 1992). Durham states that although the bar on women’s participation was constitutional in Rome, there were many “avenues that gave women access to a more direct public role.”, 2. Bauman discusses the political roles of the same women Howard discusses in his text. 387 Shephard, Gender and Authority, 144. 102 children.388 Moreover, he paid special attention to the daughters of Salphaad, whose story in the book of Exodus was solid evidence in favor of female inheritance. Salphaad had no male issue.

However, Howard’s inclusion of the story in this section of his work was peculiar. He asserted that if, hypothetically, Salphaad had been king of Judah, his eldest daughter would have received the title and the power associated with her inheritance. Howard’s purpose was to confront Knox, for the Scotsman could not disprove a woman’s right to inherit property. Instead, Knox denied that women could act upon the authority that came with titles:

The question is not if women may not succeed to possession, substance, patrimony, or inheritance, such as fathers may leave to their children; for that I willingly grant. But the question is if women may succeed to their fathers in offices.389

Howard disagreed with Knox’s conclusion and chose to use the story of Salphaad as a conclusion to his proof of the difference between private inheritance and titles to thrones.

Howard concluded “Dutifull Defence” with a third book on Divine law, tackling the traditional belief that the law of nature reflected God’s will through the physical world. Civil law emanated from God to man through man’s ability to reason. Therefore, they were both, at some point, subject to natural variance and interpretation of circumstance. On the other hand, divine law came directly from the mouth of God, through Scripture, and was not generally subject to interpretation. The highest condemnation and declaration against female rulers was based on divine law and Knox declared that a woman ruler violated the law of God. Howard disagreed and began his argument with a bold statement- declaring that God created women equal to men. He was fully aware of the debate about Eve, and how it related to contemporary women. Therefore,

388 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 151r.; Genesis 26: 34-5; Ruth 2:2. Rebecca was displeased with her son’s choice of a wife. Ruth was obedient when her mother in law instructed her on how to approach Boaz. 389 Knox, First Blast, 46v. “To bear rule or authority over man can neither be right nor inheritance to woman. For that can neither be just inheritance to any person which God by his word hath plainly denied unto them, but to all women hath God denied authority above man, as most manifestly is before declared.” Ibid.

103 he reviewed the assertions he had made about a woman’s position earlier in the manuscript so he could “proceed” in a “more orderly” manner.390

The writings of St. Paul and the Church Fathers had heavily influenced opinion about women’s position at creation and conventionally supported three truths about Eve. God had created Eve after Adam, from Adam, and for Adam, evidence of her original subordination. As a result, Eve’s person was not a complete image of God, and therefore flawed. After the fall, God permanently sanctioned Eve’s position of subjection as a punishment for the sin for which she was responsible: “You [Eve] are the Devil’s gateway. You are the first deserter of divine law;

You destroyed so easily God’s image, man.” 391 St. Augustine declared that the female was not even made in the image of God: “the woman together with her own husband is the image of God, so that the whole substance may be one image; but when she is referred separately to her quality of help meet, which regards the woman herself alone, then she is not the image of God.”392 By the early sixteenth century, when reformers disputed the traditional exegesis of Scripture, new ideas about women emerged, challenging the conventional interpretation of Eve’s position in

Genesis. Eve was no longer seen as being created unequal to Adam. Instead, Eve was declared equal to Adam from conception and created in the same image. Therefore, she was also the spiritual equal to man and guaranteed salvation.393 John Calvin had accepted this more progressive position, writing that the sexes were equal in “that glory which peculiarly shines forth in human nature, where the mind, the will, and the senses, represent the divine order.”394

Martin Luther based his declaration of spiritual equality on Genesis 1:27: “Male and female, he

390 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 156r. 391 Margaret Sommerville, 25, 26. Cited in Weisner, 12. Terutullian associated Eve’s position with all women. 392 St. Augustine, On the Trinity. 12:7; cited in Diana H. Coole, Women in Political Theory: From Ancient Misogyny to Contemporary Feminism (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. 1988), 63. 393 Jordan, “Women’s Rule,” 421. 394 Shephard, Gender and Authority, 183. 104 created them.”395 However, Luther did not go so far as to claim total equality with men. Spiritual equality did not equal social or political equality, and both religious reformers believed that women were still subject to male authority in home and realm.396

Knox embraced the idea of female inferiority due to her condemnation by God: “For

God first by the order of his creation, and after by the curse and malediction pronounced against the woman, by the reason of her rebellion; woman in her greatest perfection was made to serve and obey man, not to rule or command him.”397 He associated Eve’s subjection to Adam with all women: “This sentence I say, did God pronounce against Eve and her daughters . . . so that no woman can ever presume to reign above man.”398 Knox then cited St. Augustine to support his conclusion that women were not created in God’s image: “How can woman be the image of God, seeing (says he) she is subject to man . . .compared to man, she may not be called the image of

God, for she bears not rule and lordship over man, but ought to obey him.”399 Eve’s sentence of physical pain, multiplied sorrows, and subordination to her spouse was a permanent change because God transferred Eve’s punishment to all women. Examples of women holding positions of authority in Scripture were extraordinary exceptions and did not set any precedent for women in the sixteenth century. Furthermore, natural and civil law simply reinforced divine law, which was as binding in the sixteenth-century as it was in biblical times.

In his reply, Howard asserted four truths about women. First, women were endowed with reason and therefore had equality of condition. Secondly, because women were given possession over beasts at the same time as Adam, they had equal dominion over them. Third, women had

395 Genesis 1:27. 396 Shephard, Gender and Authority, 183. 397 Knox, First Blast, 13r. 398 Ibid., 14v.-15r; Sommerville, Sex and Subjection, 29-34. 399 Ibid., 20r. See Ian Maclean, The Renaissance Notion of Woman: A Study in the Fortunes of Scholasticism and Medical Science in European Intellectual Life. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 13-14.

105 free will and were created in the image of God. Fourth, since women were created in the image of God, they had the sanction to be monarchs: “Wherever we perceive to find the image of God, we need not doubt that there is also power to bear rule.” These truths provided evidence of “the plot of providence, this was the law of nature, this was the manner of our first creation.”400

Concerning the interpretation of Genesis chapter three, Howard disagreed with Knox, declaring,

“that equality of condition wherein both Sexes were created in the first.”401 Eve was not a servant, but a helper in the sense of being a personal companion and a partner in procreation.

Howard interpreted man as meaning husband, not all humankind, claiming that it was the proper translation from the Hebrew.402 A woman was indeed subject to her husband, but single women, widows, and married women connected to other men were allowed to exercise authority if they had the proper right to do so. Emphasizing the difference between private position and public office, Howard went on to say specifically that the law laid down in Genesis did not apply to women in positions of authority, “since he [God] is neither immutable nor contrary to himself, the law set down in Genesis concerning duty and obedience of wives is not repugnant to the right of any governess.”403 Concerning Eve’s position in relationship to God, Howard believed God created her in His image, and on that basis, she was fully capable of exercising authority. He wrote:

We find that women were endowed with reason, which is the rule of government as well as men that they had equal dominion over creatures that possession was given to both by God at one time and with one act in one degree with mind that both were fashioned according to God’s Image; wherever we perceive or find the Image of god we need not doubt that there is also the power to bear rule.404

400 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 157r. 401 Ibid. 402 Ibid., fol. 187v.; Sheppard, “Henry Howard,” 597. 403 Ibid., fol. 162v.-163r. 404 Ibid., fol. 158r. Maclean , Renaissance Notion, 13-14. 106

Howard established Eve’s equality, and then moved on to discuss a woman’s right to inherit property and titles, and once received, how a woman demonstrated their authority according to natural and divine law. Howard asserted that in the sense of law, inheritance rights were a part of a natural, evolutionary process. At the time of creation, God had not established any laws concerning monarchy: “in this dawning of the day that were a foolish part to enquire of any queen when the first foundation of monarchy was not yet established.”405 Mankind had dominion over animals, but not over one another. He then emphasized his view on the natural progression of law. The law, as laid down in Scripture, was definitive and unchanging. Instead, he asserted that the decrees in Genesis were the starting point of a divinely inspired, natural, and logical progression of principles that evolved, as reflected in Canon law.

Howard’s view was concurrent to the traditionally Catholic view of biblical exegesis and

Canon law. As stated earlier, Protestant belief tended to hold to a literal interpretation of scripture, and Martin Luther’s construct of Sola Scriptora- “scripture alone.” However, Catholic belief held onto the idea of the “four senses of Scripture.” According to the Church fathers, the sacred word did have a literal sense, but also the spiritual, allegorical, moral, and analogical, which ensured a “living” reading of Scripture that was malleable. The senses allowed scholars to interpret it more completely in Canon law- the law of the Church as determined by Scripture and tradition.406 Canon Law was divided into divine and natural law, and to this point, although divine law was immutable, and unchanging, natural law was in essence, changeable in order to adapt to different circumstances over time. In this respect, Howard’s stance reflected the

405 Ibid., fol. 157v. 406 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica. 1:1:10. Aquinas: Summa Theologica. Complete English Edition in Five Volumes. Vol. 1. (Notre Dame: Christian Classics, Ava Maria Press, 1948), 10-11. Also see Henri De Lubac, Medieval Exegesis: The Four Senses of Scripture. Translated by Mark Sebanc. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998). 107 acknowledgement of the differences between divine and natural law that were recognized by the

Church after the Reformation.407

According to Howard, as mankind’s social needs changed, organized political systems developed, including precedent for inheritance, and by the time complaints concerning inheritance were first made in Genesis, some form of precedent must have been set. As an example, he used Leah and Rachel, two daughters who complained against their father in

Genesis 31 for not honoring their right to inherit. Howard wrote: “for this they could not have done with any likelihood unless both by the law of nature and the custom of that age they had been sometime capable not of movables alone but for the same respect of natural inheritance.”408

He continued with his point by noting that by the time Salphaad’s daughters petitioned for their inheritance in Numbers 27 it was natural for God to include women in the laws of inheritance.409

Howard asserted that God “pronounced with his voice that the motion was reasonable.”

Inheritance determined that “the daughters of Salphaad had not required a thing that was unnatural but just carried in my opinion a special weight for answer to their natural demand.”410

It was a part of the natural process of evolving law.

As the law developed, God then established monarchy: “After it had seemed good to him that governs all to limit all men’s actions by a written law…that an order was set down for kings.”411 Furthermore, if God could change the law to allow monarchs in general, then he could then modify the law to allow women to rule. Numerous biblical women had inherited property and he used their examples as precedent to underscore God’s sanction on female authority: “Sure

407 See Strigi, R. Handbuch des Katholischen und Protestantischen Kirchenrechts. (Regensburg, 1983), 16. 408 Ibid., fol. 158r. 409 See Craig Taylor, “The Salic Law, French Queenship, and the Defense of Women in the Late Middle Ages.” French Historical Studies. Vol. 29, No.4. (Fall, 2006): 543-564. 410 Ibid., fol. 160r. 411 Ibid., fol., 158r. 108

I am that the holy ghost acknowledges no difference in this respect for even as a daughter may continue the name and honor of her father, so may she in like sort for anything I find, continue his estate and claim all titles of authority that are linked to inheritance.”412 If women were equal and could through the natural progression of the laws inherit property, it was also the natural intention of God’s law for them to utilize the power that came with their titles. He then made the association between the biblical examples and contemporary female heirs: “The same respect and reason by which the Daughters of Salphaad demanded their allowance is as proper, if not more expedient, for heirs general to kings. The right is one to all the mean, the curse, the end are all the same.”413 Accordingly, cases cited in Scripture could be used as precedent to judge current cases of female heirs.

After establishing the right of a woman to inherit and rule, Howard discussed a woman’s capacity to fulfill the demands of the office. The accusation of unworthiness was not an unusual argument. Citing Aristotle to Augustine, men had proclaimed the unworthiness of women to govern men, and Knox addressed the assertion in First Blast. In fact, one of his main reasons for forbidding female rule, after the pronouncement laid down in Genesis, was that women were simply not capable or worthy of holding positions of authority. Knox drew heavily upon the examples of Tertullian, Augustine, Ambrose and others, citing them extensively to prove a woman’s inferior character.414 Knox declared women to be, “weak, frail, impatient, feeble and foolish: and experience hath declared them to be inconstant, variable, cruel and lacking the spirit of counsel and regiment.”415 Women placed into positions of authority over men were incapable of resisting pride. Individuals who governed had to be “constant, stable, prudent, and doing

412 Ibid., fol. 159v. 413 Ibid., fol. 161r. See Numbers 36:1-12. 414 Greaves, Theology and Revolution, 162. Felch, “The Rhetoric of Biblical Authority,” 806. 415 Knox, First Blast, 12v. 109 everything with discretion and reason, which virtues women cannot have in equality with men.”416 Knox also used the biblical examples of Jezebel and Athalia to prove the incapability of women, even though he had previously stated that the use of examples was not valid for making a point.

Instead of focusing on the opinions of the Church as Knox had, in his section on female ability to rule, Howard concentrated on the numerous biblical women who were considered capable of holding the positions they were given. He cited Deborah as a chief example of a worthy woman, and her position as a Judge as dramatic proof of a woman’s ability to rule

“because a woman was not thought unworthy to rule in the choice of God (from whom the fountain of wisdom springs) to bear rule over men; and the same god …made Deborah sufficient to rule.”417 He praised her ability to stabilize the nation stating that “Israel did hold a most direct and godly course while she bare rule.”418 Howard noted that during the reigns of male Judges,

Israel had gone astray and went so far as to say that the Israelites preferred Deborah’s rule to those before her who “had proved to their loss how unable sundry men that governed before had been.”419 Interestingly, for Howard’s focus on Deborah was in keeping with the construct of

Elizabeth as Deborah, an analogy Protestants made after her accession. Elizabeth was a Deborah, sent by God to save the people of England from the Roman Church.420 In his analogy of

Deborah, Knox made no exception for Deborah in relation to English queens. Her authority was simply prophetic and was not a substitute for authority. Knox also took the opportunity to refute the claims of Salphaad’s daughters in the same section of commentary, and stated of all three

416 Ibid., 24r. 417 Ibid., fol.163r. See Michele Osherow, “ ‘Give ear o’ Princes’: Deborah as a Model for Female Authority. In her Biblical Women’s Voices in Early Modern England (London: Ashgate, 2009) for a discussion on Deborah in thought and relation to Elizabeth I. 418 Ibid., fol. 163v. 419 Ibid. 420 Osherow, Biblical Women’s Voices, 81. 110 women: “To sum up: “…neither the example of Deborah, neither the law made for the daughters of Salphaad, neither the foolish consent of an ignorant multitude, be able to justify that which

God hath so plainly condemned…”421 First Blast may have been published before Elizabeth’s accession, no doubt his negative commentary toward Deborah, and all women was not ignored by the new queen.422

Howard brought his arguments together and concluded the issue of inheritance by stating he believed that the intention of God’s law was to provide for the well-being and peace of his people. If this meant changing a law in order to maintain the good, then it could be done without changing God’s intention. For Howard, laws were to be seen in their essence. Knox tended to look at the letter of the law because he would go no further than the first ordinance of God.

Howard saw the law as more pliable and states, “for as it was apparent to the providence of god that the question would oftentimes fall out so in like sort, it pleased him to take certain order beforehand that it might be decided always according to one rule of equity.”423 Believing this to be so, Howard posited that some laws were meant for only a time, that some were meant to be changed or repealed if they needed to be changed for the good of the people, but all law, like that laid down in the Scriptures was still the law of God, since the law came from Him to begin with.

Knox dedicated a considerable amount of First Blast to Paul’s advice laid out in his letters in the New Testament. Knox believed that Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and therefore binding as God’s word: “but the Holy Ghost gives to us another interpretation of this place, taking from all women all kind of superiority, authority and power over man, speaking as flowing by the mouth of Saint Paul.”424 Knox cited Paul’s recommendations to the Church, and

421 Knox, First Blast; Political Writings, 64-65. 422 Healy, “Waiting for Deborah,” 377-378. 423 Ibid., fol. 160v. 424 Knox, 15r. 111 extrapolated from them the association to all women under all circumstances: “The apostle takes power from all woman to speak in the assembly, ergo, he permits no woman to rule above man.”425 Furthermore, he believed the writings of Tertullian and Augustine supported his conclusion, and accused men who accepted a woman’s rule to the blinded by “miserable bondage.” The Pauline condemnations combined with the decrees in Genesis, made a woman’s subjection complete, and he likened any attempt to deviate from his conclusion as tyranny.426

In addressing each objection, Howard maintained the same style of argument he had used when addressing the objections according to natural and civil law. First, he refuted the statement against women, and then provided examples to prove that women could perform the supposedly prohibited role. He presented a progressive view of scriptural exegesis by stating that Paul’s prohibition of women speaking in the Church, should be interpreted in light of the situation at the time. Paul’s command may have applied to women in a particular congregation, but application of the decree could not be applied to all women, nor could it be extrapolated that it applied to any situation outside the Church: “I deny that either Moses or David or Joshua spoke to the people in that kind which they that are precise call speaking at this day that is preaching of the word or that

Saint Paul, whose words without his meaning they would urge did speak of any congregation then the Church.”427 His opinion fit in with his view of law in general, that laws were applicable to certain people under certain circumstances, and no law could be deemed as unalterable. With regard to God’s law, man may not have been able to change it, but God could, and did when he saw it as necessary.

Ultimately, Howard’s objection to Knox’s declarations was the Scotsman’s literal view of

Scripture and his refusal to apply alternate interpretations of law to a given circumstance.

425 Ibid., 16v. 426 Ibid., 33r. 427 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 217r. 112

Howard refuted Knox in each case by offering views of scriptural exegesis and application. God created women in his image and they were therefore equal to men in mind and spirit. According to Scripture, women were able to inherit titles and act upon their authority. Furthermore, laws could evolve and change as necessary to ensure the well-being of people and the state. Natural law reinforced sacred law and both provided women with the sanction needed to rule as a monarch—a position that no man was allowed to prevent them from acceding to, or take away from them if they were the legal heir. If it can extrapolated from the remaining sections in the

Appendix manuscripts that Howard had completed his arguments against Knox, the treatise may very well have been finished based on the copy in secretary hand as well as Howard’s own handwriting. However, the very circumstances that induced him to write in 1577 also created a series of events that dramatically changed Howard’s life over the next decade. The 1580’s produced extensive political change, and introduced additional authors writing against the queen, and as will be seen, it provided Howard with the opportunity to change and expand “Dutifull

Defence” beyond its first edition into a work more reflective of Elizabeth’s world in 1590.

113

CHAPTER FIVE

THE VIA MEDIA AND POLITICS

Henry Howard completed the first drafts of “Dutifull Defence” at some point between

1577 and 1581, and he may have desired to present the treatise to Elizabeth during the Anjou negotiations while the Catholics were still maintaining an aura of power at court. However, events over the next five years inflamed suspicion of Catholics and possible conspirators, interfering with his ability to continue working on the defense. Between 1581 and 1585 Howard faced accusations of conspiracy and treason resulting in numerous arrests, interrogations and confinements. All of the plots he was supposedly involved in between 1581 and 1587 revolved around the continuing problem of Elizabeth producing or declaring a legitimate heir for the

English throne and support for Mary Queen of Scots. Intrigues ensued involving courtiers, councilors, ambassadors, and numerous commoners who had contact with both Elizabeth’s court and the Scottish queen. Mary’s supporters still believed she was the legitimate heir to the English throne. In reaction, Elizabeth’s ministers sought to eliminate Mary as a threat to England and their queen. Elizabeth knew Mary was dangerous, but hesitated at the thought of executing a sovereign queen. Her unwillingness to act, combined with her refusal to name a successor, opened the door to several attempts to invade England, dethrone Elizabeth and put Mary in her place, or assassinate Elizabeth in order to clear the way for Mary’s ascent. And, not surprisingly,

Howard ended up being associated with all of the plots, and once again found himself in trouble.

As has been seen, in the early 1580’s the Catholics in court aligned themselves in opposition to the earl of Leicester by supporting the Anjou marriage, and Sussex was the principal patron of the group. Howard had taken advantage of his favorable position with Sussex

114 and the Catholic gentlemen by writing the treatise in favor of a union with Anjou.428 In fact, during the Anjou negotiations, Henry II had written to Howard thanking him for his assistance:

I have heard from my ambassador, M. de Mauvissiere, how on every opportunity that can serve to confirm the friendship between the Queen of England and myself, and especially in regard to her marriage according to my desire with my brother the Duke of Anjou, you employ your good offices, and forget nothing which your good natural disposition, desiring of seeing our amity established, can affect. From which I assure you I have received great pleasure and satisfaction, and am most grateful to you, as you deserve, and as I shall always on occasion be glad to show.429

However, when it became clear that the French would not support the English Catholics if the marriage were not to occur, the Sussex contingent turned to Spain, opening up a new avenue of intrigue and facilitating the events that would cause Henry Howard much trouble in the first half of the decade. The earl of Oxford, Howard’s one time companion, cousin, and confidant betrayed his fellow Catholics, and facilitated the disintegration of the group from 1581 on.

Oxford, saw the Catholic’s overtures toward Spain as treasonous, and after Howard had informed Elizabeth about Leicester’s marriage to one of the queen’s ladies in waiting, Lettice

Knollys, the earl vowed retaliation. In December 1580 he managed to woo Oxford away from

Catholic alliance.430 Fearful of repercussions for his behavior during the 1570’s and the treatment of his wife, Oxford openly and eagerly confessed his Catholic associations to the queen and then accused Howard and his Catholic allies of recusancy and conspiracy.431 Leicester offered

Howard’s friend, Philip Arundell a thousand pounds to implicate Howard specifically, but

Arundell refused to betray his friend.432 Luckily for Howard, at this point Elizabeth did not consider the matter to be very serious, as Howard and Arundell had actively supported the

428 B. L., Harleian MSS 180, “Discourse Concerning the Match Between Queen Elizabeth and duke’ d’Anjou.” 429 CSPF, 252. 430 Peck, Leicester’s Commonwealth, 19. 431 Ward, Oxford, 206; Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 124. 432 PRO, SP 15/27A/46. 115

French marriage. Moreover, her prior knowledge of their religious affiliation did not seem to cause alarm. Elizabeth said she would “close her eyes to it,” so long as it went no further and both Howard and Arudell were released.433 Nevertheless, Leicester refused to give up, and approached the queen a second time with information intended to implicate the two friends. This time Leicester presented the queen with a list of formal charges against Howard and Arundell, including not only recusancy and conspiracy, but disrespectful conduct toward the queen.434

Fearing that his liberty would soon be compromised once again, Howard wrote to Walsingham, protesting his innocence.435

Howard’s suspicions were well founded. Using Oxford’s information given to Leicester as warrant, Howard and Arundell were arrested for discussing treasonable activities while frequenting a tavern in London, and associating with Jesuit priests.436 Shortly after being taken into custody, Howard again wrote to Walsingham, attempting to explain his conduct. He insisted that he had never been unfaithful to Elizabeth, and that he only attended mass in order to satisfy his conscience on points of the sacraments.437 Arundell underwent several interrogations, always denying that he and Howard had met on the occasions mentioned in Leicester and Oxford’s accusations. Howard then went a step further than Arundell in order to defend himself, not only refuting Oxford’s accusations, but accusing the earl of being an atheist, participating in dangerous practices, attempting to murder Leicester, and committing indecent acts including

433 C.R.S. 21. 29-30, as cited in Peck, Leicester’s Commonwealth, 20. 434 See Nelson, Monstrous Adversary, 273-275 for an account of Howard’s and Arundel’s arrest. 435 PRO, SP 12/150/81. Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 123. 436 PRO, SP 12/151/42 and 12/151/47. Howard and Arundell were alleged to have met at a tavern in Fleet Street as well as at Northumberland’s home. Howard was accused of supporting the interests of the young king of Scots and of slandering the queen. “He hath said the duke of Guise who was a rare and gallant gentleman should be the man to come to Scotland, who would breech her Majesty for all her wantonness.” Documents 12/151/42-57 detail the account in full. These entries are dated 1581, but contain no month or day. However, they correspond with the events of late 1580 and early 1581. 437 PRO, SP 12/147/6. 116 bestiality, necromancy, and sodomy with Sir Philip Sidney438 Howard even went so far as to claim that Oxford had conscripted a murder in 1577, which Howard had witnessed.439 In addition, Howard appealed to Burghley, providing the names of several people who could vouch for his conduct.440 The matter reached a climax when Oxford was forced to make an account of his own adulterous exploits on the continent and in his marriage in July, 1581. Elizabeth also forced Oxford to confront Howard and Arundell directly with his accusations, and although there was no formal trial over the matter, Howard was remitted to custody for several months.441 He wrote to Sir Christopher Hatten, the Lord Chamberlain concerning his situation: “I have lain seven months in prison, and yet am not privy to the least offence either to my Prince or country.”442 Howard believed that Hatton would help him as the Lord Chamberlain had a reputation with the Catholics as a supporter of their cause and the belief that he was a possible co-religionist.443 However, the plea went unheard and Howard and Arundell remained in custody from December 1580 until July 1581. Once released, Howard decided to write to Leicester in an attempt to improve their relationship, but to no avail.444 Leicester continued his mission to break up the Catholic supporters of the Anjou match. The Catholic gentleman, realizing the French marriage negotiations had failed, continued their work on behalf of Mary Stuart and her claim to the English throne.

