SILKEN DIPLOMACY: THE PLAYERS AND CONCEPTS THAT AFFECTED A SHIFT IN DIPLOMATIC AND TRADE RELATIONS BETWEEN ENGLAND AND THE SAFAVID PERSIAN EMPIRE 1599-1619 ______

A Thesis

Presented to the

Faculty of

California State University, Fullerton ______

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

in

History ______

By

Lindsay Margaret Weiler

Thesis Committee Approval:

Professor Gayle K. Brunelle, Chair Professor Jasamin Rostam-Kolayi, Department of History Professor Robert McLain, Department of History

Spring, 2016

ABSTRACT

In 1599, two English brothers, sons of a lesser noble family on the outs with the court of Queen Elizabeth I, took a voyage to the court of Shah Abbas I. Under the patronage of the Earl of Essex, Sir Anthony and Robert Sherley made their way through the Islamic territory of the Ottoman Turkish Empire into the Safavid Persian Empire. A decade later, Sir Anthony returned to Christian Europe, followed by his brother Robert a few years after, now acting as an agent of a Muslim ruler, ostensibly to improve trade relations between Persia and Europe, circumventing the Ottoman Empire who had been acting as middle man for goods coming out of Persia up until the sixteenth century.

This thesis aims to show the cultural influence, particularly European influence, on both Elizabethan and Jacobean England’s foreign policy and diplomacy and Shah

Abbas’s economic reforms and diplomatic offensive with Europe, using the study of the

Sherley voyage as the primary focus, through the historical concepts of self-fashioning and orientalism. It also aims to prove that, due to the combined goals of the major players, the Sherley voyage significantly contributed not only the economic and diplomatic policy between England and the Safavid Persian Empire, but also diplomacy between the Middle East and Europe that continued to affect diplomacy into the Modern time period.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... ii

LIST OF FIGURES ...... v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... vi

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Background ...... 3 Historiography and Sources ...... 8 Methodology ...... 20 Central Questions and Thesis Statement ...... 22 Organization ...... 26

Chapter 1. POWER ON THE EDGE OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD: THE STATE OF THE MONARCHY IN ENGLAND, 1599-1619 ...... 31

Diplomacy and Renaissance Europe ...... 34 Lives and Policies of Elizabeth I and James I ...... 40 The Impact of the Sherleian Voyage on the Goals of England ...... 56

2. GENTLEMEN ADVENTURERS AND PERSIAN KNIGHTS: THE SHERLEY VOYAGE AND ENCOUNTERS WITH THE “OTHER” ...... 60

Background of the Sherleys ...... 64 Education of the Sherleys ...... 73 The Sherleys go to the Orient ...... 81

3. MISSIONARIES AND MERCHANTS: THE BUSINESS OF TRAVEL WRITING ...... 91

The Evolution of Travel Writing from the Middle Ages to Modernity ...... 94 The Stories of the Writers ...... 102 The Sherley’s Personal Role in Travel Writing ...... 112

iii

4. THE FASCINATING PERSIAN EAST FROM THE OTHER SIDE: SHAH ABBAS I ...... 122

Historiography on the Sherleys from the Shah’s Perspective ...... 125 Background of Shah Abbas I and the Safavid Government ...... 130 England and Persia, Compared ...... 137

CONCLUSION ...... 142

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 146

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Portraits of Robert and Teressia Sherley ...... vii

2. Map of Safavid Persian Empire During the Reign of Shah Abbas I ...... viii

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Like the Sherleian voyage, it has been a long journey to get to this Masters thesis, with many influencing and supporting me in the endeavor. Friends, family, mentors and schools, a number of individuals and groups have gotten me to this point, and I appreciate every one of them. Here are just a few of the biggest supporters.

I would like to thank Dr. Muriel McClendon, Tudor/Stuart expert and historian at

University of California Los Angeles, for her mentorship as I attempted to return to school for my Masters. Dr. Gayle Brunelle and Dr. Jasamin Rostam-Kolayi of California

State University Fullerton for being amazing mentors and advisers–and sometimes just listening to me talk–during my progress through the Masters program. A big thank you to

Mrs. Parastoo Danaee of California State University and Dr. Touraj Darayee of

University of California Irvine for their amazing help with the Persian language and culture, increasing my love of this region of the world.

I would also like to thank my family for their support; particularly my father,

William Weiler, for his influence in getting an advanced degree in the first place. The

Gentlemen Adventurers at the Renaissance Pleasure Faire of Southern California, whose adventures and exploits entertain me frequently and inspired the research behind the narrative. And, of course, to my husband and love of my life, Steven Leon; without his support (and many glasses of wine), I would not have accomplished this feat.

vi

Figure 1. Portraits of Robert and Teressia Sherley by an Unknown Artist, c. 1624-1627. Photo Credit: http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibitions/britishorientalist painting/ explore/portraits.shtm

vii

Figure 2. Map of the Safavid Persian Empire during the reign of Shah Abbas I, 1571-1629. Photo Credit: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/paris-ne-vaut-pas-une-messe-a-huguenot-in- aar.371321/page-63

viii

1

INTRODUCTION

POLITICS, TRADE AND DIPLOMACY: A CLASH AND COMMUNION OF CULTURES

ALEPPO, Syria, Ottoman Empire Territory – The smell of unwashed bodies permeated the air, punctuated in places by the scent of rich perfumes and spices, both the same and different from other ports and towns throughout Europe. The streets rang loudly with the noise of several languages being spoken rapid-fire between Christians and

Muslims, Europeans and Ottomans alike. European merchants, both tradesmen and noblemen, sauntered through the town, although not without Janissaries, Ottoman royal guards who could also be hired to protect the Christian visitors on their way to feasts and parties with wealthy Ottoman elites who had a vested interest in European trade.1 This very scene greeted brothers Sir Anthony and Robert Sherley, along with their gentlemen retainers, when they arrived in Aleppo on the Mediterranean shores of the Muslim

1 Sir Anthony Sherley. His Relations of Travels into Persia, the Dangers, and Distresses which befell him in his passage, both by sea and land and his strange and unexpected deliverances. His Magnificent Entertainment in Persia, his Honourable imployment there hence, as Embassadour to the Princes of Christendome, the cause of his disappointment therein, with his advice to his brother, Sir Robert Sherley, Also, a True Relation of the great Magnificence, Valour, Prudence, Justice, Temperance and other manifold Vertues of Abas, now King of Persia, with his Great Conquests, whereby he has enlarged his Dominions, (London: Printed for Nathaniell Butter and Joseph Bagset, 1613), 17; see also George Manwaring. “A True Discourse of Sir Anthony Sherley’s Travel into Persia, What Accidents Did Happen in the Way, Both Going Thither and Returning Back, with the Business he was Employed in from the Sophi”, in Sir Anthony Sherley and his Persian Adventure, Sir E. Denison Ross, ed. (London: Routledge, 1825), 110-111; see also, David William Davies, Elizabethans errant; the strange fortunes of Sir Thomas Sherley and his three sons, as well in the Dutch Wars as in Muscovy, Morocco, Persia, Spain, and the Indies, (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1967) 88.

2 territory of the Ottoman Empire, their first stop on non-Christian shores on their way to

Safavid Persia. Having these guards was a necessary evil--the unwary foreigner could find himself on the wrong end of an argument with local peasants, as happened to George

Manwaring, one of Sir Anthony’s travel companions.2 The rapid expansion of worldwide trade, diplomacy and political alignment between countries, regions and empires with differing religious beliefs and cultures meant a certain amount of clash and chaos as men from different backgrounds came together for the common cause of trade and diplomacy between countries and governments.

In a way, the Janissaries themselves could easily represent this merging of East and West, the fear and fascination on both sides of the proverbial cultural line. To the

Ottomans, these guards for hire embodied the greed and godlessness of the European civilization encroaching upon sacred Islamic territory, because they offered their services to the Christians against their Muslim brethren. To the Europeans, their Ottoman escorts represented the barbaric, backwards Muslim culture, a necessary evil to do business with this primitive culture, the very icon of the greedy and violent nature of these inhabitants of Islamic regions needing to be civilized with European guidance, such as through trade.

At the very least, though, to both the Ottoman and European sides, the Janissaries represented one of the many elements that perpetuated the myths and stereotypes about the respective “other” to both regions for many years, even influencing European

2 Manwaring, “True Discourse,” 110.

3 university education through travel writing from missionaries and merchants, and translation of religious texts from Arabic to Latin.3

Background

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, a major shift in political, military and trade alliances occurred between European powers and the region of the world known at the time as the Near East, a part of what was considered The Orient. In 1535 Francis I allied himself with the Ottoman Empire, a Muslim state covering large portions of the

Asian and African continents around the Mediterranean that Europeans viewed as an enemy to Christianity and the regions Latin Christendom occupied. Francis did this mainly for military purposes, although paving the way for better relations between

French merchants and the Ottoman government played a role as well.4 This empire under Sultan Suleiman, “The Magnificent”, whom many of his contemporaries in both

Europe and the other Islamic regions, along with modern historians, believe to have been the most competent ruler of the Ottoman Empire during its entire history, had also assumed the role of middleman dominating Asian trade routes moving goods into Europe along the Silk Road by both land and sea. This project will focus primarily on land-based trade and exchange. This Ottoman domination of trade particularly affected Safavid

Persia and the Persian silk so highly prized by Europeans, much to the frustration of Shah

3 See Robert Irwin, Dangerous Knowledge: Orientalism and its Discontents, (New York: Overlook Press, 2006) 62-66, for more information on the rise of travel literature brought back by literary scholars from the Middle East to European universities.

4 Ina Baghdiantz McCabe, Orientalism in Early Modern France: Eurasian Trade, Exoticism, and the Ancien Regime, (New York: Berg, 2008), 37; see also, Garrett Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy, (Boston: The Riverside Press, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1955), 176-178.

4

Abbas I, which in turn, helped spur Persian economic reforms.5 In 1599, financed through a loan from his father and with encouragement from the Earl of Essex, nobleman of the court of Queen Elizabeth I of England, Sir Anthony Sherley, an English knight, along with his brother Robert, made their way from Italy through the Mediterranean to

Aleppo, then ultimately into the Safavid Persian Empire to the court of Shah Abbas I.

This resulted in a new diplomatic and economic relationship between England and Persia.

Later, this project shows how this new contact between the Sherleys and the shah actually strengthened the relationship between Persia and the British East India Trading

Company, who worked to establish an outpost in Persia independently of the Sherleian voyage, even though this was not immediately apparent.

While trade among the regions and territories of Asia took place overland and by sea for centuries prior to the fifteenth century, it expanded rapidly in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Both increased transportation technology as well as economic and political reforms aided this expansion as various governments throughout Europe as well as Asia recognized the need for involvement in the booming world economy. Starting in the mid-fifteenth century, the European population grew again quickly after the Black

Plague, traveling the same early trade routes as merchants through Asia into Europe, wiped out a third of the population in major cities and regions in the 1300s.6 Because of

5 “Silk continued to be a toy in the games between the Ottomans and Safavids throughout the 16th century…especially…during the period from 1589 to 1639.” Willem Floor, “The Dutch and the Persian Silk Trade” in Charles Melville, ed. Safavid Persia: The History and Politics of an Islamic Society, in the series Pembroke Persian Papers, Charles Melville, ed. Vol. 4, (London: I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd, in association with the Centre of Middle Eastern Studies, University of Cambridge, 1996), 324, see also Rudolph Matthee, The Politics of Trade in Safavid Iran: Silk for Silver, 1600-1730, (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 20-21.

6 Mark Konnert, Early Modern Europe: The Age of Religious War, 1559-1715, (Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press, 2008) 20; see also, H.G. Koenigsberger, George L. Mosse, G.Q. Bowler.

5 this growth, European and Asian rulers realized a need for involvement, at least on an economic level, with one another. They recognized growing pains in the civil wars and regional conflicts against competing rulers of neighboring empires, which affected the economy of the warring nations, such as the clashes between the Ottoman ruler Selim I and the Persian Shah Isma’il I in the early part of the sixteenth century.7 These clashes led not only to a standstill of the silk trade between the Ottomans and the Persians, but also to a massive reduction in the volume of silk going to Europe, thanks to the boycott

Selim imposed on his Persian neighbor. Suleiman lifted the ban in 1520, which enabled the Shah to begin trade outside the Islamic regions again, albeit at a trickle in comparison to the flow of previous years.8 Aware that a boycott of this magnitude could occur at any time, when Shah Abbas I ascended the throne in 1588 he initiated massive changes to trade policy; in particular, he sought a more direct outlet to the West avoiding the

Ottoman trade routes. Enter the Sherley brothers.

Prior to the Sherley expedition, the Safavids maintained only limited direct contacts with European nations, enough to whet their appetite during the Ottoman boycott on trade with Persia. Russia traded frequently with Persia through the Russian

(Muscovy) Company; this became the primary source of Persian goods into Europe throughout most of the sixteenth century.9 France also traded with both the Ottoman

Europe in the Sixteenth Century, Second Edition in the series A General History of Europe, Denys Hays, ed., (London: Longman Group Ltd., 1968), 36.

7 Matthee, Silk for Silver, 20.

8 Matthee. Silk for Silver, 20.

9 R. W. Ferrier. “The Terms and Conditions under which English Trade was Transacted with Safavid Persia”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London, Vol. 49, No. 1

6

Empire and Persia via The Regulated Company, which maintained commercial ties throughout the Levant.10 By virtue of a treaty arrangement under Abbas in the 1580s, The

East India Trading Company outpost started a burgeoning trade route direct from Persia, sending silk and other trade goods to England from both India and Persia in exchange for wool from England.11 Julfan Armenian merchants participated in international trade from Aleppo in the early and mid-sixteenth century, having gained contacts within the

Safavid court and benefitting from the expansion of trade into Europe.12

However, the Sherleian voyages to and from the Persian Empire remain the most significant relationship linking England and the Safavids, as they made a major contribution to changing the discourse from trade to diplomacy. “As seen from Iran rather than from [the Eurocentric view], the Sherleys…were manipulated by the shah in the service of a much larger diplomatic offensive,” referring to the return to Europe as agents of Shah Abbas as part of his trade and diplomatic reforms, the same reforms that

(Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 1986), 50-52; see also Willem Floor. “The Dutch” in Safavid Persia, 323, and Rudi Matthee, “Anti- Ottoman Politics and Transit Rights: The Seventeenth-Century Trade in Silk Between Safavid Iran and Muscovy,” in Cahiers du Monde russe, Vol. 35, No. 4, (France: EHESS, 1994), 740-741.

10 For details on The Regulated Company of merchants and their apprentices who shuttled goods out of France traveling the Mediterranean territories of the Levant, see Jean (John) Chardin. The Travels of Sir John Chardin Into Persia and the East Indies, through the Black Sea and the Country of Colchis, (London, England: Printed for Moses Pitt in Duke Street, Westminster, 1686), 5-6; for a more modern view on the background of the trade motivations for the Sherleys and the Earl of Essex, see also, Davies, Elizabethans Errant, 81-82.

11 R. W. Ferrier. “English Trade”, 49 and 54-55; See also, Rudi Mathee. The Politics of Trade in Safavid Iran: Silk for Silver, 1600-1730, (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 12-13.

12 Matthee. Silk for Silver, 23, see also, Edmund Herzig. “The Rise of the Julfa Merchants in the Late Sixteenth Century,” in Safavid Persia: The History and Politics of an Islamic Society, C. P. Melville, ed. (London: I.B. Tauris, 1996), 314-315.

7 give Shah Abbas and the Safavid Persian Empire a significant place in Middle Eastern history.13 The Sherley brothers, given titles from the Shah that equated them with the highest nobles in the Persian court, returned to Europe on diplomatic missions conducted under the guise of trade relations to other countries, including their own, on behalf of the

Shah, although Robert Sherley was the only one of the two brothers who returned to

Persia with the official Ambassador from England and the court of King James I, Sir

Dodmore Cotton.14 No other country in Europe had countrymen, merchants or otherwise, actually involved in trade or diplomacy on behalf of a foreign government to such a high degree; at least, not documented officially by either the foreign government or the

European traveler.

Trade relations had been established between European countries and the Islamic empires for decades prior to the Sherley’s voyages to and from Persia, certainly opening the door for diplomatic involvement. Many personal diaries, missionary travel writings and correspondence reflect this, showing foreign governments hosting within their courts

European merchants and nobility in hopes of furthering economic and diplomatic policy between the foreign state and Europe. However, the Sherley brothers acted as a catalyst for Persian ambassadors to pave the way for greater direct political and economic alliances with European powers during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the time period known as the Renaissance, and did so on behalf of the Persian shah.15 Ultimately,

13 Mathee. Silk for Silver, 77.

14 Herbert, Travels, 41; See also, Roger Stevens. “Robert Sherley: The Unanswered Questions” in Iran, Vol. 17 (London: British Institute of Persian Studies, 1979) 115.

15 Floor. “The Dutch,” 324.

8 the Sherley brothers managed to create a new discourse coming out from the Orient, specifically a region of the Orient not many other Europeans had experienced for themselves, affecting the European institutions of diplomacy and trade that had been in place for decades prior to the trip. This forced both England and the Safavid Empire to recognize the Sherleys’ agency as successful Gentlemen Adventurers and orientalists fashioned by Renaissance social and political structures, as this thesis aims to show.

Historiography and Sources

Although scholarly works on Renaissance Europe have covered extensively a variety of political, social, religious and economic topics pertinent to our understanding of that time period, for purposes of this project I focus mainly on both primary and secondary sources containing economic, cultural and diplomatic topics. There appears to be less sources pertaining to the Safavid Persian Empire, and what is available tends to focus more on economic, political and religious topics rather than diplomacy or culture.

One Sherley specialist explains the lack of Safavid sources as the result of Afghan raiders dumping the archives into the Zayandeh River in 1722; others state lack of access to various archival sites.16 Ottoman specialists have also looked at cultural and diplomatic connections between Europe and the Middle East, and their contributions provide comparison material for this project, as well as another look through the conceptual lenses of Orientalism and Renaissance self-fashioning, like this project. I admittedly show a distinct Euro-centric viewpoint based on the available source material on the

16 Gary Schwartz, “The Sherleys and the Shah: Persia as the Stakes in a Rogue’s Gambit,” in The Fascination of Persia: The Persian-European Dialogue in Seventeenth-Century Art & Contemporary Art of Teheran, Axel Langer, ed., (Zurich: Scheidegger und Spiess, 2013) 83.

9

European history side versus the Persian, which I attempt to temper with historical concepts like Orientalism and Renaissance self-fashioning that point out how the discourse on Europe and the Renaissance was formed and defined, and then skewed in this Euro-centric direction.17 I also hope to rectify this imbalance in a future expansion of this project, particularly comparing Shah Abbas I’s reign to his fellow Safavid rulers in terms of trade and diplomatic contributions, which has been largely ignored in favor of

Shah Abbas’s involvement with Europe in conjunction with his trade and diplomatic state reforms.18

The scholarship about the Sherleys varies from the time of their adventures in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries to the present day. Yet, overall, the amount available shows enough interest in the narrative, and later scholarly study, to render the life of the Sherley brothers and their voyage significant in the annals of diplomatic history of Europe and southwest Asia, or at least between England and the Safavid

Empire. It also shows a wealth of information on Shah Abbas’s diplomacy with Europe, particularly about the significant roles both Sir Anthony and Robert Sherley played in the shah’s diplomatic and economic reforms, even if it comes from a Eurocentric bias. The early seventeenth century saw extensive works published; either the Sherleys or those attached to them wrote and published their stories themselves, and these will be examined in later sections.

17 Jerry Brotton, The Renaissance Bazaar: From the Silk Road to Michelangelo, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 29-36.

18 Matthee, Silk for Silver, 2-4; see also, Andrew J Newman, Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire, (London, England: I.B.Tauris & Co. Ltd., 2009), 4-7.

10

The bulk of the secondary sources starts primarily during the nineteenth century.

The renewed interest in the Sherley brothers’ voyage to Persia derived from the Victorian fascination with daring expeditions to foreign lands, although few were actually produced, and little of these publications contained scholarly tone or method. They emphasized the exotic nature of Asian regions and the “daring exploits” of the European adventurers, with little analysis of historical meaning or significance of the voyages.

These sources, such as the article written by editor Sylvius Urban of the popular serial

Gentlemans Magazine in the latter part of the nineteenth century entitled “The Three

Sherleys” and published after “Sylvius” ran across the brothers’ gravestones, provide further evidence of the narrative style indicative of the Victorian times and, while entertaining, also corroborates much of the primary source material.19 The fact that simply reading the family headstone made this author research the Sherleys also demonstrates the impact of the Sherley’s voyage, even if it was only in terms of selling a magazine to the Victorian idea of exotic orientalism. In fact, the sheer volume of narrative and theatrical productions about the topic of the Sherleian voyage from the

Renaissance through the early twentieth century points to the impact the Sherleys had on the discourse between England and the Middle East, particularly in terms of diplomacy, long before the narrative became subject to scholarly analysis.20

19 Sylvius Urban, “The Three Sherleys” Gentleman’s Magazine, vol. 176-177 F. Jefferies, ed. (Printed for private circulation, July, 1844) p. 473-483.

20 Davies, Elizabethans Errant, 1; see also, Anthony Parr, “Foreign Relations in Jacobean England: The Sherley Brothers and the ‘Voyage of Persia,’” in Travel and Drama in Shakespeare’s Time, Jean-Pierre Maquerlot and Michele Willems, ed., (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 14-15.

11

With the stiflingly high moral standards of the Victorian time period in Britain from the mid-1800s to the early twentieth century, combined with a fascination of the supernatural, death and dying, very few wrote academic works the Sherleys, scholars or otherwise. One early historian, a relation of the Sherleys Evelyn Shirley, wrote his The

Sherley Brothers: An Historical Memoir of the Lives of Sir Thomas Sherley, Sir Anthony

Sherley and Sir Robert Sherley, Knights in 1848. His is one of the first known academic publications analyzing the lives of the Sherley family and their various adventures, as opposed to simply being an entertaining narrative. Shirley’s work influenced a number of other Sherleian scholars as well, including E. Dennison Ross, Boies Penrose and D. W.

Davies, all of whom appeared to consider him a credible source, citing his work in their own publications.21 This would seem to indicate a shift towards scholarly analysis prior to the advent of the post-Industrial age. It also appears to have inspired a number of scholars to pursue a more academic perspective on the Sherley family.

One such publication, The Sherleian Odyssey, Being a Record of the Travels and

Adventures of Three Famous Brothers During the Reigns of Elizabeth, James I and

Charles I, written by Boies Penrose in 1938, focuses directly on the Sherley family and their adventures. Penrose wrote his Sherleian Odyssey as an academic study, one still used by scholars as a reference to the Sherleys in economic, diplomatic and social history publications of the Elizabethan and Jacobean reigns.22 In his book, Penrose examined

21 Ross, Persian Adventure, 2; see also, Boise Penrose, The Sherleian Odyssey, being of the travels and adventures of three famous brothers during the reigns of Elizabeth I, James I and Charles I, (England: The Wessex Press, 1938) 289.

22 Davies, Elizabethan’s Errant, 287-327; see also, Schwartz, “Sherleys and the Shah,” 78-93.

12 economic and political motivations for the actions of the three Sherley brothers, couching some academic analysis in an interesting narrative in a similar fashion to Davies’ book on the Sherleys. For example, in his colorful description of Sir Anthony’s expedition to

Jamaica, during which took place the looting of a Spanish-controlled town, Penrose refers to Anthony as “[o]ur hero,” and that “the stars in their courses seem to have fought against Sir Anthony,” given the ultimate failure of this voyage.23 Penrose also only touches on Sir Thomas Sherley the father, including him only in relation to the brothers.

Yet, he did not have a good impression of the Sherleys, particularly of the older brothers; he seemed a little more forgiving when it came to Robert. Penrose calls Anthony “a born opportunist” and “a complete opportunist,” and his older brother Thomas has enough written about him that he appears to be cut from the same cloth.24 The colorful descriptions of Anthony in the narrative, then, were actually more like sarcastic jibes aimed to discredit Sir Anthony’s enterprises and adventures, and thus downplay their importance. Boies does not appear to see the Sherley brothers, particularly Anthony, as anyone who contributed anything significant to the history of either economics through trade or diplomacy with the Middle East. He saw the Sherleys as outliers who only gained reputation and success by Sir Anthony’s reputation as a narcissist and a bully who pushed until he got his way. He was not the only scholar of the Sherleys to believe this either.

23 Penrose, Sherleian Odyssey, 20-21.

24 Penrose, Sherleian Odyssey, 245.

13

One of the more significant modern works of research on the Sherley brothers can be found in D.W. Davies’ Elizabethan’s Errant: The Strange Fortunes of Sir Thomas

Sherley and His Three Sons. Davies compiled information from all of the primary source material written on or by the Sherleys and their gentlemen retainers, including letters to and from the court of England, as well as other European courts, covering the entire

Sherley family and not just two of the brothers. Contemporary early modern historians, such as Anthony Parr and Gary Schwartz, consider Davies, like Penrose and E. Dennison

Ross, to be a major authority on the Sherleys, having written one of the most significant publications on their lives.25 Davies, like Penrose, narrows the focus onto the Sherley family and their specific adventures in the Persian and Ottoman Empires. While providing background information on the entire Sherley family, he also inserts broader analysis of the cultural and social atmosphere, both in and outside of Europe, although not nearly to the extent of more recent social and cultural historians, such as Sanjay

Subrahmanyam. For example, Davies looks at the multitude of reasons Sir Anthony suddenly takes on a voyage to Persia. While Sir Anthony had been well feted by the

Doge in Venice, he “was by no means giving himself up entirely to pleasure,” and desired to “do some good and extraordinary thing before [he] returned back,” fishing around for an endeavor that would not only possibly contribute to his pocketbook, but also give Sir Anthony a name and add polish to his reputation.26

25 Parr, “Foreign Relations,” 30-31; see also, Schwartz, “Sherleys and the Shah,” 78-93.

26 Davies, Elizabethans Errant, 80-81.

14

This introduces motivational factors to a story that had previously been merely written as fascinating narratives, motivational factors such as the concept of Renaissance self-fashioning, introduced and described by Stephen Greenblatt in 1980. Although

Davies book predates Greenblatt’s by a few decades, the similar topic of self- improvement to better one’s and ones family’s position and fortune appears in both books. Davies’ book also presents the material in a more academically analytical manner; the first one to do so in the twentieth century, and certainly shows the influence of the academics of a post-Industrial Age education, an influence showing focus on abstract concepts like established social roles and shifting cultural norms both within and outside of Europe.

Although he is considered one of the more prominent modern Sherley scholars,

Davies in no way appears to be an actual fan of the Sherleys beyond a fascination with their lives. To bolster his argument of the Sherleys lack of accomplishment, author Gary

Schwartz writes in his chapter (covered more in depth below) that Davies did not actually see any significance in the Sherleian voyage, that “[t]hese men shaped no great moments in history, but they were typical of their age, and in certain aspects, of any age.”27

Davies’ conclusion comes as no surprise. I cover this phenomenon in great detail in this project, setting up possible motivation for the trip through this typical behavior of men of this socio-economic class and period. However, I disagree with the authors claim that the

Sherley voyage had no impact, which I aim to prove in this thesis. The existing scholarship on the Sherleys alone, outside of either diplomatic or trade-related voyages

27 Schwartz, “Sherleys and the Shah,” 79; see also, Davies, Elizabethans Errant, 285.

15 between Europe and the Persian empire, proves that the Sherleys were more than simply a demonstration of Elizabethan-age self-fashioning to an extreme. If this were the case, the Sherleian adventures would have died out with the age of exploration. The Sherleys represent so much more.

