John Stokesley and the Divorce Question Author(S): Andrew A
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
"Turpitudinem uxoris fratris tui non revelavit": John Stokesley and the Divorce Question Author(s): Andrew A. Chibi Source: The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Summer, 1994), pp. 387-397 Published by: The Sixteenth Century Journal Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2542888 . Accessed: 04/01/2015 09:18 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The Sixteenth Century Journal is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Sixteenth Century Journal. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Sun, 4 Jan 2015 09:19:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SixteenthCentury Journal XXV/2(1994) "Turpitudinem uxoris fratristui non revelavit": John Stokesley and the Divorce Question AndrewA.Chibi Universityof Sheffield This articleprovides a new perspectiveon a lesser-knownfigure of theHenrician period,John Stokesley, and on the theologicalfoundation of HenryVIII's first divorce.The paperfirst traces Stokesley's involvement in thematter to about1527, showsthat he was theearliest advocate of HenryVIII, and outlinesStokesley's argu- ments.Second, it examineshow Stokesley'sargument was usedto meetroyal needs, bytracing his position to ancientFathers and scholasticwriters. Third, it detailshow Stokesleycombined nominalist and realisttheology into a workabledefinition of divinelaw so hisown argumentscould function logically. We thensee how Henry's royalscholars, neatly avoiding the Leviticus-Deuteronomy dichotomy, showed that Henry'smarriage to Catherinewas unlawfuland thatthe pope had oversteppedhis authoritywhen he granteda dispensationto allowmarriage. THE QUESTION OF THE LEGITIMACY OF HENRY VIII'S firstmarriage initiated investigationsinto all aspectsof relationsbetween churchand state,and precipitated strainedand prolonged debates concerning the most profoundtheological and politicaltheories of the day.Not only did substantialchange, both social and polit- ical, come in its wake,but out of the searchfor a new politystepped some of the greatestfigures in Tudor history.They make an impressivelist, which includessuch men as Thomas More, Thomas Cromwell,John Fisher,and Thomas Cranmer. Some others,who are familiarto modern historiansas names in footnotesto the main figures,also made importantcontributions. Among the figuresin thissecond categoryis Dr. John Stokesley,bishop of London from1530 to 1539,1 who sup- plied and sustained,with an impressiveintellectual steel, one of the single most importantaspects of the debate about HenryVIII's divorce.The aim of thisarticle is to increaseour understandingand appreciationof Stokesley'sscholarly contribu- tion,and to a lesserextent, to introducesome otherfigures.To do thiswe mustfirst examineStokesley's gradual immersion into the divorcecontroversy, and thenlook at the importantaspects of his work.The formeris suppliedparticularly through a briefexamination of Stokesley'sacademic initiativesof 1527 to 1530; the latter,by 1For a comprehensiveexamination of the life and work of John Stokesley,see Andrew A. Chibi, "Bishop John Stokesley:A Humanist Reformer at the Court of HenryVIII" (unpublishedPh.D. thesis, Universityof Sheffield,1992). 387 This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Sun, 4 Jan 2015 09:19:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 388 SixteenthCenturyJournal XXV / 2 (1994) examinationof his Henricusoctavus,2 his Gravissimaecensurae, and his sermon of July11, 1535.4 We can trace directlyStokesley's involvement in the king'smarriage crisis to the year 1527, although,as dean of the Royal Chapels, he was doubtlessaware of the king'sgrowing controversy much earlier.5In May 1527, a secretlegatine court, under the dual authoritiesof CardinalWolsey and ArchbishopWarham, had been convenedat Westminster.6 When the courtfailed to rendera decision on the valid- ityof the royalmarriage,Wolsey and Henry adopted differentmeans of concluding the matter.Stokesley, as dean, was one of the firstscholars approached by the king. Stokesleywas asked to examine the underlyingtheological principles upon which Henry'smarriage had been sanctioned.7That Stokesleytook a leading role in the researcheffort thereafter is supportedby his own lettersand those of the Spanish ambassador,Eustace Chapuys. In his routinereports to the emperor,Chapuys describesStokesley as: 2PublicRecords Office, State Papers, hereafter cited PRO SP) 1/63,fols. 303-13v, 360-84v. For a comprehensiveexamination of this material, see Virginia M. Murphy,"The Debate overHenryVIII's FirstDivorce: An Analysisof the ContemporarySources" (unpublished Ph.D. thesis,University of Cambridge,1984), 15-48. 