438 PRO, SP 12/151/57. Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 123; More specifically, Howard stated that Oxford had “often tymes copulation with a female spirite in Sir George Howardes house at Grenwich,” that “Charles Tyrrell apperid to him with a whippe after he was dead and his mother in a shete fortelling things to come,” and “that he could coniure and had often conference with Satan.” LIB 4.2/2 as cited in Nelson, Monstrous Adversary,58-59. 439 LIB 3.1/4 as cited in Nelson, Monstrous Adversary, 174. Arundel backed up all of Howard’s accusations in his own testimony. 440 BL, Cotton MSS, Titus C CVI, fols. 2r-3r; fols. 4r-5v contain a letter to the Queen concerning Oxford. 441 PRO, SP 12/151/69. Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 124. 442 BL Add. MSS 15891, fol. 119b. Cited in Sir Nicholas Harris, Memoirs of the Life and Times of Sir Christopher Hatton, K.G. (London: Richard Bentley, 1847), 377. 443 MacCaffrey, Queen Elizabeth, 103. 444 PRO, SP 12/150/51. 117

Significantly, it was during the 1581 dispute that Howard became acquainted with

Bernardino de Mendoza, the Spanish ambassador. Mendoza had arrived at the English court in

1578 with orders to maintain civil relations with Queen Elizabeth and support Spanish interests, but was unsuited in temperament for his assigned task. Shunned by Elizabeth’s councilors,

Mendoza courted, and was courted by, the English Catholics and supporters of the queen of

Scots.445 By 1581 Mendoza was a confidant of Mary Stuart. He was also sympathetic to the

Howard family, referring to Henry as “a good Catholic” who had faithfully performed his duties to the Church.446 In fact, Mendoza considered him one of the more dedicated Catholics in the realm: “This gentleman is in close connection with all the Catholic gentlemen in the kingdom; for this reason, I have kept up a close intimacy with him.”447 He was also aware of Howard’s problems with Oxford and became personally involved in the situation.

In a letter to Philip II in late 1581, Mendoza explained that after Howard and Arundell learned of the queen’s desire to have them arrested the two came to his house, seeking refuge.

Mendoza obliged, because he had known Howard “by repute for years past, by means of priests.”448 At that point, the ambassador had been out of favor with the queen for some time and was forbidden to appear at court. Therefore, after his release in 1581, Howard became

Mendoza’s court contact during the ambassador’s times of absence:

In his gratitude for my kindness in sheltering him, Lord Harry has expressed to me most emphatically that all that he has is at your Majesty’s service, thus showing his acknowledgment for the favor I did him, which is no small novelty for an Englishman to do.449

445 Mendoza initiated contact with Mary Queen of Scots in 1581. Andersson suggests that one of the reasons Howard openly engaged in contact with Mendoza was because of the ambassador’s new association with Mary. Lord Henry Howard, 121. 446 CSPS, 145. 447 CSPS, 315. 448 CSPS, 246; MacCaffrey, Queen Elizabeth, 316. Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 124. 449 Ibid. 118

Over the next few years, Howard provided Mendoza with information and court gossip, especially regarding the issue of the queen’s marriage negotiations with Anjou, and the issue of

Mary Queen of Scots.450 In 1582, Mendoza encouraged the king to grant Howard a pension, for he was considered an “extremely zealous” and valuable contact. Agreeing to Mendoza’s request,

Phillip granted Howard 1,200 crowns a year for his services.451 Howard and Mendoza continued to correspond until Mary Stuart’s death, but the contact would cost Howard his freedom and nearly his life.

In the introductory letter of “Dutifull Defence,” Howard attests to the danger of the situation in 1581. He indicates that he began to work on the treatise in earnest after a brief respite from suspicion, but he was forced to stop work once again due to all of the problems he had been facing: “So likewise after I had put my vessel under sail and doubled the Cape of Good Hope with wind at will, my mast was broken, my tackle torn, and which did most of all discourage me my pilot perished.452 Howard’s language may have been florid, but his analogy directly referenced events in the early 1580’s, his association with Mendoza, and the Catholics, who, though keeping a low profile, were still attempting to secure their agenda at court. Importantly to Howard during these years was his close relationship with Sussex. Howard and Sussex were especially close, and Sussex’s death in 1583 was a blow to Howard personally.453 Sussex had been a good friend to Henry’s late brother Thomas, and has always cautioned the impetuous

450 Even though Howard was directly involved with Mary, she was always cautious about contact with Howard, perhaps because of his close contact with people at court. She wrote to Mendoza about her reservations: “I will write you a word by Lord Harry to assure you that you may safely send by him any letters to me that you may think proper, but do not trust him with anything of importance.” CSPS, 315. 451 CSPS, 364. Medoza writes: Lord Harrry continues to serve with his usual care and intelligence. I understand that we cannot give him less than 1,000 or 1,200 crowns a year.”; MacCaffrey, Queen Elizabeth, 322-23. 452 "Dutifull Defence," fol. 3v. 453 Mendoza noted their friendship in his correspondence with Philip: “He is extremely intimate with Sussex.” CSPS, 246; MacCaffrey, Queen Elizabeth, 317. 119 duke against trusting men who claimed to be his allies.454 Exceptionally loyal to the queen,

Sussex was involved in the problems surrounding Mary Stuart from the beginning.455 When

Howard found himself in danger again toward the end of 1583, Sussex’s death in October compounded his destitution. When Howard lamented that his pilot had perished, he was speaking of Sussex as Sussex had been his stronghold through the early 1580’s. However, after the earl’s death, when Howard spoke about his broken mast and torn tackle, he was referring to the consequences of the next plot to threaten Elizabeth-the Throckmorton Plot.

In late 1583, the duke of Guise sponsored a plot to assassinate Elizabeth for the sum of

100,000 francs. When the hired assassin backed out of the venture, Guise and the English

Catholics living on the continent joined forces with the papal nuncio in Rome in planning a double invasion of England.456 In September, under Guise’s direction, Charles Paget (Lord

Paget’s brother and another emissary for Mary Stuart) arrived in England with instructions to enlist the support of Catholic magnates for a planned invasion of the Sussex coast. The incursion was intended to be two pronged, with the Spanish army landing in Scotland and the French army in England. Their intention was to rescue Mary Stuart, secure toleration for Catholics, and if necessary, depose Elizabeth. Mendoza and a common recruit named Francis Throckmorton were given instructions to organize the English Catholics and plan a rising when the two armies arrived.457 Throckmorton had been previously involved with Mary Stuart, working as one of her postmen. For her part, Mary was fully aware of the plan and approved the entire enterprise.458

454 Sussex and Norfolk had aligned themselves against Leicester during the Hapsburg marriage negotiations, which were inflated to levels of near violence between court factions in the 1560s. For a discussion of the Norfolk-Sussex alliance and how it affected court Catholicism, see Susan Doran, “Religion and Politics at the Court of Elizabeth I.” add full entry 455 MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 118, 130. 456 Ibid., 341; Read, Walsingham, 384; 457 Ibid., 341, 342; Peck, Leicester’s Commonwealth, 23. 458 Mary’s letters approving the conspiracy provided the evidence needed to finally expedite her demise and eventual execution in 1587. 120

In spite of careful planning, the conspiracy was soon discovered. Due to his frequent visits to the French embassy, Throckmorton quickly aroused the suspicion of Sir Francis

Walsingham, Secretary of State and Privy Councilor. Walsingham responded rapidly, and for the next six months his network of agents tracked Throckmorton, who was finally seized in

November. Henry Howard was pulled into the group of suspects in April, 1583 when one of

Walsingham’s spies, Henry Fagot, reported that the chief agents for the queen of Scots were

Throckmorton and Lord Henry Howard.459 It was implied that on April 29, 1583 Howard had visited the French ambassador at Salisbury Court to discuss Mary Queen of Scots.460 Howard was brought in for questioning in July, 1583, but was not imprisoned at the time. He was then brought in again in November for further questioning. On November 9, Robert Beale, a clerk of the Council, wrote to Walsingham stating that Sir Ralph Sadler and Sir Walter Mildmay, both anti-Catholic privy councilors who objected to the possible Stuart succession, had information concerning Henry Howard that they wished to relate to Elizabeth. Lord Hunsdon, a privy counselor, led Howard’s interrogation, and Howard was directly accused of secretly corresponding with the queen of Scots. He was also asked about his knowledge of, and correspondence with Charles Paget, and about his communications with the French ambassador with regard to Mary’s plight. Howard was also accused receiving a ring from the Scottish queen as a token of her regard for him, accusations he denied. Howard wrote:

[N]either I spake ever with one Throckmorton (with whose familiar acquaintance I was charged) more than once, and then of nothing otherwise than fell out by chance, without offence to any man alive; neither did I ever receive any ring from the queen of Scots, whereof I was accused.461

459 Read, Walsingham, 381. Fagot’s confession was originally transcribed in French. “Le grande fauteurs de la royne decosse est le Sieur Frocquemorton et le milord Henry Howard et ils ne vienent jamais raporte chose d’icelleque la nuit.” SP Mary Queen of Scots, 12/61; Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 145. 460 BL Cotton MS Caligula, C VII, fol. 214; Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 145. 461 BL Cotton MS Caligula C VII, fol. 261. Also cited in Nott, 435; BL, Add.MSS.15891, fol. 122b. Also cited in Read, Walsingham, 369. 121

Hunsdon was not convinced and Howard remained in custody. The situation became worse later in the month when William Herle, diplomat and spy for Walsinghsam, accused Howard of being a priest, being in the pay of one of the Pope’s cardinals, and wanting to start a revolt: “Ytt is he

[Howard] that advised Simier to procede by the papists to establish his Monsieur here, and to purge religion by the blood of sondry of our gretest houses in England.”462 It seemed as if

Howard would finally be defeated by his enemies.

The interrogation continued on December 17 when members of the council met with

Howard once again, and the earl of Northumberland questioned Howard about his knowledge of

Throckmorton and Lord Paget. The next day one George More was questioned about his knowledge of Throckmorton, Paget, one T. Morgan, the earl of Shrewsbury, Charles Arundel, and Henry Howard in regard to their dealings with the Queen of Scots.463 Howard was then examined by Lord Hunsdon and Robert Beale on January 1, 1584, and questioned about letters that had passed between Paget and Mary Queen of Scots.464 Howard relates in both a personal letter and the introductory letter of “Dutifill Defence” that in 1584 his home was invaded, and as he stated, my “desks and coffes have been broken uppe my papers serched.”465 Moreover, during

January, a servant of George More’s confessed that he had delivered letters from Mary to the earl of Arundel and a Catholic nobleman. The servant’s account was confirmed when one of Mary’s letters fell into Walsingham’s hands: “If you can, get access directly or indirectly to

Throckmorton or [Lord Henry] Howard, assure them in my name that I shall never forget their

462 November, 1583. BL Lansdowne MS 39, f. 190v. 463 CSPD, 138, 139. 464 BL, Cotton MSS, Caligula C VII, fol. 269. In the interrogation, Howard acknowledged arranging to deliver letters,, which were always blank on the outside, and he did not know who was wanting them delivered. Alford, Burghley, 251. Alford describes Henry Howard as “a dangerous man.” He states that Howard’s education, cleverness, “social clout,” and connections through his late brother, made it necessary for him to be watched. 465 DUL Howard MS 5, fol. 40v as cited in Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 150. 122 affection for me and their great suffering in my cause.”466 The final blow for Howard came on

February 12, when he was committed to the Tower on suspicion of treason.467 For their part,

Lord Paget and Charles Arundel fled to France when they heard of Throckmorton’s arrest, and the details of the plot came out. Guise had sent an agent to England in 1583 to brief Catholic sympathizers. Throckmorton worked as an informant for Guise, and had been helped by

Mendoza. If Throckmorton fell, Paget would take over.468 For Howard’s part no proof could be found of his direct complicity, but he was still imprisoned. In desperation, he appealed to

Burghley: “I will protest unto your Lord after the close endurance of six months wherein I have been subject to all kinds of search, and trial that may bolt out truth, that I stand most free from guilt in any point whereof I was accused.”469 Yet, once again, Howard was not set free.

Howard remained in the Tower until he was finally released in August, 1584. He was permitted to go to Redgrave, although he remained under close observation for several months.

Writing in 1590, Howard recalled his troubles with candor, and spoke about opinions of him and the motives for his work:

Integrity was then accounted flattery, respect to conscience corruption, plain dealing fraud. The drift of my discourse was wrongfully indicted at a privy council session before it could appear by any outward act, process was served on my arguments before they could be set in readiness to pass and I myself uncited, unexamined, unheard was adjudged guilty by voice of many spiteful jurors.470

Howard then expounded on the particular accusations that had been brought against him.

He claimed there were individuals who thought that the defense of female rule should not

466 Read, Walsingham, 389. Read cites Labanoff, Lettres de Marie Stuart, 5/424 467 PRO, SP 12/168/14; DNB, s.v. Henry Howard 29; Nott, 435. There is a discrepancy between authors as to whether Howard was placed in the Tower or the Fleet. The DNB and Nott both state that Howard was incarcerated in the Fleet. However, the entry for his arrest in the Calendar of State papers states that he was removed to the Tower and is cited as such in this work. 468 Alford, Burghley, 255. Also see Read, Walsingham, 422; 469 BL, Cotton MSS, Titus C VI, fol. 32v. 470 "Dutifull Defence," fol. 3v. 123 have been addressed. More importantly, Howard believed he had been attacked for his supposed participation in conspiracy with the Spanish, and interestingly, that he was composing his defense specifically for Mary Stuart: “Another company accused me of sailing with a side wind of hailing to the north point like a cunning bargeman, when my eye was in the south of offering to saints unknown and seeking under the safe protection of an eagles wings to hatch a cockatrice.471 Howard had previously been accused of communicating with Mary Stuart during the Ridolfi Plot, and then the Norfolk marriage plot. It is not surprising that those who were suspect of Howard might think he was writing for the Scottish queen rather than Elizabeth. Nevertheless, Howard protested, stating that he felt the interrogations he underwent were unfounded, and that those accusing him had no proof of his guilt. He accepted that, considering the circumstances, it was advantageous for him to stop writing, “cast anchor in a quiet harbor,” and attend less controversial pursuits.472 Nevertheless, Howard continued to be harassed for the remainder of the decade and expressed his frustration to the queen: “I know not where to place myself, without displacing my desires nor where to pick up any better comfort than in remaining altogether comfortless.”473 Howard may have despaired over his situation, but his resilience never abated. He continued his attempts to appease the Queen and convince her of his loyalty.

Howard was vehement that he had never transgressed his loyalty to Queen Elizabeth.

Nevertheless, he frequently teetered on the brink of treason by involving himself in the

471 Ibid., fol. 4r. A cockatrice, or basilisk, was a serpent like creature whose breath and glance were fatal. The term was often applied to people or used as a reference of reproach for a woman. Howard uses the word with a touch of irony, not referring to a woman, but a conspiracy revolving around a woman reproached by the English regime. OED s.v. 472 Ibid., fol. 4v. 473 Ibid., fol. 5v. 124 dangerous world that combined religion and politics. Often, he was aware of the risk he was taking. In his letters to Philip II, Mendoza related Howard’s concerns, and revealed something of Howard’s relationship with the Spanish:

He [Howard] assures me that, seeing the many enemies he has in England, he is greatly desirous of rendering service to your Majesty, in order that, if he is unfortunate enough to be obliged to leave this country before he sees the queen of Scotland in the position he desires, your Majesty may receive him.474

For men disillusioned by the lack of tolerance for English Catholics, Mary Stuart’s declining position, and Elizabeth’s unsuccessful marriage negotiations, it might be worth the possible appearance of treason to secure religious acceptance and political success.

In addition to intermittent persecution he suffered in the early 1580’s, in 1586 Howard again found himself indirectly involved in another conspiracy known as the Babington plot.475 A seminary priest named John Ballard had met with Mendoza in France, informing the then exiled ambassador that a plan was evolving among the English Catholics to assassinate the queen. After

Mendoza’s support was secured, Anthony Babington, a wealthy, young Catholic gentleman and supporter of the Jesuit mission in England, was enlisted to help raise support for the uprising, which would free Mary Stuart from captivity after Elizabeth was dead.476 The design of the plot expanded through July, but Walsingham intercepted several letters from Mary Stuart, which openly discussed the plan. Babington was captured on August 14, and the affair ultimately gave

Walsingham the evidence he needed to justify Mary’s execution.477 Howard was never questioned or named as an official conspirator, but in a letter to Philip II, Mendoza mentioned

474 CSPS, 316. 475 See Read, Lord Burghley and Queen Elizabeth, 342-347; Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 157-158. 476 Read, Lord Burghley, 343; Andersson, 157. Also see Antonia Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots (New York: Random House, 1969), 481-484. 477 Ibid., 493. 125

Howard as one of the Catholic gentleman prepared to raise troops.478 It is unlikely that Howard would have been deeply involved in a plan supporting a sovereign’s murder. Throughout his life, he consistently discouraged open resistance that called for such extreme measures. In a letter written later in life, Howard spoke of his counsel to Queen Mary during her time as a prisoner: “I did ever advise her to win time . . . to discourage practice with patience . . . so I fled those giddy councilors of ill seasoned colors, which did not stick, out of the fervency of ambition, to put her life in the hazard for the satisfaction of their vast desires.”479

It is remarkable that in spite of the intrigue and imprisonments between 1581 and 1585, no sustaining evidence was found against Howard, and unlike his father and brother, he survived.

Moreover, during all of the turmoil Howard experienced during the 1580’s, he never gave up on his writing, even if his attention was not focused on “Dutifull Defence.”480 For Howard, like his father the earl of Surrey, adversity only seemed to stimulate the creative process, and perhaps provided an escape from the troubles surrounding him at the time. Over the years he wrote many works, including five devotional offices written between 1580 and 1589, reflecting his continued preference for Catholicism.481 For Howard and other Catholics in Elizabethan England, the use of devotionals had become important as a source in personal worship as Elizabeth’s reign progressed and laws altered how Catholics could outwardly express their faith.482 Devotional aids were printed on the Continent, and families also relied on surviving copies of older

478 CSPS, 604. 479 BL, Cotton MSS, Titus C VI, fol. 138. 480 Howard’s notes from the time, contained in DUL Howard MS 1 indicate the beginnings of a work on alchemy. As cited in Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 151. 481 The offices include: BL Arundel MS 300; BL Additional MS 78414; DUL Howard MS 1; DUL Howard MS 5; and University of Virginia, Rare Book School 4876. All of them are complete or partial copies of devotional materials. Andersson discusses the devotionals, but fails to indicate who they were presented to, except for Additional MS 78414. Howard indicates that copying Scripture was a way to impress them upon the heart. Fol. 42. This idea was not unheard of. All of them are at this time non vidi. A Defensative Against the Poyson of Supposed Prophecies (London: Iohn Charlewood, printer to the right Honourable Earle of Arundell, 1583). 482 Christopher Haigh, “The Continuity of Catholicism in the English Reformation.” Past and Present. No. 93, (November, 1981): 66. 126 devotional works already in their possession.483 Howard combined the use of traditional

Catholic, liturgical material, with the practice of versification of the Psalms.484Interestingly, one of the devotions recalled a motet based on Psalm 136 by English composer, and ardent Catholic,

William Byrd.485

Like Howard, William Byrd had been accused of recusancy and involvement in the

Babington Plot. He was also involved with the Paget family during the Throckmorton Plot, and during the first Jesuit mission to England in1580, he was described as one of the likely “friends” and “ayders” to exiled Catholics. 486 He was interrogated along with Howard in 1583.487 It is possible that Howard may have been writing one of the devotionals for Byrd, who was a friend, and had been through very similar experiences. He also dedicated one of them to Lord Burghley.

Being acutely aware of the precariousness of his position at court, it was necessary to pacify the reformed councilor as well as write privately for his friends.488

It was also during this time that we wrote one of his only published works, A Defensative

Against the Poyson of Supposed Prophecies (1583). The work is a discourse against astrology and the occult and, oddly enough, dedicated to Walshingham, even though the minster had done everything possible to find Howard guilty of treason.489 Howard was, no doubt, trying to appease the minister and bolster his defense. Howard’s basis for the work is the implication that astrology is a flawed system due to its absence of gratitude toward God. To Howard, reason is inferred to

483 Ibid., 67 484 Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 151-152. Andersson notes the the relationship between Howard and his father in that the earl of Surrey also produced works based on the Pslams. Howard was particularly fond of the Pius V breviary, which he mentions in a note to Burghley in Additional MS 78414. 485 The motet is Super flumina Babylonis. 486 Jeremy L. Smith, “ ‘Unlawful song’: Byrd, the Babington Plot and the Paget Choir.” Early Music. Vol. 38, No. 4. (2010): 498. 487 Ibid.; Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 153. 488 The devotion in BL Additional MS 78414 is prefaced by an dedication to Lord Burghley. 489 A Defensative Against the Poyson of Supposed Prophecies. London: Iohn Charlewood, printer to the right Honourable Earle of Arundell, (1583). Andersson is the only author to discuss or analyze any part of Defensative. 127 man by God. He draws on mythical character types in Homer’s Odyssey to show humans who fail to use reason and then points out that this same kind of wrongdoing can be seen every day:

“it falleth out by dayly proofe among our selves.”490 He then presents his objections based on the standard three critiques against astrology at the time by using the divine, the legal, and the philosophical to make his points.491

The work would not stand out in relation to his life in the 1580’s except that it played a role in his troubles with Walsingham in the early 1580’s. At the time of his arrests and interrogations during the course of the Throckmorton plot, William Herle, who had previously accused Howard of being a priest, relayed to Burghley some information he had received from a gentlemen who suggested that Howard’s work be looked at by a censor: “for that the said booke is conserved by some of good judement to conteyne sundrie heresies and spyces withal of treason, though somewhat closelie carreyed as the author imagynes.”492 Luckily for Howard, in this case, the accusation was not pursued, although it mattered little as Howard was already under arrest for the numerous other accusations he had been facing. Nonetheless, Defensative provides an additional example of Howard’s persistence to keep working if the face of adversity.

It took him a year to complete, and he was, as with “Dutifull Defence,” interrupted several times during the writing process. It is likely that the composition of Defensative overlapped his work on “Dutifull Defence.” However, “Dutifull Defence” was still another seven years away from completion. At the moment, Defensative was more important to the immediate situation.

Howard may have been in brief trouble for his Defensative, but it was not the most notorious work that he was involved with during his time of troubles. In 1584 the publication of

Leicester’s Commonwealth, or as it was originally called, The Copy of a Letter Written by a

490 Defensative, fol. B3v. as cited in Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 135. 491 Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 136. 492 BL Lansdowne MS 39, f. 193r. Also cited in Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 147,148. 128

Master of Arts of Cambridge created such a stir at court that Parliament became involved. 493 The anonymous tract was written with three distinct goals; to discredit the earl of Leicester in both his private and public life, advance Mary Queen of Scots claim to the English throne, and curtail growing anxieties about English Catholics.494 The book became popular immediately on the continent and in England. Accounts recall copies being brought in from the continent with other

Catholic material. The book was openly read at court and a copy even made its way in an out of the Tower of London unnoticed.495 However, the book attracted immediate attention from the queen and Walsingham, who set out to suppress the work as they saw it as an attack on Elizabeth and her entire regime. Elizabeth was so upset she issued a proclamation from Hampton Court denouncing the contents as lies and requiring all copies to be surrendered to authorities. Persons found in a possession of a copy would be imprisoned. The queen went so far as to attempt to push a bill through Parliament against “scandalous libeling.”496

The government then set out to find the author of the work, and Henry Howard was on the list of potential culprits. He was known to be a part of the court Catholics who held a grudge against Leicester, and only someone who knew the court well could have written it due to the details in the book.497 There was no proof that Howard composed the work, but there was also no doubt that his ideas and attitudes played a major role in its composition, and he may have written some of the first drafts of the work. The final product reflects his input, and as one of the top

493 The phrase, “Leicester’s Commonwealth” only appears in the text once, but by 1586, the readers were referring to the tract as Leicester’s Commonwealth, rather than its original title. Peck, Leicester’s Commonwealth, 5. 494 Ibid., 4. Also see, Peck, Northampton, 10. 495 Ibid., 5. 496 Simond D’Ewes, Journals of All the Parliaments (London, 1682) as cited in Peck, Leicester’s Commonwealth, 7- 8. The bill received a reading in the House of Lords on December 16, 1584, but was not passed. Additionally, a similar bill was presented to the House of Commons on March 17, 1585, but also rejected. Peck indicates that in spite of the offensive nature of Leicester’s Commonwealth, the Puritans in Parliament might have seen it as an avenue to thwart their own opinions and writing. 497 Peck states that in some ways the Commonwealth seems more Howard’s than anyone else’s because of its support of the old nobility, its support of the Anjou marriage, and its expression of devotion to the Queen of Scots. She writes: “ it is not so much a product of the Catholic laymen as [it is] a product of Lord Harry’s own sensibility, as translated to the Paris circle by his friends Arundell and Lord Paget.” 31. 129 men in the group of court Catholics he had a personal interest in bringing Leicester down.498 The government continued its search for the author, or authors, of Leicester’s Commonwealth into

1585. By that time they learned that over 1,000 copies of the tract had been confiscated from a printer in Rouen. State prisoners were interrogated, and in 1586, it was linked in a letter as one of the components of the larger undertaking against the English crown.499 The book may have been a response to Leicester’s dealings with Oxford and the Court Catholics in 1581, when Leicester accused Howard and Arundell of conspiracy. Nevertheless, Walsingham was never able to determine authorship, and in this case, Howard escaped from potential arrest and inquiry.

In spite of all the disruption to Howard’s life, he continued to write and at some point after 1586, he was able to return to “Dutifull Defence,” completing a final draft at some point in

1590.500 He included a complete copy of the introductory letter as well as the title, salutations, and the entire body of the work divided into three books based on natural, civil, and divine law.

Howard produced the copy on his own, most likely as the template for a scrivener to use when creating the presentation treatise for Elizabeth. The writing is informal, and is a reflection of

Howard’s scant finances at the time. In producing the copy, he was frugal with his use of paper, and in many places the script decreases in size and the lines are forced closer together toward the bottom of the pages. Considering the poor situation he was continuously in, it is not surprising that he wanted to conserve on paper use.501 He also made minute changes to the final text before turning it over to be copied. In the text he often crossed out lines, changed the wording, and

498 Ibid., 31. 499 SP 53/15/552. The letter is cited in full in Peck, Leicester’s Commonwealth, 54. 500 The Newberry Library, Case MS fJ 5452.634. The manuscript is bound as a single unit with guilt edged paper. The front piece on the manuscript contains a name plate indicating the manuscript was at one time owned by Alfred Cock. This may be Alfred Cock Q.C. who was involved in the Wiedemann v. Walpole trial in 1888. He owned an extensive library that was gifted to the London Guildhall Library in 1903. However, at the bottom of the nameplate, the name Harry Sears appears with a date of 1887. 501 There was no vast improvement in Howard’s life as he moved into the late 1580’s, which will be discussed in more detail in chapter six. 130 indicated that he wanted sentences deleted. Overall, the manuscript is the compilation of years of work for Howard, and the content reflects not only the changes in his own life from the time he began to write, but also the changes at court and Queen Elizabeth as well.