In 2011, Sanjay Subrahmanyam wrote Three Ways to be Alien, which explores the adventures of the Sherley brothers Anthony and Robert, although the subject of only one chapter contains the Sherleys. Subrahmanyam’s work examines the problem of “[h]ow to reconcile the manner in which individuals were inclined to articulate and justify their actions as individuals, and their larger sense of the momentum of a grand structure such as a state or nascent empire.”28 His writings, which also include his 2012 book Courtly

Encounters: Translating Courtliness and Violence in Early Modern Eurasia, tend to focus on cross-cultural themes between Europe and the region known as the Orient, and how each regions discourse, through its own culture, affects the interpretation of the other’s society and culture. Looking at this reasoning behind why the Sherleys took the trek to the Safavid Empire makes the book a valuable modern resource, not only for the information on the Sherleys, but also for analysis of the political and economic motivation for adventuring during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries between

Europe and the Orient. However, Subramanyam misses the diplomatic and economic ramifications of the meeting between the shah and the Sherleys, a niche this thesis will fill.

28 Sanjay Subramanyam, Three Ways to be Alien: Travails and Encounters in the Early Modern World, (Waltham, Mass.: Brandeis University Press, 2011) 76.

16

Ralf Hertel examines the motivation of the Sherleys and Shah Abbas I in his chapter “Ousting the Ottomans: The Double Vision of the East in The Travels of the

Three English Brothers (1607)” in the book Early Modern Encounters with the Islamic

East. Using much of the same primary and secondary source material as found within this project, Hertel asserts that the story of the Sherleys, the motivation of England and the desire of the Shah, played out on the London stage in the 1607 production “The Three

Brothers,” showed a specific form of stereotyping that predated Orientalism introduced and discussed by Edward Said in his 1979 publication.29 Said’s definition encompasses a broader generalization of post-civil rights Orientalism, where “Us” versus “Them” takes on a different meaning in the burgeoning individualistic realization taking place worldwide during the 1960s and 1970s on the heels of the post-colonial concept of nationalism and the nation-state. But this concept existed long before Said put an official name to it, and it reads clearly on the pages of the Sherleian primary source material. In

Orientalism, Said talks specifically about both the fear and fascination which Europe held, as well as currently holds, the Near East.30 In Hertel’s interpretation of the play, he talks about both fear and fascination within the stereotyped descriptions, both European and Middle Eastern.

In an attempt to distinguish it from Said’s Orientalism, Hertel instead draws more of a line between his publication and Said’s, creating a part of the foundation for the later

29 Ralf Hertel, “Ousting the Ottomans: The Double Vision of the East in The Travels of the Three English Brothers (1607),” in Early Modern Encounters with the Islamic East: Performing Cultures, (Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2012), 138-139.

30 Edward Said. Orientalism, (New York: Vintage Books, 1979), 41-49, for the definition and scope of Orientalism.

17 definition of the concept to which Said put a name. The Ottoman Turk, the Italian, the

Spaniard, all of these stereotypes fell under the term “Other” in the eyes of the English

Sherleys, fiercely loyal to the English crown and their own sense of importance. Yet the

Ottomans still took center stage in this chapter as the representatives of Islam, of a barbaric civilization that needed to be brought up to Western standards, which mirrored

Anthony Sherley’s own writings as well as the anti-Ottoman sentiment prevalent during the seventeenth century, making this chapter valuable as a contemporary perspective of the fear and fascination of the “orientals” played out on a European Renaissance stage.31

It also contradicts this project in its interpretation of the “Other,” in that Hertel attempts to separate the Sherleys from Orientalism as defined by Said, making the Sherleian voyage nothing more than a blip in the history of diplomacy between Europe and the

Middle East, while this project highlights the significance of the Sherley’s interaction with Shah Abbas I.

A chapter in the recent publication The Fascination of Persia: The Persian-

European Dialogue titled “The Sherleys and the Shah: Persia as the Stakes in a Rogue’s

Gambit” by scholar Gary Schwartz explores the darker side of Sir Anthony Sherley and the Persian voyage, emphasizing Anthony’s selfish reason for the trip to the Safavid

Empire, and how that affected the discourse between these European travelers and the

Safavid state. Stating that Sir Anthony appeared to be nothing but a narcissist with delusions of grandeur, Schwartz paints a picture of a gentleman adventurer from

Elizabeth’s court more self-absorbed than any other, affecting the interactions with Persia

31 Hertel, “Ousting the Ottomans,” 138.

18

on behalf of England the most.32 Yet, Schwartz does not appear to recognize that this narcissistic view of oneself happened more as a necessity for survival as a noble within the courts of Europe, coming from a combination of training through education and family status and survival within the court of Europe. This common mindset formed the foundation for the concept of Renaissance self-fashioning later introduced by Stephen

Greenblatt in 1980, which comes from the notion of fashioning oneself, “com[ing] into wide currency as a way of designating the forming of a self.”33 According to Greenblatt,

“self-fashioning acquires a new range of meanings: it describes the practice of parents and teachers; it is linked to manners or demeanor, particularly that of the elite; it may suggest hypocrisy or deception…”34 Not a single one of Elizabeth’s courtiers could be said to be completely free of narcissism and ego, having learned it from an early age.

While it drove some to both competition and collusion among compatriots of the court, it also drove others into warfare, murder and treason, all in the name of advancing oneself, one’s family and one’s ambitions.

The courts of Europe–and subsequently the families who supplied the nobles for these courts–bred this ambition into those participating within the sphere of crown influence, as this project aims to show. While Sir Anthony may have played the role a little too well (and a little too much to his favor), those who might profit from this reputation and attitude certainly took notice of his reputation and demeanor. One such

32 Gary Schwartz, “Sherleys and the Shah,” 78-79.

33 Stephen Greenblatt, Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 2.

34 Greenblatt, Self-Fashioning, 3.

19 person was Shah Abbas I who, as this project aims to show, proved to be a shrewd and progressive leader, who utilized the Sherley’s narcissistic and egotistical reputation to his advantage.

Renaissance self-fashioning meant an attempt at individualism and finding oneself at a time when individualism did not specifically exist, not to the extent that one thinks of when speaking of “self” in a modern, post-Civil Rights context. The social, religious and economic constructs of the Middle Ages kept people in rigidly defined roles within their cultures, working only to the benefit of the community and for God and

Christianity. According to St. Augustine, who influenced medieval religious thinking,

“[h]ands off yourself. Try to build up yourself, and you build a ruin.”35 The self- fashioning done during the Renaissance, the specific paradigm shift identified by

Greenblatt, acted opposite that thinking, and was a defining characteristic of this particular time period. Critics of the publication itself, such as Jonathan Goldberg, state that the term “Renaissance Self-Fashioning,” like the term Renaissance itself, coined by

Jacob Burckhardt for modern usage, is “impure,” unable to be truly defined in a sixteenth century context because the creation of individual is a nineteenth century concept.36 Yet, even the critics cannot ignore the fact that this term more than adequately identifies and defines a concept, a paradigm shift occurring, that separated out the Renaissance from earlier time periods.

35 Greenblatt, Renaissance Self-Fashioning, 2.

36 Jonathan Goldberg, “Review of Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare,” in MLN, Vol. 96, No. 5, Comparative Literature, (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981), 1201.

20

For early modern and modern historians studying Elizabethan and Jacobean

England, as well as the rest of Europe, pointing out character flaws as an argument to lessen the impact of people and events is easy to do. Because we now possess the terms and definitions that identify those character flaws and issues in a modern context and landscape, such as Renaissance self-fashioning and Orientalism, they offer a deeper analysis. Analysis of any nobleman in a Renaissance European court in social and cultural context, as opposed to economic, political and religious, reveals the very nature that allowed said nobleman to not only survive, but thrive within the atmosphere, as well as how that very reputation and attitude could be, and was, used by adept leaders to further their own causes. This project fits into current scholarship on the Sherleys within the greater Renaissance European stage in relations to other noblemen, merchants and travelers, by highlighting that very attitude other historians react negatively to and making it a positive, or at least the norm, in terms of what they accomplished in relation to diplomacy with the Safavid Persian Empire and Shah Abbas I.

Methodology

The methodology I employ on this project consists of a structural analysis of every party who had a goal in mind when confronted with an endeavor like the second and third sons of a minor English noble travelling to the Orient, and then returning to

Europe on behalf of a foreign government. The players involved include England, the

Sherleys, and the Safavid Persian Empire. The structural analysis also examines the goals of England and the Safavid Persian Empire based on the governmental, cultural and socio-economic foundational structures of each state and how its apparent fluidity as major reforms took place affected these structures, and how individual players–Elizabeth

21 and James, Shah Abbas I and the Sherleys–contributed. This project focuses primarily on the Sherleys’ influence on the politics and economy of the sixteenth and seventeenth century in both Europe and the Safavid Persian Empire, while at the same time analyzing what both England and Shah Abbas gained through this influence. It contextualizes what the Sherleys completed in the competing nexus of the time by looking at the goals achieved by all parties from the outside in.

I also employ a discourse analysis in the chapter on travel writing, examining from the inside out at the context of the Sherleys and their retainers within the genre of travel writing. The analysis is completed by analyzing how travel writing, both by the

Sherleys and others, framed the discourse between the Sherleys and with whomever they interacted, including both England and the Safavid Persian Empire. I look at this as both an entertaining travel narrative that shaped the Renaissance perception of the Orient and its inhabitants, as well as propaganda that influenced not only other travel writers, but also the education of other nobles and merchants in Europe through the Oriental Studies prevalent in European universities during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. This particular section also engages the European readers of travel writing as a fourth “player” with their own goals to achieve. Viewing it from this angle highlights the impact that travel writing as a genre had on European studies, as well as on European courts and governments’ foreign policy, trade and diplomacy. It also shows the specific impact of the Sherleys’ writings from another angle, particularly their influence on both European readers and other travel writers, in comparison to the influence of the voyage itself on both English and Persian diplomacy, trade and foreign policy covered in the chapter on the Sherleys.

22

I also run both of these analyses through the conceptual lenses of Renaissance self-fashioning defined by Greenblatt in 1980, as well as Said’s definition of Orientalism introduced in 1978, defined in an earlier section. I use both concepts to underline established biases in both Renaissance Europe and the Safavid Persian Empire; while these concepts were employed more in Renaissance Europe, there appears to be evidence that Shah Abbas I knew of European nobles and merchants using them, even if he could not put names to them.37 The shah utilized his knowledge of how these concepts affected the discourse between Muslim regions and European inhabitants, as will be demonstrated in Chapter Four.

Central Questions and Thesis Statement

What did the parties involved in this particular exchange hope to gain through the relationship they created between and with one another, and how did this relationship impact trade, specifically the silk trade, and diplomatic relations among the Persian

Empire and England and other European countries? Each individual–or individual state– possessed its own motivation for initiating and maintaining the relationship between

Persia and England; England though Elizabeth I and James I respectively, the Sherley brothers and their personal reputations, and Persia as represented by Shah Abbas I. My project aims to explore the diplomatic and economic impact of this relationship between

England and Persia in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and its effect on the rest of

Europe and the Middle East. Examining how each party framed the discourse to their advantage, manipulating what appears to be just another commercial venture into

37 Matthee, “Aloofness and Fascination,” 228-229.

23 something more significant, this study explores why the Sherley brothers thought a rather improbable economic exploration and diplomatic overture would increase their value to anyone who could provide them with both income and improvement to reputation, and the fact that it did. It also examines why this particular event acted as catalyst opening the floodgates for changes in the degree of diplomatic and economic involvement between

Europe and the Middle East, and the extent of these changes, long after the fall of the

Safavid Empire.

Anthony and Robert Sherley made the connection with the Safavid Empire not only to gain income from opening a wider avenue to the highly valued Persian silk trade through Europe, but also seek out and maintain economic relations and power to increase their value to the crown of England, leading to greater personal advantage through the concept of Renaissance self-fashioning. At least, this appeared to be their primary motivation at the beginning of their journey, and that alone would have been considered success for these two English knights. Yet both England and Persia had their own definitions of success in a venture like this. England desired alternate avenues of income to put itself on a more equal level economically with other major European countries in the wake of political gains, such as the defeat of the Spanish armada, and later desired cultural ties with a variety of different countries and regions with an eye on expansion of empire. Persia wanted to establish independent economic relationships with European countries, avoiding dependence on the Ottoman Empire to broker Persia’s trade and diplomacy that had been stifling their silk trade to Europe since the mid-fifteenth century.

Neither party appeared to seek diplomatic ties specifically at this first meeting; however, due to the individual desires of both the Sherleys and the shah, as well as the implied

24 consent of major governments and monarchies throughout Europe, together they wound up effecting change in the role of diplomacy between Europe and the Middle East.

Modern scholars of the Sherleys and early modern England appear to discredit the

Sherleys, minimizing the significance of their Persian voyage and subsequent return into

Europe on behalf of the Persian Empire. Some go so far as to blame any perceived success of the Sherleys, defined later in this chapter, on nothing more than Sir Anthony’s reputation for being overbearing, manipulative and egotistical, and that this reputation actually separated him from similar men of distinction during the same time period.38

Recent Safavid scholars dismiss the Sherleys altogether from Persian history, claiming

Shah Abbas I’s economic reforms led to unequaled success in diplomacy and trade through the other reigns of Safavid shahs, and that the Sherleys actually contributed little to it. They were merely two of the many European courtiers and merchants who the shah made use of to further his reforms and improvements.39 In this project, I aim to show that the attitude of the Sherleys was a common one, a product of the very life they led, and, to as much of an extent as possible, that Shah Abbas I knew of this attitude and what purpose it served in the survival of European courts, and then used it to serve his own ends, which ultimately assisted in successfully employing those economic and trade reforms.

What actually defined the achievement of the goal of the Sherley’s voyage to and from the Safavid Persian Empire; how significant an effect did this endeavor actually

38 E. Dennison Ross, Sir Anthony Sherley and His Persian Adventure, (London: Routeldge, 1825), 57; see also, Penrose, Sherleian Odyssey, 244-245 and Davies, Elizabethans Errant, 285-286. 39 Matthee, Silk for Silver, 81-83.

25 have on each party involved? According to the Sherleys, particularly Sir Anthony, it achieved the reclamation of a reputation that equaled his ego, one that showcased his abilities in person as a diplomat on behalf of Shah Abbas I to the European courts, thus leading to sources of income to make up the lost family fortune. To England, achieving a goal economically and diplomatically here meant a direct source of goods and revenue from Persia, which played a large part in the expansion of the British East India Trading

Company in the seventeenth century farther east than the Mediterranean. Shah Abbas I defined this achievement as the implementation of his trade, foreign policy and military reforms, especially as they helped eliminate his major competitor, the Ottoman Empire and Sultan Suleiman, as acting middleman for Persian silk exported into Europe. What actually constituted achievement of the goal for the purposes of this project, however, was that the Sherleys, with their orientalist viewpoint, their European education, and their desire to improve reputation, opened a door for Shah Abbas I to reach Europe in a way he would not have been able to had the Sherleys not taken the voyage in the first place. This also serves to demonstrate the extent of the effect these English knights had on diplomacy between the Persian empire and Europe, paving the way for the shah’s economic and trade reforms to flourish.

As the Sherleys were swallowed up in the entourage of Shah Abbas I under his escort into Qazvin, their writings show that they assumed their European–and English– superiority under the concept of Renaissance self-fashioning, buttressed by their Oriental

Studies, enabled them to interact with the Persian shah to ultimately add polish to their reputation and a potential revenue stream, for just simply completing the trek. Shah

Abbas I understood this context even prior to the meeting, having dealt with other

26

Europeans, merchants and nobles alike, becoming acquainted with the Sherley’s reputation which preceded them. These two parties, the Sherleys and the shah, appeared to have used the perception and stereotype of the other’s culture and society–European

“orientalism” versus Safavid aloofness and fascination–along with an attitude of

European superiority, civility and advancement--brought to life with the concept of

Renaissance self-fashioning--to their advantage, whether in relations between each other, or with other countries in Europe or the Islamic empires. My project aims to show that by doing this, both cultures succeeded in initiating a change in the discourse of commerce and diplomacy between Asia and the West that would echo even today.

Organization

This study examines cross-cultural trade and diplomacy during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries–a period defined later as the Renaissance or early modern era– between two vastly different regions, and because of this, covers quite a bit of ground involving Europe represented by England and the Sherley brothers, and the Safavid

Persian Empire represented by Shah Abbas I, with background on both locations and surrounding regions. The introduction puts the writing of the Sherleys into the context of the current scholarship. This includes historians’ analyses of the Sherleys specifically, from the initial primary source publications of Sir Anthony and the gentlemen who accompanied him, through recent publications on the Sherley voyage and their perceived impact on social and cultural relations between Europe and southwest Asia. The introduction also includes methodology, which introduces the structural and literary analyses of the material, as well as the conceptual lenses of Orientalism and Renaissance self-fashioning, and how they influence the current scholarship and my project.

27

Chapter One discusses the background and atmosphere of England, the home of the Sherley brothers. It shows how the government policies, particularly those of economics and diplomacy, affected not only the goal of the English court itself, but also the outcome of the Sherleys voyage to the Safavid Empire, which in turn affected the discourse between England and Persia. This chapter focuses on diplomacy and trade, as well as English policy that would affect the outcome that the Sherleys experienced.

Chapter One also shows how Renaissance self-fashioning and Orientalism affected how the Orient was viewed by European travelers, and how this may have affected the discourse between Europe and Southwest Asia. It ends in a comparison of the two states, and how their similarities, and even differences, made this sort of interaction possible.

Chapter Two analyzes the Sherleys themselves and their personal motivation for this voyage. Using both the primary source material of Sir Anthony’s and his retainers’ publications, as well as secondary sources on the Sherley family, this chapter looks at the

Sherleys and their background, incorporating in the atmosphere of the English court, as well as their education, to paint a more complete picture of who the Sherleys were and why they made the voyage. It discusses European higher education, and the affect it had on how regions outside Europe were viewed. It also briefly explores the return of the

Sherleys, mainly Sir Anthony, to Europe as agents of Shah Abbas I of the Safavid Empire and what Anthony’s, and later Robert’s, motivation might have been for acting on behalf of the shah. Chapter Two shows how the concepts of Renaissance self-fashioning and

Orientalism worked within the Sherleian voyage to Persia to initially frame the discourse between European travelers and the Oriental territories they explored and then how they affected the shift in the diplomatic discourse after the return of the Sherleys to Europe.

28

Chapter Three introduces and defines the genre of travel writing, and its overall impact on future travel writing within Europe during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, creating another layer of analysis of the major players in this thesis. This chapter examines travel writing from the Middle Ages into the era of colonialism and post-colonialism, to briefly show how the propaganda and the illustrative descriptions of the genre affected imperial expansion as well as post-colonial nationalism, which in turn emphasizes the effect of narratives like the Sherleys into modernity. It analyzes the place the Sherleys occupied within that genre and also explores the impact the Sherleys themselves had within the overall genre of travel writing, both on other travel writers, as well as travelers to the Orient who may have been following in the Sherleys’ footsteps.

Chapter Four flips the viewpoint of the study to that of the Safavid Empire and the

Persian Shah Abbas I. Utilizing secondary source material, this chapter outlines the background of Shah Abbas and the Safavid Empire as a whole, to examine the effect

Shah Abbas I’s reign had on Persia. It then focuses on the shah’s foreign policy and economic reforms as he looked for alternate trade routes to export Persian silk to Europe and the tumultuous history between the Persian and Ottoman Empires. This chapter also analyzes the effect of Orientalism on Asian societies, particularly Shah Abbas I’s awareness of European constructions of Persia, and how he used it to benefit his own goals, such as sending the Sherleys back to Europe to further his diplomatic policy. The conclusion then wraps up the Sherleian odyssey and its effect on relations between Persia and Europe, particularly England. It covers the concepts of Renaissance self-fashioning and Orientalism and their role in not only the Sherley’s voyage, but also the interactions

29 between England and the Safavid Persian Empire, and then expanding into relations between Europe and southwest Asia, rounding out the project.

The goal of this thesis is to show the significance of the impact of the Sherleian voyage on both European and Safavid Persian diplomatic and economic history of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. I will accomplish this through analysis of the goals of England and the Safavid Empire based on governmental, cultural and socio-economic structures of each state and how the apparent fluidity as major reforms took place affected these structures, along with how each individual player–Elizabeth and James,

Shah Abbas I and the Sherleys–contributed to these effects. I aim to present an alternative view of the impact of the Sherleian voyages that differs from the current scholarship. To do so, I will provide evidence through analysis of both primary and secondary source material, focusing on the economic and diplomatic history of England and the Safavid Empire, as well as both narrative and academic analysis of the Sherleys. I include a literary analysis of the Sherleian travel writing, to argue that these narratives fit within various domains of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, such as politics, religion, trade and foreign policy. This serves to present a look from the inside of the

Sherleain writing outward to its effect on European readers, in comparison to their contemporaries’ writings. In doing so, it adds the goals of the European reader to those of the other three “players” involved; England, the Sherlsys and the shah. I also utilize the concepts of Renaissance self-fashioning and Orientalism, defined earlier in this chapter, to add another layer to my analysis of the Sherley’s voyage and subsequent employment as diplomats in Europe for the shah. Overall, this project aims to argue that, due to the combined goals of the major players, the Sherleian voyage significantly

30 impacted not only the economic and diplomatic policy of England and the Safavid

Empire, but also diplomacy between the Islamic empires and Europe that continued into the modern era.

31

CHAPTER 1

POWER ON THE EDGE OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD: THE STATE OF THE MONARCHY IN ENGLAND, 1599-1619

The last of the European nations to shake off the strict political and social structures of the feudal Middle Ages with the end of the War of the Roses and the start of the Tudor era, England struggled to keep up with its fellow European nations in terms of politics, religion and trade throughout the sixteenth century. At Elizabeth’s ascension to the throne, England, tired of the religious upheaval and political games of the previous two monarchs, wished for nothing more than a period of peace and prosperity. England got exactly what it asked for, too–considered the “Golden Age” of early modern England, the Elizabethan era lasted from 1558 to 1603, with Elizabeth lauded as the savior of a weak and impoverished nation.1 Elizabeth’s unwillingness to marry and produce an heir to the English throne, her reinstatement of the Protestant faith from her sister Mary’s fanatical Catholicism, as well as her desire to “not make windows into men’s souls” through her lack of forced conversion to the Church of England, contributed to civil unrest throughout the sixteenth century. This opened the door for disaffected Catholics to attempt treasonous plots and assassination, plaguing Elizabeth throughout her reign,

1 Allison Weir, The Life of Elizabeth I, (New York: Ballantine Books, 1998), 2-3; see also, R. B. Wernham, The Making of Elizabethan Foreign Policy, 1558-1603, (Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1980), 2-3, on the Elizabethan state in comparison to others on the European continent, particularly France and Spain.

32 which affected Elizabethan politics. Elizabeth still managed to unite most of the country politically, economically and religiously under a carefully crafted government consisting of a number of men with different philosophies, such as Sir Francis Walsingham and

William Cecil, Lord Burghley. These men made significant contributions to the rapidly expanding world trade system and diplomacy through her foreign policy, aided by the upwardly mobile noblemen of her court, known in this project as her Gentlemen

Adventurers, who will be described later on in this chapter. When her reign ended with her death in 1603, Elizabeth had established a far wealthier and more prosperous country than she had inherited, a kingdom inspiring pride in those fortunate enough to call themselves English subjects, which in turn inspired those subjects to attempt to keep on the forefront of European expansion and improvement through trade and foreign policy.

James I of England maintained much of the economic structure of the Elizabethan government during the first part of his reign, guided with help from trusted former council members of Elizabeths. As a child, and later James VI of Scotland, the regent governing Scotland hired tutors to educate him extensively in governorship, language, finance and politics that equated with the education of princes throughout Europe.2 This, along with rocky early years on the Scottish throne punctuated by treasonous plots and kidnappings, shaped his approach to state policy in England and enabled him to continue building on what Elizabeth started. He also continued Elizabeth’s diplomatic outreach and foreign policy, although his interaction with ambassadors and diplomats was indifferent at best. For example, the Treaty of London, which earned James the title of

2 G.P.V Akrigg, Jacobean Pageant: or The Court of King James I, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1962), 7-8.

33

“Rex Pacificus,” or the Peaceful King, ended the animosity between Spain and England which saw its peak during the 1588 attempted invasion of England by the Spanish

Armada, a “once and for all” situation to bring England to heel under Catholic rule. This treaty was attributed to James initially, although he had little to do with the actual negotiations of the treaty itself, and James himself seemed unsure how he gained the

“Rex Pacificus” title.3 Yet, like Elizabeth, he recognized the need to maintain good relationships with foreign embassies, particularly in the interest of trade, expanding his diplomatic network and interests. This included receiving Robert Sherley and entertaining the notion of sending him back with a full embassy, although James died before the order was officially given. His heir, Charles, wound up bankrupt and dealing with a civil war that would last almost three decades, so was unable to continue his father’s momentum into his reign, resulting in the loss of the English throne to

Hanoverian claimants. At this point, though, English diplomacy was well established, particularly with territories and empires along the Silk Road, both overland and by sea, due in part to the diplomatic efforts by the Sherleys, England and the Safavid Persian

Empire.

As one of the main players in this thesis, England certainly had its own goals in an endeavor of the magnitude of the Sherley’s voyage to Persia. This chapter delves deeper into the specific economic and diplomatic structures that Elizabeth created and

James improved upon to make the Sherleian voyages not only possible but profitable. It

3 Pauline Croft, “Rex Pacificus, Robert Cecil, and the 1604 Peace with Spain,” in The Accession of James I: Historical and Cultural Consequences, Glenn Burgess, Rowland Wymer and Jason Lawrence, ed., (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), 140-141.

34 looks at the motivation behind English desire to back more expeditions to the Persian empire as word of the Sherleys diplomatic and economic exploits reached the ears of both

English monarchs during their respective reigns. This chapter also shows how the goals of the English crown and government, in regards to the Sherleys and their voyage, shifted in the wake of the Sherleys’ return to Europe on behalf of the shah. As Sir Anthony made his way back to European courts from the Persian empire as a representative from the court of Shah Abbas I, England could no longer afford to ignore the effect the

Sherleys had on both European trade and diplomacy, which in turn affected English foreign policy. But to what extent did the Sherleian voyage impact English foreign policy, trade and diplomacy? To understand that further, I start with a brief discussion of the foundation of diplomacy in Europe from its formal inception to its role in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Diplomacy and Renaissance Europe

Europe in the sixteenth century saw interaction between countries and empires change from the widespread conquering and conversion through battles and crusades of the Middle Ages to more dignified and less brutal interactions involving official diplomatic envoys and trade relations between merchants, nobles and government officials. Diplomacy existed in various forms after the “barbarity” of the crusades between Latin Christendom and Islam, but developed into the more modern, permanent diplomacy during the Italian Renaissance. The network of principalities and city-states formed in Italy in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in the wake of the collapse of the

Roman Empire, along with the lack of success of the Germanic invaders and settlers in the sixth century CE to revive the Roman way of life, offered opportunity for this kind of

35 diplomacy to flourish, before it traveled west starting in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.4 When the Sherleys made their voyage to Persia, ambassadors on diplomatic missions operated among European countries as well as between Latin Christendom and the “oriental” countries of the Near East, India and, in limited capacity, China and the southwest Asian territories.5

While interactions along trade routes and within and between states occurred for years prior to the Middle Ages, the legal framework for diplomacy in its modern form originated in Italy in the 1300s through trade agreements made between merchants and the regions, states and empires with whom they desired to do business due to the need for imports and exports of trade goods. After the splitting of Italy into many principalities with different governmental styles, along the extensive guild systems of artisans and merchants of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, networks of officials moved between these principalities to collaborate with governments and guilds, and oversee trade and even law, in terms of ecclesiastical courts.6 This pattern of merchants and nobles acting in official and unofficial capacity as representatives of the crown continued as trade expanded from Europe and the Mediterranean to new lands and regions. These included the New World of the Americas to the west and the Orient to the east. Imports, exports, and investments in trade goods and transportation had the potential to make or break a

4 Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy, 55-57, 123, and 17 for the origins of the legal framework for diplomacy.