3JohnStokesley, Edward Fox, and Nicholas de Burgo,Gravissimae, atque exactissimae illustrissimarum totiusItaliae et Galliaeacademiarum censurae... (London, 1530), hereafter cited Censurae, or idem,Deter- minationsofthe moostefamous and mooste excellent universities ofItaly and France . ,tr.Thomas Cranmer (London,1531), hereafter cited Determinations. A clear edition of both of these can be foundin TheDi- vorceTracts of Henry VIII, ed. EdwardSurtz, S.J., and Virginia Murphy (Angers: Moreana, 1988). All ref- erenceswill be to thisedition. 4Referencesto thesermon are in Lettersand Papers of Henry VIII, ed. J. S. Brewer,J. Gairdner, and R. H. Brodie (London:Longmans, 1862-1932), 8.1019, hereafter cited LP; M. Maclure,The Pauls CrossSermons: 1534-1642 (Toronto:University of Toronto Press, 1958), 187; G. R. Elton,Policy and Police:The Enforcement ofthe Reformation in the Age of Thomas Cromwell (London: Cambridge University Press,1972), 189; and Susan Brigden, London and theReformation (Oxford: Clarendon, 1989), 233-34. The notesto thesermon are at PRO SP 6/6,fols. 90-98v, or Andrew A. Chibi,"Henry VIII and His Marriageto His Brother'sWife: The Sermonof Bishop John Stokesley of 11 July1535" Historical Re- search67/162 (February 1994): 40-56. 5Hisinvolvement in theking's difficulties might have begun as earlyas 1518.In a reportby Loys de Helwighen,Calendar of State Papers Spanish (CSPS), 4.(2) 967 at p. 472,he recallsa dinnerconver- satin.AccordingtoJohn (William?) Barlow, dean ofWestbury,"the King, after he hadbeen married nine or tenyears, having gone to confessto a priestwhom the Dean named,though being a strangename I havequite forgotten it, found by the counsel and advice of the said confessor, whom the Dean described as a learneddivine, that he (theKing) could not any longer live with the Queen, his wife, his marriage beingcertainly null and void, he havingmarried his own brother's wife, which marriage no dispensation couldmake lawful." This hasbeen used to suggestJohn Longland's early involvement in theaffair; see GwendolenE.Wharhirst, "The Reformationin theDiocese of Lincolnas illustratedby the Lifeand Workof Bishop Longland (1521-47)," Lincolnshire Architectural andArchaeological Societies Reports and Pa- pers1:2 (1937):137-76, at 156.If the dating of the report is correct,it would place this confession some timein 1518 or 1519.For much of 1518,and for some time in 1519,the king's confessor was Stokesley. Longlandreplaced him as confessorin mid-1519;see LP,2.2.4340; Alfred B. Emden,A BiographicalReg- isterof the University ofOxford, to A.D. 1500,3 vols.(Oxford: Clarendon, 1959), 2:1160-61; Margaret Bowker,The HenricianReformation: The Dioceseof Lincoln under John Longland: 1521-47 (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1981), 8. 6The bestmodern accounts of thebreakdown of the marriageand subsequentevents are: Eric Ives,Anne Boleyn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), 99ff., and J.J. Scarisbrick, Henry VIII (Lon- don:Eyre & Spottiswoode,1968), 151ff. 7GeorgeCavendish, "The Lifeand Death of CardinalWolsey," in TtvoEarly Tudor Lives, ed. R. S. Sylvesterand D. P.Harding (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962), 321. This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Sun, 4 Jan 2015 09:19:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Stokesleyand theDivorce Question 389 the man who has most violentlyand obstinatelysupported the cause of the divorce,and who is stilldoing the utmosthe can to promoteit, for, I am told,scarcely one day passes without his writingsome paper or sug- gestingsome new argumentin support of what he calls his master's rights.8 Chapuyslater called Stokesley"the greatestenemy the Queen has hithertohad,"9 and kept watch over Stokesley'sactivities for the next year.10William Roper, Thomas More's son-in-lawand biographer,also made note of Stokesley'sactivities. Roper wrote that Stokesleythought the cardinalwas not doing as much as he could to furtherthe king'swishes, thinkingthat forasmuch as the Cardinal,for lack of such forwardnessin settingforth the King's divorceas his grace looked for . .. busilytravailed to inventsome colourable device forthe King'sfurtherance in thatbehalf. Which as mentionedabove, Stokesley to the King revealedhoping to gain the King's favourthereby and the more dislikingof the Cardinal.11 WhetherStokesley's motivation had been to furtherthe king'swishes or bring disfavorupon the cardinalis uncertain,but he at least won the king'sear with his "colourable device." William