The final draft contains over four hundred sources drawn from the writings of the ancient philosophers, Church Fathers, historical examples, legal interpretation, Biblical allegory, and humanist writers, and Howard drew on his extensive knowledge from his years at Cambridge, his extensive reading, and at times his personal opinion and emotion to engage in the debate, and defend female rule. Moreover, the manuscript also represents the changes that occurred in both

Henry Howard’s life, and the Elizabethan court. Howard took full advantage of his personal knowledge, court connections, and his own books when writing “Dutifull Defence.” What sources Howard owned himself during the decades of the 1570s and 80s is unknown, except that he still possessed several books from his time as a student and lecturer at Cambridge.502

However, with good court connections and friends who shared an interest in collecting, he most likely had an ample selection of sources to refer to while writing. In fact, it was Howard’s extensive use of history that set him apart from other writers in the debate over female rule.

Within the body of “Dutifull Defence,” Howard cited over one-hundred different histories, ranging from well-known sources, like Bede, Tacitus, Suetonius, Herodotus, Hector Boethius, and Polydore Virgil, to the less circulated works of Enea Silvio Piccolomini (Pope Pius II),

502 Andersson discusses the books Howard possibly used at Cambridge based on the standard curriculum at the time, and the few known books he had, such as the copy of Castiglione. Lord Henry Howard, 35-38. Also see Nicolas Barker, "The Books of Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton," Bodleian Library Record 13, no. 5 (1990): 376-78. Howard mentions in the text that he used Alexander of Aphrodisias’s commentary on Aristotle’s Politics, though he does not say if it was in Greek, or translated into Latin. For a treatment of Latin commentaries of Aristotle, see Charles H. Lohr, “Renaissance Latin Translations of the Greek commentaries on Aristotle.” Jill Kraye and M.W.F. Stone, eds. Humanism and Early Modern Philosophy (London: Routledge, 2000), 24-40.

131 drawing examples of women who held some form of authority from all of them.503 For Scriptural references, it is probable that Howard used the Vulgate, and he cited any verses used in Latin. A sampling of Howard’s citations indicates that objectively, he cited his sources correctly in most cases.504 He attested to the truth of his interpretations in the work, “so neither have I wrested any passage of scripture from the proper sense, nor abused any rare example by the sleight of dubblenesse, or suppressed any kinde of proufe…”505

Although his citations were usually correct, Howard could read the histories subjectively, implying inferences that were not explicitly in the source. In relating King Cyrus’s story in

Herodotus Histories, he stated that Mandane was heir by right to succeed Astyages, where

Herodotus did not speak of Mandane’s particular right to inherit, but only referred to her as an heir. “Suppose, when he [Astyages] dies that the tyranny devolves on to Mandane.”506 Howard converted the supposition into a right, and though he may not have been technically incorrect in his reading, he relied on assumption to make his point. When addressing a reference to the

Queen of Sheba in Luke 11:31, he states that, “the text itself declared that she ruled by the law of nature.” Howard made the assumption that the Scripture inferred that her rule was natural and presumed that she was a sole monarch.507

503 A brief example of Howard’s use of sources can be found in Gustav Ungerer, Anglo- Spanish Relations in Tudor Literature (New York: AMS Press, 1929). Ungerer mention s the Spanish sources used in the treatise, stating that he used Esteban de Garibay’s Los XL Libros del Compendio historical de las Chronicas y uniuersal Historia de todos los reynos de España (Antwerp, 1571), and Chronica de los muy altos y esclarecidos reyes Catolicos don Fernando y doña Isabel compuesta por maestro Antonio de Nebrixa (Valladolid, 1565). 504 For example, Howard cites Bede’s claiming that Oswald became king through the matrilineal line. Bede’s history read: “Now Oswald was the nephew of Edwin through his sister Acha, and it was fitting that so great a predecessor should have so worthy a kinsman to inherit both his religion and his kingdom.” In comparison Howard wrote: “King Oswald attained to a principality in the northern parts by the right of his mother, who was a sister to King Edwin.” Bede, Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People, ed. Bertram Colgrave and R.A.B. Mynors (Oxford: University of Oxford Press, 1969), 3:6. 505 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 22r. 506 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 39 v, 41r; Herodotus, The Histories, trans. Robin Waterfield (Oxford: University of Oxford Press, 1998), 1:109. 507 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 32r. 132

Howard cited extensively from the works of the Church Fathers, which were readily available in the early modern period. Although he often used the same Christian authors as

Knox, he tended to utilize them differently. It seemed clear to most writers in the period that

Augustine, Tertullian, Aquinas, Basil, Jerome and Chrysostom held negative views toward women and supported the idea of their inherent inferiority and subjection. However, Howard used their works selectively, disagreed with them, or focused on more obscure sections. At the beginning of his argument on Eve’s position at creation, Howard simply said that Chrysostom was wrong. Howard wrote that, “It seemed good to his divine providence to create a woman also, not as a servant or subject, as Chrysostom notes, for then she would have born some badge of servitude as other creatures have done.”508 Instead of citing Augustine’s pronouncements against

Eve in On the Trinity, Howard only commented on the theologian’s views: “St. Augustine will not admit that any kind of subjection was known either to nature or to sin, so long as our first parents preserved in obedience to the law of God according to this institution.”509 In order to make his point that Eve was created equal, Howard tried to defend his argument by looking for the evidence to support his case, even if it meant expanding on the meaning of a passage or the conclusions that could be drawn from a small amount of information.

Throughout “Dutifull Defence” Howard treated Aristotle, the most widely cited author for supporting evidence against female authority, in the same manner as the Patristic writers. He generally ignored Aristotle’s comments on the physiology of women, focusing instead on the political writings and pulling out obscure references. For example, Howard cited Aristotle’s

Politics, book 5, a section discussing factions. In the passage several examples of disputes over heiresses are mentioned, but the women’s right to possess their inheritance was not the point of

508 Ibid., fol. 33v. 509 Ibid. 133 the discussion. However, Howard inferred that since Aristotle was discussing female heirs, they could possess their inheritance.510 Howard may have been correct in his assumption, but he definitely stretched the analogy to fit his conclusion. His purpose was not to misrepresent the sources, but to show how they could be approached differently, perhaps inferring from his belief in the changing nature of Scripture. Early modern interpretation was subjective, often creative, and in that respect, Howard was a man of the times. He was also aware that the stakes were high.

In the dedication letter, he mentioned his use of citations: “Neither have I wrested any passage of the Scripture from the proper sense, or abused any rare example by the sleight of doubleness, nor suppressed any kind of proof that may seem to make for our adversaries sufficiency.”511

The most significant change between the first drafts of “Dutifull Defence” and the final treatise in 1590 are also a reflection on the changing political situations in the 1580’s. Compared to the first drafts of “Dutifull Defence,” extensive changes were made to the both the arguments and the text of the work. Primarily, Howard moved away from focusing directly on Knox and

First Blast. The headings and organization of the work reflect this compared to the first drafts, to the point that the final draft contains no direct references to First Blast and Knox’s name only appears once in the text. The arguments in “Dutifull Defence” are still directed at the body of

First Blast, but for some reason, Howard felt it necessary to deemphasize Knox and expand the body of the text to include other authors of works both for and against female rule. It was serendipitous that Howard was unable to present his original treatise to Elizabeth a decade earlier. With the delays came opportunity, and he clearly took advantage of emerging texts and the changing political situation to produce a more complete, and up to date work. To this point,

510 Ibid., 35v.; Aristotle, Politics, trans. H. Rackham, 23 vols., vol. 21 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932), 5:3: 2-6. 511 Ibid., fol. 22v. 134 the most significant change made in “Dutifull Defence” was the addition of George Buchanan’s work The History of Scotland.

George Buchanan published The History of Scotland in 1586 after being alienated from

Mary Queen of Scots, with whom he had once had a close relationship he had led a life of both adventure and persecution in Scotland as he worked through the years as a lecturer in France. As a supporter of the Protestant reformers, he based his writing on a strong Humanist stance that he acquired through his studies on the continent.512 He was arrested in 1539 during a persecution of

Lutherans, but managed to escape and make his way to Paris, where he laid the foundation for his writing.513 From there he traveled to Portugal, where he was imprisoned for a short time, eventually returning to Scotland and becoming the tutor for the young Mary Queen of Scots.514

However, he decided to join the Reformed Church in Scotland, and had a falling out with Mary after the assassination of her second husband, and father of the James VI, Lord Darnley.515 After

Mary fled and was taken to England, he tutored the young king and was principle of St.

Leonard’s College at St. Andrews.516 When the political position of Scotland changed with the accession of the new king, Buchanan was asked by James’s councilors to declare for or against

Mary.517 They hoped that Buchanan would bring James up to be a leader of the Reformation.518

He accepted the task, rejected Mary, and took it upon himself to set the record of Scotland straight by composing two works that expressed his beliefs and understanding of Scotland, De

512 See D.F.S. Thompson, “George Buchanan: The Humanist in the Sixteenth Century World.” Phoenix. (Vol. 4, No.3, Winter, 1950), 77-94 for an account of Buchanan’s early life and education. Also see I.D. McFarlane, “George Buchanan and European Humanism.” The Yearbook of English Studies (Vol. 15, Anglo-French Literary Relations Special Number, 1985), 33. 513 McFarlane notes that in Paris, Buchanan received his philological training and became accomplished in Latin. 35 514 He is said to have read Livy to Mary every day. Livy was considered suitable for young ladies and was also used by Sir Thomas More for the education of his daughters. He also acted as an interpreter for Mary as he also spoke French. Thompson, “George Buchanan,”89. 515 Ibid., 90. 516 MacFarlane, “George Buchanan,” 39. 517 Ibid., 40. 518 Ibid. 135

Jure Regni apud Scotus, and Rerum Scoticarum Historia- History of Scotland. (1586). Historia was written with a strong nationalistic interest, setting a high ideal for what he thought the country ought to be and his first few chapters attacked his main opponent at the time- Mary.519

Buchanan had been egregiously offended by Mary’s actions regarding her husband, Lord

Darnley, and the Earl of Bothwell.520 He used his disgust as a basis to posit arguments similar to

Knox, that women were incapable of overseeing a successful government, due to their natural inferiority.

Howard added a critique of Buchanan’s work to “Dutifull Defence,” and throughout the final draft, he mentioned Buchanan by name, whereas Knox fell out of the text almost completely. Buchanan’s arguments were very similar to Knox, and they often cited the same sources for their evidence against female rule.521 To this point, Howard blended the authors’ arguments and addressed them as a whole when refuting their ideas. It is interesting that he would choose to add Buchanan in a defense for Elizabeth as Historia was focused on Mary.

However, his ideas were as threatening to Elizabeth as they were to Mary. Buchanan’s works were burned publically in England, and the men in Elizabeth’s court, including Howard, were clearly aware of the book’s ideas and that they would not be to Elizabeth’s liking.522

At one point, Howard made an interesting and significant digression from his argument, revealing a very personal side of his character and the intensity of his emotional bond to his family, and a significant clue as to why he chose to add Historia into his defense. In Historia,

Buchanan directly slighted Howard’s family in several chapters of the book, and wrote about

Howard’s father:

519 MacFarlane, “George Buchanan,” 42. 520520 It was believed that Bothwell helped orchestrate Darnley’s murder. He married Mary one month after Lord Darnley was killed. Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots, 303-305. 521 Ibid., 41; Shephard, “Henry Howard,” 592. 522 Thompson, “George Buchanan,” 90. 136

Thomas Howard (sic), Earl of Surrey, had gone off with great renown for that victory over the Scots, if he had used his success with moderation; but being a man , almost drunk with the happiness of his prosperous success, and little mindful of the instability of human affairs, he made his household servants (as the English custom is) to wear a badge on their left arms, which was a white lion (his own arms) on the top of a red one, and rending him with paws: God almighty did seem to punish this his insolent ambition, for there were, in a manner, none of his posterity, of either side, but died in great disgrace and ignominy.523

Buchanan had also discussed the Ridolfi plot and elaborated in detail on the duke of Norfolk’s life and involvement in the conspiracy, stating that in his military actions he had “proven no valor.”524 Howard, clearly offended by Buchanan’s statements, took the opportunity to defend his family’s honor while discussing the Scotsman’s insults on Henry VIII and the battle at

Flodden Field, in which his grandfather had participated. Howard wrote: “Not content with this presumption against an anointed king, he let fly in fury at his peers and chiefly at the duke of

Norfolk (whom both for honor and for duty’s sake I am bound in those matters to defend) accusing him of pride and haughtiness after his service done at Flodden.”525 He committed the next several folio pages to praise his family’s service to the monarchy, declaring at one point that he desired Buchanan’s rotten bones to putrefy.526 Within these pages, there was no discussion of women or any form of argument for female rule. Howard did not write his digression solely to convince the queen of his family’s merits. Throughout his life, Howard maintained loyalty and commitment to the Howard house, with an especially personal sense of dedication to his father.

It is in this section, when writing to Elizabeth, he included the references to his father, hoping that she would remember the renewed popularity of the earl’s writing by citing his final poems:

523 George Buchanan, The History of Scotland (Written in Latin, by George Buchanan. Faithfully rendered into English. J. Fraser, 1689), 13:27 524 Ibid., 19: 239- 41. Buchanan also stresses Norfolk’s possible marriage to the queen of Scots. 525 “Dutifill Defence,” fols. 72v.- 73r. 526 Ibid., 74r. 137

“My father in his last thing before his end, ‘Domin [sic] est michi [sic] quod humiliasti me.’” 527

Later in life, Howard constructed elaborate tombs for his father and mother in Suffolk, in which he had both of his parents reinterred.528

The other addition to “Dutifull Defence” that was not present in the original drafts was

Christopher Goodman’s Howe Superior Powers oght to be Obeyed (1558).529 Goodman was a

Reformed clergyman and Marion exile who had fled England during the reign of Mary I.530 He associated with John Knox while in Geneva, less concerned with the gender of the ruler than the religion of the sovereign. Nevertheless, he did not approve of female regiment, and like Knox, believed that women were inferior and had no right of authority over any man.531 Goodman writes regarding female rulers: “…she has disregarded the authority of scripture which declares that Israel shall choose a king…God is not contrarie to himself, which at the begynninge appointed the woman to be in subjection to her housbande, and the man to be head of the woman.”532 He denounced Mary Tudor as a tyrant in 1558 and accused her of betraying England when she married Philip II.533 After Elizabeth’s accession, Goodman eventually recanted his views against female rulers, declaring that his objection was to Mary and not the current

Protestant queen.534 However, in “Dutifull Defence,” Howard seems personally offended by

Goodman’s public recantation of his railings against the queen and wrote: “I heard of some which having vented their undutiful conceits against the ground of your Majesty’s authority in

527 Ibid., fols. 6r-v.; Cited in Sessions, 386. Good is much that humbles me. 528 Sessions, 216; L. L. Peck, “Mentality,” 162. In the latter half of the sixteenth century a “cult” formed around the memory of Surrey and his writing. 529 Christopher Goodman, How Superior Powers Oght to Be Obeyd (Geneva: John Crispin, 1558; reprint, Columbia University Press, 1931); Greaves, Theology and Revolution, 163; Jordan, “Woman’s Rule,” 425. 530 See Collinson, Puritan Movement, 92. 531 See Jordan, “Women’s Rule,” 428; Shephard, “Henry Howard,” 593; Jordan, “Women’s Rule,” 432. 532 Goodman, Superior Powers, D2v. 533 Goodman writes: “For do you thinke that Philip will be crowned king of Englande and reteyne in honor English counsellers? Will he credite them withe the government of his estate, who have betrayed their owne? Shall his nobilite be Spaniardes without your lands an dpossessions?” Superior Powers, fol. 2v. 534 DNB s.v. Christopher Goodman; Scalingi, 69. Goodman recanted in front of an ecclesiastical commission. 138 printed sheets; recanted them upon compunction of the heart in public audience.”535 By the time

Howard finished his final draft, he made it clear that he felt Knox and Goodman could still be a threat to her rule, and that this was why he felt compelled to write:

I saw those Satyrs, which undertook both to cool and kindle with one blast, and feared the hearts of these unfaithful soldiers which followed the colors of their captain but in mutiny. There was great cause of doubt lest the vulgar multitude, which hath ears to hear and eyes to see, but no discretion to judge, might as well incline in matters of this moment as they rose in cockfight to the weaker side.536

The final work that Howard criticized in “Dutifull Defence,” was Jean Bodin’s The Six

Bookes of a Commonweale.537 Bodin was a French jurist and political writer who focused on government and supported a central monarchy.538 However, his idea of a strong, central government did not include women. He posited the standard list of female vices in his declaration against female regiment: “Gynecocracy is squarely against the laws of nature that give men strength, the prudence, the arms, and the power to command and take away from women [their authority].”539 Bodin felt that female power was unauthorized according to law, and he also castigated men’s tendency to listen to, and follow the advice of, women whom they love or desire.540 Women were temptresses, and as such, could control men through their sexual lust. 541 Howard confronted Bodin directly in the final draft of “Dutifull Defence.”

535 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 2v. Howard referred to Goodman a “poison altogether unworthy either of protection or excuse.” Fol. 19r. 536 Ibid., fol. 3r. 537 Jean Bodin, The Six Bookes of a Commonweale: A Facsimile Reprint of the English Translation of 1606, ed. Kenneth D. McRae (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962). 538 See Howell A. Lloyd, “Constitutionalism” in The Cambridge History of Political Though, 1450-1700. Edited by J.H. Burns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.277-278. 539Ibid., 753. For a discussion on Bodin’s theory of monarchy see Julian H. Franklin, “Sovereignty and the Mixed Constitution: Bodin and his Critics.” In The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 1450-1700 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 298-328. 540 “Yet doubt I not but that many are afraid of women’s soveraigntie, who yet indeed doubt to shew themselves most obedient to women’s lusts. But it is no matter (as old Cato was woont to say) whether that the soveraigntie it selfe be given to women, or that the emperours and kings been themselves obedient unto womens pleasures and commands.” 754. 541 Jordan, “Woman’s Rule,” 449. 139

“Nowe just occasion is offered of vowchinge greater store of authours and opinions for the proof of weomens regiment then it is probable that either Bodine hath observed or Buchanan hath red for otherwise the first would not soe pevishelie have published in the booke of his comon wealthe that all countries have excluded weomen from the charge of government.”542

Howard expanded the text to include authors who he felt were still having an effect on opinions in England. Buchanan and Bodin’s works were more recent than Knox’s and therefore more of a threat to Elizabeth’s position. Considering Buchanan’s book was burned, and Bodin’s work so directly spoke out against women, he decided to include them in “Dutifull Defence.”

Throughout the text of the final draft, Howard used language that was similar to other contemporary writers on the same subject. It is interesting that parts of Howard’s writing resemble John Leslie’s A Defence of the Honour of the Right Highe, Mighty and Noble Princesse

Marie Quene of Scotlande and Dowager of France (1569). Although Leslie served as an ambassador for the queen of Scots during the early 1570s and Howard and Leslie served concurrent sentences for their respective involvement in the Ridolfi plot, it is not known if the two men had any personal contact through Elizabeth’s court.543 Nevertheless, Howard knew of

Leslie, briefly referred to him in his dedication letter, and most likely had a copy of Leslie’s work—the only other Catholic defense. Both men derived their theories from the Digest, and both believed there were two kinds of natural law and that as the law of nations was derived from human reason it was necessary to maintain civil order, but they cited from separate sections of the Digest.544 Howard and Leslie also used similar phrasing when describing the tenets of the law

542 “Dutifull Defence,” 38v. 543 Leslie’s involvement in the Ridolfi plot is covered in the CSP, Relating to Scotland, 348- 353; DNB, s.v. “John Leslie.” After his release from prison in 1572, Leslie fled to the continent and continued his work on behalf of Mary Stuart. 544 Leslie, A Defence, sig. q7. Similar to Howard, Leslie’s first kind of natural law was that which was, “proper and appertaining as well to other living things as to man.” 140 of nations, and it is possible that Howard used Leslie’s work as a source without citing him.

Leslie staunchly defended Mary Stuart and continued to have problems with the English court after her death in 1586. If Howard used Leslie’s work, it is feasible that he consciously left out any direct citations to Leslie that Elizabeth’s Protestant court could view as contentious.545

Considering the events of Howard’s life during the 1570s and 1580s, it is remarkable that he was able to continue working on “Dutifull Defence.” Nevertheless, throughout the decade, he managed to produce the complete, final copy. The contents of the manuscript not only attest to the changes that occurred in Henry Howard’s life during a tumultuous decade, but the ongoing debates in Elizabeth’s court, and the attitudes toward the particular authors he chose to incorporate into the final draft in addition to John Knox. It also demonstrates the length that

Howard went through to produce a detailed, and thoroughly researched, work that defended

Elizabeth’s right to rule in spite of the problems he was facing. Howard commented on the difficulty of the work in the introductory letter: “The work is tedious and able to discourage one that hath more idle time to spare.” “Dutifull Defence” was in a way, his magnum opus, and he spared no expense in its construction over the thirteen years it took to create. The events of the

1580’s left Howard destitute at times, and was still failing in his ultimate goal, to regain favor with Elizabeth and find a permanent place at court.546 With a final draft in hand the 1580’s drew to a close, but the politics, policies, and personalities who dominated Elizabeth’s world from

1588 through the mid 1590’s would still challenge his hopes after he presented his “Dutifull

Defence” to the queen.

545 As has been noted, within the text, even Howard made very few references to John Knox, even when he was meticulous about citing Goodman, Buchanan, Bodin. Elizabeth was indignant with Knox for what he had written in First Blast. Goodman recanted his views and Buchanan’s addition was personal for Howard. For him to leave out Knox and Leslie may have been a political move so as not to offend the queen. 546 Nott, Works, 438. 141

CHAPTER SIX

THE FINAL ATTEMPT

After the tumult of the mid 1580’s, the remainder of the decade was uneventful and quiet for Henry Howard. He was finally free from suspicion and allowed to live at will after 1585, which gave him the time to complete the final drafts of “Dutifull Defence.” The political and diplomatic situation between England and the continent in the late 1580’s and 90’s enabled

Howard to remain out of the watchful eye of the council. Mary Queen of Scots was executed in

February, 1587 ending the threat of an alternative power base in England, and removing the potential for conspiracy against the queen. Instead, Elizabeth and her ministers had to focus on

Spain’s continued influence on the continent, and more importantly, thwarting the threat of a

Spanish invasion of England. Moreover, the queen’s new favorites, including Robert Deveraux, second earl of Essex, monopolized her attention for several years. As a result, Howard’s personal life was ignored most of the time and he fell into relative obscurity. By the end of the 1580’s he was financially destitute and by all accounts, a broken man. However, a few critical opportunities allowed him to occasionally grace the queen’s presence, and provided Howard with the impetus to keep moving forward to achieve his goal of patronage and preference. He did everything he could to maintain his presence at court, even if it meant surviving on the periphery of royal society. In this respect, the connections he was able to foster gave Howard occasion to serve the crown and ultimately improve his situation.

For Howard, the latter half of the1580’s was an insecure time. He remained in partial confinement through 1584, living under the watch of Sir Nathanial Bacon at his home, Redgrave

Hall. While there, Howard suffered from physical illness, and it appears that at some point in

142

1585 he was tormented by “stones” and was unable to sleep or eat for four days.547 Howard asked Burghley if he would be allowed to travel to Warwick so he could take the waters for his comfort, and referred to his general condition as one of “deep disgrace.”548 However, in spite of

Howard’s poor physical and mental condition, it appears he had not lost hope. In the same letter he praised Burghley for his “enclination,” and “favore,” but in reality, his situation had never been worse. After Sussex’s death, and the breakup of the court Catholics at the end of the queen of Scot’s life, Howard felt deserted and alone. The pension he had been granted by the state was only paid irregularly.549 Once he was allowed to leave Redgrave, it seems even a place to live was not always secure. Howard refers to one residence as his “little cell at Greenwich…[where] I have a roof to cover me from the rain, which elsewhere I have not anywhere.”550 In 1589, he wrote that he had been driven to destitution, and although he had been offered a “beggar’s cloak,” of assistance from one Sir Roger Townsend, he turned it down so not to appear as “one of his almsmen.”551 Still, Howard was a proud man, and even during this time he attempted to find ways to fulfill his duty to the queen. The increased tension between England and Spain provided him with the possibility to do so.