5 Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy, 233-239 and 255; see also, Wernham, Making of, 86-87, on the extent of trade throughout these regions, one of Elizabeth’s policies on diplomatic involvement with other countries.

6 Mattingly, Diplomacy, 18-25.

36 state, kingdom or empire’s economy. Often, governments would use differing machinations of state and civil conflicts as excuses to not engage in diplomacy with certain governments. Both England and the Safavid Empire experienced this form of boycott during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and it certainly affected their own foreign policy and trade in various ways.

Religion played a major role in diplomacy as well, in some cases to enhance it, while in other cases to prevent it. In Italy, Rome and the headquarters of the Pope acted as the “jousting field” of training for diplomats and ambassadors, first within Italy, and then with the rest of Europe.7 As Lutheran Protestantism gained traction within Europe, religion also became the dividing line for diplomacy, affecting trade at times as well.

Regions of the world that appeared “heretical” to the Pope either became targets for potential invasion or conversion, or were shunned altogether with no diplomatic involvement on either side, and in some cases slowed and even stopped trade from coming in and out of that country, with embargos being placed on goods. A prime example of this involved the excommunication of Elizabeth, the “heretic” queen, and her interaction with Catholic kingdoms. Embassies from principalities in Italy refused to visit until the end of her reign, and only because England’s fleet, commanded by one of her Gentlemen Adventurers, interfered with Italian shipping in the Mediterranean.8

Venice and Istanbul each provide another example of religion’s role in diplomacy.

The religion targeted in this case was Jewish. In both Venice and Istanbul, Jews resided

7 Mattingly, Diplomacy, 106.

8 Anna Whitelock, The Queen’s Bed: An Intimate History of Elizabeth’s Court, (New York: Picador, 2013), 334.

37 in ghettos. The place they came from classified where they lived; the Levantine Jews, descended from the exiled Jews from Spain and Portugal, lived together, as did German

Jews from the Low Countries. Historically persecuted for their religion, Jews were nonetheless accomplished at business and trade, and thus played an important role in the creation of diplomacy between the “civility” of Europe and the “barbarity” of the Islamic empires. Since each city was seen as a hub of trade and diplomacy within the

Mediterranean, and thus the gateway to either Europe or the Orient, each city had a guild of Jewish brokers who determined those given permission to conduct business either within the Ottoman Empire or throughout the principalities of Italy, acting as intermediaries between elite merchants and political and social elite.9 The Sherleys themselves played a similar part as the Jews, as cultural brokers between two regions historically at odds with one another when returning to Europe from the Safavid Empire.

Although the Sherleys’ roles differed from the Jews because of their European culture and education as non-Jews, they both had similar goals in brokering agreements to benefit not only their respective parties, but themselves as well. In the Jews’ case, it was profit and keeping them in the good graces of the government officials. The Sherley side will be explored in a later chapter. In both cases, the Jews’ and Sherleys’ roles and personal goals affected the state goals and policies of the respective governments they each represented as brokers, such as the English goals explored herein.

The concept of Renaissance self-fashioning also played a role in European diplomacy. The Sherleys themselves engaged in self-fashioning; most men (and some

9 E. Natalie Rothman, Brokering Empire; Trans-Imperial Subjects Between Venice and Istanbul, (London: Cornell University Press, 2012), 49-53.

38 women) who could improve their station in life, such as the Sherleys born the second and third sons of a minor nobleman, participated in Renaissance self-fashioning. Introduced by Stephen Greenblatt in 1980, the concept describes the motivation behind the desire for upward mobility of most social classes starting in Italy in the fourteenth century, spreading westward with the Renaissance as European governments moved away from the feudal system of the Middle Ages. Self-fashioning acted as a means by which

European men, primarily nobles and the wealthy (although it affected most classes) promoted themselves to improve reputation, which in turn opened the door to the possibility of gaining a better name for their family through a better position, more revenue, or the potential for sponsorship for or investment in a venture. This usually occurred through some sort of need through outside stimuli. People did not find it necessary to “self-fashion” when not in the presence of the great or powerful.10 During the Middle Ages, the position one found himself in medieval Europe was ordained by

God, and so one did not seek to improve oneself or his standing in life, rather to be the best person within the station that God afforded him. This changed with a workers’ revolt against labor conditions in Florence in 1378, the Ciompi Revolt, which in turn contributed to the shift of the political discourse from the feudal power structure to one with more social classes and the opportunity for upward mobility.11

10 On the definition of Renaissance self-fashioning and the conditions under which it was applied, see Greenblatt, Renaissance Self-Fashioning, 7-9; for another look at the Renaissance self-fashioning interpretation, see also, Brotton, Renaissance Bazaar, 29-31.

11 Mattingly, Diplomacy, 55-63.

39

This also changed the structure of government, giving birth to the principalities of

Italy, and inspiring other workers on the lowest rung of the social scale to revolt against unfair labor practices and the greed of the lords, sanctioned by the church, spreading west into the Low Countries, France and Spain. Greenblatt does acknowledge that self- fashioning, on its darker side, also happened to people practicing it as a result of societal and cultural influence, such as familial position, economy, religion, or politics, whether or not they realized it. In order to even survive within the circumstances one found himself in, one needed to affect an air of success and upward mobility, or could lose out on opportunity, one’s livelihood, or even one’s life.12 If one pushed too hard in seeking upward mobility in a European court, it often resulted in lengthy imprisonment or even death; anyone who went up against the throne and dared to touch the scepter of royalty often found his head on the block, as the Duke of Norfolk and the Earl of Essex each discovered to the detriment of their lives.

The very definition of the term “Renaissance” has been a source of debate since its inception in the mid-nineteenth century. Renaissance as not only a time period, but a concept which gave birth to the current name and concept of regions of the world, such as

Europe, the Middle East–or “Orient”–and the “New World” of North America, which was discovered (or conquered, depending on which historian one follows) during the fifteenth century, one of the main periods of the Renaissance.13 French historian Jules

Michelet provided the first use of the term Renaissance in its French translation of

12 On the dark side of self-fashioning in what Greenblatt discovered in his research, see Greenblatt, Renaissance Self-Fashioning, 256.

13 Brotton, Renaissance Bazaar, 20-29.

40

“rebirth,” although as a French nationalist fighting the last of the revolution from the sidelines, he believed that the Renaissance didn’t start in Italy as other historians do, but rather started in France in the fifteenth century. While the Italian term “rinascita”

(meaning “rebirth”) was used during the sixteenth century to describe a new art style– which explains why many historians believe Italy to be the birthplace of the

Renaissance–European residents never would have mentioned this term specifically while experiencing this phenomenon during the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries.14

This also creates a clear line between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, seeing the

Renaissance as the “rebirth” of the modern time period and the modern man, which I also believe to be the contribution of the Renaissance. In this study, I use the more common periodization and definition of the Renaissance starting in the thirteenth century up until the seventeenth century. This Renaissance–or rebirth–finally reached England with the marriage of Katherine of Aragon and her marriage to Prince Arthur Tudor. Connecting

England to one of the major Catholic powers of Europe made this small, rather insular island kingdom aware of a larger world it now suddenly had the desire to belong to.15

Lives and Policies of Elizabeth I and James I

Lady Elizabeth Tudor survived a very turbulent childhood, one that, unbeknownst to her at the time, would shape her reign and her governing style of England. She found herself subject to the whims of not only her father, Henry VIII, but also her brother and sister as they took over the throne in succession. She spent many years away from court

14 Brotton, Renaissance Bazaar, 20-22.

15 Weir, Elizabeth I, 9; see also, Jardine, “Gloriana,” 213.

41 as one of the king’s bastard daughters during her father’s reign due to his anger and hatred of her mother, Anne Boleyn; even after she ascended the English throne, she only spoke of her mother a handful of times, although Elizabeth’s relatives on her mother’s side of the family often received special treatment and benefits.16 She lived with Henry’s fifth wife, Katherine Parr, after his death, but was removed to another household at

Chestnut, Hertfordshire in 1548 under the suspicion of being “loose” with King Edward’s uncle and Katherine’s husband, Thomas Seymore.17 Elizabeth also feared for her own life during this time, which, after learning of how her mother died, appeared to have an effect on how she saw marriage and colored her dealings with men. This in turn influenced her entire rule, including foreign policy, trade and diplomacy. Like James would learn after his own troubled childhood full of kidnappings and attempted treason,

Elizabeth also learned how to dissemble, to present her “answer-answerless” so as to keep everyone around her satisfied and make them think she agreed with them, or that a disagreement was not something she desired, yet was required to keep the peace within the English government.

When she ascended the throne as Queen Elizabeth I in November of 1558,

Elizabeth played this dissembling out on the world stage, shaping her politics, religion, and foreign policy in particular. As the monarch, she was charged with care of a country still broken and bleeding from the extreme Catholic rule of her sister, Queen Mary, and her brother-in-law, King Philip of Spain. During her reign, Elizabeth reinstituted the

16 Whitelock, Queen’s Bed, 12.

17 Whitelock, Queen’s Bed, 2; see also, Weir, Elizabeth I, 15.

42

Protestant faith under the Church of England her father started after marrying her mother, making Elizabeth the head of the church and the Defender of the Faith, a title English monarchs still use today. This stringent adherence to the Protestant faith also laid the primary foundation for Elizabeth’s heir to the throne, James VI of Scotland. However, religion became the focal point for many conflicts with other countries throughout

Europe, particularly the two other major powers of France and Spain, affecting diplomatic relations – as well as trade at times – between England and non-Protestant countries.18 The threat of assassination of a Protestant Queen and the invasion of

Catholic powers, all with the Pope’s blessing, hung over England for most of Elizabeth’s reign. Thus, Elizabeth’s council spent a good portion of her time on the throne attempting to convince her that marriage, and the production of an heir or two, would benefit England the most. 19

But Elizabeth had other ideas; many years of stringing along suitors to make it appear that she desired a marriage, yet maintaining a single state, thus enabling involvement with many countries at once. Some evidence shows her using her ladies and gentlewomen of her chamber, as well as members of her Council and her inner circle of favorites, as pawns in this game, sending out rumors from her privy chamber about this suitor or that being the current favorite.20 This all meant a big balancing act for the Queen

18 Malcolm R. Thorp, “Catholic Conspiracy in Early Elizabethan Foreign Policy,” in The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 15, No. 4, (Missouri: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, Inc, 1984), 431; see also, Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy, 166, on “opposing ideologies…distort[ing] the lines of policy” that form the background for issues of religion and politics influencing diplomacy and foreign policy.

19 Weir, Elizabeth I, 40, 43-49.

20 “And (Chapuys) was the first to develop systemically another source: the friends of the Queen…” Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy, 245; “…Elizabeth’s bedchamber was barred on the basis of gender.

43 and her government, yet it created a major part of English diplomacy; juggling different foreign suitors, making each one think they might marry Elizabeth, while at the same time attempting to gain and maintain viable trade and diplomatic connections with the governments of these suitors, connections that would not crumble when the marriage negotiations stopped. This in turn affected the merchants, noblemen and Gentlemen

Adventurers involved in trade and diplomacy. These were the men acting on her behalf, the face of England–considering many of them took on ambassadorial duties as well–and how foreign governments treated them depended on how Elizabeth and her council treated the foreign government.21 The Sherley brothers fell into this balancing act, whether or not they realized it at the time.

Elizabethan diplomacy joined a network that had been in place for years, although it came about in a slightly different way from her father’s, born of a need to keep within the good graces of European nations whose marriage pursuits Elizabeth–and to a certain extent her council–kept rejecting after stringing them along for months and even years at a time, with no desire to go to war, particularly with the combined might of Catholic

France and Spain.22 Before Elizabeth came to the throne, Francis I believed that, through his involvement with the Ottoman Empire and their eventual conversion to Christianity,

France would rule the world, a belief both Guillaume Postel and sixteenth century writer

Ritual courtship and pretended affection were prerequisites to preferment at the Elizabethan court,” see also, Cramsie, Crown Finance, 49; see also, Whitelock, Queen’s Bed, 10.

21 “…the agents went with the Queen’s commission; they negotiated in her name; and her policy was compelled to pay some heed to the safety and well-being of her merchants wherever their trade might take them.” Wernham, Armada, 19-21

22 Weir, Elizabeth I, 228-229; see also, Whitelock, Queen’s Bed, 45-49.

44

Jean Bodin perpetuated.23 During most of the sixteenth century, the Holy Roman

Emperor, with the blessing of the Pope, believed that the foundational religion of the countries under the banner of the Holy Roman Empire, Catholicism, would eventually regain its former hold throughout the majority of Latin Christendom and expand, taking over the Islamic regions of the world as well. Elizabeth needed to catch up and make

England’s mark on the map; she had inherited a very poor country monetarily, and as her reign went on and she showed great reluctance to marry or to have children who might become heirs to the Tudor throne, both she and her council sought other ways of aligning with foreign powers, ways that would potentially enrich England as well.

English diplomacy during the Renaissance also included a network of spies and informants, strategically placed in courts throughout Europe, and expanded beyond

Europe as more formal trade and diplomatic contact with other regions started to take place. This started in the fourteenth century in Italy, with the need of newly formed

“states,” as sources of government power that had been only at the top during the reign of the feudal system, to maintain that power by expanding networks within Italy, and then out into Europe as the Renaissance spread and the feudal system of government became obsolete.24 Cultivating informants in and keeping track of communications from other countries, empires and principalities took time, increasing the most in complication from

23 McCabe, Early Modern France, 15-16; see also, Jean Bodin, On Sovereignty, Julian H. Franklin, ed., (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 1-45.

24 Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy, 56-57

45

the sixteenth to the seventeenth centuries.25 Sir Francis Walsingham headed up

Elizabeth’s network of spies and informants, keeping tabs on foreign courts not only for their own ever-shifting political and economic alignments, but also for potential plots against Elizabeth and England, which became more frequent throughout her reign, particularly as knowledge of her excommunication and the papal bull sanctioning her removal from the English throne spread throughout the world.26

This informant network played an important part in diplomatic relations between

European countries; no kingdom, empire or principality within Europe was without one, and every kingdom, empire and principality expected there to be others’ informants and spies within their own courts. Elizabeth’s informers needed to swear allegiance to her, and she made it worth their while too, at least after the 1570’s.27 What she could not pay, she offered in sponsorships, letters of marque and merchant agreements to provide supplemental income; in addition to a regular diet and per diem, which could be increased or decreased depending on the nature and outcome of the embassy.

Ambassadors could be directed to a special task for extra pay (particularly if they were not there in official ambassadorial capacity), and the crown would often pay for operating expenses of the official ambassadors operating on behalf of the state, especially in an

25 Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy, 246-247.

26 Thorp, “Catholic Conspiracy,” 431-432; see also, Jardine, “Gloriana,” 211.

27 Gary M. Bell, “Elizabethan Diplomatic Compensation: Its Nature and Variety,” in Journal of British Studies, Vol. 20, No. 2, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 10.

46

intelligence-gathering mission.28 However, to maintain the balance of power, she never allowed any one person or faction to gain too much, and was quick to rescind benefits to those she saw as a threat to her person as Queen.

Elizabeth also refined the notion of patronage. Patronage meant high-ranking nobility and wealthy elite funding potentially lucrative projects and voyages of merchants and the lesser nobility Gentleman Adventurers–those without official guild backing or crown sanction, like the Merchant Adventurers–during her reign, turning it into another avenue of both crown and personal income at all levels. These patrons were not restricted only to exploration and privateering either. Patronage also included government offices bestowed upon wealthy landowners out in the countryside, stewardship over Crown lands, manors and underage wards unable to manage wealthy holdings themselves, and monopolies on goods imported or exported.29 For example, for much of the latter part of the sixteenth century, the Earl of Essex maintained a monopoly over sweet Italian wines coming into England. On the outs with Elizabeth over a disagreement in a Council meeting that resulted in Essex drawing his sword, the Earl attempted to regain his patronage of this monopoly by begging Elizabeth, needing it to maintain his status within the court, a common complaint among nobles.30 She also invested her own money in ventures, particularly those of her Gentlemen Adventurers, lesser nobles and military

28 Bell, “Elizabethan Diplomatic Compensation,” 5-8.

29 Walter MacCaffrey. “Patronage and politics under the Tudors,” in The Mental World of the Jacobean Court, Linda Levy Peck, ed., (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 33; see also, John Cramsie. Kingship and Crown Finance Under James VI and I, 1603-1625, (Suffolk, England: The Royal Historical Society, The Boydell Press, 2002), 22-23.

30 Weir, Elizabeth I, 457-458.

47 men like Sir Francis Drake who embodied the very concept of Renaissance self- fashioning through their ventures, even if her government did not officially support or sanction these ventures. Elizabethan patronage acted in a “trickle-down” method as well; nobles who were given local government offices or sponsorship of imports often then turned around and helped out lesser nobles or loyal gentlemen retainers. Patronage combined economics with diplomacy, enabling young men to follow the concept of

Renaissance self-fashioning and advance themselves and their families economically as well as in status within the royal court structure, but to do it while sharing costs and experiences.

Financially, one of the greatest boons to Elizabethan–and later Jacobean–England came in the form of what I call in this thesis Gentlemen Adventurers. These were men whose desire to make names for themselves under the concept of self-fashioning in regions of the world newly taught at university brought new trade and found wealth–both legally and illegally–to England’s coffers. Typically made up of sons of lesser nobles and wealthy merchants, the Gentleman Adventurer embodied culture and civility, even if they did not show culture and civility to everyone all the time, such as those deemed “enemy” to the state. They also appeared firmly convinced of their religious and ethical superiority. In Renaissance Bazaar, Jerry Brotton describes such men as “the Victorian ideal of an imperial adventurer or colonial official,” although he acknowledges that these men existed long before the reign of Queen Victoria.31 Men such as Sir Martin Frobisher,

Sir Walter Raleigh, Sir Richard Hawkins and Sir Francis Drake gave England prestige in

31 Brotton, Renaissance Bazaar, 33.

48 the form of conquered territories, sources of metal such as gold and silver for coinage, and riches taken from ships of whoever was considered an enemy of the English crown at the time. Between the investments in seagoing adventures and the acquisition of land and trade, the English treasury filled slowly and steadily over Elizabeth’s 45-year reign. The

Sherley brothers fit this description perfectly. These were men expected to do great things not only because of their birth as noblemen, but also their circumstances within

English society and culture.

The term Gentlemen Adventurers used within this study differs from the official guild of the Merchant Adventurers, a group of English noble patrons and merchants who effectively ran the majority of trade between England and other regions such as Antwerp and Hamburg, although the biggest portion was with the Netherlands.32 This guild appears to have been responsible, at least in part, for the creation of the English side of the East India Trading Company, since the formal grouping of the guild occurred as a response to the establishment of the Dutch charter.33 I make the distinction about the

Gentlemen Adventurers in a couple of different ways. First, Gentlemen Adventurers’ missions and voyages, unlike the Merchant Adventurers, did not always receive sanction from any merchant organization or government, using Elizabethan patronage to finance most expeditions. Second, using Greenblatt’s self-fashioning concept as he described it being uniquely English, I argue that the Gentleman Adventurers were uniquely English as

32 Wernham, Making of, 31-34.

33 Michael J. Brown, Itinerant Ambassador: The Life of Sir Thomas Roe, (Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 1970), 25; see also, Wernham, Making of, 15.

49

well.34 Other European countries had men in similar roles to the Gentlemen Adventurers, such as noted French merchant Jean Chardin, but not to the extent of England, it seems.

While both the Gentlemen Adventurers and the Merchant Adventurers affected English policy, many of those who considered themselves Gentlemen Adventurers were members of the merchant’s guild, but not all Merchant Adventurers fell into the category of

Gentleman Adventurer.

The story of the voyage of Sir Anthony and Robert Sherley represents the drive and desire of the Gentlemen Adventurers to advance their reputations and revenue.35

Their story shines a light on the successes and failures, along with what it took to even have the potential to succeed, in personality, attitude and behavior. The fact that their father lost the family fortune and estate simply added pressure on Sir Anthony and Robert to improve reputation not only for themselves, but for their entire family. Gentleman

Adventurers also took great pride in being residents of what they–and most other

Englishmen and women–felt to be the greatest kingdom within Europe, one they aided in becoming powerful and wealthy as well. One result of Elizabeth’s excommunication from the Pope in the 1560’s was a sudden, fierce loyalism to Elizabeth and England, particularly by her Gentleman Adventurers.36 Combined with Renaissance self-

34 In using only Englishmen as subjects in his book, Greenblatt “attempt[s] to glimpse the formation of identity in the English Renaissance,” Greenblatt, Renaissance Self-Fashioning, 6.

35 Wernham, Making of, 15, on the description of the London Merchant Adventurers and their influence on Elizabethan trade and foreign policy with the Gentlemen Adventurers; see also, R. B. Wernham, Before the Armada, The Growth of English Foreign Policy 1485-1588, (London: Trinity Press, 1966), 21.

36 Jardine, “Gloriana,” 211.

50 fashioning, this created a court of gentlemen who not only took great pride in being

English, but also in being English, belonging to Elizabeth.

In 1579, Elizabeth used her unique position as both a woman and as a Protestant to establish a relationship with the Ottoman court of Murad III (r. 1574-1595) through his powerful “sultanate,” as well as a political alignment, sending William Harborne as the first English ambassador to the Ottoman Empire. 37 The sultanate was comprised of a group of royal women headed up by the sultana, or queen mother of the sultan, as well as influential wives and concubines, particularly those who had sons by the sultan.38 The reign of Sultan Suleiman (r. 1520-1566) saw the start of a shift in the visibility of women from the public areas to the harem, particularly for socially high-ranking women, such as those within the royal court, and with it a shift in power structures and influence in policy making and governing. Elizabeth used her Protestantism and subsequent excommunication from the Pope as incentive for the Ottoman Empire to align with her against the Catholic powers of Europe, particularly Spain, who had been consistently threatening to English shores. No other European prince could attempt that means and level of interaction with a Muslim empire. While Elizabeth’s interaction with the

Ottoman Empire and the sultanate ultimately failed, this attempted alignment still shows

Elizabeth’s desire to connect to other regions of the world that would potentially assist

37 Lisa Jardine, “Gloriana Rules the Waves: Or, The Advantage of Being Excommunicated (And a Woman),” in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Vol. 14, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 210, 217-218.

38 For more information on the harem structure within the Ottoman Empire, see Leslie Peirce, The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 113-149; see also, Jardine, “Gloriana,” 217.

51

England economically and politically, if not religiously. Reaching out to Walide Safiye, the Sultana of Murad III, Elizabeth was at least able to secure better trade conditions for the English merchants than for the French or Spanish within the Ottoman Empire in the

1580s through the sultana’s persuasion of her son.39

By 1600, Queen Elizabeth’s council, Parliament, and most of the country had accepted the fact, albeit grudgingly, that their Queen was neither ever going to marry nor produce an heir of her own body.40 At this time, the need to create legacies that would keep England prosperous after Elizabeth’s death, as well as keep her out of the clutches of foreign powers with an eye to bring England back into the Catholic fold, took priority.

According to R.B Wernham, an economic historian out of Oxford, Elizabethan foreign policy was born of this need for diplomacy with other countries, particularly those that could keep England in a positive light with an eye towards economic and political advancement, since it “often became entangled with the question of her own marriage” especially in the early parts of her reign.41 When the Sherleys embarked on their expedition, English political and economic relations with other countries appeared to be slowing. England had a monarch who had been on the throne too long for the comfort of many of her members of parliament and people and very little growth economically and politically in the world arena.42

39 Jardine, “Gloriana,” 214.

40 Weir, Elizabeth I, 178, 233-234; see also, Whitelock, Queen’s Bed, 328-330.

41 Wernham, Making of, 4.

42 Davies, Elizabethans Errant, 69.

52

The Queen was rapidly aging, although she worked hard to make sure that news of her infirmities appeared only as rumors, that she was as healthy as she has ever been.

Many courtiers felt as Sir John Harrington, the Queen’s godson, did; that they “now looked forward to the accession of a king instead of ‘a lady shut up in a chamber from her subjects and most of her servants, and seen seld[om] but on holy-day[s].’”43 Many times during those three years before her death, her own council declined to see her, and only

Robert Cecil, the son of William Cecil Lord Burghley who took over his father’s position on the Privy Council as well as as one of Elizabeth’s most trusted advisers, would gain access to either the Privy or bedchamber.44 Therefore, expansive outreach to other regions of the world in different ways from fellow monarchs became exceptionally important. There needed to be new means of connection with the wider world and new routes of trade.

The England that Robert Sherley returned to in 1624 had changed drastically from the England both brothers departed from in 1599. First and foremost, a change in leadership had taken place; James VI of Scotland also became James I of England, laying the groundwork for the governmental structure of the United Kingdom of England and

Scotland we know today, although James was unable to complete this in his lifetime. By the time James ascended the English throne in 1603, he had already been ruling Scotland independently as an adult for fifteen years, being nearly twelve years old when he

43 Whitelock, Queen’s Bed, 332.

44 Whitelock, Queen’s Bed, 330.

53

assumed the throne.45 The son of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, James found himself in the limelight early on, after the flight of his mother in to England in 1568 to escape persecution for her disastrous marriage to the Earl of Bothwell, and then her subsequent beheading by Elizabeth in 1587 for a plot to take the throne of England, a plot discontented English Catholics supported.46

James VI of Scotland and I of England appeared as a contradiction in many ways.

Others, particularly the English privy council as well as foreign governments, dismissed

King James I as a “hobby” king, one who took his hunting and leisure time more seriously than his politics and government.47 That opinion changed in recent years with further study into Jacobean government and court, and instead revealed a man well balanced in his professional life, if somewhat quiet and subdued in his personal life. His desire to hunt and keep a close circle of compatriots actually speaks more of the friendly and intimate terms his court operated on, closer to the Scottish government and a need to be the balance between the ever-volatile clans than any need to remain away from governmental responsibility.48 While lacking in the extreme formality of Elizabeth’s court, which appeared to have a lot to do with showing the powerful monarch instead of the inept woman, James’s court was no less effective in showing the power and might of

45 Weir. Life, 309.

46 Weir, Life, 193-194, 378

47 Wormald, “James VI and I,” 36-37; see also, Akrigg, Pageant, 21.

48 Cramsie, Crown Finance, 46-48; see also, Linda Levy Peck, ed., The Mental World of the Jacobean Court, (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 7.

54 this now-united kingdom of Britain, as well as continuing to improve upon Elizabeth’s foreign policy, trade, economy and diplomacy.

James’ personal life, particularly his formative years, also shaped much of his government and foreign policy. Like Elizabeth, James also lived through a troubled and turbulent childhood, full of attempted assassination and kidnapping plots. When his mother, Mary, abandoned the throne after escaping to England to avoid punishment for her involvement in James’ father’s death, various Scottish lords took control of the country as Regent for James, opening him up to kidnapping plots by rival clan leaders for control of the throne. During one particular incident, the Ruthven Raid, James managed to talk his way out of his imprisonment, and escaped from Falkland to rule in his own right; “[f]rom that time on, King James was pretty much master in his own house.49 In this struggle to gain his freedom, he learned dissembling and talking his way through and out of situations, which he applied later in both foreign and domestic policy in both

Scotland and England, much like Elizabeth and her own answer-answerless.

Jacobean diplomacy, although lacking in the great formality of its Elizabethan predecessor, certainly did not lack in structure or expense.50 The structure had expanded from the days of Elizabethan ambassadors with their entourages using politics or religion to determine whether or not to be involved with that particular country’s government and spies and informants to keep the monarch apprised on that state anyway, with merchants and Gentlemen Adventurers attempting to close the divide through exploration and trade.

49 Akrigg, Pageant, 9.

50 Akrigg, Pageant, 63-68.

55

Paid by the crown with whom they stayed, resident ambassadors occupied a lower rung on the scale of importance than extraordinary ambassadors of ceremony, sent and paid for by their home government and only acknowledged great matters of state that appeared worthy of attending.51 The importance of the ambassador or diplomat arriving to England determined the kind of reception the ambassador or diplomat received, as well as the quality of gift given at the end of the tour, much in the same way the Safavid Empire received visiting Europeans. Often times, English diplomats in foreign countries worked to the benefit of King James on their own dime, and constantly found themselves in debt for years on end.52 Gaining recompense for debts incurred while acting as ambassador also did not happen as frequently as during Elizabeth’s reign, although it did occur. In fact, the most likely way of gaining money from ambassadorial duty was to ask for it after the fact, which showed that James and the Jacobean state still recognized the value of ambassadors, whether official or unofficial.53

Robert’s return expedition took place during James’ son Charles reign, a scant two years after James passed away. Although Robert met with King James I during a requested and sanctioned official audience with the King, it was ultimately Charles I who decided that a diplomatic envoy needed to be sent to the Safavid Persian Empire in 1627, much to the dismay of the British East India Trading Company, established in the

51 Akrigg, Pageant, 56.

52 Akrigg, Pageant, 64.

53 Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy, 233; see also, Akrigg, Pageant, 64

56

southern part of the Persian empire just a decade before.54 Even though it was Charles who allowed the return of Robert to Shah Abbas’ court, James’ foreign policy and diplomacy reforms made it possible.

The Impact of the Sherleian Voyage on the Goals of England

Shortly after the Earl of Essex suggested the Persian trip to Sir Anthony Sherley, he lost his position as Queen’s favorite, and soon after that, lost his head for treason. The voyage to the Safavid Empire was intended to be a means for the Earl to regain his place by Elizabeth’s side. Sir Anthony intended this as well, given his disastrous marriage to one of the Queen’s ladies without her permission, along with the shame of his family name.55 Elizabeth appeared perfectly content to ignore the Sherleian voyage; the Sherley brothers simply acted as unofficial agents of England, a common thing during both

Elizabeth’s and James’ reigns.56 Yet, the correspondence and publications coming out of the Orient and distributed throughout England and into Europe forced the English government to take notice of the Sherley’s activities whether or not they actually wanted to, because of the frequency of the correspondence, particularly to Robert Cecil, regarding the Sherleys, along with the popularity of the publications, like those that inspired the stage production in 1607.57

54 Roger Stevens, “Robert Sherley: The Unanswered Questions,” in Iran, vol. 17, (London: British Institute for Persian Studies, 1979), 115-116.

55 Davies, Elizabethans Errant, 39-40.

56 Bell, “Elizabethan Diplomatic Compensation,” 15-18.

57 Ross, Persian Adventure, Introduction xix.

57

The year the anonymous tract about Sir Anthony came out, 1600, was the year of

Queen Elizabeth’s charter for the new English (British) East India Trading Company, a merchant corporation giving the other merchant companies throughout the Levant a run for their money, and a much-needed boost to English economy.58 It appears a strange coincidence that the writing, which spawned others authored by the Sherleys and the gentlemen who accompanied them to Persia within only a few years after the anonymous tract, showed up in England around the same time as a major political maneuver designed to boost the English economy and keep it in the world market, since the East India

Trading Company was in the process of establishing an outpost in Persia at the time of the Sherley voyage. This had the effect of tying the Sherley name into a “new” venture in a region that had seen little interaction with Europe as a whole, and much less with

England. Elizabeth also understood the value of venturing out into other territories to seek alignment, particularly in light of the lack of matrimonial alignment, which explains

England’s acceptance of voyages like these.

In rapid succession, more publications beyond the anonymous tract showed up around England, such as William Parry’s publication in 1601, followed by George

Manwaring’s “True Discourse” shortly after.59 These formed the foundation for literature and art to find its way in front of Elizabeth, primarily as a stage production, given

Elizabeth’s delight with the theater. Correspondence, mainly between Sir Anthony and

Elizabeth’s advisor Sir Robert Cecil, passed frequently through the English court, where

58 Brown, Itinerant Ambassador, 25.

59 Parr, “The Sherley Brothers,” 18.

58

Sir Anthony made his reports.60 Since Elizabeth made it her business to know the contents of the majority of correspondence coming in and out of her court, it is not unlikely that one or two of Sherley’s missives passed over her desk. Because of where the

Sherleys traveled to, as angry as the Queen was with the Sherley family, she still would have been forced to acknowledge that their voyage affected English foreign policy, trade and diplomacy.

James, along with his son Charles, also seemed to be forced take notice of the

Sherleian voyage, given James’ own diplomatic reforms. The return of the Sherley brothers, particularly Robert who interacted directly with King James, meant the need to look closer at the Safavid Empire in the grand scheme of Jacobean diplomatic reforms, the heart of James’ plan to unite Scotland and England and have the rest of the world recognize his new kingdom. It also meant a look at the Sherleys themselves, as successful ambassadors on behalf of a foreign monarch, defined by the rank and privilege given Sir Anthony and Robert during and after their sojourn in the court of Shah Abbas I, as well as their reception at European courts based on correspondence and narratives coming into England.

The exploration of new regions during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, combined with money-making ventures and expansion of both trade and diplomacy, put

England firmly in the midst of the European Renaissance, defined by these very practices of exploration and expansion. Every country, kingdom and empire looked for ways to reach other regions and be on the top of wealth and prosperity; England was no

60 Ross, Persian Adventure, 35.

59 exception, and Queen Elizabeth and King James each felt they had something to prove in this during their respective reigns. So when two sons of a disgraced lesser noble in the court of Queen Elizabeth took it upon themselves to voyage to a region of the world not frequently traveled, England was forced to take notice of these two errant knights, and adjust foreign policy and trade to include a new and fascinating state. Now we take a look at the Sherley brothers themselves, and their own place in this history.

60

CHAPTER 2

GENTLEMAN ADVENTURERS AND PERSIAN KNIGHTS: THE SHERLEY VOYAGE AND SNCOUNTERS WITH THE “OTHER”

By 1599, Elizabeth’s Gentlemen Adventurers and those who sought to make a name for themselves and their families had already played a major part in advancing

Elizabethan politics, economics and diplomacy. Elizabethan naval captains, such as Sir

Francis Drake and Sir John Hawkins, proved their worth through pirating Spanish and

Italian ships and disrupting trade, which brought England to the forefront of European diplomacy.1 Elizabeth’s courtiers who desired to become favorites and confidantes, such as Robert Dudley, the Earl of Leicester, Sir Walter Raleigh and Christopher Hatton, remained favorites and confidantes of the Queen by showing their wealth and unique position through providing personal gifts to Elizabeth or inviting her to remodeled and improved estates for fetes and long visits.2 This in turn enabled them to be granted seats at Elizabeth’s table to meet heads of state and patrons who might finance investments or offer trade monopolies, as well as have the ear of Elizabeth herself. As good English citizens, Elizabeth’s courtiers and Gentlemen Adventurers represented the might and power of this small island kingdom, and these courtiers and adventurers needed to prove they had the ability to maintain this outward appearance.

1 Whitelock, Queen’s Bed, 334.

2 Weir, Elizabeth I, 256-257.

61

The Sherley family was no different; the father and the older brother, both named

Thomas, gained and then lost family fortunes, and now the younger brothers, Anthony and Robert, needed to resume the upward mobility and save the family name. Anthony’s own writings on their experiences testify to this need, this requirement of their family legacy, to show they were of value to the English crown. It did not only come from familial pressure either; that same atmosphere of upward mobility that drove the

Gentlemen Adventurers and the favorites and nobles of Elizabeth’s court also propelled

Anthony and Robert Sherley into the voyage they made to Persia. Ralf Hertel, in his chapter on the Sherleys in Early Modern Encounters with the Middle East, believed that

“[t]raveling…was the entire raison d’etre of the [Sherley] brothers.”3 Yet Sir Anthony’s writings, along with those of the gentlemen who accompanied him, speak of more than just simple travel, even if that travel may have been adventuring in nature, which Hertel stated later as the method through which the “orientalist” bias is gained. Historian Rudi

Matthee also gives the Sherley brothers little credit in the grand scheme of the Safavid

Empire and Shah Abbas I’s reign, yet he identifies other times where the Sherleian voyage may have helped the Safavid Empire economically, based on the European courts’ responses.4 Just as the Gentlemen Adventurers existed within the English court for a variety of deeper reasons, the motivation behind the Sherleian voyage went deeper than just travel for selfish and superficial reasons, a product of environment and society in addition to being useful members of court and to the state of England.

3 Hertel, “Ousting the Ottomans,” 135.

4 Matthee, Silk for Silver, 39.

62

Elizabeth would not send nobility as ambassadors, knowing the expense involved, such as retinues to accompany the nobility as well as the lavish lodgings and entertainments that they would have to have.5 To have anyone of a noble station attend a foreign court was perceived as a great honor. If the Sherleys were willing to take it upon themselves to seek involvement with a foreign court without agreement of compensation, it could only benefit all involved; England, because they did not have to pay for it, and the Sherleys for being seen as high-ranking individuals and potentially earning for operating unofficially. In addition, the Safavid shah, who may not have known whether any sort of honor was paid, still saw value in European noblemen joining his court.6

According to scholar and diplomatic historian Garrett Mattingly in his book Renaissance

Diplomacy, the aim of an ambassador was not to broker peace, but “[T]he diplomat, like the [military] general, [is] an agent for the preservation and aggrandizement of the state.”7 Sir Anthony and Robert Sherley embodied these very notions through their

English pride, their confidence as educated Europeans, and their desire to improve their reputation within the English court, along with their revenue stream and income.

In the desired connection with the Safavid Empire, the Sherleys operated outside of institutional structures of trade and diplomacy as cultural brokers, taking on roles without official government or guild sanction, the goal being to prove their value to the

5 Bell, “Elizabethan Diplomatic Compensation,” 3.

6 “…as visiting Europeans acted as official representatives of countries and commercial enterprises, the status of the latter as well as their actual power and their actual power and the splendor of their missions generally determined the quality of the welcome they enjoyed,” Matthee, “Aloofness,” 232.

7 Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy, 63.

63

English crown. While it was not uncommon for the average Renaissance noble to step outside boundaries–as one of the main components of Renaissance self-fashioning–it still caused issues with those acting within sanctioned roles.8 It also forced governments to take notice of such activities, which could be a bane or a boon, depending on the activity.

In the Sherley’s case, forcing England to take notice of their specific agency in regards to their Persian voyage accomplishment also aided with one of Sir Anthony’s main goals of reclaiming his family’s reputation. England could no longer dismiss the Sherleys as non- players in its own foreign policy and diplomacy when they returned to Europe on behalf of Shah Abbas I, to the benefit of both the Sherleys and the Shah. To Shah Abbas I, this connection meant a direct connection with Europe through one of their own, and he looked to harness this operation from that outside angle, which will be expanded in a later section. Yet while this particular benefit was not apparent to the Sherleys at the outset of their voyage, upon their return to Europe, it became clear that this could align with their personal goals by making them indispensable to the English crown as the most visible

Englishmen to establish relations with Persia, and thus make the journey profitable.

Using Anthony’s writings as well as those by the gentlemen accompanying him and other missionary and travel writers as primary sources, along with Sherleian odyssey writers’ interpretations in secondary source material, this chapter briefly examines the background of the Sherley family. It explores the intent behind two sons of a lesser noble family to undertake a trek to the Muslim empire of Safavid Persia, colored by their

European university education and added specialized area of Oriental Studies as it was

8 Greenblatt, Renaissance Self-Fashioning, 2-3.

64 called at that time, in addition to the pressure and atmosphere of the Sherley family and the English court. It will look through the conceptual lenses of Orientalism and

Renaissance self-fashioning to explain how the Sherleys, along with other European travelers, used these concepts to frame the discourse with both the Ottoman and Safavid

Empires. This chapter further demonstrates how these concepts were reflected in their writings, showing Persian reaction and the impact of the Sherleian voyage from the

Sherley’s point of view. This chapter will also introduce how Shah Abbas used what he knew of the orientalist assumptions of the Europeans to frame the discourse to his advantage before the Sherleys were sent to Europe on the shah’s to further his economic and diplomatic relationships on his behalf, to be expanded upon in Chapter Four.

Background of the Sherleys

Sir Anthony and Robert Sherley could certainly be described as the quintessential

Gentlemen Adventurers of the Elizabethan age of the sixteenth century. The second and third sons of a minor noble family who, when they left on their Persian adventure, had already made a name for themselves in the Elizabethan court (and subsequently lost it again), Anthony and Robert learned the necessity for adventuring, and posturing, early in life from family. Their father, Thomas Sherley, found himself as a go-between for the

Queen and her favorite Robert Dudley, the Earl of Leicester while on campaign in the

Protestant Netherlands fighting the Spanish against the spread of Catholicism. The Earl used this campaign to attempt to “make war profitable” for himself and his followers, among which included two of Thomas’s sons, Thomas the younger and Anthony, both of

65

whom were captains in Leicester’s military force.9 Because of this, Thomas the elder became Treasurer at War, appointed by Leicester himself. This appointment did not last long–Thomas was caught fleecing Her Majesty by her trusted adviser Burghley, who started to notice dramatically inflated prices in 1587.10 When questioned about the enormity of funds requested for this campaign, Thomas acted strangely, becoming vague about what the money was being used for. Ultimately, he was recalled to England to answer for these charges, and went into debt paying back the crown, even losing his family home and income from those rents in 1597. This began the severe fluctuation downward in family fortune and the family reputation; the sons now needed to step up to regain their name within court, the only thing that could aid in recovering the finances needed to maintain their way of living.

The eldest son, Thomas, attempted to do just that, engaging in overseas trade and exploration, with some privateering thrown in as well. Like many of his contemporaries, including those in his own family, he served time in the military under his father, attempting to gain prestige and valor on the battlefield. He stood as guarantor for his father’s debts, although whether or not this was voluntary remains to be seen.11 He then returned to the battlefield with England’s blessing, possibly in what would prove to be a futile attempt at reclaiming the Sherley name. This became a fruitless endeavor, and it was in 1598 Thomas turned to the investment in trade and privateering that defined the

9 Davies, Elizabethan’s Errant, 16.

10 Davies, Elizabethan’s Errant, 18-20.

11 “[he] dares not go abroad so far engaged is he for his father’s debts,” Davies, Elizabethan’s Errant, 34.

66 latter years of his life, since his younger brother was already proving some success in that. Thomas, however, failed at this, ending up deep in debt to investors to whom he was forced to sign his ships in order to gain capital for his voyages, and then finding himself in jail for debt and charged with embezzlement of the goods carried aboard those same ships.12 It read like a bad Ponzi scheme; Thomas stealing the goods he carried to pay off the owners of the very goods he was stealing. He attempted other voyages, but ultimately came up short in the areas the Sherleys typically found themselves, income and reputation, even finding himself a prisoner in Constantinople in 1601, after having his crew mutiny and seize control of two of Sherley’s ships.13 Both Thomas the elder’s and

Thomas the younger’s experiences specifically highlight the atmosphere Sir Anthony and

Robert grew up in and the pressure they were under to improve the family income and reputation. The father and oldest brother failed in their endeavors, damaging the precious family name. Under the “rules” of Renaissance self-fashioning unofficially enforced by fellow nobles and the royal court, it was now up to the youngest brothers to attempt to successfully complete their own voyage to the family’s benefit.

Sir Anthony Sherley appeared to be the most noted explorer in the family, certainly the most well published. A military commander who accompanied his father to the Netherlands like his older brother, he later accompanied the Earl of Essex on his campaign to Brittany in 1589, after which he found himself in the favor of Henry IV of

12 Davies, Elizabethans Errant, 61-68; see also, Penrose, Sherleian Odyssey, 29-45, on both the privateering ventures and imprisonment in Constantinople.

13 Major-General Briggs, “A Short Account of the Sherley Family,” in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 6, No. 1, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1841), 79.

67

France after assisting the monarch against the Confederate of Leagues and the Spanish.

Subsequently, the rank of knight of the most holy order of St. Michael was bestowed upon him. This, in turn, made Queen Elizabeth of England so angry that she is known to have said, “I will not have my sheep marked with a strange brand; nor suffer them to follow the pipe of a strange shepherd”.14 Sir Anthony found himself in Fleet Prison upon his return to England in 1594, and after his release shortly after his plea to Parliament, was only known as Master Sherley. However, the title had taken hold, and in all documents on the Sherleys from that point forward he was known as Sir Anthony. Both

Anthony and Robert also acquired the title of Count at different times from different

European courts as well, although this wouldn’t come until after their dissociation with

England and their return out into Europe on behalf of the Shah.15 In fact, all three brothers used the title of knighthood, although only one was officially knighted at any point in his life.16 Through continuing to use the title “sir”–even though his own sovereign had stripped it from him–Anthony set up the perception of himself as, if not a fully made man, one who was well on his way and had the honors to prove it, which most likely led to the bestowing of the title of Count later on, even if his home government did not recognize it.

14 Anthony Sherley. Three Brothers, 5; see also, Penrose, The Sherleian Odyssey, 7.

15 Davies, Elizabethan’s Errant, 210, 228; see also, Penrose, Sherleian Odyssey, 174.

16 Penrose, Sherleian Odyssey, 8. See also, Anthony Sherley, Relations, title, and, Davies, Elziabethan’s Errant, 39, 285-286.

68

Earlier works on the Sherley brothers point out this self-perception as a flaw, making it appear that Sir Anthony was a hot-tempered, petulant lesser nobleman, one whose impression was merely a façade, and he only used and manipulated others to serve his own ends, with little benefit to anyone but himself. In the background material he provides on Sir Anthony, E. Dennison Ross at least appears to give Anthony the benefit of the doubt, stating that it was “a series of misfortunes” that led Sir Anthony to behave in the manner he did; misfortunes like Italians insulting Queen Elizabeth that resulted in a brawl on a boat on the Mediterranean, or being stopped in Baghdad to have a good portion of the goods he carried confiscated that resulted in Anthony’s greedy nature acquiring gifts and money from a Florentine merchant to compensate the loss.17

In The Fascination of Persia: The Persian-European Dialogue in Seventeenth

Century Art & Contemporary Art of Teheran, Gary Schwartz offers a severe and cutting opinion of the character of Sir Anthony, echoing Ross’s rather negative assessment and calling Sir Anthony a “keen judge of men who used his insights only to manipulate those who trusted him,” saying that he “suffered from…a personality disorder of the kind we encounter in con men.”18 Yet, even Ross concedes that Sir Anthony appeared to be nothing more than a product of the era of the Elizabethan and Jacobean courts, his station and his family by concluding that, given even the incomplete picture formed of Sir

Anthony, that he possessed all the qualities of a Gentleman Adventurer described in the chapter on England, including a “reckless love of adventure” and “all the arts of a

17 Ross, Persian Adventure, 8.

18 Gary Schwartz, “Sherleys and the Shah,” 78.

69

courtier.”19 This does not show an outlier; it actually demonstrates that Sir Anthony possessed a similar attitude to other men within the courts of Europe who were looking to make a name for themselves and their families. Sir Anthony appeared to be one of the most successful at it, given the amount of scholarship about him.

Robert Sherley appears the least egotistical and narcissistic of the family, at least in terms of reputation and publication, considering the amount of information on the personal side of Robert, unlike the plethora available on Thomas and Anthony. In historical works on the Sherleys, Robert came across as the brother simply manipulated by Sir Anthony in pursuit of progression of family name and reputation, following him around the world like a loyal puppy. Penrose considered Robert, “by all odds the best of the family,” the one who exhibited the most honesty – tied in with personal honor – and gave his life into the service of Shah Abbas I and Persia, although to what end beyond being a “good husband and a loyal friend,” appears unknown, at least in terms of the same personal outcome desired by the rest of his family.20 Davies saw Robert as merely a tragic victim of the circumstance of his scheming father and older brothers, sacrificed to the greater good of England’s foreign policy while traveling with Sir Anthony, and to the

Shah’s diplomatic ambition once his brother had left Persia and shown personal ambition outside of the shah’s mission in Europe.21 Robert almost appears to be the third wheel in this family operation, one who has no choice in his fate, outside of finding a politically

19 Ross, Persian Adventure, 57.

20 Penrose, Sherleian Odyssey, 245.

21 Davies, Elizabethans Errant, 285-286.

70 advantageous marriage to show his loyalty to the shah when he returned to Europe to take the place of Sir Anthony. Robert followed along loyally, doing as his family wanted first with Sir Anthony leading him, and then proving his worth to Shah Abbas I by allowing himself to be led by the shah as Anthony pursued the shah’s business back in Europe.

Yet Robert certainly possessed the desire to show off in the Renaissance self- fashioning manner; in the early part of the seventeenth century, both Robert and his

Circassian wife Terresia had portraits painted of them wearing Oriental costumes. (see

Figure 1) Robert sported an oversized turban and striped silk sash, with a cape and long coat of Persian silk, identified as such by the “story pictures” of Iranian poetry either embroidered or printed on the material.22 He carried in his right hand a white scepter, indicating a position of service within the royal court; in this case, on behalf of the

Persian shah, given his outfit.23 Terresia had two pictures done, one in a seated position that echoes an Oriental Lotus position of crossed legs, a position which a lady could not maintain wearing a corset, implying the absence of a basic European Renaissance undergarment and therefore highlighting her exoticness. Another image shows her standing in a more European portrait pose, her right hand holding a flint-lock pistol, indicating her involvement in some sort of adventuring, accompanying her husband on his ambassadorial missions throughout Europe.24 In both of Terresia’s portraits, she

22 Newman, Safavid Iran, 34-35.

23 For a complete description on Robert’s Persian outfit, Schwartz, “Sherleys and the Shah,” 93-98. Officials of Elizabeth’s court carried white scepters in ceremonies to indicate levels of service, Whitelock, Queen’s Bed, 351.

24 Schwartz, “Sherleys and the Shah,” 98-99.

71 wore a smaller cap than ladies typically sported during the early seventeenth century, making it appear similar to the veil that Muslim women used to cover their hair and shoulders, yet with a European flair. These three portraits are intended to showcase a power couple, and Robert’s painting in particular appears a manifestation of his desire to follow in his brother’s footsteps; the portrait of him shows a side of Robert reflected from not only his involvement with Sir Anthony in the voyage, but also being brought up in the Sherley family and living in the atmosphere of Elizabeth’s court. Robert Sherley became less the quiet follower of his older brothers, and recognized the need for advancement of self by improvement of reputation through display of ego.

Contemporary accounts of others who fall into the category of Gentlemen

Adventurer do not exactly paint any of these men as saints or heroes. Sir Richard

Grenville, noted explorer and privateer of Elizabeth’s, was denied the opportunity to travel through the straits of Magellan to find and explore the area of the world known as

Terra Australis Incognita, believed to extend from the straits northwestward to New

Guinea. This occured because “[t]o let loose in the Pacific a man of Grenville’s nature and privateering record was probably regarded as too great a risk when Anglo-Spanish relations were steadily improving,” implying the same reckless, manipulative attitude the

Sherleys were reported to have.25 Sir Walter Raleigh, once the premier favorite and darling of the Elizabethan court, turned to treachery and deceit against King James in an attempt to keep his name relevant within European courts, for which the price ended up

25 Wernham, Before the Armada, 351.

72

being his head.26 The courts of Europe could be very cut-throat in competition for favoritism by the reigning monarch, and ideal breeding grounds for ambitious men who may not have everything together but acted like they did. Between this competition within Elizabeth’s court and the desire to improve family fortunes hammered into the

Sherley brothers from the time they were young, it is no wonder that Sir Anthony did whatever was necessary to show himself prosperous until it actually occurred.

This sort of action prevalent throughout the Sherley’s writings highlights what

Greenblatt considered the darker side of the concept of Renaissance self-fashioning.27

Given the number of accolades Sir Anthony Sherley received for the various military, diplomatic and economic achievements in the form of knighthoods from both France and

Spain, correspondence with such personages as the Grand Duke of Tuscany and the Holy

Roman Emperor, and the freedom to continue to pursue various diplomatic and economic achievements with the blessings (or at least the money) of people from Shah Abbas I and various heads of European states down to merchants, governors and nobles in the

Ottoman Empire, Italy, Russia and Germany, either Sir Anthony appeared to be the greatest actor of the Elizabethan and Jacobean age to fool so many as nothing more than a manipulative user, or he was a product of his time and circumstance, no worse or no

26 Akrigg, Jacobean Pageant, 69-78.

27 Greenblatt, Renaissance Self-Fashioning, 271.

73 better than his contemporaries working hard to improve his lot in life, and fell into success in a similar manner to them.28

Education of the Sherleys

Like the Renaissance itself, education in Europe in the sixteenth century expanded as well, moving away from the strictly religious teachings of the Middle Ages into more progressive teachings, including the foundations of today’s mathematics, hard sciences like chemistry and biology, as well as the humanities, like philosophy and archaeology.29

Every student initially learned the Trivium – grammar, logic and rhetoric. The

Quadrivium, which included music, arithmetic, geometry and astronomy, came later, as official areas of study as mathematics and alchemy gained more popularity.30 These together made up the Seven Liberal Arts, the foundation of more advanced studies that came as the Renaissance progressed. All of these studies fell under the concept known as

Neoplatonism, the foundation of Humanist studies based on classic philosophy from

Ancient Greece and Rome.31 Recognized as a necessarily evil, it was mostly sanctioned by the church, albeit grudgingly, as it delved into studies of the natural world, which many Humanists believed to be ordained by God himself, that humans were given the

28 Ross, Persian Adventure, 12-30, on Anthony Sherley’s correspondence – either by him or someone writing on him – to and from various courts of Europe, and the people who engaged with.

29 Irwin, Dangerous Knowledge, 54-56.

30 Brotton, Renaissance Bazaar, 8-9.

31 For more on the education of men during the Renaissance through the interpretation of a portrait, see Greenblatt, Renaissance Self-Fashioning, 17-18; for a broader view of Renaissance education, see also Brotton, Renaissance Bazaar, 8-12.

74 desire and drive to explore, so God left clues within nature to follow and learn. This sort of education shows some of the movement from the Middle Ages, that moved beyond the feudal class system where only a handful of people received any sort of education above learning how to make a living for oneself and for the lord he worked for.32 It played a huge part in the “making” of the modern man, started in part by the invention of the printing press, making literature accessible to the masses, and not only for the elite.