After the diplomatic wrangling and wars between England, France, Spain, and the

Netherlands in the 1570’s and 80’s, Philip II still wanted to re-gain control of the Low Countries and secure his power base on the continent and over the realm of England. Elizabeth’s failure to

547 BL Cotton Titus C vi, fol. 35r. The letter to Lord Burghley is dated July 19, 1585; Nott, Works, 437. 548 Ibid. Also cited in Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 155. 549 This was the stipend granted to him by Elizabeth before he attended Cambridge. Nott, Works, 438. Nott notes that at one point, his pension was withheld for over a year. During the late 1580’s England faced a financial crisis due to the drawn out wars on the continent and the foreseen war with Spain. England could not borrow from abroad , and the money needed for the war was drawn from the state’s assets. State lands were sold, and short term loans were taken from the London merchant community. This re-focus of resources may be one of the reasons for the of non-payment of Howard’s pension from the state. For an outline of English finances at the time, see MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, War and Politics, 1588-1603 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 64-66. 550 BL Cotton Titus C vi, fol. 28r. 551 Ibid., fol. 30v; Nott, Works, 438-439. DNB s.v. Henry Howard, 29. 143 secure a marriage with Anjou had forced the English to change the course of their foreign policy to accommodate the increasing power of Spain and France. The assassination of William of

Orange, the leader of the Dutch revolt against the Spanish, left the Low Countries in fear of

Phillips’s overlordship, and they once again turned to England for financial and military support.552 Elizabeth knew if she did not help Philip would move into the Netherlands, suppress

Protestantism and place a powerful enemy off of England’s north shores. Both the queen and council believed that Phillip’s desire was for nothing short of England’s destruction and the enslavement of her people.553 Therefore, the decision was made to send English troops to

Zealand.554 As a result, Philip decided that he needed to strike England first before moving forward in the Low Countries.555 Preparations for Spain’s attack began in 1587 when Sir Francis

Drake raided ports along the Iberian Peninsula, in an attempt cripple Spain’s fleet.556 He was given orders to “distress the ships within the havens themselves,” rather than simply plunder

Spanish ships at sea. Drake succeeded, destroying close to thirty Spanish vessels in Cadiz harbor and heightening tension between the two states. Philip believed that Elizabeth’s actions created a state of war, and his intention was to attack along the Kentish coast, landing the Duke of Parma,

Philip’s governor in the Netherlands, on English soil.557

During the preparations for war, Howard volunteered his services against the Spanish in order to prove his loyalty to the queen and to the state: “My purpose is to give no less evident and certain proof of my untamed loyalty upon the sea by hazard of my life, than I have already

552 MacCaffrey, War and Politics, 4. 553 Ibid., 5. MacCaffrey points out that the council’s perceptions of Phillip’s intention did not reflect Phillip’s actual desires, which were to force England to withdraw from the dispute and secure tolerance for English Catholics. As will be seen, Howard became entangled in these goals, and would once again be the focus of suspicion with the council. 554 MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 236; Also see,MacCaffrey, War and Politics, 30-31, 75. 555 MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 235-237. 556 Ibid., 237. MacCaffrey, War and Politics, 80-82. 557 See Colin Martin and Geoffrey Parker, The Spanish Armada (London: Hamilton, 1988) 144 done of my obedience upon land, by conformity to orders.”558 His offers of assistance were refused.559 At that time, all noblemen and their retainers were required to attend Elizabeth in person during the preparation for the war. This must have been a blow for Howard since he was a nobleman without a base or framework for service, and he held no office. Therefore, it was natural for him to offer his service, even if the task was menial, so as to fulfill the traditional role of a nobleman in England and serve the monarchy in time of war.560 The rejection was biting, but his inability to discharge martial duty to the queen did not stop him from working at what he knew he could do. Howard returned to his project, and focused on his writing.

Elizabeth, her council, and the rest of the country, had to focus on Spain and the invasion of the Spanish fleet. English troops were withdrawn from the Low Countries in order to supplement troops in the south of England as the queen and her councilors believed a full scale attack from their Catholic enemy to be imminent.561 The fear of Philip’s threat to England’s independence was very real. In a speech to Parliament in 1593, Burghley reflected on England’s mindset in the late 1580’s: “The king maketh these mighty wars…not purposely to burn a town in France or England but to conquer all France, all England, and Ireland.”562 English Catholics were suspected of dissent and were given much attention as the Council feared Philip’s possible influence over “obstinate” recusants. Elizabeth and her council believed that English recusants

558 BL, Cotton MSS, Titus C VI, fol. 38r. In the letter, Howard continues, emphasizing his family and connections to the queen, and his continued financial plight: “And albeit I could wish, if the choice were mine, to serve in the ship either of the Lord Admiral, a worthy member of our House, or of my nephew, whom next unto her Majesty I prefer unto all creatures alive, yet rather than their judgment or respect of my demeanour or desert should be doubted by respect of partiality by natural good will, I would accept any place under some less affected to myself, unto whom it shall please you to advise me by your opinion,or assign my by your authority.” 559 DNB s.v. Henry Howard, 30; Nott, Works, 438. 560 APC 1588, 144; CSPD 2, 34. 561 MacCaffrey, War and Politics, 35. 562 John Strype, Annals of the Reformation, Vol. 4 (Oxford, 1822), 149-156. As cited in MacCaffrey, War and Politics, 74. 145 would rise up in large numbers against her when Philip’s troops landed on English soil.563 Fear then turned into action at the beginning of 1588. In February commissioners were charged with mustering troops for the upcoming war, but were told that “none suspected in religion [should] have the chardge of any nomber of soldiaurs.”564 It did not take long for the forbiddance of a

Catholic to have a command to expand to other areas, and as the breadth of suspicion expanded, freedom for Catholics in England contracted.

Recusant’s weapons were confiscated, seminary priests were arrested, and the fear of dissenting Catholics loomed ominous in the minds of queen and council: “It is …certaine that such as should meane to invade the Realme woulde neuer attempt the same but vppon hope which the fugatiues and rebels ofer to give…that are knowen to be recusauntes…”565 Active, or

“obstinate” recusants were detained and those of high rank or influence were imprisoned in castles in the south of England. Some Catholics, when given warning of their impending confinement, fled the country.566 Upon incarceration, each individual was questioned and their correspondence monitored. When one Ralph Langton was asked about the beliefs of his fellow recusants he replied, “do not thes fellowes in the castle and such like thinck that they shall taste of the enemyes hands as well as others?”567 His point did not alleviate fear. Even after the

Protestant wind kept the Armada at bay, inquiries continued as thousands of Catholics were examinded and “suspected upon religion.”568 Nevertheless, in spite of the inquisition against

563 James McDermott, England and the Spanish Armada: The Necessary Quarrel (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), 245. 564 HMC Rutland MSS, 594. As cited in McDermott, England and the Spanish Armada, 244. 565 Council to Sir Christopher Hatton, January 4, 1588; Jeremy Goring and Joan Wake eds. Northamptonshire Lieutenancy Papers (Gateshead, England: Northumberland Press, 1975), 47; HMC Salisbury MSS, Vol. 3, 96; McDermott, England and the Spanish Armada, 244. 566 McDermott, England and the Spanish Armada, 245. 567 K.R. Wark, Elizabethan Recusancy in Cheshire (Manchester: Chetham Society, 1971), 260; McDermott, England and the Spanish Armada, 246. 568 McDermott states that 21, 665 English citizens were examined for recusancy, but in the end, only thirty-six people were placed on a watch list by the state. 247. 146 them and the fear of Catholics in Philip’s service, Catholics did serve on English ships during the armada.569 With regard to Henry Howard, it is unknown if he was suspected or questioned in any of enquires against Catholics in 1588. In light of the fear of Catholic revolt, it is not surprising that Howard’s offer of service was rejected considering his close affiliation with the court

Catholics in the 1580’s. Even so, Howard was related to Lord Admiral Howard and the earl of

Essex, both of whom played a role in England’s defense, which may explain why, in addition to the queen’s previous history of leniency toward him, Howard escaped the trauma imposed upon his fellow brothers in faith, even if he was not allowed to serve.570

Spain’s intention was to launch an attack against England early in the year, but the

Armada’s ships did not appear along England’s coast until July, 1588, and the course of events after their arrival became legend. In short, skirmishes between Lord Admiral Howard, Sir

Francis Drake, and the Spanish dominated the beginning of the month, and although they caused some damage to Spanish ships, they had not crippled Parma’s fleet enough to reduce the threat.

Shortly after midnight on July 29, eight English ships were set on fire and drifted into the

Spanish fleet. Over the next hours, combat between the two navies ensued, but still with no definitive victor.571 Then, in what was hailed by the English as a “Protestant wind,” prevailing northern Atlantic gales intervened, and even though the strength of English fleet was insufficient to defeat Philip’s navy, the Spanish fleet was forced to sail north around Scotland, and return to

Spain on the Atlantic side.572 Even before the final outcome could be determined, revelers

569 McDermott, England and the Spanish Armada, 246-247. McDermott points out that one captain even boasted about his Spanish, Catholic boatswain 570 Essex was appointed general of the cavalry at St. James ‘s Palace at the beginning of 1588. Sir Robert Cecil was given the appointment of superior over the commander of the gunners of the queen’s body guard, and Sir Thomas Heneage raised to Treasurer at Wars. As will be seen Howard had direct interaction with all three men, and two of them would receive copies of “Dutifull Defence,” although his movements during the Armada are unknown. 571 James McDermott, England and the Spanish Armada: The Necessary Quarrel (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), 274. 572 Ibid. 147 around England were announcing the defeat of the Spanish. Nevertheless, the victory was more psychological than martial, and the war between the two countries continued for the next several years.573

Unable to assist the effort in defeating the Armada, Howard returned to his work and finished the introductory letter for “Dutifull Defence” at some point in 1590.574 In composing his olive branch, Howard put a great deal of time and effort, and thirteen years of work came down to this single letter he composed for Elizabeth. In this respect, his early thoughts about the content of the letter have survived. Partial folio pages of notes contain Howard’s early ideas about the introductory letter and show a man who wanted to compose the precise words needed to impress the queen. He organized sentences for the letter at random and jotted them down as needed. With only a few changes to the wording, they were transcribed into the final text. For example, Howard’s writes in his notes, “Integritie is reputed flattery, respect to conscience infirmity, plaine dealing fraud.” 575 The phrase appears in the final treatise with only a few word changes, “Integritie was then accownted flatterie, respect to conscience corruption, plaine dealing fraud.”576 The series of notes is only a small example of the work that Howard put into

“Dutifull Defence,”

The letter is indeed a testament to how many times his home was searched, his papers taken, and his motives questioned. One of the manuscripts of “Dutifull Defence” was confiscated as well. In addition, the manuscript was lost, returned, and then it sat idle while Howard was under interrogation, in prison, or simply too depressed to continue work. At one point, he was

573For an account of the continuation of the war with Spain after the Armada see MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, and McDermott, England and the Spanish Armada. 574 It is accepted that the work was presented to Elizabeth at some point in 1590. Howard places references in the letter that verify a 1590 date for the introductory letter. For example, Howard mentions Edmund Spencer’s Faerie Queene (1590: “Theis are the gracefull water nimphes attired in white vailes wch wane the love of Neptune as the poets write from ye Queen of ye faries.”574 “Dutifull Defence,” 16r. 575 BL Cotton Vespasian F ix, fol. 194v. The series of notes appear on folio pages 187-196. 576 “Dutifull Defense,” 4r. 148 even physically assaulted.577 The ethos of his feelings about the interruptions is expressed in one sentence. “The chiefest reasons that doth binde mee more then every vulgar subject of your state to give my service to ye first occasion that may yeelde proofe of my devotion of your Matie may not of congruence bee so much as dreamed of by a man already drowned and forgotten in the black deepes of discouragement.”578 In addition, Howard was accused of composing the work for

Mary Queen of Scots instead of Elizabeth: “Another company accused me of sailing wth a side winde of haling to ye north point like a cunning bardge man, when myne eye was in the south.”579 With regard to his living situation, he spoke of the illnesses he suffered at the end of the decade: “The stream of my declining comfort ebbeth very low, my minde is out of temper, my body out of health, my penne out of exercise,” and stated that he was living below the status of his nobility: “without your Maties unspeakable compassion of late had bin of all men living of my birth and qualitie as I believe most miserable.”580 And finally, he offered his olive branch to the queen, stating that: “My hope is that your Highness will accept my offer as a fruit of faith and forgive my errour as an effect of ignorance.”581

In addition to the explanation of his personal problems, the introductory letter provides evidence of the extent of Howard’s reading and the works he used by including a short historiography on tracts and sermons written for and against Elizabeth. He begins by naming a series of men who wrote on subjects surrounding the queen, but withholds titles of any of the works they published. He mentions a sermon presented by one Mr. Norwell who spoke for

Elizabeth on a Good Friday. Included in the authors of books regarding the queen are John

577 Ibid. See folio pages 3v, 4v,7r. 578 Ibid., 5v. 579 “Dutifull Defense,” 4r. 580 Ibid, 5r, 5v. 581 Ibid., 22v. 149

Leslie, John Jewell, and John Alymer, all who composed works supporting female monarchy.582

Howard specifically directs the reader to Alymer’s work, stating that “his booke is extant and very worthy to bee red.”583 Although these works are brought up in the letter, Howard fails to cite any of them in the main body of the treatise. In fact, the only contemporary work cited by name is George Buchanan’s Historia. Considering some of the similarities to Leslie’s work found in “Dutifull Defence,” he may have also borrowed from Alymer and Jewell without giving them credit, which was not an uncommon practice at the time.584

As stated earlier, the most common accusation against Howard’s motives, in addition to writing for Mary Queen of Scots, was that he was a sycophant who composed his defense solely for the purpose of seeking patronage and a position at court. Howard never denied that he hoped to benefit from his work and admitted to the fact in the introductory letter. He articulated in several ways his desire to be restored to the queen’s favor: “If hope of compassing your

Majesty’s desired favor be so nearly suited and so evenly prized with the means by which we gain favor of Almighty God,” and “by removing nearer to the beams of your encouragement, I bear green leaves with the hope that fruits will follow.”585 However, when compared to the standard set for men who sought patronage and position in sixteenth century England, Howard was certainly not unique, especially since he was a member of one of the highest-ranking

582 “Dutifull Defence,” 18v, 19r. John Leslie, A Defence of the Honour of the Right Highe, Mighty and Noble Princesse Marie Quene of Scotlande and Dowager of France (1569); John Jewell, An apologie, or aunswer in defence of the Church of England concerninge the state of religion vsed in the same. Newly set forth in Latin, and nowe translated into Englishe (1562); John Alymer, An harborovve for faithfull and trevve subiectes agaynst the late blowne blaste, concerninge the gouernme[n]t of vvemen. wherin be confuted all such reasons as a straunger of late made in that behalfe, with a breife exhortation to obedience (1559). 583 Ibid. Howard briefly mentions John Calvin, but does not include his work in the treatise at any point. 584 For a discussion on the emergence of copyright see Alexander Halasz, The Marketplace of Print: Pamphlets and the Public Sphere in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997); “Dutifull Defence” will need to be compared in more detail to Alymer and Jewell before citing exact similarities. 585 Ibid., fol.5r.-v. 150 families in England.586 Both men and women took full advantage of marriage contracts and the placement of their children to forge or strengthen their associations with other families or to increase wealth and status.587 Consolidation of royal power under Henry VII and Henry VIII forced members of the nobility and upper gentry to rely on the crown for the financial and political resources essential to maintaining their positions.588 Men often sought out individuals who were close to the monarch and could therefore bring their petitions to royal attention.589 As a nobleman, Howard belonged to a tradition of men who earned their living by serving the monarch. As a scholar, the door opened for him to use his writing abilities to advance his cause- a form of work more often taken on by common men.590 Due to the precarious history of his family, he was forced to take an unconventional route of having to go through men of lower birth to find patronage and financial support. In part, this may have been what opened him up to criticism with regard to the motives for his work.591

Before his downfall, Howard relied on the favor of his brother, since Norfolk was the highest ranking peer in England and was in frequent contact with Elizabeth. Thereafter, he sought patronage from personal friends and relatives close to the queen—Sussex and Essex, or men who had strong political influence at court—Burghley and his son Robert Cecil. For

Howard, the second son of an aristocratic family, to seek patronage would have been expected.

His generation was the third to serve the monarchy in England, and he was not the only member

586Peck, “Mentality,”164. 587 Harris, “Women and Politics,” 260. 588 Ibid., 271. 589 MacCaffrey, Patronage and Politics, 24. 590 H.R. Woudhuysen, Sir Philip Sidney and the Circulation of Manuscripts, 1558-1640 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 103. See MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 453-460 for a further discussion on the rise and role of educated, common men in the court. 591 For a discussion on how noble families produced income outside of land ownership, see Lawrence Stone, Family and Fortune: Studies in Aristocratic Finance in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973), 3-14. Stone mentions several ways income could be generated, including risk ventures and privateering. However, writing is not included. 151 of the nobility to spend considerable time trying to maintain his personal court connections.592

Indeed, given his education, Howard had the qualifications necessary to serve the court. His decision to remain at Cambridge as a lecturer was prudent in light of his family’s previous history; had his brother not been involved with conspiracy in the early 1570s, Howard’s move to take his place at court may not have been so disastrous. However, although not fully accepted by

Elizabeth, Howard successfully remained on the fringes at court, maintaining contact with men close to the queen, as evidenced by the recipients of his written work.

With regard to his academics and work as a writer, during his career Howard chose to use author publication (text production under the author’s personal direction) in the scribal medium as the main method for the duplication of his work.593 He was not alone in his preference for the scrivener; members of the aristocracy and upper gentry often chose handwritten replication over print in order to distribute their writing. Scribal texts were produced only upon demand and were regarded as the best way of providing monographs for a pre-chosen clientele, or when a work was intended to attract a particular type of reader.594 There is no doubt that Howard felt compelled to make an impression on those who saw his work, and was frustrated when he did not feel the quality was sufficient. In a letter addressed to Burghley in 1589, Howard remarked on his dissatisfaction with the scriveners he was forced to use in a particular location. After writing a treatise on prayer dedicated to the Lord Chancellor, Howard complained: “Your Lord I hope will excuse the bad writing of the book, for that is my own, being forced to take this extraordinary labor by the ignorance of the scriveners of this town, who in a Latin copy for the

592 Harris, “Women and Politics,” 271. 593 Harold Love, Scribal Publication in Seventeenth-Century England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 47. Love describes important criteria for identifying author publication as the “presence of signed dedications or epistles to particular persons.” All of the early copies of “Dutifull Defence” contain dedications. Only one of Howard’s works was published as a printed book, A Defensative against the Poyson of Supposed Prophecies (1583). 594 Love, Scribal Publication., 47, 133. Love indicates that cost was not necessarily a factor in choosing a scrivener or printer as the cost and remuneration may have been similar. 127. 152 most part make as many faults as points.”595 In spite of his occasional criticism of scribes, dozens of Howard’s works were circulated in manuscript form during his career, including “Dutifull

Defense.”596

Howard never intended for “Dutifull Defence” to be read by the common public. His sense of hierarchy and strong belief in the virtue of knowledge and education prevented any desire for the general population to voice an opinion on his work. He expressed from his early years that he preferred to write for individuals rather than for many people; and despite his quest for favor, personally, he was an austere and private person. For instance, Howard declared: “I was never apt by nature to crave acquaintance with a private person without urgent cause, much less a random multitude.”597 He addressed men whose opinions he felt were important — members of the aristocracy and statesmen.598 For a man born into the nobility, living in poverty, and under continuous suspicion of conspiracy and treason, Howard used the power of his pen to regain his political and social standing at court.

Therefore, when “Dutifull Defence,” was finally complete, Howard moved forward with the last step of a process that had begun thirteen years earlier- presenting a copy of his treatise to

Queen Elizabeth. By 1590 the treatise had taken on a greater meaning to Howard than just a defense of a female monarch, and had become a work worthy of being read by men he deemed as friends or influential acquaintances. Instead of a simple rebuttal of John Knox, the work had evolved into a type of magnum opus. As such, he chose to produce multiple copies of “Dutifull

Defence,” The content of the presentation manuscripts confirms that the full copy Howard produced in the late 1580’s is indeed the copy used by the scriveners to reproduce the final

595 BL, Cotton MSS, Titus C VI, fol. 30r. 596 For listings of Howard’s written works see Nott, 468-470, and Peck, Northampton, 12. 597 Peck, "Mentality," 163. 598 For example, Howard wrote for Burghley and Walsingham. 153 treatise. The presentation copies reflect the changes from the full draft where lines were crossed through and changed or cut out completely. The variance between his final draft, and from copy to copy, is minimal, and most that do occur are in the marginalia, and in the slight changing of words in the headings. In places single words are changed, in others entire sentences.

How Howard acquired the funds to commission these copies is unknown. Many of his earlier presentation works he wrote out in his own hand, including the treatise for his sister and a volume of Latin prayers he presented to Lord Burghley. However, at his lowest point in life, he hired scribes to create the presentation copies.599 He was closely involved in the production process of the copies, as indicated by the similarity of structure, and the fact that he wrote a personal salutation in each of the copies.600 Perhaps he was able to defray the cost by helping with part of the production, or he may have taken a personal loan to help pay the scriveners.601

Regardless of how he found the money, the treatise was considered important enough that, even though he was in a financially destitute situation, he made sure they were done properly. His intended audience was specific, and he wanted to present to them something he considered to be of value. They were the queen’s new councilors and favorites, and they were also the men who could help Howard emerge out of obscurity.602

During the years of heightened tension between England and Spain, Henry Howard finally received an opportunity to help in 1591. Lord Admiral Howard gave him charge of a

Spanish prisoner of war, one Don Louis. The intention was for Howard to ingratiate himself to the prisoner with hopes that he could extract information about the Spanish fleet. However, the

599 Woudhuysen, Circulation, 102. 600 Ibid., 103. 601 At some point before 1598 Howard secured a loan from Michael Hickes, his friend from Cambridge who Howard had sought information from court while at Cambridge. BL Lansdown 109, fol. 13r, referred to in Smith, Servent of the Cecils, 90. 602 The 1590’s saw the emergence of a new group of men, including Essex, Robert Cecil and others who succeeded Elizabeth’s core group of councilors who had passed away. Sussex had passed away in 1583, Leicester in 1588, and although Burghley survived until 1598, he had retired and allowed his son to take his mantel. 154 prisoner apparently refused to cooperate and it backfired on Howard. He was accused of being too friendly with the Spaniard, and once again suspected of treason.603 Howard was brought before the queen and council to testify to his actions, which he did to their satisfaction, but as a result he was barred from appearing at court again.604 He withdrew from society, expressing his desire that he might retire to “a grove and a prayer-book,” but would once again find himself unable to do so.605

Henry Howard’s thoughts of retirement were altered when Robert Deveraux, second earl of Essex, and Howard’s cousin, burst onto the scene of court politics and into the queen’s heart.

Robert Deveraux first appeared at court in 1577, the year Howard was commissioned to compose

“Dutifull Defence,” but it would take several years for the young man to make his mark.

Deveraux was the son of Lettice Knollys, who had married the earl of Leicester after the death of her first husband Walter Devereux, earl of Essex in 1572. Energetic and eager to advance,

Deveraux learned about the consequences of intrigue, and the potential of the queen’s anger, at an early age. The aging earl of Leicester was losing his influence over Elizabeth to younger men whose looks and abilities indulged the queen who still enjoyed the company of fit, young gentlemen.606 More specifically, Leicester had animosity toward Walter Raleigh who had risen rapidly in Elizabeth’s favor by actively seeking the queen’s attention.607 Leicester felt his position was threatened and decided to use Essex as a tool to win back Elizabeth’s attention.

Therefore, he brought the boy to court when he was seventeen in order to woo Elizabeth with the boy’s good looks and larger than life personality.608 Essex rose to the occasion and by 1587 he

603 Nott, Works of Henry Howard, 439; DMV s.v. Henry Howard, 30. 604 BL Cotton Titus C vi., fol. 32v; Nott, Works, 439; 605 DMV s.v. Henry Howard, 30. The dictionary does not provide a citation for this small quotation. 606 DNB s.v. Walter Raleigh; See Robert Lacey, Sir Walter Ralegh (New York: Antheneum, 1974); 92-93; Robert Lacey, Robert Earl of Essex (New York: Antheneum, 1971), 30. 607 MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 462, Lacey, Sir Walter Ralegh, 51. Adams, Leicester and the Court, 36. 608 Lacey, Robert, Earl of Essex, 30. See Adams, Leicester and the Court, 46-47, 55. 155 was created Master of the Horse, a post which ensured regular court attendance.609 However,

Essex was arrogant, felt no compunction about confronting the queen when he disagreed with her, and was prone to fits of rage and periods of deep depression- attributes that would influence his decisions while serving the queen and eventually lead to his downfall.610 In the meantime, personality traits aside, in the early 1590’s Essex rose rapidly through the ranks of courtiers, and after the Armada, he became the favorite of the queen.611

With his position as favorite seemingly secure, Essex was forced to live up to the demands of the positions he had been granted. He had a desire for self- improvement, and understood that he needed to study. In order to achieve his goal, he sought educated men who could help him, and also wanted to work with someone who could organize material for him to read.612 Henry Howard was the perfect candidate. He was a cousin, educated, in need of a position, and he saw an opportunity on which he could capitalize. Howard ignored Essex’s connection to Leicester and attached himself to the queen’s new favorite, quickly becoming the earl’s confidant and friend. The match was more than acceptable in social terms. Howard was

Essex’s equal in status, and Essex looked favorably on Howard’s education, as well as experience, to the point that Howard regularly visited the earl for private counsel.613 Ironically,

Howard gave Essex advice on how to advance his interests and continue to foster his relationship with Elizabeth. Over the next few years, Howard offered Essex opinions and counsel on dealing with politics and the court, and set out to make Essex a statesman who could guide English affairs with the continent, and thwart the power of men in the court who Howard felt were

609 MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 462. 610 Ibid., 24-25, 462. MacCaffrey notes that Essex reproached the queen at one point, telling her she was a tool of Walter Raleigh. 611 See Peck, Northampton, for a discussion on Howard’s relationship with Essex. 612 Paul Hammer, “Elizabethan Statesman,” 13. 613 Nott,Works, 441; DNB s.v. Henry Howard, 30. 156 undeserving of their fortune: “The uerie time and manner of his aduancement proue ane argument of prouidence pro bono publico. His rising to the ouerthrowe of one that opened his mouth and utterid blasphemies against heauene &c.”614 The heretic Howard referred to was Sir

Walter Raleigh, a man who he detested and sought to destroy.615 To this point, Howard intended to achieve what Leicester could not- use Essex to unseat Raleigh and take his place at the side of the queen.616

While Howard’s previous offers for service had been rejected, he helped Essex advance and the young earl pushed forward in his pursuit to be with the queen. In addition to taking

Leciester’s position as Master of the Horse, Elizabeth also transferred a monopoly on sweet wines (which had been one of Leicester’s primary sources of income) to Essex in order to improve his income.617 It seemed he was destined to take Leicester’s place. But, all was not well in the earl’s pursuit. His lack of respect for his elders, and tendency to act in haste quickly became a problem. In 1589 he directly disobeyed the queen and accompanied Sir Francis Drake during his attack of the Spanish coast. It was one of the first signs of Essex’s recklessness, which

Henry Howard was aware of, and as such, he sought continually to curb the earl’s excesses in personality and actions while they were friends.618 Perhaps wary of the reliance on military success that his father the earl of Surrey had sought so readily, and which would eventually be his undoing, Howard discouraged Essex from pursuing foreign assignments, and grand military

614 DUL, Howard Library MS 2, fol. 117r. As cited in Hammer, “Elizabethan Statesman,” 13 and Polarisation, 140. 615 For a discussion on Raleigh’s heresy see [Anon] An Aduertisement Written to a Secretarie of my L. Treasurers. 18. Paul Hammer, “ ‘Absolute and Soverign Mistress of her Grace’?” Queen Elizabeth and her Favourites, 1581- 1592.” In The World of Favorite. Edited by J.H. Elliot and L.W. B. Brockliss (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991), 38-53. For one discussion on Howard’s hatred of Raleigh, see Lacey, Sir Walter Ralegh, 274-275. 616 Hammer, “Elizabethan Statesman,” 14-15. 617 Lacey, Robert, Earl of Essex, 29, 76-7. 618 Peck, Northampton, 16. 157 exploits, too soon.619 Essex ignored his advice, but nevertheless, Howard supported the earl as family, and cheered on his success, which seemed to have come quickly. Essex believed he had achieved his goal in 1589 when he was able to capture Cadiz.620 However, the victory only bolstered Essex’s ego to the point of arrogance. His inexperience was evident and he still needed advice to fulfill what was expected of him in his military adventures. For example, when Essex was created Earl Marshal in 1597, Howard organized the papers Essex would need to understand the prerogative of his new position.621 Essex came to rely on Howard’s writing skills, and

Howard helped Essex compose letters to the queen and councilors, as well as compose letters of advice for Essex.622 The earl readily expressed his gratitude for Howard’s assistance, writing that

Howard “laboured above my strength . . . that I might rightly judge,” or, again writing, “my inward friendship with my Lord H. Howard doth make me know his many virtues.”623 As an outcast himself at times, Howard would certainly have been able to understand the earl’s situation, and his devotion to family assured Essex of a loyal supporter.