Printing literature also aided in introducing specialized areas of studies. More publications from earlier time periods translating Arabic sources in areas such as mathematics, astrology and ancient humanist texts by philosophers like Aristotle and

Plato became more widely available, not needing to written by hand, although as the

“orientalist” belief of European superiority over the Middle East gained popularity, denial of the Arabic source of mathematics and astrology became more common.33

Most young men of means, either part of the wealthy merchant class or noble, attended a European university, although the desired outcome for these students differed from students attending today’s universities. These were not “tradesmen” or men who worked for a living; those men learned their trades from their families and as apprentices within guilds. Nor did they make up the thousands of members of the peasant or yeoman classes who worked the land and dabbled in local village politics. The men who attended universities during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries did so to continue education given

32 Irwin, Dangerous Knowledge, 26.

33 Brotton, Renaissance Bazaar, 8-9; see also, Irwin, Dangerous Knowledge, 26-32, on the translation movement, and 54-57 on the movement away from Middle Eastern (Arab) learning, claiming hard sciences and humanism as a European concept.

75 by private tutors while growing up, mimicking what took place during the youth of royalty. Elizabeth and James themselves each spent their formative years with premier educators of the time. Renaissance humanists William Grindal and Roger Ascham instructed Elizabeth, a Scotsman named George Buchanan who was “known among the learned all over Europe” taught a young James.34 Teachers at European universities had a similar impact on the young men they educated. These men learned politics, religion, leadership skills, mathematics, the natural sciences, and philosophy so to not only converse with other educated men and women at court (and thus keep abreast of both the rumors and intelligence coming from other countries), but to also prepare them for leadership roles as landlords overseeing the vast lands given to their families by the crown. Elizabeth required extensive education of her courtiers, both men and women; a gentlewoman or daughter of a noble could not have hope of a place as one of the Queen’s ladies without the ability to converse about politics and religion in multiple languages, and her courtiers, particularly those she considered her intimates and favorites, were expected to be well-versed in not only economy and politics, but poetry and classical languages as well.35

Education also played an important part of Renaissance self-fashioning. To be educated ranked high in the main requirements for joining the nobles surrounding various royalty throughout Europe as intimates and confidants, including the royalty of England.

In one of the most popular books of the day, The Book of the Courtier, Castiglione

34 For a look at Elizabeth’s education by her step-mother Katherine Parr, see Weir. Elizabeth I, 13; For a look at James’s education, see Akrigg, Pagaent, 7.

35 Weir, Life, 258.

76 pointed out in several places that a significant mark of a gentleman or lady must be that he or she “possessed as well as an affable and charming nature, an infinite range of knowledge.”36 Education on a variety of subjects made a courtier more appealing, not only to those in a position of power that might aid him, but also to attract peers who may provide support, be it monetarily or personally, such as the retainers accompanying the

Sherleys on their voyage to Persia, or members of the opposite sex who might provide a valuable alliance through marriage. It enabled young men to be a part of the upwardly mobile and gain not only income but a name for themselves and their families, by gaining more knowledge about opportunities outside of Europe.37

One of these areas of studies became known as Oriental Studies. It included knowledge of the world of the Silk Road, from the most eastern reaches of China to the

Ottoman Empire that bordered what Europeans of the sixteenth century considered the civil world. Even though much of the foundation of mathematics and the hard sciences came from the Islamic regions around the Mediterranean, these Oriental Studies focused more on the perceived notions of the culture and society in the regions we know today as the Middle East and Eastern Asia, taken mainly from travel writing and the stories and experiences of merchants, religious missionaries and European travelers, rather than on any sort of research or teachings done by a resident of the region being studied.38 The

36 The introduction of Duke Guido and Duchess Elisabetta, setting up the dinner party in which everyone is asked what makes a perfect courtier by perfect courtiers with the knowledge to back up their arguments, see Baldesar Castiglione. The Book of the Courtier, translated by George Bull, (New York: Penguin Books, Ltd., 1967), 39-46.

37 Weir, Life, 4-5.

38 Irwin, Dangerous Knowledge, 62-66.

77

“Orient,” as used in this study, describes primarily the region known today as the Middle

East. It is also used as the foundation for Said’s term orientalism, which, although the concept did not become used academically until the 1970’s, more than adequately describes the viewpoint European men gained from studying the Oriental countries from

Europe, forming preconceived notions of these regions, and then applying them as they traveled there, such as the Sherleys and their travels not only through the Ottoman

Empire but into Safavid Persia.39 What they didn’t anticipate was the Shah’s knowledge of orientalism and his using it to further his own agenda.

The official origin of Oriental Studies during the Renaissance appears to be around the time the Church Council of Vienna made the decision to “establish a series of chairs in ‘Arabic, Greek, Hebrew, and Syriac [region of modern-day Syria] at Paris,

Oxford, Bologna, Avignon, and Salamanca,’” in 1312.40 Christian travel writers on pilgrimage in the fourteenth century seemed to be the inspiration behind the need for these studies, making the Orient more interesting through their publications, which in turn made more people eager to study these “fascinating” regions.41 However, until the sixteenth century and the “first Orientalist,” Guillaume Postel, started producing works for Francis I, the empires of Asia and the Middle East were not yet seen as the backwards non-Europeans needing conquering or conversion nearly to the extent of the sixteenth

39 For more information on how Orientalism historically affected discourse at different points in time, see Said, Orientalism, 1-4.

40 Said, Orientalism, 50.

41 For more on the origin of “Oriental Studies,” see Said, Orientalism, 49-50; for more on the travel writers of the fourteenth century, see also Irwin, Dangerous Knowledge, 50-53.

78 through eighteenth centuries. Ambassadors from various Oriental countries certainly attended European courts at the time; Shah Abbas I had an ambassador to the Netherlands in 1608 named Zain al-Abidin Khan Beg feeling out European attitude at aligning politically with Persia.42 However, while high ranking personages would have certainly toured European universities as courts would be eager to show off their educated young men going out into the greater world, there appears no evidence at this point to show that these “Orientals” would have had any influence on information given to students, much less the actual curriculum of Oriental Studies, outside the possibility of a visiting talk on strange customs of their courts and cultures43. As most universities focused more on instruction in astronomy, alchemy and the philosophy and mathematics that saw resurgence derived from classical philosophers in Greek and Latin (and Arabic), much of the information taught as Oriental Studies appears to be nothing more than instruction to young men who desired to travel to Islamic regions from those men who survived the trip, and how they did it.

Oriental Studies did not necessarily include any education on Islamic religious practices or culture. Although the Qu’ran had been translated from the Arabic language by scholars, Christian leaders and princes believed that, because of the barbaric nature of

Muslims in contrast to the assumed civility of Latin Christendom, translation was actually heresy, “a wicked superstition,” according to Petrarch, which effectively drew

42 Floor. “The Dutch” in Safavid Persia, 325

43 For more information on early Orientalist scholars and specialists, see Said, Orientalism, 50-51.

79

the line between Christianity and Islam.44 That would certainly rule out any formal education in the religion itself, adding to the already prevalent stereotypes about the

Muslim empires. Some anti-Muslim propaganda depicted the prophet Mohammed as nothing more than a con artist, swindling people into turning away from the true faith of

Christianity.45 The most brutal depictions of the depravity of Muslims came from the

Middle Ages, when the Christian church used more fear and superstition to “educate” the masses. As Renaissance humanists took over education, anti-Muslim propaganda became less about labeling Muslims as brutal and barbaric, and more about making them appear backwards, unenlightened and unrefined. Such propaganda was designed to emphasize the difference between the civility of the area ruled by the Christian princes and the barbarity of the Muslim empires, particularly as anti-Ottoman sentiment grew in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Yet, the description of Mohammed–the con artist, the impostor, a man seeking to elevate his own position–fits what both early modern and modern scholars of the Sherleys described Sir Anthony to be. In fact, this description fits most of Elizabeth’s courtiers, Gentlemen Adventurers, and even some merchants and travel writers moving between Islamic empires and the kingdoms of Latin

Christendom.

44 “…an enemy must be effectively demonized in order to justify harsh tactics used against it,” Bisaha, Creating East and West, 166; see also, Brotton, Renaissance Bazaar, 66-67, and Irwin, Dangerous Knowledge, 55-56, on Petrarchs contribution to humanist studies and anti-Muslim propaganda.

45 Bisaha, Creating East and West, 167-168, on anti-Muslim propaganda “education” of the Middle Ages in Latin Christendom; see also, Irwin, Dangerous Knowledge, 60-62, for the shift of education and anti- Muslim propaganda into the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

80

Sir Anthony Sherley first attended university in 1579–prior to his serving as captain in Her Majesty’s army with his father and older brother–as was expected of a man of his station and class, receiving his Bachelor’s degree from Oxford in 1581.46 All of the Sherleys were well educated; university education prepared them for taking over

“the honors and duties accorded and expected of [members] of a prominent family,” as well as for life in the cutthroat environment of a European court, as described earlier.47

Because this education also took place in one of the preeminent universities in Early

Modern Europe, it is safe to assume that Oriental Studies also found a place in the

Sherley’s schedule when they each attended. Although it would not be for another twenty years before the trek to Persia would take place, the education the Sherleys received at the university appeared to more than adequately prepare them for adventuring out into the territories of the Orient. Throughout Anthony’s main publication, much of the writing feeds into the stereotypes of the “Other” in the Muslim empires, but nothing reads as shock or surprise, rather more as confirmation of what was already known. The adventurers who appear to express more shock at the difference in culture are the manservants and retainers accompanying the two brothers. This could possibly be due to the alternate levels of socio-economic class between the retainers and the brothers, which would in turn affect education. If those accompanying the Sherleys in their entourage did not encounter Oriental Studies education in a similar manner to the Sherley brothers prior

46 Ross, Persian Adventure, 2.

47 Davies, Elizabethans Errant, 3.

81 to their journey–intending to be educated by falling in with those “superior” to them– their impressions make more sense in context.

The Sherleys go to the Orient

By the time Sir Anthony left England for the last time in 1599, he had already been involved in a number of enterprises aimed at elevating his status and improving his income. In 1595 his father purchased Anthony a fleet of nine ships, ostensibly with the money he had pilfered from Queen Elizabeth, given the timing. This enabled Anthony– and later his older brother Thomas, who would take over a number of the fleet–to pursue a maritime endeavor that had the possibility of bringing in more income through privateering, similar to many of his contemporaries, such as Sir Francis Drake.48 Little was written by either brother directly during their endeavors at sea, unlike Sir Anthony’s publication about the Persian voyage and subsequent writings, although they each had mostly unsuccessful voyages, such as Thomas Sherley’s disastrous voyage to seek out the remnants of the Spanish Armada to “pirate” them for funds to pay back his extensive debts and resulting in mutiny and Thomas’s imprisonment, or Sir Anthony’s mission to the West Indies for a similar purpose, minus the mutiny.49 While each one ultimately failed at their various pirating schemes, with Thomas ending up mutinied and languishing in a Turkish prison, it provided the foundation for Sir Anthony being successful on future voyages and endeavors, including the trip to the Safavid Empire.

48 Davies, Elizabethan’s Errant, 47.

49 Davies, Elizabethans Errant, 64-68; see also, Penrose, Sherleian Odyssey, 14-27, 31-40.

82

After his patron and Queen Elizabeth’s favorite the Earl of Essex sent him to

Italy, Sir Anthony was left hanging after an issue between Este and the Pope he had been sent to fix reached a resolution. Sir Anthony then either found his brother at loose ends from Sherley family business transacted in Florence as well, or his brother attended him from England as a part of the entourage; different historians place Robert in different locations during the time Anthony left England for Italy.50 So the two made their way through the Ottoman Empire with the ultimate goal of achieving and maintaining contact with the ruler of the Safavid Empire, Shah Abbas I. There appears to be a few different reasons why Anthony chose Persia as his destination. In his own writings, as well as those of his retainers, Anthony stated that he met with a Persian merchant, who spoke so highly of Shah Abbas I as a ruler and a noble man that Anthony had no choice but to see this grand person himself.51

In almost the same breath, however, Anthony also admitted that Essex originally supplied the idea for the trip, ultimately to encourage the Persian shah to align with other

Christian nations against the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, but also to benefit

English merchants in Persia. Whether or not he knew that the East India Trading

Company was attempting to establish trading in the Persian Empire does not seem to have an effect on this particular voyage. More that Anthony saw a reconciliation with

England and Elizabeth, which would improve his reputation, and possibly the potential

50 “Sir Anthony…sent a messenger to the court of the archduke at Florence to have his younger brother, Robert, join him,” implying he had not been with the original retinue from England, Davies, Elizabethans Errant, 80; “Anthony…set out from Southwold in Suffolk (England) with his younger brother and twenty- three kindred spirits about New Year’s day, 1598,” Penrose, Sherleian Odyssey, 47.

51 Sherley. Relations, 4-5, see also, Manwaring, “True Discourse,” 107.

83 for more revenue based on ambassadorial work, even if it was only unofficial at this point. Essex offered the perfect means for Anthony’s personal plans to come to fruition, and I believe that Anthony knew he was going to succeed personally, even if he was unable to achieve Essex’ desired outcome, which, ironically, aligned with Sir Anthony’s in the Earl’s wish to reconcile with Elizabeth and his position as favorite. Traveling to

Persia and establishing a connection with the state, in the midst of anti-Ottoman sentiment for their attempted expansion into Christian territory and their middle man status in world trade, would be a coup for the second and third sons of a minor nobleman from England.

Not just once, but several times Anthony wrote within his narratives he got the distinct impression of “civilization” of the Sophi and his government, equating it almost with European “civility.” The term “Sophi” was not only a European bastardization on the name Safavi, the name of the Persian Empire dynasty of the time, but also meant

“wise one” in Greek, the language used by humanists studying classic philosophies.52

Speaking with a Persian merchant in Italy, Persian merchants assisted when the English entourage was stranded after a conflict with Italians traveling through the Mediterranean.

This, compared to seeing the manner in which the Ottoman residents lived while traveling through the region, contributed to a picture of more civility among Persians than others in Europe may have thought. This also contrasted greatly to the term “Turk” or

“Arab” used by the Sherleys and their retainers, a descriptor intended to invoke the same distasteful vision of lazy, greedy, slovenly Muslims that the speaker saw when using the

52 Parry, “Large Discourse,” 60, for the European corruption of the term Safavi; see also, Manwaring, “True Discourse,” 120.

84 term. In addition, both Sir Anthony and the retainers who wrote on their travels through the Ottoman Empire highlighted a huge contrast between the rough manners of the Turks and the genteel, almost European manners of the Persians spoken about by those who traveled there to emphasize this vast difference between Muslim countries. To emphasize the “majesty” of Shah Abbas I and what he brings to Persia in terms of civility versus the “other,” Sir Anthony spoke about the Shah’s first resistance to his rule through the rebellion of other Persian tribes, and commented on his “steadfast assurance of his greatness,” to strengthen the claim of barbarity of the “other,” even as Persian inhabitants.53

The extreme contrasts make sense in the context of when these writings became published for consumption by the courts of Europe, which was well after Anthony and his group were received and feted by the Persian Shah. The religious difference between

Europe and the Middle East also had an effect on the discourse between the two cultures.

The Oriental Studies education combined with anti-Muslim propaganda, which ended up being mainly anti-Ottoman, orientalism and European superiority in the form of

Renaissance self-fashioning led to uneasy interaction between Christian and Muslim. It almost seems as if this material could have been used as propaganda to make the Persians appear as better business partners to the Europeans than the “vile, base” Turks or Arabs, a sentiment echoed by much of Europe by the early part of the seventeenth century.54 This will be explored more later in this project.

53 Sherley, Relation, 37.

54 Sherley. Relation, 13;

85

No European noble gentleman would have traveled anywhere without an appropriately sized retinue of associates, a combination of compatriots relatively close to the nobleman in socio-economic status along with servants and assistants, and it was no different for the Sherleys. William Parry and George Manwaring, two English gentlemen, accompanied Sir Anthony from England into Italy. While there, they were joined by another European gentleman, a Frenchman by the name of Abel Pinçon.

Another individual who wrote the anonymous tract in the early part of the seventeenth century claimed to be a part of the retinue as well, although his role was unclear. These gentlemen benefitted from the patronage of the brothers, which is why they agreed to accompany them.

Given they appear to have come from similar socio-economic backgrounds within

Europe, one can assume that they received some form of formal education at a university, although given their reaction of surprise and shock to various encounters within the

Muslim empires in comparison to Sir Anthony’s writings, may not have had the same level of specialized studies, such as Oriental Studies. Since they were looking to the

Sherleys as patrons, they were not necessarily being groomed in the same manner as the

Sherleys for taking over a large estate and title. Yet they too also lived under similar pressures of a royal court atmosphere of upward mobility through Renaissance self- fashioning, needing to make a name for themselves and their families in whatever manner available and convenient, and would have been absorbing any wisdom their patrons shared with them, along with other merchants and gentlemen of their acquaintance;

William Parry states in his account that “the truth thereof [of the Ottoman Empire], being known to all our Englishmen that trade or travel in these parts, is a warrant omni-

86

sufficient for the report.”55 So it seems safe to also assume that they held similar conceptions as the Sherleys about the residents they would encounter making their way into the Persian Empire, at least in terms of deeming them not on the same level culturally as the Europeans. In addition, although they would have been traveling “light,” they still had any number of servants to attend them, to assist with baggage and show status in various locations through sheer numbers, as well as hiring guards to protect their travel, particularly as they entered Muslim territories, like the Janissaries discussed earlier in this chapter. Anthony references these individuals in a couple of places moving through the Mediterranean, this may have actually been the source of the “anonymous” contributor.

Even before the arrival of the Sherleys in Persia, their carefully cultivated reputation preceded them. Shah Abbas himself stated that he had been “impressed by reports from Europe which praised Sherley’s good sense and prudence in business...”56

These reports could only have come from Europe prior to the Sherley brother’s arrival into Persia, so, at the very least, Robert’s reputation from his business dealings in

Florence, and even Anthony’s involvement in Italian politics, as insignificant as it was, preceded the two of them into the shah’s court. This reputation gave Sir Anthony the opportunity to impress the shah. Had it not been for the chance to prove this reputation in person before Shah Abbas, he certainly would not have gained the Shah’s trust enough to return on his behalf to European courts. Shah Abbas appears to have even anticipated this

55 Parry, “Large Discourse,” 70.

56 Stevens, “Robert Sherley,” 118.

87 reputation, along with Sir Anthony’s security as a “superior” European, acting in the

Shah’s favor while Anthony was back out from Persia touring the courts of Europe. It certainly appears that way in correspondence; Sir Anthony got into many conflicts with his Persian entourage over his status as ambassador of the Shah.57 The only time the use of the attitude turned sour against the Sherleys was with the failure of Anthony, and then subsequently of Robert, to gain the ends that shah desired in sending them to Europe in the first place.

Sir Anthony, his brother Robert and their entourage received a grand welcome into Qazvin, their first major stop into the Persian Empire. Shah Abbas I, returning from a small skirmish in the Caucasus where he spent time putting down rebellion and bringing back ghulams, or civil and noble slaves loyal to the shah, initially greeted the brothers informally from horseback just outside the city, inviting the Europeans to join his cortege after they paid proper homage to their host, dismounting from their horses in front of the shah and kissing his foot. Sir Anthony described the initial meeting only through his greeting to the shah, which he stated being “short unto him,” pledging himself to Shah Abbas’s service, while remarking that the shah himself was “infinite[ly] affable” to the Sherleys.58 Anthony actually had more to say on the grand train accompanying the Shah than he did about the actual first meeting between himself and the shah. The gentlemen accompanying Anthony seemed impressed as well. While

57 “They have not yet had the audience of the Pope, because they are not agreed as to their rank, and each claims the right to precede his companion. That is the reason why they came to blows,” Ross, Persian Adventure, 28.

58 Sherley, Relation, 64.

88

Anthony focused more on the ranks of men among the Persian nobility, William Parry commented on the women accompanying the shah, noting that they rode astride in looser skirts and without veils, calling out “with such a cry as the wild Irish make,” the Irish representing the closest “Other” to these Muslims that the Europeans had come across until this time.59 The entire party also noticed the heads placed on lances, presumably of the enemy, along with necklaces of ears around the necks of the Persian warriors.60

While it appears the entourage did not equate this representation of a cross-section of

Persian inhabitants to the slovenly and barbaric “Turks” and “Arabs,” they still saw the

Persians as “Others,” different from Europeans, and thus not as superior or civilized. The fact that Shah Abbas I knew of this perception, and used it to his advantage, will be explored in more depth later in this project.

While residing in the court of Shah Abbas I, both Sir Anthony and Robert appeared to be treated with the utmost respect; one may assume that of his entourage as well. Many times throughout his sojourn there did Sir Anthony take “liberty of speech,” saying something that could potentially be displeasing to the shah, such as the message of the “Turke,” as Sir Anthony called the Ottoman sultan, apparently desiring the shah’s head for the “ten thousand souls…which had abandoned their possessions under [the

Sultan],” moving to Persia because of their love for the shah. 61 Shah Abbas graciously

59 Parry, Large Discourse, 74; see also, Sherley, Relation, 63, on those accompanying Shah Abbas.

60 Sherley, Relation, page number: see also, Floor, Safavid Government, 278.

61 Sir Anthony speaking before the shah on the wars between Persia and the Ottoman Empire, Sherley, Relation, 76-78.

89 encouraged Sir Anthony to continue, acknowledging Anthony’s assumed superiority either as a European or as a nobleman, or perhaps as both, and taking his word at face value. Sir Anthony does not elaborate on it, merely appearing to accept his due, while flattering Shah Abbas with his loyalty by sharing the information about how even the sultan’s people loved the shah. Sir Anthony proclaims his loyalty to Shah Abbas, referring to him as His Majesty, and feeling the sentiment returned, that “this discourse opened somewhat largely the Kings heart unto mee,” so that he could potentially manipulate the shah into enabling him to accomplish his own desires in this arrangement.62

When Sir Anthony Sherley returned to Europe on behalf of Shah Abbas I, he carried with him not only dispatches from the Shah in Persian, but also the title of

Ambassador, given to him by the grace of the shah, and which he insisted should be used upon his reception into European courts. Sir Anthony had managed to convince Shah

Abbas that he would be received with open arms into the courts of the Holy Roman

Emperor, the Pope and the Spanish King, and that they “will embrace the amitie, honour the name of your Majestie, and unite themselves in any termes of Princely alliance,” which will have the added benefit of bringing “great intercourse of Merchants of all those parts,” thus tying in trade with diplomacy. 63 Yet, this was a form of diplomacy not yet seen in Europe, a European in front of European courts acting on behalf of a Muslim empire. Sir Anthony’s reputation through Renaissance self-fashioning, along with his

62 Sherley, Relation, 76.

63 Sherley, Relation, 116-117, for his oration before Shah Abbas convincing him of his success in this endeavor.

90 presence and involvement in the Persian court, convinced Shah Abbas of his loyalty to the Persian Empire, and it was through this (assumed) loyalty – and the same self- fashioning reputation – that Anthony would carry the Shah’s desire for direct trade and diplomacy back to Europe.

91

CHAPTER 3

MISSIONARIES AND MERCHANTS: THE BUSINESS OF TRAVEL WRITING

One of the major contributions of the Sherleys to European and diplomatic history came from the narratives Sir Anthony and members of his entourage wrote. These writings spawned theatrical productions, magazine serials and novels long before they became subjects of scholarly analysis.1 Yet, the Sherleys did not invent this concept.

They learned about travel writing through their university education, as well as their involvement with Queen Elizabeth and her own diplomatic and intelligence networks, and the role it played in developing both reputation and potential income. These travel narratives, coming from a variety of sources, had a number of different purposes, many of which intertwined with one another, as this chapter demonstrates. They introduced exotic locations to European readers through extensive description, making the reader feel as though they were traveling with the author, which enticed him into desiring travel to these locations, or to provide money for travel for others.2 Travel narratives played off the fear and fascination of European Orientalism, promoting the reputation of the

1 “Courtiers spiced their letters with Sherley stories, and the vulgar multitude read pamphlets about them. A play dramatized their lives, and their travels were embalmed in Hakluyt and Purchas,” Davies, Elizabethans Errant, 1; “…as the Gentleman’s Magazine put it in 1844, ‘Those brave Sherleys!’…and publications…ranging from first-hand accounts of the brothers’ later travels (including autobiography) to a stage play about their adventures,” see also, Parr, “Foreign Relations,” 14-15.

2 “Illustrations of distant lands and peoples made many printed works even more valuable,” Peter C. Mancall, ed., Travel Narratives from the Age of Discovery: An Anthology, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 4.

92

European writing the narrative by highlighting his adventures, his persona being the civilized one among barbarians. Travel writing influenced royalty and commoner alike, and the printing press, developed in Europe in the fifteenth century, made it more accessible to more people.3 Because of this, the popularity of travel writing increased throughout Europe mainly during the latter part of the sixteenth century and through a good portion of the seventeenth century, even affecting the colonial expansion of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as well.4 Travel writing was used extensively in

European university education, both for religious studies as well as areas of specialty like

Orient Studies, as demonstrated in Chapter Two.5 The significance of the impact of travel writing on the European readers, particularly those following in the footsteps of noblemen like the Sherleys, becomes the last “player” to be analyzed in this project.

One of the first major appearances of travel narratives took place during the crusades between Latin Christendom and Islam, primarily during the eleventh through thirteenth centuries.6 This form of travel writing took place mainly in Christian regions, acting mainly as propaganda to encourage good Christian warriors to take up arms against the Muslim “infidel.” It also shows the root of orientalist thinking, as defined earlier in this paper. Emphasizing the differences between the good Christian heroes and the barbaric Muslim “other” helped these travel writers to influence Christian thought

3 Mancall, ed., Travel Narratives, 4-5.

4 Mary Louise Pratt, Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation, (New York: Routledge, 1992), 4.

5 Irwin, Dangerous Knowledge, 62-66, 76-81.

6 Irwin, Dangerous Knowledge, 36-39.

93

about these regions and their inhabitants.7 Because this appeared during the shift from the center of education and advanced thought from the empires around the Mediterranean to

Europe, a Eurocentric shift, it enabled humanists and universities to convince both

European inhabitants and “others” alike of Europe’s superiority, even though the propaganda changed from justification for war against these regions to emphasis on their primitive and exotic culture. This attitude would continue through the colonial European expansion and post-colonial backlash of colonized non-European regions during the eighteenth through twentieth centuries, influencing the travel writing and propaganda produced and published during those times, and justifying the colonization to both

Europeans and those regions being colonized.8 It continues through modernity to today; although the technology and means of communication have changed, the message, the fascination and the propaganda have not. Travel writing still influences discourse between the West and other regions of the world, just as it did during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Because of this, it becomes important to understand exactly how travel writing during the Renaissance, as the Eurocentric shift occurred, affected the goals of the European reader.

Utilizing a combination of primary sources of actual travel writers along with secondary source material consisting of interpretations and analysis of those travel writers, this chapter consists of a literary analysis of the most popular travel writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. These were the precursors and contemporaries of

7 Irwin, Dangerous Knowledge, 39-40.

8 Pratt, Imperial Eyes, 4.

94 the Sherley brothers and their entourage, whose travel narratives inspired theatrical productions and novels even before scholarly analysis. This chapter also contains a discourse analysis of the Sherleian writings themselves, how the narratives coming back from Persia into Europe affected the discourse between the two regions. This includes an analysis on how they fit into the overall genre of travel writing during that time period through how much impact their narrative, as they present it, had on other areas of Europe, such as university education, diplomacy and foreign policy, and trade. Since none of these travel writers operated within a vacuum, and given their popularity among those who attended European universities, they influenced one another, whether they were aware of it or not. Ultimately, though, this chapter aims to provide another layer of depth to the overall thesis project by showing the impact travel writing in general, and the

Sherleys narratives specifically, had within the travel writing genre for the European reader.