In spite of his tendency for disobedience, Essex was continuously given the opportunity prove himself worthy of his position. In 1597 he was commissioned to lead a voyage to Spain, but the attempted invasion turned into a dismal failure after the earl’s troops succumb to physical illness. Instead of following through and continuing on to the Spanish coast, he sailed to the

Azores in an attempt to capture a treasure ship so he could appease Elizabeth with bounty. The

619 Howard writes: The carriage of martiall forces, if it could stand with your honour, wear better lefte in another hande.” DUL, MS 2, fol. 130r. As cited in Hammer, “Elizabethan Statesman,” 20. 620 Lacey, Robert, Earl of Essex, 157. 621 Hammer, Polarisation, 311. Howard wrote about the process: “laboured above my strength, not onlie in ryflinge all corners of my dustie cabinet about notes belonginge to an honor that dothe now concerne your self, but besides in sweeping downe the coppwebs everie other where, that I maie rightly judge, and yow may truly understande, what is your authorite.” BL Harleian MS 286, fol. 268r. As cited in Hammer, Polarisation, 311. 622 Ibid. 623BL, Harleian MSS,286, fol. 268r. As cited in Hammer, Polarisation , 311.Hammer provides an excellent portrait of the relationship between Howard and Essex; Peck, Northampton,. 15. Peck cites BL, Add. MSS, 4123, fol. 95v. 158 bounty never arrived and Essex’s adventures were dismissed as “idle wanderings at sea.”624 His star was beginning to dim, but even during his jaunts and escapades as a privateer, Howard remained loyal to Essex, in spite of the grumblings at court.625 In 1598, Essex was given a final chance to prove himself when the decision was made to send him to Ireland.626 He was appointed

Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in February, 1599 and given the task of suppressing a rebellion led by

Hugh O’Neill, earl of Tyrone and overlord of Ulster.627 While in Ireland, Howard managed

Essex’s correspondence with the court and served as an intermediary between Essex and his followers.628 However, Ireland was once again a dismal failure for the earl. His campaign against

Tyrone was inconclusive, and more importantly, Essex had called a private meeting with the rebel leader, and signed a truce without permission. The move was seen as paramount to treason.629 Essex was desperate to return to England, but Elizabeth said no. In spite of her command, he sailed for London anyway in 1599. The queen was furious, and Essex was brought before the council on September 29, accused of desertion, and taken into custody.630

During Essex’s implosion, Howard realized that even though he may have felt a personal affiliation with the earl, he needed to maintain positive contact with other members of the court, from who he might benefit. Howard’s main focus was Sir Robert Cecil, Lord Burghley’s son.

Cecil became a leading minister after his father’s death in 1598 and would serve both Elizabeth

624 Hammer, Polarisation, 265. 625 Ibid., 288. 626 Some believe that he was sent to Ireland intentionally to get him out of the court and out of the way. 627 Lacy, Robert, Earl of Essex, 216-217. The leader of the Irish rebellion was Hugh O’Neill, earl of Tyrone and overlord of Ulster. 628 Peck, Northampton,14. In addition to official records, Howard relied on ancient, biblical and medieval historical accounts when writing “A brief discourse on the right of giving arms.” ; Nott, Works, 441. 629 For an discussion of the campaign, see Lacey, Robert, Earl of Essex, 219-238 and 630 Ibid., 16; Hammer, “Elizabethan Statesman,” 22. 159 at the end of her reign, and James I.631 As a result of Howard’s relationship with his father, Cecil was sympathetic to Howard in the 1590’s, and often kept him informed of what was going on in court. For example, Cecil kept Howard abreast of Essex’s excursions to Cadiz in order to quell his cousin’s apparent anxiety about the events.632 Cecil accepted Howard’s loyalty to Essex, and helped Howard when he could. In 1598, he assisted Howard in re-gaining access to his pension, which had been so poorly paid over the previous years.633 However, the relationship was far from secure. When Essex returned from Ireland in 1599, he blamed Robert Cecil for his turn of fortunes with the queen and accused Cecil of destroying his relationship with the queen.634

Howard was placed in the difficult position of remaining true to Essex while building a working relationship with Cecil. Therefore, Howard took the opportunity to take advantage of his relationship with both men, and ended up playing intermediary between them for the next year.

The move worked, and when Essex’s fortunes turned in an unexpected direction, Howard’s did as well.635

By 1600 Essex was consumed with his need to be with the queen, regardless of her opinion. Yet, even while his path toward self-destruction continued, Howard remained a friend and loyal advisor to the frantic earl. Essex was still forbidden to appear at court, so Howard helped him write letters to the queen and her ministers in an attempt to restore favor.636 When

Essex lost his monopoly on sweetwine, he sought to renew the contract directly with the queen, and set out to write her a letter. Howard advised him otherwise, and instead of writing to

Elizabeth, Howard encouraged him to write Sir John Stanhope, the Treasurer of the Chamber.

631 For a discussion on Cecil’s word see Alan Haynes, Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, 1563 to 1612: Servant of two Sovereigns (London: P. Owen, 1989). Howard’s relationship with Cecil at the end of Elizabeth’s reign will be discussed in chapter seven. 632 Peck, Northampton, 17. 633 Ibid. 634Lacy, Robert, Earl of Essex, 206-208. 635 Hammer, “Elizabethan Statesman,” 23. Peck, Northampton, 17. 636 Peck, Northampton, 17; Hammer, Polarisation, 335. 160

With a letter secure in the treasurer’s hand, Essex could then write the queen a few days later with Stanhope’s support when pleading his case for a renewal of the monopoly. Howard’s influence on the letter is evident, as the language in it exemplifies Howard’s writing style of high praise and eloquent words: “[I- Essex] enjoin myself never to speak in that style which you are not pleased to grant, and may be but a mute in your presence, they that have most favours of fortune shall never be envied by me.”637 Eloquent language aside, their attempt at winning the queen’s favor failed. Elizabeth remained unmoved, and at the beginning of 1601, the earl finally decided to retreat to his home on the Strand, Essex House and plot a new course of action from there.

Once secure in his own home, Essex decided that his only way to bring Elizabeth to her senses was to raise an army, rebel, seize the court, and force his way into the queen’s audience.638 He managed to find support from several supporters and over the next couple of weeks, he devised a march on London in which he planned to take the city and then force his way into the palace to see the queen.639 However, as with all of Essex’s adventures, the entire coup came to naught. Poor planning and lack of cooperation forced Essex back to his home after an aborted attempt to march on London on February 8. Held up in his self- proclaimed fortress, crown forces besieged Essex House, and the earl was forced to surrender. It was a short affair from there as Essex was tried on charges of treason and beheaded on February 25, 1601. For his part Howard had refused to accept open rebellion against a monarch as a course of action, and took no part in the earl’s rebellion. In fact, after all of the men involved in the rebellion were in

637 HMS Salisbury 10, 328-329. CSPD 1598-1601, 475. As cited in Peck, Northampton, 17. 638 Peck, Northampton, 17; Lacey, Robert, Earl of Essex, 266. 639 Lacey, Robert, Earl of Essex. 161 custody, a few of the men on trial actually asked Howard to intervene on their behalf with

Cecil.640

In the end, the favorite fell, and yet Howard continued to survive. He had lost another member of his family, even if it was a distant cousin, and by all accounts was still a defeated man. However, he had carefully navigated the earl’s storm, and the whirlwind of events involving Essex provided a change of fortune for Howard. By 1601 he had managed to gain enough influence with Cecil to be brought into favor. Howard’s change in status was noted by

Rowland Whyte in a letter stating that “my Lord Henry Howard hath infinitely travelled in his business, for surely, things were far out of square between him and Mr. Secretary, which seems by his direction to be upon better terms.”641 Howard found an open door, and although it would take a few more years, he slowly began his climb out of suspicion and obscurity.

While navigating the Elizabethan, and then Jacobean courts of the 1590’s and early

1600’s Howard presented copies of “Dutifull Defence” to men who he worked with and respected. To this point, there are seven extent, identifiable, full manuscripts that Howard had prepared during or after 1590. Each manuscript is bound, often in purple velvet, with gilded edges on the leaves and each folio page outlined in double sets of red-ruled frames- an indication of the status of the recipients. The recto of the first leaf of each treatise contains the title, and the recipient’s coat of arms was placed on the verso, followed by a personal dedication, written in

Latin and personally signed by Howard.642 His handwriting was also present in the marginalia in most of the copies. The attention to detail in the preparation of the manuscripts suggests that

640 The two men were Sir John Davies and Sir William Constable. Peck, Northampton, 17. DMV s.v. Howard, 30. Both men survived to serve James I. For an account of Davie’s involvement in the rebellion, see Lacey, Robert, Earl of Essex, 278-282. 641 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, II, 481. As cited in Peck, Northampton, 18; See Nott, Works, 442 for Howard’s change of status. 642 Woudhuysen, Sir Philip Sidney, 101. Harleian 6257 is an exception. Instead of a coat of arms, a seal appears on the first folio, which will be discussed below. 162

Howard was personally involved in their design and preparation.643 All of the monographs produced between 1590 and 1600, were presented to members of the Privy Council or men who were close to the queen, with the later copies being given to men connected with King James I.

In addition to the copy given to Elizabeth, Howard also presented one to Lord Burghley.

Burghley’s copy contains marginalia in Howard’s handwriting, as well as annotations written by

Burghley.644 As High Lord Treasurer, and the man whose opinion Elizabeth perhaps most trusted, Howard sought Burghley’s approval more than any other member of council. Despite the precarious circumstances Howard found himself in during the 1570s and 80s, he tried to maintain regular contact with Burghley and then his son Robert. As has been seen, Howard regularly wrote to Burghley, thanking him for his support, assuring him of his loyalty, or pleading for deference and favor.645 Burghley was not always expedient in his responses, but he never abandoned the beleaguered noble. In March 1589, Howard dedicated a treatise on prayer to the chancellor, and he was no doubt one of the first to receive a copy of “Dutifull Defence.”646

The arms of Sir George Carey appear on the next copy.647 The marginalia and Latin verses addressed to Carey are in Howard’s own hand. From the heraldry, it can be determined that the manuscript dates before 1596, when Carey was created Lord Hunsdon. The text is written in a single scribal hand. Cary served the queen for his entire career, culminating with his appointment as Lord Chamberlain in 1596. He had been connected to the Scottish issues as a consultant on the contemplated marriage between the duke of Norfolk and Mary queen of Scots.

Additionally, Howard and Cary were cousins as well as related by marriage. Howard maintained

643 Ibid. 644 Pepys Library MS 2191. Elizabeth’s copy has yet to be identified. See below for further discussion on this with regard to later manscripts. 645 Howard’s letters to Lord Burghley are found in BL, Cotton MSS, Titus C VI. 646 Henry Howard, “A Work on the Trinity”(1589). Howard mentions the work in a letter written to Burghely in March 1589. B.L. Cotton MSS, C VI, 647 BL MS Lansdowne 813. 163 that Carey was a personal friend and after his difficulties with the Earl of Oxford, Howard cited

Carey in a letter as one of the persons who could vouch for his conduct, since they were on intimate terms.648

One of the more ornate copies of “Dutifull Defence” was presented to Howard’s companion and charge, Robert Deveraux, second Earl of Essex.649 In this manuscript, the dedication to the queen is in a scribal hand, but the Latin verses are in Howard’s own writing.

The signature at the end of the introduction is unique compared to the others. Within his formation of “Henry Howward,” the first “w” is made to resemble a Greek omega. As has been seen, Howard’s relationship with Essex was the most intricate and involved of any of the men who received a copy of “Dutifull Defense.” Based on the relationship between the two men in the 1590’s, and the fact that Howard saw himself as a councilor to the favorite, Howard would have wanted Essex to have copy. It is the only manuscript that presents the introductory letter in script, rather than italic hand. The opening page indicates that it was transferred out of the court at an early date, as it was given as a gift to one Thomas Chomley in 1623. On the front page of the manuscript, there is a note that reads, “This was written by Henry Howard E. of

Northampton. He was the learnedist among the nobility, and the most noble among the learned.”650

Sir John Stanhope also received a copy of “Dutifull Defence,” and as with the rest, contains notes in Howard’s own hand.651 The dedication is signed by Howard as well. The copy is interesting in that it reveals something about how scribes worked. The bulk of the text is the work of one scribe, however, another scribe is responsible for folios 86r-96v. Neither hand is the

648 BL, Cotton MSS, Titus C VI, fol. 5v. 649 Harvard, Houghton Library MS 826. 650 Ibid, fol 1. 651 Oxford Bodleian MS 903. 164 same as the scribe who wrote the previous copies discussed.652 In 1590 Stanhope was made

Master of the Posts and appointed to the Council of the North, as well as being appointed

Treasurer of the Chamber in 1596. Howard was in regular contact with Stanhope during the

1590s, acting as an intermediary on Essex’s behalf. After Howard was promoted to the council in

1603, he and Stanhope served together on the commission that discussed a union between

England and Scotland. Unlike Burghley, Cary, and Essex, Howard did not seek Stanhope’s favor, but most likely considered him a friend and worthy recipient.

Unusual in its ownership is the copy with the name of William Trumbull appearing on the manuscript, as well as gilt monogram of Lord Brougham and Vaux.653 The dedication, marginal additions, and corrections are once again in Howard’s own hand. The title page was written by a scribe identified as the “Feathery Scribe,” who was active between the 1620s and the 1640s.654 The body of the work was copied by the same scribe who copied one of the other manuscripts, and since the body of the text was written in the 1590s, the title page of the manuscript must have been added at a later date. William Trumbull was a court messenger during the reign of James I and was raised to the position of diplomat at the court of the

Archduke of Austria. No direct, written communication between Howard and Trumbull exists, though it can be assumed that they would have had some contact.655 Lord Braugham and Vaux was Lord Chancellor during the 1850s. He also helped establish the non-denominational

University College of London in 1828, where the manuscript is now housed. How he came to own a copy of “Dutifull Defence” is unknown.

652 Peter Beal, In Praise of Scribes: Manuscripts and Their Makers in Seventeenth-Century England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 215. 653 University College London MSS Ogden 16. 654 Ibid., 58. 655 Interestingly, Trumbull was an accomplished lute player and wrote a book of music for the lute. While Howard was still teaching at Cambridge in the late 1560’s, he requested that a master lute player be sent from London, as he desired to learn the instrument. Letter from Lord Henry Howard to Mr. Hicks. BL, Lansdowne MSS, 109, fol. 51. 165

Perhaps the most interesting of all the copies of “Dutifull Defence” was presented to Sir

Robert Cotton in 1613, although the copy was most likely produced much earlier.656 As in the other complete copies, it contains Howard’s autograph and annotations as well as being set in double ruled form. However, the script is clearly more formal than that in the manuscripts previously discussed and does not contain a coat of arms. Instead, an illustration of a crown is set over a rose or thistle with a lion below. The words “Quid Ultra” emerge from the lion’s mouth.

The illustration has never been identified, but it could possibly be some form of motto. The copy presented to Queen Elizabeth remains unidentified. Nevertheless, the entry for this manuscript in the Fontes Harlieani lists the queen as an owner of it, and contains the note, “Queen’s signature formerly f. 26b [the last page of the dedication letter], now excised.”657 It was possible that the copy was distributed and then returned to Howard since the inscription to Cotton is “ex dono.”

However, the entries in Fontes Hareiani should be treated with caution.658 Though the possibility is intriguing, there are no other references indicating the manuscript belonged to Queen

Elizabeth, and further research is required before original ownership can be verified. The dedication was copied by the same scribe who wrote two of the other manuscripts, although the body of the work was written in another hand.659 In addition, the title of the manuscript reads

“written unto Queen Elizabeth by the Right Honorable Henry Howard, late Earl of

Northampton,” indicating that the page was replaced after 1614. The original owner was not

656BL Cotton Harleian MS 6257; Beal, 215. The manuscript was removed from the Cotton library when it was loaned to one Ralph Starkey, who still held the manuscript in 1621; C. G. C. Tite, "'Lost or Stolen or Strayed': A Survey of Manuscripts Formerly in the Cotton Library," in Sir Robert Cotton as Collector: Essays on an Early Stuart Courtier and His Legacy, ed. C. J. Wright (London: The British Library, 1997), 276, 470. 657 C. E. Wright, Fontes Harleiani: A Study of the Sources of the Harleian Collection of Manuscripts Preserved in the Department of Manuscripts in the British Museum (London: British Museum, 1972), 143. Also present on the manuscript is the name Boothe [Nathanial], who presumably owned the manuscript in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. 658 C.G.C.Tite, "Lost, Stolen, aor STrayed: A Survey of Manuscripts Formerly in the Cotton Library." In, Sir Robert Cotton as Collector. Edited by C.J. Wright (London: The British Library, 1997), 276, n. 94, 470. 659 The two manuscripts in the same hand are Lansdown 813 and Ogden 16. 166 identified, but the notes on the final page of the manuscript were in the same hand present in a work “The Prayer used in the King’s Army after the Battle of Kineton [Edgehill], which was composed in 1642.”660 In the end, Howard may have intended for his audience to remain small, but he must have known the treatise would eventually reach a greater audience.

Howard may have written for a small audience, with no interest in having “Dutifull

Defence” released to the public, but regardless of his intent when he presented his manuscripts at court, consciously or not, he was taking part in a world of oral and textual communication that firmly grounded him in a sphere of public debate that was emerging in the sixteenth century.661

As has been seen, from the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign ideas and opinions were transmitted between the public and the monarchy by members of the court and the council. Religious debate acted as a major instigator of political conflict. Attempts to change policy and disputes over identity and purpose created a series of spheres that pitted Protestants, and more radical Puritans, against Catholics on issues ranging from the legitimacy of the regime, Mary Stuart, Elizabeth’s personal relationships, and the Church of England. 662 A series of spheres emerged, emanating from the center of the court in order to mobilize public opinion.663 Protestants in the court sought to meet the Catholic threat to the regime, Catholics replied to the accusations of conspiracy and sedition, and were in turn met by Protestant moves to repress Catholic opinion. As a result,

660 Cambridge University Library Add. MS 9267; Beal, In Praise of Scribes, 215. 661 See Lake, “The Politics of Popularity and the Public Sphere”; Lake and Pincus, “Rethinking the Public Sphere”; Mears, Queenship and Political Discourse.” For constructs of what a “public” encompasses, see Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), 186; Michael Warner, Publics and Counter Publics (New York: Zone Books), 65. Also see Bronwen Wilson and Paul Yachnin, eds. Making Publics in Early Modern Europe: People, Things, Forms of Knowledge (New York: Routledge, 2010 for discussions on specific aspects of the Early Modern Public Sphere. 662 Peter Lake and Steve Pincus. "Rethinking the Public Sphere in Early Modern England. Journal of British Studies, Vol. 45, No. 2 (April, 2006): 273, 274. 663 In the Habermasian view of the eighteenth century public sphere, it developed autonomously, and independent of the state. This was not the case in Elizabethan England. The religious and political discourse took place in, and disseminated from the center of the court outward to the larger public, and was controlled by the state as much as possible. Peter Lake and Michael Questier, “Puritans, Papists and the ‘Public Sphere’ in Early Modern England: The Edmund Campion Affair in context. The Journal of Modern History Vol. 72, No. 3. (September, 2000):591, 595. 167 several avenues of communication were initiated and used by several public spheres- the court public, the public connected to the periphery of the court, the public made up of the general population of England, and in certain cases, an associated public on the continent of both

Protestant and Catholic exiles from England and Scotland. For each sphere, the goal of debate remained the same. They wanted to force Elizabeth to take action on policy and personal decisions or prevent her from doing so. In this respect, books, pamphlets, sermons, manuscripts, letters, and rumors were used as a mode of political maneuvering and public debate, by both

Protestant and Catholic members of the court and the general population in order to express opinion and possible courses of action.664

However, in the emerging Elizabethan public sphere, intentional movement between the publics depended on success or failure at the centre of the regime. Unless deemed necessary, the discussion of ideas, opinions, and texts remained within the court, or Parliament, and only filtered out to the greater public if a crisis or emergency ensued for the members involved in the debate.665 From the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign the primary issue that permeated through all of the public spheres was the queen’s gender, body, religious identity and personal decisions.

Social gossip and public opinion about the Elizabeth’s religion, her physical body and sexuality, marriage negotiations, and relationship to the Church dominated her reign and elicited written responses from the court, the general public, or collaboration between the two. Nevertheless, even though information moved between the spheres, direct interaction between the participants at court and in the general public was limited, except under extraordinary circumstances.666

664Ibid.; Lake and Pincus, “Rethinking the Public Sphere,” 274. They write: “In the period after the Reformation, issues of religious identity and division came together with issues of dynastic and geopolitical rivalry to create a series of public spheres.” Ibid., 274. 665 Ibid., 277. 666 Lake and Pincus,“Rethinking the Public Sphere,” 276. Mears, Queenship and Political Discourse, 9. Mears presents the discussion on multiple spheres and their interaction. She writes “One of the most important and interesting aspects of the court and its relationship with public debate is the permeable barrier between the two, a 168

For the court public, the Anjou Match was seen as a justified reason to present a political appeal to the general public667 When Gaping Gulf emerged as a polemic against the marriage it is assumed, as seen earlier, that Stubbs was acting on behalf of a portion of the court, most likely

Leicester or Walshingham.668 Their goal was to expand the debate and take it to a broader audience, hoping to generate a greater body of protest against the match, and convince Elizabeth to abandon the idea of the French marriage.669 Members of council risked a trip to the tower if they directly defied the queen’s desire to marry Anjou. Therefore, they created a response from outside the court in order to lodge their displeasure with the possibility of a Catholic match. In the end, Stubbs lost his hand, but the men who commissioned the work kept their heads.