The Evolution of Travel Writing from the Middle Ages to Modernity

Starting with the wars between Latin Christendom and Islam during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, European travel writing on the Middle East evolved from encouraging contribution to wars in the name of a superior religion to showing possible avenues of personal, state or church income in the name of a superior culture.9 Both styles of narrative attempted to use propaganda and popular bias to enable European readers to confirm what they already believed about regions like the Middle East. Travel writing during the Renaissance expanded to encompass other styles as well, such as

9 Irwin, Dangerous Knowledge, 38-41.

95 reputation building and exotic storytelling, selling books for printers while continuing to perpetuate deep-seated stereotypes about the “other” in entertaining narrative. Yet, during the crusades of the Middle Ages, the main goal, and thus the propaganda, of travel writing revolved around the righteousness of the cause in the name of Christianity and

God. One common use of this came in the form of shaming Christians for personal shortcomings in their own religion, saying they did not adhere to the strict tenants of

Christianity, and thus the Islamic infidel would win and continue expansion through

Christian territory.10 Dominican missionary Ricoldo da Monte Croce wrote on the beauty and wealth of Acre while he was there just before the fall, stating that the Muslims who resided there must be doing something right in the eyes of God to be rewarded thusly.11 Returning from these exotic lands of the Orients, Christian authors and scholars stated the Muslims wrote slanderous narratives, painting Christians as base and deliberately ignorant.12 Although Christian writers were certainly doing the same thing, the propaganda worked on the average Christian European reader, providing support in terms of money and fighters for the Crusades.

Even after the Crusades and through the late Middle Ages of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, educational treatises coming from writers studying in Muslim countries, humanist translation of Arabic sources, and novels and stage productions showed the superiority of Latin Christendom over Islam, of Europe over the Middle

10 Irwin, Dangerous Knowledge, 39.

11 Irwin, Dangerous Knowledge, 38.

12 Irwin, Dangerous Knowledge, 39-40.

96

East.13 During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the focus shifted from aggressing on the Orient to showing its exoticism as an enticement for travel, education, or profit, while at the same time still painting them as the primitive barbarians Europe needs to conquer. This shift coincided with the shift of the world-view to Euro-centrism, the center of advanced education and worldwide exploration moving from the Mediterranean westward. Although this particular concept has been covered in other chapters of this study, Euro-centrism bears repeating here, because this continued to affect the interpretation of the narrative by both the writer and the reader well into modernity, whether or not they realized the actual effect enough to put a name to it. The construct of the “barbaric” and “primitive” Muslim created during the Crusades remained reasonably consistent through the Renaissance, although the role of the European changed from

Christian warrior to culturally superior ambassador, arranging trade and foreign relations between Muslim empires and European countries. This construct, born of religious stereotyping and misinformation passed as factual representation, continued to not only impact the narratives, but also influence discourse between the two regions.14

In order to entice the European reader into reading the publications, much of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries narratives centered around engagements and conflicts, tying into the “romantic” nature of the gallant European hero fighting off the

“enemy”. This had the benefit of showing the reader who, in fact, was the “enemy” at the time, ascribing the attributes of whomever the European hero was engaged with, this

13 Irwin, Dangerous Knowledge, 60-62.

14 Nabil Matar, Turks, Moors and Englishmen in the Age of Discovery, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999), Preface x.

97

“enemy” to the exotic “other.” Yet, because the “enemy” and “other” changed with economics, politics and religion, travel writing also frequently went hand-in-hand with diplomacy, with many of the narratives speaking about the culture and inhabitants.

Whether the language used to describe the inhabitants and culture was derogatory or not depended upon the diplomacy between the two countries; thanks to anti-Ottoman sentiment in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, “Turks” were deemed slovenly, lazy, brutal and barbaric, while Persia appeared far more civilized.15 This language impacted the readers as well, showing them who their government thought to be friends, and who were thought the “other.” This labeling could be fluid as well, given the amount of religious wars, political differences and civil conflicts taking place throughout Europe, such as the Reformation against Catholicism and the rise of Lutheranism of the sixteenth century, and the English civil war of the seventeenth century.

The interactions the narrative authors themselves (or the narrative subjects) had in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries with foreign cultures also included governments, although the level of interaction of this manner depended on the socio-economic status of the travel writers. Leo Africanus, a Muslim from Granada, Spain, spent his formative years traveling with his uncle in an embassy for the sultan of Fez, a kingdom in North

Africa, and then later, acting on behalf of Pope Leo X.16 A wealthy English knight, Sir

Thomas Roe, traveled with an English embassy to India in 1615, although he found

15 Chardin, Travels, 9; see also, Sherley, Travels into Persia, page number(s) for both Ottoman Empire and Persia.

16 Natalie Zemon Davis, Tricksters Travels: A Sixteenth Century Muslim Between Worlds, (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006), 22-25; see also, Irwin, Dangerous Knowledge, 64.

98 himself acting on behalf of other crowns and governments, such as between the Holy

Roman Emperor and the Palatine family.17 Even the Sherleys found themselves representing two different sides throughout their travels. The overall impression the

European reader had towards the region being written about dictated how the underlying message in the narrative was both written and received, including personal correspondence and journal entries. For example, both Chardin and the Sherleys in their respective narratives called those that inhabited the Ottoman territories they travelled through “vile” and “base,” calling these people “Arabs” and “Turks” to indicate agreement with the European anti-Ottoman sentiment of the seventeenth century, regardless of where these people actually lived. Using this terminology, along with articulating any problems between the European representative and the foreign government, helped whomever was being represented to frame the discourse to their advantage.

Throughout these narratives, the sense of European superiority stood out, even in the midst of setting up their textual persona as humble bystander simply observing another culture and reporting back, regardless of socio-economic status of the description’s author. A prime example of this comes from Sir Anthony himself. When he talks about the foreign places he visited, the European reader “might have suspicion of untruth,” not only because of the fascination with this exotic location and its strangeness, but also because of the “imperfections, the vanity,” how Sir Anthony presented himself

17 William Foster, ed., The Embassy of Sir Thomas Roe to India 1615-1619, (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 1926), Introduction.

99

throughout his narrative.18 Yet, in the same paragraph, he then remarked about his observation of the “poore King with a ten or twelve thousand subjects…our clothes were much better then theirs,” an obvious judgment made from the European bias.19 Sir

Thomas Roe shows another example. Much of his journal while in India consisted of his frustrations in not being treated to the level expected of a European, such as grousing at being stalled while the local constabulary, in “barbarous customes,” searched his belongings and papers.20

Travel writing had another purpose beyond propaganda and promotion of the author. Narratives coming from locations outside of Europe contained extensive imagery of exotic people and rich culture, reading almost like novels. Impressive descriptions of strange, foreign locations fed into the fear and fascination Europe had for these places.

This made the narrative more valuable as source material for other productions and publications, shaping the impressions–and developing the stereotypes–Europeans had of these locations.21 Authors of these travel writings offered intricate detail of the locations visited. The Imperial Ambassador to Constantinople, Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, called

Constantinople like “[n]o place…more beautiful or more conveniently situated,” with tours of ancient monuments, mosques, parks and gardens, showing exotic animals like the

18 Sherley, Relation, 19.

19 Sherley, Relation, 19.

20 Foster, ed., Embassy, 28-30.

21 Mary B. Campbell, “Inward Feeling: Ralegh and the Penetration of the Interior,” in The Witness and the Other World: Exotic European Travel Writing, 400-1600, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988), 211; see also, Mancall, ed., Travel Narratives, 4.

100

“cameleopard,” or giraffe.22 Samuel Purchas’s narratives contained pages and pages of descriptive text on the landscape and the inhabitants of the regions his subjects visited and explored.23

Although Sir Anthony’s narrative centered more around his impressions of the individuals with whom he dealt and those particular events, like the governors and the wealthy of the Ottoman towns and cities on his route, Sir Anthony’s entourage had more colorful descriptions of both the surrounding locales and locals, observations made of the general population and where they lived. From William Parry’s “fashion and disposition of the people and country,” to George Manwarings “something of the fashion of the

Turks,” each one of them had extensive illustration of the regions and inhabitants they met along the way.24 Being able to put the reader in the place described and confirming stereotypes of the culture represented sold books for the printers back in Europe, adding another layer of value to the narrative itself.

The readers themselves had their own ways of interpreting the tracts and publications in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and that needs to be taken into account here as well. While analyzing primary source material, historians can forget that sixteenth and seventeenth century Europeans reading these narratives interpreted them much differently than we do today, not being cognizant of the concepts and biases theoretical historians have defined post-Civil Rights movement to understand how the

22 Mancall, ed. Travel Narratives, 365-369.

23 Purchas, Purchas his Pilgrimes, all; see also, Campbell, “Inward Feeling,” 211.

24 Parry, “New and Large Discourse,” 68; see also, Manwaring, “True Discourse,” 111.

101

reader saw the narrative.25 Many of these readers had no impression of these regions and empires save what was shared by these travel writers. The European readers operated within certain mindsets, particularly if the narrative involved a region believed to be primitive in comparison to Europe. Outside of propaganda designed to promote an agenda of the state, these readers had their own goals when it came to the interpretation of these narrations, even if it was only to reassure themselves of the security in being culturally and religiously superior.26

Travel writing and exotic narrative continued to have a major impact on foreign policy of European countries beyond the seventeenth century as well. Well into the twentieth century much of the travel writing coming out of Europe was presented as propaganda aimed at justifying European means of expansion and colonization disguised as stirring narrative where the hero in the story – the European missionary, merchant or military man – encountered either exotic natives, or barbaric enemies, both of the same foreign culture. This construct derived from those long-standing cultural stereotypes and uneducated representations dating back to the Crusades remained similar no matter the exotic destination, either. The travel writer could be speaking as much about Muslim empires as the Americas or southeast Asia; every non-European location offered the same kinds of inhabitants with the same primitive culture, all considered “other” and subject to the same fear and fascination that justified European involvement through colonization.27

25 Mancall, Travel Narratives, 10-11; see also, Sherman, “Stirrings,” 31-32.

26 Mancall, Travel Narratives, 11.

27 Pratt, Imperial Eyes, 10.

102

Even today, with modernity and the residual effects of post-colonialism contributing to the unrest in the Middle East, similar propaganda crops up in the

Islamophobia affecting both Europe and the United States in the wake of extremist

Muslim groups attacking Christians living in Muslim territories as well as Westerners in both Europe and the United States. A recent article by The Washington Post points out that misconceptions on both sides based on old stereotypes of the barbarity of Muslims and the immorality of Westerners contributes to the continued conflicts between Islamic nations and Western states.28 This misconception also appears in the publication Islam vs. Islamism by Islamic historian and scholar Peter Demant, who dedicates a section of his book to Islamism and Islamophobia in both Europe and the United States.29 These publications highlight the continued usage of propaganda into the modern time to perpetuate traditional views started by travel writers in the Middle Ages and Renaissance.

The Stories of the Writers

Among the many who both wrote and edited travel writing during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, two distinct types of travel writer emerged. Others have separated out these categories, such as showing merchants and explorers to be two different types of writers; yet their roles frequently overlapped, like Jean Chardin, a merchant who also “explored” new locations and avenues of income for his company, yet

28 Arun Kundnuni, “The West’s Islamophobia is only helping the Islamic State,” The Washington Post, (March 23, 2016) https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/23/the-wests- islamophobia-is-only-helping-the-islamic-state/?postshare=7911459190176823&tid=ss_fb (accessed March 28, 2016).

29 Peter Demant, Islam vs. Islamism: The Dilemma of the Muslim World, (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers, 2006), 68-76.

103

produced his own narrative.30 Given the socio-economic class of the Sherleys, along with a “career” of diplomacy not unusual among men of this class during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, I feel combining them only strengthens the analysis of the Sherleian narratives, which eliminates similar subjective terminology and avoids repetition. The first, and earliest, were the missionaries who traveled to the Orient to spread the Christian word on the heels of earlier preachers, such as John de

Mandeville, and thus write of their experiences for other missionaries and Christian scholars, such as Samuel Purchas and William Biddulph.31 These kinds of writings acted as a means to give another missionary a good foundation to a strange place, allowing them to acclimate to foreign regions, cultures and peoples prior to even leaving his home country. Given this purpose, each missionary certainly influenced others, whether inspiring a writing style or encouraging the trip in the first place. Missionaries wrote their narratives not only from their personal experiences, but also drew from journals and writings of others.

One of the most popular travel writers of the seventeenth centuries, Samuel

Purchas, wrote his biggest narrative, Purchas his Pilgrims, in 1613, after the passing of another popular missionary writer and editor, Anglican minister Richard Hakluyt, hence the addition to the Pilgrims title, Hakluytus Posthumus.32 Both Hakluyt and Purchas

30 Sherman, “Stirrings,” 21.

31 Irwin, Dangerous Knowledge, 62-63.

32 Samuel Purchas, Haklyut Posthumus or Purchas his Pilgrims: Contayning a History of the World in Sea Voyages and Land Travells by Englishmen and Others, in Twenty Volumes, Vol. 20, (Glasgow: University of Glasgow Press, 1907), title.

104 wrote about great explorers, nobles and merchants, utilizing and interpreting the personal journals of the subjects themselves, as well as recording the accountings of those engaged with the subject. For example, Purchas talks about those involved in the English offensive against the Spanish Armada and Cadiz from an observers’ point of view, but then switches to first person, as though he was accompanying the captains on their mission himself.33 Purchas and Hakluyt each had narratives spanning several volumes, covering a variety of the voyages to different regions of the world, including the major empires of the Orient. Purchas expanded Hakluyt’s volumes, focusing mainly on

Englishmen, primarily those traveling to different areas of the Orient and the Americas, although in his own title he admits he also writes on “others.”34 Hakluyt wrote about an adventure of Sir Anthony’s in his Principall Navigations, one that took place prior to the

Persian voyage, yet that still shows Sir Anthony’s desire to make a name for himself, or at least Hakluyt’s interpretation of Sir Anthony’s desire.

Samuel Purchas saw travel writing as an act of Christian piety, a pilgrimage to the unenlightened “foreign,” in this case Islamic, lands as the superior yet religious European resident.35 Even the title appears to suggest, then, that even Purchas thought of himself as a Christian seeking exotic shores on which to preach and convert; that he would gain more followers, and inspire others to follow in his footsteps, as he followed in Hakluyts.

33 Purchas, Purchas his Pilgrimes, 1-5 on the players involved in the offensive against Cadiz, 6-11 speaking in the first person as being present during the narrative.

34 William H. Sherman, “Stirrings and Searchings (1500-1700),” in The Cambridge Companion to Travel Writing, Peter Hulme and Tim Youngs, ed., (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 23-24.

35 Irwin, Dangerous Knowledge, 62.

105

Another by John Cartwright had the title The Preachers Trauels, implying a similar trek to Purchas’s in Christian service and piety. Yet, much of this so-called Christian piety came from a place of Euro-centrism, elevating the European’s position over the Muslim infidel.36

Most religious travel writers appeared to have more access to common classes of people than their merchant or noble counterpart, given the voluminous extent of their narrative coverage versus that of merchants and noblemen.37 Although some noble or wealthy travel writers managed to catch glimpses of everyday life for the lower classes, such as rituals and events like weddings and funerals, missionaries participated directly, or at least had more opportunity for direct involvement because of the similarities in socio-economic class to the locals of smaller towns and villages. 38 This access allowed for a bigger glimpse of every day life for other missionaries reading these narratives and considering travel to foreign locations, enabling them to acclimate easier and allowing them more opportunity to focus on their work. This also had the benefit of giving these same glimpses to scholars who later analyzed them to gain better perspective from other viewpoints, since the majority of official documents came from either the wealthy or noble, or government officials. I use and interpret several primary source documents on the Sherleys themselves for this thesis project.

36 Mancall, Travel Narratives, 10-11.

37 Sherman, “Stirrings,” 23-24.

38 “…[Ambassador Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq] made his way to Jagodina, a Serbian village where he arrived during a funeral and decided to take notes about local burial practices,” Mancall, Travel Narratives, 364.

106

The second category of travel writer consisted of merchants like Jean Chardin, who traveled the Silk Road on behalf of trade companies such as the Muscovy Trading

Company out of Russia and Levant (Regulated) Company out of France, or noblemen like the Sherley brothers themselves, making the trek from England to Italy, and then through the Mediterranean and over land through the Ottoman Empire to Persia. While some made these treks sanctioned and financed by government organizations as diplomats, or with guilds or trading companies seeking to establish import and export agreements with foreign governments, many of these wealthier and higher-ranking explorers and merchants, like the Sherleys, found financing through investors to pursue alternate avenues of income.39 These merchants and noblemen took these kinds of treks upon themselves without official sanction or support to prove their value to not only those investors, but also to their monarchs and countries’ governments.40 This type of travel writer, or his editor, appeared to use their narratives to influence not only their own reputation, but also to paint a picture of the exotic nature of the location visited. This, in turn, enabled those whose goals lay in promoting propaganda to further foreign policy, such as during the Crusades, to present the “other” as deserving of the way Europe treated those not up to their standards, with a combination of fear and fascination.

Like the Sherleys, Jean Chardin experienced for himself the manipulation of the

Persian Empire couched in hospitality, being named by “[t]he deceased King of

39 Davies, Elizabethan’s Errants, 77, 81, on the financing of Sir Anthony’s trip to Italy, and then into Persia; see also, Chardin, Travels, 5, on his support by the Levant (Regulated) Company.

40 “It might prove a subject to extract great and good matter out of, for the honor of her Maiestie (Majesty), and the particular good of our Country…” Sherley, Relation, 5.

107

Persia…his own Merchant,” charging Chardin “by Letters Patents in the year 1666” to have several jewels made that apparently Shah Abbas I had designed himself prior to his death.41 While this took place after the Sherleian voyage, the connection made because

Sir Anthony convinced the shah to allow him to return to England on his behalf influenced this sort of involvement in future interactions between the Safavid Persian

Empire and European merchants and noblemen. Shah Abbas’ successor utilized his predecessor’s tactics, apparently needing to placate the European ego, and of Renaissance self-fashioning by extension, of Jean Chardin in order to manipulate him into doing something on behalf of the Safavid government.

Another European member of the nobility, Sir Thomas Roe, wrote his main piece during an embassy voyage to India in 1615. Roe’s travel writing, expressed through journal entries as opposed to one continuous narrative like Sir Anthony’s, still read like the narrative it was meant to be, an adventure of a European in full splendor traveling to a foreign land, inhabited by the “other.”42 He found much in common with earlier travel writers. Like the Sherleys, Roe was a native of England, and had been employed by

Elizabeth as an esquire of the body, as well as involved with trade companies such as the

East India Trading Company for whom he represented as ambassador, an unheard-of request by a company who preferred to remain free of government interference, beyond

41 Chardin, Travels, 2

42 Foster, Embassy, Introduction xxiii; “…Smythe suggested that ‘an ambassador of extraordinary countenance and respect’ should be sent to India,” see also, Brown, Itinerant Ambassador, 31.

108

signing charters.43 Like the Safavid Persian Empire, one of the main exports coming out of India into Europe was silk, and both India and Persia shared the issue of dealing with middlemen for distribution into Europe, with similar headaches due to limited distribution and higher costs.44 Enter the arrangement with the East India Trading

Company.

Sir Thomas became involved with English foreign policy and trade prior to this arrangement through his merchant investments and his position working for the Queen, and working with the East India Trading Company as ambassador enabled him to assist

India in finding ways to circumvent the middle man, even if he was not an official ambassador for the English crown. He appeared to be an effective ambassador for all involved, though, acting on behalf of those whose interest he served–the East India

Trading Company, the English crown and the Indian Empire–and yet still working to his own advantage. After trade negotiations with the Mughal prince went sour, Sir Thomas

Roe approached the emperor himself, and, without placing any blame on the prince, successfully entreated the emperor to acquiesce to a mutually beneficial agreement

“incorporating all the provisions that governed the Anglo-Indian relationship.”45

While Roe’s embassy differed from the Sherleian voyage in intent due to his connection to the East India Trading company, both the means of accomplishment and

43 Foster, Embassy, Introduction xiii.

44 “The [silk] trade continued, but under increasing difficulties and at higher cost.” Brown, Itinerant Ambassador, 21-22.

45 Brown, Itinerant Ambassador, 63; see also, Foster, ed., Embassy, 128-129, for firsthand detail on the exchange, which took place during the Persian New Year ceremony of Nowruz.

109 actual outcome were similar, particularly with both their home governments and the foreign governments with whom they worked. Because of this, it is easy to see one of the major impacts that both his and the Sherley narratives had on trade and diplomacy, in addition to the overall impact the Sherleys had on the genre of travel writing, to be explored later in this chapter. The Sherleys, with the help of their entourage, made an impression in England through their narratives, forcing the English to take notice of them by providing an alternate direct connection to Persia, and becoming an important part of

Persian history in the process. Sir Thomas Roe continued to make an impression on

England through his journal and correspondence, enabling an alternate direct connection to India and improving his reputation as an ambassador, which appears to be his personal goal. Both the Sherleys and Roe had former favorites of the English court now on the outs with their royal sponsors as those encouraging the trip, if not actually providing funds for it; in Sir Anthony’s case, it was the Earl of Essex, for Sir Thomas, Sir Walter

Ralegh.46

Sir Thomas’s writings also reflected the importance of reputation and Renaissance self-fashioning, as well as showed how travel narratives could be used as a means to improve upon or impress with reputation. This primarily occurred with the merchant and nobleman Gentleman Adventurer types, whose livelihoods could change depending on the success or failure of the venture being undertaken.47 With his extensive descriptions in his journal about his negotiations and dealings with the Indian governor and emperor,

46 Brown, Itinerant Ambassador, 8-9.

47 Sherman, “Stirrings,” 25-26.

110

Roe continued to indicate his status as ambassador to the intended audience, sharing problems and issues with the “other” not recognizing his authority, and then emphasizing the difference in the way the Mughal ruler treated him with respect due his station.48

Very few travel writings showed a narrative from the Oriental angle. One notable exception to this was the case of Leo Africanus, also known as al-Hasan ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Wazzan. A Muslim Moor expelled from Granada, Spain during the inquisition, al-Hasan, who would later take the Christian name of Leo, eventually found himself in the court of Pope Leo X. Like the Sherleys, Leo was an opportunist, who, like

Shah Abbas, recognized the “orientalist” viewpoint of Europeans, having been educated in it from a young age as Spanish Moor forced from his home, and utilized this knowledge to further his own ambitions. Educated at a local madrasa, or Muslim school, al-Hasan learned the standard European Trivium of grammar, rhetoric and reading, along with religious studies of both the Qu’ran and basic Shari’a law; he was seen as “an extraordinary polymath” to the Europeans he met.49 In addition, he attended a number of lectures in various subjects, and various languages, leading to his first encounter with diplomacy, through his uncle and the kingdom of Fez. Later, he put this experience to use when he was presented to the pope, first as a prisoner captured by an Italian pirate to be given as a gift to Leo X, then later as an interlocutor and servant of the pope’s, speaking with him on the Qu’ran and Bible and offering insight into the religion of Islam,

48 “The King never used any ambassador with so much respect…” Foster, ed., Embassy, 90.

49 Davis, Tricksters Travels, 20, 62.

111

eventually becoming baptized as a Christian and taking the name Joannes Leo.50

Although he did not appear to remain wholly Christian, he managed to straddle both worlds, and do so to his advantage.

Given his status and connections through family, al-Hasan had more in common with the merchants and noblemen travel writers of Europe than the missionaries, even though he became well-known because of his involvement as a Muslim with the father of

Latin Christendom. According to his writings, al-Hasan actually traveled independently for many years, with commerce having been the possible goal, since he accompanied

Muslim and Jewish merchant caravans along the coast of North Africa.51 The travel writings of Leo Africanus show a point of view from the side of the “other,” and that point of view is surprisingly similar to the travel writings of Europeans like the Sherleys.

Leo Africanus, al-Hasan, Johannes Leo, they all appeared to be the same person, yet of different religions, representations and allegiances. Like the European merchants and noblemen, al-Hasan represented himself in different ways, adapting to the situation.

He appeared to be influenced by Renaissance self-fashioning as well, learning how his reputation affected his mobility through the noble ranks as an ambassador, and later as an intimate of the Pope. He certainly realized the concept of Orientalism, even if, like the others, he could not put a name to it; adopting a Christian name and being baptized in that religion, yet returning to Muslim traditions while in those regions, demonstrated the most his understanding of how Islam was perceived by Latin

50 Davis, Tricksters Travels, 55-65

51 Davis, Tricksters Travels, 24.

112

Christendom, and how to manipulate that to achieve his own goals. This particular travel writing reflects this, and certainly affected European readers, as al-Hasan left a manuscript of his narrative behind in Italy, which would be published and translated throughout the sixteenth century, enabling European readers to study this exotic Muslim and his involvement in Christian Europe.52

A variety of travel writing came out of the Orient to entice European readers with exotic cultures and barbaric and primitive inhabitants, with Europeans–or “others” like

Leo Africanus who became Christianized, but no less exotic–acting as the superior and civilized “hero.” These narratives had another purpose, however. Travel writing could not be easily ignored by wealthy, noble and influential members of court or government, including the monarch him or herself. Sir Anthony Sherley’s narrative, filled with extensive details about both the Ottoman and Safavid Persian Empires like his entourage’s writings, was meant for none other than Queen Elizabeth herself, to impress her in his involvement with a potential new avenue of trade and foreign policy. If that failed, it at least enabled Sir Anthony, and the Sherley name, to regain favorable impression in Europe and open up possible avenues of personal income.

The Sherley’s Personal Role in Travel Writing

The Sherleian narratives existed within a network of travel writings designed to make either the writer or the subject–or in some cases both–impressive to the reader. The

Sherleys, along with their entourage, created not only a textual persona within the writings themselves to improve their reputation and the reputation of who they

52 Davis, Tricksters Travels, 4-5.

113 represented, but also shared exciting imagery of foreign locations, particularly of the

Orient, to entice European readers, making the narrative valuable to book printers and sellers.53 Most writings took on a life of their own, particularly after the author died, if the story was considered fascinating or entertaining in some way. The Sherley family, along with their intriguing adventures born of their need to maintain reputation and gain income as demonstrated in an earlier chapter, certainly qualified to be a part of the travel writing genre. According to Anthony Parr, “[t]he exploits of the Sherleys are perceived to have a value independent of policy…they become a part of the process of shaping public attitudes to exotic experience and defining the challenge of empire.”54 One of the largest inherent values of the Sherleys voyage was not only in the voyage itself, but comes from their contribution to the overall genre of travel writing, their contribution to all aspects of it, giving us the opportunity to observe the voyage from the inside out.