Subsequently, Elizabeth’s reaction to instances of breaching the court sphere was to shut down public debate on the subject altogether, and return the discussion to its normal parameters through an act of Parliament or royal decree.670

With respect to Howard, it is clear that his body of writing in the 1580’s and 90’s was being circulated through the court, and often, the greater public.671 Because of his unique position of being both a member of the court and the general public, he was able to participate in

permeability created by courtiers who were able to traverse or occupy the different physical spaces of the royal palaces and the counties.” However, Lake and Pincus refine Mear’s definition of “multiple spheres.” Although they accept the construct of multiple spheres, they re-evaluate the relationship between the two. According to Lake and Pinucs, the private and popular spheres only truly interacted at certain times during the Elizabethan Regime. As will be seen, with the accession of James, the passing of information between the spheres became more commonplace and accepted as a political tool. 667 Lake and Pincus, “Rethinking the Public Sphere,” 278. 668 Mears uses John Stubbs as an example of the movement between the realms of the public sphere, since he was most likely asked to write it by a councilor, written by a civilian from the Inns of Court, and released to the broader, reading public. Queenship and Poltical Discourse, 187, 192.; Lake, “The Politics of Popularity,” 73. 669 Lake and Questier, “Puritans, Papists, and the Public Sphere,” 598. Mears, Queenship and Political Discourse, 200. Mears accepts that Stubbs transversed the realms of public sphere, but she does note that she believes Stubbs to have acted on his own, rather than writing for someone at court. 670 See chapter three for Elizabeth’s reaction to libel and her attempts to sequester opinion. 671 See Halasz, The Marketplace of Print, 187. 169 the debate with an understanding of both spheres.672 His primary audience was the court, but he was aware of the greater public debate. For example, Howard was directly involved in the debates over the Church of England, the contention between Catholics and Protestants at court,

Mary Queen of Scots, the threat of Catholicism to the regime, and all of Elizabeth’s possible marriages.673 His Defense of the Ecclesiastical Regiment was written for a court audience specifically, as the debate was primarily centered in the court sphere. However, when he wrote against John Stubbs’ Gaping Gulf, Howard was aware of broader public opinion on the subject and stated so in the opening sentence of his tract: “…seeing the general multitude to run headlong in opinion one course very prejudicial to the Crown and dignity, and the same to endeavor to fortify by sundry libels and pamphlets thrown abroad and published to the view of the world.”674 Howard’s involvement in the production of Leicester’s Commonwealth, was to help write a tract that was clearly meant to slip down into the broader public and influence the course of events at court through libel and the public humiliation of the earl of Leicester.675 The collaborators of Leicester’s Commonwealth also wanted to make it appear that the originated from outside of the court sphere, but unlike Gaping Gulf, no author took credit for the book. The work’s influence went well beyond the court into the broader English public, but also moved into

672Howard also knew through his own exposure to the problems of Elizabeth’s reign, and his personal involvement in them, that once a work was read by the queen, or council and courtiers, people would talk about it, and pass on the treatise or the information within, to the variant circles surrounding the court and then circulate to the public through letters, pamphlets and rumors. Handwritten documents (letters, papers, and treatises) that were intended for private use and restricted circulation were often used for intentional political purposes. Howard learned this early in his life through his father’s poetry, his brother’s letters, the network of documents surrounding Mary Queen of Scotts, and the letters passed in and around the court in the 1580’s and 90’s. Howard was able to participate in the multiple spheres by living both a civilian life at Cambridge and in London, and a noble life at court. He met with councilors at court, and more shady characters like Mendoza and the people involved with Mary Queen of Scots outside the control of the court. Often, as has been mentioned, Howard’s platform for discussion was in the greater public- by meeting in pubs, outside of the court’s ears. See Lake and Pincus, “Rethinking the Public Sphere,” 277. 673 Lake and Pincus, “Rethinking the Public Sphere,” 274. 674 Howard, “Defence of the French Monsieurs,” as cited in Lloyd, Gaping Gulf, 155. Later in the tract, Howard referred to the populous as being “seduced by the seditious persuasions of such who neither regard God (although zealous pretenders of religion), neither honor their prince (notwithstanding their flatteries), nor respect their countries.” 165. 675 Lake, “The Politics of Popularity,” 73. 170 the sphere that included the continental public as well. Thousands of copies of the book were printed in Europe, providing an even greater element of pressure on Elizabeth and the council to alter policy toward Catholics and the succession accordingly in response to the tract.676

“Dutifull Defence,” encompassed both the court public, and popular public due to the subject of debate, even if his intent was to keep the work private. When Howard chose to cite

Knox, Buchanan, Goodman, Leslie, Alymer, and Jewell by name or by proxy in “Dutifull

Defence,” he was participating in the debate on the subject of female rule, which had already been opened up to the general public. Both Knox’s and Buchanan’s works emanated from the court public, but they were published and released to the general public before receiving attention from Elizabeth and her council. In the popular public, women and men voiced their opinions about the queen after First Blast and The History of Scotland were released. The public voiced its response to Elizabeth’s rule, evoking opinions similar to those who wrote against women. Joan Lister from Cobham stated that Elizabeth could not govern the realm “bycause she is but a woman,” Mary Cleere from Kent wrote, “it did not become women to make knightes,” and in 1559, a cleric named Peter Hall, along with laborer John Hall were indicted for stating that “The Quene was not worthie to bear Rule, or to be Supreme Head of the Churche.”677 Both

Knox and Buchanan intended to incite public reaction, and in doing so facilitate changes they viewed as important to the monarchy and government.678 In response, both the regime and general public reacted accordingly through burning or banning works they thought were seditious and unhelpful to their cause.679 In the case of Knox and Buchanan, Howard realized

676 Mears, Queenship and Political Discourse, 193 677 Ibid., 195. Mears directly ties these rantings to the release of First Blast, but does not state if the individuals involved had copies of Knox’s book. 678 Knox and Goodman stop short of actually inciting the popular overthrow of a monarch, but justified their overthrow because of ungodliness and abomination of God’s law. 679 Mears, Queenship and Political Discourse,195. As seen earlier, Knox’s work was banned in England, and Buchanan’s work was publically burned. 171 their motives, and the effect their works had, and thus said with regard to “Dutifull Defence,”

“The purpose in this piece of service was sufficient to weigh downe ye feare of a farre more dangerous conflict.”680 He may have not intended “Dutifull Defence” to be passed from the court sphere to the popular sphere, but perhaps the men who read it might pass on his ideas.

There is no doubt that in the 1580’s and 90’s Howard wrote to influence opinion, but as can be seen, his primary focus was to influence the court, not the general populace. Howard had a goal, and with his ability to present Elizabeth with his treatise, he hoped court opinion would sway in his favor and he could improve his position. It would take a few more years, but at the end of Elizabeth’s reign Howard would achieve his goal. Elizabeth granted him favor, and in addition, Howard achieved what he could not possibly imagine. His relationship with Robert

Cecil provided him an opportunity to ingratiate a king. At the beginning of the seventeenth century, Howard’s life changed dramatically, and so did “Dutifull Defence.” The rapid transfer and reproduction of his treatise to libraries outside of the court, and the debate surrounding its content, pushed “Dutifull Defence” further into public attention than Howard intended, or could ever realize.

680 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 3r. 172

CHAPTER SEVEN

PREFERMENT, SUCCESS, AND LEGAGY

For Henry Howard, the late 1590’s were a time of change, and a change of fate. He had positioned himself well through Essex’s travails, and after the earl’s death Howard continued to foster his relationship with Robert Cecil. As a result, Howard’s situation began to improve, as he found favor with both the elderly Elizabeth, and the young James VI of Scotland. Over the next two years Howard also continued to write, but his works after “Dutifull Defence” took on a very different purpose as he became one of two primary men who corresponded with James VI, securing his succession to the English throne in 1603. After James’ accession, his written work reflected his new political role. He had finally become the traditional noble he felt he should have been nearly sixty years earlier. It was the final years of Howard’s life that most constructed his legacy within later historical writings as little remained of his life during Elizabeth’s reign except for his written work. “Dutifull Defence” also faced the same scrutiny as its author, and over the next two centuries both would be subject to periodic re-assessment within various historiographies.

Twenty years after beginning “Dutifull Defence,” Henry Howard finally found favor with

Queen Elizabeth and was admitted to her presence in 1597. At that time, she also granted him a

£200 pension.681 When Essex rebelled in 1600, instead of being accused of helping with the earl’s scheme, as had been his history, he remained in favor. He remembered several years later,

“those heavy crosses which I had so often borne had been too light upon proof of guiltiness in

681 DNB s.v. Henry Howard, 30; Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 177. Several years later, Howard reflected on the moment he was accepted by the queen: “…at my Lord of Herteford’s house in Cannon Row to receive me to her favour by the kissing of her hand.” Lambeth Palace MS Bacon Papers, vol. 655, f.11, January 9, 1597. As cited in Peck, Northampton, 15. 173 those things…suspected during the disgraces and disasters of my house and friends.”682 In fact, his relationship with the elderly queen became so close that it was said Elizabeth was “used to have much conference with him” and one point even requested that his bed be brought into the council chamber.683 The exact reasons for her extreme change in attitude toward Howard are unknown. No doubt both Essex and Cecil helped Howard in achieving his goal. They trusted him, and because of this it may have helped alter her opinion.684 However, Howard, perhaps, had an additional advantage- he was the only person of the old court who was still alive. Elizabeth had outlived Sussex, Leicester, Burghley, Walsingham, and her new favorites, Essex and

Raleigh, had fallen as well.685 Howard might have been, in some small way, a reminder of the years in which she had been at her height of power, and someone who had now known her longer than anyone at court.686 Regardless of the reasons for being there, Howard had succeeded.

Nevertheless, he knew the queen was in her final years, and took advantage of his new found allies to solidify his position at court, and ensure his position at the beginning of the new reign.

Secure in his position with the queen, Howard continued to strengthen his relationship with Robert Cecil. In 1600, there were several possible claimants to the English throne, but

James VI was the most viable candidate, but Elizabeth continued to refuse to name a successor, and it was a problem that could not be ignored.687 James VI had tried in vain to convince the queen to name him as her heir, so he took a different approach to secure his position. He sought

682 Ibid. 683 Nott, Works, 443; Andersson, Lord Henry Howard, 177. 684 Nott, Works, 443; DNB s.v. Henry Howard, 30. 685 Raleigh had secretly married Elizabeth’s lady in waiting, Elizabeth Throckmorton, in 1591. The queen was so enraged she had him sent to the tower. When he was released, he retired from Elizabeth’s court and then pursued his naval interests, well outside of Elizabeth’s reach. 686 See MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 443. 687 Peck, Northampton, 18. The Spanish Infanta was considered to be a viable candidate for the English throne for this reason. 174 out the council of Robert Cecil, and Henry Howard.688 James needed people in England who could guarantee him the succession while Cecil and Howard needed to assure their own power bases in the new reign.689 The correspondence between the men was secret, and participants were listed by number to reduce the risk of detection.690 Howard wrote to the king, instructing him on proper etiquette and conduct with the queen (James’s own attempts had failed), and about the character of the men who were vying for James’s favor.691 Howard was particularly vehement against Sir Walter Raleigh and others who he personally disliked.692 His ploy worked, and when James traveled triumphantly to the south, Raleigh and others were snubbed. Howard received a Scottish ruby as a token of thanks.693

As a result of his role as an intermediary with James, Henry Howard was richly rewarded. In March 1603, Robert Cecil drafted the proclamation that announced the queen’s death and transferred her power, “absolutely, wholly, and solely to James.”694 The document was sent to Scotland under the greatest security, and when Queen Elizabeth died on March 24, 1603 a

688 Doran, “James VI,” 41; Peck, Northampton, 19. Robert and Essex had already been in correspondence with James, but after Essex’s rebellion James turned to Howard based on the relationship Howard had with his mother and Cecil’s assurances of trust. 689 Peck, Northampton, 19; Nott, Works, 443. 690 Their numbers were as follows: James (30), Cecil (10), Howard (3). Akrigg, Letters of King James, 190. 691 Howard helped James understand statesmanship in his communication with Elizabeth. James was never known for his mastery of words. For a sketch of his character see Godfrey Davies, “The Character of James VI and I.” Huntington Library Quarterly, Vol. 5, No.1, (October, 1941): 33-63. 692 Howard warned James of Raleigh’s possible duplicity and poor character. Howard’s personal dislike of Raleigh most definitely came out in his correspondence. Concerning Raleigh he writes, “I account it impossible for him to escape the snares which wit my set, and weakness is apt to fall into.” Cotton Titus C vi, ff. 386-92. The letter indicates that he wanted to snare Raleigh into a charge of treason. Ironically, it was an unnecessary attempt, for Raleigh was the instigator of his own downfall several years later. Other men Howard wrote against include Henry Brooke and Lord Cobham, Howard convinced James that these men were trying to poison the queen against Cecil and himself. Peck, Northampton, 20. 693 DNB s.v. Henry Howard, 30; Peck, Northampton, 20; Nott, Works, 444. A letter to Howard in 1602 reveals James’s feelings about the acts taken to eliminate foes: “The deep and restless care that both worthy 10 and ye have of my safety I shall never be able to recompense.” James then compares his perceived character of Raleigh to a knight who was used to get information from him: “…the gentleman’s nature appears to be far different from Raleigh’s though, out of zeal for me and affection to his friend.” James to Lord Henry Howard, July 29, 1602. As cited in Akrigg, Letters of King James, 196. 694 James F. Larkin and Paul L. Hughes (eds) Stuart Royal Proclomations. Vol. 1, Royal Proclomations of King James I, 1603- 1625 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), 1-3. Also cited in Pauline Croft, King James (New York: Palgrave, 2003), 48. 175 messenger was sent to Scotland, while the succession was announced at Whitehall and Hampton

Court.695 Over the next several months, James made a triumphant progression to London. While travelling, the men who supported him went to meet him, and James rewarded those he felt had secured his throne. Henry Howard met James at Theobald’s in Hertfordshire where he was admitted to the Privy Council.696 After that, the honors multiplied. On January 1, 1604 Howard was made Warden of the Cinque Ports, and Constable of Dover Castle. On August 13, James created him Baron Howard of Marnhill and Earl of Northampton. In addition he was given rights to execute the office of Earl Marshall, and installed as a Knight of the Garter on February 24,

1605.697

Few men could boast of falling to such a depth and then be able to make such a meteoric rise back into the trust of a monarch. Howard did, and once at the top, he went back to work.

Between 1603 and 1614, he played an active role in politics, working closely with Robert Cecil, now the Earl of Salisbury.698 As Northampton, he continued to write, but he became known for his rhetorical skills as well. His work during this time as a councilor reflected his political role as a participant in one of the major events of early reign, the Gunpowder conspiracy and plot.699

Then, in 1615, Northampton was posthumously accused for the murder of Sir Thomas Overbury.

In each case of sixteenth century intrique that Northampton was supposedly involved in, he was able to make a case for his innocence. However, none of that seemed to matter at the beginning of the seventeenth century. The Gunpowder plot and Overbury’s murder would become the

695 Croft, King James, 49. 696 DNB s.v. Henry Howard, 30. 697 Ibid., Nott, Works, 44-445. 698 For a discussion of Robert Cecil’s career see Alan Haynes, Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, 1563- 1612: Servant of Two Sovereigns. (London: Peter Own, 1989). 699 See Peck, Northampton, 79. 176 primary events he was remembered for, and they both had a major effect on how he was judged by later generations.

In 1605, a group of conspirators led by Robert Catesby and a group of Roman Catholics plotted to blow up Parliament in order to assassinate James I in the House of Lords at

Parliament’s opening on November 5.700 At the beginning of his reign, Catholics believed they would be given greater tolerance by a king, whose mother was a martyred Catholic, and whose consort was also Catholic, but they were disappointed.701 James took a stance that angered both

Puritans and Catholics, for he wanted to subject them to a Church that avoided the extremes of both radical Puritans and Papists.702 James even wrote to Howard about his feelings for both sides: “We have kept such a revel with the Puritans here these two days as was never heard the like, where I have peppered them as soundly as ye have done the Papists there.”703 According to

James, he was the divinely ordained, head of the Supreme Church of England and the state. As such there would be a unity between both, fostering peace and harmony on a middle ground, away from the extremes of both beliefs.704 While neither group was happy with James’s policy, some more radical Catholics sought to encourage greater tolerance by force. The plot was eventually revealed, and the eight men were sent to trial. Included in this group was Guy

Fawkes, who was discovered under the House of Lords with thirty-six barrels of gunpowder, enough to level the House.705 Rarely mentioned in popular accounts of the plot is that

Northampton was the commissioner for Guy Fawke’s trial in 1605, and it appears that Howard

700 For discussions on the Gunpowder Plot see Parkinson, Northecote. Gunpowder, Treason and Plot. (New York: St. Martin’s, 1976); Alan Haynes, The Gunpowder Plot: Faith in Rebellion. (Stroud, England: A Sutton, 1994). 701 See, Albert J. Loomie, “King James I’s Catholic Consort.” Huntington Library Quarterly. Vol. 34, No. 4. (August, 1971): 306-316. 702 Kenneth Fincham and Peter Lake, “The Ecclesiastical Policy of King James I.” Journal of British Studies Vol. 24, No. 2. (April, 1985): 169-171. 703 B.L. Cotton Vespasian MS F111, f. 76. James to Lord Henry Howard, January 17(?), 1604. As cited in Letters of King James VI and I. Edited by G.P.V. Akrigg (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 220. 704 Fincham and Lake, “The Ecclesiastical Policy,” 169-171. 705 Parkinson, Gunpowder, 73. 177 set out to write an account of the events, which he intended to publish, a very different position from his desire for privacy during Elizabeth’s reign.706

More significant to Northampton at the time was a second trial that revolved around a

Jesuit priest named Henry Garnet, who was accused of having known about the Gunpowder Plot.

Garnet claimed no knowledge of the plot, and Northampton was put in a difficult position. As a

Catholic, he had to face a fellow Catholic in court of law to judge him for the same offences he had been accused of himself so many times. However, Northampton delivered a speech at the trial in which he publically denied papal power, and supported the convictions of all men involved.707 This should not seem unusual, as he had already maintained the stance against rebellion. His public denial of papal power was politik, and Northampton had done what was needed to secure a conviction. The conspirators were executed in January 1605, and it was the government that published an account of the trial, A True and Perfect Relation of the whole proceedings against the late most barbarous Traitors, Garnet, a Jesuit, and his Confederates, authored by Northampton.708

It is unknown during the 1580’s and 90’s who edited Northampton’s work, or if he was even able to have anyone do so. However, in 1606, he was certainly conscientious about what he was writing, and his editor was Robert Cotton.709 Northampton wrote to Cotton, expressing his exasperation with his work: “I think you will like it well enough as it is and therefore I dispatch it out of sight, for though I should read it a hundred times I should every time upon a review alter

706 Nott, Works, 469. Mention is made of a document titled “An History of the Gunpowder Plot,” and Howard spoke of the title page in a letter to Sir Robert Cotton. Except for the title page, there is no extent copy of any manuscript, but it is clear that it was Northampton’s desire to produce works for publication. 707 Nott, Works, 469; DNB s.v. Henry Howard, 30. Also see Peck, Northampton, 111. 708 B.L. Cotton Titus C vi. f. 153. Peck, Northampton, 111-112.The book was mentioned by the Venetian ambassador in December, 1606 , listing Northampton as the author. CSPS, 438-439. 709 Peck, Northampton, 111. 178 it.”710 His statement reflected a lifetime of writing and cross overs, which can be seen in the drafts of his works that still exist. Northampton also wrote a second letter after the trial, to

Cardinal Bellarmine, apologizing for his denial of papal power in the Garnet portion of the trials, and explaining that he was indeed a true Catholic.711 In the end, Northampton’s defense of the proceedings received little attention at the time, but his letter to Bellarmine would be noticed, and used against him at a later date.

Northampton’s career until the end of his life remained focused on the inner workings of

James’s regime and the continued promotion of his own family. He had secured his own position at court, and he wanted the same assurances for his extended relatives.712 In 1613 he helped his niece, Frances Howard, Countess of Essex, who sought a divorce from her husband after falling in love with Robert Carr, earl of Somerset, who was one of the king’s favorites.713 Carr’s good friend and confidant, Thomas Overbury, objected to the countesses’ infidelity and the thought of her marrying Carr.714 Northampton favored the idea of the divorce and actively supported the proceedings toward a settlement, but Essex refused to divorce.715 Therefore, Howard pursued and achieved a special commission in which the divorce was granted on grounds of impotence.

Howard testified that his niece was still a virgin, and the marriage had never been consummated.716 However, afterward, Overbury convinced his friend not to go through with the marriage. As a result, charges were brought against Overbury and he was imprisoned in the

710 B.L. Cotton Titus C vi. f. 153. 711 712 Nott, Works, 451; Peck, Northampton, 38; Miriam Allen deFord. The Overbury Affair: The Murder Trial that Rocked the Court of King James I (New York: Chilton Company, 1960), 16. 713 DNB s.v. Henry Howard, 31; Peck, Northampton, 39; Croft, King James, 87-88. Carr’s introduction to James was “accidental.” He was injured while competing in a court tournament, and James came to visit him while he was recovering. From that point, his friend Overbury persuaded him to seek power at court, and not just act as a favorite. 714 Overbury disliked Frances Howard and was uneasy with Carr’s growing connection to the Howard family, as he felt his own influence was suffering as a result. Croft, King James, 89. 715 DNB. s.v. Henry Howard, 31. Howard and the countesses’ father, the earl of Suffolk, visited Essex in May, 1613 in hopes of him agreeing to a divorce, but Essex refused. 716 Nott, Works, 452. 179

Tower in the summer of 1613.717 The hope had been that while prison, Overbury would change his mind and support the marriage, but in September 1613, the prisoner died.718

While in prison, Overbury had been looked after by Sir Gervaise Helwys, who regularly updated Northampton on Overbury’s condition and how he was eating.719 When Somerset lost favor with James in 1615, Helwys came forward, admitting he had known about a plot to kill

Overbury by poison.720 By this time, Northampton had died. Frances was brought to trial and plead guilty, Carr maintained his innocence, but Northampton was convicted in the court of public opinion posthumously.721 Northampton’s letters to Frances were read in court, which only heightened opinion against him: “The Earl of Northampton’s name was much used at the arraignment of the lieutenant. His letters to Somerset were read, touching the marriage of his lordship with that virtuous lady, his kinsman. It would turn chaste blood into water to hear the unchaste and unclean phrases that were contained in them.”722 It was said that Northampton had seen his influence with the king fading, and sought the marriage, and then murder, in order to bolster his position. However, Northampton stayed true in death as he had in life, and no direct evidence was ever produced to prove his involvement.723 Nevertheless, he was not there to speak for his person, and as a result, his detractors were able to make their case against him.

717 Overbury was imprisoned for refusing an ambassadorship. It was supposed to be to Russia, in order to establish an English protectorate in North part of the country. Overbury had been interested in the plan in order to stop the spread of Catholicism in the area. Chester Dunning. “The Fall of Sir Thomas Overbury and the Embassy to Russia in 1613.” Sixteenth Century Journal. Vol. 22, No. 4. (Winter, 1991): 695, 701. James disliked Overbury’s hold on Somerset, so when he refused the ambassadorship, he was thrown in the tower as a way to break his influence over the earl. Croft, King James, 89. 718 DNB s.v. Henry Howard, 30. Peck, Northampton, 39. 719 Ibid. 720 deFord, The Overbury Affair, 36, 78- 80. deFord believes that Helwys was tricked into confessing that he knew Overbury was about to die. “Let me remember you, sir, how you sent for Sir Thomas Overbury’s servant two days before he died, and willed him to bring his best suit of hangings to hand his chamber, which you knew were your fees.” 78. A letter accounts the Countesses making of poison: “Birch, The Court and Times of James the First (London: Henry Coburn, 1848), 379. 721 This will be seen below, in nineteenth century opinions on Northampton. 722 Letter from Mr. John Castle to Mr. James Miller, at Southampton, November, 1615.Birch, The Court, 381 723 DNB s.v. Henry Howard, 31. deFord, The Overbury Affair, 70. 180

Northampton had dealt with libel earlier in the reign. When the story of his letter to Bellarmine came out, Northampton had brought the six men who had supposedly spread the rumor to court and had them charged with libel. Northampton prevailed and the men were fined.724 However, in the Overbury case, clearly, he had no such abilty. His guilt was presumed and his involvement in the case would also affect his reputation over time.

Henry Howard died on June 15, 1614, and by that date he was the wealthiest man in

England. Howard had suffered with a “wenish tumor” on his thigh, and he succumbed to his illness in the middle of the night.725 He left a detailed will, as well as an inventory of his personal effects and the contents of his home at Northampton House.726 Howard was generous in his bequests to his attendants and servants, and also left endowments for three hospitals, as well as laying the foundation for a college at Greenwich, which he placed under the control of the

Mercer’s Company.727

Included in his personal items were portraits of Queen Elizabeth and Mary Stuart, his sister Catherine, Lady Berkeley, as well as one of Essex, and other men and women he held in high regard. Additionally, among the grouping of portraits there were “three pictures,” one each of “one of the Passion, the Kinge, and the Queene his mother.”728 Other than this reference to the triptych, there were no specific outward displays of Howard’s Catholicism at the time of his death. However, in his will he provided a very specific statement of his faith: “I dye a true constant Servaunte of his, and a member of the Catholicke and Apostolike churches, saying with

724 DNB. s.v. Henry Howard, 30. 725 Ibid. 726 E.J. Shipley, “An Inventory of the effects of Henry Howard KG Earl of Northampton, taken on his death in 1614, together with a transcript of his will.” Archaeologia, or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity. Vol. 42, (1869): 347-78. 727 Shipley, “An Inventory,” 376. Nott, Works of Henry Howard, 462; DNV s.v. Henry Howard, 32. The hospitals were located in Shropshire, Castle Rising, Norfolk, and in Greenwich. All of them were established for poor women. 728 The Kinge and Queene being Christ and the Virgin. 181

Saint Jerome, In qua fide puer natus fui in eadem senex morior.”729 For his entire life, he had been forced to deal with opinions and actions against Catholicism and the threat people believed it posed to England. Surviving the persecution of his person, and his faith, he died a Catholic, and during his time with James, he had pled with the king to improve the positions of Catholics.

It may have seemed that with James on the throne, the void of understanding between Catholic and Protestant might disappear, but it did not. The gulf between Catholics and Protestants remained immense and would become even more divisive for several more centuries.

In the meantime, Henry Howard’s legacy began to take form. When Howard ascended into his new position in James’s court it seemed that a treatise about women’s rule was no longer important to courtiers or the general population. Nevertheless, it seems there was still an interest in “Dutifull Defence,” and copies continued to be made. Partial reproductions of “Dutifull

Defence” survive in at least six manuscripts, and at least three of which may have come from complete copies of “Dutifull Defence” produced after Howard’s death.730 The headings in four of the manuscripts open with an identical title ending with the phrase “written for Queene

Elizabeth, by the right honorable Henrye Lord Howard, late Earl of Northampton,” indicating a production date after 1614.731 They were produced around the same time, possibly as presentation gifts or perhaps for sale in the emerging booksellers market in the seventeenth century.

The print market increased dramatically in the seventeenth century, and although scribal publication was still sought after as a medium of production, it was reserved for more specific

729 Shilpley, “And Inventory,” 375; DNB s.v. Henry Howard, 31. The Latin quotation also appears in Sir James Mackintosh’s History of England Vol. 4 (London: Longman et.al., 1835), 246. 730 B.L. Additional MS 12513. Copy of the introductory letter, individually bound; B.L. Additional MS 12515 ff. 15v- 16r. Summary of section of “Dutifull Defence.”; B.L. Additioanl MS 64123. Copy of introductory letter; B.L Harliean MS 7021 ff. 65r- 122r. Copy of introductory letter; Cambridge University Library, Additional MS 9267, No. 7. Copy of introductory letter. Trinty College Dublin Library, MS 731, ff. 1-54r. Copy of introductory letter. 731 The title appears with this wording in Harliean MS 7021, Additional MS 64213, Trinity MS 731, and Cambridge Additional MS 9267. 182 works that were not sought out on a large scale.732 Enthusiasm for pastimes, politics or any number of shared interests instigated the composing of manuscript books, and Booksellers sold them alongside printed books and pamphlets.733 It is possible that the copies of Howard’s treatise were produced on a small scale by people who would have continued to have an interest in the content of the work, or preserve it for personal reasons.734 To this point, scribal publication followed a more specific path than print books. A commission had to be secured between the supplier and the scrivener to produce for specific communities, such as the court, close friends, or colleagues, ensuring that the content would remain personal, at least for a time.

The idea of shared a shared pastime provides a plausible reason why additional copies of

“Dutifull Defence” were produced and then moved into the open market. Howard belonged to the Society of Antiquaries, a group of men who shared a common interest in manuscripts and texts.735 Members of the society were elite, literate, and shared a love of history. They regularly collected books for discussion at dinner meetings held on Fridays in London.736 Sir Thomas

Heneage and Sir Robert Cotton were members of the society, and both had received copies of

“Dutifull Defence.”737 In this respect, “Dutifull Defence” may have been personally commissioned for individuals or members of a group, like the Antiquarians, out of interest in

Howard and his work, which then moved on to booksellers over time. The copies eventually became a part of the market for books and pamphlets for sale to the public and encompassed an

732 Harold Love, The Culture and Commerce of Texts: Scribal Publication in Seventeenth Century England. (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1998); Cathy Shrank, “ ‘These fewe scribbled rules’: Representing Scribal Intimacy in Early Modern Print.” Huntington Library Quarterly, Vol. 67, No. 2 (June, 2004): 295. Also see Halasz, The Marketplace of Print. 733 Ibid. Love provides a list of booksellers who carried manuscript books at their shops. 734 Wouduysen, Sir Philip Sidney, 49,103. 735 Love mentions antiquarianism, the playing of particular musical instruments, astrology, or even sedition as shared interests that could illicit the production of manuscripts for common use, 179. 736 May McKisack, Medieval History, vii. 737 Ibidl, 59, 77, 155. In 1578, Sir Thomas Heneage and his brother Michael were also keepers of the queen’s records in the Tower of London. 183 additional sphere in which Howard’s treatise crossed into.738 Indeed, most of the partial copies of

“Dutifull Defence,” have multiple stamps from booksellers. Moving into the market place created the potential for public discourse well beyond the court and close periphery, and well away from the grasp of the regime or government.739

Howard and “Dutifull Defence” next emerged in the nineteenth century as a foil for a particular type of English literature then emerging. The rapid industrialization of the nineteenth century drastically altered existing social structures as populations moved in to more urban areas, or new territory, creating new communities through common affiliations. Within this construct, ideas about the past helped confer purpose, agency, and empowerment to people trying to form or preserve a society away from traditional roots.740 The idea of the “golden age,” remembering a shared past portrayed as a state of glorious innocence, became a way to form social identity and ensure cohesiveness in the present.741 As a result, a “historical awareness” emerged in people who sought to preserve personal lineage through events in documentary or literary form through the use of historical narrative and fiction.742 What emerged was a viewpoint that emphasized

“physical, moral, and intellectual improvement” as the foundation for English history.743

The books produced revealed a heroic England that defeated the villains of the European powers, preserving order and freedom, and enabling England to progress.744 To this point, the

738For a discussion on the emerging seventeenth century public sphere and its relation to print see Halasz, The Marketplace of Print, 162-203. 739 Ibid., 163. 740 Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972), 555; Patrick Joyce, “The Constitution and the Narrative Structure of Victorian Politics.” In James Vernon ed. Re- Reading the Constitution: New Narratives in the Political History of England’s Long Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 180, 183. 741 J.G.A. Pocock. Political Thought and History: Essays on Theory and Method. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 148. 742Ibid,, 150; Joyce, “The Constitution,” 179. 743 See T.B. Macauley, The History of England from the Accession of James II. Vol. 1 (London: J.M. Dent and Company, 1905), 10. Macauley’s book was first published in 1848. 744 S.R. Gardiner’s History of England from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the Civil War, 1603–1642 (10 vols. 1883-4) is a example of a heroic, English narrative. He writes in reference to Englishmen’s reactions to 184 narratives were predominantly written by Anglican men, who vilified Catholics as England’s enemy since the Henrecian Reformation. The Armada’s defeat of Catholic Spain, events during the Stuart dynasty, including the Gunpowder Plot and the fictitious Popish Plot, only enhanced the construct of the Protestant England.745 The Glorious Revolution of 1688 was portrayed as a moral victory against the absolutist Stuart dynasty, and made it illegal for a Catholic to be monarch of England.746 Legally, Catholics were actually granted more freedom in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as the government tried to appease the issue by passing

Catholic Relief Acts in 1778, 1791 and 1829.747 However, regardless of an improved legal status both historical and fictional narrative remained set against Catholics, seeing them conspirators and traitors.748 In this atmosphere, Howard’s works were a foil for a truer form of English identity.

In keeping with the desire to create a corporate English past, numerous, voluminous histories of England were published in the nineteenth century and none of them were favorable to Henry Howard. For example, Sir James Mackintosh, Whig MP and political writer, published

The History of England in 1835.749 An early supporter of the French Revolution, and adversary of Edmund Burke, Mackintosh worked his way through the political minefield of nineteenth

James VI’s accession: “Even in those days, the long exercise of the duties and privileges of self-government enabled Englishmen to pass through a political crisis with calmness which appeared almost miraculous in the eyes of a foreigner.” I, 86; Macauley, History of England, 9. 745See Linda Colley, Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707- 1837(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992), 19,20. Also see Theodore Koditschek, “The Making of British Nationality.” Victorian Studies. Vol. 44, No 3, (Spring, 2002): 389-398. Colley’s chapter “Protestants” provides an excellent discussion on the dominance of a Protestant identity in England. 746 Colley, Britons, 20. 747 See Richard W. Davis, “Wellington and the “Open Question’: The Issue of Catholic Emancipation, 1821-1829.” Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies. Vol.4, No. 29 (1997): 39-55; Colley, Britons, 339, - 340. 748 For example, Charles Kingsley’s 1853 novel, Hypatia, as well as his 1855 Westward Ho! were vehemently anti- Catholic. Charles Dickens portrayed aspects of anti-Catholic sentiment in Barnaby Rudge (1841) See Michael Wheeler, The Old Enemies: Catholic and Protestant in Nineteenth Century English Culture. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). 749 Sir James Mackintosh, The History of England 185 century England, eventually securing his place in Parliament as a reformer.750 In his history, the change in attitude toward Howard was clear. He referred to Howard as “One of the worst and vilest of those Confederates” referring to the Overbury case.751 Then, 1883, S.R. Gardiner, a professor of history at King’s College London, and supporter of the Puritan Revolution and

Oliver Cromwell, also published a book titled The History of England.752 Gardiner was also highly critical of Howard, and his Catholicism, believing it interfered in his work as one of the king’s councilors.753 Gardiner writes: “of all who gathered round the new king this man was, beyond all comparison, the most undeserving of the favours which he received.”754 Gardiner is sympathetic to the Protestant hero in the text, Sir Walter Raleigh, believing that he was persecuted by Howard. Referring to a letter written about Raleigh to King James, Gardiner states

“it is not complimentary; but it is very different than the constant abuse of him by Lord H.

Howard.”755

In 1858 a New York based weekly, The Albion, ran a review of “The Lawful Regiment of

Women.”756 The review states that the content is based on readings of two copies of “Dutifull

Defence,” at the British Museum, referring to it as a “exceedingly curious specimen,” and then emphasizes the need to understand not only “who,” but “what” the writer was.”757 The original source of the review is unknown, and it may have been a reprint from a journal in England.

750 DNB s.v. Sir James Mackintosh. For works on Mackintosh see, Patrick O’Leary, Sir James MacKintosh, the Whig Cicero. (Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press, 1989) 751 Mackintosh, The History of England, 246-247. 752 S.R. Gardiner, History of England. 10 Vols.(London: Longman, Green and Company, 1883). DNB s.v. S.R. Gardiner. 753 Ibid., I, 94. 754 Ibid., I, 93. Also cited in Peck, Northampton, 4. 755 Gardiner, History of England, I, 90. 756 The Albion, A Journal of News, Politics and Literature (1822- 1876). September 25, 1858, 36, 39. 457. Underneath the title The Albion, it reads “A British, Colonial, and Foreign Weekly Gazette.” 757 Ibid. The author indicates that he is pulling information from biographers of Howard. He mentions the same seventeenth century biography known to the authors of other pieces on Howard, but with regard to other comments, the sources for the biographies is unknown. In reference to Howard, the line reads “it will be well to inquire who and what the writer was.” 186

However, regardless of the source, the content is equally as negative toward Howard. It refers to him as a “despicable and wicked wretch” who died “a Papist, since he had not chance of heaven in any other religion.”758 It also mentions Howard’s involvement in the Overbury murder. Anti-

Catholic, the sentiment can be seen throughout the article. Although titled as being about the treatise, the article ignores the body of “Dutifull Defence,” focusing only on the introductory letter, describing it as going on for pages, “like a strain of eulogy.” After a detailed discussion of the letter, the author concludes by dismissing Howard. There is one final paragraph on the content of “Dutifull Defence,” stating that, “We have nothing more to say in conclusion, than that the work prefaced by this dedicatory epistle is prosy in the extreme, full of boured arguments, dealing abundantly in antithesis, but devoid of point and purpose, giving abundant proof of pedantry and little evidence of real learning…In short, the book is the production of a euphuist, and is chiefly interesting as a specimen of the heights of folly to which the euphuists of those days loved to soar.”759 The author did not mince his words, and for whoever read this review, any thought of pursuing a reading of “Dutifull Defence,” would have seemed pointless.

Contrary to the general vilification of his character and accusations of blatant flattery,

Howard acted in accordance of what was expected of a Tudor courtier in the drive for patronage and personal gain. There is no doubt that Howard wore many hats, and at some points was a consummate actor, but this was expected of all men who sought position and power in

Elizabeth’s court. Howard survived the game, which cannot be said for a good deal of the men around him. He was a successful politician whose acts and motives were seen as treacherous because of his religion, rather than his manner. It took Howard thirty years of tenacity and perseverance, but he finally achieved his goals and lived to see his legacy begin. He had the

758 Ibid. 759 Ibid. 187 remains of his parents exhumed and re-interred, as well as proposing interest in erecting a monument to Mary Queen of Scots at Westminster Abbey.760 The hospital he endowed at

Greenwich is still open today, as well as the charities that surround it. Howard’s portrait still hangs in the entrance to the Mercer’s Company, to whom he entrusted the progress of Trinity

Hospital Greenwich, which opened in 1617.761

Henry Howard’s career constitutes one of the most remarkable success and survival stories of the sixteenth and early seventeenth century. He was a man who from his earliest days was forced to live by the maneuvering of his wits and education. He faced great odds and at times was clearly torn between his loyalties to the Virgin and the virgin queen. However, through the use of his pen and his wits he was able to conceive the position he believed he was entitled to and continuously worked toward his goal. As an author, a scholar, and courtier,

Howard remained in the shadows, but always maintained a presence in Elizabethan politics, and his life and work deserved to be kept in the forefront of sixteenth century history. However, this was not the case.

Anti-Catholic sentiment during his life, and the through the following centuries ensured that the Howard name, as well as Henry’s life and work, were reduced to villainy and Howard was regarded as ignominious at best. As such, his role in the world of Elizabethan rhetoric and politics has remained under studied. The rejection of Howard and his work through the nineteenth century reveals something about British culture as Englishmen sought an identity grounded in Protestant foundations.762 Sixteenth century fear of Catholics evolved into not only intolerance, but a rejection of the lives and works of men and women who adhered to teachings

760 Sessions, Henry Howar, 216; DNB. s.v. Henry Howard, 32. 761 Ursula Carlyle, editor. The Mercer’s Company. London: The Mercer’s Company, 2002. 5. The Mercer’s Company was kind enough to provide me with a high quality photograph of Henry Howard 762 See Colley, Britons. 188 of the Church. Historians ignored or condemned those figures who they felt did not ingratiate the ideal they sought for British history.763

Moreover, the gender debate abated after Elizabeth’s death as a king returned to the throne and the queens who followed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were content to maintain a more traditional gender position and work within the confines of male power. Natural law and its place in culture gave way to a drive to uncover the facts of the past, rather than its nature. For nineteenth century men, and Whig historians, making a defense of women on intellectual grounds or including them in the framework of British nationhood would be outside the bounds of accepted practice.764 Therefore, both Henry Howard the Catholic, and his defense of women were not considered in nineteenth century discussions of English history and culture.

“Dutifull Defence” is a unique manuscript that deserves scholarly attention. Using over

400 sources, Henry Howard wove together the ideas and rhetoric of the Church fathers,

Scripture, English law and ancient philosophy to reject John Knox’s arguments against women.

Howard rejected Aristotelian biology that insisted that according to nature, women were the lesser of the sexes. Instead, he proposed a Platonic understanding of gender difference. Howard emphasized the essence of gender over the physical attributes of women that drove ideas and law. By combining Platonic constructs of gender with his extensive knowledge, along with personal experience and opinion, Howard was able to construct an intellectually consistent and sound defense of queenship that remains a seminal work of the subject of female rule.

763 See Herbert Butterfield, The Whig Interpretation of History (New York: Norton, 1965). 764 For further discussions on opinions and the role of women in Whig history see Stephaine Shields, “Passionate men, emotional women: Psychology Constructs Gender Difference in the late Nineteenth Century.” History of Psychology Vol. 10. No. 2 (May, 2007), 92- 110; Mary Spongberg and Clara Tuite, “The Gender of Whig Historiography: Women writers and Britain’s Pasts and Presents.” Women’s History Review. Vol. 20. No. 5 (2011), 673-687; Alexis Easley, “Harriet Martineau: Gender, National Identity, and the Contemporary Historian. Women’s History. Vol. 20. No. 5 (2011), 765-784. 189

The combination of evidence supports the conclusion that shallow ambition alone could not have motivated Howard to write “Dutifull Defence.” Contrary to accusations of being a sycophant and a hack, Howard was one of the most educated men of his time, giving him the ability to construct a complex, structured argument in favor of women’s rule. As has been seen, the extensive number of sources and extreme length of the work would have been unnecessary if adulation for the purpose of promotion had been Howard’s only goal. Howard went to great lengths to show that gender could be conceived differently in the sixteenth century. He utilized as many sources as possible to structure his arguments, and took full advantage of his education and the connections available to him in order to do so. In addition to the advantage of his position as an educated man, the sheer time spent writing “Dutifull Defence,” and his refusal to give the work up in spite of difficulty, also reveal a more genuine motive for writing than simple flattery. His early work for his sister, written before there was a need for his to pursue patronage, reflects the same arguments as in “Dutifull Defence,” that a women is capable of learning and utilizing her education. “Dutifull Defence” is one of most theoretically informed defenses of women produced at the time.

Moving into the twentieth century, the exceptionally negative portraits of Howard’s life have given way to a more objective methodology in modern scholarship. Linda Levy Peck paid

Howard great respect in her thoughtful approach to his person, and placing him in context with the social world in which he existed during James’s reign. Daniel Andersson followed up with an extensive work on Howard’s use of rhetoric, focusing on his education and writing skills, but only discusses “Dutifull Defence” in passing. Amanda Shephard provides a partial look at

“Dutifull Defence” in context to other works written at the time. The historiography on Henry

Howard’s life, and “Dutifull Defence, is still incomplete. There is, as of yet, no comprehensive

190 biography of his early life, or full edition of “Dutifull Defence” in print. Moreover, this work is the first look at the connection between Henry Howard and his role in the early modern public sphere.

Overall, Henry Howard encompassed both the best and worst of Elizabethan England, participating in nearly all of the major debates of her reign. More importantly, he wrote about them, providing readers with a glimpse of the mind of an author, and left evidence of the processes he went through to construct a work. And, most impressively, he survived, and in course has attracted the attention of scholars who are still trying to figure out his character, and arrive at a conclusion about his motives. All of this provides opportunity for further research, and discovery on a man who at one point could only describe himself as nothing more than ‘a man obscured.”

191

REFERENCES

Manuscript Sources:

Abergavenny Peerage Manuscripts. House of Lords Record Office. London, England.

Additional Manuscripts British Library. London, England.

Additional Manuscripts. Cambridge University Library. Cambridge, England.

Bodleian Library Manuscripts. Oxford, England.

Case Manuscripts, Newberry Library. Chicago, Illinois.

Cotton Manuscripts, Appendix, British Library. London, England.

Cotton Manuscripts, Caligula, British Library. London, England.

Cotton Manuscripts, Titus, British Library. London, England.

Cotton Manuscripts, Vespasian, British Library. London, England.

Harleian Manuscripts, British Library. London, England.

Houghton Library Manuscripts. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Howard Library Manuscripts. Durham, England.

John Jay Smith Papers, Haverford College Library. Haverford, Pennsylvania.

Lansdowne Manuscripts, British Library. London, England.

Magdelane College Manuscripts, Pepy’s Library. Cambridge, England.

Ogden Manuscripts, University College. London, England.

State Papers, Public Record Office. London, England.

Trinity College Manuscripts. Dublin, Ireland.

Printed Primary Sources:

A Catalogue of the Contents of Strawberry Hill. Smith and Robins, 1842.

Akrigg, G.P.V. editor. Letters of King James VI and I: University of California Press, 1984.

192

The Albion: A British, Colonial, and Foreign Weekly Gazette. Vol. 86, No. 89. Printed in New York, Saturday, September 25, 1858: 457-458.

Alymer, John. An harborovve for faithfull and trevve subiectes agaynst the late blowne blaste, concerninge the gouernme[n]t of vvemen. wherin be confuted all such reasons as a straunger of late made in that behalfe, with a breife exhortation to obedience. London: John Day, 1559.

Agrippa, Cornelius. Declamation on the Nobility and Preeminence of the Female Sex. Translated and edited by Albert Rabil, Jr. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.

Archaeologia: Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity. Volume XXIII. London: Society of Antiquaries of London, MDCCCXXXI

Aristotle, Generation of Animals. Translated by A.L. Peck. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1943.

______. Politics. Translated by H. Rackham. 23 vols. Vol. 21. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932.

Becon, Thomas. An humble supplicacion vnto God for the restoring of hys holye woorde, vnto the churche of Englande, mooste mete to be sayde in these oure dayes, euen with teares of euery true [and] faythfull English harte. Strasburg: J. Lambrecht(?), 1554.

Bede. Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Translated by Bertram Colgrave. Edited by Bertram Colgrave and R.A.B. Mynors. Oxford: University of Oxford Press, 1969.

Birch, Thomas. Memoirs of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth. 2 vols. Vol. 1. London, 1754.

Bodin, Jean. The Six Bookes of a Commonweale: A Facsimile Reprint of the English Translation of 1606. Edited by Kenneth D. McRae. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962.

Buchanan, George. The History of Scotland. Written in Latin, by George Buchanan. Faithfully rendered into English. J. Fraser, 1689.

A Collection of State Papers Relating to the Affairs in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth from the Year 1571-1596. 2 vols. Vol. 1. London: William Bowyer, 1759.

Bruce, John ed. Correspondance of King James VI of Scotland with Sir Robert Cecil and others in England During the Reign of Queen Elizabeth. Westminster: Camden Society, 1861.

Goodman, Christopher. How Superior Powers Oght to Be Obeyd. Geneva: John Crispin, 1558; reprint, Columbia University Press, 1931.

193

Grace Book: Containing the Records of the University of the University of Cambridge for the Years 1542-1589. Edited by John Venn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910.

Harris, Sir Nicholas. Memoirs of the Life and Times of Sir Christopher Hatton, K.G. London: Richard Bentley, 1847.

Herodotus. The Histories. Translated by Robin Waterfield. Oxford: University of Oxford Press, 1998.

Jewel, John. An apologie, or aunswer in defence of the Church of England concerninge the state of religion vsed in the same. Newly set forth in Latin, and nowe translated into Englishe. London: Reginald Wolf, 1562.

Kingsley, Charles. Hypatia. 2 Vols. London: Parker and Sons, 1853.

Knox, John. The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstruous Regiment of Women. Genevea: n.p. 1558; reprint, New York: De Capo Press,1972.

Leslie, John. A Defence of the Honour of the Right Highe, Mighty and Noble Princesse Marie Quene of Scotlande and Dowager of France. London: Eusebius Diczophile, 1569.

Lindsay, David. Ane dialog betuix Experience and ane courteour Off the miserabill estait of the warld. Paris: J. Petit(?), 1558.

Mulcaster, Richard. "Positions Wherein Those Primative Circumstances Be Examined, Which Are Necessary for the Training of Children, Either for Skill in Their Book, or Health in Thier Body." (1581).

The Newcastle Courant. Friday, August 9, 1872. Issue 10311

Office, Public Record. Calendar of Letters, Despatches, and State Papers Relating to the Negotiations between England and Spain Preserved in the Archives at Simancas [and Elsewhere]. 13 vols. London: Longman, & Roberts, 1862-, 1862-.

_____. Calendar of State Papers Foreign Series of the Reign of Elizabeth. 23 vols. Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint Ltd., 1966.

_____. Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reigns of Edward Vi, Mary, Elizabeth, James I, 1547-[1625]. 12 vols. Nedeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint Ltd., 1967.

_____. Calendar of the State Papers Relating to Scotland and Mary, Queen of Scots, 1547-1603, Preserved in the Public Record Office, the British Museum and Elsewhere in England. 13 vols. Edinburgh: H. M. General Register Office, 1898-1969.

Plato. Republic. Translated by G.M.A. Grube. Revised by C.D.C. Reeve. Cambridge, MA: Hackett Publishing Company Inc., 1992.

194

Preston Chronicle. Saturday, April 8, 1837. Issue, 1284

Proceedings in the Parliaments of Elizabeth I. Vol. I, 1558-1581. Edited by T.E. Hartley. Wilmington, Delaware, 1981.

Strong, William. Strawberry Hill: A Catalouge of a Singularly Choice Collecion of Rare and Valuable Books in the Various Departments of Literature: Comprising Early English Poetry and Plays, British and Foreign History and Biography, Black Letter and Privately Printed Books, Romances, Jest Songs, Ballads, Music, and Treatises on Music, a few Highly Interesting Manuscripts, Many Fine Books of Prints, Coins, Gems etc., Miniatures, Paintings, Ancient Carvings, Tapestry, Valuable Original Portraits of Distinguished Persons, Together with Some thousands of Engraved Portraits, etc., etc., Principally form the Collection of Horace Walpole: The Whole are in Fine Condition. Many of the Books are in Elegant Ancient and Modern Bindings, offered at the Prices Affixed to Each Article by William Strong. Bristol: W. Strong, 1843.

Thorpe., Markham John, ed. Calendar of the State Papers, Relating to Scotland, Preserved in the State Paper Department of Her Majesty's Public Record Office. 2 vols. London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans, 1858.

Secondary Sources:

Adams, Simon. “Eliza Enthroned?. The Court and its Politics.” In The Reign of Elizabeth I. Edited by Christopher Haigh. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1985.

_____. Leicester and the Court: Essays on Elizabethan Politics. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002.

Addison, William. Audley End. London: J. M. Dent and Sons, 1953.

Ahlstrom, Sydney, E. A Religious History of the American People. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972.

Alford, Stephen. Burghley: William Cecil at the Court of Elizabeth I. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008.

Andersson, Daniel. Lord Henry Howard (1540-1614) And Elizabethan Life. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2009.

_____. “‘Embarke, But Under Caution’: A New Elizabethan Masque Fragment.” Notes and Queries. Vol. 55, No. 2. June, 2008: 171.

Ashton, Robert. Reformation and Revolution, 1558-1660. London: Granada Publishing, 1984.

195

Baker, David Weil. Divulging Utopia: Radical Humanism in Sixteenth-Century England. Amherst: University of Manchester Press, 1999.

Barker, Nicolas. "The Books of Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton." Bodleian Library Record 13 (1990): 375-81.

Barnes, K. "John Stubbe, 1579: the French Ambassador's Account." Historical Research. Vol. 64. No. 155 (October, 1991), 421-426.

Barrett- Graves, " 'Highly touched in honour': Elizabeth I and the Alençon Controversy." In Elizabeth I: Always Her own Free Woman. Edited by Jo Eldridge Carney, Debra Barrett- Graves and Carole Levin. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003.

Beal, Peter. In Praise of Scribes: Manuscripts and Their Makers in Seventeenth-Century England. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.

Bell, Gary. "The Last Elizabethan Resident Ambassador in Spain." The Sixteenth Century Journal." Vol. 7, No. 2 (October, 1976): 75-93.

Bellany, Alastair. The Politics of Court Scandal in Early Modern England: News, Culture, and the Overbury Affair, 1603-1660. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Ben-Amos, Ilana Krausman. Adolescence and Youth in Early Modern England. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994.

Binns, J.W. Intellectual Culture in Elizabethan and Jacobean England: The Latin Writings of the Age. Leeds: Francis Cairns Ltd. 1990.

Bossy, John. Under the Molehill: And Elizabethan Spy Story. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001.

Bossy, John. "The Character of Elizabethan Catholicism." In Crisis in Europe, 1560-1660, edited by Trevor Aston., 223-247. New York: Doubleday, 1965.

_____. "English Catholics and the French Marriage, 1577-1581. Recusant History. 5 (1959): 2- 16.

Brennen, Michael G., Noel J. Kinnamon and Margaret P. Hanney. "Robert Sidney, the Dudleys and Queen Elizabeth." In Elizabeth I: Always her Own Free Woman. Edited by Jo Eldridge Carney, Debra Barrett-Graves and Carole Levin. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003.