The Sherleian contribution to travel writing also included description of a place few had experienced ever before; the Safavid Persian Empire. The Sherley’s were not the first Europeans to travel to the Persian Empire; with silk being such a prized commodity, the Safavid dynasty, especially Shah Abbas, had received a number of

European nobles and merchants alike throughout the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, albeit sporadically, with the most significant connection coming from Russia initially.55

Sir Anthony Sherley and his entourage needed to provide descriptive imagery about the

53 Sherman, “Stirrings,” 19.

54 Parr. “The Sherley Brothers,” 19.

55 Matthee, Silk for Silver, 78-79.

114 people and places they witnessed to feed the imaginations of the readers back in England, as well as set up Sir Anthony himself as an adventurer, voyaging to rarely traveled lands; according to Matthee, “[t]he first visit to [Persia] from the West during [Abbas’] reign was the English gentleman Antony Sherley.”56 This meant everyone produced writings that not only contained specific illustrative dialog about the areas travelled, but dialog that also highlighted the difference between the Safavid Persian Empire and Europe, as well as between the Safavid Persian Empire and the Ottoman Empire. Reading the narratives of the various members of the entourage, then, one gains a much different picture of the “Turks” or “Arabs” of the Ottoman Empire versus the great “Majesty” of the “Sophi” of the Persian Empire.57

The difficulty in analyzing these narratives at face value, particularly those of the

Sherleys, comes in when one looks at the time frame between the event itself and when the writing was produced and published, not to mention translations into other languages, with the nuances of those languages interfering in interpretation of the material.58 All of the publications on the Sherleian voyage appeared after 1601, at least two years into the voyage. Sir Anthony’s long narrative, written in the first person with detailed conversations between him and various important personages, such as Shah Abbas I, was not seen in print until 1613, and that was in its original English. Given the reliability of eyewitness accounting, the actual language used in specific discussions, like the lengthy

56 Matthee, Silk for Silver, 79.

57 Parry, “New and Large Discourse,” 68.

58 Mancall, Travel Narratives, 3.

115

conversations between Sir Anthony and the Shah, cannot necessarily be taken literally.59

When analyzing these narratives, one must take into account the veracity of the literature; not just how it appears through the lenses of historical concepts, or the bias of the author, but also at the length of time the author–or editor–took in producing the narrative, to determine what is factual, and what might be elaboration.

The first piece of narrative about the Sherleys did not even come from the Sherley brothers themselves. It appeared in publication in England just after the Sherleys arrived at the Safavid Persian Empire, an anonymous tract written in 1600. Although there is no direct evidence of this, it appears as though this particular narrative not only helped to persuade the Elizabethan court of the valor of the Sherleys, but also possibly influenced

Sir Anthony himself, given the fact that it was published based on letters supposedly sent back to England with two gentlemen who “haue followed [Sir Anthony] in the same the whole time of his trauaile [travel].”60 With Sir Anthony’s reputation of ego and self- centeredness, if he realized others were attempting to capitalize on his voyage, particularly if that narrative came from those Sir Anthony allowed to accompany him as a part of his entourage, he certainly responded in kind with his own publication, even with the attempted suppression of the anonymous tract in England.61 Sir Anthony’s narrative,

Sir Anthony Sherley’s Travels into Persia, contains a plethora of examples highlighting

59 Andrea Frisch, The Invention of the Eyewitness: Witnessing and Testimony in Early Modern France, (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004) 11.

60 See the tract by ANON in Ross, Persian Adventure, bibliography.

61 Parr, “The Sherley Brothers,” 18.

116 his own importance, as well as his personal impact on the various situations in which he finds himself. One of the biggest examples of this shows up in Sir Anthony’s audience with Shah Abbas I, convincing the shah to send him back to Europe as an agent of the

Persian Empire.62 By framing the discourse through the lens of personal experience as Sir

Anthony does throughout his narrative, like his diplomacy with the Persian ruler, Sir

Anthony attempted to impress the European reader without even meeting the reader in person, using Renaissance self-fashioning in another, more indirect manner.

The anonymous tract, along with William Parry’s writing in 1601 and Anthony

Nixon’s well-timed piece The Three English Brothers, provided the foundation for, among other things, a London stage production in 1607.63 Well-timed because this occurred shortly after the release of Thomas Sherley the younger from a prison in

Constantinople; these travel writings had the benefit of showing another Sherley brother returning as the hero, wrongfully imprisoned by the barbaric “other,” even though his prison time was perfectly justified, given the piracy charges against him as shown in

Chapter Two. Although small publications and tracts could be destroyed, a London stage production would prove harder to be ignored by the nobility, and thus by England, given both Elizabeth’s and James’s delight with the stage. Elizabeth frequently enjoyed private performances of various acting troupes, and many English courtiers, like the Earl of

62 Sherley, Travels, 118-119.

63 Parr, “The Sherley Brothers,” 18.

117

Leicester, along with James himself, sponsored companies.64 This, however, only showed one aspect of the impact of the Sherley brothers.

With Sir Anthony’s publication, Sir Anthony Sherleys Relation of his Travailes into Persia, came his gentlemen retainers and entourage with their own writings.

William Parry, as mentioned before, with his A New and Large Discourse on the Travels of Sir Anthony Sherley in 1601, along with George Manwaring’s True Discourse and

Abel Pinçon’s Relation of a Journey, all spoke on the voyage through the Mediterranean and Ottoman Empire to Safavid Persia, although, unlike the others, Pinçon’s version started in Aleppo. All embodied the quintessential entourage of the sixteenth century, men without the Sherleys’ influence with the wealthy and higher nobility, particularly in the English court, as demonstrated earlier in this project. Their own travel writing mirrors that of Sir Anthony’s, not only corroborating people, places and events, but echoing beliefs and biases, such as William Parry’s description of the inhabitants of

Aleppo as “a most insolent, superbous, and insulting people.”65 Or Abel Pinçon’s statement about “Arab ruffians” who accosted them when crossing a river within the

Ottoman territory, and that only their superior firepower in the form of arquebuses dissuaded the “other” from attacking the Europeans.66 George Manwaring appeared far more forgiving in his narrative, although he received the worst at the hands of the

64 Akrigg, Jacobean Pageant, 61; see also, Weir, Elizabeth I, 249-250.

65 Parry, “New and Large Discourse,” 68.

66 Pincon, “Relation,” 86.

118

“Turks,” being dragged around a portion of Aleppo by his ear; he focused more on the architecture of the mosques and houses, considering both “very fair.”67

These were the first writings published and distributed in England, the first ones to reach the wealthy and influential at court.68 None of the gentlemen accompanying Sir

Anthony appeared to be trying to overshadow the Sherleys in their writings, putting their own names before the noblemen with whom they traveled. Rather, because of their attachment to the retinue as part of the entourage, they expected that simply by accompanying Sir Anthony and Robert Sherley, they would gain reputation along with the two brothers.69 Thus, it behooved them to not only take their writing cues from Sir

Anthony, but to complement him and his own publication by mimicking his style and intent. The writings of the gentlemen retainers represented the first impact; both on the

Sherleian voyage itself as the stories of these narratives spread from Persia to England, as well as that on the English readers, paving the way for Sir Anthony’s longer narrative to impact others of influence, such as the English court, as well as other voyages to the

Orient, like Sir Thomas Roe’s embassy.

The Sherleys appeared to inspire another potential avenue of both income and diplomacy, that of the unofficial ambassador to–and from–the Orient during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. While it was not uncommon for noblemen to take on an

67 Manwaring, “True Discourse,” 111-112.

68 Ross, Persian Adventure, xiii-xiv.

69 “I had also five and twenty other Gentlemen…such as had served me long; onely carried with their loves to me, into the covse (cause) of my fortune.” Sherley, Relations, 20.

119

“exploratory” voyage, making contact with foreign governments with overtures from their home state – albeit unofficially – to the benefit of both the home state and the noblemen, rarely did one make a career out of this, although it appears that the Sherleys managed to do so, particularly Robert Sherley and his return to Persia with Sir Dodmore

Cotton and the English embassy of 1627.70 Sir Thomas Roe’s voyage as an “itinerant” ambassador to Mughal Empire of India in 1613, mirrored much of this, proving that this sort of avenue of income was not unusual, particularly in the seventeenth century. In fact, Roe speaks about the Sherleys in his own journal, primarily the voyage of Robert returning out into Europe, to take over where his brother Anthony failed. This alone shows the impact of the Sherleian voyage among others traveling to the Orient, but that was not the only reason for the mention in Sir Thomas Roe’s journal entries. Instead,

Roe appears to be undermining Robert’s ambassadorial mission, stating that Robert is attempting to “deceive” King James after working with the King of Spain; given the timing, this may be in reference to the Treaty of London ending the strife between

England and Spain, and Roe accuses Robert of double dealing.71 In a strange way, this adds legitimacy on to Robert’s role as ambassador, and the Sherleian voyage overall.

From the Middle Ages through modernity, travel writing has impacted impressions of foreign regions, particularly coming from European authors’ perspectives to European readers. During the Middle Ages and the crusades of Latin Christendom against the expansion of Islamic territory, much of this travel writing appeared only as

70 Stevens, “Robert Sherley,” 115.

71 Foster, ed., Embassy, 112.

120 propaganda to encourage Christian support while fighting the “infidel” Muslim. The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries saw this propaganda shift into less aggressive narrative, instead making the “other” appear to be primitive and barbaric to prove the superiority of Europe, reinforcing the concepts of Orientalism and Renaissance self- fashioning used to frame the discourse between these two regions.

The Sherley’s narrative fit within this genre of travel writing in a number of ways, not only adding to the available publications, but bridging the gap between different types of travel writing, between ambassadorial missions and merchant narratives. It also gave

European readers a descriptive look at the locations and inhabitants of the regions of the

“other,” not only providing entertainment, but also reinforcing beliefs and stereotypes about these locations. Sir Anthony’s narratives, along with that written by his entourage, also aimed to improve the reputation of the author–or subject–with the intended audience.

This worked hand-in-hand with entertaining narrative that increased revenue at bookstores; an entertaining piece that was printed frequently had a better chance of finding its way into the hand of the influential.

Overall, travel writing served a number of purposes, the biggest of which were entertaining narratives showing regions of the world the average European did not get to see. Biggest because narratives that enticed the reader to read enabled these narratives to reach more people, promoting propaganda, perpetuating reputation, and confirming the readers’ beliefs about the region of the world they explored through the narrative. They gained popularity, increasing in sales through booksellers and printers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, becoming the means and the filter through which Europe saw the rest of the world, even with the bias of the writer. Travel writings had the ability to

121 improve the author’s or subject’s reputation through the popularity of their textual persona within these narratives among the European readers. All of these reasons combine made travel writing an important part of both European trade and diplomatic reforms, as well as foreign policy, and the Sherleian narrative was no different.

122

CHAPTER 4

THE FASCINATING PERSIAN EAST FROM THE OTHER SIDE: SHAH ABBAS I

Bordered by the Ottoman Empire to the west and the Indian Mughal empire to the east, and also under constant threat from the massive Mongol Empire spanning the northern region, the Safavid Persian Empire appears to be the odd duck of the Islamic empires at its inception in 1501. (see Figure 2) This was mainly due to geography, although also due in part to the state’s official religion of Shi’i Islam, versus the predominately Sunni Muslim regions of the Ottoman Empire (and Mamluk state). Persia was situated on the far eastern edge of the Ottoman Empire, the largest of the Muslim empires, and thus not connected to the Islamic Mediterranean for trading and diplomacy.

Expansion of the Persian Empire proved difficult, punctuated by both civil war within

Persia among tribal factions, as well as border warfare between the Persian and Ottoman tribes. Some Ottoman historians have argued that the Ottoman expansion was simply to keep the entire Muslim world under its control as it spread, and that included the harassment of both the Safavids in Persia and the Mamluks of modern-day Egypt and

Syria, diminishing their power.1 Thus it would seem that Persia relied on good relations with neighboring empires to maintain trade relations with countries on the other side of these empires, often looking for alternate ways to reach these other regions, particularly

1 Matthee, Silk for Silver, 18; see also, Irwin, Dangerous Knowledge, 60.

123

Europe. Various Safavid shahs attempted a variety of economic, political and military reforms to unite the empire, with its diverse tribal leaders, with limited success. Only

Shah Abbas I would prove to be a leader who could implement successful economic, political and military reforms that other shahs attempted to maintain and expand on in future dynasties.

Known for his economic and administrative policies, as well as the creation of the first standing army in Persia, Shah Abbas I ruled during what is considered one of the most prosperous and progressive eras in Persian history. According to Safavid historian

Dr. Rudi Matthee, “Were it not for Shah Abbas’s reputation as a state builder…the

Safavids would have been unremarkable, the passing of one dynasty in a long sequence in Iranian history.”2 Couple this with the fact that the Sherleys opened the floodgates to direct Persian interaction with Europe after the trickle started by the Muscovy and East

India Trading companies, add to it the diplomatic connections the shah made with other

European governments such as Spain and Russia, and all this makes Shah Abbas I an important figure of study in Iranian history, as well as the economic history of early modern Europe.3 Utilizing secondary sources on the Safavid Empire and the shah’s place in it, this chapter focuses on the background of the empire, and the motivating factors causing the return of the Sherley brothers to Europe on behalf of the shah, including the use of European orientalism to manipulate the discourse with European governments and their representatives to the shah’s advantage. I will examine whether their campaign was

2 Matthee. Silk for Silver, 10.

3 Matthee, Silk for Silver, 76-79.

124 ultimately successful or not. This chapter also explores the shah’s perception of Europe in general, and of the Sherleys more specifically, looking at what Shah Abbas I hoped to gain out of this particular relationship with the Sherleys more so than with any other

European visitor to his court.

Shah Abbas I was the first among Safavid rulers to realize that Europe would be the primary means through which Persian goods, mainly silk, could circumvent the

Ottoman Empire and improve Persian participation in the world economy.4 He recognized that connections with Europe played an important role in his trade and economic reforms enabling his empire to flourish. Yet Shah Abbas I appeared to be the most successful at these types of reforms. How did he manage to affect so many improvements to the Persian administration and policy when others had failed?

Diplomacy with Europe, by Europeans and Persians alike, such as Jean Chardin and Don

Juan, whose Persian name of Uruch or Ulugh Beg changed with his conversion to

Christianity in Spain, brought valuable travel narratives about the Safavid Empire and showed the Persian government to be a willing ally in politics and trade.5 Given the similarities between England and Persia as explored later in the chapter, the Sherleian voyages take on new significance, as the two English brothers appeared to be the first

Europeans to undertake this particular kind of diplomatic mission.6 Differing religious

4 Matthee, Silk for Silver, 76-77; see also, Andrew J. Newman, Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire, (London: I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd., 2009), 60-61.

5 Ross, Persian Adventure, Introduction xix.

6 Matthee, Silk for Silver, 79.

125 and cultural philosophies between Europe and the Islamic empires created problems, enhanced by the deep-seated fear and fascination of each other from both regions, which in turn affected policy-making, trade and diplomacy on both sides. A mutually beneficial relationship of this kind, which had never before been seen to this degree between

European countries and the Islamic empires, would keep both regions relevant within the world market, and pave the way for a new mode of diplomacy between them.

Given the lack of primary source material available for this project, I only utilize analyses of other Safavid specialists, which, thankfully, provide a comprehensive look at the Safavid dynasty as a whole, in addition to the reign of Shah Abbas I. My arguments are also shaped by the work of scholars and historians who explore cross-cultural exchanges between Europe and the Islamic regions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, focusing on politics, religion, economy and society. Thus, this chapter only suggests possible motivations for Shah Abbas’s use of the Sherleys and other Europeans during his reign, and how this affected his economic reforms of the Persian Empire. To aid in that, this chapter also incorporates a short structural analysis of Safavid economy and society through examining Persia’s own unique position as a Muslim territory and an outlier from the surrounding Islamic empires during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Historiography on the Sherleys from the Shah’s Perspective

Safavid Persian primary sources produced in Iran, such as state papers and chronicles, as well as direct correspondence from Persian shahs to European monarchs still in European countries, number far fewer than European historical sources on the

European travelers and merchants coming in and out of the Islamic empires between the

126 sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. The majority of primary source material comes in the form of correspondence between residents of Safavid Persia and European merchants and religious travelers, written in both European and Asian languages.7 The limited number of Persian sources analyzed prior to the mid-twentieth century typically fell into one of two categories, ancient and secular or Islamic. More recently, though, historians have been able to combine both the secular and the religious, understanding both as intertwined, particularly in governmental systems, similarly to understanding the role of

Christianity in Early Modern European history.8 This enabled study on the effect of Shah

Abbas I’s economic reforms on the place of the Safavid Persian Empire within the

Mediterranean trade structure, and how that shifted with his use of European travelers and their own agendas to the shah’s advantage.

Safavid specialist Rudolph Matthee emphasizes Shah Abbas I’s desire to gain a direct route to the European markets to circumvent the Ottoman Empire’s hold on imports and exports out of Persia. In The Politics of Trade in Safavid Iran: Silk for

Silver, 1600-1750, Matthee discusses the anti-Ottoman sentiment in Europe at the time, and Sir Anthony’s role in promoting that sentiment throughout Europe on behalf of the

Shah in particular.9 Here, Matthee looks at the entire dynasty of the Safavids, while

7 Newman, Safavid Iran, 5; see also, Matthee, Silk for Silver, 8.

8 Fereydoun Adamiyat and Thomas M Ricks. “Problems in Iranian Historiography” in Iranian Studies, Vol. 4, No. 4, (Pennsylvania: Routledge, 1971), 134, see also Sholeh Quinn. “The Historiography of Safavid Prefaces,” in Safavid Persia: The History and Politics of an Islamic Society, Charles Melville, ed. Vol. 4, (London: I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd, University of Cambridge, 1996), 1.

9 Matthee, Silk for Silver, 79-81.

127 focusing on Persian trade and foreign policy, particularly Shah Abbas I’s reforms, in which the Sherleys played a major role.

Matthee also offers a counter viewpoint to the orientalism of Europe and the west from the Persian perspective in his article “Between Aloofness and Fascination: Safavid

Views of the West,” which provides an in-depth analysis of Eurocentric perspective of the Safavids from the Persian viewpoint, as well as Safavid Persian attitudes toward and stereotypes about Christians, particularly European Christians.10 This article also provides an explanation for the Safavid shah’s own motives for action and reaction involving European travelers, such as the Sherleys. Matthee highlights how the “Self” of the European viewpoint has affected the history of the Persian “Other.”11 However, the

Safavid Empire also had their own perspective of the European “Other” that can now be studied, thanks in part to similar fear and fascination defined by Orientalism, by analyzing both Persian and European correspondence for the orientalist perspective and bias of the author of the correspondence.12

What particularly stands out in this study is the shift that occurred during Shah

Abbas I’s reign, which appeared to be inspired in part by Persian involvement with

Europeans in trade and diplomacy. This shift involved Persians judging the value of

European interaction “by pragmatism…and [their] perceived usefulness,” indicating that

10 Matthee, “Aloofness,” 221-222.

11 Matthee, “Aloofness,” 219.

12 “Other visitors to Iran during the reign of Shah Abbas and that of his two successors confirm [greater European acceptance] that took place in this period,” Matthee, “Aloofness,” 228.

128

Shah Abbas and his successors knew that to work effectively with European travelers, particularly those with influence among the courts of Europe, the Persians had to acknowledge the Europeans’ belief in their own superiority. 13 This knowledge–and acknowledgement–certainly influenced Persian discourse with Europeans, much in the same manner as European oriental studies influenced the Sherley brothers discourse with the Shah.

Willem Floor’s contribution also encompasses trade with and within Safavid

Persia, as well as the structure of the Safavid government. A scholar and economic specialist of early modern Iran himself, Floor looks at the Safavid Empire in the long dureé. In his chapter in Iran and the World in the Safavid Age, titled “Arduous

Travelling: The Qandahar-Isfahan Highway in the Seventeenth Century,” Floor covers trade routes and travelling during the time when the Sherleys were making their trek into

(and back out of) the Safavid Empire. This overview of trade and travel during the

Safavid period provides a non-Eurocentric analysis of the atmosphere surrounding travel on the Islamic territory part of the trade routes known as the Silk Road, as well as another economic explanation for the motivation behind Sir Anthony and Robert’s journey through Islamic territory both by sea and over land. It also highlights the Eurocentric

“orientalist” view through which Sir Anthony is writing of his adventure. While this particular piece mainly provides an overview of the conditions of Asian and European merchants alike travelling along the silk road during the seventeenth century, and why they chose overland routes versus by sea, through detailing specific conditions, it also

13 Matthee, “Aloofness,” 232.

129 helps to show how these conditions affected the discourse of the Sherleys and their entourage as they described their voyage through the Ottoman Empire into Safavid

Persia.

In his more complete work on the Safavid Empire, Safavid Government

Institutions, Floor appears to echo his economic historian contemporaries, Rudi Matthee and Edmund Herzig, that the Sherleys voyage appeared to be only one more event in the grander scheme of Shah Abbas’s economic and diplomatic reforms, and in the overall picture of European diplomacy.14 The Sherleian voyage was merely a single mention in a long history of significant diplomatic events, not significant in and of itself. In fact, he quotes other Europeans who visited the Persian empire directly, such as French merchant

Jean Chardin. Yet, in his citations, he refers to the Sherleys as at least source material, implying some involvement with Shah Abbas. Moreover, he provides a “nuts and bolts” view of government structure and policy, with emphasis on the Safavid military, providing a good statistical foundation.

One historian shows a broader picture of the entire Safavid reign, with as much emphasis on religion, politics and economy as social and cultural topics, providing a well-rounded publication covering the entire Safavid dynasty and its place in the greater history of Iran. Andrew J. Newman, wrote Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire based on European accounts and limited Persian language sources, many of which

14 Willem Floor, Safavid Government Institutions, (Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, Inc, 2001), 278- 279.

130

provided conflicting information due to the period in which they were written.15 Newman admits that there is little cross-over between the political, religious or economic domains with socio-cultural history; they tend to remain exclusively one with a smattering of the other. Nevertheless, he compiled a substantial amount of information in most categories covering the entire Safavid dynasty, without showing favoritism towards any one ruler or period. The background material Andrew Newman used talks about the previous rulers’ influence, such as Shah Ismail’s use of religion to successfully unite many Safavids against Ottoman invasion and Shah Tahmasp’s ability to continue peace through his ability to be both a human and a divine ruler. Although this study focuses on the reign of

Shah Abbas I, this background becomes particularly useful in showing the overall position that the Safavid Empire and Shah Abbas I was in at the time of the Sherley expedition, along with how that contributed to the expedition’s success. This study fills a gap that Newman, like Matthee, recognizes exists in Safavid scholarship, that is the motivation of Shah Abbas in sending the Sherleys to Europe as representatives of the

Persian empire, in the midst of the other Safavid diplomatic and economic relations with other European countries.

Background of Shah Abbas I and the Persian Government

Grandson of Tahmasp I, Shah Abbas I ascended the throne of the Persian Empire in 1587. His ascension did not come without disagreement and division, though. The

Persian Empire, made up of a number of regions with governors known as amirs who represented little more than the tribal leaders of earlier periods, but with much more

15 For more information on the variety of source material on both the Persian and European accounts, see Newman, Safavid Iran, 4-5.

131 power, often acted similarly to the Scottish clans under James VI, aligning with other amirs to create resistance against the government and policy they wished to have changed. A number of the amirs favored other Safavid heirs, such as Abbas’ brothers, or the grandsons of Shah Ismail I, who reigned from 1488 to 1524.16 Religion played a role in these divisions as well; certain Sufi sects challenged Abbas as a spiritual ruler, claiming that another outranked the Shah as the head of their order. Shah Abbas’s reaction to this direct challenge to his authority as shah was swift and violent. The Sufis met their end with an executioner, similar to Elizabeth’s dealings with Catholics.

Particularly later in her reign, Catholics openly defied her rule as Supreme Head of the

Church of England, plotting treason and assassination with the Pope’s blessing. The Shah ruled with an iron fist expected of a good leader. He was “ruthless in purpose,” yet at the same time could be “flexible in method.” 17 He appeared to recognize the need to tolerate certain differing religions, political views or lifestyles, provided it was politically, economically or socially expedient to do so and did not threaten his throne or family.18

Prized greatly by the European elite in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,

Persian silk became one of the the primary commodities moving between the Safavid

Empire and Europe. The embargo on Persian goods coming through the Ottoman Empire in the early part of the sixteenth century taught Shah Abbas I a valuable lesson in trade relations. Iran historically looked for other ways to circumvent middlemen who

16 Newman, Safavid Iran, 50-51; see also, Matthee, Silk for Silver, 79.

17 Ferrier. “European Diplomacy,” 75.

18 Ferrier. “European Diplomacy,” 75.

132 hampered commerce, dating back to the eighth century and the rise of the Khazar state, with its capital as trade hub, creating a Silk Road trade that lasted until conflicts arose between the Arabs and Khazars, along with civil unrest in the Caucasas.19 This forced traders coming out of the area occupied by Eastern Europe and Russia today to take a detour around, causing major delays in commerce and goods traveling between the two regions. As the silk trade in Iran rose in popularity and importance to their economy, so did the threat of competitors from outside attempting to undermine that trade, particularly the Ottoman Empire in its desire for expansion and advancement.

Given the importance of Persian silk during his reign, one of Shah Abbas’s greatest achievements came in his ability to successfully circumvent the Ottoman Empire and deal directly with Europeans, due in great part to the Shah’s discovery and utilization of the European orientalist fear and fascination with the Islamic empires. The crown of

Persia, through Shah Abbas, maintained a silk monopoly that was threatened rather consistently by the Ottoman Empire through border warfare and boycotting Persian goods altogether, leaving both Persian merchants and rulers at the whim of the Ottoman sultan. Thus, Shah Abbas looked for other means to get those goods into other markets.

By the time the Sherleys arrived, Safavid diplomacy as a means to gain economic access into Europe around the Ottoman Empire had fallen well into place. Shah Abbas looked for assistance from European maritime powers, which initially included Spain, Venice and Portugal, and then expanded to England and Holland, coinciding with the worldwide

19 Matthee, “Anti-Ottoman Politics,” 740-741.

133 growth of the East India Trading Company, which had been starting to trade with Persia at the end of the sixteenth century.20

Like most European rulers, Shah Abbas I also built his court on the notion of patronage, particularly in the arts and government positions, and often times without regard to religion or the ever-changing tribal leaders and factions.21 One of Shah Abbas’s viziers served Shah Ismail II as his chief scribe. As patrons of Persian poetry and writing, the Safavids promoted the art of the book throughout the dynasty. Shah Ismail II was a noted poet and calligrapher. Even the ghulams – a Persian type of slave taken from conquered peoples, such as the Georgians or Circassians, and trained into serving their captors in military or household positions, or even as artisans in royal workshops – saw opportunities for advancement, provided they remained loyal to the Safavid ruler. At the time of Shah Abbas’s death, one-fifth of the amirs were made up of ghulams, who were dispersed evenly throughout military units and in political positions. 22 This ensured no possibility of a revolt or takeover and kept the ghulams dependent on and loyal to their

Safavid ruler. It also had the effect of maintaining balance between native Persians and the conquered peoples, so one side could not be more influential than the other.

Providing Sir Anthony, and later Robert, with titles and money that enabled them to travel not only within Persia as a respected part of the court, but also back to Europe

20 For more information on the maritime alliances, see Ferrier, “European Diplomacy,” 76-77; for more information on the East India Trading Company, see Stevens, “Robert Sherley,” 118-119.