Breslow, Marvin A., ed. The Political Writings of John Knox. London: The Associated University Press, 1985.

196

Brimacombe, Peter. All the Queen's Men: The World of Elizabeth I. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2000.

Brooks, Christopher W. Lawyers, Litigation and English Society Since 1450. London: The Hambledon Press, 1998.

Brooks, Eric St. John. Sir Christopher Hatton: Queen Elizabeth's Favourite. London: Johathan Cape,1947.

Bryson, Anna. From Courtesy to Civility: Changing Codes of Conduct in Early Modern England. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.

Burns, J.H. "Knox: Scholastic and Cononistic Echos." in John Knox and the British Reformations. Edited by Roger Mason. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998.

Butterfield, Herbert. The Whig Interpetation of History. New York: Norton, 1965.

Cannadine, David. The Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009.

Carlson, David R. English Humanist Books: Writers and Patrons, Manuscript and Print, 1475- 1525. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993.

Carrafiello, Michael. "English Catholicism and the Jesuit Mission of 1580-1581." The Historical Journal. Vol. 37. No. 4 (December, 1994), 761-774.

Cioni, Maria L. "The Elizabethan Court of Chancery and Women's Rights." In Tudor Rule and Revolution: Essays for G.R. Elton from His American Friends, edited by Delloyd J. Guth and John W. McKenna., 159-182. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Childs, Jessie. Henry VIII's Last Victim: The Life and Times of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey. London: Jonathan Cape, 2006.

Colley, Linda. Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707-1837. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.

Collins, James B. From Tribes to Nation: The Making of France, 500-1799. London: Thomson Learning, 2002.

Collinson, Patrick. The Elizabethan Puritan Movement. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967.

_____. "John Knox, the Church of England and the Women of England." in John Knox and the British Reformations. Edited by Roger Mason. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998.

197

_____. "Puritans, Men of Business and Elizabethan Parliaments." In Elizabethan Essays. London: The Hambledon Press, 1994.

Coole, Diana H. Women in Political Theory: From Ancient Misogyny to Contemporary Feminism. Brighton, Sussex: WheatSheaf Books, 1988.

Croft, Pauline. King James. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2003.

Crossley, Nick and John Michael Roberts. "Introduction." in After Habermas: New Perspectives on the Public Sphere. Edited by Nick Crossley and John Michael Roberts. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.

Cust, Richard. "The 'public man' in late Tudor and early Stuart England." In Politics of the Public Sphere in Early Modern England. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007.

Daston, Lorraine J. and Katherine Park. "Unnatural Conceptions: The Study of Monsters in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth -Century France and England. Past and Present. No. 92, August, 1981. 20-54.

Davis, Richard. "Wellington and the 'Open Question,' The Issue of Catholic Emancipation. Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies. Vol. 29, No. 1. 39-55

De Ford, Miriam Allen. The Overbury Affair: The Murder Trial that Rocked the Court of King James I. Philadelphia: Chilton Company, 1960.

Dickens, Bruce and Alfred Fairbank. The Italic Hand in Tudor Cambridge. London: Bowes and Bowes, 1962.

Dictionary of National Biography. 22 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1949.

Diethorn, Bernard and Vincent P. Lannie. "For the Honor and Glory of God: The Philadelphia Bible Riots of 1840." History of Education Quarterly. Vol. 8, No. 1. Spring, 1968. 44- 106.

Doran, Susan. "Elizabeth I: Gender, Power and Politics. History Today. May, 2003. 29-35.

_____. "The Political Career of Sir Thomas Radcliffe, Third Earl of Sussex, 1526?- 1583. Unpublished dissertation

_____. "Religion and Politics at the Court of Elizabeth I: The Hapsburg Marriage Negotiations of 1559-1567. The English Historical Review Vol. 104. No. 413 (October, 1989), 908- 926.

Dutton, Richard. Ben Jonson, Volpone and the Gunpowder Plot. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

198

Easley, Alexis. "Harriet Martineau: Gender, National Identity, and the Contemporary Historian." Women's History. Vol. 20. No. 5 (2011), 765- 784.

Edwards, Francis. The Dangerous Queen. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1964.

_____. The Marvellous Chance: Thomas Howard, Fourth Duke of Norfolk, and the Ridolfi Plot, 1570-1572. London: Rupert Hart- Davis, 1968.

_____. Plots and Plotters in the Reign of Elizabeth I. Portland: Four Courts Press, 2002.

Feenstra, Robert. "Law." In The Legacy of Rome: A New Appraisal, edited by Richard Jenkyns., 399-420. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Flech, Susan. "The Rhetoric of Biblical Authority: John Knox and the Question of Women." The Sixteenth Century Journal 26 (1995): 805-22.

Ford, Steven. "Gender and Politics in Plato." The American Political Science Review. Vol. 91, No.3. September, 1997. 675-670.

Franklin, Julian H. "Sovereignty and the Mixed Constitution: Bodin and his Critics. In The Cambridge History of Political Thought. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 1991.

_____. Jean Bodin and the Sixteenth-Century Revolution in the Methodology of Law and History. New York: Columbia University Press, 1963.

Frasier, Antonia. Mary Queen of Scots. New York: Random House Inc., 1969.

Gillingham, John. "From Civitas to Civility: Codes of Manner in Medieval and Early Modern England. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. Sixth Series, Vol. 12 (2002) 267- 289.

Gardiner, Michael E. "Wild publics and grotesque symposiums: Habermas and Bakhtin on dialogue, everyday life and the public sphere." In After Habermas: New Perspectives on the Public Sphere. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.

Gardiner, S.R. History of England from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the Civil War, 1603–1642. 10 vols. London: Spottiswoode and Company, 1883.

Greaves, Richard L. "Concepts of Political Obedience in Late Tudor England: Conflicting Perspectives." Journal of British Studies 22 (1982): 23-34.

_____. Theology and Revolution in the Scottish Reformation: Studies in the Thought of John Knox. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Christian University Press, 1980.

199

Guerci, Manolo. "The Construction of Northumberland House and the Patronage of its Original Builder, Lord Henry Howard, 1603-1614. The Antiquaries Journal. Vol. 90, September, 2010. 341-400.

Guy, John. The Reign of Elizabeth I: Court and Culture in the Last Decade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

_____. Tudor England. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.

Habermas, Jurgen. On Society and Politics: A Reader. edited by Steven Seidman. Boston: Beacon Press, 1989.

Hacket, Helen. "The Rhetoric of (in)Fertility: Shifting Responses to Elizabeth I's Childlessness." in Rhetoric, Women and Politics in Early Modern England. Edited by Jennifer Richards and Alison Thorne. London: Routledge, 2007.

Haigh, Christopher. "The Continuity of Catholicism in the English Reformation." The Past and Present Society.No. 93. (November, 1981), 37-69.

_____. "From Monopoly to Minority: Catholicism in Early Modern England." Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. Fifth series, Vol. 31 (1981) 129-147.

Halasz, Alexandra. The Marketplace of Print: Pamphlets and the Public Sphere in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Hammer, Paul J. The Polarisation of Elizabethan Politics: The Political Career of Robert Devereux, Second Earl of Essex, 1585-1597. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

_____. "The smiling crocodile: the earl of Essex and late Elizabethan 'popularity'. In The Politics of the Public Sphere in Early Modern England. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007.

Handover, P.M. The Second Cecil: The Rise to Power, 1563-1604 of Sir Robert Cecil, Late First Earl of Salisbury. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1959.

Harris, Barbara J. "Women and Politics in Early Tudor England." The Historical Journal 33 (1990): 259-81.

Harris, Sir Nicholas. Memoirs of the Life and Times of Sir Christopher Hatton, K.G. London: Richard Bentley, 1847.

Haynes, Alan. The Elizabethan Secret Services, 1570-1603. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1992.

_____. Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, 1563-1612. London: Peter Owen, 1989.

200

Henderson, Judith Rice. "Humanist Letter Writing: Private Conversation or Public Forum." In Self Presentation an Social Indentification: The Rhetoric and Pragmatics of Letter Writing in Early Modern Times. Edited by Toon Van Houdt, Jan Papy, Gilbert Tournoy and Constant Matheeussen. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2002.

Henderson, Katherine Usher, and Barbara F.McManus. Half Humankind: Texts and Contexts of the Controversy About Women in England, 1540-1640. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985.

Hicks, Leo. "The Growth of a Myth: Father Robert Persons, S.J. and Leicester's Commonwealth." Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review. Vol. 46, No. 181 (1957): 91-105.

Hill, L.M. Bench and Bureaucracy: The Public Career of Sir Julius Caesar, 1580-1688. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988.

Hoffman, Daniel L. The Status of Women and Gnosticism in Irenaeus and Tertullian. Dyfed, Wales: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1995.

Hoak, Dale. Tudor Political Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Houlbrooke, Ralph. James VI and I: Ideas, Authority and Government. Edited by Ralph Houlbrooke. Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2006.

Howell, Wilbur Samuel. Logic and Rhetoric in England, 1500-1700. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1956.

Hudson, Winthrop S. The Cambridge Connection and the Elizabethan Settlement of 1559. Durham: Duke University Press, 1980.

Jordan, Constance. "Feminism and the Humanists: The Case of Sir Thomas Elyot's Defence of Good Women." Renaissance Quarterly 36 (1983): 181-201.

_____. "Woman's Rule in Sixteenth-Century British Political Thought." Renaissance Quarterly 40 (1987): 421-51.

Joyce, Patrick. "“The Constitution and the Narrative Structure of Victorian Politics.” In. Re- Reading the Constitution: New Narratives in the Political History of England’s Long Nineteenth Century. Edited by James Vernon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Kearney, Hugh. Scholars and Gentlemen: Universities and Society in Pre-Industrial Britain, 1500-1700. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1970.

Kelley, Donald R. "Elizabethan Political Thought." In, The Varieties of British Political Thought, 1500-1800. Edited by J.G.A Pocock. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

201

Kelley, Donald R. "Law." In The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 1450-1700, edited by J. H. Burns., 66-94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Kelso, Ruth. Doctrine for the Lady of the Renaissance. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinios Press, 1978.

Kingdon, Robert M. "Calvinism and Resistance Theory, 1550-1580." In The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 1450-1700, edited by J.H. Burns., 193-218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Koditschek, Theodore. "The Making of British Nationality." Victorian Studies. Vol. 44, No. 3 (Spring, 2002), 389-398.

Lacy, Robert. Sir Walter Ralegh. New York: Athenum, 1974.

_____. Robert Earl of Essex. New York: Athenum, 1971.

Lake, Peter and Steve Pincus. "Rethinking the Public Sphere in Early Modern England. Journal of British Studies, Vol. 45, No. 2 (April, 2006). 270-292.

_____. "The politics of 'popularity' and the public sphere: the 'monarchial republic' of Elizabeth I defends itself." In The Politics of the Public Sphere in Early Modern England. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007.

_____. and Michael Questier. "Puritans, Papists and the Public Sphere in Early Modern England: The Edmund Campion Affair in Context." The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 72, No. 3 (September 2000). 587-627.

Laurence, Anne. Women and England, 1500-1760: A Social History. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994.

Lawson, Jane. "This Remembrence of the New Year: Books Given to Queen Elizabeth as New Year's Gifts" In Elizabeth I and the Culture of Writing. Edited by Peter Beal and Grace Ioppolo. London: The British Library, 2007.

Leedham- Green, Elisabeth. A Concise History of Cambridge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Levack, Brian P. The Civil Lawyers in England, 1603-1641: A Political Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973.

Levin, Carole. The Heart and Stomach of a King: Elizabeth I and the Politics of Sex and Power. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994.

202

_____. " 'We shall never have a merry world while the queen lyveth': Gender, Monarchy, and the Power of Seditious Words." In Dissing Elizabeth: Negative Representations of Gloriana. Edited by Julia M. Walker. Durham: Duke University Press, 1998.

_____. "Queens and Claimants: Political Insecurity in Sixteenth-Century England." In Gender, Ideology, and Action: Historical Perspectives on Women's Public Lives, edited by Janet Sharistanian., 41- 66. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1986.

Levine, Mortimer. "The Place of Women in Tudor Government." In Tudor Rule and Revolution, edited by Delloyd J. Guth and John W. McKenna., 109-126. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Lloyd, Howell A. "Contsitutionalism." In The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 1450- 1700. Edited by J.H. Burns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Loades, David. The Tudor Court. Totowa, NJ: Barnes and Noble Books, 1987.

Lohr, Charles H. "Renaissance Latin Translations of the Greek Commentaries on Aristotle." In Humanism and Early Modern Philosophy, edited by Jill Kraye and M.W.F. Stone., 24- 40. London: Routledge, 2000.

Loomie, Albert J. Spain and the Jacobean Catholics, Volume II: 1613-1624. Catholic Record Society, 1978.

Love, Harold. Scribal Publication in Seventeenth-Century England. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.

MacCaffrey, Wallace. Elizabeth I. London: Arnold Publishing, 1993.

_____. "Patronage and Politics under the Tudors." In The Mental World of the Jacobean Court, edited by Linda Levy Peck., 21-35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

_____. "Place and Patronage in Elizabethan Politics." In Elizabethan Government and Society. London: University of London, the Athlone Press, 1961.

_____. "The Anjou Match and the Making of Elizabethan Foreign Policy." In The English Commonwealth 1547-1640. Edited by Peter Clark, Alan G.T. Smith and Nicholas Tyacke. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1979.

_____. Queen Elizabeth and the Making of Policy, 1572-1588. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981.

Maclean, Ian. The Renaissance Notion of Women. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.

203

Macauley, T. B. The History of England from the Accession of James II. Vol. 1., 10 Vols. London: J.M. Dent and Company, 1905

MacMahon, William and John Hungerford eds. The Ven. Philip Howard Earl of Arundel, 1557- 1595. London: Harrison and Son's for the Catholic Record Society, 1919.

May, Steven W. "Tudor Aristocrats and the 'Mystical Stigma of Print.'" Renaissance Papers. A. Leigh Deneef and M. Thomas Hester eds. Durham: Duke University Press, 1980.

Martin, Colin and Geoffrey Parker. The Spanish Armada. London: Hamilton, 1988.

McCarthy, Kerry. "Byrd's Patrons at Prayer." Music and Letters, Vol. 89, No. 4. November, 2008: 499-509.

McDermott, James. England and the Spanish Armada: The Necessary Quarrel. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005.

McLaren, A.N. Political Culture in the Reign of Elizabeth I: Queen and Commonwealth, 1558- 1585. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

McCoog, Thomas M. The Society of Jesus in Ireland, Scotland, and England 1541-1588: Our Way of Proceeding?. New York: E.J. Brill, 1996.

_____. "The English Jesuit Mission and the French Match, 1579-1581." The Catholic Historical Review. Vol. 87, No. 2 (April, 2001): 185-213.

McKisack, May. Medieval History in the Tudor Age. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971.

Mears, Natalie. Queenship and Political Discourse in the Elizabethan Realms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

_____. "Politics in the Elizabethan Privy Chamber: Lady Mary Sidney and Kat Ashley." in Women and Politics in Early Modern England, 1450-1700. Edited by James Daybell. Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate, 2004.

Montrose, Louise. "Elizabeth Through the Looking Glass: Picturing the Queen's Two Bodies." In The Body of the Queen: Gender and Rule in the Courtly World, edited by Regina Schulte. New York: Berghahn Books, 2006.

More, Henry. The Elizabethan Jesuits: Historia Missionis Anglicanae Societatis Jesu (1660). Edited and Translated by Francis Edwards. London: Phillimore and Co. Ltd., 1981.

Moss, Ann. "The Politica of Justin Lipsius and the Commonplace Book." Journal of the History of Ideas. Vol. 59, No. 3 (1998): 421-436.

204

Murphy, Beverly Anne. Bastard Prince: Henry VIII's Lost Son. Thrope, Gloucesteshire: Sutton Publishing, 2001.

Murdin, William. A Collection of State Papers Relating to Affairs in the Reign of Elizabeth from the Years 1571-1596. London: William Bowyer, 1759.

Neale, John E. Essays in Elizabethan History. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1958.

Nelson, Alan H. Monstrous Adeversary: The Life of Edward De Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2003.

Nott, G. F., ed. The Works of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey and of Thomas Wyatt the Elder. 2 vols. Vol. 1. New York: AMS Press, 1965.

O'Donovan, Joan Lockwood. Theology of Law and Authority in the English Reformation. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1991.

Oakley, Francis. Politics and Eternity: Studies in the History of Medieval and Early Modern Thought. Boston: Brill, 1999.

Oram, William A. "Spenser's Audiences, 1589-91." Studies in Philology. Vol. 100, No. 4. Fall, 2003. 514-533.

Peck, D. C., ed. Leicester's Commonwealth: The Copy of a Letter Written by a Master of Art Cambridge (1584) and Related Documents. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1985.

Peck, Linda Levy. "The Mentality of a Jacobean Grandee." In The Mental World of the Jacobean Court, edited by Linda Levy Peck., 148-167. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

_____. Northampton: Patronage and Policy at the Court of James I. London: Allen and Unwin, 1988.

Pocock, J.G.A. Political Thought and History: Essays on Theory and Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Pollen, H.J. The English Catholics in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth. New York: Lenox Hill, 1920.

Porter, Jean. “Contested Categories: Reason, Nature, and Natural Order in Medieval Accounts of the Natural Law. The Journal of Religious Ethics. Vol. 24, No. 2 (Fall, 1996), 207-232.

Pulman, Michael B. The Elizabethan Council in the Fifteen-Seventies. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971.

205

Questier, Michael. Politics, Aristocratic Patronage and Religion, c. 1550-1640. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Rabb, Theodore K. Jacobean Gentleman: Sir Edwin Sandys, 1561-1629. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998

Read, Conyers. "Lord Burghley's Househod Accounts." The Economic History Review, New Series 9 (1956): 343-48.

_____. Mr. Secretary Cecil and Queen Elizabeth. New York: Knopf, 1955.

_____. Mr. Secretary Walsingham and the Policy of Queen Elizabeth. 3 vols. Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1925.

Rechtien, John. "John Foxe's Comprehensive Collection of Commonplaces: A Renaissance Memory System for Students and Theologians. The Sixteenth Century Journal. Vol. 9, No. 1 (April, 1978) 82-89

Reid, Peter H. "The Decline and Fall of the British Country House Library." Libraries and Culture. Vol. 36, No. 2. Spring, 2001: 345-366.

Richards, Judith. "Love and a Female Monarch: The Case of Elizabeth Tudor." The Journal of British Studies 38 (1999): 133-60.

_____. "to Promote a Woman to Beare Rule": Talking of Queens in Mid-Tudor England." Sixteenth Century Journal 28 (1997): 101-21.

_____. "Mary Tudor as 'Sole Queen'?: Gendering Tudor Monarchy." The Historical Journal 40 (1997): 895-924.

Rowe, Joy. "The Lopped Tree: The Re-Formation of the Suffolk Catholic Community." in England's Long Reformation 1500-1800. edited by N. Taycke., 167-193. London: University College London Press, 1998.

Roy, Jody M. Rhetorical Campaigns of the Nineteenth Century Anti-Catholics and Catholics in America. Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2000.

Scalingi, Paula Louise. "The Scepter or the Distaff: The Question of Female Sovereignty, 1516- 1607." The Historian 41(1978): 59-75.

Schmitt, C.B. The Aristotelian Tradition and Renaissance Universities. London: Variorum Reprints, 1984.

Sears, Jayne. Plato in Renaissance England. Boston: Kluwer Academic Press, 1995.

206

Sessions, W.A. Henry Howard, the Poet Earl of Surrey: A Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Sharpe, Kevin. Selling the Tudor Monarchy: Authority and Image in Sixteenth Century England. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009

Shephard, Amanda. Gender and Authority in Sixteenth-Century England. Keele, Staffordshire: Ryburn Press, 1994.

Shields, Stephanie. "Passionate Men, Emotional Women: Psychology Constructs Gender Difference in the Late Nineteenth Century." History of Psychology. Vol. 10. No. 2 (May, 2007), 92-110.

Shipley, E.J. "An inventory of the effects of Henry Howard KG Taken on his death in 1614, Together with a Transcript of his Will." Archaeologia, or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity. 42 (1869), 347-348.

Shrank, Cathy. " 'These fewe scribbled rules': Representing Scribal Intimacy in Early Modern Print." Huntington Quarterly. Vol. 67. No.2 (June, 2004). 295-314.

Sigmund, Paul E. "Law and Politics." In The Cambridge Companion to Aquinas, edited by Norman Kretzmann and Eleonore Stump. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Skinner, Quentin. The Foundations of Modern Political Thought. 2 vols. Vol. 2: The Age of the Reformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.

Smith, Jeremy L. "Unlawful Song: Byrd, the Babington Plot and the Paget Choir." Early Music. Vol. 38, No. 4. 497-508.

Smuts, Malcolm. "Cultural Diversity and Cultural Change at the Court of James I." In The Mental World of the Jacobean Court. Edited by Linda Levy Peck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Sommerville, J.P. "Absolutism and Royalism." In The Cambridge History of Political Thought 1450-1700, edited by J.H. Burns., 347-373. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Sommerville, Margaret R. Sex and Subjection: to Women in Early-Modern Society. London: Arnold, 1995.

Spongberg, Mary and Clara Tuite. "The Gender of Whig Historiography: Women writers and Britain's Pasts and Presents." Women's History. Vol. 20. No. 5 (2011), 673-687.

Starkey, David. "Court, Council, and Nobility in Tudor England." In Princes, Patronage, and the Nobility: The Court at the Beginning of the Modern Age, c. 1450-1650. Edited by Ronald G. Asch and Adolf M. Birke. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.

207

Stone, Lawrence. The Family, Sex, and Marriage in England, 1500-1800. Abridged Edition ed. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1979.

_____. Family and Fortune: Studies in Aristocratic Finance in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973.

Sumption, Jonathan. The Hundred Year's War. 2 vols. Vol. 1. London: Faber and Faber, 1990.

Taylor, Charles. A Secular Age. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004.

Tite, C. G. C. "'Lost or Stolen or Strayed': A Survey of Manuscripts Formerly in the Cotton Library." In Sir Robert Cotton as Collector: Essays on an Early Stuart Courtier and His Legacy, edited by C. J. Wright., 262-306. London: The British Library, 1997.

Thomas, Keith. Religion and the Decline of Magic. New York: Scribner's Sons, 1971.

Thomson, D.F.S. "George Buchanan: The Humanist in the Sixteenth-Century World. Phoenix. Vol. 4, No. 3, Winter, 1950. 77-94.

Trevelyan, G.M. Trinity Hall, an Historical Sketch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1943.

Ungerer, Gustav ed. A Spaniard in Elizabethan England: The Correspondence of Antonio Perez's Exile. 2vols. London: Tamesis Books Limited: 1976.

_____. Anglo-Spanish Relations in Tudor Literature. New York: AMS Press, 1929.

Vanhoutte, Jacqueline. "Queen and Country?: Female Monarchs and Feminized Nations in Elizabethan Political Pamphlets. In Elizabeth I Always her Own Free Woman, edited by Jo Eldridge Carney, Debra Barrett- Graves and Carole Levin. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003.

Vickers, Brian. "Incomplete Shakespeare: Or, Denying Coauthorship in 1 Henry VI." Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 58, No. 3. Fall, 2007. 311-352.

Wakelin, Daniel. Humanism, Reading, and English Literature, 1430-1530. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Warnike, Retha M. The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

_____. Women of the English Renaissance and Reformation. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1983.

Watson, Foster, ed. Vives and the Renascence Education of Women. New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1912.

208

Ward, B.M. The Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, 1550-1604. London: John Murray, 1928.

Warner, Michael. Publics and Counterpublics. New York: Zone Books, 2002.

Wernham, R. B. Before the Armada. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1966.

Weil, Rachel. "Royal Flesh, Gender and the Construction of Monarchy. In The Body of the Queen: Gender and Rule in the Courtly World. New York: Bergahan Books, 2006

Wheeler, Michael. The Old Enemies: Catholic and Protestant in Nineteenth Century English Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Wiesner, Merry E. Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Williams, Nevile. All the Queen's Men: Elizabeth I and her Courtiers. New York: Macmillan Company, 1972.

Wilson, Browen and Paul Yachnin eds. Making Publics in Early Modern Europe: People, Things, Forms of Knowledge. New York: Routledge, 2010.

White, R.S. Natural Law in English Renaissance Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Wood, Andy. Riot, Rebellion and Popular Politics in Early Modern England. New York: Palgram, 2002.

Woods, Susanne. "Spenser and the Problem of Women's Rule." Huntington Library Quarterly. Vol. 48, No. 2. Spring, 1985. 140-158.

Woudhuysen, H. R. Sir Philip Sidney and the Circulation of Manuscripts 1558-1640. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.

Wright, C. E. Fontes Harleiani: A Study of the Sources of the Harleian Collection of Manuscripts Preserved in the Department of Manuscripts in the British Museum. London: British Museum, 1972.

Wright, David. "John Knox and the Early Church Fathers." in John Knox and the British Reformations. Edited by Roger A. Mason. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998.

Wroxton Conservation Area Appraisal. North Oxfordshire: Cherwel District Council, 1996.

Zaret, David. Origins of Democratic Culture: Printing, Petitions, and the Public Sphere i Early- Modern England. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000.

209

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Anna Christine Caney

Anna Christine Caney received her B.A. from Florida Southern College in 2001, her M.A. Early

Modern English History from Florida State University in 2005, and her PhD in Early Modern

European History from Florida State University in 2013. Her research focuses on intellectual and gender history, particularly the interpretations of religion, law, and philosophy with regard to debates about gender in the sixteenth century. In the future she will further explore the relationship between attitudes toward women and politics in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. She is also interested in comparing ideas of female power in different sixteenth century cultures, as well as the development of resistance theory as it related to female power.

210