21 Newman, Safavid Iran, 44.

22 Newman, Safavid Iran, 53.

134 with at least the belief of ambassadorial privilege, Shah Abbas I appeared to play off of

Sir Anthony’s reputation as a European and as a Gentleman Adventurer. He lured him into believing that his position in the Persian court was far more important than it was, and far more beneficial to Sir Anthony and his brother. It appears that during the Shah’s reign, the reception of Europeans at the Safavid court was tied to their status, both perceived and actual; “the status of the [European] as well as their actual power and the splendor of their missions generally determined the quality of the welcome they enjoyed.”23 Given the warm reception that Anthony’s gentlemen retainers received in

Qazvin, even simply preparing for their lord’s arrival, Shah Abbas knew full well of

Anthony’s expectation to be treated as his European station expected. The Shah appeared happy to deliver, assuming, based on the rumors he already heard, Sir Anthony actually possessed the power and station he exuded.24

It appears that, in a way, Shah Abbas saw Sir Anthony and Robert as ghulams themselves; the debts racked up by Anthony while in Persia were only relieved by his suggestion of and subsequent employment as an ambassador for Shah Abbas I, while leaving behind his brother Robert as a sort of hostage for Anthony’s loyalty. If Anthony could not gain political or diplomatic ties with European countries, then at the very least he would get their merchants to come into the Persian empire directly, to further the

23 Mathee, “Aloofness,” 232.

24 Ross, Persian Adventure, 9; see also, Stevens, “Robert Sherley,” 118.

135

economic plans of Shah Abbas, if not those of the Sherleys, England or even Europe.25

Sir Anthony succeeded in making his reputation global; Shah Abbas certainly appeared aware of not only Anthony’s education and bias towards Orientalism, but also his self- fashioning as a “made man.” The shah played this to his advantage to get use out of

Anthony. Upon entry to Persia, they received honorary positions within the court, titles that equated them with high-ranking nobility; many ghulams maintained what would be considered high-ranking serving positions within the royal household, particularly if they were of noble birth within whatever conquered region from which they came. Robert later took a position as a military leader of sorts, similarly to other high-ranking ghulams, and even married a high-ranking ghulam, a Circassian by the name of Teressia.26

Terresia was so well regarded, she was referred to as the “Neece of the Emperor” in publication.27 Although treated like noble envoys of Europe while residing at the court of the Shah instead of as actual ghulams, neither Anthony nor Robert brought money into

Persia as merchants, and so appeared in the eyes of the shah to “owe” him something.

This meant, in order not to offend him and to pursue their own discourse and desired outcome of this arrangement, they needed to remain loyal to the shah. Shah Abbas, apparently aware of their assumed European superiority, seems to have used the fact that

25 Sherley, Relations, 118, for his primary accounting of the Shah’s orders to him on being employed as his Ambassador; see also,

26 Penrose, Sherleian Odyssey, 165

27 Nixon, Three Brothers, title.

136

Sir Anthony would not have known about different positions within the Persian court, including the ghulams.

Matthee suggest that the Sherley brothers’ voyage to the Safavid Empire appeared only as a minor occasion in Persian sources, not even mentioned in Persian chronicles, and note only in European accounts.28 The Sherleian mission simply fell in line with the greater anti-Ottoman diplomatic plan Shah Abbas I ultimately built throughout his reign, starting with the Russian embassy of Gregori Boris Vasil’chikov visiting in the wake of the popularity of Persian silk moving through Eastern Europe from the Muscovy Trading

Company.29 Ambassadors and merchants alike came in and out of the Safavid Empire, particularly in the latter part of the sixteenth and early part of the seventeenth centuries, as foreign policy and trade relations improved during Shah Abbas’s reign. Persian silk acted as the primary means for the shah to reach foreign courts and states, mainly in

Europe, and had also been the draw for these foreign merchants and courts to reach out to

Persia. Towards the end of the Safavid dynasty in the early eighteenth century, Iranian kings expected Europeans to pay any cost for their silk given its popularity after Abbas’s reign. 30 Unfortunately, a disconnect between silk production, pricing and state policy put in place during Shah Abbas’s reign, and later policies and practices contributed to economic collapse and the end of the Safavid dynasty. Yet, even Matthee concedes that

28 Matthee, “Aloofness,” 226.

29 Matthee, Silk for Silver, 76-77; see also, Newman, Safavid Iran, 60-63, on economic and, to a lesser extent diplomatic responses during Shah Abbas I’s reign.

30 Newman, Safavid Iran, 60-63; see also, Matthee, Silk for Silver, 8-11.

137

“Shah Abbas launched his own diplomatic offensive the following year (italics my own) with the dispatch to Europe of Sherley and a [Persian] envoy…”31 The Sherleys appear to have had a direct effect on the Shah’s trade and diplomatic reforms. After the Sherleys traveled to Europe on behalf of the Shah, much of the correspondence on trade and diplomacy from European leaders may have been more greatly influenced by the

Sherleys rather than just an original idea based on the reputation of the Persians carried to them by the Sherleys and supported by others who traveled the region.

Persian correspondence carried information about the Sherleys and their service in the courts of Europe as well, both positive and negative, indicating that, like the English crown, the Safavid government was taking notice of the two brothers, and commenting on them. In addition to the number of dispatches sent with Sir Anthony on behalf of the shah to monarchs and heads of state, correspondence and information traveled back to

Shah Abbas. The Shah apparently kept tabs on his “ambassador” through the Persian entourage traveling with him. Husayn ‘Ali Beg, one of the Persian members of Sir

Anthony’s entourage accompanying him from the Safavid Empire into Europe, returned to Persia sometime between 1602 and 1603, ostensibly to report on Sherley’s accomplishments.32 This shows documentation of the Sherley name in the Persian court after the Sherleys left Shah Abbas, even if this communication about the brothers does not appear within Persian state papers.33

31 Matthee, Silk for Silver, 79.

32 Ross, Persian Adventure, 31.

33 Stevens, “Robert Sherley,” 117; see also, Ross, Persian Adventure, 31.

138

England and Persia, Compared

For all their political, social and religious differences, a considerable number of similarities existed between Elizabethan and Jacobean England and the Safavid Persian

Empire. In terms of religion, each was an outlier to their neighboring regions; England by her Protestantism, Persia by its adherence to the Shi’i sect of Islam, outside of the six schools of Sunni Shari’a law prevalent throughout most of the Ottoman Empire. Like the solitary Protestant nation of England surrounded by Catholic powers, the Safavid Persian

Empire appeared an outlier, an “island” of the Shi’i Islam juxtaposed to the Sunni Islam of the Ottoman Empire. In the eyes of the Catholic church, the Islamic empires were either “heretics or pagans,” terms familiar to England, as Elizabeth pointed out to the

Ottomans.34 Elizabeth herself drew parallels sbetween Lutheran Protestantism and Islam to attempt to secure common accord with the Ottoman Empire – and thus potential military might against the Catholic powers of Spain – just prior to the engagement with the Spanish Armada.35 This came several decades after Francis I’s military alignment and ultimately failed, but shows Elizabeth’s desire to get around the major Catholic powers of Europe and form trade, military and political alliances with others who might aid her in achieving greater independence.

Shah Abbas I has historically been called the father of the Persian Empire,

Elizabeth’s reign was known as the Golden Age of England, and James united two kingdoms sharing an island into one. Each ruler looked for ways to improve from their

34 Irwin, Dangerous Knowledge, 27.

35 Jardine, “Gloriana,” 211-217.

139 predecessors’ reign; each had also witnessed their countries being torn apart by conflict born of opposing religions, as well as tribes or clans, in the case of the Scottish, causing the treasuries to be depleted, though James proved to be less adept than Elizabeth at keeping the coffers full.36 Like England, the Safavid Empire also sought ways around their neighbors, particularly the Ottoman Empire, who had been filtering the majority of

Persian goods into Europe throughout the sixteenth century. Persian silk was one of the most highly prized trade items, and, with the exception of the Muscovy Trading

Company merchants who braved the Mongol Empire’s lands, went through the Ottoman territory at little profit to the Safavid silk producers. Wars on the border between the two empires had strained relations between the two governments. In retaliation, Sultan Selim

(r. 1512-1520) boycotted all trade goods coming out of Persia, effectively stalling their economy.37 In the mid-sixteenth century Sultan Suleyman reinstated the flow, but the damage had been done. Shah Isma’il then looked for other means of connecting with

Europe around the Ottomans. This embargo remained fresh in the mind of Shah Abbas I, and influenced many of his economic and military reforms. Although England had never been through a trade embargo like the Safavids, thanks in part to the privateering missions of her Gentleman Adventurers, Elizabeth still experienced discrimination and conflict, particularly diplomatically, because of her staunch Protestantism.

Historically, Persians distanced themselves from the Ottomans, having similar distaste for them as the Europeans. Many Persians of the sixteenth and seventeenth

36 For Jacobean spending habits, see Akrigg, Pageant, 85-102.

37 Matthee, Silk for Silver, 20.

140 centuries saw “Turks” the same way that modern Iranians see them, “stupid, coarse, violent, and oversexed,” a stark contrast to the civility of the Safavid Persian Empire, at least of the intellectual and noble.38 This also mirrors the description given by the

Sherleys and their companions during their passage through the Ottoman Empire on their way to Persia, the perception of England itself, due to European anti-Ottoman sentiment.

Both states, Persia and England, being on the outskirts of the major world powers, saw each other through distorted lenses, constructed from information filtered through third parties with their own biases and interpretations.39 Each state–Persian and English– contained a more diverse population than other areas of the world believed them to have;

England was made up of conquered peoples dating back to the Romans, while the

Safavid Empire maintained a tenuous hold on a variety of tribes swearing allegiance to different leaders.

The Safavid Empire also mirrors much of the English Renaissance. While Henry

VII of England, the first Tudor king, took the throne in the fifteenth century, it wasn’t until the marriage of his eldest son Arthur to Katherine of Aragon in 1501–the same year of the official start of the Safavid Empire according to most Safavid historians–that the

Renaissance, which had spread throughout Europe from the early fourteenth century on, finally arrived in England. Economic and trade reforms occurred at different times in each state of Persia and England, affecting foreign policy and relations not only between the two countries, but with regions with whom they interacted. Both countries saw civil

38 Matthee, “Aloofness and Fascination,” 222.

39 Mancall, Travel Narratives, 10.

141 conflict, parts of their territories were ripped apart by warring religions or leadership.

They also saw conflict with neighboring states, leading to military reform in both as well.

While this could be said of most regions throughout both Europe and the Islamic empires, the fact that both England and Persia sat on the outskirts of their respective regions made their similarities–and growth–that much more significant.

Due to the lack of primary source materials, it is difficult to determine the motivations of Shah Abbas I. This chapter proposes possible explanations for the Shah’s use of the Sherley brothers in his greater reforms, and what his view of the European diplomat and merchant overall appeared to be. It suggests a variety of possibilities concerning the Shah’s motivations, and attempts to interpret how the Shah saw the

Sherley brothers, both within the context of their European-ness, as well as who they were as individuals. Overall, the Safavid Persian dynasty, and in particular Shah Abbas I, remains a fascinating period in Iranian history.

142

CONCLUSION

THE END OF THE VOYAGE, THE BEGINNING OF THE STORY

Robert Sherley died just outside the walls of Qazvin, the seat of the Safavid

Empire in 1628. Shah Abbas I’s Chief Minister and favorite Mohammed Ali Beg refused to grant permission to Robert, because he saw the Sherleys as a threat to Persian involvement in the East India Trading Company and forced him to remain outside the shah’s presence, “insert[ing] himself between Cotton and the Shah.”1 It wouldn’t be for another few months after his death that the official diplomatic envoy of Sir Dodmore

Cotton gained access to the shah in Qazvin, although Cotton himself died six days after

Robert, sending his companion Dr. Henry Gooch on his behalf. But the timing did not matter; the ability of a representative of the English crown to approach the shah in an official diplomatic capacity was the biggest achievement. The Protestant Christian kingdom on the far side of Europe finally reached the “outlier” of the Muslim gunpowder empires, the “island” surrounded by larger and more powerful empires on either side.

Although the Sherley brothers, Sir Anthony and Robert, did not initially voyage to the

Safavid Empire with the intention to form this relationship or to connect this empire to the rest of Europe, they ultimately created a new discourse between Europe and the

1 Stevens, “Robert Sherley,” 116.

143

Islamic empires in both trade and diplomacy through their reputation, actions and narratives.

Why was the story of the Sherley brothers and their voyage to the Safavid Persian

Empire and the court of Shah Abbas I significant? Matthee sees the role of these two brothers as “rather minor agents who were manipulated by the shah,” yet they continually appear to play an important part in not only what he calls a “much larger diplomatic offensive,” but also in the correspondence between the Safavid shah and major European powers during the seventeenth century.2 The Sherleian odyssey appeared important to

Shah Abbas I and the Safavid Empire, along with England and the larger realms and empires of Western and Central Europe. Matthee acknowledges this by continually referring to the Sherleys in the correspondence on policy coming back from Europe, wondering whether it’s the idea of the ruler of that country, or of one of the Sherleys.3

Other Safavid historians, such as Andrew Newman and Willem Floor, share this viewpoint, maintaining that, while the Sherleys played no small part in Safavid history, as evident in their citations to Sherley source material, the impact they actually had was negligible at best.4 Scholars of both Islamic empire and European history have also touched on the Sherleian voyage, either analyzing it as a form of propaganda during the

Renaissance–given the style of writing of the Sherley brothers and their retainers–or as one of the events that occurred during the increase of embassy movement between

2 Matthee, Silk for Silver, 77.

3 Matthee, Silk for Silver, 79-81.

4 Newman, Safavid Iran, 61.

144

Europe and empires, regions and countries outside of Europe. Shah Abbas I recognized the importance of these two men, and exploited them for his own gain, even if it was only in the course of his economic reforms and foreign policy.

Yet, for all the negation of the Sherleian voyage and its impact, the textual persona both Sir Anthony and Robert Sherley created within their narratives managed to make both the English and Safavid governments take notice of them. Neither the English nor the Safavids expected the outcome that occurred as a result this voyage. Due to other trade relations, including agreements between Persia and merchant companies, such as the Muscovy Trading Company, the Levant Company, and the East India Trading

Company, Persian goods were already reaching European courts, along with some diplomatic connection, mostly to keep economic interest through trade high. The

Sherleys added another layer to these connections, by acting directly on behalf of the

Shah in Persia, and inspiring publications, novels and stage productions through their personal narratives, as well as through correspondence, both from them and about them.

The Sherleys inspired Shah Abbas’s diplomatic reforms, and they increased both

Elizabeth I’s and James I’s official contact with another gunpowder empire, circumventing the Ottoman Empire and aiding the East India Trading Company in establishing an outpost in that region to continue direct contact.

In many ways, the Sherleian voyage represents the adventuring spirit and expansion goals of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, shedding light on economic and diplomatic relations and evolution of policies between Europe and other regions, such as between England and the Safavid Empire. While this in and of itself is not indicative of impact on early modern history of trade, economics and diplomacy, it

145 certainly shows the role that the Sherleys played in developing these important areas of government. Such a role defined continued contact between these two regions for centuries to come.

146

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Biddulph, William. The travels of certaine Englishmen into Africa, Asia, Troy (Turkey), Bythinia, Thracia, and to the Blacke Sea. And into Syria, Cilicia, Pisidia, Mesopotamia, Damascus, Canaan, Galilee, Samaria, Judea, Palestina, Ierusalem, Iericho, and to the Red Sea; and to sundry other places. Zbegunne in the yeere of Iubilee 1600 and by some of them finished in the yeere 1608. The others not yet returned./ Very profitable for the helpe of trauellers, and no lesse delightfull to all persons who take pleasure to heare of the manners, government, religion, and customes of forraine (foreign) and heathen countries. London: Printed by Th. Haueland, for W. Apsley, and are to bee sold at his shop in Paules Church-yard, at the signe of the Parrot, 1609.

Bodin, Jean. On Sovereignty: Four Chapters from the Six Books of the Commonwealth, translated and edited by Julian H. Franklin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Cartwright, John. The preachers trauels. Wherein is set downe a true iournall to the confines of the East Indies, through the great countreyes of Syria, Mesopotamia, Armenia, Media, Hircania and Parthia. With the authors returne by the way of Persia, Susiana, Assiria, Chaldæa, and Arabia. Containing a full suruew of the knigdom [sic] of Persia: and in what termes the Persian stands with the Great Turke at this day: also a true relation of Sir Anthonie Sherleys entertainment there: and the estate that his brother, M. Robert Sherley liued in after his departure for Christendome. With the description of a port in the Persian gulf, commodious for our East Indian merchants; and a briefe rehearsall of some grosse absudities in the Turkish Alcoran. Oxford: Magdalen College, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Digital Library Production Service, November, 2003. http://quod.lib.umich.edu.lib- proxy.fullerton.edu/e/eebo/A18071.0001.001/1:13.1?rgn=div2;view=toc, accessed March 8, 2015.

Castiglione, Baldasar. The Book of the Courtier, translated by George Bull. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books Ltd, 1967.

Chamberlayne, Edward. Angliae Notitia: Or the Present State of England. London: Printed by J. Playford, and are to be sold by R. Bently in Covent Garden, (1684).

Foster, William, ed. The Embassy of Sir Thomas Roe to India 1615-1619. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 1926.

147

Herbert, Thomas. Travels in Persia: 1627-1629, Sir William Foster, C.I.E. ed. in The Argonaut Series, Sir E. Denison Ross and Eileen Power, ed. New York: Robert M. McBride & Company, 1929.

Manwaring, George. “A True Discourse of Sir Anthony Sherley’s Travel into Persia,” in Sir Anthony Sherley and his Persian Adventure, edited by Edward Denison Ross. London: Routledge, 1825.

Nixon, Anthony. The Three Brothers Sir Thomas Sherley in his travels, with his three yeares imprisonment in Turkie: his inlargement by his Maiesties letters to the great Turk: and lastly his safe returne into England this present yeare 1607: Sir Anthony Sherley, his embassage to the Christian Princes: Master Robert Sherley his wars against the Turkes, with his marriage to the Emperour of Persia his neece. London: Printed and to be sold by John Hodgets in Paules Church yard, 1607.

Parry, William. “A New and Large Discourse on the Travels of Sir Anthony Sherley, Knight, by Sea, and Over Land, to the Persian Empire, Wherein are related many strange and wonderful accidents: and also, the Description and conditions of those Countries and People he passed by: with his return into Christendom,” in Sir Anthony Sherley and his Persian Adventure, edited by Edward Denison Ross. London: Routledge, 1825.

Pincon, Abel. “The Relation of a Journey Taken to Persia in the Years 1598-1599 by a Gentleman in the Suite of Sir Anthony Sherley, Ambassador from the Queen of England,” in Sir Anthony Sherley and his Persian Adventure, edited by Edward Denison Ross. London, Routledge, 1825.

Purchas, Samuel. Haklyut Posthumus, or Purchas his Pilgrims: Contayning a History of the World in Sea Voyages and Lande Travells by Englishmen and Others, Volume IV. Glasgow: James MacLehose and Sons, University of Glasgow, 1625.

Russell, Lord John. An Essay on the History of the English Government and Constitution from the Reign of Henry VII to the Present Time. London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1823.

Sherley, Anthony, Robert Sherley and Thomas Sherley. The Three Brothers or, Travels and Adventures of Sir Anthony, Sir Robert, & Sir Thomas Sherley, In Persia, Russia, Turkey, Spain, Etc. With Portraits. London, England: Hurst, Robinson, 1825.

Sherley, Anthony. His Relations of Travels into Persia, the Dangers, and Distresses which befell him in his passage, both by sea and land and his strange and unexpected deliverances. His Magnificent Entertainment in Persia, his Honourable imployment there hence, as Embassadour to the Princes of Christendome, the cause of his disappointment therein, with his advice to his

148

brother, Sir Robert Sherley, Also, a True Relation of the great Magnificence, Valour, Prudence, Justice, Temperance and other manifold Vertues of Abas, now King of Persia, with his Great Conquests, whereby he has enlarged his Dominions. London: Printed for Nathaniell Butter and Joseph Bagset, 1613.

Urban, Sylvius. “The Three Sherleys,” Gentleman’s Magazine, volume 176-177 F. Jefferies, ed. Printed for private circulation, July, 1844, 473-483.

Other Materials:

Portrait of Robert Sherley in “Persian Style” dress, although with definite Jacobean influence, made of Persian silk, 1624-1627.

Portrait of Terresia Sherley, in an Elizabethan gown as well as “Persian Style” dress, made of Persian silk, 1624-1627.

Secondary Source Material:

Books:

Baghdiantz McCabe, Ina. Orientalism in Early Modern France: Eurasian Trade, Exoticism and the Ancien Regime. Oxford, England: Berg, 2008.

Bisaha, Nancy. Creating East and West: Renaissance Humanists and the Ottoman Turks. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004.

Brotton, Jerry. The Renaissance Bazaar: From the Silk Road to Michelangelo. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Campbell, Mary B. “’Inward Feeling’ Ralegh and the Penetration of the Interior,” in The Witness and the Other World: Exotic European Travel Writing, 400-1600. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988, 210-254.

Cramsie, John. Kingship and Crown Finance Under James VI and I: 1603-1625. Suffolk, United Kingdom: The Royal Historical Society, The Boydell Press, 2002.

Davies, David William. Elizabethans errant; the strange fortunes of Sir Thomas Sherley and his three sons, as well in the Dutch Wars as in Muscovy, Morocco, Persia, Spain, and the Indies. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1967.

Davis, Natalie Zemon. Tricksters Travels: A Sixteenth Century Muslim Between Worlds. New York: Hill and Wang, 2006.

Floor, Willem. Safavid Government Institutions. California: Mazda Publishers, Inc., 2001.

149

Floor, Willem and Edmund Herzig, ed. Iran and the World in the Safavid Age. London, England: I.B Tauris & Co. Ltd., 2012.

Frisch, Andrea. The Invention of the Eyewitness: Witnessing and Testimony in Early Modern France. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Department of Romance Languages, 2004.

Greenblatt, Stephen. Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1980.

Hertel, Ralf. “Ousting the Ottomans: The Double Vision of the East in The Travels of the Three English Brothers (1607),” in Early Modern Encounters with the Islamic East, Sabine Schulting, Sabine Lucia Muller and Ralf Hertel, ed., in the series Transculturalisms, 1400-1700, edited by Mihoko Suzuki, Ann Rosalind Jones and Jyotsna Singh. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2012.

Herzig, Edmund. “The Rise of the Julfa Merchants in the Late Sixteenth Century,” in Safavid Persia: The History and Politics of an Islamic Society, edited by C. P. Melville, (London: I.B. Tauris, 1996), 314-315.

Irwin, Robert. Dangerous Knowledge: Orientalism and Its Discontents. Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press, 2006.

Koenigsberger, H.G., George L Mosse, G.Q. Bowler. Europe in the Sixteenth Century, Second Edition, in the series A General History of Europe, edited by Denys Hays. London: Longman Group Limited, 1968.

Konnert, Mark. Early Modern Europe: The Age of Religious War, 1559-1715. Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press, 2008.

Mancall, Peter C. ed. Travel Narratives from the Age of Discovery. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Matar, Nabil. Turks, Moors and Englishmen in the Age of Discovery, New York: Columbia University Press, 1999.

Matthee, Rudolph P. The Politics of Trade in Safavid Iran: Silk for Silver, 1600-1730. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Mattingly, Garrett. Renaissance Diplomacy. Boston: The Riverside Press, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1955.

Melville, Charles, ed. Safavid Persia: The History and Politics of an Islamic Society, in the series Pembroke Persian Papers, edited by Charles Melville, Volume 4. London, England: I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd, in association with the Centre of Middle Eastern Studies, University of Cambridge, 1996.

150

Newman, Andrew J. Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire. London, England: I.B. Tauris & Company Limited, 2006.

Newman, Andrew J. Society and Culture in the Early Modern Middle East: Studies on Iran in the Safavid Period, internet resource, 2003. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/fullerton/detail.action?docID=10090501, accessed March 8, 2015.

Parr, Anthony. “Foreign Relations in Jacobean England: The Sherley Brothers and the ‘Voyage of Persia’,” in Travel and Drama in Shakespeare's Time, edited by Jean- Pierre Maquerlot and Michèle Willems. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Penrose, Boise. The Sherleian Odyssey, Being a Record of the Travels and Adventures of Three Famous Brothers During the Reigns of Elizabeth, James I and Charles I. Taunton, England: Barnicotts Limited, The Wessex Press, 1938.

Pratt, Mary Louise. Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation, New York: Routledge, 1992.

Said, Edward. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books, a Division of Random House, 1979.

Schwartz, Gary. “The Sherleys and the Shah: Persia as the Stakes in a Rogue’s Gambit,” in The Fascination of Persia: The Persian-European Dialogue in Seventeenth- Century Art & Contemporary Art of Teheran, edited by Axel Langer. Zurich: Scheidegger und Spiess, 2013.

Sherman, William H. “Stirrings and Searchings (1500-1720)” in The Cambridge Companion to Travel Writing, edited by Peter Hulme and Tim Youngs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002, 17-36.

Subrahmanyam, Sanjay. Three Ways to Be Alien: Travails and Encounters in the Early Modern World. Lebanon, New Hampshire: Brandeis University Press, 2011.

Whitelock, Anna. The Queen’s Bed: An Intimate History of Elizabeth’s Court. New York: Picador, 2013.

Wernham, R. B. Before The Armada: The Growth of English Foreign Policy 1485-1588. London: Ebenezer Baylis and Son, Limited, 1966.

Wernham, R. B. The Making of Elizabethan Foreign Policy, 1588-1603. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980.

151

Articles:

Adamiyat, Fereydoun and Thomas M. Ricks. “Problems in Iranian Historiography” in Iranian Studies, Vol. 4, No. 4, Pennsylvania: Routledge, Limited, on behalf of International Society for Iranian Studies, 1971, 132-156.

Bell, Gary M. “Elizabethan Diplomatic Compensation: Its Nature and Variety,” in Journal of British Studies, Volume 20, Number 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981, 1-25.

Briggs, Major-General. “A Short Account of the Sherley Family” in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, Volume 6, Number 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1841, 77-104.

Ferrier, R. W. “The European Diplomacy of Shah Abbas I and the First Persian Embassy to England,” in Iran, Volume 11. London: British Institute of Persian Studies, 1973, 75-92.

Ferrier, R. W. “The Terms and Conditions Under Which English Trade Was Transacted with Safavid Persia,” in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London, Volume 49, Number 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press on behalf of School of Oriental and African Studies, 1986, 48- 66.

Goldberg, Jonathan. “Review of Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare,” in MLN, Volume 96, Number 5, Comparative Literature. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981, 1201-1209.

Jardine, Lisa. “Gloriana Rules the Waves: Or, the Advantage of Being Excommunicated (And a Woman),” in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Volume 14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, 209-222.

Matthee, Rudi. “Anti-Ottoman Politics and Transit Rights: The Seventeenth Century Trade in Silk between Safavid Iran and Muscovy,” in Cahiers du Monde russe, Volume 35, Number 4. France: EHESS, 1994, 739-761.

Matthee, Rudi. “Between Aloofness and Fascination: Safavid Views of the West,” in Iranian Studies, Vol. 31, No. 2, Pennsylvania: Routledge, Ltd. of behalf of the International Society for Iranian Studies, (1998) 219-246.

Matthee, Rudi. “From the Battlefield to the Harem: Did Women’s Seclusion Increase from Early to Late Safavid Times?” in New Perspectives on Safavid Iran: Empire and Society, edited by Colin P. Mitchell. New York: Routledge, a Taylor and Francis Group, 2011.

152

Skelton, R. A. “An Elizabethan Naval Tract,” British Museum Quarterly, Volume 22, Number 3/4. London, England: British Museum, 1960, 51-53.

Stevens, Roger. “Robert Sherley: The Unanswered Questions,” in Iran, Volume 17. London: British Institute of Persian Studies, 1979, 115-125.

Thorpe, Malcolm R. “Catholic Conspiracy in Early Elizabethan Foreign Policy,” in The Sixteenth Century Journal, Volume 15, Number 4. Missouri: The Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, Limited, 1984, 431-448.